Gumperz and Interactional Sociolinguistics

1. Introduction and overview

Interactional sociolinguistics is a qualitative, interpretative approach to the analysis of social interaction that developed at the intersection of linguistics, anthropology and sociology. It emerged primarily out of the work of anthropological linguist John J. Gumperz, who, in his field research in the tradition of the ethnography of communication in the 1960s and 1970s, observed immense linguistic and cultural diversity in everyday talk, and sought to devise a method for analyzing and understanding this diversity, and for testing hypotheses gained from doing ethnography through the collection and analysis of actual texts. Its development was also motivated by Gumperz‟s interest in investigating intercultural encounters characteristic of many modern urban areas, as well as by his concern for social justice.
As an „approach to discourse‟ (Schiffrin 1994), interactional sociolinguistics (IS) offers theories and methods that enable researchers to explore not only how language works but also to gain insights into the social processes through which individuals build and maintain relationships, exercise power, project and negotiate identities, and create communities. IS methodology involves an ethnographic component (observations of speakers in naturally-occurring contexts and participant-observation), audio- and/or video-recording of interactions, detailed linguistic transcription of recorded conversations, careful micro-analysis of conversational features in the context of the 2 information gained through ethnography, and sometimes, post-recording interviews. The key theoretical contributions of IS are to explain how speakers use signalling mechanisms, or „contextualization cues‟ (Gumperz, 1978, 1982a, 1982b, 1992a, 1992b, 1999b, 2001), often prosodic (like intonation, stress, pitch register) or paralinguistic (like tempo, pausing, hesitation) in nature, to indicate how they mean what they say, and how listeners, through a nuanced, context-bound process Gumperz calls „conversational inference‟, recognize and interpret contextualization cues through their own culturally-shaped background knowledge. In a foundational book investigating linguistic diversity in interaction, Discourse Strategies, Gumperz (1982a) suggests that communicative experiences lead to expectations regarding how to use contextualization cues; this study also demonstrates how members of diverse cultural groups often understand and employ these cues differently. Importantly, when interactional participants have dissimilar „contextualization conventions‟ (Gumperz, 1982a)—that is, different ways of conventionally using and interpreting contextualization cues—misunderstandings and conversational breakdown can occur. Such breakdowns, Gumperz suggests, ultimately can contribute to larger social problems such as ethnic stereotyping and differential access to information and opportunities.
Conversational inference and the related notion of contextualization cues constitute an interactive theory of meaning-making that was designed to investigate intercultural communication and conflict based on cultural differences; in fact it has been suggested that the approach pioneered by Gumperz „provides the most systematic investigations of such conflict‟ (Maynard, 1988:315). It also offers a means of performing micro-analysis of interaction in light of macro-societal issues like institutional 3 discrimination, thus taking part in an ongoing quest in sociolinguistics to link the „micro‟ and the „macro‟ in meaningful ways (e.g., Erickson, 2004; Scollon and Scollon, 2004). Further, IS offers a linguistic approach to the contemporary, constructionist understanding of identity put forth by researchers from a range of disciplinary perspectives (Goffman, 1959; Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Ochs, 1993; Holstein and Gubrium, 2007; see also Chapter 11 this volume). It has also made important contributions to the social scientific study of language in general, complementing other approaches aimed at understanding language from both structural and functional perspectives, such as Conversation Analysis and linguistic pragmatics. Additionally, IS has reached beyond the „ivory tower‟ to offer non-academics a means of understanding the role of language in social relationships, ways of identifying causes of miscommunication, and strategies for improving communication. Gumperz, for instance, served as a consultant for an educational B.B.C. television programme called Crosstalk (Twitchin, 1979) which addressed the subtleties of intercultural communication in multicultural workplaces in London; in addition, his work inspired other scholars to share, with nonacademic audiences, sociolinguistic insights into everyday interactional dynamics.
This chapter presents an historical overview of IS, focusing on the research of Gumperz as well as of other scholars who have made significant contributions to the development of the approach. It outlines IS‟s primary inspirations, goals, topical foci, theoretical constructs, and methods. It also describes contemporary research in IS, identifying it as topically diverse, theoretically rich, and poised to address increasingly interdisciplinary research questions. The main section of this paper traces the development of IS in detail, focusing primarily on the work of its founder, John Gumperz, and highlighting how, in formulating the key concepts and methodological frameworks of IS, he incorporated insights from scholars who examine interaction and meaning from a range of disciplinary perspectives (Section 2). I focus in particular on the methodological insights Gumperz developed in collaboration with Dell Hymes and through exposure to Conversation Analysis, the theoretical insights he gleaned from scholars such as Erving Goffman, Harold Garfinkel, and H. P. Grice, and IS theory developments contributed by Gumperz‟s student Deborah Tannen in the light of Robin Lakoff‟s work. I also situate Gumperz‟s work in larger research trajectories in the field of linguistics. Next, I give a brief overview of five major research trajectories to which Gumperz‟s research in IS has contributed substantially: code-switching and language contact; intercultural communication; language and gender; discursive identity construction; and language, power and institutions (Section 3). Finally, I discuss possible future directions of IS, in particular in the context of growing interests in interdisciplinary research (Section 4).

2. John J. Gumperz and the Development of Interactional Sociolinguistics
John J. Gumperz was born in 1922 in Germany; fleeing Germany pre-Holocaust, he came to the United States in 1939. He served in the U.S. Army; it has been suggested that his later academic interests in intercultural communication and social justice may have taken root in part as a result of his emigration and military experiences. Gumperz received his bachelor‟s degree in science from the University of Ohio, Cincinnati in 1947, but after attending Linguistic Institute lectures as a graduate student in chemistry at the University of Michigan, he redirected his studies to linguistics. Gumperz received his Ph.D. in Germanic Linguistics in 1954 from the University of Michigan, where he studied with Kenneth Pike and Hans Kurath. His dissertation examined variables of a German dialect spoken by third generation immigrants in southeastern Michigan and linked these variables to social and religious groupings of individuals, setting the scene for his later research.
Gumperz went to Cornell University to teach as an instructor before finishing his degree. After receiving his Ph.D., Gumperz was invited to serve as the head of Cornell‟s Hindi language training programme; he subsequently went to India to do post-doctoral research in sociolinguistics as part of an interdisciplinary research team. In 1956, he began collaborating with linguist Charles Ferguson at Deccan College (in India) on language diversity issues when both were visiting faculty there. Ferguson and Gumperz (1960) co-edited Linguistic Diversity in South Asia, a special issue of the International Journal of American Linguistics, which, in William Labov‟s (2003: 5) words, provides „the most important general statement‟ of the principles of the then young field of sociolinguistics. Gumperz gained more fieldwork experience in Norway in the 1960s, further fuelling his interests in linguistic diversity. The Norway study also resulted in a publication on code-switching (Blom and Gumperz, 1972) in which forms and functions of code-switching are investigated in a novel way—as tied to situation (situational switching) and as tied to participants‟ relationships and their signaling of how the listener should interpret what the speaker says (metaphorical switching). As Kathryn Woolard (2004: 75), a student of Gumperz, remarks, his work „has had not only seminal but enduring influence on the accepted anthropological view on codeswitching‟. Importantly, the Norway study also proved foundational for Gumperz‟s development of the notion of contextualization cues in the IS framework: code-switching, such as use of pitch, intonation, pausing, gesture, and other contextualization cues, can be used to signal how verbal messages should be interpreted.
After his research in India, Gumperz was invited to design a Hindi-Urdu programme at the University of California, Berkeley. A number of his studies around that time focused specifically on conversational Hindi-Urdu (Gumperz, 1958, 1960, 1963; Gumperz and Naim, 1960; Gumperz and Rumery, 1963), but he increasingly grew interested in sociolinguistic aspects of language use across different cultural groups. At Berkeley, Gumperz served as chairperson for South and South-East Asian Studies (from 1968 to 1971); he also served as a faculty member in the Department of Anthropology, becoming a full professor in Anthropology in 1965. While affiliated with Berkley, Gumperz has taken opportunities to cultivate connections with scholars in Europe, especially in Austria, Germany, and the U. K., as well as with scholars in the United States. He is currently an emeritus professor at Berkeley, and is affiliated with the University of California Santa-Barbara as a faculty member of an interdisciplinary research group and a Ph.D. emphasis both called Language, Interaction and Social Organization (LISO).
In establishing IS as an approach, Gumperz has explored topics as varied as language diversity, language contact, bilingualism, language and educational issues, and interethnic communication. With Dell Hymes, Gumperz co-edited two volumes key to the ethnography of communication (Gumperz and Hymes, 1964, 1972). His book Discourse Strategies (Gumperz, 1982a) and its companion edited volume, Language and Social Identity (Gumperz, 1982b), are viewed as groundbreaking in the study of issues of language and culture and as foundational IS texts. Discourse Strategies marks the beginning of Gumperz‟s current, ongoing research looking at interethnic and intercultural communication, communication and social background, and the social significance of details of communication (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003). Language and Social Identity consists of essays by students and postdoctoral researchers working with Gumperz—among them Monica Heller, Daniel Maltz, Ruth Borker, Celia Roberts, T.C. Jupp and Deborah Tannen—and by his spouse, and frequent co-author, Jenny Cook-Gumperz.
In the 1990s, Gumperz continued to refine his approach, linking conversational inference to Michael Silverstein‟s (1992, 1993) work on indexicality and conceptualizing contextualization cues as a class of indexicals (Gumperz, 2003), while also applying it to new institutional contexts in collaborative work (Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz, 1996, 1997, 2002) and furthering investigation of contextualization processes (as seen in Gumperz‟s contributions to two key IS edited volumes: Auer and di Luzio‟s Contextualization in Language, and Duranti and Goodwin‟s Rethinking Context, both published in 1992). In conjunction with his former student Stephen Levinson, Gumperz co-edited a volume reexamining the influential „Whorf hypothesis‟ (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996). In recent years, Gumperz (1999b, 2001) has taken opportunities to write reflective essays about IS. Additionally, he discusses his approach in Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz (Eerdmans, Prevignano and Thibault, 2003). This book includes two interviews with Gumperz (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003; Prevignano and Thibault, 2003) in which he talks about the motivations of his work, explains in detail his conceptualization of contextualization cues, and outlines connections he sees between his approach and others, such as Conversation Analysis and Silverstein‟s semiotics. It also includes commentaries on Gumperz‟s work by researchers such as Levinson (2003). In a response essay, Gumperz (2003) addresses issues brought up by these commentaries.
In total, Gumperz has more than 100 published books, chapters and articles over the span of his career. He has also received many academic accolades, has served on the editorial boards of numerous academic journals, and is founding editor of the influential Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics book series (in which Discourse Strategies is the first volume). Through his classes at Berkeley and visits to other universities in both the United States and abroad, Gumperz has introduced IS and issues of language and communication to students of interaction around the world. His approach is viewed as a key part of sociolinguistic research programmes in various European countries, such as Greece (Tsitsipis, 2006) and the U. K. (Rampton, 2007). Gumperz has been identified not only as the founder of IS, but also as „one of the foundational spirits in the broader field of sociolinguistics itself‟ (Levinson, 2003:43).
2.2 Social and Moral Motivations in the Development of IS
IS emerged as Gumperz was developing „replicable methods of qualitative analysis that account for our ability to interpret what participants intend to convey in everyday communicative practice‟ (Gumperz, 2001: 215). However, although as an approach to discourse IS gives insight into conversation as an entity in general, and into meaning-making processes in particular, it did not develop out of an interest in „interaction in the abstract‟, but rather as a means of exploring linguistic and cultural diversity in everyday talk (Gumperz, 2003: 105). As Duranti and Goodwin (1992a: 229-230) note, „Gumperz‟[s] work is unique for his ability to merge intellectual, social, and moral considerations within his analytical apparatus‟; that is, Gumperz developed IS as a way of not only explicating the interpretive procedures underlying talk, but also to address the consequences of real-life, everyday conversational misunderstandings between members of different cultural groups.
The „social‟ considerations of IS emerge through Gumperz‟s interest in understanding and explaining instances of miscommunication he observed in various fieldwork studies he undertook in India, Europe and the United States, and in trying to contribute to improving intercultural communication in increasingly diverse areas, particularly urban areas. For instance, in a now classic case-study example, Gumperz was invited to observe interactions between members of two groups suffering strained interactions and feelings of ill-will at work: native British cargo handlers and the Indian and Pakistani staff cafeteria workers who served their meals at a major British airport (Gumperz, 1982a, chapter 8). Gumperz observed cultural differences in uses of—and expectations regarding—intonation, a key contextualization cue. When the Indian and Pakistani cafeteria workers offered a serving of gravy, for instance, they did not use rising intonation as most native British English speakers would. Instead, they uttered „gravy‟ with a flat intonation because, to them, this was a culturally polite way of offering something. To native British English speakers, who had different expectations regarding intonation, this sounded rude; they thus misinterpreted the cafeteria workers‟ intentions. Calling into attention this seemingly minor difference in intonation usage and discussing it with members of both groups actually improved communication and inter-group perceptions. In this way, IS research clearly has practical social implications; it „may lead to an explanation for the endemic and increasingly serious communication problems that affect private and public affairs in our society‟ (Gumperz, 1982a: 172). This is particularly important as workplaces—and nations—become increasingly diverse.
The „moral‟ considerations Duranti and Goodwin (1992a) mention relate to social injustices. Gumperz‟s work explores issues such as misattribution of intent, stereotyping, and discrimination in the context of interaction, in particular against ethnic minorities. Following the work of Frederick Erickson (1975), Gumperz investigates the role of language in enacting discrimination in „gatekeeping encounters‟; these are encounters in which „two persons meet, usually as strangers, with one of them having authority to make decisions that affect the other‟s future‟ (Erickson and Schultz, 1982: xi). In such encounters, the consequences of misunderstandings can be very serious, especially for the person not in the authority position. In many of Gumperz‟s case studies, the participants have different expectations about contextualization conventions and/or mismatches regarding the nature of the institutional encounter in which they are involved. Thus, miscommunication does occur, and the person seeking access, usually an individual from an ethnic minority group, risks being denied material goods, a job prospect, or some other resource. For example, in a tape-recorded interview-counselling session that Gumperz (1982a, Chapter 8) analyzes, a Pakistani teacher who has been unable to secure permanent employment in London has an unsuccessful exchange with the native British staff counsellor whose job it is to help him, largely due to different expectations about what needs to be said in the session and to different uses of prosodic and paralinguistic features like rhythm and intonation. Careful turn-by-turn analysis of the recording reveals that their interaction is rhythmically asynchronous and the speakers never achieve a joint understanding of where the interaction is going at any given time. In other words, they seem to be „on parallel tracks which don‟t meet‟ (Gumperz and Roberts, 1980; as cited in Gumperz, 1982a:185). Thus, the teacher does not receive the support he needs and the staff counsellor is not able to do her job effectively. One motivation of many IS studies, including many by Gumperz, is the belief that by uncovering cultural differences and by educating people about them, some such misunderstandings can be circumvented, thereby decreasing the likelihood of unintentional discrimination or denial of resources based on misinterpretation of culture-specific uses of contextualization cues.
In line with this belief, Gumperz has participated in public educational efforts. As mentioned, he served as a consultant on an educational programme called Crosstalk, which was broadcast on B.B.C. television in 1979. As part of a ten-part series called Multi-Racial Britain, Crosstalk aimed to help develop awareness of possible causes of intercultural miscommunication in workplaces, as well as to draw attention to the role of language in stereotyping and discrimination. Written materials were also prepared by Gumperz and his colleagues to accompany the programme (Gumperz et al., 1979, 1980). Crosstalk, while serving as a useful tool for educating the general public at the time it was aired, has applications for formal educational contexts too, such as for teaching English as a foreign language and for teacher training (Baxter and Levine, 1982), as well as for courses in intercultural communication (Kiesling and Paulston, 2005: 2). It also inspired later work aimed at general audiences, such as an educational video focused on communication between Native Alaskans and non-Natives called Interethnic Communication (Scollon and Jones, 1979), and, more famously, general audience books by Tannen (1986, 1990) that examine various kinds of cross-cultural and cross-sub-cultural communication.
2.3 The Development of IS: Gumperz and his Major Intellectual Influences
The research programme of Gumperz and his development of IS grew not only out of interest in the social issues facing diversifying societies, but also out of Gumperz‟s training in structural linguistics, his contact with scholars from various fields interested in interaction, qualitative methodologies, and meaning-making, and broader movements in linguistics in the 1960s through to the 1980s. Gumperz‟s linguistics background, contacts with anthropologists, sociologists, language philosophers, and other linguists, and participation in larger language debates contributed substantially to the development of IS.
2.3.1 A Starting Point: Bloomfield and Structural Linguistics
Gumperz‟s linguistic training was in the tradition of Saussure, Sapir and Bloomfield (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003: 8); Gumperz specifically recognizes Leonard Bloomfield‟s (1933) book Language, a pioneering work in American structural linguistics, as having influenced and motivated some of his early reflections. As linguistic anthropologist (and Gumperz‟s student) Michael Agar (1994: 16) notes, structural linguistics „puts a circle‟ around language, meaning that it separates grammar from its cultural context. However, Gumperz observes that structuralists‟ „basic insights into linguistic, that is, phonological and syntactic competence and their approach to speaking as a partially subconscious process, continue to be useful‟ despite shortcomings of the approach (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003: 20). As we will see, Gumperz utilizes the notion of „competence‟ in a similar sense to Hymes‟s „communicative competence‟. He also draws on a view of speaking as a partially „subconscious‟ or „automatic‟ phenomenon in examining how interpretations are actually made in interaction (see, e.g., Gumperz, 1982a). Thus he extends basic ideas from structural linguistics into social and cultural realms.
Structural linguistics also motivated Gumperz‟s research in a more specific way: Gumperz cites as a starting point for him Bloomfield‟s thinking on regional linguistic diversity as it is interconnected with patterning of interpersonal contacts. Bloomfield‟s work offered „an initial outline of a theory of diversity that rests on human interaction as an analytical prime, and does not rely on a priori assumptions about ethnic, class or group identity‟ (Gumperz, 2003: 106). Gumperz (2003: 107) reports that a common assumption in the 1950s and 1960s was that communication between members of different social groups was problematic, yet, frustratingly, there was a lack of empirical evidence supporting this assumption. Therefore, he „set out to explore the validity of the interactional approach to diversity‟ that he saw seeds of in Bloomfield‟s work (Gumperz, 2003:107). Building on this, in research over the course of his career, Gumperz would move to erase „the circle‟ that disconnects language from social life.
2.3.2 An Anthropological Perspective: Hymes and the Ethnography of Communication
In order to investigate diversity in interaction, in the 1960s Gumperz turned to anthropological methods while collaborating with Dell Hymes, who was then developing the ethnography of communication (see Gumperz and Hymes 1964, 1972; Chapter 3, this volume). In fact, Gumperz‟s use of ethnographic methods goes further back, at least to his time in India: Ferguson and Gumperz (1960), for example, undertook an exploration of language contact „through qualitative methods involving work with informants, informal observations, and (sometimes) questionnaires‟ (Duranti, 2001: 5). The ethnography of communication, however, provided a systematic set of qualitative methodologies offering a means of analyzing „patterns of communication as part of cultural knowledge and behavior‟ (Schiffrin, 1994: 137). Importantly, ethnographic methods differ greatly from those of structural linguistics. Rather than contrasting formal units, such as sounds or sentence structures, across languages, ethnographers undertake in-depth fieldwork, usually involving participant-observation and interviewing. From relatively long-term observation and engagement with the community under study, ethnographers learn things about people and the diverse ways in which they use language that can only be discovered and understood over time. To use Pike‟s (1967) terms, ethnographers of communication are interested in viewing data from both etic and emic perspectives (see Carbaugh and Hastings, 1992). In other words, analysis needs to go beyond a general perspective and occur „in terms of categories which account for native perceptions of significance‟ (Gumperz, 1982a: 15). This is important because it extends beyond describing grammatical structures to the more problematic—and, for Gumperz, more consequential—task of identifying culturally meaningful categories, the relationships between them, and how language plays into their creation and maintenance.
This kind of anthropological „thick description‟ (Geertz, 1973) can be said to characterize Gumperz‟s research, even during the early formation of IS. In Rampton‟s (2007: 597) words, „Gumperz‟s work stands out for its empirical reconciliation of linguistics and ethnography‟. For example, Gumperz‟s fieldwork in a caste-stratified North Indian village and a small, homogeneous town in northern Norway led to the development of means of exploring language diversity as firmly embedded in specific aspects of sociocultural life, giving an emic understanding of the data (see Gumperz, 1971). His findings indicated that social interaction—frequency and quality of interaction among individuals, specifically—explained the linguistic distinctions he observed. Category labels put on people like „touchable‟ and „untouchable‟ (terms of social categorization then used in many Indian communities) were not sufficient to explain what was going on. In addition, ideologies of interpersonal relations—who should interact with whom, and in what way—further explicated patterns of language use in these two locales. Gumperz thus discovered information about what Hymes (1972: 277) refers to as speakers‟ „communicative competence‟, which includes information such as „when to speak, when not‟ and „what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner‟, going far beyond the grammatical knowledge described by structuralists. 2.3.3 Studying Interaction and Conceptualizing Knowledge: Goffman and Garfinkel
The notion of „communicative competence‟ suggests that in interacting, speakers follow not only grammatical rules, but also social rules, such as regarding what kinds of conversational topics are appropriate for what kinds of situations. In order to get at social rules in a meaningful way, Gumperz reached beyond linguistics and anthropology to build into IS elements of sociologist Erving Goffman‟s work on the „interaction order‟ and ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel‟s interest in the interpretive processes and background knowledge needed to keep interaction going. In fact, Gumperz has commented, „In my approach to interaction, I take a position somewhat between that of Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel‟ (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003: 8).
Although Goffman „does not analyze language per se‟ (Schiffrin, 1994: 102), Gumperz views him as a „sociological predecessor‟ of his own work (Gumperz, 2001: 216). Goffman (1967, 1974, 1981) contemplates face-to-face interaction with a focus on how it is that social encounters are constructed. In other words, he recognizes the „interaction order‟—how people behave in one another‟s co-presence and co-construct their social worlds in everyday encounters—as a legitimate area of study. Like Goffman, Gumperz views everyday interaction as worthy of study; further, Goffman and Gumperz were both on the faculty at Berkeley—Gumperz in Anthropology, and Goffman in Sociology—for a number of overlapping years (1960-1968). Gumperz also finds inspiration in Goffman‟s work in that the notion of „interaction order‟ provides „a distinct level of discursive organization bridging the linguistic and the social‟ (Gumperz, 2001: 216). However, whereas Goffman does not focus on the details of language in his work, Gumperz, with his concept of contextualization cues, does.
Moreover, Goffman‟s observations and theorizing uncover many interesting—and often taken-for-granted—phenomena that occur in everyday encounters; IS is able to investigate these phenomena from a perspective that highlights the role of linguistic features and investigates conversation as a collaborative endeavour. For example, identity presentation, considered in Goffman‟s (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, is examined from an IS perspective in Language and Social Identity (Gumperz, 1982b). Additionally, identity presentation and construction continues to be a topic of interest for IS scholars. For example, Tannen (1999), Kotthoff (2000), Kendall (2007) and others have drawn on IS to examine the linguistic creation of gendered identities. Framing, or how people establish and negotiate „definitions of a situation‟ (Goffman, 1974: 11), relates to a central part of IS: invoking Silverstein‟s (1992, 1993) discussions of indexicality, Gumperz remarks that „Contextualization cues, along with other indexical signs, serve to retrieve the frames (in Goffman‟s sense of the term) that channel the interpretive process‟ (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003: 10). In other words, using a speaker‟s contextualization cues as guidelines, a listener imagines himself or herself to be in a particular kind of situation; this enables a listener to assess what the speaker intends. Thus, contextualization cues are a means of collaboratively accomplishing framing in discourse. Numerous IS scholars have demonstrated how this occurs and continue to develop a theory of framing in the context of sociolinguistics by integrating and extending Goffman‟s and Gumperz‟s theorizing (e.g., Tannen, 1993a). Frames theory has been used to investigate a host of contexts, ranging from everyday family interactions (e.g., Gordon, 2002, 2008; Kendall, 2006), to medical encounters (e.g., Pinto, Ribeiro and Dantas, 2005; Ribeiro 1994; Tannen and Wallat, 1993), to moments of conversational humour (e.g., Davies, 2003; Kotthoff, 2000, 2002). Additionally, research has incorporated Goffman‟s (1967) work on face-saving and Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) work on face and linguistic politeness into IS analyses, such as by Kendall (2004), Kotthoff (2000) and Tannen (1984/2005). Building on Goffman (1981), research in the IS tradition has also considered how alignments or „footings‟ are linguistically created and managed (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen, 1996; Davies, 2003; Gordon, 2003; Tannen, 2003).
Gumperz also cites the work of Garfinkel as instrumental in his thinking about the nature of social interaction, as well as the knowledge required to participate in it. Garfinkel (1967) developed an approach within sociology known as ethnomethodology, which focuses on the interactive processes by which people create social organization and the knowledge needed to do this. Research in the IS tradition is able to examine the linguistic means by which social organization is accomplished. In addition, Garfinkel‟s (1967) experiments—usually known as „breaching‟ or „Garfinkeling‟ experiments—caught Gumperz‟s attention; these involved breaking social norms as a means of uncovering often unnamed social rules as well as people‟s knowledge and expectations about situations. Further, Garfinkel made the insightful observation that interactants can never be detailed enough in talk to convey every aspect of meaning, thus some combination of „practical reasoning‟ and „unstated, taken-for-granted background knowledge‟ is needed to fill in what is left unsaid (Gumperz, 2001:216). For Gumperz, Garfinkel‟s observations brought to light the role of sociocultural background knowledge in interpretation, a critical component of his theory of conversational inference. In the IS framework, and in the spirit of Hymes (1972), researchers argue that speakers gain sociocultural knowledge from having been acculturated in a community. In other words, knowledge about how to use language in culturally apt ways—how to use pitch, intonation, and other contextualization cues, including those that are nonverbal—comes from a speaker‟s collection of cultural experiences. It is this knowledge base that participants rely on too as they interpret contextualization cues. The nature and functioning of this knowledge—what exactly it encompasses, and how people access and activate the appropriate knowledge at a given conversational moment—is still under investigation in IS and related areas of research.
2.3.4 Micro-Analysis of Talk: Conversation Analysis
Garfinkel and Goffman also influenced Gumperz in more indirect way: Conversation Analysis (CA) (see Chapter 27, this volume), which proved influential to Gumperz‟s research, grew out of the work of two of Goffman‟s students at Berkeley in the 1960s: Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff. In collaboration with Sacks‟s student Gail Jefferson, Sacks and Schegloff applied Garfinkel‟s ethnomethodology specifically to conversation (see Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974). CA is interested in how conversation represents and creates social organization among participants; its focus on conversational discourse—both face-to-face and over the phone—as a research site and on the details of language provided inspiration for Gumperz‟s focus on talk and on the micro-features of interaction (Gumperz, 1999b, 2001; Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003). Both IS and CA examine actual social encounters, and their methods both involve recording, a form of careful linguistic transcription, and analysis of interaction. Key CA notions and conceptualizations of interaction are also central to IS. For example, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974), in a seminal CA study, outline a „systematics‟ for conversation based on the basic organizational unit of the conversational turn. This study views conversation as a sequentially organized event; in Heritage‟s (1984: 242) words, each utterance is „context-shaped‟ (shaped by the previous utterance) and „context-renewing‟ (creating a context for the next utterance). IS researchers consider this sense of context (discourse context) in their analyses; however IS also takes a broader perspective on what constitutes context and its effect on conversation2. For example, whereas CA researchers tend to claimthat „the turn-taking system [is independent of] various aspects of the socio-cultural context of speech‟ such as the speakers‟ ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class (Duranti 1989:222), IS scholars consider such aspects to be central to how interaction unfolds, and indeed are interested in exploring diversity of turn-taking patterns across cultural groups (e.g., Tannen, 1984/2005). In other words, whereas „the CA view of interaction is a structural view‟ (Schiffrin, 1994:236), IS shows a more social and cultural emphasis. Thus, for instance, CA research has examined assessments from the perspective of conversational structure (Pomerantz, 1984), and research growing out of IS builds on this to demonstrate how two parents use assessments as a means of presenting different kinds of identities in interaction (Gordon, 2007).
In part, based on these different conceptualizations of what constitutes an utterance‟s context, IS and CA differ in another regard: Gumperz adopted playback, used in early sociolinguistic work by William Labov (Labov and Fanshel, 1977; see also Fanshel and Moss, 1971), as a means of testing analyst interpretations. Playback involves playing recordings of the interaction for those who participated in it, or for other insiders to the language variety and/or community, and asking for impressions in an open-ended way. It therefore provides multiple perspectives on interaction, which can be particularly insightful in cases of cross-cultural (mis)communication, where analysts might have native speaker insights into one side of the conversation, but not the other, based on his or her own cultural and linguistic background, as in Gumperz (1982a) and Tannen (1984/2005).
CA and IS continue to exist, side-by-side, as approaches to discourse analysis. Although they both investigate conversational discourse as what Schegloff (1982) calls „an interactional achievement‟, that is, as something „incrementally accomplished‟ via collaboration, CA and IS examine different aspects of the achievement. Sharing an interest in the micro-features of conversation, they continue to influence and complement each other mutually, for example by offering different perspectives on similar kinds of social interaction, as in Tannen and Goodwin‟s (2006) co-edited Text & Talk special issue on family interaction. Further, some scholars, like Goodwin (1990), have integrated CA methods with ethnographic fieldwork, blurring the distinction between the approaches and demonstrating that integrated perspectives are often especially revealing.
2.3.5 Inference: Berkeley Scholars—Grice and Lakoff
A number of scholars who interacted with Gumperz at Berkeley during the formulation of IS also influenced its development in meaningful ways. Levinson (2003: 32), who was then Gumperz‟s graduate student, describes the intellectual environment in which the approach developed:
In Berkeley at that time there was a rare and wonderful confluence of ideas from different disciplines concerning the study of meaning—in philosophy, Grice and Searle were expounding the ideas about implicature and speech acts now associated with them, Fillmore was preoccupied with indexicality in language, Kay with its sociological import, Robin Lakoff with contextual meaning, and George Lakoff was attempting to wrap it all up in a unified theory of generative semantics.
This intellectual milieu seems to have shaped Gumperz‟s thinking in multiple ways.
First, Gumperz‟s theory of conversational inference, which explains how people assess what others say to create meaning in conversation and what is required for this to occur, is related to language philosopher H. P. Grice‟s (1975) discussion of conversational cooperation, intention and implicature (Gumperz, 2001: 216; see also Gumperz, 1982a:202). Grice‟s (1975: 47) influential Cooperative Principle (CP) states: „Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose of the talk exchange in which you are engaged‟. This principle, essentially, explains why conversation works at all, in particular at the level of information exchange. The CP includes four maxims which indicate that a speaker should be as (but not more) informative than required, tell the truth, contribute relevant remarks, and be orderly and clear. Within this framework, Grice suggests that speakers send certain meanings intentionally through implicatures sent by following or breaking („flouting‟) maxims. An implicature is „an inference about speaker intention that arises from a recipient‟s use of both semantic (i.e. logical) meanings and conversational principles‟ (Schiffrin, 1994: 193); it refers to „something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use‟ (Mey, 1993: 99). Thus, if a man asks a woman where he can buy a cup of coffee, and she says, „there‟s a place around the corner called Joe‟s‟, based on the CP maxims of truth and relevance, the man infers that coffee is for sale by the cup at Joe‟s 3. These maxims play into an IS understanding of how meaning-making works as well.
Second, Grice‟s (1975) and Searle‟s (1975) discussions of „the semantic basis of indirect conversational inference‟ (Gumperz, 1982a: 202) link to Gumperz‟s exploration of the indirect means by which speakers signal how utterances are to be interpreted. One way of thinking about contextualization cues is as indirect signals for interpretation: rather than saying, for example, „I‟m mad that you didn‟t invite me for coffee‟, a speaker might furrow his brow and say, in a whiney tone of voice, „You didn‟t invite me for coffee‟, thus indirectly indicating how the listener should interpret his meaning. The impact of Robin Lakoff‟s (1973, 1975) work on indirectness and linguistic politeness fits into this area as well, and it is formally incorporated into IS by Tannen (1984/2005). Lakoff (1973) notes that people regularly do not explicitly say what they mean in conversation for social reasons—to be nice, to respect another person‟s space, to leave interpretation options open, and so on. Importantly, research in IS shows that conceptualizations of how to be conventionally polite differ across cultural and subcultural groups (e.g., Rogerson-Revell, 2007; Scollon and Scollon, 1995/2001; Tannen, 1984/2005).
2.3.6 Conversational Style and Conversational Involvement: Tannen
While at Berkeley, Gumperz also collaborated with Tannen, who had a significant impact on IS, although she is perhaps best known for her work on language and gender (see Section 3.3). When Tannen was Gumperz‟s student, they co-authored a foundational IS paper, „Individual and social differences in language use‟ (Gumperz and Tannen, 1979) which introduced the notion of contextualization cues and provides material that would later be incorporated into a central chapter of Discourse Strategies entitled „Contextualization Conventions‟. Tannen‟s first book, Conversational Style (1984/2005), provides an important case study of cross-sub-cultural communication, introduces the key IS notion of „conversational style‟ and a new understanding of what Gumperz (1982a) called „conversational involvement‟, while also serving as an excellent example and overview of IS methodology.
„Conversational style‟ refers to an individual‟s way of speaking, including decisions about rate of speaking, pitch and amplitude, and the „countless other choices‟ speakers make that affect an utterance‟s interpretation (Tannen, 1984/2005: 14). In broad terms, a person‟s conversational style encompasses how he or she uses various contextualization cues. Drawing on the IS idea that a person‟s contextualization conventions grow out of interactive experiences, Tannen suggests that conversational style can be influenced by a range of factors, including where a person grew up and his or her cultural background, race and ethnicity, and gender and sexual orientation. Tannen‟s case-study of six speakers—three New York Jewish speakers, two Californians, and one speaker from England—uncovers a style continuum. Her analysis, building on not only Gumperz‟s research but also Hymes‟s (1974) on style and Lakoff‟s on politeness (1973) and communicative style (1979), shows that features of the „high-involvement style‟ characteristic of New Yorkers—such as talking along with other people and asking questions in a „machine gun‟ fashion—have a positive affect when used among those who share the style; these features create „rapport‟. In contrast, as in Gumperz‟s examples of mismatches in contextualization conventions, aspects of high-involvement style have negative affects when used with speakers exhibiting a style characterized by „high-considerateness‟ (see also Tannen, 1981).
A concept from Gumperz that Tannen extended and made even more central to IS is „conversational involvement‟ (Tannen, 1984/2005, 1989/2007). Gumperz (1982a: 1) used this notion in a very basic way, equating sustaining conversational involvement to participating in verbal exchanges; Tannen (1989/2007:13) develops involvement further: it is the „internal, even emotional connection individuals feel which binds them to other people as well as to places, things, activities, ideas, memories and words‟. She suggests that when aspects of style are shared, interacting serves as a means of building coherence and of bringing people together, the inverse of how clashing styles can drive wedges between them. In Talking Voices, Tannen (1989/2007) uses IS to examine both conversational and literary texts and focuses on repetition, the creation of dialogue („constructed dialogue‟), and details as linguistic strategies that seem to be especially productive in creating involvement. Tannen (1984/2005, 1986) also argues in her work that, through contextualization cues, participants send what Bateson (1972) calls „metamessages‟, or messages about how to interpret messages (e.g., „this is play‟). In other words, Tannen develops the idea that participants use contextualization cues to negotiate both the nature of a given situation and aspects of interpersonal relationships. For example, through „mutual revelation‟, where participants reciprocally share personal experiences with one another, participants are able to signal indirectly something to the effect of: „We are intimate; we both tell about ourselves; we are both interested in hearing about the other‟s experience‟ (Tannen, 1984/2005: 101).
Another contribution of Tannen to IS is bringing IS notions and their roles in interpersonal communication to broader audiences. Through popular books like That’s Not What I Meant! (1986) and the best-selling You Just Don’t Understand (1990), academic ideas about language and communication are shown to have, in the spirit of Gumperz‟s interests in social issues, practical applicability to everyday life. 4
2.3.7 Chomsky and Labov
When Gumperz was formulating and developing IS, other theories of language were being cultivated by Noam Chomsky and William Labov, and these influenced IS through providing approaches with which it could be compared and contrasted. In the early years of IS, Gumperz was considering language and social networks (Gumperz, 1971, 1976), the sociolinguistics of bilingualism and code-switching (Gumperz 1964a, 1964b; Blom and Gumperz, 1972; Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz, 1974) and language use in a variety of institutional contexts, including educational environments (Gumperz and Hernandez-Chavez, 1972; Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz, 1974), job interviews and counselling sessions (Gumperz et al., 1979; Gumperz, 1982a), committee meetings (Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz, 1982), and legal contexts (Gumperz, 1982c). In such studies, Gumperz‟s approach, in his own words, reworks „the established traditions that continue to follow structuralist practices of separating the linguistic from the social‟ (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003:10). It thus stands in contrast with descendents of Saussure‟s structuralist approach to linguistics, including alternatives to it, the most notable being generative grammar, pioneered by Chomsky beginning in the late 1950s. For Gumperz (1982a: 19), although generative grammar has „theoretical significance‟, it also „clearly has only limited relevance for the study of verbal interaction processes‟. Chomsky‟s work focuses on the knowledge an ideal speaker needs to produce grammatical sentences („linguistic competence‟); it does not „attempt to account for the problem of cultural diversity‟ (Gumperz, 1974: 789). In contrast, Gumperz focuses on utterances produced and interpreted in context, and the knowledge—linguistic, social, and cultural—that participants use in so doing. He thus moves to erase the metaphorical „circle‟ that Agar (1994) has written about that disconnects language from social life, whereas Chomsky maintains the circle. Indeed, a major division that exists in contemporary linguistics is the division between Chomskyan linguistics and sociolinguistics. Thus, IS continues to develop itself—at least implicitly—in contrast to generative grammar.
During the time of IS‟s development, „the circle‟ was also being erased by other scholars, such as Charles Ferguson (1959), who was examining diglossia; indeed Ferguson‟s work provided a foundation for Gumperz‟s (1977) work on conversational code-switching (see also Blom-Gumperz and Gumperz, 1972). In addition, Labov was developing a quantitative sociolinguistics that linked linguistic variables to social categories (see Labov, 1966, 1972; see also Chapter 1, this volume). In a spirit similar to Gumperz, Labov‟s research focuses on language as a social entity. However, as Gumperz notes, „important as quantitative sociolinguistics is‟ for the study of language variation and change, „its applicability to the analysis of actual processes of face to face communication … is limited‟ (Gumperz, 1982a:26). This is so because Labovian sociolinguistics traditionally focuses on the quantitative analysis of linguistic variables at the social group level, whereas IS focuses on individuals‟ language use. Further, the statistical analyses of variationist sociolinguistics do not give insight into meaning-making as it happens moment-by-moment; in contrast, IS offers a view of language as „activity in a particular context, co-evolving along with that context, in part constitutive of it‟ (Becker, 1984/1995: 73). Because IS gives a nuanced analysis of individuals communicating in unfolding interactive sequences, it provides what Becker (1984/1995) might call a „linguistics of particularity‟, which we need to achieve a more complete understanding of how language works generally.
Just as there are theoretical and methodological tensions between generative grammar and sociolinguistics, so there are tensions between quantitative and qualitative sociolinguistics. As Tannen (1984/2005: 11-12) points out, it might be easy to dismiss a qualitative approach like IS due to its interpretive analytical procedures—with „interpretive‟ „wielded as a damning epithet‟. Analyzing talk in the IS tradition is necessarily interpretive in that researchers must weigh multiple possibilities—in terms of speaker intentions, listener interpretations, and so on—as they grapple with different levels of linguistic structure, the delicate twists and turns of social encounters, and the fact that there is no one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning. However, as Johnstone (2000: 36) notes, „sociolinguistic work is always “interpretive,” whether the interpretation involves numbers or results of some other kind. … Only with interpretation does an analysis have a point‟. And, although there will always be difficulties in uncovering speaker intent, the theory developed by Gumperz addresses these difficulties by taking an interactive approach that captures the use of (para)linguistic features in contextualized utterances as well as the listener‟s reaction to these. In addition, examination of negotiations and repairs occurring in discourse can aid in analyst interpretations of speaker intent (Prevignano and di Luzio, 2003).
Although Gumperz‟s IS is markedly different from variationist sociolinguistics, it can also be viewed as developing in complementary fashion and contributing complementary insights into language and social life. Indeed, a growing number of scholars now view quantitative and ethnographic perspectives on language as usefully applied in tandem to explore issues like identity construction (e.g., Eckert, 2000; Schilling-Estes, 2004).
3. Key Research Trajectories in IS****
We have seen that IS as an approach to the analysis of discourse grew primarily out of Gumperz‟s work and multifaceted interests, as well as his incorporation of insights from a range of fields. This formed a coherent framework of how meaning-making occurs in the interaction that has propelled numerous research trajectories both within and beyond IS. These include studies related to code-switching and language contact, intercultural communication, language and gender, identity construction, and language, power and institutions. Note that as more and more scholars are using integrated methods—combining ideas and methods from IS and CA and social psychology, for example—it has become more and more difficult (if not impossible) to identify a „purely‟ IS study.
3.1 Code-switching and language contact
Many studies in code-switching and language contact have built on Gumperz‟s early and groundbreaking work on linguistic diversity in speech communities, his scholarship on conversational code-switching, and his identification of code-switching as fundamentally similar to style-shifting and as a contextualization cue. In the 1980s and 1990s, Gumperz‟s students drew on his framework to study language choice and language rights (e.g., Heller, 1982, 1985; Woolard, 1985), and colleagues in Europe (e.g., Auer and di Luzio 1984, 1992) provided insights into code-switching, language socialization, and issues related to language and migration, while also contributing to the development of IS as an „interpretative‟ sociolinguistics (see also earlier work, published in German, by Kallmeyer and Schütze, 1977).
Code-switching continues to be a topic of interest in sociolinguistic research (see Chapter 37, this volume). Code-switching has recently been examined in a number of vital everyday contexts, among them families (e.g., Wei, 1994; Blum-Kulka, 1997), informal gatherings among friends (e.g., Hinnenkamp, 2003; Kallmeyer and Keim, 2003; Keim, 2003), courtrooms (e.g., Gumperz, 1999a; Jacquemet, 1996), workplaces (e.g., Holmes and Stubbe, 2004; Prego-Vazquez, 2007), educational contexts (e.g., Rampton, 1995; Bailey, 2000), and email discourse (e.g., Georgakopoulou, 1997). It has also been investigated as a resource in discursive identity construction (e.g., Rampton, 1995; Bailey, 2000; Holmes and Stubbe, 2004; Auer, 2007) and for enacting societal ills such as racism (e.g., Hill, 1995). Indeed, much of this body of research, in the spirit of Gumperz, investigates code-switching and language contact as related to issues of social inequality.
3.2 Intercultural communication
As mentioned previously, Tannen‟s (1984/2005) work on „conversational style‟ advanced IS by providing a discussion of, and developing, the theoretical underpinnings of IS as an approach to cross-(sub)cultural communication. Tannen‟s (1986) That’s Not What I Meant! covers similar ground for nonacademic audiences, while Agar‟s (1994) Culture Shock offers nonacademic audiences an anthropological perspective on issues of communication and culture.
Given our continually globalizing world, there is continued interest in intercultural communication, especially between „East‟ and „West‟, and IS is being used productively to explore it. For example, Haru Yamada (1997) investigates Japanese-American discourse, with a focus on workplace settings, while Linda W. L. Young (1994) considers Chinese-American interaction. Yuling Pan, Suzanne Wong Scollon, and Ron Scollon‟s more comprehensive Professional Communication in International Settings (2002) considers a range of cultural groups and discourse types and incorporates multiple approaches, and is also aimed at general audiences, while Scollon and Scollon‟s (1995/2001) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach provides a thorough, more academic introduction to the topic. Donal Carbaugh (2005) integrates IS and ethnography in his book Cultures in Conversation to consider a variety of issues related to communication and culture. Such studies, building on Gumperz‟s work, provide insight into various kinds of intercultural miscommunication; they identify a range of causative factors, including uses of address terms, the structuring of information in discourse, and uses of pacing and pausing; some also give practical suggestions for improving communication. Many are important not only because they contribute to a more nuanced understanding of cultural differences and how these manifest interactionally, but also because they aim to educate the public about cultural aspects of communication.
3.3 Language and gender
IS serves as one of many theoretical orientations that have been drawn on to investigate gender and communication. The pioneering study of Maltz and Borker (1982) provided a starting point for Tannen‟s (1990, 1994, 1996, 1999) writing on language and gender in which she investigates interactions between women and men as a kind of cross-cultural communication and firmly establishes IS as a useful approach to gendered interaction. Her general audience book You Just Don’t Understand (Tannen, 1990) offers insights into everyday communication rituals of speakers of both genders. Much like Lakoff‟s (1975) Language and Woman’s Place, Tannen‟s work has fuelled both academic and popular interest in the topic. In fact, language and gender research „exploded‟ in the 1990s and continues to be a topic receiving a great deal of attention from researchers using various theoretical and methodological perspectives (Kendall and Tannen, 2001; see also Chapter 35, this volume). IS continues to be—implicitly or explicitly—important among these (see e.g., Bucholtz, Liang and Sutton, 1999; Hall and Bucholtz, 1995; Kotthoff and Wodak, 1997; Tannen, 1993a; Wodak, 1997b, 1997c).
3.4 Discursive identity construction
In the tradition established by Language and Social Identity (Gumperz, 1982b), IS has been used to examine how people create and negotiate identities in interaction. Contexts explored include workplaces (e.g., Kendall, 2003; Holmes and Stubbe, 2004), educational settings (e.g., Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz, 1996; Bailey, 2000; Wortham, 2006), families (e.g., Gordon, 2004; Tannen, Kendall and Gordon, 2007), and other social groups (e.g. Hamilton, 1998; Kiesling, 2001). Gendered identities are of particular interest, as are identities related to changing ethnic landscapes, especially in Europe (e.g., Auer, 2007). Such studies reveal the various linguistic means by which identities are constructed, make efforts at linking linguistic features with broader ideologies, and in general contribute to our understanding of how individuals use language to accomplish social goals. 3.5 Language, power, and institutions
A thread of research known as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) addresses social inequalities through academic research in a spirit akin to the goals of Gumperz‟s IS approach (see for instance Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999); CDA shares with IS „the interest in looking at language as a means of illuminating social problems‟ (Gumperz, personal communication). CDA studies draw on a number of approaches to discourse, among them IS, but focus more explicitly on issues of dominance and inequality. For example, Scollon and Scollon (1995/2001) integrate IS methodologies with a CDA focus on ideologies in Intercultural Communication, while Wodak (1997b, 1997c) does so to examine issues of language and gender.
Institutional encounters in which power is negotiated and exercised, like academic assessments (Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz, 1997), medical encounters (Tannen and Wallat, 1993; Wodak, 1997a), and courtroom interactions (Jacquemet, 1996; Eades, 2003, 2005) have also been examined by drawing on IS, although the focus of such analyses is not necessarily power. While some researchers have criticized IS for examining how members of different groups use language (the „difference‟ approach) to the exclusion of considering larger power structures, like institutional discrimination (the „dominance‟ approach) (Singh, Lele, and Martohardjono, 1988), linking macro (sociopolitical forces and cultural discourses) and micro (conversational features) has actually been identified as a strength of IS (Levinson, 2003: 37). Further, recent research by Eades (2005) explores difficulties in the difference/dominance dichotomy and explains strengths and weaknesses of each, suggesting we need a „discourse‟ approach to go beyond these two perspectives. In addition, Gumperz has answered some criticisms of IS by addressing larger cultural forces like gender discrimination in his research in more explicit ways; for example, Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1996) uncover a subtle subtext of gender discrimination in a Ph.D. defence by analyzing contextualization cues like prosody in the context of the unfolding interaction, the interpersonal relationships among participants, the content of the talk, and the socio-historical roots of the defence as an event. Whether such efforts convince critics or not, interests in learning more about ways to link micro and macro in analyses of social interaction persist (e.g., Al Zidjaly, 2006; Wortham, 2006), and much research in this area is inspired in some way by Gumperz‟s approach.
4. Summary and Future Directions
We have seen that, since its inception, interactional sociolinguistics has been interdisciplinary. Its founder, John Gumperz, is an anthropological linguist (or a linguistic anthropologist—see Gumperz 2003: 117); other scholars contributing concepts, theories, and methodological perspectives hail from sociology (Garfinkel and Goffman), anthropology (Hymes), philosophy (Searle and Grice), and linguistics (Lakoff and Tannen). Many of these scholars, like Gumperz himself, have stretched the boundaries of their respective disciplines; their scholarship connects what is „inside the circle‟ of their field with that which lies outside. Growing from these interdisciplinary roots are numerous examples of studies using IS that involve scholars from multiple, and quite disparate, backgrounds and perspectives. For instance, genetic counsellors and linguists have collaboratively examined how prenatal genetic counsellors interact with their clients (e.g., Benkendorf et al., 2001; Gordon et al., 2002); linguists and medical professionals have explored doctor-patient talk (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2008); and anthropologists, linguists, and communication studies scholars have addressed various facets of family discourse (e.g., Tannen and Goodwin, 2006). Given recent calls for moves toward interdisciplinarity in medical communication research (by Sarangi, 2004), in studies of the family (by Schneider and Waite, 2005), and in Critical Discourse Analysis (by Wodak and Chilton, 2005), and given the current academic climate in which interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research is valued and encouraged, IS will surely continue to play a leading role in investigations of social interaction across a range of contexts.