DISCOURSESTUDIES

Thestoryof‘Oh’:Part2Animatingtranscript

DouglasMacbethOhioStateUniversity,USA

JeanWongTheCollegeofNewJersey,USA

DRAFT:19April2016

AbstractInConversationAnalysisthroughSacks,Schegloff,Jeffersonandothers,theconceptualarchitectureisjoinedatthehiptoatechnicalarchitectureoftranscripts,sequenceandturnproductions.ThattheconceptualwastobefoundanddemonstratedinthematerialdetailoftemporalproductionswascentraltoCA’sextraordinaryinnovations.AswithCA,anEpistemicCAhasthetaskofgivingevidenceofitsconceptualorderinactualmaterials,andthusanimatingthematerialstoshowthem.Thetaskandrelationshipareemblematicallyreflexive:weshallfindtheexpression‘Oh’indexing“changesofstate”or“inappositeinquiries”,forexample,asoftheaccount-ableanimationsofturnandsequenceconstructions.OursharedattachmentstosequentialanalysisdelivertheexpectationthatweshallseehowEpistemicorderisachievedonactualoccasions,throughactualmaterials,renderedastranscript.ThediscussionturnstohowtheEPengagesandacquitsthisanalyticexpectation.

Keywords:Epistemics,animatingtranscript,sequentialanalysis

Correspondingauthor:

DouglasMacbeth,DepartmentofEducationalStudies,29W.WoodruffAvenue,OhioStateUniversity,Columbus,OH,USA.Email:macbeth.1@osu.edu

2

Introduction

Fromthearticlesofthisspecialissue,wenowhaveacollectionofEpistemic

conceptualizations,noticings,objects,andorganizationalthingsdrawnfromits

publications.Itisahybridcollectionofconversationanalyticthingsliketurns,positions

andsequences,andEpistemicthings,likechangesofstate,particlesthat“index”,and

tensionsaboutaccess,proprietyandauthoritytospeakofwhateverthepartiesmaybe

speakingof.PerhapscentraltotheEP’sdistinctiveprogrammaticidentityisthe

introductionofcontestedfieldsofgreaterandlesserepistemicagency(Heritage,2002,

passim),revealingasymmetricclaimsandendowmentsoperatinginthebackground,

shapingourwaysofspeaking(andhearing)byshapingourauthorizationstodoso.Noless

centralfortheEPistheseeminglyunavoidableintersectionsof‘knowledge’,‘experience’,

informationandtheirpossessions,andalsodifferentformsofknowledgeandexperience,

routinelyparsedasgreaterandlesserforms

AstheEPdevelopsinitsmorecontemporarypublications,naturalconversation

comestobeabout“monitoringepistemicstatus,”givingevidenceofimbalance,achieving

balance(seeLindwalletal.,2016),andthereby,inthecourseofthesepreoccupationsand

theiroperations,producingtheevidentorderoftalk–in–interaction(Heritage,2012a,b).

Asthepartiesactasepistemicclaimants,pressingand/ordeflectingauthority,accessand

ownership,often“indexed”by‘Oh’productionsandmodulatedbymorphosyntaxtoyield

theorderlyactionformationsandturnconstructionswethenfind,wecanexpectthatthese

orientations,tasksandtensionscanbe—andwillbe—revealedintheactionsand

constructionstheyshape.Oratleastthisistheexpectationofourattachmentsto

conversationanalysis,asitwasandhasbeenCA’sachievementtoweditssociologyof

3

naturallanguageusetoactualexhibitsintheirconstitutivedetail.CAhasproducednot

onlydescriptionsofconversation’sorganizationsinmultipledomains,butdescriptionsof

socialactions—grammarsofaction—showninthetemporal–materialdetailoftranscript

onactualoccasions,anexpectationthatseemstoanchortheEpistemicProgramtomaterial

worldsandmaterialstudyaswell.

Casesintheirconstitutivedetail

Asawayofspeaking,EthnomethodologyandConversationAnalysis(EMCA)were

leveragedfromadeepdisputewiththenormativeanalyticculturesoftheirday(andtothis

day).Thereweremanydisputes,butthisonemayhavebeencentral:byconventional

academicwisdoms,‘everydaylife’—intheprofusionofitsexpressions,occasions,

unremarkableengagementsandrecurrence—wasadensequotidianmasklaidoverwhere

andhowtheenginesofsocialordermightactuallybefoundanddisclosed.Ifanything,

everydaylifewasamis-direction,itsorderlinesswashidden,andsocialsciencewasthe

corrective(seeLynchandWong,[2016]).AsSacks(1984)observed,theconsensusmodus

wasthatoverwhelminglytheproductsofeverydaylifewerethedross,andtheaimof

formalanalysiswastorecoverthe‘goldenchain’thatwouldshowitselfonlyhereandthere

tothecredentialeddevicesofformal–analyticreasoning(andglovedhands).

Tothesepresumptivereckonings,EMandCAproposedradicallyalternate

understandings:thateverydaylifewasalreadyinpossessionofthetermsandresources

forunderstandingitsrelentlesslyachievedorder.ThiswaspartoftheshockofCAfor

languagestudy.Ithadbeenassumedthatvernacularorderownedneitherprovenancenor

authorization.Itdidnotrundeeplyenough.Worse,werevernaculargrammarsadmitted,

4

thedisciplinesmightconfrontanuncountablehorizonofgrammaticalformsand

competencies,outstrippingallbesteffortsatsystematicreduction.1EMCA’sunderstanding

ofvernacularworldssetstheselong–standingformal–analyticambitionsatseriousrisk,

andstilldoes.LikeCA’s“proofprocedure”whereinnextturnsareconsultedfor

understandingthesenseofpriorturns,ourinterests,descriptionsandmeasuresdonot

strayfarfromvernacularreckonings,orourtranscripts.Theaimisnottotakeourleaveof

thevernacularorder,atleastuntilweunderstandit.Andonceunderstood,theremaybe

noreasontotakeleaveofit.

Transcripthasthusbeenthe‘portal’forCAstudiesontoanunexaminedorderliness

runninginfullandpublicview.Itisthroughtranscriptthatsocialactionisrenderedas

concertedlyon–goingproductionsinfinelycraftedtemporalandsequentialdurations.

Theseproductionsarewhatholdourinterest,andthesenseofthephrase“animating

transcript”referstotheworkofhowweleveragetheseproductionaccounts,getting

transcripttospeakoftheobjects,descriptionsandorientationsweclaimforthem.2Often

enough,thetaskisnaturalisticallydescriptive,aswhennotinganoverlappingturn,a

complaint,orevenadisagreement.Routinely,wehearthemasanycompetentspeaker

wouldhearthem.Elsewhere,however,descriptionsareachievedbytheaccountsthat

organizeanddeliverthem.ForCA,andpresumablytheEP,transcriptisthegenerative,

constitutivefieldoffindings,andtheyincludeaccount–ablefindings,findingstiedtothe

accountsthatreflexivelyleveragethemintoview(asinaccountsof“doingindirection”

[Sacks,1992,v.2:101],therepairspace,everydiscussionof“possibles”[Schegloff,

2006:145],orevena“question”[Schegloff,1984:29]).

5

TalkofEMreflexivityisseldomeasy,andwewanttopursueitwithasmall

collectionofmaterialsthatmaybegintogetatthiswork.Byturningtotreatmentsof

actualmaterials,wearereturningtotheexpectationwithinCAthatsequentialanalysiswill

treatactualcases“formally”and“informatively”,andfurtherthatwemightreturntothe

materialsthemselvestoassessanalyticdisputesordifferences(Sacks,1984).AsSchegloff

(1991)observedthe“testoftheadequacyofadescriptionofsomepractice[is]itscapacity

toyieldconvincinganalysisofsingularepisodesofconversation”(1991:153).Inpart,this

“test”isawaytoassessthecogencyofouraccountsandwhethertheyarerevealingof

whattheparticipantsaredoingandalso,andespecially,whether—andhow—ouraccounts

canhaveusefortheprofuse,unremarkableandyetconstitutivedetailregisteredinour

transcripts.

Implicittotheseproposalswasnotonlyapenetratingcritiqueofformalanalysis.It

wasalsotheproposalthatnaturallanguagestudycouldnotbedisengagedoruncoupled

fromthemasteryofnaturallanguage.Onecouldnotdothisworkandnotbeacompetent

overhearer(seeWongandOsher,2000).Forthisreasonweinvitethereadertoengagethe

discussionsthatfollowassequentialanalysts,ontheonehand,andalsoascompetent

over–hearers.Itisbybothcompetenciesthatwemayhavesomethinginterestingtosay

aboutordinarytalk,itsorderlyproductions,andtheirdescription.3

Thecorpus

ThematerialspresentedbelowappearintheearlypublicationsdiscussedinMacbethetal.

(2016),andalsosubsequentpublications.AsreadersoftheEPmayhavenoticed,manyof

6

thetranscribedmaterialsappearmultipletimesacrosspublications,andalsomultiple

timeswithinsinglepublications.

ThefirstsequenceappearsatleastinHeritageandRaymond(2005)andinHeritage

(2011),andweareusingthenarrativefromthelaterpublication.Ittakesupassessments,

and“…casesinwhichonepartyevaluatessomestateofaffairstowhichtheotherhasno

accessatall...”(Heritage2011:160).Inthe“noaccess”wehaveafoundationalseparation

thatunderwritestheepistemicorganizationofinteractionasbetweenthosewhohave

access,knowledgeorinformation,andthosewhodonot.Asonemightthenexpect,a

recurrentprojectfortheEPistheparsingofkindsorwaysormeasuresofknowing.

LottieandEmma:firstassessments

Heritage(2011:160)introducesthefollowingsequence(hisexhibit3),bynotingthat

Emma’s(Emm)sisterLottie(Lot)hasreturnedfromanapparentlyexhilaratingtriptovisit

friendsinPalmSprings.Hermethodofrepresentingthehouseshestayedatcentersonits

inaccessibilitytohersister:

(1)

1 LOT: hhJeezizChris’yoush’dseethathouseE(h)mmayih’av

2 ↓noidea.h[hmhh

3 EMM: [Ibetit’sadrea:m.

Inthediscussionfollowingthetranscript,weread:

Patentlylackingtheresourcestoenterintoadirectappreciationofthehousebythe

verytermsofLottie’sassessment,EmmaalignswithLottie’sevaluationbymeansofa

subjunctiveexpressionofherlikelyevaluation,therebyachievingasimulacrumof

7

agreement(HeritageandRaymond2005).(Heritage2011:160)

Thisisadenseaccountofathree–linetranscriptoftwoturns.Notefirsttheframing

ofwhatisinterestingaboutthesequence:itisanitemtoacollectionofassessmentsabout

matters“towhichtheotherpartyhasnoaccessatall…”(Heritage2011:160).Thereare

twopotentialdifficultieshere,beginningwithhowfirstassessmentsarerecipient

designed.Wedon’tnormallyofferknowingassessmentsofanoperaticperformance,for

example,tootherswhoknownothingaboutopera[unlessweareteachingthem].Both

Sacks(1992)andPomerantz(1984:61,63)remindusthatfirstassessmentsareproduced

forpersonswhocanperfectlywellofferasecond,andthusagreeornotinnextturn,and

wethinkthatisclearlysointhiscaseaswell.Intheparticularshere,wecanalsoask:is

Lottie’sfirstturnanassessmentcallingforasecond,oranenthusiasticreportofhertrip

experience?Byeitheraccountaresponseiscalledforinnextturn,andCA’sproof

procedurerecommendsthatweconsultnextturnforunderstandingitsprior.

Second,theexpression“youhavenoidea”figurescentrallyinthetreatmentof

Emma’s“access”.Butifoneexaminestheaudiorecordandtranscriptasitwaspreparedby

Jefferson,youwillfindmultipleusesoftheidiom“youhavenoidea”aspartofLottie’s

breathlessaccounting,andaverydifferentimpressionofEmma’s“access”.IntheJefferson

transcriptthetargetsequenceisfoundinlines81-84.Butinthepriortalktheydiscussthe

houseintermsweshallhearagain,alongwithitslocation—itsneighborhoodand

landmarks—alocationthatEmmaevidentlyknowswellenough(seeSchegloff,1972on

formulationsofplace):

(1a)

8

[CABank/Jefferson/NB:IV:10:R/21swimnude.cha]4

43 Emm: =Oh:honeyIbetthehouseisbeautiful.hu:h?

44 Lot: °Oh:::GodEmma.°

45 (.)

46 Lot: °Jeeziz.°Ho:wlu:cky.h

47 (.)

48 Emm: Mm::::.

49 Lot: Yih'avnoideait'srightacrossthestreetfromthe:::El

50 Torrero.

51 Emm: Oh:::.

52 Lot: Ye:ah.

53 Emm: OhnotneartheIndianWe:lls.

54 (1.0)

55 Lot: °ihYe::ah:?°(0.2)It'sih-i-IndianWe:llsuhwellit'sa:ll

56 Indi⌈anWe⌈:lls'nP⌉a:lmDesertnowthey'vecha:nged=

57 Emm: ⌊·hhhh⌊Yeah.⌋

58 Lot: =ityihkn⌈owtuhP⌉a:lmDe:sert,

59 Emm: ⌊Yeah:.⌋

9

Emmaknowstheseformulationsofplace,andastheirconversationcontinues,we

encounterthesequencewearediscussinganddiscoveradifferentsequence,and

specifically,averydifferentsecondturnbyEmma:

(1b)

79 Lot: [But]

80 Emm: [Ohisn’]thatwonder[ful]

81 Lot: ⌊hh⌋JeezizChriseshush'dseethathouse

82 E(h)mmayih'av↓noidea.h⌈hmhh

83–>Emm: ⌊Ibetit'sadrea:m.<Wihthe

84–> swimmingPOO:LENCLO:SED⌈HU:H?

85 [u-

86 Lot: Oh::::::::Kho:dwe·hhihhhuhhu↑Weswaminthen:ude·hh

87 Sundeenightu(h)ntilaba⌈httwouh'clo:ck.⌉

88 Emm: ⌊ehhhehhehhuhh⌋a:h

Ascanbeseen,Emma’sactualturnatlines83-84is:

Emm: Ibetit'sadrea:m.<WihtheswimmingPOO:LENCLO:SED ⌈HU:H

WecannottellhowEmmaknowsofthepoolfromthepriortalk.Andinsubsequenttalk

Lottiecorrectstheaccount:thepoolisn’tenclosed,it’s“outsidethebigglassdoors”,though

Lottietreatsthemis-descriptionasherown(lines529–534).Butwhatisquiteclearisthat

thetranscript,onceseen,ratherdeeplyqualifiestheaccountofwhatEmma‘knows’as“no

10

access”,aformulationthatseemstobeoperatingfromakindof“sense–impression

empiricism”,wherebyifoneparty‘saw’somethingthattheotherpartydidn’tsee,theother

partywouldhave‘noaccess’andthefirstwouldhavesoleaccess.Butagain,thisdissolves

thepremiseofanassessmentsequence.Moreover,onemayknowofthingsnotseen‘this

time’(rushhourtraffic,drearyweather,magnificenthouses,etc.)wellenoughtojoina

knowingconversationaboutthem.Aninsistenceon‘senseimpressions’isnotquite

recognizableinaliteraturethathastakenkeeninterestinaccounts,tellings,andthe

account-abilityofordinaryworlds.Viatheaccountsofothers,weknowfarmoreofthe

world—anditswarrantedassessments—thanwhatwehave‘actuallyseen’.5

So,it’snotthatEmmawouldmistakethishouseforaboat,orthatshehasnever

heardLottie’sexpressionabout“havingnoidea”before(it’sfirstheardinline49-50).

LottieisnotspeakingnorisEmmahearingquitesoliterally.AndEmma'sreplyshowsshe

doesindeed‘haveanidea’,ofhowLottieisspeaking:afirstidiomaticexpressionreceivesa

next:justasshe‘hasnoidea’,thenit‘mustbedream’,forthemboth.Neitherisliterallyso,

andnotwithstandingsubjunctiveexpressions,alignmentsdomorethanmarkabsences.

Onelastpointontheissueof‘access’andthenotionthatEmma”…hasnoaccessat

all…”Briefly,inLottie’sfirstturnsheremarks:

1 hhJeezizChriseyoush’dseethathouseE(h)mmayih’av

2 |↓noidea.h[hmhh

Wewanttonotetheturnproduction“…youshouldseethathouse…,”andespeciallythe

phrase“thathouse”.Onconsideration,acompetentspeakerwillhearthatthisisnotafirst

topicmention.‘Thathouse’isanindexicalexpressionanddirectlyassumesthatthe

11

recipientalreadyhasaccesstothemattersreferredto.IfEmmadidnot,shewouldhaveno

ideaofwhathousethathouseis.Butsheclearlydoes,andindeedthefulltranscriptshows

that‘thathouse’hasbeenatopicoftheirdiscussionforsometime.Oneneedn’tseeit,to

knowofit.

Sobyvariousmovesandframings,theEpistemictreatmentanimatesthetranscript

toleverageitsfindings.There’saformalityandstiffnesstotheaccount.There’snothingof

theevidentexcitementthepartiesshareinthetelling,andit’shardtofindevidenceoftheir

demonstrableorientations.Theturnsseemtobecharacterizedratherthananalyzedin

theirproductionfeatures.Further,tofinda“simulacrumofagreement”hereistowritea

metricof“kindsofagreements”andthendeclarewhatkindthisoneis.Itisanoverhearer’s

measureentirely.

Trixie:Epistemicassessmentsandoh–prefacedagreements

Thesecondsequencehastodowithaconversationbetweentwodogbreedersdiscussedin

Heritage(2002),HeritageandRaymond(2005)andHeritage(2012a).Arecurrenttheme

acrossmanyEPanalysesoftranscriptisoneof‘proprietaryrelations’,orhowonemay

‘own’thingslikeknowledge,experience,spouses,children,grandchildren,catsanddogs.

Thisownershipcanbecentraltoepistemicstatusandauthority.Intheparticularshere

(fromHeritage2002:204-205,exhibit11):

[T]wodogbreeders—NormanandIlene—havebeentalkingaboutthereadinessofone

ofNorman'syoungerdogstohaveafirstlitter.…Andatline9,Ilenementionsoneof

Norman'sotherdogs(Trixie),whoapparentlybeganbreedingatayoungage:

(2)[Heritage1:11:4]

12

1Ile: Nowellshe'sstillabityoungthoughisn't[she<ahme]an:=

2Nor: [She::]

3Ile: =uh[:

4Nor: [Shewzayear:la:stwee:k.

5Ile: Ahyes.Ohwellanytimeno:w[then.]

6Nor: [Uh:::]:[m

7Ile: [Ye:s.=

8Nor: =Butshe[:'s()]

9Ile:—> [CuzTrixiestarted]soearly[didn'tsh[e,

10Nor:—> [°Oh::[ye:s.°=

11Ile: =°Ye:h°=

Thenarrativeresumes:

HereNorman'soh-prefacedagreement(line10),inconveyingtheindependenceofhis

assessmentfromIlene's,alsoalludestohisepistemicprioritywithrespecttothe

informationinquestion…Atthesamemoment,Ilene'stagquestion(line9)

downgradestheepistemicstrengthofwhatwouldotherwisebeaflatassertion.

Andfurther:

…theepistemicpriorityofthesecond,oh-prefacingspeakerisavailablefromthetopic

andcontextoftheinteractionandinexplicitlyindexedinthetalk.(Heritage,2002:205)

Thereareseveralthingstoteaseouthere.ThesequencebeginswithIlene

suggestingthatthepupinquestionis'stillabityoung'.Normancitesherageinline4,and

Ileneseemstoreceiveitassettlingthematter.Butshereturnswiththerecollectionabout

13

Trixieinline9,andherre-completion,“didn'tshe”,seemslessaquestionoradowngrade,

thanacontinuationofherreminderaboutthecaseofTrixiewithacallforagreement.

Ileneisnot‘requestinginformation’;sheseemstobecallingforconfirmation,andshegets

it.HerturnseemstobethetouchoffforNormaninline10,inhissoftlyspoken'Oh::yes'.

ButnotethatitisinoverlapofIlene’sre-completion.Sothere-completion(‘didn’tshe’)is

nottheturncompletionthatNormanaddresses;headdressesIle’sreminderofline9,

wheresoftspeakingcanbeamarkofuncertainty,anddiscovery.

Andgiventhattheyarebothdogbreederswithevidentaccesstoasharedhistory,it

isdifficulttohearNormanconveyingeither‘epistemicpriority’or‘independence'inline

10,whether“inexplicitlyindexedinthetalk”,ornot(thesenseofthatphraseisnot

developed).Itisdifficulttoseehowthetranscriptdeliverstheaccounttheanalysis

suggests.

Instead,itseemsthatNormanhasbelatedlydiscoveredIlene'sfirstallusionto

‘troubles’producedinline1.IleneartfullypursuesitinherreferencetoTrixieinline9

(andhowNormanmaybeproceedingwithadecisionthatdidnotworkwellthelasttime).

Andthatheagreeswithitinline10,oncehediscoversit,thenreceivesIlene’ssoftlylatched

confirmationinline11ofwhatNormanhasnowfoundasthethingshehadbeenpointing

tofromthebeginning.Butthisisaverydifferentaccountofthesequence.Itattachesto

thedetailofthetranscriptratherthantoprioritiesorstatuses“inexplicitlyindexed”.It

treatstherecordinevidence.Ofthedifference,wethinkthatSchegloff’s(1991:153)

measureof“convincinganalysisofsingleepisodesofconversation”continuestobevery

useful.Moredirectly,

14

Oneofthekeytasksofresearchersindevelopingclaimsforaphenomenonisnotto

sacrificethedetailedexaminationofsinglecasesonthealtarofbroadclaims—

especiallywhenthecasesaremeantasevidenceforthebroadclaim;oneofthekeytasks

ofreadersistoexaminethedetailedanalysisofsinglecasesasepisodeswiththeirown

reality,deservingoftheirownrigorousanalysiswithoutrespecttotheirbearingonthe

largerargumentforwhichtheyarebeingputforward.(Schegloff,2010:42,italicsin

original)

Janissick:inappositeinquiries

Thenextsequenceisabout‘Oh-prefacedresponsestoinquiries’andisplacedunderthe

heading“Questionsrenderedinappositebycontext.”Inthisinstance,

…therespondenttreatstheobjectofaninquiryasself-evidentbyvirtueofitsphysical

context,orofpersons'culturalorpersonalknowledge.Inexhibit15,Jancomestothe

phoneandgivesacough(1–>).Ivy'ssubsequentinference(2–>)getsanoh-prefaced

confirmation(3–>).(Heritage1998:301)

(3)(Heritage,1998:301-302,exhibit15)

[Rah:A:1(2):1]

1 Jan: 1–> khhhh-huhkhh-huhkhh.hhhHellothereI[vy..hhhh

2 Ivy: [Oh:dea:hme:.

3 Jan: khh=

4 Ivy: 2–> =A[h(r)youstill'vgoti:t.

5 Jan: [khh

15

6 Jan: 3–> Ohyes.Iwzprettybady(h)estiday.[.hhhh-

7 Ivy: [Oh::dih-

8 Ivy: Yihnotinbedareyou,

ThenarrativeabovehasIvydisplayingherinferencethatJanisstillsickinline4,andJan

producingher‘Oh-prefaced’replyinline6tomarkitas‘inapposite’,asOh-prefacedreplies

insuchplacesaresaidtodo,becauseJan’sstateofhealthwasalreadyevidentinhercough-

interruptedgreeting.

WecannotefirstanequivocationinthedescriptionofIvy’sline4:itisframedasan

“inquiry”butthencharacterizedasan“inference”,andperhapsthereisgoodcauseforit.

Wearenotsureofthelogicalrelationsbetweeninquiriesandinferences,buttocomplicate

things,line4alsoappearstobeaconclusion,andanimmediateconclusionfromwithinits

localproductionenvironment.NotealsohowIvy’sfirstinference/conclusionisevidenced

inline2—her“Ohdearme”.Notefurtherhowtheproductionofline4,slightlysimplified,

seemstobe:

Ivy: Ahryoustill’vgoi:t.

Absenttheaudiorecord,wecan’tsettlethematter,butachangeinitsproduction—a

repair—seemstobeinplay.Itseemstobeginas‘Areyoustill…?’,andbecomes‘youstill’v

goi:t.’Thatis,whatmayhavebeenlaunchedasininquiry,iscompletedasaconclusion.

Andthereisgoodsenseforthehearingwhenweconsulttheproductionoftheturninits

course.

3Jan: khh=

16

4Ivy: =A[h(r)youstill'vgoti:t.

5Jan: [khh

6Jan: Ohyes.Iwzprettybady(h)estiday.[.hhhh-

Line3showsacoughintheclear,towhichIvylatchesherline4with‘Ahr…’Butherturn

beginningisthenoverlappedwithasecondcough,andnowwehaveIvyspeakinginthe

contextofconsecutivecoughing,andinsofarascoughingevidencesillness,herturn

[seemingly]concludesasmuch.

Thepremiseofthediscussionof‘Oh-prefacedrepliestoinquiries’isthataninquiry

isinaptifitsanswerisalreadyinevidence,andwedoseemtohavethesecondpartofthat

formulationinplay.That‘youstill’vgotit’isindeedinevidence:thecoughingbracketsthe

turn’sinitiation.ButitisIvywhoisshowinganorientationto‘what’sevident’inhowher

turntakesthetrajectoryitdoes.Thisraisesfurtherquestions:isherconclusioninline4—

‘youstill’vgotit’—“inapposite”initsorientationtowhatisalreadyinevidence,andifso

wouldeverysuchconclusionfromwhatisinevidencenotbeinapposite?6AndifIvy’s

conclusionofline4isnotinappositeforthesereasons,theninwhatsenseisJanmarkingit

sowithher‘Oh-preface’inline6?7Isitthat‘inappositeness’isaunilateraljudgmentthat

fallstotherecipientwheneveracurrentturnremarksonaffairs‘inevidence’?Butof

course,thedomaininquestionisn’tjustanyremarkonaffairsinevidence.Therelevant

domainis“inquiries”,andthisreturnsustotheequivocationinthetreatmentofIvy’sturn

asan‘inquiry’,an‘inference’,ornowa‘conclusion’(ourterm).Andintheequivocation,

thereisthesuggestionofapotentiallyenormousorganizationaldomain—remarkson

thingsinevidence—forwhichtheepistemictreatmentoffersnoguidanceastowhere

17

‘inquiriesaboutthingsinevidence’standwithrespecttothelargerdomain.Andifthatis

so,thenitwouldseemthediscussionofan‘Oh–prefaced’markingishugelyundeveloped;

thereissimplynodiscussionofwhatmattersinevidencearesensiblyfoundinapposite

whensightedasinquiries,inferencesorconclusions,andwhen,muchlessaconsideration

ofwhatotherworkan‘Oh-prefaced’responsetoaninquirymightdo.8

Inthisway,andforthissequence,wecanfindandaffirmanorientationto‘what’sin

evidence’.Butitisrelievedofanysenseofinappositeness.Thatsense,fortheEP,seemsto

relyentirelyontheassertionthat‘oh-prefacedreplies’aresomotivated;theassertion

seemstobedeterminativeofthefinding,yethasanuncertainrelationshiptothematerials.

WhileJan’ssecondturninline6iscertainly‘Oh-prefaced’,andwhilethediscussionwrites

amotivatedaccountforit,itisnotthenthecasethattheturnitselfgivesmuchevidencefor

theaccount.The‘Oh’herecouldwellbeanappreciationofIvy’sconclusionaboutJan’s

circumstances,aconclusionleveragedfromher[Ivy’s]closeattentiontotheirexchangein

itscircumstantialparticulars,andtheopeningitaffordsforJan’stellingthatfollows.

There’slotsofcoughing,andIvymissesnoneofit.

Assickpeopledo,weoftenanswerthephonewithevidencethatwe’resick.And

withsuchevidence,allinquiriesabout‘howareyou?’arevirtuallyquestionswithknown

answers.Thiskindofredundancyseemsfarfrominapposite.Instead,itgivesthecalled

theresourceswithwhichtoshowthemeasurenotofaninappositequestionorinference,

butofjusthowsicksheis,orhasbeen,asJandoesinthesameturn.Asanimpression,

commiseration,sympathyandcondolencesequencesareroutinelymadeofredundancy(as

aregreetings,closingsanddeliveriesofnews).Measuressurelyareatplayhere,measures

ofhowsickJanwasandisnow,butfortheseparties,theyarenotaboutinapposite

18

inquiries.Andinthemeasure,wegainsomesenseforhowwell“informationredundancy”

isservingourunderstandingofactualcasesintheirturn–by–turnproduction.

Hyla’sboyfriend:Free–standing‘Ohs’andtheiropacity

Thefourthsequenceappearsinmultiplepublications,inHeritage,1984;2005;2012a,b;and

2013a,b,andinmultipleplaceswithinsinglepublications.Weareconjoiningtwoofthem

presentedin1984,andcollatingdiscussionsabout‘free-standingOhs’andtheiropacity.As

wasdiscussedinMacbethetal.(2016),therecipientofa‘free-standingOh’willawaitfurther

instructionorinvitationbeforetakinganextturnbecausetheopaqueexpressiondefeatsan

understandingofwhat’stobedonewithit,next.Inthissequence,Nancyistalkingtoher

friendHylaaboutHyla’snewromanticinterestinSanFrancisco.

(4)(Heritage1984:310,exhibit26)

[HG:II:25]

1 Nan: .hhhDzhe'av'izownapa:rt[mint?]

2 Hyl: [.hhh]Yeah,=

3 Nan: =Oh:,

4–> (1.0)

5 Nan: Howdidjugit'iznumber,

6 (.)

7 Hyl: I(h)(.)c(h)alledinfermation'nSanFr'ncissc(h)[uh.

8 Nan:–> [Oh::::.

19

9 (.)

10 Nan:–> Verycleve:r…

(Heritage,1984:325)

Thenarrativetellsusthat“[Inline4],theinformativepartywithholdsfurtheron-topictalk

afteran‘oh’receiptuntilreceivingarequesttodoso…”

Inthiscontext,itmayfurtherbenotedthat,whereas"oh"mayproposeachangeof

stateinresponsetoaninforming,itisentirelyopaqueastothequalityorcharacterof

thechangeofstateproposedlyundergonebyitsproducer.Thusaninformant/"oh"

recipientmaywithholdfromfurthertalkwithaviewtopermitting/invitingthe"oh"

producertoelaboratewhatlaybehindtheproductionoftheparticle.(Heritage,1984:

325)

So,NancyisquizzingHylaabouthernewromanticinterest,andthenarrativetellsusthatit

isthe‘opacity’ofNancy’s“Ohs”inresponsetoHyla’sdisclosuresthatpressesthesequence

forward,asHylawithholdstopermitorinviteNancyto‘elaboratewhatliesbehindthe

particle’.Thus,whatchangeliesbehindtheparticle,initsopaqueandgenericsilence,

substantiallyshapesthesequencewefind.

Notefurtherthattheopacityandthewithholdingareexpressionsofuncertaintiesof

information,andthusuncertaintyorganizessequencedevelopment.Andnodoubt,there

aretimesandoccasionswherethisisso.Imagineinterrogations,whetherbypoliceof

suspects,orparentsoftheirchildren,orchildrenoftheirparents(seeHeritage,2012a,and

Terasaki,2004[1976]).Andinfact,wehavesomethingverymuchlikethathere,apractical

interrogation.Butitdoesn’tseemtobeanexpressionofahiddendynamicindexedonly

20

hereandtherebyopaquetokens.Ratherthanexpressingsomethingthatis‘priorto’or

‘underneath’thegrammarsofconversation,whatHylaandNancyaredoinghereseems

insteadtobeamongtheirroutineachievements.

ThatHylaandNancyareengagedinapracticalandknowingcourseofinquiryis

evidencedwhenweconsultthelargersequence.Atranscriptofthissequencedatingtothe

1980sbeginswithaquestionfromHyla.9

(4a)(Schegloff1988:451-452,exhibit7)

[HG:22-23]]

01 Hyla: Y’knoww’tIdidlas’ni:[ght?

02 Nancy: [Wha:t,=

03 Hyla: =Didate:rriblethi::::[ng

04 Nancy: [YoucalledSi:m,

05 (04)

06 Hyla: No:,

07 (.)

08 Nancy: What,

09 (.)

10 Hyla: t’hhh[WellIhed–]

11 Nancy: [Youcalled]Richard,=

12 (): =hh–hh=

21

13 Hyla: =(h)y(h)Yea(h)henIh(h)ungupw(h)un‘e

14 a(h)ns[wer

15 Nancy: [Oh:Hylawhy:::::

Thelastturnmayremindthereaderofthemodestpurchaseoftheinformational

interrogativeasacharacterizationofwhatworksuchturnscando.Butthelargerpointis

thatweseehowNancyandHylabecameengagedinaguessinggamecalled‘Doyouknow

whatIdidlastnight?’It’saperfectlyordinarything,andalovelycandidatefortalkabout

‘whoknowswhat’.AndindeeditunfoldsassequencesofNancypursuingwhatHylaknows

butisn’tsaying,yet[asinthegame’20questions’].Itshowsushowwemaywellfind

exchangesinwhichonepartyknowsthingstheotherdoesnot,andtheotherproceeds,

withthecooperationoftheknowingparty,tofindout.Andwheneveronefindssuchan

occasion,itwillbefoundastheoccasionedfeaturesof‘howwe’respeakingnow’.

WethereforeandcertainlyhaveinthissequencesomethinglikeadistributionofK+

andK–relations.Butdependingonwhetherwetreatthemasoccasionedrelationsor

formalstructures,wewillbeledtoverydifferentanimatingdescriptions.Intheparticulars

ofthesequence,asofHylaandNancyknowingperfectlywellhowtheyarespeaking,andas

itbecomesaseriesofNancy’spacedinquiries,eachnextanswertowhichreceivesher‘Oh’,

andthenadurationofherthinkingaboutit,andthenanextquestion,thereisnopuzzleor

mysteryoropacityasto“whatliesbehindtheproductionoftheparticle”.None.Thesense

ofthese‘Ohs’liesrightonthesurfaceofthesequenceswhoseproductionstheyjoinasan

emergingaccount.Wehavehereacollaborativecourseofinquiry.Thepartiesknowwho

knowswhat,asofthis‘languagegame’theyareplaying.TheplayofNancy’s‘Ohs’is

22

evident,andwhatevertheymaybe‘indexing’ofanepistemicasymmetry,thepartieshave

beenknowingly,openlyspeakinginthosewaysfromthebeginning.Perhapsitisofthe

natureandachievementofsequentialanalysisandJeffersoniantranscriptsthattheyleave

littlespaceorneedforconjecturesofhiddenness.Therelentlesslyfamiliarworkof

commonunderstandingseemswrittenonthesurfacesofinteraction,andfortheparties

first.These‘Ohs’showustheparties’demonstrableorientations,andinthatwaywhat

theybringtoourattentionisfirstshowntothem.Formal–analyticaccountsarelate-

comerstothesepracticaltasksandachievements.

Discussion

ItisanunexpecteddimensionoftheCAcorpus,meaningthatperhapsnoonehadreasonto

imagineit40yearsago,thatintheduration,readersoftheliteraturewouldfindandnote

thereappearanceoftranscriptswehaveseenbefore.Samesequenceshavebeentreated

manytimestosameanddifferentissues,andweknowmanyofthembytheir‘handles’,like

“Twogirls”,or“Chickendinner”,or“Therapytalk”.Returningtothemislikerenewingan

acquaintance,andtheyieldisarichlyfamiliarcorpusfilledwithpracticaldemonstrations

ofwhattopics‘samematerials’cansustain,andalsoasensefortheemergenceoftopics,

interestsandconceptualdistinctionsacrossCA’sformativehistory.Theygiveevidenceofa

distinctivelydisciplinedformofinquiry.YetwhenweturntoEpistemicre–analysesof

thesesameandothermaterials,wecanfindaschism.

AcentralandrecurrentpuzzleforourreadingoftheEpistemicProgramishow

occasionedproductionfeaturesofturnandsequence,likethosewehavereviewedand

manyothers,arerenderedexpressionsofadurableformalstructureoperatinginthe

background.Transcriptisanimatedonbehalfofanomnipresentengineof“epistemic

23

order”(Heritage,2008:309).Theserenderingsareprogrammaticachievements,genericin

theirtermsandoperations,andtreatedascausativeofwhatordermaybefoundonany

actualoccasion.ThiswouldseemtobethecentralaimandachievementoftheEP’s

animations,notwithstandingthatgeneralizationssuchastheseareroutinelycraftedatthe

expenseofactual,producedandconstitutivedetail,andwhatthatdetailmayshowus(cf.,

Sacks,1992,vol.2:430;Schegloff,2010).10

Ourinterestsfromtheoutsethavetakenupthecontinuitiesanddeparturesofthe

EpistemicProgramfromtheconceptualexcavationsofEMCA.Ontheonehand,thedebtis

unmistakable.Ontheother,departuresaretoo.Theseareofcourseconceptualmatters,

andasWinch(1958/1990)showsus,everytask,distinctionandpuzzleofsocialscience—

everythingtobegainedandlost—isaconceptualmatter.

Wehaveaddressedseveralsuchconceptualdeparturesthroughtheearly

publicationsofwhathasbecomearecognizableliteratureandprogramofEpistemic

studiesofnaturalconversation.Wecouldvariouslysumthosedepartures,asin,for

example,adeparturefromthedemonstrableorientationsofthepartiesasboththeaimand

map–worksforunderstandingtheirsequentialproductions.Intheirstead,wefinda

preferenceforformalstructuresofgenericparticles,gradients,statusesandstructures

operatingpriortoanyactualparticularization.Or,anditisanalliedmove,adeparture

fromproductionaccountsoftemporal–sequentialorderinpreferenceformorenearly

ordinalaccountsofpositionalorder.Or,howHeritage(2012c)andLevinson(2013)write

critiquesofCA’s‘proofprocedure’,wherebyweconsultwhatafirstturnyieldsinnextturn,

forunderstandingwhatworkthefirstisdoing.Thesedescriptionsareofcourseintermsof

thevernacularreckoningsofnaturallanguage,aboutthingslikequestions,complaintsand

24

answers.Andforthisreason,thereisforLevinsonahermeneutic“softunderbelly”verging

on“theoccult”(2013:105)thatorganizesthem(seeLindwalletal.,2016).Butthenext

turn‘proofprocedure’isnotreallyabout‘proving’(noriseveryclarifyinganalytic

descriptionaproof;seeLynchandWong,2016).Itisratherawayofmakinguseof

vernacularreckoningstoassessourprofessionalreckonings,byconsultinghowtheparties

assesstheirown.Andasnotedabove,EMCAdoesnottakeitsleaveofthevernacularand

itsgrammarsofaction.Schegloffhaswrittenclearrepliestothosewhoproposeweshould

(Schegloff,1987;1988a,b;1991;1996;2009;2010).ThosegrammarsareindeedEMCA’s

aimtounderstand.Nordoesitseemquitenewsworthytosuggestthatvernacularorderis

nomorethananoccultproduction.Theassessmentisthefamiliarself–appointmentof

formalanalysis;toit,everythingelseisanoccultproduction.

ButperhapsmoretellingfortheEP,havinglittleuseforCA’s“proofprocedure”,itis

innowayclearwhattheEPoffersinitsstead,thatis,whatanalyticdispositionor

instructionitofferswherebywealignourinquiriesanddescriptionswithwhattheparties

aredemonstrablydoing,asbotharesourceforourinquiriesandameasureforassessing

theadequacyofourdescriptions.IftheCA‘proofprocedure’istobesetaside,whatshall

doitsworkwithintheEpistemicProgram?

Thequestionseemsquiteopen.Andwecanseewhatmaybeakindofprocedurein

discussionsofactionformationwhereinsomeoneinitiatingtheactionof“requesting

information”,regardedbytheEPasthe“theultimateparadigmofanadjacency–pairfirst

action”(Heritage,2012a:3),returnstoitinthirdturn,toconfirmthatthatwasindeed

whatshewasdoinginfirstturn.Thus,inthefollowingsequence,the‘Ohreceipt’ofa

“first–person”informationalaccountworkstoconfirmthatindeed,thepriorreportofa

25

“hearsayaccount”wasarequestforinformationand/orconfirmationfromthefirst–hand

knowersheisspeakingtonow.Admittedly,thesetupisnoteasy,buthopefullythe

materialsshowitclearly.

(5)(Heritage2012a:10,exhibit10)

[Rah:12:4:ST][arrowsareinoriginaltext]

1Jen:–> =[OkaythenIw]’zaskin=‘erenshesaysyer

2 –> workingtomorrowezwell.

3Ida: YesI’ms’posetobetihmorrowyes,

4Jen:–> O[h:::.

5Ida: [Yeh,

Thecommentaryobserves:

Jenny’sdeclarativelyframedutterancereferencesinformationthatisinherrecipient’s

epistemicdomainandistreatedasarequestforconfirmation(line3).Hereitcanagain

benotedthatJenny’schangeofstate(K−→K+)oh-receiptconfirmsbyimplicationthat

heroriginaldeclarativewasindeedaquestioninsearchofinformation.(2012a:10)

Thesuggestionofa‘proofprocedure’isthatforhavingproducedher‘Oh–receipt’inline4,

wehaveproof“byimplication”thatJen’sfirstturn“wasindeedaquestioninsearchof

information,”oralternativelyarequestforconfirmationoftheprioraccount.Wenowhave

groundsforidentifyingtheactionformedinJen’sfirstturn.Butifso,andbyeitheraccount

ofthefirstturn’saction—asearchforinformationorarequestforconfirmation—itwould

beacuriousprocedure.Therelevant‘proof’ofa‘questioninsearchof

26

information/confirmation’inJen’sfirstturnwouldseemtobeIda’snextturninline3.This

isthe“nextturnprocedure”producedbyandfortheparties,suchthatifsomethingelse

werebeingsolicitedbyJeninfirstturn,themis-understandingcouldberevealed.

Butweseemtohavehereinsteadathird–turnprocedure.AfterIda’snextturn,Jen

confirmswhatherfirstwaswithher“Oh”receiptinline4.Wehavethen,itseems,a

‘secondproof’.ButwhatneedhasJenfora“confirmation”atall;it’sherquestion.Andif

theconfirmationwereforIda—aconfirmationinthirdturnofthehearingfirstevidenced

inhernext–turnreply—whatneedhasIda?Or,ifIdahasneedforaconfirmationofthe

hearingevidencedinhernextturn,whywouldthisthird–turnprocedurebeprovincialto

theactionformationof“questionsinsearchofinformation”?Thatis,whywouldnotevery

question,compliment,complaint,assessment,agreement,andthefullpanoplyofaction

formationsnotbenefitfromthird–turnconfirmationstoo?Butthen,absentevidenceofthe

partiesneedforthisprocedure,wouldnotamorequotidianunderstandingofthis

expressiononthisoccasion(“Oh”)saveusthedifficultiesthatfollow?11There’sno

evidencethatnaturalconversationcouldactuallyevergoonthisway,inaregimeofthird

turnconfirmations.Butperhaps,alternatively,thisisnotaprocedureforsecuringthe

understandingsoftheparties;thoseunderstandingareroutinelyinhandthroughtheon–

goingworkofnextturns.Perhapsitisinsteadaprocedurefordetailingtheanalytic

formationsoftheEpistemicProgram,aninterpretativetextualgrammar,ratherthanone

fortheproductionofunderstandinginsitu.

ForCA,itisfromtheparties’understandingsthattheanalysttakesthemeasureof

herown.Thoseunderstandingsarenottheonlyresource,buttheyareacentralresource.

Andintheabsenceoftheparties’local,demonstrableorientations,theEPmustthenhave

27

someregularorstableprocedurefordiscipliningtheover–hearinganalystinhowweshall

heartheparticularsofparticles,theirplacements,indexing,markedness,upgrading,

inappositenessandtherest.Thequestionbecomes:whatprocedureisthis?Inaregister

bothseriousandplayful,wewanttosumourremarksontheseexhibitsandtheir

EpistemictreatmentsthroughSacks’earlyworkonmembershipcategorization,andhis

formulationofa“Hearer’sMaxim”:“iftwoormorecategoriesareusedtocategorizetwoor

moremembersofsomepopulation,andthosecategoriescanbeheardascategoriesfrom

thesamecollection,then:hearthemthatway”(Sacks,1992:221).

Borrowingontheexpression,wewanttosuggestthatwhentheEPturnstoactual

cases,wefindanexercisethatcanbecalledan“Over–Hearer’sMaxim”.Itrunsroughly:“if

theanalystcanhearanagonisticstruggle,ifshecanhearacontestofinformationalor

experientialpossessions,orredundancy,orepistemicauthority,orsubordination,hearit

thatway.”

Bothmaximsunderwriteinterpretativedegreesoffreedom.Forthe“hearer’s

maxim,”avernacularpracticeofhearingcategoricalreferences,therearenoparticular

rulestoobserve,beyondthecategoricalboundariesinplay.Themembershipcategories

mustbeheardandusedsensibly,asanycompetentmemberwouldhearthem.Therules

lieinagrammarofappositeusage.

Withrespecttoanover-hearer’smaxim,however,theredoseemtoberule–

resourcesattached,bothformalandpermissive,authorizinghearingsthatreckonthe

metricsofthingslikeaspeaker’sindependence,status,access,authority,subordination,

andthelike,andwehaveaparticularformulationinmindthatsuggeststheinterpretative

28

degreesoffreedominvolved.WefinditinHeritage(2002),regardingOh–prefacedsecond

assessments:

Insum,oh–prefacinginthecontextofagreementsisamethodpersonsusetoindexthe

independenceoftheiraccessand/orjudgmentinrelationtothestateofaffairsunder

evaluation…Thus,thebasicclaimhereisthatoh–prefacing,inandofitself,indexes

epistemicindependence:anindependencethatmayormaynotbeelaboratedbyother

elementsoftheturnthatfollows.Theindexingisinexplicit,markedandoptional.

(2002:204)

Thereareatleasttwostrikingthingsaboutthisproposal.Thepassagetreats‘Oh-

prefacinginthecontextofagreements’asanactionthat“inandofitself,indexesepistemic

independence”.Therearemanythingsdescribedanddevelopedinsequentialanalysis.

Manyofthemarenaturallanguageobjectsthatanycompetentspeakermightrecognize,

thingslikequestionsandanswers,requestsandrefusals.Therearealsolatches,hitches,

positionsandtechnicalnoticings,andsurmisesmadeofstillotherproductionfeatures.But

“indexingepistemicindependence”seemsanentirelydifferentkindofnoticing,andthe

difficultyisnotwith‘independence’,but“indexing”.Itseemstorequirean‘elsewhere’for

therecognizabilityoftheaction,giventhatit“mayormaynotbeelaboratedbyother

elementsoftheturnthatfollows”,andespeciallysoifthoseelementsincludethe

demonstrableorientationsoftheparties.“Indexing”seemstostandwideofthem.Inthis

way,itisafurtivething,andaswemayormaynotfinditsevidenceintheon-goingturn

andsequenceproduction,itnowseemsthatitisindexingthatis“opaque”andperhaps

“occult”,removedfromactualsequentialorganizationsandavailableonlysometimes,to

certaineyes.‘Indexingindependence’seemstoformulateanactionwithinananalytically

29

constructedvocabularyofmotives,andforeverysuchconclusiononecanfairlyask:has

thisbeenshown,andcanitbeshownorfoundasamovewithinthesequentialgrammarof

naturalconversation?12

Second,thereisaremarkablestringofadjectivesthatconcludesthispassage:that

theindexingworkofanOh-prefaceis“….inexplicit,marked,andoptional.”Thereseemto

betworeadingsthatwecanhaveforit:oneisthattheseareadjectivesforthe“indexing”

workof‘Oh’,andthatthatwork—‘Oh’swork’—canbe“…inexplicit,marked,andoptional.”

Thisseemstobetheaim,althoughwethenhavethetaskofreconcilingthe“inexplicit”,the

“marked”,andthe“optional”.Thisisadiversecollectionofcategories[“markedness”isa

productionfeature;whatare“inexplicit”and“optional”?],andevenifwepermitthem,how,

onanyactualoccasion,shallweknowwhichitis,orwas,thistime?Thequestionleadstoa

secondreading.

Thesecondreadingistoseethestringofadjectivesasresourcesfordevelopinga

professional–analyticdiscourse,meaningthatiftheworkof“indexing”showsitselfinthese

ways—again,as“…inexplicit,marked,andoptional”—thenshouldthereaderortheparties

totheoccasionfailtoseeorgiveevidenceofit,itisbecausethesearemattersthatareboth

“inexplicit”and“optional,”andonlysometimes‘marked’;itmightbedoneandnotheard

(inexplicit),ornotdoneatall(optional).(Perhapsanalystsandpartiesalikecansee

indexingthatis‘marked’.)Thisarmamentofadjectivespermitstheanalysttofindindexing

workwherenooneelsecan.Andthatisanextraordinaryresourceandprivilegeforthe

tasksof“animatingtranscript”,asitisanextraordinaryretreatfromthepremisethatthe

orderoftalk-in-interactionisthroughoutanorderlinessavailabletothepartiessoengaged,

asoftheircompetencetoitsproductions.TheEPwouldseemtohaveitthattheanalyst

30

canseewhatthepartiescannot,andinthiswecanfindareturntothefamiliardisposition

ofsocialscienceasaformal–analyticexercise(Garfinkel,2002,passim).

Conclusion

BeyondtheseveralremarksinHeritage(1984a)and(1998),thecentralroleofinformation

transferasthetrafficofinteractionisnotmuchdevelopedforanothertenyears.Itisthen

formulateddirectlyinHeritage2012a,2012b,thoughasargumentwithoutbenefitof

materials(seeLynchandWong,2016):

[H]owdoutterancesfunctionasrequestsforinformation?Howarerequestsfor

informationasaspecificformofsocialactionbuiltandmadeactionableassuch?Thisis

notanidlequestion.Requestsforinformationaretheultimateparadigmofan

adjacency–pairfirstaction(Schegloff,2007;StiversandRossano,2010)thatmake

responseactionableandaccountablewithoutdelayacrossmanylanguages....(Heritage,

2012a:3)

Andinthesamespecialissue:

Theideathat“information”isakeyelementincommunication,motivatingand

warrantingcontributionstotalk,ishardlyanewone.Itisastapleofcommunication

theoriesfromShannonandWeaver(1949)onward,ofawidevarietyoffunctional

linguistictheoriesfocusingonthegiven–newdistinction…,andmany,comparatively

diverse,pragmatictheories…dealingwithsentenceconstructionandinterpretation….

Ingeneral,however,conversationanalysis(CA)stoodasidefromthesetrends,despite

clearevidencethatacknowledgingnewinformationasnewandtherebyenactingthe

updatingofcommongroundisthefirstorderofbusinesstransactedbymany“sequence

31

closingthirds”(Schegloff,2007)andrelatedacknowledgments.(Heritage,2012b:31,

selectedcitationsomitted)

Perhaps.Yetsomehow,itseemscompletelyunlikelythatSacksetal.wereun-awareofthe

flourishingtradeininformationstudiesreportedabove.It’sentirelypossiblethatthey

“stoodaside”forgoodreason,thoughwhatreasonstheywerearenowheretakenupinthe

EP’sdiscussion.

Schegloffhaswrittenmorefrequentlyinrecentyearsonthefirsttasksofmaking

senseofsinglecasesintheirconstitutivedetailandorganizations.Thispassageisn’tquite

sorecent:

Amongthemostrobusttraditionalanchorsfortheanalysisoflanguagebeyondthelevel

ofsyntaxareorientationstoinformationandtruth.Thispositionneedstobe

reconsidered….Especially(butnotexclusively)inconversation,talkisconstructedand

isattendedbyitsrecipientsfortheactionoractionsitmaybedoing.Evenifwe

consideronlydeclarative-typeutterances…theinformativenessortruthofan

utteranceis,byitself,nowarrantorgroundsforhavinguttereditorforhavinguttered

itataparticularjunctureinanoccasion.Thereisvirtuallyalwaysanissue(for

participantsand,accordingly,forprofessionalanalysts)ofwhatisgettingdonebyits

productioninsomeparticularhere-and-now.(Schegloff,1995:187)

Aprogrammaticcritiqueisquiteclear.WewanttoextenditthroughapassagefromSacks.

WeofferitonbehalfofthetasksandconceptualcommitmentsthatmarkwhatSacks

(1984)referredtoas“ethnomethodology–conversationanalysis”.Thosetaskslievery

32

closetotheachievementsofcommonunderstandingandthusworlds–in–common,andthe

challengeofpursuingtheirproductiondescriptionsonanynextoccasion.

Thepassageisfoundinhislectureon“conveyingInformation”(1992),andneedsto

bereadcarefullytogethisspokenphrasingjustright:

(P)eoplesupposethatwhatwe'vebeentalkingaboutallalong,youknowinthewayI

toldittoyou,andIsupposethatinproducinganynextthingIsay.Andwithout

thinkingaboutit,theworkIdoistofindforanyitemyousay—nomatterhowgrosslyit

misunderstandswhatIsay—howwellitunderstandswhatIsay.(Sacks,1992,v.2,part

III:lect.2:184,emphasisadded.)

Hisremarksareatalkingformulationoflongandthoughtfulobservationsabout

ordinarythingsandoccasions,andourquestionis:HastheEpistemicProgramneedoruse

forobservationslikethese?Doesit,canit,takeinterestinthepraxiologiesSacksis

referringto?Saiddifferently,aretheachievementsthatSacksisspeakingof,intheirtaken

forgrantedvernaculargrammarsandorganizations,expressionsof‘information

possessionsandtransfers’?Andifnot,howdoestheEpistemicProgramstandtoCA’s

long–standingtaskandprogramofun-packingtheachievementsofcommon

understandingonanyactualoccasion,whilenottakingleaveoftheiroccasion?

DrewobservesmorethanoncethattheEpistemicproposalisa“radical”one,and

continues,“Ifinditdifficultfullytoconceptualizeorexpresssuccinctlyhowitisthat

Heritage’sepistemicengineissoradicalandprofoundaproposal”(2012:63).Wethinkhe

isquiteright.Thequestionthenbecomes:Whatkindofradicalinnovationisthis?We

wanttorespectfullysuggestthatitleveragesaturnawayfromthecorpusofGarfinkel,

33

Sacks,Schegloff,Jefferson,theircolleaguesandstudents,aturnawayfromtheanalysisof

occasionedproductionsandtheplayoftemporalityandsequenceinthereflexive

constructionofsocialaction.

Saiddifferently,alongsideCA’sregardforthingsliketheparties’“demonstrable

orientations,”or“proceduralconsequentiality,”or“problemsofrelevance”,allasof“cases

intheirconstitutivedetail”(seeSchegloff,1991),perhapstheemblematicheuristicofCA,a

questionintendedtodirectusbacktothecontingentproductionsweencounterinactual

materials,has,bythelightsoftheEpistemicTurn,beenansweredinadvance.“Whythat

now?”isthequestion.TheEPrecommendsepistemicstatusorstanceor“balance”asthe

answer,ineverycase.Butaheuristicsoansweredinadvancenolongerhasheuristic

powers.

TheEpistemicturnmaywellhaveitsrewards.Thepromiseofagrandanalytic

amalgamisattractive,andthepromiseofanover-archinganalyticconsensusonourtasks,

butfirst,onourquestions,issomethingsocialsciencehaspursuedmorethanonce.The

pathseemsfamiliarinthatway,wherebystipulationsarerequiredinadvanceinorderto

underwrite—intheparticularshere—aprevailingstructureofinvidious,agonistic

relationsasthedriverofconversationitself,itsturns,sequences,andcontingent

productions.AsDrewobserves,wewouldthenfindanorderlinessthatis“constant,

omnipresent,andomnirelevant”(2012:64).NeitherSacksnorSchegloff,norGarfinkel

beforethem,hadusefor,orfaithorinterestin,suchlandscapes.

Epistemicsthuswritesinadvanceouranalyticinterestsandourconclusionsaswell.

Astableofconcepts,suchas‘status’,indexing,authorityandaccess,informationandstates,

34

theirchangesandgradients,andotherformalandextraconversationalthingsarein

principleavailableatanynextglance.Whatwouldthenberequiredtoclaimtheir

evidenceseasilybecomesaweakenedversionof‘evidence’.(SeeDrew’ssimilarconcerns.)

TheEpistemicturnstrikesusasaradicalinnovationindeedonthecorpusworksof

Garfinkel,Sacks,Schegloff,Jefferson,theircolleaguesandstudents,andthusgroundsfora

verycarefulandcautionaryreading.Thequestionswehaveraisedareintendedasuseful

measuresfortakingthemeasureofthecontinuitiesanddeparturesoftheEP’s

extraordinaryanalyticinnovationsfromthecorpusstudiesofnaturallanguageuse

leveragedbyConversationAnalysis.

Notes

1Inthisfashion,Garfinkel(1967:31)pointsto“[n]otamethodofunderstanding,but

immenselyvariousmethodsofunderstanding[as]theprofessionalsociologist'sproperand

hithertounstudiedandcriticalphenomena.”

2“Animatingtranscript”isadelicatephrase;itcaninviteahearingofpuppeteering,or

writingaccountsasonelikes,imposingthem,oralternativelythatourmaterialsarejust

waitingto‘speak’,withourassistance.Itcanthusbeheardasacritique,andthistoocanbe

afairaccountofit.Buttheintendedhearingisthattalk-in-interactionisafontofsocial

actionwhoseanalysisaimstofindanddescribeitsgrammarsofactionandwhatthey

35

achieveintheirproduceddetail.Inthislight,thephraseispointingtothedisciplinedwork

ofwritingproductionaccountsthatarefaithfultotheoccasion’sevidentdetail,andthus

revealthesociologyofwhatthepartiesaredoingtogether.Howananalyticprogramgoes

aboutdoingthisishowitgoesaboutanimatingtranscript.

3Theinstructivetiebetween“describing”asanordinarysocialpractice,and“description”

asaprofessionaltaskandtopicofmethodforsocialsciencehaslongbeenatopicforEMCA

(cf.,Garfinkel,1967,passim;Sacks,1963,1972;Schegloff,1987,1988b).Sameworldsare

inplay.CitingWeber,Schegloffspeaksof

theindefiniteextendabilityofdescriptionsofsocialobjectsofinquiry…thesetofways

ofdescribinganysetting,anyactor,anyaction,etc.isindefinitelyexpandable.Literalor

exhaustivedescriptionsarenot,then,availablesolutionstotheproblemsofsocial

inquiry(1988b:2)

Thus,whenHeritage(2012c:80)findsCA’s“proofprocedure”limitingbecause“nextturn

willnotalwaysbeasourceofunequivocalvalidation,”anoddexemptionunderwritesthe

dissatisfaction.Notunlessnaturalconversationitselfproceedsby“unequivocalvalidations”

canitsdescriptiveanalysisfindthesame.Onthecentralplaceof“contingency”inthe

organizationandorganizationalachievementsofnaturalconversation,seeSchegloff

(1996).Asheobserves,“[c]ontingency–interactionalcontingency–isnotablemishonthe

smoothsurfaceofdiscourse,oroftalk-in-interactionmoregenerally.Itisendemictoit.Itis

itsglory.Itiswhatallowstalk-in-interactiontheflexibilityandtherobustnesstoserveas

anenablingmechanismfortheinstitutionsofsociallife(1996:22).Thepremiseof

“unequivocalvalidation”thusseemstomis-sighttheorganizationitwouldmeasure.

36

4ThetranscriptwepresentherereducessomeofthedetailandsymbolsusedbyJefferson

inheroriginaltranscript.Theaudiorecordisacontinuous55-minutephonecallbetween

thetwosisters.

5Thepremiseisfamiliarinlaw,wherethedistinctionbetweendirectobservationand

hearsayisusedforeyewitnesstestimony,butthereisanexemptionforqualifiedexperts

whoareallowedtotestifytowhattheyhavelearnedfromothersinthefield.Whatwehave

learnedfromothersmaybemostofwhatweknow,epistemicallyspeaking.

6Schegloff(2007)discussesapreferencefornoticingsoverannouncementsandremarks

thatnoticingsaretypicallydoneearlyinaninteraction.Ivy’sline4(“Ah(r)youstill’vgot

i:t”)isjustsuchanoticing,producedintheimmediatelocalenvironmentofJan’scoughing,

andherfirstnoticingisregisteredintheveryopeningoftheconversation,“Oh:dea:hme:.”.

TheseobservationssupportanargumentthatIvy’sline4isnotonlyapposite,butexpected.

7Itisnotclearwhether“inapposite”hereisamember’smeasure,i.e.,thattherecipient

(Jan)isactuallymarkingthequestionthatway,orisanoverhearinganalyst’sdisengaged

measure.JanseemspleasedtoreceiveIvy’sattentionandconclusion,andaffirmsit.Ifso,

thenperhaps‘inappositeness’issomethingforthedisengagedanalysttofindandmark.

Whilethiswouldbeanunremarkableprivilegeinotherformsoflanguagestudy,itwould

bearemarkableoneforCA.

37

8JeanWongreportedthefollowing“fieldnote”inherkitchen,asheradultsonisstanding

attherefrigerator,freezerdooropen,lookinginside:

[JW:FN]

Son: Doyouhaveanyicecubes?

Mom: Idon’tknow,you’relookinginthefreezer.

Wewishtodulynotethecomedyoftheirexchange.Herewehaveaninquiryaboutmatters

directly‘inevidence’totheinquirer,and/but‘owned’bytherecipient.Agreatmanythings

maybemadeofsuchinquiries.Indeed,‘inappositeness’isdemonstrablyinevidenceinthis

one,withoutbenefitof‘Oh’prefacing.Ifso,thenboththecategoriesof‘thingsinevidence’

and‘thingsinapposite’maywellextendbeyondtherangeof‘Oh-prefaced’replies,meaning

thatwehardlyneedtheprefacetorecognizethem.Wecertainlymightfindan‘Ohpreface’

heretoo(‘Oh,Idon’tknow…’),butwewillfinditasafeatureofanoccasionedproduction,

ratherthantheproductofanengine.

9Schegloff(1988:451-453)treatsthissamesequenceundertherubricof“guessingbad

news”.

10Borrowingthephrase“atallpoints”fromSacks(1984),butthenfittingittoaGoffmanian

register,Heritageassertsthatthe“managementofsolidaryfacerelationshipisan

obligationofspeakersjustasitisofrecipients,andatallpointsofinteraction”(2008:312).

Sacks(1984:22),ofcourse,spokeof“orderatallpoints”(andnotethatSchegloff[2005]

hashisownreadingofit).Butthenconsider,byeachassuranceof“order”ontheonehand,

andnow“solidaryfacerelations,”ontheother,whatwoulditmeantofindthese

38

organizations,at‘allpoints’?Whatwouldcountasafinding?Measuredtotheregular

productionoftherepairspace,forexample,anorderlinesswithoutneedofauthority,

subordination,orinvidiousaccess,whatwouldadescriptionof‘managingfacerelations’

looklike?Or,measuredtothepartiessustainedorientationtotheprojectablecompletion

ofaturnunderway–availablefordescriptioninthemultipleevidencesofoverlaps,

simultaneousstarts,collaborativecompletions,etc.–howdoesoneshow‘managingface

relations’–Goffman’sengine–intemporal-sequentialdetail?ItwasmorethanGoffman

coulddo(seeSchegloff,1988).AndSacksetal.werenotspeakingofdrivers,butof

grammars,the“modelofroutinelyobservable,closelyorderedsocialactivities”(1984:25).

Thedescriptiveregistersareentirelydifferent,andthedifferencemayaccountfortheonly

occasionalandoftenpuzzlinginterestintheconstitutivedetailoftranscriptsshownin

epistemictreatmentsofconversationalorder,aswehaveseeninourexhibits.WhiletheEP

assuresusoftheplayofcausativesat‘allpoints’,whetheras‘facerelations’or‘epistemic

status’,itisanassuranceoperatingpriortoanyactualsequentialproduction.Forthis

reason,perhaps,theproductionsthemselves–thetranscripts–arehardpressedtoshow

them.

11InHeritage(2005)wefindthissamesequencewhereit’ssaid,“Ida’sresponsesimply

confirmswhatJennyreports,yetJennystillacknowledgesthatconfirmationwith‘oh’,

indicatingachangeinherstateofinformation”(2005:192).Onecanwellimaginea‘change

ofstate’givenJen’sstretched“Oh:::”inline4.Buttheremaybemoreatplayherethan

‘simplyconfirming’aninformationalexchange.GivenIda’sturn-initialandturn-closing

“yes”inline3,andthequalification“s’posetobe”inthemiddleofherturn,andthenJen’s

39

“Oh:::”innextturn,wemayhavethegroundsforanapologyin-the-making.Inthatcase,

Ida’sline3(andher“Yeh”inline5)maynotbesosimple,andinwaysthat‘confirming

information’willnotaccountfor.

12Thesedifficultiesarejoinedtothefirstphraseofthepassage:Ohprefacingisamethodof

indexingindependence,anddoesso“inandofitself”.Butagain,whatwoulditmeanto

showtheworkofanexpression,“inandofitself”?Havewenoneedforrecipients,next

turns,orsequentialenvironments?Theproposalseemstobeleveragedonastriking

departurefromthesystematicsofturn-and-sequenceconstruction,whereinthesenseofan

expressionissequentiallyembedded,tiedtoaproductionhistory,andmadesenseof.‘In

andofitself’wouldseemtorundirectlyagainstthisgrain,andinthesewaysandothers,

theEPseemstoturnawayfromcentralandidentifyingpremisesofsequentialproduction,

contingency,andlocalanalysis.

FundingThisresearchreceivednospecificgrantfromanyfundingagencyinthepublic,commercial

ornot-for-profitsectors.

References

DrewP(2012).Whatdrivessequences?ResearchonLanguageandSocialInteraction45(1):

61-68.GarfinkelH(1967)StudiesinEthnomethodology.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

40

GarfinkelH(2002)Ethnomethodology’sProgram:WorkingoutDurkheim’sAphorism.

Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield.HeritageJ(1984)Achange-of-statetokenandaspectsofitssequentialplacement.In:

AtkinsonJMandHeritageJ(eds)StructuresofSocialAction:StudiesinConversationAnalysis.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.299–345.

HeritageJ(1998)Oh-prefacedresponsestoinquiry.LanguageinSociety27(3):291-334HeritageJ(2002)Oh-prefacedresponsestoassessments.In:FordC,FoxBandThompsonS

(eds)TheLanguageofTurnandSequence.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.196–224.

HeritageJ(2005)Cognitionindiscourse.In:teMolderHandPotterJ(eds)Conversation

andCognition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.184-202.HeritageJ(2008)Conversationanalysisassocialtheory.In:TurnerB(ed)TheNew

BlackwellCompaniontoSocialTheory.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,pp.300-320.HeritageJ(2011)Territoriesofknowledge,territoriesofexperience.In:StiversT,Mondada

LandSteensig(eds)TheMoralityofKnowledgeinConversation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.159-183.

HeritageJ(2012a)Epistemicsinaction:Actionformationandterritoriesofknowledge.

ResearchonLanguageandSocialInteraction45(1):1-29.HeritageJ(2012b)Theepistemicengine:Sequenceorganizationandterritoriesof

knowledge.ResearchonLanguageandSocialInteraction45(1):30-52.HeritageJ(2012c)Beyondandbehindthewords:Somereactionstomycommentators.

ResearchonLanguageandSocialInteraction45(1):76-81.HeritageJ(2013a)Actionformationanditsepistemic(andother)backgrounds.Discourse

Studies15(5):551-578.HeritageJ(2013b)Epistemicsinconversation.In:SidnellJandStiversT(eds)Handbookof

ConversationAnalysis.Cambridge:Blackwell,pp.370-394.HeritageJandRaymondG(2005)Thetermsofagreement:Indexingepistemicauthority

andsubordinationinassessmentsequences.SocialPsychologyQuarterly68(1):15–38.

LevinsonS(2013)Actionformationandascription.InSidnellJandStiversT(eds)

HandbookofConversationAnalysis.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.103-130.

41

LindwallO,LymerGandIvarssonJ(2016)Epistemicstatusandtherecognizabilityof

socialactions.DiscourseStudies(thisissue).LynchMandWongJ(2016)Revertingtoahiddeninteractionalorder:Epistemics,

informationism,andconversationanalysis.DiscourseStudies(thisissue).MacbethM,WongJandLynchM(2016)Thestoryof‘Oh’: Indexingstructure,animating

transcript,Part1.DiscourseStudies(thisissue).MoermanMandSacksH(1988)On"understanding"intheanalysisofnatural

conversation.InMoermanM(ed.)Talkingculture:Ethnographyandconversationanalysis.Philadelphia,PA:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,pp.180-186.

PomerantzAM(1984)Agreeinganddisagreeingwithassessments:Somefeaturesof

preferred/dispreferredturnshapes.In:AtkinsonJMandHeritageJ(eds)StructuresofSocialAction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.57–101.

RaymondGandHeritageJ(2006)Theepistemicsofsocialrelations:Owning

grandchildren.LanguageinSociety35:677–705.SacksH(1963)Sociologicaldescription.BerkeleyJournalofSociology8:1-16.SacksH(1972)Aninitialinvestigationoftheusabilityofconversationaldatafordoing

sociology.InSudnowD(ed)StudiesinSocialInteraction.NewYork:FreePress,pp.31-74.

SacksH(1984)Notesonmethodology.In:AtkinsonJMandHeritageJ(eds)Structuresof

SocialAction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.2-27.SacksH(1992)LecturesonConversation,Vol.I&II.Oxford:Blackwell.SacksH,SchegloffEAandJeffersonG(1974)Asimplestsystematicsfortheorganizationof

turn-takingforconversation.Language50:696–735.SchegloffEA(1972)Notesonaconversationalpractice:Formulatingplace.In:SudnowD

(ed)StudiesinSocialInteraction.NewYork:FreePress,pp.75-119.SchegloffEA(1984)Onsomequestionsandambiguitiesinconversation.In:AtkinsonJM

andHeritageJ(eds)StructuresofSocialAction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.28–52.

SchegloffEA(1987)Betweenmicroandmacro:Contextsandotherconnections.In

AlexanderJ,GiesenB,MünchRandSmelserN(eds)TheMicro-MacroLink.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.207-234.

42

SchegloffEA(1988a)Goffmanandtheanalysisofconversation.In:DrewPandWoottonA

(eds)ErvingGoffman:ExploringtheInteractionOrder.Oxford:Polity,pp.89-135.SchegloffEA(1988b)DescriptionsinthesocialsciencesI:Talk–in–interaction.IPrA

PapersinPragmatics2(1-2):1–24.SchegloffEA(1991)Conversationanalysisandsociallysharedcognition.InResnickLB,

LevineJMandTeasleySD(eds)PerspectivesonSociallySharedCognition.Washington,D.C.:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,pp.150-171.

SchegloffEA(1995)DiscourseasaninteractionalachievementIII:Theomnirelevanceof

action.ResearchonLanguageandSocialInteraction28(3):185-211.SchegloffEA(1996)ConfirmingAllusions:TowardanEmpiricalAccountofAction

Author(s):AmericanJournalofSociology102(1):pp.161-216SchegloffEA(2005)Whistlinginthedark:Notesfromtheothersideofliminality.Texas LinguisticForum48:17-30.SchegloffEA(2006)Onpossibles.DiscourseStudies8(1):141-157.SchegloffEA(2007)SequenceOrganizationinInteraction:APrimerinConversationAnalysis,

Vol.1.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.SchegloffEA(2009)OneperspectiveonConversationAnalysis:ComparativePerspectives.

In:SidnellJ(ed),ConversationAnalysis:ComparativePerspectives.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.357-406.

SchegloffEA(2010)CommentaryonStiversandRossano:“Mobilizingresponse”.Research

onLanguageandSocialInteraction43(1):38-48.ShannonCandWeaverW(1949)Themathematicaltheoryofcommunication.Urbana,IL:

UniversityofIllinoisPress.

StiversTandRossanoF(2010)Mobilizingresponse.ResearchonLanguageandSocial

Interaction43(1):3-31.

TerasakiAK(2004[1976])Pre-announcementsequencesinconversation.In:LernerG

(ed),ConversationAnalysis:StudiesfromtheFirstGeneration.Amsterdam:John

43

Benjamins,pp.171–223[SocialScienceWorkingPapers,No.99,UniversityofCaliforniaIrvine,1976].

WinchP(1990)TheIdeaofaSocialScienceanditsRelationtoPhilosophy,2ndedition.

London:Routledge&KeganPaul.WongJandOlsherD(2000)Reflectionsonconversationanalysisandnonnativespeaker

talk:AninterviewwithEmanuelASchegloff.IssuesinAppliedLinguistics11(1):110–128.

Authors’Biographies

DouglasMacbethisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofEducationalStudiesatOhio

StateUniversity.HisresearchpursuesEMCAstudiesofclassroomorderandinstructionas

grammarsofaction.Theaimistowriteanalternatepraxeologyofinstructionasitis

playedoutinfinedurationsofmaterialdetail,andtoaddresstheconceptualconfusions

thatcontinuetohauntdiscussionsof‘teachingandlearning’.

JeanWongisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofSpecialEducation,Languageand

LiteracyatTheCollegeofNewJersey(USA).Sheusesconversationanalysisforexamining

interactionalcompetence,particularlyinmultilingualsettings.Herworkappearsinedited

volumesandinjournals,includingAppliedLinguistics,ELTJournal,InternationalReviewof

AppliedLinguistics,IssuesinAppliedLinguistics,PragmaticsandLanguageLearningand

ResearchonLanguageandSocialInteraction.SheistheauthorofConversationAnalysisand

SecondLanguagePedagogy(2010,withHansunWaring),whichbridgesconnections

betweenCAandconcernsinsecond/foreignlanguageeducation.