Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- 13 Face, Facework and Face-Threatening Acts
- 14 Relationships and Relating
- 15 Analysing Identity
- 16 (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics
- 17 Affect and Emotion
- 18 Power
- 19 Morality in Sociopragmatics
- 20 Conversational Humour
- 21 Gesture and Prosody in Multimodal Communication
- 22 Digitally Mediated Communication
- 23 Workplace and Institutional Discourse
- 24 Service Encounter Discourse
- 25 Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse
- 26 The Pragmatics of Translation
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
23 - Workplace and Institutional Discourse
from Part II - Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- 13 Face, Facework and Face-Threatening Acts
- 14 Relationships and Relating
- 15 Analysing Identity
- 16 (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics
- 17 Affect and Emotion
- 18 Power
- 19 Morality in Sociopragmatics
- 20 Conversational Humour
- 21 Gesture and Prosody in Multimodal Communication
- 22 Digitally Mediated Communication
- 23 Workplace and Institutional Discourse
- 24 Service Encounter Discourse
- 25 Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse
- 26 The Pragmatics of Translation
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
Language use in the workplace setting has become an increasingly popular area of research within sociolinguistics. The original focus of analysis was conversations between professionals and laypeople (institutional talk), quickly extending to interactions between colleagues in their everyday workplace talk (workplace discourse). The major interest throughout this expansion can be summed up as the intersection between power and politeness. In line with wider developments in pragmatics, analyses adopting a (revised) Brown and Levinsonian approach are now outnumbered by interactional and discursive approaches to politeness and, more recently, impoliteness. In parallel with theoretical advances, the research agenda has moved from the enactment of speech acts at the level of utterance (notably directives, disagreements and aspects of meeting management) to the impact of interactional context/s (especially the workplace Community of Practice) and the role of wider discourses in the negotiation of meaning making between interactants. A focus on metapragmatics and ideologies extends these concepts even further, offering the opportunity for more nuanced reflections on sociopragmatic issues. The discussion is illustrated by analyses from workplace discourse scholars, including examples from our own research carried out over the past twenty years.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 475 - 495Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Angouri, J. (2007). Language in the workplace: A multimethod study of communicative activity in seven multinational companies situated in Europe. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1565–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angouri, J. and Marra, M. (2010). Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text and Talk, 30, 615–36.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. and Marra, M. (eds.). (2011). Constructing Identities at Work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–42.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. ([1987] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. ([1972] 1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Vol. 16, Translated by Nice, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Discourse Structures across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity, evaluation and ideology. In Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. and Galasinski, D., eds., Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, N., Holmes, J., Newton, J. and Stubbe, M. (2004). Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(5), 945–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. (2014). Social communities in a knowledge enabling organizational context: Interaction and relational engagement in a community of practice and a micro-community of knowledge. Discourse and Communication, 8(4), 351–69.Google Scholar
Franziskus, A. (2013). Getting by in a multilingual workplace: Language practices, ideologies and norms of cross-border workers in Luxembourg. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Franziskus, A., de Bres, J. and Gilles, P. (2013). ‘I learnt English – the wrong thing, eh’. Power, interests and language practices among cross-border workers in Luxembourg. In Gilles, P., Koff, H., Maganda, C. and Schulz, C., eds., Theorizing Borders through Analyses of Power Relationships. Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 249–70.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester, UK: John WileyGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (2007). Social constructionism, postmodernism and feminist sociolinguistics. Gender and Language, 1(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2004). Leadership and managing conflict in meetings. Pragmatics, 14(4), 439–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, Discourse, and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2012). Politeness and impoliteness in New Zealand English workplace discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1063–76.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Vine, B. (2020). Contesting the culture order: Contrastive pragmatics in action. Contrastive Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. ([2003] 2015). Power and Politeness in the Workplace. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hui, S. Y. (2014). Analysing interpersonal relations in call-centre discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2–3), 223–48.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2006). Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 79–103.Google Scholar
King, B. W. (2019a). Communities of Practice in Language Research: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, B. W. (2019b, December). Finding ideologies in talk about talk. Paper presented at the New Zealand Discourse Conference, Wellington.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Limburg, H. (eds.). (2012). Advice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Lønsmann, D. (2011). English as a corporate language: Language choice and language ideologies in an international company in Denmark. Unpublished PhD thesis, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Marra, M. (2012). Disagreeing without being disagreeable: Negotiating workplace communities as an outsider. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1580–90.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C., eds., Embodied Interaction, Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–26.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). The multimodal interactional organization of tasting: Practices of tasting cheese in gourmet shops. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 743–69.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. and Holmes, J. (2003). Eliciting refusals: A methodological challenge. Te Reo, 46, 47–66.Google Scholar
Mullany, L. (2007). Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Murata, K. (2011). A contrastive study of the discourse of business meetings in New Zealand and Japan. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Prebble, J. (2009). A cost/benefit analysis of the Skilled Migrant programme: 2005–2008.Victoria University of Wellington Language in the Workplace Project Occasional Paper 9.Google Scholar
Riddiford, N. and Holmes, J. (2015). Assisting the development of sociopragmatic skills: Negotiating refusals at work. System, 48, 129–40.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Davies, E. and Jupp, T. (1992). Language and Discrimination. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Chan, A. (2009). Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong: A cross-cultural case study of workplace talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 131–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, S., Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2007). Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: Māori and Pākehā leaders. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 712–29.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S., Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2008). Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 211–30.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In Basso, K. H. and Selby, H. A., eds., Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2003). Managing rapport in intercultural business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese–British welcome meetings. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Van de Mieroop, D. and Schnurr, S. (eds.). (2017). Identity Struggles: Evidence from Workplaces Around the World. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vine, B. (2004). Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vine, B. and Marra, M. (2017). The Wellington Language in the Workplace Project: Creating stability through flexibility. In Marra, M. and Warren, P., eds., Linguist at Work: Festschrift for Janet Holmes. Wellington: Victoria University Press, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
Waldvogel, J. (2002). Some features of workplace emails. New Zealand English Journal, 16, 42–52.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schiefflin, B. B., Woolard, K. A. and Kroskrity, P. V., eds., Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–47.Google Scholar