Language and Communication—The Contexualized and “Person-Centered” Nature of Linguistic and Communicative Action

  • Charlotte Marie Bisgaard Klemmensen


The integrational perspective introduced in this chapter is concerned with a broader concept of communication, both implicit and explicit. This chapter sets the scene for this book’s diffractive enrichment of combining an integrational linguistic approach and a Practice theory approach to language and communication, including the methodology of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. The ontological similarities and incompatibilities of this combination are discussed throughout the book. Despite the presence of ontological divergences, in order to operate on an interdisciplinary ground, the transcript practice, the presuppositions, and the methodology of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis are integrated complementarily as they afford data retrieval and enrich the analysis and its discussions instrumentally. Lay-strategies for obtaining knowledge on communication and language are contrasted with expert linguists’ strategies.


Conversation analysis Integrational linguistics Practice theory Practice studies Lay-oriented strategies 


  1. Alvesson, M., & Sköldbjerg. (2018). Reflexive methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Angermuller, J. (2013). How to become an academic philosopher: Academic discourse as a multileveled positioning practice. Sociología Histórica, 2, 263–289.Google Scholar
  3. Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2014). Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Blackmann, L., & Venn, C. (2010). Affect. Body and Society, 16(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, C. (2011). Forståelseshandlingen: En empirisk afprøvet teori om narrativ forståelse som situeret betydning i dannelse. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar
  7. Cooren, F. (2015). In medias res: Communication, existence, and materiality. Communication Research and Practice, 1(4), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damm, B. (2008). Hvad er sprog i virkeligheden? Nydanske Sprogstudier, 36, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Damm, B. (2016). Sproglig betydningsdannelse i teori og praksis: En teoretisk og empirisk videreudvikling af det integrerede sprogsyn. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, H. (2001). Words: An integrational approach. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Discourse Studies. (2016). Special issue: The epistemics of epistemics, 18(5).Google Scholar
  12. Duncker, D. (2011). On the empirical challenge to integrational studies in language. Language Sciences, 33(4), 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleming, D. (1995). The search for an integrational account of language: Roy Harris and conversation analysis. Language Sciences, 17(1), 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleming, D. (1997). Is ethnomethodological conversation analysis an “integrational” account of language? In G. Wolf & N. Love (Eds.), Linguistics inside out (pp. 182–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 35–75). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 12–97). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversation with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, C. (2010). Multimodality in human interaction. Calidoscópio, 8(2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin, M., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In A. Peräkylä & M. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, R. (1987). The language machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, R. (2009a). Integrationist notes and papers 2006–2008. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, R. (2009b). After epistemology. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  28. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Horsbøl, A., & Raudaskoski, P. (Eds.). (2016). Diskurs og praksis: Teori, metode og analyse. København: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  30. Hutton, C. (2008). Meaning and the principle of linearity. In R. Harris & G. Wolf (Eds.), Integrational linguistics: A first reader (pp. 126–142). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  31. Hutton, C. (2016). The impossible dream? Reflections on the intellectual journey of Roy Harris (1913–2015). Language and History, 59(1), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jakobson, R. (1987). Linguistics and poetics. In K. Pomorska & S. Rudy (Eds.), Language in literature (pp. 62–94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Origin. 1960).Google Scholar
  33. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Origin. 1890).Google Scholar
  34. Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Love, N. (2004). Cognition and the language myth. Distributed cognition and integrational linguistics. Language Sciences, 26(6), 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Love, N. (2007). Are languages digital codes? Language Sciences, 29(5), 690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lund, S. (2012). On professor Harris’s “integrational turn” in linguistics. RASK, 35(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
  38. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive language. In C. Ogden & I. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism (pp. 296–325). San Diego: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
  39. Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Nielsen, C. (2011). Towards applied integrationism: Integrating autism in teaching and coaching sessions. Language Sciences, 33(4), 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielsen, C. (Speaker), & Solvang, H. (Producer). (2012, May 31). Sprogpsykologi: Et eller andet med sprog [radio show episode]. In Sproglaboratoriet. København: Danmarks Radio.Google Scholar
  43. Nielsen, C. (2015). Senhjerneskade i et forståelsesperspektiv. In S. Frimann, M. Sørensen, & H. Wentzer (Eds.), Sammenhænge i sundhedskommunikation (pp. 247–281). Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  44. Orman, J. (2017). Indeterminacy in sociolinguistics and integrationist theory. In A. Pablé (Ed.), Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language and communication (pp. 96–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Pablé, A. (2010). Language, knowledge and reality: The integrationist on name variation. Language & Communication, 30(2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pablé, A. (2011). Integrating the “real”. Language Sciences, 33(1), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pablé, A. (2013). Integrating Rorty and (social) constructivism: A view from a Harrisian semiology. Social Epistemology, 29(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pablé, A. (Ed.). (2017). Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Pablé, A., & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of conflict metaphor in our language about our language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sarangi, S. (2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text and Talk, 27(5/6), 567–584.Google Scholar
  55. Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scollon, S. W. (2009). Peak oil and climate change in a rural Alaskan community: A sketch of a nexus analysis. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 357–378.Google Scholar
  60. Senft, G. (2009). Phatic communion. In G. Senft, O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Culture and language use (pp. 226–233). Handbook of Pragmatics: Highlights 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1969). The mathematical theory of communication (4th ed.). Chicago: The University of Illinois Press (Origin. 1945).Google Scholar
  62. Svenstrup, L. (2002). Et signifikant perspektiv på samtalen: om sprogpsykologiske analyser af samtaler og analytiske konsekvenser af et sprogpsykologisk syn på sprog og kommunikation. Masters thesis, Institut for Almen og Anvendt Sprogvidenskab (unpublished), København.Google Scholar
  63. Svenstrup, L. (2008). Sprogpsykologi. In L. Svenstrup, K. Risager, & N. Wille (Eds.), Den sproglige verden (pp. 28–65). Aarhus: Systime.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, T. (1982). Discontinuity in conversational speech: An investigation of some theoretical problems and their analysis. PhD dissertation, Trinity College, Oxford.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, T. (2008). Do you understand? In R. Harris & G. Wolf (Eds.), Integrational linguistics: A first reader (pp. 198–208). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  66. Toolan, M. (1996). Total speech: An integrational linguistic approach to language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Toolan, M. (2008). A few words on telementation. In R. Harris & G. Wolf (Eds.), Integrational linguistics: A first reader (pp. 68–82). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  68. Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behavior: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 32–53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Worsøe, L. (2014). Nye ord på nye måder: Nyorddannelse belyst fra et dynamisk sprog- og kognitionssyn. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations