Ever since language has been examined as a vehicle for action, scholars have been interested in its authorized use. Typically described under the rubric of `felicity conditions', the authorized use of language involves, among other conditions, the right or authority of a member to engage in, or deploy, some named action. This paper begins by examining how participants authorize the discourse of a co-interactant in one specialized setting: a live news broadcast. I argue that the successful exploitation by a reporter (...) of his/her right to authoritatively describe a scene all are witnessing rests in part on the displayed mutual orientation of his or her co-interactants to that right through the local, contingently achieved deployment of complex discursive practices. After exploring the special case of live news broadcasts, I link this study to other studies of mass media that have explored the link between discursive practices in news broadcasts and reportorial authority. Finally, I argue that the resources I have identified have a more general provenance than live news broadcasts, and reflect on the relation between these findings and recent discussions that explore the authorized use of language. (shrink)

This article is focused on the nature of directives. It draws on Curl and Drew’s analysis of entitlement and contingency in request types and applies this to a corpus of directives that occur in UK family mealtimes involving parents and young children. While requests are built as contingent to varying degrees on the recipient’s willingness or ability to comply, directives embody no orientation to the recipient’s ability or desire to perform the relevant activity. This lack of orientation to ability or (...) desire may be what makes them recognizable as directives. When examining directives in sequence the contingencies were successively reduced or managed during the delivery of the directive, thereby treating contingencies as a resource of the speaker rather than of the recipient. In a sense the entitlement claimed is ‘to tell’ rather than ‘to ask’. In sequences involving multiple/repeated directives, non-compliance led to upgraded directives. The difference in the entitlement claimed, the response options available and the trajectory of multiple requests/directives suggests that participants orient to requests and directives as different actions, rather than more or less forceful formulations of the same. (shrink)