Constructing affiliation and solidarity in job interviews

Transcription

ARTICLE
Lipovsky: Constructing affiliation and solidarity in job interviews 411
Constructing affiliation and solidarity
in job interviews
CAROLINE LIPOVSKY
Discourse & Communication
Copyright © 2008
SAGE Publications.
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 2(4): 411–432
10.1177/1750481308095938
U N IVERSITY OF SYDN EY, AUSTRALIA
A B S T R A C T Success in job interviews depends largely on the interviewers’
favourable opinion of the candidates’ presentation, and how well candidates
have managed to build solidarity with their interviewers. This article explores
the ways in which candidates shape their talk to interact interpersonally with
their interviewers, so as to construct affiliation and solidarity. Drawing on
Systemic Functional Linguistics Appraisal theory, in particular its system of
Attitude, this article examines a set of authentic job interviews in French,
or French and English. The interview analyses are complemented by the
candidates’ comments on the impressions they had tried to convey and the
interviewers’ comments about their impressions of the candidates. The
analysis identifies two strategies whereby candidates may construct affiliation
and solidarity with their interviewers: expressing their enthusiasm for and
interest in their work and profession, and demonstrating their professional
ability. It also highlights the damaging effect of expressing negative feelings
and opinions.
KEY WORDS:
Appraisal theory, Attitude, evaluation, impression management,
job interviews, solidarity, Systemic Functional Linguistics
Introduction
A body of early research on job interviews centred on issues of power, such
as inequalities between interviewers and candidates, and asymmetry in the
interaction (e.g. Akinnaso and Ajirotutu, 1982; Gumperz, 1992; Roberts and
Sayers, 1987). These studies depict the interview as
an interrogative encounter between someone who has the right or privilege to know
and another in a less powerful position who is obliged to respond, rather defensively,
to justify his/her action, to explain his/her problems, to give up him/herself for
evaluation. (Akinnaso and Ajirotutu, 1982: 119–20)
412
Discourse & Communication 2(4)
Interviewers are shown as ‘doing power’ by holding initiative and controlling
the interaction and, most importantly, evaluating candidates (e.g. Akinnaso and
Ajirotutu, 1982; Komter, 1991). Candidates are portrayed as powerless and unlikely to be allowed through the gate of the institution, particularly when ‘social
inequality is ritually dramatized’ and ‘basic differences in class, ethnicity, access
to power and knowledge, and culturally specific discourse conventions mediate
the interaction between participants’ (Akinnaso and Ajirotutu, 1982: 120).
Other studies presented interviews as relatively equal encounters and
acknowledged the role of constructing solidarity in the outcome of interviews
(e.g. Adelswärd, 1988; Erickson and Shultz, 1982; Kerekes, 2001; Lipovsky,
2005; Roberts and Sarangi, 1995). Erickson and Shultz’s (1982) study of counselling interviews first outlined the part played by establishing co-membership
in successful interviews, and showed that the closer the participants in comembership, the less important barriers in communication are going to be.
Adelswärd (1988) also found that successful candidates in job interviews spend
more time discussing non-professional topics with their interviewers; however,
she views co-membership talk simply as a means for achieving a relaxed interview climate, rather than an end in itself. Kerekes’s (2001, 2003, 2006) study
of intercultural interviews highlighted how candidates whose background more
closely resembles their interviewers’ are more likely to qualify for job placements,
and that non-native speakers are as likely to be successful job candidates as are
native speakers. She also illustrated how talking about private matters only marginally relevant to the job (such as having to care for children) has the effect
of getting the interviewer more emotionally involved in the interaction and
creating a sense of solidarity (2001). Most importantly, she showed how when
candidates do not produce the answers that were expected of them, interviewers
are more lenient with candidates who have established co-membership with
them, highlighting the impact of setting up a relationship of solidarity on the
outcome of the interview. In such interviews, the interaction is more equal, the
content collaboratively constructed, and interviewees are not merely reacting
to their interviewers’ actions, but can experience a sense of agency in their own
success. In this way, the candidates’ verbal construction is
both an instrument of action and an object for evaluation. In fact, the applicants do
not only produce a text in the dialogue with the interviewers, they also construct a
picture of themselves. The production of this picture is interactionally managed by
the applicants and the interviewers alike. (Adelswärd, 1988: 1)
Candidates are pro-active and influential, as their argumentative strategies determine the outcome of their interview. Expanding Adelswärd’s work, Scheuer
(2001) showed that an egalitarian style (with both parties producing significant
amounts of talk, and the interviewers using less control with fewer questions
asked) leads to success in getting the job.
Adelswärd’s study of candidates’ argumentative strategies and how they
contribute to establishing solidarity with the interviewers is useful, however
her analysis is essentially quantitative, presenting counts of candidates’ selfassessments about their strengths and weaknesses, exemplified by interview
extracts. On the other hand, Kerekes (2001) stresses the importance, for candidates, of sharing positive attitudes that are valued by their interviewers. Again, her
findings are quite valuable, as they illustrate candidates’ attempts at establishing
solidarity. However, neither of these studies uses a systematic analytical tool for
semantic analysis to investigate candidates’ abilities to construct affiliation and
solidarity.
Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL) theory views language as
a semiotic system, that is a resource for creating meanings through making
choices (e.g. lexico-grammatical or semantic) (Eggins, 1994; Halliday, 1994).
Thus, speakers’/readers’ choices can be interpreted in view of the linguistic
resources that were available to them, but were set aside (Eggins, 1994). An SFL
analysis makes such choices explicit, and so may highlight how interviewers
make inferences from the ways in which candidates express themselves, thus
contributing to the construction of affiliation and solidarity. In this article, I
draw on SFL Appraisal theory, in particular its system of Attitude (e.g. Martin,
2000), to investigate the construction of solidarity in authentic job interviews.
An appreciation of candidates’ strategies for negotiating solidarity with their
interviewers makes an important contribution towards understanding how
candidates may be successful at their job interviews and be offered the position
for which they are applying. Following a description of the theoretical framework and the database, the strategies used by candidates will be discussed
and exemplified.
Theoretical framework
The Attitude system is derived from the Appraisal framework (for further
description see Macken-Horarik and Martin, 2003; Martin, 2000; Martin and
Rose, 2003; Martin and White, 2005; White, 2002). The Appraisal framework
describes the resources used by speakers/writers to share their feelings about
and evaluate things and people, to construct personae and to negotiate their
social relationships (White, 2005). Appraisal theory has been applied to the
analysis of a wide range of spoken and written texts (e.g. Eggins and Slade, 1997;
Martin and Rose, 2003).
The system of Attitude in particular deals with all types of evaluative assessments, both positive and negative. This might include how speakers/writers
express their feelings (e.g. I love teaching), assess people’s behaviour (e.g. a
competent teacher), or appraise the worth of things (e.g. an interesting class),
hence the three categories of Affect, Judgement and Appreciation (Figure 1).
FIGURE
1 . System of ATTITUDE
414
Affect records positive and negative feelings, Judgements construe our
evaluations of conscious participants (our attitudes to people’s behaviour and
character), whereas Appreciations target things, either concrete or abstract (their
‘value’, their ‘composition’ and how we react to them). According to Martin
(2000: 147), all three sub-systems encode feeling, and Judgement and Appreciation both derive from Affect: ‘Judgement institutionalizes feelings as proposals
(about behaviour), whereas appreciation institutionalizes feelings as propositions (about things)’. This is represented in Figure 2.
Each category of Attitude includes various subcategories, as Figure 3
illustrates.
Feelings that involve reactions to a ‘realis’ stimulus (e.g. I like teaching) are
also distinguished from intentions towards an ‘irrealis’ stimulus (e.g. I want to
teach). This distinction is useful in the context of job interviews, where candidates
may be questioned about their projects.
Moreover, the system distinguishes between inscribed Attitudes that are
made explicitly (e.g. a keen student), and invoked Attitudes that are implied
(e.g. a student reading all the class material). In the latter example, the student’s
dedication to her/his study is implied, rather than being stated plainly through
explicit lexis, as in the former example. This shows how evaluations can be
implied through ideational meanings relating one’s experience. In the Appraisal
framework, implicit evaluations are identified as ‘tokens’. These evaluations
allow a wider range of readings than inscribed attitudes, and the interpretation
of invoked Judgements depends much on the reader’s/listener’s perspective
(Martin, 2000).
Lastly, Attitudes are gradable, so they can be amplified or downgraded (e.g.
very/a bit difficult). Another kind of scaling involves sharpening or softening
semantic categories that are a priori not scalable (e.g. a real/some kind of teacher).
In the Appraisal system, this is referred to as Graduation (e.g. Hood, 2004; Hood
and Martin, 2007; Martin and White, 2005).
From the point of view of Appraisal theory, individuals express their feelings
and beliefs to share their view of the world with their interlocutors rather than
merely comment on it (Eggins and Slade, 1997; Martin, 2000; Martin and Rose,
2003; Martin and White, 2005). This is why ‘all appraisal involves the negotiation of solidarity – you can hardly say how you feel without inviting empathy’
FIGURE
2 . Judgement and Appreciation as institutionalized Affect (after Martin, 2000)
AFFECT
(expressing
feelings)
(Un)happiness
Is the person happy?
Misery/Antipathy
(In)security
Is the person secure?
Disquiet/Surprise
(Dis)satisfaction
Is the person satisfied?
Ennui/Displeasure
Cheer/Affection
Confidence/Trust
Interest/Admiration
Normality
Is the person’s behaviour un/usual?
Social esteem
Capacity
Is the person capable?
Tenacity
Is the person dependable?
JUDGEMENT
(evaluating
behaviour)
Veracity
Is the person honest?
Social sanction
Propriety
Is the person beyond reproach?
Reaction
Impact
Did it grab me?
Quality
Did I like it?
APPRECIATION
(evaluating
texts, processes,
and natural
phenomena)
Balance
Did it hang together?
Composition
Complexity
Was it hard to follow?
Valuation
Was it worthwhile?
FIGURE
3 . Subcategories of Attitude (adapted from Martin, 2000)
(Martin, 2000: 170). This is because ‘reports of one’s own emotional reactions
are highly personalizing. They invite the addressee to respond on a personal level,
to empathize, sympathize or at least to see the emotion as warranted or understandable’ (Martin and White, 2005: 6). Thus, attitudinal evaluations seem to
play a key role in constructing relations of affiliation and fostering solidarity
between interactants. On the other hand, individuals run the risk of alienating
416
others in the evaluating process, as appraisal resources hold both a ‘bonding and
schismatic power [. . .] just as it is impossible to include without also excluding, so
it is impossible to appraise without running the gauntlet of empathy and alienation’ (Martin, 2000: 166). This article uses the system of Attitude to investigate
how candidates share their feelings and beliefs about themselves and their work
with their interviewers to construct affiliation and solidarity.
Data description
The data consist of three authentic job interviews that took place in Sydney,
Australia.1 Three candidates (native speakers of English) were applying for a job
at a host university in France. The position involved teaching English as a foreign
language and doing postgraduate research. These candidates were interviewed
by two interviewers (a native speaker of English and a native speaker of French).
Two interviews were held in English and French; one interview was entirely in
French. The total duration of the interviews is 43 minutes (Table 1).2 Craig and
Clothilde were competing for the same post, and Craig and Carrie were offered
the position at stake.
Because all the candidates had a high level of expertise, these interviews are
quite different from some of those examined in other studies (e.g. Akinnaso and
Ajirotutu, 1982; Gumperz, 1992). Furthermore, the candidates were interviewed
by professionals working in the same field. This means that they were more
likely to hold similar values on their profession, thus creating opportunities for
establishing affiliation and solidarity (see Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1993).
The interviews were audio- and video-taped. Separate follow-up interviews
of the candidates and the interviewers were then conducted (total duration:
6 hours and 54 minutes),3 where the interviewers or candidates watched the
video of their interview and talked it through, following a metapragmatic assessment method (see Kasper and Dahl, 1991: 232). The candidates commented
on the impression they were trying to make on their interviewers, whereas the
interviewers made comments on their actual impressions of the candidates.
These post-interviews were audio-taped and later transcribed.
A research on the popular literature on job interviews was concurrently
carried out. The purpose was to check any features that could have influenced
the candidates’ performance or their interviewers’ expectations, and compare
their actual behaviour with what is recommended in the popular literature.
The interviews were coded, counting occurrences of Attitude (Affect, Judgement and Appreciation) and Graduation. The coding of the data reflected as
closely as possible the point of view of the participants. It was based on lexical
items (e.g. ‘I’m nervous’) rather than para-verbal or non-verbal communication,
because of the difficulty that these might have entailed. Therefore, laughter
and other para-verbal features were not included. It is acknowledged, though,
that mutual laughter is a sign of rapport and consensus (e.g. Adelswärd, 1989;
Kerekes, 2006). The analysis also relied on the emotions that the candidates said
they were feeling, rather than what they may actually have felt. This may have
implications for the validity of the study.
TA B L E
1 . Interview context and participants
Candidatesa
Craig
Clothilde
Carrie
Position at stake
Teach English
+ research
English
Inès
Ingrid
French (Inès)
English (Ingrid)
English
and French
10 min
Teach English
+ research
English
Inès
Ingrid
French (Inès)
English (Ingrid)
English
and French
13 min
Teach English
+ research
English
Inès
Irene
French (Inès)
English (Irene)
French
36 min
41 min
56 min
75 min
81 min
125 min
Candidates’ native language
Interviewers
Interviewers’ native language
Language of the interview
Length of interviews
Length of candidates’
follow-up interviews
Length of interviewers’
follow-up interviews
20 min
a
The participants’ names have been changed in order to protect their identity. In the same
manner, names of institutions, courses and subjects have been amended throughout the
article.
The next section examines how the candidates’ attitudinal meanings contributed to constructing solidarity with their interviewers.
Establishing solidarity
The three interviews yielded 106 instances of Attitude: 52 expressions of Affect
(28 realis and 24 irrealis), 19 Judgements and 35 Appreciations. All the
Appreciations and most expressions of Affect (96.5%) were inscribed, whereas
Judgements were largely invoked (79%). The candidates’ attempts to appear
positive in their interviews resulted in a corpus containing 26 expressions of
positive feelings, versus only two instances of negative feelings. Likewise, the
candidates judged their abilities positively: only two Judgements out of 19 were
negative. Finally, the candidates tended to evaluate things positively with 22
positive Appreciations versus 13 negative. This is in line with popular literature
which recommends that candidates be positive when interviewed, since this
is taken as an indication of how they will behave, once employed (e.g. Bright,
2001; DEET, 1994; Stevens, 1991). According to Greg Riley, a recruiter in Sydney
(cited in Taylor, 2004), ‘organizations want positive people’, ‘no one wants a wet
blanket’.
A comparison across the interviews (Figure 4) shows that Clothilde expressed
Attitudes more than any other candidate – 2.5 times more than Craig (the lowest
user). Clothilde and Carrie also talked about their projects more often than
Craig; Clothilde made Judgements four times as often as Craig and Carrie, and
20
No. of occurrences
418
15
10
5
0
Craig
Realis Affect
FIGURE
Carrie
Irrealis Affect
Clothilde
Judgement
Appreciation
4 . Comparative attitudinal use across the interviews
appreciated things and performances about twice as much. Within the interviews, Craig used different kinds of attitudinal meanings more or less equally,
whereas the other candidates showed disparities in their use of appraisal, with
Carrie making few Judgements and Clothilde volunteering numerous
Appreciations. Another peculiarity of Clothilde’s performance is that she uttered
16 of the 17 negative Attitudes that were expressed in all three interviews. This
means that nearly one in three feelings/opinions that she expressed in the course
of her interview was negative. Clothilde is also the candidate who expressed the
most invoked Attitudes (21.5% of all Attitudes expressed versus 12% for Carrie
and 5% for Craig) – a consequence of her uttering the most Judgements.
The interviewers’ post-interview comments highlighted two areas in which
candidates’ evaluations played a key role in building rapport and solidarity: 1)
enthusiasm for and interest in their work, and 2) statements of professional
capability. In the next section, I present detailed analyses of each strategy, coupled
with candidates’ and interviewers’ post-interview comments.4
ENTHUSIASM FOR AND INTEREST IN ONE ’ S WORK
The candidates mostly expressed their feelings towards their profession and
the position at stake in terms of Happiness (Cheer and Affection) and Interest
(see Figure 5). All three candidates expressed interest in the position they were
applying for, activities they wanted to pursue while in France and particular
areas of research. Carrie also mentioned interests she had that could be useful
for teaching conversation classes.5 This is also the only feeling that Craig (the only
male applicant) expressed. Clothilde and Carrie also highlighted their passion
and enthusiasm for teaching.6
Note that Clothilde is the only candidate who expressed negative feelings in
the course of her interview. Notably, she mentioned that she was nervous, which
was damaging in terms of impression as her interviewers interpreted her lack of
confidence during her interview as a lack of confidence in her skills.7
FIGURE
t
nu
Di
i
sp
le
as
ur
e
In
te
re
A
dm st
ira
tio
n
En
us
Tr
ce
id
en
nf
rp
Co
ui
et
Su
n
sq
io
ct
f fe
Di
r
ee
ris
e
Carrie
Clothilde
A
A
nt
ip
ise
M
at
hy
Craig
Ch
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ry
No. of occurrences
5 . Distribution of candidates’ Appraisal across the range of feelings
Both Carrie and Clothilde highlighted their passion for teaching, for
example:
(1)
Carrie:
enseigner est une de une de mes passions [+AFFECT: happiness:
affection]8 dans ma vie9
teaching is one of one of my passions in life
(2)
Carrie:
j’aime [+AFFECT: happiness: affection] cet échange entre les élèves et
l’enseignant
I like the exchange between teacher and student
(3)
Clothilde: I’m really enthused [+AFFECT: happiness: cheer] about this
teaching
Carrie’s comments made a positive impression on her interviewers, as shown
in Irene’s post-interview comments:
(4)
Irene:
Quelqu’un qui aimait bien son travail, qui voulait vraiment partir en
France, qui était très enthousiaste à l’idée de faire ça, qui aimait bien
l’enseignement donc c’est l’image de quelqu’un qui était passionné [. . .]
par l’enseignement, qui aimait enseigner [. . .] et ça c’est toujours bien
parce que xxx10 c’est la meilleure chose quand on trouve quelqu’un qui
peut enseigner et enthousiaste.
Someone who loved her work, who really wanted to go to France,
who was really fired up about the idea and who loved teaching, that
equals someone who is passionate [. . .] about teaching, who likes
teaching [. . .] and that’s always a good thing because xxx it’s great
when you find someone who can teach and be enthusiastic about it
at the same time.
When discussing her impressions of Carrie, Irene herself used a plethora of
affective terms. Carrie’s claims about her passion for teaching also triggered
positive Valuations on the part of Irene (see Table 2). Note also the intensifiers
that accentuate her positive impression of Carrie (e.g. ‘voulait vraiment partir en
France’ (really wanted to go to France), ‘très enthousiaste’ (really fired up)).
420
TA B L E
2 . Expressions of Attitude in Irene’s comments
Appraising items
Affect
aimait bien son travail (loved her work)
voulait vraiment partir en France (really wanted
to go to France)
très enthousiaste (really fired up)
aimait bien l’enseignement (loved teaching)
passionné par l’enseignement (passionate
about teaching)
aimait enseigner (likes teaching)
c’est toujours bien (that’s always a good thing)
c’est la meilleure chose (it’s great)
quelqu’un qui peut enseigner (someone who
can teach)
enthousiaste (enthusiastic)
+happiness
+desire
Judgement
Appreciation
+happiness
+happiness
+happiness
+happiness
+valuation
+valuation
+capacity
+happiness
Likewise, Clothilde’s comments made a positive impression on both her
interviewers, for example:
(5)
Ingrid:
Well, she did something which Craig didn’t do and that is say she
actually was enthusiastic and really wanted to go so that was a
good, positive point and possibly, you know, influenced one’s last
impressions of her.
As happened with Carrie, Clothilde’s expression of enthusiasm triggered positive
Valuations on the part of her interviewer (see Table 3).
Note that it was part of Clothilde’s impression management strategy to show
enthusiasm:
(6)
Caroline: What kind of impression did you try to convey to your interviewers?
Clothilde: Being confident and being competent and being enthusiastic and the
kind of person that they would like to send away on an exchange.
A benefit for candidates of highlighting their passion and enthusiasm for their
work is that it makes a new claim in their favour that was not apparent from their
résumé or application. Moreover, expressions of emotional attachment to one’s
job imply honest feelings, as opposed to pragmatic career calculation (Scheuer,
2003). This may be why the interviewers in this study seemed to value candidates’
demonstrations of enthusiasm for their job. Another reason might be that
enthusiastic employees may put more effort into their jobs.
Only the female candidates commented on their passion for their work. This is
why no contributions from Craig, the male candidate, are included in this section.
Indeed it has been claimed that men talk less about their emotions than women
(Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2000: 56):
It appears [. . .] that in society today women have more of an emotional ‘ethos’
than men, which means not that they feel more emotions, but that they show more
emotions (by engaging in more laughter, tears, interjections, enthusiasm and active
conversation) and that they decipher them better than men do. [My translation]
TA B L E
3 . Expressions of Attitude in Ingrid’s comments
Appraising items
Affect
enthusiastic
+happiness
really wanted to go
+desire
that was a good [. . .] point
that was a [. . .] positive point
influenced one’s last impressions of her
Judgement
Appreciation
+valuation
+valuation
token, +valuation
If the lack of data from Craig is not sufficient to warrant any claims, it is still
interesting that it supports this view.
A strategy that Craig used in lieu of an emotional response is to express
opinions through Appreciations, for example:
(7)
Craig:
je crois que ça ça [être à Lyon pour un an] va heu ça va être très bon
[+APPRECIATION: reaction: quality] pour heu ma propre recherche
I think that that [being in Lyons for a year] will um will be really
good for um my own research
(8)
Craig:
le département [à Lyon 2] m’a fait heu une grande impression que ça
serait heu un très très bon [+APPRECIATION: reaction: quality] heu
endroit pour moi
the department [at Lyon 2 University] made um a big impression on
me, it’ll be um a really really good um place for me
Under Affect, emotional responses (as in examples 1 to 3) are very much personalized. As Appreciations on the other hand, feelings are reshaped as qualities
of the appraised Thing (White, 2002). Thus, ‘j’aime beaucoup ce département’
(‘I like this department a lot’), for instance, would focus on Craig and his personal response, whereas examples 7 and 8 shift the focus away from Craig
towards the Thing being evaluated, providing a more objective evaluation.
Note, however, that while these Appreciations highlight the qualities of a stay
in Lyons/the department in the host university in France, Craig is also present
as the Evaluator and Beneficiary (see ‘pour moi’/‘ma propre recherche’ (‘for me’/
‘my own research’). Thus, examples 7 and 8 appear less personal and subjective
than emotions as the focus is on the Thing being evaluated, while still appearing
personalized as a Beneficiary is included. Craig’s comments made a positive
impression on Inès, as shown in her post-interview comments:
(9)
Inès:
Et là, il se dit, «voilà, c’est là qu’il faut que j’impressionne, c’est là qu’il
faut que je vende mon bifteck», et je sens que, tu vois, il s’anime parce qu’il
sait que ça va avoir bon effet, tu vois, il dit «cet endroit pour moi»,
là il est en train d’essayer de se vendre, là, à mon avis.
And then he realizes ‘okay, this is where I’ve got to make a good
impression. This is where I’ve got to stick up for myself ’ and you
know, I can see that he’s getting more animated because he knows
that it’s getting results, you see, he says ‘this place is for me’. It’s at
this point that he’s really trying to sell himself, in my opinion.
422
Interestingly, although Craig did not explicitly state his enthusiasm, he still imparted his passion for his research through his non-verbal communication:11
(10)
Inès:
Tu vois, là, il a l’air beaucoup plus animé tout à coup je trouve. [. . .]
Hé oui, regarde ses mains, là, tu vois, à mon avis, là tu retrouves quelque
chose qui est un peu la passion du chercheur, tu vois, et c’est pas le même
comportement [que quand il parlait de l’enseignement] c’est-à-dire que
tout à coup, il va s’animer, il va parler de choses qu’il connaît bien, qui
l’enthousiasment, et je trouve qu’on retrouve cette animation, là, dans ses
gestes tout à coup. Il est plus vivant tout à coup.
As you can see, all of a sudden he seems a lot more animated I think.
[. . .] Just look, check out his hands, there, see? In my opinion, you
can see a little of the researcher’s passion, see? And it’s not the
same behaviour [as when he was talking about teaching] I mean,
suddenly he comes alive, he’s talking about things that he knows,
things that he likes, and I think that you can see that enthusiasm in
his gestures all of a sudden. Suddenly, he comes alive.
Thus, Craig conveyed passion and enthusiasm to his interviewers as Clothilde
and Carrie did, although through different means; rather than expressing these
feelings as such, he communicated his enthusiasm through his opinions and
non-verbal communication.
All three candidates also expressed interest in aspects of their research, in
particular with regard to their projects while in France, for example,
(11)
Carrie:
il a d’intérêts de recherche [grammatical metaphor – interest] qui
sont com- qui sont semblables à à moi
he [a researcher in the host university in France]’s got com- um
similar research interests as I
(12)
Craig:
il y a une professeuse là-bas [researcher’s name] qui a a aussi un une
intérêt [+AFFECT: satisfaction: interest] dans le heu littérature
albanais et et aussi la philosophie Foucault les choses comme ça
there’s an academic there [in the host university] [researcher’s
name] who’s also interested in um Albanian literature and and in
philosophy Foucault things like that
(13)
Clothilde: j’aimerais bien assister à des à des séminaires doctorals [. . .] je
m’intéresse [+AFFECT: satisfaction: interest] beaucoup à les
séminaires surtout les séminaires heu théoriques
I’d like to go to to some doctoral seminars [. . .] I’m really interested
in the seminars especially um theoretical seminars
Although examples 11, 12 and 13 all deal with the candidates’ interests, they can
be differentiated in terms of their specificity. Whereas Carrie and Craig related
their research interests specifically to researchers at Lyon 2 University, Clothilde
remained quite vague about the seminars that she was planning to attend while
in France. This (lack of) specificity was reflected in the interviewers’ impressions
of the candidates, for example,
(14)
Inès:
ça manquait un petit peu de, tu vois, renseignements
she [Clothilde] was a bit vague on details
(15)
Ingrid:
it [Craig’s interview] was impressive because of its detailed
relationship to his project very specifically to Lyon 2. He didn’t say
‘I’d love to go to Lyon because there are lots of good libraries’, he said
very specifically why he needed to go to Lyon 2.
Craig was indeed quite specific in his evaluations of the benefits of the position
for his research (see ‘un très très bon heu endroit pour moi’ (a really, really good
place for me), ‘très bon pour heu ma propre recherche’ (really helpful for um my own
research), ‘des très bons contacts’ (some really good meetings), ‘that’s the period
when being in France would be really helpful’). Since Craig and Clothilde were both
found to be competent tutors, this specificity was crucial in the impression that
he made on his interviewers. Craig’s evaluations were also amplified through
Graduation (e.g. ‘un très très bon endroit pour moi’ (‘a really really good place
for me’), ‘très bon pour heu ma propre recherche’ (‘really helpful for um my own
research’), ‘des très bons contacts avec plusieurs professeurs’ (‘some really good
meetings with several lecturers’), ‘vraiment intéressé’ (‘really interested’), ‘really
helpful’). Lastly, unlike Clothilde’s, all his instances of Appraisal were positive.
As mentioned earlier, Clothilde is the only candidate who expressed negative
feelings. In particular, she revealed to her interviewers her lack of confidence:
(16)
Clothilde: excusez-moi je suis très nerveuse [-AFFECT: insecurity: disquiet] [rire]
I’m sorry I’m very nervous [laughs]
This was a risky strategy, since presenting oneself as insecure does not necessarily engender empathy in one’s interlocutor (see Jordens, 2002).12 Inès though
responded with sympathy, reciprocating Clothilde’s laugh and suggesting that
she take her time to answer her interviewers’ questions. Her empathy is reflected
in her post-interview comments:
(17)
Inès:
Alors voilà, je pense que c’est ça aussi qui m’a fait une assez bonne
impression (rire) c’est quand elle a dit «excusez-moi, je suis très
nerveuse». [. . .] c’était sympathique, quoi, de, de couper ça et de faire une
remarque un peu personnelle [. . .], mais là, on sentait qu’elle avait été un
peu déstabilisée, peut-être justement parce qu’elle pouvait pas vraiment
répondre à la question de la façon qu’on attendait.
So you see, I think that it was that that made a good impression
on me (laughs) when she said ‘I’m sorry, I’m very nervous’. [. . .]
it was nice, I think, to stop and say something a little personal [. . .],
but just then you felt that she was a bit out of sorts, maybe it was
precisely because she couldn’t reply to the question in the way we
expected.
In contrast, this made a negative impression on her other interviewer:
(18)
Ingrid:
Because she’s working in French, I suppose those gestures and
expressions of openness and frankness have almost become
suggestions of uncertainty, lack of confidence in her French so,
she’s not . . . she wouldn’t be able to convince me, from that, you
know, that she’s really going to be able to cope very well over
there [in France] at her current level.
Christine Béal (1990: 28) argues that ‘the need to show emotions is [. . .] often
allowed to supersede face wants in French culture’. On the other hand, Anna
Wierzbicka (2003: 53–4) claims that in Anglo-Saxon culture, public displays of
emotions are disapproved of:
The overtones which the word emotional has acquired in English are a good
illustration of the disapproval of public display of emotions, characteristic of
Anglo-Saxon culture. Frequently this word is used with negative connotations, but
even when it is not it implies at least ‘an unexpected and somewhat embarrassing
display of emotions’.
This would explain why the French interviewer reacted more favourably to
Clothilde’s display of emotions. This played against Clothilde eventually as her
lack of confidence while answering her interviewers’ questions was interpreted
as a lack of confidence in her skills (see ‘elle avait été un peu déstabilisée’ (she was a
bit out of sorts), ‘suggestions of uncertainty’, ‘lack of confidence in her French’,
‘she wouldn’t be able to convince me, from that, you know, that she’s really going
to be able to cope very well over there’).
STATEMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITY
In the data, nearly one evaluation in five is a Judgement (see Figure 4). Predictably,
the candidates focused on Judgements pertaining to their capacity to do the job
such as teaching, for example:
(19)
Craig:
I think I’ve developed [. . .] some you know communication skills and
um that kind of thing which I think I could adapt um pretty well to
the teaching [token, + JUDGEMENT: capacity]
A small proportion of Judgements though deals with candidates’ tenacity as
shown in Figure 6. The candidates were also mostly positive with 17 positive
Judgements versus two negative – one only with regard to the candidates’ capacity
to perform well.
12
No. of occurrences
424
10
8
6
4
2
0
Capacity
Incapacity
Craig
FIGURE
Clothilde
6 . Distribution of Judgements across the interviews
Tenacity
Carrie
As mentioned earlier, 79 percent of all Judgements expressed were invoked.
This can be explained by the fact that both the candidates and the interviewers
were teachers/researchers and, as such, shared similar professional values/
perspectives, since ‘socialization into a discipline involves both an alignment
with the institutional practices involved and an affinity with the attitudes one
is expected to have towards those practices’ (Martin, 2000). So when Clothilde
for instance stated that her students were ‘all reading their bits’ (see discussion
below), it was clear to her interviewers that she meant this as a positive Judgement on their capacity as students – and incidentally as a positive Judgement on
her own ability to teach.13 Another factor that may have triggered this strategy
lies in the way the interviewers phrased their questions, for example:
(20)
Inès:
pour enseigner finalement l’anglais langue étrangère est-ce que vous
prévoyez ou pensez à des activités particulières qui pourraient intéresser
les étudiants qu’est-ce que vous feriez par exemple dans une classe
so to teach English as a foreign language, do you imagine or think
about specific activities that might be interesting to the students, for
example what would you do in class
Questions of this kind call for concrete activities/ideational meanings drawing
on the candidate’s experience as a learner or teacher. These in turn may bring
about implied evaluations of their skills and competences. It is the case with
Carrie’s answer to Inès’s question above:
(21)
Carrie:
[. . .] j’aimerais [AFFECT: irrealis] heu avoir la chance d’expliquer
la culture et mon pays et la vie australienne [. . .] et heu la situation
culturelle et politique des Aborigènes ici m’intéresse [+ AFFECT:
satisfaction: interest] aussi et oui j’ai et j’ai pas mal voyagé en Australie
[token, + JUDGEMENT: capacity] et je je connais la littérature la
littérature américaine [token, + JUDGEMENT: capacity] [. . .]
[. . .] I’d like um to get the chance to explain the culture and my
country and the Australian way of life [. . .] and um the cultural and
political situation here with the Aborigines interests me as well and
yeah I and I’ve travelled quite a bit around Australia and I I know
about literature American literature [. . . ]
Carrie mentioned her interest in the situation of Aboriginal people to support
her claim that she would teach her students about Australia. Likewise, her
travelling (emphasized by ‘pas mal’ (‘quite a bit’)) and her knowledge of American
literature imply that she could base some class activities on these topics.
Carrie’s answer was interpreted in terms of competences and abilities, as
shown in Inès’s post-interview comments:
(22)
Inès:
C’était la partie la plus intéressante finalement, cette réponse-là, c’està-dire au niveau pragmatique, «qu’est-ce qu’elle va faire dans les classes?»,
et là, je crois qu’elle arrive bien à sortir toutes ses compétences, j’ai voyagé
en Australie, je peux faire ça, je peux leur dire ça [. . .] on a vraiment une
im- l’impression de quelqu’un qui a de la ressource, qui peut faire ça,
ça et ça. Et moi, là, j’ai trouvé que c’était bien, cette réponse-là, justement.
426
[. . .] j’ai vraiment l’impression de voir qui elle est, ce qu’elle peut faire,
ce qu’elle peut donner.
This was the most interesting bit right here, this answer, I mean on
a pragmatic level, ‘what is she going to do in class?’ and I think she
manages to show us her experience, I’ve travelled around Australia,
I can do this, I can tell them that [. . .] we really got a – the
impression that she is someone with some resources behind her,
someone who can do this, this and this. I thought it was good, that
reply right there, really. [. . .] I really got who she is, what she can do,
what she can offer.
Craig’s answer in example 19 on the other hand put forward a competency (communication skills) that teachers regard highly. This supported his claims about
his professional capability and may have contributed to negotiating solidarity
with his interviewers.
Clothilde is the candidate who made the most Judgements. This contributed
to highlighting her skills as a teacher and made a good impression on her
interviewers. More specifically, she elected to demonstrate her teaching skills
through the appraisal of her students’ aptitudes, as shown in example 23.
(23)
Ingrid:
do you find you can make them [the students] make them make
them in xx encourage them to speak
Clothilde: um yeah I think so they’re all reading their bits and and a lot of
people well we’ve had two tutorials so far most most of the science
students are really enrolled in it as a pre-requisite for something
else so yes yes it it it’s a bit difficult but I think they are beginning
to talk a bit more and you know people stay after the tutorial for an
hour talking about next week’s presentation so I think they begin to
understand a bit more what the course is about and also what giving
a presentation is about and stand up in front of a group of people
and talking about what’s going on and demonstrate a computer
model or something ummm
As in Carrie’s response in 21 above, Clothilde elected to answer her interviewer’s
question through concrete examples – only in this instance, examples are taken
from a class that she was currently teaching. Attitudes are also evoked through
tokens of Judgement, that is, rather than directly evaluating her students via
explicit attitudinal lexis, Clothilde evaluated them indirectly through experiential
(non-attitudinal) meanings (see Table 4). Throughout her answer, Clothilde
presented her students as Actors (doing things such as ‘reading their bits’ and
so on) or Sensers (thinking/perceiving). Thus, she chose to demonstrate how she
encouraged participation in her classes (i.e. her skills as a teacher) through an
exemplification of her students’ achievements. This contributed to establishing
solidarity with Inès as a fellow professional:
(24)
Inès:
[Il] y a aussi une espèce de complicité, je dirais, avec nous, parce que, ce
qu’elle est en train de nous dire, c’est qu’au fond, elle a une expérience
d’enseignante comme nous, tu vois, c’est-à-dire finalement heu . . . d’un
air de dire «je sais ce que c’est qu’enseigner» et donc tous ces gestes-là sont
TA B L E
4 . Tokens of Judgement in Clothilde’s answer
Instance
they’re all reading their bits
they are beginning to talk a bit more
people stay after the tutorial for an hour talking about next week’s presentation
they begin to understand a bit more what the course is about
they begin to understand a bit more [. . .] what giving a presentation is about and stand
up in front of a group of people and talking about what’s going on and demonstrate a
computer model or something
des espèces de clins d’œil en disant «voilà, je sais que vous aussi, vous avez
dû avoir les mêmes heu . . . les mêmes problèmes, etc.» donc c’était pas
mal, ça introduisait une espèce de complicité avec nous.
There’s also an element of complicity with us, I think, because what
she’s saying is that basically she’s a teacher like us, you see, I mean
. . . she’s kind of saying ‘I know what teaching is all about’ so all of
these hints are rather like a nudge and a wink to say ‘I know that
you too must have had the same problems etc.’ It was quite clever,
that, bringing in a form of complicity with us.
Solidarity is exemplified in Inès’s choice of words that underline the similarity
of their teaching experience, e.g. ‘comme nous’ (‘like us’), ‘vous aussi’ (‘you too’),
‘les mêmes problèmes’ (‘the same problems’). This also shows that more than the
mere use of evaluations on the part of candidates, the abundance or scarcity
of these evaluations also impacts on the interviewers’ impression of the candidates. Martin and Rose (2003: 250) indeed report that ‘proliferation of attitude is
especially powerful, since sharing feelings is such a critical resource for bonding’,
although this may be culturally specific. However, Judgements can only realize
their potential effect if they are deciphered by the interviewers the way the
candidates had intended them. Clothilde’s strategy only works because she is
appealing to values that her interviewers share with her. It is because Clothilde
makes the ‘right’ evaluations about her students that she demonstrates expertise
and builds solidarity with Inès. Thus, candidates may construct affiliation
with their interviewers only when demonstrating appropriate aspects of their
experience. This is important, since sharing values that their interviewers can
identify with, or relate to, is one of the key elements that allows candidates to
establish trust and build solidarity with their interviewers (Kerekes, 2006).
Again, Clothilde was the only candidate to make negative Judgements.
Extract 25 shows the beginning of her answer after she was asked about her
projects while in France:
(25)
Clothilde: heu bon premièrement je voudrais [AFFECT: desire] améliorer mes
connaissances de français et je voudrais [AFFECT: desire] pouvoir lire
en français un peu mieux je suis assez confortable [+JUDGEMENT:
capacity] avec les textes français mais pour écrire en français surtout ça je
trouve très difficile [-JUDGEMENT: incapacity]
428
well um firstly I’d like to improve my knowledge of French and I’d
like to be able to read French a bit better I’m reasonably comfortable
with French texts but it’s writing in French that’s really hard for me
First, the instances of Irrealis Affect point to the limitations of Clothilde’s French.
Then, she states her difficulty with writing – a negative Judgement compounded
by an intensifier. This answer made a negative impression on both Clothilde’s
interviewers:
(26)
Ingrid:
Her frankness is in a sense drawing attention to her weaknesses
because, to say that she writes very poorly is going to be a bit of a
worry for us, isn’t it, so . . . She’s certainly not doing a great deal to
allay our fears if we have them but her French isn’t really quite up
to . . . but it’s not really a post to somebody to get their French up
to that level. It’s for somebody who’s got French to a very good level
already.
(27)
Inès:
Même si la personne ne parle pas très bien, je crois qu’on attendait
quand même déjà une certaine facilité, tu vois, dans l’expression,
quelqu’un donc heu . . . c’est un tout petit peu maladroit de dire que
tu veux aller là-bas pour améliorer ton français [. . .] parce que c’est
finalement, à la limite, un poste d’enseignement tu vois [. . .] mais
pas nécessairement un poste pour que tu puisses améliorer.
Even if the applicant doesn’t speak very well, I think we were
expecting a certain ease of expression, you know, somebody who um
. . . it’s a little bit clumsy to say that you want to go there to improve
your French [. . .] because it’s actually a teaching position, you know
[. . .] but not necessarily a position where you can improve your
French
These comments highlight how Clothilde’s negative Judgement impacted
negatively on her interviewers.
Conclusion
Drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics Appraisal theory, in particular its
system of Attitude, this article examined a set of authentic interviews in French
or French and English. The Appraisal analysis was complemented with extracts
from post-interviews in which the candidates commented on the impressions
they had tried to convey and the interviewers made comments on their impressions of the candidates. The analysis highlighted two strategies whereby
candidates may construct affiliation with their interviewers. The first one
involves candidates’ expressions of interest in and enthusiasm for their work
and profession. All three candidates in this study chose to highlight their interest
in their work and/or the position that they were applying for. The interviewers’
comments indicated how knowledge of the details of the position is crucial in
this context and vagueness or lack of specificity can negatively impact on the
interviewers’ impression of the candidate. All the female candidates also stressed
their enthusiasm for their work and/or the position at stake. The interviewers
commended this strategy in their post-interviews. The male candidate did not
expressly state his enthusiasm, although he still communicated his passion for
his research through his non-verbal communication. Although not expressing
his feelings, he did point out the beneficial effects of the position on his research
by means of positive Appreciations. One candidate who was very enthusiastic
and also keen to succeed in her interview became quite nervous as a result.
This had a negative impact on her interviewers, as they interpreted her lack of
confidence during her interview as a lack of confidence in her skills. Another
critical factor concerns candidates’ professional ability. All the candidates
stressed their ability to perform well in their work by means of Judgements. These
Judgements were mostly invoked, partly because the interviewers’ questions
called for concrete examples taken from candidates’ professional experience.
They were also made possible because both the candidates and the interviewers
shared the same professional experience and, as such, had similar values regarding their profession. The analysis also highlighted how negative Judgements may
have a damaging impact on interviewers’ impressions of candidates. Therefore,
the present study adds to our understanding of job interviews by highlighting
the semantic resources whereby candidates construct or block affiliation and
solidarity with their interviewers through sharing their feelings and beliefs
(or attitudes) about their work and profession.
This analysis has shown how candidates connect to, and align with, their
interviewers. For instance, in referring to their passion for their job, candidates
encouraged their interviewers to empathize with their feelings. Furthermore,
candidates’ positive judgements of their capability to perform added to the
hard facts already provided about their experience, and highlighted their comprehension of what it meant to be competent in their chosen profession. This
contributed to underlining their affiliation as fellow professionals. Post-interview
data also highlighted that it is the display of feelings and values that are shared
by their interviewers that allows candidates to connect and bond. On the other
hand, the analysis has highlighted the damaging effect of negative feelings and
opinions in terms of impression.
Lastly, this research focused on candidates’ speech. A multimodal analysis
exploring how candidates’ gestures and facial expressions function alongside
the expression of their attitudes would cast further light on how they foster solidarity with their interviewers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Constance Ellwood for her critical comments on an earlier version of
this article. This article has also greatly benefited from the constructive and insightful
comments of the anonymous reviewer. I am particularly indebted to the candidates and
interviewers for their participation, and also thank Indigo Blue for her skilful translation
of the French data.
430
N OTE S
1. A comprehensive description can be found in Lipovsky (2005).
2. A fourth interview with a French candidate applying for a position as a teacher of
French in Australia was excluded from the present analysis to allow for a consistent
corpus.
3. The follow-up interviews with the candidates were conducted after they had been
informed of the outcome of their job interview.
4. Note that all the candidates who took part in this study are academically and
professionally outstanding, and their answers as detailed hereafter do not call into
question their competence in any way.
5. See example 21.
6. The French candidate in the fourth interview also expressed her passion for
teaching. See Lipovsky (2007) for examples.
7. See Lipovsky (2007) for an example from the interview with the French candidate.
The French candidate expressed her unhappiness with the long hours and fatigue
induced in her previous teaching post. Her interviewer interpreted this as a motive
for dissatisfaction for her previous employer.
8. Attitudes and their subcategories are coded in the square brackets; ‘+’ marks
positive attitudes and ‘–’ negative ones. Instances of Graduation are underlined.
9. All examples are quoted in their original form.
10. ‘xxx’ indicates inaudible speech (1 ‘x’ per syllable).
11. Non-verbal communication is beyond the scope of this article though.
12. Kerekes (2007) states that staffing supervisors in her study viewed confidence and
assertiveness as positive traits.
13. The French candidate in the fourth interview, when asked about her teaching,
mentioned that she worked ‘mostly on the communication side of things’ and
organized ‘a lot of role-plays’. Only an interviewer who values communicative
teaching would view these comments as positive Judgements of the candidate’s
teaching skills (see Lipovsky, 2007).
REFERENCES
Adelswärd, V. (1988) Styles of Success: On Impression Management as Collaborative Action in
Job Interviews. Linköping: Linköping University, Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 23.
Adelswärd, V. (1989) ‘Laughter and Dialogue: The Social Significance of Laughter in
Institutional Discourse’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12: 107–36.
Akinnaso, F.N. and Ajirotutu, C.S. (1982) ‘Performance and Ethnic Style in Job Interviews’,
in J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity, pp. 119–44. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. (1993) ‘The Language of Comembership’, Research
on Language and Social Interaction 26: 227–57.
Béal, C. (1990) ‘‘‘It’s All in the Asking’’: A Perspective on Problems of Cross-cultural
Communication between Native Speakers of French and Native Speakers of Australian
English in the Workplace’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S No. 7:
16–32.
Bright, J. (2001) Job Hunting for Dummies: Australian and New Zealand Edition. Warriewood:
Hungry Minds Pty Ltd.
DEET (Department of Employment, Education and Training) (1994) Job Search for Adults.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Eggins, S. (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
Eggins, S. and Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
Erickson, F. and Shultz, J. (1982) The Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews.
New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. (1992) ‘Interviewing in Intercultural Situations’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage
(eds) Talk at Work, pp. 302–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hood, S. (2004) ‘Appraising Research: Taking a Stance in Academic Writing’, unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.
Hood, S. and Martin, J.R. (2007) ‘Invoking Attitude: The Play of Graduation in Appraising
Discourse’, in R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen and J. Webster (eds) Continuing Discourse on
Language: A Functional Perspective. London: Equinox.
Jordens, C. (2002) ‘Reading Spoken Stories for Values: A Discursive Study of Cancer
Survivors and their Professional Carers’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Sydney.
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991) ‘Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics’, Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 13: 215–47.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2000) ‘Quelle place pour les émotions dans la linguistique du XXe
siècle? Remarques et aperçus’, in C. Plantin, M. Doury and V. Traverso (eds) Les émotions
dans les interactions, pp. 33–74. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Kerekes, J.A. (2001) ‘The Co-construction of a Successful Gatekeeping Encounter:
Strategies of Linguistically Diverse Speakers’, unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford
University.
Kerekes, J.A. (2003) ‘Distrust: A Determining Factor in the Outcomes of Gatekeeping
Encounters’, in J. House, G. Kasper and S. Ross (eds) Misunderstanding in Social Life,
pp. 227–57. London: Longman/Pearson.
Kerekes, J.A. (2006) ‘Winning an Interviewer’s Trust in a Gatekeeping Encounter’,
Language in Society 35: 27–57.
Kerekes, J.A. (2007) ‘The Co-construction of a Gatekeeping Encounter: An Inventory
of Verbal Actions’, Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1942–73.
Komter, M. (1991) Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews: A Study of Talk, Tasks and Ideas.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lipovsky, C. (2005) ‘Negotiating Solidarity: A Social-linguistic Approach to Job Interviews’,
unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
Lipovsky, C. (2007) ‘Making a Good Impression in Job Interviews in French: Strategies and
Outcomes’, Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association
Special Issue: 129–41.
Macken-Horarik, M. and Martin, J.R. (2003) ‘Negotiating Heteroglossia: Social Perspectives
on Evaluation’, Text 23(2), Special Issue.
Martin, J.R. (2000) ‘Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English’, in S. Hunston and
G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse,
pp. 142–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
London: Continuum.
Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roberts, C. and Sarangi, S. (1995) ‘‘‘But Are They One of Us?’’: Managing and Evaluating
Identities in Work-related Contexts’, Multilingua 14: 363–90.
432 Discourse & Communication 2(4)
Roberts, C. and Sayers, P. (1987) ‘Keeping the Gate: How Judgements are Made in
Interethnic Interviews’, in K. Knapp, W. Enninger and A. Knapp-Potthoff (eds)
Analyzing Intercultural Communication, pp. 111–35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheuer, J. (2001) ‘Recontextualization and Communicative Styles in Job Interviews’,
Discourse Studies 3: 223–48.
Scheuer, J. (2003) ‘Habitus as the Principle for Social Practice: A Proposal for Critical
Discourse Analysis’, Language in Society 32: 143–75.
Stevens, P. (1991) Win That Job!, 6th edn. Sydney: The Centre for Worklife Counselling.
Taylor, W. (2004) ‘Hidden Treasures’, The Sydney Morning Herald, My Career, 1–2 May.
White, P.R.R. (2002) ‘Appraisal’, in J. Verschueren, J. Oestman, J. Blommaert and
C. Bulcaen (eds) The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, P.R.R. (2005) ‘Appraisal’, available online at: [www.grammatics.com/appraisal],
accessed 20 March 2007.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, 2nd
edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
is a Lecturer in the School of Languages & Cultures at the University
of Sydney, Australia. Her research interests include language and solidarity, as well as the
language of appraisal. Current projects investigate linguistic aspects of self-presentation
in job interviews, students’ attitudes towards their native and non-native teachers,
and ESL (English as a second language) learners’ use of graduation over time.
A D D R E S S : University of Sydney, School of Languages and Cultures, NSW 2006, Australia.
[email: [email protected]]
CAROLI N E LI POVSKY

Constructing affiliation and solidarity in job interviews

Transcription

Documents pareils

ACF Statistics 2008

exam instructions for candidates

Sourcing Specialist (internal HR team) (m/f)

Market Research Made Easy - How to optimise your customer

Case study - cut-e

WASSCE / WAEC French Syllabus

June 2014 Mark scheme 3 - Cambridge International Examinations

FMS Case Managers Seeking DoD and Military Service Case

Level IV