Jack Sidnell
2022
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
17 Language and culture in Mainland Southeast Asia Book Chapter
In: pp. 471-498, Gruyter Mouton, 2022, ISBN: 9783110726626.
@inbook{Sidnell2022,
title = {17 Language and culture in Mainland Southeast Asia},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1515/9783110726626-017},
isbn = {9783110726626},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-08-01},
urldate = {2022-08-01},
pages = {471-498},
publisher = {Gruyter Mouton},
abstract = {In the early decades of the twentieth century, Franz Boas argued for the centralimportance of language to an understanding of culture. Specifically, Boas notedthat certain aspects of linguistic structure, such as grammatical categories, rarelybecome objects of conscious reflection. Because of this, he proposed, these aspectsof language provide a window onto primary ethnological phenomena (or“funda-mental ethnic ideas”; see Stocking 1966, Silverstein 1979). In contrast, aspects ofcustom and tradition more available to conscious reflection are subject to second-ary explanation and reanalysis, and get caught up in higher-order subjectiveschemes of social evaluation (as,e.g.,“high”,“popular”,“traditional”,“noble”and so on, see Sapir 1924). In recent years, linguistic anthropologists have focusedon differences in the degree to which cultural phenomena are available to con-scious awareness, finding here not a reason to privilege some kinds of data overothers but rather a central mechanism ofcultural dynamism. In what follows, weexplore these issues at the heart of the language/culture relationship–and someof the associated complexities of current semiotic theory–through a considerationof the language-culture nexus in two settings in mainland Southeast Asia: histori-cal developments in twentieth century Vietnam and contemporary life in ruralcommunities of lowland Laos. We evaluate the implications of these case studiesfor directions in linguistic anthropology broadly, as well as for research on lan-guageandcultureinmainlandSoutheastAsia.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
In the early decades of the twentieth century, Franz Boas argued for the centralimportance of language to an understanding of culture. Specifically, Boas notedthat certain aspects of linguistic structure, such as grammatical categories, rarelybecome objects of conscious reflection. Because of this, he proposed, these aspectsof language provide a window onto primary ethnological phenomena (or“funda-mental ethnic ideas”; see Stocking 1966, Silverstein 1979). In contrast, aspects ofcustom and tradition more available to conscious reflection are subject to second-ary explanation and reanalysis, and get caught up in higher-order subjectiveschemes of social evaluation (as,e.g.,“high”,“popular”,“traditional”,“noble”and so on, see Sapir 1924). In recent years, linguistic anthropologists have focusedon differences in the degree to which cultural phenomena are available to con-scious awareness, finding here not a reason to privilege some kinds of data overothers but rather a central mechanism ofcultural dynamism. In what follows, weexplore these issues at the heart of the language/culture relationship–and someof the associated complexities of current semiotic theory–through a considerationof the language-culture nexus in two settings in mainland Southeast Asia: histori-cal developments in twentieth century Vietnam and contemporary life in ruralcommunities of lowland Laos. We evaluate the implications of these case studiesfor directions in linguistic anthropology broadly, as well as for research on lan-guageandcultureinmainlandSoutheastAsia.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Action and Accountability in Interaction Book Chapter
In: Deppermann, Arnulf; Haugh, Michael (Ed.): pp. 279-296, Cambridge University Press, 2022, ISBN: 9781108474627.
@inbook{Sidnell2022b,
title = {Action and Accountability in Interaction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
editor = {Arnulf Deppermann and Michael Haugh},
doi = {10.1017/9781108673419.015},
isbn = {9781108474627},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-31},
urldate = {2022-01-31},
pages = {279-296},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what an appropriate response would be? We argue: (1) Every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behaviour is goal-directed; (2) Responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; (3) Describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a binning procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what an appropriate response would be? We argue: (1) Every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behaviour is goal-directed; (2) Responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; (3) Describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a binning procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
2021
Sidnell, Jack
Generic reference and social ontology in Vietnamese conversation Journal Article
In: Language in Society, vol. 50, iss. 4, pp. 533-555, 2021.
@article{Sidnell2021,
title = {Generic reference and social ontology in Vietnamese conversation},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/S0047404521000361},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-01},
urldate = {2021-09-01},
journal = {Language in Society},
volume = {50},
issue = {4},
pages = {533-555},
abstract = {Generic expressions play a key role in the interactional articulation, social circulation, and temporal reproduction of ideology. Here I examine fragments from a conversation between four middle-class participants which took place at a café in Hanoi. After briefly describing the particular grammatico-textual patterns by which specific and generic references are accomplished in Vietnamese, I turn to consider two extended stretches of talk in which these people weave generic reference into the warp and weft of their interaction. I argue that generic reference is intimately tied to social ontology which consists, in part, of ideas about distinct and essentialized ‘kinds of persons’. Deployed in what appears, on the surface at least, as ordinary, mundane conversation, not only does such generic reference serve to position those referred to as ‘ontological other’ (Wynter 1987), it also constitutes an ‘act of alterity’ (Hastings & Manning 2004) by which the participants tacitly characterize themselves. (Reference, Vietnamese, social ontology, alterity, stereotype, essentialism)},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Generic expressions play a key role in the interactional articulation, social circulation, and temporal reproduction of ideology. Here I examine fragments from a conversation between four middle-class participants which took place at a café in Hanoi. After briefly describing the particular grammatico-textual patterns by which specific and generic references are accomplished in Vietnamese, I turn to consider two extended stretches of talk in which these people weave generic reference into the warp and weft of their interaction. I argue that generic reference is intimately tied to social ontology which consists, in part, of ideas about distinct and essentialized ‘kinds of persons’. Deployed in what appears, on the surface at least, as ordinary, mundane conversation, not only does such generic reference serve to position those referred to as ‘ontological other’ (Wynter 1987), it also constitutes an ‘act of alterity’ (Hastings & Manning 2004) by which the participants tacitly characterize themselves. (Reference, Vietnamese, social ontology, alterity, stereotype, essentialism)
Sidnell, Jack
Technique and the Threat of Deethicalization Bachelor Thesis
2021.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2021b,
title = {Technique and the Threat of Deethicalization},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
editor = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1086/716433},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-01},
urldate = {2021-09-01},
journal = {Signs and Society},
volume = {9},
issue = {3},
pages = {343-365},
abstract = {Students at a yoga school in southern India learn physically demanding sequences of āsana (posture, pose) that they conceptualize as tools with which to cultivate inner qualities. In a wide range of contexts, teachers and master practitioners insist that these techniques of the body must be executed in particular ways and accompanied by specific mental states if they are to have their intended ethical effects. Yoga is thus understood to combine outwardly observable technique with an unobservable yet essential, inner component. One consequence of this to which students and teachers are pervasively oriented is that the techniques become vulnerable to a kind of deethicalization by which they are “bleached” of their spiritual content and reduced to mere physical exercise. The paper begins by comparing concerns about deethicalization among yoga practitioners with similar ideas about folklorization among participants in a women’s mosque movement described by Mahmood (2012). I then turn to consider three semiotic processes relevant to the specific case: circumscription, performed demonstration and photographically enhanced entextualization.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
Students at a yoga school in southern India learn physically demanding sequences of āsana (posture, pose) that they conceptualize as tools with which to cultivate inner qualities. In a wide range of contexts, teachers and master practitioners insist that these techniques of the body must be executed in particular ways and accompanied by specific mental states if they are to have their intended ethical effects. Yoga is thus understood to combine outwardly observable technique with an unobservable yet essential, inner component. One consequence of this to which students and teachers are pervasively oriented is that the techniques become vulnerable to a kind of deethicalization by which they are “bleached” of their spiritual content and reduced to mere physical exercise. The paper begins by comparing concerns about deethicalization among yoga practitioners with similar ideas about folklorization among participants in a women’s mosque movement described by Mahmood (2012). I then turn to consider three semiotic processes relevant to the specific case: circumscription, performed demonstration and photographically enhanced entextualization.
Sidnell, Jack
Generic reference and social ontology in Vietnamese conversation Bachelor Thesis
2021.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2021c,
title = {Generic reference and social ontology in Vietnamese conversation},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/S0047404521000361},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-01},
urldate = {2021-09-01},
journal = {Language in Society},
volume = {50},
issue = {4},
pages = {533-555},
abstract = {Generic expressions play a key role in the interactional articulation, social circulation, and temporal reproduction of ideology. Here I examine fragments from a conversation between four middle-class participants which took place at a café in Hanoi. After briefly describing the particular grammatico-textual patterns by which specific and generic references are accomplished in Vietnamese, I turn to consider two extended stretches of talk in which these people weave generic reference into the warp and weft of their interaction. I argue that generic reference is intimately tied to social ontology which consists, in part, of ideas about distinct and essentialized ‘kinds of persons’. Deployed in what appears, on the surface at least, as ordinary, mundane conversation, not only does such generic reference serve to position those referred to as ‘ontological other’ (Wynter 1987), it also constitutes an ‘act of alterity’ (Hastings & Manning 2004) by which the participants tacitly characterize themselves. (Reference, Vietnamese, social ontology, alterity, stereotype, essentialism).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
Generic expressions play a key role in the interactional articulation, social circulation, and temporal reproduction of ideology. Here I examine fragments from a conversation between four middle-class participants which took place at a café in Hanoi. After briefly describing the particular grammatico-textual patterns by which specific and generic references are accomplished in Vietnamese, I turn to consider two extended stretches of talk in which these people weave generic reference into the warp and weft of their interaction. I argue that generic reference is intimately tied to social ontology which consists, in part, of ideas about distinct and essentialized ‘kinds of persons’. Deployed in what appears, on the surface at least, as ordinary, mundane conversation, not only does such generic reference serve to position those referred to as ‘ontological other’ (Wynter 1987), it also constitutes an ‘act of alterity’ (Hastings & Manning 2004) by which the participants tacitly characterize themselves. (Reference, Vietnamese, social ontology, alterity, stereotype, essentialism).
2020
Sidnell, Jack
Person and Self Journal Article
In: pp. 1-13, 2020.
@article{Sidnell2020,
title = {Person and Self},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1002/9781118786093.iela0308},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-09},
urldate = {2020-11-09},
pages = {1-13},
abstract = {The concepts of person(hood) and self(hood) have long been at the center of anthropological theory and ethnographic description. This entry focuses specifically on what a linguistic and semiotic perspective adds to an anthropological account.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The concepts of person(hood) and self(hood) have long been at the center of anthropological theory and ethnographic description. This entry focuses specifically on what a linguistic and semiotic perspective adds to an anthropological account.
Sidnell, Jack
Get ’Em Out!: The Meaning of Ejecting Protesters Book Chapter
In: pp. 63-73, 2020, ISBN: 9781108841146.
@inbook{Sidnell2020b,
title = {Get ’Em Out!: The Meaning of Ejecting Protesters},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/9781108887410.004},
isbn = {9781108841146},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-31},
urldate = {2020-08-31},
pages = {63-73},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Sidnell, Jack
Presupposition and Entailment Journal Article
In: The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 1-8, 2020.
@article{Sidnell2020c,
title = {Presupposition and Entailment},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1002/9781118786093.iela0325},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-11},
urldate = {2020-08-11},
journal = {The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology},
pages = {1-8},
abstract = {The terms “presupposition” and “entailment” refer to fundamental operations of human thinking which are of central relevance to language use and social interaction. While in linguistic pragmatics and the philosophy of language presupposition and entailment are typically conceptualized in terms of relations between propositions or between a speaker's utterance and her beliefs, in linguistic anthropology they are most useful in helping us to understand the relation between speech signal (or any other form of conduct) and its context of occurrence.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The terms “presupposition” and “entailment” refer to fundamental operations of human thinking which are of central relevance to language use and social interaction. While in linguistic pragmatics and the philosophy of language presupposition and entailment are typically conceptualized in terms of relations between propositions or between a speaker's utterance and her beliefs, in linguistic anthropology they are most useful in helping us to understand the relation between speech signal (or any other form of conduct) and its context of occurrence.
Sidnell, Jack
Presupposition and Entailment Journal Article
In: pp. 1-8, 2020.
@article{Sidnell2020d,
title = {Presupposition and Entailment},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1002/9781118786093.iela0325},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-11},
urldate = {2020-08-11},
pages = {1-8},
abstract = {The terms “presupposition” and “entailment” refer to fundamental operations of human thinking which are of central relevance to language use and social interaction. While in linguistic pragmatics and the philosophy of language presupposition and entailment are typically conceptualized in terms of relations between propositions or between a speaker's utterance and her beliefs, in linguistic anthropology they are most useful in helping us to understand the relation between speech signal (or any other form of conduct) and its context of occurrence.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The terms “presupposition” and “entailment” refer to fundamental operations of human thinking which are of central relevance to language use and social interaction. While in linguistic pragmatics and the philosophy of language presupposition and entailment are typically conceptualized in terms of relations between propositions or between a speaker's utterance and her beliefs, in linguistic anthropology they are most useful in helping us to understand the relation between speech signal (or any other form of conduct) and its context of occurrence.
2019
Sidnell, Jack; Meudec, Marie; Lambek, Michael
Ethical Immanence Journal Article
In: Anthropological Theory 19(3): DOI:, vol. 19, iss. 3, pp. 1-20, 2019.
@article{Sidnell2019,
title = {Ethical Immanence},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Marie Meudec and Michael Lambek},
doi = {10.1177/1463499619836328},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-19},
urldate = {2019-10-19},
journal = {Anthropological Theory 19(3): DOI:},
volume = {19},
issue = {3},
pages = {1-20},
abstract = {Ethical judgement suffuses everyday life: it is not only objectified in rules or codes, experienced as duty, or realised as reason distinct from action. Nor in its primary manifestations is the ethical realised as a separate domain of thought, activity or expertise. The possibility that we explore in this collection is that ethics is immanent to action and to social life more generally, within it rather than at arm’s length from it. Our intention is not to reach unanimity, claim an exclusive truth or build a consistent model, but to follow the diverse paths along which thinking about the ethical in this way leads u},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Ethical judgement suffuses everyday life: it is not only objectified in rules or codes, experienced as duty, or realised as reason distinct from action. Nor in its primary manifestations is the ethical realised as a separate domain of thought, activity or expertise. The possibility that we explore in this collection is that ethics is immanent to action and to social life more generally, within it rather than at arm’s length from it. Our intention is not to reach unanimity, claim an exclusive truth or build a consistent model, but to follow the diverse paths along which thinking about the ethical in this way leads u
Sidnell, Jack
Ejecting protestors, interpellating supporters: The interactional pragmatics of expulsion at Trump’s campaign rallies Journal Article
In: Semiotica, vol. 2019, iss. 231, 2019.
@article{Sidnell2019b,
title = {Ejecting protestors, interpellating supporters: The interactional pragmatics of expulsion at Trump’s campaign rallies},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1515/sem-2019-0067},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-15},
urldate = {2019-10-15},
journal = {Semiotica},
volume = {2019},
issue = {231},
abstract = {During his campaign for president in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly instructed his supporters and event security to remove protesters from his rallies, most often, by issuing a directive to “get them out”. These occasions, far from being a distraction from the political process, emerged as potent rituals of participation and the activity of removing protestors became a tool of interactional messaging. Specifically, activities of ejecting protestors were semiotically and discursively elaborated so as to cast them as the virtual realizations of a larger political project of “making America great again.” Various aspects of this include the way these events came to signify about Trump’s persona and the brand of leadership he promised, about immigration reform and border control, about the possibilities for political participation and about a more diffuse struggle against the supposed tyranny of political correctness. Moreover, supporters who responded to the the instruction by attempting to remove protestors were interpellated by it as agents in the local scene of action and were thereby written into the larger populist narrative that Trump articulated.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
During his campaign for president in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly instructed his supporters and event security to remove protesters from his rallies, most often, by issuing a directive to “get them out”. These occasions, far from being a distraction from the political process, emerged as potent rituals of participation and the activity of removing protestors became a tool of interactional messaging. Specifically, activities of ejecting protestors were semiotically and discursively elaborated so as to cast them as the virtual realizations of a larger political project of “making America great again.” Various aspects of this include the way these events came to signify about Trump’s persona and the brand of leadership he promised, about immigration reform and border control, about the possibilities for political participation and about a more diffuse struggle against the supposed tyranny of political correctness. Moreover, supporters who responded to the the instruction by attempting to remove protestors were interpellated by it as agents in the local scene of action and were thereby written into the larger populist narrative that Trump articulated.
Sidnell, Jack
Ejecting protestors, interpellating supporters: The interactional pragmatics of expulsion at Trump’s campaign rallies Journal Article
In: Semiotica, vol. 2019, iss. 231, 2019.
@article{Sidnell2019e,
title = {Ejecting protestors, interpellating supporters: The interactional pragmatics of expulsion at Trump’s campaign rallies},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1515/sem-2019-0067},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-15},
urldate = {2019-10-15},
journal = {Semiotica},
volume = {2019},
issue = {231},
abstract = {During his campaign for president in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly instructed his supporters and event security to remove protesters from his rallies, most often, by issuing a directive to “get them out”. These occasions, far from being a distraction from the political process, emerged as potent rituals of participation and the activity of removing protestors became a tool of interactional messaging. Specifically, activities of ejecting protestors were semiotically and discursively elaborated so as to cast them as the virtual realizations of a larger political project of “making America great again.” Various aspects of this include the way these events came to signify about Trump’s persona and the brand of leadership he promised, about immigration reform and border control, about the possibilities for political participation and about a more diffuse struggle against the supposed tyranny of political correctness. Moreover, supporters who responded to the the instruction by attempting to remove protestors were interpellated by it as agents in the local scene of action and were thereby written into the larger populist narrative that Trump articulated.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
During his campaign for president in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly instructed his supporters and event security to remove protesters from his rallies, most often, by issuing a directive to “get them out”. These occasions, far from being a distraction from the political process, emerged as potent rituals of participation and the activity of removing protestors became a tool of interactional messaging. Specifically, activities of ejecting protestors were semiotically and discursively elaborated so as to cast them as the virtual realizations of a larger political project of “making America great again.” Various aspects of this include the way these events came to signify about Trump’s persona and the brand of leadership he promised, about immigration reform and border control, about the possibilities for political participation and about a more diffuse struggle against the supposed tyranny of political correctness. Moreover, supporters who responded to the the instruction by attempting to remove protestors were interpellated by it as agents in the local scene of action and were thereby written into the larger populist narrative that Trump articulated.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
The Normative Nature of Language Book Chapter
In: pp. 265-278, 2019, ISBN: 9780190846466.
@inbook{Sidnell2019c,
title = {The Normative Nature of Language},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1093/oso/9780190846466.003.0013},
isbn = {9780190846466},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-07-25},
urldate = {2019-07-25},
pages = {265-278},
abstract = {This chapter examines the normative nature of language, focusing on the idea that there are socially determined and commonly shared criteria for accountably appropriate action specific to language. We define norms in terms of three key properties: if a pattern of behavior is supported by a norm, it is subliminal (the behavior is not noticed when present), ablinimal (the behavior is noticed when absent), and inference-vulnerable (absence of, or deviation from, the behavior generates inferences). In exploring the normative nature of language, this chapter first considers people’s orientation to norms in the use of language in social interaction, and then turns to people’s orientation to norms in the appropriate use of words. The chapter makes the case not only that word meanings are regulated by norms but that people are motivated to enforce such norms even in the most mundane and informal of settings. This is the result of a general tyranny of accountability , which pertains to language, and to other forms of behavior that are grounded in human intersubjectivity.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter examines the normative nature of language, focusing on the idea that there are socially determined and commonly shared criteria for accountably appropriate action specific to language. We define norms in terms of three key properties: if a pattern of behavior is supported by a norm, it is subliminal (the behavior is not noticed when present), ablinimal (the behavior is noticed when absent), and inference-vulnerable (absence of, or deviation from, the behavior generates inferences). In exploring the normative nature of language, this chapter first considers people’s orientation to norms in the use of language in social interaction, and then turns to people’s orientation to norms in the appropriate use of words. The chapter makes the case not only that word meanings are regulated by norms but that people are motivated to enforce such norms even in the most mundane and informal of settings. This is the result of a general tyranny of accountability , which pertains to language, and to other forms of behavior that are grounded in human intersubjectivity.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
The Normative Nature of Language Book Chapter
In: pp. 265-278, 2019, ISBN: 9780190846466.
@inbook{Sidnell2019f,
title = {The Normative Nature of Language},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1093/oso/9780190846466.003.0013},
isbn = {9780190846466},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-07-25},
urldate = {2019-07-25},
pages = {265-278},
abstract = {This chapter examines the normative nature of language, focusing on the idea that there are socially determined and commonly shared criteria for accountably appropriate action specific to language. We define norms in terms of three key properties: if a pattern of behavior is supported by a norm, it is subliminal (the behavior is not noticed when present), ablinimal (the behavior is noticed when absent), and inference-vulnerable (absence of, or deviation from, the behavior generates inferences). In exploring the normative nature of language, this chapter first considers people’s orientation to norms in the use of language in social interaction, and then turns to people’s orientation to norms in the appropriate use of words. The chapter makes the case not only that word meanings are regulated by norms but that people are motivated to enforce such norms even in the most mundane and informal of settings. This is the result of a general tyranny of accountability , which pertains to language, and to other forms of behavior that are grounded in human intersubjectivity.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter examines the normative nature of language, focusing on the idea that there are socially determined and commonly shared criteria for accountably appropriate action specific to language. We define norms in terms of three key properties: if a pattern of behavior is supported by a norm, it is subliminal (the behavior is not noticed when present), ablinimal (the behavior is noticed when absent), and inference-vulnerable (absence of, or deviation from, the behavior generates inferences). In exploring the normative nature of language, this chapter first considers people’s orientation to norms in the use of language in social interaction, and then turns to people’s orientation to norms in the appropriate use of words. The chapter makes the case not only that word meanings are regulated by norms but that people are motivated to enforce such norms even in the most mundane and informal of settings. This is the result of a general tyranny of accountability , which pertains to language, and to other forms of behavior that are grounded in human intersubjectivity.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
The Normative Nature of Language Book Chapter
In: Chapter 13, pp. 265-278, 2019, ISBN: 9780190846466.
@inbook{Sidnell2019g,
title = {The Normative Nature of Language},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield
},
doi = {10.1093/oso/9780190846466.003.0013},
isbn = {9780190846466},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-07-25},
urldate = {2019-07-25},
pages = {265-278},
chapter = {13},
abstract = {This chapter examines the normative nature of language, focusing on the idea that there are socially determined and commonly shared criteria for accountably appropriate action specific to language. We define norms in terms of three key properties: if a pattern of behavior is supported by a norm, it is subliminal (the behavior is not noticed when present), ablinimal (the behavior is noticed when absent), and inference-vulnerable (absence of, or deviation from, the behavior generates inferences). In exploring the normative nature of language, this chapter first considers people’s orientation to norms in the use of language in social interaction, and then turns to people’s orientation to norms in the appropriate use of words. The chapter makes the case not only that word meanings are regulated by norms but that people are motivated to enforce such norms even in the most mundane and informal of settings. This is the result of a general tyranny of accountability , which pertains to language, and to other forms of behavior that are grounded in human intersubjectivity.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter examines the normative nature of language, focusing on the idea that there are socially determined and commonly shared criteria for accountably appropriate action specific to language. We define norms in terms of three key properties: if a pattern of behavior is supported by a norm, it is subliminal (the behavior is not noticed when present), ablinimal (the behavior is noticed when absent), and inference-vulnerable (absence of, or deviation from, the behavior generates inferences). In exploring the normative nature of language, this chapter first considers people’s orientation to norms in the use of language in social interaction, and then turns to people’s orientation to norms in the appropriate use of words. The chapter makes the case not only that word meanings are regulated by norms but that people are motivated to enforce such norms even in the most mundane and informal of settings. This is the result of a general tyranny of accountability , which pertains to language, and to other forms of behavior that are grounded in human intersubjectivity.
Sidnell, Jack; Raymond, Geoffrey T
Interaction at the Boundaries of a World Known in Common: Initiating Repair with “What Do You Mean?” Journal Article
In: Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 52, iss. 2, pp. 177-192, 2019.
@article{Sidnell2019d,
title = {Interaction at the Boundaries of a World Known in Common: Initiating Repair with “What Do You Mean?”},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Geoffrey T Raymond},
doi = {10.1080/08351813.2019.1608100},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-04-03},
urldate = {2019-04-03},
journal = {Research on Language and Social Interaction},
volume = {52},
issue = {2},
pages = {177-192},
abstract = {A recurrent feature of Garfinkel’s famous breaching experiments in which student confederates were instructed to engage an unsuspecting subject in conversation and subsequently insist that they “clarify the sense of (their) commonplace remarks” is the student experimenter’s use, in attempting to realize such “insistence,” of a turn composed of “what do you mean” plus a repetition of some part of the prior talk. Garfinkel suggested that such utterances tended to provoke moral outrage. The analysis presented here aims to explicate just how such utterances work, how they intersect with assumptions about the distribution of knowledge between participants to interaction, and why they might elicit such strong reactions from those to whom they are directed. Data are in American and Canadian English.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A recurrent feature of Garfinkel’s famous breaching experiments in which student confederates were instructed to engage an unsuspecting subject in conversation and subsequently insist that they “clarify the sense of (their) commonplace remarks” is the student experimenter’s use, in attempting to realize such “insistence,” of a turn composed of “what do you mean” plus a repetition of some part of the prior talk. Garfinkel suggested that such utterances tended to provoke moral outrage. The analysis presented here aims to explicate just how such utterances work, how they intersect with assumptions about the distribution of knowledge between participants to interaction, and why they might elicit such strong reactions from those to whom they are directed. Data are in American and Canadian English.
2018
Sidnell, Jack; Stivers, Tanya; Bergen, Clara
Children's responses to questions in peer interaction: A window into the ontogenesis of interactional competence Bachelor Thesis
2018.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2018,
title = {Children's responses to questions in peer interaction: A window into the ontogenesis of interactional competence},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers and Clara Bergen},
doi = {10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.013},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-01},
urldate = {2018-01-01},
journal = {Journal of Pragmatics},
volume = {124},
pages = {14-30},
abstract = {What is it about children's interactions that is distinctive from adults' interactions? This article relies on a conversation analytically informed quantitative analysis of video recordings of child-child interaction to address this question. We examined 2000 questions and their responses in spontaneous conversation among three-party groups of same age children between 4-8 years of age to investigate the frequency and distributional patterns related to norms governing question-response sequences. We show that school-age children exhibit similar frequency distributions to adults but respond to questions less often and are slower than adults, with minimal age-related differences. Still more important, we argue, is that children's responses show a lack of reflexive awareness of the underlying norms. We propose that it is children's turn designs that lead child interaction to feel distinctive because children at these ages are not differentiating their norm-following from norm-departing responses.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
What is it about children's interactions that is distinctive from adults' interactions? This article relies on a conversation analytically informed quantitative analysis of video recordings of child-child interaction to address this question. We examined 2000 questions and their responses in spontaneous conversation among three-party groups of same age children between 4-8 years of age to investigate the frequency and distributional patterns related to norms governing question-response sequences. We show that school-age children exhibit similar frequency distributions to adults but respond to questions less often and are slower than adults, with minimal age-related differences. Still more important, we argue, is that children's responses show a lack of reflexive awareness of the underlying norms. We propose that it is children's turn designs that lead child interaction to feel distinctive because children at these ages are not differentiating their norm-following from norm-departing responses.
2017
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
How to distinguish a wink from a twitch Journal Article
In: HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 7, iss. 2, pp. 457-465, 2017.
@article{Sidnell2017,
title = {How to distinguish a wink from a twitch},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.14318/hau7.2.038},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-11-07},
urldate = {2017-11-07},
journal = {HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory},
volume = {7},
issue = {2},
pages = {457-465},
abstract = {Comment on Duranti, Alessandro. 2015. The anthropology of intentions: Language in a world of others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Comment on Duranti, Alessandro. 2015. The anthropology of intentions: Language in a world of others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
On the concept of action in the study of interaction Journal Article
In: Discourse Studies, vol. 19, iss. 5, pp. 515-535, 2017.
@article{Sidnell2017b,
title = {On the concept of action in the study of interaction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N.J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1177/1461445617730235},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-10-01},
urldate = {2017-10-01},
journal = {Discourse Studies},
volume = {19},
issue = {5},
pages = {515-535},
abstract = {What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what would be an appropriate response? We argue that (1) every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behavior is goal directed; (2) responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; and (3) describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a ‘binning’ procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what would be an appropriate response? We argue that (1) every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behavior is goal directed; (2) responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; and (3) describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a ‘binning’ procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
On the concept of action in the study of interaction Journal Article
In: Discourse Studies, vol. 19, iss. 5, pp. 515-535, 2017.
@article{nokey,
title = {On the concept of action in the study of interaction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N.J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1177/1461445617730235},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-10-01},
urldate = {2017-10-01},
journal = {Discourse Studies},
volume = {19},
issue = {5},
pages = {515-535},
abstract = {What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what would be an appropriate response? We argue that (1) every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behavior is goal directed; (2) responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; and (3) describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a ‘binning’ procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what would be an appropriate response? We argue that (1) every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behavior is goal directed; (2) responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; and (3) describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a ‘binning’ procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Cambridge University Press, 2017, ISBN: 9780521895286.
@book{Sidnell2017c,
title = {The Concept of Action},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N.J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1017/9781139025928},
isbn = {9780521895286},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-09-29},
urldate = {2017-09-29},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {When people do things with words, how do we know what they are doing? Many scholars have assumed a category of things called actions: ‘requests’, ‘proposals’, ‘complaints’, ‘excuses’. The idea is both convenient and intuitive, but as this book argues, it is a spurious concept of action. In interaction, a person’s primary task is to decide how to respond, not to label what someone just did. The labeling of actions is a meta-level process, appropriate only when we wish to draw attention to others’ behaviors in order to quiz, sanction, praise, blame, or otherwise hold them to account. This book develops a new account of action grounded in certain fundamental ideas about the nature of human sociality: that social conduct is naturally interpreted as purposeful; that human behavior is shaped under a tyranny of social accountability; and that language is our central resource for social action and reaction.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
When people do things with words, how do we know what they are doing? Many scholars have assumed a category of things called actions: ‘requests’, ‘proposals’, ‘complaints’, ‘excuses’. The idea is both convenient and intuitive, but as this book argues, it is a spurious concept of action. In interaction, a person’s primary task is to decide how to respond, not to label what someone just did. The labeling of actions is a meta-level process, appropriate only when we wish to draw attention to others’ behaviors in order to quiz, sanction, praise, blame, or otherwise hold them to account. This book develops a new account of action grounded in certain fundamental ideas about the nature of human sociality: that social conduct is naturally interpreted as purposeful; that human behavior is shaped under a tyranny of social accountability; and that language is our central resource for social action and reaction.
Sidnell, Jack
Ethical practice and techniques of the self at a yoga school in southern India Journal Article
In: Anthropology Today, vol. 33, iss. 4, pp. 13-17, 2017.
@article{Sidnell2017d,
title = {Ethical practice and techniques of the self at a yoga school in southern India},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1111/1467-8322.12361},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-08-01},
urldate = {2017-08-01},
journal = {Anthropology Today},
volume = {33},
issue = {4},
pages = {13-17},
abstract = {Foucault's conception of ethics as the self's relation to itself and as the practices by which the individual attempts to constitute itself as a particular kind of ethical subject is briefly sketched, along with three corollaries that follow from this. It is then suggested that ethics so conceived provides a useful framework within which to describe the activities at a yoga school in southern India.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Foucault's conception of ethics as the self's relation to itself and as the practices by which the individual attempts to constitute itself as a particular kind of ethical subject is briefly sketched, along with three corollaries that follow from this. It is then suggested that ethics so conceived provides a useful framework within which to describe the activities at a yoga school in southern India.
Sidnell, Jack
Action in interaction is conduct under a description Journal Article
In: Language in Society, vol. 46, iss. 03, pp. 1-25, 2017.
@article{Sidnell2017e,
title = {Action in interaction is conduct under a description},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/S0047404517000173},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-24},
urldate = {2017-04-24},
journal = {Language in Society},
volume = {46},
issue = {03},
pages = {1-25},
abstract = {Requests, offers, invitations, complaints, and greetings are some of the many action types routinely invoked in the description and analysis of interaction. But what is the ontological status of, for instance, a request? In what follows I propose that action is conduct under a description. Thus, for the most part, interaction is organized independently of any action description or categorization of conduct into discrete action types. Instead, participants in interaction draw on the details of the situation in which they find themselves in order to produce conduct that others will recognize and to which they are able to respond in fitted ways. ‘Action’ still plays a key role in the organization of interaction, however, because accountability attaches not to raw conduct but only to conduct under some particular, action-formulating description. (Action, interaction, description, conversation analysis, Anscombe.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Requests, offers, invitations, complaints, and greetings are some of the many action types routinely invoked in the description and analysis of interaction. But what is the ontological status of, for instance, a request? In what follows I propose that action is conduct under a description. Thus, for the most part, interaction is organized independently of any action description or categorization of conduct into discrete action types. Instead, participants in interaction draw on the details of the situation in which they find themselves in order to produce conduct that others will recognize and to which they are able to respond in fitted ways. ‘Action’ still plays a key role in the organization of interaction, however, because accountability attaches not to raw conduct but only to conduct under some particular, action-formulating description. (Action, interaction, description, conversation analysis, Anscombe.
2016
Sidnell, Jack
Interactional Trouble and the Ecology of Meaning Journal Article
In: Psychology of Language and Communication, vol. 20, pp. 98 - 111, 2016.
@article{Sidnell2016,
title = {Interactional Trouble and the Ecology of Meaning},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1515/plc-2016-0006},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-12-01},
urldate = {2016-12-01},
journal = {Psychology of Language and Communication},
volume = {20},
pages = {98 - 111},
abstract = {Drawing on the methods of conversation analysis (Sidnell, 2010; Sidnell and Stivers, 2012) and the data provided by recordings of ordinary interaction, in this paper I ask what a radically empirical approach to word meaning might look like. Specifically, I explore the possibility that we might investigate linguistic meaning through a consideration of interactional troubles. That is, when participants in interaction confront apparent troubles of meaning, what do those troubles consist in? What is the missing something that leaves participants in interaction feeling as though they do not understand what another means? Four types of trouble in interaction are discussed: troubles of exophoric or anaphoric reference, troubles of common ground, troubles of lexical meaning, troubles of sense.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Drawing on the methods of conversation analysis (Sidnell, 2010; Sidnell and Stivers, 2012) and the data provided by recordings of ordinary interaction, in this paper I ask what a radically empirical approach to word meaning might look like. Specifically, I explore the possibility that we might investigate linguistic meaning through a consideration of interactional troubles. That is, when participants in interaction confront apparent troubles of meaning, what do those troubles consist in? What is the missing something that leaves participants in interaction feeling as though they do not understand what another means? Four types of trouble in interaction are discussed: troubles of exophoric or anaphoric reference, troubles of common ground, troubles of lexical meaning, troubles of sense.
Sidnell, Jack; Stivers, Tanya
Proposals for Activity Collaboration Journal Article
In: Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 49, iss. 2, pp. 148-166, 2016.
@article{Sidnell2016b,
title = {Proposals for Activity Collaboration},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers},
doi = {10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-04-02},
urldate = {2016-04-02},
journal = {Research on Language and Social Interaction},
volume = {49},
issue = {2},
pages = {148-166},
abstract = {This article examines two common ways that speakers propose a new joint activity—“Let’s X” and “How about X”—in an examination of video recordings of children playing. Whereas Let’s constructions treat the proposed activity as disjunctive with the prior, How about constructions treat the proposed activity as modifying the ongoing activity. We rely on distributional as well as turn-design evidence including phonetic and bodily resources of turn design. We also analyze deviant cases where we argue that speakers are working to either increase or decrease the distance between the new activity and the prior activity. Data are in Canadian English.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article examines two common ways that speakers propose a new joint activity—“Let’s X” and “How about X”—in an examination of video recordings of children playing. Whereas Let’s constructions treat the proposed activity as disjunctive with the prior, How about constructions treat the proposed activity as modifying the ongoing activity. We rely on distributional as well as turn-design evidence including phonetic and bodily resources of turn design. We also analyze deviant cases where we argue that speakers are working to either increase or decrease the distance between the new activity and the prior activity. Data are in Canadian English.
2015
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation Journal Article
In: Linguistics Vanguard, vol. 0, 2015.
@article{Sidnell2015,
title = {Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1515/lingvan-2014-1008},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-05},
urldate = {2015-01-05},
journal = {Linguistics Vanguard},
volume = {0},
abstract = {While it has been shown that languages can select quite different formal resources for performing similar pragmatic functions in social interaction, our focus in this paper is the possibility that some types of form-function mapping are essentially universal. Our case study looks at how polar questions are confirmed. For confirming a polar question like ‘Have they gone?’, all languages provide two basic alternatives: an interjection type strategy (something like ‘Yes’) and a repetition type strategy (something like ‘They have gone’). Combinations of these are also possible. Does selection of one of these options have a definable pragmatic function? An analysis of cases from English telephone calls shows that interjection type confirmations are used when the confirmation is relatively straightforward in interactional terms, and where the epistemic terms of the question are accepted by the person who is confirming. By contrast, repetition type confirmations are associated with pragmatic functions where the answerer is in some way resisting the epistemic terms of the question, or dealing with a perturbation of the interactional sequence. We argue that the inherent semiotics of the two strategies explain why they have this distribution; i.e., we do not expect that interjection forms would be standardly used for non-straightforward confirmations, etc. In other words, the form-function mapping observed in English is a non-arbitrary one. Given that this semiotic motivation for choosing one over the other alternative for confirming polar questions should be present in other languages as well, we predict that the mapping observed in English will be observed in other languages as well.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
While it has been shown that languages can select quite different formal resources for performing similar pragmatic functions in social interaction, our focus in this paper is the possibility that some types of form-function mapping are essentially universal. Our case study looks at how polar questions are confirmed. For confirming a polar question like ‘Have they gone?’, all languages provide two basic alternatives: an interjection type strategy (something like ‘Yes’) and a repetition type strategy (something like ‘They have gone’). Combinations of these are also possible. Does selection of one of these options have a definable pragmatic function? An analysis of cases from English telephone calls shows that interjection type confirmations are used when the confirmation is relatively straightforward in interactional terms, and where the epistemic terms of the question are accepted by the person who is confirming. By contrast, repetition type confirmations are associated with pragmatic functions where the answerer is in some way resisting the epistemic terms of the question, or dealing with a perturbation of the interactional sequence. We argue that the inherent semiotics of the two strategies explain why they have this distribution; i.e., we do not expect that interjection forms would be standardly used for non-straightforward confirmations, etc. In other words, the form-function mapping observed in English is a non-arbitrary one. Given that this semiotic motivation for choosing one over the other alternative for confirming polar questions should be present in other languages as well, we predict that the mapping observed in English will be observed in other languages as well.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Relations All the Way Down Journal Article
In: Current Anthropology, vol. 56, iss. 3, pp. 485, 2015.
@article{Sidnell2015b,
title = {Relations All the Way Down},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1086/681538},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
urldate = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Current Anthropology},
volume = {56},
issue = {3},
pages = {485},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2014
Sidnell, Jack
The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited Book Chapter
In: pp. 364 - 399, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
@inbook{Sidnell2014,
title = {The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = {364 - 399},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {This chapter emphasizes the diversity of local interpretive norms as well as putatively culture-specific ideas about the relative transparency or opacity of other minds. It deals with a quick review of some of the ways in which intersubjectivity has been conceptualized before turning to sketch the structures of interaction through which it is constituted. The human form of intersubjectivity, centrally involves joint attention and shared intentionality thus allowing two or more individuals to focus on the same object while simultaneously attending to the attention of the other. A series of positions within architecture of intersubjectivity: same turn/first position, transition space, next turn/second position, third position is identified. These are arranged serially as positions within an unfolding course of talk and their organization reflect then the fact that understanding, in interaction, is not static but in a certain basic sense emergent. The chapter discusses issues of cross-cultural diversity and species-uniqueness.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter emphasizes the diversity of local interpretive norms as well as putatively culture-specific ideas about the relative transparency or opacity of other minds. It deals with a quick review of some of the ways in which intersubjectivity has been conceptualized before turning to sketch the structures of interaction through which it is constituted. The human form of intersubjectivity, centrally involves joint attention and shared intentionality thus allowing two or more individuals to focus on the same object while simultaneously attending to the attention of the other. A series of positions within architecture of intersubjectivity: same turn/first position, transition space, next turn/second position, third position is identified. These are arranged serially as positions within an unfolding course of talk and their organization reflect then the fact that understanding, in interaction, is not static but in a certain basic sense emergent. The chapter discusses issues of cross-cultural diversity and species-uniqueness.
Sidnell, Jack
The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited Book Chapter
In: pp. 364 - 399, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
@inbook{Sidnell2014b,
title = {The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = {364 - 399},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {This chapter emphasizes the diversity of local interpretive norms as well as putatively culture-specific ideas about the relative transparency or opacity of other minds. It deals with a quick review of some of the ways in which intersubjectivity has been conceptualized before turning to sketch the structures of interaction through which it is constituted. The human form of intersubjectivity, centrally involves joint attention and shared intentionality thus allowing two or more individuals to focus on the same object while simultaneously attending to the attention of the other. A series of positions within architecture of intersubjectivity: same turn/first position, transition space, next turn/second position, third position is identified. These are arranged serially as positions within an unfolding course of talk and their organization reflect then the fact that understanding, in interaction, is not static but in a certain basic sense emergent. The chapter discusses issues of cross-cultural diversity and species-uniqueness.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter emphasizes the diversity of local interpretive norms as well as putatively culture-specific ideas about the relative transparency or opacity of other minds. It deals with a quick review of some of the ways in which intersubjectivity has been conceptualized before turning to sketch the structures of interaction through which it is constituted. The human form of intersubjectivity, centrally involves joint attention and shared intentionality thus allowing two or more individuals to focus on the same object while simultaneously attending to the attention of the other. A series of positions within architecture of intersubjectivity: same turn/first position, transition space, next turn/second position, third position is identified. These are arranged serially as positions within an unfolding course of talk and their organization reflect then the fact that understanding, in interaction, is not static but in a certain basic sense emergent. The chapter discusses issues of cross-cultural diversity and species-uniqueness.
Sidnell, Jack
The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited Book Chapter
In: pp. 364 - 399, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
@inbook{Sidnell2014c,
title = {The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = {364 - 399},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {This chapter emphasizes the diversity of local interpretive norms as well as putatively culture-specific ideas about the relative transparency or opacity of other minds. It deals with a quick review of some of the ways in which intersubjectivity has been conceptualized before turning to sketch the structures of interaction through which it is constituted. The human form of intersubjectivity, centrally involves joint attention and shared intentionality thus allowing two or more individuals to focus on the same object while simultaneously attending to the attention of the other. A series of positions within architecture of intersubjectivity: same turn/first position, transition space, next turn/second position, third position is identified. These are arranged serially as positions within an unfolding course of talk and their organization reflect then the fact that understanding, in interaction, is not static but in a certain basic sense emergent. The chapter discusses issues of cross-cultural diversity and species-uniqueness.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
This chapter emphasizes the diversity of local interpretive norms as well as putatively culture-specific ideas about the relative transparency or opacity of other minds. It deals with a quick review of some of the ways in which intersubjectivity has been conceptualized before turning to sketch the structures of interaction through which it is constituted. The human form of intersubjectivity, centrally involves joint attention and shared intentionality thus allowing two or more individuals to focus on the same object while simultaneously attending to the attention of the other. A series of positions within architecture of intersubjectivity: same turn/first position, transition space, next turn/second position, third position is identified. These are arranged serially as positions within an unfolding course of talk and their organization reflect then the fact that understanding, in interaction, is not static but in a certain basic sense emergent. The chapter discusses issues of cross-cultural diversity and species-uniqueness.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.; Kockelman, Paul
Process and formation Book Chapter
In: pp. 183 - 186, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
@inbook{Sidnell2014d,
title = {Process and formation},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield and Paul Kockelman},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.036},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = { 183 - 186},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {The formations of meaning explored in Part I include not only languages and cultures as highly complex systems, they also include linguistically competent and culturally socialized agents, as well as the capacities to speak languages and to inhabit cultures. What explains the nature of those formations? D’Arcy Thompson (On Growth and Form, Cambridge University Press, 1917) famously stressed the role of development: "Everything is this way because it got this way." The chapters in Part II explore the processes that create linguistic and cultural formations. These processes include diverse causal mechanisms, affecting different sites and unfolding on various scales, among which are the evolutionary, historical, developmental/biographical, interactional, and psychological. In surveying broad literatures, the chapters in Part II offer a rich picture of the causal mechanisms and temporal dynamics of human-specific modes of meaning. We begin our lives surrounded by language but unable to use it. One of the most remarkable developmental processes in our earliest years is the acquisition of a first language, through which in a few years we go from having zero linguistic competence to having mastered a significant proportion of the grammar of whatever language is being spoken in our community. The chapter by Brown and Gaskins treats first language learning in terms of two concomitant processes.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The formations of meaning explored in Part I include not only languages and cultures as highly complex systems, they also include linguistically competent and culturally socialized agents, as well as the capacities to speak languages and to inhabit cultures. What explains the nature of those formations? D’Arcy Thompson (On Growth and Form, Cambridge University Press, 1917) famously stressed the role of development: "Everything is this way because it got this way." The chapters in Part II explore the processes that create linguistic and cultural formations. These processes include diverse causal mechanisms, affecting different sites and unfolding on various scales, among which are the evolutionary, historical, developmental/biographical, interactional, and psychological. In surveying broad literatures, the chapters in Part II offer a rich picture of the causal mechanisms and temporal dynamics of human-specific modes of meaning. We begin our lives surrounded by language but unable to use it. One of the most remarkable developmental processes in our earliest years is the acquisition of a first language, through which in a few years we go from having zero linguistic competence to having mastered a significant proportion of the grammar of whatever language is being spoken in our community. The chapter by Brown and Gaskins treats first language learning in terms of two concomitant processes.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.; Kockelman, Paul
Interaction and intersubjectivity Book Chapter
In: pp. 343 - 346, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
@inbook{Sidnell2014e,
title = {Interaction and intersubjectivity},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield and Paul Kockelman},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.037},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = {343 - 346},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {The distinctive character of human social interaction - including the capacities that underlie it and the consequences that flow from it - forms an important pillar of research in linguistic anthropology. The five essays in this Part address a range of aspects of interaction and intersubjectivity. A basic premise underlying the chapters in this Part is the idea that human thinking is intentional. As Brandom puts it in his chapter, "This is the idea of a kind of contentfulness that is distinctive of at least some of our psychological states and linguistic utterances." Many mental states, "thoughts" in common parlance, are directed at something, where "thing" receives the broadest possible construal. Brandom reviews a number of crucial distinctions within the domain of intentionality (e.g., practical vs. discursive, representational vs. propositional) before arguing for the fundamentally normative - and thus collective - character of discursive intentionality. For people, intentional mental states do not exist in isolation from the mental states of others. There are many ways in which this is the case but perhaps most important is that many of our mental states are about the mental states of others. "He suspects that she thinks the movie was boring," and so on. Minds are fundamentally and irreducibly linked to other minds in this respect. Face-to-face social interaction, in all its forms, constitutes the primordial (as Schegloff often puts it) scene of social life and thus perhaps the most basic, primitive way in which minds are linked to one another. When a human infant follows the gaze of its mother toward a toy, we assume it is constructing, at some level, a representation of the mother’s mental state - mother is thinking about the toy, etc. Here the mother’s gaze direction (or change thereof) becomes the sign of her mental state of attention and evaluation.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The distinctive character of human social interaction - including the capacities that underlie it and the consequences that flow from it - forms an important pillar of research in linguistic anthropology. The five essays in this Part address a range of aspects of interaction and intersubjectivity. A basic premise underlying the chapters in this Part is the idea that human thinking is intentional. As Brandom puts it in his chapter, "This is the idea of a kind of contentfulness that is distinctive of at least some of our psychological states and linguistic utterances." Many mental states, "thoughts" in common parlance, are directed at something, where "thing" receives the broadest possible construal. Brandom reviews a number of crucial distinctions within the domain of intentionality (e.g., practical vs. discursive, representational vs. propositional) before arguing for the fundamentally normative - and thus collective - character of discursive intentionality. For people, intentional mental states do not exist in isolation from the mental states of others. There are many ways in which this is the case but perhaps most important is that many of our mental states are about the mental states of others. "He suspects that she thinks the movie was boring," and so on. Minds are fundamentally and irreducibly linked to other minds in this respect. Face-to-face social interaction, in all its forms, constitutes the primordial (as Schegloff often puts it) scene of social life and thus perhaps the most basic, primitive way in which minds are linked to one another. When a human infant follows the gaze of its mother toward a toy, we assume it is constructing, at some level, a representation of the mother’s mental state - mother is thinking about the toy, etc. Here the mother’s gaze direction (or change thereof) becomes the sign of her mental state of attention and evaluation.
Sidnell, Jack; Kockelman, Paul; Enfield, N. J.
Community and social life Book Chapter
In: pp. 481 - 484, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
@inbook{Sidnell2014f,
title = {Community and social life},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Paul Kockelman and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.038},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
pages = {481 - 484},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {The ancient Greeks divided the study of discourse into three parts: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The study of grammar is premised on the idea that language is structured while the study of logic acknowledges that it can be used to say things that are true or false. The study of rhetoric, on the other hand, is based on the idea that speaking is consequential. Aristotle defined rhetoric as the "faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Language is effective to the extent that a speaker is able to affect and direct the agency of others, and language, along with associated forms of conduct, can be conceptualized as the means to accomplish this. Language, on this view, is a tool. It is a means not only for harnessing the agency of others but also for constituting the very social groups whose agency is enlisted and distributed.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The ancient Greeks divided the study of discourse into three parts: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The study of grammar is premised on the idea that language is structured while the study of logic acknowledges that it can be used to say things that are true or false. The study of rhetoric, on the other hand, is based on the idea that speaking is consequential. Aristotle defined rhetoric as the "faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Language is effective to the extent that a speaker is able to affect and direct the agency of others, and language, along with associated forms of conduct, can be conceptualized as the means to accomplish this. Language, on this view, is a tool. It is a means not only for harnessing the agency of others but also for constituting the very social groups whose agency is enlisted and distributed.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.; Kockelman, Paul
The cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology Book
Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN: 9781139342872.
@book{Sidnell2014g,
title = {The cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield and Paul Kockelman},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872},
isbn = {9781139342872},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {The field of linguistic anthropology looks at human uniqueness and diversity through the lens of language, our species’ special combination of art and instinct. Human language both shapes, and is shaped by, our minds, societies, and cultural worlds. This state-of-the-field survey covers a wide range of topics, approaches and theories, such as the nature and function of language systems, the relationship between language and social interaction, and the place of language in the social life of communities. Promoting a broad vision of the subject, spanning a range of disciplines from linguistics to biology, from psychology to sociology and philosophy, this authoritative handbook is an essential reference guide for students and researchers working on language and culture across the social sciences.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The field of linguistic anthropology looks at human uniqueness and diversity through the lens of language, our species’ special combination of art and instinct. Human language both shapes, and is shaped by, our minds, societies, and cultural worlds. This state-of-the-field survey covers a wide range of topics, approaches and theories, such as the nature and function of language systems, the relationship between language and social interaction, and the place of language in the social life of communities. Promoting a broad vision of the subject, spanning a range of disciplines from linguistics to biology, from psychology to sociology and philosophy, this authoritative handbook is an essential reference guide for students and researchers working on language and culture across the social sciences.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.; Kockelman, Paul
Introduction: Directions in the anthropology of language Bachelor Thesis
2014.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2014h,
title = {Introduction: Directions in the anthropology of language},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield and Paul Kockelman},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.001},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
journal = { The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology},
pages = {1 - 24},
abstract = {This introductory chapter points out some issues that are central to the anthropology of language. The subdiscipline of linguistic anthropology in the narrow sense is an indispensable source of questions, methods, and solutions in the anthropology of language. The chapter raises some challenges that linguistic anthropology must meet, articulates the questions that define these challenges. It focuses on the implications of a causal account of linguistic transmission, given that the human mind is the niche in which language is propagated and to which language systems come to be adapted. A way to look at the language-culture relation is to examine how the grammatical structures and sub-systems of different languages encode semantic distinctions that appear to correlate with special cultural concerns of the language’s speakers. The chapter provides how the other chapters are organized in the book.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
This introductory chapter points out some issues that are central to the anthropology of language. The subdiscipline of linguistic anthropology in the narrow sense is an indispensable source of questions, methods, and solutions in the anthropology of language. The chapter raises some challenges that linguistic anthropology must meet, articulates the questions that define these challenges. It focuses on the implications of a causal account of linguistic transmission, given that the human mind is the niche in which language is propagated and to which language systems come to be adapted. A way to look at the language-culture relation is to examine how the grammatical structures and sub-systems of different languages encode semantic distinctions that appear to correlate with special cultural concerns of the language’s speakers. The chapter provides how the other chapters are organized in the book.
2013
Sidnell, Jack; Shohet, Merav
The Problem of Peers in Vietnamese Interaction Journal Article
In: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 19, iss. 3, 2013.
@article{Sidnell2013,
title = {The Problem of Peers in Vietnamese Interaction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Merav Shohet},
doi = {10.1111/1467-9655.12053},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-09-01},
urldate = {2013-09-01},
journal = {Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute},
volume = {19},
issue = {3},
abstract = {In Vietnamese, address (second-person reference) is typically accomplished by the use of a kin term regardless of whether the talk's recipient is a genealogical relative or not. All Vietnamese kin terms encode a specification of either relative age or relative generation of participants, and there are no reciprocal terms akin to English ‘brother’ or ‘sister’; rather, a speaker must select between terms such as ‘older brother’ (anh) or ‘younger sibling’ (em). Since generation is normatively associated with a difference in age, the result is a ubiquitous indexing of age and status hierarchies in all acts of address. This results in a problem for peers. How, in such a system, should they address one another (and also self-refer)? In this article, we describe the various practices that speakers use to subvert the system and thus avoid indexing differences of age or station. Specifically, we describe four practices: (1) the use of true pronouns in address and self-reference; (2) the use of proper names in address and self-reference; (3) the use of kin terms in address and pronouns in self-reference; and (4) the ironic use of kin terms in address. We conclude that the Vietnamese system well illustrates what is likely a universal tension between hierarchy and equality in acts of address and self-reference, by showing how speakers deconstruct the vector of age and indicate that they consider one another peers. We further suggest that although the literature in this area has focused on the ways in which languages convey differences of status and rank, social order is built as much upon relations of parity and sameness – on identification of the other as neither higher nor lower than me – as it is upon relations of hierarchy.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In Vietnamese, address (second-person reference) is typically accomplished by the use of a kin term regardless of whether the talk's recipient is a genealogical relative or not. All Vietnamese kin terms encode a specification of either relative age or relative generation of participants, and there are no reciprocal terms akin to English ‘brother’ or ‘sister’; rather, a speaker must select between terms such as ‘older brother’ (anh) or ‘younger sibling’ (em). Since generation is normatively associated with a difference in age, the result is a ubiquitous indexing of age and status hierarchies in all acts of address. This results in a problem for peers. How, in such a system, should they address one another (and also self-refer)? In this article, we describe the various practices that speakers use to subvert the system and thus avoid indexing differences of age or station. Specifically, we describe four practices: (1) the use of true pronouns in address and self-reference; (2) the use of proper names in address and self-reference; (3) the use of kin terms in address and pronouns in self-reference; and (4) the ironic use of kin terms in address. We conclude that the Vietnamese system well illustrates what is likely a universal tension between hierarchy and equality in acts of address and self-reference, by showing how speakers deconstruct the vector of age and indicate that they consider one another peers. We further suggest that although the literature in this area has focused on the ways in which languages convey differences of status and rank, social order is built as much upon relations of parity and sameness – on identification of the other as neither higher nor lower than me – as it is upon relations of hierarchy.
Sidnell, Jack; Raymond, Geoffrey T; Hyashi, Makoto
Conversational Repair and Human Understanding Book
Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN: 1107002796.
@book{Sidnell2013b,
title = {Conversational Repair and Human Understanding},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Geoffrey T Raymond and Makoto Hyashi},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511757464.001},
isbn = {1107002796},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
urldate = {2013-01-01},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {Humans are imperfect, and problems of speaking, hearing and understanding are pervasive in ordinary interaction. This book examines the way we 'repair' and correct such problems as they arise in conversation and other forms of human interaction. The first book-length study of this topic, it brings together a team of scholars from the fields of anthropology, communication, linguistics and sociology to explore how speakers address problems in their own talk and that of others, and how the practices of repair are interwoven with non-verbal aspects of communication such as gaze and gesture, across a variety of languages. Specific chapters highlight intersections between repair and epistemics, repair and turn construction, and repair and action formation. Aimed at researchers and students in sociolinguistics, speech communication, conversation analysis and the broader human and social sciences to which they contribute - anthropology, linguistics, psychology and sociology - this book provides a state-of-the-art review of conversational repair, while charting new directions for future study.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
Humans are imperfect, and problems of speaking, hearing and understanding are pervasive in ordinary interaction. This book examines the way we 'repair' and correct such problems as they arise in conversation and other forms of human interaction. The first book-length study of this topic, it brings together a team of scholars from the fields of anthropology, communication, linguistics and sociology to explore how speakers address problems in their own talk and that of others, and how the practices of repair are interwoven with non-verbal aspects of communication such as gaze and gesture, across a variety of languages. Specific chapters highlight intersections between repair and epistemics, repair and turn construction, and repair and action formation. Aimed at researchers and students in sociolinguistics, speech communication, conversation analysis and the broader human and social sciences to which they contribute - anthropology, linguistics, psychology and sociology - this book provides a state-of-the-art review of conversational repair, while charting new directions for future study.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
The ontology of action, in interaction Book Chapter
In: Enfield, N. J.; Kockelman, P.; Sidnell, Jack (Ed.): pp. 423 - 446, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
@inbook{Sidnell2013c,
title = {The ontology of action, in interaction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
editor = {N. J. Enfield and P. Kockelman and Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139342872.020},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
urldate = {2013-01-01},
pages = {423 - 446},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
abstract = {Any account of social action presupposes an ontology of action whether this is made explicit or not. This chapter reviews the problem of defining and analyzing action in interaction, and to propose a solution. It describes three dimensions of contrast in the analysis of action. A first point is that both purposive action and non-intentional effects can be seen as ways to do things with words but, as we shall see, they differ in many respects. Second, there is a need to distinguish explicit from primary in action. And third, one can need to distinguish between the constitution of action, on the one hand, and the ex post facto description of action, on the other. The chapter describes the components and types of action in interaction. It discusses two case studies: how it is that actions are recognized and thereby consummated, both by participants in social interaction and by analysts.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Any account of social action presupposes an ontology of action whether this is made explicit or not. This chapter reviews the problem of defining and analyzing action in interaction, and to propose a solution. It describes three dimensions of contrast in the analysis of action. A first point is that both purposive action and non-intentional effects can be seen as ways to do things with words but, as we shall see, they differ in many respects. Second, there is a need to distinguish explicit from primary in action. And third, one can need to distinguish between the constitution of action, on the one hand, and the ex post facto description of action, on the other. The chapter describes the components and types of action in interaction. It discusses two case studies: how it is that actions are recognized and thereby consummated, both by participants in social interaction and by analysts.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction Book Chapter
In: Dor, D.; Knight, C.; Lewis, J. (Ed.): pp. 92–104, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN: 9780199665327.
@inbook{Sidnell2013d,
title = {Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
editor = {D. Dor and C. Knight and J. Lewis},
doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665327.003.0008},
isbn = {9780199665327},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
urldate = {2013-01-01},
pages = {92–104},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
abstract = {If we are going to understand the social functions of language, we must examine data from social interaction, and with a perspective on language that begins with its role in social action. The chapter argues that the human capacity for language is supported by an infrastructure that is partly grounded in human social cognition and that partly emerges from language use in sequences of interaction. The chapter demonstrates some of the central features of this infrastructure, concentrating on the systems for turn-taking in conversation and for the repair of misunderstandings and other issues, and taking an ‘enchronic’ perspective on language, that is, looking at causal processes that apply in ‘conversational time’, where each linguistic utterance or move is linked to the next in terms of socially accountable relations of relevance.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
If we are going to understand the social functions of language, we must examine data from social interaction, and with a perspective on language that begins with its role in social action. The chapter argues that the human capacity for language is supported by an infrastructure that is partly grounded in human social cognition and that partly emerges from language use in sequences of interaction. The chapter demonstrates some of the central features of this infrastructure, concentrating on the systems for turn-taking in conversation and for the repair of misunderstandings and other issues, and taking an ‘enchronic’ perspective on language, that is, looking at causal processes that apply in ‘conversational time’, where each linguistic utterance or move is linked to the next in terms of socially accountable relations of relevance.
Sidnell, Jack; Hayashi, M.; Raymond, Geoffrey T
Conversational repair and human understanding. An introduction Journal Article
In: Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, vol. 1, iss. 40, 2013.
@article{nokey,
title = {Conversational repair and human understanding. An introduction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and M. Hayashi and Geoffrey T Raymond},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
urldate = {2013-01-01},
journal = {Conversational Repair and Human Understanding},
volume = {1},
issue = {40},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2012
Sidnell, Jack
“Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation Bachelor Thesis
2012.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2012,
title = {“Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-10-23},
urldate = {2012-10-23},
journal = {Pragmatics and Society},
volume = {3},
issue = {2},
abstract = {This essay reviews current work in conversation analysis with an eye to what it might contribute to the study of evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry. After a brief review of some aspects of the interactional organization of conversation, I turn to consider the way in which participants negotiate relative epistemic positioning through the use of particular practices of speaking. The analytic focus here is on agreements and confirmations especially in assessment sequences. In conclusion, I consider a single case in which various practices are employed to convey a delicate balance of knowledge and simultaneously to attend to a range of other, non-epistemic, interactional issues.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
This essay reviews current work in conversation analysis with an eye to what it might contribute to the study of evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry. After a brief review of some aspects of the interactional organization of conversation, I turn to consider the way in which participants negotiate relative epistemic positioning through the use of particular practices of speaking. The analytic focus here is on agreements and confirmations especially in assessment sequences. In conclusion, I consider a single case in which various practices are employed to convey a delicate balance of knowledge and simultaneously to attend to a range of other, non-epistemic, interactional issues.
Sidnell, Jack; Stivers, Tanya
The Handbook of Conversation Analysis Bachelor Thesis
2012.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2012b,
title = {The Handbook of Conversation Analysis},
author = {Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers},
doi = {10.1002/9781118325001},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-08-28},
urldate = {2012-08-28},
journal = {The Handbook of Conversation Analysis},
abstract = {Presenting a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of theoretical and descriptive research in the field, The Handbook of Conversation Analysis brings together contributions by leading international experts to provide an invaluable information resource and reference for scholars of social interaction across the areas of conversation analysis, discourse analysis, linguistic anthropology, interpersonal communication, discursive psychology and sociolinguistics. Ideal as an introduction to the field for upper level undergraduates and as an in-depth review of the latest developments for graduate level students and established scholars. Five sections outline the history and theory, methods, fundamental concepts, and core contexts in the study of conversation, as well as topics central to conversation analysis. Written by international conversation analysis experts, the book covers a wide range of topics and disciplines, from reviewing underlying structures of conversation, to describing conversation analysis' relationship to anthropology, communication, linguistics, psychology, and sociology.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
Presenting a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of theoretical and descriptive research in the field, The Handbook of Conversation Analysis brings together contributions by leading international experts to provide an invaluable information resource and reference for scholars of social interaction across the areas of conversation analysis, discourse analysis, linguistic anthropology, interpersonal communication, discursive psychology and sociolinguistics. Ideal as an introduction to the field for upper level undergraduates and as an in-depth review of the latest developments for graduate level students and established scholars. Five sections outline the history and theory, methods, fundamental concepts, and core contexts in the study of conversation, as well as topics central to conversation analysis. Written by international conversation analysis experts, the book covers a wide range of topics and disciplines, from reviewing underlying structures of conversation, to describing conversation analysis' relationship to anthropology, communication, linguistics, psychology, and sociology.
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Language Diversity and Social Action A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity Journal Article
In: Current Anthropology, vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 302 - 333, 2012.
@article{Sidnell2012c,
title = {Language Diversity and Social Action A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
doi = {10.1086/665697},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-06-01},
urldate = {2012-06-01},
journal = {Current Anthropology},
volume = {53},
issue = {3},
pages = {302 - 333},
abstract = {The classic version of the linguistic relativity principle, formulated by Boas and developed especially in the work of Whorf, suggests that the particular lexicogrammatical patterns of a given language can influence the thought of its speakers. A second version of the argument emerged in the 1970s and shifted the focus to the indexical aspect of language: any given language includes a particular set of indexical signs, and these essentially shape the contexts produced in speaking that language. In this article, we propose a third locus of linguistic relativity. Our argument is based on recent work in conversation analysis that has shown how the resources of a given language provide the tools for accomplishing basic actions in interaction. To develop our argument, we consider the way in which the resources of three different languages (Caribbean English Creole, Finnish, and Lao) are deployed by speakers to agree with a prior assessment while at the same time claiming greater epistemic authority over the matter assessed. Our case study indicates that the language-specific tools used to accomplish this action (the lexicogrammatical resources) introduce collateral effects and in this way give the action a local spin or inflection.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The classic version of the linguistic relativity principle, formulated by Boas and developed especially in the work of Whorf, suggests that the particular lexicogrammatical patterns of a given language can influence the thought of its speakers. A second version of the argument emerged in the 1970s and shifted the focus to the indexical aspect of language: any given language includes a particular set of indexical signs, and these essentially shape the contexts produced in speaking that language. In this article, we propose a third locus of linguistic relativity. Our argument is based on recent work in conversation analysis that has shown how the resources of a given language provide the tools for accomplishing basic actions in interaction. To develop our argument, we consider the way in which the resources of three different languages (Caribbean English Creole, Finnish, and Lao) are deployed by speakers to agree with a prior assessment while at the same time claiming greater epistemic authority over the matter assessed. Our case study indicates that the language-specific tools used to accomplish this action (the lexicogrammatical resources) introduce collateral effects and in this way give the action a local spin or inflection.
Sidnell, Jack
Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other Bachelor Thesis
2012.
@bachelorthesis{Sidnell2012d,
title = {Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1080/0163853X.2012.654760},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-05-23},
urldate = {2012-05-23},
journal = {Discourse Processes},
volume = {49},
issue = {3-4},
pages = {314-337},
abstract = {At the possible completion of a turn constructional unit (TCU) which has not selected a next speaker, a speaker has available to her two options: either she can begin a new TCU or she can continue the one that has just come to a point of possible completion. This article describes some of the complex turns that result from exercise of the second option. These can be seen to consist of at least two components: a host and a continuation. I focus in particular on cases in which these are produced by different speakers. Although a basic distinction between reverse and same directionality continuations can account for many instances, other cases are more complicated. I suggest that such cases encourage us to consider the variety of footings a speaker can adopt vis-a-vis the prior talk by continuing another participant's turn.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {bachelorthesis}
}
At the possible completion of a turn constructional unit (TCU) which has not selected a next speaker, a speaker has available to her two options: either she can begin a new TCU or she can continue the one that has just come to a point of possible completion. This article describes some of the complex turns that result from exercise of the second option. These can be seen to consist of at least two components: a host and a continuation. I focus in particular on cases in which these are produced by different speakers. Although a basic distinction between reverse and same directionality continuations can account for many instances, other cases are more complicated. I suggest that such cases encourage us to consider the variety of footings a speaker can adopt vis-a-vis the prior talk by continuing another participant's turn.
Sidnell, Jack
Language and gender in the Caribbean Journal Article
In: Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, vol. 27, iss. 1, pp. 141 - 157, 2012, ISSN: 0920-9034.
@article{Sidnell2012e,
title = {Language and gender in the Caribbean},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1075/jpcl.27.1.04sid},
issn = {0920-9034},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-02-28},
urldate = {2012-02-28},
journal = {Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages},
volume = {27},
issue = {1},
pages = {141 - 157},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Sidnell, Jack; Enfield, N. J.
Collateral effects, agency, and systems of language use Journal Article
In: Current Anthropology, vol. 53, pp. 327 - 329, 2012.
@article{Sidnell2012f,
title = {Collateral effects, agency, and systems of language use},
author = {Jack Sidnell and N. J. Enfield},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-01-01},
urldate = {2012-01-01},
journal = {Current Anthropology},
volume = {53},
pages = {327 - 329},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Sidnell, Jack; Hayashi, M.; Raymond, Geoffrey T
Conversational repair and human understanding: an introduction Journal Article
In: Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, vol. 68, iss. 1, 2012.
@article{Sidnell2012g,
title = {Conversational repair and human understanding: an introduction},
author = {Jack Sidnell and M. Hayashi and Geoffrey T Raymond},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-01-01},
urldate = {2012-01-01},
journal = {Conversational Repair and Human Understanding},
volume = {68},
issue = {1},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Sidnell, Jack
Declaratives, Questioning, Defeasibility Journal Article
In: Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 45, iss. 1, pp. 53-60, 2012, ISSN: 0835-1813.
@article{Sidnell2012h,
title = {Declaratives, Questioning, Defeasibility},
author = {Jack Sidnell},
doi = {10.1080/08351813.2012.646686},
issn = {0835-1813},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-01-01},
urldate = {2012-01-01},
journal = {Research on Language and Social Interaction},
volume = {45},
issue = {1},
pages = {53-60},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2011
Sidnell, Jack; Walker, James
Inherent Variability and Coexistent Systems: Negation on Bequia Journal Article
In: Variation in the Caribbean. Amsterdam, 2011.
@article{Sidnell2011,
title = {Inherent Variability and Coexistent Systems: Negation on Bequia},
author = {Jack Sidnell and James Walker},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-01},
urldate = {2011-01-01},
journal = {Variation in the Caribbean. Amsterdam},
abstract = {The robust linguistic variation observed on Bequia (St Vincent and the Grenadines) raises the question of whether there is a single variable linguistic system or multiple systems. We examine the distribution and conditioning of variable negation (na, ain't or not/-n't) in three communities distinguished by ethnicity and socioeconomic history. The variant na is restricted to one community and is conditioned by co-occurrence constraints, while ain't is conditioned by auxiliary context and temporal reference, which serve to distinguish between communities. Thus, although there is variation between communities and speakers, there is also evidence for overlapping but discrete coexistent systems. These results underline the importance of examining the distribution and conditioning of all features implicated in the linguistic system.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The robust linguistic variation observed on Bequia (St Vincent and the Grenadines) raises the question of whether there is a single variable linguistic system or multiple systems. We examine the distribution and conditioning of variable negation (na, ain't or not/-n't) in three communities distinguished by ethnicity and socioeconomic history. The variant na is restricted to one community and is conditioned by co-occurrence constraints, while ain't is conditioned by auxiliary context and temporal reference, which serve to distinguish between communities. Thus, although there is variation between communities and speakers, there is also evidence for overlapping but discrete coexistent systems. These results underline the importance of examining the distribution and conditioning of all features implicated in the linguistic system.
Sidnell, Jack; Walker, James
Inherent variability and coexistent systems Book Chapter
In: pp. 39-56, Variation in the Caribbean, 2011.
@inbook{Sidnell2011b,
title = {Inherent variability and coexistent systems},
author = {Jack Sidnell and James Walker},
doi = {10.1075/cll.37.04wal},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-01},
urldate = {2011-01-01},
pages = {39-56},
publisher = {Variation in the Caribbean},
abstract = {The robust linguistic variation observed on the island of Bequia (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) raises the question of whether there is a single variable linguistic system or multiple systems. We examine the distribution and conditioning of variable negation (na, ain’t or not/-n’t) in three communities distinguished by ethnicity and socioeconomic history using variable rule analysis. The variant na is restricted to one community and is conditioned by co-occurrence constraints, while ain’t is conditioned by auxiliary context and temporal reference, which serve to distinguish between communities. Thus, although there is variation between communities and speakers, there is also evidence for overlapping but discrete and coexistent systems. These results underline the importance of examining the distribution and conditioning of all features implicated in the linguistic system.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The robust linguistic variation observed on the island of Bequia (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) raises the question of whether there is a single variable linguistic system or multiple systems. We examine the distribution and conditioning of variable negation (na, ain’t or not/-n’t) in three communities distinguished by ethnicity and socioeconomic history using variable rule analysis. The variant na is restricted to one community and is conditioned by co-occurrence constraints, while ain’t is conditioned by auxiliary context and temporal reference, which serve to distinguish between communities. Thus, although there is variation between communities and speakers, there is also evidence for overlapping but discrete and coexistent systems. These results underline the importance of examining the distribution and conditioning of all features implicated in the linguistic system.