[Invited contribution to a jubilee volume in honor of Professor D. Kostic, Founder of the Institute for Experimental Phonetics, Yugoslavia, August 1978.]
There is no need to review here the history of
"psycholinguistics" but only to point out, that it is only in this
decade, that psycholinguists have begun the study of natural talk.Κ We were trained as graduate students in the
North American intellectual climate of a pragmatized structuralism and
functionalism.Κ BYG was indoctrinated in
the descriptive and applied linguistics of Bloomfield and Fries, and LAJ was
trained in the psychology of neuropsychological behaviorism (Lambert, Hebb,
Osgood).Κ The psycholinguistics of the
1950's was preoccupied with conditioning and semiotics:Κ the acquisition of sign-function and its
semantic features.Κ The word was the
methodological unit of inquiry as shown by the topics of the investigations of
that period:Κ the effects of word-frequency;
similarity and synonymy word-association clustering effects; verbal learning of
pained associates; tachistoscopic perception of words and their emotionality
value; Atlases of semantic differentiation; stimulus generalization; phonetic
articulation; semantic satiation; and many others where the word was the unit
for investigating the psycholinguistic laws of language behavior (see James
& Miron, 1967, for representative articles).
However,
two separate developments in the 1960's helped clarify the idea that the laws
of language behavior are to be found beyond the unit of the word.Κ One development was the spread of the
Ethnomethodology School, and the second, the importation of ideas from the British
School.Κ Both introduced a new paradigm,
which allowed a methodology of natural talk.
In our own
history, we encountered the ethnomethodological school through the work of
Goffman, Garfinkel, and Sacks (see References).Κ From their writings we acquired conceptual tools for studying
language behavior as a sociopsychological phenomenon; that is, that language
behavior in natural situations was a spontaneous, reactive phenomenon.Κ Discourse production was to be seen as a natural
biological phenomenon, hence, responsive to environmental effects.Κ Sociologists Goffman, Garfinkel, and Sacks
took social organization on the daily round as the basis for defining the
functional units of language behavior.Κ
As sociologists, they viewed the analysis of natural talk as a task in
uncovering the effective social stimuli that made possible the successful
accomplishment of ordinary transactional routines.Κ Discourse production thus became a medium for transactional
exchanges.Κ The unit of analysis thus
becomes the transaction; not the word, but an 'exchange of words'!!
The second development that shifted our theoretical position
from the word to the exchange was the work of the British Ordinary Language School
(see Stein- berg & James, 1971, for representative articles).Κ Here we acquired the idea that discourse and
talk operate through ethnosemantic conventions - the meaning of the message is
carried along with the universalized support of presuppositions and
implications. Thus, the unit of language behavior must relate to the social
context of the situation.Κ There exist
operational rituals for transaction topical exchanges, and these commonly held
operations provide a motivational direction to talk.
In summary, then, we started with the word as the unit, and
we moved beyond it, to the transactional exchange. We would like to discuss
some theoretical and practical issues involving this new focus for
psycholinguistics. The accompanying table presents the focal issues in our own
theoretical development.
DecadeΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Unit of AnalysisΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Theoretical Issues
1940'sΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ basic patternsΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ grammatical form classes
and contrastive structural analyses;
Κdevelopmental hierarchies
1950'sΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ the wordΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ psycholinguistics; conditioning;
semiotics; acquisition of sign-function
1960'sΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ (i) the exchangeΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ethnornethodology; social
organization on the daily round
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ (ii) the transactionΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ordinary language philosophy; speech acts theory
1970'sΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ the situated displayΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ethnosemanties; argument logic;
role-type
Shifting
focus from the word to the exchange is accompanied by the realization that all
discourse is interactional discourse, i. e., discourse is produced by more than
one individual.Κ This is of course most
obvious in the study of conversation where it appears that participants take
turns at talk:Κ it is clear that the
discourse visible in a transcript is interactionally produced.Κ But this is equally true in both writing and
in interior dialog where there appears to be only one person producing the
discourse. However, it is a matter of common observation that writers change
their discourse in response to the intended or imagined audience, showing that
it too is a form of interactionally produced discourse.Κ In self-talk (or interior dialog), the
person acts as if there is an audience:Κ
reports of interior dialog produce transcript-like segments in which the
person addresses himself or herself using the pronouns [I, you, we] along with
the appropriate verb form, thus indicating that the discourse produced in
self-talk is also a derivative form of interactional discourse.
The analysis of interactional discourse hinges on the
recognition that discourse production is a spontaneous reactive
phenomenon.Κ By analyzing the
organizational structure of interactional discourse one in effect investigates
the structure and operation of a social psychological phenomenon.Κ The laws of social interaction are uncovered
through a close analysis of the setting in which the discourse is a by-product.Κ Discourse is thus seen as a medium within which
interactions are transacted.Κ This
presupposes the notion that a discourse intervention by a participant counts as
a move.Κ The functional significance of
discourse derives therefore from its significance as a transactional move.Κ Pre-established rituals of talk organize
transactional moves.Κ These procedural
operations are acquired as part of one's ordinary social competence on the
daily round. We would like to explore so theoretical issues that arise from
this perspective.
II Theoretical
Issues
The primary
theoretical issue that arises as one moves beyond the word to the social
exchange, is the explanation of connectedness at two separate levels of
operation.Κ The idea of 'having an
exchange of words' implies the minimal dyadic arrangement, and we follow the
ethnomethodologists in the technique of dividing conversational exchanges into
turns at talk, or talking turns. ΚThe
taling turn (TT) is one level of organization for interactional discourse, i.
e., discourse produced by more than one talker.
Another level of organization for the connectedness of
natural discourse is what we would call the "within turn"
organization, i. e., the discourse produced by a single individual during his
turn at talk. The following diagram depicts this description and points to some
implications.
CONNECTEDNESS
IN INTERACTIONAL
DISCOURSE
(= NATURAL TALK)
(DYNAMIC LEVELS)
Betwen Tuun PrinciplesΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Within
Turn Principles
1. Participant-oriented
featuresΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 1.
Situated comment is minimal topic
ΚΚΚ (= ethnomethodology).ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚunit.
2. Exchanges are managed.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2.
A move raises a contention point.
3. Episodes are situated.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3.
Topicalization is the resolution of
ΚΚΚΚ contention
points.
4. Transactional function
given by
ΚΚΚ exchanges slot, i. e., locus.
13 Zbornik radova
THEORETICAL ISSUES
A.Κ Sequencing devices.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ A. Utterance
units are moves.
B.Κ Boundary limits.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ B. Topic
has transactional function.
C.Κ Transactional moves.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ C. Topic = labeled
topical elements.
D.Κ Face-work.
E.Κ Relationship history (reputation; identity).
F.Κ Community-Cataloguing Practices (CC'S).
We shall
explore here only the theoretical implications of between-turn connectedness
and present the direction of our current work dealing with the social
psychology of language behavior or, "sociopsycholinguistics."
III Some
Syntactic Properties of Conversational Interaction
A first practical issue to be resolved about the common phenomenon
of conversation is represented by the question, "What's going on in the
conversation?"Κ We follow here the
ethnomethodological dictum that the answer to this question must exclude anything,
which cannot be demonstrated to be a feature to which participants are
oriented.Κ This stricture insures that
the theoretical explanation objectively matches the actual units that govern
the organization of verbal exchanges.Κ By
"actual units" we mean to designate the features of the social
exchange which conversationalists are oriented to notice by virtue of their
common socialization training. In other words, the phenomenon of conversation
is viewed as a managed exchange - managed by the participants according to
shared rituals of operation.Κ The
question then arises as to how the interactional exchange is successfully managed
by the participants; more specifically, what mechanisms are there for
regulating the sequence of turns in a conversation? The mechanisms to be
described must be mechanism that are actually used, and these are perforce
dependent on the noticing of the participants when to talk, when to say what, when
to acknowledge, disagree, change topics, and so on.
To proceed with this task, then, we begin by defining the
minimal unit of exchange as a situated episode.Κ An "episode" is a sociopsychological concept.Κ It derives from Goffman's work on the nature
of ritual behavior on the "daily round." All social behavior is
situated in time and place.Κ A
"setting" is defined as a time/place specification for routine
activities in a community. For example, our students in social psychology are
given the exercise of recording, minute by minute, the course of a day. Here is
a sample:
TimeΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Place,
Circumstance, Activity
7:35 A.M.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ (i) 5 min.; (ii) at home; (iii) me
and Rob; (iv) talking about what to have for breakfast.
7:50 A.M.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ (i) 15 min.; (ii) in bathroom; (iii) me;
(iv) doing personal chores.
8:15 A.M.ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ (i) 25 min., (ii) in the living room;
(iii) me and Rob; (iv) eating breakfast.
etc.
With this
technique, which we call logging activities, one can arrive at a local
ethnography of community settings.Κ It
is, in other words, a daily round map that empirically specifies the available
settings in a community.Κ With such a
map as a reference point, episodes may now be investigated as a function of the
setting within which the exchange occurs.Κ
The following diagram depicts these relationships:
STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTSΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ FUNCTIONAL
COMPONENTS
community
map of available settingsΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ritual
or routinized operational
obtained through records of
loggingΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ sequences
called "episodes" on the
activities (= time/place
specifications).ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ daily
round and localized on the
community map of available settings.
We shall
present a transcript segment, prepared by a student, and illustrate some
techniques that are possible for investigating the functional components of situated
episodes (Winskowski, 1977).
Transcript
segment:Κ A and B are friends in their
early twenties.Κ B is A's boyfriend and has
come to pick up A at her house.Κ As the
doorbell rings, A opens the door, holding a tape recorder in her hands.
1. B:Κ Hi.Κ
[opening front door.]
2. B:Κ What's up?Κ
[gesturing to the tape recorder.]
3. A:Κ I'm taperecording you.
4. B:Κ Are you kidding me?
5. A:Κ Nope.
6. B:Κ But what am I supposed to say?
7. A:Κ Whatever you want.Κ [walking in the kitchen.]
8. B:Κ Well, what a nice bunch of groceries you've
got.Κ [said in the exaggerated tone of
Little Red Riding
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Hood, exaggerated tone, seeing two
shopping bags on the table]
9. A.Κ How 'bout that.
10.
B:Κ That's very nice.
11.
A:Κ Amusing, eh?
12.
B:Κ Uh, huh.
13.
A:Κ I got most of my gear together
except I gotta get something of ...
14. C:Κ Randy, you're on time.Κ What's wrong with you? [C is A's mother who
just walked into the kitchen]
15. B:Κ No, I'm not.Κ I'm fifteen minutes late.
16.
A:Κ You're fifteen minutes late, you
know.Κ Did you know that.
17.
D:Κ Hi, Randy.Κ [D is A's father who walked in with C in (14)]
18.
B:Κ Hi.
ΚΚΚΚΚ etc. etc.
The accompanying table
presents a first-order analysis of the structural and functional components of
this transcript segment.
ΚΚΚΚΚ STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTSΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ FUNCTIONAL
COMPONENTS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ EPISODAL SEQUENCE
TALKING TURNSΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ SETTING
LOCALEΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ OF OPERATION
ΚΚΚΚΚ 1χ 2ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ front door exchangeΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ greeting sequence
ΚΚΚΚΚ 3-χ12ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ walking
into the kitchenΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ playtalk
sequence
ΚΚΚΚΚ 13ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ in
the kitchenΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ interrupted
topic switch
ΚΚΚΚΚ 14χ15ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ in the kitchenΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ greeting sequence
ΚΚΚΚΚ 16ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ in
the kitchenΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ playtalk
intervention
ΚΚΚΚΚ 17χ18ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ in the kitchenΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ greeting sequence
Note that weβve arranged the interactional discourse recorded on the
tape in terms of six parts, which we call bracketed segments of the
conversation.Κ The first segment
comprises the structural units of talking turns 1 and 2, which occurred at the
front door. This setting is familiar to the participants:Κ both share common ritual sequences known as
γgreetingδ χ a ritual that occurs when two acquainted participants suddenly
find themselves in face-to-face contact.Κ
In other words, TTβs (γtaking turnsδ) 1 and 2 are structurally localized
(episodal openers) and functionally standardized (greeting).
To demonstrate the funcional properties of this
syntactic Ξslotβ one need only consider alternative forms that might occur
there without change of function: e.g.,
a1:Κ Whatβs up?
a2:Κ Hi.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ a3:Κ Well, whatcha got here?
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ A:ΚΚΚΚΚ HiΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ B:
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ a4:Κ Iβll wait for you in the car.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ a5:Κ Hello, there, sweetheart.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ etc.
The set of alternatives
a is a form class whose items distribute themselves over variable topical
dimensions, but remain functionally equivalent, being each a greeting response,
thanks to their structural location as episodal openers.
This observation leads
us to a fundamental principle of interactional discourse production, namely,
that transactional function and topical content are independent.Κ For
example, TT (11), has a form class aa, as follows:
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa1:Κ Uh, huh.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa2:Κ You think so?
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa3:Κ Not really.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 11.Κ Amusing, eh?ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 12.
B:
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa4:Κ Fantastic!
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa5:Κ Yup.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ etc.
The
sum of the sets of alternatives available in a talking turn, i.e.,
S [a, aa, aaa...i]TT
may be called the display repertoire
of the verbalizing community.Κ Through
sociaΠlization, training, and experience, a conversationalist acquires a
certain portion of the culturally available display repertoire.Κ Individual variations exist in available
responses to a talking turn.Κ Skilled
conversationalists have available a greater range of the verbalizing
communityβs display repertoire than those who are less skilled.Κ We may speak here of social or transactional
competence.Κ One strategy in becoming a
better Ξtransactional engineerβ would presumably be to (i) catalogue the set of
alternatives available in particular conversational slots, and (ii) learn
them.Κ Step (i) amounts to making a
local ethnography of social settings by some natural history technique (as inδ
logging activitiesδ, discussed above).Κ
Step (ii) amounts to becoming acculturated, i. e. learning standardized
patterns of topical interventions.Κ The
latΠter may be recognized as the perennial problem of the young, the visitors,
and the foreigners:Κ γWhat shall I say,
When, and How?!?δΚ Assimilation and
re-educational training can be viewed as attempts to enlarge an individualβs
set of alternatives in interactional discourse χ but enlarge in a particular
direction, namely, the direcΠtion of greater overlap between the individualβs
current performances and the tarΠget Ξnormβ.Κ
This element is not fixed, but operates within a Ξrange of normalcyβ
(Goffmanβs term).Κ Episodal exchanges
are progressive, i.e. they wind down from Ξopeningsβ to Ξclosingsβ (Sacks;
Shegloff).Κ At any point within this
sequence a parΠticipant may find himself γat a loss for words.δ This is a γnormalδ
occurrence on the daily round.Κ Yet
because episodes perforce wind down, there must be mechanisms for re-starting so
that the closing exchange may ultimately occur.Κ This mechanism also operates when one is Ξat a loss for wordsβ,
at which time one reΠstarts, viz., begins a new bracketed section of the
conversation.
We
can summarize the above considerations by stating the following emΠpirical
hypotheses about the character of conversational interaction:
Hypothesis 1: participants as particularized surface variations of a form
class the items of which have the same transactional significance or function treat
verbalized utterances in a talking turn treat verbalized utterances in a
talking turn.
Hypothesis 2:Κ
The first pair of talking turns, i. e. the first γadjacency pairδ
(Sacksβ term), in a conversational episode is treated by participants as a
greeting opener.
Hypothesis 3:Κ The transactional or functional
significance of a talking turn is jointly recognized by participants in
accordance with a transactional code which they share by virtue of their common
membership in a verbalizing community.
We may state a fourth hypothesis upon considering TT (2) in which particiΠpant B says, γWhatβs up? γ while gesturing towards the tape recorder held up by A upon opening the front door.
Hypothesis 4:Κ
Any publicly noticeable change in the γnormalcyδ status of the enΠvironment
(Goffmanβs term) is a routinely available candidate for being made the topic of
an utterance in a talking turn.
When we consider that the utterances in one talking turn have a
functional relation to utterances in adjacent turns (before and after), we are
led to a notion, discussed by Sacks and others, known as γthe setting-up-move.δ
Hypothesis 5:Κ
There is a class of utterances, known as general purpose inquiries, that
when uttered in a talking turn, will be treated by participants as serving to
set-up the immediately next alternating talking turn such that it will contain
a move that will constitute a justificatory comment on a readily noticeable
environmental event.
Hypothesis 6:Κ
If a talking turn is made up of an utterance of the class belonging to a
general purpose inquiry, it will be seen by participants to serve as a
setting-up move for the utterance in the immediately next alternating talking
turn such that it, in turn, will be seen as a directed response, a supportive
move, a reply, a remedy.
The fifth
and sixth hypotheses are general formulations that have the merit of showing up
the common structural basis of a large class of conversational events that
relate to the sequential aspects of alternating talking turns.Κ Next, when we consider talking turns (3) χ
(12), we note that they constitute a bracketed segment of the episodal
exchange.Κ This leads us to the
formulation of the next hypothesis.
Hypothesis 7:Κ
There is a class of conversational events in the form of an exchange of
alternating talking turns that is bracketed from other parts of the converΠsation,
and where the bracketed exchange is seen by participants as specifiΠcally
different from adjoining conversational material, this difference being that it
is to be seen as semi-serious or γplay talkδ in contradistinction to the rest
which is seen as serious.
The seven hypotheses
outlined above imply the existence of three types of functional mechanisms in
conversational interaction.Κ First, we
may mention the mechanism of sequencing devices.Κ Given that talk proceeds through time, the events that take place
in it must be ordered in some way, and a description of these orΠdering
procedures is whatβs called for in the elaboration of conversational sequencΠing
devices.Κ Second, we may mention the
mechanism of boundary limits in brackΠeted sections of conversation.Κ The function of boundary limits is to
indicate to participants where some event begins and where it ends.Κ Weβve reviewed some of the elements of
boundary limits, namely, talking turns, adjacency χ pairs, opening sections, and
closing sections, and play talk sections. Third, we may mention the mechanism
of transactional moves.Κ The function of
transactional moves is to indicate to participants the significance of a
conversational display (utterance or gesture) for their relationship, i.e. for their behavioral or interactional
implications.Κ Thus, sequencing
devices, boundary limits, and transactional moves are theoretical meΠchanisms
that are available to participants for ordering the sequence of talking turn
utterances within a conversational episode.Κ
The elaborations of these mechanisms in Hypotheses 1 through 7, stated
above, attempt to show that conversational disΠplays (in gestures or in
utterances) are treatable as transactional moves whose significance derives
from their structural properties, that is to say, their locus of ocΠcurrence in
the conversation.Κ By γlocusδ we mean
such things as sequence of talΠking turns, boundary limits of the bracketed
section they belong to, place of that section within the overall episode, and
type of relationship of participants as imΠplied by previous history of joint
conversational episodes.
We have reached here a
crucial stage in our theory building.Κ
Since the list of empirical hypotheses (as proposed above) is
potentially open-ended or indeΠfinitely large, we need an explanatory mechanism
that accounts for the occurrence of an indefinitely large number of
transactional sequences, as one observes reguΠlarly in the continuing round of
episodes on the daily schedule.Κ In
other words the listing of empirical hypotheses about natural talk is a
descriptive stage of data processing (taxonomy?).Κ We now need a process-valued function that sets talking matter in
motion, and direct movement towards an objectively identifiable goal.Κ We shall refer to this post-taxonomic phase
as the psychodynamics of talk.
Goffmanβs elaborated notions on γface workδ serves as the starting point for our proposal relating to the motivational dynamics of talk.Κ The dialectic of offense and remedy is posited as the generating mechanism. Utterances and gesΠtures are displays, or display presentations, or performances.Κ Displays are organized as moves in transactional sequences.Κ Moves have direct Ξface workβ implications; i.e. moves are indices to a personβs transactional reputation.Κ Each utterance or gesture displayed within a talking turn carries a tram actional function.Κ The transactional value of a talking intervention is either positive or negative.Κ When positive, the move counts as a remedy; when negative, it counts as an offense.
The dialectic of remedy
and offense provides us with the theoretical starting point for evolving and
explanatory account for the connectedness between talking turns in a
conversational episode.Κ We have pointed
out at the outset of this section that the answer to, γWhatβs going on in this
conversation?δ must allow only eleΠments which pertain to what the participant
themselves orient to, as the episode winds down to a closing.Κ We need therefore a notation system for
recording the occurrences of noticing
during talk.Κ Let us call this type of
record a relationship history.
It is intuitively valid that the transactants to an episode have a coding system for keeping track of the episodeβs evolution.Κ Thus, topics that occur earlier are pre-supposed in subsequent bracketed sections of the conversation. As well, there is left an impression of the quality of the transactional face work χ whether pleasant, friendly, involving, or their opposites.Κ And finally, there is a sense of the episodeβs context, in time, place, and schedule on the daily round.
It is, then, intuitively
valid to presuppose, in natural talk, the existence of methods participants use
to keep track of the directionality and cumulative value of each otherβs face
work.Κ This cumulative record serves to
reify the mediating mechanisms of interactions, i.e. the reputation and
identity of co-transactants.
Relationship
history is the cumulative record of episodal interactions beΠtween two
individuals.Κ Individuals use standard
methods of keeping track.Κ OarΠfinkel
calls these methods γaccounting practicesδ while we refer to them as γcomΠmunity
cataloguing practicesδ or γCCPβsδ (see James & Gordon, 1975χ77).
To recapitulate, we are proposing that the directional syntax, which generates the organizational sequencing of transactional moves in social episodes, is the diaΠlectic of offense and remedy in face work.Κ This motivational dynamic gives a goal-orientation to conversational exchanges, and accounts for the natural winding down of all episodes.Κ Participants have standardized methods for keeping a cumuΠlative record of each otherβs relationship history.Κ These standardized methods for keeping track reify reputation and identity.Κ Now we are proposing to investigate these cataloguing-practices that must form part of ordinary social competence on the daily round.Κ By generating such data we are preparing the components needed for explaining the connectedness of utterances in interactional discourse.Κ The explanation of this connectedness will involve explaining, (i) how participants keep track of whatβs going on, i.e. the features of the setting they orient to, notice, and code into a cumulative record; (ii) how the cumulative record reifies the natural phenomena of reputation and identity; and (iii) how reputation and identity proΠvide a mechanism for relating moves to each other, i.e. for explaining the connecΠtedness of utterances in a conversation.
We can only present here
a brief account of our work thus far, but in any case, that work is only
initial, our interest here being, to offer some possible direcΠtions, which we
are finding fruitful (James & Gordon, 1978; 1979).
The Daily Round Archives
or γDRAδ as our students refer to it, can be viewed as a local ethnography of a
communityβs daily round cataloguing-practices.Κ
What gets kept track of provides the investigator with the data needed
to map the social settings and indicate their Ξsociodynamic valueβ, i.e. their
influencing effects on the behavior of participants.Κ The DRA files at the University of Hawaii are prepared and
catalogued by students who are trained in psycholinguistic techΠniques applied
to the natural history description of community life. We have been using
ethnosemantic-sampling techniques for building a cumulative catalog of social
occasions on the daily round of our students.Κ
A portion of the current taxoΠnomy is shown in the accompanying table:
DRA CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
I.ΚΚΚ MAJOR
CLASSIFICATION LEVEL
ZONE 1: ΚBIOGRAPHIC RECORD
ZONE 2:Κ TRIBE
ZONE 3:Κ ROLE
ZONE 4: ΚPSYCHOHISTORY
ZONE 5: ΚTERRITORIALITY
ZONE 6: ΚAPPEARANCE
ZONE 1: ΚBIOGRAPHIC
RECORD
ZONE 2: ΚTRIBE
Κ2A MY TALK
Κ2B CONNECTIONS
Κ2C FAMILY TREE
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3A ΚLOGGING ACTIVITIES
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3B SITUATED INTERIOR DIALOGUE
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3C SITUATED STANDARDIZED IMAGININGS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3D SITUATED PSYCHOLOGIZINGS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3E SITUATED SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3F SITUATED FEELING ARGUMENTS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3G SITUATED FANTASY/DAYDREAM EPISODES
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3J ΚSOCIAL MEMBERSHIPS
ΚΚΚΚΚ Κ4A
SITUATED ATTRIBUTIONS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4B SITUATED EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4C SITUATED JUDGMENTS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4D INTERVIEWING THE SELF
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5A REGULAR LISTS AND BELONGINGS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B ROUTINE CONCERNS: SELECTED
INVENTORIES
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5C NOTICING OBSERVATIONS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5D DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTIONS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5E TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGIES: EPISODES
WHEN I:
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5F DECLARATIONS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5G SLOGANS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5H EPITHETS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5I HANGOUTS AND GROUP ACTIVITIES
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5J REPORTING JOINT ACTIVITIES
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5K NON-JOINT ACTIVITIES
ΚΚΚΚΚ ZONE 6:Κ APPEARANCE
ΚΚΚΚΚ Κ6A
INTERVIEWING OTHERS
MICRO-CLASSIFICATION LEVELS
ΚΚΚΚΚ ZONE 1:Κ BIOGRAPHIC RECORD
ΚΚΚΚΚ 1A MY VITA
Κ 1A1 Current Status in Community
Κ 1A2 Background
Κ 1A3 Topic Focus
Κ 1A4 Personal
Κ 1A4.1 Ambitions
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Κ 1A4.3 Fears
ΚΚΚΚΚ ZONE 2:Κ TRIBE
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A MY TALK
ΚΚ 2A1 Analysis of Argument Logic
ΚΚ 2A1.1 Schema of Argument Structure
ΚΚ 2A1.2 Description of Operational Talking
Procedures.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A2 Analysis of Relationship
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A2.3 Tabulation of Pair Types
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A2.4 Tabulation of Role Types
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A3 Analysis of Sequence
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A3.1 Schema for Move
Embeddings
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A4.1 Discourse Analysis
2A4.2 Tabulation of Derivative Relations
2A4.3 Tabulation of
Implicit Meanings
2A4.4 Tabulation of the
Rhythm of Exchange
2A4.5 Transactional
Engineering Through Talk
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2A5 Analysis of Topic
2A5.1 Breakdown of
Topics Exchanged
2A5.2 Topical
Annotations
2A5.3 Topical Chart of
Transcript
2A5.4 Topicalization Dynamics
2A6 Transcript Annotations
2A6. 1 Explanations
2A6.2 Stage Directions
Κ 2B CONNECTIONS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B3 People Who Are My Extended Family
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B6 People I Regularly Socialize With
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B7 People Who Have Provided Me with
Professional Services
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B8 People Whose Change in Financial
Status Would Affect My Financial Status
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B9 People Who Are Non-Intimates and
Non-Family Whose Ill Health or Death Would Affect Me
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B10 People Whom I Might Ask for a
Recommendation
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B11 People Who Influenced My
Intellectual and Personal Maturity
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B13 People Who Have or Could Ask Me
for a Reference
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B14 People I See Regularly for
Service or Supplies
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B15 People Iβd Like Currently to Meet
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B16 People I Know Whose Words I Quote
or Stories I Tell
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B17 People Whom I Believe to be
Admired by My Parents
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2B18 People Whom
I Know Who I See or Think About Only Rarely
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 2C FAMILY TREE
ΚΚΚΚΚ ZONE
3:Κ ROLE
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3A LOGGING ACTIVITIES
ΚΚ 3A1 Time
ΚΚ 3A2 Duration
ΚΚ 3A3 Place
ΚΚ 3A4 Participants
ΚΚ 3A5 Occasion
ΚΚ 3A6 Nature of Activity
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3B SITUATED INTERIOR DIALOGUE
ΚΚΚ 3B1 Overlays of Comments to
Self
ΚΚΚ 3B2 Value Expressions
ΚΚΚ 3B5 Emotionalizing Episodes
ΚΚΚ 3B6 Rehearsals and Practices
ΚΚΚ 3B7 Annotations, Memorizing,
Editing
ΚΚΚ 3B8 Unmentionables Within the
Relationship
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3D SITUATED PSYCHOLOGIZINGS
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3E SITUATED SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS
ΚΚ
3E1 Micro-descriptions
of Sensory Observations
Κ 3E1.1 Aches and Pains
Κ 3E1.2 Stretching and Exercise
Κ 3E1.3 Blushing
Κ 3E1.4 Retinal Sensations, etc.
Κ 3E1.5 Appetite and Cooking
Κ 3E1.6 Energy
Level
Κ 3E1.7 Smells and Odors
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3F SITUATED FEELING ARGUMENTS
ΚΚ 3F1 Figuring Out a Conflict
ΚΚ 3F2 Making Resolutions
ΚΚΚΚΚΚ 3G SITUATED FANTASY/DAYDREAM EPISODES
ΚΚΚ 3G1 Elaboration of Dramatized
Scenarios
ΚΚΚ 3G2 Construction of Catharsis
Stories
ΚΚΚ 3G3 Re-contacting Nostalgic
Memories
ΚΚΚ 3G4 Working out Alternative
Realities
ΚΚΚ
ΚΚΚ3H THE ELEVATED
REGISTER
ΚΚΚ 3H2 Altered States of
Consciousness
ΚΚΚ 3H3 Meditations/Reading of
Scriptures
ΚΚΚ 3H4 Poetic Expressions
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚ Κ3J
SOCIAL MEMBERSHIPS
ΚZONE 4:Κ PSYCHOHISTORY
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4D1 Who Am I
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4D2 What Am I
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4D4 What Do I Look to You
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5A1 Invitations
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5A2 Announcements
5A3.1 Periodicals
5A3.2 Membership Dues
5A3.3 Contributions
5A4 Bills
5A5 Closets
5A6 Drawers
5A7 Objects
5A8 Documents and
Mementos
5A8.1 Official/Legal/Medical
5A8.2 Personal/Biographical
5A8.2.1
Prizes
5A8.2.2
Letters
5A8.2.3
Gifts
5A8.2.4
Albums
5A8.2.5
Souvenirs
5A9
Personal Effects:Κ Selected Inventories
5A9.1 Purse/Wallet
5A9.2 Car Glove Compartment
5A9.3 Your Own Drawer for Stuff
5A9.4 Clothes Closet
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
Κ
5B ROUTINE CONCERNS:Κ SELECTED
INVENTORIES
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B1 Privacy
5B1.1 From the EYES of Particular Others
5B1.2 From the NOSE of Particular Others
5B1.3 From the EARS of Particular Others
5B1.4 From the KNOWLEDGE of Particular Others
5B1.4.1.1 Places
5B1.4.1.2 People
5B1.4.1.3 Purchases
ΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ5B1.4.2 Involving Your Ideas
5B1.4.2.1 Memories
5B1.4.2.2 Attitudes
5B1.4.2.3 Opinions
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B2 Information:Κ Record Keeping
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B2.1 Schedules
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B2.2 Shopping Lists
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B2.4 Check/Bank Books
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5B2.5 Biographical
5B2.5.1 Diary
5B2.5.2 Notes
5B2.5.3 Resolutions
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
5C NOTICING OBSERVATIONS
5C1.1 Physical State/Appearance of Things and Places
5C1.2 Change in Normalcy Signs
5C1.3 Weather
5C1.4 People in Public Places
Κ5C2 Relationship Events
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5C2.1
Noticeable About People You Know
5C2.1.1 Physical Appearance
5C2.1.2. Mood
5C2.1.3 Unmentionables Within the Relationship
5C2.1.4 Disoccasioned Mentionable
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚ5C3 Auditory Pickings-up
5C3.1 Overheard Snatches
of Talk
5C3.2 Sounds, Noises
5D1 Gossiping
5D2 Catching Up on News
5D3 Having an Argument
5D4 Joking
5D5 Exchanging
Information
5D6 Making Arrangements
5D7 Working Out a
Problem
5D8 Sharing
Secrets/Confessions
5D9 Routine Reviews
/News of the Day
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Κ5E TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGIES:Κ EPISODES WREN I:
5E1 Lied
5E2 Avoided
5E3 Persisted In
5E4 Pursued
5E5 Insisted On
5F1 Problems
5F2 Concerns
5F3 Secrets
5F4 Disoccasioned Topics
5F5 Superstitions
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Κ5G SLOGANS
5G1 About
Appearance
5G2 About Health
5G3 About Diet
5G4 Folk Wisdom
5H1 Pet Peeves (self and
others)
5H2 Family Sayings
5H3 Nicknames (self and
others)
5H4 Personal (self and
others)
5H5 Regularized
References to
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Κ 5H5.1 Time
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Κ 5H5.2 Place
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Κ 5H5.3 Events
ΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚ5I ΚHANGOUTS AND GROUP ACTIVITIES
5I1 Places
5I2 Circumstances of Crowding With
5I3 Activities with Others
5I4 Rights and Privileges
5I5 Reputation
5J3
Writing/Receiving Notes, Letters, Memos, Ads, etc.
5J4
Raying Bills
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5K NON-JOINT ACTIVITIES
5K1
Doing a Task for Another Person
5K2
Buying a Gift for Another Person
5K3
Mentioning a Person to Someone
5K4
Avoiding a Person
5K5
Going to See/Looking for a Person
5K6
Having a Mental Exchange with Someone
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 6A ΚINTERVIEWING OTHERS
6A1
Who Am I
6A2
What Am I
6A3
How Am I
The DRA Index is a
cumulative record of the cataloguing-practices of the community, as witnessed
by the contributors to the daily round data bank.Κ This catalogue serves to identify the ordinary noticing of participants
engaged in soΠcial episodes, whether monadic (by oneself), or dyadic, or
public.Κ Contributors use a specified
format of reporting, which we provide and which evolves, as we underΠstand more
about whatβs to be done!Κ We find one
particular technique useful, what we call annotations.Κ Contributors make reports, which involve the
form of tranΠscripts, micro-descriptions, and interior dialog or discourse
thinking (inner arguΠments and comments made to the self).Κ These form the raw data.Κ Next, the raw data are processed two ways
through Ξwitnessingβ:Κ first, the
contributor annotates the raw data; second, γreadersδ annotate them as well,
and in some cases, annotaΠtions are annotated by subsequent readers. This generational
processing of the data bank creates a cumulative catalogue of what social
stimuli are noticed and are being kept track of in a community.Κ Assuming progress in a successive
approximation, towards the solution of the cataloguing issue (above), the next
phase of this theoΠretical program is to ascertain the transactional value of
the noticing on the daily round that participants keep track of.Κ We do this by obtaining particular kinds of
annotations of the recorded noticing by both the participant-contributor to the
DRA and as well, by readers or users of the DRA.Κ These Ξreadersβ are successive generations of students so that
the data in the DRA gets processed cumulatively in the form of annotations on
annotations.
1. This article is based on our Lecture Notes for
γApplied Psycholinguistics in Social Psychologyδ (now Psychology γ397δ,
University of Hawaii), written in 1972. A mimeographed version of the lecture
notes appears in Vol. 1, γThe FuncΠtional Analysis of the Verbal Communityδ in
Series 3 of James and Gordon~ 1975χ77, see References.
2. Leon James is Professor of Psychology at the
University of Hawaii. In 1966, as Co-director of the Center for Comparative
Psycholinguistics, University of Illinois, he visited the Institute during
which he had the good fortune of meeting Prof. Kostic, and would like to take
this opportunity of expressing both honor and pleasure, at γunveilingδ these
newer ideas on psycholinguistics, for the first time in this volume, published
in honor of Prof. Kostic, who has, over the years, shown a keen interest in
this specialization of the language sciences, and in that interest, has
supported its development (James, 1966).
3. Barbara Gordon is Visiting Colleague in Psycholinguistics at the UniverΠsity of Hawaii and is President, Transactional Engineering Corporation, Florida and Hawaii. Since 1950, sheβs been active in Educational Linguistics, a branch of the language sciences that concerns itself with the applied uses of linguistic knowΠledge in school settings, as in training teachers, in ameliorating academic literacy, in expanding cognitive development, and so on (see Gordon, 1962; Aarons, Gordon, Stewart, 1969; James and Gordon, 1974).
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 4.
DRA table footnote. ΚThe classification scheme shown here is
based on our, as yet unpublished work (James and Gordon, 1975χ77), on what we
label γethno-semantics.δ The basis of this method of analysis of cultural
phenomena of meaning and function (= γsituational pragmaticsδ) is our discovery
of a natural hexagrammatic order, differentiated along developmental stages.
The six zones and their derivative sub-zones in the DRA classification scheme,
follow this hexagrammatic hierarchy.Κ
For further details, see in addition James and Gordon, (1969; 1968). 1.
Mayer (1935) was among the first to
our knowledge to foresee the use of evidential procedures in social psychology,
as exemplified in the natural history methodology of the DRA project.
Aarons, A., Gordon, B. Y., & Stewart, W. (Eds.). Linguistic-Cultural
Differences and American Education, Special Anthology Issue of The Florida FL
Reporter, Vol. 7, 1969.
Oarfinkel, H. Studies in
Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Goffman,
E. Relations in Public: Micro studies of the Public Order. New York: Basic
Books, 1971
(Harper Colophon Books,
1972).
Gordon, B. Y. ΘAn Application of the Findings of Structural Linguistics
to the Teaching of EnΠglish in the Lower Elementary Grade: An Exploratory
Study.Η Language and Literature, Linguistics, Columbia University, Ed.D., 1962.
James, L. A. ΘComparative Psycholinguistics in the Study of Culture.Η
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1, 1966, pp. 15χ37, reprinted in translated version (French) in T. Slama-Cazacu
(Ed.) La Psycholinguistique, Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1972.
James, L. A., & Gordon, B. Y. Societyβs Witnesses: Experiencing
Formative Issues in Social Psychology. Department of Psychology, University of
Hawaii, 1979 (mimeographed lecΠture notes).
James, L. A., & Gordon, B. Y. Workbook for the Study of Social
Psychology (2nd Edition). Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, 1978.
James, L. A., & Gordon, B. Y. Community Cataloguing Practices
(Series I through VI). DepartΠment of Psychology, University of Hawaii,
1975χ1977 (mimeo). (Abbreviated as J & G, 1975χ77.)
James, L. A., & Gordon, B. Y. The Context of Foreign Language
Teaching. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House
Publishers, 1974.
James, L. A., & Miron, M. S. Readings in the Psychology of Language,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.
Sacks, H. Unpublished Lectures.
University of California at Los Angeles, Davis (mimeo), ca. 1966. Sacks, H.,
Shegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, 0. A. Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn
Taking for Conversation.
Language, 1974, 50, (4), 696χ735.
(Also reprinted in Schenkein, 1978.)
Schenkein, J. (Ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational
Interaction. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Steinberg, D. S., & James, L. A. (Eds.). Semantics: An
Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Winskowski, C. An Empirical Investigation of Topicalization. Unpublished
Masterβs Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, 1975.