When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
3oneIntroduction Family TalkSHARI KENDALLFa.docx
1. | 3
one
Introduction: Family Talk
SHARI KENDALL
Families are the cradle of language, the original site of
everyday dis-course, and a touchstone for talk in other
contexts.1 Families are created
in part through talk: the daily management of a household, the
intimate
conversations that forge and maintain relationships, the site for
the ne-
gotiation of values and beliefs. Yet there has been a greater
focus on lan-
guage in workplaces and other formal institutions than on
discourse in
this first institution. The chapters in this volume fill this gap in
socio-
linguistic research by bringing together a variety of linguistic
studies based
on a single set of data: the naturally occurring, face-to-face
interactions of
2. four American families. The studies emerged from a three-year
socio-
linguistic project carried out at Georgetown University to
examine how
parents in dual-income families use language to constitute their
identi-
ties as parents and professionals at home and at work, as well as
the in-
teractional and social consequences of these ways of speaking.
Since the
workplace has received relatively more attention in studies of
discourse,
this volume focuses on the language the four women and four
men use as
1. I appreciate Deborah Tannen’s and Cynthia Gordon’s helpful
comments on this
chapter.
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
4. S
O
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
4 | Family Talk
they interact with one or more family members, with the
addition of one
father’s social talk about family at work.
The volume contributes to the discourse analysis of naturally
occur-
ring interaction in general, and of family interaction in
particular, while
also making significant contributions to theories of framing in
interac-
5. tion and the linguistic creation of identity. Together, the
chapters extend
our knowledge of family discourse and identify new ways in
which family
members construct, negotiate, and enact the individual and
collective iden-
tities that constitute a family. Furthermore, whereas the vast
majority of
work on family discourse focuses on mothers, several chapters
consider
the relatively understudied language of fathers. Likewise, a
substantial
amount of research on family discourse has been based on
mealtime in-
teractions recorded in the presence of researchers (Blum-Kulka
1997;
Erickson 1982; Ochs & Taylor 1995; Ochs et al. 1992;
Pontecorvo & Fasulo
1999; Paugh 2005). In contrast, the studies in this volume are
based on
interactions that occur in a wide range of settings, which more
fully rep-
resent these families’ experiences. As such, the chapters
contribute to the
6. sociolinguistic analysis of face-to-face interaction, some in
areas that have
been studied primarily through experimental observation, self-
report sur-
veys, and interviews. The data set is unique in discourse
analysis because
the audio recordings span a more extended period of time than
previous
studies, encompass a wider variety of contexts, and are
relatively uncen-
sored, as recordings were made with no researcher present. In
addition,
we, the researchers, were able to get to know the speakers well
enough to
place their utterances in context; and we have kept in contact
with the
families and have thus been able to observe how the families
have changed
during the seven years since the recordings were made. The
volume is also
unique in the fact that the same families are considered from
multiple
perspectives by different authors. This is especially notable in
those in-
7. stances in which different authors examine the same
interactions for dif-
ferent purposes.
Three broad themes emerged in the authors’ considerations of
family
discourse in these four families: the underlying dynamics of
power and
solidarity in the family context in general, and in the
interactional fram-
ing of individual and shared family identities in particular; the
negotia-
tion of gendered identities in conjunction with family identities,
especially
in relation to the challenges dual-income couples face; and,
finally, the
complex discursive means through which family members
actively assert,
negotiate, and confirm their family’s beliefs and values when
children are
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
9. -
O
S
O
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 5
present to create individual and shared family identities. These
themes are
explored further in the next section. In subsequent sections, I
describe the
genesis of the volume, explain the research methodology,
introduce the
families, and provide an overview of the chapters and the
10. organization of
the volume.
Themes in Family Discourse
Interactional Dynamics: Framing, Power, and Solidarity
The chapters in this volume use an interactional sociolinguistic
approach,
each drawing on research in one or more areas: linguistic
anthropology
and the ethnography of communication (e.g., Erickson 1975;
Gumperz &
Hymes 1972); discourse strategies (e.g., Becker 1995; Gumperz
1982; Tannen
2007 [1989]); dimensions of power and solidarity in interaction
(Tannen
1994a); framing theory (e.g., Bateson 1972; Goffman 1981;
Tannen 1994b;
Tannen & Wallat 1987); and those frameworks similar to
framing in their
use of stance, alignment, and/or positioning (e.g., Davies &
Harré 1990;
Ochs 1993; Schiffrin 1996). Two of these frameworks in
particular are
fundamental to understanding language in interaction in general
11. and fam-
ily discourse in particular: the frameworks of power and
solidarity and
framing. In previous work, Tannen (1994a) develops a
framework of the
ambiguity and polysemy of power and solidarity, arguing that in
studying
interaction, scholars need to understand that power (or
hierarchy, or
control) and solidarity (or connection, or intimacy) are not
separate, but
inextricably intertwined. Tannen (2003) applies the model to
family dis-
course to address the trend to focus exclusively on the power
dimension
of discourse in families at the expense of the equally influential
dimen-
sion of intimacy and connection (Blum-Kulka 1997; Ervin-Tripp
et al.
1984; Ochs & Taylor 1995; Varenne 1992; Watts 1991). She
considers the
role of “mother” to illustrate that both family relationships and
gender
identities within families are negotiated along the dimensions of
14. rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
6 | Family Talk
potential for being both a power maneuver and connection
maneuver si-
multaneously. Marinova (chapter 5) uses Tannen’s framework to
explain
the challenges parents (in this case, a father) face in balancing
connection
and control as children get older. Although it is not the focus of
her analy-
sis, Johnston (chapter 7) uses Tannen’s framework to reconcile
a seeming
contradiction between what some parents say and what they do.
She sug-
gests that parents may simultaneously serve as gatekeepers in
domains such
15. as caregiving and financial management while explicitly
expressing egali-
tarian views for professional and parental role sharing because
retaining
control of these domains may fulfill family members’ co-
existing needs
for connection and control.
Within interactional sociolinguistics, framing theory is equally
crucial
for understanding conversational dynamics in family discourse.
In the
first sociolinguistic volume on framing, Tannen (1993)
demonstrates
that framing theory is fundamental to linguistic discourse
analysis and,
conversely, that discourse analysis provides valuable insight
into the lin-
guistic means by which frames are actively created. Drawing on
Bateson
(1972), she explains that “no communication move, verbal or
nonverbal,
can be understood without reference to a metacommunicative
message,
16. or metamessage, about what is going on—that is, what frame of
interpre-
tation applies to the move” (Tannen 1993:3). In 1974, Goffman
elucidated
the levels and types of framing that constitute everyday
interaction; and,
in his later work (1981), he focused more specifically on
language in ex-
amining “footings,” which he used to capture the subtle shifts in
framing
and the multiple layers of framing in everyday life. Several
chapters in this
volume use a framing approach—drawing on the concepts of
framing,
footing, positioning, and alignment—to show how family
members use
particular linguistic resources to effect shifts in framing that,
among other
functions, contribute to family members’ negotiations of shared
family
identities (Tannen, chapter 3), and the individual family
identities of
“mother” (Gordon, chapter 4) and “father” (Marinova, chapter
5).
19. se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 7
substantial literature on gender and language in other domains.
As Kendall
suggests elsewhere (2004a), the relative lack of research on
gender in family
discourse may be a reflex of the women’s movement of the
1970s, when
the study of gender in linguistics emerged (Lakoff 1975). In a
sense, women
were demanding choices besides marriage and motherhood, so
the focus
was on getting women out of the home, not back into it. For this
reason,
discourse analyses of gender have focused on women’s
discourse in the
workplace (e.g., Ainsworth-Vaughn 1998; Kendall 2004b;
Tannen 1994b,
c; Kotthoff 1997; McElhinny 1993; West 1990). In addition,
20. although so-
ciologists, anthropologists, and feminists have long recognized
the family
as a social institution, the study of gender in the family has
been excluded
from research in this area. For example, Drew & Heritage
(1992:59 fn. 1)
explicitly exclude family discourse from institutional language:
“Notwith-
standing the standard sociological usage within which the
family is also a
social institution, we will avoid using the term to describe
activities that
would be glossed as family dinners, picnics, and the like.”
Gender infiltrates nearly all the chapters in this volume but is
fore-
fronted in three chapters that focus on gender as an achieved
identity in a
social constructivist paradigm. Scholars have found that women
and men
create gendered identities by using discursive strategies that
index socio-
cultural expectations associated with gender as these individuals
use lan-
21. guage to accomplish other tasks (e.g., Ochs 1992; Tannen
1994b). Gordon
(chapter 4) builds on this research and other work on language
and iden-
tity to identify the discursive strategies through which one
woman cre-
ates a gendered parental identity in a common domestic
encounter: the
babysitting report.
Other chapters bearing on gender contribute to our
understanding of
how language is used to negotiate, perpetuate, and mitigate
challenges
faced by dual-career families with children, particularly those
families who
have made a commitment to sharing childrearing
responsibilities. The
families participating in the research project represent a
growing trend in
the United States for both mothers and fathers to be employed
outside the
home (Clark 2002; Coontz 2000; Waite & Nielsen 2001). This
change in
24. ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
8 | Family Talk
to consider how these women and men negotiate caregiving
roles (John-
ston) and caregiving and breadwinning roles (Kendall). Gordon
et al.
approach this question from the perspective of the workplace,
examining
how one man talks about family at work and relating the
patterns to past
findings on gender and social talk at work.
Family Values, Beliefs, and Shared Identities
The third theme of family discourse in this volume is the
linguistic negotia-
tion of family values, beliefs, and identities. In linguistics and
linguistic an-
25. thropology, the study of family discourse has appeared
primarily in the work
of researchers in child language acquisition, such as Shoshana
Blum-Kulka
(1997) and Elinor Ochs and her colleagues and students (e.g.,
Ochs & Tay-
lor 1995). These and other scholars have considered how
parents socialize
children to embrace family values: points of view and beliefs
that character-
ize a family (Liebes & Ribak 1991, 1992; Liebes et al. 1991;
Ochs 1992, 1993;
Ochs, Smith & Taylor 1996; Pontecorvo & Fasulo 1997, 1999;
Ribak 1997;
Tulviste et al. 2002). Research on family discourse has focused
on the so-
cialization of interactional patterns that vary by culture, such as
narrative
practices (e.g., Blum-Kulka 1997); and it has been based
primarily on meal-
time interaction (e.g., Ochs, Smith & Taylor 1996; Pontecorvo
& Fasulo 1999;
Paugh 2005). Three chapters in this volume contribute to the
extensive work
26. addressing the socialization of family values and beliefs.
However, these
chapters do not focus on the child’s language but instead widen
the lens to
identify new ways in which family members jointly assert,
negotiate, and
confirm their family’s beliefs and values when children are
present: through
multiple, intertextual discourse strategies in the creation of a
family’s shared
political identity (Gordon, chapter 9); by creating “common
ground” in
discussions about physical space (LeVine, chapter 10); and
through dialogic
interaction with the television (Tovares, chapter 11). Gordon
demonstrates
that a family political identity can be a fundamental component
of family
identity. She demonstrates how family members “work moment
by moment
to produce, negotiate, and socialize one another into the
political aspect” of
this identity. LeVine demonstrates that family values may be
created, shared,
29. rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 9
Description of the Study
All the chapters examine a single body of data based on a
research project
supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to
Shari Kendall
and Deborah Tannen. Four dual-income families with children
partici-
pated in this project. This section describes the events leading
to this re-
search project, then introduces the families and how they
became involved
in the study, and lastly explains how the data were collected.
Genesis of the Project
Although this volume is about family discourse, it first emerged
for me as
an interest in gender and language in the workplace, an interest
further
30. enhanced by a seminar Deborah Tannen was teaching on
language in the
workplace at Georgetown University in 1992, and by Tannen’s
(1994c)
publication reporting her sociolinguistic study of talk in several
large cor-
porations. A central focus of Tannen’s book, and of my own
work, was ex-
ploring the linguistic means through which women and men
express and
constitute authority in the workplace (see Kendall & Tannen
1997; Kendall
2004b). However, one suggestion made by Tannen (1994c)
continued to
intrigue me: the possibility that women in positions of authority
draw on
images of mothers, or ways of speaking used by or associated
with mothers,
to constitute their institutional authority. To address this
question, I em-
ployed the methodology used by Tannen (1994c) in her analysis
of talk at
work but extended the research design to include the workplace
and the
31. home as well. I arranged for one woman to tape-record herself
both at work
and at home to consider how she constituted her authority when
speaking
as a mother with her daughter and as a manager with her
subordinates. This
study was the basis for my dissertation, The Interpenetration of
Gendered
Spheres (Kendall 1999), which served as a pilot study for the
project on which
the present volume is based (see also Kendall 2003).
Meanwhile, Tannen shifted her focus to the relatively unstudied
dis-
course in the family domain (see Tannen 2001, 2003a, b), which
contin-
ues her focus on the language of everyday conversation in
general and of
interpersonal relationships in particular (Tannen 1984, 1986,
2007 [1989]).
In 2000, Tannen and Kendall received funding for the research
project
on which this volume is based, from the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation.
Tannen’s contributions to this volume (chapters 2 and 3) reflect
34. my focus
on the intersection of work and family. Our co-editor, Cynthia
Gordon,
was a research team member on the original grant and
coprincipal inves-
tigator on a follow-up grant.
Locating Families
The first task that Deborah Tannen and Shari Kendall faced
when the re-
search project began was to locate four families willing to tape
themselves
at work and at home. Tannen accepted several invitations to
give lectures
in the D.C. area and mentioned the project and our interest in
finding
participants at the end of her lectures. After each lecture,
several attend-
ees expressed an interest in volunteering. She also contacted the
director
of a women’s center in Virginia, who offered to post flyers and
include
notices in their organizational newsletter. Kendall prepared
notices and
35. flyers to be posted at this and other locations, and she and
several helpers
posted flyers in key locations, such as video stores, cafes, and
dry cleaners,
within their respective residential areas. Finally, Tannen was a
guest on
The Diane Rehm Show (a radio talk show on NPR), discussing
the topic
of balancing work and family. During the broadcast, she
mentioned the
project and our interest in finding participants. Our
requirements were
that both parents work outside the home. Numerous potential
volunteers
contacted either Tannen or Kendall. Interestingly, many couples
were
willing to tape at home, but taping at work turned out to be an
obstacle in
many cases. In the end, we recruited the first four families who
were will-
ing, and got permission, to tape at work as well as home. Two
families had
one child between two and three, one had a four-year-old child,
and the
36. fourth had grown children, the youngest being in high school.
Taping
Once a couple had committed to participating, Tannen and
Kendall met
with them in their homes to describe the project and their terms
of par-
ticipation. Each parent tape-recorded themselves using Sony
DATs (digi-
tal audio tape-recorders) and lavaliere microphones, which they
carried
with them. The DATs record continuously for four hours on one
side of
the tape without needing to be turned over, so they require only
minimal
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
yr
ig
38. . A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 11
attention; they are relatively small (about 3 by 5 inches); and
they pro-
duce CD quality sound. Kendall met with each couple a few
days before
they began taping to provide them with the equipment and teach
them
how to use it. They were given a step-by-step instruction sheet
prepared
by Kendall for easy reference and were asked to tape-record for
seven days
from morning until night. After taping was completed, adult
participants
39. were shadowed by a research team member, who spent one or
more days
with them to become familiar with the family, the work
situation, and their
coworkers. Tannen and Kendall also arranged gatherings for
each family
so that all the research team members could meet the families.
The tapes
were then logged for content by, in most cases, the research
team mem-
ber who had shadowed that participant; and, finally, the tape
recordings
were transcribed by team members and other students at
Georgetown
University under the direction of Kendall.
Family Profiles
The four families who participated in the research project live
in the greater
Washington, D.C., area. All families are dual-income and
middle-class (in
accordance with the mandate of the Sloan Foundation); all
families are
also white. Parents in the participating families are highly
40. educated, all but
one having at least a bachelor’s degree (and that one did attend
college).
All names are pseudonyms but reflect the parents’ use of the
same, differ-
ent, or hyphenated surnames.
Janet & Steve Neeley-Mason
Janet and Steve Neeley-Mason and their daughter Natalie (2
years 11 months)
lived in a quiet suburban housing development on the outskirts
of the D.C.
metro area in Virginia. The couple’s last name, Neeley-Mason,
is a hyphen-
ated version of Janet and Steve’s given last names (Neeley and
Mason,
respectively). The couple volunteered after Janet saw a flyer
posted at one
of her places of employment. At the time of recording, they
were 33 years
old and had been married for 6 years. Janet was about 7 months
pregnant.
Both grew up in Northern Virginia. Janet worked approximately
8 to 10
43. .
12 | Family Talk
waiter at two different restaurants. He also had a bachelor’s
degree in the-
ater. Their daughter, Natalie, did not attend a daycare center
because Janet
and Steve arranged for one parent to be home while the other
was at work
when possible, and Janet’s mother regularly assisted with
childcare. Natalie
did, however, attend preschool three days a week (from 8:30–
12). Janet
and Steve appear in the chapters by Tannen (chapter 2), Gordon
(chapter
4), Kendall (chapter 6), and Tovares (chapter 11).
Kathy Peterson & Sam Foley
Kathy Peterson, Sam Foley, and their daughter Kira (2 years 1
month) lived
on a busy street in the Virginia suburbs just outside the border
of the Dis-
trict of Columbia. Kathy heard about the study when a professor
in a course
44. she was taking told her about Tannen’s call for volunteers on
the radio.
Kathy and Sam were both 37 years old and had been married for
5½ years.
Kathy was about 8 months pregnant at the time of recording.
She grew up
in Baltimore, Maryland. Sam grew up in the city in which they
currently
lived. Kathy worked as an advertising sales agent in a
professional organi-
zation. Before Kira was born, she worked full-time (40 hours
per week),
and then reduced her hours to 30 hours per week, which was the
situation
at the time of recording. She supervised one (female) assistant.
There were
five people in her section at work, all women. She was taking
courses one
day a week in Baltimore toward a master’s degree in
psychology. Sam
worked full-time as a physicist in a government organization.
His section
consisted of eight people, all men. He was taking courses
toward a doc-
45. torate in astrophysics. Both Kathy and Sam worked 4 days a
week so they
could spend one weekday at home with Kira. The federal
government
makes the full-time, four-day schedule an option for most of its
employ-
ees, so Sam was able to remain full-time. For the three
weekdays neither
parent was home, Kira was in daycare at Kathy’s workplace.
Kathy and Sam
appear in the chapters by Tannen (chapters 2 and 3), Kendall
(chapter 6),
Johnston (chapter 7), and Tovares (chapter 11).
Clara Shepherd & Neil Sylvan
Clara Shepherd, Neil Sylvan, son Jason (4 years 10 months),
and their two
dogs, Tater and Rickie, lived on a quiet suburban street in
Virginia at the
outer edge of the D.C. metro area. The couple volunteered to
participate
in the project following a lecture Tannen gave at the
organization where
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
48. was Assis-
tant Director in a government organization. She had a master’s
degree in
Public Administration and was taking courses to earn a master’s
degree
in marriage and family therapy. Neil, whose father was in the
military, had
lived in Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida, and abroad. He was
Vice Presi-
dent for Finance and Administration at a non-profit agency. He
had a
master’s degree in business administration and was a Certified
Public Ac-
countant. Their son Jason attended preschool full-time. Clara
and/or Neil
appear in the chapters by Tannen (chapter 3), Gordon et al.
(chapter 8),
Gordon (chapter 9), LeVine (chapter 10), and Tovares (chapter
11).
Nora Marsh & Greg Bradley
The fourth family is Nora Marsh, Greg Bradley, and their three
children:
John (22), Susan (20), and Jeremy (17). The parents and
youngest child
49. lived on a quiet residential street in Maryland, just outside the
D.C. metro
area. They have a cat and a dog, a golden retriever. At the time
of taping,
the youngest child was in high school, the middle child was in
college, and
the oldest was a professional musician who was living with his
parents
temporarily before moving to San Francisco. This family first
heard about
the project when Nora attended a talk by Tannen about work-
family is-
sues. The parents were both 46 years old. Nora, originally from
Boston,
was the Assistant Head of a private school in Virginia. She was
taking
classes part-time to earn her master’s degree in educational
administra-
tion. Greg, who was originally from Connecticut, was an
educational
entertainer who performed a one-man show for children in
public schools
and theatrical venues. At the time of recording, Susan was
visiting from
50. college, so all three children were home. Nora and/or Greg
appear in the
chapters by Tannen (chapter 3), Marinova (chapter 5), and
Tovares
(chapter 11).
The Data
A total of 460 hours were recorded and transcribed. Janet and
Steve tape-
recorded 165 hours over the course of seven consecutive days
beginning
February 23, 2000. They were shadowed by Cynthia Gordon and
Shari
Kendall, respectively. Kathy and Sam tape-recorded 134 hours
over the
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
yr
ig
52. . A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
14 | Family Talk
course of 14 consecutive days beginning February 18, 2000.
One reason
they tape-recorded longer than 7 days was due to technical
difficulties with
one of their tape-recorders. They were shadowed by Sigrid
Norris and
Alexandra Johnston. Clara and Neil recorded 89 hours over 7
days begin-
ning November 6, 2000 (although for one day they taped only 2
hours).
They were shadowed by Cynthia Gordon and Philip LeVine.
53. Nora and Greg
recorded 75 hours over 9 days beginning June 19, 2000. Nora
recorded for
6 days and Greg recorded for 7 days. They were shadowed by
Shari Kendall
and Alexandra Johnston.
Chapter Overview
All chapters address in some way how identities are
constructed, nego-
tiated, and enacted moment by moment in the discourse of these
fami-
lies. The volume is divided into three parts reflecting the
themes that
emerged from the analyses, as described above. Chapters are
placed with
those other chapters that most share a single focus, although
there are simi-
larities that cross-cut these categories. I identify some of these
similarities
following the chapter summaries.
Part I, comprising chapters 2 through 5, focuses on the
dynamics un-
derlying family discourse, particularly framing and the
54. dimensions of
power and solidarity. The chapters show how analyses of these
dynamics
contribute to our understanding of how women and men
discursively
negotiate identities for themselves as mothers and fathers, and
as mem-
bers of a family. The volume begins with the two chapters by
Deborah
Tannen, which lay the foundation for subsequent chapters. In
chapter 2,
“Power Maneuvers and Connection Maneuvers in Family
Interaction,”
Tannen outlines her framework of the ambiguity and polysemy
of the
dimensions of power and solidarity in conversational interaction
as well
as the importance of these dimensions in family discourse. She
examines
excerpts from two of the families (Janet & Steve, Kathy & Sam)
to dem-
onstrate that it is not possible to gain a full understanding of the
dynam-
ics of family interaction by focusing exclusively on the power
57. s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 15
nections that constitute their involvement with each other as
members of
a family.” Tannen concludes that discourse analysts must
consider both
dimensions when attempting to explain interactional patterns in
family
discourse.
In chapter 3, “Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional
Resources
in Family Discourse,“ Deborah Tannen introduces the discursive
strategy
of “ventriloquizing” to explain how family members use their
pet dogs as
a resource for managing interpersonal interactions and thus
engage in
58. “exhibiting, reinforcing, and creating their identity as a family.”
By exam-
ining the interaction in the two families that had pet dogs (Clara
& Neil,
Nora & Greg), she demonstrates that when a family member
speaks as the
dog or speaks to the dog in the presence of another family
member, the
speaker introduces a note of humor into the interaction, which
shifts
the framing and footing of the participants. The chapter further
advances
an understanding of framing in interaction, including the
relevance of
Bakhtin’s notion of polyvocality for conversational discourse,
in the sense
that talking through pets allows speakers to distance themselves
figura-
tively from their own utterances. It also introduces an
enlightening dis-
cursive resource through which family members create and
maintain a
shared family identity.
59. In chapter 4, “I just feel horribly embarrassed when she does
that”:
Constituting a Mother’s Identity,” Cynthia Gordon explores how
one
woman (Janet) linguistically creates a gendered parental
identity while
talking with her husband and her brother, who babysat their
daughter. As
her brother describes their daughter’s misbehavior, the mother
uses sev-
eral interactional strategies in her responses that simultaneously
work in
concert toward constructing a coherent identity. Gordon
demonstrates
that when these verbal practices are interpreted within the
sociocultural
context, some of them are “sex-class linked” (Goffman 1977;
Tannen
1994b) and others are linked to what it means to be a parent;
together,
they produce the identity “mother.” Gordon’s study contributes
to re-
search on the linguistic creation of identity in everyday
interaction in gen-
60. eral, and more specifically in family interaction, by
demonstrating how
gendered and parental identities are intertwined within family
discourse.
In chapter 5, “Finding the Right Balance between Connection
and Con-
trol: A Father’s Identity Construction in Conversations with His
College-
Age Daughter,” Diana Marinova draws on the frameworks of
framing
and power and solidarity to explore how one father (Greg)
constructs
his identity as a father in conversations with his twenty-year-
old daughter.
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
62. ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
16 | Family Talk
She demonstrates, drawing on Tannen (2001), that the father
engages in
a complex balancing of a caretaking frame (forefronting
hierarchy) and a
sociable frame (forefronting connection) as he attempts to
motivate his
daughter to prepare for her upcoming study-abroad semester.
She also
demonstrates that he creates a parental identity with others (his
wife, a
travel agent, secretary, and neighbor) with whom he discusses
the diffi-
63. culties he is having in encouraging his daughter to take more
responsibil-
ity. Marinova’s analysis contributes to the linguistic creation of
identity
by considering how parental identities emerge through the
language a par-
ent uses to simultaneously reprimand his daughter and maintain
an egali-
tarian father-daughter relationship. Accomplishing these
disparate goals
requires the father to engage in a complex negotiation of
identities. The
chapter also provides a rare glimpse into the discourse of
fathers, and
particularly into the conversational dynamics of a father and his
grown
daughter.
Chapters 6 through 8 in Part II consider the creation of family
identi-
ties in relation to issues faced by dual-income couples. In
chapter 6, “Fa-
ther as Breadwinner, Mother as Worker: Gendered Positions in
Feminist
and Traditional Discourses of Work and Family,” Shari Kendall
64. demon-
strates that when the women in two families (Janet, Kathy) talk
about
conflicts between work and family in a range of contexts, they
are not
merely concerned with who does what in the household but are
engaged
in a personal struggle between their parental and professional
identities
as they attempt to reconcile competing discourses of gender
relations.
When these women talk about work and family, they negotiate
the forms
and meanings of their parental and work-related identities
through the
positions they take up themselves and make available to their
husbands
in relation to traditional and feminist discourses about work and
family.
Using framing and positioning theory, Kendall demonstrates
that these
women articulate an ideology of egalitarian role sharing but
linguistically
position their husbands, though not themselves, as
65. breadwinners. Kendall’s
chapter provides insights into how modern dual-income couples
with
children negotiate work-family issues by identifying complex
relationships
among language, sociocultural ideologies, discourses, and
everyday prac-
tices. In addition, the analysis contributes to the discourse of
face-to-face
verbal interaction by considering strategies previously used to
analyze
representations of mothers and fathers in written texts and the
media
(Lazar 2000; Sunderland 2000).
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
yr
ig
67. . A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 17
In chapter 7, “Gatekeeping in the Family: How Family Members
Posi-
tion One Another as Decision Makers,” Alexandra Johnston
explores gate-
keeping in the family context, where “gatekeeping” refers to
“any situation
in which an institutional member is empowered to make
decisions affect-
ing others” (Scollon 1981:4). Although the couple in one family
(Kathy &
Sam) espouses the discourse of “egalitarian coparenting,” both
spouses
68. collaboratively position the mother as gatekeeper in the care of
their child,
and the father as gatekeeper in managing their finances. She
suggests that
the apparent discrepancy between this couple’s ideology and
behavior may
result from their need to fulfill the co-existing but contradictory
needs for
connection and control (Tannen 2001; this volume, chapter 2).
By using
sociolinguistic methods, Johnston contributes to the study of
maternal
gatekeeping in social psychology, which tends to rely on self-
report sur-
veys and statistical correlations. She also contributes to the
substantial lit-
erature on gatekeeping in sociolinguistics by identifying the
linguistic
means by which the identity of “gatekeeper” is (co-)constructed.
Finally,
Johnston’s chapter is a groundbreaking application of
gatekeeping to the
family realm.
69. In chapter 8, “A Working Father: One Man’s Talk about
Parenting at
Work,” Cynthia Gordon, Deborah Tannen, and Aliza Sacknovitz
exam-
ine how one father (Neil) talks about family at work.
Specifically, the au-
thors consider how this father interactionally creates and draws
upon his
identity as a father at work in conversations with his coworkers,
and how
being a parent interpenetrates the work sphere. The extent to
which the
father talks about his family in personal terms and the kinds of
interac-
tional rituals he engages in with his coworkers (e.g., troubles
talk) con-
trast with prior observations about how men and fathers talk at
work. The
authors find that the father’s identity as a parent serves as a
resource for
sociability with his coworkers and for providing support for
colleagues who
are also parents; that his parental responsibilities at times
interfere with
70. his work-related responsibilities; and that, through his talk
about family
at work, he positions himself as one half of a parenting team
and also as a
parenting expert. These findings provide insight into what it
means to be
a working father, while also providing a rare glimpse into the
workplace
discourse of a working father who does a significant amount of
caregiving.
Chapters 9 through 11 in Part III focus on the discursive means
through
which family members negotiate and confirm their family’s
beliefs and
values when children are present; and how, through this
negotiation,
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
yr
72. O
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
18 | Family Talk
family members create shared family identities. In chapter 9, “
‘Al Gore’s
our guy’: Linguistically Constructing a Family Political
Identity,” Cynthia
Gordon considers how members of one family, Clara, Neil, and
their son
Jason, who tape-recorded during the week of the 2000 U.S.
Presidential
Election, construct a family identity based on their support of
Democratic
73. Party candidate Al Gore. The chapter illustrates how family
members use
linguistic strategies to create a group, rather than individual,
identity and
how political socialization is multidirectional in the family
context, where
all family members play a role in constructing the family
identity. It also
contributes to research in political socialization, wherein
researchers have
previously claimed that the family is of great importance in this
process
but have relied on interviews and surveys.
In chapter 10, “Sharing Common Ground: The Role of Place
Reference
in Parent-Child Conversation,” Philip LeVine considers the
relationship
between place and language in interactions in which a father
(Neil) and
his four-year-old son talk about their neighborhood
surroundings. LeVine
focuses on those instances in which awareness of surroundings
surfaces as a
topic of talk and explores how place reference contributes to the
74. creation of
a family identity. The father orients his son to a new physical
condition in
his environment (an unknown person working in the
neighborhood) and
helps him gain a better understanding of the social landscape of
the neigh-
borhood by talking about who lives where, with whom, and how
these
people and places differ from their own family and home.
LeVine dem-
onstrates that place serves as a resource for talk, that place and
talk stand
in a mutually constitutive relationship, and that family members
may use
such talk to strengthen interpersonal bonds and confirm
matching per-
ceptions and meanings connected to place, including shared
family be-
liefs. By using sociolinguistic methods, LeVine contributes to
the research
area of cultural or humanistic geography, meeting a call for
explorations
of the ways in which language transforms “space” into a sense
75. of “place.”
The chapter also contributes to the research area of language
and identity
by providing descriptions of means whereby individuals may
create iden-
tities through oppositions and similarities to others.
In chapter 11, “Family Members Interacting While Watching
TV,” Alla
V. Tovares investigates the relationship between the public and
the pri-
vate in family discourse by examining how family members in
all four
families linguistically engage with each other as they watch
television. She
demonstrates that family members negotiate and maintain their
family’s
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
77. S
O
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 19
values, beliefs, and identities by repeating words and phrases
from tele-
vision programs. By uniting Tannen’s (2007 [1989]) work on
repetition
as a discourse feature with Bakhtin’s “dialogicality” and
Kristeva’s “inter-
textuality,” Tovares argues that the public and private
interpenetrate
within interactions in which family members repeat television
texts. She
78. demonstrates that family members do not passively repeat words
and
phrases from television texts but create a “dialogic unity”: a
complex
combination of public and private that is saturated with
previous and
new meanings. This talk both reflects and transforms the lives
of the
viewers and “links family members with the world that lies
outside their
circle of family and friends.” Tovares contributes to our
understanding
of Bakhtin’s relevance to the analysis of verbal interaction, and
she pro-
vides a glimpse into a prevalent type of talk in which all the
participants
in this research project participated: watching and talking about
televi-
sion programs.
In addition to the themes represented in the three parts of the
volume,
the chapters share other theoretical, methodological, and topical
aspects
79. as well, including analyses of fathers’ discourse in father-child
interaction
(LeVine, chapter 10; Marinova, chapter 5) and a father talking
about family
at work (Gordon et al., chapter 8); a focus on the linguistic
creation of
identities (Kendall, chapter 6; Gordon, chapter 4; Marinova,
chapter 5);
the extension of Bakhtin’s notions of polyvocality (Tannen,
chapter 3) and
dialogicality and answerability (Tovares, chapter 11);
intertextuality in
language use across interactions involving some or all of the
same inter-
locutors (Gordon, chapter 9; LeVine, chapter 10; Tovares,
chapter 11); and
the distinction between “us” and “them” in the creation of a
shared fam-
ily identity (Gordon, chapter 9; LeVine, chapter 10). In
addition, the chap-
ters are roughly divided between those focusing on how
individuals use
language to construct their identities within the family (chapters
3 through
80. 8) and those that consider families as groups of individuals who
together
negotiate shared family identities (chapter 2, chapters 9 through
11). Fi-
nally, the chapters focus on different combinations of
participants: par-
ent-child interaction with a young child (LeVine, chapter 10);
parent-child
interaction with a grown child (Marinova, chapter 5); adult
interaction
(Gordon, chapter 4; Kendall, chapter 6; Gordon et al., chapter
8); family
interaction involving children and both parents (Gordon,
chapter 9); or
a combination of these types (Tannen, chapters 2, 3; Johnston,
chapter 7;
Tovares, chapter 11).
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
Created from apus on 2018-10-11 11:28:41.
C
op
82. S
O
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
20 | Family Talk
Conclusion
The chapters of this volume together explore the themes of
identity con-
struction and how families accomplish “familyness” in their
own unique
ways. It contributes to work exploring how identities are
constructed in
discourse, the interactional dynamics underlying family
discourse and
83. how families create their sense of family in interaction. At the
same time,
it contributes to a frames-theoretic approach to the analysis of
discourse
in general and to the literature on family discourse in particular.
It adds
to work that has examined family discourse on the micro-level,
focus-
ing on specific linguistic features for analysis. The research
design—
providing relatively uncensored recordings of everything each
family said
for a week at home and at work—makes this a unique study that
explores
how families communicate across a range of contexts. In this, it
provides
a groundbreaking view of how dual-career, white, middle-class
Ameri-
can families conduct their daily lives.
References
Ainsworth-Vaughn, Nancy. 1998. Claiming power in doctor-
patient talk. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
84. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. New
York: Ballantine.
Becker, A. L. 1995. Beyond translation: Essays toward a
modern philology. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1997. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of
sociability and
socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Clark, Kim. 25 November 2002. Mommy’s home: More parents
choose to quit
work to raise their kids. U.S. News & World Report, 32–33, 36,
38.
Coontz, Stephanie. 2000. The way we never were: American
families and the
nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.
Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré. 1990. Positioning:
Conversation and the pro-
duction of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior
20(1).43–63.
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage, eds. 1992. Talk at work:
Interaction in institu-
tional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erickson, Frederick. 1975. Gatekeeping and the melting pot:
Interaction in coun-
seling encounters. Harvard Educational Review 45(1).44–70.
Erickson, Frederick. 1982. Money tree, lasagna bush, salt and
pepper: Social con-
struction of topical cohesion in a conversation among Italian-
87. ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 21
Language and power in the family. Language and power, ed.
Cheris Kramarae,
Muriel Schultz, and William M. O’Barr, 116–135. New York:
Sage.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the
organization of experi-
ence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1977. The arrangement between the sexes.
Theory and Society
4(3).301–331.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footings. Forms of talk, 124–159.
Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes. 1972. Directions in
sociolinguistics: The eth-
nography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Kendall, Shari. 1999. The interpenetration of (gendered)
spheres: An interactional
sociolinguistic analysis of a mother at work and at home.
88. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University dissertation.
Kendall, Shari. 2003. Creating gendered identities through
directives at work and
home. Handbook of language and gender, ed. Janet Holmes and
Miriam
Meyerhoff, 600–623. Malden, Mass., and Oxford: Blackwell.
Kendall, Shari. 2004a. Mother’s place in Language and
Woman’s Place. Language
and woman’s place: Text and commentaries, revised and
expanded edition,
original text by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, ed. Mary Bucholtz,
202–208. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Kendall, Shari. 2004b. Framing authority: Gender, face, and
mitigation at a radio
network. Discourse & Society 15(1).55–79.
Kendall, Shari, and Deborah Tannen. 1997. Gender and
language in the work-
place. Gender and discourse, ed. Ruth Wodak, 81–105. London:
Sage.
Kotthoff, Helga. 1997. The interactional achievement of expert
status: Creating
asymmetries by “teaching conversational lecture” in TV
discussions. Com-
municating gender in context, ed. Helga Kotthoff and Ruth
Wodak, 139–178.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York:
Harper and Row.
89. Lazar, Michelle M. 2000. Gender, discourse and semiotics: The
politics of par-
enthood representations. Discourse & Society 11(3).373–400.
Liebes, Tamar, and Rivka Ribak. 1991. A mother’s battle
against TV news: A case
study of political socialization. Discourse & Society 2(2).203–
222.
Liebes, Tamar, and Rivka Ribak. 1992. The contribution of
family culture to
political participation, political outlook, and its reproduction.
Communica-
tion Research 19(5).618–641.
Liebes, Tamar, Elihu Katz, and Rivka Ribak. 1991. Ideological
reproduction.
Political Behavior 13(3).237–252.
McElhinny, Bonnie S. 1992. “I don’t smile much anymore”:
Affect, gender, and
the discourse of Pittsburgh police officers. Locating power:
Proceedings of the
second Berkeley women and language conference, ed. Kira Hall,
Mary Bucholtz,
and Birch Moonwomon, 386–403. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley
Women and Lan-
guage Group.
McPherson, James M., et al. Family Talk : Discourse and
Identity in Four American Families, Oxford
University Press USA - OSO, 2007. ProQuest Ebook
Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4
15302.
91. A
-
O
S
O
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
22 | Family Talk
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. Rethinking context:
Language as an inter-
active phenomenon, ed. Alessandro Duranti and Charles
Goodwin, 335–358.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, Elinor. 1993. Constructing social identity: A language
socialization per-
spective. Research on Language and Social Interaction
92. 26(3).287–306.
Ochs, Elinor, Ruth Smith, and Carolyn Taylor. 1996. Detective
stories at dinner-
time: Problem-solving through co-narration. The matrix of
language: Con-
temporary linguistic anthropology, ed. Donald Brenneis and
Ronald K. S.
Macaulay, 39–55. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, Inc.
Ochs, Elinor, and Carolyn Taylor. 1995. The “Father knows
best” dynamic in
family dinner narratives. Gender articulated: Language and the
socially con-
structed self, ed. Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz, 97–121. New
York and Lon-
don: Routledge.
Ochs, Elinor, Carolyn Taylor, Dina Rudolph, and Ruth Smith.
1992. Storytelling
as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes 15(1).37–72.
Paugh, Amy L. 2005. Learning about work at dinnertime:
Language socialization
in dual-earner American families. Discourse & Society
16(1).55–78.
Pontecorvo, Clotilde, and Alessandra Fasulo. 1997. Learning to
argue in family
shared discourse: The reconstruction of past events. Discourse,
tools, and
reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, ed. Lauren B. Resnick,
Roger Säljö,
Clotilde Pontecorvo, and Barbara Burge, 406–442. Berlin:
Springer.
93. Pontecorvo, Clotilde, and Alessandro Fasulo. 1999. Planning a
typical Italian
meal: A family reflection on culture. Culture and Psychology
5(3).313–335.
Ribak, Rivka. 1997. Socialization as and through conversation:
Political discourse
in Israeli families. Comparative Education Review 41(1).71–96.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1996. Narrative as self-portrait:
Sociolinguistic constructions
of identity. Language in Society 25(2).167–203.
Scollon, Ron. 1981. Human knowledge and the institution’s
knowledge. Final
report on National Institute of Education Grant No. G-80-0185:
Communi-
cation patterns and retention in a public university, 1–26.
Fairbanks, Alaska:
Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alaska.
Sunderland, Jane. 2000. Baby entertainer, bumbling assistant
and line manager:
Discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts. Discourse &
Society 11(2).249–
274.
Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk
among friends.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Rpt. Oxford University Press 2005.
Tannen, Deborah. 1986. That’s not what I meant!: How
conversational style
makes or breaks relationships. New York: Ballantine.
Tannen, Deborah, ed. 1993. Framing in discourse. Oxford and
96. se
rv
ed
.
Introduction: Family Talk | 23
Tannen, Deborah. 1994c. Talking from 9 to 5: Women and men
at work. New
York: HarperCollins.
Tannen, Deborah. 2001. “I only say this because I love you”:
Talking to your
parents, partner, sibs, and kids when you’re all adults. New
York: Ballantine
Books.
Tannen, Deborah. 2003a. Gender and family interaction.
Handbook of language
and gender, ed. Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 179–201.
Malden, Mass.,
and Oxford: Blackwell.
Tannen, Deborah. 2003b. Power maneuvers or connection
maneuvers? Ventrilo-
quizing in family interaction. Linguistics, language, and the real
world: Dis-
course and beyond. Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and
Linguistics 2001, ed. Deborah Tannen and James E. Alatis, 50–
62. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
97. Tannen, Deborah. 2007 (1989). Talking voices: Repetition,
dialogue, and imag-
ery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat. 1987. Interactive frames
and knowledge
schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical
examination/interview.
Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2).205–216. Reprinted in
Deborah Tannen,
ed. 1993. Framing in discourse, 57–76. New York and Oxford:
Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Tulviste, Tiia, Luule Mizera, Boel de Geer, and Marja-Terttu
Tryggvason. 2002.
Regulatory comments as tools of family socialization: A
comparison of
Estonian, Swedish and Finnish mealtime interaction. Language
in Society
31(5).655–678.
Varenne, Hervé. 1992. Ambiguous harmony: Family talk in
America. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex.
Waite, Linda J., and Mark Nielsen. 2001. The rise of the dual-
earner family: 1963–
1997. Working families: The transformation of the American
home, ed. Rosanna
Hertz and Nancy L. Marshall, 23–41. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Watts, Richard J. 1991. Power in family discourse. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
102. Varying Definitions of Online Communication and
Their Effects on Relationship Research
Elizabeth L. Angeli
State University
Author Note
Elizabeth L. Angeli, Department of Psychology, State
University.
Elizabeth Angeli is now at Department of English, Purdue
University.
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Sample
Grant
Program.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Elizabeth
Angeli, Department of English, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN 55555.
Contact: [email protected]
The running
103. head cannot
exceed 50
characters,
including spaces
and
punctuation.
The running
head’s title
should be in
capital letters.
The running
head should be
flush left, and
page numbers
should be flush
right. On the
title page, the
running head
should include
the words
“Running head.”
For pages
following the
title page,
repeat the
running head in
all caps without
“Running head.”
The title
should be
centered on
the page,
typed in 12-
point Times
New Roman
104. Font. It
should not be
bolded,
underlined, or
italicized.
The author’s
name and
institution
should be
double-
spaced and
centered.
The running
head is a
shortened
version of the
paper’s full title,
and it is used to
help readers
identify the
titles for
published
articles (even if
your paper is
not intended for
publication, your
paper should
still have a
running head).
The title
should
summarize
105. the paper’s
main idea and
identify the
variables
under
discussion
and the
relationship
between
them.
Green text boxes
contain explanations
of APA style
guidelines.
Blue boxes contain
directions for writing
and citing in APA
style.
Running head: VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE
COMMUNICATION 1
The author note should appear on printed articles and identifies
each author’s
department and institution affiliation and any changes in
affiliation, contains
acknowledgements and any financial support received, and
provides contact
information. For more information, see the APA manual, 2.03,
page 24-25.
Note: An author note is optional for students writing class
papers, theses, and
106. dissertations..
An author note should appear as follows:
First paragraph: Complete departmental and institutional
affiliation
Second paragraph: Changes in affiliation (if any)
Third paragraph: Acknowledgments, funding sources, special
circumstances
Fourth paragraph: Contact information (mailing address and e-
mail)
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
2
Abstract
This paper explores four published articles that report on results
from research conducted
on online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships and
their relationship to
computer-mediated communication (CMC). The articles,
however, vary in their
definitions and uses of CMC. Butler and Kraut (2002) suggest
that face-to-face (FtF)
interactions are more effective than CMC, defined and used as
“email,” in creating
feelings of closeness or intimacy. Other articles define CMC
107. differently and, therefore,
offer different results. This paper examines Cummings, Butler,
and Kraut’s (2002)
research in relation to three other research articles to suggest
that all forms of CMC
should be studied in order to fully understand how CMC
influences online and offline
relationships.
Keywords: computer-mediated communication, face-to-face
communication
The
abstract
should be
between
150-250
words.
Abbre-
viations and
acronyms
used in the
paper
should be
defined in
the
abstract.
The
abstract is
108. a brief
summary of
the paper,
allowing
readers to
quickly
review the
main points
and
purpose of
the paper.
The word
“Abstract”
should be
centered
and typed
in 12 point
Times New
Roman. Do
not indent
the first
line of the
abstract
paragraph.
All other
paragraphs
in the
paper
should be
indented.
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
109. 3
Varying Definitions of Online Communication and
Their Effects on Relationship Research
Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of
Internet relationships,
focusing on the levels of intimacy, closeness, different
communication modalities, and
the frequency of use of computer-mediated communication
(CMC). However,
contradictory results are suggested within this research because
only certain aspects of
CMC are investigated, for example, email only. Cummings,
Butler, and Kraut (2002)
suggest that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective
than CMC (read: email) in
creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while other studies
suggest the opposite. To
understand how both online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet)
relationships are affected
by CMC, all forms of CMC should be studied. This paper
examines Cummings et al.’s
110. research against other CMC research to propose that additional
research be conducted to
better understand how online communication affects
relationships.
Literature Review
In Cummings et al.’s (2002) summary article reviewing three
empirical studies on
online social relationships, it was found that CMC, especially
email, was less effective
than FtF contact in creating and maintaining close social
relationships. Two of the three
reviewed studies focusing on communication in non-Internet
and Internet relationships
mediated by FtF, phone, or email modalities found that the
frequency of each modality’s
use was significantly linked to the strength of the particular
relationship (Cummings et
al., 2002). The strength of the relationship was predicted best
by FtF and phone
In-text
citations
that are
direct
quotes
should
112. author’s
last name
followed by
“et al.”
APA
requires
you to
include the
publication
year
because
APA users
are
concerned
with the
date of the
article (the
more
current the
better).
The title of
the paper is
centered
and not
bolded.
The introduc-
tion presents
the problem
that the
paper
addresses.
See the OWL
113. resources on
introduc-
tions:
http://owl.en
glish.purdue.e
du/owl/resou
rce/724/01/
The title
should be
centered on
the page,
typed in 12-
point Times
New Roman
Font. It
should not be
bolded,
underlined, or
italicized.
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
4
communication, as participants rated email as an inferior means
of maintaining personal
relationships as compared to FtF and phone contacts (Cummings
et al., 2002).
Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed an additional study conducted
in 1999 by the
114. HomeNet project (see Appendix A for more information on the
HomeNet project). In
this project, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, and
Scherlis (1999) compared
the value of using CMC and non-CMC to maintain relationships
with partners. They
found that participants corresponded less frequently with their
Internet partner (5.2 times
per month) than with their non-Internet partner (7.2 times per
month) (as cited in
Cummings et al., 2002). This difference does not seem
significant, as it is only two times
less per month. However, in additional self-report surveys,
participants responded
feeling more distant, or less intimate, towards their Internet
partner than their non-
Internet partner. This finding may be attributed to participants’
beliefs that email is an
inferior mode of personal relationship communication.
Intimacy is necessary in the creation and maintenance of
relationships, as it is
defined as the sharing of a person’s innermost being with
another person, i.e., self-
115. disclosure (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004).
Relationships are facilitated by the
reciprocal self-disclosing between partners, regardless of non-
CMC or CMC. Cummings
et al.’s (2002) reviewed results contradict other studies that
research the connection
between intimacy and relationships through CMC.
Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency
of Instant
Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy
among friends. The use of IM
instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM
supports a non-professional
Use an
appendix to
provide
brief
content
that
supplement
s your
paper but is
not directly
related to
your text.
If you are
including an
appendix,
116. refer to it
in the body
of your
paper.
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
5
environment favoring intimate exchanges (Hu et al., 2004).
Their results suggest that a
positive relationship exists between the frequency of IM use and
intimacy, demonstrating
that participants feel closer to their Internet partner as time
progresses through this CMC
modality.
Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of
Internet
relationships on primary, specifically non-Internet relationships
and the perceived
intimacy of both. In this study, self-disclosure, or intimacy,
was measured in terms of
shared secrets through the discussion of personal problems.
Participants reported a
117. significantly higher level of self-disclosure in their Internet
relationship as compared to
their primary relationship. In contrast, the participants’ primary
relationships were
reported as highly self-disclosed in the past, but the current
level of disclosure was
perceived to be lower (Underwood & Findlay, 2004). This
result suggests participants
turned to the Internet in order to fulfill the need for intimacy in
their lives.
In further support of this finding, Tidwell and Walther (2002)
hypothesized CMC
participants employ deeper self-disclosures than FtF
participants in order to overcome the
limitations of CMC, e.g., the reliance on nonverbal cues. It was
found that CMC partners
engaged in more frequent intimate questions and disclosures
than FtF partners in order to
overcome the barriers of CMC. In their 2002 study, Tidwell
and Walther measured the
perception of a relationship’s intimacy by the partner of each
participant in both the CMC
and FtF conditions. The researchers found that the participants’
partners stated their
118. CMC partner was more effective in employing more intimate
exchanges than their FtF
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
6
partner, and both participants and their partners rated their
CMC relationship as more
intimate than their FtF relationship.
Discussion
In 2002, Cummings et al. stated that the evidence from their
research conflicted
with other data examining the effectiveness of online social
relationships. This statement
is supported by the aforementioned discussion of other research.
There may be a few
possible theoretical explanations for these discrepancies.
Limitations of These Studies
The discrepancies identified may result from a number of
limitations found in the
materials reviewed by Cummings et al. These limitations can
result from technological
119. constraints, demographic factors, or issues of modality. Each of
these limitations will be
examined in further detail below.
Technological limitations. First, one reviewed study by
Cummings et al. (2002)
examined only email correspondence for their CMC modality.
Therefore, the study is
limited to only one mode of communication among other
alternatives, e.g., IM as studied
by Hu et al. (2004). Because of its many personalized features,
IM provides more
personal CMC. For example, it is in real time without delay,
voice-chat and video
features are available for many IM programs, and text boxes can
be personalized with the
user’s picture, favorite colors and text, and a wide variety of
emoticons, e.g., :). These
options allow for both an increase in self-expression and the
ability to overcompensate
for the barriers of CMC through customizable features, as stated
in Tidwell and Walther
Because all
research
has its
120. limitations,
it is
important
to discuss
the
limitations
of articles
under
examination
.
A Level 2
heading
should be
flush with
the left
margin,
bolded, and
title case.
A Level 1
heading
should be
centered,
bolded, and
uppercase
and lower
case (also
referred to
as title
case).
A Level 3
heading
should
121. indented
0.5” from
the left
margin,
bolded, and
lower case
(except for
the first
word). Text
should
follow
immediately
after. If you
use more
than three
levels of
headings,
consult
section 3.02
of the APA
manual
(6th ed.) or
the OWL
resource on
APA
headings:
http://owl.en
glish.purdue.
edu/owl/reso
urce/560/16
/
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
122. 7
(2002). Self-disclosure and intimacy may result from IM’s
individualized features,
which are not as personalized in email correspondence.
Demographic limitations. In addition to the limitations of email,
Cummings et
al. (2002) reviewed studies that focused on international bank
employees and college
students (see Appendix B for demographic information). It is
possible the participants’
CMC through email was used primarily for business,
professional, and school matters
and not for relationship creation or maintenance. In this case,
personal self-disclosure
and intimacy levels are expected to be lower for non-
relationship interactions, as this
communication is primarily between boss and employee or
student and professor.
Intimacy is not required, or even desired, for these professional
relationships.
Modality limitations. Instead of professional correspondence,
however,
123. Cummings et al.’s (2002) review of the HomeNet project
focused on already established
relationships and CMC’s effect on relationship maintenance.
The HomeNet researchers’
sole dependence on email communication as CMC may have
contributed to the lower
levels of intimacy and closeness among Internet relationships as
compared to non-
Internet relationships (as cited in Cummings et al., 2002). The
barriers of non-personal
communication in email could be a factor in this project, and
this could lead to less
intimacy among these Internet partners. If alternate modalities
of CMC were studied in
both already established and professional relationships, perhaps
these results would have
resembled those of the previously mentioned research.
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
8
124. Conclusions and Future Study
In order to gain a complete understanding of CMC’s true effect
on both online
and offline relationships, it is necessary to conduct a study that
examines all aspects of
CMC. This includes, but is not limited to, email, IM, voice-
chat, video-chat, online
journals and diaries, online social groups with message boards,
and chat rooms. The
effects on relationships of each modality may be different, and
this is demonstrated by
the discrepancies in intimacy between email and IM
correspondence. As each mode of
communication becomes more prevalent in individuals’ lives, it
is important to examine
the impact of all modes of CMC on online and offline
relationship formation,
maintenance, and even termination.
The
conclusion
restates
the
problem
the paper
addresses
125. and can
offer areas
for further
research.
See the
OWL
resource on
conclu-
sions:
http://owl.
english.pur
due.edu/ow
l/resource/
724/04/
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
9
References
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of
online social
relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.
Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004).
Friendships through IM:
Examining the relationship between instant messaging and
intimacy. Journal of
126. Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 38-48.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated
communication effects on
disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting
to know one
another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28,
317-348.
Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and
their impact on primary
relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 127-140.
Start the reference list on a new page, center the title
“References,” and
alphabetize the entries. Do not underline or italicize the title.
Double-space all
entries. Every source mentioned in the paper should have an
entry.
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
10
Appendix A
127. The HomeNet Project
Started at Carnegie Mellon University in 1995, the HomeNet
research project has
involved a number of studies intended to look at home Internet
usage. Researchers began
this project because the Internet was originally designed as a
tool for scientific and
corporate use. Home usage of the Internet was an unexpected
phenomenon worthy of
extended study.
Each of HomeNet’s studies has explored a different facet of
home Internet usage,
such as chatting, playing games, or reading the news. Within the
past few years, the
explosion of social networking has also proven to be an area
deserving of additional
research. Refer to Table A1 for a more detailed description of
HomeNet studies.
Table A1
Description of HomeNet Studies by Year
Year
of
128. Study
Contents
of
Study
1995-‐1996
93 families in Pittsburgh involved in school
or community organizations
1997-‐1999
25 families with home businesses
1998-‐1999
151 Pittsburgh households
2000-‐2002
National survey
Begin each
appendix
on a new
page., with
the word
appendix in
the top
center. Use
an
identifying
capital
letter (e.g.,
Appendix
A,
Appendix B,
etc.) if you
129. have more
than one
appendix. If
you are
referring to
more than
one
appendix in
your text,
use the
plural
appendices
(APA only).
The first
paragraph
of the
appendix
should flush
with the
left margin.
Additional
paragraphs
should be
indented.
Label tables
and figures
in the
appendix as
you would
in the text
of your
manuscript,
using the
letter A
130. before the
number to
clarify that
the table or
figure
belongs to
the
appendix.
VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION
11
Appendix B
Demographic Information for Cummings et al. (2002)’s Review
If an
appendix
consists
entirely of
a table or
figure, the
title of the
table or
figure
should
serve as
the title of
the
appendix.
