Subordinates' Imperatives in a Faculty Meeting: Evidence of Social Inequality and Collegiality

Authors

Keywords:

Collegiality, Imperatives, Faculty Meeting, Social Inequality, Socio-pragmatics

Abstract

Imperatives are ubiquitous, and may be interesting to analyze when deployed by subordinates especially in an institutional talk such as faculty meetings. This paper was built on our earlier paper, where it describes the pragmalinguistic structures of Tagalog imperatives and the local academic conditions that hastened the production of subordinate’s imperatives for the chair of the meeting to do something. This paper is distinct because it reports and describes the proofs of social inequality and collegiality invoked during the meeting. Five meetings formed the corpus of this study. Drawing on the interface of Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis, results show that subordinate’s imperatives are evidence of social inequality because of the subordinate’s higher epistemic knowledge compared to the Chair of the meeting. The Chair wrestles with the subordinates through a number of exasperated prosodic and paralinguistic elements. Meanwhile, subordinate’s imperatives are evidence of collegiality with the shift to positive prosodic, paralinguistic, and embodied cues of the Chair and the subordinate. Overall, the discourse of imperatives is a depiction of the sharing of members’ power, knowledge, and other socio-pragmatic local academic conditions. There is also a push and pull of use and abuse of power and collegiality. Toward the end, we propose a longitudinal case to widen the scope and instances of imperatives.

References

Andres, T.D. (1981). Understanding Filipino values: A management approach. Quezon: New Day Publishers.

Arminen, I. (2000). On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse and Society, 11(4), 435-458.

Asmuß, B., & Svennevig, J. (2009). Meeting talk: An introduction. Journal of Business Communication, 46(1), 3-22.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bavelas, J.B, Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborate process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566-580.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Bögels, S., & Torreira, F. (2015). Listeners use intonational phrase boundaries to project turn ends in spoken interaction. Journal of Phonetics, 52, 46-57.

Brown, C., & Brown, P. (2010). English grammar secrets. Retrieved from http://grammar-teacher.com/englishgrammarsecrets.pdf

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 311-323). London: Routledge.

Chen, S., Geluykens, R., & Choi, C.J. (2006). The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic perspective. Management International Review, 46(6), 679-695.

Christie, C. (2000). Gender and language: Towards a feminist pragmatics. UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Clifton, J. (2006). Conversation analytical approach to business communication: Case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 202-219.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to case offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman: London.

Fox, B. A. (2001). An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 287-315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Fujimoto, D. T. (2007). Listener responses in interaction: A case for abandoning the term, backchannel. Osaka Jogakuin University Research Repository, 9(28), 35-54.

Gardner, R. (2004). Conversation analysis. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 262-284). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gibson, D. R. (2003). Participation shifts: Order and differentiation in group conversation. Social Forces, 81(4), 1335-1381.

Goffman, E. (1981). Footing: Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction ritual. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-19.

Gray, D., & Williams, S. (2012). Facilitating educational leadership: Using frames to increase action. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(6), 583-593.

Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K.L. Fitch & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holmes, J., Stubbe, M., & Vine, B. (1999). Constructing professional identity: “Doing power” in policy units. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 351-385). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kasper, G. (1997). Linguistic etiquette. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 374-85). Oxford: Blackwell.

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Ledesma, C.P., Ochave, J.A., Punzalan, T., & Magallanes, C. (1981). The character traits and values of selected Filipino children as described and prescribed by their teachers. Manila: Philippine of Education Society of the Philippines.

Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J.A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1278-1287.

Maemura, Y., & Horita, M. (2012). Humour in negotiations: A pragmatic analysis of humour in simulated negotiations. Group Decision Negotiation, 21, 821-838.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics and sociolinguistics. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of sociolinguistics (pp. 50-58). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Munalim, L O. (2017). Mental processes in teachers’ reflection papers: A transitivity analysis in Systemic Functional Linguistics. 3L–Language, Linguistics, and Literature: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23(2), 154-166.

Munalim, L.O., & Genuino, C.F. (2019a). Subordinate’s imperatives in faculty meetings: Pragmalinguistic affordances in Tagalog and local academic conditions. The New English Teacher, 13(2), 85-100.

Munalim, L.O., & Genuino, C.F. (2019b). “Through-produced” multiple questions in Tagalog-English faculty meetings: Setting the agenda dimension of questions. Journal of Language Art, 4(2), 105-122.

Otanes, F. T., & Schachter, P. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Palmer, D.A. & Kawakami, A. (2014). Tie formation and cohesiveness in a loosely organized group: Knitting together. The Qualitative Report, 19(81), 1-15.

Perez-Hernandez, L. (2021). Speech acts in English: From research to instruction and textbook development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pham, T.A. (2013). The influence of social distance on expression of gratitude in Vietnamese. The Internet Journal Language, Culture and Society, 36, 88-101.

Provine, R.R. (1993). Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of laughter. Ethology, 95, 291–298.

Psathas, G., & Anderson, T. (1990). The 'practices' of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78, 75-99.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939-967.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Sager, J. C., Dungworth, D., & McDonald, P. F. (1980). English special language: Principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter Verlag.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic practice, ‘discourse’ and the everyday interactional constitution of ‘power effects’. Organization, 12(6), 803-841.

Schegloff, E.A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown roundtable on languages and linguistics 1981; analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (2000). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Searle J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Vine, B. (2009). Directives at work: Exploring the contextual complexity of workplace directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1395-1405.

Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behaviour and social distance. In J. Fine (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 21-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Downloads

Published

2021-08-25

Issue

Section

Research articles