Compatibility of approaches

of Cognitive linguistics, on issues of both synchronic language description and in historical linguistics. However, comparatively few studies have explored discourse analysis and interactional data from actual language use. I will come back to this in 2.4.1.

2.4 Compatibility of approaches

In the preceding sections I have presented five different frameworks for analysing linguistic interaction, grouped as individual-based and community-based theoretical approaches. The work of Bakhtin does not readily fall into either category, of course: as a literary critic, he was certainly concerned with the individual voices of authors, but he also had a clear notion of the role of interaction and society in speech communication.

All of the frameworks bring in useful perspectives on the issue of linguistic interaction patterns at home and in school, and will be used in the analysis of my data. However, using several theoretical inroads to a subject requires that these are basically compatible with each other. I will in the following sections show that this is indeed the case, even though my use of cognitive linguistics as main point of departure is not a common choice in discourse analysis.

2.4.1 Cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis

Cognitive linguistics has sometimes been accused of lacking a concern for discourse and social interaction, as admitted by Langacker in his article on discourse in cognitive grammar (Langacker 2001, 185). While according to Langacker, the framework of cognitive linguistics is conducive and even necessary to the study of social interaction, this does not mean that much work within the cognitive paradigm actually has had such a focus.

In part this is due to the fact that interaction is a broader area of study than what is traditionally understood as the object of linguistics, as discussed already by de Saussure (de Saussure [1916]1966). In contrast to this view, Goodwin (2006, 118) in a recent linguistic anthropology study defines utterances as “multiparty, multimodal activities constructed through the mutual elaboration of different kinds of signs.” In his view, talk is but one carrier of communication, albeit a crucial one, as it works together with gesture and the local surrounding in which the interaction takes place. This aspect is often overlooked in other studies using the cognitive linguistics paradigm, though Langacker does try to bring attention to such ways of communication as gestures in his article on discourse and cognitive grammar (Langacker 2001).

The broader field of cultural practices is frequently forgotten in the search for linguistic patterns as indexes of cognitive schemas (Hill & Mannheim 1992, 394). This ‘linguacentrism’ has led to relating a pattern in one form of linguistic organisation to a pattern in another, instead of looking for patterns in nonverbal cultural or cognitive practices. Slobin’s work (see e.g. (Slobin 1991)) is a case in point: he uses grammatical patterning as an independent variable and narrative strategy as the dependent variable, but these are both linguistic patterns. The same critique applies to Quinn and Sweetser’s work on cultural models and scenarios:

no other cultural evidence beside the linguistic is used ((Quinn 1982, Quinn 1987, Quinn 1991, Sweetser 1987) cited in Hill & Mannheim (1992)).

Generally, cognitive linguists have also shared with the structuralist tradition in linguistics an interest for the structures of language, often making them more static than need be. The phenomena which are recurrent over ‘many usage events’

(in some studies simply taken to be the meanings found by introspection, as pointed out by Gibbs (2006)), the schemata of meaning, are taken to be the most important objects of investigation, and the fleshed-out, negotiated meaning of their actual use in a certain situation is not studied. More interest has also been invested in the meanings of words and constructions, with work on semantic networks and grammatical constructions, than on higher level units such as genre schemata, or conversational schemata. Talk as social action and speakers as social agents are aspects of language use which have been largely overlooked.

The present study will contribute to the development of a discourse analysis based on cognitive linguistics.

2.4.2 Language in use

One characteristic that unites all of the chosen approaches is a strong concern with languagein use, though each has its own accents on this common theme.

Growing out of the basic interest for language in use, cognitive linguistics contributes an important aspect to the study of linguistic interaction by its model for how linguistic structures arise: they are seen as emerging from repeated usage events, becoming entrenched in individual language users. In other words, linguistic structures are learned, and this learning takes place in interaction with others. This connects well to more community-based approaches, such as language socialisation and the community of practice paradigm. Especially the latter is basically a theory of learning, with a quite similar view of how participants come to learn the practices of their community.

I will show below that the framework for studying interaction also exists within the cognitivist paradigm, and that the basic ideas of cognitive linguistics can be coupled with theories more directly concerned with interaction, through its emphasis on encyclopedic semantics and usage-based structures. There is a

2.4. COMPATIBILITY OF APPROACHES

shift in focus involved, though: other theoretical approaches insist much more than e.g. Langacker does, that talkissocial action, that it is practice, and that talk also creatively constructs practice by its very use in interaction (Scollon 2001).

Thus while using cognitive linguistics as a base, there is good reason to employ the perspectives and methods of other theories such as the ethnography of speaking, language socialisation, and community of practice theory discussed in 2.1. They systematically look for significant uses of language in interaction and social action, and with their broader view of communication are indispensable for understanding what is going on in such places as Cameroonian homes and classrooms.

2.4.3 Linking body, actions and linguistic usage

All of the approaches presented in 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 have drawn attention to other aspects of interaction than the strictly verbal. In the case of the ethnography of communication this arises naturally from the basic openness of the category of communicative behaviour which is part of this research tradition, see p. 13.

Linking verbal and non-verbal communication is part and parcel of the idea of communicative competence, especially concerning appropriateness of language use (Schiffrin 1994, 364). Also language socialisation studies have pointed out that when children learn to speak they learn more than the correct use of language in the form of grammatical sentences, they learn to appropriately use linguistic utterances, and this includes non-verbal means as well. Non-verbal aspects of communication is even more relevant in studies employing a community of practice perspective, as they are interested in all kinds of practices besides the strictly verbal ones. Even the more individual-based approach of cognitive linguistics occasionally grapples with the idea of other channels of expression than the usual vocal and verbal one, as we shall see in 2.4.4 on page 37.

There are several non-verbal sides of interaction: Very close to the verbal side are intonation and prosodic phenomena, which may carry as much, or more, meaning as the utterances by themselves. In addition, gestures, body positions and gaze directions should be included as important aspects of face-to-face interaction, in all cultural settings. Their impact on the interaction is readily seen if we consider appropriate vs. inappropriate demeanour in some situation, say, a child being taken to task for something. A penitent child being chided for a prank and a child defiantly denying the accusations will display very different non-verbal behaviour. Humans speak through their body configurations as well as through their words — sometimes this is actually the only thing said.

Bringing in the terminology of cognitive linguistics again, the category of communicative gestures clearly lends itself to being understood as a category of symbolic structures, using the vocalisation channel of gesture instead of, or

alongside, speech. Some gestures can be considered symbolic structures in their own right, such as the common Western way of signaling agreement or disagreement by nodding or shaking one’s head. Other gestures add to the spoken words in different ways, by indicating objects and situational circumstances talked about, by finetuning verbal messages emotionally, by signalling ‘more to come’

even though the speaker has stopped speaking, and so on and on. Rhythm and timing of participants’ movements and utterances carry much information on the speech management. In the timing of conversation, body movements and prosodic cues are used to emphasize certain points of relevance to the management of the interaction, so that the interactants know when to take the next turn because the appropriate pause has elapsed (Erickson 2004, 7).

Larger body configurations on the other hand, are structurally different from gestures such as nods or pointings. They last longer and frame longer stretches of interaction rather than particular bits and pieces. They signal the relevant relationship between the participants and towards the interaction taking place between them. Body configurations help to construct multiparty participation frameworks by bodily displaying orientation and creating joint attentional frames (Goodwin 2006, 107). Though different, they are not random or structureless, and sometimes quite specific forms may be required in certain communication situations. An example may be the requirement for participants to align with a focal point of the interaction, as students in a classroom who are supposed to look at the teacher.

There has been a tendency to regard non-verbal aspects of interaction as context, while the verbal part of interaction is the ‘real thing’. This is partly due to a theoretical approach to interaction as something constituted first and foremost by language, as in Conversational Analysis theory. It is the textthat creates its own structure, which defines the situation of its use and which creates its own context (Schiffrin 1994, 362-385). Conversatonal Analysis has with its close look at the text revealed such useful analytical tools as adjacency pairs, turn-taking structures and topic management mechanisms (see e.g. Sacks et al.

(1974), ten Have (2007)). But they do not bring much of what is elsewhere considered necessary contextual knowledge into the analysis, only to the extent that the participants align themselves to it (Schiffrin 1994, 274).

Partly, however, the emphasis on verbal rather than non-verbal aspects may be due simply to the extensive use of auditive tape recording in all kinds of discourse analysis. While being a huge step forward in capturing details of the spoken interaction, it still leaves out many of the modes of communication which actually are available to the participants in a face-to-face interaction (Norris 2002). The problem of only using the verbal mode of interaction as a means to understand what is going on, becomes especially clear when the goal of the interaction is not only to talk, but to carry out some other activity. Talk is normally very much

2.4. COMPATIBILITY OF APPROACHES

part of this, but objects handled, gestures and nonverbal directing, use of other semiotic resources etc. may make an auditive transcript nearly incomprehensible, while a video may capture much more of the action (Goodwin 2000).⁶

Non-verbal practices are usually highly culture-specific: they grow out of the socio-cultural history of the interactants, both their particular histories as individuals and the longer historical lines they are connected to as belonging to particular groups. There is in my view every reason to see such practices as part of symbolic structures: they are other vocalisation channels belonging with what we called the phonological pole of a usage event. Langacker, speaking about what aspects of a usage event can become entrenched and emerge as linguistic units, vocalisation channels included, has the following opinion:

“To the extent that such units are conventional in a speech community, excluding them from a “language” or “linguistic system” is arbitrary.”

— Langacker (2001, 147) Seeing all these non-verbal aspects of interaction as pertinent to meaning has direct impact on the methodology of the present study, as the other channels of vocalisation alongside the acoustic signal must be accounted for—this meant videorecording instead of just audiorecording.

2.4.4 Cognitive Linguistics and Bakhtin

Bakhtin embraced a rigid distinction between language and speech communica-tion, assuming that these two are existentially different, as we saw in 2.2. He seems to build two parallel systems on these two categories, and it is by far speech communication in all its complexities that interests him most. However, cogni-tive linguistics does not share his opinion of language and speech communication as fundamentally different, rather the language ‘system’ is contingent on speech communication in important ways. Language as understood in cognitive linguis-tics is open to use Bakhtin’s insights on speech communication, and in certain ways it fulfills his own program, as we shall see.

Keeping language and speech communication together

Bakhtin had a clear program of keeping language and life together. Even in his insistence that language and speech communication have different units and must not be confused with one another, Bakhtin also wants to keep them together, because they basically treat the same linguistic phenomenon: “After all, language enters life through concrete utterances (which manifest language) and

6Though not all, as anyone who has attempted to video-tape an event may agree to.

life enters language through concrete utterances as well,” (Bakhtin 1986, 63). If we take seriously Langacker’s (2001, 144) statement that “Most fundamentally, Cognitive Grammar makes contact with discourse through the basic claim that all linguistic units are abstracted fromusage events, i.e., actual instances of language use,” we have solidly placed language structure within the purview of speech communication.

In the general view of language prevalent in cognitive linguistics, (see 1.1.1 on page 2) actual utterances are what shape the units of language, by frequency of use and the statistical abilities of human cognition. This narrows the gap between units of language and units of speech communication: they exist along a continuum, rather than in two separate worlds.

Units of language and units of communication

What should count as units of language and communication respectively, is another, more thorny question, perhaps.

In his articleDiscourse in Cognitive Grammar(2001, 146), Langacker takes the position thatanyaspect of a usage event can emerge as a linguistic unit, if it is repeated enough times to become entrenched in individuals. The same applies to sequences of usage events in discourse. He goes to great lengths to show how even the finest distinction of intonation may be considered conventional patterning and thus a symbolic structure. Attentional framings to pieces of sentences, as when both clauses of an ‘if-then’-sequence is framed apart or together, impinge on the meaning of the whole sequence in certain predictable ways (Langacker 2001, 154-8). Different intonation patterns with their contingent meanings are in this case seen as part of the characterisation of the word ‘if’ (Langacker 2001, 160). Though Langacker does not apply these insights to any stretch of ‘real’

communication, he does show the possibilities inherent in certain patterns which then can be applied to excerpts of actual language use.

In Bakhtinian terms, this can be regarded as an exercise of language analysis, which does not elucidate speech communication. However, fine points of prosody and attentional framing typically must have quite well-defined use contexts to become relevant as meaning-bearing signals. In other words, one gets very close to actual utterances, meant to be intentional toward some other party in the conversation, and still it is possible to find schemas of recurrent commonalities.

From this point of view as well, the gap between language units and speech units narrows.

Bakhtin wanted to keep language and communication together, and Cognitive linguistics can be said to do so, by its focus on language use and encyclopedic meaning. The difference between Langacker’s and Bakhtin’s approach still comes out in their different understanding of what discourse is used for. For Langacker

2.5. DISCOURSE IN CL

the goal of discourse seems to be building local consolidated conceptual structures in both speaker and hearer (preferably the same structure), while the addressivity and responsive understanding of Bakhtin’s utterances of speech communication tend to get lost. They are looking for different things in discourse, as it were.