1887

Multimodal Performance and Interaction in Focus Groups

image of Multimodal Performance and Interaction in Focus Groups

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.

References

  1. Abbott, A.
    (1988) The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agha, A.
    (2005) Introduction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. Volume15, 1. Pages1–5. 10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aijmer, K.
    (2002) English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. 10.1177/107780049700300304
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300304 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, M.
    (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Texas: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bamberg, M.
    (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History. 7(1–4), pp.335–342. 10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos [Google Scholar]
  7. Bamberg, M. and Georgakopoulou, A.
    2008 Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk. Vol.28(3), pp.377–396. 10.1515/TEXT.2008.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.018 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barbour, R.
    (2007) Doing focus groups. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781849208956
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J.
    (1999) (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Research and Practice. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781849208857
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208857 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauman, R.
    (2004) A World of Other’s Words. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470773895
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773895 [Google Scholar]
  11. Baynham, M.
    (2011) Stance, positioning, and alignment in narratives of professional experience. Language in Society. Vol.40, pp.63–74. 10.1017/S0047404510000898
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000898 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. Beach, W. and Terri Metzger, T.
    (1997) Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research23: pp.562–588. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1997.tb00410.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Beeching, K.
    (2016) Pragmatic Markers in British English. New York: Cambridge U. Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507110 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , and Finegan, E.
    1999Grammar of Spoken and Written English. NewYork: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bloor, M. , Frankland, J. , Thomas, M. , and Robson, K.
    (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781849209175
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209175 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.2307/455910
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455910 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bolden, G.
    (2003) Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture, 3(2), pp.187–211. 10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Briggs, C.
    (1986) Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165990 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2009) Interview. In Senft, G. , Ostman, J. , and Verschueren, J. (eds.) Culture and Language Use. (Handbook of pragmatic highlights 2). John Benjamins Publishingpp.202–209. 10.1075/hoph.2.18bri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.2.18bri [Google Scholar]
  24. Carr, E. S.
    (2010) Enactments of expertise. Annual Review of Anthropology. 39, pp.17–32. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104948
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104948 [Google Scholar]
  25. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M.
    (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1177/0891241609342230
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241609342230 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cheshire, J.
    (2007) Discourse variation, grammaticalization and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 11(2), pp.155–193. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2007.00317.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Clear, T. and Karp, D.
    (1999) The Community Justice Ideal. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cohen, A.
    (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203323373
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203323373 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. 10.1017/CBO9781139924627.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139924627.008 [Google Scholar]
  31. Craig, R. and Sanusi, A.
    (2000) ‘I’m just saying …”: Discourse markers of standpoint continuity. Argumentation. 14, pp.425–445. 10.1023/A:1007880826834
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007880826834 [Google Scholar]
  32. Crow, Graham
    What are Community Studies (2018) NY: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Debras, C.
    (2017) The Shrug. Gesture16 (1): 1–33. 10.1075/gest.16.1.01deb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.01deb [Google Scholar]
  34. De Fina, A. and Georgakpoulou, A.
    (2012) Analyzing Narrative: Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. 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 Inquiry23(1), pp.62–88. 10.1075/ni.23.1.04dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.04dep [Google Scholar]
  37. (2015) Positioning. InThe Handbook of Narrative Analysis. DeFina, A. , and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds) NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp.369–387.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Dines, E.
    (1980) Variation in discourse ‘And stuff like that’. Language in Society9: pp.13–31. 10.1017/S0047404500007764
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007764 [Google Scholar]
  39. Drew, P. and Holt, E.
    (1988) Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems. 35, 4. 398–417. 10.2307/800594
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800594 [Google Scholar]
  40. DuBois, B.
    (1989) Pseudoquotation in current English communication; “Hey, she didn’t really say it.” Language in Society. 18, pp.343–359. 10.1017/S0047404500013646
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013646 [Google Scholar]
  41. Duszak, A.
    (2002) Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.98
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98 [Google Scholar]
  42. Erickson, F. and Schultz, J.
    (1982) Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Erikson, K. T.
    (1978) Everything in its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood. New York: Touchstone.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fairclough, N.
    (2003) Analysing Discourse. New York: Routlege. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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. 10.2307/455900
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455900 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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]
  47. 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. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.023 [Google Scholar]
  48. Fox Tree, J. and Schrock, J.
    (2002) Basic Meanings of You Know and I Mean. Journal of Pragmatics . 34, pp.727–747. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00027‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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]
  50. Fuller, J.
    (2003) Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 7(3), pp.365–377. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00229
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00229 [Google Scholar]
  51. Gal, S. and Irvine, J.
    (1995) The boundaries of language and disciplines: How ideologies construct differences. Social Research. 62, pp.967–1001.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2019) Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108649209
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649209 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gardner, R.
    (2001) When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  54. Gilbert, K. and Matoesian, G.
    (2016) Multimodal action and speaker positioning in Closing Argument. InMultimodal Communication. Vol.4(2), pp.93–112. 10.1515/mc‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  55. Glenn, P.
    (1989) Initiating shared laughter in multi-party conversations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53: pp.127–149. 10.1080/10570318909374296
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318909374296 [Google Scholar]
  56. (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]
  57. Gobet, F.
    (2016) Understanding Expertise. London: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑57196‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57196-0 [Google Scholar]
  58. Goffman, E.
    (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (1979) Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 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]
  62. Goodwin, M.
    (1980) Processes of mutual monitoring in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry50, 3-4. 303–317.. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00024.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00024.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Goodwin, C.
    (1986) Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica. Vol.62(1–2), pp.29–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (1986) Audience Diversity, Participation and Interpretation. Text, 6: pp.283–316. 10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.283
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp.1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  66. (2009) Embodied hearers and speakers constructing talk and action in interaction. Cognitive Studies. 16(1), pp.51–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M.
    (2004) Participation. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp.222–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Greenbaum, T.
    (2000) Moderating Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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]
  70. Gumperz, J.
    (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hanks, W.
    (1996) Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (2006) Joint commitment and common ground in a ritual event. InRoots of Sociality. N. Enfield and S. Levinson (eds). New York: Berg. pp.299–328.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Harrison, S.
    (2018) The Impulse to Gesture. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108265065
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108265065 [Google Scholar]
  74. 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]
  75. (2000) Pointing, gesture spaces and mental maps. In McNeill, D. (ed). Language and Gesture. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.13–46. 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.003 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2015) Hey! Topics in Cognitive Science. 7pp.124–149. 10.1111/tops.12126
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12126 [Google Scholar]
  77. Herbert, S.
    (2006) Citizens, Cops, and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226327358.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226327358.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  78. 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]
  79. Hewitt, J. and Stokes, R.
    (1975) Disclaimers. American Sociological Review. 40, pp.1–11. 10.2307/2094442
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2094442 [Google Scholar]
  80. 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]
  81. 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]
  82. 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]
  83. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
    (2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489457
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489457 [Google Scholar]
  84. 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. 10.1515/9783110880229.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880229.11 [Google Scholar]
  85. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Closing Statement. In T. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp.398–429.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Jaffe, A.
    (2009) Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (ed). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.3–28. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  87. 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]
  88. Johnstone, B.
    (2016) Language theory in contemporary sociolinguistics. In Nikolas Coupland ed.Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.417–432. 10.1017/CBO9781107449787.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449787.020 [Google Scholar]
  89. Jung, H.
    (2017) Focus group interaction in evaluation research. Applied Linguistics Review8 (1): 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Karkkainen, E.
    (2007) The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. InStancetaking in Discourseed by Robert Englebretson . 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.08kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.08kar [Google Scholar]
  91. Kasper, G.
    (2013) Conversation analysis and interview studies. InThe Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (ed.) Chapelle, C. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Kendon, A.
    (1986) Some reasons for studying gesture. Semiotica62, pp.1–28. 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1‑2.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.3 [Google Scholar]
  93. (1994) Do gestures communicate?: A review. Research on Language and Social Interaction27: pp.175–200. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2703_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2703_2 [Google Scholar]
  94. (2000) Language and gesture: Unity or duality. In D. McNeill (ed). Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.47–63. 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2004) Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 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. 10.1080/23277556.1995.10871210
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1995.10871210 [Google Scholar]
  97. Kishner, J. and Gibbs Jr., R.
    (1996) How ‘just’ gets its meanings: Polysemy and context in psychological semantics. Language and Speech39: pp.19–36. 10.1177/002383099603900102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099603900102 [Google Scholar]
  98. Kita, S.
    (2003) Pointing: A foundational building block of human communicationin S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. (pp.85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410607744
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607744 [Google Scholar]
  99. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  100. Koven, M.
    (2014) Interviewing: Practice, ideology, genre, and intertextuality. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol.43, pp.499–520. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑092412‑155533
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155533 [Google Scholar]
  101. Kraska, P. and Cubellis, L. J.
    (1997) Militarizing Mayberry and beyond: Making sense of American paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly14, pp.607–629. 10.1080/07418829700093521
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829700093521 [Google Scholar]
  102. Labov, W.
    (1972) Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Labov, W. and Waletsky, J.
    (1967) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History7(1–4): pp.3–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Lavin, D. and Maynard, D.
    (2001) Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys. American Sociological Review66: pp.453–479. 10.2307/3088888
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3088888 [Google Scholar]
  105. 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. 10.1350/pojo.2014.87.4.689
    https://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2014.87.4.689 [Google Scholar]
  106. Lee, D.
    (1987) The semantics of just . Journal of Pragmatics, 11: pp.377–398. 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90138‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90138-X [Google Scholar]
  107. (1991) Categories in the description of just . Lingua, 83: pp.43–66. 10.1016/0024‑3841(91)90051‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90051-6 [Google Scholar]
  108. Lee, J.
    (2010) Policing after 9/11: Community policing in an age of homeland security. Police Quarterly13 (4): 347–366. 10.1177/1098611110384083
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110384083 [Google Scholar]
  109. Lempert, M.
    (2018) On the pragmatic poetic of prose: Gesture, parallelism, and politics. Signs and Society. Vol6, 1, p.120–146. 10.1086/695425
    https://doi.org/10.1086/695425 [Google Scholar]
  110. Lerner, G.
    (1987) Collaborative turn sequences: Sentence construction and social action. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. U. of California-Irvine.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society20, pp.441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  112. Li, X.
    (2014) Multimodality, Interaction and Turn-Taking in Mandarin Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.3 [Google Scholar]
  113. Lynch, M.
    (2000) Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of priviledged knowledge. Theory, Culture, and Society. 17, 3. 26–54. 10.1177/02632760022051202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760022051202 [Google Scholar]
  114. 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]
  115. Macnaghten, P. and Myers, G.
    (2004) Focus groups: The moderator’s view and the analyst’s view. InQualitative Research Practice (eds.) Seale, C. , Gobo, G. , Gubrium, J. F. and Silverman, D. London: Sage, pp.65–79. 10.4135/9781848608191.d8
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191.d8 [Google Scholar]
  116. 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. 10.1075/z.112.03mag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.112.03mag [Google Scholar]
  117. Mann, S.
    (2011) A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), pp.6–24. 10.1093/applin/amq043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq043 [Google Scholar]
  118. 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]
  119. 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. 10.1080/01690960802159929
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802159929 [Google Scholar]
  120. Matoesian, G.
    (1999) The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society28 (4): 491–521. 10.1017/S0047404599004017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599004017 [Google Scholar]
  121. (2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. (2008) Role Conflict as an Interactional Resource in the Multimodal Emergence of Expert Identity. Semiotica. 171, pp.15–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Matoesian, G. and Gilbert, K.
    (2016) Multifunctionality of beat gestures and material conduct during closing argument. Gesture. Vol.15(1). 10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat [Google Scholar]
  124. 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. 10.1177/030631200030003001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030003001 [Google Scholar]
  125. McNeill, D.
    (1992) Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. (2005) Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  127. (2006) Gesture and communication. In K. Brown (ed) Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2nd edition). (pp58–67). New York: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00798‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00798-7 [Google Scholar]
  128. (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]
  129. 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. 10.1075/veaw.g39.18mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g39.18mil [Google Scholar]
  130. Morgan, D.
    (1996) Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol22, 129–152. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 [Google Scholar]
  131. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781483328164
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328164 [Google Scholar]
  132. (2018) Basic and Advanced Focus Groups. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Müller, C.
    (2008) What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. InMetaphor and Gesture, Alan Cienki and Cornelia Müller (eds). Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.219–245. 10.1075/gs.3.12mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3.12mul [Google Scholar]
  134. Mushin, I.
    (2001) Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  135. Myers, G.
    (1998) Displaying Opinions: Topics and Disagreement in Focus Groups. Language in Society, 27: pp.85–111. 10.1017/S0047404500019734
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019734 [Google Scholar]
  136. (1999) Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussion. Applied Linguistics, 20: pp.376–401. 10.1093/applin/20.3.376
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.376 [Google Scholar]
  137. (1999) Unspoken speech: Hypothetical reported discourse and the rhetoric of everyday talk. Text. 19 (4), pp.571–590. 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.4.571
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1999.19.4.571 [Google Scholar]
  138. (2004) Matters of Opinion: Talking About Public Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486708
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486708 [Google Scholar]
  139. Myers, G. and Lampropoulou, S.
    (2012) Impersonal you and stance-taking in social research interviews. Journal of Pragmatics44: pp.1206–1218. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  140. (2013) What place reference can do in social research interviews. Discourse Studites15, 3. 333–351. 10.1177/1461445613480589
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480589 [Google Scholar]
  141. 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. 10.4135/9781849208857.n12
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208857.n12 [Google Scholar]
  142. 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]
  143. Ochs, E. and Capps, L.
    (2001) Living Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Overstreet, M.
    (1999) Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Overstreet, M. and Yule, G.
    (2002) The metapragmatics of and everything . Journal of Pragmatics, 34: pp.785–794. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00036‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00036-4 [Google Scholar]
  146. Patton, M.
    (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Potter, J. and Reicher, S.
    (1987) Discourses of community and conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology26: pp.25–40. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1987.tb00758.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00758.x [Google Scholar]
  148. Puchta, C. and Potter, J.
    (2004) Focus Group Practice. London: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781849209168
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209168 [Google Scholar]
  149. Rampton, B.
    (2002) Ritual and Foreign Language Practices at School. Language in Society. 31: 491–525. 10.1017/S0047404502314015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404502314015 [Google Scholar]
  150. Rapley, T.
    (2004) Interviews. In Seale, C. , Gobo, G. , Gubrium, J. , and Silverman, D. (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp.15–34). London: Sage. 10.4135/9781848608191.d5
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191.d5 [Google Scholar]
  151. 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. 10.2307/455799
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  152. Rosenbaum, D.
    (ed.) (1994) The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483327006
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327006 [Google Scholar]
  153. (2002) Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design, and measurement issues. InEvaluation for Crime Prevention: Crime prevention studies. Tilley, N. (ed.) Vol.14, pp.171–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 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 Quarterly14 (1): 25–47. 10.1177/1098611110392722
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110392722 [Google Scholar]
  155. Roulston, K.
    (2006) Close encounters of the CA kind: A review of literature analyzing talk in research interviews. Qualitative Research6 (4), pp515–534. 10.1177/1468794106068021
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106068021 [Google Scholar]
  156. (2011) Interview ‘problems” as topics for analysis. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), pp.77–94. 10.1093/applin/amq036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq036 [Google Scholar]
  157. (2019) Introduction. InInteractional studies of Qualitative Research Interviews. ( K. Roulston (ed). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3–27. 10.1075/z.220.01rou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.220.01rou [Google Scholar]
  158. Sacks, H.
    (1978) Technical considerations of a dirty joke. InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. J. Schenkein (ed). New York: Academic Press, pp.249–269. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50017-3 [Google Scholar]
  159. Sauer, B.
    (2003) The Rhetoric of Risk: Technical Documentation in Hazardous Environments. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410606815
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606815 [Google Scholar]
  160. 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]
  161. (2007) Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Robert Englebretson, R. (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp.111–137. 10.1075/pbns.164.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.06sch [Google Scholar]
  162. 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. 10.1080/08351818809389304
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818809389304 [Google Scholar]
  163. (1997) “Narrative analysis: Thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History7(1–4): pp.97–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  165. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.
    (1995) Intercultural Communication. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Shaw, I.
    (1999) Qualitative Evaluation. London: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781849209618
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209618 [Google Scholar]
  167. 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. 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.3.399
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1999.19.3.399 [Google Scholar]
  168. Sidnell, J.
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction39: pp.377–409. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  169. 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]
  170. (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]
  171. (1981) The Limits of Awareness. Sociolinguistic Working PaperNumber 84. Southwest Educational Development Lab., Austin, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  172. (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]
  173. (1993) Metapragmatic Discourse and the Metapragmatic Function. In J. Lucy (ed.) Reflexive Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.33–58. 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 [Google Scholar]
  174. (1998) The Improvisational Performance of Culture in Realtime Discursive Practice. InCreativity in Performance, R. K. Sawyer (ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. pp.265–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. (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. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.007 [Google Scholar]
  176. 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. pp249–64. 10.1075/pbns.98.15ska
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.15ska [Google Scholar]
  177. Stephenson, B.
    (2015) Ritual: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford U. Press. 10.1093/actrade/9780199943524.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199943524.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  178. Stasch, R.
    (2011) Ritual and Oratory Revisited: The Semiotics of Effective Action. Annual Review of Anthropology40: 159–74. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑081309‑145623
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145623 [Google Scholar]
  179. Stirling, L. and Manderson, L.
    (2011) About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics43: pp.1581–1602. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  180. Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J.
    (2005) Introduction. Semioticavolume156-1/4. 1–20. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1 [Google Scholar]
  181. Streeck, J.
    (1993) Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs60: pp.275–99. 10.1080/03637759309376314
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376314 [Google Scholar]
  182. (1995) On projection. In Goody, E. (ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.87–110. 10.1017/CBO9780511621710.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621710.007 [Google Scholar]
  183. (2009) Gesturecraft: The Manu-facture of Meaning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.2 [Google Scholar]
  184. Studdert, D.
    (2005) Conceptualizing Community: Beyond the State and Individual. New York: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230505568
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505568 [Google Scholar]
  185. Talmy, S. and Richards, K.
    (2011) Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), pp.1–5. 10.1093/applin/amq045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq045 [Google Scholar]
  186. Tannen, D.
    (1989) Talking Voices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  187. Tavarez, D.
    (2014) Ritual Language. In N. Enfield , P. Kockelman and J. Sidnell (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp516–536. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.024 [Google Scholar]
  188. TeBendorf, S.
    (2014) Pragmatic and Metaphoric – Combining Functional with Cognitive Approaches in the Analysis of the “Brushing Aside Gesture.” InBody – Language – Communicationvolume2. C. Muller , A. Cienki , E. Fricke , S. Ladewig , D. McNeill and J. Bressem (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.1540–1558.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. Tonnies, F.
    (2001) Community and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511816260.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816260.006 [Google Scholar]
  190. 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. 10.1375/acri.38.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.38.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  191. Tsui, A.
    (1991) The pragmatic functions of I Don’t Know . Text, 11: pp.607–622. 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607 [Google Scholar]
  192. Tutton, M.
    (2009) When in means into: Towards an understanding of boundary-crossing in . Journal of English Linguistics. 37: 5–27. 10.1177/0075424208329308
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208329308 [Google Scholar]
  193. 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]
  194. Wilce, J.
    (2017) Culture and Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139381581
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139381581 [Google Scholar]
  195. Wilkinson, S.
    (1999) Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women QuarterlyVol.23, pp.181–203. 10.1111/j.1471‑6402.1999.tb00355.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00355.x [Google Scholar]
  196. (2004) Focus group research. InQualitative research: Theory, Method, and Practice. Silverman, D. (ed.) London: Sage Publications. pp.177–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  197. (2006) Analysing interaction in focus groups. InTalk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. Drew, P. , Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.), London: Sage Publications. pp.50–62. 10.4135/9781849209991.n4
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209991.n4 [Google Scholar]
  198. Wirth, L.
    (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology. Vol.44(1), pp.1–24. 10.1086/217913
    https://doi.org/10.1086/217913 [Google Scholar]
  199. Wodak, R. , Cillia, R. , Reisig, M. and Liebhart, K.
    (1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  200. Wortham, S.
    (2001) Narratives in Action: A Strategy for Research and Analysis. New York, NY: Teachers Colleges Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027260208
Loading
/content/books/9789027260208
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027260208
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error