Article published In: Terminology
Vol. 31:2 (2025) ► pp.238–266
Imposing order on a creative chaos
The terminologist as communication manager in a multi-professional setting
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Gothenburg.
Published online: 7 October 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.24016.byr
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.24016.byr
Abstract
It is uncontested that terminologists leading multi-professional terminology projects need a thorough knowledge of the principles and standards of terminology work. However, the softer skills involved in the work have gained less attention. In this paper, we apply interaction analysis to a multi-professional expert meeting led by a terminologist and highlight the communicative and interpersonal work he carries out. Our results show how the terminologist allows for a certain “creative chaos” and makes the team “feel good”, while still keeping epistemic quality under permanent scrutiny and never losing focus on the task at hand. He does this through flexible agenda management — sticking to his meeting agenda, but not rigidly, and allowing for and taking note of useful contributions, even if they come in the wrong phase. He also upholds a sufficient degree of conceptual rigour, by holding back premature decisions but not unnecessarily correcting the other’s erroneous use of meta-terminology.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The study of workplace meetings: A theoretical and empirical backdrop
- 3.Data and method: Analysing video-recorded meetings
- 4.Results: Analyses of agenda management, conceptual rigour and decision-making
- 4.1Managing the agenda
- 4.2Promoting terminological and conceptual rigour while managing face
- 4.3Decision-making and epistemic gatekeeping
- Encouraging knowledge-sharing through questioning facts and claiming insufficient epistemic access
- Gradual manifestation of consensus through claiming and backing up
- Decision — in two steps
- Epistemic post-decision work: Casting doubt on the correctness of the decision
- The terminologist as epistemic gatekeeper
- 5.Discussion — imposing order on creative chaos
- 6.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (32)
Baraldi, Claudio. 2013. ‘Forms of Decision Making: Gatekeeping and Dialogic Coordination in CISV Organizational Meetings’. Journal of Business Communication 50 (4): 339–61.
Barnes, Rebecca. 2007. ‘Formulations and the Facilitation of Common Agreement in Meetings Talk’. Text & Talk 27 (3): 273–96.
Byrman, Ylva, and Andreas Nord. 2022a. ‘“Jag vill att vi väntar med den diskussionen”: En terminologs problemhantering’. In Språklig mångfald: Rapport Från ASLA-Symposiet i Göteborg, 23–24 april 2020, edited by Stina Ericsson, Inga-Lill Grahn, and Susanna Karlsson, 26–43. ASLA:s Skriftserie/ASLA Studies in Applied Linguistics 28. ASLA, Svenska föreningen för tillämpad språkvetenskap.
. 2022b. ‘Med terminologen som grindvakt: Beslutsfattande i ett expertgruppsmöte’. In Språk i skola, på fritid och i arbetsliv: Aktuella arenor för svensk forskning inom tillämpad språkvetenskap, edited by Pia Sundqvist, Christian Waldmann, Borglárka Straszer, and Birgitta Ljung Egeland, 265–86. ASLA:s Skriftserie/ASLA Studies in Applied Linguistics 29. ASLA, Svenska föreningen för tillämpad språkvetenskap.
Candlin, Christopher N., and Srikant Sarangi, eds. 2011. Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Costa, Rute, Raquel Silva, Sérgio Barros, and António Lucas Soares. 2012. ‘Mediation Strategies between Terminologists and Experts’. In Proceedings of GLAT — Terminologies: Textes, Discours et Accès Aux Savoirs Spécialisés, 297–308. Genova: GLAT Genova.
Drew, Paul. 1991. ‘Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions’. In Asymmetries in Dialogue, edited by Ivana Marková and Klaus Foppa, 29–48. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992a. ‘Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction’. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, edited by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1992b. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1955. ‘On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’. Psychiatry 18 (3): 213–31.
Halvorsen, Kristin. 2013. ‘Team Decision Making in the Workplace: A Systematic Review of Discourse Analytic Studies’. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, August.
Halvorsen, Kristin, and Srikant Sarangi. 2015. ‘Team Decision-Making in Workplace Meetings: The Interplay of Activity Roles and Discourse Roles’. Journal of Pragmatics 761 (January): 1–14.
Haug, Christoph. 2015. ‘What Is Consensus and How Is It Achieved in Meetings? Four Types of Consensus Decision Making’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science, edited by Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Steven G. Rogelberg, 556–84. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Holmes, Janet, Stephanie Schnurr, and Meredith Marra. 2007. ‘Leadership and Communication: Discursive Evidence of a Workplace Culture Change’. Discourse & Communication 1 (4): 433–51.
Holmes, Janet, and Maria Stubbe. 2015. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Routledge.
Huisman, Marjan. 2001. ‘Decision-Making in Meetings as Talk-in-Interaction’. International Studies of Management & Organization 31 (3): 69–90.
ISO 704:2022. Terminology work — Principles and methods.
Jefferson, Gail. 1987. ‘On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation’. In Talk and Social Organisation, edited by Graham Button and J. R. E. Lee, 86–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Laker, Dennis R., and Jimmy L. Powell. 2011. ‘The Differences between Hard and Soft Skills and Their Relative Impact on Training Transfer’. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22 (1): 111–22.
Lian, Olaug S., Sarah Nettleton, Huw Grange, and Christopher Dowrick. 2023. ‘“It feels like my metabolism has shut down”. Negotiating interactional roles and epistemic positions in a primary care consultation’. Health Expectations, 26(1): 366–375.
Lindström, Anna, and Ann Weatherall. 2015. ‘Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions’. Journal of pragmatics, 781: 39–53.
Lundgren, Charlotte. 2009. Samarbete genom samtal: En samtalsanalytisk studie av multiprofessionella teamkonferenser inom smärtrehabilitering. Linköping: Linköpings universitet.
Mitchell, Geana W., Leane B. Skinner, and Bonnie J. White. 2010. ‘Essential Soft Skills for Success in the Twenty-First Century Workforce as Perceived by Business Educators’. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 52 (1): 43–53.
Nilsson, Henrik. 2021. Distansering, elicitering och facilitering — det nya terminologiarbetet? In Begreppsarbete och informationshantering. Rapport från NORDTERM 2021, Helsingfors, Finland, 1–2 juni 2021. Nordterm 22. Terminologicentralen.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’. Language 50 (4): 696–735.
Sarangi, Srikant, and Celia Roberts. 1999. ‘The Dynamics of Interactional and Institutional Orders in Work-Related Settings’. In Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, edited by Srikant Sarangi and Celia Roberts, 1–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Nilsson, Henrik
2025. From separate to separated. In Handbook of Terminology [Handbook of Terminology, 4], ► pp. 148 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.