[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;
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)
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
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.
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.
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?
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ a3:Κ Well, whatcha got here?
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ A:ΚΚΚΚΚ HiΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ B:
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ a4:Κ Iβll wait for you in the car.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ a5:Κ Hello, there, sweetheart.
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 aa2:Κ You think so?
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa3:Κ Not really.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 11.Κ Amusing, eh?ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 12.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa4:Κ Fantastic!
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ aa5:Κ Yup.
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
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
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
5A3.2 Membership Dues
5A8 Documents and Mementos
5A9 Personal Effects:Κ Selected Inventories
5A9.2 Car Glove Compartment
5A9.3 Your Own Drawer for Stuff
5A9.4 Clothes Closet
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
ΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ5B1.4.2 Involving Your Ideas
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
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5C NOTICING OBSERVATIONS
5C1.1 Physical State/Appearance of Things and Places
5C1.2 Change in Normalcy Signs
5C1.4 People in Public Places
Κ5C2 Relationship Events
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 5C2.1 Noticeable About People You Know
5C2.1.1 Physical Appearance
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
5D2 Catching Up on News
5D3 Having an Argument
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:
5E3 Persisted In
5E5 Insisted On
5F4 Disoccasioned Topics
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
5I2 Circumstances of Crowding With
5I3 Activities with Others
5I4 Rights and Privileges
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.