Description in the social sciences I: Talk-in-interaction

Emanuel A. Schegloff

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Alexander, J.C
(1982) Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Vol.l. Positivism, Presuppositions and Current Controversies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H
(1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C
(1986) Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6(3):283-316.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H
(1980) Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50:303-317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C
(1987) Children's arguing. In S. Philips, S. Steele and C. Tanz (eds.), Language, Gender. and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200-248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M
(1968) The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G
(1979) A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, 79-96.Google Scholar
(1987) On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 86-100.Google Scholar
Lerner, G
(1987) Collaborative turn sequences: sentence construction and social action. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Social Science, University of California, Irvine.
Mandelbaum, J
(1987) Couples sharing stories. Communications Quarterly, 35:144-171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T
(1937) The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Pollner, M
(1987) Mundane Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A
(1978) Compliment responses: on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, 79-112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-101.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H
(1963) Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, VIII:1-16.Google Scholar
(1966) Lectures on conversation: Spring, 1966. Mimeo.
(1972a) On the analyzability of stories by children. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 325-345.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1972b) An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D.N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, New York: Free Press, 31-74.Google Scholar
forthcoming), Lectures on Conversation: 1964–65 edited by G. Jefferson with an introduction by E. A. Schegloff Human Studies.
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E.A
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, New York: Irvington, 15-21.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1972) Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In D.N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, New York: Free Press,75-119.Google Scholar
(1987) Between macro and micro: contexts and other connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, and N. Smelser (eds.), The Micro-Macro Link, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 207-236.Google Scholar
(1988) Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew and T. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Reflections on the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 89-135.Google Scholar
Watson, D.R
(1987) Interdisciplinary considerations in the analysis of pro-terms. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 261-289.Google Scholar
Weber, M
(1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar