TERMS FOR CANADIAN DOCTORS: LANGUAGE ... - Open Collections

9 downloads 0 Views 6MB Size Report
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