mm ~TiJf~J ~ s@20061F-v(2ooG1F > pp.131-142
B :i$:~ltJlH~~~

Studies in Pragmatics in New Zealand:Victoria University of Wellington

Kazuyo Murata

There is ongoing pragmatic researchunderway at Victoria Uni versity of
Wellington, which I was lucky enough to bepart of during my sabbatical in the 2006
academic year. In this report, I introduce
the university and in particular t h eLanguage in the Workplace Project, which
has researched many areas of relevance topragmatic scholars. Then I focus on polite-

Wellington Cable Car

ness in the workplace, one of their mostrecent research areas, because it corresponds to my personal research interest.

1. Victoria University of Wellington and Linguistic Researcb 1>
Victoria University of Wellington isplaced in the centre of Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, which is located in the
North Island and about one hour flightfrom Auckland and also from Christchurch.
It is a harbour city surrounded with moun-tains. The Kelburn Campus, where the linguistics department is housed, is located on
one such mountain. The scenery from thelibrary is magnificent, but at the same

- 131-The Hunter Building

time, going to school means going up hill.
This university was founded in 1897, the year of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee
celebrations, and named in her honour. About 20,400 students are enrolled and 17% ofthem are international students. There are four campuses and eight faculties including
Toihuarewa (Maori Studies). The School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies(henceforth SLALS) falls within the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
SLALS offers a variety of programmes in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at bothundergraduate and postgraduate levels. It also includes the English Language Institute,the Deaf Studies Research Unit, and the New Zealand Dictionary Centre. The English
Language Institute teaches students from 120 countries in its English language courses
and in its teacher education programmes. The Deaf Studies Research Unit undertakes
research about deaf people and their language in New Zealand. The New Zealand
Dictionary Centre, which is a joint project with Oxford University Press, plays an importantrole in New Zealand lexicography, researching aspects oflanguage in New Zealand.
Interchanges with foreign researchers as well as domestic researchers are active and
SLALS offers seminars every Friday afternoon, which cover a wide range of linguistic andapplied linguistic topics such as pragmatics, morphology, syntax, language learning,
oceanic languages, and so on. In September of 2006, Professor David Crystal of the
University of North Wales delivered a series of three public lectures on the English language and its future.
There are four professors in SLALS. Prof. Graeme Kennedy, Emeritus Professor ofApplied Linguistics, researches second language acquisition theory, the corpus-based
description of English, pedagogical grammar, and Deaf Studies, including New ZealandSign Language lexicography. Prof. Paul Nation, a second Professor of Applied Linguistics,
focuses on vocabulary learning. His current research project is a computerised test of
vocabulary size, which is planned to be used with native speakers and with non-native
speakers of English. Prof. Laurie Bauer, Professor of Linguistics, teaches theoretical anddescriptive linguistics. His research interests are morphology, focusing on word-formation, and the description of international varieties of English, with particular reference to
New Zealand English. Prof. Janet Holmes, Professor of Linguistics, teaches sociolinguistics courses, specialising in language in the workplace, New Zealand English, and language and gender issues. She was Director of the project which produced the Wellington
Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English, and is currently Director of the Language in the
Workplace Project.

-132 -

Studies in Pragmatics in New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington

2. The Language in the Workplace Project (LWP)2>
Researchers from the Language in the
Workplace Project (henceforth LWP) havebeen studying workplace communication
since 1996 under the direction of Professor
Janet Holmes. The aims of the projects areto (1) identify distinctive features of workplace talk in different workplaces, (2) identify communication strategies of effective
communicators in the organisation, (3)explore the implications of the findings for

Members of the LWP Team at Launch of
Gendered Talk at Work

workplace relationships in order to provide
u seful input to human resource and professional development programmes, and (4)explore cultural differences in workplace communication patterns.
So far, the LWP team has collected approximately 1,500 interactions, involving a
total of about 500 people, from office workers in government departments and commercialorganisations, from factory workers, and from various small businesses. The majority ofthese recordings are 10-20 minutes in length, though some are 20 seconds, and others areseveral hours long.
In terms of data collection, volunteers in each organisation record everyday workrelated interactions, meetings and discussions. The LWP team has also collected telephone calls and social conversations, and videotaped a number of larger, more formal
meetings from most workplaces.
The project team has analysed many aspects of authentic workplace interaction
including how workers use language to get things done at work, how they prevent misunderstandings, and how they use humour and small talk to form and maintain good relationships with their colleagues. I will introduce the areas they have focused on to date.
(Relevant publications are collected and categorised by research topic at the end of thisreport.)2.1. Gender
The existing research on gendered speech has focused on examining distinctive orstereotypical features of male and female communication. In order to test whether the- 133 -

stereotypes actually correspond to the workplace reality, the LWP team has studied
speech of both male and female managers to see whether there were systematic differences between them. This research has revealed that variation within the same gender is
not so different from that in the different genders, and the differences between male andfemale managing styles are more delicate than the existing research suggested.

2. 2. Humour
In terms of humour, the following issues have been explored: Is there a place forhumour in the workplace? What kind of humour occurs in different workplaces and why
do workers use it? When and where is humour most likely to occur?
This research has shown that, although what is found funny may not differ at workor home, motivations behind making jokes may be distinctive in the workplace. One of
the findings is that humour functions as social cohesion in the workplace, increasing feelings of solidarity or collegiality between co-workers. On the other hand, humour by su periors can function to soften directives or criticisms superficially, forcing subordinates tofollow them, and conversely humour can be used to challenge superiors.

2. 3. Small Talk.· .j

The LWP team has explored the function, distribution, and role of small talk in theworkplace. This research shows that small talk is an essential part of workplace interaction, helping to smooth interpersonal relationships. It also shows that small talk is located on a continuum between core business talk, or transactional talk, and phatic communion, although interactions may move back and forth between these two extremes.

2. 4. Meetings
Meetings are one of the most common and important interaction types in workplacesettings. The L WP team has carried out in-depth studies of meetings in different types oforganisations to identify meeting structure, the way decision-making and problem-solving are negotiated, and the role of the meeting chair.

2. 5. Directives
Research by members of the LWP team has indicated that giving directives in workplaces is more complicated than it might seem and that many different linguistic strategies, such as employing hedges and operating modals, are used when giving directives.

-134-

Studies in Pragmatics in New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington

The strategies a re affected by a variety of contextual factors including, for example,
power relationships between hearers and speakers, and the degree of impositions of thetask.

2. 6. Management
Language is affected by power relations at work. In other words, linguistic strategies
can serve to express power relationships between co-workers. The LWP team has exam·
ined those discourse strategies managers employ to express their superior power relation·
ship over th eir subordinates, how they use language strategically to keep team members
on target and encourage a productive environment, and what leadership is.

2. 7. Workplace Culture
Language plays an important role in the culture of the workplace. Workplace culture
could be paraphrased as a particular workplace environment including not only the way
!·---

..

-

of working but also the way of using language. Drawing on a communities of practiceframework, the L WP team has attempted to shed light on patterns of workplace interaction in each community of practice. Making use of language appropriately according toshared patterns in the community of practice is indispensable to becoming a member of
it. This research has focused on identifying those shared interactional practices whichindicate that people belong to the group, including the extent to which they are core or
peripheral members, by analysing group members' interaction. These interactional practices include building an understanding of th e attitudes, beliefs, values and social norms.

2. 8. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics

The project team has focused on particular speech acts such as complaining, refusing
a request or disagreeing in the workplace, and explored wh at effect cultural backgrounds
have on the performance and interpretation of these speech acts. By investigating
wheth er different cultural backgrounds have different styles of interaction, this study has
researched the implications for communication in multicultural workplaces.

2. 9. Applied Linguistics
The LWP team h as tried to use t h eir research outcomes for practical applications for
improving workplace language for speakers of English as a second language or as a foreign language.

-135-

2. 10. Other Research Areas
Other areas of current research include, for example, t he investigation of how narratives, or workplace anecdotes, are used to construct a professional image (H olmes 2005d;
Holmes and Marra 2005b), how email contributes to this process (Waldvogel 2005;
Wallace 2000), and what causes miscommunication in the workplace (Stubbe forthcoming).

3. Politeness in the Workplace Discourse
Politeness is one of the primary themes that the L WP team h as been exploring
recently and it has been my research theme during my sabbatical in New Zealand. In
workplace discourse, where transactional efficiency is required in order to achieve a task,
their analysis of the vast corpus of workplace interaction has revealed that "most workplace interactions provide evidence of mutual respect and concern for the feeling or faceneeds of others, that is, of politeness" (Holmes & Stubbe 2003: 5).

In terms of politeness theory, until the 1990s, Brown & Levinson's (1987) approach
was widely accepted as providing the most comprehensive and influential framework, but
this has been dramatically changing this century. Eelen (2001), Watts (2003), and Mills(2003) implement a radically new approach incorporating social-theoretical insights,
locating politeness in a theory of social practice. The common views of this new approach
are, for example, that, (1) politeness involves situated judgement, (2) no linguistic expressions are intrinsically (im)polite, and (3) politeness is negotiated dynamically and discursively.
Along with t his n ew approach, members ofLWP (including Stephanie Schnurr now ofHong Kong University) have carried out detailed studies of the real world use of language, attempting to see how l anguage functions as a social process. This research
explores the issue of what it means to be polite in workplace discourse. Adopting a social;:.......

constructionist approach, wh ere the dynamic nature of interaction and the constantly
changing social identities are emphasised, they have proposed a new approach to politeness, drawing on the theory of "relational practice" (see Holmes & Schnurr 2005).
Relational Practice, or RP, is a term associated with Fletcher's (1999) work: "RP is a
way of working that reflects a relational logic of effectiven ess and requires a number ofrelational skills such as empathy, mutuality, reciprocity, and a sensitivity to emotional
contexts"(1999: 84). Drawing on interviews, observations, and sh adowing of target work--136-

Studies in Pragmatics in New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington

ers, Fletcher categorises RP into four categories: "preserving", "mutual empowerment","self-achieving", and "creating team" (1999:48). Holmes and Marra (2004) point out that"the first two are somewhat more oriented to transactional or organisational objectives,
and the second two to personal and interpersonal goals" (2004: 380).
The results from the LWP data analysis indicate that Fletcher's four categories of RP
are not mutually exclusive and they are often difficult to differentiate. Any utterance
serves multiple functions. They argue that RP has three crucial components: (1) RP is oriented to the (positive and negative) face needs of others; (2) RP serves to advance the primary objectives of the workplace; (3) RP practices at work are regarded as dispensable,
irrelevant, or peripheral (Holmes and Marra 2004: 378).
Using a social constructionist approach, the LWP team analyse the data produced byparticular communities of practice. The concept of "communities of practice" derives from
Wenger's (1998) work and is defined as "an aggregate of people who, united by a common
enterprise, develop and share ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, and values in short, practice" (Eckert and McConnell 1999: 186). The crucial dimensions of communities of practice are "mutual engagement" (i.e. ongoing regular interaction), "joint enterprise" (i.e. common goal), and "shared repertoire" (i.e. a set of linguistic resources common and understood among group members) (Wenger 1998: 73).
Applying these three dimensions to the workplace, the LWP team identify communities of practice in each workplace and analyse interaction focusing on the verbal behaviours or linguistic strategies in terms of RP. They point out that strategies of RP vary ineach community of practice as well as in different workplace situations and interactions
within a community of practice.
However, the analysis within the communities of practice approach does not focus
only on each community of.practice. It also "provides a means of linking micro-level linguistic processes with the macro-level patterns" (Holmes 2003b: 90). Analysing a wide
range of workplace discourse, the LWP team have found workplace anecdotes, small talk,and humour are typical examples ofRP in the workplace.
This new approach to politeness is still in its infancy. It is anticipated that further·..

research will be conducted using the framework of RP not only to explore the various
ways of accomplishing RP in different communities of practices, but also to expand theminto contrastive study.

- 137-

4. Conclusion
By analysing a wide .range of authentic workplace interactions, the LWP team h as
explored various aspects of discourse in the workplace. It has analysed the data by drawing on several theoretical models, including critical discourse analysis, polit eness theory,social constructionism, communities of practice, and conversati'on analysis. Their analyses consistently emphasise the dynamic and discursive aspects of interaction and constantly changing social identities in ongoing interaction. It should be stressed that LWP
has advanced a multidisciplinary approach to workplace discourse, attempting to describe"what is really going on". This project is in progress and it will continue to contribute to
the field of pragmatics.
Notes
1) The general information about Victoria Universi~y is based on its web site,
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/annualreports/2005/aboutJabout.html, and that of the School of Linguistics
and Applied Language Studies is based on its web site, http://www.vuw.ac.nzllals.
2) This section is a summary of the LWP web site, but any mistakes or errors are my own. For
more detailed information, see http://www.vuw.ac.nzllals/lwp.
Relevant LWP Refere n ces(Gender)

Holmes, J . 1998a. "Signaling Gender Identity through Speech." Moderna Sprak 42:2, 122-128.
H olmes, J. 2000a. "Women at Work: Analysing Women's Talk in New Zealand Workplaces."

Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL) 22:2, 1-17.
Holmes, J. 2005a. "Power and Discourse at Work: Is Gender Relevant?" In M. Lazar ed. Feminist

Critical Discourse A nalysis, 31-60. London: P algrave.
Holmes, J . 2006a. Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Social Identity through Workplace Discourse.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Holmes, J . and M. Marra. 2005a. "Communication in a Diverse Workplace: Gender and Identity." InF . Sligo and R. Bathurst (eds.) Communication in the New Zealand Workplace: Theory andPractice, 71-82. Wellington: Software Technology New Zealand Ltd.
Holmes, J . and S. Schnurr. 2006. "Doing Femininity at Work: More than Just Relational Practice."

J ournal of Sociolinguistics 10:1, 31-51.
Holmes, J . and M. Stubbe. 2003. '"'Feminine" Workplaces: Stereotype and Reality." In J . Holmes
and M. Meyerhoff (eds.) The Handbook of Language and Gender, 573-599. Oxford: Blackwell.
Marra, M., S. Schnurr. and J. Holmes. 2006. "Effective Leadership in New Zealand Workplaces:
Balancing Gender and Role." In J. Baxter and A. Jule (eds.) Speaking out: The Female Voice in

Public Contexts, 240-260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stubbe, M., J. Holmes. B. Vine. and M. Marra. 2000. "Forget Mars and Ven us, Let's Get Back to
Earth: Challenging Stereotypes in the Workplace." In J . Holmes (ed.) Gendered Speech in Social- 138 -

Studies in Pragmatics in New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington

Context: Perspectives from Town & Gown, 231-258. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
(Humour)

Holmes, J. 2000b. "Politeness, P ower and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the Workplace."

Discourse Studies 2:2, 159-185.
Holmes, J. 2006b. "Sharing a Laugh: Pragmatic Aspects of Humour and Gender in the Workplace."

Journal of Pragmatics 38:10, 26-50.
Holmes, J. and M. Marra. 2002a. "Humour as a Discursive Boundary Marker in Social Interaction."
In A. Duszak (ed.) Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures,

377-400. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Holmes, J. and M. Marra. 2002b. "Over the Edge? Subversive Humour between Colleagues andFriends." Humor 15:1, 65-87.
Holmes, J ., M. Marra., and B. Louise. 2001. "Women's Humour in the Workplace: A Quantitative
Analysis." Australian Journal of Communication 28, 83-108.
Schnurr, S. 2005. Humour and Leadership Discourse in Different Workplace Cultures. UnpublishedPh .D. Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
(Small Talk)

Holmes, J. 2000c. "Doing Collegiality and Keeping Control at Work: Small Talk in Government
Departments." In J. Coupland (ed.) Small Talk, 32-61. London: Longman ..
H olmes, J. 2003a. "Small Talk at Work: Potential Problems for Workers with an Intellectual
Disability." Research on Language and Social Interaction 36:1, 65-84.
Holmes, J . 2005b. "Socio-Pragmatic Aspects of Workplace Talk. In Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima, T .
Tak agaki, K. Shibano, a nd M. Usami (eds.) Linguistic Informatics - State of the Art and the

Future: The First International Conference on Linguistic Informatics, 196-220. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Holmes, J. 2005c. "When Small Talk is a Big Deal: Sociolinguistic Challenges in t he Workplace." In
M. H. Long ed. Second Language Needs Analysis, 344-371. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Holmes, J. and R. Fillary . 2000. "Handling Small Talk at Work: Challenges for Workers withIntellectual Disabilities." International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 47:3,
273-291.
Holmes, J. and M. Stubbe. 1998. "Small Talk, Business Talk - Oiling the Wheels of Business." People

and Performance June 1998, 28-31.
(Meetings)

Chan, A. 2005. Openings and Closings in Business Meetings in Different Cultures. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Marra, M. 2003. Decisions in New Zealand B usiness Meetings: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Power at

Work. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
(Directives)

Brown, P . 1998. "Directives in an Auckla nd Factory." In J. Holmes (ed.) Te Reo 41: Special Issue:

Proceedings of the Sixth Language and Society Conference June 1998, 199-202.
Stubbe, M. and B. Vine. 1998. "Swings and Roundabouts: Getting Things Done at Work." In J.

-139-

Holmes (ed.) Te Reo 41: Special Issue: Proceedings of the Sixth Language and Society Conference

J une 1998, 182-188.
Vine, B. 2001. "Getting Things Done in a New Zealand Workplace." New Zealand English Journal
15, 47-51.
Vine, B. 2004. Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(Management)

Holmes, J. 1998b. "Managing in Style: Flexible Discourse at Work." Communication Voyages:

Proceedings of Tenth Annual Conference of the NZ Communication Association, 1-15.
Holmes, J., L. Burns., M. Marra., M. Stubbe., and B. Vine. 2003. ''Women Managing Discourse in the
Workplace." Women in Management Review 18:8, 414-424.
Marra, M., S. Schnurr ., and J . Holmes. 2006. "Effective Leadership in New Zealand Workplaces:
Balancing Gender and Role." In J. Baxter and A. Jule (eds.) Speaking Out: The Female Voice in

Public Contexts, 240-260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
(Workplace Culture)

Holmes, J. 1999a. ''Preface." Language in Society: Special Issue: Communities of Practice inLanguage and Gender Research 28:2, 171-172.
Holmes, J. and M. Marra. 2002c. "Having a Laugh at Work: How Humour Contributes to Workplace
Culture." Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1683-1710.
Holmes, J. and M. Meyerhoff. 1999. "The Community of Practice: Theories and Methodologies in
Language and Gender Research." Language in Society: Special Issue: Communities of Practice inLanguage and Gender Research 28:2, 173-183.
(Cross-Cultural Pragmatics)

Daly, N., J. Holmes., J. Newton., and M. Stubbe. 2004. "Expletives as Solidarity Signals in FTAs on
the Factory Floor." J o_urnal of Pragmatics 36:5, 945-964.
Newton, J. 2004. "Face-Threatening Talk on the Factory Floor: Using Authentic Workpl ace
Interactions in Language Teaching." Prospect 19:1, 47-64.
(Applied Linguistics)

Holmes, J . 1999b. "Managing Social Talk at Work: What Does the NESB Worker Need to Know?"TESOLANZ Journal 7, 7-19.
Holmes, J . 2000d. "Talking English from 9 to 5: Challenges for ESL Learners at Work." International

Journal of Applied Linguistics 10:1, 125-140.
Holmes, J. 2001. "Implications and Applications of Research on Workplace Communication: A'-~

Research Report." New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 7, 89-98.
Holmes, J. 2002. ''Workplace Communication and ESOL Teaching." CLANZ 3, 8-10.
(Other Research Areas)

Holmes, J. 2005d. ''Why Tell Stories? Contrasting Themes and Identities in the Narr atives of Maori
and Pakeha Women and Men." In S. Kiesling and C. Bratt Paulston (eds.) I ntercultural

Discourse and Communication: The Essential Readings, 110-134. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holmes, J. and M. Marr a. 2005b. "Narrative and the Construction of Professional Identity in the
Workplace." In J. Thornborrow and J. Coates (eds.) The Sociolinguistics of Narrative, 193-213.

- 140-

Studies in Pragmatics in New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stubbe, M. forthcoming. Miscommunication and Problematic Talk in Multicultural Workplaces: A

New Zealand Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand.
Waldvogel, J. 2005. The Role, Status and Style of Workplace Email: A Study of Two New Zealand

Workplaces. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Wallace, D. 2000. "E-Mail and the Problems of Communication." M /C -A Journal of Media andCulture 3, 4.
Further References

Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eckert, P . and McConnell-Ginet, S. 1999. "New Generalizations and Explanations in Language andGender Research." Language in Society 28:2, 185-201.
Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
Fletcher, J. K. 1999. Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Holmes, J. 2003b. "Social Constructionism." In W. Frawley (ed.) International Encyclopedia ofLinguistics (2nd ed. Vol. 4), 88-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. and M. Marra. 2004. "Relational Practice in the Workplace: Women's Talk or Gendered
Discourse?" Language in Society 33, 377-398.
Holmes, J. and M. Stubbe. 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of

Talk at Work. London: Longman.
Holmes, J. and S. Schnurr. 2005. "Politeness, Humour and Gender in the Workplace: Negotiating
Norms and Identifying Contestation." Journal of Politeness Research 1:1, 121-149.
Marra, M. and J. Holmes. 2004. "Workplace Narratives and Business Reports: Issues of Defmition."

Text 24:1, 59-78.
Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger:, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-141-