things as that the speaker and hearer both know how to speak the language; both are ..... practice is followed whereby utterances are first transformed into ..... The fourth borrowing from semiotic is the notion of "type of ...... vince, an intern writes, ..... Tyler (ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS:
LANGUAGE AND SOCIOLOGY,
ETHNOSEMANTICS AND ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
by
PETER ANTHONY EGLIN B.A., U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e London, 1968
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
i n the Department of Anthropology and S o c i o l o g y
We a c c e p t required
t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1975
In
presenting
an
advanced
the I
Library
further
for
degree shall
agree
scholarly
by
his
of
this
written
this
thesis
in
at
University
the
make
that
it
purposes
for
freely
permission may
representatives. thesis
partial
financial
for
of
Columbia,
British
gain
Depa rtment
Columbia
for
extensive by
the
is understood
permission.
The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a
of
available
be g r a n t e d
It
fulfilment
shall
Head
be
requirements
reference copying
that
not
the
of
agree
and
of my
I
this
or
allowed
without
that
study. thesis
Department
copying
for
or
publication my
ii
ABSTRACT
In
trying
to d i s c o v e r the n a t u r e of c u l t u r a l competence, ethno-
semantics l e a v e s out of account the judgemental o r i n t e r p r e t i v e work of a s o c i e t y ' s members, and that n e g l e c t i s f a t a l critical
to i t s programme.
t h e s i s i s the nub of the d i s s e r t a t i o n .
as an argument, and i s o r g a n i z e d i n two p a r t s as The f i r s t p a r t i s programmatic. One),
The l a t t e r
This
i s constructed
follows.
A f t e r an i n t r o d u c t i o n (Chapter
t h r e e k i n d s of s o c i o l o g y a r e i n t r o d u c e d and f o r m a l l y d e s c r i b e d
(Chapter Two).
Ethnosemantics and ethnomethodology
t i c a l " and " i n t e r p r e t i v e " s o c i o l o g y r e s p e c t i v e l y
a r e c a s t as "gramma-
(Chapter T h r e e ) .
This
enables u s , i n p u r s u i n g a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e of ethnosemantics from a p o s i t i o n based i n ethnomethodology about s o c i o l o g y supposes
(Chapter F i v e ) :
i n s o f a r as " p o s i t i v i s t i c " s o c i o l o g y p r e -
"grammatical" s o c i o l o g y which presupposes
then (1) " p o s i t i v i s t i c " commonsense e x p l a n a t i o n , and
(Chapter F o u r ) , to draw c o n c l u s i o n s
"interpretive"
sociology,
e x p l a n a t i o n i s not, i n p r i n c i p l e , s u p e r i o r to (2) an adequate
s o c i o l o g y needs be
interpretive,
(3) ethnosemantics, i n engaging i n what ethnomethodology
structive analysis", f a i l s
to be an adequate
The second p a r t i s e m p i r i c a l .
calls
sociology.
The argument i s now
terms of d a t a from a study of terms f o r Canadian d o c t o r s .
pursued i n
A f t e r an
d u c t i o n (Chapter S i x ) , the methods and r e s u l t s of the ethnosemantic of
the study a r e p r e s e n t e d (Chapter Seven).
tically
examined i n the l i g h t
"con-
intropart
These r e s u l t s a r e then c r i -
o f an e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s o f the
iii
i n t e r v i e w s which generated
them (Chapter E i g h t ) .
Nine) t h a t ethnosemantics,
i n r e l y i n g on the v e r y competence i t i s t r y i n g
to
explicate, f a i l s
I t i s concluded
to make that r e s o u r c e a t o p i c , and
render an adequate a n a l y s i s of i t s intended o b j e c t . methodology p r o v i d e s both the m i s s i n g a n a l y s i s and semantics'
failure.
(Chapter
thereby f a i l s
to
In c o n t r a s t , ethno-
an account of
ethno-
XV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
xi
L i s t of Tables List
v
of Figures
vi
Acknowledgements
P a r t One
vii
- Programmatics: The Adequacy o f Ethnosemantics and Ethnomethodology as T h e o r e t i c a l S o c i o l o g i e s Attempti n g t o Account f o r C u l t u r a l Competence
Chapter One:
I n t r o d u c t i o n to P a r t One
1
Chapter Two:
How S o c i o l o g y 1000 Presupposes S o c i o l o g y 2000 Which, i n T u r n , Presupposes S o c i o l o g y 3000
5
Chapter Three: Ethnosemantics as a Kind o f S o c i o l o g y 2000 and Ethnomethodology as a Kind o f S o c i o l o g y 3000 Chapter Four:
Chapter F i v e : P a r t Two'-
18
L e a v i n g Out the I n t e r p r e t e r ' s Work: A M e t h o d o l o g i c a l C r i t i q u e of Ethnosemantics Based on Ethnomethodology
29
Conclusion
58
t o P a r t One
D a t a : U s i n g the Same M a t e r i a l , an Ethnosemantic Study, and an E t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l Study, o f C u l t u r a l Competence
Chapter S i x :
I n t r o d u c t i o n to P a r t Two
61
Chapter Seven: Terms f o r Canadian D o c t o r s - Ethnosemantics
64
Chapter E i g h t : Terms f o r Canadian D o c t o r s - Ethnomethodology
77
Chapter N i n e :
91
Literature Cited Appendix
Conclusion
to P a r t Two
94 117
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table I
One L i n e From the Chart o f Reference f o r Lawyers
Terms 64
Table II
Chart o f Reference Terms f o r Canadian D o c t o r s
68
Table I I I
Code of Semantic Dimensions
70
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
The S e m i o t i c T r i a n g l e i n Ethnosemantics
34
Figure 2
P a r t i a l Taxonomy o f Terms f o r Canadian Doctors
73
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T h i s t h e s i s resembles
a hot-house p l a n t .
Though grown i n s o i l
prepared by Werner Conn, i t s sowing, t a k i n g root and coming t o f r u i t i o n are the work o f Roy T u r n e r . technology, i n t e l l e c t
He n o u r i s h e d i t w i t h a unique blend o f humour,
and music.
w i t h , mostly, Bergen, B i l l ,
I t took shape i n seminars
a t h i s house
Bruce, Deanna, Gary, John, Rudi and Wes.
O u t s i d e , i t was s t i m u l a t e d w i t h d r a f t s poured by M a r t i n M e i s s n e r , and w i t h c a u s t i c doses o f Reg Robson. mostly, B i l l Sylvia.
Down a t the " l a b " i t was watched over by,
and F r a n , Don, H e i d i , L o t h a r , Martha, Peg, Reg, Swani and
To a l l these f o r a l l t h i s go many, many thanks- e s p e c i a l l y t o
Roy. I would l i k e t o thank J a y P o w e l l and E l v i W h i t t a k e r f o r t h e i r h e l p . A p p r e c i a t i o n o f a l e s s p e r s o n a l s o r t i s due the r e s i d e n t s , f a c u l t y and s e c r e t a r i e s of that m e d i c a l department a t t h e h o s p i t a l i n the l a r g e West e r n Canadian
c i t y i n which I gathered d a t a - f o r c h e e r f u l l y e n d u r i n g the
somewhat t e d i o u s i n t e r v i e w i n g . h e l p i n t h i s matter.
I am g r a t e f u l t o Bob Boese f o r p r a c t i c a l
Thanks a l s o t o the informant
F o r _ i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement works o f H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l can be c i t e d as a prominent
I am d e l i g h t e d t o acknowledge; the
("the [documentary] method
[of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ]
p a r t o f t h e work t h a t persons engage i n
whereby t h e y m a i n t a i n themselves of
from Richmond.
and each o t h e r as the same p e r s o n s " ) ,
Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n , and o f Yehoshua B a r - H i l l e l .
viii
I thank t h e Canada C o u n c i l f o r t h r e e years good money; I wish i t had been f o u r .
For c r u c i a l h e l p a t o t h e r times
Awards O f f i c e , t h e Bank o f M o n t r e a l excellent
I am i n d e b t e d t o the U.B.C.
(S.U.B., U.B.C. b r a n c h ) , and some
friends. Gale L e P i t r e and Sharon H e f l i n d i d the t y p i n g ,
p r i n t i n g , a l l at s h o r t n o t i c e , w i t h k i n d l i n e s s and without
Bob F r u the fuss.
As t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s t h e end o f my f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n , i t i s f i t t i n g t o speak o f my p a r e n t s .
My f e e l i n g s towards them a r e ,
like
those of most c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r p a r e n t s I would t h i n k , c o l o u r e d w i t h valence.
ambi-
But f o r t h a t p e c u l i a r s e l f - s a c r i f i c e , however confused o r
m y s t i f y i n g , t h a t so many p a r e n t s seem t o make f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n , and which my parents made f o r me f o r e d u c a t i o n , I o f f e r overdue and g r a t e f u l I c h e e r f u l l y bear
final responsibility
f o rthis piece.
thanks.
TO MY WIFE AND "Whereof one cannot
SON speak,
PART ONE
PRO GRAMMATICS: THE ADEQUACY OF ETHNOSEMANTICS AND ETHNOMETHODOLOGY AS THEORETICAL SOCIOLOGIES ATTEMPTING TO ACCOUNT FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCE
la
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO PART ONE
Broadly logy.
conceived,
Narrowly c o n c e i v e d ,
t h i s work i s about the b e s t way to do s o c i o -
i t s s u b j e c t matter i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
r e q u i r e o f a c e r t a i n k i n d of product - a k i n d of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n address the process Since, for
of i t s p r o d u c t i o n
theoretical
- that i t
- the a c t i v i t y of c l a s s i f y i n g .
i n Chapter Two, we propose some c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
clarity's
We
o f our own, h e r e ,
sake, we suggest a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f c l a s s i f i c i a t i o n s
classifications,
(2) f o l k c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ,
- (1)
and (3) h e u r i s t i c
classifications. (1)
In science, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
a r e h e l d to a r i s e
properly
only
from t h e o r i e s - as the types i n t o which some concept d i v i d e s o r , i f the concept e n t e r s i n t o a h y p o t h e s i s able.
The p r o p e r t i e s of such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
ness... - a r e c o n t r a s t e d tions,
and i s i n t e r p r e t e d , as v a l u e s
s p e c i f i c a l l y with
- exhaustiveness,
those of (2) f o l k
massive b i b l i o g r a p h y , F o l k C l a s s i f i c a t i o n The f o l k c a t e g o r y
the l a t t e r being
can be s a i d
the " p r o p e r t y "
own r i g h t
classifica-
to subsume the t h e o r e t i c a l
o f one k i n d o f f o l k
s t u d i e d by c o g n i t i v e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s
However,
- Conklin's
(1972), l i s t s over f i v e
- scientists.
mies, paradigms and t r e e s a r e names of some of the k i n d s
formal
exclusive-
the p r o p e r t i e s of which a r e l o o s e r and l e s s w e l l - d e f i n e d .
these l a t t e r may be and have been s t u d i e d i n t h e i r
items.
of a v a r i -
thousand category, Taxono-
of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
- such semantic arrangements a r e the
s u b j e c t matter of ETHNOSEMANTICS.
T h i s essay i s about the s h o r t -
2
comings of ethnosemantics as a k i n d of s o c i o l o g y . t i o n s a r e pragmatic d e v i c e s h o l d no
(3) H e u r i s t i c c l a s s i f i c a -
s e r v i n g some p r a c t i c a l purpose a t hand.
s i g n i f i c a n c e beyond t h a t purpose.
I t may
w e l l be
acknowledged
t h a t a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , of whatever k i n d , have t h i s f e a t u r e . p a r t of than
the argument of t h i s essay that t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n
They
It is
i s crucial
rather
trivial. As pegs on which to hang the argument we
classifications:
of f a c t s - " b r u t e " and
s o c i o l o g y - "1000", "2000", and
propose two
heuristic
" i n s t i t u t i o n a l " ; of k i n d s
"3000".
These are used, l i k e the
of formal
devices
of W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s
T r a c t a t u s , as steps on the l a d d e r of an argument
- as we
ascend we
the l a d d e r behind us.
p u l l up
are d e f i n e d i n Chapter Two. the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s , and
By
"1000" we
known by
"2000" we
intend
meanings c o n c e i v e d
i n t e n d s o c i o l o g y modelled
as some k i n d o f map,
and which a r e known by
(interactionist)",
as "pragmatic", "members' methods", "procedures",
fication. it's and
difficult Sociology
SEMANTICS and
1000
3000 - s p e c i f i c a l l y 1 ETHNOMETHODOLOGY.
Our
By
such terms
k i n d s of
i s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s work p r i n c i p a l l y
to l e a v e i t out.
such l a b e l s
"phenomenological"....
these k i n d s of s o c i o l o g y p a r a l l e l our
Sociology
"log-
actors'
" c u l t u r a l code"....
i n t e n d " i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y " , d i s t i n g u i s h e d by
I t can be seen how
on
"deductive-nomological"....
those s o c i o l o g i e s which a r e taken up w i t h
as "grammatical", "symbolic "3000" we
"institutional"
such l a b e l s as " p o s i t i v i s t i c " ,
i c a l e m p i r i c i s t " , "hypothetico-deductive", By
" B r u t e " and
classi-
because
main i n t e r e s t i s i n S o c i o l o g y
2000
those v e r s i o n s of each known as ETHNO-
3
U s i n g the " f a c t s " dichotomy
Chapter Two
c h a r a c t e r i z e s the t h r e e
k i n d s of s o c i o l o g y i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t f o r m a l o b j e c t s t h a t
each
seeks to e x p l a i n , and i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t modes of e x p l a n a t i o n employed
by each.
to demonstrate kinds.
T h i s i s done w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of an argument i n t e n d e d
the s u p e r i o r i t y of i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y over the o t h e r
Ethsem and ethmeth
are then i n t r o d u c e d i n Chapter Three as k i n d s
of grammatical and i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y r e s p e c t i v e l y . e l a b o r a t e s the argument of Chapters Two
Chapter Four
and Three i n the form o f a
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e of ethsem from the p o i n t of view of ethmeth. i t s own
In
terms ethsem i s seen to generate s u c c e s s f u l l y both data and r e -
s u l t s , d e s p i t e the acknowledged from p r a g m a t i c s " .
problem of c o n t e x t or of
But i n terms of ethmeth
"abstracting
t h a t s u c c e s s i s seen to depend
on a course of i n t e r p r e t i v e work t h a t remains- u n e x p l i c a t e d and w i t h i n the ethsem "paradigm".
inexplicable
The c o n c l u s i o n i s drawn, i n Chapter F i v e ,
t h a t the o n l y adequate s o c i o l o g y i s t h a t which takes account of such i n t e r p r e t i v e work.
FOOTNOTES
Being unwieldy, both terms a r e a b b r e v i a t e d f r e q u e n t l y throughout the dissertation. Ethnosemantics becomes ethsem, and ethnomethodology becomes ethmeth.
CHAPTER TWO HOW
SOCIOLOGY 1000 PRESUPPOSES SOCIOLOGY 2000
WHICH, IN TURN, PRESUPPOSES SOCIOLOGY 3000
Introduction
In
Speech A c t s (1969) S e a r l e , f o l l o w i n g Anscombe (1958),
uses
the terms " b r u t e " and " i n s t i t u t i o n a l " to d i s t i n g u i s h two k i n d s o f f a c t s . Examples of b r u t e f a c t s a r e r e c o r d e d i n the statements, " T h i s stone i s next to t h a t s t o n e " , and " I have a p a i n " .
A t f i r s t b l u s h these a r e
r e c o r d s o f simple sense e x p e r i e n c e s , r e q u i r i n g no " s o c i a l " knowledge f o r their
understanding: One might s a y they share t h e f e a t u r e t h a t the concepts which make up the knowledge a r e e s s e n t i a l l y p h y s i c a l , o r , i n i t s d u a l i s t i c v e r s i o n , e i t h e r p h y s i c a l or mental ( S e a r l e , 1969: 5 0 ) .
Examples o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l Smith",
" L i v e r p o o l b e a t Leeds 5-2", and "Montgomery s a l u t e d " .
cases more i s i n v o l v e d of
f a c t s a r e a v a i l a b l e i n "Ms. Jones m a r r i e d Mr.
than simple sense e x p e r i e n c e s .
a d i f f e r e n t k i n d i s r e q u i r e d f o r an adequate
I n these
Here, knowledge
understanding:
There i s no simple s e t o f statements about p h y s i c a l o r psyc h o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s or s t a t e s of a f f a i r s to which t h e statements o f f a c t s such as these a r e r e d u c i b l e ( S e a r l e , 1969: 51).1 S o c i o l o g y 1000, S o c i o l o g y 2000 and S o c i o l o g y 3000 d i f f e r
accord
to what i t i s they c o n c e i v e r e q u i r e s a c c o u n t i n g f o r , and how i t i s t h a t t h a t a c c o u n t i n g should be done.
F o r each, datum and methodology come t o -
gether i n a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of a b s t r a c t o b j e c t t h a t becomes the t o p i c o f
6
explanation.
For S o c i o l o g y 1000
the a b s t r a c t o b j e c t i s the REGULARITY, f o r
S o c i o l o g y 2000 i t i s the (CONSTITUTIVE) RULE, and the INTERPRETATION. t a i n i n g b r u t e and
f o r S o c i o l o g y 3000 i t i s
These o b j e c t s can be r e p r e s e n t e d as sentences
con-
i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s , as f o l l o w s (where i n d i v i d u a l
case l e t t e r s stand f o r b r u t e f a c t s , i n d i v i d u a l upper-case
lower-
for institutional
facts) : (1)
[REGULARITY]
(2)
[CONSTITUTIVE RULE]
(3)
[INTERPRETATION] F i n d any lower-case l e t t e r and see t h a t i n context Z, x counts as Y. Our
I f Y then
In c o n t e x t Z, x counts as
Y.
to be
Z,
t h e s i s i s t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are the proper o b j e c t of
s o c i o l o g i c a l explanation. sentence
Q.
Our
procedure
i s to g i v e an example of each
( i n the c o n t e x t of the k i n d of s o c i o l o g y which employs each),
and
to show t h a t the use of r e g u l a r i t i e s depends upon the use of r u l e s 2 which themselves depend upon the use of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .
S o c i o l o g y 1000
- R e g u l a r i t i e s and
Theories
Sentence (1) above stands f o r s y n t h e t i c , c o n d i t i o n a l t y p i c a l l y found as hypotheses ology t h i s i s c h i e f l y groups.
d e r i v e d from d e d u c t i v e t h e o r i e s .
statements In s o c i -
the p r o v i n c e o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l study of s m a l l
The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s o c i o l o g y - o n - t h e - n a t u r a l - s c i e n c e - m o d e l
and of the s t r u c t u r e of a s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n a r e well-known from innumerable
i n t r o d u c t o r y textbooks.
A " u n i v e r s a l " statement
We w i l l
take them as
read.
of (1) would be, f o r example,
7
(4)
"When t a s k groups a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t to some status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e x t e r n a l to the task s i t u a t i o n , t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n determines the o b s e r v a b l e power and p r e s t i g e o r d e r w i t h i n t h e group, whether or not the e x t e r n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e r e l a t e d to t h e group t a s k " (Berger, Cohen and Z e l d i t c h , 1966: 3 1 ) .
A " s i n g u l a r " statement of t h i s k i n d would be, f o r example, (5)
" I n 3-man A i r F o r c e crews, p i l o t s were more i n f l u e n t i a l than gunners i n a r r i v i n g a t a group p r o j e c t i v e s t o r y " (Cohen, 1966: 5 ) . 3
Such statements express e m p i r i c a l r e g u l a r i t i e s . e x p l a n a t i o n c o n s i s t s of l o g i c a l l y d e r i v i n g d e f i n i t i o n s , and s u b j e c t i n g
The p r o c e s s of
them from a s e t o f axioms and
them to e m p i r i c a l t e s t .
They a r e made t e s t -
a b l e by b e i n g put through a f i l t e r o f correspondence r u l e s and o p e r a t i o n a l definitions (6)
(Schrag, 1967: 363).
The output i s a sentence
like
I f y then q.
C o n t i n u i n g w i t h our example, an i n s t a n c e o f a correspondence r u l e
would
be (7)
" A i r f o r c e rank i s a s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " 6).
(Cohen, 1966:
That i s , an o b s e r v a t i o n a l term, " a i r f o r c e rank", i s p o s i t e d as an i n d i c a t o r o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l concept, " s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " .
The o p e r a t i o n a l
v e r s i o n o f a i r f o r c e rank ( s a y , the v e r b a l response to the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s q u e s t i o n , "What i s your rank?") would then be t h e b r u t e f a c t y . Our
argument i s t h a t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l concepts i n r e g u l a r i t i e s a r e 4
i n s t i t u t i o n a l facts
(Y,Q),
and t h a t t h e apparatus of correspondence
and o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s used
to reduce these to b r u t e f a c t s
rules
(y,q) c a n
be r e p r e s e n t e d as a s e t o f c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s on the model of sentence (2) - f o r example,
8
(8)
In context
In terms of our (9)
Z, y counts as
example,
In the c o n t e x t of the s t a t u s - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n - a n d - p o w e r theory or r e s e a r c h programme (Z) , the answer to the r e s e a r c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n "What i s your r a n k ? " (y) counts as (the respondent's) s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ( Y ) . By f o r m u l a t i n g
ology's
Y.
i t t h i s way
we
can say
that " p o s i t i v i s t i c "
o b j e c t of e x p l a n a t i o n - the r e g u l a r i t y - i s u n d e r l a i n by
more) c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s .
T h i s i s the p o i n t of t h i s s e c t i o n .
of s a y i n g i t becomes c l e a r e r i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s , and
soci-
(one
The
or
point
i s stated i n
5 Chapter F i v e , the c o n c l u s i o n to P a r t
Sociology
One.
2000 - C o n s t i t u t i v e Rules and
C o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s ( S e a r l e , 1969: the b r u t e world w i l l 6 some c o n t e x t .
33-42) t e l l what i t i s b i t s
count as i n terms of some human i n s t i t u t i o n ,
of
given
They are to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from " r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s " ,
" i n s t r u c t i o n s " , "precept Hayek, 1963:
Grammars
r u l e s " and
334-335; Ganz, 1971).
the l i k e
( B l a c k , 1962
[1958]: 109-115;
F o l l o w i n g sentence ( 2 ) , an example of
a constitutive rule i s (10)
I n the game of c r i c k e t ( Z ) , h i t t i n g - t h e - b a l l - f u l l - p i t c h across-the-boundary-line (x) counts as "a s i x " or " s i x runs" (Y). Such r u l e s t u r n the b r u t e world
haviour
i n t o meaningful a c t i o n , nature
can say
that
i n t o the s o c i a l w o r l d , mere be-
into culture.
In t h i s f a s h i o n
. . . ' i n s t i t u t i o n s ' a r e systems of c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s . Every i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t i s u n d e r l a i n by a (system o f ) r u l e ( s ) of the form '[x] counts as Y i n c o n t e x t C ( S e a r l e , 1969: 51-52).
we
9
To
g i v e an account o f some f e a t u r e of
t h i s approach, to s t a t e the
the s o c i a l world i s , by
r u l e s which p r o v i d e f o r the o r d e r l i n e s s
of
the phenomenon:
q
The r u l e s account f o r the r e g u l a r i t i e s i n e x a c t l y the same way t h a t the r u l e s of f o o t b a l l account f o r the r e g u l a r i t i e s i n a game of f o o t b a l l , and w i t h o u t the r u l e s t h e r e seems no accounti n g f o r the r e g u l a r i t i e s " ( S e a r l e , 1969: 53).
Some of
these r u l e s w i l l be
c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s and,
s t i t u t i v e r u l e s determine the o t h e r r u l e s
( S e a r l e , 1969:
I t i s s l i g h t l y m i s l e a d i n g to say j e c t " of e x p l a n a t i o n . e x p l a i n i n g by so r u l e s are
Just
as r e g u l a r i t i e s p a r t a k e of
themselves p a r t - e x p l a n a t i o n - o f - t h e - d a t a
explanatory object.
ordering
the f u n c t i o n
as w e l l as
account of promises shows (1969: 63), q u e s t i o n of
or
"obof
or more v a r i a b l e s ,
N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e i s more to the a n a l y s i s
so r a i s i n g the
con-
69).
part-
That i s , they a r e both e x p l a n a t o r y t o o l
i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s than the mere p r o v i s i o n of one
required,
the
t h a t r u l e s are s i m p l y the
p r e s c r i b i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two
formulation-of-the-data.
Searle's
i n general,
two
and of
rules.
As
a number of r u l e s
are
the r e l a t i o n between them.
The
of r u l e s i n a grammar i s analogous to l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s w i t h i n
a 7
theory.
Grammar stands to r u l e , then, as The
theory stands to r e g u l a r i t y .
constitutive-rule-and-grammar conception f i t s w e l l
k i n d s of s o c i o l o g y ;
they a r e b e i n g g l o s s e d
nographies of o c c u p a t i o n s , p r o f e s s i o n s from Chicago a f t e r 1945,
and
h e r e as S o c i o l o g y
2000.
i n s t i t u t i o n s such as
Goffman's work, and
S i x of Wieder's (1975) study of
Eth-
emanated
symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i s m
stand b e i n g f o r m u l a t e d i n terms of a c o n s t i t u t i v e - r u l e s account. F i v e and
certain
the c o n v i c t
will
Chapters
code i n a halfway
10
house p r o v i d e a p a r t i c u l a r l y f i n e example of such an a n a l y s i s , 8 does not make e x p l i c i t use o f these terms.
though he
The body of work a t i s s u e i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s ethnosemantics. In
Chapter Three we argue t h a t t h i s r i g o r o u s form o f semantic
i s a kind of Sociology 2 0 0 0 . stitutive rules.
I t s s e m a n t i c a l r u l e s w i l l be r e c a s t as con-
B e f o r e t h a t the case must be made f o r c l a i m i n g t h a t
s t i t u t i v e r u l e s a r e u n d e r l a i n by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . the
ethnography
phrase " i n c o n t e x t Z" t h a t forms the f i r s t
con-
We proceed by a t t a c k i n g
part of a c o n s t i t u t i v e
rule.
The Problem o f Context ( I n Searle's. Account of Promises)
There a r i s e s the problem w i t h c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s o f how we a r e to take the phrase " i n c o n t e x t Z". capital-letter, institutional the
S p e c i f i c a l l y , how does
f a c t i n the f i r s t
problem of c o n t e x t i s c r u c i a l ;
place?
t h i s come to be a We want to argue
that
t h a t a s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f c o n t e x t i s not
a v a i l a b l e s i m p l y by i n s p e c t i o n ; t h a t i t s f o r m u l a t i o n o u t o f b r u t e f a c t s i s not
d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s ;
that this being so,
c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s depend themselves on an u n d e r l y i n g o p e r a t i o n which we shall call of
"interpretation".
We s h a l l proceed by way o f S e a r l e ' s account
promises. In
o r d e r to d e l i m i t t h e o b j e c t t o be e x p l a i n e d S e a r l e f i n d s i t
n e c e s s a r y to " [ i g n o r e ] m a r g i n a l , f r i n g e , and p a r t i a l l y d e f e c t i v e promises"; to
" c o n f i n e [ h i s ] d i s c u s s i o n to f u l l blown e x p l i c i t promises and i g n o r e
promises made by e l l i p t i c a l
turns o f phrase, h i n t s , metaphors";
to " i g n o r e
promises made i n the c o u r s e o f u t t e r i n g sentences which c o n t a i n elements
11
i r r e l e v a n t to the making of the promise"; to " d e a l . . . o n l y promises and
with c a t e g o r i c a l
i g n o r [ e j h y p o t h e t i c a l promises"; to "simply
assume the
tence of g r a m m a t i c a l l y w e l l - f o r m e d sentences"; to have i t as a t h a t "Normal i n p u t and
output c o n d i t i o n s
t h i n g s as t h a t the speaker and
exis-
condition
o b t a i n " where t h a t i n c l u d e s
h e a r e r both know how
to speak the
"such
language;
b o t h are c o n s c i o u s o f what they are d o i n g ; they have no p h y s i c a l impediments to communication, such as d e a f n e s s , a p h a s i a , where communication i s s e r i o u s and ances w i t h p l a y a c t i n g , t e a c h i n g pronunciation, etc.")
e t c . , and
( S e a r l e 1969:
56,
("I
contrast
and
'serious' u t t e r -
a language, r e c i t i n g poems, p r a c t i c i n g
I contrast
55,
literal
or l a r y n g i t i s " ,
57).
' l i t e r a l ' with metaphorical,
sarcastic,
In short, Searle i s
•...going to d e a l o n l y w i t h a s i m p l e and i d e a l i z e d c a s e . This method, one of c o n s t r u c t i n g i d e a l i z e d models, i s analogous to the s o r t of theory c o n s t r u c t i o n that goes on i n most s c i e n c e s ....Without a b s t r a c t i o n and i d e a l i z a t i o n t h e r e i s no s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n (1969: 5 6 ) . 9
In other words, i n o r d e r
to say what w i l l
o f a n a l y s i s , a "promise" (Y), S e a r l e has s p e c i f y the c o n t e x t
(Z).
That i s , i n order
terms of c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s and r u l e to d e f i n e h i s o b j e c t ; and context
to do
count
(x) as the
an enormous amount of WORK to
to c a r r y out h i s a n a l y s i s i n
the l i k e he has
to employ a c o n s t i t u t i v e
i n employing the r u l e he
cannot take
as g i v e n but must f o r m u l a t e i t i n such " i n s t i t u t i o n a l
as " s e r i o u s " , " l i t e r a l " . . . . from the r e c o u r s e
I n t h i s way
to i n s t i t u t i o n a l 10 further constitutive rules.
he
object
the
f a c t " terms
shows t h a t t h e r e i s no
escape
f a c t s , f a c t s which themselves r e l y
on
12
To
advance c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s as e x p l a n a t i o n
one's r e a d e r s '
ability
to "see what one
means" g i v e n
i s then to t r a d e
that
there
i r r e d u c i b l e , u n s p e c i f i a b l e element i n the r u l e s themselves.
on
i s an
The
rules,
that i s , r e q u i r e i n t e r p r e t i n g .
Sociology
To
3000 - I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
"see what one
and
I n t e r p r e t i v e Accounts
means" i s to do u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
the s e c t i o n on ethnomethodology i n Chapter Three, we
can
Anticipating say
that
...a common u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e n t a i l i n g as i t does an ' i n n e r ' temporal c o u r s e of i n t e r p r e t i v e work, n e c e s s a r i l y has an o p e r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 31). We
propose to c h a r a c t e r i z e
the o p e r a t i o n a l
as
the r e a d i n g
receiving)
( g i v i n g and
s i m p l y , of i n s t r u c t i o n s . An
example would be, (11)
or,
i s our model o f an i n s t r u c t i o n .
put,
See t h a t what's-going-on-here (c) i s a q u a r r e l ( Z ) , and h e a r , i n the c o n t e x t of the q u a r r e l ( Z ) , u t t e r a n c e (x) as an i n s u l t ( Y ) .
Note the i m p e r a t i v e c to Z ) , and would
of i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
Sentence (3)
loosely
s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r p r e t i v e work
the
form, the f r a n k
i n c l u s i o n o f an u n s p e c i f i e d move (from
i n c o r p o r a t i o n of a c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e .
Another example
be (12)
F i n d t h i s (g) to be an a l p h a b e t - l e a r n i n g book ( Z ) , and see t h a t i n the c o n t e x t of an a l p h a b e t - l e a r n i n g book ( Z ) , the display-of-a-capital-letter-B-on-one-page-and-thep i c t u r e - o f - a - " b e a r " - o n - t h e - f a c i n g - p a g e (x) counts as (somet h i n g l i k e ) "B f o r BEAR" ( Y ) .
That i s , the n o t a t i o n a l d i s p l a y s on the pages a r e i n g , and
not
simply
the r e a d i n g
itself.
The
i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the
same " p i c t u r e - o f - a - b e a r "
readin
13
another k i n d o f book c o u l d be r e a d as "M .for MAMMAL" or as "H f o r HUNTER", 11 and so on. Such i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of
S o c i o l o g y 3000 o r , a s , i t may
(or i n t e r p r e t i n g s ) a r e the s t u f f
be c a l l e d , i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y .
on t h i s view, what i s to be accounted f o r i n the s o c i a l w o r l d . also' a model of the ( e x p l a n a t o r y ) account. structure. the
They a r e
Datum and account have the same
Put d i f f e r e n t l y , what i s b e i n g s a i d
s o c i a l w o r l d - what f i l l s
They a r e ,
i s that
(1) the s t u f f of
up s o c i a l space - i s i n s t r u c t i o n s , and
(2)
any account of such (a s e t o f ) i n s t r u c t i o n s i s i t s e l f , an i n s t r u c t i o n . another way,
the phenomena to be accounted f o r are accounts (because
Or, that
i s what i s "out t h e r e " s o c i a l l y s p e a k i n g ) , and any account of such accounts is
itself,
o f c o u r s e , an a c c o u n t .
In t h i s way
sentence (3)) a l s o accounts f o r i t s own
any account
possibility.
( i n the form of
I t i s i n t h i s sense a
f u r t h e r i n s t a n c e of the same phenomenon.for which i t i s an account. Something sociologies"
of t h i s s o r t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of s o - c a l l e d
(Heap and Roth, 1973) .
I t has been put t h i s
"reflexive
way:
The s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r of o r d i n a r y language i s t h i s r e f l e x i v i t y . From the v i e w p o i n t o f f o r m a l language we can a l s o say that o r d i nary language i s i t s own metalanguage (Habermas, 1972: 168). We may
put i t y e t another way.
For the purpose of making
sense
( K j o l s e t h , 1972), what s o c i a l a c t o r s p r o v i d e f o r themselves and f o r each o t h e r i n t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s and a c t i o n s a r e d i s p l a y s of m e a n i n g f u l and not merely the items themselves 1959:
65).
( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970:
items 344;
Goffman,
The d i s p l a y s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d here as " i n s t r u c t i o n s " or as
" c o n t a i n i n g " i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g the i t e m s .
F i n d i n g the i n s t r u c -
14
t i o n i n the d i s p l a y r e q u i r e s u s i n g some o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n from some o t h e r d i s p l a y i n some o t h e r p l a c e a t some o t h e r
time.
But the form o f the i n -
s t r u c t i o n s remains t h e same - " F i n d any s m a l l l e t t e r i n c o n t e x t Z, x counts as Y".
The process
to be Z, and s e e t h a t
i s continuous,
as such conforms, we b e l i e v e , to the views o f the l a t e r (1958).
r e c u r s i v e , and
Wittgenstein
As one W i t t g e n s t e i n i n t e r p r e t e r puts i t ,
For we never reach a p o i n t where an e x i t must be made from the maze of words. A d m i t t e d l y , i f a v e r b a l e x p l a n a t i o n i s g i v e n a t one p o i n t , i t i s o n l y s u c c e s s f u l i f a t some o t h e r p o i n t a conn e c t i o n w i t h t h i n g s i s a l r e a d y understood; and a t some p o i n t s i t i s more n a t u r a l not to o f f e r more words. But a t no p o i n t i s an e x i t o b l i g a t o r y (Pears, 1965 [1951]: 280). The process
depends on d i s p l a y e d items
themselves meaningful,
(or uttered p a r t i c u l a r s )
being
w h i l e p o s s e s s i n g a l s o an "open h o r i z o n " o r " s u r -
p l u s o f meaning" ( G a r f i n k e l , 1961: 6 1 ) . S i n c e any use w i l l have some meaning ( a t t r i b u t e d
to i t ) ,
the d e v i c e o f d i s p l a y i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s which
p o i n t to the r e q u i r e d meaning a l l o w s t i o n given"
the a c t o r to go "beyond the i n f o r m a -
(Bruner , 1957) to the proposed sense.
"Pointing" i s a l l
t h a t i s p o s s i b l e , however; and p o i n t i n g i s context-dependent, which means t h a t what i s b e i n g p o i n t e d a t i s never u l t i m a t e l y d e c i d a b l e . whatever sense i s made i s good enough o n l y u n t i l through f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s renders
Therefore,
further interpretation
i t o b s o l e t e , o r puts
i t i n question,
o r whatever. Conversations, d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s kind trade o f ethmeth.
i n c l u d i n g i n t e r v i e w s , a r e obvious
candidates f o r
(Wieder, 1970: 133). They a r e a l s o the s t o c k - i n -
I n Chapter Three, a f t e r p r e s e n t i n g ethsem as a k i n d o f
S o c i o l o g y 2000, we s h a l l show how ethmeth i s a case o f S o c i o l o g y 3000. will
provide a context
f o r the c r i t i q u e o f ethsem i n Chapter Four.
This
15
FOOTNOTES
S i m i l a r s o r t s of d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e b e i n g made i n the "molecular - m o l a r " (from Barker; see Turner, 1966: 266) and "behaviour - a c t i o n " (from Weber; see W i l s o n , 1970a: 698; 1970b: 58) p a i r s of s o c i o l o g y ; the "observer - a c t o r " (see, f o r example, Cohn, 1962, 1964, 1967, 1969) and " e t i c - emic" ( P i k e , 1967: 37-72) p a i r s of anthropology and l i n g u i s t i c s ; and the " a p p r e s e n t i n g term - appresented term" (from H u s s e r l ; see Schutz, 1962 [1955]: 294-297) and i t s d e r i v e d " a c t u a l - o b s e r v e d appearances-of-an-object - o b j e c t - t h a t - i s - i n t e n d e d - b y - t h e - p a r t i c u l a r a c t u a l - a p p e a r a n c e s " ( G a r f i n k e l , 1963: 194) p a i r s o f phenomenology and ethnomethodology. The " b r u t e - i n s t i t u t i o n a l " d i s t i n c t i o n i s i n t r o d u c e d i n o r d e r to argue f o r the e x i s t e n c e and importance of i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s i n s o c i o l o g i c a l explanation. That, i n the end, t h e r e may be no such t h i n g s a s b r u t e f a c t s , t h a t b r u t e f a c t s a r e a s s i m i l a b l e to i n s t i t u i o n a l f a c t s , i s an o p i n i o n we s h a r e . Thus we a r e aware of what W i t t g e n s t e i n might say about the p u r p o r t e d b r u t e - f a c t s t a t u s of " I have a p a i n " . Another example would have made the p o i n t , however. As s t a t e d i n Chapter One, we agree w i t h W i t t g e n s t e i n about the use of l a d d e r s . u
One outcome of the a b o r t i v e E n c y c l o p a e d i a of U n i f i e d S c i e n c e p r o j e c t was the i n f u s i o n of s e m i o t i c a l concepts i n t o American p h i l o s o p h y o f science.. M o r r i s i n t r o d u c e d Carnap ( B a r - H i l l e l , 1964) to the P e i r c e a n t r i o - syntax, semantics, pragmatics - and these came to c h a r a c t e r i z e d i f f e r e n t segments of a d e d u c t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n . "Syntax" r e f e r r e d to the p u r e l y formal r e l a t i o n s among axioms and theorems; " s e m a n t i c s " subsumed the correspondence r u l e s t h a t p r o v i d e d o b s e r v a t i o n a l c o n t e n t f o r those t h e o r e t i c a l concepts' t h a t were to be t e s t e d ; " p r a g m a t i c s " d e a l t w i t h the mechanics and procedures of a c t u a l e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n (Carnap, 1942: 10). As a f i r s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n i t would be t r u e to say t h a t (1) S o c i o l o g y 1000, as champion of d e d u c t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n , engages i n a l l t h r e e areas of a c t i v i t y , but sees semantics and pragmatics as s u b s e r v i e n t t o s y n t a c t i c s (Schrag, 1967; Popper, 1968: 61) - r e g u l a r i t i e s a r e the output of the s y n t a c t i c component of the t h e o r y ; (2) S o c i o l o g y 2000 i s b a s i c a l l y an e x e r c i s e i n semantics; and (3) S o c i o l o g y 3000 i s the i n c h o a t e d i s c i p l i n e of pragmatics ( W e i n r e i c h , 1966: 50; Helmer, 1970), where t h a t i s c o n c e i v e d as b a s i c to any work of a semantic o r s y n t a c t i c k i n d (Carnap, 1939: 166). Though n e i t h e r (4) nor (5) i s i n c o n d i t i o n a l form as g i v e n , i t i s f a i r l y obvious t h a t they c o u l d be rendered so w i t h o u t l o s s of meaning. For " u n i v e r s a l " and " s i n g u l a r " , see Popper (1968: 59-77). "Sentence" and "statement" a r e b e i n g used r a t h e r l o o s e l y i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n pace B a r - H i l l e l (1970: 165, 195^197, 213, 217, 280-285, 364-369). The same i s t r u e of "use", "sense" and "meaning" l a t e r i n the c h a p t e r .
16
4.
I n t h i s case the " i n s t i t u t i o n " i s " s c i e n c e " or " e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i o l o g y " or the p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h programme or theory - o r , b e t t e r s t i l l , the r e l e v a n t " d i s c i p l i n a r y m a t r i x " (Kuhn, 1974). That i s , w h i l e the t h e o r e t i c a l terms of " p o s i t i v i s t i c " s c i e n c e and s o c i o l o g y have no n e c e s s a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p to c a t e g o r i e s t h a t a r e m e a n i n g f u l to the p o p u l a t i o n b e i n g s t u d i e d , they are n e v e r t h e l e s s "meaningful" ( o n l y p a r t i a l l y determined [ B a r - H i l l e l , 1970 (1969): 200]) to the community of s c i e n t i s t s u s i n g them. They are i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s i n t h i s sense. They are r e d u c i b l e ( i n p r i n c i p l e ) to " p h y s i c a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s or s t a t e s of a f f a i r s " o n l y through the e l a b o r a t e b a t t e r y of r u l e s and d e f i n i t i o n s which we f o r m u l a t e as c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s . S e a r l e (1969: 51) g i v e s the i n v e r s e square law as an example of a paradigm of knowledge cons i s t i n g o n l y of b r u t e f a c t s . In terms of our a n a l y s i s , such concepts i n p h y s i c s as " f o r c e " and "mass" a r e , r a t h e r , i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s of science. We a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h i s i s an area of c o n t r o v e r s y i n the p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e . See, f o r example, the papers i n Suppe (1974), and the paper by E l l i o t (1974).
5.
I t might be o b j e c t e d a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t the adequacy of the " p o s i t i v i s t i c " t h e o r i s t ' s r u l e s and d e f i n i t i o n s i s judged by, among other c r i t e r i a , the r e s u l t s of the e m p i r i c a l t e s t . However, i t can be shown t h a t c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s are r e q u i r e d h e r e to t r a n s l a t e the a r r a y of e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s ( b r u t e f a c t s ) i n t o the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s ( i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s ) ; f o r " i t i s always p o s s i b l e to say t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s are not r e l i a b l e , or t h a t the d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the e x p e r i mental r e s u l t s and the theory a r e o n l y apparent and t h a t they w i l l d i s a p p e a r w i t h the advance of our u n d e r s t a n d i n g " (Popper, 1968: 50, c f . 107 f n * 3 ) . One must, however, t u r n to G a r f i n k e l (1967a [ 1 9 6 2 ] : 95-96, 100-103), Kuhn (1970a: 13-16; 1970b: 238-239) and E l l i o t (1974) f o r an a p p r e c i a t i o n of what i s i m p l i e d by the c o n d i t i o n Popper d e s cribes. See a l s o B a r - H i l l e l (1970 [1969]: 200) and McCarthy (1973: 370).
6.
In view of h i s expressed i n t e n t i o n (1969: 15) to f o l l o w Chomsky (1957, 1965) by t a k i n g h i s ( S e a r l e ' s ) " i n t u i t i o n s " as the b a s i c d a t a , i t i s not c l e a r whether S e a r l e views the x-term i n the c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e (sentence (2)) as a b r u t e f a c t ; (compare page 56 f o r example). Since the i s s u e i s complicated and takes us beyond the c o n f i n e s of t h i s a l ready wide d i s c u s s i o n , s u f f i c e i t to say t h a t our c o n c e p t i o n may d e p a r t from S e a r l e ' s on t h i s p o i n t .
7.
Chomsky has made t h i s c l a i m throughout h i s work, though not w i t h o u t r e t o r t (Chomsky, 1970a; 1970b; B l a c k , 1970). The r e l a t i o n i s analogy only.
8.
A f u l l e r account of Wieder's study i s g i v e n
i n (our) Chapter
Six.
17
Compare Hempel (1952), Nagel (1952), and Schutz (1962 [1954]). On i d e a l i z a t i o n i t has been remarked, "In a s e a r c h f o r r i g o r the i n g e n i o u s p r a c t i c e i s f o l l o w e d whereby u t t e r a n c e s are f i r s t transformed i n t o i d e a l expressions. S t r u c t u r e s a r e then a n a l y z e d as p r o p e r t i e s of the i d e a l s , and the r e s u l t s a r e a s s i g n e d to a c t u a l e x p r e s s i o n s as t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s " ( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970: 339). S e a r l e i s not d i s t u r b e d by t h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s : "certain institut i o n a l c o n c e p t s . . . w i l l appear i n the analysans as w e l l as i n the analysandum; I am not attempting to reduce i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s to b r u t e f a c t s ; and thus t h e r e i s no r e d u c t i o n i s t m o t i v a t i o n i n the a n a l y s i s " (1969: 56). He i s c o n t e n t to r e s t on h i s l i n g u i s t i c i n t u i t i o n s . While i n one sense we can agree w i t h t h a t , the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , which S e a r l e does not address, of the s o u r c e of h i s a b i l i t y to s o r t out the "simple and i d e a l i z e d c a s e " from the w e l t e r of r e a l - w o r l d " c o m p l i c a tions". Such a b i l i t y cannot be simply l i n g u i s t i c . We come to t h i s i n Chapter E i g h t . We owe the bear example to Roy Turner, though i t s f o r m u l a i c v e r s i o n i n terms of sentence (12) i s our own. T h i s s e c t i o n on i n s t r u c t i o n s i s h e a v i l y indebted a l s o to c h a p t e r s seven and e i g h t o f Wieder (1975) . These c h a p t e r s a r e p a r t i a l l y r e p r i n t e d i n Wieder (1974: 159-172).
18
CHAPTER THREE ETHNOSEMANTICS AS A KIND OF AND
SOCIOLOGY 2000,
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY AS A KIND OF SOCIOLOGY 3000
Ethnosemantics
Ethnosemantics f e a t u r e of meaning: and animal terms. ethnosemantic
as a Kind of S o c i o l o g y 2000
d e a l s w i t h c o l l e c t i o n s of terms s h a r i n g a common
examples a r e k i n s h i p
terms, c o l o u r terms, p l a n t
Such c o l l e c t i o n s form semantic domains.
terms
The c o r e o f an
d e s c r i p t i o n of a domain i s a s e t o f s e m a n t i c a l r u l e s .
Such
a r u l e s t a t e s the c o n d i t i o n s under which a g i v e n term names a g i v e n o b j e c t . T h i s b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of ethsem w i l l Chapter Four i s g i v e n .
the f u l l e r
treatment o f
Our aim i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s to p o s i t ethsem as a
k i n d o f S o c i o l o g y 2000, by showing rules.
stand u n t i l
that semantical r u l e s are c o n s t i t u t i v e
T h i s stratagem w i l l enable us, i n c r i t i c i z i n g ethsem i n the r e s t
of the d i s s e r t a t i o n , to be thereby o f f e r i n g a c r i t i q u e o f a k i n d of s o c i o l o g y a t the same time.
We
lead into
t h i s s e c t i o n by way
of games.
When i t comes to p r o v i d i n g an i l l u s t r a t i v e example o f t h e i r 1 approach, a wide range o f modern t h e o r i s t s t u r n to games. This i s true of Rawls (1955), W i t t g e n s t e i n (1958), Moore and Anderson 2 • (1963), Hockett
(1968),
the next s e c t i o n we
(1960), G a r f i n k e l
S e a r l e (1969) and Goodenough (1969, 1970).
s h a l l c o n s i d e r G a r f i n k e l ' s treatment.
Here our
In inten-
t i o n i s to note the p a r a l l e l treatment o f games by the author o f " c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s " ( S e a r l e , f o l l o w i n g Rawls [1955: 25-29]) and by a f a t h e r of ethsem (Goodenough).
19
Each d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i s intended from mere s t a t i s t i c a l
object of d e s c r i p t i o n (rules)
r e g u l a r i t i e s i n game p l a y .
F o r Goodenough, f o l l o w -
ing Leach, the l a t t e r a r e t h e p r o v i n c e o f the s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t , the 3 former t h a t o f the c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t : Suppose we had the P h i l a d e l p h i a Eagles as an o b j e c t of i n q u i r y . A s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t would c o n c e n t r a t e on the d i f f e r e n t o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e formations he sees the E a g l e s employ i n a c t u a l p l a y and would assess the way t h e i r u s e a p p a r e n t l y f u n c t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r a b i l i t y to win f o o t b a l l games....A c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t , on the other hand, would c o n c e n t r a t e on the t h i n g s one has to know i n order t o be a b l e to p l a y f o o t b a l l o r understand i t as a s p e c t a t o r (1969: 330; emphasis added). Goodenough r e f e r s to A t k i n s and C u r t i s (1968), who w r i t e By 'game r u l e s ' we mean h e r e game-defining r u l e s , i n the sense o f those s e t s o f r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d c o n v e n t i o n s by which p a r t i c u l a r games a r e g i v e n t h e i r b a s i c s t r u c t u r e o r c o n s t i t u t i o n (213; emphasis added). and
concludes
himself
...a game i s n o t h i n g but a m i n i a t u r e t u r e (Goodenough, 1970: 1 0 5 ) .
and h i g h l y f o r m a l i z e d
cul4
I n almost i d e n t i c a l f a s h i o n (though n e i t h e r r e f e r s to the o t h e r ) S e a r l e c o n t r a s t s a b r u t e - f a c t d e s c r i p t i o n o f a game o f f o o t b a l l w i t h one directed
a t the i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s which c o n s t i t u t e the game.
worth quoting
This i s
in full.
Leittus imagine a group o f h i g h l y t r a i n e d o b s e r v e r s d e s c r i b i n g an American f o o t b a l l game i n statements o n l y o f b r u t e f a c t s . What c o u l d they say by way o f d e s c r i p t i o n ? W e l l , w i t h i n - c e r t a i n areas a good d e a l c o u l d be s a i d , and u s i n g s t a t i s t i c a l techniques c e r t a i n 'laws' c o u l d even be f o r m u l a t e d . F o r example, we can imagine t h a t a f t e r a time our observer would d i s c o v e r the law of p e r i o d i c a l c l u s t e r i n g : a t s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s organisms i n l i k e c o l o r e d s h i r t s c l u s t e r t o g e t h e r i n a r o u g h l y c i r c u l a r f a s h i o n (the huddle). Furthermore, a t e q u a l l y r e g u l a r
20
i n t e r v a l s , c i r c u l a r c l u s t e r i n g i s f o l l o w e d by l i n e a r c l u s t e r i n g (the teams l i n e up f o r the p l a y ) , and l i n e a r c l u s t e r i n g i s f o l lowed by l i n e a r i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n . Such laws would be s t a t i s t i c a l i n c h a r a c t e r , and none the worse f o r t h a t . But no matter how much d a t a of t h i s s o r t we imagine our o b s e r v e r s to c o l l e c t and no matt e r how many i n d u c t i v e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s we imagine them to make from the d a t a , they s t i l l have not d e s c r i b e d American f o o t b a l l . What i s m i s s i n g from t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n ? What i s m i s s i n g are a l l those concepts which are backed by c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s , concepts such as touchdown, o f f s i d e , game, p o i n t s , f i r s t down, time out, e t c . , and c o n s e q u e n t l y what i s m i s s i n g are a l l the t r u e statements one can make about a f o o t b a l l game u s i n g those c o n c e p t s . The m i s s i n g statements are p r e c i s e l y what d e s c r i b e s the phenomenon on the f i e l d as a game o f f o o t b a l l . The o t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n s , the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the b r u t e f a c t s , can be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of the institutional facts. But the i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s can o n l y be exp l a i n e d i n terms of the c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s which u n d e r l i e them ( S e a r l e , 1969: 52). Both S e a r l e and languages and and
cultures
cultures
are
Goodenough go on l i k e games.
must take account o f the
to say
that
i n these
Adequate d e s c r i p t i o n
respects
o f languages
i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s which
constitute
them, f o r ...speaking a language i s p e r f o r m i n g a c t s a c c o r d i n g t o t u t i v e r u l e s ( S e a r l e , 1969: 52; see a l s o 12 and 37),
consti-
and ...what i s a language i f not a set o f s t a n d a r d s f o r human conduct of a p a r t i c u l a r kind? (Goodenough, 1970: 108).5 Recall letters
the
form o f a c o n s t i t u t i v e
In context Z,
x counts as
A semantical rule states, term, denotes t h a t
"first
(where i n d i v i d u a l lower-c
stand f o r b r u t e f a c t s , upper-case f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s ) :
(2)
ship
rule
Y.
f o r example, t h a t
"mother", as an American
c l a s s of o b j e c t s h a v i n g the 6 g e n e r a t i o n above ego", "female", " l i n e a l " .
simultaneous
kin-
features,
21
T h i s can be r e w r i t t e n
as
(13) In the c o n t e x t o f the semantic domain o f American k i n s h i p terms, the c o l l e c t i o n of f e a t u r e components, " f i r s t genera t i o n above ego", e t c . , counts as the taxonomic concept c o n v e n t i o n a l l y l a b e l l e d as "mother". We
can a b s t r a c t
from t h i s to
(14) In domain ( K ) , c o l l e c t i o n o f f e a t u r e components (m) as taxon (M). U s i n g P i k e ' s (1967) t e r m i n o l o g y , which as does ethsem i n g e n e r a l , we
Goodenough adopts
counts
(1970:
108ff.),
can reduce (14) to 7
(15) In domain ( K ) , e t i c
fact(s)
(m) count as emic f a c t
The p a r a l l e l o f (15) w i t h (2) s h o u l d now g e n e r a l form of a c o n s t i t u t i v e
h a l l m a r k o f "grammatical
I f c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s are
s o c i o l o g y " , that i s S o c i o l o g y 2000, then ethsem
i s a k i n d of S o c i o l o g y 2000. to
I f (2) i s the
r u l e , then s e m a n t i c a l r u l e s (15) are c o n s t i 8
t u t i v e r u l e s i n the f i e l d o f ethnosemantics. the
be c l e a r .
(M).
I f t h i s i s so, then ethsem i s both
the c r i t i q u e o f S o c i o l o g y 2000 a l r e a d y o f f e r e d
subject
( i n Chapter Two),
and a
v e h i c l e f o r f u r t h e r c r i t i c i s m of the l a t t e r through c r i t i c i s m done on i t . S e t t i n g up ethsem i n t h i s way Ethnomethodology
Our purpose
has been the p o i n t o f t h i s
section.
as a K i n d o f S o c i o l o g y 3000
i s to reproduce the r e l a t i o n o f ethsem t o S o c i o l o g y
2000 i n the r e l a t i o n o f ethmeth to S o c i o l o g y 3000, so that i n u s i n g ethmeth to
criticize
ethsem ( i n the r e s t of the d i s s e r t a t i o n ) we
time a r g u i n g about s e c t i o n , we
the m e r i t s o f two k i n d s of s o c i o l o g y .
e n t e r the d i s c u s s i o n v i a games.
are at the same As i n the p r e v i o u s
S e a r l e ' s account a g a i n p r o v i d e s
22
the
foil.
Whereas S e a r l e and
and
G a r f i n k e l have chess i n common. Like Searle
"constitutive"
Goodenough had
(1969: 33-42), G a r f i n k e l (1963) develops h i s n o t i o n
( q u a l i f y i n g "order"
l i k e c h e s s , and
f o o t b a l l i n common, S e a r l e
and
" e x p e c t a n c i e s " ) i n r e l a t i o n to games
then extends the a n a l y s i s to s o c i a l a c t i o n i n
Given the d i s j u n c t i o n between b r u t e
and
general.
i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t s o r , as he
i t , between the " a c t u a l - o b s e r v e d - a p p e a r a n c e s - o f - a n - o b j e c t and that-is-intended-by-the-particular-actual-appearances" 194),
of
puts
the-object-
(Garfinkel,
1963:
t h e n i t i s the f u n c t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i v e o r " b a s i c " r u l e s to "frame
the s e t of p o s s i b l e events o f p l a y t h a t observed b e h a v i o r s can 9 (195). More g e n e r a l l y ,
signify"
A s i g n c o r r e c t l y c o r r e s p o n d s to a r e f e r e n t i n terms of the assumed c o n s t i t u t i v e order t h a t i t s e l f d e f i n e s ' c o r r e c t c o r respondence' (195) . So
far this is l i t t l e
enough's account
( c f . a l s o G a r f i n k e l , 1967c: 140
t i n u e s t h a t he has are
d i f f e r e n t from e i t h e r S e a r l e ' s
been "unable to f i n d any
But
G a r f i n k e l con-
game whose acknowledged r u l e s
s u f f i c i e n t to cover a l l the p r o b l e m a t i c a l
arise"
ff.).
or Good-
p o s s i b i l i t i e s that
may
(199):
I suggest t h a t one i s i n the a r e a here of the game's v e r s i o n of the 'unstated terms of c o n t r a c t ' , c o n s i s t i n g perhaps o f one more r u l e t h a t completes every enumeration o f b a s i c r u l e s by b r i n g i n g them under the s t a t u s of an agreement among persons to p l a y i n accordance w i t h them, a r u l e which f o r m u l a t e s the l i s t as an agreement by the f i n a l ' f i n e l y p r i n t e d ' acknowledgement, 'et c e t e r a ' ( 1 9 9 ) . 1 0
The
"et c e t e r a " clause
c a l l s "ad "let
hoc"
i s one
considerations;
i t p a s s " and
of a f a m i l y of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s the other members of the
"factum v a l e t " .
which G a r f i n k e l
f a m i l y are
"unless",
23
These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e q u i t e g e n e r a l l y found when p r o f e s s i o n a l s - s o c i o l o g i s t s , a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , l i n g u i s t s , whosoever - make use o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , formulas, r u l e s , and the l i k e . There i s always an i m p l i c i t a d d i t i o n a l s e c t i o n t o such s t a t e ments, one t h a t might be headed: ' p r a c t i c a l a d v i c e t o whomsoever might seek t o i n s u r e the u s e f u l n e s s o f the i n s t r u c t i o n s ( f o r m u l a s , e t c . ) t o analyze the s i t u a t i o n s ' . . . . 'Et c e t e r a r e f e r s t o the p i e c e o f i m p l i c i t p r a c t i c a l a d v i c e t h a t runs: 'Read i t l i k e t h i s , and so f o r t h ' , i . e . , t o see the r u l e , i f you understand the r u l e , you presumably can r e c o g n i s e o t h e r circumstances and cases o f i t s a p p l i c a t i o n without a l l o f them b e i n g s t a t e d here ( G a r f i n k e l , 1972 [1966]: 312). 1
The
e t c e t e r a c l a u s e corresponds t o t h e " i r r e d u c i b l e , u n s p e c i f i a b l e e l e -
ment" i n r u l e s , as noted i n Chapter Two.
I t i s a way o f s a y i n g t h a t
there
i s a gap between any r u l e and ( a s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f ) b e h a v i o u r which i s i n accordance w i t h t h a t r u l e .
Recognition
o f t h i s l e d t o our f o r m u l a t i n g
o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s on the model o f sentence (3) i n the p r e vious chapter. and
Those p a r t s o f sentence (3) c o n s i s t i n g o f the words " F i n d "
"see t h a t " are the s p e c i f i c
imperatives
counterpart
o f the et c e t e r a c l a u s e ; the
o f the i n s t r u c t i o n a r e the answer t o t h e openendedness o f the
clause. So f a r the ethmeth l i t e r a t u r e c o n t a i n s no i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h i s sort.
Approximations are'to be found i n the work o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s t s .
Sacks o f f e r s the f o l l o w i n g "members' maxim" a t one p o i n t : S e l e c t t h a t [membership c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ] d e v i c e t h a t e x c l u s i v e l y d e s c r i b e s the s e t o f persons a t hand, and use that dev i c e on them (Sacks, 1966, quoted i n S p e i e r , 1970: 205). T u r n e r has " i f an u t t e r a n c e
can be read as an i n s t a n c e o f an u t t e r a n c e -
t y p e , then so hear i t " ( f o r t h c o m i n g : and
[ms.] 7 ) . Note the i m p e r a t i v e
the u n s p e c i f i e d move, but note a l s o the absence o f e x p l i c i t l y
form
incor-
24
11 porated c o n s t i t u t i v e posited
as
rules.
C o n v e r s a t i o n a l " r u l e s " such as these
r e s o u r c e s on which t a l k e r s draw, and
o r i e n t , i n the
conduct of t a l k .
of the
propose.
k i n d we
They are not
as norms t o which they
fully-fledged
N e v e r t h e l e s s , from these i n c i p i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n s , cetera that
c l a u s e , and
tive sociology. (1952), of the
At
instructions
from the
from c e r t a i n g e n e r a l statements to f o l l o w ,
ethmeth i s p a r t
of the
same e n t e r p r i s e
i t s v e r y h e a r t i s the
"documentary method of
we
are
et
i t is clear
have g l o s s e d as
interpre-
n o t i o n , d e r i v e d from Mannheim
interpretation":
The method c o n s i s t s of t r e a t i n g an a c t u a l appearance as 'the document o f ' , as ' p o i n t i n g t o ' , as ' s t a n d i n g on b e h a l f o f a presupposed u n d e r l y i n g p a t t e r n . Not o n l y i s the u n d e r l y i n g p a t t e r n d e r i v e d from i t s i n d i v i d u a l documentary e v i d e n c e s , but the i n d i v i d u a l documentary e v i d e n c e s , i n t h e i r t u r n , are i n t e r p r e t e d on the b a s i s of 'what i s known' about the underl y i n g pattern. Each i s used to e l a b o r a t e the o t h e r ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1962]: 78; see a l s o 1956: 192-195; 1961: 57-59; 1967a [1964]: 39-40). Whereas we
mean t h i s quote to p o i n t
interpretation,
the
following
i n a g e n e r a l way
t o our
model of
q u o t a t i o n speaks to the n o t i o n of
an
display:
In the p a r t i c u l a r s o f h i s speech a s p e a k e r , i n c o n c e r t w i t h o t h e r s , i s a b l e to g l o s s those p a r t i c u l a r s and i s thereby meaning something d i f f e r e n t than he can say i n so many words . . . . I t i s not so much ' d i f f e r e n t l y than what he s a y s ' as that whatever he says p r o v i d e s the v e r y m a t e r i a l s to be used i n making out what he says ( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 19 70: 344). "Making out"
e q u a l s "making sense" e q u a l s " i n t e r p r e t i n g "
"doing u n d e r s t a n d i n g " .
Ethnomethodology's p a r t i c u l a r focus on
i n g o r i n t e r p r e t i n g has
s e t t l e d on
speaking as
equals
understand-
i t s prime s u b j e c t :
Not a. method of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , but immensely v a r i o u s methods of u n d e r s t a n d i n g are the p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i o l o g i s t ' s p r o p e r and h i t h e r t o u n s t u d i e d and c r i t i c a l phenomena. T h e i r m u l t i t u d e i s
25
i n d i c a t e d i n the e n d l e s s l i s t o f ways t h a t persons speak ["ironically,...metaphorically,...cryptically,...narratively,... i n a q u e s t i o n i n g o r answering way,...and the r e s t " (29)] (Garf i n k e l , 1967b: 31, emphasis added w i t h i n the b r a c k e t ; c f . W i t t g e n s t e i n , 1958: p a r a . 133). The
"way
o f q u e s t i o n s and answers" i s the favoured way
of
ethnosemantics.
In the next c h a p t e r the ethmeth p o s i t i o n on r u l e s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t i o n s and answers i s brought v e r y same i d e a s .
ques-
t o bear c r i t i c a l l y on ethsem's use o f those
26
FOOTNOTES
We mean here a c t u a l games l i k e chess and f o o t b a l l , and not the e n t i t i e s o f mathematical game t h e o r y . F i l l m o r e ' s review (1969) o f H o c k e t t ' s (1968) c r i t i q u e o f Chomsky d i s cusses t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms o f the p r o p e r t i e s of games. The i s s u e i s q u i t e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to t h a t b e i n g t r e a t e d h e r e . We a p p r e c i a t e that many a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s would f i n d t h i s a c o n t r o v e r s i a l way t o d i s t i n g u i s h s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . In the recent past the d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g language have been remarkably immune from each o t h e r ' s i n f l u e n c e . Goodenough s a i d , " I have sought t o a v o i d entanglement i n g e n e r a l semantic t h e o r y " (1956: 216; c f . Lounsbury, 1968: 221). The s e p a r a t e development o f ethsem and Chomskyan l i n g u i s t i c s ( t r a c e d i n E g l i n , 1972; see a l s o Hymes, 1964a; K e e s i n g , 1972; B l a c k , 1974: 555) i s well-known. While Hymes, from the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s i d e , has addressed h i m s e l f to a sympathetic c r i t i q u e o f Chomsky and to the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the l a t t e r ' s work i n an e n l a r g e d s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s (Hymes, 1972, 1973, 1974), work i n l i n g u i s t i c semantics has tended t o n e g l e c t a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l semantics (Nida's and Lyons' t e x t s b e i n g n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s ) , u n t i l v e r y r e c e n t l y (see now L e e c h , 1974). With those p h i l o s o p h e r s o f language who have drawn from Chomsky the s i t u a t i o n i s worse. Thus K a t z can say i n 19 74 ( p e r s o n a l communication) t h a t the reason " I don't d i s c u s s a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s e m a n t i c s , e t h n o s c i e n c e , ethnosemantics, e t c . [ i n h i s 1972], i s t h a t I don't know v e r y much about them." S i m i l a r l y , B a r - H i l l e l w r i t e s ( p e r s o n a l communication, 1972), " I was n o t , t o my shame, aware o f the l a r g e e t h n o l o g i c a l and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w i t h t o p i c s I had known mostly from a p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t of view." T h i s may be over-modest s i n c e he h i m s e l f b e r a t e s Katz f o r not showing "any awareness of the importance of semantic f i e l d s " (1970 [1969]: 186). About r e l e v a n t work i n p h i l o s o p h y ethsem, a p a r t from a few book r e views, has been e q u a l l y l a c k a d a i s i c a l (though T y l e r [1969d] i s an exception). Thus k i n s h i p , biotaxonomy and e s p e c i a l l y c o l o u r terms (see, f o r example, P e a r s , 1965 [1953]; W i t t g e n s t e i n , 1958; H a r r i s o n , 1972) have been e x t e n s i v e l y d i s c u s s e d by p h i l o s o p h e r s o f language, i n a d d i t i o n to g e n e r a l i s s u e s i n semantic t h e o r y . But one l o o k s i n v a i n f o r s i g n s o f them i n ethsem. W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s name, f o r example, does not o c c u r i n T y l e r ' s a n t h o l o g y (1969a). In N i d a ' s comprehensive t e x t (1964) he i s mentioned p e r e m p t o r i l y i n an i n t r o d u c t o r y note on t h e . c o n t r i b u t i o n of symbolic l o g i c i a n s . Frake (1961) quotes two words from the B l u e And Brown Books, t h i s t i t l e b e i n g one of two W i t t g e n s t e i n l i s t i n g s i n C o n k l i n ' s massive b i b l i o g r a p h y (1972). He i s not to be found i n
27
D'Andrade s review (1972b), nor i n B l a c k ' s compendious review (1974). (Indeed the l a t t e r , under " P h i l o s o p h i c a l Approaches" [536-541], g i v e s a nod to C o l l i n g w o o d , Quine, Carnap and Reichenbach, but no " l i n g u i s t i c n a t u r a l i s t s " [ B a r - H i l l e l , 1970 (1969): 192] a r e mentioned.) C o l b y , a l o n e , i t seems, does not f a i l t o i n c l u d e W i t t g e n s t e i n . H i s admirable survey (1966) mentions " f a m i l y resemblance" (7; c f . W e i n r e i c h , 1966: 206), "language game" (12 f n . 2 1 ) , and even manages a quote ( 1 6 ) . But when he says o f L e v i - S t r a u s s ' t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l models and Chomsky's g e n e r a t i v e grammar t h a t " B a s i c t o these new developments [the paper was completed i n 1964] i s the i d e a of r u l e s , i n many r e s p e c t s s i m i l a r to W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s treatment (1953 [1958])" ( 1 0 ) , one b e g i n s t o wonder. 1
None o f the f o r e g o i n g s h o u l d be read as high-handed d e n u n c i a t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r authors or o f whole f i e l d s . One can o n l y be immensely g r a t e f u l f o r , f o r example, B a r - H i l l e l ' s " v a l i a n t and by now s u c c e s s f u l e f f o r t t o r a i s e the l e v e l o f d i s c u s s i o n o f language" (Harman, 1973: 150). But, i n c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s o t h e r w i s e p a r l o u s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s , we are thereby c a l l i n g f o r an end t o i t . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t T y l e r (1973) has d e p l o r e d t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s i n general. 5.
Compare the f o l l o w i n g - "The study of c u l t u r e i s thus the s t u d y ' o f normative c a t e g o r i e s and the r e l a t i o n s among them j u s t as the study of language i s " (Kay, 1966a: 106; emphasis added). For f u r t h e r i n c i s i v e remarks on the "normative" f e a t u r e of ethsem see Wieder (1970: 118, 120).
6.
The e m p i r i c a l adequacy of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n (from Wallace and A t k i n s , 1960: 61-62) i s not a t i s s u e h e r e . For a review o f the v a r y i n g semantic a n a l y s e s o f American k i n s h i p terms, i n c l u d i n g t h a t of Goodenough h i m s e l f (1965), see Wordick (1973).
7.
The " e m i c - e t i c " d i s t i n c t i o n was Two.
8.
Indeed, S e a r l e says "the semantic s t r u c t u r e o f a language may be r e garded as a c o n v e n t i o n a l r e a l i z a t i o n of a s e r i e s of s e t s of u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s " (1969: 37), and "The r u l e s of semantics a r e . . . c o n s t i t u t i v e , f o r a c t i n g i n accordance w i t h them c o n s t i t u t e s p e r f o r m i n g such i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s as p r o m i s i n g , making statements, g i v i n g o r d e r s and so on" (1967: 125). S i n c e ethsem attempts t o r e s t r i c t i t s e l f t o l o c u t i o n a r y meaning ( A u s t i n , 1962) or p r o p o s i t i o n a l a c t s ( S e a r l e , 1969: 2 4 f f . ; Rosaldo, 1974: 155), we need to r e w r i t e S e a r l e ' s statement as "the r u l e s of (ethno-)semantics a r e . . . c o n s t i t u t i v e , f o r a c t i n g i n a c c o r dance w i t h them c o n s t i t u t e s p e r f o r m i n g m i n i m a l l y adequate r e f e r e n t i a l (or p r o p o s i t i o n a l ) a c t s " . S e a r l e ' s semantic t h e o r y goes w e l l beyond t h a t o f ethsem at t h i s p o i n t (1969: 25), and i n a d i r e c t i o n which we
i n t r o d u c e d i n f o o t n o t e one o f Chapter
28
applaud (Turner, 1970a; 1970b). But both remain l i n k e d i n terms of c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s , and these are the focus of our c r i t i q u e . Footnote one on page 36 of Speech A c t s suggests t h a t S e a r l e might o b j e c t to our e q u a t i n g of s e m a n t i c a l and c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s , but he does not develop the p o i n t . 9.
C l e a r l y t h e r e are important d i f f e r e n c e s between phenomenology, r e p r e sented here by G a r f i n k e l , and l i n g u i s t i c p h i l o s o p h y , r e p r e s e n t e d by Searle. The reader i s i n v i t e d , however, t o e n t e r t a i n the p a r t i c u l a r s i m i l a r i t y suggested h e r e . Beyond t h a t , see Roche's (1973) important c o n t r i b u t i o n on t h i s matter, Heap's remarkable d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n (1975) and, a g a i n , f o o t n o t e one of Chapter Two.
10.
Our c l a i m here - t h a t what G a r f i n k e l i s s a y i n g i s t h a t something more than a c o n s t i t u t i v e - r u l e s account i s n e c e s s a r y f o r an adequate account of a game l i k e chess - i s not c o u n t e r e d , we t h i n k , by S e a r l e ' s f o o t note one on page 34 o f Speech A c t s ; t h a t i s , t h a t i n c l u d e d i n "the r u l e s of the game" are such r u l e s as t h a t each s i d e i s committed to t r y i n g to win. G a r f i n k e l ' s n o t i o n , l i k e W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s (1958), i s more r a d i c a l - as we t r y t o show f u r t h e r on i n the t e x t .
11.
For some u s e f u l c r i t i c a l remarks on c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s as ethnomethodology, see C o u l t e r (1973) and Blum and McHugh (1971: 98-99). For f u r t h e r examples of "members' maxims", see Kuhn (1970b: 239).
29
CHAPTER FOUR LEAVING OUT
THE
INTERPRETER'S WORK:
A METHODOLOGICAL
CRITIQUE OF ETHNOSEMANTICS BASED ON ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
The member of the s o c i e t y uses background e x p e c t a n c i e s as a scheme of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964]: 35). The common behaviour of mankind i s the system o f r e f e r e n c e by means of which we i n t e r p r e t an unknown language ( W i t t g e n s t e i n , 1958: p a r a . 206; c f . C i c o u r e l , 1967: 119 f n . 20). In some r e s p e c t s , [ethnomethodology] i s the c o u n t e r p a r t w i t h i n s o c i o l o g y o f e t h n o g r a p h i c semantics and ethnoscience....Ethnography and ethnomethodology share a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l stance i n t h a t both g i v e primacy to e x p l i c a t i n g the competence o r knowledge of members of a c u l t u r e , the u n s t a t e d assumptions which determine t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of e x p e r i e n c e (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972b: 301).
Introduction
In t r y i n g to d i s c o v e r the n a t u r e of c u l t u r a l competence ethnosemantics
l e a v e s out o f account
a s o c i e t y ' s members, and critical
the judgemental o r i n t e r p r e t i v e work of
t h a t n e g l e c t i s f a t a l to i t s programme.
t h e s i s i s the nub
of the work and of t h i s c h a p t e r .
from G a r f i n k e l and, more i m p l i c i t l y , 1
This
It derives
from the l a t e r W i t t g e n s t e i n .
The
c h a p t e r i s o r g a n i z e d as f o l l o w s . Ethnosemantics ( S t u r t e v a n t , 1964; C o n k l i n , 1972)
C o l b y , 1966;
T y l e r , 1969a;
i s c h a r a c t e r i s e d by s p e c i f y i n g i t s g o a l s i n terms of i t s
theory of c u l t u r e .
I t s borrowings from s e m i o t i c a r e made e x p l i c i t i n
o r d e r to p r o v i d e a p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e
f o r the c r i t i q u e .
The
latter
has
30
two
p a r t s - an i n t e r n a l c r i t i q u e drawing on work w i t h i n the f i e l d ,
lowed by a c r i t i q u e are taken
from ethnomethodology ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a).
throughout.
of
Their respective i n t e r -
problems - the problem o f a b s t r a c t i n g from p r a g m a t i c s , context
ity.
- reduce,
Two t a c k s
The one c e n t e r s on data g a t h e r i n g , t h e o t h e r on
the semantic arrangements t h a t form t h e r e s u l t s . nal
fol-
and the problem
under the gaze of ethmeth, t o i n s t a n c e s of i n d e x i c a l -
Ethsem s a b i l i t y 1
t o produce o r d e r l y r e s u l t s i s reviewed by ethmeth
as a case o f the accomplishment o f s o c i a l
order.
Ethnosemantics
Goals and t h e o r y of c u l t u r e
The
long-term
g o a l o f ethsem i s t o e x p l i c a t e an i n t u i t i o n - the
i n t u i t i o n t h a t some t h i n g s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e , some t h i n g s not. plicitly
I t i s im-
assumed that a l l people have such an i n t u i t i o n , b u t t h a t the
" t h i n g s " vary c u l t u r a l l y .
I t i s assumed t h a t people
can and do, i n a
r o u t i n e , everyday way, make judgements as t o a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s Such a b i l i t y
t o make judgements c o n s t i t u t e s "competence".
i s the o b s e r v a b l e The
evidence
of the unobservable
model o f the j u d g i n g " i s n o t :
w i t h s t i m u l u s X, he w i l l do Y,' b u t :
of things.
The judgement
intuition. ' i f a person
' i f a person
i s confronted
i s i n s i t u a t i o n X,
performance Y w i l l be judged a p p r o p r i a t e by n a t i v e a c t o r s ' " (Frake, 1964a: 133) . An ethnosemantic e x p l a n a t i o n would p r o v i d e a t h e o r y t h a t p r e d i c t s judgements g i v e n s i t u a t i o n and event.
Put d i f f e r e n t l y , the t h e o r y s u p p l i e s
31
the " a p p r o p r i a t e "
reading
t o an event g i v e n
the s i t u a t i o n .
"The ' t h e o r y '
here i s n o t so much a t h e o r y of c u l t u r e as i t i s t h e o r i e s o f c u l t u r e s , o r a t h e o r y o f d e s c r i p t i o n s " ( T y l e r , 1969c: 5, emphasis added t o " t h e o r y o f 2 d e s c r i p t i o n s " ; c f . Werner, 1969: 336, and Kay, 1966a: 112-113). The
proximate goal o f ethnosemantics i s t o p r o v i d e what i s seen
as a v i t a l i n p u t
to t h a t t h e o r y - an account o f the taxonomic semantics
o f the language o f the c u l t u r e i n q u e s t i o n . o f a c u l t u r e share c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
I t i s assumed t h a t members
of t h e w o r l d ; t h a t such
classifications
are a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r communication, f o r meaningful b e h a v i o u r , f o r competent j u d g i n g
of a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s
(Black,
1969) ; and that these
classi-
f i c a t i o n s a r e l a r g e l y encoded i n the semantic system o f the language (Frake,
1962: 75). The
world-view o f ethsem can be d e s c r i b e d ,
then, as f o l l o w s .
i n v e s t i g a t i n g the semantics o f a language, a c u l t u r e ' s c o g n i t i v e i e s w i l l be r e v e a l e d .
Cognitive
categories,
c u l t u r e ' s c u l t u r a l code (Kay, 1966a; 1970). the
code.
preting society.
i n systematic
categor-
form, make that
Each competent member knows
Knowledge o f t h e code i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a p p r o p r i a t e l y
(Frake,
1964a: 133; C o n k l i n ,
Interpretation
i s the b a s i s
inter-
1968: 174) what i s g o i n g on i n the f o r a c t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n .
In summary, and i n the words o f Goodenough's c l a s s i c ethsem i n the l o n g
By
paper,
run seeks, f o r any s o c i e t y , t o e x p l i c a t e i t s c u l t u r e
where ...a s o c i e t y ' s c u l t u r e c o n s i s t s o f whatever i t i s one has t o know o r b e l i e v e i n o r d e r to operate i n a manner a c c e p t a b l e t o i t s members, and do so i n any r o l e t h a t they accept f o r any one of themselves (Goodenough, 1957: 167, emphasis added; c f . 1963: 284 f n . 5, 257-265).
32
so that the . . . t e s t o f such a model as would r e s u l t from an ethnosemantic i n v e s t i g a t i o n would r e q u i r e one t o answer the q u e s t i o n : 'Mow would the p e o p l e o f some o t h e r c u l t u r e expect me t o behave i f I were a member of t h e i r c u l t u r e ; and what are the r u l e s o f app r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r i n t h e i r c u l t u r e ? ' [ T y l e r , 1969c: 5] ( T u r n e r , 1970b: 5; c f . W a l l a c e , 1962: 351). Our q u e s t i o n i s :
can the proximate endeavour o f semantic d e s c r i p t i o n accom-
p l i s h the l o n g - t e r m g o a l o f c u l t u r e e x p l i c a t i o n , o f d i s c o v e r i n g it
"whatever
i s one has t o know o r b e l i e v e i n o r d e r t o o p e r a t e i n a manner a c c e p t a b l e 3
to [ a s o c i e t y ' s ] members"?
S e m i o t i c background C o n c e p t u a l l y and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , ethsem has drawn on s e m i o t i c ( M o r r i s , 1938, 1946; see Wieder, 1970), s t r u c t u r a l
linguistics(including
Whorf, .1956, and P i k e , 1967; see Hymes, 1970a, and K e e s i n g , 1972), and c o g n i t i v e psychology (Bruner, Goodnow and A u s t i n , 1956; B r u n e r , 1957; see Wieder, 1970).
We s h a l l c o n c e n t r a t e on s e m i o t i c because t o a l a r g e e x t e n t
the r e l e v a n t concepts i n s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s and c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y are subsumable under s e m i o t i c a l c o n c e p t s . Thus, i n t h e i r founding e m p i r i c a l papers (Goodenough, 1956; Lounsbury, 1956), and accompanying programmatic statements (Lounsbury, 1954, 1955; Goodenough, 1957 [ w r i t t e n 1954]), Goodenough and Lounsbury d i s cuss the t r i o o f s i g n i f i c a t u m , designatum and denotatum, p o i n t i n g out t h e parallels
i n structural linguistics:
phone r e s p e c t i v e l y .
distinctive
T h i s i s a l l well-known
f e a t u r e , phoneme, a l l o -
(Wallace and A t k i n s , 1960: 67;
Lounsbury, 1968: 223-224; K e e s i n g , 1972), and c o n t i n u e s t o be c e n t r a l i n t h e i r work (Goodenough,
1965, 1967, 1968, 1970; Lounsbury, 1964; S c h e f f l e r
and Lounsbury, 1971; but c f . H u d d l e s t o n , 1974).
33
The p a r a l l e l t r i o from c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y - c r i t e r i a l a t t r i b u t e , c a t e g o r y , and i n f i n i t e - a r r a y - o f - d i s c r i m i n a b l e - s t i m u l i - i s r e f e r r e d to
i n the work o f Frake and C o n k l i n
1962), and has been c r i t i c i z e d
( f o r example,
by Wieder
(1970).
F r a k e , 1962, and We
Conklin,
s h a l l not e l a b o r a t e
on t h e i r o r h i s remarks. " S i g n i f i c a t u m " , "designatum" and "denotatum" semiotic t r i a n g l e
a r e elements i n the
( F i g . 1 ) , bound t o g e t h e r i n the r e l a t i o n o f s i g n i f i c a t i o n .
In ethsem, s i g n i f i c a t i o n i s given a s t r i c t l y r e f e r e n t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by way
of the s i g n "lexeme".
Moreover,
r e f e r e n c e i t s e l f i s r e s t r i c t e d to
d e n o t a t i o n ; ( i n a d d i t i o n to p r e v i o u s r e f e r e n c e s , see Lyons
[1963: 4 ] , and
Hymes [19 70b: 1 1 1 ] ) .
Ethnosemantic r e s u l t s c o n s i s t of the mapping o f l e x -
emes on s i g n i f i c a t a .
The mappings t a k e the form o f s e m a n t i c a l r u l e s (such
as the one we proposed f o r "mother" i n Chapter T h r e e ) . these r e s u l t s are made, on the one hand t u r e , and on the o t h e r hand
Extrapolations
to statements about c o g n i t i v e
to statements about s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e
from struc-
(Tyler,
1969b: X; C o l b y , 1966: 8 ) . A second s e t of terms borrowed t r o d u c e d i n f o o t n o t e two of Chapter Two and pragmatics ( f o r example,
from s e m i o t i c i s the t r i o we i n - syntactics
Werner, 1966,
A c c o r d i n g t o Goodenough's e a r l y statement
(or s y n t a x ) , semantics
and B l a c k , 1969:
187 f n . 7).
(modified only s l i g h t l y i n
l a t e r work [1970: 111-112]), "Much of d e s c r i p t i v e ethnography i s i n e v i t a b l y an e x e r c i s e i n d e s c r i p t i v e s e m a n t i c s " (1957: 173; c f . Lounsbury, 159; 1956: 158-159; M o r r i s , 1964: 60-62).
F o l l o w i n g M o r r i s (1938:
1955:
35)
t h e r e has been d e l i b e r a t e a b s t r a c t i n g from p r a g m a t i c s , the pragmatic ( i n -
34
FIGURE 1 THE SEMIOTIC TRIANGLE IN ETHNOSEMANTICS
DOMAIN
SIGNIFICATUM ( s e m a n t i c a l
LEXEMIC
Sources:
SYMBOL-
rule)
DESIGNATUM DENOTATUM
P e i r c e , 1932; M o r r i s , 1938; Lyons, 1968: 404; F r i e d r i c h , 1971; S c h e f f l e r and Lounsbury, 1971: 3-12.
35
eluding " s o c i o l o g i c a l " under the assumption
[ M o r r i s , 1938:
184;
c f . C o n k l i n , 1964: 4
K r o n e n f e l d , 19 73).
regarding s o c i a l behaviour"
47; B l a c k and Metzger, 1965:
1964b: 6,
(Lounsbury,
163-164 f n . 5;
T h i s p o s t u l a t e d o r d e r f o r t h e i r study - s y n t a c t i c s
f i r s t , semantics second, pragmatics t h i r d - i s something we question
( i n the s p i r i t
s h a l l want t o
i f not the l e t t e r of Hymes' crusade [ f o r example,
9-10]). A t h i r d s e t o f terms, l e s s e x p l i c i t l y acknowledged but
Peirce's
(1932), i s the t r i o ,
i c o n , i n d e x , symbol (Burks, 1949).
enough, i n the 195 7 paper, i g n o r e s i n d e x i c a l s i g n s , throws to
structural linguistics
( s y n t a c t i c s , c f . Jakobson, 1971
and takes n o n - i c o n i c s i g n s f o r the ethnosemantic
iconic
As F r i e d r i c h notes i n h i s 1971
357; see a l s o 1956,
1971
programme.
Goodsigns
But he
review, e c h o i n g Jakobson
[1957], and Lounsbury,
also
[1965]: 350),
means, by " n o n - i c o n i c " , " s y m b o l i c " where symbolic s i g n s r e f e r by tion.
in later
t h a t the " a n a l y s i s o f the semantic s t r u c t u r e o f a s y s -
tem e n a b l e s us to form hypotheses 1956:
30]) f a c t o r s to be brought
clearly
conven-
(1971
[1965]:
1960),
R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d to what P e i r c e c a l l e d ' i c o n i c and i n d e x i c a l s i g n s ' (1971: 170; a l s o , f o r t h c o m i n g : [ms.] f n . 7). That i s u n d e r s t a t e d .
However, w h i l e ethsem has b u s i e d i t s e l f w i t h the
semantic s t r u c t u r e o f l e x e m i c symbols,
ethmeth, q u i t e s e p a r a t e l y ,
has
developed a s o p h i s t i c a t e d d i s c u s s i o n o f i n d e x i c a l s i g n s and o f pragmat i c s , t o b o t h o f which we The discourse".
shall
return.
f o u r t h borrowing from s e m i o t i c i s the n o t i o n o f "type of In the hands o f C h a r l e s M o r r i s , the sphere of pragmatics -
36
t h a t i s , the r e l a t i o n between the s i g n - u s e r o r i n t e r p r e t e r and the s i g n s he uses, o r , i n more dynamic terms, that f i e l d a c t s of i n t e r p r e t e r s Hillel,
1970
( c f . W e i n r e i c h , 1966:
[1954]) - was
reified
c o m p r i s i n g the j u d g i n g
150; Werner, 1966:
44;
Bar-
i n t o a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of "types of d i s -
5 course".
That i d e a c a r r i e d over i n t o ethsem as the n o t i o n o f "domain"
( C o n k l i n , 1962: bounding
130; Lyons, 1963:
84; Wieder, 1970:
113
f n . 6), that
context from which any lexeme i n the domain drew i t s sense
(Lyons, 1968: bury, 1956:
427) by c o n t r a s t w i t h the o t h e r members of the domain
161-162; C o n k l i n , 1962:
S c h e f f l e r and Lounsbury, The
1971:
11).
124; Kay,
(Louns-
1966b: 20; T y l e r , 1969c: 8;
See F i g . 1.
c r i t i q u e w i l l not address e x p l i c i t l y
the n o t i o n o f domain.
The l a t t e r ' s t e c h n i c a l problems have been n o t i c e d by those w i t h i n the field
( e s p e c i a l l y the b i o t a x o n o m i s t s ) , and by those m a r g i n a l to i t ( f o r
example, S c h n e i d e r , 1969;
McClaran, 1971:
6).
More i m p o r t a n t l y , an e t h -
n o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e has been done by Wieder (19 70: 113-114, 129-131; but c f . a l s o F r a k e , 1964a: 140-141). w i l l be i m p l i c i t
However, c r i t i c i s m of i t
i n the s e c t i o n on ethmeth. I n t e r n a l C r i t i q u e of
The
120,
Ethnosemantics
d a t a - g a t h e r i n g o p e r a t i o n - a b s t r a c t i n g from
I f t h e i r programmatics ceed i n g e n e r a l i n d u c t i v e l y S t u r t e v a n t , 1964:
100).
pragmatics
are to be b e l i e v e d e t h n o s e m a n t i c i s t s p r o -
(Goodenough, 1957:
To the e x t e n t t h a t
168;
1965:
287
f n . 3;
the i n d u c t i v i s t programme i s
f o l l o w e d , however, i t i s l o g i c a l l y bound t o f a i l .
"This c r u c i a l point i s
37
the t a u t o l o g y
t h a t we cannot name a c l a s s without naming i t " (Pears, 1965
[1953]: 335; c f . " I t i s i m p o s s i b l e
to c r o s s the gap between language and
t h i n g s without r e a l l y c r o s s i n g i t " [Pears, 1965 (1951): 271]; c f . a l s o Kaplan and Manners, 1972: 182-184). Metzger, W i l l i a m s ,
Black
Nevertheless,
ethnographers such as
(1963) and Frake have d e v i s e d
v e r y procedures f o r doing
the i m p o s s i b l e .
impeccable d i s c o -
To i l l u s t r a t e and e l a b o r a t e
the argument l e t us l o o k c l o s e l y a t the "Tenejapa" h a l f o f B l a c k and Metzger (1965), and compare i t w i t h
Siverts' little-noted
report
(1966/67)
on the same p r o j e c t . According
to Black
and Metzger (1965) ,
The e l i c i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s t a r t s of n e c e s s i t y w i t h Western c a t e g o r i e s , but t h e ethnographer can d i s c a r d t h i s p o s i t i o n once he has an i n i t i a l s e t o f responses, and from then on e v e r y t h i n g he does depends on the l a s t t h i n g he d i d . The bound a r i e s o f the system he e x p l o r e s are r e v e a l e d as he proceeds (141-142; see a l s o W i l l i a m s , 1966: 1 4 ) . (a)
The c o s t o f t r y i n g t o be p r e s u p p o s i t i o n l e s s ing with
one's own c a t e g o r i e s .
open-ended they must f i l l esting question (b)
i s the n e c e s s i t y o f s t a r t -
Thus a/en at t h e i r most i n d u c t i v e and
the s l o t i n the q u e s t i o n
about
?'"
"'what i s an i n t e r -
(146).
I n the sample o f e l i c i t i n g g i v e n i n the body o f the paper i t i s not at a l l c l e a r t h a t " e v e r y t h i n g last
t h i n g he d i d " .
[the ethnographer] does depends on the
For example, i n a sequence o f q u e s t i o n s
concern-
i n g the events f o l l o w i n g a murder the ethnographer " l e a d s " t h e whole time.
T h i s i s most b l a t a n t at the p o i n t , f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s
d i s p o s a l of the body, a t which he goes on t o ask, q u i t e "'What does the k i l l e r do i f he i s s m a r t ? " 1
(153).
on t h e
suddenly,
38
(c)
In f a c t i t i s o n l y by i n t r o d u c i n g these u n s o l i c i t e d q u e s t i o n s b o u n d a r i e s are e s t a b l i s h e d at a l l . to
show t h a t , t o the extent
Tenejapa data are
sufficient
that the i n d u c t i v e procedure i s r i g o r -
o u s l y f o l l o w e d , to t h a t extent i s no
The
the t a s k i s e n d l e s s .
That i s , t h e r e
s i g n of system c l o s u r e o r domain-boundedness i n these
except a t those
p o i n t s where the ethnographer " s t e p s
i n another study, specific
"simply
that
r e q u e s t i n g informants
r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r and
in".
data As
noted
t o be more and more
g r e a t e r informant
variability"
(D'Andrade, 1972a: 33). Unfortunately, method and
the i m p r e s s i o n
"clean e l i c i t i n g
conveyed i n the paper of i n d u c t i v e
i s misleading:
However, what I have o u t l i n e d here i s merely an i d e a l p i c t u r e of the e l i c i t i n g s i t u a t i o n exposing i n a somewhat a b b r e v i a t e d f a s h i o n the main f e a t u r e s of an i n t e r v i e w r o u t i n e and the b a s i c o p e r a t i o n s i n v o l v e d . D e p a r t u r e s from t h i s model are c e r t a i n l y countless. Steps are sometimes taken i n a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r . T h i s i s t o say, t h a t w h i l e the e l i c i t i n g p r o c e s s i n i t s e l f i s h i g h l y i n f o r m a l and r a t h e r c a s u a l at times, i n v o l v i n g a l l k i n d s of s t i m u l i , c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s and p r o d d i n g , the b a s i c check r e g a r d i n g FIR [ F r a m e - T e r m - R e s p o n s e ] - s t a b i l i t y i s always adhered to ( S i v e r t s , 1966/67: 329, emphasis added; c f . W i l l i a m s , 1966: 16; K e e s i n g , 1967: 11; Manning, 1973). 6 So much f o r "formal
eliciting".
S i v e r t s reveals other
e s t i n g f e a t u r e s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n c l u d i n g the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l o f " c o n t e x t - f r e e u n i t s " and
"conditioned
response".
The
internotions
l a t t e r i s "the
r e s u l t of an agreement between a n t h r o p o l o g i s t and
informants
native-language
That i s , what the
t i g a t o r and
sequence" (327,
informant
emphasis added).
upon a inves-
b r i n g o f f as an i n t e r a c t i o n a l accomplishment - "agree-
ments" - i s t r a n s l a t e d by the
investigator into a "conditioned
response".
39
Q-R's
are modelled on S-R's
( B l a c k and Metzger, 1965:
26; Moerman, 1968: 164; E p l i n g , 1967:
142; c f . Hymes,
1966:
261; but see - w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o
E p l i n g - S c h e f f l e r and Lounsbury, 1971:
142).
The same t r a n s l a t i o n work i s n e c e s s a r y when the i n v e s t i g a t o r has t o accommodate the i n f o r m a n t ' s "tendency t o respond not o n l y t o the q u e s t i o n at hand but t o a n t i c i p a t e d q u e s t i o n s , indeed not u n l i k e i n o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n s " ( S i v e r t s , 1966/67: 330, emphasis v e s t i g a t o r s who
exchanges
added).
In-
have used the i n t e r v i e w method cannot have f a i l e d to make
the p r e v i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n ; y e t i t i s r a r e l y acknowledged l e d g e d , r a r e l y seen as t h e o r e t i c a l l y important.
- and when acknow-
Thus,
The c o n s t r a i n t s of t h i s method, p a r t i c u l a r l y on h i g h l y a r t i c u l a t e informants, i s considerable. Almost every q u e s t i o n we asked was answered by a t e x t l e t i n s t e a d of a l i s t . The most i n t e r e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was o f t e n i n the p a r t s of the answer which was l e a s t expected (Perchonock and Werner, 1969: 238; c f . Berreman, 1972: 580). While we must be g r a t e f u l t o S i v e r t s f o r perhaps the o n l y account t h a t approximates what a c t u a l l y occurs i n ethnosemantic i n t e r v i e w i n g - an 7 ethnography of the ethnographer (Berreman, 1966: v i t e s the three f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s :
350)
- t h a t account i n -
(1) the method o f f o r m a l e l i c i t i n g
i s not imbued w i t h the s y s t e m a t i c r i g o u r i t i s elsewhere c l a i m e d t o have; (2) such l i g h t
thrown on a c t u a l i n t e r v i e w i n g p r a c t i c e s r e v e a l s the problems
and p r a c t i c e s o f t r y i n g t o overcome the contextedness o f the e n t e r p r i s e , t h a t i s , the problem of a b s t r a c t i n g from p r a g m a t i c s ; (3) we may
seriously
q u e s t i o n the v a l u e o f the r e s u l t i n g ethnography - "a voluminous
log-book
of FTR-sequences"
( S i v e r t s , 1966/67: 329) - e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e how
c a t e g o r i e s are a c t u a l l y manipulated i n s o c i a l l i f e the p r o c e d u r e i t s e l f "
(332).
i s beyond
"these
the scope o f
40
More i s made o f " i n t e r a c t i o n a l accomplishment"
and
"translation
work" i n the s e c t i o n on ethmeth, where they are seen to be o f interest.
For now,
critical
i t i s hoped t h a t t h i s i n t e r n a l c r i t i q u e of the d a t a -
g a t h e r i n g o p e r a t i o n p r o v i d e s grounds f o r a g r e e i n g w i t h Carnap t h a t I f we are concerned w i t h a h i s t o r i c a l l y g i v e n language [a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e ] , then p r a g m a t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n comes f i r s t and then we may go t o semantics (Carnap, 1939: 166; 1942: 13; c f . Kecskemeti, 1952: 73; Spang-Hanssen, 1954: 26; B a r - H i l l e l , 1970 [1954]: 70; Helmer, 1970: 733).
The
semantic
arrangement - the problem o f c o n t e x t
Having The
end-product
paradigm, adequate of
gathered the d a t a , the e t h n o s e m a n t i c i s t a n a l y z e s them. of the a n a l y s i s i s a semantic
t r e e , e t c . - which,
according to various c r i t e r i a , gives'an
semantic d e s c r i p t i o n o f the d a t a .
the m i d - s i x t i e s
Hammel, 1964;
arrangement - taxonomy,
In the famous B u r l i n g
debate
( B u r l i n g , 1964a, 1964b; Frake, 1964b; Hymes, 1964d;
W a l l a c e , 1965),
i t was
p o i n t e d out t h a t t h e r e are l o g i c a l l y
many c o r r e c t semantic d e s c r i p t i o n s o f any g i v e n l e x i c a l s e t .
I f i t i s not
assumed t h a t t h e r e has t o be one " c o r r e c t " s o l u t i o n o n l y (Hymes, 633), but t h a t , i n p r i n c i p l e , two
or more o r a l l s o l u t i o n s may
then what i s the s t a t u s of t h e s e v a r i a n t s ?
be
1967: "correct",
Is i t t h a t t h e r e i s a common
core w i t h s u b c u l t u r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f the b o u n d a r i e s , o r a c e n t r a l model w i t h f u l l y - f l e d g e d , a l t e r n a t i v e s u b c u l t u r a l systems, a l l v a r i a n t s are e q u a l l y " c o r r e c t "
o r a system where
( c f . Goodenough, 1963:
T y l e r , 1969c: 5; W a l l a c e , 1970a: 23-36; Sankoff, 1971)? t h i s i s the most important i s s u e a r i s i n g from the B u r l i n g
262;
1965:
For our debate.
259;
purposes
41
R e c a l l t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n s of c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s hand, and
s o c i a l representations
on the
other,
t u r a l competence towards which ethsem has take some n o t - s o - r e c e n t w r i t i n g s of mainstream ethsem a n a l y s e s ,
in
"whatever i t i s one
a manner a c c e p t a b l e to
poles
claims
cul-
Let
us
cognitive
With the emphasis on T y l e r ' s
pro-
f o r the endeavour to
t o know o r b e l i e v e i n o r d e r t o o p e r a t e
[a s o c i e t y ' s ] members".
From h i s r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of American k i n s h i p which a n a l y s i s he
one
representative
W a l l a c e ' s b e i n g d i r e c t e d more at
has
of
as moving.
T y l e r as
l e t us a s s e s s those w r i t i n g s ' i m p l i c a t i o n s
discover
the two
seen i t s e l f
of W a l l a c e and
m a t t e r s , T y l e r ' s more at s o c i a l ones. gress,
are
on the
has
cognitive-psychological
terminology,
r e a l i t y , W a l l a c e con-
cludes : K i n t e r m i n o l o g i e s may be r e c k o n i n g d e v i c e s , l i k e systems o f weights and measures, whose u t i l i t y depends more on i n t e r n a l coherence and convenience of c a l c u l a t i o n than on t h e i r f i t w i t h the s o c i a l system (Wallace, 1970b: 152, emphasis added). That i s , s o c i a l - s t r u c t u r a l r e l e v a n c e limited. is,
of t e r m i n o l o g i c a l
His s i n g l e , powerful, elegant
and
i n W a l l a c e ' s view, a r e c k o n i n g d e v i c e
analysis i s quite
psychologically real solution
such as a p e r s o n might employ
i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , r a t h e r than a model of what c o n s t r a i n s interaction.
Despondent c o n c l u s i o n s
of a r e l a t e d s o r t are
his
social
recorded
by
D'Andrade et a l . (1972). In c o n t r a s t structures
to the
sensitivity.
He
to W a l l a c e , T y l e r has
been t r y i n g to p i n down h i s
s o c i a l w o r l d , s a c r i f i c i n g a s i n g l e model f o r e m p i r i c a l declares
i n a 1966
paper t h a t , because of i t s inadequate
42
treatment o f v a r i a t i o n , t h a t branch of ethnosemantics c a l l e d " f o r m a l analysis" ...does not p r o v i d e the minimum i n f o r m a t i o n f o r d e c i d i n g who w i l l be c a l l e d what i n any k i n s h i p system ( c f . a l s o Swartz 1960: 397; Hymes 1964b: 26; 1964c: 97-98) (1966a: 6 9 4 ) . 8
Therefore, 1 w i l l attempt to r e l a t e t e r m i n o l o g i c a l v a r i a t i o n to the c o n t e x t s i n which terms of r e f e r e n c e are used (694; c f . 1966b: 515; Goodenough, 1965: 287 f n . 12; P e l t o , 1966: 201; Berreman, 1972). What T y l e r f i n d s i s t h a t
there
...are many c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s t o be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Among these a r e : s o c i a l s e t t i n g , audience c o m p o s i t i o n , sex and age of s p e a k e r / h e a r e r , and - most d i f f i c u l t o f a l l - something t h a t might be c a l l e d the speaker's i n t e n t i o n (704-705; c f . F i l l more, 1966: 220; R o s a l d o , 1972: 84; S a n k o f f , 1972: 563). The
a r t i c l e was
sions,
reprinted
i n Gumperz and
in Tyler
(1969a) and
Hymes (1972a).
In the
again, with s l i g h t
revised version
revi-
i s added,
The important p o i n t i s t h a t t h i s c h a p t e r demonstrates the p o s s i b i l i t y of e x t e n d i n g formal r u l e s to these c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s . I t i s not an argument a g a i n s t the v a l i d i t y of formal a n a l y s i s ; r a t h e r , i t i s an argument f o r the e x t e n s i o n of formal a n a l y s i s to i n c l u d e e x t r a - g e n e a l o g i c a l f a c t o r s ([1966a] 1972: 268; c f . Basso, 1972). T y l e r i s a d v o c a t i n g the
importance of v a r i a t i o n by
c o n t e x t but
an e x t e n s i o n of the e x i s t i n g method to d e a l w i t h i t . following
from the
However, w h i l e t h a t paper was was
he has
the
following.
but
quantita-
[1971:' 391.]..) going through r e p r i n t i n g s , T y l e r
moving to a more r a d i c a l p o s i t i o n .
formal science",
(In c o n t r a s t ,
same s o r t of o b s e r v a t i o n s , Sankoff proposes a
t i v e approach to h a n d l i n g v a r i a b i l i t y
himself
proposes
In h i s 1969
paper,
"A
The s l o g a n t h a t meaning v a r i e s w i t h c o n t e x t i s a form o f h o l i s t i c argument. L i k e H e g e l i a n h o l i s m i t i s workable o n l y i f i t can be demonstrated t h a t c o n t e x t s a r e f i n i t e . Note a l s o t h a t i f r u l e s o f use are t o i n c o r p o r a t e c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s , i t i s not even p o s s i b l e t o formulate r u l e s u n l e s s c o n t e x t s a r e f i n i t e . I t does not need demonstration to prove t h a t the t o t a l p h y s i c a l s u r r o u n d i n g s or c o n t e x t o f any u t t e r a n c e a r e never e x a c t l y t h e same on two d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s . Thus, c o n t e x t s cannot be f i n i t e . T h i s i s the paradox o f the c o n t e x t u a l t h e o r y . Since the notion of c o n t e x t v i o l a t e s the i d e a o f r u l e , we cannot p r o p e r l y speak of meaning as a r u l e of u s e . Y e t , s i n c e humans do seem t o take c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s i n t o account, they must have some means o f e s t a b l i s h i n g e q u i v a l e n c i e s among n o n - i d e n t i c a l c o n t e x t s (1969d: 75; c f . Goodenough, 1956: 197 f n . 5 ) . I f what T y l e r says
i s t r u e , then i t undermines h i s own method (1966a) o f
d e a l i n g with contextual v a r i a t i o n .
I f rules are to b u i l d i n contextual
f a c t o r s , but context cannot be s p e c i f i e d , then the programme cannot be c a r r i e d on. and
Moreover, i t i s no use s a y i n g , w i t h Hymes, t h a t form
context m u t u a l l y
Frake's
(lexeme)
determine meaning (1962: 19; 1964c: 97-98), o r , i n
terms, a c t and s i t u a t i o n
(1964a: 133), f o r the p r o b l e m a t i c
terms -
" c o n t e x t " , " s i t u a t i o n " - a r e l e f t u n e x p l i c a t e d (Wieder, 1970: 119-120). 9 T y l e r ' s p o i n t undermines the whole ethnosemantic e n t e r p r i s e . T h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f Wallace that:
and T y l e r has been at p a i n s t o show
(1) i n s o f a r as a u n i t a r y , c o g n i t i v e l y v a l i d model i s a c h i e v e d ,
s o c i a l - s t r u c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s l o s t ; a n d (2) i n s o f a r as c o n t e x t to o p e r a t e , t o t h a t e x t e n t t h e e n t e r p r i s e l o s e s i t s e l f p i n down e l u s i v e c o n t e x t . pears
i n an i n f i n i t y
We have here
S o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as semantic
of contexts.
(The reader w i l l
r e c a p i t u l a t e d f o r ethnosemantics
made a g a i n s t c o n s t i t u t i v e - r u l e accounts ter. )
i s allowed
i n the attempt t o arrangement d i s a p -
r e c a l l Chapter
t h e argument about
Two.
context
i n the t h i r d s e c t i o n o f t h a t chap-
44
I t i s at t h i s p o i n t must be
introduced
p e n s a b i l i t y and of c o n t e x t " icality"
that
i n support of P e i r c e ' s
u t t e r pervasiveness.
i s one
way
( P e i r c e , 1932:
172;
Wells,
way
For the " i r r e m e d i a b l e
1967:
104;
elusiveness
Luckmann, 1972:
31).
indexAnd,
achieves " r a t i o n a l " r e s u l t s r a i s e s i n how
(such as semantic ethnographers) e s t a b l i s h " e q u i v a l e n c i e s I t i s time to s h i f t
indis-
" u t t e r p e r v a s i v e n e s s of
the concomitant "problem of s o c i a l o r d e r " :
contexts,''?
"indexicality"
i n s i g h t i n t o that idea's
of c h a r a c t e r i s i n g the
s e c o n d l y , t h a t ethsem n e v e r t h e l e s s a new
the ethmeth treatment of
s o c i e t a l members among n o n - i d e n t i c a l
perspective.
C r i t i q u e From Ethnomethodology
The demonstrably r a t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s of i n d e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s and i n d e x i c a l a c t i o n s i s [ s i c ] an ongoing achievement of the o r g a n i z e d a c t i v i t i e s of everyday l i f e ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 34).
Introduction
R e c a l l t h a t the
goal of the ethnosemantic programme i s t o
c a t e c u l t u r e where c u l t u r e i s knowledge - "whatever i t i s one or b e l i e v e i n order bers"'
The
to operate i n a manner a c c e p t a b l e
to
has
to know
[a s o c i e t y ' s ] mem-
goal of ethmeth i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same ( c f . G a r f i n k e l ' s
n i t i o n of "competence" [1967a (1964): 57 P h i l l i p s o n and
Roche, 1971:
Gumperz and Hymes, 1972b]). g o a l by p u r s u i n g
34; We
Mehan, 19 72:
see C i c o u r e l , 1970:
defi147;
1; Moerman, 1969':4465;
are s a y i n g t h a t ethsem cannot reach t h a t
semantic e t h n o g r a p h i e s .
i s b e t t e r equipped f o r s u c c e s s .
f n . 8;
expli-
We
are now
p r o p o s i n g t h a t ethmeth
A c l u e to the d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t both
the
45
obstacles
i n the way
of ethsem and
i t s "accomplishments" are i n s t a n c e s
the v e r y phenomena which c o n s t i t u t e ethmeth's t o p i c and This part discuss
of the
the
chapter w i l l
recast
those problems as t h a t
t o p i c i n terms of the ethmeth i d e a s
complished s o c i a l
domain of
of
inquiry.
topic,
and
of " i n d e x i c a l i t y " and
"ac-
order".
Ethsem r e f o r m u l a t e d i n terms of ethmeth
Accounts of d a t a - e l i c i t i n g and ones a l r e a d y
discussed
d i s c l o s e , when a d e q u a t e l y r e p o r t e d ,
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which we
The
i m p o s s i b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g
(2)
r e s u l t s obtained.
c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s removed by to
(2).
The
adding " l o g i c a l " to
(1), and
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are
"for-all-
now
results;
r e s u l t s obtained f o r - a l l - p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s . These d e s c r i p t i o n s are meant as summary g l o s s e s
p o i n t s made, and vious
pervasive
results;
( l a ) l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g (2a)
two
other features
of the
(2a)
(i)
The
problem o f a b s t r a c t i n g
(ii)
The
problem of c o n t e x t .
(i)
(ii)
critical
n o t i c e d * a b o u t ethnosemantics i n the
sections: (la)
the
s h a l l present as a c o n t r a d i c t i o n :
(1)
practical-purposes"
o f semantic a n a l y s i s such as
from p r a g m a t i c s ;
"Agreements" between ethnographer and (Siverts);
informant
People's a b i l i t y t o e s t a b l i s h " e q u i v a l e n c i e s among n o n - i d e n t i c a l c o n t e x t s " ( T y l e r ) .
pre-
46
For e t h n o s e m a n t i c i s t s
( T y l e r [1969d] excepted) ( l a ) ( i ) and
of c o u r s e , seen as l o g i c a l problems but as m e t h o d o l o g i c a l are problems f o r which the s o l u t i o n i s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l the subsuming of more pragmatic (Berreman, 1972:
584
fn. 5).
For ethmeth, however, ( l a ) and
(2a) are the two
ered under ( l a ) are i n s t a n c e s of " i n d e x i c a l i t y " .
The The
They
description
( i i ) are merely taken
d e x i c a l c o i n , the c u r r e n c y o f which i s u n i v e r s a l .
under (2a) are i n s t a n c e s of "accomplished
ones.
not,
i n n o v a t i o n and/or
i n f o r m a t i o n under semantic
( 2 a ) ( i ) and
( i i ) are
f o r granted.
s i d e s o f the I n -
observations observations
s o c i a l order".
gathgathered
For ethmeth the
problem which p r o v i d e s i t w i t h a programme i s : g i v e n i n d e x i c a l i t y , how i s 10 s o c i a l order possible? S a i d about language t h i s becomes: how i s i t t h a t ...coherent c o n v e r s a t i o n s are produced d e s p i t e (1) the non-grammaticality o f u t t e r a n c e s , (2) the absence of shared, meanings, (3) the n o n - l i t e r a l n e s s of meanings, and (4) the i n d e x i c a l i t y o f u t t e r a n c e s ? (Crowle, 1971: I V ) . We
s h a l l now
e l a b o r a t e on i n d e x i c a l i t y and accomplished
o r d e r , t y i n g i n a s p e c t s o f ethnosemantics
on the
social
way.
11 Indexicality
- the l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y of
results
I n d e x i c a l or o c c a s i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s are those whose
.
...sense cannot be d e c i d e d by an a u d i t o r u n l e s s he knows o r assumes something about the b i o g r a p h y and the purposes of the speaker, the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the u t t e r a n c e , the p r e v i o u s course of the c o n v e r s a t i o n , o r the p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p of a c t u a l o r p o t e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t e x i s t s between u s e r and a u d i t o r . . The e x p r e s s i o n s do not have a sense t h a t remains i d e n t i c a l through the changing o c c a s i o n s of t h e i r use ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [-1964]: 40; a l s o 1961: 60; 1967b: 4-7; 1967d: 179-180; G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970: 348-350).
47
(It
s h o u l d be c l e a r how t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n p a r a l l e l s , y e t goes w e l l
Tyler's
list
Indexical text-free) dinary
o f " c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s " quoted i n the p r e v i o u s
e x p r e s s i o n s a r e t o be c o n t r a s t e d expressions.
' c u l t u r a l colleagues'"
section.)
with so-called objective
Any i n v e s t i g a t i v e i n q u i r y - s c i e n c e ,
c o n v e r s a t i o n - which i s " d i r e c t e d (Garfinkel
beyond,
(con-
ethsem, o r -
a t achieving...agreement among
and Sacks, 1970: 349) e x h i b i t s
profound
concern f o r the "nuisances o f i n d e x i c a l s " , s e e k i n g t o remedy them by subs t i t u t i n g objective
e x p r e s s i o n s f o r them.
Such ' m e t h o d o l o g i c a l ' concerns a r e accompanied by a p r e v a l e n t recommendation t h a t terms, u t t e r a n c e s , and d i s c o u r s e may be c l a r i f i e d , and o t h e r shortcomings that c o n s i s t i n the p r o p e r t i e s of i n d e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s may be remedied by r e f e r r i n g them t o ' t h e i r s e t t i n g ' ( i . e . , t h e f a m i l i a r recommendations about t h e ' d e c i s i v e r e l e v a n c e o f c o n t e x t ' ) ( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970: 349-350). The
r a d i c a l , not t o say d r a m a t i c , p o i n t
that
o f ethmeth,for ethsem i s t h e one
follows: •'' °t o n l y does no concept o f c o n t e x t - i n - g e n e r a l e x i s t , but e v e r y use o f 'context' without e x c e p t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n d e x i c a l ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 10, emphasis added). n
T h i s has t h e consequence, f o r i n s t a n c e , cal
r u l e s , componential d e f i n i t i o n s , c o n t e x t u a l r u l e s
rules
a l l r u l e s - semanti(Tyler), constitutive
( S e a r l e , 1969) - a r e inadequate i n i s o l a t i o n t o subsume s p e c i f i a b l e
sets of objects for
that
or actions.
They needs r e l y on something e x t e r n a l
t h e i r sense - some language-game, some form o f l i f e ,
t o them
some "what anyone
knows" ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [ I 9 6 0 ] : 275). But, more than t h a t , any d e f i n i n g d e s c r i p t i o n o f the language-game has the same problem i t s e l f - e v e r y use of " c o n t e x t " i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n d e x i c a l .
Domains, t h e r e f o r e ,
as t h e would-be
48
language-game of ethsem (Colby, 1966: c f . t h e second p. 12
paragraph
on p. 7 w i t h
f n . 2 1 ) , w i l l not m e c h a n i c a l l y p r e s c r i b e the r i g h t meaning o f t h e i r
member terms. Let us c a s t t h i s i n terms o f the s e m i o t i c t r i a n g l e i n t r o d u c e d earlier.
A c c o r d i n g t o ethsem a word (lexeme) r e f e r s t o an o b j e c t
(denotatum)
o r c l a s s o f o b j e c t s (designatum) i n terms o f a s e t o f n e c e s s a r y and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s ( s i g n i f i c a t a ) ; where a term i s polysemous the a s s o c i a t i o n of word-conditions-objects i s r e l a t i v e
to some domain ( S c h e f f l e r and Louns-
b u r y , 1971: 1 1 ) . The q u e s t i o n a r i s e s however, o f how members d e c i d e which domain i s r e l e v a n t on any o c c a s i o n of the use o f some term 120).
Domains do not s o l v e the problem of c o n t e x t .
(Wieder, 1970:
They merely
push i t
one s t e p back. But, as i s b e i n g argued,
one s t e p back i s no step anywhere.
There i s no s o l u t i o n i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n .
Recommendations t o secure more
i n f o r m a t i o n on the s i t u a t i o n o r s e t t i n g a r e b e s e t w i t h the same problem (Handel, 1969: 10; G a r f i n k e l and Sacks,
1970: 338). I n t h i s l i g h t ,
then,
. . . t r y i n g out the knowledge [that i s , the ethnosemantic results] . . . i n ' r e a l ' , n o n - i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n s . . . [ o n the assumption t h a t ] ...when some responses (events) do not o c c u r as p r e d i c t e d from e l i c i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n the ethnographer can d i s c o v e r t h e a d d i t i o n a l determinants o f r e s p o n s e - v a r i a t i o n which had not been encountered i n i n t e r v i e w ( B l a c k and Metzger, 1965: 164 f n . 5; c f . B l a c k , 1969: 169, 186-187 f n . 3 ) . w i l l o n l y r a i s e t h e q u e s t i o n of the c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n o f those ( n o n - i n t e r view) events
( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 6 ) . The ethmeth c r i t i q u e asks f o r the
n a t u r e o f the grounds by which i t i s supposed t h a t events
i n non-interview
s i t u a t i o n s b e a r some e l u c i d a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e v e n t s i n i n t e r v i e w s i t u a -
49
tions.
As w i l l become c l e a r below those grounds r e s i d e i n common-sense
methods of r e a s o n i n g , not s c i e n t i f i c For now from pragmatics
i t is sufficient
and
ones.
to note
t h a t the problem of a b s t r a c t i n g
the problem of context reduce t o the problem o f how
to
remedy i n d e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s .
Accomplished
The
s o c i a l order - results
q u e s t i o n i s : how 12
problem of i n d e x i c a l i t y .
for-all-practical-purposes
do members produce s o c i a l o r d e r g i v e n the
There can be no doubt t h a t , d e s p i t e i n d e x i c a l i t y
b e i n g an i n e s c a p a b l e f e a t u r e of e t h n o g r a p h i c
i n q u i r i e s , ethsemists
t i n e l y d i s c o v e r an o r d e r l y w o r l d , which p r o v i d e s o r d e r l y r e s u l t s moreover, which are independent
of i n v e s t i g a t o r , method and
rouresults,
informant:
...the d a t a o f f e r e d r e f l e c t r e g u l a r i t i e s which must be taken account o f . These are r e g u l a r i t i e s among c o n d i t i o n s which p r o duce r e g u l a r i t i e s i n i n f o r m a n t s ' responses. Data of t h i s n a t u r e , w h i l e r e q u i r i n g some o r d e r i n g such as we have p r o v i d e d i n the sample, i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f r e e . . . d a t a of t h i s k i n d has [ s i c ] a s t r u c t u r e of i t s own, about which i n v e s t i g a t o r s may agree r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t s and w i t h o u t r e g a r d e i t h e r to o t h e r k i n d s of m a t e r i a l they may wish t o use t o expand the d a t a o r to f u r t h e r a n a l y t i c o p e r a t i o n s they may wish t o perform upon i t (Metzger and W i l l i a m s , 1966: 390, emphasis added). How
i s such s o c i a l o r d e r p o s s i b l e ?
We
s h a l l o u t l i n e i n a paragraph
how
ethmeth would f o r m u l a t e the o r d e r q u e s t i o n and what answer i t would g i v e ; then we tical
ten p l a c e s where ethsem a c h i e v e s o r d e r u s i n g i t s t h e o r e -
and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l apparatus 13
work.
shall l i s t
t o g l o s s over the u n d e r l y i n g i n t e r p r e t i v e
ft 50
Ethsemists accounts
of i t .
f i n d s o c i a l o r d e r jin the w o r l d ,
independent of
In c o n t r a s t , ethmeth t r e a t s s o c i a l o r d e r as an
ment of s o c i e t a l members, such as e t h s e m i s t s , and f e a t u r e of the a c c o u n t i n g by which i t i s t o l d .
accomplish-
sees t h a t o r d e r as a
Where ethsem sees
r e g u l a r i t i e s o r i n v e s t i g a t o r / i n f o r m a n t correspondence f r e e " o r , more r i s k i l y ,
their
as
data
"interpretation
as "agreement", ethmeth sees such e x p r e s s i o n s
g l o s s e s f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e work which remains to be e x p l i c a t e d .
as
I t s question
would be "what i s the work f o r which [ [ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f r e e ] ] i s t h a t work's accountable
g l o s s ? " ( G a r f i n k e l and
Sacks,
1970:
352).
The
f i n d i n g s of o r d e r i s ethmeth's t o p i c of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . the " f i n d i n g " and
the " t e l l i n g "
[1968]: 17; c f . A t t e w e l l , 1974).
"how"
of
Its claim i s that
are the same ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 1; 19 74 I t provides a general formulation of
i n t e r p r e t i v e work i n terms of the "documentary method of
i n q u i r y l i e s open.
ethsem, i n Chapter The
( T h i s p o i n t was
made, without
specific
field
r e f e r e n c e to
Three.)
q u e s t i o n o f s o c i a l o r d e r becomes, then, a matter of the work
by which, i n our c a s e , e t h s e m i s t s produce o r d e r i n t h e i r data and results.
such
interpretation".
S i n c e the documentary method i s not one but many methods, ethmeth's of
such
in their
What i s the e x t e n t of t h a t work i n ethsem t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e ? (1)
l i s h e d accounts
L e t us take n o t i c e f i r s t
of an absence - an absence i n pub-
of ethnosemantic s t u d i e s of what takes p l a c e between the
r e s e a r c h ' s c o n c e p t i o n and "whatever i t i s one has
the s t a r t of e l i c i t i n g .
Intended
to know o r b e l i e v e . . . " such accounts
to d i s c o v e r l e a v e out
51
how
the ethnographer
h i m / h e r s e l f l e a r n s t o ask q u e s t i o n s , h e a r answers,
what q u e s t i o n s t o ask, and what answers t o i g n o r e . I t t h e r e f o r e o c c u r s t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t o r f r e q u e n t l y must e l e c t among a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i n q u i r y t o the end o f d e c i d i n g matters o f f a c t , h y p o t h e s i s , c o n j e c t u r e , f a n c y , and the r e s t d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t i n the c a l c u l a b l e sense of the term 'know' he does not and even cannot 'know' what he i s doing p r i o r t o o r w h i l e he i s d o i n g i t . Field workers, most p a r t i c u l a r l y those d o i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c and l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e s i n s e t t i n g s where they cannot presuppose a knowledge o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s , are perhaps b e s t a c q u a i n t e d w i t h such s i t u a t i o n s . . . . N e v e r t h e l e s s , a body o f knowledge o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s i s somehow assembled....How...? ( G a r f i n k e l 1967a [1962] : 77-78). It
i s t r u e t h a t the e l i c i t i n g
r o u t i n e s and s t r a t e g i e s of Metzger
and Co. were d e s i g n e d out o f some a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h i s problem. t h i s common-sense s o l u t i o n - engaging
But
i n more r e s e a r c h ( f o r m a l e l i c i t i n g )
t o d e c i d e what had been l e a r n e d p r e v i o u s l y ( u n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y ) - o n l y r a i s e s the problems of f o r m a l e l i c i t i n g .
We
made the same argument about
the
r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n s and n o n - i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n s a t t h e end o f the l a s t s e c t i o n on (2)
D e s i r o u s of " d i s c e r n i n g how
e x p e r i e n c e from the way eliciters
indexicality.
they t a l k about
( f o r example, B l a c k , 1969:
people c o n s t r u e t h e i r world of
i t " ( F r a k e , 1962:
74), the formal
172-174) f i n d i t
...necessary t o i n s t r u c t the c o n s t r u i n g member t o act i n accordance w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i n o r d e r to guarantee that the i n v e s t i g a t o r w i l l be a b l e to study t h e i r usages as i n s t a n c e s o f the usages the i n v e s t i g a t o r has i n mind ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964]: 70). Such i n s t r u c t i o n o f i n f o r m a n t s i s our second ( c f . H a l e , 1966:
808).
to-be-noted
f e a t u r e of ethsem
M o t i v a t e d by a d e s i r e f o r r i g o u r i t can l e a d to
52
such s t r a n g e n o t i o n s
as r e q u i r i n g i n f o r m a n t s " t o i g n o r e
scene o f the q u e s t i o n i n g "
( B l a c k , 1969: 173).
any p o s s i b l e
T h i s i s p a r t o f t h e work
of making out the members o f the s t u d i e d s o c i e t y as what G a r f i n k e l
calls
"judgemental" or " c u l t u r a l dopes" (1967a [1964]: 66-71; c f . C i c o u r e l ' s "dummy" [1970: 160]).
The " c u l t u r a l dope" i s made out i n these f u r t h e r
f e a t u r e s o f ethsem: (3) problematic
t h e t r e a t i n g (hearing)
of informants'
responses as non-
answers-to-questions ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [ I 9 6 0 ] :
[1962]: 92), no n o t i c e b e i n g (4)
taken o f t h e work r e q u i r e d t o do t h a t
t r e a t i n g such "answers" as " c o n d i t i o n e d
cussed i n t h e s e c t i o n on t h e d a t a - g a t h e r i n g (5) substantive
portraying
266-267; 1967a "hearing";
r e s p o n s e s " (as d i s -
operation);
"agreements" as t h e "demonstrable matching o f
m a t t e r s " ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 3 0 ) ;
(6)
" p o r t r a y i n g t h e usages o f the member o f a language community
a s . . . c u l t u r e bound [and t h i s i n c l u d e s the s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a n t ] " ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964] : 71) ; (7)
"construing
t h e p a i r i n g o f appearances and i n t e n d e d
object
- the p a i r i n g o f ' s i g n ' and ' r e f e r r e n t ' [ s i c ] - as an a s s o c i a t i o n [see Goodenough, 1956: 195.]"(Garfinkel, (8)
assuming " t h a t an invoked shared agreement on s u b s t a n t i v e
matters e x p l a i n s (9) culture
1967a [1964]: 7 1 ) ;
a usage" ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 2 8 ) ;
t r e a t i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o r common
53
...as precoded e n t r i e s on a memory drum, to be c o n s u l t e d as a d e f i n i t e s e t of a l t e r n a t i v e meanings from among which one was to s e l e c t , under p r e d e c i d e d c o n d i t i o n s t h a t s p e c i f i e d i n which of some s e t o f a l t e r n a t i v e ways one was to understand the s i t u a t i o n upon the o c c a s i o n t h a t the n e c e s s i t y f o r a d e c i s i o n arose ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964]: 41). In a l l these cases "a p r o c e d u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of such usages i s p r e c l u d e d by NEGLECTING THE
symbolic
JUDGEMENTAL WORK OF THE USER"
( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964]: 71, emphasis and upper-case
added).
"User"
r e f e r s not o n l y t o the s u b j e c t o r i n f o r m a n t , but to the a n t h r o p o l o g i s t as well.
I f the p r e v i o u s p o i n t s have emphasized the i n f o r m a n t ' s
judgemental
(neglected)
work, the f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e h i g h l i g h t s t h a t o f the
investiga-
tor. (10)
S t a b i l i t y of response
across informants i s a favourable
i n d i c a t o r i n the eyes o f the e t h s e m i s t . t i o n t h a t "the b a s i c check r e g a r d i n g FTR i s always adhered
t o " (329).
Recall Siverts'
(1966/67) a s s e r -
[Frame-Term-Response]-stability
On n o t i n g i n f o r m a n t s ' tendency
" t o respond
not o n l y to the q u e s t i o n at hand but to a n t i c i p a t e d q u e s t i o n s , indeed not u n l i k e exchanges i n o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n s " (330), he asks, " I s such a r e a c t i o n r u i n i n g the whole argument about
stability...."
Not q u i t e . Repeating the i n t e r v i e w at some l a t e r date w i t h another informant would produce a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , we h o l d , s i n c e the 2nd. ethnographer and informant are supposed t o f o l l o w the r u l e s o f the game (331) . But, we may
ask, what game _is i t t h a t has as a f e a t u r e
tendency-to-respond-
not-only-to-the-question-at-hand-but-to-anticipated-questions?
What are
the r u l e s of t h a t game ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964]: 70; W i t t g e n s t e i n , 1958)? These q u e s t i o n s are not addressed by ethsem, but i t s e l i c i t i n g and
analysis
54
a r e p r e d i c a t e d on answers to them. sensically. We
Answers are made, but
common-
Common-sense work i s at the h e a r t of the ethsem e n t e r p r i s e .
have a l r e a d y taken note of the u n e x p l i c a t e d
eliciting
tacitly,
i s s a i d to e l u c i d a t e unsystematic
grounds by which
q u e s t i o n i n g , by which
i n t e r v i e w events are s a i d to e l u c i d a t e i n t e r v i e w e v e n t s . must p o i n t to the common-sense work which p r o v i d e s interviews with
"second" informants
formal non-
Here again
f o r seeing
as "checks" on " f i r s t s "
we
"second"
(cf. Bricker,
1974).
These are a l l forms of T y l e r ' s more g e n e r a l n o t i c i n g of p e o p l e ' s
ability
t o e s t a b l i s h " e q u i v a l e n c i e s among n o n - i d e n t i c a l c o n t e x t s "
"people",
of c o u r s e ,
events b e i n g
analyzed
Wieder, 1970: We
290).
tation.
How
i s i t done?
What i s the judgemental work of the
ethmeth i n C h a p t e r s Two
f o r example, we
Beyond t h i s we
t i v e work i n a c t i o n .
"How
so t h a t they appear as connected?" (Zimmerman
gave g e n e r a l answers to t h i s q u e s t i o n
S o c i o l o g y 3000 and the l a t t e r ,
includes ethnographers).
(where are and
user?
i n the s e c t i o n s
and Three r e s p e c t i v e l y .
on In
d e s c r i b e d the documentary method of i n t e r p r e -
must t u r n t o " e m p i r i c a l m a t e r i a l s to see i n t e r p r e -
T h i s we
do i n P a r t
Two.
55
FOOTNOTES
A v e r s i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r w i l l appear i n S e m i o t i c a ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) . The c h a p t e r has b e n e f i t t e d immensely from two p a p e r s : f i r s t , o f c o u r s e , Wieder's c r i t i q u e o f the s i g n t h e o r i e s i n ethnosemantics (1970; see a l s o T u r n e r , 1970b); and, second, Helmer's programmatic paper on a p r a g m a t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d , non-Hymesian s o c i o l o g y of language (1970; see a l s o K j o l s e t h , 1972: 5 3 ) . Both Wieder's c r i t i q u e and our's are ethnom e t h o d o l o g i c a l (as i s C i c o u r e l ' s [1967]). Whereas Wieder draws out the absurd models o f man and s o c i e t y i m p l i c i t i n the s i g n t h e o r i e s of Goodenough and Lounsbury and o f Frake and C o n k l i n , we focus on the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l assumptions and p r a c t i c e s o f ethsem i n t r a n s f o r m i n g " b r u t e " e v e n t s i n t o " d a t a " and " d a t a " i n t o " r e s u l t s " ( c f . Sankoff, 1971: 405). Consequently, more a t t e n t i o n i s g i v e n here t o the work of Metzger, W i l l i a m s and B l a c k . B l a c k and Metzger's (1965) study of Tenej a p a and American "law" terms i s o f p a r t i c u l a r importance, s i n c e i t p r o v i d e s the model f o r the ethnosemantic a n a l y s i s r e p o r t e d i n Chapter Seven. Frake's sentence appears t o be the o n l y attempt t o p r o v i d e a ( r e l a t i v e l y ) e x p l i c i t formula f o r the dependent v a r i a b l e i n ethsem. In sharp c o n t r a s t t o Frake (1964a: 133), Kay, a l o n e , c l a i m s the p o s s i b i l i t y of p r e d i c t i n g a c t u a l b e h a v i o u r as opposed t o v e r b a l judgements (1970: 28). By the m i d - s i x t i e s Chomskyan r h e t o r i c - " s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n " , " r e a d i n g " , "competence", grammar as p r e d i c t i v e t h e o r y - was w e l l i n e v i d e n c e i n ethsem ( f o r example, D u r b i n , 1966; Kay, 1966a; Werner, 1966). The n o t i o n of a " c u l t u r a l grammar" i s widespread ( f o r example, Conkl i n , 1968: 174; C o l b y , 1975). K e e s i n g (1972) i s a u s e f u l reminder o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between ethsem and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar ( c f . Hymes, 1970a). See f o o t n o t e f o u r of Chapter Three f o r f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e s on t h i s . For l i n g u i s t i c semantics o f the K a t z - F o d o r v a r i e t y t h r e e "no's" have a l r e a d y been r e c o r d e d (Helmer, 1970; K j o l s e t h , 1972; C o u l t e r , 1973). Our c r i t i q u e of ethsem i s o f a p i e c e w i t h t h e s e p a p e r s . In p r a c t i c e , t h a t v a r i a t i o n of r e s u l t p e r s i s t i n g a f t e r the c o m p l e t i o n of semantic a n a l y s i s has t y p i c a l l y , been c a s t i n t o the "garbage bucket of p r a g m a t i c s " ( B e n t l e y , 1945: 40) o r , de g u s t i b u s , i n t o the " p r a g matic wastebasket" ( B a r - H i l l e l , 1971; see a l s o Lyons, 1968: 420; Helmer, 1970: 733-734, 743; G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 19 70: 350, quoted below i n the s e c t i o n on " i n d e x i c a l i t y " ) . We have t r a c e d the c o u r s e o f t h i s r e i f i c a t i o n through M o r r i s ' work i n the l o n g e r manuscript from which t h i s c h a p t e r i s drawn ( E g l i n , 1972).
56
6.
L e s t the i n t e n t of the c r i t i q u e be mistaken l e t i t be s a i d that i t i s to the c r e d i t of Metzger and Co. t h a t they attempted t o f o r m u l a t e exp l i c i t d i s c o v e r y procedures i n the i n t e r e s t s o f r i g o u r , p u b l i c n e s s and replicability. T h i s way problems are more e a s i l y seen, t h e i r sources more e x a c t l y l o c a t e d ( c f . Chomsky's view of the v a l u e of pre-Chomskyan s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s [ f o r example, 1968: 19-20]). Indeed B l a c k has s a i d , i n response t o an e a r l i e r v e r s i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r , t h a t she " c o u l d n ' t agree more t h a t (some o f ) the p a r t i c u l a r d a t a p r e s e n t e d [ i n the 1965 paper] were i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r o c e d u r e " ( p e r s o n a l communi c a t i o n , 1974). Those o t h e r s , who, l i k e Metzger and Co., h a w n o t i n f a c t proceeded i n d u c t i v e l y , have done a double d i s s e r v i c e i n (1) w r i t i n g i n an o b f u s c a t i n g i n d u c t i v e format f o r h e u r i s t i c purposes (Lounsbury, 1956: 171; W a l l a c e , 1961: 459; T y l e r , 1969a; see K e e s i n g , 1967: 11), a t the same time as acknowledging the muddiness of the waters - " a i d e d by some advance knowledge o f what to l o o k f o r " (Lounsbury, 1956: 168; c f . 1953: 406); "The d i s c o v e r y of c u l t u r a l l y r e l e v a n t components r e q u i r e s some advance knowledge o f what to l o o k f o r " (Colby, 1966: 9 ) ; " F i e l d w o r k and a n a l y s i s s h o u l d be c a r r i e d out s i m u l t a n e o u s l y " ( T y l e r , 1969b: X ) ; "a g r e a t d e a l depends on the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the c u l t u r e and w i l l i n g n e s s t o r e o r g a n i z e e a r l i e r f o r m a l i z a t i o n s i n the l i g h t of l a t e r i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s " (D'Andrade, 1972a: 32); "The f e a t u r e s were thus d e r i v e d i n d u c t i v e l y , based on a d e t a i l e d s c r u t i n y of the d a t a and on i n t u i t i o n s gained from f i e l d r e s e a r c h " ( S e i t e l , 1974: 52) - w h i l e (2) not examining t h e i r methods or showing how they d i d i t ( c f . Berreman, 1966: 351). Remarks such as these (even when e l a b o r a t e d [ P a u l , 1953]) show o n l y t h a t they, l i k e t h e i r s u b j e c t s , r e l y on the "documentary method of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " and, l i k e t h e i r s u b j e c t s , take t h a t method f o r granted ( c f . Berreman, 1966: 352). In c o n t r a s t , the work of the formal e l i c i t e r s a l l o w s us t o b e g i n at l e a s t t o examine t h a t method.
7.
8.
C o n t r a s t the c a l l s f o r (1) an "ethnography o f ethnography" (Berreman, 1966: 350; C o n k l i n , 1968: 175), (2) " e t h n o g r a p h i e s of i n t e r r o g a t i o n " (Grimshaw, 1969: 21), and (3) a " s o c i o l o g i c a l p r a g m a t i c s " ( M o r r i s , 1938: 30; Carnap, 1942: 10) w i t h the a c t u a l work t h a t has been done a l o n g these l i n e s by ethnomethodologists - f o r example, (1) Stoddart (1974), Katz (1975), Wieder (1975), (2) Crowle (1971), C i c o u r e l (forthcoming) and (3) G a r f i n k e l (1967a) and E l l i o t (1974) r e s p e c t i v e l y . See f o o t n o t e f i v e of Chapter Two.
We have c o r r e c t e d the r e f e r e n c e s to Hymes i n the T y l e r quote, and r e l e t t e r e d them a c c o r d i n g to the o r d e r i n g adopted h e r e . T y l e r argues ... the same p o i n t , i n o p p o s i t i o n t o B u c h l e r (1964: 781), i n h i s 1966b, and a g a i n i n h i s 1969f.
57
9.
I n the next s e c t i o n we g i v e ethmeth's account o f the p o i n t T y l e r i s making. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t T y l e r h i m s e l f has been moving towards ethmeth ( p e r s o n a l communication, 1972; 1973).
10.
I t w i l l become c l e a r t h a t t h i s i s not b e i n g asked i n the sense i n which D e n z i n asks i t , t h e sense which i s c r i t i c i z e d by Zimmerman and Wieder (1970: 294; c f . G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964]: 74 f n . 1 3 ) .
11.
Other than i n the w r i t i n g s of e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i s t s , the n o t i o n o f " i n d e x " can be found, p e r s i s t e n t b u t l a r g e l y u n t r e a t e d , and under v a r i o u s names, i n s e m i o t i c , p h i l o s o p h y and l i n g u i s t i c s ( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970; B a r - H i l l e l , 1970 [1969]: 198-199). Here i s j u s t a sample o f r e f e r e n c e s , i n c l u d i n g a c o u p l e from s o c i o l o g y and a n t h r o p o l o g y : P e i r c e (1932: 143, 170-172), M o r r i s (1938: 17-25), Dewey (1946), Reichenbach (1947: 4 - 6 ) , Burks (1949), Kecskemeti (1952: 75-78), B a r - H i l l e l (1970 [1954, 1963, 1969]), Jakobson (1956: 61, 66; 1971 [1957]: 131; 1971 [1965]: 346-347, 357-358), Lounsbury (1960: 123), Szasz (1961: 115-116), W e i n r e i c h (1966: 154-158; 1968: 166), F i l l m o r e (1966: 220), W e l l s (1967: 104), Lyons (1968: 275-281), F r i e d r i c h (19 71: 170), Bauman (1973: 5 ) . G a r f i n k e l and Sacks (1970) d e t a i l i n d e x i c a l i t y ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y i n p h i l o s o p h y and l o g i c , i n c l u d i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n s by H u s s e r l , R u s s e l l and Goodman. I t s treatment i n s e m i o t i c s i n c e P e i r c e has been g i v e n elsewhere ( E g l i n , 1972). B r i e f l y , M o r r i s , who found i t i n P e i r c e , l o s t i t between Foundations Of The Theory o f Signs (1938) and S i g n s , Language and B e h a v i o r (1946) , i t s absence c o n t i n u i n g i n t o ethsem through Goodenough's d i s c u s s i o n o f s i g n s i n h i s f o u n d a t i o n a l 1957 paper (as a l r e a d y s t a t e d ) . T h i s was w r i t t e n i n the same y e a r (1954) t h a t B a r - H i l l e l p u b l i s h e d " I n d e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s " , and at about t h e same time t h a t G a r f i n k e l c o i n e d the term "ethnomethodology" ( G a r f i n k e l , 1974 [1968]). " I use the term 'ethnomethodology' to r e f e r t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the r a t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s o f i n d e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s and o t h e r p r a c t i c a l a c t i o n s as c o n t i n g e n t ongoing accomplishments o f o r g a n i z e d a r t f u l p r a c t i c e s of everyday l i f e " ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 11; c f . 1972: 3 0 9 ) .
12.
We put i t t h i s way, u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e "problem" t o be an a n a l y t i c (as opposed t o a c o n c r e t e ) one. We do not mean to suggest t h a t , f o r members i n t h e i r u n r e f l e c t i v e everyday a c t i v i t y , i n d e x i c a l i t y p r e s e n t s troublesome problems. ("Member" i n c l u d e s e t h n o s e m a n t i c i s t s ( e t h s e m i s t s ) as p r a c t i c i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s . ) However, f o r t h i s member, t h e r e s o l u t i o n proposed h e r e remains an unhappy one.
13.
E t h n o g r a p h e r s ' methods f o r " t e l l i n g " t h e i r work as adequate ethnography have been documented a t l e n g t h i n a recent d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n by S t o d d a r t (1975) . K a t z has t r e a t e d s i m i l a r i s s u e s i n h i s recent d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n (Katz, 1975). We w i l l not d i s c u s s these matters h e r e .
58
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION TO
PART
ONE
U s i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between b r u t e d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h r e e kinds " P o s i t i v i s t i c " sociology by
theories.
of s o c i o l o g y by (Sociology
1000)
"Grammatical" s o c i o l o g y
c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s i n grammars.
and
institutional
t h e i r o b j e c t s of
facts
we
explanation.
seeks to e x p l a i n r e g u l a r i t i e s
(Sociology
2000) seeks t o e x p l i c a t e
Interpretive sociology
(Sociology
3000)
seeks to account f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s through i n t e r p r e t i v e accounts ( c f . C o u l t e r , 1974:
104).
The
f i r s t e n t e r p r i s e depends upon
second e n t e r p r i s e which depends upon the t h i r d . troduced two
approaches the
sociology.
and
t h i s scheme we
c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s we
ethnomethodology.
By i d e n t i f y i n g
c a s t ethsem as a k i n d o f
Because of the documentary method and
"grammatical"
the et c e t e r a c l a u s e
proposed t h a t ethmeth i s a k i n d of i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y .
We
a d e t a i l e d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e of ethsem from ethmeth.
Ethsem
in
r e l a t i o n to ethmeth j u s t as "grammatical" s o c i o l o g y
to i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y - they n e g l e c t
fails
we
presented fails
in relation
the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n s
of t h e i r grammatical r u l e s .
A number of c o n c l u s i o n s
about s c i e n t i f i c s o c i o l o g y ,
(2) about s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c
(3) about both i n terms o f the immediate s u b j e c t semantics .
in-
goal of which i s an adequate d e s c r i p t i o n of
c u l t u r a l competence - ethnosemantics and semantical
Into
the
can be
drawn -
(1)
(semantic) t h e o r y ,
of t h i s work, ethno-
and
59
(1) 1970;
As has been s a i d b e f o r e (Sacks, 1963; Zimmerman
W i l s o n , 1972; E l l i o t ,
and P o l l n e r ,
1974), s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n
has no " l o g i c a l " o r i n - p r i n c i p l e s u p e r i o r i t y over commonsense e x p l a n a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n .
Our model o f an i n s t r u c t i o n i s a f o r m u l a f o r the o p e r a -
t i o n o f commonsense.
By showing
that i n s t r u c t i o n s u n d e r l i e
constitutive
r u l e s which u n d e r l i e r e g u l a r i t i e s , we hope t o have shown, a d m i t t e d l y i n d i r e c t l y , t h a t commonsense work i s f o u n d a t i o n a l f o r t h e p r a c t i c e o f s c i e n c e , specifically scientific
sociology.
T h i s i s the " p o i n t " r e f e r r e d t o at the
end o f the s e c t i o n on S o c i o l o g y 1000 i n Chapter Two. (2)
While i t i s t r u e t h a t " L i n g u i s t i c
forms, whether morphemes
o r l a r g e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s , a r e not t i e d t o unique chunks o f semantic
refer-
ence l i k e baggage t a g s " ( F r a k e , 1962: 77), i t w i l l not do, we contend, t o say t h a t . . . i t i s the use o f speech, t h e s e l e c t i o n o f one statement over another i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t , t h a t p o i n t s t o the c a t e g o r y b o u n d a r i e s on a c u l t u r e ' s c o g n i t i v e map ( F r a k e , 1962: 77). That i s , i t w i l l not do to say t h a t and mean by i t t h a t domain-governed. lem o f c o n t e x t .
such s e l e c t i o n i s
As we saw i n Chapter Four domains do not s o l v e the probFurthermore,
i t i s no improvement t o p a r t i t i o n use a c c o r d -
i n g t o s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t ( s i t u a t i o n , speech community, c l a s s , lect,
s t y l e , r e g i s t e r , code, c h a n n e l , e t c . ) .
The same problem
b e d e v i l s domain dogs a l l such "pragmatic" f a c t o r s . throughout, an adequate (3) Chapter Four.
dia-
which
As we have argued
s o c i o l o g i c a l pragmatics needs be i n t e r p r e t i v e .
Both these p o i n t s a r e p r e s e n t i n the c r i t i q u e o f ethsem i n The nub of t h i s c r i t i q u e i s t h a t ethsem l e a v e s out o f
60
account the i n t e r p r e t i v e work o f s o c i e t a l members, i n c l u d i n g t h a t o f i t s own
practitioners.
In the l i g h t o f ethmeth, ethsem i s another case of
"constructive analysis"
( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970:
340).
Its internal
problems of a b s t r a c t i n g from pragmatics and of c o n t e x t (except i n T y l e r ' s r a d i c a l sense) sions.
reduce t o one of s u b s t i t u t i n g o b j e c t i v e f o r i n d e x i c a l
In G a r f i n k e l ' s terms, s e e k i n g such s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y p r o v i d e s con-
s t r u c t i v e a n a l y s i s w i t h i t s i n f i n i t e t a s k ( G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 19 70: 349).
I t s achievement
sociological
of o r d e r l y r e s u l t s i s shot through w i t h
reasoning"; that
339,
"practical
i s , i n common w i t h a l l c o n v e n t i o n a l s o c i a l -
s c i e n c e d a t a e x t r a c t i o n from speech
( C i c o u r e l , 1967:
119), i t r e l i e s
common-sense methods o f making sense f o r a c c o m p l i s h i n g i t s e l f It
expres-
as
on
rational.
r e l i e s on the v e r y competence w h i c h - i t i s s e e k i n g t o d i s c o v e r and
des-
c r i b e , b u t , u n l i k e ethnomethodology, does not make t h a t r e s o u r c e a t o p i c ( T u r n e r , 1970a: 117;
Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , 1970).
Rather than s t a n d i n g
over a g a i n s t the w o r l d f o r which they are s a i d to account, i t s r e s u l t s are f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n of that world, a production rooted i n that world. such ethnosemantics
becomes another case f o r e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
As
inves-
t i g a t i o n - i n v e s t i g a t i o n aimed a t " d i s c o v e r i n g whatever i t i s one has t o know...." Such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the s u b j e c t o f P a r t
Two.
PART TWO
DATA; USING THE SAME MATERIALS, AN ETHNOSEMANTIC STUDY, AND AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE
STUDY,
61a
CHAPTER
SIX
INTRODUCTION TO PART
To
g i v e body to the argument of P a r t One,
done by the author are p r e s e n t e d . sem
TWO
The
first
two
empirical
study i s a c o n v e n t i o n a l
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the second an ethmeth i n q u i r y i n t o the
study by B l a c k and
studies
first.
The
Metzger (1965) of American lawyer terms p r o v i d e d
model f o r our ethsem study - on terms f o r Canadian d o c t o r s .
The
eth-
the
ethmeth
o
l i t e r a t u r e provided erials
many examples of the a n a l y s i s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l
(Douglas, 1970;
Sudnow, 1972;
T u r n e r , 19 74)
Cicourel's
(forthcoming) study of the
tors.
strategy of turning a conventional
The
used b e f o r e
t e x t of a r e l e v a n t
r e l y mostly
t a k i n g of m e d i c a l h i s t o r i e s by
- i n d i s s e r t a t i o n s by Wieder (1975
Mention of them w i l l h e l p p l a c e
- we
s t u d y on i t s head has [1969]) and
t h i s p a r t of the p r e s e n t
maton docbeen
Crowle (1971).
work i n the
con-
literature.
Wieder conducted a " p a r t i c i p a n t - o b s e r v a t i o n " study of a halfway house.
He
formulated
i t as
...embarking on a t r a d i t i o n a l ethnography of a normative c u l t u r e and then t u r n i n g . . . a t t e n t i o n to the p r o d u c t i o n o f t h a t ethnography as an accomplishment (19 75: [ms.] 20). On
the b a s i s of l e n g t h y
w i t h s t a f f and code". It
At
observation
r e s i d e n t s , he
and
formal
"discovered"
and
informal
a s e t of maxims - the
the l e v e l o f a t r a d i t i o n a l ethnography the
c o n s i s t e d of r u l e s t h a t any
interviews
code was
"convict his results.
member t o t h a t s e t t i n g would need t o know
62
to a c t a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n the s e t t i n g . At t h i s l e v e l the study
That i s , the code was a grammar.
i s an example o f S o c i o l o g y
2000.
However, by " s t e p p i n g back" and l o o k i n g now a t h i s own and o t h e r s ' f o r m u l a t i n g o f , i n v o k i n g o f , and appeal
t o , the code as an i n t e r p r e t i v e
d e v i c e , he came t o see that What s o c i o l o g i s t s d e s c r i b e as the c o n v i c t code i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s i s one f u r t h e r .instance o f the product which r e s u l t s from the p r a c t i c e s o f ' t e l l i n g the code'. Such accounts have the same l o g i c a l s t a t u s t h a t ' t e l l i n g the code' has i n t h e very s e t t i n g s i n which the code i s t o l d . . . . Thus, ' t e l l i n g the code', and any p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e o f formul a t i n g the code, e x h i b i t s , r a t h e r than d e s c r i b e s or e x p l a i n s , the o r d e r t h a t members achieve through t h e i r p r a c t i c e s o f showi n g and t e l l i n g each o t h e r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r encountered f e a t u r e s are t y p i c a l , r e g u l a r , o r d e r l y , coherent, motivated out o f cons i d e r a t i o n s o f normative c o n s t r a i n t , and the l i k e (Wieder, 1975: [ms.] 235-236, emphasis added). More
simply, Instead o f ' p r e d i c t i n g ' b e h a v i o u r , [ a code] r u l e i s a c t u a l l y employed as an i n t e r p r e t i v e d e v i c e . . . [ b u t i s ] e x p e r i e n c e d as p r e d i c t i v e (Wieder, 1975: [ms.] 202-203, emphasis added).
T h i s l o o k s back t o the c o n c l u s i o n o f P a r t One and forward
t o the c o n c l u -
s i o n o f P a r t Two. In c o n t r a s t t o Wieder's use o f the e t h n o g r a p h i c work focused
on the e x p e r i m e n t a l
mental i n t e r v i e w . tape-recorded
method - s p e c i f i c a l l y , the p o s t - e x p e r i -
He conducted a s e r i e s of c o n v e n t i o n a l
the p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l
cedures gave c o n v e n t i o n a l
method, Crowle's
interviews.
experiments and
At one l e v e l these
pro-
r e s u l t s on the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l t o p i c i n
q u e s t i o n - the e f f e c t s o f e v a l u a t i o n apprehension and commitment on conf e s s i o n o f p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o n by f u l l y informed the study
i s a case o f S o c i o l o g y 1000.
subjects.
In these
terms
63
However, he then reviewed the ( t r a n s c r i b e d ) i n t e r v i e w s as i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h e i r own
right.
He
social
found t h a t , i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n the
sense o f the q u e s t i o n s , i n t e r v i e w e r s r o u t i n e l y d e v i a t e d from the " s t a n d a r dized" interview script. I t seems s a f e to conclude t h a t s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n . . . o f the i n t e r view c o u l d o n l y be achieved by v i o l a t i o n s of some of the b a s i c r u l e s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n [ f o r example, c u t t i n g o f f an ' i n t e r e s t e d speaker'] (Crowle, 1971: 40). He
concludes
further,
Thus i n d o i n g our experiment we r e l i e d on v a r i o u s i m p l i c i t , u n e x p l i c a t e d and i n t u i t i v e a b i l i t i e s o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s - they were r e s o u r c e s of the experiment, i n the same way as the l a b o r a t o r y and the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s were r e s o u r c e s - the experiment would n o t have worked without them (Crowle, 1971: 5 7 ) . Our study resembles resembles
Crowle's
Wieder's study i n b e i n g an ethnography.
study by f o c u s i n g on i n t e r v i e w s .
I t resembles
It
both by
h a v i n g two p a r t s , where the second p a r t i s a r e - a n a l y s i s of the f i r s t
part.
Chapter Seven d e s c r i b e s the ethsem study and o f f e r s i t s c o n v e n t i o n a l r e s u l t s - an i n c i p i e n t grammar of the domain o f d o c t o r s ' terms.
Chapter
E i g h t then d e t a i l s the i n t e r p r e t i v e work by which those r e s u l t s were a c h i e v e d i n the course of the i n t e r v i e w s and a n a l y s i s which them.
Chapter Nine c o n c l u d e s .
generated
64
CHAPTER SEVEN TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS - ETHNOSEMANTICS
A f t e r a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the B l a c k and Metzger study o f American lawyer terms (the Lawyers Study),we s h a l l p r e s e n t the methods and r e s u l t s o f our study o f d o c t o r s ' terms (the D o c t o r s
The Lawyers
Study).
Study
S i x hours o f i n t e r v i e w s w i t h one i n f o r m a n t , a law s t u d e n t , p r o duced a c h a r t o f t h i r t y - s i x lawyer terms each d e f i n e d by a s e r i e s o f v a l u e s on t h r e e major dimensions. l i n e of T a b l e
I
F o r example, T a b l e I reproduces one
o f the Lawyers Study - the c h a r t o f lawyer
terms.
TABLE I ONE LINE FROM THE CHART OF REFERENCE TERMS FOR LAWYERS
TERM
DIMENSIONS K i n d o f term 1.1
Defense Lawyer
Source:
B
Settings
Kinds o f p r a c t i c e
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
BC
AB
AcB
Ab
A
Aa
C
B l a c k , Mary B., and Duane Metzger, the study o f law", p. 157.
" E t h n o g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n and
65
When t r a n s l a t e d
from the code o f dimensions and t h e i r v a l u e s which
p a n i e s the t a b l e , the l e t t e r s
accom-
i n the t a b l e mean t h a t
When a lawyer (law s t u d e n t ) c a l l s a person a 'defense lawyer', he i s u s i n g a term - t h a t i s d e s c r i p t i v e o f the man's p r a c t i c e (B on 1.1); - t h a t i s not used on c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , but may be s a i d about a lawyer on a c a s e , and a l s o where no p a r t i c u l a r case i s i n v o l v e d (B and C, on 2.1); - t h a t i s used when t h e speaker i s t a l k i n g t o o t h e r l a w y e r s ; a l s o when he i s t a l k i n g t o nonlawyers (A and B, on 2.2); The r e f e r e n t o f the term: - (3.1) may be s p e c i a l i z i n g i n c r i m i n a l work ( B ) , o r e l s e i n the a r e a o f c i v i l p r a c t i c e c a l l e d ' i n s u r a n c e .law' ( A c ) ; - (3.2) does a l o t o f t r i a l work, r e p r e s e n t i n g defendants (Ab); - (3.3) has c l i e n t s who r e t a i n h i s s e r v i c e s i n d i v i d u a l l y ( A ) ; - (3.4) appears i n t r i a l c o u r t t o do h i s work ( A a ) ; - (3.5) has an independent p r a c t i c e (C) ( B l a c k and Metzger, 1965: 161). Such an account was n o t , however, to be taken as f i n a l
results.
The c h a r t r e p r e s e n t s a stage i n t h e e l i c i t i n g - a n a l y s i s - v a l i d a t i o n process. I t i s n e i t h e r the complete corpus of frames, terms, and responses by which the i n f o r m a t i o n was o b t a i n e d , nor a f i n a l e l e g a n t a n a l y s i s o f minimal d i f f e r e n c e s i n c r i t e r i a g o v e r n i n g s e l e c t i o n o f lawyer r e f e r e n c e . t e r m s . I t i s simply a working d e v i c e c o n s t r u c t e d by the ethnographer i n the f i e l d a t a p o i n t i n t h e e l i c i t i n g where a s y s t e m a t i c v a l i d a t i o n o f data was des i r e d ( B l a c k and Metzger, 1965: 156). (The D o c t o r s Study was c a r r i e d t o a s i m i l a r
stage.)
The p r o c e s s of e l i c i t i n g - a n a l y s i s - v a l i d a t i o n c o n s i s t e d o f (1) l e a r n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e n a t i v e - l a n g u a g e q u e s t i o n s ( f o r example, "what k i n d s o f l e g a l p r a c t i c e a r e t h e r e ? " ) , (2) p r e s e n t i n g these q u e s t i o n frames t o the i n f o r m a n t , s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e lawyer terms i n t h e frame ( f o r example, "Does the A t t o r n e y General p r e s s l i t i g a t i o n ? " , lawyer p r e s s l i t i g a t i o n ? "
"Does t h e defense
"Does t h e [ X ] . . . . ? " ) , and (3) d e t e r m i n i n g t h e
minimal s e t o f q u e s t i o n s that w i l l d i s c r i m i n a t e a l l the terms.
66
The Doctors
Study was e s s e n t i a l l y a r e p l i c a t i o n o f the Lawyers
Study as d e s c r i b e d h e r e .
The D o c t o r s
Study
Eliciting
Over a p e r i o d o f a y e a r and a h a l f the author made s e v e r a l v i s i t s to the P a e d i a t r i c s Department o f the F a c u l t y o f Medicine Canadian u n i v e r s i t y . There he conducted
o f a l a r g e Western
The department i s s i t u a t e d i n a l a r g e c i t y
hospital.
formal i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t h r e e i n f o r m a n t s , and i n f o r m a l
i n t e r v i e w s w i t h two i n f o r m a n t s , one informant b e i n g i n both
groups.
The
seven o r e i g h t hours o f t a l k were t a p e - r e c o r d e d , and the b u l k of them t r a n scribed. ists,
The i n f o r m a n t s were d o c t o r s .
the one b e i n g a r e s i d e n t .
A l l but one were p a e d i a t r i c
special-
As a p a r t i a l t e s t a f u r t h e r i n t e r v i e w was
r e c o r d e d much l a t e r i n the home o f a g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r . The
first
i n f o r m a l i n t e r v i e w was d i r e c t e d a t d i s c o v e r i n g r e l e v a n t
q u e s t i o n s and a s c e r t a i n i n g the rough b o u n d a r i e s formal i n t e r v i e w w i t h the same informant
o f t h e domain.
A
second,
furnished a f a i r l y d e f i n i t e
l e c t i o n o f terms and some p o s s i b l e dimensions
on which they
col-
varied.
F u r t h e r f o r m a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a n t s were done t o check s t a b i l i t y o f responses, t o encounter
p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n , and t o e n l a r g e the
corpus. The main e l i c i t i n g [X] a r e t h e r e ? " .
d e v i c e was the q u e s t i o n - f r a m e ,
Responses became the terms i n new frames.
"What k i n d s o f I n t h i s way,
67
f o l l o w i n g the formal e l i c i t i n g
method, an attempt
was
taxonomic i n c l u s i o n r e l a t i o n s among the c o l l e c t i o n . s i o n a c c o r d i n g t o ? " was
one
frame used
to e l i c i t
As w i t h the Lawyers Study, the e l i c i t i n g , as a continuous
process.
The
made t o exhaust
the
"What i s t h i s a
dimensions
of
divi-
difference.
v a l i d a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o c c u r r e d
r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d are d i s p l a y e d i n the f o l l o w i n g
section.
Results
T a b l e I I g i v e s the p r i n c i p a l Study, and i s modelled
(ethnosemantic)
r e s u l t s of the
on T a b l e I of the Lawyers Study.
Doctors
T a b l e I I I i s the
key t o the symbols i n T a b l e I I , the Lawyers Study a g a i n p r o v i d i n g the model. With two III
are s u f f i c i e n t
s e t s of e x c e p t i o n s the dimensions
and v a l u e s g i v e n i n T a b l e
to u n i q u e l y d i s c r i m i n a t e a l l the terms i n T a b l e I I .
" G a s t r o e n t e r o l o g i s t " , f o r example, i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from " h a e m a t o l o g i s t " a d i f f e r e n t v a l u e on the dimension two
"system o f the body"; the f i r s t
The
first
D e t a i l s are not g i v e n i n the t a b l e s but
vary a c c o r d i n g t o the stage reached
these terms
i n t r a i n i n g towards a s p e c i a l t y ;
a r e marked by y e a r s spent and exams passed. exceptions.
in
s e t of e x c e p t i o n s i s the group o f " t r a i n i n g " terms -
resident, interne, etc.
of
of the
terms i n d i c a t e s a s p e c i a l t y i n the i n t e s t i n a l t r a c t , the second
blood.
by
they
Synonyms form the second
set
" D o c t o r " and " p h y s i c i a n 1" appear to be synonymous w i t h i n
the m e d i c a l domain, though c e r t a i n p r a c t i t i o n e r s on the margins of the medi c a l p r o f e s s i o n - o p t o m e t r i s t s , c h i r o p r a c t o r s , osteopaths t h a t l a b e l by some.
" N e p h r o l o g i s t " and
" g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r " and
- seem t o
warrant
" r e n o l o g i s t " are synonymous, as are
"family physician".
TABLE I L CHART OF REFERENCE TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS
1 KIND OF TERM
2
3 KIND OF WORK
BASIS OF SPECIALTY
p h y s i c i a n 1.
A
0
0
doctor
A
0
0
p h y s i c i a n 2.
Be
B
o.
surgeon
Be
A
0
general p r a c t i t i o n e r
Bb
B or 0
Ga
family
Bb
B or 0
Ga
C
B
Gb
psychiatrist
C
B
D
neonatologist
C
B
Bb
perinatologist
C
B
Ba
paediatrician
C
B
Be
internist
C
B
Bd
geriatrician
C
B
Be
cardiologist
C
B
Aa
dermatologist
C
B
Ah.
gastroenterologist
C
B
Ai
endocrinologist
C
B
Aj
nephrologist
C
B
Ak
renologist
C
B
Ak
neurologist
C
B
Ac
physiatrist
C
B
Ae
rheumatologist
C
B
?
respirologist
C
B
Ab
haematologist
C
B
Am
physician
public health
Continued
doctor
TABLE I I (Continued) CHART OF REFERENCE TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS
1
2
3
KIND OF TERM
KIND OF WORK.
BASIS OF SPECIALTY
anaesthetist
C
B
Ea
radiologist
C
B
Eb
pathologist
C
B
F
obstetrician
C
A
Ba
gynaecologist
C
A
C
ophthalmologist
C
A
Ad
urologist
C
A
Ag
otolaryngologist
C
A
Af
cardiovascular
C
A
Aa
C
A
Ab
C
A
Ac
C
A
Ae
C
A
Ah
intern
Ba
0
0
resident
Ba
0
0
fellow
Ba
0
0
certificate
Ba
0
0
thoracic
surgeon
surgeon
neurosurgeon orthopaedic plastic
"0"
surgeon
surgeon
Not r e l e v a n t
70
TABLE I I I CODE OF SEMANTIC DIMENSIONS
KIND OF TERM A
g e n e r a l term d e s c r i p t i v e o f a l l persons who have passed t h e i r m e d i c a l exams
B
d e s c r i p t i v e o f " p o s i t i o n i n the p r o f e s s i o n " tice" a i n training b i n general p r a c t i c e c
C
or " l e v e l of prac-
specialist
d e s c r i p t i v e of s p e c i a l t y
KIND OF WORK A
"operates"
B
does not " o p e r a t e "
BASIS OF SPECIALTY A
B
system o f the body a heart b chest c brain d eyes e bones f e a r , nose and t h r o a t g urinary t r a c t h external parts i intestinal tract j hormone system k. k i d n e y s m blood age a f o e t u s and new borns b new borns c children d adults e the o l d
C
sex (women)
D
mental/physical dualism
E
technology a
anaesthetizing
F
live/dead
tissue
G
private/public a private
(mental)
b
X-rays
b
public
(dead)
health
71
The "productivity"
last
two p r o v i d e
(Frake,
an i n t e r e s t i n g case o f the " c r e a t i v i t y " or
1962: 78) w i t h i n t h i s system of terms.
2" i s a c o v e r term f o r a l l those d o c t o r s specialties.
"Physician
i n m e d i c a l r a t h e r than s u r g i c a l
The movement w i t h i n the p r o f e s s i o n t o make g e n e r a l
or family
p r a c t i c e i n t o a m e d i c a l s p e c i a l t y i s marked by the c o i n a g e o f t h e new term, "family physician", tus.
"physician" being
the term i n d i c a t i n g the d e s i r e d s t a -
Why, when p u b l i c h e a l t h became a s p e c i a l t y , the term " p u b l i c h e a l t h
p h y s i c i a n " d i d not a r i s e r e q u i r e s a d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n .
That p u b l i c
h e a l t h does not enjoy the s o c i a l s t a t u s o f the o t h e r m e d i c a l s p e c i a l t i e s i s no doubt r e l a t e d t o i t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s b e i n g known as " p u b l i c h e a l t h More g e n e r a l l y , f u r t h e r terms can be c r e a t e d ways.
i n at l e a s t
doctors". three
(1) Combining s p e c i a l t y names produces such forms as " p a e d i a t r i c
c a r d i o l o g i s t " and " h a e m a t o l o g i c a l p a t h o l o g i s t " . combined w i t h one o f a number of more g e n e r a l general
(2) A s p e c i a l t y name can be
terms:
general p a e d i a t r i c i a n g e n e r a l surgeon general p a t h o l o g i s t (cf. general h o s p i t a l )
(3)
primary care
p r i m a r y care p a e d i a t r i c i a n
anatomical
anatomical p a t h o l o g i s t
ambulatory
ambulatory p a e d i a t r i c i a n
adolescent
adolescent
diagnostic
diagnostic radiologist
therapeutic
therapeutic r a d i o l o g i s t
Particularly
i n the f i e l d
of research
a r e spawned by combining " m e d i c a l "
paediatrician
( l a b o r a t o r y medicine) s p e c i a l t i e s
w i t h the name o f t h e r e l e v a n t
science -
72
"medical b i o c h e m i s t " ,
"medical m i c r o b i o l o g i s t " , "medical g e n e t i c i s t " . . . .
Though immunology i s a s c i e n c e ,
" c l i n i c a l immunology" i s y e t a
m e d i c a l s p e c i a l t y r a t h e r than a l a b o r a t o r y m e d i c a l s p e c i a l t y .
clinical We
have
not
drawn on t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n s p e c i f y i n g the dimensions of Tables
and
I I I ; our
preserving it
g o a l t h e r e was
merely to d i s c r i m i n a t e a l l the terms
the emic [ P i k e , 1967]
distinctions).
i n the taxonomy shown as F i g u r e
However, we
II
(while
have i n c l u d e d
2.
Many of the terms have a h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t i s u s e f u l l y presented
i n the form of a taxonomic diagram.
F i g u r e 2 r e q u i r e comment. emes".
Several points
about
(1) There i s the problem of e s t a b l i s h i n g " l e x -
Taken s t r i c t l y , C o n k l i n ' s
c r i t e r i o n f o r i d e n t i f y i n g a lexeme -
t h a t " i t s meaning cannot be deduced from i t s grammatical s t r u c t u r e " ( C o n k l i n , 1962: geon" and be).
121)
- would mean t h a t o n l y " d o c t o r " ,
the t r a i n i n g
terms are t r u e lexemes ( s u g g e s t i v e
"ist".
guished
(the meaning o f ? ) ; t h e morphemes " c a r d i o " ,
s e g r e g a t e l a b e l whose f u n c t i o n i n naming cannot be
from t h a t of forms l i k e
[surgeon]"
(1962: 78).
l e t the s p e c i a l t y names d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u r e 0 2e stand T
(2) with
though t h a t
may
"logo",
However, as Frake p o i n t s out, a form such as [ c a r d i o l o g i s t ]
" i s a standard
we
"sur-
The meaning of terms l i k e " c a r d i o l o g i s t " , f o r example, i s p r e d i c t -
a b l e from a knowledge of and
"physician",
For
this
distinreason
as lexemes.
However, not a l l taxa, or s l o t s i n the taxonomy, are
a lexeme (even so b r o a d l y
on the diagram by
defined).
q u o t a t i o n marks.
non-lexemic, or s e m a n t i c a l l y
Non-lexemic terms are
labelled
identified
For example, though i t s l a b e l s are
endocentric
( C o n k l i n , 1962:
121,
132),
the
FIGURE 2 PARTIAL TAXONOMY OF TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS
(Mgdical).. D o c t o r / P h y s i c i a n
"Specialist"
Physician
i
1
GP
l
Pa
" C l i n i c a l Phys."
i r~i—i PH
PS
Nn
GP
General P r a c t i t i o n e r
Nn
Neonatologist
C
Cardiologist
N
Neurologist
U
Urologist
Pe D Ph
Op
n
1
"Lab. Phys."
i
Surgeon
Pe
i i P
Pa
(Surgeon?)
i i i i i i i i I
Ge
C
D
G
Pathologist
Perinatologist
Dermatologist Physiatrist
Ophthalmologist
P G
0
E
PH
Np
Ph
Paediatrician
Gastu@enterologist
Resident
i
0 Gy
i I i Ot
U
P u b l i c H e a l t h Doctor
Obstetrician R
N
i
Gy In
I E
Internist
Ps
R
In
?
?
Psychiatrist Ge
Endocrinologist
Gynaecologist Interne
Op
Ot
Geriatrician Np
Nephrologist
Otolaryngologist
d i s t i n c t i o n between " l a b o r a t o r y p h y s i c i a n " and " c l i n i c a l p h y s i c i a n " i s important i n t h a t i t i s drawn by the Royal C o l l e g e o f P h y s i c i a n s geons of Canada w i t h
respect
to the examination o f c a n d i d a t e s ;
and S u r -
i t also
r e f l e c t s a d i f f e r e n c e o f emphasis as between " t h e c a r e of p a t i e n t s " nical specialties) ties).
and the "study o f d i s e a s e p e r s e " ( l a b o r a t o r y
(cli-
special-
Whether " s p e c i a l i s t " i s lexemic o r not i s both moot and o f l i t t l e
import f o r t h i s work. (3) 132)
I n common w i t h
taxonomies from o t h e r domains ( C o n k l i n , 1962
t h e m e d i c a l taxonomy has t e r m i n a l taxa
l e v e l o f t h e taxonomy) which a r e l e x e m i c , labelled
(4)
has t h e f a m i l i a r
labelled.
The names f o r
described. The domain o f m e d i c a l
problem of t h e same term o c c u r r i n g a t d i f f e r e n t " P h y s i c i a n " i s both a p e r m i s s i b l e
term f o r the domain, c o n t r a s t i n g w i t h (lawyer,
ways a l r e a d y
Not a l l taxa a r e u n i q u e l y
l e v e l s o f the taxonomic h i e r a r c h y .
kers
plus a host of non-lexemically
c a t e g o r i e s below the l e v e l o f t h e t e r m i n a l t a x a .
these a r e formed i n the c o m b i n a t o r i a l
doctors
( t h a t i s , those a t the lowest
the names o f o t h e r
cover
p r o f e s s i o n a l wor-
t e a c h e r . . . ) , and a c l a s s of s p e c i a l i s t , c o n t r a s t i n g
with
"surgeon". (5)
Some terms c o n t r a s t a t d i f f e r e n t
levels.
"Surgeon", f o r
example, c o n t r a s t s w i t h
" p h y s i c i a n " a t i t s own l e v e l , and w i t h
at
The d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f c o n t r a s t w i t h i n a taxonomic
the t e r m i n a l l e v e l .
"resident"
h i e r a r c h y have been a b l y d i s c u s s e d by Kay (1966b; 1971). (6)
While the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s p o r t r a y e d
ment a r e ones a t t e s t e d to by i n f o r m a n t s '
i n t h i s semantic arrangi
responses, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
formula-
75
t i o n i s the a u t h o r ' s .
I t i s not c l e a r to what extent any s i n g l e i n f o r m a n t
"knows" the domain q u i t e i n t h i s way.
The q u e s t i o n i s thus r a i s e d of the
p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y or c o g n i t i v e v a l i d i t y o f such an a n a l y s i s . an a b i d i n g concern both of (ethno-)semantics and of l i n g u i s t i c s 1970:
24-25) .
( f o r example, W a l l a c e ,
( f o r example, on Chomsky, H o c k e t t , 1968:
I t i s an i s s u e o f importance
This i s
42,and
1965) Lyons,
to the argument of t h i s work,
but not i n the form addressed by these w r i t e r s ; we
take i t up i n the next
chapter. One
seemingly important d i v i s i o n i s not shown on the taxonomy.
I t i s the t r i p a r t i t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n - i n t e r n i s t / p a e d i a t r i c i a n / g e n e r a l s u r geon.
T h i s was
mant diagram
put forward by two
( C o n k l i n , 1964)
informants.
In an ethnomodel, o r i n f o r -
drawn by one of them, these t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s
o c c u p i e d a " c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n between" g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s and more s p e c i a l ized s p e c i a l t i e s .
By "between" i s meant t h a t i n the i n f o r m a n t ' s scheme o f
t h i n g s the domain o f m e d i c i n e was r o u t e " - from g.p.s
o r g a n i z e d i n the form of a
(supported by para-medics)
by l a b o r a t o r y and s u b - s p e c i a l t i e s ) .
more s p e c i a l i z e d d o c t o r s .
Any
to s p e c i a l i s t s
the m i d d l e r e g i o n ,
clinical-medical specialist
could, without
( i f dealing mostly with
[X] ( i f d e a l i n g m o s t l y w i t h c h i l d r e n ) .
" t r u e " or "sub-" s p e c i a l i s t s ,
supposed-
and d i s p a t c h i n g them,where n e c e s s a r y , to
c o n t r a d i c t i o n , a l s o c a l l h i m / h e r s e l f an i n t e r n i s t adults) or a p a e d i a t r i c
(supported
The " g e n e r a l s p e c i a l t i e s " - i n t e r n a l
medicine, p a e d i a t r i c s , g e n e r a l s u r g e r y - occupy l y r e c e i v i n g p a t i e n t s from g.p.s
"treatment
U n l i k e the
the i n t e r n i s t , g e n e r a l p a e d i a t r i c i a n and
e r a l surgeon p r a c t i c e i n most or a l l systems o f the body.
gen-
76
T h i s d i v i s i o n may who
p r a c t i c e there.
The
this classification,
a t t a c h o n l y to h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g s and
g.p.
who
served
e i t h e r spontaneously
t h e r e i s the s p e c i a l t y , r e c o g n i s e d by f e r e d by of
as informant
informants,
t h r e e terms a l r e a d y
or when asked.
the Royal
of g e n e r a l p a t h o l o g y .
l a b o r a t o r y medicine,
and
reproduce
In a d d i t i o n ,
I t i n c l u d e s a l l the
thereby would seem to share
of-
divisions
the s t a t u s of
the
discussed.
the r e s u l t s presented corpus a r e presented
a r e not
the " f i n a l
results".
( f o r example, " s y p h i l o l o g i s t " ,
of dimensions and v a l u e s i s not
d e v i s e d , nor
those
C o l l e g e (1973) but not
I t should be s t r e s s e d a g a i n t h a t , as w i t h
set
d i d not
to
the Lawyers Study, Not
a l l terms i n the
"oncologist").
the most parsimonious t h a t c o u l d
the most e l a b o r a t e - the system-of-the-body components
i n T a b l e I I I a r e merely g l o s s e d r a t h e r than g i v e n f u l l
extensions.
The be listed No
attempt has been made to s p e c i f y " c o r e " terms and g e n e r a t i v e r u l e s f o r predicting
the o t h e r
terms.
We would concur with S c h e f f l e r and
Lounsbury
t h a t a n a l y s e s such as those g i v e n h e r e a r e " l i t t l e more than simple g r a p h i c statements"
(1971:
Nevertheless, s i o n " of f i n a l
143).
as w i t h the Lawyers Study, the r e s u l t s a r e a " v e r -
r e s u l t s , being
i n our
case adequate f o r our purposes.
q u e s t i o n remains, of course, whether o r not r e s u l t s of any otherwise,
ever a v o i d b e i n g always and
T h i s i s s u e w i l l be
ethno-
t r e a t e d i n the next
kind, f i n a l
The or
o n l y "adequate f o r some purpose". chapter.
77
CHAPTER EIGHT TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS - ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
The through
g r e a t b u l k of s o c i o l o g i c a l and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l data i s gained
talk.
These d i s c i p l i n e s may be unique
about t h i s t h e i r p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h method.
i n knowing next
to n o t h i n g
The i n t e r v i e w i s the s t a n d a r d
1 form of the t a l k i n g method.
Ethnosemantics 2
method c a l l e d f o r m a l e l i c i t i n g . mal
eliciting,
ter r e v i s i t s
i s known f o r t h a t i n t e r v i e w
Chapter Four c o n t a i n e d a c r i t i q u e of f o r -
a c r i t i q u e done a t one remove from d a t a .
The p r e s e n t chap-
t h a t c r i t i q u e , o n l y now i n terms of d a t a .
The p r e v i o u s chapter presented r e s u l t s based i n t e r v i e w s i n which an attempt
on data gained
was made to use f o r m a l e l i c i t i n g .
i n t e r v i e w t a l k was seen and used as a d a t a - g e n e r a t i n g d e v i c e . the p r e s e n t chapter c o n s i d e r s t h a t t a l k as a c o n v e r s a t i o n . characteristics ethnosemantic
from
The
In c o n t r a s t
Given
certain
o f c o n v e r s a t i o n we r a i s e q u e s t i o n s about the s t a t u s of the
r e s u l t s o f the p r e v i o u s
chapter.
Given the mind-bending n a t u r e of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and
"indexical"
analysis,
what we o f f e r here i s a s e r i e s
of remarks r a t h e r than a f i n i s h e d
product:
"our work i s now both too e m p i r i c a l to ' f o l l o w from' a theory of
s o c i e t y and too young to propose one" (Moerman, 1972: 198). A t l e a s t two k i n d s of c r i t i c a l m a t e r i a l can be found i n the i n t e r view t r a n s c r i p t s .
(1)
Reading "on the s u r f a c e " , as an e t h n o s e m a n t i c i s t
might do, we c a n f i n d numerous s u b s t a n t i v e " v a r i a t i o n s " , and " d o u b t f u l d a t a " .
These items
"inconsistencies"
can be t r e a t e d i n two ways:
(a) i n terms
78
of them we
could
engage the ethsemist
the o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s ; (b) we
i n a debate d i r e c t e d a t the r e p a i r o f
c o u l d , however, see
p o i n t i n g to the i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f
those "problems" as
( f i n a l ) r e p a i r of t h a t a n a l y s i s .
We
s h a l l t r y to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n what f o l l o w s . (2) of data on
Reading "below the s u r f a c e " we
to do w i t h
can d i s c o v e r another
the s t r u c t u r e of t a l k i t s e l f .
order
A t t h i s l e v e l what appears
the s u r f a c e as mere v a r i a t i o n r e c e i v e s some m o t i v a t i o n .
We
s h a l l try
to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s a l s o .
Some Data 3 Following
ethnosemantic precedent I
sought f i r s t
the e x i s t e n c e of a domain, to d i s c o v e r a m e a n i n g f u l and about the domain, and w i t h which to b e g i n
to use
such a q u e s t i o n
e l i c i t i n g proper.
of the f i r s t p a r t of the f i r s t s h a l l be making i m p l i c i t and
comparison w i t h
Metzger (1965: 147-153), and
Frake (1962) and
T y l e r (1969c:
beginning
question
to generate a l i s t o f terms a transcript
In d i s c u s s i n g the t r a n s c r i p t s I the e l i c i t i n g d i s p l a y e d i n B l a c k
the h y p o t h e t i c a l exchanges g i v e n i n
12).
"Before
Notice
with
productive
The Appendix c o n t a i n s
interview.
to e s t a b l i s h
We
Start"
that, i n keeping with
of the i n t e r v i e w i s absent.
a l l ethnosemantic d i s c u s s i o n , The
work of i n t r o d u c t i o n ,
arranging
of s e a t i n g , p l u g g i n g - i n of r e c o r d e r , mutual s i z i n g - u p of ethnographer informant
- a l l t h i s goes, l i t e r a l l y , w i t h o u t s a y i n g .
The
the
and
same i s t r u e of
79
the work t h a t produced the o c c a s i o n p r i o r to i t s happening - the phonecalls,
explanations,
date-settings.
Here i s p a r t of my
first
field
note.
We walked over to King's o f f i c e where I was i n t r o d u c e d . Boxer left. " E x p l a i n e d " my s t a t u s and the p r o j e c t to Tom K i n g . He wanted to know what I would do w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n . I t a l k e d about "semant i c s p a c e " and assured him t h a t no c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was involved. In u s i n g the term "names" I was h e a r d as meaning p e r s o n a l names. C o r r e c t e d t h a t . He phoned Doug Race i n the I.C.N., t o l d him I was a graduate student doing a paper or something, i n "language-semantics", and he used the term " s t a t i s t i c s " to e x p l a i n the n a t u r e of the r e s u l t s . Then he t o l d me about Doug's rounds and s a i d I c o u l d see Doug a t 2:00 p.m. t h a t a f t e r n o o n . . . . Got to I.C.N, at 2:10 p.m Race doing rounds. By 2:25 p.m. he had f i n i s h e d , we had found a room, plugged i n tape r e c o r d e r , switched on l i g h t , found out how to make r e c o r d e r work, and were ready to go. I e x p l a i n e d who I was (grad. s t u d e n t , d i s s e r t a t i o n ) and what I wanted': t h a t I was i n t e r e s t e d i n the "world of medic i n e " and wanted to get i n t o t h a t by way o f the names f o r the d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of what Tom King c a l l s " s p e c i a l t i e s " . The informant
p o i n t of t h i s i s t h a t the i n t e r v i e w between ethnographer
does not take p l a c e i n a s o c i a l vacuums.
the ethnographer i s necessary work throws i n t o r e l i e f informants.
The
to g a i n access
ethnographer i s c o n s t r a i n e d
presence, i d e n t i t y and
proposed a c t i v i t y .
I n t e r a c t i o n a l work by
to the i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g .
the a l r e a d y o r g a n i z e d
and
scenes of the l i v e s of
Such
the
to p r o v i d e an account of h i s
Not
o n l y i s the
ethnographic
e x e r c i s e conducted from w i t h i n the s o c i e t y (Turner, 1970a: 177),
but
the
s o c i e t y l i m i t s what can be d i s c o v e r e d about i t . In the c a s e of a ( s o c i a l - s c i e n t i f i c ) i n t e r v i e w , the account of h i m s e l f
to the informant
must i n c l u d e some v e r s i o n of what
i n t e r v i e w i s to be about.
One
s t r u c t u r e s the f i e l d
to i n v e s t i g a t i n g i t . The
prior
ethnographer's the
i n e v i t a b l y , as an i n t e r a c t i o n a l n e c e s s i t y , ethnographer's d e s i r e
to a v o i d imposing an a l i e n s t r u c t u r e on the n a t i v e domain remains an
ideal
80
only.
Not
about".
t h a t i t i s ever f i n a l l y c l e a r what the i n t e r v i e w i s o r was " a l l
"Rather
ethnographer
and
informant r e l y on each o t h e r to
a g a i n s t a background of some v e r s i o n of "what i t ' s a l l about". all
about" i s an unspoken r e s o u r c e of the encounter.
talk
"What i t ' s
T h i s reappears
below.
4 Lists
There i s a t e n s i o n i n the ethnosemantic avoiding predetermining answer. ter
the domain, and
Both a r e recommended
Four we
field
s i t u a t i o n between
i n s t r u c t i n g the informant how
( B l a c k , 1969) .
to
I n the l a s t s e c t i o n of Chap-
drew on G a r f i n k e l ' s remarks about how
i t is
...necessary to i n s t r u c t the c o n s t r u i n g member to a c t i n a c c o r dance w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i n o r d e r to guarantee t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t o r w i l l be a b l e to study t h e i r usages as i n s t a n c e s of the usages the i n v e s t i g a t o r has i n mind ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967a [1964] : 70). I
encountered
response
to my
(2).
I:
t h i s phenomenon i n t r y i n g t o cope w i t h the informant's opening
q u e s t i o n (Appendix,
(1)):
Yeah, I guess so.
I read t h i s as an i n v i t a t i o n f o r a c l a r i f i c a t i o n .
Now
how
is clarifying
done o t h e r than by f u r t h e r s p e c i f y i n g what I want to f i n d out? ticist
initial
As
ethnoseman-
I know t h a t , o p e r a t i o n a l l y , I have found a domain i f the informant
produce a l i s t
i n response
to a "What k i n d s of
to be
[x] a r e t h e r e ? " q u e s t i o n .
can And,
presumably, t h a t i s an i s s u e t h a t one s h o u l d be a b l e to s e t t l e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o mentioning ways f a i l
that a l i s t to produce a
i s what i s wanted; f o r , a f t e r a l l , list.
the informant can a l
81
But what does the p r o d u c t i o n
of a l i s t
tell?
That the i n f o r m a n t i s
unpacking a c o g n i t i v e arrangement i n h i s head which r e q u i r e s o n l y question his
own
for i t s e l i c i t a t i o n ? "methodological"
Or
ability
i s i t rather to "do"
the
right
t h a t the i n f o r m a n t i s e x p l o i t i n g
a list,
s i n c e t h a t i s what I s a i d I
wanted? Compare a shopping l i s t . a member can
construct
Would i t be c o r r e c t to i n f e r
a shopping l i s t ,
the items on
the l i s t
s t o r e d i n some f a s h i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the s t r u c t u r e o f the I propose, r a t h e r ,
that l i s t s
are always and
purpose, t h e i r s t r u c t u r e speaking to the o c c a s i o n at
the same time as c o n s t i t u t i n g t h a t o c c a s i o n .
the informant e x p l o i t s h i s l i s t - m a k i n g to-my-question.
In so doing he
more l i s t a b l e s - "doctors
capacity
provides
connected w i t h "
are
mentally
list?
o n l y produced f o r some
f o r which they are Not
produced,
knowing q u i t e what I want,
to produce a c a n d i d a t e answer-
for himself (12).
t h a t , because
He
a device
for
shows he can
generating do a
list:
. . . s u b j e c t s , i n complying w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s demands and answeri n g h i s questions,may be doing no more, i n e f f e c t , then d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e i r agreement (with the i n v e s t i g a t o r ) t h a t such q u e s t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s a r e answerable and/or p e r m i s s i b l e , as the case may be ( E p l i n g , 1967: 261).
F o r m u l a t i n g and
Emergent Meaning
In a b s t r a c t i n g from u t t e r a n c e " p s y c h i a t r y " and
"surgery",
t r o l " of those items by to a p p r e c i a t e but
(12)
such l a b e l s as
I (as e t h s e m i s t ) am
the phrase " d o c t o r s
t h e i r s t a t u s as not simply
as elements i n a f o r m u l a t i o n
not
only
"public health",
i g n o r i n g the
connected w i t h " ,
but
am
"confailing
"precoded e n t r i e s on a memory drum"
of the f i e l d
- a formulation
rounded o f f
82
by
the c o n c l u d i n g words, " p r i m a r i l y when you say the d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f
p h y s i c i a n s , t h a t ' s p r i m a r i l y - w h a t i t means".
What one
f i n d s i n the t r a n s -
c r i p t s - both i n t h i s case and i n o t h e r s to be p r e s e n t e d p a r t i e s are engaged i n what we is
shall call
i n c o n t r a s t to what i s presupposed
s o c i o l o g i c a l and ethnosemantic
- i s t h a t both
"formulating-and-waiting".
of respondents
by both
This
traditional-
interviewing practices:
The t r a d i t i o n a l view of i n t e r v i e w i n g p r o v i d e s f o r a l o g i c of q u e s t i o n s and answers t h a t s t a n d a r d i z e s the output....The f o r mat i s seen as an obvious way to e l i c i t s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . How s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s o r g a n i z e d and how a c c e s s i s to be made i s not d e f i n e d as a s e r i o u s problem. The r e s e a r c h e r a s sumes the respondent w i l l be presented w i t h 'normal' speaking i n t o n a t i o n , s t a n d a r d i z e d s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s , and s t a n d a r d i z e d t o p i c s as indexed by the same l e x i c a l i t e m s . . . . The o r g a n i z a t i o n of s t o r e d e x p e r i e n c e s , however, may r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t formats and s u b r o u t i n e s f o r t h e i r e l i c i t a t i o n . The respondent's m o n i t o r i n g of h i s or her own output and the i n t e r viewer's r e a c t i o n s , p r o v i d e s a feedback t h a t can t r i g g e r o f f other items of s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t a s t a n d a r d i z e d . . . q u e s t i o n can b l o c k . P a r t i c i p a n t s u s u a l l y b e g i n an i n t e r v i e w w i t h vague c o n c e p t i o n s of what i s going to happen. They b e g i n to assume common meanings t h a t emerge i m p l i c i t l y and e x p l i c i t l y over the course of the i n t e r v i e w . These emergent meanings p r o v i d e an i m p l i c i t working background t h a t can h e l p c l a r i f y the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' q u e s t i o n s and answers. T h i s n e g o t i a t e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s o c c u r s i n a l l i n t e r v i e w i n g . . . . B u t these n e g o t i a t e d exchanges do not become p a r t of the d a t a base used f o r making i n f e r e n c e s r e f l e c t e d i n the f i n d i n g s (CicoureiL, f o r t h c o m i n g : [ms. ] 3-4, emphasis added).
What the l i s t w i l l interview. based
A f t e r the f i r s t
come to i n c l u d e develops
over
the c o u r s e o f
f o r m u l a t i o n ( u t t e r a n c e (12)) comes a
on p a e d i a t r i c i a n / s u r g e o n / i n t e r n i s t
((20)-(26)).
What can be made of
these i s s u b j e c t to r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the l i g h t of the s u r p r i s e by my
s u g g e s t i n g he be as e x h a u s t i v e as he
can:
second
elicited
the
83
(54)
I:
Oh r e a l l y ?
(55)
E:
Yeah.
(56)
I:
Oh my
5 lord.
A t t h i s p o i n t he i n t r o d u c e s the term " s p e c i a l i s t " together w i t h a systemsof-the-body (66)
d i v i s i o n as adevice I:
to o r g a n i z e the f i e l d :
...so t h a t every system o f t h e body you c a n t h i n k o f uh you c o u l d f i n d a s p e c i a l i s t . . . .
'Eater
still, (120)
I:
...I I guess r e a l l y you can't exclude I don't know how v a s t you want to go uh t h e r e ' s uh many d o c t o r s who many M.D.s who d e a l e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h r e s e a r c h . guess you'd have to put them i n t h e r e I'm s u r e
I there's
more.... Throughout I am responding w i t h "uhuh", and i n t h a t powerful way h e l p i n g to produce what I_ came to f o r m u l a t e as a l i s t d a t a f o r which the semantic
- a list
t h a t became my
arrangements proposed i n Chapter
"data",
Seven a r e t h e
analysis.
V a l i d a t i o n and V a r i a t i o n
In what we might c a l l
the "ethnosemantic f i e l d p r a c t i c e i d e o l o g y " ,
a f i r s t i n t e r v i e w i s p r o p e r l y seen as an e x p l o r a t o r y t a p p i n g o f the rough o u t l i n e s o f t h e domain. terviews
Controlled e l i c i t i n g
i s a f e a t u r e o f subsequent i n -
i n which the ethnographer probes deeper.
informants
Interviews with
different
then p r o v i d e v a l i d a t i o n and v a r i a t i o n . A t b e s t t h i s account
such i n t e r v i e w o c c a s i o n s .
Only
obscures
a t l e a s t t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s of
f o r the ethnographer i s any subsequent i n t e r v i e w
a "second" to a p r e v i o u s " f i r s t " , o r a " t h i r d " to a p r e v i o u s
"second", and so
84
on.
for
For each d i f f e r e n t
him or her a "new"
- not a " f i r s t " for
informant the encounter w i t h the ethnographer i s 6 occasion.
I t may
t u r n out to be a " s o l e " encounter
s i n c e t h e r e i s no "second" f o r i t to be a " f i r s t "
to.
Only
the ethnographer i s a d i f f e r e n c e a " v a r i a t i o n " from the norm, or a term
heard twice a " c o n f i r m i n g " i n s t a n c e .
Rather than b e i n g a method f o r d i s c o -
v e r i n g shared knowledge, ethsem must presuppose shared knowledge i n o r d e r to 7 find i t . One
t a c k t h a t can be taken i n a c r i t i q u e o f ethsem i s to c i t e c a s e s
which do not f i t the proposed semantic arrangement. produce from my
d a t a the l a b e l
" o p h t h a l m o l o g i s t " and the f o l l o w i n g
E:
Would you say an o p h t h a l m o l o g i s t was
I:
(4) of
So, f o r example, I can
a kind of physician?
An o p h t h a l m o l o g i s t might be more of a p h y s i c i a n or more a surgeon but b a s i c a l l y he would be more o f a p h y s i c i a n .
A c c o r d i n g to the R o y a l C o l l e g e , however, ophthalmology ( N o t i c e how would!
utterances:
i s a surgical
specialty.
I c i t e the R o y a l C o l l e g e as an a u t h o r i t y - j u s t as a member
T h i s i s taken up below.)
A l s o , I can c i t e the " d i a g n o s t i c p r o c e -
d u r e s " that a n e o n a t o l o g i s t performs t h a t can be g l o s s e d as "minor s u r g e r y " - though b e i n g p h y s i c i a n s they a r e not supposed
to o p e r a t e .
Similarly,
g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s w i l l perform c a e s a r i a n s e c t i o n s i f no o b s t e t r i c i a n i s available.
A p u b l i c h e a l t h d o c t o r may
a h o s p i t a l r e s i d e n t may
be a g.p.,
be a ( l i c e n s e d ) g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r ;
though i t i s not a l l o w e d ; and so on.
To argue thus, however, i s to engage the semantic ethnographer his
o r h e r own
ground.
The i d e o l o g i c a l response i s to improve
by b r i n g i n g the " v a r i a t i o n " i n t o the model. a u s p i c e s of such statements as
on
the a n a l y s i s
T h i s can be done under
the
85
V a r i a n t s are not mere d e v i a t i o n s from some assumed b a s i c o r g a n i z a t i o n ; w i t h t h e i r r u l e s o f o c c u r r e n c e they are the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( T y l e r , 1969c: 5 ) . V a r i a t i o n t h a t cannot be accommodated i n t h i s way
can be accounted f o r i n
terms of a domain's " f u z z y b o u n d a r i e s " or i n terms of " p r o b a b i l i s t i c s i d e r a t i o n s " , and
the l i k e .
The
con-
u l t i m a t e weapon i s to invoke the compe-
tence/performance d i s t i n c t i o n and
t r e a t "performance" as a r e s i d u a l c a t e -
gory or wastebasket f o r unexplained
variation.
A n a l y s i s c a r r i e d o u t under t h e s e assumptions a s s i m i l a t e s "approp r i a t e " use
of a term to ( s e m a n t i c a l l y )
c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s t s has observation,
" c o r r e c t " use.
What the work of
shown, and which i s i n i t s e l f
i s t h a t the " c o r r e c t n e s s " of a use
many purposes a s a n c t i o n a b l e ,
i s not
a commonplace
a n e c e s s a r y , or f o r
c r i t e r i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e use
(Moerman,
1972:
under a v i e w i n g
rule
199) . (1)
(2)
A:
Do
B:
No,
you want a c o f f e e ? I've
just
eaten.
( S i g n a d v e r t i s i n g book s a l e )
BOOKS AND
PAPERBACKS
These n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g events were " n o t i c e d " by me d e r i v e d from ethsem.
They c l e a r l y
c o n t r a d i c t simple
t h a t one might propose f o r the domains of " e a t i n g no
sooner i s one
the items and
confronted
the o c c a s i o n s
with
them than one
( ? ) " and
"books".
i n which they (might have) o c c u r r e d
Members r e l y on each o t h e r
Yet
i s e l a b o r a t i n g the sense o f
render those uses p l a u s i b l e ( c f . F i l l m o r e , 1973: i s members' work.
taxonomic r e l a t i o n s
285
fn. 3).
i n order This
to
activity
to f i n d a r u l e ( i n s t r u c t i o n -
86
Chapter
Two)
w i t h which to "see" the items as " r u l e - g o v e r n e d " ,
" r e g u l a r " , and
thereby o r d i n a r y and u n n o t i c e a b l e (Wieder,
"orderly",
1970:
134).
While, under some supposed " o b j e c t i v e " s t a n d a r d , I c o u l d from my
cull
i n t e r v i e w d a t a c o n t r a d i c t o r y uses of terms, i n d o i n g so I would
be f a i l i n g
to see t h a t f o r b o t h informant and
no problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
ethnographer
such uses r a i s e d
I t i s not t h a t " c o r r e c t n e s s " i s never
p o r t a n t , but t h a t i t s b e i n g important i s p r e c i s e l y what i s t r u e about i t .
f o r some purposes
im-
and not f o r o t h e r s
" C o r r e c t n e s s " i s always " c o r r e c t n e s s -
for-all-practical-purposes". I t i s e s s e n t i a l to r e a l i z e t h a t ' t r u e ' and ' f a l s e ' , l i k e ' f r e e ' and U n f r e e ' , do not stand f o r a n y t h i n g s i m p l e a t a l l ; but o n l y f o r a g e n e r a l dimension of b e i n g a r i g h t or proper t h i n g to say as opposed to a wrong t h i n g , i n these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , to t h i s audience, f o r these purposes and w i t h these i n t e n t i o n s ( A u s t i n , 1962: 144) .8 For many p r a c t i c a l purposes
but
c o r r e c t n e s s i s not o n l y not 9
to i n s i s t on i t i s to be seen as incompetent.
issue matters.
important,
For o t h e r purposes
the
Thus,
The American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n r e c e n t l y has been engaged i n a running argument w i t h the Department of Commerce to d e c i d e whether the p r a c t i c e of medicine i s a t r a d e or a p r o f e s s i o n (Bram, 1955: 4 6 ) . In a l e t t e r
to a newspaper c o n c e r n i n g l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s and withdrawal
s e r v i c e s by housemen ( r e s i d e n t s and
of
i n t e r n s ) i n the h o s p i t a l s of the p r o -
v i n c e , an i n t e r n w r i t e s , 'Interns a r e not d o c t o r s but s t u d e n t s working to become d o c t o r s ' . T h i s statement i s a m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the f a c t s . Mr. Brown has m i s l e d the media and the p u b l i c by f a i l i n g to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the terms d o c t o r (MD) and l i c e n s e d p h y s i c i a n . As the
87
r e g i s t r a r of the C o l l e g e o f P h y s i c i a n s of [ P r o v i n c e X] can c o n f i r m , a l l i n t e r n s i n [ P r o v i n c e X] a r e d o c t o r s h a v i n g graduated from approved u n i v e r s i t i e s . Is an o s t e o p a t h a d o c t o r ?
"Yes",
says one i n f o r m a n t .
R o y a l C o l l e g e o f P h y s i c i a n s and Surgeons of Canada. Canada Income Tax F i l i n g Guide, paragraph 49, M e d i c a l
"No", says the Compare the 1974 Expenses:
The f o l l o w i n g a r e the types o f expenses you may c l a i m : (a) payments to a h o s p i t a l or q u a l i f i e d m e d i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r , d e n t i s t o r nurse ( t h e e x p r e s s i o n 'medical p r a c t i t i o n e r ' i n cludes a q u a l i f i e d c h i r o p r a c t o r , C h r i s t i a n Science p r a c t i t i o n e r , naturopath, optometrist, osteopath, p o d i a t r i s t or t h e r a p e u t i s t ) ; (b)
(19).
The p o i n t o f these examples i s n o t t h a t any p o s i t i o n i s ( g o i n g t o be i n t h e end)
the one-and-only
r i g h t one.
The p o i n t i s t h a t h e r e we have members
d e f i n i n g terms and a p p e a l i n g to r e a s o n a b l e grounds to support t h e i r n i t i o n s because
i t matters.
defi-
I t i s not t h a t another member i s n o t e n t i t l e d
to f o r m u l a t e another d e f i n i t i o n and invoke r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r i t s adoption.
Rather, we a r e s a y i n g t h a t what one can f i n d i n the w o r l d a r e
members doing ethnographies f o r each o t h e r ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967b: 10) f o r some p r a c t i c a l purpose.
F o r the i n t e r n ,
the Royal C o l l e g e and Revenue Canada,
10 who g e t s to be c a l l e d f o r some purposes
"doctor"
i s a t some time, on some o c c a s i o n s , and
an important and c o n s e q u e n t i a l m a t t e r .
What m e d i c a l i n f o r m a n t s s u p p l y f o r semantic w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n of which the ethnographer p h i e s f o r the d i s i n t e r e s t e d
inquirer.
ethnographers, and
c o l l a b o r a t e s , a r e ethnogra-
They a r e "off-the-top-of-my-head",
" o f f h a n d " , " I ' v e - n e v e r - r e a l l y - d o n e - t h i s - b e f o r e " , "we-don't-know-oftenamong-ourselves-what-we-mean-by-the-designations-of-such-and-such", r e a l l y - o f - v a l u e - t o - y o u - i s - i t ? " ethnographies.
I t i s clear
"that's-
t h a t what i s
88
good enough f o r a s o c i a l - s c i e n t i f i c
i n t e r v i e w i s not n e c e s s a r i l y
f o r d e c i d i n g employment s t a t u s and wage s c a l e s .
What w i l l
adequate
pass'muster
i n a h a l f - h o u r ( i n t e r v i e w - ) c o n v e r s a t i o n between rounds w i l l n o t s a t i s f y the Royal C o l l e g e .
Indeed i t i s the l a t t e r ' s s p e c i f i c b u s i n e s s to s t i p u -
l a t e what-counts-as-a-kind-of-(medical)-X. i t s b u s i n e s s i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y else.
And because i t i s known to be
the (important) b u s i n e s s o f anybody
T h e i r b u s i n e s s can and does go on i r r e s p e c t i v e ,
sense, o f t e r m i n o l o g y .
i n an important
89
FOOTNOTES
1.
T h i s i s not to say t h a t s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s do not know how to i n t e r view. On the c o n t r a r y , they a r e ( o f t e n ) e x p e r t s . I t i s that very knowledge which has p r o v i d e d f o r the l a r g e s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on "the i n t e r v i e w " - a l i t e r a t u r e bent l a r g e l y on the improvement of the i n t e r v i e w as a r e s e a r c h t o o l ( c f . Manning, 1967; f o r the "medical s t u d e n t " case see Becker, 1956). But what i t i s we know i n knowing how to i n t e r v i e w i s l a r g e l y unknown. For knowing how to i n t e r v i e w d e r i v e s from knowing how to t a l k . Only i n the l a s t decade or so has t a l k been s t u d i e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y - by Sacks, S c h e g l o f f , T u r n e r , J e f f e r s o n and others.
2.
Though not the o n l y t a l k i n g method i n ethsem, i t i s the most i n t e n d e d l y r i g o r o u s one. While n o t i c e must be taken o f Frake's d i s c l a i m e r - "Let me emphasize.... t h a t I do not b e l i e v e an adequate ethnography can be produced from a r e c o r d o n l y of what people say, most e s p e c i a l l y i t cannot be produced from a r e c o r d o n l y of what p e o p l e say i n a r t i f i c i a l i n t e r v i e w i n g c o n t e x t s removed from the scene of t h e i r o r d i n a r y c u l t u r a l performances" (1964a: 133) - i t must be s a i d t h a t i t i s not c l e a r (1) how "anything more" would improve on the i n t e r v i e w p r o d u c t , nor (2) how t h a t "anything more" i s i t s e l f done. See the s e c t i o n on i n d e x i c a l i t y i n Chapter Four.
3.
In t a l k i n g about myself as i n t e r v i e w e r i t seems more n a t u r a l to " I " t h a n the "we" used h e r e t o f o r e .
4.
T h i s s e c t i o n on l i s t s has Dr. W.W. Sharrock.
5.
Here i s a s i m i l a r case from another
been r i c h l y
informed
by a c o n v e r s a t i o n
interview.
(In ing
a sequence of q u e s t i o n s aimed at f i n d i n g out of the s p e c i a l t y terms)
E:
Obstetrician?
I:
(5) uhm (4) women's d i s e a s e s and c h i l d r e n mothers
E: I:
the mean-
the d e l i v e r y of
Gynaecologist? UhnI suppose (draws i n b r e a t h q u i c k l y ) you're going to s p l i t i t l i k e t h a t then you'd c a l l an o b s t e t r i c i a n uhm one who would d e l i v e r b a b i e s and you'd c a l l the gynaec o l o g i s t a s p e c i a l i s t i n women's d i s e a s e s .
use
with
90
6.
Or perhaps whatever.
7.
N o t i c e , f u r t h e r , t h a t i n a b s t r a c t i n g c a t e g o r i e s from h i s u t t e r a n c e s I , the naive'ethnographer, am the one who i s d e c i d i n g what i s a good answer and what can be taken from such an answer. Somewhat i n r e v e r s e I depend, a t the same time, on h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g what I am about so t h a t I can then t r e a t h i s answers as n a i v e , as " c o n d i t i o n e d r e s p o n s e s " .
8.
In c o n t r a s t , compare B l a c k (1969:
9.
See
10.
an " i n t e r r u p t i o n " , " d e l a y " , " i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r l u d e " or
187
the s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d i n G a r f i n k e l
By " c a l l e d " we mean " r e f e r r e d as".
f n . 7). (1967a
[1964]).
to a s " , not ( n e c e s s a r i l y )
"addressed
91
CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSION TO PART
To g i v e substance i n P a r t Two
talk.
We
to the argument of P a r t One we have p r e s e n t e d
an ethnosemantic study and
t h a t study.
The c r i t i q u e was
suggested
impermissible
TWO
an e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e of
of ethsem's method of d e r i v i n g d a t a from
t h a t terms f u n c t i o n e d i n t a l k i n ways t h a t make i t
to a b s t r a c t them as l i s t s
under the assumption t h a t the
once o r d e r e d , r e p r e s e n t s a c o g n i t i v e map
of some s o r t .
Rather
list,
i t i s more
n e a r l y t r u e t h a t t h a t a b s t r a c t i n g depends i t s e l f on the v e r y c u l t u r a l competence i t i s a t t e m p t i n g to make of the semantic Chapter
to e x p l i c a t e .
arrangements, such as the c h a r t and
Seven, t h a t form ethnosemantic Simply
T h i s l e a v e s the q u e s t i o n o f what taxonomy i n
results.
put,
From the s t a n d p o i n t of ethnomethodology these a p p a r e n t l y def i n i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s appear as i d e a l i z a t i o n s of what members a r e d o i n g when they employ c a t e g o r i e s and c r i t e r i a (Wieder, 1970: 134). What one has
to know or b e l i e v e i n o r d e r to operate
i n a manner a c c e p t a b l e
to a s o c i e t y ' s members a r e j u s t such methods as " i d e a l i z i n g " , " a b s t r a c t i n g " , " f o r m u l a t i n g " and "stock uses"
the l i k e .
T h i s i s not to say t h a t terms do not have
(from R y l e , quoted i n Turner
say t h a t the c h o i c e of one
[1970a: 1 8 6 ] ) .
term over another
Rather,
i t i s to
i s not done from some d e f i n i t e
c o l l e c t i o n , or from a c o l l e c t i o n o r g a n i z e d i n a s e m a n t i c a l l y w e l l - f o r m e d way.
Such c o l l e c t i o n s and
t h e i r arrangements a r e , i n s t e a d , the accom-
p l i s h e d p r o d u c t i o n s of s k i l l e d other a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s .
ethnographers
such as m e d i c a l d o c t o r s
and
92
While the s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s , and assumptions
t o p i c of t h i s work has been the p r a c t i c e ,
about language c h a r a c t e r i z i n g one approach i n
a n t h r o p o l o g y known as ethnosemantics, we have hoped to speak a l s o to s o c iology generally. l e t me
Rather than attempt
c o n c l u d e w i t h a recommendation.
to summarize the whole d i s s e r t a t i o n It i s this.
S o c i o l o g y must r e -
d i s c o v e r p h i l o s o p h y - not the crude p o s i t i v i s m of c e r t a i n brands o f the p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e , but the p h i l o s o p h y of language, and perhaps menology.
The reason i s s i m p l y t h i s :
pheno-
both the d a t a ( i n huge p a r t ) and
the t h e o r i e s s o f s o c i o l o g y are l i n g u i s t i c
entities.
We
s h a l l r e t u r n once
more to ethsem to e l a b o r a t e the p o i n t , then l e a v e the l a s t word to W i t t genstein. As a f o o t n o t e to her uncompromising the Ojibwa
taxonomy of " l i v i n g
ethnosemantic
a n a l y s i s of
t h i n g s " , B l a c k says she p r e f e r s
...to l e a v e the arguments as to whether 'the w o r l d ' e x i s t s i n the d a t a , i n the ethnographer's d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s , o r i n the language used by one o r the o t h e r , to the p h i l o s o p h e r s ' o f f i c e s and b e h a v i o u r a l s c i e n c e graduate seminars, where such m a t t e r s a r e of consequence. While these d e c i s i o n s may be b a s i c to what an ethnographer does, the e x p e r i e n c e of c o n f r o n t i n g the 'raw' m a t e r i a l and l e a r n i n g from i t something you had not known b e f o r e need not w a i t upon t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n (1969: 187 f n . 4 ) . The l a s t sentence quoted
i s unexceptionable.
But g i v e n ethsem's theory
of language and p e r c e p t i o n (Chapter F o u r ) , one may
ask how
i t could
v i d e f o r " l e a r n i n g . . . s o m e t h i n g you had not known b e f o r e " (where now i s the n a t i v e ) .
Black
A c o n c l u s i o n o f t h i s work i s t h a t an adequate account o f '
t h a t p r o c e s s would needs invoke something interpretation.
pro-
l i k e the documentary method o f
T h i s , as can be seen, r e i n t r o d u c e s " p h i l o s o p h i c a l "
ques-
93
t i o n s i n t o the conduct o f e m p i r i c a l work.
Such q u e s t i o n s
to the p h i l o s o p h e r s '
o f f i c e s and graduate seminars.
l a t e r Wittgenstein's
philosophy
may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d
as c o n t r i b u t i o n s
C o n v e r s e l y , the
o f language and the w r i t i n g s of G a r f i n k e l to an "ethnography o f t h i n k i n g " ,
an e n t e r p r i s e t h a t i s both p h i l o s o p h i c a l and e m p i r i c a l . philosophy
cannot be l e f t
This kind of
i s s u r e l y not something a mature s c i e n c e o r s c i e n t i s t needs to
be s e p a r a t e d
from.
Rather t h e o p p o s i t e .
Throughout I have been a d d r e s s i n g
an i s s u e t h a t i s caught w e l l
i n t h e s e words: I t i s W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s l a t e r d o c t r i n e t h a t o u t s i d e human thought and speech t h e r e a r e no independent, o b j e c t i v e p o i n t s o f supp o r t , and meaning and n e c e s s i t y a r e p r e s e r v e d o n l y i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c p r a c t i c e s which embody them. They a r e s a f e o n l y because the p r a c t i c e s g a i n a c e r t a i n s t a b i l i t y from r u l e s . But even the r u l e s do n o t p r o v i d e a f i x e d p o i n t of r e f e r e n c e , because they always a l l o w d i v e r g e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . What r e a l l y g i v e s the p r a c t i c e s t h e i r s t a b i l i t y i s t h a t we agree i n our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the r u l e s . We c o u l d say t h a t t h i s i s f o r t u n a t e , except t h a t t h i s would be l i k e s a y i n g t h a t i t i s f o r t u n a t e t h a t l i f e on e a r t h t o l e r a t e s the e a r t h ' s n a t u r a l atmosphere. What we ought to say i s t h a t t h e r e i s as much s t a b i l i t y as t h e r e i s . T h i s extreme a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m produces a s t r a n g e e f f e c t on p e o p l e . They f e e l t h a t i t goes too f a r , and t h a t i t ought to be p o s s i b l e t o stop a t some e a r l i e r p o i n t , as W i t t g e n s t e i n h i m s e l f had done i n the T r a c t a t u s . But where? ( P e a r s , 1971: 168) .
94
LITERATURE CITED
R e p r i n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s g i v e n f o r many items though I have n o t t r i e d to be e x h a u s t i v e . Where an a r t i c l e was r e p r i n t e d i n one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g books I have used an a b b r e v i a t e d r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n : F-ishmanij.1968 = J.A. Fishman ( e d . ) , Readings i n the s o c i o l o g y o f language. The Hague: Mouton. Manners & Kaplan, 1968 = R.A. Manners and David K a p l a n ( e d s . ) , Theory i n a n t h r o p o l o g y : a sourcebook. Chicago:, A-ldine. T y l e r , 1969a = Stephen A. T y l e r ( e d . ) , C o g n i t i v e a n t h r o p o l o g y . H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston.
Ans comb e, G.E.M. 1958 "On b r u t e Atkins, 1968
facts."
New York:
A n a l y s i s 18: 69-72.
John R. and Luke C u r t i s "Game r u l e s and t h e r u l e s o f c u l t u r e . " Pp. 213-234 i n I.R. B u c h l e r and H.G. N u t i n i ( e d s . ) , Game theory i n the b e h a v i o r a l sciences. Pittsburgh: U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh Press.
Attewell, 1974
Paul "Ethnomethodology s i n c e G a r f i n k e l . " 179-210.
Theory and S o c i e t y 1:
A u s t i n , John L . 1962 How to do t h i n g s w i t h words: the:.=William J a m e s s l e c t u r e s d e l i v e r e d a t Harvard U n i v e r s i t y i n 1955. ( E d i t e d by J.O. Urmson.) New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . B a r - H i l l e l , Yehoshua 1964
Language and i n f o r m a t i o n : s e l e c t e d essays on t h e i r theory and application. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
1970 (1954)
"Indexical expressions". Pp. 69-88 i n Y. B a r - H i l l e l , A s p e c t s o f language. J e r u s a l e m : Magnes P r e s s . ( O r i g i n a l l y published i n Mind 63: 359-379 [1954].)
1970 (1963)
"Can i n d e x i c a l sentences stand i n l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s ? " Pp. 112115 i n Y. B a r - H i l l e l , A s p e c t s o f language. J e r u s a l e m : Magnes Press. ( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n P h i l o s o p h i c a l S t u d i e s 14: 8790 [1963].)
95
B a r - H i l l e l , Yehoshua 1970 " U n i v e r s a l semantics and the p h i l o s o p h y of language: quandaries (1969) and p r o s p e c t s " . Pp. 182-201 i n Y. B a r - H i l l e l , A s p e c t s of l a n guage. Jerusalem: Magnes P r e s s . ( O r i g i n a l l y published i n Jaan Puhvel ( e d . ) , Substance and s t r u c t u r e of language. Berk e l e y and Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1969, pp. 1-21.) 1970
A s p e c t s of language: essays and l e c t u r e s on p h i l o s o p h y of language, l i n g u i s t i c p h i l o s o p h y and methodology of l i n g u i s t i c s . Jerusalem: Magnes P r e s s ; Amsterdam: N o r t h - H o H a n d .
1971
"Out of the pragmatic wastebasket". 401-407.
L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry
2:
Basso, K e i t h 1972 "Ice and t r a v e l among the F o r t Norman S l a v e : f o l k taxonomies and c u l t u r a l r u l e s . " Language i n S o c i e t y 1: 31-49. Bauman, Zygmunt 1973 Becker, 1956 Bentley, 1945
Culture aiidpraxis.
London:
Routledge and Kegan P a u l .
H.S. "Interviewing medical 62: 199-201. A.F. "On 42:
students."
American J o u r n a l of
a c e r t a i n vagueness i n l o g i c I I . " 39-51.
J o u r n a l of
Sociology
Philosophy
Berger, Joseph, Bernard P. Cohen and M o r r i s Z e l d i t c h 1966 "Status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and e x p e c t a t i o n s t a t e s . " Pp. 29-46 i n J . Berger, M. Z e l d i t c h and B. Anderson ( e d s . ) , S o c i o l o g i c a l theories i n progress. Volume one. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . Berreman, 1966
1972
G.D. "Anemic and emetic a n a l y s e s i n s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . " A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 68: 346-354.
" S o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n urban I n d i a . " American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 74: 567-586.
B l a c k , Mary B. 1963 "On f o r m a l ethnographic 65: 1347-1351. 1969
American
procedures."
" E l i c i t i n g f o l k taxonomy i n Ojibwa." T y l e r ( e d . ) , C o g n i t i v e anthropology. and Winston.
American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t
Pp. 165-189 i n Stephen A. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t
96
B l a c k , Mary B. 1974 " B e l i e f systems". Pp. 509-577 i n John J . Honigmann ( e d . ) , Handbook of s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . C h i c a g o : Rand McNally. B l a c k , Mary B. and Duane Metzger 1965 " E t h n o g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n and the study o f law." Pp. 141-165 i n L a u r a Nader ( e d . ) , The ethnography o f law. (American Anthr o p o l o g i s t 66 [3] P a r t 2, s p e c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n . ) Menasha, Wisc o n s i n : American A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . (Reprinted i n T y l e r , 1969a, pp. 137-165.) B l a c k , Max 1962 (1958)
"The a n a l y s i s o f r u l e s . " Pp. 95-139 i n M. B l a c k , Models and metaphors. I t h a c a , New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . (Orig i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d as "Notes on the meaning o f ' r u l e ' " , i n T h e o r i a 24: 107-126, 139-161 [1958].)
1970
"Comment." Pp. 452-461 i n R. Borger and F. C i o f f i ( e d s . ) , E x p l a n a t i o n i n the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . London: Cambridge University Press.
Blum, A.F. and P e t e r McHugh 1971 "The s o c i a l a s c r i p t i o n o f m o t i v e s . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 36: 98-109. ( R e p r i n t e d , w i t h addendum, i n P. McHugh, S. R a f f e l , D.C. Foss and A.F. Blum, On the b e g i n n i n g s of social inquiry. London and B o s t o n : Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 19 74, pp. 21-46.) Bram, Joseph 1955
Language and s o c i e t y .
New
York:
Random House.
Bricker, 1974
V.R. "Some c o g n i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s of informant v a r i a b i l i t y i n Z i n a c a n t e c o speech c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . " Language i n S o c i e t y 3: 69-82. Bruner, J.S. 1957 "Going beyond the i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n . " Pp. 41-70 i n J.S. Bruner ( e d . ) , Contemporary approaches t o c o g n i t i o n : a symposium a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. Bruner, J.S., J . J . Goodnow and G.A. A u s t i n 1956 A study o f t h i n k i n g . New York:
John W i l e y .
97
B u c h l e r , I.R. 1964 "Measuring the development o f k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g i e s : - and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l accounts o f Crow-type systems." A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66: 765-788. Burks, A.W. 1949 " I c o n , i n d e x , and symbol." Research 9: 673-689.
scalogram American
P h i l o s o p h i c a l and Phenomenological
B u r l i n g , Robbins 1964a " C o g n i t i o n and componential a n a l y s i s : God's t r u t h o r hocuspocus." American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66: 20-28. ( R e p r i n t e d i n Manners and K a p l a n , 1968, pp. 514-519; and i n T y l e r , 1969a, pp. 419-428.) 1964b
Carnap, 1939
1942
" R e j o i n d e r . " American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66: 120-122. i n Manners and K a p l a n , 1968, pp. 521-523.)
(Reprinted
Rudolf Foundations o f l o g i c and mathematics. (International Encyclop a e d i a o f U n i f i e d S c i e n c e , V o l . 1, No. 3.) C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s . ( P a r t s 1 and 2 r e p r i n t e d i n J.A. Fodor and J . J . Katz [ e d s . ] , The s t r u c t u r e o f language. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1964, pp. 419-436.) I n t r o d u c t i o n to semantics. University Press.
Chomsky, Noam 1957 Syntactic structures.
Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s :
The Hague:
Harvard
Mouton.
1965
A s p e c t s o f the t h e o r y of syntax. M.I.T. P r e s s .
Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s :
1968
Language and mind. New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace and World. ( E n l a r g e d e d i t i o n , New York: H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h , 1972.)
1970a
"Problems o f e x p l a n a t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c s . " Pp. 425-451 i n R. Borger and F. C i o f f i ( e d s . ) , E x p l a n a t i o n i n the b e h a v i o r a l s c i ences. London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
1970b
"Reply." Pp. 462-470 i n R. Borger and F. C i o f f i ( e d s . ) , E x p l a n a t i o n i n the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.
C i c o u r e l , A.V. 1967 " K i n s h i p , m a r r i a g e , and d i v o r c e i n comparative Law and S o c i e t y Review 1 ( 2 ) : 103-129.
f a m i l y law."
98
Cicourel, 1970
A.V. "The a c q u i s i t i o n of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e : towards a developmental s o c i o l o g y o f language and meaning." Pp. 136-168 i n J.D. Douglas ( e d . ) , U n d e r s t a n d i n g everyday l i f e . Chicago: A l d i n e . (Orig i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n I t a l i a n i n 1968; E n g l i s h v e r s i o n r e p r i n t e d i n A.V. C i c o u r e l , C o g n i t i v e s o c i o l o g y . Harmondsworth: Peng u i n , 1973, pp. 42-73.)
n.d.
"Interviewing
Cohen, Bernard 1966
and
memory."
Theory and D e c i s i o n
(Forthcoming).
P.
"On the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s o c i o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s . " Unpubl i s h e d paper p r e s e n t e d at the annual meetings of the American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Miami, F l o r i d a .
Cohn, Werner 1962 "Is r e l i g i o n u n i v e r s a l ? Problems o f d e f i n i t i o n . " the S c i e n t i f i c Study of R e l i g i o n 2: 25-33.
Journal
for
1964
"What i s r e l i g i o n ? An a n a l y s i s f o r c r o s s - c u l t u r a l comparisons." J o u r n a l of C h r i s t i a n E d u c a t i o n 7: 116-138.
1967
" ' R e l i g i o n ' i n non-Western c u l t u r e s . " 69: 73-76.
1969
"On the problem of r e l i g i o n i n non-Western c u l t u r e s . " Intern a t i o n a l Yearbook of the S o c i o l o g y of R e l i g i o n 5: 7-19.
Colby, 1966
19 75 Conklin, 1962
American
Anthropologist
B.N. "Ethnographic semantics: Anthropology 7: 3-17. "Culture
grammars."
a preliminary
Science
187:
survey."
Current
913-919.
H.C. " L e x i c o g r a p h i c a l treatment of f o l k taxonomies." Pp. 119-141 i n F.W. Householder and S o l S a p o r t a ( e d s . ) , Problems i n l e x i cography. ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of American L i n g u i s t i c s 28 [2] P a r t IV; I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y Research C e n t e r i n A n t h r o p o l o g y , F o l k l o r e , and L i n g u i s t i c s , P u b l i c a t i o n 21.) Bloomington: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y . ( R e p r i n t e d i n Fishman, 1968, pp. 414-433; and i n T y l e r , 1969a, pp. 41-59.)
1964
" E t h n o g e n e a l o g i c a l method." Pp. 25-55 i n Ward Goodenough ( e d . ) , E x p l o r a t i o n s i n c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . New York: McGraw-Hill. ( R e p r i n t e d i n T y l e r , 1969a, pp. 93-122.)
1968
"Ethnography." I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n c y c l o p a e d i a ences 5: 172-178.
of the
Social Sci-
99
C o n k l i n , H.C. 19 72 Folk c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : a t o p i c a l l y arranged b i b l i o g r a p h y o f contemporary and background r e f e r e n c e s through 19 71. New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , Department o f Anthropology. Coulter, 1973
1974
Jeff "Language and the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f meaning." 173-189.
S o c i o l o g y 7:
"The e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i c a l programme i n contemporary s o c i o l o g y . " The Human Context 6: 103-122.
Crowle, A . J . 1971 Post e x p e r i m e n t a l i n t e r v i e w s : an experiment and a s o c i o l i n guistic analysis. Department o f S o c i o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Santa B a r b a r a : unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . D'Andrade, R.G. 1972a "A p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of U.S. American b e l i e f s about i l l n e s s . " Department o f Anthropology, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , San Diego: u n p u b l i s h e d ms. 19 72b
" C u l t u r a l b e l i e f systems." Report t o the N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f Mental H e a l t h Committee on S o c i a l and C u l t u r a l P r o c e s s e s .
D'Andrade, R.G., N.R. Quinn, S.B. N e r l o v e and A.K. Romney 1972 " C a t e g o r i e s o f d i s e a s e i n A m e r i c a n - E n g l i s h and Mexican-Spanish. Pp. 9-54 i n A.K. Romney e t a l . ( e d s . ) , M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g . Volume I I : A p p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Seminar P r e s s . 11
Dewey, John 1946 " P e i r c e ' s t h e o r y o f l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s , thought, J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o p h y 43: 85-95. Douglas, 1970
and meaning."
Jack D. (ed.) U n d e r s t a n d i n g everyday l i f e : toward the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s o c i o l o g i c a l knowledge. C h i c a g o : A l d i n e .
Durbin, Marshall 1966 "The g o a l s of e t h n o s c i e n c e . 22-41.
11
Anthropological L i n g u i s t i c s 8(8):
E g l i n , Peter 1972 "Ethnosemantics and ethnomethodology." Department o f A n t h r o pology and S o c i o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia: unpubl i s h e d ms.
100
E l l i o t , Henry C. 1974 " S i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between s c i e n c e and common sense." Pp. 21-26 i n R. T u r n e r ( e d . ) , Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Epling, 1967
P.J. "Lay p e r c e p t i o n of k i n s h i p : 37: 260-280.
Fillmore, 1966
a Samoan case s t u d y . "
C.J. " D e i c t i c c a t e g o r i e s i n the semantics of 'come' of Language 2: 219-227.
Oceania
Foundations
1969
"Review of The Anthropologist
1973
"A grammarian l o o k s to s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . " Pp. 273-287 i n R.W. Shuy ( e d . ) , S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : c u r r e n t t r e n d s and p r o s p e c t s . (Report of the t w e n t y - t h i r d annual round t a b l e meeting on l i n g u i s t i c s and language s t u d i e s , Monograph S e r i e s on Languages and L i n g u i s t i c s , No. 25, 1972.) Washington, D . C : Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y Press.
Frake, 1961
s t a t e of the a r t by 71: 711-713.
C F . Hockett.
American
CO. "The d i a g n o s i s of d i s e a s e among the Subanun of Mindanao." American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 63: 113-132. ( R e p r i n t e d i n D. Hymes [ e d . ] , Language i n c u l t u r e and s o c i e t y . New York: Harper and Row, 1964, pp. 193-214.)
1962
"The ethnographic study of c o g n i t i v e systems." Pp. 72-85 i n Thomas Gladwin and W.C. S t u r t e v a n t ( e d s . ) , Anthropology and human b e h a v i o u r . Washington, D . C : Anthropological Society o f Washington. ( R e p r i n t e d i n Fishman, 1968, pp. 434-446; and i n Manners and K a p l a n , 1968, pp. 507-514; and i n T y l e r , 1969a, pp. 28-41.)
1964a
"Notes on q u e r i e s i n ethnography." Pp. 132-145 i n A.K. Romney and R.G. D'Andrade ( e d s . ) , T r a n s c u l t u r a l s t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i o n . (American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66 [3] P a r t 2, s p e c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n . ) Menasha, W i s c o n s i n : American A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . ( R e p r i n t e d i n T y l e r , 1969a, pp. 123-137.)
1964b
" F u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of B u r l i n g . " American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 119. ( R e p r i n t e d i n Manners and K a p l a n , 1968, p. 521; and T y l e r , 1969a, p. 432.)
66: in
101
Friedrich, 1971
n.d.
Paul "Anthropological l i n g u i s t i c s : r e c e n t r e s e a r c h and immediate p r o s p e c t s . " Pp. 167-184 i n R i c h a r d J . O ' B r i e n , S.J., ( e d . ) , Linguistics: developments of t h e s i x t i e s — v i e w p o i n t s f o r t h e seventies. (22nd annual round t a b l e , Monograph S e r i e s on Languages and L i n g u i s t i c s , No. 24, 1971.) Washington: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . "The l e x i c a l symbol and i t s r e l a t i v e n o n - a r b i t r a r i n e s s . " In M.D. Kinkade ( e d . ) , C.F. V o e g e l i n f e s t s c h r i f t . Lisse: Peter de R i d d e r P r e s s (Forthcoming).
Ganz, J.S. 1971 Garfinkel, 1956 1961
1963
Rules:
a s y s t e m a t i c study.
The Hague:
Mouton.
Harold "Some s o c i o l o g i c a l concepts and methods f o r p s y c h i a t r i s t s . " P s y c h i a t r i c Research Reports 6: 181-195. "Aspects o f t h e problem o f common-sense knowledge o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . " Pp. 51-65 i n T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e f o u r t h world congress o f s o c i o l o g y . Volume 4: The s o c i o l o g y o f knowledge. ( E d i t e d by Kurt W o l f f . ) International Sociological Association. "A c o n c e p t i o n o f , and experiments w i t h , ' t r u s t ' as a c o n d i t i o n of s t a b l e c o n c e r t e d a c t i o n s . " Pp. 187-238 i n O.J. Harvey ( e d . ) , M o t i v a t i o n and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . New York: Ronald P r e s s .
1967a (1960)
"The r a t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s o f s c i e n t i f i c and common sense a c t i vities." Pp. 262-283 i n H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l , S t u d i e s i n ethnomethodology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. (Orig i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e 5: 72-83 [I960]; and i n N.F. Washburne [ e d . ] , D e c i s i o n s , v a l u e s and groups. V o l ume 2. New York: Pergamon, 1962, pp. 304-324.)
1967a (1962)
"Common sense knowledge of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s : t h e documentary method o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n l a y and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t f i n d i n g . " Pp. 76-103 i n H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l , S t u d i e s i n ethnomethodology. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . ( O r i g i n a l l y publ i s h e d i n J.M. Scher [ e d . ] , T h e o r i e s o f the mind. New York: Free P r e s s o f Glencoe, 1962, pp. 689-712.)
1967a (1964)
" S t u d i e s of t h e r o u t i n e grounds o f everyday a c t i v i t i e s . " Pp. 35-75 i n H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l , S t u d i e s i n ethnomethodology. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . ( O r i g i n a l l y published i n S o c i a l Problems 11: 225-250 [1964].)
1967a
S t u d i e s i n ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
Englewood C l i f f s , - New J e r s e y :
102
G a r f i n k e l , Harold 1967b "What i s ethnomethodology?" Pp. 1-34 i n H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l , S t u d i e s i n ethnomethodology. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Prentice-Hall. 1967c
" P a s s i n g and the managed achievement o f sex s t a t u s i n an ' i n t e r sexed' p e r s o n , p a r t 1." Pp. 116-185 i n H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l , S t u d i e s i n ethnomethodology. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Prentice-Hall.
1967d
" P r a c t i c a l s o c i o l o g i c a l reasoning: some f e a t u r e s i n the work of the Los Angeles S u i c i d e P r e v e n t i o n C e n t e r . " Pp. 171-187 i n E.S. Shneidman ( e d . ) , Essays i n s e l f - d e s t r u c t i o n . New York: S c i e n c e House'.
1972. (1966)
"[Discussion]." Footnote 3 on p. 312 o f H a r o l d G a r f i n k e l , 1972. ( O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n W. B r i g h t [ e d . ] , Sociolihguisfeie