6. Problem-solving meetings
6.2. Interactional activities in the problem-solving meetings
6.2.2. Linguistic features of interactional activities
To illustrate each of the interactional activities, I draw on three to four excerpts from each of the meetings. The division between the interactional activities (e.g. raising issues, providing formulations, proposing actions) are not always marked. However, as shown in the table below, the close analysis identified linguistic cues and acts marking the transitions between the interactional activities.
This table aims to show how the interactional activities in Figure 8 are marked by linguistic cues and acts in the flow of each problem-solving meeting. In addition, the linguistic markers signal interactants’ role-positioning and aligning and affiliative moves.
Activity (Excerpt) Meeting Formulating issues (1.1) Proposing and negotiating action (1.2) Resuming issues (1.3) Resuming and ratifying a problem (1.4) Meeting 1 Discourse markers (e.g. so, You know, I mean, well, but) Stance markers Discourse markers (e.g. but, well) Stance markers
Discourse markers (so, well, okay, yeah) & topic orientation markers (e.g. before we go) Pauses and gaps Stance markers Repetition Stance markers Latching Pauses and gaps Meeting 2
Formulating issues (2.1) Negotiating issues and actions (2.2) Resuming and ratifying a problem (2.3) Discourse markers
(e.g. so) Stance markers Questioning
Metacomments (e.g. the genuine reason for asking, I just want to know)
Discourse markers (e.g. so, but, I mean)
Pauses and gaps Lexical choice (e.g.
problem)
Discourse markers (e.g. so, I mean) Pauses and gaps Stance markers Metacomments (I’m
raising it) Repetition
Discourse markers (e.g. so, You know) Stance markers
Discourse markers (e.g. so, but, anyway, you know)
Lexical choice (e.g. problem)
Pauses and gaps
Discourse markers (e.g. so,anyway) Repetition
Table 8Linguistic features emerged in interactional activities in problem-solving meetings
As noted in Section 4.6.2, linguistic features are important contextualisation cues that ‘channel the inferencing processes in a particular direction by calling up the frames and affecting the footing of each moment of an interaction’ (Roberts and Sarangi, 2005, p. 634). As shown in this table, among the linguistic cues, discourse markers most frequently emerge as the indicators of ‘boundaries’ (Maschler and Schiffrin, 2015, p. 194) that signal transitions in interactional activities, topics and participants. Defined as ‘sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk’ (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 31), discourse markers in their meanings and functions vary depending on their position and combination with other linguistic cues and acts. Along with the discourse markers, other linguistic features such as declaratives, stance markers, or deontic modal verbs emerge in the interactional activities. These also signal interactional activities the individuals draw upon as they denote individuals’ role enactments or floor management in the meetings. I will explain them as they emerge in the data in Section 6.3.
In the following, I explain the linguistic features that facilitate the identification of transitional moves within the problem-solving meetings. Across the meetings, as shown in Table 8, the commonly observed features are discourse markers (e.g. so, okay) including other topic- orientation markers, and pauses and gaps. I discuss how these are associated with and demarcate interactional activities with the examples of their use in the meetings.
“So-”
1) “so well let me go through […]” 2) so:: the local budget is correct
3) Right. So:: (2.0) it’s the ATL we will be looking at now 4) so anyway(.) current status is just ((amount)) over=
Studies on discourse markers suggest So is frequently used for conveying different meanings and functions depending on its position and combined elements (e.g. Schiffrin, 1987; Maschler and Schiffrin, 2015). For example, within or between turns, so works to link elements indicating semantic relations (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 202) and the stand-alone so
functions in prompting the hearer ‘to acknowledge the completion of’ prior turns and actions (Raymond, 2004, p. 196). As shown in Table 8, so is prominent in my data, conveying these
functions. In particular, in identifying the interactional activities, So- prefacing turns usefully demarcate raising issues through formulating and resuming prior talk.
CA studies have shown that interactants’ use of “so-” prefacing goes beyond semantic relations, marking ‘a transition, boundary, or connection between one activity and another’ (Raymond, 2004, pp. 188-189). 1) and 2) exemplify the usage of so in denoting transition between participants (1) and topics (1, 2) (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 318; Johnson, 2002, p. 96) wherein participants provide formulations in summarising issues and situations from their role perspectives.
In a similar way, the “so-” prefacing turns mark interactants’ resumption in combination with attention marker Right (3) and topic orientation marker anyway (4) (Fraser, 2009). In addition, combined with the discourse markers, repetition that recycles topics appears to be an important cue for resuming (Local, 2004). By indicating (the orientation towards) the relevance of acts,
so becomes an important resource for enacting ‘pending interactional agendas’ (3) and pursuing one’s own interactional agenda (4) (Bolden, 2009, p. 981). The example 4) is more of the repetition of the formulation imposing the speaker’s views.
“Okay (.)”
1) Okay (.) and what (.) would you like me to do about:: 2) Okay, okay (.) yeah (.) Before we go into this
3) Okay (.) I can- I can see your ideas
4) Okay (4.5) I will- I will go have a look now
As is the case with So, Okay is used in various practices in different positions. Here I focus on
Okay employed at ‘moments of transition, by recipients and current speakers’ (Beach, 1993, p. 327). 1) and 2) exemplify the interaction is about to move from one topic to another (Marra, 2003, p. 88). Situated in the talk, 1) indicates the speaker’s moving on to an on-task topic, orienting towards an action whereas 2) exemplifies the speakers’ degenerating from the current topic (Beach, 1990) resuming his prior talk. 3) and 4) exemplify closing down the
current topic (ibid.). In the context of the talk, 3) serves to temporarily close down the negotiation of actions, and 4) conveys the closure for sequences; the end point has been reached (Fraser, 2009, p. 897), followed by taking an action.
Topic orientation markers
1) it’s a- anyway it’s Kiho’s decision.
2) well before- that’s what I’m about to go through quickly
=But- but at the moment (.) if (.) we'd say::
4) It's case by case what we have to review is::(xxx) market.
But- but what I’m asking is …
Interactants also use topic orientation markers, i.e. anyway, well before and but in the examples above. The deployment of the markers conveys their ‘intentions concerning the immediate future topic of the discourse’ (Fraser, 2009, p. 893), which does not align with the one of the hearers. In cases of 1) and 2) in the problem-solving talk, it signals the speakers’ resuming of their topics while digressing from the present topic (ibid., 894). But ‘marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action’ (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 152), signalling a semantic relationship between sentences and between acts (Fraser, 2015). But in example 3) and 4) denotes the recipient’s challenging the acts (Fraser, 2015, p. 50), in a context of problem- solving talk, raising issues in negotiating a commitment to actions.
Pauses or gaps
In addition, extended pauses or gaps within and between the turns appear to useful indicators of transitional moves, as shown in the example below:
1) I think that’s a good idea. Perfect. (4.0)
ð Ted: Right. So:: (2.0) it’s the ATL we will be looking at now
2) because we haven’t spent lots of budget(.) Yeh? Lots of remaining budget, yeh? (3.0)
ð Unfortunately with the ATL budget(.) the biggest part of
As Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) identify, given the uptake, the gap in example 1) signals the closure of the current topic and creates a turn for the next speaker to resume, as indicated by the resumption marker So and the repetition of the topic. The case of 2) signals an opportunity provided to the next speaker to move to further issues, leading to a move to ratify the issue as a problem.
The linguistic features discussed here not only demarcate the transitional moves, but also provide understanding of the local interactional processes. These function as important cues that facilitate understandings of the contextualising work done by the interactants at each moment of the interaction (Sarangi and Roberts, 1999, p. 25). Situated in problem-solving interaction, the features channel important processes in and through which meanings vis-à-vis interactants’ role-positioning are negotiated. This then indicates that problem-solving is best approached as a process involving the actors and their agendas in context.
6.3. Problem-solving meetings
Responding to my first research question, how problem-solving can be done in interaction, I organise this section according to the problem-solving meetings. In each of the meetings, I discuss how the interactional activities identified in Section 6.2.1 unfold. And addressing the third research question, I discuss how employees enact and negotiate their professional roles in doing problem-solving.
6.3.1. Meeting 1. A reduced local marketing budget and doing social media activities