Abstract
In this part, I examined the notion of social order in two main schools of thought: ethnomethodology (CA) and SAT. Both schools seek to theorize how order is produced and maintained through every speaker/hearer’s mundane language activities, while exhibiting divergences in their conceptualization and understanding of rules and intentions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Some works in interactional sociolinguistics (e.g. by Gumperz, Tannen), influenced by Goffman’s studies of ‘interaction order’, framing and footing, seem to challenge this mainstream model. As observed by Tannen, they are ‘concerned with how language conveys meaning in interaction’; they ‘regard the process by which language does so as dynamic, emergent, and resulting from the interaction of participants rather than from the single-handed linguistic production of individual speakers’ (Tannen, 2005, p. 206). However, a certain codified view on language and communication still lurks in their theorizing, e.g. they emphasize that different cultural systems provide different ways of signaling meaning by means of language (ibid.).
- 2.
The tension between a reflexive actor and the reflexivity of intelligible procedures is always present in ethnomethodological thinking. In Agnes’s case, she is portrayed as a practical methodologist who is highly aware of the social norms governing the behaviors of a woman by living within the society; the conclusion Garfinkel provides is that her case instead of challenging social norms, in fact confirms them. Garfinkel’s attitude, as is seen from this example, recognizes both the reflexive efforts of social actors and the constraints from ‘natural’ facts about gender roles. Or in other words, for Garfinkel, the reflexivity of social actors is a reflexivity which includes an awareness of social norms and the general reflexive nature of social acts.
References
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hilbert, R. A. (1992). The classical roots of ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Tannen, D. (2005). Interactional sociolinguistics as a resource for intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(2), 205–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhou, F. (2020). Conclusion to Part II. In: Models of the Human in Twentieth-Century Linguistic Theories. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1255-1_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1255-1_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-1254-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-1255-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)