Epistemics Strikes Back: Situationality and Interaction Orders in Conversation Analysis

Over the lifetime of Conversation Analysis (CA), scholars have discovered many systems of action organisation (machineries) describing how conversational turns occur, what actions are expected, and how intersubjectivity in conversation is maintained. However, when John Heritage proposed a new machinery that examines the knowledge orientation of participants in interactions, a debate broke out between conversation analysts in which Michael Lynch and his colleagues in radical ethnomethodology descend upon on epistemics. The controversy begins with Lynch accusing Heritage of cognitivism and the extra-situational nature of epistemics, while research on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis has traditionally focused on situated action. The discussion of epistemics points to an internal tension in CA as to where the boundaries of situations lie and what, therefore, can be the focus of CA. This article reactualises the problem of situationality in CA by analysing the arguments in the debate on epistemics. The authors show that epistemics and the debates surrounding it constitute a serious test for CA, revealing a conceptual problem that has hitherto been obscured — the relation and potential hierarchy of different machineries. Turning to the origins of the concept of situationality in the writings of Goffman and Sacks, the authors demonstrate that for opposing sides, the localisation of phenomena within situations is an analytical decision about what can be seen in empirical data. In contrast, distinguishing between the position of the analyst and the participant in the interaction shifts the analyst’s attention to how the machineries become relevant to the interactants, that is, how their omnirelevance is realised. The authors argue that this is a more productive formulation of the question than that of the boundaries of the situation.

1. Goffman E. (2004) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. RAS Sociological institute, ‘Public opinion’ foundation institute. — in Russ.

2. Goffman E. (2014) The interaction order. Sociology of power, 14 (1): 163–199.

3. Sacks H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. (2015) A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Russian Sociological Review, 14(1): 142–202.

4. Button G., Sharrock W. (2016) In support of conversation analysis’ radical agenda. Discourse Studies, 18 (5): 610-620.

5. Collins H., Evans R. (2014) Actor and Analyst: A response to Coopmans and Button. Social Studies of Science, 44 (5): 786-792.

6. Bolden G. B. (2018) Speaking ‘out of turn’: Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair. Discourse Studies, 20 (1): 142-162.

7. Clift R., Raymond C. W. (2018) Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20 (1): 90-119.

8. Drew P., Wootton A. (1988) Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

9. Drew P. (2018) Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20 (1): 163-187.

10. Jefferson G. (1993). Caveat speaker: preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26: 1-30.

11. Jefferson G., Sacks H., Schegloff E. A. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2): 361-382. 69

12. Garfinkel H. (1996) Ethnomethodology’s Program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59 (1): 5-21.

13. Garfinkel H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14. Goffman E. (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

15. Goffman E. (1983) The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48 (1): 1—17.

16. Goodwin, C. (2018). Intertwined knowing. In Co-operative Action (pp. 93—104). Cambridge University Press.

17. Heritage J. (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1): 1-29.

18. Heritage J. (2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1): 30-52.

19. Heritage J. (2012c) Beyond and behind the words: Some reactions to my commentators. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1): 76-81.

20. Heritage J. (2018) The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ group. Discourse Studies, 20 (1): 14-56.

21. Hutchby I., Wooffitt R. (2008) Conversation analysis: Principles, practices, and applications (2nd ed.).Cambridge: Polity Press.

22. Lindwall O., Lymer G., Ivarsson J. (2016) Epistemic status and the recognizability of social actions. Discourse Studies, 18 (5): 500-525.

23. Lynch M., Macbeth D. (2016) The epistemics of epistemics: An introduction. Discourse Studies, 18 (5): 493-499.

24. Lynch M. (1994) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25. Lynch M. (2012) Revisiting the Cultural Dope. Human Studies, 35 (2): 223-233. Lynch M., Wong J. (2016) Reverting to a hidden interactional order: Epistemics, informationism, and conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 18 (5): 526-549.

26. Lynch M. (2018) Notes on a display of epistemic authority: A rejoinder to John Heritage’s rebuttal to “The epistemics of Epistemics”. https://radicalethno.org/documents/lynchrejoinder.pdf

27. McIntyre A. (1988) Whose Justice? Which Rationality? University of Notre Dame Press.

28. Maynard D. W., Clayman S. E. (2018) Mandarin ethnomethodology or mutual interchange? Discourse Studies, 20 (1): 120-141.

29. Rawls A. W. (2013) The early years, 1939-1953: Garfinkel at North Carolina, Harvard and Princeton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13 (2): 303-312.

30. Raymond G. (2018) Which epistemics? Whose conversation analysis? Discourse Studies, 20 (1): 57-89.

31. Sacks H. (1984a) Notes on methodology. J. M. Atkinson, J. Heritage (eds.). Structures of Social Action.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 21-27.

32. Sacks H. (1984b) On doing ‘‘being ordinary’’. J. M. Atkinson, J. Heritage (eds.). Struc70 tures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 413—429.

33. Sacks H. (1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. G. Button, J. R. E. Lee (eds.). Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 54—69.

34. Sacks H. (1992) Lectures on conversation, 2 Vols. (Fall 1964-Spring 1972). Blackwell. Sacks H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50 (4): 696-735.

35. Schegloff E. A. (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70 (6): 1075-1095.

36. Schegloff E. A. (1992) Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (5): 1295-1345. Schegloff E. A. (1997) Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8 (2): 165-187.

37. Schegloff E. A. (2006) Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. N. J. Enfield, S. C. Levinson (eds.) The Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Berg: 70—96.

38. Schegloff E. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39. Schütz A. (1962) The problem of social reality. Collected papers, volume 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

40. Stivers T., Robinson J. D. (2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35: 367–392.

41. Wieder D. L. (1974) Language and Social Reality. Mouton.