SOCIOLINGlJISTICS: Interactional 9

language of face-to-face interaction. The foml of inter­ action most commonly studied in this framework is ordinary ; but research has also focused on other genr~s, such as interviews, public lectures, and classroonl discourse, and on specific strategies, such as asking questions and telling stories. Work in this area can be distinguished by its relative focus either on the linguistic phenomena or on the interaction. Some lin­ guists use the tape-recorded language of real interaction as a source of data for linguistic analysis, the main goal of which is understanding the linguistic structures found in the transcript. Work in this branch of discourse analy­ sis is an extension of grammatical analysis beyond the sentence level. Others use their knowledge of linguistic phenomena to account for the processes and outcomes of interaction. This branch of may be called I[nteractional] S[ociolinguistics]. In contrast to CONVERSATION ANALYSIS [q. v. ]-a subdiscipline of eth­ nomcthodological sociology whose prirnary concern is denlonstrating the universal orderliness of everyday be­ havior-IS is associated with anthropology, and is fre­

D . -. - -~.'. ~ .- --- ­ - . --.. lor f\P­ quently concerned with culturally identified interactional pI In Oxford International EncyclopedIa strategies. Wd of , vol. 4, ed. by William rUsm and The backbone of IS is the detailed transcription of til Bright. Oxford and New York: if.: Stan­ audio- or video-taped interaction. Transcription systenlS f~Oxford University Press, 1992. vary, depending on conventions established in particular disciplines and the requirenlents of particular theoretical assumptions and methodological practices. [See Dis­ SOCIOLINGUISTICS. [This entry is concerned with course, article on Transcription of Discourse.] However, the ways in lvhich language is integrated with aspects most interactional sociolinguists attelTIpt to represent of human society--e.g., social identity in terlns of class intonational and prosodic contours in the transcription, and role, the social situation, social interaction, and sinc~ these are often crucial for analysis. social change. It conlprises five articles: A theoretical fralnework underlying much of the re­ Interactional Sociolinguistics search in IS is the schematization of politeness phenoln­ Language Planning ena. Goffman 1967 observed that speakers serve two Minorities and Sociolinguistics 'face' requirements: the POSITIVE FACE need to show Quantitative Sociolinguistics involvement with others, and the NEGATIVE FACE need SociohisU)rical Linguistics not to offend others. Lakoff 1979 sees linguistic choices The term "\'o~iolinguistics' is often used to refer partic­ as resulting froln the application of underlying RULES OF ularly t4 studies ~f~om the vie~i,pO;flt of linguistics,. for RAPPORT. She has devised a scherna to account for the work from t'he viewpoint of sociology, see Sociology of way speakers choose not to say exactly what they mean, I.... anguage. F'or related topics, see Address; Attitudes to in order to serve the social requirements of interaction-~ Language; Obso~escent Languages; Power and Lan­ i.e. face needs. L~akoff suggests that speakers choose guage; Register and Style; Social Dialect; Social Struc­ anlong three pragrnatic rules which result in three dif.. ture and Language; and Variation Analysis.] ferent cOllununicative styles: Rule 1, 'Don't inlpose'l, results in a DISTANT style; Rule 2, 'Give options', results in a DEFERENT style; and Rule 3, 'Be friendly', gives Interm·tional Sociolinguistics L J J ·fANWf; fJ ,~O~;l\,..., rise to a style based on CAMARADERIE. Brown & l...ev­ With the rise () interest in discourse analysis, a grow­ inson 1987 ha ve formalized and elaborated these sche­ ing number of linguists have turned to analyzing the nlas as UNIVERSALS OF POLITENESS phenOfnena. 10 SOCIOLINGUISTICS: Interactional Sociolinguistics

Gumperz 1982 shows that speakers use CONTEXTUAL­ British English-speaking and Indian English-speaking IZATION cues--prosodic and paralinguistic features, fa­ Londoners, by following these steps: miliar formulaic expressions and conversational rou­ (a) Tape-recording and transcribing interaction among tines, and identifiable conventions for organizing and speakers of different cultural or subcultural back­ sequencing infonnation-to signal not only what they grounds mean to say, but also what SPEECH ACTIVITY they are (b) Interviewing participants separately to gain insight engaged in, i.e., what they think they are doing at each into their interpretations of the interaction, and to point in the interaction. Gumperz departs from iInme­ identify the linguistic phenomena which led to their diately preceding linguistic theory by placing at the core interpretations theoretical framework features which had previ­ of his (e) Where possible, comparing instances of cross-cul­ ously been dismissed as marginal to the linguistic sys­ tural with recordings of similar speech tem~ events involving participants of a single cultural In giving prominence to the notion of speech activity, background this approach to IS builds directly on Bateson's (1972) (d) Examining the tape and transcript to identify the notion of FRAMING. Bateson points out that no message linguistic strategies for signaling frames, and iden­ (the of words or utterances) can be interpreted tifying speech activities which were differentially without reference to a metamessage about the frame. interpreted by the culturally different participants For example, any utterance can mean the opposite of (e) Explaining how the cultural differences in interpre­ what it says if the speaker is operating in a frame of tive norms led to the differing interpretations, and play, irony, joking, or teasing. A formidable, multi­ consequently the breakdown in communication layered framework for frame analysis is presented by (f) Checking the cultural basis of interpretive norms by Goffman 1974. Theories of framing have been a fruitful playing segments of the interaction for other mem­ source of work in lexical semantics as well as IS; the bers of the cultural groups represented, to see if latter sees the language produced in interaction as the their reported interpretations follow patterns similar' means for accomplishing continual shifts in FOOTING to those identified for participants among participants (Gaffman 1981, Tannen & Wallat 1987)" Tannen 1984 extends the paradigm of cross-cultural Another key element in Gumperz's theoretical frame­ conlmunication to account for conversation among work is CONVERSATIONAL INFERENCE: not only do par­ Americans of different subcultural backgrounds. Indi­ ticipants glean meaning from words and phrases as they viduals develop unique blends of signaling habits as they occur, but they also nlake active predictions about what learn from peers in a particular speech community­ will come next, based on the line of interpretation influenced by, at least, regional, ethnic, class, age, and suggested by on-going talk as measured against prior gender differences. These habits, which together make interactive experience. In Gumperz's view, speakers do up an individual's conversational style, amount to slightly not follow conversational rules, but rather are guided by or grossly different systems used to signal meaning and interpretive norms which are continually reinforced or to accomplish framing in interaction. When systems are revised in the light of on-going interpretation. The ana­ relatively sinlilar, participants share interpretive norms; lyst's task, then, becomes one of interpreting specific so meaning is likely to be understood as intended. But instances of discourse, giving rise to the label HERME.. when systems are relatively different, participants have NEUTIC for this approach. different norms, and intentions are likely to be mis­ Much of the work of Gumperz (and those influenced judged. A simple example with reference to the tum.. by him) uses cross-cultural communication as a heuristic taking systcln is the situation in which speakers have site. We can examine in which the inter­ different expectations about the appropriate length of action of different signaling systems leads to misinter­ inter-tum pauses. TIle speaker who expects shorter pauses pretation of others' abilities and intentions; this affords repeatedly but unintentionally 'cuts off' the one who insight into the processes of signaling and interpreting expects longer pauses. The shorter-pausing speaker in­ nleaning which go unnoticed in successful interactions. terprets the 'silence' of the other as evidence of having GUlnperz has analyzed interaction between inner-city no intention to speak. Black and middle-class White Americans, as well as Analysis of the language of face-to-face interaction SOCIOLINGUISTICS: Interactional Sociolinguistics 11 has not been confined to linguistic and paralinguistic Markers], topic, power and solidarity, figures of speech features, but has included kinesic and rhythmic phenom­ [see Metaphor], FORMULAIC SPEECH [q. v.l, repetition ena (Kendon et all 1975, Kempton 1980). Successful (Tannen 1989), and reported speech. Recent research conversation is characterized by a finely tuned synchrony has turned to an element rarely considered by linguists and microsynchrony, both within the behavior of a in the past: the conveying of emotion or affect. speaker and among participants. This shared RHYTHM A central concern of IS is the interactive nature of amounts to a musical component of language which conversation. Th~,_ model of language as produced by a allows participants to show LISTENERSHIP, to move be­ speaker alone is questioned; rather, listening and speak­ tween speaking and listening, to emphasize points, to ing are seen as inextricably intertwined. Thus any utter­ establish cohesion and coherence, and to predict where ance by any participant in a conversation is a joint important infonnation is likely to come, all in a smooth production, influenced by speaker, listener, and audience and seamless way. When rhythm is not shared, speakers (including the investigators or their equipment). For this cannot participate comfortably, or may not be able to reason, research has also focused on listenership behav­ participate at all; they may either miss en­ ior .. Among the more frequently studied of such phenom­ tirely, or misjudge its relative significance. Erickson & ena is BACKCHANNELING. This includes minimal re­ Shultz 1982 document this process in GATEKEEPING sponses such as Mhm and Uhuh, lax tokens such as ENCOUNTERS--Speech events in which only one of the Yeah, one-word responses such as Right, phrases such participants has much at stake--between college coun­ as 1 see what you mean, repetitions and sentence com­ selors and students who have different subcultural back­ pletions, and short ratifying utterances. Using a method grounds. (See also .] similar to that of Gumperz, Erickson 1979 demonstrates Inftuenced by the conversation analysts Harvey Sacks that, when nonverbal listenership behavior is not shared, and Emanuel Schegloff, much study has addressed the unexpected patterns of listenership create gross changes tum-taking system. [See Conversation Analysis.] In con­ in speaker behavior. For example, a speaker who does trast to that ethnomethodological approach, interactional not receive a steady GAZE, with nodding at key phrase sociolinguists claim that, whereas instances of observa­ boundaries, gets the impression that the listener is not ble phenomena can be assigned to a descriptive category attending, or not understanding; the speaker conse­ such as 'overlap' without reference to interpretive norms, quently recycles utterances in succe,edingly more sim­ they can only be assigned to interactionally significant plified form, with the result of seeming to 'talk down' -categories, such as 'interruption,' by understanding the to a fully comprehending listener. perceived rights and obligations of the participants (Ben.. One effect of the shift from the intuited data of syn­ nett 1981) t and by reference to their conversational styles tactic studies to the language of real interaction is a (Tannen 1984). corresponding shift in the conception of language. The Research in IS often focuses on linguistic devices and syntactician's data typically consist of a SENTENCE; how­ strategies. Much attention has been paid to NARRATIVE ever, investigators who have examined transcripts of [q. v.] and questions. Approaches to the analysis of such naturally occurring spoken discourse have observed that strategies are also influenced by the ETHNOGRAPHY OF the minimal unit of spoken language is not the sentence, SPBAKING [q.v.l, which has supplied an invaluable source but the UTTERANCE or INTONATION UNIT. This is a of cross-cultural evidence as an antidote to hasty claims phrase averaging six or seven words, always character­ for universality. For example, questions have been much ized by an identifiable intonational contour and often studied as powerful interactional devices because they bounded by a pause, particle~~ or hesitation marker; it strongly favor a response. The analysis of questions as represents a single focus of consciousness (Chafe 1986). prilDC devices for implicature or indirect communication Some linguists find that analysis of conversational data is supported by ethnographic accounts of cultures in suggests that the sentence is an idealization created by which questions are routinely interpreted as hinting un­ WRITTEN LANGUAGE (q.v.]. Moreover, examining the stated .meaning rather than directly requesting informa­ language of actual interaction has called into question tion (Goody 1978, Scollon & Scollon 1981). the generative basis of grammar-suggesting that lan­ Other devices and strategies that fall within the pur­ guage is more a matter of arrang.ing preformed phrases view of IS include silence, hesitation phenomena, dis­ and utterances, rather than of arranging words (Bolinger course .markers [see Discourse, article on Discourse 1976, Pawley 1986). r m,,[, .1., ]fiTrWr ." I' wz.

12 SOCIOLINGUISTICS: Language Planning

In sum, IS is a major field of research at the intersec­ interactional sociolinguistics, I.) Cambridge & New York. tion of linguistics and anthropology. Because it fre­ Cambridge University Press. quently identifies discourse strategies as associated with KEMPTON, WILLETT. 1980. The rhythmic basis of interactional culturally identifiable speakers, and examines the effects micro-synchrony. In The relationship ofverbal and nonver... hal communication, edited by Mary Ritchie Key, pp. 67­ on interaction of the differing strategies of culturally 75. The Hague: Mouton. different speakers, IS is a branch of linguistics that KENOON, ADAM; RICHARD M. HARRIS; & MARY RITCHIE KEY, prontises to help solve real-world problems involving eds. 1975. Organization of behavior in face-to-face inter­ communication. In addition, it contributes to theoretical action. The Hague: Mouton. issues in linguistics by shedding light on the nature of LAKOFF, ROBIN TOLMACH. 1979. Stylistic strategies within a meaning in language, and on the nature of language in grammar of style. In Language, sex, and gender (Annals interaction ~ of the New York Academy of Science, 327), edited by DEBORAH TANNEN Judith Orasanu et aI., pp. 53-78. New York. PAWLEY, ANDREW. 1986. LexicaJization. In Languages and BIBLIOGRAPHY linguistics: The interdependence oftheory, data, and appli­ BATESON, GREGORY. 1972. Steps to an ecology ofmind. New cation (Thirty-sixth Round Table, York: Ballantine. 1985), edited by Deborah Tannen & James E. Alatis, pp. BENNETT, ADRIAN. 1981. IntemJptions and the interpretation 98-120. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. of conversation. Discourse Processes 4.171-188. SCOLLON, RON., & SUZANNE B. K. SCOLLON. 1981. Narra­ BOLJ.NGER, DWIGHT. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum tive, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Nor­ Lingu;sticum 1: 1. 1-14. wood, N.J.: Ablex. BROWN" PENELOPE, & STEPHEN C. LEVINSON. 1987. Polite.. TANNEN, DEBORAH. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing ness: Some universals in language usage. (Studies in inter­ talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. actional sociolinguistics, 4.) Cambridge & New York: Cam­ TANNEN, DEBORAH. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dia­ bridge University Press. logue and imagery in conversational discourse. (Studies in CHAFE, WALLACE. 1986. How we know things about Ian... interactional sociolinguistics, 6.) Cambridge & New Yorki guage: A plea for catholicism. In Languages and linguistics: Cambridge University Press. ' The interdependence oftheory, data, and application (Thirty­ TANNEN, DEBORAH, & CYNTHIA WALLAT. 1987. Interactive sixth Georgetown University Round Table, 1985), edited frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples by Deborah Tannen & James E. Alatis, pp. 214-225. from a medical examination/interview. Social Psychology Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Quarterly 50:2.205-216. ERICKSON, FREDERICK. 1979. Talking down: Some cultural sources of miscommunication in interracial interviews. In Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cross--cultural impU .. cations, edited by Aaron Wolfgang, pp. 99-126. New York: Academic Press. ERICKSON, FREDERICK, & JEFFREY SHULTZ. 1982. The coun­ selor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York: AcadeJnic Press. GOFFMAN, ERVING. 1967. The nature of deference and de .. meanor. In , Interaction ritual: Essays in face-toface behavior, pp. 47-95. New York: Anchor Books. GOFFMAN, ERVING. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. GOFFMAN, ERVING. 1981. Footing. In Erving Goffman, Fortns of talk~ pp. 124-159. Philadelphia: (Jniversity of Pennsyl­ vania Press. GOODY, EsTHER N. 1978. Towards a theory of questions. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (Cambridge papers in social anthropology, 8), edited by Esther N. Goody, pp. 17--43. Canlbridge & New York: Cambridge lJniversity Press. G1J~tPERZ, JOHN J. 1982. Discourse strategies. (Studies in