“Through-Produced” Multiple Questions in Tagalog-English Faculty Meetings: Setting the Agenda Dimension of Questions

  • Leonardo O. Munalim Associate Professor, Philippine Women’s University-School of Arts and Sciences, Manila, Philippines.
  • Cecilia F. Genuino Associate Professor, Philippine Normal University-Manila, College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research.
Keywords: “Through-produced” Multiple Questions, Agenda Dimension, Question-answer System, Faculty Meeting, Framing.


This study describes the sequential pattern of “through-produced” multiple questions using Conversation Analysis that sets the agenda dimension of questions, and the academic conditions that advance its use during turns at talk from five faculty meetings. Results show that a. No first-pair of the “through-produced” questions has been answered; b. the answers to the second-pair questions are achieved through paraphrases, clarifications, keyword repetitions, and circuitous rephrasing until the hearer conforms with the agenda set; c. The subordinates frame their default identities with lower epistemic knowledge, and d. “Through-produced” multiple questions can be a manifestation of Chair’s power. Implications and recommendations for cross-linguistic comparisons are offered to generalize the findings beyond the specific domain of the meeting.

Author Biographies

Leonardo O. Munalim, Associate Professor, Philippine Women’s University-School of Arts and Sciences, Manila, Philippines.

Leonardo O. Munalim is Associate Professor at Philippine Women’s University where he teaches English and Spanish. His dissertation at Philippine Normal University-Manila involved the socio-pragmatic analysis of the different corpus-driven features in a faculty meeting. His research interests fall under Reflective Pedagogy, Corpus Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Conversation Analysis. He has published in peer-reviewed and Scopus-indexed journals. He is newly-tapped Editor for Journal of English as an International Language, SCOPUS-indexed.

Cecilia F. Genuino, Associate Professor, Philippine Normal University-Manila, College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research.

Cecilia F. Genuino is Associate Professor at Philippine Normal University-Manila where she mentored the primary author of this paper. She also teaches part-time in the graduate programs of De La Salle University-Manila and De La Salle University- Dasmariñas. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, syntax, discourse analysis, language policy and planning and language teaching. She has published in peer-reviewed and Scopus-indexed journals.


Arminen, I. (1996). The Construction of Topic in the Turns of Talk at the Meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16(5/6), pp. 88-130.

Arminen, I. (2000). On the Context Sensitivity of Institutional Interaction. Discourse and Society,11(4), pp. 435-458.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Benwell, B., and Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Boyd, E., and Heritage, J. (2006). Taking the history: Questioning during comprehensive history-taking. In: J. Heritage and D. W. Maynard, eds., Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–184.

Brown, P. (2010). Questions and their Responses in Tzeltal. Journal of Pragmatics, 42,pp. 2627-2648.

Brown, S. D. (2007). Intergroup processes: Social identity theory. In: Langdridge, D., and S. Taylor, eds., Critical Readings in Social Psychology. London: Open University Press, pp. 133-162.

Burns, A. (2001). Analysing spoken discourse: Implications for TESOL. In: A. Burns and C. Coffin, eds., Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 123–148.

Bushnell, C. (2012). Talking the Talk: The Interactional Construction of Community and Identity at Conversation Analytic Data Sessions in Japan. Humanities Studies, 35,pp. 583-605.

Clifton, J. (2006). Conversation Analytical Approach to Business Communication: Case of Leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43, pp. 202-219.

Cooren, F. (2004). The Communicative Achievement of Collective Minding: An Analysis of Board Meeting. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(4),pp. 517-551.

Culpeper, J. (2009). Historical sociopragmatics. In Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), pp. 179-186.

Drew, P., and Sorjonen, M. L. (1997). Institutional dialogue. In: T.A. van Dijk, Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications, pp. 92-118.

Enfield, N. J. (2010). Questions and Responses in Lao. Journal of Pragmatics, 42,pp. 2649-2665.

Gaitz, C. M., Niedereche, G., and Wilson, N. H. (2012). Aging 2000: Our health care destiny (Vol. 11: Psychosocial and policy issues). Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.

Gardner, R. (2004). Conversation analysis. In: A. Davies and C.Elder, eds., The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp.262-284.

Gibson, D. R. (2003). Participation Shifts: Order and Differentiation in Group Conversation. Social Forces, 81(4), pp. 1335-1381.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.

Goffman, E. (1981). Footing: Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goodwin, C., and Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, pp. 283-307.

Hale, C. (2011). A Frame by any Other Name: Testing the Taxonomy of Interactional Sociolinguistics. Language Research Bulletin, 26, pp. 1-7.

Hayashi, M. (2010). An Overview of the Question-Response Systemin Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42,pp. 2685-2702.

Heinemann, T. (2010). The Question-Response System in Danish. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2703-2725.

Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In: K. L. Fitch and R. E. Sanders, eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 103–147.

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), pp. 30-52.

Heritage, J., and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hoymann, G. (2010). Questions and Responses in ╪Ākhoe Hai||om. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2726-2740.

Huisman, M. (2001). Decision-making in Meetings as Talk-in-Interaction. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31(3),pp. 69-90.

Itakura, H., and Tsui, A. B. N. (2004). Gender and Conversational Dominance in Japanese Conversation. Language in Society, 33,pp. 223-248.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: G. H. Lerner, ed. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp: 13-31.

Jenness, V., Smith, D. A., and Stepan-Norris, J. (2007). Editors’ Note: Advances in Sociological Thinking about Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 36(3), pp. vii-viii.

Kress, G. (2001). Critical sociolinguistics. In: R. Mesthrie, ed. Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 542-545.

Landis, J. R. (2001). Sociology: Concepts and characteristics. 11th ed. USA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Lee, Y. J., and Roth, W. M. (2004). Making a Scientist: Discursive “Doing” of Identity and Self-presentation during Research Interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(1), pp. 1-24.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (2010). Questions and Responses in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan Language of Rossel Island. Journal of Pragmatics, 42,pp. 2741-2755.

Markaki, V., and Mondada, L. (2012). Embodied Orientations towards co-participants in Multinational Meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1),pp. 31-52.

Maynard, D. W., and Clayman, S. E. (2003). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In: L Reynolds, N. Herrman-Kinney, eds., Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira Press. pp. 173-202.

Mondada, L. (2012). The Dynamics of Embodied Participation and Language Choice in Multilingual Meetings. Language in Society, 41,pp. 213-235.

Norlin, C., Sharp, A. L., and Firth, S. (2007). Unanswered Questions Prompted during Pediatric Primary Care Visit. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 7(5), pp. 396-400.

O’Sullivan, T. (2010). More than Words? Conversation Analysis in Arts Marketing Research. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(1), pp. 20-32.

Park, J. E. (2009). Turn-Taking Organization for Korean Conversation: With a Conversation Analysis Proposal for the Research and Teaching of Korean Learners of English. A doctoral dissertation from University of California, Los Angeles. Available at: Proquest Theses and Dissertation Databases. (UMI 3388123) [Accessed 8 November 2018].

Pérez-Sabater, C. (2015). The Rhetoric of Online Support Groups: A Sociopragmatic Analysis. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 28(2),pp. 465–485.

Postma, J. (2008). Balancing Power among Academic and Community Partners: The Case of El Proyecto Bienestar. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.17

Psathas, G., and Anderson, T. (1990). The 'Practices' of Transcription in Conversation Analysis. Semiotica, 78, pp. 75-99.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/no Interrogatives and the Structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), pp. 939-967.

Rossano. F. (2010). Questioning and Responding in Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2756-2771.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language, 50, pp. 696-735.

Saft, S. (2004). Conflict as Interactional Accomplishment in Japanese: Arguments in University Faculty Meeting. Language in Society, 33, pp. 549-584.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic Practice, ‘Discourse’ and the Everyday Interactional Constitution of ‘Power Effects’. Organization, 12(6), pp. 803-841.

Schaefer, R. T. (2013). Sociology in Modules. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In: J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, & N. Smelzer, eds., The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 207–234.

Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Discourses as an interactional achievement II: An exercise in conversation analysis. In: D. Tannen, ed., Linguistic in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 135-159.

Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation Analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(4),pp. 405-435.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in Interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: "Mobilizing Response". Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), pp. 38-48.

Schegloff, E. A.,and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica 8, pp. 289–327.

Schiffrin, D. (2000). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Schnurr, S. (2012). Exploring professional communication: Language in action. London: Routledge.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Steensig, J., and Drew, P. (2008). Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/disaffiliation in Interaction. Discourse Studies, 19(1), pp. 5-15.

Stivers, T. (2010). An Overview of the Question-Response System in American English Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2772-2781.

Stivers, T., and Enfield, N. J. (2010). A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2620-2626.

Stivers, T., and Levinson, S. C. (2010). (Eds.). Question-Response Sequences in Conversation Across Ten Languages: An Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2615-2619.

Stivers, T., and Robinson, J. D. (2006). A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction. Language in Society, 35, pp. 367-392.

Stivers, T., and Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, pp. 3–31.

Takeda, L. (2016). Collaboration Created through Overlaps: A Study of Japanese Interactions of Different Genres and Levels of Intimacy. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 19(1),pp. 87-102.

Tannen, D. (1993). What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In: D. Tannen, ed., Framing in Discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press., pp. 14-56.

Tannen, D. (2006). Intertextuality in Action: Reframing Family Arguments in Public and Private. Text & Talk, 26,pp. 597– 617.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Boston. Sage.

Vettin, J., and Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in Conversation: Features of Occurrence and Acoustic Structure. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(2),pp. 93-115.

Vickers, M. H. (2014). Towards Reducing the Harm: Workplace Bullying as Workplace Corruption—A Critical Review. Employment Response Rights Journal, 26, pp. 95-113.

Weynton, B. (2002). Organize meetings. Michigan: Max Johnson.

Walters, F. S. (2007). A Conversation-analytic Hermeneutic Rating Protocol to Assess L2 Oral Pragmatic Competence. Language Testing, 24(2),pp. 155-183.

Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis & discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Yoon, K. E. (2010). Questions and Responses in Korean Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 2782-2798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.012

How to Cite
Munalim, L., & Genuino, C. (2019). “Through-Produced” Multiple Questions in Tagalog-English Faculty Meetings: Setting the Agenda Dimension of Questions. LANGUAGE ART, 4(2), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.22046/LA.2019.12