Скачать или смотреть Podcast episode 37: Interview with Michael Lynch on conversation analysis and ethnomethodology

In this interview, we talk to Michael Lynch about the history of conversation analysis and its connections to ethnomethodology.








(https://hiphilangsci.net/wp-content/u...)
















Download (https://hiphilangsci.net/wp-content/u...) | Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/37JY0M7...) | Apple Podcasts (https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast...) | Google Podcasts (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...)




References for Episode 37






Button, Graham, Michael Lynch and Wes Sharrock (2022) Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Constructive Analysis: On Formal Structures of Practical Action. London and New York: Routledge.






Fitzgerald, Richard (2024) “Drafting A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation,” Human Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-023-09...






Garfinkel, Harold (2022) Studies of Work in the Sciences, M. Lynch, ed. London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003172611 (open access)






Lynch, Michael (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.






Lynch, Michael and Oskar Lindwall, eds. (2024) Instructed and Instructive Actions: The Situated Production, Reproduction, and Subversion of Social Order. London and New York: Routledge.






Lynch, Michael and Douglas Macbeth (2016) “Introduction: The epistemics of Epistemics,” Discourse Studies 18(5): 493–499. See also the articles in the special issue.






Sacks, Harvey (1992) Lectures on Conversation, Vols. 1 & 2, Gail Jefferson, ed. Oxford: Blackwell.






Sacks, Harvey (1970) Aspects of Sequential Organization in Conversation.  Unpublished manuscript, U.C. Irvine.






Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson (1974) “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”, Language 50(4), Part 1: 696–735. Available online (https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2...)




Transcript by Luca Dinu






JMc: Hi, I’m James McElvenny, and you’re listening to the History and Philosophy of the Language [00:14] Sciences podcast, online at hiphilangsci.net. There you can find links and references to [00:20] all the literature we discuss. Today we’re joined by Michael Lynch, who’s Professor Emeritus [00:26] of Science and Technology Studies at Cornell University. He’s going to talk to us about [00:32] conversation analysis and its links to ethnomethodology.






It’s probably fair to say that conversation [00:40] analysis, or CA, is a well-established subfield of linguistics today, which is concerned with [00:47] studying how interaction is achieved between speakers in an oral exchange. On a technical [00:54] level, conversation analysts typically proceed by making an audio or video recording of an [00:59] interaction and then transcribing it in a heavily marked up notation that conveys elements [01:06] of intonation, overlapping speech, gaze, and so on. Using these transcripts as empirical [01:12] evidence, the analysts then put forward theories about how the back-and-forth of conversation [01:18] is structured.






The seminal publication introducing conversation analysis was a 1974 article in [01:26] Language with the title, “A Simplest Systematics for the Analysis of Turn-Taking for Conversation”, [01:33] co-authored by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. These three are widely considered [01:41] the founding figures of CA. But crucially, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson had not been trained in [01:48] traditional linguistics programs. They were sociologists by academic upbringing. Moreover, [01:54] they were adherents of ethnomethodology, an approach to sociology pioneered by Harold Garfinkel. [02:02]






So the question arises as to how conversation analysis fits into linguistics and this broader [02:09] disciplinary constellation. Mike, can you illuminate this question a bit for us? [02:14] Where did conversation analysis come from, and how is it placed today? [02:19]






ML: OK, well, thank you, James, for the opportunity to speak to your podcast. To start, I’d like to [02:26] add that what you said about Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson also applies to me. I’m not trained as a [02:34] linguist, traditional or otherwise. My background is in sociology, but also like them, [02:39] I spent a lot of my career, particularly the last 25 years at Cornell, in interdisciplinary programs [02:46] of which sociology was a part. But my take on sociology through the field of ethnomethodology [02:53] is not normal sociology, as many people would tell you. I don’t want to go into that right now.






But [02:59] you asked about the background of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson and where CA came from. I know less [03:06] about Schegloff’s and...