Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Getting Things Done at Work Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich, English Dep...

Author: Bernadette Vine

44 downloads 929 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Getting Things Done at Work

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich, English Department Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey University of Southern Denmark

Herman Parret Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Jef Verschueren Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni University of Lyon 2

Jean Caron Université de Poitiers

Claudia de Lemos University of Campinas, Brazil

Robyn Carston University College London

Marina Sbisà University of Trieste

Bruce Fraser Boston University

Emanuel Schegloﬀ University of California at Los Angeles

Thorstein Fretheim University of Trondheim

Deborah Schiﬀrin Georgetown University

John Heritage University of California at Los Angeles

Paul O. Takahara Kansai Gaidai University

Susan Herring University of Texas at Arlington

Sandra Thompson University of California at Santa Barbara

Masako K. Hiraga St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

Teun A. Van Dijk Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

David Holdcroft University of Leeds

Richard J. Watts University of Berne

Sachiko Ide Japan Women’s University

Volume 124 Getting Things Done at Work: The discourse of power in workplace interaction by Bernadette Vine

Getting Things Done at Work The discourse of power in workplace interaction

Bernadette Vine Victoria University of Wellington

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

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

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vine, Bernadette Getting things done at work : the discourse of power in workplace interaction / Bernadette Vine. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 124) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Communication in organizations--New Zealand. 2. Communication in management--New Zealand. 3. Oral communication-New Zealand. 4. English language--Discourse analysis. 5. Power (Social sciences) I. Title. II. Series. HD30.3. V56 2004 320.3’5-dc22 isbn 90 272 5366 8 (Eur.) / 1 58811 521 6 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2004047624

© 2004 – 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

Acknowledgments

ix

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Exploring power in a New Zealand workplace 1 1.2 Methodology 7 1.2.1 Data collection 7 1.2.2 Dataset 9 1.2.3 Data processing procedure 13 Chapter 2 Directives, requests and advice 2.1 Previous research on directives, requests and advice 16 2.1.1 Directives 16 2.1.2 Requests 18 2.1.3 Advice 20 2.1.4 Compliance-gaining 20 2.1.5 Summary of previous research 22 2.2 Definitions from previous research 23 2.2.1 Directive 23 2.2.2 Request 24 2.2.3 Advice 25 2.3 Terminology 26 2.4 Distinguishing factors 27 2.4.1 Role-relationships and obligation 28 2.4.2 Expectation of compliance and right of refusal 29 2.4.3 Benefit from the action 29 2.4.4 Summary of distinguishing factors 30 2.5 Different sub-types of directives, requests and advice 31 2.5.1 now or later 32 2.5.2 Elicited or spontaneous 33

1

15



Table of contents

2.5.3 Specific or general 33 2.5.4 Condition or no condition 33 2.5.5 Prohibitives 34 2.5.6 Summary of sub-types 34 2.6 Politeness as a distinguishing criteria 34 2.7 Conclusion 36 Chapter 3 Identifying control acts 3.1 Forms 40 3.1.1 Imperatives 40 3.1.2 Interrogatives and declaratives 42 3.1.3 Summary 46 3.2 Identifying control acts where the action is not stated 46 3.3 Context 48 3.3.1 Social context 48 3.3.2 Discourse context 51 3.4 Intention and perception 58 3.5 Conclusion 60 Chapter 4 Analysis of control act head acts 4.1 Overall results 64 4.2 Basic categorisation of head acts 65 4.2.1 Introduction 65 4.2.2 Directness and explicitness 66 4.3 Categorisation of explicit head acts 72 4.3.1 Imperatives 72 4.3.2 Interrogatives 76 4.3.3 Declaratives 78 4.3.4 Summary of explicit head act categorisation 82 4.4 Categorisation of implicit head acts 83 4.4.1 Partial/incomplete/abbreviated action 84 4.4.2 Focus on others 86 4.4.3 Summary of implicit head act categorisation 89 4.5 Conclusion 90

39

63

Table of contents 

Chapter 5 Modification of control act head acts 5.1 Internal modification 93 5.1.1 Syntactic modification 94 5.1.2 Lexical/phrasal modification 96 5.1.3 Modal verbs 105 5.1.4 Semantics of modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries 108 5.1.5 Summary of internal modification devices 115 5.2 External modification 115 5.2.1 Alerters 115 5.2.2 Supportive moves 117 5.2.3 Summary of external modification devices 119 5.3 Conclusion 119 Chapter 6 Exploring control acts in context 6.1 Introduction to the interaction 121 6.2 Analysis of the interaction 122 6.2.1 Status report 122 6.2.2 Genevieve seeks advice on use of the passive 124 6.2.3 Donna’s writing 126 6.2.4 Conferences 132 6.2.5 Marcie’s problem 133 6.2.6 Work priorities 134 6.2.7 Policy unit one report 138 6.3 Control acts in context 145 Chapter 7 Control acts between Managers and their staff 7.1 Types of control act 147 7.1.1 Between Managers and Senior Staff 148 7.1.2 Between Managers and Administration Staff 149 7.1.3 Comparing Managers and staff at different levels 150 7.2 Forms used 153 7.2.1 Between Managers and Senior Staff 153 7.2.2 Between Managers and Administration Staff 156 7.2.3 Comparing Managers and staff at different levels 159 7.3 External mitigation of Managers’ directives to Executive Assistants 161 7.4 Conclusion 164

93

121

147

 Table of contents

Chapter 8 Managers and power in the workplace 8.1 Other ways the Managers may minimise or mark status differences 167 8.1.1 Acknowledgement of staff ’s skills and expertise 168 8.1.2 Turn-taking 173 8.1.3 Amount of talk 177 8.1.4 Topic choice 182 8.1.5 Other types of speech act 186 8.2 Sonia and Ruth’s interactive style of management 188 8.2.1 General style of management 189 8.2.2 Dealing with potentially problematic situations 191 8.3 Power in the interactions between Managers and their staff 199 Chapter 9 Language and power between equals 9.1 Control acts 201 9.1.1 Types of control act 201 9.1.2 Forms used 203 9.1.3 Mitigation 205 9.1.4 Summary 207 9.2 Other aspects of interaction between equals 208 9.2.1 Amount of talk 208 9.2.2 Turn-taking 210 9.2.3 Topic choice and flow 212 9.2.4 Acknowledgement of expertise power 215 9.2.5 Acknowledgement of face 215 9.3 Effective communication between equals 217

167

201

Appendix A. Transcription conventions B. Main interaction purpose and word counts C. Directive head acts D. Request head acts E. Advice head acts

219 221 227 241 247

Notes

253

References

255

Author Index

269

Subject Index

273

Acknowledgments

This book is based on my doctoral research. Many people gave me help and support along the way – Mark Chadwick, Martin Paviour-Smith, Barbara Vine, Jenny O’Brien, Ben Taylor, George Major, Rowan Shoemark, Melanee Beatson, Maria Stubbe and Graeme Kennedy. I would like to thank Chris Lane for commenting on the first draft of my thesis and for encouraging me to publish it as a book. Thanks to Andreas H. Jucker at John Benjamins for being so positive about my proposal and to the anonymous reviewer who gave me some pointers about how to make this book a bit less thesis-like. My deepest gratitude goes to the women who recorded their workplace interactions. Their co-operation and willingness to be involved made this study possible. Thanks also to Victoria University of Wellington for awarding me a scholarship. Without their financial assistance I would not have undertaken my PhD. I would also like to thank the Language in the Workplace Project team, especially Janet Holmes, my thesis supervisor. This project was funded by a grant from the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST). Although not directly assisting my research, FRST’s support of the project allowed the collection of the data used. I dedicate this book to my son Henry James (Harry) Chadwick, who was born shortly before I started on this book and to the other Harry, my father Henry James Vine, who died shortly after I started my thesis.

Chapter 1

Introduction

. Exploring power in a New Zealand workplace Much of the research and literature in the area of Organisational Communication takes a broad approach to language: communication is viewed from an organisational rather than an individual perspective. Workplace communication has seldom been the focus of linguistic research and much of what has been undertaken has been carried out in inter-cultural contexts (e.g., Willing 1992; Clyne 1994) or in doctors’ surgeries (e.g., Fisher & Todd 1983; Frankel 1984, 1989, 1990; West 1984a, 1984b, 1990; ten Have 1991; Heath 1992; Harres 1996) or legal settings (e.g., Atkinson & Drew 1979; Pollner 1979; Maynard 1984; Pomerantz 1987; Penman 1990; Atkinson 1992; Bogoch 1994). In the last two of these situations, only the professionals are in their work setting. There is a need, therefore, for explorations of the language used by native speakers when working together in a workplace context. Many people spend a large proportion of their lives at work, making this an important context in which language and communication should be studied. Power is a concept which is of obvious relevance to the analysis of workplace data, as power relationships exist between people employed at different levels within an organisation. Power due to position has been referred to as “legitimate power” (Spencer-Oatey 1993: 12, after French & Raven 1959). However, this is not the only type of power that has been identified and which may be enacted and acknowledged by participants. Of particular interest in the workplace situation is “expert” (Spencer-Oatey 1992, cited in Thomas 1995: 127) or “expertise” power (Dwyer 1993: 557). This type of power is based on the particular skills and strengths that a person has. Both “legitimate” and “expertise” power involve a situation where one individual or group has power over others. Ng & Bradac (1993: 3) and Yeatman (1994) group these types of power under the heading “power over”, while Fairclough (1989: 33) uses the term “coercive power”. “Power over” may be realised in different ways. Fairclough (1989: 72) notes that it is the people in positions of power who decide what is correct or ap-



Chapter 1

propriate in an interaction. They also have “the capacity to determine to what extent . . . [their] power will be overtly expressed”. In recent years in Britain overt marking of power has been declining (Fairclough 1989: 72, 1992: 4). As a result, people in both managerial and less senior positions have gained certain advantages in terms of their working relationships and environment. Other types of power have become more relevant, such as “consultative power” (Dwyer 1993: 557). This type of power involves Managers seeking information, considering advice and making plans with others (Dwyer 1993: 558). Three types of leaders have been identified in management handbooks – “authoritarian”, “participative” and “laissez-faire” (see e.g., Dwyer 1993: 559). “Authoritarian” Managers take control and enact their power overtly with little discussion or input from other staff. The “laissez-faire” Manager, on the other hand, “effectively lets the group run itself ” (Dwyer 1993: 561), while the “participative” leader shows a balance between these two extremes. The trend Fairclough (1989, 1992) notes in Britain (see above) demonstrates a movement from the use of more “authoritarian” to more “participative” styles of management. This book explores the expression of power in a New Zealand workplace. Many of the interactions in the dataset are between people working at different job levels within the organisation. This allows investigation of the Managers’ style of management and the ways that the people in this workplace mark or minimise power differences. The relevance of a range of types of power and their salience in this workplace is explored using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, with the main focus being on the expression of directives, requests and advice. The focus on directives, requests and advice suggests a speech act approach to analysis and Speech Act Theory is used as the starting point. Behind this theory is the concept that in saying something a speaker is performing a social act i.e., an utterance has an “illocutionary” function. This has been done successfully when the listener understands the illocutionary force, or intention, of the speaker. Several speech act taxonomies have been proposed, beginning with the work of the philosopher Austin (1962) (see Austin 1975: 151–164). Subsequent researchers have identified weaknesses in Austin’s approach (which was only ever intended as a starting point for discussion – Austin 1975: 152) and have gone on to propose their own taxonomies. The most influential of these is Searle (1969, 1975, 1976, 1979), another philosopher. Searle’s primary criticism of Austin’s work and his motivation for developing his own taxonomy, was that Austin’s classification had been based on

Introduction

illocutionary verbs rather than illocutionary acts (Searle 1976: 8). Searle is careful to base his categorisation on illocutionary point (Searle 1976: 1–16). He divides illocutionary acts into five major categories: representatives (later referred to as assertives – Searle 1979), directives, expressives, commissives and declarations. The focus in this study is on directives. Although I use Searle’s taxonomy as a starting point, I also draw on the classification system developed by Bach & Harnish (1979). Bach & Harnish (1979) follow Searle in distinguishing between the categories in their taxonomy on the basis of illocutionary force. Like Searle, they include a category called directives (Bach & Harnish 1979: 40–41). Within this they identify six types of acts: requestives, questions, requirements, prohibitives, permissives and advisories (Bach & Harnish 1979: 47–49). I investigate three of these types – requestives, requirements and advisories – although my definitions are more specific than Bach & Harnish’s (see Chapter 2). Bach and Harnish developed their approach because, as linguists, they felt that Searle’s taxonomy was inadequately integrated “into a general account of linguistic communication” (Bach & Harnish 1979: xi). Bach and Harnish stress the importance of three factors: (1) the content of an utterance, (2) the context and (3) the point of an utterance is intended to be recognised. The importance of these three factors is explored in my study. Each new attempt to provide a taxonomy of speech acts has arisen from the problems the authors perceive with earlier attempts. Many researchers working within other paradigms have also criticised Speech Act Theory (e.g., Levinson 1981; Schegloff 1984; 1988; Flowerdew 1990a; Trosborg 1994). Many of the criticisms are aimed at the work of Austin and Searle and do not consider later attempts to develop the theory further (as noted by van Rees 1992 and Thomas 1995). I consider two of the criticisms here. Some of the others, such as problems identifying speech acts, are explored in Chapters 2 and 3. Trosborg (1994: 19) criticises Searle’s approach because it is built on a logic of obligation and authority which is not a universal social process . . . When issuing a command, the speaker must have authority over the hearer and the hearer must be under obligation to the speaker for the command to be performed in a felicitous way. This is contradicted by actual social behaviour, in which commands are frequently observed occurring among equals, for example, in a family context. (cf. the findings of Ervin-Tripp 1976)

Trosborg’s criticism here seems to arise from a failure to clearly distinguish between form and function. Speech Act Theory has frequently been criticised for associating speech acts with specific syntactic forms (e.g., Schegloff 1984).





Chapter 1

However, part of what Speech Act Theory tries to capture is the way that a range of forms can have the same function. A major criticism of Speech Act Theory has been that it is based on looking at utterances in isolation (see for example Schegloff 1988; Flowerdew 1990b). This criticism is very valid when applied to the work of Austin and Searle. Their speech act taxonomies tend to overlook the interactive nature of discourse. More recent applications of Speech Act Theory, however, do look beyond isolated utterances to the surrounding discourse, see for example Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b). The aim in Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989b) work is to “complement theoretical studies of speech acts, based primarily on intuited data of isolated utterances, with empirical studies, produced by native speakers in context” (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989c: 3). Not only do they look at utterances which realise requests and apologies, but they also examine the ways the preceding and following utterances in the speech of the requester or apologiser soften or strengthen the speech act. Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989b) work extends Speech Act Theory beyond the level of utterance. However, their data is elicited. Other research on speech acts examines naturally occurring data, e.g., Ervin-Tripp (1976), Labov & Fanshel (1977), Reiss (1985). There are many studies exploring the range of forms which realise particular speech acts in naturally occurring data. A number of other methods of analysis such as Conversation Analysis are applied in some of these studies (see e.g., Heritage & Stefi’s 1992 research on advice or Hua et al.’s 2000 exploration of offers). This reflects the fact that the notion of speech acts has become widely accepted in linguistics. Hua et al.’s (2000) article appears in a recent issue of the Journal of Pragmatics which focuses on “speech acts in conversation”. The other papers in this issue have a range of foci and use a number of different approaches to analysis. When conducting a speech act analysis of naturally occurring data, it quickly becomes apparent that the surrounding discourse must be examined carefully (see Chapter 3). This type of exploration can be informed by work which takes a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach. CA was developed by sociologists. A central concern for Conversation Analysts is the sequential patterning of conversation (Psathas 1995: 13); their approach considers surrounding utterances. The need to examine context at a number of levels, including surrounding discourse, is an important finding of this study. CA, therefore, provides a useful tool for exploring context at the micro-level. Researchers have claimed that Speech Act Theory and CA are incompatible because CA does not predefine features of speech acts (Schegloff 1984; 1988). CA analysts examine the data to determine what is happening in each

Introduction

case. Meaning is negotiated by participants in and throughout interaction. A speech act investigation can also take this approach. As discussed in Chapter 3, defining speech acts according to external factors and carefully specified contextual criteria is not enough when exploring speech acts in naturally occurring data. Context at the level of surrounding discourse must be examined. CA becomes a useful tool when investigating context at the level of discourse. One of CA’s major strengths is that it has developed from research on naturally occurring data and has provided very useful insights on the organisation of spoken interaction. Although considering context at the level of surrounding discourse, CA does not consider broader elements of the context, e.g., interactants’ job roles or gender, unless the participants make these factors salient in the interaction (Levinson 1983: 295 fn.). The main issue focused on in this study is power. Having identified sections of speech from the data to discuss, I do interpret these on the basis of my knowledge about status relationships. That is, I examine the relevance of the social context in which the interactions take place. The speech act approach taken in this study can be seen as a development of Speech Act Theory. I am not attempting to develop a new taxonomy; rather I examine three types of speech act in naturally occurring data. This type of approach has been suggested by researchers such as Thomas (1985). She suggests a dynamic approach to investigating power, building on the work of CA researchers and “incorporating insights from recent work in interpersonal pragmatics (particularly that of Leech (1977, 1983) and Brown & Levinson (1978))” (Thomas 1985: 766). She asserts that the power relationship between participants, along with institutional norms, “are central to the way in which the discourse is developed and individual utterances interpreted” (Thomas 1985: 766). Thomas (1985) draws on insights from the work of Leech (1977, 1983) and Brown & Levinson (1978).1 The main focus of their work is politeness. This is a relevant issue when considering power. Less powerful speakers are expected to be more polite, while more powerful speakers are allowed to be less polite (Brown & Levinson 1987: 80). Brown & Levinson’s theory is the most influential of the approaches to politeness and has inspired many studies. Their theory revolves around the concept of “face”, as derived from the work of Goffman (1967). In particular, Brown & Levinson (1987: 58) identify a model person (MP) who has “two particular wants . . . the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in certain respects”. They refer to these two wants as negative and positive face respectively. Politeness is a strategy which results from speakers’ attempts to





Chapter 1

avoid or minimise damage either to their own face or the face of their interlocutor(s). In particular, Brown & Levinson note a number of strategies which speakers use to address their hearer’s face needs. These are referred to as negative and positive politeness strategies according to the aspect of face which they address. Speakers need to utilise these strategies to compensate for “face threatening acts” (FTAs), i.e., speech acts that “intrinsically threaten face” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 60). Directives, requests and advice are all FTAs. The “assessment of the seriousness of an FTA” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 74), also referred to as its “weightiness” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 76), involves consideration of the social distance between the speaker and hearer, the relative power of the two participants, and the ranking of the imposition of the FTA. These three factors, therefore, determine the level of politeness utilised by the speaker (Brown & Levinson 1987: 76). The role of power is the main focus of this study. The relevance of the two other factors, social distance and imposition, is also explored, although politeness is not a major focus of my research. Power is the main focus in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Researchers using this approach examine the patterns present from the perspective of power, or “dominance” (van Dijk 1993). Fairclough (1989), for example, explores the types of speech act people in different status positions can utilise and the expression of power through the use of overlapping speech or topic control. Some of the features Fairclough identifies are examined in this study. A CDA approach was not adopted, however, as many of the aspects interpreted in a CDA approach as reflecting status differences have other possible interpretations. When power is taken as the main interpreting factor it is easy to overlook the immediate context and to ignore other potentially relevant factors. Power, like meaning, is negotiated. The negotiation of roles by participants within an interaction has become a major focus of gender and discourse research. The “social construction”2 approach advocated by researchers such as Crawford (1995), Hall & Bucholtz (1995) and Johnson & Meinhof (1997) asserts that gender, as with other aspects of social identity, is constructed and actively maintained through language and other social practices. This is an ongoing process. Using this approach the power relationship between two individuals is not a static feature of an interaction, it is actively maintained and negotiated throughout. We can talk about how people enact power in the workplace, much in the way that gender in discourse researchers discuss the enactment of gender.

Introduction

In the second part of this chapter, an outline is provided of how the data analysed were collected and of the resulting dataset. Before doing this, I provide a brief outline of the rest of the book. It has already been noted that there is a paucity of linguistic research on workplace communication. There has been a certain amount of research, however, which has focused on the speech acts which are the focus of my research. Requests in particular have been a popular focus of study. Previous research on directives, requests and advice is outlined in the first section of Chapter 2, along with relevant research by psychologists on “compliance-gaining”. Chapter 2 also explores definitions of directive, request and advice and outlines the way these terms are applied in this study Even with clear definitions, there are a number of important issues which need to be considered in relation to the identification of utterances as directives, requests and advice. These are explored in Chapter 3. The basic categorisation system adopted in order to classify utterances identified as directives, requests and advice is provided in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 outlines the main force modifying devices present in the data. Chapter 6 examines a transcript in detail to show how the observations in the previous three chapters apply to the data. It shows how the utterances pattern in relation to each other and to the surrounding discourse. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss the results found in interactions involving participants working at different job levels. In Chapter 7 this entails exploration of directives, requests, and advice in terms of types of control act, forms, and mitigation. Chapter 8 examines some other factors that may reflect power relationships and summarises the overall management style of the Managers. Chapter 9 concludes the study by exploring the results for the interactions involving participants of equal status and makes comparisons with the findings in Chapters 7 and 8.

. Methodology .. Data collection The data analysed in this study were collected as part of the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project. This project aims to examine the linguistic features of real workplace interactions. Initial recordings were made of interactions in four different government workplaces in Wellington, New Zealand.





Chapter 1

The project has since expanded its focus to the private sector, but the data used in this study is drawn from the initial government dataset. Volunteers from each workplace recorded a range of their everyday interactions on audio tape over a period of approximately two weeks. Several video recordings of larger meetings were also collected at each workplace. The participants were given complete control over the recording process. No outside observers were present and participants who agreed to carry a tape recorder could record as many or as few interactions as they wished. During the recording period, they could edit the tapes, or ask for material to be wiped at any later time. There were a number of occasions where the tape recorder was turned off while participants talked about confidential issues. Although only some individuals carried tape-recorders, everyone in the workplace was informed that the recording was taking place and on each occasion that a recording was going to be made the volunteers were required to inform and gain consent from their interlocutor(s). Handing over the recording process to the participants has a number of potential problems. There were times when the volunteers forgot to turn the tape over and so an interaction was not fully recorded. It could also be argued that people were more tape-aware because they had to remember to turn on the tape-recorder, change the tapes, etc. However, because of the workplace setting and the ongoing nature of the recording process many of the problems encountered in getting natural data for the Wellington Corpus of New Zealand English and the New Zealand component of the International Corpus of English did not arise (Holmes et al. 1998). People were generally focusing on their work and the recording seemed to become part of their work procedures. If we had not adopted this approach it is unlikely that we could have obtained the same quantity and quality of data. An alternative approach would have been to have outside observers in the workplace. In the initial stages of data collection there was only one research assistant working for the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project. This meant that we did not have the resources to be able to follow more than one person around at a time. Even if we had had the staff to be able to follow several people around, this would have involved a major intrusion upon the workplace. It is much easier to carry on interactions in as normal a way as possible if only a tape-recorder is present, rather than a tape-recorder and a stranger holding it and taking notes. The fact that several people were recording was a major advantage. This provided us with a rich database of interactions. It also meant that the whole workplace (or units within a workplace) were involved in the data-collection process. This resulted in a greater overall acceptance of being recorded.

Introduction

.. Dataset The core database for my analysis is drawn from the interactions collected at one of the four government workplaces. The twelve volunteers at this workplace collected 135 interactions involving 56 participants. In particular, I focus on the 52 one-to-one interactions involving four of the volunteers – two Managers and two Senior Policy Analysts. A decision was made to focus on the one-to-one interactions in order to try and control one aspect of context, the complexities caused by multiple interpersonal relationships. Galvin et al. (1992: 379) note that as the number of communicators within a small group increases so does “the number of potential message exchanges”. Following Bostrom (1970) they suggest a power-law scaling relationship (i.e., r = n(2n–1 – 1) where r is the number of interactions and n is the number of people). According to this model, there are two relationships in an interaction between two people (one from the perspective of each person), nine between three (three relationships for each person, e.g., A with B, A with C and A with the pairing of B and C), 28 between four, etc. The 52 interactions range in length from one minute to 39 minutes and are all face-to-face. Most are less than 20 minutes long and overall there is just under 8 hours of audio tape. There are 22 participants in these interactions and they are all women.3 All but one are speakers of New Zealand English (i.e. they qualify under the criteria specified by the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English, see Holmes et al. 1998). Table 1.1 shows a breakdown of the interactions in terms of the occupations of the participants. Eleven of the interactions involve participants who work at the same level within the organisation, while the remaining 41 interactions involve speakers from different levels. Apart from the four interactions involving two Managers, most of the interactions involve people from the same section of the organisation. The 52 interactions represent a range of types of workplace interaction. There are interactions where both participants are working through problems

Table 1.1 Occupation breakdown for core sample by number of interactions

Manager Senior Staff Administration Staff

Manager

Senior Staff

4 19 18

... 7 4





Chapter 1

together and others which involve one participant providing and/or seeking advice. There are also update sessions and meetings where one person provides feedback to the other. Appendix B lists the main purpose of each interaction. This dataset provided material which allowed me to explore in depth how power is enacted in a range of situations and between a range of people at different levels within the organisation. This workplace is one where two-way communication between Managers and their staff is commonplace and where there is also easy access to authority. This is evident for example in interactions such as one which begins with a Senior Policy Analyst asking a Manager if she can spare five minutes to discuss a problem. Not only is this meeting not pre-arranged, but the Manager and the Senior Policy Analyst engage in problem-solving talk. The Manager does not just tell the Senior Policy Analyst what to do. Interactions such as the one mentioned above, also demonstrate the informal nature of the workplace. Although many of the meetings are pre-arranged a number are not. The informal nature is also evident in that even the prearranged meetings do not always have strict pre-defined agendas. Another aspect of this workplace which illustrates the workplace’s culture is the layout and working conditions. Although the Managers have their own offices, the other staff work in an open-plan environment. I will now describe the dataset in more detail. This involves a closer look at the interactions in which the four key informants appear. The totals of the four tables below do not add to 52 interactions or 7 hours 51 minutes, as the four informants frequently interact with each other. It should also be noted that all names used to refer to the participants are pseudonyms.

Sonia Sonia is a participant in 16 of the 52 interactions in my core dataset, comprising nearly 3 hours of audio tape (see Table 1.2). Sonia was the Manager of a Policy Unit at this workplace (henceforth Policy Unit One). Her Senior Staff was comprised of three Senior Policy Analysts, three Policy Analysts and a Communications/Liaison Officer. An Executive Assistant was also working in the unit, although a temporary Executive Assistant was filling in for her for part of the time we were recording. Sonia was recorded interacting with the Communications/Liaison Officer (Hilary), two of the Senior Policy Analysts (Genevieve and Francine), two of the Policy Analysts (Eloise and Donna) and both the temporary Executive Assistant (Anna) and the permanent Executive Assistant (Beth).

Introduction

Table 1.2 Sonia’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different individuals and approximate overall length Other participant

Number of interactions

Total length of interactions

Managers

Ruth Therese

3 1

21 mins 9 mins

Senior Staff

Hilary Genevieve Francine Eloise Donna

2 1 1 1 1

27 mins 35 mins 16 mins 20 mins 8 mins

Admin. Staff

Beth Anna Clare

3 2 1

29 mins 10 mins 3 mins

Total

10

16

2 hr 58 mins

Sonia also appears in several interactions with people working in other parts of the organisation. Five of these are included in my dataset. In four of these she is talking with other Managers, and in the other she is talking to a Finance Officer (Clare).

Ruth The other Manager whose interactions are included in my dataset is Ruth. Twenty eight of the 52 interactions involve Ruth, comprising 3 hours and 8 minutes of interaction time (see Table 1.3). Ruth was also a Policy Unit Manager (henceforth Policy Unit Two). Her Senior Staff was comprised of eight Senior Policy Analysts and two Policy Analysts. An Executive Assistant was also working in the unit at the time the data were recorded. Ruth was recorded interacting with five of the Senior Policy Analysts, one of the Policy Analysts (Ondine) and the Executive Assistant (Irene). She was also recorded in three interactions with Sonia (Manager of Policy Unit One) and in two interactions with Administration Staff working in other parts of the organisation – Phoebe (Executive Assistant, Corporate Relations) and Quinta (Library Assistant). Katie Katie was a Senior Policy Analyst within Policy Unit Two. She is a participant in 11 of the interactions, comprising 1 hour 22 minutes (see Table 1.4). These





Chapter 1

Table 1.3 Ruth’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different individuals and approximate overall length Other participant

Number of interactions

Total length of interactions

Manager

Sonia

3

21 mins

Senior Staff

Jo Katie Leigh Mary Nell Ondine

4 2 1 2 1 2

1 hr 9 mins 21 mins 8 mins 30 mins 5 mins 7 mins

Admin. Staff

Irene Phoebe Quinta

11 1 1

20 mins 3 mins 4 mins

Total

10

28

3 hr 8 mins

Table 1.4 Katie’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different individuals and approximate overall length Other participant

Number of interactions

Total length of interactions

Manager

Ruth

2

21 mins

Senior Staff

Jo Mary Ondine

1 2 2

7 mins 17 mins 23 mins

Admin. Staff

Irene Ursula

1 3

1 min 13 mins

Total

6

11

1 hr 22 mins

interactions involve her interacting with her Manager (Ruth), two other Senior Policy Analysts, a Policy Analyst and Administration Staff. The majority of these interactions take place with staff from the same unit. Ursula does not work within Policy Unit Two, but is part of the general Administration Staff at the workplace and provides computer support to the whole department.

Jo Jo was also a Senior Policy Analyst within Policy Unit Two. She is a participant in seven of the interactions, comprising 2 hours 21 minutes of talk (see

Introduction

Table 1.5 Jo’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different individuals and approximate overall length Other participant

Number of interactions

Total length of interactions

Manager

Ruth

4

1 hr 9 mins

Senior Staff

Katie Vera Francine

1 1 1

7 mins 26 mins 39 mins

Total

4

7

2 hr 21 mins

Table 1.5). Four of these involve her Manager (Ruth), while the other three involve other Senior Policy Analysts. One of Jo’s interactions is with a Senior Policy Analyst from another unit – Francine from Policy Unit One. Jo was not included as one of my initial informants, but was included at a later stage because she was present in several of the interactions recorded by the other three key informants. As can be seen in Tables 1.2 to 1.5, several other participants appear a number of times. .. Data processing procedure The initial processing of the tapes from each volunteer involved copying the tapes and then identifying the interactions on each tape. The amount of data recorded by each individual varied greatly. Some volunteers returned all their tapes blank, while others filled all those provided. Each of the interactions in the dataset was described and then transcribed. The transcription conventions used are outlined in Appendix A. During the transcription process, I did not attempt to identify specific examples; rather I transcribed all of the interactions in full. Because I was planning to explore the relevance of the full context in which items occurred, it was necessary to begin with a full basic transcript. Having produced final transcripts for the 52 interactions, I went through each transcript and identified examples of directives, requests and advice. I assigned a code number to each example. This code consists of three letters followed by a sequence of two numbers. The first letter signals whether the utterance4 is categorised as a directive (d), a request (r), or advice (a). The second letter indicates who uttered the example, for instance Sonia’s and Ruth’s utterances are coded S and R respectively. The final letter indicates the addressee. For instance, Sonia issues directives to





Chapter 1

Anna, Beth, Clare, Donna, Eloise, Francine, Genevieve and Hilary, so these are labelled dSA, dSB, dSC, dSD, dSE, dSF, dSG and dSH respectively. As seen above, participants sometimes interact with each other on more than one occasion. Each separate interaction with the same two people was given a separate number. The utterances extracted from each interaction were then numbered consecutively. For example, Sonia has three interactions with Beth, so the first directive from each of these were labelled dSB1-01, dSB2-01 and dSB3-01. Sometimes a directive, request or instance of advice was expressed using more than one utterance. In these cases, the relevant utterances were labelled a, b, etc. As well as assigning a code to each example, information was also noted on the form the utterance took, and other potentially relevant features, for example pronoun use, the use of please and the use of alerters or supportive moves. I will now look at previous research on the three speech acts which are the main focus of my study.

Chapter 2

Directives, requests and advice

In the first section of this chapter a brief summary is provided of previous research on directives, requests and advice in adult-adult interaction. Researchers in each area have focused on different issues. Most of the studies on directives have been conducted in work settings, with a range of workplaces being investigated. There has been a common aim in many studies to identify the different forms used by individuals of different status. Research on requests in adult-adult interaction has covered a large number of contexts. Comparisons have been made between English and a wide range of other languages, and between the requests of native and non-native speakers. Both spoken and written requests have been examined. Advice is an area which has not been researched a great deal. The studies which do exist cover a diverse range of contexts, the most popular being radio advice shows. The issues explored have also been diverse. Research has mainly focused on elicited advice, although see Heritage and Stefi (1992). I also provide a brief outline of some work by psychologists on compliancegaining. An important difference between most of this work and the studies on directives, requests and advice is that language is not always the focus of attention. Another major difference is that compliance-gaining research focuses on interactions between strangers. This is true both of studies where field experiments have been undertaken and those where subjects have been asked to respond to hypothetical situations. Compliance-gaining research is still relevant to my study because status has frequently been considered. A substantial amount of research has been done on directives and requests in the language of children, caregivers and teachers. Some of this research is referred to in other sections, but the purpose of the review in Section 2.1 is to explore factors which have been found important in previous work examining adult-adult interaction. The second part of the chapter reviews previous definitions of directive, request and advice. This highlights an important issue for studies of these speech acts – namely the use of terminology. This aspect, and the problems associated with it, are explored more fully in Section 2.3.



Chapter 2

The factors which I have identified in the literature and which I use in my research to distinguish between directives, requests and advice are outlined in Section 2.4. Within each of these types a number of other sub-types can be differentiated. Section 2.5 discusses some of these. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the role of politeness as a distinguishing criterion.

. Previous research on directives, requests and advice .. Directives Probably the most influential early paper on directives was written by Susan Ervin-Tripp (Ervin-Tripp 1976). In this paper, Ervin-Tripp (1976) identifies six different types of directives from data collected by her students in a range of settings. She explores the distribution of these types across social relationships and in different settings, finding that the different forms occurred systematically according to familiarity, rank, territorial location, difficulty of task, whether or not a duty is normally expected, and whether or not noncompliance is likely. Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) work has provided a reference point for subsequent studies in this area. Many researchers have applied Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) taxonomy of directives to their datasets, or drawn on it to develop their own categorisation. For example, Weigel and Weigel (1985) apply the Ervin-Tripp (1976) model to a migrant agricultural community, Pufahl Bax (1986) applies it to an office situation (see below) and Holmes (1983) drew on it in analysing directives collected in a classroom situation. Weigel and Weigel (1985) and Brown (2000) both explore working class environments. Weigel and Weigel (1985) investigated directive use in a predominantly black male migratory agricultural labour population in the United States, applying Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) categorisation to their data. Their findings contradict Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) generalisations in terms of social factors influencing directive use. There was a preference for the very direct imperative form in their data, which they see as a reflection of “the antagonistic relationships within the migrant farm-worker community” (Weigel and Weigel 1985: 63). Brown (2000) examined directives in a tanning factory in New Zealand. Like Weigel and Weigel (1985), Brown found high use of imperative forms, although there was variation according to a number of social factors, such as age, status and social distance.

Directives, requests and advice

Directive use by people in a range of higher status occupations has also been investigated. Research by West (1998) has focused on directives issued by physicians to their patients. In her analysis, West drew on work by Goodwin (1980, 1988, 1990) on children’s language to examine differences between the directives used by women and men physicians. Although her dataset was small, West (1998) found clear differences in the forms used by women and men with women using more forms which minimise status differences between physicians and patients. University workplaces were the focus of Owusu-Ansah’s (1992) and Pufahl Bax’s (1986) research on directives. Owusu-Ansah (1992) investigates power relations in a Ghanaian university in student-staff meetings and student resolutions by examining the use of modal items in directives. There was variation in the language behaviour of the students in the two different settings, and Owusu-Ansah concluded that this was a reflection of the complexity of power relationships. Pufahl Bax (1986) examines both written and spoken directives in staff-staff interactions in an American university office. She demonstrates how the language of supervisors and subordinates reflects not only their roles within the organisation, but also how they communicate at an interpersonal level. Interpersonal relationships and social considerations were seen to play a more salient role in the spoken directives and Pufahl Bax concluded that spoken and written language are organised differently with respect to directives. Initial findings of an on-going study of directives in another work setting were reported in 1999 on the Internet and in newspapers around the world.5 This study, funded by NASA, focuses on the use of directives between pilots and co-pilots. So far, status has been found to be a very influential factor in accounting for the type of directive given, with captains issuing more than twice the number of direct forms as first officers. First officers utilise indirect forms, using hints or problem statements “rather than explicitly stating what to do”. Although no gender differences were found in terms of type, female pilots tended to structure their directives differently, giving more two part utterances than their male counterparts. There have also been a couple of studies on adult-adult directives in nonwork settings (Pearson 1989 and Jones 1992). Pearson’s data was collected from church business meetings, and showed the way the participants varied their use of forms as they negotiate both power and accommodation. Jones (1992) compares men’s and women’s directives at a dance group meeting in terms of frequency, targets and types. Little difference was found between men and women in terms of these factors. Status variations within the group were found to be more important than gender, although other factors influenced





Chapter 2

the use of directives more. Jones (1992: 427) concluded that “directive usage cannot be adequately understood without considering the specific contexts in which directives occur”. Directives were expressed most directly when another threat to conversation outweighed the threat of the directive, when there were strong bonds between participants and/or a high degree of involvement in the conversation. .. Requests There have been a number of cross-cultural studies comparing English requests to request realisations in other languages, including Walters (1979) (Spanish and English); Alam (1980) (Urdu and English); Tannen (1981) (Greek and English); House and Kasper (1981) (German and English); Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) (Israeli Hebrew and American English); and Hill et al. (1986) (Japanese and American English). House and Kasper’s (1981) investigation inspired a project investigating requests and apologies in eight languages or varieties around the world. Several articles and two books outline the goals, methodology and some of the results of this project, which is known as the CCSARP (Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project), e.g., Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), Blum-Kulka and House (1989). The goals of this project are to make comparisons across languages, as well as between native and non-native speakers. Data for the project were elicited using the same test questions translated into each of the languages and varieties. Two hundred native speakers and 200 non-native speakers were tested for each variety with each providing eight examples of requests and eight examples of apologies. Other researchers have adopted the approach of Blum-Kulka and House (1989) and applied it to data collected from a number of other languages and contexts. Garcia (1993), for example, explores Peruvian Spanish, Trosborg (1994) applies it to Danish and English, Lee-Wong (1994, 1998, 2000) to Chinese, and Bilbow (1995, 1996, 1997) applies it to the English of Chinese and ex-patriate Britons in Hong Kong business meetings. A number of studies of requests have drawn on the work of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Holtgraves and Yang (1990, 1992), for example, investigate potential cultural differences between the United States and Korea. Holtgraves and Yang (1990) found that informants from both cultures had similar assessments of the politeness of different request forms. Perceptions of the politeness of the forms presented varied with the extent to which the forms encoded concern for the hearer’s face, in keeping with Brown & Levinson’s theory.

Directives, requests and advice

However, results were less clear in relation to other aspects of the theory. There was only mixed support for predictions that the size of the request and the hearer’s relative power and distance from the speaker will affect perceptions of different forms. Holtgraves and Yang (1990) also explored whether inferences of speaker power and relationship closeness can be made on the basis of request forms with their results indicating that this is possible. In their later study, Holtgraves and Yang (1992) tested Brown & Levinson’s theory further and although they found power, distance, and size of imposition contributed significantly to politeness, an additive model (as presented by Brown & Levinson) was not appropriate. There was evidence of cultural and gender differences in the weighting of these variables and Holtgraves and Yang (1992) noted that these differences can partially account for cultural and gender differences in language use. Most work on requests in the spoken English of native speakers has compared English and other languages (see above), or the English of native and non-native speakers. Requests in the written English of native-speakers of English have been examined by Homzie et al. (1981), Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1996) and Pilegaard (1997). Although I do not examine written language, this research is relevant to my study because the influence of status is explored. All three studies draw on Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory in some way. Homzie et al. (1981) examined the relationship between the content of written messages and the relative status of the letter writer and the addressee. Status was assessed in terms of age and education. Undergraduates were asked to compose two letters of request: one to a high school student and the other to an individual with a master’s degree. The letters were coded as to their degree of formality and the strength of the request. Results indicate that subjects adjusted their letters depending on the supposed relative status of the addressees. Homzie, Kotsonis and Toris reported that it was possible to correctly classify 76% of the letters as to the status of the intended recipient. In an investigation of a corpus of 323 business letters, Pilegaard (1997) found that the level, form and distribution of positive and negative politeness varied with sender status. Rather than focusing only on sender-status, BargielaChiappini and Harris (1996) examined letters written to and by the same Managing Director. They explored variation in the form of written requests in relation to status, power, social distance and imposition. Degree of imposition of the request was found to override status considerations in determining the level of politeness.





Chapter 2

.. Advice Advice from radio shows has been examined by a number of researchers. The speech of a female talk show host was analysed by Hudson (1990) to identify the range and characteristics of the semantic and syntactic features she used. The analysis showed a tendency by the talk show host to avoid using direct forms, such as the imperative. DeCapua and Dunham (1993) examined the discourse strategies used by both a male and female talk show host and their callers in relation to responses to and requests for advice. Callers seeking advice used three strategies – explanation, elaboration and narration. The language of the hosts reflected their role: “to help advice seekers clarify what their problems are, to help advice seekers sort through their options, and to either confirm choices made by advice seekers or to offer advice instead” (DeCapua and Dunham 1993: 529). The strategies used by the advice-giver to account for the public nature of advice radio shows are explored by Hutchby (1995). The expert (advice-giver) tends to follow advice to the individual advice-seeker with auxiliary information designed for the benefit of the audience. The role of the non-expert host was also examined. A medical context was the focus of Heritage and Stefi’s (1992) study of advice. They examined the delivery and reception of advice between health visitors and first-time mothers in Great Britain. The main ways advice was initiated and received were examined. Most of the advice in their data was not solicited and was often only prepared for by the health visitor in a minimal way. This resulted in many cases where the advice was not overtly acknowledged nor indication given that it would be followed. Altman (1990) considers advice in American English from the perspective of non-native speakers. In particular, he focuses on the interpretation of the modal auxiliary verb should and the marginal auxiliary had better. The nonnative speakers in his study (Japanese second-language learners of English) associated a lot more force with advice containing these forms than native speakers. The potential for miscommunication was identified. .. Compliance-gaining Power and status are the main focus of the research of Yinon and Dovrat (1987), Fontaine and Beerman (1977) and Yukl et al. (1996). In a field experiment, Yinon and Dovrat (1987) tested the willingness of subjects to perform a personal service when asked, varying the social status of the requester and the

Directives, requests and advice

degree of urgency and cost. Results show that subjects more frequently helped requesters when the requester was in an occupation which focuses on the wellbeing of others (e.g., a physician or a fireman) than in an occupation which does not (e.g., an accountant or a gas-station attendant), regardless of the social status of the occupations. Urgent and low cost requests were complied with more frequently than non-urgent and high cost requests. Fontaine and Beerman (1977) examined expectancies for powerholders and addressees for compliance and satisfaction with compliance following a request. The degree of expected compliance and satisfaction was expected to be influenced by the type of social power used. Head and staff hospital nurses participated in the study which involved role-play followed by discussion. When the requester made reference to legitimate, coercive, and expert power (see Chapter 1) this generally led to low expectancies for compliance and satisfaction. When the requestor stressed similarities, gave information or made reference to “rewarding” power (their ability to provide rewards) there were high expectancies of compliance. Head nurses expected more compliance and satisfaction with compliance than staff nurses expected, but staff nurses’ expectancies were much more sensitive to the type of power used than head nurses’ expectancies. Yukl et al. (1996) also investigate power and compliance, finding that influence tactics, power, and content factors independently affect influence outcomes. Commitment was more likely when the request was important and enjoyable to implement, and the requester had strong referent power, used consultation, inspirational appeals, or a strong form of rational persuasion, and did not use pressure (see also Bohm and Hendricks (1997) for research which has shown the positive effect of using high levels of justification). Power and status are factors which have also been indirectly addressed in a number of studies on compliance-gaining. Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1990), for instance, explores status through investigation of the influence of age, Ramirez (1977) through ethnicity and Remland and Jones (1994) through vocal intensity. Patterson et al. (1986) suggested that touch may influence subjects to comply because it indicates greater status or power differences between them and the requester. Among others, Bickman (1974), Chaikin et al. (1974), Kleinke (1977), Bushman (1984, 1988) and Walker et al. (1980) have investigated the effects of neatness and style of dress. Results from these studies have shown that people are more likely to comply with requests when the requester is neatly dressed or, as in Bickman (1974) and Bushman (1984), dressed in a uniform. Bickman (1974) and Bushman (1984) both argued that their results reflected the fact





Chapter 2

that uniforms give legitimacy (for research which focuses on the issue of legitimacy see Langer and Abelson 1972; Innes 1974; Innes and Gilroy 1980 and Hirokawa et al. 1991). It could also be argued that status is relevant here. Politeness was a common concern in linguistic research on requests and is another issue which compliance-gaining researchers have explored. Psychologists have often investigated politeness in requests and compliance-gaining situations using Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory. Of relevance to the current study is research by Baxter (1984). Baxter (1984) translated Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) typology of politeness strategies into 32 items. Undergraduates were asked to complete a written questionnaire which asked them to indicate the likelihood of use and perceived politeness of each item. The subjects assessed the items while imagining themselves in one of eight hypothetical scenarios created to manipulate relationship distance, relationship power, and the magnitude of the request. Results indicate that females and persons in close relationships used more polite tactics than males and persons in more distant relationships. People with power were also expected to use less politeness than less powerful persons. Related to the idea of politeness is the directness of requests (this relationship is discussed in Chapter 4). A number of psychologists have explored politeness in relation to directness, for instance Steffen and Eagly (1985) who investigated the effects of status and sex on people’s perceptions of the directness and politeness of requests. Results show that high-status influencers were considered more likely to use direct and impolite styles and less likely to use indirect and polite styles. As a consequence of using direct and impolite styles, high-status influencers were thought more likely to gain compliance and liking than low-status influencers. The sex of the influencer and target were also manipulated, but had little effect. .. Summary of previous research Although there is a close relationship between directives, requests, advice and compliance-gaining, as a rule, researchers in each area have focused on different issues. Conclusions have frequently been made about the effect of status, even though this has been approached from different perspectives. A common aim among many researchers of directives has been to identify the different forms used by individuals of different status. Results have tended to show that people of higher status use more direct and less polite forms. Politeness has been the major concern in the request literature, with Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory providing a focus point for many studies. Status

Directives, requests and advice

is also of relevance here, but the influence of social distance and imposition have also been explored. The few studies of advice have focused mainly on radio talk shows. In this context, although the advice giver has expert power, direct forms are generally avoided. Compliance-gaining research has not tended to focus on the actual language used, the focus being much more on whether addressees comply or not and what factors (generally external to the utterances used) increase compliance. Status has, once again, been found to be an important variable. Results tend to show that more powerful people achieve compliance more, although this does depend on the context.

. Definitions from previous research The research outlined above has been categorised according to the labels the researchers themselves use. I now review previous definitions of directive, request and advice. The discussion below draws on a wide range of literature, including many of the studies summarised in Section 2.1. .. Directive In an examination of language use between teachers and pupils, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 50) define a directive as involving the teacher asking “the pupil to do but not say something”. They are careful to make a distinction between acts which require a physical response (directives) and those which require a verbal response (elicitations) (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975: 28, 40–41, 50–51). Searle’s (1976) definition of directive does not make such a distinction. He defines directives as “attempts . . . by the speaker to get the hearer to do something” (Searle 1976: 11), but includes questions requiring a verbal response: “questions are a species of directives since they are attempts by S [speaker] to get H [hearer] to answer – i.e. to perform a speech act” (Searle 1976: 11 fn.). Subsequent researchers on directives have tended to follow Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) approach rather than Searle’s (1976), although this is not always stated. Only Holmes (1983: 97) and Jones (1992: 429) clearly outline their position in regard to questions, stating that they do not include utterances which require the hearer to give a verbal response.





Chapter 2

Many discussions of directives seem to take it for granted that their audience will understand what a directive is, and therefore do not give explicit definitions at all (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976; Mitchell-Kernan and Kernan 1977; Bellinger 1979, Bellinger and Gleason 1982; Weigel and Weigel 1985; West 1998; Smith 1992; Mulholland 1994; Goatly 1995). Other researchers give only brief definitions, for example, Goodwin (1980: 157) defines a directive as a speech act that tries “to get another to do something” and Gleason and Greif (1983: 141) as “any utterance whose intent is to cause the hearer to do something”. Vismans (1991: 112) says he will give “a precise definition of the term directive”, but fails to do so. In all these studies it is important to note that a functional approach is taken. Directive is not defined on formal grounds, although the imperative is often identified as the unmarked form (e.g., Sinclair and Coulthard 1975: 28). The possibility of a range of forms is acknowledged and is often the focus of research. The range of forms and who uses which forms are common concerns. .. Request Although research on requests is much more abundant than research on directives, analysts of requests are even more likely not to give definitions and to assume that their audience knows what a request is. When definitions are given, requests are generally defined in a similar way to directives. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989c: 11) define a request as a “pre-event act” which expresses “the speaker’s expectation of the hearer with regards to some prospective action”. In one of the earliest published papers on requests, Garvey (1975) gives a detailed account of requests drawing on the work of Austin (1962), Fillmore (1968), Searle (1969), Labov (1970) and Gordon and Lakoff (1975) and is careful to specify that she is focusing on requests “for action” (Garvey 1975: 45–47). It is apparent from her discussion that what she is investigating is the same phenomena others have subsequently investigated under the label directive (see for example Mitchell-Kernan and Kernan 1977; Goodwin 1980). Ervin-Tripp’s work on directives (Ervin-Tripp 1976; Ervin-Tripp 1977) has been influential here. Her research was published after Garvey’s and has not only been used as a basis for studies on directives, but also for studies of requests. Researchers of requests often refer to Ervin-Tripp’s (1976, 1977) work as research on requests, even though Ervin-Tripp herself uses the term directive (see for example Garcia 1993: 127; Sealey 1999: 25). Although Garvey (1975: 45–47) makes it evident that she focuses on requests “for action”, it is not always clear that other studies of requests limit

Directives, requests and advice

their data in this way. This is an important consideration. Labov and Fanshel (1977: 63), for example, identify a range of types of requests in therapeutic discourse: requests for action, information, confirmation, agreement, evaluation, interpretation and sympathy. Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) follow the work of the early Speech Act Theorists and classify requests as a subtype of directive. Other researchers have also taken this approach. Pufahl Bax (1986), for example, distinguishes between requests and commands, treating both as types of directive (see also Koike 1994). Labov and Fanshel (1977: 63) take the opposite approach. They identify two types of requests, “mitigated” (which include petitions, pleas and suggestions) and “unmitigated or aggravated” (which include orders, commands, demands) (see also Jacobs and Jackson 1983). Some researchers use the terms directive and request interchangeably in their discussions, e.g., Goatly (1995). Sealey (1999: 25) uses “either request or directive according to which term seems best to fit each example”. However, she provides no explanation of what she means by this, nor any criteria on which distinctions are made. One important difference in researchers’ application of the terms directive and request seems to be that requests are regarded as polite ways of getting someone to do something (e.g., Gordon and Lakoff 1975). Such an approach fails to clearly distinguish between form and function, as politeness is typically defined in terms of the formal properties of utterances. I return to the issue of politeness in relation to definitions in Section 2.6. .. Advice The problems evident in the outline of definitions of directives and requests discussed above have been acknowledged in the area of advice. DeCapua and Huber (1995: 119) note the “lack of consistent terminology or clear definition” within this area. They adopt Bach and Harnish’s (1979) general definition of advisories. As noted in Chapter 1, Bach and Harnish (1979) have a sub-type called advisories within their directives category. With advisories, “what the speaker expresses is not the desire that H [hearer] do a certain action but the belief that doing it is a good idea, that it is in H’s interest” (Bach and Harnish 1979: 49). Bach and Harnish’s (1979) definition covers most of the contexts in which research on advice has been conducted – from the context of radio advice programmes to data collected in a health service setting. Altman (1990), however, defines advice according to form and is concerned with the interpretation of





Chapter 2

two particular forms by native and non-native speakers. In a functional approach, these forms could be understood as realisations of directives, requests, advice or some other speech act.

. Terminology As seen in the consideration of definitions in Section 2.2, the terminology used in speech act studies has varied a great deal. Often researchers who appear to be investigating the same things have used different labels, or alternatively have used the same labels for different phenomena. This variation in terminology is a major issue in speech act work, although this issue is only rarely acknowledged. From the beginning of Speech Act Theory, there has been variation in the terminology used. In adapting Austin’s (1962) framework, Searle (1976) introduced new terms for the categories in his model. He justified this on the basis of the differences in the way he defined his categories. Every subsequent researcher who has developed their own categorisation has also done this, e.g., Bach and Harnish (1979). Even Searle revised his earlier terminology and introduced a new term (Searle 1979). One term which has survived many of the revisions has been the term directive. A number of other equivalent terms do exist, however. Researchers in the area of psychology have their own group of terms to refer to similar concepts. Compliance-gaining is an area that has been explored a great deal. Another term used by psychologists is influence messages or influence attempts, e.g., Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1990: 503). Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland’s (1990) definition is similar to the general definitions of directive and request seen in Section 2.2, except that influence attempt can also refer to “efforts by one person to change the . . . opinion of another” as well as attempts to change behaviour. Having given this definition, they comment that they will adopt the terminology of “language scholars” such as Ervin-Tripp (1976) and so use directive interchangeably with influence message (Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland 1990: 503–504). Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990: 308) adopt the term control act: Control acts are 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. The terms ‘request’, ‘order’ and ‘command’ are used in everyday English to indicate types of directives to another person to act. While languages in complex societies typically have a large vocabulary for particular speech acts, we can

Directives, requests and advice

simplify by conceptually distinguishing a family of control acts, of which the directive is just one type.

Blum-Kulka (1990: 259) also talks about “speech acts of control” and Pearson (1989: 289) uses “controlling speech acts” as a synonym for directives. The concept of control acts is useful for two reasons. Firstly, it provides a blanket term which covers a range of acts. Directives, requests and advice are all types of control act. Secondly, it is not in common use. As was seen in the previous section, the use of terms “used in everyday English” can cause confusion and make it difficult to pinpoint what is actually under discussion, especially when no attempt is made to give precise definitions. In my study, therefore, I adopt the term control act to designate the general category of speech acts I am researching. A control act is “an attempt to get someone to do something”. Simple questions for information and clarification are not included. Different types of control act can be identified, including the three that are the focus of my research: directives, requests and advice. Section 2.4 discusses the factors that characterise each of these.

. Distinguishing factors The discussion above illustrates the confusion and lack of agreement over the parameters of the terms directive, request and advice. One of the most thorough considerations of the exact nature of the speech act being investigated is provided by Goldschmidt (1998: 129). She explores favour-asking, which she sees as a type of directive control act. Favour-asking has not been studied before so Goldschmidt is very careful to set out the parameters that distinguish favourasking from requests and other types of control acts. Goldschmidt (1998: 131– 135) uses four criteria: the notions of reciprocity, imposition (in terms of (a) the special nature of the activity required and (b) the time and effort involved) and the role-relationships of the interlocutors. Of these four criteria, role-relationships are an important factor when considering the three types of control act in my study. A number of other important factors can be identified from the literature available on directives, requests and advice. I consider these factors below and their relevance to the workplace data.





Chapter 2

.. Role-relationships and obligation The authority of the speaker over the hearer has frequently been drawn on to help distinguish one speech act from another. Searle (1969: 66) uses this factor to differentiate between requests and orders and Bach and Harnish (1979: 47) to separate requestives from requirements. Although the terminology changes, if the speaker is in a position of authority over the hearer then the analyst identifies the more “forceful” speech act in each case (order, requirement). If the speaker is not in a position of authority over the hearer, the utterance is a request or requestive. Green (1975: 120) gives a partial list of the approaches that can be used by speakers to get others to do things – order, request, plead, suggest. She differentiates these on social grounds and, as with Searle (1969) and Bach and Harnish (1979), the types are related to the power relationship between interlocutors. Labov (1972: 125) also draws on the factor of role-relationships in his rule for interpreting a request for information as a “valid command”. The hearer must believe that the speaker believes that the speaker has “the right to tell” the hearer to do the requested action. Many studies of requests have been undertaken in situations where there is no explicit power role-obligation, while most directive studies examining adult-adult interaction have involved data collected in a work setting (see Section 2.1). Although often not explicitly stated therefore, role-relationships seem to be an important factor in differentiating directives and requests. The workplace situation involves people working in a context where there are clear status differences and role-obligations. Generally the actions being requested relate to the hearer’s responsibilities and obligations. In my data therefore, there is generally a role-related obligation on the part of the addressee to fulfil the task. Of course, the degree to which each person has the authority to ask something of another, or the right to tell someone to do something in a specific way, does vary. I therefore distinguish between the three types by saying that a superior can give a directive to a subordinate, but that a similar utterance from an equal to an equal or from a subordinate to a superior is generally interpreted as a request, and sometimes advice. Advice can be given by anyone to anyone else. Often when someone gives advice to a superior or an equal it is because they have a different type of authority (i.e., “expert” power – Spencer-Oatey 1992, cited in Thomas 1995: 127). This relates to their skills and expertise rather than their job level within the organisation (also referred to as “expertise” power by Dwyer 1993: 557).

Directives, requests and advice

.. Expectation of compliance and right of refusal Following on from role-relationships and obligation are the notions of expectation of compliance and right of refusal. With directives, because of the role-relationships of the participants and the obligations in terms of their jobs, the speaker expects that the hearer will comply and the hearer has no right of refusal. Bilbow (1997: 471) comments that “directing speech acts relate to courses of action, which, it is hoped (in the case of requests) or anticipated (in the case of commands) that the hearer(s) will undertake”. Alam (1980: 129) also distinguishes between requests and commands on the basis that a request “leaves to the addressee the option of refusal to comply whereas a command does not” (see also Lyons 1977: 749). The workplace situation does not usually allow non-compliance. Once again, the actions being requested are generally within the job obligations of the addressee. Directives and the other two types (requests and advice) can be distinguished in that with requests and advice the hearer does not have to comply. Of course directives can be refused but the implication is that refusal will have negative consequences for the refuser. When interactions involved a Manager talking with their staff, there would have to be a clear indication that the addressee had a choice before an utterance from a Manager was coded as advice. The issue of compliance is not always straightforward. The directives, requests and advice in my dataset are not refused (as far as I can tell from my transcripts). Sometimes they are delayed, however, or there is some negotiation of what exactly will be done. The cases where there is negotiation sometimes involve clarification of what is wanted, and at other times there is negotiation because some aspect of the control act may not be possible or the addressee may be unsure of the need for the action. .. Benefit from the action The expectation of compliance/right of refusal begs the question of who benefits from the action. In the classic directive situation it is the speaker who will benefit. Pufahl Bax (1986: 675) introduces cost/benefit as an additional factor in order to distinguish requests and orders from other types of speech acts which get people to do things (after Lee 1987: 4). “The action to be performed following a request or an order is more or less at cost to the addressee,





Chapter 2

whereas an invitation is not”. In distinguishing between an offer and a directive Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990: 308) discuss the benefits of the act to the speaker. Directives and requests both entail actions which benefit the speaker. Advice, however, does not. Trosborg (1994: 15) notes “the purpose of a request is to involve the hearer in some future action which has positive consequences for the speaker and may imply costs to the hearer, whereas a piece of advice or a warning is intended to be in the sole interest of the hearer”. Benefit is not a straightforward issue in a workplace context. The benefit from an action always has implications in terms of benefit to the organisation because the actions relate to the addressee’s work obligations. Bilbow (1997: 472) notes the “requests and suggestions” in his naturally occurring workplace meeting dataset “relate to actions with varying degrees of corporate ‘impact’”. The approach I have taken in this study is to code utterances as directives and requests if the primary benefit can be seen to be to the speaker because the directed/requested action relates to the speaker’s job obligations. When the aim was to help the hearer perform their job obligations (the benefit is for the hearer) and there are no implications in terms of the speaker’s responsibilities and obligations, utterances have been coded as advice. .. Summary of distinguishing factors To sum up, three factors can be used to differentiate between directives, requests and advice. The first of these, relative status, is sufficient to distinguish between directives and requests (see Table 2.1). Alternatively, these two types of control act can be separated by drawing on the second factor, the notion of the hearer’s right of refusal. Directives and requests both benefit the speaker, so the third factor cannot be drawn on to distinguish these two types. Benefit to the speaker is crucial, however, in determining whether a control act issued by an equal or a subordinate is a request or advice. The most dispensable of the three factors in Table 2.1 is relative status. Speaker’s status relative to the addressee is not crucial to determining which of the three types is present. Right of refusal and benefit are sufficient. Relative status often determines the value of the other two factors, however, so is important to include for this reason. Status also allows another point about the nature of the three types of control act to be captured. Directives and requests are similar because it is necessary to know the status of the two interactants in order to know how to interpret a control act which has been identified (whether directly or indirectly – through right of refusal and benefit). Status is therefore, an important

Directives, requests and advice

Table 2.1 Factors differentiating directives, requests and advice Control acts Directing

Directive Request

Suggesting

Advice

Speaker higher status

Hearer has right of refusal

Benefit to speaker

yes no

no yes

yes yes

maybe

yes

no

defining characteristic. Advice differs from these in a fundamental way. Advice can be given by someone of any status, although the chances of the advice being taken up may be more likely when a superior issues advice to a subordinate. Status factors may also account for variation in the way advice is worded. It is relevant therefore in a different way. In order to try and capture this aspect of the relationship between the three control acts and the distinguishing factors I have introduced another level into Table 2.1. Directives and requests can both be categorised as “directing” control acts, while advice is a “suggesting” control act. Separating out the relevant factors can be difficult. They all rely on each other and it is hard to define them independently. Most researchers do not clearly define their position on these factors and often do not explicitly acknowledge their importance. Other characteristics are also referred to in relation to control acts, for instance, level of imposition. This factor is crucial for Goldschmidt (1998) when defining favour-asking in relation to requests. In the context where my data was collected and given the type of data I have and my focus, I did not find imposition useful in distinguishing the different types. Imposition is important at a more general level, however, particularly in relation to Brown & Levinson’s theory of politeness. This factor is one of the aspects they draw on to calculate the weightiness of a FTA.

. Different sub-types of directives, requests and advice Having outlined what counts as a directive, request, or instance of advice there are still a number of different sub-types that can be identified. The sub-types noted in this section are all present in my data.





Chapter 2

.. now or later Although few researchers acknowledge the existence of these sub-types, an important distinction can be made between control acts which require immediate compliance and those where the completion of the action will be delayed to another place and time. Mulholland (1994) calls these two types internal and external directives respectively, while Trosborg (1994) uses the terms requests-now and requests-then (after Edmondson and House 1981: 99; See also Edmondson 1981: 141). Jones (1992: 433) focuses on “procedural” directives, i.e. “directives that focused on what individuals or the group should do within the context of the meeting”. A range of terms, therefore, has been used to refer to these sub-types. In this study I use the terms now and later. Types of modification are frequently referred to as “internal” or “external” so I reserve use of these two terms to distinguish different types of modification (see Chapter 5). Jones’s (1992) terminology is slightly ambiguous (in that a later directive may be “procedural” in that it relates to how something must be done) and does not provide a label for acts which will occur at another place and time. The use of “now” and “then” (Edmondson and House 1981) has connotations in terms of the expression “now and then” which I did not feel were appropriate. “Then” can refer to past or future actions. I therefore keep my original terms now and later. Many studies have focused on now control acts rather than later ones, such as Jones (1992), and there is often no acknowledgement that the other type exists, see for example, Goodwin (1990) and West (1998). Other studies acknowledge the two types, but lump them together for analysis. For example, Bilbow (1997: 471) notes that in his data “the activities requested may be inside or outside the meeting room”. Looking at the examples given by other researchers, it is clear that this distinction between now and later control acts is frequently not acknowledged and that both sub-types are analysed together, e.g., Goatly (1995). Mulholland (1994) is one of the few researchers who distinguishes between now and later directives and investigates each type separately. The distinction between now and later control acts is an important one, for a number of reasons. Firstly, as Mulholland (1994: 76) notes, because now control acts require immediate compliance there can be monitoring of compliance. A second important factor is that now and later control acts may be realised by different forms. Wisner (1968) (cited in Ervin-Tripp 1976: 47) “found that when doctors spoke to nurses, they used imperatives to refer to the present, but ‘we’ directives to refer to the future”. Brown and Levinson (1987: 68) com-

Directives, requests and advice

ment that urgency can override politeness considerations. This has important implications for research on control acts. As stated in Section 2.1, the forms used by different people have been a major focus of research in this area (including the present study). In order to adequately account for differences found between different individuals therefore, it is important to determine whether the same type of control act is really being investigated, or if differences may be accounted for by considering whether the action being requested requires immediate compliance or not. Researchers who build on the work of previous writers or who compare their results to those of earlier studies need to be careful to make sure that they collect similar data and do not compare now control acts to later ones as if they were the same. .. Elicited or spontaneous DeCapua and Huber (1995) distinguish between different sub-types of advice. One aspect they consider is whether the advice is solicited or not. With each of the types of control act that I investigate there are some examples which are elicited. The issue of elicitation is an interesting one, especially when considering power. Asking for advice acknowledges the addressee’s position, their “expert” power. Providing unsolicited advice asserts your own status as an “expert” and implies that your addressee does not have competence in the area concerned (Boatman 1987: 36; Heritage and Stefi 1992: 389). .. Specific or general The type of actions the participants in my study ask others to do also differs. Some control acts are quite procedural – for example, the detail of what needs to be done and when is spelt out step by step. In other cases, a general mention of the topic is enough. Both these types may occur alongside each other in relation to the same task. Spelling out the detail implies that the addressee does not know what to do and so has implications in terms of power (as with unsolicited advice). .. Condition or no condition Another distinction which seemed to be present in my data was between control acts which need to be done and others which only need to be completed in certain stated circumstances. I called the latter type “condition” control acts. There were only a small number of these, but they appeared to take a particu-





Chapter 2

lar form. I tagged these as “condition” so that I could see if they patterned in a different way from “no condition” control acts. .. Prohibitives Some researchers make a distinction between directives which ask someone to do something and those which ask them not to do something. The later type are referred to as “prohibitives” (Bach and Harnish 1979: 47). These were the focus of Gleason et al.’s (1996) study. They looked at the way “parents control [children’s] behavior with explicit linguistic directives such as prohibitives” (Gleason et al. 1996: 206) (see also Ely and Gleason 1995). There were not many examples of this kind in my data. .. Summary of sub-types Within each type of control act a number of different sub-types can be identified. These are distinguished on different dimensions. The most important of these for this study are differentiated according to time of compliance. Both now and later control acts were identified in my dataset, although the majority of my examples involve reference to activities which will be completed at another place and time. This is due to the nature of my dataset. Many of the directives, for example, come from interactions involving Managers and their Executive Assistants. This context is one where the purpose of the meeting is often for the speaker to give directives and the hearer is predisposed towards hearing a certain type of control act – i.e., the giving of instructions for work at another time. Specific vs general, condition vs no condition, and elicited vs spontaneous control acts are also included in my data, as are prohibitives. These different sub-types of control act are not analysed separately, but it is important to acknowledge the inclusion of a range of sub-types in the analysis. The sub-type present can sometimes help explain the presence of a certain form.

. Politeness as a distinguishing criteria An additional and slightly separate issue in differentiating between speech acts is the notion of politeness. Some writers have referred to politeness in order to distinguish requests from orders, for example, Green (1975: 121) defines requests as the “method used in polite society” for getting the hearer to do

Directives, requests and advice

a specific action. Yli-Jokipii (1994: 69) notes this tendency, commenting that “requests seem to be treated with the understanding that they have an underlying property of being polite, as opposed to e.g. commands”. This is not always stated, but the concern with politeness issues in research on requests (see Section 2.1) highlights this tendency. Researchers who take this type of approach are not making a clear distinction between form and function. When an utterance is categorised as being polite, contextual factors are relevant (e.g., the fact that a Manager is not expected to be as polite as their Executive Assistant when talking to Senior Staff) but the categorisation relates to formal features. Lee-Wong (2000), for example, does look at a range of forms that can express requests, but only classifies imperatives as requests when there are supportive moves. Underlying this decision is a failure to clearly distinguish between form and function. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory was used by many of the researchers on requests (see Section 2.1). Requests are one of the face threatening acts (FTAs) that Brown and Levinson (1987: 66) identify as threatening the negative face of the hearer, along with orders, advice, suggestions, remindings, threats, warnings and dares. Speakers may minimise the face threat of any of these acts through the use of politeness strategies. Other approaches to politeness come to similar conclusions. Leech’s (1983) classification of illocutionary functions is based on the notion of politeness. One of the four types he identifies is “the competitive function”. This type of function involves acts in which “the illocutionary goal competes with the social goal, e.g., ordering, asking, demanding” (Leech 1983: 104). Politeness is demanded in these cases to reduce the discord which lies implicitly in the competition between the speaker’s desire and what is considered “good manners”. This function corresponds to my overall control act category. Leech’s (1983) classification refers to the inherent politeness level in a given speech act and has been referred to as “absolute” politeness. A similar classification has been proposed by Haverkate (1988: 386–387). He distinguishes between polite and non-polite acts, the latter involving acts which can be characterised as neutral, non-polite and impolite. Control acts are considered non-polite acts, but may be expressed politely (see also Lakoff 1989: 103–104). In each of these approaches directives, requests and advice require the use of politeness strategies to minimise the face threat to the hearer. Politeness does not, however, distinguish directives, requests and advice from each other.





Chapter 2

. Conclusion After providing a brief summary of research on directives, requests, advice and compliance-gaining, this chapter discusses a number of important issues relevant to the defining of these speech acts. Previous definitions of directives, requests and advice are explored and a number of problems are identified with the use of terminology. The use of a range of labels in the literature to refer to what appears to be the same phenomena is problematic, as is the failure of many researchers to define clearly the specific features of what they are investigating. The intention of the speaker to get someone to do something is the key component in all the definitions outlined in Section 2.2. The function of the utterance is to produce an action (whether a physical action or a speech act) in the hearer. The general definition which I have adopted in relation to this study is therefore, that directives, requests and advice involve the speaker attempting to get the hearer to do something. I label these types of speech acts control acts. More specifically, I explore control acts that require a physical action and not just a verbal response on the part of the hearer. Requests for information and simple requests for immediate clarification, therefore, are not included. The specifics of this, and therefore the exact nature of the speech act, can vary a great deal. To begin with, a distinction can be made between “directing” and “suggesting” control acts. The difference here relates to the beneficiary of the action. In “directing” control acts the benefit of the action specified is primarily for the speaker, while in “suggesting” control acts benefit to the hearer is more important. Only one type of “suggesting” control act is considered in this study – advice. There are two “directing” control acts. These can be distinguished from each other by referring to two related factors – status and right of refusal. With directives the speaker is of higher status and the hearer has no right of refusal. Requests, on the other hand, involve a situation where the speaker is of equal or lower status and the hearer generally has more right of refusal. Within each of the control acts investigated in this study, there is potential for a number of different sub-types. Control acts can demand immediate or delayed compliance; they may be elicited or spontaneous, specific or general, condition or no condition. They may also involve the speaker attempting to get the hearer not to do something rather than to do something. It is important to consider the specific sub-types involved as this can have implications for the way that control acts are expressed.

Directives, requests and advice

The chapter concluded with a brief discussion of another factor which frequently comes up in discussions of control acts – namely politeness. This factor is sometimes used to distinguish between different control acts. The control acts which are the focus of my study can all be understood as generally requiring the use of politeness strategies in order to minimise the face threat to the hearer. Politeness, however, is not used to distinguish between directives, requests and advice.



Chapter 3

Identifying control acts

A functional approach is taken in this study. Directives, requests and advice may therefore be realised by a range of forms and the same form may express a directive, a request or advice. A number of factors are identified in Section 2.4, which help to distinguish between directives, requests and advice. These are useful for determining which of these control acts is understood as present when an utterance from the data is interpreted as being a control act. An example such as “in that case put it in a separate sentence” [aKJ1-02] could be a directive or an instance of advice. I have categorised this utterance as advice because it is said by one Senior Policy Analyst (Katie) to another (Jo), and the proposed action is of benefit to Jo. Katie is providing feedback on a letter Jo has written. Similarly, “can you please make sure that the room is booked for the whole day” [dSA1-18] could be a directive or a request. Because this is uttered by a Manager to her Executive Assistant I have categorised it as a directive. If Katie had said this to Jo it would have been classified as a request. These examples, [aKJ1-02] and [dSA1-18], are obviously control acts of some kind. It is not always so easy, however, to identify directives, requests and advice in the data. The first of the examples above took the form of an imperative, while the second is an interrogative. Imperatives and interrogatives can have a range of functions, so identifying examples on the basis of form is not possible. Some of the problems of identification in relation to different forms are outlined in Section 3.1 below. Jones (1992: 433) notes “the more indirect or veiled the attempt to influence the addressee, the harder it is to prove a directive was intended”. The particular problems of identifying control act utterances which do not state the action required are discussed in Section 3.2. An important factor that arose in Chapter 2 and which comes up throughout the initial sections of the current chapter is context. Section 3.3 highlights the importance of considering context at a number of levels. At the level of discourse the discussion involves exploration of a range of identification problems in relation to specific examples.



Chapter 3

In the last section of this chapter, perception and point of view are discussed. It is very important to clearly determine the stance taken in relation to these factors in a study of this type.

. Forms In this section, I discuss issues of control act identification in relation to the main formal categories present in the directive, request and advice examples in the data. For the details of my formal classification see Chapter 4. .. Imperatives One form frequently associated with control acts is the imperative (see for example Labov 1972: 121, Labov and Fanshel 1977: 77–78; Oka 1981: 81; Hudson 1990: 285). In fact, imperatives are arguably the most easily recognised forms which may act as directives, requests or advice. There may still be occasions, however, when the context shows that imperatives are not functioning in this way. Huntley (1984: 103) notes that “imperatives can be used to issue orders, commands, requests, threats, exhortations, permissions, warnings and advice – to mention some of their more common uses”. Aarts (1989: 128) gives a number of examples to show the “wide range of meanings” possible with imperatives, “from orders and requests, to wishes, offers, invitations, warnings, instructions, threats and curses” (see also Downes 1977: 78). Hirtle (1995) looks at direction giving and the use of forms such as “You take the first turning on the left” (Hirtle 1995: 265). He calls this the simple form rather than using the term imperative, but this is a form that has been identified as a sub-type of the imperative (see for example Holmes 1983, see also Quirk et al. 1985). In Vine (2000), I note the existence of a sub-type of control act which would fall into Hirtle’s directions category. The issue of compliance with these is often hypothetical and the issue of benefit is not straightforward. These involve giving instructions/directions on how to do something (see also Sadock 1974: 139). This sub-type frequently takes the form of imperatives, as can be seen in the following section of transcript taken from a microwave cooking demonstration (ICE-NZ6 Extract S2A-053#80-85):

Identifying control acts

Example 3.1: a. J: another really nice way of of serving a muesli mixture like this is to- when um fresh fruit are in season get fresh whole peaches cut them in half and take the stones out and put muesli in the hollow that’s created and you can do that with peaches and pears um and apples and then you just put them in a circle on a plate with the muesli in the centre # cook them until they’re cooked or tender

I identified a few examples in my data which were instructional rather than directive in function. They were expressed using modal declaratives, however, rather than imperatives (see Example 3.5e). There are a number of examples in my transcripts where the imperative form is used, but no directive is involved. Frequently, see7 and look are used by participants as a discourse management device. No action is required from the hearer in these cases. Example 3.2: a. Ruth: see if we do pull out of some of these then [voc] I will need to work through now what we’re going to say what’s the response going to be for why we’re not working on these issues [RM2:253-256] b. Jo: oh look I might go round and ask Philippa [RJ4:21-22] c. Jo: look I’m sure you have [RJ4:54-55]

Brown and Levinson (1987: 96) note a similar use of the imperative in entreaties. These involve a speaker talking “as if maximum efficiency were very important, he provides metaphorical urgency for emphasis”. A number of researchers on control acts have identified a variant of the imperative which involves the use of let’s (see for example Holmes 1983 and Jones 1992). Let’s occurs 16 times in the 37 transcripts which involve Ruth and Sonia interacting with lower level staff. Of these only four are directive in function, i.e. in only 25% of the utterances which contain let’s is it clear that the speaker intends the hearer to carry out an action. (See Cole 1975 for discussion of the meanings of let’s.) Imperatives therefore, although prototypically thought of as being directive in function, can have a range of meanings. Downes (1977: 78–79) claims that all that is needed to account for the meaning of imperative sentences (and other utterances and gestures) is a pragmatic theory consisting of at least two elements. The first element involves statements about the preconditions that have to be met (as in Searle 1969) and the second requires statements such as Grice’s “cooperative principle” (Grice 1975) (see Section 3.2). The preconditions state, for example, that the hearer is able to carry out the action and





Chapter 3

the Gricean maxim of quantity “Don’t supply more information than is necessary” explains why the subject of an imperative sentence is only supplied if there are good reasons for doing so. Downes (1977: 93) argues that these are non-linguistic facts that fall outside the scope of grammar and can only be explained in a theory of language use. Davies (1979) also separates linguistic from non-linguistic factors and distinguishes between the basic meaning of imperative sentences and their interpretation in context. Davies (1979: 19–25) identifies a number of features which are common to all uses of the imperative. These features constitute the construction’s “Literal Mood Meaning” (LMM), which is “context independent” (Davies 1979: 18). Under this approach the interpretation of an imperative as having a particular function, though in part determined by its LMM, is derived from the combination of its LMM with contextual features. (See also Leech 1983: 117 and Huntley 1984: 103 for discussion of the importance of contextual factors in assigning meaning to imperative utterances.) .. Interrogatives and declaratives Contextual factors are even more important when deciding whether an interrogative or declarative sentence is functioning as a control act. Whereas imperatives are most often assumed to be requests for action, declaratives “are usually descriptions of states of affairs and interrogative sentences are usually requests for information” (Aarts 1989: 121).8 The interpretation of a declarative or an interrogative as a request for action therefore requires explanation and justification. Labov (1972: 125) gives a general rule that states that for a request for information to be heard as a “valid command it is necessary for the following ... pre-conditions to hold: B [the hearer] must believe that A [the speaker] believes that 1. 2. 3. 4.

X needs to be done. B has the ability to do X. B has the obligation to do X. A has the right to tell B to do X.”

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 33) cite a similar rule from Labov (1970). Preconditions 2, 3 and 4 are identical in this and precondition 1 is very similar. It states that “X should be done for a purpose Y”. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 33) say preconditions 1, 3 and 4 of Labov’s rule “are part of the gen-

Identifying control acts

eral teaching situation” so when looking at their classroom data these factors “do not need to be invoked for the interpretation of a particular utterance”. Preconditions 3 and 4 relate to the roles and obligations of the participants. These are the kind of factors that were invoked in Chapter 2 to distinguish the particular control acts which are the focus of this study. They are useful at a broad level, therefore. Precondition 2 relates to the hearer’s ability to perform the required action. This factor can be tied to precondition 3 within a workplace setting. The ability to do something relies on knowing the correct procedure and therefore relates to the hearer’s specific job obligations and skills. Precondition 2 can also be tied to precondition 1. Combined, these two are potentially useful at the identification level. The fact that an action needs to be performed and that the hearer is able to perform it aids the interpretation of an utterance as a control act. Labov’s preconditions 1 and 2 refer to aspects of context which are retrievable by the hearer. For example, does the window need to be opened and is the hearer able to do this. (Searle’s conditions for speech acts are similar to Labov’s preconditions; see for example Searle 1969: 60, 66–67; Searle 1979: 44.) Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 30–33) propose three rules for helping to determine whether interrogatives or declaratives are functioning as directives. These rules refer to aspects of the context and to features of the content of utterances. Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975: 32) first rule applies to modal interrogatives containing “can, could, will, would (and sometimes going to)”. If one of these modals is present, “if the subject of the clause is also the addressee” and if the action described “is physically possible at the time of the utterance”, Sinclair & Coulthard say that “an interrogative clause is to be interpreted as a command to do”. Many of the control acts in my dataset do not relate to actions which will be completed immediately nor will they be completed in the place where the directive is given; they are later control acts (see Section 2.5.1). The first two criteria in Sinclair and Coulthard’s rule are satisfied, but the last criterion, relating to the action being physically possible at the time of utterance, is not. Sinclair and Coulthard’s rule therefore only covers now control acts and does not cover later ones. This rule also only covers instances where the action is stated. Modal interrogatives like this are described as being indirect because at a literal level they ask about the hearer’s ability. The action required and the agent of the action are still stated, however.





Chapter 3

Sometimes, even when all of the factors in Sinclair and Coulthard’s rule are fulfilled, an utterance still may not be a now directive. In Excerpt 3.3, below, Katie (Senior Policy Analyst) is talking to Ursula (IT support). Excerpt 3.3: [KU1:7-13] 7 Ursula: I tell you 1//what (let’s try and\1 ring) on here let’s try on this one 8 and see if it’s your computer or whether it’s your actual 2//login\2 9 Katie: 1/I’ll leave that note on it\\1 10 Katie: 2/oh I see\\2 I’m still well I’m still logged in at moment 11 Ursula: that’s 12 Katie: can you log in as well as //( )\ 13 Ursula: /oh no special\\ ( )

Katie’s utterance in line 12 fulfils Sinclair and Coulthard’s rule. Katie’s previous utterance, line 10, shows that Katie is not requesting Ursula to log in, rather she is asking her if it is possible to log in because Katie is currently logged into the same account on another computer. Katie is asking whether the network system allows two people (or one person) to be logged into the same account from two computers at the same time. Excerpt 3.3 shows the importance of considering the surrounding discourse in order to determine the meaning of an utterance. Context is crucial for the correct interpretation of Example 3.4 as well. Example 3.4: a. Sonia: can you read (that) [SA1:27]

This example is not a directive. The context shows that Sonia is not asking Anna to read something over for her, rather she is asking her if she can read Sonia’s writing. Sonia asks people on a couple of other occasions whether they can read something for her. In these cases handwriting is not the issue and she wants them to read through something for her and provide her with feedback. In these cases the utterances were categorised as directives. The difference here relates to the intended meaning of the verb read and the modal can. There has been some discussion about the interpretation of modal interrogatives such as the ones in Excerpt 3.3 and Example 3.4. It has been argued that this type of interrogatives are so often used as control acts that this is the standard interpretation (see for example Ervin-Tripp 1976; Bach and Harnish 1979; Morgan 1978; Gibbs 1981). For another interpretation to be intended a speaker must clearly indicate that they are asking about someone’s ability to perform an action. Clark (1979) proposes an “answer obviousness” rule to help explain this. This rule relies on Grice’s cooperative principle and claims

Identifying control acts

that speakers are cooperative and only ask questions to gain information they lack, i.e., they only ask questions that have non-obvious answers. Questions such as “can you open the window?” are conventionally intended as directives or requests, although they are literally yes-no questions. If the answer to this question was non-obvious, for example, the hearer had their arm in a sling, then the question is more likely to be an information-seeking question and the hearer is more likely to interpret it in this way. Sinclair and Coulthard’s two other rules apply to both declaratives and interrogatives. Rule two states that “any declarative or interrogative is to be interpreted as a command to stop if it refers to an action or activity which is proscribed at the time of utterance” (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975: 32), while rule three states that “any declarative or interrogative is to be interpreted as a command to do if it refers to an action or activity which teacher and pupil(s) know ought to have been performed or completed and hasn’t been” (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975: 33). Rules two and three are both necessary because Sinclair and Coulthard distinguish two types of control acts – one involving commands to stop, the other commands to do. Once again, immediate actions are the focus (although later actions may be allowed for) and the content of utterances is important in terms of there being reference to actions. In rule two, however, the action required (i.e., stopping) may not be explicitly stated. Sinclair and Coulthard’s second and third rules allow for a range of forms. The action does not have to be stated within a certain construction, as with rule one. The utterances in Example 3.5 would all be accounted for by rule three. Example 3.5: a. and if you can just later today have a check through that that would be good [dSE1-12] b. and um I think that you need to look at this part of this bit [dRJ1-07] c. (you can) cross me off for that [dSB1-20] d. you can go through this way [dSA3-02] e. you can go into the trash and you can press undelete [KU2:88]

Example 3.5 (c) to (e) all take the same form. They have the same subject and are modal declaratives. Example 3.5 (c) and (d) were both said by Sonia to one of her Executive Assistants and were categorised as directives. Both relate to actions that Beth and Anna will perform immediately. Example 3.5 (e) looks very similar. Consideration of the context, however, shows that Example 3.5 (e) is not a directive or request, nor is it an instance of advice. It is still a control act, but is like Hirtle’s (1995) directions/instructions (see Section 3.1.1). This





Chapter 3

interpretation is understood when the participants and situation are explained. Ursula (IT Support) utters this statement to Katie (Senior Policy Analyst). Katie has been having problems with her email, which seems to have deleted all her messages before she has had a chance to read them. Ursula is describing how Katie can retrieve them. This is the way that the email messages can be recovered. The utterance is therefore directing and instructing rather than suggesting, but the benefit is for Katie so it is not a directive or a request. Ervin-Tripp (1977: 169) criticises Sinclair and Coulthard’s second and third rules because they do not account for examples where the action required is not explicitly stated. Rule two does allow for this, but rule three does not. This can be accounted for by the context in which Sinclair and Coulthard’s data was collected, i.e., it involves adults and children. Research has shown that this situation is one which has a preponderance of explicit forms. As a result of this criticism, Ervin-Tripp (1977: 169) defines directives as: Those utterances will be interpreted as directives which break topical continuity in discourse, and which refer to acts prohibited to or obligatory for addressees, mention referents central to such acts, or give exemplars of the core arguments of understood social rules.

Her definition allows for utterances where there is no direct mention of the action required. It suggests some other elements of content which may mean that a control act is intended. Identifying that there is a control act, however, requires some account of how a control act meaning can be arrived at. .. Summary Section 3.1 discusses some of the problems of identification in relation to form. The utterances explored involve situations where the action required is stated in some way. Some approaches in the literature to determining the meaning of utterances are summarised. Context is seen as an important factor in determining meaning and identifying control acts.

. Identifying control acts where the action is not stated Aarts (1989: 128) notes that “one of the most interesting phenomena in natural language . . . is the fact that speakers can convey messages that bear no direct relation to the lexical content of the utterances they produce”. As well as being interesting, this aspect of language poses problems for language researchers.

Identifying control acts

The challenge of attempting to capture and adequately describe the way that speakers produce and understand such utterances has resulted in a number of theories. The most well known and influential of these theories has been Grice’s Theory of Implicature (Grice 1975). Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle and four conversational maxims, the maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner, in order to explain how people interpret implicature. The Cooperative Principle (CP) states that participants make their “conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk-exchange in which [they] are engaged” (Grice 1975: 45). Given this principle, when a speaker follows all four of the maxims, then there is no implicature. However, when one of the maxims is “flouted” by a speaker, i.e., a speaker blatantly fails to fulfil it, a situation results which involves conversational implicature. The hearer must then infer the speaker’s meaning by considering which maxim has been flouted and why. A possible problem identified with Grice’s approach and similar approaches (such as those proposed by Gordon and Lakoff 1975; Bach and Harnish 1979; Morgan 1978 and Searle 1969, 1979) is that they start with the computation of the literal meaning of the sentence.9 The work of researchers such as Clark (1979) and Gibbs (1979, 1981) suggests that people do not appear to do this in most cases. Clark (1979) outlines six bases for inference, although Jacobs and Jackson (1983: 288–289) collapse these into three categories. The first of Jacobs and Jackson’s categories maintains that in order to be interpreted as a request an utterance “must make reference to the central elements in a desired action scheme or to the felicity conditions for the request” (Jacobs and Jackson 1983: 288). (See also Searle 1975: 71; Gordon and Lakoff 1975; Ervin-Tripp 1976; Labov and Fanshel 1977; Brown and Levinson 1978). The likelihood that the intent of a control act will be recognised in an utterance depends on the hearer’s (and the analyst’s) ability to draw the connections between the content of the utterance and the desired action. The second basis for inference summarised by Jacobs and Jackson (1983: 288–289) relies on the use of “conventionalized sentence forms”, “such as embedded imperatives”. The use of “conventionalized” forms means that the utterance should be understood as a control act unless it is clear that this is not the intended meaning (Brown and Levinson 1978: 138–139; Bach and Harnish 1979: 173–233; Sadock 1974: 73–146). This would cover examples such as Example 3.3. Only by examining the surrounding utterances does it become clear that this example is not a control act.





Chapter 3

The final basis for inference identified by Jacobs and Jackson (1983: 289) is context. “The speaker’s plans and goals, relations of authority and obligation between speaker and hearer, the activities that are routinely performed in the setting, and a host of other sorts of contextual information may be so obvious as to establish strong pre-set expectations that a request is or is not intended”. This “short-circuits” the more involved inferential processes that begin with the computation of the literal meaning of the utterance. Context is an important factor in determining the meaning of utterances which state a required action (see Section 3.1). When the action required is not stated, context plays an even more crucial role.

. Context A recurring theme in the discussion so far has been the importance of context. Context is relevant at a number of levels. The main factor outlined in Chapter 2 to help distinguish between directives and requests – status of participants – is contextual. The importance of context in determining the meaning of control acts where the action is not stated is also highlighted in Section 3.2. I now look more closely at the issue of context. Context can be defined generally as “the environment” in which utterances occur (Schiffrin 1994: 363). Different approaches to language study all seem to take a slightly different view on what aspects of the environment are relevant and how. I found it useful to consider context at a number of different levels. .. Social context Gibbs (1981) concluded that context at the level of social factors is important in order to say what forms of control acts are conventionalised. His research suggested that this may change from one situation to another. Thomas (1995: 157) comments that social context is also crucial in assessments of politeness. Context can be defined at a broad level in terms of social aspects of the situation; elements such as participants and setting. Hymes (1962, 1972) proposed the acronym speaking to define the factors of context which need to be considered at a broad level. I will focus on aspects of the first two factors here: S(ituation) and P(articipants).

Identifying control acts

Situation and Participants It is important to specify the participants and setting from which data are gathered. The interactions in my dataset were all collected in a New Zealand work setting and involve individuals employed within the same workplace interacting. These individuals have jobs and positions within the organisation. Most know each other reasonably well and interact frequently, and the interactions are fairly informal. Knowledge of these aspects is important in analysing and interpreting the interactions. The importance of different participants and the status of these participants was evident in Chapter 2. The definitions of directive, request and advice adopted in this study rely on these factors to determine how a control act utterance should be coded. There are also occasions when consideration of the participants involved and their roles means that potential “control act” utterances should not be interpreted as control acts at all. For example, in an interaction between Sonia (Manager) and Eloise (Policy Analyst), Sonia says “so let’s check on that” [SE1:124]. Later in the same interaction she clearly states that she will undertake the required action and does not expect Eloise to do it: “let me go and do all my checking on the rooms and all the rest of it” [SE1:149]. This example is interesting as on first coming across “so let’s check on that” I marked it as a directive. I was not totally confident with my classification, however, because Sonia was addressing Eloise. Previous to this I had been looking in detail at the directives issued by Sonia to her Executive Assistant, Beth. If this utterance had been directed at Beth I would have had no doubt that it was directive in function and that Beth would have taken responsibility for checking the booking (even without an explicit statement indicating that Sonia wanted her to do this). If the addressee is normally responsible for the task and it is part of their duties/job description then it can be enough to indicate that the task needs to be done. The situation involves a context where the expected interpretation of such utterances is as directives, Clark’s non-obviousness rule (Clark 1979). In fact, spelling out the details of a job that needs to be done in these cases is unnecessary and may act as a criticism because it implies that the addressee does not know how to do their job. The importance of the different participant’s job level is explored in Chapters 6 to 9. Another factor at a broad level which falls within the relevant parameters of the situation is the purpose of the interaction. This can have major implications for the type of speech act present. There are a range of possible reasons for workplace meetings. Dwyer (1993: 606) notes that “meetings can: provide information; clarify information; give and receive feedback; provide training; allow discussion; encourage problem solving”.





Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Main purpose of interactions Main purpose†

No. of interactions

Assign Tasks Clarify/Report Back on Tasks Request Action Request Permission Request Information Update Feedback Problem-solving Discussion

11 5 6 1 3 3 6 13 4

Total

52

† Labels used are defined in Appendix B

A number of different purposes for having meetings are evident in my dataset. Table 3.1, summarises the main objective of the 52 interactions that are the main focus of my research. Details of individual interactions are supplied in Appendix B. Interactions where the main purpose is to “assign tasks” yield, unsurprisingly, a large number of directives. The interpretation of utterances as directive in these interactions is fairly straightforward and it can be argued that in these contexts lower level staff are predisposed to hear the Managers’ utterances as control acts. A similar situation exists when the main purpose is to request action or provide feedback. The person receiving the request or feedback is predisposed to hear the other participant’s utterances as control acts. Not only is the situation a workplace one, where the main aim of interactions is to achieve work-related tasks, but most interactions also explicitly focus on achieving a work related goal. Tasks are assigned, feedback is given and problems are solved. Pearson (1989: 289) notes that “‘controlling’ speech acts or directives, occur profusely in ordinary situations where people are set on accomplishing tasks”. This is true, therefore, of most of the interactions which are included in my dataset. Lee (1987) looks at data collected in a doctor-patient context. He notes that this data was good to use because the participants did not know each other well. His job as a non-participant analyst was therefore easier because there is no shared history between the participants and the relationship that exists can be defined quite clearly. My situation differs from Lee’s (1987) in a number of ways. Except for Sonia and Anna, the participants have all worked together before, although

Identifying control acts

for differing lengths of time. My data does come from a similar “workplace” context, however. This makes my job as analyst easier because the workplace situation could be termed a “standard situation”, in which “role relations are transparent and predetermined, the requester has a right, the requestee an obligation, the degree of imposition involved in the request is low, as is the perceived degree of difficulty in realizing it” (House 1989: 115). Some of these factors do of course vary, such as the degree of imposition. This may depend on the particular action being requested. Using a Conversation Analysis approach things are not necessarily this straightforward as the factors above can be negotiable in the context of the interaction (Psathas 1995: 2). A “pragmatic” study also needs to adopt this approach. Hymes’s (1962) framework is useful for identifying the types of factors which may be relevant, but the dynamic nature of interaction must be acknowledged. Thomas (1995) draws on the work of Levinson (1979) on “activity types” to show how pragmaticists see “the individual’s use of language as shaping the ‘event’ . . . to change the situation they find themselves in” (Thomas 1995: 189). The way the women in my study do this is explored in Chapters 6 to 9. .. Discourse context Context at the level of surrounding utterances is also important. For example, context was crucial in deciding which of Sonia’s utterances to her staff should be counted as advice rather than directives. If the crucial factor in identifying advice relates to who benefits from the action, then the utterance in itself may be enough, given the wider context. Example 3.6 is classified as advice because whether Anna rewrites the notes or not is not crucial to the task she has been asked to complete. Rewriting them will benefit her (if she has trouble reading them). If the task had involved giving the notes back to Sonia then this utterance would have been classified as a directive. Example 3.6: a. you might wanna rewrite it [aSA1-01]

Excerpts 3.7 and 3.8 also show utterances which were categorised as advice. The immediate context was important in making this classification in these cases. Without consideration of the surrounding utterances, all four utterances would have been categorised as directive. Excerpt 3.7: [SG1:314-320] 314 Gen: /=um + this ++ um I just wondered if- 1//you know what’s the\1 315 relevance 2//for us going\2





Chapter 3

316 Sonia: 1/I don’t see this as a\\1 317 Sonia: 2/yeah I don’t see\\2 this as a high priority [aSG1-03a] 318 I thought oh well I’ll put it through to to you and um Francine just 319 to see whether it’s something that you think might or should be 320 interested I’m just as happy for us not to go [aSG1-03b] Excerpt 3.8: [SG1:353-369] 353 Sonia: . . . I don’t think we’ve got the resources to 354 comment on it [aSG1-04] 2//um\2 [voc] and I mean I think 355 that what we should do [voc] my my this is just my feeling 356 instinctively is say is to go back and and um + just say thanks 357 thanks for sending us a copy um we’ve already par- as we’ve 358 already participated in the policy guidelines um + 3//well\3 (you 359 know) happy to see that the policy guidelines are the framework 360 in which the funding agreement’s being developed 4//and\4 we 361 have no further comments to make er but we appreciate getting a 362 copy something 5//like\5 that [aSG1-05] I don’t=/ . . . 364 Gen: 2/no\\2 365 Gen: 3/yeah\\3 366 Gen: 4/mm\\4 367 Gen: 5/yeah\\5 368 Gen: /=mm 369 Sonia: what do you think

Examination of the utterance between [aSG1-03a] and [aSG1-03b] (Excerpt 3.7, lines 318–319), and a following utterance in the case of [aSG1-05] (Excerpt 3.8, line 369) show that the hearer does have a choice as to whether to comply or not. Context, therefore, also needs to be considered at the level of the surrounding utterances. It is often necessary to examine these before deciding how an utterance is functioning (as also seen in Excerpt 3.3). Determining whether an utterance is a control act of any kind when there is no reference to the required action within the utterance itself relies on the surrounding utterances, or knowledge of context at the broader level, or both. Examination of the utterances preceding the head act [aSG1-03a] in Excerpt 3.7, show that Genevieve is seeking advice and therefore signals that Sonia’s utterance in line 317 is a control act. Another identification issue relating to context at the utterance level concerns determining which utterances should be counted as being part of the control act. Utterances which relate to a specific directive, request or piece of

Identifying control acts

advice may cluster together, they may be spread throughout an interaction or may even occur throughout a number of interactions. Even when utterances cluster together, it can be difficult to say whether they should be counted as part of the control act sequence or not. In Excerpt 3.9, Sonia talks about the fact that she has turned the tape recorder on and asks Anna’s permission for recording before indicating to Anna that Sonia needs her to fill in a consent slip. Sonia’s first two utterances therefore, involve informing and asking permission. However, they also set the scene for the following directive. Excerpt 3.9: [SA1:1-8] 1 Sonia: I’ll practise with my recording too 2 Anna: okay 3 Sonia: do you mind if I record our //con\versation I’ll I need to get you to 4 um sign off a consent slip too [dSA1-01] (because) almost everyone 5 else has signed one off but you haven’t because you’re temping 6 Anna: /no\\ 7 Anna: okay 8 Sonia: okay um now we’re about to start with the um . . . [new topic]

Following the directive, lines 3–4, Sonia comments that Anna is about the only person who has not signed a consent slip. This supports the directive, so can be coded as a supportive move (see Chapter 5). Sonia then turns to the main topic of the interaction, line 8, and does not mention the recording process again. On other occasions, a directive or request given earlier in an interaction may be referred to later after other topics or aspects of the same topic have been discussed. Appendix C, D and E list the control acts as they occur in the data. It can be seen from these that on a number of occasions, multiple utterances which express the same control act are interspersed with other similar control acts. Each utterance realising a control act is referred to as a “head act” (see Chapter 4). Multiple head acts of the same control act are labelled a, b etc. Example 3.10 lists in chronological order the directive head acts from Sonia’s first interaction with Eloise. Example 3.10: 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8, 5b, 7b, 9, 10a, 11, 10b, 6b, 12, 13, 14a, 14b

Six of the 14 directives in this interaction have two head acts. Only with the first and last of these pairs do the multiple head acts of the same directive occur in sequence. In all the other examples head acts from other directives break up the pairs.





Chapter 3

Multiple head acts can make head act identification difficult. Sometimes it is hard to decide whether something should be categorised as an additional head act or as a separate control act. Example 3.11: a. I might as well sign what you’ve got [dRI9-12a] b. I might as well sign what I’ve got [dRI9-12b] c. I’ll take those [dRI9-13]

In Example 3.11 (a) and (b) it is clear that the two utterances are head acts of the same directive. Irene has asked Ruth if she wants the timesheets to sign as not everyone has handed them in. Both Example 3.11 (a) and 3.11 (b) clearly relate to Irene’s question and indicate that Ruth wants Irene to give the timesheets to her. Example 3.11 (c), however, comes a bit later in the interaction. It may well be a further head act associated with the same directive. Because my data is tape-recorded, however, and I can not see what Ruth is referring to, I was not sure so assigned this utterance a separate code. Another problem with potential multiple head acts is that an utterance may be best categorised as a supportive move rather than a head act, especially when there is no explicit head act. Sometimes it is difficult to identify any head act at all, even though there is the impression that a control act has been issued. In these cases, an utterance which may otherwise be categorised as a supportive move is often coded as a head act. In Example 3.12, the implied meaning is that Sonia wants Eloise to do something quickly. In this case Eloise will not be required to send the document to [place], but she must finish her work on it quickly so that it can be sent up. Example 3.12: a. we want to get this up to [place] fairly soon after today’s meeting [dSE1-08]

The statement here would normally be coded as a supportive move which provides a reason for action. Because there is no explicit head act in regard to the required action, Example 3.12 (a) realises the directive on its own and is coded as a head act. Other problems arise when identifying head acts because there may be false starts (Example 3.13). Example 3.13: a. could you [false start] would you mind just ta- copying one photocopy of that [dSA3-01]

Identifying control acts

b. but I need to [false start] we need a column or [false start] I need to indicate which people get sent the letters on the [training course] . . . so like these people (that I) we need to come up [false start] we need to add in a column or something [dRI9-01]

In Example 3.13 (a) there is one false start from Sonia – could you before the head act “would you mind just ta- copying one photocopy of that”. In Example 3.13 (b) a number of false starts were identified in Ruth’s speech before the head act “we need to add in a column or something”. Sometimes the control acts are elicited (as with Example 3.11). It is often difficult to decide what should be classified as clarification and what should be coded as an elicited control act. Utterances may of course have multiple functions, but I tried to determine the “main” function of utterances. In Excerpt 3.14, Anna has come in to ask Sonia about a task. Sonia has left a note asking Anna to check with her before she completes the task. Excerpt 3.14: [SH1:151-159] 151 Anna: sorry do you want me to fax this out to (Paula and Kaye cos 152 you’ve got) check with (me) 153 Sonia: I thought you’d just just ring them I assumed that they would have a 154 copy 155 Anna: oh 156 Sonia: but just ring them and check to see if a if they’ve had a copy and b if 157 the clauses that where the clauses have been changed 158 Anna: yeah they’re happy with them 159 Sonia: that they’re happy with [dSA4-01]

Sonia’s first utterance in response to Anna’s question was seen as clarification and has not been classified as a directive (lines 153 to 154). She then reframes her first remark and issues a directive [dSA4-01], lines 156, 157 and 159. Anna anticipates the completion of Sonia’s directive here (line 158). Sometimes a request for clarification results in a more specific directive than the one that was previously given. In these cases the utterances are counted as directives and not just clarifications. At other times, the person asking for clarification outlines in detail what they think is entailed and the Manager just agrees. No control acts are identified in these cases (Example 3.15). Excerpt 3.15: [SH1:115-122] 115 Hilary: . . . and the thing is 116 I’ve got them on my desk cos you weren’t here the other day and I 117 thought we’ll wait till Beth comes back and we’ll we’ll find a place





Chapter 3

118 to house them um + and then we’ll [clears throat] 119 Sonia: yeah 120 Hilary: so that you know she’ll have access to them cos that’ll be up //to 121 her\ all right? 122 Sonia: /all right\\

Senior Staff frequently outlined the way they proposed to deal with something and asked their Managers if it was all right to proceed in this way. The implications of this type of behaviour as a reflection of power relations is discussed in Chapters 6 to 8. Another identification issue relates to “multiple directives” (Mulholland 1994). These involve utterances where more than one action is specified. As a rule, I allocated separate control act codes for each action that was required. Example 3.16: a. but you’ll need to take a copy [dRI9-09] and stamp that [dRI9-10] so I can approve it I think [dRI9-11] b. so if you can find the letter and um print it out on final copy [dSB1-07] and so that I can sign it off [dSB1-08]

In Example 3.16 (a), three separate tasks were required and so three separate directives were identified. In Example 3.16 (b) two head acts were identified. The important aspect of the task in [dSB1-07] is printing the letter out as finding it is not enough in itself. There are a number of similar examples where an Executive Assistant is asked to ring someone. The ringing is not the main focus in these cases; the important element is the fact that they must then ask the person they have rung for a particular piece of information or tell them something in particular. In these cases, “ring and ask” or “ring and check” is assigned one control act code. The boundaries between head acts and what should be counted as part of a head act or a supportive move are not always straightforward. Sometimes, within the head act, there are asides, other head acts, supportive moves or all of the above. Excerpt 3.17: [SA1:41-59] 41 Sonia: . . . ring the applicants and say that you’ve been 42 shortlisted ++ better let you know what the poi- what the job is (6) 43 you’ve been list- shortlisted for the [policy unit one] policy analyst 44 oh senior policy analyst policy analyst position 45 Anna: okay 46 Sonia: er ++ take about an hour + depending on the questions that’s an

Identifying control acts

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

appointment //oh\ it’s not done very well you might wanna rewrite it [aSA1-01] Anna: /yeah\\ Anna: okay Sonia: um you’re welcome to bring whaanau support + [tut] it’d be helpful if you could let me know on the day well let me know how many whaanau support you’ll be bringing so I can set up the venue Anna: okay Sonia: [inhales] um + now for whaanau support er if they ask (a) question whether or not the ministry # the ministry will pay for THEM + like for people outside (the) town but not for whaanau support Anna: okay Sonia: so that comes that comes at their own cost [dSA1-07] . . .

Most of Sonia’s utterances in Excerpt 3.17 relate to the things that she wants Anna to “ring . . . and say” to the applicants (line 41). They are therefore counted as continuations of [dSA1-07]. If Sonia had at any point explicitly said “tell them . . . ” in outlining the additional information she wanted Anna to tell the applicants, or if she had used any other action specifying verbs, I would have counted these as indicating separate control acts. Not all of Sonia’s utterances in Example 3.17 refer to other things that Anna must say. At line 42 there is an aside as Sonia comments that she had better let Anna know what the position title is. At lines 46–48 there is another aside as Sonia explains a point in the notes, comments on the fact that she hasn’t written it up very well and then advises Anna to rewrite it. Sometimes a lead in can be identified, but pinning down the actual head act is near to impossible. Sometimes the action required will be specified at another time and place. The utterance is a supportive move to a control act which will be issued on another occasion (see Chapter 7). The examples from my data in this section highlight some of the problems of interpretation and identification. Identification at a practical level is a very complicated process. There were other issues apart from the ones illustrated above. For example, negotiation of what actually needs to be done also occurs at times, making it hard to identify definite head acts. There is also the issue of what counts as the main function of an utterance. Utterances frequently have more than one meaning and it is often hard to decide what the “main” function is. Context at the wider level of participants and setting is crucial in identifying which utterances are control acts, as well as for determining what type of





Chapter 3

control act is present (given the definitions adopted in Chapter 2). Consideration of context at the level of surrounding utterances is also necessary both for examples where the action required is stated and for those where it is not.

. Intention and perception Another factor relevant to identification is intention and perception. ErvinTripp et al. (1990: 308) discuss the problems of distinguishing between different types of control acts in context. “The mother may think she is making an offer (‘have some juice’); the child can hear it as a directive”. Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) note the benefits of the act to the speaker and the options of refusal to distinguish between offers and directives. What is intended by the speaker, however, and what is perceived can be different. The form in their example “have some juice” is still fairly unambiguously a control act of some description. This brings up the issue of point of view. Although often not stated, many researchers approach their data from the speaker’s perspective. This is understood in a speech act approach where the focus is on illocutionary point (see Chapter 1). It is also apparent in the comments of researchers such as Jones (Jones 1992: 433) who talk about speaker intention and from studies where the focus is on compliance or non-compliance (see Chapter 2). The hearer is important in compliance-gaining studies but the focus in this type of research is on how the speaker can “more successfully” present their request. If the hearer’s perspective was taken in compliance studies then non-compliance could only be present if the hearer indicates to the researcher that they understood something as a directive or request but chose not to perform the requested action. Other research refers to the hearer’s perspective as well as the speaker’s. An important aspect of Labov and Fanshel’s (1977: 78) “Rule of Requests” is the perception of the hearer: “if A addresses to B an imperative specifying an action X at a time T1, and B believes that A believes that . . . ”. The focus here is on the hearer’s beliefs. Some approaches look for signs that the hearer has accepted a statement as a control act before assigning function. Thomas (1995: 198) argues that an utterance only becomes, for example, “an offer or a question when the other interactant made it so”. This type of approach is taken by analysts working in a Conversation Analysis (CA) paradigm. Stubbe et al. (2003: 354) note that “in general, any utterance can be interpreted in numerous ways by analysts; for CA it is important to find evidence in the interaction of which of these possible interpretations have been taken by the participants” (see also Hayashi

Identifying control acts

1996: 227). Under this approach, Anna’s responses in Example 3.18 would be seen as indications that Sonia’s utterances are interpreted as directives. Excerpt 3.18: [SA1:120-129] 120 Sonia: . . . if you find you 121 haven’t managed to get hold of everyone at the end 122 Anna: mm 123 Sonia: then um come and talk to me and we’ll set up a time where you can 125 use my office 126 Anna: okay=/ 127 Sonia: /=um when I’m not here [dSA1-20] and you just come in and 128 shut the door and try and make contact [dSA1-21] 129 Anna: yep okay

Anna’s “okay”, “yep okay” (lines 126 and 129) indicate that she accepts Sonia’s utterances as directive (Psathas 1995: 25). At other times of course, minimal responses may be present, but it cannot always be assumed that these indicate agreement (Bublitz 1988: 187). Another complication arises because my data were tape-recorded and not video-taped. I do not have a record of any non-verbal feedback or acknowledgement of control acts. Frequently, however, verbal acceptance is present (and audible). Trosborg (1994: 49), following the work of Reiss (1985), notes that “speech (acts) needed to be studied etically, i.e., from the point of view of the observer, as well as in terms of its emic contents, i.e., as expressed by the speaker (cf. Harris 1980: 54)”. An etic methodology identifies requests according to observer-defined categories rather than from a speaker’s or a hearer’s view. In many ways this is all an analyst can ever hope to do, although following a CA approach they can look for evidence in the interaction itself of how participants interpreted utterances. It is impossible to do this thoroughly with face-to-face interaction, however, without video-recordings. Alternatively the analyst could consult extensively with the participants (following an ethnographic approach). I had hoped to talk to some of the participants about the interactions, but was unable to do this because of their work commitments. Another approach would be to record data where the analyst was one of the participants (as in Pufahl Bax 1986). The methodology in the current study entailed the participants having control over the recording process. I was not one of the participants, so I cannot say what was intended or understood from the speaker’s or hearer’s point of view; only what I understand was meant and perceived from an outside viewpoint.





Chapter 3

Schiffrin (1987: 41–42) comments that when the analyst has a participant role in interactions this complicates the observer’s paradox: although the goal is to observe everyday language without distorting it through the process of observation, two added risks of distortion develop because of the analyst’s participatory status. The first risk develops at the time of the discourse, when the analyst’s role in the discourse influences its development. The second risk develops at the time of analysis: what is the analytic role of interpretations and knowledge gained from participatory experience in the discourse? Ideally, one should be able to apply uniform standards of analysis to discourse – regardless of one’s own role (or lack of role) in a discourse. But it may be as difficult for linguists to apply uniform standards to discourse analysis as it has been for anthropologists to conduct objective ethnographies (see Agar 1982). And it may turn out to be just as unwise: since social realities are constructed at least in part from individual efforts to make sense, what is one person’s definition of what is going on may differ markedly from another’s, making a search for consensual (and uniform) definitions a fruitless task.

Schiffrin’s (1987) conclusion should not be interpreted as a reason not to undertake research. Problems have been identified with many of the approaches to language study. Identification of these problems and attempts to take account of them by different researchers all add to our understanding. My analysis is based on criteria that I have worked out and specified. My approach is, no doubt, different from the approach that would be taken by any other researcher independently looking at my data. It draws on the work of previous researchers, however, and seeks to provide an analysis which will stand up to scrutiny by other researchers. Schiffrin’s comments acknowledge that although there is never one “right” interpretation, my efforts may produce a useful potential interpretation of the interactions in my dataset. Its validity derives from the way that it relates to earlier work and in the way that it may provide a basis or starting point for future researchers (see Gee 1999: 94–96).

. Conclusion This chapter highlights a number of important issues relevant to the identification of control act head acts. Jones (1992) is one of the few researchers to acknowledge how difficult it can be to identify control acts. Some researchers even comment on the ease with which directives can be identified, for example Ervin-Tripp (1977: 165). Ervin-Tripp (1977: 165) cites this as one of her reasons

Identifying control acts

for focusing on directives. The “final” set of directive, request and advice head acts which I identified in my data were only arrived at after over 18 months of reading and re-reading the transcripts. I listened to the recordings on numerous occasions. No matter how carefully I felt I had my criteria specified there would always still be examples that were not clear cut. The richness of my data also meant that there were a number of different types of control acts (in particular, directives) present in the data (see Section 2.5). Where the lines should be drawn in relation to different types was another process which took a lot of time and careful consideration. No doubt someone else would have drawn the boundaries in different places. This is of course the nature of analysis which deals with naturally occurring spoken data. A major conclusion of this chapter is that context plays a crucial role in identification, both at the level of social context and at the level of discourse. Only when considering these factors can judgements be made about the function of utterances. Further, research by psychologists such as Clark (e.g., Clark 1979) and Gibbs (e.g., Gibbs 1981), suggests that context determines which realisations of control acts are conventional and that this differs from one context to another. This finding has implications for linguistic researchers exploring natural data. Frequently, comparisons are made between the results of different studies. In order for such comparisons to have validity, researchers need to be very careful that their data were collected in the same context and under the same conditions. If not, they must provide an account of the differences.



Chapter 4

Analysis of control act head acts

The approach taken by the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) to analysing requests entails an initial identification of the components of the request. This involves identifying the “head act”, i.e., “the minimal unit which can realize a request; it is the core of the request sequence” (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 275). The other parts of the request in this approach are labelled the “alerter” and “supportive move(s)” (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 276). The natural data I have in my study is more complex than Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989b) elicited data. Their approach is still useful because it is segmental. Much of the research on directives and requests focuses mainly on the head acts, and does not adopt a segmental approach. Very few, if any, of my examples do not have supportive moves of some kind and there is often more than one head act, so a segmental approach is vital. The “alerter” and “supportive move(s)” are important aspects of directives and requests (these are discussed in Chapter 5). This chapter outlines the approach taken to categorising the control act head acts and presents the results according to these classifications. The chapter begins with the overall results, Section 4.1. An important distinction that can be made between control acts at the level of content is whether the required action is stated or not. I make an initial categorisation of head acts in terms of this factor. Utterances where the action is stated are labelled “explicit”; utterances where the action is not stated are labelled “implicit”. Section 4.2 explains the use of these labels and explores their importance. An account of the categorisation system applied to the explicit head acts is then provided in Section 4.3, along with an outline of the results for each type of control act. This is followed by a description of the implicit categorisation system and some basic results, Section 4.4.



Chapter 4

. Overall results Overall, 364 control acts are identified in the 52 interactions in my dataset. Table 4.1. shows the total number of directives, requests and instances of advice, and the number of associated head acts. Seventy-three percent of both the control acts and control act head acts identified are classified as directives. The definitions of the three types of control act (see Chapter 2), mean that directives can only be issued from superiors to subordinates. As 71% of the overall interaction time involves the Managers talking to their staff, the high number of directives is not surprising. It is interesting to see that the number of requests is so low, given that lower level staff may make requests to higher level staff and, as just noted, interactions involving staff of different levels constitute 71% of the interaction time. The figures above indicate that lower level staff did not often make requests. This is a reflection of job obligations and responsibilities. Lower level staff generally meet with their Managers to be assigned tasks or to discuss aspects of their work. They do not meet to discuss aspects of their Manager’s work. Each control act is often realised by just one head act, but there may be multiple head acts. The 364 control acts identified in my data have 439 corresponding head acts. The 75 extra head acts are associated with 64 control acts. Fifty-six of these have only two head acts, while the remaining eight have either three or four. Having identified each component of a request, the analysts involved in the CCSARP then coded each component on a separate set of criteria (BlumKulka et al. 1989a: 273–294). I have also categorised each segment according to separate criteria, although I do not use the same criteria as Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 275) in all cases. I now present the categorisation system applied to the head acts. More qualitative analysis is provided in Chapters 6 to 9.

Table 4.1 Overall number and percentage of control acts of each type Control act

No. of control acts

No. of head acts

Directives Requests Advice

265 52 47

(73%) (14%) (13%)

319 61 59

(73%) (14%) (13%)

Total†

364

(100%)

439

(100%)

† Full statistical analysis was not undertaken due to the small sample size and the “case study” nature of the research.

Analysis of control act head acts

. Basic categorisation of head acts .. Introduction There has been a great deal of variability in how researchers categorise directives and requests, i.e., the head acts of directives and requests.10 Some researchers have used a fairly straightforward method of categorisation. For example, Bellinger and Gleason (1982) outline three types of directives: (1) imperatives (in the form of orders); (2) indirect directives (in the form of questions) and (3) implied directives (in the form of statements – the hearer must infer what action is required). Most categorisations of head acts have been done on the basis of their formal structure, although as Bellinger and Gleason’s (1982) terminology shows, researchers do not always clearly distinguish between form and function. Some researchers have then ranked the different structures evident in their data in terms of other factors. For example, Ervin-Tripp (1976: 29) identified six types of directives which she then ordered “approximately according to the relative power of speaker and addressee in conventional usage and the obviousness of the directive”. Although frequently using form as the basis for categorising directives, researchers do not use the same labels for the types of head acts they identify, and frequently draw the boundaries between categories in different places. At times, social factors are used alongside formal ones, as in Ervin-Tripp (1976). At other times, aspects of content are also considered. This is partly because a purely formal categorisation system does not adequately account for control act head act data. For example, a category called “hints” is frequently included in categorisations (see for example, Ervin-Tripp 1976: 29; Holmes 1983). To “hint” is a strategy rather than a form and refers to features of the content. Hints generally take a declarative form, but to group these with non-hint declaratives disguises something very important and different about these two types of head acts. Most categorisation systems account for this by having a separate declarative category. The categorisation system utilised in this study begins by drawing distinctions between the head acts according to features of the content. Consideration is then given to other properties. It is shown that failure to consider certain aspects of content before exploring form results in a formal categorisation that provides no real insights into the strategic use of language.





Chapter 4

.. Directness and explicitness Before beginning to develop a formal categorisation system it is important to carefully consider why such a system is needed. The main motivation for developing a categorisation system in studies of particular speech acts is so that the realisations of the same speech act by different individuals or groups can be compared. The categories identified are ranked according to how forceful they are and consideration is given to who uses the most and least forceful forms (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976). The forcefulness of different forms is generally referred to as “directness”. The term “directness”, however, is used in a number of separate, but related ways. For instance, non-imperative utterances functioning as control acts are often labelled “indirect” (e.g., Lee 1987: 383). “Indirect” here means “nonimperative”. These types of utterances include interrogatives such as Example 4.1 (b) and declaratives such as Example 4.1 (c) and (d). Example 4.1 (a) would be labelled “direct”. Example 4.1: a. you close the window b. can you close the window c. I wonder if you can close the window d. it’s cold in here

At other times, discussions of “indirectness” are referring to the use of “conventionally indirect” utterances, such as Example 4.1 (b). This time the focus is on a particular sub-group of non-imperative utterances. These two uses of the term “indirectness” define “directness” as an “either/or” quality of utterances. Imperatives are direct, other forms are indirect – interrogatives and declaratives in the first definition; and just interrogatives in the second. Directness is also discussed as a gradeable quality of utterances. Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), for instance, relate levels of politeness to degrees of directness. Under this approach, the utterances in Example 4.1 would be understood to be listed according to directness, with (a) being the most direct and (d) being the most indirect. Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) would therefore, categorise (a) as the least polite and (d) as the most polite. This conclusion, however, regarding the relationship between directness and politeness, has been called into question by the findings of some researchers. Blum-Kulka (1987) for instance, asked informants to rate utterances such as those in Example 4.1 on both politeness and directness scales. The informants in this study ranked the sentences differently accord-

Analysis of control act head acts

ing to the two different scales. Conventionally indirect utterances such as (b) were rated as more direct than other indirect utterances such as (d), but they were also rated as being more polite. Blum-Kulka (1989: 37) concluded that “conventional indirectness differs from other types of directness”. Steffen and Eagly (1985) also explored perceptions of different forms. They tested a number of sentences which they categorised as being direct. This included utterances such as Example 4.1 (c) above. Within this utterance the verb required and the agent of the verb are stated, even though they are embedded and the utterance is not an imperative. This is a different definition of “directness”. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b) and the researchers involved in the CCSARP have a similar definition, although they perceive this as a gradeable quality (as with Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) versions of directness). The categories in their classification system are defined in terms of the “directness” of the proposition i.e., “the degree to which the speaker’s illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution” (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 278). I found that the type of “directness” referred to by both Steffen and Eagly (1985) and the CCSARP had important implications when developing a categorisation system for head acts. In order to differentiate this from the other types and uses of the term “directness”, I adopt the term “explicitness”. All head acts in my data are categorised as either “explicit” or “implicit” depending on whether the agent and the action required are stated or not. In some ways what I am trying to capture with the label “implicit” is recognised in the “hints” category that many researchers identify (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976; Holmes 1983; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984). This is generally listed alongside other categories which are determined on a primarily formal rather than a content basis. I found it more helpful with the data that I have to separate these examples out first. The application of the concept of “explicitness” allows me to do this. Example 4.1 (a) is a clear example where the action is explicitly stated. Example 4.1 (b) and (c) are also explicit. The action is embedded within other phrases, but is still clearly stated and can be easily retrieved from the head act. I have drawn a distinction therefore, between (c) and (d), whereas other researchers would draw the line between (a) and (b) (see e.g., Clyne 1994). Other researchers have referred to explicitness in a similar way, for example, Ervin-Tripp (1976: 45–48). Although her use of the term “explicitness” is similar to mine, Ervin-Tripp categorises her head acts by form first and then tries to apply the concept of explicitness to this categorisation. Explicitness does not, unsurprisingly, neatly map onto her categories, although this is due in part





Chapter 4

to her inclusion of content as well as formal properties into her categorisation system. “Explicitness” has sometimes been used as a synonym for “directness” (e.g., Clyne 1994: 63). Other researchers perceive differences between the two concepts. Bellinger and Gleason (1982) distinguish between indirect and implicit directives (as noted above) so it is clear that they do not perceive these terms as synonyms. Each of the head acts in my dataset is categorised as being either explicit or implicit. However, it is not always clear how some utterances should be coded on this factor. For example, there are some cases where the agent and verb are stated but the full complement to the verb is not. I decided to still code these examples as explicit because the action and agent are still stated. This approach, however, presents a potential problem for imperative utterances. The agent is not always overt in imperatives. In fact, the norm is for it not to be stated. However, the imperative form is one where the subject is understood to be “you”. This is the conventional understanding of the imperative form. It can be argued, therefore, that the presence of a stated agent in an imperative is the marked case. The unmarked case includes an understood agent – “you”. This is not peculiar to a particular context or reliant on insider knowledge. The use of a base form imperative is therefore categorised as explicit. Another small group of examples in my dataset have the agent and possibly a modal auxiliary, but the main verb is either not stated or is replaced by “do” (Example 4.2). Example 4.2: a. so you need to do it [dSB3-04] b. if we can do that [dRI9-03] c. I think you’re gonna need to do this [dSC1-01b] d. so can you [dSC1-01c]

Example 4.2 (a), (b) and (c) contain “do” in place of the main verb. Example 4.2 (d) has a modal verb, but the main verb is missing. In each of these cases it is clear from the surrounding utterances what the required action is. Example 4.2 (c) and (d) are interesting because they are the second and third head acts of the same directive. In this case the action was explicitly stated in the first head act: “you’re supposed to be making an appointment” [dSC1-01a]. Although the action is not directly stated in the head act therefore, it is explicit within the directive sequence in each case and is referenced in the head act. These examples have therefore been categorised as explicit.

Analysis of control act head acts

The main focus here has been on the presence or absence of an overt agent and of the verb stating the action required. There were some similar examples where the agent and verb are missing but the object is stated. Example 4.3: a. what percentage rating would you give this proposal (6) in terms of its + ability to satisfy the criteria [aKM1-05a] b. please score your proposal according to how well it fits the criteria [aKM105b]

The examples that fall into this group can be understood to have the complement of the verb present but lack an overt agent and an overt verb. The action required in Example 4.3 (a) and (b) is not found in the surrounding utterances although it can be deduced from the context. Katie is giving Mary advice about the wording of a document and so in each case she means “put” or “write” this. These examples were categorised as implicit. The difference between “indirect” meaning non-imperative, and “implicit” is evident in Example 4.3 (b). This example takes the form of an imperative. The verb, however, does not specify the action required of the hearer. Part of the reason, therefore, why the concept of explicitness is so useful is because it can be distinguished from “directness”. Another example of this can be seen in Example 4.1 (b). Example 4.1 (b) is categorised as explicit. Although phrased as a question, the agent and verb required are stated. It is also “conventionally indirect” because the literal interpretation is that it asks about the ability of the hearer to complete an action. An explicit head act may, therefore, be indirect. There are also implicit head acts which are quite “direct” when “directness” is equated with the force of an utterance. In Example 4.4, the head act is implicit: the action required on the part of the hearer is not stated. Example 4.4: a. I need a um master sheet er what do you call them [laughs] you know a template [dSB1-09]

In the context in which my data was collected, Example 4.4 (a) is a fairly forceful way of indicating that the hearer must do something. Ervin-Tripp (1976: 29) notes that directives expressed as need statements are among the most forceful: “what is wanted is as baldly stated as in an imperative”. This discussion has shown that “directness” is used in a range of ways to mean a range of related things. A useful distinction can therefore be made between explicitness and directness. I do not use “directness” as a synonym for “explicitness”. The use of the explicit/implicit distinction allows conventionally





Chapter 4

indirect control acts to be distinguished from other indirect utterances. The two types of indirectness have important differences which can be captured by utilisation of the concept of explicitness. “Conventionally indirect utterances” can be referred to as “explicit” and “indirect”, while the type of “indirectness” evident in the other type is better captured by the label “implicit”. I recognise only two values in terms of explicitness. Those head acts categorised as explicit, have the action stated. It may be embedded, but is still stated. It must also be clear who the agent of the action is. With imperatives you is understood as the agent of the verb. With declaratives and interrogatives, you must be stated, either through direct use of you or implied within we. One aspect that Ervin-Tripp (1976: 47–48) discusses in relation to explicitness is pronoun use. She identifies the use of we instead of you as a difference in explicitness. Variation between we and you may indicate different levels of explicitness, but you can be understood as part of we so I still categorise examples containing we as explicit. Variation in the use of the pronouns we and you is discussed in the internal modifying devices section of Chapter 5, along with consideration of the different meanings of we. The use of different pronouns was one factor, however, which led me to distinguish between explicit and implicit control acts in my categorisation of head acts. The use of a different pronoun can place two otherwise similar utterances in different categories. For example, Example 4.5 (a) and (b) are both implicit directives, while (c) and (d) are explicit. Example 4.5 (a) was categorised as implicit because in saying this Sonia was indicating to Hilary that the thing she had just given her to check had to be checked in a hurry. Example 4.5 (b) can be interpreted in a similar way. In Example 4.5 (c) and (d), however, the directives are explicit, with the required action clearly stated. Example 4.5: a. now I need to get that up to them today [dSH1-03] b. we want to get this up to [place] fairly soon after today’s meeting [dSE1-08] c. you need to just check the travel booking [dSB1-17] d. we need to add in a column or something [dRI9-01]

Differentiating between implicit and explicit directives has important implications when discussing the force of directive head acts (see Section 4.5). If this distinction is not recognised, the utterances in Example 4.5 would all be categorised as declaratives. Example 4.5 (a), (c) and (d) would all be placed in the same declarative sub-group (see Section 4.3.3) and categorised as having the same form. Example 4.5 (b) would be placed in another sub-group in order to account for the use of want to rather than need to, but would be ranked

Analysis of control act head acts

as showing a similar level of forcefulness. Categorisation by form in this way would disguise something very important about force. Example 4.5 (c) and (d) are the most forceful. The action stated within the utterance is the one that must be completed by the addressee. In Example 4.5 (a) and (b), the focus is turned away from the addressee’s action. Implied in these utterances, however, is the fact that Hilary, Example 4.5 (a), and Eloise, Example 4.5 (b), must do another action within a certain timeframe. Both Example 4.5 (a) and (b) provide a reason for the implied action, but do not state the action. The intended meaning can be retrieved by looking at the preceding discussion. We could separate the examples above according to the pronoun used. This would explain some of the differences – Example 4.5 (a) would be placed in a separate category to (c) and the differences could be explained in terms of differing pronoun use. This kind of categorisation, however, would place (b) and (d) together. Although these two utterances have the same pronoun and a similar form, there is a more fundamental and important difference between them. As noted above, (d) states the action required, while (b) does not. The explicitness with which the required action is expressed is an important factor when categorising head acts. Table 4.2 shows the number and percentage of the control act head acts of each type according to explicitness. The majority of the control act head acts in my dataset are explicit – 63% have the action required stated within the utterance. The number of explicit head acts is not consistent, however, across the different types of control act. Directives are expressed explicitly more often than the other two types, with 71% of directive head acts being explicit. Request head acts show the opposite pattern; they are mostly implicit (67%). The patterns observed for directives and requests complement each other. Advice head acts show a greater balance in the way they are expressed; approximately half are explicit and half implicit. The workplace context is one where it is important to understand what is required. The failure of a directive in particular to be followed through can have consequences at an organisational level. This may account for the high number Table 4.2 Number and percentage of explicit and implicit control act head acts Head acts

No. of explicit head acts

No. of implicit head acts

Directive Request Advice

226 20 30

(71%) (33%) (51%)

93 41 29

(29%) (67%) (49%)

319 61 59

Total

276

(63%)

163

(37%)

439

Total





Chapter 4

of explicit head acts. This context also involves a situation where people are being asked to complete actions which fall within their job obligations. A great degree of imposition is not generally present, so there is no corresponding need to go “off-record” in making a control act. The power relations that exist between the individuals are evident in the results, due of course to the way I define “directive” and “request”. Directives are issued by Managers to lower-level staff, while requests occur between equals and from subordinates to superiors. Directives are expressed explicitly much more frequently than requests. Equals and subordinates therefore, are much more likely to go “off-record” in making their control acts and use implicit head acts. Chapters 6, 7 and 9 explore the effects of status on control act realisation.

. Categorisation of explicit head acts Having identified two separate groups of head acts in terms of explicitness, I now explore the forms present in the explicit control act head acts. I draw on the categorisation system of a number of researchers to supplement a basic three-way categorisation and also expand and modify it on the basis of my data. Examples are drawn from the dataset to illustrate each category. A summary of my categorisation for explicit control act head acts is provided in Section 4.3.4. .. Imperatives

Basic results The use of imperatives is identified in most directive and request categorisation systems (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976; Holmes 1983). As noted in Section 3.1.1, it is often considered to be the unmarked form for directives and requests. The most direct strategy identified by researchers working on the CCSARP is labelled “mood-derivable”, i.e., “the grammatical mood of the locution conventionally determines its illocutionary force as a Request” (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 278). The prototypical form which is used in this case is the imperative. Table 4.3 gives the number and percentage of the explicit control act head acts which take the form of an imperative. Overall, 38% of the explicit control act head acts are imperatives. Directives and advice show similar proportions of imperatives, 38% and 40% respectively, while the percentage of requests expressed in this way is lower at 30%. Given the status of the individuals involved in each case, this result is not surprising.

Analysis of control act head acts

Table 4.3 Number and percentage of explicit imperative control acts Control acts Directive Request Advice Total

No. of explicit imperative head acts

Total No. of explicit head acts

87 6 12

(38%) (30%) (40%)

226 20 30

105

(38%)

276

Studies have suggested that more powerful people use more direct forms (e.g., Baxter 1984). Many researchers have found that the imperative is the most frequent form in their data (e.g., Holmes 1983: 98; Weigel and Weigel 1985: 73; Brown 2000: 70). This is largely a reflection of the context in which their data was collected and the roles of the participants involved. Holmes, for example, was examining the directives of teachers to primary students.

Sub-forms of the imperative Having identified the imperative forms present in their data, researchers have frequently then divided these into a number of sub-forms (e.g., Holmes 1983). Huntley (1984: 104) notes, “while the most distinctive imperatives also lack an overt subject, imperatives can contain subjects, in particular second person and certain quantified third person subjects”. The sub-forms of the imperative identified in the explicit control act head acts in my data are outlined below. i. Base form of verb The first and most prevalent sub-form present in my data was the base form of the verb. No overt subject is present. There were examples of this form for all three types of control act. An example for each type of control act is provided in Example 4.6. Example 4.6: a. leave out the surname [dRI11-01] b. say that again [rMK1-02] c. keep it in that general area [aFJ1-06]

ii. You + imperative The second variant identified contains an overt second person subject.





Chapter 4

Example 4.7: a. you check on email [dSG1-29] b. you come round and see me [rKU3-04]

iii. Let’s + imperative The third variant of imperatives that I have distinguished in my data involves “let’s + imperative”. Example 4.8: a. (let’s) get that one done [dSH1-12]

iv. Embedded The final variant of the imperative involved the embedding of an “if ” clause into an imperative. There are only two head acts which take this form. They are both head acts of the same directive. Example 4.9: a. see if you can ring her first [dSA1-09a] b. see if you can get hold of her first [dSA1-09b]

These two head acts were separated out because the verb specifying the action required does not take the form of an imperative. These embedded examples, therefore, are much less forceful than examples where the action specifying verb is an imperative. Garvey (1975) identified some examples of this type in her data and labelled them “indirect requests” because of the embedding.

Summary and results for imperative sub-forms Four variants of the imperative were identified in the explicit head act data. The number and percentage of each sub-form for each type of control act are presented in Table 4.4. Most of the imperatives are base form imperatives (85%). All of the 12 explicit imperative advice head acts take this form. There is more variation of form within the explicit imperative request and directive head acts. The reTable 4.4 Number of explicit imperative control act head acts by sub-form Control act

Base form

You + imp

Let’s

Embedded

Total no.

Directive Request Advice

73 4 12

(84%) (67%) (100%)

6 2 0

6 0 0

2 0 0

87 6 12

Total

89

(85%)

8

6

2

105

Analysis of control act head acts

quests in particular showed less bias towards the use of the base form, although there are so few examples that this result must be treated with caution. A high percentage of now control acts are imperatives. For example, 35 of the directives are now directives and 16 of these (46%) are imperatives. Of the 284 later directives only 71 are imperatives (25%). This finding may account for the large proportion of imperatives found in other studies. Holmes (1983), Weigel and Weigel (1985) and Brown (2000) all found a high percentage of imperatives (see above). Their data all come from situations where there is likely to be a preponderance of now directives – a classroom, an agricultural workplace, and a factory respectively. The 73 base form examples found in the directive data include four which take another form not distinguished above. This involved the addition of a modifier after the imperative. This is a further variant of the imperative which has been identified by other researchers. Ervin-Tripp (1976: 31) noted a range of post-posed forms – please, address forms, modal tags, okay – and Holmes (1983: 101) found examples using please and address forms. These types of modifiers can be added to a range of forms so I did not separate them out at this stage. The modifiers of this type which are found in my data are discussed in Chapter 5. Both base form imperatives and imperatives with an overt second person agent are very forceful forms. It is noted that embedded imperatives are less forceful because the action specifying verb is not expressed as an imperative (see above). “Let’s” imperatives are also less forceful. They are more commonly associated with suggesting rather than directing control acts (Searle 1975: 61– 62). The use of “let’s” softens these imperatives because the first person plural pronoun “us” is included within this form (Brown and Levinson 1987: 127). Pronoun use as a softening device is discussed in Chapter 5. Embedded and “let’s” imperatives account for only eight of the 105 imperatives (7%). The first three variants of the imperative identified in my data are noted in Quirk et al.’s (1985: 830) summary of imperative forms. Another variant identified by a number of researchers of control acts is verb-ellipsis (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976; Holmes 1983; Pufahl Bax 1986). There are a number of examples in my data of verbless utterances. I classified these as implicit as the action required is not stated. In these cases the action is retrievable from the context. Pufahl Bax (1986: 684) notes that Ervin-Tripp (1976) includes statements such as “here, you can run these in the book” in her imperative category. Pufahl Bax (1986) prefers to call these “state-preparatory” directives after House and Kasper (1981). I would not place this example in the imperative category for a more fundamental reason. The addition of “can” means that the utter-





Chapter 4

ance is a declarative rather than an imperative (Huntley 1984: 104). Looking at the full example from which “here, you can run these in the book” was taken (and which prompted Pufahl Bax 1986 to make her distinction) it is not clear that Ervin-Tripp (1976: 30) was categorising this utterance as an imperative. The following utterance is “You want to put these under Westcan”. It may have been this utterance which was seen as “imperative”. Again, however, this is an utterance which I would classify as declarative (see Section 4.3.3). .. Interrogatives

Basic results A second major formal category is interrogatives. Table 4.5 shows the number of interrogatives present in the explicit control act head acts within my data. Very few of the control act head acts are expressed as interrogatives (12%). The percentage of requests realised as interrogatives, however, is much higher than the percentage for the other two types of control act. Brown (2000: 98) also found that interrogatives were not used frequently in his factory data (only 17%). Sub-forms of the interrogative Holmes (1983) divided interrogatives into two groups on the basis of whether modals were used or not. Ervin-Tripp (1976) also identified several interrogative sub-forms and divided these into three categories. Her distinctions between the categories are not, however, solely based on form. In the system developed by the CCSARP the use of an interrogative form is the unmarked type in their “preparatory” category. It does, however, occur as a “marked” variant in other categories and is then coded as a syntactic downgrader (BlumKulka et al. 1989a: 281). The low number of explicit interrogative head acts in my data means that there is little point in dividing them into a large number of sub-forms. I therefore, distinguished two groups: modal and non-modal. Table 4.5 Number and percentage of explicit interrogative control acts Interrogative control acts

No. of explicit interrogative control acts

Total no. of explicit head acts

Directive Request Advice

25 6 1

(11%) (30%) (3%)

226 20 30

Total

32

(12%)

276

Analysis of control act head acts

i. Modal interrogatives The explicit modal interrogative head acts take the form “modal + you + verb”. Example 4.10: a. can you just write that up a bit neater [dRI5-02] b. can you please make sure that the room is booked for the whole day [dSA1-18] c. can you come back to me [rJF1-03]

ii. Non-Modal Interrogatives All other questions are included in the non-modal interrogative category. The one interrogative advice head act takes this sub-form – Example 4.11 (c). Example 4.11: a. what about if you just (sayed) um the m- the [position title at the ministry] is now [person’s name] # could you please amend your records accordingly [dRI1-01] b. but do you think you could um use your in- incredible skill to see if you can find a way of getting into that [dSB3-03] c. why don’t we keep it fairly general at this stage [aFJ1-01]

Summary and results for sub-forms of the interrogative Table 4.6 presents the results for the explicit control act head acts realised as interrogatives according to sub-form. The majority of the explicit interrogative head acts are modal interrogatives (78%). This pattern is evident for both directives and requests. There was only one interrogative advice head act identified. This is non-modal. Studies which have examined people’s perceptions of interrogative forms when these are functioning as requests have found that non-modal interrogatives are generally rated as more forceful than modal interrogatives. The informants in Fraser and Nolen’s (1981: 101) study, for instance, rated “why don’t you do that?” and “how about doing that?” as less deferent than “will you do that?”. This result must be treated with caution, however, because the utterances were rated out of context. As Thomas (1995: 156–157) notes, studTable 4.6 Number of explicit interrogative control acts by sub-form Control acts

No. of Modal

Directive Request Advice

20 5 0

Total

25

(78%)

No. of non-modal

Total no. of explicit interrogative head acts

5 1 1

25 6 1

7

32





Chapter 4

ies of this kind, in denying the importance of context, ignore a vital aspect to understanding the way language is used. .. Declaratives

Basic Results The remainder of the explicit control act head acts were declaratives. Table 4.7 presents the overall number and percentage of the different control acts which were declarative. Half of the explicit control act head acts are declarative. Over half of the advice head acts take this form, while only 40% of the request head acts are declarative. Fifty percent of the explicit directive head acts are declarative. Brown (2000: 90) found a much lower proportion of the head acts in his data were declaratives (only 25%). Sub-forms of the declarative Declaratives have also been divided up into various sub-forms by researchers. Holmes (1983) divided her declarative directives into two categories, noting that these correspond with Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) “need statements” and “hints” categories. The first of these Holmes (1983) labelled “embedded agent” and she included in this category examples where the directive is introduced by “I wonder” or “I think”. This makes her “embedded agent” category broader than Ervin-Tripp’s “need statements” category, which was limited to “need” and “want” statements. Jones (1992: 434) identified an “appeals to necessity” category, “containing words like need to, have to, should and ought” and a “preference expressions” category containing utterances which use verbs such as want to. The terminology here shows that a clear distinction is not always maintained between formal properties in terms of structure and semantic features of the verb. At a structural level I distinguish between modal declaratives, marginal auxiliary declaratives, conditionals, simple declaratives and embedTable 4.7 Number and percentage of explicit declarative control acts Control act

No. of explicit declarative control acts

Total no. of explicit head acts

Directive Request Advice

114 8 17

(50%) (40%) (57%)

226 20 30

Total

139

(50%)

276

Analysis of control act head acts

ded declaratives. Jones’ (1992) “appeals to necessity” category is divided between my modal and marginal auxiliary categories.

i. Modal declaratives My categorisation of explicit head acts is first and foremost a formal one. The first declarative category that I distinguish therefore, is modal declaratives. The form of these is “pronoun + modal + main verb”. The choice of particular modal verbs is discussed in Section 5.1.3. Example 4.12: a. you can go through this way [dSA3-02] b. you can say that I’m going to send them an example [rGS1-03] c. you can then prepare a resume and list them in order of their percentage scores [aKM1-07]

ii. Marginal-auxiliary declaratives The second declarative category which I distinguished in the explicit declarative head acts involves the use of what are referred to as marginal-auxiliary verbs (Biber et al. 1999: 484). I have distinguished these as a separate sub-form because they occur frequently in my data. Quirk et al. (1985: 236) note that many marginal auxiliaries “are modal in their semantic function”. I discuss this aspect of these verbs in Section 5.1.3. It is also important to consider these separately from modal declaratives because an extra level of embedding can be recognised. Example 4.13: a. you need to just check the travel booking [dSB1-17] b. we need to add in a column or something [dRI9-01]

Example 4.13 (b) shows the use of a different pronoun. Pronoun use is one of the devices that Jones (1992) notes can be used to modify the force of a directive. Modification devices are discussed in Chapter 5. Pronoun use is also relevant to categorisation, however. The use of I or it instead of you or we puts the focus on the speaker or an object and therefore can determine whether something is implicit or explicit (see Section 4.2.2).

iii. If clauses (Conditionals) There are a number of examples in my data which take a variant of the form “if you + modal + verb + it would be good”. In Example 4.14 (b) the “it would be good” comes first. In Example 4.14 (c) and (d) the “it would be good” is not stated. On the surface therefore, (c) and (d) are incomplete.





Chapter 4

Example 4.14: a. and if you can just later today have a check through that that would be good [dSE1-12] b. it would be good if you could think about that [dRJ1-02b] c. if you could follow up with Kevin [dRK2-01b] d. if you could put a file mate- file note on it + file number [dSB2-10]

There are also some examples which have a similar form, except without a modal verb. None of the examples like this have “would be good” stated, but, once again, these could be understood as an abbreviation of “if you + verb + that would be good”. Example 4.15: a. if you just write on it the file number er what you’ve coded it to [dSD1-04]

In all of these examples the action specifying verb is embedded into an “if clause”. The matrix clause in each case would consist of “it would be good”. Alternatively, if could be regarded as a control act marker in spoken English, or even as a “politeness” marker in the way that please is interpreted (see Chapter 5). “Incomplete” utterances such as Example 4.14 (c) and (d) are more frequent than utterances which include a phrase such as “it would be good” and are more normal in spoken English. Only seven of the 22 directive head acts taking this form contained a qualifying utterance. Chris Lane (personal communication) notes that identifying if as a control act marker would parallel a number of languages (e.g., Samoan) in which the item usually glossed if can appear in a main clause and marks the clause as interrogative.

iv. Simple declaratives The simple declaratives category includes utterances which have one main verb phrase. This may or may not include the auxiliaries have and be. Example 4.16: a. you’re talking to Mary [dSE1-06b] b. we put + that in with each set of paper [dSA1-17b]

v. Embedded declaratives The last declarative category that I identified in the explicit head act data is “embedded declaratives”. This category contains the remaining utterances – where the action is embedded into a phrase such as “I wonder if ”, etc. There are a range of phrases in this group. I had originally identified a group of utterances prefaced by “I think” and categorised them separately. I think, however, is

Analysis of control act head acts

Table 4.8 Number of explicit declarative control acts by sub-form Control act Directive Request Advice Total

Modal

Marginal aux.

If clause

Simple

41 2 11

29 1 2

22 5 2

10 0 0

12 0 2

114 8 17

54 (39%)

32 (23%)

29 (21%)

10 (7%)

14 (10%)

139

Embedded

Total

a pragmatic particle. It is movable and can have a range of forms coming after it. I therefore, discuss I think as a modifier in Chapter 5. Example 4.17: a. I need to get you to um sign off a consent slip too [dSA1-01] b. I just thought I wanted to you to have a quick read over what I’ve done here [dSH1-02] c. and I wondered if you wouldn’t mind spending some of that time in contacting + while no one else is around contacting the people for their interviews and setting up the appointment times for their interviews [dSA1-02]

Example 4.17 (a) is not a marginal auxiliary declarative because the focus in the clause containing need to is an action of Sonia’s (the speaker). What Sonia wants Anna to do in this case – “sign off a consent slip” – is embedded at a lower level. It is still stated, along with a clear indication that Anna is the proposed agent.

Summary and results for sub-forms of the declarative Table 4.8 summarises the sub-forms differentiated in the explicit declarative head acts. The majority of the declaratives are modal declaratives. Declaratives containing marginal auxiliaries and “if clauses” are also frequent (23% and 21% of the overall head acts respectively). Most of the directive and advice head acts are modal declaratives, whereas declarative request head acts are more frequently conditionals. The declaratives can also be ranked in a general way according to the forcefulness of different sub-forms. Simple declaratives can be quite direct as there is no modification of the action specifying verb. The use of a modal verb or a marginal auxiliary can soften the control act. This does of course vary with the particular modal verb or marginal auxiliary used (see Section 5.1.3). In conditional and embedded declaratives the clause containing the action specifying verb is more deeply embedded. The use of these sub-forms of the declarative





Chapter 4

Table 4.9 Number of explicit control acts by basic form Control act

Imperative

Directive Request Advice Total

Interrogative

Declarative

Total

87 6 12

25 6 1

114 8 17

226 20 30

105

32

139

276

Table 4.10 Summary of categorisation of explicit control act head acts and results Basic form

Sub-form

Imperatives

i. ii. iii. iv.

Interrogatives Declaratives

Total

Directive

Request

Advice

Total

base form of verb you + imp let’s embedded

73 6 6 2

4 2 0 0

12 0 0 0

89 8 6 2

i. ii.

modal non-modal

20 5

5 1

0 1

25 7

i. ii. iii. iv. v.

modal marginal aux conditional simple embedded

41 29 22 10 12

2 1 5 0 0

11 2 2 0 2

54 32 29 10 14

226

20

30

276

therefore, results in less forceful control acts. Once again, these generalisations must be treated with caution (see Thomas 1995: 156–157). .. Summary of explicit head act categorisation Table 4.9 summarises the overall results for the control acts by the three main forms. Overall, the explicit control acts were more frequently expressed as declaratives than as imperatives or interrogatives. Interrogatives accounted for only 12% of the explicit control acts. The majority of the directive and advice explicit head acts were declaratives. Requests, on the other hand, were expressed as interrogatives almost as often as they were expressed as imperatives or declaratives. Table 4.10 gives the overall categorisation of the control act head acts according to the sub-forms identified. This provides a summary of the figures presented in Tables 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8. Eleven sub-categories have been identified within the broad three-way categorisation of the explicit head acts on the basis

Analysis of control act head acts

of form. There are four variants of the imperative – the first of the three basic forms identified. Interrogatives are divided into two sub-form categories, while declaratives are divided into five. The single most common sub-form found in the data involves the simple imperative. Eighty-nine of the 276 explicit head acts are expressed as base form imperatives (32%). The next most frequent form in the explicit head acts involves the use of modal declaratives (20%). Declaratives with marginal auxiliaries and expressed as conditionals are also reasonably frequent (12% and 11% respectively), as are modal interrogatives (9%). The use of an imperative is considered to be the most direct and most forceful form when issuing a control act, while interrogatives are the least direct and least forceful (Mohan 1974 – cited in Perkins 1983: 124; Leech 1983: 108). Having separated out the explicit head acts from the implicit ones, this generalisation is typically true of the explicit head acts in the context in which my data was collected. There are some caveats, however. “Let’s” and embedded imperatives are less direct than base form and overt agent imperatives. Some declarative and interrogative sub-forms are also less forceful than others. In particular, embedded declaratives and conditional declaratives are less direct than the other declarative sub-forms, while modal interrogatives are generally less forceful than non-modal interrogatives. Some other factors which affect “forcefulness” are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6.

. Categorisation of implicit head acts A strict formal categorisation of the implicit head acts is not useful because it does not allow comparisons according to forcefulness. Most researchers who have identified a “hints” category, see this as a sub-group within their declarative head acts (e.g., Holmes 1983). Sometimes this category is divided further. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) had two types of hints – strong and weak. Pearson (1989: 296) also identified a number of different types of hints. Many of these would be classified as explicit in my system as the agent and action are embedded, but still stated. Using data from the CCSARP, Weizman (1989) provides the most detailed account of hints. A number of hint sub-strategies are identified, including “questioning feasibility” and “stating potential grounders” (Weizman 1989: 85– 86). I initially expected these categories would be useful. However, very few of





Chapter 4

the implicit control act head acts were questions, ruling out the first of these as a useful organising category. Grounders can take a range of forms (see Section 5.2), so I found it more useful with the implicit head acts to explore specific features of the content. The most important question with implicit head acts is how much effort is required to retrieve the meaning in each case. My categorisation, therefore, considers what is expressed since the agent and the action are not. .. Partial/incomplete/abbreviated action A number of examples discussed in Section 4.2.2 had components of an otherwise explicit head act. If the agent and the verb specifying the action were stated these were categorised as explicit. With imperatives, the understood agent is the hearer, so although the agent was frequently not stated, these were still categorised as explicit. There were a number of other examples where only some of the components were present.

i. No Agent A small group of utterances had no stated agent, but were not expressed as imperatives. Example 4.18: a. just to remind them [dSF1-03b] b. so just to emphasise to them that they’re gotta do their stuff by that time and they’ve gotta do it well cos otherwise they’re gonna hold up the whole boat [rGS1-05b] c. don’t need to do a very long note [dRK2-04a]

These utterances could be categorised as explicit, but it is not clear who will undertake the action specified. In Example 4.18 (a) and (b), the absent part could be filled by “you need”, while in (c) only “you” is missing. Informal English is one of the few places where pro-drop occurs in English (Haegeman 1990) and this is what is occurring in these utterances. In Example 4.18 (a) and (b) a marginal auxiliary such as “need to” may also be partially dropped, as evidenced by the retention of “to” in (a) and (b).

ii. No Agent or Action There were a number of control acts where the object of the action specifying verb is stated, but the verb and subject are not.

Analysis of control act head acts

Example 4.19: a. just this bit here [dRJ3-01] meaning change/rewrite just this bit here b. tomorrow morning [rVJ1-06b] meaning give it back to me by tomorrow morning c. she won’t be a few minutes [dSI1-02a] meaning tell her she won’t be a few minutes d. please score your proposal according to how well it fits the criteria [aKM105b] meaning write/put please score your proposal according to how well it fits the criteria e. take it to somebody else before it comes to you [aSG1-02a] meaning tell her to take it to somebody else before it comes to you f. that they should be prepared to talk about what they’re currently doing + [slowly]: and what: [drawls]: er: this sort of project work that we’re we’re working on over the next six months current work # next six months and again KEY bullet points this is short crunchy don’t drag it out [dSF1-04] meaning tell them that they . . .

Example 4.19 (a) and (b) do not contain verbs, while (c) to (f) involve subordinate clauses. Many researchers have identified utterances of this type in their control act data and follow Ervin-Tripp’s (1976: 30) categorisation of these as elliptical imperatives. This approach takes the imperative as the basic form of a control act. When a part of an utterance is absent, it is difficult to justify that a specific form is missing. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 279) note similar examples, referring to these as “elliptical sentence structures”. To understand these examples as imperatives is to associate them with a strongly expressed control act. The absence of any action-specifying verb makes it implicit, however, which means that it is not so strongly expressed. In each case the meaning is easily retrieved from the context. The speaker’s decision not to state the verb or agent is a strategy which can be seen to weaken the force considerably because it introduces ambiguity.

iii. Other Fragments Some head acts consist of other fragments. Example 4.20: a. about an hour [rSR2-03a] b. okay [dRM1-03b] c. yes please [dSE2-02]

In Example 4.20 (a), a time is specified. In specifying this time, Sonia is requesting that Ruth set aside an hour for a meeting with another person. She has just





Chapter 4

spent several minutes trying to talk Ruth into making time for the meeting. At this point, Sonia is asking Ruth to spare an hour for the meeting and reference to the time required is enough to let Ruth know what she wants. Example 4.20 (b) also occurs at the end of a negotiated sequence. At the beginning of the sequence, Ruth had asked Mary to talk to a particular person about an issue. Mary was not keen to do this, so there has been some discussion about why. Ruth has argued that Mary should still talk to the person. Example 4.20 (b) is the type of modifier that is sometimes used to soften a control act. In this example the control act has already been stated in detail earlier; Ruth does not need to state the details again. The use of the modifier on its own is enough to restate the directive. The final example noted, Example 4.20 (c), could be understood as the answer to an unstated question. This is a different type of fragment. The head act here could also be specified as just please. In this case it could be interpreted as the use of a modifier on its own. This example is discussed further in Section 5.1.2. .. Focus on others

i. Focus on beneficiary’s action or need A frequent strategy with control acts is to focus on the speaker’s need or action. In order for this need or action to be realised, however, another action is required of the hearer. Control acts of this type are quite strongly expressed, but by avoiding direct reference to the hearer’s action the face threat of the control act is minimised. Head acts of this sub-type imply that the hearer has to do something. This is understood by the context; the person being addressed in my workplace examples is the one whose job it is to complete the necessary action and they know this. Example 4.21: a. I’ll take those [dRI9-13] meaning give them to me b. also I’d quite like to hear about um what are some of the Australian initiatives [dRJ1-04] meaning tell me about the Australian initiatives c. so I can look at it look at it then okay [dRO1-01] meaning have it ready for me then d. now I need to get that up to them today [dSH1-03] meaning have it ready for me quick so I can send it off e. I need a um master sheet er what do you call them [laughs] you know a template [dSB1-09] meaning get me a template

Analysis of control act head acts

f.

can I have a copy . . . the copy of the accrual sheet that I sent in [dSC1-02] meaning get me a copy of the accrual sheet g. can I just have a talk about this this ministerial [dRN1-01] meaning talk to me about this/discuss this with me now

Many of these implicit head acts involve verbs which are antonyms, and more specifically “converse terms” (Crystal 1994: 84), of the required action specifying verb. The meaning can therefore be easily retrieved. A range of forms is evident here. Most are declarative, Example 4.21 (a) to (e), and they mainly involve the use of modal verbs – (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g). Example 4.21 (d) contains a marginal auxiliary. Example 4.21 (f) and (g) are both modal interrogatives. As noted in Chapter 3, part of Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975: 32) rule for modal directives requires that “the subject of the clause is also the addressee” and “the predicate describes an action which is physically possible at the time of the utterance”. Example 4.21 (f) and (g) fall outside this category because the subject of the clause is the speaker. This is similar to another type of modal interrogative identified by Ervin-Tripp (1976: 37). She calls these “permission directives”. There are also a number of examples which fall into this category which use we. Example 4.22: a. so we need a + taxi van [dSB3-06] meaning book a taxi van

These differ from examples such as Example 4.13 (b) and 4.16 (b), because the action required of the hearer is not stated. Instead, they are a statement of need.

ii. Focus on a third person’s (or group’s) needs or action There are also some similar examples which focus on the need or action of a third person. Example 4.23: a. so what I told her in the end was just to make sure she did one copy for the day file + and left everything else for you [dSB1-02a] b. I think she’s left you a list of instructions [dSB1-01] c. and she just wants some information about uptake + in student loans [dRJ4-01a]

In Example 4.23 (a) and (b), Sonia talks about things that “she” did, i.e., Anna. Implied in her account of what Anna did are actions which Beth must now do. Example 4.23 (a) indicates that Beth must make all the extra copies for the other files. Example 4.23 (b) indicates that Beth must find the list of instruc-





Chapter 4

tions Anna left and complete the tasks listed on it. In Example 4.23 (c), Ruth is assigning to Jo the job of passing on information on student loans to a third person.

iii. Focus on an object or item Rather than focusing on the speaker or the addressee there are a number of examples which focus on the object which needs to have something done to it. Again the meaning of these examples is understood because of the job obligations of the two participants. Example 4.24: a. that needs to be couriered up to [name] + today [dSB1-06] b. so it should have a g s t number on it [dSH1-09] c. the letter will be a covering note mainly about the contract w- and then secondly it’ll talk about the attached monograph + suggestions [dSE1-10b] d. it’s just a bit of a non sequitur there [aKJ1-04]

Very few of the head acts of this type state the action required, as in Example 4.24 (a). Here, Beth must “courier” the letter or package. The majority of examples are more like Example 4.24 (b) and (c). In these examples the final state of the object or item is noted. In each case the hearer must perform an unspecified but easily deduced action in order for this state to come about. In Example 4.24 (b), Hilary must write the GST number on the invoice. In Example 4.24 (c), Eloise must write the letter and include the information Sonia has outlined. Example 4.24 (d) is similar, but Katie notes the current state of something. Implied in this is the fact that something needs to be done to the object. There is a problem with the ordering of information in a letter, so Jo needs to reorganise the statements she has made so that it flows better. In each of these examples it is clear from the context that the addressee is the one who is responsible for making sure that the action required happens. Instead of saying “you need to . . . ” or “you should . . . ”, etc the focus has been shifted to the object needing to have an action done to it by the addressee.

iv. Focus on a need of the addressee The final category differentiated involved the speaker specifying a need of the addressee. Example 4.25: a. so you want four sets of four [rST1-04]

Analysis of control act head acts

In order for the need to be fulfilled, the addressee needs to complete the required action. .. Summary of implicit head act categorisation Table 4.11 summarises and provides the results for the implicit control act head acts. A two-way categorisation system was used for the implicit control act head acts. Seven sub-categories were identified within this. The most frequent subtype found involves reference to an action or need of the speaker’s (37%). This was particularly true for the requests; 59% of the implicit request head acts focused on a need or action of the speaker. Within the directive head act data, focus on an object was a frequent strategy. This was also a common strategy used in advice head acts, along with stating the direct object of an un-stated action specifying verb. Some generalisations can be made about the forcefulness, and the politeness of the implicit sub-types. References to the beneficiary’s need or an action of the beneficiary which demands an action from the hearer, have been categorised as quite forceful realisations of control acts (Ervin-Tripp 1976: 29). They still require cognitive effort on the part of the hearer to work out what is required, although it could be argued that many of these are “conventionalised” ways for expressing control acts. References to a third party wanting something were less forceful, followed by reference to an object or state (Brown and Levinson’s 1987:190 negative politeness strategy seven). The focus moves further and further from the two interactants in each of these cases. Many of these types of statements would be understood as supportive moves if an explicit head act were present. For example, all the utterances in Example 4.24, could be seen to support a more explicit head act. Table 4.11 Summary of categorisation of implicit control act head acts and results Sub-type

Directive

Request

Advice

Total

Partial head act

i. ii. iii.

no agent no agent or verb other fragment

7 12 3

3 1 4

2 10 0

12 23 7

Focus on other

i. ii. iii. iv.

beneficiary third party object agent’s need

33 7 31 0

24 2 4 3

4 1 11 1

61 10 46 4

93

41

29

163

Total





Chapter 4

The wording of the head act in an implicit way is also less forceful than most explicit head acts because it allows for a range of responses to be given without confrontation. For example, an addressee can indicate that they have already done something or that they can not do something. Head acts which involve fragments of what would otherwise be explicit head acts, are less forceful than explicit head acts. The deletion of agents and verbs specifying the action softens their force. They are, however, more forceful than “true” implicit head acts which have no direct reference to the task. Once again, these generalisations about forcefulness do not consider specific contextual factors and should, therefore, be treated with caution.

. Conclusion The head act categorisation system utilised in this study makes distinctions on the basis of whether the action required is explicitly stated or not. Explicit head acts are then categorised by form. Implicit head acts are categorised according to aspects of content. Having identified the range of sub-types present these can be ranked according to directness. With the explicit head acts, imperatives are generally the most forceful while interrogatives are the least forceful. Frequently the “forcefulness” of an utterance has been referred to as its “directness” and this has been equated with level of “politeness”. The use of different forms has been seen as a reflection of how polite the speaker wishes or needs to be. Trosborg (1994: 167) notes “a directive act can be realized through imperatives, interrogatives, declarative and verbless sentences, dependent on how polite the speaker wishes to express him/herself.” The equating of indirectness with politeness follows from the work of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) and Leech (1983). Blum-Kulka (1987) challenges Leech’s (1983) assertion that the more indirect an utterance is, the more polite it is. As noted in Section 4.2.2, Blum-Kulka (1987: 132) distinguishes between conventional indirectness and other types of indirectness. Once these other types of indirectness are separated out through application of the explicit/implicit distinction, it is seen that within the explicit head acts the generalisation can be made that imperatives are the most forceful way of expressing a control act, and interrogatives are the least forceful (see Section 4.3.4). The force of the implicit sub-types is also assessed (Section 4.4.3). This shows that references to the beneficiary’s need or an action of the beneficiary which demands an action from the hearer, are quite forceful realisations of

Analysis of control act head acts

control acts. They are also “conventional” to a large extent in the context in which the data was collected. References to a third party wanting something were less forceful, followed by reference to an object or state. The association of different levels of forcefulness with the focus on different aspects can be related to the notion of deixis (see Chapter 5). The implicit head acts are less “direct” than the explicit head acts because they require cognitive work on the part of the hearer to determine their meaning. This does not mean, however, that they are always less forceful and more polite. Blum-Kulka’s work has shown that this is not the case. The relationship of the implicit head act sub-types to the explicit head act sub-forms needs to be ascertained. Research has shown (e.g., Mohan 1974; cited in Perkins 1983; Blum-Kulka 1987) that conventionally indirect utterances, in the form of modal interrogatives, are generally considered more polite and less forceful than other indirect utterances. In terms of my categorisation, this means that explicit modal interrogatives are the least forceful and most polite way of expressing a control act. Implicit head acts would be ranked as the next polite and least forceful, followed by explicit declaratives and explicit imperatives. Other factors related to form, along with factors such as intonation and exact context, need to be considered of course when rating the forcefulness of a head act. Formal modification of force can be internal or external to the head act. In Section 5.1, formal features which are internal to the head act, but which modify the force of a control act are outlined. For example is please used, or other lexical weakeners, such as just. External features are discussed in Section 5.2. Both these types of devices may be used with a variety of forms.



Chapter 5

Modification of control act head acts

Jones (1992: 434) comments that syntactic form is an insufficient basis for judging the force of a directive. The context in which a directive is made; factors such as intonation, laughter and gestures and a variety of linguistic devices can all affect the force of a directive. Other researchers also outline a number of devices which can be used to modify the impact of an utterance (e.g., Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987; House and Kasper 1981: 166–170; Pufahl Bax 1986; Faerch and Kasper 1989; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a). Example 5.1 illustrates some of these. Example 5.1: a. well perhaps if we just tell them exactly where it where it is [dSA1-04]

Example 5.1 (a) contains well, perhaps and just. These all soften the directive. Very few, if any, of the control act head acts identified in my dataset occur in isolation without some kind of supportive move or modification. In this chapter, I outline some of the modification devices which were present in my data. Devices which are internal to the head act, as in Example 5.1, are discussed in Section 5.1. Head acts can also be modified by utterances surrounding them. Alerters and supportive moves are both external modification devices. The main types of external modification devices present in the data are outlined in Section 5.2.

. Internal modification There are a number of internal devices that can be used with a variety of forms in order to modify force. House and Kasper (1981: 166) refer to these devices as “modality markers”. Markers which tone down the impact are known as “downgraders”, while those which increase the impact are “upgraders”. “Downgraders” and “upgraders” can be syntactic or lexical/phrasal (House and Kasper 1987; Faerch and Kasper 1989; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 281–286). Because my categorisation of explicit control act head acts was based on form,



Chapter 5

many of the syntactic devices have already been distinguished, such as the use of an interrogative form (see Section 4.3.2). Form was not the basis of the implicit head act categorisation, however, so the use of the interrogative can be coded as an internal modification device. The discussion below does not discuss all possible modification devices. It focuses on a number of syntactic and lexical/phrasal devices to illustrate the range of devices present in the data. Very low frequency devices are not examined. .. Syntactic modification

Past tense The issue of tense is relevant to the interrogative and declarative categories in my categorisation. Trosborg (1994: 210) notes the use of the past tense to downtone a request. Her example involves the use of a modal verb in a modal interrogative and shows variation between can and could. I discuss modal verb choice in Section 5.1.3. In my data, the past tense was not used frequently in the control acts. There were some interesting examples, however, in relation to I think. Example 5.2: a. but I thought you might find that interesting to read that [aVJ1-01a] b. so I thought you might find it interesting to flick through that [aVJ1-01b] c. I think we have to come up with an outline of what it could be [rVJ1-02] d. now I just thought this here needed [laughs]: unpacking a bit: [aKJ1-01] e. well I think it would still help to say a little bit about about the (why) [aKJ1-05] f. I just thought I wanted to you to have a quick read over what I’ve done here [dSH1-02]

The utterances in Example 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) are uttered by Vera and are directed at Jo. Example 5.2 (a) and (b) are head acts of the same piece of advice. Example 5.2 (c) is associated with a request, which occurs at an earlier stage in the same interaction. Example 5.2 (d) and (e) also show a contrast between I think and I thought from the same speaker in the same interaction. Once again, these examples are advice head acts. The final example above, Example 5.2 (f), is a directive head act and comes from an interaction between Sonia and one of her senior staff, Hilary. The utterances in Example 5.2 show variation in the use of I think and I thought. I think is one of the modifiers discussed in Section 5.1.2. Not only do

Modification of control act head acts

Example 5.2 (a), (b) (d) and (f) include the hedge I think, but this is further softened by the use of the past tense form, I thought. The use of the past tense has been interpreted as softening an utterance because it distances the control act from the time of utterance. Randriamasimanana (1987) refers to this as “displacement”, while other researchers refer to the notion of “deixis” (e.g., Koike 1989). Based on Rauh (1983), Koike (1989: 201) suggests that “shifting the deictic centre of orientation may account for varying pragmatic effects such as the expression of degrees of politeness”. The moment of speaking is the deictic centre of "coding time" (Fillmore 1975). The greater the distance from the deictic centre, be it on temporal or personal dimensions, “the greater the degree of politeness and the lesser the degree of illocutionary force” (Koike 1989: 187). The use of the past tense is one way that a speaker can do this.

Negation Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 281), and the many researchers who follow their approach (e.g., Trosborg 1994: 210), note the use of negation to downtone a request. Negation does not often occur in my data, but there are a few occasions when a speaker uses this device. Example 5.3: a. don’t need to do a very long note [dRK2-04a]

Example 5.3 (a) is softer in comparison to its positive counterpart: “you need to do a short note”. The status of negation as a downtoner, however, has been disputed. Koike (1994) investigates negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests and her analysis shows that negation is not always used as a mitigating device; it may in fact have the opposite effect. In keeping with Koike’s (1994) interpretation of negation, studies which have asked native speakers to rate the politeness of different forms, have found that negative versions were rated as less polite than their positive counterparts. Fraser and Nolen (1981: 103), for instance, found that utterances with “positive modals” were judged “more deferent than the corresponding one with the negative modal”.

The use of modal verbs In my categorisation of explicit head acts by form, the presence of a modal auxiliary verb has been used to categorise some examples. Within the interrogative category two sub-forms were identified – modal and non-modal (see





Chapter 5

Section 4.3.2). Modal declaratives are one of the five main types of declaratives distinguished (see Section 4.3.3). The use of a modal also distinguishes between the utterances in Example 5.4 and 5.5 below. Example 5.4: a. check and see if Mary’s available [dSE1-07b] b. you check on email [dSG1-29] c. you stay [dSH2-03] d. in fact send it off today [dRI9-04] Example 5.5: a. you can check with her to see + [voc] whether she (did) get [dSB3-17] b. you can go through this way [dSA3-02] c. you could send it to [unit one] [dRL1-01a]

The utterances in Example 5.4 have been categorised as imperative whereas those in Example 5.5 are declarative because of the addition of the modal. Similar verbs and types of action are illustrated in the two sets. The presence or absence of modal verbs therefore is an aspect which is drawn on to categorise explicit head acts according to form. The exact modals being used however, have not been separated out up to this point. The choice of a specific modal is a lexical/semantic rather than a syntactic issue. It is also one aspect which is an important factor in the realisation of the control acts in my dataset. It is therefore, discussed separately in Section 5.1.3.

Summary of syntactic modification Past tense and negation were not often used to modify the force of the control act head acts. Interrogatives were also not in common use (see Chapter 4). Chapter 4 also illustrates a number of other ways that head acts were syntactically softened. These factors were accounted for in the formal categorisation of the explicit head acts (see Section 4.3.4 and Section 4.5). .. Lexical/phrasal modification

Pronoun use Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 278) investigate the perspective of the request, noting for each request whether there is hearer dominance (you), speaker dominance (I), speaker and hearer dominance (we) or whether they are impersonal. They analyse this aspect separately from other modifiers. Jones (1992: 435) notes

Modification of control act head acts

the use of first person plural pronouns instead of second person as a weakening device. Ervin-Tripp (1976) also refers to the use of “we- directives”, and many other researchers note the importance of the specific pronoun present in each case. The use of different pronouns was one factor which led me to distinguish between explicit and implicit control acts in my categorisation of head acts (see Section 4.2). The use of I rather than we or you was seen as part of the mechanism which marked an utterance as implicit because the focus was on the speaker and the action required of the addressee was not explicitly stated. The use of we or you, however, was not used as a basis for distinguishing examples in terms of explicitness where the action required was stated. As noted in Chapter 4, Ervin-Tripp (1976: 47–48) interprets utterances with we as implicit while those with you are explicit. The difference here would seem to be one of degree, however. Both are explicit, although of course you is more explicit than we. The choice of pronoun here affects the degree of explicitness, but the action is still explicit. The use of we instead of you therefore, is one device that can be used to soften a head act. This assumes a position whereby you is understood to be part of we. Example 5.6: a. you should ask [dSE1-14a] b. maybe we should ask that [dSE1-14b]

In Example 5.6 (a), you clearly marks who will complete the action stated. Example 5.6 (b) was uttered immediately after Example 5.6 (a). Not only has Sonia changed you to we at this stage, but she also softens the utterance with maybe. The use of we is interesting because it can have a range of meanings. Sometimes we very clearly means you, sometimes it means I, while at other times it means we in terms of the two of us here present. The speaker will also do the action stated. In these cases, we may soften the force of the control act because it shows that the speaker must do the proposed action as well. In the case of directives, it raises the addressee to the same position as the Manager. It signals that both participants are cooperating together as part of the organisation and the proposed action is something that everyone has to do. When what is meant by we is clearly just you then the selection of we can also be seen as a softening device, but this operates in a different way. In these cases, we again refers to the larger context of the organisation. However, in these situations it means we in the sense of the Policy Unit or we the organisation. In these cases the addressee is acting very much as a representative of the unit





Chapter 5

or the organisation. It must be clear that this is the meaning, otherwise there can be confusion and the action may not be done. For instance, if a Manager uses we but the action specified is not one which is the responsibility of the addressee then the utterance is not directive. Example 5.7: a. Sonia: we need to spend some more money [SB1:219]

“Spending money” is Sonia’s rather than Beth’s job responsibility. We here means I on behalf of the organisation. It does not mean you. A similar example is provided in Section 3.3.1 where Sonia used “let’s” when talking to Eloise, but it became clear later in the interaction that Sonia was taking responsibility for the action required. Sonia’s interaction with Eloise is interesting because she uses we a great deal throughout the interaction. Eloise is a Policy Analyst and Sonia’s use of this pronoun builds solidarity. Johnson (1994) notes a similar frequent use of we in the context of US-Mexican border discourse. She sees the use of this pronoun as building positive relationships. Ervin-Tripp (1976: 48) comments that we is only appropriate in directives when it is used downward in rank. There are a few cases in the explicit advice and request head acts where we is used by an equal. Example 5.8: a. I think we have to come up with an outline of what it could be [rVJ1-02] b. and then um we could contribute to the discussion that way [aFJ1-08]

Sometimes this is because the action required by the addressee also involves an action by the speaker, Example 5.8 (a). At other times, we is used because the addressee will be acting on behalf of the organisation, Example 5.8 (b).

Please The use of please as a softener in requests and directives has been discussed by a number of researchers, for example, Ervin-Tripp (1976), Jones (1992: 435) and House (1989). Please and bitte and their uses in English and German are the main focus of House’s paper. Please only occurred three times in the 439 control act head acts identified in my data. These are listed in Example 5.9. Example 5.9 (a) is a request head act, while (b) and (c) are directive head acts. There are no instances of please in the advice head acts. This is not surprising given that with advice the benefit of the action is to the hearer (see Section 2.4.3).

Modification of control act head acts

Example 5.9: a. if you can do that please [rCS1-01d] b. can you please make sure that the room is booked for the whole day [dSA1-18] c. yes please [dSE2-02]

The only time please occurs in a request, is from Clare to Sonia, Example 5.9 (a). It is interesting to note that this one occurrence in the request data is in a request from a non-native speaker of English. It also occurs between two people who do not often interact and there is a clear status difference. ErvinTripp (1976: 32) noted that “in settings where the normal directive is an imperative . . . please is available to mark rank or age differences”. The imperative is not used in Example 5.9 (a), but there is a difference in rank. As noted, lack of familiarity may also account for Clare’s use of please with Sonia. This factor may also explain the use of please in Example 5.9 (b). Sonia issues this head act to Anna. Anna is a temporary Executive Assistant, so the two are not used to interacting with each other. The last example of the use of please, Example 5.9 (c), is interesting because please constitutes half of the head act. Sonia’s utterance here looks like the answer to a question. There has been no verbal question, however. Sonia has seen Eloise outside her office with a piece of paper. Sonia assumes this is the letter Eloise was finishing and which Sonia was waiting for so that she could sign it and it could be sent out. Her utterance in Example 5.9 (c) is preceded by the utterance “is that the final Eloise” [dSE2-01] which has called Eloise into the office. Eloise explains what she is holding. Sonia then says “yes please” in reply to an unstated question from Eloise “do you want this?”. Sonia could just as easily have said “Give it here”. Eloise completes this action without an explicit head act from Sonia. There is one other occurrence of please in relation to directives. It occurs in a false start from Ruth to Irene: “can you please” [RI5:1]. The only other times that please occurs in the transcripts is where people are working out the wording of a request or directive which will be written, for example, in a letter being sent out. The infrequent use of please in my data can be accounted for by the workplace context in which my data was collected. The actions requested refer to the participants’ job obligations and are not outside the responsibilities of the addressee. Stross (1964) (cited in Ervin-Tripp 1976: 31) found that please was used by waitresses “when they asked cooks to perform services outside the cooks’ normal duties”. Also, the majority of my control acts were directives. According to my definition of a directive, a superior is asking a subordinate to



 Chapter 5

do something. This situation is one where please does not often occur (House 1989: 98; Green 1975: 120). Brown (2000: 131) also found please occurred infrequently in his factory data. There were only five instances in 259 directives.

Qualifiers and hedges Just Another device noted by Jones (1992: 435) is the use of “qualifiers or minimizers such as maybe, just, a little bit, and so on”. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 284) note the use of hedges and understaters as modifying devices. One qualifier in particular comes up frequently in my data: just. Example 5.10: a. we need to just also have another chat finalise chat with them [dSB3-12] b. just tell her to wait for her [dSI1-02b] c. can you just write that up a bit neater [dRI5-02] d. maybe just make it a bit more um warm and friendly [aKM2-02]

Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 131, 176–178) fourth negative politeness output strategy is “minimise the imposition”. Their examples include just, e.g., “I just dropped by for a minute to ask if you . . . ” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 177). They note that here just has both its literal meaning of “exactly”, “only”, which narrowly delimits the extent of the FTA, and its conventional implicature “merely”. The speaker uses just therefore to minimise the imposition on the addressee. Just conveys a restrictive meaning. Lee (1987) looks at just in doctor-patient interaction and identifies four meanings of just – depreciatory, restrictive, specificatory and emphatic. One type of example Lee found which illustrated the depreciatory meaning were directives (Lee 1987: 382–383). This meaning involves examples where “the speaker uses the particle to minimise the significance of some process” (Lee 1987: 378). In the imperative examples, Lee (1987: 383) sees the speaker’s use of just as suggesting that the action involved is a relatively unimportant one – that it will perhaps involve little effort on the patient’s part, that it has no significant consequences, or that it is one which it is natural for a doctor to ask a patient to perform in these circumstances. The implication is that compliance with the directive does not involve loss of ‘face’ for the patient.

When used with imperatives, Lee (1987: 383) notes that just makes directives more polite. In the indirect directives (defined by Lee as “nonimperatives’), Lee (1987: 383) argues that “the depreciatory meaning interacts

Modification of control act head acts 

with the diffident meanings expressed by the indirect structures (declarative, interrogative, conditional) to produce a particularly polite directive”. Just occurs in 95 of the 439 directive head acts in my dataset, i.e., 22% of all head acts have this hedge present. It is the most frequent downgrader. In the explicit head acts it also occurs 22% of the time (in 50 out of 226). Examining the base form imperatives and the imperatives with an overt agent you, there are 28 head acts which contain just before the verb (i.e., 29%). Just is frequently used therefore, to modify the force of imperatives. In examining the imperative head acts in his data Brown (2000: 129) found just used as a softener only 11 times out of 149 (7%).11

I think One hedge which comes up frequently in my data is the phrase I think. As noted in Chapter 4, the use of this phrase at the beginning of a declarative head act has led some researchers to place these head acts in a category called “embedded declaratives” (e.g., Holmes 1983). Because this phrase is movable, I did not categorise head acts beginning with I think in this way. I think occurs in 33 of the control act head acts. This does not include situations where I thought is used (see Section 5.1.1). Generally it occurs at the beginning of the head act, but may also occur at the end. Example 5.11: a. so I can approve it I think [dRI9-11] b. I think it’s just be in detail [dRK1-02] c. find out what their views are would be helpful I think [dRJ2-04c] d. I think you’re gonna need to do this [dSC1-01b]

I think occurs with both implicit, Example 5.11 (a) and (b), and explicit head acts, Example 5.11 (c) and (d). I think acts as a hedge, softening the head act. Brown and Levinson (1987: 164) list I think as a “quality hedge”, i.e., a hedge which addresses Grice’s maxim of quality. These “suggest that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 164). (See also Holmes 1985 and Holmes 1987 for discussions of the meaning of I think).

Discourse markers The use and semantics of a number of “discourse markers” have been discussed by researchers (see e.g., Schiffrin 1987; Fraser 1990, 1999; Greasley 1994; Heritage 1998; Lenk 1998; Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp 1999). A number of these

 Chapter 5

words and phrases occur at the beginning of the control act head acts. The most frequent of these “markers” in my data are so and and.

So Example 5.12: a. so you might get them to score their own work as to the extent to which it satisfies the + the criteria [aKM1-04b] b. so check to see what time the plane actually lands [dSA1-11] c. so if you can talk to Josephine about that [dSB3-10] d. so we need a + taxi van [dSB3-06]

So occurs at the beginning of 48 (11%) of the control act head acts (38 directives, seven requests, three advice). This is one of the two “markers of cause and result” which Schiffrin (1987) discusses. At a discourse level, Schiffrin (1987: 217–218) notes that so indicates a shift of talk responsibility to the hearer. In the context of directives, it frequently prefaces them and in some ways demands a response from the hearer, i.e., an acknowledgement of the directive. This acknowledgement may be non-verbal. In many ways so acts as an alerter, while also marking the fact that an explanation has been given. The ensuing control acts are the logical conclusion of the preceding sequence of talk. So marks “an action which has just been motivated” (Schiffrin 1987: 209).

And And prefaces 66 of the control act head acts (15%). Example 5.13: a. and you can share it with Genevieve as soon as she gets back [dSH1-04b] b. and if you can just later today have a check through that that would be good [dSE1-12] c. and stamp that [dRI9-10]

Of the 85,268 transcribed words in my 52 interactions, and occurs 1,792 times. In speech this is a very common connector. The frequent occurrence of and at the beginning of head acts connects the head act with a preceding supportive move or a related head act or topic. Example 5.13 (a) is the second head act of the same directive. The first head act occurred several lines earlier in the interaction and there has been discussion of the topic in-between. With Example 5.13 (b), this head act introduces a new task that has not been mentioned before. There has been no preceding supportive move. It comes, however, directly after another directive head act which has summed up a long discussion.

Modification of control act head acts 

And here marks a second item in a list of tasks. There is continuation therefore, in that the focus has shifted to a summary of tasks that Eloise must complete. Example 5.13 (c) is similar, but the task specified is much more directly related to the preceding directive. Ruth issues three directives in a row related to the same task. Example 5.13 (c) is the second of these. The sequence has been preceded by a supportive move and each directive in the sequence is introduced by a different discourse marker – but, and, so.

Tag questions and other post-posed modifiers Ervin-Tripp (1976: 30–31) noted the use of post-posed tags with imperatives, while Holmes (1983: 101) differentiated a separate category of imperatives labelled “imperative + modifier”. In Chapter 4, I noted the occurrence of four imperatives which had modifiers at the end. I did not place these into a separate formal category because there were so few examples and modifiers of this type also occur with declarative forms. Example 5.14: a. talk to him couldn’t we . . . couldn’t you [dRM1-03a] b. make it sort of later next week would be good [dRJ1-06a] c. so we might as well put that in mightn’t we [rTS1-02]

Example 5.14 (a) and (b) are base form imperatives, while (c) is a declarative. Modal tag questions are present in Example 5.14 (a) and (c), while “would be good” is added in (b). Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 285) refer to the use of tag questions at the end of control acts as “appealers” because they “appeal” to the hearer’s “benevolent understanding”. In Example 5.14 (b) “would be good” was counted as part of the head act. Often head acts were followed by “that would be good”, which was categorised as a supportive move. Ruth in particular used this phrase frequently. The use of names may also act as a softening device. Holmes (1983: 101) notes the use of post-posed names with imperatives in her classroom data. In this context, the use of a name specifies the individual from the class that the teacher wants to complete the required action. There are two occasions in my data where names occur at the end of a control act. Example 5.15: a. come on Beth [dSB3-01] b. is that the final Eloise [dSE2-01]

Example 5.15 (a) is the first utterance of the interaction. Sonia wants to get started and so hurries Beth up with this directive. It is softened by the use of

 Chapter 5

Beth’s name. Example 5.15 (b) is also the first utterance addressed to Eloise in this interaction. In this case, Sonia is having a meeting with Beth and has seen Eloise outside her office. She calls Eloise in with Example 5.15 (b). The use of Eloise’s name therefore, clearly specifies who Sonia is addressing, as with Holmes’ (1983) classroom examples. Names also come up occasionally at the beginning of head acts. In these cases they are categorised as “alerters” (see Section 5.2.1).

Repetition As noted in Chapter 4, 64 of the 364 control acts have multiple head acts (18%). Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 286) note the use of repetition as an upgrader. This repetition may be literal or “by paraphrase”. Only one example in my data involves repetition of the same form. Example 5.16: a. hold that thought [rSR2-01a] b. hold that thought [rSR2-01b]

More frequently, slightly modified forms are used (Example 5.17) or completely different forms (Example 5.18). Example 5.17: a. you should ask [dSE1-14a] b. maybe we should ask that [dSE1-14b] c. I might as well sign what you’ve got [dRI9-12a] d. I might as well sign what I’ve got [dRI9-12b] Example 5.18: a. you’re supposed to be making an appointment [dSC1-01a] b. I think you’re gonna need to do this [dSC1-01b] c. so can you [dSC1-01c]

Use of multiple head acts generally strengthens rather than softens the control act. This is not, always the case, however. With Example 5.17 (a) and (b), (b) softens the directive because the second head act contains a number of downgrading devices (as noted in Section 5.1.2). Brown (2000: 136) only found one example of a directive being strengthened through repetition. The relatively high occurrence of repetition in my data can be accounted for by the type of data in each study. In contrast to my data, Brown’s (2000) factory data did not tend to come from ongoing discussions on a topic.

Modification of control act head acts 

Summary of lexical/phrasal modifiers A range of lexical/phrasal modifiers has been outlined above. The use of we instead of you was seen to soften a control act, as was the use of please, just, I think and the addition of tags. Discourse markers were also highlighted as devices which can operate in this way. The last factor discussed, use of repetition, was seen to generally intensify force rather than soften it. The list of devices examined is not exhaustive. It is designed to show the range of ways that the control act head acts are modified by the addition of words and phrases. .. Modal verbs

Central modals Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a) note the importance of modal verbs in requests and code modal choice separately in their coding scheme. In my categorisation by form, the presence of a modal auxiliary verb has been used to categorise some examples. The exact modals being used however, have not been separated out up to this point. The use of different modals makes a difference to the force of a control act, as seen with Example 5.19 (a) and (b) below. The form here is the same "pronoun + modal + main verb", with both having the same main verb and pronoun. Example 5.19: a. well you should get her to get somebody to peer review [aGS1-01] b. so you might get them to score their own work as to the extent to which it satisfies the + the criteria [aKM1-04b]

In Example 5.19 (a), should, a modal of obligation and necessity, is used, while in (b) the speaker utilises might, a modal of possibility. Example 5.19 (b) is less forceful than (a). The distribution and/or semantics of the different modal verbs in English have been explored using a number of corpora (e.g., Palmer 1979; Coates 1983; Quirk et al. 1985; Biber et al. 1999; Kennedy 2002). Will has been found to be the most frequent of the modal verbs and will, would, can and could occur a lot more often than the other central modals (Coates 1983: 23; Biber et al. 1999: 486; Kennedy 2002). However, the distribution of the different modals differs between written and spoken texts and according to the exact context. In spoken UK English, Coates (1983: 23) found that will was most frequent, then came would and can (equally frequent), followed by could. Kennedy (2002) found a similar distribution in the spoken texts in the 100 million word British National Corpus (BNC), except that can was more frequent than would.

 Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Frequency of central modal verbs in the control act head acts Modal can could will would might should shall must may Total

Directive

Control act Request

Advice

53 18 19 30 19 15 0 0 1

10 6 4 5 2 0 1 0 0

1 3 1 9 9 3 0 0 0

64 27 24 44 30 18 1 0 1

155 (within 319 head acts)

28 (within 61 head acts)

26 (within 59 head acts)

209 (within 439 head acts)

Total

The results noted above were observed in large corpora. My corpus of 52 extracts only amounts to 85,268 words and the control act head acts that I have identified in these transcripts total 6,190 words. There are 209 occurrences of modal verbs in the head act data, i.e., 3.4% or 34 tokens per 1000 words. Kennedy (2002) found 21.5 modals per 1000 words in the spoken texts from the BNC. His data also included the marginal auxiliary need to (discussed below). The frequency of each of the central modals in my control act head acts is summarised in Table 5.1. In my data, can is the most frequent of the modal verbs followed by would and then might. Must does not occur at all, and there is only one occurrence each of shall and may. There is variation according to the type of control act. Can is the most frequent modal in both directives and requests, but only occurs once in the advice head acts. In advice situations, would and might occur most frequently. These results do not reflect the overall patterns found in English (Coates 1983; Biber et al. 1999; Kennedy 2002). The figures in Table 5.1 provide a broad analysis; they do not take account of where in the head act the modal occurs or if there is more than one modal auxiliary. Before looking at the meaning associated with each modal it is important to narrow the focus. The most interesting instances of modal use in the control acts is when the participants use modals to modify the verb which specifies the action required of the addressee. Under my categorisation of head acts (see Chapter 4), head acts which state the action required were coded as

Modification of control act head acts 

Table 5.2 Frequency of central modal verbs modifying the action specifying verb in the explicit control act head acts Modal can could will would might should shall must may† Total

Directive

Control act Request

Advice

36 12 10 2 8 6 0 0 0

5 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

1 2 1 0 7 2 0 0 0

42 18 11 2 16 8 1 0 0

74 (within 229 head acts)

11 (within 23 head acts)

13 (within 33 head acts)

98

Total

† maybe occurred 3 times each in the directive and advice head acts

being explicit. Table 5.2 outlines the results for the modal verbs which modify the action specifying verb within the explicit head acts. When considering the central modal verbs which directly modify the action specifying verbs, can is the most frequent, as was observed with the overall results. This is then followed by could and might. Once again, there is variation according to the type of control act. Modal verbs occur in 32% of the explicit directive head acts. Since, 38% of these head acts (87 out of 226) were expressed using the imperative (see Section 4.3.1), over half of the explicit directive head acts which do not take an imperative form contain a modal modifying the action specifying verbs. Most frequently this modal is can (49%), although a range of other modals is also found. Request head acts were most frequently expressed implicitly (see Section 4.2.2). In the remaining 38% of the head acts the action required was expressed explicitly. In 48% of the explicit request head acts (11 out of 23), a modal verb modified the action specifying verb. Can and could accounted for most of these occurrences, five and four instances respectively. Modal verbs modified the specified action in 40% of the explicit advice head acts. Might accounts for most of the modals in these cases (7 out of 13).

 Chapter 5

Table 5.3 Marginal auxiliaries in the explicit control act head acts Marginal Auxiliaries

Directive

Control act Request

Advice

need to have to have got to (had) better be supposed to be able to be going to

31 8 2 1 1 2 5

1 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0 0 0

33 10 2 1 1 2 5

Total

50

2

2

54

Total

Marginal auxiliaries As well as the nine “central” or “true” modals, Coates (1983), Quirk et al. (1985) and Biber et al. (1999: 484) note a number of marginal auxiliaries. Many of these express a “modal” meaning. It is necessary therefore, to explore the distribution of these auxiliaries before exploring the semantics of the modals used in the control act head acts. Table 5.3 presents the results for the range of marginal auxiliaries found in the explicit control act head acts. Once again, the focus is on the verbal phrase which specifies the action required. Need to is at least twice as frequent as any of the central modals except can. There were ten occurrences of have to. The other marginal auxiliaries do not occur frequently. As well as considering the distribution of the central modals, Kennedy (2002) also explored the distribution of need to, ought to, dare and used to. The total of 21.5 modal verbs per 1000 words he found in the spoken texts for the BNC therefore includes figures for need to. Combining my results for need to with the results for the central modals means that I have 251 occurrences across all control act head acts. This raises the number of modals per 1000 words to 41. Control acts, therefore, are one type of speech act which make a great deal of use of modal verbs. .. Semantics of modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries

Permission, possibility and ability Can, could, may, might and be able to can all be used to convey the meanings of permission, possibility and ability (Coates 1983: 85–130; Biber et al. 1999: 485). In relation to directives, Coates (1983: 98–99) notes that the use of

Modification of control act head acts 

CAN=‘Root possibility’ to imply willingness . . . is taken one step further in its use as a covert imperative.

Coates (1983) is referring to the use of can in interrogatives here, but the same point applies to declaratives. In these cases, can questions the preconditions of a directive that specify “that the addressee should be able (i.e. nothing prevents him carrying out the action) and willing” (Coates 1983: 98). Coates (1983: 98) notes that in these directive situations, will (and would) “occur more frequently than” can (and could). In my data, can (and could) occur much more frequently (see Table 5.2). This pattern is evident both in interrogatives and declaratives which function as control acts. Some examples are provided in Example 5.20. Example 5.20: a. can you check [dRL1-06] b. can you please make sure that the room is booked for the whole day [dSA1-18] c. could you have a quick word with her [rIR13-01] d. one thing you could ask (you know perhaps [voc]) um ask them if you can see some menus or some i- you know the types of things that they provide [dRI8-03] e. and you can share it with Genevieve as soon as she gets back [dSH1-04b] f. you can say that I’m going to send them an example [rGS1-03] g. you can then prepare a resume and list them in order of their percentage scores [aKM1-07]

Overall, can and could account for 60 of the 98 occurrences of the central modal verbs that modify the action specifying verb (61%). In particular, can occurs frequently in the directing control acts (directives and requests). Some researchers on control acts note that the difference between can and could is one of tense (see for example Trosborg 1994: 210). As Biber et al. (1999: 485) note, however, the main function of pairs of modals such as can and could relates to speaker stance rather than the marking of time distinctions. For example, modals associated with past time are also associated with hypothetical situations, conveying overtones of tentativeness and politeness.

Coates (1983: 121) also refers to the use of “hypothetical could . . . as a polite form of can.” This is especially true of a control act context. In every case where could is used a future act is required.

 Chapter 5

Might Can and could do not often occur in the explicit advice head acts. In the advice examples, might is the most frequent modal. This is another modal of possibility (Biber et al. 1999: 485) and in control acts has a hypothetical meaning (as with could in the examples above). Coates (1983: 161) notes that the use of hypothetical Root might “is often used to indicate a course of action politely, without giving overt advice”. Example 5.21: a. so you might get them to score their own work as to the extent to which it satisfies the + the criteria [aKM1-04b] b. you might like to just reassure them [aKM2-03] c. you might wanna rewrite it [aSA1-01]

One request example contains “might as well”. Coates (1983: 162) notes that this is a common idiom, meaning “it would be as good/sensible to . . . ”. This meaning of might is only associated with its use in this phrase. There is also one marginal auxiliary which conveys the meanings of permission, possibility and ability, be able to. There were only two instances of be able to in my data (see Table 5.3). Modals and marginal auxiliaries which express the root meaning of possibility (or hypothetical possibility) account for 51% of the modals modifying the action specifying verbs in the explicit control act head acts (78 out of 152).

Modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries expressing obligation and necessity There are a number of modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries which express obligation and necessity – must, should, (had) better, have (got) to, need to, ought to, be supposed to. Of the two central modals listed here, must and should, only should occurs and its use is infrequent. The two head acts from the control act [dSE1-14] as shown in Example 5.6 and 5.17 (a) and (b), are two of only nine explicit control act head acts which contain should. They are repeated in Example 5.22, along with one of the other seven explicit head acts containing should. Example 5.22: a. you should ask [dSE1-14a] b. maybe we should ask that [dSE1-14b] c. we should probably put in there that um the ministry has what we did actually intend [dRN1-03]

Example 5.22 (a) and (b) are both head acts of the same directive, [dSE1-14]. Example 5.22 (b) occurs straight after (a), i.e., there are no intervening utter-

Modification of control act head acts

ances. Example 5.22 (a) does not contain hedges or embedding of any kind. It is of course immediately modified, however, by Example 5.22 (b), which is hedged by the use of both maybe and the inclusive first person pronoun we. It is interesting that the only central modal of necessity and obligation is one of “weak obligation” (Coates 1983: 58). Coates (1983: 58–59) notes that where the speaker, in subjective examples of Root must, demanded action, with subjective should, he only suggests it. In the case of must the speaker expects to be obeyed, but in the case of should there is no such expectation.

Of course, in the directive head acts in Example 5.22, I would argue that if a Manager utters these statements, this means that the speaker expects to be obeyed. The strategy used, however, is politer and less forceful because it suggests that the addressee does have a choice. Biber et al. (1999: 495) also found that must “marking personal obligation” was rare in conversation. They concluded that this “is probably due to the strong directive force this modal has when used in face-to-face interaction. The modal should provides a hedged expression of obligation that is typically regarded as more polite”. Other researchers mention the association of should with suggestion and advice. Altman (1990) explores the interpretation of two forms which he associates with the expression of advice – should and had better. The infrequent occurrence of should and the non-occurrence of must, is interesting given that they are modals of obligation and necessity. It could be expected that in a workplace context where the tasks required in the control acts relate to the job obligations of the addressees, this may be a factor that is referred to through the use of this type of modal. A number of other marginal auxiliaries have also been associated with the conveyance of this type of meaning. Biber et al. (1999: 489–490) note that the low occurrence of should and must in their data could be partly explained by the fact that “semi-modals have become better established in this semantic domain, apparently replacing the modal verbs to a greater extent”. The distribution of these semi-modals (or marginal auxiliaries) is discussed below.

Need to Need to only accounted for 0.2% of the modal verbs in the BNC (Kennedy 2002). As seen in Table 5.3, need to is reasonably frequent in my explicit control act head acts. If the results for need to found in my data are combined with the results for the central modals, need to accounts for 17% of these modal verbs. This is one form, therefore which the women in my dataset use a great deal when issuing control acts. It would appear therefore that when the focus is on





Chapter 5

control acts, and in particular directives, this marginal auxiliary is common. I do not know if this pattern is peculiar to New Zealand English, or whether it would also be found in other varieties of English. Kennedy is one of the few researchers who has explored the distribution of need to. This reflects the fact that need to has not always been accepted as a modal. Coates (1983: 49) and Palmer (1990: 127) are both careful to distinguish between need the modal and need to the non-modal. Biber et al. (1999: 484), however, call need to a “marginal auxiliary” and count the marginal auxiliaries (including need to) as “semi-modals” (Biber et al. 1999: 484). The status of need to as a marginal auxiliary can be justified by looking at the way that it functions. Coates (1983: 31–84) explores the modals of “obligation and necessity”. She includes the “quasi-modals” have got to and have to because “no discussion of must or of the modals of Obligation and Necessity would be complete without reference to them” (Coates 1983: 52). Coates (1983: 52–58) shows how these quasi-modals can function in a similar way to must. A similar argument could be applied to need to. The examples in my data with need to also have the “meaning of must” (like have got to and have to), i.e., “they can be paraphrased ‘it is essential that’” (Coates 1983: 53). Example 5.23: a. we need to add in a column or something [dRI9-01] b. and once you’ve faxed it through we need to send them th- the original [dRI9-06] c. you need to just check the travel booking [dSB1-17]

The use of need to is softer than must, but the meaning is similar. Need to allows the speaker to avoid direct reference to their own authority. Need to implies external forces require the task to be done, and therefore distances the control act from the speaker.

Other marginal auxiliaries conveying obligation/necessity Along with must, should and need to, Biber et al. (1999: 485) list a number of other marginal auxiliaries which convey the meaning of obligation/necessity: (had) better, have (got) to, ought to, be supposed to. Although not frequent in my data (see Table 5.3), there were 14 examples found in the explicit control act head act data. Some examples are provided in Example 5.24. Example 5.24: a. you’re supposed to be making an appointment [dSC1-01a] b. we have to fax this off [dRI5-01a]

Modification of control act head acts

c. and we have to arrange fifty percent payment [dRI9-08a] d. but we better take that one with us [dSE1-02]

The low frequency of have to is unexpected given the findings of corpus studies. Biber et al. (1999), for example, found that have to was used more than any of the other modals or marginal auxiliaries which express obligation and necessity. Overall, Biber et al. (1999: 493) found that modals and marginal auxiliaries expressing obligation and necessity are less common than the other modal categories. Altogether there were 55 modals and marginal auxiliaries expressing obligation and necessity in the explicit control act head acts in my dataset (36%). The majority of these were accounted for by the marginal auxiliary need to (33 of the 55). Biber et al. (1999: 489–490) explained the lower frequency of this type of modal as a reflection of “a general tendency to avoid the face-threatening force of expressions with an obligation meaning”. The context in which control acts occur is one where the use of this type of modal is appropriate. The tasks being requested relate to people’s job obligations. The marginal auxiliary which is used most in these situations is one which is aligned at the weaker end of the scale. It is stronger than should, but is weaker than must or have to. Although need to has not been examined by researchers, speakers’ perceptions of the relative strength of a number of modals and marginal auxiliaries have been assessed. Altman (1990: 97), for example, asked native and non-native speakers of English to rank seven modal expressions from strongest to weakest. The native speakers ranked them in the following order: must, have to, had better, should, be supposed to, can, could.

Modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries of volition and prediction There were 14 occurrences of will, would and shall modifying the verbs in the explicit head acts. These three are modals of volition and prediction (Biber et al. 1999: 485). Coates (1983: 167) also lists will and shall as modals of volition and prediction, but differentiates between these and would, which is a “hypothetical” modal (Coates 1983: 205). Biber et al. (1999: 485) also list be going to along with the central modals of volition/prediction. This only occurred five times in my data (see Table 5.3).





Chapter 5

Example 5.25: a. as soon as you’ve contacted Yvette will you let me know what the story is [dSB1-18] b. will you have time to do that today if I fire the stuff across to you [dSB1-10] c. we’ll put it with the you know the three separate papers that we’ve made up [dSA1-17a] d. we’ll just say it straight out that most of credits have been in this [topic] sector that you might want to look at in priority so other areas where you would increase or make the access for [social group] [aFJ1-03]

Quirk et al. (1985: 229) note that will meaning “willingness” is a meaning which “is common in requests and offers”. In requests, this involves the use of an interrogative form. Example 5.25 (a) and b) are the only two control act head acts in my data which are modal interrogatives containing will. Example 5.25 (c) and (d) are declaratives. In these cases the meaning of will is more one of intention or prediction. The proposed action will take place in another place and time. The speaker’s use of will strongly asserts what will happen.12 Would is an interesting modal because of its use in modifying phrases. In Table 5.1, 44 instances of would were noted. When the analysis focuses on the occurrences of modals modifying the verb specifying the action in the explicit head acts (Table 5.2), this figure drops to two. This is because would frequently occurs in the phrase “(that) would be good” as in the examples in Example 5.26 (see Section 5.1.2). Example 5.26: a. it would be good if you could think about that [dRJ1-02b] b. make it sort of later next week would be good [dRJ1-06a]

Its use in these phrases reflects the fact that would is perceived as being very polite. James (1978) and Fraser and Nolen (1981) each asked 40 subjects to rank a group of sentences which varied on a number of factors, including the use of different modal verbs. Eight of James’ 14 sentences contained either may, would or can. Sentences with may were rated as the most polite, followed by would and then can (James 1978: 180). Fraser and Nolen (1981) explored a wider range of modals and syntactic structures. Once again, would was rated as being weaker than can. It was also rated as more deferent than could (Fraser and Nolen 1981: 101).

Modification of control act head acts

Summary of modal verb use The most common modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries used in the control act head acts are modals of possibility. Can, could, might and be able to account for 51% of the modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries modifying the action specifying verbs in explicit head acts. These modals are associated with a low level of force. Modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries associated with obligation and necessity account for a further 36% of the modals. This type of modal can strengthen the force of an utterance, although the strongest modal in this group, must, does not occur at all. Need to was the most frequent of the modals in this group. .. Summary of internal modification devices This section has examined some of the modifiers which are directly related to the way that a control act head act is realised. Most of the devices noted soften the force of the control act head acts, although repetition generally strengthens a control act and the use of a modal verb can either strengthen or weaken it, depending on which modal is used. As is evident in a number of the examples cited, often more than one device is present in a head act. Only 7% of the control act head acts do not have any internal modification which softens them, i.e., there are only 31 control act head acts expressed as base form imperatives, or by the form “you + imperative”, that have no internal modifiers of any kind. In the next section external modification devices are discussed.

. External modification .. Alerters The CCSARP identified a number of “alerters”, i.e. elements which precede the request and whose function it is to alert the hearer’s attention to the ensuing speech act. These include a range of terms of address, e.g., title, first name, nickname, and attention getters (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 277). The interactions which comprise my dataset are all face-to-face interactions involving two people. The work roles of the interlocutors in relation to each other are clear and the control acts occur in the larger context of an ongoing meeting. There is no ambiguity about who is being addressed and the control acts are generally part of an ongoing discussion. There is generally no





Chapter 5

confusion about who will be undertaking the work. Because of these aspects of the context in which the data was gathered the alerters noted by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a) occur infrequently. Names occur before four of the control act head acts. In the first example, Anna is outside the room and is not involved in an ongoing interaction. Anna’s desk is outside Sonia’s office and Sonia calls Anna to photocopy something for Hilary. Anna does not appear to hear Sonia, so Hilary also calls out her name to get Anna’s attention. Excerpt 5.27: [SH1:40, 42-44] 40 Sonia: . . . oh Anna + . . . 42 Hilary: Anna 43 Sonia: sorry (honey) could you would you mind just ta-copying 44 one photocopy of that [dSA3-01] . . .

Sonia’s apology in Example 5.27, line 43, is another device which signals that something else is coming. Given the situation, this is most likely to be a directive or a question of some type. One other example of the use of a name occurs in a similar situation, Example 5.28 (a), while the other two utterances occur at the beginning of interactions, Example 5.28 (b) and (c). Example 5.28: a. excuse me Ruth but you’ve got a visitor out there who happens to be Rebecca [rIR12-01] b. Katie can I talk to you a minute [rMK1-01] c. Ursula what’s the story with my computer [rKU1-01]

In Example 5.28 (a) Irene interrupts a meeting between Ruth and Sonia. As well as using Ruth’s name here she also says “excuse me”. Another interesting set of phenomena which act like alerters are false starts. Excerpt 5.29: [SB2:143-146, 152-153] 143 Sonia: um I wonder could you [false start] + could you [false start] 144 could I get you tomorrow to ring up [name] + at [organisation] . . . 145 . . . just to check to see if the one to Paula + the copy to Paula the 146 letter + that we sent to Paula (if that attach-) ... ... 152 but just to see that that’s actually gone through to their accounts 153 [dSB2-11a]

Modification of control act head acts

The head act in Example 5.29 begins “could I get you tomorrow to ring up . . . ”, but there are two false starts “I wonder could you” and “could you” before Sonia finally utters the complete head act. These false starts act as alerters, focusing the listener’s attention on what the speaker is about to say, as with the use of names, apologies and attention-getters. .. Supportive moves House and Kasper (1987) and Faerch and Kasper (1989) note that in order to persuade someone to do something it is often necessary to use supporting statements. The CCSARP note six types of supportive moves which mitigate requests and three which aggravate them (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 287–289). The three types of aggravating supportive moves they identify are insult, threat and moralising. There were no aggravating supportive moves in my data. Six types of mitigating supportive move are identified by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a): preparator; getting a precommitment; grounder; disarmer; promise of reward; imposition minimizer. The most commonly occurring type of mitigating supportive move in my data was the grounder. Some of the ways that speakers ground control acts are outlined below. The use of a grounder involves the speaker providing reasons, explanation or justification for the request (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 287). Jones identifies a similar softening device – providing reasons (Jones 1992: 435). This is one device which the women in my study use a great deal. The excerpts below illustrate how the surrounding utterances can soften the impact of control act head acts which do not contain internal modification devices. Excerpt 5.30: [SH2:73-74] 73 Sonia: /=hang on [dSH2-02] I’ll just get it I’ll just //print it\ off 74 Hilary: /oh yeah\\

Excerpt 5.30 contains a non-internally modified imperative. This is a now directive. After stating the directive, Sonia immediately provides reasons, line 73. She says she will get a copy of the document they are talking about. She will print it off. Interestingly both of her reasons contain just. Excerpt 5.31: [SF1:221-229] 221 Sonia: check with Beth i- [voc] about the um + the new [drawls]: staffing: 222 list [dSF1-05] which they should have copies of I’m not sure 223 whether they do have but take some extra ones with you [dSF1-06] 224 and that’s the staffing list it’s sort of got [voc] what w- areas of





Chapter 5

225 work people are covering (yeah that’s what they’re caretakers //for)\ 226 Fran: /oh\\ yeah yep yep 227 Sonia: um the areas that + um=/ 228 Fran: /=(this is) our one [unit //one]’s yeah\ 229 Sonia: /yes [unit one]’s\\ for p u + the areas

Following her first directive in Excerpt 5.31, lines 221-222, Sonia provides an explanation before issuing her next related directive, line 223. As well as supporting [dSF1-05] therefore, Sonia’s explanation acts as an alerter for [dSF106]. The second directive is then followed by more explanation and elaboration which supports both of the directives. Excerpt 5.32: [RI11:13-19] 13 Ruth: do you want to just put [drawls]: um: [false start] leave that 14 [false start] leave out the surname [dRI11-01] 15 Irene: oh sure //yeah yeah you know him\ okay looks friendlier 16 Ruth: /cos I actually know him\\ 17 Ruth: [quietly]: yeah: o//kay that’d be great\ 18 Irene: /okay I’ll just\\ do that and I’ll bring it to you in a second 19 Ruth: yep and I’ll +++ sign it out

The directive head act in this sequence, line 14, is once again unmodified internally. It is, however, modified by the preceding two false starts, as well as by Ruth’s following utterances. At line 16 she provides a reason, while in line 17 she expresses appreciation by her use of the modifier “that would be great”. These excerpts show the way that surrounding utterances can modify an otherwise unmodified head act. Further exemplification of how speakers do this is provided in Chapters 6, 7 and 9. The effects of supplying justification when issuing control acts has been explored by psychologists. Bohm and Hendricks (1997: 460), for example, found that a stranger’s “compliance and willingness to cooperate increased significantly when the request was accompanied by higher levels of justification”. 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 positive politeness strategy 13). Based on the results of their research, Yukl et al. (1996: 316) advise Managers to develop “more skill and confidence” in using tactics such as providing reasons in order to improve their effectiveness in dealing with their staff.

Modification of control act head acts

.. Summary of external modification devices Control act head acts can be mitigated by a range of external modification devices. Alerters soften head acts by indicating that a potential head act is about to be uttered. This includes the use of names, attention-getters and false starts. Supportive moves also soften head acts by providing reasons, justification or elaboration. Supportive moves which precede the head act may also signal that a control act is coming, serving a dual role as alerter and supportive move.

. Conclusion Hudson (1990: 285) notes that “for a variety of social reasons it is generally inappropriate for peers to issue imperative commands to other peers in most non-emergency contexts. That is, in order to make the content of the message sensitive to conversational roles, the speaker employs a set of interpersonal modality markers (Halliday 1970)”. The women in my dataset make a great deal of use of both internal and external modification devices. Modification occurs with virtually all the control acts. The few exceptions are now control acts. It may be asserted that the high use of modification devices is partly due to the control acts occurring in the context of meetings, rather than being issued in isolation. Occasionally control acts were recorded which were uttered by someone interrupting an on-going interaction, or being called into an ongoing meeting. In these cases, modification was still present (see for instance, Examples 5.9 (c), 5.20 (c) and 5.27). Chapter 5 outlines the main ways that the head acts in my data are modified. Devices internal to the head act which soften a head act include syntactic modification, such as past tense, or lexical/phrasal modification, such as use of the inclusive first person pronoun we. External modification devices tend to involve the use of “grounders”. These provide reasons and justification for the actions proposed. Most of the modifiers present in my data soften the impact of a head act. Repetition is the only device used which is associated with making a control act more forceful. The strengthening of force in this way is generally compensated for by the women in my study through the use of other modification devices which soften the impact. Consideration of external modification devices extends the description beyond the head acts to the surrounding utterances. In Chapter 3 context at a number of levels was shown to be vital in order to identify utterances as con-



 Chapter 5

trol acts. Having identified and described the control acts it is important to put the control acts back into context. As Oka (1981: 78) notes “elimination of all the context-dependent features from language study and concentration on formal aspects alone tend to become detached from the socio-psychological reality of language use”. Chapters 6, 7 and 9 explore the control acts used by different speakers in detail, examining who uses which forms to whom, and the implications of these patterns of use in terms of power.

Chapter 6

Exploring control acts in context

Having looked at head acts in isolation and some of the devices which can modify the force of a head act, we can now put the control acts back into context. In this chapter, I explore in detail a transcript involving Sonia (Manager) and Genevieve (Senior Policy Analyst) in order to illustrate how the aspects discussed in the preceding three Chapters apply to the transcripts. This allows me to show the way control acts arise out of an ongoing discussion and are mitigated by more than just the utterances immediately surrounding them. Close analysis of the control acts as they occur illustrates the importance of context at the level of discourse.

. Introduction to the interaction The interaction examined, SG1, is a weekly catch-up session. It is 35 minutes long and has a total of 5,931 words. Genevieve contributes 3087 words (52%), making the contributions of the two participants fairly well-balanced. This interaction was chosen because it is the only one in my dataset which shows the full range of control acts. Sonia gives 29 directives to Genevieve and five pieces of advice. Genevieve gives Sonia advice on one occasion and makes eight requests (see Table 6.1). The interaction also illustrates the way that Sonia interacts with her senior staff. Although the full range of possible control acts was identified, it is still clear who has more power. The majority of the control acts were found in Sonia’s speech. The nature of Sonia and Genevieve’s roles, therefore, is evident Table 6.1 Summary of control acts in SG1 Speaker

Directives

Requests

Advice

Total

Sonia Genevieve

29 ...

... 8

5 1

34 9

Total

29

8

6

43

 Chapter 6

in their discourse. Sonia is the Manager and her role in this interaction is to provide advice and direction to her staff member. Genevieve is primarily there to talk about the work that she is doing. Reference is made to status differences and power in this chapter, but these factors are summarised and explored more fully in subsequent Chapters. The analysis below is structured around the seven topics that are discussed in the meeting as the two work through Genevieve’s in-tray. The interaction begins with a brief exchange about the two weekly status report and the two directive head acts associated with this topic are identified and discussed. Following this, Genevieve requests advice about the use of the passive. Her request for advice and Sonia’s response are outlined. The third topic area covered in the interaction relates to Genevieve’s request for advice. Genevieve is concerned about the writing skills of one of the Policy Analysts. Genevieve and Sonia discuss this problem and related issues for several minutes. There are a number of control act head acts associated with this section of the transcript. Two other topics are then briefly dealt with by the two interactants: whether Genevieve will go to some conferences or not and a problem that Sonia’s Manager, Marcie, wants sorted out and which Sonia is delegating to Genevieve. Sonia and Genevieve then have a fairly long discussion about work priorities, where Genevieve once again asks Sonia for advice. The final topic area relates to a report that the unit must produce and which Genevieve will coordinate. Most of Genevieve’s requests to Sonia are in this final section of the interaction.

. Analysis of the interaction Parts of the transcript have been edited for the purposes of confidentiality. Line numbers refer to the lines of the edited transcript. .. Status report The first directives in the interaction relate to the issue of the two weekly status report. Excerpt 6.1: [SG1:11-22] 11 Sonia: with the two weekly status report um + I wouldn’t worry so 12 much about the work we’ve just done on [topic] [dSG1-01] 13 //um + but if you ( ) [false start]\ 14 Gen: /okay + I- I’ll include it\\ I’ll just include=/

Exploring control acts in context 

15 Sonia: /=but what might [false start] what we might do is under the 16 section on consultation you know where it says seminars 17 Gen: mm 18 Sonia: seminars we could say attended the seminar run by 19 [organisa//tion]\ (on this) commission for [topic] on 20 the (code) [dSG1-02] [laughs] 21 Gen: /oh okay\\ 22 Gen: yeah that’s okay um + right that’s that

In Excerpt 6.1, Sonia states the topic and then issues the first directive which I identify in this interaction, lines 11–12. The second directive, lines 15–20, relates to the same issue and acts as a follow-up to [dSG1-01]. In [dSG1-01], Sonia tells Genevieve not to “worry so much” about the work they have just done on a particular issue. Sonia then makes two false starts, before indicating in more detail how she wants Genevieve to include the information on this topic, [dSG1-02]. Neither of these directives are expressed directly. The first is expressed implicitly and both include modal verbs. The modal verbs would, might and could are all associated with the expression of a high degree of deference (see Section 5.1.3). In the middle of [dSG1-02] there is an aside where Sonia asks Genevieve a question to check that Genevieve knows what she means, line 16. Fairclough (1989: 136) sees the use of questions such as this by people in power as an indication of the way they control the interaction. Questions force the other participant out of silence. A more positive interpretation of such questions is that the more powerful person is involving the other person – in this case Genevieve is being involved in the process. Sonia checks that Genevieve understands and the question softens the head act. Sonia’s asking a question in the middle of [dSG1-02] can also be interpreted as a means of selecting Genevieve’s next turn. At this point, Genevieve replies with a minimal response, mm, and Sonia continues. Sonia’s question begins with the discourse marker you know. Schiffrin (1987: 268) comments that you know is a device which a speaker can use to check that the hearer has the necessary background knowledge in order to carry out or to understand an explained procedure. You know does not give the floor over completely to the hearer, however, as it only allows acknowledgement/affirmation of a piece of information that the speaker wants the hearer to focus on (Schiffrin 1987: 285). Contingent in the use of you know is the fact that the speaker has more to say. After the hearer’s acknowledgement of the information provided in the phrase following you know, the speaker will continue (see Figure 6.1). Of course, you

 Chapter 6

know has a range of possible meanings (see Holmes 1986; Schiffrin 1987). I focus here on the one that best fits the situation. Figure 6.1: Exchange structure created by you know A1: says something which leads B to focus on X B1: focuses on X A2: uses X in a way dependent upon A1 and B1 (from Schiffrin 1987: 285).

Genevieve’s response to [dSG1-02] is interesting because it shows that her relative status is higher than expected given her job position within the organisation. In an interaction between a Manager and a staff member, the expected response to a directive is a variant of yes or a simple okay. Genevieve’s use of the phrase “that’s okay” would seem to be inappropriate if there were clear status differences. “That’s okay” sounds more like an agreement to a course of action from someone who has a right to confirm or deny it. After “that’s okay”, “um” and a brief pause, Genevieve says “right that’s that”. Once again, this is the type of utterance that would seem more typical of the more powerful participant in an interaction, especially as Genevieve then moves onto the next topic that she wants to discuss with Sonia. This may, of course, reflect topic ownership. Genevieve has introduced the topic so she has the right to mark its closure. To sum up, Sonia’s control act head acts in Excerpt 6.1 have a number of internal modification devices, but are not modified much externally. Genevieve has raised the issue of the two weekly status report and Sonia has responded by telling her how to deal with it. The discussion is quite short. .. Genevieve seeks advice on use of the passive Excerpt 6.2: [SG1:23-37] 23 Gen: now I just got this from Donna’s peer review 24 and two things occurred to me um one I started applying the + 25 skills learnt //from\ 26 Sonia: /from\\ the writing course 27 Gen: it then occurred to me um that perhaps we need guidelines for 28 you from you when we use the as to when to use the passive and 29 when to use the active [rGS1-01] + for instance Donna had we 30 consider the strategic plan should oh (it sh-) we consider the 31 strategic plan include an outline of the services that will be

Exploring control acts in context

32 specifically targeted for (and such and blah blah) and + so I 33 was getting zealous and changed it to the strategic plan should 34 outline the //services\ (that will) 35 Sonia: /that’s fine\\ 36 Sonia: that’s fine=/ 37 Gen: /=okay

In Excerpt 6.2, Genevieve introduces a new topic. She sets the scene and then makes a request for Sonia to give the staff some guidelines as to when they should use the passive. This has arisen from her peer review of a report written by Donna (Policy Analyst). The whole unit has recently been on a writing course so writing skills is a topic that recurs a number of times in the transcripts. Having made the request, Genevieve then provides an example to support her request. Genevieve’s request can be seen as a direct acknowledgement of Sonia’s position as Manager. Genevieve is calling on Sonia as someone in authority who can back up her decision to change Donna’s wording and provide guidelines for the staff on the style of writing that the unit should be producing. Genevieve’s request is hedged with perhaps and by the phrase “it then occurred to me”. We here refers to the members of Policy Unit One. Sonia responds to Genevieve’s request and exemplification by saying “that’s fine” twice, which Genevieve acknowledges with “okay”. Sonia then goes on to give some general advice about the use of the passive (Excerpt 6.3). This is followed, line 42, by a supportive move from Sonia. Sonia then returns to the specific example that Genevieve has used to illustrate her point and comments that the use of the passive here is appropriate, line 44–46. Excerpt 6.3: [SG1:38-49] 38 Sonia: the only [voc] + it’s really it’s really er where you’re wanting to 39 soften down ge- er mm where you’re wanting to soften down the 40 the the tone a little bit [aSG1-01] 41 Gen: mm 42 Sonia: the passive just tends to give it that little bit more (dusting) 43 Gen: yeah 44 Sonia: um th- that’s that’s quite clear I mean [tut] that’s our view 45 1//strategic\1 plan should outline these er that’s fine 46 2//there’s\2 no problem with that 47 Gen: 1/[clears throat]\\1 48 Gen: 2/yeah\\2 49 Gen: um okay that’s fine



 Chapter 6

In this section, Genevieve’s request was mitigated both internally and externally. Sonia’s response is also softened by both internal and external modification devices. .. Donna’s writing As the interaction progresses, it becomes apparent that Genevieve has made this request for advice because she is finding peer-reviewing Donna’s work a slow job. She is trying to determine some strategies to get Donna to think more about her writing before she hands the work on for peer-reviewing. She wants Sonia’s feedback on this. Donna is a fairly new staff member and it is Genevieve’s responsibility to mentor her. Excerpt 6.4: [SG1:60-68] 60 Sonia: . . . but I still think mm //o\kay so but I did talk her 61 yesterday and I said look (see) you know just remember these are 62 the skills we learnt + I’ve still got and I’ve got another one to peer 63 review of hers but you see she’s not peer reviewing it with 64 anybody else 65 Gen: /mm\\ 66 Gen: well you should get her to get //somebody to peer review\ 67 [aGS1-01] 68 Sonia: /well that’s what I did I\\ did tell her to do that

Sonia has talked with Donna about the writing course. She says that she has another report of Donna’s to peer-review and comments that Donna has not been peer-reviewing these with anyone else. It is clear from this section that in this unit everyone, including the Manager, is involved in the peer-review process. At this point Genevieve tells Sonia that she “should get her to get somebody to peer review”, line 66. This has been categorised as advice since Genevieve is talking to her Manager and the ultimate benefit of the action proposed in this instance would be for Sonia. The form here is very direct. It is mitigated by the use of well and somebody, but a modal of obligation and necessity is used (even if it is a weak one). It is also said in quite a forceful tone of voice. In this context, a more indirect form would be expected. In fact, it could be argued that Genevieve has no right at all to give Sonia advice at this point. Sonia has not directly asked for her advice. The presence of [aGS1-01] and the direct form that it takes can be seen as a reflection of another more immediate aspect of the context. Genevieve is obviously frustrated by the situation with Donna.

Exploring control acts in context 

Emotion therefore overrules considerations that she would otherwise make in regard to Sonia’s status. In other circumstances, she might use a more polite form and possibly even not utter the control act at all. The strong expression of advice also reflects the close relationship between the two. This relationship is evident in the fact that Genevieve’s utterance of this control act in this manner does not result in a reprimand and does not have negative consequences for Genevieve. Sonia responds by saying that she did tell Donna to do this. Genevieve then takes the floor and directly expresses her frustration with Donna. The expression of her reaction to the situation can be seen to support her advice to Sonia and to soften it because Genevieve explains her frustration. Genevieve goes on to explain one strategy she is thinking of using to get Donna to become more aware of the problems in her writing. Excerpt 6.5: [SG1:69-98] 69 Gen: well in doing Donna’s 1//um\1 immediately got pissed because I 70 found a whole lot of basic mistakes in the first sentence so I 71 thought to myself what I’m 2//gonna do\2 + um you know I mean 72 just like should be a gap there and she should have quoted the title 73 correctly 74 Sonia: 1/yep\\1 75 Sonia: 2/let’s have a look [dSG1-04]\\2 76 Sonia: mm 77 Gen: and with capitals as you know they had it just really basic stuff so 78 anyway what I thought I’m not sure how you know what you’re 79 doing with her performance thing but what I thought I could do 80 for myself 81 Sonia: mhm 82 Gen: and as feedback for her and for her performance 83 Sonia: yep [from other side of room] 84 Gen: was I could draw up a little um + um + thing similar to similar to 85 this that I use for tracking my work and um where I would record 86 er the date I received it the date it was due so you could see how 87 many days + peer review 88 Sonia: yep 89 Gen: where I had a er a column for you know how many like basic 90 errors which she should have corrected before she gave it to me 91 Sonia: yep 92 Gen: and um and then you know like um um a more sort of er structure 93 errors or whatever

 Chapter 6

94 Sonia: yeah=/ 95 Gen: /=just just sort of you know so I can keep a track of so that I can 96 actually 97 Sonia: so you can you can actually report on 1//on tho-\1 on those issues 98 when it comes to the time of doing a performance but I’ll . . .

Sonia provides supportive feedback throughout Excerpt 6.5. Most of her turns consist of variants of yes (lines 74, 81, 83, 91, 94). When she does take the floor for a longer turn, lines 97–98, she finishes off Genevieve’s last statement from lines 95–96. The only control act in Excerpt 6.5 is a directive from Sonia, line 75. It supports Genevieve’s previous statements and indicates that Genevieve’s concerns are worth consideration. The two participants now discuss a confidential performance assessment report Sonia is writing for Donna. Following this, Sonia returns to the topic of the report Donna has just written. She offers to sit down with Donna and talk to her about the proposed changes (Excerpt 6.6). Excerpt 6.6: [SG1:237-252] 237 Sonia: now do you want me to sit down with her perhaps cos you you’re 238 gonna have to go early today do you want me to sit down with her 239 Gen: (make time) 240 Sonia: make a little bit of time just to sit with her and just ex- go through 241 say that you weren’t able to sit with her [taps document] about this 242 document 243 Gen: mm well if you’ve got the time otherwise I was gonna finish it off 244 today 245 Sonia: yep 246 Gen: and give it back w- back to her and and perhaps elaborate a bit 247 just as the comments in the margin and let her go off and do it 248 Sonia: yeah=/ 249 Gen: /=again today and have another one for me on //Monday\ (cos) it’s 250 due next Wednesday 251 Sonia: /Monday\\ 252 Sonia: okay

After offering to talk to Donna, Sonia provides a reason (a supportive move – lines 237–238) and then makes the offer twice again (lines 238 and 240). She can be seen to be encroaching on Genevieve’s area of responsibility here, but is doing this because she knows Genevieve is busy. Genevieve politely turns down

Exploring control acts in context 

Sonia’s offer. She does not do this directly. Rather she agrees (using a form which illustrates what Sacks (1987) refers to as a “preference for agreement”) and accepts the offer and then outlines how she had been proposing to deal with the report. Again, Excerpt 6.6 shows Sonia providing supportive feedback while Genevieve says what she plans to do. Sonia accepts Genevieve’s proposed course of action and does not remake her offer. She allows Genevieve to proceed with the situation in the way she had planned. Genevieve’s high relative status is evident again here in the way Sonia makes the offer and also in the way that Sonia accepts Genevieve’s proposed course of action. Genevieve’s acknowledgement of Sonia’s legitimate power is also evident in the way that Genevieve refuses Sonia’s offer indirectly rather than directly. Genevieve talks about the deadlines for getting changes made and they discuss how soon the report needs to be ready for Sonia to read, considering the other commitments that Sonia has in the next week. There is a lot of overlapping in this section, and a number of preceding supportive moves to Sonia’s directive, lines 264–266. Excerpt 6.7: [SG1:253-268] 253 Gen: so I really um + the target is for her to get it ready for you by end 254 of //day\ 255 Sonia: /[drawls]: Tues\\day: //[laughs]\ 256 Gen: /end of day\\ Monday so that //you can have it Monday\ 257 Sonia: /yeah ( )\\ thank you //that’s a\ good one [laughs]=/ 258 Gen: /you know\\ 259 Gen: /=so 260 Sonia: cos you see I mean on on Tuesday I’m totally blocked off for the 261 whole morning at the [topic] forum on Wednesday I’m in 262 interviews all day so 263 Gen: mm 264 Sonia: so I’ve got to be able to see it 265 Gen: yeah 266 Sonia: by Wednesday aft- Tuesday afternoon=/ [dSG1-10] 267 Gen: /=the rest is is fairly straight for//ward\ 268 Sonia: /oh\\ yep okay

Sonia’s directive is implicit and focuses on her job obligations. There is no further supportive move at this point from Sonia in relation to [dSG1-10]. Later in the interaction, however, another supportive move is uttered by Sonia.

 Chapter 6

Excerpt 6.8: [SG1:346-349] 346 Tuesday is there any//thing else\ occurring Tuesday (oh no) well 347 that’s even more important that for Donna to have that thing back 348 to you by Monday [supportive move to dSG1-10] 349 Gen: /[sighs]\\

Sonia’s comment at lines 346–348 illustrates the way that components of a directive sequence can be spread throughout an interaction. This utterance supports the earlier directive (lines 264–266 – Excerpt 6.7). In Excerpt 6.7, Sonia had provided a reason to support a directive asking Genevieve to make sure Donna finished the report so that it could be passed onto Sonia by Monday evening. This related to Sonia’s work commitments. In Excerpt 6.8, Sonia’s comment about deadlines focuses on Genevieve’s work commitments during the same period. Following [dSG1-10], Excerpt 6.7, Sonia returns to the course of action Genevieve proposed earlier in terms of dealing with Donna’s writing problems (Excerpt 6.9). She reinforces Genevieve’s suggestion about keeping a log. Genevieve provides a reason to support this course of action in terms of its implications for Sonia, line 279. Sonia then provides a number of other reasons to support this course of action (lines 281, 283–287). This section is collaborative as both participants contribute to the process of providing reasons for the course of action. Excerpt 6.9: [SG1:269-292] 269 Gen: um it’s just=/ 270 Sonia: /=all right //so you’ll work-\ I think that’s a good idea 271 Genevieve if you actually um 272 Gen: /getting her to\\ 273 Gen: do that //log\ 274 Sonia: /do that\\ [dSG1-11a] 275 Gen: yeah I’ll write that down +++ 276 Sonia: do that log [dSG1-11b] um continue ++ with this 277 1//particular\1 paper [dSG1-12a] 2//continue with the 278 corrections\2 [dSG1-12b] 279 Gen: 1/cos that will\\1 280 Gen: 2/give you a good record\2 from which you can base your performance stuff 281 Sonia: well it gives her a good //record too\ 282 Gen: /and it’s not\\ and it’s a solid it’s not just a um [tut]

Exploring control acts in context

283 Sonia: yep it’s factual it’s objec1//tive [laughs]\1 it’s not 2//er\2 it’s not 284 um an irritation hanging over from the fact that she’s been late to 285 two meetings in a row and and and suddenly I I switch in my 286 mind go to leap to fifteen meetings 3//that\3 she’s been late you 287 know what I mean 288 Gen: 1/yeah objective yeah\\1 289 Gen: 2/mm\\2 290 Gen: 3/mm\\3 291 Gen: yeah I wanted to also flag with her that um [tut] er + well does 292 does the report discuss the um [issue] [Genevieve discusses an issue she felt should have been in the report. Genevieve wants Sonia’s advice on whether she thinks it is important to include this issue]

Sonia supports Genevieve’s suggestion that this issue should be included and also supports her proposed course of action for the report. Her directives in this section reinforce Genevieve’s suggestions about the best way to proceed. They are directly expressed and act as a summary. They are mitigated by the reasons provided by both Sonia and Genevieve. Excerpt 6.10: [SG1:301-312] 301 Sonia: okay good idea good idea 2//so well\2 look in terms of that 302 report you you you um=/ 303 Gen: 2/but um\\2 304 Gen: /=yeah I’ll finish //doing it\ 305 Sonia: /you\\ finish doing it [dSG1-13] 306 and //make some notes\ [dSG1-14] 307 Gen: /and I’ll just give it\\ back to her and say look sorry I didn’t have 308 time to=/ 309 Sonia: /=yeah or leave some notes [dSG1-15] cos I’m not //sure\ (if) 310 she’s still not in yet this morning is she (but) 311 Gen: /yeah\\ 312 Gen: yeah anyway so that was that

The directives in Excerpt 6.10 are also expressed explicitly. All three take the form of the imperative and there is minimal internal modification of force. They have come, however, at the end of a great deal of discussion and are therefore modified by the whole preceding section. Sonia is reinforcing suggestions made by Genevieve about the best way to proceed and, once again, [dSG1-13] acts as a summary of the conclusions of their discussion. In line 304, Genevieve even anticipates the completion of this directive. There is no need for Sonia to



 Chapter 6

hedge her directive at this point. The directive head acts here are also modified by the fact that Sonia has just reinforced another suggestion of Genevieve’s. Sonia has been supportive of Genevieve’s suggestions throughout and has allowed Genevieve to determine her own course of action. The head act [dSG1-13] is elicited in that Genevieve has already said that she will finish off making comments on the report. Under Labov’s (1970, 1972) preconditions, these utterances would not be directives because Genevieve will do them anyway. It could be argued, however, that she will only do them if she gets the go-ahead from Sonia. Sonia has accepted Genevieve’s suggestions about how to proceed and has given her approval and support. In this section, I have examined Sonia and Genevieve’s discussion of Donna’s writing. This occupies a large portion of the meeting and involves a number of sub-topics. The discussion results in a number of control act head acts. The head acts of Sonia’s directives are often fairly forcefully expressed, but the way that they evolve from an on-going and lengthy discussion mitigates them heavily. Genevieve proposes ways of dealing with the problem and many of Sonia’s head acts support and reinforce Genevieve’s suggestions. .. Conferences The interaction now moves onto a new topic. Excerpt 6.11: [SG1:313-321] 313 Sonia: (okay)=/ 314 Gen: /=um + this ++ um I just wondered if- 1//you know what’s the\1 315 relevance 2//for us going\2 316 Sonia: 1/I don’t see this as a [false start]\\1 317 Sonia: 2/yeah I don’t see\\2 this as a high priority [aSG1-03a] 318 I thought oh well I’ll put it through to to you and um Francine just 319 to see whether it’s something that you think might or should be 320 interested I’m just as happy for us not to go [aSG1-03b] 321 cos I don’t see it as a high priority at all

Genevieve asks about the relevance of going to a course or a conference. Sonia has passed the information on to Genevieve about this. Sonia says that this is not a high priority, but it is clear that she is leaving the final decision up to Genevieve. Sonia’s utterances (line 317 and 320) have therefore, been categorised as advice rather than directives. Both are head acts of the same piece of advice and are separated by a supportive move. Neither are expressed explicitly and Sonia follows [aSG1-03b] with a further supportive move.

Exploring control acts in context

Genevieve says that she is too busy to go. Sonia supports Genevieve’s decision (lines 325 and line 326) and apologises, line 327. Sonia’s apology softens the advice even more. It indicates her deference towards Genevieve. Excerpt 6.12: [SG1:322-328] 322 Gen: mm + no well 1//I’m not\1 really interested 2//I’ve got\2 too much 323 stuff to do um 3//this\3 I’ll check out about a babysitter and um 324 I’ll ask um Nadine to arrange 4//flights\4 before I go today 325 Sonia: 1/okay\\1 326 Sonia: 2/great\\2 327 Sonia: 3/(sorry)\\3 328 Sonia: 4/okay\\4

In Excerpt 6.12, Genevieve indicates that she will go to another conference, lines 323–324. The discussion moves onto other things, but in Excerpt 6.13, Sonia returns briefly to the issue of the conference or course which Genevieve has said she will go to (Excerpt 6.12). Excerpt 6.13: [SG1:341-345] 341 Gen: um 342 Sonia: so now when’s that again oh and //if you can-\ 343 Gen: /Tues\\day 344 Sonia: Tuesday can you when you email to Nadine can you do a copy 345 email to Beth [dSG1-19] so that she can log on the calendar ++

Sonia’s directive here, lines 344–345, although explicit, is expressed using a conventionally indirect form. This head act is not elicited in any way. There is a slight warning that it is coming because Sonia makes a false start, line 342. She has also grounded the directive by asking Genevieve when she will be away. The head act is also followed by the reason that she wants Beth informed. To sum up, the conferences are only discussed very briefly. The control acts identified in these sections are mitigated internally and there is also brief external mitigation. .. Marcie’s problem Sonia then brings up the next topic. She wants Genevieve to highlight a problem to the other Senior Staff. There is some aspect of their work which has been irritating Sonia’s Manager, Marcie. The problem is never fully stated verbally, but is obviously clear to the participants and relates to something they have on paper in front of them.



 Chapter 6

Excerpt 6.14: [SG1:329-340] 329 Sonia: and the other thing is if you can point out to them [dSG1-16] 330 this is from this one’s the 1//because it’s come\1 from 2//Marcie\2 331 [laughs]: M- Mar3//cie’s: really\3 starting to get irritated by it 332 Gen: 1/oh yeah\\1 333 Gen: 2/that\\2 334 Gen: 3/oh god\\3 335 Gen: I mean it’s so old (that they’re so) 336 Sonia: [voc]=/ 337 Gen: /=pretty shall I leave you with um this with one //with one copy\ 338 Sonia: /well leave me with [false start]\\ leave me with Marcie’s 339 copy [dSG1-17] and just make a note on there for 340 [dSG1-18] (7)

The action Sonia wants Genevieve to complete in [dSG1-16] is embedded in an if clause and is supported by Sonia’s explanation, lines 330–331. Genevieve then asks Sonia if she wants a copy of the paper. Sonia’s directives at this point come in response to Genevieve’s question. They are directly elicited. Both are expressed explicitly and take the form of the imperative. The second is hedged with just. The elicitation of these control acts means that there is not the same need for mitigation. Genevieve is not only expecting them, but she also invites them. .. Work priorities Excerpt 6.15: [SG1:350-371] 350 Gen: mm + twenty two march four p m 351 Sonia: oh god what’s this one yes I thought when I saw this that’s why 352 I’ve said talk to me about whether we really want to com1//ment 353 on it I think\1 it’s just I don’t think we’ve got the resources to 354 comment on it [aSG1-04] 2//um\2 [voc] and I mean I think 355 that what we should do [voc] my my this is just my feeling 356 instinctively is say is to go back and and um + just say thanks 357 thanks for sending us a copy um we’ve already par- as we’ve 358 already participated in the policy guidelines um + 3//well\3 (you 359 know) happy to see that the policy guidelines are the framework 360 in which the funding agreements being developed 4//and\4 we 361 have no further comments to make er but we appreciate getting a 362 copy something 5//like\5 that [aSG1-05] I don’t=/

Exploring control acts in context

363 Gen: 1/mm mm\\1 364 Gen: 2/no\\2 365 Gen: 3/yeah\\3 366 Gen: 4/mm\\4 367 Gen: 5/yeah\\5 368 Gen: /=mm 369 Sonia: what do you think 370 Gen: oh I was gonna say that- + [tut] well there’s two things really 371 1//um\1 [tut] ++ is um first was the um (the) um issue of priorities . . .

Sonia issues another piece of advice in Excerpt 6.15. This relates to another issue which has come up from the materials in Genevieve’s in-tray. Once again, it is clear that Genevieve has a choice here as to whether to comply or not. Sonia is not just telling Genevieve what to do and the sequence has, therefore, been categorised as advice. Fairclough (1989: 136) comments that the use of statements such as “what do you think?” by a person holding power forces other participants out of silence. The use of this utterance by Sonia (line 369) was seen as an indication that this is advice rather than a directive (see Section 3.3.1). This device involves Genevieve in the decision-making process here. Sonia can be seen to be using consultative power (see Chapter 1), giving Genevieve the responsibility of making a decision about how she will deal with the situation. Genevieve provides minimal responses throughout Sonia’s explanation of how she thinks the issue should be dealt with. Most of Genevieve’s contributions in Excerpt 6.15 are similar to Sonia’s in earlier excerpts (see for example Excerpt 6.5). Genevieve agrees with Sonia (lines 364, 365, 367, 370) and says “mm” (lines 363, 366, 368). When she is given the floor by Sonia (line 370), she explicitly agrees with Sonia’s proposal and says that that’s the way she had thought it should be dealt with. Genevieve uses this topic as a way of introducing another related topic she wishes to discuss. She picks up Sonia’s comment about the lack of resources, lines 353–354, and foregrounds this as an issue that has been concerning her. Genevieve directly acknowledges Sonia’s position as Manager here by asking Sonia about work priorities. The two then discuss some of the work that the unit is currently involved in and the projects which should be given priority. Sonia explains that there are some difficulties because it is unclear how some issues should be categorised.



 Chapter 6

Excerpt 6.16: [SG1:432-442] 432 Sonia: [discussion of priorities] . . . well you see this 433 is the thing it’s are we providing information on policy 434 development and therefore it’s information on liaison +++ as 435 3//opposed to\3 436 Gen: 1/( )\\1 437 Gen: 2/mm\\2 438 Gen: 3/oh well I’ll\\3 let you //[laughs]: figure those things out:\ 439 Sonia: /[laughs]\\ so anyway //cut a\ long story short yes the [topic 440 one] is a priority [dSG1-20] 441 Gen: /mm\\ 442 Gen: right

Sonia has been explaining some of the difficulties, while Genevieve provides minimal feedback. The discussion is getting onto some areas which are Sonia’s responsibility. Genevieve’s comment highlights this and brings the discussion back to the point which started the discussion, line 438. Genevieve’s comment that she will leave Sonia to “figure those things out” is an acknowledgement of Sonia’s position. The issues are in Sonia’s area of responsibility. Both participants laugh, probably because Genevieve has no control over Sonia’s work and, therefore, it is not up to her to tell Sonia what to do. Sonia then issues another directive, lines 439–440, as she provides part of the answer to the question that Genevieve had asked about priorities. Sonia then returns to the topic that had initiated the discussion, although she still words her next directive head act [dSG1-21] as a general directive, which comes out of the preceding discussion. She backs this up with supportive moves (lines 447–453), while Genevieve provides minimal responses (lines 450, 451, 455) and agreement (line 456). Excerpt 6.17: [SG1:443-467] 443 Sonia: um + I think when it comes to something like this +++ um ++ 444 [voc] + I would rather that we concentrated on on policy + 445 advice [topic three] policy advice comments 446 Gen: mm=/ 447 Sonia: /=than the implementation [dSG1-21] which is what I see this 448 one as being the implementation so that the policy guidelines and 449 the frame of the policy guideline and //comments\ on that 450 Gen: /mm\\ 451 Gen: mm

Exploring control acts in context 

452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467

Sonia: is t- is to to me far more appropriate than than us commenting on the 1//fun-\1 actual funding a2//rrangements\2 if we had time yes Gen: 1/[clears throat]\\1 Gen: 2/mm mm\\2 Gen: yep Sonia: fine but when our resources are tight //then\ no put that one to the side [dSG1-22] and just concentrate on the policy Gen: /yeah\\ Gen: right=/ Sonia: /=comments and the [topic one] [dSG1-23] Gen: yeah okay that’s fine um +++ Sonia: but we do need a note back to them just 1//saying\1 thank you um for the opportunity 2//blah\2 de blah [dSG1-24] Gen: 1/yep\\1 Gen: 2/okay\\2 Gen: yep ++ okay=/

The beginning of line 457 provides another supportive move to [dSG1-21], as well as setting the scene and providing support for the following two explicit directive head acts. Once again, there are two imperatives with the second modified by just. Genevieve’s contributions at this time provide agreement to Sonia’s proposed course of action (lines 459, 460, 462). In line 463, Sonia returns more explicitly to the issue which produced [aSG1-04] and [aSG1-05]. She wants to clarify that Genevieve will follow the advice that she gave then and which Genevieve had agreed with, line 370. This is expressed as a directive at this point (line 463–464 – [dSG1-24]); there is no clear indication that Genevieve is being given a choice (see Chapter 3). Although the form of this directive is direct, it is less direct than the previous two head acts. The head act [dSG1-24] is introduced by the marker but. Schiffrin (1987: 152) notes that “but marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action”. Sonia has just told Genevieve to focus on certain projects which do not include a particular topic, so she uses but here to show that although this topic is not a priority a reply must be sent to the organisation that has raised this topic with them. As noted in Chapter 5, the use of need to in directives expresses a sense of obligation. The use of we rather than you softens the directive, but also places it in the wider context of the unit’s work. Genevieve, as a representative of the unit, must write a letter back to the organisation.

 Chapter 6

The first control act related to this topic was hedged and mitigated a great deal. This resulted in a fairly lengthy discussion at the end of which were three explicit and less internally modified directive head acts. They were externally modified, however, by the whole preceding discussion. .. Policy unit one report The two now turn to the last issue discussed in the interaction, the issue of a report that the unit has to produce. The discussion deals with a number of sub-topics related to this report: handing out a sheet specifying staff responsibilities; setting deadlines; giving staff an example; and highlighting to staff the importance of the report. Excerpt 6.18: [SG1:468-480] 468 Sonia: /=er now you //you\ 469 Gen: /now\\ I haven’t still got //round to to the\ getting together with 470 everybody 471 Sonia: /[topic one] right\\ 472 Sonia: now you’re not gonna be here for the meeting this morning are 473 you why don’t you give me the the //allocation\ sheet 474 Gen: /sheet\\ 475 Gen: (right)=/ 476 Sonia: /=and I hand it out at the staff meeting=/ 477 Gen: /=mm 478 Sonia: and say this is it folks um ++ and //I’ll\ just start off the discussion 479 in in the staff meeting 480 Gen: /yeah\\

This issue relates to something that Genevieve is responsible for outlining to the rest of the unit. She will not be at the next staff meeting so Sonia offers to highlight the issue to the others. Before making her offer, Sonia sets the scene by noting that Genevieve won’t be at the meeting. She continues to provide supportive moves (lines 476, 478–479) as she outlines what she will do in the meeting. Underlying her offer to Genevieve, is her role as overall Manager of the unit. The issue highlighted in the sheet is one that Genevieve is responsible for, but it is also one for which Sonia has ultimate responsibility. She wants the issue to be brought to the unit’s attention. She knows that Genevieve will not be available to do this at the next meeting. She is willing to take responsibility for setting the process in motion in order to bring this to everyone’s attention as soon as possible. I categorised this as an offer rather than a directive because

Exploring control acts in context 

Sonia is offering to help Genevieve fulfil her job obligations. The utterance also acts as a directive for Genevieve to give her the sheet, but this is secondary to the main function. Excerpt 6.19: [SG1:481-484] 481 Gen: and I’ll give you the other papers talking about the approach that 482 we’re taking [rGS1-03] 483 Sonia: yep 484 Gen: um + oh that’d be great um=/

In Excerpt 6.19, Genevieve makes a request of Sonia. If Sonia is going to give out the sheet then Genevieve wants her to have the other papers related to the issue. Her request is expressed implicitly (in that Genevieve focuses on her action), but is direct. Sonia says she will take the papers and then Genevieve willingly accepts the directive to give Sonia the allocation sheet. Genevieve has been a little hesitant up to this point in accepting Sonia’s offer. She knows that there is a lot more to the job than just handing out the sheet and her request in lines 481 and 482 has the implicit function of asking Sonia if she will also take responsibility for outlining the relevant issues to the other members of the unit. Once this is sorted out, Genevieve turns to the issue of deadlines (Excerpt 6.20 and 6.21). Excerpt 6.20: [SG1:485-493] 485 Sonia: /=and then we can=/ 486 Gen: /=and then I’ll h- [voc] tell them to adjust their deadlines um ++ 487 I’ll have a look at the deadlines but I think I had their deadline’s 488 like the second week of April + 489 Sonia: right 490 Gen: and that was assuming that like they got their allocation about two 491 or- nearly three weeks ago 492 Sonia: oh okay 493 Gen: so I could you know adjust it two weeks out from that I suppose

Sonia provides agreement feedback in Excerpt 6.20. She says “right” (line 489) and “oh okay” (line 492), while Genevieve outlines the deadlines that she has set and that these are not relevant due to delays getting the allocation sheet sorted out. Genevieve proposes a way of dealing with the problem of deadlines (line 493), but her hedging here – through the use of could, you know and I suppose – encourages Sonia to give Genevieve some help to sort out the deadlines.

 Chapter 6

Excerpt 6.21: [SG1:494-523] 494 Sonia: which’ll be the end of April 495 Gen: well I think probably 496 Sonia: make it 497 Gen: the week //before the end of\ April 498 Sonia: /the third of\\ [false start] 499 Sonia: hang on [dSG1-25] here’s my calendar 500 Gen: and um 501 Sonia: don’t forget that April’s a it’s a terrible because you’ve got Easter 502 and also school holidays but I think + I’m the only one that’s 503 actually affected by school holi//days\ um + so that’s the week of 504 anzac week + you’ve got anzac on a [day] and it’s quite likely 505 people will be taking leave on the [day] + so you might need 506 to put it out to the thirtieth [dSG1-26] 507 Gen: /mm\\ 508 Gen: yeah I’m sure 1//I had it\1 the eighth + that um 2//I wanted\2 it 509 back 510 Sonia: 1/but that means\\1 511 Sonia: 2/okay\\2 512 Sonia: well how about then //(we’ll) put it out\ 513 Gen: /the twenty\\ fourth 514 Sonia: twenty fourth [dSG1-27] (week-) so that’s before an//zac\ 515 weekend 516 Gen: /mm\\ 517 Gen: [tut] yeah //yeah\ 518 Sonia: /or an\\zac day 519 Gen: yeah that would be good 520 Sonia: so due date //twenty fourth\ can you write a note on the on the 521 notes when you give it to me [dSG1-28] so that I 522 Gen: /the twenty fourth\\ 523 Gen: yep

In lines 496 and 498 Sonia makes a false start as she begins to propose a date. She then stops and finds her calendar. She gives a number of reasons why they have to be careful about the date specified (lines 501–505), before proposing a definite date (line 505–506). The directive head act identified here is explicit, but it is hedged by the modal verb might. Genevieve does not accept or reject this date, but says what date she had originally proposed. Based on this, Sonia makes another suggestion (lines 512 and 514), which Genevieve pre-empts

Exploring control acts in context

(line 513). Genevieve comments that this would be a good date, line 519, and thereby accepts the proposed date, which they both then repeat. Sonia directs Genevieve to write the date down for her. This directive is worded very politely, taking the form of a modal interrogative. Sonia uses this form because there is no external mitigation, and no warning that the directive is coming. She begins to provide a reason after making the directive, line 521, but does not finish her statement. Excerpt 6.22, begins as Genevieve moves onto a new topic in relation to the report. Excerpt 6.22: [SG1:527-540] 527 Gen: . . . um now I also want to um give them er +++ an um 528 example (4) [tut] um + er an- or do I want to i- I’ll have to lo529 look through it (but) um yeah but I basically I I want [voc] it- oh 530 I’m I [voc] well I have in my thing I’ve [voc] you know set it out 531 that they’ve got to do things like check for accuracy um for 532 information um get um get it peer reviewed so it’s up to the 533 highest possible standard they can get it to before it gets to me 534 Sonia: [laughs] //[laughs]\ 535 Gen: /um [laughs]\\ cos 1//I\1 don’t want the nightmare of having to sit 536 down 2//and\2 peer review everybo3//dy’s bloody work\3 537 Sonia: 1/( )\\1 538 Sonia: 2/no\\2 539 Sonia: 3/no it’s not\\3 it’s not the role of coordinator to do the peer review 540 Gen: [clears throat] [continue to discuss: Sonia supports Genevieve’s stance and reinforces the fact that Genevieve should not have to peer-review contributions to the report; Sonia elaborates on this; Genevieve continues to discuss the example that she is planning to give the staff]

The allocation sheet outlines the responsibilities for writing sections of a report the unit has to produce. Genevieve will then collate everyone’s contributions and edit them for consistency of style. After a number of false starts, Genevieve explains that she wants to make it clear to the other members of the unit that they have to make sure that their sections are of a high standard before they are given to her. Sonia laughs at this point, no doubt because of their earlier discussion about Donna’s writing. Genevieve also laughs and comments that she does not want to have to peer-review everyone’s work. Her use of bloody here shows the close relationship the two participants have.



 Chapter 6

It is unclear at this stage whether she wants Sonia to give the staff the example or not. In Excerpt 6.23, Sonia asks when Genevieve will have the example ready. Genevieve has not quite finished it. She therefore asks Sonia to tell the other unit members that the example will be forthcoming. Excerpt 6.23: [SG1:603-620] 603 Gen: something like that but anyway um that’s what I intended to do 604 was to give them example 605 Sonia: so when will you 1//be able to\1 get that example to them + 606 [laughs] not today [laughs] 2//[laughs]\2 607 Gen: 1/was to-\\1 608 Gen: 2/well I only had\\2 a little bit to do . . . 614 yeah well I’ve got a (got to) finish this peer review 615 Sonia: right 616 Gen: um 617 Sonia: now it’s five //to ten\ 618 Gen: /but you oh\\ well I I tell you what I can just send it you can say 619 that I’m going to send them an example [rGS1-03] 620 Sonia: yes (mm)=/

They discuss the example for over two minutes (since line 468) before Genevieve makes her request at lines 618–619. The whole preceding sequence therefore acts as a softener to the request. This is quickly followed by a series of specific requests, as Genevieve explains how she would like Sonia to outline the issue and the aspects that need to be highlighted to the unit members (Excerpt 6.24). Excerpt 6.24: [SG1:621-670] 621 Gen: /=and that I’m gonna highlight um and that I really want to 622 highlight to them um the um that it’s due one [month] //(that 623 there’s)\ a lot of work involved [rGS1-04] 624 Sonia: /(yep)\\ 625 Sonia: yeah 626 Gen: that what they’re doing um + (th-) that er that the bulk of the work 627 we- er say like they’re doing one third of it two thirds of it 628 needs to be done after their stuff has been received 1//so if their\1 629 stuff is late or if it’s not up to standard um that’s gonna hold up the 630 whole works we want it out by one [month] 2//we want it to the\2 631 printers on one [month] [rGS1-05a] so just to emphasise to 632 them that they’re gotta do their stuff by that time and they’ve gotta

Exploring control acts in context 

633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670

do it well Sonia: 1/mhm\\1 Sonia: 2/mhm\\2 Sonia: right Gen: cos otherwise they’re gonna hold up the whole //+\ boat [rGS1-05b] Sonia: /yep\\ Gen: and um and I think to emphasise to them the um how this is gonna be a milestone report because it’s going to do um [tut] yeah (sort of) analysis of all previous reports in terms of trends and um key issues that keep recurring and how these are being responded to um in the um public sector and um you know what are the key things um you know that were said this year um you know how does this year stack up are they still saying the same things um and what does this mean you know if they are still saying the same things but there have been changes maybe this means that + they’re not getting informed well enough they’re not being in1//formed\1 about and you know [rGS1-06] I and I guess to highlight to them that um er for the new group that um [unit one] is now # this report will be a milestone for us 2//cos it will\2 kind of signal that we’re + you know that we’re here we’ve we’re new and we’ve done a review and once we’ve done this you know it’ll kind of put us on the map and signal to everybody out there that [unit one] is Sonia: 1/mm\\1 Sonia: 2/yeah\\2 Sonia: on to it Gen: on to it alive and well and you know and er hi we’re back [laughs]: you know you may have thought we were l- //we:\ Sonia: /a\\sleep Gen: asleep //but no\ we’re awake now [laughs] and um and so and I guess also about um the priority they should give that work as regards their other work and maybe how they should balance try and balance their priorities Sonia: /[laughs]\\ Sonia: mm Gen: you know like in terms of um it’s an output that we’ve cr- er contracted to achieve um and so um + you know um you know obviously //you want them to\ [rGS1-07]

 Chapter 6

Throughout Excerpt 6.24, Genevieve holds the floor as she outlines in detail what she wants Sonia to say. Her requests here are expressed fairly directly, but there is no direct reference to Sonia as the agent. They are softened by her use of hedges such as just, I guess, I think and you know. Genevieve says you know twelve times in Excerpt 6.24. Sonia’s contributions are short and supportive throughout this excerpt. Most of her turns consist of variants of yes (lines 624, 625, 634, 635, 636, 638, 657) and mm (lines 656, 667). At lines 658 and 661 Sonia anticipates the completion of Genevieve’s utterances. In each case, Genevieve takes up the fragment that Sonia has suggested and completes it. Sonia also laughs once, line 666. Sonia then comes in (Excerpt 6.25) and reinforces Genevieve’s comments more directly by expanding the last reason that Genevieve has asked her to highlight to the staff. Excerpt 6.25: [SG1:671-679] 671 Sonia: /well they’re gonna have to balance\\ those priorities with the 672 other like the [topic] work this this work 673 Gen: mm 674 Sonia: um and [voc] and but it’s an important one it’s one that will that is 675 gone [voc] through in the changed quarterly plan it’s been 676 highlighted to the minister as a as a as a milestone + that they’ll be 677 measuring our performance on 678 Gen: yeah so that’s it 679 Sonia: okay

The discussion of the report and the associated sub-topics results in ten control acts. Four directive head acts were identified in the short section where the subtopic of setting deadlines comes up (Excerpt 6.21). Once again, as with other topics discussed only briefly, there was not a lot of external modification of the directive head acts, but they were richly mitigated internally. The main control acts which were uttered in this discussion of the report were six requests from Genevieve to Sonia. They were richly mitigated both internally and externally. This can be explained by examining the status differences between the two participants.

Exploring control acts in context 

. Control acts in context The close analysis of this transcript illustrates the way that control acts pattern throughout an interaction. Utterances related to a control act may occur over an extended period or they may be separated by discussion of other topics. This pattern is evident throughout the 52 transcripts and highlights the importance of examining head acts in context. Previous studies of control acts have tended to consider head acts in isolation or have looked only at other utterances in the immediate context. The Manager’s control acts in this interaction are always mitigated. When head acts are preceded by a great deal of related discussion, then this acts as external modification and there may not be much internal modification. When the issue is only briefly discussed there is a lot more internal mitigation. The status difference between the two women is evident here. Whereas Sonia seems to provide different degrees of internal or external modification based on how much a topic has been discussed, Genevieve always provides both internal and external mitigation. The different roles of the two interactants are less obvious in other aspects of their discourse, for instance in the way that Genevieve frequently holds the floor for long sections while Sonia provides supportive minimal feedback. Sonia’s role as Manager in this context is one of adviser and supporter. She has the ultimate control and responsibility for the work that comes from her unit, but each staff member has their own responsibilities. Sonia acknowledges their responsibilities and the valuable contribution that they make to the unit when she allows them to determine their own course of action. Genevieve is a very competent member of staff who does not need close direction. She knows what her current tasks are and has firm ideas about how to achieve these. Sonia occasionally makes alternative suggestions about strategies for action, but as a rule supports the plans for action proposed by Genevieve. Looking through this transcript, the joint effort and cooperation/negotiation are more striking than the displays of power and acquiescence. Further exploration of the enactment and acknowledgement of power in interactions between the Managers and their staff is provided in Chapters 7 and 8.

Chapter 7

Control acts between Managers and their staff

The previous chapter provides a close analysis of an interaction between one of the Managers, Sonia, and one of her Senior Policy Analysts, Genevieve, in order to illustrate the way control acts occur within an interaction. This also demonstrates the way that Managers and their senior staff interact and some of the ways that power is enacted and acknowledged. The participants’ roles are negotiated/worked out in practice in relation to specific issues in specific interactions. This is an ongoing process. In this chapter, I explore in more detail the enactment and acknowledgement of power in the way the control acts are expressed in interactions involving individuals at different job levels. The possible effects of status differences are explored through consideration of the distribution of control acts and variation in the use of forms and mitigation.

. Types of control act Fairclough (1989) notes that people in different power positions use different types of speech act. In particular, in a teacher/pupil situation he notes that there are constraints on “the content of the turns” that pupils can take - “they are essentially limited to giving relevant answers to the teacher’s questions” (Fairclough 1989: 135). Teachers, on the other hand, may do a range of things – ask questions, provide information, give feedback, issue instructions. In the interactions between the Managers and their staff there are also differences in the types of speech act the different individuals utter, and, in particular, in different types of control acts. My definition of directive and request rely on the status of the speaker and addressee. 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. In keeping with Fairclough’s (1989) observations about classroom language, control acts are much more frequent in the speech of the more statusful

 Chapter 7

participant in my workplace data. The status difference between Sonia and Ruth and their staff is evident in the overall number of control acts identified in their speech and in the speech of their interactants. Only 7% of the control acts were directed at Sonia and Ruth; the remaining 93% were identified in the Managers’ speech. This is one way therefore, that Sonia and Ruth “do power” and enact their professional status and responsibilities. .. Between Managers and Senior Staff In the interactions between the Managers and Senior Staff, a large percentage of the control acts were issued by the Managers (see Tables 7.1 and 7.2). Table 7.1 Control acts between Sonia and her Senior Staff

Occupation Comms. Liaison Officer

Other participant

From Sonia No. of No. of directives advice

To Sonia No. of No. of requests advice

Total

Hilary

20

0

0

0

20

Senior Policy Analyst

Genevieve Francine

29 8

5 0

7 0

1 1

42 9

Policy Analyst

Eloise Donna

16 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

16 5

78

5

7

2

92

Total

Table 7.2 Control acts between Ruth and her Senior Staff

Occupation Senior Policy Analyst

Policy Analyst Total

Other participant Jo Katie Leigh Mary Nell Ondine

From Ruth No. of No. of directives advice

To Ruth No. of No. of requests advice

Total

35 7 8 9 7

2 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0

37 9 9 10 7

4

0

0

0

4

70

3

3

0

76

Control acts between Managers and their staff 

As well as issuing both directives and advice to her staff, Sonia also has requests and advice directed to her. Overall 92 control acts were identified in the six interactions involving Sonia and her Senior Staff; 83 of these were uttered by Sonia (90%). Ruth issues 70 directives and three instances of advice in the twelve interactions with her senior staff. Only three requests are directed back at her. Ruth, therefore, utters 96% of the control acts in these interactions. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 also show that of the few control acts directed at Sonia and Ruth, none of these were uttered by the more junior Policy Analysts. .. Between Managers and Administration Staff Tables 7.3 and 7.4 summarise the results for the control acts between the Managers and Administration Staff. Table 7.3 Control acts between Sonia and Administration Staff Other Occupation participant Exec. Asst. Accts. Clerk

From Sonia No. of No. of directives advice

To Sonia No. of No. of requests advice

Total

Beth Anna Irene

50 26 2

0 1 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

50 27 2

Clare

3

0

3

0

6

81

1

3

0

85

Total

Table 7.4 Control acts between Ruth and Administration Staff Other Occupation participant

From Ruth No. of No. of directives advice

To Ruth No. of No. of requests advice

Total

Exec. Asst.

Irene Phoebe

35 0

0 1

4 0

0 0

39 1

Library Asst.

Quinta

1

0

1

0

2

36

1

5

0

42

Total

 Chapter 7

All but one of Sonia’s 82 control acts to Administration Staff are directives. Seventy-eight of these are directed at the Executive Assistants, including two directives to Irene in an interaction between Sonia and Ruth. Only three control acts are directed to Sonia. These are all requests from Clare in interaction SC1. The reason this interaction takes place is because Clare has come to make three requests of Sonia. Ruth utters fewer control acts to Administration Staff than Sonia and has more directed back at her, 36 and five respectively. The majority of these involve her Executive Assistant, Irene. Ruth’s interactions with Phoebe and Quinta are atypical. Ruth’s interaction with Phoebe arises because Ruth has gone to ask her how to get in touch with someone. While she is there Phoebe asks her advice about something else. The request Ruth has gone to make is not captured on tape as someone interrupts and the tape is turned off. When it is turned on again, the request has been made already and Ruth is noting down the information she has asked Phoebe to find for her. Quinta has come to see Ruth about something because her own Manager is currently away on a course. Overall, I identified only eight instances of requests from Administration Staff to Managers. The only requests for action from Executive Assistants to Managers were issued by Irene to Ruth. The requests that Irene makes relate to her job obligations; they are made as part of her role as Ruth’s Executive Assistant. Although infrequent, they still come from the set of appropriate speech acts that Irene can make when dealing with Ruth. There were no examples of this type evident in the interactions between Sonia and the two Executive Assistants in her unit – Anna and Beth. This is not to say, of course, that they do not occur; just that we did not capture any examples on tape. In contrast, Sonia and Ruth issued 119 control acts to Administration Staff, 114 of these to the Executive Assistants. The number of directives and advice from Managers in interactions with Administration Staff in comparison to the number of requests or advice directed at the Managers is, therefore, a clear indicator of power relations. This is of course due to the job obligations of the different participants and the type of interactions they have (see Section 8.1.3). Executive Assistants are there to provide administration support to the Managers. .. Comparing Managers and staff at different levels Sonia issued approximately the same number of directives to Senior Staff as she did to Administration Staff, 78 and 81 respectively. Ruth on the other hand

Control acts between Managers and their staff

directed about half the number of directives to Administration Staff, 36, as she did to Senior Staff, 70. These figures need to be considered relative to the length of time each of the Managers spent interacting with staff at different levels. The interactions between the Managers and their staff varied considerably according to length. It is useful therefore, to calculate the number of control acts per minute. In particular, Tables 7.5 and 7.6 give the number of directives per minute. They also note the length of time spent with each individual and the number of directives and directive head acts. Table 7.5 Sonia’s interactions in terms of length, number of directives and directive head acts, and number of directives per minute Other participant Senior Staff

Hilary Genevieve Francine Eloise Donna

Sub-total Admin. Staff

Sub-total Total

Beth Anna Clare Irene†

Length of interaction

No. of directives

No. of directive head acts

No. of directives per minute

27 mins 35 mins 16 mins 20 mins 8 mins

20 29 8 16 5

24 34 11 22 5

0.74 0.83 0.50 0.80 0.63

1 hr 46 mins

78

96

0.74

29 mins 10 mins 3 mins

50 26 3 2

54 29 5 4

1.72 2.60 1.00 ...

42 mins

81

92

1.93

2 hr 28 mins

159

188

1.07

† Sonia’s two directives to Ruth’s Executive Assistant, Irene, come during a meeting between Sonia and Ruth. These are

included in Table 7.5, but no ratio has been calculated.

Although Sonia issues approximately the same number of directives to both her Senior Staff and the Administration Staff she interacts with, she spends two and half times more time with her Senior Staff. The number of directive head acts per minute in Sonia’s interactions with her Senior Staff ranges from 0.50 (Francine) to 0.83 (Genevieve). When interacting with Administration Staff the range is 1.00 (Clare) to 2.60 (Anna). The density of directives is therefore much higher in the Manager/Administration Staff interactions, averaging 1.93 per minute. Looking in particular at Sonia’s interactions with her Executive Assistants, Beth and Anna, Sonia spends 26% of her time overall with them, while 48% of the directives and 44% of the directive head acts are directed to them.





Chapter 7

This pattern is not surprising given that the main purpose of each of Sonia’s interactions with lower level staff is related in some way to task allocation or clarification (see Appendix B). Table 7.6 Ruth’s interactions in terms of length, number of directives and directive head acts, and number of directives per minute

Senior Staff

Other participant

Length of interaction

Jo Katie Leigh Mary Nell Ondine

1 hr 9 mins 21 mins 8 mins 30 mins 5 mins 7 mins

Sub-total Admin. Staff

Sub-total Total

Irene Phoebe Quinta

No. of directives 35 7 8 9 7 4

No. of directive head acts 42 9 14 12 7 5

No. of directives per minute 0.51 0.33 1.00 0.30 1.40 0.57

2 hr 20 mins

70

89

0.50

20 mins 3 mins 4 mins

35 0 1

40 0 2

1.75 0.00 0.25

27 mins

36

42

1.33

2 hr 47 mins

106

131

0.63

Ruth issues fewer directives per minute than Sonia to both Senior Staff and Administration Staff. There is also a greater spread; Mary receives the fewest directives per minute at 0.30, while Nell receives the most (1.40). The two interactions between Ruth and Senior Staff which have the highest density of directives were both situations where the main purpose of the meeting involves giving directives. In RN1, Ruth gives Nell feedback on a letter she has written, while in RL1, Leigh has come to ask Ruth’s advice (see Appendix B). Ruth issues half as many directives to Administration Staff as she does to Senior Staff, but spends over five times as much time interacting with her Senior Staff. Overall, although Administration Staff are only present 16% of the total time (315 mins), 42% of the directives (and 38% of directive head acts) are issued to them. The three Executive Assistants receive the highest number of directives per minute of interaction time – 2.50, 1.72 and 1.80. This is not surprising considering the roles of the individuals. Typical interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants involve the Managers assigning tasks or being provided with feedback on something they had requested (see

Control acts between Managers and their staff

Appendix B). Many of the interactions between Managers and Senior Staff are problem-solving sessions generally originating from a situation where the staff update their progress on their various work projects to their Manager. Control acts evolve from an extended discussion in these cases.

. Forms used Tied in with the types of speech act different individuals can appropriately use is the way that a speech act is expressed. I now focus on some of the general control act categories identified in my data (see Chapter 4) and explore their distribution in the control acts involving the Managers and their staff. .. Between Managers and Senior Staff

Managers to Senior Staff Studies on people’s perceptions of forms and the appropriate use of these forms have shown that more powerful people are seen as having the right to use direct forms such as imperatives (see e.g. Baxter 1984). Consequently, a preponderance of forceful forms could be expected. The imperative is one form which is considered to be a very forceful way of giving a directive, while the use of an interrogative is considered the least forceful (Blum-Kulka 1987). The Managers in my study therefore, might be assumed to use a lot of imperatives and few interrogatives when dealing with their staff. Chapter 4 shows that the directive head acts are realised by a range of forms. Table 7.7 gives the number of head acts from the Managers to each member of their Senior Staff which are expressed as imperatives, interrogatives and declaratives. Imperatives account for 28% of the head acts. The largest proportion is expressed as declaratives. Brown (2000: 77) found a much larger overall proportion of imperatives in his factory data (58%). The participants in his study enact their power much more overtly. Neither Sonia nor Ruth use one form exclusively to any individual. The imperative is used in 41% of Sonia’s directives to Genevieve and 43% of Ruth’s directives to Leigh. Otherwise, percentages are between 0% (to Ondine) and 27% (to Francine). Interrogatives occur infrequently in my data (see Chapter 4). The variation of form found in the head acts is an important finding of this study. Many researchers make generalisations about the use of different forms by people of different status to different addressees (see, e.g., ErvinTripp 1976). As seen in Chapter 6 the “most” forceful and the “least” forceful



 Chapter 7

Table 7.7 Basic form of explicit directive head acts to Senior Staff Manager Sonia

Ruth

Total

Senior staff

Imperative

Interrogative

Hilary Genevieve Francine Eloise Donna

6 14 3 5 1

(25%) (41%) (27%) (23%) (20%)

0 3 1 1 0

Jo Katie Leigh Mary Nell Ondine

11 2 6 3 1 0

(26%) (22%) (43%) (25%) (14%)

1 0 2 0 0 0

52

(28%)

8

(9%) (9%) (5%) (2%) (14%)

(4%)

Declarative

Total explicit

Overall total

13 7 2 10 2

(54%) (21%) (18%) (50%) (40%)

19 24 6 16 3

(79%) (71%) (56%) (73%) (60%)

24 34 11 22 5

22 2 3 5 2 1

(52%) (22%) (21%) (42%) (29%) (20%)

34 4 11 8 3 1

(18%) (44%) (79%) (67%) (43%) (20%)

42 9 14 12 7 5

69

(37%)

129

(70%)

185

forms can occur in the same interaction. Fourteen of Sonia’s directive head acts to Genevieve in interaction SG1 are imperatives. Eleven of these are base form imperatives and two contain an overt agent marker you. Two of the four modal interrogatives which Sonia addresses to her Senior Staff are directed to Genevieve. As well as being the addressee of the largest percentage of “forceful” forms, Genevieve also receives the largest percentage of the form which is associated with the least force. Although Sonia may make her status salient at times through her use of forceful forms, she more frequently minimises status differences by using a range of less forceful forms. This result was also found for Leigh. Ruth only uttered two explicit modal interrogatives to her Senior Staff. One of these was directed at Leigh, the addressee of the largest percentage of imperatives. Closer examination of interaction RL1 shows that most of the directives and most of the discussion relate to the same issue. Ruth’s imperatives here also support and confirm Leigh’s suggestions about the best way to deal with the issue. The imperatives are mitigated, therefore, both by the fact that they arise from an extended discussion of the same topic and in that they act as a summary and confirmation of Leigh’s proposed course of action. Donna, Eloise and Ondine are all Policy Analysts rather than Senior Policy Analysts. Nineteen percent of the directives issued to them take an imperative form. This compares to 30% directed at the Senior Policy Analysts. The greater power difference between them and their Manager seems to result in the use of fewer rather than more forceful forms. Sonia and Ruth seem to make even

Control acts between Managers and their staff

more effort to minimise status differences through their use of less forceful forms when dealing with less senior members of their Senior Staff. To conclude, although the status difference between the Managers and their Senior Staff is evident in the number of control acts downwards compared to the number upwards, they both minimise status differences in the way the control acts are expressed. A range of forms is used with each interactant and these are always mitigated in some way.

Senior Staff to Managers Senior Staff address 12 control acts with 13 head acts to Sonia and Ruth. Eight of them, with nine head acts, were uttered by Genevieve to Sonia (see Chapter 6). They were mitigated a great deal, both internally and externally. The remaining four are listed in Example 7.1. Example 7.1: a. and it’s waiting for your signature [rKR1-01] b. now that we’ve had a discussion we’d thought we’d make a time with you to discuss the pay project and some of the ideas about um [rLR1-01] c. but if you’ve got ten minutes or ( ) five minutes? [rMR1-01] d. do that now [aFS1-01]

All three of the requests directed at Ruth are implicit. Example 7.1 d), however, advice from Francine to Sonia, is both explicit and very direct, although it is softened slightly by the use of referencing rather than direct stating of the action. The head act [aFS1-01] is also mitigated by Francine’s two following utterances. The sequence of talk in which this utterance occurs is provided in Excerpt 7.2. Excerpt 7.2: [SF1:241-248] 241 Sonia: now I better try and ring Ariana Dean too 242 Fran: okay 243 Sonia: er I (wonder if) //she\ 244 Fran: /do that\\ now [aFS1-01] because you’ll forget //I know that I 245 do\ 246 Sonia: /I wonder if sh- I won\\der if she’s available on Friday morning to 247 come in briefly to the um staff meeting + you know how we said we’d 248 see if we can get her to come in we’ll check on that eh + . . .

Sonia and Francine have just finished discussing the main issue on their agenda. Sonia has raised something she wants to talk about, line 241. This re-



 Chapter 7

lates to her work obligations. Although not directly solicited, Francine’s advice comes in response to the raising of this issue. As in interaction SG1, (see Section 6.2.3), Francine’s use of a reasonably forceful form to give Sonia advice is mitigated by external modification devices. It is also apparent that the use of this form is not perceived negatively by Sonia. She does not verbally acknowledge Francine’s advice, although she does stop speaking. There may have been non-verbal acknowledgement of some kind. In Sonia’s last turn in Excerpt 7.2, she uses a number of solidarity markers – you know, we, eh. Very few control acts were directed at the Managers by their Senior Staff. Those that were identified were all mitigated. Sonia’s and Ruth’s Senior Staff acknowledge the status differences between them and their Manager in the way that they modify any control acts directed upwards. .. Between Managers and Administration Staff

Managers to Administration Staff Table 7.7 showed the range of forms used by the Managers to Senior Staff. Table 7.8 gives the number of directive head acts from the Managers to the Executive Assistants which are expressed as imperatives, interrogatives and declaratives. Imperatives account for 28% of the head acts, while only 13% are interrogatives. The largest proportion take a declarative form. Table 7.8 Basic form of explicit directive head acts to Executive Assistants Exec. assist.

Imperative

Interrogative

Declarative

Sonia

Beth Anna Irene

9 12 3

(17%) (41%) (75%)

7 2 0

(13%) (7%)

16 12 0

(30%) (41%)

32 26 3

(59%) (90%) (75%)

54 29 4

Ruth

Irene

11

(28%)

7

(18%)

14

(35%)

32

(80%)

40

35

(28%)

16

(13%)

42

(33%)

93

(73%)

127

Manager

Total

Total explicit

Overall total

The interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants also reveal the use of a range of forms. Sonia’s directives to Irene show the most consistent use of a single form; three of the four head acts are imperatives. These head acts occur in a context where there is a sense of urgency for Sonia. She has come to discuss an issue with Ruth, but Irene interrupts to say there is someone to see Ruth. This places a time constraint on Sonia and Ruth’s inter-

Control acts between Managers and their staff

action and Sonia is determined to finish discussing the issue with Ruth before she leaves. A large number of head acts are directed at Irene by Ruth and at Anna and Beth by Sonia. Some differences emerge when examining the forms used in these situations. The head acts Ruth issues to Irene contain a range of forms, the largest percentage being declaratives, 35%. The explicit head acts directed at Beth by Sonia are also mainly declarative, 30%. Sonia uses the highest proportion of imperatives when talking to Anna, 41%. Forty-one percent are also declaratives, while only three head acts are implicit. The remaining two explicit head acts take an interrogative form. Two of the imperatives directed at Anna by Sonia are embedded imperatives. Of the remaining ten, nine come from the same interaction. This interaction contains 22 directive head acts and one advice head act. These all relate to aspects of the same task. The first imperative is the seventh head act which Sonia utters in the interaction. The use of less forceful forms preceding this has the effect of softening its force. The differences between the head acts Sonia directs at Anna and the ones she directs at Beth are interesting. Both Anna and Beth are acting as Sonia’s Executive Assistant, but Anna is temping and Sonia does not know her well. Sonia uses a range of forms with both Anna and Beth, but whereas 41% of Sonia’s head acts to Beth are implicit, only 10% of the ones she directs at Anna are. Implicit head acts would not be appropriate to Anna because she does not necessarily know what needs to be done. There is more need to be explicit. In the interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants the context is one where the Executive Assistant is expecting to hear directives. Because of this the Manager does not always need to be explicit; it is enough to say that something needs to be done or to focus on a personal need. This is especially true of the interactions between Sonia and Beth. Closer examination of the explicit declarative sub-forms used also shows some interesting patterns, see Table 7.9. Whereas Sonia and Ruth both use a similar range of declarative sub-forms to their permanent Executive Assistants, Table 7.9 Declarative sub-forms in explicit directive head acts to Executive Assistants Addressee

Modal

Marginal

Conditional

Embedded

Simple

Total

Anna Beth Irene

4 5 4

0 6 6

2 4 3

5 1 1

1 0 0

12 16 14

Total

13

12

9

7

1

42



 Chapter 7

Beth and Irene, Sonia’s head acts to Anna have a different type of distribution. Sonia uses more embedded declaratives when dealing with Anna and no forms containing marginal auxiliaries. Looking at the marginal auxiliary declaratives directed at Irene and Beth, all but one contain need to or have to expressing obligation and necessity. Interestingly, each occurrence of have to uses we rather than you. Although have to is stronger than need to, this is compensated for with the use of we. The use of need to or have to calls on the job obligations of the Executive Assistants. Avoidance of these forms when dealing with Anna highlights her position as a temp within the organisation. This is also evident in the use of a higher number of embedded forms. These are associated with a higher level of politeness. Sonia’s use of this sub-form can be seen as compensation for the inappropriateness of implicit head acts to Anna. Sonia can not soften her head acts by being implicit because Anna does not know what to do. She needs to be explicit. Sonia therefore, utilises other softening devices from within the range of possible explicit head act sub-forms. Her use of different pronouns also reflects this. Exploration of the non-imperative explicit head acts shows a similar number of times where Sonia and Ruth use we when talking to their permanent Executive Assistants; 5 out of 23 and 5 out of 21 respectively. When addressing Anna, however, Sonia’s use of we increases considerably; 7 of the 14 non-imperative explicit head acts contain we rather than you. None of the control acts issued to the other members of the Administration Staff take an imperative form. There are eight head acts associated with the five control acts directed at Clare, Phoebe and Quinta by the Managers. Four of these head acts are explicit and are all directed to Clare by Sonia. Three of these four are declaratives, while the remaining one is an interrogative.

Administration Staff to Managers There were only four head acts directed at a Manager by an Executive Assistant. These were all uttered by Irene to Ruth, Example 7.3. Example 7.3: a. and I’d just like to check this meeting with you [rIR3-01] b. and we’ve written this little note [rIR4-01] c. but you’ve got a visitor out there who happens to be Rebecca [rIR12-01] d. could you have a quick word with her [rIR13-01]

Only one of Irene’s four requests to Ruth is explicit. This is a modal interrogative, Example 7.3 (d). The three implicit head acts here focus on the actions of people other than the addressee. In Example 7.3 (a), Irene uses the first person

Control acts between Managers and their staff 

singular pronoun, I, while in Example 7.3 (b) we refers to Irene and Vera. In Example 7.3 (c), a third person is referred to. The use of less forceful forms by Irene may be an acknowledgement of Ruth’s status. It may also indicate that the two have worked together for a long time. Three of the seven head acts directed at Sonia are implicit. The remaining four were all head acts of the same request and were uttered by Clare. They are listed in Example 7.4. Example 7.4: a. do you think you’ll have time to come and approve the (disc bank) one payment that Yvette’s bonus payment [rCS1-01a] b. so if you can come and approve (that ) [rCS1-01b] c. (if) we can do that [rCS1-01c] d. if you can do that please [rCS1-01d]

Example 7.4 (a) is an interrogative, while the other three head acts are if clauses and contain the modal can. The four head acts come from an extended discussion so are mitigated externally as well as internally. Given the status differences between Clare and Sonia, Clare’s use of both internal and external mitigation shows her acknowledgement of Sonia’s status. .. Comparing Managers and staff at different levels A range of forms was used by Sonia and Ruth to both Senior Staff and Administration Staff. This was found to vary according to addressee. In this section I make overall comparisons between the groups. The same overall percentage of imperatives was found for both Senior Staff and Executive Assistants, 28%. A similar overall percentage are also explicit rather than implicit. The biggest difference observed in Table 7.10 is in the use of interrogatives. Lower level staff are the recipients of a larger percentage of directive head acts which take an interrogative form. In other words AdminisTable 7.10 Basic form of explicit directive head acts to staff at different levels Total explicit

Overall total

Staff level

Imperative

Interrogative

Declarative

Senior Staff Exec. Assists. Admin Staff

52 35 0

(28%) (28%)

8 16 1

(4%) (13%) (14%)

69 42 3

(37%) (33%) (43%)

129 93 4

(70%) (73%) (57%)

185 127 7

Total

87

(27%)

25

(8%)

114

(36%)

226

(71%)

319

 Chapter 7

tration Staff, and in particular permanent Executive Assistants (see Table 7.8), have the highest number of interrogatives directed to them. This is contrary to predictions based on the work of researchers such as Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) who assert that the greater the power difference between two individuals the less need for face redress and therefore the less need for use of more polite forms. It can also not be explained by referring to imposition because the majority of the tasks relate to the addressee’s job obligations. Social distance does not account for the difference either. Because the Managers have much more frequent contact with their Executive Assistants than with their other staff social distance would be expected to be smaller. According to Brown and Levinson (1987) this should result in the use of less polite forms. This finding can be accounted for by other features of the interactions in the dataset. Ruth and Sonia spend less time with their Executive Assistants, but utter a lot more directives to them. Due to the shorter length of interactions there are generally less extended sections of discussion relating to each directive, and therefore less external modification. This may be being compensated for by the use of heavy internal mitigation in the use of the interrogative form. The different declarative sub-forms were seen to vary in their forcefulness. Closer examination of the explicit declarative sub-forms used to each group of staff shows that a range of declarative forms are used, see Table 7.11. Modal declaratives were more frequent to the Senior Staff than to the Executive Assistants. Closer analysis of the modal verbs used reveals one main difference: the Managers use should with their Senior Staff, but not with the Executive Assistants. In each case where should is used this is also softened with the use of we. Only three of the Senior Staff have ten or more declarative directive head acts directed at them. Their results are presented in Table 7.12 along with the results for the three Executive Assistants. As noted above, a difference was noted in the declarative forms used to the permanent and temporary Executive Assistants. Sonia did not use marginal Table 7.11 Declarative sub-forms in explicit directive head acts Addressee Senior Staff Exec. Assists. Total

Modal

Marginal

If clause

Embedded

Simple

Total

28

(41%)

15

(22%)

12

(17%)

6

(9%)

8

(12%)

69

13

(31%)

12

(29%)

10

(24%)

6

(14%)

1

(2%)

42

41

(37%)

27

(24%)

22

(20%)

12

(11%)

9

(8%)

111

Control acts between Managers and their staff

Table 7.12 Declarative sub-forms in explicit directive head acts to individuals having ten or more such forms directed to them Addressee Anna Beth Irene

Modal

Marginal

If clause

Embedded

Simple

Total

4 5 4

(33%) (31%) (29%)

0 6 6

3 4 3

(25%) (25%) (21%)

4 1 1

(33%) (6%) (7%)

1 0 0

(8%)

(38%) (43%)

12 16 14

13

(31%)

12

(29%)

10

(24%)

6

(14%)

1

(2%)

42

7 3 7

(54%) (30%) (32%)

1 3 6

(8%) (30%) (27%)

2 2 4

(15%) (20%) (18%)

2 1 2

(15%) (10%) (9%)

1 1 3

(8%) (10%) (14%)

13 10 22

Subtotal

17

(38%)

10

(22%)

8

(18%)

5

(11%)

5

(11%)

45

Total

30

(34%)

22

(25%)

18

(21%)

11

(13%)

6

(7%)

87

Subtotal Hilary Eloise Jo

auxiliaries to Anna and used more embedded forms. Sonia and Ruth do use marginal auxiliaries to Senior Staff, but not as often as they do to Beth and Irene, their permanent Executive Assistants. The largest proportion of the declaratives to the three members of the Senior Staff, as with the overall results in Table 7.11, are modal declaratives.

. External mitigation of Managers’ directives to Executive Assistants In Chapters 6 and Section 7.2 a pattern was observed in the interactions between the Managers and their Senior Staff whereby imperatives tended to occur at the end of a long section of discussion on a topic. I now explore more closely the occurrence of imperatives in the Manager/Executive Assistant interactions. The interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants tend to be shorter than the interactions between the Managers and more senior staff. This is especially true of Ruth’s interactions with Irene; the interactions recorded were all between one and three minutes long. Sonia may also have short interactions with her Executive Assistant, just as Ruth may have longer meetings with Irene, but none were recorded. Sonia’s interactions with Anna and Beth which were completely recorded (one cut off a short way in), ranged from eight to 11 minutes in length. The topics covered were more involved than those in Ruth and Irene’s interactions and required more interaction time. Of the eleven imperative directive head acts which Ruth utters to Irene, eight are interspersed with head acts which take another form, and arise as part of an extended directive sequence. The other three, listed in Example 7.5,



 Chapter 7

are not preceded by other head acts. Example 7.5 (a), is the first of four head acts in interaction RI4. This is softened with the use of laughter (and also by a following utterance). The two other head acts, Examples 7.5 (b) and 7.5 (c) are the only directive head acts identified in Ruth’s speech in their respective interactions. Example 7.5: a. [laughs, quietly]: come over here: [dRI4-01] b. leave out the surname [dRI11-01] c. tell her (not to go away) [dRI12-01]

The mitigation caused by the utterances surrounding [dRI11-01], Example 7.5 (b), were noted in Chapter 5 (see Excerpt 5.32). Although Example 7.5 (c) is the first and only head act from Ruth to Irene in this interaction it is mitigated by the surrounding utterances. Example 7.5 (c) occurs in an interaction between Ruth and Sonia. Irene interrupts twice in relation to a visitor who has come to see Ruth. During the first interruption, Sonia gives Irene two directives (see Section 7.2.2). Ruth’s directive comes during the second interruption and reinforces Sonia’s earlier directives. There has been some debate during both interruptions about who the visitor is. There is laughter throughout this section and the discussion is very informal. This further mitigates the directives. It has already been noted that imperative head acts can be mitigated by non-imperative head acts in the environment. In interactions with Executive Assistants there is a high density of control acts (see Section 7.1). Imperatives are often softened therefore, by the forms of other head acts clustering around them, as in Excerpt 7.6. Excerpt 7.6: [RI8:66-74] 66 Ruth: yeah um 1//one thing th-\1 one thing is you could ask (you know 67 perhaps [voc]) um ask them if you can see some menus or some i68 you know 2//the types of things that they\2 provide [dRI8-03] 69 3//and\3 the other thing is (like) make sure that there is er a good 70 selection of vegetarian 4//food\4 [dRI8-04] 71 Irene: 1/I’ll see what they can offer\\1 72 Irene: 2/( mm mm)\\2 73 Irene: 3/mm\\3 74 Irene: 4/yeah\\4

Control acts between Managers and their staff 

In Excerpt 7.6, the second head act, [dRI8-04], is softened by the form of the preceding one, as well as by the lead in “and the other thing is” and by the use of like. Only nine of Sonia’s directive head acts to Beth are imperatives. Most of these are surrounded by head acts which take a non-imperative form. Four also contain softeners before the verb such as just or oh. Only two occur at the beginning of an interaction. They are both from the same interaction and have no preceding head act which takes a less direct form, Excerpt 7.7. Excerpt 7.7: [SB3:1-10] 1 Sonia: come on Beth [dSB3-01] 2 Beth: now I just get all //this um\ 3 Sonia: /[laughs]\\ you don’t have to groan like that [laughs] ++ 4 [laughs] (6) yeah 5 Beth: right um ++ [tut] I rang Yvette she hadn’t um arranged anything 6 and didn’t have anything in mind but if we were thinking of going to 7 [town one] I don’t know how far [town one] away is from [town two] 8 + that she knows Cynthia Shanagan who used to be her boss + who 9 Sonia: sorry say that- run that one past me again [dSB3-02] I I just got 10 slightly sidetracked I was thinking //my\ thoughts got sidetracked

The first directive head act, line 1, is mitigated by the use of Beth’s name within the head act and by Sonia’s laughter, line 3. The second is also mitigated. Sonia’s turn begins with an apology and there is a false start before the head act, line 9. It is also mitigated by Sonia’s explanation, lines 9–10. Of the 12 imperative head acts directed at Anna by Sonia, 11 occur in the same interaction, SA1. Interaction SA2 cuts off a short way into the interaction so any other directives or head acts were not recorded. As noted in Section 7.2.2, the first of the imperatives is the seventh head act in the interaction. The remaining imperative head act to Anna occurs in an interaction between Sonia and Hilary. Anna has interrupted to clarify something, Excerpt 7.8. Excerpt 7.8: [SH1:150-159] 150 Sonia: um and finally + [tut] um [knock on door] 151 Anna: sorry do you want me to fax this out to (Paula and Jane cos 152 you’ve got) check with (me) 153 Sonia: I thought you’d just just ring them I assumed that they would have 154 a copy [clarification] 155 Anna: oh 156 Sonia: but just ring them and check to see if a if they’ve had a copy and b

 Chapter 7

157 if the clauses that where the clauses have been changed 158 Anna: yeah they’re happy with them 159 Sonia: that they’re happy with [dSA4-01] ++

Once again, the head act here is mitigated by the surrounding utterances. Anna has elicited the head act, lines 151–152. Sonia’s utterance at lines 153–154 was classified as clarification, which is then followed by the head act, lines 156–159. The end of this head act is anticipated by Anna, line 158. The large number of interactions between Ruth and Irene allows exploration of the way components of control acts may occur in a number of interactions. Often the same topic recurs, so supportive moves or further head acts or related control acts may arise in separate interactions. For example interactions RI1, RI2 and RI4 contain control acts relating to a meeting that Ruth will have with Gavin. This meeting is also mentioned in RI6 and RI7. Even within the three interactions with Sonia and Beth topics recur. Tasks related to the organisation of a trip the unit will go on are discussed in both SB1 and SB3. Sometimes there is a signal of a directive which will come at another place and time, as in Excerpts 7.9 and 7.10. Excerpt 7.9: [SB1:134-136] 134 Sonia: . . . and then I’ll ass- assuming that that nothing has 135 been arranged I’ll contact the [town] office [organisation] and she 136 might make some suggestions for you to contact some other

Excerpt 7.10: [SB3:83-84] 83 Sonia: yeah cos I know [town three] office and see if I see what we can do 84 and then get them to link up with you=/

Both of these excerpts are referring to the same task and signal a potential directive which will be coming Beth’s way in the future. This acts as mitigation for when the head act finally comes. Because the Managers and their Executive Assistants are constantly interacting, there is the potential for mitigation (and head acts of the same control act) to occur in separate interactions. Given the type of data other researchers have collected, this pattern has not been observed before.

Control acts between Managers and their staff 

. Conclusion In the interactions between the Managers and their staff, Sonia and Ruth use a range of forms to express control acts and always use mitigation. 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. Studies on people’s perceptions of forms and the appropriate use of these forms have shown that people in higher status positions are seen as having the right to use direct forms such as imperatives to subordinates. Steffen and Eagly (1985), for example, found acceptance of direct and impolite styles when used by people of high status. Sonia does use these types of forms with her staff, although, as noted, they are usually mitigated externally. This reflects the workplace in which the data were collected. Communication and maintaining good relations with people play key roles in the work that they do. In this workplace, therefore, the norm is for control acts to be mitigated. In a similar white collar context in Hong Kong, Bilbow (1997: 482) found that speakers associated high authoritativeness with not only “use of highly direct discourse (especially imperatives) appropriate to the role of the speaker” but also to the “use of mitigating supportive moves (especially ‘grounding’ moves)”. Using these criteria Sonia and Ruth demonstrate a high degree of authoritativeness. Their directives to both Executive Assistants and more Senior Staff are frequently explicit, but are also richly mitigated. There are times when Senior Staff do things that are expected of a superior, such as giving advice and using direct control act forms. Ervin-Tripp et al. (1987) found that when people are in the middle of a “well-coordinated joint activity” this could sometimes affect the amount of politeness used. Bilbow (1995: 50) also found “that in the ‘heat’ of business meetings, politeness lapses and more directness is used than might commonly be the case”. In these situations in my data there is still always mitigation of some kind from the lower level staff member. A main difference between mitigation in the interactions between the Managers and staff at different levels was there is often less external mitigation of directives to Executive Assistants because there is less extended discussion in relation to each directive. Supportive moves and control acts related to the same topic can occur in a number of interactions. With Executive Assistants, in particular, the nature of the working relationship between them and their Manager means that there are frequent interactions every day. Because Ruth, in particular, recorded several

 Chapter 7

interactions with her Executive Assistant, Irene, the way that components of control acts occur in separate interactions became apparent. Another important factor in determining the forms of the control acts relates to how long the participants have worked together and how well they know each other. Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 74) predicted that a speaker’s assessment of the “social distance” between themself and their hearer will affect the weightiness and therefore the form used to express a FTA (see Chapter 1). Sonia’s recording of interactions involving both her permanent Executive Assistant, Beth, and a temporary Executive Assistant, Anna, provided data which highlighted the importance of this factor. The main difference between the directives which she addressed to each of these interactants involved the explicitness of the forms utilised. Differences in terms of social distance are also evident in the results from the interactions between the Managers and staff from other areas of the organisation.

Chapter 8

Managers and power in the workplace

Owusu-Ansah (1992: 109) comments “it is commonly believed in western democracies that the political structures and ways of upbringing together have brought about a situation whereby persons in subordinate positions (e.g. children, students, employees, etc.) have a say in the way countries are governed, institutions are managed and family decisions are taken. Such an arrangement illustrates the consensus view of power, according to which power is not concentrated in the hands of one person or group of persons – an elite – but rather diffused through society (Abercrombie et al. 1988).” The workplace from which my dataset is taken is one which could be seen to illustrate a consensus view of power. Chapter 7 illustrates the enactment and acknowledgement of power through the way that control acts are realised. Some other ways in which power differences are marked or minimised in the interactions between individuals of different status are explored in this chapter. This involves briefly examining turn-taking patterns and the amount of talk as well as topic choice. The overall style of management that the two Managers exhibit is then summarised and discussed in Section 8.2. This includes examination of how they deal with some potentially problematic situations.

. Other ways the Managers may minimise or mark status differences Sonia’s and Ruth’s use of mitigation when making control acts empowers their staff. Through the avoidance of forceful, unmitigated directives positive working relationships are developed and maintained. There are also a number of other ways that they do this, as evident in Sonia’s interaction with Genevieve. Some of these are highlighted and discussed in this section.

 Chapter 8

.. Acknowledgement of staff ’s skills and expertise

Senior Staff Sonia’s acknowledgement of her Senior Staff ’s skills and expertise is evident throughout the transcript analysed in Chapter 6. Genevieve frequently outlines the way that she plans to deal with an issue. Sonia supports these suggestions. When Genevieve says that she is too busy to go to a conference, Sonia supports this decision. These examples were seen as a reflection of Genevieve’s high relative status and the way that Sonia acknowledges her experience. A similar situation occurs in both Excerpt 8.1 and 8.2. Excerpt 8.1 is taken from an interaction between Sonia and Hilary (Communications/Liaison Officer). Excerpt 8.1: [SH1:115-122] 115 Hilary: . . . and the thing is 116 I’ve got them on my desk cos you weren’t here the other day and I 117 thought we’ll wait till Beth comes back and we’ll we’ll find a place to 118 house them um + and then we’ll [clears throat] 119 Sonia: yeah 120 Hilary: so that you know she’ll have access to them cos that’ll be up //to her\ 121 all right? 122 Sonia: /all right\\

Hilary outlines what she is proposing to do with something that they send out to people. She will give them to Beth to deal with. Once again, Sonia accepts Hilary’s proposal. Excerpt 8.2 is from an interaction between Ruth and Jo and comes at the end of a discussion about a proposal Jo is working on. Excerpt 8.2: [RJ3:332-334] 332 Jo: well I I’d actually quite like to put both of them //up\ is that all right 333 Ruth: /(yep)\\ 334 Ruth: yes that’s fine

In this excerpt, Jo directly asks Ruth whether she can put two options in the proposal. Ruth acknowledges Jo’s expertise in this area and gives her permission to proceed in this way. Sonia also directly asks her Senior Staff for advice on how she should deal with something, e.g., Sonia is organising a trainer to come in on a regular basis to work with her staff. Sonia brings up this issue with Francine, Excerpt 7.2, and they discuss the best way for Sonia to deal with this. Sonia seeks support

Managers and power in the workplace 

for her proposed course of action here, in the way that her Senior Staff seek it from her. Throughout the ensuing discussion Francine reinforces Sonia’s suggestions, asks questions and provides the kind of input that Sonia does when others ask her for advice: “do that now . . . yeah I think it would be good to get her in . . . yeah that’s a good idea . . . okay so what days are we talking about here . . . what’s Friday mornings like for you”. In Example 8.3, Sonia asks Hilary to read something over for her. Example 8.3: a. I just thought I wanted to you to have a quick read over what I’ve done here [dSH1-02]

This was categorised as a directive, but it is different from many of the other directives because the action involves giving Sonia personal feedback on something she has written. Example 8.4: a. I mean you might wanna think about um and I value your comment on I mean all areas but there is some stuff in the platform for action about [social group]’s er participation in in um [topic] policy [dRJ1-13]

In [dRJ1-13] Ruth asks Jo to think about a particular issue and to be prepared to contribute ideas. This issue is one which is in Jo’s area of interest and expertise and Ruth acknowledges this by uttering this directive. Within the head act Ruth also explicitly acknowledges Jo’s general expertise and experience when she says “I value your comment on I mean all areas”. The examples in this section show some of the ways that Sonia and Ruth minimise status differences by acknowledging their Senior Staff ’s expertise and experience. Sometimes there is direct acknowledgement. There are also cases where they directly ask for advice or feedback from their Senior Staff. At other times it is evident in the way they listen to and support their Senior Staff ’s proposals about how issues should be dealt with.

Administration Staff Sonia and Ruth also minimise status differences when dealing with their Executive Assistants by acknowledging their skills and expertise. Ruth’s eighth interaction with Irene and Sonia’s two interactions with Beth all involve a lot of working out between the participants of what exactly needs to be done. In Excerpt 8.5, Sonia asks Beth how she wants to deal with something rather than just telling her how to do it.

 Chapter 8

Excerpt 8.5: [SB2:25-26] 25 Sonia: is it easier for you to start doing this? 26 Beth: yeah I think so

Beth is the one who will carry out the work they are discussing. She has the expertise and knowledge (expertise power) of what is actually entailed and Sonia acknowledges this when she asks Beth whether it is easier if she starts doing the job (making corrections to a letter a third person has written) rather than telling Beth to start doing it. Sonia uses consultative power. There are a number of letters that need corrections and Sonia goes on to ask Beth if she wants them all now. Excerpt 8.6: [SB2:27-28] 27 Sonia: do you want the whole lot //now ( 28 Beth: /no [laughs]\\ [laughs]

) [laughs]\

Sonia and Beth have worked together for some time and have a good working relationship. This is evident in a number of places in the transcripts – one being the way that Sonia does not always just tell Beth what to do. At times, Sonia asks Beth the best way to deal with things and they discuss together aspects of jobs that need to be done. In the next excerpt Beth pre-empts Sonia’s directive. Excerpt 8.7: [SB2:42-47] 42 Sonia: now you see this piece for example’s a standard piece that she’s put 43 through in each one so for consistency’s sake + I don’t know whether 44 she=/ 45 Beth: /=correct it one and then=/ 46 Sonia: /=correct it once 1//and\1 then somehow copy it 2//down into the 47 other\2 bits [dSB2-03]

In line 46 Sonia repeats Beth’s words from line 45 and completes the utterance. The form of the directive here therefore, mimics Beth’s form. Sonia’s words are Beth’s words. It is in a sense elicited, but Beth has seen the directive coming through Sonia’s lead-in (lines 42–43) and anticipated it. A similar situation arises in Excerpt 8.8. Excerpt 8.8: [SB3:123-131] 123 Sonia: well I’m not sure how many are going to some of them some may be 124 going in from [suburb] + rather than coming into work for the for the 125 few hours in the morning=/ 126 Beth: /=yeah

Managers and power in the workplace

127 Sonia: some might be going straight out so we need to confirm who’s coming 128 Beth: (I //can do that)\ 129 Sonia: /who’s going\\ to leave from here and so if you can do that at the 130 Friday’s meeting [dSB3-08] cos I won’t be there on Fri//day\ 131 Beth: /o\\kay yep

A potential directive head act is uttered by Sonia, line 127 and 129. Sonia’s use of we here hedges the utterance and at this point Beth anticipates the completion of Sonia’s utterance and offers to do the task. Sonia accepts Beth’s offer by specifying a time and place, line 129–130. Sonia’s acknowledgement of Beth’s expertise is evident in other ways. Sometimes when Beth makes suggestions which Sonia thinks are good, Sonia acknowledges the value of Beth’s input, as in Excerpt 8.9. Excerpt 8.9: [SB3:136-141] 136 Beth: /okay yeah especially for when we come\\ back too //we’ll need 137 one to wait for us too\ [laughs] 138 Sonia: /[drawls]: oh good point:\\ 139 Sonia: cos we’re coming back on the same ferry aren’t we 140 Beth: yep 141 Sonia: good point now what time are we arriving back

In the head act noted in the following example, Sonia directly acknowledges Beth’s expertise. Example 8.10: a. but do you think you could um use your in- incredible skill to see if you can find a way of getting into that [dSB3-03]

The task Sonia wants Beth to undertake here is one which someone else was supposed to complete before they finished working for the unit. They did not have time, however, so the job is falling to Beth. This is one directive therefore, which does involve a degree of imposition. The head act is expressed as an interrogative and there is a high degree of embedding as Sonia frames the directive within a question about Beth’s ability to use her “incredible skill” in order to undertake the required activity – finding a way of arranging for the members of the unit to visit an organisation. Her reference to Beth’s “incredible skill” compliments Beth. Ruth also acknowledges Irene’s expertise and skills. In Excerpt 8.11 she directly acknowledges Irene’s ability to carry out the task they have just been discussing, line 79.



 Chapter 8

Excerpt 8.11: [RI8:78-83] 78 Ruth: okay and if you have 1//any\1 problems just get back to me 79 [dRI8-05] but I thought you could probably 2//++ handle that\2 80 Irene: 1/yeah\\1 81 Irene: 2/yeah oh no no I’m\\2 quite happy to do that 82 Ruth: okay good=/ 83 Irene: /=yep yep no problems . . .

In the following example, Example 8.12 (a), Ruth asks Irene to help someone else. Example 8.12: a. or you might be able to help her get some information out of Clare about what the cost of Sharon’s work was [dRI7-03]

Once again, Ruth can be seen to acknowledge Irene’s skill and expertise when she does this. Throughout the Managers’ interactions with their permanent Executive Assistants, Beth and Irene ask relevant questions, make suggestions and contribute to the directive process. Sonia and Ruth encourage them to do this. There are also occasions in interaction SA1 where Sonia encourages Anna to participate in this process. Excerpt 8.13: [SA1:74-76] 74 Sonia: I think it’ll be too tight for this [rising intonation] + 75 Anna: yeah 76 Sonia: although we could wait a bit

Sonia’s intonation in line 74, indicates that she is inviting Anna to give her feedback. There is a pause of about a second and then Anna replies. Her reply is brief and minimal. Sonia therefore goes on and gives herself feedback. This is the same style she uses with Beth. She expects and encourages debate and feedback. Anna, however, provides only minimal responses. This almost certainly reflects her position. She is temping for Sonia. She does not know the organisation’s procedures and does not know Sonia. Her role as a temporary Executive Assistant differs from Beth’s and Irene’s roles as permanent Executive Assistants. Beth and Irene have both worked in the organisation and with their Managers for a while. The differences therefore can be accounted for mainly by Anna’s unfamiliarity – both with Sonia and the specifics of the job. These factors may mean that status differences become more important; legitimate power plays a more salient role.

Managers and power in the workplace 

.. Turn-taking Fairclough (1989: 134–135) discusses turn-taking and how the system found in informal conversation differs from that found in a classroom when the teacher is interacting with the class. Similarly, the turn-taking system in interactions between people in the workplace tends to differ from those of informal conversation. Two aspects related to turn-taking are holding the floor and use of overlapping speech (Edelsky 1981). I briefly explore these aspects in this section. Typically, the nature of the work interaction determines the turn-taking patterns. In many of the interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants the Manager is giving instructions, so most of the talk time is taken by the Manager and the Executive Assistant responds where appropriate. Meetings between the Managers and their Senior Staff tend to show a different pattern, and this varies according to the staff member and the purpose of the meeting. With many of these, especially between the Managers and their Senior Policy Analysts, there are frequently times where the turn-taking system is more like informal conversation. This is especially true if the two are discussing the best way for the Senior Policy Analyst to deal with an issue. Such sections are characterised by a lot of supportive overlapping speech and the floor passes rapidly backwards and forwards between the two participants.

Between Managers and Senior Staff In many of the interactions between the Managers and their Senior Staff the Manager is giving advice or providing feedback. The staff member in these situations often outlines the problem areas. The two interactants typically then discuss the problem in more detail before decisions are made about the best way to proceed. In Chapter 6, it is noted that there were a number of sections of interaction SG1, particularly when Genevieve was outlining the way that she proposed dealing with something, where Sonia would provide short, supportive contributions and let Genevieve hold the floor, see e.g., Excerpts 6.5 and 6.24. The pattern of turn-taking in the discussion sections is more like informal conversation rather than a formal meeting. Overlapping speech occurs often in these instances as the speakers self-select and the floor moves between them, as illustrated in Excerpt 6.21. Part of this excerpt is repeated below as Excerpt 8.14.

 Chapter 8

Excerpt 8.14: [SG1:508-523] 508 Gen: yeah I’m sure 1//I had it\1 the eighth + that um 2//I wanted\2 it 509 back 510 Sonia: 1/but that means\\1 511 Sonia: 2/okay\\2 512 Sonia: well how about then //(we’ll) put it out\ 513 Gen: /the twenty\\ fourth 514 Sonia: twenty fourth [dSG1-27] (week-) so that’s before an//zac\ 515 weekend 516 Gen: /mm\\ 517 Gen: [tut] yeah //yeah\ 518 Sonia: /or an\\zac day 519 Gen: yeah that would be good 520 Sonia: so due date //twenty fourth\ can you write a note on the on the 521 notes when you give it to me [dSG1-28] so that I 522 Gen: /the twenty fourth\\ 523 Gen: yep

Excerpt 8.14 is very collaborative. Most of the speakers’ turns are short and there is a lot of overlapping as they switch back and forth and work out the best deadline date. Some of the overlaps provide minimal feedback. Genevieve’s overlaps at lines 513 and 522 finish off Sonia’s utterances. Similar overlaps are made by Sonia in SG1 (e.g., lines 251, 255, 471, 498, 661). Schegloff (1972), Bennett (1981), Coates (1988) and Stubbe (1994) all identify these types of overlap as cooperative strategies found frequently in informal conversation. Overlaps such as the ones in Excerpt 8.14 are not always perceived as a cooperative strategy (Sacks et al. 1974; Fairclough 1989). Sacks et al. (1974) perceive all overlaps as disruptive, while Fairclough (1989) equates the use of overlapping speech with the overt marking of power. In Excerpt 8.15, Sonia’s position as the more powerful participant could be interpreted as having been displayed in the way that she interrupts Genevieve (lines 2 and 3). Excerpt 8.15: [SG1:2-4] 2 Gen: right we’ll do the two weekly sta//tus ++ um\ 3 Sonia: /status ++ um\\ timesheet 4 Gen: timesheet yeah=/

The content of her overlap here, however, is to finish off Genevieve’s utterance. Sonia’s repetition of the topic Genevieve has raised supports this as a topic for discussion. This use of collaborative overlaps is also evident in the

Managers and power in the workplace

other interactions between the Managers and their Senior Staf. The content of most overlaps in the interactions is supportive minimal feedback or agreement. Excerpt 8.16 provides a section of discussion where there are longer overlaps. Excerpt 8.16: [RJ2:102-108] 102 Ruth: do you think we can successfully argue no change ++ //to them\ 103 Jo: /I haven’t\\ been at the [meeting] I don’t know what the //mood 104 is but I\ 105 Ruth: /I don’t think they’ve had\\ an o- oh they had one //but only the one\ 106 Jo: /cos you left me a\\ note saying that //they had one last\ Thursday=/ 107 Ruth: /they only had one\\ 108 Jo: /=they only had one um . . .

In Excerpt 8.16, the sequence begins with Ruth asking Jo a question. Jo’s response comes as an overlap at the end of Ruth’s turn. Ruth had paused, but because Jo did not start speaking, Ruth had added another phrase to her utterance in order to clarify her question. Each of the subsequent turns by the speakers in this excerpt begins with either an overlap or a latch on the previous speaker’s turn as the speakers self-select. The overlaps do not tend to have a disruptive effect. To sum up, the overall pattern of turn-taking in the Manager/Senior Staff interactions reflects the type of discussion which is occurring at each point. When the staff members are outlining issues, Sonia and Ruth typically provide minimal responses or ask questions to elicit more information. Discussions on how to proceed involve shorter turns and longer overlaps (as in Excerpt 8.16), while sections where the Managers outline how they think an issue should be dealt with or where they provide background information show them holding the floor (see Excerpt 6.15). Overall, in looking at the turn-taking system in the interactions between the Managers and their Senior Staff, the influence of the workplace context is evident as well as the nature of the type of discourse in which the interactants are engaged.

Between Managers and Administration Staff The type of talk involved also affects the turn-taking patterns found in the interactions between the Managers and Administration Staff. Excerpt 8.17 involves informal conversation. Excerpt 8.17: [SB1:195-204] 195 Sonia: well it’s nice to have you back welcome back=/ 196 Beth: /=yes had a very good holiday [tut]=/



 Chapter 8

197 Sonia: /=and feel well rested? so where did //you go oh well\ 198 Beth: /no [laughs]\\ it’s just just been busy with my mum and then she 199 had me take her there and take her there and [laughs]=/ 200 Sonia: /=oh 201 Beth: so no it was good I didn’t have to worry about meals I didn’t have to 202 worry about bills or kids or um work or anything //just me\ 203 Sonia: /(just) a\\ holiday for you=/ 204 Beth: /=yeah + [tut] it was UNREAL [laughs]=/

In this excerpt the Executive Assistant, Beth, has the same number of turns as her Manager, Sonia, but her turns are longer than Sonia’s and she utters twice as many words as Sonia. There is latching and overlapping speech. Sonia asks questions of Beth, but Beth also self-selects (line 201). This comes from an interaction where overall Beth contributes only 25% of the words, and tends to speak when Sonia selects her. In many of the interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants (as in the rest of the interaction which Excerpt 8.17 is taken from) the Manager is assigning tasks, so most of the talk time is taken by the Manager and the Executive Assistant responds where appropriate, as in Excerpt 8.18. Excerpt 8.18: [RI1:9-22] 9 Ruth: what about if you just (sayed) um the m- the [position //in the\ 10 ministry] is now Marcie Willis # could you please amend your records 11 accordingly [dRI1-01] ++ something like that and you can 12 still add the bit about that Anjelica Frye left the ministry in early 13 [year] [dRI1-02] 14 Irene: /( )\\ 15 Irene: okay 16 Ruth: (will) that do 17 Irene: yeah that’s fine=/ 18 Ruth: /=okay the other thing was um ++ can you see if you can ch19 change that meeting time with Gavin + to tomorrow morning 20 [dRI1-03]=/ 21 Irene: /=oh yes I sent him a message last night=/ 22 Ruth: /=oh okay

Ruth issues two directives in her first turn (lines 9–13). She then pauses for Irene’s acceptance of these directives (line 15). Ruth then takes the floor and explicitly asks Irene if the changes she has proposed are okay. Her question selects Irene as the next speaker and offers her the floor. Ruth then issues another

Managers and power in the workplace 

directive (lines 18–19) in the form of an interrogative. Once again, this offers Irene the floor and selects her to speak at this time. In the other interactions the purpose is for Irene to report back on tasks or clarify aspects of tasks that she had been asked to do. In these cases Irene does most of the talking and the turn-taking situation is reversed to some degree. She asks Ruth questions and waits for Ruth to provide feedback, as in Excerpt 8.19. Excerpt 8.19: [RI3:1-7] 1 Irene: and I’d just like to check this meeting with you [rIR3-01] 2 Ruth: yep 3 Irene: Carrie’s just phoned up=/ 4 Ruth: /=yep=/ 5 Irene: /=and we’re looking at putting this meeting on Monday from nine 6 till ten do you think that would suit you 7 Ruth: [tut] um yeah that should be all right

.. Amount of talk Related to turn-taking is the amount of talk each participant contributes to the interaction. In SG1, the contribution from each of the two participants was fairly well balanced – Genevieve contributed 52% of the total words. Craig and Pitts (1990), Fisher (1991) and Sollitt-Morris (1996) all found that people of higher status in an interaction talked more – tutor, doctor and head teacher respectively. The 41 interactions in my dataset which involved participants of unequal status interacting had a total of 55,950 words. Of these, 31,209 (56%) were uttered by the Managers. When interacting with Senior Staff the overall contribution of the Managers was similar to the contributions of their staff; Sonia and Ruth contributed 53% of the overall words. Sonia and Ruth contributed more when dealing with Administration Staff, 64%. The status of the other participant is influential here. This is due to the types of interactions involved. There was variation depending on the main purpose of the interactions (see Tables 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5). The amount of talk a person contributed reflected not only their role or status, nor their personality alone. The patterns suggest that the nature of the task or purpose of the interaction is also a very influential factor.

 Chapter 8

Between Managers and Senior Staff The 18 interactions in my dataset which involved Managers and Senior Staff interacting had a total of 43,905 words. Of these, 23,472 (53%) were uttered by the Managers. Overall, therefore, the balance is fairly even. There is variation in this factor, however, according to the exact context. My dataset has a range of interactions, and there are several where the same two people interact, allowing exploration of the effect of the “purpose” of the interaction. A number of different main purposes were identified in Ruth’s and Sonia’s interactions with their Senior Staff. Table 8.1 summarises the interactions between Sonia and her Senior Staff. The main purpose of each interaction is listed along with the number of words contributed by each participant. A summary of these factors for Ruth’s interactions with her Senior Staff is provided in Table 8.2. Table 8.1 Main purpose and word counts for Sonia’s interactions with Senior Staff Interaction

Main purpose

SD1 SE1 SF1 SG1 SH1 SH2

Feedback: Sonia Problem-solving Problem-solving Problem-solving Assign Tasks Problem-solving

Total

Words Sonia

Words other

Total words

883 2,024 1,709 2,844 952 1,362

476 599 1,077 3,087 527 1,882

(35%) (30%) (39%) (52%) (36%) (58%)

1,359 2,623 2,786 5,931 1,479 3,244

9774

7648

(44%)

17422

The contributions of Sonia’s more Senior Staff range from 30% to 58% of the total words in an interaction. Most of the interactions involve situations where the participants spend a lot of time problem-solving. The other participants in these interactions contribute 30% to 58% of the words. The other two interactions which have other purposes, one feedback and one assigning tasks, have 35% and 36% of the words contributed by Donna and Hilary respectively. There appear to be differences here which could be accounted for by the status of the Senior Staff member. Donna and Eloise are both Policy Analysts. The two interactions in which they were recorded, SD1 and SE1 respectively, show the lowest percentage of words contributed by a Senior Staff member. These two interactions also involve situations which are potentially problematic. Sonia’s handling of these is discussed in Section 8.2. For the most part, only one interaction was recorded between Sonia and each of her Senior Staff. There are two interactions, however, between Sonia and Hilary. Each of these has a different purpose. Hilary’s contribution to each

Managers and power in the workplace 

interaction is quite different. When the purpose is for Sonia to assign tasks, Hilary only contributes 36% of the words. When the purpose is for the two to problem-solve and work out the best way to deal with issues, Hilary contributes much more, 58%. Table 8.2 Main purpose and word counts for Ruth’s interactions with Senior Staff Interaction

Main purpose

RJ1 RJ2 RJ3 RJ4 RK1 RK1 RL1 RM1 RM1 RN1 RO1 RO2

Problem-solving Problem-solving Feedback: Ruth Discussion Update Discussion Problem-solving Problem-solving Problem-solving Feedback: Ruth Feedback: Ruth Problem-solving

Total

Words Ruth

Words other

3815 575 1941 1594 372 1079 725 968 1227 578 512 312

2309 546 1017 1425 398 2250 652 2050 1035 220 458 394

(38%) (49%) (34%) (47%) (52%) (68%) (47%) (68%) (45%) (28%) (47%) (56%)

13698

12754

(48%)

Total words 6124 1121 2958 3019 770 3329 1377 3022† 2289‡ 798 970 706 26483

† This includes 4 words from Irene ‡ This includes 27 words from Irene

The contributions of Ruth’s Senior Staff range from 28% to 68% of the total words in an interaction. The interactions where the main purpose was for Ruth to give feedback had a range of 28% to 47% for the Senior Staff. Discussions show a fairly even balance in terms of the distribution of talk – 45% to 56% being contributed by the Senior Staff. The status differences of the Senior Staff are not so obvious here. Ondine is the only Policy Analyst. She contributes 47% of the words in her first interaction with Ruth. Senior Policy Analysts contribute similar amounts in some of their interactions (e.g., RL1, RJ4, RM1). In her second interaction with Ruth, Ondine contributes over half the words at 56%. Ondine has been working as a Policy Analyst within the organisation longer than Donna and Eloise. This may counter the status differences because the social distance between her and her Manager has been reduced with contact over an extended period. She is also discussing a topic she has been working on extensively for a long time. Her “expertise” power and confidence in relation to this topic may be relevant, therefore.

 Chapter 8

Looking at the other interactions involving the same individuals reveals some interesting patterns. The third interaction between Ruth and Jo shows Jo contributing the least. The main purpose of this interaction is for Ruth to provide Jo with feedback on a letter Jo has written. Similarly, the proportion of words that Katie utters differs between the different types of interaction she is involved in.

Between Managers and Administration Staff The 19 interactions in my dataset which involved Managers and Administration Staff have a total of 12,045 words. Of these, 7,737 (64%) are uttered by the Managers. Once again, there is variation in this factor according to the exact context. The purpose of the interaction can affect the patterns observed. Ruth collected eleven interactions where she was talking with Irene. This allows closer investigation of the effect of the purpose of the interaction on the amount of talk contributed by each participant. Table 8.3 summarises the interactions between Ruth and Irene. The main purpose of each interaction is listed along with the number of words contributed by Ruth and Irene. Table 8.3 Main purpose and word counts for Ruth’s interactions with Irene Interaction

Main purpose

RI1 RI2 RI3 RI4 RI5 RI6 RI7 RI8 RI9 RI10 RI11

Assign tasks Clarify/Report back Clarify/Report back Clarify/Report back Assign tasks Clarify/Report back Assign tasks Assign tasks Assign tasks Discussion Assign tasks

Total

Words Ruth

Words Irene

Total words

195 196 38 202 92 26 225 450 343 300 65

79 193 87 273 33 106 71 247 193 201 54

(29%) (50%) (70%) (57%) (26%) (80%) (24%) (35%) (36%) (40%) (45%)

274 389 125 475 125 132 296 697 536 501 119

2132

1537

(42%)

3669

Six of Ruth and Irene’s interactions are instigated by Ruth with the main purpose of Ruth assigning tasks. Irene’s contributions in these six interactions range from a low of 24% of the total words to a high of 45%. This contrasts with the four clarification/report back interactions where Irene contributes at least 50% of the words. This rises to 80% in interaction RI6. There is a clear relationship here between the main purpose of the interaction and percentage of words contributed by each participant.

Managers and power in the workplace

Table 8.4 Main purpose and word counts for Ruth’s interactions with Phoebe and Quinta Interaction

Main purpose

Words Ruth

RP1 RQ1

Request Info.: Ruth Request Perm.: Quinta

Total

Words other participant

Total words

180 268

370 625

(67%) (70%)

550 893

448

995

(67%)

1443

Table 8.5 Main purpose and word counts for Sonia’s interactions with Administration Staff Main purpose

SA1

Assign Tasks Clarify/Report Back on Tasks

1060

58

(5%)

1118

180

111

(38%)

291

Assign Tasks Assign Tasks Assign Tasks Request Action

1279 994 1261 383

435 272 557 323

(25%) (21%) (30%) (46%)

1714 1269† 1835† 706

5157

1756

(25%)

6933

SA2 SB1 SB2 SB3 SC1 Total

Words Sonia

Words other participant

Interaction

Total words

† This includes brief interruptions from a third person

The main purpose and word counts for the two other interactions between Ruth and Administration Staff are noted in Table 8.4. In both of these interactions the other participant contributes about two thirds of the words. The main purpose of three of Sonia’s four interactions with her Executive Assistants Anna and Beth is to assign tasks. The percentage of words contributed by Anna and Beth in these interactions varies from 5% in SA1 to 21% (SB1), 25% (SB2) and 30% (SB3) (Table 8.5). The final interaction involves Anna reporting back on a task she has been asked to do. Unfortunately, the tape runs out a short way into this interaction. Anna contributed 38% of the words that were recorded, a vast amount more than in her previous interaction. As noted earlier, in interaction SC1 Clare has come to see Sonia to make three requests. Sonia takes this opportunity to give Clare three directives. The resulting balance of talk is fairly even. The purpose of the interaction affects the amount of talk each participant contributes. The eleven interactions involving Ruth and Irene, in particular, allow investigation of the effect of purpose on contributions by each participant.



 Chapter 8

Clearly, it is not the case that the amount of talk a person contributes reflects only their role or status. The patterns described suggest that the nature of the task or purpose of the interaction is a very influential factor. This is of course determined by the roles/occupations of the individuals involved so power is still relevant, but less directly than is often suggested. .. Topic choice Topic control is one feature that Fairclough (1989: 135) notes is a reflection of the way a more powerful participant puts “constraints on the contributions of less powerful participants”. As a rule, topic choice and flow is one aspect which is controlled by the Managers. This does depend however on the type of interaction involved.

Between Managers and Senior Staff In interaction SG1, Genevieve exerted a good deal of control over topic choice. This seemed to partly arise from the fact that the two were going through items in Genevieve’s in-tray, which she had brought with her. She had the papers and control of them, and therefore control of the topics. Because the primary purpose of the interaction is for Sonia to advise Genevieve about her work, Genevieve’s control of this aspect allows her to seek the advice that she needs. Sonia’s role as Manager in this context, is one of adviser and supporter. The excerpts and discussion below explore the introduction of new topics in interaction SG1 in more detail. In Excerpt 8.20, Genevieve sets the first topic for the interaction. Excerpt 8.20: [SG1:1-4] 1 Sonia: interview with Genevieve our weekly catchup session 2 Gen: right we’ll do the two weekly sta//tus ++ um\ 3 Sonia: /status ++ um\\ timesheet 4 Gen: timesheet yeah=/

In this excerpt, the role relationships are not clear. Genevieve is the one who starts the meeting proper and states the first topic for discussion (Sonia’s first statement is for the benefit of the tape recorder). Genevieve’s behaviour here is more typically associated with Managers (Fairclough 1989). In Excerpt 8.21, Sonia mentions some other things she wants them to talk about, and then returns to the issue of status reports (a topic which Genevieve raised in Excerpt 8.20).

Managers and power in the workplace 

Excerpt 8.21: [SG1:5-11] 5 Sonia: /=[drawls]: um: + s- I know there’s a few things in [drawls]: your: 6 in-tray there that we need to catch up on 7 Gen: yep + //I’ve I’ve brought\ them here 8 Sonia: /er with the two week-\\ 9 Sonia: oh good=/ 10 Gen: /=with me 11 Sonia: with the two weekly status report um + . . .

After Sonia outlines how she thinks Genevieve should deal with this issue, Genevieve sums up by saying “right that’s that” and moves onto the next topic that she wants to discuss, line 23. At the end of the discussion on the new topic, it is Genevieve, once again, who winds up the current topic and introduces a new issue (Excerpt 8.22, lines 49 to 50). Excerpt 8.22: [SG1:49-52] 49 Gen: um okay that’s fine 50 the other //thing that\ 51 Sonia: /what about\\ what about did you actually talk to her about did she 52 apply the skills learnt on the writing course

At this point, however, Sonia interrupts. She has picked up the fact that Genevieve is concerned about Donna’s writing, and so introduces this as a topic for discussion by asking Genevieve if she has talked to Donna about the writing course. A large section of the interaction is then spent discussing issues related to this. At the completion of this discussion, Genevieve sums up, “yeah anyway so that was that” (line 312). Sonia says “okay” (line 313) and then Genevieve brings up the next issue for discussion (line 314). She also introduces a further topic (line 323), but this role of introducing new topics is then taken over by Sonia (line 329, 342). Control of topic choice moves between the two throughout the rest of the interaction. At the end of the interaction, however, it is Genevieve who indicates that they have discussed all the topics that they need to discuss, “yeah so that’s it” (Excerpt 8.23, line 678). Once again, she is drawing a topic to its close. There is nothing else that she wants to discuss in relation to this issue. Sonia responds with “okay”, indicating that she has nothing further to add (line 679) and that she accepts this closure. Excerpt 8.23: [SG1:678-683] 678 Gen: yeah so that’s it 679 Sonia: okay

 Chapter 8

680 Gen: so two weekly status # time sheets and finish that peer review and 681 then I’m out of here 682 Sonia: okay Gen //okay\ catch you later 683 Gen: /thanks Sonia\\

Genevieve then summarises what she has to do before she can leave (line 680) and Sonia accepts this as the end of the meeting. Genevieve thanks her and the meeting is over. Although Genevieve takes the role of controlling topic to a large extent, there are also times when Sonia determines topic. This aspect therefore, is not completely monopolised by either of the participants. This is also true of the other interactions. The utterances in Example 8.24 come from an interaction between Sonia and Hilary. Example 8.24: a. Hilary: that came this morning [SH1:102] b. [Hilary mentions another topic they need to discuss that Sonia had emailed her about] [SH1:127-128] c. Hilary: and how’s my friend ([name]) [SH1:175]

The last example here, Example 8.24 c), shows Hilary instigating small talk. Sonia has indicated that she does not have anything else to add on the last issue which they discussed. Hilary has no more work issues to bring up and so instigates small talk at this point. At the end of a topic there is generally a sequence which indicates that both participants do not have anything else to add. At this point, the Manager or Senior Staff member moves the discussion onto the next issue. At the end of the meeting, this often allows a chance for the other participant to bring up any other issues that they want to discuss. In Excerpt 8.25, Ruth and Katie have just finished discussing the main issue which they needed to talk about in this meeting. Excerpt 8.25: [RK2:372-384] 372 Katie: I’ll just let you know about this 373 Ruth: I asked you about that=/ 374 Katie: /=this ( ) 1//( ) yes yes\1 I’ll look up the stuff for it yes 375 I was involved 2//in it\2 376 Ruth: 1/( ) didn’t I\\1 377 Ruth: 2/don’t\\2 need to do a very long note [dRK2-04a] just a 378 //+\ paragraph [dRK2-04b] 379 Katie: /no\\

Managers and power in the workplace

380 381 382 383 384

Katie: yeah we gave her two and a half thousand dollars as I recall 1//but I\1 think I know where to look for it on the 2//file\2 Ruth: 1/okay\\1 Ruth: 2/[quietly]: okay:\\2 great Katie: um this thing about the employment for . . .

Excerpt 8.25 shows Katie introducing two further topics that she wants to briefly discuss with Ruth. The meetings generally end in this way. Introduction of topics is another aspect of the meetings between Managers and their Senior Staff which is negotiated by participants. Once again, the nature of the workplace context is relevant and, in particular, the fact that the participants are generally meeting to discuss the work of the Senior Staff. This means that the Senior Staff have a reasonable amount of control over topics as they seek advice and feedback on specific aspects of their work. If Sonia and Ruth were to take complete control over this aspect of the interactions, the Senior Staff would not get the type of advice they need and would not necessarily discuss the issues that need to be discussed. Negotiation on this factor is essential, therefore, for the workplace to operate efficiently.

Between Managers and Administration Staff As noted in Section 8.1.3, four of Ruth and Irene’s interactions involve Irene clarifying or reporting back on tasks. In these interactions, Irene tends to control topic introduction and choice. Example 8.26: a. Irene: . . . right there’s the phone number for you to call [RI4:4-5] b. Irene: . . . and the other item is the flowers for Jo Ryan [RI4:30-31] c. Irene: did you see my note to you about Gavin and your meeting with Gavin tomorrow [RI4:50-51]

Example 8.26 shows three of the topic transitions in RI4. Each of these is made by Irene. In other task assignment interactions the Manager tends to control the topics discussed and the introduction of these topics, but this aspect of the interactions is also sometimes controlled by the Executive Assistants. The following excerpt comes from interaction RI9. The main purpose of this interaction is for Ruth to assign tasks. On completion of the discussion about the task that needs to be done, Irene introduces another topic.



 Chapter 8

Excerpt 8.27: [RI9:60-63] 60 Irene: now do you want the timesheets that I’ve got so far if you’re going 61 out do you want to sign what I’ve got or do you want to wait and do 62 the whole lot at once 63 Ruth: um I might //as well sign\ what you’ve got [dRI9-12a]

Beth and Anna can also be seen to influence topic choice at times. Interaction SA2 involves Anna reporting back on a task she has been asked to do. She therefore introduces the topic at the beginning of the interaction. Although the main purpose of SB3 was for Sonia to assign tasks, this interaction begins with Beth reporting back on a task she had been asked to do. Excerpt 8.28: [SB3:5-6] 5 Beth: right um ++ [tut] I rang Yvette she hadn’t um arranged anything 6 and didn’t have anything in mind but if we . . .

As with amount of talk, the purpose of the interaction is an influential factor in determining who will control the choice and introduction of topics in an interaction. .. Other types of speech act Chapter 7 shows the different types of control acts present in the speech of individuals of different status. In the Manager/Executive Assistant/Senior Staff interactions there are also differences in terms of the types of other speech acts the different individuals utter. Executive Assistants, in particular, appear to be more limited in the type of speech act they can appropriately perform. In situations where the Executive Assistant reports back on something they have been asked to do, they provide information, as in Excerpt 8.29 where Irene also clarifies information (line 9). Excerpt 8.29: [RI2:5-15] 5 Irene: oh okay it’s because she just got confused on which reports you were 6 wanting cos some of them aren’t due until Friday but these two you 7 can have this afternoon 8 Ruth: oh okay ++ mm 9 Irene: you know the ones I normally file? 10 Ruth: the ones //no these\ 11 Irene: /I think that they’re the\\ they won’t be ready until //Friday cos these 12 are two different ones\

Managers and power in the workplace 

13 Ruth: /oh okay + no I don’t want\\ those it’s the two pager 14 Irene: yes well that’s what she’s just checking them now and she’ll have 15 them to you this afternoon

In the instruction giving interactions, the Executive Assistants’ input is of a different kind. They tend to provide minimal feedback and affirmation, and may ask for clarification at various points, as in Excerpt 8.30. Excerpt 8.30: [SA1:95-111] 95 Sonia: [name one] [name two] ++ home and work 96 Anna: okay 97 Sonia: [name three] home and work so those three are all Wellington 98 Anna: (but it’s //that one that’s)\ 99 Sonia: /and this\\ one is=/ 100 Anna: /=[place name]=/ 101 Sonia: /=a [place name] number (10) so if you can get- and that’s (4) 102 you(’ve) just write down the list of their names 103 Anna: yeah 104 Sonia: and the confirmed appointment time [dSA1-16] +++ then I need to 105 get (them all ) then I need to copy it to +++ we’ll put it with the 106 you know the three separate papers that we’ve //made up\ 107 [dSA1-17a] 108 Anna: /mhm\\ [clears throat] 109 Sonia: we put + that in with each set of paper [dSA1-17b] and um then I can 110 get that off to the various members with a little covering note 111 Anna: okay

Excerpt 8.30 is taken from the interaction which shows the most dominance by an individual speaker. Sonia contributes 95% of the words. Of Anna’s 58 words, 23 of them are okay and another eight are accounted for by variants of yes and no. The content of Anna’s turns is clearly very limited. Sonia is giving her instructions about a particular job that needs to be done and Anna, the temp, is very focused on understanding what is required of her. The pattern here is not just a reflection of power differences and the job at hand, however. Sonia has similar interactions with Beth, but Beth’s contributions show a greater range of speech acts. Beth, as Sonia’s permanent Executive Assistant, contributes more to the process of working out what needs to be done and the best way to do things. Beth and Sonia also engage in small talk, Excerpt 8.17, and there are a number of other types of speech act which illustrate the good relationship

 Chapter 8

between the two. Sonia talks to Beth about how much work she has on and discusses other jobs she has to do which do not require Beth to do anything, as in Excerpt 8.31. Excerpt 8.31: [SB1:169-171] 169 Sonia: /yeah\\ somehow I have to try and get the the scholarships done=/ 170 Beth: /=oh that’s right=/ 171 Sonia: /=and I don’t know how the hell I’m gonna do that +

This updates Beth on on-going work within the unit as Beth has just returned from leave. It may lead to work for Beth and may therefore act as mitigation to a job which is to come at another time. Its primary function at this point, however, is affective. Sonia is talking about her own work responsibilities. The discussion is informal, and Sonia’s use of swearing indicates the good relationship that the two have. Sonia frequently talks about her work in this way at the beginning and end of interactions with Beth. Another example of this is provided in Excerpt 8.32. Excerpt 8.32: [SB2:1-5] 1 Sonia: so another recording with Beth + on Tuesday afternoon I haven’t had 2 many interviews today actually I’ve been doing a lot of work today for 3 the first //time in\ ages 4 Beth: /[laughs]\\ 5 Sonia: um + I’ve just I just had a discussion with Wendy

Here, before turning to the topic of the meeting in line 5, Sonia jokes with Beth. This type of banter also occurs between Ruth and Irene, but is not present in Sonia’s interactions with Anna, the temp.

. Sonia and Ruth’s interactive style of management In this section I summarise Sonia and Ruth’s management style. This includes discussion of the main features of their style and how this fits in with research on women Managers in similar situations. This is followed by closer examination of how Sonia and Ruth deal with some potentially problematic situations which may result in more overt expression of their power.

Managers and power in the workplace 

.. General style of management The two women Managers in this study have a very interactive style of management. When examining the interactions between them and the most senior members of their staff the status relations are often only obvious because most of the talk revolves around the senior staff member’s work and not the Manager’s. Status relations are more obvious with Administration Staff, but Sonia and Ruth both use a number of strategies which demonstrate the use of “consultative” power. The interactions in my dataset all occur in a workplace setting. This is one where the exchange of information is a primary goal (Dwyer 1993: 496). For effective communication, relevant information has to be obtained and communicated throughout the organisation when and where it is needed. There has to be a balance, however, between “the interests and expectations of the organisation and the goals and needs of people working in the organisation” (Dwyer 1993: 497). Good channels of communication need to be maintained and employees need to feel that they have a certain amount of control over their work. Communication between management and staff needs to be two-way and management needs to be accessible. The interactions which are the focus of this study indicate that there are good channels of communication in this workplace. The Managers are accessible to their staff. They have weekly meetings with their Senior Staff and are also available at other times when needed. The Senior Staff contribute half of the talk and frequently outline what they have done and what they propose to do. They are encouraged to show initiative. Dwyer (1993: 502) notes that “successful upward communication”, i.e., communication from lower-level staff to Managers, “is very difficult to achieve as it is often impeded by the egos of supervisors, the lack of incentive to put forward ideas and poor responses to previous upward communication. Often upward communication can challenge, or rather appear to challenge the authority of managers”. This is not the situation with the two Managers in my dataset. They encourage upward communication and act in a supportive way. They do not let their egos get in the way. Dwyer (1993: 512) lists a number of attributes which staff need to have in order to promote effective communication: communicate openly, collaborate, take responsibility, solve problems, respect others, facilitate interaction, encourage participation. These attributes are evident in the interactions in my dataset. This is true for lower-level staff as well as the Managers. If the lower-level staff did not cooperate and behave in this manner, then the work-

 Chapter 8

place would not be successful, despite the Managers’ style of management. Although, of course, it is in part their management style which encourages and provides an environment in which their staff feel able to behave in this manner. They may have “legitimate” power (see Chapter 1) but also acknowledge the “expert” power of their staff and use “consultative” power, i.e., they “seek information, consider advice from others and make plans with others” (Dwyer 1993: 558). This type of power is “based on cooperation and the satisfaction of mutual needs”. If they had a less interactive style of management, staff who wished to take initiative and communicate in this way would be frustrated in their interactions with their Managers. Ultimately this would lead to job-dissatisfaction and a high turn-over of staff. As noted in Chapter 1, Fairclough (1989:72, 1992:4) comments that the overt marking of power has been declining in Britain in recent years. As a result, people in both managerial and less senior positions have gained certain advantages in terms of their working relationships and environment. Sonia’s and Ruth’s behaviour indicates their management style. Their interactive approach shows a “participative” style (Dwyer 1993: 559). Participative leaders encourage the members of the group to have an active role in decision making within the organisation. These leaders delegate authority, encourage feedback, discuss objectives and provide the chance for members to satisfy their esteem and self-actualisation needs . . . a greater emphasis is placed by the participative leader on regular meetings and one-to-one discussion with single group members. (Dwyer 1993: 560)

Leaders of this type show a balance between supportive behaviour and directive behaviour. Sonia and Ruth do vary this of course according to who they are addressing. The more senior the staff they are dealing with the more they allow them to determine their own course for action. Policy Analysts are given more guidance than more senior staff, while Executive Assistants interactions are much more directive. The particular job roles of the individuals they interact with are important. Cooperation is still a feature of their interactions with Administration Staff, especially in Sonia’s interactions recorded with Beth. Rosener (1990) found that women tend to be more interactive in their leadership style than men. She sees this as a reflection of the fact that historically women have been expected to play a supportive and cooperative role.13 Women have therefore, learned how to manage effectively without relying on their control of resources and power to motivate others. Rosener concludes that the traditional male style of “command-and-control” is fine in large or-

Managers and power in the workplace

ganisations, while women’s interactive style is successful in medium-sized, fast changing organisations (see also Rosener 1995, 1997). Troemel-Ploetz (1994) challenges Rosener’s (1990) conclusions and argues that an interactive style “is more egalitarian, more democratic and, in the end, a more humane way of dealing with people” whatever the size of the organisation (Troemel-Ploetz 1994: 209). Dwyer’s (1993) comments about workplace communication are in keeping with Troemel-Ploetz’ argument. Her observations do not refer to a Manager’s gender, only to how Managers of any gender can improve their management style and aid communication within their workplaces. Not all women have an interactive style of management, just as all men do not have a command-and-control or authoritarian style of management (even if this is the stereotype – see McDonald 1990). My examination of the data produced by the two women Managers in my study indicates that they do both have an interactive “participative” style of management. There are a number of ways that they raise lower level staff ’s status and in so doing empower them. .. Dealing with potentially problematic situations Troemel-Ploetz (1994: 200) explores how women Managers handle the situations “where they have to insist on their authority”. Drawing examples from Helgesen (1990), she shows how the four women Managers who were the subject of Helgesen’s research all empowered their staff, even in potentially problematic situations. The way that the Managers in my study do this is evident in the expression and mitigation of control acts. There are a few situations which have not been examined yet which might understandably result in the overt expression of power. In this section I explore three of these.

Sonia and Donna One of the topics discussed by Sonia and Genevieve in the transcript examined in Chapter 6 involves Donna’s writing skills. Four days later Sonia had a meeting with Donna about the report. This interaction is also included in my dataset, SD1. Sonia is very supportive of Donna throughout this interaction. She spends a lot of time grounding her directives and all but one of the five head acts contain internal modification. The exception is a now directive (see Chapter 2). The first two head acts are both implicit, Example 8.33 (a) and (b). Example 8.33: a. what I’d do is use the roman numerals [dSD1-01] b. I would just put this [dSD1-02]



 Chapter 8

The forms in these two head acts are typically associated with the expression of advice rather than directives. They are also mitigated by Sonia’s preceding statements. Sonia begins the interaction by reassuring Donna “it’s all right I won’t be negative” [SD1:1]. Between Sonia’s meeting with Genevieve and the current meeting Genevieve has talked to Donna about her writing skills. Genevieve wants Donna to think more about her writing. Sonia knows this and since the topic of the current discussion is the report Donna has written, Sonia reassures her she will not be negative. This is also a pertinent comment, of course, because Donna knows that the interaction is being recorded. Sonia then verbally labels the interaction before turning to the topic of the document. Donna has rewritten it based on Genevieve’s comments and Sonia has read the new version. Excerpt 8.34: [SD1:3-5] 3 Sonia: . . . I think the only things that I would 4 change is because we haven’t used numbers I don’t know what um 5 Genevieve talked to you about numbers=/

Sonia’s first utterances referring to the report, lines 3–5, act as a lead in for the first directive. She hedges this with I think and words her utterance in terms of what she would do. Before completing this utterance she cuts off and gives a reason “because we haven’t used numbers”. This reason includes the use of the inclusive personal pronoun we. She then changes tack once again as she refers to Genevieve. Genevieve has been mentoring Donna and has been guiding her through the processes used by the unit. Donna’s response to this comes in line 7, Excerpt 8.35. Excerpt 8.35: [SD1:7-10] 7 Donna: /=right 8 Sonia: in the recommendation did she 9 Donna: [inhales] yeah she (did) mm she always tells me to number the 10 recommendations=/

Sonia explicitly asks Donna what she was told about the use of numbering, line 8. She selects Donna as the next speaker and involves Donna in the process. She seems to want Donna to think about the process rather than just accept Sonia’s changes without seeing how they fit into the template of how documents from the unit are supposed to be formatted. This actually turns out to be the whole point of the interaction as Beth rather than Donna will do the final changes.

Managers and power in the workplace 

Excerpt 8.36: [SD1:11-15] 11 Sonia: /=yeah but I think because we haven’t u- used numbers 12 Donna: right 13 Sonia: um up till now what //I’d\ do is use the roman numerals 14 [dSD1-01] 15 Donna: /(yeah)\\

Sonia returns to the reason she gave in line 4 and then issues her directive, line 13. The lead-up to this head act has spanned several turns and softens the directive when it finally arrives. There has been plenty of warning that it is on the way. Donna’s response to the directive is provided in Excerpt 8.37, along with the following section of talk. Excerpt 8.37: [SD1:16-30] 16 Donna: oh o//kay\ 17 Sonia: /(I mean)\\ I know it’s picky //picky\ 18 Donna: /yeah\\ yeah 19 Sonia: but it’s just it’s just a um it’s a tidy ++ tidy formatting thing 20 [sharp breath] because normally what you //do\ is you use + these 21 numbers for numbering paragraphs 22 Donna: /mm\\ 23 Donna: oh right 24 Sonia: in briefs and then 1//+\1 switch into this and it would therefore make 25 it just make- it it distinguishes 2//+\2 recommendations paragraph 26 numbering for recommendations as opposed to paragraph number27 ing for the document 28 Donna: 1/yeah\\1 29 Donna: 2/yeah\\2 30 Donna: mm

Excerpt 8.37 shows the way Sonia follows the directive with supportive moves. She expresses a negative assessment of her directive, line 17, and then provides justification, lines 19, and further reasons, lines 20–21, 24–27. She pauses after line 21 to give Donna a chance to agree and then also pauses briefly twice through her next turn in order to let Donna signal that she is following. Sonia’s expression of this whole directive sequence takes several lines of transcript. It is mitigated both internally as well as externally and the external mitigation occurs before and after the head act. Following this section Sonia turns to another part of the report. She wants to clarify a point. She then relates a humorous story to Donna about something similar that happened to

 Chapter 8

her. This acts to build solidarity and to put Donna at ease because she is in a situation where Sonia is giving her feedback on her writing. The nature of the interaction puts Donna in a vulnerable position and means that her face is being threatened. Donna is only a Policy Analyst and has not been working in the unit long. After Sonia has finished going through the changes required she compliments Donna on the report and then asks Donna if she found the writing course useful. After a brief discussion about this Sonia compliments Donna once again. Research on compliments has shown that complimenting strategies are not only a reflection of solidarity but also a means of constructing it (see e.g. Herbert and Straight 1989). Sonia’s focus here is on building her relationship with Donna. Sonia is supportive and encouraging throughout the interaction. At no point does she directly reproach Donna about her writing. Sonia demonstrates a number of strategies which Troemel-Ploetz (1993: 581–582) associates with the construction of equality in conversation. She displays fairness, respectfulness and generosity in dealing with Donna.

Sonia and Eloise Sonia’s interaction with Eloise (Policy Analyst) also contains a potential conflict. Once again, Sonia handles this in a way which is both supportive and encouraging of Eloise. The main purpose of the meeting is to discuss aspects of an ongoing project. Sonia spends the first few minutes of the interaction updating Eloise on her discussion with a person from outside the organisation who is involved with the issue. They will be meeting with this person soon to discuss details of the project. This sets the scene for the particular issues which she wants to discuss. Throughout the whole interaction Sonia uses we twice as often as she uses you (in her interaction with Donna this pattern is reversed). As noted in Chapter 5, the use of we builds solidarity. In Excerpt 8.38, however, it becomes clear that Sonia wants Eloise to do more work on the unit’s material for the meeting. This is not clear until line 84 of the interaction. All of the preceding talk has related to this project and has set the scene for Sonia’s first directive, line 84–85. Excerpt 8.38: [SE1:81, 83-85] 81 Sonia: . . . no er I think we’re we’re going need [false start] 83 Eloise: oh yeah 84 Sonia: the reason why I want us to talk today is that we might need to l85 look at boosting that up a bit [dSE1-03] ++ . . .

Managers and power in the workplace 

Sonia’s directive here is explicit, but is hedged by the use of we and the modal might. The marginal auxiliary need to is also present. This mitigates the head act further as it distances the action, implying that it comes from an authority outside the speaker. Sonia pauses at this point, but when Eloise does not verbally respond she continues, Excerpt 8.39. Excerpt 8.39: [SE1:85-91] 85 Sonia: . . . we’ve got monograph 86 two which is ++ 87 Eloise: Phil=/ 88 Sonia: /=Phil’s + and that and then monograph three which is Jane’s +++ 89 Eloise: mhm 90 Sonia: sorry it’s not very clearly i- cos it’s fax on //fax\ 91 Eloise: /(this)\\ the the um + no† . . . † I think Eloise’s “no” here refers to the clarity of the document.

Sonia pauses again, line 88, and after a long pause Eloise provides a minimal response. In line 90 Sonia apologises to Eloise. This is a FTA which “directly damages” the speaker’s positive face (Brown and Levinson 1987: 68). Sonia minimises the status differences with the use of this device. Eloise has not directly responded to her directive, which suggests that she may not agree with Sonia’s proposed course of action. Sonia’s behaviour here helps provide an environment where Eloise may feel comfortable to respond. Sonia has used a number of devices to diminish the status differences and to put Eloise at ease. In Excerpt 8.40 Eloise takes the floor. She indirectly expresses her disagreement. Excerpt 8.40: [SE1:91-94] 91 Eloise: . . . I was thinking the thing about this survey 92 though is that the + most of it was on [topic area one] so 93 there’ll be a lot more won’t there there would still be a lot more any94 way regardless of how much we try and boost that up

Sonia’s style of management means that her staff do feel that they can disagree. As with most types of interaction (see e.g. Pomerantz 1984), in workplace meetings there is a preference for agreement and this results in indirect strategies of disagreement (as seen with Genevieve in Chapter 6). Eloise has hesitated for a while before responding and begins by referring back to the topic of the survey being discussed. This grounds her following comment, which is introduced by so. In the situation where Genevieve disagreed with Sonia, Sonia has accepted Genevieve’s alternative proposal of how to deal with the issue (Section 6.2.3).

 Chapter 8

In the interaction with Eloise, however, Eloise’s disagreement results in more negotiation on the part of Sonia. This is something Sonia has thought about and which she wants changed. Sonia’s response to Eloise’s comment is provided in Excerpt 8.41. Excerpt 8.41: [SE1:95-97] 95 Sonia: no it’s really for us to think about what other information do we 96 want out of it [dSE1-04a] 97 Eloise: yeah

Sonia directly disagrees with Eloise’s statement. She then states her point of view. This is impersonalised through its embedding within the the phrase “it’s really for us . . . ”. It is also hedged by really and the use of the first person plural pronouns, us and we. Sonia pauses while Eloise agrees, line 97. Excerpt 8.42: [SE1:98-100] 98 Sonia: and that’s what I want [dSE1-04b] and I think that’s what um 99 Jane + and + wanted to meet about + 100 Eloise: right +

She then pushes her message home, line 98, and personalises it “and that’s what I want”. She immediately adds further support and mitigation by referring to what a third person, Jane (line 98–99), wants. She pauses again and Eloise agrees. Although Sonia has had to exert her power to some degree here, this is still mitigated, and continues to be mitigated throughout the rest of the interaction. Excerpt 8.43, shows Sonia’s next turn. She states what she wants Eloise to do, but once again, the first person exclusive pronoun we is used. Excerpt 8.43: [SE1:101-104] 101 Sonia: [drawls]: so: what we need to do before the meeting is to have be 102 thoroughly to have read it thoroughly and to actually then still [voc] 103 think about whether there were any other things that we want to add 104 to this [dSE1-05a] (5)

Once again there is a long pause, but Sonia waits for Eloise to take the floor. When she does Eloise’s statement also uses the first person inclusive pronoun we and is hedged by I mean and by her laughter. Once again, Sonia directly disagrees with Eloise, line 107. She begins to explain what she wants, but stops and agrees with Eloise. Not only does she agree, but she goes on to explicitly acknowledge the validity of Eloise’s comment, “you

Managers and power in the workplace 

were right” (line 109). Sonia’s disagreement threatened Eloise’s face and Sonia is now compensating. Excerpt 8.44: [SE1:105-114] 105 Eloise: I mean we want to know everything else they’re asking as well [laughs] 106 (the thing for me is) 107 Sonia: no but for example (under) [topic two] what other issues do we 108 want to um (5) yeah well [laughs] of course we want to know what 109 everything else they’re asking you were quite right um 110 Eloise: it depends on how many questions were asked on those particular 111 topics I just got the feeling that the questionnaire was more about 112 [topic area one] and less about [topic three] [topic four] and then 113 [topic two] because they compromised some questions on 114 [issue] and

Eloise takes the floor and more directly expresses her reservations, lines 110– 114. A short distance further into the interaction Sonia provides another supportive move to her earlier directive head act, Excerpt 10.13. Excerpt 8.45: [SE1:127-129] 126 Sonia: . . . I just 127 don’t feel that [voc] that we’ve got sufficient we’ve asked sufficient 128 questions here that’s just my view and that’s um [tut] ++ it is not a 129 criticism Eloise

Sonia further addresses Eloise’s face needs here, through the reference and undercutting of her own opinion “that’s just my view” and through directly telling Eloise she is not criticising her “it is not a criticism Eloise”. As the interaction progresses it becomes clear that Sonia had thought that the number of questions being asked was going to be boosted by other people’s contributions. Eloise explains that no-one else has given her feedback. The other people reading it were doing so for their own purposes. Sonia did not realise this. When she realises there has been a misunderstanding, she directly apologises to Eloise and takes responsibility, Excerpt 8.46. Excerpt 8.46: [SE1:154] 154 Sonia: . . . I’m sorry it’s my misunderstanding . . .

A number of aspects of this interaction are potentially face threatening to Eloise. Sonia handles the situation in a way which pays attention to Eloise’s face needs. Although Sonia disagrees at times and asserts her authority to some

 Chapter 8

degree, she compensates for this in the way that she provides justification, apologises and uses other devices which build solidarity.

Ruth and Irene The final example I will discuss involves an interaction between Ruth and Irene. In interaction RI8, Ruth had asked Irene to contact someone and arrange something. They spent three minutes discussing the details. In interaction RI10 Irene returns to report back on her progress and to indicate that she was unable to do the task assigned to her. The person she had been asked to contact was uncooperative. Once again, this involves a situation where the Manager could exert her authority and demand that Irene sort the issue out. Instead, Ruth accepts Irene’s lack of progress and says she will personally ring a second person and see if she can sort the issue out. She continues to elaborate on the issues, even though Irene will no longer be completing the task. She does not react negatively to Irene’s failure and her continued discussion of the issues with Irene keeps Irene informed and involved to some degree. Ruth uses consultative power here. After a brief discussion she directly thanks Irene for contacting the first person, Excerpt 8.47. Excerpt 8.47: [RI10: 26-27] 26 Ruth: /=so thanks for doing that //that’s great\ 27 Irene: /no that’s\\ that’s fine

She does not express frustration with Irene at any stage and her behaviour here is supportive, despite Irene’s lack of success. She does not reflect this back on Irene. After thanking her, Ruth continues to briefly discuss the issue. There is no accusation of failure nor are there negative consequences for Irene. As with the examples when Sonia’s Senior Policy Analysts give her advice which has not been explicitly solicited, Ruth does not put Irene in her place by exerting her legitimate power. Instead, she thanks Irene, a potential threat to her own negative face (Brown and Levinson 1987: 67), and uses consultative power instead, discussing the issue with Irene further.

Summary The situations outlined above involve ones where potentially the Managers could have just exerted their authority, i.e., referred to their legitimate power, or just told the other women what to do, and left it at that. Sonia and Ruth use a range of other strategies, however, to deal with each situation. In the first two cases, Sonia provides a lot of grounding moves to her directives. She explains and justifies herself at length. This serves to empower Donna and Eloise. Sonia

Managers and power in the workplace 

uses the situation in order to allow them to develop as Policy Analysts and to learn from the situation. Handling each of these examples in a command-andcontrol manner would have done nothing for Donna’s and Eloise’s motivation and development, nor for their relationship with their Manager. This is particularly pertinent in relation to the interaction between Sonia and Eloise. Sonia’s pursuit of the issue in this way uncovers an earlier case of miscommunication, which has resulted in conflict between her expectations about the processes a document has gone through and what has actually happened. Similarly, in the last situation outlined, Ruth does not react negatively to Irene or exert her power in any way. She takes responsibility for sorting out the problem and uses consultative power with Irene, discussing the issue with her, as she would with an equal.

. Power in the interactions between Managers and their staff This chapter has illustrated a number of ways that Managers minimise status differences by using strategies which empower lower level staff – such as asking their staff how they wish to do something (rather than just telling them) and involving them in the decision-making process. These strategies demonstrate Sonia’ and Ruth’s use of consultative power (see Chapter 1). Research on doctor-patient consultations has shown that patients have a lot of influence over how the consultations worked out. Arriving at the point of diagnosis was a joint effort (Heath 1992. See also Eisenthal et al. 1979). More powerful participants can control the interaction to a certain extent, but this depends on the cooperation of the other participant. Even when there is a power/status difference, the joint effort and cooperation/negotiation may be more striking than the displays of power and acquiescence. The purpose of an interaction affects a number of aspects which Fairclough (1989) identifies as reflections of power relations between individuals. Power relations are relevant here, but other factors also need to be considered and were found to be important. This chapter has summed up the patterns evident in the interactions between the Managers and their staff. Some differences are observed between the way they deal with staff at different levels within the organisation. Even with these differences, Sonia and Ruth can both be seen to have an interactive style of management. They more often minimise rather than exert power differences and pay attention to the face needs of their interlocutors. A CA view of language maintains that interaction is responsible for determining the nature of

 Chapter 8

the relationship between people. Social distance and power are not fixed properties; they are negotiated through interaction. This process is evident in the way Sonia and Ruth interact with their staff. Even in potentially problematic interactions they focus on their interlocutor’s needs, build good relationships and do not explicitly exert their power.

Chapter 9

Language and power between equals

Chapters 6 to 8 examine patterns of interaction in the meetings between the Managers and staff at lower levels. Given the lack of overt power expression evident in these interactions, communication between equals in this workplace would be expected to show a similar interactive style. In this chapter, the interactions which involve equals are explored. This context is one where there are no differences in the status of the two individuals involved. Although the enactment and acknowledgement of legitimate power is not a factor in these interactions, expertise power may be a relevant factor. Once again the distribution, forms and mitigation of control acts are examined (Section 9.1). A number of additional aspects which are explored in Chapter 8 are also investigated in the interactions between equals, Section 9.2. This involves examination of the contributions of each participant, turn-taking patterns, and topic control. The ways equals acknowledge each other’s skills are also briefly explored, along with investigation of some other ways they show respect for each other’s face needs.

. Control acts .. Types of control act

Between Managers According to the definitions used in this study, requests and advice, but not directives, may occur in the interactions between equals. Although the number of requests in my dataset is much smaller than the number of directives, the range of people who utter them is much larger. I begin by examining the number of requests and advice head acts between Managers. Table 9.1 shows the number of requests between Managers. There were 13 requests from Managers to other Managers, with 16 head acts. Most of these were uttered by Sonia; she made nine requests with 11 head acts. Eight of the requests occurred in one meeting between Sonia and

 Chapter 9

Table 9.1 Requests between Managers From

To

Ruth Sonia Therese Sonia

Sonia Ruth Sonia Therese

No. of requests

No. of request head acts

1 4 3 5

1 6 4 5

13

16

Total

Therese. The main purpose of this interaction was for Sonia to inform Therese about some upcoming interviews and to ask Therese to do a number of tasks in relation to the interviews. The discussion also results in three requests from Therese, two in relation to the interviews. There was only one example of advice that I identified in the interactions involving two Managers. Ruth gave one (elicited) piece of advice to Sonia. This piece of advice had two head acts.

Between Senior Staff Twenty-two requests and 34 instances of advice were identified in the interactions between Senior Staff.14 Tables 9.2 and 9.3 outline the number of requests and request head acts in the interactions involving Katie and Jo. Overall, 29 control acts were identified in the interactions between Katie and other Senior Staff. Katie also makes six requests to Ursula (IT Support). There are 43 head acts associated with these 35 control acts. Most of these control acts occur in Katie’s two interactions with Mary. The main purpose of KM1 is problem-solving, while in KM2 Katie is giving Mary feedback (see ApTable 9.2 Requests and advice involving Katie and equals Occupation

From Katie Requests Advice

To Katie Requests Advice

Snr Policy Analyst

Jo Mary

0 0

6 15

(7) (19)

0 2

(2)

0 0

Policy Analyst

Ondine

0

2

(2)

2

(2)

2

IT Support

Ursula

6

(7)

0

6

(7)

23

Total

† Number of head acts is provided in brackets

0 (28)

4

(4)

0 (4)

2

(4)

Total† 6 17

(7) (21)

6

(8)

6

(7)

35

(43)

Language and power between equals 

Table 9.3 Requests and advice involving Jo and equals Occupation Snr Policy Analyst

Katie Vera Francine

Total

From Jo Requests Advice

To Jo Requests Advice

0 1 4

(1) (4)

0 0 0

0 7 0

(7)

6 1 8

(7) (2) (8)

6 9 8

(7) (10) (8)

5

(5)

0

7

(7)

15

(17)

23

(25)

Total

pendix B and Section 9.2.1). In both cases, the work being discussed is Mary’s, and Katie is in the role of advice-giver. Jo has three interactions with equals. Control acts occur in each of these, with 23 control acts being identified overall. Most of these are instances of advice directed at Jo and occur in KJ1 and JF1. In KJ1 Katie is giving Jo feedback on a letter she has written. Once again, Katie’s role is one of advice-giver. In JF1 Jo is seeking Francine’s advice on how to approach a meeting she will be attending. Most of the control acts only have one head act, but there are two additional head acts. One of these is associated with the advice given to Jo by Vera, while the other relates to advice from Katie to Jo. The distribution of control acts in the interactions between equals reflects the purpose of the interaction. Advice is sought and requests are made. Each individual’s role in the interaction, e.g., advice-seeker or giver, determines what type of control acts occur in their speech. This varies from one interaction to another. The highest number of control acts uttered by one individual to an equal come from Katie. Most of the interactions she recorded involve her taking the role of “advice-giver”. .. Forms used A range of forms were found in the control acts identified in the interactions between Managers and lower level staff. A range of forms is also present in the request and advice head acts between equals. The forms present in the request head acts are noted in Tables 9.4 and 9.5. Only five of the sixteen request head acts between Managers are explicit. These take a range of forms. There is one interrogative, one declarative and three imperatives. The two imperatives directed to Ruth by Sonia are both head acts of the same request. This request is a now request. The single imperative from Sonia to Therese acts in a similar way to the imperatives noted in the interac-

 Chapter 9

Table 9.4 Basic form in Managers’ explicit request head acts to equals Speaker Addressee Ruth Sonia Sonia Therese

Sonia Ruth Therese Sonia

Total

Imperative

Interrogative

Declarative

Total explicit

Overall total

0 2 1 0

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

1 2 1 1

1 6 5 4

3

1

1

5

16

Table 9.5 Basic form in Senior Staff explicit request head acts to equals Speaker Addressee Katie Mary Ondine Jo Jo Vera Total

Ursula Katie Katie Francine Vera Jo

Imperative

Interrogative

Declarative

Total explicit

Overall total

1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 3

1 1 0 2 1 3

7 2 2 4 1 7

2

3

3

8

23

tions between the Managers and their senior staff. It acts as clarification and summary at the end of discussion of a topic. The one declarative head act is a modal declarative and contains might. The majority of the requests between Senior Staff are also implicit. Of the eight explicit head acts, two are imperative, three interrogatives and three declaratives. Katie’s imperative head act to Ursula is a clarifying control act, while Mary’s imperative to Katie is a now control act. Of the three declaratives from Vera to Jo, two contain if clauses, while the third contains the marginal auxiliary have to. Overall, 13 of the 39 request head acts between equals are explicit, i.e., one third. A similar proportion of the requests directed at Sonia and Ruth by subordinates are also explicit, 7 out of 22. Although the numbers being discussed are small, it is interesting to note that there is a similar proportion of interrogatives within the explicit head acts. Requests upwards are less likely, however, to be imperatives; one out of seven compared to five out of 13. The advice head acts also take a range of forms, Table 9.6. A different distribution is evident in the advice head acts. Just over half are explicit and these are fairly evenly divided between the imperative and declarative categories. Both

Language and power between equals 

Table 9.6 Basic form of explicit advice head acts between equals Speaker

Addressee

Ruth Francine Vera Katie Katie Katie Ondine

Sonia Jo Jo Jo Mary Ondine Katie

Total

Imperative

Interrogative

Declarative

Total explicit

Overall total

0 3 0 2 3 0 3

0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 2 0 4 1 1

0 8 2 2 7 1 4

2 8 2 7 19 2 4

11

1

12

24

44

of the head acts associated with the advice from Ruth to Sonia are implicit. No other examples of advice were identified in the interactions between Managers. This piece of advice was solicited. This is in contrast to the two other pieces of advice given to Sonia by Senior Policy Analysts, neither of which was directly solicited. Closer examination of the declarative advice head acts between Senior Staff shows that the majority are modal declaratives, 8 out of the 12. Over half of these involve the use of might. The remaining four head acts include two with marginal auxiliaries, one involving an if clause and one embedded declarative. There are no simple declaratives. To sum up, as with the control acts between staff at different levels in the organisation, results for equals show a range of forms are used. Requests are mainly implicit and while 55% of the advice head acts are explicit, just over half of these are declaratives. Internal mitigation is present in these. In particular, the modal might is used. As noted in Chapter 5, might indicates “a course of action politely, without giving overt advice” (Coates 1983: 161). Only 16 of the 83 control act head acts from equals are imperatives. These are often now control acts or act as clarifiers at the end of an extended discussion. Mitigation of the control act head acts from equals is explored in Section 9.1.3. .. Mitigation

Internal mitigation Request and advice head acts often contain internal modification devices. Example 9.1 shows some of the base form imperative advice head acts which contain just. None of the imperative request head acts contain just.

 Chapter 9

Example 9.1: a. maybe just make it a bit more um warm and friendly [aKM2-02] b. and then ++ just acknowledge perhaps that however that she does you know that she does actually realise that there are some problems with existing [organisation] services (which were ) viability problems or something [aKM2-07] c. and just see what they have to say [aFJ1-07]

Overall, six of the 16 imperative control act head acts between equals contain the softener just, i.e., 38%. Directive head acts were less frequently modified by the addition of just, 28%. Example 9.1 (a) is also mitigated by the use of maybe and a bit. Example 9.1 (b) and (c) also contain the discourse marker and, with (b) also containing a number of other lexical and phrasal mitigators such as perhaps and you know. Even when just is not present, there are sometimes other lexical downgraders such as the discourse makers well and so. Internal softening of control act head acts occurred with most requests and advice between equals.

External mitigation The control act head acts between equals are even more likely to arise out of an ongoing discussion than the ones between Managers and their staff. As with the pattern found between Sonia and Genevieve (Chapter 6) imperatives tend to occur at the end of an extended discussion about something and act as clarifiers as well as control acts. In Excerpts 9.2 and 9.3, Francine gives Jo five pieces of advice related to the same issue. The whole of the interaction up to this point has involved discussion of how to deal with an upcoming meeting. Jo is seeking Francine’s advice on this. The advice head acts in this section of the interaction cluster together and act as a summary of Francine’s advice. Excerpt 9.2: [JF1:142-146] 142 Fran: . . . but I think that’s probably where we 143 need to just focus on is the responsiveness of these agencies to 144 [social group] [aFJ1-04] 145 Jo: mm 146 Fran: yeah that’s good way to do it . . .

The first head act in this sequence is an embedded declarative. The form here is not so direct or forceful therefore. Francine is still thinking things through and supports this head act with her utterance in line 146. She then goes on to expand on this.

Language and power between equals 

Excerpt 9.3: [JF1:146-153, 155] 146 Fran: . . . and then get them to + [false start] 147 Jo: and then //discuss from there\ 148 Fran: /get them to t- t- t- [false start]\\ yeah get them to explain discuss what 149 they’re doing in terms of a responsiveness strategy for + for women for 150 [social group two] and [social group three] [aFJ1-05] and (then) 151 [clears throat] yeah keep it in that 1//general\1 area [aFJ1-06] 152 and just see what they have to say [aFJ1-07] and then um 153 we could contribute to the discussion that way [aFJ1-08] . . . 155 Jo: 1/yeah\\1

Francine begins to expand but pauses, line 146. Jo comes in and then finishes off Francine’s statement, line 147. Francine overlaps and makes another false start. She then agrees with Jo and expands on this, lines 148–150. She then agrees with herself and continues to sum up the best way to proceed, lines 151–153. All but the last of the four head acts in this section are imperatives. They have been mitigated, however, by the fact that Jo and Francine have been discussing this issue for an extended period. They are also mitigated by the less forceful forms of the first and last head acts. Both of these are also hedged by the use of we, line 142 and 153. Although none of the imperative request head acts between equals contain internal modification devices, all are mitigated by the utterances surrounding them. .. Summary A small number of requests and instances of advice were identified in the interactions between equals. These took a range of forms and mitigation devices were in high use. Given the high usage of both external and internal modification devices in the interactions between people at different levels within this organisation, it is hardly surprising that these women also use many softening devices when dealing with equals. Even when a control act is expressed using an explicit, direct form such as the imperative, there is frequently both internal and external mitigation.

 Chapter 9

. Other aspects of interaction between equals In Chapter 8 a number of other factors which may demonstrate the way people enact power are explored. These include examination of the contribution of each participant in terms of number of words, and some aspects of turntaking. Topic choice is also investigated. This section examines these factors in the interactions between equals. It also briefly looks at the acknowledgement of others’ expertise and of their face needs. .. Amount of talk The 15 interactions in my dataset which involved participants of equal status had a total of 29,318 words. Tables 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9 give the main purpose and number of words for these interactions. In the interactions between Sonia and the other Managers, Ruth and Therese, Sonia contributes 55% of the overall words. Her three interactions with Ruth show a great deal of variation on this factor. In the first interaction Sonia and Ruth have a general discussion about a number of issues. They each contribute equally to this interaction. In the second interaction recorded between the two of them, SR2, Ruth’s contribution falls to 36%. Sonia spends a large proportion of this interaction providing mitigation for her main request. She is asking Ruth to come to a meeting with someone she knows Ruth would rather avoid. Sonia compensates for this by providing a lot of background information and justification for her request as she tries to convince Ruth. In SR3 the proportion of words contributed by each of them is reversed as Ruth takes most of the talk time. Ruth fills Sonia in and provides her with background information and advice on an issue which Sonia has asked her about. Table 9.7 Main purpose and word counts for interactions between Managers Interaction

Main purpose

SR1 SR2 SR3 ST1

Discussion Request action: Sonia Request info: Sonia Request action: Sonia

Total † Irene interrupts twice

Words Sonia

Words other participant

Total words

480 1795 178 1023

473 1102 479 868

(50%) (36%) (73%) (46%)

953 3062† 657 1891

3476

2922

(45%)

6563

Language and power between equals 

Table 9.8 Main purpose and word counts for interactions between Katie and equals Interaction

Main purpose

KJ1 KM1 KM2 KO1 KO2 KI1 KU1 KU2 KU3

Feedback: Katie Problem-solving Feedback: Katie Problem-solving Update: Ondine Request info: Katie Request Action: Katie Request Action: Katie Request Action: Katie

Total

Words Katie

Words other participant

701 629 629 642 1546 169 150 435 352

560 1324 346 1136 2241 114 541‡ 463 289

(44%) (68%) (35%) (63%) (59%) (40%) (78%) (52%) (45%)

5253

7014

(57%)

Total words 1261 1953 975 1796 3787 283 691 898 647† 12291

† Someone interrupts briefly ‡ Ursula talks to someone on the phone during this interaction. This was related to Katie’s problem so was transcribed

and the word count includes this section of talk.

Table 9.9 Main purpose and word counts for interactions between Jo and equals Interaction

Main purpose

KJ1 JV1 JF1

Feedback: Katie Update: Vera Problem-solving

Total

Words Jo

Words other participant

Total words

560 899 3581

701 2675 3309

(56%) (75%) (48%)

1261 3574 6890

5040

6685

(57%)

11725

Katie’s overall contribution to her interactions with equals amounts to 43%. Once again, there is a great deal of variation between the interactions. When giving feedback Katie tends to dominate the talk time, but when problemsolving this pattern is reversed. In each case where Katie is involved in problemsolving with someone, the issue being discussed relates to the other participant’s work rather than hers. In some ways she acts as a sounding board in these situations. Katie has two interactions with Mary and Ondine and three with Ursula (although KU1 is complicated by the fact that Ursula talks on the phone). Once again, multiple interactions with the same participants allows further exploration of the effects of the main purpose of interactions. The biggest difference in these cases is between Katie’s problem-solving interaction with Mary and their feedback session. The percentage of words contributed by Katie in the first of these is relatively low at 32%. In the feedback session the pattern is re-

 Chapter 9

versed, with Mary being the one who contributes only 35% of the words. This reinforces the patterns observed in Chapter 8 and once again highlights the importance of aspects of context beyond participants. Jo only has three interactions with equals and these are all with different individuals. Jo’s contributions vary a great deal, and given the evidence from the other interactions in my dataset this will not be solely accounted for by considering who she is interacting with. As seen in Chapter 8 and in Tables 9.7 and 9.8, the workplace situation I am investigating is one where there is variation in amount of talk according to the exact context. .. Turn-taking Chapter 8 shows that patterns of turn-taking also varied according to the type of interaction participants were engaged in and this changed from one section of an interaction to another. The same pattern is evident in the interactions between equals. Excerpt 9.4 and 9.5 come from interaction JV1. Most of this interaction involves Vera updating Jo on a conference she has just been to. Vera talks about the aim of the conference, the countries that sent representatives and the issues discussed. Jo asks questions about how some issues were handled and provides supportive feedback, as in Excerpt 9.4. Excerpt 9.4: [JV1:7-15] 7 Vera: 2//but\2 the [topic one] project I’ll come to because I was approach8 ed by [country one] who are interested in broadening the topic 9 Jo: 1/oh okay\\1 10 Jo: 2/right\\2 11 Jo: mhm=/ 12 Vera: /=um and I wrote a er I was asked to write a er a sentence for inclusion 13 Jo: mhm 14 Vera: in the um in the communique from the meeting which looks at [issue one] 15 Jo: mm oh well that’s good

The continuation of this section of talk is given in Excerpt 9.5. Jo takes the floor for a longer turn. Excerpt 9.5: [JV1:16-25] 16 Vera: um and they’re keen to develop a project 17 Jo: cos that is one area that um [tut] you know that particularly relates

Language and power between equals

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

t- to [social group] you know that was what that whole recognition of [issue two] 1//thing\1 was about wasn’t 2//it\2 so that’s Vera: 1/yes\\1 Vera: 2/yes\\2 Vera: so //that\ I saw is probably the key one for=/ Jo: /right\\ Jo: /=mhm=/ Vera: /=interest to you and . . .

Vera provides supportive feedback during Jo’s turn, lines 20 and 21. Her overlaps do not involve attempts to regain the floor. In line 22 Vera finishes off Jo’s utterance and Jo returns to her role as the provider of supportive feedback, lines 23, 24. The main purpose of interaction KM1 is problem-solving. Mary outlines a problem she is having and then Katie provides advice and suggestions, and works through possible solutions with Mary. In the initial stages of the interaction, Mary outlines the problem as Katie listens and provides encouraging minimal feedback, as in Excerpt 9.6. Excerpt 9.6: [KM1:8-18] 8 Mary: [tut] um and what I’ve done now is that I’ve talked to all yeah all of 9 the analysts in the unit and I’ve um put um + put what they’ve said 10 into a first draft of an overall work pram- programme 11 Katie: mm 11 Mary: [tut] um what the next stage there’s sort of two parts that need to 12 happen next one is um to try and get some estimation of the sort of 13 resources that we’ll need in each work area and the other is to um 14 well then the next part after that is to look at what we’ve got in the 15 programme now and assess it against our the criteria that we’ve 16 developed + for prioritising policy projects 17 Katie: oh right 18 Mary: um what I thought might be useful is that if i- if I send out um . . .

Further into the interaction Katie provides advice and the two discuss the best way to deal with the issue. The turn-taking patterns here are quite different. There is mutually supportive overlapping speech and the floor rapidly passes backwards and forwards between the two, as in Excerpt 9.7. Excerpt 9.7: [KM1:115-129] 115 Katie: what I think might [voc] be good is if you get everybody to



 Chapter 9

116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

assess their + their work plan proposals against criteria Mary: okay //that’s a good idea\ Katie: /but maybe without\\ the prioritising [aKM1-01] Mary: okay + yep so it’s just ase- [voc] they assess how it ( )=/ Katie: /=yeah Mary: the extent to which it complies as a criteria? how it //like what’s the\ Katie: /[drawls]: mm: I\\ don’t know really cos we haven’t really had a discussion about weightings and impor1//tance\1 and things like that have we I mean just the number of criteria it satisfies wouldn’t be enough 2//because\2 probably all of them will satisfy all of them Mary: 1/no\\1 Mary: 2/no\\2 Mary: yeah //well you can probably find justification for them\ Katie: /or or you wouldn’t have suggested it\\ in the first place yeah

The patterns in Excerpt 9.7 are more like informal conversation as Katie and Mary work out the best way to deal with the issue. The overlaps are collaborative rather than disruptive and the two share the floor. This pattern is typical of interactive discussions (see Edelsky 1981; Tannen 1984; Coates 1988). The turn-taking patterns in the interactions between equals, as with those between the Managers and lower level staff, tend to differ depending on the exact context and frequently change in the course of a meeting. The work setting is evident, but there are times when the pattern resembles the patterns observed in informal conversations in private settings. .. Topic choice and flow The Managers’ interactions with their Executive Assistants showed them having a lot more control over topic choice than when dealing with their Senior Staff. The findings were not completely clear-cut, however, and if an Executive Assistant instigated an interaction then they were likely to have control over the topics discussed and the introduction of these topics. In interactions between equals the initiator of an interaction also has the greatest control. These findings are in keeping with the need of the primary instigator of a meeting to make sure that they cover all topics and facets of topics that they need to know about in order to carry out their work obligations. This pattern is also evident in interactions between equals. When the primary purpose of the interaction is for one person to give feedback to another, the person giving the feedback tends to introduce and set the topics discussed. In problem-solving

Language and power between equals 

interactions, the person whose work is involved takes this role. Unsurprisingly, in update sessions the person doing the updating has the most influence. Within the discussion of a topic, the topic itself tends to progress as a result of input from each participant. Topic development can be very collaborative, as noted by Coates (1988: 98–105) in relation to women’s talk in private settings. The next sequence of excerpts from JV1 shows the progressive way Jo and Vera develop topics. In Excerpt 9.8, Vera is talking about the development of a framework in relation to a particular issue. Excerpt 9.8: [JV1:79-94] 79 Vera: . . . but you need 1//to\1 come up with 80 a sort of + common framework 2//+\2 um a concept a shared concept and 81 then you plug in the 3//the\3 needs and requirements and the activities of 82 each of the two or [country name] come on board three countries [rVJ1-01] 83 Jo: 1/mm\\1 84 Jo: 2/mm\\2 85 Jo: 3/mm\\3 86 Jo: well 1//actually I think I think (although) Australia\1 has a um + i- I was 87 reading a report where they were saying that they had quite a poor record 88 in terms of [issue] you know relative to say North America 2//and\2 Euro89 pe they’ve actually been doing a lot of work in this area to try and redress 90 that you know so probably there is some stuff 3//+\3 um 4//that\4 we 91 92 93 94

could Vera: 1/so I’ll I’ll leave you with that\\1 Vera: 2/mm\\2 Vera: 3/yes\\3 Vera: 4/well\\4

It appears Vera was not going to pursue this issue further at this stage (see her overlap on Jo’s turn, line 86 and 91). Jo, however, takes up the issue and adds some information that she is aware of in relation to Australia, lines 86–90. The content of Vera’s fourth overlap on Jo’s turn here, line 94, indicates that Vera has something to add (Svartvik 1979). Vera then develops the topic further by relating the information she knows about the situation in New Zealand, Excerpt 9.9. Excerpt 9.9: [JV1:95-108] 95 Vera: yes there are are various people who’ve been working in the area in New 96 Zealand Danielle Smithers comes to mind who designed um [course 97 name] there’s lots in [course name]=/

 Chapter 9

98 Jo: /=mhm 99 Vera: programmes at polytechs and at university which um while they will take 100 um anybody ther- they were especially geared for [people facing //issue\ 101 one] or wanted some sort of confidence booster 102 Jo: /mm\\ 103 Jo: mm 1//well\1 she might be a good person I mean seeing where it we’ll 104 see where it goes 2//but\2 she might be good person 3//to (consult)\3 105 Vera: 1/and\\1 106 Vera: 2/yes\\2 107 Vera: 3/so you know first\\3 of all I think we have to come up with an outline 108 of 1//what\1 it could be [rVJ1-02] . . .

Jo picks up on the information Vera has just provided, lines 103–104, and suggests that they may be able to consult with the person Vera has mentioned. Vera then brings the discussion back to the point at which the sequence started, lines 107–108. Both of the women have been actively involved in the progression of the topic. These excerpts come from an interaction where Vera has main control over the overall flow between topics as she goes through the list of things she wants to highlight to Jo. A natural progression from one topic to another is evident in Sonia’s interaction with Therese. Sonia is making arrangements with Therese about some interviews which are happening the next day. Talk about the upcoming interviews leads Therese to mention another set of interviews that have taken place that afternoon: “just done one set of interviews this afternoon” [ST1:119]. Mention of the afternoon’s interviews allows the introduction of a new but related topic from Sonia – the shortlisting of applicants for yet another set of interviews: “I haven’t um shortlisted the [(topic) awards] yet” [ST1:122]. Therese and Sonia then each introduce a number of sub-topics in relation to this new topic. Sonia has main control as the issues being discussed relate to her obligations. To sum up, overall control of topic depends on the purpose and instigator of the interaction. The examples in this section also show the joint development of topics once a new topic has been introduced. As with most aspects of interaction, both participants need to cooperate in order for effective communication to take place.

Language and power between equals

.. Acknowledgement of expertise power Sonia and Ruth acknowledge the expertise of their staff in a number of ways (see Chapters 6, 7 and 8). Equals frequently acknowledge the “expertise” power of their peers. This is evident, for example, in the way they seek the advice of others. Interactions KO1 and KM1, for instance, both involve situations where Ondine and Mary, respectively, seek Katie’s advice on something. They acknowledge Katie’s expertise and skills when they do this. When Katie gives feedback to someone, as she does in interactions KJ1 and KM2, their acceptance of her suggestions and comments on their writing also demonstrates an acknowledgement of her expertise. All the Senior Staff peer-review each other’s work. This provides an opportunity to share and acknowledge each other’s skills. When Katie has problems with her computer, she seeks Ursula’s advice and help. Ursula is employed in an IT position. The power relationship in situations like this is interesting because it is not clear-cut. Ursula is employed in an Administrative/Support role, which puts her at a lower level within the organisation. She is, however, employed because of her skills in a certain area and when people need her help Ursula’s “expertise” power is a salient factor. When the Managers interact with each other they also acknowledge the “expertise” power of their interlocutor. Sonia’s third interaction with Ruth, for example, shows her asking for information on something Ruth is involved in, and for Ruth’s advice on Policy Unit One’s role in regard to this issue. .. Acknowledgement of face The last factor which I will explore involves the way equals acknowledge each other’s face needs. Some of the ways people do this have already been examined, such as the use of mitigation with control acts and the acknowledgement of “expertise” power. Sonia and Ruth both use a range of strategies to acknowledge the face needs of subordinates. For example, even when Irene has not been able to complete an assigned task Ruth thanks her for trying to sort the issue out, see Section 8.2.2. In Excerpt 9.10 Jo explicitly thanks Vera, line 4. Brown and Levinson (1987: 67) list “expressing thanks” as a FTA which threatens the speaker’s face because the speaker “accepts a debt” and “humbles” their own negative face. Whether this exact interpretation is accepted or not, “expressing thanks” is a speech act which shows respect for the hearer.



 Chapter 9

Excerpt 9.10: [JV1:2-4] 2 Vera: . . . so what I’ve done is pick out the stuff that I think would be um 3 relevant to you 4 Jo: thank you

Excerpt 9.10 comes from interaction JV1 where Vera is updating Jo on a conference she has been to. Vera highlights aspects which may be of interest to Jo. Vera demonstrates a knowledge of and concern for Jo’s area of expertise. She shows an ability to communicate openly and an interest in helping Jo obtain information which may be relevant and therefore helpful to Jo’s work projects. This illustrates a respect for Jo as a colleague. Even in such a short excerpt both participants can be seen to be paying attention to the need to maintain good personal relationships. At the end of most of the interactions between equals the participant who has received the feedback, advice or help thanks the other participant. Sometimes both say thank you, as in KM1, Excerpt 9.11. Excerpt 9.11: [KM1:231-232] 231 Katie: all right //thank you\ 232 Mary: /thank you\\

Katie has just helped Mary out with a problem. Mary thanks her, line 232. At the same time, Katie thanks Mary. This is probably because Mary has allowed her to tape their discussion, so Mary has helped Katie out as well. In Section 8.2.2, we saw how Sonia apologised to Eloise and took responsibility for a misunderstanding. This arose from a potentially problematic situation. Excerpt 9.12 shows Sonia apologising to Therese. This excerpt comes from an interaction where Sonia is making arrangements with Therese about some interviews which are to take place the next day. Sonia was not able to talk to Therese earlier because Therese has been away on a course. This means that Sonia must now ask Therese to complete a number of tasks in a very short time span. Once again there is the potential for problems. Excerpt 9.12: [ST1:109-119] 109 Sonia: papers for Therese I’ll get that I’m sorry I didn’t I j- [voc] I //(and 110 look)\ I’ve been running like a=/ 111 Therese: /that’s okay I\\ 112 Therese: /=[laughs]=/ 113 Sonia: /=silly mad dog since 114 Therese: well I haven’t had much time to actually catch up 1//on any\1 of my

Language and power between equals 

115 email yet I’ve 2//done my tray\2 116 Sonia: 1/([laughs])\\1 117 Sonia: 2/and I suddenly\\2 thought //[in high voice]: god I haven’t told 118 Therese:\ 119 Therese: /[laughs]\\ . . .

Excerpt 9.12 begins with Sonia verbally noting, as she probably writes down, that she needs to get a set of papers for Therese. She then apologises to Therese because she has not talked to Therese sooner. This is not the first time she has apologised in the interaction. Apologies are a FTA which Brown and Levinson (1987: 68) note damages the positive face of the speaker. This is followed by a further act which damages Sonia’s negative face – the supply of an excuse. Therese’s response to this, in accepting Sonia’s apology (line 111), offends her own negative face (Brown and Levinson 1987: 67). Through the use of these types of devices the two women show respect for each other and build solidarity. This is further achieved through Sonia’s comment in lines 117–118. Ultimately it is not her fault that she has not told Therese as Therese has not been around to tell. However, Sonia takes the responsibility on herself for any problems that may result from Therese not knowing sooner. This further mitigates the control acts she makes in this interaction. The women in this study use a lot of devices which build solidarity when interacting with equals. This section has provided some examples of how they do this through strategies such as thanks and apologies.

. Effective communication between equals Chapters 6 to 8 illustrate the way the Managers in my study use a number of consultative power strategies with their staff. Sonia and Ruth’s management style is interactive and they demonstrate a number of attributes which Dwyer (1993: 512) notes promote effective communication in a workplace. They communicate openly, collaborate, take responsibility, solve problems, respect others, facilitate interaction and encourage participation. I also note that the lower level staff exhibit many of these qualities in their interactions with their Managers. It would be expected therefore, that these factors would also characterise interactions which involve the same women interacting with equals. The control acts in interactions between equals are always mitigated, showing respect for others. In situations where advice is given, the advice has been solicited so the need for mitigation may be considered to be reduced. However,

 Chapter 9

it still occurs. Solicited advice also demonstrates respect from the advice-seeker to the advice-giver because it acknowledges the advice-giver’s skills and expertise. Yukl et al. (1996: 309) note that “the ability to influence subordinates, peers, and superiors is a major determinant of a manager’s effectiveness.” The ways Sonia and Ruth did this when interacting with subordinates are evident in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. Chapter 9 shows that they also have this ability when dealing with peers. Their control acts are mitigated both internally and externally and this helps them to achieve their goals (Bohm and Hendricks 1997). The way that the women collaborate in their development and progression of topics and in their patterns of turn-taking are evident in Section 9.2. They also demonstrate respect for each other and the ability to collaborate in other aspects of interaction. They use a lot of devices which build solidarity. The maintenance of good relationships with people is an on-going process and the women in this study can be seen to do this in the interactions recorded. Although workplace interaction is primarily goal-orientated, a failure to pay attention to personal relationships can result in job dissatisfaction, which in turn lowers employee motivation and productivity (Dwyer 1993). In this workplace, staff development and involvement comes before concerns about presenting a “powerful” image. The Managers demonstrate a range of attributes identified by management researchers which aid effective communication in the workplace. Their staff also show many of these attributes, both in their interactions with their Managers and between themselves.

Appendix A

Transcription conventions

Basic Conventions These conventions are based on the system developed for the Wellington Corpus of New Zealand English (Vine et al. 2002). ( ) (well) ??: Kim?: # ? wha[ ]: : WELL + ++ +++ (4) =/ /= // \ / \\

Untranscribable or incomprehensible speech Transcriber’s best guess at unclear speech Unknown speaker Unknown speaker, possibly Kim To signal end of “sentence” where it is ambiguous on paper To signal a “question” where it is ambiguous on paper Hyphen indicates cut off word, both self-interruption & other speaker interruption Editorial comments, paralinguistic features e.g. [laughs], [laughs]: yes: Capitals indicate emphatic stress Short pause of up to one second One to two second pause Two to three second pause Four second pause: ie. after three seconds pause length is indicated by noting the number of seconds in parentheses. Latching, i.e., where second utterance immediately follows first Simultaneous speech e.g. Ann: I’d like to come as well + //is\ that okay Bob: /yeah\\ Numbering is added where a speaker is overlapped more than once within a turn: e.g. Ann: you’ve got to deep fry them 1//do\1 you + or just 2//pan fry them\2 Bob: 1/mm\\1 Bob: 2/no + they were \\2very greasy

 Appendix A

Non-standard speech and noises  yes no  yeah nah  yep nope and cos eh er gonna oh okay mm mhm [tut] um [voc] wanna

used to transcribe variants of yes/no.

represents all variants (e.g. and, ’n, ’nd) represents all abbreviated variants of because tag (e.g. “badjelly is really cute eh”) all hesitations not ending in –m pronunciation of going to represents all utterances in the oh - ooh group standard spelling of okay minimal feedback yes bilabial/alveolar/dental clicks all hesitations ending in –m funny untranscribable noises not covered by any other convention pronunciation of want to Numbers and forms that are usually abbreviated are written out in full.

Numbering in transcript excerpts cited All line numbers in the excerpts provided refer to the line numbers in the transcript from which the excerpt was taken. At the beginning of each example or excerpt the transcript name and line numbers are noted. e.g., [SA1:56-58]. This excerpt was taken from the transcript of interaction SA1 and shows lines 56 to 58 from the transcript. Control act head acts in excerpts are italicised and identified by their code.

Appendix B

Main interaction purpose and word counts

This appendix lists the main purpose of each of the 52 interactions in my dataset. Sonia’s interactions are listed in Tables B.1, B.3 and B.5. Ruth’s interactions with her staff are listed in Tables B.2 and B.4 and her interactions with Ruth are included in Table B.5. Katie’s interactions with her Manager are included in Table B.4 and her interactions with equals are listed in Table B.6. Jo’s interactions with her Manager are included in Table B.4 and her interactions with equals are listed in Table B.7. The tables also provide word counts. The word counts were produced using a word count programme which is designed to count the words spoken minus any editorial comments. Dwyer (1993: 606) lists some reasons for meetings. “Meetings can: provide information, clarify information, give and receive feedback, provide training, allow discussion, encourage problem solving.” Based on Dwyer’s classification and the classifications provided by the participants themselves, I assigned the following labels for “main purpose of interaction”: – – – – – – – – –

Assign Tasks Clarify/Report Back on Tasks Request Action Request Permission Request Information Update Feedback Problem-solving Discussion

Most of these labels are self-explanatory. Update sessions involve a staff member updating another person on issues. Senior Staff frequently have update meetings with their Managers to outline how their work is progressing. I have used the term “Feedback” to refer to sessions where someone is providing the other participant with feedback on a piece of written work. In this

 Appendix B

workplace all work is peer-reviewed, so feedback sessions between the reviewer of a report or letter and the writer occur frequently. I define “Problem-solving” according to the criteria specified by researchers such as Willing (1992). He identifies three phases of problem-solving: “define/describe; deepen comprehension/interpret; devise/decide” (Willing 1992: 214, 217). Each of these phases must be present. If the final phase is not present, then the main purpose of the interaction was specified as “Discussion”. In these cases there may be exploration of an issue but no decisions or outcomes result. Problem-solving meetings may start in a number of ways. Sometimes an update meeting, where a staff member is routinely updating another person on issues, turns into a problem-solving session. At other times, a participant may come and specifically ask someone for advice and help in working out the best way to deal with an issue. In each of these cases the main purpose has been classified as “problem-solving”. Table B.1 Main purpose and word counts for Sonia’s interactions with Administration Staff Interaction SA1 SA2 SB1 SB2 SB3 SC1 Total

Main purpose Assign Tasks Clarify/Report Back Assign Tasks Assign Tasks Assign Tasks Req. Action

Words Sonia

Words other participant

% other participant

Total words

1060 180 1279 994 1261 383

58 111 435 272 557 323

5 38 25 21 30 46

1118 291 1714 1269* 1835* 706

5157

1756

25

6933

*Outside participants briefly interrupt these interactions.

Many interactions have more than one purpose. I assigned the labels according to the purpose which seemed to account for most of the interaction time. This was not always easy. Tasks are assigned by Managers, while lower-level staff clarify/report back. Staff from any level, however, may make a request, provide feedback or updates. In these cases, the instigator of the action is indicated, e.g., Feedback: Ruth, means that Ruth is giving the feedback; Request Info: Ruth, means Ruth is making the request.

Main interaction purpose and word counts 

Where noted in the tables, other participants have briefly interrupted the interaction. This accounts for discrepancies between the total number of words and the sum of the words contributed by each of the two main participants. Most the interactions between the Managers and their Executive Assistants have the main purpose of either Assigning Tasks or Clarifying/Reporting-back on Tasks. The first type of meeting was generally instigated by the Manager, and the second type by the Executive Assistant. Table B.2 Main purpose and word counts for Ruth’s interactions with Administration Staff Interaction RI1 RI2 RI3 RI4 RI5 RI6 RI7 RI8 RI9 RI10 RI11 RP1 RQ1

Main purpose Assign Tasks Clarify/Report Back Clarify/Report Back Clarify/Report Back Assign Tasks Clarify/Report Back Assign Tasks Assign Tasks Assign Tasks Discussion Assign Tasks Req. Info: Ruth Req. Perm: Quinta

Total

Words Ruth

Words other participant

% other participant

Total words

195 196 38 202 92 26 225 450 343 300 65 180 268

79 193 87 273 33 106 71 247 193 201 54 370 625

29 50 70 57 26 80 24 35 36 40 45 67 70

274 389 125 475 125 132 296 697 536 501 119 550 893

2580

2532

50

5112

Table B.3 Main purpose and word counts for Sonia’s interactions with Senior Staff Interaction SD1 SE1 SF1 SG1 SH1 SH2 Total

Main purpose Feedback: Sonia Problem-solving Problem-solving Problem-solving Assign Tasks Problem-solving

Words Sonia

Words other participant

% other participant

Total words

883 2024 1709 2844 952 1362

476 599 1077 3087 527 1882

35 30 39 52 36 58

1359 2623 2786 5931 1479 3244

9774

7648

44

17422

 Appendix B

Table B.4 Main purpose and word counts for Ruth’s interactions with Senior Staff Interaction RJ1 RJ2 RJ3 RJ4 RK1 RK2 RL1 RM1 RM2 RN1 RO1 RO2

Main purpose Problem-solving Problem-solving Feedback: Ruth Discussion Update Discussion Problem-solving Problem-solving Problem-solving Feedback: Ruth Feedback: Ruth Problem-solving

Total

Words Ruth

Words other participant

% other participant

Total words

3815 575 1941 1594 372 1079 725 968 1227 578 512 312

2309 546 1017 1425 398 2250 652 2050 1035 220 458 394

38 49 34 47 52 68 47 68 45 28 47 56

6124 1121 2958 3019 770 3329 1377 3022* 2289* 798 970 706

13698

12754

48

26483

*Outside participants briefly interrupt these interactions.

Table B.5 Main purpose and word counts for Sonia’s interactions with equals Interaction SR1 SR2 SR3 ST1 Total

Main purpose Discussion Req. Action: Sonia Req. Info: Sonia Req. Action: Sonia

Words Sonia

Words other participant

480 1795 178 1023 3476

*Outside participants briefly interrupt this interaction.

% other participant

Total words

473 1102 479 868

50 36 73 46

953 3062* 657 1891

2922

45

6563

Main interaction purpose and word counts 

Table B.6 Main purpose and word counts for Katie’s interactions with equals Interaction KJ1 KM1 KM2 KO1 KO2 KI1 KU1 KU2 KU3

Main purpose Feedback: Katie Problem-solving Feedback: Katie Problem-solving Update: Ondine Req. Info: Katie Req. Action: Katie Req. Action: Katie Req. Action: Katie

Total

Words Katie

Words other participant

% other participant

Total words

701 629 629 642 1546 169 150 435 352

560 1324 346 1136 2241 114 541† 463 289

44 68 35 63 59 40 78 52 45

1261 1953 975 1796 3787 283 691 898 647*

5253

7014

57

12291

*Outside participants briefly interrupt this interaction. † Ursula talks to someone on the phone during this interaction. This was related to Katie’s problem and so was

transcribed.

Table B.7 Main purpose and word counts for Jo’s interactions with equals Interaction KJ1 JV1 JF1 Total

Main purpose Feedback: Katie Update: Vera Problem-solving

Words Jo

Words other participant

% other participant

Total words

560 899 3581

701 2675 3309

56 75 48

1261 3574 6890

5040

6685

57

11725

Appendix C

Directive head acts

In the 52 interactions comprising the main dataset, 265 directives with 319 directive head acts were identified. These are listed below according to speaker and addressee. Each head act is given a separate number. This tag consists of three letters followed by two numbers. The same system of coding is used for all the control act head acts. The first letter in all the directive examples is a lower case d, meaning that the utterance was classified as a directive. The second letter identifies the person who uttered the directive. S is used to indicate a directive uttered by Sonia, while R marks those uttered by Ruth. The third letter in the label for each directive indicates who the directive was uttered to. Sonia issues directives to Anna, Beth, Clare, Donna, Eloise, Francine, Genevieve and Hilary (A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H respectively). Ruth interacts with Irene, Jo, Katie, Leigh, Mary, Nell, Ondine, Phoebe and Quinta (J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q). Sometimes Sonia and Ruth had more than one interaction with the same person. It is useful to see how the directives pattern across interactions. Each interaction with each person is therefore indicated by a number. For example, Sonia has two interactions with Anna. The directives found in the first interaction are labelled dSA1 and those in the second are labelled dSA2. Sonia also issues directives to Anna during meetings with other individuals. These are labelled dSA3 and dSA4. The directives pulled from each interaction are then numbered consecutively. When there are multiple head acts of the same directive these are indicated by a lower case letter after the last number. For example, two head acts were identified for Sonia’s ninth request to Anna in the first interaction. These are labelled dSA1-09a and dSA1-09b.

 Appendix C

Sonia’s directives Sonia to Anna (26 with 29 head acts) [dSA1-01] I need to get you to um sign off a consent slip too [dSA1-02] and I wondered if you wouldn’t mind spending some of that time in contacting + while noone else is around contacting the people for their interviews and setting up the the appointment times for their interviews [dSA1-03] what we might need to do is send down an (old) confirmation note [dSA1-04] well perhaps if we just tell them exactly where it where it is [dSA1-05] what I suggest you do is read through all [laughs]: these notes first: [dSA1-06] and we’ll be looking at at getting bringing her in and tak- sending her back on the same same plane oh same day [dSA1-07] ring the applicants and say that you’ve been shortlisted . . . you’ve been list- shortlisted for the [policy unit one] policy analyst oh senior policy analyst policy analyst position er ++ take about an hour + depending on the questions . . . um you’re welcome to bring whaanau support + [tut] it’d be helpful if you could let me know on the day well let me know how many whaanau support you’ll be bringing so I can set up the venue [inhales] um + now for whaanau support er if they ask (a) question whether or not the ministry # the ministry will pay for THEM + like for people outside (the) town but not for whaanau support so that comes that comes at their own cost [dSA1-08] what I would suggest what what we can do is probably map out the er one for [place] first according to the travel times you’ve got [dSA1-09a] see if you can ring her first [dSA1-09b] see if you can get hold of her first [dSA1-10a] but if you get her on the ten o’clock flight [dSA1-10b] that would be the ideal one + come in on the ten o’clock flight [dSA1-11] so check to see what time the plane actually lands [dSA1-12] that would be the ideal for her to come in at ten leave at two [dSA1-13] and g- take that appointment slot [dSA1-14] and the others just fit in in around them [dSA1-15] hang on [dSA1-16] you(’ve) just write down the list of their names and the confirmed appointment time [dSA1-17a] we’ll put it with the you know the three separate papers that we’ve made up [dSA1-17b] we put + that in with each set of paper [dSA1-18] can you please make sure that the room is booked for the whole day [dSA1-19] so that’s why it would be really great to be able to do it while everyone’s away

Directive head acts 

[dSA1-20] if you find you haven’t managed to get hold of everyone at the end then um come and talk to me and we’ll set up a time where you can use my office um when I’m not here [dSA1-21] and you just come in and shut the door and try and make contact [dSA1-22] otherwise get everything in this envelope ++ and notes and things in this envelope rather than lying around [dSA2-01] there’s no point in us making the bookings until we’ve talked totalked with her about it [dSA3-01] would you mind just ta- copying one photocopy of that [dSA3-02] you can go through this way [dSA4-01] but just ring them and check to see if a they’ve had a copy and b if the clauses that where the clauses have been changed that they’re happy with

Sonia to Beth (50 with 54 head acts) [dSB1-01] I think she’s left you a list of instructions [dSB1-02a] so what I told her in the end was just make sure she did one copy for the day file + and left everything else for you [dSB1-02b] so that’s all she ever did was one copy for the day file [dSB1-03] I wanted to check with her to see where she’d left all the copies [dSB1-04] and so I don’t want those going on the day file or any other file [dSB1-05] all the other letters + um should go on the + should go on the file [dSB1-06] that needs to be couriered up to [name] + today [dSB1-07] so if you can find the letter and um print it out on final copy [dSB1-08] and so that I can sign it off [dSB1-09] I need a um master sheet er what do you call them [laughs] you know a template [dSB1-10] will you have time to do that today if I fire the stuff across to you [dSB1-11] I think it’s gonna have to come back to you [dSB1-12] but can you call Yvette and see what just see what Yvette had or had not arranged [dSB1-13] and then find out + er from Yvette who she saw as key contact people [dSB1-14] this day here on the Monday that’s a (fool’s) day because + I thought I was going to be um at the social policy agency all day today but I’m not + but Tuesday I’m all morning I’m with + [organisation] + Wednesday now I’m all out with interviews [softly]: (Wednesday): and that’s ( ) um and Friday I’m all- I’m all out [dSB1-15] we need to- book it in [dSB1-16] oh put in an eight o’clock here eight o’clock with [name] [dSB1-17] you need to just check the travel booking

 Appendix C

[dSB1-18] as soon as you’ve contacted Yvette will you let me know what the story is [dSB1-19] well things l- things like copies would’ve been useful [dSB1-20] (you can) cross me off for that [dSB1-21] you might need to check [dSB1-22] actually can you put that in my diary too [dSB2-01] speedwise it’d be a lot quicker if you did the ++ the corrections [dSB2-02] you’ll just have to have a look and see what sorts of [dSB2-03] correct it once and then somehow copy it down into the other bits [dSB2-04] and also putting it as an appendix that’s the easiest probably the easiest way [dSB2-05] it’ll be + easiest for an appendix in that letter [dSB2-06] put these ones in italics [dSB2-07] and then that’s just subheadings [dSB2-08] and that’s the kind of stuff that might be picked up in the next round [dSB2-09] actually that one we could do with the tape + (there) (11) with that appendix correction [dSB2-10] if you could put a file mate- file note on it + file number [dSB2-11a] could I get you tomorrow to ring up [name] + at [company] . . . just to check to see if the one to Paula + the copy to Paula the letter + that we sent to Paula (if that attach-) but just to see that that’s actually gone through to their accounts [dSB2-11b] so you can pull off on it with [name] on that one? [dSB3-01] come on Beth [dSB3-02] run that one past me again [dSB3-03] but do you think you could um use your in- incredible skill to see if you can find a way of getting into that [dSB3-04] so you need to do it [dSB3-05] so just have a wee think [dSB3-06] so we need a + taxi van [dSB3-07a] but we need to book it in advance [dSB3-08] and so if you can do that at Friday’s meeting [dSB3-07b] and just in terms of booking that the the the vans [dSB3-09] ring up the taxi company and see if we’ve got any if there’s any problem about booking and how long in advance [dSB3-10] so if you can talk to Josephine about that [dSB3-11a] somewhere in those papers there should be a name [dSB3-11b] is there? [dSB3-12] so we need to just also have another chat finalise chat with them [dSB3-13] we need a van at least one van for the whole time

Directive head acts 

[dSB3-14] well I think ten seater will be sufficient [dSB3-15] and so we need to organise a what is it we need to buy b organise the whole process of getting the money out . . . and who’s doing the buying and shopping and all the rest of it and when [dSB3-16] (oh) don’t forget the koha cheque [dSB3-17] you can check with her to see + [voc] whether she (did) get

Sonia to Clare (3 with 5 head acts) [dSC1-01a] [dSC1-01b] [dSC1-01c] [dSC1-02] [dSC1-03]

you’re supposed to be making an appointment I think you’re gonna need to do this so can you can I have a copy the copy of the accrual sheet that I sent in if you can do that with Anna

Sonia to Donna (5 with 5 head acts) [dSD1-01] what I’d do is use the roman numerals [dSD1-02] I would just put this [dSD1-03] so what we need to say is supports the move by (5) er (now) + to target ++ [inhales] [quickly]: by [social group] for [social] services at the primary care level: [dSD1-04] if you just write on it the file number er what you’ve coded it to [dSD1-05] hang on

Sonia to Eloise (16 with 22 head acts) [dSE1-01] now if we just ignore that tape [dSE1-02] but we better take that one with us [dSE1-03] we might need to l- look at boosting that up a bit [dSE1-04a] it’s really for us to think about what other information do we want out of it [dSE1-04b] and that’s what I want [dSE1-05a] [drawls]: so: what we need to do before the meeting is to have be thoroughly to have read it thoroughly and to actually then still [voc] think about whether there were any other things that we want to add to this [dSE1-06a] can you spend a little bit of time with Mary this morning [dSE1-07a] just see if there’s if she’s available [dSE1-08] we want to get this up to [place] fairly soon after today’s meeting

 Appendix C

[dSE1-05b] so let’s spend the time then between now and the meeting just remaking sure we’re really familiar with with the information and any ideas that you have on it [dSE1-07b] check and see if Mary’s available [dSE1-09] if she’s not I mean arrange to meet her afterwards anyway [dSE1-10a] we need just a covering letter saying attached is the agreement and just to focus on the one issue that we know that that we’ve disagreed on which is the [tut] [topic] issue + um ++ and and and some sort of willy woofter paragraph in there saying well I hope that they can they can er + that we can come to some agreement that this will not be a major issue and that we can come to some agreement . . . and then to say that attached we have + um suggestions which you might like which you might like to consider for the monographs [dSE1-11] and actually leave those as three separate +++ (not) pages or attachments [dSE1-10b] the letter will be a covering note mainly about the contract w- and then secondly it’ll talk about the attached monograph + suggestions [dSE1-06b] you’re talking to Mary [dSE1-12] and if you can just later today have a check through that that would be good [dSE1-13] but the only thing you need to check on this invoice is the that the number of hours actually (add) up to the number of hours [dSE1-14a] you should ask [dSE1-14b] maybe we should ask that [dSE2-01] is that the final Eloise [dSE2-02] yes please

Sonia to Francine (8 with 11 head acts) [dSF1-01] now we can just ignore it [dSF1-02] shoot [dSF1-03a] can I give you the job of making sure that everyone’s rounded up in time for that meeting [dSF1-03b] just to remind them [dSF1-04] that they should be prepared to talk about what they’re currently doing + [slowly]: and what: [drawls]: er: this sort of project work that we’re we’re working on over the next six months . . . current work # next six months and again KEY bullet points this is short crunchy don’t drag it out [dSF1-05] check with Beth o- [voc] about the um + the new [drawls]: staffing: list [dSF1-06] but take some extra ones with you

Directive head acts 

[dSF1-07a] you need to explain the areas that we haven’t got a- a single person covering for we haven’t got a single person covering for- for [topic one] issues and we don’t have a single person covering for [topic two] issues so those issues in the interim until we’ve got more staff appointed need to come through me [dSF1-07b] and they need to referred back through should be referred through to the manager [policy unit one] in the first instance [dSF1-08a] just to make sure that the intermediate group . . . isn’t on on cabinet cabinet days [dSF1-08b] well if the intermediate class gets shot out to the afternoon just to make sure it’s not tuesday afternoon or thursday afternoon

Sonia to Genevieve (29 with 34 head acts) [dSG1-01] I wouldn’t worry so much about the work we’ve just done on [topic] [dSG1-02] what we might do is under the section on consultation you know where it says seminars we could say attended the seminar run by [organisation] (on this) commission for [topic] on the (code) [dSG1-03a] look [dSG1-03b] let me show you this [dSG1-04] let’s have a look [dSG1-05] I’ll just show you this [dSG1-06] I wouldn’t worry too much about the formatting ones [dSG1-07] although you can point it out [dSG1-08a] I mean it’s really the gaur- grammat- grammar and flow and argument [dSG1-08b] those are the key [dSG1-09] and as you say basic mistakes [dSG1-08c] clarity of writing the flow of the argument [dSG1-10] so I’ve got to be able to see it by Wednesday aft- Tuesday afternoon [dSG1-11a] I think that’s a good idea Genevieve if you actually um do that [dSG1-11b] do that log [dSG1-12a] continue ++ with this particular paper [dSG1-12b] continue with the corrections [dSG1-13] so well look in terms of that report you you you um you finish doing it [dSG1-14] and make some notes [dSG1-15] or leave some notes [dSG1-16] if you can point out to them [dSG1-17] leave me with Marcie’s copy [dSG1-18] and just make a note on there for

 Appendix C

[dSG1-19] can you when you email to Nadine can you do a copy email to Beth [dSG1-20] the [project name] is a priority [dSG1-21] I would rather we concentrated on on policy + advice [topic three] policy advice comments than the implementation [dSG1-22] put that one to the side [dSG1-23] and just concentrate on the policy comments and the [project name] [dSG1-24] but we do need a note back to them just saying thank you for the opportunity blah de blah [dSG1-25] hang on [dSG1-26] so you might need to put it out to the thirtieth [dSG1-27] well how about then we’ll put it out twenty fourth [dSG1-28] can you write a note on the on the notes when you give it to me [dSG1-29] you check on email

Sonia to Hilary (20 with 24 head acts) [dSH1-01] we want her c v [dSH1-02] I just thought I wanted to you to have a quick read over what I’ve done here [dSH1-03] now I need to get that up to them today [dSH1-04a] and I thought that between you [voc] you and Genevieve um we should look at seeing whether we can come up with any names for the [group] (members or the) [committee one] for [organisation one] [dSH1-05] so if I give you that [dSH1-04b] and you can share it with Genevieve as soon as she gets back [dSH1-06] so that one if you can look at today [dSH1-07] now let’s clear this one [dSH1-08] just to check to see if they are registered for g s t [dSH1-09] so it should have a g s t number on it [dSH1-10] and then we can send it through to accounts [dSH1-11] if it isn’t you’re going to have to come back to me [dSH1-12] (let’s) get that one done [dSH2-01a] so we might need to go this way [dSH2-01b] that is just chop it down to those two in [region two] [dSH2-02] hang on [dSH2-03] you stay [dSH2-04] and I was thinking when I saw the list that we were probably gonna have to + um do a short list [dSH2-05] but we can use that as a format [dSH2-06] make a time and sit down with them

Directive head acts 

[dSH2-07a] well [voc] we’re gonna have to find a way of doing it [dSH2-07b] we’re gonna have to look at ways of improving improving our response rate to that [dSH2-08a] we’ll finish our meeting [dSH2-08b] and we’ll just leave it at that

Sonia to Irene (2 with 4 head acts) [dSI1-01] [dSI1-02a] [dSI1-02b] [dSI1-02c]

just [voc] find find out which er Rebecca it is she won’t be a few minutes just tell her to wait for her tell her we might be a few seconds

Ruth’s directives Ruth to Irene (35 with 40 head acts) [dRI1-01] what about if you just (sayed) um the m- the [position title at the ministry] is now [person’s name] # could you please amend your records accordingly [dRI1-02] and you can still add the bit about that [name] left the ministry in early [year] [dRI1-03] can you see if you can ch- change that meeting time with Gavin + to tomorrow morning [dRI1-04] can you check with Clare if um + when I can expect [drawls]: the: (ninth the) february management report for [unit two] [name] report [dRI2-01] you might want to just signal to Clare y- and she can pass this message on to Gavin that that I actually need ++ need some time to consider my report before I meet with him therefore tomorrow morning may not be suitable + for me and is it absolutely essential that I have that meeting before management tomorrow and if it isn’t then I would actually prefer a different time [dRI4-01] [laughs, quietly]: come over here: [dRI4-02] same amount as we spent for [name] [dRI4-03] and can they just send the um invoice to [department] attention Ruth Shepherd [dRI4-04] I’ll meet with him [dRI5-01a] we have to fax this off [dRI5-02] can you just write that up a bit neater [dRI5-03] if you can that would be great [dRI5-01b] and then just fax it off to them

 Appendix C

[dRI7-01] when Ondine comes in can you ask her if she can see me at about ten o’clock about [publication] [dRI7-02] if I’m still with Gavin that time can you sort of pull [dRI7-03] or you might be able to help her get some information out of Clare about what the cost of Sharon’s work was [dRI8-01a] do you want to have a go at negotiating with [caterer] about the cost of the food [dRI8-01b] and what I was wondering was that [voc] whether or not you’re happy to try and contact this person [dRI8-02] find out what we can get for like about twelve dollars for lunch and like three dollars for morning tea and then three dollars for afternoon tea down to about eighteen dollars [dRI8-03] one thing is you could ask (you know perhaps [voc]) um ask them if you can see some menus or some i- you know the types of things that they provide [dRI8-04] and the other thing is (like) make sure that there is er a good selection of vegetarian food [dRI8-05] and if you have any problems just get back to me [dRI9-01] we need to add in a column or something [dRI9-02a] something like [course name] day + information [dRI9-02b] well maybe just put um something like + participants ++ for half day training session on [topic] [dRI9-03] if we can do that [dRI9-04] in fact send it off today [dRI9-05] if you could fax them a copy of this acceptance [dRI9-06] and once you’ve faxed it through we need to send them th- the original [dRI9-07] keep a copy for ourselves [dRI9-08a] and we have to arrange fifty percent payment [dRI9-08b] so you need to [dRI9-09] but you’ll need to take a copy [dRI9-10] and stamp that [dRI9-11] so I can approve it I think [dRI9-12a] I might as well sign what you’ve got [dRI9-12b] I might as well sign what I’ve got [dRI9-13] I’ll take those [dRI11-01] leave out the surname [dRI12-01] tell her (not to go away)

Directive head acts 

Jo (35 with 42 head acts) [dRJ1-01] so I think that it would be good if you could give a bit of thought to that [dRJ1-02a] but I think you might need work a bit more on the support that you might have [dRJ1-03] he could be a useful ally [elicited] [dRJ1-02b] it would be good if you could think about that [dRJ1-04] also I’d quite like to hear about um what are some of the Australian initiatives [dRJ1-05] you need to think about strategy on this one [dRJ1-06a] make it sort of later next week would be good [dRJ1-06b] somewhere sort of first second of [month] [dRJ1-07] and um I think that you need to look at this part of this bit [dRJ1-08] so we talked about um just making sure that we + respect that space [dRJ1-09] that we do try and have our breaks we try and have them at a certain time [dRJ1-10] and that we will try and get there in ample time get there on time [dRJ1-11] it would be really good if everyone could think about what they think should be in the [report] [dRJ1-12] if you’ve got views on how you think it should be structured um that those ideas would be really helpful [dRJ1-13] I mean you might wanna think about um and I value your comment on I mean all areas but there is some stuff in the platform for action about [social group]’s er participation in in um [topic] policy [dRJ1-14] rather than think about what you do it would be good for you think about what would be what are the key issues [dRJ1-15] just sort of keep it in the back of your mind and be ready to sort of contribute to a discussion on on structure of it [dRJ1-16] let’s reschedule it for for some time that same week if you can (make it) [dRJ1-17] um and and just see Irene about doing that [dRJ1-18] just find another time [dRJ2-01] we’ll talk generally [dRJ2-02] can you just go through [dRJ2-03] I would quite like to see in the paper [tut] [drawls]: what: what theirwhat their analysis is of the the sort of make up of the group that’s going to impacted in terms of [social factor] [dRJ2-04a] or it might be useful to just sound out what the views of other officials has been [dRJ2-04b] and talk to these people here the other people (who )

 Appendix C

[dRJ2-04c] find out what their views are would be helpful I think [dRJ2-04d] just find out whether or not there is any um + any concern from the other agencies [dRJ3-01] just this bit here [dRJ3-02a] I think you’ve got to have it on paper [dRJ3-02b] I think you got to have it on paper [dRJ4-01a] and she just wants some information about uptake + in student loans [dRJ4-02] hang on [dRJ4-03] so it might be a good idea if you just respond to those sort of queries that she’s got [dRJ4-01b] and you deal with the student loans [dRJ4-04] so we’ll leave that one till last if you like [dRJ4-05] hang on [dRJ4-06] you’re meant to be going through and saying how many hours [dRJ4-07] so when [voc] um [topic] one is done you really would need + you and Ondine to have a bit of a talk overall [dRJ4-08] so hopefully what I’m gonna get is the hours overall [dRJ4-09] I think that you and I need to go and talk to Henrietta [name] [dRJ4-10] just for the purpose of (getting) this together I think that we should estimate about . . . maybe + about thirty percent of the output time [dRJ4-11] so that we just need to make sure that we note down what the assumptions were that we were making ( ) during that time

Katie (7 with 9 head acts) [dRK1-01] [dRK1-02] [dRK1-03] [dRK2-01a] [dRK2-01b] [dRK2-02] [dRK2-03] [dRK2-04a] [dRK2-04b]

and if anyone wants to read it can they read yours or Leigh’s copy I think it’s just be in detail you need to have a look at that oh well just get onto him if you could follow up with Kevin might just need a bit of sharpening up that’s all if they’re not urgent just just send me some emails would be good don’t need to do a very long note just a paragraph

Leigh (8 with 14 head acts) [dRL1-01a] you could send to [unit one] [dRL1-01b] what you could do is refer it to [unit one] [dRL1-02a] and ask them if they want to comment

Directive head acts 

[dRL1-01c] but you can um give them [drawls]: a: give them a copy of it [dRL1-03a] and say that we’re not able to comment [dRL1-04a] and I’ve would have thought at the moment pay work was your top priority [dRL1-04b] it boils down to what’s the p- what what’s the priority within the work that you’ve got and I think the pay work [dRL1-01d] just give it to [unit one] [dRL1-03b] and just say that we’re not able to co- we’re not able to comment [dRL1-02b] and do you wish to comment [dRL1-05] hang on [dRL1-06] can you check [dRL1-07] so what about if we make that two to [drawls]: three: [dRL1-08] just either email me

Mary (9 with 12 head acts) [dRM1-01a] those are the two main things eh that we need to get back to Rei on [dRM1-01b] you’re going to talk to Rei [dRM1-02] and then get back to me [dRM1-03a] talk to him couldn’t we . . . couldn’t you [dRM1-03b] okay [dRM2-01] let’s go [dRM2-02a] but it’s the one one that I think that needs to probably stay in there [dRM2-02b] I think it would be quite high risk to us if we didn’t [dRM2-03] we should still just as a matter of sort of networking make sure that we keep good contact with that office [dRM2-04] but I think that we do need to back off [dRM2-05] I think it’s one that it’s one of those areas and there are a number of them that when that we do need to just keep still keep a bit of a handle on and keep up our sort of um knowledge of that that area [dRM2-06] probably the ones that are more important than the [topic one] one are the um [tut] [topic two] areas and and the [topic three] ones

Nell (7 with 7 head acts) [dRN1-01] can I just have a talk about this this ministerial [dRN1-02] I just think the approach is could should be a bit different [dRN1-03] we should probably put in there that um the ministry has what we did actually intend [dRN1-04] it’s just that sentence around just just this sentence around here

 Appendix C

[dRN1-05] that’s all right to say that we’ve received a letter and that we’ve provided a you know something like we’ve provided advice on other avenues and we’ve suggested that they contact blah blah blah [dRN1-06] and um you might just before while you do it you just might want to have a quick chat with Vera [name] about the funding that we got for . . . to go to a conference and whether or not this fits the criterion is there would there be time to do anything [dRN1-07] have another look at that

Ondine (4 with 5 head acts) [dRO1-01] so I can look at it look at it then okay [dRO1-02] cos I think we’d actually have to fax them the text [dRO2-01] I think we’re better to play a bit on the safe side than have fifteen hundred copies [laughs] [dRO2-02a] I think that (a) high number should be free initially [dRO2-02b] I suppose we want to actually have the capacity to be able to give away quite a [laughs]: few:

Quinta (1 with 2 head acts) [dRQ1-01a] can you let me think about it [dRQ1-01b] let me have a think about it

Appendix D

Request head acts

Fifty-two requests were identified in the data. The 61 request head acts associated with these requests are listed in this appendix. They are listed by addressee and speaker. Each head act is given a separate number. This tag consists of three letters followed by two numbers. The same system of coding is used for all the control act head acts. The first letter in all the request examples is a lower case r, meaning that the utterance was classified as a request. The second letter identifies the person who uttered the request. For example, S is used to indicate a request uttered by Sonia, while R marks those uttered by Ruth. The third letter in the label for each request indicates who the request was addressed to. The next part of the code indicates the interaction the head act was taken from. For example, Sonia and Ruth have three interactions. Only one request was identified from Ruth to Sonia in these interactions. It came from the second interaction so is labelled rSR2. The requests pulled from each interaction are then numbered consecutively. When there are multiple head acts of the same request these are indicated by a lower case letter after the last number. For example, two head acts were identified for Therese’s first request to Sonia. These are labelled rTS1-01a and rTS1-01b.

Requests to Sonia Ruth to Sonia (1 with 1 head act) [rRS2-01]

sure you couldn’t do it by yourself?

Therese to Sonia (3 with 4 head acts) [rTS1-01a] [softly]: now have I got a set: [rTS1-01b] [softly]: I’d like to have:

 Appendix D

[rTS1-02] [rTS1-03]

so we might as well put that in mightn’t we if people can just write their notes on + on pieces of paper

Clare to Sonia (3 with 6 head acts) [rCS1-01a] do you think you’ll have time to come and approve the (disc bank) one payment that Yvette’s bonus payment [rCS1-01b] so if you can come and approve (that ) [rCS1-01c] (if) we can do that [rCS1-01d] if you can do that please [rCS1-02] and the hundred and forty dollar cheque (if) you can [rCS1-03] and the other thing if you have time it’s on I’m on (disc bank okay)

Genevieve to Sonia (7 with 8 head acts) [rGS1-01] it then occurred to me um that perhaps we need guidelines for you from you when we use the as to when to use the passive and when to use the active [rGS1-02] I wondered if there might be something about um ++ general er timeliness in terms of meetings and + things + for her because you know I notice that she’s often um [rGS1-03] you can say that I’m going to send them an example [rGS1-04] and that I really want to highlight to them um the um that it’s due one [month] (that there’s) a lot of work involved [rGS1-05a] say like they’re doing one third of it two thirds of it needs to be done after their stuff has been received so if their stuff is late or if it’s not up to standard um that’s gonna hold up the whole works we want it out by one [month] we want it to the printers on one [month] [rGS1-05b] so just to emphasise to them that they’re gotta do their stuff by that time and they’ve gotta do it well cos otherwise they’re gonna hold up the whole boat [rGS1-06] and I think to emphasise to them the um how this is gonna be a milestone report because it’s going to do um [tut] yeah (sort of) analysis of all previous reports in terms of trends and um key issues that keep recurring and how these are being responded to um in the um public sector and um you know what are the key things um you know that were said this year um you know how does this year stack up are they still saying the same things um and what does this mean you know if they are still saying the same things but there have been changes maybe this means that + they’re not getting informed well enough they’re not being informed about and you know

Request head acts 

[rGS1-07] and I guess to highlight to them that um er for the new group that um [unit one] is now # this report will be a milestone for us cos it will kind of signal that we’re + you know that we’re here we’ve we’re new and we’ve done a review and once we’ve done this you know it’ll kind of put us on the map and signal to everybody out there that [unit one] is on to it alive and well and you know and er hi we’re back [laughs]: you know you may have thought we were l- we: asleep but no we’re awake now [laughs] and um and so and I guess also about um the priority they should give that work as regards their other work and maybe how they should balance try and balance their priorities you know like in terms of um it’s an output that we’ve cr- er contracted to achieve um and so um + you know um you know obviously you want them to

Requests to Ruth Sonia to Ruth (4 with 6 head acts) [rSR2-01a] [rSR2-01b] [rSR2-02] [rSR2-03a] [rSR2-03b] [rSR3-01]

hold that thought hold that thought how’s your tomorrow afternoon about an hour an hour? now I’ve got something I need to talk to you about too

Irene to Ruth (4 with 4 head acts) [rIR3-01] [rIR4-01] [rIR12-01] [rIR13-01]

and I’d just like to check this meeting with you and we’ve written this little note but you’ve got a visitor out there who happens to be Rebecca could you have a quick word with her

Katie to Ruth (1 with 1 head act) [rKR1-01]

and it’s waiting for your signature

Leigh to Ruth (1 with 1 head act) [rLR1-01] now that we’ve had a discussion we’d thought we’d make a time with you to discuss the pay project and some of the ideas about um

 Appendix D

Mary to Ruth (1 with 1 head act) [rMR1-01]

but if you’ve got ten minutes or ( ) five minutes?

Quinta to Ruth (1 with 1 head act) [rQR1-01]

I want to get approval to go

Requests to Therese Sonia to Therese (5 with 5 head acts) [rST1-01] and I suddenly thought oh now are you wanting to be there or [laughs]: not: [rST1-02] and I also suddenly thought I don’t have + you know how we usually have there’s those forms [rST1-03] I did see you as a as as a recorder and a d- and an adviser (type) and a more of an independent adviser (in between the) when we’re when we’re doing the discussions in between when we need to [rST1-04] so you want four sets of four [rST1-05] and you do that tomorrow

Requests to Katie Mary to Katie (2 with 2 head acts) [rMK1-01] [rMK1-02]

Katie can I talk to you a minute say that again

Ondine to Katie (2 with 2 head acts) [rOK1-01] [rOK1-02]

so I’m just trying to think of some alternatives but I couldn’t think of a good way of you know

Request head acts 

Requests to Jo Vera to Jo (6 with 7 head acts) [rVJ1-01] but you need to come up with a sort of + common framework um a concept a shared concept and then you plug in the the needs and requirements and the activities of each of the two or [country name] come on board three countries [rVJ1-02] I think we have to come up with an outline of what it could be [rVJ1-03] if you have a read of that stuff [rVJ1-04] I see you as as a key player [rVJ1-05] I would talk with you [rVJ1-06a] so if you could have that piece of paper on the life long learning one back to me um before tomorrow [rVJ1-06b] tomorrow morning

Requests to Vera Jo to Vera (1 with 1 head act) [rJV1-01]

so shall we sort of meet next week and and talk about that

Requests to Francine Jo to Francine (4 with 4 head acts) [rJF1-01] I mean could we just briefly talk about what we are going to contribute + to those or like what’s important [rJF1-02] I’ll liaise with you [rJF1-03] can you come back to me [rJF1-04] it would actually be really useful for me just to + you know to be able to talk about it

Requests to Ursula Katie to Ursula (6 with 7 head acts) [rKU1-01]

Ursula what’s the story with my computer

 Appendix D

[rKU2-01] I just wanted to ask you some [laughs]: advice: about my what’s come up on my computer screen [rKU3-01] can I just talk to you [rKU3-02] but I can’t log on to it yet cos I don’t have a + code number or anything [rKU3-03a] I don’t have a password for [name] [rKU3-04] you come round and see me [rKU3-03b] it’ll just ask me for a password won’t it and I’ll just give it one

Appendix E

Advice head acts

Forty-seven instances of advice were identified in the data. The 59 advice head acts associated with these are listed in this appendix. They are listed by speaker and addressee. Each head act is given a separate number. This tag consists of three letters followed by two numbers. The same system of coding is used for all the control act head acts. The first letter in all the advice examples is a lower case a, meaning that the utterance was classified as advice. The second letter identifies the person who uttered the advice. For example, S is used to indicate advice uttered by Sonia, while R marks the examples uttered by Ruth. The third letter in the label for each head act indicates who the advice was addressed to. The next part of the code indicates the interaction the head act was taken from. For example, Sonia and Ruth have three interactions. Only one instance of advice was identified from Ruth to Sonia in these interactions. It came from the third interaction so is labelled aSR3. The requests pulled from each interaction are then numbered consecutively. When there are multiple head acts of the same piece of advice these are indicated by a lower case letter after the last number. For example, three head acts were identified for Sonia’s second instance of advice to Genevieve. These are labelled aSG1-02a, aSG1-02b and aSG1-02c.

Advice from Sonia Sonia to Anna (1 with 1 head act) [aSA1-01]

you might wanna rewrite it

Sonia to Genevieve (5 with 8 head acts) [aSG1-01] it’s really er where you’re wanting to soften down ge- er mm where you’re wanting to soften down the the the tone a little bit [aSG1-02a] take it to somebody else before it comes to you

 Appendix E

[aSG1-02b] take it to Eloise [aSG1-02c] pass through to Wendy [aSG1-03a] I don’t see this as a high priority [aSG1-03b] I’m just as happy for us not to go [aSG1-04] I don’t think we’ve got the resources to comment on it [aSG1-05] I think that what we should do [voc] my my this is just my feeling instinctively is say is to go back and and um + just say thanks thanks for sending us a copy um we’ve already par- as we’ve already participated in the policy guidelines um + well (you know) happy to see that the policy guidelines are the framework in which the funding agreements being developed and we have no further comments to make er but we appreciate getting a copy something like that

Advice to Sonia Francine to Sonia (1 with 1 head act) [aFS1-01]

do that now

Genevieve (1 with 1 head act) [aGS1-01]

well you should get her to get somebody to peer review

Advice from Ruth Ruth to Jo (2 with 2 head acts) [aRJ3-01] if you put up another option then it it focuses (the ) attention on the middle one [aRJ3-02] but [organisation name] or someone else could put up the other option + and that might focus them on the middle one

Ruth to Katie (1 with 1 head act) [aRK2-01]

which we could + outline to our minister

Ruth to Phoebe (1 with 1 head act) [aRP1-01]

she’d probably find it in the library

Advice head acts 

Ruth to Sonia (1 with 2 head acts) [aRS3-01a] I think it’s where you where your input would be really valuable is when they start if they get as far as + agreeing that there should be a [topic] a unit standard for [topic] analysis [aRS3-01b] [unit one]’s expertise in terms of developing these standards there would be that’s where I’d (put) the effort

Advice from and to Katie Katie to Jo (6 with 7 head acts) [aKJ1-01] [aKJ1-02] [aKJ1-03] [aKJ1-04] [aKJ1-05] [aKJ1-06a] [aKJ1-06b]

now I just thought this here needed [laughs]: unpacking a bit: in that case put it in a separate sentence and identify it as a different as a problem of a different nature it’s just a bit of a non sequitur there well I think it would still help to say a little bit about about the (why) I think you’ve already done [laughs]: enough work on it: from my perspective as an uninformed reader that’s all it needs

Katie to Mary (15 with 19 head acts) [aKM1-01] what I think might [voc] be good is if you get everybody to assess their + their work plan proposals against criteria but maybe without the prioritising [aKM1-02] I’d like the prioritising thing last [aKM1-03] I agree that the best place to start is getting people to look at their own [aKM1-04a] more say to get them to + maybe choose a percentage to which they think that their proposal satisfies the criteria as a whole [aKM1-04b] so you might get them to score their own work as to the extent to which it satisfies the + the criteria [aKM1-05a] what percentage rating would you give this proposal (6) in terms of its + ability to satisfy the criteria [aKM1-05b] please score your proposal . . . according to how well it fits the criteria [aKM1-06] then have some brackets something like nought to hundred percent [aKM1-07] you can then prepare a resume and list them in order of their percentage scores [aKM2-01a] I think it’s just a little bit brief [aKM2-02] maybe just make it a bit more um warm and friendly

 Appendix E

[aKM2-03] you might like to just reassure them [aKM2-04] it is somewhat difficult to see who’s who it means [aKM2-05a] something like I am pleased that we’ve made a start or ( ) or something like that [aKM2-01b] it’s a bit kind of cold and brief [aKM2-05b] grants are are a good start in developing this issue or something like that [aKM2-06] who need them or something [aKM2-07] and then ++ just acknowledge perhaps that however that she does you know that she does actually realise that there are some problems with existing [organisation] services (which were ) viability problems or something [aKM2-08] ACcept + not EXcept

Katie to Ondine (2 with 2 head acts) [aKO1-01] but you have to make people want to not tell them they have to [aKO1-02] you see it would be good to have some idea of the fact that it’s worthwhile to do so that it’s useful

Ondine to Katie (2 with 4 head acts) [aOK2-01a] [aOK2-01b] [aOK2-01c] [aOK2-02]

so just think about it well just think about it just think about it I don’t think you need to [laughs]: just yet:

Advice to Jo by Non-Informant Participants Vera to Jo (1 with 2 head acts) [aVJ1-01a] but I thought you might find that interesting to read that [aVJ1-01b] so I thought you might find it interesting to flick through that

Francine to Jo (8 with 8 head acts) [aFJ1-01] why don’t we keep it fairly general at this stage [aFJ1-02] you might want to say this quite diplomatically [aFJ1-03] we’ll just say it straight out that most of credits have been in this [topic] sector that you might want to look at in priority so other areas where you would increase or make the access for [social group]

Advice head acts

[aFJ1-04] but I think that’s probably where we need to just focus on is the responsiveness of these agencies to [social group] [aFJ1-05] get them to explain discuss what they’re doing in terms of a responsiveness strategy for + for [social group one] for [social group two] and [social group three] [aFJ1-06] keep it in that general area [aFJ1-07] and just see what they have to say [aFJ1-08] and then um we could contribute to the discussion that way



Notes

. For a fuller discussion of Leech and Brown & Levinson’s work by Thomas, along with identification of a number of problems with studies of politeness, see Thomas (1995). . To be distinguished from the “social construction” approach taken by psychologists such as Potter and Wetherell (1987). . Gender is not the focus of my research. The number of people involved is small, allowing me to conduct a case study. The aim of the study is not to make generalisations on the basis of social factors, although I do explore the potential effect of status differences. There were actually very few men in this workplace and they were only involved in three of the one-on-one interactions recorded. . I use the term utterance fairly loosely. My usage is closer to that of Chafe (1980:14) “syntactically there is a tendency for idea units to consist of a single clause” rather than Harris (1951:14) who defines an utterance as “any stretch of talk by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of that person”. . http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/CREW.html . ICE-NZ is the New Zealand Component of the International Corpus of English. . Of course, SEE is a perception verb so does not generally work as an imperative. . See also Sadock and Zwicky (1985). A number of descriptions of the functions of questions have been written, including Sinclair and Gessel (1990), Athanasiadou (1991), Tsui (1992) and Freed (1994). . A number of other problems have also been identified with Grice’s theory (see for example Thomas 1995: Chapter 4). . This of course makes it difficult to make comparisons between the results of different studies. . Brown (2000:129) also had some examples where just acted as a strengthener. . Five of the seven declarative control act head acts containing will are softened by the use of we rather than you. . See Jones (1980), Edelsky (1981) and Coates (1988) for discussion of the co-operative nature of women’s language to each other in private settings. . Katie’s (Senior Policy Analyst) interactions with Ursula (IT Support) are also included here. Ursula is treated here as an equal because of her expert power.

References

Aarts, Flor (1989). Imperative sentences in English: semantics and pragmatics. Studia Linguistica, 43, 119–134. Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (Eds.) (1988). The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. London: Penguin. Agar, Michael H. (1982). Political talk: thematic analysis of a policy argument. Leah Kedar (Ed.), Power Through Discourse (pp. 113–126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Alam, Q. Z. (1980). Commands and requests in English and Urdu. Indian Linguistics, 41, 129–132. Altman, Roann (1990). Giving and taking advice without offense. In Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine S. Andersen, & Stephen D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 95–99). New York: Newbury House. Athanasiadou, Angeliki (1991). The discourse function of questions. Pragmatics, 1, 107–122. Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judical Settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1992). Displaying neutrality: formal aspects of informal court proceedings. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 199–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bach, Kent, & Harnish, Robert M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, & Harris, Sandra J. (1996). Requests and status in business correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 635–662. Baxter, Leslie A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427–456. Bellinger, David (1979). Changes in the explicitness of mothers’ directives as children age. Journal of Child Language, 6, 443–458. Bellinger, David, & Gleason, Jean Berko (1982). Sex differences in parental directives to young children. Sex Roles, 8, 1123–1139. Bennett, A. (1981). Interruption and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes, 4, 171–188. Biber, Douglas, Johansson, S., Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.

 References

Bickman, Leonard (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–61. Bilbow, Grahame (1995). Requesting strategies in the cross-cultural business meeting. Pragmatics, 5, 45–55. Bilbow, Grahame T. (1996). Managing Impressions in the Multicultural Workplace: An Impression-Management-Based Model for Cross-Cultural Discourse Analysis and Awareness Training for the Workplace. Unpublished PhD thesis: City University of Hong Kong. Bilbow, Grahame T. (1997). Cross-cultural impression management in the multicultural workplace: the special case of Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 461–487. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131–146. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1989). Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirectness. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 37–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 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, Danet, Brenda, & Gerson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society. In Joseph P. Forgas (Ed.), Language and Social Situation (pp. 113–141). New York: Springer Verlag. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, & House, Juliane (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 123–154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, & Kasper, Gabriele (1989a). The CCSARP Coding Manual. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), CrossCultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 273–294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, & Kasper, Gabriele (1989b). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norword, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, & Kasper, Gabriele (1989c). Investigating crosscultural pragmatics: an introductory overview. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 1–34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka Shoshana, & Olshtain, Elite (1984). Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196–213. Boatman, Dana (1987). A study of unsolicited advice. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 3, 35–60. Bogoch, Bryna (1994). Power, distance and solidarity: models of professional-client interaction in an Israeli legal aid setting. Discourse & Society, 5, 65–88. Bohm, Janice K. & Hendricks, Bryan (1997). Effects of interpersonal touch, degree of justification, and sex of participant on compliance with a request. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 460–469. Bostrom, R. (1970). Patterns of communication interaction in small groups. Communication Monographs, 37, 257–263.

References 

Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, T. Pascal (2000). ‘Might be worth getting it done then’: directives in a New Zealand factory. Unpublished Master’s thesis: Victoria University of Wellington. Bublitz, Wolfram (1988). Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversations: discourse topics and topical actions, participant roles and ‘recipient action’ in a particular type of everyday conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bushman, Brad J. (1984). Perceived symbols of authority and their influence on compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 501–508. Bushman, Brad J. (1988). The effects of apparel on compliance: a field experiment with a female authority figure. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 459–467. Chafe, W. (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of narrative. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production (pp. 9–50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chaikin, Alan L., Derlega, Valerian J., Yoder, John, & Phillips, David (1974). The effects of appearance on compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 199–200. Clark, Herbert H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430– 477. Clyne, Michael (1994). Cross-Cultural Communication in the Workplace Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Coates, Jennifer (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Coates, Jennifer (1988). Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In Jennifer Coates & Deborah Cameron (Eds.), Women in their Speech Communities (pp. 94–122). London: Longman. Cole, Peter (1975). The synchronic and diachronic status of conversational implicature. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts, Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics (pp. 257–288). New York: Academic Press. Craig, D. & Pitts, M. K. (1990). The dynamics of dominance in tutorial discussions. Linguistics, 28, 125–138. Crawford, Mary (1995). Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London: Sage. Crystal, David (1994). An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. London: Penguin Books. Davies, Erian C. (1979). On the Semantics of Syntax. Mood and Condition in English. London: Croom Helm. DeCapua, Andrea & Dunham, Joan Findlay (1993). Strategies in the discourse of advice. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 519–531. DeCapua, Andrea & Huber, Lisa (1995). ‘If I were you . . . ’: advice in American English. Multilingua, 14, 117–132. Dillard, James Price, Henwood, Karen, Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas, & Coupland, Justine (1990). Compliance gaining young and old: beliefs about influence in different age groups. Communication Reports, 3, 84–91. Downes, William (1977). The imperative and pragmatics. Journal of Linguistics, 13, 77–97.

 References

Dwyer, Judith (1993). The Business Communication Handbook, third edition. Newcastle, NSW: MBC Managing Business Communication. Edelsky, Carole (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10, 383–421. Edmondson, Willis (1981). Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. New York: Longman. Edmondson, Willis & House, Juliane (1981). Let’s Talk and Talk About It. Munchen: Urban & Schwarzenberg. Eisenthal, Sherman, Emery, Robert, Lazare, Aaron, & Udin, Harriet (1979). ‘Adherence’ and the negotiated approach to patienthood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 393–398. Ely, R. & Gleason, J. Berko (1995). Socialization across contexts. In Brian MacWhinney & Paul Fletcher (Eds.), Handbook of Child Language (pp. 251–270). London: Basil Blackwell. Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1977). Wait for me, roller skate! In Susan Ervin-Tripp & Claudia Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child Discourse (pp. 165–188). New York: Academic Press. Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Guo, Jiansheng, & Lampert, Martin (1990). Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 307–331. Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Strage, Amy, Lampert, Martin, & Bell, Nancy (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25, 107–143. Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriele (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 221–247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, Norman (1992). Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman. Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description. In C. J. Fillmore & T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 273–289). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Fillmore, Charles J. (1975). Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Fisher, Sue (1991). A discourse of the social: medical talk/power talk/oppositional talk? Discourse and Society, 2, 157–182. Fisher, Sue & Todd, A. (Eds.). (1983). The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Flowerdew, John (1990a). Pragmatic modifications on the ‘representative’ speech act of defining. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 253–264. Flowerdew, John (1990b). Problems of speech act theory from an applied perspective. Language Learning, 40, 79–105. Fontaine, Gary & Beerman, Janice (1977). Affective consequences of social power: powerholder and target expectancies associated with different types of power. Psychological Reports, 40, 771–774. Frankel, R. (1984). From sentence to sequence: understanding the medical encounter through micro- interactional analysis. Discourse Processes, 7, 135–170. Frankel, R. (1989). Microanalysis and the medical encounter In David T. Helm, W. Timothy Anderson, Albert Jay Meehan, & Anne Warfield Rawls (Eds.), The Interactional Order: New Directions in the Study of Social Order (pp. 21–49). New York: Irvington.

References 

Frankel, R. (1990). Talking in interviews: a dispreference for patient-initiated questions in physician-patient encounters. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 231– 264). Washington, DC: University Press of America. Fraser, Bruce (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395. Fraser, Bruce (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952. Fraser, Bruce & Nolen, William (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–109. Freed, Alice F. (1994). The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 621–644. French, J. R. P & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics (pp. 150–167). New York: Harper & Row. Galvin, Michael, Prescott, David, & Huseman, Richard (1992). Business Communication: Strategies and Skills, fourth edition. New South Wales: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Group. Garcia, Carmen (1993). Making a request and responding to it: a case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 127–152. Garvey, Catherine (1975). Requests and responses in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 2, 41–63. Gee, James Paul (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2, 1–10. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (1981). Your wish is my command: convention and context in interpreting indirect requests. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 431– 444. Gleason, J. Berko & Greif, Esther Blank (1983). Men’s speech to young children. In Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, & Nancy Henley (Eds.), Language, Gender and Society (pp. 140–150). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gleason, Jean Berko, Ely, Richard, Perlmann, Rivka Y., & Narasimhan, Bhuvana (1996). Patterns of prohibition in parent-child discourse. In Dan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis, & Jiansheng Guo (Eds.), Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language – Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 205–217). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goatly, Andrew (1995). Directness, indirectness and deference in the language of classroom management: advice for teacher trainees? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33, 267–284. Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books. Goldschmidt, Myra M. (1998). Do me a favor: a descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 129–153. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1980). Directive-response speech sequences in girls’ and boys’ task activities. In Salley McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, & Nelly Furman (Eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society (pp. 157–173). New York: Praeger. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1988). Cooperation and competition across girls’ and boys’ task activities. In Alexandra D. Todd & Sue Fisher (Eds.), Gender and Discourse: the Power of Talk (pp. 55–94). Hove, Sussex: Ablex.

 References

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Gordon, D. & Lakoff, G. (1975). Conversational postulates. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts, Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics (pp. 83–106). New York: Academic Press. Greasley, Peter (1994). An investigation into the use of the particle well: commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 477–494. Green, Georgia M. (1975). How to get people to do things with words: the whimperative question. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts, Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics, (pp. 107–141). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts, Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Haegeman, Liliane (1990). Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In Joan Mascaró & Marina Nesp˚or (Eds.), Grammar in Progress (pp. 167–174). Dordrecht: Foris. Hall, Kira & Bucholtz, Mary (1995). Introduction: twenty years after Language and Woman’s Place. In Kira Hall & Mary Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self (pp. 1–22). New York: Routledge. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language, 6, 322–361. Harres, Annette (1996). The function of tag questions used by women doctors in general practice. Working Papers on Language Gender & Sexism, 6, 79–93. Harris, M. (1980). Cultural Materialism: the Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Random House. Harris, Z. (1951). Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haverkate, Henk (1988). Toward a typology of politeness strategies in communicative interaction. Multilingua, 7, 385–409. Hayashi, Takuo (1996). Politeness in conflict management: a conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 227–255. Heath, C. (1992). The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general-practice consultation. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 235–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helgesen, Sally (1990). The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership. New York: Doubleday. Herbert, Robert K. & Straight, H. Stephen (1989). Compliment-rejection versus compliment-avoidance: listener-based versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies. Language & Communication, 9, 35–47. Heritage, John (1998). Oh–prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334. Heritage, John & Stefi, Sue (1992). Dilemmas of advice: aspects of delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 359–417). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, Beverly, Ide, Sachiko, Ikuta, Shoko, Kawasaki, Akiko, & Ogino, Tsunao (1986). Universals in linguistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–371.

References 

Hirokawa, Randy Y., Mickey, Jeffrey, & Miura, Steven (1991). Effects of request legitimacy on the compliance-gaining tactics of male and female managers. Communication Monographs, 58, 421–436. Hirtle, Walter H. (1995). The simple form again: an analysis of direction-giving and related uses. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 265–281 Holmes, Janet (1983). The structure of teachers’ directives. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 89–115). London: Longman. Holmes, Janet (1985). Sex differences and mis-communication – some data from New Zealand. In J. B. Pride (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Encounters (pp. 24–43). Melbourne: River Seine. Holmes, Janet (1986). Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society, 15, 1–22. Holmes, Janet (1987). Hedging, fencing and other conversational gambits: an analysis of gender differences in New Zealand speech. In A. Pauwels (Ed.), Women and Language in Australian and New Zealand Society (pp. 59–79). Sydney: Australian Professional Publications. Holmes, Janet, Vine, Bernadette, & Johnson, Gary (1998). Guide to the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English. Wellington, New Zealand: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. Holtgraves, Thomas & Yang, Joong-Nam (1990). Politeness as universal: cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 719–729. Holtgraves, Thomas & Yang, Joong-Nam (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 62, 246–256. Homzie, M. J., Kotsonis, Miriam E., & Toris, Carol C. M. (1981). Letter writing differences: relative status effects. Language & Speech, 24, 377–385. House, Juliane (1989). Politeness in English and German: the functions of please and bitte. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 96–119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. House, Juliane & Kasper, Gabriele (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Florian Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routinue (pp. 157–185). The Hague: Mouton. House, Juliane & Kasper, Gabriele (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language. In Wolfgang Lörscher & Rainer Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language Performance (pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Günter Narr. Hua, Zhu, Wei, Li, & Yuan, Qian (2000). The sequential organisation of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 81–103. Hudson, Thom (1990). The discourse of advice giving in English: ‘I wouldn’t feed until spring no matter what you do’. Language & Communication, 10, 285–297. Huntley, Martin (1984). The semantics of English imperatives. Linguistics & Philosophy, 7, 103–133. Hutchby, Ian (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 19, 219–238.

 References

Hymes, Dell (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and Human Behaviour (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. Hymes, Dell (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Innes, J. M. (1974). The semantics of asking a favor: an attempt to replicate cross-culturally. International Journal of Psychology, 9, 57–61. Innes, J. M. & Gilroy, Sharon (1980). The semantics of asking a favor: asking for help in three countries. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 3–7. Jacobs, Scott & Jackson, Sally (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs, 50, 285–304. James, Sharon L. (1978). Effect of listener age and situation on the politeness of children’s directives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 307–317. Johnson, Donna M. (1994). Who is we?: constructing communities in US-Mexico border discourse. Discourse & Society, 5, 207–231. Johnson, Sally & Meinhof, Ulrike-Hanna (1997). Introduction. In Sally Johnson & UlrikeHanna Meinhof (Eds.), Language and Masculinity (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Jones, D. (1980). Gossip: notes on women’s oral culture. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), The Voices and Words of Women and Men (pp. 193–198). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Jones, Kimberly (1992). A question of context: directive use at a morris team meeting. Language in Society, 21, 427–445. Kennedy, Graeme (2002). Variation in the distribution of modal verbs in the British National Corpus. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp. 73–90). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kleinke, Chris L. (1977). Effects of dress on compliance to requests in a field setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 223–224. Koike, Dale April (1989). Requests and the role of deixis in politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 187–202. Koike, Dale April (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513–526. Kyratzis, Amy & Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1999). The development of discourse markers in peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1321–1338. Labov, William (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, 23, 30–87. Labov, William (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In David Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 120–169) New York: The Free Press. Labov, William & Fanshel, David (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (1989). The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8, 101–129. Langer, E. J. & Abelson, R. P. (1972). The semantics of asking a favor: how to succeed in getting help without really dying. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 24, 26–32. Lee, David (1987). The semantics of just. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 377–398.

References 

Lee-Wong, Song Mei (1994). Imperatives in requests: direct or impolite – observations from Chinese. Pragmatics, 4, 491–515. Lee-Wong, Song Mei (1998). Face support – Chinese particles as mitigators: a study of BA A/YA and NE. Pragmatics, 8, 387–404. Lee-Wong, Song Mei (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1977). Language and Tact. L.A.U.T. paper 46. Trier: Linguistics Department, University of Trier. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Lenk, Uta (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 245–257. Levinson, Stephen C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–399. Levinson, Stephen C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Herman Parret, Marina Sbisà, & Jef Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (pp. 473–492). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Levinson, Stephen C. (Ed.). (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Maynard, D. (1984). Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum. McDonald, Paul (1990). A close up view of Canadian executives. Business Quarterly, 54, 58–59. Mitchell-Kernan, Claudia & Kernan, Keith T. (1977). Pragmatics of directive choice among children. In Susan Ervin-Tripp & Claudia Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child Discourse (pp. 189–208). New York: Academic Press. Mohan, B. A. (1974). Principles, postulates, politeness. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 446–459. Morgan, Jerry L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics, Vol. 9 of Syntax and Semantics (pp. 261–280). New York: Academic Press. Mulholland, Joan (1994). Multiple directives in the doctor-patient consultation. Australian Journal of Communication, 21, 74–85. Ng, Sik Hung & Bradac, James J. (1993). Power in Language. London: Sage. Oka, Hideo (1981). Function of modal auxiliaries in requests – with special reference to formality and politeness. Studies in English Language & Literature, 31, 77–105. Owusu-Ansah, L. K. (1992). Where true power lies: modality as an indication of power in two institutionalised domains of language use. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 3, 109–115. Palmer, Frank Robert (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank Robert (1990). Modality and the English Modals, second edition. London: Longman. Patterson, Miles L., Powell, Jack L., & Lenihan, Mary G. (1986). Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 41–50. Pearson, Bethyl (1989). ‘Role-ing out control’ at church business meetings: directing and disagreeing. Language Sciences, 11, 289–304. Penman, Robyn (1990). Facework and politeness: multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 9, 15–38. Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.

 References

Pilegaard, Morten (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: a textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223–244. Pollner, M. (1979). Explicative transactions: making and managing meaning in traffic court. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 227–255). New York: Irvington. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, Anita (1987). Descriptions in legal settings. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 226–243). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Potter, Jonathan & Wetherell, Margaret (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage. Psathas, George (1995). Conversation Analysis. London: Sage. Pufahl Bax, Ingrid (1986). How to assign work in an office: a comparison of spoken and written directives in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 673–692. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Ramirez, Albert (1977). Social influence and ethnicity of the communicator. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 209–213. Randriamasimanana, Charles (1987). Tense/aspect and the concept of displacement. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 193–209. Rauh, Gisa (1983). Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Narr. Reiss, Nira (1985). Speech Act Taxonomy as a Tool for Ethnographic Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Remland, Martin S. & Jones, Tricia S. (1994). The influence of vocal intensity and touch on compliance gaining. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 89–97. Rosener, Judy B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, 119–125. Rosener, Judy B. (1995). America’s Competitive Secret: Utilizing Women As a Management Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosener, Judy B. (1997). America’s Competitive Secret: Women Managers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sacks, Harvey (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Sadock, Jerrold M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Sadock, Jerrold M. & Zwicky, Arnold M. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Clause Structure (I), 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: Free Press.

References 

Schegloff, Emanuel (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62. Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sealey, Alison (1999). ‘Don’t be cheeky’: requests, directives and being a child. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 24–40. Searle, John R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts, Vol. 3 Syntax and Semantics (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Searle, John R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. Searle, John R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, Anne & Gessel, Ruth Van (1990). The form and function of questions in children’s conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 923–944. Sinclair, John McH. & Coulthard, Richard Malcolm (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse – The English used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, Janet S. (1992). Women in charge: politeness and directives in the speech of Japanese women. Language in Society, 21, 59–82. Sollitt-Morris, Lynette (1996). Language, Gender and Power Relationships. Unpublished PhD thesis. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Spencer-Oatey, H. D. N. (1992). Cross-Cultural Politeness: British and Chinese Conceptions of the Tutor-Student Relationship. Unpublished PhD thesis. Lancaster University. Spencer-Oatey, Helen (1993). Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics research. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 27–47. Steffen, Valerie J. & Eagly, Alice H. (1985). Implicit theories about influence style: the effects of status and sex. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 191–205. Stross, B. (1964). Waiter-to-cook speech in restaurants. Unpublished term paper. Univeristy of California at Berkeley. Stubbe, Maria (1994). What’s the score? Qualitative analysis in gender research. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 3–18. Stubbe, Maria, Lane, Chris, Hilder, Jo, Vine, Elaine, Vine, Bernadette, Marra, Meredith, Holmes, Janet, & Weatherall, Ann (2003). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies, 5, 351–389. Svartvik, Jan (1979). Well in conversation. In Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, & Jan Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk (pp. 167–177). London: Longman. Tannen, Deborah (1981). Indirectness in discourse: ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes, 4, 221–238. Tannen, Deborah (1984). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 References

ten Have, Paul (1991). Talk and institution: a reconsideration of the asymmetry of doctorpatient interaction. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 138–163). Cambridge: Polity Press. Thomas, Jenny (1985). The language of power: towards a dynamic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 765–783. Thomas, Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman. Troemel-Ploetz, Senta (1993). The construction of conversational equality by women. In Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz, & Birch Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, April 4, 1992, Vol. 2 (pp. 518– 589). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Troemel-Ploetz, Senta (1994). Let me put it this way, John: conversational strategies of women in leadership positions. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 199–209. Trosborg, Anna (1994). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies, Vol. 7. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tsui, Amy (1992). A functional description of questions. In Malcolm Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 89–110). London: Routledge. van Dijk, Teun A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4, 249–283. van Rees, M. A. (1992). The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena: a response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 31–47. Vine, Bernadette (2000). Getting things done. In Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. (ICAME), Freiburg im Breisgau (pp. 371–374). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Vine, Bernadette, Johnson, Gary, O’Brien, Jennifer, & Robertson, Shelley (2002). Archive of New Zealand English Transcriber’s Manual. Language in the Workplace Occasional Papers. Victoria University of Wellington: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/lwp/ resources/op5.htm Vismans, Roel (1991). Dutch modal particles in directive sentences and modalized directives in English. Multilingua, 10, 111–122. Walker, Michael, Harriman, Susan, & Costello, Stuart (1980). The influence of appearance on compliance with a request. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 159–160. Walters, Joel (1979). The perception of politeness in English and Spanish. In Carlos Yorio, Kyle Peters, & Jacquelyn Schacter (Eds.), On TESOL ’79 (pp. 288–296). Washington, DC: TESOL. Weigel, M. Margaret & Weigel, Ronald M. (1985). Directive use in a migrant agricultural community: a test of Ervin-Tripp’s hypothesis. Language in Society, 14, 63–80. Weizman, Elda (1989). Requestive hints. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 71–95). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. West, Candace (1984a). Routine Complications: Troubles with Talk between Doctors and Patients. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

References 

West, Candace (1984b). When the doctor is a ‘lady’: power, status and gender in physicianpatient encounters. Symbolic Interaction, 7, 87–106. West, Candace (1990). Not just ‘doctors’ orders’: directive-response sequences in patients’ visits to women and men physicians. Discourse & Society, 1, 85–112. West, Candace (1998). Not just ‘doctors’ orders’: directive-response sequences in patients’ visits to women and men physicians. In Jennifer Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 328–353). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Willing, Ken (1992). Talking it Through: Clarification and Problem-Solving in Professional Work. Sydney: Macquarie University. Wisner, J. R. Jr. (1968). Request forms in a hospital setting. Unpublished term paper. Univeristy of California at Berkeley. Yeatman, Anna (1994). Feminism and power. Women’s Studies Journal, 10, 79–100. Yinon, Yoel & Dovrat, Michael (1987). The reciprocity-arousing potential of the requester’s occupation, its status and the cost and urgency of the request as determinants of helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 429–435. Yli-Jokipii, Hilkka (1994). Requests in Professional Discourse: A Cross-Cultural Study of British, American and Finnish Business Writing. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Yukl, Gary, Kim, Helen, & Falbe, Cecilia M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309–317.

Author Index

A Aarts, F. 40, 42, 46 Alam, Q. Z. 29 Altman, R. 20, 25, 111, 113 Austin, J. L. 2–4

B Bach, K. 3, 25, 28, 34 Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 19 Baxter, L. A. 22 Beerman, J. 20–21 Bell, N. see Ervin-Tripp et al. (1987) Bellinger, D. 65, 68 Bennett, A. 174 Biber, D. see Biber et al. Biber et al. 79, 105–106, 108–113 Bickman, L. 21–22 Bilbow, G. T. 29–30, 32, 165 Blum-Kulka, S. 18, 27, 66–67, 83, 90, 153, see also Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) 18 Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) 4, 18, 24, 63, 64, 67, 72, 76, 85, 93, 95–96, 100, 103–105, 115–117 Bohm, J. K. 21, 118 Bradac, J. J. 1 Brown, P. 5–6, 18–19, 22, 31–33, 35, 41, 47, 66–67, 75, 89–90, 100–101, 118, 160, 166, 195, 198, 215, 217 Brown, T. P. 16, 75–76, 78, 100–101, 104, 153, 253 n11 Bucholtz, M. 6 Bushman, B. J. 21–22

C Chafe, W. 253 n4 Chaikin, A. L. see Chaikin et al. Chaikin et al. 21 Clark, H. H. 44–45, 47, 49 Coates, J. 105, 108–113, 174, 205, 213, 253 n13 Cole, P. 41 Conrad, S. see Biber et al. Costello, S. see Walker et al. Coulthard, R. M. 23, 42–46, 87 Coupland, J. see Dillard et al. Coupland, N. see Dillard et al. Craig, D. 177 Crawford, M. 6

D Danet, B. see Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) Davies, E. C. 42 DeCapua, A. 20, 25, 33 Derlega, V. J. see Chaikin et al. Dillard, J. P. see Dillard et al. Dillard et al. 21, 26 Dovrat, M. 20–21 Downes, W. 41–42 Dunham, J. F. 20 Dwyer, J. 1–2, 28, 49, 189–191, 217–218, 221

E Edelsky, C. 253 n13 Eagly, A. H. 22, 67, 165 Ely, R. see Gleason et al. Ervin-Tripp, S. 16, 24, 46, 60–61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 75–76, 78, 85, 87,

 Author Index

97–99, 103 see also Ervin-Tripp et al. (1987), Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) Ervin-Tripp et al. (1987) 165 Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) 25, 26–27, 30, 58 F Faerch, C. 117 Fairclough, N. 1–2, 6, 123, 135, 147, 173–174, 182, 190, 199 Falbe, C. M. see Yukl et al. Fanshel, D. 25, 58 Finegan, E. see Biber et al. Fisher, S. 177 Fontaine, G. 20–21 Fraser, B. 77, 95, 114 G Galvin, M. see Galvin et al. Galvin et al. 9 Garvey, C. 24, 74 Gerson, R. see Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) Gibbs, R. W. Jr 47, 48 Giles, H. see Dillard et al. Gleason, J. B. 24, 65, 68 see also Gleason et al. Gleason et al. 34 Goldschmidt, M. M. 27, 31 Goodwin, M. H. 24 Green, G. M. 28 Greenbaum, S. see Quirk et al. Greif, E. B. 24 Grice, H. P. 41–42, 44–45, 47, 101, 253 n9 Guo, J. see Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) H Hall, K. 6 Harnish. R. M. 3, 25, 28, 34 Harriman, S. see Walker et al. Harris, S. J. 19 Haverkate, H. 35

Heritage, J. 20 Hendricks, B. 21, 118 Helgesen, S. 191 Henwood, K. see Dillard et al. Hilder, J. see Stubbe et al. Hirtle, W. H. 40, 45 Holmes, J. 16, 23, 73, 75–76, 78, 103–104, see also Stubbe et al. Holtgraves, T. 18–19 Homzie, M. J. see Homzie et al. Homzie et al. 19 House, J. 18, 93, 98, 117 see also Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) Hua, Z. see Hua et al. Hua et al. 4 Huber, L. 25, 33 Hudson, T. 20, 119 Huntley, M. 40, 42, 73 Huseman, R. see Galvin et al. Hutchby, I. 20 Hymes, D. 48, 51

J Jackson, S. 47–48 Jacobs, S. 47–48 James, S. L. 114 Jefferson, G. see Sacks et al. Johansson, S. see Biber et al. Johnson, D. M. 98 Johnson, S. 6 Jones, D. 253 n13 Jones, K. 17–18, 23, 32, 39, 58, 60, 78–79, 93, 96–97, 100, 117 Jones, T. S. 21

K Kasper, G. 18, 93, 117 see also Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) Kennedy, G. 105–106, 108, 111–112 Kim, H. see Yukl et al. Kleinke, C. L. 21 Koike, D. A. 95 Kotsonis, M. E. see Homzie et al.

Author Index 

L Labov, W. 25, 28, 42–43, 58, 132 Lampert, M. see Ervin-Tripp et al. (1987), see Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) Lane, C. see Stubbe et al. Lee, D. 50, 100–101 Lee–Wong, S. M. 35 Leech, G. 5, 35, 42, 66 see also Biber et al., see also Quirk et al. Lenihan, M. G. see Patterson et al. Levinson, S. C. 5, 5–6, 18–19, 22, 31–33, 35, 41, 47, 51, 66–67, 75, 89–90, 100–101, 118, 160, 166, 195, 198, 215, 217 M Marra, M. see Stubbe et al. Meinhof, U. 6 Mulholland, J. 32 N Narasimhan, B. see Gleason et al. Ng, S. H. 1 Nolen, W. 77, 95, 114 O Oka, H. 120 Olshtain, E. 18, 83 Owusu-Ansah, L. K. 17, 167 P Palmer, F. R. 112 Patterson, M. L. see Patterson et al. Patterson et al. 21 Perlmann, R. Y. see Gleason et al. Pearson, B. 17, 27, 50, 83 Phillips, D. see Chaikin et al. Pilegaard, M. 19 Pitts, M. K. 177 Powell, J. L. see Patterson et al. Prescott, D. see Galvin et al. Pufahl-Bax, I. 17, 25, 29, 59, 75–76

Q Quirk, R. see Quirk et al. Quirk et al. 75, 79, 108, 114 R Ramirez, A. 21 Randriamasimanana, C. 95 Remland, M. S. 21 Rosener, J. B. 190–191 S Sacks, H. 129 see also Sacks et al. Sacks et al. 174 Schegloff, E. 174 see also Sacks et al. Schiffrin, D. 48, 60, 102, 123–124, 137 Sealey, A. 25 Searle, J. R. 2–4, 23, 26, 28, 43 Sinclair, J. McH. 23, 42–46, 87 Sollitt-Morris, L. 177 Steffan, V. J. 22, 67, 165 Stefi, S. 20 Strage, A. see Ervin-Tripp et al. (1987) Stross, B. 99 Stubbe, M. 174 see also Stubbe et al. Stubbe et al. 58 Svartvik, J. see Quirk et al. T Thomas, J. 5, 48, 51, 58, 77–78, 253 n1, n9 Toris, C. C. M. see Homzie et al. Troemel-Ploetz, S. 191, 194 Trosborg, A. 3, 30, 32, 59, 90, 94 V Vine, B. 40, see also Stubbe et al. Vine, E. see Stubbe et al. Vismans, R. 24 W Walker, M. see Walker et al.

 Author Index

Walker et al. 21 Weatherall, A. see Stubbe et al. Wei. L. see Hua et al. Weigel, M. M. 16, 75 Weigel, R. M. 16, 75 Weizman, E. 83 West, C. 17 Willing, K. 222 Wisner, J. R. Jr 32

Y Yang, J. 18–19 Yeatman, A. 1 Yinon, Y. 20–21 Yli-Jokipii, H. 35 Yoder, J. see Chaikin et al. Yuan, Q. see Hua et al. Yukl, G. see Yukl et al. Yukl et al. 20–21, 118, 218

Subject Index

A advice, definition of 25–26 see also distinguishing factors agreement 124, 129, 175, 195 alerter 63, 115–117 “so” 102 see also false starts apologies 116, 133, 163, 195–198, 216–217 approval 132 authoritativeness 165 see also power authority of the speaker 3, 28, 48, 191, 197–198 and “need to” 112

workplace 1, 30, 51, 71, 175, 185 see also job duties and responsibilities control act, definition of 26–27 density 151–152, 162 force of see force rules see rules segmentation see segmentation solicitation see solicitation sub-types 31–34 Conversation Analysis (CA) 4–5, 51, 58–59, 199–200 Cooperative Principle 41, 44–45, 47 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 6

B beneficiary’s action or need 86–87 benefit from the action 29–30, 40, 51, 58

D declaratives 42–46, 78–82 deixis 95 directive, definition of 23–24 see also distinguishing factors directness and indirectness 22, 66–72 disagreement 195–198 discourse context 4–5, 51–58 distinguishing factors 27–31

C Cross–Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) aims of 18 coding 63–64 definition of directness 67 categorisation 72, 76, 83 clarification 55, 204–206 coding conventions 13–14, 227, 241, 247 compliments 171, 194 context discourse see discourse context immediate 42–44, 48 social see social context

E explicitness and implicitness, definitions of 66–72 external modification 115–119 see also supportive move(s) F face 100, 195 needs 197, 199, 215–217

 Subject Index

redress 160 threat 35, 86, 113, 194, 197–198 see also Politeness Theory – Brown & Levinson face threatening acts (FTAs) see face false starts 116–117, 133 focus on object or item 88 force 66, 69–71, 75, 77, 81–83, 89–91, 153–161 see also internal modification see also external modification form and function 3–4, 24–26, 32, 35, 39, 40–46, 153 forms conventionalised 45, 47–48, 66–70, 89 partial/incomplete/abbreviated 84–86 see also declaratives see also imperatives see also interrogatives function see form

force 2, 3, 72, 95 function 2, 35 intent 67 point 3, 58 verbs 3 imperatives 40–42, 72–76 imposition 21–22, 27, 31, 51, 72, 171 see also Politeness Theory – Brown & Levinson implicitness see explicitness indirectness see directness inference 47–48 internal modification 93–115 see also hedges interpersonal relationships complexities 9 in current dataset 127, 141, 168, 187–188, 194, 199–200, 216–218 in previous research 16–18, 22, 98 interrogatives 42–46, 76–78

H head act, definition of 63 hedges 100–105, 111, 134, 144 modal 111, 140, 195 “I think” 80–81, 94–95, 101, 144, 192 “I thought” 94–95 “just” 100–101, 144 tag questions 103–104 “you know” 123, 144 see also internal modification hedging 93–120, 125, 171, 195, 196, 207 see also internal modification see also external modification hint 17, 65, 67, 78, 83

J job duties and responsibilities in defining control acts 29–30 and control act form 72, 86, 88, 99, 160 and control act frequency 64, 150 and modal use 111, 113, 158 and topic flow 212, 214

I illocutionary acts 3

L leaders see management style

M management style 2, 188–200 authoritarian 2, 191 interactive 188–191, 199 laissez-faire 2 participative 2, 190

Subject Index 

minimal responses and feedback 59, 145, 172, 174–175, 187, 211 modification internal see internal modification external see external modification N need of addressee 88–89 third person 87–88 negation 95 O obligation in control act rules 42–43, 48 modal meaning 105, 110–113, 126, 137, 158 see also job duties and responsibilities Organisational Communication 1 P politeness 34–35, 95, 165 see also Politeness Theory see also force Politeness Theory – Brown & Levinson 5–6, 31–33, 35, 160, 217 applications 18–19, 22, 25 and directness 66–67, 90 strategies 89, 100, 118 Politeness Theory – Haverkate 35 Politeness Theory – Leech 35, 90 power 1–2 coercive 1–2, 21 consultative 2, 135, 170, 189–190, 198–199, 217 expert(ise) 1, 21, 23, 28, 33, 170, 179, 190, 201, 215 legitimate 1, 21, 129, 172, 190, 198, 201 empower(ment) 167, 191, 198, 199 power over see coercive power

pronoun use, as modification 70–71, 75, 79, 96–98, 111, 158–159, 196 purpose of interaction 9–10, 49–50, 221–225 and patterns observed 34, 152, 177–182, 186, 199, 203, 208–214 R right of refusal 29, 30–31, 36, 58, 129 request, definition of 24–25 see also distinguishing factors rules 42–46, 98 S segmentation 63 social context 5, 45–46, 48–51 see also interpersonal relationships see also purpose of interaction see also status and role relationships social distance 16, 160, 179, 200 see also Politeness Theory – Brown & Levinson see also interpersonal relationships solicitation 20, 33, 217–218 solidarity 98, 156, 194, 198, 217–218 speech acts see control act, directive, request, advice see also agreement, apologies, approval, compliments, disagreement, thanking Speech Act Theory 2–4, 5, 26 status, as a distinguishing factor 27–31 status and role relationships and control act frequency 147–148 and control act realisation 72, 145, 153–156, 159, 172

 Subject Index

and amount of talk 177–182 in previous research 1–2, 5–6, 17, 19, 20–22, 165, 177 see also management style supportive move(s) 54, 63, 117–118, 164–165 see also external modification

T thanking 198, 215–217 topic choice and flow 182–186, 212–214 turn-taking 123, 173–177, 210–212

In the Pragmatics & Beyond New Series the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. xvi, 256 pp. PILKINGTON, Adrian: Poetic Eﬀects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. xiv, 214 pp. MATSUI, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. xii, 251 pp. VANDERVEKEN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002. vi, 328 pp. SELL, Roger D.: Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. xiv, 348 pp. ANDERSEN, Gisle and Thorstein FRETHEIM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. viii, 273 pp. UNGERER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. xiv, 286 pp. DI LUZIO, Aldo, Susanne GÜNTHNER and Franca ORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. xvi, 341 pp. KHALIL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. x, 274 pp. MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. xviii, 225 pp. ANDERSEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. ix, 352 pp. COLLINS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. xx, 384 pp. IFANTIDOU, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. xii, 225 pp. MUSHIN, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. 2001. xviii, 244 pp. BAYRAKTAROĞLU, Arın and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. xiv, 439 pp. ITAKURA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in ﬁrst and second language contexts. 2001. xviii, 231 pp. KENESEI, István and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. xxii, 352 pp. GROSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. xxviii, 341 pp. GARDNER, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. xxii, 281 pp. BARON, Bettina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002. xxiv, 357 pp. McILVENNY, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. x, 332 pp. FITZMAURICE, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. viii, 263 pp. HAVERKATE, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002. vi, 241 pp. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. xiv, 481 pp. DUSZAK, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. viii, 522 pp. JASZCZOLT, Katarzyna M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. xii, 388 pp. JASZCZOLT, Katarzyna M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. viii, 496 pp. LUKE, Kang Kwong and Theodossia-Soula PAVLIDOU (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. x, 295 pp. LEAFGREN, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. xii, 252 pp.

103 FETZER, Anita and Christiane MEIERKORD (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. vi, 300 pp. 104 BEECHING, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. x, 251 pp. 105 BLACKWELL, Sarah E.: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. xvi, 303 pp. 106 BUSSE, Ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. xiv, 344 pp. 107 TAAVITSAINEN, Irma and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. viii, 446 pp. 108 BARRON, Anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. xviii, 403 pp. 109 MAYES, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. xiv, 228 pp. 110 ANDROUTSOPOULOS, Jannis K. and Alexandra GEORGAKOPOULOU (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. viii, 343 pp. 111 ENSINK, Titus and Christoph SAUER (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. viii, 227 pp. 112 LENZ, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. xiv, 279 pp. 113 PANTHER, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. THORNBURG (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 2003. xii, 285 pp. 114 KÜHNLEIN, Peter, Hannes RIESER and Henk ZEEVAT (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 2003. xii, 400 pp. 115 KÄRKKÄINEN, Elise: Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. 2003. xii, 213 pp. 116 GRANT, Colin B. (ed.): Rethinking Communicative Interaction. New interdisciplinary horizons. 2003. viii, 330 pp. 117 WU, Ruey-Jiuan Regina: Stance in Talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin ﬁnal particles. 2004. xiv, 263 pp. + index. 118 CHENG, Winnie: Intercultural Conversation. 2003. xii, 279 pp. 119 HILTUNEN, Risto and Janne SKAFFARI (eds.): Discourse Perspectives on English. Medieval to modern. 2003. viii, 243 pp. 120 AIJMER, Karin and Anna-Brita STENSTRÖM (eds.): Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. 2004. viii, 279 pp. 121 FETZER, Anita: Recontextualizing Context. Grammaticality meets appropriateness. 2004. x, 272 pp. 122 GONZÁLEZ, Montserrat: Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. The case of English and Catalan. xvi, 398 pp. + index. Expected Summer 2004 123 MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina and María Elena PLACENCIA (eds.): Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. xv, 377 pp. + index. Expected Summer 2004 124 VINE, Bernadette: Getting Things Done at Work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. 2004. ix, 267 pp. + index. 125 LERNER, Gene H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the ﬁrst generation. vi, 297 pp. + index. Expected Fall 2004 126 WU, Yi’an: Spatial Demonstratives in English and Chinese. Text and Cognition. xviii, 226 pp. + index. Expected Fall 2004 127 BRISARD, Frank, Michael MEEUWIS and Bart VANDENABEELE (eds.): Seduction, Community, Speech. A Festschrift for Herman Parret. Expected Fall 2004 128 CORDELLA, Marisa: The Dynamic Consultation. A discourse analytical study of doctor-patient communication. Expected Fall 2004 129 TABOADA, María Teresa: Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Expected Fall 2004

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers website, www.benjamins.com

Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Impoliteness in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Humor in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Constraints in Discourse 2 (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Constraints in Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 172)

Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Second Language Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

South Slavic Discourse Particles (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Connectives As Discourse Landmarks (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew discourse markers (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Discourse Markers in Native And Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, Volume 164)

The Procrastinator's Guide to Getting Things Done

The Procrastinator's Guide to Getting Things Done

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Verbal Aspect in Discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond)

Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

New Adventures in Language and Interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic And Diachronic Discourse Analysis (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Getting Organized at Work

The Power of Humour at the Workplace

The Leader's Handbook: Making Things Happen, Getting Things Done

Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Impoliteness in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Humor in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Constraints in Discourse 2 (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Constraints in Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 172)

Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Second Language Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

South Slavic Discourse Particles (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Connectives As Discourse Landmarks (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done

Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew discourse markers (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Discourse Markers in Native And Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, Volume 164)

The Procrastinator's Guide to Getting Things Done

The Procrastinator's Guide to Getting Things Done

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on Feminity and Masculinity in Ethnography and Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Verbal Aspect in Discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond)

Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

New Adventures in Language and Interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic And Diachronic Discourse Analysis (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Getting Organized at Work

The Power of Humour at the Workplace

The Leader's Handbook: Making Things Happen, Getting Things Done

Recommend Documents