Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 461–485 | Cite as

Practical Hermeneutics: Noticing in Bible Study Interaction

  • Esa Lehtinen
Research Paper

Abstract

This article presents an ethnomethodological respecification of the philosophical problem of the hermeneutics of ancient texts. I analyze an interactional practice, namely, noticing an aspect of the Bible text in Seventh-day Adventist Bible study. I show how noticings are used to make the text “speak” to the participants of the Bible study and discuss how the participants show their orientation to this action in the next turn and how they rely on various cultural resources to make sense of the text. The article shows how the actions of the participants are contextual, cultural and moral in nature. Cultural resources and morality are embedded in the locally produced hermeneutical achievement. I discuss how this analysis can be instructive for philosophical hermeneutics.

Keywords

Bible Conversation analysis Ethnomethodology Hermeneutics Noticing 

References

  1. Arminen, I. (2000). On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse & Society, 11(4), 435–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Bontekoe, R. (1987). A fusion of horizons: Gadamer and Schleiermacher. International Philosophical Quarterly, 27(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
  4. Bull, M., & Lockhart, K. (1989). Searching a sanctuary: Seventh-day adventism and the American dream. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  5. Coulter, J. (1979). The social construction of mind: Studies in ethnomethodology and linguistic philosophy. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  6. de Montigny, G. (2007). Ethnomethodology for social work. Qualitative Social Work, 6(1), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dilthey, W. (1986 [1929]). The hermeneutics of the human sciences. In K. Mueller-Vollmer (Ed.), The hermeneutics reader: Texts of the German tradition from the enlightenment to the present (pp. 148–164). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Freebody, P., Luke, A., & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 21(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, M. (2007). Performing the event of understanding in hermeneutic conversations with narrative texts. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(7), 925–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gadamer, H.-G. (1994). Truth and method. Second, revised edition. Transl. and rev. by J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remarks on ethomethodology. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 301–324). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society, (I)–an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (2002). In A. W. Rawls (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefeld.Google Scholar
  15. Gustavsson, L., Linell, P., & Säljö, R. (1993). Discourse in language and discourse on language. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 265–276.Google Scholar
  16. Hakulinen, A., & Seppänen, E.-L. (1992). Finnish kato: From verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(6), 527–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halonen, M. (2001). Terapeutti elämäkerran tulkitsijana myllyhoidon ryhmäterapiassa. (Therapist as the interpreter of a life story in group therapy). In J. Ruusuvuori, M. Haakana, & L. Raevaara (Eds.), Institutionaalinen vuorovaikutus: Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia. (Institutional interaction: Conversation analytical studies) (pp. 62–81). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  18. Heap, J. L. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(3), 245–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hopper, R., & LeBaron, C. (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jayussi, L. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Kapitzke, C. (1995). Literacy and religion: The textual politics and practice of Seventh-day Adventism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, E. (2004). Towards complete clarity: Bible study among Seventh-day Adventists in Madagascar. Ethnos, 69(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lehtinen, E. (2005). Achieved similarity: Describing experience in Seventh-day Adventist Bible study. Text, 25(3), 341–371.Google Scholar
  26. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Linge, D. E. (1973). Dilthey and Gadamer: Two theories of historical understanding. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 41(4), 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Livingston, E. (2008). Context and detail in studies of the witnessable social order: Puzzles, maps, checkers, and geometry. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 840–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lynch, M. (1999). Silence in context: Ethnomethodology and social theory. Human Studies, 22, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lynch, M. (2000). The ethnomethodological foundations of conversation analysis. Text, 20(4), 517–532.Google Scholar
  32. Mandelbaum, J. (1990/1991). Beyond mundane reason: Conversation analysis and context. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 333–350.Google Scholar
  33. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  36. Moerman, M. (1990/1991). Exploring talk and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 173–187.Google Scholar
  37. Mueller-Vollmer, K. (1985). Introduction: Language, mind, and artifact: An outline of hermeneutic theory since the enlightenment. In K. Mueller-Vollmer (Ed.), The hermeneutics reader: Texts of the German tradition from the enlightenment to the present (pp. 1–53). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Sacks, H. (1992). In Gail Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. II). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In H. Sacks (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I, pp. ix–lxii). Blackwell: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schleiermacher, F. D. E. (1986 [1819]). Foundations: General theory and art of interpretation. Transl. J. Duke & J. Forstman. In K. Mueller-Vollmer (Ed.), The hermeneutics reader: Texts of the German tradition from the enlightenment to the present (pp. 72–97). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Seurakuntakäsikirja. (1967). (The Church Manual). Turku: Suomen Adventtikirkko.Google Scholar
  44. Seventh-day Adventists believe. (1988). Seventh-day Adventists believe…: A biblical exposition of 27 fundamental doctrines. Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.Google Scholar
  45. Sharrock, W. (2000). Where the simplest systematics fits: A response to Michael Lynch’s ‘The ethnomethodological foundations of conversation analysis’. Text, 20(4), 533–539.Google Scholar
  46. Sharrock, W. W., & Anderson, R. J. (1985). Magic witchcraft and the materialist mentality. Human Studies, 8(4), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharrock, W., & Button, G. (1991). The social actor: Social action in real time. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 137–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sorjonen, M-L. (1989).Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: mutta. (Turn-initial connectors: mutta.). In A. Hakulinen (Ed.), Kieli 4: Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I (pp. 162–176) (Language 4: Resources of Finnish conversation I). Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  49. Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  50. Stokoe, E. H., & Smithson, J. (2001). Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse & Society, 12(2), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ten Have, P. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 27, 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Turner, R. (1971). Words, utterances, and activities. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowledge (pp. 169–187). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Modern Finnish and TranslationUniversity of VaasaVaasaFinland

Personalised recommendations