Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:54:41.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authority and camaraderie: The delivery of directives amongst the ice floes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

Anne Elizabeth Clark White
Anne Elizabeth Clark White*
Affiliation:
University of California Davis, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Anne E. C. White, University of California Davis, 4150 V St #3100, Sacramento, CA95817, USAaecwhite@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This analysis focuses on the institutional talk of sea-kayak guides and their clients in order to understand how guides negotiate the interactional balance of giving orders to maintain a safe and timely excursion while facilitating a fun and recreational experience. Using a mixed-method analysis including Conversation Analysis, ethnography, and statistics, this study examines 576 instances of directives found in video recordings of twenty-five Alaskan kayaking ecotourism excursions and explores the practices guides use in their talk to maintain control of an excursion while not coming across as domineering. By systemically examining directives’ design, directives are found to reveal both their temporal urgency in addition to the precipitating events that necessitate them, such as client behaviors or environmental stimuli. This study's analysis contributes to our understanding of how interactants mitigate face-threatening actions and focuses attention on the interactional work that directives and their accounts achieve in an institutional setting currently underinvestigated (Directives, mixed-methods, Conversation Analysis, ethnography, ecotourism)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 207 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am very appreciative of my bosses for allowing me to double as a guide and researcher, my co-guides for their willingness to participate and help gather data, and the clients who allowed their vacations to be shared. I am also very thankful to John Heritage, Steve Clayman, Tanya Stivers, Federico Rossano, and the reviewers for their invaluable comments and support.

I am supported by grant number T32HS022236 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through the Quality, Safety, and Comparative Effectiveness Research Training (QSCERT) Program.

References

REFERENCES

ACO (2017). Recreational boating statistics 2017. Online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.americancanoe.org/resource/resmgr/spp-documents/recreational-boating-statist.pdf.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, & Kent, Alexandra (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics 44(6):876–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronsson, Karin, & Cekaite, Asta (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society 22(2):137–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranova, Julija, & Dingemanse, Mark (2016). Reasons for requests. Discourse Studies 18(6):641–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne (1993). Transitional regularities for casual ‘okay’ usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19:325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5):974–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, & Heritage, John (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in offers and requests. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2001). Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society 30:29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, & Potter, Jonathan (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies 12(4):419–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci, & Drew, Paul (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, Annette J., & Barnett, Adrian (2008). An introduction to generalized linear models. 3rd edn.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In Markova, Ivana & Foppa, Klaus (eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue, 29–48. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2014). Requesting: From speech act to recruitment. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M.; Fretz, Rachel I.; & Shaw, Linda L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. 2nd edn.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of American English directives. Language in Society 5(1):25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, & Lawrence Wieder, D. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In Watson, Graham & Seiler, Robert M. (eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology, 175–206. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goode, William J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review 25:483–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96(3):606–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status and exclusion. Boston, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., & Cekaite, Asta (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1):122–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku (2001). Laughter as a patient's resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text 21(1):187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine (2006). ‘Will you or can't you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38(7):1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2012b). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, Jan P. (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2018). At the intersection of turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Molly (2017). Why can't you just follow the rules? Volunteer rule breaking and disruptive behavior. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 28(1):26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In Dijk, Teun A. (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 3, 25–34. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies 14(6):711–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell & Stivers, 103–30.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva (2015). In/directness in Polish children's requests at the dinner table. Journal of Pragmatics 82:67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, Ruth (2009). Practitioners’ accounts for treatment actions and recommendations in physiotherapy: When do they occur, how are they structured, what do they do? Sociology of Health & Illness 31(6):835–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary healthcare. Social Psychology Quarterly 61(4):301–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In Maxwell Atkinson, J., & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6):939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and mi x? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5):426–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni (2020). Systems of social action: The case of requesting in Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, vols. 1 and 2. Ed. by Jefferson, Gail & Schegloff, Emanuel A.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson, Gail; & Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53:361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Marvin B., & Lyman, Stanford M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review 33:46–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shedlock, Jerzy (2016). 2 guides mauled by brown bear while leading hikers north of Sitka. Anchorage Daily News. Online: https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2016/08/18/two-guides-mauled-during-hike-north-of-sitka-officials-say/.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, & Stivers, Tanya (eds.) (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena; Raevaara, Liisa; & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.) (2017). Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, & Peräkylä, Anssi (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(3):297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, & Svennevig, Jan (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics 78:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, & Rossano, Federico (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43:3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vine, Bernadette (2004). Getting things done at work: The discourse of power in workplace interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Anne E. C. (2013). Timework: An occupational ethnography of guiding. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg (2015). Contingent control over shared goods. ‘Can I have x’ requests in British English informal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 82:23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar