The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
The Handbook of Discourse Analysis The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
252 Monica Heller reality as a social construct, and which locates the process of construction in the interaction between an individual and his or her world, most importantly as mediated by interaction with other people. For some, notably within the tradition of psychology and cognitive science, this has meant an empirical focus on the individual’s experience of that interaction, and on the consequences of interactional processes for individual development (see Case 1996 for an overview). For others, it has meant a focus on interactional processes themselves, as revealing the social dimensions of the construction of reality. Here, I will concern myself with work in the second vein. Approaches to the question of the nature of interactional processes can be loosely grouped into two categories: ethnomethodological and interpretivist (or interactionist). There are many ways in which the two are related, and in particular in which the first has influenced the second, but for the purposes of exposition it is useful to divide them. The major distinction which I want to make between them has to do with their stance with respect to data. Ethnomethodologists have a strong preference for restricting analysis to what is actually observable. Interpretivists or interactionists are prepared to bring other sources of data to bear on the analysis of interactional data. Needless to say, the distinction in specific cases may be largely heuristic, even inaccurate, but nonetheless it describes at least the difference between extreme outliers of each group, and captures something of the orientation of practitioners situated somewhere on the fuzzy boundary between the two groups. An ethnomethodological approach to analysis of discourse in interaction has perhaps the strongest tendency to treat interactional data as text. The object of analysis is the text of the transcription of the interaction, whether the text is a literal, verbal one, based on audiotapes, or whether it combines verbal and nonverbal material, as has become possible with the availability of videorecording. (Indeed, as we will see below, one branch of ethnomethodology now prefers simply to think of itself as conversation analysis, reflecting this focus on observable interaction.) The reason for this is that social action is held to be ongoing and reflexive; one can only see how participants make sense out of the world by observing their actions in it, or more specifically, their reflexive interactions (Heritage 1984). These interactions can be shown to be nonrandom; Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, showed that it was possible to uncover the normative order indexed by interactional routines by breaching those routines and watching all hell break loose. As Heritage points out, the patterns observed in interactional data are held to point to an “underlying pattern” (Garfinkel 1967, cited in Heritage 1984: 84). This “underlying pattern” is some form of social order. While it is not clear exactly what form of social order is involved here (this problem will be taken up in the following section), the ethnomethodological insight is that it is possible to see it by discovering its manifestations in the normative order of interaction, and especially helpfully where that normative order is breached. Other sociologists, notably Goffman, also were concerned to discover social order through the patterns of everyday life, arguing that much of what happens interactionally is the constant construction and reconstruction of forms of normative social order (cf. Goffman 1959, 1974, 1981). While ethnomethodology did not begin by focusing on discourse in interaction, it is not surprising that it would turn to such data, given the primacy accorded to observable action. Heritage (1984: 235) cites Harvey Sacks’ explanation for why he turned to tape-recorded data: “So the question was, could there be some way
Discourse and Interaction 253 that sociology could hope to deal with the details of actual events, formally and informatively? ...I wanted to locate some set of materials that would permit a test.” Together with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, Sacks laid the groundwork for conversation analysis, ethnomethodology’s major contribution to the analysis of discourse in interaction. Conversation analysis focuses on the discovery of the patterns whereby people orient themselves (and each other) to specific dimensions of some underlying normative order. Frequently, these have concerned the normative order of talk itself, that is, how talk is supposed to be organized. Most important here have been studies concerned with: (1) how participants construct an orientation to talk, that is, how they make themselves available to each other for the purposes of interaction (for example, through the use of greeting routines; cf. Schegloff 1972) and otherwise organize their orientation to each other and to the activity at hand; (2) the distribution of talk among participants; and (3) how participants construct an orientation to a topic of conversation. In addition to a focus on observable routines, ethnomethodologists look at the structure of conversation, notably at such phenomena as turn-taking (beginning with the influential Sacks et al. 1974); sequencing and adjacency; and, of course, repair, which highlights the normative order by analyzing its breakdown and reconstruction. There are a number of reasons why the normative order of talk might be interesting. For some, the underlying pattern it relates to is cognitive and potentially universal: what the normative order of talk reveals is the way in which we, as sentient organisms, organize our experience and understand it. For others, the interest lies in the direction of the social order, which requires relating the normative order of talk to other dimensions of social relations, that is, to the normative regulation of relations among people who, by virtue of their position with respect to (normatively salient) social categories, bear some set of (normatively salient) relations to each other as well as to others who can be said to be interactionally “present” (whether they are physically present or not), but who do not themselves speak (or write) in the interaction at issue. Here the underlying pattern might be universal, but is more likely historically contingent. For those interested in problems of social order, ethnomethodological methods provide a way to do three things. One is to discover how interaction (as seen in actors’ ways of knowing and being) contributes to the construction of a social order which extends far beyond any given analyzable interaction; conversely, another is to examine how the relationship between social action and social structure constrains how individuals can come to know and act in their world. The third is to identify the interactional manifestations of social problems (in which interactions are seen as potential sources of problems, as potential sites for discovering sources which are interactionally indexed, and as potential sites for intervention). As we shall see, however, pursuing these questions has provoked something of an ideological split. Some researchers continue to hold to the ethnomethodological principle of confining analysis to what is observable, and analyze interactions in and of (and for) themselves. Others have been posing questions about interactions and what goes on in them which lead them to consider phenomena beyond the bounds of the analysis of specific interactions. Some of these questions, as we shall see below, have to do with explaining why things happen the way they do, and others have to do with consequences of interactional patterns.
- Page 223 and 224: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 225 and 226: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 227 and 228: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 229 and 230: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 231 and 232: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 233 and 234: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 235 and 236: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 237 and 238: Interactional Sociolinguistics 215
- Page 239 and 240: Interactional Sociolinguistics 217
- Page 241 and 242: Interactional Sociolinguistics 219
- Page 243 and 244: Interactional Sociolinguistics 221
- Page 245 and 246: Interactional Sociolinguistics 223
- Page 247 and 248: Interactional Sociolinguistics 225
- Page 249 and 250: Interactional Sociolinguistics 227
- Page 251 and 252: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 253 and 254: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 255 and 256: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 257 and 258: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 259 and 260: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 261 and 262: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 263 and 264: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 265 and 266: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 267 and 268: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 269 and 270: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 271 and 272: Discourse as an Interactional Achie
- Page 273: Discourse and Interaction 251 (1987
- Page 277 and 278: Discourse and Interaction 255 there
- Page 279 and 280: Discourse and Interaction 257 costs
- Page 281 and 282: Discourse and Interaction 259 inter
- Page 283 and 284: Discourse and Interaction 261 3 Con
- Page 285 and 286: Discourse and Interaction 263 Grice
- Page 287 and 288: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 289 and 290: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 291 and 292: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 293 and 294: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 295 and 296: (11) interaction speech event genre
- Page 297 and 298: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 299 and 300: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 301 and 302: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 303 and 304: The Linguistic Structure of Discour
- Page 305 and 306: The Variationist Approach 283 varia
- Page 307 and 308: The Variationist Approach 285 model
- Page 309 and 310: The Variationist Approach 287 the s
- Page 311 and 312: The Variationist Approach 289 Table
- Page 313 and 314: The Variationist Approach 291 The s
- Page 315 and 316: The Variationist Approach 293 Table
- Page 317 and 318: The Variationist Approach 295 1 Som
- Page 319 and 320: The Variationist Approach 297 70 60
- Page 321 and 322: The Variationist Approach 299 numbe
- Page 323 and 324: The Variationist Approach 301 Blanc
<strong>Discourse</strong> and Interaction 253<br />
that sociology could hope to deal with the details <strong>of</strong> actual events, formally and<br />
informatively? ...I wanted to locate some set <strong>of</strong> materials that would permit a test.”<br />
Together with Emanuel Schegl<strong>of</strong>f and Gail Jefferson, Sacks laid the groundwork<br />
for conversation analysis, ethnomethodology’s major contribution to the analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
discourse in interaction.<br />
Conversation analysis focuses on the discovery <strong>of</strong> the patterns whereby people orient<br />
themselves (and each other) to specific dimensions <strong>of</strong> some underlying normative<br />
order. Frequently, these have concerned the normative order <strong>of</strong> talk itself, that is,<br />
how talk is supposed to be organized. Most important here have been studies concerned<br />
with: (1) how participants construct an orientation to talk, that is, how they<br />
make themselves available to each other for the purposes <strong>of</strong> interaction (for example,<br />
through the use <strong>of</strong> greeting routines; cf. Schegl<strong>of</strong>f 1972) and otherwise organize their<br />
orientation to each other and to the activity at hand; (2) the distribution <strong>of</strong> talk among<br />
participants; and (3) how participants construct an orientation to a topic <strong>of</strong> conversation.<br />
In addition to a focus on observable routines, ethnomethodologists look at the<br />
structure <strong>of</strong> conversation, notably at such phenomena as turn-taking (beginning with<br />
the influential Sacks et al. 1974); sequencing and adjacency; and, <strong>of</strong> course, repair, which<br />
highlights the normative order by analyzing its breakdown and reconstruction.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> reasons why the normative order <strong>of</strong> talk might be<br />
interesting. For some, the underlying pattern it relates to is cognitive and potentially<br />
universal: what the normative order <strong>of</strong> talk reveals is the way in which we, as sentient<br />
organisms, organize our experience and understand it. For others, the interest lies in<br />
the direction <strong>of</strong> the social order, which requires relating the normative order <strong>of</strong> talk to<br />
other dimensions <strong>of</strong> social relations, that is, to the normative regulation <strong>of</strong> relations<br />
among people who, by virtue <strong>of</strong> their position with respect to (normatively salient)<br />
social categories, bear some set <strong>of</strong> (normatively salient) relations to each other as well<br />
as to others who can be said to be interactionally “present” (whether they are physically<br />
present or not), but who do not themselves speak (or write) in the interaction at<br />
issue. Here the underlying pattern might be universal, but is more likely historically<br />
contingent.<br />
For those interested in problems <strong>of</strong> social order, ethnomethodological methods<br />
provide a way to do three things. One is to discover how interaction (as seen in<br />
actors’ ways <strong>of</strong> knowing and being) contributes to the construction <strong>of</strong> a social order<br />
which extends far beyond any given analyzable interaction; conversely, another is to<br />
examine how the relationship between social action and social structure constrains<br />
how individuals can come to know and act in their world. <strong>The</strong> third is to identify<br />
the interactional manifestations <strong>of</strong> social problems (in which interactions are seen<br />
as potential sources <strong>of</strong> problems, as potential sites for discovering sources which<br />
are interactionally indexed, and as potential sites for intervention). As we shall see,<br />
however, pursuing these questions has provoked something <strong>of</strong> an ideological split.<br />
Some researchers continue to hold to the ethnomethodological principle <strong>of</strong> confining<br />
analysis to what is observable, and analyze interactions in and <strong>of</strong> (and for) themselves.<br />
Others have been posing questions about interactions and what goes on in<br />
them which lead them to consider phenomena beyond the bounds <strong>of</strong> the analysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> specific interactions. Some <strong>of</strong> these questions, as we shall see below, have to do<br />
with explaining why things happen the way they do, and others have to do with<br />
consequences <strong>of</strong> interactional patterns.