BBI3303 Institutional Talk

Instutition Institutions are commonly associated with physical buildings or settings such as schools, hospitals, media organisation, prisons or courts of law. An institution is seen as an established organisation or the building housing such an organisation. There is overlap with organisation. Organisation seems to be used more for commercial corporations whereas institution is more with public state.

Institutions are also linked to power. Institution is defined as “a socially legitimated expertise together with those persons authorised to implement it” (Agar 1985: 164). This suggests that institutions are not restricted to physical settings and can refer to powerful groups such as the govt or the media. Agar’s definition includes the concept of institutions as involving asymmetrical roles between institutional representatives (experts and non experts or clients who must comply with institutional norms and objectives).

Institutional Discourse Institutional discourse (talk and writing) arose from the broad definition of institution. Institutional discourse is defined as involving “role structured, institutionalised, and omnirelevant asymmetries between participants in terms of such matters as differential distribution of knowledge, rights to knowledge, access to conversational resources, and to participation in the interaction.” (Drew and Heritage 1992: 48)

Features of Institutional Discourse Drew and Heritage sum up the features of institutional discourse as There is goal orientation of a conventional form. An orientation by one of the participants to a core goal, task or activity associated with the institution. Institutional interaction involves special constraints on participants as to what is seen as allowable contributions to the business. There are inferential frameworks and procedures that are associated to specific institutional contexts.

This means that interactions in institutional settings have a very specific goal and are often asymmetrical in their distribution of speaking rights and obligations. People cannot contribute on an equal basis because they do not have equal status.

Having equal status means having the same discoursal rights and obligations such as the right to ask questions, make requests, the same obligation to comply with these, the obligation to avoid interruption or silence.

Classroom setting Eg: Classroom setting Students take turns when the teacher directs a question. What students can say is constrained. They are limited to giving relevant answers. What is considered relevant depends on the teacher who defines the context and thus decides on what is discoursally relevant.

Power in institutional discourse There is a clearly defined hierarchical structure in inst discourse. Power is expressed by the more powerful person in the institutional setting. Fairclough (1989) lists 4 devices for doing power. a. Interruption b. Enforcing explicitness c. Controlling topic d. Formulation/Summarising Analysing these devices can give insights into power asymmetries in institutional discourse.

Medical Encounters D: What’s the problem? P: since last Monday it’s a week of sore throat D: hm hm P: which turned into a cold and then a cough D: a cold you mean what? Stuffy nose? P: uh stuffy nose yeah not a chest cold P: uhm D: and a cough P: and a cough … which is the most irritating aspect D: okay. Uh any fever? P: not that I know of. I took it a couple of times in the beginning but haven’t felt like D: how about your ears? P: before anything happened…I thought that my ears might have felt a little bit funny but I haven’t got any problems D: ok, do you have any pressure around your eyes? P: no D: ok, how do you feel? P: tired. I couldn’t sleep last night D: because of the cough

Power in medical encounters Doctors routine exert control and authority and patients acquiesce to their authority. First, doctors direct encounters through the use of questioning, establishing relevant topics and their development. Second, their reactions to patient contributions validate or invalidate responses and thereby reassert their control. Third, they dismiss, by ignoring or redirecting, patients talk if it is not consistent with the scientific medical model upheld by the doctor. Finally, by controlling and interpreting information dispensed to patients, doctors influence decisions that patients have a right to make for themselves.