1887
Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The study examines how interactivity is constructed in the course of multi-person interaction in a semi-informal educational context. The audio-recordings of seven meetings of a female discussion club in Belarus and their transcripts serve as interactional data. The club was organized with a goal of providing a platform for females to engage in intellectual discussions in an informal setting. The study takes the communication design approach and uses discourse analysis. The analysis of the audio recordings and the transcripts is guided by the following question: how the participants’ use of linguistic and interactional resources contributes to the construction of a meeting. The particular attention is paid to the facilitator’s communicative actions to shape interaction and their local context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00024.vas
2018-11-02
2019-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2003 “Neither Naïve nor Normative Reconstruction: Dispute Mediators, Impasse, and the Design of Argumentation”. Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning17: 265–290.10.1023/A:1025112227381
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2007 “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs74:112–117. 10.1080/03637750701196383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196383 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aakhus, Mark and Alena L. Vasilyeva
    2008 “Managing Disagreement Space in Multiparty Deliberation.” InControversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 197–214. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.6.13aak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.6.13aak [Google Scholar]
  4. Asmuß, Birte and Jan Svennevig
    2009 “Meeting Talk: Introduction.” Journal of Business Communication46: 3–22. 10.1177/0021943608326761
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608326761 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbour, Joshua B. and Rebecca Gill
    2014 “Designing Communication for the Day-to-Day Safety Oversight of Nuclear Power Plants.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42: 168–189. 10.1080/00909882.2013.859291
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.859291 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barske, Tobias
    2009 “Same Token, Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions, and Ok in German Business Meetings.” Journal of Business Communication46: 120–149. 10.1177/0021943608325748
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325748 [Google Scholar]
  7. Black, Laura W. and Anna Wiederhold
    2014 “Discursive Strategies of Civil Disagreement in Public Dialogue Groups.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42: 285–306. 10.1080/00909882.2014.911938
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.911938 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boden, Deirdre
    1994 “The Business of Talk. Organizations in Action.” Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  9. Clifton, Jonathan
    2009 “Beyond Taxonomies of Influence: “Doing” Influence and Making Decisions in Management Team Meetings.” Journal of Business Communication46: 57–79. 10.1177/0021943608325749
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325749 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deppermann, Arnulf, Reinhold Schmitt, and Lorenza Mondada
    2010 “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 1700–1718. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, Paul and John Heritage
    1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gillispie, Jesse and Janet H. Chrispeels
    2008 “Us and Them: Conflict, Collaboration, and the Discursive Negotiation of Multishareholder Roles in School District Reform.” Small Group Research39: 397–437. 10.1177/1046496408319877
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408319877 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    1983 “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review48: 1–17. 10.2307/2095141
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  14. Harrison, Tyler R.
    2014 “Enhancing Communication Interventions and Evaluations through Communication Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42: 135–149. 10.1080/00909882.2013.825047
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.825047 [Google Scholar]
  15. Holmes, Janet, Stephanie Schnurr, and Meredith Marra
    2007 “Leadership and Communication: Discursive Evidence of a Workplace Culture Change.” Discourse and Communication1: 433–451. 10.1177/1750481307082207
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307082207 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackson, Sally and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Becoming More Reflective about the Role of Design in Communication.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42: 125–134. 10.1080/00909882.2014.882009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.882009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kangasharju, Helena
    1996 “Aligning as a Team in Multiparty Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics26: 291–319. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00051‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00051-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kangasharju, Helena and Tuija Nikko
    2009 “Emotions in Organizations: Joint Laughter in Workplace Meetings.” Journal of Business Communication46: 100–119. 10.1177/0021943608325750
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325750 [Google Scholar]
  19. Nielsen, Mie Femø
    2009 “Interpretive Management in Business Meetings: Understanding Managers’ Interactional Strategies through Conversation Analysis.” Journal of Business Communication46: 23–56. 10.1177/0021943608325752
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325752 [Google Scholar]
  20. Pomerantz, Anita and Paul Denvir
    2007 “Enacting the Institutional Role of Chairperson in Upper Management Meetings: The Interactional Realization of Provisional Authority.” InInteracting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting, ed. byFrançois Cooren, 31–51. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Praet, Ellen Van
    2009 “Staging a Team Performance: A Linguistic Ethnographic Analysis of Weekly Meetings at a British Embassy.” Journal of Business Communication46: 88–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Putnam, Linda L.
    2007 “Contradictions in the Metatalk about Feelings.” InInteracting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting, ed. byFrançois Cooren, 95–111. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sanders, Robert E.
    2007 “The Effect of Interactional Competence on Group Problem Solving.” InInteracting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting, ed. byFrançois Cooren, 163–183. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schwartzman, Helen B.
    1989 “Chapter 5. Constructing a Meeting.” InThe Meeting: Gatherings in Organizations and Communities, 115–143. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978‑1‑4899‑0885‑8_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0885-8_5 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schoeneborn, Dennis, Steffen Blaschke, François Cooren, Robert D. McPhee, David Seidl, and James R. Taylor
    2014 “The Three Schools of CCO Thinking: Interactive Dialogue and Systematic Comparison.” Management Communication Quarterly28: 285–316. 10.1177/0893318914527000
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914527000 [Google Scholar]
  27. Sprain, Leah, Martin Carcasson, and Andy J. Merolla
    2014 “Utilizing “on Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42: 150–167. 10.1080/00909882.2013.859292
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.859292 [Google Scholar]
  28. Stevanovic, Melisa and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  29. Taylor, James R. and Daniel Robichaud
    2007 “Management as Metaconversation: The Search for Closure.” InInteracting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting, ed. byFrançois Cooren, 5–30. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Thompson, W. Travis, Frederick Steier, and Wit Ostrenko
    2014 “Designing Communication Process for the Design of an Idea Zone at a Science Center.” Journal of Applied Communication Research42: 208–226. 10.1080/00909882.2013.874570
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.874570 [Google Scholar]
  31. Tracy, Karen
    2007 “Feeling-Limned Talk: Conduct Ideals in the Steinberg Succession Meeting.” InInteracting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting, ed. byFrançois Cooren, 77–94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2015 “Identity as a Resource to Shape Mediation in Dialogic Interaction.” Language and Dialogue5: 355–380. 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016 “Confrontation and Collaboration in the Course of the Election Debate.” Language and Dialogue6: 370–394. 10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017 “Practices of Topic and Dialogue Activity Management in Dispute Mediation.” Discourse Studies19: 341–358. 10.1177/1461445617701993
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617701993 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00024.vas
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error