Conersation Analysis: Sociological by anyone who knows how to talk. While large Schegloff E A 1992 Repair after next turn: The last structurally numbers of specimens of such practices are valuable in provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity determining their nature and function, statistical in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97(5): analysis has played little role in the field, largely 1295–345 Doing Conersation Analysis because in the matter of interactional practices, as in ten Have P 1999 . Sage, London the case of biological species, large numbers are not J. Heritage essential to establishing their existence. In the field of institutional interaction, however, and especially in its applied aspects, where practices of interaction are being linked to tasks, identities, perceptions, expec- tations and outcomes, a more statistically-focused methodology is appropriate and is increasingly used. Conversation: Linguistic Aspects Conversations are social creations. They are produced one step at a time as people carry out certain joint 6. Conclusion activities. A joint activity is one in which two or more CA is a large and diversifying field of study. Its basic people have to coordinate with each other to succeed outlook and methodology have achieved ‘paradig- (Clark 1996). These include not only waltzing, playing matic’ status in Thomas Kuhn’s sense, and is widely a piano duet, playing tennis, but gossiping, planning a accepted across the range of social science disciplines party, and negotiating a contract. In waltzing, duets, to which it has contributed. It seems likely that its and tennis, people coordinate moment by moment by methodology will continue to evolve and that it will means of gesture, touch, and other actions; but in contribute, not only to sociology, communication gossip, planning, and negotiation, they use speech as science and linguistics, but also to medicine, neuro- well—they converse. What people do and say is not science, artificial intelligence and the life sciences with determined beforehand. It emerges as they negotiate which its practitioners are in increasing contact. their way through these activities. Conversations reflect the joint activities they co- See also: Action, Theories of Social; Goffman, Erving ordinate. Every joint activity has participants—the (1921–82); Interactionism: Symbolic; Labor, Division people actually taking part, who are distinct from non- of; Sociology, Epistemology of; Theory: Sociological participants (bystanders, onlookers, overhearers)— and so do the conversations that emerge from them. The participants take particular roles, such as doctor and patient, teacher and student, or friend calling and Bibliography friend called, and the roles constrain what the partici- pants do and say. Every joint activity has public Atkinson J M, Heritage J (eds.) 1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conersation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, goals—mutually agreed-upon purposes for carrying Cambridge, UK them out. The overall goal may be to exchange gossip, Couper-Kuhlen E, Selting M (eds.) 1996 Prosody in Coner- plan an outing, or negotiate a contract, and these have sation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK subgoals. Although some of these goals are set from Drew P, Heritage J (eds.) 1992 Talk at Work. Cambridge the start, most get established as the participants go University Press, Cambridge, UK along. The participants also have private goals—to be Goffman E 1983 The interaction order. American Sociological polite, not to lose face, or to finish quickly, for Reiew 48: 1–17 example—and these, too, constrain what the partici- Goodwin C 1981 Con ersational Organization: Interaction Be- pants do and say. Finally, people often engage in two tween Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York or more joint activities at a time—such as gossiping Goodwin C (ed.) 2002 Conersation Analysis and Communication Disorder. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK and eating dinner together—so their conversation Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, switches back and forth between them. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Working together in a joint activity takes commit- Heath C, Luff P 2000 Technology in Action. Cambridge ments and actions by all the participants. Joint University Press, Cambridge, UK activities have boundaries—distinct beginnings and Heritage J, Maynard D (eds.) 2002 Practicing Medicine: Struc- ends, and transitions from one part to the next—but ture and Process in Primary Care Encounters. Cambridge these boundaries don’t exist until the participants University Press, Cambridge, UK agree to them. To enter a planning session, for Ochs E, Schegloff E A, Thompson S A (eds.) 1996 Interaction and example, two people must agree on (a) what the joint Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Sacks H 1992 Lectures on Conersation. Blackwell, Oxford, activity is to be, (b) who is to take part, (c) in what UK roles, (d) at what time and (e) at what place, and (f) Sacks H, Schegloff E A, Jefferson G 1974 A simplest systematics whether or not they are each committed to taking part. for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language They must reach these agreements at each transition 50: 696–735 point as well. What is remarkable is that people 2744 Conersation: Linguistic Aspects Table 1 Table 3 An adjacency pair Types of pre-sequences Ann whereabouts are you going, Pre-request Customer Do you have hot Betty I’ve got a job at Columbia University, chocolate? in New York, - Waitress Yes, we do Ann have you, Pre-invitation Man What are you doin’ Woman Nothin.’ What’s up? Pre-narrative June Did I tell you I was Table 2 going to Scotland A pre-question Kenneth No Pre-conversation Caller [rings telephone] Duncan Edgar, I I . may I ask you a question, Recipient Miss Pink’s office Edgar surely, [Duncan and Edgar exchange fifteen turns as Duncan describes an author’s Table 4 claim about Danish usage.] Opening of telephone conversation Duncan it is it it really so, that that is the common usage in Denmark, I don’t know if Karen: (rings Charlie’s telephone) you’ve heard, of that, Charlie: Wintermere speaking? - Edgar - - umm . I’m . I would be surprised, if it Karen: hello? was accepted usage, Charlie: hello Karen: Charlie Charlie: yes accomplish all this locally, turn by turn (Sacks et al. Karen: actually it’s 1974). Charlie: hello Karen One basic unit of conversation is the adjacency pair Karen: it’s me (Schegloff and Sacks 1973), as in the spontaneous Charlie: m example shown in Table 1 (all examples are from Karen: I (- laughs) I couldn’t get back last Svartvik and Quirk 1980). night, [continues] Adjacency pairs each have two parts, by different speakers, where part 2 is conditionally relevant given part 1. Part 1 is a proposal, and part 2 is expected to be project not only the eventual question, but pre- the uptake of that proposal. In Table 1, Ann proposes liminaries to that question. that Betty tell her whereabouts she is going, and Betty Pre-questions and their responses are one of a large takes up the proposal by saying that she’s got a job at family of so-called pre-sequences. Table 3 gives a few Columbia University. In just two turns, Ann and Betty more examples. manage to coordinate on the content, participants, Each pre-sequence prepares the way for another roles, time, place, and commitments of their joint joint action. The pre-request sets up a request (‘I’ll action. They would have failed if Betty had replied have one’); the pre-invitation sets up an invitation ‘What do you mean?’ or ‘You mean me?’ or ‘I don’t (‘Would you like … ’); the pre-narrative sets up a know’ or ‘I won’t tell you.’ narrative; and the pre-conversation sets up an entire Adjacency pairs are available for a wide range of telephone conversation. So pre-sequences are useful in joint actions. These include not only requests for organizing longer sections of conversation. information (as in Ann and Betty’s exchange), but Opening a conversation takes special coordination greetings (‘Hi,’ ‘Hi’), farewells (‘Bye,’ ‘Bye’), offers as two or more people move from not being in a (‘Have some cake,’ ‘Thanks’), orders (‘Sit down,’ ‘Yes, conversation to being in one. Table 4 gives the sir’), and apologies (‘Sorry,’ ‘Oh, that’s okay’) opening of a telephone conversation between (Stenstro$ m 1994). They are used for even the simplest acquaintances. exchanges of information (‘I’ve got a job … ’ ‘Have First, Karen and Charlie coordinate contact you?’). through a proposal to have a conversation (the Adjacency pairs take only two turns, but they can be telephone ring) and its uptake (‘Wintermere speak- used to project larger sections, as in Table 2 (the ing?’). Next, they mutually establish their identities. disfluencies are in the original). Karen tells Charlie that she recognizes him in line 5, Duncan’s first turn is a pre-question (Schegloff but Karen has to say ‘hello?’ ‘Charlie,’ and ‘actually 1980). With it he proposes to ask Edgar a question, it’s’ before he identifies her in line 8. Only then does and Edgar agrees. Duncan now has the freedom to Karen introduce the first topic. It took ten turns for take up preliminaries to his question, and it takes the them to coordinate on the participants, roles, time, two of them fifteen turns to do that. Only then does he place, and commitment to the conversation. ask his question, and Edgar answers it. Pre-questions Closing conversations is no easier (Schegloff and 2745 Conersation: Linguistic Aspects Table 5 Table 8 Closing of telephone conversation A side sequence June and I’ll . I’ll ring again, as soon as Duncan well wha- uhh what shall we do about uh I can on the tenth, uhh to definite this boy then, - - confirm it, Ed Duveen? Kathryn right, Duncan m, Kathryn okay, Ed well I propose to write, [continues] June right, June thanks a lot, Kathryn r .