Perspectives on Intercultural Discourse and Communication

While the terms “communication” and “discourse” are in many way synonymous, they reflect two different institutional and methodological approaches to how to analyze how people from different cultures communicate with each other. What I would like to do here is briefly (and, by necessity, incompletely) trace some of the roots of the remarkable range of analyses presented in this volume, looking in particular at anthropology, linguistics, intercultural communication, and discourse analysis. While these fields have quite separate institutional foundations today, their histories are deeply intertwined.

Culture and Communication: 1900s to World War II

In the early twentieth century, anthropology and linguistics in the United States were closely related. Franz Boas, founder of the Columbia Department of Anthro­pology and one of the co-founders of the American Anthropological Association, set out the study of language as one of the main subfields of the discipline of anthropology. One of his earliest and best-known students, Edward Sapir, became the founding father of the discipline of linguistic anthropology. Cultures at this time were thought of as discrete entities that did not interact with each other. This is despite the fact that both Boas and Sapir were German Jews, outsiders to the Protestant academic worlds they entered and thus intercultural communicators par excellence themselves (Hyatt 1990; Darnell 1989).

Sapir and Boas brought their sense of the importance of studying diverse cultures with them to the Linguistic Society of America, founded in 1925. While the older generation of linguists who signed the first call for papers were philologists, studying the words, grammar, and history of Indo-European languages, the younger generation was led by Leonard Bloomfield, trained in Germanic philology but who had also studied Tagalog and Algonquian languages. Bloomfield insisted upon an international and scientific approach to languages (Bloomfield 1926, 1933; Bloch 1949; Joos 1986; Darnell 1989). While early work within this new field of linguistics focused on the specifics of particular languages, World War II changed the focus of Bloomfield and a generation of linguists. The government needed to teach Americans to speak other languages. Starting in 1941, linguists were called upon to write basic grammars and teaching materials under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies and the LSA. Bloomfield wrote material including an outline to studying foreign languages and Dutch teaching materials (Bloomfield 1942, 1944a, 1944b) while scholars including William Cornyn, Murray Emeneau, Frank Edgerton, Charles Ferguson, Zellig Harris, Charles Hockett, and Sapir and Bloomfield students Mary Haas and Morris Swadesh got languages from Thai to Arabic to Chinese. The focus of these projects was on teaching people to speak rather than read and write (Liberman 2007; Leeds-Hurwitz 1990). One of the leaders of the project, J. Milton Cowan, was particularly interested in pitch and intensity in American speech (Liberman 2007), foreshadowing some of the concerns in intercultural discourse and communication analyses today.

Intercultural Communication: 1950s to 1980s

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz (1990) argued that the study of intercultural communication emerged from the next step in the process of teaching Americans foreign languages, the US Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI), founded in 1946. Anthropology was part of the program from the beginning. Edward Kennard, for example, developed a course called “Understanding Foreign Peoples” to introduce anthropological concepts to FSI trainees. Edward T. Hall worked closely with FSI staff from 1951 to 1955. In reaction to student views of anthropological concepts such as culture as “vague and … a waste of time” (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990: 268), Hall began focusing on “what he termed microcultural analysis: on tone of voice, gestures, time, and spatial relationships as aspects of communication” (Hall 1956 in Leeds-Hurwitz 1990: 268).

While Hall was an anthropologist and at first saw himself as teaching anthropology, by 1960 he was expanding his focus on the practical aspects of teaching diplomats to international business and other applied language teaching spheres. Despite historian of sociolinguistics Stephen Murray’s argument about Hall’s work that “Neither an anecdotal approach nor a mass of students being trained for tasks other than research are a likely basis for the formation of a theory group” (1998: 33), Hall’s best-selling 1959 work, Silent Language, was widely seen as the starting point of intercultural communication (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990 cited references to this work in intercultural communication works by Condon 1981, Dodd 1982, Gudykunst 1985, Singer 1987, and Klopf 1987).

The field that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, however, did not lose its applied focus. In his 1976 book, Beyond Culture, for example, Hall argues for “the nonverbal, unstated realm of culture. While I do not exclude philosophical systems, religion, social organization, language, moral values, art and material culture, I feel it is more important to look at the way things are actually put together than at theories” (Hall 1976: 13). Beyond Culture also reveals that Hall traveled a path quite different from that of linguistic anthropology. While he refers to early anthropologists including Boas, Sapir, and Sapir’s student Benjamin Lee Whorf, he makes no reference to contemporaneous work in the Ethnography of Speaking by figures such as Dell Hymes, Erving Goffman, and Keith Basso, at that point developing an event-based approach to the analysis of the relationship between language and culture. This is despite the fact that he was familiar with their work. Hall was one of four people outside of a close Berkeley cohort to be invited to be part of a 1964 American Anthropologist special issue edited by Hymes and John Gumperz (Hall 1964).

The intercultural field in general also moved away from natural settings preferred by anthropologists and even the field elicitation sessions used by pre-1960s linguists. L. S. Harms’s (1973) introductory intercultural communication text provides a number of quantitative, often laboratory-based, research projects for beginning students to do modeled on other communication research. Despite this move away from natural settings, practitioners saw the field as addressing pressing current issues. “Men of vision, like U Thant and John F. Kennedy, have understood that we humans must seek a common long-range goal: to ensure cultural diversity and human variety upon our small planet. Intercultural Communication attempts to advance this goal” (Harms 1973: ix).

The 1960s and 1970s were times of great change, and the field saw itself as dealing directly with the most important issues of the day. Harms discussed black and white relations and, reflecting his position at the University of Hawaii, the use of Hawaiian pidgin. Hall (1976: 6) refers to the troubles in the Middle East, a wide range of nations and how “a major and continuing source of frustration exists because the many gifts and talents of women, blacks, Indians, Spanish-Americans and others are not only unrecognized, but frequently denigrated by members of the dominant group.”

Acknowledgment that intercultural communication offered relevant insights to a wide audience led to wide-spread institutionalization of the field in the late 1960s and in the 1970s. In the 1970s, universities around the country developed intercultural communication programs (Asante et al. 1979). For example, Arizona State University created a curriculum in intercultural communication in 1976 because the Board of Regents wanted to address the needs of “the state’s large Hispanic population, shared border with Mexico, more than 20 American Indian tribes and a complex, diverse enrollment” (Arizona State University 2008). Numerous textbooks on intercultural communication also began to published (e.g. Harms 1973; Smith [now Asante] 1973; Rich 1974; Condon and Yousef 1975; Sitaram and Cogdell 1976; Asante et al. 1979).

A number of professional institutions also developed. In 1969, the National Society for the Study of Communication changed its name to the International Communication Association. NSSC had broken away from the Speech Association of America (now the National Communication Association) in 1950 over the issue of teaching about communication rather than speech training per se. With the change to ICA, the group wanted to reflect the global scope of research and international membership. In 1969, membership included “150 members from 27 foreign nations.” By 2004, there were “over 4,000 scholars in 76 countries” (International the Communication Association 2006). The Speech Association of America renamed itself the Speech Communication Association in 1970 and members created the Commission on International and Intercultural Commu­nication. In 1974, the SCA began to publish the International and Intercultural Annual (Work and Jeffrey 1989).

While the field of intercultural communication began as an interdisciplinary enterprise with multiple theoretical perspectives, approaches had begun to solidify by the late 1970s. Molefi Kete Asante, Eileen Newmark, and Cecil Blake (1979) identified two basic approaches: first, cultural dialogue which “seeks to illuminate the realm of self presentation” expanding on the work of Erving Goffman (Asante et al. 1979: 15, see also the example they cite, Kochman 1972); second, cultural criticism which sought “ways to perfect the communication process across cultures by isolating the barriers” (1979: 20). They also argued that “more description of the intercultural communication process” is needed, that “our scientists need to observe before they theorize. We must also work with those coherent explanations we have in order to stand higher in the asking process” (1979: 12).

William Gudykunst called this an “ ‘antitheory’ perspective” (1983: 14) and argued for the general importance of theory within international communication studies and that “the area is in desperate need of conceptual frameworks that will give direction to the diverse research effort taking place within it” (1983: 14). Gudykunst both acknowledged traditional positivist definitions of theory as something to “(1) explain, (2) to predict, or (3) to control” (1983: 14) and gives a nod to scholars who questioned at least some of the premises when applied to intercultural communication research. There was also an openness to various approaches, with theories seen as coming from communication studies at large, developed within intercultural communication or coming from completely separate fields including linguistics and phenomenology. This can also be seen in the follow-up methodology volume (Gudykunst and Kim 1984), where both quantitative and qualitative approaches were reviewed, and the 1989 Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, co-edited by both Asante and Gudykunst.

Discourse Analysis: 1950s to 1980s

While intercultural communication began as exploration of the practical topic of how to teach people to communicate well in contexts where they were interacting with people from other cultures, discourse analysis’s roots were in the general exploration of the relationship between language and culture. The first use of the term was by Zellig Harris in his 1952 Discourse Analysis. Harris is a linguist best known as striving for a rule-oriented approach to grammar and as the teacher with the most influence on fellow linguist Noam Chomsky (Watt 1993). Harris also was influenced, however, by Edward Sapir, with whom he interacted regularly in the Linguistic Society of America (Darnell 1989; Harris 1951, 1952) and shared with him an interest in the interaction between language and culture. Harris’s approach in his Discourse Analysis reflects Ferdinand de Saussure’s notion of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships where parts of a sentence could be replaced (see Chandler 2002 for a Saussure review). Harris tried to develop a method to understand how elements in pieces of discourse can be replaced by other elements. While his technique was not widely adopted, he addressed issues that continue to lie at the heart of discourse analysis.

One can approach discourse analysis from two types of problem, which turn out to be related. The first is the problem of continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limits of a single sentence at a time. The other is the question of correlating ‘culture’ and language (i.e. non-linguistic and linguistic behavior).

(Harris 1952: 1)

As Stephen Murray (1998) describes, at about the same time a group of scholars were developing methods to analyze the richness of naturally occurring interaction in visual form in the Natural History of an Interview (NHI) project starting at a seminar in Palo Alto, California in 1955. The group soon included anthropologists Gregory Bateson and Raymond Birdwhistle. All began analyzing a film Bateson had done with a woman who had recently undergone psychotherapy. While the project ultimately resulted in a 1971 manuscript that was available only on microform (McQuown 1971) and illustrated the difficulties of multilayered analysis of a significant chunk of naturally occurring discourse, it also influenced a wide number of people in fields that would make important contributions to discourse analysis.

Among the earliest of these was the sociologist Erving Goffman, who did his dissertation in a small community in the Shetland Islands (1953) and then a post-doc. at St. Elizabeth’s Psychiatric Hospital (1961). Goffman was an early student of Birdwhistle’s at the University of Toronto and then worked with Lloyd Warner and other sociologists at the University of Chicago. While he shared an interest with the NHI project in behavior in natural settings, he analyzed representative anecdotal incidents rather than previously taped naturally occurring behavior (Murray 1998). He elaborated a series of concepts that have had long-lasting impact on the field of discourse analysis and elsewhere including facework (1955), presentation of self (1959), and frame analysis (1974). In 1958, he was hired by the University of California in Berkeley sociology department and started with the sociology department of the University of Pennsylvania in the late 1960s (Murray 1998), also home of Zellig Harris (Darnell 1989).

While Goffman was at Berkeley, he was part of a group of young faculty members who occasionally met on Saturdays including Dell Hymes, John Gumperz, and Susan Ervin-Tripp, all instrumental in the development of the ethnography of speaking/ethnography of communication. Others in the group included Ethel Albert, an early advocate of studying intercultural com­munication within the field of communication, and the philosopher John Searle (Murray 1998). Hymes, Gumperz, and Ervin-Tripp broke with earlier anthropological linguists such as Mary Haas and others trained by Boas and Sapir by emphasizing the interrelationships between language and culture rather than descriptions of languages. In other words, this generation of anthropologists of language (in Hymes’s terminology, linguistic anthropologists) focused on analyzing discourse rather than grammar (Duranti 2003; Kiesling, Chapter 5 this volume).

Discourse analysis also has strong European roots. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein began exploring the nature of language games at Cambridge in the 1930s and 1940s (Wittgenstein 1953). At Oxford in the 1950s and 1960s, J. L. Austin and H. P. Grice also explored the uses of language. Austin ([1962] 1975) looked at “How to do things with words,” what he called “performatives,” while Grice (1957, 1961, 1976) looked at the meanings and implications of conversations. In 1968, Grice moved to the University of California–Berkeley, the original home of the founders of the ethnography of communication. Searle, an occasional original member of the Berkeley Saturday group, emphasized the importance of looking at the rule-governed nature of speech acts. “A great deal can be said in the study of language without studying speech acts, but any such purely formal theory is necessarily incomplete. It would be as if baseball were studied only as a formal system of rules and not as a game” (Searle 1969: 17, quoted in Slembrouck 2010).

While mainstream linguistics in the United States, first with Leonard Bloomfield and then later with Noam Chomsky, moved away from examining the actual use of speech, British linguistics was more oriented towards social interaction. Reflecting the society-wide English focus on social class and its relationship to voice, David Crystal and Derek Davy (1969) examined the importance of style in interactions, while M. A. K. Halliday looked at register (Halliday et al. 1964; Halliday 1978, 1985). “Critical linguistics” extended Halliday’s work and used linguistic features of discourse forms to analyze socio-political processes (e.g., Fowler et al. 1979; Kress and Hodge 1979; see Fairclough 1992 for review). Basil Bernstein (1962, 1975) also looked at the relationship between social class and language, positing notions of restricted and elaborated codes. He saw middle-class children as having access to both restricted and elaborated codes and working-class children having limited access to the elaborated code, crucial for school success, and therefore as doing poorly in school. Despite his objections, in the United States, Bernstein’s work was seen as part of deficit theories being forwarded by a number of psychologists (Bernstein 1997). On the basis of laboratory experiments or one-time interviews, these psychologists argued that minority children produced incomplete sentences and incoherent talk (Bereiter and Engelmann 1966) or had a lack of verbal stimulation in the home (Whiteman and Deutsch 1968; see Collins 1988 for a review).

A number of American discourse-oriented scholars, reflecting the growing awareness of black culture, language, and civil rights of the 1960s, argued against deficit theories. William Labov (1969) in “The logic of non-standard English” was one of the most vociferous critics, arguing that what he at the time called Black Vernacular English was as rule-governed and logical as any standardized form of English. Courtney Cazden (1968) and Shirley Brice Heath (1982) also did work showing how the discourse, used by schools caused children who were not from the mainstream to be disadvantaged.

Understanding the organization of children’s language in school was also at the center of the English Language Research Group from the University of Birmingham. Malcolm Coulthard began looking at classroom interactions and doctor–patient interactions in the 1970s (e.g. Coulthard and Ashby 1976; see Coulthard and Montgomery 1981 for a complete bibliography). An important aspect of the Birmingham group was producing theory about discourse analysis (e.g. Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). In 1981, Coulthard and Martin Montgomery produced a collection of works on discourse, analysis that included studies of intonation, the structures of discourse, and exchange structure. Michael Stubbs, a member of the Birmingham group, produced a discourse analysis textbook in 1983 that focused on similar issues. In the United States, Roy Freedle began editing a series on discourse processes in 1977 that included sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic orientations to discourse (e.g., Freedle 1977, 1979). Included in the series was an early discourse-oriented work on interethnic communication by Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon, both Berkeley graduates (Scollon and& Scollon 1981). Concurrently, Flora Klein-Andreu (1983) presented contextual analyses of actual examples of discourse in languages varying from Ancient Greek to Swahili.

Teun van Dijk from the Netherlands was also instrumental in institutionalizing the field of discourse analysis. Like Harris before him, he was interested in exploring the patterns of language at a higher level than the sentence. Influenced by Chomsky, his aim was “to develop a ‘generative poetics.’ ” After post-doctoral studies at the University of Berkeley in 1973 (van Dijk 2004), he began publishing on discourse (van Dijk and Petöfi 1977). His four-volume Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1985) presented perspectives of different disciplines, linguistic components of discourse, conversation analysis-influenced perspectives, and an events-based and political perspective. The organization of the four volumes of the Handbook is reflected in divisions of this present book into theoretical approaches, linguistic features, sample analyses, and examples of intercultural discourse in specific interactional domains. Like others before him, van Dijk also was interested in intercultural aspects of discourse. In 1980, after teaching in Mexico, he turned his attention to racism in Europe, “the ways white majorities think, speak and write about ethnic minorities, immigrants, refugees and about people from the South in general” (2004: 14). This interest foreshadowed later work formally reflecting both fields.

Discourse Analysis Meets Intercultural Communication: 1990s to 2000s

Works quite separate still continued to be published in the 1990s and 2000s in both intercultural communication and discourse analysis. In ICC, many works continued to have a focus on training initiated by Hall in the 1940s (e.g., Brislin and Yoshida 1994; Novinger 2001; Klyukanov 2004) while other strong threads emphasized interpretive post-structural (e.g., Young 1996) and international and multicultural approaches (e.g., Millhouse 2001; Asante et al. 2008). Discourse analysis continued to reflect the areas laid out by Stubbs (1983) and van Dijk (1985): linguistic analysis, conversation analysis, and speech events (e.g. Schiffrin 1994; Schriffrin et al. 2003). Norman Fairclough (1992) reviewed earlier discourse analyses through a social structural lens. He saw earlier approaches to discourse analysis as non-critical (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Labov and Fanshel 1977; Potter and Wetherell 1987) or critical, including the critical linguists (e.g., Fowler et al. 1979) and the Marxist-influenced (e.g., Pêcheux 1982). He contrasts all these works with Foucault’s more abstract approach to discourse and power and critiques Foucault as not focusing proper attention on “concrete instances of practice and textual forms” (1992: 61). This attention to specific pieces of discourse has always been a hallmark of discourse analysis in any form.

One of the major developments of the 1990s, however, was the beginning of a formal recognition of the interconnectedness of the fields of intercultural communication and discourse analysis. Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon, following up their 1981 work on interethnic communication, and long-term fieldwork in Alaska, China, and the Pacific Rim, published a series of books on intercultural communication (2000; Pan et al. 2002) and became recognized within the field of discourse analysis as experts in intercultural communication (e.g., Scollon and Scollon 2003).

Scott Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston (two of the editors of this volume) collected a wide variety of articles in their Intercultural Discourse and Communication: The Essential Readings (2005). Starting with theoretical work from anthropology (e.g., Hymes [1986] 2003; Duranti [1989] 2003; Gumperz [1982] 2003) and critical or interactional sociolinguistics (Singh et al. [1988] 2003), they then presented a range of case studies from interactional sociolinguistics and anthro­pology on specific instances of discourse and identity building in inter­cultural situations.

The importance of this discourse-oriented work in the field of intercultural communication is evident in the Conference on Intercultural Dialogue held in Istanbul in 2009. Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz and Nazan Haydari led a committee of scholars from the US, Israel, France, and Hong Kong that designed the conference “to discuss … intercultural communication in various cultural, social, historical and political contexts … and to explore ways of understanding and managing productively interactions through dialogue” (Conference on Intercultural Dialogue 2009). The use of the term “dialogue” rather than discourse, however, signals the continuing reliance on multiple approaches and methodologies within the field. This varied approach is also reflected in the call for papers of the associated Journal of International and Intercultural Communication.

The strength of an international and discourse-oriented approach is evident from this volume. The theoretical approaches include linguistic anthropology (Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz, Chapter 4; Kiesling, Chapter 5), and critical approaches (Kubota, Chapter 6; Canagarajah, Chapter 7). Part III addresses specific linguistic features such as turn-taking (Tannen, Chapter 8) and silence (Nakane, Chapter 9), allowing readers to see exactly how different parts of discourse can be analyzed, and specific analysis of different intercultural communication including Arab and Anglo-American cultures (Davies and Bentahila, Chapter 12), Japan (Brown, Hayashi, and Yamamoto, Chapter 13), and South Africa (Kaschula and Maseko, Chapter 16). Intercultural discourse and communication is also explored in specific domains such as interpretation (Davies, Chapter 18) and medicine (Angelelli, Chapter 21).

Revisiting Culture and Communication: Current Linguistic Anthropology

One of the questions raised by the Conference on Intercultural Dialogue is “How do scholars in different contexts define the concept of culture?” As discussed above, despite crossing numerous cultural categories themselves, Boas and Sapir, founders of anthropology, saw cultures as individual entities. Both men used a historically oriented model of culture strongly influenced by nineteenth-century philology, however, and saw cultures as made of sets of traits that, like languages, could evolve independently or change with culture contact (e.g., Boas 1911; Sapir 1922).

Although initially powerful, within language-oriented anthropology (usually referred to then as anthropological linguistics), this view of independent cultures and languages led to a series of dry descriptions of grammar by the end of the 1950s. Dell Hymes, John Gumperz and the Berkeley group provided a clear alternative to this. Dell Hymes arrived at Berkeley from Harvard in 1960 and developed the SPEAKING model (Setting, Participants, Ends, Act sequences, Key, Instrumentality, Norms and Genres) of specific events such as legal proceedings, classroom interactions, or religious services. He changed the focus from the lexicon and grammar of languages to what he called the ethnography of speaking (e.g. Hymes 1962; see Kiesling, Chapter 4 this volume). In the meantime, Gumperz, who had used ethnographic methods in India to study multilingual language settings, and the linguist Charles Ferguson of Stanford, organized a session on linguistic diversity for the American Anthropological Association. Hymes, Gumperz, Labov, and Bernstein were later all part of a session that led to a volume on the Ethnography of Communication (Gumperz and Hymes 1964; also see Kiesling, Chapter 4 this volume; Duranti 2003). This focus on events has influenced linguistic anthropology and discourse analysis ever since.

Some of the most important recent work in this vein includes work by Alessandro Duranti, Charles Goodwin, Marjorie Harness Goodwin, Elinor Ochs, and Bambi Schiefflin. Duranti and Charles Goodwin (1992) presented a collection of articles that featured conversation analysis and other approaches to the social analysis of context approach that focused on how language both reflects and constructs reality, an issue integral to the wider field of discourse analysis. The articles clearly show the power of language to alter reality. For example, Duranti shows that Samoan respect words can be “strategically powerful tools that can force others to assume particular social personae, to wear social masks from behind which it will be very hard to refuse what is requested” (1992: 96). Goodwin and Goodwin (1992: 154) look at assessments, “evaluating in some fashion persons and events being described within their talk” and argued that they have “a clear relevance to larger issues posed in the analysis of language, culture and social organization” (1992: 184). While they show how their examples of assessments in even basic conversations about dogs and asparagus pies can change the flow in specific situations, they do not give concrete examples of how these minor changes can make long-lasting impacts on the structure of societies. Ochs’s work on how the kind of language women use indexes their traditional role in childcare gives a clearer picture on how specific forms of language can be instrumental in creating widespread perceptions (even stereotypes) that can be seen to build specific soci­eties. In her 1992 article, however, she does not give many details of the larger culture. Ochs and Schiefflin’s 1984 work on language socialization gives a clearer portrait of how specific child-rearing techniques reflect social values and create diverse societies including how Samoan expectations of children reinforce Samoan notions of hierarchy.

Critiques of discourse analysis including Singh, Lele, and Martohardojono ([1988] 2003) and Fairclough (1992) point to this disconnect between analyzing linguistic specifics and understanding patterns in the larger society. Singh et al. argue that sociolinguists “must not ignore the distortions introduced by power” (1988: 53). They criticize Gumperz, Jenny Cook-Gumperz and others’ work in interethnic communication (e.g., Gumperz 1982a, 1982b; Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz 1982; Jupp et al. 1982) for not asking:

(Singh et al. 1988: 55)

However, their suggested solution of locating “situation-specific discourse strategies as sub-sets … of general or universal principles of discourse” (1988: 55) begs a number of questions including what rules are universal and how we can examine differences without reference to the larger milieus in which these intercultural contacts are taking place. They do not discuss the necessity of understanding the larger cultures that are producing the language forms being examined or the history of community and individual cultural contact including the history of the control of the discourse. As Brice Heath ([1982] 2001) points out, the practices of the majority culture at home and elsewhere “seem natural in school and in a number of institutional settings” (2001: 97) but in fact reflect both specific preparation for such institutional settings and the fact that institutional practices develop out of mainstream cultural practices.

Fairclough (1992), another critic of Gumperz, argued for a discourse analysis that recognized “the ways in which changes in language use are linked to wider social and cultural processes” (1992: 1). Fairclough’s focus on social processes, however, takes him no farther than the anthropologists who stress that language use is a key part of restructuring ongoing contexts. Rather than tracing a historical movement in depth, he analyzes only small-scale social processes involved in texts such as newspapers, advertisements, and medical talk. While he can pinpoint hegemonic dominant political discourses and discuss reactions to this discourse, he does not use his analyses to paint any large-scale pictures.

The field of socio-cultural anthropology for many years has recognized the importance of examining both practice and history, seeing, in effect, the larger scale (e.g., Ortner 1984; Sahlins 1981, 1985; Wolf 1982). Within linguistic anthropology, work in language ideology provides one major way of seeing the influence of the power of language. Scholars looked at how ideas about language influence interactions within society (e.g., Kroskrity 1998 on the use of kiva language amongst the Tewa; Mertz 1998 on interactions in an American law school; and Kulick 1998 on the kros, a rant usually performed by women among the Gapun of New Guinea) and how these ideas influence even institutions of nationhood (e.g., Errington 1998 on Indonesian as a national language, and Schieffelin and Doucet 1998 on the importance of Kreyòl in Haiti). What is notable about these studies is that the focus is again on discourse, in this case discourses about language. More recently, colonial intercultural discourses have been the subject of study. Hanks (2010) looked at sixteenth-to eighteenth-century documents of the Spanish Catholic conquista pacifica of the Yucatan Maya while Messing (2010) showed evidence of Nahuatl-speaking people’s resistance to the Aztecs in sixteenth-century Spanish colonial court records in Tlaxcala, Mexico (see Monaghan 2011 for a review).

Work on Deaf communities and cultures provides some of the broadest perspectives on the relationships between discourse and larger social change (e.g., Senghas and Monaghan 2002; Monaghan et al. 2003; LeMaster and Monaghan 2004; Nakamura 2006). We can see how changing education institutions in Nicaragua gave a space for the creation of a new Nicaraguan Sign Language and Deaf culture (e.g. R. Senghas 1997, 2003; Morgan and Kegl 2006; R. Senghas et al. 2006), how the end of apartheid influenced South African Deaf education and SA Sign Language (Aarons and Reynolds 2003), and the influence of imported American Sign Language on the local Nigerian Hausa Sign Language (Schmaling 2003).

Performance, another rich vein in current linguistic anthropology, looks at specific instances of communication, in this case usually the heightened forms of communication found in discourses designed for larger audiences (e.g., Bauman 1975, 1977; Brenneis and Myers 1984; Hall 2001). Duranti (2003: 333) sums up the object of study of modern linguistic anthropology as “language practice, participation framework, self/person/identity.”

Looking Forward

Intercultural communication is a field that has taken a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches to the question of how people from different cultures interact. Discourse analysis is a theoretical and methodological approach to specific examples of communication that can be used to analyze a wide variety of questions. Anthropology takes an ethnographic approach, involving long-term participant-observation fieldwork, to culture and language, with linguistic anthropology adding a strong ethnographic strand to general discourse analysis approaches to specific instances of communication. Deaf studies within linguistic anthropology provides an approach to intercultural communication that connects specific instances of interactions with larger historical and socio-cultural contexts.

Within this volume, we move from theoretical and historical introductions in Parts I and II, to individual aspects of discourse, specific examples of discourse, and realms of discourse in Parts III, IV, and V. The fractal nature of discourse shows up clearly in this progression, how small and large decisions by individuals and institutions that individuals inhabit affect the flow of discourse and the shape of society at every turn.

The result also reflects the different strands of the study of intercultural discourse and communication reviewed here. The ethnography of speaking has descended from the original Boasian interest in the intersections between language and culture. The critical examination of discourse and communication reflects strands of critical theory in both intercultural communication and discourse analysis. Politeness, one of the topics covered in linguistic features (Holmes, Chapter 11), reflects the work of Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978), students of Gumperz and the Berkeley group. The sample analyses of actual examples of discourse add to the already rich genre of discourse analyses while the examples from specific interactional domains continue intercultural communication’s emphasis on practical insights into communication practices. As the 2009 Istanbul conference highlighted, intercultural communication and discourse analysis are closer than ever. This Handbook will further strengthen these ties.

NOTE

1 Many thanks to the editors for the invitation to contribute to this volume, and to Scott Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston for their helpful comments. Thanks also to the University of Wyoming George C. Frison Institute where I was a Visiting Scholar for the initial writing stages of this manuscript. Any mistakes in this chapter, however, are my own.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aarons, Debra and Louise Reynolds. 2003. South African Sign Language: Changing policies and practice. In Leila Monaghan, Constanze Schmaling, Karen Nakamura, and Graham H. Turner (eds.). Many Ways to be Deaf. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 194–210.

Arizona State University. 2008. Pioneer in intercultural communication to retire. ASU News, March 31, 2008. http://asunews.asu.edu/20080321_jainretire.

Asante, Molefi and William Gudykunst with Eileen Newmark (eds.). 1989. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Asante, Molefi, Yoshitaka Miike, and Jing Yin (eds.). 2008. The Global Intercultural Communication Reader. New York: Routledge.

Asante, Molefi, Eileen Newmark, and Cecil Blake. 1979. Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Austin, John L. [1962] 1975. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bauman, Richard. [1975] 2001. Verbal art as performance. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 165–88.

Bauman, Richard. [1977] 2007. Five principles. In Leila Monaghan and Jane Goodman (eds.). A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 25–6.

Bereiter, Carl and Siegfried Engelmann. 1966. Teaching Disadvantaged Children in Preschool. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Bernstein, Basil. 1962. Linguistic codes, hesitation phenomena and intelligence. Language and Speech 5(1), 31–48.

Bernstein, Basil. 1975. Class, Codes and Control. New York: Schocken.

Bernstein, Basil. 1997. Sociolinguistics: A personal view. In Christina Bratt Paulston and G. Richard Tucker (eds.). The Early Days of Sociolinguistics. Publications in Sociolinguistics 2. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Bloch, Bernard. 1949. Leonard Bloomfield. Language 25(2), 87–98.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2(3), 153–64.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1942. Outline for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages. Balti­more. MD: Linguistic Society of America.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1944a. Spoken Dutch. New York: Henry Holt.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1944b. Colloquial Dutch. New York: Henry Holt.

Boas, Franz. 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages, vol. I. Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology 40. Washington, DC: Smith­sonian Institution.

Brenneis, Donald and Fred Myers (eds.). 1984. Dangerous Words: Language and Politics in the Pacific. New York: New York University Press.

Brislin, Richard and Tomoko Yoshida. 1994. Intercultural Communication Training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther Goody (ed.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56–311.

Cazden, Courtney. 1968. Three sociolinguistic views of the language and speech of lower-class children – with special attention to the work of Basil Bernstein. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 10(5), 600–12.

Chandler, Daniel. 2002. Paradigms and syntagms. Semiotics for beginners, February 26. 2002, www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem03.html.

Collins, James. 1988. Language and class in minority education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 19(4), 299–326.

Condon, John. 1981. Values and ethics in communication across cultures. Commu­nication 6, 255–65.

Condon, John C. and Fathi Yousef. 1975. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Conference on Intercultural Dialogue. 2009. Summer Conference on Intercultural Dialogue. National Communication Ass­ociation. http://convention3.allacademic.com/one/nca/summer09.

Coulthard, R. Malcolm. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. 69–88.

Coulthard, R. Malcolm and R. C. Ashby. 1976. A linguistic description of doctor–patient interviews. In M. Wadsworth and D. Robinson (eds.). Studies in Everyday Medical Life. London: Martin Robertson. 140–7.

Coulthard, R. Malcolm and Martin Mont­gomery. 1981. Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Crystal, David and Derek Davy. 1969. Inve­stigating English Style. London: Longman.

Darnell, Regna. 1989. Edward Sapir: Linguist, Humanist, Anthropologist. Berkeley: Uni­versity of California Press.

Dodd, C. H. 1982. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company.

Duranti, Alessandro, [1989] 2005. Ethno­graphy of speaking: toward a linguistics of praxis. In Scott Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.). Intercultural Dis­course and Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 17–32.

Duranti, Alessandro. 2003. Language as culture in U.S. anthropology. Current Anthropology 44(3), 323–35.

Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds.). 1992. Rethinking Context. Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Errington, Frederick. 1998. Indonesian(’s) development: On the state of a language of state. In Bambi Schieffelin, Kathryn Woolard, and Paul Kroskrity (eds.). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 189–210.

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress, and T. Trew 1979. Language and Control. London: Routledge.

Freedle, Roy. 1977. New Directions in Discourse Processing, vol. I. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Freedle, Roy. 1979. New Directions in Discourse Processing, vol. II. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fries, Charles and Kenneth Pike. 1949. Coexistent phonemic systems. Language 25(1), 29–50.

Gleick, James. 1987. Chaos: Making a New Science. London: Cardinal.

Goffman, Erving. 1953. Communication conduct in an island community. Unpu­blished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.

Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements of social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3), 213–31.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums. Harmonds­worth: Penguin.

Goffman, Erving. [1974] 1986. Frame Ana­lysis. Boston, MA: Northeastern Univer­sity Press.

Goodwin, Charles. 1987. Unilateral departure. In Graham Button and John Lee (eds.). Talk and Social Organisation. Cleve­don, UK: Multilingual Matters. 201–18.

Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds.). Rethinking Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 147–90.

Grandy, Richard and Richard Warner. 2006. Paul Grice. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grice.

Grice, Paul. 1961. The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 35, 121–52.

Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Donald Davidson and Graham Harmon (eds.). The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson. 64–75.

Grice, Paul. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In Peter Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics 9. New York: Academic Press. 183–97.

Grice, Paul and P. F. Strawson. 1957. In defence of a dogma. Philosophical Review 65, 141–58.

Gudykunst, William. 1983. Intercultural Communication Theory: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, William. 1985. Intercultural communication: Current status and proposed directions. In Brenda Dervin and Melvin Voigt (eds.). Progress in Communication Sciences 6. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1–46.

Gudykunst, William and Young Yung Kim. 1984. Methods for Intercultural Com­m­nication Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gumperz, John. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, John. 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, John. [1982] 2005. Interethnic communication. In Scott Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.). Inter­cultural Discourse and Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 33–44.

Gumperz, John and Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 1982. Communicative competence in educational perspective. In Louise Cherry-Wilkinson (ed.). Communicating in the Classroom. New York: Academic Press. 13–24

Gumperz, John J. and Dell Hymes. 1964. The ethnography of communication. Special issue of American Anthro­pologist, 66(6) Part 2.

Gumperz, John, T. C. Jupp, and Celia Roberts. 1981. Crosstalk. Background materials and notes to accompany the BBC film. London: National Centre for Industrial Language Training.

Hall, Edward T. 1959. The Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, Edward T. 1964. Adumbration as a feature in intercultural communication. American Anthropologist 66(6) Part 2, 154–63.

Hall, Edward T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, Kira. 2001. Performativity. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.). Key Terms in Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 180–3.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., Angus McIntosh, and Peter Strevens. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Hanks, William. 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Harms, L. S. 1973. Intercultural Communica­tion. New York: Harper & Row.

Harris, Zellig. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harris, Zellig. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28(1), 1–30.

Heath, Shirley Brice. 1982. What no bed­time story means. Language in Society 11, 49–76.

Hyatt, Marshall. 1990. Franz Boas, Social Activist. New York: Greenwood Press.

Hymes, Dell. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Thomas Gladwin and William C. Sturtevant (eds.). Anthropology and Human Behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington. 13–53.

Hymes, Dell. [1986] 2003. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Scott Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.). Intercultural Discourse and Com­munication. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 4–16.

International Communication Association. 2006. History. International Communication Association. www.icahdq.org/abou_tica/history.asp.

Joos, Martin 1986. Notes on the Development of the Linguistic Society of 1924 to 1950. Ithaca, NY: Linguistica.

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/rjii.

Jupp, T. C., Celia Roberts, and Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 1982. Language and disadvantage. In John Gumperz (ed.). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232–56.

Kiesling, Scott and Christina Bratt Paulston (eds). 2005. Intercultural Discourse and Com­munication: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Klein-Andreu, Flora (ed.). 1983. Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Aca­demic Press.

Klopf, D. W. 1987. Intercultural Encounters: The Fundamentals of Intercultural Com­munication. Englewood, NJ: Morton.

Klyukanov, Igor. 2004. Principles of Inter­cultural Communication. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Kochman, Thomas. 1972 (ed.). Rappin’ and Stylin’ Out: Communication in Urban Black America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Kress, Gunther and Robert Hodge. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.

Kroskrity, Paul. 1998. Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of a dominant language ideology. In Bambi Schieffelin, Kathryn Woolard, and Paul Kroskrity (eds.). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. 103–22.

Kulick, Don. 1998. Anger, gender, language shift, and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guinean village. In Paul Kroskrity, Bambi Schieffelin, and Kathryn Woolard (eds.). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. 87–102.

Labov, William. 1969. The logic of non-standard English. In James Alatis (ed.). Georgetown Monograph on Languages and Linguistics 22. 1–44.

Labov, William and D. Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Leeds-Hurwitz, Wendy. 1990. Notes in the history of intercultural communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quar­terly Journal of Speech 76(3), 262–81.

LeMaster, Barbara and Leila Monaghan. 2004. Variation in sign languages. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 141–66.

Liberman, Mark. 2007. Linguistics in 1940. Language Log, March 11. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/004294.html.

McQuown, Norman A. 1971. The Natural History of an Interview. Microfilm Collec­tion of Manuscripts on Cultural Anth­ropology, Fifteenth Series. Chicago: University of Chicago, Joseph Regenstein Library, Department of Photoduplication.

Mertz, Elizabeth. 1998. Linguistic ideology and praxis in U.S. law school classrooms. In Paul Kroskrity, Bambi Schieffelin, and Kathryn Woolard (eds.). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. 149–62.

Messing, Jacqueline. 2010. Identity, discourse and (ethno)history. Paper presented at the 109th Annual Meeting of the AAA, New Orleans, November 20.

Millhouse, Virginia, Molefi Asante, and Peter Nwosu (eds.). 2001. Transcultural Realities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Monaghan, Leila. 2011. The expanding boundaries of linguistic anthropology: 2010 in perspective. American Anthropo­logist 113(2), 222–34.

Monaghan, Leila, Constanze Schmaling, Karen Nakamura, and Graham H. Turner. 2003. Many Ways to Be Deaf. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Morgan, Gary and Judy Kegl. 2006. Nicaraguan sign language and theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(8), 811–19.

Murray, Stephen. 1998. American Sociolin­guistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nakamura, Karen. 2006. Deaf in Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

National Communication Association. 2011. International and Intercultural Com­munication Division. www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=367&terms=international%20and%20intercultural.

Novinger, Tracy. 2001. Intercultural Com­munication: A Practical Guide. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. In Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds.). Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335–58.

Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin. 1984. Language acquisition and socialization. In Richard Shweder and Robert LeVine (eds.). Culture Theory. Cambridge: Cam­bridge University Press. 276–320.

Ortner, Sherry. 1984. Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1), 126–66.

Pan, Yuling, Suzanne Wong Scollon, and Ron Scollon. 2002. Professional Communication in International Settings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Pêcheux, Michel. 1982. Language, Semantics, and Ideology. London: Macmillan.

Potter, Jonathan and Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage Publications.

Rich, Andrea. 1974. Interracial Communication. New York: Harper and Row.

Sahlins, Marshall. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Sahlins, Marshall. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12629.

Schieffelin, Bambi and Rachelle Doucet. 1998. The “real” Haitian creole: Ideology, metalinguistics and orthographic choice. American Ethnologist 21(1), 176–200.

Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn Woolard, and Paul Kroskrity. 1998. Language, Ideologies, Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton (eds). 2003. Handbook of Dis­course Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schmaling, Constanze. 2003. A for apple: The impact of western education and ASL on the Deaf community in Kano State, Northern Nigeria. In Leila Monaghan, Constanze Schmaling, Karen Nakamura, and Graham H. Turner (eds.). Many Ways to Be Deaf. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press 7. 302–10.

Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1981. Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Advances in Discourse Processes 7. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2000. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2003. Discourse and Intercultural Communication. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton (eds.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 538–47.

Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Senghas, Richard. 1997. An “unspeakable, unwriteable” language: Deaf identity, language and personhood among the first cohorts of Nicaraguan signers. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.

Senghas, Richard. 2003. New ways to be Deaf in Nicaragua. In Leila Monaghan, Constanze Schmaling, Karen Nakamura, and Graham H. Turner (eds.). Many Ways to Be Deaf. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 260–82.

Senghas, Richard and Leila Monaghan. 2002. Signs of their times: Deaf communities and the culture of language. Annual Review of Anthropology 31, 69–97.

Senghas, Richard, Anne Senghas, and Jennie Pyers. 2006. The emergence of Nicaraguan sign language. In Jonas Langer, Sue Taylor Parker, and Constance Milbrath (eds.). Biology and Knowledge Revisited. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 287–306.

Sinclair, John and R. Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Singer, Marshall. 1987. Intercultural Com­munication: A Perceptual Approach. Engle­wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Singh, Ranendra, Jayant Lele, and Gita Martohardjono. [1988] 2005. Com­munica­tion in a multilingual society. In Scott Kiesling and Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.). Intercultural Discourse and Com­munication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 45–57.

Sitaram, K. S. and Roy Cogdell. 1976. Foundations of Intercultural Communication. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Slembrouck, Stef. 2010+. The “Natural Language School” in analytical philo­sophy, University of Ghent. www.english.ugent.be/da/analyticalphilosophy#sa.

Smith, Arthur [now Molefi Asante]. 1972. Language, Communication, and Rhetoric in Black America. New York: Harper & Row.

Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

van Dijk, Teun (ed.). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis (4 vols.). London: Academic Press.

van Dijk, Teun. 2004. From text grammar to critical discourse analysis. www.discourses.org/cv/From%20text%20grammar%20to%20critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf.

van Dijk, Teun and János Petöfi. 1978. Discourse and Descriptions. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Watt, W. C. 1993. Zellig Sabbatai Harris, 1909–1992. Biographical Memoirs 87. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, published 2004 at www.nap.edu/html/biomems/zharris.pdf.

Whiteman, Martin and Martin Deutsch. 1968. Social disadvantage as related to intellective and language development. In Martin Deutsch, Irwin Katz, and Arthur Jensen (eds.). Social Class, Race and Psychological Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 86–115.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and R. Rhees, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wolf, Eric. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Work, William and Robert Jeffrey. 1989. Historical notes: The Speech Commu­nication Association, 1965–1989, National Communication Association. www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/Content/About/History%20of%20NCA.pdf.

Young, Robert 1996. Intercultural Communi­cation: Pragmatics, Genealogy, Deconstruc­tion. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.