Difference between revisions of "Svennevig2015"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2015-03-03 12:19:58)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 +
|BibType=ARTICLE
 +
|Author(s)=Jan Svennevig; Olga Djordjilovic;
 +
|Title=Accounting for the right to assign a task in meeting interaction
 +
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Accounts; Meeting interaction; Task assignment;
 
|Key=Svennevig2015
 
|Key=Svennevig2015
|Key=Svennevig2015
 
|Title=Accounting for the right to assign a task in meeting interaction
 
|Author(s)=Jan Svennevig; Olga Djordjilovic;
 
|Tag(s)=Meeting interaction; Task assignment; Accounts; Requests; Deontic rights; Benefactive stance; EMCA; Needs review
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
 
|Year=2015
 
|Year=2015
 
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics
 
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics

Revision as of 07:22, 8 March 2015

Svennevig2015
BibType ARTICLE
Key Svennevig2015
Author(s) Jan Svennevig, Olga Djordjilovic
Title Accounting for the right to assign a task in meeting interaction
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Accounts, Meeting interaction, Task assignment
Publisher
Year 2015
Language
City
Month
Journal Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 78
Number 0
Pages 98 - 111
URL Link
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.007
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Abstract This article analyzes how meeting participants account for their right to assign a work-related task to a colleague in meeting interaction. It focuses on accounts which appeal to benefactive effect, that is, the benefits of the proposed action to the operation of the organization. Such accounts are often formulated as general strategies or policies for action. They are shown to be related to the deontic rights of the participants in that subordinates engage in more extensive accounting practices than do managers. Accounts that evoke other interests than benefits to the organization are shown to be vulnerable to being questioned or rejected. The study thus contributes to understanding how benefactive stance is used for legitimizing requests for institutionally relevant actions.

Notes

Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives