Harold Garfinkel and pragmatics

Rod Watson
Table of contents

This paper is a much-extended corollary to one I wrote as a tribute to the founder of ‘ethnomethodology’ (EM) after his death. My 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. It is far from the ‘last word’ on the issue, if there ever were such a thing, and it is intended to be an early move in what I hope will be an ongoing discussion.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Abel, T
1929Systematic Sociology in Germany. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Adato, A
1980 “Occasionality as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics.” Human studies 3: 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D.C. and Sharrock, W.W
1983 “Irony as a methodological theory: A sketch with four sociological variations.” Poetics Today. 4 (3): 565–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z
1978 Hermeneutics and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B
1973Class, Codes and Control (3 volumes). St. Albans, UK: Paladin.Google Scholar
Bilmes, J
1993 “Ethnomethodology, culture and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics.” Pragmatics 3(4): 387–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J
2015 “Data sharing as entextualizing practice.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 138: 110–124.Google Scholar
Broadbent, J.M
1968Wine Tasting. London: Michael Beazley Publishers.Google Scholar
Button, G
2008 “Against distributed cognition.” In The Debate over Cognitivism, ed. by J. Coulter and R. Watson. (Special issue of) Theory, culture and society. 25(2): 87–104.Google Scholar
Carlin, A.P
2002 “Methodological irony and media analysis: On textual presentations in the work of theorizing.” Pretexts: Literary and Cultural Studies 11(1):41–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, P.S
1968Modern Social Theory. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Coulter, J
2004 “What is ‘discursive psychology’?Human Studies 27: 335–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crews, F
1986 “In the great house of theory.” In F. Crews, Skeptical Engagements, 159–178. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin
(eds.) 1992Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elias, N
1970 (English version 1978). What is Sociology? Trans. S. Mennell and G. Morrissey. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
1978 “Zum Begriff des Alltags.” In Materialien Zur Soziologie des Alltags, ed. by K. Hammerich et al.., 22–29. Opladen: Wertdeutscher Verlag GmbH. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A
1995 “Ethnomethodology.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual, ed. by J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman and J. Blommaert, 269–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S
1998 “The reflexive politics of constructionism revisited.” In The Politics of Constructionism, ed. by I. Velody and R. Williams, 83–99. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H
n.d. Parsons Primer. Unpublished draft manuscript.
1949 “Research note on inter-and intra-racial homicides.” Social Forces 27: 370–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1952The Perception of the Other: A study in Social Order. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
1956a “Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies.”American Journal of Sociology 61: 240–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1956b “Some sociological concepts and methods for psychiatrists.” Psychiatric Research Reports 6: 181–95.Google Scholar
1963 “A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions.” In Motivation and Social Interaction, ed. by O.J. Harvey, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall (reprinted by Polity Press).Google Scholar
2002Ethomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
2006 (original text 1948). Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. (Edited and with an introduction by Anne Warfield Rawls.) Boulder, Colorado: Paradign Publishers.Google Scholar
2007Recherches en ethnométhodologie. Transl. M. Barthélémy, B. Dupret, J-M de Queiroz and L. Quéré. Paris: Quadrigue/Presses Universitaires de France (includes a translation of Garfinkel and Sacks 1970).Google Scholar
2008Toward a Sociological Theory of Information. (Edited and with an introduction by Anne Warfield Rawls.) Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. and H. Sacks
1970 “On formal structures of practical actions.” In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, ed. by J.C. McKinney and E.A. Tiryakian, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. and D.L. Wieder
1992 “Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis.” In Text in Context, ed. by G. Watson and R.M. Seiler, 175–206. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Giddens, A
1976The New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociologies. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Goffman, E
1974Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, J.H. and D. Lockwood
1963 “Affluence and the British class structure.” Sociological Review (New Series) 11(2): 133–63.Google Scholar
Gurwitsch, A
1964The Field of Consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F., Sachiko Ide and Yasuhiro Katagiri
2009 “Towards an emancipatory pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J
1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Epistemics in conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 370–394. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and D.R. Watson
1979 “Formulations as conversational objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethology, ed. by G. Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hill, R.J. and K.S. Crittenden
(eds.) 1968Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Institute for the Study of Social Change.Google Scholar
Hinnenkamp, V
2009 “Intercultural communication.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by J.-O. Östman and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Independent Commission of Experts, Switzerland
2002Second world war. Zurich: Pendo.Google Scholar
James, W
1909The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to Pragmatism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Lagerspetz, O
1998Trust: The Tacit Demand. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.R.E
1987 “Prologue: Talking organisation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by G. Button and J.R.E. Lee, 19–53. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1995 “The trouble is, nobody listens.” In Professional and Personal Discourse as Behavior Change, ed. by J. Siegfried, 365–390. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, K
2015 “The phenomenology of coffee tasting.” In K. Liberman, More Studies in Ethnomethodology. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, K
1936Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. and J. Yovel
2000 “Metalinguistic awareness.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by J.-O. Östman and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Misztal, B.A
1996Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C.W
1938Foundation of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1970The Pragmatic Movement in American Sociology. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Mortensen, K
2012 “Conversation analysis and multimodality.” In Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by J. Wagner and K. Mortensen. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollner, M
1979 “Explicative transactions: Making and managing meaning in traffic court.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 227–256. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Raymond, G and J. Heritage
2006 “The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren.” Language in Society 35(5): 677–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, E
1960 “The English record of a natural sociology.” American Sociological Review XXV(April): 193–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H
1992Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson
1978 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” (A variant version of a paper originally published in Language, 1974, 50:4, 696-735.) In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 7–55. London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
1995 “Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, W.W. and D.C. Anderson
1979 “Directional hospital signs as sociological data.” Information Design Journal 1(2): 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, W.W. and R Anderson
1986The Ethnomethodologists. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. and J. Gubrium
1994 “Competing strategies for analysing contexts of social interaction.” Sociological Inquiry. 64(2): 179–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M
1993 “Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metpragmatics, ed. by J. Lucy, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, D.E
1974 “The social construction of documentary reality.” Social Inquiry 44(4): 257–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sormani, P
2014Respecifying Lab Ethnography: An Ethnomethodological Study of Experimental Physics. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sudnow, D
2001Ways of the Hand: A Rewritten Account. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Turin, L. and T. Sanchez
2008Perfumes: The Guide. New York: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Turner, R
1974 “Words, utterances, and activities.” In Ethnomethodology, ed. by R. Turner, 197–215. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T
(ed.) 1985Handbook of Discourse Analysis 1: Disciplines of Discourse. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Veblen, T
1914The Instinct of Workmanship and the Industrial Arts. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J
1995a “Metapragmatics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual, ed. by J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman and J. Blommaert, 367–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995b “Linguistic pragmatics and semiotics.” Semiotica 104(1/2): 45–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use.” Pragmatics 10(4): 439–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, R
1992 “Some general reflections on ‘category’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation.” In Culture in Action, ed. by S. Hester and P. Eglin, 49–76. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
1996 “L’annonce publique de la fatalité.” Recherches en Communication 5: 116–39.Google Scholar
2000 “’Intepretive’ sociology in Britain : The state of the art.” Swiss Review of Sociology 26: 307–29.Google Scholar
2001 “Continuité et transformation de l’ethnométhodologie.” In L’ethnométhodologie: une sociologie radicale, ed. by M. de Fornel, A. Ogien and L. Quere, 18–29. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
2005.”The visibility arrangements of public space: Conceptual resources and methodological issues in analysing pedestrian movements.” In Working with Objects, Images and Symbols: Studies in Visual Communication, ed. by M. Ball. (Special issue of) Communication and Cognition 38(3-4).Google Scholar
2008 “Comparative sociology: Laic and professional.” In Comparer les phénomènes dans l’interaction, ed. by B. Bonu, 203–244. (Special issue of) Cahiers de Praxématique 50.Google Scholar
2009Analysing Practical and Professional Texts. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
2011“Harold Garfinkel: An appreciation". Presented at the University of Nice, France, (April).Google Scholar
2015 “De-reifying categories.” In Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis, ed. by R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley, 23–49. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Watson, R. and A.P. Carlin
2012 “Information: praxeological considerations.” Human Studies 35: 327–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. and J. Coulter
2008“The debate over cognitivism.” Theory , Culture & Society 25(2): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. and E. Gastaldo
2015Etnometodologia e analyse conversação. Petropolis/Rio de Janeiro: Editora Vozes and Editora P.U.C.Google Scholar
Wieder, D.L
1974Language and Social Reality: The Case of Telling the Convict Code. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980 “Behavioristic operationalism and the life-world: Chimpanzee researchers in face-to-face interaction.” Sociological Inquiry 50(3-4): 75–103 (Special issue ed. by D.H. Zimmerman and C. West). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkin, Y
1996Anthropologie de la communication: De la théorie au terrain. Liège: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Winkin, Y. and W. Leeds-Hurwitz
2013Erving Goffman: A Critical Introduction to Media and Communication Theory. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
Wolff, K
(ed.) 1950The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar