This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ything that goes
on in talk has in the ®nal analysis to be accomplished by the participants, in my
view these formulations fail to capture the extent to which institutions like the
ones discussed in this article (or more exactly, agents with authority in those
institutions) do increasingly de®ne the kind of talk produced in institutional
contexts. Practices of scripting, styling and surveillance cannot entirely override
the necessity for interaction to be locally managed, but they can and do place
constraints on the freedom of participants to `design their talk' or to choose how
they will make their institutional identities `relevant'. True, the practices
discussed above were still marginal in the early 1990s when Drew and Heritage
were writing, and they still have little purchase on the high-status professionals
(e.g. doctors) whose interactions have always featured heavily in the literature
on institutional talk. They are nevertheless increasingly common realities,
which the study of talk at work must have something to say about in future.
Finally, the verbal hygiene practices which are the subject of this article are of
interest for what they tell us about the relationship between language and
gender. I have argued that the regulation and commodi®cation of language in
service workplaces has r...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/16/2014 for the course ANTHRO 33 taught by Professor Wertheim during the Spring '08 term at UCLA.
- Spring '08
- The Land