“WHO’S THERE?”
Differences in the Features of Telephone and Face-to-Face Conferences
Dorothea Halbe
University of Trier

A significant part of the work in business settings, especially in multinational projects, is done through talking over the phone in conference calls. The differences in the setting in comparison with face-to-face meetings create a new dynamic of talk and turn taking because of the lack of body language. This article analyzes a number of the differences between these two types of meetings, using a corpus of (International) Business English, in which the multinational participants discuss an information technology research project. English is used as a lingua franca among participants from different companies and different nationalities (e.g., Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish). Features studied include self-identification, the number of turns, interruptions, overlaps, back-channeling behavior, pauses, side comments, small talk, breaks, distribution of talk, meeting structure, and length of conferences. The findings show that because of the lack of body language signals, there are differences in most of these features, for example, fewer interruptions, overlaps, and pauses in concalls than in face-to-face meetings. Small talk is restricted to the end or beginning of calls if it happens at all, side comments do not happen among the participants but may occur with people outside the conference. Back channels occur more frequently in conference calls, as they constitute the only means of communicating attention. The latter highlights the concerns for politeness to secure good working relationships in business relations. Keywords: business meetings; discourse analysis; qualitative; workplace interaction

INTRODUCTION

Two factors have greatly influenced the business world: globalization and technology. Both have opened new vistas as well as created new challenges for business people.
Dorothea Halbe received her Bachelor of Arts (Hons) from Durham University (UK) in Combined Arts (English Literature, Philosophy, Modern Languages) in 2001. She completed her Masters in 2005 in English Studies (Literature and Linguistics), German Studies (Lit and Ling), and Philosophy at Heidelberg University, Germany. Currently, she is working on her Ph.D. in language use in (inter) national business discourse and is lecturing at Trier University, Germany. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dorothea Halbe, University of Trier, Universitätsring 15, Trier 54296, Germany; e-mail: halbed@uni-trier.de.
Journal of Business Communication, Volume 49, Number 1, January 2012 48-73 DOI: 10.1177/0021943611425238 © 2012 by the Association for Business Communication

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 49

Business meetings have been affected by these changes, in two ways: the number of multicultural workforces and thus intercultural meetings has risen dramatically, making the communication situation more complex because of the multiplicity of communicative styles; and technology allows meetings to take place over the telephone,1 which means that such nonverbal signals as gaze and posture are not available to the participants. Paralanguage remains as the only nonverbal channel.2 Since an extensive amount of work is achieved through talk (see Reinsch, 2009; Stewart, 1967; Victoria University of Wellington, 2008), good communication is essential for the outcome of business. Yet both workplace talk in general and meetings in particular include more than only task-related talk (see, e.g., Koester, 2006), and it needs to be shown how politeness and task-orientedness interact (i.e., getting the job done and paying attention to the respective face needs). Some of the different ways in which this is achieved in face-to-face (FTF) and audio-only settings especially with regard to structure, turn taking, and differences in small talk or side comments is the focus of this article. Nonverbal signals are used universally (if culture specifically) and play an important role in communication (see Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002) insofar as they help us understand and interpret what is said as well as give the speakers feedback without interrupting them. The questions that pose themselves are how the presence or lack of certain nonverbal cues affect the use of language and politeness strategies (according to Brown & Levinson, 1987) in meetings and conference calls and how the two types of meetings differ in their overall structure and with regard to turn taking. Variations in (surface) features have been found to extend from selfidentification before speaking to differences in the turn-taking system (see, e.g., Sellen, 1995). This article complements known findings of the characteristics of telephone conference and FTF meetings with an analysis of naturally occurring data from two groups that participated in both types of settings. It takes established definitions of what meetings are as a starting point, and then draws on the corpus data for a detailed elaboration of structural elements such as openings, closings, and the organization of the turn-taking system. Some of the different ways in which this is achieved in face-to-face (FTF) and audio-only settings especially with regard to structure, turn taking, and differences in small talk or side comments is the focus of this article.

50

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Teleconferencing became (more) common in the 1970s, and this led to an increase in research on the topic. It was early established that lack of visibility had an effect on communication and turn taking (see Argyle, Lalljee, & Cook, 1968, Cook & Lalljee, 1972) and that talking was often more helpful than (only) writing (see Chapanis, Ochsman, Parrish, & Weeks, 1972, Graetz, Boyle, Kimble, Thompson, & Garloch, 1998). From the earliest time on, audio conferences were seen as unsatisfactory for tasks “which are of a complex nature, or which involve interpersonal factors” (Fowler & Wackerbarth, 1980, p. 247). Cook and Lalljee (1972) found that there were more interruptions in (casual, role-played) FTF conversations, a finding that was replicated by subsequent studies (e.g., Carey, 1981; Rutter & Stephenson, 1977; Rutter, Stephenson, & Dewey, 1981; Williams, 1978). No conclusive results were found with regard to length of utterances, which might indicate that other factors such as the task influenced this variable. Various studies (see Fowler & Wackerbarth, 1980; Rutter, 1987; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) found that TC meetings were shorter than FTF meetings. All of these studies, however, dealt with dyads rather than groups and were role-plays and not naturally occurring meetings. Reinsch (1983) pointed out the potential teleconferences have to ensure that more issues are discussed and decisions reached democratically (and processes may therefore take longer) but also that interruptions of quiet work times will become more frequent. Wasson (2004, 2006) corroborates these hypotheses by showing the amount of multitasking that goes on today in virtual meetings—but also in FTF meetings. The latter, of course, today usually include computer-mediated communicative elements. Research on FTF versus virtual meetings was continued by O’Conaill, Whittaker, and Wilbur (1993), who compared FTF and videoconferences, and Sellen (1995), who did a detailed study on different aspects of turn taking in FTF, video, and audio-only conferences. Sellen researches the influence technological mediation (mainly videoconferences but also telephone conferences) has on participants’ behavior in meetings but restricts herself mainly to the turn-taking system.3 Camiciottoli (2009) does not deal with TC characteristics explicitly but notes the high usage of indirectness in requests for information in audio-only earnings calls. She gives as a reason for this the desire to be polite, according to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of negative politeness not only to express deference but also to portray the speaker in a favorable light. Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategies of creating solidarity play a

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 51

lesser role in this context. How these face needs are paid attention to in the data discussed here is explained below (in the section “Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Differences in the Turn-Taking System”). More recently van der Kleij, Schraagen, Werkoven, and De Dreu (2009) confirm much of the earlier research on turn taking and lower satisfaction in TC meetings. They also present interesting findings on the gradual adaptation of participants to the different communicative settings, so that the differences in turn taking disappear. A different strand of research concentrated on (naturally occurring) telephone calls (Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 1968; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) and found FTF and telephone calls to be similar with regard to turn taking in many ways (Hopper, 1992), as indeed much of the research was based on telephone calls. This was then expanded to an overview of differences in telephone conversations between members of different cultures (Luke & Pavlidou, 2002). Characteristics of business telephone calls were looked at by Wagner (1995) and Firth (1995) detailing both the overall structure of business calls and the components of sales negotiations (by telephone) but not turn-taking mechanisms. In looking at the call structure, Firth (1995) noted the way in which relational sequences and their duration in the opening sections are negotiated through pauses between turns. Halmari (1993) detailed misunderstandings that can arise with respect to casual talk in business call openings between Americans and Finns on account of different cultural schemata. A third strand of literature relevant here deals with meetings. They are usually characterized as very diverse and difficult to pin down, since there are many different types, ranging from informal dyadic meetings to formal multiparty encounters that are rigidly structured (BargielaChiappini & Harris, 1997; Hodgson & Hodgson, 1992; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Schmatzer & Hardt-Mautner, 1989; Victoria University of Wellington, 2008). This will be discussed in more detail below. The current article fuses these different approaches and findings. It points out the similarities and differences that operate in FTF and audioonly meetings with regard to talk and turn-taking conventions. This corroborates findings (especially those of Sellen, 1995) on the rules of turn taking that more turns are taken in FTF settings or that naming is more frequent in audio-only settings, but it also shows differences, for example, with regard to back-channeling behavior and points out new findings in the area of small talk and side comments.

52

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

DATA

The data for the following analysis were compiled from 2007 through 2008 during a project that formed part of the SIETAR (Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research) umbrella organization and was partly funded by the European Union and partly supported by the companies themselves. The project had already been running for almost a year and was scheduled to run for a second year. Its purpose was to bring the benefits of Internet communication to rural areas. This often proved a challenging task, since a compromise had to be found between the interests of research and technology and the more conservative mind set of the rural population. Because of the heterogeneity of the research locations, participating companies in the data analyzed here are from various European countries (Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain) and from South Africa. This cultural diversity could potentially have an impact on differences in communication. However, since a similar range of nationalities were present in both FTF and TC settings and since it has been found by Poncini (2004), for example, that meetings tend to develop “their own culture, or at least their own character or sense of ‘groupness,’ not necessarily linked to national cultures” (p. 275), this effect is not taken to influence the differences in results between FTF and TC. And these factors are not centrally discussed in this article. The audio data have been transcribed and form the European Business English Corpus (EBEC). The specific data looked at here stem mainly (apart from general statements, which take the whole corpus into consideration) from three executive members board (EMB) meetings and five living lab (LL) meetings that took place both FTF and via telephone conferences. The total amount of data comes to 12 hours (approximately 95,000 words): 3 hours of FTF EMB meetings (approximately 26,000 words), 3 hours of conference calls with the EMB participants (approximately 21,500 words), 3 hours of telephone conferences with the LL participants (approximately 26,000 words), and 3 hours of LL meetings held FTF (approximately 24,500 words). Most of the participants in the two groups attended both types of meetings. This allowed the author to control for differences in communication because of the different medium as opposed to differences on account of speakers’ personal preferences. Participants with both senior and junior positions were present. The overall number of participants is 24: 8 women and 16 men. Most participants were not acquainted prior

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 53

to the project. The key participants—especially in the EMB meetings— are senior personnel with 10 to 20 years of experience. The juniors are usually specialized in certain smaller areas of the project. The general tone of the interactions is one of familiarity, friendly informality, and tolerance but also of diplomatic criticism. The size of the meetings differed. The EMB meetings were larger (10-14 participants), whereas the LL meetings were smaller (7-8 participants), had fewer senior participants, were less formal, and made more use of humor. The conference calls usually took place every 2 weeks, the FTF meetings took place two to four times a year. The purpose of the meetings was usually twofold: information giving and problem solving. This usually meant giving updates on the status of the project (whether tasks have been performed as planned or not and if not, why not), planning of next steps (taking new developments into account in the adjusting of the outline), and to a degree the discussion of problematic issues. The FTF meetings had on the whole the same functions but on a higher level, often in preparation for a presentation of the project or a review by the European Commission, which formally evaluates the progress the project has made. Since the amount of data is limited, the findings can of course only provide tendencies that further research will need to confirm.
MEETINGS: A DEFINITION

The term meeting, which so far has been used as an unproblematic term not in need of further specification, should be clarified. No single clear definition exists to date, as different researchers highlight different aspects of meetings. According to Holmes and Stubbe (2003), meetings usually consist of more than two people; are convened beforehand; have a more or less fixed agenda, location, and participants; and have a definite function or purpose. In Boden's words they are:
A planned gathering . . . in which the participants have some perceived (if not guaranteed) role, have some forewarning (either longstanding or quite improvisational) of the event, which has itself some purpose or “reason,” a time, place, and, in some general sense, an organizational function (Boden 1994, p. 84).

The “reason and organizational function” is further explained by Holmes and Stubbe (2003) as “interactions which focus, whether directly or indirectly, on workplace business” (p. 59). This latter rather wide definition

54

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

comprises not only the formal communications during meetings but also informal meetings, side comments and pre- and postmeeting sequences, and in fact any work-related talk. This demonstrates well how diverse meetings can be and how difficult it is to draw a line between meetings and general talk at work. Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1995) point out that meetings are “taskoriented and decision-making encounters” (p. 537).4 The (at least theoretical) purpose of meetings is to resolve open questions and issues and to agree on a course of action. To do this effectively, however, meetings also need to be and are where the key personnel meet to be updated on developments so that, on the basis of these, decisions on future actions can be reached. It is, furthermore, a place for discussion and criticism of how tasks will be or are (not) accomplished,
Meetings provide an essential environment in which information can be transmitted and, in many organizations, critically updated. [. . .] meetings are necessary to get key personnel all looking at the same problem at the same time. The simultaneity is important to decision-making and also to the fine-grained process of negotiating stages of a project or agreement. (Boden, 1995, p. 88)

Meetings are formally opened and closed. Premeeting and postmeeting talk (see Boden, 1994)—that is, general conversations between participants, are almost inevitable as are side comments, which orient both to the relational aspect in working relations and to actual work processes in clarifying issues or reaching agreements in smaller groups (see Koester, 2006). The general structure of meetings can be divided into three parts (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, p. 65):5
• Opening or introductory section • Central development section • Closing section

The chair is instrumental in orchestrating the dynamics of the meetings. Their role can be more or less visible, depending on the (company’s) cultural practices (see next paragraph). They will open and close the meeting and guide through the agenda. They may or may not dominate the discussion and talk time. In the meetings under discussion here, the chair formally opens and closes the meeting, but the main part is usually a very general discussion in which the chair is just a member of the group (see Sponagel, 2001), which sometimes makes distinctions between chair and group (see BargielaChiappini & Harris, 1997, Bilbow, 1998) difficult to uphold.

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 55

ANALYSIS

This section starts with a characterization of conference calls based on the EBEC data. It then compares these characteristics with the characteristics of FTF meetings in the data and gives a detailed account of the turn-taking behavior.
Conference Calls

The specific structure of conference calls is important to state in order to then compare FTF and audio-only meetings. Since these characteristics often differ depending on the specific nature and task of meetings (see Carey, 1981, who identifies six models of information flow), the characterization is based on the data under discussion here. Conference calls can be defined as multiparty meetings over the phone. They have a similar structure to FTF meetings not only because of the multiparty setting but also because of the role of the chair, the differences in rank and seniority, as well as the expertise and task focus of meetings. All of these factors influence the turn-taking mechanisms as well as the overall structure. Like all interactions, concalls have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Turns are—depending on the formality and content of the meeting—preallocated by the agenda or, especially in discussion phases, subject to the usual (culture-specific) modes of turn taking (see Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Depending on the content of the meeting or the concall, the amount of talk per person varies. In some, the chairperson talks more than everyone else; in others, the turn distribution is more equal, at least between the senior participants (see below). In the data from EBEC, conference calls have two openings: One is the beginning of the telephone interaction and the other is the actual opening of the meeting. The two will be distinguished here through this difference in terminology. The same is true for closings: There is the closing of the meeting and the ending of the telephone interaction. Beginnings are characterized by hellos, first from the chairperson then from the other participants. The chairperson will say something like hello [3×] or hello, who’s there [4×] or utter a greeting and self-identify (usually only first names are given, sometimes in conjunction with the company name) before the participant(s) identify themselves. The participants will usually answer with a greeting and self-identification (hello, this is X [23×] also hello everyone [4×] plus a self-identification). In case of only a greeting, which is rare, the chair or participant will other-identify, by again greeting the participant and saying his or her (first) name. When

56

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

participants join during the discussion, they are mostly greeted by hello who joined/has joined/is joining [4×] or hello who’s there [4×], hello who have [sic] entered [2×]. For the benefit of later participants, all the participants who are already present are often named by the chair so as to bring the newcomer up-to-date. A short summary of the topic discussed is sometimes also given. How extensive this is depends both on the status of the person and on the point at which she or he joins. When not enough participants are present, premeeting talk will usually occur, but participants may also remain silent. The interactions consist both of casual small talk and of work-related talk.6 Closings and endings are to some extent predictable by the reaching of the end of the agenda. However, the frequent preclosing query anything else (to discuss)? sometimes leads to new points being brought up. Only when this question is answered by nos or silence does the chair close the meeting with a phrase such as thank you everybody (3×) or a variation of this (5×), see you + time reference (4×) or enjoy lunch or the like (3×). Another part of the preclosing sequence is often the arrangement of the time for the next meeting (see Carey, 1981). The closing is usually confirmed by the other participants by a round of bye or thank you bye to indicate the ending of the interaction.

The frequent preclosing query anything else (to discuss) sometimes to new points being brought up.

A Comparison of Face-to-Face Meetings and Telephone Conferences

The comparison of the two types of meetings is split into two parts: comparison of the similarities and comparison of the differences. Since the purpose of FTF meetings and telephone conferences is the same, there are similarities in the features that pertain to meetings as such (e.g., multiparty, chair, agenda, structure). However, the features in the various sections (e.g., openings, closings) differ significantly. Similarities are these: When enough participants are present, the chair formally opens the meeting, the participants formally approve the minutes

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 57

in some but not all meetings, and possible additions to the agenda are noted down (opening section). Then, there is an agenda to be completed. Within this agenda, the participants discuss developments, problems and solutions (central development section). Finally, there is a closing phase in which the chair may but does not have to restate decisions and where the participants agree on the time for the next meeting (closing section). In the data, a typical formula for opening the meeting is (I think) we can start (6×) but a less usual opening is this meeting is for . . . so while we wait for the others, because I think it have [sic] no sense to have meeting [sic] longer than one hour . . . I would like to know your opinion on . . . Further similarities between the FTF and TC meetings in the analyzed data are that there is a chair, who guides the meeting through the points of the agenda, and different participants, who (re)present different areas of the project as well as comment on the chair’s and each others’ suggestions. The structure in the analyzed meetings is, as mentioned before, relatively informal. So, although the chair initiates agenda points, other (highranking) members comment freely, ask other members questions, and bring up their own topics and concerns. The rank and seniority of the participants also play a role in the amount of talk and the number of interruptions and overlaps. As Holmes and Stubbe (2003) formulate it:
Generally speaking seniority is an important factor in meeting management. Whether overtly or covertly, those with more status and authority generally have greatest influence on the content and style of meetings, their general structure and the direction taken in the discussion. (p. 71)

The overall distribution of talk time is thus comparatively similar between FTF and TC meetings. The data support earlier findings in that the chairperson is likely to talk more than everybody else, but senior participants also take up a large amount of talk time. Junior participants, in comparison, usually listen and mainly speak when spoken to. A further comparison of the two types of meetings in the EBEC data exposes a number of additional differences: On a very basic level, FTF conferences can last longer than conference calls. The analyzed teleconferences often last 1 hour and rarely over 2 hours. At the same time, conference calls lasting less than 30 minutes really only occur when key participants are missing and the business at hand cannot be conducted without them. FTF meetings are more flexible, they may last only a few minutes or may last several hours (see Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, p. 57) and

58

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

need to be interrupted only for a coffee or a lunch break (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, p. 71). Because of the length of FTF meetings, breaks are a common occurrence.7 Since participants in the EBEC data meet only sporadically, FTF conferences last at least a day. In the analyzed data, self-identification both in greetings and before speaking is a feature occurring only in telephone conferences. Selfidentification usually happens when first joining the concall, apart from one telco, where the chair informs the newcomer who is present. Selfidentification before speaking is not the norm. Most speakers expect to be recognized by their voice once they have made their presence known. This happens at the beginning of teleconferences (as described above) in the opening phase. This feature clearly differs from the openings in FTF meetings, where greetings are more casual (members may have seen each other before and just acknowledge each other by a smile or a nod) and there is no necessity of a roll call or of giving members joining later an update on who is present. At the beginning of a telephone conference or a meeting, it is often necessary to wait for other participants. In the analyzed conference calls, the time is usually either filled by small or casual talk or topics relating mainly to the participants present, such as confirmations of decisions taken earlier. In the analyzed meetings, this time is often filled with similar topics. The difference between the small talk sequences, however, is that the technical constraints in the teleconferences always only allow one conversation to take place, whereas in the FTF meetings people can and do talk in small groups. In the same vein, side comments during the formal phase of the meetings are also only possible and done in FTF conferences. In the telephone conferences, the only side talks that happen are between participants and people in their office—that is, people not in the concall. In the EBEC data, telephone calls are answered in both environments. However, in the conference calls, this is noticeable only when the melody of a call on hold can be heard, which does not happen very often. Usually the participants will simply mute their microphone while talking to somebody else. Closings (and endings) in the FTF meetings are—just as greetings— less abrupt than in the telephone conferences, as is to be expected, and thus they are rather more difficult to categorize. In the data, they tend to simply phase out, switching to postmeeting talk. So even if there is a formal closing, organizational topics may continue to be discussed. The latter is not possible in a concall, where clear goodbyes are used before hanging up and are necessary to conclude the meeting.

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 59

The only type of postmeeting talk in the conference calls is explicitly stated during the closing phase of the meeting, where some participants may agree to “stay in the call” to discuss further matters. This function, however, is only possible when the person who initiated the call (the host) stays in the call as the lines would otherwise be muted automatically.
Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Differences in the Turn-Taking System

This section deals with the results of the analysis of differences in the turn-taking system in the EMB and LL meetings analyzed here. Differences occur in the organization of pauses, speaker selection, turn taking, overlaps, back channels, and interruptions. These are interpreted in the light of their expression of politeness where applicable. Pauses. Pauses can be significantly longer in FTF meetings as participants are able to see nonverbal activities (e.g., changes in a document being made), where they may last several minutes at a time, and they do not need to be introduced but are deducible from the verbal context (. . . change checking with status [4s] deliverable checking the status. and no okay and status). The only comparable event that may also happen in telcos occurs when the participants are sharing files remotely and need to wait for the right screen to appear, which may take quite some time but is still obvious from the verbal context (e.g., C: can you see it? D: yep. C: yes? Ca: yes). In addition, although some turns follow each other without pauses in concalls, it also happens that the other-selected speaker does not reply right away, for example, because of technical reasons (a muted microphone or the like). So the usual dispreference of silence in Western contexts in general can be found in both settings, but silences are allowed when there is a known reason for them to occur. The frustration silence engenders if topics for discussion are not taken up was found in EBEC data not under discussion here.

So the usual dispreference of silence in Western contexts in general can be found in both settings, but silences are allowed when there is a known reason for them to occur.

60

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Table 1.

Use of Naming in FTF and TC Settings Meetings TC FTF Total 59 (12.4) 54 (11.4) 32 (6.7) 9 (1.9) NA 145 (30.6) 153 (32.3) a Instances Chair to member Member to chair Member to member Participant L Naming to/ from RP Total excluding L Total

EMB LL 15 32 15 9 NA 62 71 44 22 17 NA NA 83 83

EMB 5 [1] 4 11 [1] 15 + 16c [4] [6] 20 [22] 51 [26] b LL 6 [21] 1 [2] — [14]

Total 11 [33] (2.3/6.9) 5 [7] (1/1.4) 11 [26] (2.3/5.4)

Total 92 (9.6) 61 (6.4) 58 (6.1) 44 (4.6) 41 (4.3) 211 (22.1) 254 (26.7)

NA 31 [35] (6.5/7.3) [35] 41 (8.6) NA 7 [35] 27 [66] (5.6/13.8) 57 [101] (12/21)

Note: FTF = face-to-face; TC = telephone conference; EMB = executive members board; LL = living lab; RP = remote participant. a. Numbers in parentheses give the frequencies per 10,000 words. b. Numbers in square brackets refer to the amount of times remote members are addressed or address other members. c. L addresses the chair 16 times and other members 15 times.

Speaker selection. As can be seen in Table 1, other-selection or naming is more frequent in concalls than in FTF meetings (also see Sellen, 1995). Naming is used 3 times as often in telephone conferences as in FTF meetings (153 vs. 57 times)—if one disregards the naming that is used to remote participants (RPs) who are joining the FTF meeting via telephone. At the same time, the amount of naming used especially toward but also by RPs is also quite high (41 times). This shows that without nonverbal cues such as gaze, names are often used to indicate toward whom an utterance is directed. As can be seen (6 vs. 35 times), depending on the meeting, RPs may play a greater or smaller role in the interaction. In the LL meetings the overall group is much smaller and there is a lot more interaction between the present and remote members also because of the difference in task (i.e., planning rather than giving instructions as in the EMB meetings). In a different EMB meeting not under discussion here, much more interaction takes place between RPs and members who are present, because of the differences in task. The greatest amount of naming takes place between the chair and group members (153 times). The chair is addressed most often (61 times) and is

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 61

also the person who addresses participants most often (92 times). Group members address each other comparatively less (58 times). However, one participant (L) has a strong preference for using names and thus skews the data a little (that he does not have a greater effect on the data is in part because of the fact that he did not participate in all meetings), as he uses names more often than any other member (44 times) and more in FTF meetings because he is present there more often than in the TC meetings. He is a senior member, who also sometimes has the role of chair, and is clearly a very respected participant who often acts as organizer. Another difference that occurs is that when self-selecting in concalls, speakers sometimes also identify themselves as X speaking when starting a turn, a feature not found in FTF meetings as everybody can see who is speaking. Table 1 details the amount of naming that is used for all types of meetings and shows the differences between FTF and TC meetings. Turn taking. Turns8 in meetings are claimed in the same manner as in ordinary conversation (for a description of the turn-taking system, see Sacks et al., 1974),9 but it must be pointed out that, as Sacks et al. already note, certain differences apply: Just as chairs address other participants more often, they have also been noted to speak more and for longer than other members (see Carey, 1981, Poehaker, 1998). The order of speaking in general is often more fixed than in casual conversation since there usually is an agenda that needs to be followed (see Larrue & Trognon, 1993),10 but comments and questions on topics are inserted relatively freely depending on the formality of the meeting (see also BargielaChiappini & Harris, 1995). Turns are mainly allocated when the topic requires an expert’s comment or status update. Length of turns depends to a large degree on the action that is being accomplished (e.g., status updates, which are often but not only given by the chair, usually entail long turns).11 Sellen (1995) noted that the number and distribution of turns was not significantly different in the different settings (same room, videoconferencing, audio only). Contrary to this, in the EMB and LL data (see Table 2), there are almost twice as many turns (including back channels) in FTF meetings as in concalls, although some of the FTF meetings had lengthy status updates, in which no speaker changes occurred. This indicates that participants are more comfortable and discussions are livelier and is a typical sign of a spontaneous and informal speech style (see also, e.g., Fowler & Wackerbarth, 1980; Rutter, 1987). It also points toward a higher

62

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Table 2.

Comparison of Turn Taking Between Face-to-Face and Telephone Meetings

Features Meetings Face-to-face Telephone Words 47,363 47,717 Turns (per 10,000 Words) 3,132 (661) 1,840 (385) Overlaps (per 1,000 Turns) 981 (313) 393 (213) Back Channels (per 1,000 Turns) 165 (52.7) 108 (58.7)

use of positive politeness strategies rather than negative ones. Table 2 shows the total numbers of words, turns, overlaps, and back channels and the normalized values per 10,000 words for turns and per 1,000 turns for overlaps and back channels. Overlaps. The percentage of simultaneous speech and overlaps12 (including back channels) in the data analyzed is also significantly higher in FTF settings (313 vs. 213 instances/per 10,000 words). This in conjunction with the higher frequency of speaker changes pointed out above is an indication of, on the one hand, greater ease of the participants and the more animated nature of the discussions and, on the other hand, the greater number of cues that are available to the participants. Body language can be used and interpreted to gauge whether it is “safe” to take the floor (even though a colleague has not yet finished). Consequently, paying attention to participants’ face is achieved through nonverbal communication (eye contact, head nods, etc.) and through positive politeness strategies—that is, the typical features of high-involvement speech such as overlaps and simultaneous speech (Tannen, 1994). Negative politeness strategies are preferred in TC settings, where participants wait for others to finish before making a contribution. Back channels. Back channels13 are used more frequently in conference calls than in FTF meetings—even if not much more (58.7 vs. 52.7 instances per 10,000 words).14 Lack of back channels in concalls has often been explained as the reluctance of speakers to overlap or seem to interrupt when no visual input is available. It is also typical in larger groups for fewer (audible) back channels to occur. In the light of this, the comparatively large amount of back channels may at first be surprising. Yet it quickly becomes evident that since back channels are the only means to let the speaker know that the other participants are following his or her train of thought, the back channels often function in this manner in

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 63

a dialogic communication within the meeting—that is, usually the chair will have asked a question to a particular participant or a participant will have asked the chair a question. Use of back channels thus focuses attention on the turn holders, the positive face indicating that the hearer is listening, following, and valuing the contribution. And this concern for the positive face is greater than the concern of leaving the speaker unimpeded in his or her speech. In FTF conversations, back channels are of course also used, expressing either agreement with or attention to what is being said, but this can also be done by nonverbal means, so they are not as central or can be reinforced in other ways. Other functions of these short feedbacks by the hearer are illustrated in Example 2. These uses of back channels are illustrated in Example 1, an LL meeting via teleconference where the chair (H) has asked a participant (T) to give a status update of how the part of the project that T is responsible for is developing.
Example 1 1 T: next week after deployment the application will be used as a part of the regular work process. 2 H: ok 3 T: ah regarding the block one and block two connections. ah we de- ah we defined some practical aspects ah especially some long-term goals 4 H: aha 5 T: what we needed ah from block one is ah GIS Geographical Information Systems 6 H: yah 7 T: and from block two this variable data storage 8 H: ok 9 T: ok? Where- where we go to the next ah six months 10 H: mhm 11 T: we would like to finish two main ah. interactions we would like to xx block one 14 and two so it’s ah some cooperation is needed. Not especially within the blocks but 15 ah within the work package two because ah as you know ah we find in several times 16 that we only received the ah ah. ahm... partners. the actions only from ah two or three 12 H: yah yah ya ya ya 13 T: and the xx partners are very passive, never arriv- arriving any any comments or or or. Or. reactions or we have to to strengthen in this kind of cooperation ah with with with the work package partners 14 H: yeah I’ve talked about it last week with PR and as a result I’ve sent a message 15 yesterday. Have you seen. have you seen? (LL-TC)

64

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

What can be seen here is the way in which T updates H on the progress of the project, while H back channels that he is following the account. T then continues to identify the needs of her group for the next steps. At first, H only back channels in the unmarked next position, that is, in the short gaps T makes in her speech. However, in line 17, H’s back channels overlap with T’s speech and become more frequent indicating agreement (as can be seen from other statements by H) with what is being said rather than just signaling attention. But at no point does H try to take over the turn. Yet participants can also use back channels to subtly manipulate the speaker to yield a turn to the person back channeling through the frequency and intonation used in the back channels. An example of this is the following:
Example 2 1 H: Ah any comments at this point? / . . . 2 P: something, I-I would have just have some question a question for this topic 3 H: ya ok ya mh ok 4 P: that in the monitoring xx that you sent yesterday 5 H: yah 6 P: ah do we do we have any. instructions or do you want just in narrative form us to xxx questions or. or 7 H:ya ya ya, it’s a good point ahm mh it is. difficult to use quantitative 8 information, I mean we are talking about changes in in cycles of 3 month so it would be decisions that have been made or technical results or ah maybe user involvement changes that needs to be documented in some way. (LL-TC)

In this case, the chair first invites comments, and the request to ask a question is explicitly accepted. Back channels overlap with the floorholder but also occur in the unmarked next position. However, shortly before the point where the turn is taken over, the frequency of the back channels as well as the intonation suggest that the P’s question has been understood and can be answered without further explanation by the floorholder. H, thus, successfully claims the turn. This second use of back channels was only found in the TC data and not in the FTF data. Similar situations were handled more directly, through interrupting (in the instances where it does happen), starting another strand of talk, or naming to get a participant’s attention and end the speaker’s turn. This does, of course, not mean that it may not also happen, but it again consolidates the

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 65

findings that TC communication tends more toward the use of negative politeness strategies or less direct communication, whereas FTF communication makes use of more direct strategies and also sometimes pays less attention to politeness, maybe because body language is used to mitigate the degree of directness. But more data would be needed to draw firm conclusions.

TC communication tends more toward the use of negative politeness strategies or less direct communication, whereas FTF communication makes use of more direct strategies and also sometimes pays less attention to politeness, maybe because body language is used to mitigate the degree of directness.

A detailed analysis of two typical back channels in the analyzed data, that is, mh and mhm, shows how the choice of the two interjections can fulfill the same function (i.e., to back channel) but is also often used to express subtle differences in meaning. Mh is used in a wider range of functions, it can stand for a request of clarification, and it may preface negative answers or contradictory opinions (in that case also coupled with mh I think or a pause), or it can be used as a sentence internal filler. There is thus no clear form-function relation. Mhm tends to have a more positive connotation of agreeing and is more often used in conjunction with yes or okay. In how far mhm alone also signals agreement rather than being a pure back channel cannot be established with certainty. Table 3 shows the use of mh and mhm both alone and in conjunction with whole utterances. A further study of the use of back channels in conjunction with intonation (i.e., fall, rise, or fall-rise) would certainly also offer further insights on the different functions. A falling intonation is the default use, which when uttered with a rising intonation mh functions as a question, as pointed out above. An (inadvertent) use of fall-rise intonation can be understood either as encouragement to continue or when, uttered fast, as a desire to finish the topic or take over the turn.

66

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Table 3.

Functions of mh and mhm in Speech

Utterance Function Back channel Agreement Filler Softener Question Unclassified Total mh (per 10,000 Words) 149 (15.6) 15 (1.6) 30 (3.8) 15 (1.6) 3 (0.3) 3 (0.3) 215 (22.6) mhm (per 10,000 Words) 116 (12.2) 73 (7.7) 5 (0.5) 4 (0.4) — 1 (0.1) 199 (20.9) Total 265 (27.8) 88 (9.2) 35 (3.7) 19 (2) 3 (0.3) 4 (0.4) 414 (43.5)

Interruptions. Interruptions15 on the whole occur very rarely and draw a different picture. Their occurrence depends very much on the participants and topic. In the LL meetings, there are hardly any interruptions at all (around four per type of meeting), and the few that occur are floor-taking interruptions. This is true for both FTF and audio-only settings. However, it is mainly one person making these interruptions, so generalizations cannot be drawn at this stage. In the EMB meetings, in comparison, there are more interruptions (approximately 15 per type of meeting), and they are floor-taking as well as disagreement and topic-changing interruptions. This can on the one hand be attributed to the level of frustration and the heatedness of the argument, but it also happens mainly toward one participant (A). Another participant B (mostly toward the participant A), on the other hand, does all the topic-changing interruptions. So again, there is not sufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Having said that, the general difference in the number of interruptions between the LL and EMB meetings could be due to cultural differences in communicative style and the acceptability of interruptions, as the LL participants were mainly South African and Northern European (apart from the person who interrupted, who was Eastern European), whereas in the EMB meetings there were a large number of Southern Europeans, and even the Northern Europeans who were present in part accommodated to the high-involvement style of communication. The last point is also an example of how different meetings have their own character, which has also been found by Poncini (2004; see the Data section), where participants develop their own “shared cultural practices”

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 67

(p. 275). As Bargiela-Chiappini, Bülow-Moller, Nickerson, Poncini, and Zhu (2003) put it, participants’ roles are fluid, relationships are flexible, and multiple identities are salient. The transactional discourse is “characterized by the suspension of fixed expectations and judgment, the tolerance of ambiguity and the willingness to engage in building new discursive frames” (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007, p. 26). Another example would be that in comparison to Boden (1994), the vocabulary used for opening and closing the different stages is much less formal in the meetings under discussion here. Whereas in Boden’s data the meeting is called to order, the meetings here are at their most formal opened with I think we can start. One final point is that although senior participants talk more in all settings, in smaller meetings, such as the LL, more input is expected and encouraged of more junior participants. In these meetings, there was also a high use of humor and various relational sequences, that is, nonobligatory work-related talk (see Holmes, 2000, Koester, 2006), which both showed and enhanced the good relations between the participants.

CONCLUSION

The study has shown important differences between FTF and telephone meetings. Although their overall structure and function is very similar, as both serve to do “workplace business” (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, p. 59), it has become clear that the concrete features (e.g., overall duration, use of small talk and side comments, openings and closings) in the different settings are influenced by the medium and by related considerations of politeness.

Although senior participants talk more in all settings, in smaller meetings, such as the LL, more input is expected and encouraged of more junior participants.

The data support earlier findings that multiparty technology-mediated settings lead to various differences in the turn-taking organization. There

68

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

are fewer overlaps but more other- and self-identification. These characteristics can be attributed to the lack of body language. They are also a reason why participants seem to be generally more at ease in FTF meetings (see also Fowler & Wackerbarth, 1980). Discussions become more animated (and heated) not least because one is talking to a person who is in the same room instead of to a microphone or computer. Considerations of politeness tended toward indirectness negative strategies in TC meetings, but this tendency was less pronounced or reversed in FTF meetings, where positive politeness strategies were favoured. At the same time, the analysis differed in its results on the number of turns in the different settings, finding that an audio-only setting leads to fewer turns being taken. In contrast to van der Kleij et al.’s (2009) findings, these differences in the turn-taking system persisted, even though the project had started almost a year earlier. The use of back channels also differs in the two settings. Back channels not only occur more frequently in concalls but are also the only means of signaling feedback or the desire to take the floor and thus become more important signals than in FTF settings. Although some of the findings may seem intuitive for people who have attended conference calls, they highlight these differences and thus open the way to understanding the mechanics of concalls and thereby to a more conscious usage of paraverbal signals in telephone conferences. Some important characteristics of telephone conferences have been pointed out in this article, but much scope for research on further features remains, such as the influence of intonation on communication. To give some examples, it was already noticeable in the EBEC corpus data that a different inflection in a back channel can have wide-reaching effects on the communication as a whole, but more research should be done on this. With regard to the study of intonation, the following should be taken into account: Since in intercultural meetings English is usually the lingua franca and few participants are native speakers, the correct grammar or vocabulary items are not the most important factors.16 Rather, it is apart from the actual content of what is said, intonation and silence that have the greatest impact on the interactions and thus eventually on the project. However, the reasons for silence are very difficult to assess (is the other just not listening or do they disagree?). Intonation, for want of other nonverbal signals, becomes the main medium through which to read between the lines. Furthermore, cultural differences in the speech tempo and intonation or use of silence can also lead to misunderstandings and ultimately bad performance.

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 69

Practical applications of these findings could include giving conference call participants a manual of what to expect and how to behave when attending telephone conferences or even do voice training to maximize the use of paraverbal signals in their concall communication.
NOTES

1. These have been variously called teleconferences or TCs, audio-only settings, telephone conferences or telcos, and conference calls or concalls. These terms will be used interchangeably in this article. 2. In videoconferences, the problem is often that images arrive with a delay, thus making communication difficult (see, e.g., Ruhleder & Jordan, 2001). 3. An overview of research on other topics such as differences in outcome in different settings can be found in Fowler and Wackerbarth (1980) and Doherty-Sneddon et al. (1997). 4. See Holmes and Stubbe (2003, p. 59) for a criticism of Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris’s (1995) definition. 5. Firth also divides meetings into three parts. 6. See Koester (2002, 2006) who distinguishes between different types of talk at work: nontransactional and phatic communication as well as relational episodes and sequences. 7. This is typical of formal meetings or conferences rather than regular in-house meetings. 8. Turns are the single contribution(s) of a speaker to an interaction. The problems of defining turns will not be dealt with here, but see Duncan (1974), Franck (1984), Goodwin (1982), Philips (1976), and Schegloff (1992) for discussions. 9. Sacks et al. (1974) note that speaker change occurs, that turn length is variable, and that usually only one party talks at a time. At transition relevant places (TRPs) a change of speaker can occur in basically three ways: through overlap (for a definition, see footnote 12), unmarked next position (speakers producing their talk with neither overlap nor pause in between turns; see Jefferson, 1986), or a pause (their frequency and length are culture dependent (see, e.g., Nakane, 2007; Scollon & Scollon, 2001; Tannen, 1985, 1997). Turn allocation at or near TRPs happens through self-selection, other-selection, or continuation of the speaker. Gaps (i.e., interturn pauses) at non-TRPs do not usually lead to speaker change. 10. However, since Larrue and Trognon’s (1993) findings are based on political meetings, the details cannot be taken over one-to-one to the business meetings here described. Business meetings tend to have a less formal turn organization. 11. Du-Babcock found differences in the length of turns and amounts of topics dealt with by first- and second-language speakers. Clyne (1994), on the other hand, claims that turn length differs because of cultural background, with Europeans taking longer turns than Asians. Further analysis of the data will be necessary to establish whether this is also borne out in the data under discussion here. 12. Overlaps, which occur when two speakers start speaking at the same time, are usually a syllable or two long and are repaired by one party falling silent (see Sacks et al., 1974). Apart from collaboratively taking over a turn or overlapping briefly as stated, simultaneous speech can be cooperative—that is, when the “conversational partner joins

70

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

the speaker’s utterance” (Murata, 1994, p. 387) to supply a word or finish a sentence. Hopper (1992) gives examples where these kinds of overlaps do not even use the same words or phrases but are only semantically related. These kinds of simultaneous speech are here counted as overlaps. 13. Back channeling (e.g., (m)hm, yeah) is a listener response providing the speaker with feedback that the message has been received and is notoriously difficult to define. Back-channeling behavior can take place both at TRPs and at certain semantic completion points even if they are not TRPs (see Jefferson, 1973). It has been defined as not constituting a turn (see Duncan, 1972), yet often the distinction between the two is difficult to uphold (see Tottie, 1991), as mhm or yeah may constitute a full turn and express agreement, disagreement, and promises. In the following analysis, back channels have been treated as full turns. They often but not always overlap with other speakers’ turns. 14. Sellen (1995) also remarked on the use of back channels, finding no difference between settings but noting that this might also be because of a lack in audio quality. Rutter and Stephenson (1977) found the opposite, more “attention signals” in FTF settings, but these were pair role-plays. 15. Murata (1994) calls them “intrusive interruptions” and notes their disruptive effect on the conversation (as opposed to overlaps). They can be divided into floor-taking, topic-changing, and disagreement interruptions (p. 288). To distinguish interruptions from overlaps, it needs to be made clear that the former can “take place without actual overlapping [. . .]. interruptions [are] intentional actions of interrupting the conversational partner’s utterances at non-TRPs, whereas overlaps are regarded as unintentional infringements” (Murata, 1994, p. 386). For culture-specific interpretations of interruptions, see Halmari (1993). 16. See Seidlhofer & Jenkins (2003) on the use of English as a lingua franca.

REFERENCES

Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. (1968). The effects of visibility on interaction in a dyad. Human Relations, 21(3), 3-17. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Bülow-Moller, A. M., Nickerson, C., Poncini, G., & Zhu, Y. (2003). Five perspectives on intercultural business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(3), 73-96. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1995). Towards the generic structure of meeting in British and Italian managements. Text, 15, 531-560. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Catherine Nickerson, & Brigitte Planken. (2007). Business Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Bilbow, G. T. (1998). Look who's talking: An analysis of "chair-talk" in business meetings. Journal of Business and Technical Communications, 12(2), 157 -197. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Boden, D. (1995). Agendas and arrangements: Everyday negotiations in meetings. In Firth, A. (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 83-99). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 71

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Burgoon, J., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. Knapp & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 240-299). London, England: SAGE. Camiciottoli, B. C. (2009). “Just wondering if you could comment on that”: Indirect requests for information in corporate earnings calls. Text & Talk, 29, 661-681. Carey, L. (1981). Interaction patterns in audio teleconferencing. Telecommunication Policy, 5, 304-314. Chapanis, A., Ochsman, R., Parrish, R., & Weeks, G. (1972). Studies in interactive communication: The effects of four communication modes on the behaviour of teams during cooperative problem-solving. Human Factors, 14, 487-510. Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cook, M., & Lalljee, M. G. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking runs in conversations. Semiotica, 20, 81-99. Doherty-Sneddon, G., O’Malley, C., Garrod, S., Anderson, A., Langton, S., & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 105-125. Du-Babcock, B. (1999). Topic management and turn-taking in professional communication: First-versus second-language strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 544-574. Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283-292. Duncan, S. (1974). On the structure of the speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society, 3, 161-180. Firth, A. (1995). Talking for a change: Commodity negotiating by telephone. In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 183-222). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Fowler, G., & Wackerbarth, M. (1980). Audio teleconferencing versus face-to-face conferencing: A synthesis of the literature. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 236-252. Franck, D. (1984). Speaking about speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 87-92. Goodwin, C. (1982). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. London, England: Academic Press. Graetz, K. A., Boyle, E. S., Kimble, C. E., Thompson, P., & Garloch, J. L. (1998). Information sharing in face-to-face, teleconferencing, and electronic chat groups. Small Group Research, 29, 714-743. Halmari, H. (1993). Intercultural business telephone conversations: A case of Finns vs. Anglo-Americans. Applied Linguistics, 14, 408-431. Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the Workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-185. Hodgson, P., & Hodgson, J. (1992). Effective meetings. London, England: Century House. Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London, England: Longman. Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tagpositioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47-96.

72

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on “latency” in an overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153-184. Koester, A. J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System, 30, 167-184. Koester, A. J. (2006). Investigating workplace discourse. London, England: Routledge. Larrue, J., & Trognon, A. (1993). Organization of turn-taking and mechanisms for turntaking repairs in a chaired meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 177-196. Luke, K. K., & Pavlidou, T.-S. (Eds.). (2002). Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385-400. Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in intercultural communication: Perceptions and performance. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. O’Conaill, B., Whittaker, S., & Wilbur, S. (1993). Conversations over video conferences: An evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. HumanComputer Interaction, 8, 389-428. Philips, L. (1976). Some source of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. Language in Society, 5, 81-87. Poehaker, K. (1998). Turn-taking and gambits in intercultural communication. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/documents/relresearch/poehacker.pdf Poncini, G. (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Reinsch, N. L., Jr. (1983). Teleconferencing. In R. Beswick & A. Williams (Eds.), Information systems and business communication (pp. 85-97). Urbana, IL: American Business Communication Association. Reinsch, L. (2009). Management communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), Handbook of business discourse (pp. 279-291). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (2001). Co-constructing non-mutual realities: Delay-generated trouble in distributed interaction. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 113-138. Rutter, D. R. (1987). Communicating by tehphone. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Rutter, D. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1977). The role of visual communication in social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 29-37. Rutter, D. R., Stephenson, G. M., & Dewey, M. E. (1981). Visual communication and the content and style of conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 41-52. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1 & 2). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075-95. Schegloff, E. (1992). To Searle on conversation, a note in return. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Searle on conversation (pp. 113-128). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327. Schmatzer, H., & Hardt-Mautner, G. (1989). How to master meetings, negotiations, presentations. Vienna, Austria: Service-Fachverlag.

Halbe / “WHO’S THERE?” 73

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 538-547). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Seidelhofer, B., & Jenkins, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca and the politics of property. In C. Mair (Ed.), The politics of English as a world language (pp. 139-156). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. Sellen, A. (1995). Remote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 401-444. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, England: John Wiley. Sponagel, W. (2001). What’s on the agenda? Topics in British business meetings. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang. Stewart, R. (1967). Managers and their jobs: A study of the similarities and differences in the ways managers spend their time. London, England: Macmillan. Tannen, D. (1985). Silence: Anything but. In D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 93-112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Tottie, G. (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels. In K. Ajimer & B. Altenburg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp. 254-271). London, England: Longman. Van der Kleij, R., Schraagen, J. M., Werkoven, P., & De Dreu, C. (2009). How conversations change over time in face-to-face and video-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 355-381. Victoria University of Wellington. (2008). Language in the workplace: A study of communication based on real interactions in New Zealand workplaces. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/ Wagner, J. (1995). What makes a discourse a negotiation? In K. Ehlich & J. Wagner (Eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 9-36). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Wasson, C. (2004). Multitasking during virtual meetings. Human Resource Planning, 27(4), 47-60. Wasson, C. (2006). Being in two spaces at once: Virtual meetings and their representation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 16(1), 103-130. Williams, E. (1978). Visual interaction and speech patterns: An extension of previous results. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 101-102.