Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures [1 ed.] 9789027273116, 9789027210340

Citation preview

Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures Edited by Stanca M˘ada and R˘azvan S˘aftoiu

d i a l o gue s t ud ie s

17 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures

Dialogue Studies (DS) Dialogue Studies takes the notion of dialogicity as central; it encompasses every type of language use, workaday, institutional and literary. By covering the whole range of language use, the growing field of dialogue studies comes close to pragmatics and studies in discourse or conversation. The concept of dialogicity, however, provides a clear methodological profile. The series aims to cross disciplinary boundaries and considers a genuinely inter-disciplinary approach necessary for addressing the complex phenomenon of dialogic language use. This peer reviewed series will include monographs, thematic collections of articles, and textbooks in the relevant areas. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/ds

Editor

Assistant Editor

Edda Weigand

Sebastian Feller

University of Münster

A*STAR - Institute of High Performance Computing, Singapore

Editorial Advisory Board Adelino Cattani

Marion Grein

Masayoshi Shibatani

Kenneth N. Cissna

Fritjof Haft

Talbot J. Taylor

Světla Čmejrková

John E. Joseph

Wolfgang Teubert

François Cooren

Werner Kallmeyer

Linda R. Waugh

Robert T. Craig

Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni

Elda Weizman

Stefanie Molthagen-Schnöring

Yorick Wilks

Università di Padova University of South Florida Czech Language Institute Université de Montréal University of Colorado at Boulder

Marcelo Dascal

University of Mainz University of Tübingen University of Edinburgh University of Mannheim Université Lyon 2

Tel Aviv University

Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin

Valeri Demiankov

Geoffrey Sampson

Russian Academy of Sciences

Rice University

College of William and Mary University of Birmingham University of Arizona Bar Ilan University University of Sheffield

University of Sussex

Volume 17 Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures Edited by Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures Edited by

Stanca Măda Răzvan Săftoiu Transilvania University of Bra¸sov, Romania

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Professional communication across languages and cultures / edited by Stanca Măda and Răzvan Georgian Săftoiu. p. cm. (Dialogue Studies, issn 1875-1792 ; v. 17) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Interpersonal communication. 2. Intercultural communication. 3. Business communication. 4. Communication in organizations. 5. Discourse analysis-Social aspects. I. Măda, Stanca. II. Săftoiu, Razvan. P94.7.P76 2012 302.2--dc23 2012030100 isbn 978 90 272 1034 0 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7311 6 (Eb)

© 2012 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

1

Part I.  Dialogue and identity in professional settings Leadership and intercultural competence at work Janet Holmes

21

Professional action games: Theory and practice Edda Weigand

43

Managing the director’s views: Decision making in a small firm context Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

61

Discursive hybridity at work Liliana Coposescu

83

‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction Jonathan Clifton

107

Part II.  Functions and strategies in professional communication Control acts in Romanian Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

135

Mitigation at work: Functions and lexical realisations Gabriela Chefneux

169

Moderation techniques in meeting management Stanca Măda

193

Small talk – a work of frame Răzvan Săftoiu

213

vi

Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures

Part iii.  Specific issues in professional communication Translation as a form of intercultural workplace communication Oana Tatu and Mona Arhire

239

Forms of address in professional communication in Brazilian Portuguese and Romanian Veronica Manole

265

Index

281

introduction

Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

1. Introduction The workplace is an important social context which provides a major focus of research for sociolinguists and discourse analysts, who are interested in the relationship between language and society and how this is constructed and reflected in ordinary verbal interaction. The workplace has great potential in sociolinguistic research because it refers to issues such as language, power and politeness, intercultural communication, intergender communication as well as more general issues concerning the use of language in this particular context. Changes in the last two decades in social sciences are reflected in the positioning of interpersonal communication as a focal point for both researchers and practitioners interested in the way organisations operate and develop. The multitude of research carried out in relation to language and workplace communication has sparked the interest of many disciplines such as linguistics, organisational studies (human resources, public relations, etc.), management, ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, communication sciences, social ­psychology, sociology and education of adults. Somewhat surprisingly, only in recent years have studies of workplace communication emerged, and they were based on “real” data and authentic interactions collected from direct observations of participants in various workplace contexts. Many studies of organisational communication are based on material from secondary sources such as a researcher’s own work experience, interviews with employees in key positions and anecdotal observations (only from time to time, only certain aspects, what seems relevant to a particular researcher, etc.). Linguistic and ethnomethodological research on professional communication is based on authentic data. However, due to difficulties in research, many studies have focused on rather specialised contexts such as classroom, courtroom, ­doctor-patient interaction (e.g., Drew and Heritage 1992, Sarangi and Roberts



Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

1999). With some exceptions (Clyne 1994, Neil 1996, Roberts et al. 1992), the recorded data in other workplaces included planned interactions such as formal meetings where participants were relatively still and the noise was relatively reduced. The data gathered spontaneously in noisy environments such as offices (in which people move from one to another in order to solve problems) or production facilities (where many jobs require continuous movement and considerable noise produced by machines) are relatively rare. This is largely due to the general concept of the workplace as a complex and socially diverse environment where the practical requirements of problem-solving activities take precedence over concerns about communication, which is considered peripheral. Therefore, linguistic data collection during daily activities in an organisation raises other methodological issues (for a discussion of participatory methodology in workplace communication, see Stubbe 2001). 2. Professional communication In this volume, we propose a survey of current interests in professional communication defined as an action game (Weigand 2009, 2010) between two or more interlocutors who share professional relationships in a given social and temporal workplace context (within an institution) via traditional (face-to-face) or mediated (telephone, video, e-mail) communication channels (Măda this vol.). Professional action games may occur as everyday encounters (a doctor giving a piece of medical advice to friends) or as institutional encounters (doctor-patient interaction in a medical care unit) and they are mainly defined by their purpose, that of getting things done. Achieving such an objective is highly dependent on the performative competence of the participants who get involved in a complex action game (Weigand 2006: 35–52). The structure of modern employment has changed. In most countries where analyses of workplace communication are carried out, office activity as well as trades in which interpersonal communication plays an important part in the actual activity at work are predominant. Since the topic of this volume is very broad and allows many approaches, we consider it appropriate to suggest the choices made for this volume. The invited authors analyse essential issues of professional communication in order to capture changes occurring in different parts of the world: New Zealand, United Kingdom, India, Romania. In the workplace culture we recognise strong influences of the Western business environment. Changes in Eastern European countries such as Romania have determined a new approach to management communication and a different practice during meetings. Humour, irony and small



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

talk, aspects that have received little attention in relation to this type of communication, get new discursive meanings and functions in professional communication (Holmes 2000, 2006). As far as communication by e-mail is concerned, people have transformed this means of communication into a dynamic and very efficient one. Distortions, deficiencies or potential conflict situations in professional communication will be illustrated and analysed throughout the volume, proposing several techniques for avoiding and remedying them. The difficulty of choosing a single approach for the analysis of professional communication resides in the complexity of the phenomena accompanying it. Depending on its features, each aspect of professional communication discussed in this volume is explored with various analytical tools. In Section 3, we will outline the general theoretical and analytical frameworks for the present volume. 3. Theoretical and analytical frameworks Throughout the volume, the invited authors have highlighted a major sociopragmatic aspect, i.e. how language use in a professional environment is socially constrained and is constantly subject to variables such as relative power of participants, social distance and degree of interference of a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson 1987: 15). In addition to these issues, the authors have emphasised the role of politeness in creating and maintaining harmonious working relationships and the way the extended communicative context contributes to building meaningful conversations and efficient written communication in the workplace. Broadly defined as the study of language in use, pragmatics investigates the choices speakers make, the constraints on the subject, how speakers use language in social interaction and the effect on other participants. Among the multiple issues in pragmatics, we will mainly refer in this section to the principles and concepts related to communicative strategies. The study of the principles may be combined with the actual practice of conversational performance, including all aspects of language use, understanding and appropriateness. Interpretation of communicative strategies performed by the speaker and by the hearer shows the complexity of professional communication. The main approaches for professional communication within the volume are in line with applied pragmatics, focusing on specific issues in a context where efficiency is very important. Sociolinguistic issues include comments on aspects of language used by the speakers, depending on their socio-cultural background, ethnic origin, gender, age or social class. The phenomenon of multilingualism, concepts such as prestige, power, politeness and the relationship of language with ideology are other aspects that help us identify how participants define their communicative identity





Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

in professional settings. Speakers use more or less obvious aspects of language in order to build social relationships (with interlocutors, the public or even absent people) and identity (in relation to society in general and other participants, in particular). Socially appropriate behaviour depends on the observation of and compliance with general principles and specific rules that are covered by the concept of politeness. Broadly defined as the practice of organising a linguistic act, politeness may make a speech act be perceived as harmless, in accordance with the social expectations of the participants. As a normative notion in any society, politeness is part of effective communicative management. Leech (1983) provides a general approach in the analysis of politeness, starting from the cooperative principle which, as Grice (1975) puts it, is the foundation of all conversations. This means that speakers engaged in interaction want to cooperate and expect similar cooperative behaviour from their counterparts. Another basic principle in verbal interaction is the politeness principle proposed by Leech. The author suggests a number of maxims (e.g., the maxim of tact, of generosity and modesty) that govern the communicative behaviour of participants. Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) also take as a starting point the cooperative principle. Their politeness model is based on two primary concepts: reason and face. Speakers are endowed with reason in order to make decisions on an informed basis and in accordance with their own interest. According to Brown and Levinson’s research, a person’s face has two aspects: negative and positive. The speaker’s negative face refers to the desire of not being constrained by others in his actions, while the speaker’s positive face refers to the desire of being accepted and recognised by others. The art of politeness means to obtain a balance between these two desires and to keep in mind that every speaker feels the need to satisfy both the negative and the positive face.  Thus, the occurrence of a face-threatening act is minimised, while the chances of constructive participation are increased. Linguistic research in recent years has benefited from the methodological and theoretical input of the so-called “interactionist orientation” (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 2002: 6–7). “The premise of mutual conditioning of activities taking place at the speaker’s and the hearer’s level” (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 2002: 6) is the starting point of the analysis. The extent to which this conditioning occurs depends on the situation of communication (especially the channel used by the speakers). In the complex process of interactive communication, specific to professional environment (e.g., meetings), we can identify written texts and verbal interactions that act as “lines” in a perpetual dialogue within the “conversation continuum” (Holmes 2000: 36). For example, an e-mail message can trigger direct oral communication, which can further lead to a subsequent telephone conversation or a detailed written report. While recognizing the importance of face-to-face interactions,



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

we should also note their ethical failure in the professional environment. In the context of professional communication, perhaps more than in other fields, fixing important data in writing is a vital element of effective communication. Because written documents are easier to classify and study, an analysis of verbal interaction must be done with a representative corpus, comprising direct recordings of spontaneous conversations. Corpus linguistics captures the authentic spontaneous interactional phenomena as they were produced and perceived, in their specific context. An important analytical feature that gives consistency to the present volume is the fact that, throughout the volume, the invited authors have analysed authentic verbal interactions in order to show the strategies used by the speakers and hearers when coding and decoding messages. Starting from strictly linguistic considerations and moving towards cognitive, psychological and sociological ones (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 2002: 7), our approach is moving towards what Schegloff (1991) describes as “social structure”: “a concern for power (relations) and status and their distribution within social formations such as classes, ethnic groups, age groups, gender and professional relationships” (in Jaworski and Coupland 2001: 108). Social formations based upon professional relationships include communities of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992), in general, and the organisations in which they operate, in particular. Thus, relative social identity of participants becomes relevant not only to the levels of conversational organisation (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 1999: 43), but also to the level of discourse. Simultaneously, the communicative context moves away from its linguistic component, towards non-linguistic aspects (gestures, mimicry, etc.), and, at another level, towards a particular social and ideological context. Broadening the concept of context influences the analysis of its effects on the production and reception of an utterance. Contextual conditionings often explain the choices made by speakers in the production of a text or of an utterance and provide a guide to a correct interpretation of messages at the level of the hearer. Communication principles and strategies offer additional keys to interpreting workplace interactions. The cooperative principle and its subsequent maxims (Grice 1975) focus on illocutionary goals, while the politeness principle and its subsequent maxims (Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987) focus on social objectives. Speakers use these principles and maxims in order to improve communication, and in order to achieve transactional objectives in the professional environment. The concept of context can be related to different levels of analysis. The local level of an utterance is the closest one, being given by the current turn, the previous and the next turns. Interpretation of the exact meaning at local level is needed in order to make the transition to a second level of relevance for context analysis, i.e., the relationship between participants: their relative statutes, position





Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

in the hierarchy of the organisation, the period of time when working together, etc. While some theorists consider such a relationship a given, representatives of social constructivism argue that participants build their social roles during the interaction. In different social contexts, people tend to emphasise different aspects of their social identity. Context includes factors such as the place where dialogue happens as well as prior knowledge that participants use during interaction: technical jargon, specific abbreviations or organisation-specific activities, etc. Such information helps the analyst distinguish levels of meaning and interpret correctly workplace dialogues. References to context that accompany most of the examples in this volume help the reader understand workplace dialogue as a whole. In the end of this section, we will discuss the social significance of professional communication in a broader social context. At the institutional level, the range of acceptable strategies to express power is constrained by the dominant ideology and the values ​​it promotes. Thus, managers can be direct, assertive, fiercely pursuing transactional objectives or, on the contrary, cooperative, conciliatory and promoting collegiality in the workplace. To what extent these approaches are manifestations of an attitude to authority and which are the values according to which an organisation guides its work are contextual issues that are covered by critical discourse analysis. An important concept in critical discourse analysis is power (Fairclough 1989). Generally speaking, the perspective taken by critical discourse analysis is “outside power”, analysing “top pressures and possibilities of resistance to inequality in power relations that arise as social conventions” (Wodak and Meyer 2001: 3). Communication becomes a tool, not only an activity that speakers do in the professional environment. The emphasis falls on the dynamic aspects of interaction and the way people, groups and social categories build their own identity through language. The workplace is a melting pot that combines multiple identities: boss, subordinate, colleague, friend, team member, person, organisation representative, women, men, youth, elderly, the majority, the minority, etc. All of them communicate and reveal their identities in accordance with contextual constraints. It is the analyst’s role to discover which identity is activated, in what context and by what means, so that the efficiency of solving problems at work is the primary objective, while transactional and social objectives are developed in a harmonious whole.



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

4. Key aspects in analysing professional communication 4.1

Meetings

Meetings are seen as “interactions which focus, whether indirectly or directly, on workplace business” (Holmes and Stubbe 2003: 59), being one of the most important decision-making contexts used today. Participants are dealing with sensitive issues or with everyday workplace business using various communicative strategies according to their objective or subjective goals and their social statuses. Whether in the position of chairperson or regular participant, the speaker aims at establishing and maintaining a certain balance between the power and the politeness dimensions of workplace discourse. Efficiency seems to be the keyword in deciding which strategies fit best in the particular context of every meeting. In order to be effective, any strategy requires certain communicative skills in the encoding and the decoding processes used by participants. The speaker encodes both the objective and the subjective purposes in a single utterance, which is almost simultaneously decoded by the hearer. Researchers examined the discourse of workplace meetings from different perspectives: the discursive strategies used in the management of meetings (Barbato 1994, Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris 1997); the discursive realizations of status in meetings (Craig and Pitts 1990, Sollit-Morris 1996); the complex communicative processes involved in getting things accomplished interactionally through meeting talk (Drew and Heritage 1992, Sarangi and Roberts 1999); interruptions, seen as manifestations of power in meetings (Edelsky 1981, Craig and Pitts 1990); the amount of talk contributed by different participants as an indication of dominance (Edelsky 1981, Holmes 1992, Sollitt-Morris 1996, Holmes and Stubbe 2003); politeness considerations of participants’ contributions to meetings (Pearson 1988, Morand 1996, Holmes and Stubbe 2003); and meeting management strategies and their grammatical interface, with special focus on how they instantiate ways of (emotive) argumentation (Gheorghe, Măda and Săftoiu 2008). Meetings are the main venue of transmitting information, planning and organising everyday activity. During meetings, decisions are made and people work together in order to solve tasks. Mumby (1988: 68) considers workplace meetings to “function as one of the most important and visible sites of organisational power, and of the reification of organisational hierarchy”. What is more, workplace meetings are also visible sites of politeness, collegiality and solidarity, or on the contrary, of disrespect and impoliteness, being an ideal context of “relational work” (Fletcher 1999). Regardless of their type, degree of formality or goals,





Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

workplace meetings are a dynamic communicative process based on presentation of points of view and on negotiation. When people are involved in this type of interaction, they use various communicative strategies that take into consideration aspects of politeness and contribute to the construction of power. Meeting management is a dynamic process in which all participants play a part, whether cooperative or resistant. Among the participants to a meeting, the role of chair is vital in carrying out an effective meeting. It is the chair’s role to set the agenda and to open the meeting. It is crucial that the chair should establish control at this stage to ensure that participants orient to the chair’s authority throughout the meeting. The chair also keeps track of the progress of the meeting, marking the stage that is reached and ensuring that all relevant issues are covered. Effective management often involves negotiating consensus. It is the chair’s job to make sure everyone at a meeting knows the purpose of the meeting, what the issues being discussed are and that everyone knows what has been agreed upon. Related to this, it is the chair’s role to make sure everyone feels involved in the decision-making process. This can include an appropriate amount of small talk and humour in the meeting. Sometimes the chairperson acts as a mere mediator, becoming as ‘invisible’ as possible when the situation requires such behaviour. In such cases, without the pressure exercised by the chairperson, people discuss more freely. 4.2

Humour

Attardo (1994: 300–319) systematises previous theoretical approaches on humour and makes a description of the three phases of performing a joke (preface, performance and response). Performing jokes is the most common humorous interaction type. Conversation participants explicitly or implicitly announce that they would perform a joke, sometimes by typical expressions such as Do you know this one? or Do you know the one with…? After the participants preface and perform the joke, audience reaction is manifested by spontaneous laughter, delayed laughter or even silence (Attardo 1994: 307). After a joke is performed, there are no set rules to take the floor, any of the participants being able to self-select, or to continue the subject interrupted by the performance of the joke, or to perform another joke. Performing jokes may be dictated by situational or social factors, and their continuation is generally by similar jokes (of the same thematic area or similar puns). However, “performing jokes is the least structured and most independent humorous type of interaction” (Attardo 1994: 321). When analysing jokes in Romanian professional communication, Măda (2009) found that this type of joke performance was rarely used and was limited to break time. Joke performance seems to be favoured in standard offices, but it is limited in production



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

facilities, due to the specific activity (automated work, few people, etc.) and the situational context (higher level of noise, teams meet only at mealtime, etc.). Workplace humour may have different features according to the community practice where it appears. We can identify doctors’ humour, linguists’ humour, office humour, workers’ humour, journalists’ humour, politicians’ humour, etc. The scenarios of the jokes, typical puns, thematic coherence and types of characters allow us to say there is a particular type of humour – professional humour. The constraints and taboos that censor certain manifestations of workplace humour, the means of transmission (from the traditional – uttering the joke, to the modern – using the Internet) and especially the functional aspects of workplace humour are characteristics of professional humour. Humour becomes “professional” by means of a variety of sources, including – – – –

familiar language; time spent in school and influences of the socio-cultural background; literary sources; historical and political sources (former communist slogans, ironically or humorously modified); – other cultures (through direct contact, from collections of jokes, etc.). Performing jokes in the professional environment may lead to a certain kind of inner censorship in individuals, who select and avoid taboo topics when the group membership and communication situation require. There are professional situations where jokes are unacceptable, and when the context allows performing a joke, the content should be appropriate. Among the safest topics of jokes in professional communication, we could identify work itself and its opposite, laziness. Analysing humour in familiar language, Zafiu (2001) identified a special type of humour which she called “expressions of futility”. Such expressions “ridicule and reduce the action, denying the effectiveness of various kinds of human effort” (2001: 261–263). To expressions such as “to twiddle one’s fingers”, “to run after a shadow”, “to help Uncle Anthony kill dead mice”, etc. one can add other expressions belonging to the context of “parody of political and economic inefficiency of communism” (2001: 261–263).  Futility of any effort at work is a favourite topic . The term belongs to Zafiu (2001: 142). . For a humorous analysis of the types of politicians and their morals, see Tudose (1996). . Performing jokes is replaced with their transmission and receipt as written messages which are often accompanied by emoticons and smilies that convey the author’s humorous intent. Once in the electronic environment, jokes are quickly transmitted and retransmitted. The author of the joke does not have “live” and instant feedback from recipients, but may receive no more than a short message, which assesses the joke.



10

Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

of many Romanian humorous texts, which may be used either in family or professional environments. The main source of inspiration is popular wisdom. Professional texts may also become a source of inspiration for professional humour. Procedures and internal regulations of an organisation are humorously presented as texts containing mini-scenarios adapted for the particular professional context. They are sent by email or ostentatiously displayed in offices. For example: “Rule 1: The boss is always right. Rule 2: When the boss is wrong, rule 1 comes into force.” Humour has been analysed as a specific mode of showing ​​cooperation in communicative activities (Holmes 2006). Situational jokes that appear spontaneously in conversation were studied, among others, in terms of quantitative analysis by Tannen. Analysing a Thanksgiving dinner conversation, the author concludes that, in normal conversation, people spend 10% of the time joking (Tannen 1984). Privacy in the family environment determines the appearance of spontaneous humour. In the professional environment, Holmes (2006) conducted a large study of spontaneous humour occurring in 22 meetings, totalling over 20 hours of recordings, from various workplaces (13 private organisations and 9 governmental institutions), with a total of 157 participants (70 women and 87 men, between 3 and 13 people per meeting). The author identified more than 400 humorous instances, of which 123 were situational humour (Holmes et al. 2001, Holmes 2006: 33). People who know each other and have a common sense of humour tend to build their humorous lines from previous speakers’ utterances, thus generating a circular structure. In workplaces where collegial relationships are strong and teams are well formed, this type of humour is frequently met and performs a special social function: construction and maintenance of group solidarity (Holmes 2006: 33). 4.3

Small talk

In professional communication, small talk may function as – marker of the limits, facilitating transition from one stage to the other; – time filler (“to fill in gaps”); – source of reduction of formality during professional activities. Due to its flexibility and adaptability, small talk is ideal for fulfilling these roles in close connection with marginal episodes (initial and final). Yet, small talk may . For a detailed discussion of functions of small talk in everyday speech, see Laver (1975).



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

appear in the form of transition episodes (Săftoiu 2009 and also in this vol.) releasing tension among participants. Small talk can also expand or contract in order to keep up with the existing time and space and to accommodate communication requirements of each communicative situation. Depending on the time and space of a professional conversation, social verbal exchanges can vary in length. If they appear among participants who are simply passing (short hall meetings, for example), small talk is usually brief, fulfilling the canonical function of creating and maintaining social relations in a context whose main function is to find solutions to professional issues. Small talk may also occur within and during official work time and functions as positive politeness or as a strategy aimed at building and maintaining collegial solidarity. Break time determines the time length of small talk and therefore its functions. Small talk allows building personal relationships and social ties between speakers and includes the so-called shop talk (work-related conversation, but not focusing on professional objectives: sharing information, holiday schedule, etc.). “Office” small talk reflects the influence of other factors such as closeness of the interlocutors, the relative status of participants, how busy speakers are and the norms of the organisational culture about this aspect. The social roles of small talk in professional settings reflect two major concerns of participants: building and strengthening collegial relationships, on the one hand, and control of power, on the other. Multifunctionality of verbal interaction explains the harmonious blending of transactional and social objectives. Analysing small talk in professional settings reflects the importance participants give to social objectives within a framework which, by definition, has mainly transactional objectives. Strengthening social relationships has positive results in an organisation and therefore professional results of employees are better. Small talk and humour are key factors for the development of harmonious collegial relationships and they are communicative prerequisites for effective professional collaboration. 5. Integration through communication This volume aims at demonstrating that the results of a thorough linguistic analysis may be useful in understanding the dynamics of dialogue in professional settings. One of the biggest challenges participants face in the professional environment is maintaining a balance between transactional objectives of the organisation they belong to and building friendly social relationships with colleagues. Workplace interactions, whether their primary function is predominantly ­ transactional or

11

12

Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

social, involve negotiation of the relationship. Oral discourse in professional settings has refined interactional resources which allow speakers to make subtle distinctions between creating social distance that reflects their relative status on the one hand, and maintaining good intentions towards colleagues on the other hand, while trying to achieve the current task and achieving the objectives for an organisation. One of the reasons that employees leave their job is the general atmosphere of team work. Therefore, employee satisfaction depends on collegial relationships, which affect deeply the activity and the achievement of transactional objectives of an organisation. Although good interpersonal relationships mean lack of tension, sometimes specific requests at work may lead to conflict situations. For example, an informal dialogue among colleagues, while helping to maintain friendly relationships, can distract speakers from their work, causing them to become careless or negligent. As a counterexample, achieving team goals or completing a major report may determine, at least for some time, low attention to the needs of colleagues. Both functions of discourse (transactional and social) are equally important when analysing what is actually “said”. Knowledge and use of the most appropriate communication strategies in a given communication situation is part of the necessary requirements for an individual to adapt to a new job. Holmes and Stubbe (2003: 166) state that social integration of the individual is the cornerstone of professional success. When studying how people with disabilities communicate in a professional environment, Holmes and Stubbe (2003) have shown that the use of humour and small talk is not very easy for people whose communication skills are not well developed (either because they do not use their native tongue when communicating or because of a disability). The content and style of small talk may contribute to building workplace culture as much as the specific rules of a weekly meeting. Patterns and types of humour used in an office are as significant for defining a particular interactional style as performing a direct speech act by a manager. Distinctions between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in a particular interaction or situation are fine and often depend on the culture of a particular job or a community of practice (Măda 2009). Identifying the limits and avoiding unpleasant situations are cornerstones for a new employee. (S)he must “decipher” (linguistic and paralinguistic) signs indicating changes such as transition from small talk to transactional dialogue, from joke to seriousness, or from critical remark to irony. Frequency and distribution of humorous situations and small talk at work can be systematic patterns that are easily recognised by older employees, but completely unknown to newcomers. For example, it is difficult to identify a situation



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

when small talk is optional or mandatory. Learning the skill of small talk to fill in the embarrassing moments of silence before the start of a meeting or using humour to spice up routine activities is an important aspect in learning professional discourse while making appropriate contributions. A positive answer, neither minimal nor exaggerated, in return to small talk seems to be a skill that is learned in time. For a new employee, quickly building strong interpersonal relationships is an asset in his/her adaptation and integration within a particular community of practice. (S)he must observe and acquire practical and sociopragmatic skills that are involved in the management of small talk and conversational humour. Participants in professional communication are continuously adapting themselves to the dynamics of the professional context. They adopt useful learning strategies based on reflection on the past and future design. Employees must develop positive communication skills and share their experience, in order to improve the organisational culture to which they belong. 6. Structure of the volume The volume approaches the topic of professional communication from multiple levels, each level providing critical, valuable insights into the dynamic process of creating and maintaining professional relationships in effective workplaces. These levels are arranged in three parts: Part I – Dialogue and identity in professional settings, Part II – Functions and strategies in professional communication, and Part III – Specific issues in professional communication. 6.1

Dialogue and identity in professional communication

Janet Holmes’s article, Leadership and intercultural competence at work, focuses on the sociolinguistic aspects of gender, ethnicity and professional identity in current organisational management in New Zealand. The paper analyses interactional norms in culturally contrasting professional contexts, exemplifying the way in which the western-style model of leadership influences the traditional Māori leadership style in terms of cultural awareness and intercultural communicative competence. The next chapter, Professional action games: Theory and practice, brings new insights into Edda Weigand’s holistic approach of context, language and culture in the form of the ‘professional action games’. The skilful analysis of a complex business meeting leads to developing a theory behind the practice which ­demonstrates

13

14

Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

how rhetoric, culture and emotion form the basis of the mixed game in professional dialogue. In their article, Managing the director’s views: Decision-making in a small firm context, Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou focus on the sociolinguistic aspects that lay behind problem-solving and decision-making talk in the context of a small British firm. The personal and professional identities and status of the speakers play a key role in the complex process of negotiating agreement and ratifying decisions. By bringing together research on the features of small businesses and sociolinguistic analysis of decision-making talk, the authors make an original attempt to reveal the complexities of this phenomenon. Liliana Coposescu’s article, Discursive hybridity at work, focuses on the hybrid nature of shifting modalities (at levels such as identity, socialization and communicative negotiation) in multinational organisations. The analysis focuses on the way in which Romanian and American participants in three different communicative events – selection interviews, telephone conferences, and Virtual Networking Communication (VNC) sessions – deal with hypothetical scenarios, narratives, and small talk. The author shows how the professional mode, the institutional mode and the personal experience mode (Sarangi and Roberts 1999: 482) shift throughout the encounters, building the so-called discursive hybridity which may contribute to successful professional communication. In ‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction, Jonathan Clifton provides a conversational analysis approach on transcripts of naturally occurring talk in workplace interactions in order to reveal the mechanisms of achieving trust. The analysis demonstrates the various resources by means of which practitioners achieve the enactment of trust: objective and unmitigated statements, general truths, firsthand knowledge, formulations, consensus and detailed accounts. The trust-inaction approach opens perspectives for a more detailed study of the contexts and cultures in which the language games of ‘doing’ trust could take place. 6.2 Functions and strategies in professional communication Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea’s paper on Control acts in Romanian opens the second part of the volume with a thorough analysis of some forms of speech acts of control, focusing on the means of indirectness and politeness available at the linguistic level in Romanian. Starting with a descriptive approach of directives and requests in Romanian, the article aims at identifying the ‘grammar’ of such acts and the language-specific features that allow speakers to use certain mitigating devices in performing them. The second part of the paper is a case study on control acts in Romanian written workplace discourse, comprising the results



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

both of the qualitative analysis, concerning the identification and description of the Romanian patterns of expressing control acts in workplace correspondence, and of the quantitative analysis, in order to identify the most frequent linguistic forms that are nowadays used in written professional communication. The next chapter, Mitigation at work: Functions and lexical realizations, by Gabriela Chefneux, consolidates research on professional communication in Romanian multinational organisations in which English acts as a lingua franca. The features of intercultural communication such as evaluation, modality, questions, and humour are analysed in terms of functional and linguistic choices of the participants in the process of mitigation. The results of the study account for the fact that Romanian participants are more indirect in their utterances, using more words to react to what they perceive as face-threatening situations. Considering Moderation techniques in meeting management, Stanca Măda aims at analysing the role of the chair in workplace meetings from a different perspective, namely that of a moderator. Moderation techniques are strategic tools used by the chairperson to reach the objectives of the meeting in a noncontrolling but effective manner, which takes into consideration both power and politeness (Holmes and Stubbe 2003). The author approaches the different communicative roles adopted by the chairs in professional meetings, with an emphasis on the strategies associated with the role of the moderator, in contrast with those employed by an authoritative controller. In this section of the volume, particular attention is given to the social aspects of professional communication, namely how transitional small talk is achieved at work, in general, and during workplace meetings, in particular. Răzvan Săftoiu’s chapter, Small talk – a work of frame, advances an integrating definition for small talk, starting from three distinct theories – conversational continuum, identity and frame – and emphasises the idea that small talk is a strategic mini-ritual. Thus, in professional contexts, there are transitional phatic episodes (including performing jokes) whose main function is to re-establish balance of power between participants, to settle a dispute or to facilitate transition to the core talk. They not only fill in blanks between transactional conversations but also increase efficiency of business encounters.  6.3

Specific issues in professional communication

The fact that effective professional communication represents a condition in the successful development of the profession itself justifies the initiative of taking up research with a view to enhancing intercultural communication in the business environment as in any other professional encounter. Oana Tatu and Mona Arhire’s

15

16

Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

study on Translation as a form of intercultural workplace communication aims at shedding light on such communication mediated by translation, considering the electronic corpora as a valuable input in the improvement of translator performance. The study reveals advantages of modern research methodology related to corpus-based translation studies as compared to traditional approaches in the field, and highlights the obvious potential of electronic corpora, their advantages over traditional computer-assisted translation (CAT) systems, asserting thus the need for an integrative approach to translations which should only be beneficial to the translated work as a result of the translation profession. This section of the volume also addresses the importance of pragmatically successful utterances in workplace interaction as presented in a case study of forms of address in professional communication. In her article, Forms of address in professional communication in Brazilian Portuguese and Romanian, Veronica Manole analyses how the improper use of titles or forms of address in Romanian and Portuguese conversations and business letters may lead to conflicting situations and even to communication failure. The findings of this study argue that grammatically flawless discourse may fail pragmatically if forms of address are not used properly and that cross-cultural aspects of business communication should not be neglected in teaching professional communication techniques in both Brazilian Portuguese and Romanian. The articles in this volume depict relevant theoretical and practical issues related to professional communication which are the result of consistent research conducted by the contributors in various professional settings. Whether Māori or Pākehā, in Romanian or multinational organisations, people get involved in dialogic action games with the purpose of getting things done.

References Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humour. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Barbato, Carole A. 1994. The role of argumentativeness in the decision and communication outcomes of small decision-making groups. Kent State University. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Harris, Sandra J. 1997. Managing Language: The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1978, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. London: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, Michael. 1994. Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Craig, D. and Pitts, M. K. 1990. “The dynamics of dominance in tutorial discussions”. Linguistics 28: 125–138. Drew, Paul and Heritage, John (eds.). 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Introduction: Understanding the dynamics of dialogue at work

Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1992. “Communities of Practice: where language, gender and power all live”. In Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz & Birch Moonwomon (eds.), 89–99. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Edelsky, Carole. 1981. “Who’s got the floor?”. Language in Society 10: 383–421. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman. Fletcher, Joyce K. 1999. Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gheorghe, Mihaela, Măda, Stanca and Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2008. “Decision-making process in some Romanian workplace meetings”. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria. A cura della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature straniere dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore XVI (2): 821–832. Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3 Speech Acts, Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Holmes, Janet and Stubbe, Maria. 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Pearson Education. Holmes, Janet. 1992. “Women’s talk in public contexts”. Discourse and Society 3 (2): 131–150. Holmes, Janet. 2000. “Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace”. Discourse Studies 2 (2): 159–185. Holmes, Janet. 2006. “Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace”. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 26–50. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana (coord.). 2002. Interacţiunea verbală în limba română actuală. Corpus. Schiţă de tipologie [Verbal interaction in present-day Romanian. Corpus. Tentative typology]. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana. 1995/1999. Conversaţia. Structuri şi strategii. Sugestii pentru o pragmatică a românei vorbite [Conversation. Structures and strategies. Suggestions for spoken Romanian pragmatics]. Bucureşti: All Educational. Jaworski, Adam and Coupland, Nikolas (eds.). 2001. The Discourse Reader. London, New York: Routledge. Laver, John. 1975. “Communicative functions of phatic communion”. In Organisation of Behaviour in Face-to-face Interaction, Adam Kendon, Richard M. Harris and Mary Ritchie Key (eds.), 215–238. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Măda, Stanca. 2009. Comunicarea în Mediul Profesional Românesc [Communication in the Romanian professional environment]. Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania din Braşov. Morand, David A. 1996. “Dominance, deference, and egalitarianism in organisational interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of power and politeness”. Organisation Science 7 (5): 544–556. Mumby, Dennis K. 1988. Communication and Power in Organisations: Discourse, Ideology and Domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Neil, Deborah M. 1996. Collaboration in Intercultural Discourse. Examples from a Multicultural Australian Workplace. Cross-Cultural Communication 3, Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pearson, Bethyl A. 1988. “Power and politeness in conversation: Encoding of face-threatening acts at church business meetings”. Anthropological Linguistics 30: 68–93. Roberts, Celia, Davies, Evelyn and Jupp, T. 1992. Language and Discrimination: A Study of Communication in Multi-Ethnic Workplaces. London: Longman.

17

18

Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu

Sarangi, Srikant and Roberts, Celia (eds.). 1999. Talk, Work and Institutional Order Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2009. Discursul fatic: un ritual interacţional [Small talk: an interactional ritual]. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. “Talk and social structure”. In The Discourse Reader, Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland (eds.), 107–120. London / New York: Routledge. Sollitt-Morris, Lynette. 1996. Language, gender and power relationships: the enactment of repressive discourse in staff meetings of two subject departments in a New Zealand secondary school. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Stubbe, Maria. 2001. “From office to production line: Collecting data for the Wellington language in the workplace project”. Language in the Workplace Occasional Papers 2: 2–25. Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational Style: Analysing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tudose, Florin. 1996. Psihopolitica – Fals tratat de psihopatologie socială [Psychopolitics – False treaty of social psychopathology]. Bucureşti: Editura Infomedica. Weigand, Edda. 2006. “Principles of dialogue. With a special focus on business dialogues”. In Cooperation and Conflict in Ingroup and Intergroup Communication. Selected papers from the Xth Biennial Congress of the IADA, Bucharest 2005, Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), in collaboration with Liliana Hoinărescu, 35–51. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue. Sebastian Feller (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael (eds.). 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Zafiu, Rodica. 2001. Diversitate stilistică în româna actuală [Stylistic diversity in present-day Romanian]. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.

part i

Dialogue and identity in professional settings

Leadership and intercultural competence at work Janet Holmes

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

This paper examines the workplace discourse of leaders from different ethnic groups within one country, with some shared and some distinct values and interactional norms. The focus leaders come from professional organisations, one Māori and one Pākehā (European). The leadership performance of the mainstream, Pākehā leader provides little evidence of intercultural awareness, while the Maori leader’s performance demonstrates intercultural competence; he skillfully integrates aspects of Māori and Pākehā ways of doing things at work. His innovative, hybridised leadership style presents one possible model for a new intercultural style of leadership, a style which values some aspects of tradition, whilst also adopting useful elements of new approaches to leadership. The analysis suggests how new intercultural norms are forged by particular individuals in influential positions in a multicultural society.

1. Introduction Social constructionist approaches to leadership discourse are regularly adopted in sociolinguistic research and have now begun to impact on organisational management and communication (e.g. Fairhurst 2007, Grint 2005, Grint and Jackson 2010, Carroll and Levy 2008). Sociolinguists have examined the varied ways in which leadership is enacted in a range of different social contexts, including different workplace cultures (e.g. Holmes and Marra 2002, Schnurr 2009) and differently gendered environments (Baxter 2010, Holmes 2006, Mullany 2007, Schnurr . This paper was presented at the International Conference on Professional Communication: Workplace across Languages and Cultures at Transilvania University of Braşov in May 2010. It has been revised in the light of comments and discussion from a range of people including the conference participants. I am grateful to the Language in the Workplace Project team for ongoing support, and especially to Meredith Marra and Bernadette Vine, the core team members, for specific assistance with this paper.

22

Janet Holmes

2009). The relevance of intercultural communicative contexts has, however, attracted relatively little attention from leadership researchers (but see Diamond 2003, Jackson and Parry 2001, Holmes 2006, Warner and Grint 2006). This paper examines what can be learned by exploring the intersection of research on leadership and intercultural competence. Much previous research on intercultural competence has been undertaken within social psychology (see Dinges and Baldwin 1996, Arasaratnam and Doerfel 2005 for a review), or from the perspective of the second or foreign language learner (e.g. Byram 1997, Kramsch 1998), or from the viewpoint of business communication between members of linguistic and cultural groups from different countries (e.g. Spencer-Oatey and Xing 2003, 2008). This paper takes yet another distinct approach, focussing on communication between different ethnic groups within one country, with some shared and some distinct values and interactional norms. I examine similarities and differences in the discourse of leaders from two different cultural backgrounds as they enact and negotiate their leadership roles in the New Zealand workplace. The analysis indicates that western models of leadership continue to influence people’s expectations of what is considered appropriate behaviour for leaders in the workplace. However, there is also evidence of how new models of leadership emerge as a result of the integration of different cultural norms by leaders with exceptional intercultural competence. I begin with a brief outline of the theoretical framework developed by the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project team (Holmes, Marra and Vine 2011), and a definition of intercultural competence. This is followed by a description of the database drawn on for the material used in the analysis, and a brief account of the methodology used to collect the data. The next section focuses on the discourse of leaders from two culturally contrasting organisations, and the paper concludes with a discussion of what the analysis contributes to our understanding of the relationship between effective leadership and the development of intercultural competence. 2. Theoretical framework We construct our social reality within the constraints of particular social and historical conditions (Coupland 2001, Reed 2005, Ehrlich 2008, Jaffe 2009). Our talk is correspondingly constrained by the parameters of broad societal norms and “inherited structures” of belief, power, and opportunity (Cameron 2009: 15). Building on these insights, we have developed a theoretical model to analyse workplace discourse (Holmes, Marra and Vine 2011) which identifies social and cultural constraints on interactional behaviour at different levels of generality, from the broadest and most encompassing societal or institutional level through the



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

more specific level of the community of practice (CofP) or workplace team, to the sociolinguistic norms of face-to-face interaction (cf. Vaara 2003, Hecht, Warren, Jung and Krieger 2005, Wodak 2008: 208). Figure 1 presents the current version of this model. As the model illustrates, we postulate that minority group norms and values crosscut all these constraints, and are constantly relevant as background to identifying and interpreting majority group norms. In the New Zealand context, the relevant norms and values are those of the indigenous Māori people. Most New Zealanders are aware, for instance, that Māori norms for appropriate interaction differ from those of the majority Pākehā group. And, because they may be used to convey a range of stances which index different social meanings, linguistic variables and discourse devices provide a crucial means of negotiating socio-cultural­ norms, including those of different cultural groups, in dynamic social interaction (Ochs 1993, Eckert 2008, Jaffe 2009). Minority group norms

Societal norms (including New Zealand and Westerns norms) Organisational norms Community of practice/team norms Interactional norms

Minority group norms

Social identities (e.g. gender) constructed via social meanings (e.g. feminine) signalled through stances (e.g. deferential) indexed by linguistic and discourse features (e.g. modal verbs, minimal feedback)

Figure 1.  LWP model of relationship between socio-cultural constraints and discourse

. The Māori people constitute a numerical minority in New Zealand (14.7%: www.stats.govt. nz, 2006). . Pākehā is the Māori term for the majority group of European, mainly British, people who colonised New Zealand in the 19th century.

23

24

Janet Holmes

Within New Zealand society, there are a number of relevant interactional norms at the societal or institutional level which influence the way people communicate. There is a general expectation, for example, apparent in everyday common sense discourses, that English, the language of the majority group, is the normal or usual language of communication in most societal domains. The Māori language is now spoken proficiently by only about 50,000, mainly elderly, Maori people i.e. about 1% of the New Zealand population (www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz), and it is used in only a few relatively restricted cultural contexts. So, for example, Māori is the preferred language on the marae (‘traditional meeting ground’), and some official and formal ceremonies include a component in Māori, but it is rarely heard in everyday conversation especially in urban environments. Consequently, the use of Māori in New Zealand workplaces is marked, a point of direct relevance to the analysis of discourse in culturally contrasting workplaces. Another interactional norm relates to levels of formality. New Zealand society subscribes to an egalitarian ideology (Trevor-Roberts, Ashkanasy and Kennedy 2003, Ashkanasy et al. 2004, Kennedy 2007, Bonisch-Brednich 2008). Cross-cultural research on perceptions of leadership involving 62 countries, for instance, reported that “New Zealanders tend to have the lowest power distance in the world – that is, we do not tend to accept or embrace the fact that power in institutions and organisations should be distributed unequally” (Jackson 2008: 12, summarising House et al. 2004). One consequence of this is a general expectation that formality is kept to a minimum. Hence only very ceremonial events, such as the Opening of Parliament, University Graduations, and proceedings or ceremonies in legal and religious domains are governed by institutionalised formal rules of interaction. As demonstrated below, these norms and expectations are very relevant in interpreting discursive behaviour in formal meetings in different New Zealand workplaces. At the organisational level there are more specific discourse norms including those which relate to the degree of formality of meetings at different levels of the organisational hierarchy. In some organisations, for instance, board meetings at the most senior level are conducted with relative formality: e.g. a written agenda circulated to participants in advance, together with the formal minutes of the previous meeting, the expectation that all members will attend or will send apologies. In such organisations, the chair of the meeting typically moves systematically through the items on the agenda, and decisions are formally voted on and recorded. In other organisations, Board meetings are less formal. The agenda may be written on a white board, for instance, or simply based on discourse conventions; progress through the agenda may not be strictly systematic, and decisions may be reached relatively informally rather than by formal vote. Obviously, variations of these patterns are found in different organisations but they provide



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

a broad framework within which to interpret workplace discourse in any specific organisation. At the CofP level, the interactional discourse norms of particular workplace teams are relevant. This may be evident in features such as the amount and kind of small talk which precedes meetings, different degrees of tolerance of variation in their starting time, the use of terms of address which indicate in-group membership, use of technical jargon specific to the sector, and particular preferred styles and types of humour (Holmes and Marra 2002, Schnurr 2009). As indicated in Figure 1, Māori values also form a background to many interactions in New Zealand society, and are especially salient in interactions which involve Māori participants. In “ethnicised” workplaces (Schnurr, Marra and Holmes 2007: 716), however, Māori beliefs, interactional norms and values are fundamental; in these workplaces ethnicity is interwoven into people’s everyday communication; ethnic values underpin the norms which influence the way people interact, and the ways in which they construct different aspects of their identity, and especially their ethnicity. So, for example, Māori values such as the importance of privileging the group over the individual, and the high value placed on appropriate humility, are very relevant in interpreting workplace interaction in Māori workplaces, as will be evident in the discussion of the data analysed below. At the level of face-to-face interaction, our analytical framework provides a means to examine how various facets of leadership are instantiated and negotiated in any specific interaction by making use of the concepts of stance and indexing. As noted above, linguistic features and ways of talking encode particular stances (e.g. authoritative, argumentative, consultative, deferential, collegial). Through constant repetition, these may become “culturally coded” for particular identities (Cameron and Kulick 2003: 57, Blommaert 2007, Eckert 2008, Lemke 2008: 25), including leadership and ethnic identities, so that particular ways of speaking come to be regarded as indexing effective leadership or Māoriness, for example. We bring this socio-cultural knowledge to our interactions, and we use it to assess the intercultural competence of those with whom we are interacting, and to interpret the linguistic behaviour of participants in intercultural interaction. Finally, since there are many different definitions of intercultural competence (see Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 2009 for a thorough review), it is important to define its meaning in this paper. In this analysis, intercultural competence refers to the knowledge and abilities on which participants draw in appropriately enacting their social identities, and interpreting the identity performances of others, in specific socio-cultural contexts. This paper focuses on evidence of intercultural competence in the leadership performances of two New Zealand leaders, one Pākehā and one Māori in ethnically contrasting workplaces. Adopting a social constructionist approach, I examine the discourse of these leaders for evidence of

25

26 Janet Holmes

their awareness of different social and cultural beliefs, values, and norms as they negotiate their leadership identities in their particular workplaces. In the next section, the data used for this analysis is described. 3. Database and methodology The data used as the basis of the analyses in this article was collected by the Victoria University of Wellington Language in the Workplace (LWP) Project team. Our database currently comprises over 2500 interactions recorded in more than thirty New Zealand workplaces, including government departments, factories, small businesses, semi-public or non-government organisations (NGOs), and private, commercial organisations. The interactions include business talk and social talk, and meetings of many different sizes and kinds, with participants from a wide range of different levels in the workplace hierarchy. The total corpus includes interactions from some workplaces with a relatively high proportion of women, some with a relatively high proportion of Māori workers, and a number with an ethnic and balance more closely reflecting the distribution of Māori in the total population (about 14%). The focus leaders in this analysis come from two different organisations, one Māori and one Pākehā. The term Māori workplaces refers not just to workplaces where a majority of the employees are Māori, but rather, “ethnicised” communities of practice, as defined above: i.e. workplaces with a conscious orientation to Māori cultural norms and goals, where Māori ways of doing things prevail and the communicative behaviours exhibited by participants are typically consistent with Māori cultural values and beliefs (Schnurr et al. 2007). Both were white-collar, professional organisations of a similar size (25–50 employees), with explicitly articulated hierarchical relationships at the macro-level, and both were located in a compact section of the local city centre. The LWP methodology involves a participatory approach which gives participants direct control over the data collection. The leaders used in the analysis below were asked to carry a voice recorder throughout their workday and record samples of their everyday interactions over a period of about 3 months. This provided a range of recorded data for analysis including small, relatively informal work-related meetings and discussions involving two or three people, as well as

. See http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp for further information. . For more information on the project, and especially details of data collection and methodology, see Holmes and Stubbe (2003) and Marra (2008).



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

larger and longer meetings of each leader’s team which were both audio- and video-taped. In addition, a rich fund of ethnographic information was gathered by means of extensive field notes collected during the research collaborations, as well as one-to-one interviews and follow-up focus groups, all of which assisted with the interpretation of the data. 4. Analysis

The classic “western” leader

4.1

I focus first on Seamus, the Managing Director of the Pākehā organisation pseudonymed NZ Productions, a white collar professional organisation, with explicitly articulated hierarchical relationships at the macro-level. Seamus instantiates a model of leadership which, in most ways, conforms to global (“western”) normative expectations of how to “do leadership” appropriately. His leadership performance provides evidence that he orients to predominantly western sociocultural norms, with little indication of intercultural interactional proficiency. He portrays himself as a classic visionary, authoritative, and decisive leader both through his narratives and in his interactions with his staff. In interview, for example, Seamus constructs himself as an expert in contemporary western leadership, providing a visionary hero story of how he saved the company from destruction. Example (1) is an excerpt from this narrative. (1) Context: NZ Productions: Interview with Seamus, Managing Director 1 Seamus: 2 3 4

he from what I could see was rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic they just weren’t doing anything about it they were paralysed

. Transcription conventions:

[laughs]

Paralinguistic features and other information in square brackets



+

Untimed pause of up to one second



…//……\ …

Simultaneous speech



…/……\\ …



…

Section of transcript omitted



hōhā [‘fed up’]

Māori words in italics. Gloss in square brackets



[voc]

Untranscribable noises



All names are pseudonyms

27

28

Janet Holmes

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

and heading down hill … I asked all the questions that I needed to ask I pretty quickly got a very good um knowledge of how things were supposed to work … I suddenly had an idea as to how I could um er + get involved and make decisions and make something happen

Seamus describes how he saved what has now become a very successful company through careful planning and hard work. Following a dramatic opening metaphor of devastation, the Titanic, he uses two more metaphors (they were paralysed and heading down hill) to juxtapose the inadequate performance of the previous Managing Director and his senior management team (they just weren’t doing anything about it), with his own subsequent active and effective performance (lines 6–12). Seamus’s central leading role is emphasised by the repetition of the pronoun I (lines 1, 6, 7, 9, 10), indicating his agency in initiating a turn-around in the company’s fortunes. Seamus’s message is conveyed very directly using relatively plain syntactic structures (I asked all the questions, I suddenly had an idea, how I could get involved, make decisions, make something happen) which contribute to the image of a decisive, quick-thinking man of action. This is reinforced by the fact that apart from pretty (line 7), there are no hedges or mitigating devices; and the few modifiers (pretty quickly, very good, suddenly) further support the same message. In sum, Seamus uses fresh metaphors, contrasting pronoun choices, and syntactic constructions with little or no modification to index a heroic stance, and thus present himself as a visionary, decisive and effective business leader in the classic western mould. Given the context of an interview, this self-promotion with its focus on his individual performance is perhaps understandable, although it is inconsistent with the New Zealand egalitarian values that require leaders to play down their power, as well as with Māori values which require individuals to subjugate the individual to the group, a point elaborated below. Because the LWP methodology includes not only interviews in which leaders provide their own accounts of their leadership style, but also actual recordings of these leaders interacting with their colleagues, we are able to analyse the extent to which description matches performance. In interaction with his senior management team, our recordings demonstrate that Seamus regularly enacts the authoritative and inspirational stance which he outlined in his narrative. Example (2) is an excerpt from a talk to his management team in which Seamus is explaining his expectations of the team in relation to the changes taking place in the company.



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

(2) Context: NZ Productions: Senior Management team meeting 1 Seamus: you guys are managing all areas 2 which are gonna be affected … 3 you’ve got to own your own areas 4 and the change within them … 5 promoting and embracing the change within our teams … 6 the ones that want to do well 7 the ones that want to embrace the change 8 they’ll be jumping out of their skins to be part of it … 9 nothing’s gonna hold us back here 10 and if er if it does we’re gonna remove it 11 we can’t get somewhere great 12 without having everyone on board 13 everyone doing their best 14 and without removing obstacles

This is strong, emotive language, with persuasive force. Seamus first addresses the team very directly using the second person pronoun: you guys are managing all areas which are gonna be affected, you’ve got to own your own areas and the change within them (lines 1–4). He talks about promoting (line 5), and embracing change (lines 5, 7), with the aim of getting somewhere great (line 11). He switches to the pronouns we and us (lines 9–11) as he moves to a strong statement of his determination that they should succeed in implementing the new vision. All obstacles will be removed (lines 10, 14). His metaphors are striking, including they’ll be jumping out of their skins to be part of it (line 8). He also uses repetition and syntactic parallelism (lines 6–7) to good effect. Again, as in Example (1), the syntactic constructions are relatively simple with no hedging or attenuation, which serves to reinforce their clear, direct message. Seamus’s expectations for his management team, and for the whole organisation, are thus expressed in very direct and explicit language, enacting a decisive and authoritative stance and again indexing a heroic western leadership model. We are presented with an energetic leader, highly motivated to succeed and with high expectations of his staff. This enactment of visionary and authoritative leadership is consistent with the widely recognised global ideology of the characteristics of the hero leader. But, as noted above, it presents a problem in the New Zealand context where the “great New Zealand clobbering machine” (Mitchell 1972), reinforced in the last two decades by “the tall poppy syndrome” (Bonisch-Brednich 2008, Kennedy 2003), . This excerpt is also discussed in Vine et al. (2008: 350).

29

30

Janet Holmes

requires New Zealand leaders to adopt a more egalitarian stance. Furthermore, as we will see below, Māori values also require leaders to behave in humble and modest ways. In other words, New Zealand socio-cultural pressures from a range of sources are relevant in assessing Seamus’s leadership performance. A performance which demonstrates intercultural sensitivity will avoid unmitigated selfpromotion. From this perspective, as noted, the specific context of the discourse is relevant. Seamus’s hero narrative with its repetitive use of I, was expressed in interview rather than in workplace interaction. In Example (2), interacting with senior managers, his leadership performance is oriented to a vision of what the company must achieve through team work, reflecting values of collaboration and equality which are shared by both Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders. Here, then, Seamus demonstrates a nascent element of intercultural awareness. Relational skills are another well-recognised component of effective leadership, often expressed through strategies for reducing formality, such as humour and colloquial language (Holmes 2006, Schnurr 2009, Richards 2006). In discussion with his most senior colleagues, Seamus relaxes and responds positively to their humour, as illustrated in Example (3), an excerpt from a meeting in which Seamus, Rob and Jaeson are planning strategies for dealing with a prospective customer. (3) Context: Seamus, Managing Director NZ Productions in meeting with two senior managers 1 Seamus: 2 3 4 5 6 Jaeson: 7 Rob: 8 Seamus: 9 Rob: 10 Jaeson:

we want to create that environment … but that means that we want the machines running the stitches running um even when we go through sales you know the phones ringing even if they’re talking to //each other\ /[laughs]\ //[laughs]\//[laughs]\ /[laughs]\\ /busy busy stuff\\ it’s all about the sizzle //[laughs]\ /[laughs]\\

In this excerpt, Seamus outlines a strategy for creating the impression that the company is buzzing with work, even if the reality is rather different. He describes an amusing scenario suggesting that the company should have the machines running and the phones ringing even if people are reduced to talking to each other

. A similar concept can be found in other cultures, including Scandinavian countries and even Japan, as reflected in the Japanese proverb “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down” (Quoted in Kamada 2008: 177).



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

(line 5). Rob and Jaeson laugh appreciatively, and Rob makes a further amusing contribution it’s all about the sizzle (line 9) evoking sausages cooking. Though Seamus here constructs a humorous scenario, it is a work-oriented one, and it is clear that his focus is firmly on promoting the company’s goals. Seamus is in fact one of the most conventional leaders in our dataset in terms of conformity to western leadership ideology. While he laughs at other’s jokes and witticisms, he does not join in very much and, unlike other leaders we have recorded, he rarely initiates humour. Furthermore, he seldom engages in small talk or personal talk compared to others in his team or other leaders in our data set. There is relatively little evidence that he feels great pressure from the egalitarian New Zealand ethos which requires leaders to play down power differences. Rather, he provides an example of someone who respects the broader social and institutional constraints of appropriate leadership behaviour as defined by a predominantly western-dominated model, and enacts them in ways which for the most part reinforce rather than challenge them. Overall, then, there is little evidence of intercultural awareness in Seamus’s leadership performance, and in this he contrasts markedly with Daniel, the second focus leader in this analysis. 4.2 The contemporary Māori leader Daniel is the Māori CEO of Kiwi Consultations, another white collar professional organisation with a formal organisational structure and hierarchy of responsibility, comprising a number of managers, each of whom reported to him. Kiwi Consultations can be described as an ethnicised community of practice, as defined above, an organisation with a majority of employees who identified as Māori, an explicit commitment to achieving good outcomes for Māori (cf. Bryson and O’Neil 2008), and an all-encompassing awareness of Māori values underpinning every workplace interaction. While Daniel’s leadership performance shares some similarities with Seamus’s, it also contrasts along a number of dimensions; in particular, Daniel demonstrates compelling intercultural proficiency in his workplace interactions. So while Daniel’s discourse in some contexts expresses social meanings associated with a relatively conventional western leadership style, in other contexts he introduces some very unconventional features into his leadership performance, instantiating a new hybridised model, and demonstrating remarkable intercultural competence. In the same vein, while he is conscious and respectful of some aspects of traditional Māori leadership, he also modifies and contests other customary ways of doing leadership in Māori contexts. These differing strands and the ways in which Daniel weaves them together are evident both in his narratives and in his interactions with his staff.

31

32

Janet Holmes

In interview, for example, Daniel constructs himself as a decisive, hardnosed leader, and also as an expert in western, contemporary leadership theories. Example (4) is an excerpt from a longer narrative describing the changes he made when he was appointed CEO of Kiwi Consultations. (4) Context: Daniel, the Māori CEO of Kiwi Consultations in interview 1 Daniel: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

I reshaped the the er the um the reporting lines you know the previous CEO had eight people reporting to him directly and that just comes about from when you start an outfit it just expands and expands and it mthey may as well report to you um and you don’t you don’t notice with an incremental increase like that just how how much more work you’ve got and when people come you know titles and reporting lines are a big deal to them you know [voc] I wouldn’t want to be reporting to anyone else except the CEO so when I did that we had a few casualties er in terms of you know people who felt that they’d been + um treated less respectfully than they’d thought and they don’t work here anymore

A number of discourse features in this excerpt contribute to Daniel’s leadership construction: his choice of lexical items (e.g. reshaped the reporting lines, incremental increase), indicates his familiarity with current leadership discourse, while the use of simple syntactic constructions to report the effects of his dramatic cuts (e.g. we had a few casualties, they don’t work here anymore) encodes a decisive and unsentimental stance, indexing an authoritative leadership identity. This explicit and direct style conforms to Pākehā rather than Māori ways of communicating (see Holmes, Marra and Vine 2011). Daniel goes on to describe how he re-shaped the senior management, creating an elite group, and then proceeded to dramatically change the ways of interacting which obtained between the Board and the management team. In all this Daniel constructs himself as a contemporary leader, familiar with current western conceptions of management theory. There is no hint of traditional Māori cultural values in this description of how Daniel approached the restructuring process. Interacting with his staff in a formal planning meeting, Daniel’s discourse provides further convincing performative support for this self-construction as an authoritative, decisive and even visionary leader. Example (5) is an excerpt from a full staff meeting where he outlines the next phase of changes that he is planning to the company’s processes.



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

(5) Context: Kiwi Consultations: Meeting of all staff 1 Daniel: 2 3 4 5 6

if you think back a couple of meetings I said that er I was trying to turn turn our minds to the process management issues in front of us because we’ve er got a pretty good handle on allocation and we’ve got to start turning our mind towards the things we’re gonna be doing in the long term

In this excerpt, Daniel clearly identifies the direction in which he thinks the organisation should be moving, and the importance of looking beyond the immediate goals to the bigger picture. He reminds people that he has signalled earlier that they would need to start paying attention to the issue of how to manage the new process, and he indicates that he wants to develop a longer term view: we’ve got to start turning our mind towards the things we’re gonna be doing in the long term (lines 5–6). He presents the big picture view, the classic responsibility of a visionary leader. This is again delivered in direct clear language, with no hedging or attenuation. Moreover, Daniel skilfully moves from his role as visionary leader indexed through I (line 2) to the inclusive our (line 2), us (line 3) and we (lines 4, 5, 6) indexing a much more collaborative stance. His workplace performance demonstrates a skilful integration of the transactional and relational skills which extensive research has demonstrated is generally evident in effective leadership performances (Holmes and Stubbe 2003, Baxter 2010, Schnurr 2009, Mullany 2007). There is also however, another important dimension to Daniel’s complex leadership performance, relating to his Māori ethnicity. In Example (4), at least one discourse feature signalled Daniel’s orientation to Māori discourse norms. Analysing narratives told by Māori and Pākehā contributors to the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English, I identified a tendency for Māori contributors to signal reported speech using intonation and pitch change, rather than more explicit reporting devices such as “he said” or “she goes” (Holmes 1998). More recent research using the Canterbury corpus confirms this tendency in narratives told by Māori participants (D’Arcy 2010). In Example (4), Daniel uses this device to convey parodically the reactions of those who expect to report directly to the CEO: wouldn’t want to be reporting to anyone else except the CEO (lines 10–11). His use of this implicit strategy for reporting speech indicates his orientation to Māori discourse norms. Furthermore, in his interactions with the staff of Kiwi Consultations, Daniel behaves in ways which are quite consistent with Māori values and beliefs. He regularly opens staff meetings with a karakia (‘prayer, recitation’) in Māori, for instance, as illustrated in Example (6). The whole of this excerpt is in Māori, but apart from the first and last lines, I have provided just the English translation.

33

34

Janet Holmes

(6) Context: Opening of regular staff meeting of 16 participants in a Māori workplace. All but three are Māori. 1 Daniel: 2 3 4 5 6

me maumahara ki tā tātou nei tuahine a Joan ‘Let us all remember our sister who has just buried her younger sister …’ ‘our thoughts are with her’ ‘and everybody else who is under this cloud of darkness …’ ‘our thoughts are with her and the children of her younger sibling…’ he tika tēnei kia tīmata i roto i te whakawhetai ki tō atua ‘it is right that we begin with a prayer to the lord’

This meeting opening follows a well-established structure derived from the more elaborate, formal, traditional ritual encounters on the marae (the traditional Māori meeting ground). It comprises a prayer and includes a reference to one of the members of the organisation who has suffered a bereavement. This is quite standard practice in such formal Māori openings (see Salmond 1974, Holmes et al. 2008). Even in such a truncated and brief form, this opening serves as an important affirmation by the participants in the midst of their normal working day of Māori culture and the importance of Māori values, such as spirituality, respect for the dead, and concern for family (Holmes et al. 2008: 205). Moreover, as this example illustrates, there is room for contextual adaptation to take account of precisely who is present, where the meeting is taking place, and the purpose of the meeting (see Holmes and Marra forthcoming for more detailed discussion of this point). Daniel’s intercultural competence is also evident in the way he manages the important Māori cultural value of whakaiti, the requirement for Māori leaders to be humble and modest, as expressed in many proverbs: e.g. Kaore te kūmara e whaakii ana tana reka ‘The kūmara (sweet potato) does not announce it is tasty’. Daniel’s main interactional strategy for managing the tension between the need to appear authoritative and leader-like on the one hand, and the Māori cultural requirement to behave in an unpretentious way on the other, is to adopt a distinctly informal leadership style, a strategy which simultaneously addresses the need for leaders to attend to relational aspects of workplace interaction. Daniel manages even the most formal meetings with a light hand and uses many different linguistic devices to emphasise the lack of formality. In particular, as illustrated in Example (7), he makes extensive use of the New Zealand pragmatic tag, eh, a feature associated with both informality and Māori ethnicity.

. Mead and Grove (2003: 36).



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

(7) Context: Daniel is talking to his Human Resources Manager, Caleb, in a regular weekly meeting. 1 Daniel: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

but it also an indication that you don’t have to wear ties here any more eh you don’t have to but don’t wear rags [laughs] [laughs] you know here are what you can wear eh …. I don’t wear ties any more I’m hōhā [‘fed up’] with it eh um and so nobody else feels they have to wear them either eh

In this excerpt, Daniel expresses his preference for a more casual style of dress, and emphasises this attitude by his frequent use of the casual tag eh (lines 2, 5, 7, 8) as well as the informal Māori word hōhā. Similarly, the following comment on a politician, recorded in another meeting, not only illustrates his use of eh but also indicates his distaste for people who play up their status and “put on side”: he’s just an imperialist eh he’s gotta a very er high opinion of his worth eh. This pragmatic particle, eh, indexes an informal, matey stance, emphasising the content of this example, as well as being strongly associated with Māori identity (Stubbe and Holmes 2000, Meyerhoff 1994). This is thus a further way in which Daniel enacts intercultural competence; he uses discourse strategies which signal his Māori ethnicity, but in ways which reduce the formality of the meetings in line with the Pākehā preference for informality.10 Swearing has a similar effect and is even more marked in workplace meetings, since it is relatively infrequent in professional contexts. Daniel’s utterances are liberally sprinkled with strong swear words such as fuck, shit and pissed off, as illustrated in Example (8) from a meeting of the senior management team at Kiwi Consultations. (8) Context: Meeting of the Senior Management Team of Kiwi Consultations. 1 Frank: Company V got a new chairman they just got sick of him 2 Daniel: oh yeah + fuck that’s the sort of article 3 we got to send out to keep on [company] eh

Thus even in formal contexts, Daniel uses swear words to emphasise his points, indicating a preference for informal ways of doing things (Holmes 2009), a style more associated with Pākehā than Māori meeting protocols. In sum, Daniel uses a range of different discursive devices to accomplish a “hybridised” identity, a “new” 10. For further discussion of this point, see Holmes and Marra (fc), Holmes, Marra and Vine (fc).

35

36

Janet Holmes

kind of leadership which negotiates the differing socio-cultural constraints he has to manage, and demonstrates an impressive degree of intercultural proficiency. 5. Discussion Enacting leadership in ways that demonstrate intercultural competence entails demonstrating familiarity with and sensitivity to the interactional norms of each culture. The analysis has indicated that leadership construction is a complex process especially in ethnicised communities of practice where more than one set of cultural values are very obviously relevant. In terms of western conceptions of leadership, New Zealand leaders are generally expected to perform decisively and with authority. Helen Clark, for example, was consistently and approvingly described in the media as “authoritative” during her three terms as Prime Minister (Trimble, Treiberg and Girard 2007). Both the leaders examined in this paper demonstrate these traits in their workplace interactions, as illustrated in Examples (2) and (5). They provide vision and clear direction, and demonstrate skill in motivating and inspiring their staff. But New Zealand also subscribes to a very egalitarian philosophy, and those who raise their heads above the parapet are likely to be subjected to “the great clobbering machine” (Mitchell 1972), or like “tall poppies” they will be quickly cut down to size, as mentioned above. This New Zealand sense of egalitarianism has its roots in the philosophy of the settlers who came to New Zealand from Britain in the 19th century determined to establish a society based on achievement rather than birth and social status (Lipson 1948). In this socio-cultural context, societal pressures come to bear to constrain unmitigated self-promotion. Consequently, Pākehā New Zealanders do not comfortably tolerate explicit demonstrations of power, and leaders therefore often seek ways of reducing status differences and emphasising equality with their colleagues. The two leaders described above respond to this conflict in different ways, influenced by their specific social and cultural contexts, and the communities of practice in which they operate. Seamus shows relatively little tendency to modify his leadership performance to conform to the expectation that leaders should reduce the power distance and emphasise an (artificial) level playing field (see Holmes 2009). His performance suggests an orientation to global rather than local cultural norms. In interview, his hero narrative clearly portrays him as having single-handedly stepped in to save the organisation from disaster. In interaction with his senior management team, he provides inspiration and clear direction. In our wider data set, the enactment of power is often indirect and hedged, sometimes seasoned with explicit tokens of mateship such as nicknames, and sometimes with



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

self-deprecating humour, strategies which satisfy both predominant Pākehā egalitarian norms, and the Māori requirement to avoid boasting and self-promotion­. Seamus’s discourse, however, is typically direct and unhedged; he does not use “matey” terms of address, and, unlike many other leaders in our data, he rarely initiates humorous interaction, though he is responsive to the humour of others. In this area of leadership performance, then, he demonstrates relatively little sensitivity to either set of local cultural constraints. He seems oriented to more global leadership norms. By contrast, Daniel’s leadership performance demonstrates convincing sensitivity to different socio-cultural constraints; he illustrates how an effective leader can integrate competing cultural values, and in the process provides some insight into how socio-cultural change gradually evolves from the acts of individuals in everyday interaction. Daniel manages the balancing act of demonstrating authoritative leadership, while behaving in ways that are consistent both with the wider New Zealand egalitarian ethic and the more specific requirements of Māori culture. Like Seamus, he provides vision and direction to his staff, and in this respect his behaviour conforms to western models of leadership. But he also behaves appropriately as a Māori leader in a variety of ways, following Māori meeting conventions, for example, as illustrated in Example (6).11 Daniel also demonstrates innovation in the way he negotiates the demands of both Pākehā and Māori culture in his enactment of leadership. The analysis illustrated two particular aspects of Daniel’s interactional style which could be considered very unconventional, especially within the Māori context in which he works. Firstly, his way of dealing with the Pākehā requirement for egalitarianism as well as the Māori expectation of humility in a leader involves a very informal and colloquial discourse style, as illustrated in Examples (7) and (8). Secondly, Daniel’s leadership style challenges the traditional Māori values of respect for experience and age, as hinted at in his hero story (Example (4)), and stated more explicitly later in that interview. Furthermore, he is quite prepared to adopt modern western, Pākehā norms of relative informality in conducting meetings, as well as Pākehā methods of management and ways of dealing with “dead wood” within a Māori workplace. Daniel seems, then, to represent a new type of leader, someone who is prepared to contest traditional cultural norms and conventional socio-cultural constraints, in order to develop a new hybridised leadership style drawing on extensive intercultural competence.

11. See Holmes, Marra and Vine (2011) for further discussion and illustration of this point.

37

38

Janet Holmes

6. Conclusion Previous research has tended to focus on the challenge for language learners and business people of acquiring intercultural competence in order to communicate with another linguistic cultural group, typically from another country. This paper has turned the spotlight on leadership within one country where two well-established cultural groups co-exist, and has examined evidence of the influence of different cultural values and interactional norms on leadership performance in culturally contrasting workplace contexts. Analysis of interaction in New Zealand workplaces indicates that western models of leadership and majority group norms of interaction continue to influence people’s (often unconscious) expectations of what is considered appropriate behaviour for leaders in the workplace. While Seamus enacts a classic, authoritative and decisive western-style leader, Daniel presents an alternative model of leadership; he effectively weaves aspects of Māori culture together with components of a modern western, management style, while contesting other characteristics of traditional Māori leadership style. Daniel’s leadership performance may thus represent one possible model for a new intercultural style of leadership, a style which values some aspects of tradition (e.g. explicit expressions of respect for the face needs and family situations of those present at a meeting), whilst also appreciating strategies for challenging unnecessary formality and conventional hierarchy. Daniel’s leadership performance demonstrates his intercultural competence; he skillfully integrates different aspects of Māori and Pākehā ways of doing things at work, while also providing evidence of change within the range of what is considered an acceptable way of enacting Māori leadership in contemporary New Zealand society. This analysis of different leadership styles thus provides useful indications of how new intercultural norms may gradually be forged by particular individuals in influential positions in a multicultural society. References Arasaratnam, Lily A. and Doerfel, Marya L. 2005. “Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29: 137–163. Ashkanasy, Neal M., Trevor-Roberts, Edwin and Kennedy, Jeffrey C. 2004. “The egalitarian leader: Leadership in Australia and New Zealand.” In Leading in High Growth Asia, Dean Tjosvold and Kwok Leung (eds.), 231–252. Singapore: World Scientific. Baxter, Judith. 2010. The Language of Female Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Blommaert, Jan. 2007. “Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: Orders of indexicality and polycentricity.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 2: 115–130.



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

Bonisch-Brednich, Brigitte. 2008. “Watching the Kiwis: New Zealanders’ rules of social interaction.” Journal of New Zealand Studies 6(7): 3–15. Bryson, Jane and O’Neil, Paul. 2008. “Developing human capability: Employment institutions, organisations and individuals.” Victoria University of Wellington Developing Human Capability Project [Online]. Available at: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/vms/researchprojects/ developg_human_cap_project-publicatns.aspx#Presentations [Accessed 11 January 2011]. Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cameron, Deborah. 2009. “Theoretical issues for the study of gender and spoken interaction.” In Gender and Spoken Interaction, Pia Pichler and Eva M. Eppler (eds.), 1–17. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cameron, Deborah and Kulick, Don. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, Brigid and Levy, Lester. 2008. “Leadership development as identity construction.” Management Communication Quarterly 24(2): 211–231. Coupland, Nikolas. 2001. “Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory.” In Sociolinguistics and Social Theory, Nikolas Coupland, Srikant Sarangi and Christopher N. Candlin (eds.), 1–26. Longman: London. D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2010. “Quoting ethnicity: Constructing dialogue in Aotearoa.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 14: 60–88. Diamond, Paul. 2003. A Fire in your Belly: Maori Leaders Speak. Wellington: Huia Publishers. Dinges, Norman and Baldwin, Kathleen. 1996. “Intercultural competence. A research perspective”. In Handbook of Intercultural Training, Dan Landis and Rabi S. Bhagat (eds.), 106–123. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eckert, Penelope. 2008. “Variation and the indexical field.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–476. Ehrlich, Susan. 2008. “Sexual assault trials, discursive identities and institutional change.” In Analysing Identities in Discourse, Rosana Dolón and Julia Todoli (eds.), 159–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fairhurst, Gail T. 2007. Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Grint, Keith. 2005. “Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of “leadership”.” Human Relations 58: 1467–1494. Grint, Keith and Jackson, Brad. 2010. “Towards “socially constructive” social constructions of leadership.” Management Communication Quarterly 24(2): 348–355. Hecht, Michael L., Warren, Jennifer R., Jung, Eura and Krieger, Janice L. 2005. “A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions.” In Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, William B. Gudykunst (ed.), 257–278. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Holmes, Janet. 1998. “Narrative structure: Some contrasts between Maori and Pakeha storytelling.” Multilingua 17(1): 25–57. Holmes, Janet. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Holmes, Janet. 2009. “Men, masculinities and leadership: Different discourse styles at work.” In Gender and Spoken Interaction, Pia Pichler and Eva M. Eppler (eds.), 186–210. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Holmes, Janet, and Marra, Meredith. 2002. “Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1683–1710.

39

40 Janet Holmes

Holmes, Janet and Marra, Meredith. 2011. “Relativity rules: Politic talk in ethnicized workplaces.” In Situated Politeness, Michael Haugh, Bethan L. Davies and Andrew John Merrison (eds.), London: Continuum. Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith and Schnurr, Stephanie. 2008. “Impoliteness and ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces.” Journal of Politeness Research 4(2): 193–219. Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith and Vine, Bernadette. Forthcoming. “Politeness and impoliteness in New Zealand English workplace discourse.” To appear in “Im/politeness across Englishes”, Michael Haugh and Klaus P. Schneider (eds.), Special Issue. Journal of Pragmatics. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.006 Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith and Vine, Bernadette. 2011. Leadership, Ethnicity and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmes, Janet and Stubbe, Maria. 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace. London: Pearson. House, Robert J., Hanges, Paul J., Javidan, Mansour, Dorfman, Peter W. and Gupta, Vipin. 2004. Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jackson, Brad. 2008. “Portraying leadership in New Zealand: From modest recognition to contemplative action.” In The Power of Portraiture: Representing Leadership in New Zealand from 1840 to the Present, Erin Griffey (ed.), 10–17. Auckland: David Ling. Jackson, Brad and Parry, Ken. 2001. The Hero Manager: Learning from New Zealand’s Top Chief Executives. Auckland: Penguin. Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. “Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance.” In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kamada, Laurel D. 2008. “Discursive ‘embodied’ identities of ‘half girls’ in Japan: A multi-perspectival approach within feminist poststructuralist discourse analysis.” In Gender and Language Research Methodologies, Kate Harrington, Lia Litosseliti, Helen Sauntson and Jane Sunderland (eds.), 174–190. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kennedy, Jeffrey C. 2007. “Leadership and culture in New Zealand.” In Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies, Jagdeep Singh Chhokar, Felix C. Brodbeck and Robert J. House (eds.), 397–432. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kramsch, Claire. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lemke, Jay L. 2008. “Identity, development and desire: Critical questions.” In Identity Trouble: Critical Discourse and Contested Identities, Carmen Rosa Caldas-Couthard and Rick Iedema (eds.), 17–42. London: Palgrave McMillan. Lipson, Leslie. 1948. The Politics of Equality: New Zealand’s Adventures in Democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Marra, Meredith. 2008. “Recording and analyzing talk across cultures.” In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk Across Cultures, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 304–321. London: Continuum. Mead, Hirini Moko and Grove, Neil. 2003. Ngā Pāpeha a ngā Tāpuna. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1994. “Sounds pretty ethnic eh? A pragmatic particle in New Zealand English.” Language in Society 23(3): 367–388. Mitchell, Austin. 1972. The Half-Gallon Quarter-Acre Pavlova Paradise. Wellington: Whitcombe and Tombs.



Leadership and intercultural competence at work

Mullany, Louise. 2007. Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ochs, Elinor. 1993. “Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(3): 287–306. Reed, Michael. 2005. “Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organisation and management studies.” Journal of Management Studies 42(8): 1621–1644. Richards, Keith. 2006. Language and Professional Identity. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Salmond, Anne. 1974. “Rituals of encounter among the Maori: Sociolinguistic study of a scene.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds.), 192–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schnurr, Stephanie. 2009. Leadership Discourse at Work. Interactions of Humour, Gender and Workplace Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schnurr, Stephanie, Marra, Meredith and Holmes, Janet, 2007. “Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: Māori and Pākehā leaders.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 712–729. Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Franklin, Peter. 2009. Intercultural Interaction. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Xing, Jianyu. 2003. “Managing rapport in intercultural business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese-British welcome meetings.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 24(1): 33–46. Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Xing, Jianyu. 2008. “Issues of face in a Chinese business visit to Britain”. In Culturally Speaking, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 258–273. London: Continuum. Stubbe, Maria and Holmes, Janet. 2000. “Talking Māori or Pākehā in English: Signalling identity in discourse.” In New Zealand English, Allan Bell and Koenraad Kuiper (eds.), 249–278. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Trevor-Roberts, Edwin, Ashkanasy, Neal M. and Kennedy, Jeffrey C. 2003. “The egalitarian leader: A comparison of leadership in Australia and New Zealand.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 20: 517–540. Trimble, Linda, Treiberg, Natasja and Girard, Sue. 2007. “Joan of Arc and the Xena Princesses: Election newspaper coverage of female and male Prime Ministers in Canada and New Zealand”. Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Conference 30 May 2007 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Available at: http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2007/ Trimble.pdf [Accessed 11 January 2011]. Vaara, Eero. 2003. “Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization.” Journal of Management Studies 40: 859–894. Vine, Bernadette, Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, Pfeifer, Dale and Jackson, Brad. 2008. “Exploring co-leadership talk through interactional sociolinguistics.” Leadership 4(3): 339–360. Warner, Linda Sue and Grint, Keith. 2006. “American ways of leading and knowing.” Leadership 2(2): 225–44. Wodak, Ruth. 2008. “Controversial issues in feminist critical discourse analysis”. In Gender and Language Research Methodologies, Kate Harrington, Lia Litosseliti, Helen Sauntson and Jane Sunderland (eds.), 193–210. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

41

Professional action games Theory and practice Edda Weigand

University of Münster, Germany

The paper starts by circumscribing the issue and clarifying basic concepts. The object ‘professional action games’ is defined as institutional action games which have specific purposes and interests and are organized on some legal basis. Focusing on the example of business games, the crucial structure and essential points of business in our social market economy are elaborated. What emerges are highly complex games which cannot adequately be described by the addition of separate parts, such as context, language, culture, but need to be addressed from the very outset in a holistic approach. In the ‘mixed game’ human beings act and react as cultural beings. Culture is integrated in the game. The concept ‘theory’ is conceived of as a description and explanation of human beings’ competence-in-performance. An authentic example of a complex business meeting is analysed in order to illustrate what dialogic interaction in business means.

1. The issue In recent decades, linguistics has made essential progress in many respects, to mention only the change from a concept of language as a sign system to language-in-use. This provoked a radical change in methodology from abstraction to focusing on empirical details of performance. We now dare to address such complex objects as ‘professional communication across languages and cultures’. The issue is now where to start from. Can we start from the situation or context ‘workplace’ or from the verbal means of ‘discourse’ or from the topic of ‘what’ is communicated? Complexity does not mean the addition of parts but the integration of components. The role of components can only become transparent if we know how they are integrated into the whole. Consequently, we first need to have a grip of the complex whole and to find a key to opening it up. I am going to deal with these questions in general as well as with particular reference to professional action games in business.

44 Edda Weigand

2. Object and methodology: From reductionism to holism Modern linguistics started with addressing language by complete abstraction from complexity and reducing the natural object to an artificial system of signs. The search for underlying rules at the level of competence began. After the pragmatic turn we dared to address the object language use and were confronted with the problem of how to deal with ever-changing performance. In the belief that we were dealing with ‘real’ language use the focus was put on discourse or spoken language which however meant nothing other than starting again from methodological exigencies. By reduction to the empirical level we cannot grasp language as a whole. I consider Martinet’s appeal not to sacrifice the integrity of the object to methodological exigencies as a basic guideline for how to address our objectof-study (Martinet 1975). In principle, it means that we first need to circumscribe the complex whole before deciding about the methodology of analysis. If we take a closer look at our object ‘professional communication’ an important point becomes apparent. The feature ‘professional’ is not defined by the situation workplace. If we take, for instance, the school or academia as being a workplace, not every communication which takes place at school or in the university is professional communication even if it is carried out by teachers or lecturers. Professional communication means complying with the general purpose of the institution, i.e. in this case the purpose of instructing, lecturing or researching. Small talk or discussions of disciplinary problems are excluded. What we can learn from this example is that the essential feature for grasping professional communication is not the situation or context nor any discourse produced in this situation but the purpose. The purpose must not be equated with the topic or with what is said. The purpose is often not even explicitly expressed. Normally the term workplace is taken to be the workplace within an institution. Many games, including the game of instructing or teaching, can occur as everyday as well as institutional games. An internet expert, for instance, may explain questions of information technology to friends at home, outside of any institution. In contrast, professional games at the workplace are determined by the policy of the agency. Professional communication confronts us with the crucial issue of the interaction of dialogue and professional life. This issue cannot in any way be settled by the simple addition of professional knowledge and dialogical techniques whatsoever. It will be of little use to elaborate dialogical terms such as the ‘adjacency pair’ of ‘question and answer’ or observe that the dialogue takes place via ‘turn taking’. We have to look behind the empirical surface of what is said and ask what is meant or why it is said in this way. In the case of business dialogues, we need to know the general purpose of making business in our society since this determines



Professional action games. Theory and practice

the dialogic purpose. In our free or social market economy we can assume that the purpose is ‘to make a profit’ and that this dominates any business dialogue and determines individual moves and strategies. We cannot simply add this interest to what is said but are confronted from the very outset with an integrated whole which we can formalise as Business affairs   win (dialogue) Figure 1

This throws light on another important issue, the difference between theory and practice. If we take practice as performance, i.e. as any performance of any individual, it will also include unsuccessful dialogues which do not contribute at all to the profit of a company. What is constitutive for a theory is effective performance and for practice how it can be trained. In theory as well as in practice we are not interested in any performance but in good performance or in ‘how we can get to yes’ (Fisher, Ury & Patton 1991). There is however no simple criterion, no particular strategy which could tell us what can count as good performance. Effective performance in the case of ‘doing business’ means performance capable of running a company effectively. A theory of business dialogues therefore has to include rhetoric, which presupposes evaluation according to societal and ideological parameters. Such a theory of effective performance or of competencein-performance, as I called it, can give guidelines for practice and be the basis for management training courses. Practitioners know very well that they have to come to terms with a mix of variables. The Model of the Mixed Game (MGM) which I developed in recent years outlines a holistic theory of dialogic action games in everyday and in institutional life (Weigand 2009 and 2010). With respect to the distinction between theory and practice it is interesting to note that the term MGM has been proposed by professionals at the workplace of advocates, namely Italian advocates of the ‘Consiglio Nazionale’ who had invited me to a conference in Rome. They immediately recognised that the dialogic action game is a mixed game, un gioco misto, in practice as well as in theory. Different purposes and interests as well as different communicative means and strategies are integrated in the mixed game. To describe it adequately means extending orthodox linguistics so that it becomes a kind of humanised linguistics, i.e. a discipline which is intrinsically connected with all the other disciplines dealing with human action and behaviour. Having clarified basic questions about our object ‘professional action games in theory and practice’, let us now turn to the methodological question of how we can analyse such a complex object. To put it clearly, the premise is: complex action games can only be consistently addressed by taking a holistic approach.

45

46 Edda Weigand

That means we have to give flesh to what up to now has mostly been used only as a catchword. A holistic theory has to start from the complex whole based on the integration of multiple variables and their mutual interactions. Integration prohibits us from starting via abstraction or division into parts. Approaches starting from the context obviously do not start from the whole or from its central core. The same is true for approaches which reduce the complex whole to the empirical level or for traditional approaches which draw on the topic or on what is said and ignore the fact that the essential part of what is meant is only revealed at the level of action. Approaches starting from reduction to parts have certainly increased our knowledge about important factors. However these factors – situation, context, discourse, topic, gender, politeness – need to be integrated in a structure determined by the crucial feature of the underlying interest or purpose the object is devoted to. Focusing on what human beings are doing when communicating means focusing on their needs and the interests and purposes which they want to achieve in dialogue. What we are looking for is a theory of dialogic interaction which traces how human beings can effectively act and behave in specific areas of life. 3. Deriving types of action games A holistic theory proceeds by differentiating the complex whole of dialogic action games into subsystems of particular games. Differentiation does not mean addition but specialization of what is already contained in the complex object. In this way a typology of action games can be derived. I would first like to sketch some premises which circumscribe the object: human competence-in-performance. I need to restrict myself to a few essential points which have recently been demonstrated by experimental studies in sociobiology and neurology (e.g. Lumsden & Wilson 2005). For a more detailed description of the MGM and its principles I need to refer you to my books on ‘Language as Dialogue’ and ‘Dialogue: The mixed game’ (Weigand 2009, 2010). The premises describe human competencein-performance as a complex ability which is dependent on human nature, culture and the environment not created by human beings: – Human beings are social individuals who are guided by self-interest but inevitably need to take account of the interests of others. – Human beings are cultural beings. Culture is not only an external feature of the context, something outside of our nature, a system of values or habits we can accept or reject. Over time it has become internalized by ‘epigenetical rules’ and influences, consciously or unconsciously, human behaviour and action.



Professional action games. Theory and practice

– Human beings are adaptive beings. They are able to adapt themselves to everchanging environments and conditions of human affairs. These premises drawn from human nature, culture and the environment determine how human beings address the challenges of life. Human abilities are integrated abilities: we cannot separate speaking, thinking, and perceiving but inevitably use our abilities as integrated communicative means. ‘Living with uncertainty’ (Toulmin 2001) requires us to orient ourselves according to principles of probability. Even if there are rules, in the end they can be broken or changed. By adapting to ever-changing conditions we first try to find out regularities or standard cases. If necessary we look for particular conditions and proceed from standard cases to individual cases. Derivation of subsystems from the complex whole is crucial for a holistic theory. As already explained, the key to any action game is the purpose, need or interest for which it is carried out. The specific purposes of particular games are to be derived from the general purpose of communicating. As social individuals we need to arrive at some agreement with our fellow beings, which not only means understanding or accepting what has been said but negotiating the mutual positions which may, in the end, remain different or even opposing positions. In this sense we can start from the following general schema of a typology: dialogic interaction coming to an understanding

game 1

game 2

game 3

game 4 ........

Figure 2

We need to proceed on this path of derivation by differentiation which results in what has been called the ‘division of labour’ and the introduction of institutions for specific types of labour. Every-day games are thus distinguished from games at the workplace or institutional games. Institutions are based on some legal order which became necessary when the individual groups engaged in a certain type of labour increased in terms of the number of their members. According to organisational needs there had to be those who have to decide and those who have to carry out the decisions. Hierarchies in rights and duties were set up and backed by sanctions. This step of creating organisational hierarchies can be considered as a decisive step in creating an institution insofar as it includes a shift from function by virtue of physics and natural abilities to function by virtue of status (cf. Searle 1999: 125). In our modern times status functions can no longer only rely

47

48 Edda Weigand

on ­collective acceptance but need a solid legal basis in order to create institutional order. Institutions thus derive from basic needs and purposes of the species by the division of labour and the introduction of status functions: evolution of institutions production of goods

subgroups

exchange of goods

subgroups

instruction

subgroups

health care

…

subgroups

…

Figure 3

4. Business games and the influence of culture Let us now focus on the institution of business. We can take the purpose or the interest of those ‘doing business’ as the key to opening up what is going on in business dialogues. In our social market economy, companies aim to ‘make a profit’, an activity formalised as win. In pursuing this interest, practical actions and dialogic actions alternate. Among the actions carried out by dialogue, we can basically distinguish between three different types of action games: games of negotiating competitive action between different companies

games of decision-making win

cooperative action within a company

games of positioning persuasive action by means of public relations and advertising

Figure 4



Professional action games. Theory and practice

As we can see in this figure, we are not dealing with games having a defined dialogic function F which is predicated of some propositional state of affairs p, according to Searle’s formula F(p) (Searle 1969), but with games which consist of a complex hierarchy of integrated and interacting components. What does it mean: negotiating, decision-making or positioning? We first need to elaborate which actions are integrated in the complex of functions and states of affairs and find out how they are concatenated in the linear order of performance. Figure 4 makes the essential distinction between competitive and cooperative action or ‘ingroup’ and ‘intergroup’ communication as Liliana Ionesco-Ruxăndoiu (2006) called it. In ingroup communication we decide how to proceed in intergroup communication, whether to use soft or hard strategies, and we decide how to present the company to the public, whether to use more informative or more persuasive means. Our actions and decisions will inevitably be influenced by culture. Culture has an external as well as internal component: in the environment we can observe habits and customs which are often also internalised as unconscious preferences in the minds of the people. The root of culture seems to be the fact that human beings cannot avoid evaluating what happens in their environment. Evaluating in this sense is not a separate action but a human ability which is integrated with other human abilities: we not only listen and perceive but unvaryingly take a position: we agree or reject or distance ourselves from what we hear and see. As social individuals we also evaluate our role in the community and the necessary respect we need to show for our fellow beings. Whereas in Western cultures the expression of respect or politeness is to a great extent left to the individual, in Eastern cultures, for instance, the Chinese, Japanese or Korean cultures, these concepts are more rigidly and almost obligatorily expressed by the grammatical category of honorifics. Even if nowadays the use of honorifics has become more liberal, showing respect continues to have a high value and determines the sequence of actions (cf. Cho 2005). For instance, arguing and rejecting are quite normal moves of negotiation in the West, but can be considered as impolite in other cultures. We see that rhetoric cannot be separated from description; it is integrated in dialogic action because we all try to express ourselves more or less effectively. Nor can emotions be separated from the description of dialogic action. There are cultural conventions regarding how to mediate between reason and emotion which need to be included as Emotional Principles in a theory of dialogic action games. If we take evaluation in this sense as a basic integrated feature of human nature we can understand how different value systems developed in different environments and different cultures emerged. I cannot describe cultural differences in greater detail here but would like to draw your attention to the book “Riding the waves of culture” by Trompenaars &

49

50

Edda Weigand

Hampden-Turner (1997) which is very interesting on the issue of different cultural practices in business games. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner give practical tips for doing business across cultures, for instance, when to prepare for quick decisions and sudden offers or when to be patient if a long time is taken to consult and come to an agreement (1997: 67). They also give tips on how to deal with different emotional dispositions (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997: 72). I quote an interesting authentic example of a conflict of attitudes which arose when a contract was to be signed between an American and a Japanese agency after a long and difficult process of negotiation (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997: 45). Even if both parties had agreed on the outcome of the negotiation, they faced the risk that it might still finally fail because both sides evaluated the relationship differently. In order to finalise a contract the Japanese need a relationship of trust. Whereas North Americans and most north Europeans emphasize the importance of upholding the law, other cultures such as the Japanese might regard such an attitude as corrupt and consequently reject a contract which lists any particular condition over hundreds of pages. Culture manifests itself not only as native culture that has grown up over a long period of time but also as a specific way of behaviour of a group or institution which is deliberately decided on. In this sense, the executives of a company decide on the ‘business culture’ they want to introduce. The ‘business culture’ of a company determines how the hierarchy of status functions is dealt with and can emphasize either the hierarchical order or team work. Cultural preferences are of paramount importance for advertising. Rapaille (2007) in his book on the ‘culture code’ introduces us into the workplace of professional advertising copywriters. They need to know what people appreciate and prefer in order to design efficient advertising slogans. Consequently Rapaille organised interviews on a large scale to get to know how people, even unconsciously, evaluate certain objects. The following adverts can illustrate how seemingly simple slogans represent sophisticated mixed games which take advantage of what is presumed to be the culture code of specific groups of people: (a) Toyota does not break down. (b) Allianz is on your side.

In order to analyse these adverts we have to go beyond the traditional views of linguistics and speech act theory: – They are not at all monologic phrases but are put forward as initiative actions to achieve a reaction not only of understanding but of acceptance by the interlocutor. The Dialogic Principle proper of action and reaction represents the basic unit of language use.



Professional action games. Theory and practice

– The Dialogic Principle is intrinsically connected with the Principle of Action. We need to know what ‘initiative action’ and ‘reactive action’ means in order to understand that they are not arbitrarily connected. The initiative action makes a claim to truth or volition which is expected to be ‘fulfilled’, positively or negatively, by the reactive action. In this way, any action in language use is dialogically oriented, either as initiative action or as reaction. A single notion of ‘illocution’ for any type of speech act is not sufficient. – What constitutes an action, is not sufficiently grasped by defining ‘illocution’ in the way Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) do as ‘what happens in locution’. Distinguishing between locution and illocution is certainly an important step but needs to be clarified more precisely: any action – practical, verbal, communicative, mental – is defined by the correlation of some purpose and corresponding means. If you want to cut down a tree, you need a saw. If you want people to do something, you need communicative means. – Regarding the communicative means used in our examples, we need the basic Principle of Coherence to describe and explain the fact that we often mean more than we say. Communicative means are not defined in an artificial system; they are used by individual speakers to negotiate meaning and understanding. Of course, individual use does not mean arbitrary use. It is however not necessary but even beyond the game to define what break down or being on your side in our examples mean. Negotiation needs to respect some common ground in order to reach a joint understanding. Human beings use different integrated abilities when communicating. Our examples cannot fully be described at the verbal level of what is said. What is meant is only revealed if underlying cognitive means of inferences and strategies are included. What is said can be described as the literal meaning of a statement, that is, of an utterance with a claim to truth. What is meant is revealed if we include the culture code or the inference that people prefer to choose a car which ‘does not break down’ or an agency they can trust. The actual meaning therefore is a request or a claim to volition: the interlocutor is called upon to buy a Toyota or to join Allianz. 5. Sample analysis Let us finally analyse an authentic action game of a ‘strategy meeting’ at the workplace within a business company (recorded by Schnöring 2007, cf. Weigand 2006 and 2010). As observers we are confronted with empirical data. In order to explicate what is going on, we need to elaborate the purposes and interests which are behind what is said. That means we cannot only rely on spoken discourse but need to proceed by goal-directed observation having some key question in mind

51

52

Edda Weigand

and also some knowledge about business and dialogic interaction. Let us therefore start with some reflections before concentrating on the authentic text. The topics of the agenda of the meeting give us a first cue about what is to be dealt with. The chief-executives, professionals at the workplace, call the game a ‘strategy meeting’. However this does not yet tell us much about what is at stake. We are faced with an astonishing feature of performance: professionals might very well be experienced in practice and have a good grasp of what is to be done but nevertheless are unable to call things by name. This is the case with the chairperson of our game, the senior executive, who is competent in structuring and leading the meeting but uncertain in calling the concrete steps by name. As observing linguists we have to interpret and evaluate what is said and what we can observe by considering it against the background of some conception of the whole. The first points on the agenda are called the company’s progress in the first quarter of the new financial year and defending the results. In this way the topic is indicated but not the action to be carried out. I think we can interpret the first point of the company’s progress as a game of stocktaking and the second point of defending the results as an action game of planning. It is not the authentic text, not the empirical elements themselves which tell us what is meant. We need an integrative approach combining specific knowledge, reflection and empirical observation in order to gain insight into such complex games as strategic management meetings. Let us now focus on these two action games of stocktaking and planning and try to describe them as subgames of the complex whole. The issue is: what makes up ‘stocktaking’ versus ‘planning’? How can we decompose these complex subsystems of running a company effectively? Stocktaking in any case includes reporting on the past and evaluating the moves of the past according to the numbers set as a goal for the whole company and for its individual departments. Numbers are the most significant point for business measurements in a social market economy. Evaluating however not only means indicating whether the numbers have been achieved or not. It also requires reasoning, i.e. reflecting upon the reasons and relating the results or numbers achieved to the measurements taken in the individual departments. The following figure focuses on the main steps of the action game of stocktaking: stocktaking reporting numbers

→

evaluating numbers planned and achieved

→

reasoning results related to measurements

Figure 5



Professional action games. Theory and practice

These steps are to be gone through in the meeting. They therefore have to be dialogically organized by the senior executive as chairperson: it is his task to call upon the points of the agenda, to give the floor to those who want to speak or to ask for comments on the current points. We will thus find various speech acts in the text that do not directly bear upon the subpurposes of stocktaking but on the organization of speaking, i.e. mainly declarative speech acts of chairing the meeting. Now having decomposed stocktaking to some degree in our minds let us see how it is dealt with in the authentic text. It is impossible to go through the whole text nor would it be useful to do so. The dialogue consists of various turns, the order of which is not strictly fixed but which could be varied to a certain extent. Nevertheless, there is some thematic order manifested by the agenda and the internal structure of the individual points of the agenda. The chairperson or chief-executive has the status of the most senior manager and makes the decisions in the case of controversial issues. As chairperson he opens the meeting by calling the first point of the agenda: (1) I would suggest that we start with the agenda immediately. We wrote on the agenda again the company’s progress in the first quarter of the new financial year with which we can on the whole be really very satisfied […] Because at all events […] regarding turnover things look in general better. […] By and large I think we are about one per cent below last year’s figures […] We had overall planned on a minus of three per cent – so at any event we can be satisfied.

In (1) the chief-executive uses the ‘hedged performative’ I would suggest which is not really a suggestion but a declarative speech act setting up the first point of the agenda in a polite manner that characterizes his sense of business culture for the company. Politeness is manifested in his way of chairing the meeting: the strategy is persuasion, motivation, not power. This is obviously the strategy of modern western companies which, however, says nothing about the toughness of the negotiation procedure. He calls this first point the company’s progress which, strictly speaking, indicates a propositional topic. The action is only grasped at the level of locution by write on the agenda. The gap between the locution of what is said and the illocution of what is meant is not bridged even if the talk is clearly structured and demonstrates that the chairperson has a good grasp of what has to be done in practice:

Figure 6

function

(proposition)

dialogic purpose

(state of affairs)

to write on the agenda

(the company’s progress)

53

54

Edda Weigand

The question is: Did we comply with our plan? which is not simply a question of knowledge but a question that includes evaluating a network of variables. The chairperson has already decided this issue in his mind. He reports on economic data and evaluates the correlation of plan and result. Evaluating presupposes reporting. In our case, the specific speech acts refer to business affairs expressed in the proposition: F

(p)

representativeEVALUATIVE

(state of economic affairs)

we can be satisfied

– with the financial quarter – that we are one per cent below the previous year

Figure 7

The next step in the process of stocktaking refers to differentiating the overall result as indicated by the chairperson according to specific regions and sectors. For this purpose, the chairperson allots the turns to the other managers who are responsible for specific regions asking them to report on their part. Again he is very polite and uses indirect speech acts: (2) We can go straight away to the sectors again. I don’t know if you want to comment on any individual aspects. Are there any comments anyone would like to make?

Even if we can assume that he already knows the data for the different regions, this data has to be brought to the table. The chairperson’s explorative speech act Are there any comments anyone would like to make? initiates a sequence of reports which are classified as comments, i.e. not really as news but as illustrative or more precise details. The dialogue thus continues with several reports on the respective regions, for instance: (3) But we can see quite clearly […] that in my sector the East is making a negative contribution. […] For that reason the relationship to the plan is of course significantly negative because there had been a lot of optimism and confidence. (4) You could say: OK everything’s still fine in Bavaria. Well, there too we have significant problems. […] Well, the Munich shops have been making a loss.

Again we see both comments are immediately connected with numbers, calculated as a relationship between planned and achieved results.



Professional action games. Theory and practice

The next step in analysing and evaluating the course of the company calls for reasoning as it is expressed by one of the managers: (5) What’s the reason then why our figures are so good?

The reasons for being profitable or unprofitable are seen in specific measurements that have been taken in different regions: (6) And I can only emphasise: it’s very important for our branches in the East to have special stock. (7) And things … I just want to mention this at this point again have gone very well in Münster. Well the closing down sell in Münster was really great and we really managed to sell off lots of old stock. (8) And could I just add again: Payback-Card. Payback was also a really very very great help in the West. That’s an important point … that really caused gigantic interest…

These different practical measurements are evaluated with respect to their influence on calculating the numbers. Evaluations are pervasive throughout the whole meeting, for instance: (9) That’s gigantic. Our expectations regarding Payback were exceeded tenfold. […] Sensational. (10) It’s a fantastic marketing instrument too. (11) If we look at the following: it’s in the area of watches for young people that we’ve dramatically lost ground […]

What the chairperson has called the company’s progress has thus been dealt with in a dialogic game of stocktaking by means of a sequence which goes through the following steps: – stating the relationship between planned and achieved results by expressing it in numbers – evaluating the overall result – differentiating the overall result for specific regions and sectors – reasoning by relating different results to specific measurements – evaluating the measurements The chairperson summarises the result of the talk at the end of this first point: (12) But even so I would say that I believe we can say today – as in recent years too – that we will jointly achieve the goal we’ve set ourselves […] Because that’s an important number too.

55

56

Edda Weigand

Stocktaking thus has achieved a positive result. Let us now structure the second point of the agenda which is called defending the results: (13) Yes, well the results are great. And of course the more exciting bit starts now: defending the results. That’s an unaccustomed pleasure. But it also hurts, doesn’t it? Because up to now we’ve always hoped that there’d be a positive result. And now it really hurts […] when there’s some money in the till that you’ve got to take some out again each month.

What is meant is the action game of planning, i.e. drawing conclusions from stocktaking to the issue of how to continue the positive course in the future. Planning means setting up the future goal and deciding on the measurements to be taken. We can thus expect the following sequence of actions: planning fixing the goal

→

proposals

→

evaluating

of how to achieve the goal

the proposals

→

deciding the course of the action

Figure 8

Let us see how the authentic meeting deals with this point. Whereas during the first point of stocktaking the senior executive could restrict himself to chairing the meeting and allotting the turns to his colleagues, he now becomes dominant when future success or losses are at stake. Most of the time he is speaking; he decides and determines the course of action. Thus he declares the goal: (14) Our goal is roughly 10 million. […] that in principle that every month’s result has always to be considerably better than the previous result.

And he determines the strategic measurements: (15) I think the chances aren’t bad. But in the final analysis everything depends primarily on turnover and gross proceeds. Right? And of course what’s important in defending the results is that we single-mindedly put into practice our restructuring measures in order to get rid of old stock. Perhaps a word about our products: […] And we had announced and discussed the following measure with regard to that. That we want to recall the goods from the branches […] that we want to send out recall lists […]

The other managers have the right to make proposals. To give an example: the chair had proposed:



Professional action games. Theory and practice

(16) … beforehand we want to communicate with each other as follows: every employee can buy a maximum of two items for their own personal use. But it is expressly not allowed to sell these on to a third party.

One of his colleagues very cautiously questions this decision: (17) Is that right, two items?

The chair makes clear that he is prepared to discuss this point: (18) We can discuss that.

After a short discussion he decides: (19) Well, shall we say three? Agreed? Three items per employee. The precise procedure will be laid out again. That’s dealt with that topic, hasn’t it? Right?

We clearly see how the hierarchy of status functions finds expression in specific speech acts but, on the other hand, we also see that politeness is attributed a high value by the business culture of this company. Now let us bring both subgames together as the main pillars of ‘strategy meetings’. Strategy in business means relating any step to the uppermost interest win. The action game of planning is profiled as a follow-up activity to stocktaking. From reasoning about the past, proposals on future measurements are derived and specific strategic decisions taken. In this way, ‘strategy meetings’ manifest themselves as games of decision-making. strategy meeting stocktaking

↔

looking back

win

evaluating the results

planning drawing conclusions setting up new goals and suitable measurements

Figure 9

Stocktaking and planning are expressions taken from ordinary language use, expressions for processes that guide and control human action not only in business but in general. Often planning is not clearly distinguished from problem solving (e.g. Fritz 1982), and indeed there is a certain affinity which, in some cases, can make it difficult to separate both action games. I would however see a difference between a game of ‘problem solving’ which starts from a problematic,

57

58

Edda Weigand

uncomfortable situation (e.g. we are making losses) and aims at elaborating ways of solving this problem and, on the other hand, a game of ‘planning’ which, to my mind, starts from fixing the goal and aims at tracing paths, evaluating and deciding on measurements to achieve this goal, if possible by taking into account the results of previous stocktaking. Whereas in ‘problem solving’ the issue is an open question: “What is to be done?” and even includes eliminating the problematic affair, the issue in ‘planning’ means fulfilling certain criteria known from the very outset, for instance, in our case, continuing the successful course of action. I think it has become obvious that we need an integrative approach combining reflection and empirical analysis by goal-oriented observation in order to get an insight into and achieve a deeper understanding of what is going on in such complex games as strategic management meetings. Even if the senior executive does not have action theoretic terms at his disposal, from experience he knows the decisive steps to be taken. It is his economic and rhetorical competence-in-practice­ that enables him to successfully chair the session. He has decision-making­ power which at the same time is directive power. He decides on the goals and the essential measurements that will lead to practical actions. His decisions are expressed, on the one hand, by declarative speech acts that create fixed points of orientation, and, on the other hand, by directive speech acts with binding strength that initiate and determine the course of actions. The hierarchy of positions we can observe at the top level runs through the whole company. As a whole the company represents a cooperative ingroup that has a joint goal and interest. The hierarchical structure attributes different status functions to the individual members and subgroups. The subgroups are at the same time in- and intergroups that will sometimes compete or have conflicts with each other even if they all have to coordinate their activities for the benefit of the company. 6. Conclusion I think it has become obvious that language use primarily means language action. Whenever we analyse language, we have to consider language use as a part of the communicative means which also include cognitive and perceptual means. These different types of means rely on different human abilities which cannot be separated. Many other consequences are to be drawn from this post-Cartesian insight: the premise of orthodox speech act theory that we act by speaking expresses only half of the issue. We act by speaking, thinking, and perceiving in integration on the basis of principles of probability. The level of action is the basis of the mixed game which includes rhetoric, culture and emotion.



Professional action games. Theory and practice

The issue of professional business games poses a big challenge because it represents a complex whole of interests and objectives which are differently addressed in different cultures. Authentic texts are a valuable practical resource from which we can learn if we take the text as an integrated part of the whole. It is not simply observation, i.e. recording and transcribing, but observing guided by a specific question which will help us make progress in analysing what is going on in practice and in developing a theory which can explain practice. References Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. London etc.: Oxford University Press. Cho, Yongkil. 2005. Grammatik und Höflichkeit im Sprachvergleich. Direktive Handlungsspiele des Bittens, Aufforderns und Anweisens im Deutschen und Koreanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fisher, Roger, Ury, William and Patton, Bruce. 1991. Getting to Yes. Negotiating agreement without giving in. (2nd ed) New York: Penguin Books. Fritz, Gerd. 1982. Kohärenz. Grundfragen der linguistischen Kommunikationsanalyse. Tübingen: Narr. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana (ed.) in collaboration with Liliana Hoinărescu. 2006. Cooperation and Conflict in Ingroup and Intergroup Communication. Selected papers from the Xth Biennial Congress of the IADA, Bucharest 2005. Bucharest: University of Bucharest. Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward O. 2005. Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey: World Scientific. Martinet, André. 1975. “Functional linguistics. La linguistique fonctionnelle.” In Studies in Funct­ ional Syntax. Études de syntaxe fonctionnelle, André Martinet (ed.), 9–81. München: Fink. Rapaille, Clotaire. 2007. The Culture Code. An Ingenious Way to Understand Why People Around the World Buy and Live as They Do. New York: Broadway Books. Schnöring, Stefanie. 2007. Kommunikation im Spiegel der Unternehmenskultur. Dialogisches Handeln und unternehmerische Zwecke. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1999. Mind, Language and Society. Philosophy in the Real World. London: Phoenix. Toulmin, Stephen. 2001. Return to Reason. Cambridge, Mass/London: Harvard University Press. Trompenaars, Fons and Hampden-Turner, Charles. 1997. Riding the Waves of Culture. Under­ standing Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, (2nd ed). Weigand, Edda. 2006. “Principles of dialogue. With a special focus on business dialogues.” In Cooperation and Conflict in Ingroup and Intergroup Communication. Selected Papers from the Xth Biennial Congress of the IADA, Bucharest 2005. Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), in collaboration with Liliana Hoinărescu, 35–51. Bucharest: University of Bucharest. Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue. Sebastian Feller (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

59

Managing the director’s views Decision making in a small firm context Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Decision making (DM) is at the heart of human activity and has attracted a lot of interest over the years. Especially in the workplace, negotiating alternatives, revisiting and making new decisions, constitute a daily reality for most employees. Despite its importance, decision making is still relatively under researched from a linguistic perspective. Even though one can find a range of ‘decision making’ models in business literature, these models often reduce the complexity of ‘how things are getting done’ at work. Against this backdrop the aim of this paper is to discuss decision making talk in the context of a small firm and focuses on the ways in which two senior managers, and long time collaborators, draw on the complex matrix of personal and professional identities in putting forward their agendas and in reaching decisions. Special attention is paid to the ways in which the director’s suggestions are contested in this context. Research on Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and family businesses has only recently started to grow, despite their importance for all European economies and this paper attempts to address this gap. Our findings show that the personal histories of employees cannot be disentangled from other facets of their identity and that status plays a key role in the small firm decision making context.

1. Introduction (1) 33 Robert: ok this is what we are going to do then 34 Sara: ok but hang on a second

The ‘workplace’ has become the research setting for a number of sociolinguistic studies over the last twenty years. This work often focuses on the analysis of complex workplace systems and the socially situated and discursively constructed nature of ‘doing things at work’. In this context, the aim of this paper is to discuss decision making (DM) talk in the context of a small company. SMEs and ­family

62

Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

businesses have been characterised as the ‘backbone’ or European economies. According to the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), SMES constitute 99.9% of all companies in the UK and account for 59.8% of employment and 49% of total turnover in the UK. (BIS 2010: 1). Despite these figures SMEs are still relatively under researched (compared to large and multinational companies). Special attention is paid here to the relationship between DM and the participants’ discourse resources in negotiating each other’s views. This is illustrated in the first excerpt where Robert, the company’s director, makes a declaration which will be immediately contested by Sara, a senior manager and 10 year collaborator. DM is central in any workplace but has received relatively little (socio)linguistic attention and particularly in the context of SMEs (small-medium enterprises) where the role and identities (see Angouri and Marra 2011) of the participants often get blurred in a network of professional and personal histories. Nutt (1984) defines the DM process as “the set of activities that begin with the identification of an issue and ends with an action” (Nutt 1984: 415). Even though Nutt expressed this view over 25 years ago, it still represents a popular understanding of DM, that of a step by step process. Classical decision making models (see also Mintzberg 1973, March and Olsen 1989, Hofer and Schendel 1978) suggest that order and rationality, a cognitive process in which each step logically follows the one before/after, play a crucial role in the DM process. This process typically begins with the identification of the problem (cf. Angouri and Bargiela-Chiappini 2011), the formulation of possible alternatives, the evaluation of each alternative’s potential consequences, and in the end the decision maker chooses the alternative which better suits their needs and leads to the preferred outcomes. In terms of an organisation this can be translated to the creation of a formal planning system (Lorange and Vancil 1977) every time a decision needs to be reached. Recent research however has shown the limitations of these models and the gap between this neatly organized DM activity and the messy nature of DM at work (Huisman 2001, Miller et al. 1996, Boden 1994). DM activities cannot be described as concrete and identifiable events and decisions are not reached in an

. While the terms ‘role’ and ‘identity’ are often used interchangeably the conceptual differences have been discussed in theories of identity (see e.g. Stets and Burke 2000). Even though a detailed discussion goes beyond the scope of this paper we consider ‘doing’ (role) and ‘being’ (identity) inextricably linked and in an ongoing mutually sustainable relationship. In this paper we refer to roles in relation to the temporary context of the interaction and to professional identity as broader umbrella term.



Decision making in a small firm context

explicit and linear way. As Miller’s work (1996) has shown, DM is going through a process of “cycling and recycling information and alternatives” (Miller 1996: 299). Linguistic research has also shown the ‘fluid’ nature of decisions; Boden (1994) has convincingly challenged the idea that decisions can be spotted and defined out of the context of the interaction in which they were enacted. Adding to this, Huisman (2001) argues that decisions are “inherently fluid” and cannot be attributed to one utterance only. Fisher and Ellis (1990), from a different perspective also note that “the process of emergence is gradual and cumulative” (1990: 153). During a group’s interaction, a decision might emerge but the group members more often than not continue the discussion, express different opinions, modify the ‘decision’, clarify it, agree or disagree. In fact decisions are progressively modified and re-modified during the course of the interaction and are “discursively dispersed and fragmented” (Atkinson 1996: 96). In the same context, Hollnagel (2007) is also critical of the classical DM models and supports that DM is not a rational process where each alternative is evaluated according to a strict planning system. Decisions emerge in and from group members’ interactions. These everyday interactions within a workplace setting actively shape and are shaped by the coconstructed norms and social relationships of the participants which cannot be captured by static ‘one size fits all’ models. As Sarangi and Robert (1999) point out “decision making is not simply out there waiting to be realised in some commonsense way” (Sarangi and Robert 1999: 34). Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to discuss DM talk in the context of a small but rapidly growing retail company and to focus on two senior members of the team Sara and Robert. We focus on talk that follows a suggestion/declaration as to a possible way of action and the resources the senior managers draw upon in defending/challenging their views. For the needs of this paper, decisions are seen as constructs which the participants understand as committing the company/ employees to a certain course of action. We distinguish between decisions and suggestions/ declarations which may or not reach a decision status. The paper is organised as follows; we start by discussing some idiosyncratic features of small business and how they may influence the DM process. We then turn to the analysis of data from business meetings and we discuss how the participants’ relationships play a role in shaping the interaction. We close the paper by highlighting aspects of the organisational process the participants go through in instantiating DM in this white-collar context and the implications of our study.

. The distinction refers to the force of the utterance.

63

64 Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

2. DM in small businesses Decision making models distinguish between rational, cognitive and emotional factors affecting the process (see Sari 2008 for an overview); while (empirical) knowledge of facts plays an important role in DM, others (e.g. Etzioni 1992) suggest that decisions are embedded in a social context where the relational and emotional aspects are key to the process. Etzioni (1986, 1987) juxtaposes logical-empirical and normative-affective considerations in DM and notes that “to a significant extent, cognition, inference, and judgment are not logical-empirical endeavours but governed by normative-affective (noncognitive) factors, reflecting individual, psycho-dynamic and […] collective processes” (Etzioni 1987: 127). This becomes particularly relevant to the small firm context. As relevant business literature has shown (e.g. Holliday 1995, Spence 1999, Granovetter 2000) small firms differ from large companies not only in size but also in the way business is done. The most relevant for the discussion here is the well discussed importance of personal relationships. Given the small workforce (often seniority carrying a team initiated by the more weight than expertise c power-full c o Final decision ratified by the r company’s director d i n Personal standing in the g Talking on behalf of the team company identity-common team preference t o Evidence based argumentation n o r m s Personal and social relationships

Graph 1.  Discourse strategies in challenging a decision in Orion

In line with other work on small companies (Carson and Gilmore 2000), the director is often the key actor and decision maker. This is clearly shown in all the excerpts discussed here with Robert making his temporal and institutional roles explicit. Sara on the other hand draws on a wider range of strategies which she adjusts to the local context in order to persuade the others by constructing herself in a way which empowers her positioning. While Robert is a key actor, Sara seems to construct herself as ‘second in command’ in this tightly knit community. She typically (but not always) avoids challenging Robert directly despite having strong views. She skillfully and powerfully influences the interaction towards her agenda. Sara draws on the close professional and personal relationship with Robert, something that can be easier done in more informal contexts like this one.

77

78

Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

From this point of view she claims multiple identities and roles within the context of a single interaction in order to achieve consensus with Robert (see also Aronsson 1998 on “identity-in-interaction” and “social choreography” on the dialogic relationship and local dimensions of identity construction). Sara adopts different strategies but in the majority of the meetings she draws on her relationship with Robert outside the meeting context to enact a more powerful standing towards the rest of the team and successfully interweaves the ‘here and now’ of the interaction with the broader social or institutional order (Sarangi & Roberts 1999, Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris 1997, Boden 1994). At the same time both senior managers attempt (and succeed) to influence one another by projecting and shifting identities and roles such as status, expertise, collegiality. The negotiation of the power relations between the participants reflects how members of this particular community perceive their positioning within the work group and the company. 10. Conclusions We close this paper by going back to our initial point, that decision making process is neither linear nor apparent but embedded in complex work practices. The data analysis showed that decisions emerged from the group members’ interactions which shape and are shaped by the joint construction of the local contexts and the participants’ identity negotiation. As the interactants discuss alternative proposals, they try to persuade each other, directly and indirectly and to accept or reject each other’s suggestions. They draw on a shared repertoire of linguistic strategies and accepted behaviours that are perceived to be unmarked and expected within their context. However variation in practices and idiosyncrasies are evident even when the same participants interact. DM activities are characterised by a “simultaneous flow of parallel courses of action occurring within the centre and between the centre and other contexts” (Alby and Zucchermaglio 2006: 945). It is in the diverse interaction contexts that the constant, ongoing and direct identity negotiation and the power “shifts” between the participants become apparent. By bringing together research on the features of small businesses and sociolinguistic analysis of DM talk, we attempted to pave the way for studies that will shed light on this complex phenomenon. Socio/linguistic research in decision making focuses on the linguistic enactment of ‘decisions’ and typically draws on real life discourse data and case studies. At the same time business approaches to DM focus on models that attempt to capture the factors that influence the way decisions are reached in corporate environments and aim to generalise the findings. Studies typically draw on self reported data. Subsequently the two areas of scholarship have different agendas and remain insulated in disciplinary boundaries.



Decision making in a small firm context

Both fields however could and should engage in a dialogic relationship. Linguistic research can provide with a detailed micro-analysis of how things actually happen. Talking about DM processes constitutes a construct and as March (1994) highlights “[Decision makers’] memories are less recollections of history than constructions based on what they thought might happen and reconstructions based on what they now think must have happened, given their present beliefs” (March 1994: 17, see also Alby and Zucchermaglio 2006). March’s work is particularly significant in indicating the limitations of self reported data where senior managers reconstruct the DM event for and with the researcher. Business studies however can provide with a wealth of knowledge on managers’ perceptions. The rich literature in that field has identified factors that are relevant to the way things are done and offer a good understanding of the broader business context. Given that, as linguists, we often have to work on fragmented datasets (where issues of access and anonymity are well documented in relevant literature) a dialogue can be mutually beneficial and contribute to a ‘mapping’ of the broader workplace context.

References Alby, Francesca and Zucchermaglio, Christina. 2006. ‘Afterwards we can understand what went wrong, but now let’s fix it’: How situated work practices shape group decision making. Organization Studies 27(7). Andersson, Lynne and Pearson, Christine. 1999. “Tit-for-tat: The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace”. Academy of Management Review 24: 452–471. Angouri, Jo and Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2011. “ ‘So what problems bother you and you are not speeding up your work?’ Problem solving talk at work”. Discourse & Communication 5(3): 209–229. Angouri, Jo and Marra, Meredith. 2011. “Ok one last thing for today then”: Constructing corporate identities in meeting talk. In Constructing Identities at Work, Jo Angouri and Meredith Marra (eds.), London: Palgrave. Aronsson, Karin. 1998. “Identity in interaction and social choreography”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 75–89. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Herritage, John (eds.). 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Harris, Sandra. 1997. Managing Language: The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barron, Brigit. 2000. “Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups”. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(4): 403–436. Billett, Stephen. 2004. “Learning through work: Workplace participatory practices”. In Workplace Learning in Context, H. Rainbow, A. Fuller & A. Munroe. Routledge: London. BIS. 2010. Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) Statistics for the UK and Regions 2009. Statistical Press Release. Available from http://stats.bis.gov.uk/ed/sme/Stats_Press_release_ 2009.pdf. (Accessed January 2011).

79

80 Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The Business of Talk. Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert. 1960. “The pronouns of power and solidarity.” In Style in Language, T. A. Sebeok, 253–76. MIT press: Cambridge. Clegg, Sue. 2008. “Academic Identities under Threat?”. British Educational Research Journal 34(3): 329–345. Collins, E. Barry and Guetzkow, Harold Steere. 1964. A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley. Cooley. Daly, Nicola, Holmes, Janet, Newton, Jonathan and Stubbe, Maria. 2004. “Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor”. Journal of Pragmatics 36(5): 945–964. Davis, James. 1969. Group Performance. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. De Fina, Anna, Schiffrin, Deborah and Bamberg, Michael (eds.). 2006. Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyrberg, Torben Bench. 1997. The Circular Structure of Power: Politics, Identity, Community. London: Verso Books. Dwyer Jr., Gerald P., Williams, Arlington, Battalio, Raymond C. and Mason, Timothy I. 1993. “Tests of rational expectations in a stark setting”. The Economic Journal 103: 586–601. Etzioni, Amitai. 1986. “The case for a multiple-utility conception”. Economics and Philosophy 2(2): 159–183. Etzioni, Amitai. 1987. “Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation: A macro-behavioral perspective”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 8: 175–189. Etzioni, Amitai. 1992. “The I and we paradigm”. In Real Life Economics. Understanding Wealth Creation, Paul Ekins and Manfred A. Max-Neef (eds.), 48–53. London: Routlege. Farrell, Lesley. 2000. “Ways of doing, ways of being: Language, education and ‘working’ identities”. Multilingual Matters 14(1): 18–36. Fisher, B. Aubrey and Ellis, Donald. 1990. Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fitness, Jane. 2000. “Anger in the workplace: An emotional script Approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates”. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(2): 147–162. Fuller, Alison, Munro, Anne and Rainbird, Helen. 2004. “Conclusion”. In Workplace Learning in Context, Hellen Rainbird, Alison Fuller, and Anne Munro (eds.), 299–307. London: Routledge. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture”. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3–30. New York: Basic Books. Gilmore, Audrey and Carson, David. 2000. “The demonstration of a methodology for assessing SME decision making”. Journal of Research in Marketing 2(2): 108–124. Glomb, M. Theresa. 2002. “Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters”. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7: 20–36. Granovetter, Mark. 2000. “The economic sociology of firms and entrepreneurs”. In Entre­ preneurship: The Social Science View. Richard Swedberg (ed.), 244–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guetzkow, Harold and Gyr, John. 1954. “An analysis of conflict in decision making groups”. Human Relations 7: 367–381. Gumpertz, John J. 1992. “Contextualization and Understanding”. In Rethinking‘Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds.), 229–252. Cambridge Eng: Cambridge University Press.



Decision making in a small firm context

Hofer, Charles W. and Schendel, Dan. 1978. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. New York: West Publishing. Holliday, Ruth. 1995. Investigating Small Firms: Nice Work?. London: Routledge. Hollnagel, Erik. 2007. “Decisions about “What” and decision about “How””. In Decision Making in Complex Environments. M. Cook, J. M. Noyes and Y. Masakowski (eds.). Aldershot: Ashgate. Holmes, Janet, Stubbe, Maria, and Vine, Bernadette. 1999. Constructing professional identity: “Doing power” in policy units. In Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Sarangi Srikant and Celia Roberts (eds.), 351–385. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Holmes, Janet and Stubbe, Maria. 2003. “Doing disagreement at work: A sociolinguistic approach”. Australian Journal of Communication 30(1): 53–78. Huisman, Martjin. 2001. “Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction”. International Studies of Management and Organisation 31(3): 69–90. Kelley, Harold and Thibaut, John. 1954. “Experimental studies of group problem solving and process”. In Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2). G. Lindzey (ed.), Cambridge: MA: Adisson-Wesley. Knight, T. Peter and Trowler, R. Paul. 2000. “Coming to know in higher education: Theorising faculty entry to new work contexts”. Higher Education Research and Development 19(1): 27–42. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Locher, A. Mirriam. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lorange, Peter and Vancil, F. Richard. 1977. Strategic Planning Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Marra, Meredith. 2003. Decisions in New Zealand business meetings: a sociolinguistic analysis of power at work. PhD Thesis. NZ: Victoria University of Wellington. March, G. James and Olsen, P. Johan. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press. March, James G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making. New York: Free Press. Matley, Harry. 1999. Critical Perspectives of VET in a Small Business Context. University of Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Miller, Sue J., Hickson, David J., Wilson, David C. 1996. “Decision making in organizations”. In Managing Organizations: Current Issues, Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy and Walter Nord R. (eds.), 43–62. London: Sage Publications. Mintzberg, Henry. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Hamber & Row. Mustakallio, Mikko, Autio, Erkko and Zahra, Sacher. 2002. “Relational and contractual governance in family firms: Effects on strategic decision making”. Family Business Review 15(3). Nutt, C. Paul. 1984. “Types of organizational decision processes”. Administrative Science Quarterly 3: 414–450. Ram, Mohan. 1994. Managing to Survive: Working Lives in Small Firms. Oxford: Blackwell. Ram, Mohan. 1999. “Managing autonomy: Employment relations in small professional service firms”. International Small Business Journal 17(2): 13–30. Sarangi, Srikant and Roberts, Celia (eds.). 1999. Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

81

82

Jo Angouri and Evi Angelidou

Sarangi, Srikant. 2000. “Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: The case of genetic counselling”. In Discourse and Social Life, Sarangi Srikant and Coulthard Malcom (eds.), 1–27. London: Pearson. Sari, Enver. 2008. “The relations between decision making in social relationships and decision making styles”. Word Applied Sciences Journal 3(3): 369–381. Schieman, Scott. 2006. “Anger.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. Jan E. Stets and Jonathan H. Turner (eds.), 493–515. New York: Springers. Schieman, Scott and Reid, Sarah. 2008. “Job authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace”. Work and Occupations 35: 296–326. Schriesheim, Chester and Bird, Barbara. 1979. “Contributions of the Ohio state studies to the field of leadership”. Journal of Management 5: 135–145. Spence, J. Laura. 1999. “Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics”. Business Ethics: A European Review 8(3): 163–174. Spence, J. Laura. 2004. “Small firm accountability and integrity”. In Corporate Integrity and Accountability, George G. Brenckert (ed.), 115–128. California: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 1993. “Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics research”. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 27–47. Stets, E. Jane and Burke, J. Peter. 2000. “Identity theory and social identity theory”. Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 224–237. Vine, Bernadette. 2004. Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wartenberg, Thomas. 1990. The Forms of Power. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press.

Appendix 1 Transcription conventions All names used in extracts are pseudonyms. Standard orthography is used in the extracts except where noted. Line divisions are intended to support understanding and typically represent sense unit boundaries. There has been minor editing for ease of reading. The following conventions have been used: [ ] […] ? = ((details)) must th- (0.3)

Simultaneous speech Section of transcript omitted Questioning intonation where not obvious on paper Turn continues Transcriber’s notes Underlining indicates emphasis Cut off word Pause up to one second

Discursive hybridity at work Liliana Coposescu

Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

The notion of discursive hybridity has been put forward by Sarangi and Roberts (1999: 62) to define ‘shifting modalities – at the levels of identity, modes of talk, socialization into communities of practice, negotiation of backstage/frontstage, etc. – but in an orderly and organized way’. The paper examines intercultural data in two types of social interactions at the place of work: selection interviews for future professionals in Social Work, and telephone conferences in two multinational companies in Braşov. The aim is to examine shifting modalities, suggesting that the hybrid nature of these types of social interaction help both reproduce and construct new discursive practices in intercultural encounters. The analysis focuses on the way in which participants deal with hypotheticals, narratives, and small talk.

1. Introduction The notion of discursive hybridity has been put forward by Sarangi and Roberts (1999) in their search for an overarching theme for papers in the volume dealing with medical practices and health care delivery. They define discursive hybridity as “shifting modalities – at the levels of identity, modes of talk, socialization into communities of practice, negotiation of backstage/frontstage, etc. – but in an orderly and organized way” (Sarangi and Roberts 1999: 62). The aim of this paper is to investigate the interdiscursivity between the professional/institutional and personal modes of talk in two different settings: selection interviews for future professionals on Social Work and Health Promotion, and two international companies in Braşov where English is used as the language of communication at work among people that are far removed from one another in space. The intercultural data have been collected during empirical research conducted by the author in Romania between 1999 and 2010, on two different occasions: doing research for the doctoral degree and for a CNCSIS-funded two-year

84

Liliana Coposescu

project which was conducted between 2007–2008 by a team of academics from the Faculty of Languages and Literatures and the Department of Sociology from Transilvania University of Braşov. This paper aims at filling the gap in existing research in intercultural communication by the discourse analysis of data which have not been studied yet: that of interactions in English as a lingua franca between speakers of different cultural backgrounds and Romanians. I have adopted Candlin’s understanding of discourse, as a means of talking and writing about and acting upon worlds, a means which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds, and in so doing both reproduces and constructs afresh particular social-discursive­ practices.  (Candlin 1997: VIII)

This definition points to the view that discourse is action, is related to social practices, and is constructed/negotiated in the process of communication. This becomes even more salient when the discourse is produced in intercultural encounters, when participants come from different cultural backgrounds and have different expectations about the encounter. Discourse analysis may explore ways in which linguistic options chosen by individuals can be interpreted as serving to construct and reinforce social behaviour and social practices in institutions. According to Candlin, it also involves looking into “exclusions, the meanings that are unwelcome and non-functional in given contexts” (1997: IX). These exclusions are part of a system of constraints, extra-linguistic, social motivations for selecting or rejecting of a given discourse. In intercultural encounters, where there may be different expectations regarding accepted discursive and social behaviour, we expect to find instances of negotiation of meaning. Discourse analysis may uncover ways in which such instances are dealt with by participants. It is already widely accepted that discourses typically draw on resources of other discourses associated with other practices, which is interdiscursivity. As Candlin points out, There is an intrinsic interdiscursivity within a profession but also an interdiscursivity between profession and institution in which the former represents the achievement of licensed belonging, as it were, on the basis of accredited skill and knowledge, and the latter the potential exercise of authority, and gate-keeping, by virtue of that license.  (Candlin 1997: XI–XII)

The professions in this study are future social workers and accredited software engineers (developers). The gate-keepers are the interviewers in the case of selection interviews and the clients or team leaders in the multinational companies.



Discursive hybridity at work

The shifting ‘modes of talk’ is accounted by Roberts and Sarangi (1999), from the ‘activity type’ perspective. Drawing on Goffman’s (1981) ‘forms of talk’ and ‘footing’, the notion is used to index both specific speech acts at the linguistic level, and changing role relations at the interactional level (Roberts and Sarangi 1999: 500). In their analysis of hybrid modes of talk of oral examinations for the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK, they distinguish between three modes of talk in medical settings: the professional mode (“licensed belonging on the basis of accredited skills and knowledge”), the institutional mode (the interview talk as the exercise of authority and gatekeeping), and the personal experience mode (Roberts and Sarangi 1999: 482). All three modes of talk are present in the oral examinations, in different configurations, but the institutional mode dominates. The interdiscursive phenomena analysed in this paper concern shifts signalled through hypothetical scenarios, narratives, and small talk, and at the pragmatic level “through self-presentation, role-relationships, legitimation of authority, etc.” (Sarangi 1998: 305–306). The paper then investigates the ‘discursive hybridity’, shifts from ‘interview talk’/‘professional mode of talk to ‘small talk’ or to ‘narratives’, in selection interviews and telephone conferences. In the following section I will describe the data collected for the study, focusing on the characteristic institutional features of the selection interviews and telephone conferences. 2. Data collection The first set of data consists of audio-recordings of interviews involving the selection of students for a post-university course in Social Work and Health Promotion within a Tempus project in which the Sociology Department from Transilvania University has been involved as a partner university. The selection board is made up of two Romanians and two Irish natives. The language of the interview is English, with the provision that switching to Romanian is allowed if candidates encounter language problems. The candidates selected for the course are expected to have some sort of experience in social work, and also to do practice work abroad. The second set of data consists of audio-recordings in two multinational companies. One company is specialised in software and mechanical engineering services, with 700 employees all over the world. It started functioning in 2006, with 2 foreigners, a Belgian technical advisor and an Indian employee, and 40 Romanian employees. The official language is English, and the daily communication involves

85

86 Liliana Coposescu

both face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences. The latter is a Romanian company with American shareholders. It is specialised in automatic industry and was founded in 1997. All employees in Braşov are Romanians, including the management. They get into direct relationships with their clients all over Europe and the United States. The communication in English takes place over the telephone via internet connection in what is called Virtual Networking Communication, in short VNC. The recordings were done in 2007. We have recorded three types of communicative activities in English: 1. Telephone conferences, which is a speech event in which members of a work team from the company in Braşov (between 2 and 5 members in a team) talk on the telephone with their team leaders in the mother company, or/and with other team members based in companies in other countries than Romania. 2. Work-meetings conducted by the Belgian technical advisor, where there is a pre-set agenda, and talk is mainly task-related. 3. VNC sessions (Virtual Networking Communication). 2.1

Selection interviews

Research oriented towards various types of interviews has contributed to defining the conventionalized features that make an interview recognizable for participants and analysts as well (selection interviews have been most notably studied by Roberts 2000, Sarangi 1998, Roberts and Sarangi 1999). Selection interviews are professional-layperson interactions or gate-keeping encounters, in the sense that there are individuals who have been given the authority to make decisions on the behalf of institutions that will affect the mobility of others. The goal of selection interviews is to assess the candidates’ potential for the training course on the basis of educational qualifications and previous work experience. The interviewee’s goal is to present him/herself in such a way as to maximise chances of being selected. The interviewer’s goal is to elicit the information needed to take the decision. The social context is asymmetrical, with an amount of power on the part of the interviewer, but there is room for personal questions. Different types of temporal references are involved depending on the topical segment of the interview. There is usually some talk about past events in the candidate’s educational background, and an exploration of skills and attitudes (via hypothetical scenarios). A distinctive feature related to allowable contributions in the particular data collected is the fact that the interaction takes place between N(ative)S(peakers)N(on)N(ative)S(peakers) but also between NNS – NNS, with the implication that the Romanian candidates can always turn to their native language if problems



Discursive hybridity at work

of understanding or interpretation occur. Thus, code-switching, translation, and interaction in Romanian are frequent phenomena in most of the interviews collected. Moreover, both NS interviewers make it explicit that the candidates can use the Romanian language whenever they want to. The areas for questioning that the board of interviewers have prepared in advance cover the following issues: – – – – – –

2.2

Relevance of past academic study to present application Current understanding of the term ‘social work’ and ‘health promotion’ Relevance of previous work experience to present application Motivation for undertaking Social Work and Health Promotion course Personal implications of undertaking this course of study Personal value base including attitude to anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice.

Telephone conferences

Telephone conferences are a particular type of work meetings, namely mediated meetings. Multinational companies are organizations where all participants are professionals, ensuring the production of professional texts/products. Work meetings are multi-party interactions, which focus on workplace business, in our case the business being consistent with the official workplace goals. They are professional activities, licensing some to belong, but also institutional ones, exercising their gate-keeping role in assessing what has been done, is still to be done. In multinational companies we expect work meetings to have the representative of the mother company as the gate-keeper, but also to adapt to the expectations of the Romanian employees of what a work meeting is. Telephone conferences in our data have been defined as communicative events in which the members of a work-team in the company in Braşov (varying between two and five team members) talk on the telephone with their team-leaders in the mother-company and/or with other employees working in divisions in countries such as Hungary and Holland. Characteristically, the conference event is initiated by the team-leader and the discussions follow a pre-set agenda. The participants usually report (at the initiation of the team leader) on their work tasks, but during a telephone conference references are often being made to previous or future e-mail communication as well. A particular type of telephone conference is the so-called Virtual Networking Communication (VNC) session. VNC sessions are pre-arranged mediated work conferences during which several participants from different parts of the world

87

88

Liliana Coposescu

enter virtual networking via telephone in order to discuss work-related topics concerning the design of engines/gadgets, while sharing images on their computer screens. During such a session, one of the participants will have the control of the screen, being the one to work with images or texts seen/shared by the other participants on the screens of their computers in their respective offices. The VNC sessions, where telephone, computer screen and natural language are used simultaneously, involve technology and multimedia communication and consequently they are technologically mediated kinds of interactions. VNC sessions are multimodal in the sense that communicators draw on a variety of communicative modes or channels, of which language is but one (Iedemia and Wodak 1999, Maybury 2000, Norris 2004, 2006). Communication may be both multimedia and multimodal: telephone, computer screen and natural language are used. As I have discussed elsewhere (Coposescu 2010), these interactional modes and media may be mutually supportive. VNC sessions allow for professional talk and social talk (small talk) as well. The following sections examine shifting modalities in these two particular types of social interaction at the place of work: selection interviews and telephone conferences/VNC sessions. The analysis focuses on the way in which participants deal with hypotheticals, narratives, and small talk, how these interactional activities are included/excluded by participants as discursive ‘allowable’ contributions, and how they relate to institutional, professional or personal modes of talk. 3. Ways of dealing with hypothetical scenarios The aim of this section is to look into those instances in which the participants – gatekeepers, interviewees (as future professionals) and accredited professionals alike – accept or reject discursive practices presumably as part of a ‘system of constraints’. Hypothetical scenarios involve the ability to give options to problems and occur in both sets of data. 3.1

Hypotheticals in selection interviews

Roberts and Sarangi (1999) have argued that the hypothetical frame can be seen as a culture-specific ritual where the interviewer asks the interviewee to role-play to display a specific practical competence. In their analysis of hypothetical scenarios in oral exams for the RCGP, they have shown that the candidates’ professional competence (talk about patients) is assessed through hypothetical cases and role-plays. The problems that candidates from minority groups (though not



Discursive hybridity at work

only) encountered was caused by “a conflation of the interview frame (the institutional assessment tool involving a hypothetical case) and the consultation frame (the role-play)” (Roberts and Sarangi 1999: 496). Unlike the examples of hypothetical scenarios in Roberts and Sarangi’s data, in the selection interviews for a course on social work and health promotion, where candidates are not accredited professionals yet, hypothetical scenarios are used to assess “practice experience of Social Care, Social Work, Community Development, Health Promotion or other relevant People Centred work experience in a helping or supportive role” (cf. Criteria for Selection prepared in advance by the board of interviewers). In other words, the two examples of hypotheticals discussed in this section involve the candidates talking about imaginary situations in which their experience in a helping or supportive role might be assessed, rather than proving their professional competence. The example below shows a situation in which the hypothetical scenario is the source of interactional trouble and the candidate fails to answer the question because (s)he perceives the scenario as unexpected in a selection interview. (NS2 stands for the native speaker interviewer, RC5 stands for the Romanian candidate, RI1 stands for the Romanian interviewer). (1) 75 NS2: if you were the mayor of Braşov, RC5: if I were (.) NS2: the mayor of Braşov, RC5: ah, yes. NS2: if you had all the money that you needed 80 RC5: [laughing] I don’t know if that’s possible [laughter] RI1: let’s let’s suppose that you were the mayor and you had all the money you need for that -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------85 RC5: what can I do? (1) first, er I go there and make some fisa personala [personal record] RI1: evaluation sheet RC5: evaluation, (.) I don’t know, one month maybe, to see what are the persons, the children that come everyday 90 or (1) RI2: [the question was if you were the mayor of the town] RC5: [yes, what I would do] RI2: [what would you do for them?] RC5: yes, yes, [laughs] first I would do an analysis to see what are the needs, and 95 NS2: yes

89

90 Liliana Coposescu

RC5: and after that er actually I give what they need RI2: what a mayor ! [laughter] RC5: oh the mayor 100 RI1: yes you are the mayor RC5: oh yes, not the social worker, oh ------------------------------------------------------------------ RC5: of course, I I [laughs] yes, but, er I must to to choose the right person, 105 the social worker that can do a programme of a realistic program. I don’t know. NS2: thank you, that’s very kind. you did well, yes?

The example starts with a question, which involves the candidate role-playing the mayor of the city. Presumably, the question is intended to assess the candidate’s experience in community development or fund holding. There are three ways in which the interviewee deals with the situation. One is by denying the hypothetical (line 80), the second is by a switch from the role of a mayor to that of a strictly professional social worker (lines 86–101), and finally, he admits his failure to answer the question (“I don’t know”). I also suggest that at the level of the whole episode, the several instances of laughter initiated by the candidate point to his taking the whole hypothetical as inappropriate. In this episode there are two instances of laughter initiated by the candidate: one occurs in line 80, when the candidate herself responds to the hypothetical situation in a laughing tone. It should be noticed that laughter is associated here with the interviewee’s utterance “I don’t think if that’s possible”, referring back to the hypothesis: “if you had all the money you needed”. So, it is the candidate who signals, by laughter, that she has perceived the situation as entering into the playing mode, as opposed to the serious business at work. Notice that nobody else joins in by laughing. We can also notice that, by doubting the if situation, the candidate presumably expresses the unexpectedness of the particular hypothetical situation for the type of activity going on, as defined by her. As an evidence of this suggestion is the fact that the candidate continues to assume the role of “the social worker” writing up the children’s “personal record” and doing a “needs analysis”, in other words she lists the things she is doing in real-life work. The second occurrence of laughter is in line 104, again initiated by the candidate and not joined in by the other participants. She laughs after the Romanian interviewer has summarized the hypothetical situation in Romanian, so the candidate is, presumably, clear about the hypothetical frame set up. But again, the fact that she hesitates (line 104), then gives an incomplete answer followed by the



Discursive hybridity at work

direct answer (“I don’t know”) points to her considering the whole hypothetical situation as unexpected or inappropriate in the interviewing situation, as laughter in this case seems to show the candidate’s embarrassment rather than a response to a humorous/funny situation. The evaluation of the interviewer (line 107) is part of a closing off of a section in which the candidate has evidently not answered the question. I suggest that laughter shows here two things: on the one hand, that the candidate takes the hypothetical scenario as not a serious business, contradicting the sort of activities she might be engaged in as a social worker, and on the other hand, it points to the inappropriacy of the scenario for the type of activity she is doing. The answer given by the candidate shows that she assumes that in a selection interview she is expected to account for her actual work experience, not to be able to give options, as the hypothetical scenario involves. In Section 4 I will however show a situation in which the Romanian candidate deals successfully with the seemingly difficult case of hypotheticals, by building a narrative of her work experience. 3.2

Hypotheticals in VNC sessions

Unlike selection interviews, which are professional-layperson interactions, the VNC sessions involve only professionals at work. In a work project, for example the design of certain equipment, some components are designed by the Romanian engineers. Typically, during VNC sessions the Romanian enters virtual networking via telephone with American clients in order to discuss work-related topics concerning the design of engines/gadgets, while sharing images on their computer screens. During such a session, one of the participants (typically an American client) will have the control of the screen, being the one to work with images or texts seen/shared by the other participants on the screens of their computers in their respective offices. Sessions usually last between two and three hours, depending on the problems which need to be discussed and solved. Characteristically, during VNC sessions there are questions-answer sequences, speech acts such as requests, asking for information, and multimodal episodes, where such communicative actions as speaking, pointing, drawing, deleting, scrolling, looking, combine to ensure successful communication. The VNC sessions are professional activities, licensing participants to feel that they belong to the same community of professionals, but also institutional ones, since the American clients exercise their gatekeeping role in assessing what has been done and is still to be done. Considering the above-mentioned characteristic features of VNC sessions, hypotheticals have a different communicative role from the scenarios ­encountered

91

92

Liliana Coposescu

in selection interviews. They are not an institutional tool meant to ‘assess’ professional competence, but to ‘license’ one particular way of professional practice. Hypotheticals have been found in the data in episodes where discussions of various work alternatives have been put forward and choices had to be made. The example below is meant to illustrate how a possibility (the conditional) needs to be turned into certainty, a ‘licensed’ practice, before the episode ends. (R stands for the Romanian participant, A1 and A2 stand for the American participants). (2) 1 R: it’s ok if you provide me a layer with dimension. (2) I can show those dimensions in drawing. A1: ah you can make it work. 5 R: yes I can. I think I can. (.) //without A1: // you R: without the name of dimension. I will I will initialise the layer I will visit (.) the item the layer item and if uhm the layer item its dimension, 10 I will uhm incilise and I will show on uhm on uhm drawing. A1: ok so that gets to say that it gives us thi: choice so to speak we wanna hard code these dimensions into the engine (.) or we would prefer to take the layer approach. R: uhm I prefer a layer. 15 A1: if you get it to work it’s a much cleaner solution for sure. basically it’s [unclear] D. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A2: so are we hundred percent sure that we can do it by layer? (4) I wanna understand M= 20 A1: =yeah M are you are you hundred percent sure? R: yes. A1: he’s a hundred percent sure. A2: he’s a hundred percent sure. so then, what we have to do then is take a layer approach (.) I think,

In the extract above the American clients are discussing with the Romanian, the service provider, the approach to be taken in the product design. It is the Romanian participant to set up the hypothetical scenario in lines 1–3 and 7–10 (“if you provide me with the layer dimension I can show those dimensions in drawing”), opening up another possible approach to the design. In lines 11–13 the



Discursive hybridity at work

American client reinforces the two alternatives they have, and a choice is made by the Romanian. It is interesting to notice that A1 and A2 reinforce the need of correct understanding of the action and of the Romanian’s professional ability to perform the task, as a way of reaching the consensual agreement about the way in which the task will be achieved. We have thus seen that hypothetical scenarios are discursive practices that occur in both work settings, albeit they are institutionalized in selection interviews and a professional mode of talk in VNC sessions. We have also seen that the Romanian interviewee ‘excluded’ hypothetical scenarios from her/his expectation of what a selection interview means, whereas conditionals seem to be part-andparcel of professional talk in work-related conversations in multinational companies. The suggestion is that hypothetical scenario, as institutionalized tool of assessing professional competence (Roberts and Sarangi 1999: 496) may indeed be culture-specific in selection interviews, and its reproduction in the Romanian context leads to unsuccessful performance on the part of the candidate. On the other hand, it seems to be part of successful professional talk in the multinational company. 4. The construction of narratives In all sets of data there are segments of conversation amenable to a generic description, when one of the participants takes the floor and is allowed to dominate the conversation for an extended period. Thus, story-telling episodes were identified in terms of their structural organisation (abstract, orientation, complication action, resolution, cf. Labov 1972). Specific studies on narrative accounts, or stories, appear in studies of informal and formal contexts, such as casual conversations, research interviews, institutional settings and professional encounters. These studies retain distinctive markings of theoretical and methodological stances, focusing either on defining the features of different narratives (for example, Eggins and Slade 1997), or on the interactional processes of story-telling, which is the tenet of Conversation Analysis (Huthcby and Wooffitt 1998). The aim in exemplifying narratives in this chapter is to see the function of narration in selection interviews, telephone conferences, and VNC sessions, how dimensions of social identity are being expressed by telling a story, and how stories are produced and developed through the interactional work of co-participants in such encounters. Narration is also seen as a shift at the discursive level, in other words, an illustration of discursive hybridity at work.

93

94 Liliana Coposescu

.

4.1

Narration in selection interviews

As mentioned in Section 2.1, in selection interviews there is usually some talk about past events in the candidate’s educational background, so narration is an expected mode of talk. The example below is meant to illustrate how narration is used strategically by the Romanian interviewee to cope with the seemingly difficult case of hypothetical scenarios. (RI1 stands for Romanian interviewer, and RC1 stands for the Romanian candidate). (3) RI1: → RC1: 160 RI1: RC1: RI1: RC1:

how can you help if there is a gypsy baby? gypsy baby from health point of view or from family? let’s say you have a gypsy baby in your house let’s say I do have a gypsy baby in my (low voice) house and are there? many proposals from authorities we:re, if I cannot solve the case (unclear) to offer the child for international adoption. 165 and I said no. I will try to work as hard as possible to find in Romania a family or to try to change a little bit mentality (.) I worked at pro democracy and pro democracy association having the purpose to change mentality of the citizens in some issues, 170 social environment and so on. so I know how to approach a little bit the problem in order to make them realise that a child is a child. no gypsy, no man, no Chinese, no Japanese, 175 a child it’s a human being (.) who has to be respected. so we have found the families already, but unfortunately they don’t want [unclear]. and for this child I have er moves that might be in the southern part of the country, families, 180 or I contact them and I will find a family so usually I try to find families even for gypsies. if it’s not possible I will see (.) because I never had such a kids. ?: [unclear] RC1 [interrupts]: so I won’t put (.) 185 never ever I won’t put ever in a state institution after being in a house. one way or another I’ll do something.



Discursive hybridity at work

The episode starts with the Romanian interviewer framing the hypothetical with the question “how can you help if there is a gypsy baby?”, which is followed by a clarification question on the part of the candidate. We can notice that it is not the scenario which is repaired, but the frame which the candidate could select: the medical or the social. It is interesting to notice though that the interviewee implies that a baby can be characterised as gypsy both socially and medically. The choice among multiple interpretations seems to be issue for the repair done. The answer to the question is produced only when the hypothetical frame is broken and the Romanian interviewer reframes the question into the candidate’s experienced reality: “Are there gypsies in your (institution)?” So, it seems that there is a negotiation of frames going on at the beginning, namely the hypothetical vs. what I would call ‘experienced reality’, to refer to reporting experiences. In the subsequent talk done by the candidate this is exactly what the interviewee does: she relates the hypothetical case to a similar case that she has already experienced. The instances of ‘experienced reality’ are illustrated by verbs in the present or past indicative mood, first personal singular or the institutional ‘we’. Since reporting past experience is done, discursively, through narrative discourse, a look at the ‘resolution’ of the narrative might give us a clue to the point that the interviewee wants to make by the selected reporting. I have identified three instances of resolutions expressed linguistically by the marker ‘so’ (Schiffrin 1987: 203). The first one in line 171, by which the candidate explicitly makes the point of her reporting to have worked with Pro Democracy (in Romanian, Pro Democraţia): “so I know how to approach a little bit the problem in order to make them realise that a child is a child…”. The second point she wants to make is expressed in line 181 (“so usually I try to find families even for gypsies”). Notice that here the interviewee explicitly relates her experience to the gypsy situation envisaged by the interviewer. The last one is in lines 184–186, when the candidate interrupts the interviewer to make the general point. I thus interpret the use of ‘so’ as closure for the narrative of the real. The last utterance, “one way or another I’ll do something”, demonstrates that the candidate opens up other possibilities of acting in similar situations. When taking part in an interview, the candidates are often advised to avoid negative statements, because negation appears as a phenomenon which unbalances relationships, creates tension between interlocutors and induces negative thinking […] effective communication in the workplace attempts to reduce negative expressions used both in writing and in the oral discourse.  (Măda 2011: 123)

95

96 Liliana Coposescu

In Example (3) above, the interviewee uses twelve negative expressions which could have affected the overall impression of the interviewer upon the candidate. In this particular case, by means of hypothetical framing, the impact of negation is suspended. I may conclude that the candidate aligns herself to the ‘telling’ format initiated by the interviewer to build a narrative of her work experience. I suggest that the candidate’s shifting from the hypothetical, (which involves the ability to give options to problems), into a ‘real-life’ mode of talk through the narration of her professional experience shows how she succeeded in successfully turning a form of interview organised around demonstrating key qualities in the profession, into a form of interview based on the narrative. 4.2

Narration in telephone conferences

Telephone conferences consist of a variety of discursive forms, such as asking questions and requesting actions, but there are also, typically, reports of past taskoriented actions on the part of the Romanian employees. The report formats grant the speaker the rights to project and develop a long turn at talking. In the following example, F1, the foreign team leader, introduces the topic of the discussion, related to the previous telephone conferences, and nominates R2, the Romanian employee, for the floor. (4) 1 FI: 5 R2: 10 15

ok uhm first of all the the uhm minutes of the last the last meeting uhm (.) we discussed the pc and the software, uhm (2) that you achieved and that your pc is connected already to the network uhm R2, uhm yes my pc is connected to the uhm network uhm I have er installed uhm (.) uhm on Friday CAT XXX I had uhm uhm e-mail conversation uhm with Mr. F uhm he sent me the licence dot uhm that file to CAT XXX nine, and we agreed to uhm he agreed to upload the files, and uhm for me to uhm download the files for CAT XXX nine. I installed it and uhm doesn’t work. (.) uhm the the kit is fine but the the licence is not working. so at the moment I’m not able to uhm save files, to uhm to use CAT neither version eight or nine.



Discursive hybridity at work

We can see that R2 interprets F1’s utterance, “your pc is connected to the uhm network uhm” as an invitation to report on his past actions (“I have installed CAT XXX, I had e-mail conversation with Mr. F, he sent me the licence dot, we agreed, I installed”). The report, which is part of the conference agenda, is not confined simply to the employee’s presenting his task-related past actions, because he is not the only participant involved. Given the complex division of labour that exists within international companies, we expect that there are a number of individuals, representing different specialists, whose work is being reported and embedded within the narrative. Indeed, we see that R2 reports on Mr. F’s “licence dot”, but also on his e-mail conversation with Mr. F. The VNC sessions, on the other hand, display a somehow different format. The past actions do not need to be reported verbally, they are shown graphically, and typically, these sessions consist of presentations of drawn objects and verbalizations of present actions (such as deleting, scrolling, and searching). As a conclusion of this section, I suggest that in selection interviews the Romanian candidate’s shifting from the hypothetical into a ‘real-life’ mode of talk through the narration of her professional experience shows how she succeeded in successfully turning a form of interview organised around demonstrating key qualities in the profession (presumably imported from western interview practice), into a form of interview based on the narrative, which was at the time of the recording closer to the Romanian experienced way of showing professional competence. On the other hand, the reports in telephone conferences are not based on the individual’s personal experience alone, but include a number of different strands: the employee’s own work, other professionals’ work, reported talk with other individuals involved. Through such narratives, the employees construct the allocation of professional responsibility. 5. Bracketing of small talk In their study of counselling interviews, Erickson and Shultz (1982: 29) have related opening up small talk, as an option available to interviewers at any point in the interaction, to the social identity work done by interactants, as a way of showing how outside aspects of social identity become locally relevant and meaningful inside the encounter. Thus, small talk is a resource whereby the interviewer can distance him/herself from his/her official role and show interpersonal solidarity. Small talk is also a resource used in work meetings, telephone conferences and VNC sessions in the data collected. It involves a shift in the mode of talk at the discursive level.

97

98 Liliana Coposescu

5.1

Small talk in selection interviews

The following episode is meant to illustrate an opening episode, where the initial bracketing plays an important role. I will also seek to show how the negotiating of meaning is related to the personal vs. professional mode of talk. The linguistic cues that signal a small talk frame of interpretation are not picked up by the candidate, and lead to apparent misunderstandings. The example is taken from the beginning of Interview 1, (the very opening of the exchange has not been recorded). The lines which indicate that there is trouble in the interactions are lines 5 (a comprehension check) which cannot be safely analyzed because of the unclear talk preceding it, 10 (reframing of the question), and 18 (a ‘but’ prefaced question). A closer look at the place these markers of trouble have within the interaction may illuminate the source of trouble and the way in which it is solved. (NS1 stands for Native Speaker interviewer, RC1 stands for the Romanian candidate) (5) NS1: …for English language research purposes in Romania (.) I’m just interested that you had a six week course at university of Edinburgh? RC1: /er NS1: /[unclear] 5→ RC1: how? it’s a month and a half NS1: yes of course, RC1: and it was for academic purposes, er at high level standard, NS1: and where was it? RC1: er institute (unclear) er belongs to university of Edinburgh. 10→ NS1: but where were you actually (.) physically RC1: physically in Edinburgh and the course was paid by Soros. NS1: yes RC1: and er the purpose was to train er young specialists to be able to (.) sustain their own er. mm issues, and problems, in front of 15 internationals er commi[t]ion (.)commission, committee and seminars.   → NS1: and while you were there (.) you know because it was (.) Christmas RC1: er yeah (.) er I (.) it was January .   → NS1: but were you able to visit, or see any of the social services in Scotland? RC1: we were on a short visit to Glasgow 20 NS1: aha



Discursive hybridity at work



RC1: only half a day, and 10 hours in London (.) because mostly we stayed in Edinburgh, the programme was = NS1: =very full RC1: Saturday, it was Sundays . 25 NS1: I was just interested I was a student at Edinburgh University many years ago. now /can we come back to your actual CV? RC1: / yeh anyway Edingurgh it’s a NS1: / yea. that’s right (.) ok at your home you were an engineer and then you moved in 1982

The NS interviewer starts with a statement about her interest in the candidate’s course in Edinburgh, which can be taken as an invitation to talk about her experience during the course. The question has been coded as ‘professional talk’, since it refers to academic matters. The candidate first checks comprehension (how?), and then reformulates what she has inferred as being the source of trouble: “it’s a month and a half ”, instead of “six week course”. Notice that in telling about the course, the RC1 highlights such academic aspects as the purpose and level of the course. The ‘but-prefaced’ question in line 10 (“but where were you actually, physically”) signals the interviewer’s interest in the place, rather than the course. However, the candidate remains within the same professional mode of talk. In other words, she selects to describe the course (its length, purpose, level standard, sponsor), whereas the interviewer seems to be interested in the place(s) which the candidate has visited. The way in which interviewer formulates the next utterance, in line 16, is an indirect invitation to talk about activities in Edinburgh. There are hints to the implied meaning in the way in which the interviewer is wording the utterance, which seem not to be attended to by the candidate. The trouble is in: – the deictic reference ‘there’ (referring to Edinburgh or Scotland), – the use of ‘you know’ (in ‘you know because it was Christmas’), marking appeal from speaker to hearer for consensus, or speaker/hearer alignment, and which is used here at a location that shows a special cooperative effort between the participants. Thus, it is used after several failures (in five turns) of the candidate to attend to the intended mode of talk. In conclusion, NS1 seems to have aimed at ensuring social maintenance and defining shared group membership (students at Edinburgh University), whereas RC1 has taken the question as a professional experience question, placing herself within the information seeking format of an interview.

99

100 Liliana Coposescu

5.2

Small talk in VNC sessions

The same opening up episode with small talk occurs in VNC sessions, as in the example below. (R stands for the Romanian participant and A1 for the American participant) (6) 1 R: Voice: R: Voice: 5 A1: R: A1: R: 10 A1: R: A1:

Catric. you will now be placed into conference. Catric. joined. good morning R, morning. (2) how’re doing today? er (.) not so fine [short laugh] not so fine? oh, no, er (1) yesterday I er I er modified the templates. and I I have some problem on IC shaft. but er I think I fix I fixed the problem. ok,

The VNC session starts with ‘the caller’ connecting to the virtual networking, and a machine voice answering. In the first four lines, R interacts with the machine voice. Starting with line 5, there is a shift to human/human telephone conversation, with greetings and small talk. However, as we can notice, the Romanian’s reply in line 9 is clearly the dispreferred response (see the short laugh). Instead of the routine response of the sort ‘I’m fine’, R is orienting the talk towards taskrelated issues very early in the conversation. Unlike selection interviews, where small talk occurs only at the beginning of the interview, in VNC session these may occur in other places of the interaction as well. Since work on the computer may also involve downloading machines, which takes relatively long periods of time, those are relevant places for shifting from professional talk to small talk. One such episode contains the narration of one participant’s past experience in canoeing. The following example illustrates the embedding of story-telling as part of a “transitional sequence” of small talk, meant “to smooth the way back to the transactional, instrumental or business conversation” (Săftoiu 2009: 78).



Discursive hybridity at work 101

(7) 1 A1: hey when do you when do you run? A2: this weekend A1: aa are you ready? A2: yeah I hope I didn’t hurt my back this past weekend though 5 I was with D on phone and strained my back a little bit I’m (.) hopefully all right now it seems to be relaxing already so I should be ok by the weekend A1: that’s good 10 hopefully it’ll be a little cooler than it has been. ------------------------------------------------------- A2: I actually I did do a run (.) about three weeks ago ehr about eighty two-mile run. on a canoe. A1: and then then downstream again? or A2: downstream yeah. well next stage is downstream but 15 you wouldn’t be able to tell if you’re going upstream or downstream except in one area. A1: I used to do a lot of canoeing I mean (.) we loved the rafting because we’d actually get out the canoes down? 20 A2: yeah A1: so we swam with them. A2: well this is (1) you know you watch the leaves on the side, (.) in the water, (.) you’d barely know when you’re moving so well that was kind of kind of easy that way 25 and we had fortunately one dam [overlapping talk] A1: that’s pretty good A2: yeah A1: cause normally ten miles would be considered ehr 30 basically a day’s canoe. right? so

102 Liliana Coposescu

A2: A1: A2: 35 A1:

they they consider this (.) ehr normally a three-hour (.) a three-hour run yeah you know a a (.) you know just a (2) three to four-hour run or whatever so we made it like an hour and forty (2) so so we tend to be I guess ok it will be fun.

The story is constructed collaboratively, with the two American participants in the session. The episode starts with A1 asking A2 about the time of ‘canoe running’. A1 picks this opportunity to retell his past experience in canoeing and the two participants construct the story of rafting as pastime experience. Though the Romanian participant is also on-line, he does not contribute to the construction of the story, presumably because he has no experience in the activity, since rafting is not being a typical Romanian pastime. Story-telling in this VNC session is performed as an ‘out-of-frame’ activity (Goffman 1974/1986). According to Goffman, given a spate of activity that is framed in a particular way and that provides an official main focus of attention for ratified participants, it seems inevitable that other modes and lines of activity […] will simultaneously occur in the same locale, segregated from what officially dominates, and will be treated, when treated at all, as something apart.  (Goffman 1974/1986: 201)

This episode is obviously set apart from the official business, and is treated indeed by participants as an aside. In the analysis of a face-to-face meeting in the other international company presented, frame analysis indicates that the most frequent changes are from the professional to the personal frame, the change causing misunderstandings for the participants (Chefneux 2009). We have thus seen in this section that small talk, as a personal mode of talk, is not readily oriented-to by the Romanians, though it is an option available to interviewers at any point in the interaction (Erickson and Shultz 1982: 29). However, while in selection interviews this leads to quite a long sequence of negotiation of mode of talk, in the VNC session it is treated as an ‘out-of-frame’ activity by participants.



Discursive hybridity at work 103

6. Conclusion We have seen in this paper that in the three events – selection interviews, telephone conferences, and VNC sessions – shifts occur at the discursive level, in constructing hypothetical scenarios, narratives, and small talk. Hypothetical scenarios seem to be problematic for the Romanian candidates in selection interviews. However, we have seen two contrastive situations in the analysis section. One in which the hypothetical scenario is the source of interactional trouble and the candidate fails to answer the interviewer’s question because he perceives the scenario as unexpected in a selection interview. The second example shows how the candidate deals successfully with the hypothetical, and so there are signs of the candidates’ being able to deal with shifts in modes of talk, especially when opportunities for narratives are signalled. In VNC sessions, on the other hand, hypothetical scenarios are not an institutional tool meant to ‘assess’ professional competence, but to ‘license’ one particular way of professional practice. Hypotheticals have been found in the data in episodes where discussions of various work alternatives have been put forward and choices had to be made. Obviously, narratives have been found to perform different functions, as well. Thus, in the selection interviews, it is a way by which the candidate successfully shifts from a hypothetical into a ‘real-life’ talk. In telephone conferences reporting past actions is one of the characteristic features of the activity in the organization investigated, so it is one way of constructing and displaying the division of labour and the professional identity of the participants. In VNC sessions, on the other hand, story-telling is embedded as small talk and is a way of sharing experiences. The small talk analysis has shown that, in the case of selection interviews, Romanian candidates have come to the interview with the assumption that there is one frame, on professional matters, and that small talk may not be an option in selection interviews. The same orientation towards professional talk when clues of small talk are signalled could be found in VNC sessions as well. Thus, in the opening episode of the session, the Romanian participant seems to orient the talk towards task-related issues very early in the conversation. Even when there is a relevant place for small talk in the development of the interaction (long pauses when work on the computer takes place), the collaborative construction of the story-telling is achieved by the Americans alone. Relating these findings to Roberts and Sarangi’s notion of ‘modes of talk’, the professional mode, the institutional mode, and the personal experience mode (Roberts and Sarangi 1999: 482), we have seen that both in selection interviews and in work-related interactions in the multinational companies, there is a constant shift among the three. In the gate-keeping encounter as an institutional form

104 Liliana Coposescu

of interaction, the shifts between the professional and personal modes often lead to longer sequences of clarificatory nature, like in the opening episode of small talk vs. professional talk. This is, presumably, because of the different expectations of the Romanian candidates concerning allowable modes of talk in selection interviews: small talk and hypothetical scenarios seem to be unexpected. Hypothetical scenario, as institutionalized tool of assessing professional competence, may indeed be culture-specific in selection interviews, and its reproduction in the Romanian context leads to unsuccessful performance on the part of the candidate. On the other hand, it seems to be part of successful professional talk in the multinational company. We have also seen how, considering Candlin’s (1997) view of “discourse as a means which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices…”, in intercultural encounters such practices may be discursively negotiated and how the discursive hybridity of the events may contribute to successful communication. References Candlin, Chistopher N. 1997. “General editor’s preface”. In The Construction of Professional Discourse, Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Per Linell and Bengt Nordberg (eds.), viii–xiv. London/ New York: Longman. Chefneux, Gabriela. 2009. “Frame analysis in a face to face meeting”. In Proceedings of the International Conference Constructions of Identity (V), Rareş Moldovan and Petronia Petrar (eds.), 67–75. Cluj-Napoca: Napoca Star. Coposescu, Liliana. 2010. “Discourse analysis of communication in international companies”. In Globalization in English Studies, Maria Georgieva and Allan James (eds.), 106–128. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Eggins, Suzanne and Slade, Diana. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London/Washington: Cassell. Erickson, Frederick and Shultz, Jeffrey. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper. Social Interaction in Interviews. New York/London: Academic Press. Goffman, Erwin. 1974/1986. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, Erwin. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Huthcy, Ian and Wooffitt, Robin. 1998. Conversation Analysis. Polity Press. Iedemia, Rick and Wodak, Ruth. 1999. “Introduction: Organizational discourses and practices”. Discourse and Society 10(1): 5–19. Labov, William. 1972. “The transformation of experience in narrative”. In The Discourse Reader, Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland (eds.), 1999, 221–235. London/New York: Routledge. Maybury, Mark T. 2000. “Communicative acts for multimedia and multimodal dialogue”. In The Structure of Multimodal Dialogue II, M. M. Taylor, F. Neel and D. G. Bouwhuis (eds.), 367–374. Amsterdam: Benjamin John Publishing.



Discursive hybridity at work 105

Măda, Stanca. 2011. “Politeness has its limits: Avoiding negation in Romanian professional context”. Word and Text. A Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics 2: 121–131. Norris, Sigrid. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. A Methodological Framework. New York/ London: Routledge. Norris, Sigrid. 2006. “Multiparty interaction: A multimodal perspective on relevance”. Discourse Studies vol. 8(3): 401–421. Roberts, Celia and Sarangi, Srikant. 1999. “Hybridity in gatekeeping discourse: Issues of practical relevance for the researcher”. In Talk, Work and Insitutional Order, Srikant Sarangi and Celia Roberts (eds.), 473–503. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Roberts, Celia. 2000. “Professional gatekeeping in intercultural encounters. In Discourse and Social Life, Srikant Sarangi and Malcom Coulthard (eds.), London: Longman. Sarangi, Srikant. 1998. “Rethinking recontextualization in professional discourse studies: An epilogue”. Text 18(2): 301–318. Sarangi, Srikant and Roberts, Celia. 1999. “Introduction: Discursive hybridity in medical work”. In Talk, Work and Insitutional Order, Srikant Sarangi and Celia Roberts (eds.), 61–74. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2009. Discursul fatic: un ritual interacţional [Small talk: an interactional ritual], Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix 1 Transcription conventions Symbol Significance Arabic numerals line numbers . clause final falling intonation ? clause final rising intonation , slight rise (.) short hesitation within a turn (less than 2 seconds) (2) inter-turn pause longer than 1 second, the number indicating the seconds = = latched utterances, with no discernible gap between the prior speaker’s and the next speaker’s talk // the onset of overlapping talk [words in square brackets] non-verbal information and/or unclear passages (?) unidentified speaker italics word in Romanian Other transcription conventions: Non-transcribable segments of talk. These are indicated as [unclear]. Uncertain transcription. Words within parentheses indicate the guess.

‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction Jonathan Clifton

Université de Valenciennes, France

There is a vast body of work on trust in organizational settings, but rather than providing first-order descriptions of the doing of trust in the wild, most of this research attempts to provide etic definitions of trust. In order to complement such work on trust, using transcripts naturally-occurring talk, and using conversation analysis as a research methodology, this paper provides a firstorder account that makes visible the seen but unnoticed machinery of talk by which trust is achieved as an in situ members’ practice. Findings indicate that trust can be achieved through displays of epistemic primacy which are oriented to as displays trustworthiness and so can lead to the doing of trust as an in situ members’ achievement.

1. Introduction Trust is considered to be essential within the corporate world since without it economic exchange would be paralyzed, co-operation would flounder, and contracts would be impossible to negotiate or draw up. In short, without trust there would be chaos. This observation of the centrality of trust to the business world has therefore made it the focus of much research. Yet, despite the extent of research into trust, the focus has been on defining and measuring what trust is, and to date, despite attempts to synthesize the extent of this knowledge (McKnight and Chervany 1996), the meaning of trust has proved elusive. This paper therefore joins calls from researchers (Gillespie 2007, Origgi 2004, Quéré 2005, Sarangi 2007) who suggest that a better insight into the phenomenon of trust could be gained by re-orienting the fundamental research question away from what trust is as an etic researchers’ second-order concept to how trust is achieved as an emic participants’ first-order accomplishment. Therefore, this paper broadly situates itself within the framework of natural language philosophy (Wittgenstein 2001) and argues that, owing to the indexicality of language, whereby the meaning of a word or utterance is said to be indexical because its meaning is dependent on the context in which it is embedded, it is futile to try to pin meanings onto words

108 Jonathan Clifton

which then stand proxy for phenomena. Rather, what is required is a praxiological approach to phenomena in the wild as they are produced by people as they go about their everyday affairs. More specifically, in order to explicate how trust is achieved in talk, this paper uses conversation analysis (CA) as a research method to analyze a transcript of naturally-occurring talk. Moreover, it is then argued that a first-order account of how trust is achieved could be beneficial in providing concrete advice to practitioners, in the form of discursive strategies that could be used to ‘do’ trust. The paper is divided into four sections. First, an overview of the literature is provided. Second, CA as a research methodology is described. Third, the data is introduced and this is followed by an analysis of the data. The paper ends with observations and conclusions that demonstrate how its findings could be of use to the practitioner. 2. Literature review The importance of trust to human endeavour is such that its study spans various disciplines: psychology conceptualizes trust as a series of character traits (Rotter 1967); sociologists have been concerned with the role of trust in holding societies together (Giddens 1984 and Luhmann 1979); game theorists have considered how trust can be used to achieve mutual benefit in (economic) exchange (Axelrod 1984); and organizational behaviourists have looked at how interpersonal relationships can be improved via trust (McGregor 1967 and Argyris 1962). More specifically, within an organizational context, Bachmann and Zaheer (2006), in their introduction to The Handbook of Trust Research, set out to consolidate and assess the state of the art in trust research in organizational settings. They note that trust is being studied at three levels (individual, organizational, and societal) and they also note six main themes within current organizational research into trust: the antecedents and consequences of trust and how these can be managed in an organizational environment; the relationship between trust and constructs such as knowledge, calculativeness, contracts and control; the complexity of trust as a multi-level phenomenon; attempts to reintegrate trust with economic and social theory; ethical dimensions of trust; and appropriate methodologies for studying trust. However, it is noticeable that a persistent theme throughout such research is the quest for the meaning of trust which thus reflects the assumption that trust is seen as something that is ‘out there’ and which is in need of a definition (Origgi 2004). Yet, not unsurprisingly, considering the extent and diversity of this research as outlined above, a common definition of trust has been hard to come by, and Mayer et al. (1995) have noted that the study of trust within



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 109

organizations has remained problematic because of: a lack of clarity concerning the relation between risk and trust; confusion between trust, its antecedents, and its outcomes; variations in the level of analysis (macro, micro, or messo); and a failure to study both the trustor and the trustee. However, several recent attempts have been made to synthesize the work on trust within organizational settings. Rousseau et al. provide what they claim is widely held definition of trust as being: “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another” (1998: 394). And McKnight and Chervany (1996) claim to have integrated and synthesized the literature on trust into a workable definition. They, thus, conceptualize trust as a hypernym which encompasses related concepts (hyponyms) that are subsumed under it. This approach offers a taxonomy that gives six related types of trust: trusting intention; trusting behaviour; trusting beliefs; system trust; dispositional trust; and a situated decision to trust. Yet, despite all this, researchers still point out that trust remains ‘mysterious’, ‘a kind of faith’, and ‘elusive’ (Möllering 2001). One of the reasons for this may be that, as Lewicki et al. (2006: 994) point out, “the semantic distinctions made about various indicators and types of trust are so intertwined that it was incredibly easy to become hogtied in the ball of yarn we were attempting to unravel”. This, inability to find an agreed definition of trust has led to calls for more research into trust in the wild and its achievement as an in situ members’ practice. As Gillespie (2007: 122) states, “researchers do not have exclusive rights to the concept of trust. Lay people also use the concept, and moreover they may use it in ways that differ from researchers. This simple fact greatly destabilizes much theorizing on trust”. The corollary of this observation is that researchers should adopt methods that are able to make visible and explicate the in situ doing of trust as a members’ accomplishment. To this end, researchers such as Origgi (2004), Gillespie (2007), and Sarangi (2007) have suggested that a pragmatic approach to the doing of trust could be one way of making visible, and thus analyzable, the doing of trust as a members’ accomplishment. Within this over-reaching pragmatic framework suggested by these researchers, this paper takes a conversation analytical approach which draws heavily on its ethnomethodological roots. Ethnomethodlogically inspired research on trust avoids starting from researchers’ conceptualizations and definitions of trust and seeks to investigate members’ own ethno-methods (i.e. methods used by people to produce recognizable social order as an in situ accomplishment) for ‘doing’ trust. In this way, trust is perceived as being neither a researchers’ construct, nor a semantic category, rather it is praxiological (Gonzalez-Martinez 2001: 117). Garfinkel (1963 and 1967) using ‘breaching experiments’ that disturbed ‘normal’ mundane interaction by, for example, not replying to greetings, demonstrated the

110 Jonathan Clifton

way in which social order is achieved. From such experiments, he explicated that trust in the other’s competence to recognize what is going on in interaction and respond to it correspondingly is a constituent feature of all stable and concerted social action. As Watson (2009: 480) argues, “trust comprises participants’ reciprocal endorsement of these presupposed matters and their consequent maintenance of sensible social order”. Moving away from Garfinkels’ breaching experiments, yet still following this ethnomethodological line of inquiry, Gonzalez-Martinez (2001), in her analyses of judicial hearings, investigates how practical trust is sequentially achieved in an ordered and observable way. Using CA as a research methodology, her study analyses sequences of talk to demonstrate how an intersubjective version of what is going on is jointly constructed so that participants display, through the sequential properties of talk, an intersubjective understanding of who they are dealing with and what they are doing. And, moreover, they don’t breach this ‘trust’ by doing something unaccountable as in Garfinkel’s breaching experiments. In a similar vein, and also using CA as a research methodology, Kuroshima (2010) looks at how trust is achieved when orders are placed by cultural strangers in a sushi restaurant. Kuroshima (2010) argues that there is a tension between progressivity (i.e., the need to move the talk forward) and intersubjectivity (i.e., the need for common understanding). She, therefore, analyses the sequential properties of placing orders and observes how the chef prolongs order sequences, at the expense of progressivity, when he does not trust the client’s ability to order. Sequences of talk thus make the doing of trust visible as a member’s accomplishment. As both Kuroshima (2010) and Gonzalez-Martinez (2001) demonstrate, CA can therefore make visible the seen but unnoticed sequential properties of talk that enable participants to accomplish trust as an in situ interactional achievement. This paper seeks to add to this body of research into trust as a practical achievement by also using CA as a research method. 3. Research method – Conversation analysis Ethnomethodology famously set out to reveal the ethno-methods, or practical reasoning, by which participants collaboratively construct order. It is, as ten Have (2002: 3) succinctly defines it, “a special kind of social inquiry, dedicated to explicating the ways in which collectivity members create and maintain a sense of . Explication implies a folding back of the members own displayed understanding of what is going, whereas explanation implies importing exogenous details to the analysis of the interaction.



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction

order and intelligibility in social life”. Garfinkel (1967) used breaching experiments, participant observation, case studies, and becoming the phenomena to make the details of ordinary and everyday practices by which members constitute their own reality available for analysis. Sacks, one of Garfinkel’s students, went further by pioneering the study of mundane conversation to make visible the constitutive processes of social action. As Heritage and Atkinson (1984: 1) define it: The central goal of conversation analytic research is the description and explication of the competences that ordinary speakers use and rely on in participating in intelligible socially organized interaction. At its most basic, this objective is one of describing the procedures by which conversationalists produce their own behaviour and understand that of others.

Sacks was therefore highly critical of theory-driven research and social scientists who worked from hypothetical versions of the world rather than from observation of in situ (conversational) practices. Sacks (1984) claimed that since researchers are constrained by a priori conceptions of what appears to be believable their findings are thus restricted to phenomena that are imaginable by other members of the research community. Consequently, researchers study social action through a theory-inspired lens whereby phenomena are explained by reference to etic and exogenous theory acceptable to other members of the research community, rather than explicated by observation of the participants’ displayed orientation to their own emic concerns. As such, the findings are theory-driven, rather than datadriven, and may stand proxy for the phenomena under investigation. Thus, following the basic argument of CA, rather than finding the answers to sociological inquiry (such as the meaning and nature of trust) in grand theories, one is more likely to find them in mundane conversational exchanges where the grand themes of sociological enquiry are played out and achieved as in situ members’ accomplishments. This is because talk, and the sociality it achieves, is an endogenous achievement that has order at all points which is produced in situ by the participants. If there was no order, participants would not be able to agree on what was going on, nor would they know how to participate in the construction of the event. The mutual understanding of what is going on and the endogenous order of talk are constructed through the next turn proof procedure (Sacks et al. 1974: 728–729), whereby in a next turn participants display their understanding of the prior turn and so build an intersubjective understanding of what is going on. Divergent understandings can be dealt with by repair in a third turn, which Schegloff (1992) describes as the last defensible place of intersubjectivity. Therefore, participants’ contributions to the ongoing production of social order, enacted in sequences of talk, reflexively produce and are produced by orientation to social order – making talk the bedrock of society. Moreover, what is going

111

112 Jonathan Clifton

on, and how this is achieved is available to researchers, as competent members of the same community as the speakers (Garfinkel and Sacks 1970). Thus, the researcher, using his or her overhearer’s perspective on what is going on and how this is achieved, also has access to the participants’ perspectives as displayed in the overheard interaction. Yet, while the participants have a naive mastery of what is going on and how this is achieved, the researcher is able to describe this formally. As Lynch and Bogen state, “the member may be competent to instantiate the describable techniques of conversation, but the scientist builds a formal apparatus that subsumes the members local practices” (1994: 80). CA sets out to provide an explication of members’ practices in the following way. Firstly, data in the form of naturally-occurring talk is recorded. This, as Sacks (1984: 26) points out, provides a ‘good enough’ record of what actually happened. The recording is then transcribed. The transcription acts as a distancing device which forces the researcher to engage with what is happening and how this is achieved, and, by a process of unmotivated looking (Psathas 1995), the researcher notices phenomena of interest. Thus, rather than having a hypothesis or research question in mind prior to the transcription, the research question flows from the data and focuses around the question: why this particular utterance at this particular point in time? Using the researcher’s own membership knowledge, which is similar to the naïve mastery of language displayed by the participants themselves in producing and recognizing the talk/ social action, and using technical knowledge, the researcher makes available the machinery of talk by which the action being performed is achieved. As Sacks (1984: 413) says: our aim is to get into a position to transform, in an almost literal, physical sense, our view of ‘what happened’, from a matter of a particular interaction done by particular people, to a matter of interactions as products of a machinery.

Once this analysis of interaction, grounded as it is in the fine-grained observable details of naturally-occurring talk, has been achieved, it can be juxtaposed with wider social theorizing (Schegloff 1996: 167). Yet this link can only be established providing it is done so with reference to the participants’ own concerns that are demonstrable from the analysis. Failure to provide a warrant for such a link would run the risk that the critical analysis would not bind with the data and would therefore end up as merely ideological (Schegloff 1997).



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 113

4. Data The data for this paper come from a conference call between two teams of Indian business people. One of the teams is from a large group of training institutes and the other is from a large commercial vehicle manufacturer. The training group (given the pseudonym ABC training) is based in the East of India and its primary aim is to develop employability amongst the socially disadvantaged tribal and rural people in the Maoist infected areas of East India. ABC training has extensive training facilitates that provide vocational training enabling their students to become machine tool operators, tailors, electricians, welders and so on. The vehicle manufacture (given the pseudonym ABC vehicles) is looking to increase their presence in the domestic market by opening more outlets and by appointing more dealerships. However, whilst they have access to investment funds and infrastructure, they are lacking the trained manpower necessary to staff their expansion. They are thus seeking to establish a cadre of trainees with the specific skills that fit the needs of their dealerships, vehicle servicing centres, and workshops. They have made some initial contact with ABC training but this conference call is the first contact at boardroom level between the chairman of ABC Training and the head of Human Resources at ABC vehicles. The management team present at the conference call for ABC training consisted of: the chairman (given the pseudonym Amrit), the managing director of one of the training organizations within the group ABC training (given the pseudonym Chandra), a legal adviser, and the chairman’s personal assistant. The management team from ABC Vehicles present for the conference call are introduced as: the head of human resources (given the pseudonym Baldev), two of his colleagues, and the head of services and reliability. The researcher was present, as observer, in the Chairman’s Office of ABC training. Of the eight people present for the conference only three spoke: Amrit, Baldev, and Chandra. In the particular extract of the conference call analyzed here, Baldev introduces the topic of the demographic profile of the proposed trainees and this develops into a discussion of the geographic area of recruitment, the cultural attributes of the workers from these regions, and the problems of culture shock. This talk sets up a problem in search of a solution in the form of a commitment to future action. In the end, a decision to leave cultural issues to Amrit’s judgment is made by Baldev as he says: “I think th=those very culture specific issues w=we could erm I would leave it to your judgment”. The research question is therefore why is this display of trust (I would leave it to your judgment) in Amrit’s judgment to deal with cultural issues enacted at this particular point in the interaction? (i.e. Why this, now?). By a process of reverse engineering (Clifton 2006: 210) starting with

114 Jonathan Clifton

the product (i.e., a display of trust), this paper seeks to reveal the machinery of conversation by which this is done and so provide an emic analysis of ‘trust-inaction’, as a situated members’ achievement. 5. Analysis The sequence analyzed concerns a decision-making episode in which a decision to recruit the future workforce from the eastern region and an account for this decision in terms of the cultural profile of the workforce is made. As Garfinkel’s (1967) seminal work on jury decision-making makes clear, decision-making is not about rational choice, rather it is a question of defining and retrospectively accounting for decisions that have already been made. In short, he (Garfinkel 1967: 114) claims that the “outcome comes before the decision”. Decision-making therefore takes the form of assessments of the state of affairs which account for the decision. Moreover, as Clifton (2009) notes, a distinction can be made between decision-making which is the talk concerning the accounting for the decision and decision announcing which occurs when one of the participants who is oriented to as having the obligation and the right to announce the decision does so and thus retrospectively orients to the prior talk as decision-making talk rather than simple reflection on a subject. In this case, Baldev projects the future action of recruiting from the eastern region, but whilst Amrit aligns with this projection of future action, he disaligns with the Baldev’s account for this. Over the following sequences of talk, Amrit takes ownership of the decision by displaying epistemic primacy concerning the issue of recruiting from the eastern regions. This display of knowledge is retrospectively oriented to by Baldev as a display of trustworthiness since Baldev states: “I think th=those very culture specific issues w=we could erm I would leave it to your judgment”. The analysis is split into two sections. The first analysis concerns the initial projection of future action and the subsequent disalignment in terms of accounting for the decision in which Amrit displays his epistemic primacy. There is then a stepwise shift in topic to the issue of training the trainers (not analyzed here) and then, through a further topic shift, the participants return to cultural issues and the location of the training centres which is discussed in the second analysis.

‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 115



5.1

Analysis: Sequence One

After the closure of the prior topic and a decision to recruit students from ITIs, Baldev shifts topic to the issue of the demographic profile of the trainees and he projects the future action of recruiting them form the eastern region and accounts for this on the grounds that they are a ‘hearty lot’ and have simple needs. Amrit, whilst aligning with the projected action, disaligns with the account for it. (1) 1 A so you=we will be having diplomas ITIs where 2 from we=we have thousand students with ITIs 3 ourselves 4 B uhu 5 A and er out of that we may also go to other 6 schools and recruit them 7 B as you know er (.) you know from a 8 demographic profile point of view 9 A euh 10 B er we would look for people (.) er 11 predominantly from the eastern region. (.) er 12 typically Orissa Jharkhand and Bihar (.) euh 13 I=I and we find that (.) these people in today’s 14 context (.) are most willing to migrate in 15 search of jobs 16 (.5) 17 A nyeah they’re also more doci:le and er: and 18 not=not er I’ll not include [ west ] 19 B [ a hearty lot] 20 they’re a hearty lot 21 A a:h 22 B their working needs are simple [and] I euh I 23 A [uhum] 24 B think whether you (put) them in er Baroda or 25 ( ) or er you put them in Jaisalmer or 26 Bikaner or (.) Pareli or Gorakhpur or anywhere 27 they will be able to adapt

. Industrial Training Institutes.

116 Jonathan Clifton

In line 7, Baldev introduces the topic of the demographic profile of the proposed workforce and he suggests that (line 10) “er we would look for people (.) er predominantly from the eastern region. (.) er typically Orissa Jharkhand and Bihar”. In terms of decision-making, he has thus introduces a problem (where to recruit the workforce) and outlines a solution in the form of a projection of future action (recruiting from the eastern region). He then accounts for this decision by stating that (line 13): “I=I and we find that (.) these people in today’s context (.) are most willing to migrate in search of jobs”. Such an assessment now makes a second pair part a conditionally relevant next action (Pomerantz 1984a), and for this projection of future action and assessment to become a decision it would need to be oriented to as such by other co-participants and confirmed in a second turn. However, after a short pause, in line 17, Amrit takes a turn which, since it is prefaced by silence, begins with weak agreement (signalled by ‘nyeah’ which is a mix of no and yeah), contains a downgraded assessment (docile rather than willing), and the negative construction in the second turn construction unit (TCU) projects further disagreement, has all the features of classic dispreferred design that projects disagreement (Pomerantz 1984a). Indeed, Baldev, orients to this TCU as projecting disagreement and overlaps (line 19) to upgrade his own assessment from ‘willing’ to “a hearty lot” and in line 22, he completes his account for the projected course of future action to recruit from the eastern region because their “working needs are simple” and “they will be able to adapt”. Such assessment makes agreement or disagreement in the next turn a conditionally relevant next action (Pomerantz 1984a). (2) 28 A 29 30 31 32 33 B 34 A 35 36 37 38

nyeah other than other than yes but the demand you know this NREGA that er what has now become that MNREGA that Mahatma Gandhi’s name along with that [th= ] that is spoiling because they’re getting [euh] free food with the two rupees rice poli::tical er you know that wh=wh=whatever gimmicks and this=that er >a lot< of people are reluctant >so< we=the only thing we have to take care (.) is their stay arrangement

In lines 28 ff, Amrit then takes a turn which completes his unfinished, yet projected, disagreement from line 17. As with his prior turn, he begins his turn in classic dispreferred turn shape with weak agreement (nyeah and yes but) followed by an account which prefaces the disagreement which, whilst not disaligning with



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 117

the projection of future action to recruit from the eastern region, does disalign with Baldev’s assessment that their working needs are simple and they will be able to adapt. First, Amrit’s disagreement is prefaced with ‘you know’ (line 28: “but the demand you know this NREGA”) which projects an assumption of equal knowledge and intersubjective agreement on the projected talk concerning the NREGA and MGREGA which “is spoiling because they’re getting free food with the two rupees rice poli::tical er you know that wh=wh=whatever gimmicks and this=that er >a lot< of people are reluctant”. Second, Amrit presents his disagreement as a declarative assertion which is unhedged and so presents the state of affairs as a concrete reality and as Pomerantz (1984b: 609) states, “when speakers make such declarative assertions, they are proposing to represent actual states of affairs and are accountable for being right”. On the other hand, Baldev’s prior assessment was partially hedged as so is hearable as subjective opinion (line 13, we find and line 22, I think). As Wiggins and Potter (2003) point out, the juxtaposition of subjective and objective forms can be hearable as an attempt to impose a particular version of events since the sequentially second unmitigated and objective format (used by Amrit) also claims unmediated and direct knowledge of the state of affairs. Amrit then (line 37) speeds up and gives the upshot of his account “>so < we=the only thing we have to take care (.) is their stay arrangement”. As Heritage and Watson (1979: 138) note, there are various understandings that may be possible in talk but one purpose of a formulation is to “demonstrate understanding and to have that understanding attended to and, as a first preference, endorsed”. As such, by formulating the upshot of the talk-so-far, Amrit proposes his account of the state of affairs as preferential and therefore superior to Baldev’s. A formulation makes agreement or disagreement a conditionally relevant next action and when this is not forthcoming (line 39), Amrit, as discussed below, extends his turn. (3) 39 40 41 42 B 43 A

(0.8) and lot of people are going (.) like you know ABC transmissions? yes which recruited for their Dharwar plant?

. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which became The Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGREGA), guarantees 100 days employment per year in public works in return for a minimum wage. The aim of this act is to increase the purchasing power of India’s rural poor. . According to Heritage and Watson (1979) formulations are either gists or upshots. Gists provide a summary of the sense of some prior talk and upshots formulate the consequences of some prior talk.

118 Jonathan Clifton

44 B 45 A 46 47 48 49 50 B

yes out of forty five and Mister Rao who used to be there and who ((break tape)) one of them stays back to cook their food you know that typical=their food and stay is a major issue now °right°

In line 40, after a slight pause making the conditionally relevant next action of agreement or disagreement salient by its absence, Amrit extends his turn with an increment (i.e. a continuation of what could have been a syntactically, prosodically and pragmatically complete turn). In this continuation of the turn, he states “a lot of people are going” and then he gives the first-hand example of ABC transmission (“which recruited for their Dharwar plant”) and thus makes relevant his organization’s first-hand experience of dealing with the workforce. As Pomerantz (1984b) points out, there are two forms of evidence that are given to suggest an objective state of affairs: telling first-hand experience or reporting somebody else’s version. Of these choices, she notes (1984b: 608) that reporting first-hand experience is an important way, if not the principal way, in which states of affairs are known unproblematically and with certainty and therefore first-hand accounts are preferable to second hand accounts. Furthermore, she (1984b: 613) also notes that giving the source, especially based on direct experience, is a way of convincing interlocutors of the accuracy of a version of events and thus providing grounds for accepting a particular version as being correct and credible. Displays of firsthand knowledge are thus one way in which epistemic primacy can be established when there are conflicting versions of events. Knowledge is thus conceived of not as prediscoursive mental states that operate in a social vacuum, but rather ‘knowledge’ is an interactional achievement since: “the distribution of rights and responsibilities regarding what participants can accountably know, how they know it, whether they have rights to describe it, and in what terms is directly implicated in organized practices of speaking” (Heritage and Raymond 2005: 16). Thus, rights to have and display knowledge are open to negotiation as participants jockey to demonstrate that their version of events is more credible and accurate than another version. Unfortunately, at this point there is a glitch in the recording (line 46), but Amrit continues the turn with another first-hand example as discussed below. (4) 45 A 46 47

out of forty five and Mister Rao who used to be there and who ((break tape)) one of them stays back to cook their food you know



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 119

48 that typical=their food and stay is a major 49 issue now 50 B °right° 51 A and we have been providing or we have been 52 partner with many organizations in Pune er in 53 er Gujarat in Bari in Himachal Pra[desh] 54 B [uhu ] 55 A where the only thing that which we have found 56 out are that why people leave one organization 57 when they go er (.) food and stay environment 58 (.4) 59 A [they] don’t need great stay environment 60 B [ I see] 61 A only dormitories with clean toilet and water 62 [and ] food what they do (.) one of them takes 63 B [ yeah] 64 A turn and cooks for the whole group↓ 65 B okay

In lines 45 ff, Amrit gives another, objectively framed, first-hand account of his group’s experience. Significantly, since an intersubjective version of the assessment of the situation which accounts for the projected future action is dialogic, it is noticeable that Baldev does not seek to contradict Amrit’s versions of the “way things are”. In line 50 ‘right’, line 54 ‘uhu’, line 60 ‘I see’ and line 63, ‘yeah’, Baldev overlaps with minimal acknowledgement tokens which display understanding and agreement and which confirm Amrit’s emergent account of the situation and, in line 65, he confirms this account with ‘okay’ which as Beach (1993) notes is hearable as a display of understanding and alignment. Having achieved alignment, Amrit now formulates the upshot of this account. (5) 66 A so I=I=er er if you know if you want to retain 67 people [this is what our experience] 68 B [>I understand I understand] 69 °I understand. < yeah°

In line 66, Amrit states: “so I=I=er er if you know if you want to retain people [this is what our experience]”. As previously stated, a formulation characterizes and assesses a state of affairs that has been negotiated in prior turns and so fixes the intersubjectively achieved meaning of the prior talk. The upshot makes agreement or disagreement in a next turn a conditionally relevant next action, and in this case agreement is forthcoming as Baldev says: “[I understand I understand]

120 Jonathan Clifton

°I understand yeah°”. Moreover, the repetition displays that Amrit’s account has been adequately communicated and that and there is no need to persevere with the topic (Stivers 2004). Significantly, this confirms Amrit’s epistemic authority in the negotiation of the account for the projected action of recruiting from the eastern region. Moreover, as various researchers have pointed out, participants can challenge the epistemic primacy inherent in first assessments through the use of various discursive resources such as confirmation plus agreement token, ‘oh’ plus assessment, assessment plus tag question or negative interrogatives with which to upgrade a second assessments (for a summary of these techniques, see Raymond and Heritage 2006: 683 ff.). First positioned assessments display epistemic primacy by virtue of the fact that by making an assessment in a second position, a participant is vulnerable to the observation that he or she is simply agreeing with the prior assessment. In this case, since Baldev displays understanding in an unmarked way, he does not display any challenge to Amrit’s display of knowledge. After this display of agreement and alignment by Baldev, Amrit then again formulates to give a further upshot. (6) 70 A 71 72 73 74 75 76 C

so and I=I er so if they’re working in Orissa no problem or if some people are working in Vizag or upto Hyderabad there’s no issue (.) but we’re planning to send them to Rajasthan=and you know Rajasthan we have supplied how many people have we done? fifty people °have gone°

In line 70, Amrit states: “so and I=I er so if they’re working in Orissa no problem or if some people are working in Vizag or upto Hyderabad there’s no issue”. And, after a micro pause he adds an increment to his turn which is a harbinger of a problem: “but we’re planning on sending them to Rajasthan” where implicitly there is an issue. The account for this upshot again comes from a first-hand source of the ABC Training and Amrit’s direct experience. On this occasion, Amrit seeks consensus by drawing Chandra into the talk. This is achieved through addressing a question (line 75: “how many people have we done”) to Chandra. In a next turn, Chandra replies “fifty people °have gone°”. Until now, Chandra and the others present during the conference call have been acting as an overhearing audience but here, Amrit draws Chandra into the talk. Chandra is thus oriented to as a knowing participant who knows how many people have been to Rajasthan and he is drawn into talk that is designed for Baldev who is oriented to as an unknowing recipient since he does not have access to the events that Amrit is describing (cf. Goodwin 1987). The knowing recipient, Chandra, bolsters Amrit’s epistemic work



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 121

by providing confirmation of Amrit’s account through being a co-present source of consensus through his status of being a knowing participant. Establishing consensus by making another knowing recipient’s knowledge relevant to the interaction thus bolsters Amrit’s knowledge-work (Edwards and Potter 1992, Smith 1978). However, as discussed below, Amrit soon regains control of the talk. (7) 76 C 77 A 78 79 C 80 81 A 82 83 84 85 86 B

fifty people °have gone° fifty people have gone and all of them have come back er: they were there for at least six months and [° er°] [and] there were food and stay issues you know but Rajasthan has a problem for water (.3) and Orissa=Oriya people are accustomed to better water price but Orissa people have not been yet ↓ yeah

In line 77, Amrit repeats fifty people and adds an increment onto the turn: “and all of them have come back”. Chandra then takes a next turn which orients to Amrit’s prior turn as a invitation to substantive rights to speakership and so takes a turn which continues the account (line 79: “er: they were there for at least six months and [° er°]”). However, in line 81, as Chandra hesitates, Amrit overlaps, speaks more loudly and adds an increment to Chandra’s retrospectively unfinished turn, so taking it over, and he continues with his topic of problems with “food and stay issues”. (8) 81 A 82 83 84 85 86 B 87 A 88 89 90 91 92 B

[and] there were food and stay issues you know but Rajasthan has a problem for water (.3) and Orissa=Oriya people are accustomed to better water price but Orissa people have not been yet ↓ yeah so that that’s why they had basic problem with the water (.) and village people once b=beat them up because they were taking=stealing water from the ( ) well and those kind of issues in Rajasthan you know is what happens yeah yeah ° yeah °

122 Jonathan Clifton

In the continuation of his turn, again with an embedded ‘you know’ which assumes agreement with his epistemic stance, Amrit continues his first-hand account of the ‘state of affairs’ which is again presented in an objective format (Pomerantz 1984b) as previously discussed. In line 86, Baldev aligns with this (yeah) and then in line 87, Amrit again formulates the gist of the talk-so-far “so that that’s why they had basic problem with the water” and then he adds and increment to the turn which gives further details of first-hand knowledge that he has in the form of an anecdote about problems with water. This is a further occasion on which Amrit gives firsthand examples to back up his credibility and, as Wooffitt (1992: 41) argues, giving details in descriptions is hearable as establishing a warrant for the authority of an account and the inference that the account is accurate and, in Wooffitt’s words, “trustworthy”. Thus, in Amrits’s case, the use of several detailed descriptions of his first-hand experience adds to the overall credibility of this knowledge concerning the cultural profile of the workforce from the eastern region. He then (line 90) sums up the gist of the talk with a general truth: “well and those kind of issues in Rajasthan you know is what happens”. This clichéd expression (i.e. this is what happens), especially because it includes an embedded assumption of agreement (you know), infers that this is a general truth that everyone one knows and that it is an accurate and credible representation of the state of affairs. Furthermore, as discussed before, Baldev responds to this assessment with simple agreement (line 92: “yeah yeah ° yeah°”), which does not attempt to contest the epistemic primacy inherent in this first-turn assessment. Following this agreement, Amrit adds an increment to his turn. (9) 93 A and now with different ( ) climate 94 change so the desert is greening and the p= 95 people= states like Orissa des=des= 96 =desertification is coming in [but] this still 97 B [°yes°] 98 A remains the case >okay< we agree that yes we 99 A will go with it is and diplomas and we will 100 recruit students from the eastern part of the 101 country ↑ 102 (.3) 103 B yes 104 A that we’ll arrange that is our headache 105 B yes we would like you to er er we will I think 106 jointly draw up some kind of typical profile

‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 123



107 108 109 110 111

and er: you could do the aptitude tests and you know the psychometric tests and other evaluation methods er to determine h=how how they fit in (.) in terms of er both aptitude to learn and on the soft skills er side

In line 93, Amrit topicalizes ‘green issues’: “and now with different ( ) climate change so the desert is greening and the p= people= states like Orissa des =des= desertification is coming in [ but ] this still remains the case”. This again, as previously discussed, is in an unmitigated display of rights to knowledge and receives no challenge. In line 98, Amrit, using okay which as Beach (1993) suggests connects prior talk to present talk, then announces the decision “>okay< we agree that we will go with ITIs and diplomas and we will recruit students from the eastern part of the country”. The emerging decision thus becomes Amrit’s even though it was the same course of future action as suggested by Baldev at the beginning of the sequence. This is confirmed in line 103 (yes) and after this the projected action which, through Baldev’s agreement, is now oriented to as a decision is reconfirmed “that [i.e. the recruitment] we’ll arrange that is our headache”. What has changed since the opening of the topic of the demographic profile of the workforce is the account for the future action. Baldev’s account for the future action on the grounds that the workforce from the eastern region are a hearty lot and will adapt has been replaced by Amrit’s account that we need to take care of the food and stay environment. Baldev has thus deferred to Amrit’s better knowledge. However, Amrit has had to work to make his epistemic primacy relevant, it is not simply driven by states of knowledge and this primacy has had to be generated through strategic moves that make use of the sequential properties of talk in order to ‘do’ having epistemic primacy. 5.2

Analysis: Sequence Two

So far there is nothing in the analysis that would allow a researcher to extrapolate an emic display of trust from the data. In extract two, after a stepwise topic shift to the training of the trainers (not discussed), the topic shifts to the location of the training centres and the profile of the prospective workforce again becomes topicalized, and at the end of this extract Baldev states: “okay I think th=those very culture specific issues w=we could erm I would leave it to your judgment”. As will be explicated, given its sequential placement in the interaction, this is oriented to as a display of trust in Amrit’s knowledge and ability to deal with cultural issues.

124 Jonathan Clifton

(10) 1 A we have put in a request that if you could 2 construct a small dormitory for these boys=we 3 have three four dormitories which can host 4 around two hundred and fifty people at any 5 given point in time boys↓ and girls we have 6 spare capacity for seventy 7 (.4) 8 B right now er er what wh=which is the location 9 you have in mind? er 10 A Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar 11 B pardon me 12 A Bhubaneswar 13 B Bhubaneswar itself 14 A yeah [and on ] [ Paralakhemundi ] 15 C ([ ]) 16 B [ (okay) ] 17 Paralakhemundi also? 18 A yeah we have three hundred capacity we have 19 total five hundred in any given point in time 20 for vocational education we have five hundred 21 hostel places as it stands but it’s going to 22 increase to thous[and] in the next three months 23 B [yeah] 24 B but these locations 25 A uhu 26 B and (.) the numbers we’re talking about. (.) 27 would you like to er distribute them in two 28 different systems or: [ ( )] 29 A [ yeah yeah ] it will be 30 two different = 31 B = you can think it over and then see how to go 32 about it on that 33 A no no no what we’ll do. the tribals and the 34 people from south Orissa we’ll keep them 35 there=see Orissa is divided into three divisions

In line 8, Baldev asks what Amrit he has in mind concerning the location for the training centres. Amrit replies that he has two locations in mind: Bhubaneswar and Paralakhemundi. Amrit then asks (line 26) “the numbers we’re talking about (.) would you like to er distribute them in two different or: [ systems (   ) ]”. This is a problem (i.e. where to locate the training institutes) in search of a solution, and



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 125

it initiates a second decision-making episode in talk. Amrit overlaps to provide a conditionally relevant response to the question (line 29: “yeah yeah it will be two different”). Baldev latches onto the what is retrospectively the end of Amrit’s turn and provides a solution to the problem (line 31: “you can think it over and then see how to go about it on that”). This thus is a putative decision, but it is not oriented to as such by Amrit who disaligns in the next turn and gives his solution to the problem: “no no no what we’ll do the tribals and the people from south Orissa we’ll keep them there”. In the continuation of the turn, he accounts for this projection of future action in terms of cultural differences and possibilities of culture shock and so retopicalizes cultural issues. (11) 35 36 B 37 A 38 39 40 B 41 A 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 A 49 50 51 52 B

there=see Orissa is divided into three divisions okay south north and central (.) south WEST and central (.3) okay south and west they have similar cultures so because you know immediately you pull them out of their erm home turf or their cultural area it is gonna be a problem so we would like to you know slowly move them across (.) so culturally they don’t get a shock (.4) if I send a boy or girl from here to Chennai first thing he runs away because he gets a culture shock (.3) yes I understand °I understand yes°

In line 35, after disaligning with Baldev’s projection of future action, and prefacing the continuation of the turn with ‘see’, Amrit renders his suggestion of future action accountable. In lines 35, Amrit describes how Orissa is geographically divided and this description is again presented in an objective and declarative form which is hearable as a display of epistemic rights to have and display knowledge. In line 42, he formulates the gist of these cultural observations in terms of problems in recruitment: “you know immediately you pull them out of their erm home turf or their cultural area for that it is gonna be a problem”. He then formulates, again with an embedded ‘you know’, a solution to this problem: “so we would like to you know slowly move them across (.) so culturally they don’t get a shock”.

126 Jonathan Clifton

This makes agreement or disagreement a conditionally relevant next action and when it is not forthcoming, he continues his turn with an example presented in an objective way and based on first-hand knowledge: “if I send a boy or girl from here to Chennai first thing he runs away because he gets a culture shock”. Agreement or disagreement with this formulation now again becomes conditionally relevant and this is supplied in a next turn by Baldev: “yes I understand °I understand yes°”. Significantly, Baldev’s turn again displays no attempt to challenge Amrit’s formulation or to usurp the epistemic primacy displayed. In the continuation of the talk, discussed below, they arrive at a decision for Amrit to deal with ‘cultural issues’. (12) 53 A so south and west will be in one place (.) and 54 central and north will be in one place 55 (0.4) 56 B are you looking er at having all the people 57 from Orissa? or are you looking [ at ] people 58 A [no] 59 B drawn from ([° °]) 60 A [ na no ] I am just giving a 61 hypothetical example (.) you [ know ] like any 62 B [okay] 63 A tribe from Chittaurgarh or Jharkhand [will] go 64 B [uhu] 65 A to Paralakhemundi because he like to that 66 ambiance 67 (.3) 68 B okay I think th=those very culture specific 69 issues w=we could erm I would leave it to 70 your judgment but w=we will definitely 71 work together on [ that er:] 72 C [and then] sorry=sorry to 73 interrupt but we also have an office in 74 Jharkhand

In line 53, Amrit orients to Baldev’s prior turn (line 52: “yes I understand °I understand yes°”) as a display of understanding rather than as a confirmation of his decision and he reiterates his solution to the problem: “so south and west will be in one place (.) and central and north will be in one place”. This still does not elicit alignment because there is a pause (line 55) followed by a further question: “are you looking er at having all the people from Orissa or are you looking [ at ] people drawn from ([°   °])”. Before Baldev can finish his turn, he is overlapped by



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 127

Amrit who states that it is hypothetical and accounts for this hypothetical decision, on cultural grounds so that “any tribe from Chittaurgarh or Jharkhand [will] go to Paralakhemundi because he like to that ambiance”. After a short pause, prefacing his turn with okay, which links prior talk to present talk, Baldev states: “I think th=those very culture specific issues w=we could erm I would leave it to your judgment but w=we will definitely work together on [that er:]”. Baldev thus orients to the projection of future action as regards cultural issues and the location of the training institutes as a decision. Moreover, he displays trust: “I would leave it to your judgment”. The continuation of the turn, with the increment but w=we will definitely work together on [that, shows that trust is not blind since even though there is a decision to delegate judgment on cultural issues, this is mitigated by the fact that Baldev displays an intention to still keep abreast of what is happening and so the delegation of judgment is mediated by control and vigilance (cf. Quéré 2005). This display of trust, at this particular point in the interaction, comes after Amrit’s display of authoritative knowledge that he knows what he is talking about in terms of cultural issues and this has been displayed through the account for the decision to recruit from the eastern region. This is consistent with Origgi’s (2008: 35) observation that, because an individual can’t know or witness everything, “many times our main reason for trust is based on the epistemic authority we attribute to the informant”. In terms of epistemic authority, how then is trust achieved as a members’ accomplishment? Epistemic authority is not an asocial matter of ‘having’ more knowledge than another, rather it is an interactional accomplishment in which relative states of knowledge have to be occasioned in talk and made interactionally relevant. First, Amrit achieves this through his use of objective and unmitigated statements, including the display of general truths of what ‘anyone knows’, which display a right to know and assess the state of affairs. Moreover, on one occasion, Amrit’s declarative assertions are juxtaposed with Baldev’s hedged assessment, thus, in comparative terms, making Amrit’s claim to knowledge stronger. Second, Amrit often embeds within his turns or prefaces his turns with the expression ‘you know’ which serves to project agreement with his displays of knowledge. Third, Amrit makes extensive use of his first-hand knowledge of the situation to bolster his epistemic stance. Fourth, he uses formulations to sum up the gist and the upshot of the talk-so-far so that his version of the state of affairs is accepted as the intersubjective version. Fifth, Amrit draws a knowing participant, Chandra, into the talk to create consensus for his account. Sixth, he repeats his account of the state of affairs several times thus building up a detailed and extensive catalogue of his knowledge base. Finally, it is important to note that this is a dialogic achievement and, since Baldev does not seek to challenge Amrit’s epistemic primacy, he becomes an active participant in allowing Amrit to display such primacy.

128 Jonathan Clifton

6. Observations and conclusions As Watson (2009: 477) notes, “trust as a first-order phenomenon has proved remarkably elusive” and “the elusiveness of trust is compounded by it allusive treatment in the formal analytic tradition”. Consequently, he (2009: 489) also notes that researchers’ etic definitions of trust are often at odds with “members’ own cultural methods in the use of trust”. Valuing pragmatics over semiotics and explication over theory, this paper uses CA as a research method in order to make the slippery notion of trust visible in talk by establishing that the utterance “I think th=those very culture specific issues w=we could erm I would leave it to your judgment” is a display of trust. And, by reverse engineering the machinery of talk that got to this decision, the paper seeks to explicate, in the participants’ own terms, how trust was achieved. As Garfinkel’s (1967) seminal work on jury decision-making makes clear, decision-making is not about rational choice, rather it is a question of defining a state of affairs and retrospectively accounting for projections of future action that have already been made. In the data presented here, the decision to recruit from the eastern region has already been announced and agreed within the opening stages of the interaction, but by assuming epistemic primacy in the subsequent account for the decision, Amrit takes ownership of the decision and displays his trustworthiness which is then noticed and oriented to by Baldev as he announces the decision to leave cultural issues to Amrit. CA can, therefore, make the slippery notion of trust as in situ practice visible and, thus, analyzable. The problematic notion of defining trust, and differentiating trust from notions such as risk or confidence, is sidestepped because, quite simply, such concerns are not displayed as members’ concerns. The quest for defining and measuring trust, consistent with the Platonic concept of language mirroring reality, presupposes that trust is a prediscursive entity that is ‘out there somewhere’ waiting to be labelled. However, an ethnomethodologically inspired approach to research argues for the indexicality of language so that the meaning of phenomena cannot be studied independently of their context of use. The corollary of this is that concepts, such as trust, can profitably be studied in the wild using naturally-occurring data in which the concept is treated as part of the language game in which it occurs. Further, as Watson (1994: 86) argues, “a piece of management research is useful in so far as it is capable of informing the practices of those involved in management activities”, and as Mintzberg (1982) argues, much management research fails to connect with the practitioner. Mintzberg (1982) claims that this is so because, inter alia, researchers are concentrating too much on a priori hypothetical constructs, definitions, and measurements and, as a result of this, the phenomena in question, as in situ accomplishments, are being relegated to



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 129

a position of lesser importance. This observation is certainly true for much of the second-order research on trust, which as Thomas et al. (2009: 306) observe, “provides little guidance for managers on how to use communication as a means to increasing levels of trust”. And, whilst occasionally researchers on trust do offer advice to practitioners, it is often vague. For example, McKnight and Chervany (1996: 43) do give practical implications for their research. In order to foster trust, they advise practitioners: to devote time to developing positive personal relationships with their subordinates; to pay attention to behaving and presenting themselves in ways that are consistent with trusting beliefs; and to develop personal relationships with subordinates who are not disposed to trust by clearly communicating the positive intent behind directions. Whilst such advice is no doubt substantially correct, it still fails to provide practitioners with concrete strategies that could be used to develop positive personal relationships, to present oneself in ways that are consistent with trusting beliefs, or to communicate positive intent clearly. On the other hand, fine-grained analyses of doing trust that reveal the ‘seen but unnoticed’ discursive resources by which trust is enacted can answer criticisms that academic research is distant from the practitioner. This is because first-order analyses of trust in the wild are able to provide practitioners with advice on concrete discursive strategies that they could use to ‘do’ trust in their everyday workplace interactions. As this paper has demonstrated, displaying epistemic primacy can be one way in which trustworthiness is displayed and epistemic authority can be achieved using the following resources: objective and unmitigated statements; general truths; first-hand knowledge; formulations; consensus; and detailed accounts. While Sacks (1984) makes it clear that the machinery of talk has generic properties, which means that the way trust is achieved, as explicated in this paper, provides resources that participants could use in other (similar) situations, we are still far away from an all encompassing grand theory of trust. And, because of the various language games in which trust could be a part, and the various contexts and cultures in which such games could take place, it is perhaps unrealistic to aspire to an all encompassing grand theory of trust that remains faithful to one single-case, fine-grained, sequential analysis of the doing of trust as a members’ achievement. Therefore, whilst this paper only claims to say some things about some aspects of trust, it is hoped that in the spirit of cumulative social research, further research could build on the analysis presented here to establish a more substantial corpus of trust-in-action and so further our knowledge of practical trust as a members’ accomplishment.

130 Jonathan Clifton

References Argyris, Chris. 1962. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood/ IL: Irwin-Dorsey Press. Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Bachmann, Reinhard and Zaheer, Akbar. 2006. “Introduction.” In Handbook of Trust Research, Reinhard Bachmann and Akbar Zaheer (eds.), 1–14. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Beach, Wayne A. 1993. “Transitional regularities for casual ‘okay’ usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325–352. Clifton, Jonathan. 2006. “A conversation analytical approach to business communication. The case of leadership.” Journal of Business Communication 43(3): 202–219. Clifton, Jonathan. 2009. “Beyond taxonomies of influence: ‘doing’ influence and making decisions in management team meetings.” Journal of Business Communication 46(1): 57–79. Edwards, Derek and Potter, Jonathan. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage. Garfinkel, Harold. 1963. “A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions.” In Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Approaches, O. J. Harvey (ed.), 187–238. New York: Ronald Press. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs/N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, Harold and Sacks, Harvey. 1970. “On formal structures of practical action.” In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.), 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge. Polity Press. Gillespie, Alex. 2007. “Trust in everyday interaction.” In Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives, Ivana Markova and Alex Gillespie (eds.), 121–127. Charlotte/N.C.: Information Age Publishing. Gonzalez-Martinez, Esther. 2001. “Comment agir en confiance avec un partenaire dont on se méfie?” [How can one trust a partner of whom one is suspicious?]. Réseaux 19: 89–123. Goodwin, Charles. 1987. “Forgetfulness as an interactive resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50: 115–131. Have, Paul ten. 2002. “The notion of member is the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/ fqs/fqs-eng.htm Heritage, John and Atkinson, John Maxwell. 1984. “Introduction.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. Heritage, John and Watson, Rod. 1979. “Formulations as conversational objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, Psathas George (ed.), 123–162. New York: Irvington. Kuroshima, Satomi. 2010. “Another look at the service encounter: Progressivity, intersubjectivity, and trust in a Japanese sushi restaurant.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(3): 856–869.



‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction 131

Lewicki, Roy, Tomlinson, Edward and Gillsepie, Nicole. 2006. “Models of interpersonal trust development. Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.” Journal of Management 32(6): 991–1022. Luhmann, Niklas. 1979. Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley. Lynch, Michael and Bogen, David. 1994. “Harvey Sacks’ primitive natural science.” Theory, Culture and Society 11: 65–104. Mayer, Roger, Davies, James and Schoorman, F. David. 1995. “An integrative model of organizational trust.” Academy of Management Review 20: 709–734. McGregor, Douglas. 1967. The Professional Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill. McKnight, D. Harrison and Chervany, Norman. 1996. “The meanings of trust.” University of Minnesota working paper. Available at: http://misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/WorkingPapers/9604. pdf. Mintzberg, Henry. 1982. “If you’re not serving Bill and Barbara, then you’re not serving leadership.” In Leadership beyond Establishment views, James Hunt, Uma Sekaran and Chester Schriesheim (eds.), 239–259. Carbondael: Southern Illinois University Press. Möllering, Guido. 2001. “The nature of trust, from George Simmel to theory expectation, interpretation and suspension.” Sociology 35(2): 403–420. Origgi, Gloria. 2004. “Is trust an epistemological notion?” Episteme 1: 61–72. Origgi, Gloria. 2008. “Trust, authority and epistemic responsibility.” Theoria 61: 35–44. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984 a. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984 b. “Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling ‘how I know’”. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 607–25. Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Quéré, Loius. 2005. “Les “dispositifs de confiance” dans l’espace public” [The operation of trust in public space]. Réseaux 23: 185–217. Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John. 2006. “The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren.” Language in Society 35: 677–705. Rotter, Julian B. 1967. “A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust.” Journal of Personality 35: 651–665. Rousseau, Denise, Sitkin, Sim, Burt, Ronald and Camerer, Colin. 1998. “Introduction to special topic forum: Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.” Academy of Management Revue 23(3): 393–404. Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “Notes on methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emmanuel and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.” Language 50(4): 696–735. Sarangi, Srikant. 2007. “The micropolitics of disclosure, stigma and (dis)trust surrounding HIV in India.” In Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives, Ivana Markova and Alex Gillespie (eds.), 153–179. Charlotte/N.C.: Information Age Publishing. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 98: 1295–1345.

132 Jonathan Clifton

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 161–216. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. “Whose text? Whose context?” Discourse and Society 8: 165–87. Smith, Dorothy. 1978. “K is mentally ill: The anatomy of a factual account.” Sociology 12: 23–53. Stivers, Tanya. 2004. ““No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction.” Human Communication Research 30(2): 260–293. Thomas, Gail Fann, Zolin, Roxanne and Hartman, Jackie. 2009. “The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement.” Journal of Business Communication 46(3): 287–310. Watson, Rod. 2009. “Constitutive practices and Garfinkel’s notion of trust: revisited.” Journal of Classical Sociology 9(4): 475–499. Watson, Tony. 1994. “Managing, crafting, and researching: Words, Skills and imagination in shaping management research.” British Journal of Management 5: 77–87. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2001/1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Wooffitt, Robin. 1992. Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organization of Factual Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Wiggins, Sally and Potter, Jonathan. 2003. “Attitudes and evaluative practices: category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessment.” British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 523–531.

part ii

Functions and strategies in professional communication

Control acts in Romanian Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

This paper examines some forms of speech acts of control, focusing on the means of indirectness and politeness available at the linguistic level in Romanian. The first part is a descriptive approach of directives and requests in Romanian, aiming at identifying the ‘grammar’ of such acts and the language-specific features that allow speakers to use certain mitigating devices in performing them. The second part of the paper is a case study on control acts in Romanian written workplace discourse. The data consist of relational and routine correspondence between a Human Resources Assistant and other staff members of a Romanian company. The results of the study draw both on qualitative analysis, concerning the identification and description of the Romanian patterns of expressing control acts in workplace correspondence, and on quantitative analysis, in order to identify the most frequent linguistic forms that are nowadays used in written professional communication.

1. Introduction This paper presents some of the results of a research project focusing on linguistic patterns in professional Romanian and exploits a corpus of written and spoken data collected in the past three years in several professional settings in Romania. The aim of this paper is on one hand to identify and describe linguistic

. ‘Professional Language in Present-day Romanian. Linguistic Patterns and Discursive Structures’, supported by a Romanian governmental grant (CNCSIS, ID 142). . Gheorghe, Măda and Săftoiu (2009a) (CLM I) and Gheorghe, Măda and Săftoiu (2009b) (CLM II).

136 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

and ­discursive Romanian specific patterns of expressing control acts, and on the other hand to comment upon the degree of directness and politeness that they implicitly involve. Section 2 is dedicated to the description of linguistic forms used in Romanian for orders and requests, in order to draw on a typology of lexical and syntactic devices available in Romanian for expressing “the attempts by the speaker to get a hearer to do something” in the future (Searle 1976: 11). Most of these forms are indirect means of expression and the speaker’s motivation for choosing them in a certain context is mainly pragmatic. Section 3 is a case study on data collected from workplace written communication. Section 4 presents the conclusions of the study. Previous research on speech acts adopted the term control acts to define “any moves which could be interpreted either by the speaker or the hearer as an attempt to affect the behaviour of an addressee or hearer” (Ervin-Tripp, Guo and Lampert 1990: 308). Earlier research on speech acts (Koike 1989) perceived directives as the general term for control acts, the requests being just a branch. In English, control acts are conceptualized as an umbrella term for directives, requests, and advice. This terminology is also present in other studies (BlumKulka 1990; Pearson 1989) as speech acts of control or controlling speech acts, and it is predominantly discussed in the workplace context (Vine 2004). Control acts employed in workplace communication have in common a practical goal – the accomplishment of a certain task. According to the degree of choice given to the hearer, speech acts of control range on a scale of optionality, from ‘ordering’ to ‘requesting’ (Leech 1983: 175). They are potential face threatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987), highly variable across cultures (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984) and they reflect social relationships. Since professional context encompasses ordinary pragmatic requirements such as: efficiency, politeness and social constraints such as: power, social distance, status, interference (Vine 2009), directives used in such contexts display a wide range of strategies employed by speakers in order to modify a face-threatening act. The workplace setting offers almost all the types of registers from formal to colloquial, due to the diversity of the speakers’ relationships.

. As researchers, we are fully aware of the possible ‘danger’ that the generalization of linguistic patterns may concern (Holmes and Schnurr 2005), but as one of the basic challenges in pragmatics is the issue of universality (Blum Kulka 1984: 196), we think it is of scientific interest to seek for the variety of forms that express control acts in Romanian language in comparison to other cultures, to see if the universal linguistic rules apply to this language too, and if so, to what degree. . We cannot state that the motivation for indirectness is entirely pragmatic, because indirect means of expression may have other motivations than a certain intention of the speaker. For cross-linguistic arguments of the existence of a universal principle of indirectness, see Frajzyngier and Jirsa (2006).



Control acts in Romanian 137

2. The ‘grammar’ of control acts in Romanian In the typology of directives described in the literature, the imperative is placed at the bottom of the scale of indirectness (e.g. Wash the dishes), and indirect forms such as declaratives or interrogatives (e.g. I want you to wash the dishes, Can you wash the dishes? Could you wash the dishes? I wonder if you would mind washing the dishes) are marked progressively to the top of the scale. Following Searle (1976: 64), the choice of the linguistic form for directives is constrained by conversational requirements of politeness. It is normally unusual to utter flat imperative sentences (e.g. Bring me the book!) or explicit performatives (e.g. I order you to bring me the book), and speakers therefore try to find indirect means to express the intended illocutionary ends (e.g. I wonder if you could bring me the book).The idea that politeness is the chief motivation for indirectness in directives is widely argued in the literature. All categories of control acts are inherently thought to represent “face-threatening acts” (Brown and Levinson 1987), as “by making a request, the speaker impinges on the hearer’s claim to freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (Blum-Kulka 1984: 201). Or “the control acts can be understood as generally requiring the use of politeness strategies in order to minimise the face threat to the hearer” (Vine 2004: 37). Still, the universality of the politeness principle is sometimes contested. There are languages in which the use of a bare imperative or the use of an explicit performative is the only normal option (see, for instance, Wierzbicka 2003: 60). So, on one hand the canonical forms of expressing directives may vary cross-culturally and cross-linguistically, and on the other hand, means of indirectness may also vary as a consequence of the differences concerning the unmarked forms. Speakers’ option for the appropriate strategy from the scale follows their judgment regarding power, distance, and imposition. Referring to requests, Dalton-Puffer (2005: 1279) argues that once this judgment has been accomplished, “the speaker can then fine-tune the impact of the directive on the hearer with a choice of internal and external request modification strategies”. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 275–289) and Trosborg (1994: 209–219), internal modifiers are syntactic devices (e.g. past tense, conditional clauses) or lexical/phrasal (e.g. politeness markers, downtoners, hedges). External modifiers are supportive moves that prepare the ground for the speech act. In this section, we aim at drawing an inventory of linguistic devices used for expressing control acts in Romanian, focusing on those that are languagespecific. The data illustrating this inventory are mainly collected in workplace communication, both written (CLM I) and spoken (CLM II). Few examples are created ad-hoc or are collected through personal experience in our own professional environment.

138 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

2.1

Direct forms

We take as a premise the idea that in Romanian, as in many other languages, the imperative is the canonical, unmarked linguistic expression for explicit directives. Still, due to certain typological features of this language, flat imperatives may be hedged by syntactic or lexical means (see below, 2.1.1, 2.1.2), which are not explicit politeness markers. Employed in a diversity of prescriptive utterances, the imperative is the verbal mood that encompasses the implication of interpersonal relationships in communication. On the axis of modality, imperatives scale from intention to accomplishment of an action (GALR I 2008: 382). They all promote compliance, with varying degrees of strength, from deontic to permission modals (Huddlestone and Pullum 2002: 924). In Romanian, imperatives are concurrent with subjunctives and indicatives and, contextually, in variation with the subjunctive and with non-finite forms like the infinitive and the supine (Lombard 1974: 288; GALR I 2008: 382). 2.1.1 Bare imperatives In languages with rich morphology like Romanian, the verb bears inflectional information consisting of tense, person and number. Being a pro-drop language, Romanian strongly relies on verb inflections as an important grammatical strategy for marking person deixis. There are dedicated endings for each grammatical person of the verb, sometimes backed by phonetic alternations. Typologically, Romanian is a T(u)-V(ous) language, i.e. 2nd person pronouns or 2nd person verbal desinences show different degrees of politeness. Therefore, forms of polite

. Inherited from Latin, the Romanian supine is a non-finite verbal form, consisting of a participle and a preposition: (1) am de citit cartea (I) have for read.ptcp book-det ‘I have to read the book’ Contextually (see 2.2.2), in reduced clauses and only in written register, the supine is equivalent to an imperative: (2) De trimis mâine! for sent.ptcp tomorrow ‘To be sent tomorrow!’ . For the pro-drop parameter in the generative grammar framework and for the cluster of properties exhibited by pro-drop languages, see Chomsky (1981); Rizzi (1982). For a brief description of the pro-drop properties in Romanian, see 2.1.2.1.

Control acts in Romanian 139



address are grammaticalized: when the 2nd person plural is employed in relation to a single referent, deference to the hearer is involved. We call bare imperatives forms like the ones in Example (3), where the hearer is deictically identified, and where the imperative is not accompanied by any polite particle like pleaseor by other performative pre-sequences. (3) Adu / aduceţi dosarul! Bring.imp.2.sg / Bring.imp.2.pl file-det ‘Bring the file!’

As in many other languages, the use of bare imperative is common when people are involved in an intense activity and when by reasons of efficiency, indirectness (i.e. politeness) becomes less important. In such contexts, the utterance is reduced to the minimum information necessary for the accomplishment of an action and even the verb may be omitted (e.g. in interactions between surgeons and nurses: √ Scalpel). Bare imperatives may be stacked, as in Examples (4) and (5), where the imperative embedding the instruction given to the hearer is preceded by the imperative of a motion verb. The two imperatives are connected through the conjunction – şi (engl. and), having here the meaning of a subordinator (‘in order to’): (4) Vino şi ia dosarul! Come.imp.2.sg and get.imp.2.sg file-det ‘Come get the file!’ (5)

Deci o să am nevoie de o bază pe materialul brut ‘So I’ll need a base for the raw material’ Du-te şi fă-l!  Go-refl.imp.2.sg and make.imp.2.sg-clacc.3.sg.m ‘Go make it!’

(CLM I: 227)

. In Romanian, the equivalent of the English politeness marker please is te/vă rog [(I) ask yousg/pl]. In initial position, followed by an imperative or by a subjunctive, the verbal phrase has performative meaning. In final position, the verbal meaning of te/vă rog is bleached and the sequence functions as a pragmaticalized politeness marker. It is associated with polite requests or task-based requests. In medial position, it is difficult to draw the line between the pragmaticalized meaning and the literal one, it may function with both values. In a study dedicated to the marker please in American and New Zealand English, Sato (2008) concludes that it has “systematic interactional functions that are position-specific” (Sato 2008: 1250). The initial position is associated with the directive acts of demands and pleas, the medial position shows the widest functional variability, and can be identified in conventional polite requests and commands, and final position is reserved for task-based requests.

140 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Example (5) needs further comment upon the pragmatic function of the first imperative: the verb a se duce (engl. go). Compared with the verb a veni (engl. come) in Example (4), which may have a referential motivation (the speaker may want the hearer to approach), the imperative of a se duce in (5) is redundant, unnecessary for the global meaning of the message; therefore, it is used to attenuate the strength of the second imperative, having the effect of a hedger. In other instances of stacked imperatives, when both verbs express instructions for the accomplishment of a task, the same coordinating conjunction has a supplementary continuative meaning (and then). The force of the two imperatives is neither attenuated, nor aggravated, as in (6): (6) [Prenume], îţi trimit macheta de anunţ în ziar. Adaptează-l şi vezi cât costă 5 apariţii!  (CLM I: 155) ‘[First name], I am sending the draft for the newspaper announcement. Adapt it and see how much they charge for 5 issues!’

2.1.2 Softened bare imperatives In Romanian imperative sentences, the presence of a constituent referring to the speaker (as the beneficiary of the action) or to the hearer (as the agent of the action) may have mitigation function. Politeness theory (e.g. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984) states that hearer oriented strategies are more polite than speaker oriented strategies. In the following section, we intend to show that in Romanian, both lexicalization of the speaker and lexicalization of the hearer function as hedgers of the imperative, due to certain typological features of the language. 2.1.2.1  Imperatives with overt subject. Romanian is a pro-drop language, i.e. relying on strong inflectional agreement to the verb, pronominal subjects may be freely omitted. There are dedicated endings for each grammatical person of the verb, sometimes backed by phonetic alternations, thus the empty subject is recoverable through verb inflections. Sentences with null subject are the canonical, unmarked syntactic pattern. Under these circumstances, the overt subject and its pre-verbal placement produce pragmatic effects. In imperatives, the subject is easily recoverable either deictically or by other contextual means. An overt subject is perceived as marked, as an indication that the focus is on that constituent. The strategy has the power of a mitigating device, softening the impact of the order. In Example (7), the reference to the hearer is interpreted as an indication of the speaker’s empathic attitude. Accompanied by a certain intonation (similar to the intonation of requests), the use of the subject has the function of please.

Control acts in Romanian 141



(7) Adu tu dosarul ăla! Get.imp.2.sg you file-the that ‘Get that file!’

For a stronger effect, the imperative may be associated to the vocative and the post-verbal subject, like in Example (8): (8) Maria, adu tu dosarul ăla! Mariavoc get.imp.2.sg you file-the that ‘Maria, get that file!’

A supplementary softener of the directive may be the modification of the vocative form by means of a diminutive suffix. The addressee is appealed by his/her name with a diminutive suffix, like in (9): (9) Cocuţa, fă o legătură cu dl. David! Coca-dim make.imp.2.sg a connection to Mr. David ‘Cocuţa, get Mr. David on the phone!’

2.1.2.2  Imperatives with lexicalized (and doubled) indirect object. In order to explain the impact that a lexicalized object may have in Romanian when associated with imperatives, a brief presentation of some syntactic features of this language is needed. Romanian is a language displaying clitic doubling of direct and indirect object (GALR II 2008: 401, 430; Dobrovie-Sorin 2000 [1994]: 216–258). The clitic doubling phenomena has two variants: the accusative clitic [clacc] and the dative clitic [cldat] which either precede the verb and the direct or indirect object (a full pronoun or a referential expression), as in Example (10), or are placed at the end of the entire slot, as in Example (11): (10) a. b.

li-a văzut pe eli / pe Ioni pro clacc.3.sg.m-aux see.ptcppe10 himacc / pe Johnacc ‘He/she saw him / John’ ii-a spus luii / lui Ioni pro cldat.3.sg-aux tell. ptcp himdat / to Johndat ‘He/she told that to him / to John’

. The strategy to soften an imperative by means of the use of diminutives is not only a Romanian strategy. See Wierzbicka (2003: 52), for evidence from Polish. . In syntactic representation of subjectless sentences, pro is the symbol of the null subject. 10. PE is a grammaticalized preposition in Romanian, marking the direct object in certain semantic-syntactic circumstances (+ individualized or + specific referent), see GALR II (2008: 398).

142 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

(11) a. b.

pe eli / pe Ioni nu-licunosc pro pe himacc / pe Johnacc not-clacc.3.sg.m know ‘I don’t know him / John’ luii / lui Ioni nu ii-a spus pro himdat/ to Johndat not cldat.3.sg-aux tell.ptcp ‘She didn’t tell him / John’

In orders or requests, orientation to the speaker by means of lexicalization of the beneficiary of the act is not a mitigating device: (12) Adu-mi dosarul! Get.imp.2.sg-cldat.1.sg file-det ‘Get me the file!’ (13) O secundă, du-te şi adu-mi fişa postului pentru director de vânzări. Păi da’ asta trebuia făcut şi până acum.  (CLM I: 239) … du-te şi adu-mi … Go-refl.imp.2.sg and get.imp.2.sg-cldat.1.sg ‘Hang on a second, go get the job description for sales manager. Well, this had to be done already.’

Still, in Romanian, the use of a pronoun referring to the speaker has a softening effect when the indirect object is doubly expressed and the full pronoun is modified by an emphatic adverbial particle şi (engl. too), usually employed in requests or begging: (14) Adu-mi şi mie dosarul! Get.imp.2.sg-cldattoo medat file-det ‘Get me the file!’

In colloquial register, when two imperatives are coordinated, the second clitic may appear in front of the verb, thus the emphatic word order contributes to a hedging effect: (15) Du-te şi îmi adu dosarul! Go-refl.imp.2.sg and cldat get.imp.2.sg file-det ‘Get me the file!’

2.1.2.3  Imperatives with injunctive interjections. Bare imperatives (without the politeness marker please) may be preceded by injunctive interjections (ia, hai, haide), often associated to some of the downgraders mentioned above, in order to reduce the imposition on hearer’s autonomy: (16) [Prenume(-dim)], ia/ hai(de) adu(-mi) (şi mie)/ (tu)dosarul! [First name(-dim)], [interj] get.imp.2.sg(-cldat) (too medat)/ (you)file-det ‘[First name(-dim)], come on, get (me) the file!’

Control acts in Romanian 143



(17) Ia sună-l poate a uitat de gunoiul ăla.  (CLM I: 247) ‘[interj] call him now maybe he has forgotten about that rubbish.’

Special attention needs to be paid to the interjection haide (and its reduced variant hai). According to Lombard (1980: 534), it has Turkish origin and it exists in many Balkan languages. The English equivalent of this interjection is let’s, as in (18): (18) Hai/haide să mergem împreună! [interj] să go.sbjv.1.pl together ‘Let’s go together!’

In spoken Romanian, hai tends to develop a verbal-like paradigm, by means of 1st and 2nd person plural desinences: haidem, haideţi. Verbal inflection is a clear indication that the interjection gets the value of an imperative. In first person plural (haidem), it acts like an inclusive hortative imperative, incorporating the meaning of a motion verb that can freely be omitted, as in the following example: (19) Haidem împreună! interj.1.pl together ‘Let’s go together!’

In second person singular (haide), or plural (haideţi), it has a mobilizing effect upon the hearer(s), see (20).The hedging function11of this interjection depends very much on the intonation. (20) Haide(ţi), faceţi voi raportul! interj.2.pl, do.imp.2.pl you report-det ‘Come on, do the report!’

2.1.2.4  Imperatives with question tags. In Romanian, question tags usually have the form of an affirmative particle: (21) Analizaţi fiecare pe zona voastră, da? Analyse.imp.2.pl each in area your. poss, yes ‘Do your own analysis in your area, will you?’

(CLM I: 234)

The use of the affirmative particles in Romanian has the same hedging effect as the English question tag will you, but, in our opinion, it has a supplementary function, relying on the particular linguistic form of the question. The affirmative adverb functions not only as a softener of the bare imperative, but also as a mobilizing device, by limiting the hearer’s option for the answer to the task-based 11. For the hedging functions of the Bulgarian xajde in informal symmetrical discourse, see Tchizmarova (2005: 1144).

144 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

request. The alternative to an agreeing answer would be a flat ‘no’, which is highly improbable under the circumstances of a cooperative interaction. The forms of imperative described so far are bare imperatives associated to certain attenuation markers that rely on elements of the language system. In pro-drop languages like Romanian, the lexicalization grid of the verbal phrase is highly relevant at discourse level, and therefore, the softening effect is mostly due to the speaker’s choice regarding the syntactic structure of the sentence. When a constituent of the sentence is canonically covert, its overt use in a certain context determines a pragmatic effect upon the hearer. 2.2

Indirect forms

Many patterns of indirectness used for expressing control acts in Romanian are universal pragmatic strategies and for that reason, their inventory is not relevant for the purpose of our paper12. In this section we will focus on the means of indirectness that rely on language-specific features. 2.2.1 Subjunctives In Romanian, the syntactic mark for subjunctives is the complementizer să. For the 1st and 2nd person (singular and plural), the verbal inflections are identical to the inflections of the indicative: (22) a. b. c. d.

să aduc.sbjv.1.sg / aduc.ind.1.sg ‘to bring / I bring’ să aduci.sbjv.2.sg / aduci.ind.2.sg ‘to bring / you bring’ să aducem.sbjv.1.pl / aducem.ind.1.pl ‘to bring / we bring’ să aduceţi.sbjv.2.pl / aduceţi.ind.2.pl ‘to bring / you bring’

For the 3rd person, the subjunctive has distinctive forms: (23) a. b.

să aducă.sbjv.3.sg / aduce.ind.3.sg ‘to bring / he/she brings’ să aducă.sbjv.3.pl / aduc.ind.3.pl ‘to bring / they bring’

12. In Romanian, as it happens in many other languages, the use of interrogatives like: Vrei/ poţi să aduci dosarul? ‘Can you get the file?’ or Ai putea să-mi aduci dosarul? ‘Could you get the file?’ represents a hedging strategy for control acts.

Control acts in Romanian 145



Subjunctives are commonly used in complement clauses, as in (24a), but in certain contexts (see GALR I 2008: 382–383), they have the value of the imperative (24b): (24) a. b.

Vreau să plec. (I) want.ind.1.sg să leave.sbjv.1.sg ‘I want to leave.’ Să-i scrieţi o trimitere pentru… să-cldat.3.sg write.sbjv.2.pl a referral to… ‘Write her/ him a referral to …’

(CLM I: 227)

From a syntactic point of view, the subjunctive with imperative value in (24b) may be described as an elliptical structure. In (25b), we show that deletion of the matrix in (25a) determines on one hand the transfer of its meaning to the subordinate clause and on the other hand, the grammaticalization of să, by loss of its subordinating function. (25) a. b.

Te rog să aduci cartea! (I) clacc.2.sg ask.ind.1.sg să bring.sbjv.2.sg book-the ‘I ask you to bring the book’ / ‘Please bring the book!’ √să aduci cartea! √să bring.sbjv.2.sg book-the ‘Bring the book!’

From a pragmatic point of view, elliptical subjunctives in the 2nd person are employed in the same contexts as bare imperatives (24b), or they may be downgraded by hedgers or politeness markers, as in (26)–(28). (26) [Prenume], începând din săptămâna aceasta, în fiecare luni să-mi trimiţi fişierele alăturate completate cu firmele pe care le-aţi contactat direct  (CLMR: 157) … să-mi trimiţi … … să-cldat.1.sg send.sbjv.2.sg… ‘[First name] starting this week send me the attached files filled in with info about the companies you have contacted directly’ (27) Ia să-ţi notezi lucru’ ăsta, Adi  [interj]să-cldat.2.sg write.sbjv.2.sg this, Adivoc ‘Write this down, Adi’

(CMPR: 233)

(28) Doamna Marica, să-mi faceţi, vă rog, şi un pic de eugenat.  (CMPR: 227) Mrs Maricavocsă-cldat.1.sg make.sbjv.2.pl, cldat.2.pl (I) ask.ind.1.sg, too a bit of eugenol ‘Mrs Marica, please make a bit of eugenol as well’

146 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

The reason why we include subjunctives with the value of imperatives in the section dedicated to indirect forms will become clearer if we examine Example (29): (29) Să vină doamna Secară să-i fac anestezie  (CMPR: 228) [să come.sbjv.3.sg Mrs Secară să-cldat.3.sg do.sbjv.1.sg anaesthesia ‘Mrs Secara is to come for her anaesthesia’

Due to the rich inflection of subjunctives, the speaker has the possibility to indirectly express an imperative form, without any other marker of attenuation then the verbal form itself. Though the hearer is the addressee of the control act, the 3rd person form of the verb transfers the imposition to a third party. Any linguistic feature referring to the hearer is suppressed, so he/she is only supposed to intermediate the accomplishment of the control act. In Example (30), we find a pattern belonging to the administrative register and consisting of a truncated form of the performative verbal phrase: rog (engl. ask) instead of vă rog (engl. I ask you). The pronominal complement of the performative verb is deleted, which gives the formula a certain “generic” reading, by suppressing the reference to the addressee. The ‘reduced’ form of the indicative, associated to a bare imperative (instead of a subjunctive, as in (25a)) has the effect of a strong control act. (30) Rog dispuneţi măsurile ce se impun.  (CLM I: 237) (I)ask.ind.1.sg take.imp.2.pl measures that refl impose.ind.3.sg ‘I demand you take the necessary measures’

2.2.2 Non-finite verbal forms Besides subjunctives, the other equivalents of the imperative that are mentioned by Romanian grammars are the supine and the infinitive, non-finite verbal forms which display both nominal and verbal features. As non-finite forms, the supine and the infinitive lack referential information regarding the participants in the communicative act, so their use is preferred when the speaker’s intention is to issue an act of control with the highest degree of impersonality as far as the source is concerned and with the highest degree of generality from the point of view of the addressee. The Romanian supine (whose form in contemporary Romanian is preposition + participle) is used with the pragmatic value of an imperative mostly in writing. It is rather uncommon to utter directives like (31) in face-to-face interaction. (31) De rezolvat până luni! To solve.ptcp till Monday ‘To be solved till Monday!’

Control acts in Romanian 147



The use of the infinitives as equivalents of the imperatives has similar stylistic constraints. They are used in written instructions, in prescriptive or prohibitive sentences: (32) a. b.

A se consuma înainte de data de pe capac! to refl consume.inf before date on lid ‘Best before: see the date on the lid!’ A nu se trece! to not refl cross.inf ‘Do not cross!’

2.2.3 Impersonal structures and other indirect forms Romanian is a language with great sensitivity to the personal/ impersonal opposition. Contextually acquired impersonality of certain verbs is used as an internal modifier (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984: 275–289) for minimising the presence of the speaker in control acts. With passive-impersonal verbs as in Examples (33) and (34), the controller is no longer in subject position and its presence may be completely suppressed. (33) Din partea Domnului Decan/ Către toate cadrele didactice/ (…) Sunteţi rugaţi să depuneţi un dosar cu o cerere către rector şi o autoevaluare cu următoarele componente (…) Vă mulţumesc, [nume + prenume],  (CLM I: 155) ‘From the Dean/ To all teaching staff/ (…) You are asked to submit a file containing a letter of application and a self-evaluation document with the following components (…) Thank you, [surname+first name]’ (34) Se alocă 5000 de lei pentru achiziţionarea de cărţi de specialitate (…) Titlurile dorite vor fi comunicate în săptămâna 24–28.03.08 secretarului ştiinţific al catedrei (…). Vă mulţumesc, [prenume + nume]. (CLM I: 164) ‘The amount of 5000 lei is to be spent for the purchase of scientific literature (…) Titles will be submitted between 24 and 28.03.08 to the department chancellor. Thank you [first name + surname]’

In contexts in which the hearer is in a superior position to the speaker or in a position that would not normally allow the utterance of a plain order, the act of control may be softened by means of a shift of address form. We found in our corpus two examples in which the speaker indirectly addresses a request to a superior (35) and to an equal (36), by using an assertion instead of a performative prefix. The verbal phrase has the pragmatic value of a 3rd person imperative, which is a softened form:

148 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

(35) Stimaţi colegi, am o rugăminte # până vine doamna inspector că n-a ajuns doamna Diaconu ă: întîrzie puţin am să rog pe doamna directoare să vă lămuriţi în problemele pe care le aveţi de rezolvat  (CLM II: 1) … am să rog pe doamna directoare să vă lămuriţi … (I) aux să ask.sbjv.1.sg pe Mrs headmistress să refl clarify.sbjv.2.pl ‘Dear colleagues I have a request to make # till the inspector gets here Mrs Diaconu is not here yet, she’ll be a bit late, I’ll have to ask the headmistress to see that you solve your problems’ (36) Am să rog pe colega noastră Raluca să noteze…  (CLM II: 2) (I) aux să ask.sbjv.1.sg pe colleague ourposs Raluca să take down.sbjv.3.sg ‘I’m going to have to ask our colleague Raluca to write down…’

2.3

Conclusions

The aim of this section was to show that the form of control acts in Romanian is dependent on some typological features, mainly those related to the lexicalisation of internal and external arguments of the main verb or to the sensitivity towards the prominence of the speaker or the hearer. In Romanian, as in many other languages, bare imperatives are usually avoided. Though, they may be employed with linguistic marks that soften their power of imposition: (i) in coordinated structures, (ii) associated to a post-verbal overt subject or to a diminutive form of a vocative, (iii) with clitic-doubled indirect object, (iv) preceded by injunctive interjections or (v) followed by the affirmative particle da, as a question tag. Elliptical subjunctives (which are not embedded in a matrix clause) are pragmatic equivalent to imperatives and they are employed in the same contexts as bare imperatives or they are downgraded by hedgers or politeness markers. Unlike imperatives, subjunctives allow the expression of a control act directed to a 3rd person, due to their rich inflection. On the opposite side of the scale, the pragmatic value of an imperative may be achieved by using non-finite verbal forms (supine and infinitive) or passiveimpersonal verbal forms, which minimize the presence of both the speaker and the hearer.

Control acts in Romanian 149



3. Case study. Control acts in Romanian workplace correspondence In this section, we clearly differentiate between directives and requests, taking into consideration the hierarchical social status (Vine 2004) of the participants, the directives being expressed by the manager to the assistant in a relational correspondence (Bax 1986), the requests being sent by and to participants having workplace reciprocal relationships. The methodology involves a pragma-linguistic analysis, focusing on the clause sentence level (identification and description of linguistic realization of the patterns) and on the discourse level (pragmatic interpretation concerning the concepts of directness and politeness). 3.1

Control acts in written business communication

Apart from unpublished studies on English for Special Purposes (Nickerson 1993), there are few research papers (Murray 1987; Ghadessy 1993; Homzie Kotsonis and Toris, 1981; Măda 2009) concerning pragmalinguistic analysis on written business correspondence. It was defined as “a complex goal-oriented activity which is context-dependent” (Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris 1996: 638). Particularly focusing on requests in the professional context, Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris came up with the following definition that we adopt in our study: “a legitimate attempt of the writer to get the reader to perform an action required by the business circumstances through evoking the reader’s needs for compliance on the grounds of corporate and personal motivators such as necessity, duty and goodwill” (1996: 640). Their study resulted in lexical, syntactic and structural variations between the routine and relational correspondence. Recent previous research on requests in business communication explored structural analysis at the clause sentence level and then discourse analysis concerning the construction of identity from the post-modern social constructionist perspective (Ho 2010). As far as directives are concerned, in a major early paper (Ervin-Tripp 1976) there were identified six different types of directives in various social relationships and contexts. Recently, in spoken discourse, directives have been referred to either as direct/explicit or indirect/implicit (Vine 2004; Gunnarsson 2009). Directives in written correspondence were the focus of linguists such as Bax (1986) who drew a comparison between spoken and written discourse in assigning tasks in an office, taking into consideration the interpersonal level of communication between the supervisor and the subordinate.

150 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Some recent studies on spoken professional discourse (Saito 2010) explore the gender differences in Japanese styles of expressing workplace directives in confrontational situations, while others focus also on gender, drawing a comparison between male and female leaders performing similar tasks (Ladegaard 2011). The focus of the analysis within this case study is on written discourse (for the typology of directives that we adopt, see 1.). In the second part of the study, we also take into account the gender point of view, focusing on the Romanian female style of leadership. 3.2

Perspectives of politeness and directness

An approach regarding a typology of various forms of expressing requests has been proposed by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) within a Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) which involved eight languages or varieties, the data being collected from both native and non-native speakers. They proposed a rich ‘repertoire of pragmalinguistic options’ ranked from the most direct, and implicitly the less polite to the less direct and the most polite strategies. We adopted this model in our analysis (see 3.4, Table 2), sometimes encountering obstacles in filling in the scale of directness because the Romanian language has plenty of forms of softening the direct speech acts. The same study explores the ‘point of view operation’ (term adopted from Brown and Levinson 1987) categorizing the ‘request perspective’ in hearer oriented, speaker oriented, speaker and hearer oriented and impersonal use. The qualitative analysis of our research is also drawn from this perspective, “speaker based requests being less polite than hearer based requests” (Koike 1989: 199). We also analyse the control acts according to the three rules for politeness from the perspective of the speaker: “don’t impose, give options and make the listener feel good – be friendly” (Lakoff 1973) which express the relationship between the speaker and hearer and the feelings that these attitudes involve. The above approaches explore the degree of politeness in requests using spoken discourse as collected data. A general quantitative analysis on business letters (Pilegaard 1997) reviews the politeness strategies and applies them to letter-specific text distribution, leaving room for recent criticism related to the role of these strategies and their contributions to the quality of communication (Jansen and Janssen 2010). When discussing about directives, directness is related to forcefulness, and “equated with level of politeness” (Vine 2004: 90). The choice of using a specific form lies in the speaker’s wish of being polite, thus directives are linked to the

Control acts in Romanian 151



concept of politeness and can be expressed in various forms, “through imperatives, interrogatives, declarative and verbless sentences, dependent on how polite the speaker wishes to express him/herself ” (Trosborg 1994: 167). 3.3

Data collection and participants

Previous research (Byon 2004; Marti 2006) used discourse completion tasks (DCT) and politeness questionnaires for providing data for analyzing control acts, even if “they are not considered suitable for collecting authentic spoken or ‘real’ time data” (Marti 2006: 1843). The data for this study consist of 36 e-mails (out of 46) written in Romanian to or by the same person during 2010 year, this person being a Male Human Resources Responsible Assistant (Tom) from an International Company, who kindly provided the researchers e-mails between him and other staff from inside the company and also from outside it, in order to identify ways of assigning work within the company or simply of requesting. We also took into consideration the social position of the participants, specifying their rank, gender and relation according to the main participant, John, and the contextual information of e-mails. The correspondence had topics mainly concerning training information, but also payment details, invitations, web-conference meeting, security issues, reminders. The participants were given pseudonyms in order to protect their identity. We mentioned their gender and function: Susan = Female Manager, RH Director FM = Foreign Managers Anna = Female RH Responsible from another company Tom = Male Assistant, RH Training Responsible Mary = Female Main Manager Assistant Julie = Female Training Responsible, same status as A, but from a different company C = other colleagues of A Liz = female colleague of A

We extracted from the e-mails the head acts considered to be requests and directives and their adjuncts, in order to carry out both a linguistic and discursive analysis. Table 1 summarizes the e-mails used in the research in order to find possible similarities and differences between the e-mails that Tom sends to his addresses and the ones that he receives from the HR director and from his equals. The results are presented in the section of conclusions.

152 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Table 1.  Quantitative analysis of the data E-mails written by Tom to

E-mails written to Tom by

Julie

Other colleagues

Foreign managers

Liz

Mary

Anna

Susan

Julie

Liz

5

9

1

6

2

1

2

3

7

Total e-mails: 21

Total e-mails: 15

In the analysis we provide the English translation of the data and we adopt the notation model used by Vine (2004): (dST-1) = directive of Susan to Tom – first utterance 3.4

Findings and discussion upon requests

The most frequently used form of expressing both requests and directives is considered to be the imperative mood which is also claimed by some linguists (Brown and Levinson 1987) to be the most direct choice in realizing control acts, and by others considered to be variable across cultures (Wierzbicka 1985) and often expressing a polite demand with the meaning of “veuillez: Veuillez agréer l’expression de ma haute considération” (‘Please receive the expression of my deepest consideration’) (Riegel, Pellat and Rioul 2004: 332). Table 2 illustrates the model containing the scale of directness proposed by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), some categories such as hedged performatives, strong and mild hints not being found in the collected data. The categories are ranked from direct to indirect, implicitly from the least polite to the most polite. The table contains all the requests sent by Tom to his addressees and vice-versa, in order to capture a variety of linguistic choices in shaping this type of control acts. In analyzing the data, we look simultaneously at the structural choice of expressing the request and at the discursive contextual implications, looking at the level of directness and politeness. Table 2 contains examples only for the head acts suitable for each pragmatic category, the full sentence being analyzed separately. At the top of the scale of directness, it can be noticed that the mood derivable is the most direct form of expressing requests. Mood derivable is believed to be the bare imperative which is associated with the bald-on-record politeness strategy (Brown and Levinson, 1987). It seldom occurs in our data: (37) Trimite-mi adresa, te rog  ‘Send me the address, please’

(rLT-1)

(38) Scrie-i, te rog, colegei mele  ‘Write, please, to my colleague’

(rLT-3)

Control acts in Romanian 153



Table 2.  Request strategy types in Romanian written business communication (from direct to indirect) Type

Token / Example Romanian

English

Mood derivable

(rLT-1) Trimite-mi adresa, te rog (rLT-3) Scrie-i, te rog, colegei mele

‘Send me the address, please’ ‘Write, please, to my colleague’

Explicit performatives

(rTJ-2/rTc-2, 8, 11, 14) Vă rog să-mi transmiteţi (rTJ-4) Vă rog să mă anunţaţi (rTc-1, 9, rTfm) Vă rugăm să ne transmiteţi (rTc-10) Vă rog să anunţaţi (rTc-11) Vă rog să stabiliţi şi să-mi transmiteţi (rMTc-1) Vă rog să replanificăm

‘I ask you to please send me’ ‘I ask you to please let me know’ ‘We ask you to please send us’ ‘I ask you to let X know’ ‘I ask you to please establish and send me’ ‘Let’s reschedule’

Hedged performative

(rMTc-2) Am să vă rog să ne întâlnim ‘I will ask you to meet us’ (rMTc-3) Am să vă rog să reverificaţi ‘I will also ask you to recheck’ (rMTc-4) Am să vă rog să le utilizaţi ‘I will ask you to use them’

Locution derivable

(rTc-3) Participanţii trebuie să fie îndrumaţi (rTc-4) Tutorele de practică trebuie să fie calificat (rTc-12) Totuşi, vor trebui să meargă la cursuri

‘The participants have to be guided’

(rTc-5) Am nevoie din partea dvs. de 4 persoane (rTc-7) Aş vrea să stabilim (rTc-13) Aştept lista finală. Trebuie să o dau mai departe (rAT-2) Aştept răspunsul dumneavoastră (rAT-1) Mi-ar plăcea să discut (rTJ-3) Dorim să înscriem

‘I need four persons from your department’ ‘I would want to establish’ ‘I am waiting for the final list. I have to forward it’ ‘I am waiting for your answer’

Scope stating

‘The Tutor has to be qualified’ ‘Still, they will have to attend the courses’

‘I would like to discuss’ ‘We would like to enroll’

Language specific (rTJ-5) Dacă îmi spuneţi din timp data… suggestory (rJT-1) Dacă colegul dvs. este interesat formula […] spuneţi-mi vă rog (rJT-2) Dacă mai aveţi nevoie şi de alte informaţii, nu ezitaţi. (rLT-4) […] ai putea să înlocuieşti

‘If you let me know in advance the date’ ‘If your colleague is interested […] tell me, please’ ‘If you need further information, do not hesitate’ ‘[…] you could interchange’

Reference to preparatory conditions

(rTJ-2) Puteţi să-mi trimiteţi …? (rTL-1, 2) Poţi să-mi trimiţi…? (rLT-2) Ai putea să o trimiţi …?

‘Can you send me …?’ (2.pl) ‘Can you send me …?’ (2.sg) ‘Could you send it …?’ (2.sg)

Strong hints

Not found

Mild hints

Not found

154 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

This kind of imperative in initial position leaves no options to the addressee and gives great control to the speaker, whose presence is lexically expressed by the use of the clitic me (see 2.1.2.2). The first occurrence (rLT-1) is speaker oriented, thus, it presents a low degree of politeness, according to Koike (1989: 198). Still, if we take into consideration the contextual information, Tom and Liz are close colleagues; their interaction is a routine one, Tom requesting Liz some materials that he needed. Even though there is a bare imperative at the clause sentence level, the use of please (a force mitigation hedge) softens the illocutionary act. It is used in medial position (rLT-3) which “shows the widest functional variability among all positional variants and can be identified with conventional polite requests as well as commands” (Sato 2008: 1249) and in final position (rLT-1) “being reserved for task-based requests in which the speaker’s restricted behaviour as a social individual is exhibited” (Sato 2008: 1249). The next category on the scale of directness is represented by the explicit performatives. We included in this category two forms of expressing requests. On one hand, the force mitigator please followed by subjunctive and on the other hand, the future tense expressing a descriptive explicit action. In English, “the initial position of please is associated with the directive acts of demands and pleas, where the speaker’s individuality can be openly expressed” (Sato 2008: 1249). In Romanian it can be noticed that the form please in initial position followed by subjunctive is also categorized as a strong direct form as it may be reformulated in “I ask you to let me know” or “I ask you please let me know” (see 2.1.1, footnote 7), the illocutionary form being more powerful than in an interrogative form, for example. This linguistic choice is often used in e-mails from Tom to his colleagues and vice-versa. It is expressed explicitly from the speaker’s perspective (39), whose presence in the sentence is marked by the 1st person dative clitic ‘me’, aggravating thus the impact of the imposition: (39) a. Vă rog să-mi transmiteţi mai multe informaţii despre această formare  (rTJ-1) ‘I ask you to please send me more information about this training activity’ b. Vă rog să-mi transmiteţi data când veţi participa la această formare  (rTc-2) ‘I ask you to please send me the date when you participate at this training activity’ c. Vă rog să-mi transmiteţi până mâine dimineaţă propunerile voastre  (rTc-8) ‘I ask you to please send me until tomorrow morning your proposals’ d. Vă rog să mă anunţaţi din timp când începe cursul  (rTJ-4) ‘I ask you to please let me know in advance when the course starts’



Control acts in Romanian 155

e. Vă rog să stabiliţi şi să-mi transmiteţi 2–3 zile pe săptămână când puteţi să le daţi drumul pentru a participa la cursuri  (rTc-11) ‘I ask you to please establish and send me 2 or 3 days per week when you can let them go to participate at the training’

This linguistic pattern is expressed by the same speaker (Tom), but this time on behalf of the company he is employed by, using the pronoun plural ‘we’ as a mark of solidarity and of positive politeness, having the role of softening the impact of the request and making the hearer possibly feel useful in his activity, by cooperating: (40) a. Vă rugăm să ne transmiteţi până pe data X când veţi participa la formare  (rTc-1) ‘We ask you to please let us know until X data when you participate at the training activity’ b. Vă rog să-mi transmiteţi cine rămâne la curs. Trebuie să dau mai departe lista  (rTc-14) ‘I ask you to please send me who stays at the course. I have to forward the list’ c. Vă rugăm să ne transmiteţi următoarele informaţii  (rTc-9) ‘We ask you to please send us the following information’ d. Vă rugăm să ne transmiteţi data la care sunteţi disponibili pentru a participa la formare  (rTfm) ‘We ask you to please send us the data when you are available to participate at the training activity’

In the same group as the examples above, utterances (rTc-1) and (rTfm-1) refer to the same contextual information that Tom requests, meaning the date when his addressees participate at a training activity. Still, rTc-1 is addressed to his colleagues, the adjuncts of the head act contain the deadline of sending the requested information. The speaker gains more control by leaving no option to his addressees, the certainty of participating at the training being expressed by the future tense in Romanian and present simple tense in English. On the other hand, rTfm-1 is sent in a more softened manner to the foreign managers of the company by leaving the option to the hearers to choose, the use of ‘available’ having the role of underlining the possibility of the required action and of implying a higher compliance-gaining from the part of the speaker than the request addressed to his equals. Some requests, as for Example (40b) are formulated from rational persuasion, Tom being obliged to persuade his colleagues to send him the list with the participants at the training course. The deontic modaliser “have to” underlines Tom’s lack of choice.

156 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

The next type of request from this category of explicit performatives is hearer oriented (41) who has the responsibility to pass at his turn the received information: (41) Vă rog să anunţaţi colaboratorii dvs.  ‘I ask you to let your collaborators know’

(rTc-10)

The following request (42) is from the part of Mary to Tom and his colleagues and it is realised from both speaker and hearer perspective: (42) Din cauza unei schimbări, vă rog să replanificăm această scurtă întrevedere  (rMTc-1) ‘Due to a change, let’s reschedule this short meeting’

Having the role of Main Manager Assistant, she chooses a solidarity friendly request form: “let’s reschedule this short meeting” softening it by using a grounder as external modifier (adjunct head act), which justifies the postponement of the meeting. The examples mentioned above illustrate the structural pattern “please” followed by subjunctive and its possible interpretation in Romanian. In the category of hedged performatives we included requests in which the illocutionary force is embedded by Mary, expressing future descriptive actions: (43) a. În ceea ce priveşte invitaţiile pentru lansarea X din data Y, am să vă rog să ne întâlnim astăzi, la orele Y în sala Z pentru a vi le înmâna astfel încât ele să fie trimise cât de repede posibil (rMTc-2) ‘As far as the invitations for X launching from Y date are concerned, I will ask you to meet us today, at Y o’clock in Z room for handing them to you so that they can be sent as soon as possible’ b. De asemenea, am să vă rog să reverificaţi lista pentru a ne asigura că am înregistrat corect şi complet invitaţiile  (rMTc-3) ‘I will also ask you to recheck the list so that we make sure that we have correctly and thoroughly filed them’ c. Având în vedere că invitaţiile pe suport hârtie sunt limitate ca număr, am să vă rog să le utilizaţi pe cele în format electronic unde consideraţi că se poate face acest lucru (rMTc-4) ‘Taking into consideration that the paper invitations are number limited, I will ask you to use the electronic ones where you consider this is possible’

Mary’s discourse to her colleagues presents a linguistic pattern which refers to her choice to support the direct speech acts by using external modifications of the head acts. The reasons for the request either precede (rMTc-4) or follow the head



Control acts in Romanian 157

act (rMTc-3). It is worth mentioning that this form of future “am să vă rog” is a colloquial form, called “popular future” in Romanian; it has a different pragmatic value than the prototypical form, being less explicit in communicating an action. The strategy of using the future tense refers to “events that take place at some point posterior to the speaker’s moment of speaking, which is the deictic centre of ‘coding time’” (Fillmore 1975 in Koike 1989: 192). This strategy also carries the expression of politeness due to the contextual situation and to the use of external modifiers: “In a work situation justification is not needed to gain compliance because the requested tasks are generally within the addressee’s responsibilities. Justification therefore works as a politeness strategy” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 128). Thus, Mary uses positive politeness strategies towards her addresses by supplying justification in her direct acts. Concerning the use of grounders, it is recommended that managers develop “more skill and confidence in using tactics such as providing reasons in order to improve their effectiveness in dealing with their staff ” (Yukl, Kim and Falbe 1996: 316). Mary does not have the role of a Manager, still she has a direct relationship with her superior being his Assistant. The scale of directness is marked at the medial position by the category of locution derivable or obligation statements. The requests are this time formulated by Tom towards his colleagues in a less direct manner and are linguistically realised by the presence of the strong, still embedded modal “have to” which expresses the obligatory conditions that the participants should possess in order to accomplish a certain task. These embedded forms are “associated with a higher level of politeness” (Vine 2004: 158), and are hearer-oriented: (44) a. Pentru a face practică în companie, participanţii trebuie să fie îndrumaţi de un Tutore de Practică  (rTc-3) ‘In order to be an intern in the company, the participants have to be guided by Tutor’ b. Tutorele de practică trebuie să fie calificat în meseria respectivă şi să fie formator autorizat  (rTc-4) ‘The Tutor has to be qualified in the respective job and be an authorised trainer’ c. Trebuie să fie profesionişti în meseria respectivă, să aibă răbdare şi abilităţi pedagogice  (rTc-6) ‘The participants have to be professional in the respective job, have patience and pedagogical abilities’ d. Totuşi, vor trebui să meargă la cursuri şi în weekend  (rTc-12) ‘Still, they will have to attend the courses during the weekend, too’

158 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Tom leaves no choice to the participants, their tasks become compulsory by imposition due the deontic modaliser “have to” which is used both in medial position (44a, b) and initial position (44c, d); the subject being omitted in the Romanian language, the last two tokens (44c, d) tend to have a more direct effect on the addresses and a lower degree of politeness that the embedded forms of the modal in (44 a, b). They may also be included in the bold-on-record politeness strategy because they assume no redressive action. The following category within the scale of directness is represented, according to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, by the scope stating, “the utterance expressing the speaker’s intentions, desire or feeling vis à vis the fact that the hearer do X” (1984: 202): (45) a. Am nevoie din partea dvs. de 4 persoane, câte 2 pentru fiecare calificare, care doresc să devină tutori de practică  (rTc-5) ‘I need four persons from your department, two for each qualification, who want to become Tutors of Practioners’ b. Aş vrea să stabilim zilele şi ora de începere pentru curs  (rTc-7) ‘I would want to establish the days and the starting hour for the course’ c. Aştept lista finală a participanţilor la curs. Trebuie să o dau mai departe  (rTc-13) ‘I am waiting for the final list of the participants. I have to forward it’ d. Dorim să înscriem o persoană la acest curs  (rTJ-3) ‘We would like to enroll a person on this course’ e. Mi-ar plăcea să discut cu dumneavoastră despre cum realizaţi managementul  (rAT-1) ‘I would like to discuss with you about the way in which you run the management’ f. Aştept răspunsul dumneavoastră despre cum realizaţi acum managementul resurselor umane  (rAT-2) ‘I am waiting for your answer about how you run the Human Resources Management at the moment’

This category expresses on one hand, Tom’s intentions towards his addressees, which are linguistically realized by using the softer modal “need to” instead of “have to” (rTc-5), the conditional “would” (rTc-7), and by apparently assertive sentences (rTc-13) that may be rephrased to “Send me the final list”. Tom may have chosen this linguistic strategy followed by a dynamic perspective softened by the modal “have to”, because, at his turn, he is constrained by his superiors. His final request (rTJ-3) included in the category of scope stating is speaker oriented, Tom being the voice of the company by using the plural “we”, he expresses his intention in a friendly manner, the degree of his politeness increasing while the directness of his speech acts diminishes.



Control acts in Romanian 159

On the other hand, this category includes the intentions of Anne towards Tom, her being assertive and diplomatic, still precise in her expression by mentioning the temporal deictic “now”, and underlining her intention to find more about the management that Tom runs at a certain moment in time. It can be noticed that in the Romanian language the negative politeness is also marked by the use of polite pronoun “dumneavoastră” which in English does not have the same meaning, as it is translated by “you”. The scale of directness approaches to its end by the language specific suggestory formula, which contains the softest and the most polite requests: (46) a. Dacă îmi spuneţi din timp data cursului dvs., cred că pot reprograma evenimentul  (rTJ-5) ‘If you let me know in advance the date of your course, I think I can reschedule the event’ b. Dacă colegul dvs. este interesat să participe, spuneţi-mi vă rog ce disponibilităţi are în lunile ianuarie şi februarie şi vom încerca să ţinem cont de toată lumea  (rJT-1) ‘If your colleague is interested in participating, tell me, please, when he is available in January and February and we will try to take into consideration everybody’s wish’ c. Dacă mai aveţi nevoie şi de alte informaţii, nu ezitaţi (rJT-2) ‘If you need further information, do not hesitate’ d. Ca să simplifici ai putea să înlocuieşti codurile  (rLT-4) ‘In order to simplify, you could interchange the codes’

In all of these examples, excepting (46d), the head acts are externally mitigated and modified by being preceded by an “if clause” which in spoken English “could be regarded as a control act marker or even as a “politeness” marker” (Vine 2004: 80) if it follows the pattern “if you + modal + verb + it would be good” (Vine 2004: 79). We did not find this kind of pattern in our data, still the illocutionary force was downtoned due to internal modification realised by the use of devices such as “downgraders” and “upgraders” (House and Kasper 1981) which may be syntactic or lexical. The use of the modal verb “could” (rLT-3) softens the request of Liz to Tom, making it seem more like advice than request, if we take into consideration her previous speech acts (rLT-1, rLT-3) and it acts as a syntactic downgrader. The same behaviour can be noticed in the request of Julie to Tom, by the use of negation (rJT-2) expressed within an imperative form in final position, the reason being to downtone the request (Trosborg 1994). This is the only occurrence of negation in the collected data and it is associated with negative politeness. The lexical downgraders are present in the e-mail exchange between Tom and Julie concerning the enrollment of participants in a training activity. On one

160 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

hand, Tom requests his addressee (rTJ-5) to let him know in advance the date of the course, as a compulsory condition to possibly reschedule an event. We say “possibly” as the particle “I think” is considered a “quality hedge by Brown and Levinson (1987: 164) and suggests that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 164). Even if this perspective is not universally acceptable (Holmes 1985), in our case it may be considered true as the decision does not belong entirely to Tom, he being at his turn a subordinate. On the other hand, Julie’s request (rJT-1) contains an imperative followed by the pragmatic particle “please” which softens her speech act together with the preceded “if clause” and renders it more polite. Due to the external and internal modification of the head acts, the requests from the language specific suggestory formula are addressed in a friendly manner, leave options to the hearer to accomplish the demand and express a low degree of imposition from the part of the sender, increasing thus the degree of politeness. The last category from the scale of directness is reference to preparatory conditions (ability or willingness), the strong and mild hints not being found in my data. These conditions are considered conventionally indirect and are associated with negative politeness strategies as they diminish the degree of imposition and give the receiver freedom of action (Pilegaard 1997). The utterances from Example (47) are all interrogative requests, thus the least forceful requests, the head acts being marked by the modal “can” and its past form “could”: (47) a. b. c. d. e.

Puteţi să-mi trimiteţi conţinutul acestei formări? ‘Can you send me the contents of this training?’ Poţi să-mi trimiţi catalogul de formare?  ‘Can you send me the training catalogue?’ Mai aveţi pe stoc şi poţi să-mi trimiţi cartea W?  ‘Do you still have in stock and can you send me the W book?’ Poţi să-mi trimiţi coperta catalogului?  ‘Can you send me the catalogue’s cover?’ Ai putea să o trimiţi?  ‘Could you send it?’

(rTJ-2) (rTL-1) (rTL-2) (rTL-3) (rLT-2)

The first four utterances are focused on the speaker who marks his presence, as an addressee, by using the pronominal clitic “me”. Still, the hearer seems “to make the choice as to whether or not she wants to do that action” (Koike 1989: 199). The semantics of the modal “can” is clearly dependent on the context. The interpretation of modal interrogatives has been largely discussed, as “a speaker must clearly indicate that they are asking about someone’s ability to perform an action” (Vine 2004: 44). The linguistic pattern “can + hearer + send + me” used by Tom as the speaker illustrates on one hand, Julies’ willingness to send him the contents of the

Control acts in Romanian 161



training and on the other hand the ability of Liz to send him the catalogue’s cover with a participant. The last token (rLT-2) presents a “hypothetical could as a polite form of can” (Coates 1983). In spoken English, this is especially true of a control act context. In every case where “could” is used a future act is required (Vine 2004: 119) and rLT-2 expresses a future action, Liz asks Tom in a friendly manner to send him the catalogue’s cover. This chapter has focused on a detailed analysis of written requests between Tom and his addressees and vice versa, in order to illustrate the variety of linguistic strategies present in requests and their degree of directness and politeness according to the model of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984). 3.5

Findings and discussion upon directives

Although a small amount of directives was found in the data, we have chosen to discuss them in this section because they are variously linguistically expressed by the Human Resources Manager towards the same addressee. Previous research on speech acts assumed that people in different positions use different types of speech acts. In the workplace discourse, “Managers may give directives to their staff, but their staff cannot give directives to them. Lower level staff may make requests, however, and advice can go both ways” (Vine 2004: 147). Therefore, “control acts are much more frequent in the speech of the more statusful participants” (Vine 2004: 148). In our data, we analysed only two e-mails sent by Susan, the Manager, to Tom, her assistant, and we found it interesting that in only one e-mail she uses different strategies of giving directives: (48) a. Te rog frumos mâine dimineaţă când ajungi să întocmeşti comanda  (dST-1) ‘I “nicely” ask you that tomorrow morning when you arrive to complete the order form’ b. Înainte de orice demers, trebuie făcută comanda către X (dST-2) ‘Before any other action, the order to X has to be filled in’ c. Apoi trebuie să iei legătura cu Y pentru partea fiscală (dST-3) ‘Then you have to contact Y for the fiscal matter’ d. Oricum trebuie să-i platim suma lui Z (dST-4) ‘Anyway, we have to pay the sum to Z’ e. Mâine te rog să mă ţii la curent  (dST-5) ‘Tomorrow, I ask you to keep me updated’

162 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

(48) f. Până mâine dimineaţă trebuie să am următoarele informaţii trimise de tine pe email către mine. Nu am văzut emailul de finalizare plan de integrare pentru X. (dST-6) ‘Till tomorrow morning, I need to have the following information sent by you by e-mail to me. I have not seen the e-mail with the final integration plan for X.’

These tokens are part of the same e-mail sent by Susan to Tom. She starts by using an explicit performative (dST-1) which contains the particle “nicely” (“frumos”) as a mitigation form. This directive is hearer-oriented, Tom’s task being to complete the order form as his first activity when he gets to work. The second directive is expressed indirectly, the hearer not being present in the speech act, due to the use of passive voice (dST-2) and it is of high priority as the pre-sequence illustrates (“before any other action”). Susan uses time connectors, like “then” (dST-3), in order to give a clear plan of instructions to her assistant, who is obliged to accept them (“you have to contact”). After the obligation is stated, Susan mitigates it by giving reasons for her directives (dST-4) that are at this case speaker and hearer oriented, due to the use of the pronoun plural “we”. She expresses her wish to be updated by an explicit performative (dST-5). Susan finishes her e-mail explicitly by mentioning the speaker, the hearer and the agent in the same utterance, proving thus her possible explicit abilities in giving directives, leaving no room for misunderstanding. It can be noticed that in four out of six of her directives (b, c, d, f) the deontic modaliser “have to” is used in order to underline Tom’s job obligation, and no choice of redressive action. In the second e-mail that Susan sends to Tom, she uses a non-finite verbal form as a directive expression, known in Romanian as “supin” and in English as long infinitive and it is expressed at passive voice, the agent being omitted: (49) Aceasta este fişa de tradus în engleză şi franceză  ‘This is the worksheet to be translated in English and French’

(dST-7)

In spoken workplace English directives, it has been noted that “the power relations between the Managers and their staff is evident in the number of control acts uttered to them, but is not necessarily apparent in the way these are realised” (Vine 2004: 165). We may make the same statement, as even though Susan used a variety of forms to express directives, these are not strongly linguistically realised (no form of imperative was found), the power that she exerts towards her assistant being present in the multitude of directives in only one e-mail. From the gender perspective, Susan proved to possess an explicit polite management style, still underlining the job duties of her Assistant. Further research should be carried out on a developed set of data to run both a qualitative and quantitative analysis on directives and on the gender aspect, drawing a comparison between male and female Romanian styles of management.

Control acts in Romanian 163



4. Conclusions The section of conclusions summarizes the previous findings on requests and brings a general quantitative perspective on the requests strategies categorised in Table 2, on the degree of directness and politeness that Romanian workplace written discourse currently provides. The results concerning the strategies of politeness mentioned by Brown and Levinson prove that only the first three “super strategies” were found in the data, meaning the bold-on-record and the positive and negative politeness. First, in order to identify the degree of directness and politeness that Tom uses to communicate with his colleagues and with other persons from outside the company, we quantified the requests (Figure 1) present in all the pragmatic categories found by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) and encountered in the collected data. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

ns

a at ar ep Pr

Su

gg

es

or

to

yc

ry

on

fo

di

rm

in at st e

op

tio

ul

g

le ab riv Sc

de n tio cu

Lo

tp ici Ex

pl

M

oo

d

er

fo

de

rm

riv

at

ab

iv

le

es

Colleagues Julie Liz

Figure 1.  Requests sent by Tom to his addressees

It can be noticed that the category of the explicit performatives is at the top of the linguistic strategies, the requests sent within this category being addressed to his colleagues and to Julie who is from outside the company. The second position is occupied by the locution derivable and the scope stating categories, followed by the preparatory conditions, the first two containing requests addressed to Tom’s colleagues and the last ones, the least direct, to Liz, a colleague within the company. It can be observed in Figure 1 that Tom sends requests to Julie using different degrees of directness and implicitly of politeness depending on the contextual type of the request and of its priority. Therefore, we can state that the requests written by Tom are variously linguistically expressed depending on the addressee, the most direct form of requesting being used in mass e-mails to his colleagues.

164 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Second, the other type of data that we analysed in the paper consists of e-mails that Tom received from his colleagues, either from the interior or the exterior of the company. Figure 2 illustrates the e-mails sent by Liz, Mary, Anne and July to Tom and the quantified requests present in each pragmatic category. 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0

s on

a

di ti

ul m

yc on

or yf

to r ra pa

Pr e

Su

gg

es

to r

e

st at in

g

le iv

ab

Sc op

de r n cu tio

Lo

tp ici Ex

pl

M

oo

d

er

fo

de r

rm

iv

ab

at iv

le

es

Liz Mary Anne Julie

Figure 2.  Requests sent to Tom

It is interesting to mention the fact that even though Tom uses the most polite forms to address Liz, she goes from one extreme to the other, using either the imperative, which is considered the most direct of all the strategies of expressing requests, or modal verbs, like “can” and its past form “could”. Still, quantitatively speaking, Mary is “leading” by sending her requests in an explicit manner; she uses the Romanian popular form of the future when addressing Tom and other colleagues within the company. Thus, her communication style, according to the methodology used in the analysis tends to be direct and less polite that Julie’s requests, for example, who uses suggestory language in her communication. In the middle position of Figure 2, stands the scope stating category which contains the requests sent by Anne to Tom. She chooses a diplomatic polite way of communicating, softening her requests by using conditionals like “would” and assertive sentences. Summarising the findings, both those analysed qualitatively in the paper and those presented quantitatively in Figures 1 and 2, it can be concluded, at the stage of a pilot study on workplace discourse, that Romanian language has various linguistic and discursive strategies of directing and requesting, and also of mitigating these direct speech acts.



Control acts in Romanian 165

Acknowledgement Adina Velea’s work for this chapter is supported by the Sectorial Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD), ID 76945 financed from the European Social Fund and by the Romanian Government.

Corpus Gheorghe, Mihaela, Măda, Stanca and Săftoiu, Răzvan (eds.). 2009a. Comunicarea la locul de muncă. Schiţă de tipologie a textelor redactate în mediul profesional românesc. [CLM I] Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania din Braşov. Gheorghe, Mihaela, Măda, Stanca and Săftoiu, Răzvan (eds.). 2009b. Comunicarea la locul de muncă. Corpus de interacţiune verbală în mediul profesional. [CLM II] Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania din Braşov.

References Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Harris, Sandra J. 1996. “Requests and status in business correspondence”. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 635–662. Bax, Ingrid P. 1986. “How to assign work in an office: A comparison of spoken and written directives in American English”. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 673–692. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1990. “You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 259–288. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Olshtain, Elite. 1984. “Requests and Apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)1”. Applied Linguistics 5: 196–213. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byon, A. Sangpil. 2004. “Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings”. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1673–1704. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Holland: Foris Publications. Reprint. 7th Edition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993. Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2005. “Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms”. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8): 1275–1293. Dobrovie-Sorin, Costin. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Romanian translation Sintaxa limbii române. Studii de sintaxă comparată a limbilor romanice. Bucureşti: Univers. 2000]. Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. “Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives”. Language in Society 5: 25–66. Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Guo, Jiansheng and Lampert, Martin. 1990. “Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 307–331.

166 Mihaela Gheorghe and Adina Velea

Fillmore, Charles. 1975. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington: IN Indiana University Linguistics Club. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Jirsa, Bill. 2006. “The Principle of Indirect Means in language use and language structure”. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4): 513–542. GALR I, II. 2008. Guţu-Romalo, Valeria (ed.). Gramatica Limbii Române, vol. I, II. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române. Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1993. On the Nature of Written Business communication. London/New York: Pinter. Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise. 2009. Professional Discourse. London: Continuum. Ho, Victor. 2010. “Constructing identities through request e-mail discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2253–2261. Holmes, Janet. 1985. Sex Differences and Mis-Communication – Some Data from New Zealand. Melbourne: River Seine. Holmes, Janet and Schnurr, Stephanie. 2005. “Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation”. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 1: 121–149. Homzie, Marvin J., Kotsonis, Miriam E. and Toris, Carol C. M. 1981. “Letter writing differences: relative status effects”. Language & Speech 24: 377–385. House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. The Hague: Mouton. Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. Jansen, Frank and Janssen, Daniel. 2010. “Effects of positive politeness strategies in business letters”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2531–2548. Koike, Dale A. 1989. “Requests and the role of deixis in politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 187–202. Ladegaard, Hans J. 2011. “Doing power at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global business corporation”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 4–19. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Lakoff, Robin. 1973. “The logic of politeness: or, Minding your p’s and q’s”. In Papers from the Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society 9, C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser (eds.), 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lombard, Alf. 1974. La langue roumaine: une présentation. Paris: Klincksiek. Lombard, Alf. 1980. “Morphologie verbale et syntaxe verbale de l’interjection”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 25(5): 533–538. Marti, Leyla. 2006. “Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests”. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1836–1869. Măda, Stanca. 2009. Comunicarea în Mediul Profesional Românesc [Communication in the Romanian Professional Environment]. Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania din Braşov. Murray, Denise E. 1987. “Requests at work. Negotiating the conditions for conversation”. Management Communication Quarterly 1: 58–83. Nickerson, C. 1993. A comparison of business letters written by native (U.K.) and non-native (Dutch) speakers of English. Unpublished M.A. thesis. England: Birmingham University. Pearson, Bethyl. 1989. “‘Role-ing out control’ at church business meetings: directing and disagreeing”. Language Sciences 11: 289–304.



Control acts in Romanian 167

Pilegaard, Morten. 1997. “Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests”. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 223–244. Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Cristophe and Rioul, Rene. 2004. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris: Dordrecht. Saito, Junko. 2010. “Managing confrontational situations: Japanese male superiors’ interactional styles in directive discourse in the workplace”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1689–1706. Sato, Shie. 2008. “Use of ‘Please’ in American and New Zealand English”. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1249–1278. Searle, John R. 1976. “A classification of illocutionary acts”. Language in Society 5: 1–23. Tchizmarova, Ivelina K. 2005. “Hedging functions of the Bulgarian discourse marker xajde”. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1143–1163. Trosborg, Anna. 1994. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies, Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Vine, Bernadette. 2004. Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vine, Bernadette. 2009. “Directives at work: Exploring the contextual complexity of workplace directives”. Journal of Pragmatics 41(7): 1395–1405. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. “Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Polish vs. English”. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–178. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Yukl, Gary, Kim, Helen, and Falbe, Cecilia M. 1996. “Antecedents of influence outcomes”. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 309–317.

Mitigation at work Functions and lexical realisations Gabriela Chefneux

Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

The setting up of multinational companies is a current phenomenon in Romania; such companies bring together Romanian and foreign employers and employees who, irrespective of their mother tongue, use English for professional communication. Consequently a new type of institutional culture has developed, reflected at all levels of institutional activities – discourse practices, methods of communication, etc. This paper is part of a more complex study which analysis features of intercultural communication, such as evaluation, modality, questions, humour; it has two parts – the context of the study and the theoretical framework used for the analysis, while the second one focuses on mitigation analysed in terms of the functions and linguistic devices selected by the participants.

1. Institutional talk and intercultural communication in multinational companies 1.1

Project presentation

The study related to institutional talk and intercultural communication in multinational companies is highly relevant for the new economic context in Romania. Consequently a project was proposed whose aim was to analyse and identify features of this type of communication. The project started from the assumption that institutional culture does not pre-exist, but it is created during interactions occurring at the workplace. In this project, culture was defined as the behaviour, norms and beliefs shared by the people belonging to the same group, as well as the ­natural

. Between 2007–2009 the National Council for Scientific Research in Higher Education funded the project Institutional Talk and Intercultural Communication in Multinational Companies at Transilvania University of Braşov.

170 Gabriela Chefneux

interactions occurring during the professional communication; ­participants have their own values, intentions and expectations that are reflected in their communicative behaviour, which may be context- or culture-dependent. Starting from the definition that communication as interaction is a phenomenon that has several features – practical ones (as it accomplishes acts through talk), social (as participants interact) and cultural (as the system of shared meanings and practices is learned and taken for granted) – the project investigated how workings of different cultures manifest themselves in participants’ discourse practices. 1.2

Assumptions

Misunderstandings and difficulties in intercultural encounters are more likely explained by the speakers’ different expectations about the communicative event rather than their linguistic competency. Such an analysis involves two key concepts – organisational culture and institutional talk. According to Hofstede and Hofstede (2004: 36) organisational culture can be defined as a type of human behaviour, mainly interactional, that is considered as acceptable by the employees, as the analysis in Section 4 will show. Institutional talk, defined as the oral or written interaction aimed at carrying out a professional task, is characterised by constraints related to what can be said (topics) or done (speech acts) and by a system of turn-taking that is preallocated; it does not pre-exist, being constructed by the participants at their workplaces, during their verbal interactions. This is why a major assumption of the project was that communication difficulties appear because of the employees’ different expectations in terms of institutional talk and organisational culture. 1.3

Research methodology

The available data included recordings and transcriptions of spoken interaction in English between Romanian and foreign employees participating in face-toface meetings and telephone conferences. These data were used to analyse oral communication styles, defined by Norton (1983: 99) as “the way one verbally or paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered or understood” in a communication context.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 171



1.4

Data collection

The data were collected from a multinational company based in Braşov, specialised in software and mechanical engineering services. It currently has 24 employees, out of which 21 are Romanians; all of them use English at work. The collected data include audio recordings of 6 telephone conferences whose average length is of 40 minutes and video recordings of two face-to-face meetings, whose average length is of 75 minutes. A questionnaire was designed and Romanian employees were asked to fill it in so that we could see how they perceive the company that employs them (Coposescu and Chefneux 2008). 1.5

Strategies for data analysis

The research team analysed the available data in terms of topics, questions, positive and negative ways of speaking, use of humour, modality, mitigation, vocal behaviour, frames and footing. The topic analysis tried to establish who initiates and changes the topic (the expectation being that it is the team leader), what the participants’ perspectives on the topic are and what changes of frame occur (from professional to personal and the other way round). In terms of question analysis, the research team identified the types of questions asked and their function in the interactional context, the expectation being that Romanian employees ask clarification questions. The positive ways of speaking took into account laughter, agreement, jokes, while the negative ones involved sarcasm and disagreement. Humour was analysed as a means of constructing solidarity (Coposescu & Coposescu 2009), while the analysis of modality identified similarities and differences in terms of expressing obligation, necessity and probability between speakers belonging to two different cultures. Finally, vocal behaviour analysed the number of turns and their length. 2. State of affairs 2.1

The Romanian employees’ perception of the company where they work

To understand the employees’ perception of the organizational culture, the socio­ logists in the team conducted an exercise called The Personified Company. The main conclusions of this exercise are that the Romanian employees perceive the company as powerful and stable, permanently requesting its employees to adapt and react to new conditions, placing high demands on them, but also rewarding them in terms of professional satisfaction.

172 Gabriela Chefneux

The respondents’ answers also indicate that they perceive a tension that is caused by their lack of control and the necessity to continuously adapt to the needs and requirements of the company. The total dependence of the Romanian subsidiary on the Belgian headquarters, on decision-makers who are physically distant, seems to be the main discontent. The employees also perceive their being of Romanian nationality as a threat, and because they work in a subsidiary they feel they are under constant scrutiny, being compared with employees of other nationalities. This conclusion can be correlated with one of the reasons why Romanian employees resort to mitigation strategies in order to present their professional experience. 2.2

Analysis of question types

The most frequently asked questions are clarifications, by means of which the questioners check their own/other understanding of the topic or require additional information about it. They are asked in approximately the same ratio by Romanians and Belgians, which indicates that there are no relevant differences in the degree of understanding. The same holds true for information seeking questions (for a more detailed analysis of questions see also Coposescu 2009). Differences have been noticed in terms of humorous questions (questions that produce laughter and trigger a change of frame from serious to joking) and challenges (questions asked to try to make the previous speaker change or reconsider his solution/answer). Humorous questions typically occured in the opening and closing sections of events, but also at strategic points in the interaction (for example when an employee does not understand what he is supposed to do) in order to ease tension. All challenge questions were asked by the Romanian employees. Suggestions – questions which invite the addressee to express his/her position related to the information put forward by questioner – are asked more frequently by the Belgians / team leaders. The overall analysis of questions indicates that the distribution of turns is quite balanced, with divergence in the communication process caused by the challenge type of questions.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 173



2.3

Humour

Humour is used for different purposes by Romanian and foreign speakers: the former group uses it to release tension, to amuse their colleagues or to deal with the fact that they did not understand what they were supposed to do (for a detailed account of the types and functions of humour employed in Romanian professional context see also Măda 2009), while the latter uses it to mitigate face threatening acts. The analysis also indicates that Romanian employees resort more often to jokes than the Belgian team leaders. 2.4

Modality

Modality (the way in which the speaker chooses to express the degree of obligation involved in the requests he makes) is expressed in an explicit way by Romanians, as compared to the Belgian team leader, who favours a more indirect way; Romanians also resort to longer, more polite forms of requests. 2.5

Overall conclusions

The analyses conducted so far indicate that Romanians and Belgians have a similar understanding of the topics under discussion. Jokes are used both by Romanians and Belgians but with a different purpose – the former when they do not know what they are supposed to do and the latter when they make additional professional requests. Romanians favour a more polite way of making requests, while the Belgians use a more direct one. The style of communication in the company is collaboratively constructed with convergent moves (positive speech forms: agreement, jokes) made by Romanians and Belgians alike. As far as areas of divergence are concerned, the following have been identified: – Belgians express obligation implicitly, Romanians explicitly; – Belgians make direct requests, Romanians indirect ones; – Belgians initiate few and short joking sequences, Romanians initiate more and long sequences, which side-track the professional discussions; – Belgians state the problems in a direct way, Romanians by means of questions. In Section 3, I will move on to analyse another characteristic of communication – mitigation – aiming to identify its functions and lexical realisations.

174 Gabriela Chefneux

3. Mitigation 3.1 Theoretical framework Very broadly, mitigation can be defined as a way of reducing the severity of utterances – sentences/phrases/expressions – which have the illocutionary force (the purpose the speaker wants to achieve by his particular utterance) of ordering, commanding, asking, explaining, justifying etc. and which are perceived as unpleasant or painful either by the speaker or interlocutor. The concept is discussed in literature under several names such as hedging, indirectness, or vague language. Gladwell (2008: 194) defines mitigated speech as “any attempt to downplay or sugarcoat the meaning of what is being said”; Eggins and Slade (1997: 136) interpret it as a way in which speakers downplay their personal expression. Brown and Levinson (1996: 145) define hedges as particles, words or phrases that modify “the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set”; they also comment on hedges related to Grice’s maxims: quality (say only what is true), quantity (say no more than necessary), relevance (speak to the point) and manner (be clear). By using quality hedges the speaker removes himself from the truth of his utterance (such as: there is some evidence to the effect that, to the best of my recollection, I think/believe/assume, it appears that, they say, perhaps, various modal auxiliaries (Brown and Levinson 1996: 164). To hedge the quantity maxim, hedges such as the following are used: roughly, more or less, approximately, give or take a few, or so, to some extent, all in all, basically, so to speak, I’ll just say, you know, I mean (1996: 166–167). As far as relevance hedges are concerned, they are off-record changes (negative politeness, characterised by indirectness), which indicate that the topic is changed because of its sensitivity and that the speaker partly apologizes for it. Irony can be considered a mitigation strategy as it expresses a value judgment that is more positive than the circumstances deserve (Peret quoted in Brown and Levinson 1996: 263): (1) John’s a genius, which actually means that John is stupid.

In what follows, I will present the main uses and function that mitigation can fulfill.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 175



3.2

Uses and functions

3.2.1 To be polite Mitigation is frequently related to politeness as it is often used when the speaker wants either to protect the interlocutor’s face by softening his command/ requests or to protect his own face, when he perceives the answer requested as face threatening. In the data analysed in this paper the main exchanges are orders and instructions, requests for explanations for what went wrong or justifications from the team members. The team members sometimes ask for clarification, which is also perceived by them as a professional face threatening act, as it may be interpreted by their team leader as lack of professional knowledge. Levinson (1995: 274) discusses mitigators, arbitrary politeness markers, in relation to politeness. He defines them as a way for the speaker to distance himself from making requests and point to the interlocutor that politeness is taken into account. Levinson (1995: 334) states that speakers use mitigators when dispreferred seconds are used (replies which are not the expected ones). He classifies such dispreferred seconds as delays (the answer is not given immediately), prefaces (words such as uh, well, etc. which announce the interlocutor that the speaker will not provide the expected answer, as well as apology, qualifiers), accounts (justification for why the particular answer is given) and declination (an indirect answer, which uses some of the part of the question/request). In the analysis of our data, the majority of mitigators is represented by what Levinson calls prefaces and accounts, the latter considered in the present paper as belonging to the class of adverbial clauses. Brown and Levinson (1996: 129) interpret negative politeness as redressive action undertaken to save the addressee’s negative face by taking into account the addressee’s freedom of action. Negative politeness is characteristic of Western civilization and it is realised by means of indirectness, hedging, softening of the hearer’s power. By resorting to hedges, the speaker indicates that he makes no assumption about the addressee’s wants, that he does not impose on the addressee, that he allows the addressee not to fulfill his request. Use of hedges can also indicate “a cooperative avoidance of possible disagreement” (Brown and Levinson 1996: 272). Off record utterances (indirect requests) allow the speaker to perform a face threatening act (a statement that is perceived as damaging the interlocutors’ positive self image) in such a way as to allow the hearer to interpret it (Brown and Levinson 1996: 211). Indirectness in language is difficult to understand as it depends heavily on linguistic strategies in context (Brown and Levinson 1996: 212). The authors describe a cline as far as illocutionary force is concerned, moving from orders to requests and suggestions.

176 Gabriela Chefneux

(2) Could you possible by any chance lend me your car for just a few minutes? or May I borrow your car please?  (Brown and Levinson’s examples 1996: 142–143)

3.2.2 To soften opinions Mitigation allows participants to make their opinions vague and thus downplay possible suggestions or criticisms directed at themselves (Brown and Levinson 1996: 116–117). Hedging is also used as a gentle way of disagreeing, while criticisms can be softened by indirect delivery (3) It was quite good or by prior concession using but.

(Brown and Levinson 1996: 161–162)

3.2.1 To avoid accountability Indirectness is a means for the speaker to go off record – a communicative act done in such a way as not to be able to attribute a clear communicative intention to it (Brown and Levinson 1996: 211). In this way, the speaker cannot be held accountable for that particular act, avoiding the responsibility. 3.2.2 To convey bad news Hedging is also used to convey bad news, thus indicating commiseration (Brown and Levinson 1996: 167). 3.2.3 To evaluate Eggins and Slade (1997) discuss mitigation in relation to evaluation (the speaker’s opinion on what is said/described/discussed); it functions as a means of downplaying the evaluation. 3.2.4 To change the frame Tannen analyses hedges as linguistic evidence of changes of frames (ways in which people organise their knowledge about the world). Tannen defines hedging as measuring the “word or idea against what it is expected” (1993: 43). Hedges are used to express the speaker’s surprise when discovering that reality is different from what he expects by using: really, anyway, just, obviously, even, kind of. According to our analysis, hedges would then gap the bridge between what the employees were supposed to do and what they actually accomplished, the speaker using them in order to narrow the difference.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 177



3.3

Lexical realisations

3.3.1 Indirect speech acts Mitigation is a very broad linguistic area, being realised at several levels: intonation, lexical, morpho-syntactical, semantic, attitudinal. Levinson (1995) analyses indirectness in correlation with indirect speech acts (sentences whose form is indirectly related to their function: for example a command not expressed as an imperative but as a question or a declarative sentence or an assertion expressed as an interrogative sentence) and he states that, in most cases, commands in English are phrased not as imperatives but as questions, accounted for by politeness. Similarly, there are cases when clauses do not have a ‘proper’ conditional meaning, but are used to express indirect requests. (4) Pass me the wrench if you can (Levison’s example 1995: 266) does not question the hearer’s capacity of passing the wrench but his willingness.

Fairclough (1996: 157) also associates indirectness and mitigation, stating that indirectness is a way of trying to mitigate an imposition. These alternative values of speech acts associated with indirectness underline again that the assignment of speech act values is relative to the situational context and discourse type. It is only the text that can disambiguate the illocutionary force a sentence carries. We can state that the resulting ambiguity may be caused on purpose by the speaker in order to save his face. 3.3.2 Amplification Analysing lexical realisation of evaluation in casual conversation, Eggins and Slade (1997) identify amplification, further subclassified into enrichment, augmenting and mitigation. When analysing the strategies by means of which common ground is constructed in everyday conversation, Săftoiu (2006: 457) discusses augmentation “in close connection with ways of establishing agreement since, almost concurrently with bringing up a topic, participants express their agreement or disagreement with it”. Mitigation, which functions as a down player of evaluation in Eggins and Slade’s data, is realised by adverbs such as just, only, quite, hardly, scarcely, actually (1997: 136). Other expressions used by speakers to achieve vagueness or incompleteness are sort of, stuff, anything. Brown and Levinson (1996: 218) classify hedges into strengtheners, which lend emphasis to the utterance (exactly, precisely), and weakeners which function as softeners. (5) I was pretty tired, with pretty functioning as a weakener, meaning that the speaker was actually very tired.

178 Gabriela Chefneux

3.3.3 Euphemisms and tautology Another way of minimizing the imposition is by selecting euphemisms (a milder term for another one considered too strong): (6) borrow instead of take or Could I have a taste (i.e. slice) of that cake or Just a second (i.e. a few minutes)  (Brown and Levinson’s examples 1996: 177)

Tautologies (a redundant way of expressing an idea) represent another strategy, as they carry little informational content: Boys will be boys (Brown and Levinson’s example 1996: 220). 3.3.4 Shifting the tense or the person There are several strategies by means of which a speaker can distance himself from the utterance: kinesic, deictic, tense, passive constructions, pronouns. By resorting to kinetic hedges, such as raising eyebrows, frowning, hesitating (expressed by umm, ahh) as well as by using high pitch, the speaker indicates a distance between himself and the propositional content (Brown and Levinson 1996: 172). The same purpose can be achieved by deictic anchorage – reference to the time and place of the utterance. Thus, tense may indicate distancing in time – from present to past or from present into the future: I have been wondering… I was kind of interested, as well as by using that or there which convey distance: (7) Can I have that paper? or That/ there it will be all right.  (Brown and Levinson’s example 1996: 204, 205).

Quirk et al. (1992: 128) discuss the same topic under tentativeness. One lexical realisation is the use of past or future reference instead of present: (8) I think he may/might retire next May or Will/would you phone him tomorrow?

The content may be expressed as an objective rule or external obligation: (9) Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.  (Brown and Levinson’s example 1996: 206)

or by using passive constructions (10) It is regretted that instead of I regret that or It is expected instead of I expect

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 179



or by deleting the agent: (11) The letter must be sent (and not You must send the letter).  (Brown and Levinson’s example 1996: 194).

The idea of tentativeness can be also rendered by the use of modal verbs; thus, may can be used to express possibility (12) It may be that this is wrong

would or ought to render inference, in which situation they convey “noncommitted necessity” (Quirk et al. 1992: 227), should with the meaning of desirability: (13) There should be another increase in experts

or Would you please help? where would is used to express request. To avoid imposition the speaker may hide the subject if it is you or I. Thus, instead of saying I tell you that it is so, the utterance becomes It is so, with the subject hidden. In order to minimize transgression, the speaker can resort to requests that are no longer made in his own name but in that of a third party, as well as conditional clauses that make the idea possible, no longer an assertion. 3.3.5 Negation Another lexical way of expressing mitigation is negation: (14) You wouldn’t know the answer to this question? or I don’t imagine/suppose there…

To soften the statement even further, negative raising can be used – the negation from the subordinate clause is moved to the main one: (15) I don’t think he will do it, actually meaning I think he won’t do it.

The use of but performs the function of forcing the opposite evaluation of the first term (Brown and Levinson 1996: 266): (16) John’s a good fellow, but frankly, the team will do as well without him, where the first part, John’s a good fellow is actually negated by the second part, introduced by but.

3.3.6 Impersonalisation The shift from verb to noun construction is described by Ross (quoted in Brown and Levinson 1996: 207) as a continuum from syntactic volatility (more direct) to syntactic inertness (more indirect), the noun construction removing the actor, who becomes an attribute of the action.

180 Gabriela Chefneux

(17) You performed well on the examinations and we were favourably impressed becomes Your good performance on the examinations impressed us favourably.

Another way of achieving impersonalisation is the passive voice, which deletes the agent (It is decided), or the use of impersonal modal verbs which diminish the threat caused by the speaker’s expressing obligation for the listener in a direct way. Brown and Levinson call such strategies impersonalisation mechanisms (1996: 275). 3.3.7 Adverbial phrases and clauses Hedges can be lexically realized by means of adverbial phrases and clauses: in fact, in a way, in a sense, in all probability, as it were, it seems to me, if you can, if you want, if I may ask, if you don’t mind, etc. (Brown and Levinson 1996: 162). Conditional clauses are discussed by Brown and Levinson (1996: 173) under the name of “alternativeness relation”; their function is to state indirectly what the utterance implicates: if I were to ask you, if it were desperate, if you please, if you will. Adverbial clauses of reason indicate the speaker’s reluctance to impinge on the listener’s action (Brown and Levinson 1996: 187). According to Quirk et al. (1992: 485), approximation can be related to the diminishing of the statement force: (18) She has been allegedly / if I may so / as she puts it / enthusiastic

or to restriction, realized by the use of only or alone: (19) She has been enthusiastic only about her work.

Degree, defined as the evaluation of constituents that can be graded in terms of a scale, can be subdivided into amplification and diminution, the latter belonging to mitigation devices: (20) She helped him a little with his book. 

(Quirk et al.’s example 1992: 486)

Intensifying subjuncts indicate a point on an abstract scale which can be high or low (Quirk et al. 1992: 589); they can be used to intensify a predicate, some part of it, the verb phrase or an item in the verb phrase. As far as downtoners (low intensifying subjuncts) are concerned, Quirk et al. identify approximators, compromisers, diminishers and minimizers. Approximators are represented by adverbs such as almost, nearly, as good as and have a lowering effect on the action expressed by the verb or even completely deny it.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 181



(21) I almost resign actually means that the person did not resign  (Quirk et al.’s example 1992: 599).

Compromisers have a dual function – that of lowering the effect of the verb and “calling in question the appropriateness of the verb” (Quirk et al. 1992: 597): kind of, sort of, quite, rather, more or less. Diminishers have the function of downgrading, having the meaning of to a small extent: mildly, partially, slightly, somewhat, in part, to some extent, a bit, etc. and only, merely, simply, just. Diminishers can also be adjectives, used to lower the effect of the noun they modify, such as slight in “slight effort”, feeble in “feeble joke” (Quirk et al. 1992: 430). Finally, minimizers, the fourth category of downtoners, refer to the amplification of the negative: barely, hardly, little, in the least, a bit. Such conjuncts act as hedges as they involve degree; sometimes they are ambiguous as in the following example provided by Quirk et al. (1992: 618–619): (22) He almost stole the money

where almost can be interpreted in two ways: the action was close to stealing or it was such an action that it can be called stealing. Content disjuncts – which express the speaker’s opinion of the propositional content – can be expressed in various degrees of truth: conviction (evidently), some degree of doubt (allegedly, arguably, apparently, possibly, perhaps, reportedly, as well as, I wonder, I suppose) or contrast with reality (theoretically, apparently, formally) (Quirk et al. 1992: 620–621). Style disjuncts (Quirk et al. 1992: 615) express the speaker’s position towards his utterance, being a “comment on what is said”: approximately, briefly, generally, roughly, generally speaking, strictly speaking, speaking purely for myself, if I may say so, with respect to, because clauses, if and since clauses – if you ask me, since you want to know – all of them acting as mitigators. Indirect conditions are also expressed by means of if clauses: if you don’t mind my saying so, if I may be frank with you, if I may interrupt, if I may change the subject, if that’s the right word, if you see what I mean expressing politeness and calling for the hearer’s agreement (Quirk et al. 1992: 1095). Sometimes such clauses express the speaker’s lack of knowledge about factual world: (23) I met your girl friend Caroline last night, if Caroline is your girl friend.  (Quirk et al.’s example 1992: 1096).

Concessive clauses (expressing the speaker’s belief that the subordinate clause conveys something unexpected in the light of the main clause) can have a hedging function: Even if you are tired, it is worth visiting the village.

182 Gabriela Chefneux

Comment clauses, which express the speaker’s attitude towards the propositional content, can also act as hedges: I believe, I guess, I think/expect/feel/hear/ assume/suppose, it is said/reported/claimed/rumoured, it seems/appears, as you know, speaking as a layman (Quirk et al. 1992: 1113). Comment clauses render the statement indirect and hedge the main clause, as in the following example: (24) You are wrong, it seems.

4. Mitigation in the workplace 4.1

Setting and participants

The data analysed for this section of the paper were collected at a Belgian multinational company, operating in Braşov. The data are recordings of a telephone conference, whose length is of 43 minutes, that was made in the Romanian branch of the company. The transcribing conventions are presented in Appendix 1. There were seven participants in the meeting: five Romanian team members based in Romania (R1, 2, 3, 4, 5), one foreign member based in Hungary (F2), and the team leader, F1, of Belgian origin, who works in the head office from Belgium. There are five stages in the meeting: after the greetings and introductory part, the participants introduce themselves, as F2 is a new member of the team. Then follow current professional tasks, when the discussion proceeds as a series of questions and answers interrupted by descriptions. The final stage of the conversation consists of team members describing their current activities and then the meeting comes to an end. 4.2

Data analysis

The analysis of the meeting has two aims: a. to identify the reasons why mitigation is used and b. to describe the lexical realisations of mitigation with a view to discovering whether there are differences in the lexical choices made by Romanians and foreign participants. Three main uses of mitigation have been identified in the corpus described above: to be polite, to present professional experience and to reduce accountability. The analysis of these three uses is conducted simultaneously with the analysis of the lexical choices the participants make.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 183



4.2.1 To be polite Both the team leader and the team members resort to mitigation in order to be polite. The participants resort to indirect speech act – as in Example (25), when R1 asks F1 to repeat his question by resorting to a question and not to a command: (25)

(1) F1: are you all there? (2) R1: //yes (3) R2: //yes. Also R5? (4) R1: can you repeat please?

The team leader does not make direct commands either, but chooses to phrase them as suggestions. In Example (26), F1 suggests the first stage of the discussion, that participants should introduce themselves. (26)

(1) F1: OK. good. (2) this call is a bit special (3) because we have a new err attending called F2, (4) I propose that first we do a tour of the table if I can call it table (5) (laughter). (6) then your turn, (7) it’s all you OK? (8) and then we’ll go to the [unclear] (9) OK? (10) so that we know a little bit more who’s who. (11) OK? (12) can we get started? (13) OK?

F1 uses several hedging strategies such as the downtoner a bit (line 2, this call is a bit special), a minimizer as Quirk et al. (1992) classify it, using it both to draw the participants’ attention to the different nature of the telephone conference but also to make them feel secure (this conference is not very different from other telephone conferences). The team leader also softens his command by joking (I propose that first we do a tour of the table if I can call it a table) whereas the question tags it’s all you OK?, and the three other OKs indicate that he seeks for the participants’ agreement. He justifies his request, he wants the team members to introduce themselves so that the new conference participants should know them as well. Another mitigation strategy is achieved by the use of the downtoner a bit (we know a bit more) and the use of inclusive we. In this way, the team leader softens the command and reassures the participants that not much is requested of them. The last part of this turn is another instance of an indirect speech act – a command expressed as a question, inclusive we and tag question (lines 12–13).

184 Gabriela Chefneux

Another strategy used by F1 is indirectness. He asks F5, a member of the team he leads, about the tasks for the current week, tasks that are usually assigned by F1, but he uses a passive construction in order to hide the relation of power: (27) (1) F1: this week you’re supposed to work for MAV?

He resorts to comment clauses (I think) to weaken the announcements he makes in relation to the tasks assigned to the team members: (28) (1) F1: MAV is starting this Monday I think.

To express requests in a polite way, F1 resorts to adverbial phrases and adverbial clauses of reason. Here is one such example: (29) (1) F1: it’s middle we have to rearrange a bit the tasks (2) to redistribute (3) because you have to take into account the timesheet between the tasks

He explains why the tasks are rearranged (line 3); he uses inclusive we, although he is the one that decides on the tasks and he resorts again to the downtoner a bit. Example (30) illustrates F1’s choice of words in order to express the requests in a polite way: this time the strategies are the use of adverb probably, clauses of reason, interrogative sentences, passive constructions and vague words. (30)

(1) F1: so we are solving no interior preferences between the tasks, (2) cause I have just assigned the tasks, (3) there’s too much for you (4) probably want to do a lot err (5) so the log sheet will be available at the usual stop (6) so it’s Q7 fourteen, for the planning, (7) then it should go back to restructure, (8) where you will take the status sheet . (9) will you be going to this? (10) it’s an after sheet (11) where you will see [unclear] performing tasks (12) for all the people on the team. (13) so if you have preferences [unclear] to be worked on some stuff (14) please let me know. (15) I will try to arrange the planning to take your wish into account (16) no guarantee I can do it but we can try. (17) OK?

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 185



F1 explains that no preferences are taken into account, because he has just assigned the task (an adverbial clause of reason to soften the previous negation, which is expressed as a negative determiner and not as part of the verb phrase, which softens it again). He clearly states that the team members are to do a large amount of work and softens it by using probably (line 4), which is also an instance of vague language as it is no longer clear whether the large amount of work is assigned by the leader or by the team members themselves who take on too much – probably (line 4). He expresses obligation indirectly, by resorting to impersonal constructions (line 7). After informing the members of their near future tasks, he softens again the command by using an interrogative sentence – will you be going to do this?, the aim being to make the team members feel that the decision is theirs. He also softens the announcement that it is impossible to take into account the team members’ preference by promising to take it into account during a next stage, again by using an adverbial clause of reason and the connector but, which usually indicates the opposite of the previous statement (lines 13–17). F1 uses mitigation to turn down requests in a polite manner. In Example (31), R2 is a Romanian team member who announces that he wants to talk to F1 after the meeting, a request that he expresses indirectly as a question and using the downtoner a bit as well as the modal can: can I call you?: (31) (1) R2: yeah. (2) but do we have time to discuss a little bit after this meeting?

F1 rejects the request, but in an indirect way: (32)

(1) F1: oh, no problem (2) R2: OK so I can call you after this meeting. (3) F1: maybe just after this one (4) I will probably have a meeting with V and P (5) R2: OK

The team leader starts by stating that the discussion is no problem after which he says that he is actually engaged in a meeting. In order to say that, he uses two adverbials – maybe and probably (lines 3–4). The next example illustrates the way in which Romanian team members and the foreign one clarify a misunderstanding. F2 has presented his professional experience and the Romanian team members want to make sure they understood their colleague. Thus, R1 asks a short question – the adjective indicating that R1 does not want to impose:

186 Gabriela Chefneux

(33)

(1) R1: just one short question. (2) for which workbenches did you said (3) you worked for XXX System? (4) F2: yes, you see. er I was working [unclear] (5) that is called GSD generative system [unclear]

R5 also intervenes to make sure he understood F2 correctly and he uses a construction called restriction on intensification – more X than Y – (line 1) to which F2 answers again in a hedged way by resorting to the adverb not exactly (line 2) and to vague language, it’s part of, with the purpose of reducing R5’s possible embarrassment of not having understood the explanation: (34)

(1) R5: OK, so more surface than solid geometry (2) F2: ah, not exactly [unclear] (3) it’s a concept they call [unclear] (4) but it is not similar as solid. (5) solid is it’s part of hard design workbench

Another lexical choice made by the team leader to mitigate team members’ mistakes is the use of inclusive we, distancer there (the topic that has caused the misunderstanding) and the adverbial comment clause I think. The whole utterance is also an evaluation of R5’s work: (35) (1) F1: yeah, then there we misunderstand each other I think.

Romanian participants also use hedging devices to achieve politeness, but these are of a different nature, mainly adjectives and adverbials. The following example illustrates a brief exchange between F2, who has just presented his professional experience and R1, who wants to ask a question: (36) (1) F1: any question? (2) R1: just one short question.

In order to make this request polite, R1 resorts to the adverb just, that softens the request and he premodifies the noun question with the adjective short. Below is another example illustrating the way in which one of the participants indicates that he was misunderstood – an instance of the strategy called token agreement by Brown and Levinson (1996): (37)

(1) F1: and it’s your first job, eh? correct? (2) R1: er can be. so it’s not really the first job (3) but err errm the first so (4) I worked also for XXX before six months

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 187



F1 believes that this is R1’s first job, which is not correct. R1 does not say no from the beginning, he uses can be to express probability and than the adverb really in line 2: it’s not really the first job. In conclusion, the lexical realisations of mitigation are different for the team leader and the team members. Since F1 makes requests and commands, he uses indirect speech acts, adverbials (a bit, probably, maybe) and adverbial clauses (reason, comment clauses), inclusive we, distancers such as there and passive constructions. On the other hand, Romanian participants soften their request by resorting to indirect speech acts (questions), adjectives, adverbials and token agreement (yes, but…). 4.2.2 To present professional experience In the second part of the telephone conference, the participants present their professional experience. During this part, all Romanian participants resort to mitigation, the aim being to present their professional experience as modest, unimpressive and rather brief. In what follows there are a few examples: (38)

(1) R5: and previously I worked mostly for for seven years for a company (2) which was involved in different a different type of software (3) mos mostly data transfer over satellite, streaming, (4) high transfer and multicasting.

The use of mostly indicates the vague character of the information, as R5 does not want to be perceived either as boasting or as boring by providing too many details: (39)

(1) R4: hi, I’m R4 (2) I joined XXX from first of january last year, (3) I’m also from the beginning in structures team, (4) I work with IO features here (5) also a bit of over-connectors (6) and err in N solutions also (7) and automation.

R4 uses a bit to describe his professional experience. When asked more about his experience he resorts to vague language. In Example (40), F2 wants to know more about R4’s professional experience. The questions he asks are an illustration of indirect language rather than a restriction on intensification. R4’s answer includes some in some three years (line 3) and a little bit (line 5):

188 Gabriela Chefneux

(40) (1) F2: [unclear] do you have experience in Java technology (2) rather than C plus plus? (3) R4: yes, I have err also some er three years of Java experiences (4) F2: OK (5) R4: err and I’m I was a little bit new in C plus plus when I joined XXX

In conclusion, in order to present their professional experience the Romanian participants resort to adverbs such as a bit, mostly, restrictions on amplifications, approximators and negation. 4.2.3 To reduce accountability The third part of the telephone conference is devoted to questions that the team members ask about their current tasks. They want to clarify things, to find out what they do not know or to present to the team leader their results, sometimes not the expected one. All this involves the use of hedges that function as softeners for the possible mistakes made by the team members and instruction given in a polite way by the team leader. Below are a few examples: (41)

(1) R4: yes, also I err have a question, (2) to create a supertype entity, (3) the err screw connection, lay type, (4) because it will be one my task. (5) and I don’t want to create something (6) which later I has I have to delete it. (7) F1: yeah, then there we misunderstood each other I think.

In this example, R4 starts by stating he has a question and this explicit statement of the function of his utterance can be interpreted as a means of Romanian employees’ making sure that their utterance is correctly understood. R4 also uses adverbial clauses of reason to justify his question and to soften it: because it will be one of my task and I don’t want to create something which later I have to delete (lines 4–6). The team leader’s answer is polite, as he resorts to a comment clause and inclusive we (line 7). A similar situation can be identified in the exchange between R2 and F1: (42)

(1) R2: I’m R2, (2) I’m working at the analysis, analysis and design (3) for xxx model modifications set up case, (4) er we are almost ready, (5) there are some details to be completed for the solution. (6) F1: oh, I know, I still investigate a bit there (7) R2: so do you think



Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 189

(8) I can start implementing from //today (9) F1: //[unclear] command the catalogue and so on.

In this exchange, several vague words are used (almost ready, some details), which actually state that the task is not finished. Finally, another example is provided by the next discussion, between R5 and F1 about a difference in the expected and the actual value of an algorithm: (43) (1) R5: hi F1 I’m R5. (2) so last week I worked on a small task for err convert, (3) changing the algorithm for a computing spot welds between shells, (4) to accept also to compute also spot welds (5) between faces of solid elements, (6) err so I finished the algorithm, (7) err I did some performance measurements (8) and they are about the same, (9) so initially I thought it’s [unclear] (10) but but I I er er did some more measurements (11) and there is not such a difference (12) between the two implementations, (13) F1: OK (14) R5: but anyway the er er (15) modified with the modifications I did (16) the algorithm is a bit faster. (17) for some reason (18) but maybe the measurements are not so accurate. […] (19) R5: ehh as far as I’ve measured today, (20) there were about ten milliseconds faster each time, (21) so it’s if for hmmm a connection initially took twenty five milliseconds (22) now it takes fifteen (23) if it tooks seventeen let’s say seventy (24) now it takes sixty milliseconds. (25) so apparently it’s almost always ten milliseconds faster (26) but err

In this example, R5 describes his task as small and he presents it in detail, the reason possibly being to postpone the announcement that he did not finish it or to indicate the difficulty of the task. He then moves to the problem by referring to the different values he obtained; in order to do that he resorts to adverbs such as about (line 8): the measurements are about the same, negative sentences with such a (line 11), the adverbial bit (line 16). He tries to find an explanation for the

190 Gabriela Chefneux

current situation and in order to do that he uses but and the adverbials maybe and so: but maybe the measurements are not so accurate (line 18). He also uses two conditional sentences (lines 21 and 23) to hypothesise and adverbials such as apparently and almost (line 24): In this part of the meeting, Romanian participants use adverbial clauses of reason and condition, adverbials such as right now, mostly, etc. to indicate that the tasks are almost finished, while the Belgian team leader uses mitigation strategies expressed as minimizers (a bit), inclusive we, adverbials of reason and comment clauses. 5. Conclusions The hedging devices are used for three main reasons: (1) politeness (commands and evaluation), (2) downplaying of professional experience and (3) accountability in order to justify the fact that the tasks are not completed. Lexically speaking, the most frequently used mitigation strategies are indirect speech acts expressing requests, question tags of the type eh and OK, clauses of reason and condition, comment clauses, quotative particles (officially, passive constructions), downtoners and adverbs, particularly approximators (kind of, sort of) and diminishers (a bit, just), as well as words indicating possibility (modal may, adverbial perhaps, conditional clauses). These strategies are differently used by the team members and the team leader. The team leader uses indirect speech acts, adverbial clauses of reason, quotative particles, downtoners (a bit is often used), distancers (there), inclusive “we” and words expressing probability. The Romanian team members also use indirect speech acts, adverbial clauses of reason, but also adverbial clauses of condition, negative sentence and approximators as well as downplayers, restrictors on intensification, adjectives and token agreement. Both the team leader and the team members use humour to soften either commands or mistakes. Correlated with the other findings, it can be concluded that Romanian participants are more indirect in their utterances, using more words to react to what they perceive as face threatening situations.

References Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1996: Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitigation at work. Functions and lexical realisations 191



Coposescu, Liliana and Chefneux, Gabriela (eds.). 2008. Institutional Talk and Intercultural Communication in Multinational Companies: Corpus of Spoken Interaction in English. Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania. Coposescu, Liliana and Coposescu, Silviu. 2009. “Humour at work”. In Institutional Talk and Intercultural Communication, Liliana Coposescu (ed.), 83–102. Braşov: Editura Universitặţii Transilvania. Coposescu, Liliana, 2009. “Questions in intercultural interactions”. In Institutional Talk and Intercultural Communication, Liliana Coposescu (ed.), 32–46. Braşov: Editura Universitặţii Transilvania. Eggins, Suzanne and Slade, Diane (eds.). 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell. Fairclough, Norman. 1996. Language and Power. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2008. Outliers – The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Hofstede, Geert and Hofstede, Geert-Jan. 2004. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill USA. Levinson, Stephen. 1995. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Măda, Stanca. 2009. Comunicarea în Mediul Profesional Românesc. [Communication in Romanian Professional Environment]. Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania. Norton, Robert. 1983. Communicator Style: Theory, Application and Measures. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1992. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman. Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2006. “Establishing common ground in small talk. Analysis of some excerpts from a Romanian corpus”. In Cooperation and Conflict in Ingroup and Intergroup Communication. Selected Papers From the Xth Biennial Congress of the IADA, Bucharest 2005. Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), in collaboration with Liliana Hoinărescu, 451–462. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Tannen, Deborah. 1993. “What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations”. In Framing in Discourse, Deborah Tannen (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Appendix 1 Transcribing conventions Symbol Arabic numerals [ ] [work] . ? , // [unclear] XXX

Significance line numbers laughter guess clause final falling intonation clause final rising intonation slight rise the onset of overlapping talk non-verbal information and/or unclear passages words not transcribed to provide confidentiality

Moderation techniques in meeting management Stanca Măda

Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

Moderation is unconventionally regarded as a means of conducting meetings or group activities in a non-controlling manner. It aims at making use of group knowledge by involving group members in the decision-making process and by focusing them on the purpose of the meeting. Moderation requires a specific basic attitude of the moderator and certain techniques. The present paper aims at analysing the role of the chair in workplace meetings from a different perspective, namely that of a moderator. Moderation techniques are strategic tools used by the chairperson to reach the objectives of the meeting in a very efficient manner, which takes into consideration both power and politeness (Holmes and Stubbe 2003). In this study, I approach the different communicative roles adopted by the chairs in professional meetings, with an emphasis on the strategies associated with the role of the moderator, in contrast with that of an authoritative controller. The variation of roles and the strategic choices made by the speakers account for the complexities of workplace context.

1. Workplace meetings – a complex communicative context Workplace interaction is a generic term which refers to verbal encounters between two or more interlocutors who share professional relationships (at the same or at different hierarchical levels) in a given social and temporal workplace context via traditional (face-to-face) or mediated (telephone, video, e-mail) communication channels. Although it is similar to conversation in many respects, workplace interaction is closer to the concept of discussion (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 1995, 1999: 39), due to the institutional context in which it takes place, the norms that govern turn-taking, and the social role played by the participants. The contextual constraints make the difference between formal, semiformal and informal workplace interactions, also influencing their structure. As general principles of ­guiding any

194 Stanca Măda

type of communication, cooperation and politeness ensure the efficiency of workplace encounters. Another relevant sociolinguistic dimension is that of power, defined as a “relative concept which includes both the ability to control others, and the one to reach one’s goals” (Holmes and Stubbe 2003: 5). The tension specific to workplace encounters offers the background of interpreting it as an institutional dialogic game, based on strategies of cooperation and conflict, which are chosen according to the performative competence of the participants (Weigand 2006: 35–52). A particular case of workplace interaction is that of meetings. Various in terms of structure and functions, meetings have been examined and classified from multiple perspectives. Discursive realizations of status (Sollit-Morris 1996), of meeting management (Barbato 1994, Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris 1997, Holmes and Stubbe 2003), (Barbato 1994, Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris 1997, Holmes and Stubbe 2003), of building rapport by means of power and politeness (Holmes and Stubbe 2003), and of the creation of humour (Coposescu 2009), are just a few of the research interests raised by workplace meetings. Starting from the functions of the meetings, Holmes and Stubbe (2003) classify meetings into three distinct types according to their overt primary or business goals and expected outcomes: – planning or prospective/forward-oriented meeting – reporting or retrospective/backward-oriented meeting – task-oriented or problem-solving/present-oriented meeting.  (Holmes and Stubbe 2003: 63)

Holmes and Stubbe (2003: 63–65) account for the way in which functions such as assigning tasks, requesting information or problem-solving contribute to the realization of the primary goal, as well as for the fact that many meetings employ elements of all three types mentioned above. Based on the functional criterion, we can distinguish meetings from other forms of workplace interaction. Holmes and Stubbe (2003: 59) define meetings as “interactions that focus directly or indirectly on transactional/ business objectives”, in the largest acceptance possible. As Pan, Wong Scollon and Scollon (2002) put it: The social positions and relationships among participants are negotiated or ratified in a meeting. The function of a business meeting thus always goes beyond a mere business deal. In many cases the “central” business task is really only a carrier of these more important interpersonal and interorganizational relationships.  (Pan, Wong Scollon and Scollon 2002: 109)



Moderation techniques in meeting management 195

From an intercultural perspective, meetings can have different functions that lie behind obvious meeting procedures such as: meeting together, topic or agenda opening, discussion, decision making, and topic or meeting closing. Meetings are meant to inform, to analyse and solve problems, to discuss and exchange viewpoints on a controversial topic, to inspire and motivate the team, to provide advice, to reconcile parts in a conflict or in a negotiation process, to obtain feedback and a hint of the opinion-barometer of the team, to persuade, to enforce and train team-work skills in a newly-formed group, to re-affirm a status-quo, to install a change of attitude, etc. The decision-making process at organizational level takes place both during formal meetings and during pre- and post-meeting events. The manner in which a meeting is chaired as well as the participants’ behaviour are culturally determined, ranging from general, to particular, being influenced by national traits (see Hofstede’s cultural dimensions), by ethnical ones, by the organizational culture (see Coposescu 2010), and by intra-organizational group norms. An example in this respect would be the vision people might have on the primate of the transactional or the relational goals in an organization. For instance, when analysing meeting management strategies and their grammatical interface, Gheorghe, Măda, Săftoiu focused on “how they instantiate ways of argumentation and emotive argumentation” (2008: 823). Their main finding is that the chairperson uses emotive argumentative strategies, such as description of emotions, illuminating narratives, asking for participants’ opinions, appeal to rules and regulations, “in order to maintain equilibrium between power and collegiality” (2008: 831). 2. Aims of the study and methodological considerations The present study is drawing on the results of the research project entitled Professional Language in Present-day Romanian. Linguistic Patterns and Discursive Structures, which was developed at Transilvania University of Braşov between 2007 and 2010 and was supported by a governmental grant (CNCSIS, ID 142). The data in this paper were gathered in the first corpus of Romanian workplace interaction (Gheorghe, Săftoiu, Măda (coord.) 2009). For the purpose of this article, I will focus on the dual role played by the chair of a meeting in professional context. Is this person responsible for making decisions? Is he/she alone responsible for the decision or is he/she a mere moderator who facilitates the decision-making process within the team? Two meetings may have similar structures, but different functions because of the role played by its chair. The difference between conducting a meeting in a controlling manner and

196 Stanca Măda

moderating it may appear insignificant at a formal level, but the communicative strategies associated with the two roles may determine the degree of participants’ implication in the speech act. Sometimes, during the same meeting, the chair adopts moderation techniques in order to facilitate discussions and encourage the participants to express contrasting viewpoints; when it comes to making a decision or to ratifying it, the chair may assume his authoritative role in a conventional manner. The theoretical approach to the role of the moderator is based on two main frameworks: management studies and communication. The linguistic analysis of moderation techniques employs sociolinguistic and discourse analysis concepts, while the controller’s and the facilitator’s roles are exemplified and commented on by means of conversational analysis. The examples were taken from two different Romanian workplace contexts: commercial and educational. Examples (1) and (5) were excerpted from two meetings which took place in different commercial organizations: a department meeting (1) and a board meeting (5). Examples (2), (3) and (4) belong to the educational field of activity, including teachers’ board meetings with different participatory frameworks: internal (in (2)), both internal and external (in (3) and (4)). The recordings and the subsequent demographic data were gathered by means of the participatory methodology developed by the Language in the Workplace Project, which commenced in 1996 at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand (for a detailed presentation of this methodology, see Stubbe 2001, Holmes and Stubbe 2003). The transcription norms used for the examples were common to other Romanian corpora of verbal interaction (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (coord.) 2002: 22–23, Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (coord.) 2007: 311–312). While the original examples are in Romanian and they preserve the transcription notes as they appear in the corpus (Gheorghe, Măda, Săftoiu 2009), the English translation renders only the norms related to preserving anonymity of the speakers and of the institutions. 3. Moderation – method and tool In generic terms, moderation is defined as a method, a set of techniques to conduct group works and discussions. The goal is to make all group members participate in the process and focus them on the purpose of the meeting. The main elements are visualization, group answering techniques, and working in small groups and the plenum. Moderation requires, among others, a specific basic attitude of the moderator which should make use of group knowledge and allow unrestricted and sometimes anonymous expression of opinions. Moderation is a complex process which includes not only communicative techniques, but also



Moderation techniques in meeting management 197

visualization methods and good organizational skills. In this paper, I will focus solely on the communicative techniques which will be referred to from now on as moderation techniques. As Legewie and Böhm (1999: 1) state: “The introduction of moderation techniques [in meeting management] is comparable to the transition from handwriting to working with a typewriter or PC”. They recommend the practice of moderation techniques in all fields of activity (education, production, business, administration, and politics), whenever group work is necessary, and admit that in some fields “the ‘Stone Age’ methods of group work still prevail” (Legewie and Böhm 1999: 1). Starting with the early ’70s, the German schools of modern management have introduced and extensively developed moderation as a basic method of chairing working groups, discussion rounds and business meetings. The moderator is assigned a specific role which implies keeping a certain distance from the discussions, giving each participant an opportunity to voice his/her views, and directing the whole process of group work to make it run smoothly. Moderation is not considered one method, but rather a set of different methods which has proven to be useful. These methods vary according to the goals and preferences of the moderators and the groups, being combined in a creative manner to suit a given purpose. A special type of moderation is that specific to focus group communication, in social research. Myers (1998) describes in detail the communicative role of the moderator in a focus group, emphasizing the relationship with the other participants. The moderator introduces the topic, encourages people to express their convictions and opinions about different topics, asks for comments, and even makes disagreement a topic for discussion. The participants approach disagreement with conversational means, making use of the moderator as of a public. They act as their aim as a group would be to express as many opinions as possible (Myers 1998: 105). Myers (1998: 106) employs conversation analysis to account for the importance of the moment when the moderator takes the floor in the conversation (before or after the participants’ turns end). The author also focuses on the moderator’s use of backchannel techniques and on his skills as a listener. The conclusion of the study is that, although the participants use the structural patterns of casual, informal conversation, they are in an apparently artificial situation created by the moderator’s intervention, the pre-established topics he should discuss with the group (as they appear in the topics guide of moderating focus group activities), the time limit, the recording of the conversation. These characteristics of focus group interactions are similar to workplace communication in many respects, especially when it comes to meetings. The distinction between a controlled, context-bound conversation and an uncontrolled one may appear less obvious in case the chair plays the role of a moderator.

198 Stanca Măda

I would also emphasise on the consensus of the participants’ aims in case of professional meetings, in contrast with those present in focus group communication. Except for very rare cases, the participants in a meeting have a clear desire to agree, to make a decision or to reach a conclusion for the welfare of the organization, and in the most efficient manner. Cohesion and cooperation within teams ensure efficiency in reaching the objectives of the meeting, but the key of this complex communication process is in the hands of the facilitator. Despite the importance of the moderator for the climate of the group and success of the work, it is recognised that both the moderator and the participants must co-operate and share responsibility. According to Legewie and Böhm, a set of governing rules has proven useful in achieving the balance between personal needs of each participant, the group processes and the task aimed at: Be your own chairperson… Troubles have priority… Express yourself in your contributions… Be both authentic and selective… When asking questions, explain why you ask them. Refrain from interpreting others… Talks with neighbours (“side conversations”) should be shared with the group. One after the other: do not speak simultaneously. Speak about one single topic and not too long.  (Legewie and Böhm 1999: 3–4)

Not all of these rules may always be completely observed. Yet, they can be considered successful guidelines for effective communication, in general, not only in professional settings. According to scholars and practitioners of this method, moderation includes a preparatory stage and a full moderation cycle, consisting of the introductory part (or the beginning, which includes greeting, handling name badges and a short introduction round, establishing the agenda and the appropriate time span, dealing with who is keeping the minutes/records), the discussion part (dealing with gathering, selecting, and handling one or more topics), the decision-making part (in which the necessary measures are decided and planned), and the conclusion (with a final feedback from both the participants and the moderator). Following this routine, for the purpose of this article and according to the data at my disposal, I have divided the communicative moderation techniques into three categories, as follows: – The “opening” techniques used by a moderator roughly correspond to the first stage of the moderation cycle – the introduction, which is dedicated to warmup, orientation and establishing the goals and objectives of the meeting. – The “debating” techniques, which correspond to the second stage of the moderation cycle – the discussion, and comprise techniques related to turn-taking rules, keeping the discussions on track, dealing with conflicting situations, expressing opinions, etc. This category focuses on discussion management.

Moderation techniques in meeting management 199



– The “structuring” techniques are mainly focused on topic management and reaching the objectives of the meeting. They roughly cover part of the second, the third, and the fourth stages of the moderation cycle – the discussion, the decision-making, and the conclusion. Summing-up, making decisions, ratifying them, and dealing with the final feedback are some of the most relevant techniques included in this category. In the following sections, I will exemplify these moderation techniques, using the data described in Section 2. 3.1

“Opening” techniques

Depending on the steps of the moderation cycle, the chair of a meeting will adopt specific associated strategies. One of the most important parts is the introductory one, in which the moderator needs to create the appropriate climate for discussions and expressing opinions, to build and maintain a motivating attitude and to open honest communication channels, in order to gain the participants’ trust in him/her, in themselves and in each other. These are possible when the moderator observes the following points: the seating order, the manner of greeting the participants, introducing to each other (if needed), and addressing, the balance between the amount of talk and the active listening skills he/she employs, the way people interact and the amount of feedback they offer. The history of the roles and the status of the participants will influence the development of any meeting in professional context. And still, the way in which the moderator greets the participants and opens the meeting determines the general atmosphere of the encounter to a great extent. In workplace meetings, greeting is a sign that the stage of arrival and small talk is over and the systematic work begins. It also indicates the imminent work-style, it requests the attention of the participants, and it establishes eye-contact between the chair and the rest of the group, while the moderator sizes up the situation and the mood of the group. (1) Context: The opening of a meeting of the marketing and sales department. Participants: Carmen (the manager of the department) and the area managers (Adi, Dorin, Ionuţ, Vasile, and Costi). 1 2 3 4 5 6

Carmen: şedinţa↓ da↑ şedinţă DESPRE CE aţi apucat să discutaţi pînă acum? Adi: probleme de /servis/ Dorin: [ce a avut fiecare +Carmen: /servis/ numai? Dorin: da. +Carmen: /servis/↓ vi le-aţi lămurit pe toate?

200 Stanca Măda

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19 20 21

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Ionuţ: da. Carmen: pe noul coleg l-aţi::# cunoscut↑ da? Adi: [da: da↓ da↓ am făcut cunoştinţă +Carmen: ştii CU CINE te duci la plimbare. Vasile: a↓ nu ne-am gîndit încă. cu Carmen: ((către [prenume] noul coleg)) tu eşti tare trist astăzi# ă? Vasile: ((neagă mormăind)) m::↓ m:: +Carmen: nu↑ am crezut că eşti trist## ((către [prenume] care tocmai a intrat pe uşă)) servus. # ((către toţi)) hai că facem o # începem:: cu::# cu analiza asta: care o am eu aicea## ce /servis/#. nu am consemnat↓ dar o să # [prenume] cred că a scris tot ce trebuie↓ [da↓ toate problemele voastre. Adi: [şi-a notat [prenume] tot ce trebuie. +Carmen: ((inspiră adânc)) aşa# deci↓ ce vă propun eu la şedinţa asta## să discutăm# prezentarea noului ‹@ coleg›↓ l-aţi văzut↓ ↓ e consemnat# l-a cunoscut toată lumea# să facem analiza activităţii la treizeci septembrie# unele date↓ acolo unde e vorba de clienţi↓ ăia îi analizăm la data la zi# normal# pentru că şedinţa am făcut-o::# mai::# târziu# şi începem cu: analiza# vânzărilor↓ da↑ iar la analiza vânzărilor mergem prima dată pe analiză faţă de# buget↓ deci faţă de plan## acuma nu mai ştiu ce::# ă:: la tine ((către [prenume])) zona a devenit CÎT. [de doi↑ Adi: şi am avut de cinci. +Carmen: ((notând ceva sau verificând în nişte foi)) este. Adi: da:: de doi↓ de trei este# [prenume] de patru: eşti tu [prenume]? Costi: [de patru↓ da. +Carmen: şi de cinci:: va fi [prenume]## dar oricum mai discutăm despre [prenume] de la de cinci#### deci analiza din punct de vedere al îndeplinirii planului# per total# societate. (Gheorghe, Măda, Săftoiu 2009: 130–131) Carmen: Meeting. Right? Meeting. What did you manage to talk about so far? Adi: Service issues. Dorin: …what each of us had… +Carmen: Only service? Dorin: Yes. +Carmen: Service. Did you cover everything? Ionuţ: Yes. Carmen: You’ve… met the new colleague, right? Adi: Yes, yes. We’ve met. +Carmen: You know with whom you walk. Vasile: Oh, we haven’t thought of it yet. With… Carmen: ((to [first name], the new colleague)) You are very sad today, right? Vasile: ((denying)) M, m.



Moderation techniques in meeting management 201

14 +Carmen: Aren’t you ? I thought you are sad. ((to [first name] who has just entered the room)) Hello. ((to all)) Let’s do a… we start with… with this analysis, I have here. About service? We haven’t put it in writing, but we”ll… [first name] I think he wrote everything you need. Right. All your problems. 15 Adi: [[first name] took notes about everything. 16 +Carmen: ((taking a deep breath)) So. Well, what I suggest we should discuss at this meeting… introducing the new colleague… you’ve met him, so, it’s on record. Everybody has met him. Let’s make an analysis of the activity till September 30th, some data… where it’s about clients, those we will analyse up-to-date, naturally, because we had the meeting later and we start with the analysis of the sales. Right? And within this analysis, we go first to the analysis as compared to the budget, to what’s planned. Now, I don’t know what is with you… ((to [first name])) Your area became which? D two? 17 Adi: And I had D five. 18 +Carmen: ((taking some notes or checking something)) It’s here. 19 Adi: Yeah, D two. D three is [first name], D four is you, [first name]? 20 Costi: D four, yes. 21 +Carmen: And D five will be [first name], but anyway we’ll discuss about [first name] at D five. So, the analysis of the completion of plan per organization.

Although she chairs the meeting, Carmen enters the board room late, but she is assuming the moderator’s role from the very beginning. Considering the way in which discussions start and the lack of ritual salutation formulas, we can infer that this in not the first encounter of the day for the participants. Carmen takes control of the meeting and checks the stage of the preliminary discussions (lines 1 to 7). She is also building group cohesion, making sure the newcomer is welcomed by the entire team (line 8). She makes use of positive politeness strategies to emphasise the interest for the new colleague; Carmen employs conversational humour (line 10) and is showing concern for Vasile’s state of mind (lines 12 and 14). The atmosphere is relaxed, Carmen greets the last participant who joined the group and formally opens the meeting by announcing the agenda (line 14, continuing in line16). One of the first strategies of facilitation is associated with the description of the situation. In the case of meetings, this is performed by setting the agenda, in which there are listed the topics to be covered throughout the meeting, their succession and other administrative information (such as time allotted to each topic, total estimated time, venue etc.). In many cases, the agenda of a meeting is conveyed in writing and sent to all the parts long before the meeting. This helps the participants to prepare for the meeting, mentally sketching the development of the discussions, building expectations related to handling the topics and the sequence in which the topics should be addressed, and assuming responsibility

202 Stanca Măda

for an informed consent to take part in the meeting. This fact also helps the chair to take control of the meeting, establishing the connection to previous meetings and ensuring continuity and coherence of topics, viewpoints, and perspectives, according to the list of contributors to every topic of the meeting. Negotiating the agenda is a strategic move which allows the participants to make suggestions, to express dissatisfaction or opposition with regard to the proposed content, and even to announce if they cannot attend the meeting. In Example (1), in line 16, Carmen announces the agenda with small pauses, which represent possible slots for interventions on behalf of the participants. She also elicits their opinions, checks their attentiveness, and solicits approval, by using da↑ (right) with rising intonation. Carmen’s experience as a moderator is obvious in the way she deals with both the transactional and the social goals of the meeting in a short amount of time, right at the beginning of the meeting. She also conveys the possibility for every participant to contribute to discussions, thus helping them to relax and express their viewpoints in more extended contributions to the dialogue in the future. The following example stands for a different experience. The newly appointed headmistress of the school opens the meeting of the teachers’ council. (2) Context: Adina opens her first meeting as a chair. Participants: Adina is the head of the school. The participants are all teachers at the same school. Adina: o să prezint acum DERULAREA ordinii de zi: ## […] Adina: DECI. primul punct ar fi prezentarea raportului comisiei de evaluare şi asigurare_a calităţii↓ de către↓ î: domnu profesor care_a fost preşedintele acestei comisii↓ domnu profesor [nume]# ă: urmeaz_apoi prezentarea↓ de către mine↓ a comisiilor↓ din care urmează↓ să facă parte↓ profesorii şcolii anul acesta. două dintre comisii le vom stabili NEapărat împreună↓ # consiliul de administraţie şi comisia de evaluare şi asigurare a calităţii.