It is notable that the extensions that extensions of the notion of audience as an explanatory concept are often very natural ones. That is, we come across a pattern in our data that puzzles us, and search for an explanation why it is so. What us the reason that this speaker chose to say it this way on this occasion? That explanation may go beyond strict accommodation to the present audience, but what is very obviously going on in the situation may be the design of talk in relation to some person or group in a way that is a natural extension of the audience approach. Moreover, this is precisely the form of explanation that any framework finds itself reaching for when faced by such patterns.
What lies at the base of these debates is our view of the nature of personhood. Such views of course are not a provable hypothesis of sociolinguistics or any other academic discipline. They are a premise, a prime based on our own belief system. My belief is that a person is indeed more than a static bundle of sociological categories — although to say that someone is male, or Pakeha, or middle class does tell us something about that person.
But I also believe that a person is more than an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of personas created in and by different situations, with no stable core — although to say that we appear as child to our parents, employee to our boss, partner to our partner does tell us something about the person. We do not recreate ourselves moment by moment out of nothing. We are not a tabula rasa. We bring to the present the shapings of our past, of our relationships, of our environment. Yet we are more than the sum of those things.
— Allan Bell, Back in style: reworking audience design
