This paper is a much-extended corollary to a paper the author wrote as a tribute to the founder of ‘ethnomethodology’ (EM) after his death. This initial paper (Watson 2011) was essentially written and designed for sociologists who were not practitioners of EM and for non-sociologists. The present article focuses on the implications of Garfinkel’s work for pragmatics. The paper sets out Garfinkel’s essentially sociological concerns, and without a grasp of these discipline-based concerns it is not really possible to address issues concerning what might be argued are (some of) the implications for pragmatics. The author's intention in this paper has not been to characterize pragmatics too closely, nor to identify ‘best practice’ in pragmatics. What counts as ‘best practice’ is not a straightforward matter in either EM or CA either, especially given their increasing bifurcation and the burgeoning influence of linguistics in CA. The author has advocated an ‘ethnomethodological conversation analysis’, a phrase invented by the late George Adoff, by which he intends a) a sociological conception of CA, b) a CA that demonstrably takes up Sacks’ themes, approach and analytic mentality, especially focalizing c) those orientations in his work that were seen by him, or are see-able by us, as bearing an elective affinity with Garfinkel’s EM. We might then end up on the road to an ethnomethodologically-informed CA that merits Adoff’s tag, and if we are lucky we might just get a deeply ethnomethodologically-informed CA: that, to the author, would be best practice. It is to be hoped that pragmaticians will afford EM and CA the same favour of criticizing best practice. Two examples of the opposite come to mind. The first is to be found in Winkin and Leeds-Hurwitz’ (2013) book on Goffman which somehow seems to assume that adjacency pairs are seen in CA as the building blocks of conversation: Goffman himself seemed to hold this astonishing view for a while, but rescinded it later. However, a reading of Sacks et al’s “Simplest Systematics” paper (1978[1974]) leaves us in no doubt that rather than having generic status, adjacency pairs partake of ‘prior’, more general elements of turn-allocation, turn-completion, etc. To claim otherwise would seem to set one on a trip to a reductio ad absurdum of CA. The second is a most instructive study by Blommaert (2015) in which the author makes some penetrating observations on ‘entextualisation’ practices in Discourse Analysis and CA. These observations deserve to be taken very seriously indeed by, for instance, those CA practitioners involved in transcription, and his arguments richly merit a response. However, Blommaert ‘exemplifies’ his point by examining a case of data-sharing by a group of analysts whose affiliation with, and certainly centrality to, CA is highly contestable. Importantly, pragmatics with EM can add much to sociology. For generations, orthodox sociologists have been burying their heads in the sand. They have ignored, or-worse-not even noticed, that their data consist in what are, in a whole variety of ways, natural language phenomena. They have also failed to take into account that their own methods-from participant observation, through interviewing to statistical procedures – are deeply embedded in and shaped by natural language practice. Garfinkel’s EM and pragmatics can make common cause in obliging sociologists to consider the profound implications of these two facts of life, providing of course EM and pragmatics themselves submit themselves to that self-interrogation too. Consequently, the author feels that EM/CA and pragmatics can mutually inform and enhance each other if only best practice in each be admitted to the debate.