“Did you think I did not have enough work already, sir?”
Team A’s discursive performance of professional identity
in the context of their daystart meetings
Myriam Mulder
Student number: 10279865
Master’s thesis
Supervisor: M. van der Laaken
MA Language and Society
University of Amsterdam
21 January 2019
Abstract
Taking an interactional sociolinguistics approach, this thesis focuses on how a professionals in an Amsterdam-based public-sector department discursively perform their professional identities. I investigate how, in the communicative context of their so-called daystart meetings, the participants perform and negotiate their differing organisational positions and discursive activity roles. Via the analysis of their speech functions, discourse strategies, linguistic forms and nonverbal behaviours, it is shown how a professional’s discursive behaviour appears to be the result of the interplay of her organisational position, discursive activity role(s) and idiosyncratic, personal characteristics, all of which are located in, and heavily influenced by, elements of the communicative context. Most notably the egalitarian-collaborative organisational culture, the relational context and the conceptual context of this team and department prove to be influential, effectively prescribing which discursive behaviours are permitted and which are dispreferred. At the same time, professionals’ discursive behaviours, as they orient themselves to their positions and roles, confirm and construct these very elements of communicative context.
Statement of non-plagiarism:
Table of contents
Introduction……… 1. Literature review………
1.1 Workplace discourse……… 1.2 Communicative context……… 1.3 Discursive performance and construction of professional identities……… 1.4 Discursive performance and considerations of power and politeness……… 1.5 Team meetings in the workplace……… Conclusion……… 2. Methodology and analytical framework………
2.1 Data collection in team A……… 2.2 Analytical framework……… Conclusion……… 3. The department: background information………
3.1 Mission and organisation……… 3.2 Contextual features……… 4. Presentation of findings……….
4.1 Specific contextual features……… 4.2 General information……… 4.3 Performance of professional identity……… Conclusion……… 5. Discussion of findings……….
5.1 Contextual features……… 5.2 Discursive behaviour……… 5.3 Negotiating roles and positions……… Conclusion……… 6. Conclusion and suggestions for further research……… References……… Appendix 1: Daystart 1 team……… Appendix 2: Daystart 2 team A……… 4 6 6 10 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 24 48 49 49 54 59 60 61 63 68 94
Introduction
Every place of work constitutes a professional community with its own particular norms, values, routines and ‘ways of doing things’ (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Sarangi & Roberts, 1999). The way in which co-workers communicatively interact is fundamental and constitutive for all joint professional activities going on in an organisation (Gumperz, 1999). In this thesis, I focus on one such professional speech community: an Amsterdam-based public-sector department (see chapter 3 for details). By investigating one team of professionals, I attempt to answer my research question, viz. how do the professionals in team A discursively perform their professional identities in the
communicative context of the team’s ‘daystart’ meetings1? In this thesis, professional identity is
understood to refer to the team members’ differing organisational positions and discursive activity roles, respectively (Halvorsen & Sarangi, 2015; Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Holmes, Stubbe, & Vine, 1999). I specifically focus on how professionals discursively negotiate their organisational positions and discursive activity roles, which may be at odds with each other. The interactive and discursive performance of professional identity is analysed by means of Holmes et al.’s (1999) three-way distinction between speech functions (e.g. providing positive feedback), discourse strategies (e.g. giving a compliment) and specific linguistic forms (e.g. ‘well done!’). These three levels are
supplemented with an analysis of paralinguistic and kinesic2 behaviour because factors such as one’s
volume of speaking or intonation can significantly influence which pragmatic and/or semantic meaning is being expressed and conveyed.
The point of departure for my analyses of ‘talk at work’ is interactional sociolinguistics, a “qualitative, interpretative approach to the analysis of social interaction that developed at the intersection of linguistics, anthropology and sociology” (Wodak, Johnstone, & Kerswill, 2011, p. 67). This approach to discourse analysis is concerned with meaning-making processes in contextualised language use and ways in which speakers signal and interpret meaning in social interaction (Llamas, 2011, p. 502). It specifically focuses on “the contextualising work of interactants and the ways in which context is both brought along and brought about in a situated encounter” (Sarangi & Roberts, 1999, p. 30, original italics). In order to get a firm grasp on the multitude of actors and factors involved in this study, I supplement this theoretical framework with insights and tools from neighbouring approaches such as politeness theory and critical discourse analysis. This eclectic or
1 The organisational and interactive particulars of these meetings are explained in chapter 3.
2 Kinesic, adjective: pertaining to communication effected non-vocally through movements or gestures
‘holistic’ bundling of theoretical perspectives is not uncommon in discourse analysis (e.g. Holmes et al., 1999; Mullany, 2007).
In line with the interactional sociolinguistics approach, my basic assumptions are, firstly, that the specific communicative context of the speech situation is dynamic and strongly influences, and is simultaneously shaped by, the discursive performance and negotiation of team members’
organisational roles and positions (Gumperz, 1999). Secondly, in their organisational positions (i.e. ‘regular’ employees versus team manager) and discursive activity roles (i.e. chairperson versus expert participant), I assume that participants do not always use or performs the same speech functions, discourse strategies, linguistic forms and nonverbal behaviours but will cater these to their differing positions and roles (Holmes et al., 1999). Professionals may use direct, ‘powerful’ discourse strategies and linguistic forms (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Vine, 2009). Conversely, they may opt for indirect, less powerful discourse strategies and linguistic forms, often considered to express more politeness and/or solidarity than their more direct counterparts (ibid.).
These assumptions are translated into three sub-research questions: (1) what are the main relevant discursive features of context in the daystart meetings, (2) which speech functions, discourse strategies, linguistic forms and nonverbal discursive behaviours are used or performed by the
participants in the daystart meetings and (3) how do professionals discursively negotiate their organisational positions and (versus) their discursive activity roles?
The outline of this thesis is the following: I start with a literature review in which I discuss workplace discourse, professional identity and relevant notions like communicative context and ‘powerful’ versus less ‘powerful’ use of language (chapter 1). In chapter 2, the methodological and analytical frameworks which are used in this thesis are presented. Chapter 3 focuses on the department to which the team which was researched belongs, with a brief description of the mission, organisation and relevant features of context of the department as a whole. In chapter 4, I present and evaluate my findings: I have selected seven relevant examples of the team’s discourse from the transcripts of the two daystart meetings which were video recorded. My findings are discussed in chapter 5, in which my research question and the subquestions are explicitly answered. In the conclusion which rounds off this thesis, some of the limitations of the present study are indicated as well as some directions for further research.
1.
Literature review
In this review of the literature, I discuss the following topics: the development of workplace discourse3 as a distinct field of study, and different perspectives, methods and approaches to studying this specific area within discourse analysis (1.1), communicative context as a vital
component in the analysis of ‘talk at work’ (1.2), the discursive performance of professional identities (1.3), the discursive performance of power and politeness (1.4) and team meetings in the workplace (1.5). The literature review informs the methodological and analytical frameworks which are
presented in chapter 2. 1.1 Workplace discourse 1.1.1 Brief historical overview
The study of (written or spoken) ‘talk at work’ is a relatively young field of research, starting late in the twentieth century and “growing exponentially” in the 1980s and 1990s (Angouri, 2018. P. 2). Early works focussed on institutional discourse like doctor-patient interaction (e.g. Fisher & Todd, 1983) and, especially, courtroom discourse (e.g. Atkinson & Drew, 1979). These areas are being researched to this day, e.g. Van der Laaken (forthcoming) who, taking a conversation-analytic (CA) approach, investigates whether the ‘Lastmeter’ questionnaire (the ‘distress thermometer’) as a communication tool improves or hinders physician-patient communication in follow-up cancer consultations. Drew & Heritage (1992) constitutes a seminal work in the field of workplace discourse: it was the first work to examine professional discourse from a CA approach. It examined aspects of talk and interaction in specific institutional contexts (e.g. doctor-patient interactions and court proceedings).
Since the late 1990s, the scope of research has significantly expanded to include non-institutional contexts. Also, although professional-client interactions are still being researched (see 1.1.2 below for example studies, the research focus has shifted from the ‘frontstage’ encounters between professionals and patients or clients to the ‘backstage’ where we find professionals discursively interacting in their workplace settings (e.g. Angouri, 2018). Finally, written discourse in workplace contexts was the main focus of early research but in the last few decades the focus has
3 In this relatively short space of this thesis, the terms workplace discourse, professional discourse and institutional
shifted to spoken discourse; for example, Lohrova (2011) who investigates team decision-making processes in meetings. Of course, multiple scholars still choose to focus on written workplace discourse or on both written and spoken discourse (e.g. Gunnarsson, 2009).
1.1.2 Perspectives and types
Workplace discourse can be approached and studied from many different perspectives, and can also focus on different types of talk in the workplace. With respect to perspectives, scholars may focus on, for example, the role of humour and small talk at work (e.g. Richards, 2006, on the role of humour in meetings), the construction of leadership (e.g. Vine, 2009, on managers’ use of directives) and professional identities in the workplace (e.g. Holmes et al., 1999, on the construction of
professional identity in multiple New Zealand governmental policy units). Another perspective on discourse in a workplace context is the extent to which gender and/or ethnicity may influence professional discourse, e.g. Mullany (2004, 2007) on how female chairs use humour in meetings to gain compliance, and Holmes, Marra, & Vine (2011) on how (Maori) leaders talk in organisations with distinctive values and objectives (e.g. furthering Maori social or political rights).
With respect to types of workplace interactions, meetings as a communicative event are most widely researched, e.g. Holmes & Marra (2004) on how leadership and conflict are managed in meetings and Halvorsen & Sarangi (2015) on team decision-making in meetings. Another important occupational genre being researched frequently is the service encounter between professional and client, for example Brown & Crawford (2009) who investigate the interactions in a telephone advisory service and Kuiper (2009) on service encounters in supermarkets. Research may also focus on very specific and specialised professional genres like pilot talk (e.g. Nevile, 2004) or the discourse of sportscasters or auctioneers (e.g. Kuiper, 1996).
1.1.3 Theoretical approaches
In this section, I focus on three influential theoretical approaches to workplace discourse: conversation analysis (CA), interactional sociolinguistics and critical discourse analysis (CDA), respectively. Naturally, there are still other frameworks such as the ethnography of communication and discursive psychology but in the relatively short space of this thesis I cannot do justice to all approaches.
CA is a sociological approach to talk-in-interaction and dominated early research into workplace discourse (Holmes 2009, 2015). Founded by Sacks (1992) and co-developed by other ‘giants’ in CA (e.g. Schegloff, 1968; Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974), CA engages in micro-level analyses
of (patterns in) the structure of discourse, paying attention to such discursive phenomena as turn sequences, the placement of pauses and prosodic cues (Holmes, ibid.). A basic theoretical tenet of CA is that such important notions as institutional identity and roles, and even social and contextual factors, are not given but are rather interactionally and jointly accomplished: they are the result of how participants orient themselves to institutional settings and discursively behave accordingly, e.g. from a CA point of view, a doctor questioning a patient is a sign of the doctor discursively assuming her4 institutional identity (Sarangi & Roberts, 1999, p. 7). See section 1.1.4 below for some current
example CA studies in workplace discourse.
CDA is a mainly European-based, overtly political-emancipatory analytical framework for workplace discourse (Holmes, 2015, p. 882). This theoretical approach seeks to uncover and analyse how wider, macro-level relations of power and repression are discursively shaped, negotiated and reproduced in everyday social practices and interactions (ibid.). One such area where these processes take place is the workplace context, as a prime example of a setting which generally involves a power asymmetry, where those in charge tend to control the discourse, based on their (unquestioned) assumptions about allowances and constraints (Stubbe et al., 2003,
p. 367). CDA is practiced by such scholars as Wodak (e.g. 2009) and Van Dijk (e.g. 2009).
Interactional sociolinguistics (IS), as another qualitative approach to workplace discourse, was developed by Gumperz (1982, 1999) and is grounded in the ‘thick descriptions’ of the
ethnography of communication (e.g. Hymes, 1974). IS is an influential theoretical and analytical framework in the field and is used by such prominent researchers as Tannen (1984) and more recently by Vine, Holmes, Marra, Pfeifer, & Jackson (2008). IS is located between macro-level, ‘top-down approaches’ like CDA and micro-level, ‘bottom-up’ social constructivist accounts like CA (Stubbe et al., 2003, p. 358). It uses CA’s microanalytic techniques but acknowledges the impact of the wider sociocultural context (e.g. status or power differences between participants) on
interactions (ibid.). IS focuses on communicative practices; it seeks to show how individuals participating in such exchanges [involving two or more actors, MM] use talk to achieve their
communicative goals in real life situations” (Gumperz, 1999, p. 454). Interactions are seen as ongoing processes of negotiation, between inference of what one’s interlocutors intend to convey and how one’s own contributions are received by others (ibid.). Regarding conversations as goal-oriented interpretative processes, so-called contextualisation cues are an important notion for IS: via these cues (e.g. speakers’ prosodic, lexical, syntactic or paralinguistic choices) interlocutors signal how a message is intended and to be understood (Stubbe et al., 2003, p. 358). Like CA and the ethnography of communication, IS holds that the participants in an interaction play their fair share in bringing
along and bringing about the communicative context (Sarangi & Robert, 1999, p. 30). This thesis departs from the IS approach, supplemented by elements from other frameworks, i.e. politeness theory, CA and CDA (see chapter 2). Such a bundling of theoretical perspectives is not uncommon in the analysis of workplace discourse (e.g. Holmes et al., 1999; Mullany, 2007).
1.1.4 Methods of data collection and analysis
As said in the section above, in the early research into workplace discourse, CA was the framework and method for the analysis of (audio-taped) workplace interaction. CA focuses on (patterns in) the structure of discourse such as speaking-turn sequences and the occurrence of adjacency pairs (e.g. question – answer, greeting – greeting) which may be spread out over multiple speaking turns. Some example studies in which CA is used for micro-level description and analysis of the structure of talk at work are Button & Lee (1987) who analysed job audio-recorded interviews, and Jefferson and Lee (1981) who did the same for service encounters. CA is still used in the field today (e.g. Svennevig, 2012) but has over time been supplemented with other methods.
Naturally, the choice for specific research methods can be heavily informed by one’s
theoretical approach of choice. Ethnographic approaches, for example, rely heavily on such methods as participant observation, field notes and interviews. An example study is Kanchanapoomi,
Trakulkasemsuk, & Keyuravong (2016) which, Hymes’ (1974) SPEAKING model in hand, investigates patterns in cross-cultural spoken business discourse between Thai and Burmese professionals. Other methods for data collection and analysis are less approach-specific and are used by scholars from very different theoretical backgrounds, like survey techniques and audio or video recordings. Audio recording of discourse in workplace settings is still the technique which is used the most often, with workers sometimes being ‘hooked up’ with a microphone as they go about their normal discursive workplace routines (e.g. Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, having office workers voluntarily recording their everyday interactions at work for about a month). Audio recordings are, however, often
supplemented with other techniques such as video recordings, in order to arrive at a more comprehensive, multi-modal analyses in which non-verbal behaviour may also be included. Louw (2009), for example, video records native-speaker and non-native speaker candidates in two (mock) job interviews with professional job recruiters, in order to gauge the candidates’ (L2) pragmatic skills. Corpus analysis is a more specialised, quantitative methodology which is used to, for
example, identify phrases, collocations and/or keywords which are frequently used in a particular discourse. Handford (2018), for example, uses a small-scale specialised corpus of spoken discourse in a Hongkong construction project in order to identify how this particular group of speakers verbally interact, being very careful to include contextual elements for a correct interpretation of the
discursive goings-on in this miniature professional speech community. Corpus analysis is used more and more often in workplace discourse research and may be combined with qualitative methods in order to, for example, identify pragmatic functions in corpora such as making requests which may be linguistically realised in multiple manners, depending on contextual and cultural norms (Holmes, 2009; Mao, 1994). Adolphs (2008) devotes an entire work to discuss how pragmatic functions may be investigated in corpora of spoken discourse. She describes how, in corpus linguistics, the role of discourse context has been recognised, resulting in contextual coding schemes which have been developed and applied to such corpora as the CANCODE corpus (Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English); CANCODE records the relationship between speakers and the type of activity in which they are engaged (ibid.: 11).
Despite the advance of corpus-based research methods in workplace discourse research, qualitative micro-level analyses still dominate over quantitative, macro-level analyses (Holmes, 2009; Sarangi & Roberts, 1999). Many studies apply multiple methods of data collection and analysis, combining such techniques as (non)participant observation, workers’ (self) audio recording, video recordings, interviews, questionnaires and written sources (e.g. workplace e-mails) (Holmes,;2015). 1.2 Communicative context
Discursive contexts between and within workplace encounters can range widely and are largely ‘local’ (i.e. situated) in nature (e.g. Gumperz, 1999; Schiffrin, 1994). A review of the literature indicates that five aspects of the discursive context are especially influential: the organisational, conceptual, relational and physical contextual elements as well as the immediate discursive context.
With respect to the organisational context, Asmuß & Svennevig (2009), indicate that between organisations or departments, there may be large differences in the level of formality of work-related activities. Holmes & Marra (2004) and Gunnarsson (2009) distinguish between hierarchical/competitive versus more consensus-oriented/collaborative organisational cultures. Differences in the cultures5 of organisations are likely to strongly correlate with their dominant
values and norms or with “the nature of the work carried out” (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, p. 581). With the conceptual context of a communicative situation I mean the discursive activity type in which participants find themselves (temporarily). For them, this particular concept (e.g. a daystart meeting) signals ‘who are we and what are we doing?’ (Halvorsen, 2014). Specific discursive concepts
5 I will use ‘organisational culture’ as an umbrella term to refer to the wider organisational context in terms of
its dominant norms, values, (discursive) practices, work processes and systems/procedures for decision making.
may not only determine the organisational features of a meeting but may also come with specific discursive activity roles for participants which may differ starkly from participants’ ‘regular’ organisational positions. The daystart meetings which are the subject of this thesis are, again, a prime example of such a discursive concept. Holmes, Marra, & Vine (2011) give the example of workplace meetings in which the role of chair is assigned by a system of rotation among the participants. In this concept, the person performing the role of chair need not be the participant highest in rank.
Intercollegial work relations also constitute a key dynamic contextual factor for talk at work; between or within speech situations, alignments and communications between professionals may shift from harmonious to antagonistic, depending on such factors as discursive activity roles, organisational hierarchical positions, goals and/or interests (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987, p. 60; Holmes 1995, p. 3).
The physical context of communicative events also exerts an influence on the discursive proceedings. Holmes & Stubbe (2015) mention how, for example, the seating arrangement and the physical location of a meeting may be deliberate strategic choices: these physical aspects may encourage or, conversely, discourage participants to actively engage in the discussions. Finally, as Gumperz (1999), Holmes & Stubbe (2015) and Holmes et al. (1999) stress, the dynamic nature of interaction is of course also evidenced by its sequential structures: a contribution made by a participant is a response to what precedes it and affects what will follow. For a correct interpretation of speaker meaning, we need to know how her utterances are embedded in the ongoing discourse. The (vital) importance of the immediate ‘co-text’ of talk was of course much earlier recognised in, and evidenced by, conversation-analytic studies such as Sacks (1992), Schegloff (1968) and Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson (1974).
1.3 Discursive performance and construction of professional identities
Holmes et al. (1999) stress that in workplace interactions, people perform and construct elements of their professional identity (i.e. their organisational positions and/or discursive activity roles) via the speech functions, discourse strategies and the linguistic forms which they use. Holmes et al. (ibid.) also highlight that an individual’s identity is comprised of many facets and a specific utterance may express or contribute to one or more of these different aspects: for example, to one’s professional identity as a worker or a manager, or to one’s wish to be regarded as knowledgeable. Holmes & Stubbe (2015) and Holmes et al. (1999) hold that at specific points in the speech situation, different aspects of one’s identity may be more or less relevant and displayed or oriented to. This Holmesian approach to professional identity is embedded in an IS framework (see Introduction and 1.1.2).
1.4 Discursive performance and considerations of power and politeness/collegiality The production and performance of professional power (or the lack of it!) is an integral part of workplace identity and workplace discourse (Mullany, 2007). Intuitively speaking, the higher the hierarchical position or role, the more power a professional may be assumed to have. Of course, a professional’s relative power position in the workplace may not completely depend on her place in the organisational hierarchy: this power position may also rise as the professional’s level of expertise rises (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015). Halvorsen & Sarangi (2015) find that the discursive expression and negotiation of power relations between co-workers is often a function of the degree of rigidness of the organisational hierarchy. Holmes & Marra (2004) and Gunnarsson (2009) find that in consensus-oriented, democratic and cooperative cultures, with strong feelings of a ‘we-identity’, participants’ verbal utterances are likely to be less confrontational (i.e. more mitigated and indirect) than in corporate, hierarchical or competitive workplaces.
Specifically for team meetings between co-workers, Holmes (1999, p. 30ff; 2015, p. 883) notes that professional power may be enacted via a range of discourse strategies such as topic control, disruptive interruptions, disagreeing and expressing an alternative perspective or opinion. Power is often mediated by norms of politeness in a specific context (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987). Holmes & Stubbe (2015, p. 5) stress that most workplace interactions show evidence of
considerations of mutual respect and/or concern for the feeling of others. In the specific context of the workplace, these considerations and concerns may synonymously be called either ‘politeness’ or ‘collegiality’. The linguistic expression of politeness may indicate a concern for (1) the addressee’s so-called negative face needs, i.e. the need not to be imposed upon or (2) her positive face needs: the need to be liked and admired (Holmes, 1995, p. 5). “Non-imposing distancing behaviour” is known as ‘negative politeness’ and “sociable behaviour expressing warmth towards an addressee is positive politeness behaviour” (ibid., original italics). The pragmalinguistic choice to use more polite or impolite forms is (strongly) influenced by the (power-)relational configuration between conversational participants (Brown and Levinson, 1978/1987, p. 60; Holmes, 1995, p. 3). 1.5 Team meetings in the workplace
In many organisations, team or smaller-scale meetings are “the very stuff of work” (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015, p. 56). Team meetings come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and serve different organisational purposes. Halvorsen & Sarangi (2015) distinguish between ritual meetings,
characterised by reporting/exchange of information, and meetings which are targeted at problem solving and/or decision making. The same authors also distinguish between (1) studies focusing on
interactional aspects of meeting talk and (2) those in which decision-making processes during meetings are the main focus (ibid.). In terms of the organisation and ‘mood’ of meetings, Asmuß & Svennevig (2009) indicate that meetings may be more formal (e.g. with a structured agenda and goals, and a clearly delineated participation structure) or more informal (i.e. more spontaneous in its organisation and participation structure).
Conclusion
This review of the relevant literature has shown how the study of workplace discourse has developed and how many perspectives, types, approaches and methods may be employed or focused on. The discussions of communicative context and the discursive expression of professional identity and power, specifically in the communicative setting of a team meeting, have shown how a professional’s organisational position and discursive activity role(s) are held to exert a strong influence on the discourse as performed by individual workers. In chapter 2, these findings from the literature are translated into the methodological and analytical framework which are employed in this thesis.
2.
Methodology and analytical framework
In this section, I first present my method of data collection and some relevant background on team A’s ‘daystart’ meetings (2.1). My analytical framework is the subject of section 2.2.
2.1 Data collection in team A
For the purposes of this thesis, I have recorded two workplace interactions (i.e. team meetings) of a team of professionals (‘team A’) who work for an Amsterdam-based public-sector organisation or for an affiliated organisation. I have specifically requested to record the interactions of this team for the following reasons. Since I work for the same organisation as team A, I know the members of this team to be particularly professional (i.e. they set high quality standards) and eager to endorse projects which are aimed at acquiring or expanding knowledge (in general). The choice to record two of their bi-weekly ‘daystarts’ was driven by the fact that these meetings are among the relatively scarce moments when the team members actually meet. Most of the time, they are ‘out of office’: e.g. meeting with employers and/or job-seeking candidates), attending external meetings with professionals from other organisations and hosting or participating in conferences.
The mission and organisation of the department is presented in chapter 3 while some team-specific information is provided in sections 4.1 and 4.2. I have worked in this department for five years. I am not a member of team A and, as a rule, I have hardly any direct professional dealings with the team members.
Two interactions of team A were recorded, ranging in duration from approximately 37 to 47 minutes, involving a total interaction time of around 84 minutes. The interactions which were examined concern team A’s so-called daystart (‘dagstart’ in Dutch) meetings which take place twice a week (see sections 3.2 and 4.1 for details). For team A, attendance at these meetings is not
mandatory. Therefore, the number of participants can range from a few as three to (theoretically) over a hundred. In practice, typical attendance ranges from 6 to 10 participants. The typical duration of these meetings is 40-45 minutes.
The data were collected via integral video recording of two daystart meetings in March and April of 2018. Prior to the actual start, the project was vetted through the ethical committee of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Amsterdam and was approved. All participants agreed to being videotaped via written consent forms which they filled out on the day(s) of the interaction(s). They had all received prior information about the general (not the specific) aims and methodological design of the research project in the weeks before the meetings which were to be filmed. As the researcher in this project, I set up the (small) camera, left before the meetings started and returned after one of the team members informed me that the meetings were over.
The discussions were conducted entirely in Dutch since all participants are native speakers of Dutch. The integral interactions were transcribed in Dutch and my analyses are based on the Dutch data. I will present examples from these transcripts in Dutch with English glosses directly below. In case of inequivalence between the Dutch meaning and the English gloss, I provide an English translation of the example which approximates the original Dutch meaning as closely as possible. As per agreement with the members of team A, the transcripts of their meetings have been anonymised: the participants and other persons (not present at the meeting) have all been given pseudonyms and organisations, locations, projects et cetera have been anonymised into “company X”, “project X”, et cetera. See appendices 1-2 for the full transcripts.
2.2 Analytical framework
For the analyses of my data, I employ the following analytical framework, which is informed by the literature review in chapter 1 and further operationalised in this subsection. As said in the
analysis of the discursive performance of professional identity in team A’s two daystart meetings. This means that the communicative context, in all its five aspects (see 1.2 above and 2.2.1 below), is assumed to be of vital importance, since it shapes - and is shaped by - the discursive behaviour of participants.
For the analysis of (recurrent patterns in) the discursive performance and construction of professional identity, Holmes et al.’s (1999) three-way distinction between speech functions, discourse strategies and specific linguistic forms will be applied to the data (see 2.2.2). As Holmes et al. readily concede, the three different levels are not always clearly distinguishable. For them, the added value of this analytical triad must be sought in its ability to detect recurrent patterns in interactions and to separate linguistic form from interactional function (ibid., pp. 356-357).
These three levels are supplemented with an analysis of paralinguistic and kinesic behaviour because factors such as one’s volume of speaking or intonation can significantly influence which pragmatic and/or semantic meaning is being expressed and conveyed. The concepts of the verbal and nonverbal expression of power and politeness/collegiality are expressly included in the analytical framework.
Since I will be working ‘from the data’, I make no prior assumptions about which functions, strategies, forms and nonverbal behaviours will be used or displayed, how often and by whom. 2.2.1 Components of the analysis of communicative context
As indicated in section 1.2 of the literature review, in my analyses, five relevant aspects of context need to be taken into account (i.e. the organisational, relational, conceptual, physical and immediate discourse context). The mission and organisation of the department and its five contextual features which are distinguished in this thesis are described in chapter 3. The team-specific contextual details are presented and discussed in chapter 4.
• With respect to the organisational culture, I will establish where the department, and team A specifically, are roughly located on the formal – informal and the hierarchical/top-down - egalitarian/collaborative spectrums. I will also give a brief sketch of some important characteristics of these positions, i.e. dominant values and norms for verbal and nonverbal interaction among the professionals.
• The relational context will be analysed in terms of the organisational position and the discursive activity role(s) which a professional may fulfil in the team and in the department. These positions
and roles come with their specific tasks, responsibilities and statuses, which I assume to exert an influence on the discursive behaviour of the professional in question.
• The notion of discursive activity roles is part of the conceptual context in which the co-workers participating in this study find themselves, i.e. the daystart meetings. I will analyse which are the main conceptual building blocks and goals for this particular type of meeting as performed in this particular organisation. For example, I will identify how the agenda (i.e. selection and order of main topics to be discussed) is usually set and how team A may deviate from this ‘official’ agenda set-up. I will also determine which are the available discursive activity roles and which
professional(s) may (not) occupy the different roles. The distinction between a professional’s organisational position and discursive activity role(s) in this thesis is presented in table 1 below. The concept of the daystart meetings (see sections 3.2 and 4.1) prescribes that, in theory, any individual professional in the team can fulfil any or all activity roles regardless of her position in the organisation. The manager, for example, need not automatically chair the meeting.
Table 1
Organisational positions versus activity roles matrix (theoretical) Organisational positions
(highest to lowest ) Discursive activity roles
chair expert participant administrative support
manager X X X
(senior) adviser X X X
team assistant X X X
In practice, however, only the senior advisers in team A almost exclusively chair the daystart meetings via a system of rotation. The transcripts also show that for the non-senior advisers and the administrative assistant, their organisational positions and their discursive activity roles (i.e. expert participant and non-expert participant, respectively) perfectly align, generally speaking. Since none of them fulfils the role of meeting chair, they do not have to deal with complicated negotiations between their positions and roles, i.e. they also do not have to discursively ‘manage’ the other team members who may occupy a higher or lower organisational positions than they do. In the relatively limited space of this thesis, I will exclusively focus on those participants and discursive patterns who/which provide the most interesting findings, i.e. the discursive ‘juggling act’ between organisational positions and discursive activity role(s), such as can be found in the discourse of the senior advisers and the manager. Therefore, in this thesis, the non-senior advisers and the administrative assistant are excluded from the analyses.
• With respect to the physical context, in my analyses, I will indicate the relevant physical
characteristics of the daystart meetings, e.g. the exact locations of the meetings, the level of noise from non-participants and the seating arrangements.
• The immediate discourse context (co-text) will be taken into account in the sense that I do not isolate single verbal utterances for my analyses. As was indicated in section 1.2 of the literature review, for a correct interpretation of what is discursively ‘going on’ (in this case how professional identity is performed in context), it is necessary to investigate and analyse verbal utterances as they are embedded in longer stretches of discourse.
2.2.2 Components of the analysis of speech functions, discourse strategies, linguistic realisations and nonverbal behaviour
In this subsection, I present an operationalisation of Holmes et al.’s (1999) three levels of analysis: 1. speech functions, 2. discourse strategies and 3. actual linguistic forms used. Nonverbal behaviour (i.e. paralanguage and kinesics) is added to this analytical mix.
2.2.2.1 Speech functions and discourse strategies
In table 2 below, I give some examples of discourse strategies (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Holmes et al., 1999). The use of particular discourse strategies may, in context, signal that a particular speech function is being done, e.g. doing collegiality (either promoting or discouraging good work relations), doing transactional business / ‘expert power’ (i.e. task-oriented talk) and doing chair business or ‘chair power’ (i.e. related to the obligations or privileges of performing the role of meeting chair). Of course, any distinction between speech functions is not absolute; the strategy of back-channeling or providing minimal responses, for example, may mainly serve to elicit more relevant transactional input but it may also signal good working relationships in which interlocutors give each other ample room to speak. In my analyses of the data, I will (and can only) attempt to find indications of specific patterns or correlations between specific speech functions and specific discourse strategies.
In real-life conversations, an almost infinite host of discourse strategies may present themselves. I suffice with giving some representative examples of strategies.
Table 2
Examples of discourse strategies (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Holmes et al., 1999) - Give compliments
- Insult others - Tell jokes
- Engage in small/social talk - Interrupt
- Ask questions/ elicit information - Respond/ report / /discuss information - Make suggestions
- Give evaluations - Give summaries - Do topic management - Do openings/ closings - Allocate speaking turns - Assign/manage speaking time - Manage/set agenda
- Make requests/ give directives
2.2.2.2 Linguistic realisations
In the analyses, I will seek to identify if and how considerations of power and politeness influence the actual linguistic form of the verbal utterances made by the daystart participants. The relation between position/role and the use of linguistic (im)politeness devices is not necessarily clear beforehand. Professionals with more authority need not necessarily be more direct (which is often considered to be more impolite) in their communications with subordinates. In fact, it may be quite the reverse: since they already have more power, superordinate professionals can ‘afford’ to use more indirect utterances, or they may use mitigating devices for strategic and/or collegial purposes (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015).
In the table below, I present some non-exhaustive examples of linguistic indirectness and directness devices which, in context, may signal (specific types of) politeness or impoliteness6
(Culpeper, 2013; Holmes, 1995; Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Mullany, 2004). Some ‘prime’ (but not absolute) examples of positive and negative politeness devices will be indicated in bold and
underlined, respectively. Impoliteness devices will be presented as crossed out. Note: classification of these devices is, again, not absolute; depending on the specific discursive context, in some cases the same device can be used to express either positive or negative politeness (e.g. tag questions). Due to their context-sensitive meaning and use, I cannot further group these linguistic markers into
belonging to positive or negative politeness or to impoliteness strategies.
Table 3
Examples of indirect versus direct linguistic markers (examples from English) (Culpeper, 2013; Holmes, 1995; Holmes & Stubbe, 2015; Mullany, 2004).
Indirectness devices Directness devices
• Modal auxiliaries (e.g. would, could, might) • Hedges/mitigators: e.g. adverbs: possibly,
perhaps, phrases: if you don’t mind
• Honorifics (e.g. Madam, Sir, Doctor, Professor) • Pet/familial names: love, darling, my friend • Humour (collegial)
• Positive reinforcers (e.g. that’s right, thanks) • Interrogative mood
• Tag questions (e.g. isn’t it, wouldn’t it) • Discourse/pragmatic markers: OK, you know • Backchannels/minimal responses (e.g. hmm, oh) • Continuers (e.g. really?, oh?)
• Repetitions (e.g. “I’m sort of- sort of saying X”) • Hesitation markers (e.g. uh, um, hm)
• Humour (non-collegial)
• Insults / negative evaluations (personal attacks) • Swear words / verbal abuse (e.g. bastard, loser) • Taboo words / slang
• Dismissals / silencers (e.g. piss off, shut up) • Threats (e.g. I’m going to beat you up later) • Imperative mood
• Deontic modals (e.g. must, have to)
• Direct orders in declarative mood (e.g. I want X) • Intensifiers/boosters (e.g. very, definitely)
2.2.2.3 Nonverbal behaviour: paralanguage and kinesics
Nonverbal behaviour such as gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, voice modifications and silence plays a crucial role in how a speaker intends to convey her message and how the hearer interprets this message. In many cases, not so much what we say (in terms of propositional content) is most important for the expression and interpretation of meaning but rather how we say it (Rowe & Levine, 2018). Some scholars (e.g. Pennycook, 1985) do not distinguish between paraverbal features (e.g. pitch, intonation, loudness and tempo), kinesics (gestures, head movements and posture, eye contact and facial expressions) and proxemics (the social and personal use of space), subsuming them under the general heading of ‘paralanguage’ or ‘nonverbal behaviour’. Others, such as Poyatos (2002, p. XV), identify a “basic triple structure of speech” consisting of language, paralanguage and kinesics, with paralanguage referring to nonverbal vocal cues accompanying or replacing language, and without proxemics as a separate nonverbal category. When it comes to distinguishing between the different nonverbal nonvocal cues, still other researchers identify kinesics, proxemics and haptics (the use of touch).
There may be overlap between these components of nonverbal behaviour. Therefore, in order not to overcomplicate matters, in the presentation, analysis and discussion of my findings in this thesis, when it comes to the extralinguistic behaviour of the participants, I (only) distinguish between paralinguistic features on the one hand and kinesic features on the other.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have laid the foundations for the analyses of the data which I have gathered. The process of data collection was elucidated and it was discussed how the communicative context and discursive behaviour (in terms of speech functions, discourse strategies, linguistic realisations and nonverbal behaviour) are conceived of and will be analysed in this thesis. After presenting
background information about the department in chapter 3, I will present and discuss my findings in chapters 4 and 5, respectively.
3.
The department: background information
3.1 Mission and organisation
Team A is part of a larger public-sector department which occupies itself with attempting to acquire job openings from employers and to subsequently match these vacancies with jobseekers on benefits. This mission requires the department to collaborate with other, internal departments and with affiliated external organisations. The department consists of 8 teams in total, which all specialise in either a set of specific economic sectors or in a specific target group of jobseekers on benefits. Team A specialises in unemployed jobseekers7 who are mentally and/or physically disabled. The
department is managed by 6 team managers and 1 departmental manager.
The department is the result of a collaboration between 8 regional municipalities, 1 national public-sector organisation and 2 regional organisations which implement the Sheltered Employment Act (‘Sociale Werkvoorziening’ or ‘SW’ in Dutch). The departmental teams are ‘mixed’ in the sense that they consist of professionals who do not all work for the same organisation. Therefore, the members of one team can have many different ‘formal’ employers (e.g. a municipality or ‘SW’ organisation), but in practice, they all work for the one, same department. In total, the department
consists of about 150 workers. They do not all work in the same physical location but meet and collaborate on a regular basis.
3.2 Contextual features
I will briefly sketch the five elements of the discursive context which I distinguish in this thesis. The organisational culture of the department (and of the wider collaborating organisations) is generally collegial (in the sense of friendly and informal), egalitarian (the organisational hierarchy is of course there but usually not very manifestly performed) and collaborative (the workers are regarded as experts by their managers and have a relatively large professional freedom to offer input, make suggestions and initiate new activities, preferably working in small teams of professionals). This organisational context is expected to translate into the departmental discourse.
The conceptual context which is relevant for this thesis is the concept of the daystart meeting which was introduced by the management team in all departmental teams about 1 year ago. The ‘daystarts’ are supposed to be brief, structured, collaborative and action-oriented. Therefore, participants are supposed to conduct the meeting standing up (promoting meeting brevity and decisiveness) and follow a uniform agenda with set items such as gauging the ‘team mood’ on a three-point scale, and discussing ‘team successes’. The person chairing the meeting is either assigned by a system of rotation among the team members8 or consists on the same set of (2) people who
alternate being meeting chair. A large, mobile whiteboard is used as a visual aid to record such items as team results, projects (concerning either candidates or vacancies) and relevant events.
The relational context is constituted by the team members organisational positions and discursive activity roles (in the daystart meetings). The relevant organisational positions are those of team manager, (senior) adviser and team assistant. Most workers occupy the position of (senior) adviser. The discursive activity roles are trifold: chair, expert participant and non-expert participant (i.e. the administrative assistant). In theory, all team members should be able to perform the role of chair but in practice, only the manager and the senior advisers chair the meetings.
The physical context of the meetings is in all cases the departmental office building. Specific relevant features of the physical context are mentioned in sections 4.1 and 5.1.
The immediate discursive context can, by its very nature, only be part of the full transcripts in the appendices to this thesis and in the examples in chapters 4 and 5.
8 In practice, some are effectively excluded based on their position (i.e. the team assistant) and/or due to their
4.
Presentation of findings
In this chapter, I present and evaluate my findings for the two daystart meetings of team A which I have recorded on video. The outline of this chapter is the following. In section 4.1, I describe the features of the communicative context which are specific to this team and their 2 daystart meetings. After some general information about these 2 meetings (section 4.2), I present in section 4.3 how the senior advisers and the manager discursively perform their professional identities in terms of (the negotiation between) their respective organisational positions and discursively activity roles. I do so by selecting relevant examples from the daystart meeting transcripts, and describing and evaluating the speech functions, discourse strategies, linguistic forms, and nonverbal (i.e. paralinguistic and kinesic) behaviour of the three participants in question.
In section 4.3, I distinguish between the discursive behaviour of the two senior advisers, who each chair a meeting, and the manager. This twofold distinction is based on the fact that the
negotiation between positions and roles is not the same for these three participants. Firstly, the two chairpersons (i.e. the two senior advisers) have to juggle being meeting chair and expert participant at the same time. Secondly, in their role of meeting chair, they have to discursively ‘manage’ their manager, who is (supposed to be) a mere expert participant during the daystarts. Conversely, the manager has to negotiate his position as ‘the boss’ before and after but not during the daystarts; he performs the role of expert participant during the meetings and is, per the daystart concept, not in charge of the proceedings.
In the concluding subsection (4.4) the findings are briefly summarised. They are further discussed in chapter 5.
4.1 Specific contextual features
Team A’s first and second interactions have the following three specific or ‘marked’ features of context. The other two features, i.e. organisational and immediate discursive context, do not deviate from what was mentioned in section 3.2.
The physical context: the meeting location is the large, open-plan office pantry. The meeting participants are in a corner of the pantry, seated in a semi-circle around so-called ‘flexible work spaces’ (i.e. a long table with computers, screens and keyboards on it) with the chair person standing before them. Directly behind the chairperson, there is a large, mobile whiteboard. Many office workers walk to and from the coffee machine throughout the day, passing by the daystart meeting once or twice on their coffee run. They are not always quiet passers-by: even when they notice that a
meeting is in progress, conversations among coffee-grabbing co-workers are usually conducted at a fairly high volume. The daystart meetings of team A thus generally come with a lot of background noise. It is unclear to what extent the participants are able to follow and contribute to the
discussions taking place during the meetings.
The conceptual context deviates from the ‘official’ design of the daystart meetings (which take place twice a week) in the sense that, with the exception of the chair persons, the participants remain seated throughout the meeting where they are supposed to conduct the meeting standing up. Also, team A’s agenda set-up deviates in the sense that whereas the other teams mainly report on ongoing projects or other activities, team A attempts to realise matches between job-seeking candidates and vacancies, preferably on the spot. This means that some of the ‘regular’ topics on the agenda are usually skipped (e.g. gauging the ‘team mood’ on a three-point scale) and are replaced by other topics (i.e. introducing candidates or vacancies). Importantly, whereas attendance (for all team members) is mandatory in the other teams in the department, the members of team A only attend the daystart meetings when they deem it necessary, which is based entirely on their own, subjective professional judgement. As a consequence, some members of team A, most of whom are non-senior advisers, never attend these meetings.
Finally, the relational context of team A’s daystarts is marked in that external participants can, and do, attend the meetings. As a rule, these external advisers work for affiliated organisations supporting mentally and/or physically disabled jobseekers on benefits in finding employment. 4.2 General information
In the first daystart meeting which was recorded (duration: 37:52 minutes), 6 participants are present. The role of chair is fulfilled by Alice9, a senior adviser. She chairs the daystarts on a very
regular basis. The manager, Rocco, is also present for this meeting but he only occasionally attends the daystarts and, as a rule, does not chair these meetings. The other participants are advisers from the department itself (Leo and Mandy), an external adviser from an affiliated organisation (Ines) and an administrative assistant (Eddy). With the exception of Eddy, all participants are experts in their field. Alice not only chairs the meeting but, as a senior expert, also actively participates in the transactional business at hand.
In the second daystart meeting (duration: 47:13 minutes), 8 participants are present. The role of chair is fulfilled by Ron, a senior adviser. He also very regularly chairs the daystarts. Manager Rocco is again present for this meeting. The other participants are advisers from the department
itself (Peter, Boy and Mandy), external advisers from an affiliated organisation (Magda and Heloise), and administrative assistant Eddy. With the exception of Eddy, all participants are experts in their field. Ron not only chairs the meeting but, as a senior expert, also actively participates in the transactional business at hand.
4.3 Performance of professional identity in the context of the daystart meetings
This section focuses on how senior advisers Alice and Ron and manager Rocco discursively negotiate their organisational positions and (versus) their discursive activity roles. In each subsection, focusing on a specific participant, illustrative examples are presented, described and evaluated. For Alice and Ron, two examples are presented. Rocco features in one of Alice’s examples and in one of Ron’s, and in both examples, Rocco essentially displays the same discursive behaviour. In order to illustrate another discursive side of him, an additional third example for Rocco is presented.
For every example, a description is given of what occurs objectively, in terms of speech functions, discourse strategies and linguistic utterances. Paralinguistic and kinesic behaviour is also indicated. The evaluation following each description concerns my interpretation of the discursive goings-on in the example in question. The evaluations focus specifically on the participants’ discursive negotiation of organisational position versus discursive activity role, i.e. on their performance and construction of their professional identities. These evaluations, as my ‘actual’ findings, are further discussed in chapter 5.
As stated in chapter 2, the examples from the transcripts are rendered in the original Dutch, with English glossing directly below. Every example is first introduced by a brief description of the context in which the discussion in question takes place.
4.3.1 Alice and Ron: chairpersons and senior advisers 4.3.1.1 Alice
Alice is a very experienced senior adviser in this team and in the department. She chairs the daystart meetings on a weekly basis and even more often when circumstances demand it. In the first
example, the main focus is on her interaction with manager Rocco. The second example focuses mainly on Alice’s interaction with (non-senior) adviser Mandy.
Example 1, from daystart 1 (p. 64. appendix 1)
Context: Meeting chair Alice has only just arrived at the meeting location. She stands in front of the whiteboard facing me as I adjust the camera so it captures her and the other participants. When I give her the green light, she turns right to the participants who are sitting in front of her, looks at them and opens the daystart meeting. At this point, only Alice, Rocco, Eddy and Ines are present. The other participants arrive sometime after the exchange which is presented below.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALICE ROCCO ALICE INES ALICE ROCCO
[nervous facial expression and other physical behaviour]
Nou eeeh nu is een beetje de vraag, kijk, omdat die camera d’r is Well uuum now is a little bit the question, look, because that camera there is worden we tuurlijk toch wel door beïnvloed eh, omdat als ze- één ding are we of course DM DM by influenced um, because if she- one thing is vooral aan jou, van waar jij behoefte aan hebt, wat je graag wil. is mainly to you, like where you need to have, what you very much like. [questioning look towards Ines, nodding at her]
‘Well uuuuhm it is sort of the question now, you see, because the camera is here we are of course influenced a little bit um because if she- one thing for you especially, where your need lies, what you would like’.
[looks at Alice, neutral tone of voice, relatively low volume, arms and legs crossed] Daar gaan we maar mee beginnen dan.
There go we DM with start then. ‘That’s what we should start with then’.
Ja dus want eh het is natuurlijk vooral-vooral dat we ook met elkaar dingen Yes thus because um it is of course mainly-mainly that we also with each other things delen- [looks at Ines]
share-
‘Yes so because um it is of course mainly- mainly that we also share things with each other-’
Ja, ja. Yes, yes.
-en wat jij vandaag wil halen. [looks at Ines] -and what you today want to get.
‘-and what you would like to get out of this today.’
[looks at Alice, nods at her, unfolds his arms, briefly points at Alice then brings right hand to his cheek and mouth as he speaks, soft-spoken, neutral tone]
En ik zal zo- ik-ik zal zometeen nog wel even tijd voor wat input- And I will moment- I-I will momentarily DM DM DM time for some input- ‘And I will in a minute- I will in a minute or so [make?/ need?] time for some input.’
10 11 12 ALICE ROCCO ALICE
(NA) [questioning tone] -ja, ja.
-yes, yes.
Ja, ja, okee. [looks at Rocco, speaks somewhat softly] Yes, yes, OK.
NA = not audible [ ] = remarks by author - = interrupted speech DM = discourse marker Description
As chair, Alice is expected to open the meeting, which she effectively does by issuing the prophetic ‘disclaimer’ that the camera will have an effect on the proceedings (lines 1-2). Mid-sentence in line 2, Alice switches topic and engages in the discourse strategy of setting the agenda. She addresses external adviser Ines and, indirectly, asks her to indicate which topics she (Ines) would like to discuss (lines 2-3). Rocco intervenes In line 4 by effectively deciding what the first item on the meeting agenda will be. Alice agrees with his decision (“Ja”, line 5) and then continues addressing Ines by elaborating on the raison d’être of the daystart meetings (lines 5-6) and by re-emphasising that she (Ines) should indicate what it is that she has come to the meeting for, so she (Ines) can get the most out of it (line 8). In line 9, Rocco decides to intervene again in the line-up of the topics to be
discussed and Alice again sanctions his move (“Ja, ja, okee”, line 12).
In Alice’s linguistic realisations, we find multiple hesitation markers (e.g. “eeeh”) and discourse markers (i.e. “nou”, “kijk”, toch wel” in line 1). The discursive functions of these Dutch discourse markers is not the same in all contexts. In this case, they appear to signal, respectively, the ‘official’ start of the meeting (”nou”), an elaboration on a particular topic (“kijk”) and mitigation (“toch wel”). Alice also repeats herself a number of times, either by repeating the same word (“vooral-vooral”, line 5) or similar words (“dus want”, line 5) or by delivering a similar message twice (line 3: “van waar jij behoefte …. graag wil” and line 8: “wat jij vandaag wil halen”). Alice also switches topic mid-sentence in line 2, when she first talks about the camera effect and then addresses Ines directly to invite her to indicate what she (Ines) would like to discuss today. Alice’s linguistic forms are also not always entirely grammatical (e.g. line 2: “omdat die camera er is worden we tuurlijk toch wel door beïnvloed”) or at least semantically marked (e.g. line 3: “één ding is vooral aan jou”). Finally and simply, Alice uses many words to get her point across; her circumlocution is evidenced by her invitations to Ines in lines 2-3 and in lines 5-6 and 8).
Alice’s verbal utterances signal linguistic politeness. The most prominent example is her concern with Ines’ discursive welfare (e.g. line 3’: “…vooral aan jou … wat je graag wil”). These
utterances can be regarded as examples of a positive politeness strategy in the sense that Alice wants to make sure that Ines feels included in the team, and she even puts her centre-stage on the meeting agenda. It might also be argued that these utterances signal negative politeness because Alice apparently wants to make sure that Ines’ attending the meeting will be worth her (Ines’) while (i.e. that the team does not unduly impose on Ines’ time and energy). Alice’s paralinguistic behaviour supports or ‘colours’ her linguistic behaviours. At the start of the meeting, when Alice expresses her expected ‘camera effect’ on the meeting, her face looks tense and her eyes dart from one participant to another. Alice then turns her gaze towards Ines and keeps looking at her intently while addressing her. When Rocco addresses Alice in lines 4 and 9, she also looks at him. In this example, in terms of movement, Alice does not move around much: she remains standing in the same spot and does not gesticulate much. She speaks at a relatively low volume and somewhat monotonously (i.e. no marked intonation, pitch or stress patterns). There are also no significant pauses in her speech.
Evaluation
In this example, Alice performs the role of meeting chair, as is expected from her in the daystart concept. For example, she opens the meeting and takes charge in deciding what should be put on the meeting agenda (by asking Ines to offer topics to be discussed). She, as the meeting ‘host’, also seems to feel responsible for making sure that Ines, an external guest to the meeting, will get what she has come to the meeting for (i.e. input, feedback, et cetera). However, it seems fair to say that in this example, Alice’s discursive style is not very assertive. The camera seems to have a profound effect on her, in the sense that it seems to make her very nervous. Not only does she verbalise this in line 2 but her linguistic and nonverbal (paralinguistic and kinesic) behaviour confirm this. Her
utterances are sprinkled with hesitation markers, discourse makers and repetitions, which make Alice indeed appear somewhat insecure and/or nervous. This impression is further supported by her ‘wordy’ (i.e. long-winded) and occasionally incoherent or ungrammatical verbal expressions. Alice’s paralinguistic and kinesic behaviour is in line with her linguistic behaviour: she has a nervous facial expression, seems almost ‘frozen’ in her movements and speaks in a somewhat subdued manner. Her intent gaze at Ines while she (Alice) speaks also lend Alice’s words an air of (heavy) ‘seriousness’. Possibly, Alice’s general air of nervousness and/or insecurity triggers Rocco to intervene in her ‘chair power’ twice. As chair, Alice does not challenge Rocco’s ‘doing manager power’: both times, she immediately concedes to his suggestions in terms of the set-up and order of the meeting agenda. Of course, we cannot know what she would have done had the camera not been there. Rocco being her manager and therefore her superior in the organisational hierarchy, chances are
that she would not have overruled Rocco (or have attempted to do so) then either, despite her role as meeting chair. On the other hand, Rocco would not have had to intervene if Alice had not been so camera conscious and, hence, nervous.
In sum, Alice does attempt to perform her discursive activity role as meeting chair, as evidenced by some of her discourse strategies. On the other hand, her organisational position as senior adviser promotes her choice to comply with her manager’s wishes. However, Alice’s nervous reaction to the camera’s presence may have prompted Rocco’s interventions in her chair power and/or Alice’s lack of contestation of these interventions.
Example 2, from daystart 1 (p. 64. appendix 1)
Context: The team discusses several job openings that are still posted on the whiteboard; no
candidates have been found yet to fill these vacancies. Alice and the others discuss the particulars of the job openings in terms of working hours, profiles of candidates for these jobs, and contact persons. The participants are in the middle of an update, given by Alice, about job openings with a rather large company. Alice suggests that these vacancies be removed from the whiteboard because Rocco, she and another colleague (not present at this meeting) are in the middle of designing a different arrangement for this company. Rocco is the departmental contact person for this company.
1 2 3 4 5 ALICE MANDY ALICE MANDY
[alternates between wiping texts from the whiteboard and looking at the participants, reporting tone of voice, nodding]
Daarom. Dus daar zijn we over in gesprek, Rocco is daarover in gesprek Therefore. Thus there are we about in conversation, Rocco is about that in conversation dus daar moeten we eventjes-
so there must we DM-
‘Exactly. That’s why we are talking about it with them, Rocco is talking about that with them so we have to-‘
Nieuwe haarkleur, hè? [to a female colleague passing by] New hair colour, right?
[looks at Mandy, stern tone of voice, nodding and repeatedly pointing her whiteboard marker towards the floor]
Maria- eh, Mandy! Je zit hier! Maria- uh, Mandy! You sit here!
[laughs, apparently incredulous or insulted]
‘Maria- uh, Mandy! You are sitting here with us now!’
Sorry. Er komen te veel mensen aan. [somewhat softly, apologetic tone] Sorry. There come too many people on.
