A RT I C L E 49

Managing the ambiguous and conflicting

identities of ‘upline’ and ‘downline’ in a
network marketing firm
Discourse Studies
Copyright © 2002
SAGE Publications.
(London,
Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi)
Vol 4(1): 49–74.
[1461-4456
K E N N E T H C . C . KO N G (200202) 4:1;
H O N G KO N G B A P T I S T U N I V E R S I T Y 49–74; 020893]

A B S T R AC TThis is a study of how ambiguous identities are interactionally

managed in network marketing discourse. Network marketing, as an enterprise
‘using’ friendship to promote products, has been notorious for its exploitative
use of interpersonal meaning. In this study, the interactions between
supervisors (known as ‘uplines’) and subordinates (known as ‘downlines’) in
network marketing firms have been studied and their relationship was found to
be ambiguous and conflicting. On the one hand, they are ‘friends’ because of
the strong emphasis on rapport and harmony in the philosophy of network
marketing; on the other hand, the supervisors have to regulate their
downlines, which unfortunately lacks the legitimacy found in traditional
business firms, as neither of them is an employee of their company. These
ambiguous and conflicting identities motivate the participants to mobilize
pertinent identities so as to manage conflicts, justify themselves and resume
control. Previous research has shown that identities are both interactionally
and retrospectively constructed. This study adds to our understanding that
identities are not only products of interactions but that they are also
interactional resources, which can be mobilized by participants to achieve their
goals, although the identity mobilization does not always result in harmony
owing to the inherent incompatiblity of the identities invoked. Implications for
identity formation in contemporary firms are also drawn.

KEY WORDS: co-construction, conflict management, identity, network marketing,

organizational discourse, talk organization

Language functions as an important constructing force of social reality and,

through conversation, the dynamic negotiation process gives rise to various social
identities, such as gender (Goodwin, 1995), profession (He, 1996; Mandebaum,
1996) and generation (Coupland et al., 1991). The most appropriate term for
capturing this process is ‘co-construction’, which refers to ‘the joint creation of a
form, interpretation, stance, action, activity, identity, institution, skill, ideology,
emotion, or other culturally meaningful reality . . . however [co-construction]
50 Discourse Studies 4(1)

does not necessarily entail affiliative or supportive interactions’ (Jacob and Ochs,
1995: 91). Therefore, basically any social interaction (including disagreement) is
cooperatively constructed, as are the identities involved.
The objective of the present study is to examine how identities are co-
constructed and managed in types of business firms with inherently conflicting
ideologies. In the domain of organizational communication, the existence of
homogenous, stable and uncontested ideologies in contemporary organizations
has been challenged (Collinson, 1992, 1994; Holmer-Nadesan, 1996; Mumby
and Clair, 1997), which highlights the importance of a more vigorous inquiry
into the ways discourse functions to construct, perpetuate and contest the ambi-
guities and conflicts inherent in modern organizations.
However, the fine-grained studies on the linguistic, turn-by-turn construction
of reality in the workplace tend to focus on firms with more or less homogenous
ideology, and with participants who have stable and legitimate role relationships,
characterized by constrained participation mechanisms. An important missing
element in the discourse approach to the workplace reality is the analysis of a
wider range of institutional settings and activities, or ones ‘in which there is no
. . . formal constraint on turn-taking, and therefore in which the distinctiveness
of the discourse, as compared to conversation, is not to be found in stylized
sequential patterns’ (Drew, 1990: 31).
As for conflict, most studies in the tradition of conversation analysis have also
focused on formal settings in which confrontation can only take the form of indi-
rectness and covertness because of their predetermined turn-sequences in those
interactional settings. A neglected area, surprisingly, is that of conflict manage-
ment in interactions which are marked less by predetermined turn-taking rules,
and in interactions in which power distance is minimal. In other words, more
attention should be paid to the study of institutions where there is no fixed role
relationship among participants and where a fluid and flexible participation
structure is discernible.
Network marketing firms offer a very interesting arena for investigating how
people make sense of one another, despite their incompatible ideologies and,
under such conditions, what strategies they employ to present themselves.
Network marketing firms are institutions which intermingle the meanings of
close personal relationships and practical business relationships; these relation-
ships are very different, and even contradictory, in many aspects. The interesting
question is how these relationships can co-exist, how network marketing ogani-
zations (henceforth NMOs) take advantage of this co-existence, and how people
resist this manipulation.
It has been found that identities are dynamic categories that are constructed
during interactions; however, identity can be as much an international resource
for participants to negotiate their identities and goals in discourse as it can be the
outcome of interactions (Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998; Kong, 1998). Hence,
this study attempts to examine how identities can be mobilized as interactional
resources in the process of identity construction. The data for the study mainly
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 51

come from the interactions between experienced uplines and novice downlines in
an NMO, which also sheds light on the socialization practice in contemporary
business firms.

1. Network marketing
Touted as a fairer method of wealth distribution than traditional marketing, net-
work marketing has developed rapidly all over the world. In 1990, over 1000
network marketing companies worldwide employed more than nine million
salespersons who have reported sales of over US$44,000 million to 320 million
consumers, and these numbers are still increasing (Clothier, 1992). These figures
may be exaggerated, but the increasing influence of network marketing has
already been felt by many of us in modern society, since through network mar-
keting our personal lives are penetrated by business activities.
Originally developed in the USA, network marketing (also known as multi-
level marketing) is not a business in itself, but a kind of marketing strategy. The
network marketing strategy differs from traditional marketing strategies in that
products are sold directly from manufacturers to customers without involving
wholesalers, distributors and advertisers, who are usually large business enter-
prises; hence, promotional and distribution costs are purportedly kept to a mini-
mum. Of course, this does not mean network marketing does not need
distributors, but they themselves are the ‘customers’, performing all the func-
tions of wholesalers, distributors and salespersons. The network marketing strat-
egy is also based on the concept of ‘word of mouth’ promotion; customers
consume the products, find them satisfactory, and then ‘promote’ the products to
their ‘network’, which includes friends, relatives, colleagues, and virtually
anyone they know. Money, in the form of commissions and bonuses, is earned
both by successfully selling products and by persuading ‘network’ members to
join the company and become distributors themselves.
In terms of operation, NMOs are rather different from traditional business
firms. The operation of NMOs places particular emphasis on using corporate cul-
ture as a means of control. Corporate culture can be seen as ‘embodiment of
values, norms, and beliefs shared by and affecting the attitudes and behaviour of
members of the organization’ (Kao and Ng, 1992: 185). The culture or ideology
adopted by NMOs is that of intermingling friendship and instrumental relation-
ship business. NMOs try to convince their network marketers that what they are
doing is for the benefit of their friends, not at their expense. The marketers regu-
larly attend rallies and meetings where the benefits of products (usually cosmetic
and health products) are introduced. These meetings are also places where new-
comers and novice marketers are introduced to the idea of network marketing.
Table 1 shows the major differences between traditional organizations and
NMOs:
Bureaucratic organizations legitimize their actions by universal or commonly
shared rules, or laws. On the other hand, NMOs are based on the non-traditional
52 Discourse Studies 4(1)

TA B L E 1. Bureaucratic and direct selling types of organization

Bureaucratic organization Direct selling organization

Legitimization Universal rules, laws Mission: substantive philosophy

Membership Bureaucratic officials
Differentiation Horizontal differentiation by
function: vertical
differentiation by expertise
Stratification Hierarchical distribution of
authority, rewards, status
Recruitment Universalist appointment
based on expertise and
experience
Compensation Financial rewards, especially
salary
Character of tenure Career
of founder and belief in moral
value of entrepreneurialism
Followers
Minimal differentiation of sales
work: administration separated
and maybe differentiated by
function
Undifferentiated authority
structure joined to status
hierarchy: administration may
be hierarchical
Particularist recruitment for
commitment potential, affective
bonds
Combination of material,
purposive, and solidarity
incentives
Way of life

Source: Biggart (1989: 131).

belief that entrepreneurism has a moral basis. Another important difference is

that NMOs are marked by minimal differentiation and undifferentiated authority
structure. No network marketers are, in essence, above others despite that fact
that some marketers are called uplines (marketers who have sponsored people to
become marketers) as long as they have downlines (marketers who have been
sponsored by the uplines and whose sales efforts will be shared by their uplines in
the form of commissions). Network marketers are also awarded honorary titles,
such as Silver Manager and Diamond Manager if they achieve certain sales tar-
gets. Moreover, network marketers are not employees of the NMO, which is
stated very clearly in their company rules and regulations. Network marketers
are only NMO agents, for whom the NMO bears no responsibility in regard to
their behaviour and practice.
The relationship between uplines and downlines is an ambiguous one. On the
one hand, they are friends and offer each other spiritual support – a legitimized
social relationship. On the other hand, they have a non-interpersonal business
relationship in which the upline’s income depends on both their downlines’ sales
efforts and their recommending new downlines under the hierarchy. This is also
a legitimized relationship in society, like employer/employee relationships in
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 53

which a hierarchy is a norm. However, what makes this relationship problematic

and ambiguous is the nature of the actual relationship between the upline and
downline. The upline does not have the same legitimate power of regulation and
control that normal employers or their representatives possess. In NMOs, anyone
can be a distributor as long as he or she pays a certain annual membership fee,
and basically no one can be ‘dismissed’ unless he or she has made some very seri-
ous mistakes, such as engaging in illegal activities. This ‘open door’ policy makes
control and regulation within the hierarchy difficult. It is under these ambiguous
and conflicting conditions that network marketers work together.

2. Three dominant types of talk

In the interaction between uplines and downlines, three main types of talk have
been identified: friendship talk, institutional talk and task-oriented talk, distin-
guished mainly by their content and their linguistic features. Of the three, task-
oriented talk is the most complex in that it contains the features of both
friendship and institutional talk.
Friendship talk: symmetrical conversations between uplines and downlines with
the purpose of building rapport. In terms of content, it covers a wide range of
possible topics, from baby-sitting to money making. Linguistically, this particular
talk is marked by participants’ equal participation in turn distribution and topic
contribution, the occurrence of non-affiliative interruptions, aggravated opposi-
tions, etc.
Institutional talk: asymmetrical conversations between uplines and downlines,
with uplines having an objective of controlling and regulating. Focus on institu-
tional topics. Marked by uplines’ dominance in topic contribution and turn distri-
bution. Rare context for non-affiliative interruptions and aggravated oppositions.
Task-oriented talk: symmetrical conversation with the characteristics of friendship
talk, but with a very different talk orientation, i.e. to accomplish tasks. This cate-
gory of talk is the most frequent in occurrence, and is also the talk category most
subject to contest and confrontations.
It should be noted that these three categories of talk are only analytic con-
structs which help capture the process of construction; they are by no means
fixed pre-ordained categories with clear boundaries. In fact, it is the boundaries
of these talk categories which are the most problematic sites of negotiations
among the participants.

3. Data for analysis1

The interaction (approximately 25 minutes long) comes from a database of
around 10 hours of interactions among network marketers. The interaction to
be analysed in detail takes place between an experienced network marketer and a
novice in the former’s office in the NMO. The experienced upline is a female,
54 Discourse Studies 4(1)

TA B L E 2. Some characteristics of the three modes of talk

Friendship talk Institutional talk Task-oriented talk

Orientations Interpersonal: Institutional: Collaborative: task

rapport building instruction giving accomplishing
or training
Interactional modes Symmetrical Asymmetrical Symmetrical
Constraints on No Yes No
turn-taking, topic
contribution
Interruptions Yes No Yes
(non-affiliative)
Aggravated Yes No Yes
oppositions
Prosodic and Possibly slower/ faster rate of speech to distinguish itself from
non-verbal signals former and subsequent talk, as well as change of tone and facial
expressions

around 30 years old, with over six years’ full-time experience in the NMO. With
over 100 downlines, she is the ‘Super Diamond Manager’ who enjoys high
acclaim and reputation in the company. In contrast, the novice is part-time and
has only been with the company for two months at the time of the interaction
under analysis. Dissatisfied with the lack of promotional opportunity at her day-
time company (where she is a sales supervisor), she told me that she intends to
develop her career in network marketing. She is married with a daughter who
was one year old at the time of the recording.
The two participants had met each other several times before the interaction
took place. The interaction occurs in the working environment of the NMO – in
the upline’s offices. They are aware that they are being recorded. The interaction
can be roughly divided into three phases. First, the uplines talk about a potential
downline. This topic leads to another related phase: the downline’s seeking of
advice on how to successfully conduct network marketing business. The last
phase generally covers some routine business, such as sorting out dates of oppor-
tunity seminars or negotiating the time for the next meeting. The following dis-
cussion is mainly based on the second phase – the advice-seeking phase, in which
their projected identities are at stake.

4.1 DOWNLINE - INITIATED FRIENDSHIP TALK AS A FACE - SAVING DEVICE

The first segment in which identity negotiation takes place is an intersection
between two segments of task-oriented talk (Extract 1). The upline and downline
are discussing a potential downline and the difficulty the downline has experi-
enced in persuading him to come to the company to attend a seminar. The down-
line expresses the difficulty she’s had recruiting enough downlines to meet the
‘quota’, attributing this to her lack of time to attend the seminars in line 3. This
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 55

‘lack of time’ explanation provokes the upline to initiate a directing act of con-
trol, just as an employer would with an employee. In response to that, the down-
line’s strategy is to change the footing with her upline by initiating a segment of
friendship talk in line 5:
Extract 1
1. D: < daan hai kui yau m hai gok dak yau dak jo, je hai yuen chuen mo mat koi nim lai
gai le, ngoh dei jau ji go koi nim... pei yue ngoh choh choh jau hai jue dung di je,
daan hai, yue gwoh yan dei mo gam jue dung goh di ho naan.
< But, what if he doesn’t find it (the business) promising, say, he doesn’t even
have any idea about it? We of course understand the concept... I mean, I was
enthusiastic enough when I just came here, but for those who are less
enthusiastic it would be difficult for us.
2. U: (Talking to another person) wai! m hai li do, gaak lei, 202.
(Back to D) yuen chuen mo mat koi nim goh di a, mo mat koi nim kei sat jui ho nei
do hai giu kui seung lai. mo mat koi nim jau ying goi nei tung kui gong, nei tung
kui gong yat gong sin, gam yeung.
(Talking to another person) Not here! Next door, 202.
(Back to D) For those who don’t have any concept, you’d better ask them to
come and see it for themselves. And before that you can have a little chat
with them first.
3. D: mai jau hai loh, ngoh yau... gam noi do mo teng, yau m gei dak joh, m ji dim tung
kui gong.
That’s the problem. I haven’t attended the courses for quite a long time. I
forgot nearly everything and I don’t know how to talk to them.
4. U: hai loh, dak haan seung lai wan yat wan loh. nei yi ga ye maan m dak haan ga?
jing hai ha jau sin dak?
Exactly, (if) you have time, you can come and join the courses for revision.
Are you not free in the evening? Are you free in the afternoon only, right?
5. D: Hai a, ngaam ngaam jau joh goh ban mooi, ngaam ngaam juen joh a ma. ngoh yi
ga, jau suen yi ga do hai siu siu si gaan, yin hau ha jau faan nguk kei laak, ye
maan do mo chut gwoh gaai.
Yes, my Filipino maid has just left, I just changed to another one. So I don’t
have much spare time. In the afternoon I have to go home, and I don’t even
go out in the evening.
6. U: Hai a? yat yat do m chut gaai? < yat yat do chau jai?
Yeah? You stay home all the time? < watching your kids everyday?
7. D: < dim chut hui a? nei gin ngoh, Jenny da lei ngoh
do hai nguk kei ge.
< How could I go out? I’m always home when
Jenny calls.
8. U: Hai a? oh...
I see...
9. D: Jung chut dak hui bin a? gam juen joh goh san ge ho faan a ma.
How can I go out now? You know it’s troublesome to change a maid.
10. U: oh... gam yi ga, yi ga dim m dim jek, hoi chi fong sam dak lok mei?
I see... so she works okay now? Feeling more at ease?
11. D: O.K. la, jo joh yat goh yuet ji ma goh goh, < ngaam ngaam sign joh contract ji
ma.
56 Discourse Studies 4(1)

She’s working fine. She started work for a month, < she has just signed the
contract.
12. U: < ha ma? ... gam tai ha kui ding dong
sin la.
< Yeah? ... Well, allow some time for
her to adapt.
13. D: Hai a.
Yeah.
14. U: Yue gwoh m hai... nei pang yau jui ho jau hai yeuk kui, yan wai yue gwoh nei m
yuk, bin joh nei ha min goh di do.
But you’d better start making appointments with your friends. Because if you
don’t move, your downlines wouldn’t either.
15. D: ngaan jau jau O.K., hai a.
Afternoons should be O.K., yeah.

From lines 5 to 13, both participants exhibit a different footing, which refers
to ‘the alignments we take up to ourselves and the others as expressed in the way
we manage the production and reception of an utterance’ (Goffman, 1981a:
128). The footing they are now on is that of friendship, as shown by a topic
change. The topic they turn to is an informal one about Filipina maids, in striking
contrast to the formal task-oriented topics of the preceding talk. The change in
footing is also accompanied by a change in prosodic features. Both participants
tend to speak more slowly and use more emotional markers. The average rate of
speech in this stretch of talk is 5 characters per second for the downline and 4.5
characters per second for the upline, compared with the average of 7.6 charac-
ters per second for the downline and 8.6 characters per second for the upline in
the task-oriented talk preceeding and following the friendship talk. This feature
of frienship talk is the opposite of what Tannen (1984) found in her study of
interactions among middle-class American acquaintances who tend to speak
faster than normal. It raises the interesting issue of cross-cultural differences in
‘doing’ friendship. Is the finding just idiosyncratic and not representative of the
real interactions between friends in Chinese contexts? It is likely that rate of
speech alone is not a defining feature of friendship talk, but the contrast with the
previous talk is just that. If the speaker already speaks very fast in the preceding
task-oriented talk, it would be difficult for him or her to speak even faster. What
he or she can do is to speak more slowly to distinguish between his or her friend-
ship talk and the previous talk.
What initiates the downline to begin a friendship talk is the directing act of
the upline in line 4, which is very carefully formulated and exhibits the hidden
agenda of the relationship between uplines and downlines in NMO. The upline
tends to be very indirect. In fact, there are many constraints in making com-
mands or requests in task-oriented talk, in which the upline does not possess the
legitimacy in regulating and controlling their downlines that an employer and
employees in an ordinary work setting would. Far from being direct in making
requests to her downline, the upline is shifting between making a request and
giving advice in her turn (line 4). By saying ‘dak haan seung lai wan yat wan loh’ –
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 57

meaning ‘(If) you have spare time, come here to have some sort of revision’ – the
upline sounds more like she is giving advice than a command, because of the two
softeners – the conditional ‘dak haan seung lai . . .’ (English translation: ‘(if) you
have spare time, come here . . .’) and the ambiguous marker ‘yat’ (literally mean-
ing ‘one’), which serves the pragmatic function of reducing the imposition on the
hearer. This more closely resembles advice given by a friend than a command
given by a boss to a subordinate. Being aware of that, the upline continues to ask
two related questions to make her request stronger – in English translation, ‘Are
you not free at night?’ and ‘Are you free in the afternoon only?’2 However, these
questions, serving as a request that the downline comes more often to the NMO,
are not directly formulated. Instead of asking a positive question ‘Are you free at
night?’, the upline asks a negative question – ‘Are you not free at night?’ – in
order to reduce the imposition on the downline. The next question is positively
formulated, but is hedged with ‘jing hai’ (meaning ‘just/only’) at the beginning of
the question. The upline’s struggle to formulate her request illustrates very well
her dilemma and legitimacy problem.
Despite the careful formulation of the ‘request’ by the upline, the downline
still sees it as a face-threatening move. In ordinary work settings, the response to
commands from above is usually compliance. Of course, resistance and excuses
are possible, but the excuse used is normally one that can be legitimately justi-
fied. Personal reasons are seldom accepted as a legitimate excuse for refusing to
comply with institutional duties, with the exception of real illness. However, in
the configuration of task-oriented talk, the downline can easily turn to a ‘per-
sonal’ reason to justify her inability to come to the company more often, in order
to save her negative face at stake (line 5). In other words, through a change in
footing from ‘colleagues’ to ‘friends’, the downline’s discourse identity has also
been shifted to the related discourse identities3 a friend can assume in an inter-
personal interaction. By changing to the friendship identity, the downline’s con-
stituent of self – the principal – cannot be challenged, in the sense that her own
personal experience and problem should be respected by her friends. This strate-
gic shift of footing is ratified by the upline, who cooperatively constructs the
friendship talk with her in her next turn (line 6). That is when the friendship talk
begins to be cooperatively constructed in a number of turns until line 14, when
the upline brings their interaction back to another task-oriented talk. Although
the upline’s original intention – convincing the downline to come more often – is
unfulfilled, she also sees the exchange as a chance to socialize the downline into
the intertextual practice of business and friendship (Kong, 2001).
As shown in Extract 1, friendship talk is as ‘goal-oriented’ as other types of
talk. Both participants see the identity in question as a strategy to achieve their
goals. However, the nature of the goals in this talk category is different. While the
goals of task-oriented and institutional talk are to get something done within an
institution, the goal of friendship talk is not task-oriented, but resembles that of
ordinary conversations among friends in terms of such features as reciprocity
and topic contribution. If the claim that no interaction is power-free is correct, it
58 Discourse Studies 4(1)

should be equally true that no interaction is goal-free. In fact, no talk is com-

pletely goal-free; friends talking among themselves may wish to understand each
other better, or to learn more from each other.

4.2 DILEMMA IN THE USE OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN TASK - ORIENTED TALK

As shown in Extract 1, task-oriented talk is a dynamic activity in which both
upline and downline can claim identities to save their face and to achieve various
other purposes. It is also a setting in which politeness strategies are negotiated. In
Extract 2, the upline and downline are beginning to talk about the score scheme:
Extract 2
1. U: yue gwoh m hai... nei pang yau jui ho jau hai yeuk kui, yan wai yue gwoh nei m yuk,
bin joh nei ha min goh di do.
Otherwise… you’d better start making appointments with your friends. Because
if you don’t move, your downlines wouldn’t either.
2. D: ngaan jau jau O.K., hai a.
Afternoons should be O.K., yeah.
3. U: hai a, je hai goh daai dung sing tai nei ya ma, gam nei m yuk, gam kui yau m yuk, gam
a…
Yeah, the impetus (of your downlines) depends on you; if you don’t move, they
wouldn’t move, then...
4. D: kei sat go fan so do ho naan ga woh.
The current credit scheme is very difficult to achieve.
5. U: fan so jau jan hai m naan woh.
The credit scheme isn’t difficult at all.
6. D: < ha? je m hai, yue gwo nei yau ha sin hai gung goo joh,
jau gan boon yat di do m naan loh.
< What? Only if your downlines are in good shape,
then it’s not difficult at all!
7. U: gam nei yiu yau gei goh ha sin loh, lo sat gong, yue gwoh nei wa daan kaau yat leung
goh ha sin, gam gang hai m dak la.
Then it depends on how many downline distributors you have. Frankly, if you
rely on only one or two distributors, of course it wouldn’t work.

Again the upline is faced with the same dilemma when requesting her down-
line to spend more time on the business. Again the request is softened by the con-
ditional ‘yue gwoh’ (‘if ’) in line 1. She also makes metaphorical use of language in
line 3, ‘daai dung sing’, meaning ‘impetus’. This is followed by another conditional
to suggest the importance of spending more time. The downline responds to
these indirect requests by changing the topic to the score scheme. She complains
that the current scheme is difficult to achieve. This time, the upline gives a blunt
direct reply of disagreement – ‘fan so jau hai m naan’ – meaning the credit scheme
is not difficult at all. This causes a slight resentment on the part of the downline,
who begins her turn in line 6 with a marker ‘ha’ with strong emphasis, an
English equivalent of ‘What?’. At this point, the upline picks up this signal as the
‘contextualisation cue’ (Gumperz, 1982) for shifting back to a more neutral
request statement. This is why she hedges her suggestion on the importance of
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 59

having more downlines, with ‘lo sat gong’ (‘frankly speaking’) in line 7, hedged
with a conditional.
The upline is always faced with the problem of how to formulate appropriate
requests for action. She understands very well that in order to make her down-
line work harder, she has to use a firmer and more direct approach; however, in
task-oriented talk, the downline can easily challenge the upline since the upline
does not possess legitimacy of control and regulation in their relationship, nor
any interactional advantage in topic contribution and turn-taking. The downline
can change topic easily, as in line 4, and openly show disagreement and resent-
ment, as in line 6.

4.3 CONFRONTATION IN TASK - ORIENTED TALK DUE TO CONFLICTS IN FRIENDSHIP AND

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMES
As shown in Extract 2, in task-oriented talk the upline must struggle to direct
control but at the same time be friendly and non-hostile. Indeed, such talk is also
a site in which downlines can turn the tables and make their case, illustrating the
nature of dynamic human agency in directing and extricating themselves from
the commercialized control of enterprises. The major argument to be made in
this section is twofold. First, confrontation or conflict is, in a more general sense,
a locally managed multiple-turn event, with or without a resolution at the end.
Second, confrontation in network marketing discourse can be caused by the
incompatible frames4 associated with the discourse systems5 involved (friendship
versus institutional); or, viewing interactions as strategic tools for human
agency, participants in network marketing interactions can make strategic use of
interactive frames advantageous to them for negotiation purposes.
Extract 3 follows on from Extract 2, continuing the topic of how to do busi-
ness in network marketing:
Extract 3
1. D: hai ya, je hai yau yiu... wooi m wooi hai maai ye goh fong min wooi yi di le? je
hai, yung yung ga go fong min yap sau, yin hau sin ji... wooi hai < yi di le?
Yeah, would it be easier to do selling first? I mean, is it easier to start with
product users, and then... < Would it be easier?
2. U: < yung... dong
yin yiu leung fong min loh. yung ga yau yiu yau, jo saang yi yau yiu yau, dim gaai
le? kui jo saang yi kui keung a, jo dak bei gaau < lek.
< Of course you
should have both. You need to have customers, and you need to have business
partners as well. Why? If he’s a partner he’d be committed and will do <
better.
3. D: < hai a, doh di loh, hai a.
< Yeah, more (money), yeah.
4. U: gam ho chi nei, nei... pei yue ho chi ngoh yi ga gam yeung, ho haan haan dei, ngoh
di yung ga wa... ngoh wa, e... ngoh, ngoh wah... e..., wai, ga ga loh woh, tiu jing
ga chin loh woh, gam dim a? haan haan dei gam, li do leung goh yi ging, yi ging
chat baak gei fan lok. je hai ngoh ji hai hai gam yi, tau sin ngoh... gam yat faan
lai le < jau.
60 Discourse Studies 4(1)

Just like you... Just like what I’m doing now. Very simple, I told my
customers that the prices will be raised. Very easily I got around 700 credit
points. It’s just that simple. And I come back today < is just to...
5. D: < yan wai nei noi a ma!
< Because you are experienced!
6. U: la, ngoh gam yat faan lai le, jau hai seung da din wa hui man, gam kei sat
< jau hai man joh.
Well, I come back today to phone them only, and actually
< I asked.
7. D: < dak ga?
< Does it work?
8. U: hai a, ga ga woh yiu me a? ai ya... bok meng yiu la. jau hai gam yeung loh. gam
jau, je hai kei sat nei wa naan m naan le?
Yeah, you say ‘Price will be raised, what would you like?’ They (the users)
will order like crazy. So just like this, you think this is difficult?
9. D: ngoh sau tau seung jung yau ho doh gau foh a, kui ga ga ma ngoh maai gau foh,
gau ga bei kui loh.
I still have a lot of old stock at hand, they’re raising the price though. I’m
going to sell my old stock using the old price.
10. U: hai a, dak a... daan hai m < (Inaudible)
Yeah, it’s possible... but < (Inaudible)
11. D: < ngoh jung yau ho doh go di me yuen woh, goh di me
yau yuen a.
< I still got lots of those capsules, those fish oil
capsules.
12. U: oh, goh di nei jiu maai faan, gam a yue yau yuen mo ga, yue yau yuen
< (Inaudible)
Well, you can sell them alright. They won’t raise the price of the fish oil pills,
the fish oil pills < (Inaudible)
13. D: < mei kwok ni jek mo ga?
< They haven’t increased the price of this item in US?
14. U: haak, mo. Gam nei yau goh di ho doh, gam nei dim yeung le? kei sat ho doh yan
do m wooi yi wai hai, yi chin fan a, ho la, ngoh mai gau yi chin fan la, gam hai m
ngaam loh.
No, they haven’t. But you’ve got so many of those, what are you going to do
with them? Most people wouldn’t think of buying that 2000 credit points
themselves, because that’s not right.
15. D: hai loh, soh yi ngoh jau hai m maai gau yi chin fan loh, so yi jau ho naan loh.
Yeah, I agree. That’s why I didn’t buy that 2000 credit points, and that’s why
it’s difficult for me now.
16. U: m hai woh, kei sat nei ying goi lam ha jau hai, yi chin fan naan m naan a? yi chin
fan nei gok dak naan, daan hai, kei sat jau m hai loh. nei lam ha nei goh saang yi
jeung wooi wai nei daai loi di mat ye, nei lam ha.
Well I don’t think so. What you should think is that: is it that difficult to
reach 2000 points? You might find 2000 points hard, but just think about
what your business will bring you. See what I mean?
17. D: Daan hai ngoh tung kui dei goh goh king hoi le, < ho chi kui dei
But when I talked to them about it, < they seemed
18. U: < goh goh king hoi... yan wai nei
tung kui gong goh sam tai mei... mei... mei...
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 61

< It’s because you haven’t got

their mind prepared well enough.
19. D: je hai hoh nang kui dei gok dak do hai yat yeung loh.
Maybe they think that the business is just the same.
20. U: hai loh! yan wai nei tung kui gong ge si hau, nei daai dung m do kui tai do li goh
gam daai ge saang yi < je hai.
That’s it! It’s because when you talked to them, you couldn’t lead them to
realize the greatness of this business, < I mean.
21. D: < m hai tung ngoh goh di... m hai tung ngoh di ha sin gong
a. hai a Jenny tung yat di ha sin gong a.
< It was not... It was not me talking to my downline
distributors. It was Jenny talking to them.
22. U: haak... haak.
Right... right.
23. D: ...daai ga do hai gam ge yi si.
... Another person means the same thing.
24. U: je hai ho chi ngoh dei yi chin ngaam ngaam hoi chi ge si hau, ngoh dei do hai
gaak, je hai ho chi gam tung yan dei gong. tung sap goh gong, hoh nang dak yat
goh dak, waak je sam ji foo tung yi sap goh gong, dak yat goh dak, < je .
It’s just like the time when we first started, we were just like you, telling
people about this (business). There might be only one successful customer out
of ten, or maybe even only one out of twenty, < I mean.
25. D: < hai a. <
< yeah, that’s
true <
26. U: < gong ge si hau
yau jan woh, hau do jan maai woh, je hai ho daam sam la, daan hai nei wa yi ga
jau m tung loh.
< And we were
so nervous that even our mouths quivered. But of course things are different
now.
27. D: m hai, nei giu ngoh gong chaan ban waak je wooi yi di, yan wai chaan ban ngoh
gok dak O.K., jan hai yau yung loh. daan hai yue gwoh kui jan hai jo saang yi lei
gai le, jau bei gaau naan loh.
Well, I guess it’s easier for me to sell products, because I myself find the
products useful. But if you say promoting the business plan, then it would be
a bit more difficult.
28. U: yan wai le... dim gaai? ho doh yan do mei tai do, m hai gam doh yan goh ngaan
gwong hai gam ho, tai jun. je hai ho doh yan do gam yue, on yue yin jong loh.
ngaan gwong m hai goh goh gam yuen ga ma. yue gwoh nei ming baak do, ji do li
goh saang yi ge cheung yuen sing, jau jan hai hai ho ho loh. yue gwoh ngoh dong
choh goh lam faat <
That’s because... most people haven’t got such a good vision to identify (this
opportunity). I mean, most people are satisfied with their current status an
don’t have the vision for their future. But if you can understand and
recognize the long-term prospect of this business, you’ll see that it’s really a
very good business. If I kept thinking in the way I formerly did <
29. D: < m hai, ngoh do ming baak goh cheung yuen sing ge, m hai
ngoh gok dak O.K. ga, kei sat hai. < bat gwoh mo si gaan loh.
62 Discourse Studies 4(1)

< Well, I understand the future prospect; I do think the

business is good. < It’s that I don’t have the time.
30. U: < m hai... soh yi le... nei lam ha, pei yue nei wa
yi chin fan naan a, gam a jan hai gei naan ga! nei lam ha, li goh saang yi yau gei
daai. Yue gwoh nei ying wai yi chin fan yat goh saang yi ngaak, nei do wa, a, ngoh
do mo baan faat jo do, gam mo baan faat, li goh gei daai ge saang yi do yue nei
mo < gwaan.
<Thus... Just think about it, if you say 2000
points is difficult, it is difficult! But just think about how big this business
could be. If you think 2000 points as a business volume is something out of
reach, I have no solution. No matter how great this business is, it has nothing
to do with you.
31. D: < hai a.
< Yeah, it’s true.

Extract 3 can be best captured as a hierarchy of action–opposition sequences

(Hutchby, 1996) in which other adjacency pairs, like question–answer
sequences, are embedded. While the seed of the confrontation – the credit
scheme – had been sown before Extract 3 took place, I argue that the underlying
source of confrontation in this extract is the incompatiblility of the frames and
participation frameworks involved in the two discourse systems (friendship and
institutional control) that are operating here.
The segment does not begin with a confrontation sequence. Rather, there is a
preferred response to the upline’s turn in line 3; that is, the downline agrees with
the upline as to how much emphasis should be put on users and products as
business strategy in network marketing. However, the upline’s next turn (line 4)
is challenged by an opposition move in line 5 in which the downline gives an
aggravated (in contrast with mitigated) opposition by not using any mitigating
devices and putting emphasis on the word ‘noi’, meaning ‘experienced’. The
opposition in this first action–opposition sequence is treated by the upline as an
arguable action, hence she begins to initiate another action–opposition sequence
by introducing the opposition in line 6, starting with a ‘dispreference marker’
(Pomerantz, 1984) – ‘la’, a Cantonese particle which carries only emotional
meanings. Instead of directly opposing the claim made by the upline in line 6, the
downline begins another action–opposition with a question in line 7, a mitigated
opposition. By giving an affirmative answer to the question in line 8, the upline
finishes the above series of action–opposition, since the downline does not raise
opposition to it. Hence, at the same time, a question–answer sequence is used to
bring this round of action–opposition to an end.
This series of action–opposition sequences is ended when the downline does
not start another opposition turn; however, the confrontation between the upline
and the downline in this segment has only just begun. Although the downline
does not initiate opposition to the upline’s affirmative statement in line 8, she
instead initiates a topic shift in her next turn in line 9 in which she talks about
how to deal with the old stocks. The purpose is obvious: to save her face from
being blamed for not working hard, serving the same function of footing shift as
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 63

found in the first segment. Hence, topic shift, as an allowable and normal prac-
tice in conversational talk, is employed by the downline for strategic manipula-
tion at this point. The upline, however, tries to shift back to the topic of
‘insufficient quota’ (her major concern in line 14, skilfully re-initiating the topic
by embedding it in a preferred response to the downline’s previous turn (by
expressing agreement with what the downline says).
The upline’s turn (line 16) not only initiates a topic shift but also serves as a
prelude to another series of action–opposition sequences in Extract 3. The down-
line’s response in line 15 to the upline’s re-initiated topic of ‘buying scores’ is
opposed by the upline in line 16, in which the upline makes an aggravated oppo-
sition turn again. This again forms the arguable action sequence to the downline,
who makes her opposition turn in line 17, forming another hierarchy of
action–opposition sequences until line 25, in which the downline agrees with the
upline’s turn in line 24.
This hierarchy of action–opposition sequences is also coupled with the occur-
rence of another feature common in confrontational talk – interruptions. Not all
interruptions are confrontational; some interruptions are cooperative and affilia-
tive in nature (Hutchby, 1996). Although interruptions can be found in the three
types of talk, it is the non-affiliative interruptions which characterize the task-
oriented talk in the data, since no non-affiliative interruptions can be found in
other categories of talk. The second hierarchy of action–opposition sequences,
from lines 15 to line 24, contains two instances of non-affiliative interruptions,
one initiated by the upline in line 18 and the other initiated by the downline in
line 21. The rivalry in interrupting each other reveals very well the competing
nature of the task-oriented talk, characterized by oppositions and non-affiliative
interruptions.
Although the downline brings the second occurrence of confrontation to an
end with a preferred turn (i.e. agreement) in line 25, she initiates another
action–opposition sequence by disagreeing with the upline in line 29 with an
agreement-prefaced disagreement turn (Pomerantz, 1984) in line 29. Besides, it
is a non-affiliative interruption which leads the upline to make her ‘most aggra-
vated’ opposition in line 30 in which she challenges the downline’s suitability for
work as a network marketer by saying ‘gam mo baan fat, yi goh gei daai ge sang yi
do yue nei mo gwaan’, meaning ‘I have no solution. No matter how great this busi-
ness is, it has nothing to do with you.’
The upline makes this most aggravated and face-threatening opposition not
just because the downline opposes her action in line 29. In fact, although the
downline’s opposition is done interruptively, it has been mitigated by an agree-
ment preface (‘ngoh do ming baak goh cheung yuen sing ge’, meaning ‘Yes, I also
understand the everlasting nature [of the business]’). It is already a relatively
mild opposition move, compared with the previous opposition turns of both the
upline and downline. What makes the upline initiate her most aggravated oppo-
sition in line 30 is the inherent incompatibility of the frames involved in this seg-
ment, with the seed of confrontation sown long before the segment begins. In
64 Discourse Studies 4(1)

other words, the aggravated turn is the accumulated result of confrontation in

the previous turns.
The source of confrontation in this extract can be traced back to the first
extract, in which the downline initiates a friendship talk to save her face from
being challenged by her downline for not spending enough time on the business.
Her reason is that of ‘not enough time’. As a totally acceptable reason for inter-
personal negotiation in interactions among friends, the ‘lack of time’ excuse has
obviously been ‘transferred’ to this segment of task-oriented talk. Using this as
the justification for not meeting the quota, the downline is manipulating the
interpersonal frame of friendship to negotiate with the upline, who, on the other
hand, is using the institutional frame of management of control to do her job. To
the downline, the failure to meet the quota because of her lack of time should at
least be met with sympathy, if not accepted as reasonable, in an interpersonal
relationship. However, to the upline, who thinks she is directing her downline in
an institutional framework, lack of time is an unacceptable excuse for not fulfill-
ing an institutional duty, and she opposes any action turn in which lack of time
is proposed as the justification by the downline. Figure 1 illustrates the potential
conflicts in the two discourse systems and the related frames, and the possible
result:

Discourse System Related Frame Reasonable

of Friendship

Task-oriented Failure to meet the quota Interpreted

Talk owing to lack of time as:

Discourse System
of Institution Related Frame Inefficient,
lazy

FIGURE 1. Mismatch of discourse systems and frames in task-oriented talk

As a result, the task-oriented talk – as the intersection between two discourse

systems (those of friendship and institutional management) – becomes a site of
intense struggle of frame and identity negotiation, in which the participants
manipulate the frame to the advantage of the identity they are constructing. It
can therefore be argued that the interdiscursitivity of discourse systems can be
manipulated not only by the business enterprise and their representatives – the
upline in the case of the interactions being studied here – but also by their
employees and clients – that is, the downlines – who can play an active role in
resisting management’s profit-making interests.
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 65

4.4 UPLINE - INITIATED INSTITUTIONAL TALK

As has already been seen in the discussion of Extract 3, task-oriented talk is
characterized by identity rivalry and contest through intense oppositions, inter-
ruptions and topic shifts. However, as institutions putting much emphasis on
interpersonal relationships, NMOs and their representatives must balance their
control of, and rapport with, their employees, i.e. the downlines, in order to
maintain a harmonious relationship. Confrontations should, as a result, be
avoided at all cost, but when they become manifest, uplines must repair the dam-
aged relationship by use of a number of devices. Open repairs – that is, bringing
the confrontation to the surface for discussion – are rare because their relation-
ship is asymmetrical (although not as legitimately asymmetrical as those found
in typical organizations). Open discussion of conflicts seems to undermine the
already jeopardized authority of the uplines. On the other hand, open negotia-
tion of confrontation is contrary to the objectives of NMOs, which strive for har-
monious and equal relationships between uplines and downlines, and open
negotiation of confrontation has, to some extent, assumed the role of confronta-
tion. However, instead of sweeping the confrontation under the carpet, uplines
can invoke an institutional frame to repair the jeopardized relationship, thereby
distancing themselves from the confrontation and, more importantly, resuming
control over the turn and topic management.
Following the manifest confrontation in Extract 3, Extract 4 shows how
uplines manipulate institutional talk to repair confrontation and to resume con-
trol over the downlines:
Extract 4
1. U: nei lam ha, yue gwoh nei hoi joh gaan po tau, nei m ho wa me ye, nei yi ga nei jo
li goh saang yi a, nei jo XXX paai hai mei? Nei goh target, nei yat goh sales a, bei
nei yat fan yan gung, daan hai nei yiu me gei doh target a?
Just imagine, if you own a shop, say, the kind of business you’re doing now.
You’re selling XXX products, right? You are a salesperson, earning a salary,
but how big is your sales target?
2. D: ngoh li fan yi ga jau ji yau di laak. m hai, daan hai ngoh gok dak je hai yi chin fan
m hai doh, daan hai yiu hai yat goh si gaan lei gai loh. yue gwoh duen si gaan jau
bei gaau naan loh. je hai nei mau mau yin leung saam goh yuet, je hai leung saam
goh yuet si gaan yat ding yiu jo do yi chin fan jau bei gaau naan loh.
My current position is less rigid. I mean, I don’t think that 2000 points is a
big amount, it just also depends on timing. If you’ve got to achieve it in a
short period, it will be a bit difficult. I mean, if you have to reach this amount
within two or three months it is difficult.
3. U: oh, gam gung si mo wa yat ding yiu nei gam yeung, je hai nei ji gei hoh yi bo chue
ding ge. < nei ge si gaan fan pooi.
Well, the company doesn’t require you to be exactly like this; I mean you can
do some planning beforehand. < Your time management.
4. D: < oh... je... je hai goh goh... e... L.O.I. jau wooi cheung siu siu loh. ngoh
gok dak hai yau, daan hai jau m hoh yi wa mau mau yin yat hoi chi jau L.O.I., jau
ho naan, ho doh si do yiu ji gei bei maai, yue gwoh gam yeung.
< I mean, that... L.O.I. would need more time. I know it’s possible,
66 Discourse Studies 4(1)

but it’s not something you could get right at the very start, I mean, to be an
L.O.I. And in many cases if you really want to be a L.O.I., you have to buy
the credits yourself.
5. U: gam a, nei ji gei yiu gung goo siu siu loh. < ho chi pei yue ngoh gam, ngoh yat hoi
chi.
Well, then you have to better prepare yourself. < Just like say, me, when I
started.
6. D: < hai a hai a.
<Yes, yes
7. U: ngoh yat ho chi dai yat goh yuet ngoh dak yat goh ha sin ji ma, gan jue dai yi goh
yuet ngoh yau chat goh ha sin, ngoh mai L.O.I. loh… hoi chi hoi chi gam yeung
mong lok, gam nei yiu wan yan loh. je hai yue gwoh pei yue nei wa, ngoh tung
pang yau gong, yat ding m dak do dak laak, yiu kaau nei …<
In the first month when I started I only got one downline distributor, but
then in the second month I got seven downlines, so I became an L.O.I. So in
this way the network grows, but of course you have to recruit more people. I
mean, say, if you say, ‘I’ll talk to my friends in my own way’ then most
probably you wouldn’t succeed, rather you have to ... <
8. D: < m hai a, yau si jan
hai nei di si gaan ho... yau... yau... yau si bei gaau mong di gam yeung, teng kui
gong yat chi, gam a gam a... ngoh tung kui gong mah..., ji chin ngoh do yau tung
kui gong joh yat chi ga laak, gam ling ngoi joi yeuk a Jenny waak je wooi ho di loh.
<Not really, sometimes
they don’t have the time... like sometimes when they’re busy, they can only
attend the course once... I talked to him..., I talked to him once before that.
Maybe it’d be better to have Jenny talk to him again.
9. U: Jui jung yiu le, jau hai nei yeuk yan goh jan si yeuk dak ho di. nei yeuk dak hang
ding di. nei yeuk dak, je hai, nei yiu yeuk dak ho di loh ___
The most important thing is, when you make an appointment with people you
have to do it well, in a more confirmative manner. You do it, I mean, in a
better way ___ (A turn of around 2 minutes which is not completely shown
here owing to lack of space.)
10. D: < nei naam pang yau hai mai fei fei dei goh goh lai ga?
< Is that chubby guy your boyfriend?
11. U: hai a. gei nin do mo yan gung ga la li di.
Yes, he is. They haven’t got any pay rise for several years.
12. D: hai me? gam chaam!
Really? Shame!
13. U: je hai kui dei mo yan gung ga ga, kui yi di m hai chaam a?
They don’t have a pay rise. Don’t you think it’s a pity?
14. D: daan hai gam, daan hai kui commission dim yeung a?
But how about his commission rate?
15. U: haak, kui dei li hong hai mo yan gung ga ga, gam kui dei yi chin yau wan gam
doh, yi ga yau hai wan gam doh, je nin nin do cha m doh. je hai yi chin, hoh nang
ngoh gei nin chin sik kui, waak je kui < kui yap hong goh jan si jan hai bei yan dei
jan hai jaang ho yuen loh.
Well, the field he’s working in just doesn’t have a pay rise. I mean, it’s just
around the same amount every year. Or maybe several years ago when I first
met him, maybe he, < when he joined the industry his pay was really much
more than others.
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 67

16. D: < gam kui si gaan yau cheung a.

< But he has been working long hours.
17. U: kui di yan gung jan hai go ho doh gam, daan hai yi ga < maan maan gam yeung,
je.
His pay was really much higher, but now < it gradually.
18. D: < siu faan di a?
< Getting less?

Extract 4 starts with the upline making the assumption that the downline
will open a shop (‘nei lam ha, yue gwoh nei hoi gaan po tau’) in line 1. However, this
assumption is interrupted, in the same turn, by another idea: how many targets
the downline has to take care of in her full-time day job. First, she makes a confir-
matory question concerning the downline’s place of work (‘nei jo XXX paai hai
mei?’, meaning ‘The kind of business you’re doing now’, and then she asks how
many targets the downline has to take care of (‘nei yat me gei doh target a?’). The
upline’s use of questions after the confrontation can be said to be persuasive in
function, as questions are widely used in persuasive discourse in order to elicit
the hearers’ responses and make the persuasion more interactive and collabora-
tive. Apart from this obvious persuasive function, questions serve an important
role in this upline’s turn, that is, her attempt in gaining control over the down-
line, at least in topic contribution. From the perspective of questions as a coher-
ence constraint on the following utterance of the hearer, the two questions asked
by the upline can be seen as a control device on the topic contribution of the
downline – who, as the above analysis shows, goes far beyond the control of the
upline in the task-oriented talk, not only in terms of the topic and turn contribu-
tion but also their relationship, which has become too personal and, worst of all,
confrontational.
Nevertheless, the upline’s attempt to gain the right of topic contribution is
only partially successful. Although the first part of utterance of the downline’s
turn (line 2) is answering the question posed by the upline, the second part of her
utterance shifts back to her persistent complaint: the difficulty of the current
score scheme. This can be seen as the residue of the task-oriented talk, in which
both participants have an equal contribution right. This poses a contrast with
professional/lay interactions, in which this residue problem is rare because of
their strongly predetermined turn sequence and structure.
The upline’s failure to regain control by using questions next leads the upline
to initiate an institutional talk. By saying ‘Oh’ in line 3, the English equivalent of
‘Well’, the upline is signalling a change of footing with the downline, or using
what Gumperz calls a ‘contextualisation cue’ (1982). The strategy the upline
employs to invoke the institutional frame is to foreground the company (‘gung-
si’). Apart from invoking the institutional frame of an employer/employee rela-
tionship – to the advantage of the upline – foregrounding of the company, for the
first time in this conversation, also changes the discourse identity or the partici-
pation framework of the upline and downline. The upline is now the animator of
the company and is not morally or personally responsible for the content of what
68 Discourse Studies 4(1)

follows, so as to avoid further conflicts between the interpersonal and institu-

tional framework. This change of participation framework also has a ‘soothing’
effect on the previous confrontation, highlighting the institutional role of the
upline in directing and controlling the downline’s performance. In other words,
by changing the discourse identity, the upline can foreground the institutional
role of manager while at the same time downplaying the manipulative and
profit-dependent role of an upline.
In fact, it is sometimes very difficult to delineate precisely the boundaries of
talk. For example, in Extract 4, do the upline’s questions in line 1 mark the begin-
ning of the institutional talk or does the change of discourse identity in line 3 do
so? The question–action turns in lines 1 and 2 seem to act as a precursor to the
initiation of the change in the discourse identity in line 3, activating the institu-
tional talk which follows. This perhaps illustrates the difficulty of marking con-
versational boundaries, which are themselves the negotiated products of social
interactions. The institutional utterance initiated by the upline is, in this
instance, very successful. The downline cooperates with the upline in continuing
the topic of how to make better use of time in the business, instead of complain-
ing about the difficulty of the credit point scheme.

4.5 ANOTHER INSTANCE OF DOWNLINE - INITIATED FRIENDSHIP TALK

Extract 4 showed how institutional talk can resolve conflicts and regain control
of turn and topic management, by distancing the upline from the conflict and
foregrounding her directive role in the institution as a manager. Extract 5 pres-
ents the final resolution phase of the confrontation in the interaction:
Extract 5
1. U: m hai siu ge, je hai ping gwan faan loh. mo ga yan gung ma, mai yau hai gam. je
hai leung maan leng saam maan man, je hai leung maan leng man yat goh yuet__
Well, not really getting less, but just an average. They don’t have a pay rise
though, it’s still around twenty thousand something for a month __ (A turn of
round 30 seconds)
2. D: m kei sat yi chin man ngoh m hai wa doh loh, yi hai hai yat goh si gaan, je hai yat
ding yiu yau goh si gaan dei lei ho gan yiu, ho chi choh choh ngoh hai ho di le si
gaan le, tau yat goh yuet yau m chut hui jo ye la, yau m sui yiu goo lui a, yan wai
yau gung yan hai do la, jau ho ho doh loh. yi ga jau m hai loh, je hai saai ho doh
si gaan baai joh heung nguk kei sin, yin hau sin hoh yi goo do kei ta goh di loh.
Well, I don’t mean 2000 points is too much. It’s just the timing, I mean, a
good timing and environment is very important. Like when I first started I
had more time. It was better as I didn’t have a full-time job, and I didn’t have
much to worry about since the maid was there.
3. U: gam do ngaam, soh yi nei... nei jan hai yau yiu fan pooi di si gaan loh, haak.
Yeah, you’re also right. So that’s why you have to take good care of your time.
4. D: hai a, soh yi ngoh yi ga ngaam ngaam kui ding joh la, yat goh yuet ji hau, goh
gung yan O.K. la, gam yau mat ye jau hoh yi joi tau yap gwoh loh. kei sat ngoh do
gok dak ho hoh sik ga, yue gwoh ngoh tau do si gaan ngoh wooi.
Yeah, she’s been working for a month and she’s doing well now, so I can
come back again. Indeed I believe in this business; it’s just the problem of time.
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 69

5. U: hai a, nei jan hai yiu fan pooi ho si gaan loh, hai a, nei yiu fan pooi si gaan loh, je
hai jeung goh si gaan tai ha dim fan pooi, < kei sat.
Yeah, that is why you really need to use your time wisely. < And actually.
6. D: < waak je ngoh jun leung wooi heung
ngaan jau loh.
< I guess maybe I’ll come in
afternoons.
7. U: hai loh, ngaan jau loh. ngaan jau doh di faan lai, gam nei yeuk di pang yau je hai
jo sales, haang gaai a, gam hoh yi seung lai ga ma, nei jui ho ga laak, li di gam ji
yau.
Yeah, come in afternoons. Come back in afternoons, and many of your
friends are salespeople; they can come in afternoons. You are more flexible in
working hours.

Extract 5 begins with the upline’s long turn of advice-giving, drawing on her
own personal experience. However, instead of highlighting the significance of
her experience herself, the upline refers back to what the downline has said in
the previous Extracts in which she complains that she does not have enough time
to do the business. In so doing, the upline can reduce the imposition on the
downline. However, the downline still treats this ‘advice’ as face-threatening and
begins to initiate another friendship talk in line 2 again, by talking about her
family problem. At the same time, she slows down her speaking pace (average of
5.1 characters per second), making it similar to her speaking rate in the previous
friendship talk (average of 5 characters per second). However, unlike in Extract
1, the upline does not ratify the downline’s projected friendship identity, nor
make an opposition to the downline’s turn, as in the third segment where she
challenges the validity of lack of time as a reasonable justification for not meet-
ing the quota. Instead, she makes a compromise by highlighting the importance
of time management. She does not slow down her speaking pace, as she did in
the first segment when engaging in friendship talk.
Despite that, the downline makes her second attempt to change the footing
with the upline in line 4, in which she almost repeats the same proposition as in
her previous turn. Again, the upline does not ratify this change and repeats once
again the importance of time management as the way of solving the downline’s
personal problem. In line 6, the downline makes a compromise and indirectly
agrees to spend more time in the business by coming more frequently to their
company in the afternoon.
As has been seen, Extract 5 is a conflict resolution phase in which both par-
ties must negotiate their identities in order to come up with a tentative solution, if
not another confrontation. In order to save her face, the downline attempts, once
again, to shift to the friendship talk by changing her footing with the upline, who
does not ratify the friendship identity being constructed by the downline. Instead,
she makes a compromise by highlighting the importance of time management,
which can save the downline’s face and at the same time has fulfilled the upline’s
agenda of controlling and directing.
70 Discourse Studies 4(1)

5. Conclusion
In previous work on institutional discourse, conflicts have been studied as the
outcome of conflicting or incompatible ideologies or identities in an institution,
especially as related to clashes between the professional and lay domains. These
studies argue that the different orientations of the participants in institutional
discourse are the major cause of their miscommunication and confrontation.
Focusing on the interactional resources the participants deploy in resolving their
conflicts, these studies fail to see that identities can be one of the interactional
resources for dealing with conflicts.
This study has focused on a relatively unexplored area of discourse in which
participation structure is unfixed, fluid and more negotiable, and has under-
scored the dynamics of identity construction and negotiation in upline–down-
line interactions, through interactive devices such as changes in footing, frames
and discourse identities.
Friendship identity is often invoked by friendship talk at the beginning of
interactions, useful for maintaining the interpersonal tie and downplaying the
business-oriented aspects of their activities, before moving on to the task-
oriented talk to deal with their ‘business’. In the midst of their interactions, vari-
ous identities are invoked by both uplines and downlines for interactional pur-
poses. Uplines may initiate an institutional talk, by invoking the corresponding
identities of institutional control and regulation, in order to resume control or
justify their action. On the other hand, downlines can invoke the friendship talk
to evade responsibility or justify their action/inaction. Their interactions always
end with a friendship talk to reinforce their rapport.
Of course, these talk categories are only arbitrary and, as has been shown,
the boundaries of talk are the sites of the most intense struggle, negotiation and
contest, strongly revealing the fuzziness and multiplicity of our identities.
Detailed analysis of the interaction together with the other four upline–downline
interactions shows that they follow a rather regular pattern. Table 3 shows the
sequential pattern of talk in upline–downline interactions, as well as the topics,
initiator and interactional functions of each talk category.
The present study also has implications in terms of the identity-formation in
contemporary firms. The identity of comtemporary workers is constructed along
the boundaries of the many discourse systems they belong to, and it is through
the crossing and closing of those boundaries that their seemingly stabilized iden-
tities are fashioned and contested. NMOs attempt to create a new identity advan-
tageous to their operations – an identity that embodies Du Gay’s (1996) notion of
‘entrepreneur of self ’ in contemporary society, with strong emphasis on self-
regulation and control. By promoting the ‘entrepreneur of self ’ as the prototypi-
cal identity of present-day workers, post-modern firms are not without problems.
This study has illuminated the inherent dilemmas facing NMOs and their rep-
resentatives, especially the uplines. As an institution bridging friendship and
business, NMOs exploit the intersection between these two domains. However,
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 71

TA B L E 3. Sequential pattern of talk in upline–downline interactions

Sequence Topics Initiator Interactional functions

Friendship talk Family, jobs, health, Upline or downline To create a friendly

money, etc. atmosphere

Task-oriented talk Any institutional Upline or downline To deal with business

topics but in a friendly
manner

Friendship talk Family, jobs, health, Downline To save face and

money, etc. evade responsibility
OR

Institutional talk Advice-giving, Upline To resume

selling products institutional control
and resolve conflicts

Task-oriented talk Any institutional Upline or downline To deal with business

topics but in a friendly
manner

Friendship talk Family, jobs, health, Upline or downline To end the

money, next meeting interactions in a
time friendly and non-
business way

just as uplines can use friendship talk to create meanings, downlines can also
make use of it in order to evade responsibility and justify their action/inaction. In
short, both uplines and downlines can exploit friendship talk, each for their own
interactional advantage. In addition, identities can be the products of mobiliza-
tion by human agents rather than preordained entities, and can be invoked lin-
guistically for interactional purposes. Interestingly, the tension between
friendship and business in NMO interactions motivates participants to mobilize
various identities (related to friendship/institutional control) to deal with these
conflicts. However, owing to the inherent incompatibility of these identities, the
identity mobilization may lead to even further conflicts and discontent.

NOTES

1. The transcription system is adopted from the Mandarin and Cantonese Pronunciation
Dictionary (1987) published by Chung Hwa Book Company. Symbols in the transcrip-
tions are as follows: small pauses represented by small dots ‘. . .’; interruptions by trian-
gular bracket ‘<’; incomplete transcribed turns by underlining ‘__’.
72 Discourse Studies 4(1)

2. In Cantonese, questions are formed by an ordinary statement with a question particle

(ga, a, meh) and/or rising intonation at the end.
3. Discourse identity (Scollon, 1995) is based on Goffman’s (1981b) concept of partici-
pation framework. A participation framework is made up of ‘a set of positions which
individuals within perceptual range of an utterance may take in relation to what is
said’ (Schiffrin, 1990: 242). Both producer and recipient can occupy a certain posi-
tion, as shown in the following diagram, although the reception end of a discourse is
seldom made explicit in literature (Scollon, 1995):
Productive Receptive
1. animator mechanical receptor
2. author rhetorical interpreter
3. principal responsible judge
An animator is basically an aspect of producer involved in the actual physical produc-
tion of talk; an author is an aspect creating talk; and lastly, a principal is an aspect
responsible for the content of the talk. These roles may or may not be performed by the
same person even if they are all activated in an utterance. Similarly, from the reception
side, a receptor is an aspect of a recipient who is only technically receiving what is
said. An interpreter may need to interpret what is said, while a judge is responsible for
the quality of an utterance, in terms of truth, validity, and so forth. Again, a single
person may or may not perform all these receptive roles during interaction.
4. Following the tradition of most linguists, I use the term ‘frames’ to mean plans for
understanding through which the world is interpreted and judged (Dechert, 1983).
However, these plans are not necessarily static stored knowledge or cognitive schemata
as used in the traditional psychological sense (see Resnick et al., 1991, for the current
view of ‘socially shared cognition’).
5. A discourse system (Scollon and Scollon, 1995) is defined as a self-contained system
of communication with particular ideological positions, specific forms of discourse,
interpersonal relationships and socialization practice. These elements are mutually
dependent and combine to form a particular discourse system. The example cited in
Scollon and Scollon (1995) for illustrating this concept is the utilitarian discourse
system.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

This paper is based on my PhD research. I would like to thank my supervisor, Ron Scollon,
for reading the earlier version of this article. I am also grateful to the other members
of my supervision panel – Vijay Bhetia and David Li, the thesis examiners – James
Gee, Srikant Sarangi and Mary Erbaugh, and an anonymous reviewer for their invaluable
suggestions.

REFERENCES

Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds) (1998) Identities in Talk. London: Sage.

Biggart, N.W. (1989) Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Clothier, P. (1992) Multi-level Marketing: A Practical Guide to Successful Selling. London:
Kogan Page.
Collinson, D. (1992) Managing the Shopfloor: Subjectivity, Masculinity and Workplace
Culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
 Kong: Network marketing discourse 73

Collinson, D. (1994) ‘Strategies of Resistance: Power, Knowledge and Subjectivity in the

Workplace’, in J.M. Jermier, D. Knights and W.R. Nord (eds) Resistance and Power in
Organizations. London: Routledge.
Coupland, N., Coupland, J. and Giles, H. (1991) Language, Society and the Elderly. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Dechert, H.W. (1983) ‘How a Story Is Done in a Second Language’, in C. Faerch and G.
Kasper (eds) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, pp. 175–95. London: Longman.
Drew. P. (1990) ‘Conversation Analysis: Who Needs It?’, Text 10(1/2): 27–35.
Du Gay, P.D. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1981a) ‘Footing’, in E. Goffman (ed.) Forms of Talk, pp. 124–59.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, E. (1981b) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, M.H. (1995) ‘Co-construction in Girls’ Hopscotch’, Research on Language and
Social Interaction 28(3): 261–81.
Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
He, A.W. (1996) ‘Constructing Discourse Identities in the Openings of Academic
Counselling Encounters’, in H. Mokros (ed.) Interaction and Identities. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Holmer-Nadesan, M. (1996) ‘Organizational Identity and Space of Action’, Organization
Studies 17(1): 49–81.
Hutchby, I. (1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jacob, S. and Ochs, E. (1995) ‘Co-construction: An Introduction’, Studies in Language and
Social Interaction 1995: 91–103.
Kao, H.S.R. and Ng, S.H. (1992) ‘Organisational Commitment and Culture’, in R.I.
Westwood (ed.) Organisational Behaviour: Southeast Asian Perspectives. Hong Kong:
Longman.
Kong, K.C.C. (1998) ‘Politeness of Service Encounters in Hong Kong’, Pragmatics 8(4):
555–75.
Kong, K.C.C. (2001) ‘Marketing of Belief: Intertextual Construction of Network
Marketers’ Identities’, Discourse & Society 12(4): 473–503.
Mandelbaum, J. (1996) ‘Constructing Social Identity in the Workplace: Interaction in
Bibliographic Database Searches’, in H. Mokros (ed.) Interaction and Identities. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Mumby, D.K. and Clair, R.P. (1997) ‘Organizational Discourse’, in T.A. van Dijk (ed.)
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction.
London: Sage.
Pomerantz, A. (1984) ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of
Preferred Dispreferred Turn-Shapes’, in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of
Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D. (eds) (1991) Perspectives on Socially Shared
Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schiffrin, D. (1990) ‘The Management of a Co-operative Self during Argument: The Role
of Opinions and Stories in Arguments’, in A.D. Grimshaw (ed.) Conflict Talk.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, R. (1995) ‘Matching Discourse Identity to Social Identity: One Source of
Confusion in Intercultural Communication’, paper presented at the 5th International
Conference on Cross-Cultural Communication: East and West, 15–19 August, Harbin,
China.
74 Discourse Studies 4(1)

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (1995) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach.

Oxford: Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

K E N N E T H C . C . KO N G
holds a PhD in discourse and communication studies and has
academic interests in critical discourse analysis, intercultural pragmatics, English for
specific purposes, and language education. His current research deals with the contrastive
discourse of Chinese and English research articles, and multimodal analysis. He has
published in journals such as Text, Pragmatics and Discourse & Society, and is currently
Assistant Professor of Linguistics in the Department of English Language and Literature
of the Hong Kong Baptist University. A D D R E S S : Department of English Language and
Literature, Hong Kong Baptist University, Waterloo Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong. [email:
kkong@hkbu.edu.hk]