1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485

Abstract

Abstract

This paper contributes to previous work on workplace registers by presenting an analysis of a corpus of virtual meetings. The Interactional Variation Online corpus is comprised of recordings of virtual meetings from four different organisations. This study describes how each organisation shares similar practices when engaging in virtual meetings and how variation emerges when each organisation is compared to the other three. Corpus results show how, to establish conclusions related to this register, it is necessary to consider the influence of variation across organisations, the chairing style of each meeting, the formality of each organisational culture and the level of participant engagement in each meeting.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25016.per
2025-12-08
2026-02-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/rs.25016.per.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25016.per&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Angouri, J. & Marra, M.
    (2010) Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk, 30(6), 615–636. 10.1515/text.2010.030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.030 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson, J. M.
    (1992) Displaying neutrality: formal aspects of informal court proceedings. InP. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp.199–211). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, P., Brookes, G. & Evans, C.
    (2019) The language of patient feedback: A corpus linguistic study of online health communication. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429259265
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259265 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N.
    (1995) Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berry, G. R.
    (2006) Can computer-mediated asynchronous communication improve team processes and decision making? Learning from the management literature. Journal of Business Communication, 43(4), 344–366. 10.1177/0021943606292352
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943606292352 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. & Egbert, J.
    (2023) What is a register? Accounting for linguistic and situational variation within–and outside of–textual varieties. Register Studies, 5(1), 1–22. 10.1075/rs.00004.bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00004.bib [Google Scholar]
  8. Bleakley, A., Rough, D., Edwards, J., Doyle, P., Dumbleton, O., Clark, L., Rintel, S., Wade, V., & Cowan, B. R.
    (2022) Bridging social distance during social distancing: exploring social talk and remote collegiality in video conferencing. Human–Computer Interaction, 37(5), 404–432. 10.1080/07370024.2021.1994859
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1994859 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cao, H., Lee, C.-J., Iqbal, S., Czerwinski, M., Wong, P. N. Y., Rintel, S., Hecht, B., Teevan, J., & Yang, L.
    (2021) Large scale analysis of multitasking behavior during remote meetings. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. 10.1145/3411764.3445243
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445243 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. J.
    (2004) Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity and context. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 62–88. 10.1093/applin/25.1.62
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.1.62 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, P., & Heritage, J.
    (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. InP. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp.3–65). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew, P. & Sorjonen, M.
    (2011) Dialogue in institutional interactions. InT. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction (pp.191–216). London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446289068.n10
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n10 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fitzgerald, S.
    (2023) COVID-19 and the international baccalaureate: A computer-assisted discourse analysis of #ibscandal. British Journal of Educational Studies, 71(2), 129–148. 10.1080/00071005.2022.2056575
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2022.2056575 [Google Scholar]
  14. Greatbatch, D. & Dingwall, R.
    (1998) Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions. American Sociological Review, 62(1), 151–170. 10.2307/2657457
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2657457 [Google Scholar]
  15. Handford, M.
    (2010) The language of business meetings. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139525329
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525329 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, J.
    (1997) Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. InD. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative analysis: Issues of theory and method (pp.161–182). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. W.
    (2005) Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Holmes, J.
    (2000) Politeness, power and provocation: how humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 21, 159–85. 10.1177/1461445600002002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2015) Discourse in the workplace. InD. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.880–901). Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584194.ch41
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch41 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holmes, J. & Stubbe, M.
    (2003) “Feminine” workplaces: Stereotype and reality. InJ. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.573–599). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756942.ch25
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch25 [Google Scholar]
  21. Holmes, J., Joe, A., Marra, M., Newton, J., Riddiford, N. & Vine, B.
    (2011) Applying linguistic research to real world problems: The social meaning of talk in workplace interaction. InC. Candlin & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Handbook of communication in organisations and professions (pp.533–550). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214222.533
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214222.533 [Google Scholar]
  22. Knight, D., O’Keeffe, A., Mark, G., Fitzgerald, C., McNamara, J., Adolphs, S., Cowan, B., Fahey-Palma, T., Farr, F., & Peraldi, S.
    (2024) Indicating engagement in online workplace meetings: The role of backchannelling head nods. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 29(3), 389–416. 10.1075/ijcl.24060.kni
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.24060.kni [Google Scholar]
  23. Koester, A.
    (2010) Workplace discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lerner, G. H.
    (2003) Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201. 10.1017/S004740450332202X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X [Google Scholar]
  25. Love, R.
    (2020) Overcoming challenges in corpus construction: The spoken British National Corpus 2014. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429429811
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429429811 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mullany, L. J.
    (2006) Narrative constructions of gender and professional identities. InT. Omoniyi & G. White (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Identity (pp.157–172). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S.
    (2008) Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. InK. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (pp.69–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.178.05ok
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.178.05ok [Google Scholar]
  28. O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. J., & Carter, R. A.
    (2007) From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511497650
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497650 [Google Scholar]
  29. O’Keeffe, A., Knight, D., Mark, G., Fitzgerald, C., McNamara, J., Adolphs, S., Cowan, B., Fahey-Palma, T., Farr, F., & Peraldi, S.
    (2024) ‘We’ve lost you Ian’: Multimodal corpus innovations in capturing, processing and analysing online spoken interactions. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 1–23. 10.32714/ricl.12.02.02
    https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.12.02.02 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pickering, L., Friginal, E., & Staples, S.
    (Eds.) (2016) Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse. Springer. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑49616‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49616-4 [Google Scholar]
  31. Robinson, J. D. & Heritage, J.
    (2014) Intervening with conversation analysis: The case of medicine. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 201–218. 10.1080/08351813.2014.925658
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925658 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rühlemann, C.
    (2023) Next-speaker selection impacts speech planning: Evidence from eyetracking in the Freiburg Multimodal Interaction Corpus (FreMIC). Invited talk as part of the winter semester Ringvorlesung at the University of Cologne, Cologne Center of Language Sciences (CCLS)27 November 2023, https://ccls.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/lecture-series
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 501, 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C.
    (1999) The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings. InS. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional orders: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp.1–57). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208375.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sarkar, A., Rintel, S., Borowiec, D., Bergmann, R., Gillett, S., Bragg, D., Baym, N., & Sellen, A.
    (2021) The promise and peril of parallel chat in video meetings for work. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–8. 10.1145/3411763.3451793
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451793 [Google Scholar]
  36. Shin, Y. & Song, K.
    (2011) Role of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication time in the cohesion and performance of mixed-mode groups. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 126–139. 10.1111/j.1467‑839X.2010.01341.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01341.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2016) Reflections on the concept of discourse community. ASp. la revue du GERAS, 691, 7–19. 10.4000/asp.4774
    https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4774 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tracy, K. & Dimock, A.
    (2004) Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. InP. J. Kabfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook281 (pp.127–165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Turner, T., Qvarfordt, P., Biehl, J. T., Golovchinsky, G., & Back, M.
    (2010) Exploring the workplace communication ecology. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 841–850. 10.1145/1753326.1753449
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753449 [Google Scholar]
  41. Watson, C. & Drew, V.
    (2017) Humour and laughter in meetings: Influence, decision-making and the emergence of leadership. Discourse & Communication, 11(3), 314–329. 10.1177/1750481317699432
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317699432 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25016.per
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25016.per
Loading

Data & Media 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