Institutional Hierarchy

http://dis.sagepub.com

Discourse Studies

DOI: 10.1177/1461445609340498 2009; 11; 515 Discourse Studies

Einav Argaman relationship

interlocutors’ embodied practices preserve a superior�subordinate Arguing within an institutional hierarchy: how argumentative talk and

http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/515 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Discourse Studies Additional services and information for

http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/5/515 Citations

at Universidad de Sevilla. Biblioteca on October 10, 2009 http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/5/515


Argaman: Arguing within an institutional hierarchy 515

Arguing within an institutional hierarchy: how argumentative talk and interlocutors’ embodied practices preserve a superior–subordinate relationship

E I N A V A R G A M A NU N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A AT L O S A N G E L E S , U S A

A B S T R A C T This article studies an argument that took place in an institutional setting and specifies six functions of talk and embodied practices employed in an argument between a superior and her subordinate. The article shows how certain argumentative conducts and their subsequent responses preserve the institutional hierarchical relationship. The article’s final section considers three resultant issues: 1) argumentative practices and their relation to various institutional hierarchies; 2) argumentative practices between people holding different versus similar hierarchical positions; and 3) the extent to which verbal defiance accompanied by embodied practices can be maintained.

K E Y W O R D S : argument, conflict, dispute, institutional hierarchy, superior–subordinate, talk and embodiment

IntroductionIn previous work Goodwin and Goodwin showed that argumentative talk is related to embodied practices (Goodwin, 1990; Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987, 1990, 2001). The word ‘OUT’, for example, uttered by a girl playing hopscotch in order to accuse her opponent of landing on a line is spoken in a ‘markedly raised pitch’ and is accompanied by visible embodied performance which dis-plays disagreement; a gestural ‘condemning finger’ pointed at the jumper whose move is the object of disapproval (Goodwin and Goodwin, 2001: 242–3).

According to Goodwin and Goodwin, streams of speech, pitch height and participants’ movements cannot function as isolated displays. When investi-gating arguments, close attention is paid (as in conversation analysis¹) to argu-ment as a sequential activity (the sequence of talk, voice and actions of one particular speaker and the details of the argumentative exchange between

A R T I C L E

Discourse StudiesCopyright © 2009SAGE Publications

(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)

www.sagepublications.comVol 11(5): 515–541

10.1177/1461445609340498



516 Discourse Studies 11(5)

interlocutors – arguments as reciprocal – the production of relevant responses to another party’s prior turn; see Sacks et al., 1974) and as ‘contextual configuration’ (Goodwin, 2000), that is, an action that is created by the simultaneous use of different sign systems (e.g. talk, gestures, prosody) that mutually elaborate one another.

Although Goodwin and Goodwin investigated the embodiment of arguments, they remain within the boundaries of mundane social interactions (girls playing hopscotch, Goodwin and Goodwin, 2001; a group of black boys preparing for a sling-shot fight, Goodwin and Goodwin, 1990). There are analysts who focus on argumentative talk in institutional settings (e.g. Saft, 2004), but studies that investigate the co-occurrences of talk and bodily manifestations of arguments in institutional contexts are somewhat lacking. Therefore, the present article aims at specifying the verbal and embodied practices (i.e. the visible body – to include posture, gestures, facial expressions and gaze, and the way in which talk is delivered – its tone, volume and prosody) employed by both superior and sub-ordinate while arguing. Focusing on the organization of talk and body, the article shows how certain argumentative conducts and their consequential responses preserve the institutional hierarchical relationship.2

The structure of the article is as follows. First, I will discuss the notion of institutional hierarchy. As the argument analyzed in the present article draws from data collected in a high-school undergoing a process of change, I will then relate to the background of the collected data and to ‘change’ as a potential con-frontational situation. Next, an analysis of an argument between a superior and her subordinate will be presented. Attention will be devoted to sequences and simultaneous occurrences of the verbal and embodied practices that constitute the argument, while focusing on their functions. Finally, I will summarize the functions of argumentative practices found in my study. As the article relates to the question ‘what constitutes an argument in an institutional setting?’ the func-tions will be considered while discussing the notion of ‘asymmetry of power’ (in view of Drew and Heritage, 1992) and orderly conversation.

Before moving on to the next section, a remark regarding the congruous con-cepts ‘argument’, ‘dispute’ and ‘conflict’ should be made. In all three concepts disagreement is the key action. Cobb-Moore et al. (2008: 587) observe that ‘dis-putes often happen over matters of ownership of physical material and space’ and revolve around the issue of ‘controlling’; other researchers link disputes to the field of legislative dealing (e.g. Engle, 1979; Menkel-Meadow, 2003). Relating to ‘conflict’, Lorenzo-Dus (2008: 81) claims that it ‘lacks all interpersonal niceties and relies instead on the performance of hostile argumentation’. According to Lorenzo-Dus, conflicts involve raised voices, overt challenges and insults, free and routine displays of anger, hatred and rage, personal attacks, shouting, aggres-sive hand gesturing and lexical items such as absolutes (e.g. ‘all’ and ‘every’), emphatics (e.g. ‘a lot’) and up-graders (e.g. ‘really’).3

Despite these statements, an attempt to delineate clear boundaries between disputes, conflicts and arguments may fail due to the range of overlaps between the concepts. The girls who play hopscotch in Goodwin and Goodwin (2001), for example, display extremely strong verbal and embodied disagreement




(e.g. using negative person descriptors such as ‘cheater’; speaking in extremely loud voices bordering on shouting; engaging in excessive gestural performance) but nonetheless show neither hostility nor hatred toward one another. To some extent the girls also controlled their opponent’s physical space. For example, by walking over to the hopscotch grid and calling ‘OUT’, they prevent the other player’s moves. Should this conduct be categorized as ‘conflict’ (as discussed by Lorenzo-Dus, 2008), ‘dispute’ (according to Cobb-Moore et al., 2008) or ‘argument’?

For the purpose of this article I will use the term ‘argument’, simply because ‘conflictual’ or ‘disputatious’ seem overly harsh in the context of the interaction I depict. This is not to say that the argument described could not have turned into a dispute or a conflict.

I will adopt Saft’s (2004: 549) definition, which regards argument as an ‘inter-actional activity that is constituted by the exchange of oppositions by two or more participants’, and will add the notion of ‘disagreement’. I will not consider argu-ment as a deliberate, premeditated activity – ‘the expression of a rationalistic pursuit of opposition’ (Hutchby, 2001: 124, my emphasis), but follow the emer-gent model as discussed by Hutchby (2001) in which arguments are regarded as unfolding evoked oppositions which are followed by some contradiction (displayed both in speech and in embodied practices).

Hierarchical relations in social institutionsIannello (1992: 15) states that the concept of hierarchy ‘define[s] or describe[s] an organizational structure based on the top-down delegation of power’. To some extent she links hierarchy to institutional settings, especially if we equate the word ‘organization’ to some kind of administrative establishment or company rather than to the act or process of organizing. Later, when Iannello discusses worker–manager relations, this connection becomes more explicit.

According to Iannello (1992) hierarchy denotes a society which is arranged according to ‘degree’. This means that some members are subject to the dom-ination of others; it also recognizes the fact that privileges and authorities are not equally distributed among all participants, although she maintains (and hence departs from the top-down course of action referred to in the previous paragraph) that this inequality may be observed in both vertical and horizontal relation-ships (i.e. hierarchies do not necessarily adhere to a pyramidal structure). Privilege and authority are not only determined by position within the institution, but also by the person holding the position (Iannello, 1992).4

Whereas Iannello relates to the official institutional post that people hold vis-a-vis their traits as individuals, Linde (1988: 62) indicates other sources of hierarchical relationships: ‘formal hierarchies of authority, hierarchies of task knowledge, hierarchies of seniority and historical information, [and] hier-archies of access to information and gossip’. Similarly, Blue and Scott (1962: 172) draw a distinction between the concepts of ‘staff ’ and ‘line’, stating that hier-archies in ‘line organizations place emphasis on differences in rank [whereas




hierarchical relations in] staff organizations direct attention to specialization’. Line and staff hierarchies resemble Linde’s formal and task-knowledge hier-archies (respectively).

Categorizing hierarchies from a different point of view, Tannenbaum et al. (1974: 2) focus on the character of hierarchies and claim that:

[The] character of hierarchy may differ from one organization to another. Some organizations are tall (having many levels) and others are flat. Some have ambiguous lines of authority and others have a clearly defined system of ranks. Some [. . .] contain a single chain of command; other [. . .] may be more complicated.

Tannenbaum et al. (1974: 2) maintain that ‘[most] if not all work organ-izations are structured hierarchically’. This is the consensual/traditional per-spective of the topic of institutional hierarchy, as is the assertion that ‘[in] hierarchical organizations, only those at the top make critical policy’ (Iannello, 1992: 118, my emphasis), although (as noted earlier) the concept of ‘hierarchy’ is currently subject to an array of interpretations.

As the present particle deals with superiority and subordination within an educational institution, in the next section I will provide the background for the argument that is analyzed. Scrutinizing the literature, I will explain why a shift in superiority that occurs as a result of a change process (as in my study, i.e. a teacher who holds an appointment of middle-manager and job descriptions that did not exist prior to the implementation of change) may result in argumen-tative conduct.

An argument between a subordinate and a superiorBACKGROUND

The argument presented in this article is based on a staff meeting at an Israeli experimental high school (which includes a junior high school) undergoing its seventh year of educational change. Drawing on a naturalistic paradigm, I conducted an ethnographic study in which I audio- and videotaped inter-views and observations over a one-year period in a systematic attempt to record the teachers’ and administrators’ discourse and practices related to their daily routine of implementing change. The argument I will analyze is part of this large corpus.

In Israel, schools selected as experimental are provided with five-year funding which enables them to develop their innovation into a model suitable for adaptation elsewhere. Consequently, the specific school under investigation collaborated with the local college and taught students (in training to become teachers) the new pedagogy that the school staff had established: a shift to a learning process in which (to use the administrators’ words) ‘the teacher enables the students to plan and conduct lessons which derive from their own knowl-edge and interests’ (learning processes that are generated by and not for the students).

The meeting described in the present article was conducted by ‘Orleen’, a new middle manager nominated by the school leadership (i.e. the school’s principal,




the junior high-school principal and the two assistant principals) to be in charge of the change process. As part of her role, Orleen was expected to coordinate all the activities regarding the school change process. She was in charge of the workshops in which the school teachers participated, and the visits of outsiders who wanted to learn how change was implemented (e.g. people from the Ministry of Education, the municipality, researchers, principals and teachers from other schools). Orleen was also responsible for the talks that various school members delivered at conferences, the traineeship of the college students mentioned earlier and she supervised the teachers within the school, in order to guarantee that the change was implemented as it was envisioned by the school leadership (she checked the extent of change implementation, i.e. that it was implemented by all teachers, and the ways in which the teachers acted in order to execute the process).

When scrutinizing the data I found that Orleen encountered arguments, many of which evolved during one particular meeting. This meeting provided instances of argumentative sequences which enabled an investigation of the issue of argumentative talk and its embodiment.

‘Emmy’ is the teacher whose argument with Orleen will be discussed in this article. Emmy drew my attention as she, unlike the other participants who were mostly silent, was relatively active at the beginning of the meeting. In addition, she exemplified overt argumentative conduct which was shown both verbally and by her embodied practices.

Except for her belonging to the group of teachers and administrators chosen to instruct the college students, Emmy had no other ‘major’ position in the context of the school change. She was also not considered as middle management, but ‘merely’ a junior high-school teacher. Hence, her position is lower than Orleen in the school’s hierarchy.

At this particular meeting Orleen held the highest institutional rank. She was the only one who had the authority to determine the meeting’s agenda; she was the one who made the final decisions; in addition, she was the only person to whom the other participants were obliged to answer. Despite the fact that an assistant principal, the junior high-school principal, a school counselor and the head of the literature department attended this meeting, and outside the meeting they were of higher or equally high institutional positions in comparison with Orleen, within the context of the meeting these participants were instructors of the college students (teaching them how change is implemented in various school disciplines), while Orleen held an administrative position as the person in charge.

As may be inferred from all that I have written so far, Orleen’s superiority is not a ‘built-in’ requisite part of the institution (as is the role of a principal, or a department head, for example). Her position, which is created in order to carry out certain tasks, responsibilities and functions during and as a direct result of specific circumstances (i.e. a change process), may come to an end once her insti-tutional role terminates – a scenario that may occur if change reaches what Fullan (1982) labels (by using synonymous terms) the phase of continuation, incorporation, routinization or institutionalization, and becomes an ongoing




part of the school system. Hence, change has a potential for argument – for example, when a shift in superiority occurs and serves as a source of disagree-ment. I will elaborate on this possibility in the following section.

CHANGE AS A POTENTIAL CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION

A clash of opinions that culminates in a defiant encounter should not always be expected as part of a change process (hence the word ‘potential’ in this section’s title). Nonetheless, it is possible that an overt disagreement will emerge during change; among the reasons for such disagreement are the psychological (confrontation as a defensive routine employed by people who experience anxiety and frustration: Piderit, 2000), the physical (e.g. a new setting that fails to address the needs of the institutional members: Eilam and Shamir, 2005; a lack of time that creates a sense of work load: Goodson et al., 2006), the social (e.g. antagonism expressed by subordinates toward their superiors) and the organizational (e.g. not including collaboration among institutional members within the change plan; creating a shift in roles without clearly defining new ones; retaining previous roles which are in discord with the new ones: Floyd and Lane, 2000).

Krüecken (2003), who studied the institutional barriers that German universities encountered while initiating and implementing change, notes that the new sub-units (created so that the universities would be able to better operate during change) and their personnel faced opposition when institu-tional members felt that incapable people were occupying the new positions. In view of Krüecken (2003) and as Orleen who participates in the analyzed argu-ment is a new middle-manager, it is possible that the overt disagreement between the interlocutors is the consequential manifestation of a struggle in which a sub-ordinate, whose subordinateness is imposed upon her, feels that the person who is suddenly positioned above her in the institutional hierarchy (i.e. Orleen) func-tions in an unsatisfactory and hence arguable way.

As Argyris (1957: 125) states, in formal institutions confrontation between parties may evolve when the ‘blue-collar worker’ refuses to accept the assump-tion that ‘[the] way to get things done is through the authority of the leader’s position’. As will be shown, Emmy (the subordinate) challenges Orleen’s decis-ions, albeit she does not dismiss the chain of command that positions Orleen as her superior (a submission that is revealed in her talk and embodied practices).

THE ARGUMENT

For the purpose of analysis I will not interpret the argument as a whole; it will be presented in its entirety in Appendix 1.5 Guided by the question ‘what con-stitutes an argument between a superior and her subordinate?’ I will relate only to relevant segments, focusing on the functions of argumentative practices, as I do not believe that the practices (e.g. talk, gestures, body posture, volume, tone of voice, prosody) should be analyzed in isolation.

Function 1: displaying lack of enthusiasm toward the other partyIn the argument under consideration, lack of enthusiasm, that is, the mani-festation of indifference or disinterest in the other party, is shown through verbal




exchanges but more explicitly through body practices. In line 20, for example, while in the midst of the argument, Emmy removes her hands from her forehead and looks at Orleen (see Figure 1). This embodied practice seemingly indicates attentiveness, but Emmy’s facial expression (i.e. eyes that are not widely open; dullness) and body posture (the support of her head with her right hand; not sitting up straight) demonstrate quite the opposite.

F I G U R E 1 .

While Emmy assumes this embodied position, she utters the acknowledgment token (‘ehm ehm’), in response to Orleen’s talk, gaze and leaning in her direction:

17 Orleen: . . . im at lemashal rotsa le-haro::t . . . if you for example want to show . . . if you for example want to show18 la- studentim, she-hem yexv::u ex at mekayemet shi’ur, for the students, that they experience how you conduct lesson, the students, that they experience how you conduct a lesson,19 ’im talmidim, ba-nose shel ehhhh shi’ur maxshevim? with pupils, on topic of ehhhh lesson computer? with pupils, on the topic of ehhhh a computer lesson?

20 Emmy: ehm, ehm ehm, ehm ehm, ehm

According to Jefferson (1985: 200), ‘ehm ehm’ shows passive recipiency, where ‘the user is proposing that [her] co-participant is still in the midst of some course of talk, and shall go on talking’. Jefferson (1985: 202) argues that passive recipiency ‘stands in contrast to [. . . an utterance] such as ‘‘Oh really’’’ (my emphasis), which actually encourages telling. By using ‘ehm ehm’ Emmy manages to express a lack of enthusiasm regarding Orleen, and when this is accompanied by her posture and facial expression (as seen in Figure 1) her overall ‘apathy’ is noticeable.

When examining the argument, it is worth noting that prior to her ‘ehm ehm’ in line 20, Emmy has already exemplified a lack of enthusiasm as manifested




through an acknowledgment token (albeit a different one; i.e. the token ‘o.k.’) in line 9. In this line, Emmy says ‘o.k.’ in response to Orleen, who allocates (in line 7) an hour and a half for each unit designed for the college students:

7 Orleen: ’al ha-yexida shelaxem. Yesh laxem sha’a va-xetsi. On the unit of yours. Have you hour and half. On your unit. You have an hour and a half.8 (0.2)9 Emmy: o.k. o.k. o.k.

Examining the conversation in lines 7–9, however, shows that it is unclear whether Emmy’s ‘o.k.’ refers to the fact that she has an hour and a half (thus agreeing with Orleen’s decision), or whether it indicates that Emmy understands that she argued with Orleen for nothing when announcing Orleen’s instructions as unclear in line 1, and asking for explanation regarding them.

The lack of enthusiasm incorporated in Emmy’s ‘o.k.’ (which is evident when listening to the recording and when taking into consideration Emmy’s bodily position, that is, a hand that covers her eyes and a body that faces downward; see Figure 2) reinforces its interpretation as an indicator of the fact that Emmy is simply no longer puzzled about the instructions she was given. In this respect, Emmy’s ‘o.k.’ does not function in the same way that ‘right’ does (when ‘right’ is equated with ‘that’s correct’; Gardener, 2001: 46), and does not express a pos-itive stance vis-a-vis Orleen.

F I G U R E 2 .

Another example of embodied indifference to the other party appears in line 19. While Orleen talks and pays close attention to Emmy (as she looks directly at Emmy and leans forward in her direction), Emmy yawns. Yawning is defined by the Webster online dictionary as: ‘An involuntary intake of breath through a wide open mouth; usually triggered by fatigue or boredom’ ([http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/], my emphasis). The collocation of Emmy’s yawning with the practices in line 20 discussed in the beginning of this section, again supports the fact that Emmy does not exhibit enthusiasm regarding Orleen’s actions.

Function 2: diminishing the aggressiveness of verbal challengesAlthough subordinates may verbally argue with their superiors, they may mitigate their verbal defiance by various practices. This mitigation is interlinked with the institutional setting within which they operate – a setting which ‘involves a reduction in the range of interactional practices deployed by participants’ due to the imbalance between the conversing parties and the sanctions that may




be applied when interlocutors digress from ‘appropriate’ behavior (Heritage, 2004: 164).

One distinct mitigating practice found in my study is a hand gesture in which the subordinate covers her eyes with one or both palms while arguing (see illustration in Appendix 1, line 1, and the intensification of the hand gesture in line 16). Emmy assumes this hand gesture for long periods (9 seconds – from line 1 to line 8, and for 10 seconds – from line 16 to line 20). Her hand remains on her forehead even when she asks Orleen a question (i.e. >Aval, ma zot omeret<, at lo omeret lanu kama zman? – But, what does it mean that you don’t tell us how much time?; line 1) and in doing so invites Orleen to engage in conversation. The fact that Emmy does not look Orleen in the eyes, transforms Emmy’s talk into something that has less audacity than it might have had if she would have claimed in a more blunt way that Orleen’s instructions are insufficient.

Accepting the notion of contextual configuration (Goodwin, 2000), it should be stated that Emmy’s covering of her eyes coincides with other practices. In line 1, for example, Emmy’s hand gesture co-occurs with a blurting out of the words (which is marked by the inward arrow that comes with the word ‘but’ – >Aval, ma zot omeret<, But what does it mean). At this point, Emmy is also looking down and positioning her body in a particular way (directing it downward and not toward the other person with whom she is speaking) – actions that diminish the aggressiveness of her talk and show submissiveness.

Similar simultaneous practices (without the hand gesture discussed in the previous paragraph) are used in lines 28–31, when Emmy claims that Orleen’s previous ruling that Emmy’s lesson will not take place in the lab (a decision that is reversed in line 28) equates a lesson in ‘playing’:

28 Orleen: Az ze KEN iiye ba-ma’abada im ze iiye tsarix. So it yes be in lab if it will be has to. So [the lesson] will indeed be in the lab if it has to. a b a. Orleen nods once.

b. Emmy lowers her eyes down to the papers. 29 Emmy: Xayav. Must. It must.30 .31 Emmy: Ein ta’am axeret le-misxakim˚ No point otherwise in playing. Otherwise there is no point in playing.

Here, again, Emmy’s head and eyes are directed downwards; she does not speak in a rapid speech rate, but lowers her voice instead.




The mitigation of talk is also done linguistically – by using tag questions. As seen in line 13 (Appendix), while Emmy’s question (Nu? aval, ehhhh, az tsarix lemale otan lo? – So? But ehhhh, then [people] should fill them, no?) may be considered inappropriate as it expresses her disagreement with the fact that Orleen does not specify how Emmy should ‘fill’ her lessons, in adding the word ‘no’ at its end Emmy indicates that she is waiting for Orleen’s confirmation. Orleen is thus granted the power of having the final say on the matter, while Emmy positions herself as her subordinate; Emmy is a ‘[player] in an exchange that [is] being given its primary shape by the action of [another person]’ (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1990: 113), and under this guise she conveys her disagreement.

Disfluency is also used to lower the intensity of talk, as seen, for example, in line 16. Repetition of the word ‘so’ (‘Az, az ma zot omeret’ – So, so what does it mean?) and phrasing her talk as a question, mitigates the fact that Emmy positions Orleen as a person whose instructions cannot be understood (and hence Emmy needs to ask for their meaning). In addition, the disfluency ‘Az, az’ (So, so) comes immediately after Orleen’s ‘BEVADA:::I’ (of course) in line 14. The comparison with this confident, loud ‘BEVADA:::I’ also makes Emmy’s words less defiant.

Disfluency that serves as a means of mitigation is also found in line 27 (Appendix 1), where Emmy openly defies Orleen, stating that she did not understand why Orleen said that her lesson would not take place in the lab and in doing so claims that Orleen’s decision is mistaken. Emmy’s refusal to accept Orleen’s decision is uttered in a low voice, and consists of prolonged syllables (i.e. ‘she::-amart’ – ‘that you said’, and ‘lo iiy:::e’ – ‘won’t be’) – a disfluency that weakens Emmy’s audacious talk. As at this point Orleen is fully attentive to Emmy’s talk and actions, it is un-likely that the prolonged syllables are signs of a speaker who is trying to synchronize or pace her vocalization with her addressee’s attention (Clark, 2002).

Function 3: demonstrating unavailabilityIn an argument one or both parties may become unavailable to their opponent(s). Although I recognize the fact that one can disagree with another person and still cooperate with him/her, as inferred from the definition of ‘argument’ and specifically from the words ‘opposition’ or ‘opponents’, unavailability is com-patible with the notion of an argument as involving unshared viewpoints or purposes. When views are not agreed upon or mutual, they may result in non-collaborative actions.

In the argument presented in this article, unavailability is exemplified in various places, one of which is in the beginning of the meeting. Orleen opens the meeting by giving instructions to the other participants about the content of the lessons in which they are supposed to teach ‘change’ to the college students. At this point her talk consists of modals and semi-modals (e.g. ‘the topic and the aim of the meeting must be defined’ – nose ha-mifgash ve-matrat ha-mifgash xayavim lihiyot mugdarim; ‘the students need to know what the purpose of the meeting is’ – ha-studentim tsrixim lada’at ma matrat ha-mifgash; ‘there should be a unit [. . .] in which the students actually experience change in your subject’ – tsrixa lihiyot yexida [. . .] she-ba ha-studentim mitnasim ba-fo’al ba-shinuyi, ba-nose shelaxem).




This talk is accompanied with a serious facial expression and a hand gesture (see Figure 3). Orleen’s palm is spread out and positioned vertically on the papers that she handed out at the beginning of the meeting and which she wrote. The papers detail the schedule for the other participants (i.e. the dates on which each of them will teach the college students). The papers also put in writing what Orleen expresses orally (i.e. that the other participants are expected to define the objective of each lesson and prepare units that will generate practical experience).

F I G U R E 3 .

The intensive use of modals along with Orleen’s embodied practices indicates that what she says is not negotiable. Orleen situates herself as the person in control (a superior who issues orders) and the others as the people who are re-quired to comply (her subordinates). The fact that at the end of her ‘monologue’ Orleen looks at the papers (the same papers her hand is placed on in Figure 3) and not at the other participants, reinforces her unavailability, as she keeps herself in an unapproachable position.

Another example of unavailability evident in the participant’s embodiment can be seen in lines 7 through 9. In these lines, Oreen clarifies the length of time allocated to the participants for each unit they design for the college students:

7 ‘al ha-yexida shelaxem. Yesh laxem sha’a va-xetsi. On the unit of yours. Have you hour and half. On your unit. You have an hour and a half. a a. Orleen’s eyes move up from the page to Emmy8 (0.2)9 Emmy: o.k. o.k. o.k.

Although Emmy produces an ‘o.k.’ in speech, and despite the fact that in line 7 Orleen shifts her gaze towards her, Emmy’s gaze is fixed on the pages (an embodied practice shown earlier in Figure 2). By looking down Emmy physically precludes contact with Orleen, thus signifying her lack of cooperation.

A third example of unavailability can be found in line 12 when Orleen takes advantage of the fact that a third party (Molly) enters the room; she makes both an explicit verbal assertion (‘Hi Molly’) and an embodied practice to indicate that the conversation on the previous topic is completed. By refusing to establish eye contact with Emmy in return for Emmy’s looking at her in line 12 (see illustration in the actual transcript), and by busying herself in preparing papers for Molly




(signaling – I am now attentive to the needs of another person, see illustration), Orleen shows through her body that she is withdrawing her availability and that she is terminating any discussion with Emmy regarding her instructions.

As the two parties are in the midst of an argument, and since the argument revolves around the notion of disagreement, Emmy refuses to work on Orleen’s exhibited inattentiveness to her. In line 16 she moves her chair closer to the desk, thus indicating that she is paying attention to Orleen; but then, Emmy, whose head should have been raised as she is now receiving an answer to her question (So, so what does it mean?; line 16), lowers her head and covers her forehead with both hands – a gesture that intensifies the one performed in line 1 (see Figure 4) and which again attends the message (with greater explicitness): ‘I am unavailable to you’.

F I G U R E 4 .

Function 4: refusing to accept the other party’s moveAlthough one party may act in a certain way, other interlocutors may not accept this move, and implicitly or explicitly oppose it. This can be seen, for example, in line 1, when Emmy refuses to become a silent participant who should be excluded from the conversation or discouraged from participating in it. Thus, she shifts from a state of recipiency to one of speakership by uttering the question: >Aval, ma zot omeret<, at lo omeret lanu kama zman? (But, what does it mean that you don’t tell us how much time?)

Despite the fact that her opponent signals her willingness to end a turn, Emmy assumes speakership again in line 13, when she does not cooperate with Orleen’s talk (‘Hi Molly’) and actions (the fact that Orleen starts preparing papers for Molly) and opens a new sequence on a topic that was discussed earlier and was supposed to have been concluded. By using the discourse marker ‘so’ (Nu), and linking the current conversation with the previous one (Nu? aval, ehhhh, az tsarix lemale otan lo? – So? But ehhhh, then [people] should fill them, no?), Emmy indicates that she still needs further explanation regarding Orleen’s instructions.

In addition, Emmy does not preserve her status as recipient, although Orleen positions her as such, in line 29. In this line Emmy responds to Orleen’s authoritative voice by lowering her eyes and focusing on the papers (see illu-stration in line 28). However, she also adds the word ‘Xayav’ (It must) and hence does not act upon the condition in line 28 (‘if it has to’), which serves as a potential sign that Orleen is concluding the sequence. Similarly, in line 31 Emmy continues with: Ein ta’am axeret le-misxakim˚ (Otherwise there is no point




in playing), despite Orleen’s ‘Yes’ (Ken) which indicates her readiness to move on to speakership (as found by Jefferson, 1985, when discussing the differ-ence between the acknowledgment tokens ‘Yes/Yeah’ and ‘Mmhm’).

A refusal to accept the other party’s moves is not exhibited solely by Emmy but also by Orleen. With regard to Emmy’s ‘o.k.’, which was discussed previously in Function 2, Orleen responds in lines 10 and 12 with a repetition (Sha//’a va-xetsi shel ’avoda – An hour and a half of work) and self-correction (Ze sha’atayim akademiyot – It’s two academic hours). In rejecting Emmy’s ‘o.k.’ possibly signing the end of a conversation, Orleen becomes the one who terminates the entire sequence of multiple actions (which began in line 1), and thus grants herself with more power than she would have had if, for example, she had only terminated a single turn constructional unit (a TCU; Sacks et al., 1974).

My final example revolves around gaze and body posture. In line 12, and as discussed previously in Function 4, Emmy establishes eye contact with Orleen. This practice, however, is in stark contrast with Orleen’s bodily disengage-ment. Orleen does not respond with similar attentiveness, but lowers her eyes and starts preparing papers for Molly (Figure 5).

F I G U R E 5 .

Function 5: disparaging the other party by displaying a negative stanceGoodwin (2007: 70–1) discusses the term ‘moral stance’ and defines it as an action that reveals to others that actors ‘can be trusted to assume the align-ments and do the [. . .] work required for the appropriate accomplishment of the collaborative tasks they are pursuing in concert with each others’’ (my emphasis). Regarding Goodwin’s definition we may argue that a negative moral stance will entail an opposite assumption: characterizing the other actor as incapable – as someone who cannot perform the work adequately. Within an argument – a situation that revolves around the notion of oppositions (in the sense of mirror-image relations, or a placement in contrast with another) – portraying the other party as lacking something which you have, seems reasonable.

The first example of attributing a negative moral stance to one’s opponent appears at the beginning of the meeting, with Orleen’s usage of modals (dis-cussed earlier in Function 3). Through the modals Orleen issues directives and hence treats the other participants as unknowing addressees (Goodwin, 1979) – as people who do not yet possess the knowledge (that she has) of the tasks that need to be accomplished. When Orleen says that ‘[T]he topic and the aim of the meeting must be defined’, she clearly tells the participants what to do; when stating that ‘the students need to know what the purpose of the meeting is’, she




implies (but does not directly say) that the participants need to do something and the students will know the meeting’s purpose as a result of this action. The participants are hence treated as people who are in need of guidance, while Orleen positions herself (the informed, knowledgeable one) on a higher rank. She relates to her audience as ‘unknowing’ despite the fact that in reality the participants are knowing recipients; they teach the college students, and their majority have been doing so for one or two consecutive years.

Ascribing a negative moral stance is also exemplified in the conversation following Orleen’s use of modals:

1 Emmy: >Aval, ma zot omeret<, at lo omeret lanu kama zman? But, what does it mean you don’t tell us how much time? But, what does it mean that you don’t tell us how much time?2 Emmy: Ani roa she-//ze murkav mi-taarixim? I see that it consists of dates? I see that it consists dates?3 Orleen: At yoda’at ma? You know what? You know what?4 =ze yaxol lihiyot bein ‘esrim da// It can be between twenty m It can be between twenty m5 Emmy: aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa6 Orleen: >Lo, lo<, l:::o No, no, no No, no, no.7 ’al ha-yexida shelaxem. Yesh laxem sha’a va-xetsi. On the unit of yours. Have you hour and half. On your unit. You have an hour and a half.

In this section, Emmy refers to the dates on which her lessons are to be given (Ani roa she-//ze murkav mi-taarixim? – I see that it consists dates, line 2). These dates are noted on the papers that Orleen handed out and therefore Emmy does not understand why Orleen does not say ‘how much time’ because Orleen actually does. Orleen, on the other hand, speaks about the length of a unit (’al ha-yexida shelaxem – On your unit, line 7) and not about the date on which each unit is supposed to take place.

Although both speakers are talking about ‘time’, and in this sense Orleen produces talk (in lines 3–4) that is related to Emmy’s talk, Orleen does not act upon Emmy’s ‘it consists of dates’ (my emphasis), but rather skip-connects it (to use Sacks’s terminology, 1992: 349) and refers to another ‘time’ – the length of a unit. Vis-a-vis the issue of negative moral stance, in skip-connecting Emmy’s talk Orleen positions Emmy as less than a fully effective agent. Emmy is con-sidered as someone who cannot produce ‘important’ talk and may therefore be ignored or ‘skipped’. The fact that Orleen’s skip-connecting is performed together with overlaps, which, Jefferson (1984) argues, are not ‘a matter of ‘‘people just not listening to each other’’, but quite the contrary, a matter of fine-grained




attention’, renders Orleen’s dismissal of Emmy and positioning her as irrele-vant, even more conspicuous.6

A moral stance can also be seen in lines 13 and 14, when Emmy asks (immediately after Orleen’s explanation regarding the length of time that should be allocated to each teaching unit):

13 Emmy: Nu? aval, ehhhh, az tsarix lemale otan lo? So? But, ehhhh, then should fill them not? So? But ehhhh, then [people] should fill them, no?To this question Orleen answers:14 Orleen: BEVADA:::I Of course Of course

Orleen’s definite ‘BEVADA:::I’ (of course), stands in opposition to Emmy’s hesitation, which is expressed in her tag question. Moreover, the word ‘BEVADA:::I’ with its prosody, denotes what Emmy says (i.e. that she will need to ‘fill’ her lessons) as inappropriate and overly straightforward. In using ‘BEVADA:::I’, however, Orleen also shifts from relating to what Emmy says to the description of the kind of person Emmy is. She stops addressing Emmy’s talk, and begins to relate to her character, challenging her competence as the person producing that talk, and positioning Emmy in a relatively lower status (the status of a per-son who lacks the qualifications required for understanding what is involved in something as simple as filling a lesson).

Responding to Orleen’s ‘BEVADA:::I’, Emmy asks an additional question (’Az, az ma zot omeret’ – So, so what does it mean?, line 16). In repeating a question that she has already asked (as ‘what does it mean’ duplicates the previous ‘what does it mean’ in line 1), Emmy is the one who now attributes a negative moral stance to her opponent. As Emmy’s question contradicts the ‘BEVADA:::I’ (of course) which Orleen uses in line 14 to suggest that her instructions are self-explanatory and obvious, it evokes a picture of Orleen as incompetent. This is the exact same move that Orleen performed vis-a-vis Emmy, but its direction is now reversed (i.e. from Emmy to Orleen). Due to its cut-off, however, Emmy’s negative moral stance is lower in intensity in comparison with Orleen’s ‘of course’. In addition, it is Orleen who originally carried out that move; Emmy disparages Orleen, while presenting her as an ineffectual player who produces useless actions, only after Orleen has done the same earlier.

Function 6: preserving and resuming control and powerIn the introduction to this article I cited Cobb-Moore et al. (2008), who maintain that disputes revolve around the issue of ‘controlling’. Taking this assertion as my point of departure, I argued that the attempt to differentiate between ‘disputes’ and ‘arguments’ is inappropriate due to the blurred boundaries of the two concepts. The fact that argumentative practices may well revolve around the notion of control and power will be exhibited in my final examples.

In Orleen and Emmy’s argument, issues of control are embodied (inter alia) in a physical object – the papers that Orleen wrote, in which she details the schedule for the other participants and her expectations (i.e. that the participants will




define the objective of each lesson and prepare units that will generate practical experience). In line 1, immediately after she uses the restrictive preposition ‘but’ that displays a difference of opinion (‘But what does it mean you don’t tell us how much time’) and while searching through Orleen’s pages for information, Emmy turns a page. In line 6, Orleen responds to Emmy’s action by reversing it and turning back the same page. This action is an authoritative act in which Orleen interferes with what Emmy does, correcting Emmy’s action and in so doing determines (for Emmy) the ‘right’ place to look. This act also constitutes a direct contrast to Emmy’s previous action (of turning the page) and in this respect it is a form of opposition in the sense of resistance or objection.

The turning of the page is also accompanied by multiple sayings ‘>Lo, lo<, l:::o’ (No, no, no), which were found to signify that an in-progress course of action should be stopped (Stivers, 2004). In repeating this unit of talk (the word ‘no’) and by turning back the pages, Orleen denotes that ‘the entire preceding course of action [is] unwarranted and should not be pursued further’ (Stivers, 2004: 280). Through the two actions Orleen frames Emmy’s upcoming actions (and Emmy indeed aligns accordingly, saying ‘o.k.’ in line 9); in so doing Orleen preserves her position as the person who has power to control other people.

The same papers in which Orleen details what constitutes the actions of the other participants and hence assumes her authority, are again invoked in line 24, when Orleen, who finishes a ‘monologue’ (thus positioning herself as the sole producer of speech, with the exception of Emmy’s ‘ehm ehm’ in line 20), cups her palm and then positions it on the papers, remaining in this position until line 31, even when there is a change in speakership. Using a semi-modal ‘need to’ – tsrixim (Hem tsrixim la’asot et ze – They need to do it; line 24), which is uttered at the same time she cups her palm, strengthens the interpretation of the cupped palm (placed on the papers) as an embodied manifestation of Orleen’s attempt to conjure her authority and power.

Orleen’s attempt to exercise authority over other people, and Emmy in particular (as she is involved in an argument with her), is also linguistic – she uses a condition and employs a partial repetition. Hence, in lines 26–7, when Emmy bluntly attacks Orleen while stating that she does not understand her decision, Orleen adopts an assertive tone in response:

26 ve- biglal ze ani lo kol kax hevanti gam˚ and because it I not that much understand also and because of it I also did not understand that much27 she::-amart she-ze lo iiy:::e˚ ba-ma’abada↑ that you said that it won’t be in lab that you said that it won’t be in the lab28 Orleen: Az ze KEN iiye ba-ma’abada im ze iiye tsarix. So it yes be in lab if it will be has to. So it will indeed be in the lab if it has to.

She seemingly retreats from her previous decision, stating that the lesson will indeed take place in the lab (Az ze KEN iiye ba-ma’abada, line 28), but adds a condition – ‘if it has to’ (im ze iiye tsarix). By using a conditional phrase Orleen reserves the right to determine whether the lesson will be conducted in the lab




or not. This is a specific practice of sign use which shows that Orleen is declaring her authority and power.

When Orleen utters ‘Az ze KEN iiye ba-ma’abada’ (So it will indeed be in the lab) in line 28, she recites Emmy’s prior utterance in line 27: ze iiye ba-ma’abada (‘it will be in the lab’), albeit omitting the negative word lo that Emmy uses (ze lo iiye ba-ma’abada – ‘it won’t be in the lab’; my emphasis). Partial repetition of prior talk was found to ‘[occur] in a variety of conversational activities including disagreements [. . .]. In these activities [. . .] the partial repetition is used to locate a trouble source in another’s talk’ (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1990: 207). The ‘trouble source’ in our case is Emmy’s demand to conduct her lesson in the lab – a place that Orleen regards as unsuitable. In using partial repetition Orleen shows that she and Emmy do not share the same standpoint. However, through her selective use of Emmy’s previous talk Orleen is also able to imply that she has power (i.e. the power to decide which part of Emmy’s discourse is, or is not, important).

DiscussionThis article studied argumentative practices. The analysis showed that inter-locutors apply both verbal and embodied conducts to indicate that they are not only arguing, but are arguing within the boundaries of an institutional setting.

The article marks six functions fulfilled by talk and embodied practices in institutional arguments: 1) displaying a lack of enthusiasm toward the other party; 2) diminishing the aggressiveness of verbal challenges; 3) demonstrating unavailability; 4) refusing to accept the other party’s move; 5) disparaging the other party by displaying a negative stance; 6) preserving and resuming control and power. The practices discussed within the different functions are carried out simultaneously; rather than merely disassembling a particular move (i.e. an argument) into separate components (e.g. the words spoken during it, the volume of speech, the gestures), the present article considers the complexity of this move (to recall Goodwin’s ‘contextual configuration’, 2000), showing how different signs that the participants regard as relevant to the organization of their argument co-occur in it and by this concurrence shape its meaning.

Drew and Heritage (1992) state that institutional interactions are often char-acterized by asymmetries between participants in terms of the range of options for action that are available to different interlocutors; the more participants are considered lay parties in the conversation in terms of the access they have to institutional knowledge or the right to knowledge, organizational routines and procedures (a laity that will put them in a subordinate position), the more the opportunities open for them to act upon are reduced. With regard to the present paper’s topic, it seems that the ability to argue may be included in the options for action that Drew and Heritage discuss.

Corresponding with Drew and Heritage (1992), some of the argumentative functions discussed in the article were found to be solely associated with one




of the two participants. ‘Diminishing the aggressiveness of verbal challenges’, for example, was performed by the subordinate and not by her superior; on the other hand, ‘preserving and resuming control and power’ was executed only by Orleen – the person who holds the higher institutional position. There are also functions that were carried out by both participants, but largely reside in the domain of one of them. ‘Disparaging the other party by displaying a negative stance’, for example, was largely exhibited by Orleen; in the single occurrence when Emmy does display a negative stance vis-a-vis Orleen, her action is less intensive and is only produced after Orleen (the superior) carried out the move earlier.

Hence, there is an overt imbalance in the actions of the two participants and this asymmetry (to use Drew and Heritage’s term, 1992) is conducted in an orderly manner. In the argument discussed in the present paper, there is a working consensus whereby ‘the public keeping of place is the rule’ (Goffman, 1959: 169, my emphasis). This consensus is appropriate to the institutional setting within which the interlocutors operate, that is, a formal, bureaucratic institution. The argument’s orderly manner is also evident when examining who initially interrupts who (it is the superior who cuts-off the subordinate, and not vice versa) and who generally has the power to end an argumentative sequence (i.e. Orleen) and cause the other (i.e. Emmy) to realign as a recipient.

The institutional hierarchy in the Orleen–Emmy relationship is therefore preserved throughout their argument and revealed in their argumentative practices. These practices lead to (at least) three interesting questions. First, following Linde (1988: 62), who indicates the existence of different kinds of hierarchies, we may ask which hierarchies are preserved: ‘formal hierarchies of authority, hierarchies of task knowledge, hierarchies of seniority and his-torical information, hierarchies of access to information and gossip’? In the present article it appears that apart from the hierarchy of seniority (resulting from the fact that Orleen has just assumed her middle-manager position) all other hierarchies are preserved. Therefore, it may be thought-provoking to explore whether there are specific argumentative practices, and functions that these practices bring into being, that are linked to a particular hierarchy, and the extent to which each hierarchy is preserved (i.e. whether the embodied practices show a specific hierarchy, or hierarchies, that are more significant than others).

Second, and due to the fact that the practices and functions listed in the present article were found in a specific argument that took place between spe-cific interlocutors, we may ask if what was found between people holding dif-ferent hierarchical positions will also be found in peer relationships.

Finally, thought may be devoted to the fact that Emmy managed to verbally defy Orleen under the guise of embodied practices, and question the extent of such practices: can we verbally be as argumentative as we wish (to the point that we boldly argue with our superiors), just as long as our body and/or actions show submissiveness? This latter question leads to a series of questions. We may ask, for example, the boundaries of such practices, and does the reverse also apply (i.e. producing defiant actions with submissive talk)?.




At this point I do not have the answers to these questions. Nonetheless, the importance of the present paper resides in the fact that it brings these questions to the forestage for further consideration. More importantly (and as previously mentioned), the present paper develops an analysis that relates to the mixture of argumentative practices. Investigating these simultaneous practices in an institutional setting – a somewhat neglected research topic – makes the article’s insights significant.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

The author would like to express her deep gratitude to Professor Charles Goodwin for his constructive reading of this article and helpful comments. The author would like to extend her gratitude to the anonymous reader for his/her valuable feedback.

A P P E N D I X

A P P E N D I X 1 . The argument in its entirety

1 Emmy: >Aval, ma zot omeret<, at lo omeret lanu kama zman? But, what does it mean you don’t tell us how much time? But, what does it mean that you don’t tell us how much time? a b c

a. Emmy’s hand moves to cover her eyes; her body faces downward. b. Emmy holds the papers Orleen handed out. Emmy turns a page, searching for information. c. Orleen turns to look at Emmy. 2 Emmy: Ani roa she-//ze murkav mi-taarixim? I see that it consists of dates? I see that it consists dates? 3 Orleen: At yoda’at ma? You know what? You know what? 4 =ze yaxol lihiyot bein ’esrim da// It can be between twenty m It can be between twenty m 5 Emmy: aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa 6 Orleen: >Lo, lo<, l:::o No, no, no No, no, no. a




a. Orleen grabs the papers Emmy is holding and turns them over. 7 ’al ha-yexida shelaxem. Yesh laxem sha’a va-xetsi. On the unit of yours. Have you hour and half. On your unit. You have an hour and a half. a a. Orleen’s eyes move up from the page to Emmy 8 (0.2) 9 Emmy: o.k. o.k. o.k.10 Orleen: Sha//’a va-xetsi shel ’avoda Hour and half of work. An hour and a half of work.11 Someone: xelkiyot, aval. partial, but. but partial. a a. Orleen moves her gaze to the speaker.12 Orleen: Ze sha’atayim akademiyot. Hi Molly. It’s two hours academic. Hi Molly. It’s two academic hours ((door opens)). Hi Molly. a b

a. Emmy establishes eye contact with Orleen. b. Orleen lowers her eyes and starts preparing papers for Molly. Emmy turns her head toward Molly’s direction.13 Emmy: Nu? aval, ehhhh, az tsarix lemale otan lo? So? But, ehhhh, then should fi ll them not? So? But ehhhh, then [people] should fi ll them, no? a b a. Orleen is preparing papers for Molly

b. Emmy looks at Orleen.




14 Orleen: BEVADA:::I Of course Of course15 (0.2)16 Emmy: Az, az ma zot omeret↓ So, so what it means So, so what does it mean? a

a. Emmy brings her chair closer to the table, lowers her eyes and holds her forehead in

both hands. Orleen hands the papers to Molly.17 Orleen: Kxi Molly↓. Zot omer:et↑ she-im at lemashal rotsa le-haro::t Take Molly. It means that if you for example want to show Molly take. It means that if you for example want to show a a. Orleen turns her body toward Emmy18 la- studentim, she-hem yexv::u ex at mekayemet shi’ur, for the students, that they experience how you conduct lesson, the students, that they experience how you conduct a lesson, a a. Orleen looks upward toward the ceiling.19 ’im talmidim, ba-nose shel ehhhh shi’ur maxshevim? with pupils, on topic of ehhhh lesson computer? with pupils, on the topic of ehhhh a computer lesson? a b

a. Emmy yawns. b. Orleen looks at Emmy; leaning forward in Emmy’s direction 20 Emmy: ehm, ehm ehm, ehm ehm, ehm a

a. Emmy removes both hands from forehead; she supports her head with her right hand;

looks at Orleen




21 Orleen: Az at metaxnenet↑ she-hem ya’asu mashehu↑ she- kash::ur So you plan that they will do something that connects So you plan that they will do something that is connected a a. Orleen nods once; moves left hand from right to left.22 (0.2)23 la-shi’ur she-lax↑ ve-meshalev, >’ose et ha-shiluvim< (h) she- tetaxneni to lesson your and combines, does the combinations (h) that you will plan to your lesson and combines, does the combinations (h) that you plan a b c a. Orleen’s lowers her hand, touching the papers, and lifts it up again. b. Emmy lowers her eyes, focusing on her papers. c. Orleen’s hand moves in a circle; repeats the movement of going back to the papers. Emmy picks up a pen; draws short lines (from left to right) on the papers. 24 Hem tsrixim la’asot et ze. They need to do it. They need to do it. a a. Orleen’s hand moves up and down on the papers until it arches and remains touching

the papers.

25 Emmy: Naxon, barur Right, obvious Right, this is obvious a a. Emmy nods once.26 ve- biglal ze ani lo kol kax hevanti gam˚ and because it I not that much understand also and because of it I also did not understand that much 27 she::-amart she-ze lo iiy:::e˚ ba-ma’abada↑ that you said that it won’t be in lab that you said that it won’t be in the lab a

a. Emmy raises her eyes and looks at Orleen.28 Orleen: Az ze KEN iiye ba-ma’abada im ze iiye tsarix. So it yes be in lab if it will be has to. So it will indeed be in the lab if it has to. a b




a. Orleen nods once.

Emmy lowers her eyes down to the papers. b. Emmy nods once.29 Emmy: Xayav. Must. It must.30 Orleen: Ken. Yes. Yes. a a. Orleen nods once. 31 Emmy: Ein ta’am axeret le-misxakim˚ No point otherwise in playing. Otherwise there is no point in playing.

A P P E N D I X 2 . Phonetic transcription

Consonants Vowels

Letter name Transcribed form Name Transcribed form

א alef not transcribed kamats/patach aב bet b segol/tsere eב vet v xirik i, eג gimel g xolam oד dalet d shuruk/kibbutz uה he hו vav vז zayin zח xet xט tet tי yod yכ kaf kכ xaf xל lamed lמ mem mנ nun nס samex sע ayin ’פ pe pפ fe fצ tsade ts

(continued)




Consonants Vowels

Letter name Transcribed form Name Transcribed form

ק kof kר resh rש shin shש sin sת tav t

Definite article (ha-), the particle ‘she-’, the conjunction ‘ve-’ and prepositions are separated from following words by a hyphen.

A P P E N D I X 3 . Transcription notation

> < (Greater than/less than symbol) Enclosed speech is delivered rapidly than usual.? (Question mark) Rising intonation.// (Double oblique) The point at which a current speaker’s talk is overlapped by the

talk of another. = (Equal sign) A continuous stream of speech with no overlap or break.: (Colon(s)) A prolonged syllable.˚ (Degree sign) The talk that precedes is low in volume.OUT (Upper case) Increased volume.(0.0) (Numbers is parentheses) Elapsed time in tenths of seconds.↑ (Up arrow) Pitch rise.↓ (Down arrow) Pitch fall.(h) (h within parentheses) Explosive aspiration.(( )) (Material between double parentheses) Audio materials other than actual

verbalization.. . . (Horizontal ellipsis) An Additional speech is either coming before, in the middle

or after the reported fragment. (Vertical ellipsis) Intervening turns at talking have been taken out of the

fragment.

N O T E S

1. Conversation analysis is a field established by Sacks in collaboration with Schegloff and Jefferson (1974); see also Clayman and Gill (2004) and Heritage (1984).

2. It should be stated that I did not know in advance that the argumentative conducts I studied would preserve the institutional hierarchy. This finding emerged in the course of my data analysis. Consequently, in the context of this article, I now refer to it as a given.

3. The fact that Lorenzo-Dus investigates US television courtroom shows may explain the intensity she finds in conflict-based interactions.

4. Dale and Burrell (2000: 26) connect the horizontal hierarchical order and the ‘post-modern’ line of thought within organizational studies. According to Dale and Burrell, postmodern researchers mark a shift in which new organizational forms such as ‘boundaryless organizations and networking’ are inspected. In doing so, alternatives to the traditional bureaucratic hierarchy are suggested.

(Appendix 2 continued)




5. I will present a three-line transcription. The phonetic transcription of the Hebrew used by the participants (see Appendix 2) combines transcription conventions found in Berman (1978) and Glinert (1989). The participants’ Hebrew will include Jefferson’s transcription notation (Sacks et al., 1974: 731–4; see Appendix 3). I will also mark the embodied practices at the place they occur, similarly to the way presented in McNeill (1992).

6. The fact that the participants are fully attentive to their opponents is evident when considering Emmy’s ‘aaaaa’ in line 5. This ‘aaaaa’ comes before Orleen finishes her talk (=ze yaxol lihiyot bein ’esrim da// – it can be between twenty m). If Emmy was oblivious to Orleen’s talk, she could not have anticipated what Orleen was going to say next and produce the ‘aaaaa’ which indicates her understanding.

R E F E R E N C E S

Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and Organization. New York: Harper & Brothers.Berman, R.A. (1978) Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Blue, P.M. and Scott, R.W. (1962) Formal Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Clark, H.H. (2002) ‘Speaking in Time’, Speech Communication 36: 5–13.Clayman, S. and Gill, V. (2004) ‘Conversation Analysis’, in A. Byman and M. Hardy (eds)

Handbook of Data Analysis, pp. 589–606. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Cobb-Moore, C., Danby, S. and Farrell, A. (2008) ‘“I Told You So”: Justification Use in

Disputes in Young Children’s Interactions in an Early Childhood Classroom’, Discourse Studies 10: 595–614.

Dale, K. and Burrell, G. (2000) ‘What Shape Are We In? Organization Theory and the Organized Body’, in J. Hassard, R. Holliday and H. Willmott (eds) Body and Organization, pp. 15–30. London: Sage.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eilam, G. and Shamir, B. (2005) ‘Organizational Change and Self-Concept Threats’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41: 399–421.

Engle, M.S. (1979) ‘Going to Court: Strategies of Dispute Management in an American Urban Neighborhood’, Law and Society 13: 891–925.

Floyd, S.W. and Lane, P.J. (2000) ‘Strategizing throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal’, The Academy of Management Review 25: 154–77.

Fullan, M. (1982) The Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College.Gardner, R. (2001) When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.Glinert, L. (1989) The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Goodson, I., Moore, S. and Hargreaves, A. (2006) ‘Teacher Nostalgia and the Sus-

tainability of Reform: The Generation and Degeneration of Teachers’ Missions, Memory and Meaning’, Educational Administration Quarterly 42: 42–61.

Goodwin, C. (1979) ‘The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversations’, in G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 97–121. New York: Irvington.

Goodwin, C. (2000) ‘Practices of Seeing: Visual Analysis: An Ethnomethodological Approach’, in T. van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt (eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis, pp. 157–82. London: Sage.




Goodwin, C. (2007) ‘Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities’, Discourse & Society 18: 53–73.

Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M.H. (1990) ‘Interstitial Argument’, in A. Grimshaw (ed.) Conflict Talk, pp. 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, M.H. (1990) He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Goodwin, M.H. and Goodwin, C. (1987) ‘Children’s Arguing’, in S. Phillips, S. Steele and C. Tanz (eds) Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective, pp. 200–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, M.H. and Goodwin, C. (2001) ‘Emotion within Situated Activity’, in A. Duranti (ed.) Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, pp. 239–57. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Heritage, J. (2004) ‘Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Data’,

in D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, pp. 222–45. New York: Sage.

Hutchby, I. (2001) ‘“Oh”, Irony and Sequential Ambiguity in Arguments’, Discourse & Society 12: 123–41.

Iannello, K.P. (1992) Decisions without Hierarchy. New York: Routledge.Jefferson, G. (1984) ‘Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset’, in V. D’Urso and

P. Leonardi (eds) Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, pp. 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.

Jefferson, G. (1985) ‘Notes on a Systematic Development of the Acknowledgement Tokens “Yeah” and ‘‘Mmhm”’, Papers in Linguistics 17: 197–216.

Krüecken, G. (2003) ‘Mission Impossible? Institutional Barriers to the Diffusion of the ‘‘Third Academic Mission’’ at German Universities’, International Journal of Technology Management 25: 18–33.

Linde, C. (1988) ‘Who’s in Charge Here? Cooperative Work and Authority Negotiation in Police Helicopter Missions’, in Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 52–64, Portland, OR.

Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2008) ‘Real Disorder in the Court: An Investigation of Conflict Talk in US Television Courtroom Shows’, Media, Culture & Society 30: 81–107.

McNeill, D. (1992) Hand and Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Menkel-Meadow, C. (2003) Dispute Processing and Conflict Resolution. Dartmouth, NH:

Ashgate.Piderit, S.K. (2000) ‘Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multi-

Dimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change’, The Academy of Management Review 25: 783–94.

Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation Volume II. Oxford: Blackwell.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics of the

Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’, Language 50: 696–735.Saft, S. (2004) ‘Conflict as Interactional Accomplishment in Japan: Arguments in

University Faculty Meetings’, Language in Society 33: 549–84.Stivers, T. (2004) ‘“No No No” and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interactions’,

Human Communication Research 30: 260–93.Tannenbaum, A.S., Kavcic, B., Rosner, M., Vianello, M. and Wieser, G. (1974) Hierarchy

in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.




E I N A V A R G A M A N is a visiting scholar at the Center for Language, Interaction and Culture, the University of California at Los Angeles. She is studying institutional dis-course, currently focusing on talk and embodied practices as mediating various aspects of educational institutions. Her recent publications are: ‘With or Without ‘‘It’’: The Role of Empathetic Deixis in Mediating Educational Change’ (Journal of Pragmatics); ‘Assuming Positions: Organizational Change as Mediated through Metaphors’ (Semiotica); ‘In the Same Boat? On Metaphor Variation as Mediating the Individual Voice in Organizational Change’ (Applied Linguistics). A D D R E S S : Center for Language, Interaction and Culture (CLIC), Department of Anthropology, 341 Haines Hall, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1553, USA. [email: [email protected]]



Documents

Institutional Hierarchy