In the late 1970s, linguists Drew and Heritage revolutionized the study of interactions in institutional settings by utilizing the technique of conversation analysis. Through their groundbreaking research, they have identified distinct characteristics present in institutional interactions, collectively known as institutional talk. In this article, we will delve into the definition and elements of institutional talk based on Drew and Heritage's findings, along with providing practical examples for better comprehension.
Conversation analysis involves analyzing everyday conversation to understand social interactions. It is also known as "talk-in-interaction." On the other hand, institutional talk focuses specifically on the interactions that occur in professional settings.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, an institution is "an organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose." In the context of language and social groups, institutional talk refers to the language used in interactions among professionals in their field of work or in situations with predetermined rituals or structures. This could include a marriage ceremony conducted by a vicar or a business meeting at a marketing company.
Drew and Heritage's groundbreaking research on institutional talk primarily focused on seven areas: courts, education, police, social services, medicine, business meetings, and mass media. By examining interactions in these diverse settings, they were able to identify common trends and features of institutional talk.
Institutional talk is characterized by specific elements that are present in institutional interactions. These elements include:
These elements may vary in their presence or absence depending on the institutional setting. For instance, interactions in a courtroom usually have a fixed structure and strictly enforced turn-taking rules, with the judge being the ultimate authority. In contrast, a classroom interaction may have more flexibility in structure, but similar constraints on power and turn-taking still apply, with the teacher assuming a leadership role.
To gain a better understanding of institutional talk, let's consider these examples of interactions in different institutional settings:
The diversity in these scenarios allows linguists to conduct a detailed analysis of the conversational conventions and identify patterns in institutional talk.
In their 1992 research, Drew and Heritage compiled and summarized existing studies on institutional talk to develop their theory. They concluded that institutional talk has six characteristic elements, as mentioned earlier. However, the presence of all six elements is not necessary for an interaction to be considered institutional talk.
Throughout various settings, individuals are expected to conform to the conversational norms of their surroundings. This is particularly evident in institutional talk, where the manner of communication can vary greatly depending on the specific context. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of this concept, we will explore the various elements of institutional talk in detail.
The concept of goal orientation, defined by Drew and Heritage, refers to the shared objectives of individuals engaged in institutional interaction. These objectives may include exchanging information, giving and receiving instructions, or making declarations. For instance, in a classroom, the common goal of learning may result in specific language usage and turn-taking rules that differ from informal conversations. In this setting, the teacher holds more authority, allowing for longer speaking turns and encouraging student participation through questions and answers. This collaborative communication ultimately aids in achieving the shared goal of learning.
On the other hand, a lack of goal orientation in an interaction can lead to inefficiency and conflicts, resulting in no meaningful outcome. In an institutional setting, this can reflect poorly on the speaker, conveying a sense of unprofessionalism and uncooperativeness.
The concept of goal orientation can be linked to John Swales' theory of discourse communities, where individuals within a community share common goals and interests, such as their profession, promoting effective communication.
In everyday conversations, there are implicit turn-taking rules that individuals generally follow, such as waiting for someone to finish speaking before taking a turn to speak. Adhering to these rules demonstrates politeness and respect for the conversation partner.
Similarly, institutional talk also follows turn-taking rules, but with more defined guidelines that take into account the social hierarchy within the context. For example, in a classroom, the teacher holds more power than the students and therefore initiates, guides, and concludes conversations. They also have the authority to control when someone can speak and when their turn must end. If a student interrupts without being prompted, it is considered a violation of the turn-taking rules, and the teacher can use their position of authority to silence them.
In another institutional setting, such as a wedding ceremony, the same social hierarchy applies, where the officiant or the couple hold more power than the guests. As a result, there are specific allowable contributions that participants can make in response to prompts, such as saying "I do." Any contributions that do not align with the setting, such as discussing the weather or traffic, would be deemed inappropriate.
The concept of allowable contributions, as observed by Drew and Heritage, highlights the limitations on what individuals can contribute in an institutional interaction.
Furthermore, the hierarchical structure of an institutional setting can also affect the type of contributions that are deemed appropriate. For instance, in a workplace with a clear social hierarchy, the manager may have more power than the employees, giving their contributions more weight in discussions. This highlights the idea that social hierarchies have an impact on the allowable contributions in institutional talk.
This aligns with the findings of Herbert and Straight (1989), who noted that compliments are usually given by individuals in the highest positions of authority. Thus, compliments are seen as a permissible contribution for those with a high rank in the institutional hierarchy. Conversely, if a compliment were to come from someone of lower status to a higher-ranking individual, it would be considered an inappropriate contribution.
In each institutional setting, there exists a specific lexicon that is commonly used by its members. This language differs from that of everyday conversations and is referred to as professional lexicon by Drew and Heritage. In each institutional context (e.g.
Each profession has its own specialized vocabulary that is used to facilitate effective communication between individuals. For example, police officers use terms such as "arrest," "assailant," and "DUI," while these words may be known to the general public, they are not commonly used in everyday conversations.
Similarly, Michael Nelson's theory of business lexicon highlights the use of specific words and topics in professional settings, such as companies, money, time, and events. However, certain words and topics, such as family, holidays, weekends, and social plans, are not typically included in business lexicon.
Research has shown that different institutional settings have their own conventions for structuring communication, which may differ significantly from how social conversations are structured. In institutional talk, specific patterns are followed in every conversation, while social interactions are more flexible and easily adaptable.
According to Drew and Heritage, asymmetry in institutional talk can be attributed to two factors: power and a person’s role. For instance, in a workplace setting, the transition from work talk to personal talk is often initiated by the highest-ranking individual. It can also be influenced by a person's role or workplace requirements, resulting in asymmetry within an interaction.
This pattern of asymmetry can be observed in various institutional talk scenarios, such as:
According to Drew and Heritage, there are six elements of institutional talk that contribute to its unique nature: goal orientation, turn-taking rules, allowable contributions, professional lexicon, structure, and asymmetry. These elements shape the communication patterns within institutional settings, setting them apart from ordinary social conversations.
In the study of conversation analysis, institutional talk is recognized as a distinct form of language use. It follows specific patterns and rules that can be compared to those of everyday conversations. By examining institutional talk, we can gain a deeper understanding of power dynamics and imbalances present in various settings.
Institutional talk plays a crucial role in communication, and it is essential to consider its unique elements for effective interactions. According to Drew and Heritage's findings, understanding the asymmetry and other significant features of institutional talk can lead to more successful and meaningful conversations.
