Difference between revisions of "Nissi2016a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Riikka Nissi |Title=Spelling out consequences: Conditional constructions as a means to resist proposals in organisational planning pro...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 03:17, 5 May 2016
| Nissi2016a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Nissi2016a |
| Author(s) | Riikka Nissi |
| Title | Spelling out consequences: Conditional constructions as a means to resist proposals
in organisational planning process |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conditional constructions, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, hypothetical situation, longitudinal data, meeting interaction, multimodality, organisational planning, proposals, rejection |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 311–329 |
| URL | |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445616634556 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Organisational planning processes often materialise as a series of meetings, where the future of the organisation is jointly discussed and negotiated as a part of local decision-making sequences. Using conversation and discourse analytical approaches, this article investigates how proposals concerning the future can also be resisted by employing a specific device, a conditional construction (if X, then Y). The data for the study originate from a city organisation, whose customer services are being developed. The results show how the conditional constructions work in two interrelated ways. First, by introducing a problematic hypothetical situation, they outline the undesirable consequences of the proposed idea in real work life. Second, by highlighting the experience of the customer, they present the organisation as benefitting from the potential rejection of the idea. The article discusses the implications of the results for the study of proposal and decision-making sequences in longitudinal, multisemiotic discursive processes.
Notes
