Getting Things Done At Work The Discourse Of Power In Workplace Interaction Bernadette Vine

Getting Things Done At Work The Discourse Of
Power In Workplace Interaction Bernadette Vine
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/getting-things-done-at-work-the-
discourse-of-power-in-workplace-interaction-bernadette-
vine-1756866
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Business Baby Getting Things Done One Tantrum At A Time Alex Beckerman
https://ebookbell.com/product/business-baby-getting-things-done-one-
tantrum-at-a-time-alex-beckerman-48905412
The Smart Swarm How Understanding Flocks Schools And Colonies Can Make
Us Better At Communicating Decision Making And Getting Things Done
Peter Miller
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-smart-swarm-how-understanding-
flocks-schools-and-colonies-can-make-us-better-at-communicating-
decision-making-and-getting-things-done-peter-miller-2100278
Getting Things Done The Art Of Stressfree Productivity 1st Edition
David Allen
https://ebookbell.com/product/getting-things-done-the-art-of-
stressfree-productivity-1st-edition-david-allen-56036276
Getting Things Done Allen David
https://ebookbell.com/product/getting-things-done-allen-david-3266348

Getting Things Done For Teens Take Control Of Your Life In A
Distracting World Mark Wallace And Mike Williams And David Allen
https://ebookbell.com/product/getting-things-done-for-teens-take-
control-of-your-life-in-a-distracting-world-mark-wallace-and-mike-
williams-and-david-allen-33776336
Getting Things Done The Art Of Stressfree Productivity Revised Edition
David Allen
stressfree-productivity-revised-edition-david-allen-7284638
Getting Things Done The Art Of Stressfree Productivity 1st Edition
David Allen
stressfree-productivity-1st-edition-david-allen-1272800
Getting Things Done When You Are Not In Charge Second Edition 2nd
Geoffrey M Bellman
https://ebookbell.com/product/getting-things-done-when-you-are-not-in-
charge-second-edition-2nd-geoffrey-m-bellman-1378344
Getting Things Done And Staying Organised Increase Productivity And
Banish Procrastination 50minutes
https://ebookbell.com/product/getting-things-done-and-staying-
organised-increase-productivity-and-banish-
procrastination-50minutes-46340814

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series
Editor
Andreas H. Jucker
University of Zurich, English Department
Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
e-mail: ahjucker@es.unizh.ch
Associate Editors
Jacob L. Mey
University of Southern Denmark
Herman Parret
Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp
Jef Verschueren
Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp
Editorial Board
Shoshana Blum-Kulka
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jean Caron
Université de Poitiers
Robyn Carston
University College London
Bruce Fraser
Boston University
Thorstein Fretheim
University of Trondheim
John Heritage
University of California at Los Angeles
Susan Herring
University of Texas at Arlington
Masako K. Hiraga
St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University
David Holdcroft
University of Leeds
Sachiko Ide
Japan Women’s University
Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni
University of Lyon 2
Claudia de Lemos
University of Campinas, Brazil
Marina Sbisà
University of Trieste
Emanuel Schegloﬀ
University of California at Los Angeles
Deborah Schiﬀrin
Georgetown University
Paul O. Takahara
Kansai Gaidai University
Sandra Thompson
University of California at Santa Barbara
Teun A. Van Dijk
Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
Richard J. Watts
University of Berne
Volume 124
Getting Things Done at Work: The discourse of power in workplace
interaction
by Bernadette Vine

Getting Things Done at Work
The discourse of power in workplace interaction
Bernadette Vine
Victoria University of Wellington
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam/Philadelphia

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
8
TM
of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Vine, Bernadette
Getting things done at work : the discourse of power in workplace
interaction / Bernadette Vine.
p. cm. (Pragmatics Beyond, New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 124)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Communication in organizations--New Zealand. 2.
Communication in management--New Zealand. 3. Oral communication--
New Zealand. 4. English language--Discourse analysis. 5. Power (Social
sciences) I. Title. II. Series.
HD30.3. V56 2004
320.3’5-dc22 2004047624
isbn 90 272 5366 8 (Eur.) / 1 58811 521 6 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)
© 2004 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents
Acknowledgments ix
Chapter 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Exploring power in a New Zealand workplace 1
1.2 Methodology 7
1.2.1 Data collection 7
1.2.2 Dataset 9
1.2.3 Data processing procedure 13
Chapter 2
Directives, requests and advice 15
2.1 Previous research on directives, requests and advice 16
2.1.1 Directives 16
2.1.2 Requests 18
2.1.3 Advice 20
2.1.4 Compliance-gaining 20
2.1.5 Summary of previous research 22
2.2 Definitions from previous research 23
2.2.1 Directive 23
2.2.2 Request 24
2.2.3 Advice 25
2.3 Terminology 26
2.4 Distinguishing factors 27
2.4.1 Role-relationships and obligation 28
2.4.2 Expectation of compliance and right of refusal 29
2.4.3 Benefit from the action 29
2.4.4 Summary of distinguishing factors 30
2.5 Different sub-types of directives, requests and advice 31
2.5.1 now or later 32
2.5.2 Elicited or spontaneous 33

 Table of contents
2.5.3 Specific or general 33
2.5.4 Condition or no condition 33
2.5.5 Prohibitives 34
2.5.6 Summary of sub-types 34
2.6 Politeness as a distinguishing criteria 34
2.7 Conclusion 36
Chapter 3
Identifying control acts 39
3.1 Forms 40
3.1.1 Imperatives 40
3.1.2 Interrogatives and declaratives 42
3.1.3 Summary 46
3.2 Identifying control acts where the action is not stated 46
3.3 Context 48
3.3.1 Social context 48
3.3.2 Discourse context 51
3.4 Intention and perception 58
3.5 Conclusion 60
Chapter 4
Analysis of control act head acts 63
4.1 Overall results 64
4.2 Basic categorisation of head acts 65
4.2.1 Introduction 65
4.2.2 Directness and explicitness 66
4.3 Categorisation of explicit head acts 72
4.3.1 Imperatives 72
4.3.2 Interrogatives 76
4.3.3 Declaratives 78
4.3.4 Summary of explicit head act categorisation 82
4.4 Categorisation of implicit head acts 83
4.4.1 Partial/incomplete/abbreviated action 84
4.4.2 Focus on others 86
4.4.3 Summary of implicit head act categorisation 89
4.5 Conclusion 90

Table of contents 
Chapter 5
Modification of control act head acts 93
5.1 Internal modification 93
5.1.1 Syntactic modification 94
5.1.2 Lexical/phrasal modification 96
5.1.3 Modal verbs 105
5.1.4 Semantics of modal verbs and marginal auxiliaries 108
5.1.5 Summary of internal modification devices 115
5.2 External modification 115
5.2.1 Alerters 115
5.2.2 Supportive moves 117
5.2.3 Summary of external modification devices 119
5.3 Conclusion 119
Chapter 6
Exploring control acts in context 121
6.1 Introduction to the interaction 121
6.2 Analysis of the interaction 122
6.2.1 Status report 122
6.2.2 Genevieve seeks advice on use of the passive 124
6.2.3 Donna’s writing 126
6.2.4 Conferences 132
6.2.5 Marcie’s problem 133
6.2.6 Work priorities 134
6.2.7 Policy unit one report 138
6.3 Control acts in context 145
Chapter 7
Control acts between Managers and their staff 147
7.1 Types of control act 147
7.1.1 Between Managers and Senior Staff 148
7.1.2 Between Managers and Administration Staff 149
7.1.3 Comparing Managers and staff at different levels 150
7.2 Forms used 153
7.2.1 Between Managers and Senior Staff 153
7.2.2 Between Managers and Administration Staff 156
7.2.3 Comparing Managers and staff at different levels 159
7.3 External mitigation of Managers’ directives to Executive
Assistants 161
7.4 Conclusion 164

 Table of contents
Chapter 8
Managers and power in the workplace 167
8.1 Other ways the Managers may minimise or mark status
differences 167
8.1.1 Acknowledgement of staff’s skills and expertise 168
8.1.2 Turn-taking 173
8.1.3 Amount of talk 177
8.1.4 Topic choice 182
8.1.5 Other types of speech act 186
8.2 Sonia and Ruth’s interactive style of management 188
8.2.1 General style of management 189
8.2.2 Dealing with potentially problematic situations 191
8.3 Power in the interactions between Managers and their staff 199
Chapter 9
Language and power between equals 201
9.1 Control acts 201
9.1.1 Types of control act 201
9.1.2 Forms used 203
9.1.3 Mitigation 205
9.1.4 Summary 207
9.2 Other aspects of interaction between equals 208
9.2.1 Amount of talk 208
9.2.2 Turn-taking 210
9.2.3 Topic choice and flow 212
9.2.4 Acknowledgement of expertise power 215
9.2.5 Acknowledgement of face 215
9.3 Effective communication between equals 217
Appendix
A. Transcription conventions 219
B. Main interaction purpose and word counts 221
C. Directive head acts 227
D. Request head acts 241
E. Advice head acts 247
Notes 253
References 255
Author Index 269
Subject Index 273

Acknowledgments
This book is based on my doctoral research. Many people gave me help and
support along the way – Mark Chadwick, Martin Paviour-Smith, Barbara Vine,
Jenny O’Brien, Ben Taylor, George Major, Rowan Shoemark, Melanee Beatson,
Maria Stubbe and Graeme Kennedy. I would like to thank Chris Lane for com-
menting on the first draft of my thesis and for encouraging me to publish it as
a book. Thanks to Andreas H. Jucker at John Benjamins for being so positive
about my proposal and to the anonymous reviewer who gave me some pointers
about how to make this book a bit less thesis-like.
My deepest gratitude goes to the women who recorded their workplace
interactions. Their co-operation and willingness to be involved made this study
possible. Thanks also to Victoria University of Wellington for awarding me a
scholarship. Without their financial assistance I would not have undertaken
my PhD.
I would also like to thank the Language in the Workplace Project team,
especially Janet Holmes, my thesis supervisor. This project was funded by a
grant from the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology
(FRST). Although not directly assisting my research, FRST’s support of the
project allowed the collection of the data used.
I dedicate this book to my son Henry James (Harry) Chadwick, who was
born shortly before I started on this book and to the other Harry, my father
Henry James Vine, who died shortly after I started my thesis.

Chapter 1
Introduction
. Exploring power in a New Zealand workplace
Much of the research and literature in the area of Organisational Communi-
cation takes a broad approach to language: communication is viewed from an
organisational rather than an individual perspective. Workplace communica-
tion has seldom been the focus of linguistic research and much of what has
been undertaken has been carried out in inter-cultural contexts (e.g., Willing
1992; Clyne 1994) or in doctors’ surgeries (e.g., Fisher Todd 1983; Frankel
1984, 1989, 1990; West 1984a, 1984b, 1990; ten Have 1991; Heath 1992; Har-
res 1996) or legal settings (e.g., Atkinson Drew 1979; Pollner 1979; Maynard
1984; Pomerantz 1987; Penman 1990; Atkinson 1992; Bogoch 1994). In the last
two of these situations, only the professionals are in their work setting. There is
a need, therefore, for explorations of the language used by native speakers when
working together in a workplace context. Many people spend a large propor-
tion of their lives at work, making this an important context in which language
and communication should be studied.
Power is a concept which is of obvious relevance to the analysis of work-
place data, as power relationships exist between people employed at different
levels within an organisation. Power due to position has been referred to as
“legitimate power” (Spencer-Oatey 1993:12, after French Raven 1959). How-
ever, this is not the only type of power that has been identified and which
may be enacted and acknowledged by participants. Of particular interest in
the workplace situation is “expert” (Spencer-Oatey 1992, cited in Thomas
1995:127) or “expertise” power (Dwyer 1993:557). This type of power is based
on the particular skills and strengths that a person has.
Both “legitimate” and “expertise” power involve a situation where one
individual or group has power over others. Ng Bradac (1993:3) and Yeat-
man (1994) group these types of power under the heading “power over”, while
Fairclough (1989:33) uses the term “coercive power”.
“Power over” may be realised in different ways. Fairclough (1989:72) notes
that it is the people in positions of power who decide what is correct or ap-

 Chapter 1
propriate in an interaction. They also have “the capacity to determine to what
extent ...[their] power will be overtly expressed”. In recent years in Britain
overt marking of power has been declining (Fairclough 1989:72, 1992:4).
As a result, people in both managerial and less senior positions have gained
certain advantages in terms of their working relationships and environment.
Other types of power have become more relevant, such as “consultative power”
(Dwyer 1993:557). This type of power involves Managers seeking information,
considering advice and making plans with others (Dwyer 1993:558).
Three types of leaders have been identified in management handbooks –
“authoritarian”, “participative” and “laissez-faire” (see e.g., Dwyer 1993:559).
“Authoritarian” Managers take control and enact their power overtly with lit-
tle discussion or input from other staff. The “laissez-faire” Manager, on the
other hand, “effectively lets the group run itself” (Dwyer 1993:561), while the
“participative” leader shows a balance between these two extremes. The trend
Fairclough (1989, 1992) notes in Britain (see above) demonstrates a move-
ment from the use of more “authoritarian” to more “participative” styles of
management.
This book explores the expression of power in a New Zealand workplace.
Many of the interactions in the dataset are between people working at different
job levels within the organisation. This allows investigation of the Managers’
style of management and the ways that the people in this workplace mark or
minimise power differences. The relevance of a range of types of power and
their salience in this workplace is explored using a combination of quantita-
tive and qualitative methods, with the main focus being on the expression of
directives, requests and advice.
The focus on directives, requests and advice suggests a speech act approach
to analysis and Speech Act Theory is used as the starting point. Behind this the-
ory is the concept that in saying something a speaker is performing a social act
i.e., an utterance has an “illocutionary” function. This has been done success-
fully when the listener understands the illocutionary force, or intention, of the
speaker.
Several speech act taxonomies have been proposed, beginning with the
work of the philosopher Austin (1962) (see Austin 1975:151–164). Subsequent
researchers have identified weaknesses in Austin’s approach (which was only
ever intended as a starting point for discussion – Austin 1975:152) and have
gone on to propose their own taxonomies. The most influential of these is
Searle (1969, 1975, 1976, 1979), another philosopher.
Searle’s primary criticism of Austin’s work and his motivation for devel-
oping his own taxonomy, was that Austin’s classification had been based on

Introduction 
illocutionary verbs rather than illocutionary acts (Searle 1976:8). Searle is care-
ful to base his categorisation on illocutionary point (Searle 1976:1–16). He
divides illocutionary acts into five major categories: representatives (later re-
ferred to as assertives – Searle 1979), directives, expressives, commissives and
declarations.
The focus in this study is on directives. Although I use Searle’s taxonomy
as a starting point, I also draw on the classification system developed by Bach
Harnish (1979). Bach Harnish (1979) follow Searle in distinguishing be-
tween the categories in their taxonomy on the basis of illocutionary force. Like
Searle, they include a category called directives (Bach Harnish 1979:40–41).
Within this they identify six types of acts: requestives, questions, requirements,
prohibitives, permissives and advisories (Bach Harnish 1979:47–49). I inves-
tigate three of these types – requestives, requirementsand advisories – although
my definitions are more specific than Bach Harnish’s (see Chapter 2).
Bach and Harnish developed their approach because, as linguists, they felt
that Searle’s taxonomy was inadequately integrated “into a general account of
linguistic communication” (Bach Harnish 1979:xi). Bach and Harnish stress
the importance of three factors: (1) the content of an utterance, (2) the context
and (3) the point of an utterance is intended to be recognised. The importance
of these three factors is explored in my study.
Each new attempt to provide a taxonomy of speech acts has arisen from the
problems the authors perceive with earlier attempts. Many researchers working
within other paradigms have also criticised Speech Act Theory (e.g., Levin-
son 1981; Schegloff 1984; 1988; Flowerdew 1990a; Trosborg 1994). Many of
the criticisms are aimed at the work of Austin and Searle and do not consider
later attempts to develop the theory further (as noted by van Rees 1992 and
Thomas 1995). I consider two of the criticisms here. Some of the others, such
as problems identifying speech acts, are explored in Chapters 2 and 3.
Trosborg (1994:19) criticises Searle’s approach because it is built
on a logic of obligation and authority which is not a universal social process
...When issuing a command, the speaker must have authority over the hearer
and the hearer must be under obligation to the speaker for the command to be
performed in a felicitous way. This is contradicted by actual social behaviour,
in which commands are frequently observed occurring among equals, for
example, in a family context. (cf. the findings of Ervin-Tripp 1976)
Trosborg’s criticism here seems to arise from a failure to clearly distinguish
between form and function. Speech Act Theory has frequently been criticised
for associating speech acts with specific syntactic forms (e.g., Schegloff 1984).

 Chapter 1
However, part of what Speech Act Theory tries to capture is the way that a
range of forms can have the same function.
A major criticism of Speech Act Theory has been that it is based on looking
at utterances in isolation (see for example Schegloff 1988; Flowerdew 1990b).
This criticism is very valid when applied to the work of Austin and Searle. Their
speech act taxonomies tend to overlook the interactive nature of discourse.
More recent applications of Speech Act Theory, however, do look beyond iso-
lated utterances to the surrounding discourse, see for example Blum-Kulka
et al. (1989b). The aim in Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989b) work is to “comple-
ment theoretical studies of speech acts, based primarily on intuited data of
isolated utterances, with empirical studies, produced by native speakers in con-
text” (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989c:3). Not only do they look at utterances which
realise requests and apologies, but they also examine the ways the preceding
and following utterances in the speech of the requester or apologiser soften or
strengthen the speech act.
Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989b) work extends Speech Act Theory beyond the
level of utterance. However, their data is elicited. Other research on speech
acts examines naturally occurring data, e.g., Ervin-Tripp (1976), Labov Fan-
shel (1977), Reiss (1985). There are many studies exploring the range of forms
which realise particular speech acts in naturally occurring data. A number of
other methods of analysis such as Conversation Analysis are applied in some
of these studies (see e.g., Heritage Stefi’s 1992 research on advice or Hua et
al.’s 2000 exploration of offers). This reflects the fact that the notion of speech
acts has become widely accepted in linguistics. Hua et al.’s (2000) article ap-
pears in a recent issue of the Journal of Pragmatics which focuses on “speech
acts in conversation”. The other papers in this issue have a range of foci and use
a number of different approaches to analysis.
When conducting a speech act analysis of naturally occurring data, it
quickly becomes apparent that the surrounding discourse must be examined
carefully (see Chapter 3). This type of exploration can be informed by work
which takes a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach. CA was developed by
sociologists. A central concern for Conversation Analysts is the sequential pat-
terning of conversation (Psathas 1995:13); their approach considers surround-
ing utterances. The need to examine context at a number of levels, including
surrounding discourse, is an important finding of this study. CA, therefore,
provides a useful tool for exploring context at the micro-level.
Researchers have claimed that Speech Act Theory and CA are incompat-
ible because CA does not predefine features of speech acts (Schegloff 1984;
1988). CA analysts examine the data to determine what is happening in each

Introduction 
case. Meaning is negotiated by participants in and throughout interaction. A
speech act investigation can also take this approach. As discussed in Chapter 3,
defining speech acts according to external factors and carefully specified con-
textual criteria is not enough when exploring speech acts in naturally occurring
data. Context at the level of surrounding discourse must be examined. CA be-
comes a useful tool when investigating context at the level of discourse. One of
CA’s major strengths is that it has developed from research on naturally occur-
ring data and has provided very useful insights on the organisation of spoken
interaction.
Although considering context at the level of surrounding discourse, CA
does not consider broader elements of the context, e.g., interactants’ job roles
or gender, unless the participants make these factors salient in the interaction
(Levinson 1983:295 fn.). The main issue focused on in this study is power. Hav-
ing identified sections of speech from the data to discuss, I do interpret these
on the basis of my knowledge about status relationships. That is, I examine the
relevance of the social context in which the interactions take place.
The speech act approach taken in this study can be seen as a develop-
ment of Speech Act Theory. I am not attempting to develop a new taxonomy;
rather I examine three types of speech act in naturally occurring data. This
type of approach has been suggested by researchers such as Thomas (1985). She
suggests a dynamic approach to investigating power, building on the work of
CA researchers and “incorporating insights from recent work in interpersonal
pragmatics (particularly that of Leech (1977, 1983) and Brown Levinson
(1978))” (Thomas 1985:766). She asserts that the power relationship between
participants, along with institutional norms, “are central to the way in which
the discourse is developed and individual utterances interpreted” (Thomas
1985:766).
Thomas (1985) draws on insights from the work of Leech (1977, 1983) and
Brown Levinson (1978).1
The main focus of their work is politeness. This is
a relevant issue when considering power. Less powerful speakers are expected
to be more polite, while more powerful speakers are allowed to be less polite
(Brown Levinson 1987:80).
Brown Levinson’s theory is the most influential of the approaches to
politeness and has inspired many studies. Their theory revolves around the
concept of “face”, as derived from the work of Goffman (1967). In particular,
Brown Levinson (1987:58) identify a model person (MP) who has “two par-
ticular wants ...the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in
certain respects”. They refer to these two wants as negative and positive face
respectively. Politeness is a strategy which results from speakers’ attempts to

 Chapter 1
avoid or minimise damage either to their own face or the face of their inter-
locutor(s). In particular, Brown Levinson note a number of strategies which
speakers use to address their hearer’s face needs. These are referred to as nega-
tive and positive politeness strategies according to the aspect of face which they
address.
Speakers need to utilise these strategies to compensate for “face threatening
acts” (FTAs), i.e., speech acts that “intrinsically threaten face” (Brown Levin-
son 1987:60). Directives, requests and advice are all FTAs. The “assessment of
the seriousness of an FTA” (Brown Levinson 1987:74), also referred to as
its “weightiness” (Brown Levinson 1987:76), involves consideration of the
social distance between the speaker and hearer, the relative power of the two
participants, and the ranking of the imposition of the FTA. These three factors,
therefore, determine the level of politeness utilised by the speaker (Brown
Levinson 1987:76). The role of power is the main focus of this study. The rele-
vance of the two other factors, social distance and imposition, is also explored,
although politeness is not a major focus of my research.
Power is the main focus in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Researchers
using this approach examine the patterns present from the perspective of
power, or “dominance” (van Dijk 1993). Fairclough (1989), for example, ex-
plores the types of speech act people in different status positions can utilise
and the expression of power through the use of overlapping speech or topic
control. Some of the features Fairclough identifies are examined in this study. A
CDA approach was not adopted, however, as many of the aspects interpreted in
a CDA approach as reflecting status differences have other possible interpreta-
tions. When power is taken as the main interpreting factor it is easy to overlook
the immediate context and to ignore other potentially relevant factors. Power,
like meaning, is negotiated.
The negotiation of roles by participants within an interaction has become
a major focus of gender and discourse research. The “social construction”2
ap-
proach advocated by researchers such as Crawford (1995), Hall Bucholtz
(1995) and Johnson Meinhof (1997) asserts that gender, as with other aspects
of social identity, is constructed and actively maintained through language and
other social practices. This is an ongoing process. Using this approach the
power relationship between two individuals is not a static feature of an inter-
action, it is actively maintained and negotiated throughout. We can talk about
how people enact power in the workplace, much in the way that gender in
discourse researchers discuss the enactment of gender.

Introduction 
In the second part of this chapter, an outline is provided of how the data
analysed were collected and of the resulting dataset. Before doing this, I provide
a brief outline of the rest of the book.
It has already been noted that there is a paucity of linguistic research on
workplace communication. There has been a certain amount of research, how-
ever, which has focused on the speech acts which are the focus of my research.
Requests in particular have been a popular focus of study. Previous research
on directives, requests and advice is outlined in the first section of Chapter 2,
along with relevant research by psychologists on “compliance-gaining”. Chap-
ter 2 also explores definitions of directive, request and advice and outlines the
way these terms are applied in this study
Even with clear definitions, there are a number of important issues which
need to be considered in relation to the identification of utterances as direc-
tives, requests and advice. These are explored in Chapter 3.
The basic categorisation system adopted in order to classify utterances
identified as directives, requests and advice is provided in Chapter 4, while
Chapter 5 outlines the main force modifying devices present in the data. Chap-
ter 6 examines a transcript in detail to show how the observations in the
previous three chapters apply to the data. It shows how the utterances pattern
in relation to each other and to the surrounding discourse.
Chapters 7 and 8 discuss the results found in interactions involving par-
ticipants working at different job levels. In Chapter 7 this entails exploration
of directives, requests, and advice in terms of types of control act, forms, and
mitigation. Chapter 8 examines some other factors that may reflect power re-
lationships and summarises the overall management style of the Managers.
Chapter 9 concludes the study by exploring the results for the interactions in-
volving participants of equal status and makes comparisons with the findings
in Chapters 7 and 8.
. Methodology
.. Data collection
The data analysed in this study were collected as part of the Wellington Lan-
guage in the Workplace Project. This project aims to examine the linguistic
features of real workplace interactions. Initial recordings were made of inter-
actions in four different government workplaces in Wellington, New Zealand.

 Chapter 1
The project has since expanded its focus to the private sector, but the data used
in this study is drawn from the initial government dataset.
Volunteers from each workplace recorded a range of their everyday inter-
actions on audio tape over a period of approximately two weeks. Several video
recordings of larger meetings were also collected at each workplace.
The participants were given complete control over the recording process.
No outside observers were present and participants who agreed to carry a tape
recorder could record as many or as few interactions as they wished. During
the recording period, they could edit the tapes, or ask for material to be wiped
at any later time. There were a number of occasions where the tape recorder
was turned off while participants talked about confidential issues.
Although only some individuals carried tape-recorders, everyone in the
workplace was informed that the recording was taking place and on each oc-
casion that a recording was going to be made the volunteers were required to
inform and gain consent from their interlocutor(s).
Handing over the recording process to the participants has a number of
potential problems. There were times when the volunteers forgot to turn the
tape over and so an interaction was not fully recorded. It could also be argued
that people were more tape-aware because they had to remember to turn on
the tape-recorder, change the tapes, etc. However, because of the workplace
setting and the ongoing nature of the recording process many of the problems
encountered in getting natural data for the Wellington Corpus of New Zealand
English and the New Zealand component of the International Corpus of En-
glish did not arise (Holmes et al. 1998). People were generally focusing on their
work and the recording seemed to become part of their work procedures.
If we had not adopted this approach it is unlikely that we could have ob-
tained the same quantity and quality of data. An alternative approach would
have been to have outside observers in the workplace. In the initial stages of
data collection there was only one research assistant working for the Welling-
ton Language in the Workplace Project. This meant that we did not have the
resources to be able to follow more than one person around at a time. Even if
we had had the staff to be able to follow several people around, this would have
involved a major intrusion upon the workplace. It is much easier to carry on
interactions in as normal a way as possible if only a tape-recorder is present,
rather than a tape-recorder and a stranger holding it and taking notes.
The fact that several people were recording was a major advantage. This
provided us with a rich database of interactions. It also meant that the whole
workplace (or units within a workplace) were involved in the data-collection
process. This resulted in a greater overall acceptance of being recorded.

Introduction 
.. Dataset
The core database for my analysis is drawn from the interactions collected at
one of the four government workplaces. The twelve volunteers at this work-
place collected 135 interactions involving 56 participants. In particular, I focus
on the 52 one-to-one interactions involving four of the volunteers – two Man-
agers and two Senior Policy Analysts.
A decision was made to focus on the one-to-one interactions in order to
try and control one aspect of context, the complexities caused by multiple in-
terpersonal relationships. Galvin et al. (1992:379) note that as the number of
communicators within a small group increases so does “the number of poten-
tial message exchanges”. Following Bostrom (1970) they suggest a power-law
scaling relationship (i.e., r = n(2n–1
– 1) where r is the number of interactions
and n is the number of people). According to this model, there are two rela-
tionships in an interaction between two people (one from the perspective of
each person), nine between three (three relationships for each person, e.g., A
with B, A with C and A with the pairing of B and C), 28 between four, etc.
The 52 interactions range in length from one minute to 39 minutes and
are all face-to-face. Most are less than 20 minutes long and overall there is just
under 8 hours of audio tape. There are 22 participants in these interactions and
they are all women.3
All but one are speakers of New Zealand English (i.e. they
qualify under the criteria specified by the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New
Zealand English, see Holmes et al. 1998).
Table 1.1 shows a breakdown of the interactions in terms of the occupa-
tions of the participants. Eleven of the interactions involve participants who
work at the same level within the organisation, while the remaining 41 inter-
actions involve speakers from different levels. Apart from the four interactions
involving two Managers, most of the interactions involve people from the same
section of the organisation.
The 52 interactions represent a range of types of workplace interaction.
There are interactions where both participants are working through problems
Table 1.1 Occupation breakdown for core sample by number of interactions
Manager Senior Staff
Manager 4 ...
Senior Staff 19 7
Administration Staff 18 4

 Chapter 1
together and others which involve one participant providing and/or seeking
advice. There are also update sessions and meetings where one person provides
feedback to the other. Appendix B lists the main purpose of each interaction.
This dataset provided material which allowed me to explore in depth how
power is enacted in a range of situations and between a range of people at
different levels within the organisation.
This workplace is one where two-way communication between Managers
and their staff is commonplace and where there is also easy access to authority.
This is evident for example in interactions such as one which begins with a
Senior Policy Analyst asking a Manager if she can spare five minutes to discuss
a problem. Not only is this meeting not pre-arranged, but the Manager and the
Senior Policy Analyst engage in problem-solving talk. The Manager does not
just tell the Senior Policy Analyst what to do.
Interactions such as the one mentioned above, also demonstrate the infor-
mal nature of the workplace. Although many of the meetings are pre-arranged
a number are not. The informal nature is also evident in that even the pre-
arranged meetings do not always have strict pre-defined agendas. Another
aspect of this workplace which illustrates the workplace’s culture is the lay-
out and working conditions. Although the Managers have their own offices,
the other staff work in an open-plan environment.
I will now describe the dataset in more detail. This involves a closer look at
the interactions in which the four key informants appear. The totals of the four
tables below do not add to 52 interactions or 7 hours 51 minutes, as the four
informants frequently interact with each other. It should also be noted that all
names used to refer to the participants are pseudonyms.
Sonia
Sonia is a participant in 16 of the 52 interactions in my core dataset, comprising
nearly 3 hours of audio tape (see Table 1.2).
Sonia was the Manager of a Policy Unit at this workplace (henceforth Pol-
icy Unit One). Her Senior Staff was comprised of three Senior Policy Analysts,
three Policy Analysts and a Communications/Liaison Officer. An Executive
Assistant was also working in the unit, although a temporary Executive As-
sistant was filling in for her for part of the time we were recording. Sonia was
recorded interacting with the Communications/Liaison Officer (Hilary), two
of the Senior Policy Analysts (Genevieve and Francine), two of the Policy An-
alysts (Eloise and Donna) and both the temporary Executive Assistant (Anna)
and the permanent Executive Assistant (Beth).

Introduction 
Table 1.2 Sonia’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different indi-
viduals and approximate overall length
Other Number of Total length
participant interactions of interactions
Managers Ruth 3 21 mins
Therese 1 9 mins
Senior Hilary 2 27 mins
Staff Genevieve 1 35 mins
Francine 1 16 mins
Eloise 1 20 mins
Donna 1 8 mins
Admin. Beth 3 29 mins
Staff Anna 2 10 mins
Clare 1 3 mins
Total 10 16 2 hr 58 mins
Sonia also appears in several interactions with people working in other parts
of the organisation. Five of these are included in my dataset. In four of these
she is talking with other Managers, and in the other she is talking to a Finance
Officer (Clare).
Ruth
The other Manager whose interactions are included in my dataset is Ruth.
Twenty eight of the 52 interactions involve Ruth, comprising 3 hours and 8
minutes of interaction time (see Table 1.3).
Ruth was also a Policy Unit Manager (henceforth Policy Unit Two). Her
Senior Staff was comprised of eight Senior Policy Analysts and two Policy An-
alysts. An Executive Assistant was also working in the unit at the time the data
were recorded. Ruth was recorded interacting with five of the Senior Policy An-
alysts, one of the Policy Analysts (Ondine) and the Executive Assistant (Irene).
She was also recorded in three interactions with Sonia (Manager of Policy Unit
One) and in two interactions with Administration Staff working in other parts
of the organisation – Phoebe (Executive Assistant, Corporate Relations) and
Quinta (Library Assistant).
Katie
Katie was a Senior Policy Analyst within Policy Unit Two. She is a participant
in 11 of the interactions, comprising 1 hour 22 minutes (see Table 1.4). These

 Chapter 1
Table 1.3 Ruth’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different individ-
uals and approximate overall length
Manager Sonia 3 21 mins
Senior Jo 4 1 hr 9 mins
Staff Katie 2 21 mins
Leigh 1 8 mins
Mary 2 30 mins
Nell 1 5 mins
Ondine 2 7 mins
Admin. Irene 11 20 mins
Staff Phoebe 1 3 mins
Quinta 1 4 mins
Table 1.4 Katie’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different indi-
viduals and approximate overall length
Manager Ruth 2 21 mins
Senior Jo 1 7 mins
Staff Mary 2 17 mins
Ondine 2 23 mins
Admin. Irene 1 1 min
Staff Ursula 3 13 mins
interactions involve her interacting with her Manager (Ruth), two other Se-
nior Policy Analysts, a Policy Analyst and Administration Staff. The majority
of these interactions take place with staff from the same unit. Ursula does not
work within Policy Unit Two, but is part of the general Administration Staff at
the workplace and provides computer support to the whole department.
Jo
Jo was also a Senior Policy Analyst within Policy Unit Two. She is a partici-
pant in seven of the interactions, comprising 2 hours 21 minutes of talk (see

Introduction 
Table 1.5 Jo’s interactions in terms of number of interactions with different individuals
and approximate overall length
Manager Ruth 4 1 hr 9 mins
Senior Katie 1 7 mins
Staff Vera 1 26 mins
Francine 1 39 mins
Table 1.5). Four of these involve her Manager (Ruth), while the other three
involve other Senior Policy Analysts. One of Jo’s interactions is with a Senior
Policy Analyst from another unit – Francine from Policy Unit One.
Jo was not included as one of my initial informants, but was included at
a later stage because she was present in several of the interactions recorded by
the other three key informants. As can be seen in Tables 1.2 to 1.5, several other
participants appear a number of times.
.. Data processing procedure
The initial processing of the tapes from each volunteer involved copying the
tapes and then identifying the interactions on each tape. The amount of data
recorded by each individual varied greatly. Some volunteers returned all their
tapes blank, while others filled all those provided.
Each of the interactions in the dataset was described and then transcribed.
The transcription conventions used are outlined in Appendix A. During the
transcription process, I did not attempt to identify specific examples; rather I
transcribed all of the interactions in full. Because I was planning to explore the
relevance of the full context in which items occurred, it was necessary to begin
with a full basic transcript.
Having produced final transcripts for the 52 interactions, I went through
each transcript and identified examples of directives, requests and advice. I
assigned a code number to each example.
This code consists of three letters followed by a sequence of two numbers.
The first letter signals whether the utterance4
is categorised as a directive (d),
a request (r), or advice (a). The second letter indicates who uttered the exam-
ple, for instance Sonia’s and Ruth’s utterances are coded S and R respectively.
The final letter indicates the addressee. For instance, Sonia issues directives to

 Chapter 1
Anna, Beth, Clare, Donna, Eloise, Francine, Genevieve and Hilary, so these are
labelled dSA, dSB, dSC, dSD, dSE, dSF, dSG and dSH respectively.
As seen above, participants sometimes interact with each other on more
than one occasion. Each separate interaction with the same two people was
given a separate number. The utterances extracted from each interaction were
then numbered consecutively. For example, Sonia has three interactions with
Beth, so the first directive from each of these were labelled dSB1-01, dSB2-01
and dSB3-01. Sometimes a directive, request or instance of advice was ex-
pressed using more than one utterance. In these cases, the relevant utterances
were labelled a, b, etc.
As well as assigning a code to each example, information was also noted
on the form the utterance took, and other potentially relevant features, for
example pronoun use, the use of please and the use of alerters or supportive
moves.
I will now look at previous research on the three speech acts which are the
main focus of my study.

Chapter 2
Directives, requests and advice
In the first section of this chapter a brief summary is provided of pre-
vious research on directives, requests and advice in adult-adult interaction.
Researchers in each area have focused on different issues. Most of the studies
on directives have been conducted in work settings, with a range of workplaces
being investigated. There has been a common aim in many studies to identify
the different forms used by individuals of different status.
Research on requests in adult-adult interaction has covered a large number
of contexts. Comparisons have been made between English and a wide range of
other languages, and between the requests of native and non-native speakers.
Both spoken and written requests have been examined.
Advice is an area which has not been researched a great deal. The studies
which do exist cover a diverse range of contexts, the most popular being radio
advice shows. The issues explored have also been diverse. Research has mainly
focused on elicited advice, although see Heritage and Stefi (1992).
I also provide a brief outline of some work by psychologists on compliance-
gaining. An important difference between most of this work and the studies
on directives, requests and advice is that language is not always the focus of
attention. Another major difference is that compliance-gaining research fo-
cuses on interactions between strangers. This is true both of studies where
field experiments have been undertaken and those where subjects have been
asked to respond to hypothetical situations. Compliance-gaining research is
still relevant to my study because status has frequently been considered.
A substantial amount of research has been done on directives and requests
in the language of children, caregivers and teachers. Some of this research is
referred to in other sections, but the purpose of the review in Section 2.1 is to
explore factors which have been found important in previous work examining
adult-adult interaction.
The second part of the chapter reviews previous definitions of directive, re-
quest and advice. This highlights an important issue for studies of these speech
acts – namely the use of terminology. This aspect, and the problems associated
with it, are explored more fully in Section 2.3.

 Chapter 2
The factors which I have identified in the literature and which I use in my
research to distinguish between directives, requests and advice are outlined in
Section 2.4. Within each of these types a number of other sub-types can be
differentiated. Section 2.5 discusses some of these. The chapter concludes with
a brief discussion of the role of politeness as a distinguishing criterion.
. Previous research on directives, requests and advice
.. Directives
Probably the most influential early paper on directives was written by Susan
Ervin-Tripp (Ervin-Tripp 1976). In this paper, Ervin-Tripp (1976) identifies
six different types of directives from data collected by her students in a range
of settings. She explores the distribution of these types across social rela-
tionships and in different settings, finding that the different forms occurred
systematically according to familiarity, rank, territorial location, difficulty of
task, whether or not a duty is normally expected, and whether or not non-
compliance is likely.
Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) work has provided a reference point for subsequent
studies in this area. Many researchers have applied Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) tax-
onomy of directives to their datasets, or drawn on it to develop their own
categorisation. For example, Weigel and Weigel (1985) apply the Ervin-Tripp
(1976) model to a migrant agricultural community, Pufahl Bax (1986) applies
it to an office situation (see below) and Holmes (1983) drew on it in analysing
directives collected in a classroom situation.
Weigel and Weigel (1985) and Brown (2000) both explore working class
environments. Weigel and Weigel (1985) investigated directive use in a pre-
dominantly black male migratory agricultural labour population in the United
States, applying Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) categorisation to their data. Their find-
ings contradict Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) generalisations in terms of social factors
influencing directive use. There was a preference for the very direct imper-
ative form in their data, which they see as a reflection of “the antagonistic
relationships within the migrant farm-worker community” (Weigel and Weigel
1985:63).
Brown (2000) examined directives in a tanning factory in New Zealand.
Like Weigel and Weigel (1985), Brown found high use of imperative forms,
although there was variation according to a number of social factors, such as
age, status and social distance.

Directives, requests and advice 
Directive use by people in a range of higher status occupations has also
been investigated. Research by West (1998) has focused on directives issued
by physicians to their patients. In her analysis, West drew on work by Good-
win (1980, 1988, 1990) on children’s language to examine differences between
the directives used by women and men physicians. Although her dataset was
small, West (1998) found clear differences in the forms used by women and
men with women using more forms which minimise status differences between
physicians and patients.
University workplaces were the focus of Owusu-Ansah’s (1992) and Pufahl
Bax’s (1986) research on directives. Owusu-Ansah (1992) investigates power
relations in a Ghanaian university in student-staff meetings and student reso-
lutions by examining the use of modal items in directives. There was variation
in the language behaviour of the students in the two different settings, and
Owusu-Ansah concluded that this was a reflection of the complexity of power
relationships. Pufahl Bax (1986) examines both written and spoken directives
in staff-staff interactions in an American university office. She demonstrates
how the language of supervisors and subordinates reflects not only their roles
within the organisation, but also how they communicate at an interpersonal
level. Interpersonal relationships and social considerations were seen to play a
more salient role in the spoken directives and Pufahl Bax concluded that spo-
ken and written language are organised differently with respect to directives.
Initial findings of an on-going study of directives in another work setting
were reported in 1999 on the Internet and in newspapers around the world.5
This study, funded by NASA, focuses on the use of directives between pilots
and co-pilots. So far, status has been found to be a very influential factor in
accounting for the type of directive given, with captains issuing more than
twice the number of direct forms as first officers. First officers utilise indirect
forms, using hints or problem statements “rather than explicitly stating what to
do”. Although no gender differences were found in terms of type, female pilots
tended to structure their directives differently, giving more two part utterances
than their male counterparts.
There have also been a couple of studies on adult-adult directives in non-
work settings (Pearson 1989 and Jones 1992). Pearson’s data was collected
from church business meetings, and showed the way the participants varied
their use of forms as they negotiate both power and accommodation. Jones
(1992) compares men’s and women’s directives at a dance group meeting in
terms of frequency, targets and types. Little difference was found between men
and women in terms of these factors. Status variations within the group were
found to be more important than gender, although other factors influenced

 Chapter 2
the use of directives more. Jones (1992:427) concluded that “directive usage
cannot be adequately understood without considering the specific contexts in
which directives occur”. Directives were expressed most directly when another
threat to conversation outweighed the threat of the directive, when there were
strong bonds between participants and/or a high degree of involvement in the
conversation.
.. Requests
There have been a number of cross-cultural studies comparing English requests
to request realisations in other languages, including Walters (1979) (Spanish
and English); Alam (1980) (Urdu and English); Tannen (1981) (Greek and
English); House and Kasper (1981) (German and English); Blum-Kulka et al.
(1985) (Israeli Hebrew and American English); and Hill et al. (1986) (Japanese
and American English).
House and Kasper’s (1981) investigation inspired a project investigating re-
quests and apologies in eight languages or varieties around the world. Several
articles and two books outline the goals, methodology and some of the results
of this project, which is known as the CCSARP (Cross Cultural Speech Act
Realization Project), e.g., Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), Blum-Kulka and
House (1989). The goals of this project are to make comparisons across lan-
guages, as well as between native and non-native speakers. Data for the project
were elicited using the same test questions translated into each of the languages
and varieties. Two hundred native speakers and 200 non-native speakers were
tested for each variety with each providing eight examples of requests and eight
examples of apologies.
Other researchers have adopted the approach of Blum-Kulka and House
(1989) and applied it to data collected from a number of other languages
and contexts. Garcia (1993), for example, explores Peruvian Spanish, Trosborg
(1994) applies it to Danish and English, Lee-Wong (1994, 1998, 2000) to Chi-
nese, and Bilbow (1995, 1996, 1997) applies it to the English of Chinese and
ex-patriate Britons in Hong Kong business meetings.
A number of studies of requests have drawn on the work of Brown and
Levinson (1978, 1987). Holtgraves and Yang (1990, 1992), for example, in-
vestigate potential cultural differences between the United States and Korea.
Holtgravesand Yang (1990) found that informants from both cultures had sim-
ilar assessments of the politeness of different request forms. Perceptions of the
politeness of the forms presented varied with the extent to which the forms en-
coded concern for the hearer’s face, in keeping with Brown Levinson’s theory.

Directives, requests and advice 
However, results were less clear in relation to other aspects of the theory. There
was only mixed support for predictions that the size of the request and the
hearer’s relative power and distance from the speaker will affect perceptions of
different forms. Holtgraves and Yang (1990) also explored whether inferences
of speaker power and relationship closeness can be made on the basis of request
forms with their results indicating that this is possible.
In their later study, Holtgraves and Yang (1992) tested Brown Levinson’s
theory further and although they found power, distance, and size of imposi-
tion contributed significantly to politeness, an additive model (as presented
by Brown Levinson) was not appropriate. There was evidence of cultural
and gender differences in the weighting of these variables and Holtgraves and
Yang (1992) noted that these differences can partially account for cultural and
gender differences in language use.
Most work on requests in the spoken English of native speakers has com-
pared English and other languages (see above), or the English of native and
non-native speakers. Requests in the written English of native-speakers of En-
glish have been examined by Homzie et al. (1981), Bargiela-Chiappini and
Harris (1996) and Pilegaard (1997). Although I do not examine written lan-
guage, this research is relevant to my study because the influence of status is
explored. All three studies draw on Brown Levinson’s Politeness Theory in
some way.
Homzie et al. (1981) examined the relationship between the content of
written messages and the relative status of the letter writer and the addressee.
Status was assessed in terms of age and education. Undergraduates were asked
to compose two letters of request: one to a high school student and the other to
an individual with a master’s degree. The letters were coded as to their degree
of formality and the strength of the request. Results indicate that subjects ad-
justed their letters depending on the supposed relative status of the addressees.
Homzie, Kotsonis and Toris reported that it was possible to correctly classify
76% of the letters as to the status of the intended recipient.
In an investigation of a corpus of 323 business letters, Pilegaard (1997)
found that the level, form and distribution of positive and negative politeness
varied with sender status. Rather than focusing only on sender-status, Bargiela-
Chiappini and Harris (1996) examined letters written to and by the same
Managing Director. They explored variation in the form of written requests
in relation to status, power, social distance and imposition. Degree of imposi-
tion of the request was found to override status considerations in determining
the level of politeness.

 Chapter 2
.. Advice
Advice from radio shows has been examined by a number of researchers. The
speech of a female talk show host was analysed by Hudson (1990) to identify
the range and characteristics of the semantic and syntactic features she used.
The analysis showed a tendency by the talk show host to avoid using direct
forms, such as the imperative.
DeCapua and Dunham (1993) examined the discourse strategies used by
both a male and female talk show host and their callers in relation to responses
to and requests for advice. Callers seeking advice used three strategies – ex-
planation, elaboration and narration. The language of the hosts reflected their
role: “to help advice seekers clarify what their problems are, to help advice seek-
ers sort through their options, and to either confirm choices made by advice
seekers or to offer advice instead” (DeCapua and Dunham 1993:529).
The strategies used by the advice-giver to account for the public nature of
advice radio shows are explored by Hutchby (1995). The expert (advice-giver)
tends to follow advice to the individual advice-seeker with auxiliary informa-
tion designed for the benefit of the audience. The role of the non-expert host
was also examined.
A medical context was the focus of Heritage and Stefi’s (1992) study of
advice. They examined the delivery and reception of advice between health
visitors and first-time mothers in Great Britain. The main ways advice was ini-
tiated and received were examined. Most of the advice in their data was not
solicited and was often only prepared for by the health visitor in a minimal way.
This resulted in many cases where the advice was not overtly acknowledged nor
indication given that it would be followed.
Altman (1990) considers advice in American English from the perspective
of non-native speakers. In particular, he focuses on the interpretation of the
modal auxiliary verb should and the marginal auxiliary had better. The non-
native speakers in his study (Japanese second-language learners of English)
associated a lot more force with advice containing these forms than native
speakers. The potential for miscommunication was identified.
.. Compliance-gaining
Power and status are the main focus of the research of Yinon and Dovrat
(1987), Fontaine and Beerman (1977) and Yukl et al. (1996). In a field experi-
ment, Yinon and Dovrat (1987) tested the willingness of subjects to perform a
personal service when asked, varying the social status of the requester and the

Directives, requests and advice 
degree of urgency and cost. Results show that subjects more frequently helped
requesters when the requester was in an occupation which focuses on the well-
being of others (e.g., a physician or a fireman) than in an occupation which
does not (e.g., an accountant or a gas-station attendant), regardless of the so-
cial status of the occupations. Urgent and low cost requests were complied with
more frequently than non-urgent and high cost requests.
Fontaine and Beerman (1977) examined expectancies for powerholders
and addressees for compliance and satisfaction with compliance following a re-
quest. The degree of expected compliance and satisfaction was expected to be
influenced by the type of social power used. Head and staff hospital nurses par-
ticipated in the study which involved role-play followed by discussion. When
the requester made reference to legitimate, coercive, and expert power (see
Chapter 1) this generally led to low expectancies for compliance and satis-
faction. When the requestor stressed similarities, gave information or made
reference to “rewarding” power (their ability to provide rewards) there were
high expectancies of compliance. Head nurses expected more compliance and
satisfaction with compliance than staff nurses expected, but staff nurses’ ex-
pectancies were much more sensitive to the type of power used than head
nurses’ expectancies.
Yukl et al. (1996) also investigate power and compliance, finding that in-
fluence tactics, power, and content factors independently affect influence out-
comes. Commitment was more likely when the request was important and
enjoyable to implement, and the requester had strong referentpower, used con-
sultation, inspirational appeals, or a strong form of rational persuasion, and
did not use pressure (see also Bohm and Hendricks (1997) for research which
has shown the positive effect of using high levels of justification).
Power and status are factors which have also been indirectly addressed in
a number of studies on compliance-gaining. Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coup-
land, and Coupland (1990), for instance, explores status through investigation
of the influence of age, Ramirez (1977) through ethnicity and Remland and
Jones (1994) through vocal intensity. Patterson et al. (1986) suggested that
touch may influence subjects to comply because it indicates greater status or
power differences between them and the requester.
Among others, Bickman (1974), Chaikin et al. (1974), Kleinke (1977),
Bushman (1984, 1988) and Walker et al. (1980) have investigated the effects
of neatness and style of dress. Results from these studies have shown that peo-
ple are more likely to comply with requests when the requester is neatly dressed
or, as in Bickman (1974) and Bushman (1984), dressed in a uniform. Bickman
(1974) and Bushman (1984) both argued that their results reflected the fact

 Chapter 2
that uniforms give legitimacy (for research which focuses on the issue of legit-
imacy see Langer and Abelson 1972; Innes 1974; Innes and Gilroy 1980 and
Hirokawa et al. 1991). It could also be argued that status is relevant here.
Politeness was a common concern in linguistic research on requests and
is another issue which compliance-gaining researchers have explored. Psychol-
ogists have often investigated politeness in requests and compliance-gaining
situations using Brown Levinson’s Politeness Theory. Of relevance to the
current study is research by Baxter (1984).
Baxter (1984) translated Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) typology of
politeness strategies into 32 items. Undergraduates were asked to complete a
written questionnaire which asked them to indicate the likelihood of use and
perceived politeness of each item. The subjects assessed the items while imag-
ining themselves in one of eight hypothetical scenarios created to manipulate
relationship distance, relationship power, and the magnitude of the request.
Results indicate that females and persons in close relationships used more po-
lite tactics than males and persons in more distant relationships. People with
power were also expected to use less politeness than less powerful persons.
Related to the idea of politeness is the directness of requests (this rela-
tionship is discussed in Chapter 4). A number of psychologists have explored
politeness in relation to directness, for instance Steffen and Eagly (1985) who
investigated the effects of status and sex on people’s perceptions of the direct-
ness and politeness of requests. Results show that high-status influencers were
considered more likely to use direct and impolite styles and less likely to use
indirect and polite styles. As a consequence of using direct and impolite styles,
high-status influencers were thought more likely to gain compliance and lik-
ing than low-status influencers. The sex of the influencer and target were also
manipulated, but had little effect.
.. Summary of previous research
Although there is a close relationship between directives, requests, advice and
compliance-gaining, as a rule, researchers in each area have focused on differ-
ent issues. Conclusions have frequently been made about the effect of status,
even though this has been approached from different perspectives.
A common aim among many researchers of directives has been to identify
the different forms used by individuals of different status. Results have tended
to show that people of higher status use more direct and less polite forms.
Politeness has been the major concern in the request literature, with Brown
Levinson’s Politeness Theory providing a focus point for many studies. Status

Directives, requests and advice 
is also of relevance here, but the influence of social distance and imposition
have also been explored.
The few studies of advice have focused mainly on radio talk shows. In this
context, although the advice giver has expert power, direct forms are generally
avoided.
Compliance-gaining research has not tended to focus on the actual lan-
guage used, the focus being much more on whether addressees comply or not
and what factors (generally external to the utterances used) increase compli-
ance. Status has, once again, been found to be an important variable. Results
tend to show that more powerful people achieve compliance more, although
this does depend on the context.
. Definitions from previous research
The research outlined above has been categorised according to the labels the re-
searchers themselves use. I now review previous definitions of directive, request
and advice. The discussion below draws on a wide range of literature, including
many of the studies summarised in Section 2.1.
.. Directive
In an examination of language use between teachers and pupils, Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975:50) define a directive as involving the teacher asking “the
pupil to do but not say something”. They are careful to make a distinction
between acts which require a physical response (directives) and those which
require a verbal response (elicitations) (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975:28, 40–41,
50–51). Searle’s (1976) definition of directive does not make such a distinc-
tion. He defines directives as “attempts . . . by the speaker to get the hearer
to do something” (Searle 1976:11), but includes questions requiring a verbal
response: “questions are a species of directives since they are attempts by S
[speaker] to get H [hearer] to answer – i.e. to perform a speech act” (Searle
1976:11 fn.).
Subsequent researchers on directives have tended to follow Sinclair and
Coulthard’s (1975) approach rather than Searle’s (1976), although this is not
always stated. Only Holmes (1983:97) and Jones (1992:429) clearly outline
their position in regard to questions, stating that they do not include utterances
which require the hearer to give a verbal response.

 Chapter 2
Many discussions of directives seem to take it for granted that their au-
dience will understand what a directive is, and therefore do not give explicit
definitions at all (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976; Mitchell-Kernan and Kernan 1977;
Bellinger 1979, Bellinger and Gleason 1982; Weigel and Weigel 1985; West
1998; Smith 1992; Mulholland 1994; Goatly 1995).
Other researchers give only brief definitions, for example, Goodwin
(1980:157) defines a directive as a speech act that tries “to get another to do
something” and Gleason and Greif (1983:141) as “any utterance whose intent
is to cause the hearer to do something”. Vismans (1991:112) says he will give “a
precise definition of the term directive”, but fails to do so.
In all these studies it is important to note that a functional approach is
taken. Directive is not defined on formal grounds, although the imperative is
often identified as the unmarked form (e.g., Sinclair and Coulthard 1975:28).
The possibility of a range of forms is acknowledged and is often the focus of
research. The range of forms and who uses which forms are common concerns.
.. Request
Although research on requests is much more abundant than research on di-
rectives, analysts of requests are even more likely not to give definitions and to
assume that their audience knows what a request is. When definitions are given,
requests are generally defined in a similar way to directives. Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989c:11) define a request as a “pre-event act” which expresses “the speaker’s
expectation of the hearer with regards to some prospective action”.
In one of the earliest published papers on requests, Garvey (1975) gives
a detailed account of requests drawing on the work of Austin (1962), Fillmore
(1968), Searle (1969), Labov (1970) and Gordon and Lakoff (1975) and is care-
ful to specify that she is focusing on requests “for action” (Garvey 1975:45–47).
It is apparent from her discussion that what she is investigating is the same
phenomena others have subsequently investigated under the label directive (see
for example Mitchell-Kernan and Kernan 1977; Goodwin 1980). Ervin-Tripp’s
work on directives (Ervin-Tripp 1976; Ervin-Tripp 1977) has been influential
here. Her research was published after Garvey’s and has not only been used as
a basis for studies on directives, but also for studies of requests. Researchers of
requests often refer to Ervin-Tripp’s (1976, 1977) work as research on requests,
even though Ervin-Tripp herself uses the term directive (see for example Garcia
1993:127; Sealey 1999:25).
Although Garvey (1975:45–47) makes it evident that she focuses on re-
quests “for action”, it is not always clear that other studies of requests limit

Directives, requests and advice 
their data in this way. This is an important consideration. Labov and Fanshel
(1977:63), for example, identify a range of types of requests in therapeutic dis-
course: requests for action, information, confirmation, agreement, evaluation,
interpretation and sympathy.
Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990) follow the work of the early Speech Act Theorists
and classify requests as a subtype of directive. Other researchers have also taken
this approach. Pufahl Bax (1986), for example, distinguishes between requests
and commands, treating both as types of directive (see also Koike 1994). Labov
and Fanshel (1977:63) take the opposite approach. They identify two types
of requests, “mitigated” (which include petitions, pleas and suggestions) and
“unmitigated or aggravated” (which include orders, commands, demands) (see
also Jacobs and Jackson 1983).
Some researchers use the terms directive and request interchangeably in
their discussions, e.g., Goatly (1995). Sealey (1999:25) uses “either request or
directive according to which term seems best to fit each example”. However, she
provides no explanation of what she means by this, nor any criteria on which
distinctions are made.
One important difference in researchers’ application of the terms directive
and request seems to be that requests are regarded as polite ways of getting
someone to do something (e.g., Gordon and Lakoff 1975). Such an approach
fails to clearly distinguish between form and function, as politeness is typically
defined in terms of the formal properties of utterances. I return to the issue of
politeness in relation to definitions in Section 2.6.
.. Advice
The problems evident in the outline of definitions of directives and requests
discussed above have been acknowledged in the area of advice. DeCapua and
Huber (1995:119) note the “lack of consistent terminology or clear definition”
within this area. They adopt Bach and Harnish’s (1979) general definition of
advisories. As noted in Chapter 1, Bach and Harnish (1979) have a sub-type
called advisories within their directives category. With advisories, “what the
speaker expresses is not the desire that H [hearer] do a certain action but the
belief that doing it is a good idea, that it is in H’s interest” (Bach and Harnish
1979:49).
Bach and Harnish’s (1979) definition covers most of the contexts in which
research on advice has been conducted – from the context of radio advice pro-
grammes to data collected in a health service setting. Altman (1990), however,
defines advice according to form and is concerned with the interpretation of

 Chapter 2
two particular forms by native and non-native speakers. In a functional ap-
proach, these forms could be understood as realisations of directives, requests,
advice or some other speech act.
. Terminology
As seen in the consideration of definitions in Section 2.2, the terminology used
in speech act studies has varied a great deal. Often researchers who appear
to be investigating the same things have used different labels, or alternatively
have used the same labels for different phenomena. This variation in termi-
nology is a major issue in speech act work, although this issue is only rarely
acknowledged.
From the beginning of Speech Act Theory, there has been variation in
the terminology used. In adapting Austin’s (1962) framework, Searle (1976)
introduced new terms for the categories in his model. He justified this on
the basis of the differences in the way he defined his categories. Every subse-
quent researcher who has developed their own categorisation has also done
this, e.g., Bach and Harnish (1979). Even Searle revised his earlier terminology
and introduced a new term (Searle 1979).
One term which has survived many of the revisions has been the term
directive. A number of other equivalent terms do exist, however. Researchers
in the area of psychology have their own group of terms to refer to similar
concepts. Compliance-gaining is an area that has been explored a great deal.
Another term used by psychologists is influence messages or influence attempts,
e.g., Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1990:503). Dillard,
Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland’s (1990) definition is similar to the
general definitions of directive and request seen in Section 2.2, except that influ-
ence attempt can also refer to “efforts by one person to change the . . . opinion
of another” as well as attempts to change behaviour. Having given this defini-
tion, they comment that they will adopt the terminology of “language scholars”
such as Ervin-Tripp (1976) and so use directive interchangeably with influence
message (Dillard, Henwood, Giles, Coupland, and Coupland 1990:503–504).
Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990:308) adopt the term control act:
Control acts are any moves which could be interpreted either by the speaker or
the hearer as an attempt to affect the behaviour of an addressee or hearer. The
terms ‘request’, ‘order’ and ‘command’ are used in everyday English to indi-
cate types of directives to another person to act. While languages in complex
societies typically have a large vocabulary for particular speech acts, we can

Directives, requests and advice 
simplify by conceptually distinguishing a family of control acts, of which the
directive is just one type.
Blum-Kulka (1990:259) also talks about “speech acts of control” and Pear-
son (1989:289) uses “controlling speech acts” as a synonym for directives.
The concept of control acts is useful for two reasons. Firstly, it provides
a blanket term which covers a range of acts. Directives, requests and advice
are all types of control act. Secondly, it is not in common use. As was seen
in the previous section, the use of terms “used in everyday English” can cause
confusion and make it difficult to pinpoint what is actually under discussion,
especially when no attempt is made to give precise definitions.
In my study, therefore, I adopt the term control act to designate the gen-
eral category of speech acts I am researching. A control act is “an attempt to
get someone to do something”. Simple questions for information and clarifica-
tion are not included. Different types of control act can be identified, including
the three that are the focus of my research: directives, requests and advice.
Section 2.4 discusses the factors that characterise each of these.
. Distinguishing factors
The discussion above illustrates the confusion and lack of agreement over the
parameters of the terms directive, request and advice. One of the most thorough
considerations of the exact nature of the speech act being investigated is pro-
vided by Goldschmidt (1998:129). She explores favour-asking, which she sees
as a type of directive control act. Favour-asking has not been studied before so
Goldschmidt is very careful to set out the parameters that distinguish favour-
asking from requests and other types of control acts. Goldschmidt (1998:131–
135) uses four criteria: the notions of reciprocity, imposition (in terms of (a)
the special nature of the activity required and (b) the time and effort involved)
and the role-relationships of the interlocutors.
Of these four criteria, role-relationships are an important factor when con-
sidering the three types of control act in my study. A number of other impor-
tant factors can be identified from the literature available on directives, requests
and advice. I consider these factors below and their relevance to the workplace
data.

 Chapter 2
.. Role-relationships and obligation
The authority of the speaker over the hearer has frequently been drawn on to
help distinguish one speech act from another. Searle (1969:66) uses this factor
to differentiate between requests and orders and Bach and Harnish (1979:47)
to separate requestives from requirements. Although the terminology changes,
if the speaker is in a position of authority over the hearer then the analyst
identifies the more “forceful” speech act in each case (order, requirement). If
the speaker is not in a position of authority over the hearer, the utterance is a
request or requestive.
Green (1975:120) gives a partial list of the approaches that can be used
by speakers to get others to do things – order, request, plead, suggest. She dif-
ferentiates these on social grounds and, as with Searle (1969) and Bach and
Harnish (1979), the types are related to the power relationship between in-
terlocutors. Labov (1972:125) also draws on the factor of role-relationships in
his rule for interpreting a request for information as a “valid command”. The
hearer must believe that the speaker believes that the speaker has “the right to
tell” the hearer to do the requested action.
Many studies of requests have been undertaken in situations where there
is no explicit power role-obligation, while most directive studies examining
adult-adult interaction have involved data collected in a work setting (see Sec-
tion 2.1). Although often not explicitly stated therefore, role-relationships seem
to be an important factor in differentiating directives and requests.
The workplace situation involves people working in a context where there
are clear status differences and role-obligations. Generally the actions being re-
quested relate to the hearer’s responsibilities and obligations. In my data there-
fore, there is generally a role-related obligation on the part of the addressee to
fulfil the task.
Of course, the degree to which each person has the authority to ask some-
thing of another, or the right to tell someone to do something in a specific way,
does vary. I therefore distinguish between the three types by saying that a supe-
rior can give a directive to a subordinate, but that a similar utterance from an
equal to an equal or from a subordinate to a superior is generally interpreted as
a request, and sometimes advice. Advice can be given by anyone to anyone else.
Often when someone gives advice to a superior or an equal it is because they
have a different type of authority (i.e., “expert” power – Spencer-Oatey 1992,
cited in Thomas 1995:127). This relates to their skills and expertise rather than
their job level within the organisation (also referred to as “expertise” power by
Dwyer 1993:557).

Directives, requests and advice 
.. Expectation of compliance and right of refusal
Following on from role-relationships and obligation are the notions of ex-
pectation of compliance and right of refusal. With directives, because of the
role-relationships of the participants and the obligations in terms of their jobs,
the speaker expects that the hearer will comply and the hearer has no right of
refusal.
Bilbow (1997:471) comments that “directing speech acts relate to courses
of action, which, it is hoped (in the case of requests) or anticipated (in the
case of commands) that the hearer(s) will undertake”. Alam (1980:129) also
distinguishes between requests and commands on the basis that a request “leaves
to the addressee the option of refusal to comply whereas a command does not”
(see also Lyons 1977:749).
The workplace situation does not usually allow non-compliance. Once
again, the actions being requested are generally within the job obligations of
the addressee. Directives and the other two types (requests and advice) can
be distinguished in that with requests and advice the hearer does not have to
comply. Of course directives can be refused but the implication is that refusal
will have negative consequences for the refuser. When interactions involved a
Manager talking with their staff, there would have to be a clear indication that
the addressee had a choice before an utterance from a Manager was coded as
advice.
The issue of compliance is not always straightforward. The directives, re-
quests and advice in my dataset are not refused (as far as I can tell from my
transcripts). Sometimes they are delayed, however, or there is some negotiation
of what exactly will be done. The cases where there is negotiation sometimes
involve clarification of what is wanted, and at other times there is negotiation
because some aspect of the control act may not be possible or the addressee
may be unsure of the need for the action.
.. Benefit from the action
The expectation of compliance/right of refusal begs the question of who ben-
efits from the action. In the classic directive situation it is the speaker who
will benefit. Pufahl Bax (1986:675) introduces cost/benefit as an additional
factor in order to distinguish requests and orders from other types of speech
acts which get people to do things (after Lee 1987:4). “The action to be per-
formed following a request or an order is more or less at cost to the addressee,

 Chapter 2
whereas an invitation is not”. In distinguishing between an offer and a directive
Ervin-Tripp et al. (1990:308) discuss the benefits of the act to the speaker.
Directives and requests both entail actions which benefit the speaker. Ad-
vice, however, does not. Trosborg (1994:15) notes “the purpose of a request is
to involve the hearer in some future action which has positive consequences for
the speaker and may imply costs to the hearer, whereas a piece of advice or a
warning is intended to be in the sole interest of the hearer”.
Benefit is not a straightforward issue in a workplace context. The benefit
from an action always has implications in terms of benefit to the organisa-
tion because the actions relate to the addressee’s work obligations. Bilbow
(1997:472) notes the “requests and suggestions” in his naturally occurring
workplace meeting dataset “relate to actions with varying degrees of corpo-
rate ‘impact’”. The approach I have taken in this study is to code utterances as
directives and requests if the primary benefit can be seen to be to the speaker
because the directed/requested action relates to the speaker’s job obligations.
When the aim was to help the hearer perform their job obligations (the ben-
efit is for the hearer) and there are no implications in terms of the speaker’s
responsibilities and obligations, utterances have been coded as advice.
.. Summary of distinguishing factors
To sum up, three factors can be used to differentiate between directives, re-
quests and advice. The first of these, relative status, is sufficient to distinguish
between directives and requests (see Table 2.1). Alternatively, these two types
of control act can be separated by drawing on the second factor, the notion of
the hearer’s right of refusal. Directives and requests both benefit the speaker, so
the third factor cannot be drawn on to distinguish these two types. Benefit to
the speaker is crucial, however, in determining whether a control act issued by
an equal or a subordinate is a request or advice.
The most dispensable of the three factors in Table 2.1 is relative status.
Speaker’s status relative to the addressee is not crucial to determining which
of the three types is present. Right of refusal and benefit are sufficient. Rela-
tive status often determines the value of the other two factors, however, so is
important to include for this reason.
Status also allows another point about the nature of the three types of
control act to be captured. Directives and requests are similar because it is
necessary to know the status of the two interactants in order to know how
to interpret a control act which has been identified (whether directly or indi-
rectly – through right of refusal and benefit). Status is therefore, an important

Directives, requests and advice 
Table 2.1 Factors differentiating directives, requests and advice
Speaker higher Hearer has right Benefit to
Control acts
status of refusal speaker
Directive yes no yes
Directing
Request no yes yes
Suggesting Advice maybe yes no
defining characteristic. Advice differs from these in a fundamental way. Advice
can be given by someone of any status, although the chances of the advice be-
ing taken up may be more likely when a superior issues advice to a subordinate.
Status factors may also account for variation in the way advice is worded. It is
relevant therefore in a different way. In order to try and capture this aspect
of the relationship between the three control acts and the distinguishing fac-
tors I have introduced another level into Table 2.1. Directives and requests can
both be categorised as “directing” control acts, while advice is a “suggesting”
control act.
Separating out the relevant factors can be difficult. They all rely on each
other and it is hard to define them independently. Most researchers do not
clearly define their position on these factors and often do not explicitly ac-
knowledge their importance.
Other characteristics are also referred to in relation to control acts, for in-
stance, level of imposition. This factor is crucial for Goldschmidt (1998) when
defining favour-asking in relation to requests. In the context where my data was
collected and given the type of data I have and my focus, I did not find impo-
sition useful in distinguishing the different types. Imposition is important at
a more general level, however, particularly in relation to Brown Levinson’s
theory of politeness. This factor is one of the aspects they draw on to calculate
the weightiness of a FTA.
. Different sub-types of directives, requests and advice
Having outlined what counts as a directive, request, or instance of advice there
are still a number of different sub-types that can be identified. The sub-types
noted in this section are all present in my data.

 Chapter 2
.. now or later
Although few researchers acknowledge the existence of these sub-types, an im-
portant distinction can be made between control acts which require immediate
compliance and those where the completion of the action will be delayed to an-
other place and time. Mulholland (1994) calls these two types internal and ex-
ternal directives respectively, while Trosborg (1994) uses the terms requests-now
and requests-then (after Edmondson and House 1981:99; See also Edmondson
1981:141). Jones (1992:433) focuses on “procedural” directives, i.e. “directives
that focused on what individuals or the group should do within the context of
the meeting”.
A range of terms, therefore, has been used to refer to these sub-types. In
this study I use the terms now and later. Types of modification are frequently
referred to as “internal” or “external” so I reserve use of these two terms to
distinguish different types of modification (see Chapter 5). Jones’s (1992) ter-
minology is slightly ambiguous (in that a later directive may be “procedural”
in that it relates to how something must be done) and does not provide a la-
bel for acts which will occur at another place and time. The use of “now” and
“then” (Edmondson and House 1981) has connotations in terms of the expres-
sion “now and then” which I did not feel were appropriate. “Then” can refer to
past or future actions. I therefore keep my original terms now and later.
Many studies have focused on now control acts rather than later ones,
such as Jones (1992), and there is often no acknowledgement that the other
type exists, see for example, Goodwin (1990) and West (1998). Other studies
acknowledge the two types, but lump them together for analysis. For exam-
ple, Bilbow (1997:471) notes that in his data “the activities requested may be
inside or outside the meeting room”. Looking at the examples given by other
researchers, it is clear that this distinction between now and later control
acts is frequently not acknowledged and that both sub-types are analysed to-
gether, e.g., Goatly (1995). Mulholland (1994) is one of the few researchers
who distinguishes between now and later directives and investigates each type
separately.
The distinction between now and later control acts is an important one,
for a number of reasons. Firstly, as Mulholland (1994:76) notes, because now
control acts require immediate compliance there can be monitoring of compli-
ance. A second important factor is that now and later control acts may be re-
alised by different forms. Wisner (1968) (cited in Ervin-Tripp 1976:47) “found
that when doctors spoke to nurses, they used imperatives to refer to the present,
but ‘we’ directives to refer to the future”. Brown and Levinson (1987:68) com-

Directives, requests and advice 
ment that urgency can override politeness considerations. This has important
implications for research on control acts. As stated in Section 2.1, the forms
used by different people have been a major focus of research in this area (in-
cluding the presentstudy). In order to adequately account for differencesfound
between different individuals therefore, it is important to determine whether
the same type of control act is really being investigated, or if differences may
be accounted for by considering whether the action being requested requires
immediate compliance or not. Researchers who build on the work of previous
writers or who compare their results to those of earlier studies need to be care-
ful to make sure that they collect similar data and do not compare now control
acts to later ones as if they were the same.
.. Elicited or spontaneous
DeCapua and Huber (1995) distinguish between different sub-types of advice.
One aspect they consider is whether the advice is solicited or not. With each
of the types of control act that I investigate there are some examples which
are elicited. The issue of elicitation is an interesting one, especially when con-
sidering power. Asking for advice acknowledges the addressee’s position, their
“expert” power. Providing unsolicited advice asserts your own status as an “ex-
pert” and implies that your addressee does not have competence in the area
concerned (Boatman 1987:36; Heritage and Stefi 1992:389).
.. Specific or general
The type of actions the participants in my study ask others to do also differs.
Some control acts are quite procedural – for example, the detail of what needs
to be done and when is spelt out step by step. In other cases, a general men-
tion of the topic is enough. Both these types may occur alongside each other
in relation to the same task. Spelling out the detail implies that the addressee
does not know what to do and so has implications in terms of power (as with
unsolicited advice).
.. Condition or no condition
Another distinction which seemed to be present in my data was between con-
trol acts which need to be done and others which only need to be completed
in certain stated circumstances. I called the latter type “condition” control acts.
There were only a small number of these, but they appeared to take a particu-

 Chapter 2
lar form. I tagged these as “condition” so that I could see if they patterned in a
different way from “no condition” control acts.
.. Prohibitives
Some researchers make a distinction between directives which ask someone
to do something and those which ask them not to do something. The later
type are referred to as “prohibitives” (Bach and Harnish 1979:47). These were
the focus of Gleason et al.’s (1996) study. They looked at the way “parents con-
trol [children’s] behavior with explicit linguistic directives such as prohibitives”
(Gleason et al. 1996:206) (see also Ely and Gleason 1995). There were not many
examples of this kind in my data.
.. Summary of sub-types
Within each type of control act a number of different sub-types can be iden-
tified. These are distinguished on different dimensions. The most important
of these for this study are differentiated according to time of compliance. Both
now and later control acts were identified in my dataset, although the ma-
jority of my examples involve reference to activities which will be completed at
another place and time. This is due to the nature of my dataset. Many of the
directives, for example, come from interactions involving Managers and their
Executive Assistants. This context is one where the purpose of the meeting is
often for the speaker to give directives and the hearer is predisposed towards
hearing a certain type of control act – i.e., the giving of instructions for work
at another time.
Specific vs general, condition vs no condition, and elicited vs spontaneous
control acts are also included in my data, as are prohibitives. These different
sub-types of control act are not analysed separately, but it is important to ac-
knowledge the inclusion of a range of sub-types in the analysis. The sub-type
present can sometimes help explain the presence of a certain form.
. Politeness as a distinguishing criteria
An additional and slightly separate issue in differentiating between speech acts
is the notion of politeness. Some writers have referred to politeness in or-
der to distinguish requests from orders, for example, Green (1975:121) defines
requests as the “method used in polite society” for getting the hearer to do

Directives, requests and advice 
a specific action. Yli-Jokipii (1994:69) notes this tendency, commenting that
“requests seem to be treated with the understanding that they have an un-
derlying property of being polite, as opposed to e.g. commands”. This is not
always stated, but the concern with politeness issues in research on requests
(see Section 2.1) highlights this tendency.
Researchers who take this type of approach are not making a clear distinc-
tion between form and function. When an utterance is categorised as being
polite, contextual factors are relevant (e.g., the fact that a Manager is not ex-
pected to be as polite as their Executive Assistant when talking to Senior Staff)
but the categorisation relates to formal features. Lee-Wong (2000), for example,
does look at a range of forms that can express requests, but only classifies im-
peratives as requests when there are supportive moves. Underlyingthis decision
is a failure to clearly distinguish between form and function.
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory was used by many of the
researchers on requests (see Section 2.1). Requests are one of the face threaten-
ing acts (FTAs) that Brown and Levinson (1987:66) identify as threatening the
negative face of the hearer, along with orders, advice, suggestions, remindings,
threats, warnings and dares. Speakers may minimise the face threat of any of
these acts through the use of politeness strategies.
Other approaches to politeness come to similar conclusions. Leech’s (1983)
classification of illocutionary functions is based on the notion of politeness.
One of the four types he identifies is “the competitive function”. This type of
function involves acts in which “the illocutionary goal competes with the so-
cial goal, e.g., ordering, asking, demanding” (Leech 1983:104). Politeness is
demanded in these cases to reduce the discord which lies implicitly in the com-
petition between the speaker’s desire and what is considered “good manners”.
This function corresponds to my overall control act category.
Leech’s (1983) classification refers to the inherent politeness level in a given
speech act and has been referred to as “absolute” politeness. A similar clas-
sification has been proposed by Haverkate (1988:386–387). He distinguishes
between polite and non-polite acts, the latter involving acts which can be
characterised as neutral, non-polite and impolite. Control acts are considered
non-polite acts, but may be expressed politely (see also Lakoff 1989:103–104).
In each of these approaches directives, requests and advice require the use
of politeness strategies to minimise the face threat to the hearer. Politeness does
not, however, distinguish directives, requests and advice from each other.

 Chapter 2
. Conclusion
After providing a brief summary of research on directives, requests, advice and
compliance-gaining, this chapter discusses a number of important issues rel-
evant to the defining of these speech acts. Previous definitions of directives,
requests and advice are explored and a number of problems are identified
with the use of terminology. The use of a range of labels in the literature to
refer to what appears to be the same phenomena is problematic, as is the fail-
ure of many researchers to define clearly the specific features of what they are
investigating.
The intention of the speaker to get someone to do something is the key
component in all the definitions outlined in Section 2.2. The function of the
utterance is to produce an action (whether a physical action or a speech act) in
the hearer. The general definition which I have adopted in relation to this study
is therefore, that directives, requests and advice involve the speaker attempting
to get the hearer to do something. I label these types of speech acts control acts.
More specifically, I explore control acts that require a physical action and not
just a verbal response on the part of the hearer. Requests for information and
simple requests for immediate clarification, therefore, are not included.
The specifics of this, and therefore the exact nature of the speech act, can
vary a great deal. To begin with, a distinction can be made between “directing”
and “suggesting” control acts. The difference here relates to the beneficiary of
the action. In “directing” control acts the benefit of the action specified is pri-
marily for the speaker, while in “suggesting” control acts benefit to the hearer
is more important.
Only one type of “suggesting” control act is considered in this study – ad-
vice. There are two “directing” control acts. These can be distinguished from
each other by referring to two related factors – status and right of refusal. With
directives the speaker is of higher status and the hearer has no right of refusal.
Requests, on the other hand, involve a situation where the speaker is of equal
or lower status and the hearer generally has more right of refusal.
Within each of the control acts investigated in this study, there is potential
for a number of different sub-types. Control acts can demand immediate or
delayed compliance; they may be elicited or spontaneous, specific or general,
condition or no condition. They may also involve the speaker attempting to get
the hearer not to do something rather than to do something. It is important to
consider the specific sub-types involved as this can have implications for the
way that control acts are expressed.

Directives, requests and advice 
The chapter concluded with a brief discussion of another factor which fre-
quently comes up in discussions of control acts – namely politeness. This factor
is sometimes used to distinguish between different control acts. The control
acts which are the focus of my study can all be understood as generally re-
quiring the use of politeness strategies in order to minimise the face threat to
the hearer. Politeness, however, is not used to distinguish between directives,
requests and advice.

Chapter 3
Identifying control acts
A functional approach is taken in this study. Directives, requests and advice
may therefore be realised by a range of forms and the same form may express a
directive, a request or advice.
A number of factors are identified in Section 2.4, which help to distinguish
between directives, requests and advice. These are useful for determining which
of these control acts is understood as present when an utterance from the data
is interpreted as being a control act. An example such as “in that case put it in
a separate sentence” [aKJ1-02] could be a directive or an instance of advice. I
have categorised this utterance as advice because it is said by one Senior Policy
Analyst (Katie) to another (Jo), and the proposed action is of benefit to Jo.
Katie is providing feedback on a letter Jo has written. Similarly, “can you please
make sure that the room is booked for the whole day” [dSA1-18] could be a
directive or a request. Because this is uttered by a Manager to her Executive
Assistant I have categorised it as a directive. If Katie had said this to Jo it would
have been classified as a request.
These examples, [aKJ1-02] and [dSA1-18], are obviously control acts of
some kind. It is not always so easy, however, to identify directives, requests
and advice in the data. The first of the examples above took the form of an
imperative, while the second is an interrogative. Imperatives and interrogatives
can have a range of functions, so identifying examples on the basis of form
is not possible. Some of the problems of identification in relation to different
forms are outlined in Section 3.1 below.
Jones (1992:433) notes “the more indirect or veiled the attempt to influ-
ence the addressee, the harder it is to prove a directive was intended”. The
particular problems of identifying control act utterances which do not state
the action required are discussed in Section 3.2.
An important factor that arose in Chapter 2 and which comes up through-
out the initial sections of the current chapter is context. Section 3.3 highlights
the importance of considering context at a number of levels. At the level of dis-
course the discussion involves exploration of a range of identification problems
in relation to specific examples.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Abridgment of
the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856,
Vol. 2 (of 16)

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to
1856, Vol. 2 (of 16)
Author: United States. Congress
Editor: Thomas Hart Benton
Release date: September 23, 2012 [eBook #40851]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Curtis Weyant, Josephine Paolucci and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net.
(This file was produced from scans of public domain
works
at the University of Michigan's Making of America
collection.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ABRIDGMENT OF
THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1856, VOL. 2 (OF 16)
***

ABRIDGMENT OF THE
DEBATES OF CONGRESS,

FROM 1789 TO 1856.
FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF
CONGRESS; FROM THEIR REGISTER OF
DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL
REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C. RIVES.
BY

THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY
YEARS' VIEW.
VOL II.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
448 AND 445 BROADWAY.
LONDON: 16 LITTLE BRITAIN.
1861.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

FOURTH CONGRESS.—SECOND
SESSION.
BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
DECEMBER 5, 1796.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.
Monday, December 5, 1796.
PRESENT:
John Adams, Vice President of the United States, and President of the
Senate.
John Langdon and Samuel Livermore, from New Hampshire.
Benjamin Goodhue, from Massachusetts.
William Bradford, from Rhode Island.
James Hillhouse and Uriah Tracy, from Connecticut.
Elijah Paine, and Isaac Tichenor, from Vermont.
John Rutherford and Richard Stockton, from New Jersey.
William Bingham, from Pennsylvania.
Henry Latimer, from Delaware.
Humphrey Marshall, from Kentucky.
William Cocke, from Tennessee.
Jacob Read, from South Carolina.
James Gunn, from Georgia.

The number of Senators present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, they adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Tuesday, December 6.
Alexander Martin, from the State of North Carolina, and William
Blount, from the State of Tennessee, severally attended.
The Vice President communicated a letter from Pierce Butler, notifying
the resignation of his seat in the Senate, which was read.
The credentials of the after-named Senators were severally read:—
Of Benjamin Goodhue, appointed a Senator by the State of
Massachusetts, in place of George Cabot, resigned; of Isaac Tichenor,
appointed a Senator by the State of Vermont, in place of Moses
Robinson, resigned; of James Hillhouse, appointed a Senator by the
State of Connecticut in place of Oliver Ellsworth, whose seat is
become vacant; of Uriah Tracy, appointed a Senator by the State of
Connecticut, in place of Jonathan Trumbull, resigned; of John Laurance,
appointed a Senator by the State of New York, in place of Rufus King,
whose seat is become vacant; of Richard Stockton, appointed a
Senator by the State of New Jersey, in place of Frederick
Frelinghuysen, resigned; also, of William Blount and William Cocke,
appointed Senators by the State of Tennessee;—and, the oath
required by law being respectively administered to them, they took
their seats in the Senate.
A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate
that a quorum of the House of Representatives is assembled, and
ready to proceed to business.
Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United
States, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled.
Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to
business.

that they have appointed a joint committee, on their part, together
with such committee as the Senate may appoint, to wait on the
President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the
two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications
that he may be pleased to make to them.
Resolved, That the Senate concur in the above resolution, and that
Messrs. Read and Livermore be the joint committee on the part of the
Senate.
therewith.
Mr. Read reported, from the joint committee appointed for that
purpose, that they had waited on the President of the United States,
and had notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress
are assembled, and that the President of the United States acquainted
the committee that he would meet the two Houses in the
Representatives' Chamber, at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
Wednesday, December 7.
John Henry, from the State of Maryland, attended.
that they are now ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that
House, to receive such communications as the President of the United
States shall be pleased to make to them.
Whereupon, the Senate repaired to the Chamber of the House of
Representatives, for the purpose above expressed.
The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the
Speech of the President of the United States, this day addressed to
both Houses of Congress, was read. [For which, see the proceedings
in the House of Representatives of December 7, post.]

Ordered, That Messrs. Read, Tracy, and Bingham, be a committee to
report the draft of an Address to the President of the United States, in
answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress.
It was further ordered that the Speech of the President of the United
States, this day communicated to both Houses, be printed for the use
of the Senate.
Resolved, That each Senator be supplied, during the present
session, with copies of three such newspapers printed in any of the
States as he may choose, provided that the same are furnished at
the rate of the usual annual charge for such papers.
Thursday, December 8.
John Laurance, from the State of New York, attended, and, the oath
required by law being administered to him, he took his seat in the
Senate.
Ordered, That Messrs. Stockton, Read, and Bingham, be a committee
to inquire whether any, and what, regulations are proper to be
made, on the subject of the resignation of a Senator of the United
States.
Friday, December 9.
Timothy Bloodworth, from the State of North Carolina, attended.
that they have resolved that two Chaplains be appointed to Congress
for the present session—one by each House—who shall interchange
weekly; in which they desire the concurrence of the Senate.
Whereupon, the Senate
Resolved, That they do concur therein, and that the Right Reverend
Bishop White be Chaplain on the part of the Senate.

Mr. Read, from the committee appointed for the purpose, reported
the draft of an Address to the President of the United States, in
answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of
the session; which was read.
On motion that it be printed for the use of the Senate, it passed in
the negative.
On motion, it was agreed to consider the report in paragraphs; and,
after debate, a motion was made for recommitment, which passed in
the negative; and, having agreed to amend the report, the further
consideration thereof was postponed.
Saturday, December 10.
Address to the President.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the
committee in answer to the Address of the President of the United
States to both Houses of Congress; and, after further amendments, it
was unanimously adopted, as follows:
We thank you, sir, for your faithful and detailed exposure of the
existing situation of our country; and we sincerely join in sentiments
of gratitude to an overruling Providence for the distinguished share
of public prosperity and private happiness which the people of the
United States so peculiarly enjoy.
We are fully sensible of the advantages that have resulted from the
adoption of measures (which you have successfully carried into
effect) to preserve peace, cultivate friendship, and promote
civilization, amongst the Indian tribes on the Western frontiers;
feelings of humanity, and the most solid political interests, equally
encourage the continuance of this system.
We observe, with pleasure, that the delivery of the military posts,
lately occupied by the British forces, within the territory of the
United States, was made with cordiality and promptitude, as soon as

circumstances would admit; and that the other provisions of our
treaties with Great Britain and Spain, that were objects of eventual
arrangement, are about being carried into effect, with entire
harmony and good faith.
The unfortunate but unavoidable difficulties that opposed a timely
compliance with the terms of the Algerine Treaty, are much to be
lamented; as they may occasion a temporary suspension of the
advantages to be derived from a solid peace with that power, and a
perfect security from its predatory warfare; at the same time, the
lively impressions that affected the public mind on the redemption of
our captive fellow-citizens, afford the most laudable incentive to our
exertions to remove the remaining obstacles.
We perfectly coincide with you in opinion, that the importance of our
commerce demands a naval force for its protection against foreign
insult and depredation, and our solicitude to attain that object will be
always proportionate to its magnitude.
The necessity of accelerating the establishment of certain useful
manufactures, by the intervention of the Legislative aid and
protection, and the encouragement due to agriculture by the
creation of Boards, (composed of intelligent individuals,) to patronize
this primary pursuit of society, are subjects which will readily engage
our most serious attention.
A National University may be converted to the most useful purposes;
the science of legislation being so essentially dependent on the
endowments of the mind, the public interests must receive effectual
aid from the general diffusion of knowledge; and the United States
will assume a more dignified station among the nations of the earth,
by the successful cultivation of the higher branches of literature.
A Military Academy may be likewise rendered equally important. To
aid and direct the physical force of the nation, by cherishing a
military spirit, enforcing a proper sense of discipline, and inculcating
a scientific system of tactics, is consonant to the soundest maxims of
public policy. Connected with, and supported by such an

establishment, a well regulated militia, constituting the natural
defence of the country, would prove the most effectual, as well as
economical, preservative of peace.
We cannot but consider, with serious apprehensions, the inadequate
compensations of the public officers, especially of those in the more
important stations. It is not only a violation of the spirit of a public
contract, but is an evil so extensive in its operation, and so
destructive in its consequences, that we trust it will receive the most
pointed Legislative attention.
We sincerely lament that, whilst the conduct of the United Sates has
been uniformly impressed with the character of equity, moderation,
and love of peace, in the maintenance of all their foreign
relationships, our trade should be so harassed by the cruisers and
agents of the Republic of France, throughout the extensive
departments of the West Indies.
Whilst we are confident that no cause of complaint exists that could
authorize an interruption of our tranquillity or disengage that
Republic from the bonds of amity, cemented by the faith of treaties,
we cannot but express our deepest regrets that official
communications have been made to you, indicating a more serious
disturbance of our commerce. Although we cherish the expectation
that a sense of justice, and a consideration of our mutual interests,
will moderate their councils, we are not unmindful of the situation in
which events may place us, nor unprepared to adopt that system of
conduct, which, compatible with the dignity of a respectable nation,
necessity may compel us to pursue.
We cordially acquiesce in the reflection, that the United States,
under the operation of the Federal Government, have experienced a
most rapid aggrandizement and prosperity, as well political as
commercial.
Whilst contemplating the causes that produce this auspicious result,
we must acknowledge the excellence of the constitutional system,
and the wisdom of the Legislative provisions; but we should be

deficient in gratitude and justice did we not attribute a great portion
of these advantages to the virtue, firmness, and talents of your
Administration—which have been conspicuously displayed in the
most trying times, and on the most critical occasions. It is, therefore,
with the sincerest regret that we now receive an official notification
of your intentions to retire from the public employment of your
country.
When we review the various scenes of your public life, so long and
so successfully devoted to the most arduous services, civil and
military, as well during the struggles of the American Revolution, as
the convulsive periods of a recent date; we cannot look forward to
your retirement without our warmest affections and most anxious
regards accompanying you, and without mingling with our fellow-
citizens at large in the sincerest wishes for your personal happiness
that sensibility and attachment can express.
The most effectual consolation that can offer for the loss we are
about to sustain, arises from the animating reflection, that the
influence of your example will extend to your successors, and the
United States thus continue to enjoy an able, upright, and energetic
Administration.
JOHN ADAMS,
Vice President of the United States,
and President of the Senate.
Ordered, That the committee who prepared the Address, wait on the
President of the United States, and desire him to acquaint the Senate
at what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it
should be presented.
Mr. Read reported from the committee, that they had waited on the
President of the United States, and that he would receive the Address
of the Senate on Monday next, at twelve o'clock, at his own house.
Whereupon,
Resolved, That the Senate will, on Monday next, at twelve o'clock,
wait on the President of the United States accordingly.

Monday, December 12.
Theodore Foster, from the State of Rhode Island; John Brown, from
the State of Kentucky; and Henry Tazewell, from the State of Virginia,
severally attended.
Address to the President.
Agreeably to the resolution of the 10th instant, the Senate waited on
the President of the United States, and the Vice President, in their
name, presented the Address then agreed to.
To which the President made the following reply:
Gentlemen: It affords me great satisfaction to find in your Address a
concurrence in sentiment with me on the various topics which I
presented for your information and deliberation; and that the latter
will receive from you an attention proportioned to their respective
importance.
For the notice you take of my public services, civil and military, and
your kind wishes for my personal happiness, I beg you to accept my
cordial thanks. Those services, and greater, had I possessed ability
to render them, were due to the unanimous calls of my country, and
its approbation is my abundant reward.
When contemplating the period of my retirement, I saw virtuous and
enlightened men, among whom I relied on the discernment and
patriotism of my fellow-citizens to make the proper choice of a
successor; men who would require no influential example to ensure
to the United States an able, upright, and energetic Administration.
To such men I shall cheerfully yield the palm of genius and talents to
serve our common country; but, at the same time, I hope I may be
indulged in expressing the consoling reflection, (which consciousness
suggests,) and to bear it with me to my grave, that none can serve it
with purer intentions than I have done, or with a more disinterested
zeal.

G. WASHINGTON.
The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and then adjourned.
Theodore Sedgwick, appointed a Senator by the State of
Massachusetts, in place of Caleb Strong, resigned, attended,
produced his credentials, and the oath required by law being
administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.
Tuesday, December 27.
John Eager Howard, appointed a Senator by the State of Maryland, in
place of Richard Potts, resigned, produced his credentials, and the
oath required by law being administered, he took his seat in the
Senate.
Josiah Tattnall, from the State of Georgia, attended.
James Ross, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.
Wednesday, January 11, 1797.
John Vining, from the State of Delaware, attended.
Thursday, January 12.
Aaron Burr, from the State of New York, and Stevens Thomson Mason,
from the State of Virginia, attended.
Friday, January 27.

John Hunter, appointed a Senator by the State of South Carolina, in
place of Pierce Butler, resigned, attended, produced his credentials,
and the oath required by law, being administered to him, he took his
seat in the Senate.
Thursday, February 2.
Mr. Sedgwick reported, from the joint committee appointed on the
part of the Senate, on the subject of the election of President and
Vice President, that, in their opinion, the following resolution ought to
be adopted, viz:
That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber of the House of
Representatives on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock; that one
person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate, to make a list
of the votes as they shall be declared: That the result shall be
delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the
state of the vote and the persons elected, to the two Houses
assembled as aforesaid; which shall be deemed a declaration of the
persons elected President and Vice President, and, together with a
list of votes, be entered on the journals of the two Houses.
Wednesday, February 8.
that they are ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that
House, agreeably to the report of the joint committee, to attend the
opening and examining the votes of the Electors for President and
Vice President of the United States, as the constitution provides.
The two Houses of Congress accordingly assembled in the
Representatives' Chamber, and the certificates of the Electors of
sixteen States were, by the Vice President, opened and delivered to
the tellers, appointed for the purpose, who, having examined and
ascertained the number of votes, presented a list thereof to the Vice
President, which was read as follows:

For John Adams, 71 votes; for Thomas Jefferson, 68; for Thomas
Pinckney, 59; for Aaron Burr, 30; for Samuel Adams, 15; for Oliver
Ellsworth, 11; for George Clinton, 7; for John Jay, 5; for James
Iredell 2; for George Washington, 2; for John Henry, 2; for Samuel
Johnson, 2; for Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 1;
Whereupon the Vice President addressed the two Houses of Congress
as follows:
In obedience to the Constitution and law of the United States, and to
the commands of both Houses of Congress, expressed in their
resolution passed in the present session, I now declare that
John Adams is elected President of the United States, for four years,
to commence with the fourth day of March next; and that
Thomas Jefferson is elected Vice President of the United States, for
four years, to commence with the fourth day of March next. And
may the Sovereign of the Universe, the ordainer of civil government
on earth, for the preservation of liberty, justice, and peace among
men, enable both to discharge the duties of these offices
conformably to the Constitution of the United States, with
conscientious diligence, punctuality, and perseverance.
The Vice President then delivered the votes of the Electors to the
Secretary of the Senate, the two Houses of Congress separated, and
the Senate returned to their own Chamber, and soon after
adjourned.
Thursday, February 9.
The Vice President laid before the Senate the following
communication:
Gentlemen of the Senate:
In consequence of the declaration made yesterday in the Chamber
of the House of Representatives of the election of a President and
Vice President of the United States, the record of which has just now

been read from your journal by your Secretary, I have judged it
proper to give notice that, on the 4th of March next at 12 o'clock I
propose, to attend again in the Chamber of the House of
Representatives, in order to take the oath prescribed by the
Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President, to be
administered by the Chief Justice or such other Judge of the
Supreme Court of the United States as can most conveniently
attend; and, in case none of those Judges can attend, by the Judge
of the District of Pennsylvania, before such Senators and
Representatives of the United States as may find it convenient to
honor the transaction with their presence.
Ordered, That the Secretary carry an attested copy of this
communication to the House of Representatives.
Ordered, That Messrs. Sedgwick, Tazewell, and Read, be a joint
committee, with such committee as may be appointed on the part of
the House of Representatives, to consider whether any, and if any,
what measures ought to be adopted for the further accommodation
of the President of the United States, for the term commencing on the
4th day of March next.
Ordered, That the Secretary desire the concurrence of the House of
Representatives in the appointment of a joint committee on their
part.
that they have agreed to the report of the joint committee appointed
to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President
and Vice President of the United States, and of notifying the persons
elected of their election.
Mr. Sedgwick, from the joint committee to whom it was referred to
join such committee as might be appointed by the House of
Representatives to ascertain and report a mode of examining the
votes for President and Vice President of the United States, and of
notifying the persons elected of their election, reported that, having
further concurred with the committee appointed by the House of

Representatives, that, in their opinion, the following resolution ought
to be adopted by the Senate:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed to give, by
letter, to the Vice President elect, a notification of his election.
On motion, it was agreed to insert the President of the Senate
instead of the Secretary; and,
On motion, it was agreed to reconsider the resolution, and to
recommit the report from the joint committee.
Mr. Sedgwick reported, from the joint committee last mentioned, that
the committee on the part of the House of Representatives
considered themselves discharged from their commission.
Resolved, That the Senate disagree to the report of the joint
committee on the mode of notifying the Vice President elect of his
election; and that a committee be appointed on the part of the
Senate, to confer with such committee as may be appointed on the
part of the House of Representatives, on the report of the joint
committee above mentioned; and that Messrs. Sedgwick, Laurance and
Read, be the managers at the conference on the part of the Senate.
therewith.
On motion, that it be
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed, and he is
hereby directed, to lay before the President of the United States a
copy of the journal of yesterday, relative to the opening and
counting of votes for President and Vice President of the United
States, and the declaration of the President of the Senate thereon;
and, also, to present to the President of the United States a copy of
the notification given by the President elect of the time, place, and
manner, of qualifying to execute the duties of his office.
Ordered, That the motion lie until to-morrow for consideration.

Friday, February 10.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made
yesterday, that the Secretary of the Senate wait on the President of
the United States, and notify him of the election of President and Vice
President of the United States, to commence with the 4th day of
March next.
On motion, to insert a committee in place of the Secretary, it
passed in the negative. And the motion being amended, was
adopted as follows:
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate lay before the President of
the United States a copy of the journal of the 8th instant, relative to
the opening and counting the votes for President and Vice President of
the United States, and the declaration of the President of the Senate
consequent thereon; and, also a copy of the notification given by the
President elect of the time, place, and manner of qualifying to
execute the duties of his office.
that they agree to the report of the joint committee appointed by
the two Houses to confer on a proper mode of notifying the Vice
President elect of his election.
Mr. Sedgwick, from the committee of conference above mentioned,
reported that the following resolution should be adopted by the
House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the notification of the election of the Vice President
elect be made by such person and in such manner as the Senate
may direct.
On motion, that it be
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to
communicate (in such manner as he shall judge most proper) to the
person elected Vice President of the United States, for the term of

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Getting Things Done At Work The Discourse Of Power In Workplace Interaction Bernadette Vine

More Related Content

Similar to Getting Things Done At Work The Discourse Of Power In Workplace Interaction Bernadette Vine (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Getting Things Done At Work The Discourse Of Power In Workplace Interaction Bernadette Vine