• Olena Petrashchuk National Aviation University



aeronautical communication, aeronautical discourse, aviation phraseology, conversation analysis, human factor, plain English


The departure point for the research is the statement that conversation analysis (CA) is aimed to uncover the tacit reasoning procedures as well as sociolinguistic competencies underlying the production and interpretation of talk in organized sequences of interaction [1]. It makes CA popular method in the effective discourse study. Considering aeronautical language interaction (ALI) at a macro level, it is obvious that the linguistic investigation of Aviation English should be done in the connective discourse developed by pilot and controller in the ‘ground-to-air’ talk. Therefore, CA might provide initial knowledge of the radiotelephony exchanges between pilot and controller in that specific context. The aim of this article is to look at CA as a method to describe conventional interactions in radiotelephony through prism of conversation features of general language conventions. To know more about conversation features of RLC can contribute to flight safety associated with language related human factor.

Author Biography

Olena Petrashchuk, National Aviation University

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences. Professor.

Institute of Air Navigation (National Aviation University).

Education: Dniepropetrovsk State University, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (1977).

Research area: English for special (aviation) purposes, L2 professional/ multi-cultural communication, linguistic and discourse analyses.


Hutchby I., Wooffitt R. (2008) Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Implications. Cambridge: Polity, 260 p.

Nevile M. (2006) Making sequentiality salient: And-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 279-302.

Levinson S. (1987) Minimization and conversational inference. J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61-129.

Cushing S. (1995) Pilot-air traffic control communication: It’s not (only) what you say, it’s how you say it. Flight Safety Digest, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1-10.

Arminen I., Auvinen P., Palukka H. (2010) Repairs as the last orderly provided defense of safety in aviation. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 443-465.

Schegloff E. (2003) Discussing Conversation Analysis. C. L. Prevignano and P. J. Thibault (eds.) The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 206 p.

ICAO Doc. 9835 (2010) Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements. ICAO doc. 9835 AN/453, Montréal: ICAO, 2d ed.

Mathews E. (2012) Language Gap. AeroSafety World. 2011-2012, pp. 22-27.

ICAO Doc. 9432 (2007) Manual of Radiotelephony. ICAO doc. 9432 AN/925, Montréal: ICAO, 4th ed.

Antaki C. (2011) Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Estival D., Molesworth B. (2011) Radio miscommunication: EL2 pilots in the Australian General Aviation environment. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 351-378.

Petrashchuk O., Vasiukovych O. (2015) Rationale for linguistic profile of Aviation English language trainingcourse. National Aviation University Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 65, pp. 112-119.

Zokić M., Boras D., Lazić N. (2012) Say Again. International Journal of education and information technologies, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 363-370.

Ragan P. H. (1997) Aviation English: An Introduction. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 25-36.



How to Cite

Petrashchuk, O. (2018). ANALYSIS OF AERONAUTIC LANGUAGE INTERACTION. Proceedings of National Aviation University, 76(3), 99–106.