ABSTRACT
In the past several years, analysts of communication have been using and developing a rules approach (e.g. Hymes, 1962, 1972; Cushman and Whiting, 1972; Sanders and Martin, 1975; Cushman and Pearce, 1977; Shimanoff, 1980; Sigman, 1980; Cronen, Pearce, and Harris, 1982; Cushman, Valentinsen, and Dietrich, 1982). And several research programs have emerged from this perspective (e.g. Ervin-Tripp, 1972; Philipsen, 1975, 1976; Pearce and Conklin, 1979; Cronen, Pearce and Snavely, 1979; Katriel and Philipsen, 1981; En-ninger, 1984; Nofsinger, 1976; Hawes, 1976). At the same time, however, critics of the rules perspective have labeled the approach as “broad, grossly diffuse, and imprecisely articulated” (Delia, 1977, p. 54), as “devoid of specific theoretical substance” (Delia, 1977, p. 54) and as in dire need of “descriptive and interpretive work” (Hawes, 1977, p. 66). One way of responding to these charges is through empirical work that is theory driven. In what follows, I will present an ethnographic report of communication in a prominent American scene as a way of developing communication theory from a rules perspective. 1
