Scarica Morfosintassi inglese 3 e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!
LINGUA INGLESE 3 – LINGUA E COMUNICAZIONE PROFESSIONALE
Prof. Sonia Rachele Piotti A.A. 2024/ MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO WORKPLACE DISCOURSE
Defining discourse
Brainstorming activity Do the following extracts mean anything to you? a) Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. They usually do so. b) You can run a hou- whatcha- now whatcha you can run a house-you can run a house a- and do the job, which is important, y’ can’t y- a man can’t do it himself, and a woman can’t do it himself w- if y’ want it to be successful. In most cases. a) is well formed from a syntactic and grammatical point of view, but it doesn’t mean anything. If something is green, it cannot be colourless; at the same time, if you sleep you do not do that furiously. Unlike a), the sentences in b) are not well formed from a syntactic and grammatical point of view: it doesn’t contain even a sigle well-formed clause and there are repetitions and also pauses, mostly of which are filled. Besides unfilled pauses, in spoken language we also got filled pauses, such as (mmmh, ahm… etc.); regardless a pause is filled or unfilled, it represents a moment where speakers pause to think about ewhat they’re going to say or how they’re going to say it. Pauses as well as repetitions are features more of spoken language than of written language; for this reason, we might assume that b) is an extract of spoken language. So: b) is spoken language, informal, contains repetitions and pauses and doesn’t contain even a single well-formed clause. In terms of meaning, we can quite easily understand that b) has a meaning, altohgough it is not clearly conveyed. c) From a grammatical point of view, we cannot say that c) is well formed, because it doesn’t contain a weird but a single letter, a symbol. nevertheless, it has a perfectly understandable meaning, because every time we see this symbol we understand that there we can park our car. SO, to sum up: a) Coloruless green ideas sleep furiously. They usually do so. Formal features ☞ 2 well formed sentences ☞ a) looks like a senquence of sentences Meaning? ☞ Despite these formal features Colourless green ideas sleep furiously doesn't mean anything...ideas sleep? Unless figuratively.... Even so, colourless green does not make sense! a) altogether does not mean anything b) You can run a hou- whatcha- now whatcha you can run a house-you can run a house a- and do the job, which is important, y’ can’t y- a man can’t do it himself, and a woman can’t do it himself w- if y’ want it to be successful. In most cases. Formal features ☞ Not even one well-formed entence ☞ watcha?
☞ w? Meaning? ⓘ Units in which people speak/communicate do not always look like well-formed sentences. c) Formal features ☞ Units in which people communicate can ☞ be smaller than a sentence (e.g., a word, a letter) ☞ consist of symbols Meaning? ⓘ what we take c) to be depends on the context , whose interpretation relies on world- knowledge Brainstorming activity How would you define each of the following terms?
Talk
Discourse
Is each one distinct from the other of is there overlap? What dimensions of contrast seem to be important in distinguishing these terms/concepts?
Talk : it is spoken only, it is generally face-to-face but is always synchronous (whether it is face-to-
face or not); the setting could be anywhere, actually; it can be spontaneous, depending on the setting, the porpouse etc. We can then take into consideration many other dimensions, such as the subject matter, the tone etc These are the dimensions of contrast we take into consideration when talking about talk: Channel Medium Relationships between participants Tone Purpose Context Subject matter Setting Spontaneity Interactivity (feedback)
WORKPLACE DISCOURSE
Definition Models and Frameworks of analysis What is workplace discourse? ☞ It is communication language which -is embedded in professional and organisational contexts. -involves many forms of spoken and written interactions
- a variety of spoken and written interactions to accomplish different things NB: indeed, there are different areas of work and each area has its own forms of spoken and written interaction > cfr. academia, court room etc. These forms are usually either written OR spoken; however, in some context spoken and written interaction can go together > cfr. a doctor and their patient during a visit). -involves communication between people in a variety of workplaces relationships and roles , for example llboss-employee, seller-costumer etc. There are a lot of dimensions and this is also the reason why when it comes to workplace discourse several models and frameworks have been developed to provide a diverse set of lenses for analysing and understanding workplace discourse. Here are some key models and frameworks : ⓘ ☞ Some models focus on how language functions in different contexts , including workplace discourse. This lllllis because these models were not originated to analyze workplace discourse but language in general, lllllincluding workplace discourse. ☞ Others focus specifically on professional and organisational contexts, or workplace discourse. ⓘ ☞ Some models focus on spoken discourse. ☞ Others focus on both spoken and written discourse on workplace settings. ⓘ ☞ Each model highlights different aspects of communication dynamics , power , social roles within llllll professional settings. SO: each model foregrounds different aspects of workplace communication. Main models: Institutional Talk Model (Drew and Heritage 1992) Contextual Framewwork (Halliday) Genre Theory (Swales and Jim Martin) Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969) Conversation Analysis (CA) (Saks; MacCarthy & Carter) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough and others) Politeness Theory (Brown and Levinson 1987) Interactional Sociolinguistics (Tannen) Community of Pracrice (CoP) Model (Wenger 1998) Power and Solidarirty Dynamics (Wodak) Transactional and Relational Communication (Watzlawick et al. (1967)) Model/framework Focus; Relewcance in workplace settings Institutional Talk Model Focus : the specific characterisics of spoken discourse in
institutional settings such as workplaces Workplace settings : how discourse in professional settings is strutture and how it differs from everyday conversation Contextual framework Focus : the relationship between language and the social context in which it is used; the functions of language and how meaning is shaped by context of situation and context of culture Workplace settings : How employees adapt their language to different social, professional roles and contexts Genre Theory Focus : workplace discourse as structured, predicable patterns of comunication that fulfill specific social purposes Workplace settings : how different types of workplace communication (e.g. meetings , reports , emails , and interviews etc.) follow specific conventions, which both guide and constrain how language is used in specific workplace settings Speech Act Theory Focus : how utterances function as actions (e.g. requesting, ordering, promising) Workplace settings : how directives, commissives, expressives, declarations, and other speech acts function in relation to the dynamics of task management, authority, politeness , and collaboration Conversation Analysis (CA) Focus : The micro-level details of how conversations unfold in workplace settings, including turn-tasking, repairs, and sequences Workplace settings : how workers negotiate meanings, resolve misunderstandings, and coordinate actions through spoken interaction in a workplace Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Focus : Power dynamics and ideologies embedded in workplace communication; often used when it comes to spoken discourse, especially used by politicians Workplace settings : how language reflects a and perpetuates ideologies , social hierarchies , organisational cultures and power relations. È a sua volta il frutto di una determinata ideologia socio- politica Politeness Theory Focus : how speakers manage face (i.e., social self-esteem) in workplace interaction; it was therefore born to focus on spoken interaction, but nowadays it is also used to analyse written discourse Workplace settings : how individuals navigate complex power relations , give directives , or provide feedback without causing offese
MODULE 2: DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF WORKPLACE DISCOURSE
Institutional Talk Model What special considerations apply that make workplace/professional discourse different from discourse in other settings, such as social or intimate ones? How are these considerations reflected through language?
- Sample text 1
- Sample text 2 They’re both transcripts of spoken interactions between participants, but which one qualifies as a typical example of spoken workplace interaction?
Sample text 1. Why? Lexis The reason why we can say this qualifies as a typical workplace discourse is the topic, which is: stock (line 6), estimate (line 8), print (line 4) etc. We therefore understand that it is a discourse which refers to a specific profession (even though we don’t really know which kind of profession) or task. We can say that this passage contains some terms that relate to a variety of specific workplace settings, but are not used in everyday contexts. On the other end, Sample text 2 contains very general words and the speaker is talking about having a nice, relaxing day, about earrings etc.; we cannot actually work out a specific issue or topic related to some task. Symbols In Sample text 2, we can also se that overlapping is much more frequent between speakers and participants (symbol: L); this is a feature that we associate with relaxed contexts, because it tells us that the interaction is not as structured as it should be (manca una chiara divisione di ruoli di parola e di contributio che in genere non si associa a un tipico ambiente lavorativo). On the other hand, in Sample text 1 we fine the symbol (.), which stands for an unfilled pause, a moment of silence. Indeed, pauses can be filled or unfilled: an unfilled pause is a moment of silence, as we said, whereas an example of filled pause is the one we find on line 4: ‘um (.)’. Other examples of filled pauses can be found in the sample on line 9, line 10, line 13 and lline 15. Speakers’ contribution to the text If we consider Sample text 1, we can break it in two halfs:
- In the first half of the text, there is a participant which is dominant in speech, meaning that they contribute more to it than the other partecipante; in particular, Sally is the more dominant participant, while Mary simply provides feedback to what Sally says.
- In the second half of the text, the situations is kinda of reversed, with Mary being the more dominant participant and Sally being the less dominant one. So in reach half of the text we have a more dominant speaker and a less dominant one. Let’s now focus on the contribution of the dominant speaker in each half of the text.
- In the first half, Sally is asking for some kind of advice from Mary. By providing the ‘yeah’ feedbacks, Mary is lllcommunicating that she’s not a passive listener, but she’s understanding what Sally is saying and is asking lllher to go on.
- In the second half, the situation is reversed and Mary is giving Sally advice, providing Sally with information lllthat basically are a reply to Sally’s request for help. For this reason, in this second half of the text, Mary is the lllmore dominant participant from a linguistic point of view. Conclusion: in Sample text 1 there is always a more dominant speaker, even though it might not be the same person through the whole text. If we look at Sample text 2, we cannot identify a more dominant speaker: both contribute equally to the text. Indeed, while in Sample text 1, the more dominant speaker is either asking for advice or providing advice, while the less dominant speaker basically provides positive feedbacks, acknowledging what the other person is saying, here each speaker’s contribution looks like an expressive statement, meaning that each speaker simply states their own feelings or ideas about how nice Sundays are. For this reason, we cannot identify any speaker who’s role is asking questions or asking for advice/help, nor any participant who basically provides information.
But why?
In Sample text 2, speakers do not have a specific goal or purpose in mind. In Sample text 1, speakers do have a specific goal or purpose in mind: at the very beginning, Sally points out an issue and therefore the main goal here is finding a solution to that issue. That’s because workplace interactions tend to be focused on some task, some goal that is related to a specific profession, field of discourse or professional setting.
SO, if we find ourselves in context different from familiar or friendly contexts, the use of imperative might sound too rude; for this reason, we might want to mitigate the illocutionary force of the imperative by using ‘please’, which has the force of downtoning and mitigating the force of the imperative, or by substituting the imperative with a modal form (‘would’).
Going back to our sample, why would Mary decide to change her mind and modalize her
statement, being her perfectly entitled to use the imperative?
Even though she’s entitled to use the imperative, since she’s probably the boss or she’s senior to Sally, Mary still decides to use the modalized form because Sally herself is being very nice and tentative (‘should I…’); in doing so, Sally is acknowledging Mary’s institutional role and therefore, even though Mary is very likely to be Sally’s boss, she decides to be polite to Sally in her turn. Institutional Talk Model (Daren and Heritage 1992) Highlights the structured nature of communication in professional environments Provides a framework for understanding how language functions in a wide range of professional formal settings. Types:
**- Workplace Meetings
- Doctor-Patient Interactions
- Courtroom Interactions
- Educational discourse It empathises the following features:
- GOAL ORIENTATION**
- Workplace discourse is goal-oriented : it has a transactional goal
- Interacrion is goal-driven: participants engage in communication with a clear purpose or outcome in mind, llltypically related to the institution’s objectives Workplace Meetings : decision-making; progress reporting; task delegation, planning projects, problem-solving, etc. Doctor-Patient Interactions : determining a diagnosis and treatment plan Courtroom Interactions : establishing facts, interpreting the law, reaching a verdict Example Meeting between Mike and Chris who work in a small private firm Mike : one of the managers Chris : Mike’s boss Discussion over Mike’sKRAs (‘Key Responsibility Areas’) – a method of evaluating his performance. Mike has already drawn up a proposal which he discusses in this meeting. Where is the purpose of the meeting signalled? Through which linguistic features?
Mike signalls the purpose of the meeting in speech term number 3: ‘You want me to make a log.’ ‘How do you want that to show up over there?’ He frames the purpose of the meeting as following up on a directive from Chris. Indeed, Mike is following up on a previous directive from Chris, which is not, of course, in this brief passage, but is implied: we understand that somewhere else, earlier in this meeting, Chris has asked mike to come up with a proposal for a log which basically measures how well mike is performing for the firm.
The linguistic feature he uses to signal this is ‘you want me’ (verb: to want, which implies a
directive from Chris). In speech term number 4, Chris replies to what Mike has just said, so he’s following up on Mike’s request. How is goal orientation reflected in the language of institutional/professional settings such as workplace discourse? First of all, there are several key features in a discourse. We must distinguish between linguistic features and formal features: Linguistic features : related to language use and meaning, e.g., vocabulary, grammar, syntax, pragmatics, and discourse markers. Formal features : related to structure, norms and organisation of discourse (e.g., turn- taking rules, interaction sequences) that reflect how communication is structured to achieve institutional goals. Our interest is, of course, in linguistic features. a. Directive language Much of workplace discourse evolves around how to carry out a specific goal or task and this involves of course asking questions and giving orders/commands. Whenever we talk about directive language we’re talking about linguistic features such as:
- Imperatives
- Modal verbs
- Indirect requests The use of imperatives, modal verbs or indirect requests depends on power dinamics in the interaction (between participants). b. Institution-Specific Jargon and Technical Terms (unique to a particular professional field or institution)
When it comes to workplace discourse, we should think about goal orientation as a continuum between two points: Transactional goal (workplace discourse): people interested in each other as co-workers Relational goal (everyday conversation): building bonds, relationships; people interested in each other and people.
2. CONSTRAINTS ON ALLOWABLE CONTRIBUTIONS This is another distinguishing feature of workplace interaction. When we compared the passage of the Sample text which was a transcript of a meeting between Sally and Mary to the transcript of a small group of friends chatting over Sundays etc., we said that basically we cannot identify a specific topic in that interaction ,because actually everybody was simply speaking their mind, without a clear focus. This is what is meant when we talk about constraints on allowable contributions as one of the distinguishing features ofd workplace discourse. There are specific constraintres, i.e., rules, norms, procedures, that govern content and form of contributions and how communication takes place within each professional setting. Basically, there are three types of constraints that apply to workplace discourse and interactions: 1. Turn-taking Rules : often more regulated. For example, in a meeting, a chairperson may control who speaks and when; in court-room interactions, even more: the judge controls who speaks and when. 2. Speech Acts : types of speech acts (e.g., questioning, instructing, advising) that are appropriate or expected in a given setting are often limited by the institution’s norms 3. Role Constraints : institutional roles of participants (e.g., manager vs. employee, judge vs. lawyer; hierarchical nature) limit what they can say, how they can say it, and what counts as acceptable or relevant within that setting. Roles influence speaking rights and responsibilities, including the use of formal titles , expected forms of address , metalanguage , etc. Example : (In a job interview) interviewer controls interaction by asking questions, while the interviewee’s role is to respond (In a courtroom): lawyer asks questions, witness answers within strict legal and procedural guidelines. (In a healthcare consultation): doctor primarily provides information, and patient seeks advice, showing a clear role-based constraint. Role constraints : each professional setting is responsible for specific role constraints, which are reflected in the language through: - Formal titles - Expected forms of address Speech acts constraints : the most important type of constraints when it comes to speech act is represented by the use of: - Metalanguage ⓘ Without knowing metalanguage cues (words, phrases) used at a ycertain point in a specific interaction, a participant would not know how to contribute properly. 3. POWER DYNAMICS AND ASYMMETRY
When it comes to professional settings, instititutional settings or workplace settings, there is often an uneven distribution of power between participants. So, in terms of power distributions, workplace discourse is often characterised by imbalance. This means that there is often one participant that. Is more dominant than the other(s),
- either because they’re more powerful and this is granted by the role they have in the institution llllll( Institutional role = Institutional power )
- or either because of their institutional achievements or expert knowledge regarding a specific task or llllltopic that is talked about ( Achievement /Special knowledge = Expert knowledge ) NB: expert knowledge and institutional power do not always go hand in hand!!!
Institutional power, i.e. one participant is institutionally more powerful than the other party
because of her/his institutional role:
- E.g. magistrate vs. defendant in a courtroom
- UNESCO Director-General vs members
- E.g. boss vs employees
Expert knowledge: i.e. one partecipant is more knowledgeable than the othera
E.g. (lay-professional interactions): doctor-patient/teacher-student interactions; etc. E.g. (interactions btw professionals) llllDoctor consulting a lawyer on legal matters: lawyer is the institutionally powerful and knowledgeable llllparty llllLawyer consulting a doctor about a medical problem: doctor is the institutionally powerful and llllknowleadgeable party MOREOVER: institutional lower applies to hierarchical institutions, whereas expert knowledge does not necessarily apply to hierarchical institutions. This uneven distribution of institutional powder and expert knowledge is responsible for the asymmetrical nature of institutional/professional/workplace discourse. Of course, it is the uneven sistribution of power in workplace discourse that we’re interested in and particularly how this is reflected in the language that participants use in workplace settings. Indeed, altohigh of course expert knowledge matters, we’re interested in how institutional power imbalance is reflected through language. Relevance of all this to workplace discourse: speakers make their institutional roles/expert knowledge relevant through several means. We’ll focus on two such means through which speakers make their institutional roles or expert knowledge relevant:
- the discoursive role they take in the interaction (giving orders; asking questions; responding to orders/questiuions; providing information/details etc.): the institutionally more powerful person has the right to give orders/asking questions and providing information, while the institutionally less powerful person is aspected to respond to orders/questions and ask for advice.
- the language they use: thorough the language people use is also possible to understand the discoursive role people are playing, because each discoursive role is reported through a specific form. g ⓘ Participants often talk with the assumption that the institutionally more powerful party has authority to - give directives - tell interlocutor what he/she should do or ask them to do something - initiate interaction - control interactions - ask questions Etc. ☞ (In a meeting):
believe, I assume; impersonal forms such as: it seems/it llllllllll looks like; modal terms or
particles such as: perhaps etc.).
They’re what we call EDGING STRATEGIES. llll☞ Informal language or tone : especially in workplace cultures that encourage friendliness and llllllllllapproachability llll☞ Conversational Style : language that seeks to build rapport ot be less assertive, which can come llllllllllacross as informal. llll Politeness strategies : llllThose in power may communicate more bluntly , reflecting their confidence and authority. This generally llllis reflected when an order is directed downwards, from a superior to a subordinate.
llllThose in lower power positions might employ greater politeness or indirectness ( I was
wondering…; I llll think; maybe, etc.) to navigate interactions. Many ofte, people in lower
power positions tend to adopt llllsuch strategies to protect their own face: they do not want to sound bossy, but they just want to show lllldeference.
llllExample of politeness strategy: when I say Sorry to interrupt you when I address someone;
a strategy lllllike this might not instantly qualify as a politeness strategy, but even this is a politeness strategy.
4. INFERENTIAL FRAMEWORKS The mental structures or cognitive tools that participants in an institutional setting use/rely on to - interpret and make sense of each other’s contributions and frameworks - infer unstated meanings (i.e., what is left unsaid but understood) - interpret ambiguous or indirect contributions They include: - Shared assumptions about the goals, procedures, and norms of the institution - Shared background knowledge that is relevant to the particular workplace or professional setting - Conterxtual cues that guide interpretation, such as the use of specific terminology or fthe format of the lllinteraction Examples : (In a legal setting): participants rely on shared legal terminology , procedures and norms that shape how evidence is presented and interpreted (In a workplace): colleagues use jargon , acronyms , and shorthand that are understood whitin that specific organisational culture but may be incomprehensible to outsiders IMPLICATIONS : reduces the need for explicit explanations , making communication more efficient but potentially exclusionary for those not familiar with the institutional norms. STEP BACK TO POWER DYNAMICS: Where does workplace discourse occur? Workplace discourse can actually occur in a variety of contexts, but we actually distinguish two main regions in which it occurs; moreover, there is generally a sort of correspondence between the region in which the workplaces discourse occurs and the symmetry/asymmetry of the conversation. Front-stage/front-regions: asymmetrical - Lay - professional encounters: (e.g. Health professionals and patients) - Service encounters (service providers interact with costumers) Back regions: symmetrical or asymmetrical - Between professionals or co-workers (e.g. doctored, nurses, lab technicians, employees) - Symmetrical
- Asymmetrical (between people who occupy different institutional roles) ! Vertical or sociolinguistic dimension of workplace discourse
Text: Management meeting
The text shows the beginning of a management meeting that took place in a small
North American company.
Participants: Tom, who is the CEO and head of the company; Mike, the president,
who is responsible for the running of the company; Amy, the CFO.
Other people mentioned: Bill, the sales manager; David Johnson, who is one of the
sales reps and is leaving; Jim Murray, the new person who will take over some
selling for the company on a contract basis
1. Mike : okay (.) the uh topics I wanted to handle when we get together right now
were (.) uhm distribution of David Johnson’s database after he’s gone and that’s
something we have to decide kind of now. and uh and that relates to the fact that Jim
Murray is uh (.) likely gonna start working with us within the week. uh he’d like to–
by the way he’d like to start working with us right away if he can without coming up
first, and so we gotta talk about that a little bit too
2. Amy : well we have to have signed agreement before (.) we give him anything
3. Mike : ⎣yeah
4. Mike : yeah but I mean that can be done by fax (3) uhm (.)
5. Amy : what’s the downside of having him start before (.) really isn’t one is there?
6. Mike : ↑well the only downside is that we ha– then we have to have a written
agreement before
we actually ever meet him face to face (2)
7. Tom : we’ve met him face to face
8. Mike : well in a totally different context though ⎣Tom: (Mm)⎦ uhm so anyway
that’s– one thing is what to do about David Johnson’s database, the second thing is
(.) uh consolidated sales force idea that (.) Bill would like to propose, and uh
potential F.G. Deck circulation changes which we don’t necessarily have to do right
now but we do have on our schedule for getting the ninety-eight planning by Friday
uhm certain things. and part of that has to do with what happens with F.G. and the
other thing is what we do about– with N.T. Deck, because there are also some other
ideas on the table for that. so uh (.) I think the first thing we should deal with is– is uh
(.) is the first two
9. Amy : okay
10. Mike : and hopefully we’ll get to the other ones
11. Mike : so uhm (.) David Johnson’s database – here’s the deal. with– with Murray
um what we offered him was basically [...]
First read the transcript and then answer the following questions:
- How is the goal-orientation of this workplace interaction reflected through the participants’ language?
- Through which key aspects of their language and interactions is asymmetry reflected?
- How do inferential frameworks manifest? Goal-orientation When it comes to discussing goal-orientation and how it is reflected through the participants’ language, focus on language used to:
- Setting the agenda
- Prioritising the agenda
“yeah but I mean that can be done by fax (3) uhm (.)”
(Turn 5) Amy brings up the potentials challenge of Jim Murray starting before meeting in person
“what’s the downside of having him start before (.)…?”
(Turn 6) Mike addresses the challenge
“the only downside is that we… have to have a written agreement”
a goal-driven approach where challenges are acknowledged and discussed in terms of Howe to overcome them Goal-orientation: Decision-oriented language Language features that fit into this category may be the same which we already discussed for other cathegories, as well as for prioritising the agenda. So, for example: Turn 1 (Mike)
“That’s something we have to decide kind of now ”
(both decision-oriented language as well as prioritising the agenda) This proves that there are some linguistic features that are specific of a certain category and others that cut across more than one category. Goal-orientation: Summarizing and concluding (Turn 10) Mike
“ hopefully we’ll get to the other ones”
to conclude current focus of the discussion while setting up expectations for future topics It organises the discourse by signalling that the current conversation will soon move on or may be cut short due to time constraints.
The use of the future tense is a clear language clue, and of course the use of “ hopefully” before
the future tense strengthens the idea of future expectation. (Turn 11) Mike
“ here’s the deal ”
It kind of refocus the topics on the agenda after a brief discussion regarding sometihing else and at the same time it marks the beginning of a summary or the key point that Mike wants to make It is a discourse-organising tool to frame the conclusion of one part of the conversation. TO SUMMARISE: Regarding goal-orientation, Mike is the person organising the agenda, the person who decide which topics to prioritise, the person who addresses the challenges that other participants raise, and he’s also the person that refocuses the conversation when other people make side- allegations etc. Of course, Amy and Tom might contribute by raising some problems, but it’s basically Mike who addresses these challenges and problems, bringing up solutions to these problems. This is all part of the goal-orientation language, meaning that it has to do with how participant use the language to achieve the main goal of the meeting. Asymmetry
- An uneven distribution of power, knowledge and authority in the conversation
- reflected through several key aspects of their language and interactions: 1. Turn-Taking and Control 2. Knowledge and Expertise 3. Feedback and Responses Asymmetry: Turn-Taking and Control Mike is the person in control of the discussion because his speech terms are much longer than either Amy’s or Tom’s contributions. There also are some overlaps between Mike and either Amy or Tom, but still his contributions outnumber Amy’s and Tom’s. We can therefore summaries these key aspects as follows:
Mike Longer turns and control over what is discussed a position of authority he is steering the meting toward specific outcomes a sense of decision-making authority, as he assumes responsibility for keeping the group on track Amy and Tom defer to Mike’s lead mostly respond to Mike’s points rather than initiatin new topics or steering the conversation through And they do so either through: shorter responses: Amy “okay” (turn 9) brief interjections:
Amy (turn 2): “we have to have signed agreement”*
Amy (turn 5): “what’s the downside of having him start before (.)?”*
Tom (turn 7): “we’ve met him face to face”*
*they basically brings up some questions/remarks, but this does not affect Mike’s control of the conversation Asymmetry: Knowledge and Expertise Mike has more detailed knowledge of the issues at hand
☞ David Jhonson’s database
☞ Jim Murray’s involvement and downside of having him start before meeting, and other
business concerns ↓ a higher level of familiarity with the agenda items Amy and Tom Their contributions are reactive
Either making brief interjections (Amy, turn 2: “we have to have signed agreement”)
Or asking clarifying questions (Amy, turn 5: “what’s the downside of having him start before (.)?”)
Amy expects Mike to previde the reasoning or potential risks Or affirming what Mike says ↓ they rely on his expertise or aurthiryt for direction, even when they’re raising a problem (cfr. Amy, turn 2) Asymmetry: Feedback and Responses
The participants frequently affirm Mike’s points (e.g., Amy in turn 9: “ okay”), which reinforces the
asymmetrical power dynamic. These brief responses indicate that Amy and Tom are aligned with Mike’s authority and do not challenge or alter the course of the conversation significantly. Inferential Frameworks (1) (Turn 1) Mike
“distribution of David Jhonson’s database after he’s gone”
“the fact that Jim Murray is uh (.) likely gonna start working with us within the week”
These are the topics he highlights at the very beginning of the conversation in speech term (1). ⓘ Any elaboration or clarification about what the database is or why its distribution is important? Any clarification about who Jim Murray is or elaboration about his role? ↓ There is no need for any elaboration or clarification, which means that the group shares knowledge about the context, and decisions are made based on this implicit understanding.
