Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson: Order in Conversation

  • Feifei Zhou


Inspired by Garfinkel’s insights about locally produced order, Harvey Sacks, together with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, developed CA in the early 1960s to study order in casual conversation between peers through tape-recordings. Conversation analysis, since the very beginning, exerted widespread impact on the study of language and discourse. Sacks summarizes some major findings of CA as follows:


  1. Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, P. (1988). Ethnomethodology: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse and Society, 10(4), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cowley, S. J. (1998). Of turn-taking timing and conversations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(5), 541–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dingwall, R. (1975). Correspondence: Ethnomethodology and marxism. Sociology, 9(3), 495–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H. (1968). Discussion: The origin of the term “ethnomethodology”. In R. Hill & K. Grittenden (Eds.), Proceedings of the purdue symposium on ethnomethodology (pp. 15–18). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1968). On formal structures of practical action. In E. Tiryakian & J. McKinney (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  11. Have, P. T. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hilbert, R. A. (1992). The classical roots of ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  15. Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1994). Harvey Sacks’s primitive natural science. Theory, Culture & Society, 11(4), 65–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maynard, D. W. (1984). Inside plea bargaining: The language of negotiation. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard, D. W. (1985). How children start arguments. Language in Society, 14(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Molotch, H., & Boden, D. (1985). Talking social structure: Discourse, domination and the watergate hearings. American Sociological Review, 50(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray, S. O. (1994). Theory groups and the study of language in North America: A social history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California at Irvine, California.Google Scholar
  22. Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sacks, H. (1974). On the analyzability of stories by children. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology. Harmondworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schenkein, J. N. (1978). Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction. In J. N. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Searle, J. R. (1992). Conversation. In J. R. Searle et al. (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1987). Work flow in a paediatric clinic. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 244–260). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feifei Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishLingnan UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations