Volume 28, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6740
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9935
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study examines a participant’s narrative in a focus group interview dealing with the evaluation of criminal justice policy – the impact of community policing training. However, rather than look at the narrative solely in the speech of the interviewee, I analyze the integration of speech and embodied conduct like gesture, gaze, and posture in the production and negotiation of professional identities. I demonstrate the applied merits of a multimodal approach to criminal justice evaluation in the mapping between denotational text and interactional positioning, a mapping that inheres in embodied stance and broader sociocultural context.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbott, A.
    (1988) The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, M.
    (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Texas: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A.
    (2008) Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk, 28(3), 377–396. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2008.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.018 [Google Scholar]
  4. Briggs, C.
    (1986) Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165990 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M.
    (2006) Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chappell, A., & Lanza-Kaduce, L.
    (2010) Police academy socialization: Understanding the lessons learned in a paramilitary-bureaucratic organization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39 (2), 187–214. doi: 10.1177/0891241609342230
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241609342230 [Google Scholar]
  7. De Fina, A., & Georgakpoulou, A.
    (2012) Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. de Jorio, A.
    (2000) Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity. (A. Kendon, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Original work published in 1832)
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Deppermann, A.
    (2015) Positioning. InA. De Fina & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), The handbook of narrative analysis (pp.369–387). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DuBois, B.
    (1989) Pseudoquotation in current English communication; “Hey, she didn’t really say it.” Language in Society. 18, 343–359. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500013646
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013646 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fuller, J.
    (2003) Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 365–377. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00229
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00229 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldin-Meadow, S.
    (2014) Language and the manual modality: The communicative resilience of the human species. InN. Enfield, P. Kockelman & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp.78–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.005 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, C.
    (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  16. (2009) Embodied hearers and speakers constructing talk and action in interaction. Cognitive Studies, 16(1), 51–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.
    (2004) Participation. InA. Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to linguistic anthropology (pp.222–244). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hanks, W.
    (2006) Joint commitment and common ground in a ritual event. InN. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of sociality (pp.299–328). New York: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Haviland, J.
    (2015) Hey!Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 124–149. doi: 10.1111/tops.12126
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12126 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jaffe, A.
    (2009) Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. InA. Jaffe (Ed)., Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.3–28). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Closing statement. InT. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.398–429). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kasper, G.
    (2013) Conversation analysis and interview studies. InThe encyclopedia of applied linguistics. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kita, S.
    (2003) Pointing: A foundational building block of human communication. InS. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp.85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendon, A.
    (2000) Language and gesture: Unity or duality. InD. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp.47–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2004) Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. doi: 10.1350/pojo.2014.87.4.689
    https://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2014.87.4.689 [Google Scholar]
  27. Matoesian, G.
    (2001) Law and the language of identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005) Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(2), 167–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2005.00289.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00289.x [Google Scholar]
  29. (2012) Gesture’s community: Social organization in multimodal conduct. Language in Society, 41(3), 365–391. doi: 10.1017/S0047404512000292
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000292 [Google Scholar]
  30. Matoesian, G., & Coldren, J.
    (2002) Language and bodily conduct in focus group evaluations of legal policy. Discourse and Society, 13(4), 469–493. doi: 10.1177/0957926502013004454
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013004454 [Google Scholar]
  31. Matoesian, G., & Gilbert, K.
    (2016) Multifunctionality of beat gestures and material conduct. Gesture, 15(1), 79–114.10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat [Google Scholar]
  32. McNeill, D.
    (1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller, J.
    (2009) Like and other discourse markers. InP. Peters, P. Collins & A. Smith (Eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond (pp.317–337). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Morgan, D.
    (1998) The focus group guidebook. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483328164
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328164 [Google Scholar]
  35. Myers, G.
    (1999) Unspoken speech: Hypothetical reported discourse and the rhetoric of everyday talk. Text, 19(4), 571–590. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.4.571
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1999.19.4.571 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) Matters of opinion: Talking about public issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486708
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486708 [Google Scholar]
  37. Puchta, C., & Potter, J.
    (2004) Focus group practice. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781849209168
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209168 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosenbaum, D.
    (2002) Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design, and measurement issues. InN. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation for crime prevention: Crime Prevention Studies, 14, 171–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sauer, B.
    (2003) The rhetoric of risk: Technical documentation in hazardous environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410606815
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606815 [Google Scholar]
  40. Scheibman, J.
    (2004) Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural: Evidence from conversation. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp.377–396). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sidnell, J.
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 377–409. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Silverstein, M.
    (1998) The improvisational performance of culture in realtime discursive practice. InR. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity in performance (pp.265–312). Greenwich, CT: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2014) Denotation and the pragmatics of language. InN. Enfield, P. Kockelman and J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp.128–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.007 [Google Scholar]
  45. Streeck, J.
    (2008) Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 154–186. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028662 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tilley, N.
    (2002) Introduction: Evaluation for crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 14, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tilley, N. & Clarke, A.
    (2006) Evaluation in criminal justice. InI. Shaw, J. Greene and M. Mark (Eds.), The Sage handbook of evaluation (pp.512–535). London: Sage.10.4135/9781848608078.n23
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608078.n23 [Google Scholar]
  48. Travers, M.
    (2005) Evaluation research and criminal justice: Beyond a political critique. The Australian and New Zeland Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 39–58. doi: 10.1375/acri.38.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.38.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilkinson, S.
    (2004) Focus group research. InD. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp.177–199). London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2006) Analysing interaction in focus groups. InP. Drew, G. Raymond & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods (pp.50–62). London: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849209991.n4
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209991.n4 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wortham, S.
    (2001) Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis. New York, NY: Teachers Colleges Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wortham, S., & Reyes, A.
    (2015) Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315735207
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735207 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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