Difference between revisions of "Okada 2019"
YusukeOkada (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Yusuke Okada; |Title=Discursive construction of “antisocial” institutional conduct: Microanalysis of Takata's failure at the U.S. co...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=142 | |Volume=142 | ||
|Pages=105-115 | |Pages=105-115 | ||
| − | | | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216618305939 |
| + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.013 | ||
|Abstract=Media bashing of airbag manufacturer Takata escalated following the U.S. congressional hearings on the recall of the company’s defective airbags in 2014. The U.S. media described the Takata representative’s responses to committee members as morally suspect. This study aimed to explicate what made Takata’s poor performance at these congressional hearings based on a detailed analysis of actual interactional data. Microanalysis of excerpts from the hearings explains the grounds for negative descriptions in much of the U.S. media. The Takata representative did not display his orientation to the issue as a moral or emotional one, despite the emotionality on the part of committee members: while interactional slots were available in the second and fourth positions for the proffering of an empathetic response to the displayed emotionality, as is normatively required, the Takata representative did not use these opportunities to construct an empathetic moment, which would have been indispensable in creating social solidarity. It was contrastive to the practice Toyota representatives performed at the hearing regarding the gas pedal problem. It appears that companies should avoid the mismanagement of public emotion, and Takata’s poor interactional practice, as analyzed herein, provides an example of how not to achieve that end. | |Abstract=Media bashing of airbag manufacturer Takata escalated following the U.S. congressional hearings on the recall of the company’s defective airbags in 2014. The U.S. media described the Takata representative’s responses to committee members as morally suspect. This study aimed to explicate what made Takata’s poor performance at these congressional hearings based on a detailed analysis of actual interactional data. Microanalysis of excerpts from the hearings explains the grounds for negative descriptions in much of the U.S. media. The Takata representative did not display his orientation to the issue as a moral or emotional one, despite the emotionality on the part of committee members: while interactional slots were available in the second and fourth positions for the proffering of an empathetic response to the displayed emotionality, as is normatively required, the Takata representative did not use these opportunities to construct an empathetic moment, which would have been indispensable in creating social solidarity. It was contrastive to the practice Toyota representatives performed at the hearing regarding the gas pedal problem. It appears that companies should avoid the mismanagement of public emotion, and Takata’s poor interactional practice, as analyzed herein, provides an example of how not to achieve that end. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:22, 17 August 2023
| Okada 2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Okada 2019 |
| Author(s) | Yusuke Okada |
| Title | Discursive construction of “antisocial” institutional conduct: Microanalysis of Takata's failure at the U.S. congressional hearings |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 142 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 105-115 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.013 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Media bashing of airbag manufacturer Takata escalated following the U.S. congressional hearings on the recall of the company’s defective airbags in 2014. The U.S. media described the Takata representative’s responses to committee members as morally suspect. This study aimed to explicate what made Takata’s poor performance at these congressional hearings based on a detailed analysis of actual interactional data. Microanalysis of excerpts from the hearings explains the grounds for negative descriptions in much of the U.S. media. The Takata representative did not display his orientation to the issue as a moral or emotional one, despite the emotionality on the part of committee members: while interactional slots were available in the second and fourth positions for the proffering of an empathetic response to the displayed emotionality, as is normatively required, the Takata representative did not use these opportunities to construct an empathetic moment, which would have been indispensable in creating social solidarity. It was contrastive to the practice Toyota representatives performed at the hearing regarding the gas pedal problem. It appears that companies should avoid the mismanagement of public emotion, and Takata’s poor interactional practice, as analyzed herein, provides an example of how not to achieve that end.
Notes
