Language, culture, and Society

FACULTY OF ENGLISH

LANGUAGE, CULTURE

AND SOCIETY

(extracted from The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture

edited by Farzad Sharifian)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Language and culture in sociolinguistics 1

Chapter 2: Language, culture, and context 14

Chapter 3: Language, culture, and interaction 30

Chapter 4: Language and culture in intercultural communication 43

Chapter 5: Language, culture, and politeness 58

Chapter 6: Language, culture and identity 70

Chapter 7: Language, gender and culture 83

Chapter 8: World Englishes and local cultures 96

Chapter 9: Language and culture in second language learning 107

Chapter 10: Culture and translation 121

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE IN

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Meredith Marra

Introduction

Within the wider field of linguistics, sociolinguistics is distinguished by the emphasis placed on social

context as a central and contributing factor for understanding language use. We argue that language

conveys social meaning within the contextual bounds in which it occurs; for sociolinguists, context

both shapes and supports our interpretation of language. Amongst the complex array of com￾ponents that comprise context, ‘culture’, especially in the form of cultural background and

culturally based practices, offers potential explanations for many linguistic choices.

As a macro-level social category (like age, gender, status and ethnicity), culture influences

interaction via distinctive values and norms for communicating. We might argue that a particular

cultural group typically prioritizes directness and explicitness (as scholars such as Juliane House

(2005) and Suzanne Günthner (2008) have argued about speakers from Germany) or that

another community has a distinctive register with stable and describable features for talking to

important leaders (chiefly Samoan as described by Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop (1984), for example).

These are often broad-brush claims which suggest some form of consistency in communicative

behaviour within a culture. The goal of such approaches is to demonstrate wider group patterns,

especially where this serves as an explanation for cultural differences.

At a more micro-level of linguistic detail, sociolinguists also consider the ways in which

individual speakers signal their membership of a cultural group. In my own home country of

New Zealand, a speaker who uses a higher frequency of Ma-ori lexical items in their English,

especially using pronunciation approximating Ma-ori language norms, is typically interpreted as

being part of the Ma-ori community (the indigenous people of New Zealand). So, for example,

someone who identifies as Ma-ori might use commonly understood vocabulary items, such as

hui (‘gathering, meeting’) or kai (‘food, meal’), as a component of their cultural identity.

In both these examples, there is an assumption that linguistic choices, whether macro or micro,

can be mapped to the relevant cultural group. This represents one dominant understanding within

the field, exemplified by Interactional Sociolinguistics (see Gumperz 1982a; Gordon 2011).

There is a competing approach which places greater emphasis on the role of negotiation

between participants as a central element in our understandings of the contextual environment,

illustrated in this chapter by social constructionism (see Holmes 2003). In this second approach,

the focus is more likely to be on the way in which cultural identity emerges through

1

1

interaction, the way this identity is dynamically negotiated, and the role of the interactional

collaboration between interlocutors. Thus Ma-ori lexical items as described above signal (‘index’)

many different meanings depending on the speakers, the topic, the setting, and other contextual

features. These meanings could include a particular cultural identity (either New Zealander or

Ma-ori, or both), but might also suggest an educated identity, or an urban identity or even a

younger identity, each depending on the specific discourse environment.

When applying either of the two major approaches, the social context in which participants

are operating is a key consideration for interpreting interaction. The dominance of one

approach over the other has changed throughout the years in which sociolinguists have been

investigating culture, although both are still in use. In this chapter, I track sociolinguistic

research from earlier pattern-based approaches to more recent dynamic, negotiated approaches

to culture, incorporating the major theoretical stances which dominate these investigations,

namely Interactional Sociolinguistics and Social constructionism.

Interactional Sociolinguistics: the importance of ‘gravy’

Increasing interest in the role of culture in sociolinguistics in the 1970s and 1980s was facilitated

by a coinciding turn towards discursive approaches to analysis (for a discussion, see Harré 1995;

also see discussion of discursive approaches in Chapter 9 this volume). This contrasted with the

more traditional regional and social dialectology research which had previously represented the

core of the field. Thus, rather than counting isolated linguistic phenomena as indicators or

markers of a particular social group (such as age, status or ethnicity), interactional scholars

embraced a more qualitative approach in their empirical research. While large-scale quantitative

investigations, such as those of William Labov in his Lower East Side Study (1966), had involved

extensive data collection and recording of a wide range of people, qualitative sociolinguists

adopted data collection procedures which necessitated gathering in-depth information about a

particular speech community using ethnographic techniques. Here there was a strong influence

from anthropology, especially via the Hymesian framework known as the Ethnography of

Speaking (Hymes 1974). The methodological practices incorporate participant observation to

help establish norms for interpretation and rules of interaction. The rich descriptions of com￾munication norms which resulted from the approach offered new and exciting insights with

enormous relevance for scholars interested in culture.

In the discursive approach of Interactional Sociolinguistics, for example, culture is considered

foundational; miscommunication based on cultural differences is a central motivation in its

application. Interactional Sociolinguistics views language, culture and society as situated processes

and aims to make explicit the knowledge that we use in our everyday interaction. This approach

blends the traditions of two scholars in particular, sociologist Erving Goffman (1963, 1974) and

linguistic anthropologist John Gumperz (1982a, 1982b). In Interactional Sociolinguistics we view

language as social interaction, taking a speaker-oriented perspective (following Goffman), and we

identify ‘contextualization cues’ which allow participants to offer situated signals for how to

interpret utterances (following Gumperz). With these goals, the analyst uses quality recordings

of naturalistic social interactions (which are typically transcribed) to facilitate repeated revisiting

of subtle features. The analytic practice focuses on what participants do in interaction, including

how other interactants respond to the contributions to ascertain how an utterance is interpreted.

In a particularly useful description outlining the important contribution made by Gumperz,

Cynthia Gordon (2011) describes the approach as offering both theories and methods for

exploring the social processes inherent in interaction. During research in which he had applied the

Ethnography of Speaking noted above, Gumperz witnessed countless examples of diversity based

Meredith Marra

2

on linguistic and cultural presuppositions. This led to his interest in intercultural communication. As

an approach, interactional sociolinguistics helps us access ‘signalling mechanisms’ – linguistic/

discursive, prosodic and paralinguistic – which speakers use in the process of conversational

inferencing in order to interpret interaction in its culturally shaped context (2011: 67). Because

of our previous communicative experiences within cultural groups, we learn how to both under￾stand and make use of these contextualization cues. Groups recognize different features as

counting as a cue and can have different understandings for how a particular cue typically oper￾ates. Within the interactional sociolinguistic understanding of language use, these differences are

seen as having the potential to lead to communication breakdown. To explore this potential,

proponents make use of the discourse-based approach which is well suited to investigating

communication that occurs between those from different cultural backgrounds, and which

makes use of attention to close linguistic detail in the analysis of naturally occurring talk.

At the core of Interactional Sociolinguistics, therefore, culture is conceptualized as a source of

potential miscommunication and a top-down category for explaining differences. This provided

a starting point for important research in the area of workplace interaction in particular (my

own interest, and a focus which therefore impacts upon my descriptions of culture throughout

this chapter). In a groundbreaking piece of research, now known by the shorthand ‘gravy’ within

sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic circles, Gumperz (1982a) used Interactional Sociolinguistics

to explicate a cause of miscommunication among staff at a busy UK airport. There were rising

concerns and complaints in the workers’ canteen by both the Indian and Pakistani food service

workers and the British baggage-handling staff. Gumperz identified one small interactional feature

as offering a key element in his analysis of the interactions: the intonation pattern on the word

gravy. The women who worked in the canteen thought they were offering gravy to the staff;

the British staff thought the falling inflection used by the servers (rather than the rising inflection

normally associated with offers) was an unhelpful, and consequently impolite, statement, per￾haps even suggesting that they must have gravy with their meal. People are quick to use culture

as a scapegoat or blanket excuse for miscommunication and there were claims that there was

significant and irreparable communication breakdown between the two groups. The British

workers thought the women were rude, and the women felt they were the target of dis￾crimination. Gumperz pointed out the difference and was able to show the damning effect of

small interactional differences when they are not recognized.

Adopting the techniques established by Gumperz, Celia Roberts and her colleagues used

interactional sociolinguistics to investigate misunderstanding in multi-ethnic workplaces, this

time with an explicit focus on language and discrimination. Within a larger research project

involving the UK Industrial Language Training Service, they also investigated the vital gate￾keeping role served by job interviews (Roberts, Davies and Jupp 1992). The original aims were

to research the English language needs of ethnic-minority workers, but analysis showed the

importance of communication factors which went well beyond linguistic competence. In this

context, even minor differences like the intonation patterns described by Gumperz can result in

serious and tangible consequences for those who are not from the majority group. Subtle dif￾ferences based on diverse interactional norms can be interpreted by the gatekeeper as evidence

that you are not fit for the job. The analysis by Roberts and her team explicated the ‘hidden

agenda’ in such encounters. By recording and analysing data from this discourse context, they

were able to establish schemas and frames which characterized the interaction. This analysis also

identified the contextualization cues used by majority group speakers to understand what is

‘required’ from the interviewee.

As their data indicated, as majority group speakers the illocutionary meaning behind a

question is typically part of the shared knowledge that community members have. For example,

Language and culture in sociolinguistics

3

in Western work environments when asked why we want the job for which we have applied,

we tend not to give factually accurate answers like ‘because I need a job’ or ‘because I want

more money’. Instead we know to provide an answer which demonstrates a good match with

the requirements of the organization, even if this seems to show incoherence with the question

if taken at face value.

Embracing a goal of empowering the minority group members with whom they worked,

and simultaneously educating the majority group members, the team analysed the structure of the

interview and gave a gloss for the typical action that occurred in each phase: greeting, discussion

of previous employment, nature of work, level of skills etc. This was based on recordings of

both British and non-British workers. By focusing on where patterns were successfully followed

and where interviewees deviated from the patterns, Interactional Sociolinguistics enabled the

researchers to provide evidence of a cultural norm.

An excellent illustrative example is provided by the two contrasting jobcentre interviews

presented below (from Roberts et al. 1992: 137–41). These examples represent the ‘nature of

work’ category in the schema. In both cases the employment advisor who acts as interviewer is

Mrs E, a ‘white woman’. In example 1, the client is Mr M, a ‘white main in his fifties’, and thus

also a majority group member. In example 2, the client is Mr A who is of a similar age to Mr

M, but who comes from Bangladesh.

Example 1

E: Can you tell me a little bit about

the job, you know, what you

actually did?

M: Well in respect of L ______ it was

maintaining and looking after the

machinery so that, so that if any

faults cropped up …

(Roberts et al. 1992: 138)

In the first example, Mr M understands that he is not just providing information about his day to

day activities or what he actually did. Instead he gives an overview which defines a particular,

transferable skill set, and one which we could expect to match the potential requirements of a

future job. To see how the participants understand (or do not understand) the hidden agenda

represented by the question and answer pair, the authors encourage readers to compare this

interview with the interview below. In each case I have extracted the same phase from the longer

interview for easy comparison.

Example 2

E: and what was your job there?

A: Spinning job

E: You were a spinner, yeah

A: Yes, spinner

E: Yeah right. Can you tell me a little bit about the job, what you actually did? …

you know, as a spinner, what

were you doing?

A: Well … er spinning job … machinery job … so I controlled

my machine

(Roberts et al. 1992: 140)

Meredith Marra

4

Mrs E attempts to elicit the information using slightly differently wording (what was your job there

vs. what did you actually do) but in both cases she is requesting information about the nature of the

interviewee’s previous employment. In contrast with Mr M’s full, seemingly rehearsed and

positively packaged answer, Mr A provides a short but nevertheless factual response. Evidence

that this answer is problematic can be seen in the reformulation of the question by Mrs E. First

she rephrases his answer as suggesting an occupation (spinner) and asks for confirmation. When

this does not signal to Mr A that he should provide an answer in the vein of Mr M’s response, she

explicitly asks for more information, interestingly choosing the expression she used successfully

in the first interview (can you tell me … what you actually did?). While Mr M understands the

contextualization cue represented by her question, the intention is clearly opaque to Mr A.

When prompted for more information he gives an answer which is relevant (I controlled my

machine), but not with the elaboration or detail expected. His hesitation could also be explained

by his probable knowledge that the person with whom he is talking, an experienced advisor

working in the ‘heart of the declining Lancashire cotton industry’ (1992: 141), knows exactly

what spinning involves. The long, negotiated response to provide an answer which is ‘bureau￾cratically processable’ (Campbell and Roberts 2007), and therefore culturally appropriate, clearly

puts him at a disadvantage.

The interactional sociolinguistic approach which this research represents with its corre￾sponding focus on cultural differences was adopted into other areas within sociolinguistics. For

example, in research which captured significant media and lay attention, Deborah Tannen used

an interactional sociolinguistic approach to explore gender in discourse (see Tannen 1990). She

argued that gender differences could be likened to cultural differences, providing evidence of

contrasting cultural patterns for interaction. The equal-but-different approach that she promoted

for understanding communication breakdown in everyday conversation among men and

women was also later applied to the business environment (Tannen 1994) to explain differences

in interactions in the workplace context. Thus ‘culture’ began to enjoy a wider definition

beyond the ethnicity or regional-based understanding which had permeated much of the

research to that point.

One of the disadvantages of the interactional sociolinguistic approach, however, is the founda￾tional assumption that cultural differences should be equated with potential miscommunication.

Similarly there seems to be an underlying assumption that there is an identifiable ‘culture’

within a speech community. This suggests at least some degree of homogeneity within a group

and tends towards culture being conceptualized as a largely fixed social category (albeit with a

degree of flexibility as recognized through the discursive approach).

Social constructionism: a dynamic view of culture

The turn to social constructionism within sociolinguistics in the early 1990s offered a less rigid and

more fluid perspective through which to consider culture. In a move which actively challenged the

more essentialist understanding of categories (like biological sex or ethnicity based on blood

lines), the central argument in the social constructionist paradigm is the notion that social

identities are brought into being through interaction, in other words they are discursively

constructed in negotiation with others. These social identities therefore do not exist outside of

interaction. While in interactional sociolinguistics the focus is cultural presuppositions, in a social

constructionist approach the analyst examines how people use language to construct, maintain,

and modify particular social identities. Thus social categories are subject to constant change.

Social constructionists argue that our knowledge of the world is constrained not by empirical

observation but by the categories (linguistic and conceptual) we use to define it (Holmes 2003;

Language and culture in sociolinguistics

5

see also Burr 2003). Talk itself actively creates different styles and constructs different social

contexts and social identities as it unfolds. Within this philosophical stance, we are encouraged

to question the ideas of social categories as ‘given’ and instead focus on the dynamic process of

creating meaning and social order. Our identity, or rather identities, are not static – we place

emphasis, consciously or inadvertently, on aspects of our ‘selves’ as we interact with others to

create social meaning. For example, at various points in the same conversation we may highlight

our identity as female, a boss, a friend, an expert, a New Zealander, etc. Different aspects

emerge as more or less relevant depending on the interaction. So, rather than culture being

considered a top down category as in interactional sociolinguistics, within social constructionism,

culture must emerge and become relevant.

In terms of the application of this theoretical perspective within sociolinguistics, the traditions

of interactional sociolinguistics are extremely influential. Social constructionists in the field

use ethnographic information to gain knowledge of community norms and to ‘warrant’ inter￾pretations (Swann 2002; Cameron 2009); the data is typically naturally occurring audio and

video recordings, transcribed to capture linguistic and paralinguistic detail to aid analysis; the

negotiated and emergent nature of identity construction is evidenced through a focus on

interaction. It is clear that interactional sociolinguistics typically underpins and guides much of

the analytic practice. The distinctive theoretical stance, however, which claims no a priori cate￾gories, is absolutely crucial to the approach. As described by Corder and Meyerhoff (2007: 452),

for social constructionists no identity is ‘pre cultural’, but rather it comes into being through

interaction with others.

To give some illustration of this rather different theoretical perspective, I provide an example

captured in an interaction between a skilled migrant (Henry) and his local mentor in a New

Zealand workplace.

Example 31

1 Henry: also when I worked in China we I I think maybe

2 it’s a culture difference because you stator [status]

3 is higher than me because you are my mentor also …

4 so usually the Chinese with a lower stator will

5 speak like … not very loud

6 because you are not the have the right

7 have the authority to speak as loud as you might

At one level, culture is made visible in this interaction because cultural difference is signalled as

the topic of conversation by Henry. In this extract he draws on a Chinese identity by giving a

meta description of Chinese interactional norms, namely that junior staff members speak more

quietly (line 5) because of their reduced status (line 2) and reduced authority (line 7). At another

level his cultural identity is foregrounded in the pronunciation which is recognizable as a

‘Chinese’ non-native speaker to New Zealand ears. Although the transcript (a written repre￾sentation of the spoken interaction) does not give much evidence of accent, there are still

indicators of his non-native use of English, such as stator for status and you are not have the right

rather than you do not have the right. It is important to also recognize the discourse context of the

turn. It is a response to a suggestion from his mentor that Henry should speak up after feedback

from other colleagues that he speaks very quietly. This is not an unsolicited suggestion, but rather

the duty of the mentor who is tasked with the job of helping Henry integrate into the New

Zealand workplace as part of a supported internship.

Meredith Marra

6

For the purposes of illustration I have provided an analysis which is somewhat simplified.

My intention was to show a range of features which might be taken into account in a social

constructionist paradigm, including content, pronunciation and grammatical features, but

importantly those which have meaning for the participants. I also wanted to highlight the role

of the other participants. A key consideration, and one that makes a vital contribution to our

understanding in this case, is a particular discourse choice made by Henry. The content seems to

suggest that he is actively following norms for constructing a Chinese identity in this interaction,

especially by his attention to providing evidence of legitimate business experience in China (line

1) and by his explanation of the cultural norm he was following to justify his behaviour. A

subtle but important element is the way in which this is delivered, namely in a loud, confident

voice. This helps create elements of his professional identity too; while he might be constructing

an identity of ‘Chinese-origin employee’ he is also showing that he is willing to enact the

advice of his mentor.

In analysis, one of the things we can focus on is how the speakers ‘index’ their cultural group

membership by making use of particular linguistic and discursive tools which have relevance for

the interlocutors (see, for example, Bucholtz and Hall (2005): indexicality is one of five principles

outlined in their description of current sociolinguistic research on identity). In example 3,

indexing relevant discursive and pragmatic choices help construct a complex identity, including

Henry’s explicit mention of China, his accent, his reference to previous employment, etc.

Henry’s choice to speak in a loud voice and the juxtaposition between the content and the

delivery of his utterances also allows him to signal a challenge to the identity ascription his

mentor is making.

Thus far, the discussion has surrounded the identity of an individual which in some ways

seems to stand in contrast with the heavy emphasis placed by social constructionism on nego￾tiation. The recognition of the role of the group in social constructionism is most usefully seen

in the notion of a Community of Practice, which has provided a valuable analytic tool for

sociolinguists (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992, 2003; Holmes and Meyerhoff 1999). This

concept draws and builds on constructionist views by exploring the role of group norms in

interaction. Within this frame, and as described below, culture can be regarded as a set of

negotiated group practices which dynamically contribute to normative constraints on talk.

A Community of Practice framework

The Community of Practice (CoP) framework was initially proposed within the context of

situated learning (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). Through participation we can begin as

peripheral members of a group and through shared practices built up over time in the form of an

apprenticeship we can progress to core members of a community. A CoP is thus particularly

relevant for demonstrating the focus on process and interaction: negotiating your membership of

a group is bound up in your interaction with the group and signalling your membership is

achieved by indexing shared norms. This means the focus is neither completely on the individual,

nor solely on the group. Instead it recognizes the interplay and interdependence of the two levels

alongside elements of the discourse context. Through interaction members are actively in the

process of (re)constructing what it means to be a member of the group. This complex circularity

allows us to recognize that the shared linguistic repertoire is constantly available for negotiation.

As succinctly described by Penny Eckert (2000) the individual, group, activity and meaning are

‘mutually constitutive’.

The concept of a CoP permeated the field more widely after it first appeared in work within

language and gender at a time where gender as a fixed category was being challenged and

Language and culture in sociolinguistics

7

questioned. In a highly influential paper, Eckert and her colleague Sally McConnell-Ginet

(1992: 464) defined a CoP as:

An aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor.

Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations – in short,

practices – emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor. As a social construct, a CofP

(community of practice) is different from the traditional community, primarily because

it is defined simultaneously by its membership and by the practice in which that

membership engages.

The three definitional characteristics in this description (joint enterprise, mutual engagement and

a shared repertoire of linguistic resources built up over time) are used in considering whether a

group constitutes a CoP. This focus on practices is a significant defining characteristic and

provides an important contrast with the more static concept of speech community which is used as

the bounded group in the Hymesian approach. As the CoP label suggests, practice is crucial

to membership. In order to learn how to become a member of a CoP you have to learn how to

interact or construct your identity as a community member. The approach bridges the micro (in

the form of linguistic processes) with more macro patterns, either in the form of enacting them,

or challenging them.

Making use of the CoP concept allows the focus on culture to spread to a wider range of

groups than is the case with the more targeted notion of culture as used in Interactional

Sociolinguistics. Individuals can belong to more than one CoP and these CoPs may intersect or

overlap. Because the focus is shared norms which are built up over time, a CoP could refer to a

sports group, or a book club, or a professional group provided there is a shared goal, regular

interaction between members and a repertoire of linguistic practices. (See discussion of CoPs in

Chapter 5 this volume.)

This wider understanding of culture is evident in the following example. The extract is taken

from a project which focuses on the language used on building sites in New Zealand. In the

example Max, an apprentice, has been given a drill by the site manager and sees this as an

indication of his increasing status (in theoretical terms, evidence of his progress along the

trajectory from legitimate peripheral membership towards core membership). He is talking to

his foreman, Tom, and a group of tradesmen (TM1-3) who regularly work with the team as

technical specialists.

There are many elements of the interaction that are relevant to an analysis which focuses on

the CoP and its interactional/cultural norms. While Max and Tom belong to the same team,

namely the team we were following in the recording process, they are also part of a wider

group working together and committed to successfully finishing the build of this house (repre￾senting their joint enterprise). They have mutual engagement through their interactions on site,

and there is evidence of shared linguistic resources which they have built up over time.

Example 4

1 Max: this is going to be fun + same same as yours

2 Tom: did he give you one

3 Max: yeah

4 Tom: sweet

5 Max: yeah sweet as + we have to label them I guess ++

6 mine will be the cleanest

7 Tom: I’ll fix that [dabs paint on drill] [ … ]

Meredith Marra

8

8 TM 1: you know you’re a tradesman now mate

9 yeah you’re a proper tradesman mate

10 Max: one day

11 I’ve had it for three hours

12 TM 2: you throw it on the ground like that

13 TM 3: [laughs] + I’ll fix that mate

[Tradesman 3 puts more paint on drill]

14 Max: [laughs]: what oh [name] oh: +

15 I’m gonna get your van eh [general laughter]

Max has been given the drill by the boss who is implicitly referred to as him, a reference which is

understood by the others. The new drill appears to be an artefact and marker of core rather than

peripheral status. We see evidence of a shared understanding of what it means to be a member of

the team on this building site because Max is now a proper tradesman. We also see evidence of

discourse norms in this interaction. The core members of the group (who are also older) tease

Max that the drill is new and unadorned with the normal paint splatters etc which are typical of a drill

which has seen action on site. Several of the men contribute to this teasing (line 7, line 12, line 13).

Max demonstrates his membership in the way that he accepts the good-humoured ribbing (suggested

by the shared laughter in lines 13, 14 and 15). An additional indication of his membership is his

response to paint being dripped on his drill when he teases TM3 that he will reciprocate by getting

his van. Based on this and other extracts, we could claim that the CoP norm is that teasing is

encouraged, and that core members should be able to give as well as take this teasing.

There are also other relevant factors which contribute to the way in which these CoP

members interact which index other aspects of identity. There is overlap with gendered patterns

of behaviour which suggest masculine norms (such as the competitive teasing, also discussed in

Holmes and Marra 2002). The use of sweet/sweet as (lines 4–5) to mean ‘good’ and eh as a

invariant tag question are also well recognized features of New Zealand English, typically

(although not exclusively) associated with, and therefore indexing, younger and male speakers

(Marsden 2013).

The lens I have offered for understanding this extract is the work team as a CoP, together

with the fact that the ‘culture’ of the team, based on their shared repertoire, orients towards

normative associations of masculinity and toughness. In investigations of other workplace teams,

my colleagues and I have labelled CoPs as ‘gendered’ where feminine or masculine norms

dominate the repertoire (Holmes and Stubbe 2003) and ‘ethnicized’ where the core business of

the team (the joint enterprise) is aligned with an ethnicity, and shared norms actively draw on

practices which index ethnically marked discourse practices (Schnurr, Marra and Holmes 2007).

It should be clear that this approach has much to offer sociolinguists because of the wider

understanding of culture and how this influences and shapes the way we interact. In each case,

however, the major focus is the way that these ‘cultures’ emerge in the identity construction of

individuals within the context of their community.

Because of the central role of the ongoing (re)construction of the linguistic repertoire of the

community, most investigations which make use of a CoP model are necessarily a ‘snapshot’ of

the norms of a particular group at, or over, a particular period of time. It is rare for researchers

to track the development of a community’s norms, the changes in the shared repertoire and the

disestablishment of the community. This would require longitudinal ethnographic field work

which is often beyond the scope of the kinds of projects current researchers can undertake (see

Wilson 2011 and King 2014, as exceptions). This limitation on constructionist views of culture is

important, but recognized.

Language and culture in sociolinguistics

9

Future directions

The two approaches described above are still strongly represented in current research in socio￾linguistics. When Gumperz passed away in 2013, the impact of his work with Heathrow staff in the

1960s and the value of his use of micro-level detail and naturally occurring recordings was brought

back into the public arena. His findings on the misunderstanding caused by a subtle difference in

intonation patterns demonstrate the explanatory power of the approach which continues to be used

today. Similarly, the dynamic, emergent approach offered by social constructionism for investigating

negotiated group norms is still highly relevant for those taking a qualitative, discursive approach.

The subtle, nuanced interpretations afforded by the CoP framework are recognized as offering

many advantages for empirical research into the influence of group differences on interaction.

However, it should also be acknowledged that the term ‘culture’ is regarded with a certain

amount of unease in sociolinguistics: it is considered slippery and ephemeral. As Scollon et al.

(2012: 3) argue when describing their discourse approach to intercultural communication, ‘[t]he

biggest problem with the word culture is that nobody seems to know exactly what it means, or

rather, that it means very different things to different people’. They argue that we should think

of culture as a verb, that is something that we ‘do’, a heuristic describing a ‘tool for thinking’, and

a way of dividing people up. These three options still suggest an extremely broad definition.

Exactly what does and does not count is still hard to pinpoint and it seems that attempts at

descriptions are never, and can never, be complete. Some might even go so far as to argue that

we should avoid the term altogether. However appealing that might sound as a solution to the

unease we face as analysts, there is still widespread use of culture as a ‘floating signifier’ for

participants (Glynos and Angouri 2009). Participants happily blame miscommunication on what

they willingly label as cultural differences, and when constructing and ascribing identity we see

speakers orienting to and indexing supposed cultural traits. In this same vein, intercultural

communication is well established as a field of enquiry and important empirical research offers

information about the role of group difference on interaction. We clearly have mental models

for what culture entails and it is something that we orient to as a macro category in our

everyday interactions. It seems that culture is highly relevant to speakers and naturalized as a

social category, whatever we may want to argue as analysts.

A more tempered approach is offered by a ‘realist’ stance (see Coupland 2001 and the discussion

in Holmes et al. 2011). At the most basic level, this view means that we recognize that ‘real world

material conditions and social relations … constrain and shape the discursive construction of

organisational reality in any particular socio-historical situation’ (Reed 2005: 1629). So, the way

we interact is influenced (or constrained) by broad societal norms and structures such as beliefs

about how we should behave and who counts as important, etc. These structures provide us

with frames for understanding what is meant.

Realism as a theoretical perspective combines the dynamic, negotiated focus of social con￾structionism with the notion of norms as constraints on interaction. It allows us to make use of

a shifting concept of culture as well as highlight the role of interaction and practices on our

understandings of what should be included under the heading.

Following these lines, it would seem that the field is likely to place significant emphasis on

practices and the influence of group ideologies and norms on these practices in future investigations

of culture. More fully deconstructing what counts as culture is the inevitable next step for the

field, much in same way that we have deconstructed gender to go beyond a oversimplified

binary biological category, or how we problematize ethnicity as encapsulating more than race.

An approach which (a) recognizes ‘culture’ as a normative constraint and which (b) highlights

the emergent and negotiated nature of ‘culture’ in interaction affords movement towards a

Meredith Marra

10

more nuanced approach for the field. We have swung from static and fixed understandings of

cultural difference in the more essentialist models where culture is a ‘category’, to the other

extreme where cultural identity is created only in interaction. The obvious way forward in our

sociolinguistic understandings of culture is a middle ground of some kind that embraces the best

of the two approaches described in the chapter.

Related topics

language, culture and interaction; language and culture in intercultural communication; language,

culture and politeness; language, culture and context; language, gender and culure

Further reading

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. 1992. ‘Communities of practice: Where language, gender and power

all live’. In: Hall, K., Bucholtz, M., and Moonwomon, B. eds. Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second

Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University

of California, pp. 89–99. (In this article, the authors describe Wenger’s community of practice framework

and the relevance of a group’s shared linguistic resources built up over time. The article encouraged

sociolinguists to adopt the framework into their research, first within the area of language and gender,

and then more widely.)

Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (The now famous ‘gravy’

example is described in this seminal book on discourse approaches to intercultural interaction.)

Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press. (In this book, Dell Hymes outlines an ethnography of speaking approach and the SPEAKING

grid for describing the various components of a communicative event. Culture is described most

obviously under the category of ‘Norms of interpretation’.)

Sarangi, S. 1994. ‘Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication

analysis’. Pragmatics 4(3): 409–27. (Sarangi challenges an essentialist, fixed understanding of culture which

had previously permeated studies of intercultural interaction.)

Notes

I thank my colleague, Prof Janet Holmes, who read and commented on a draft of this chapter. I also

acknowledge the research collaboration of the Language in the Workplace team which has contributed

to my understandings.

1 Examples 3 and 4 have been selected from the corpus of naturally occurring interactions collected

by the Wellington Language in the Workplace project. They were recorded by volunteers as they

went about their everyday business. The selection of these examples represents both my own research

interests in workplace discourse and the continuation of the workplace theme provided by the work of

both Gumperz and Roberts, Davies and Jupp.

The examples have been edited for ease of reading. The following transcription conventions have

been applied:

+ Untimed pause of up to 1 second

[ ]:: Paralinguistic and other editorial comments in square brackets.

Colons indicate start and end

… Material omitted

(My thanks go to the participants who willingly donated their interactions to our data set.)

References

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. 2005. ‘Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach’. Discourse

Studies 7(4–5): 585–614.

Language and culture in sociolinguistics

11