Institutional discourse is the specialized discourse used by social actors in various institutional
contexts, such as law courts, universities, and public administrations, among others.
This type of discourse can, of course, vary widely: it can be written or oral, formal/informal,
use various channels (e.g., e-mail,Web site), and exploit various registers and genres. In all
these varieties, the discourse is very “managed” in the sense that lexical, grammatical, and
rhetorical choices made by speakers and writers are crucial in implementing their goals. The
interest in analyzing institutional discourse is evident when we consider the huge amount of
scholarly and research work carried out over the past decades (e.g., Sarangi & Roberts, 1999;
Thornborrow, 2002; Mayr, 2008). As Roberts (2011, p. 81) puts it: “the study of institutional
discourses sheds light on how organizations work, how ‘lay’ people and experts interact
and how knowledge and power get constructed and circulate within routines, systems and
common-sense practices of work-related settings.” The focus of this entry is to describe
the grammatical features of institutional language in both written and spoken mode. More
specifically, institutional communication is here analyzed in relation to two contexts: academic
and legal. The literature abounds with different definitions of institutional discourse.
To our purpose, a brief outline of some seminal definitions is given here with the aim to provide
an idea of what is generally assumed in the literature with respect to these concepts,
without any attempt at completeness
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.