1. Power in the Workplace

2. Structureof Presentation Through the analysis of everyday texts in the workplace I will analysis the interrelationship between language, discourse and power This can be seen through the use of politeness, humour, small talk and otherization as a means of defining a person’s power in an organisation

3. What is power? What is power?

4. POWER Power...exists as part of the social fabric of communication (Searle, 1969, 1995) Social action is ‘logically tied to that of power (Giddens, 1993) Power is ‘a netlike, circulating organisation’ (Davidson, 1986) Power is something...created through people interacting in a certain social context (Foucault, 1978) The degree to which the hearer can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the expense of...the speakers plans of self-evaluation (Brown and Levison, 1987)

5. Forms of Power Legitimate power – based on position and responsibilities Referent power – based on interpersonal skills Expert power – based on skills and strengths Reward power – based on the ability to reward those who follow Coercive power – based on the use of negative influences

6. The Workplace

8. Small Talk – often seen as relationship orientated, small talk subtly addresses transactional talk (business) to create collegiality and power relations

9. Humour - Utterances of great hilarity to create and maintain solidarity, defining power status, reduce inequalities and challenge hierarchies’ (Holmes, J., 2000: 159-160)

11. Positive – ‘...the want to be approved in certain aspect’ (Brown and Levison, 1987: 58); desires acceptance through claiming common ground, being understanding and expressions of solidarity.

13. Repressive discourse – exercising coercive power while minimising overt status differences and emphasising solidarity to gain compliance and good will (Pateman, 1980)

14. Do power – the direct expression of power or status (Holmes, Stubbe and Wine (1999)

16. ‘The enforcement of social norms’ (Bricker, 1980)

17. ‘The degree to which H [the hearer] can impose his (sic) own plans and his (sic) own self-evaluation (face) at the expense of S’s [the speaker’s] plans and self-evaluation’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987:77)

18. Effective at doing-power

20. The danger of otherization can result in essentialism and in the way which we view that person’s space

21. ‘Essentialism is a generalisation stating that certain properties possessed by a group are universal’ (“Essentialism”, 2010)

24. Concerns a female staff member resigning her job publically to all staff members

25. An asymmetrical relationship – where one person is in a position of power in relation to the other within a particular organisation

26. Received a forward at work containing this textAvailable at: http://thechive.com/2010/08/10/girl-quits-her-job-on-dry-erase-board-emails-entire-office-33-photos/

51. Sexual Harassment – the woman presents the idea that Spencer has identified her as a ‘HOPA’, an obvious remark most likely to break Human Resource Policy

52. Breaking Confidence – the woman has broken her working expectation of keeping the information regarding internet usage private from the company, as well as breaking her trust in Spencer but providing details regarding his use

54. Humour – she uses humour as to challenge Spencer’s hierarchical status and to expose the power imbalance subtly, de-emphasising her power difference between Spencer and other members reading the email

56. Discourse – she uses both oppressive and repressive discourse in order to achieve her goal. She uses oppressive discourse by openly exposing Spencer’s abuse of power and because of this attention on Spencer, achieves repressive discourse to gain solidarity against him, and minimising her power difference.

58. CONCLUSION Although the authority and power associated is higher up the hierarchical status of an organisation, the woman in this text has challenged her superior due to the feeling of exploitation and manipulation from her boss She usually a variety of tactics to communicate this message to her colleagues while protecting her face in regards to her self-respect and capabilities to perform her job. These include the use of negative politness (to protect her face), humour (to expose her superior’s poor work ethic in a position of authority while de-emphasises the power imbalance), and small talk (allowing her message to be listened to more carefully. She achieves solidarity between her colleagues as well).

59. References From Study Guide Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, J. (2000a). Doing collegiaty and keeping control at work: Small talk in government departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.) Small talk (pp. 51-58). Harlo, England: Pearson Pateman (1980) and Holmes, Stubbe and Vine (1999) as cited in Holmes, J. (2000a). Doing collegiaty and keeping control at work: Small talk in government departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.) Small talk (pp. 51-58). Harlo, England: Pearson Holmes, K. (2000b). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-185. Freud (1905), Bricker (1980) and O’Quin and Arnoff (1981) as cited in Holmes, K. (2000b). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-185.

60. References Cont. From Study Guide Holliday et al. (2004) pp. 180-181, as cited in Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2004). Intercultural communication: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge Searle (1969, 1995) and Foucault (1980), Foucault (1978), Giddens, 1993), and Davidson (1986) all cited in Bower, H., & Martin, K. (2007). Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press B. Vine (n.d.) as cited in J. Benjamins (2004). Getting things done at work. No publication details available Yu.e, G. (1996), Pragmatic. Oxford: Oxford University Press Retrieved externally Essentialism (2010). Retrieved October 7, 2010 from the Wikipedia wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism