I begin with those categories that involve neutral terminology. The inherent connection of neutral terms with the ground, the likeness of an image, has been indicated already. Interaction of other kinds does not have this characteristic. It is worth stressing that, in many ways, the more apparent the connection with the ground, the less interesting the interaction. This applies especially to explicit imagery, where, of course, the ground, or part of it, is usually made explicit as a matter of predictable organisation.

All the critical twiddle-twaddle about style and form, all this pseudo-scientific classifying and analysing of books in an imitation-botanical fashion, is mere impertinence and mostly dull jargon.’ The first thing to say is that Lawrence’s protest deserves honest respect. If one had to make an exclusive choice between that version of ’criticism’ which confines itself to the technical and the typical, and a kind that sees as its task assessment of particulars unfettered by reference, even, to types and to any sort of technical consideration: if one must choose, one must choose the latter. Comparative inarticulacy is preferable to a decreative sophistication. And the second thing to say is that we need not make such a choice. Our ability to confront literature fruitfully - to be creative - requires articulacy; and true articulacy requires the direction of the recreative mind. But must articulacy imply classification and analysis?

Spoken language exhibits not only grammatical constructions but also prosodic constructions. While the latter are also form–function mappings, there are differences: Prosodic constructions involve temporal configurations of diverse prosodic features, their functions are primarily pragmatics-related and interactional, they can be present to greater or lesser degrees, and they are frequently superimposed and aligned in complex ways with other prosodic constructions and with grammatical constructions. This chapter illustrates these properties with examples from American English.

The concluding chapter of this book aims to remind the reader of the purpose of the book, which is to help BSL learners to improve their sign articulation accuracy, recognise the kinds of errors they are likely to make, and gain a better understanding of the visual nature of BSL. The importance of practice to enhance fluency is emphasised in Section 5.1, which also encourages the learner to make every effort to understand the cultural aspects of the social life and everyday lived experiences of Deaf people. Section 5.2 contains a good number of exercises that incorporate aspects of the previous three chapters so that you can continue working on the areas that you have identified for improvement. Each exercise contains a clear aim and provides activities with instructions that will help you to continue improving your sign articulation. This chapter emphasises the fact that the ability to recognise and correct your errors is an important part of the learning journey. It helps you to self-reflect and stay on track with the development of your BSL skills as you progress further on your journey to becoming a fluent BSL user.

Chapter 3 showed that as linguistics became increasingly interested in the wider co-textual structures and meanings in which clauses and sentences were situated, stylistics drew on these developments and combined them with frameworks from narratology to produce a more sophisticated approach to style in both literary and non-literary texts. At the same time as these developments were taking place, linguists and stylisticians were also taking more and more interest in the context in which texts (written and spoken, prepared and spontaneous, ephemeral and preserved, etc.) were produced and consumed. This led stylistics to consider the extent to which the then relatively new subdiscipline of pragmatics may provide yet more insight into the style of texts. Consequently, this chapter outlines the influence of pragmatic concepts and frameworks on stylistic analysis.

This chapter describes and empirically illustrates an approach to analyzing categorial phenomena in talk-in-interaction, grounded in the distinctive conversation analytic practice of building and analyzing collections. We begin by outlining a core set of observations made by Harvey Sacks in implementing a shift from conventional social scientific treatments of categories (e.g., gender, race, sexuality, age) as analysts’ resources, to instead examining them as members’ resources. That is, instead of using categories to study the social world, Sacks’ approach introduced resources for seeing how participants in social interactions use and self-administer categories. We then present an analysis of a collection of openings of interactions from ordinary conversational and institutional settings, considering some ways in which participants explicitly and tacitly use and manage categories in the initial moments of these interactions. Using this analysis as an exemplar, we address a set of challenges and critiques associated with conversation analytic research on categories. We thereby describe how CA can provide an empirically rigorous means of examining the ‘mutually constitutive’ relationship between categories and other ‘generic’ interactional structures and practices – and thus for analyzing the situated (re)production of categories, from the most mundane to those most strongly associated with distributions of power and privilege.

Conversation analysts in a range of disciplines have pointed to a relationship between Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. However, full descriptions of key elements of this relationship, and illustrations of how it matters in practical terms, are scarce. We specify ways in which the concerns and sensibility of Ethnomethodology (EM) can translate into the practice of Conversation Analysis (CA). Employing an EM sensibility involves attending to five major features of social interaction: how members of society co-produce social order, achieve social organization in their everyday lives, deploy concrete practices or methods of talk and embodied conduct, use commonsense knowledge, and operate in real-time, actual social interaction with its temporal dimensions. In specifying these features, our aim is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Our goal is to appreciate how EM’s view of social phenomena—as actual, lived in real time, and member-produced—is fundamental to CA, and how EM’s theoretical insights and studies of commonsense and practice-assembled social events profoundly paved the way for CA. While integrating this EM backdrop, CA advanced the systematic analysis of concerted, real-time conduct-in-interaction. A concluding section of the chapter provides an illustration drawn from an internal medicine clinic, and involves doctor-patient interaction.

In an increasingly integrated Europe, state language regimes are not the only ones that matter. It is also essential to understand how they interact with supranational language regimes. As Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries worked towards and then gained European Union membership after 2000, to what extent did their state language regimes become “Europeanized”? This question is examined through the case of Romani in Slovakia. The chapter has two aims: first, to demonstrate that the concept of a language regime can be fruitfully applied to supranational entities, and second, to examine the impact of such regimes at the state level. The Council of Europe’s language regime led it to advocate for increased support of Romani, as well as increased minority language rights in member states more generally. This work became bound up in the wider dynamics of Europeanization and European pressure on CEE states. At the level of the Slovak state, official policies towards Romani were changed in response to such pressure. Implementation of such commitments was limited, however. An analysis of state treatment of Romani language in Slovakia from approximately 1998 to 2018 thus illustrates a process through which a state language regime was altered but not transformed.

Chapter 3 explores the relationship of material and immaterial embodiments of animals in the Bronze Age Aegean, through the lion. Since populations of living lions were not present on Crete, representational embodiments were the basis of people’s physical encounters with the species; hence the peculiarities of these “object-bodies” powerfully contributed to the characterization of the beast. The vast majority of Cretan lion representations occurred in glyptic. Seals (as worn objects) and impressions (as material signifiers of identity) consistently placed the leonine in direct relation to the human, through bodily and sociocultural juxtapositions. Cretans also would have encountered lions in immaterial manifestations, through oral culture. Early Aegean poetic traditions formulated a paralleling of human and lion through similes that was remarkably similar to the paralleling juxtaposition generated between a lion-seal and person. In MBA III–LBA II, after centuries of development in Crete, the lion’s association with glyptic extended to the early Mycenaean mainland. This moment saw intense intra-Aegean exchange, with material, practical and linguistic dimensions. The epic tradition was taking form, including lion similes. Through its various embodiments, the lion was caught up in this interaction, as its Aegean juxtaposition with humans fluidly continued and developed.

Research in conversational hand gesturing shows an array of philosophical senses of intersubjectivity. Gesturing is interpersonally rational, as demonstrated in studies linking gesturing to common ground achievements and effects and to markings of communicative intent. Gesturing is an ecological and interactional activity through which copresent interlocutors codetermine their own social and environmental relatings, building as well as attending to a shared world. Gesturing is an intercorporeal experience central to what it means to live as linguistic bodies. Taken together, research indicates that hand gesturing even as a variegated phenomenon offers insight into how language works. The full story of intersubjectivity and attendant features of recognition, interpretation, normativity, conventionality, and reference begins and ends with actual bodies interacting. As these matters concern the core of pragmatic philosophy, gesture research has radical relevance for all language theorists. An enactive approach to intersubjectivity and language offers a framework for making this case.

This chapter reviews the study of variation in gesture and its theoretical underpinnings in the field of gesture studies. It questions the use of culture, language, or nationality as the default unit of analysis in studies of gesture variation. Drawing on theoretical developments in sociolinguistics and recent anthropologial analyses of gesture, it argues for the possibility that social factors and divisions other than linguistic/cultural boundaries may provide a more robust and comprehensive theoretical account for variation in gesture.