3
values and norms that are institutional. We investigate how this is being done
interactionally and conversationally. That is, we show how this integration is
accomplished in and through talk. One purpose of this paper is to make visible that
pre-meeting talk includes features that are simultaneously “ordinary conversation” and
“institutional talk” (Drew & Heritage, 1992). In other words, during moments of pre-
meeting exchanges, participants do conversational work to camouflage the
institutionality of their interaction. Talk that is ordinary conversation in content and
turn design nonetheless helps participants accomplish important work functions.
The paper proceeds as follows. First, we introduce pre-meeting talk through the
lens of “small talk.” Then, we describe the business meeting we analyzed, and the
study’s discourse and ethnographic materials. The heart of the paper is an analysis of
four exchanges of pre-meeting talk. In the paper’s conclusion, we step back from the
analysis of this one setting to consider implications for studies of institutional life and
the ordinary/institutional distinction.
The Closest Relative of Pre-Meeting Talk: Small Talk
Zimmerman and Boden (1991, p. 3) proposed that “talk is at the heart of
everyday existence. It is pervasive and central to human history, in every setting of
human affairs, at all levels of society, in virtually every social context.” That talk is an
activity that people engage in and worthy of study has been made clear by scholars in
the field of language and social interaction. Yet, particular kinds of talk, specifically
“small talk,” have been neglected (Coupland, 2000).
Convention