Search

This paper examines the use of impoliteness by Spanish–English bilingual pre-adolescents as a resource for accomplishing identities in spontaneous conversational interactions in an elementary school setting. The theoretical approach employed integrates the concept of relational work (Locher 2004; Locher and Watts 2005), which is based on Goffman's (1967) notion of face and which privileges participants' evaluation of language behavior within the norms of the community of practice, with recent work in sociocultural linguistics (Bucholtz and Hall 2004a, 2004b, 2005). This approach views identity as an interactional achievement reached through the use of what they call tactics of intersubjectivity. In this analysis, negatively marked, non-politic behavior is viewed as an interactional resource, which, along with other resources such as codeswitching, bilingual speakers may employ for the purposes of alignment and stance-taking. Specifically, the paper examines how speakers use strategies referred to as impolite (cf. Culpeper 1996) in the performance of a variety of tactics of intersubjectivity to manage local identities (e.g., leader/follower, insider/outsider) as well as membership in broad social categories (e.g., gender, ethnic identities) in interaction, how they engage in conflict talk and what they gain from it, and how codeswitching is (and is not) used in interactions. This analysis is situated within the wider social context of language politics and immigration politics in the individual school, the region, and the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how literature circles work in the context of L2 instruction through a close scrutiny of classroom interactions in an adult ESL class where nine ESL learners read fictional works and discussed the readings. The paper examines the characteristics of student interactions with the literary text and with other group members, focusing on how the interactions relate to the learners' L2 reading experiences and language development. Analysis of discourse of the literature discussions shows that the students developed diverse, insightful responses concerning literal comprehension, personal connections, cross-cultural themes, interpretation, and evaluation of the text. It also reveals that the students were engaged in highly dialogic social interactions in the target language. The findings suggest that the literature discussions helped the students emotionally and intellectually to participate in the literary text, generating an opportunity for enjoyable L2 reading experiences. In addition, the literature discussions contributed to promoting students' L2 communicative competence by offering chances for them to produce extended output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human interaction and communication involve space in multiple ways. This paper examines the spatial and interactional order of a covertly video-taped police interrogation. When the participants enter the interrogation room and become engaged in the interrogation process, the room itself is a constraint and a resource for interaction. While interacting within a built environment, the participants appropriate their material surroundings in ways that constitute a spatial order and make possible certain arguments. This paper examines how the physical structure of the interrogation room is differentially appropriated, used, and filled in by the participants‘ territorial and postural manoeuvers over the course of their interaction; and how the spatial structures thus created by the bodily appropriation of the physical locale are subsequently formulated by talk and thereby used as a metaphorical resource to frame the participants‘ situated experience. Through this embedded process, the interrogators move the suspect toward confession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contrasts two accounts of audience design during multiparty communication: audience design as a strategic individual-level message adjustment or as a non-strategic interaction-level message adjustment. Using a non-interactive communication task, Experiment 1 showed that people distinguish between messages designed for oneself and messages designed for another person; consistent with strategic message design, messages designed for another person/s were longer (number of words) than those designed for oneself. However, audience size did not affect message length (messages designed for different sized audiences were similar in length). Using an interactive communication task Experiment 2 showed that as group size increased so too did communicative effort (number of words exchanged between interlocutors). Consistent with a non-strategic account, as group members were added more social interaction was necessary to coordinate the group's collective situation model. Experiment 3 validates and extends the production measures used in Experiment 1 and 2 using a comprehension task. Taken together, our results indicate that audience design arises as a non-strategic outcome of social interaction during group discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experience and positioning of affect is a material-discursive-intrapsychic experience, which can be interrogated through the examination of the intersubjective realm. This paper examines ways in which women experience and negotiate premenstrual change in affect, positioned as premenstrual syndrome (PMS), drawing on in-depth interviews conducted with fifty-nine women. All of the women interviewed described premenstrual changes in affect in a similar manner, as being characterised by intolerance, irritation, emotional sensitivity, feeling more negative towards others, and feeling overwhelmed in the face of life's demands. Without exception, women expressed a desire to be alone premenstrually, in order to escape relational demands and responsibilities, to reduce stimulation, or to avoid conflict. The way that these premenstrual changes and the woman's desire to be alone were positioned by the woman's partner, and dealt with within relationships, provided the material and discursive context for the woman's experience and negotiation of PMS. Women whose partners were accepting and supportive were more likely to take up a position of awareness, acceptance and self-care in relation to premenstrual change, whilst women whose partners were unsupportive were more likely to engage in self-castigation and self-pathologisation. This suggests that intersubjectivity, the examination of subjectivity and affect in the context of relatedness, will be a fruitful avenue of exploration for critical psychologists, as well as for researchers interested in the complexity of women's premenstrual experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since this society is oriented toward a specific theory, I thought I ought to say something about theories in general and our little theory in particular. Let me get that off of my chest. I am not overly fond of terms like "theory" and "theorist," both of which seem to suggest the importance of the person who claims the identity more than anything else. They are pompous terms. To the extent that we are thoughtful about what we are doing and how we are going about it, all sociologists are theorists and methodologists. But if that is all we are, then we are literally people of no substance. We have no substantial knowledge of or concern for the empirical world. The little theory we share is extraordinarily empirical. It is, as one of its most prominent practitioners called it, a "grounded theory" (Glaser and Strauss 1967). I confess that several years after receiving my degree I had no real sense of what symbolic interaction was and how it might differ from other theoretical orientations. Arnold Rose enlightened me on this when he asked me to submit a paper for a new collection he was editing (Rose 1962). I was pleased and flattered. Rose was a mentor of mine, and I had never before been asked to contribute to an edited volume. But I was unsure of what would be appropriate for a book about symbolic interaction. I screwed up my courage and asked Arnold: "Exactly what is symbolic interaction?" He shrugged off my ignorance, turned on his heels, and muttered over his shoulder, "It is what they do at Chicago." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the process-social structure controversy, concerning the relations of self to symbolic interactionism. Increasingly, knowledgeable scholars of self theory are gaining methodological insights, which support the fact that our conceptions of process and social structure are each incomplete, supplementary dimensions articulating the same phenomenal states of being and development. Just as self and society are "twin born", structure and process are analytically separable dimensions of self that, however, are not mutually reducible. Hence, the basis problem, attempted herein, is to expound dimensions of the symbolic interactionist perspective required for logically specifying and analyzing those psychological, social and situational conditions under which social structure and social process each exert their differential-- as well as their combined, simultaneous influences in determining consequences that self has for soical behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a microsociological study of a group of people who have undergone a threat experience. Within the combined theoretical frameworks of symbolic interactionism and phenomenology, the event is seen as a "reality shock" for its participants, involving cognitive crises in group and individual definitions of the situation. The after period is one in which procedures toward making the threat experience meaningful on both group and individual levels are instituted within group networks. These procedures on a group level involve the construction of a "real" event by the objectification of time and experience and through the emergence and attribution of post-hoc norms. Strategies toward the maintenance and continuity of identity include reconstruction of the threat situation, of other participants' behavior, of post-hoc norms, or of individual behavior, and the negotiation of identity on these various bases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents Peter M. Hall's response to Rosabeth Moss Kanter's comments toward his article "A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of Politics," published in the 1972 issue of "Sociological Inquiry." The author concludes that Kanter misunderstands his perspective by subsuming it under American liberalism. If there is anything that he is not, it is an American liberal, and if there is anything he is criticizing in American sociology, political sociology, and symbolic interaction, it is consensual, pluralistic, and liberal bias. Hall also does not deny the need to see the totality of the society, its interdependencies, feedbacks, and impacts, in short, society as a system. To settle misconceptions, Hall emphasized that his paper had a special focus and set limits as to its goals and coverage. It was not intended to be a complete analysis of politics nor a complete analysis of American politics.