Prof. Goodman

1

Sociology 1001 (01)

Fall 2014

Reading guide #6

ANTI-SOCIOLOGY #1

ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

(part 3) – Conversation Analysis (Hale 76-77)

As we have seen the ethnomethodologists first discovered that “social life has this hidden, taken for granted structure to it (practical reasoning, or common sense reasoning)

-They tried to show that our daily social life is based on a shared `social language’ which nobody thinks about (or even realizes)

-this is similar to how our daily life is based on a shared language which nobody thinks about (eg English or French in New Brunswick), it is just ‘taken for granted’

-similarly, social life is based on a shared language which everybody takes for granted

-that ‘shared language’ is called ‘common sense reasoning’

-And just as we follow the rules of English without ever thinking of them, we also follow the rules of social life without usually thinking of them

- and just as we can play around with the rules of English, we can also do the same with the rules of social life

-Moreover, we do this in very sophisticated ways, and very creative ways, without even thinking about it

-this all seems ‘natural’ to us.

(-Yet as any immigrant to Canada will tell you, learning to speak English like a native speaker is one of the hardest things in life to do; and learning to be thought of as a natural-born Canadian is equally as hard )

-But just as the structure of English can be studied and analysed,

So can the structure of ‘common sense reasoning’

-And it is conversation analysis (a sub-school within ethnomethodology) which has taken this type of study the furthest.

-Moreover, it uses a model of analysis imported largely from the science of linguistics.

THE LINGUISTICS ANALOGY – Producing ‘orderliness’ in talk

Just as a linguist may be interested in studying the ‘grammar’ of everyday language; the conversation analyst is trying to study the ‘social grammar’ of everyday social life

Typically the linguist will examine that which is common sensically understood in the language being studied, and provide examples

Thus if we start with one of the most basic building block of the English language, the sentence, we can see how a linguist would study English (and linguists usually start with this fundamental building block of English – the sentence)

Eg in English we can say

1. I’m going to the store

2. I will go to the store soon

3. I am going to the store

And all ‘native speakers’ would rely on their ‘expertise’ to agree that these sentences are good ‘english’

Yet, at the same time, every native speaker of English will also recognize the following as not English

4. Store the to going I’m.

(even though it has exactly the same words as sentence 1)

Yet, if we ask the native speaker why this is not ‘good english’, they will probably not be able to give us an answer (except to say something like – ‘we just don’t talk like that)

So the job of the linguist is to show the underlying structure which allows native speakers to automatically generate (and recognize) ‘english sentences’ common sensically, without even thinking about them (ie sentences 1-3, but never 4).

For example, linguists have identified the following as one of the most fundamental features of the English language

Simple sentences usually use the following basic pattern

Subject – verb- object

Eg

The boy bit the dog

The man ate the cake

The girl kissed the elephant

Correspondingly

If we change the word order around, we change the meaning of the sentence

The boy the dog bit

The dog bit the boy

Or it just doesn’t make any sense

Dog the hit boy the

So even though most native speakers never think of this problem of ‘word order’, they almost never make a mistake (and they learn all this in a relatively short period of time; the first 2-3 years of life)

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

In sociology, the conversation analysis school attempts to study and examine the basic building blocks of social life – conversation.

Just as the linguist starts with the basic building blocks of language- the sentence,

The conversation analyst starts with the basic building blocks of social life- the conversation

And the conversation analyst studies how two or more people produce social life as ‘orderly’

Just like the linguist tries to show the underlying structure of English which allows native speakers to create competent English sentences (almost without thinking), in a similar fashion, the task of the conversation analyst is to show the underlying structure which allows native speakers to automatically, albeit collectively, create a competent conversation.

-However, one major difference between the orderliness of a ‘sentence’ and the orderliness of social life, is that in the latter, all the participants (not just the speaker) have to work at maintaining this ‘orderliness’

-In other words, routinely in conversation, we hear it as orderly

-that is, people don’t typically talk at the same time

People don’t typically talk over each other

-people don’t typically ignore each other

-people seem to be responding to whatever the other person has just said

-and people are collaboratively producing this ‘orderliness’

-yet we are so good at it, we rarely even think about it

-But it can be studied, because it has a patterned structure

So whereas the linguist studies how a native speaker produces a ‘sentence’

Conversation analysis studies how speakers collaboratively produce a ‘conversation’

ANALYSING CONVERSATION

– THE STUDY OF NATURALLY-OCCURRING SOCIAL INTERACTION

Let us take a look at one of the most fundamental features of this ‘social organization of language’

Fundamentally, talk is seen as ‘sequentially organised’

Ie Turns at talk follow one another, with one utterance tying in with the prior one.

Also, talk is handled on the spot, by the participants themselves, on an utterance by utterance basis.

That is, the orderliness of a conversation is locally –managed (the participants themselves produce this orderliness)

-people (you and me ) have to ‘attend’ to conversation, on a second-by-second, basis, in order to maintain its orderliness.

-so how is it that people are able to ‘produce’ this sense of ‘orderliness’?

That is one of the questions that conversation analysis tackles.

And Harvey Sacks came up with the fundamental notion of the Adjacency Pair.

A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN C.A.: THE ADJACENCY PAIR

This basic concept tries to account for the coherency manifested in the production of talk, between people

Sacks claims that routinely in social life, if an utterance is heard as one of a certain type,

Then there is an expectation that another particular utterance will follow.

For example:

Adjacency Pairs include pairs like the following:

(greeting - greeting)

(summons-response)

While some adjacency pairs have two options in the second slot

(invitation - acceptance)

(invitation - rejection )

I

Such pairs inform participants to produce, on recognition of a certain first part of a pair (eg a question) something which can be heard as the second part of the pair (eg an answer) in the next conversational slot.

-And if the expected ‘second pair part’ does not occur – that is ‘noticeably absent’

(ie there is some type of expectation, by the participants themselves, that the other participant(s) is/are monitoring conversation on a second by second basis and paying attention to these adjacency pairs)

And once this ‘adjacency pair’ has been accomplished, it can be oriented to by both participants to ensure that at least a minimal understanding is being maintained within the conversation

We can see better how these adjacency pairs work if we turn to the analysis of ‘invitations’ and see how Sacks’ notion of the adjacency pair helps to formalise this shared knowledge that we have about how our social interaction operates.

ANALYSING INVITATIONS – USING THE ADJACENCY PAIR MACHINERY

Routinely, in social life, invitations have one of the following two structural organizations.

(invitation - acceptance)

(invitation - rejection )

· But ‘acceptances’ and ‘rejections are organised quite differently.

·

· This is not an idiosyncratic feature of the two talkers.

·

· this is a structural feature of our social life (and thus can be studied and explained)

·

-all members tacitly understand this conversational structure

eg

1) acceptances are done with little or no delay, or in overlap

A. Do you want to go to the movies tonight?

B. Sure I'd love to

2) rejections are typically produced differently

A. Do you want to go to the movies tonight?

B. Ummm...

A. If you're not too busy

B. Well, I'd like to, but I have to work on an assignment

A. Oh, o.k. some other time maybe

B. sure.

And we can formally describe the ‘elements’ of this structural organization

That is, in respect to ‘rejections’

i. they take longer to complete (there is often some delay, eg a one turn delay; they are not done in overlap)

ii. they often get produced with an ‘appreciation’ ( eg well I’d like to)

iii. they typically get produced with an ‘account’ (eg – working on an assignment)

iv. they typically get produced with an ‘account’ suggesting some type of constraint (eg I have to work)

But just as speakers of English know that if they play around with the structure of English, they change the meaning of a sentence, (eg the boy bit the dog versus the dog bit the boy)

In conversation, when participants play around with the these ‘adjacency pairs’ they change the meaning of the conversation itself.

A: Do you want to go to the movies?

B. No

A: Do you want to go to the movies?

B. Yeah, do you know anyone I can go with

A: Do you want to go to the movies?

B. Can we afford it? Let’s watch something on Netflix instead.

The main point to be obtained from this analysis of one simple set of utterances is that in real social life, we are always, on a second-by-second basis, working at making it ‘orderly’.

And we do this collaboratively. It is accomplished in real time, with no time-outs.

Each participant has to monitor the talk, interpret what has just been said, and then produce an utterance which ties in with what has just been said.

And through such ‘work’, at the most basic level of talk, social life gets accomplished ‘for all practical purposes’.

Revised 22nd October 2014

Appendix (chaos in conversation)

Alex: Hi Bill, how are you doing?

Bill: Michel Foucault taught at the college de France from January 1971 until his death in 1984.

Alex: Sorry, what did you say?

Bill: the title of his ‘chair was “the history of systems of thought”

Alex: you ok, something wrong?

Bill: On the proposal of Jules Vuillemin, the chair was created on 30th November 1969.

Alex: ok, ok, enough, so did you see the Leafs’ game last night?

Bill: The same assembly elected Michel Foucault to the new chair on 12th April 1970.

Alex: what’s wrong with you?

Bill: he was 43 years old.

Alex: you’re crazy!!!