female direction-givers

Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

‘‘Do you know where X is?’’: Direction-giving and male/female direction-givers Jennifer D. Ewald * Saint Joseph’s University, 5600 City Avenue, BE 330B, Philadelphia, PA 19131, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 21 August 2008 Received in revised form 10 February 2010 Accepted 24 February 2010

This study investigates a typical speech event significantly under-explored in linguistic research, that of direction-giving. The present data analysis, drawn from naturallyoccurring exchanges with 60 direction-givers in a gas station, expands current research by confirming and refining the conventionalized nature of the direction-giving exchange and its related phases as well as further exploring the potential existence of sex-related differences in direction-givers’ route-descriptions. Reconfirming Grice’s (1975) well-known Cooperative Principle, an analysis of these data strongly suggest that an indirect request for driving directions is an effective communicative strategy for speakers approaching potential direction-givers. Furthermore, this analysis emphasizes the interrelatedness of the cognitive, linguistic and interactional tasks involved in direction-giving. A large body of important research has documented significant differences between the communicative styles of men and women. However, in this study, male and female participants’ use of directional indicators and their inclusion of landmarks, stoplight and time estimates, road names and highway numbers were very similar. Males included significantly more mileage estimates than did females, but their estimates contained more errors. These findings both confirm and contradict those of previous studies and have implications for future research, language teaching as well as the development of pedagogical materials. ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Direction-giving Wayfinding Gender and language Indirect request Naturally-occurring data Role-plays

1. Introduction It has been argued that we should treat ‘‘practical activities, practical circumstances and practical sociological reasoning as topics of empirical study and by paying to most commonplace activities of daily life the attention usually accorded extraordinary events, seek to learn about them as phenomena in their own right’’ (Garfinkel, 1967:11; quoted in Psathas and Kozleff, 1976). With this thought, imagine that while filling his automobile’s fuel tank in a gas station lot, a man is slowly approached by a female driver who asks, ‘‘Excuse me, are you from around here?’’. ‘‘Yes,’’ he replies. She then asks, ‘‘Do you know where X is?’’. Though a commonplace activity of daily life (giving directions) situated in a very practical context (pumping gasoline), a direction-giving request is far from simple. The driver’s question, and the hearer’s felt obligation to answer it, hinges first on his social or moral sense of what it means to be a ‘‘good citizen’’, or, at the very least, a ‘‘nice, helpful person’’. Once committed, he must draw on highly-developed cognitive and linguistic abilities to formulate an adequate response. The reallife consequences of the quality of his directions as well as her ability to understand them are proportional to the importance

* Tel.: +1 610 660 1864; fax: +1 610 660 2160. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.011

2550

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

of destination X and her presence there, the flexibility of her schedule and the time she has to find X, as well as the potential for her to commit wayfinding errors or get lost on her way. As Garfinkel suggested, when paid adequate attention, this commonplace direction-giving exchange is indeed a phenomenon in its own right. This study recognizes the direction-giving exchange, specifically driving directions, as an everyday activity that has received relatively little attention from researchers in linguistic circles. Specifically, the present investigation explores two interrelated areas: (1) the interactional scheme (Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982) of giving driving directions in an Englishspeaking context, including related linguistic tasks (i.e., the use of verbal devices such as directional indicators and mileage estimates); and (2) the possibility of sex-related differences in the driving directions provided by male and female directiongivers. 2. Previous research 2.1. Direction-giving Significant attention has been paid to the direction-giving exchange in the field of cognitive psychology. For example, drawing connections between cognitive and linguistic processes, Couclelis (1996) identified five stages in direction-giving: initiation, representation, transformation, symbolization and termination. Klein (1982) investigated the semantics and use of deictic expressions like ‘‘here’’, ‘‘there’’, ‘‘left’’ and ‘‘right’’ in walking directions. His work emphasized the importance of cognitive, deictical spaces and the fixing of a basic reference point, or ‘‘origo’’. Other researchers have explored the influence of direction-receivers’ perspectives on the directional information exchanged including the receivers’ evaluations of the quality of the information provided (Hund et al., 2006) as well have analyzed effects of listener behavior (e.g., follow-up questions or non-verbal indications of confusion) on direction-givers’ reactive redundancy, that is, their repetition of key directional information offered in response to listeners’ behavior (Baker et al., 2008). Relatively little research has been published in linguistic venues regarding the direction-giving exchange. One early study (Collett and O’Shea, 1976) based on naturalistic data confirmed the hypothesis that Iranians were more likely than English people to give directions to a fictional place. They postulated that this behavior was not due to any ‘‘mischievousness’’ on the part of the Iranians but rather to cultural differences in the participants’ value systems. In a rare study based on role-play direction-giving data in an ESL/EFL context, Taylor-Hamilton (2004) investigated L1/L2 differences and confirmed that the direction-giving exchange varies from language to language and culture to culture. Despite the fact that interlocutors do not all think or talk about space in the same way, she claims that textbook direction-giving units are often based on incorrect assumptions about how directions are given in English and ‘‘ignore or minimalize very important aspects of direction-giving, such as use of landmarks, reference to street names, and, most significantly, the mixing of various direction-giving strategies to form a coherent sequence’’ (2004:149). As a result, the sample dialogues lack authenticity and the corresponding pedagogical activities do not prepare students well for real-world interactions. Her findings are similar to those of Scotton and Bernsten (1988) who argued that more attention should be paid to naturally-occurring conversations in the development of pedagogical materials for L2 teaching. This issue was also briefly addressed by Coulmas (1981) whose awareness of the frequency of conversational routines in everyday speech led him to state the following: This neglect [of the teaching of gambits in foreign language classes], however, is in radical disproportion with the pervasiveness of these expressions in everyday conversation. Many foreign language teachers may find them too unimportant to pay much attention to them. Like anybody else they are not consciously aware of every aspect of their own native language usage and fail to realize how important a role they play in the way conversation is organized and assembled in a socially meaningful manner (1981:12). Empirical studies grounded in investigations of linguistic features have also established a high degree of conventionalization or routinization in the direction-giving exchange (Psathas, 1986; Scotton and Bernsten, 1988; Pearson and Lee, 1992) including an opening and main body as well as preclosing and closing moves. Others have identified several similarly-designated patterns: an introductory phase in which the direction-giving situation is defined; an intermediate phase in which information and instructions concerning the route are provided; and a final phase in which the set is ended (Psathas and Kozleff, 1976; Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982). Specifically, Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) presented a four-phase classification of the ‘‘interactional scheme’’ during which the entire direction-giving exchange takes place: (1) initiation (an introductory phase in which the exchange is requested and destination X is cognitively located in the mind of the direction-giver); (2) route-description (the phase in which the actual directions are provided to the recipient); (3) securing (a phase in which both the direction-giver and the direction-receiver ensure understanding of the route-description, ask confirmation questions, and address additional routerelated details); and finally, (4) closure (the phase in which the direction-receiver acknowledges understanding of the routedescription, and both interlocutors collaboratively end the exchange). Wunderlich and Reinelt’s (1982) interactional scheme was based on their study of German-language direction-giving data. However, since then, their work has been extended to investigations of other direction-giving exchanges carried out in English (e.g., Couclelis, 1996; Golding et al., 1996; Allen, 2000). The present study directly applies their scheme to English direction-giving but takes a more linguistic than cognitive approach to the analysis.

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2551

2.2. Sex-related differences in direction-giving research Some researchers have focused on cognitive-mapping skills and spatial referents that are used in direction-giving and have frequently connected these issues to sex-related variables. For example, Lawton (2001) found that females used more landmarks than did men in their directions but that men used more cardinal indicators (north, south, etc.). Building on Lawton (2001), Napoleon’s (2007) study confirmed male participants’ more frequent use of cardinal indicators and female participants’ more frequent inclusion of building and topographical features. Harrell et al. (2000) found that college-aged ‘‘men tended to provide more cartographically complete maps than the [college-aged] women, though there were no gender differences in [their] use of landmarks or labeled buildings’’ (2000:169). Similarly, Miller and Santoni (1986) found that college-aged males were more likely than college-aged females to use cardinal indicators, but women were more likely to use landmarks. Moreover, they found that the directions provided by the males were more accurate. In another study, Ward et al. (1986) also found that college-aged males used more cardinal indicators and mileage estimates than did females and made fewer errors. Surprisingly, in Brown et al. (1998) direction-giving data, very few overall errors were found though females made more errors than did males when using a relational strategy. By comparison, Burns (1998) examined his participants’ self-reported wayfinding errors. He reported that his participants attributed most of their own errors (25%) to poor or inadequate road signage but 11% of their ‘‘losing their way’’ they attributed to inaccurate directions provided to them by others; Burns also found that female drivers reported more wayfinding problems than did male drivers. Allen’s (2000) investigation focused on female and male subjects’ abilities to remember and follow verbal route directions; he reported a higher degree of difficulty for females than for males. It is worth noting briefly that, except for Burns’ (1998) investigation based on survey data, these studies were based on hypothetical situations or role-play data, not on data gathered in a naturally-occurring context, a methodological issue regarding data collection that will be studied at length in a subsequent investigation. 3. The present study The present study examines a natural context: that of giving driving directions to a recipient who faces the potential consequence of getting lost. ‘‘. . . [W]hen one pulls into a gas station and asks, ‘How do I get to X?’, unstated but nevertheless understood is that the Recipient [of the driving directions] means ‘from here’’’ (Psathas and Kozleff, 1976:113). But what happens if the question is stated differently? Does the interlocutor understand a less direct inquiry as a request for driving directions? Are driving directions different depending on the sex of the direction-giver? These are the research questions motivating this study. Specifically, the analysis addresses the following two issues: 1. What is the linguistic nature of the driving-directions exchange itself (‘‘the interactional scheme’’ from Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982)? 2. Do the directions provided by these male and female direction-givers differ significantly from the findings of previouslymentioned studies in their use of verbal devices (such as directional indicators, landmarks and mileage estimates) or in their accuracy? 3.1. Participants and context The 60 participants included 30 males (1 male participant was a gas station employee) and 30 females, all purchasing fuel or other products at a busy neighborhood gas station attached to a convenience store in the northeastern United States. All participants were judged by the researchers to be over 18 and native English speakers who did not speak English with any discernible foreign accent. The researchers disposed of data provided by participants who gave any impression of being nonnative speakers of English or under 18 years of age. This well-frequented gas station is fairly large; it has 6 double pumps, and its store offers parking to over 25 cars. The only exit from the station lot is controlled by a stoplight to handle the relatively heavy traffic flow. 3.2. Data collection procedures For each encounter, the researcher and her research assistant drove into the gas station parking lot and pulled alongside a person pumping gas or walking to or from the attached convenience store. The driver asked each participant the same two questions: first, ‘‘Excuse me, are you from around here?’’ and second, ‘‘Do you know where X is?’’ (‘‘X’’ represents the name of a locally-popular tourist attraction). While the driver and the participant interacted through the driver-side window, the research assistant, also seated in the front of the vehicle, surreptitiously completed a written form (see Appendix A) based on the direction-giver’s statements. Moreover, the research assistant held a cell phone to her ear to prevent the direction-givers from trying to address their comments to a wider audience than just the driver and also to create the impression that the notes she was taking related to her telephone conversation and not to them. Following the exchange, the two researchers exited the lot, parked the vehicle and then compared their memories of the interaction with the notes taken by the research assistant on the pre-designed form. There were very few discrepancies between their memories of the event and the notes but in the few cases in which the researchers were unsure, they reconciled their individual recollections with the content of the form.

2552

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

Permission to collect these data was granted by the gas station manager. However, the participants were never told that a study was being conducted or that their responses were being collected in written form. As in other studies (e.g., Golding et al., 1996) based on naturally-occurring data, the requirement of informed consent was waived by a Research Review Board who determined that requesting consent would have negatively affected the naturalness of the data, that participants’ anonymity was more secure without any identifiers being collected (on written consent forms, for example) and that the interaction was a routine part of expected, normal, everyday events and could therefore be considered observational. However, the decision was made not to record these interactions to comply with state law and to respect an individual’s right not to be audio- or videorecorded without prior knowledge or permission. In accord with recent findings (Baker et al., 2008) regarding the significant influence of listener behavior on direction-givers’ verbal interactions, specifically their reactive redundancy, the researcher responded to the directiongivers by providing only brief, conversationally-supportive back-channeling when appropriate during their interactions. For example, in addition to nodding during a direction-giver’s route-description and occasionally stating, ‘‘Uh huh’’, ‘‘Okay’’ or ‘‘Right’’, in response to the few occasions in which a direction-giver asked the researcher if she knew where a particular road or landmark was, the researcher responded affirmatively. She also responded as naturally as possible to the direction-givers’ physical gestures used during the exchange. For example, if the direction-giver pointed at the station exit and then motioned to the south while saying ‘‘First you leave this lot and then you turn right’’, the researcher followed the direction-giver’s gaze and body language. Once the route-description had been completed, the researcher communicated understanding with phrases such as ‘‘Okay’’ and ‘‘Got it’’, thanked the participant and then drove away. Since the research assistant was physically removed from the interaction and was not required to interact verbally or make eye contact with the participants, she was free to complete the form without distractions and was ignored by all the participants who directed their comments only to the driver. Though no human has the ability to capture naturallyoccurring speech in its entirety and without error, this optimal situation freed her to focus solely on the task of completing the form. The form itself was designed in such a way as to promote accuracy and efficient note-taking. No attempt was made to write down every word spoken by the participants but rather to track certain elements of their speech including the following: their yes/no responses to the two questions posed by the researcher; the use of additional follow-up questions by the researcher or the direction-givers; the initial comments of the participants; their general use of particular commands or modals (turn, go, you should, you will, etc.1); their inclusion of mileage and time estimates, landmark references, and stoplight counting; their mention of a local highway bypass; their use of directional indicators and roadnaming; whether and how the participant identified that the researcher would know that she had arrived at X; and any other comments deemed to be atypical by the researchers. After several trial runs with potential participants, the form was designed and revised to reflect what seemed to be typical elements of a driving-directions encounter. For this reason, the form facilitated the collection of field notes, promoting ‘‘immediate facilitative recall’’ (Beebe, 1994; Fe´lix-Brasdefer, 2007) on the part of the researcher and her assistant, which arguably resulted in more detailed naturalistic data and fewer overall discrepancies. 3.3. Data analysis procedures The present data was analyzed in several steps. First, field note data recorded on the forms were separated for males and females, and each form was coded by verbal device (directional indicators, landmarks, mileage estimates, etc.). Participants’ comments were coded according to the four phases of Wunderlich and Reinelt’s (1982) scheme (initiation, route-description, securing and closure) and instances of the verbal devices under analysis were identified, counted and compared. Finally, the accuracy of each driving-directions encounter was determined and recorded. Though the population under study was relatively small (60), the data were examined both qualitatively and quantitatively. Findings that were statistically significant are noted in the analysis. These findings were used to draw conclusions about the nature of the driving-directions exchange, the presence and frequency of verbal devices in the data and the spatial and linguistic accuracy of the directions themselves. This information was then analyzed to explore the similarities and differences in driving directions offered by male and female participants. These two areas will be discussed in turn: (1) the interactional scheme and (2) sex-related differences in driving directions. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Driving directions: the interactional scheme As discussed in Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982), during initiation, the direction-requester (R) attracts the attention of the direction-giver (G) and makes the initial inquiry for directions to destination X. Following the inquiry, G will either begin to offer a route-description, thus starting the next phase, or will repeat the destination, remain silent and think, talk to himself 1 Given the high frequency with which participants used these kinds of phrases throughout each direction-giving exchange, a thorough, quantitative analysis of participants’ use of these commands and modals would have required recorded data that could be reviewed multiple times and transcribed. Thus, these data were ultimately discarded.

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2553

out loud, or ask for some kind of clarification. Many psychologists, Couclelis (1996) included, characterize these actions as elements of a cognitive task that G must complete: [He] has to activate a cognitive map of the relevant spatial areas, he needs to identify within this the location of the encounter (which will almost always be the starting point for the route described), he needs to identify the location the ‘questioner’ is interested in (the end point of the route), and he has to select a suitable way of connecting these points or places (Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982:183). If G admits that he does not know where X is or how to get to X, he skips directly to the closure phase. Once G starts to offer a route-description, the initiation phase has come to an end. This route-description can be varied in form (expressed in continuous and sequential steps or with several selfinterruptions and spatial-positioning). Consider the differences between the following descriptions: (a) ‘‘Okay, first you exit the lot and turn right. Then you go south until you come to 414. There’s a Dunkin’ Donuts on the left. You turn left there and then. . .’’; and (b) ‘‘Destination X is off Route 414 in Petersburg. Let’s see, you’d want to turn on 414. I think there’s a McDonald’s, no, a Dunkin’ Donuts, at that intersection. Do you know where that is on 211? You turn right here and. . .’’. The route-description phase is always initiated and terminated by G. While the spatial act of locating destination X in G’s mind is considered the ‘‘cognitive task’’, psychologists frequently view only G’s actual explanation of the routedescription as the ‘‘linguistic task’’ (Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982:184). Once G makes some kind of closing comment that destination X has been reached (e.g., ‘‘And there it is’’ or ‘‘You’ll see it on the right’’), the route-description phase comes to an end. The existence and nature of the subsequent securing phase can depend on either G or R. Following the routedescription, R might simply express understanding of the directions offered by G (e.g., ‘‘Okay, thanks’’ or ‘‘Yeah, got it’’) and thereby initiate closure of the speech act; on the other hand, R might ask a follow-up question for purposes of clarification (e.g., ‘‘So, it’s Route #211 to #414, right, and then left?’’) to which G would be expected to respond. Or, G might voluntarily secure the directions already given by summarizing them, repeating steps of the route or by emphasizing key elements (e.g., ‘‘Remember, don’t take the bypass, stay left’’). G might also offer mileage estimates or other details during the securing phase. According to Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982), R always is the initiator of the closure stage; that is, R is expected to communicate to G that R’s request for directions has been fulfilled. This communication takes place through an expression of gratitude or by a verbal indication that R understands the directions. G, in turn, might accept R’s closing (e.g., ‘‘Sure, good luck!’’) or he might re-enter the securing phase by adding additional information or repeating his directions in whole or in part. Finally, termination of the closure phase brings the interactional task to an end. Though many cognitive psychologists (but not all, Couclelis (1996) being one exception) disassociate these tasks (cognitive, interactional and linguistic), most researchers in pragmatics would likely take a different view. That is, the four phases of the interactional task, initiation, route-description, securing and closure (not only the route-description phase) are linguistic in nature. For example, G’s cognitive task of spatially locating X is marked by simultaneous linguistic behaviors (self-speech, repetition, clarification requests and even requests for R to understand his temporary silence like ‘‘Okay, give me a minute. Let me think. Ah yes! You take 211. . .’’), many of which are interactional in practice. From a pragmatics perspective, it is clear that each of these phases constitutes a different linguistic move. The directiongiving exchange is initially marked by a request; then, G responds to that request either by denying or providing directions; their interaction often involves a comprehension check initiated by either G or R; and then finally, G and R collaborate in the creation of a leave-taking closure that typically involves an expression of gratitude on the part of R. Interestingly, R rarely offers a word or phrase associated with leave-taking even though R is expected to leave and is linguistically responsible for terminating the closure phase by leaving rather than by offering a phrase such as ‘‘Goodbye’’. 4.1.1. Indirect speech acts in the initiation phase of the interactional scheme Several observations about the interactional scheme can be made based on the present data. First of all, in response to R’s introductory question (initiation phase), ‘‘Excuse me, are you from around here?’’, 45 participants (20 male/25 female) responded affirmatively. Interestingly, many of these participants seemed to understand this question as a pre-request for directions. For example, in addition to their yes/no responses, several included other revealing statements such as ‘‘Not really but I’m familiar with the area.’’; ‘‘Hardly, but maybe I can help you.’’; and, ‘‘Well, sort of. What are you looking for?’’. These comments suggest that they anticipated a request for directions from R and even communicated willingness to be of assistance. To my knowledge, this specific recognition of the pre-request on the part of some of these participants is a pragmatic phenomenon not documented in any previous research. Moreover, in response to the second question ‘‘Do you know where X is?’’, 56 participants (27 males/29 females) either answered affirmatively and immediately initiated the route-description phase (50) or did not directly answer the question with either a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no’’ (6) but nevertheless immediately initiated the route-description phase and provided driving directions. The remaining four participants who responded negatively to the second question, thereby indicating that they did not know where X was, also included apologies such as ‘‘Sorry. I’m not even going to try.’’ as well as follow-up questions such as ‘‘No, do you got an address?’’, statements that reveal their recognition of this question as a request for directions.

2554

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

In short, though the second question was not expressed as a direct request for driving directions, all 60 participants clearly recognized the encounter as such and responded accordingly. As evidenced by their linguistic behavior in the initiation phase, these participants immediately and accurately recognized the nature of the speech event (a request for driving directions). Most previous research on direction-giving has studied situations in which direction-givers were asked much more direct questions such as ‘‘Where is X?’’ or ‘‘Could you tell me how to get to X?’’. Indeed, Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) claimed that direction-receivers generally use routine formulae to request directions and that these formulae resemble the following: Excuse me, please, can you tell me

{how I can get to X? {where X is?

(1982:185)

They claim that the ‘‘Excuse me’’ attracts G’s attention; the ‘‘can you tell me’’ introduces the task requested of G; and the final part of the question allows R to express the desired location. However, the participants in this study understood R’s initiation of the speech event (‘‘Excuse me, are you from around here?’’ and ‘‘Do you know where X is?’’) as a request for driving directions without the ‘‘can you tell me’’ portion of the question. It seems that the questions asked in this particular context (a gas station) by the researcher (a driver approaching G in her car) were sufficiently adequate to inform G that G’s directional assistance was requested. Though a full analysis of these data within a Gricean framework falls outside the scope of this investigation, the validity of Grice’s Cooperation Principle (1975) and its accompanying conversational maxims is once again convincingly supported by these data. That is, these participants did not mistakenly interpret R’s first question (‘‘Excuse me, are you from around here?’’) as some kind of marketing survey introduction or R’s second inquiry (‘‘Do you know where X is?’’) as a simple yes/no factual question. Rather, their familiarity with the physical setting and previous experiences with the driving-directions exchange together with their knowledge and application of Grice’s maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner facilitated their recognition of R’s questions as an indirect request and, in turn, prompted immediate and appropriate responses. Golding et al. (1996) also highlighted the pragmatic issues at play in the direction-giving exchange; in their naturalistic data collected from 101 students on a college campus, the listeners offered directions in response to both a direct request such as ‘‘How do you get to destination X?’’ as well as to a less direct ‘‘Where is destination X?’’. Couclelis (1996) and Psathas and Kozleff (1976) included the only other examples of a similar occurrence and both came from naturalistic settings such as the one in the present study. Couclelis’ (1996) 30 participants recognized a direction request in the query ‘‘Do you know where the X is?’’ and responded accordingly as they interacted with an experimenter on a university campus. In the Psathas and Kozloff (1976:117) data, collected from telephone conversations between a customer and a store employee, one customer stated, ‘‘I’d like to come out there and look at it but I’m new to this city. I don’t know my way around at all.’’. Not only did the customer not ask for directions, he did not even ask a question. But, understanding the conversational goals of the customer, the employee responded by asking the customer’s current location and offering directions. Even though the direction-receiver did not explicitly make a request of any kind, the employee recognized that directions were desired and responded accordingly. In sum, the university students, the store employee’s response and the responses of the present 60 participants confirm that interlocutors do interact at a level below the surface of the words themselves. Grice’s Principle (1975) is clearly in play. Interlocutors depend on context to interpret utterances and are attentive to their interlocutors’ goals when they respond, observations made also by Psathas and Kozleff (1976), Couclelis (1996) and Golding et al. (1996). As gas station customers, the present participants recognized the driver’s initial questions as indirect requests for directions. Though R did not directly initiate the encounter with a ‘‘Can you tell me. . .?’’ question, many recognized the question ‘‘Excuse me, are you from around here?’’ as a pre-request and all 60 participants understood that underneath her ‘‘Do you know where X is?’’ question, was indeed a request for driving directions. Based on these data, our understanding of the routine formulae (as presented by Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982) used to initiate a driving-directions request should be expanded to include the possibility of an indirect speech act. 4.1.2. Cognitive and linguistic tasks in the interactional scheme As well as some cognitive psychologists, Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) distinguish between the cognitive and linguistic tasks involved in direction-giving. However, the present data show that such a distinction is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Indeed, Couclelis (1996:134) argued that verbal direction-giving and cognitive maps ‘‘are connected by means of a common underlying mental model which in itself is neither linguistic nor map-like.’’ For instance, as in Wunderlich and Reinelt’s (1982) initiation phase, these participants did indeed identify the starting point for the directions as the location of the speech act (i.e., the gas station parking lot); they identified the end point of the route (destination X); and they selected the best way of getting there (the route-description). In fact, 20 participants (7 male, 13 female) paused significantly during this initial part of the interaction, they explicitly stated that they were thinking and at times explained why, they talked or whispered out loud to themselves, or they asked R follow-up questions while locating X in their own minds. Perhaps the greatest evidence of the interrelated nature of cognitive and linguistic behaviors in this context are the statements made by participants during the initiation phase:

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2555

‘‘Let me think for a second. I’m trying to think of the best way.’’ ‘‘That’s down in Petersburg.’’ ‘‘I was just there. That’s bizarre. How do you get there? [whispered to self].’’ ‘‘What road is it on? [to self] 414? . . . I know where it is. I just can’t. . .’’ These kinds of orientation statements were also made during the route-description and the securing phases of the interaction. For example, many direction-givers paused mid-route-description phase to count out loud, sometimes barely at a whisper, the number of stoplights that R would pass along the way. Sometimes participants even interrupted themselves to explain to R why they were unsure of their estimate. These statements often included self-speech. For example, ‘‘Let’s see. How many lights? [to self] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.’’ ‘‘1, 2, 3. At the third, could be the fourth. [to self] I drive that way every day so it’s a little blurry.’’ Others paused during the route-description phase to consider, and reconsider, the accuracy of the road designations or landmarks that R could use as orientational markers. ‘‘. . . and when you come to [long pause] I don’t want to [whispered to self] I just don’t know if it’s 414 or McDonald’s but they’re like a block away from one another.’’ Though linguistic utterances often shed light on cognitive processes, in this case, the converse was also true; that is, the participants’ linguistic utterances provided evidence that cognitive tasks were being performed. Moreover, in these data, neither of these tasks was relegated to any particular phase of the interactional scheme; in fact, as illustrated in a chart by Couclelis (1996:139), the linguistic tasks and the cognitive tasks were often carried out simultaneously. Nevertheless, for research purposes and so that we can talk about them in meaningful ways, it is helpful to classify these phases and identify the linguistic and cognitive behaviors associated with them. 4.1.3. Phases of the interactional scheme Though it is helpful to recognize the phases of the interactional scheme, in reality, they are interrelated and often overlapping. For example, the orientation statements just discussed, typically associated with the initiation phase, were, as noted, at times made during the route-description and the securing phases. Participants also paused during these phases to talk to themselves or confirm the location of X in their minds, behaviors also usually associated with the initiation phase. Moreover, a clear transition between the route-description phase and the securing phase was lacking in the present data. In fact, many securing phase elements (e.g., mileage estimations, repetitions, G’s verbal assurances of successful wayfinding to R), were found during the route-description phase as well as during the closure. Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) seem to imply that G commits securing-phase linguistic behaviors only when R does not initiate closure or fails to convince G that he understands the directions, through R’s hesitation, for example. However, in these data, when G concluded the routedescription, though R readily expressed understanding and initiated closure by saying ‘‘Okay, thanks’’ or ‘‘Got it,’’ these participants still often repeated the route-description either in part or in whole, examples of ‘‘no-trigger’’ redundancy found in Baker et al. (2008). This finding indicates that G’s securing phase behaviors are perhaps not as dependent on R’s behaviors as Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) or Baker et al. (2008) seem to suggest. It is also worth noting that Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) do not describe the closure phase in much detail. They point out that this stage is always initiated by R who alone can demonstrate understanding of G’s directions, thereby letting G out of the obligation to help R find his way. Additionally, they observe that G can react to R’s closing expressions of gratitude by re-entering the securing phase. But, they do not describe G’s responses to R’s attempts at closure such as, ‘‘Okay, thanks’’ and ‘‘Got it.’’. Participants in this study offered several closing responses unrelated to direction-giving. For example, ‘‘Have a nice day.’’; ‘‘Drive carefully.’’; and ‘‘It’s awesome – have a good time!’’. They also provided R with some final words of encouragement or advice: ‘‘Good luck!’’; ‘‘If you hit York Road, you went too far.’’; and ‘‘It’s very hard to miss.’’ Other participants’ statements seemed equally well-intentioned but less confident. For instance, ‘‘Hopefully, that will get you there.’’; ‘‘Ask someone when you get down there.’’; ‘‘I’m pretty sure that’s where it is.’’; and, ‘‘Sorry. It’s not that great of directions but it should be pretty easy to find.’’ In another study, Pearson and Lee (1992) highlighted the conventionalization found in the direction-giving phases known as the opening, main body, preclosing and closing; they identified main body submoves including directives, parenthetical remarks and orientation or comprehension checks. Their identification of submoves sheds light on the overlap between Wunderlich and Reinelt’s (1982) four distinct phases and explains that direction-givers linguistically move between these phases when they are performing cognitive tasks such as orientation or interactive tasks such as issuing comprehension checks or stating directives. Thus, the cognitive and linguistic tasks required of direction-givers often occur without a prescribed order and cannot be clearly divided into particular phases. Nevertheless, grounded in either classificatory scheme (Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982), based on German data, or Pearson and Lee (1992) based on English data), an analysis of the present data reveals a high degree of conventionalization in the direction-giving exchange. This conventionalization will become clear in the next section of this analysis which focuses on participants’ use of verbal devices.

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2556

4.2. Sex-related differences in driving directions In this study, because the female direction-receiver R (the researcher) deliberately did not ask follow-up questions or express any confusion that might have resulted if R was truly going to try to follow G’s directions, turn-taking during the exchanges was minimal. R simply nodded in understanding and affirmatively answered any questions from G regarding R’s knowledge of roads or landmarks that G mentioned. Nevertheless, the relative silence on the part of R did not discourage G from offering detailed directions. In fact, as will be described in more detail, participants’ directions included much specific information including estimations regarding the number of stoplights, mileage and driving time required, landmarks, relative and cardinal indicators, as well as road names and highway numbers. There was much variation in the content of the direction-givers’ responses to R’s attempts at closure. But, the variation did not align completely with previous-documented sex-related differences, a point to be taken up presently. As mentioned previously, other research has found significant statistical differences in the directions offered by male and female direction-givers in the areas of cardinal indicators, landmarks, mileage estimates and accuracy. In general, these studies report that men used more cardinal indicators than did women (Miller and Santoni, 1986; Ward et al., 1986; Mark and Gould, 1995; Lawton, 2001; Napoleon, 2007); men were less likely to use landmarks (Miller and Santoni, 1986; Lawton, 2001; Napoleon, 2007); men used more mileage estimates (Ward et al., 1986; Mark and Gould, 1995); and men made fewer mistakes than women, and their maps were more cartographically complete (Miller and Santoni, 1986; Ward et al., 1986; Brown et al., 1998; Harrell et al., 2000). However, there were some discrepancies in these studies. For example, Harrell et al. (2000) found no difference in the use of landmarks on the part of males and females, and Brown et al. (1998) reported very few overall mistakes made by either males or females. In the present data, there were few differences between male and female usage of directional indicators, landmarks and mileage estimates or in the accuracy of their route-descriptions. We will analyze each of these verbal devices in turn. 4.2.1. Directional indicators (relative and cardinal) Though the sample size in this study is small for a thorough quantitative analysis, it is nevertheless informative to examine these naturalistic data in light of previous findings regarding participants’ use of verbal devices, especially since most of the previous research is not based on naturalistic data. Of the 56 participants who provided driving directions (27 males and 29 females), more males used relative indicators (left, right) (25) than cardinal indicators (north, south) (9); similarly, more females used relative indicators (29) than cardinal indicators (5) (see Table 1). (Some males (8) and some females (5) used a combination of both relative and cardinal indicators which accounts for the totals that exceed the total number of male and female participants.) One male did not use either relative or cardinal indicators. All the females used either relative indicators (24) or a combination of both (5). More females (29) used relative indicators than did males (25) and more males (9) used cardinal indicators than did females (5) but, overall, the usage of relative and cardinal indicators was similar for both males and females. Though not statistically significant, the numerically greatest sex-related difference found in these data was in their use of relative indicators alone (i.e., when participants used relative indicators but no cardinal indicators), 63% (male) versus 82.8% (female). But, if the number of males and females, respectively, who used relative or cardinal indicators is combined with those who used a combination of both, the overall situation is quite similar. That is, male participants’ use of relative indicators (25/27) was fairly similar to that of the females (29/29) and male participants’ use of cardinal indicators (9/27) was fairly similar to that of the females (5/29); moreover, 26/27 males and 29/29 females used one or multiple directional indicators. It is worth noting that only 1 male of the 56 total direction-givers used cardinal indicators alone. Thus, males’ and females’ overall use of directional indicators in this study was very similar. Though females used a few more relative indicators than did males and males used a few more cardinal indicators than did females, the difference was not statistically significant, a finding that does not align with some previous studies that reported a significantly higher frequency of cardinal indicators by males than by females (Ward et al., 1986; Mark and Gould, 1995; Harrell et al., 2000; Lawton, 2001). 4.2.2. Use of landmarks There was no significant statistical difference found between male and female participants’ inclusion of landmarks in their route-descriptions (see Table 2). Specifically, 13/27 males (48%) and 14/29 females (48%) offered at least one reference Table 1 Male/female use of relative/cardinal indicators. Male (27)

Female (29)

Relative (only) Cardinal (only) Both relative and cardinal Neither relative nor cardinal

17 1 8 1

24 0 5 0

Total relative Total cardinal

25 (92.6%) 9 (33.3%)

(63.0%) (3.7%) (29.6%) (3.7%)

(82.8%) (0%) (17.2%) (0%)

29 (100%) 5 (17.2%)

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2557

Table 2 Male/female use of landmarks. Male (27)

Landmarks

Female (29)

Yes

No

Yes

No

13

14

14

15

Table 3 Male/female use of mileage/time estimates. Male (27)

Mileage estimates Time estimates

Female (29)

Yes

No

Yes

No

18 1

9 26

8 1

21 28

to a landmark (e.g., gas stations, Dunkin’ Donuts, car dealerships or Kmart). Though some previous studies found that men were less likely to use landmarks (Miller and Santoni, 1986; Lawton, 2001), the present study confirms the findings of Harrell et al. (2000) who found no such difference. 4.2.3. Mileage and time estimates Previous studies report that males included more mileage estimates than did females (Ward et al., 1986; Mark and Gould, 1995). These data confirm those findings (see Table 3). In this study, 18/27 males (67%) offered mileage estimates as part of their route-descriptions while only 8/29 females (28%) included such information. This finding is statistically significant (x2 = 8.70; p < .05). In contrast, only one male and one female offered time estimates as part of their driving directions; thus, little difference was found in this area. 4.2.4. Stoplight estimates and use of road names/highway numbers In two other areas, specifically participants’ inclusion of an estimated number of stoplights and their references to road names/highway numbers, these data revealed no significant sex-related difference in the driving directions (see Tables 4 and 5). Specifically, 13/27 males (48%) and 12/29 females (41%) estimated the number of stoplights included in their route-descriptions. This difference is not statistically significant. These data indicate very similar usage of road names and highway numbers as well. Neither males nor females used only road names in their route-descriptions. In contrast, 18 in each group included only highway numbers. A similar number of males (8) and females (10) used a combination of both road names and highway numbers, and 1 male and 1 female did not use either road names or highway numbers. These data again reveal many similarities in the route-descriptions provided by both groups of participants. 4.2.5. Accuracy The final area in which some previous research reported significant differences in the driving directions offered by males and females relates to the accuracy of the directions themselves. Most investigations found that women made more mistakes (Miller and Santoni, 1986; Ward et al., 1986). Interestingly, one study, Brown et al. (1998) found very few overall mistakes made by either males or females though they report that women made more mistakes when using a particular Table 4 Male/female use of stoplight estimates. Male (27)

Stoplight estimates

Female (29)

Yes

No

Yes

No

13

14

12

17

Table 5 Male/female use of road names/highway #’s.

Road names (only) Highway #s (only) Used both Used neither

Male (27)

Female (29)

0 18 8 1

0 18 10 1

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2558

Table 6 Male/female inclusion of errors.

Errors No errors

Male (27)

Female (29)

21 (77.8%) 6 (22.2%)

22 (75.9%) 7 (24.1%)

Table 7 Male/female errors in mileage estimates. Male (27)

Mileage estimates

Female (29)

Yes

No

Yes

No

18 Correct: 4 Incorrect: 11 Unclear: 3

9

8 Correct: 4 Incorrect: 4

21

Table 8 Male/female errors in stoplight estimates. Male (27)

Stoplight estimates

Female (29)

Yes

No

Yes

No

13 Correct: 5 Incorrect: 7 Unclear: 1

14

12 Correct: 4 Incorrect: 8

17

direction-giving strategy. One study required subjects to create written illustrations for hypothetical campus visitors and the results indicated that the men’s maps were cartographically more complete (Harrell et al., 2000). The present data point to findings in contrast with all of these previous studies. Unlike the results of Brown et al.’s (1998) investigation, several mistakes were found in the driving directions offered by both male and female participants in this study (see Table 6). In fact, in the majority of the directions offered by both groups, most route-descriptions (77.8% of males and 75.9% of females) included mistakes. Participants’ errors related to incorrect mileage or stoplight estimations, a few inaccurate landmark names and failure to describe correctly or even mention a local bypass highway that R had to avoid because it did not offer the exit necessary to arrive at X.2 Thus, analysis of these data revealed a high frequency of errors in the directions given by both males and females but found no significant difference between the two groups in regards to accuracy. In sum, the only major difference between male and female participants’ driving directions was the males’ more frequent inclusion of mileage estimates. Other differences, though not statistically significant, were the females’ increased use of relative indicators and males’ increased use of cardinal indicators. However, even though females included more relative indicators than did males, all but one of these indicators were correct; no errors were made in the use of relative indicators by males. Nevertheless, of the eight mileage estimates offered by females as part of their route-descriptions four (50%) of these estimates were accurate but four (50%) contained errors. Of the 18 mileage estimates offered by males, only 4 (22%) were accurate; 11 (61%) contained errors and 3 (17%) were unclear or self-contradictory in their estimations (see Table 7). Therefore, though males offered significantly more mileage estimates than did females (18 versus 8, 67% versus 28%, respectively), the estimates provided by the males more often contained errors or ambiguities (78%) than those provided by the females (50%). Though the higher frequency of mileage errors on the part of the male direction-givers is not statistically significant, this finding contrasts with those of previous studies. The second most frequent source of errors for both males and females was that of stoplight estimates (see Table 8). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of stoplight estimates offered by male (13) and female (12) 2 One anonymous reviewer expressed the possibility that what constituted a mileage error in this analysis might be too strict relative to the total distance from the gas station to the destination. I include here a brief explanation of the exact criteria used to determine what constituted an error in this investigation. The distance from the gas station to the one necessary turn in the most direct route chosen by all but one participant in this study equals a distance of 4 miles. From that turn to the final destination is 0.5 mile. A direction-giver’s mileage estimate to the first turn (the 4-mile stretch) was coded as incorrect (i.e., ‘‘contained an error’’) if the estimate was at least 1 mile over or under 4 miles; an estimate from that turn to the destination (the 0.5-mile stretch) was coded as incorrect if the estimate was more than 0.5 mile over the 0.5-mile distance. Of the 11 ‘‘incorrect’’ estimates provided by the male participants, 4 described the 4-mile stretch; 1 estimate was off by 1 mile, 2 by 1–2 miles, and 1 by 2–3 miles. Of the eight female participants’ estimates, three described the first stretch; one estimate was off by 1–2 miles, one by 3–4 miles and one by 6 miles. Of the male participants’ estimates, seven described the 0.5-mile stretch; one estimate was off by 0.5-mile, five by 1–2 miles and one by 2–3 miles. Of the female participants’ estimates, only one described the 0.5-mile stretch and it was off by 1–2 miles.

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2559

direction-givers. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of errors in these estimations. Of the males’ 13 stoplight estimates offered, 8 were inaccurate or unclear (62%). Of the females’ 12 stoplight estimates, 8 were inaccurate (67%). Thus, for this particular route, almost half of the males and females, respectively, offered stoplight estimations but the majority of those estimates contained errors. 5. Conclusions and implications The present study confirms a high degree of conventionalization or routinization in driving directions (Psathas and Kozleff, 1976; Wunderlich and Reinelt, 1982; Psathas, 1986; Scotton and Bernsten, 1988; Pearson and Lee, 1992). These participants included a range of verbal devices similar in type and frequency and used similar language to communicate their route-descriptions. Wunderlich and Reinelt’s (1982) four-phase interaction scheme is indeed a helpful construct in analyzing English language data, but the findings of this study suggest several ways in which it should be expanded. As illustrated in Couclelis (1996), the cognitive, interactional and linguistic tasks involved in giving driving directions are highly interrelated, and the linguistic moves performed by direction-givers in the various phases of the interactional scheme are not easily categorized. Moreover, analysis of these data revealed that the formulae identified by Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) to be used by direction-receivers in the initiation phase is too limited; that is, in a natural speech context, a direct request is not necessary for communicating a request for driving directions to a potential direction-giver. An indirect speech act can effectively serve the same purpose. Finally, the direction-receiver is not as responsible for prompting the securing phase as implied by Wunderlich and Reinelt (1982) and Baker et al. (2008). That is, these data showed that even though the direction-receiver provided only positive back-channeling and assurances of having understood the direction-givers’ route-description, the direction-givers, perhaps finding her to be unconvincing, frequently engaged in unprompted, voluntary ‘‘securing-phase behaviors’’ such as repetition, emphasis of important route-description elements and the inclusion of additional verbal devices. This finding suggests that the securing phase, though optional in a sense, is a frequent and voluntary part of the routine speech of most direction-givers. Also, the present study both confirms and contradicts the findings of previous investigations that found that males used significantly more cardinal indicators, fewer landmarks and more mileage estimates but made fewer mistakes than females when giving driving directions. In this study, males’ and females’ use of directional indicators was very similar, but both groups used more relative indicators than cardinal indicators. Males’ and females’ inclusion of landmarks, stoplight and time estimates was also very similar as was their incorporation of road names and highway numbers in their route-descriptions. Males did indeed include more mileage estimates than females, but their mileage estimates contained comparatively more, though not significantly more, errors. Overall, both males and females committed many mistakes in their route-descriptions, but the frequency of errors of the two groups was very similar. As discussed by Coulmas (1981) and argued by Scotton and Bernsten (1988) and Taylor-Hamilton (2004), the frequency of routines in everyday conversations (like these participants’ driving directions) should have an influence on language teachers and textbook publishers, particularly with regard to the development of pedagogical materials and use of class time. Language students should be exposed to speech samples that are as authentic as possible and to the strategies used by native speakers of a given language to carry out certain functions. Moreover, researchers should give investigative attention to those functions that are most challenging to language learners and most important for their effective communication and, in so doing, inform current pedagogy. 6. Limitations and future research Though a large body of research has identified sex-related differences in the communicative styles of males and females, in this particular study, these differences were minimal. Nevertheless, an obvious limitation of this investigation and, in turn, of its findings is its relatively small sample size which could be a reason for the lack of statistical significance in participants’ use of some verbal devices. Future research on the driving-directions exchange should attempt to analyze these issues in a larger population so that stronger generalizations can be made. Another limitation of this study is that though the direction-giver group consisted of both males and females, the direction-receiver was female. Other studies (Pearson and Lee, 1992, for example) have suggested that the sex of the direction-receiver influences the nature of the directions provided. Future research should take this factor into consideration especially when investigating the securing stage. Since female drivers in one study reported more wayfinding problems than male drivers (Burns, 1998), perhaps female direction-receivers are especially in need of additional help and/or assurances from a direction-giver who might compensate with more securing phase behaviors. Thus, the sex of the direction-receiver could influence the nature and frequency of securing phase interactions. Additionally, future studies based on naturallyoccurring data should explore the direction-giving exchange across various languages and cultures. Furthermore, in this study, the direction-receiver never intended to follow the directions given by the participants and requested directions entirely for research purposes. Therefore, the objective of the interaction, on the part of the directionreceiver, was not authentic. Had she not really known the location of destination X and had she actually intended to follow each set of directions, her reactions and responses to the direction-givers would likely have been different and could have significantly affected their exchanges (as claimed by Baker et al., 2008). Ideally, naturally-occurring interactions between

2560

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

direction-givers and direction-receivers should be obtained and investigated to better understand the routine nature of this exchange when it takes place between interlocutors who are not participating in a research study. Also, the directiongivers’ interpretations of the direction-receivers’ responses should be captured and analyzed to explore the complicated influences on the securing phase and its role in the interactional scheme. Moreover, Couclelis (1996) suggests that much about direction-givers’ cognitive processes can be learned from their errors; this study also emphasizes that additional research should be done in these areas. Specifically, the relatively high frequency of errors in these naturalistic data, especially in the areas of mileage and stoplight estimations confirm Couclelis’ recommendation and also point to the possibility of future studies on direction-receivers’ comprehension of linguistically-inaccurate directions and their resulting behaviors. Additionally, this study did not report the average number of landmarks used by males and females, evaluated as respective groups or individually. That is, the analysis noted only if each individual direction-giver included at least one landmark in his/her set of directions but did not keep track of the overall number of landmarks used by each direction-giver. Given that some previous investigations (Miller and Santoni, 1986; Lawton, 2001; Napoleon, 2007), though not all (Harrell et al., 2000), reported sex differences in the overall frequency of landmark references in direction-giving, it would be useful for future studies to investigate this issue more thoroughly. Finally, though this investigation highlights the importance of recognizing the effective role of an indirect request to initiate a direction-giving exchange, it only studied one particular indirect request. Additional studies should explore this issue more fully in naturalistic settings. Perhaps other indirect requests would be just as effective or would reveal other sexrelated differences in the initiation of the exchange. Overall, the findings of this study both confirm and contradict those of previous investigations on the highly routinized verbal devices employed in the direction-giving exchange and on sexrelated differences in direction-givers’ route-descriptions. As noted, these findings have implications for future research, language teaching and the development of pedagogical materials. Acknowledgements First and foremost, a sincere thank you to my research assistant without whom this project would not have been possible. Also, thank you to the management of the gas station where this data collection took place and to the participants who so willingly provided me with driving directions. I also thank Dr. Deborah Lurie whose help with the statistical analysis was invaluable. And, my thanks goes to many conference participants who provided me with valuable feedback after attending a presentation of this research at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (2007) in Costa Mesa, California and to the anonymous reviewers whose helpful comments on previous versions of this article were much appreciated.

Appendix A. Data collection form Male

Female

From around here?

Yes

No

Knows where it is?

Yes

No

If ‘‘no’’, . . .

Extra comments: Commands: want to

need to

going to

come through

should

verbs alone

will

Estimates mileage?

Yes

No

Estimates times?

Yes

No

Refers to landmarks?

Yes

No

Gas stations

Brackers

Dunkin’ Donuts

Kmart

Counts stoplights?

Yes

No

Mentions Bypass?

Yes

No

Go/Turn:

South

Straight

West

Left

Right

Road references:

414

Hamp Road

211

Eagan Road

Main Street

How do you know you’re there? Extra:

Diner

Car dealer

J. Ewald / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2549–2561

2561

References Allen, Gary L., 2000. Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology 14, 333–359. Baker, Rachel E., Gill, Alastair J., Cassell, Justine, 2008. Reactive redundancy and listener comprehension in direction-giving. In: Proceedings of SIGDIAL, June 19–20, Columbus, Ohio. Beebe, Leslie, 1994. Notebook data on power and the power of notebook data. Paper presented at the Annual TESOL Conference, March, Baltimore, MD. Brown, Leonora N., Lahar, Cindy J., Mosley, James L., 1998. Age and gender-related differences in strategy use for route information: a ‘‘map-present’’ direction-giving paradigm. Environment and Behavior 30 (2), 123–143. Burns, Peter C., 1998. Wayfinding errors while driving. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 209–217. Collett, Peter, O’Shea, Gregory, 1976. Pointing the way to a fictional place: a study of direction giving in Iran and England. European Journal of Social Psychology 6 (4), 447–458. Couclelis, Helen, 1996. Verbal directions for way-finding: space, cognition, and language. In: Portugali, J. (Ed.), The Construction of Cognitive Maps. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 133–153. Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Introduction: conversational routine. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Mouton Publishers, pp. 1–18. Fe´lix-Brasdefer, Ce´sar, 2007. Natural speech vs. elicited data. Spanish in Context 4 (2), 159–185. Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Golding, Jonathan M., Graesser, Arthur C., Hauselt, Jerry, 1996. The process of answering direction-giving questions when someone is lost on a university campus: the role of pragmatics. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, 23–39. Grice, H.P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York. Harrell, W. Andrew, Bowlby, Jeffrey W., Hall-Hoffarth, Deana, 2000. Direction wayfinders with maps: the effects of gender, age, route complexity, and familiarity with the environment. The Journal of Social Psychology 140 (2), 169–178. Hund, Alycia M., Seanor, Brian D., Hopkins, Kimberly M., 2006. Understanding the dynamics of direction giving and following during navigation. Cognitive Processing 9/17/2006, 7, 125. Klein, Wolfgang, 1982. Local deixis in route directions. In: Jarvella, R.J., Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 161–181. Lawton, Carol A., 2001. Gender and regional differences in spatial referents used in direction giving. Sex Roles 44 (5–6), 321–337. Mark, David M., Gould, Michael D., 1995. Wayfinding directions as discourse: verbal directions in English and Spanish. In: Duchan, J.F., Bruder, G.A., Hewitt, L.E. (Eds.), Deixis in Narrative. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp. 387–405. Miller, Leon K., Santoni, Viana, 1986. Sex differences in spatial abilities: strategic and experiential correlates. Acta Psychologica 62 (3), 225–235. Napoleon, Siena, 2007. From here to there: a sociolinguistic study in gender and direction-giving. Indiana Undergraduate Journal of Cognitive Science 2, 18– 27. Pearson, Bethyl A., Lee, K. Samuel, 1992. Discourse structure of direction giving: effects of native/nonnative speaker status and gender. TESOL Quarterly 26 (1), 113–127. Psathas, George, 1986. Some sequential structures in direction-giving. Human Studies 9, 231–246. Psathas, George, Kozloff, Martin, 1976. The structure of directions. Semiotica 17 (2), 111–130. Scotton, Carol M., Bernsten, Janice, 1988. Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied Linguistics 9 (4), 372–384. Taylor-Hamilton, Carrie, 2004. Giving directions as a speech behavior: a cross-cultural comparison of L1 and L2 strategies. In: Boxer, D., Cohen, A.D. (Eds.), Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 149–173. Ward, Shawn L., Newcombe, Nora, Overton, Willis F., 1986. Turn left at the church, or three miles north: a study of direction giving and sex differences. Environment and Behavior 18 (2), 192–213. Wunderlich, Dieter, Reinelt, Rudolph, 1982. How to get there from here. In: Jarvella, R.J., Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 183–201. Jennifer D. Ewald is Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Her research interests include classroom discourse, pragmatics, applied linguistics, methodology, teacher education and second language acquisition.