CHAPTERNINE

Between
Mi croandMacro:
Contexts and
Other
Connecti ons
Emanuel A.
Schegl of f
I.
When
persons
tal k
to each
other
i n i nteracti on,
they ordi nari l y
tal k
one at ati me andone af ter the
other. Whenthei r tal k i s not
produced
seri al l y
i n thi s
manner,
they general l y
act
qui ckl y
to restore "order";
someone
qui ckl y steps
i n to f i l l
the si l ence; someone
stops tal ki ng
( or
several someones
do) to resol vethesi mul taneous tal k; or i f twoor more
of the
parti ci pants
conti nue
tal ki ng,
thei r tal k takes on
a
speci al
charac-
ter
of
"competi ti veness"
( i t
i s l ouder or
hi gher pi tched,
f or
exampl e) .
These
speci al
states of
si l ence
or
competi ti veness,
however, are
qui ckl y
resol vedi nf avor of
"normal i ty, "
one
at ati me, nomore, nol ess.
I want
to
cal l whatever, mechani sm, devi ce, or set of
practi ces
that
produces
theseef f ects a f ormof soci al
organi zati on.
What i s
organi zed
by
thi s
organi zati on
i s bothaset of soci al acti ons
( l ooked
at
i n
one
way)
andaset of actors
( l ooked
at
i n
another
way) .
Whatever el se
the
parti ci -
pants may
be
doi ng- announci ng,
requesti ng, compl ai ni ng,
on one
hand, and
l i steni ng, di spl ayi ng understandi ng, agreei ng,
onthe other-
they
are
consti tuti vel y real i zi ng
a course
of acti on
i n thei r
tal ki ng
and
l i steni ng.
Al though
aturnat tal k, or
somesmal l er utterance uni t wi thi n
i t,
may
haveenacted
through
i t a
number of
acts
of the
ki nd
we
conven-
ti onal l y
cal l
( af ter
Austi nandSearl e)
"speech
acts, " theconduct of con-
versati on
( or,
more
general l y,
"tal k- i n- i nteracti on") i tsel f
represents
a
courseof acti on. The
parti ci pants
who
"bri ng
i t of f , " whether
by tal ki ng
or
by wi thhol di ng
tal k at
the
"ri ght" pl aces
and
suppl yi ng
i t at others,

207
Schegloff's homepage

208

Interpreti ve
Acti on
and Macrostructure
do so i n thei r
capaci ti es
as
"pri or
speaker, "
"current
speaker, "
"reci pi -
ent, " andthe l i ke. The uni ts
( such
as sentences)
out of whi ch such a
course of acti on as
"tal ki ng
i n aturn" i s constructed
are structures wi th
descri babl e,
i nteracti onal l y
rel evant
properti es.
For
exampl e,
thei r
struc-
ture
al l ows
anti ci pati on
of thei r
possi bl e compl eti on,
thei mmi nenceof
whi ch canbe detected
by
hearers,
andused as
grounds
of
conti ngent
acti on.
Accordi ngl y,
a
possi bl e
next
speaker
can
begi n
to
gear up
total k
as such
proj ected possi bl e compl eti on
comes "i nto vi ew";
a current
speaker
can
anti ci pate
such a
possi bi l i ty
and
modi f y
themanner
of hi s
or her tal k so as to ci rcumvent, ward
of f , or
f i ght
of f such
a
start
by
another
( e. g. , by suddenl y speedi ng up
thetal k, not
pausi ng
f or
abreath
at the
poi nt
of
possi bl e compl eti on,
but
rushi ng
aheadi nto anext sen-
tence
and
pausi ng
at a
poi nt
of maxi mum
grammati cal
control , such as
af ter a
preposi ti on
but bef ore i ts
obj ect) . '
Coordi nati onbetween
actors
i s thus
present,
as are
anti ci pati on
andmodi f i cati on of coordi nati on.
Al though
a
si ngl eperson
seemsto
havetal ked,
obvi ousl y
the
parti ci pants
together
have
produced
thebi t of di scourse,
acti on, and
i nteracti onthat
has resul ted.
What I have
j ust
descri bedi s abi t of
the
turn- taki ng
organi zati on
f or
conversati on' - that i s,
one
aspect
of a
"speech
exchange system. "
Al -
though
i t i s not what
soci ol ogi sts ordi nari l y
thi nk of as "soci al
organi -
zati on, " i n
many ways
i t i s the
apotheosi s
of soci al
organi zati on.
It
op-
erates
i n, and
partl y organi zes,
what woul d
appear
to bethe
pri mordi al
si te
of
soci al i ty:
di rect i nteracti on between
persons.
It coordi nates the
behavi or of the
parti ci pants- al l parti ci pants- by
al l ocati ng
di f f eren-
ti al l y
at
any
moment
di f f eri ng opportuni ti es
f or
di f f eri ng types
of
parti c-
i pati on.
The
types
of
parti ci pati on
are
partl y
def i ned
by
di f f erent
types
of soci al
acts- si ngl e
or
mul ti pl e
i nstances of
the
empi ri cal
versi onof a
basi c
soci al uni t: theuni t act. Thi s bi t of soci al
organi zati on
i s
part
of
the medi um, or the
"enabl i ng"
i nsti tuti on, f or
a substanti al
proporti on
of
theconduct of whi chal l theother
maj or
soci al
i nsti tuti ons are com-
posed.
Fi nal l y,
as
a
coherent set of
practi ces
or rul es, i t i s, or consti tutes,
astructure of acti on and
thereby escapes
the
pol ari ty
of
i ndi vi dual and
aggregate.
The
rel ati onshi p
we
depi ct
between
mi cro- and
macroanal ysi s ( recogni z-
i ng
wi thout f urther comment theutter
rel ati vi ty
and
l i kel y hopel essness
of theseterms)
may
wel l ref l ect whether westart
f romthemi croor macro
endof the conti nuum, andi t i s
l i kel y
to
ref l ect as wel l
the ki nd of mi -
croanal ysi s
or
macroanal ysi s
onwhi chwebaseour
approach.
I
approach

Contexts andOther
Connecti ons

209
thetheme
f romwhat i s
ordi nari l y
consi dered the mi croendof the
spec-
trum. Of the several ki nds of
mi crosoci ol ogy
now
acti ve- symbol i c
i n-
teracti oni st
anal ysi s,
rol e
theory
of vari ous
types, exchange theory
of
vari ous
types,
smal l
group
theory,
status
expectati ons theory, phenome-
nol ogi cal
anal ysi s,
andthe
l i ke- I come to
the
topi c
f romthe acti ve
practi ce
of "conversati on( al )
anal ysi s"
( CA
f or short) .
It i s not
cl ear howtheki ndof
mi croanal ysi s
CAdoes
( i f
i t i s mi croanal -
ysi s)
i s to be
rel atedto macro- l evel
theori zi ng
or whether i t shoul d be.
Thi s ki ndof work i s concerned
wi th
understandi ng
how
courses of i nter-
acti on
cometohavethedetai l ed
traj ectory
andcharacter
they
do.
Thi s
i s
accompl i shed
i n
part by
comi ng
to
understandhowthe
recogni zabl e
soci al acti ons that
parti ci pants
enact are
doneanddone
recogni zabl y. '
Thi s f ormof
anal ysi s
takes
seri ousl y
the
rel evance of the f act that
the
i nteracti ons
weare
exami ni ng
were
producedby
the
parti es
f or onean-
other
andwere
desi gned,
at l east i n
part, by
ref erenceto aset of f eatures
of the i nterl ocutors,
the
setti ng,
and so on,
that are rel evant f or the
parti ci pants. - The
f act that these
i nteracti ons arestructured
and
progres-
si vel y
restructured
by
the
parti ci pants'
ori entati ons does not
serve
( f rom
thi s
poi nt
of
vi ew) tomake
"obj ecti ve"
anal ysi s
i rrel evant or
i mpossi bl e;
i t i s
preci sel y
the
parti es'
rel evanci es,
ori entati ons, and
thereby- i nf ormed
acti on
whi ch i t i s our i nterest to
descri be, andto descri be
under the
control
of thedetai l s of the i nteracti on
i n whi ch
they
are
real i zed. It i s
what the
acti on, i nteracti on, f i el d of
acti on areto the
parti es
that
poses
our task of
anal ysi s.
Oneof our most
i nsi stent andrecurrent
f i ndi ngs
i s
theso- cal l ed
l ocal character of the
organi zati on
of
i nteracti on
( that
i s, i ts
turn- by- turn,
sequence- by- sequence, epi sode- sensi ti ve
character) , and
thi s i s one
basi s f or the
probl ems
that
ari se i n
attempti ng
to rel ate
i ts
anal ysi s
to so- cal l edmacro.
In
what f ol l ows I shal l take
up
three
types
of
l i nkages
betweenthe
mi croandthe macro
proposed
or embodi edi n
recent l i terature. I shal l
consi der
themi n thecontext of
conversati on and
i nteracti on
anal ysi s
as
a
genre
of
mi croanal ysi s,
i n some
cases
f ocusi ng
on the outcome
of a
macro- mi cro
l i nkage
andi nother cases
onthedi f f i cul ti es i nvol ved.
1- wi l l
thenconsi der
aki ndof i nversi on of
the
way
thei ssuei s
f requentl y posed,
andsketcha
di f f erent ki ndof treatment of
the
probl em.

II.
In
thi s secti on I wi l l
exami ne one
proposed
f ormof the
l i nkage
be-
tweenmi croand
macro: vari ati oni n
mi crophenomena
between
cul tures

210

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure
or soci eti es. I wi l l
begi nby descri bi ng
adomai nof
phenomena
ref erred
to i nconversati on
anal ysi s
as the
organi zati on
of
"repai r. "' Onl y
abri ef
account wi l l be
gi ven
here.
By "repai r"
weref er to ef f orts todeal wi th troubl ei n
speaki ng,
hear-
i ng,
or
understandi ng
tal k i n
i nteracti on. "Troubl e"
i ncl udes suchoccur-
rences as mi sarti cul ati ons,
mal apropi sms,
use
of a
"wrong"
word, un-
avai l abi l i ty
of awordwhenneeded, f ai l uretohear or tobeheard, troubl e
onthe
part
of the
reci pi ent
i n
understandi ng,
i ncorrect
understandi ngs
by reci pi ents,
and vari ous others.
Because
anythi ng
i n tal k can be a
source of troubl e,
everythi ng
i n
conversati on
i s, i n
pri nci pl e, "repai r-
abl e. " Theactual
behavi or
by
whi ch
repai r
i s ef f ected, or at l east under-
taken,
i s
soci al l y
and
sequenti al l y organi zed.
Thesoci al
organi zati on
of
repai r
casts the
parti es
to the conversati on i nto one of two
categori es
wi th
respect
tothe
possi bi l i ty
of
repai r:
the
speaker
of thetroubl e- source
( or
"sel f , " as we ref er to hi m
or her) and
al l
others
( "other") .
Opportu-
ni ti es to
repai r,
and acti vati ons of them, are di stri buted
di f f erenti al l y
between sel f andother.
For
exampl e,
the
speaker
of a turn i n
whi ch
troubl eoccurs has thei ni ti al
opportuni ty
todeal
wi ththat
troubl ei nthe
sameturni nwhi ch
thetroubl e occurs; thei ni ti al
opportuni ty
i s thus f or
"sel f - repai r. "
The
i mport
of thi s
i s
that
others,
who
may
wel l be
abl e to
ef f ect the
repai r ( e. g. , they
knowthe
mi ssi ng
word,
they
knowthe
speaker
meant
"buy"
rather than
"sel l , "
etc. ) ,
wi thhol d
doi ng
so whi l e
thecurrent
speaker
( sel f )
i s sti l l
tal ki ng. Onl y
af ter sel f has f i ni shed the
turnat tal k andhas not
repai red
the
repai rabl e
does someother
address
i t.
Further, i f one
di sti ngui shes
between
undertaki ng
to
repai r
somethi ng
( i . e. ,
i ni ti ati ng repai r)
ononehandand
sol vi ng
or
compl eti ng
i t onthe
other, then another bi t
of soci al and
sequenti al organi zati on may
be
noted:
J ust
as sel f
has the f i rst
opportuni ty
to i ni ti ate
repai r,
so over-
whel mi ngl y
does sel f
( the
producer
of thetroubl esource) havethe
f i rst
opportuni ty
to
compl ete
or
sol vei t, even
i f an
other
i ni ti atedthe
repai r.
That i s, whensel f
has not i ni ti ated
repai r
andanother has thendoneso,
general l y
other
merel y
i ni ti ates the
process
and, i n the f i rst i nstance,
l eaves i t to the
speaker
to dotheactual
repai r.
Therei s, then, aki ndof
di vi si on of l abor and
prerogati ves.
The
di sti ncti on betweensel f andother di scri mi nates as wel l
between
thef orms of tal k used
by
the
several
parti es
i n
doi ng
thework
of
repai r
andthe characteri sti c
traj ectori es
thetal k f ol l ows
unti l successf ul
reso-
l uti on of the troubl e
( or,
very rarel y,
f ai l ure) has occurred. Thus "same-
turn
sel f - repai r"
i s
characteri sti cal l y
i ni ti ated
by
an
abrupt sei f - i nterrup-

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

211
ti on, a
di sj uncti on
marked
by cutti ng
of f awordi n
progress
f ol l owed
by
anef f ort to deal wi th
the
troubl e.
Repai r
i ni ti ated
by
some other ordi -
nari l y
takes the f ormof a whol e turn i n whi ch one of al i mi ted set of
questi on
constructs
( "huh?";
"who?";
parti al repeti ti ons
of
pri or
turn,
etc. )
i s usedto
gi ve
somei ndi cati on of what thetroubl ewas i n the
pre-
cedi ng
turn. There are addi ti onal
posi ti ons
f romwhi ch
repai r
can be
i ni ti ated,
addi ti onal resources f or
doi ng
so, andconsi derabl e i nterac-
ti onal
i mport
attached to
the whol e matter. For
exampl e, repai r
i s a
maj or
resource i n
mai ntai ni ng
and
restori ng i ntersubj ecti vi ty
or mutual
understandi ng
i n i nteracti on, andi t
suppl i es
a
maj or
vehi cl ef or boththe
expressi on
andthe ci rcumventi onof
di sagreement
and, wi th i t, conf l i ct.
Thesearenot central to
my
purpose
here, however.
What i s
stri ki ng
i s the
apparent
constancy
of thi s
organi zed
domai nof
behavi or to a f i ne l evel of detai l across vari ati ons
i n
the most macro
contexts wi th whi ch soci al sci enti sts
ordi nari l y
deal . I wi l l ci te three
i nstances to
depi ct
both thi s
constancy
andthe
stri ki ng way
i n whi ch
such vari ati ons as aref oundare
neatl y adapted
to
speci al
f eatures of the
macrocontext.
Fi rst, therei s the
report
by
Moerman5onmateri al s
gatheredby
record-
i ng
i n
peasant vi l l ages
i nThai l and.
The
macrouni t i nthi s case
i s
a
soci ety
wi th a
hi story
andanati onal soci al structure
qui te
di f f erent f romthose
of theUni tedStates;
amorel ocal
( though
sti l l macro?) soci al structure
of a
peasant
vi l l age
that
i s no
l ess
stri ki ngl y
di f f erent f romthe
vari ety
of
"l ocal contexts" i n the Uni tedStates f romwhi chthe
datawerecol l ected
on
whi chthe
ori gi nal
accounts of
repai r
werebased
( whi chrange
f rom
urban
ghettos
to mi ddl e- cl ass suburbs to rural exurbs); acul ture and
val ue
system
drawnf rom
sharpl y
di f f erent
ori gi ns;
anda
l anguage
genet-
i cal l y
and
structural l y
unrel ated
to
Engl i sh.
Moerman
reports
( and
shows) that wherehi s
corpus
contai ns
adequate
materi al s,
repai r
i nThai
conversati on i s
wel l descri bed, andi n detai l ,
by
the account
devel oped
onAmeri can
materi al s.
Asecond
report
i s
by
Besni er, 6
whostudi edconversati onal i nteracti on
i n Tuval uan,
a
l anguagespokenby
a
soci ety
of some400
persons
onan
i sl and i n the
South Paci f i c. Besni er descri bes anddocuments
a
remark-
abl e
si mi l ari ty
betweenthe
organi zati on
of
repai r
i nthat l ocal eand
what
has been
descri bedf or theUni tedStates. Onemi nor
di vergence
f romthe
U. S. materi al s i s of i nterest, however,
andrel ates i nan
i nteresti ng
way
to
acl ai mabout the
ethnopsychol ogy
and
ethnoepi stemol ogy
of the South
Paci f i c,
as descri bed
by
Ochs. 7Ochs andothers'
cl ai m
( i n
the f i rst i n-
stance
about Samoabut al so about other South
Paci f i c cul tures) that the

212

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure
Western noti on of "i ntenti on"
pl ays
a
substanti al l y
weaker rol e there.
Further, members
of
Samoanandother cul tures whohol dthi s vi ewdo
not bel i eve one can
( or ought
to)
guess
expl i ci tl y
another' s i ntenti ons.
Thi s vi ewi s deri vedf rom
ethnographi c i nqui ry.
Consi der the
rel ati onshi p
of
thi s cl ai mto the
f ol l owi ng
observati on
about
conversati onal behavi or.
In
Besni er' s
di spl ay
of the
range
of
types
of i ni ti ati on and
compl eti on
of
repai r
i n Tuval uan conversati on, hede-
pi cts
the
f ol l owi ng type
of occurrence.
A
speaker
produces
aturnto a
poi nt j ust
bef ore
compl eti on- f or exampl e,
to
j ust
bef ore a
proj ected
l ast word. Shethen
pauses.
In
the cases Besni er
reproduces,
andothers
he descri bes, the
reci pi ent
of that
( uncompl eted)
turnthenuses
a
f orm
commonl y
usedel sewhere when
reci pi ents
of tal k wi th troubl e
i n
i t i ni -
ti ate
repai r:
a
parti al repeat
( i n
thi s case, of the l ast wordor twobef ore
thesi l enceset i n)
pl us
a
questi on
( "who?"
"what?" "where?"
etc. )
of the
type appropri ate
f or
the
type
of
wordthat has been "wi thhel d. " The
pri or speaker
then
suppl i es
the
mi ssi ng
wordas a sol uti on to the
repai r
i ni ti ator.
In
Ameri can
( and
other) materi al s,
such tal k, i n whi ch a
speaker
hesi tates
j ust
bef ore what i s
potenti al l y
thel ast
word, i s
some-
ti mes
met
by
the
reci pi ent suppl yi ng
acandi datel ast wordf or thei ncom-
pl ete
turn
( someti mes
wi th
"questi on"
i ntonati on) ,
whi ch the
pri or
speaker mayaccept
or
rej ect. "
Whenasked
i f thi s
type
of
response
occurs
i n Tuval uanas an
al ternati ve to the
parti al repeat pl us questi on
word,
Besni er
reports ( personal
communi cati on) that i t does not.
Note that thi s
di vergence
between
Ameri can andTuval uan
practi ce
f i ts
ni cel y
wi th the cl ai mthat these SouthPaci f i c
peopl es
donot bel i eve
i n
guessi ng
the i ntenti ons of others; the
practi ce
used
by
other soci eti es
or cul tures, but not
by
them, i nvol ves
expl i ci tl y
j ust
such
guessi ng. "
In
respects
other than
thi s, however, the
organi zati on
of
repai r among
the
400i nhabi tants of thi s
SouthPaci f i ci sl and
i s
j ust
l i kethat i nsoci eti es of
whol l y
di f f erent character.
Athi rdcasecomes f romf i el dwork
by
IreneDaden
among
the
Qui che-
speaki ng
Indi an
peasants
of the Guatemal an
hi ghl ands. "
As was noted
earl i er, i n the
general
di scussi on of
repai r,
thei ni ti al
opportuni ty
to deal
wi th troubl ei s
af f ordedthe
speaker
of thetroubl e- source,
i n thesame
turn
at tal k
as the onei n whi chthetroubl eoccurred.
Thi s
may
thenbe
ref erred
to
as
"same- turn,
sel f - i ni ti ated
repai r. " Speakers begi n
suchre-
pai r
wi tha
"repai r
i ni ti ator. " A
repai r
i ni ti ator
al erts the
reci pi ent
to the
possi bi l i ty
that what wi l l f ol l owi n turn
may
not be
aconti nuati onof the
precedi ng
tal k
but, rather,
may
be
di sj uncti ve
wi th i t; i t
may
restart the
turn, or
repl ace
a
word
j ust
used, or makesomeother
such
change
i n the
pri or
tal k rather than
conti nui ng
i t.

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

213
Themost commonsame- turn
repai r
i ni ti ator i n
Engl i sh
and
i n
other
European l anguages
i s
what we cal l a "cutof f , " what
l i ngui sts
cal l a
"stop" ( most commonl y,
a
gl ottal stop).
Thi s
i nvol ves
a
sudden
stop
of
the
speech
stream, or
sel f - i nterrupti on.
It shoul d benoted
that thi s
stop
has nosemanti c sensei n Conti nental
Europeanl anguages
and
Engl i sh;
nor does i t af f ect
meani ng.
It i s, as the
l i ngui sts
say,
not
"phonemi c"
i n
Engl i sh.
It i s, however,
phonemi c
i n
Qui che.
Theref orei t
i s
not
surpri si ng
that Daden
reports
that
Qui chespeakers
donot usethe cutof f or
stop
as
asame- turn
repai r
i ni ti ator. When
Engl i sh speakers
donot usea
stop,
they
of tenuseasoundstretch;
they prol ong
somesoundi n aword
they
are
produci ng
and then
proceed
to the
repai r.
Li ke cutof f s, sound
stretches arenot
phonemi c
i n
Engl i sh.
However,
bri ef
soundstretches
are
phonemi c
i n
Qui che.
They
arenot usedas same- turn
repai r
i ni ti ators
i n
Qui che. Qui che speakers
do
pri mari l y
use
overl ong
soundstretches
( whi ch
arenot
phonemi c
f or them) to i ni ti atesame- turn
repai r.
Several
poi nts
shoul dbenoted. Fi rst, "same- turn
repai r
i ni ti ati on" i s
a ki nd of occurrence and a l ocus of acti on
onl y by
ref erence
to
thi s
theoreti cal account of an
organi zati on
of
repai r
i n conversati on. When
thi s account i s usedtoexami neconversati onal behavi or i n
radi cal l y
di f -
f erent soci al , cul tural , and
l i ngui sti c
contexts, i t
proves
i n each of them
tobeal ocus of
systemati c
acti on. Second, therei s somevari ati oni nhow
the acti on
i s achi eved, but the vari ati on i s
extraordi nari l y
mi nor rel ati ve
totheconstanci es that makei t observabl e
i nthe
f i rst i nstance. Thi rd,
the
di f f erences between
Qui che
andother cul tures wi th
respect
to
repai r
seem
to be
desi gnedpreci sel y
f or the host
l anguage
andi ts
phonol ogi cal
structure.
To summari ze thi s
part
of thedi scussi on, I have descri beda
type
of
soci al
organi zati on
of behavi or, the
organi zati on
of
repai r.
Thi s i s soci al
i n
many respects:
It al l ocates
ri ghts
among
cl asses of
persons;
i t accords
thestatus of acti on
types
to determi natebi ts of behavi or; andi t i s an
i mportant i ngredi ent
i n other f undamental
types
of
organi zati on
i n i n-
teracti on- most
notabl y
the
organi zati on
of
agreement
and
di sagree-
ment andthus of the
embryo
of conf l i ct. Wehave
i n
hand a detai l ed
descri pti on
of theresources
depl oyed
i n thi s bi t of
organi zati on
and
the
pl acement
andnatureof these
depl oyments.
Thi s "mi crodomai n"
shows
extraordi nary
i nvari ance across massi ve vari ati ons i n soci al
structural ,
cul tural ,
and
l i ngui sti c
context and
rel ati vel y
mi nor vari ati ons f i tted to
thosevari ati ons i n context.
The
f i ndi ng
that the
phenomena
of
repai r may
not
vary
substanti al l y
by
soci ety,
cul ture, or
l anguage
does not
makethemnot soci al or thei r
study
nonsoci ol ogi cal .
Therei s
a
tendency
under
such
ci rcumstances to

214

Interpreti ve
Acti on
and Macrostructure
thi nk of
i nvari ants as uni versal
categori es
or
properti es
or
capaci ti es
of
mi nd. It shoul d becl ear, however,
that weare
deal i ng
wi th matters
of
conduct andof
conduct i ni nteracti on. Therei s
temporal
and
sequenti al
organi zati on
betweenactors and
types
of actors, acti ons
and
types
of
acti ons.
Opti ons,
practi ces,
and
rul es f or
orderi ng
themare
i nvol ved.
They
are addressedto
pl ausi bl y generi c organi zati onal
exi genci es
of i n-
teracti on. Shoul dwenot
expect
i n the
f i rst i nstance not vari ati on
but
i nvari ancei nthi s domai nandother such
domai ns?

III.
In the
previ ous
secti on I consi dered onemode
of
rel ati ng
mi cro
and
macrol evel s:
possi bl e
vari ati on i n thef ormer
by
ref erence to thel atter.
Next I wi l l exami ne
a
second
modeof
rel ati ng
the
two:
exami ni ng
the
operati on
of
mi croprocesses
( i n
i nteracti on, f or
exampl e)
when
parti ci -
pants
are
i nvol vedwho
di spl ay
vari ati ononattri butes
consi deredto be
rel evant at themacrol evel - most
commonl y
cl ass,
ethni ci ty,
and
gender.
From
asubstanti al l i terature I havesel ected
onel i ne of research
i n
par-
ti cul ar
because of i ts i ntersecti on wi th some
work of
my
ownwhi ch
al l ows
metechni cal access toi ts detai l s. The
probl ems
I seek to address
are
qui tegeneral ,
however, and
by
nomeans
are
speci f i c
tothese
i nqui ri es
or these
i nvesti gators.
Thework I wi l l di scuss
i s concernedwi th some
aspects
of the
organi zati on
of
turn- taki ng
i n conversati on wi th
respect
to
gender
rel ati ons, andi n
parti cul ar
the
much- ci ted work of West and
Zi mmermanonthe
study
of
i nterrupti on- a
phenomenontransparentl y
a
by- product
of
turn- taki ng organi zati on
( though
not
excl usi vel y
so, as
there
areuni ts other thanturns at tal k whi ch
canbe
i nterrupted) . "
A
parti cul arl y
wel l - known
f i ndi ng
has beenthe
reported asymmetry
of
i nterrupti on
between
the sexes- men
i nterrupti ng
womenf ar more
f requentl y
thanthe
opposi te.
Whenf urni shedwi th
an
appropri ate
def i -
ni ti onor account
of
i nterrupti on
( such
as "tal k
by
another whena
pri or
speaker
i s sti l l
tal ki ng
and
i s not
' i nthe
vi ci ni ty'
of
possi bl e
turn
compl e-
ti on") , thi s
f i ndi ng
ai ms to
l i nk an
asymmetri cal
outcomei n thetal k to
di f f erenti al attri butes of the
parti ci pants
of amacrorel evant
type.
' What
i s
commonl y
seen as di f f erenti al between
menandwomen
i n a
f i ndi ng
such as thi s
( as
i n
f i ndi ngs
of thi s
ki nd
concerni ng
other
mi xedconver-
sati onal
pai ri ngs,
such as
prof essi onal
/ cl i ent) i s di f f erenti al
status or
power,
of whi chthe
i nterrupti ons
are
presumed
to bea
symbol
andf or
whi ch
they
areavehi cl e.
Such
f i ndi ngs,
andtheresearch
strategy
of whi ch
they
area
product,

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

215
however attracti ve f or thei r
pol i cy
i mpl i cati ons, present
certai n
prob-
l ems.
One
concerns theneedi n thi s
type
of
anal yti c enterpri se
to show
that characteri zati ons the
i nvesti gator
makes of the
parti ci pants
are
grounded
i nthe
parti ci pants'
ownori entati ons
i n
the
i nteracti on. " Thi s
i s not at
al l cl ear
( except, perhaps,
stati sti cal l y)
f or the characteri zati on
of the
parti ci pants
i n
gender
terms i nthi s research tradi ti on
( or
i n cl ass,
ethni c,
or
other such terms i n
cognate
research
tradi ti ons) . Second, the
di f f erenti al attri butes are not
conversati on- speci f i c
i n
any strai ghtf or-
ward
way.
That i s, these i denti f i cati ons of the
parti ci pants
arenot
ana-
l yti cal l y
l i nked to
speci f i c
conversati onal mechani sms
by
whi chtheout-
comes
mi ght
be
produced;
however rel evant to
the macroconcerns that
moti vate
thei r use,
they
ri sk
bei ng arbi trary
i nthei r
rel ati on
tothe
i nter-
acti ona! events
they
arei nvokedtoaccount f or. Indeed,
themost seri ous
probl em
i s that
earl y
i ntroducti on of such
l i nkages
to macro- l evel
vari -
abl es
( and,
wi th them, to a
compel l i ng pol i ti cal
/ vernacul ar rel evance)
tends to
preempt
f ul l techni cal
expl orati on
of
the
aspects
of i nteracti on
bei ng
accountedf or andthe mi cro- l evel mechani sms that are
i nvol vedi n
thei r
producti on.
There
i s a
potenti al
f or
anal yti c
l osses
at boththemi cro
andmacrol evel s.
Let mei l l ustratewi th the caseof
gender
di f f erences i n
i nterrupti on.
Techni cal l y,
occurrences
i nwhi chawomani s
speaki ng
andaman
( i n
themi ddl eof her tal k)
says
"But- "
or "Bu- " or "B- "
( where
"- "
i s amark
of
sel f - i nterrupti on
or cutof f ) are al l
i nterrupti ons. They
are not, how-
ever, theki ndof event
central to the
f i ndi ng
that men
di sproporti onatel y
i nterrupt
women. The
prototype
occurrence f or that
f i ndi ng
i s one
i n
whi ch a womani s
tal ki ng,
a manstarts i n the mi ddl e of her tal k
and
conti nues
tal ki ng
unti l the
womanwi thdraws bef ore
f i ni shi ng
what she
was
sayi ng.
If thi s i s so, thenwemust
recogni ze
that therei s astretchof
ti me i n whi ch
both
parti es
are
tal ki ng
at the sameti me,
andwecanask
whether there
i s some order or
organi zati on
to the several
speakers'
conduct whenthere i s
si mul taneous tal k and, i f so, whether or
not that
order
mi ght
berel evant
to the outcome. There i s
a
systemati c organi za-
ti onto the tal k
produced
by
morethanone
speaker tal ki ng
at the same
ti me.
Wi thout
enteri ng
i nto atechni cal el aborati on
andwi thout
speci f yi ng
thoseoccasi ons of si mul taneous
tal k whi chare
exempt
f rom
thi s
orga-
ni zati on, I can
bri ef l y
menti on
some of these mechani sms. There are
several
f orms of tal k
by
whi ch
speakers
showthat
they
wi l l not wi thdraw
f romthe
"overl ap, "
such as i ncreased vol ume
or
pi tch
or
repeati ng
parts
of the turn. Each
party
to the
overl ap
canacti vate these f orms, andeach

216

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure
canreact totheother' s useof
these
f orms- ordi nari l y
i nthenext beat or
syl l abl e
af ter the other' s i ntroducti on
of
one
of them. One
type
of re-
sponse
to the other' s conti nuati on at
tal ki ng
or
depl oyment
of these
f orms of
"competi ti ve" speaki ng
i s to
drop
out of the
overl ap
and
yi el d
theturntotheother- at l east f or themoment. Another
responsetype
i s
toconti nue i n
thef ace of the
competi ti on,
and
perhaps
evento become
competi ti ve
( or
more
competi ti ve)
onesel f .
Therei s much
moretothe
organi zati on
of
overl appi ng
tal k thanthi s,
but the
f oregoi ng
shoul d
provi de
suf f i ci ent
background
to note
that
the
resol uti on of an
overl ap
i s,
i n
the
f i rst i nstance, not determi nedor ef f ec-
tuated
by
the
attri butes
of
the
parti es;
otherwi sethe
outcome
of
ani nter-
rupti on
woul dbe
enti rel y
determi nedat i ts
begi nni ng.
Theresol uti oni s
arri vedat
by
the conduct of the
parti es
duri ng
a
stretch
of tal k i n whi ch
both
speak si mul taneousl y, duri ng
whi cheach does or does
not
depl oy
resources of
competi ti ve
tal k such as
rai si ng
the
voi ce,
and
duri ng
whi ch
eachhas
responded
tothe
depl oyment
of suchresources
by droppi ng
out,
by hol di ng
f i rm, or
by uppi ng
the
competi ti ve
"ante"
i n return. It
may
wel l
be
that womenare
i nterrupted
more than
they i nterrupt,
but the
i ntroducti on
of such an"external " attri bute
earl y
i ntheresearch
process
or the account can def l ect attenti on f rom
howtheoutcomeof thecon-
versati onal courseof acti oni s determi ned
i ni ts
course,
i nreal ti me. Once
thi s
process
has been
expl i cated,
much of
the i nterest i t had
may
wel l
have been
"secul ari zed" and
appear
anonymous
rather than
gender-
speci f i c.
Once
agai n,
what i s neededi s the
capaci ty
to
speci f y
techni cal l y
the
parameters
of therel evant
organi zati on
of acti onor i nteracti on
through
whi ch
macroattri butes havewhatever di f f erent
ef f ects
they
have, i f
any.
In thecase of
i nterrupti on,
one
may
wel l beabl e to descri be di f f erenti al
courses of acti on
( e. g. ,
i n
i nvoki ng competi ti ve
resources or i n
respond-
i ng
to them) that
systemati cal l y
make i t
l i kel y
that thi s oneor that one
wi l l "l ose. " Whether
gender per
sewi l l turnout
to bea
macro- rel evant
attri bute
rel ati ng
to these i s not cl ear. "'
Perhaps
i t i s one
"proxy"
f or
hi gh/ l owpower
or status. Indeed, such
di f f erences
may
cometo
embody
f or some
i nvesti gators
what
hi gh/ l ow
status
amounts
to
i nteracti onal l y,
al thoughestabl i shi ng
the
rel ati onshi p
to external
status
( as
measured
by
noni nteracti onal
measures)
may
be
qui te probl emati c.
For understand-
i ng
i nteracti oni t i s the f ormer
( the
"i ntrai nteracti onal ") ,
not the l atter,
that i s
consequenti al ,
andi t
i s not
necessari l y
ti ed
di rectl y
tomacro- l evel
phenomena. ( For exampl e,
i t
appears
f rom
publ i shed
stenographi c
tran-

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

217
scri pts
that f ormer Presi dent
Ri chard Ni xon
regul arl y yi el ded
to ai des
j ohn
Ehrl i chmanandRobert
Hal demannwhen
they
f oundthemsel ves
tal ki ng si mul taneousl y, al though
thei r "external " status woul dhave
pre-
di ctedthe
opposi te
outcome. )
It shoul dbeobvi ous that somecases of
competi ti ve
si mul taneous tal k
i nvol ve matters
other
thanstatus or
power
tests
al together.
There are,
f or
exampl e,
some
types
of utterance
that
requi re
a
parti cul ar
turn
posi -
ti on to
get
done; wi secracks, f or
exampl e,
must be done i n the turn
f ol l owi ng
theonethat touchedthemof f
andwi thwhi ch
they pl ay.
Other
turn
types,
most
notabl y
ef f orts to
address troubl es i n
heari ng
or under-
standi ng
the
precedi ng
tal k, al so
appear
to take
pri ori ty
over
competi ng
tal k. The
devel opi ng
turn of
a
speaker
who
persi sts
i n
competi ti ve
over-
l ap
canthus reveal the
acti vi ty bei ng prosecutedthrough
theturnas the
basi s f or i ts
speaker' s persi stence,
andthi s, rather
than
power- rel ated
matters, canbe
the
basi s
f or another
party' s
wi thdrawal .
More
consequenti al l y,
asi de f romthe several al ternati ves to
status!
power
as accounts f or
persi stence
to survi val , there are at l east three
other cri teri a of success
i n
competi ti ve
tal k besi des the survi val
( or
out-
l asti ng
the other) cri teri on
i mpl i ci t
i nthe
precedi ng
di scussi on. Themost
i mportant
of these i s that one' s
ownturn betheone to whi ch
ensui ng
tal k i s addressed.
Success
by
thi s cri teri on canbe
of
greater consequence
to thef urther course
of thetal k, i s
by
no means
guaranteed
by
survi val
i n
overl ap,
and
may
beenhanced
by qui te
di f f erent modes of conduct i n
overl ap
than are rel evant to survi val . "
These
i mportant aspects
of the
study
of the
organi zati on
of si mul taneous
tal k as
part
of the
study
of
turn- taki ng
havea
way
of
bei ngpreempted
when
theresearchf ocus turns
earl y
to
rel ati ng
aspects
of thi s
organi zati on
of tal k to macro- rel evant
vari abl es.
Thei ssue i s, of course,
a
general
oneand
by
nomeans l i mi tedto
the
parti cul ar
research
enterpri se through
whi ch I havetri edto
expl ore
i t.
Al l ki nds of conversati onal ,
l i ngui sti c,
so- cal l ed nonverbal , and other
i nteracti onal behavi or
havebeenrel atedto such cl assi cal di mensi ons
of
soci al
organi zati on
as cl ass, race,
ethni ci ty,
and
gender. Al though
one
may
chooseto
proceedal ong
thel i nes of such
a
strategy
i n order tof ocus
on
i mportant aspects
of soci al structure i n a tradi ti onal
soci ol ogi cal
sense,
the ri sks of
underspeci f i cati on
of the i nteracti onal
phenomena
shoul d
bemade
expl i ci t,
andwi th themtheri sks
of
mi ssi ng
the
oppor-
tuni ty
to transf orm
our tradi ti onal
understandi ng
of what
i s
i mportant
i n soci al structure.
Al though
thetrade- of f
may
bemadei n order
to ben-

218

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure
ef i t
i mportant soci ol ogi cal
or
soci opol i ti cal
concerns,
even these con-
cerns
may
suf f er i f the i nteracti onal
phenomena
are not
compl etel y
ex-
pl ored
onatechni cal basi s.

Iv.
Athi rd
type
of
proposal
f or
rel ati ng
mi croto
macrol evel s i s that
they
be medi ated
by
one of
a
cl ass
of
bri dgi ng
noti ons col l ected
under the
rubri c "context. " "Context" i s someti mes taken
to ref er to the matters
exami nedi n the
previ ous
secti ons of thi s
essay:
cul tural / soci etal
context
andthe context of i nteracti onal
parti ci pants
of a certai n
type
or
types.
( Much
of the
f ol l owi ng
di scussi on
may
theref ore berel evant to that of
the
pri or
secti ons as
wel l . )
Addi ti onal l y,
however, some
have
proposed
contexts of a
scope
i ntermedi ate betweenthe
l argest
structures
of a so-
ci ety
andthedetai l s of i nteracti on- "contexts of
the
mi ddl e
range, "
one
mi ght
cal l them.
Prototypi cal
here are i nsti tuti onal and/ or
organi za-
ti onal contexts" such as "bureaucrati c, "
"medi cal , "
"l egal , "
"cl ass-
room, " "f ormal , " andthel i ke, or
by
characteri zati ons of the
acti vi ty
to
bedone
( e. g. , "getti ng- acquai nted
conversati on, "
"task- ori ented
group, "
etc. )
or the
rel ati onshi p
of the
parti ci pants ( e. g. ,
"conversati onbetween
strangers") .
My
concern about thi s tack i s that i t rai ses
the f ami l i ar
probl em
of
mul ti pl e descri pti on.
Theset of
ways
of
descri bi ng any setti ng
i s i ndef i -
ni tel y
expandabl e. Consequentl y
the correctness
of
any parti cul ar
char-
acteri zati on i s
by
i tsel f not
adequate
warrant f or i ts use; someki ndof
"rel evance
rul e" or
"rel evanci ng procedure"
must be
gi ven
to warrant a
parti cul ar
characteri zati on. HereI must
vastl y oversi mpl i f y by suggest-
i ng
that
there
are
two
mai n
types
of sol uti on. Onei s the
posi ti vi sti c
one
( i n
oneof the
many contemporary
uses
of that term) :
Any descri pti on
the
i nvesti gator
chooses i s
warranted
i f
i t
yi el ds
"resul ts, "
stati sti cal l y
si gni f i cant
or
otherwi se attested, wi th
the f urther
possi bl e provi so
that
these resul ts
be
theoreti cal l y
i nterpretabl e.
Thesecond
type
of sol uti on
requi res
f or the rel evance of some characteri zati on
by
the
i nvesti gator
someevi dence of i ts rel evanceto the
parti ci pants
i n the
setti ng
charac-
teri zed; that i s, ref erence i s madetothei ntri nsi c or
i nternal
orderi ng
and
rel evance
assertedl y
i nvol ved
wi th
senti ent,
i ntenti onal actors. Weare
operati ng
wi th the secondof these
posi ti ons,
andi t i s theref ore
requi red
that webeabl e to warrant
any
characteri zati on of the
parti es
or
setti ng
by showi ng
that i t i s rel evant to the
parti es,
andrel evant
to themat the

Contexts
and
Other Connecti ons

219
ti me of the
occurrence of
what we
are
cl ai mi ng
i s rel ated to themor
conti ngent
on
them.
For
exampl e,
Sacks" showedanumber
of
years ago
that there i s no
general
uni que
sol uti ontothe
probl em
of how
rel evantl y
to characteri ze
amember of
soci ety,
andI tri edto show" that
f ormul ati ng pl ace
i s al so
amatter
conti ngent
onvari ous i nteracti onal f eatures. Those
papers
were
concerned to showhowthe terms used
by
conversati onal
parti ci pants
ref l ectedthef acets of thesi tuati onandacti onthat the
parti es
weretreat-
i ng
as rel evant. Those"i nternal to the
setti ng"
rel evanci es then serve as
constrai nts onan
i nvesti gator' s
characteri zati onof the
setti ng.
Sothef act that a conversati on takes
pl ace
i n a
hospi tal
does not
i pso
f acto make
techni cal l y
rel evant a characteri zati on of the
setti ng,
f or a
conversati on
there, as "i na
hospi tal " ( or
"i nthe
hospi tal ") ;
i t i s the tal k
of the
parti es
that reveal s,
i nthef i rst
i nstance
f or
them, whether or when
the
"setti ng
i na/ the
hospi tal "
i s rel evant
( as compared
to"at work, " "on
theeast si de, " "out of town, "
etc. ) .
Nor does thef act that the
topi c
of the
tal k i s medi cal
i pso
f acto render the
"hospi tal setti ng"
rel evant to the
tal k at
any gi ven
moment. Muchthesame
poi nt
bears onthecharacteri -
zati on of the
parti ci pants:
For
exampl e,
thef act that
they
are"i nf act"
respecti vel y
adoctor
and
a
pati ent
does
not makethose
characteri zati ons
i pso
f acto rel evant
( as
i s
especi al l y
cl ear whenthe
pati ent
i s al so adoc-
tor) ;
thei r
respecti ve ages,
sex,
rel i gi ons,
andsoon, or
al together
i di osyn-
crati c and
ephemeral
attri butes
( f or
exampl e,
"the onewho
j ust
ti pped
over the
gl ass
of water onthetabl e")
may
bewhat i s rel evant at
any poi nt
i n thetal k. On
theother hand,
poi nted
useof atechni cal or vernacul ar
i di om
( e. g. ,
of "hematoma" as
compared
to "brui se")
may di spl ay
the
rel evance to
the
parti es
of
preci sel y
that
aspect
of thei r i nteracti on to-
gether.
It i s not, then, that somecontext
i ndependentl y
sel ected as rel e-
vant
af f ects the i nteracti oni nsome
way.
Rather, i n ani nteracti on' s mo-
ment- to- moment
devel opment,
the
parti es,
si ngl y
and
together,
sel ect
and
di spl ay
i n thei r conduct whi ch of the
i ndef i ni tel y many aspects
of
context
they
are
maki ng
rel evant, or are
i nvoki ng,
f or the i mmedi ate
moment. 19
Oneaddi ti onal constrai nt needs
to
be menti oned:
that rel evant con-
texts shoul dbe
procedural l y
rel ated to thetal k sai d to be
conti ngentl y
rel ated to them. That i s, there shoul d be
some
ti e
betweenthecontext-
as- characteri zed
andi ts
beari ng
on"the
doi ng
of thetal k" or
"doi ng
the
i nteracti on. "
Curi ousl y,
then,
al though
i t
may
be
probl emati c
to warrant
"i n
a
hospi tal "
as a f ormul ati onof context, or
"doctor/ pati ent"
as an

220

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure
i denti f i cati on
of
the
parti ci pants,
i t
may
be
rel ati vel y strai ghtf orward
to
warrant
"two- party
conversati on, " or "onthe
tel ephone"
as contexts
and
"cal l er/ cal l ed" as
i denti f i cati ons of the
parti ci pants.
Because
they
are
procedural l y
rel ated
to the
doi ng
of thetal k, evi dence of ori entati onto
them
ordi nari l y
i s
readi l y
avai l abl e.
To
suggest,
however, that
warranti ng
the i nvocati on of vernacul ar
characteri zati ons of context i s
probl emati c
i s not to
say
i t i s
i mpossi bl e.
Rather, I
meanto di rect attenti on to theneedf or
exami ni ng
the
detai l s
of the tal k andother
behavi or of the
parti ci pants
to di scernwhether and
howi t
di spl ays
( i n
thef i rst i nstance to
coparti ci pants
but
al soto
prof es-
si onal
anal ysts)
an
ori entati ontocontext f ormul atedi n some
parti cul ar
f ashi on. The
l i terature i ncl udes anumber of ef f orts
al ong
these l i nes. "
An
i ndi cati onof one
l i neworth
tryi ng mi ght
bethe
f ol l owi ng.
Taketheobservati onthat
"physi ci ans routi nel y. . .
ask
questi ons,
and
pati ents
routi nel y provi de
responses. ""
Rather than
treati ng
thi s as the
observati on
that
persons i ndependentl y
f ormul atedas
physi ci ans di spro-
porti onatel y
engage
i n a
parti cul ar
f ormof conduct, one
mi ght
ask
whether these
persons
canbe
"doi ng bei ng
doctor"
by
conducti ng
them-
sel ves i n a
parti cul ar way.
Onei s then di rected to cl ose exami nati onof
the conduct i n order
to
speci f y
i n what
respects
i t
mi ght
consti tute
"doi ng,
and
di spl ayi ng doi ng,
doctor. " One
mi ght
notethat
constructi ng
turns as
questi ons
i s one
part
of
"doi ng
bei ng
doctor, " andone
mi ght
be
drawni nto f urther
speci f yi ng aspects
of thetal k
( e. g. ,
the
type
of
ques-
ti on, the
manner of the
aski ng,
the manner
of
doi ng reci pi ency
of the
response, etc. )
as
parts
of thi s
process- i f ,
that i s, there are such
speci f i -
abl e
aspects.
If
there are, then
attacki ng
the
probl em
i n thi s f ashi on
al l ows a cl ai mof
the
parti ci pants'
ori entati on to the
"doctor/ pati ent"-
ness of the i nteracti on, rather than
the more
posi ti vi sti c
correl ati onof a
type
of
acti vi ty
wi th an
i ndependentl y gi ven ( but
not
demonstrabl y
party- rel evant)
characteri zati on
of
the
parti es.
The
poi nt,
then, i s
not
merel y
to
i mpose
a f ormal
( or
f ormal i sti c)
constrai nt on theuseof
certai n f orms of
descri pti on,
but to be l ed
by
such a constrai nt
to
a
newdi recti on of
anal ysi s,
wi th the
promi se
of
addi ti onal , and
possi bl y
di sti ncti ve,
f i ndi ngs.
I have sketched one such
possi bl e
di recti on f or the
characteri zati on of the
parti ci pants
i n i nterac-
ti on, but
thi s does not have a
readi l y apparent appl i cati on
to the
char-
acteri zati onof
"context. "
Let me
suggest
an
al ternati ve. Rather than
treati ng
thedetai l ed course
of
conversati on
and i nteracti on as
mi cro- l evel
phenomena,
whi ch
i nvi te

Contexts
and
Other Connecti ons

221

connecti onto macro

l evel s
of
anal ysi s throughi nterveni ng
contexts
ver-
nacul arl y
characteri zed as earl i er descri bed, modes
of
i nteracti onal or-
gani zati onmi ght
themsel ves betreatedas contexts. Indeed, i t i s i roni c to
f i nd somecri ti cs
i nsi stentl y taki ng
conversati on
anal ysi s
to
task
f or
not
setti ng
i ts
f i ndi ngs
i nto context or f or not
i ncorporati ng
context i ntoi ts
i nqui ri es.
For muchof thi s work canbevi ewedas anextendedef f ort to
el aborate
j ust
what a context i s andwhat
i ts
expl i cati on
or
descri pti on
mi ght
entai l . In the
great surge
of studi es
i n a number
of the soci al
sci ences
( but
parti cul arl y
i n
anthropol ogy, " l i ngui sti cs, "
and soci ol -
ogy") begi nni ng
i n the
earl y
1960s whi chwas concernedto
( re- ) assert
and el aborate the
i mportance
of vari ati on, soci al
setti ng,
and context,
one
f requentl y
sawref erences to "the di f f erent
meani ng
somesentence
or acti onwoul d
have' i n the
context
of anacademi cl ecture' as
compared
to' thecontext of
ordi nary
conversati on. '
"
These"contexts"
weretreated
as
transparent;
everyone
woul dknowwhat thosedi f f erent contexts were
and how
they
woul d af f ect the
meani ng
of
somethi ng
sai d or done i n
thei r course. Of course, that
transparency
i s
merel y apparent.
What con-
sti tutes
ordi nary
conversati on as acontext, andhowi t l ends thecharac-
ter or "accent"
i t does to acti ons andutterances
produced
i n i ts course,
f or some of us has been a matter f or
empi ri cal i nqui ry
and sustai ned
anal ysi s.
Gi ven l i mi tati ons of
space,
I cannot
gi ve
a f ul l characteri zati on of
"ordi nary
conversati on" as
a
speech
exchange system,
and
thereby
as a
type
of context
f or soci al acti on. "' A
speech exchange system
i s
speci f i ed
by
the f ormof
organi zed
sol uti ons i t has to such
generi c probl ems
as
managi ng
the al l ocati on andsi ze of turns
among
the
parti es, provi di ng
f or
the
organi zedproducti on
of stretches of tal k i ntocoherent
sequences
and courses of acti on
( someti mes organi zi ng
successi ve utterances,
someti mes
di spersed
ones, f or
exampl e) , f urni shi ng orderl y
means f or
deal i ng
wi th troubl es of
speaki ng,
heari ng,
and
understandi ng
the
tal k
so
as
to al l owthe acti on to
proceed
there andthen,
provi di ng orderl y
procedures
f or the
starti ng
and
endi ng
of
epi sodes
of concertedi nterac-
ti onal
acti vi ty,
andthel i ke.
Speechexchangesystems vary
i ntheseterms;
di f f eri ng organi zati on
i n
some
respects
of ten
i mpl i cates
other di f f erences.
( For exampl e,
the di f f erent
turn- taki ng systems underl yi ng
"conversa-
ti on" and "f ormal
meeti ngs, " respecti vel y,
can
i mpl i cate
di f f erences
i n
the
organi zati on
of
sequences;
di f f erences between "conversati on" and
"ceremoni es"
appear
to
i mpl i cate
di f f erences i n the
organi zati on
of re-
pai r;
etc. )
In. thi s
essay
I
can
gi veonl y
a bri ef i l l ustrati on of how
speech
exchange systems
canbeseen to f urni shrel evant and
procedural l y
con-

222

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure
sequenti al
contexts f or
a
range
of di f f erent
acti vi ty
types.
I wi l l
doso
by
el aborati ng
a
bi t on
comparati vespeechexchange
systems.
As notedearl i er, onebasi c
aspect
of
speech
exchangesystem
vari ati on
i s i n
turn- taki ng
systems.
So, f or
exampl e,
i n
ordi nary
conversati on
de-
termi nati on of both whoshal l
speak
next
andwhenthat one shoul d
speak
( i . e. ,
whencurrent turn shoul d end) i s
accompl i shed
i n al ocal ,
turn- by- turn
manner andnot
by
some
predetermi ned
pattern.
In con-
trast,
many meeti ngs preal l ocate every
other turnto the
chai rperson
and
gi ve
to the
chai rperson
the
power
to al l ocate,
i n thoseturns, whoshal l
have
ri ghts
to
speak
i ntheothers.
Many
ceremoni es,
ri tual s, andf ormal
debates, onthe other hand,
mayf ul l y speci f y
the
order and
l ength
of al l
turns,
bei ng thereby
at the
opposi te
endof
the"l ocal al l ocati on" versus
"preal l ocati on" spectrum.
In
general
i t
appears
that other
speech
ex-
changesystems,
andthei r
turn- taki ng organi zati ons,
arethe
product
of
transf ormati ons or modi f i cati ons of the one
f or conversati on, whi ch i s
the
pri mordi al organi zati on
f or tal k- i n- i nteracti on. Bel ow
I sketchsome
aspects
of
a
turn- taki ng system
that
organi zes
a substanti al
range
of
acti vi ti es
i n
very
di f f erent
vernacul arl y
concei ved contexts as an
expl o-
rati onof
anal ternati ve, more
techni cal l y speci f i ed
versi onof thi s noti on.
Notethat thi s bri ef
descri pti on
i s not
basedonthe sameamount of data
and
anal ysi s
as that on whi ch our
understandi ng
of conversati on i s
based; theref orei t i s
rough
andtobeused
onl y
f or
i l l ustrati ve
purposes.
Consi der, then, such di verse occasi ons as cl assrooms"
of a "tradi -
ti onal " ki nd
( at
l east i ntheUni tedStates)
and
presi denti al
press
conf er-
ences. " In cases of both
types
of event,
qui te
af ew
persons
are
present,
most of themas of f i ci al
parti ci pants;
20to30i nthe
cl assroomsi tuati on,
as
many
as 200or morei n thecase of
the
press
conf erence. For turn-
taki ng purposes,
however, i t i s
i mportant
tonotethat
they
are
organi zed
as
two- party speech exchangesystems.
In each case oneof the
parti es
has
one
i ncumbent or member
( the
teacher, the
presi dent)
andtheother
party
( the
students, the
press corps)
has
many.
In both cases turns are
di stri butedas
they general l y
are
i n
two- party
turn- taki ng systems: They
al ternate betweenthe
parti es.
It i s thi s al ternati on, and
the
consequent
excl usi on of another
reporter
as next
speaker
af ter a current
speaker-
reporter,
whi chmakes cl ear that thoseare
two- party
i nteracti ons,
even
thoughmul ti person.
Inboth
cases the
speech exchangesystem
i s
desi gned
to
organi zepar-
ti cul ar
types
of
utteranceor
acti ons- questi oni ng
and
answeri ng.
Inthe
case of thecl assroomi t i s the
one- personparty
( the
teacher) whodoes
the
questi oni ng
andthe
mul ti personparty
whodoes
the
answeri ng.
In

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

223
the
press
conf erence the
mul ti person party
( the
press corps)
does the
questi oni ng
andthe
one- personparty
( the
presi dent)
does the
answeri ng.
Si mi l ar "devi ces" areusedtosel ect whi chof the
persons
who
compose
the
mul ti person
party
shal l
speak
f or
that
party
wheni t
i s that
party' s
turn. In the
cl assroom
si tuati on the teacher
produces
a
questi on
and
al l ows aset of
candi date- next- speakers
to be assembl ed. Somestudents
si gni f y
sel f - nomi nati on i nto the
candi dacy pool by rai si ng
thei r hands.
Theteacher
may
wai t and
encourage
morestudents
to
enter the
pool ( f or
exampl e,
by
seeki ng
themout
by eye
contact) ; thestudents
may try
to
avoi dthi s
proddi ng by averti ng
thei r
eyes, by suggesti ng
that
they
are
"worki ng
onthe
probl em, " by assumi ng preoccupi ed,
studi ous,
puzzl ed
f aces,
and
the l i ke.
At
some
poi nt
the
teacher sel ects someone f rom
among
the students to
speak, usual l y ( but
not
al ways)
f rom
thecandi -
dacy pool .
Thedurati on of the turn
thereby assi gned
i s
pri mari l y
deter-
mi ned
by
theteacher, whocanconti nue
l ooki ng expectantl y
at thestu-
dent af ter
the
apparent possi bl e compl eti on
of the"answer" turn, or can
begi ntal ki ng
at a
possi bl e compl eti onpoi nt
even i f i t
appears
that the
student
i s
prepared
to
go
on. Theteacher
may
then sol i ci t addi ti onal
answeri ng
tal k f rom
other students, andthesel ecti on
process
may
repeat.
Af ter each answer or answer
part
theteacher
may
of f er anassessment of
that answer bef ore
sol i ci ti ng
more, or bef ore
begi nni ng
another
cycl eby
taki ng
anext turntodoei ther another
questi on
or
"tel l i ng"
tal k. Vari ous
other behavi ors occur si mul taneous wi thal l of thi s, of course, but a
great
deal of i t i s structured
by
ref erence to thi s
organi zati on.
( Anexampl e
i s
other students
moni tori ng
the "answer" a
cal l ed- upon
student i s
gi vi ng
and
shooti ng
thei r hands i ntotheai r as
earl y
as
possi bl e
af ter
a
possi bl e
error or
af ter
possi bl e
cl osure that has not exhaustedthe
possi bl e
an-
swer; but such behavi or i s
obvi ousl y
attuned to, and
attempti ng
to
preempt,
the
turn- taki ng system
as otherwi se
descri bed. )
Inthecaseof the
press
conf erence, whenthe
presi dent
i s
ready
totake
questi ons
( af ter
ani ni ti al statement or roundof
greeti ngs) ,
i t i s so
an-
nounced.
Members of the
press corps
then sel f - nomi nate i nto a candi -
dacy pooi by hand- rai si ng
and
by
other behavi or
( to
bedi scussedl ater) .
The
presi dent
sel ects oneof themto ask
a
questi on,
thenaddresses hi m-
sel f
( ostensi bl y)
to the
questi on.
Unl i kethecl assroomcase, here the an-
swerer does determi ne
( f or
the
purposes
of
organi zi ng
the occasi on of
the tal k) whenthe answer
i s
compl ete.
Under onef ormof
organi zati on
( vari ati ons
to
be
di scussedl ater) , as soonas the
reporters
hear the
presi -
dent
comi ng
to
a
possi bl e compl eti on
of the
response,
they prepare
to
rai se thei r hands to enter
the
candi dacy pool
at the earl i est
possi bl e

224

Interpreti ve
Acti on
andMacrostructure
nonoverl appi ng poi nt ( e. g. ,
onthel ast
syl l abl e) .
Once
agai n
the
presi dent
sel ects
whi chof the
reporters
wi l l
get
that
party' s
next turn.
Becausethe
answerer, rather than
the
questi oner,
has determi ned
what wi l l be
treated
as an
adequate
answer,
andbecauseof the
way
thi s
turn- taki ng system
operates
to
produce
a
f l urry
of candi daci es f or
next
speaker,
the
pri or
questi oner
does not
get
the
opportuni ty
to
pursue
the answer
wi th a
"f ol l ow- up"
questi on.
It i s
then
up
to thenext
reporter
sel ected,
who
undoubtedl y
has a
prepared
questi on
to ask, to deci de
( wi thout
consul -
tati on
wi thothers, f or there i s noti me)
whether tousetheturn
tof ol l ow
up
on
the
precedi ng questi on- answer
exchange,
or to ask the
prepared
questi on.
Thei ssue, then, i s oneof
achi evi ng
aconcertedcourse
of acti on
by
a
party
whosei ncumbents cannot
coordi nate thei r
acti vi ti es i n
any
expl i ci t way.
"X/ henanext
questi on
has beenaskedthe
cycl e
conti nues.
Consi der
the
f ol l owi ng
addi ti onal
poi nts.
WhenRonal d
Reagan
took
of f i ce,
heandhi s staf f
experi mented
wi th several
changes
i n
the
organi -
zati onof
press
conf erences.
Thef i rst
changes
werei ntroduced, so
i t was
sai d, i n the i nterests of decorum. It
was
thought unseeml y
f or
reporters
to be
l eapi ng
f romthei r seats,
wavi ng
thei r hands i nthe
ai r, and
cal l i ng
out
"Mr. Presi dent, " of tenwhi l ethe
presi dent
was
f i ni shi ng
a
response.
Theref ore
the
practi ce
was
changed;
the
press
corps
were
requested
to
rai se
thei r hands
qui etl y;
no
cal l i ng
out,
no
standi ng up,
no
wavi ng
of
arms. These
changes
are
obvi ousl y
cosmeti c:
they
arenot
structural or
organi zati onal
but af f ect
onl y
the
si gns
by
whi ch
bi ds f or
speakershi p
are
di spl ayed.
For
thenext
press
conf erence di f f erent
changes
were
i ntroduced. Thi s
ti me,
al l members of the
press corps
were
assi gned
numbers,
andwel l i n
advanceof theactual
press
conf erence
numbers were
drawnat random,
thereby f i xi ng
both the
i denti ti es of the
questi on
askers andtheorder
i n
whi ch
they
woul dask
thei r
questi ons.
That
i s, the
system
was
changed
f romonei nwhi ch
hal f theturns were
preal l ocated
toa
one- personparty,
who
i n turn
chose
turn
by
turnwhowoul d
speak
f or theother
party,
to
a
system
wi thf ul l
preal l ocati on
of
next- speaker
i denti ti es
( though
not of
turnsi ze
andnot
f ul l y
of turn al l ocati on
because, as weshal l see,
under
thi s
systemf ol l ow- up questi ons
became
possi bl e- that
i s,
addi ti onal
turns
f or thesame
speaker
f romthe
press corps) .
Thi s
change
was
organi zati onal
and
i t di d
yi el d
di f f erent
outcomes.
For
exampl e,
under theol d
system,
as the
presi dent
woul dbe
f i ni shi ng
a
turn a cl amor woul dstart
up, bi ddi ng
f or hi s
attenti on, andhi s
eyes
woul d
sweep
the room
scanni ng through
the
wavi ng
arms. Hewoul d
not, as
speakers
otherwi se of ten do, return
hi s
eyes
at the end
of the

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

225
utterance to theonewhose
questi on
had
prompted
the
response.
Thi s
was the
physi cal
vehi cl e f or the
bl ockage
of
f ol l ow- up questi ons.
At the
f i rst
press
conf erencewi th the new
organi zi ng
f ormat,
Presi dent
Reagan
at f i rst
f orgot
the
change;
as he endedhi s
response
to thef i rst
questi on,
he
begansweepi ng
theroomwi thhi s
eyes, l ooki ng momentari l y puzzl ed
at theabsenceof
wavi ng
arms
bi ddi ng
f or hi s attenti on. Thenheremem-
bered, remarkedat
havi ng f orgotten
the
change,
andconsul tedanoteon
the
podi um
onwhi chwerel i sted
the names of the
questi oners
i n order.
Hecal l ed the next
questi oner.
As he
f i ni shed hi s answer to thesecond
questi on,
hi s
eyes
returned to the
questi oner
whowas sti l l
standi ng,
"recei vi ng
the answer. " Thi s
momentary
mutual
gaze opened
the
possi -
bi l i ty
f or
a f urther
questi on,
andthe
reporter grasped
the
opportuni ty,
asked a
f ol l ow- up questi on,
and
got
another answer. Later i n the same
press
conf erence another
reporter
asked
a
poi nted questi on,
whi ch the
Presi dent answeredi na
guarded
and
hesi tant manner. What was
stri ki ng
was that as he
brought
hi s answer to a cl ose,
he
vi si bl y
wi thhel d hi s
gl ance
f rom
returni ng
tothesti l l
standi ng reporter,
l ookedi nsteadat the
l i st onthe
podi um,
andwi th
hardl y
abreath
af ter hi s answer' s
compl e-
ti oncal l edout thenameof thenext
questi oner.
The
avoi dance
of
f ol l ow-
up
was
no
l onger
ensured
by
the
turn- taki ng organi zati on
of
thetal k;
i nstead, i t was reveal ed
as a
f orci bl y
achi eved, and
nakedl y apparent,
evasi on. Future
press
conf erences returned
to thef ormer f ormat. Note
that the
turn- taki ng
system
i n ef f ect can have, i n theseand
many
other
and
deeper
respects, i mportant consequences
not
onl y
f or the
sequenti al
organi zati on
of the tal k andother
aspects
of i nteracti onal f orm
( whi ch
are, of course, of central
i mportance
tothef ormal
soci ol ogy
here); i t can
al so
( and
thereby)
af f ect the substance
of what
gets
tal ked about and
how.
I have meant i n the
precedi ng
di scussi on
to i l l ustrate the noti on of
speech exchange
system
as context
by descri bi ng
several
seemi ngl y
di f -
f erent acti vi ti es i n
speech- exchange- system
context terms andto
suggest
some
of thei r si mi l ari ti es and,
i n
the
f ramework, some of thei r di f f er-
ences. I then
expl ored
some
organi zati onal
vari ati ons wi thi noneof these
f ormats- the
press
conf erence- emergi ng
wi th a
suggesti on
of some
ways
i n whi ch the substance of the tal k can be
af f ected.
Among
thi s
system' s
practi ces
are the
f ol l owi ng:
the
organi zati on
of a
mul ti person
setti ng by
a
two- party
f ormat; a
one- person
party
anda
mul ti person
party;
si ngl e- person party
sel ects
speaker
f or
mul ti person party
f rom
sel f - assembl ed
candi date
pool ;
the set of
practi ces organi zes
l i mi tedac-
ti on- type
i nteracti on,
ordi nari l y
a
col l oquy
of move
( such
as
questi on)

226

Interpreti ve
Acti on
andMacrostructure
and
response
( such
as answer) ,
though
not
restri cti ng assi gnment
of the
acti on
types
betweenthe
party types.
A
substanti al
part
of theconduct
of
vernacul arl y
di f f erent occasi ons, such as
the
press
conf erenceandthe
cl assroom, i s
organi zed
by
some such devi ce. Two
poi nts
are central .
Fi rst, these
ways
of
f ormul ati ng
context
are
procedural l y
rel evant;
they
di rectl y i mpl i cate sequenti al
conduct of the
i nteracti on. Second, i n the
very ways
i n
whi ch the
parti es organi ze
di stri buti on
of thei r
parti ci pa-
ti on,
they
exhi bi t thei r ori entati on
to, andconsti tutethe
real i ty
of ,
thei r
contexts so understood.
Theef f ects of di f f erent
turn- taki ng practi ces
on
the
character of i nter-
acti on, andonthe substance of what
gets
tal ked about i n i nteracti on,
may
be
appreci atedby consi deri ng
the
di scussi on
peri ods
f ol l owi ng
the
papers
at the conf erenceonwhi chthi s
book i s based
( andmany
others).
For thef i rst several
papers,
the
chai r
of
thesessi oncal l edon
persons
who
requested
the f l oor, andaf ter each hadasked
a
questi on
or of f ered a
comment,
thef l oor revertedtothe
presenter
of the
paper
f or a
response.
Thi s f ormat
encouraged
the
devel opment
of a
"col l oquy, "
anextended
exchange
of remarks betweenthe
presenter
andoneother
person,
af ter
whi chsuch a
col l oquy mi ght
devel op
wi th
another member of theaudi -
ence. Becauseeach
person
i nvi ted to
parti ci pate
sustai ned anextended
exchange
wi th thedel i verer of the
paper,
however,
rel ati vel y
f ew
persons
f romtheaudi encewereabl eto
parti ci pate.
Af ter thef i rst several
papers,
thechai rs
of thesessi ons
adopted
another
practi ce
( whether
at the
suggesti on
of the
conf erence
organi zers
or
spon-
taneousl y
I donot know). Rather than
al l owi ng
the
speaker
to
respond
toeach
questi on
or comment af ter i t was
put
f orward
f romtheaudi ence,
anumber of
questi ons
or comments were
col l ected andthe
speaker
was
thenaskedto
respond
tothem
i n turn. Theef f ect of thi s
practi ce
was to
l i mi t thei nteracti onwi th each audi ence member to
a
si ngl e exchange-
f or
exampl e,
to a
si ngl e questi on
andi ts answer.
For unl i ke the earl i er
f ormat,
the
response by
the
speaker
was not f ol l owed
by
a search f or
another i nterventi on f romthef l oor- asearch
that coul df i nd the
pri or
questi oner
f or a
f ol l ow- up.
A
response by
the
speaker
was f ol l owed
by
the
speaker
consul ti ng
hi s notes to f i nd
thenext i nterventi on towhi cha
response
was i n order.
Onl y
i n af ew
cases di d the
parti ci pant
whose
i nterventi on had
j ust
beenaddressed
f orci bl y
seek to retake the f l oor to
f ol l ow
up
the
response.
Insomecases
thi s ef f ort succeeded, but
onl y
af ter
havi ng produced
an
atmosphere
of
contenti ousness
( not al ways
war-
ranted
by
thesubstanceof the
exchange) ;
i n other
cases i t f ai l ed, some-

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

227
ti mes
bei ng suppressed
by
the chai r,
enf orci ng
the
procedures
that had
been
adopted.
What di f f ers betweenthese twof orms of
turn- taki ng practi ces
i s not
onl y
the
mechani sm
by
whi ch
opportuni ti es
to
parti ci pate
were
di stri b-
uted, andthe rel ati ve concentrati onor
di spersi on
of these
opportuni ti es
among
more
or f ewer
parti ci pants.
Thecharacter of the tal k, the
topi cs
l i kel y
touchedon, the
depth
of
pursui t
of
parti cul ar topi cs
( that
i s,
the
substanceof thematters under di scussi on)
are al soi nvol ved.
Consi der thedi f f erent
conti ngenci es
each
of
these
arrangements
makes
moreor l ess
l i kel y,
thesubstanti ve stances i t makes sense f or a
parti ci -
pant
to make
expl i ci t
or to i nhi bi t- that i s, the di recti on the di scussi on
maysubstanti vel y
take.
Especi al l y
f or
nonpresenters,
certai nstances
vi s-
- vi s some
presentati on
wi l l not be
i nteracti onal l y
f easi bl e
( or
wi l l entai l
substanti al
reputati onal
costs) because of the access tothe f l oor andthe
l ength
of
speaki ng
turn
they requi re,
andthe
i mpossi bi l i ty
or unsui tabi l -
i ty
of
accompl i shi ng
those f l oor
requi rements
i n these i nteracti onal ci r-
cumstances. Indeed, such consi derati ons i nf ormthe
expectati ons
of
those whoattend such af f ai rs about what canbe
real i sti cal l y expected
f romthemandwhat cannot; or, rather than"what cannot, " what
can
occur
onl y
between f ormal sessi ons
( or
i n the di scussi on
parti ci pants
may arrange
f or the f uture to
f ol l ow
up
contacts madehere) i n whi cha
di f f erent
speech
exchangesystem
can
operate. J ust
as i nteracti onal con-
text can
demonstrabl y
control what
parti ci pants
i n
conversati on
thi nk
to
say,
stori es
they
are remi ndedof ,
andthe
l i ke, so
i t i s
l i kel y
that the
poi nts parti ci pants
make
i n
the conf erence sessi ons are the survi vors of
an i nteracti onal
process
that
cuts
more
deepl y
than
seei ng
that some
cri ti que
that has cometo mi ndcannot be
pursued
under these
ci rcum-
stances. It i s
l i kel y
to
constrai n
what
comes to mi nd
i n
the f i rst
pl ace.
Thi nki ng
af terwardof what one
mi ght
havesai d i s not
si mpl y
a matter
of
l acki ng
soci al wi t.
Fi nal l y,
thi s bears i n another
way
onthe mi cro/ macroi ssue. About ten
years ago,
i n
of f eri ng
somecomments onthe
i mport
of themodel of turn-
taki ng
wewerethen
presenti ng,
wewrote:
Turns
are val ued,
sought,
or avoi ded. The soci al
organi zati on
of
turn- taki ng
di stri butes turns
among parti es.
It must, at l east
parti al l y,
be
shaped
as an
economy.
As such, i t i s
expectabl e
that, l i ke other economi es,
i ts
organi zati on
wi l l af f ect
the
rel ati ve di stri buti on
of that whi chi t
organi zes.
Unti l weunravel
i ts
organi zati on,
weshal l not knowwhat those ef f ects consi st of , andwhere
they
wi l l turn
up.
But si nce al l sorts of sci enti f i c and
appl i ed
research use

228

Interpreti ve
Acti onandMacrostructure

conversati on
now,
they
al l
empl oy
an
i nstrument whoseef f ects arenot known.
Thi s i s
perhaps unnecessary. "'
If suchconf erences as thi s, conversati ons
amongcol l eagues
andwork
sessi ons andsemi nars wi th students, as wel l as
survey
and
demographi c
i ntervi ews andtal k i n thecourse of f i el dwork
are
i mportant shapers
of
the content of a
body
of
knowl edge,
andi f
they
are
i n turn
shaped
and
constrai ned
by
the
turn- taki ng systems
i n ef f ect i n thoseacti vi ti es,
then
the
body
of
knowl edge
i s
bei ng
"ef f ected"
by
conversati onal
practi ces.
How,
then,
shal l
wethi nk of such
a
body
of
knowl edge?
As
a
product
or
el ement of macrostructure? Of mi crostructure?
Howdoes i t matter?

V.
The
predomi nant
thrust of thesoci al sci ences
i nthedi recti onof vari -
ati on and
comparati veanal ysi s
l eads those commi ttedto that stance to
beunsati sf i ed
by any
"uni tari an"
anal ysi s.
Fromthei r
poi nt
of vi ew, unti l
some
"depth"
i s achi eved
by
determi ni ng
howsome
descri bed
phenom-
enon di f f ers i n di f f erent soci al cl asses and cul tural
setti ngs,
or under
di f f erent work condi ti ons, unti l thehi stori cal ci rcumstances under whi ch
some
practi ce
arose are made
expl i ci t, yi el di ng
a
comparati ve
under-
standi ng
f or
i ts basi s, unl ess thesoci al
structural ci rcumstances arede-
scri bed under whi ch some
phenomenon
waxes or wanes, there i s no
sati sf acti on; there i s no stabl e, even
i f
temporary,
i ntel l ectual
resti ng
pl ace.
Thi s stancedri ves
every
apparentl y
uni tary anal ysi s
to f i nd some
vari ati on. Ontheother si de i s thestance that f i nds
i n
every
di scovered
vari ati on the
chal l enge
to f i nd and arti cul ate some
yet
more
general
account that al l ows the vari ants to f i nd an
appropri ate pl ace
under i ts
umbrel l a. These
contradi ctory
and
potenti al l y compl ementary
i mpul ses
donot
necessari l y
coi nci de wi th the boundari es of macroandmi cro or
thei r
possi bl e
rel ati onshi p.
Sti l l , at
present
there does
appear
to be an
el ecti ve
af f i ni ty
betweenmacro- mi cro
i ntegrati oni sts
andvari ati oni sm
onone handandthosewhorest
comf ortabl y
wi thout such
i ntegrati on
anduni tari ani smontheother. It i s the l atter whi chi s the
mi nori ty posi -
ti on, andi t woul dbe
sal utary
i f i ts
message
werebetter recei ved.
Whenconversati on
anal ysi s
poi nts
tovari ous f eatures of tal k- i n- i nter-
acti on and
proposes
that
together
they
evi dence the
operati on
of
a
sys-
temati c sol uti on to certai n
general organi zati onal probl ems
of i nterac-
ti on,
one
response
i s to
propose
that these arenot
the
i nteresti ng
f acts
about conversati on;
they
are so
commonas to be obvi ous and,
bei ng
common
andobvi ous, arenot rel evant. It i s what di f f ers
by
cl ass, ethni c-

Contexts
and
Other Connecti ons

229
i ty,
cul ture,
gender,
i nsti tuti onal
setti ng, organi zati onal
context, andso
onthat i s
i nteresti ng.
The
i mpressi on
i s
thereby
f osteredthat i t i s
onl y by
i ts
l i nkage
to macrothemes that
mi croanal ysi s
becomes
"respectabl e"
andf i nds
i ts rai son d' tre.
Onecan
argue
tothe
contrary,
however, that
any di sci pl i ne
that takes
the
understandi ng
of humanacti on as
i ts
goal
must be
answerabl e to
such
mi croanal ysi s
as seems to of f er
a
ri gorous
account
of
thedetai l s
of
soci al acti on i n i ts ownterms.
Ideal l y
such
mi croanal ysi s
wi l l i nvol ve
a
capaci ty
to
yi el d
ef f ecti ve andi nf ormati ve
anal ysi s
of thedetai l s of ac-
tual ,
si ngul ar epi sodes
or
courses
of acti onandi nteracti on. Such a"si n-
gl e- case- competent" anal yti c apparatus
shoul d
provi de
a
proxi mate,
or
f i rst- order,
account of determi nate
epi sodes
of i nteracti on ononehand
and,
onthe other
hand,
shoul d
provi de
a "hook" or
"receptacl e"
f or
l i nkage
wi th other theori es
at other
l evel s.
Thenature
of
the
l i nkage
of
other
l evel s
of
anal ysi s
to
that
account
wi l l be
shaped
and
constrai nedto
an
i mportant
extent
by
i ts characteri sti cs, as
may
bethe
very
terms i n
whi chother l evel s of
anal ysi s may
themsel ves becouched.
Compati bi l i ty
wi th
theterms
of a
mi croanal ysi s adequate
to thedetai l s of
si ngul ar
bi ts
of i nteracti on i s a
( perhaps
the)
maj or
constrai nt on arti cul ati on wi th
other orders
of
theori zi ng.
The
upshot
of these consi derati ons i s that at l east someof thef avored
contemporary ways
of
rel ati ng
macroto mi cro l evel s of
anal ysi s
are
probl emati c.
Ef f orts to l i nk to the l evel of cul ture and
soci ety
i n the
search f or vari ati on are unassuredof success anduncertai ni n moti ve.
Ef f orts to rel ate l evel s of
anal ysi s
vi a macro- rel evant attri butes of the
parti ci pants
i nmi cro- l evel
processes
threaten
underdevel opment
of af ul l
techni cal
expl orati on
of themi cro- l evel
processes.
Ef f orts to
bri dge
the
l evel s
by
theuseof
vernacul ar
concepti ons
of context are
vul nerabl eto
chal l enges
tothe
adequacy
of
thei r
warrant andtothedi rectness of thei r
l i nkage
to detai l s of
the
actual conduct of
i nteracti on. I have tri edto
suggest
one di recti on
i n
whi ch
asol uti on
mi ght
be f ound, at
l east
wi th
respect
to the l ast of
these tacks;
i t
chal l enges
us to
repl ace
vernacul ar
f ormul ati ons
of
context wi th
techni cal
ones- where, however,
the"tech-
ni cal "
may
do better at
capturi ng
the
real
rel evanci es
f or
parti ci pants
than dothe
vernacul ar. Howf ar thi s wi l l take
us,
andwhether nowi s
the
ti meto be
taki ng
thi s
path,
i s
not
enti rel y
cl ear. Thei ssuei n the end
i s
not what thetradi ti ons andcurrent tendenci es of our
di sci pl i nes
ask of
us
but the
i ntegri ty
of our materi al s- what i s
necessary
tocometoterms
ef f ecti vel y
wi ththedetai l s of thel i ves i ni nteracti onof whi chthe
ordi nary
soci ety
i s so
l argel y
f ashi oned.

230

Interpreti ve
Acti onand
Macrostructure

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many
thanks to Renee
Anspach
andEl i nor Ochs f or
di scussi on of
several
of the themes touched on here at vari ous
stages
of the
essay' s
devel opment,
and to Charl es Goodwi n,
Dougl as Maynard,
Mi chael
Moerman, Mel vi nPoi l ner,
Ani ta Pomerantz, Mel vi nSeeman, andDon
Zi mmerman
( as
wel l as several
of the
parti ci pants
at the German/ Amer-
i can Conf erence,
"Rel ati ng
Mi croandMacroLevel s i n
Soci ol ogi cal
The-
ory, "
f or
whi chi t was f i rst
prepared)
f or usef ul
cri ti cal
response
toearl i er
versi ons.
J enni f er
Mandel baum
provi ded
not
onl y
thesebut
i ndi spens-
abl eassi stanceand
encouragement throughout.
NOTES
1. Emanuel
A.
Schegl of f ,
"Di scourse
as an
Interacti onal Achi evement: Some Uses of
' Uh Huh'
andOther
Thi ngs
That ComeBetweenSentences, " i n
Georgetown Uni versi ty
Roundtabl e on
Languages
and
Li ngui sti cs,
Deborah Tannen,
ed. ,
Anal yzi ng
Di scourse:
Text and
Tal k
( Washi ngton,
DC:
Georgetown
Uni versi ty
Press,
1981).
2.
Harvey
Sacks,
Emanuel A.
Schegl of f ,
andGai l
J ef f erson,
"A
Si mpl est Systemati cs
f or
the
Organi zati on
of
Turntaki ng
f or Conversati on, "
Language
50
( 1974) :
696- 735.
3.
Harvey
Sacks, "Onthe
Anal yzabi l i ty
of Stori es
by
Chi l dren, "
i n
J ohnJ . Gumperz
andDel l
Hymes, eds. ,
Di recti ons i n
Soci ol i ngui sti cs
( New
York: Hol t, Ri nehart
&
Wi n-
ston,
1972) ,
p.
332. .
4. Emanuel A.
Schegl of f ,
Gai l
J ef f erson,
and
Harvey
Sacks, "ThePref erence f or Sel f -
Correcti on i n
the
Organi zati on
of
Repai r
i n Conversati on, "
Language
53
( 1977) :
361-
383.
S. Mi chael Moerman, "The
Pref erence f or Sel f - Correcti on
i naTai
Conversati onal Cor-
pus, " Language
53,
4
( 1977) :
872- 882.
6. Ni ko Besni er,
"Repai rs
and
Error i n Tuval uan Conversati on"
( unpubl i shed paper,
December
1982).
7.
El i nor Ochs,
"Tal ki ng
to
Chi l dren
i n
Western
Samoa, "
Language
i n
Soci ety
11
( 1982) :
77- 104;
and
"Cl ari f i cati on andCul ture, " i n
GeorgetownUni versi ty
Roundtabl e
on
Languages
and
Li ngui sti cs,
DeborahSchi f f ri n,
ed. ,
Meani ng,
Form, andUse:
Li ngui sti c
Appl i cati ons
( Washi ngton,
DC:
GeorgetownUni versi ty
Press,
1984).
8.
Al essandro Duranti , "Intenti ons, Sel f , andLocal Theori es of
Meani ng:
Words and
Soci al Acti oni n aSamoanContext"
( manuscri pt prepared
f or the
Laboratory
of
Compar-
ati ve Human
Cogni ti on,
Uni versi ty
of Cal i f orni a, San
Di ego,
1984);
al so El i nor Ochs and
B. B. Schi ef f el i n,
"LanguageAcqui si ti on
andSoci al i zati on:
Three
Devel opmental
Stori es
andThei r
Impl i cati ons, "
i n R. Shweder andR. LeVi ne,
eds. ,
Cul ture
Theory: Essays
on
Mi nd,
Sel f ,
and
Soci ety
( New
York:
Cambri dgeUni versi ty
Press,
1984).
9. Thi s i s not
merel y
a
psychol i ngui sti c adaptati on
to a
mi ssi ng
word; i t i s not i nvari a-
bl y
aword
search. It canhave
strategi c
i nteracti onal use, as whenthe
speaker
i s
engaged
i n
somethi ng i nteracti onal l y
"del i cate, " such as
of f eri ng
anassessment of athi rd
party
wi th-
out
bei ng
sure that the
i nterl ocutor shares the
j udgment.
Thenthe
speaker may speak
unti l
j ust
bef ore the
poi nt
of
theassessment term, hesi tate, andl eavei t f or the
reci pi ent
to
suppl y
a candi date term,
thereby showi ng
that
they
hol dthesameassessment. Thetwocan
thus
produce
theassessment
together.
"Assessments" are, of course, onei nteracti onal
speci f i ca-
ti on of norms and
val ues.
10. Therei s some
i ndi cati on, theref ore, that some vari ati ons
i n
repai r practi ces may
serveto
i mpl ement
di sti ncti ve cul tural
val ues or ethnotheori es.
Showi ng
thi s, however,
wi l l
requi re
overcomi ng
some
di f f i cul t
anal yti cal probl ems.

Contexts andOther Connecti ons

231

11. What f ol l ows i s basedon

prel i mi nary
f i el dwork
by
IreneDaden,
reported
i n Irene
M. Dadenand
Marl ys
McCl aren, "Same- Turn
Repai r
i n
Qui che
( Maya)
Conversati on: An
Ini ti al
Report" ( unpubl i shed manuscri pt,
Uni versi ty
of Cal i f orni a,
1978).
The
report
shoul dbe
treatedwi th
cauti on
because
subsequent
extended
f i el dwork di d not f ocus on
thesematters.
12. SeeDonH. Zi mmermanandCandaceWest, "SexRol es,
Interrupti ons
andSi l ences
i n
Conversati on, " i nB. Thorne andN.
Henl ey,
eds. ,
Language
andSex:
Di f f erence
and
Domi nance
( Rowl ey,
MA:
Newbury
House, 197S); CandaceWest andDonH. Zi mmer-
man, "Women' s Pl acei n
Everyday
Tal k: Ref l ecti ons on Parent- Chi l dInteracti on, " Soci al
Probl ems
24
( 1977) : 521- 529;
and
Candace
West,
"Agai nst
Our Wi l l : Mal e
Interrupti ons
of Femal esi nCross- Sex Conversati on, " Annal s
of
theNewYork
Academyof
Sci ences 327
( 1979) :
81- 97.
13. Seesecti on
4.
14.
Subsequent
work
by
West
( "Why
Can' t aWomanBeMoreLi ke aMan?" Work and
Occupati ons
9
( 1982) : 5- 29) ,
i n whi chsomeof
these
overl ap
resol uti on devi ces areexam-
i ned i n terms of
pej orati ve
rel ati ons betweenthe
genders/ statuses,
l eaves the
questi on
unresol ved.
i S. Furthermore, even wi th
respect
to the onset of si mul taneous tal k to whi ch thi s
tradi ti onof work i s addressed
i n
thef i rst i nstance,
as
earl y
as 1973
J ef f erson
suggested
vari ous i nteracti onal i ssues that coul dbe
i mpl i cated
i n
preci sel y pl aced
onsets of tal k whi l e
another
was
sti l l
tal ki ng. Al though
much of that work
may
not be
di rectl y
i n
poi nt
f or
"i nterrupti on, "
i t i s
unl i kel y
that nosuch
range
of i nteracti onal uses i s i nvol vedi n
i nterrup-
ti on onsets, as al ternati ves to, or i n combi nati onwi th, the
gender/ status/ power
consi dera-
ti ons
that havehi therto
been
thef ocus of attenti on. SeeGai l
J ef f erson,
"ACaseof Preci si on
Ti mi ng
i n
Ordi nary
Conversati on:
Overl apped
Tag- Posi ti oned
Address Terms i n
Cl osi ng
Sequences, "
Semi oti ca9
( 1973) :
47- 96.
16. AaronCi courel , "Notes on
the
Integrati on
of
Mi cro-
and
Macro- Level s
of
Anal y-
si s, " i nK.
Knorr- Ceti naandA. Ci courel ,
eds. ,
Advances i n Soci al
Theory
andMethodol -
ogy:
Towardan
Integrati onof
Mi cro- and
Macro- Soci ol ogi es
( Boston:
Routl edge
&
Kegan
Paul ,
1981) ,
51- 80.
17.
Harvey
Sacks, "AnIni ti al
Investi gati on
of the
Usabi l i ty
of Conversati onal Dataf or
Doi ngSoci ol ogy, "
i nDavi dN. Sudnow,
ed. ,
Studi es i n Soci al Interacti on
( New
York: Free
Press,
1972) ,
31- 74.
18. Emanuel
A.
Schegl of f ,
"Notes
ona Conversati onal Practi ce, " i n
i bi d. , pp.
76- 118.
That
paper
of f eredas oneconcl usi onof i ts
anal ysi s
the
f ol l owi ng,
whi ch
i s
di rectl y
rel evant
to thethemeof thi s
essay:
"Thi s i s
perti nent
tosome
ways
i n whi ch ' contextual vari ati on'
af f ects i nteracti on. It i s
bei ng proposed
that themuchi nvoked
' dependence
on context'
must be
i nvesti gated by showi ng
that, andhow,
parti ci pants anal yze
context andusethe
product
of thei r
anal ysi s
i n
produci ng
thei r i nteracti on. To
say
that i nteracti oni s context-
sensi ti ve
i s to
say
that i nteractants arecontext- sensi ti ve, andf or what andhowthat i s so i s
an
empi ri cal
matter that canberesearched
i n
detai l .
One
di mensi onhas to do wi th
the
ways
i n whi ch i nteractants
parti cul ari ze
thei r contri buti ons so as to exhi bi t attenti on to
the
' thi s- one- here- and- now- f or- us- at- thi s- poi nt- i n- i t'
character of thei nteracti on"
( p. 115) .
19. That
i nvesti gators may
sharewi ththe
parti ci pants
thecommoncul tural
knowl edge
that
i s
thereby empl oyed,
andusei t i n
conducti ng anal ysi s
( see
Ci courel , "Notes onInte-
grati on") ,
i s
beyondquesti on.
Not
every
aspect
of thetal k, however,
i nvokes
al l
the
same
aspects
of context. One
may
not need
to knowabout
hospi tal s,
or
that
a
f ragment
of
conversati oni s drawnf romaconversati on that occurredi n a
hospi tal ,
to understand and
appreci ate
a
perf ectl y
coordi nated turn transf er
di spl ayed
i n i t. For
any
next candi date
conversati onal
phenomenon
i t
may
not
be knowabl e i n advancewhat, i f
any,
contextual
sensi ti vi ti es i t bears. Whendata
f ragments
are
di spl ayed
i n
conversati on- anal yti c
research
reports
wi th no di scursi ve
descri pti on
of "context, " a
cl ai m
may
be
read that none i s
speci al l y
rel evant to the
phenomenonbei ngexpl i cated.
20.
For
exampl e, J .
M. Atki nson,
"Understandi ng Formal i ty:
Notes onthe
Categori -
zati onand
Producti on
of ' Formal '
Interacti on, " Bri ti sh
J ournal of Soci ol ogy
33
( 1982) :
86- 117;
J ohn Heri tage,
Garf i nkel
and
Ethnomethodol ogy
( Cambri dge:
Pol i ty
Press,
1984) , 280- 290; Dougl as
W.
Maynard,
Insi de Pl ea
Bargai ni ng
( New
York: Pl enumPress,

232

Interpreti ve
Acti onand
Macrostructure

1984) ,
chap.
3;
and,
al ong
somewhat di f f erent l i nes,
J urgen
Streeck, "Embodi ed
Contexts,
Transcontextual s, and
the
Ti mi ng
of
Speech
Acts, "
J ournal of Pragmati cs
8
( 1984) :
113-
137.
21. Paul a A. Trei chi er, Ri chardM. Frankel , Cheri s Kramarae, Kathl een
Zoppi ,
and
HowardB. Beckman,
"Probl emsandProbl ems: Power
Rel ati onshi ps
i n aMedi cal Encoun-
ter, " i n Cheri s Kramarae, Muri el Schul z, andWi l l i amO' Barr,
eds. ,
Language
and
Power
( Beverl y
Hi l l s, CA:
Sage,
1984) ,
68,
ci ti ng
Ri chardM. Frankel ,
"Tal ki ng
i n Intervi ews: A
Di spref erence
f or Pati ent- Ini ti ated
Questi ons
i n
Physi ci an- Pati ent
Encounters, " i n G. Psa-
thas,
ed. ,
Interacti onal
Competence
( Norwood,
NJ :
Abl ex Publ i shers, i n
press) ;
andCan-
daceWest, "Ask MeNo
Questi ons.
. .
' :
An
Anal ysi s
of
Queri es
and
Repl i es
i n
Physi ci an-
Pati ent
Di al ogues, "
i n S. Fi sher andA. D. Todd,
eds. ,
TheSoci al
Organi zati onof
Doctor-
Pati ent Communi cati on
( Washi ngton,
DC: Center
f or
Appl i edLi ngui sti cs,
1983) ,
75- 106.
22.
For
exampl e,
seeCi courel , "Notes on
Integrati on, "
andother recent
papers
of hi s.
23.
E. g. , J ohnJ .
Gumperz
andDel l
Hymes,
Di recti ons i n
Soci ol i ngui sti cs.
24.
E. g. ,
Wi l l i amLabov,
Soci al i ngui sti c
Patterns
( Phi l adel phi a: Uni versi ty
of
Pennsyl -
vani a
Press,
1972).
25.
E. g. , Ervi ng
Gof f man, "The
Negl ected
Si tuati on, " i n
J ohn
J . Gumperz
andDel l
Hymes,
eds. ,
"The
Ethnography
of Communi cati on, " Ameri can
Anthropol ogi st
66, II
( 1964) :
133- 137.
26.
Treati ng
conversati on,
speech exchange systems,
and f orms of i nteracti on more
general l y
as a
bri dge
betweenmacroandmi cromakes somesensei n vi ewof somedevel -
opments
i n thesoci al sci ences
over thel ast twodecades or so. As
many
have
noted, one
trend
has
pai red
i n di al ecti cal
devel opment
the
emergence
of a set of
powerf ul
themes
drawi ng
on
l i ngui sti cs
and
psychol ogy
i nto theso- cal l ed
cogni ti ve
sci ences, wi th a
rel ated
though
opposedf l ouri shi ng
of the themati cs of humanvari ati on i n
anthropol ogy.
The
f ormer has f ocusedonwhat
goes
on"i nthehead, " has strai nedi n thedi recti onof uni ver-
sal i sm, has treatedas
the
enduri ng real i ty
theembodi ed, mi ndedsel f or
cogni zer,
andhas
treatedacti on
as
theexternal i zati onof
pl ans
andi ntenti ons hatched
by
the
cogni zer
i nthe
mi nd. One
anthropol ogi cal
stance has stressed, i n contrast, cul tural
parti cul ari sm, publ i c
cul ture, andthesoci al
si tuatedness of al l conduct and
practi ce.
Interacti on as an autono-
mous andstructured f i el dof acti on
may
beseen tomedi atebetweenthem.
27.
For
other
treatments, seeH. Mehan,
Learni ng
Lessons
( Cambri dge,
MA: Harvard
Uni versi ty
Press,
1979);
andA. McHoul , "The
Organi zati on
of Turns at Formal Tal k i n
theCl assroom, "
Language
i n
Soci ety
7
( 1978) :
183- 213.
28. Thesef ormul ati ons of context arethe
type
to whi chI have
j ust obj ected.
I usethem
here as vernacul ar terms
to enl i st the reader' s
recogni ti on
i n commonsenseterms
( and
outsi dethe
scope
of atechni cal
anal ysi s
of detai l eddata) of the f ami l i ar scenes towhi chI
meantobe
ref erri ng.
The
ensui ng
di scussi on
begi ns
to
devel op
a techni cal characteri zati on
f or some set of
acti vi ti es
that
goes
oni n the
vernacul arl y
namedcontext. The
goal
i s
to
arri veat techni cal
characteri zati ons of theoneor more
speech exchange
systems
organi zi ng
theseveral ki nds of
acti vi ty
that occur there. For other ef f orts to
devel op descri pti ons
of
turn- taki ng organi zati ons
f or
speech exchange
systems
other than conversati on, see
J .
Maxwel l Atki nsonandPaul Drew, Order i n Court
( London:
Macmi l l an,
1979) ,
chap.
2
( "Exami nati on:
A
Compari son
of the
Turn- Taki ng Organi zati ons
f or Conversati on and
Exami nati on");
andDavi dGreatbatch, "A
Turn- Taki ng System
f or Bri ti sh News Inter-
vi ews"
( unpubl i shedpaper, Department
of
Soci ol ogy,
Uni versi ty
of Warwi ck,
1984).
29.
Sacks,
et
a! . ,
"A
Si mpl est Systemati cs, "
701- 702.
REFERENCES
Atki nson,
J .
M. 1982.
Understandi ng
Formal i ty:
Notes onthe
Categori zati on
and
Producti onof "Formal " Interacti on. Bri ti sh
J ournal of Soci ol ogy
33: 86-
117.
Atki nson,
J .
M. andPaul
Drew. 1979. Order i nCourt. London:
Macmi l l an.

Contexts
and
Other Connecti ons

233
Besni er, Ni ko. 1982.
"Repai rs
andErrors i n Tuval uan Conversati on. "
Unpub-
l i shed
paper, Li ngui sti cs Department,
Uni versi ty
of Southern Cal i f orni a.
Ci courel ,
AaronV. 1981. Notes onthe
Integrati on
of Mi cro- andMacro- Level s
of
Anal ysi s, pp.
51- 80
i n Kari n Knorr- Ceti na andAaronV. Ci courel ,
eds. ,
Advances
i n Soci al
Theory
and
Methodol ogy:
Towardan
Integrati on of
Mi -
cro- andMacro
- Soci ol ogi es.
Boston:
Routl edge
&
Kegan
Paul .
Daden, Irene, and
Marl ys
McCl aren. 1978. "Same Turn
Repai r
i n
Qui che
( Maya)
Conversati on: AnIni ti al
Report. " Unpubl i shed paper, Uni versi ty
of
Cal i f orni a,
Los
Angel es.
Duranti , Al essandro. 1984. "Intenti ons, Sel f , andLocal Theori es of
Meani ng:
Words andSoci al Acti on i na SamoanContext. "
Unpubl i shedpaper,
Labora-
tory
of
Comparati veCogni ti on, Uni versi ty
of Cal i f orni a, San
Di ego.
Frankel , Ri chard M.
f orthcomi ng. Tal ki ng
i n Intervi ews: A
Di spref erence
f or
Pati ent- Ini ti ated
Questi ons
i n
Physi ci an- Pati ent
Encounters, i n
George
Psa-
thas,
ed. ,
Interacti onal
Competence.
Norwood,
NJ :
Abl ex.
Gof f man,
Ervi ng.
1964. The
Negl ected
Si tuati on. Ameri can
Anthropol ogi st
66,
6: 133- 137.
Greatbatch, Davi d. 1984. "A
Turn- Taki ng
System
f or Bri ti sh News Intervi ews. "
Unpubl i shed
paper,
Uni versi ty
of Warwi ck.
Gumperz, J ohn,
andDel l
Hymes,
eds. 1964. The
Ethnography
of Communi ca-
ti on. Ameri can
Anthropol ogi st
66, 6
( whol e
i ssue) .
Heri tage, j ohn.
1984.
Garf i nkel
and
Ethnomethodol ogy. Cambri dge,
Mass. :
Pol i ty
Press.
J ef f erson,
Gai l . 1973.
A
Case
of
Preci si on
Ti mi ng
i n
Ordi nary
Conversati on.
Overl appedTag- Posi ti oned
Address Terms i n
Cl osi ng Sequences.
Semi oti ca
9: 47- 96.
Labov, Wi l l i am. 1972.
Soci ol i ngui sti c
Patterns.
Phi l adel phi a: Uni versi ty
of Penn-
syl vani a
Press.
Maynard, Dougl as.
1984. Insi dePl ea
Bargai ni ng.
NewYork: Pl enumPress.
McHoul , A. 1978. The
Organi zati on
of Turns at Formal Tal k i nthe Cl assroom.
Language
i n
Soci ety
7: 183- 213.
Mehan, H. 1979.
Learni ng
Lessons.
Cambri dge,
Mass. : Harvard
Uni versi ty
Press.
Moerman, Mi chael . 1977. ThePref erence f or Sel f - Correcti on i n a Tai Conver-
sati onal
Corpus. Language
53, 4: 872- 82.
Ochs, El i nor. 1982.
Tal ki ng
toChi l dreni nWesternSamoa.
Language
i n
Soci ety
11: 77- 104.
1984. Cl ari f i cati on andCul ture, i n
GeorgetownUni versi ty
Roundtabl e
on
Languages
and
Li ngui sti cs,
1984, DeborahSchi f f ri n,
ed. , Meani ng,
Form,
andUse:
Li ngui sti c Appl i cati ons. Washi ngton
D. C. :
GeorgetownUni versi ty
Press.
Ochs, El i nor, andB. B. Schi ef f el i n. 1984.
Language Acqui si ti on
andSoci al i za-
ti on: Three
Devel opmental
Stori es
andThei r
Impl i cati ons,
i nR. Shweder and
R. LeVi ne,
eds. ,
Cul tural
Theory:
Essays
onMi nd,
Sel f ,
and
Soci ety.
New
York:
Cambri dgeUni versi ty
Press.
Sacks,
Harvey.
1972a. AnIni ti al
Investi gati on
of the
Usabi l i ty
of Conversati onal

234

Interpreti ve
Acti onand
Macrostructure

Data f or
Doi ng Soci ol ogy,
pp.
31- 74i nDavi d
Sudnow,
ed. ,
Studi es i n
Soci al
Interacti on. NewYork:
FreePress.
1972b. Onthe
Anal yzabi l i ty
of Stori es
by
Chi l dren,
pp.
325- 345
i n
J ohn Gumperz
and Del l
Hymes,
eds. ,
Di recti ons i n
Soci ol i ngui sti cs.
New
York: Hol t, Ri nehart
&Wi nston.
Sacks,
Harvey,
Emanuel A.
Schegl of f ,
andGai l
J ef f erson.
1974. A
Si mpl est Sys-
temati cs f or the
Organi zati on
of
Turn- Taki ng
f or Conversati on.
Language
50,
4: 696- 735.
Schegl of f ,
Emanuel A. 1972. Notes on a
Conversati onal Practi ce:
Formul ati ng
Pl ace,
pp.
75- 118i n Davi dSudnow,
ed. ,
Studi es i n
Soci al Interacti on. New
York: FreePress.
1981.
Di scourse as an Interacti onal Achi evement: Some
Uses
of "Uh
Huh" andOther
Thi ngs
that
ComeBetween Sentences, i n
Georgetown
Uni -
versi ty
Roundtabl eon
Languages
and
Li ngui sti cs,
1981, D. Tannen,
ed. ,
Ana-
l yzi ng
Di scourse: Text andTal k.
Washi ngton,
D. C. :
GeorgetownUni versi ty
Press.
Schegl of f ,
Emanuel
A. ,
Gai l
J ef f erson,
and
Harvey
Sacks. 1977. The Pref erence
f or
Sel f - Correcti on i nthe
Organi zati on
of
Repai r
i n Conversati on.
Language
53,
2: 361- 383.
Streeck,
J urgen.
1984. Embodi ed
Contexts, Transcontextual s,
and
the
Ti mi ng
of
Speech
Acts.
J ournal of Pragmati cs
8: 113- 137.
Trei chi er, Paul a
A. ,
Ri chardM.
Frankel , Cheri s Kramarae, Kathl een
Zoppi ,
and
HowardB.
Beckman. 1984. Probl ems and
Probl ems: Power
Rel ati onshi ps
i n
a Medi cal
Encounter,
pp.
62- 88 i n Cheri s Kramarae,
Muri el Schul z, and
Wi l l i amO' Barr,
eds. ,
Language
andPower.
Beverl y
Hi l l s, Cal i f . :
Sage.
West, Candace.
1979.
Agai nst
Our Wi l l : Mal e
Interrupti ons
of Femal es i nCross-
Sex
Conversati on. Annal s
of
theNewYork
Academy
of
Sci ences
327: 81- 97.
1982.
Why
Can' t a
WomanBe MoreLi kea Man? Work and
Occupa-
ti ons 9, 1:
S- 29.
1983. "Ask
MeNo
Questi ons.
. . ". An
Anal ysi s
of
Queri es
and
Repl i es
i n
Physi ci an- Pati ent
Di al ogues, pp.
75- 106 i n S. Fi sher andA. D. Todd,
eds. ,
The Soci al
Organi zati on of
Doctor- Pati ent
Communi cati on.
Washi ngton,
D. C. : Center f or
Appl i edLi ngui sti cs.
West, Candace, and
Don H. Zi mmerman. 1977. Women' s Pl ace i n
Everyday
Tal k.
Ref l ecti ons on
Parent- Chi l dInteracti on. Soci al Probl ems 24: 521- 529.
Zi mmerman,
Don
H. ,
and
Candace West. 1975. Sex Rol es,
Interrupti ons,
and
Si l ences i n
Conversati on,
pp.
105- 129 i n B. Thorne and N.
Henl ey,
eds. ,
Language
andSex:
Di f f erence
and Domi nance.
Rowl ey,
Mass. :
Newbury
House.

TheMi cro- MacroLi nk

Edi ted
by
J ef f rey
C. Al exander
Bernhard
Gi esen
Ri chardMunch
Nei l
J .
Smel ser
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAPRESS
Berkel ey
Los
Angel es
.
London

Uni versi ty
of Cal i f orni aPress
Berkel ey
andLos
Angel es,
Cal i f orni a
Uni versi ty
of Cal i f orni aPress, Ltd.
London,
Engl and
1987
by
The
Regents
of the
Uni versi ty
of Cal i f orni a
Pri ntedi n the
Uni tedStates of Ameri ca
123456789

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGINGINPUBLICATIONDATA

TheMi cro- macrol i nk.
Basedon
papers gi ven
at a
conf erence
sponsored
by
the
theory
secti ons of theGermanandAmeri can
soci ol ogi cal
associ ati ons hel d
J une
21- 24
i nGi essen,
West
Germany.
Incl udes i ndex.
1.
Soci ol ogy- Methodol ogy- Congresses.
2.
Macrosoci ol ogy- Congresses.
3.
Mi crosoci ol ogy-
Congresses.
I. Al exander,
J ef f rey
C.
HM13. M53 1987 301. 01' 8
86- 11309
ISBN0- 520- 05786- 4
( al k.
paper)
ISBN0- 520- 06068- 7
( pbk)