Advertisement

Studying Service Encounters

  • Dariush Izadi
Chapter

Abstract

Chapter  2 provides important contextual information about the study by presenting a conceptual framework (mediated discourse analysis) for service encounters. The chapter provides an overview of the different disciplines that have greatly contributed to the study of service encounters such as sociology, anthropology and linguistics and the main approaches to service encounters to have developed from these disciplines including interactional sociolinguistics, the ethnography of speaking, conversation analysis, systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In fact, it is a main claim of this book that to get a handle on what is going on in a service encounter in particular the shop under scrutiny; the study needs to be approached as an interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary project which is mainly grounded in the aforementioned fields. Such inquiry is increasingly being proven as crucial for studies investigating the complex and situated communicative practices of institutional and professional worlds (Blommaert, Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Blommaert, The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; Candlin, & Crichton (Eds.). Discourses of trust. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013; Coupland, Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 1–26). Harlow: Longman, 2001; Jaworski, & Thurlow, Introducing semiotic landscapes. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Ed.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 1–40). London: Continuum, 2010; Scollon, & Scollon, Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London and New York: Routledge, 2003; Scollon, & Scollon, Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge, 2004), of which practices of service encounters are categorized as one particular kind.

References

  1. Arundale, R. B. (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication, and social interaction (pp. 33–54). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  2. Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assadi, R. (1980). Deference: Persian style. Anthropological Linguistics, 22(5), 221–224.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1453–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z. (2005). Identity for identity’s sake is a bit dodgy... Soundings, 29, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, A. L. (1995). Beyond translation: Essays towards a modern philology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beeman, W. O. (1986). Language, status, and power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beeman, W. O. (1988). Affectivity in Persian language use. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 12(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennert, K. (1998). Negotiating training: Shifting participant frameworks in the workplace. In S. Hunston (Ed.), Language at work: Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics (pp. 14–30). Clevedon: BAAL in Association with Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Berger, B. (1986). Foreword. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (pp. xi–xviii). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  12. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blommaert, J. (2013). Chronicles of complexity: Ethnography, superdiversity, and linguistic landscapes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blommaert, J., & Huang, A. (2009). Historical bodies and historical space. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 267–282.Google Scholar
  16. Blommaert, J., Westinen, E., & Leppänen, S. (2015). Further notes on sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Candlin, C. N. (Ed.). (2002). Research and practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
  27. Candlin, C. N. (2006). Accounting for interdiscursivity: Challenges for professional expertise. In M. Gotti & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), New trends in specialized discourse analysis (pp. 21–45). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Candlin, C. N., & Crichton, J. (Eds.). (2013). Discourses of trust. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Cicourel, A. V. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters. In C. Goodwin& & A. Duranti (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 291–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cicourel, A. V. (2007). A personal, retrospective view of ecological validity. Text & Talk, 27(5–6), 735–752.Google Scholar
  32. Coupland, N. (2001). Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 1–26). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Coupland, N., Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. N. (Eds.). (2001). Sociolinguistics and social theory. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Crichton, J. (2010). The discourse of commercialization: A multi-perspectived analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. De Fina, A. (2010). The negotiation of identities. In M. A. Locher & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  36. De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., & Bamberg, M. (Eds.). (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. DiMaggio, P. (1979). On Pierre Bourdieu. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1460–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Elliott, P. (1972). The sociology of the professions. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fairclough, N. (1985). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  46. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  47. Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6_Part2), 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  49. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  50. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  51. Goodwin, M. H. (1999). Participation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gordon, C. (2009). Making meanings, creating family: Intertextuality and framing in family interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gumperz, J. (1972). Sociolinguistics and communication in small groups. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  55. Hall, S. (2000). Who needs identity? In P. du Gay, J. Evans, & P. Redman (Eds.), Identity: A reader (pp. 15–30). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Hammersley, M. (2007). Reflections on linguistic ethnography. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 689–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hanks, W. F. (2005). Pierre Bourdieu and the practices of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Haugh, M., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2010). Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2073–2077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Heller, M. (2001). Undoing the macro/micro dichotomy: Ideology and categorization in a linguistic minority school. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 212–234). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  61. Hodge, C. (1957). Some aspects of Persian style. Language, 33(3), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Holmes, J. (2006). Workplace narratives, professional identity and relational practice. In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 166–187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hult, F. M. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7–24.Google Scholar
  64. Iedema, R. (2003). Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Izadi, D. (2015). Spatial engagement in Persian ethnic shops in Sydney. Multimodal Communication, 4(1), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jaworski, A. (2001). Discourse, accumulation of symbolic capital and power. The case of American Visions. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 127–151). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  67. Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2006). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 1–38). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2014). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (3rd ed., pp. 1–36). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (2010). Introducing semiotic landscapes. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 1–40). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  70. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., & Mavers, D. E. (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Jones, R. (2005). Sites of engagement as sites of attention: Time, space and culture in electronic discourse. In S. Norris & R. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Jones, R. (2010). Cyberspace and physical space attention structures in computer-mediated communication. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  73. Jones, R. (2012). Discourse analysis: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Jones, R. H. (2014). Mediated discourse analysis. In S. Norris & C. D. Maier (Eds.), Interactions, images and texts: A reader in multimodality (pp. 39–52). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  75. Jones, R. H. (2016). Spoken discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  76. Koutlaki, S. A. (2002). Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tæ’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1733–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Koutlaki, S. A. (2010). Among the Iranians: A guide to Iran’s cultural and customs. Boston: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
  78. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 36–61). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  79. Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  80. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Opening up closure: Semiotics across scales. In J. Chandler & G. van de Vijver (Eds.), Closure: Emergent organizations and their dynamics (Vol. 901: Annals of the NYAS) (pp. 100–111). New York: New York Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  81. Levinson, S. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161–227). Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  82. Linell, P. (2001). Dynamics of discourse or stability of structure: Sociolinguistics and the legacy of linguistics. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 107–126). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  83. Linton, R. (1971). The status-role concept. In E. P. Hollander & R. G. Hunt (Eds.), Classic contributions to social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  85. Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals—Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8(2–3), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Merton, R. (1986). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  88. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Noble, G. (2011). ‘Bumping into alterity’: Transacting cultural complexities. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 25(6), 827–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (inter)action: Introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Norris, S., & Jones, R. H. (Eds.). (2005). Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  93. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Peräkylä, A., & Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 727–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ramazani, N. (1974). Persian cooking: A table of exotic delight. New York: Quadrangle.Google Scholar
  97. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  98. Rampton, B. (2007). Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 584–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and method in linguistic ethnography. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 14–50). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sarangi, S. (2010). Reconfiguring self/identity/status/role: The case of professional role performance in healthcare encounters. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 7(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sarangi, S. (2011). Role hybridity in professional practice. In S. Sarangi, V. Polese, & G. Caliendo (Eds.), Genre(s) on the move: Hybridisation and discourse change in specialised communication (pp. 271–296). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
  102. Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. N. (2001). Motivational relevancies: Some methodological reflections on sociolinguistic practice. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 350–387). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  103. Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (Eds.). (1999). Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  104. Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated discourse as social interaction: A study of news discourse. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  105. Scollon, R. (1999). Mediated discourse and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Scollon, R. (2001a). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 139–183). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  107. Scollon, R. (2001b). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  108. Scollon, R. (2008a). Analyzing public discourse: Discourse analysis and the making of public policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Scollon, R. (2008b). Discourse itineraries: Nine processes of resemiotization. In V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 233–244). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  110. Scollon, R., Scollon, S., & Jones, R. (2012). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  111. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Scollon, S. (2003). Political and somatic alignment: Habitus, ideology and social practice. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 167–198). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  115. Scollon, S., & de Saint-Georges, I. (2011). Mediated discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 66–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  116. Serwe, S. (2015). Exploiting linguistic resources for self-employment: Workplace practices and language use of Thai immigrant entrepreneurs in the German periphery. PhD dissertation, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  117. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23, 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Relating at work: Facets, dialectics and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Marra, J., … Weatherall, A. (2003). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 351–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sultana, S. (2014). Heteroglossia and identity of young adults in Bangladesh. Linguistics and Education, 26, 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competency by Japanese learners of English. Japan Association for Language Teaching, 8(2), 131–155.Google Scholar
  122. Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Tannen, D., & Wallet, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2014). ‘Two hundred ninety-four’: Remediation and multimodal performance in tourist placemaking. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(4), 459–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Interdisciplinarity. Discourse & Society, 6(4), 459–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134–143). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  129. Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). Toward a social praxeology: The structure and logic of Bourdieu’s sociology. In P. Bourdieu & L. J. D. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexive sociology (pp. 1–60). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  130. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.Google Scholar
  133. Wertsch, J. V. (1997). Narrative tools of history and identity. Culture & Psychology, 3(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2), 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dariush Izadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations