Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 28:3 (2018) ► pp.333–360

The multimodal enactment of deontic and epistemic authority in Indian meetings

 | University of Valenciennes
 | KU Leuven
 | Independent scholar, India
 | I.K.G. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar
Authority is a much discussed topic in organizational literature, but its in situ enactment is little investigated. Using the notions of deontic and epistemic authority and using multimodal conversation analysis as a research methodology, the purpose of this paper is to provide an empirical study of authority-in-action. We particularly focus on both sequences of talk and the multimodal resources that are mobilised to ‘do’ authority. Furthermore, as research from non-Western contexts remains rare, we complement insights into authority enactment based on ‘Western’ data by using data that is drawn from a corpus of naturally-occurring video-recorded faculty meetings at an Indian University. Findings indicate that the doing of authority can be made visible by explicating participants’ orientation to their respective deontic and epistemic rights and their invocation of particular identities, which are accomplished by means of a complex intertwining of verbal and non-verbal resources.
Keywords: authority, deontics, epistemics, conversation analysis, meetings, India, multimodality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Authority
  • 3.Method – multimodal conversation analysis and authority
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Analyses
    • 5.1Extract one: The IT club
    • 5.2Extract two: The sports club
    • 5.3Extract three: The finance club
  • 6.Observations
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 27 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17011.cli
References (48)
References
Angouri, Jo, and Meredith Marra. 2010. “Corporate Meetings as Genre: A Study of the Role of the Chair in Corporate Meeting Talk.” Text & Talk 30 (6): 615–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asmuβ, Birte, and Jan Svennevig. 2009. “Meeting Talk: An Introduction.” Journal of Business Communication 46 (1): 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barske, Tobias. 2009. “Same Token, Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions, and ok in German Business Meetings.” The Journal of Business Communication 46 (1): 120–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatnagar, Jyotsna. 2005. “The Power of Psychological Empowerment as an Antecedent to Organizational Commitment in Indian Managers.” Human Resource Development International 8 (4): 419–433. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, Reinhold Schmitt, and Lorenza Mondada. 2010. “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (6): 1700–1718. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1991. “Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions.” In Asymmetries in Dialogue, ed. by Ivana Markova, and Klaus Foppa, 29–48. Hemel Hempstead UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
Gee, James Paul, Glynda Hull, and Colin Lankshear. 1996. The New Work Order. London: Saint Leonards Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griswold, Olga. 2007. “Achieving Authority: Discursive Practices in Russian Girls’ Pretend Play.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 40 (4): 291–319. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 2013. “Embodied Action and Organizational Activity.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 283–307. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Epistemics in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, William A., and Kathy E. Kram. 1994. “Authority at Work: Internal Models and Their Organizational Consequences.” The Academy of Management Review 19 (1): 17–50. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kakar, Sudhir. 1971. Authority Patterns and Subordinate Behavior in Indian Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (3): 298–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby, Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennevig. 2015. “Whose Decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics 781: 54–69. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Larrue, Janine, and Alain Trognon. 1993. “Organization of Turn-taking and Mechanisms for Turn-taking Repairs in a Chaired Meeting”. Journal of Pragmatics 19 (2): 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at work – Interaction in institutional settings (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 8), ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1978. “Power and Authority.” In A History of Sociological Analysis, ed. by Thomas B. Bottomore, and Robert A. Nisbet, 633–676. London: Heineman.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. n.d. Conventions for multimodal transcription. Available online at: [URL]. Last consulted on 10 January 2018.
. 2016. “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi. 2011. “Validity in Research on Naturally Occurring Interaction.” In Qualitative Research, ed. by David Silverman, 365–382. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Giving a Source or Basis: The Practice in Conversation of Telling “how I know”.” Journal of Pragmatics 8 (2): 607–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita, and Paul Denvir. 2007. “Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority”. In Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting, ed. by François Cooren, 31–51. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2000. “The Voice of Authority: The Local Accomplishment of Authoritative Discourse in Live News Broadcasts.” Discourse Studies 2 (3): 354–379 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage. 2006. “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society 35 (5): 677–705. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation (21 vols, edited by Gail Jefferson with introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff). Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn taking for Conversation”. Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Jai B. P., and D. Sinha. 1990. “Role of Social Values in Indian Organizations.” International Journal of Psychology 25 (3–6): 705–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2013. Deontic Rights in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Displays of Uncertainty and Proximal Deontic Claims: The Case of Proposal Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 781: 84–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations”. Language in Society 43 (2): 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig. 2015. Introduction: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives. Journal of Pragmatics 781: 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanja. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2012. “The Agenda as Resource for Topic Introduction in Workplace Meetings”. Discourse Studies 14 (1): 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Frederick. 1911. Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Taylor, James. 2009. “The Communicative Construction of Community: Authority and Organizing.” In Learning and expanding with activity theory, ed. by Annalisa Sannino, Harry Daniels, and Kris D. Gutiérrez, 228–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “L’autorité comme base normative de l’organisation [Authority as a normative base for organisations].” Proceedings of the International Communication Association Regional conference in Europe – Communicating in a world of norms, available at: [URL].
Taylor, James, and Elizabeth Van Every. 2014. When Organization Fails. Why Authority Matters. New York: Routledge. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van De Mieroop, Dorien, and Jonathan Clifton. 2017. “Corporate settings.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace, ed. by Bernadette Vine, 127–137. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van De Mieroop, Dorien, and Stephanie Schnurr (eds). 2017. Identity struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varma, Arup, Ekkirala S. Srinivas, and Linda K. Stroh. 2005. “A Comparative Study of the Impact of Leader-Member Exchange in US and Indian Samples.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 12 (1): 84–95. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2008. “Intercultural Communication and the Challenges of Migration.” Language and intercultural communication 8 (1): 21–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Huang, Xu & Yongping Ran
2024.  Nǐ kànzhe bàn ba: negotiating complaint solutions in e-shopping service encounters. Text & Talk 44:5 ► pp. 597 ff. DOI logo
Nasi, Nicola
2024. Co-creating with teachers during participatory action research: Teachers’ perceptions, researchers’ dilemmas, and some possible strategies to enhance communication in the field. Action Research DOI logo
Salomaa, Elina, Dorien Van De Mieroop & Esa Lehtinen
2024. Negotiating leader identities through indirect mockery in talk about decision-making in a distributed leadership context. Language and Dialogue 14:1 ► pp. 122 ff. DOI logo
Van De Mieroop, Dorien, Melisa Stevanovic, Minna Leinonen & Henri Nevalainen
2024. A different perspective on epistemics and deontics. Narrative Inquiry DOI logo
Ekström, Mats & Melisa Stevanovic
2023. Conversation analysis and power: examining the descendants and antecedents of social action. Frontiers in Sociology 8 DOI logo
Nicolaisen, Emilie Munch & Gitte Rasmussen
2023. Multimodal methods for managing deontic rights in interdisciplinary trials. Multimodality & Society 3:4 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Clifton, Jonathan, Geert Jacobs, Julia Valeiras-Jurado & Astrid Vandendaele
2022. Governmentality-in-action. Language and Dialogue 12:3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Mutiara, Rika
2022. The negotiation of epistemic and deontic rights in child-adult interactions in colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Language Sciences 94 ► pp. 101502 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa, Elina Weiste & Lise-Lotte Uusitalo
2022. Challenges of client participation in the co-development of social and health care services: Imbalances of control over action and the management of the interactional agenda. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health 2 ► pp. 100136 ff. DOI logo
Holmes, Janet
2020. Epilogue: Future Directions—What Next?. In Professional Communication [Communicating in Professions and Organizations, ], ► pp. 327 ff. DOI logo
Stephenson, Michael
2020. Setting the group agenda: negotiating deontic rights through directives in a task-based, oral, L2, group assessment. Classroom Discourse 11:4 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Van De Mieroop, Dorien
2020. A deontic perspective on the collaborative, multimodal accomplishment of leadership. Leadership 16:5 ► pp. 592 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Soziolinguistische Bibliographie europäischer Länder für 2018Sociolinguistic Bibliography of European Countries for 2018Bibliographie sociolinguistique des pays européens pour 2018. Sociolinguistica 34:1 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.