Multimodal Performance and Interaction in Focus Groups

| Elmhurst University
| University of Illinois at Chicago
ISBN 9789027208378 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
ISBN 9789027260208 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
Focus group interviews have seen explosive growth in recent years. They provide evaluations of social science, educational, and marketing projects by soliciting opinions from a number of participants on a given topic. However, there is more to the focus group than soliciting mere opinions. Moving beyond a narrow preoccupation with topic talk, Gilbert and Matoesian take a novel direction to focus group analysis. They address how multimodal resources – the integration of speech, gesture, gaze, and posture – orchestrate communal relations and professional identities, linking macro orders of space-time to microcosmic action in a focus group evaluation of community policing training. They conceptualize assessment as an evaluation ritual, a sociocultural reaffirmation of collective identity and symbolic maintenance of professional boundary enacted in aesthetically patterned oratory. In the wake of social unrest and citizen disillusionment with policing practice, Gilbert and Matoesian argue that processes of multimodal interaction provide a critical direction for focus group evaluation of police reforms. Their book will be of interest to researchers who study focus group interviews, gesture, language and culture, and policing reform.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Focus groups: A multimodal approach
Part 1. Sociocultural organization in multimodal action
Chapter 2. They thought we were a hick town
Chapter 3. We’re doin this here now
Part 2. Multimodal rituals of stance and positioning
Chapter 4. Struck by speech
Chapter 5. Interactional positioning
Chapter 6. Poetic positioning and multimodal hypotheticals
Part 3. Interactional troubles and contextualization cues
Chapter 7. When the dust cleared up
Chapter 8. We have four hundred and seventy six neighborhood watches
Appendix. Data-methodology
Transcription conventions used
“This book makes a significant contribution to the study of focus group interactions and its applications in applied sciences. Specifically, the book makes a novel contribution to the field by implementing linguistically-oriented methodology (i.e., microanalytic study of talk and interaction) to a specific sociocultural communicative setting between an institution—police, and citizens within an evaluative context. The book covers a wide range of disciplines as they discuss criminal justice within a program evaluative stance, from an interactive approach, and researchers and scholars of both language and criminal studies will benefit from reading it.”
Multimodal Performance and Interaction in Focus Groups is an insightful reading and offers an original take on how to analyse focus groups, considering them as deeply moral events that have practical implications to participants. In the context of community policing, it helps us to take a step back; before evaluating policing training, we should understand participants’ sense of community and how they achieve this by bringing different kinds of meaning-making resources together. Even though the authors do not explicitly mention a particular audience, the book will certainly benefit discourse scholars in a broader sense as well as those interested in conducting focus groups as part of their research. Additionally, the discussions generated about community and tensions involving police expertise and jurisdiction may appeal to researchers studying police settings and practices, particularly those working closely with law enforcement.”


Abbott, A.
(1988) The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agha, A.
(2005) Introduction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. Volume 15, 1. Pages 1–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K.
(2002) English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, P. and Silverman, D.
(1997) Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol. 3(3), pp. 304–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M.
(1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M.
(1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History. 7(1–4), pp. 335–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, M. and Georgakopoulou, A.
2008Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk. Vol. 28(3), pp. 377–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, R.
(2007) Doing focus groups. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J.
(1999) (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Research and Practice. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, R.
(2004) A World of Other’s Words. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baynham, M.
(2011) Stance, positioning, and alignment in narratives of professional experience. Language in Society. Vol. 40, pp. 63–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazemore, G.
(2000) Community justice and a vision of collective efficacy: The case of restorative conferencing. In Horney, J. (ed.) Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Beach, W.
(1990) Language as and in technology: Facilitating topic organization in a videotext focus group meeting. In M. J. Medhurst (Ed.), Communication and the Culture of Technology, pp. 197–220. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press.Google Scholar
Beach, W. and Terri Metzger, T.
(1997) Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research 23: pp. 562–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, K.
(2016) Pragmatic Markers in British English. New York: Cambridge U. Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beyea, S. C. and Nicoll, L. H.
(2000) Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting focus group data. Acorn Journal. Vol. 71(6), pp. 1281–1283.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E.
1999Grammar of Spoken and Written English. NewYork: Longman.Google Scholar
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., and Robson, K.
(2001) Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blyth Jr., C., Recktenwald, S. and Wang, J.
(1990) I’m Like, “Say What?!”: A New Quotative in American Oral Narrative. American Speech, 65: pp. 215–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G.
(2003) Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture, 3(2), pp. 187–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P.
(1986) Forms of Capital. In J. E. Richardson (ed), Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.Google Scholar
Briggs, C.
(1986) Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Interview. In Senft, G., Ostman, J., and Verschueren, J. (eds.) Culture and Language Use. (Handbook of pragmatic highlights 2). John Benjamins Publishing pp. 202–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carr, E. S.
(2010) Enactments of expertise. Annual Review of Anthropology. 39, pp. 17–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M.
(2006) Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, A. and Lanza-Kaduce, L.
(2010) Police academy socialization: Understanding the lessons learned in a paramilitary-bureaucratic organization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 39(2), pp. 187–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J.
(2007) Discourse variation, grammaticalization and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 11(2), pp. 155–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clear, T. and Karp, D.
(1999) The Community Justice Ideal. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.
(1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K.
(2015) Institutions, trust, and social Order. In Lawler, E., Shane, T. and Yoon, J. Order on the Edge of Chaos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. and Sanusi, A.
(2000) ‘I’m just saying …”: Discourse markers of standpoint continuity. Argumentation. 14, pp. 425–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crow, Graham
What are Community Studies (2018) NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Debras, C.
(2017) The Shrug. Gesture 16 (1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Fina, A. and Georgakpoulou, A.
(2012) Analyzing Narrative: Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Jorio, Andrea
(2000) Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity. A translation of La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano (1832), and with an Introduction and Notes, by Adam Kendon. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(2013) How to get a grip on identities-in-interaction: (What) does ‘positioning’ offer more than ‘membership categorization’? Evidence from a mock story. Narrative Inquiry 23(1), pp. 62–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Positioning. In The Handbook of Narrative Analysis. DeFina, A., and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds) NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 369–387.Google Scholar
Dines, E.
(1980) Variation in discourse ‘And stuff like that’. Language in Society 9: pp. 13–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E.
(1988) Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems. 35, 4. 398–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, B.
(1989) Pseudoquotation in current English communication; “Hey, she didn’t really say it.” Language in Society. 18, pp. 343–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duszak, A.
(2002) Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. and Schultz, J.
(1982) Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, K. T.
(1978) Everything in its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(2003) Analysing Discourse. New York: Routlege. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, K. and Bell, B.
(1995) Sociolinguistic Variation and Discourse Function of Constructed Dialogue Introducers: The Case of Be+Like. American Speech, 70: pp. 265–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipi, A. and Wales, R.
(2003) Differential uses of okay, right, and alright, and their function in signaling perspective shift or maintenance in a map task. Semiotica. 147(1/4), pp. 429–455.Google Scholar
Fleming, L. and Lempert, M.
(2014) Poetics and Performativity. In N. Enfield, P. Kockelman and J. Sidnell (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 485–515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. and Schrock, J.
(2002) Basic Meanings of You Know and I Mean. Journal of Pragmatics . 34, pp. 727–747. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frake, C.
(1972) ‘Struck by speech’: The Yakan concept of litigation. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt. pp. 106–129.Google Scholar
Fuller, J.
(2003) Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 7(3), pp. 365–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gal, S. and Irvine, J.
(1995) The boundaries of language and disciplines: How ideologies construct differences. Social Research. 62, pp. 967–1001.Google Scholar
(2019) Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R.
(2001) When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, K. and Matoesian, G.
(2016) Multimodal action and speaker positioning in Closing Argument. In Multimodal Communication. Vol. 4(2), pp. 93–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, P.
(1989) Initiating shared laughter in multi-party conversations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53: pp. 127–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Laughing at and laughing with: Negotiations of participants’ alignments through conversational laughter. In ten Have, P. and Psathas, G. (eds.) Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America. pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
Gobet, F.
(2016) Understanding Expertise. London: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
(1979) Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
(1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. and McNeill, D.
(1999) The role of gesture and mimetic representation in making language the province of speech. In M. Corballis and S. Lea (eds.), The Descent of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 155–71.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M.
(1980) Processes of mutual monitoring in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50, 3-4. 303–317.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1986) Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica. Vol. 62(1–2), pp. 29–49.Google Scholar
(1986) Audience Diversity, Participation and Interpretation. Text, 6: pp. 283–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp. 1489–1522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Embodied hearers and speakers constructing talk and action in interaction. Cognitive Studies. 16(1), pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M.
(2004) Participation. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 222–244.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, T.
(2000) Moderating Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J.
(2001) From the individual interview to the interview society. In Gubrium, J. and Holstein, H. (eds.) Handbook of Interview Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J.
(1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W.
(1996) Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
(2006) Joint commitment and common ground in a ritual event. In Roots of Sociality. N. Enfield and S. Levinson (eds). New York: Berg. pp. 299–328.Google Scholar
Harrison, S.
(2018) The Impulse to Gesture. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J.
(1996) Projections, Transpositions, and Relativity. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. (eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 271–323.Google Scholar
(2000) Pointing, gesture spaces and mental maps. In McNeill, D. (ed). Language and Gesture. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Hey! Topics in Cognitive Science. 7 pp. 124–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, S.
(2006) Citizens, Cops, and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hester, S. and Housley, W.
(2002) Introduction: Ethnomethodology and national identity. In Stephen Hester, S. and Housley, W. (eds.), Language, Interaction and National Identity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Hewitt, J. and Stokes, R.
(1975) Disclaimers. American Sociological Review. 40, pp. 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J.
(1995) The Voices of Don Gabriel: Responsibility and Self in a Modern Mexicano Narrative. In Tedlock, D. and Mannheim, B. (eds) The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. pp. 97–147.Google Scholar
Holstein, J. and J. Gubrium
(2004) Active interviewing. In Silverman, D. (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage. pp. 140–161.Google Scholar
Holt, E.
(2007) I’m eyeing your chop up mind”: Reporting and enacting. In E. Holt and R. Clift (eds). Reporting Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. 47–80. Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
(2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
(1975) Breakthrough into performance. In Ben-Amos, D. and Goldstein, K. (eds) Approaches to Semiotics [AS]: Folklore: Performance and Communication. Berlin/Boston, DE: De Gruter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1960) Closing Statement. In T. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 398–429.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A.
(2009) Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (ed). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(1984) On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 346–369.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B.
(2016) Language theory in contemporary sociolinguistics. In Nikolas Coupland ed. Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. 417–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H.
(2017) Focus group interaction in evaluation research. Applied Linguistics Review 8 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Karkkainen, E.
(2007) The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Stancetaking in Discourse ed by Robert Englebretson. 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G.
(2013) Conversation analysis and interview studies. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (ed.) Chapelle, C. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kendon, A.
(1986) Some reasons for studying gesture. Semiotica 62, pp. 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Do gestures communicate?: A review. Research on Language and Social Interaction 27: pp. 175–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Language and gesture: Unity or duality. In D. McNeill (ed). Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 47–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. and Moore, M.
(1995) Underwriting the Risky Investment in Community Policing: What Social Science Should Be Doing to Evaluate Community Policing. The Justice System Journal, 17: pp. 271–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kishner, J. and Gibbs Jr., R.
(1996) How ‘just’ gets its meanings: Polysemy and context in psychological semantics. Language and Speech 39: pp. 19–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S.
(2003) Pointing: A foundational building block of human communication in S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. (pp. 85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krahmer, E. and Swerts, M.
(2007) The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language. 57, 396–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koven, M.
(2014) Interviewing: Practice, ideology, genre, and intertextuality. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 43, pp. 499–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kraska, P. and Cubellis, L. J.
(1997) Militarizing Mayberry and beyond: Making sense of American paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly 14, pp. 607–629. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. and Waletsky, J.
(1967) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1–4): pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Lavin, D. and Maynard, D.
(2001) Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys. American Sociological Review 66: pp. 453–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, C.
(2014) Situating police in a late modern society. The ontology of police Identity. Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles. 87 (4). pp. 270–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.
(1987) The semantics of just . Journal of Pragmatics, 11: pp. 377–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Categories in the description of just . Lingua, 83: pp. 43–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.
(2010) Policing after 9/11: Community policing in an age of homeland security. Police Quarterly 13 (4): 347–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lempert, M.
(2018) On the pragmatic poetic of prose: Gesture, parallelism, and politics. Signs and Society. Vol 6, 1, p. 120–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G.
(1987) Collaborative turn sequences: Sentence construction and social action. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. U. of California-Irvine.Google Scholar
(1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20, pp. 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, X.
(2014) Multimodality, Interaction and Turn-Taking in Mandarin Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M.
(2000) Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of priviledged knowledge. Theory, Culture, and Society. 17, 3. 26–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor Ergo Sum? In Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W. (eds.) Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chinchester, New York: John Wiley. pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Myers, G.
(2004) Focus groups: The moderator’s view and the analyst’s view. In Qualitative Research Practice (eds.) Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F. and Silverman, D. London: Sage, pp. 65–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, E. and Wells, W.
(2002) Community policing as communication reform. In Howard Giles (ed.) Law Enforcement, Communication, and Community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 33–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, S.
(2011) A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), pp. 6–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manning, P.
(1988) Community policing as a drama of control. In Green, J. and Mastrofski, S. (eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger. pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
Maricchiolo, F., Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M. and Ficca, G.
(2009) Effects of different types of hand gestures in persuasive speech on receivers’ evaluations. Language and Cognitive Processes. 24, 239–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, G.
(1999) The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 28 (4): 491–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Role Conflict as an Interactional Resource in the Multimodal Emergence of Expert Identity. Semiotica. 171, pp. 15–49.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. and Gilbert, K.
(2016) Multifunctionality of beat gestures and material conduct during closing argument. Gesture. Vol.15(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. and Schaeffer, N.
(2000) Sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology’s asymmetric alternates. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 30(3), pp. 323–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D.
(1992) Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Gesture and communication. In K. Brown (ed) Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2nd edition). (pp 58–67). New York: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Gesture: A psycholinguistic approach. In Hogan, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 344–46.Google Scholar
Miller, J.
(2009)  Like and other discourse markers. In P. Peters, P. Collins and A. Smith (eds). Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D.
(1996) Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol 22, 129–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Basic and Advanced Focus Groups. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Müller, C.
(2008) What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In Metaphor and Gesture, Alan Cienki and Cornelia Müller (eds). Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 219–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I.
(2001) Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.
(1998) Displaying Opinions: Topics and Disagreement in Focus Groups. Language in Society, 27: pp. 85–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussion. Applied Linguistics, 20: pp. 376–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Unspoken speech: Hypothetical reported discourse and the rhetoric of everyday talk. Text. 19 (4), pp. 571–590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Matters of Opinion: Talking About Public Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G. and Lampropoulou, S.
(2012) Impersonal you and stance-taking in social research interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 44: pp. 1206–1218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) What place reference can do in social research interviews. Discourse Studites 15, 3. 333–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G. and Macnaghten, P.
(1999) Can focus groups be analysed as talk? In. Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J. (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 173–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
(1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. (eds.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 407–437.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. and Capps, L.
(2001) Living Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M.
(1999) Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. and Yule, G.
(2002) The metapragmatics of and everything . Journal of Pragmatics, 34: pp. 785–794. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patton, M.
(1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Reicher, S.
(1987) Discourses of community and conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology 26: pp. 25–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Puchta, C. and Potter, J.
(2004) Focus Group Practice. London: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rampton, B.
(2002) Ritual and Foreign Language Practices at School. Language in Society. 31: 491–525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rapley, T.
(2004) Interviews. In Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J., and Silverman, D. (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp.15–34). London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. and Lange, D.
(1991) The Use of Like as a Marker of Reported Speech and Thought: A Case of Grammaticalization in Progress’. American Speech, 66: pp. 227–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, D.
(ed.) (1994) The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design, and measurement issues. In Evaluation for Crime Prevention: Crime prevention studies. Tilley, N. (ed.) Vol. 14, pp. 171–225.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D., Graziano, L., Stephens, C. and Schuck, A.
(2011) Understanding Community policing and legitimacy-seeking behavior in virtual reality: A national study of municipal police websites. Police Quarterly 14 (1): 25–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, K.
(2006) Close encounters of the CA kind: A review of literature analyzing talk in research interviews. Qualitative Research 6 (4), pp 515–534. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Interview ‘problems” as topics for analysis. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), pp. 77–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Introduction. In Interactional studies of Qualitative Research Interviews. (K. Roulston (ed). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1978) Technical considerations of a dirty joke. In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. J. Schenkein (ed). New York: Academic Press, pp. 249–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, B.
(2003) The Rhetoric of Risk: Technical Documentation in Hazardous Environments. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, J.
(2004) Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural: Evidence from conversation. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (eds). Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications. pp. 377–396.Google Scholar
(2007) Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Robert Englebretson, R. (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 111–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.
(1988/9) From interview to confrontation: Observations on the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction. Vol. 22, pp. 215–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) “Narrative analysis: Thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1–4): pp. 97–106.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987) Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.
(1995) Intercultural Communication. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shaw, I.
(1999) Qualitative Evaluation. London: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shoaps, R.
(1999) The Many Voices of Rush Limbaugh: The Use of Transposition in Constructing a Rhetoric of Common Sense. Text, 19: pp. 399–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J.
(2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: pp. 377–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M.
(1976) Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K., Selby, H. (eds). Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: U. of New Mexico Press. p. 11–55.Google Scholar
(1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P., Hanks, W., and Hofbauer, C. (eds). The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society of the University of Chicago. pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
(1981) The Limits of Awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper Number 84. Southwest Educational Development Lab., Austin, TX.Google Scholar
(1985) On the pragmatic “poetry” of prose: Parallelism, repetition, and cohesive structure in the time course of dyadic conversation. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press, 181–198.Google Scholar
(1993) Metapragmatic Discourse and the Metapragmatic Function. In J. Lucy (ed.) Reflexive Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) The Improvisational Performance of Culture in Realtime Discursive Practice. In Creativity in Performance, R. K. Sawyer (ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. pp. 265–312.Google Scholar
(2014) Denotation and the pragmatics of language. In N. Enfield, P. Kockelman and J. Sidnell (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 128–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skarzynska, K.
(2002)  We and they in Polish political discourse. In Duszak, A. (ed.), Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp 249–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, B.
(2015) Ritual: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford U. Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stasch, R.
(2011) Ritual and Oratory Revisited: The Semiotics of Effective Action. Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 159–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, L. and Manderson, L.
(2011) About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43: pp. 1581–1602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J.
(2005) Introduction. Semiotica volume 156-1/4. 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J.
(1993) Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs 60: pp. 275–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) On projection. In Goody, E. (ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 87–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Gesturecraft: The Manu-facture of Meaning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Studdert, D.
(2005) Conceptualizing Community: Beyond the State and Individual. New York: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, S. and Richards, K.
(2011) Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), pp. 1–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D.
(1989) Talking Voices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tavarez, D.
(2014) Ritual Language. In N. Enfield, P. Kockelman and J. Sidnell (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 516–536. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
TeBendorf, S.
(2014) Pragmatic and Metaphoric – Combining Functional with Cognitive Approaches in the Analysis of the “Brushing Aside Gesture.” In Body – Language – Communication volume 2. C. Muller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill and J. Bressem (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1540–1558.Google Scholar
Tonnies, F.
(2001) Community and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Travers, M.
(2005) Evaluation research and criminal justice: Beyond a political critique. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Vol. 38(1), pp. 39–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A.
(1991) The pragmatic functions of I Don’t Know . Text, 11: pp. 607–622. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tutton, M.
(2009) When in means into: Towards an understanding of boundary-crossing in . Journal of English Linguistics. 37: 5–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Widdicombe, S.
(1998) Identity as an analysts’ and participants’ resource. In Charles Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.), Identities in Talk. London: Sage. pp. 191–206.Google Scholar
Wilce, J.
(2017) Culture and Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S.
(1999) Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly Vol. 23, pp. 181–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Focus group research. In Qualitative research: Theory, Method, and Practice. Silverman, D. (ed.) London: Sage Publications. pp. 177–199.Google Scholar
(2006) Analysing interaction in focus groups. In Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.), London: Sage Publications. pp. 50–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, L.
(1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 44(1), pp. 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R., Cillia, R., Reisig, M. and Liebhart, K.
(1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wortham, S.
(2001) Narratives in Action: A Strategy for Research and Analysis. New York, NY: Teachers Colleges Press.Google Scholar
Subjects & Metadata

Communication Studies

Communication Studies
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020047007 | Marc record