IKK: Contextualization Cues in Intherethnic Communication
Gumperz 1982 / Gumperz & Tannen 1979

[ understanding | basic assumption | unit of analysis | procedure of analysis | speech activity ]


understanding

"The hypothesis is that any utterance can be understood in numerous ways, and that people make decisions about how to interpret a given utterance based on their definition of what is happening at the time of interaction. In other words, they define the interaction in terms of a frame or schema which is identifiable and familiar (Goffman 1974)." (Gumperz 1982, 130)

basic assumption

"A basic assumption is that this channelling of interpretation is effected by conversational implicatures based on conventionalized co-occurence-expectations between content and surface style.

That is, constellations of surface features of message form are the means by which
• speakers signal and
• listeners interpret
• what the activity is,
• how semantic content is to be understood and
• how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows.
These features are referred to as contextualization cues. (…)

Roughly speaking, a contextualization cue is any feature of linguistic form that contributes to the signalling of contextual presuppositions." (Gumperz 1982, 131)

"The issue as we have defined it, concerns the discovery of hitherto unstudied connections between perception of surface linguistic signs and interpretation." (Gumperz 1982, 32)

unit of analysis

"Our unit of analysis is a set of conversational exchanges which is sufficiently complete to provide a basis for applying the criteria outlined above. Ideally, we look for brief, thematically self-contained sequences; that is, sequences which, although they may be part of a larger interaction or sequentially discontinous, nontheless have identifiable beginnings, middles, and ends." (Gumperz & Tannen 1979, 307)

procedure of analysis

"… given knowledge of the outcome, we can then hypothesize about what contributed to it by looking at internal evidence in the form of utterances and responses.

We obtain independent confirmation of our hypotheses by asking first participants and then others
(a) how they interpreted utterances in the interchange; and
(b) what linguistic features led them to their interpretations.
Tis procedure furnishes concrete evidence for hypotheses about the ways in which speakers expect meaning to be communicated." (Gumperz & Tannen 1979, 307)

steps
  1. "Playing a tape-recorded sequence of conversation to informants and then
  2. Asking what a given portion of the discourse 'means'.
  3. The informants are then asked what it was about the utterance in the conversation that led them to that interpretation.
  4. They are then asked how it would have to be said in order for a different interpretation to have been indicated." (Gumperz &: Tannen 1979, 308)

society & communication

"Social boundaries can then be empirically determined, as a result of the data gathered, based on similarity of interpretations and agreement as to which aspects of the communication led to those interpretations. Systematic attention to certain lingusitic and paralinguistic aspects of conversations then yieldy insight into the system of cueing meaning which is operating for people who agree on certain interpretations." (Gumperz &: Tannen 1979, 308)

speech activity

"A speech activity is a set of social relationships enacted about a set of schemata in relation to some communicative goal. Speech activities can be characterized through descriptive phrases such as 'discussing politics', 'chatting about the wheather', 'telling a story to someone', and 'lecturing about linguistics'.

Such descriptions imply certain expectations about thematic progression, turn taking rules, form, and outcome of the interaction, as well as constraints on content. In the activity of discussing, we look for semantic relationships between subsequent utterances, and topic change is constrained. In the activity of chatting, topics change freely, and no such expectations hold. Lecturing, in turn, implies clear role separation between speaker and audience and strong limitations on who can talk and what questions can be asked." (Gumperz 1982, 166)

Literatur

Goffman, Erving (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row
Gumperz, John J. (1978) The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In: Ross, E. L. (ed.) Interethnic Communication. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 13-31
Gumperz, John J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 1) Cambridge: University Press
Gumperz, John J. & Tannen, Deborah (1979) Individual and social differences in language use. In: Fillmore, C. J. & Wang & W. S.-Y. (eds.) Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 305-325