A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH TO THE EPISODIC
STRUCTURE OF SALES NEGOTIATIONS: OBSERVATIONS ON
BUSINESS ENGLISH STUDENTS’ MENTAL PATTERNS OF
DISCOURSE TRANSACTIONS.
Victoria Guillén Nieto
University of Alicante
Abstract – Drawing on the assumption that the business negotiation is a specific type of
spoken genre, this piece of qualitative research focuses on the mental patterns or scripts that
a sample of European Business English students, who have not been trained in negotiating
skills, have regarding the discourse structure of sales negotiations, i.e., the presence or
absence of a particular ritualistic behaviour as well as the occurrence or non-occurrence of
typified procedures and patterns, by comparing different versions of the same negotiation.
The methodology used draws on Discourse Analysis. The main research questions are: Do
the students sampled share the same script of a sales negotiation? Can we perceive any
relevant differences in students’ expectations about the discourse transactions of a sales
negotiation? If so, what are the reasons that may serve as an explanation to such differing
views and performances? To what extent does the script upon which students base their
expectations concerning the episodic structure of a sales negotiation resemble that of the
proposed ideal model of negotiation? The data are sixteen videotaped open role-played
negotiations.
Introduction
Over the last twenty years, Pragmatics has made Linguistics describe a marked turn from the
motorway of syntax to the crossroads of discourse analysis, that is, to the study of the
structure and function of language beyond the level of the sentence. One of the major
concerns of discourse analysts is to describe and explain how spoken discourse is structured
and how speakers’ conversational contributions are connected. This pragmatic approach to
language use has generously contributed to the development of linguistic research into the
field of English for Specific Purposes, encouraging researchers to consider business
discourse as a specific type of social interaction and business speech events as specific
genres. (Vid. Mulholland: 1991; Charles: 1996; Steuten: 1996; White: 1998, etc.).
To illustrate this line of research, let us consider, for example, the investigation
carried out by Steuten (1996) who analysed the internal structure and cohesion in business
conversations, i.e. telephone calls at a Dutch Hotel, by means of a hierarchical model of
business conversations called DEMO (Dynamic Essential Modelling of Organisations),
which focuses on the transaction concept to understand the sequences of communicative
actions in business conversations.
Many linguists agree on the fact that speech events can be grouped into: (a) written
genres such as poetry, narrative, report-writing, letter writing, etc.; and (b) spoken genres
like the telephone call, the interview, the negotiation, etc. The underlying assumption of this
1
perception is that each genre is typified by a specific framework in such a way that particular
instances of the same speech event will share the same broad pattern but may show differing
aspects concerning the general framework.
Using a technological metaphor, genres seem to be, in general terms, recorded in the
different files making up the speaker’s communicative competence mental database; such
pre-existing knowledge structures in memory have been labelled: dynamic schemata or
scripts1. By scripts we mean “a dynamic background knowledge structure stored in memory
involving event sequences”. (Yule 1996: 86). The concept of a script is simply a way of
recognising some expected sequence of actions in an event. For example, we have scripts
(schemata stored in memory files) for what normally happens in all kinds of speech events,
from the general ones, such as “going shopping” or “going to the doctor’s surgery”, to the
specific ones, e.g. “the employment interview”, “the telephone call”, “the business meeting”,
“the sales negotiation”, etc. “Each time speakers are involved in social interaction and they
come across the signals of a particular genre, they seem to behave as if they were computer
users because they select and activate a particular file from their memory stock and begin to
work only with that file, setting out their expectations about what may (and may not)
happen, what can (and cannot) be said, who can (and cannot) be there, etc.” (Guillén Nieto,
in press).
Therefore, this sense of generic expectations will affect the production, reception and
understanding of the activities of the particular instance of speech genre. The generic sense
of a negotiation acts, in Mulholland’s words: “as a familiar framework for participants and
so provides them with the comfort of a ritual, within which they can address the peculiar
needs of any particular negotiating instance” (Mulholland, 1991: 41). However attention
must be drawn towards the fact that scripts are not universal but culturally based. (Vid., Yule
1996: 87; Giménez 2001).
To sum up, to see the negotiation generically will enable us to study the principles
underlying its discourse framework better. Therefore, the main research questions of this
study are: Do the students share the same episodic structure of a sales negotiation when they
negotiate using English as the lingua-franca? Can we perceive any relevant differences in
students’ expectations about the discourse transactions of a sales negotiation? If so, what are
the reasons that may serve as an explanation to such differing views and performances? And
to what extent does the script upon which the students sampled base their expectations
concerning the episodic structure of a sales negotiation resemble that of the proposed ideal
model of negotiation?
Aims
Drawing on the assumption that negotiations are a specific type of spoken genre, the aim of
this piece of research is twofold: (a) to analyse the scripts that a sample of European
Business English students, who have not been trained in negotiating skills, have regarding
the discourse structure of sales negotiations, i.e. the presence or absence of a particular
ritualistic behaviour as well as the occurrence or non-occurrence of typified procedures and
patterns, by comparing different versions of the same negotiation. And (b) to bring students
1
The notion of a script was first introduced by R. Schank and R. Abelson at the Fourth International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Schank & Abelson 1975). At about this time, a paper by M. Minsky
(1975) emerged advocating a strategy for expectation-driven information processing in which particular
situations are interpreted in terms of generalised expectations.
2
to the point of awareness at which the necessity of acquiring certain discourse structures and
resources is evident.
Methodology
The structure of an interaction draws our attention to pre-existing knowledge in memory
that allows us to recognise and understand the part language plays in conversation, that is,
the way it is organised through the syntagmatic axis to convey meaning. (Guillén Nieto in
press). As regards the analysis of discourse structure, the methodology used in this paper
draws on the descriptive discourse analysis model developed within Discourse Analysis over
the last three decades: the Sinclair-Coulthard model (1975), and its later revisions by Burton
(1981) and Francis and Hunston (1992: 123-161), as well as on the collaborative model of
negotiating developed by The Harvard Negotiating Project2 (Fisher: 1981; 1991). In
keeping with the structural emphasis of the Birmingham tradition, I suggest a hierarchical
structural model for the analysis of sales negotiations. This consists of a series of ranks or
levels that are nested into one another. The rank scale I put forward is shown is Fig. 1.
Fig. 1: The discourse structure of business negotiations.
Business negotiation (Rank or level 1)
↕
Transaction (Rank or level 2)
↕
Exchange (Rank or level 3)
↕
Move (Rank or level 4)
↕
Act (Rank or level 5)
The above rank scale, which is clearly inspired by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975),
shows how each rank or level is instrumental in creating and organising the others. This
layered pattern is created though embedding. The nature of the embedding (symbolized by ↕
in Fig. 1) ranges from the acts and moves3 determining exchanges, to the exchanges shaping
the discourse transactions produced during the negotiation activity, to the whole business
interaction involved in a business negotiation.
According to Francis and Hunston (1992: 141), whose research on the discourse analysis
of conversation is based on Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), the interaction can be described
as “an unordered series of transactions”, and they explain that this does not mean that
interactions do not display order but that this order cannot perhaps be characterised in
linguistic terms. However, I tend to think that the interaction involved in a business
negotiation can certainly be described as an ordered sequence of thematic episodes
linguistically realised by topic-oriented discourse transactions. Following the research
carried out by The Harvard Negotiating Project4, skilful and successful negotiators should
ideally pursue the following layered pattern of discourse transactions when negotiating:
2
To avoid double labelling and for the sake of economy and consistency, I follow Burton’s (1981)
explanation and classification of moves: framing, focusing, opening, supporting, challenging , etc.
4
The research carried out by The Harvard Negotiating Project is based on a collaborative approach to
negotiating rather than on a confrontational one. In a collaborative approach, negotiators assume that it is
3
3
Fig. 2: Discourse transactions in business negotiations
Relationship building.
↓↑
Agreeing procedure.
↓↑
Exchanging information.
↓↑
Questioning.
↓↑
Options.
↓↑
Bidding.
↓↑
Bargaining.
↓↑
Settling and concluding.
↓↑
Final greetings.
As one can see from Fig. 2, the structural organisation of the discourse transactions of a
business negotiation is topic-oriented. In other words, transactions are essentially topic units
governed by two mechanisms: prospection (symbolized by ↓ in Fig. 2) and encapsulation5
(symbolized by ↑ in Fig. 2). By means of the former, each discourse transaction sets out
expectations about the next one; and according to the latter, to understand the meaning of
each transaction one needs to retrieve the preceding one. These transactions seem to perform
a well defined discourse function within the overall negotiating procedure providing
cohesion, coherence and relevance to its discourse organisation, as well as facilitating the
information flow and closure. In what follows, I shall briefly define and explain the specific
discourse function of each of the proposed topic-oriented transactions.
At the beginning, speakers may start with some ritualistic exchanges the main purpose of
which is to establish rapport and a good atmosphere which will create a friendly climate for
the whole negotiation. This is, in fact, the purpose of the preliminary transaction that has
been called Relationship building. During this transaction, it is important to keep the
conversation moving and to show interest in what the other side has to say6. In fact, what
happens in this preliminary transaction may have important implications for the participants’
possible to pursue your own interests while maintaining good human relations with people whose interest
conflict with yours. O’Connor et. al. (1992) and Cora García (2000) draw on the collaborative approach to
negotiating in their respective studies.
5
In Sinclair (1992: 83-86) prospection and encapsulation mechanisms are used to explain the structure
of the exchange. In the present study, their use is expanded and applied to the structural nature of the discourse
transaction.
6
Coulthard has suggested (1981:14) that greetings and leave-takings should not be seen as part of the
structure of a particular interaction, but rather markers of the beginning and end of situations during which
interaction occurs. However, I agree with Francis and Hunston (1992:140), when they state that “to see
opening and closing transactions as part of a situation but not as part of an interaction would be to skip a rank,
which is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of rank-scale analysis”.
4
motivation and attitude in a negotiating activity, which in turn will influence the fluency
with which the speech event may unfold. (Hayes, 1991: 71-72).
Once rapport has been established, it is important to state the objectives clearly and to
agree on them with the other party in order to create a climate of cooperation. These
exchanges will realise the first in a series of medial transactions, that is, Transaction 2:
Agreeing procedure. And it is equally convenient to begin with a clear opening statement
that will enable the other party to understand the background and interest of his. Therefore,
speakers usually begin with a short account of the company’s history and activities or move
on to stating each side’s interests. These are the typical exchanges of which Transaction 3 is
made up: Exchanging information.
Transaction 3 may lead to another series of exchanges in which the seller will often ask
questions to get more information about the customer’s needs and the emphasis placed on
different factors. These exchanges will give shape to Transaction 4: Questioning.
Having exchanged information and clarified positions, it is important for negotiators to
generate ideas and options before making decisions. This creative process will give rise to
transaction 5: Options.
Once options have been evaluated, negotiators should put forward proposals and bids.
These exchanges will realise transaction 6: Bidding. If new offers are made in response to
the other side’s proposals and the time has come to make concessions linked to conditions,
these will be the typical exchanges of transaction 7: Bargaining.
After this, it is advisable for negotiators to summarise what agreements have already
been reached and what responsibilities have already been assigned. Besides, it is essential to
identify any areas which have not yet been agreed on and any further action which needs to
be taken. Likewise, any points that need to be dealt with at the next meeting should be
summarised and a date for a new appointment fixed. These exchanges will realise the first of
two terminal transactions, that is, transaction 8: Settling and Concluding. Finally, when the
negotiation has come to an end, negotiators will exhibit a ritualistic behaviour again by
exchanging final greetings in transaction 9: Final Greetings.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the particular realisations of this broad pattern may
differ considerably every time speakers engage in a sales negotiation because one of the
special properties of spoken discourse is that it is self-monitored. This means that
negotiators have the power to select or change their own discourse route when they interact
according to a wide variety of factors such as: (a) their negotiating styles, whether
collaborative or confrontational; (b) their personal relationship; (c) the external
circumstances in which the speech event is embedded, etc. All this would not be possible, if
it were not for the fact that spoken interaction permits a certain degree of flexibility, since it
is not a mechanical process in which participants exhibit a robot-like behaviour, but rather a
creative one in which speakers are allowed to skip transactions, go backwards and forwards
along their own discourse route (Perhaps we could now move on to discuss…, Let us now
look at the different options we have…, We will look at that first and then we will come back
to…), or even interrupt interaction (May I say something?), bearing in mind that the capacity
to improvise does not mean that they are free to say or do anything they please, because
each spoken genre will impose its own limitations, otherwise it could not be recognised as
such.
5
Consequently, the fact that interactive discourse has the property of being self-monitored
has led me to go a stage further and put forward a distinction between preferred and
dispreferred structures for business negotiations. In my view, a preferred structure reveals
an ordered topic-oriented sequence of discourse transactions. In this type of structure, the
discourse functions of cohesion, coherence, information flow, relevance and closure are
ensured by the fact that each topic unit or transaction prospects the next one and
encapsulates the preceding one. By contrast, a dispreferred structure discloses an unordered,
topic-oriented, sequence of discourse transactions in which discourse may sometimes lack
the necessary cohesion and coherence to be interpreted adequately; information may not
flow fluently but rather get stuck or tumble out; and irrelevant topics may arise in the course
of conversation.
So the question I would like to raise now is why do the participants in negotiations often
flout the preferred structure or pattern? The answer to this question is not simple. There are
different approaches to negotiating which are determined, to a large extent, by the business
situation -for example, one will approach a one-off situation such as buying or selling a
house in a different way to negotiating a joint-venture or a cooperation agreement, etc.- and
by significant cultural differences. I will call this intended breach skilful flouting because it
reveals participants’ strategic competence in negotiating. By contrast, lack of strategic
competence in negotiating skills may give rise to another type of unintended infringement
which I shall refer to as unskilful flouting.
The Data Used
The bulk of the data was collected in 1999-2000. A survey was carried out to find out how
much the students who had taken the subject Business English, one of the third-year options
of the English Studies Curriculum at the University of Alicante in Spain, already knew about
business negotiations before they received specific training in negotiating skills. The survey
was carried out among a sample of thirty two students who had only a broad idea of the
purpose of the investigation so that they would behave as spontaneously as possible.
There were sixteen Spanish students and sixteen Erasmus students, namely German and
French; their ages ranged from 20 to 25 and their English level from intermediate to
proficiency.
The survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire given to the students to complete
and an open role-played negotiation that students agreed to perform and gave me permission
to videotape. I shall now move on to consider the open role-played negotiation in further
detail.
Since none of the students sampled were native English speakers, English,
universally acknowledged as the international language of commerce, was used as the
lingua-franca to achieve their communicative and interactive purposes in the sales
negotiation they were asked to perform. This consisted of an open role-play concerning the
sale of a house. Students were firstly divided into two groups: sellers and buyers. Thanks to
the students’ permission and collaboration, a total of sixteen versions of the same roleplayed negotiation were videotaped and carefully transcribed for the purpose of this study.
6
These were organised as follows: four negotiations between Spanish students, four between
Erasmus students and eight between Spanish and Erasmus students.
Sellers were given role-card A:
ROLE-CARD A: imagine that you want to sell your house. You put the following property for sale classified ad
in last week’s Costa Blanca News:
Aguas de Busot. Semi-detached house in El balcón de Aguas housing estate with views over the sea
and the pinewoods. 10 minutes from El Campello, 20 minutes from Alicante or Benidorm. 1st floor:
lounge/dining-room with open fire, spac. Kitchen, 15m2 conservatory, 15m2 inner patio. 2 nd floor: 2
double-bedrms, includ. Balcony. 1 bathrm with skylight. Also double boxrm and 2-car garage. All
mod. Cons. Ideal for retired couple or for those who love a healthy life in the countryside. For only
12.000,000pts. Payment facilities.
Payment: the house has a mortgage loan of 5,000,000 pts. 4,500,000 pts of which remain to be repaid to the
bank. If the client subrogates to your mortgage loan, you will be willing to give him/her a discount of
1,000,000 pts. If the client prefers to pay cash, you will be prepared to give him/her a discount of 500, 000 pts.
But this discount is subject to the commission that you will be charged by the bank for anticipated cancellation.
Location: the Doctor’s surgery is next door to your house. The Sports Centre is a 1 minute walk away. This
includes an Olympic swimming-pool. The village has some basic shops, bars and a Social Centre. The house is
fully furnished. If the client wants the house with furniture, you will be prepared to negotiate this and offer
him/her reasonable prices for the pieces of furniture (sofas, tables, chairs, electric household furniture, beds,
mattresses, etc.).
Buyers were given role-card B:
ROLE-CARD B: Imagine that you want a house in the countryside because you are fed up with the noise and
hustle on the coast. You are very fond of cycling and jogging. You have seen this advertisement in Costa
Blanca News:
Aguas de Busot. Semi-detached house in El balcón de Aguas housing estate with views over the sea
and the pinewoods. 10 minutes from El Campello, 20 minutes from Alicante or Benidorm. 1 st floor:
lounge/dining-room with open fire, spac. Kitchen, 15m2 conservatory, 15m2 inner patio. 2nd floor: 2
double-bedrms, includ. Balcony. 1 bathrm with skylight. Also double boxrm and 2-car garage. All
mod. Cons. Ideal for retired couple or for those who love a healthy life in the countryside. For only
12,000,000pts. Payment facilities.
You just have 4,000,000 pts cash. You like the house but you would like a discount of 3,000,000 pts. A toilet
and another bedrm.
Results
Students’ performance in the open role-played negotiations reveals a broadly defined preexisting knowledge structure stored in memory concerning the episodic structure of sales
negotiations. Several discourse transactions have been identified: (a) Relationship building,
(b) Exchanging information, (c) Questioning, (d) Options, (e) Bidding, (f) Bargaining, (g)
Settling and concluding, and (h) Final greetings. For all the students sampled, it is
absolutely clear that the preliminary transaction in negotiating should be Relationship
7
building; this is, as has already been suggested, a transitional boundary transaction, the main
purpose of which is twofold: (a) to mark the limit between non-interaction and interaction;
and (b) to create a nice atmosphere and establish rapport between negotiators. Nevertheless,
this socialising function is reduced to a mere exchange of greetings in the vast majority of
the negotiations sampled. And it is also evident that in all cases, students skip the Agreeing
Procedure (Transaction 2 in the proposed model) and move on to Exchanging information
(Transaction 3). Similarly, they seem to share the belief that at the end of the negotiating
activity there must be two types of transactions: Settling and concluding and Final
greetings. The former is often, but not always, projected by the conclusion of Bidding and
Bargaining transactions; and the latter appears at the end of the negotiation as a transitional
boundary transaction, this time marking the transition between interaction and non
interaction, that is, closing the speech event.
However, the mental pattern or script upon which the students sampled base their
shared beliefs and expectations seems to differ once the Exchanging information transaction
has come to an end. (Table 2 –included at the end of the paper- shows the different discourse
routes taken by the participants throughout the sixteen negotiations). This is partly due to the
fact that the individual realisations of the broad pattern may differ considerably every time
speakers engage in a sales negotiation, because one of the special properties of spoken
discourse is, as has been stated before, that it is self-monitored, which means that
interlocutors are allowed to select or change their own discourse route when they interact.
However, the data reveal, as will be explained below, an unskilful, rather than skilful,
flouting throughout the sixteen negotiations.
So the question is: To what extent does the script upon which students base their
expectations concerning the episodic structure of a sales negotiation resemble that of the
proposed ideal model of negotiation? If so, what are the reasons that may serve as an
explanation to such differing views and performances? The investigation reveals that at a
very general level there are broad similarities between the ordered sequence of transactions
put forward in the collaborative negotiating model and the episodic structure upon which
students base their shared beliefs and expectations about how the discourse of a sales
negotiation should be structured. However, the study also shows some relevant differences
concerning the occurrence and non-occurrence of certain discourse transactions, as well as
their sequencing pattern and function when comparing students’ actual sequences of
transactions with the one described in the negotiating model. Now, I shall move on to look
at the findings obtained in each discourse transaction in further detail.
Relationship building
The data show that students expect a sales negotiation to comprise, as has already been
argued, a preliminary transaction, the main functions of which are: (a) to mark the limit
between non-interaction and interaction, and (b) to establish rapport. Rapport can be
established in a number of ways. The seller might stand up to greet the buyer, shake hands,
use his/her name and offer welcoming remarks in a tone of voice that puts him/her at ease.
The seller may show a friendly attitude by exhibiting an attentive behaviour and may break
the ice by talking about non-task issues such as the weather or the journey. In only one of
the sixteen negotiations sampled (Negotiation 3), is some time spent in establishing rapport
in the preliminary transaction called: Relationship building. To illustrate this, let us consider
8
Example 17, taken from Negotiation 5: the participants are a German male student (seller)
and a German female student (buyer) and they are using English as the lingua-franca for this
business interaction that has been carefully and literally transcribed. Their negotiating
activity will help us to illustrate a standard behaviour when compared to the rest of the
sample.
Example 1
Line
act
move
e.s.
1 B: (knocks at the door
and opens it)
2 S: Hello!
3 B: Hello!
4 S: Mr. X…/
(Shaking hands
and smiling)
5 B: Oh, hello.
6 Please to meet you.
sum
h
Framing
Contact
ack
gr
gr
h
h
h
h
Acknowledging
Opening
Supporting
Opening
Perception
I
Greet (Incomplete) 2
R
I
Greet
3
(smiling).
7 S: Please, sit down.
8 (They both sit down)
e.s.
re-gr
pre- h
h
Supporting
d
h
Opening
I
be
h
Supporting
R
exch.
ex.
Summon
1
tr.
1 (Pr)
R
Request
4
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (pr): type of
transaction –preliminary-.h: head; pre-h: pre-head; I: initiation; R: response; numbers serve to identify exchanges and
transactions.
Acts: sum (summons); re-sum (reply to summons); gr (greeting); re-gr (reply to greeting); idy (identifying yourself); d
(directive); be (behaving).
Example 1 illustrates the sequence of ritualistic exchanges that speakers typically exhibit
at the preliminary transaction in the negotiations sampled: the first exchange (Summon) will
serve to attract the seller’s attention and engage him in the interaction. Once contact has
been established between the seller and the buyer, there will be an exchange of greetings
(Greet) accompanied by complex gestures that involve shaking hands, smiling, eye-contact.
Finally, sellers will request buyers to take a seat (Request) and both of them will sit down.
There will not be any attempt to break the ice by making reference to non-task topics such as
the weather, the journey, etc. A meaningful pause will mark the end of this transaction
(Silent stress).
Agreeing procedure.
The discourse function of this opening transaction in a series of medial transactions is to
state the objectives clearly and to agree on them with the other party so as to create a climate
Drawing on Sinclair and Coulthard’s spoken discourse model (1975) and on other model versions and
variations provided by Burton (1981) and Francis and Hunston (1992), I propose a rank scale for the discourse
analysis of the sales negotiation transactions in which I will specify the following discourse units: type and
number of transaction (tr); number of exchanges of which the transaction is made up (ex); type of exchanges
involved in each transaction (exch.); element of structure of the exchange (e.s.) ; type of move contained in
each element of structure (move); element of structure of the move (e.s.); and type of act contained in each
move. At the end of the article, a summary of the acts found in the sample is included.
7
9
of cooperation. Significantly, the data reveal that this transaction was skipped in all the
negotiations examined. More specifically, meta-communicative speech acts that could have
fostered a collaborative negotiating style were absent in all the negotiations sampled: (a)
getting agreement on procedure (Can we agree on the overall procedure?); (b) stating
principal objectives (I would like to deal with…; Something else I’d like to look at is…); (c)
checking agreement and acceptance of objectives (Is that OK with you?, Does that fit in with
your objectives?), (d) suggesting (What about if we look at …?; How about…?).
Exchanging information.
The data show that throughout the sixteen negotiations students choose Exchanging
information as Transaction 2. After a significant pause, it is relevant to point out that the
buyer, rather than the seller, is usually the one who takes the initiative to state his/her
negotiating interests unambiguously and enquire about the house for sale. Likewise, the
seller may want to know more about his/her potential customer. Example 2, taken from
Negotiation 5, illustrates how after a meaningful pause, the buyer will typically take the
initiative to start off a new transaction, the main function of which is to exchange
information about the house for sale. The beginning of this new topic unit is highlighted
with the use of markers (Okay) with a high fall intonation, followed by silent stress, and a
high key tone at the beginning of the buyer’s speech turn (I’ve seen your advertisement in
Costa Blanca News). (Vid. Coulthard, 1992: 35-49).
Example 2
Line
Pause (…)
1 B: Okay.
act
m+ss
2 Well, I’ve seen your
m
3 advertisement in
i
4 Costa Blanca News
5 and I’m very interested in i
6 a house nearby (smiles)
7/ I’ve got a few questions
8 about the whole subject.
ms
9 Er…
m
10 First of all,
11 I’m not really...used to
12 this region here.
com
13 So what er can you say me
14 about Alicante?
15 What does it offer? And.../ m- el
16 S: (Smiles)...
m
17 First of all,
18 so you’ve been here before m-el
19 or is this your first time
20 you’re coming here?
21 B: No, no.
rep.
22 S: So...I see...er...
23 The region of Alicante is
i
24 one of the er...most...er...
25 with the infrastructure is
26 highly developed region...
27 So you’ve got everything
com
28 you want for your er comfort
29 living here. (…).
e.s
move
pre-h
pre-h
pre-h
Opening
e.s.
exch
I
Elicit
pre-h
pre-h
pre-h
pre-h
h
pre-h
Challenging/Opening
R/I
h
h
Supporting
h
post-hh
Keys:
10
R
Clarify
ex
1
tr
2(M)
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Medial-. h: head; pre-h: pre-head; post-h: post-head; I: initiation: R: response; numbers serve to identify
exchanges and transactions.
Acts: m (marker); m+ss (marker plus silent stress); i (informative); ms (metastatement); com (comment); m-el
(multiple elicitation); rep (reply).
In Example 3, taken from Negotiation 6, the seller is a German male student and the
buyer is a Spanish female student. After having exchanged very little information, the buyer
rushes to bid, consequently missing out Questioning and Options transactions. However, the
seller reveals a certain sense of a preferred structure, that is, the existence of a mental pattern
that favours an ordered layered topic sequence of discourse transactions, when he, probably
feeling that the Exchanging information transaction has been rather short, challenges the
buyer holding up the progress of the topic of bidding by requesting more information.
Example 3
Line
act
e.s
move
e.s.
1B: Yes.
m
pre-h
Opening
2 I’ve seen in
i
h
3Costa Blanca News
4an advertisement in
5 which you er…sell a
6 flat a house/
7 S: A house, yes.
ack
h
Supporting
8 B: The house is in Aguas i
pre-h
9 de Busot. Do do you
el
h
Opening
10 remember the
11 advertisement that you/ el
12 S: Yes, sure, sure.
rep h
Supporting
13 B: Uhuh. / I would like ack pre-h
Opening
14 to know er the payment el
h
15 facilities/
16 S: Uhmmm. Yes but first ack pre-h
Challenging/
17 of all so you are
el h
Opening
18 interested in in buying
19 er in buying this house /
20 or are you interested
21 In buying a house
22 in Germany? /
23 B: No, I’m interested in
rep h
Supporting
24 I’m interested in this
25 house because it is
com post-h
26 In Aguas de Busot
27 and I like the place /
(…)
I
exch
ex
tr
Inform
1
2 (M)
I
Elicit
2
R
I
Elicit
3
3 (M)
R
Elicit
4
2(M)
R
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Medial-.h: head; pre-h: pre-head; post-h: post-head; I: initiation; R: response; numbers serve to identify
exchanges and transactions.
Acts: m (marker); el (elicitation); m (marker); i (informative); rep (reply); ack (acknowledgement); com (comment).
11
Questioning
Only in six out of the sixteen negotiations sampled does the Exchanging information
transaction project Questioning as the next preferred transaction. However, in this medial
transaction, it will not be the seller who asks questions to get more information about the
buyer’s needs and wants, but rather the customer who will go on enquiring about the house.
Therefore, it is evident that there is considerable overlapping between the discourse
functions of these two medial transactions as regards the way the students sampled use
them; in fact, Questioning seems to lose its primary discourse function and turn into a mere
expansion of Exchanging Information. This is clearly shown in Example 4, taken from
Negotiation 5. The beginning of this new topic unit is highlighted by the use of a
paralinguistic marker (Er) with a high fall intonation, followed by a pause (silent stress),
and a high key tone at the beginning of the buyer’s speech turn (How old is it?) (Vid.,
Coulthard, 1992: 35-49).
Example 4
Line
act
1 B: Er...
m+ss
2 How old is it?
el
3S: Er...
4 It’s a a a five
rep
years now. So er it’s er
5 a high standard living...
com
6 As I know I should say
7 er... (smiles)
8 Germans are always
9looking for good
10 quality / The quality of the
11 house is good...
12 B: That’s the reason
i
13 why I’m here.
14 (Smiling).
15 S: (Laughs).
ack
e.s
move
pre-h
h
h
e.s.
Opening
I
Supporting
exch
Elicit
ex
tr
1
3 (M)
R
post-h
h
Opening
h
Supporting
I
Inform
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Medial-.h: head; pre-h: pre-head; post-h: post-head; I: initiation; R: response; numbers serve to identify
exchanges and transactions.
Acts: m+ss (marker plus silent stress); el (elicitation); m (marker); i (informative); com (comment); rep (reply); ack
(acknowledgement).
Options
In only three out of the sixteen negotiations does the Questioning transaction prospect the
generation of Options as the next preferred transaction. Nevertheless, once again the
transaction seems to be deprived of its original discourse function by means of which
negotiators are invited to generate options before making any decisions, and is reduced to a
12
mere discussion concerning the facilities of the house on sale. This is clearly shown in
Example 5, taken form Negotiation 5. The beginning of this new topic unit is highlighted
with the use of a high key tone at the beginning of the buyer’s speech turn (Does it have
central heating?).
Example 5
Line
act
e.s
move
e.s
1 B: Does it have
el
h
Opening
2 central heating?
3 S: Er...
4 No, in fact not.
rep
h
Supporting
5 There are er these electric
i post-h
6 heatings for the the rooms
7 and there’s a fireplace...
8 B: It won’t be cold up
com pre-h
Opening
9 in the rooms, I imagine.
10 So er...
11 If a house has a
obj
h
12 good quality, for me it
13 should have central heating,
14 especially if I want to
com post-h
15 spend the winter there /
16 like in Germany /
17 S: But the winter
c-obj
h
Challenging
18 in Germany
19 is really different from
20 the winter
21 / in Spain.
22B: Yes, I know
ack
pre-h
Re-opening
23 but the
obj
h
24 last week in January we’ve
25 been here and it has been
26 pretty cold so I imagine
com post-h
27 without a central heating.../
28 S: You have heating.
c-obj h
Challenging
29 B: Electricity?
el
h
Opening
30 S: Yeah.
rep
h
Supporting
31 But you see,
m
pre-h
Opening
32the cost of central heating
i
h
33 won’t be a problem to the
34 cost of electric heating
35 because you’ll only need
36 it for a several days
37 in the year and electric
38 heating not very very
39 often. I know central
com post-h
40 heating in Germany is
41 absolutely indispensable (…)
exch
I
ex
Elicit
tr
1
4 (M)
R
I
Elicit
2
R
I
Elicit
R
I
R
I
Clarify
Inform
3
4
5
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Medial-.h: head; pre-h: pre-head; post-h: post-head; I: initiation; R: response; numbers serve to identify
exchanges and transactions.
Acts: el (elicitation); i (informative); com (comment); ack (acknowledgement); obj (objection); c-obj (counter objection);
rep (reply); m (marker); com (comment).
13
Bidding and Bargaining
In the vast majority of the sampled negotiations there is considerable overlapping between
Bidding and Bargaining discourse transactions. They are often prospected after either
Questioning or Options. Broadly speaking, we may say that Sellers will not put forward
proposals and bids concerning payment facilities, unless Buyers state that the price is too
high. This is clearly shown in Example 6, taken from Negotiation 5. The beginning of this
new transaction is indicated by the use of a paralinguistic marker (Er) with a high fall
intonation, followed by a pause (silent stress), and a high key tone at the beginning of the
buyer’s speech turn (The price sound too expensive for me?).
Example 6
Line
act
e.s
move
1 B: It sounds good to me. ack
pre-h
Opening
2 So what else?
m
pre-h
3 Er...
m+ss pre-h
4 The price sounds too
5 expensive for me?
barg
h
6 S: Yes, but you you
ack
pre-h
Challenging
7 can’t only go by the price obj
h
8 because er...sometimes the
9 house the offer the quality com post-h
10 differs a lot. So when you com post-h
11 compare some apartments
12 to others, prices seem too
13 high or too low but you’ve
14 got to relate to the quality.
15 The house I’m selling now is j
post-h
16 er...really new /
17 always looking for good
j
post-h
17 quality / The quality of the j
post-h
18 house is good...
19 B: That’s the reason
i
h
Opening
20 why I’m here.
21 (Smiling). b-com
post-h
22 S: (Laughs). b-feed-back
h
Supporting
e.s.
exch
I
Elicit
R
Inform
I
ex
1
tr
5 (M)
2
R
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Medial-.h: head; pre-h: pre-head; post-h: post-head; I: initiation; R: response; numbers serve to identify
exchanges and transactions.
Acts: ack (acknowledgement); m (marker); m+ss (marker plus silent stress); barg (bargain); obj (objection); com
(comment); i (informative).
Settling and concluding
In all the negotiations surveyed, Bidding and Bargaining transactions prospect Settling and
Concluding as the next preferred transaction. At this stage of the negotiation it is important
to summarise what agreements have already been reached, as well as to identify any areas
which have not yet been agreed on and any further action which needs to be taken. The data
14
reveal that throughout the sampled negotiations students always tend to postpone the
negotiating activity until they have seen the house for sale. Therefore, in most cases making
an appointment and expressing a wish to discuss the matter with their bank summarise the
speech acts usually carried out by speakers during this transaction. This is illustrated in
Example 7, taken from Negotiation 5. The beginning of this new topic unit is marked by the
high fall intonation in Yeah, and a high key tone in Is there any possibility of seeing it (…)?
Example 7
Line
act
1 B: Yeah.
ack
2 Is there any possibility
el
3 of seeing it maybe so
4 that I get sure that it’s
com
5 really worth its price
6 (smiling).
7 S: (Smiling)
8 Yes, sure.
rep
9 I wouldn’t be saying
com
10 something that couldn’t
11 be proved.
12 Yes, okay.
acct
13 B:Yeah.
ack
14 Right now?
m-el
15 Or do you have
16 another meeting?
17 S: Er...
18 I should..
19 I’d propose that we
sug
20 we meet another day...?
21 B: Okay...
acct
22 S: I propose that we
sug
23 could do it
24 during the week-end,
25 if you like or
26 Monday, Tuesday?
27 B: Saturday, Saturday.
acct
28 It sounds good to me.
com
29 S: Okay.
acct
30 So let’s say
31 we’ll do it Saturday
set
32 morning and we meet
33 here at eleven o´clock.
34 I’ll be here in the
acct
35 office. So er...
36 at eleven o’clock
set
37 and then in the office
38 we’ll go to Aguas de
39 Busot and see the house (...)
e.s
move
e.s.
pre-h
h
Opening
I
Supporting
R
Opening
I
exch
ex
Elicit
1
tr
6 (T)
post-h
h
post-h
post-h
pre-h
h
Elicit
2
Challenging/Opening
R/I
Elicit
3
h
h
Supporting
Opening
I
Elicit
4
h
post-h
pre-h
Supporting
R
Opening
I
h
post-h
post-h
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Terminal-.h: head; pre-h: pre-head; post-h: post-head; I: initiation; R: response; numbers serve to identify
exchanges and transactions.
Acts: ack (acknowledgement); el (elicitation); com (comment); rep (reply); acct (accept); m-el (multiple elicitation); sug
(suggestion); i (inform); set (settle).
15
Final Greetings
Final greetings are projected by the Settling and Concluding transaction. Again, we observe
a particular ritualistic behaviour in which negotiators exchange greetings accompanied by
complex gestures with which the limit between interaction and non interaction is marked
and so the negotiation activity is closed. This is shown in Example 8, taken from
Negotiation 5. The beginning of this topic unit is usually signalled by a ritualistic behaviour
that involves complex gestures and movements such as smiling, hand-shaking, standing up,
walking towards the door, seeing the customer out, etc.
Example 8
Line
act
1B: (Laughs and stands up
2 to shake hands)
3 Anyway, thank you.
gr
4 S: (Shaking hands)
5 We’ll see next week.
re-gr
e.s
move
e.s.
exch
ex
h
Opening
I
Greet
1
h
Supporting
R
tr
7(T)
Keys:
act: type of speech act involved; e.s.: element of structure of the act; move: type of moved involved; e.s.: element of
structure of the move; exch: type of exchange involved; ex.: number of the exchange; tr: transaction; (m): type of
transaction –Terminal-. h: head; I: initiation: R: response; numbers serve to identify exchanges and transactions.
Acts: gr (greeting): re-greeting (reply to greeting).
Summary and Conclusions
This paper has explored the mental patterns or scripts that a sample of European Business
English students, who have not been trained in negotiating skills, have regarding the
discourse structure of a sales negotiation. The methodology used draws on the descriptive
discourse analysis model of the Birmingham School, as well as on the collaborative
negotiating model developed by The Harvard negotiating Project to describe and explain
the preferred episodic structure followed by experienced and skilful participants in
negotiations. Nevertheless, this study moves on to put forward a hierarchical discourse
model for the analysis of business negotiations in which they are examined within the scope
of a layered topic-oriented structure of discourse transactions linked to one another by
means of two discourse devices: (a) prospection, and (b) encapsulation. Besides, the
research carried out has also allowed me to establish the following dichotomies for the
discourse structure of sales negotiations: (a) preferred and dispreferred structures, and (b)
skilful and unskilful floutings.
The investigation reveals that at a very general level there are broad similarities in
the students’ mental patterns or schemata concerning the episodic structure of a sales
negotiation. This has enabled us to identify the presence of a free sequence of discourse
transactions in the negotiations sampled, which is clearly shown in Table 2: (a) Relationship
building, (b) Exchanging information, (c) Questioning, (d) Options, (e) Bidding, (f)
Bargaining, (g) Settling and concluding, (h) Final greetings. In the negotiations examined,
16
the appearance of all or some of these discourse transactions, whatever their sequencing may
be, has made it possible for me to recognise students’ interactions as particular realisations
of a specific genre: the sales negotiation.
The study also shows relevant differences when comparing students’ dispreferred
sequences of transactions with the preferred sequence described in the proposed negotiating
model. In principle, the reason that might help me to explain such discrepancies with regard
to the ideal model could be that spoken discourse is self-monitored; this property will allow
participants in interaction to have the power to decide the way they would like to handle
spoken interaction, bearing in mind a wide range of contextual factors such as: (a) different
approaches to negotiating determined, to a large extent, by the purpose of the negotiation,
i.e. the sale of a house or a joint venture; (b) the external circumstances in which the
negotiation is embedded; (c) different negotiating styles, whether collaborative or
confrontational; (d) cultural differences which may be reflected in the emphasis placed on
particular stages of the negotiation, etc.
However true this may be, in my view, the discrepancies found in the data are mainly
due to the fact that the sampled students have not been trained in negotiating skills and so,
their scripts of the business negotiation are indeed very schematic concerning its discourse
structure, and they are really unaware of the existence of an episodic topic-oriented layered
structure. It is quite significant that the Agreeing procedure transaction, in which a high
degree of meta-language is needed to signpost the route of the negotiation and create an
atmosphere of collaboration, was not performed in any of the negotiations. This is the reason
why I have come to the conclusion that the dispreferred structure shown in the negotiations
sampled is due to an unskilful, rather than, skilful, flouting. Another relevant finding will
help us to clarify this. As can be seen from Table 2: Discourse routes, the more time
negotiators spend in seeking or giving information in the medial transactions before bidding
and bargaining, the more fluent the progression of the discourse negotiation will be, since
they will have bothered to find out the details they need to be ready to negotiate. By
contrast, when participants hurry to bargain, the flow of the discourse seems to get stuck; the
reason for this is that the negotiators lack information and so, they must go back along their
route to previous medial stages to seek for further details.
It is clear that although students’ linguistic competence in English allows them to
use it as the lingua-franca in international negotiations, they all need to improve their
communicative competence in English, as regards: (a) negotiating styles, (b) the knowledge
of preferred and dispreferred sequences of discourse transactions, (c) the use of
organisational language to signpost the route of the negotiation, (d) the use of English to
establish rapport, and (e) negotiating strategies. (Vid., Mills 1991; Kozicki 1993).
In conclusion, as a result of the schematic mental patterns students have regarding
the episodic structure of business negotiations, they give the wrong impression of
themselves as abrupt, impulsive, and perhaps somewhat rude, and unconsciously favour a
confrontational negotiating style rather than the collaborative one proposed by The Harvard
Negotiating Project. Students should be brought to the point of awareness at which the
necessity of acquiring certain discourse structures and resources is evident; as these are of
immediate relevance, students will see how they could have put them to good use in the
videotaped negotiations and will retain them all the more easily because they are rooted in a
meaningful context. (Guillén Nieto in press).
17
TABLE 1
DISCOURSE ROUTES
Neg. Rel.
2.Agree.
3.Exchang.
4.Question.
5.Options
6.Bid.
7.Barg.
6/8
8.Set.
Con.
9
F.
G.
10
2
3
4/7
5
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
1
2
3/7
8
4
5
6/9
10
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5
1
2
4
5
3
7
6/8
9
6
1
2
4
3/5
6
7
8
7
1
2
4/7
5/8
9
10
11
8
1
2
3/6
5/7
8
9
1
2
3
4/7
5/8
6/9
10
11
10
1
2
6
3
4
5/7
8
9
11
1
2
4/6
12
1
2
5
13
1
14
1
15
1
2
16
1
2
3/6
4
3/5/7
8
9
4
3/6
7
8
2/5
3
4/6
7
8
2
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
7
3
4
5
6
3
Keys:
Numbers: they indicate the order in which transactions are sequenced in each sales negotiation.
Neg..: Negotiation.
Rel.: Relationship building.
Agree.: Agreeing procedure.
Exchang.: Exchanging information.
Question.: Questioning.
Options: Options.
Bid.: Bidding.
Barg.: Bargaining.
Set. Con.: Settling and concluding.
F. G..: Final greetings.
Summary of the Acts
a)
Label: Marker. Symbol (m). Realisation and definition: realised by a closed class of verbal and nonverbal items like “Well”, “Alright”, “Good”, “OK”. Its function is to mark boundaries in the
discourse and to indicate that the speaker would like to begin the conversation or would like to
introduce a topic.
b) Label: Summons. Symbol (sum). Realisation and definition: realised by a closed class of verbal and
non-verbal items. For example, the use of the name of another participant, or mechanical devices like
door bells, telephone bells, knocks at the door. Its function is to engage another participant in a
conversation or to attract his/her attention, to mark a boundary in the discourse, and to indicate that
the producer of the item has a topic to introduce once s/he has gained the perception/attention of the
hearer. It realises the head of an opening move in a summon exchange.
c)
Label: Reply-Summons. Symbol (re-sum). Realisation and definition: realised by the items used to
answer a telephone (“hello”, “the giving of one’s number, etc) or the door (opening it, calling “come
in”, etc. or by “yes”, “ what?” and other indications of attention (both verbal and non-verbal) given
upon hearing one’s name called. Realises the head of a supporting move in a Summon exchange.
d) Label: Silent Stress (…). Realisation and definition: realised by a meaningful pause and other nonverbal items. It functions to highlight the Marker or Summons when they act as the head of a
Boundary Exchange.
18
e)
Label: Greeting. Symbol (gr). Realisation and definition: realised by a closed class of verbal and nonverbal items which form the first-pair parts of the adjacency pairs used in the rituals of greeting and
leave-taking: “hello”, “Hi”, “Good morning”, “How are you?”, “How do you do?”, “Pleased to meet
you, “Good-bye”, etc., which are normally accompanied by complex gestures that involve handshaking, smiling, eye-contact, and head-bending. They realise the head of an opening move in a Greet
exchange. Its function is self-explanatory.
f)
Label: Reply-Greeting. Symbol (re-gr). Realisation and definition: realised by a closed class of items
which form the second-pair parts of the adjacency pairs used in the rituals of greeting and leavetaking: “Hello”, “Hi”, “Good morning”, “I’m very well, thank you. And you?”, “Pleased to meet you
too”, “Good-bye”. which are normally accompanied by complex gestures that involve hand-shaking,,
smiling, eye-contact, and head-bending. They realise the head of a supporting move in a Greet
exchange. Its function is self-explanatory.
g) Label: Identifying yourself. Symbol (idy). Realisation and definition: realised by a closed class of
verbal and non-verbal items such as: Let me introduce my colleague…He/She is our Sales Manager;
I’d like you to meet…; This is …Sales Manager of…, etc. Its function is to introduce other people
present before the conversation actually begins.
h) Label: Directive. Symbol (d). Realisation and definition: realised by a closed class of verbal and nonverbal items such as a polite command (please sit down), request will you please come this way, a
statement (perhaps, you would like to take a seat, etc). Its function is to request a non-linguistic
response from the other participant, namely to invite her/him to sit down.
i)
Label: Behave (be). Realisation and definition: realised by action. Its function is to provide a nonverbal response to a preceding d, whether this involves compliance, non-compliance, or defiance.
j)
Label: Metastatement (ms). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question or
command which refers to a future event in the ongoing talk, or a request for speaker’s rights;its
function is to make clear the structure of the immediately following discourse, and to indicate the
speaker’s wish for an extended turn.
k) Label: Informative (i). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement whose sole
function is to provide information.
l)
Label: Elicitation (el). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a question. Its function is to
request a linguistic response.
m) Label: Multiple elicitation (m-el). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by multiple questions.
Its function is to request a linguistic response.
n) Label: Comment (com). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question,
command or moodless item, and functions to expand, justify, provide additional information to a
preceding Informative or Comment.
o) Label: Accept (acct). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a closed class of items “Yes”,
OK”, Uhuh”, “I will”, “No” (Where the preceding utterance was negative). Its function is to indicate
that the speaker has heard and understood the previous utterance and is compliant).
p) Label: Reply (rep). Realisation and definition: realised by a statement, question, moodless item and
non-verbal surrogates such as nods. Its function is to provide a linguistic response appropriate to a
preceding elicitation.
q) Label: React (re). Realisation and definition: realised by a non-linguistic action. Its function is to
provide an appropriate non-linguistic response to a preceding directive.
r)
Label: Acknowledge (ack). Realisation and definition: realised by “Yes”, “OK”, “Uhuh” and
expressive particles. Its function is to show that an Informative has been understood, and its
significance appreciated.
19
s)
Label: Objection (obj). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question,
command or moodless item. Iits function is to make objections to a previous bid.
t)
Label: Counter-Objection (c-obj). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement,
question, command or moodless item. Iits function is to make objections to a previous objection.
u) Label: Suggestion (sug). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question,
command or moodless item. Its function is to make a proposal.
v) Label: Bid (bid). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question, command or
moodless item. Its function is to make an offer.
w) Label: Bargain (barg). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question,
command or moodless item. Its function is to bargain a previous bid by means of a counter-offer.
x) Label: Settle (set). Realisation and definition: realised verbally by a statement, question, command or
moodless item. Its function is to come to an agreement.
REFERENCES
BURTON, D. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse. A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Drama
Dialogue and Naturally Occurring Conversation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
CORA GARCÍA, A. 2000. “Negotiating negotiation: the collaborative production of
resolution in small claims mediation hearings”. In Discourse and Society, 11(3):
315-343.
COULTHARD, M. 1992. “The significance of intonation in discourse”. In M.
COULTHARD ed. 1992, 35-49.
CHARLES, M. 1996. “Business negotiations: interdependence between discourse and the
business relationship”. In English for Specific Purposes, 15(1): 19-36.
FISHER, R. et. al. 1981; 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.
London & New York: Penguin.
FRANCIS, G. & S. HUNSTON 1992. “Analysing everyday conversation”. In
COULTHARD, M. ed. 123-161.
FLEMING, P. 1992. Aprenda a negociar con éxito. Trans. J. A. Bravo. Barcelona: Gestión
2000.
GIMÉNEZ, J. C. 2001 “Ethnographic observations in cross-cultural business negotiations
between non-native speakers of English: an exploratory study”. In English for
Specific Purposes, 20, 2: 169-193.
GUILLÉN NIETO, V. in press. “An inter-cultural discourse analysis approach to business
interaction: observations on Business English students’ scripts of sales negotiations”.
Paper presented at the XXI AESLA Conference, held in Lugo, 2003.
HAYES, J. 1991. Interpersonal Skills. London and New York: Routledge.
KOZICKI, S. 1993. El negociador creativo. Trans. Mª À. PUJOL I FOYO. Barcelona:
Editorial
de Vecchi, S. A.
O’CONNOR, Ph. et. al 1992. Negotiating. Essex: Longman Group UK Ltd..
OPI, J. M. 1999. Técnicas de negociación transaccional. Barcelona: Gestión 2000.
MILLS, H. A. 1991. Negociar: el arte de ganar. Trans. A. MANRIQUE SALA. Barcelona:
Editorial de Vecchi, S. A.
20
MINSKY, M. 1975. “A framework for representing knowledge”. In P.H. WINSTON ed.
The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
MULHOLLAND, J. 1991. The Language of Negotiation. London & New York: Routledge.
SCHANK, R.C. & ABELSON, R.P. 1975. “Scripts, plans, and knowledge”. In: Proceedings
of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. USSR: Tbilisi.
SINCLAIR, J. & M. COULTHARD 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
__________. 1992. “Towards an analysis of discourse”. In M. COULTHARD ed. 1-34.
STEUTEN, A. A.G. 1996. “Structure and Cohesion in Business Conversations”. In: WEBSLS. The European Student Journal of Language and Speech, 1-13.
WHITE, R. 1998. “Closing the Gap between Intercultural and Business Communication
Skills”. Paper prepared for IATEFL BESIG & TESOL. Spain Symposium.
International House, Barcelona, January, 23 & 24.
YULE, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21