POWER PLAY VIA SPEECH ACTS IN WORKPLACE MEETING NEGOTIATIONS: AUTHORITY, INFLUENCE AND RESISTANCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i5.1369Keywords:
Speech Act Theory (SAT), Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), workplace negotiations, authority, influence, resistanceAbstract
Workplace meeting negotiations are crucial communicative spaces where organizational actors exchange information, negotiate solutions, and make decisions. Drawing on Speech Act Theory and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this qualitative study investigates how speech acts function as mechanisms of authority, influence, and resistance. Data comprise five transcribed, naturally occurring meeting negotiations between representatives from a Malaysian Company (MC) and an Iranian Company (IC) addressing operational issues. Utterances were analyzed across four stage (speech act coding, functional interpretation, CDA, and cross-case comparison) using Searle taxonomy and Fairclough framework. Findings reveal that authority was enacted through directives and declaratives (commands, warnings, decisions), while influence relied on assertives and commissives (explanations, commitments). Resistance emerged through assertives and expressives, utilizing hedging, humor, and indirect disagreement to challenge authority without disrupting harmony. Ultimately, the study demonstrates that power in negotiations is not fixed but continuously constructed, negotiated, and contested. By integrating Speech Act Theory and CDA, this research contributes to workplace discourse literature, providing a comprehensive understanding of how linguistic actions shape authority, influence, and resistance during organizational decision-making.
References
[1] Alsamhori, M.A.O., Seine, M.I., Al-Zuriqat, Z.K. (2025): Speech acts as a means of influence and social interaction: Perspectives from Austin and Searle. – Journal of Posthumanism 5(3): 627-637.
[2] Anuar, A.F., Paramasivam, S., Darmi, R., Jalaluddin, I. (2025): Speech acts for negotiation by an Iranian and a Malaysian company in project meetings. – Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 6(4): 202-221.
[3] Austin, J.L. (1962): How to do things with words. – Clarendon Press, Oxford 166p.
[4] Cheung, N., Grieve, A., Wilby, K., Tran, T., Lim, A. (2025): Use of linguistic communication strategies (hedges and intensifiers) in simulated pharmacy education shared decision-making. – American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 89(10): 7p.
[5] Ekström, M., Stevanovic, M. (2023): Conversation analysis and power: Examining the descendants and antecedents of social action. – Frontiers in Sociology 8: 13p.
[6] Fairclough, N. (1995): Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. – Longman, London 265p.
[7] Holmes, J. (2008): An introduction to sociolinguistics. – Longman, London 504p.
[8] Latif, M.S., Ali, M., Soomro, A.F., Syed, M.I., Alam, M.M., Ansari, M.M.A. (2026): Leadership beyond formal authority: Cognitive, emotional, and moral foundations of strategic influence in complex organizational systems. – The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies 4(1): 786-800.
[9] Mammadova, G. (2025): The power of language in social contexts. – Acta Globalis Humanitatis et Linguarum 2(3): 134-140.
[10] Searle, J.R. (1969): Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 203p.
[11] Stevanovic, M. (2021): Deontic authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and compliance. – Discourse Studies 23(5): 20p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 AZU FARHANA ANUAR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
