the social orders of family mealtime final 24feb2011[ august] · this study examined the everyday...
Post on 31-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
!"#$%&'()*$&+,#+%$&-$-).(*/$.#)*!(.#$
$
0122134$56789$
,1:!;$5#<;$0=3<$,1:>#'#?;$.#<>#'#?$
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
July 2011
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! (!
Keywords
Mealtime, families, children, childhood, social order, early years, ethnomethodology,
conversation analysis, membership categorization analysis, talk-in-interaction, topic,
multiparty talk, cohorting, speaker selection, adult-child interaction, children’s
restricted rights, arenas of action, sociology of children, competence
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! ((!
Abstract
This study examined the everyday practices of families within the context of
family mealtime to investigate how members accomplished mealtime interactions.
Using an ethnomethodological approach, conversation analysis and membership
categorization analysis, the study investigated the interactional resources that family
members used to assemble their social orders moment by moment during family
mealtimes. While there is interest in mealtimes within educational policy, health
research and the media, there remain few studies that provide fine-grained detail
about how members produce the social activity of having a family meal. Findings
from this study contribute empirical understandings about families and family
mealtime.
Two families with children aged 2 to 10 years were observed as they
accomplished their everyday mealtime activities. Data collection took place in the
family homes where family members video recorded their naturally occurring
mealtimes. Each family was provided with a video camera for a one-month period
and they decided which mealtimes they recorded, a method that afforded participants
greater agency in the data collection process and made available to the analyst a
window into the unfolding of the everyday lives of the families. A total of 14
mealtimes across the two families were recorded, capturing 347 minutes of mealtime
interactions. Selected episodes from the data corpus, which includes centralised
breakfast and dinnertime episodes, were transcribed using the Jeffersonian system.
Three data chapters examine extended sequences of family talk at mealtimes,
to show the interactional resources used by members during mealtime interactions.
The first data chapter explores multiparty talk to show how the uniqueness of the
occasion of having a meal influences turn design. It investigates the ways in which
members accomplish two-party talk within a multiparty setting, showing how one
child “tells” a funny story to accomplish the drawing together of his brothers as an
audience. As well, this chapter identifies the interactional resources used by the
mother to cohort her children to accomplish the choralling of grace. The second data
chapter draws on sequential and categorical analysis to show how members are
mapped to a locally produced membership category. The chapter shows how the
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! (((!
mapping of members into particular categories is consequential for social order; for
example, aligning members who belong to the membership category “had haircuts”
and keeping out those who “did not have haircuts”. Additional interactional
resources such as echoing, used here to refer to the use of exactly the same words,
similar prosody and physical action, and increasing physical closeness, are identified
as important to the unfolding talk particularly as a way of accomplishing alignment
between the grandmother and grand-daughter. The third and final data analysis
chapter examines topical talk during family mealtimes. It explicates how members
introduce topics of talk with an orientation to their co-participant and the way in
which the take up of a topic is influenced both by the sequential environment in
which it is introduced and the sensitivity of the topic. Together, these three data
chapters show aspects of how family members participated in family mealtimes.
The study contributes four substantive themes that emerged during the analytic
process and, as such, the themes reflect what the members were observed to be
doing. The first theme identified how family knowledge was relevant and
consequential for initiating and sustaining interaction during mealtime with, for
example, members buying into the talk of other members or being requested to help
out with knowledge about a shared experience. Knowledge about members and their
activities was evident with the design of questions evidencing an orientation to co-
participant’s knowledge. The second theme found how members used topic as a
resource for social interaction. The third theme concerned the way in which members
utilised membership categories for producing and making sense of social action. The
fourth theme, evident across all episodes selected for analysis, showed how
children’s competence is an ongoing interactional accomplishment as they
manipulated interactional resources to manage their participation in family mealtime.
The way in which children initiated interactions challenges previous understandings
about children’s restricted rights as conversationalists.
As well as making a theoretical contribution, the study offers methodological
insight by working with families as research participants. The study shows the
procedures involved as the study moved from one where the researcher undertook
the decisions about what to videorecord to offering this decision making to the
families, who chose when and what to videorecord of their mealtime practices.
Evident also are the ways in which participants orient both to the video-camera and
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! (5!
to the absent researcher. For the duration of the mealtime the video-camera was
positioned by the adults as out of bounds to the children; however, it was offered as a
“treat” to view after the mealtime was recorded.
While situated within family mealtimes and reporting on the experiences of
two families, this study illuminates how mealtimes are not just about food and
eating; they are social. The study showed the constant and complex work of
establishing and maintaining social orders and the rich array of interactional
resources that members draw on during family mealtimes. The family’s interactions
involved members contributing to building the social orders of family mealtime.
With mealtimes occurring in institutional settings involving young children, such as
long day care centres and kindergartens, the findings of this study may help
educators working with young children to see the rich interactional opportunities
mealtimes afford children, the interactional competence that children demonstrate
during mealtimes, and the important role/s that adults may assume as co-participants
in interactions with children within institutional settings.
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! 5!
Presentations
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 in this thesis have been presented as conference
presentations:
Busch, G. (2011, 3-8 July). Okay everybody jis say grace first – The interactional
accomplishment of grace. Poster session presented at the 12th International
Pragmatics Conference, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Busch, G. (2010, 4-8 July). Multiparty talk at family mealtime. Poster session
presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Mannheim,
Germany.
Busch, G. (2009, 12-17 July). Mealtime: Choices about topic: Considering co-
participants. Paper presented at the Symposium on The Interactional Practices
of Children in Institutional Contexts for 11th International Pragmatics
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Busch, G. (2008, 5-7 November). Topic in adult-child interaction during family
mealtimes. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Symposium of Australian
CA/MCA, Brisbane, Australia.
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! 5(!
Table of Contents
6$27&,-. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888(!
9:.4,)'4 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 ((!
;,$.$<4)4(&<. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888885!
"):*$!&/!=&<4$<4.888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 5(!
>(.4!&/!0(?@,$.8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 (A!
>(.4!&/!"):*$. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 (A!
>(.4!&/!9::,$5()4(&<.8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888A!
%4)4$1$<4!&/!+,(?(<)*!9@4#&,.#(B 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 A(!
9'C<&7*$-?$1$<4. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 A((!
'93:@A=$B$(4@=C<6814D$@9A$%@6<EF$-3G12E$.A32@1GAF$)4$(4@A=38@1C432$
)88CG:2179GA4@ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHB!
"#$!%4@-2!)<-!4#$!D$.$),'#!E@$.4(&<. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 F!
"#$.(.!+@4*(<$ 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 G!
=#)B4$,!%@11),2 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HI!
'93:@A=$I$*1@A=3@6=A$+AJ1AKF$-3G12E$.A32@1GA HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BB!
0)1(*($.!)<-!0)1(*2!"(1$888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HH!0)1(*($. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HH!0)1(*($.!).!)!?$<$,)4(&<)*!B#$<&1$<&< 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HJ!=#(*-K)-@*4!,$*)4(&<.#(B.!L!/$)4@,$.!&/!(<4$,)'4(&<. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HF!
3$)*4(1$.!M(4#(<!0)1(*($.8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HG!N$/(<(<?!1$)*4(1$. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HG!%B)'$.!)<-!B*)'$.!/&,!1$)*4(1$.888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 OH!
3$)*4(1$.!).!%&'()*!P<4$,)'4(&< 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888OO!%4@-($.!@.(<?!/(<$K?,)(<$-!)<)*2.(.Q!1)C(<?!(<4$,)'4(&<)*!B,)'4('$.!5(.(:*$ 8888888888888888888888888888888888 OR!
=#)B4$,!%@11),2 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888SI!
'93:@A=$L$#M:2C=14D$.A@9C<C2CD1A7F$!9A$%C8132$&=<A=$CN$-3G12E$
.A32@1GA7HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH LL!
T4#<&1$4#&-&*&?2 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888SS!6$2!'&<'$B4.!(<!$4#<&1$4#&-&*&?2888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 SU!%4,)4$?($.!@.$-!(<!$4#<&1$4#&-&*&?2!/&,!.4@-2(<?!1$1:$,.V!1$4#&-. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 SR!
=&<5$,.)4(&<!9<)*2.(. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888SG!9..@1B4(&<.!@<-$,B(<<(<?!'&<5$,.)4(&<!)<)*2.(. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 JI!
!"#$%&'#()"*(+*+#%,'#,%&--.*)%/&"(+$011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111123!!"#$%&'#()"*(+*')"#$4#,&--.*)%($"#$01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111125!6)*)%0$%*)7*0$#&(-*("*("#$%&'#()"*'&"*8$*0(+9(++$01 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112:!
3$1:$,.#(B!=)4$?&,(W)4(&<!9<)*2.(.8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888JR!
=&1:(<(<?!T4#<&1$4#&-&*&?2X!=&<5$,.)4(&<!9<)*2.(.X!)<-!3$1:$,.#(B!=)4$?&,(W)4(&<!9<)*2.(.888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888UH!
=#)B4$,!%@11),2 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888US!
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! 5((!
'93:@A=$O$P031414D$388A77$@C$@9A$GA32@1GA$@3Q2ARF$!9A$-1A2<$SC=T HHHHHHHHHHHHH UU!
"#$!D$.$),'#!%(4$.!)<-!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!0)1(*2!3$1:$,.88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888UU!
;#).$.!(<!N)4)!=&**$'4(&< 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888UR!;#).$!+<$Q!T4#(')*!'&<.(-$,)4(&<.!)<-!'*$),)<'$X!)<-!12!,&*$!).!)!,$.$),'#$, 888888888888888888888888888 UR!;#).$!"7&Q!=&<4)'4(<?!4#$!/)1(*($.!)<-!&:4)(<(<?!7,(44$<!'&<.$<4!/,&1!4#$!B),4('(B)<4.888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 UY!;#).$!"#,$$Q!%$*$'4(&<!&/!5(-$&!)<-!4,()*!&/!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-(<? 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 FI!
;%("'(<-$+*)7*=(0$)*%$')%0("/1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:>!;#).$!0&@,Q!",()**(<?!4#$!4$'#<&*&?28888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 FS!;#).$!0(5$Q!N)4)!?$<$,)4(&<888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 FF!
?#$<*@"$A*@%/&"(+("/*BC,(<9$"#1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111::!?#$<*DE)A*F$-(=$%("/*$C,(<9$"#*#)*#G$*7&9(-.*&"0*$4<-&("("/*G)E*#G$*$C,(<9$"#*E)%H$01 1:I!?#$<*DG%$$A*J$')%0("/*8.*#G$*7&9(-.1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:I!?#$<*K),%A*L)--$'#()"*)7*%$')%0("/+1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:M!
9<)*24('!;,&'$-@,$. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888FG!",)<.',(B4(&<Q!9<!(<4$,B,$4)4(5$!)<-!,$B,$.$<4)4(&<)*!B,&'$.. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 FG!",)<.',(B4(&<!4$'#<&*&?2 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 RS!%4$B.!(<!)<)*2.(. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 RS!Z&4('(<?Q!&,($<4)4(&<!4&!4#$!B,$.$<'$!&/!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-$,!)<-!4#$!,$.$),'#$, 8888888888888888888888888 RJ!
B4#%&'#*2131 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I5!B4#%&'#*21N1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I:!B4#%&'#*21>1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II!
D$*():(*(42!)<-![)*(-(42888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888RY!
=#)B4$,!%@11),2 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GH!
'93:@A=$U$.62@1:3=@E$!32T$,6=14D$-3G12E$5=A3TN37@HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH VL!
N$/(<(<?!3@*4(B),42!")*C 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GU!\&7!<$A4!.B$)C$,!(.!.$*$'4$-!(<!1@*4(B),42!4)*C 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 GF!\&7!1@*4(B),42!'&<5$,.)4(&<.!?$4!4,)<./&,1$-!(<4&!47&KB),42!'&<5$,.)4(&<. 888888888888888888888888888 GY!
%$44(<?!4#$!%'$<$!)<-!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!0)1(*2!3$1:$,. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888YI!T.4):*(.#(<?!)!'&#&,4!/&,!'&**$'4(5$!)'4(&<Q!%)2(<?!?,)'$8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 YH!
B4#%&'#*5131 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111ON!P<(4()4(<?!47&KB),42!4)*C88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 YR!
B4#%&'#*51N1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111OI!B4#%&'#*51>1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111OM!
")C(<?!'$<4,$!.4)?$ 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HIH!B4#%&'#*5121 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113P3!
"@,<!-$.(?<!)<-!.B$)C$,!.$*$'4(&<Q!9@-($<'$!:,$)C.!@BX!,$K/&,1.!)<-!:,$)C.!@B 8888888888888888888HIS!B4#%&'#*5151 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113P>!
D$.@1(<?!4)*C!):&@4!:&&C'*@:88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HIF!B4#%&'#*51:1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113PI!B4#%&'#*51I1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113PO!
3)<)?(<?!1@*4(B*$!],$^@$.4._!)<-!4#$!B*)'$1$<4!&/!4#$!%;;88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HHH!B4#%&'#*51M1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111333!
=#)B4$,!%@11),2 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HHS!
'93:@A=$W$PS9C$DC@$3$931=86@$@917$GC=414DXRF$0A@@14D$14@C$@9A$!32T$17$3$
-14A2E$!64A<$)88CG:2179GA4@ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBBY!
%$44(<?!4#$!%'$<$!)<-!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!0)1(*2!3$1:$,. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HHG!B4#%&'#*:131 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111133O!
P<(4()4(<?!4)*CQ!+1)!(<(4()4$.!4)*C!7(4#!#$,!?,)<--)@?#4$,!):&@4!#)(,'@4.888888888888888888888888888888888888HOI!=&KB,$.$<4!)-@*4.!&,($<4!4&!4#$!1)44$,!&/!"#&1).(<)V.!#)(,'@4 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HOH!")*C!:$47$$<!4#$!)-@*4.!):&@4!#)(,'@4.Q!=&<.$^@$<'$.!/&,!'&KB),4('(B)<4. 88888888888888888888888888888888HOJ!
B4#%&'#*:1N*Q#&H$"*7%)9*B4#%&'#*:13R1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113N2!
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! 5(((!
`$<!,$^@$.4.!)!#)(,'@4 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HOR!B4#%&'#*:1>1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113NI!
\)(,'@4.Q!9!1$1:$,.#(B!')4$?&,(W)4(&<!-$5('$!(.!(<5&C$- 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HOY!D$K(<5&C(<?!4#$!-$5('$!#)(,'@4. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HSH!
B4#%&'#*:121 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113>3!3$1:$,.#(B!&/!7#&!#)-!#)(,'@4.!'&<4(<@$.!4&!:$!.&,4$-!&@48888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HSS!
B4#%&'#*:151 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113>>!
=#)B4$,!%@11),2 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HSR!
'93:@A=$Y$!C:1832$!32T$,6=14D$-3G12E$.A32@1GA7HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBLZ!
"&B('!+,?)<(.)4(&<88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HSY!
"&B('Q!9-@*4K=#(*-!P<4$,)'4(&< 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HJH!
%$44(<?!4#$!%'$<$!)<-!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!0)1(*2!3$1:$,. 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HJS!9''&1B*(.#(<?!)!.#),$-!@<-$,.4)<-(<?!&/!4#$!4&B('!4#)4!(.!(<(4()4$-!L!]+#a!4#$!'#$,,2!.#&$._ 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HJJ!
B4#%&'#*I131 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111325!"#$!,$*)4(&<.#(B!:$47$$<!4#$!.$^@$<4()*!$<5(,&<1$<4!)<-!4)C$!@B!&/!)!B,&//$,$-!4&B('!L!];&&,!&*-!%#(,*$2_ 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HUI!
B4#%&'#*I1N1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111135P!P<(4()4(<?!)!<$7!4&B('!7(4#!)!^@$.4(&<!L!]M).<V4!3(C$2!)4!7&,C!4&-)2!3),?&4b_88888888888888888888888HUS!
B4#%&'#*I1>1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111352!
=&<'*@.(&< 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HFS!
'93:@A=$V$P-CC<$NC=$@9C6D9@RF$'C482671C47HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBWU!
"#$!%$44(<?888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HFF!"#$!.$44(<?$-!'#),)'4$,!&/!/)1(*2!1$)*4(1$888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HFR!0)1(*2!1$)*4(1$Q!9!1@*4(B),42!.$44(<?8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HFY!
"#$&,$4(')*!%(?<(/(')<'$!&/!4#$!0(<-(<?. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HRI!%#),$-!/)1(*2!C<&7*$-?$!,$*$5)<4!4&!)<-!'&<.$^@$<4()*!/&,!1$)*4(1$!(<4$,)'4(&<. 888888888888888HRH!"&B('!).!)!.#),$-!,$.&@,'$!/&,!.&'()*!(<4$,)'4(&< 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HRS!3$1:$,.#(B!')4$?&,(W)4(&<!-$5('$Q!P1B&,4)<4!/&,!&,?)<(.(<?!.&'()*!)'4(&< 88888888888888888888888888888888HRS!=#(*-,$<V.!'&1B$4$<'$!(<!&,?)<(.(<?!.&'()*!)'4(&<!-@,(<?!/)1(*2!1$)*4(1$888888888888888888888888888888888HRU!
3$4#&-&*&?(')*!%(?<(/(')<'$ 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HRR!
0@,4#$,!P<5$.4(?)4(&<.8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HRY!
P1B*(')4(&<. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HGI!
=&<'*@.(&<. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HGO!
+ANA=A48A7HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBVL!
)::A4<18A7 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBZZ!9BB$<-(A!9!\@1)<!T4#('.!=$,4(/(')4$!)<-!9BB,&5)*8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HYY!9BB$<-(A!`!P</&,1)4(&<!)<-!=&<.$<4!;)'C)?$888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888OIH!9BB$<-(A!=!N$4)(*.!&/![(-$&!D$'&,-(<?.!&/!0)1(*($. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888OIU!9BB$<-(A!N!",)<.',(B4(&<!%2.4$18888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888OHO!9BB$<-(A!T!=&B2!&/!0($*-!Z&4$.!L![)<-$,*&&.!0)1(*2 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888OHJ!
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! (A!
List of Figures
K(/,%$*N131!0)1(*2!42B$.!(-$<4(/($-!7(4#(<!9@.4,)*()!c9P0%X!OIIR:d8 8888888888888888888888HO!K(/,%$*2131!+1)!<&7!*&&C(<?!)4!4#$!5(-$&!')1$,)8 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888RR!K(/,%$*21N1!e@*()!)<-!"#&1).(<)!)*.&!<&7!*&&C(<?!)4!4#$!5(-$&!')1$,)888888888888888RR!K(/,%$*21>1!`$<!)?)(<.4!4#$!7)**!L!e@*()!?$.4@,(<?!4&!'&1$!:)'C8 88888888888888888888888888888RG!K(/,%$*5131!"#$!:&2.!:$/&,$!4#$!1&4#$,!$<4$,.!4#$!,&&18 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888YO!K(/,%$*51N1!`$<!)<-!\),,2!<&4!,$)-28 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888YO!K(/,%$*51>1!\$<,2!1&5(<?!/,&1!4#$!4):*$!-@,(<?!?,)'$888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888YO!K(/,%$*:131!P1)?$!&/!4#$!/)1(*2!)4!4#$!-(<(<?!4):*$888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HHG!K(/,%$*:1N1!+1)!*$)<.!/&,7),-!)<-!*&&C.!)4!"#&1).(<)8 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HHY!K(/,%$*:1>1!`$<!)*1&.4!.4)<-(<?!).C(<?!/&,!&,)<?$!f@('$888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HOU!K(/,%$*:121!`$<!'&11$<'$.!4&!,&'C!&<!#(.!'#)(,8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HOU!K(/,%$*I131*P1)?$!&/!4#$!0,)<'(.!/)1(*28 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HJS!K(/,%$*I1N1!"#$!0,)<'(.!/)1(*2!)4!4#$!-(<<$,!4):*$8 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HJU!
List of Tables
"):*$!O8H!F(""$%*S%%&"/$9$"#+8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888HY!"):*$!J8H!;&%#('(<&"#+T*6&9$+*&"0*S/$+ 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888UU!"):*$!J8O!DG$*K(=$*;G&+$+*)7*K($-0*U)%H 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888UR!"):*$!J8S!V&"0$%-))+*J$')%0("/+ 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888FR!"):*$!U8H!V&"0$%-))+*K&9(-.*W$98$%+T*6&9$+*&"0*S/$+ 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888YH!"):*$!R8H*K%&"'(+*K&9(-.*W$98$%+T*6&9$+*&"0*S/$+88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 HJS!
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! A!
List of Abbreviations
AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies
CA Conversation analysis
CELF Center on Everyday Lives of Families
FPP First pair part
LSAC Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
MCA Membership categorization analysis
NCAC National Childcare Accreditation Council
Q-A Question-Answer
SPP Second pair part
TCU Turn constructional units
TRP Transition relevant place
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! A(!
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: _________________________
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! A((!
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to acknowledge and thank the families who agreed to be part
of the study and willingly turned on the video camera during their mealtimes.
I also acknowledge the financial support from QUT through the Grants in Aid
Scheme to attend the International Conference on Conversation Analysis and the
Conversation Analysis Practicum at Loughborough University and for opportunities
to attend workshops with visiting scholars. Thanks also to LTERC at CQ University
for their financial support to attend conferences.
For generous support with technical matters, thanks to Colette and Peter who
advised me about the best video to purchase and helped with editing video and audio
files, to Al who ensured that my computer could cope with the massive video files
that come with video data, to Charlotte who formatted my thesis and to Kate who
helped check references.
To my friends and colleagues within the School of Education, Lyn, Lindy,
Bobby, Jenny, Kathy, Clare and Helen, thank you for your support and your wise
counsel. Thank you to Christina Davidson who engaged in so many CA
conversations with me and always reminded me that “order was there at all times”.
She encouraged me to push through the hard times during analysis and to “just stare
it down.” Thanks also to the library staff, to Jenny and Cathy who willingly sourced
articles and books.
To Helen Huntly, the Dean, who generously supported me and trusted that this
thesis would be completed.
To my friends Liz, Cecilia, Diane, Deann, Chris, Natalie, Janet, Rogina,
Debbie and Chris who always showed an interest in my study as they listened to me
talk about it as we shared endless cups of coffee. Thanks to Chris Woodrow who
encouraged me to commence the PhD journey and provided many pep talks to keep
me focussed. Thank you to Maryanne and Charlotte for their encouragement. To
Ashley and staff at the gym who tried to keep me keep fit during the later stages of
the thesis when I felt as if I was glued to the study chair.
!
"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! A(((!
Thank you to the Brisbane Transcript Analysis Group for providing a forum for
CA data sessions.
To my family, to my parents Clive and Gwyneth who generously supported me
in so many ways, for their love, their belief in me, their gentle encouragement, their
practical support, and their patience, thank you. To my brother, Andrew, who, in his
quiet way, encouraged me during our regular telephone calls and to my sister in law,
Nikki Wright, who would meet me during my visits to see my supervisors and to
Horace my beautiful four-legged walking companion – thank you to each of you for
your support.
Finally, a special and very sincere thank you to my supervisors – Susan Danby,
Ann Farrell, Carly Butler and more recently Maryanne Theobald. Your generosity
with time, your meticulous reading of my work, your unwavering support for my
project, your gentle manoeuvring to steer me on course and your knowledge of the
field is appreciated. This work owes much to the guidance I received from Susan,
Ann, Carly and Maryanne. I have been truly blessed. Thank you.
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! H!
Chapter 1 $
(4@=C<6814D$@9A$%@6<EF$-3G12E$.A32@1GAF$)4$(4@A=38@1C432$)88CG:2179GA4@$
My curiosity about mealtimes began when, as an early childhood educator, I
watched and listened to children as they ate their morning tea and lunch in a
preschool setting. Generally they began with negotiation about where and with
whom to sit, followed by eating and a lot of talk with each other and with the adults
present in the setting. In my pedagogic role scaffolding children’s interactions,
discussing the importance of healthy food and being a willing helper in opening
tricky containers and peeling fruit, my sense was that something rich and interesting
was occurring. The negotiations that prefaced the consumption of food involved
intricate interactional moves as children drew some members into their social group
and excluded others. Clearly, while the children oriented to the experience of eating,
mealtimes were not just about food, the activity was social. For the children, social
interaction with their friends was an important part of mealtimes. These observations,
coupled with regular invitations to share a family meal with friends who had young
children, heightened my interest in the social aspects of meals and the richness of
mealtime interactions. During mealtimes with families, I also noticed the complexity
of what was occurring – talking, eating, serving and helping. Yet these practices
were accomplished, with comparative ease, suggestive of mealtime as a routine
accomplishment, even when guests were present. My hunch was that there was so
much to understand about what was occurring during mealtimes, particularly the
important role that talk had in the organisation of mealtime. While interactions
occurring in educational and family contexts sparked my interest in mealtimes, this
study is concerned with finding out how members accomplish family mealtimes.
Arguably, there is a need for detailed research to show how families accomplish the
social activity of having a family meal and to explicate the interactional resources
that members mobilise in family mealtimes.
For many families, family mealtime is a commonplace, mundane and ordinary
activity in which they engage routinely. It is how this very ordinary (Garfinkel, 1967;
Livingston, 1987; Sacks, 1984b) activity is accomplished that is of interest in this
study. The aim of this study, therefore, is to examine how family members interact to
assemble “social order” as they go about having a family meal. Social order here
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! O!
refers to “the organization of social relations constructed in situ” by members and
one that is “not static”, rather social order is “co-constructed interactionally” (Danby,
2009, p. 1597) by members. In explicating the methods and procedures used by
members to assemble social order, this thesis contributes the fine detail of how
members produce the social activity of mealtime.
Mealtime, from a lay perspective is often associated with the temporal ordering
of meals throughout the day, commencing with breakfast, followed by lunch, and
concluding with the evening meal. Sometimes family mealtimes occur with all or
most members assembled and, on other occasions, not all members share the meal at
the same time or in the same place (Ochs, Smith & Taylor, 1996). Additionally,
family meals may take place in a range of settings within the family home, such as,
the dining room, the kitchen and even while sitting on a couch. As my early
observations of preschool children having morning tea and lunch highlighted,
mealtime is more than a clocktime indicating a particular time in the day at which to
eat. Rather, mealtime practices are a social accomplishment.
Within this study, mealtime is recognised as a social activity that is organised
and produced by the members in a “locally situated way” (Mondada, 2009, p. 559)
using the resources of talk and interaction. This uniquely organised social activity
requires members to orient to and adjust to the “peculiarities of the context”
(Mondada, 2009, p. 559). Context incorporates the physical setting, such as the
participating members, and members’ talk. Talk and accompanying paralinguistic
resources, such as gaze and gesture, are important in the social organisation of family
mealtime. When situating mealtime as a social and interactional accomplishment,
talk simultaneously shapes and renews the mealtime context as members contribute
to the unfolding mealtime talk (Heritage, 1984). Each turn of talk demonstrates an
understanding of the previous turn and sets up the context for the next turn. Thus,
talk both produces the context and is “designed for the context” (Baker, 1997, p. 45)
in which it occurs.
The study is informed by an ethnomethodological perspective where the focus
is on how social order is accomplished interactionally by the family members
(Garfinkel, 1967). Adopting an ethnomethodological perspective involves
elucidating how the “witnessable social order” (Livingston, 2008, p. 124) is
produced by the members, with “talk recognised as the primary resource for doing
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! S!
this work” (Baker, 1997, p. 43). The focus of ethnomethodology is explication rather
that explanation (Baker, 1997), that is, it is concerned with how social activities are
produced by the members “from within” (Francis & Hester, 2004, p. 26). The fine-
grained “precision tools” (Baker, 1997, p. 43) of conversation analysis that focus
particularly on sequential organisation of talk, and membership categorization
analysis that focus on what and how membership categories are used by members,
provide analytic tools for showing how social order is accomplished by members.
A number of researchers have investigated family mealtimes as an important
opportunity for social interaction. Significant contributions include research by
Elinor Ochs, a linguistic anthropologist (see Ochs & Shohet, 2006; Ochs, Smith, &
Taylor, 1989, 1996; Ochs & Taylor, 1992a, 1993; Ochs, Taylor, Rudolph, & Smith,
1992). For example, Ochs and colleagues highlighted narrative and storytelling as
important features of mealtime. In addition, a cross-cultural study by Blum Kulka
(1994, 1997) examined cultural patterns of communication during family dinners.
Blum Kulka (1997) showed how dinner talk both socialises children to use language
in “socially and culturally appropriate ways” (p. 3) while being a participant in
“intergenerational multiparty talk” (Blum Kulka, 1994, p. 2), providing opportunities
for sociability.
For researchers adopting an ethnomethodological approach mealtimes have
provided data for examining how members organise their “social practices and their
conversation” (Mondada, 2009, p. 559) and have contributed to understandings about
how members manage turns at talk and relationships between speakers (Mondada,
2009). In addition, researchers have used mealtime data to examine the emergence of
self-repair in childen (Forrester, 2008) and to explore new domains of knowledge
(Goodwin, 2007). Laurier and Wiggins (2011), who examined the interactional
organisation of satiety during family mealtime argue that much of the research about
mealtimes does not attend specifically to how mealtime is accomplished
interactionally by the members. There are a small number of studies drawing on an
ethnomethodological approach that explicate how family mealtime is accomplished
interactionally (see Laurier & Wiggins, 2011; Mondada, 2009; Wiggins 2004a,
2004b). Laurier and Wiggins (2011) propose that there is still much to learn about
how families interact during mealtimes in the detail afforded by an
ethnomethodological approach. This thesis takes up the challenge proffered by
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! J!
Laurier and Wiggins (2011) that there is still much to learn about how mealtimes are
accomplished interactionally and provides fine-grained analysis of two families
during family mealtime.
This study resides also within the arena of childhood studies. A central
assumption is the active role of children in constructing their childhood (Butler,
2008; Cromdal, 2006; Danby, 1998; James & James, 2004; James & Prout, 1997;
1990: Mackay, 1991; Speier, 1973, 1976; Waksler, 1991). Other assumptions about
children’s development and about childhood posit that children develop through
stages in order to attain full social competence (Hutchby, 2007). In contrast, a
childhood studies approach that adopts a competence paradigm which positions
children as competent members in their “local everyday worlds” (Danby & Baker,
1998, p. 169), rather than as apprentices to adults. Competence is not something that
is given to children by adults (Hutchby, 2007); rather it is something that children
actively negotiate and establish through interaction (Hutchby, 2007; Hutchby &
Moran Ellis, 1998) and, as such, is recognised as a “practical accomplishment”
(Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 22). Thus, competence is demonstrated and
observable as children enact their lives with peers, siblings, adults and family
members.
The terms child, children and childhood are used throughout the thesis. While
in everyday conversation, these terms might be used interchangeably, each term,
here, represents different concepts. The term child is often used to indicate kinship
within a family or a “life course category” (James & James, 2004, p. 16). However,
within the context of international conventions such as the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC), child/ren refers to those
persons under 18 years (Mayall, 2002). This is in contrast with the term adult, a
reference to people over 18 years of age (James & James, 2004). The UNCRC uses
the term, the child, in a universal and collective way, as representing all children
(James & James, 2004). Childhood is not an “essentialised category” (Prout, 2005,
p. 76); rather, it is socially, historically constructed. Children are competent social
agents in the construction of childhood (James & James, 2004; James, Jenks & Prout,
1998; James & Prout, 1997; Waksler, 1991), is one way to represent childhood.
Children’s competence is “bounded by structural features” (Hutchby & Moran
Ellis, 1998, p. 14) referred to as “arenas of social action” (Speier, 1972, p. 402).
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! U!
“Arenas of social action” (Speier, 1972, p. 402) include the policies implemented by
government, which “structure the institutionalized worlds of childhood” (Hutchby &
Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 14). This includes, for example, legislation that stipulates the
age at which children are required to start school and the age at which children are
considered legally (and criminally) responsible for their actions. The family also is
an arena of action that structures the institution of childhood that includes child-child
relationships and adult-child relationships (Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, Speier,
1972).
The social structures within which children interact can simultaneously
constrain and enable their ability to enact and make visible their competencies
(Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 15). For example, the rights accorded to adults in
adult-child interactions may present as a structural feature in which children engage
and a location where children’s cultures and adult cultures are in “routine contact
with each other” (Speier, 1976, p. 99). In short, children demonstrate their
competence as they act within and upon the social structures in which they operate
(Prout & James, 1990). Children’s competence is evidenced when, for example,
children participate competently in adult-child interactions despite restricted rights as
conversationalists (Cromdal, 2006). The conceptual approach of this study
recognises children as competent social agents, and reports on “actual interactional
practices through which childhoods are being produced, lived and experienced”
(Cromdal, 2009, p. 1474). This study reveals the resources and procedures the
participants, including adults and children, use to organise themselves as they go
about doing family mealtime.
The study adopts a view of families that aligns with ethnomethodological
perspectives. This means that families “aren’t matters of definition” (Livingston,
2008, p. 128); rather, they are constructed in the doings of everyday life. In other
words, “families are what families do” (Smart, Neale, & Wade, 2001, p. 17), and
they involve a “fantastically detailed organisation of social practices” (Livingston,
2008, p. 128). Members “recognise, produce and maintain that order” (Livingston,
2008, p. 128) that is unique to each family. In explaining how families have orderly
ways of doing things that are observable to the members, Livingston (2008) uses the
example of the family refrigerator. He suggests that the order in the refrigerator is not
accidental; rather, each family has particular ways of arranging the refrigerator that is
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! F!
recognised and contributed to by the family members. As with organising the family
refrigerator, families have orderly ways of accomplishing family mealtimes. This
thesis uses an interactional lens to examine an aspect of family life; that is, how
family members manage the social activity of having a family meal. The
ethnomethodological approach adopted in this study is evident in the recognition of
the members’ agency in the doings, assembling and reassembling of family, and of
mealtime.
!9A$%@6<E$34<$@9A$+A7A3=89$[6A7@1C47$
The study examines the family practices of mealtime, with a focus on the
interactional resources that members use to assemble social order at family mealtime.
Data from two families are presented: the Francis family and the Vanderloos family
(all family names are pseudonyms). The data presented in the analysis chapters
include extended sequences (Psathas, 1995) of interactions from both the Francis and
Vanderloos families. Children in the families, at the time of data collection, were
aged from two to ten years. Data collection took place in the family homes where
family members, using a video on a tripod, video recorded their naturally occurring
family mealtimes (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). Video recording interactions makes it
possible to capture talk and physical activity simultaneously, to allow the researcher
to revisit the data (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010) and to
examine how talk in interaction is organised. Given that analysis is only “ever partial
and always from a particular standpoint” (Danby, 2009, p. 1598), additional analytic
interests may be mined on other occasions (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997).
The following key research questions were investigated. They are:
• What are the social interactions and practices happening in family
mealtime contexts?
• What interactional methods and procedures do members draw on during
family mealtime?
• How do the interactions contribute to the social orders of mealtime and
family interaction?
• What does the study contribute to our understandings of family
interactions?
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! R!
The research questions were developed through engagement in the literature on
family mealtimes and studies that adopted an ethnomethodological approach to
investigate everyday practices of children and families. More specific research
questions emerged during the analytic process, beginning with transcription of the
video recorded data. For example, I became interested in how members accomplish
turns at talk within the multiparty setting and how members resume talk that
appeared to have ceased, with the interruption often attributed to eating, as discussed
in Chapter 5. The data presented in Chapter 6 sparked my analytic interest with how
the membership device haircuts was employed.
Given that the overall aim of the study was to investigate what goes on in the
family mealtime setting as people go about having a meal, taking an
ethnomethodological approach ensured that the focus remained on the local concerns
of the participants” (Cromdal, 2009, p. 1474). Focusing on the participants’ “local
concerns, or “from within” (Cromdal, 2009, p. 1473), is a departure from traditional
ways of studying the social activity of members (Garfinkel, 1967).
Ethnomethodology’s concern with how ordinary members accomplish everyday
activities (Garfinkel, 1967) focuses on how members accomplish their activities.
The “seen but unnoticed” practices (Heritage, 1984b, p.118), the ordinary and
mundane, are uncovered during the analytic process. Talk is central to the
organisation of social activity with analytic interest in how members use language to
accomplish social action (Baker, 1997).
Conversation analysis (CA) is concerned with examining the sequential
organisation of “talk-in-interaction” (Schegloff, 2007b) to uncover how actions “are
produced and understood” (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 65) by members. CA
provides analytic tools for explicating the interactional resources that members use in
interactions, and is underpinned by three assumptions. First, interaction is
structurally organised (Heritage, 1984b) evidenced in the way that members take
turns at talk, such as one person talking at a time and speaker change recurring
(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Second, talk both shapes and is shaped by the
context (Heritage, 1984b). For example, a current action such as a request forms the
immediate context for the next action in the sequence. Third, “no order of detail can
be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (Heritage, 1984b,
p. 241); that is, there is “order at all points” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 484). Accepting
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! G!
the principle of order at all points ensures that analysts do not dismiss any aspects of
interaction as unimportant.
Aligned with conversation analysis is membership categorization analysis.
Also developed by Sacks (1995), membership categorization analysis examines the
membership categories, membership categorization devices, and predicates that
members use in accomplishing social action (Hester & Eglin, 1997). It is concerned
with how members “methodically do and recognize description” (Butler, 2008, p. 28)
that, in turn, requires making inferences from the descriptions. Conversation analysis
and membership categorization analysis can be combined to provide rich analysis
(Butler, 2008; Hester & Eglin, 1997; Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002) and these
combined tools are employed in the analysis presented in Chapter 6.
!9A717$&6@214A$
The introductory chapter has introduced the study with its focus on
investigating everyday practices of family mealtimes. Chapter 1 established a context
for the study, identified the research aim and research questions, and provided a brief
overview of the research approach.
Chapter 2 introduces the perspective on families (Smart, Neale, & Wade, 2001)
adopted in this study, one that recognises the diversity of families and one that
recognises families as constructing and reconstructing social orders and the active
participation of children in contributing as family members to the social orders at
work. Mealtimes are introduced as an important feature of family time. The chapter
argues that much of the research on family mealtime does not focus on how members
accomplish mealtime, rather they highlight what children learn as a result of
participation in mealtimes. Studies that take a fine-grained approach to examining
family mealtimes are discussed, showing how fine-grained analysis can illuminate
the interactional resources that members use to accomplish mealtime.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology informing the study. The related
approaches of ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967), conversation analysis (CA)
(Sacks, 1995) and membership categorization analysis (MCA) (Hester & Eglin,
1997; Sacks, 1995) contribute to a fine-grained analysis of talk-in-interaction. The
key assumptions underlying each approach are presented along with how each
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! Y!
approach contributes a detailed analysis of social order as assembled by family
members.
Chapter 4 describes the research design of the study. The phases in data
collection and analysis are discussed, including (1) ethical considerations; (2)
identifying and contacting families; (3) selecting suitable equipment and generating
principles to guide video recording; (4) trialling the practices of video recording; (5)
generating data; and (6) data analysis. Sequences from the video recordings of family
mealtimes were transcribed using Jefferson notation (Jefferson, 2004). The chapter
pays particular attention to transcription as a theoretical endeavour and introduces the
transcription notation used in the study. Also provided are the insights revealed from
the fieldwork, particularly the way in which members oriented to the video camera
and to the researcher.
Chapters 5 to 7 are the analysis chapters. Each chapter presents an analysis of
an extended sequence of interaction (Psathas, 1995). Chapter 5 identifies the
interactional resources used by the mother to cohort her children to accomplish the
choralling of grace. Explicated also are the ways in which members accomplish two-
party talk in a multiparty setting and how one child accomplishes the drawing
together of his brothers to “tell” a funny story.
Chapter 6 draws on sequential and categorical analysis to show how members
are mapped to a locally produced membership device, haircuts. It explicates the way
in which the members are mapped to particular categories according to whether the
member had a haircut on that day and how it is consequential for social order.
Additional interactional resources are used, such as echoing to describe the repetition
of words and the use of similar prosody and actions. Each of these features is
identified as important to the unfolding talk.
Chapter 7 explicates how members use topic as an interactional resource to
accomplish talk with another family member. Evidence of an orientation to the co-
participant and what they know about the topic also is identified as a feature of turn
design and choice of topic. The way in which both the sequential environment and
the “topic” itself affect the success of take up of a proffered topic is identified.
The final chapter, Chapter 8, draws together the findings of the study to
highlight how members orient to the setting of family mealtime and how a multiparty
!
=#)B4$,!H!P<4,&-@'(<?!4#$!%4@-2Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$Q!9<!P<4$,)'4(&<)*!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HI!
setting is consequential for how turns at talk are initiated, including nomination of
the next speaker and self-selection of speaker. Four substantive themes emerged in
the data analysis: the relevance of family members’ shared knowledge in their
interactions, the use of topic as a resource for interactions, the use of membership
categorization devices as resources for organising social action, and the children’s
competence in organising social action during family mealtime as an ongoing
accomplishment. This final chapter also discusses the methodological contributions,
possibilities for further investigation, and implications of the findings.
'93:@A=$%6GG3=E$$
The study’s investigation of how family members manage the social activity of
family mealtime using the resources of talk and interaction to assemble social orders
contributes to understandings about the interactional resources family members use.
It also provides empirical data to show how children demonstrate their competence
within multiple “arenas of social action” (Speier, 1972, p. 402), including family and
sibling arenas. The research presented within this thesis provides theoretical
considerations of how shared family knowledge, the selection of topic and the
mobilisation of membership categorization devices are consequential for how social
orders are assembled by family members.
!
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HH!
Chapter 2 $
*1@A=3@6=A$+AJ1AKF$-3G12E$.A32@1GA$
This chapter examines family mealtime as the interactional space within which
members actively contribute to building social order. Much of the research on family
mealtime does not make visible the actual interactional practices that family
members use as they share a family meal. While there is a growing but small body of
research on family mealtime using ethnomethodology and conversation analysis,
approaches that make visible the intricate detail of how families accomplish having a
meal and how social order is established, these are not extensive. The chapter shows
how the thesis contributes to such understandings of how family order is assembled
within family mealtimes, and the interactional resources members use to construct a
local social order.
-3G121A7$34<$-3G12E$!1GA$
-3G121A7$
The family is recognised as an important setting in children’s lives and a
setting where they develop their identities as children (Smart et al., 2001). An
enduring image of the family is of a “bounded private space” (Alanen, 1998, p. 34)
to which children naturally belong (Alanen, 1998; Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998).
Families can no longer be conceptualised simply as a “biologically based
relational unit” (Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 17) with a fixed membership and
structure. Rather, both family membership and structure are fluid. For example, an
examination of family types by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)
(2007a) suggests the diversity of “relational structures” (Hutchby & Moran Ellis,
1998, p. 17) that now define themselves as families. The Australian Institute of
Family Studies (AIFS, 2007a) defines family as “two or more persons, one of whom
is aged 15 years and over, who are related by blood, marriage (registered or de
facto), adoption, step or fostering; and who are usually resident in the same
household”. Figure 2.1 provides a synopsis of the family types identified within
Australia by the AIFS (2007b).
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HO!
!
Figure 2.1. Family types identified within Australia (AIFS, 2007b).
Replacing the traditional view of a nuclear family with the notion of a family
as a set of “varied practices and relationships” (Smart et al., 2001, p. 43) suggests
that the child will be involved in a multiplicity of “relational structures which define
themselves as families” (Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 17). This view of families
recognises both the diversity and fluidity of family practices. Thus, “families are
what families do” (Smart et al., 2001, p. 17), that is, they are social and relational,
rather than a naturally occurring biological construct.
The view of families adopted in the thesis acknowledges the agency of children
within families. This conceptual framing aligns with the sociology of childhood
framework (Danby & Baker, 1998b, 2000; James & Prout, 1990; James & Prout,
1997) that recognises that children are active in the construction and determination of
their own social lives (Corsaro, 1997; James & Prout, 1997). Thus, children are
actively involved in negotiating the “patterns of relationships” (Hutchby & Moran
Ellis, 1998, p. 17) that constitute family. Children do not simply belong to a family;
they actively contribute to the creation of families (Mayall, 1994) and to “family
order” (Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 17).
Children’s agency within families as they establish relationships and interact
with others means that they contribute to “family order” (Hutchby & Moran-Ellis,
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HS!
1998, p. 18). Family order is recognised as a form of social order, occurring within
“an arena of action whose rules and structures themselves represent resources which
children competently manipulate in dealing with others’ agendas and working out
their own” (Hutchby & Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 18). This definition embraces the
fluidity of families, where each member contributes to the construction and
reconstruction of the family as they manipulate agendas using resources such as
language and physical resources. Thus, the social order of the family mealtime is an
ongoing interactive accomplishment (Danby & Baker, 2000), rather than a constant
or stable feature. Social order is always under construction, “open to revision,
settlement, disruption, and resettlement” (Danby & Baker, 2000, p. 91) as members
interact and manipulate the resources that they have at their disposal. Hester and
Eglin (1997) explain social order as the “ongoing achievement of members of society
conceived as practical actors who are themselves (1) practical analysts of, and
inquirers into, the world, (2) using whatever materials there are to hand to get done
the tasks and business they engaged in” (p. 1). Examination of members’ analytic
and reflexive work (Danby & Baker, 2000) shows the complexity involved in
negotiating and renegotiating social order.
Family mealtimes provide the context for the study and it is important,
therefore, to consider family mealtimes within family time. Currently, family time in
many Western societies refers to the time that families spend together for “fixed
moments in the day, week and year” (Gillis, 2003, p. 155) and is generally organised
around the daily activities of children. Family activities of children might include
going to school or childcare, and engaging in after school activities such as sport or
music lessons. While family time is essentially child focussed, it is an adult creation
and is, therefore, “experienced differently by adults and children” (Gillis, 2003,
p.151). Family mealtime is an example of a time or times in the day when the family
gets together.
The concept of family time that places importance on children is a somewhat
recent phenomenon emerging in Europe and North America during the nineteenth
century, particularly among the Victorian bourgeois. So too, prior to the nineteenth
century, family was not constituted on the basis of familial relations, but linked to the
household or space in which people lived. Family time, as such, did not exist.
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HJ!
Mealtimes were communal rather than familial, and were rarely experienced as a
“regular dining schedule and sitting down together” (Gillis, 2003, p. 153).
The phenomenon of idealised family time has emerged as an antidote to stress,
with families attempting to experience nostalgic images of perfect family time
(Gillis, 2003). Thus, in an effort to reduce stress, many families now engage in the
“outsourcing of family times” (Gillis, 2003, p.159). For example, children’s
birthdays may now be experienced in commercial venues rather than in the family
home (Gillis, 2003). A recent visit to the local McDonald’s franchise suggests that it
is not only for special occasions that families outsource family times. Many families
now experience family breakfasts and lunches at such venues. This feature has been
embraced and capitalised on by the corporate world (Gillis, 2003) with advertising
campaigns directly aimed at capturing the family time market and childhood as a
sales site (James & James, 2004).
-3G121A7$37$3$DA4A=3@1C432$:9A4CGA4C4$
=#(*-#&&-!(.!,$'&?<(.$-!).!)!]?$<$,)4(&<)*!B#$<&1$<&<_!c9*)<$<X!OIIHX!
B8!HHd8!"#$!<&4(&<!&/!?$<$,)4(&<!(.!'&<.(.4$<4!7(4#!)!.&'(&*&?(')*!(<5$.4(?)4(&<!&/!
'#(*-#&&-!7#$,$!'#(*-#&&-!(.!$AB*)(<$-!).!,$*)4(&<)*!4&!)-@*4#&&-!c3)2)**X!
OIIOd!)<-X!4#$,$/&,$X!(<5&*5$.!)<!$A)1(<)4(&<!&/!)-@*4K'#(*-!,$*)4(&<.8!P<(4()**2!
4#$&,(.$-!:2!6),*!3)<<#$(1!cHYUOdX!?$<$,)4(&<!#).!:$$<!$AB*&,$-!).!)!'@*4@,)*!
B#$<&1$<&<!c9*)<$<X!OIIHd8!3)<<#$(1V.!cHYUOd!$AB*)<)4(&<!&/!?$<$,)4(&<!
'&1B,(.$.!4#,$$!.4)?$.!(<'*@-(<?!]?$<$,)4(&<)*!*&')4(&<_X!.#),$-!$AB$,($<'$.!
)<-!(<4$,B,$4)4(&<!&/!4#$.$!$AB$,($<'$.X!)<-!/(<)**2!4#$!/&,1)4(&<!&/!)!
?$<$,)4(&<)*!@<(4!c9*)<$<X!OIIHg!3)2)**X!OIIOd8!9.!?$<$,)4(&<!(.!.&'()**2!)<-!
#(.4&,(')**2!/&,1$-X!?$<$,)4(&<.!1)2!-$5$*&B!)!'&11&<!'&<.'(&@.<$..!):&@4!
.&'()*!)<-!B&*(4(')*!(..@$.X!:$'&1$!)!/$"$%&#()"&-*,"(#!)<-X!4#$,$/&,$X!)'4!).!
)?$<4.!&/!.&'()*!4,)<./&,1)4(&<!c9*)<$<X!OIIHd8!!
Recognising the contribution of generation to understandings of childhood,
Mannheim’s theory (1952) has been further developed by researchers such as Leena
Alanen (2001) and Berry Mayall (1999, 2002). However, distinctions exist between
Mannheim’s theory and the perspective proposed by Alanen (Prout, 2005). As a
macro social structure, generation acknowledges that childhood is a (relatively)
permanent feature or structure of social order (Alanen, 2001; James & James, 2004;
Mayall, 2002) where positions of either adult or child are defined in relation to each
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HU!
other, that is, childhood is both “structured and structuring” (Qvortrup, 1994, p. 12).
Therefore, while childhood is a structural feature of modern times, it is continuously
constructed and reconstructed in situ.
According to Mayall (2002), categories within generations exist relationally, a
process referred to as “generationing” (p. 27). Generationing, that is, the process that
distinguishes childhood from adulthood, occurs at four levels: in “individual
transactions between children and adults; in group transactions, as between pupils
and teachers; in individual relations between people born at different points in
history; and in social policy handed down from an earlier cohort to a later one”
(Mayall, 2002, p. 35). As Mayall (2002) suggests, generational transactions are
influenced, in part, by the previous experiences of those engaged in the transactions
and by policies that reflect dominant understandings of childhood. Given that the
broader social context is characterised by possible risk to children, transactions can
be seen as underpinned by the need for greater supervision and restriction of children
(Mayall, 2002). Thus, within the family, adult-child interactions are set within socio-
economic circumstances of the family, views about child participation, child rights
and knowledge that the adult (mother) draws on from previous interactions with the
child and from her own personal history (Mayall, 2002).
The category child can not exist in a family without the category parent or
adult, since “each position is understood in relation to the other positions” (Narvanen
& Nasman, 2004, p. 72). Membership of either the category of child or adult
influences the experiences, opportunities and identities of that category (Alanen,
2001, p. 14). Further, given the relational nature of generation, the action of each
member is influenced both by their generational positions and by the actions
performed as a response to previous actions (Alanen, 2001; Mayall, 2001). It is at the
intersection of adult-child relationships that childhood is constituted, reproduced and
transformed (Mayall, 2002, p. 42). While the macro structure of child or adult exists,
it is at the micro level that each member actively reconstructs what it is to be a child
or an adult in that context. Understanding children and adults as agents in situ is
important in generational theory.
The family serves to highlight the “privatised and individualised
understandings of child-parent relationships” (Mayall, 2002, p. 61). Child-parent
relationships also can be experienced by children as gendered, thus reflecting the
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HF!
intersection of gender and generation (Mayall, 2002). In particular, the
mother/woman typically is viewed as “carer, confidant” (Mayall, 2002, p. 61).
Mayall’s (2002) research found that grandmothers were significant in children’s
lives. While acknowledging the privatised understanding of child-parent relations, as
with the legislative framework for defining the child, these relationships are
influenced also by government policy. Situating children as part of family policies
implicates the parent as essentially responsible for children. This responsibility often
is understood as authority over children.
'912<\3<62@$=A23@1C4791:7$]$NA3@6=A7$CN$14@A=38@1C47$
The family mealtime typically is a familiar setting for everyday adult-child
interactions, a setting where the salient features of adult-child interactions are visible.
Adult-child interactions often occur within the context of everyday conversations
where members, adults and children, orient to the rules of talk-in-interaction, such as
sequential structures (Francis & Hester, 2004). The sequential organisation of
conversation refers to the way in which items of talk both follow and connect to the
previous talk. The organisation is achieved as each member in the conversation
engages in “analysing the utterances as actions of various kinds” (Francis & Hester,
2004, p. 56); with this analysis revealed in the actions they perform as next speaker.
However, as both Speier (1976) and Sacks (1995) point out, the child may have
restricted speaking rights because of their status as a child. Thus, children’s
interactions in conversations with adults (such as parents) may have a particular
interactional exchange as both potentially orient to this type of restricted speaking
right.
While conversationalists routinely orient to the rules of talk-in-interaction, such
as the current speaker selecting the next speaker, participation in sequential
structures also is linked to the membership category to which the participants belong
(Francis & Hester, 2004). As such, membership of either the category “child” or
“adult” influences participation in adult-child conversations. For example,
membership of the category child accords the child a particular “status as a
conversationalist” (Speier, 1976, p. 100), a status that is normatively considered
subordinate to that of the adult. The child’s status as a conversationalist is evidenced
either when the adult decides to engage in conversation with the child or when the
child attempts to engage in conversation with the adult (Speier, 1976). As such, the
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HR!
child’s status as a conversationalist is an “invariant condition of conversational
contacts” (Speier, 1976, p. 100) between adult cultures and children’s cultures
(Speier, 1976).
In adult/parent and child interactions, adults/parents exhibit particular rights in
the interactions, rights that usually would not be accorded in adult-adult interactions.
These rights are described as “asymmetrical rights because they are bound to one
category but not to the other category or pair of categories” (Francis & Hester, 2004,
p. 60). For participants in adult-child conversations, the conversation is, therefore,
potentially “internally controlled by an asymmetrical distribution of speakers’ rights”
(Speier, 1976, p. 101). This means that adults assert their right to speak and children
are obliged to submit to the adult’s right to speak (Speier, 1976). Therefore, in adult-
child conversations, children typically may have “restricted conversational rights”
(Speier, 1976, p. 101).
Thus, membership of the category adult typically ascribes the adult more rights
than those ascribed to the child. Speier (1976) identifies six features of children’s
restricted rights in adult-child interactions. These include: (a) rights to enforce
silence, (b) rights to intervene during the conversation, (c) rights to require
politeness, (d) rights to terminate children’s talk, (e) dismissal rights, and (f) removal
rights (Speier, 1976, pp. 101-102). Even though children may have restricted rights
in adult-child interactions, researchers have identified strategies used by children to
participate in interactions with adults (Sacks, 1995; Speier, 1976).
Parents use their membership of the category adult to enforce silence. This
practice is observed often when children play together and parents monitor the play
from a distance. Usually characterised as a quick exchange occurring at a distance,
the request for silence or quiet is usually based on the “acoustic conditions” of the
house. Adults also can enforce complete silence by enforcing their adult right to
terminate children’s talk. For example, a parent may say to a child, “I don’t want to
hear another word from you”. This often occurs if the conversation has developed
into a disagreement or argument or if the child interrupts the adult conversation. In
these instances, the adult uses the rights bound to and inherent in membership of the
category parent to terminate the talk and to dismiss the child. Parents also claim the
conversational right to intervene in children’s activity; whilst children’s intervention
in adult activity would be considered impolite. If a child intervenes in an adult
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HG!
activity without the use of appropriate politeness rituals, the adult may invoke their
right to demand politeness. Parents also call on dismissal rights particularly if a child
intervenes in an adult activity.
The asymmetrical rights associated with adult-child interactions highlight how
membership of a particular social category invokes an interlocking set of obligations
and rights for members (Speier, 1976). For example, a child’s failure to orient to
rules embedded in asymmetrical rights may lead to criticism, dismissal and
impoliteness from the adult. Resistance from children may indicate their attempts to
challenge the taken-for-granted asymmetrical rights accorded to adults, thus
unsettling the social and moral orders embedded in adult-child interaction. An
understanding of asymmetrical rights is important in this thesis as it is concerned
with how children and adults interact during mealtime contexts. Also important are
child-child interactions where siblings interact and co-construct sibling social orders.
.A32@1GA7$S1@914$-3G121A7$
Mealtimes within families are studied within a wide range of disciplines
including cultural anthropology, psycholinguistics, psychology, nutrition, sociology
and linguistic (see Larson, Branscomb, & Wiley, 2006). The following section
provides a broad overview of family mealtimes and then proceeds to introduce
mealtimes as sites for social interaction.
,AN1414D$GA32@1GA7$
Mealtime is the term used to describe all meals consumed during the day.
Within many cultures, meals include breakfast, followed by lunch, and concluding
with the evening meal referred to colloquially as dinner or tea. The main meals are
interspersed with snacks throughout the day referred to as morning and afternoon tea
(Grieshaber, 2004). However, research about mealtime practices most often is
situated within the dinnertime. Mealtimes are “densely packed events” (Fiese, Foley,
& Spagnola, 2006, p. 77), and include serving, eating, and talking, all happening in
“approximately twenty minutes” (Fiese et al., 2006, p. 2). Many practices associated
with mealtimes have their roots in practices established by the middle class in
nineteenth century Western Europe and America (Cinotto, 2006). These routines
corresponded with changes such as work separated from the family home and
attention to “standardized schedules of school and work” (Cinotto, 2006, p. 20). By
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! HY!
the late nineteenth century, the dinner meal in Western Europe and America had
assumed greater significance as a time when all family members gathered together,
albeit with class and race differences coming to the fore (Cinotto, 2006).
Mealtimes are often multiparty contexts (Blum-Kulka, 1994, 1997; Pan,
Perlmann, & Snow, 1999; Snow & Beals, 2006) and vary temporally, spatially and
with regard to activity focus (Ochs, Smith, & Taylor, 1996). Temporally, the meal
may be staggered or asynchronous; that is, members may eat at different times.
Spatial variations mean that members of the family may be dispersed or reassembled
while eating. For example, children eat in a separate room from the parents. The
activity focus may be shared and/or diverse depending on a range of factors such as
whether some members watch television as they consume the meal (Ochs, Smith, &
Taylor, 1996). The time, space and activity aspects have implications for talk
between family members such as adult/child and child/child interactions.
The following table (Table 2.1) developed by Ochs, Smith, and Taylor (1996,
p. 96) provides a summary of the variations of dinner arrangements.
Table 2.1
Dinner Arrangements
! 9,,)<?$1$<4!"2B$.!
N(1$<.(&<.* F$'$"#%&-(+$0* L$"#%&-(+$0*
! "$1B&,)*!
! %B)4()*!
! 9'4(5(42!/&'@.!
! %4)??$,$-!
! N(.B$,.$-!
! N(5$,.$!
! %2<'#,&<&@.!
! 9..$1:*$-!
! %#),$-!
Note. From “Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem solving through co-narration,” by E. Ochs, R. C.
Smith, and C. E. Taylor, 1996, in C. L. Briggs (Ed.), Disorderly discourse narrative, conflict, and
inequality (p. 96).
Ochs, Smith, and Taylor (1996) indicate that centralised mealtimes occur at the
same time, with members assembled and having a shared activity focus. Centralised
mealtimes have been characterised by more extensive talk and more collaborative
problem solving as members share stories. Thus, families that share centralised meals
have more opportunities for negotiating the social order of mealtimes and family life
(Ochs et al., 1996). Additionally, in centralised meals, there are more opportunities
for “adults to exert power over children” (Ochs et al., 1996, p. 97). Centralised meals
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OI!
are identified as “more ritualized” (Ochs et al., 1996, p. 97), with, for example, the
inclusion of saying grace or asking to leave the table. Also observed in centralised
mealtimes are particular conventions about, for example, the use of utensils, where to
sit, how to request food, which food must be eaten and so on (Ochs et al., 1996).
Centralised mealtimes contrast with decentralised meals, which, in turn, are
consumed at different times, in different places and with a diverse activity focus.
While primarily serving a survival function, that is, the consumption of the
evening meal, dinner also serves a social function and is observable in many cultures
(Ochs & Shohet, 2006; Ramey & Juliusson, 1998). Coming together for sharing and
eating food, referred to as “commonsality”, is important in “sustaining the family as
a social unit” (Ochs & Shohet, 2006, p. 37). Dinnertime also facilitates the exchange
of information between family members (Lewis & Feiring, 1982), where members
“catch up on the day’s events” (Snow & Beals, 2006, p. 55) and plan future
activities. The communal practice of sharing family mealtime is thought to
encourage togetherness, socialisation and communication between family members.
These practices have been referred to collectively “as making a family” (Dedaic,
2001, p. 378), highlighting the importance of mealtimes in connecting family
members and developing family identity (Thomas-Lepore, Bohanek, Fivush, &
Duke, 2004). Within the context of a family, dinner, in more recent times (Cinotto,
2006), is a time when adults and children reunite after being apart for much of the
day (Ochs et al., 1996) after having worked outside the family home, and/or attended
school or other educational or care sites.
As introduced previously, mealtime practices vary, with differences in the
“setting, duration, meal items, meal sequence and attributed significance” of the meal
identified within the literature (Ochs & Shohet, 2006, p. 36). There also are
variations among cultures (Blum-Kulka, 1994; Larson et al., 2006). The
contemporary demands on families, such as both parents working and children
engaged in a range of after school commitments (Ochs & Shohet, 2006) and less
certainty about what constitutes a family, may challenge assumptions about the form
of the family dinner. For example, sometimes mothers and children eat together prior
to the arrival of the father or parents may eat at a different time to the children (Ochs,
Smith, & Taylor, 1989). In some families, regular meals consumed synchronously
have been replaced by individual snacks and with some children taking responsibility
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OH!
for their own meal preparation (Stanton & Hills, 2004). Some families talk very little
or not at all. For example, a documentary titled Four Families shows how a French
rural family almost eats in silence except for instrumental talk (Blum-Kulka, 1994).
Peruvian families also are expected to eat in silence (Ochs & Shohet, 2006). Eating
in silence suggests that the meal is “not conceived of as a social conversational
event” nor as a time for “socializing children in conversational skills” (Blum-Kulka,
1994, p. 5). How mealtimes are conceptualised and how they are enacted will
determine the extent to which mealtimes are familial “we events” (Blum-Kulka,
1994, p. 7) shared with family members.
%:38A7$34<$:238A7$NC=$GA32@1GA7$
The private space of the family and the family home remains one of the
primary contexts in which children consume dinner and engage in mealtime
interactions. Within this space particular places are usually designed for mealtimes
including places such as the kitchen and dining room. However, children may eat in
other places, such as, a child’s couch (Gillen & Hancock, 2005, 2006). Moreover,
children may eat in contexts other than the family home such as restaurants and
family outings such as picnics.
Increasingly, mealtimes occur in public spaces such as restaurants.
McDonald’s, a global fast food restaurant, is marketed to children through the mass
media, as both a child-friendly and family-friendly place to share a meal. Advertising
is premised on children’s access to technology, their ability to influence food
choices, and the centrality of consumption in everyday life (Kincheloe, 2002). As
James (1982) suggested almost three decades ago, children influence choices, and
also make choices about what they purchase. James (1982) argues that the attraction
of some food is its contrast to traditional adult food, a category in which the
traditional Big Mac and French fries could be placed. In addition, McDonald’s is
marketed to both adults and children as a primary provider of pleasure in the child’s
world (Kincheloe, 2002). According to Kincheloe (2002), in the USA, every month,
nineteen out of twenty children (aged six to eleven years) visit a fast food restaurant.
Furthermore, by the time a child reaches the age of three, more than 80% know that
McDonald’s sell hamburgers (Kincheloe, 2002, p. 98). These statistics highlight the
relevance of such spaces outside the home as sites for family mealtimes.
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OO!
.A32@1GA7$37$%C8132$(4@A=38@1C4$
Studies of family mealtimes (see Blum-Kulka, 1997; Ochs & Taylor, 1992a;
Ochs et al., 1996) have shown mealtimes as opportunities for social interaction with
family members. These include adult-child interactions, child-child interactions and
adult-adult interactions.
Mealtimes are thought of as “cultural sites for the socialisation of persons into
competent and appropriate members of society” (Ochs & Shohet, 2006, p. 35).
Children, through language interactions, often with “more knowledgeable members”
(Paugh, 2005, p. 56), learn to use language (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) and also learn
the “cultural and linguistic knowledge” (Paugh, 2005, p. 56) and practices to live in
society. From this perspective, children are viewed as active participants in the
process of socialisation rather than as passive recipients. The methodology adopted
by many researchers within the language socialisation paradigm includes an
examination of routine interaction in naturalistic settings (Paugh, 2005). While
transcripts of audio or video recording interactions are analysed, the data are
supported, often, by additional ethnographic material such as the socio-economic
background of the family, participant observation and interviews (Paugh, 2005). In
some instances, data are subject also to quantitative analysis and converted to tables
and graphs (see Ochs & Taylor, 1992a).
Parents have an important role in family mealtime interactions. In a study of 33
nuclear families (mother, father, and child/ren) at dinnertime, Lewis and Feiring
(1982) found that mothers talked more to fathers than fathers to mothers; mothers
engaged their children more in conversation than did fathers; and children vocalised
more to mothers than to fathers, with the least talking between siblings. Their
analysis of the influence of family size on interactions revealed that, for all
interactions, there was a decrease in the amount of time per interaction as family size
increased; although, the overall amount and time of interaction did not increase. The
birth order of the target child also altered interactions, with adults talking more to
first-born target children, whereas when the target child was younger there was more
interaction between siblings. The various functions of interactions, including
information seeking, nurturance, and caregiving, were examined to ascertain the
frequency with which members performed a particular function. Significantly,
parents were involved in seeking information from their children. While such
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OS!
research highlights the frequency and importance of mealtime interactions between
family members, it does not provide fine-grained detail of how interactions are
accomplished by particular members.
Narratives have been identified as an important feature of mealtime
interactions with family members contributing to the unfolding narrative (Ochs &
Taylor, 1992a; Ochs & Taylor, 1992b; Ochs, Taylor, Rudolph, & Smith, 1992;
Snow, 1991; Snow & Beals, 2006). Perhaps narrative activity is evident, particularly
at dinnertime, because it is the time when families reassemble after being apart for
much of the day (Ochs et al., 1996). It is considered, therefore, an important
“linguistic medium for constituting the family” (Ochs & Taylor, 1992c, p. 447) and
as an “opportunity space” (Ochs, Smith, & Taylor, 1996, p. 95) for activity among
family members.
Family narratives also provide insight into how the “political order is
constituted” (Ochs & Taylor, 1992a, p. 302) within the family, with the family
conceptualized as a “political body” (Ochs & Taylor, 1992a p. 301). Family
members assume particular roles within the telling of narratives. Possible roles
include “protagonist, elicitor, initial teller, primary recipient, addressee,
problematizer and problematizee” (Ochs & Taylor 1992a, p. 309). Particular roles
involve, for example, members passing judgement and problematising the actions of
other family members (Ochs & Taylor, 1992a). An examination of who adopts
particular roles within narrative activity shows differences between members in the
control they exert. The protagonist in the story, often the child, become the talked
about or “topical object” (Ochs & Taylor, 1992a, p. 337), rather than the active agent
in the narration. In contrast, “parents do not address their lives to their children” thus
highlighting a “fundamental asymmetry” (Ochs & Taylor, 1992c, p. 453) in family
narrative. Significantly, in assuming roles such as introducer, primary recipient, and
problematiser (Ochs & Taylor, 1992a, p. 303), parents exerted more power than
children. For example, the introducer, usually the parent, has a pivotal role in
narrative activity, nominating the protagonist and setting the parameters of the
narrative (Ochs & Taylor, 1992c).
Family interactions at mealtimes contribute to the construction of gender
relevant family identities of family members (Ochs & Taylor, 1992c). In particular,
the mother plays an important role in establishing the father as the primary recipient
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OJ!
of narratives possibly because the father is less involved in children’s lives (Lewis &
Feiring, 1982; Ochs & Taylor, 1992c). As the primary recipient of narratives, the
father judges and imposes sanctions of other members of the family. In assuming a
judging role in family narratives, the father adopts a panopticon role (Bentham,
1791, cited in Foucault, 1979) that implies “an all seeing eye of power” (Ochs &
Taylor, 1992c, p. 329) contributing to the surveillance of interlocutors. Thus, family
narratives also contribute to a “Father knows best” view of the father (Ochs &
Taylor, 1992c, p. 454). This role of the father is supported by the English research of
Smart and Neale (1999) who suggest that a father’s relationship with his children is
“sustained via their relationship with their mother” (p. 47).
Storytelling is one form of narrative activity that is accomplished
collaboratively with other family members. Researchers have highlighted what
children learn as a result of participating in storytelling activities (Ochs et al., 1992).
The cognitive and linguistic skills members draw on, as part of storytelling during
mealtime are similar to those required in science and other educational domains and,
as such, contribute to children’s “intellectual development” (Ochs et al., 1992, p. 38).
Participation in storytelling cultivates skills necessary for “engagement in the world
of theory” (Ochs et al., 1992, p. 38). For example, members recognize and express
different points of view, they see stories as versions or theories rather than “factual
accounts” (Ochs et al., 1992, p. 38), and they analyse the different perspectives
proffered by co-narrators. The researchers (Ochs et al., 1992) argue that both
engagement in, and listening to storytelling socializes children into the “rudiments of
scholarly discourse” (p. 68) and suggest further that dinnertime is an important time
for “socializing cognition through language” (p. 69). Similarly, using parent-child
interaction data from The Home-School Study of Language and Literacy
Development, a large American study, researchers highlighted that both explanatory
and narrative talk support children’s later development and that mealtimes are sites
for the use of rare words which was noted as a predictor of later child outcomes
(Beals & Tabors, 1995).
Family mealtime interactions also are sites for the socialization of children into
“working family life” (Paugh, 2005, p. 55). Using 32 video-recorded family dinner
conversations, Paugh (2005), using mixed qualitative and quantitative methods,
examined how children learn about “their parents’ jobs and about work in general”
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OU!
(p. 58) as they listen to and interact with their parents. In examining the narratives
about work, Paugh (2005), showed that children never assumed the role of narrator
or principle protagonist, though they did contribute to narratives about work,
primarily by asking questions to which the parents responded. The father’s work was
discussed more than was the mother’s work, thus offering children a gendered way to
talk about work. These discussions socialise children to develop understandings of
work, such as, how to behave at work and values about work and family. Children
also learn how to talk about work including “how to introduce, present, evaluate, and
problem-solve work-related issues” (Paugh, 2005, p. 72) While using video-recorded
data, some of the analysis is quantitative. For example, the frequency of talk about
work was calculated showing that children are “variability exposed to work-related
discourse” during family mealtimes.
Moral issues also are important within mealtimes (Ochs & Shohet, 2006). This
occurs through the “grammatical markings of deference and authority, directives,
assessments justifications, excuses, apologies, prayers and storytelling” (Ochs &
Shohet, 2006, p. 43). Table manners expected within the family and politeness
routines (Berko Gleason, Perlmann & Grief, 1984) also form part of this
socialisation. Socialisation about politeness routines encompasses teaching about
stylistic variations, for example, how to ask for something more politely (Berko
Gleason et al., 1984). As part of politeness routines, children may be required to ask
to leave the table and reminded to do so when they do not comply (Berko Gleason et
al., 1984). The requirement to request permission to leave the table also “accentuates
the status difference between parents and children” (Pan, Perlmann, & Snow, 1999,
p. 212) given that adults may mark that they are leaving the table, but not request
permission. In addition, as members participate in the co-construction of narratives
about their day, moral messages are conveyed (Ochs & Shohet, 2006; Ochs et al.,
1989). For example, in a discussion about appropriate punishment of a class member,
a mother aligns with the perspective of her daughter and takes the “moral high
ground” about the issue (Ochs et al., 1989). Research of Italian mealtimes also has
examined morality, explicating how vicarious accounts have a range of functions
including a socialising function, a face saving function, and mitigating the gravity of
the child’s digression (Sterponi, 2009). The use of vicarious accounts by parents
model for children what they are “expected to feel and do as well as how to
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OF!
remediate … improper conduct” (Sterponi, 2009, p. 454). The account modelled for
the child then can be employed on subsequent occasions.
As part of the interactions during family mealtime, children learn about “class-
specific orientations toward health and eating practices” (Paugh & Izquierdo, 2009,
p. 185). In the interviews, parents positioned good health as a personal responsibility
evidenced through decisions made in relation to food and eating. However, parents
indicated that they had a “significant responsibility” (Paugh & Izquierdo, 2009,
p. 199) for both the present and future health of their children. While the parents had
ideals about what they wanted their children to consume, analysis of interactions
showed that children’s complaints and bargaining resulted in compromises about
what children actually ate. Thus, mealtimes involved “battles” between the parents’
expectations and what children want to eat (Paugh & Izquierdo, 2009, p. 186). Also
related to nutrition is a cross-cultural study that examined the socialization of taste in
Italy and America (Ochs, Pontecorvo, & Fasulo, 1996). Analysis compared the two
cultures and showed that families in both countries provided explicit nutrition lessons
during mealtimes; however, Americans focused on what children “must eat for
physiological and moral reasons” (Ochs et al., 1996, p. 7) and prioritised food as a
reward whereas Italians prioritised food as pleasure (Ochs et al., 1996).
The research by Ochs and more recently with her colleagues at the Center on
Everyday Lives of Families (CELF) on family mealtimes is extensive. The CELF has
a large corpus of video recorded family mealtimes, much of which is transcribed and
published. Much of this research on mealtimes focuses on what children learn
through engagement in mealtime interactions, the frequency with which particular
features of the mealtime interaction occur (Ochs & Taylor, 1992b) and comparative
studies of meal practices across cultures (Blum-Kulka, 1994, 1997; Gillen &
Hancock, 2005, 2006). For example, children in interactions between novice and
expert acquire particular knowledge and practices that may support subsequent
learning in, for example, science and literacy (Snow & Beals, 2006). Children learn
about how to do being a family and about gender practices. It also “brings to light
many otherwise unquestioned assumptions and unspoken rules that organise family
and social life” (Paugh, 2005, p. 57). However, much of the research on mealtimes
does not explicate, in fine detail, how members actually accomplish mealtime using
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OR!
interactional resources. There are, however, some examples in the review that
provide fine-grained analysis (see Sterponi, 2009).
While there is a growing interest in how interactional resources such as gaze,
prosody, facial expressions and so on are used in interaction (Goodwin, 1980;
Goodwin & Goodwin, 2006), there is little evidence of attention to how these are
used by members during interaction during mealtime. For example, while discussing
the powerful role of fathers in mealtime, much of the discussion draws on tabulated
data that record the instances of particular actions, such as, who is the narrative
introducer (Ochs & Taylor, 1992c) to substantiate analytic claims. This take on
family interaction contrasts with an ethnomethodological (Garfinkel, 1967)
conversation analysis (Sacks, 1995) approach that examines the interactions, line by
line, to explicate how, for example, these particular practices are assembled by
family members. The following section introduces studies of family mealtime that
use fine-grained analysis in order to make visible the interactional practices used by
members to produce the social activity, having a family meal.
%@6<1A7$6714D$N14A\D=314A<$3432E717F$G3T14D$14@A=38@1C432$:=38@18A7$
J171Q2A$
Developed by Harvey Sacks (1995) who worked closely with Emmanuel
Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, conversation analysis (CA), with its origins in
ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) studies naturally occurring data (Mondada,
2009; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995a). CA is premised on the
understanding that “talk and other social practices are organized in a locally situated
way” (Mondada, 2009, p. 559). CA highlights how members, including children and
adults, construct social order, turn-by-turn “orienting and adjusting to the
peculiarities of the context in which they unfold” (Mondada, 2009, p. 559).
Conversation analysis provides a micro-analysis of the interactions revealing
members’ methods for interacting with others (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997). In
describing what CA does, Mondada (2009) suggests that “it takes into consideration
the perspective of the participants – of the ordered character of these situated
practices and of their meaning” (p. 559). A fuller description of CA will be provided
in Chapter 3.
A number of CA researchers have analysed mealtime conversations. This
includes Charles Goodwin who, as part of his dissertation (1977) looked at
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OG!
mealtimes during backyard picnics, family lunches and family dinners. Harvey Sacks
(1995), recognised as the founder of CA, used an extended sequence of mealtime talk
between “a middle-aged couple…their son, and…stepfather-in-law” (p. 318) to show
how identities are both produced and made relevant in the interaction (Butler &
Fitzgerald, 2010, p. 7). Schegloff (2007b) uses mealtime data in some of his
publications to make a particular point about how social order is being accomplished.
Laurier and Wiggins (2011) suggest that much of the conversation analysis
“has the family meal as a fruitful source of data” (p. 8) though it does not specifically
attend to how the mealtime is accomplished. In addition Laurier and Wiggins (2011)
argue that “we still know very little about how families eat together, in all their
intimate detail” (p. 20). Examples noted by Laurier and Wiggins (2011) that do not
specifically attend to how mealtime is accomplished include: Mike Forrester’s
(2008) analysis of self repair in young children, Wingard’s (2006) analysis of
interactions involving adults and children as they plan next activities, Sterponi’s
(2003) analysis of how morality is “enacted and transformed” in account sequences
and Goodwin’s (2007) analysis of how knowledge is explored in interactions, usually
between adults and children. Goodwin (2007) examined a range of family
interactions, some of which were mealtime interactions to examine how parents
interacted with their children to develop “new domains of knowledge, including new
vocabulary, idioms, and theories about the world” (p. 107). In the analysis Goodwin
(2007) shows how the closing of a prayer with “Amen” leads to talk about
“Tutankhamen” with language and sound play highlighted as important in how this is
accomplished. Recent work by Butler and Fitzgerald (2010) using a combined
conversation analysis and membership categorization approach also uses mealtime
data. The research does not set out to explicate how mealtime is accomplished, rather
the authors examine how members “make sense of particular actions through an
orientation to locally relevant membership categories, and how category membership
is invoked in the enactment of particular social actions” (p. 2462). Hester and Hester
(2010) also combined the resources of conversation analysis and membership
categorization analysis to explicate how children produce argument sequentially and
categorically during a family meal.
Some studies of family mealtime explicate the interactional resources that
members draw on to accomplish having a family meal. These are now discussed.
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! OY!
Mondada (2009), for example, examined dinner conversation data from French
families and explicated how and when members used assessments about food. As
well as evaluating food, assessments of food in family mealtime interactions
contribute to the management of social relationships within the mealtime setting.
Mondada found three sequential positions in which assessments were used in dinner
conversations. This includes: “after the announcement and discovery of a new dish at
the table, within the closing of a sequence or a topic and in a delicate sequential
organisation where a fight or some conflict is going on” (Mondada, 2009, p. 570). In
so doing, she showed how the placement of an assessment about food is “sensitive to
the ongoing conversation” (Mondada, 2009, p. 570) as they were carefully fitted in
with ongoing talk. For example, assessments are used to both refocus members’
attention on food and to reorient them to the “ongoing course of talk” (Mondada,
2009, p. 561). Thus, assessments are not just about food they also are a “resource for
shaping and reshaping ongoing talk trajectories” (Mondada, 2009, p. 570).
Laurier and Wiggins (2011), drawing on both CA and MCA, examined the
interactional organisation of satiety (fullness) and finishing the family meal. In so
doing, they argue that they have showed what is possible to find out about eating,
satiety and mealtime practices. Explicated in one example in their published research
are the interactional resources the parents use to try and get their son, Robin, to eat a
small piece of sausage and the resources used by Robin to accomplish not eating the
sausage. The resources used by the parents include holding the sausage close to the
child, mentioning pudding as a reward, the use of tone suggestive of the mothers
increasing irritation and finally a completion check from the father “are you
finished”.
Wiggins’ (2004a) earlier work on family mealtimes examined tape-recorded
conversations of everyday eating practices to examine “ the ways in which people
construct, manage and undermine healthy eating” (p. 536). Analysis of this data
using discursive psychology (DP) (Potter, 2003) and fine-grained conversation
analysis examined how healthy eating talk was managed and reconstructed during
interactions as part of eating events. Wiggins’ (2004a) study revealed first, that talk
about healthy food is “situated within practical and interactional contexts” (p. 545).
Second, it showed that healthy eating advice, when constructed as generic, was more
easily dismissed by individuals as not applicable to them. Third, healthy eating also
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! SI!
focuses on an individual and their particular consumption habits. Thus, discussions
about healthy eating are “localized and contextualized within a particular interaction”
(Wiggins, 2004a, p. 545). Finally, the way in which members orient to talk about
eating shows how healthy eating is managed “in practice” (Wiggins, 2004a, p. 546)
by members. Wiggins (2004b) also examined how accountability for taste
preferences may be challenged and how food appreciation and pleasure is
constructed.
While there is an increasing interest in children, families, family mealtime and
healthy eating more generally, there remain few studies that provide fine detail about
how the members produce the social activity of having a family meal. Embracing the
challenge articulated by Laurier and Wiggins (2011) that “we still know very little
about how families eat together, in all their intimate detail” (p. 20), this thesis
contributes empirical understandings about families and family mealtime. As
families interact during mealtimes, they draw on a wide range of interactional
resources, such as turn taking, to accomplish the social activity. Within the thesis,
there is an examination of the interactional resources used by members to accomplish
talk within a multiparty mealtime setting where, for example, children initiate talk
with adult family members and with siblings. The way in which children accomplish
participation with adults within the setting provides empirical evidence for beginning
to question children’s “restricted conversational rights” (Speier, 1976, p. 101), a
claim made nearly forty years ago by Speier (1973).
Finally, much of the research around mealtimes is situated in the United States
of America and European countries, with a relative paucity of Australian research
within family mealtimes (see Grieshaber, 1997, 2004). Within Australia,
Grieshaber’s study (1997) of young children’s resistance to adult rules for “food
preparation, consumption and cleaning” (p. 650) within the institution of the family
is the only detailed study of family mealtimes. This thesis, thus, makes a substantial
contribution to understanding the family mealtime within the Australian context.
'93:@A=$%6GG3=E$$
Mealtime is a social accomplishment. While there is research interest in family
mealtime, there is little research that makes visible interactional detail to show how
the social activity of mealtime is accomplished. The following chapter outlines the
!
=#)B4$,!O!>(4$,)4@,$!D$5($7Q!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$! SH!
methodological approaches used in the study to explicate how members produce the
social activity of family mealtime.
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SS!
Chapter 3 $
#M:2C=14D$.A@9C<C2CD1A7F$!9A$%C8132$&=<A=$CN$-3G12E$.A32@1GA7$
Within the context of family mealtimes, this study explores how family
members manage and assemble social orders through their talk and interaction. The
ethnomethodology approaches of (Garfinkel, 1967), conversation analysis (Sacks,
1995) and membership categorization analysis (Sacks, 1995; Hester & Eglin, 1997)
are adopted in this study. Ethnomethodology investigates the methods used by
ordinary members to produce and make sense of social action. Conversation analysis
provides a fine-grained analytic tool for examining talk and interaction to explicate
how members organise their social activities in situ. Membership categorization
directs attention to “what” and “how” particular categories are invoked and oriented
to by members in their talk and interaction. In this chapter, I outline the three
approaches.
#@94CGA@9C<C2CDE$
Ethnomethodology is an approach founded by Harold Garfinkel (1967) who
was influenced by the sociologists Talcott Parsons, Garfinkel’s PhD supervisor, and
Alfred Schutz, a phenomenological philosopher (Francis & Hester, 2004; Heritage,
1984b; ten Have, 2004). Schutz (1962), for example, highlighted the need for
sociological analysis to attend to the ways in which members of society experience
social life. While not a disciple of Parsons (Coulon, 1995), Garfinkel acknowledged
the influence of Parson (1937), particularly his contribution to the “problem of social
order and its solutions” (Garfinkel, 1984, p. ix). Building from the work of both
Parsons (1937) and Schutz (1962), Garfinkel coined the term ethnomethodology,
which refers to “the study of folk – or members – methods” (Silverman, 2001, p. 74)
for producing, organising and making sense of their everyday lives (Heritage,
1984b). It examines how “ordinary members of society make sense of, find their way
about in, and act on the circumstances in which they find themselves” (Heritage,
1984b, p. 4) on a moment-by-moment basis (Lynch & Peyrot, 1992). While
Garfinkel is recognised as the founder of ethnomethodology, an examination of the
development of ethnomethodology (Psathas, 2008) shows how researchers within
schools or programs in Boston (USA) and Manchester (Britain) contributed to the
growth of ethnomethodology. Key figures include Jeff Coulter, Wes Sharrock, John
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SJ!
Lee, George Psathas, and Rod Watson. In studying the methods used by members, an
ethnomethodological approach remains focussed on “explication, not explanation”
(Baker, 1997, p. 44); that is, it does not posit why something occurs, rather the focus
is on considering “how” (Baker, 1997, p. 44) action is accomplished. While
ethnomethodology is interested in members’ situated practices, it is not interested in
what “goes on the mind” such as emotions or cognitive processes (ten Have, 2004,
p. 27).
Ethnomethodology is explained as a respecification of what might be thought
of as conventional sociology (Button, 1991) and, as such, was conceived by
Garfinkel as an “alternate sociology” (p. 7). Respecification permeates all aspects of
ethnomethodology, including, for example, a departure from previous ways of
thinking about “the role of theory, the nature of data, the place of studies, and much,
much more” (Sharrock & Anderson, 1986, p. 14). It also sees members as “sense
makers” whose activities are “recognisable and reportable” (Hester & Francis, 2000,
pp. 2-3), rather than “cultural dopes” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 68). Context is also
respecified, from an ethnomethodological perspective, context describes a
“reflexively constituted relationship between singular actions and the relevant
specifications of identity, place, time, and meaning implicated by the intelligibility of
those actions” (Lynch & Peyrot, 1992, p. 114). This means that context is treated not
as fixed but rather, viewed as a member’s accomplishment as a result of their actions.
At the centre of ethnomethodology is the assumption that social order is
present because members “put it there, accountably, for anyone to see as being
always-already there” (McHoul, 2008, p. 825) and, as such, it is a “member’s
accomplishment” (Benson & Hughes, 1991, p. 129). This “putting it there” is
“ongoingly achieved…through the behaviour which members produce” (Payne,
1976, p. 33). Talk is one way that social order is accomplished routinely by members
(Baker, 1997) and is “at the heart of social life” (Hester & Francis, 2000. p. 4). The
centrality of talk in social activity requires that members have competence or
mastery in natural language (Coulon, 1995; Payne, 1976) that enables them to
display and make observable their common-sense knowledge (Garfinkel & Sacks,
1970, p. 339). Therefore, an ethnomethodological interest in talk is with “what
people do with words, how and when participants use language to accomplish social
action” (Baker, 1997, p. 44), rather than with the actual words they use. While talk is
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SU!
one way in which social order is observable, it is observable also when the activity
does not involve talk. For example, people waiting in line at the supermarket or
children lining up outside their classroom, do so in a way that is recognisable as such
an activity (Livingston, 1987). McHoul (2008) notes that this kind of display of
social order is observable “anywhere and everywhere” (p. 825).
^AE$8C48A:@7$14$A@94CGA@9C<C2CDE$
Garfinkel (1967) introduced a “specific vocabulary” to describe the concepts
central to ethnomethodology. The five key concepts include treating social facts as
accomplishments, the notion of member, indexicality, reflexivity and accountability
(Coulon, 1995; Garfinkel, 1967; ten Have, 2002, 2004). While each concept now will
be explained, the concepts are interwoven to form a fabric that is ethnomethodology.
The first concept, accomplishment (Garfinkel, 1967), is concerned with the
practical methods members use to accomplish practical activities. In this way,
accomplishment is concerned with “doing ... and is for members a commonplace
phenomenon” (p. 10). These practical methods incorporate the rules and procedures
to which members orient.
Second, the concept of “member” from an ethnomethodological perspective
does not refer to a “social category” (Coulon, 1995, p. 26) or “person” (Garfinkel &
Sacks, 1970, p. 342). In fact, such a perspective was rejected firmly by Garfinkel in
an interview in 1985 (Jules-Rosette, 1985, cited in Coulon, 1995, p. 27). Rather, the
concept of member refers to “capacities or competencies that people have as
members of society; capacities to speak, to know, to understand, to act in ways that
are sensible in that society and in the situations in which they find themselves” (ten
Have, 2002, p. 3.5). This description of a member implies shared common-sense
knowledge of the social world that the member applies (Payne, 1976).
Indexicality is the third concept identified as central to ethnomethodology
(Heritage, 1984b; ten Have, 2004). The term indexicality is adapted from linguistics
(Coulon, 1995) and refers to the way in which words or expressions used by
members depend on the local context to make sense of them (Heritage, 1984b). Thus,
words take their meaning from the particular occasion in which they are used (Baker,
1997). For example, if you made a comment such as, “It suits you”, the hearer would
need access to the context in which the comment was made to make sense of the
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SF!
comment (Heritage, 1984b). As Coulon (1995) suggests, indexicality points to an
“incompleteness of words” since words take their “complete sense in the context of
their actual production” (p. 17). While words such as “she”, “it”, and “tomorrow” are
examples of indexical expressions, “all expressions (and actions) are in fact
indexical” (ten Have, 2004, p. 21). Thus, while words or expressions are indexical,
actions also are made sense of through the local context. The notion that words and
actions take their meaning from the occasion of their use has implications for
members. First, members need to continually engage in “interpretative work to
decide the here-and-now sense of indexical items” (Baker, 1997, p. 46). Second,
there are times when members need to make repairs to their talk so that the meaning
is clear (Payne, 1976). While the contextual factors that give meaning to indexical
terms can refer to physical circumstances, they can also include the speaker’s
biography and the relationship between speakers and their past conversations
(Garfinkel, 1967).
Garfinkel (1967) observed that our everyday language is abundant with, and
depends on, indexical expressions for “the intelligibility of our exchanges” (Coulon,
1995, p. 20). Therefore, rather than see the use of indexical expressions as a problem,
ethnomethodologists note that indexical expressions are a resource used by members
in the organisation of local action and also a topic for investigation by analysts. For
example, the expression “et cetera” has been examined by ethnomethodologists to
show that there is shared or assumed understandings between speakers and listeners.
Embedded in a phrase such as “et cetera” is an assumption that, as a co-member, the
listener knows, “you know what I mean” and thus there is no need to provide explicit
details about what is meant (Coulon, 1995). Thus, providing a “gloss” is all that is
necessary because glosses can be examined by members “prospectively … for their
possible meaning in some future sense…and past remarks can be seen as clarifying
present utterances” (Cicourel, 1972, p. 87).
The fourth concept central to ethnomethodology is accountability.
Accountability refers to the way in which the witnesses of social action find the
action “non random, coherent, meaningful, and oriented to the accomplishment of
practical goals” (Turner, 2006, p. 1). An example of accountability is revealed in
Garfinkel’s study of Agnes the transsexual who chose to become a woman. Garfinkel
showed how Agnes needed to exhibit through the practical actions she performed
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SR!
that she was a woman (Garfinkel, 1967); that is, her actions were accountable so that
it is clear that Agnes was a woman.
The final concept, reflexivity is defined as “accounting practices and accounts”
(Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1) of practices such as lining up as members “retrospectively and
prospectively, produce accountable states of affairs” (Lynch, 2000, p. 33). To
illustrate how the notion of reflexivity, previously defined as “accounting practices
and accounts” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1), informs analysis, I draw on an example from
the current study where the mother, Julia, announces “Mum’s sitting down now (.)
I’m having bacon and eggs”. When transcribing this and beginning the analysis, I
questioned why Julia would make such an announcement. While considering the
question “why this now” helped the analytic process, Garfinkel’s (1967) discussion
about how materials “depend heavily for sense upon their serial placement” and the
“socially organised occasion of their use” (p. 3) focussed my analysis. Thus, given
the placement of this announcement within a sequence of events in the meal, that is,
the mother had fed the children, the placement of this announcement marked that it
was her time to eat.
Lining up and waiting to be served at the supermarket or to enter a classroom
highlight the linked notions of accountability and reflexivity (ten Have, 2004). As the
example of lining up shows, people design their actions in a way that makes them
accountable, that is, it is clear that they are lining up (ten Have, 2004). Furthermore,
the procedures for producing and managing lining up are “identical with members’
procedures for making those settings accountable” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1). Members
display their understanding that people are lining up with, for example, joining the
line, walking around it or posing a question such as “is this a line”? Thus, they
display their understanding of the action of lining up by their actions that then
become available as an account for other members.
%@=3@AD1A7$67A<$14$A@94CGA@9C<C2CDE$NC=$7@6<E14D$GAGQA=7_$
GA@9C<7$
Ethnomethodology has a number of strategies for studying members’ methods
for producing, organising and making sense of their everyday lives. Drawing on the
work of Garfinkel and other ethnomethodologists, ten Have (2004) identified four
strategies. The first strategy studies how members make sense of situations where
there are discrepancies between existing expectations and the practical behaviours
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SG!
required in the situation. In making the familiar “strange”, Garfinkel showed what
members needed to do to “sustain the common understandings and practical
reasoning that is the basis for social order” (Benson & Hughes, 1991, p. 109). The
second strategy involves researchers putting themselves in “some kind of extra-
ordinary situation” (ten Have, 2004, p. 33) to study their own sense-making work;
for example, David Sudnow’s study of learning to play a jazz piano (Sudnow, 1978).
The third strategy involves researchers observing situated activities in natural
settings to examine the competencies involved in doing the activity. Here, data
collection can occur with recording equipment on note-taking to record the data. The
fourth strategy, conversation analysis, is described by Coulon (1995) as “the most
accomplished program of ethnomethodology” (p. 38). Ordinary practices are audio
or video recorded, transcripts are developed and analysis explicates the methods or
devices used by members.
The challenge of investigating ordinary everyday activity requires a particular
way of approaching the analytic task. Francis and Hester (2004) suggest three steps
for doing ethnomethodology:
1. Notice something that is observably-the-case about some talk, activity, or
setting.
2. Pose the question “How is it that this observable feature has been produced
such that it is recognisable for what it is?”
3. Consider, analyse, and describe the methods used in the production and
recognition of the observable feature. (p. 26)
Thus, on observing something of interest such as having a family meal, the
analyst’s task is to explicate how social activity is produced “from within” (Francis
& Hester, 2004, p. 26) by the members. Both conversation analysis and membership
categorization analysis are ways in which the three-step process can be applied. The
use of conversation analysis to analyse the data is explained in the next section.
'C4JA=73@1C4$)432E717$
This section introduces the methodological approach of conversation analysis
(referred to as CA) used in this study. It provides a brief outline of the development
of CA and then discusses three assumptions underpinning conversation analysis.
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! SY!
Given the enormous literature on CA, including the lectures presented by Harvey
Sacks that were transcribed and then published in Lectures in Conversation (Sacks,
1995a), this section introduces important features of the turn taking system and
introduces key terms. However, a comprehensive review of the literature and
findings of CA is not provided here. Where relevant to the specific focus in the data
analysis chapters, CA literature is discussed.
The methodological approach known as CA originated within sociology in the
mid 1960s (Schegloff, 1995a). With its origins in ethnomethodology (Francis &
Hester, 2004; Psathas, 1995a), conversation analysis is considered a “prominent form
of ethnomethodology work” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 233) with three central points of
commonality identified (Pomerantz & Atkinson, 1984). The points of commonality
include a analytic focus on “how participants produce and interpret each other’s
actions” (Pomerantz & Atkinson, 1984, p. 286) as the participants engage in
naturally occurring, ordinary and mundane activity. It was founded within the work
of Harvey Sacks and his colleagues Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson (Heritage
1984b; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995a). Much of Sacks’ writing was
published from transcripts of lectures, several years after his death in 1975 (Psathas,
1995a). Sacks embraced “Garfinkel’s notion of the local production of social
activities” (Francis & Hester, 2004, p. 21) that led to his focus on the study of
ordinary “naturally occurring conversation” (Sacks, 1984b, p. 413). This approach
studies the social organisation of everyday conduct (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997) by
examining the mundane and routine events in which members are involved. As such,
it offers a rigorous and systematic procedure for studying social interaction within
naturally occurring contexts (Psathas, 1995a).
CA describes talk-in-interaction, focusing on the procedures by which speakers
produce their own behaviour, and interpret and deal with the behaviour of others in
situ (Heritage, 1984b; Leiminer & Baker 2000; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997). The shared
procedures or methods used by people to enable them to interact with others
(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997) are revealed as conversations are used as units of analysis
by researchers (Psathas, 1995a). Conversation analysts insist on using data collected
from “naturally occurring occasion of everyday interaction” (Heritage, 1984b, p.
236). The core analytic object is to uncover “how actions, events, etc., are produced
and understood” (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 65) “by virtue of their placement and
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JI!
participation within sequences of actions” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 245). Actions that
may be accomplished in interaction include “asking, answering, disagreeing,
offering, contesting, requesting” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 7).
The term conversation analysis has contributed to some confusion about the
analytic focus. This is because some researchers differentiate between informal talk
such as chatting at home and formal talk that occurs in formal contexts such as courts
of law (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997). In making this distinction, these researchers argue
that formal interaction is “governed by different orders of constraint” (Pomerantz &
Fehr, 1997, p. 64) and, as such, believe that conversation analysts study informal
talk. Contrary to this belief, conversation analysis enables any sort of social
interaction to be studied (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997) and has been used in a range of
settings including, for example, education, medical, legal and children’s play setting.
However, the focus remains on searching for the methods or procedures that the
participants use to make sense of, and be understood, by others.
The confusion rests with an incorrect assumption that conversation analysis or
as it is sometimes referred to “talk in interaction” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. xiii), is only
concerned with the verbal aspects of the interaction. “Talk-in-interaction” is the term
preferred by Schegloff (2007b, p. xiii). Conversation analysts are concerned with
both the “verbal and paralinguistic features of talk” (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p.65)
as the two aspects work together to constitute action. Paralinguistic features of talk
include sound quality, pauses, gaps and restarts. In addition, embodied actions, such
as hand and body movements, are important in interaction and thus how social order
is accomplished. For example, a study of girls playing hopscotch (Goodwin, 2000)
showed how participants used “actions being performed by each others’ bodies” and
“the unfolding sequential organisation of their talk” to organise the course of action
in the hopscotch game (Goodwin, 2000, p. 1518). Video recordings capture the
visually available features of conduct such as hand-arm gestures and posture.
Recordings have implications for transcription, for example, how physical activity
used in play is included in the transcript (see Cobb-Moore, 2008; Goodwin, 2000).
This is discussed in Chapter 4.
)776G:@1C47$64<A=:14414D$8C4JA=73@1C4$3432E717$
Heritage (1984b) identifies three basic assumptions of CA. These are:
“(1) interaction is structurally organised; (2) contributions to interaction are
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JH!
contextually oriented; and (3) these two properties inhere in the details of interaction
so that no order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or
irrelevant” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 241). In the following section, these three features
are explained in more detail.
!"#$%&'#()"*(+*+#%,'#,%&--.*)%/&"(+$01*
The most fundamental assumption is that “all aspects of social action and
interaction can be found to exhibit organized patterns of stable, identifiable structural
features” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 241). Structure is taken to refer to the organisation of
talk rather than structural features of social life. The structural features of talk are
independent of particular speakers, but the speaker’s knowledge of these features
influences their conduct and their interpretation of the conduct of others (Heritage,
1984b). The speaker’s knowledge of the features of talk may be both conscious and
unconscious, and it is this knowledge that enables members to interact with others.
This basic assumption provides the impetus for the analysis of talk as “structured in
and through social interaction” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2000, p. 492). It is because of
these shared structural organisers that people can “interact and coordinate”
(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 69) their activities with others. These now will be
outlined.
Analysis of turn taking is a key focus of CA. CA is concerned primarily with
the “ways in which utterances accomplish particular actions by virtue of their
placement and participation within sequences of actions” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 245).
Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson’s (1974) classic paper on turn taking provides crucial
understandings for CA researchers. They outline fourteen features of the turn taking
system that guide the organisation of “any conversation” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 700).
Two fundamental features of the turn-taking system include “one party talks at a
time” and “speaker change recurs” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 700). Transition from
speaker to speaker usually occurs with “no gap and no overlap” (Sacks et al., 1974,
p. 700). When overlaps do occur and two speakers find themselves talking at the
same time, speakers adopt “repair mechanisms … for dealing with turn taking errors”
(Sacks et al., 1974, p. 700), usually with one party dropping out. Speaker selection
occurs either as a result of current speaker selecting next speaker or parties self-
selecting as next speaker. The machinery for accomplishing turn taking is oriented to
by speakers. However, other features of the interaction such as the length of the
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JO!
conversation, what parties say, the distribution of turns, the order of turns, or the
length of turn construction units are not specified in advance.
Turns at talk are organised into units referred to as turn constructional units
(TCU) (Sacks et al., 1974) that can include, for example, sentences, clauses, phrases
or lexical items (Schegloff, 2007b). TCUs constitute a recognisable action such as a
greeting with the action consequential for the next turn. When beginning a turn, a
speaker has the right and obligation to produce one TCU with the completion of a
TCU marking a possible transition relevant place (TRP) (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 704).
The allocation of next turn is guided by a set of rules so as to “minimise gap and
overlap” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 704). The rules include, first, that the current speaker
selects next speaker, with, for example, the use of an address term or gaze direction
(Sacks et al., 1974) to nominate the next speaker and transition to next speaker
occurs. Second, the next speaker may self select because the current speaker did not
select next speaker, and third, if a next speaker is not selected and another speaker
does not self select, then the current speaker may, but need not, continue. This means
that transition to next speaker becomes possibly relevant at each TRP, though the
transition is not automatic. Rather, it is a member’s accomplishment of social order.
The turn taking system is designed to “organise…two turns at a time, current
and next and the transition from one to the other” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 712). The
system works for multiparty settings though the length of the turn may decrease and,
unlike two-party conversation, there is no assurance of being next speaker. Thus, in
multiparty settings, if a member wants to take a turn and is not selected as next
speaker by the current speaker, they need to self-select first at the next TRP.
Additionally, the number of members has implications for the current speaker. For
example, if current speaker wishes to nominate a next speaker, this nomination needs
to occur “before first possible transition place” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 712), otherwise
another speaker may self-select. Thus, in multiparty settings, both gaining a turn at
talk and maintaining the turn are ongoing issues for members.
Increasing the number of participants in the interaction may result in the
conversation schisming (Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 1995c). In a conversation
where four parties are present, it is possible that one conversation can “schism”
(Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 1995c) or split into two conversations. Schisming is a
“systematic possibility” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 713) because there are enough
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JS!
members for two conversations to occur simultaneously, which results in the “co-
occurrence of two turn-taking systems” (Egbert, 1997, p. 2). While two
conversations occur simultaneously, there is an interface between the two
conversations (Egbert, 1997).
The adjacency pair, minimally a two-part sequence, though they may have
more, is recognised as the “central organising format for sequences” (Schegloff,
2007b, p. 4) and as such is important in the way in which interaction is structured
and understood. However, while many sequence types are organised around the
sequence construction of the adjacency pair, there are exceptions with, for example,
telling sequences (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 9). Examples of the paired actions include
question-answer, invitation-acceptance/refusal, and greeting/greeting (Schegloff &
Sacks, 1973). The basic characteristics of an adjacency pair were identified by Sacks
and further developed with his colleagues (Heritage, 1984b). Thus, an adjacency pair
is:
• two utterances length,
• adjacent positioning of utterances,
• different speakers producing each utterance,
• relative ordering of parts,
• discriminative relations (i.e., the first pair type of which a first pair part is
a member is relevant to the selection among second pair parts),
• given the recognisable production of a first pair part, on its first possible
completion its speakers should stop and a next speaker should start and
produce a second pair part from the pair type of which the first is
recognisably a member . (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, pp. 295-296)
Adjacency pairs are “pair type related” which means that the “first pair part
and the second pair part must come from the same pair type” (Schegloff, 2007b, p.
13). Thus, at the completion of the first pair part (FPP), a second pair part (SPP) from
the same pair type should be produced by the next speaker. For example, if the FPP
is an invitation then either an acceptance or refusal is a relevant SPP. The following
interaction provides an example of an offer-acceptance adjacency pair.
Jane: “Would you like a cup of coffee?” (offer)
Elizabeth: “Yeh! love one” (acceptance)
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JJ!
The relationship between the current turn (FPP) and the way in which it
projects a relevant next turn (SPP), is referred to as “sequential implicativeness”
(Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 245). In providing a SPP the next speaker displays their
interpretation of the prior talk’s turn, which means that they need to have been
attending to the just ended talk (Schegloff, 2007b) to determine if they are selected as
next speaker and what action is implicated by the previous turn (Schegloff, 2007b).
In this way, adjacency pairs have both a prospective relevance in that the first pair
part makes relevant a second pair part, and a retrospective understanding in that the
second pair part demonstrates an understanding of the first pair part (Schegloff,
2007b).
The “next positioned linkage” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 256) between the FPP and
the SPP sets up a checking mechanism in the way in which the SPP demonstrates an
understanding of the FPP. Schegloff and Sacks (1973) highlight the intricate
relationship between FPP and SPP as follows:
What two utterances produced by different speakers can do that one
utterance cannot do is: by an adjacently positioned second, a speaker can
show that he understood what a prior aimed at, and that he is willing to go
along with that. Also, by virtue of the occurrence of an adjacently produced
second, the doer of a first can see that what he intended was indeed
understood, and that it was or was not accepted. Also, of course, a second
can assert his failure to understand, or disagreement, and inspection of a
second by a first can allow the first speaker to see that while the second
thought he understood, indeed he misunderstood. (pp. 297-298)
Therefore, for example, if a misunderstanding referred to as a “trouble” is
evident, the next turn provides an “opportunity for clarification or correction”
(Church, 2009, p. 39). Subtle features in a turn, such as “slight pauses or hesitation”
(Psathas, 1995a, p. 18) may indicate some trouble that needs repair (Schegloff,
2007b). How the repair is initiated, either by the speaker of the “trouble source”
(Schegloff, 2007, p.101) or by others in the interaction, and how it is ultimately
repaired, is available to and of interest to the analyst.
The way in which a FPP projects a relevant second means that failure to
produce a SPP is heard also as “an accountable action” (Church, 2009, p. 41). For
example, if a prior speaker selected the next speaker and posed a question and the
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JU!
nominated speaker failed to talk a turn, there is a “noticeable absence” (Schegloff,
2007b, p. 20) about which co-conversationalists can legitimately draw “inferences”
(Schegloff, 1972, p. 77). For example, it may be the case that the nominated speaker
did not hear their nomination as next speaker. This may mean that the person who
posed the question repeats the question and thus initiates a repair.
In discussing turn taking and the importance of adjacency pairs, the notion of
sequence features strongly. Schegloff (2007b) highlights the distinction between
sequential organisation and sequence organisation. Sequential organisation is
identified as the more “general term” and refers to “relative positioning of utterances
or actions” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 2), with turn taking an example of the sequential
organisation. The overall structure of the conversation also is considered part of
sequential organisation. For example, greetings occur early on in conversations,
whereas farewells generally occur at the end of a conversation. Sequence
organisation is a type of sequential organisation that organises “courses of action
enacted through turns-at-talk – coherent, orderly, meaningful successions or
‘sequences’ of actions or ‘moves’” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 2). By way of explanation,
adjacency pairs is an example of sequence organisation.
The important features of CA discussed in the previous section, including turn
taking, adjacency pairs, speaker selection, and so on, become relevant for analysis.
!"#$%&'#()"*(+*')"#$2#,&--.*)%($"#$01**
The second assumption underpinning conversation analysis noted by Heritage
(1984b) is that “the contributions to interaction are contextually oriented” (p. 242) in
that “talk is both productive of and reflects the circumstances of its production”
(Holstein & Gubrium, 1994, p. 266). This doubly contextual nature of interaction is
important as it both shapes and renews the context (Heritage, 1984b). The shaping of
context is achieved as each speaker’s action continues to be understood with
reference to the context, and the preceding actions of the speakers. The hearer needs
to attend to this contextual information, embedded in the contextual environment, in
order to interpret contributions to the conversation (Heritage, 1984b). There is a
direct relationship between context shaping and context renewing. This relationship
exists because, with every action, the context is renewed and thus forms the context
for the next action. Thus, every current action forms the immediate context for the
next action in the sequence. Both aspects of this assumption are linked to the
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JF!
Garfinkel’s pioneering work on the “indexical and reflexive characteristics of talk
and action” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 242). Therefore, a conversation analytic approach
examines how speakers attend to the contextual information and, in turn, contribute
to the renewal of this context.
When members interact with each other, they assume a shared or common
understanding of the same experience. This notion leads to the concept of
indexicality. As previously discussed, in order to understand indexical terms,
members draw on contextual information about who is speaking, when, where and
what had been discussed previously (Heritage, 1984b).
While context may happen within a physical location such as a classroom or
courtroom, the context referred to in CA is not necessarily a physical context, but
rather a context that is talked into being through the sequence of talk. Thus, a
conversation that may have pedagogical interactional features may occur within or
outside the physical context of a classroom. The participants in the conversation,
however, orient to the pedagogical nature of the conversations. Furthermore, an
examination of turn taking (Heritage, 1984b) reveals that interactional phenomena
may not be dependent on contextual factors such as age, sex or social class, nor the
characteristics of the setting. Such a premise challenges many existing assumptions
about the influence of contextual factors on relationships and interactions.
3)*)%0$%*)4*0$#&(-*("*("#$%&'#()"*'&"*5$*0(+6(++$01*
The third assumption of conversation analysis is that “no order of detail in
interaction can be dismissed a priori as insignificant” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 242).
Thus, no talk can be described as “disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (Holstein &
Gubrium, 1994, p. 266), since participants and the context shape the talk. Therefore,
from the perspective of participants and researchers, no segment of data can be
considered theoretically unimportant. This assumption has implication for both data
collection and data analysis. As Schegloff and Sacks (1973) note, that recorded
interactions are “methodically produced by members of the society for one another”
(p. 290) and, therefore, analysts must approach their analysis with this assumption
and attempt to explicate the ways in which this order is accomplished (Schegloff &
Sacks, 1973). The analyst does not work from a particular predefined set of
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JR!
theoretical concepts or categories, or a priori suppositions, but rather analytic claims
are embedded in the details of the recorded talk and interaction (Heritage, 1984b).
The assumption about how members orient to “order at all points” (Sacks,
1995, Vol, 1, p. 484) is evidenced in the detailed transcription conventions developed
by Gail Jefferson (Jefferson, 2004). While the transcripts include the spoken words,
the transcripts also include what might be thought of as “micro detail” such as
pauses, in-breaths, gaze, overlaps, stress, and intonation in the talk. Conversation
analysts do not dismiss these as some kind of embellishment to the talk rather, these
features are central to members’ activity and therefore must be recorded by the
transcriber. For example, Gardner (2001) shows the prosodic shape, the precise
placement and timing of a response token. Analysis is data driven with a focus on
conversationalists’ actual actions (Heritage, 1984b), including verbal, paralinguistic,
and visual features of the talk (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997)
As discussed in the section on ethnomethodology, both conversation analysis
and membership categorization analysis support an ethnomethodological approach to
research. Membership categorization is discussed in the following section.
.AGQA=791:$'3@ADC=1`3@1C4$)432E717$
This section begins with a brief sketch of Sacks’ early work on membership
categorization and then introduces the methodological approach of membership
categorization analysis (referred to as MCA) used in this study. It then proceeds to
outline key features of the approach.
Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) has its roots both in
ethnomethodology (Hester & Eglin, 1997) and in the lectures and published papers
of Harvey Sacks (1995). Membership categorization receives sustained engagement
by Sacks in his early lectures that built from his PhD research on calls to the Suicide
Prevention Center in Los Angeles (Schegloff, 2007c). Papers written by Sacks
addressing his interest in membership categorization include On the analyzability of
stories by children (Sacks, 1991) and The search for help (Sacks, 1972). Following
Sacks’ early interest in membership categorization, his attention was less intense
after early 1967 as his work became more focussed on CA using conversational
materials (Schegloff, 2007c). Sacks’ lectures on membership categorization take an
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JG!
ethnomethodological perspective focussing on ordinary members’ “sense-making
and reasoning practices” (Butler, 2008, p. 28) for organising social action.
Drawing on a story told by a child in response to a researcher’s solicitation
“The baby cried. The mommy picked it up”, Sacks observed how this story is
understood by members of a culture who hear it as “the baby of the mommy cried,
the mommy of the baby picked it up” (Sacks, 1995). Thus, the fact that members
hear the story in the way that the author of the story intended alerted Sacks to
“something real and powerful” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 238) that allows members to
make sense of a story that included non specific references to persons and associated
actions (Fitzgerald, 1999). This led him to construct an apparatus for accounting for
why members hear the story as they do, an apparatus referred to as “a culture”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 237). Schegloff (2007c), in revisiting how Sacks introduced
this story and his observations about the story, cautions readers about taking “the
mommy is the mommy of the baby” as analysis. Schegloff makes several points.
First, the example is from a story and thus, there is no capacity for the next turn proof
procedure to check Sacks’ interpretation of the story. Second, that “analysis deal not
only with already formulated descriptions of persons and activities (like “the baby
cried”) but with the occasion of the talk or conduct itself – not just how to link the
characterization “crying” to the category “baby”, but how the conduct itself comes to
be formulated as “crying” (Schegloff, 2007c, pp. 473-474). Third, that analyst claims
about membership categories need to be those to which the members themselves
orient, and any claims “grounded in the conduct of the parties, not in the beliefs of
the writer” (Schegloff, 2007c, p. 476).
Conceptual tools or terms developed by Sacks include: membership categories,
membership categorization devices, category-bound activities, rules of economy and
consistency, and viewers’ and hearers’ maxims. Membership categories are
“classifications or social types that may be used to describe persons” (Hester &
Eglin, 1997, p. 3) and are located and assembled within and through talk and
interaction (Baker, 1997). Examples might include doctor, teacher, mother, father,
vet, nun, butcher, and so on. Contemporary developments on membership categories
have seen the inclusion of non-personal categories such as places and systems
(Hester & Eglin, 1997; McHoul & Watson, 1984) that align with Sacks’ discussion
of “classes in relation to the organisation of topic in ordinary conversation” (Hester
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! JY!
& Eglin, 1997, p. 3). When membership categories are linked together, they form
membership categorization devices.
“Membership categorization device” or “categorization device”, described by
Sacks as the “basic thing I’m interested in” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 238), hints at the
centrality of the device in explaining how members make sense of one another. It is
defined as a “collection of categories for referring to persons, with some rules of
application” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 238). Typical collections include “sex:
male/female, race: white/Negro” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 238). However, the doing
of category work is members’ business and, thus, “we only talk about a collection
when the categories that compose it are categories that members do in fact use
together” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 238). Thus, membership categorization devices are
“in situ achievements of members’ practical actions and practical reasoning” (Hester,
1994, p. 242 cited in Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002, p. 68). Returning to the story, “The
baby cried. The mommy picked it up”, and applying the membership categorization
device, “baby” and “mommy” are heard as two categories from the one collection
called “family”.
Categories also are what Sacks called “inference rich” (1995, Vol. 1, p 40),
which means that members’ knowledge is stored in these categories. Schegloff
(2007c) referred to “inference richness” as a “filing system for the common-sense
knowledge that ordinary people have…about what people are like, how they behave
etc” (p. 469). The power of the way in which categories are packed with this
common-sense knowledge may account for why, in the early parts of first
conversations, people ask questions that elicit answers that provide knowledge about
a category to which someone belongs. Embedded in the category is an enormous
amount of information about that person that is possibly accessed from the filing
system to which Schegloff (2007c) refers. As Butler (2008) explains, “the use of a
particular category can invoke what we know about how such a member might
behave” (p. 29).
Embedded in the inference rich capacities of categories is the common-sense
knowledge of the activities that a member of the category might be expected to do or
not do (Butler, 2008) and associated “obligations and rights” (Jayussi, 1984, p. 35).
Rights and obligations are referred to as “category bound activities” (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 1, p. 241) or “predicates” (Hester & Eglin, 1997, p. 5). Thus, returning again to
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! UI!
“The baby cried. The mommy picked it up”, the crying is bound or tied to the
category baby. So, it is the way in which categories and associated actions and so on
are bound together that helps members make sense and organise social action in situ.
There is a process of “co-selection” (Hester & Eglin, 1997, p. 5) occurring whereby
membership category and the category-bound activity are co-selected.
The way in which membership categories are applied is referred to as the
“rules of application” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 246). These describe the “methods and
practices used in producing and making sense of categories and action” (Butler,
2008, p. 30). The first rule, a “reference satisfactoriness rule” is referred to as the
economy rule (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 246). This means that “a single category from
any membership categorization device can be referentially adequate” (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 1, p. 246). This means that it is adequate to use a “single membership category
to describe a member of some population” (Hester & Eglin, 1997, p. 4). Thus, while
people may be members of multiple categories, if, for example, you are introducing a
friend to your family, then it is considered “interactionally redundant” (Hester &
Eglin, 1997, p. 4) to provide all membership categories, rather, one will do.
Members’ selection of categories is of analytic interest (Sacks, 1995). For example,
why is a particular category selected by a member when other categories were
available, and how can the selected category be “shown to be adequate for the
member’s purposes” (Butler, 2008, p. 30).
The second rule, a “relevance rule” is referred to as the consistency rule and
described by Sacks (1995, Vol. 1, p. 246) as follows:
if some population of person is being categorised and if a category from
some device’s collection has been used to categorise a first Member of the
population, then that category or other categories of the same collection may
be used to categorise further Members of the population. (p. 247)
Returning to Sacks’ example of “the baby cried” and applying the consistency
rule would mean that if the first person is categorised as a baby, and the category is
part of a set of categories “family”, then, others may be referred to using a category
from the same collection. Thus, mommy is relevant in this case.
Some membership categorization device categories can be ambiguous, for
example, a category may be a member of several devices. This is the case for “baby”
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! UH!
which occurs in the device family and stage of life. Sacks’ solution to possible
ambiguity of membership categorization device categories is the corollary to the
consistency rule, referred to as first “hearer’s maxim”. It states:
If two or more categories are used to categorise two or more members to
some population, and those categories can be heard as categories from the
same collection, hear them that way (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 247)
When applied to the story “the baby of the mommy cried, the mommy of the
baby picked it up”, given that both mommy and baby are both heard, and both belong
to the category device family.
Sacks (1995, Vol. 1) proposed a second hearers maxim that he defined as
follows:
If a category-bound activity is asserted to have been done by a member of
some category where, if that category is ambiguous (i.e., is a member of at
least two different devices) but where at least for one of those devices the
asserted activity is category-bound to the given category, then hear that at
least the category from the device to which it is bound is being asserted to
hold. (p. 260)
In applying the second hearers maxim to “the baby of the mommy cried, the
mommy of the baby picked it up”, then because baby is a member of the category
“stage of life” and crying is bound to babies and babies are expected to cry, then hear
it that way. This rule works in conjunction with the consistency rule (Hester & Eglin,
1997). This maxim helps members to make inferences about the “categorization of a
person” based on the “description of something they do” (Butler & Weatherall, 2006,
p. 445). The viewer’s maxims operate in similar lines to the hearer’s maxims.
'CGQ1414D$#@94CGA@9C<C2CDE;$'C4JA=73@1C4$)432E717;$34<$.AGQA=791:$
'3@ADC=1`3@1C4$)432E717$
Conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis explicate how
social order is assembled by members, and both have their roots in
ethnomethodology and in the work of Harvey Sacks. As discussed in early sections
of this chapter, CA focuses on the “sequential features of interaction” (Hester &
Eglin, 1997, p. 2), whereas MCA focuses on the use of membership categories
oriented to by members to organise their mundane activities. Some researchers
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! UO!
(Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002; Jayyusi, 1984) suggest that MCA has a greater
alignment with ethnomethodology because of its “concern with practical reasoning,
and the moral or normative order of talk-in-interaction” (Butler, 2008, p. 39).
In many respects, CA and MCA have developed independently of one another
(Hester & Eglin, 1997) with MCA “relegated to the sidelines” (Housley &
Fitzgerald, 2002, p.60). This may be attributed to how researchers have interpreted
Sacks’ discussion of membership categorization over the course of his lectures
(Schegloff, 2007c), where he seemed to avoid the use of the term “categories” in his
later work. However, according to Housley and Fitzgerald (2002), an examination of
Sacks’ lectures reveals both a continued “interest and refinement in categorization
analysis … and the “study of the sequential organization of talk” (p. 60). The
partitioning of CA and MCA takes on the “appearance of a gestalt switch” (Watson,
1997, p. 50) with researchers selecting one method at the expense of the other
method. This is described by Watson (1997) as follows:
If we have a sequential-analytic take on conversation, then the membership
categorization aspects recede from view. If one adopts the membership
categorization take on conversation, it makes the sequential aspects recede
into the background. It is as if we can cast our analysis according to one take
or the other but not both at the same time. (p. 50)
Watson (1997) argues that while CA researchers explicitly may not address
membership categorization in their analysis, it in fact operates “behind the scenes”
(p. 51). This is evident, for example, in the transcription of institutional talk. In
transcripts of institututional talk, such as doctor-patient, categorical terms often are
used in transcription and are provided for the reader prior to their reading the
transcribed utterance. In this way, inference rich membership categories are provided
by the analyst and thus tacitly inform the reading of the transcript.
The kind of “dualism” (Watson, 1997, p. 53) that has surrounded CA and MCA
is quite unhelpful, yet the “sequential and categorical aspects of social interaction
inform each other” (Hester & Eglin, 1997, p. 2). A combined use of CA and MCA
can “consider the relevance of sequence and action in the use or invocation of
categories, and the relevance of categorical membership for the organisation of
sequences of talk and action” (Butler, 2008, p. 38). In this way, sequence and
categorical membership are intertwined as, “categories are sequentially managed” by
!
=#)B4$,!S!TAB*&,(<?!3$4#&-&*&?($.Q!"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,!&/!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! US!
members (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002, p. 72). In many ways, the combined used of
CA and MCA accounts for the difficulties of MCA articulated by Schegloff in his
“Tutorial on membership categorization” (Schegloff, 2007c). A number of
researchers have adopted the combined use CA and MCA (see Butler, 2008; Cobb-
Moore, Danby, & Farrell, 2009; Danby & Baker, 2001; Fitzgerald & Housley, 2002).
For example, Cobb-Moore et al. (2009) combined the use of CA and MCA to
examine how young children “make sense of, and also construct, rules” (p. 1477)
within the context of peer interactions during play with wooden cars in homecorner.
Cobb-Moore et al. (2009) advocate the combined use of CA and MCA as it enables a
“deeper understanding of young children’s social lives” (p. 1489).
While aware of the broader arguments about the use of either CA (see
Schegloff, 2007c) or MCA, or the combined use of them (see Watson, 1997; Hester
& Eglin, 1997), in adopting an ethnomethodological approach to this study, any
decision I made needed to be guided by that to which the members orient. For
example, in Chapter 7, as I was beginning the analysis and beginning to describe and
explicate the methods utilised by members, it became clear that the members were
being mapped into a particular category. Thus, as an analyst, I did not decide in
advance that I would combine CA and MCA. Rather, the data directed the way in
which I approached analysis. In contrast, the first analytic chapter approaches
analysis with a focus on the sequential organisation.
'93:@A=$%6GG3=E$
This chapter has outlined the methodological approaches of this study,
consisting of an ethnomethodological approach, with the combined used of CA and
MCA. Assumptions about approach were provided. The combined use of CA and
MCA illuminates details about both the sequential and categorization components of
the interaction, thus contributing to a rich understanding of how social order is
assembled and reassembled by family members. The following chapter provides
details about the design of this study including matters such as data collection, data
analysis and transcription.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! UU!
Chapter 4 $
P031414D$388A77$@C$@9A$GA32@1GA$@3Q2ARF$!9A$-1A2<$SC=T$
The central aim of the study is to investigate the social interactions and
practices occurring in family mealtime contexts. This chapter discusses the choice of
settings and participants, ethical considerations, how data was collected, my role as a
researcher and matters of reliability and validity. Also presented are insights into
some issues of doing field work.
!9A$+A7A3=89$%1@A7$34<$(4@=C<6814D$@9A$-3G12E$.AGQA=7$
Three families agreed to be part of the study: the Francis family, the
Vanderloos family and the Kirkman family, all pseudonyms (see Table 4.1). Data
included for analysis includes the Francis and Vanderloos families. The Francis
family includes the mother (Emily), father (Steve), and one child (Margot). Both
parents are university educated, the father employed full time and the mother part
time. They live in a small coastal town in regional Queensland. The second family,
the Vanderloos family, includes the mother (Julia), father (Rupert) and five children,
Henry, William, Maximilian, Benedict, and Thomasina. The mother is university
educated and the father is a successful tradesman. They live in a small town in rural
Queensland and own a cattle property four hours north of where they live. In addition
to his work as a tradesman, the father works away at the property some of the time.
The mother and the children visit the farm for extended periods of time during school
holidays. At the property, all family members spend time catching up with a large
extended family and the parents and older children spend time engaged in what they
describe as doing cattle work. In addition, the children enjoy riding quads and motor
bikes. The Kirkman family includes the mother (Jenny), father (Tom) and two
children, Taylor and Elodie. They live in a large town in regional Queensland. The
father is employed in the mining industry, a role that requires him to be away from
the family for up to seven days at a time. The mother works two days each week.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! UF!
Table 4.1
Participants’ Names and Ages
-=34817$N3G12E$ Vanderloos family Kirkman family
Name$ Age$ Name Age Name Age
Emily (mum) Julia (mum) Jenny (mum)
Steve (dad) Rupert (dad) Tom (dad)
Margot 4.5 yrs Henry 10.10 yrs Taylor 6.7 yrs
Bibi (grandma) William 8.4 yrs Elodie 4.2 yrs
! Maximilian 6.7 yrs
Benedict 4.7 yrs
Thomasina 2.8 yrs
Oma (grandma)
! Adele (aunt)
The selection of participants in some previous studies of family mealtime was
guided by particular criteria. For example, families recruited to participate in a large
UCLA Sloan study at the Center on the Everyday Lives of Families (CELF)
advertised for families and recruited those that were ethnically and occupationally
diverse (Ochs, Shohet, Campos & Beck, 2010). In addition, participating families
received financial remuneration for their participation in the study. In an Italian study
on accountability in Italian dinner conversations, families who identified as
middleclass were recruited with the assistance of school staff in four Italian cities
(Sterponi, 2009). Unlike some previous studies, the selection of families to
participate in the current study was not seeking to make choices based on
representativeness (ethnicity, socio-economic status) of families. Rather, the study is
focussed on explicating the specific practices of some families.
All families in this study are known to me and had expressed a keen interest in
participating. In the case of the Francis and Vanderloos families, the parents are
personal friends and I am well known to their children and to some members of the
extended family. For example, I know the maternal grandmother of both families and
the aunt of the Vanderloos family. The third family was selected because the mother
was interested in the study and had spoken to me about eating meals outside of the
family home. At the time of planning the research, I was interested in collecting data
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! UR!
from families eating meals both inside and outside the family home. While aware of
researchers who had advertised for families to be part of the study (Grieshaber, 1997;
Ochs et al., 2010), the decision to choose people known to me was linked to concerns
about how unknown participants would feel having a researcher enter their family
space and personal concerns about feeling uncomfortable recording the family time
of people I did not know.
a937A7$14$,3@3$'C22A8@1C4$
The data collection process consisted of five phases (see Table 4.2). This
included, first, the consideration of ethical issues and request for ethical approval,
and consideration about my role as a researcher. Second, it involved contacting the
families, third, the selection of suitable equipment and generation of principles to
guide videoing; and; fourth, trial of the video recording. The final phases, data
generation, involved videorecording of mealtimes. Episodes from the video
recording were selected for analysis and presented in this thesis.
Table 4.2
The Five Phases of Field Work
a937A$ a937A7$34<$377C813@A<$38@1J1@1A7$
H8! T4#(')*!'&<.(-$,)4(&<.!)<-!'*$),)<'$!
• 9BB,&5)*!/,&1!4#$!E@$$<.*)<-!i<(5$,.(42!&/!"$'#<&*&?2!\@1)<!D$.$),'#!T4#('.!=&11(44$$!
• 32!,&*$!).!,$.$),'#$,!O8! =&<4)'4!7(4#!4#$!/)1(*($.! • >()(.$-!7(4#!/)1(*($.!
• TAB*)(<$-!4#$!.4@-2!)<-!?)(<$-!$4#(')*!'&<.$<4!
S8! %$*$'4(&<!&/!5(-$&!! • %$*$'4(&<!&/!.@(4):*$!$^@(B1$<4!(<'*@-(<?!5(-$&!)<-!4,(B&-!• `$'&1(<?!4$'#<(')**2!B,&/('($<4!• h$<$,)4(&<!&/!B,(<'(B*$.!4&!?@(-$!5(-$&!,$'&,-(<?!!
J8! ",()*!&/!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-(<?!
• ",()**(<?!&/!$^@(B1$<4!• D$'&,-(<?!&/!:,($/!/($*-!<&4$.!• D$'&<.(-$,(<?!4#$!B,(<'(B*$.!/&,!5(-$&!,$'&,-(<?!
U8! N)4)!?$<$,)4(&<! • 0)1(*($.!(<4,&-@'$-!4&!4#$!5(-$&!• 0)1(*($.!).C$-!4&!5(-$&!,$'&,-!)BB,&A(1)4$*2!4#,$$!
1$)*4(1$.!&5$,!4#$!4(1$!4#$2!#)5$!4#$!5(-$&!
a937A$&4AF$#@91832$8C471<A=3@1C47$34<$82A3=348A;$34<$GE$=C2A$37$3$
=A7A3=89A=$
The first stage involved ethical approval from the Queensland University of
Technology Human Research Ethics Committee. Compliance with the ethical
requirements of the University reflect “regulatory devices” that ensure the protection
of “children’s protective rights” in research (Danby & Farrell, 2004, p. 37) and the
rights of other research participants. The ethical framework that guided this study
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! UG!
included: informed consent from the participants, consideration about how
participants’ privacy would be maintained and ensuring that participants would not
be harmed or exploited in anyway due to their participation in the study
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1997). For example, as part of ensuring that participants
would not be harmed in anyway, I was required by the Queensland University of
Technology Human Research Ethics Committee to obtain a suitability notice from
the Commission for Children Young People and Child Guardian (Queensland).
Obtaining a suitability notice required a detailed national criminal history check to
ensure that I was eligible to work in the areas of child-related work covered by the
Child Protection Act 1999.
Ethical clearance was obtained before the commencement of data collection.
This stage was completed and ethical clearance obtained (see Appendix A for copy
of ethics approval).
As part of the preparation for this study, I considered my role as a researcher.
Thinking about my role, referred to in the literature as reflexivity, required that I
consider how or if it is possible to bridge the gap between myself as researcher, and
the members of the family (Cocks, 2006). There are a number of different
perspectives on an adult’s role in research with children, including that of being a
“detached observer, a marginal semi- participatory role and a complete involvement”
(Mandell, 1991, p. 39). The particular role adopted by the researcher is based on
particular beliefs about adults and children as social members. For example, some
researchers suggest that authority separates adults and children, making it difficult to
adopt a completely participant role (Corsaro, 1985). In contrast, Waksler (1996)
proposes that it is possible to access the children’s world as a participating member.
As I was researching families, I also needed to consider my role as researcher
with the adult family members and my role with the different members of the family.
The complexity of my role as researcher was influenced by my decision to recruit
families from within my circle of acquaintances and friends and to be present while
recording occurred. This meant that it was possible that I was already “friend” to
both the adults and children. Thus, my existing relationship with both the children
and adults made it difficult to adopt a completely detached observer role. While I did
try not to participate in the family mealtime, I recognised that I may be perceived as
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! UY!
observer and friend within the semi-participatory role. How my role unfolded is
discussed in a later section of the chapter.
a937A$!KCF$'C4@38@14D$@9A$N3G121A7$34<$CQ@31414D$K=1@@A4$8C47A4@$
N=CG$@9A$:3=@181:34@7$
The second stage of the process involved obtaining written consent from the
participants, the parents, who because of the age of the children were the
“gatekeepers” (Heath, Hindmarsh & Luff, 2010, p. 21) in terms of participation.
Consent involves “presentation of the information, understanding, followed by a
response” (Cocks, 2006, p. 253) from the participants. While obtaining written
consent was important as part of my ethical responsibilities prior to beginning the
study, ethical considerations continued throughout the study, including data analysis
and presentation of the analysis. All participants were approached by means of a
letter of explanation outlining in a plain language statement the purpose of the study
and the possible commitment required if the families agreed to be part of the data
pool. However, as either friends or acquaintances who had expressed an interest in
being part of the study, all members of the study knew something about the proposed
study prior to receiving the complete consent package (see Appendix B). Even so, I
did spend time providing the information to the families about the study and about
how the video data would be used. Due to an expressed interest from Julia, the
mother in the Vanderloos family, she was provided with a copy of the proposal I
presented to be confirmed as a PhD candidate. This document included a literature
review of family mealtimes and details about data collection and the methods used
for analysis.
Reflecting the ethical framework guiding my research, as part of the process
for agreeing to be part of the study, families were assured that their anonymity would
be maintained at all stages in the study. Pseudonyms will be used instead of real
names in all publications and presentations ensuing from the study. Video images, if
requested by the participants, would have the faces of participants blurred to further
ensure anonymity. Segments of video recorded data may be used for educational and
research purposes only. The package also provided explanation to participants that
they could choose to withdraw from the study at any time and that any concerns that
they may have had about the ethics of the study could be referred to the University
for clarification. Once initial consent had been obtained from the participants, data
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FI!
collection commenced with a trial. Participants were informed that they may
withdraw from the study at any time.
a937A$!9=AAF$%A2A8@1C4$CN$J1<AC$34<$@=132$CN$@9A$J1<AC$=A8C=<14D$
The use of video cameras to record data is now more widespread in many areas
of research (Sparrman, 2005), however, its use is still neglected in some areas of
qualitative research (Heath et al., 2010). Video recording interactions allows for the
capturing of audio and visual data simultaneously (Heath et al., 2010). In providing
both an auditory and visual record of the interactions video recordings allow analysis
of the verbal interaction, its paralinguistic features and the visual components and the
use of tools, such as cutlery or toys used as part of the social activity. It is
particularly useful for conversation analysts who prefer to work from recordings that
capture the conduct and actions of the members in situ. The capacity of video
technology to be replayed (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; McLarty & Gibson, 2000)
enables the researcher to revisit the data many times, thus checking the accuracy of
the data and also to discovering “subtle nuances” (McLarty & Gibson, 2000, p. 140).
While contingent on the specific details of ethical approval, recordings of data may
be made available to other researchers thus making “analysis subject to detailed
public scrutiny” (Heritage, 1984b, p. 238) of other researchers. In addition, recorded
data can be re-examined or remined at another time. Mehan (1993) suggests that
detail provided through video recording allows the researcher access to a different
version of social life that may have previously gone unnoticed. The capacities
afforded through video recording of data align with the fine-grained analysis of
conversation analysis that uncovers “complex interactional phenomena” (Psathas,
1990, p. 5).
While acknowledging the possibilities afforded as a result of the use of
videorecording technology in research, it is important to recognise that “video-based
methodologies create specific ways of looking at and understanding the world”
(Sparrman, 2005, p. 241). For example, the way the camera is positioned, the
capacity of the microphone to pick up sound all influence the data collected and thus
analysis (Heath et al., 2010).
The quality of the video recordings is influenced by the quality of the
equipment selected for use, which, in turn affects both sound and picture quality
(Perakyla, 1997). As quality equipment and recordings are also important
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FH!
considerations in relation to reliability and validity of the data (Perakyla, 1997), it is
vital that the researcher obtains technical advice about the most appropriate video
camera for use in people’s homes, as well as advice about the production of quality
images and sound.
Given the importance of selecting quality equipment and equipment that suited
the purposes of data collection (Lapadat, 2000) and informal conversations with
other researchers about issues they had encountered when using video equipment, I
decided to purchase a video recorder for the purposes of data collection. For
example, another researcher suggested that if hiring equipment, the equipment may
not always be reliable, may not always be available and you may obtain a different
type of videocamera on different occasions. Thus, I contacted a professional
cameraman, Peter, to obtain advice.
The professional advice was that I purchase a video camera that was easy to
operate, very good quality and one that had an attachable boom microphone: a
Panasonic NV- GS180. The additional microphone would ensure quality sound
recording. In addition, he suggested the purchase of headphones, a larger battery and
a substantial tripod that could be used if needed. The headphones enable the recorder
to check that the sound is recording and the additional battery would ensure longer
recording time. The purchase of a quality tripod was linked to the context for the
study. For example, in our discussions, we considered the implications of having a
video-camera operating in what might be a small dining/kitchen area and the
movement of small children and adults within this possibly confined space. The
professional advice I received reflects the equipment checklist recently published
(see Heath et al., 2010).
While data collection requires appropriate quality equipment, it also requires
that the operator be “technically proficient” (Lapadat, 2000, p. 211). Thus, once the
equipment arrived, I received support from the cameraman in learning to operate the
equipment. While these lessons took time, I wanted to feel confident in using the
camera when I started trialling the equipment with a family.
There is a range of options in how the video is used in the research site. These
include variations on whether the researcher is present or not and whether the camera
is hand held or placed on a tripod. The decision about how to use the camera depends
on the site and the purposes of the research.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FO!
Being present and holding the camera allows the researcher to follow
participants as they engage in “mobile activities” (Heath et al., 2010, p. 39) referred
to as “guerrilla-style filming” (Shrum, Duque & Brown, 2005, p. 12). Some
researchers interested in how children assemble social order in play have
successfully used this strategy. For example, Theobald (2009) adopted this strategy
as she followed children’s play moves as they moved from one play space to another.
It is suggested that the use of a roving video-recorder requires that researchers have a
degree of familiarity with the activities they are recording since this enables the
researcher to anticipate how the action may unfold (Heath et al., 2010).
Another option, the one adopted in this study, is to place the camera on a
tripod, a strategy that is designed to “create as little disturbance as possible”
(Sparrman, 2005, p. 249). Placing the camera on a tripod does not require that the
researcher have the same degree of familiarity with the activities as does the “roving
approach” since they do not need to follow the action (Heath et al., 2010).
Additionally, this strategy enables the researcher to be a little less obtrusive and, if
required, the opportunity to record field notes. It is suggested that this approach suits
informal gatherings such as family dinners (Heath et al., 2010). The placement of the
videocamera and the angles selected are often constrained by the “design and spatial
organisation of rooms” (Sparrman, 2005, p. 249). Thus, if possible, careful
preparation is needed to ensure that the camera/tripod is placed in a location that can
capture the members’ activity.
Part of the preparation for videoing involved consideration of how members
might respond to the presence of video equipment. The presence of a recording
device within the context of the family meal, and the possible inclusion of the
researcher, can potentially influence the conversations and behaviours being
observed (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997). Some researchers note that participants “censor
themselves” (Speer & Hutchby, 2003, p. 318) because of the presence of a recording
device and may not discuss sensitive or delicate matters which the tape is recording
(Speer & Hutchby, 2003). This is referred to as the “researcher effect” (McLarty &
Gibson, 2000, p. 144) and may result in participants demonstrating awkward and
atypical behaviour in the presence of the researcher and the video equipment and,
thus, may influence what occurs (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). However, as the
participants become engrossed in their lives, they tend to forget the presence of the
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FS!
researcher and the video camera (McLarty & Gibson, 2000). Even so, the
phenomenon of the “researcher presence” (McLarty & Gibson, 2000, p. 144) is an
important consideration that highlights the need for children and their families to
become familiar with both the researcher and the equipment.
Reseachers have noted how children show “their consciousness of being video
recorded” (Sparrman, 2005, p. 243) with, for example, telling other children about
the presence of the camera, however, verbal comments about the camera were rare in
Sparrman’s research (2005). Children also use the presence of the camera for their
purposes, for example, the performance of music and pretending to be news reporters
(Sparrman, 2005). Children make a distinction between the person video recording
and the camera or object, for example, showing the camera artifacts they produce
perhaps because the video can not provide feedback or comment in the same way as
the person (Sparrman, 2005). In addition, children orient to the researcher as
someone “who primarily doesn’t belong in the institution” (Sparrman, 2005, p. 248).
Following reflection about the advice from the cameraman, and engagement
with the literature about the use of video in research, a set of principles and
considerations have been developed to guide the use of video recording in this study.
These will now be explained.
7%("'(8-$+*)4*9(0$)*%$')%0("/1*
As discussed in the previous section, in this study, a small video camera with a
boom microphone was used. A number of principles guided the video recording
practices.
• The video-recorder will be used in the least intrusive way possible
(Bowman, 1994) with the video camera being placed on a tripod.
• Where the video is placed will be negotiated with participants (Heath et
al., 2010)
• Where possible, I would move away from the camera
• The camera lens will be set to capture participants at the mealtime setting
a937A$-C6=F$!=132214D$@9A$@A894C2CDE$
Trialling commenced late 2006 with the Francis family agreeing to be part of
the pilot. In consultation with the mother, Emily, it was decided to record the mother
and daughter having lunch. On arrival at the family home, we talked generally and
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FJ!
Margot was very excited wanting to show me everything of interest in her room.
While preparing for the videoing, considerable time was spent during the unpacking
and setting up of the video talking with Margot (the child) about the video. She
looked through the lens, pressed buttons and helped attach cords and so on. I
explained how both images and sound would be recorded on the video and that she
would be able to watch herself and mummy on the video. In a sense, Margot’s
participation in the setting up process contributed to her becoming familiar with the
videocamera. She was very keen to see herself on the videocamera. Prior to my
arrival, Emily talked with Margot about what was happening. This included an
explanation of the purpose of the recording, that is, to help Gillian learn about how
different families eat their meals.
The mother’s active role in preparing the child for the visit also involved her
request for verbal consent from Margot about her willingness to be part of the
videoing process. In this way, the mother, as “gatekeeper” (Heath et al., 2010, p. 21),
facilitated both the provision of information about the research to the child and her
subsequent co-operation. Given that I had consent from the parents for the family to
be part of the study, the primary purpose of the trial was to trial the use of videoing
material with the family and to become comfortable in the role of a researcher in the
participant’s home. Thus, while I did not play an active role in obtaining consent
from the child, or plan to formally obtain consent from the children in the study, the
interactions between this mother and child highlighted for me the importance of
talking with the children and asking if they were willing to participate. Furthermore,
it challenged me to think about how to inform children not only about what the
process involves, but also how the data may be used by the researcher. As previous
researchers have noted, “children’s rights as research participants are limited”
(Butler, 2008, p. 43) because the adult provides the consent for the child to be
involved.
Trialling of the video recording equipment continued in the family home on
three further occasions. On each occasion, Margot participated in setting up the
equipment and talking with me. I tried, after setting the camera on the tripod to be as
unobtrusive as possible. This meant that I shifted away from the camera and away
from the eating space. Sometimes eating occurred on the front verandah at Margot’s
“little table and chairs” and sometimes it occurred at the dining room table.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FU!
Removing myself from the space proved difficult because while I did not initiate
interactions with the family, I was conscious of not ignoring Margot if or when she
initiated talk with me. This sense of pressure to participate is identified in settings in
one-on-one encounters (Heath et al., 2010), such as, Margot and Emily having a
meal. Perhaps I was being oriented to as researcher as friend, a role that I had
considered in preparation for this research. In this way, my concern about
maintaining good relationships with family members meant that I was less inclined
to ignore the child’s attempts to initiate talk with me or to share part of the meal. On
the last trial in the home, Margot asked me to join her at the table.
As part of the trial, videoing of a meal in a space outside of the home was
organised. In consultation with the mother, it was decided that I would approach the
owner of a small coffee shop where lunch and morning tea are served. The owner
was very comfortable with the recording occurring on the site. To ensure as little
disruption as possible, I arrived early, set up the video recorder in a space well in the
corner of the coffee shop. The position of the camera also ensured that other patrons
would not be filmed by the camera. Prior to the arrival of Emily and Margot, mother
and daughter of the Francis family, I tested that everything was working. In checking
the recording, the headphones indicated that I would pick up other sounds from the
coffee shop. In an effort to look less conspicuous, it was decided that it would be
better if I sat with the family and shared the lunch. This meant that I was part of the
mealtime interactions. While we were unobtrusive in the venue, other customers at
the coffee shop oriented to the presence of a recording device.
Discussions with Emily, with my PhD supervisors and personal reflections on
the process of videoing raised a number of challenges. First, finding times to join the
family for a meal required considerable negotiation and meant that the family felt
they needed to eat at the time they had arranged with me. Second, the trickiness of
balancing the role of unobstrusive researcher with the need to maintain a relationship
with the child and to participate in talk she initiates was challenging. Thus, it was
suggested by Emily that I hand the equipment over to the family so that they could
do the recording when convenient for their family. Emily suggested also that this
would mean it was easier for her to record at times when Steve, the father, was
present for family meals. The suggestion to give the responsibility for videoing to the
family was certainly an unexpected outcome from the trial.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FF!
The decision to hand over the equipment to the family meant that they assumed
the responsibility for not only when recording would occur, but where the camera
would be positioned, including, for example, distance from speakers, who were in
view and out of view, and the length of time the video would be turned on. Giving
the family agency for data collection will have implications for what is recorded and,
therefore, subsequent analysis (Psathas & Anderson, 1990, p. 75). It meant also, that
when beginning the research with a new family, I would need to take time to explain
how to use the equipment. So, in a sense, while I did not have the worry about being
physically present or about my role as researcher in the research site, I felt some
tension in handing over responsibility for data collection to the family.
While this decision did not alter the principles underpinning the use of the
videocamera, it did mean that I had less control over how data collection would
unfold. In addition, as part of the trial I had been keeping brief field notes. Given the
decision that I would not be present, I provided each family with an exercise book in
which to include any information they thought was relevant. The way in which this
was used by one family will be discussed in a later section of this chapter.
a937A$-1JAF$,3@3$DA4A=3@1C4$
This section outlines the data generation process for one family, the
Vanderloos family. As discussed in the previous section, it was decided that, if the
families agreed, they would be provided with the video camera and asked to video
mealtimes over approximately a one-month period. Prior to the steps discussed in the
following section, ethical clearance had been obtained and the family had a copy of
the complete research proposal. (Refer to Appendix C for an overview of the data
collection including dates of recordings, a brief summary of tape details and whether
or not the researcher was present.)
:#$8*;"$<*;%/&"(+("/*=>,(86$"#1*
All equipment was organised and placed in carry bags. For example, little
sealable plastic bags were provided for the completed tapes and the headphones were
placed in a fabric bag. Given the amount of equipment, it needed to be portable,
accessible and able to be stored between recording periods. In addition, an exercise
book in which to record anything of interest was organised.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FR!
:#$8*?@)<*A$-(9$%("/*$>,(86$"#*#)*#B$*4&6(-.*&"0*$28-&("("/*B)@*#B$*$>,(86$"#*@)%C$01*
The equipment was delivered to the family and I demonstrated how to use the
video equipment and how to assemble the tripod and so on. During the
demonstration and discussion, the youngest child, Thomasina sat at the table and
interacted with us. In a similar way to Margot who was part of the trial, Thomasina
was interested in the buttons and wanted to look through the camera. The process
was explained to her as “like taking photos” for Gillian to use in her study. In
addition to discussing the technical issues about the recorder, also discussed, was
how Julia might manage the camera given her responsibilities for five children a
mealtime. It was decided that the camera would be set up and just let to run. In
addition, while Julia was familiar with the study, I reiterated that I was not interested
in whether or not the children had good table manners or the type of food that the
children were eating, rather, with how the mundane activity was accomplished. In
addition, I explained that transcription would note pauses, gaze and so on. Julia
commented that the children were really excited about being part of the research as
she had been talking to them about it all year. She indicated that if she had any
problems with the video that Henry, the oldest child, would be able to sort it out.
:#$8*?B%$$<*D$')%0("/*5.*#B$*4&6(-.1**
Julia recorded five mealtimes. This following table provides details.
Table 4.3
Vanderloos Recordings
,3@A$ .A32$
HR!e@*2!OIIR! T5$<(<?!3$)*!HG!e@*2!OIIR! T5$<(<?!3$)*!HY!e@*2!OIIR! `,$)C/).4!HS!%$B4$1:$,!OIIR! T5$<(<?!3$)*!c94!4#$!/),1d!HJ!%$B4$1:$,!OIIR! `,$)C/).4!c94!4#$!/),1!)<-!.&@<-!-(-!<&4!
7&,Cd!
In the field notes book, Julia provided a range of details. This included, for
example, the activities the family had engaged in during the day (going to town or to
school), plans for the next day (gymnastics and football), the illness of particular
children, what the children are interested in (bookclub), the usual routines for
mealtime (who does the washing up and who makes the tea), topics of conversation,
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FG!
the names of any other people in the video and how they are linked to the family and
technical problems such as the sound not being turned on.
:#$8*E),%<*F)--$'#()"*)4*%$')%0("/+1*
When collecting the equipment, Julia reported that she had made deliberate
decisions about where to put the camera. She commented that in reading the research
proposal in greater detail, the researcher not only transcribes the words, but records
the gestures of the members. Thus, she commented “Gill, I placed the camera on
different sides of the table so that over the course of recordings, you would get to see
all of the children’s faces”. This was evident as I viewed the recordings. In reflecting
on the actions of the mother, it highlights how knowledge of the both theoretical and
methodological aspects of the research had influenced the participants’ decisions,
which, in turn, influenced the data collected for this study. In this instance, it seems
that the knowledge included in the proposal supported the decision-making made by
the mother who assumed a central role in data collection. Clearly, not everyone
wants to read a lengthy document, but Julia’s actions have demonstrated that perhaps
it is important to provide a more detailed explanation of the research focus and how
the data analysis is accomplished.
)432E@18$a=C8A<6=A7$
!=3478=1:@1C4F$)4$14@A=:=A@3@1JA$34<$=A:=A7A4@3@1C432$:=C8A77$
The first step in data analysis is the transcription of the recorded interactions
using conventions originally developed by Gail Jefferson (Gardner, 2001; Jefferson,
2004; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995a; Psathas & Anderson, 1990).
Jefferson’s design of the transcription system “marks out the analytic concerns which
conversation analysts bring to the data” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998, p. 76). Thus, the
transcript includes the “dynamics of turn taking” and the “characteristics of speech
delivery” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998, p. 76); both features used by conversation
analysts as part of analysis. A copy of the conventions used can be found in
Appendix D.
Conversation analysts define transcription as a “situated practice” (Mondada,
2007, p. 810) that provides an account of the “social, political or moral order”
(Baker, 1998, p. 110) of the interaction. The transcription process involves attention
to two interrelated features of the process including “transcription as an interpretive
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! FY!
process and transcription as a representational process” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1441).
Thus, issues of interpretation and representation involve attention to what is
transcribed and how the interaction will be transcribed by the transcriber (Bucholtz,
2000).
The interpretative act of transcribing what is said is a complex act where the
transcriber makes decisions about utterance attribution, that is, who said it, the
content of what was said and the intelligibility of what was said (Bucholtz, 2000).
Thus, the transcript provides a selective representation of the interaction as “only
some of the information is recorded in transcripts” (Davidson, 2010, p. 116). The
process of selection results in the transcript being “a reduced version of the original
recordings” (Davidson, 2010, p. 116). This process requires repeated listening to and
viewing of the recorded speech. Repeated hearings and viewing of the data facilitate
an “intimate familiarity” with the words, with the prosodic shape of utterances and
with the “temporal flow” of sequences (Psathas & Anderson, 1990, p. 77) that
contribute also to the replaying of sequences in the transcriber’s mind (Psathas &
Anderson, 1990). Furthermore, the transcription process also accomplishes a slowing
down of the talk which helps focus the “researchers’ interpretative eye” (Lapadat,
2000, p. 215). The repeating listenings of the recording contribute to the endless
checking and rechecking of the evolving transcript that is “settled on” for the
purposes of specific analysis (Mondada, 2007).
Underpinning both the interpretative and representational process of
transcription is the “transcriber’s own expectations and beliefs about the speakers
and the interaction being described; the intended audience of the transcript; and its
purpose” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1439). Included in these assumptions is a “scholarly
predisposition” that is linked to the researcher’s theoretical orientation that operates
“below the level of consciousness” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1446). For example, as a
researcher, I was aware of how my knowledge as both a teacher of young children
and as someone who knew the children influenced my initial transcription of the talk
between the Vanderloos children. The talk of one child, Max, was speeded up and
spoken with a smiley voice and, even with repeated listening was difficult to hear
and thus record accurately. While repeatedly listening to the talk, I consciously asked
myself what could he be saying that could be so funny from his perspective, that is,
the perspective of a six year old boy. In so doing, I was listening for something that I
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RI!
might expect to hear, rather than what Max was actually saying. Thus, given the
assumptions and beliefs a transcriber brings to the transcription process and their
knowledge of the purpose for the transcript, transcription is not an objective or
neutral process, rather, it involves “interpretive choices” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1444),
and thus it becomes a political process. In this way the interpretative choices
informed both tacitly and explicitly by theoretical and personal beliefs and
assumptions lead to the construction of a transcript that reflects this authorship
(Bucholtz, 2000).
Repeated listenings and collaboration with other researchers who “listen” to
help make sense of difficult recordings (Bucholtz, 2000; Psathas & Anderson, 1990)
is adopted within CA. As with the transcripts developed by individual transcribers,
collaboration on the construction of transcripts is shaped also by the beliefs and
assumptions of the group of researchers. In developing my transcripts, I accessed the
ear of other researchers, who, on occasions, heard something that I had missed, such
as, intonation, laughter particles, slight pauses and so on.
Within the literature on transcription, the status of the transcript in relation to
the recordings appears to vary. For example, from a conversation analyst perspective,
the transcript is viewed as a representation or version of the interaction with the
recording referred to as the data (Mondada, 2007; Psathas, 1990; Psathas &
Anderson, 1990). While Ochs’ influential work on transcription (1979) highlights the
way in which the transcript reflects the goals of the study, she does state that “the
transcriptions are the researcher’s data” (Ochs, 1979, p. 44). Baker (1998) provides a
useful clarification of the status of the transcript suggesting that it is as a written text
produced by the transcriber from which “analysis is launched” (p. 109). In most
cases the transcript is, by necessity, the data presented to the reader of the analysis.
While this holds true in most cases, some researchers have the recorded data
available for access (see Forrester).
As already highlighted, transcription systems are not “neutral” (Psathas &
Anderson, 1990, p. 75) with the organisation of the system reflecting the “concerns
and analytic stance” of the researcher (Psathas & Anderson, 1990, p. 76). While Gail
Jefferson’s transcription notation system (2004) provides guidance in terms of how
the interaction will be transcribed including features of talk such as, intonation,
pauses, sound stretches and emphasis, a number of issues are evident in transcription
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RH!
(Baker, 1998). Practical issues identified by Baker include “matters of description,
matters of format and layout, and matters of depiction” (Baker, 1998, p. 113).
The way in which the transcriber addresses practical issues reflect the
theoretical perspective of the analyst (Baker, 1998). For example, while Ochs (1979)
notes that “a more useful transcript is a more selective one” (p. 44), deciding on how
much notation to assign to non-verbal action such as glances and body positions is
problematic. Video data provides us with an almost overwhelming amount of detail
and decisions about what to record and how to record this detail is ongoing. In
addressing this problem, Bloom suggests that the transcriber interpret rather than
describe the scene (Baker, 1998). As a transcriber, I struggled with balancing the
desire to provide enough detail about the gestures, expressions, and the physical
activities that members were involved with as part of eating a meal with the need to
keep the transcript easy to read. While the gaze of members is recognised as an
important component of transcripts (Goodwin, 1980; Ochs, 1979, 1999), the
relationship between what members were doing physically and when they took a turn
at talk is central to an analysis of interactions during family mealtimes. The inclusion
of information about members’ physical actions enriches the transcript (Mondada,
2007), providing details about the “interplay between the verbal and the visual
depiction”. As such, it is important in making a theoretical point in the analysis
(Baker, 1998, p. 116) and highlights the interaction between the practical and
theoretical tasks of analysts. For example, in a mealtime context, eating or drinking
may account for the absence of a second pair part in an adjacency pair and was
observed in the data. Drawing on Schegloff (1988), Baker (1998) suggests that the
way in which such challenges are addressed is to consider whether or not what is
described is relevant to the participants.
Deciding to include descriptive information has implications for the layout of
the transcript (Mondada, 2007; Ochs, 1979, 1999). Options include placing it in a
separate line to the talk, placing it after the talk, placing it before the talk, placing it
within the talk or using symbols. Goodwin’s analysis of children playing hopscotch
shows how integral embodied actions are in interaction and how these may be
recorded (Goodwin, 2000).
Technology has supported researchers to capture the link between talk and
physical activity using computer programs such as ELAN (Mondada, 2007) and
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RO!
Transana. Even without such programs, researchers can add stills from the video to
their transcript (Cobb-Moore, 2008; Theobald, 2009) or produce new images from
the video stills (Sparrman, 2005). Stills are included within transcripts to provide the
reader with additional visual detail about what was occurring in the interaction. The
creation of the drawn representations of the still may require assistance from an
artist. Ochs (1979) notes that in interactions involving children, features of the
immediate environment are oriented to by the child with the use of indexical terms
such as “here” or “that’s”. The inclusion of the “props” oriented to by children help
readers understand the scene (Ochs, 1979). Solutions to the challenge require careful
consideration about how this will affect the readability of the transcript.
The other matter that I experienced as part of the transcription process was how
to identify speakers in the interaction (Baker, 1998; Danby, 1998c; Speier, 1972).
Danby (1998), in her study of interaction and social order in a preschool classroom
also grappled with this challenge. She noted how “whatever term or convention I
used would provide a description of the participants that was not neutral but
theoretically driven” (p. 82). Furthermore, Watson (1997) noted how in providing a
“categorical incumbency” (p. 52) predisposes that reader to a particular reading of
the transcript. Danby (1998c) elected to use the terms used by the teacher/children in
the particular setting. Another solution to this problem proposed by Baker (1998)
was to consider “who are these interactants speaking as, on any occasion, is found in
identifying the self-characterising work and scenic practices of the speakers
themselves” (p. 113). Any decision made by the analyst about how to identify
speakers in the transcript “assigns a social, political, or moral order being described”
(Baker, 1998, p. 110). Thus, as indicated previously, transcription is both theoretical
and practical and involves “interpretive choices” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1444). In
considering Baker’s suggestion about using terms oriented to by the members, in the
Francis family transcript, for example, while the mother of the child, Emily, was
oriented to as the mother by her daughter, Margot, she was also oriented to as a
daughter and as a wife. Thus, she was mother, daughter and wife. My solution to the
problem was to use the speakers’ given names, rather than a membership category
term such as mum or dad. While this was an ongoing dilemma and one about which I
feel there is no settlement, in deciding not to use a category term in the transcript, I
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RS!
have not presupposed the reader of the transcript to a particular category from a
membership category device.
!=3478=1:@1C4$@A894C2CDE$
A range of technology is available for transcribers including, for example,
Transana, a computer program that supports researchers to transcribe and analyse
large collections of video and audio data, ELAN (Mondada, 2007) and garage band,
a program on Macbook computers. Each program allows the analyst access to the
audio and visual simultaneously. As a beginning analyst, I listened to suggestions of
experienced researchers. However, in hindsight, my initial steps were fairly
primitive. Following the downloading of recorded video from the mini DV onto the
computer, I then recorded the sound onto a tape recorder. I then used a transcribing
machine to commence transcription of the audio. While useful because it slowed the
sound down and allowed me to develop a basic transcript, pauses needed to be
manually calculated either with a stop watch or with slow counting. Once I had a
basic transcript, I moved to garage band, part of the Mac platform, which allowed me
access to audio and visual simultaneously and the capacity to see sound waves. This
improved the detail in my transcripts because I was able to measure more accurately
pauses and the alignment between the talk and gestures and so on. However, finally
accessing Audacity was a triumph as I could time pauses, listen more closely for
overlaps, hear quietly spoken words, loop sections, and so on. Now with more
confidence, I generally had two sources of data open on the computer working
between Audacity that contained the extracted sound wave and iMovie. In addition, I
began utilising headphones which seemed to improve my capacity to hear words that
were previously inaudible. As I embraced the available technology, the detail in my
transcripts improved.
Initially, the issue was about getting the words on the page and marking in
pauses and overlaps. However, beginning the process of analysis heightened my
alertness to the need to listen for and mark in prosodic features where possible.
While the inclusion of these subtleties improved my transcript, it also ensured that
the analytic decisions I made made sense to the reader of the analysis.
%@A:7$14$3432E717$
This study analysed data using the five step approach suggested by Pomerantz
and Fehr (1997). The five steps will now be outlined.
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RJ!
First, beginning with “unmotivated looking” (Psathas, 1995a, p. 45), I selected
a sequence that was of interest (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997). Prior to selecting the
sequence, transcription of most of the mealtimes occurred and boundaries indicating
the beginning and conclusion of a sequence were identified. The first draft of the
transcript was used in conjunction with the video recording to select a sequence.
Once selected, a more detailed transcript was developed. Second, “characterise the
actions in the sequence” (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 72), such as, requests,
questions, invitations and so on. “Characterisations are provisional” (Pomerantz &
Fehr, 1997, p. 72) and were reconsidered throughout the analytic process. Third,
consider the way in which speakers “package…form up and deliver actions”
(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 73) from a range of alternatives. In addition, this
involved a consideration of the ways in which speakers referred “to persons, objects,
places, activities etc.” (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 73). As part of this step,
Pomerantz and Fehr (1997) suggest a number of questions that may help identify
both the packaging of the action and the consequentiality of that action. These
questions proved helpful in the analytic process. Fourth, the “timing and taking”
(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 73) of turns was considered. This required
consideration of “how the speaker obtained the turn, the timing of the initiation of the
turn, the termination of the turn and whether the speaker selected a next speaker”
(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 73). Finally, the way in which “actions implicated
certain identities, roles and or relationships for the interactions” (Pomerantz & Fehr,
1997, p. 74) was considered. This five step process was not achieved quickly. Rather,
it required the constant revisiting of the tapes in tandem with the transcript. As part
of the analytic process, the refinement of the transcript was accomplished.
bC@1814DF$C=1A4@3@1C4$@C$@9A$:=A7A48A$CN$@9A$J1<AC$=A8C=<A=$34<$@9A$
=A7A3=89A=$
While the analyses resulting from the analytic process are outlined in Chapters
5, 6, and 7 of this thesis, repeated listening to the recordings as part of the analytic
process also explicated the ways in which members oriented to the video-camera and
the researcher. As discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, researchers have
noted that some members may orient to the camera (see Sparrman, 2005). While
viewing the recorded mealtimes, there were a number of instances where children
oriented to the camera. This included, for example, Thomasina asking if it is
working, Ben shifting the camera, Elodie performing for it and Margot’s comments
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RU!
about wanting to look at it. Adult family members also oriented to the camera and to
the absent researcher. For example, one adult member asked why does Gillian want
to see us eating (Oma) and another adult member (Adele) pointed out features of the
camera to her nephew.
The next section of this chapter provides examples from the transcripts of
where members orient to the camera and to the absent researcher. In so doing, it
highlights what members do when they orient to the presence of the recording device
and how “such orientations play a part in the ongoing construction of specific
situated interactions” (Speer & Hutchby, 2003, p. 317). The three examples of
members orienting to the camera are from a mealtime presented for analysis in
Chapter 6. While this was the fourth time this family had recorded mealtimes, it was
the first time that the maternal grandmother, Oma, and aunt, Adele, had been present.
The following is not offered as fine-grained analysis, rather, it provides a brief
discussion of some interactions about how the presence of the video is oriented to by
family members and, in one case, how it is accounted for. Also included is an
example of one member orienting to the absent researcher.
=2#%&'#*G1H1*
1 Thom we 2 3
Oma What does this gotta do for [Gillian]= ((Julia walks to the kitchen))
4 Thom [arghwe ] 5 Julia =nothing 6 (1.5) 7 Julia It is part of her study ((answers from the
kitchen)) 8 (1.3) 9 Oma What! to see people eat! 10 (1.6) 11 12
Julia Mum (.) don’t talk about that now ((comes back to the table with a bottle of water))
13 Oma ks Is that coming on the recorder there 14 Julia Yea:h ((sits down at table and nods)) 15 Oma Okay ((up down prosodic shape)) 16 (1.4) 17 18
Julia It is to see what they talk about and ((the lid falls off the grinder))
19 20
(1.5) ((Julia picks up pepper and unscrews the lid and begins grinding))
!The first extract occurs 45 seconds into the evening meal at the farm and
begins as Oma directs a question to Julia asking her “What does this gotta do for
[Gillian]=” (line 2) with “this” indexed to the recording that is occurring. Initially
Julia answers “nothing” (line 5); however, she then proceeds to tell her that it is part
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RF!
of Gillian’s study. In this way, Julia accounts for the recording of the family meal
and the presence of the video camera in the dining room, though she does not
provide explicit details of “study”. In response to Julia’s accounting, Oma, in
formulating her understanding of the purpose of study as, “to see people eat” (line 7)
questions such a rationale. Julia does not answer Oma’s question, rather, she directs
her mother “Mum (.) don’t talk about that now” (line 11), with “that” indexed to both
the recording and the purpose for the recording. Oma moves away from talk about
the purpose of the study, though, in posing the inquiry “ks Is that coming on the
recorder there” (line 13), she continues talk about the video recorder. The recording
of the video is affirmed by Julia who then proceeds to offer an explanation of the
study as “to see what they talk about and” (line 17). The explanation is not
completed as the lid falls off the condiment grinder. As discussed, Oma has oriented
to the presence of the camera and also to why the researcher, “Gillian”, would want
to see people eat.
=2#%&'#*G1I1*
H! Julia! ! Or now (.) have I locked that shed out there!O! ! ! (1.5)((Ben begins to move from the table))!S!J!
Oma! ! Or:: I don’t think you’ll need to lock it while you’re here would you!!
U! Oma! ! Here Ben (.) where you going !F!R!
Ben! ! (I want to have a look)= ((Ben points to the video recorder))!
G! Julia =No (.) Ben= ((shakes her head)) Y! Oma! ! =Ben (.) come here!HI! ! ! (0.5)!HH!HO!
Julia! ! You can have a look later love (.) I’ll show it to you ((Ben begins to walk back towards the table))!
HS! Ben! ! ((hops back on his chair)) ( )!HJ! Oma! ! Just sit the[re]!HU! Julia! ! [No] more Thomasina (.) put the lid on!$
The second extract begins 4.34 minutes into the mealtime. Ben having just
finished his meal moves towards the video camera. Initially noticed by Oma, as she
shifts her gaze from her meal towards Ben. She summonses Ben “Here Ben (.)” (line
5) and then inquires “where you going” (line 5). Ben provides an account of why he
is going towards the camera as he tells Oma “I want to have a look” (line 6). In
pointing towards the video-camera he provides the location in response to Oma’s
inquiry as to where he was going. Latching Ben’s reply to Oma, Julia directs Ben “no
(.) Ben” (line 8) and Oma directs him to come back to the table. Ben complies with
the directives and comes back to the table. Julia informs Ben that he can have a look
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RR!
later. This small description shows Ben’s orientation to, and interest in the video and
how the adults manage his wanting to look at the video-camera. While the video-
camera is of interest to the child, it is positioned by the adult as “out of bounds”
during the recording time, however, it is available for looking at following the
recording.
=2#%&'#*G1J1*
106 Adele Ah [Ben (.) 107 108
Julia [Just you [and me] ((looking at and talking to T – T is looking at J))
109 110 111
Adele [Ben l]ook at (.) look in the window ((leaning across towards B and pointing towards the camera))
112 Thom °me:°= 113 Julia =We were [the special girl]s 114 ? [(haircut) me:] 115 116 117 118
Adele [window over] there See the window there (.) if you look ya should see the window into the photo (.)" see the window there((Adele pointing towards the window))
Figure 4.1. Oma now looking at the video camera.
"((Oma now looking at the video-camera))
119 120
Oma Cn (.)Can you (split) (.) >what’s in the window Adele< ((looking at Adele – Julia looking at camera))
Figure 4.2. Julia and Thomasina also now looking at the video camera.
((Julia and Thomasina also now looking at the video-camera))
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RG!
121 122
(4.0) ((raises her hand and uses her thumb to point behind her towards Julia and Thomasina))
123 124
Adele Look in the window (.)in the glass [there see the] glass=
125 126
Oma [Do you want more toast Adele]
127 128 129
Ben =I just !CAN’T SEE:: (.) #them((looking towards the camera))
130 131
Adele >See the !glass< (.) in the !window (.) see the window there with the glass on it
132 Ben #ye::s Ar::de:l 133 Adele? (well that’s just) 134 Julia That’s the reflection Ben 135 Thom ((fingers in mouth and making a soft humming
sound)) 136 (1.0) 137 Julia That’s the reflection of the little movie 138 (1.8) ((J is eating)) 139 Thom (I’m not [mum ]) 140 Julia [That]we’re making 141 (2.6) 142 Thom Mum ((begins to crawl up from the seat)) 143 144
Ben ( what if I’m) ((Ben moves from seat and stands very close to the wall while still looking at the camera))
145 146
Thom (I want)Some more toast mum ((standing on the chair and leaning forward))
147 Ben I’m [not there 148 Julia [Do you want some more toast 149 Thom yeah 150 Ben I’m [not 151 Oma [Oma “ll make some 152 Ben I’m 153 Julia Oma “ll put some 154 155
Ben Mum I’m not there [I’m not there and " and you’re] still there ((standing close to the wall))
Figure 4.3. Ben against the wall – Julia gesturing to come back.
((" Ben against the wall – Julia gesturing to come back))
156 Oma [Do you want some more toast Adele]
157 Adele No thanks $
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! RY!
The third extract begins 6.28 minutes into the mealtime. It shows how an adult
not only orients to the video-camera, but also points out to another member that the
members’ image is appearing on the small fold out screen on the video camera. Over
a series of turns prior to this directing of Ben’s gaze towards the video recorder,
Adele’s gaze was towards the video camera. Beginning line 106, Adele summonses
Ben’s attention and then directs him “[Ben l]ook at (.) look in the window” (line
109). Ben complies and directs his gaze towards the video-camera. While Oma is not
directed to “look”, she too orients to the video-camera and then proffers a question
“Cn (.)Can you (split) (.) >what’s in the window Adele<“ (line 119). In gesturing
towards Julia, Adele tells Oma that Julia is in the window. Adele continues to direct
Ben’s attention towards the camera though he complains “=I just !CAN’T SEE:: (.)
#them” (line 128)
As the images inserted into the transcript show, Julia oriented towards the
video-camera (line 120). She accounts for the presence of the members’ images on
the small fold out screen on the video-camera as she explains “That’s the reflection
Ben (1.) That’s the reflection of the little movie (1.8) [That] we’re making” (lines
135 – 138). Maintaining his gaze on the video-camera, Ben moves from the table and
stands with his back against the wall and announces “I’m [not there I’m [not I’m
Mum I’m not there” (lines 147 – 154). His mother orients to his announcement as
she looks towards him and then using her finger gestures to him to return to the table.
His actions show that he notices the way in which the camera captures only part of
the mealtime space. It also alerted me to how it might be possible for members
deliberately to move out of the video range so they are not captured. The next section
considers issues of reliability and validity.
+A213Q121@E$34<$c321<1@E$
Reliability and validity are important considerations when designing and
implementing a study (Perakyla, 1997; Perakyla, 2004). Reliability is concerned with
the consistency of the study and its findings. In this study, reliability was ensured
with the collection of quality “raw material” (Perakyla, 1997, p. 203), using quality
video-tapes and equipment that captured high quality interactions with a high quality
of sound and sufficient data for analysis (Perakyla, 2004). The careful transcription
of the recordings (Perakyla, 1997) using a recognized transcription system further
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! GI!
supported the reliability of the data. As discussed in an earlier section of this chapter,
the transcription of recorded data adopted in this study used the conventions
originally developed by Gail Jefferson (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995). To
develop my skills in using the transcription conventions outlined by Gail Jefferson
(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995), I engaged in training sessions, utilised
online tutorials and was monitored by experienced transcribers (Perakyla, 1997). The
provision of a “highly detailed transcript” (Perakyla, 1997, p. 203) with the analysis
further supports reliability. In particular, the accuracy of my transcription and
analysis was checked with my supervisors on a regular basis and was scrutinised
during both conference presentations and during presentations at the Brisbane
Transcript Analysis Group (TAG). The amalgam of these strategies has promoted
reliability of data and analysis.
Validity is concerned with the “interpretation of observations” (Perakyla, 1997,
p. 207). The rigorous requirement for use of empirical data by conversation analysts
to explicate how social action is accomplished in situ ensures “transparency of
analytic claims” (Perakyla, 1997, p. 208), thus contributing to the validity of any
claims. Validity is addressed also through an analysis of next turn (Perakyla, 1997,
2004). As Sacks et al. (1974) note, “but while understanding of other turn’s talk are
displayed to co-participants, they are available as well to professional analysts, who
are thereby afforded a proof criterion …for analysis of what a turn’s talk is occupied
with” (p. 729). The information available to co-participants through “next turn” is
also available to the conversation analyst, thus “next turn” acts as a “proof
procedure” (Perakyla, 1997, p. 209) for both researchers and co-participants. Other
means of validation outlined by Perakyla (1997) include deviant case analysis, an
examination of the institutional character of interaction, and the generalisabilty of
findings. Perakyla (2004) raises the question about the generalisabiity of findings
because of the “relatively small database” (p. 295) from which CA works. Some
practices from “ordinary conversations” (Perakyla, 2004, p. 296) such as turn taking
and adjacency pairs maybe generalisable, whereas, practices such as the openings of
telephone calls may vary in different cultures. The concept of “possibility” is
important when considering generalisability. This means that the findings of a study
are generalizable only so far as they provide a description of practices such as turn
taking, turn design and so on. Furthermore, if “the occurrence happened once, it is
!
=#)B4$,!J!]h)(<(<?!)''$..!4&!4#$!1$)*4(1$!4):*$_Q!"#$!0($*-!M&,C! GH!
possible that it could happen again” (Danby, 1998, p. 93). The analysis provided in
this thesis explicates “how these practices are made possible through the very details
of the participants’ action” (Perakyla, 2004, p. 297).
'93:@A=$%6GG3=E$
This chapter has outlined the research design for this study, providing details of
the stages in data collection and data analysis. Ethical considerations associated with
this study also have been discussed. The way in which members oriented to the
camera and to the absent researcher are provided, thus, highlighting particular issues
of doing field work with families.
Three episodes of mealtimes have been selected from the data corpus and are
presented for analysis in the following chapters, Chapters 5, 6, and 7.
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GS!
Chapter 5 $
.62@1:3=@E$!32T$,6=14D$-3G12E$5=A3TN37@$
This chapter is the first of three data chapters in the thesis. Each chapter
explores extended sequences of talk (Psathas, 1992) referred to variously as “long
sequences of talk” (Sacks, 1995, p. 355), “single episodes” (Schegloff, 1987b,
p. 101) and “single case analysis” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998, p. 121). Extended
sequences usually involve four or more turns that represent “complex systems of
action” or “whole units” (Psathas, 1992, p. 99) produced by the members. Analysis
of an extended sequence is concerned with how the members enter into the talk, with
topical moves to exit the sequence and with the “internal structure” (Psathas, 1992,
p. 100) of the activity. Thus, the focus of analysis of extended sequences involves
explicating the “interactional detail in the ongoing production of singular sequences
in talk-in-interaction” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998, p. 120). This approach enables
everyday ordinary social life, such as family mealtime, to be examined to see how it
is constructed and organised and to observe what social action is accomplished by
the members (Schegloff, 1987b).
Driven by Sacks’ notion of “unmotivated examination” (Sacks, 1984a, p. 27)
and Francis and Hester’s suggestions (2004) for approaching an ethnomethodological
study, noticing something of interest in the data guided the selection of episodes
selected for analysis. For example, the data selected for inclusion in Chapter 7 was
selected following continued revisiting of the data during the transcription process.
This revisiting provoked an interest in how Margot, the child, accomplished a turn at
talk and introduced a specific topic of talk. In particular, I noticed how Margot used
the talk of adults as a resource to initiate her own talk and interaction with the other
family members. This noticing coincided with my engagement with literature
concerned with the restricted speaking rights of children as conversationalists (Sacks,
1995; Speier, 1976). What I was noticing provoked a questioning of the notion of
“children’s restricted rights” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 265) and I was driven to
explicate the methods used by the child to accomplish turns at talk.
This first data chapter explores two extended sequences of talk that occur
during breakfast within a multiparty family setting. Also within multiparty settings,
both the second and third data chapters examine an extended sequence of mealtime
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GJ!
talk. Chapter 6 shows how members are mapped to a locally produced membership
categorization device. The final data chapter, Chapter 7 highlights how members use
topic as an interactional resource to achieve talk with another family member.
Investigating breakfast as a setting for multiparty talk raises questions about
how members accomplish talk with co-present family members. Is the talk for
everyone, or do individual members nominate the recipient of their turn and, in so
doing, choose that person to be the next speaker? Do members self select and
therefore, challenge rules in relation to speaker selection? In addition, are there times
when more than one member initiates talk with a recipient and how does the
nominated recipient of the turns manage this vying for a response from them? Are
there times when a member addresses the co-located members as a kind of ensemble
and how is this accomplished? How do the members manage talk in relation to the
practical activities of serving and eating food? Considering how “numbers matter”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 127) in relation to turns at talk points to the complexity of a
multiparty setting and the work members need to do to accomplish interaction within
the setting.
The family breakfast involves five family members engaged in talk and eating
as part of the business of doing a family breakfast. The co-present family members
eat their breakfast at the kitchen/dining table located adjacent to the kitchen. The
number of family members co-located for breakfast point to this context being a
multiparty setting (Sacks, 1995) and one that occasions a number of ways in which
talk among members can occur. For example, it is possible for talk to be just between
two members, for talk to encompass all members and for two conversations to occur
simultaneously. Thus, while the setting is multiparty, it does not necessarily mean
that all talk is multiparty. However, it does suggest that the potential for multiparty
talk is always a possibility. In this way, the “multipartiness” of this setting, a term
used here to describe co-membership of family members having breakfast, is
continually relevant as it influences how talk is accomplished and unfolds.
While the multiparty feature of this setting requires that participants manage
ways in which they can accomplish turns at talk with other members, the co-location
of the members as they eat their breakfast also suggests members may hear the talk
of other family members. So, how does the possibility of hearing the talk between
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GU!
other family members influence the talk? For example, do members “buy into” the
talk of other family members and how do they do this?
The chapter begins with an examination of the literature on multiparty talk,
introduces the family members and then proceeds to examine how talk in a
multiparty setting is organised. The analysis establishes the methods used by
members to cohort all members to say grace. Second, it establishes how members
accomplish speaker selection in a multiparty setting and, thus, bring about a move
from multiparty to talk with one other person. Third, it shows how members resume
talk that may have ceased and, finally, how one member manages multiple requests.
,AN1414D$.62@1:3=@E$!32T$
Multiparty talk is a “distinct phenomenon” and one that Sacks (1995) suggests
is not merely a “variant off two-party conversation” (Vol. 2, p. 523). It occurs when
three or more people are co-present and engaged in interaction, and has implications
for the “technical organization of talk” (Schegloff, 1995c, p. 31), such as for the
allocation of turn taking. As identified by Sacks (1995), the pattern of turn taking in
two-party conversation takes the form of “A-B Reduplicated” (p. 95). This “pattern
of alternation” (Schegloff, 1995c, p. 32) cannot be extrapolated to three or more
party conversations. Thus, the “formula for two-party conversations, ABAB” (Sacks,
1995, Vol. 2, p. 523) does not become “ABCABCABC” if there are three parties.
When considering multiparty talk, an important caveat with regard to
understanding the turn taking system described in the classic paper by Sacks,
Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) is that the distribution of turns refers to “parties
…composed of persons -- single persons” (Schegloff, 1995c, p. 33). Thus, as
Schegloff (1995c) notes, on some occasions members organise themselves so that
there are “fewer parties than there are persons” (p. 33) with the parties organised by
“virtue of interaction specific contingencies and conduct” (p. 33). Examples of
members organising themselves into two parties include “co-telling of a story, or
siding together in a disagreement” (Schegloff, 1995c, p. 33).
The organisation of members into two parties has been identified in classrooms
and play settings. Classrooms provide an example of where there are fewer parties
than there are persons. McHoul (1978) extrapolates a turn taking system within
teacher-class interaction, with the teacher often directing who can talk in the other
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GF!
party. Butler (2008), in her study of children’s play shows how members were
organised into two parties for “doing formal news”. In this play interaction, one child
was the teacher and the other children constituted the other party asked to share their
news (Butler, 2008).
"CK$4AM@$7:A3TA=$17$7A2A8@A<$14$G62@1:3=@E$@32T$
Given that the ABAB rule of turn taking does not apply in multiparty talk, a
number of interactional dilemmas arise for the members in terms of how to bid for
turns and how to gain and keep the floor, particularly when there is no chosen next
speaker. Sacks (1995) proposes a number of solutions to the problem of how next
speakers are selected in multiparty talk.
One solution to the matter of how next speaker is assigned is to nominate or
name the next speaker. Address terms used to identify the next speaker can include
personal names, terms of endearment and categorical terms such as coach (Lerner,
2003). While generally considered redundant in two-party talk, “addressing practices
can be employed in two-party conversation” (Lerner, 2003, p. 178), for example, in
political interviews (Rendle-Short, 2007) and in some adult-child interactions
(Wootton, 1981). However, when used in two-party talk, the address term generally
is not implicated in selecting who will speak next (Lerner, 2003).
In research on children’s use of the address terms “mummy” and “daddy”,
Wootton (1981) found that they usually occur in three positions. First, as a summons
where a stand-alone address term is delivered. Second, in utterance initial position
and, third, in final utterance position. In distinguishing between the summons and an
address term in initial position, Wootton (1981) notes that a summons is “the initial
turn of a three-turn sequence” (p. 143). For example:
Child: Mummy (Summons)
(1.3)
Mother: What (Answer informs summonser to go ahead –
this may be accomplished via gaze)
Child: I want a drink (Summonser proceeds)
As the example shows, a summons makes an answer conditionally relevant
with the answer informing the speaker that they can “go ahead and say what they
want to say” (Wootton, 1981, p. 143). Summonses also include courtesy phrases
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GR!
(excuse me, pardon me) and non-verbal actions and paralinguistic productions (hand
wave, throat clearing) (Schegloff, 1968, 2002). Given that summonsing checks
availability to go ahead, “attention is not presumed simply by virtue of the summons
item being delivered”. Thus, the absence of an answer which is often a “clearance
cue” (Schegloff, 2002, p. 336) such as “yeah” or “what” means the summoner is
“either unwilling or unavailable” to talk. In addition, it seems that a gap after the
summons is necessary to enable the summonsed person to answer. While not specific
to children, Lerner (2003) identified “two broad classes of use” of address terms with
the particular use implemented through the positioning of the address term. Address
terms can be pre-positioned, that is, prior to the sequence-initiating action or post-
positioned following the sequence-initiating action (Lerner, 2003).
Another solution to the problem identified by Sacks (1995) of who speaks next
is the use of particular “sequential-type utterances” (Vol. 2, p. 527). For example, A
may ask a question that does not name the person who should answer the question,
but B is the only person who can answer the question, in this way addressing is
accomplished “tacitly” (Lerner, 2003, p. 190) and thus contributes to the selection of
the next speaker.
In addition to naming the next participant and using tacit addressing, members
use gaze as a way of identifying who will talk next (Sacks et al., 1974). Gaze is
considered an “explicit form of addressing” (Lerner, 2003, p. 180). The use of gaze
as a method for selecting next speaker has implications both for the “gazed at”
speaker and for the co-participants. First, the gazed at participant must see the current
speaker’s gaze and orient to it and, second, the co-participants must see the mutual
gaze between the speaker and the recipient. The success of gaze as a method for
addressing co-participants requires an alertness of all members and the effectiveness
is perhaps vulnerable if members are engaged in another activity such as eating while
talking. For example, if a member has their head down cutting up food, they may be
unaware of the gaze of the current speaker. The concurrent use of gaze and the
“recipient reference (you)” (Lerner, 2003, p. 184) may bring about “co-participant
gaze shift thereby bringing speaker’s gaze direction into view” (Lerner, 2003, p. 184)
and, therefore, an awareness that they have been identified as the next speaker.
While not referring to sequence initiating actions (Lerner, 2003), Goodwin
(1979) has identified features of the talk that support the acquiring of the gaze of the
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GG!
recipient of the talk. These include “phrasal breaks, such as a restart or a pause”
(Goodwin, 1979, p. 106). As Goodwin shows, accomplishing the reciprocal gaze of a
recipient requires more than just gazing at them. It involves the precise control of the
turn, a knowledge of who the participant is and what they know, and is therefore a
“collaborative action of speaker and hearer” (Goodwin, 1979, p. 111).
In multiparty talk, while a particular action is accomplished such as when A
directs an utterance to B using methods such as address terms (Wootton, 1981;
Lerner, 2003), particular sequential-type utterances (Sacks, 1995), gaze (Lerner,
2003) and questioning, this same action may accomplish another action for C and D.
Sacks (1995) suggests that C and D are not simply overhearers, but rather they may
“perfectly well be the direct subject of some utterance” (Vol. 1, p. 532). This has
implications for turn taking. For example, if A directs an utterance to B, and C
answers, it may be that C “figured that he had some business in answering” (Sacks,
1995, Vol. 1, p. 532). This particular phenomenon can be accounted for in a number
of ways. First, Stivers and Robinson (2006) propose a “second-order” of organisation
that means that “interactants prioritise a preference for answers over a preference for
a response by the selected speaker” (Stivers & Robinson, 2006, p. 367), and, second,
when talk is produced by overhearers (Heritage, 1985).
While not discounting the preference for the selected speaker to respond with
an answer in question-answer adjacency pairs, Stivers and Robinson (2006)
identified three sequential environments where a non-selected recipient provided an
answer. First, “when selected next speakers fail to respond at the TRP” (Stivers &
Robinson, 2006, p. 380). This was observed in paediatric encounters where a gap
emerged after the question, the parent as the non-selected recipient answered because
the child did not provide an answer (Stivers, 2001). Second, when “selected next
speakers claim an inability to answer (Stivers & Robinson, 2006, p. 380). Third,
when “selected speakers vocally display difficulty in providing a definitive answer”
(Stivers & Robinson, 2006, p. 380). Furthermore, Lerner (n.d.) notes that “an
addressed sequence-initiating action can make relevant action by other participants”.
For example, the addressed recipient may be unavailable to respond, or sequence-
initiating actions such as compliments “can obligate other participants to produce a
type-matched sequence-initiating action” (Lerner, n.d., p. 40).
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! GY!
Sacks (1995) suggests that another feature of multiparty talk is a “lot of
interruptions” (Vol. 1, p. 527). That is, the next speaker starts before the current
speaker has completed his utterance, defined by Sacks (1995) as “recognisable
grammatical completion” (Vol. 1, p. 527). Sacks’ earlier work has been developed so
that what previously may have been referred to as a “recognisable grammatical
completion” (Vol. 1, p. 527) would be the possible completion of a turn
constructional unit, which is a “transition relevant place” (TRP) (Sacks et al., 1974).
According to the rules for turn-taking outlined in the class paper by Sacks et al.,
(1974), if the current speaker has not selected the next speaker, then “self-selection
for speakership may, but need not, be instituted” (p. 704). This is referred to as rule
1(b). This means that the person who self selects first at the TRP acquires the right to
talk (Sacks et al., 1974). While “overwhelmingly one party talks at a time” (Sacks et
al., 1974, p. 706) individual speakers may self select (or interrupt) or be selected as
next speaker (rule 1a) (Sacks et al., 1974) and begin their turn just prior to the
completion of the previous speaker’s turn causing some overlap of talk. This vying
for turns means that members who want to talk need to attend carefully to when an
utterance is nearing completion. Thus, if a member is not selected by another speaker
as next turn, and is not successful in taking a turn resulting from self selection, then it
is possible that they may not have a turn at talk in a multiparty setting.
"CK$G62@1:3=@E$8C4JA=73@1C47$DA@$@=347NC=GA<$14@C$@KC\:3=@E$
8C4JA=73@1C47$
While the previous discussion has focussed on how turns are accomplished in
multiparty talk, this section of the introduction explores a question identified by
Harvey Sacks (1995), that is, “how do a series of multiparty conversations get
transformed into two-party conversations?” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 129). Using the
example of married couples at a party, Sacks proposes a number of ways in which
this transformation occurs. First, he suggests that “physical proximity” (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 2, p. 130) supports the accomplishment of two-party talk. In the example
provided by Sacks (1995), the offer and subsequent provision of a drink at a party
provide the reason for moving to be in direct physical proximity with another person.
This movement accomplishes a kind of “peeling off into two-party conversations”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 130).
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YI!
The second method that Sacks (1995) suggests for multiparty talk to move to
two-party talk is that materials dropped into conversation are “picked up by someone
for later use” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 131). In exploring the way in which members
pick up materials dropped into conversation, Sacks (1995) gestures towards the
phenomenon of a kind of overhearing audience. However he does not make explicit
reference to an overhearing audience in his discussion about how materials are
picked up by someone for later use. Thus, while previous talk is not explicitly
directed towards the member who later picks it up, it provides evidence that the
member was listening to the previous talk and a resource to be picked up and used
later in interaction.
%A@@14D$@9A$%8A4A$34<$(4@=C<6814D$@9A$-3G12E$.AGQA=7$$
The following analysis examines sequences of talk from the Vanderloos family
(see Table 5.1), during a morning meal. The family members included in this
analysis include Mum (Julia), Henry, William (Will), Maximilian (Max), and
Benedict (Ben). Dad (Rupert) and Thomasina are not present at this time with Rupert
working in his office and Thomasina still in bed. Breakfast is eaten at a large table in
the dining room adjacent to the kitchen and separated by a serving bench.
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YH!
Table 5.1
Vanderloos Family Members’ Names and Ages
b3GA$ )DA$
! 3@1!ce@*()d! *
! N)-!cD@B$,4d! *
! \$<,2!! ! HI!2$),.!HI!1&<4#.!
! M(**()1!cM(**d! ! G!2$),.!J!1&<4#.!
! 3)A(1(*()<!c3)Ad! ! F!2$),.!R!1&<4#.!
! `$<$-('4!c`$<d! ! J!2$),.!R!1&<4#.!
! "#&1).(<)!! ! O!2$),.!G!1&<4#.!
The video recording of breakfast begins with the children (4 boys) seated at the
mealtime table. Will and Max are seated at one side of the table and Ben and Henry
are on the other side of the table. Will is looking at a book catalogue that he has
brought home from school. Ben is kneeling beside Henry looking at, and talking
about, another book catalogue. Looking at the book catalogues is part of the process
of selecting books that they would like to purchase from the catalogue that is referred
to as “bookclub”. During this time, Max eats from his cereal bowl.
The first section of this chapter establishes how the mother accomplishes the
move from multiparty talk to two-party talk and then the move to a “single social
unit” (Lerner, 1993, p. 218) during the speaking of grace. The second sequence
examines how members accomplish speaker selection within a multiparty setting and
also how co-located members contribute to the progressivity of the interaction. The
next section explicates how one of the boys gains and maintains the attention of his
brothers over a series of turns as a kind of “audience”. The final section of analysis
considers how turn design is sensitive to the occasion of having breakfast, with, for
example, how co-located members in a “continuing state of incipient talk” (Schegloff
& Sacks, 1973, p. 325) resume talk that may have lapsed and, how the physical
activities of breakfast influence both the design of the first pair part and the timing of
the second pair part.
#7@3Q217914D$3$8C9C=@$NC=$8C22A8@1JA$38@1C4F$%3E14D$D=38A$
The section begins as the kitchen door opens and Julia, the mother, enters the
room. Figure 5.1 shows the scene before Julia enters the room.
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YO!
!Figure 5.1. The boys before the mother enters the room.
=2#%&'#*K1H1$
Will 16 ((Julia enters the room)) You can’t eat yet. 17 (0.2) Julia 18
19 20
!Okay everybody jis’ say grace first. ((Julia stands at the end of the table Ben looks towards her and begins the sign of the cross))
Figure 5.2. Ben and Harry not ready.
Will 21 22
Fa[:ther the= ((commences to make the sign of the cross))
Julia 23 [°i-° Will 24 =[ ° son and the holy spirit ° ] ((commences to
make the sign of the cross)) Max 25
26 =[ ° son and the holy spirit ° ] ((commences to
make the sign of the cross)) Julia 27
28 29 30
[no:: jist !wait Will Be:n’s no]t ready. ((Julia places her hand up in the direction of Will as she names him and then moves her hand in the direction of Ben - Ben sits back onto his chair
Julia 32 33
In the name of the fa:ther [and the son, holy spirit amen.
Figure 5.3. Henry moving from the table during grace.
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YS!
All 34
35 [and the son, holy spirit amen. ((Henry gets up and
puts his booklet on top of the cupboard 37 (0.4) Julia 38 [Bless us our lord in these your gifts= Boys 39 [Bless us our lord in these your gifts= Julia 40 =which [through your goodness we are Boys 41 [your goodness we are Julia 42 =[about to receive through christ our lord ((Julia
moves her gaze and follows Henry as he moves)) Boys 43 [about to receive through christ our lord Julia 44 =[amen Boys 45 [amen. 46 (0.4) Julia 47 Name [of th’ father th’ son holy spirit Boys 48 [the fa::ther the son holy spirit M&W? 49 °Amen°. 50 (0.7) Julia 51
52 Henry (.) you can !still talk about that love it’s
jist that we are hav:ing (.) brekkie 53 (2.5) ((walks towards the kitchen)) Henry 54 I nee:d milk.
As Julia enters, Will turns briefly towards her and then turns back towards the
table, as he announces that “You can’t eat yet” (line 16). Will’s announcement
verbalises a mealtime rule that has become relevant due to the arrival of the mother
into the mealtime space. The announcement provides temporal information about
when eating is to occur, that is, eating will occur later, as opposed to now. In this
way, Will makes relevant a “settinged” (Sacks, 1995, p. 515) characteristic of the
activity of having breakfast. Will does not name the recipient of his turn and his gaze
is towards Ben and Henry. However, the “recipient indicator” (Lerner, 2003, p. 182)
“you” refers to Max because Max is the only member who is eating from his cereal
bowl. Thus, the design of Will’s turn and the current action of Max makes it clear
that Max is the recipient of Will’s turn. In this way, Will’s sequence-initiating action
limits eligibility for responding to a single recipient, Max, thus Max is “tacitly
addressed” (Lerner, 2003) by Will.
Following her arrival at the kitchen table, the mother announces grace. Grace is
a form of prayer that is often said before the commencement of a meal. As a prayer,
it involves particular “bodily postures, gestures” and the “regulation of voice”
(Capps & Ochs, 2002, p. 40). The physical actions associated with prayer are
identified as a means of positioning children’s “minds and souls” (Capps & Ochs,
2002, p. 40). Capps and Ochs (2002) suggest that prayer is an “interactional
achievement” that includes “transitioning into prayer, maintaining the requirements
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YJ!
of the genre, and transitioning out of the prayer into other forms of communication”
(p. 40).
Standing at one end of the table, Julia, the mother, utters the directive “Okay
everybody jis’ say grace first” (line 18). Her use of “okay” initiates a collective shift
from “prior to next positioned matter(s)” (Beach, 1993b, p. 326). In this way she
closes the prior activity in which the boys were engaged and moves towards the
initiation of a new one, saying grace. Her use of the collective pronoun “everybody”
which addresses the boys as an “association of participants” (Lerner, 1993, p. 228) is
“immediately relevant for the ongoing order” (Butler, 2008, p. 96) to accomplish the
saying of grace. Collective pronouns such as “everybody, everyone or you all” are
used by teachers as one way of cohorting children in classroom interactions (see
Payne, 1976; Payne & Hustler, 1980), as well as by children bringing together game
participants in imaginary play settings to begin a “collective activity” (Butler, 2008,
p. 96).
In organising the four children into a cohort of one for saying grace, the mother
facilitates a move from multiparty talk to a two-party interaction. There are now
fewer parties than there are members (Schegloff, 1995c). On this occasion, the two
parties are the mother (Julia) and the boys. The mother’s turn makes relevant a
collective response from the children “as an ensemble” (Lerner, 1993, p. 219) and in
this case, it is an orientation to her. She then proceeds to request that “everybody jis’
say grace first”. The use of “jis” (just) works to let the children know that they are
required to do this one “thing” prior to eating. In addition, in using first, the mother
makes it clear that the grace is completed prior to the commencement of eating. The
use of “first” by Julia also aligns with Will’s announcement that “you can’t eat yet”
(line 16). Moreover, the boys’ orientation to their mother is further enhanced by her
physical position at the end of the table
Following her directive that everyone say grace, Max looks towards Julia, and
both Will and Max begin the grace and commence the accompanying physical
actions using the sign of the cross (lines 24 and 25). As members of the cohort of
“everybody”, the actions of both Max and Will orient to Julia as someone who
announces and leads the grace and therefore complete her directive (line 18).
However, Ben is well out of his seat leaning over towards Henry, and both are
looking at the bookclub catalogue (see Figure 5.2). In this way, both Ben and Henry
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YU!
are neither physically in place for grace, or saying grace and thus grace does not
begin in unison. Julia commences the sign of the cross, a physical action that marks
the beginning of grace (Capps & Ochs, 2002). However, she ceases these actions and
then commences her turn (line 27) with “no::” and she then proceeds to name Will
and asks him to wait because Ben is not ready (line 27). This works to remind all
participants of how to engage in the activity of saying grace, as all members hear this
noticing to Ben. The mother does not actually spell out what “being ready” means in
this setting thus providing further evidence that all parties are to know what the
behaviour of being ready “looks” like. This is accompanied by the movement of both
her gaze and her hand in the direction of the children as she names them.
Julia’s turn accomplishes a number of actions. First, she has directed Will to
wait because Ben is not ready, and second, she has named Ben as the person who has
not yet assembled for grace. In so doing, Julia tacitly directs Ben to get ready for
grace, reflecting what Sacks (1995) notes, that is, Ben is not simply an overhearer,
rather, he is one of the “direct subjects” (Vol. 1, p. 532) of Julia’s turn. While Henry
is not named, his action in folding up the bookclub catalogue also suggests that he
recognises himself as a “direct subject” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 532) of Julia’s turn.
As a consequence, Ben sits back on his chair ready for grace and Henry folds up the
bookclub catalogue. Thus, all members display that they are ready for grace. Grace
marks the “official” beginning of the meal, includes all co-present family members,
including the mother, and therefore, brings together the family members before the
commencement of eating. Her actions have transitioned the boys from their activity
to grace (Capps & Ochs, 2002), thus reflecting the first stage in prayer.
With heads bowed, the children provide the physical action to accomplish their
orientation or readiness for grace that was requested previously (line 18). The
bowing of the head and making the sign of the cross were identified by Capps and
Ochs (2002) as some of the bodily positionings that signal a state of readiness of
grace. Also, with her head bowed, Julia’s physical stance suggests the solemness of
the occasion.
Julia leads the grace. She begins the grace slightly ahead of the boys and her
voice is noticeably louder than the voice of the other members. Thus, although not in
complete unison, a feature recorded in the transcript of classroom choral production
(Lerner, 1993), the actual saying of grace is accomplished chorally. Choralling
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YF!
involves “voicing the same words in the same way at the same time” (Lerner, 2002,
p. 226), suggesting the coordination of tempo and volume (Lerner, 1993). Thus, at
this time, all members become a “single social unit” (Lerner, 1993, p. 218). The
phenomenon of “conjoined participation” (Lerner, 1993, p. 218) to accomplish
choral production is observable in classrooms where a question from the teacher may
make a choral response from the whole class a relevant next turn. The choral
production of the grace differs from the classroom context in that, in grace, the
mother joins with the children as a member in the co-production.
During the beginning of the grace (lines 34-35), Henry stands and walks across
the room and puts away the bookclub catalogue on top of the cupboard. While the
other children and Julia continue with the grace in a unified manner Julia notices
Henry’s action. This is evidenced as she lifts her head (line 40), opens her eyes, and
then swivels her head to track Henry’s movements as he places the catalogue on the
cupboard. However, she doesn’t comment at this time on his departure from the table
or his failure to participate in the completion of the saying of grace. Rather, she
moves her gaze back towards the table and continues with the grace though she now
has her eyes open and her head is not lowered.
Grace is closed with “amen” (line 49). Thus, “amen” marks a shift from the
prayerful attitude (Capps & Ochs, 2002, p. 52) of grace to when the new activity of
eating can properly commence. In this way, amen is a ritualised way of marking the
end of something and the movement to a new activity. While both Will and Ben pick
up their spoons just prior to the completion of grace, eating does not commence until
the conclusion of grace and reflects the announcement made by Will about the rule
for eating (line 18).
Julia, in the first utterance following grace, addresses Henry with “Henry (.)
you can !still talk about that love it’s jist that we are hav:ing brekkie” (line 51). In
this way, she provides some explanation about when the bookclub catalogue can be
used. Thus, she moves her focus from the cohort of boys who completed the grace to
the one boy, Henry, who had deviated from the ritual of grace by putting away the
bookclub catalogue. In naming Henry as the recipient of her turn she facilitates a
shift from two-party talk where the addressed recipient was the cohort of boys to
two-person interaction. In the turn directed to Henry, she uses the term of
endearment “love”. Her comment to Henry makes a distinction related to his action,
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YR!
that is, he can talk about “that” which refers to the bookclub, but the priority at this
time is having “brekkie”. Julia’s action in not commenting on Henry’s non-
participation in the grace contrasts with her previous actions in relation to grace.
Prior to the commencement of the grace, she had established that grace was
“something” that all co-present members did together and she held the beginning of
grace until Ben was ready.
The analysis shows how the cohort necessary for accomplishing the choralling
of grace prior to the commencement of eating was accomplished. Central to the
accomplishment of cohorting of members was the use of the address term
“everybody” which brought all members into a collective social unit. In addition, the
absence of specific directions about how to accomplish the task of grace show how
some practices are routine, and, as such, do not require step by step instruction on
how to accomplish the action. However, failure of member/s to orient to the routine
practice necessitated reminders to be “ready”. Thus, the cohorting of members
accomplishes the move from where the boys were engaged in multiparty talk to two-
party talk. Once all members are brought into a collective social unit, the routine
practices associated with the saying of grace and the mother’s physical and verbal
actions move the members from two-party to a single unit as they choral grace.
(41@13@14D$@KC\:3=@E$@32T$
This section explicates some methods that members use to accomplish two-
party talking within a multiparty setting. This extract occurs soon after the first
extract and begins as Max walks towards the kitchen to put his bowl into the sink and
collect the eggs his mother offered him because he had finished his cereal.
=2#%&'#*K1I1*
Max 74 75
((Walks towards the kitchen)) Mm: (0.7) O::w ja:h .h a:h
76 (1.1) ((Max is in the kitchen)) Julia 77
78 Nice (.) eggs ((lifts eggs from the frying pan
into another dish)) 79
80 (1.6) ((Julia continues to lift the eggs from the
frying pan into another dish ((Max puts dish in sink))
Max 81 82 83
((begins talking as he walks towards his mother)) Mummy, this hu::rts mum ((using a whiney voices -standing beside Julia – looks up and Julia turns towards him))
Julia 84 I’ve got to give you your medicine °that’s right¿° 85 (3.2) Max 86 °(those are ho:t¿)° ((touches the eggs on the
plate))
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YG!
While walking towards the kitchen, Max begins making noises “Mm: (0.7)
O::w !a:h .h a:h” (lines 74-75). These noises that display some kind of pain and the
movement towards his mother appear to be used by Max as a bid for attention from
his mother. Julia momentarily looks up following his “o::w”, however, she does not
acknowledge Max. Rather, she continues to attend to the business of organising the
breakfast as she takes the eggs from the frying pan and places them in a dish. As she
lifts the eggs, she provides a positive assessment (Pomerantz, 1984a) of the eggs as
“nice eggs”, though her assessment of the eggs is not acknowledged by any family
member.
After placing his bowl in the sink, Max turns and walks towards his mother.
Using the address term “mummy” in utterance initial position (Wootton, 1981), he
addresses his mother and begins telling her that “this hurts mum” (lines 81- 82). The
use of the indexical term “this” is accompanied by the touching of his throat to
indicate to his mother that it is his throat that hurts. Therefore, the physical action of
touching his throat identifies the referent to which Max is referring. Thus, in this
turn, Max uses address terms in both utterance initial and final position (Wootton,
1981) and physical proximity (Sacks, 1995) to gain the attention of his mother. The
use of the second address term “mum” was used because following the address term
in initial position, his mother continued to maintain her gaze on the task of dealing
with the eggs, rather than direct her gaze to Max. In this way, Max’s use of the
address term in final position may be seen as a “last-ditch effort” (Lerner, 2003,
p. 186) to gain his mother’s attention. With Max now standing beside his mother, she
looks towards him as he uses the address term “mum” in final position and responds
“I’ve got to give you your medicine° that’s right¿°” (line 84). In responding to Max,
she acknowledges him, shows her existing knowledge of his illness and recalls that
she needs to give him his medicine.
=2#%&'#*K1J1*
87 (0.8) Henry 88
89 >Hey Max< what does the medicine taste like ((b
does not look towards H)) 90 (2.2) ((B maintains focus on the eggs in the bowl Julia 91
92 °Answer Henry;° ((uses her finger to gesture
towards H)) 93 (2.3) ((walks back to the table)) Ben 94 [ It ta:ste yuck ] ? 95 [( )]
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! YY!
96 (1.3) Max 97
98 $It it tastes li::ke$ ((sits back at the table -
all the boys are now looking at him)) 99 1.1 Will 100 !Funny "drink. ((looking towards Max)) (Ben) 101 Fun[ny milk ]. Julia 102 [!It’s nice] medi- it’s- Max 103 (Me/made) (.) °nf:° (.) i- $>fresh (mil’)/ (n) of a
cow<$ As a co-member at breakfast, Henry orients to the talk between Max and Julia
about Max’s medicine and summonses his brother with “hey Max” (line 88). His use
of the summons is important here because Max is not proximate to Henry. The
selection of the person to provide an answer to a question is very often a feature of
question design in multiparty talk (Stivers & Robinson, 2006). On being selected as
the next speaker, the nominated member has the “right and is obliged to take the next
turn to speak” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 704). In complying with this obligation, the
nominated speaker has two options, either they provide the answer or they provide a
non-answer (Stivers & Robinson, 2006). However, Max does not comply with his
obligations as the nominated speaker as he doesn’t acknowledge Henry or provide an
answer to the question. Rather, he maintains his gaze on the eggs that are in a tray on
the bench. Thus, while Henry has attempted to begin a two-party interaction with
Max, Max has not acknowledged his attempts.
While Max is the nominated next speaker by Henry, following a lengthy gap
(line 90), his mother orients to Max’s failure to provide an answer to Henry’s
question, and prompts Max to answer Henry (line 91). Her verbal prompting is
accompanied by the physical action of gesturing towards Henry. In intervening, Julia
directs Max to provide the second pair part of the adjacency pair initiated by Henry.
In this way, Julia makes salient that, in not answering, Max has not met his
obligations as addressee. In prompting Max to reply, Julia orients to two fundamental
features of preference in question-answer adjacency pairs. First, a preference for
“answers over non answers” and second, a “preference for selected speakers to
respond” (Stivers & Robinson, 2006, p. 367).
Following Julia’s prompt to answer Henry, Max commences moving towards
the table and there is a 2.3 second gap (line 93) while he walks to the table. The
lengthy gap and the pressure for an answer is an environment where non-selected
recipients respond by answering (Stivers, 2001). Max’s failure to respond at the TRP
is oriented to by Ben who proffers a candidate answer (Pomerantz, 1988) to Henry’s
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HII!
question about what the medicine tastes like (line 88), “It ta:stes yuck” (line 94),
demonstrating the preference for progressivity (Stivers & Robinson, 2006). Thus,
even though Julia has directed Max to provide an answer, Ben, as a ratified
participant, has joined in the talk about what the medicine tastes like.
Sacks (1995) suggests that, in a multiparty context, directly instructing
someone to say something is also in “some way instructing various other persons to
shut up for some period of time” (Vol. 1, p. 529). However, in this case, Ben has not
heard Julia’s directive to Henry as meaning that he needs to be quiet, but rather he
“figured that he had some business in answering” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 532)
because Max had failed to provide an answer. Ben’s answering reflects also
members’ preference for “answers over non answers” (Stivers & Robinson, 2006,
p. 367) and ensures the progressivity in the interaction. Thus, the lengthy gap
between the prompt by Julia and Max’s verbal action in answering Henry has
contributed to the movement from two-party to multiparty talk and has given Ben
entry into the conversation.
Now at the meal table and with the gaze of all his brothers on him, Max
commences to provide the answer to Henry’s question. The gaze of his siblings on
Max shows a shared expectation that he will provide an answer. He begins (line 97)
with “It it tastes li::ke” with “it” indexed to the medicine. The rising intonation and
the prosodic elongation of “like” help to build suspense though Max does not finish
the description of what the medicine tastes like. Following a 1.1 second gap (line 99),
both Will and then Ben provide candidate answers (Pomerantz, 1988) for what the
medicine might taste like (lines 100-101). In so doing, the boys may have oriented to
Max’s delayed response as due to a difficulty in finding a word (Goodwin &
Goodwin, 1986) and also as a display that he’s not straight forwardly going with
Ben’s description. Thus, the gaps (lines 93 and 99) are accessed by other members to
contribute to and progress the talk with all the boys now focussed on “what the
medicine tastes like”.
While still in the kitchen, Julia, the mother, self selects and proffers an
assessment, of what the medicine tastes like as she suggests that it is “!It’s nice]
medi- it’s” (line 102). This is the second assessment of the medicine and it is
“directly contrastive with the prior evaluation” (Pomerantz, 1984a, p. 74) of the
medicine by Ben. Her assessment was not acknowledged by the boys, rather the boys
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIH!
remain focussed on Max. However, her turn shows her awareness of what is
happening at the breakfast table and may have been an attempt to participate in the
mealtime talk. Thus, while the initial question about what the medicine tasted like
was directed to Max, Max still has not provided a description of what the medicine
tastes like, though he did begin a turn (line 97). Max’s description of what the
medicine tastes like will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.
Analysis of this section has explicated some of the methods used by members
to accomplish speaker selection in a multiparty setting. The methods outlined include
the use of complaining noises that are used as a way of summonsing the intended
recipient of their turn. In addition, members used address terms, physical proximity
and gaze to indicate the recipient of their turn. While members drew on the methods
identified to select next speaker, within a co-located multiparty setting, other
members as “ratified participants” (Goffman, 1981) who, while not being identified
as the next speaker can have the potential to influence the trajectory of the talk at all
times. As shown in the analysis, non-selected members self-selected and provided
answers to questions when no answer was forthcoming from the nominated speaker.
In this way, members ensured the progressivity of the interaction. On another
occasion, when no answer was provided by the nominated member, a member was
directed to answer. In this way, another member plays a part in securing the
progressivity of the interaction by directing the nominated speaker answer.
!3T14D$8A4@=A$7@3DA$$
Following on from the previous extract, this section shows the methods Max
uses to take the “floor” and maintain the attention of his brothers over a series of
turns.
=2#%&'#*K1G1*
Will 100 jFunny kdrink. ((looking towards Max)) (Ben) 101 Fun[ny milk ]. Julia 102 [jIt’s nice] medi- it’s- Max 103 (Me/made) (.) °nf:° (.) i- $>fresh (mil’)/(n) of a
cow<$ Will 104
105 (1.3)((Will pulls a face and raises his hands to
the side of his face)) Will 106 EUG [HH YUCK Henr? 107 [EUGH [what’s this?) ((Julia looks towards
the boys and smiles)) Max 108
109 [hih hih[hih [hihih khih hih hih KIHH
hih (n the cow[ just dies) ] Henry 110 $ [You haven’t !tasted] that. !
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIO!
Max’s gaze commences on Henry and then moves between the assembled
boys. Will ceases to eat while waiting for Max’s description about the medicine.
With a smiley voice, Max suggests that the medicine is “(Me/made) (.) °nf:° (.) i-
$>fresh (mil’)/ (n) of a cow< $” (line 103), with the part of the cow to which Max is
referring difficult to hear. The fastening and slurring of Max’s speech accompanied
by a smiley voice adds to building the grossness of his description. Gail Jefferson
suggests a number of reasons for slurring speech. First, slurring words that may be
classified as obscenities exhibits a “certain loyalty to the proprieties” (Jefferson,
1983, p. 6) in not quite saying the words. Second, when slurring and laughter are
combined, it is not because of a reluctance to say something, as is the case with
obscenities, but is a “consequence of the delight one is taking in the saying”
(Jefferson, 1983, p. 6). Thus, the slurring and fastening accomplishes both the joy
and the grossness in what he is telling his brothers and accomplishes keeping the
focus on his telling.
Max’s description of the medicine results in Will screwing up his face, the
drawing of his hands beside his face and the tensing up of his body suggesting a kind
of cringe at what Will is describing (line 104). In this way, Will acknowledges
receipt of Max’s description of as gross. Will’s facial expression and tensing up of
the body is followed by an animated “EUG[HH YUCK” (line 106) from Will and
“[EUGH (what’s that?)” (line 107) from Henry, with both responses reflecting the
grossness of Max’s description. At this point, Julia looks up and smiles, orienting to
the humour shared between the boys. In partial overlap with Henry, Max begins
laughing. His laughter (line 108) shows his personal enjoyment in the gross
description he has shared with the boys and their response to his description. In
addition, his laughter is an invitation for the other boys to join in the laughter. Given
that the recipients of the laughter do not join in at this time, Max appears to pursue
laughter (Jefferson, 1979) as he adds the continuer “n” (an) (line 109) and then
returns to telling (Jefferson, Sacks & Schegloff, 1987). However, the return to telling
is overlapped with Henry’s subsequent turn (line 110). While Max pursues laughter
(lines 108-109), Henry does not respond with laughter, rather Henry challenges
Max’s claims thus taking the talk back to “topical issues” (Jefferson, 1979, p. 84)
about the medicine.
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIS!
While Max had been prompted by his mother to answer Henry, Max’s actions
in describing the medicine resemble those of a joker drawing in an audience. This is
evidenced through the way he directs his turn to all the boys as a kind of assembled
audience. For example, the movement of his gaze encompasses all the boys
assembled at the table, his laughter and his pursuit of laughter accomplish a bringing
together of the members as a kind of assembled audience. In addition, he
accomplishes the building of suspense as the other boys wait for what might be
referred to as the “punchline” of his joke. This is achieved through both the
elongation and shortening of words and the number of gaps and pauses (lines 93, 96,
99) prior to providing the description he had been prompted to provide by this
mother. The drawing together of the boys (Will and Henry) as a kind of audience
sharing in the grossness of the description is evident in the overlapped expressions of
revulsion (lines 106, 107) at Max’s description.
As indicated in the preceding analysis Max’s methods for accomplishing and
maintaining the attention of boys include the sweeping movement of his gaze to
encompass all members, prosodic features such as the shortening and elongation of
words and gaps and pauses. In addition, his verbal and physical actions have not only
assembled the boys as a kind of audience, but also ensured the continuity of their
attention over a series of turns.
!6=4$<A71D4$34<$7:A3TA=$7A2A8@1C4F$)6<1A48A$Q=A3T7$6:;$=A\NC=G7$34<$
Q=A3T7$6:$
Following from the previous extract, this section shows how the movement
from two-party (assembled audience) to two-party (person to person) is
accomplished. Central to this analysis is speaker self selection and turn design.
=2#%&'#*K1K1*
Henr? 107 [EUGH [what’s this?) ((Julia looks towards the boys and smiles))
Max 108 109
[hih hih[hih [hihih khih hih hih KIHH hih (n the cow[ just dies) ]
Henry 110 $ [You haven’t !tasted] that. 111 (0.3) Will 112 n the cow just di:edz: °(he said)°. 113 (1.3) Henry 114 You haven’t even !ta:sted (.) (*that*) Max 115 $.hYes I (h)have$ 116 (1.3) Henry 117 Whe:[n¿ Max 118 [It was: yuck as:. 119 (2.9)
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIJ!
Max 120 121 122
(I’ve been at work) and it tasted li::ke (0.5) Buzz Lightyea:r (.) [strawberry milk¿ ((Julia looks towards the table))
Julia 123 [(Willie have ic-) Henry 124
125 ( flavoured) mhih hih ((J commences to walk
towards the table)) Max 127 ih !hih [hih hih hih Henry 128
129 [(he- he had) strawberry (milkshake)
((deep husky voice – J pushes in Max’s chair)) 130 (0.3) Julia 131
132 Now- (.) Henry what did you wanna to get from
that bookclub 133 (0.3) !
Henry, the person who posed the question about what the medicine tastes like
(line 88) challenges Max’s claims when he asserts that “you haven’t tasted that” (line
110) with that indexed to the “fresh (mil’)/(n) of a cow” (line 103). Henry’s use of
“you” as a known recipient indicator (Lerner, 2003, p. 192) and his gaze towards
Max make it clear that he is issuing the challenge to Max to validate his claim. In so
doing, Max is selected as next speaker and is required to answer Henry’s claims.
Furthermore, in self-selecting and directing his challenge to Max, Henry’s action
breaks up the assembled audience established in the previous extract.
Following the completion of Henry’s overlapped turn (line 110) and a gap of
0.3 seconds (line 111), Will, with his gaze on Henry begins a turn. Will’s turn “n the
cow just di:edz: °(he said )°.” (line 111) recycles part of Max’s prior turn where Max
had provided extra information about the cow with “n the cow just di:edz: °( )°.”
(line 109). In recycling the part of Max’s turn that was in overlap with Henry’s first
challenge to Max, Will tells Henry that it is not just the milk of any cow that Max
tasted, but the milk of a dead cow. Thus, Will accounts for the possibility that Henry
did not hear the overlap of Max’s turn. Will’s action shows how in a multiparty
setting repair may be carried out by a number of members. In this instance, the repair
was undertaken by someone other than the person whose turn was impaired. Will’s
orientation to the ongoing talk and his willingness to buy into the talk and sort out
the trouble in the talk is highlighted. Thus, even though the members appear to be
doing some activity, such as eating, they also are alert to what is happening in the
mealtime talk and monitor for times when they need to attend. In addition, Will’s
turn sequentially deletes the relevance of Henry’s turn and invites Henry to respond
to Max’s extension of his turn (line 109).
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIU!
During the 1.3 second gap (line 113), Will maintains his gaze on Henry as if
waiting for a response. When Henry does respond it is directed to Max as he
reasserts and upgrades his challenge claiming that Max hasn’t even tasted “that”
referring to the fresh milk of a dead cow. Here the word “even” works to challenge
the truth or validity of Max’s claim, a claim that is rebutted by Max with a smiling
tone and laughter particles “Yes I (h) have” (line 115). Henry continues to challenge
Max’s claims with “when” which requires that Max justify his claim and provide
temporal information about when he tasted the fresh milk of the cow. However, Max
does not provide a type consistent response in the subsequent turn, but instead, in
overlap with Henry, he describes the taste as “yuck as” which is an extension of his
previous turn (line 115). Following a 2.9 second silence during which time members
are eating, Max, with a wide smile on his face recommences telling what the
medicine tastes like. In addition, Max provides an answer to the question Henry
posed (line 117) as he locates his tasting “at work”. This possibly links to being on
their cattle property. As discussed in relation to Max’s previous description of what
the medicine tastes like, again Max elongates “li::ke” and pauses (0.5 seconds) prior
to describing the medicine as tasting like Buzz Lightyea:r (.) [strawberry milk¿ (lines
120-121). In this way, he builds the “theatrics” of his telling and invites laughter. As
previously (line103), Max moves his gaze between the assembled boys and in this
way he orients to them as a kind of assembled audience. Both Henry and Will’s gaze
is on Max as he describes the medicine. Affiliative laughter follows as both Henry
and Max laugh (lines 124, 127), and Henry repeats part of Max’s turn however, Ben
continues to eat his cereal.
In the talk and actions that follow Max’s continued description of what the
medicine tastes like, the mother acts to shift the children’s talk away from the talk
about the medicine. As Max lists his last suggestion about what the medicine might
taste like (line 121), Julia looks towards the table (lines 121-122) and then in overlap
with Max, summons Willie (line 123) and begins to ask a question. Julia’s question
is not acknowledged by Will. Following her unsuccessful attempt to gain Will’s
attention, Julia moves towards the table and pushes Max’s chair into the table. Her
move to be near the table reflects Sacks (1995) proposal that in multiparty settings
members use physical proximity to accomplish two-party talk. Now at the table Julia
addresses a question to Henry beginning “Now (.) Henry”. In so doing, she initiates
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIF!
two-party talk with Henry about what he wants to get from the bookclub. While only
addressing one child, Henry, the design of her question and her accompanying
physical actions work to end Max’s telling about what the medicine tastes like.
Max’s actions in ceasing telling reflect Sacks’ point that, in multiparty settings, while
A may be addressing B, that is not all that is occurring. “One has instead to work out
how it is that the various parties present are seeing what’s being done – not only
what’s done to B, but what’s being done to them” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 530).
As the analysis shows, both turn design and speaker selection were central to
the shifting social order that unfolded in this extract. This is evident in the movement
from two-party (audience and telling), back to two-person (person to person) and so
on. Speakers’ self-selection has played a pivotal role in the shifting membership of
the parties in the talk. Furthermore, as identified previously, the willingness of the
co-present members to buy into talk that is not directed to them has ensured both the
progressivity of the talk and contributed to the shifting membership of who is
involved in the talk.
+A76G14D$@32T$3QC6@$QCCT826Q$
This section shows how members’ talk is re-initiated and explicates the
methods members use to resume talk that has ceased. In this way, family members
could be said to be in a “continuing state of incipient talk” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973,
p. 325). Incipient talk is where “talk may proceed sporadically, in fits and starts,
separated by long silences” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 26) though the restarts in the
conversation are not characterised by formal openings or start ups as might be the
case in telephone conversation. A number of features of the setting are relevant in
relation to the cessation of talk with another member or members. First, as members
are co-located or “co-present” (Goffman, 1981) for the practical and talked activity
that accompanies having breakfast, there is the potential for talk to be resumed.
Second, breakfast, as a setting where the physical activity of serving and eating food
occurs, members may cease talking with someone as they eat their food, particularly
given that it is customary not to talk while you are eating. Third, as a multiparty
setting, it is possible that other family members may talk in what might be long
silences in talk between particular members.
Before beginning this section, it is relevant to provide a gloss of the earlier
sections of the breakfast. As discussed in the first section of this chapter, the children
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIR!
were assembled at the table looking at bookclub catalogues and discussing books
they would like to obtain. The arrival of the mother who announced and then lead
grace and the eating of breakfast cereal saw the suspension of this discussion about
bookclub. However, following the completion of the eating of his cereal, Will returns
to looking at the bookclub catalogue and discussing books that he would like to
order. This discussion is oriented to both by the other boys and by the mother. In this
way, the bookclub has been a relevant “incipient agenda” throughout the breakfast
meal.
The talk just prior to the following extract involves William identifying and
then telling his mother about a book he would like to get from the bookclub
catalogue. Julia orients to him and asks him about the cost of the book and what the
catalogue says about the book. Following William’s attempt to read the blurb about
the book, Julia, who had been preparing cups of tea moves to stand behind William
to read the description of the book he has identified in the catalogue. The description
of the book concludes with guidelines about the age appropriateness of the book.
While Julia is engaged in reading the description of the book to Will, the other boys
are eating their bacon and eggs. His brother, Max, buys into this talk about the age
appropriateness of the book, noting that he had bookclub and he was not the age
specified in the catalogue. While Julia moves back to continue preparing cups of tea,
Will poses questions about whether or not he has to pay for the book. The previous
talk about bookclub lapses (lines 2-10) with Julia now having resumed her position at
the end of the table and pouring and offering tea to Ben (line 3). During the lapse in
talk between Will and Julia, Will continues looking at the catalogues.
=2#%&'#*K1L1*
Max 1 It just means you were over five (.) but I wasn’t 2 (4.0) ((Julia preparing for tea)) Julia 3
4 Now Ben would you like a cup ov- ((Julia looks
towards Ben and Ben looks towards Julia)) 5 (1.6) ((J maintains her gaze on Ben)) Julia 6 °Ben B° 7 (1.2) Julia 8 you put too much in your mouth swee:tie boy 9
10 (5.8) ((Ben Shakes his head and Henry moves from
the table)) Will 11 That one ((Henry moves from his chair)) 12 (0.4) Will 13 I like tha::t one 14 (0.7) Henry 15
16 °Wh[ere’s Will’s one (mum)]° ((now standing beside
his mother))
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIG!
Will 17 [mum I like this ] star one !mum 18 (0.8) !
Will self-selects and resumes talk about the bookclub. He begins pointing to
the books in the bookclub catalogue and saying “that one (0.4) I like that one” (lines
11, 12, 13). Given that Will does not name the recipient/s of his talk or gaze towards
any family member, his turn potentially could inform all of the family members
about the books he likes in the catalogue. At this point, only Max orients to Will as
he moves towards him, and looks down at the catalogues. It seems that Will’s talk
may be a resuming of prior talk with his mother about the books he likes in
bookclub. Thus the absence of the address term in the design of his turn may be
accounted for because he is resuming talk following an “adjournment” (Schegloff &
Sacks, 1973, p. 325), rather than initiating a new topic of talk.
With his gaze now on his mother, Will begins a turn “mum I like this star one
!mum” (line 17). Will begins his turn with the address term “mum” in initial
utterance position (Wootton, 1981) followed by the telling about what he would like
from the bookclub. His mother, however, does not orient to the turn directed to her,
rather, she maintains her focus on pouring the cups of tea. He concludes his turn with
“mum” in final utterance position (Wootton, 1981). The repeat of the address term in
final position occurs because he does not receive a verbal or non-verbal response
from Julia. Schegloff (1987, p. 71) notes how “talk is produced bit by bit” and the
“projected shape may be modified” by the speaker. Thus, in adding the additional
address term in final position, Will has modified his talk to gain his mother’s
attention and to try again to solicit a next turn from his mother (Wootton, 1981).
However, even though he has used the address term in both initial and final position
(Wootton, 1981), his mother has not oriented to him with a response. Rather, she
continues with the business of getting cups of tea.
Will’s attempts to tell his mother about the item he wants from the bookclub
are overlapped with a quietly spoken request from Henry that also is directed to his
mother (line 15). Therefore, there are two children directing talk to their mother.
However, she doesn’t orient to either Will or Henry straight away, rather, she
finishes pouring the tea, puts the pot down and then provides a response to Will. As
her response shows (lines 23-25), while not physically orienting to Will or
acknowledging his attempts to gain her attention, she was attending to his talk.
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HIY!
While Henry’s turn commenced slightly before Will’s turn and Henry is
standing beside his mother when he directs his question to his mother, she does not
respond to him. Thus, on this occasion, “physical proximity” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1,
p. 130) with the person with whom you want to engage or beginning first has not
supported the accomplishment of two-party talk with the nominated recipient. This
may be because Will’s turn finished last and unlike Will who had a number of
attempts to solicit his mother’s attention, Henry, on this occasion, does not re-attempt
gaining his mother’s attention. Instead Henry moves off towards the kitchen. In
addition, Will’s talk is a resuming of just prior talk with his mother about the
bookclub.
Following a gap of 0.8 seconds, during which time Julia continues to pour cups
of tea, and both Will and Max are focussed on the bookclub catalogue, Will begins
another turn with the address term mummy (line 19). His use of “mummy” works as
a kind of upgrade from the address term “mum” given that the address term “mum”
was unsuccessful in achieving a response from his mother. Will’s use of an address
term in initial position following no response from his mother is a feature of
children’s use of address terms (Wootton, 1981). Wootton (1981) notes that, when
this occurs, the address term in initial position is followed by a repeat of the prior
turn. This is evidenced in Will’s turn (line 19) where he repeats his prior turn
following the address term. Furthermore, the recycling or repeat of “I like this star
one” occurs because of the overlapping of Henry’s turn (line 15) and Will’s turn (line
17). Thus, turn design is sensitive to the overlapping turns between members and the
engagement of the recipient of the turn, mum, in a physical activity, that is, pouring
tea and a lack of display of attention from his mother.
=2#%&'#*K1M1*
Will 17 [mum I like this ] star one !mum 18 (0.8) Will 19
20 [mummy] I like this star one (.) but I >don’t know
if I’ll get it< Henry 21 [°(Will’s )°] 22 (0.5) Julia 23
24 25
°You° All you >got to do< is put a circle (.) you won’t be getting (.) ev-(.) you you can get some of your po:cket money to bu:y some
26 (0.6) Will 27 But I’m not getting everyth[°ing°] !
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HHI!
The second TCU in Will’s turn “but I >don’t know if I’ll get it” (lines 19, 20)
links back to prior talk between Will and his mother. In the previous talk (not shown
in this transcript) Will asked if he had to pay for the books. In providing her
response, his mother did not provide a definitive answer. Rather, she “hedged” when
she told him “well we’ll see (.) Just put a star on the ones you like”. Therefore, her
use of “we’ll see” left the question open for another time. While Will’s use of the of
the personal pronoun “I” in but I >don’t know if I’ll get it” (lines 19, 20) suggests
that Will is taking on the role of decision maker about what he is getting from the
bookclub, his use of “but” gestures towards a kind of deference to his mother as the
person who makes such decisions. Thus, Will’s question seems to “test the waters” to
see if his mother has made a final decision about payment details for purchasing the
book, a feature described by Pomerantz (1980) as a “fishing device” (p. 186).
In responding to Will’s “testing of the waters”, Julia momentarily gazes
towards Will and then refocuses back to pouring cups of tea. With her gaze on the
task of pouring cups of tea, Julia suggests to Will that he can put a circle on the ones
he likes, though the words “ones you like” are not explicitly stated by Julia, rather,
they are indexed to his turn. In this way, while providing him with something he can
do, she continues to suspend the provision of a definitive answer to his “fishing”.
Beginning her next TCU with “you won’t be getting (.) ev- (.)”, however, she cuts
off this TCU. Following a micropause, Julia agrees in part, to what Will was fishing
for as she informs him that he can use his pocket money to buy some. In this way,
she has provided him with the answer he was “fishing” for. In response to Julia, Will
repeats part of Julia’s turn “But I’m not getting everyth°ing°”. Given that this is the
TCU she did not complete, in repeating it, he shows his understanding. In addition,
given his use of the first person pronoun “I” he is now taking charge of the books he
will purchase with his pocket money. He does not make any further appeals to his
mother about the books he would like from the bookclub.
As this sequence of talk shows that during the “occasion” of having breakfast
members are in a “continuing state of incipient talk” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973,
p. 325), thus there is the ongoing possibility that talk can occur at any moment
(Szymanski, 1999). Additionally, given the multiparty context of this breakfast,
members may be in a continuing state of incipient talk with more than one member.
Furthermore, both turn design of the FPP and the SPP of the turn are shaped by
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HHH!
members’ engagement with the physical activity of doing breakfast. In this way, SPP
may be delayed while a physical activity associated with breakfast is completed. For
example, talk is suspended while people are eating or occupied. For example, Julia,
does not acknowledge all turns addressed to her while she pours the tea for breakfast.
In addition, turn design reflects the vying to talk with the mother with the use of
address terms by the children as they nominate the mother as the recipient of their
turn. This may be because of the central role she plays in providing and managing
the arrangements for breakfast.
.343D14D$G62@1:2A$P=Ad6A7@7R$34<$@9A$:238AGA4@$CN$@9A$%aa$$
Following on from the previous extract, this section shows how the mother,
who plays a central role in breakfast, manages multiple turns directed to her.
=2#%&'#*K1N1*
Will 27 But I’m not getting everyth[°ing°] Julia 28
29 [Ben ] mums made you a
>cup of tea< love ((gaze on Ben)) ? (M) 30 Mum [(I )] Henry 31
32 [°Mum°]I’m havin some [eggs “n baco]n= ((H is
in the kitchen getting more food)) Julia 33
34 [want another one] ((gaze
briefly towards Ben)) Max 35 = mum can you give me a cup a tea ((whiney voice)) Julia 36
37 Just remember arhm: (.) daddys to come (.) and
Thomasina Julia 38 >!Here Max< ((passes Max his cup of tea)) Henry 39 (get what slipped down there ) !
Julia moves her attention to Ben who has started to move from the table (line
27), a move that is observed by Julia as she momentarily glances in his direction. She
then addresses Ben using a pre-positioned address term and then tells him she has
made him a cup of tea “[Ben ] mums made you a >cup of tea< love” (lines 28-29).
Nominating Ben as the recipient of the offer of a cup of tea accomplishes a number
of actions. First, it offers Ben a cup of tea and, second, it shows Will that she has
finished with his request for bookclub. Thus, in a multiparty setting while a turn is
directed to one member it potentially accomplishes another action for other
members. This reflects Sacks (1995) proposition that in multiparty settings multiple
and varied actions can occur as a result of a turn intended for an identified recipient
of the turn.
Still slowly moving from his chair and holding his plate, Ben glances towards
his mother, thus acknowledging receipt of her offer, though there appears to be no
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HHO!
audible acceptance or decline of the offer. However, Julia maintains her gaze on Ben
suggesting that she is waiting for an answer from Ben. During the time while she
appears to be “waiting” for Ben to provide a response to her offer, other members
commence vying for her attention. For example, Henry announces to his mother that
he is having some bacon and eggs (line 31). The absence of an answer from Ben
during the “wait” results in a more direct offer of a cup of tea, a kind of prompt (line
33), necessary because of the absence of a response from Ben.
Standing at the kitchen bench and beginning to lift an egg from the dish, Henry
uses the address term “Mum” in utterance initial position and begins telling his
mother that he is going to have some eggs and bacon (line 31). This acts as a kind of
checking with his mother as to whether or not to proceed. This checking about the
bacon and eggs links back to prior talk where Henry claimed Will’s unwanted bacon
and eggs and to earlier talk where Henry asked “where’s Will’s one mum” (line 15).
The address term “°mum°” is spoken softly and is overlap with “I” (line 30) and is
difficult to hear because of other breakfast noise. However, the words eggs ’n bacon
are clearly audible. Following the word bacon, his mother orients to him very briefly
as she tilts her head slightly towards Henry. She then moves her gaze back to cups of
tea and then back to Henry as she replies “Just remember arhm: (.) daddys to come
(.) and Thomasina” (lines 36-37). Thus, Henry has been successful in gaining his
mother’s attention by means of her gaze, but he does not receive a verbal response
directly following his announcement (line 31).
Latching Henry’s announcement is a request from Max for a cup of tea “mum
can you give me a cup a tea” (line 35). His request appears to have been prompted by
Julia’s offer of a cup of tea to Ben (lines 28-29). This prompting is evidenced by
Max’s changing physical orientation from his brother (Will) towards his mother
following her offer to Ben of a cup of tea. In this way, Max’s co-presence and
capacity to hear ongoing talk is relevant here. His request is accompanied by a move
back towards his chair and his gaze towards his mother. As with Henry, Max uses the
address term “mum” in an utterance initial position prior to the request. While Julia
does not provide an answer immediately following Max’s request because she is
engaged in talk with Henry, she does complete Max’s request for a cup of tea as she
passes him the cup of tea. This is accompanied by “>!Here Max<” (line 38).
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HHS!
The announcement from Henry (line 31) and the request from Max (line 35)
follow each other and the mother attends to each request in the sequential order in
which the “requests” were made. However, while the verbal responses occurred
sequentially, examination of Julia’s physical actions show that while responding to
Henry she is simultaneously taking hold of a cup of tea and moving it towards Max.
In addition, Julia’s talk is in partial overlap with Henry’s “telling”, yet her
subsequent response shows her understanding of what Henry told her. In this way,
she is involved in talking and listening simultaneously.
This extract shows how one member, the mother, manages the latching of turns
directed to her, which require from her either verbal or physical action as the SPP.
This is managed as the mother provides a response to each member in the sequential
order in which the FPP were delivered. As in the previous section, turn design and
the placement of turns is sensitive to the occasion of having breakfast, particularly
the managing of both the physical action and the verbal action. In addition, it shows
how the multiparty co-presence, and the business of doing breakfast, is potentially
always relevant. Additionally, because of the vying for the attention of the mother,
the use of address terms to nominate the recipient of the turn is central to the turn
design by the children when addressing the mother.
'93:@A=$%6GG3=E$
Evident in the analysis is a kind of unravelling and remeshing of the layers or
threads of complexity of what might be considered a fairly ordinary, mundane
practice, that of having breakfast. This particular breakfast is a multiparty setting
where “numbers matter” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 127) in terms of how turns at talk
are accomplished. In addition, members are co-located over an extended period of
time. Co-location in close proximity means that members may overhear the talk of
other members. This means that it is possible that members may self-select as next
speaker at any time. In addition, co-location means that once talk is initiated, it may
lapse and then be reinitiated, and, in this way, members are thought of as in a
“continuing state of incipient talk” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 325). In this setting
breakfast involves routine familial practices, such as, the saying of grace, and the
sequential organisation of what occurs at particular times during the meal. For
example, grace is said before eating commences. Furthermore, breakfast occasions
both talked and physical activity. Each feature of the setting was relevant to how
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HHJ!
members went about the business of doing breakfast, such as, the cohorting of all
members to say grace, selecting next speaker to accomplish a move from multiparty
to two-party talk, the placement of the second pair part in adjacency pairs and the
managing of multiple requests to one member.
The choralling of grace, a routine practice preceding a family meal in this
family, required the cohorting of the four children as an ensemble. This was
accomplished with the use of okay that marked a move from “prior to next
positioned matter(s)” (Beach, 1993b, p. 326) followed by the collective pronoun
“everybody”. In this way, the members were transitioned from multiparty to two-
party talk. Additionally, the “routineness” of this practice, and the accompanying
verbal and physical actions of the mother, move the members from two-party to a
single unit as they choral grace. The physical actions include her posture and
gestures, such as, the sign of the cross.
The nomination of next speaker to accomplish two-party talk reflects Sacks’
proposition that “a lot of choosing of next parties goes on in multiparty conversation”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 527). Choosing next speaker was important in this setting
with a range of methods for accomplishing next speaker identified in the analysis.
These include the use of personal names and the categorical term, mum. Gaze also
was used by members as an explicit form of addressing, or was accompanied by the
use of personal names or categorical terms. Increasing the physical proximity with
the person with whom members wanted to interact was also identified as a method
accompanying speaker selection. Furthermore, directing a member to speak was
identified when the nominated speaker did not provide an answer, having previously
been nominated as next speaker.
While nomination of next speaker was explicated as a method used by
members, members self selected as next speaker even when another speaker was
nominated. This was particularly evident when the selected speaker failed to respond.
The action of self-selection ensured the progressivity of the talk and showed how the
co-presence of members who can hear the ongoing talk is potentially always
relevant.
The analysis also revealed how one of the children drew together his siblings to
“tell” a kind of funny joke and thus facilitates two-party talk. Rather than the use of
lexical methods such as the pronoun “everyone”, the use of sweeping movements of
!
=#)B4$,!U!3@*4(B),42!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!`,$)C/).4! HHU!
gaze to encompass all members, prosodic features, such as, the shortening and
elongation of words, gaps and pauses facilitated this drawing together of an audience
over a series of turns.
Analysis explicated the sensitivity of turn design to the “occasion” of having
breakfast. In particular two features of the occasion reflected this sensitivity to the
occasion. First, given that members were in a “continuing state of incipient talk”
(Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 325) and, therefore, reinitiating lapsed talk, indexical
terms linked back to talk that occurred well before the immediately prior turn. In
addition, the absence of address terms to nominate the recipient of the turn was
identified when prior talk was reinitiated. Second, given that members are engaged in
physical activities associated with the occasion of having breakfast, members may
have several attempts to gain the attention and a subsequent response from the
nominated recipient of the turn.
The mother was central to how the breakfast unfolded. As well as managing
the provision of food, multiple turns were directed to her. On some occasions, this
vying for her attention was evidenced in the overlap of turns directed to her. The
managing of multiple turns had implications for whether or not an SPP occurred and
the placement of the SPP in the adjacency pair. The mother managed multiple turns
directed to her by providing a response to each family member in the sequential
order in which the FPP were delivered.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HHR!
Chapter 6 $
PS9C$DC@$3$931=86@$@917$GC=414DXRF$0A@@14D$14@C$@9A$!32T$17$3$-14A2E$!64A<$
)88CG:2179GA4@$
This chapter investigates a number of interrelated matters that contribute to
assembling and reassembling of social orders within the family mealtime. Central to
the unfolding social order is membership within a locally produced and organised
membership categorization device (Sacks, 1995) to sort members into particular
categories, those who had haircuts and those who did not have haircuts. While one
member assumes a central organising, mapping and monitoring role in mapping
membership, co-participants’ knowledge of membership is important in the overall
mapping process and alignments that are forged. Membership, within the
membership categorization device, and the sorting process that accomplishes
membership contribute to that member being placed in “centre stage”. Being placed
in “centre stage” accomplishes an alignment between the members engaged in the
talk and the talked about member. One mapping tool identified in this analysis is a
developing “language game” that builds an alignment between the participants
playing the game.
Beginning with an introduction of the family members, the chapter then
proceeds to provide analysis of an extended sequence (Psathas, 1995) of mealtime
interaction where the focus is on who had haircuts this morning. Analysis begins
with showing how the talk about haircuts is initiated and oriented to by the recipient
of the turn, Thomasina, and some co-participants present at the meal. Analysis then
proceeds to discuss how another member, Ben, attempts to initiate talk by examining
Ben’s orientation to the mealtime talk about haircuts and his sister’s invocation of the
membership categorization device haircuts, and the mapping of family members into
particular categories using the haircut device. Next, analysis shows how the device
haircut is re-invoked. The final section discusses how the playful echoing of the
same words, using similar prosody and actions, confirms membership within the
device haircuts, and how it contributes to the unfolding social orders during this
mealtime.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HHG!
%A@@14D$@9A$%8A4A$34<$(4@=C<6814D$@9A$-3G12E$.AGQA=7$
Members of the Vanderloos family (Mum/Julia, Thomasina, and Benedict) are
visiting their cattle property, while the three older children and their father stayed at
home in a small rural town about 4 hours’ drive from the farm. Three generations of
the family are present for the evening meal: the grandmother (Oma); two daughters,
Julia (also the children’s mother) and Aunt Adele; and Julia’s children (and Oma’s
grandchildren), Thomasina and Ben. The evening meal of scrambled eggs occurs at
the end of a busy day, which involved the mother and the two young children
travelling to the nearby town to do “farm jobs” (field notes), and for the mother and
Thomasina to have haircuts. It is not known how Oma and Aunt Adele spent their
day.
The recording of the evening meal begins with Adele, Oma and the two
children, Ben and Thomasina, waiting at the table while Julia adjusts the video
recorder.
!
!
!Figure 6.1. Image of the family at the dining table.
The sequence selected for analysis occurs five minutes into the meal.
The extract begins just after the lid falls off the salt grinder with which
Thomasina has been sprinkling salt onto her eggs. Thomasina is directed by her
mother to put on the lid (lines 1 and 2) and warned by her aunt about the
consequences of putting too much salt on her eggs (lines 3-4).
9-$*$!
`$<!
e@*()! "#&1).(<)!
+1)!
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HHY!
=2#%&'#*L1H1*
1 Julia [No] more Thomasina(.) put the lid on (2.0) 2 Julia Put the [lid on 3 4
Adele [if you’re sick (.) its’ll be your (.) your fault)if you’re going to be be sick in the stomach
5 (2.5) 6 Julia >(Ok) eat it !up< 7 (1.5) 8 9
Ben um i:r I want [some orange juice in °there°]
10 11
Oma ((Oma leans forward and looks at Thomasina))[Who got a haircut this morning]
Figure 6.2. Oma leans forward and looks at Thomasina.
12 Thom !Me:::= 13 Oma =!You::? 14 Thom ((nods)) 15 Ben ( ) I want some orange [°juice° ( )] 16 17
Julia ((T picks up cup – drinks))[See how cu:rly] it is now mum=
18 19
Oma =They didn’t cut !much or:ff ((rubs Thomasina’s curls))
20 (0.7) ((Oma rubs Thomasina’s curls)) 21 Adele Should’a cut it sho:rt ((Oma rubs Thomasina’s
curls) 22 (0.9) ((Oma rubs Thomasina’s curls)) 23 24 25
Oma >°they/you° shoulda cut it a bit shorter might thicken !up a bit ya think?< ((rubs Thomasina’s curls)) (0.3)
26 Julia She cut off a fa:r bit= 27 Oma =Did she? 28 Julia Mmm 29 (1.0) 30 31 32
Oma You’re a cur::ly !top (0.3) Thomasina !soo: ((rubs Thomasina’s curls and leaning towards Thomasina –Thomasina puts her cup down))
33 34
(3.5) ((Ben rocks on his chair 3 times – Julia turns her gaze towards Ben))
!
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOI!
(41@13@14D$@32TF$&G3$141@13@A7$@32T$K1@9$9A=$D=34<<36D9@A=$3QC6@$
931=86@7$
In this first extract, Oma, initiates talk about haircuts with Thomasina with a
question “Who got a haircut this morning” (lines 10-11). Oma’s question is an
inquiry about an activity in which Thomasina had been engaged earlier in the day,
rather than about present mealtime matters such as too much salt and eating the
scrambled egg. In this way, Oma’s inquiry invites Thomasina to talk with Oma.
A number of design features of Oma’s question make it clear that the question
is directed to Thomasina. Eligibility to respond is restricted to a “single participant”
because the question makes relevant a response from a “qualified co-participant”
(Lerner, 2003, p. 191), that is, the person who had a haircut “this morning”. In this
way, Oma has designed her question with an “orientation to her co-participant”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 565) because her question orients to what she knows
Thomasina knows (Sacks, 1995) and the activity with which Thomasina has been
engaged, that is, having a haircut. Sacks and Schegloff’s (1979) notion of “recipient
design” where “reference to oriented-to features of the recipient” (1980, p. 115) is
evident in the design of the turn and, in this example, it is Oma’s knowledge of the
activity in which Thomasina has been engaged. In addition to the Oma’s turn design,
Oma’s embodied actions of moving physically closer to, and gazing towards,
Thomasina make it clear that the question is addressed directly to Thomasina
(Lerner, 2003).
While the design of Oma’s turn nominated the next speaker, the “answer
options given the question” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 565) require Thomasina to name
herself. Thus, in replying with an elongated and loud “!me:::”, Thomasina provides
a relevant type-conforming (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 78) SPP that reflects the design of
Oma’s question. In so doing, Thomasina confirms that she had a haircut this
morning. However, Oma, in latching her response “you”, does not provide a space
for Thomasina to extend her turn beyond the TRP. Oma’s latched response “you”
(line 13) with a rising intonation is designed to elicit a further response from
Thomasina. Thomasina reconfirms that she got a haircut with a slight nod of her head
(line 14). Having confirmed that she had a haircut, Thomasina then picks up her cup
and begins drinking. Thus, while Oma has initiated talk about Thomasina’s haircut
with a “known answer question” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 223) and confirmed that
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOH!
Thomasina had a haircut, talk about haircuts is not extended by Thomasina. The
initial question posed by Oma to Thomasina established Thomasina as someone who
had a haircut. Thomasina’s membership as someone who had a haircut has ongoing
relevancy for this sequence of talk as it sets up past haircuts and membership of who
had haircuts as important for “the organisation of social relations” (Danby, 2009,
p. 1597).
'C\:=A7A4@$3<62@7$C=1A4@$@C$@9A$G3@@A=$CN$!9CG37143_7$931=86@$
Julia, Thomasina’s mother and someone who knows about the haircut, orients
to the talk about Thomasina’s haircut. This is because of who she is in relation to the
topic of Thomasina’s haircut (Fitzgerald, 1999). That is, she knows about the haircut
because she was with Thomasina when she had her haircut. She directs a positive
first assessment (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1987; Pomerantz, 1984a; Raymond &
Heritage, 2006) of Thomasina’s hair as “curly now” (lines 16-17) to Oma (referring
to her as Mum). In so doing, Julia “claims knowledge of that which she is assessing”
(Pomerantz, 1984a, p. 57). In providing the first assessment of Thomasina’s hair,
there is an “implied claim that the speaker has the primary rights to evaluate the
matter assessed” (Raymond & Heritage, 2006, p. 684), because she took Thomasina
to the hairdresser and, therefore, had first-hand knowledge of the matter of
Thomasina’s haircut. Julia’s assessment directs her mother to look at Thomasina, her
daughter’s hair with her use of the word “see” (line 16). While Julia’s use of the
temporal term “now” highlights the difference between the curls now as compared to
how they were prior to the haircut, it also orients to Oma knowing about
Thomasina’s haircut. Thus, Julia asserts that the curliness of her daughter’s hair has
improved following the haircut this morning.
Following Julia’s assessment, Oma proffers a second assessment of
Thomasina’s hair with “they didn’t cut !much or:ff” (line 18). While there is
generally a preference for agreement with other members (Pomerantz, 1984a), Oma
does not agree with Julia’s assessment of Thomasina’s hair. While responding to
Julia’s assessment about the curliness of Thomasina’s hair, Oma does not initially
orient to the status of the curl of the hair. Rather, Oma asserts that “they”, a pronoun
used to refer to the hairdresser, did not cut much off, with “much” used to denote the
quantity of hair removed by the hairdresser (lines 18-19). Oma’s use of the pronoun
“they” serves to direct responsibility for the lack of quantity of hair removed to the
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOO!
hairdresser and, therefore, she criticises the actions of the hairdresser. Movement
towards Thomasina, and the gentle stretching out of Thomasina’s hair, accompanies
Oma’s turn (lines 18-19). The embodied actions of Oma, such as rubbing her hand
through Thomasina’s hair suggest a close familial relationship with Thomasina and
an interest in Thomasina’s hair.
After a gap in the talk (line 20) during which time Oma rubs Thomasina’s
curls, Aunt Adele orients to and agrees with Oma’s assessment that “they didn’t cut
much or:ff” (line18). Adele upgrades the criticism of the hairdresser as she asserts
that they “should’a cut it short” (line 21). Thus, there is alignment between Oma and
Aunt Adele’s perspective about the amount of hair the hairdresser removed from
Thomasina’s hair. While not using the pronoun “they” to make reference to the
hairdresser, Adele’s reference to the hairdresser is tied to Oma’s turn with the repeat
of the verb “cut” (Sacks, 1995) working as the “topic carrier” (p. 541). As with Oma,
Aunt Adele directs responsibility for the lack of quantity of hair removed to the
hairdresser. However, Adele does not propose a reason for cutting Thomasina’s hair
shorter. While Oma agrees with Adele (lines 23- 24), she qualifies her agreement
with the inclusion of the qualifier “a bit shorter” rather than just “short” as suggested
by Adele. In so doing, she has downgraded the criticism made by Aunt Adele of the
hairdresser. In addition, Oma proffers a justification for cutting it a bit shorter, that
is, “>might thicken !up a bit ya think?<” (lines 23-24).
Oma’s response to Adele’s suggestion to cut it short because it might thicken
up ends in a question with the tag, “ya think” (line 24), which invites Julia’s response
“as the first matter to be addressed” (Raymond & Heritage, 2006, p. 688). While
designed to invite agreement from Julia, it also “cedes epistemic authority”
(Raymond & Heritage, 2006, p. 688) which means that Oma orients to Julia knowing
more about the matter discussed. Moreover, Oma’s use of “might” hedges the
certainty of her claim and contributes in ceding epistemic authority to Julia,
Thomasina’s mother. Julia disagrees with Oma’s assessment that the hairdresser did
not cut Thomasina’s hair short enough and claims the hairdresser, referred to as
“she”, “cut off a fa:r bit” (line 26) with emphasis placed on the quantity removed. In
so doing, Julia justifies the actions of the hairdresser and asserts her first-hand
knowledge of the haircut and the actions of the hairdresser.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOS!
Oma responds with a question, “did she” (line 27) that acknowledges that Julia
knows how much hair was removed. However, in requesting further confirmation she
also questions Julia’s assertion. This results in confirmation from Julia (line 28) with
the acknowledging token “mm” (Gardner, 1997) followed by a slight lapse in the talk
during which time Oma touches Thomasina’s hair and Julia looks down to her plate.
This lapse suggests that the talk about the hair cut itself and the interaction between
Oma and Julia has possibly been brought to a close.
While continuing to move her hands gently through Thomasina’s hair, and with
both Julia and Oma’s gaze on Thomasina, Oma directs her turn to Thomasina
“You’re a cur::ly !top (0.3) Thomasina !soo:” (line 30). That the pronoun “you”
indicates Thomasina, is accomplished in a number of ways. This includes the
“content” of the turn and the “shared knowledge of the participants” (Lerner, 1996,
p. 284). The use of the term of endearment “Thomasina soo” also makes it clear that
the turn is directed to Thomasina. In using the description “curly topic” to describe
Thomasina’s hair, Oma appears to be treating Thomasina’s curls as a more enduring
characteristic than the results of the haircut, such as thickness and shortness
discussed in this sequence. The second TCU, “Thomasina soo” (line 30), draws on
the “poetics” of language (Beach, 1993a; Jefferson, 1996; Sacks, 1995). As poetics
emerge spontaneously in everyday interactions (Beach, 1993a) and, in this example,
Oma draws on sound repetition (Jefferson, 1996). While functioning as a term of
endearment, Oma’s reference to “Thomasina soo” also works to make a positive
assessment of Thomasina and her hair and highlights her preoccupation with
Thomasina’s hair. Thomasina does not receipt Oma’s turn, either verbally or through
gaze. Rather she maintains her focus on drinking her water.
Members’ assessments of Thomasina’s hair and the associated action of the
hairdresser invoked an epistemic gradient of their knowledge (Heritage, 2010). As
shown, Julia had first-hand knowledge of Thomasina’s haircut because she was with
Thomasina when she had the haircut. On the other hand, Oma and Aunt Adele,
while, as the assessments show, know about the haircut, their knowledge is not first-
hand knowledge. Even so, both Oma and Aunt Adele displayed an interest in the
matter of Thomasina’s haircut.
The initial question posed by Oma is one of relevance to Thomasina and, thus,
worked to bring Thomasina into the talk with Oma, albeit briefly (line 12) and to
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOJ!
confirm that Thomasina had a haircut. However, Thomasina does not speak again in
this section of transcript. The adults (Julia, Oma and Adele) oriented to the talk about
haircuts initiated by the question posed by Oma about “who got a haircut this
morning” (lines 10-11). In so doing, Thomasina and Thomasina’s haircut and the
actions of the hairdresser have been the focus of the adults’ talk. Thus, while who
had a haircut was introduced because of its relevance to Thomasina, Thomasina
became the talked-about third party in the conversation. However, while not playing
an active role in the talk about haircuts, Thomasina is one of the principal
protagonists in the talk between the adults about the haircuts. As she is talked about,
she assumes a kind of default centre stage role. This centre stage role afforded to
Thomasina in the “talk” is supported by Oma and Julia’s gaze towards Thomasina,
and the gentle touching of Thomasina’s hair by Oma. During this time, Thomasina
continued to drink from her cup and displayed no visible orientation to the ongoing
talk.
!32T$QA@KAA4$@9A$3<62@7$3QC6@$931=86@7F$'C47Ad6A48A7$NC=$8C\
:3=@181:34@7$
While Thomasina had been invited to talk with Oma and Thomasina continued
to be important because she was a protagonist in the adults’ talk, Ben, Thomasina’s
older brother has not been part of the talk. While he makes two requests for some
orange juice, these are not receipted or granted. The initiation of talk with Thomasina
by Oma and the continuation of talk about “Thomasina’s haircut” between the adults
contribute to his request not being receipted by the Julia, his mother.
=2#%&'#*L1I*O#&C$"*4%)6*=2#%&'#*L1HP1*
8 9
Ben um i:r I want [some orange juice in °there°]
10 11
Oma $
K(/,%$*:1N1!+1)!*$)<.!/&,7),-!)<-!*&&C.!)4!"#&1).(<)8! ((Oma leans forward and looks at Thomasina))[Who
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOU!
got a haircut this morning] 12 Thom !Me:::= 13 Oma =!You::? 14 Thom ((nods)) 15 Ben $ ( ) I want some orange [°juice° ( )]
Figure 6.3. Ben almost standing asking for orange juice.
16 17
Julia ((T picks up cup – drinks))[See how cu:rly] it is now mum=
18 19
Oma =They didn’t cut !much or:ff ((rubs Thomasina’s curls))
20 (0.7) ((Oma rubs Thomasina’s curls)) 21 Adele Should’a cut it sho:rt ((Oma rubs Thomasina’s
curls) 22 (0.9) ((Oma rubs Thomasina’s curls)) 23 24 25
Oma >°they/you° shoulda cut it a bit shorter might thicken !up a bit ya think?< ((rubs Thomasina’s curls)) (0.3)
26 Julia She cut off a fa:r bit= 27 Oma =Did she? 28 Julia Mmm 29 (1.0) 30 31 32
Oma You’re a cur::ly !top (0.3) Thomasina !soo: ((rubs Thomasina’s curls and leaning towards Thomasina –Thomasina puts her cup down))
Figure 6.4. Ben commences to rock on his chair.
33 34
(3.5) ((Ben rocks on his chair 3 times – Julia turns her gaze towards Ben))
$
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOF!
Here, Ben requests orange juice, “um i:r I want [some orange juice in °there°]”
(lines 8-9). Beginning with his gaze on Oma who has her head angled towards
Thomasina and is moving her body towards Thomasina, Ben moves his gaze from
Oma and angles his body towards his mother. Thus, both his gaze and physical
orientation indicate that he is directing his request to his mother. However, his
mother does not acknowledge his request; her head is down as she is cutting her
scrambled eggs. As Ben begins to name the object of his request, that is, orange
juice, Oma begins her question about who got a haircut this morning (line 10) with
Oma’s voice noticeably louder than the volume of Ben’s request that appears to trail
off. Thus, even though Ben commenced his request following a gap in the talk (line
7) and prior to Oma’s question to Thomasina, his request is not acknowledged.
Instead, we see the initiation by an adult of talk with another child being prioritised.
Ben attempts a second request for orange juice (line 15). Beginning this
attempt while kneeling on his chair, he moves as if to stand (see Figure 6.3) and
move his body forward towards his mother. His mother does not orient to Ben as her
focus is on Thomasina’s hair to which she gestures as she gazes towards her daughter
and her mother (Oma). In overlap with Ben’s request, she directs a positive
assessment of Thomasina’s hair “see how cu:rly it is now mum” (line 16) to her
mother. As Julia commences her assessment in overlap with Ben, the volume of
Ben’s voice diminishes and he sits back on his chair and just gazes towards Oma
who is rubbing Thomasina’s hair and gazing towards Thomasina (lines 16-31).
While still gazing at Oma, Ben commences rocking on his chair (line 33 and Figure
6.4).
Ben’s two requests for orange juice were neither receipted nor granted even
though Ben mobilised a number of interactional resources as he proffered his request.
This includes: initiating his turn at a TRP, not commencing his turn in overlap with
other members, and directing his gaze and physical orientation were towards his
mother, the recipient of his turn. On his first attempt, his mother, the intended
recipient, had her head down towards her food and then she oriented to Oma’s talk
about Thomasina’s haircut. Not using an address term may account for his failure to
gain his mother’s attention. It also could be that his mother was deliberately ignoring
Ben because he had been provided with a reason for not having orange juice earlier
on in the mealtime. On that occasion, Ben was provided with an account for why he
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOR!
couldn’t have orange juice, that is, “Yeah no they’re frozen”. Ben’s second attempt
occurred in partial overlap with his mother’s initiation of talk with Oma. In addition,
Ben’s request for orange juice did not align with the ongoing talk about Thomasina’s
haircut. Further, even though Julia commenced her turn after Ben, the initiation of
her talk with another adult and about the matter of haircuts takes precedent.
5A4$=Ad6A7@7$3$931=86@$
Ben now tries to establish his entry into the mealtime talk by orienting to the
existing mealtime talk of “haircuts” as he asks if he can get a haircut. However,
Thomasina orients to his request and, in so doing, points out that he has not had a
haircut. Thomasina’s turn takes the talk back to past haircuts.
=2#%&'#*L1J1*
30 31 32
Oma You’re a cur::ly !top (0.3) Thomasina !soo: ((rubs Thomasina’s curls and leaning towards Thomasina –Thomasina puts her cup down))
K(/,%$*:121!`$<!'&11$<'$.!4&!,&'C!&<!#(.!'#)(,8!
33 34
(3.5) ((Ben rocks on his chair 3 times – Julia turns her gaze towards Ben))
35 Ben $ ((turns and faces Julia)) can I get a haircu= 36 Julia =Ben did you have toast 37 Ben (1.3)(( Ben gives a very slight shake of his
head))= 38 39
Thom = not not Ben air::cut ((looking at Oma and pointing to Ben))
40 Oma >Ben didn’t get a haircut< (.) no:: (0.2) only [you 41 Thom [no: 42 Oma No:: 43 Julia They were looking[forward to getting all the 44 Thom [O::ma::? 45 Oma No Oma didn’t get a haircut 46 Thom !Mu:m 47 Oma Mum #mm 48 (0.8) 49 Oma Mum “n Thomasina 50 (0.8) ((Ben gently pushes back on his chair)) !
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOG!
This extract follows on from extract 6.2, which ended with Oma describing
Thomasina as a “cur::ly !top” (line 30) and using the term of endearment
“Thomasina !soo:”(line 30) while gently touching Thomasina’s hair. After gazing at
Oma for a period of time, Ben commences rocking on his chair (line 32) that sees his
mother momentarily gaze in his direction though she does not comment on his
rocking, however, she did not orient to his previous requests. Ben then turns towards
his mother and requests to have his hair cut (line 35).
Turning to face his mother, Ben requests “can I get a haircu=” (line 35), though
he cuts off the “t” as his mother latches his request. Ben’s request orients to the
ongoing talk about haircuts between the adults. Although he does not name the
person to whom he is directing his question, the positioning of his body and his gaze
make it clear that he is directing his request to his mother. While Julia, Ben’s mother,
looks up from her food at “get”, she does not offer the second pair part to his
question with an answer. Instead, she inserts a question, “Ben did you have toast”
(line 36). This question could be predicated on her role as a mother, a role that
involves ensuring that her children have enough food, or it could be that she is doing
distraction to avoid answering his question. Thus, he gets his mother’s attention, but
not a reply to his request for a haircut. Julia maintains her gaze on Ben until he
replies to her inquiry with a very slight shake of his head (line 37). Julia’s question to
Ben, albeit briefly, brings the talk back to present mealtime matters to do with food
and ensuring that her son has had the food provided for dinner.
While not addressed, Thomasina, as a participant at the mealtime table, orients
to Ben’s request for a haircut (line 35). She self selects and announces “= not not Ben
air::cut” (line 38). Accompanied by pointing towards Ben and the swivelling of her
head from Ben to Oma, Thomasina nominates Oma as the recipient of her
announcement and as the next speaker. However, she does not orient to the possible
future action of getting a haircut that was part of Ben’s request (line 35). Her
orientation to Ben’s request suggests a possible mishearing of Ben’s turn, thus she
provides an other-initiated repair in the turn following the trouble source (Schegloff,
2007b) as she names Ben as someone who did not have a haircut. The repair offered
by Thomasina provides a formulation of her understanding of what has transpired
earlier on in the conversation, where, in replying to Oma (line 11), she told Oma that
she had a haircut today, “me::” (line 12). Moreover, as someone who got a hair cut
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HOY!
this morning, she knows that Ben did not get a haircut today. In so doing, she
reorients the talk to past haircuts and invokes a “locally produced and organised”
(Butler, 2008, p. 94) membership categorization device “haircuts”.
"31=86@7F$)$GAGQA=791:$83@ADC=1`3@1C4$<AJ18A$17$14JCTA<$
The invoking of membership within the device haircut (line 38) accomplishes
the categorising of Ben as a member of the category “did not have haircuts”. In
making relevant Ben’s non-membership of the category, “had haircuts”, she keeps
the talk on past haircuts rather than future haircuts. Ben’s request for a haircut is not
taken up.
Oma agrees with Thomasina, “> Ben didn’t get a haircut< (.) no:: (0.2) only
you”, and embeds a repair “as a by-the-way occurrence” (Jefferson, 1987, p. 95)
which keeps the focus on the ongoing talk rather than being occupied with
correction. Oma confirms Thomasina’s version of what has transpired in the prior
mealtime talk and again makes relevant her knowledge of who had haircuts. Thus,
Oma collaborates in keeping the focus on past haircuts, rather than on the future
focussed question initiated by Ben. Furthermore, Oma provides an elaboration of
Thomasina’s formulation as she proceeds to categorise Thomasina as the “only” one
(line 40) to get a haircut. The juxtaposition of Ben’s name in the first TCU (line 40)
and Oma’s use of “you” (Schegloff, 1996) to refer to Thomasina in the final TCU
makes a distinction between the two children in terms of the having or not having
had a haircut that morning. Thomasina agrees with Oma, (line 41), which is again
confirmed by Oma (line 42).
Thomasina, in overlap with Julia, commences naming some family members
who are assembled at the mealtime table. In the first instance, Thomasina proposes
Oma’s name (line 44). The consistency rule is used here by Oma to make sense of
what Thomasina’s reference is doing (Sacks, 1995). The consistency rule means that
when a category is used to describe someone then that category or another category
from the same collection may be used to categorise another member (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 1). By designing her turn, with “no Oma didn’t get a haircut” (line 45), Oma
treats Thomasina’s naming of her as a candidate mapping to the category of “people
who had a haircut” and, thereby, displays her orientation to the operational relevance
of the “haircut” device for making sense of social action. The action of “mapping”
often used at the beginning of children’s games (Sacks, 1995) refers to placing
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSI!
members into particular categories, which requires participants to have “an
understanding of the relevance of categories and category membership” (Butler &
Weatherall, 2006, p. 446). In formulating that she did not have a haircut, Oma keeps
the focus on past haircuts and maps herself into the category “did not have haircuts”
using the device haircuts.
Thomasina then proposes mum (line 46). Oma confirms that she hears this as
Thomasina mapping “mum” to the category “people who had haircuts” with her
repeat of the name “mum” and the acknowledgment token “mm” (Gardner, 1997).
Thus, Oma continues to display her orientation to the operational relevance of the
haircut device for making sense of local action. Subsequently, Oma provides another
formulation (line 49) that categorises both Mum and Thomasina as members of who
got haircuts that morning. Oma uses her knowledge of “who had haircuts” to provide
this categorization of mum and Thomasina as having haircuts. In this way, Oma
validates Thomasina’s mapping of members to a category within the haircut device.
Thomasina does not provide a response to Oma’s formulation, but instead looks
away as Aunt Adele begins admonishing Ben for pushing back on his chair (line 50).
Here, we saw how Ben oriented to existing talk through his request for a
haircut (line 35). However, membership talk about “who had haircuts” returned the
talk to prior haircuts that did not include Ben. Thomasina’s appeal to Oma for
confirmation and Oma’s confirmation show Thomasina’s orientation to Oma as
someone who knows about who had haircuts. Thus, Oma’s knowledge of the haircuts
is made relevant as Thomasina and Oma establish membership of “who had haircuts”
using the haircut device. This links back to the initial question Oma poses (line 10).
Further, Thomasina’s mapping of members to the category of “having had haircuts”
establishes co-membership with Julia, her mother. In establishing her co-membership
with her mother and Ben’s non-membership, membership issues become the focus of
the talk between Oma and Thomasina. Even though Ben oriented to the device
“haircuts” and attempted to gain membership with his request for a haircut (line 35),
he continued to be excluded because he did not have a haircut this morning. Ben’s
exclusion may be attributed to his cross-membership rather than co-membership of
people who got haircuts (Butler, 2008). Furthermore, Ben’s request for a haircut is
not receipted or granted by Julia.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSH!
+A\14JCT14D$@9A$<AJ18A$931=86@7$
Ben continues to orient to the device haircuts as he proposes getting a hair
colour. However, while this proposal links to his mother’s talk about hair colour, it
does not give him membership of the category “had haircuts”, the category that is
repeatedly made relevant by Thomasina.
=2#%&'#*L1G1*
50 (0.8) ((Ben gently pushes back on his chair)) 51 52 53
Adele >Ben DON’T do that to (the) chair its no good for the legs< ((puts her hand on Ben’s leg and pushes the chair down))
54 (2.5) ((Thomasina is drinking – makes a slurping noise))
55 56
Julia $ They were looking forward to getting their hair a:ll (.) you know all coloured “n
57 Oma Ye::ah 58 (2.0) ((T reaches for the water container 59 Ben $ I gonna get my hair colour[ed((Ben looking at Oma)) 60 Thom [( ) 61 62
(0.6) ((Thomasina reaching towards the water container and looking at Adele))
63 Thom ay= ((looking towards Adele)) 64 65
Oma =You didn’t get get co:lou:r in it a:ll ((looks towards Ben and Ben looks towards Oma))
66 67
Ben !A::h [(.)] (not that) ((gaze between Oma and Ben – Ben with his hands on his head - pushes his hair up))
68 Thom [err] ((a throaty type of sound)) 69 70
Oma Mm ((gaze between Oma and Ben – Oma has food in her mouth))
71 (0.5) 72 73
Thom Not get hair!cut= ((shaking her head and turns towards Oma and Oma turns towards Thomasina))
74 75
Oma =You didn’t get [colour] no no= ((S and O looking towards each other))
76 Thom [Be::n ] 77 78
Adele =DON’T DO THAT BEN ((puts her hand on Ben’s leg and pushes his legs down and J looks towards C))
79 Thom ( ) air haircut [me ] 80 81
Julia ((taps Adele on the arm)) [°Ade ] le don’t yell° ((Julia covers her mouth as she says Adele’s name))
82 83
Oma (You) got a !hai:rcut aye? ((looking at S and gently touching her face))
!Following Adele’s admonishment of Ben (lines 51-53) for rocking on his chair,
and a lengthy silence (line 54) during which most of the members are eating, Julia
announces “they were looking forward to getting their hair a:ll (.) you know all
coloured “n” (lines 55-56). While it is not clear who the reference to “they” is, it is
possible that someone they know asked for a hair colour at the hairdressers or that
the reference refers to Thomasina and Ben. Either way, Julia’s turn accomplishes a
return to talk about events at the hairdressers. Oma orients to and acknowledges
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSO!
Julia’s announcement with “yeah” (line 57), thus demonstrating her shared family
knowledge of who “they” are and to talk about hair colour.
As in the previous turn (line 35) where Ben oriented to existing talk and the
device “haircuts” to join in the talk, he again orients to Julia’s talk about getting hair
coloured. However, rather than direct his announcement to his mother who
introduced the talk about hair colour, Ben looks across the table towards Oma and
with a little smile asserts “I gonna get my hair colour[ed” (line 59), thus proposing a
future action. In this way, he maps himself into a category “going to get a hair
colour” within the device haircuts. Also, his announcement resides centrally within
the current topic of hair colouring. Oma points out to Ben that “You didn’t get get
colour in it all” (line 64). It may be that Oma’s response to Ben is a possible
mishearing. While acknowledging his talk, Oma maps Ben into a different category
“not getting a hair colour”. In so doing, Oma takes the talk back to past actions rather
than any future oriented activity proposed by Ben. Importantly though, he gets a
response from the nominated recipient and the interaction between Ben and Oma
continues over a series of turns. With his gaze on Oma, Ben replies to Oma
beginning with “a::h” used here to mark the receipt of Oma’s formulation (Schegloff,
2007b, p. 118). He informs Oma that he did not get “that,” with “that” possibly
referring to hair colour or a particular hairstyle. His turn is accompanied with the
physical action of pushing his hair up into a peak and his gaze remains on Oma. Oma
agrees (line 69) with the acknowledging token “mm” (Gardner, 1997).
Thomasina who had been looking towards Adele now swings around to face
Oma, and brings the talk back to haircuts. With accompanying head shakes, she
asserts “Not get hair!cut” (line 72). Oma replies “=You didn’t get colour no no=”
(line 74), latching an “other initiated other repair” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 101) to
Thomasina’s turn. The repair replaces “colour” for “haircut” (line 74) which shows
Oma’s orientation is to hair colour introduced by Julia (line 55) and oriented to by
Ben (line 59), rather than to haircuts, the device to which Thomasina is oriented.
Furthermore, Thomasina’s turn suggests that she heard the talk between Oma and
Ben as being about haircuts rather than about hair colour. Moreover, Oma’s use of
the pronoun “you” to refer to Thomasina makes it clear that she is orienting to
Thomasina not getting a hair colour. Oma’s repair highlights some potential trouble
in her understanding.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSS!
In overlap with Oma’s turn (lines 74-75), Thomasina names Ben (line 76) and
then continues to make it clear to Oma that she got a haircut (line 79) with the use of
the personal pronoun “me”. Thus she restates her membership of the category “had
haircuts” within the device “haircuts”. While gently touching Thomasina’s face,
Oma provides a formulation of a formulation (Watson & Heritage, 1980, p. 253)
“(you) got a !hai:rcut aye?” (line 82). This formulation shows her understanding of
what Thomasina asserted in the FPP (line 78), that is, Thomasina got a haircut.
Oma’s “aye?” with rising inflection works as a tag and thus requests confirmation
from Thomasina.
Thus, in this extract, Ben maps himself into a category using the device
haircuts when he requests a hair colour. However, Thomasina’s orientation to the
talk between Oma and Ben makes it clear that Ben is not a member of the category
“had a haircut” within the device “haircuts”. Furthermore, she re-maps herself to the
“had a haircut”. This takes the talk back to prior haircuts of which Ben does not have
membership.
.AGQA=791:$CN$K9C$93<$931=86@7$8C4@146A7$@C$QA$7C=@A<$C6@$$
Thomasina continues to keep the focus on members who had past haircuts as
she maps members into categories using the device haircuts. Her mapping is
validated by Oma as she echoes Thomasina’s claims as part of something that
resembles a language game.
=2#%&'#*L1K1*
82 83
Oma (You) got a !hai:rcut ay? ((looking at S and gently touching her face))
84 Thom Not BEN ((looking at O – shakes her head)) 85 Oma Not B[en ((looking at T – shakes her head)) 86 Julia [Benie: you’re all right love [just 87 Thom [No way= 88 Ben =Not [(Bubby) 89 Oma °No way°= 90 Julia = Be:nnie: don’t lean back on you [chair darlin 91 Thom [m-m-m- (.2) 92 Oma [m-m-m- 93 Adele [You’ll break a leg ((maintains gaze on food)) 94 Thom [no w(a::y)] 95 Ben [Not bubby ] 96 Oma No wa::y 97 98
Ben (by) Bubby you didn’t get a haircut ((B looks towards Oma then towards Thom – Thom looks towards Ben))
99 Thom Not O::ma:: 100 Oma Not O:ma: no: 101 Ben lNot !Bubby [ (.) ] ((smiling))
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSJ!
102 Thom [mum] 103 Ben lmum 104 Oma Mum got a haircut hey 105 Ben lI did ((smiling)) 106 Adele Ah Ben (.) 107 108
Julia Just you [and me ((looking at and talking to T – T is looking at J))
109 110 111
Adele [look at (.) look in the window over there ((leaning across towards J and pointing towards the camera))
112 Thom °me° 113 Julia We were the spe[cial girl]s !
In response to Oma’s turn (lines 82-83), Thomasina rotates her body and faces
Oma. She reiterates to Oma that Ben was someone who did not get a haircut (line
84), thus excluding him from membership of the category “who had haircuts”. Oma
echoes Thomasina’s turn in her next turn. The term echoing is used here to refer to
the use of exactly the same words, “not Ben”, to very similar prosody, and to similar
actions (line 85). In this instance, Oma’s echo accomplishes agreement with
Thomasina’s claim about membership of a category within the device haircuts.
Continuing to orient to each other, Thomasina upgrades the degree of certainty about
Ben’s non-membership with “no way” (line 87). As in the previous turn, Oma echoes
Thomasina’s words and uses similar prosody and actions in the SPP with her echo
accomplishing agreement and continued orientation to Thomasina and to
membership of who got haircuts. The echoing “ties both the action of the previous
speaker … and the particular way it was expressed to the current speaker’s turn”
(Butler & Weatherall, 2006, p. 457) and thus displays alignment between Thomasina
and Oma about Ben’s non-membership of the category “who had haircuts”.
Thomasina then moves her hand over and gently touches Oma’s blouse, and
commences to use sounds to make a rhythmic pattern “m-m-m” that has a slight
increase in pitch as each sound is articulated (line 91). While the sounds reflect a
kind of playfulness within the interaction, Thomasina also succeeds in keeping Oma
focussed on her and the echoing. Oma mirrors the rhythmic pattern (line 92)
commenced by Thomasina, thus continuing to be a willing participant in the action
she initiated through her first echo (line 85). Now holding the chain around Oma’s
neck, Thomasina reintroduces “no w(a::y)” (line 94), which is also echoed by Oma
(line 96). Oma’s continued participation in echoing Thomasina’s turns suggests a
kind of language game has developed between Oma and Thomasina that seems to
accomplish alignment between them.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSU!
Ben orients to the playfulness of the interaction between Thomasina and Oma
and he inserts a turn between Thomasina’s FPP (line 87) and Oma’s echo (line 89).
His turn is in partial overlap with supportive words from his mother, “you’re be’s all
right love” (line 86). However, he only momentarily glances towards his mother.
Using a raised voice and looking towards Oma and Thomasina, he proposes “not
bubby,” (line 88) with his use of the word bubby referring to Thomasina.
Furthermore, the design of Ben’s turn shows how he tries to join in the game by
using the same pattern, that is, “not” followed by a name, as was used by both Oma
and Thomasina. His playful proposal could be in order to be part of the game, a game
already established by Thomasina. Thus, Ben tries to tie his talk to the ongoing talk
with the use of similar language patterns and prosody that orient to the playfulness of
the interaction between Oma and Thomasina.
Instead of becoming part of the playful interaction, his mother reminds him,
“don’t lean back on your chair darlin” (line 90). Julia’s turn accomplishes two
actions. First, her turn provides alignment with Aunt Adele, who previously
admonished Ben for leaning back in the chair, and, second, her use of the term of
endearment “darlin” works to moderate Aunt Adele’s gruff manner (line 77). In
overlap with Thomasina (line 94), Ben inserts another turn (line 95) “not bubby” that
is a repeat of his previous turns (line 88). Thus, he continues to orient to Oma and
Thomasina’s game and his attempt to join in the game continues. With his gaze
commencing on Oma and then moving towards Thomasina, Ben repeats his assertion
that “(by) Bubby you didn’t get a haircut” (lines 97-98). On this occasion Thomasina
looks towards Ben and maintains her gaze until he has almost completed his turn.
While the pronoun “you” indicates that his turn was directed to Thomasina, she does
not comment on his assertions.
While Ben inserts a number of turns, some of which are in overlap, the latched
echo from Oma in response to Thomasina’s FPP could account for the lack of a
response to Ben’s claims. Moreover, as the interaction between Oma and Thomasina
continues, there is increasing physical closeness between Oma and Thomasina
evidenced by touching, moving closer to each other and gazing towards each other.
Oma and Thomasina’s physical closeness may have helped accomplish keeping Ben
out of the game. Kendon (1985, p. 237) notes how the “establishment and
maintenance of spatial-orientational arrangements…is one way that participants can
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSF!
provide one another with evidence that they are prepared to sustain a common
orientational perspective”. Thus, the echoing game, latching of turns between Oma
and Thomasina and the physical closeness between Oma and Thomasina, and Ben’s
non-membership category of people who got haircuts, work to keep Ben out of the
game. He persists, however, in trying to join in the game and maintains his gaze on
Oma and Thomasina. The smiley tone to his voice (lines 101, 103 and 105) suggests
that he is orienting to the playfulness of the game.
Thomasina now names Oma as a member of the group who did not get a
haircut (line 99). Oma echoes Thomasina’s turn and then shows agreement with
“no”. Thomasina, while still touching Oma, turns her body slightly towards her
mother and proffers mum’s name (line 102). In contrast to the way in which she
proposed non-members, that is commenced with “not”, Thomasina on this occasion
simply proffers mum’s name. Oma, continuing to orient to the operational relevance
of the device “haircuts”, confirms that mum is a member of the category “those who
had haircuts” (line 104). The “hey” at the end of Oma’s turn functions as a tag,
although Thomasina does not provide confirmation.
While looking at Oma, Ben inserts a turn claiming that he got a haircut. The
smile on his face and the lilt in his voice suggest that this is posed as a joke rather
than as a truth claim. His joke is not acknowledged by Oma. Rather, Adele summons
Ben (line106) and points out the screen referred to as the window on the video
recorder (line 109).
Now gazing at Thomasina and Thomasina back at her, Julia provides a
formulation that categorises Thomasina and mum as the “only” members of the
category who got haircuts within the device “haircuts”. Thomasina responds “me.”
Julia provides another formulation (line 113) using the collective pronoun “we” to
show co-membership with Thomasina as the special girls who got haircuts. Given the
negotiation of membership of who had haircuts as an ongoing feature of this
sequence, Julia’s formulation at the end of this sequence is important because it
establishes “the outcomes of such contests or negotiations for another first time”
(Heritage & Watson, 1979, p. 150). Julia’s turn also confirms what Thomasina had
worked so hard to clear up, that is, that it was just Thomasina and mum who got
haircuts.
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSR!
'93:@A=$%6GG3=E$
I am drawn to recall why I selected this sequence for analysis. My interest was
sparked because of what I observed the children do. Ben, for example, watched for
what appeared to be long stints of time, observing the interaction occurring between
his sister and his Oma. This watching would be followed by an attempt to initiate
talk with either his Oma or his mother. The interactional resources used by Ben to
initiate a turn included: initiating his turns at a TRP, gazing towards the recipient of
his turn, orienting his body towards the nominated recipient and orienting to the talk
about haircuts. However, even though he mobilised a range of interactional resources
to initiate talk, his attempts were not always successful. Speier’s (1976) suggestion
that children typically have restricted rights in adult-child interactions may account
for some of Ben’s lack of success. As explicated, co-participants mobilised resources
that contributed to his not getting into the talk, particularly that between Oma and
Thomasina.
Also of analytic interest is how Ben orients to the topic at hand, that is, the
matter of haircuts. Ben makes several proposals that align with the topic haircuts. For
example, he requests a haircut (line 35), however his request is “hijacked” because
Thomasina points out that he did not have a haircut. While this pointing out may
have been because of a mishearing, it accomplishes that the nominated recipient does
not receipt Ben’s request. The consequences of Thomasina’s action show how co-
participants influence the trajectory of a turn and who is aligned in the talk. Also
explicated, is how Ben orients to the playfulness of the interaction between Oma and
Thomasina. This is accomplished as he echoes both the language patterns and the
prosody used by Oma and Thomasina.
Thomasina invoked the membership device haircuts. As shown in the analysis,
the collection of categories that constitutes the device “haircuts” is a “situated
practice”, produced locally by the members (Baker, 2000) and as such, it is an in situ
accomplishment. The membership categorization device “haircuts” includes family
members who have had haircuts and family members who have not had haircuts. The
organisation of members into categories using the device haircuts is mapped
according to whether or not members have had a haircut. While one member initiated
the mapping of members into categories, co-participants’ knowledge of who got a
haircut this morning is important in confirming membership to a category within the
!
=#)B4$,!F!]M#&!?&4!)!#)(,'@4!4#(.!1&,<(<?b_Q!h$44(<?!(<4&!4#$!")*C!(.!)!0(<$*2!"@<$-!9''&1B*(.#1$<4! HSG!
device haircuts. As explicated, Oma provides confirmation by validating
Thomasina’s mapping into categories. The collaboration between Thomasina and
Oma brings the talk back to who had haircuts this morning, thus keeping Thomasina
as the central protagonist in the talk.
Other categories are mapped onto the haircuts device, such as, getting a hair
colour. However, these categories are seen as not relevant by the person who
assumes the accounting role in membership issues. It seems that there is a hierarchy
of categories within the device. In the instances where another member self mapped
into a category, Thomasina accounts for this as “trouble” and works to re-establish
who has membership of “had haircuts” within the device haircuts. Thus, membership
of the category “got haircuts” is re-established as important for participation in talk
about haircuts.
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HSY!
Chapter 7 $
!C:1832$!32T$,6=14D$-3G12E$.A32@1GA7$
Topical talk is a collaborative phenomenon accomplished where members are
displaying a shared orientation to the topic. New topics can flow sequentially from
prior topics, or are organised so that they are disjunct from prior topics. The
formulation of topic is done by participants within the conversation, and is regularly
used to accomplish some other activity. Hence, an examination of topic necessitates
an interrogation of the structure of the talk to see how topicality is achieved and what
it is being used to do.
The chapter begins with an examination of some important features of topic
within conversation analysis literature and proceeds to highlight how in adult–child
interactions adults offer up child-relevant topics. Analysis then explicates the
methods used by both adults and children to introduce topics with questions
identified as an important method for accomplishing the task. When nominating
topics and collaborating to bring about the continuation of a topic members show
evidence of an orientation to the co-participant and what they know about the topic.
Privileging of members’ epistemic knowledge is evidenced through features such as
the use of third person reference terms. The sequential environment in which topics
were nominated affects whether the topic is topicalised by the nominated speaker.
!C:18$&=D34173@1C4$
From a common sense perspective, talk may be organised into “clumps”
(Schegloff, 1990, p. 51) or “blocks of talk” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 762) that can be
referred to as topics of talk. Such a perspective suggests that topic is the “what” the
talk is about (Schegloff, 1990, p. 51) or, in other words, the “mentionables”
(Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 300) made relevant in the talk. A resource relied on to
account for the “clumps and the coherence which underlies them is the notion of
topic or topical coherence” (Schegloff, 1990, p. 51). This chapter draws on the
perspective identified by Schegloff (1990) where topical coherence is evidenced
within the sequential structure of the interaction (Schegloff, 1990). While not
ignoring the relevance of the “what”, a conversation analysis approach focuses on
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJI!
topic as “achieved by the participants, turn-by-turn in their talk, rather than as
something which is defined externally by the analyst” (Stokoe, 2000, p. 187).
Schegloff (1990) cautions about “topic as an analytic tool” (p. 51) and
identifies a number of vulnerabilities associated with its use. First, he suggests that
determining what the topic is in a sentence, let alone in a series of utterances, is
difficult to accomplish. Second, the gradual shifting of the “topical thrust”
(Schegloff, 1990, p. 51) or “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 305) makes
defining the topic of a segment of talk difficult. Third, while it is possible to
characterise some talk as “on-topic” (Schegloff, 1990, p. 52) with the prior talk, the
identification of “a topic” as the organising unit is problematic. Fourth, the
formulation of topic is “something done within the conversation by participants”
(Schegloff, 1990, p. 52), and is used regularly to accomplish some other activity.
Thus, Schegloff (1990) suggests that the analyst’s role is to determine what the talk
is “being used to do, more than what it is being used to talk about” (Schegloff, 1990,
p. 52). Therefore, Schegloff reminds us that “talk is constructed and is attended by its
recipients for the action or actions it may be doing” (Schegloff, 1995a, p. 187).
While Schegloff (1990) and Sacks (1995) both caution about an analystic focus
on topic, methods used by members to accomplish topicality have been identified
with a distinction between stepwise topical movement (Jefferson, 1984) and
boundaried topical movement (Sacks, 1995; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). Stepwise
topical movement is accomplished where members link what is being introduced to
what has just been talked about and, in this way, one topic flows into another (Sacks,
1995). This reflects Schegloff and Sacks’ (1973) proposition that the preferred
procedure for the organisation of topic talk is the topic “fitting” in with another
“conversationalist’s prior utterance”, so that it can “occur naturally” (p. 301). In
contrast, boundaried topical movement occurs where topic closure is followed by the
initiation of another topic. It usually occurs in “specific structural locations in
conversations – openings, closings and following topical boundaries – where
stepwise topical development is not being operated” (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984,
p. 166).
A number of studies have identified the mechanics of topicality production.
Much of the conversation analysis literature focuses on openings of topics or shifts
between them. This includes “topic shading” (Sacks, 1995; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973)
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJH!
or stepwise topic shift (Jefferson, 1984); topic elicitors that are designed to “elicit a
candidate topic from the next speaker”; topic initiation (Button & Casey, 1988/89);
topic nomination and topic pursuit (Button & Casey, 1985) and topic proffering
(Schegloff, 2007b). Whether the topic is offered up, elicited or accomplished through
stepwise moves is reflected in the particular turn design selected by members.
Furthermore, Sacks (1995, Vol. 1) notes that members orient to the “fact of topical
organisation and that they have a variety of ways of doing respect for topical
organization” (p. 535) with, for example, the use of tying devices (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 1, p. 540) and proterms (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 541). Thus, the conversation
analyst’s role is to explicate the methods used by members to accomplish topicality
(Sacks, 1995; Stokoe, 2000) and then to return to the fundamental principle
articulated by Schegloff, that is, what topic is “being used to do” (Schegloff, 1990,
p. 52); that is, what action does it accomplish.
While acknowledging that the “what” of the talk is a difficult matter to
“characterise discreetly” (Schegloff, 1990, p. 52), and the analyst’s task is not to
complete a “content analysis” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 752), there does appear to be a
connection between the “content of the talk”, that is, the what, and what it is being
used to do. Furthermore, there is a connection between the choice of topic, and the
participants and what they can be “relied upon to know” (Maynard & Zimmerman,
1984, p. 301). This connection between the topic and the participants is highlighted
by Speier (1973) when he notes that
the regulation of topics on the floor involves the participants’ consideration
of who their fellow interactants are, categorically speaking. That is, there
appears to be an orientation toward building a conversation for some
particular set of people, where both preserving the conversation and
preserving certain membership categories of the particular collection of
present people are attended to and regulated by topicality, to some extent at
least. (p. 93)
!C:18F$)<62@\'912<$(4@A=38@1C4$
Speier (1973) proposes that adults offer up child-relevant topics to bring
children into the conversation. In so doing, the adult orients to the category
membership of “child” by taking into account what children know and experience,
and their particular interests. For example, Speier (1973) suggests that a familiar way
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJO!
in which an adult orients to a child’s perceived topic of choice might be the question
“what happened at school today?” (p. 152). In this way, the adult orients to the topic
of school as a major activity for children (Speier, 1973, p. 152). Speier’s proposition
that adults offer up topics relevant for children, categorised as child-friendly topics,
gestures towards the possibility that children also may make deliberate choices about
topics to accomplish their participation in mealtime talk. Thus, it is possible that
children choose topics with an orientation to the co-participant (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1,
p. 564) in much the same way that Speier (1973) suggests that adults do in relation to
children. In so doing, they use what they know about the adult when selecting a topic
to gain access to the talk.
Part of the child’s orientation to the adult co-participant (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1,
p. 564) is an understanding of their own status as a conversationalist. Speier (1976)
notes that membership of the category child accords the child a particular “status as a
conversationalist” (p. 100), a status that is normatively subordinate to that of the
adult. This status points to what both Speier (1976) and Sacks (1995) identify as the
restricted speaking rights of children to talk in adult-child interaction that is
“internally controlled by an asymmetrical distribution of speakers’ rights” (Speier,
1976, p. 101).
Sacks (1995, Vol. 1, p. 263) observed that children develop solutions to the
problem of having restricted rights as speakers. For example, Sacks (1995) observed
that children have a universal way of beginning talk with adults “You know what,
daddy? or You know something, Mommy?” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 263). Given the
usual manner in which this question unfolds, the adult will respond with “what”.
Answering a question with a question accomplishes a number of actions. First, the
child is obliged to answer and, second, the adult has the right to ask the next
question. Importantly, in terms of adult-child interactions, it affords the child “with
the opportunity to say whatever it is he wanted to say in the first place…however,
now, not on his own say so, but as a matter of obligation (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1,
p. 265) because of the question asked by the adult. The other solution to children’s
restricted rights in adult-child interactions is “troubles telling” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1,
p. 230) because the trouble offered might be generative in that it may afford the child
to talk more about the topic.
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJS!
%A@@14D$@9A$%8A4A$34<$(4@=C<6814D$@9A$-3G12E$.AGQA=7$
The analysis examines two sequences of talk from one family, the Francis
family, during an evening meal where all family members are present. The father has
prepared spaghetti and prawns, and the meal is eaten at the dining room table
adjacent to the kitchen. Individual meals for each member are brought to the dining
room table by both the mother and father. During the preparation and serving period,
Margot (child) and Bibi (grandmother) wait at the table and talk about the card
games they like to play and the possibility of purchasing some playing cards when
they next go shopping. The grandmother is staying with the family for a period of
time to help care for Margot while Emily, the mother, is engaged in paid
employment outside of the home.
The Francis family includes Emily (mother), Steve (father), Margot (child) and
Bibi (grandmother) (see Figure 7.1 and Table 7.1).
Figure 7.1. Image of the Francis family.
Table 7.1
Francis Family Members’ Names and Ages
b3GA$ )DA$
3@1!cT1(*2d! !
N)-!c%4$5$d! !
3),?&4! S!2$),.!
`(:(!ch,)<-1)d! !
Analysis examines two sequences of talk from the Francis family during an
evening meal. The first extract presented in this chapter is examined twice and shows
how two different members attempt to initiate topic talk with another family
member. The first examination (extract 1) focuses on how the child initiates talk with
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJJ!
her mother with an orientation to her co-participant’s knowledge about the matter to
be discussed, the cherry shoes. The second examination (extract 2) focuses on part of
the first extract and examines how the grandmother attempts to initiate talk about a
sensitive topic, “poor old Shirley”, with her adult daughter while the child is co-
present. The final extract (extract 3) shows how the mother introduces a topic to her
daughter with a question. It then proceeds to show how the initial questioner exerts
considerable interactional control in how the topic unfolds. Central to each section of
analysis is the explication of the methods used by members to initiate a topic and
then to topicalise the topic.
)88CG:217914D$3$793=A<$64<A=7@34<14D$CN$@9A$@C:18$@93@$17$141@13@A<$]$
P&9e$@9A$89A==E$79CA7R$
This section establishes how the talk of family members is used as a resource
by the child to initiate a new topic. Analysis also explicates how the child’s turn
design orients to what she knows the mother knows about the topic, the matter of the
cherry shoes. Central to accomplishing an orientation to the topic initiated by the
child is a repair sequence that finally accomplishes sorting out the trouble.
The extract begins 2.37 minutes into the evening meal, by which time all
family members are assembled at the dinner table eating. Just prior to the extract
selected for analysis, there has been some talk between the family members followed
by a period of silence as members eat. It begins with Bibi (the grandmother)
directing her turn to her adult daughter, Emily, and introducing talk about cherries
(line 1). Emily orients to and acknowledges Bibi with “mmm” (line 6). This talk
between the adults seems to prompt Margot, the child, to proffer a question to her
mother Emily about some cherry shoes. In posing the question to her mother, the
child proposes a topic about which they both have some knowledge, and to which
she wants her mother to orient. However, the mother does not initially orient to the
topic initiated by Margot’s question. Thus, a repair sequence follows as both
collaboratively work out what is the topic to which Margot wants Emily to orient.
The transcript is first shown in its entirety. When naming members within the
double parentheses, the first initial of their name is used. For example, Emily will be
E and Margot will be M.
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJU!
=2#%&'#*M1H1*
1 2!
Bibi ( got)(0.6)(m)cherries you had in the (pay) fridge (0.4) they had the crispy skin ((gaze on Natalie))
3 (1.5) 4 5
Bibi crunch ((M looks at Bibi with a sideways glance as the word cherry is said))
6 7
Emily °mmm° ((E chewing, raises her finger to acknowledge B))
8 (1.5) ((E looks back towards M)) 9 10
Margot I[s th]eir have (.) cherry °(b)/(bit)° ¿ ((M looks directly at E and proceeds to ask the question))
11 Emily [°(y-)°] ((looking towards M)) 12 (0.9) 13 14
Emily You love the cherries(.) don’t you¿ ((E’s gaze is on her food))
15 ! (0.4) 16 17!
Margot! ! Where (0.4) where’s the !cherry boot(s)¿ ((M looking at E, picks up some food and places it in her mouth))!
HG! ! ! 1.0((E looks at M with a puzzled look))!19! Emily! ! Cherry !boots¿= ((looks at M with a puzzled look))!20! Margot! ! =!ye:ah ((looks towards E))!OH! ! ! (0.6)!OO!OS!
T1(*2! ! >What do you mean the cherry boots¿< =((E looks back at her food and rolls spaghetti onto her fork))
24 Bibi =Poor old Shirley, 25 Margot at 26 Bibi I said this would happen [to her,] 27 [at a ] shops 28 (2.5)
Figure 7.2. The Francis family at the dinner table.
29 Margot !ye[ah ]= 30 Bibi [(was it )] ((food in her mouth)) 31 32
Emily =Yeah (0.3) !or::h! the cherry shoe:s ((B is gazing at both E and M))
33 0.5 34 Margot !Ye::ah. 35 Emily (yeah )they didn’t have any cherry shoes did they? 36 37
Margot !No- (0.2) ((B is looking at M, turns back to her food following Margot’s turn))
38 39
Bibi Sh- Shirley’s (.) condition (.) going down fast ((B is chewing))
40 Emily Yeah¿ ((E doesn’t look at B, rather she keeps her
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJF!
41 42
gaze on her food – there is a flat tone in her voice))
43 (0.3) ((all members chewing)) 44 45
Bibi ( )(kidmans) = ((talking with her food in her mouth))
46 Margot =(eka-) (.) ( ) Lillian 47 ! (0.5) 48 Margot ! find them ((M looks at E as she asks the
question)) 49 50
Emily ! Oh we’ll have to ask Lillian if she found the shoes when she went to Brisbane
51 ! (.2) 52 53 54
Margot ! °!mmm#° ((chewing – the soft mmm said as she commences the first of 6 nods – some chewing sounds heard))
55 ! (3.0 ) !
Margot hears Bibi’s talk about cherries (lines 1-2) and shifts her gaze towards
Bibi following the word cherry. After a gap (line 8) during which time Margot eats
some spaghetti, Margot shifts her gaze towards Emily and Emily’s gaze is now on
Margot. Margot then self-selects and requests information from her mother “I[s th]eir
have (.) cherry °(b)/(bit)°” (lines 9-10) and, in so doing, Emily commences a new
action sequence. The talk between Bibi and Emily appears to have been prompted or
“occasioned” (Jefferson, 1984, p. 207) Margot’s question “I[s th]eir have (.) cherry
°(b)/(bit)°” (line 9). There are some similarities between Margot’s use of the content
word cherry/cherries and Sacks’ notion of “touched-off utterances” (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 1, p. 761). While Margot does not signal this “touching off”, with, for example,
“Oh by the way” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 761) and the repetition of the content word
cherries/cherry does not occur in the very next line, it does seem that Bibi’s use of
the word cherries touched off Margot’s “memory” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 761) of
the cherry boots and what then unfolds in the talk.
Emily does not answer the question posed by Margot and, thus, does not
provide a type conforming response to the “yes/no”question (Raymond, 2003) posed
by Margot. In responding, she does provide an assessment of her daughter’s food
preferences “You love the cherries (.) don’t you” (line 13), supplying a candidate
hearing of what Margot has said. This suggests that she heard Margot’s turn as a first
assessment of the cherries that Bibi had been discussing. Thus, Emily’s response
suggests that she hears Margot’s question as “on topic” in relation to the cherries in
the fridge and linked to Bibi’s turn (line 1), rather than as a new action sequence
initiated by Margot. It also points to a possible mishearing and misunderstanding by
Emily. Mishearings are identified as possible trouble sources (Schegloff, 2007b).
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJR!
The next turns show the location of the trouble and the initiation of the self-
repair. Rather than supplying confirmation of her food preferences to her mother,
Margot poses another question “Where (0.4) where’s the !cherry boot(s)¿” (line 16),
signalling to her mother that there is some trouble in the talk. In redesigning her
previous question with a shift from “I[s th]eir have” to “where”, she initiates a “self
repair” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 101) by naming a place. As part of the repair (line 16),
Margot provides another opportunity for Emily to hear “cherry boots”. Emily names
the trouble source (Schegloff, 2007b) when she repeats the words “cherry !boots¿”
(line 19). In particular, she emphasises “boots,” suggesting that it is this word that is
puzzling her. In using rising pitch, Emily requests confirmation from Margot that she
has correctly heard cherry boots. Confirmation is provided by Margot in the second
pair part with the latching of “!yeah” (line 20).
After Margot and Emily have sorted out that Margot is talking about “cherry
boots” Emily asks “what do you mean the cherry boots¿” (line 22) indicating that she
still does not fully understand the question posed by Margot. As part of her
reparative work, Margot provides additional information “at the shops” (line 27) with
the referent used identifying a “place”. Sacks (1995, Vol. 1) notes that place is
recognised as a “great vehicle for presenting an orientation to a topic” (p. 754). In
providing the “place” information, Margot has supplied Emily with the information,
“the cherry boots at the shops”.
A possible explanation for Margot’s use of place to help orient her mother to
what she wants to talk about draws on Schegloff’s (1972) notion of place
formulation. Place formulation is “selected because of its presumed recognisability to
a member” (p. 94) and its “sensitivity to topic” (Schegloff, 1972, p. 96). Margot’s
use of place formulation is an example of a “relation to members” (Schegloff, 1972,
p. 97) formulation because it is heard as “the X to which we both know we go”
(Schegloff, 1972, p. 97). Thus, in interacting with her mother, Margot has selected a
particular place formulation that draws on particular assumptions or knowledge
about what her mother knows.
After providing the additional information to her mother (line 27), Margot does
not receive an immediate response. There is a gap (line 28) as Emily looks down at
her bowl and rolls spaghetti onto her fork. This delay in acknowledging the
additional information supplied by Margot prompts Margot’s “yeah” (line 29) that
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJG!
works to reconfirm that she has contributed the extra detail requested by Emily.
Emily finally acknowledges the topic to which Margot is orienting, with “=Yeah
(0.3) !o::h the cherry shoe:s” (line 31) with the acknowledgement token “yeah”
followed by the “oh” particle functioning as a “change of state token” (Heritage,
1984a, p. 299), thus indicating that she has undergone a change of her awareness
about that topic. That is, Emily finally shows that she understands the topic to which
Margot is orienting. Emily’s turn also contains a formulation of her understanding of
the talk (line 31) and, in providing another word for boots, that is, shoes, she
provides an “other repair” (Schegloff, 2007b). It is possible that Margot’s use of
boots rather than shoes may have contributed to the trouble in the talk.
Formulations are members’ methods of providing a gist or summary of what
has been talked about, and have an important role in topical organisation (Heritage &
Watson, 1980; Heyman, 1986). The formulation provided by Emily works to capture
the gist of what has been collaboratively negotiated by Margot and her mother in the
preceding turns about what constitutes the topic. Furthermore, the formulation
furnishes a subsequent confirmation of the topic from Margot (line 36) that “fixes
parties” talk (Heritage & Watson, 1980, p. 255) to the topic.
Reaching a mutual understanding about what Margot wants to talk about with
Emily took several turns. Importantly, the shared understanding drew on shared
knowledge about the relationship between the cherry shoes and the “the shops”. The
naming of the place or referent “the shops” finally secured an understanding about
the topic to which the child wanted the mother to orient. Additionally, both members
initiated repair, with their combined actions showing a willingness to work out the
trouble.
Having sorted out what it is they are talking about, Margot provides a
formulation of her understanding about the status of the cherry shoes; that is, “they
didn’t have any cherry shoes” with the indexical term they referring to “the shops”.
This formulation recalls shared prior knowledge between Margot and Emily. In
completing her turn with “did they,” Emily makes relevant her shared knowledge
with her daughter about the cherry shoes, and also requests confirmation (line 36)
from Margot about the shared knowledge as the first matter addressed in the next
turn (Raymond & Heritage, 2006). Margot confirms the shared knowledge provided
in Emily’s formulation (line 36) with the negative response token “!no-” (line 36),
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HJY!
an appropriate answer to Emily’s because what Margot is agreeing to was formulated
in a negative, that is, with the use of didn’t. Thus, Margot’s question “I[s th]eir have
(.) cherry °(b)/(bit)°” which was posed by Margot (line 9), has been sorted out by the
mother and daughter. Confirmation of the status of the cherry shoes by Margot
elucidates that she already knew the answer to the question she posed that initiated
this sequence of talk (line 9).
Margot relaunches talk about the cherry shoes proposing “(eka-) (.) ( ) Lillian
(0.5) find them” (lines 46-48). Given the subsequent talk, the “eka-” (line 46) is
heard as “ask”. In this turn, Margot names a person, Lillian, with the naming of a
person functioning as a “topic carrier” and, in so doing, draws “attention to the topic
at hand” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 753). Margot’s proposal moves the talk from
sorting out “what” she wanted to talk about to proposing a strategy for finding the
cherry shoes. Emily responds with a formulation “Oh we’ll have to ask Lillian if she
found the shoes when she went to Brisbane” (lines 49-50) which provides an
elaborated version of what Margot said in a more concise way. This makes explicit
the additional knowledge shared between the mother and her daughter and it aligns
with Margot’s proposal to ask Lillian. Finally, Margot confirms that she is happy
with this proposed action as she nods her head and utters “mmm” (line 52).
As this sequence of talk shows, a speaker can utilise the talk of a co-participant
as a resource for initiating a “new topic” or action sequence. Margot used a topic, or
more accurately a word, that is “on the floor among adults” to get “topically included
in the talk” (Speier, 1973, p. 152). Furthermore, this analysis shows how Margot
chose a topic with an “orientation to co-participant”, her mother, and what she knows
they know. This orientation to the co-participant is reflected in Margot’s turn design.
Moreover, she selects a topic that, while relevant to self, is also relevant to “them”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 563), the mother and the child. Troubles in hearing or
understanding the talk being initiated, that is, the trouble source (Schegloff, 2007b),
resulted in efforts to repair the trouble with repair taking several turns to accomplish.
This sorting out of troubles was necessary because the co-participant, the mother, did
not orient to the talk initiated by the question posed by Margot. Central to the
“sorting out” of trouble is drawing on the shared knowledge between the members,
the reformulation of questions and the use of formulations to provide a gist or
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUI!
summary of members’ understandings about what has been, or is being, talked about
on this occasion.
!9A$=A23@1C4791:$QA@KAA4$@9A$7Ad6A4@132$A4J1=C4GA4@$34<$@3TA$6:$CN$
3$:=CNNA=A<$@C:18$]$PaCC=$C2<$%91=2AER$$
This section examines a sub-section of the extract. The analytic focus here is
on explicating of the methods used by Bibi to have her topic topicalised. Analysis
shows also how the sequential environment in which attempts to introduce a new
topic “poor old Shirley” influences the success or failure of such attempts. Shirley,
the person to whom Bibi is referring, is a family friend and has been unwell for some
time.
=2#%&'#*M1I1*
22 23 Emily
>What do you mean the cherry boots¿< =((E looks back at her food and rolls spaghetti onto her fork))
24 Bibi =Poor old Shirley, 25 Margot at 26 Bibi I said this would happen [to her,] 27 [at a ] shops 28 (2.5)
K(/,%$*I1N1!"#$!0,)<'(.!/)1(*2!)4!4#$!-(<<$,!4):*$8!
29 Margot !ye[ah ]= 30 Bibi [(was it )] ((food in her mouth)) 31 32
Emily =Yeah (0.3) !or::h! the cherry shoe:s ((B is gazing at both E and M))
33 (0.5) 34 Margot !Ye::ah. 35 Emily (yeah )they didn’t have any cherry shoes did they? 36 37
Margot !No- (0.2) ((B is looking at M, turns back to her food following Margot’s turn))
38 39
Bibi Sh- Shirley’s (.) condition (.) going down fast ((B is chewing))
40 41 42
Emily Yeah¿ ((E doesn’t look at B, rather she keeps her gaze on her food – there is a flat tone in her voice))
43 (0.3) ((all members chewing)) 44 Bibi ( )(kidmans) = ((talking with her food
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUH!
45 in her mouth)) 46 Margot =(eka-) (.) ( ) Lillian 47 ! (0.5) !
With her gaze directed at Emily, Bibi makes a news announcement (Button &
Casey, 1985), “Poor old Shirley, I said this would happen [to her]”. Commencing her
turn (line 24) and continuing (line 26), Bibi does not overlap with another speaker
but does insert a turn between the question-answer adjacency pair initiated by
Emily’s question (line 22) directed to Margot. Bibi’s topic is “disjunct” from current
talk about the “cherry boots” and does not occur in a sequential environment usually
attributed to topic beginnings (Button & Casey, 1985). Topic beginnings usually
occur in one of three environments, including “where topics are started where
conversations openings are produced; where a prior topic shutdown has been
accomplished; and, where conversations’ closings have been initiated” (Button and
Casey, 1985, p. 3).
While the sequential environment in which Bibi attempts to initiate her news
announcement does not reflect one of those identified by Button and Casey (1985), it
does reflect some characteristic features of news announcements (Button & Casey,
1985). First, it is speaker-related, that is, Bibi knows firsthand about “poor old
Shirley” and, second, Bibi orients to Emily, her daughter, as having “some
knowledge of aspects of the report” (Button & Casey, 1985, p. 22). Moreover, the
design of Bibi’s turn is the use of the “recognitional reference” (Schegloff, 1996,
p. 459) to “Shirley”, a person that Emily knows (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979, p. 17).
Furthermore, Bibi’s use of the indicator term (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 517) “this”
(line 125) suggests that Emily knows something about the “this” that is happening to
“poor old Shirley”; that is, the indexical term “this” provides a formulation of some
shared prior knowledge. The third feature is that the news is structured as a “partial
report” (Button & Casey, 1985, p. 22), suggesting that Bibi has more information
related to the announcement. In this way, Bibi’s news announcement could be
described as a news “headline” (Button & Casey, 1985, p. 23). However, the
positioning of Bibi’s news announcement does not occur in the “relevant” sequential
environment and this could account for why Emily does not provide a “topicalising
response” (Button & Casey, 1985, p. 24) in the following turn. Instead, following a
2.5 seconds pause (line 28), during which time Bibi appears to wait for a response
from Emily (see the still in the extract), Emily does not gaze towards Bibi or
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUO!
acknowledge her. Rather, Emily keeps her head down and moves her spaghetti about
in the bowl. Thus, now there are two members (Bibi and Margot) waiting for a
response from Emily. Margot has provided the additional information requested by
Emily (line 27) and is waiting for confirmation from Margot, and Bibi is waiting for
a “topicalising response” following her news announcement about Shirley.
In partial overlap with Margot, Bibi makes another attempt to talk (line 30);
however, her turn is not acknowledged by Emily. Instead, Emily finally grasps the
topic (line 31). Thus, Bibi’s attempts to introduce her topic have occurred at a critical
juncture for Emily, who is figuring out the topic to which Margot wants Emily to
orient. The “topic” to which Emily orients had been initiated prior to Bibi’s attempts
to have her news announcement topicalised.
Bibi’s attempts at having her news announcement topicalised are unsuccessful
so far, and she then has another go at introducing talk about “poor old Shirley” with
“Sh- Shirley’s (.) condition (.) going down fast” (line 38). In so doing, she pursues a
response (Pomerantz, 1984) from Emily and provides the detail hinted at in her
initial announcement, naming at least part of the “this” to which she was referring
(line 26). Even though Bibi provides more detail, in using the phrase “her condition”,
she does not provide explicit details about the “condition” that hints at the “delicacy”
(Pomerantz, 1984) of the topic of “poor old Shirley”. Unlike her previous attempts,
this attempt occurs at a place where Margot and Emily have sorted out that the
“shops” did not have the cherry shoes.
While her gaze remains down, Emily acknowledges the news with “yeah¿”
(line 40), thus providing a topicalising response to the news announcer and projects
that the elaboration of the news is a relevant next activity (Button & Casey, 1985).
However, while providing the verbal response to go ahead, her gaze is not oriented to
Bibi. Bibi proceeds to take the next turn (line 44), though her talk is unable to be
deciphered as she is chewing. Latching Bibi’s turn is Margot’s proposal to ask
Lillian to find the cherry shoes (line 47). Following the relaunching of talk about the
cherry boots by Margot, and Emily’s response to Margot, Bibi makes no additional
attempts to talk about “poor old Shirley”.
A number of features of this interaction contribute to the news announcement
not being taken up. First, the placement of the initial “news announcement” (Button
and Casey, 1985) occurred in a sequential environment usually not associated with
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUS!
topic beginnings. Second, the nominated recipient of the news announcement, the
mother, was involved in ongoing talk with her daughter. Third, when the recipient of
the news announcement, Emily, eventually did provide a topicalising response, her
response was not accompanied by a supportive gaze towards the recipient. Finally,
the news topic, the illness of Shirley, might be referred to as a sensitive or delicate
topic, and one that “poses particular sorts of problems in conversation” (Jefferson,
1984, p. 191). While Sacks (April 9, 1976, p. 9 cited in Jefferson, 1984, p. 191) notes
that members specifically do “getting off” some controversial topics, in the extract
examined here, the mother appeared to do not getting onto the sensitive or
controversial topic.
As analysis shows, both Margot (child) and Bibi (grandmother) directed their
turns to their co-participant, Emily, with the turn design showing an orientation to
what she knew about the topic. However, while Margot’s topic is oriented to by
Emily, Bibi’s topic seems to be avoided by the recipient. Thus, on this occasion, the
mother maintained her orientation to her child in an adult-child interaction rather
than immediately orienting to the adult who initiated adult-adult talk. While both the
sequential environment and the delicacy of the topic could account for why Bibi’s
topic is not oriented to, it is significant to observe that, on this occasion, the child
does not appear to have restricted rights as a conversationalist. As suggested
previously by Speier (1976), in adult-child conversations, children have restricted
rights as conversationalists as “adults claim rights of control over conversation with
children, and children are obliged to allow them control” (Speier, 1976, p. 101). In
this case, the child initiated a topic that was oriented to by the mother. At the same
time, the grandmother’s introduction of her news topic suggests a lack of attending to
the child’s agenda. It may be that the grandmother is attending to an interactional
space where children have restricted speaking results
(41@13@14D$3$4AK$@C:18$K1@9$3$d6A7@1C4$]$PS374_@$.1TAE$3@$KC=T$@C<3E$
.3=DC@XR$
This section establishes, first, how a questioner exerts considerable
interactional control in how the topic unfolds. The control is achieved through the
particular questions asked as and, how it is usually the case that the person who asks
a question who has the right to talk again after the question has been answered. Also
of consideration is the extent to which other members, those not asking the question,
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUJ!
buy into and contribute to the topic by providing supplementary information. In this
way, co-present members’ knowledge of the “topic” becomes relevant in how the
topic unfolds. The use of third person reference terms, such as Daddy, are used in
turn design to do self-referencing and thus make relevant the relational category
child (daughter). All three features relate to how topic is taken up when a question is
asked.
This section of the transcript appears 6.28 minutes into the evening meal where
all family members are eating their spaghetti. It begins with a question from Emily,
the mother, that initiates talk about Margot’s day with Margot’s father. The mother
has offered up a recipient-oriented topic (Schegloff, 2007b) that, in this case, given
that the recipient of the question is a child, might be considered a “child-relevant
topic” proffered to “bring the child into the conversation” (Speier, 1973, p. 152).
=2#%&'#*M1J1*
1 (2.4) ((eating)) 2 Emily $ Wasn’t Mikey at work today Margot¿ ((Looks at M)) 3 4
Margot (0.3) ((shakes her head – looking at Emily)) no, (0.3) >her were at home<
5 Emily He was at home ((chewing)) (0.3) Who did you see¿ 6 Margot Twa! cey 7 8
(2.5) ((Emily nods and both Emily and Margot are both chewing their food))
9 10
Emily ((nods and puts more cheese onto her spaghetti))What did you play¿
11 (0.7) 12 Margot A::h:¿ ((takes a mouthful and looks towards Steve)) 13 (1.9) ((Steve shakes his head)) 14 15
Steve ((shakes his head and raises his shoulders and looks towards Margot)) We weren’t there that long were we=
16 Emily =Oh (0.4) Did you show her your pens (.) no? 17 18
(0.7)((Margot raises her shoulders and shakes her head))
19 Emily Winnie the Pooh pen? 20 Margot (Shakes head ) – °No° 21 Emily Okay. 22 (0.6) 23 Bibi Went to the swings with daddy I think= 24 Margot =!Yeah::¿ 25 Emily Did [you? °mm°] 26 27
Bibi [What ] what did you bring me home for dinner for Bibi
28 (1.0) 29 ? °(oh)° 30 Margot A piehe:¿ ((eating)) 31 Bibi? °(mm)° 32 33
Emily (Steve)Where did you get the pies from (looks to Steve)
34 (1.5) 35 Steve O’Gradys¿ ((looks at Emily)) 36 (0.8)
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUU!
37 Emily Mmm, (1.6) they’re nice pies there mmm 38 Bibi mm 39 Steve Who did we see at (0.2) Daddy’s work? 40 (1.5) 41 42
Margot °Ah ah° (0.2) ((looking at Steve – she has a mouthful of food))
43 Steve Big man (.) what’s his name 44 45
Margot °Ah ah° ((continues looking at S – has a mouthful of food and looks unsure))
46 (0.4) 47 48
Steve (.) big tall man what’s his name (( S looks directly at M and M looks directly to S))
49 Margot °ah-° ((mouthful of food)) 50 Bibi DADDY’S WORK ((all adults have gaze on Margot)) 51 (1.7) 52 Margot Ga::ry 53 Emily Did you see Gary? ((talks with mouthful)) 54 55
Margot $!Yeah!$ ((turns her head towards Emily and answers the question))
56 57
Emily Arh::, (.) did he know who you were? ((Emily looks directly at Margot))
58 Margot (0.8)((Smiles and pushes shoulders up)) 59 Steve You knew who he was¿ 60 Emily $Ahhh$ 61 Margot Yeah- 62 (0.3) !
In the above extract, Emily, the mother, initiates talk about Margot’s day with
her father with a question “wasn’t Mikey at work today Margot¿” (line 2). Emily’s
question both nominates the topic and names the next speaker. In posing her
interrogative as a first pair part (FPP), an answer from Margot is conditionally
relevant as the second pair part (Schegloff, 2007b). In this way, Emily initiates a
question-answer adjacency pair (Q-A). While exceptions have been identified
(Schegloff, 1972), in most instances of a question-answer adjacency pair the “person
who asks a question has a right to talk again after the question has been answered”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 102). In some cases, the person who initiates the first
question may use their turn to ask another question, thus re-establishing their right to
talk again. This question-answer, question-answer sequence as a “repeat device”
(Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 49) is referred to as the chaining rule (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1,
p. 102). While the question-answer repeat has sequential consequences, it also may
be seen as “categories-in-action, in the sense that, in carrying out the action, that is,
producing an utterance in the form of a question, the speaker is accompanying the
sequential slot of questioner but is also producing the question for a particular
audience” (Fitzgerald & Housley, 2002, p. 582). In this way, the questioner, Emily,
produces a question that is recipient designed for Margot, her daughter. Thus,
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUF!
Emily’s question could be classified as a parental question designed for her child
Margot.
Of particular importance is the initial questioner’s “considerable interactional
control over conversational development” (Speier, 1973, p. 98) through a Q-A chain.
The interactional control accomplished by the questioner is evident in more formal
contexts such as schools, where the teacher has been shown to control what is of
interest to children during news sessions (Baker & Perrott, 1988). As Emily, the
mother, initiates this sequence with a question, she has the right to talk again after the
child has answered. In this case, the mother asks another question, again re-
establishing her right to talk. Thus, the chaining rule appears to be important in terms
of how the proffered topic unfolds. The enactment of the chaining rule may account
for what Ochs and Taylor (1992a) identify in their research, where the role of
introducer has a pivotal role in controlling narrative activity. This includes
nominating the next speaker and the topic boundary. Thus, if the chaining rule is
oriented to by the members, then the person who poses the question has a significant
role in the direction of the topic.
In the question that initiates the series of turns, Mikey is identified as a member
of the collection of people who are “at work”, thus indicating that Emily knows
members of the collection of people at work. However, Emily has not referred to
“work” as Daddy’s work. The use of the place formulation (Schegloff, 1972, p. 96)
“at work,” and Margot’s presence in that site, identifies Margot as a member of the
category of people who visited “work”. In addition, Emily’s use of “wasn’t” (line 2)
indicates that she knew that Mikey was not at work today, thus Emily’s question is a
“known answer question” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 223).
Margot orients to the question, confirming that Mikey was not at work with
“no” (line 3). Thus, Margot aligns with the polarity of the question and provides a
type conforming response because what she is agreeing with was posed in the
negative (Schegloff, 2007b). Emily, in the next TCU, expands on the topic with
additional information about Mikey. She provides the “place formulation”
(Schegloff, 1972, p. 96) “at home” and, in so doing, accounts for why Mikey wasn’t
at work. One way in which a recipient shows an inclination to take up a topic is
through topic expansion (Schegloff, 2007b). While topic expansion is evidenced in
the response provided by Margot, examination of the “what is actually said”
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUR!
(Schegloff, 2007b p. 172) may in fact discourage the topic. So, in providing an
account of why Mikey wasn’t at work, Margot may have discouraged the
continuation of the topic proffered by Emily. The next turn in the question-answer
sequence turns out to be crucial in whether or not the topic continues.
In the subsequent turn (line 5), the mother repeats the information provided by
Margot with a formulation (Heritage & Watson, 1980, 1979), one that provides both
the correct pronoun and past tense verb. Emily provides an “other initiated other
repair” (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977, p. 378), although other repair/correction
anecdotally features more often in parent-child interaction (Schegloff et.al, 1977). In
the turn construction unit (TCU) following the formulation, Emily follows up with
another question that asks Margot “who did you see” (line 5). So, while “work” is
referred to here, it is not actually named as such by the members with the indexical
term used to refer back to “at work” ellipsed in Emily’s turn. Ellipsis is “a rule of
speech economy” where parts of a previous utterance are carried forward though
they are not “repeated vocally” (Speier, 1973, p. 106). As previously noted, Emily’s
turn is important in continuing the topic. Thus, in repeating the formulation and then
requesting information about who Margot saw “at work”, Emily continues with the
proffered topic of visiting daddy’s work (line 2). Margot orients to the category of
people at work and names someone she saw at work, “Twacey” (line 6). This is
acknowledged by the mother by nodding (line 7).
Following the gap of 2.5 seconds, during which time both Emily and Margot
are eating, Emily asks “What did you play” (lines 9-10). Emily’s question suggests a
possible category bound activity (Sacks, 1995) for Margot, that is, as a member of
the category, child, Margot “plays” during a visit “to work”. However, following a
0.7 second pause (line 11), Margot does not provide an answer as the second pair
part but rather, provides a lengthened “Ah::: ¿” (line 12) and with a rising contour
which seems to act as a turn-holding or delaying device suggesting some trouble in
answering. Margot gazes towards Steve, her father, appearing to request his help in
answering her mother’s question.
Thus, while not nominated as the next speaker by Emily, Steve is requested by
the nominated next speaker, Margot, to “help out”. With his gaze on Margot he
shakes his head and lifts his shoulder, physical actions that seem to suggest
agreement about the problem with the question posed by Emily. Steve orients to the
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUG!
proffered topic and says, “we weren’t there that long were we=” (line 15). His
provision of temporal information accounts to Emily, his wife, for Margot’s trouble
in answering her question (lines 9-10). In using the pro-term “we” Steve makes
relevant his membership of the people who visited work, and this is used to refer to
both he and Margot. Given that Margot is co-present, he is speaking for Margot and
for himself as a representative of the couple (Lerner, 1993) who were “at work”. In
addition, he invites confirmation from Margot in the next turn that verifies that they
were not there that long and, in so doing, appeals to Margot’s greater epistemic
authority about the topic. Steve’s gaze towards Margot contributes to his invitation to
Margot to acknowledge his account for why she did not answer the question posed
by Emily. Thus, contributes to a collaboratively produced response to Emily’s
question In addition, he invites confirmation from Margot in the next turn that
verifies that they were not there that long and, in so doing, appeals to Margot’s
greater epistemic authority about the topic. Steve’s gaze towards Margot contributes
to his invitation to Margot to acknowledge his account for why she did not answer
the question posed by Emily (Heritage, 1984).
Emily’s next question proposes another activity that Margot could do with
Twacey, which could be seen as a downgrading from “playing” to “showing her your
pens”; that is, the proposal is cognisant of the short period of time spent at work.
Margot provides non-verbal agreement to Emily’s no as she raises her shoulders and
shakes her head. Emily then proposes the type of pens Margot had to “show”, that is,
her “Winnie the Pooh” pens. Margot provides a quiet type conforming, though
dispreferred, response °no° (line 20), a response that is acknowledged by Emily with
okay (line 21). The falling intonation on Emily’s turn, the series of dispreferred
responses from Margot, and Emily moving back to eat her spaghetti, suggest that
Emily’s questioning about Margot’s day may have run its course. Schegloff (2007b)
proposes that “after a topic proffer sequence has run its course between the profferer
and the addressed recipient…other parties in the interaction may involve themselves,
and extend the talk” (p. 177). As a ratified participant (Goffman, 1981) in the
mealtime setting, Bibi inserts a turn (line 23) that contributes to continuing the
recount of Margot’s day.
With her gaze on Margot, Bibi proposes another place where Margot went with
Daddy, she “went to the swings with daddy I think=” (line 23). Bibi, in using the
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HUY!
place name “the swings”, provides a location formulation (Schegloff, 1972) and
introduces another place visited by Margot. Bibi also provides an account for why
Margot provided a dispreferred response (line 12) to the question posed by Emily
about what she played (lines 9-10) and for Steve’s account that they were not at work
that long (line 15). In identifying the person, Daddy, used here as a third person
reference, (Schegloff, 1996), Bibi remarks that she was not part of the swing episode.
However, her turn contributes to building the recount of Margot’s day.
In using the third person reference and category term “daddy” in the design of
her turn, Bibi makes relevant a father-daughter relationship within the membership
categorization device, family (Sacks, 1995). The invoking of the father-daughter
relationship, and the use of “I think” (line 23), can be heard by Margot as requiring
confirmation from her. In requesting confirmation regarding her contribution to the
talk, Bibi defers to Margot’s greater epistemic knowledge about the topic because
Margot was physically involved in the event (Raymond & Heritage, 2006). Thus, in
an animated way Margot confirms that she went to the swings and corroborates
Bibi’s account of what she did during her day with Daddy. While Bibi’s turn
provides another opportunity for Margot to enter into the talk, in just providing
“yeah”, she does not provide an elaboration of going to the swings with Daddy. On
the completion of Margot’s turn (line 24), Emily acknowledges the new information
contributed by Bibi about Margot’s day with “Did [you? °mm°]”.
In partial overlap with Emily’s acknowledgement, Bibi poses a question to
Margot. While Bibi initially uses the “self-reference” term “me” to refer to herself,
she then initiates a repair referring to herself by the third person reference term
“Bibi” (Schegloff, 2007a, p. 434). Through her physical orientation towards Margot
and her use of the third person reference (Schegloff, 1996) and category term “Bibi”,
the special term used by Margot to refer to her grandmother, Bibi makes it clear that
the question is directed to Margot. In addition, Bibi’s posing the question “[What ]
what did you bring me home for dinner for Bibi” (line 26) introduces another activity
in Margot’s day, one that works to involve Bibi in the “we” who were part of
Margot’s day. While including herself in part of Margot’s day, she orients also to
Margot’s knowledge about the topic of her day.
Margot responds with a single TCU “A piehe:¿” (line 30), answering the
question but not expanding the talk. Bibi’s question (lines 26-27) appears to occasion
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HFI!
a side sequence initiated by Emily, and commencing when Emily directs a question
to Steve, her husband, about where he bought the pies (line 32). Emily acknowledges
the naming the pie shop, O’Gradys, with a positive assessment token “mmm”
(Gardner, 1997) and an elaboration of her positive assessment (Pomerantz, 1984)
with, “they’re nice pies there mmm.” Her assessment is based on her “knowledge of
what” (Pomerantz, 1984, p. 58) is being assessed. Emily’s question to Steve marks a
shift in who is the recipient of her questions. In the preceding talk in this extract,
Emily’s questions have nominated Margot as the recipient.
Steve next initiates talk with Margot, his daughter, with the question “who did
we see at (0.2) Daddy’s work” (line 39). Margot is once again required to provide an
answer to an adult question and the talk shifts back to the people Margot saw at
work, with “work” now reformulated as “Daddy’s work”. The use of the third person
reference and category term Daddy to do self reference makes it explicit to Margot
that he is referring to his work and to the people who are members of his work.
Daddy also functions as a “topic carrier” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 753) and helps
accomplish “talking topically” (Sacks, 1995, p. 753). Furthermore, Steve’s use of the
pro-term “we” to refer to himself and to Margot as a “collectivity” (Lerner, 1993)
identifies his question as a “known answer question” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 223). In
this case, the answer is known by both Steve and Margot. Known answer questions
often are used to elicit information already known by the person who asks the
question, and are often identified within a “classroom – or, more generally,
instructional – settings” (Schegloff, 2007b, p. 223), a site that includes adults and
children. Even though the answer is known by Steve, he orients to the fact that
Margot knows the answer to the question.
In order to name the person referred to in Steve’s question, Margot needs to
call on her understanding of the membership category (Sacks, 1995) to which Steve
is referring. In this case, the person referred to as “who” is a member of the category
of people who work at Daddy’s work. Thus, Steve invokes the “membership
categorization device” (Sacks, 1995) where a membership categorization device
refers to a “collection of categories for referring to persons, with some rules of
application” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 238). While orienting to Steve with her gaze,
the pause (line 40) and the dispreferred “°ah ah°” (line 41) suggest that Margot is
struggling to provide an answer to Steve’s question.
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HFH!
As a consequence of Margot’s failure to identify and name the particular
person at Daddy’s work, referred to by Schegloff (2007a, p. 436) as “person
identifications”, Steve redesigns his question (line 43). Steve provides some clues in
order to highlight the particular person to whom he is “referring” (Schegloff, 2007a,
p. 436). He includes the “attributes” (Schegloff, 2007a, p. 436) big and the sex of the
person to whom he is referring. The description prefaces his question to Margot.
However, Margot still does not name of the person (line 44). Steve’s repair consists
of increasing the attributes (Schegloff, 2007a) of the man, this time describing him as
a “big tall man” (line 47). However, Margot responds with °ah-° (line 49), suggesting
a kind of thinking response.
While the proceeding talk has included Margot and her father in a question-
answer sequence as a “repeat device” (Sacks, 1995, p. 49), the gaze of the other
adults has been on Margot. This suggests that they are following the interaction,
though they do not become involved until Bibi’s turn (line 310). With increased
amplitude, Bibi inserts a turn “DADDY’S WORK” (line 50). The place formulation
repeats the contextual information “daddy’s work” that was part of the initial
question posed by Steve (line 39). Following a 1.7 second pause, Margot names the
person “we” saw at daddy’s work”, that is, “Ga::ry” (line 52). The naming of “place”
“DADDY’S WORK” seems to prompt the naming of the particular person by
Margot.
The tendering of the correct answer by Margot (line 52) to the initial question
that Steve posed (line 39) is followed another question, this time from Emily (line
53). Emily’s question orients to what had been talked about previously, who they
saw at Daddy’s work. Margot responds an animated “$!Yeah!$” (line 54), resulting
in Emily acknowledging “arh::” and another question from Emily (line 56). Margot
responds with a kind of coy smile, seeming to provide confirmation that Garry knew
her. During the time that Margot responds to Emily, Steve has his head down
towards his food. Thus, the “business of eating” accounts for his formulation (line
59) as he informs Emily that Garry knew Margot. This results in an
acknowledgement from Emily accompanied by laughter (line 60) to which Margot
responds “yeah-” (line 61).
As noted in the introduction to this section, the questioner initiating the
question-answer sequence exerts considerable interactional control in terms of how
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HFO!
the sequence of talk unfolds. Throughout the sequence, the adults, initially the
mother, posed questions to the child that helped build a kind of collaborative recount
of the child’s day. Question design focussed on who they saw, what activities
occurred and where they went and, in so doing, they exerted control over what was
topicalised in the recount. While also contributing to this recount of the day, the
father provided clues in the form of identifying attributes to support the child to
provide the required answer to his known answer questions. As explicated in the
analysis, question design showed evidence of the adult orienting to the co-participant
and what they “know they know” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 564) based on a kind of
prior knowledge about what might occur and what they knew actually happened
because that was part of the “we” involved in the activities. Many of the questions
oriented also to the child’s epistemic knowledge about the topic. In addition, the
unfolding of the questions as a kind of list of possibilities about the day reflect
Sacks’ proposition of a “clock function” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 564). In this way,
the adults particularly the mother who has been apart from her daughter for the day
orients to what has occurred since “the last time we talked” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2,
p. 564).
All the adults at the dinner table contributed to how the topic unfolded. For
example, they provided additional information to account for the child’s non-answer
or dispreferred response to questions posed. In this way, they showed a group
orientation to the topic on the floor. In addition, because of their involvement in the
“day” with the child, they could buy into the talk about the nominated topic.
Analysis explicated how third person reference terms to do self referencing
were used by the adults in the design of some of their turns. Terms such as Daddy or
Mummy generally are “designed to display that the speaker is talking about
themselves as if from the perspective of another” (Land & Kitzinger, 2007, p. 494).
As evidenced in the analysis, Steve’s use of Daddy and Bibi’s use of Bibi, both
category terms from the membership category device “family”, are important in turn
design as they make relevant particular categories and subsequent relationships. In so
doing, these reference terms make relevant a next turn by someone who is implicated
by the use of the third person reference category term. Thus, we see Steve and Bibi
take account of Margot in their use of terms that she uses to refer to them.
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HFS!
'C482671C4$
In examining family talk at mealtime, we see three generations of a family
represented: the grandmother, parents and child. This chapter has focussed
specifically on topic organisation to suggest four matters for consideration including
topic organisation, the introduction of topic, topic uptake and gaze avoidance to cut
off topic talk.
While both Sacks (1995) and Speier (1973) suggest that children may have
restricted rights as conversationalists, on this occasion, the child selected what might
be considered a child relevant topic and one also of interest to “them” (Sacks, 1995,
Vol. 2, p. 563), the participating adults at the dinner table. In this way, Margot
showed an orientation to her co-participants and what she knew “they” knew. In this
chapter, we began by analysing Margot initiating a topic through a question. What
followed was some interactional trouble. The sorting out of the trouble was a mutual
accomplishment achieved through Margot’s self-initiation of repair sequences and
the use of formulations providing the gist of the preceding talk. Furthermore,
analysis shows that it is not just enough for a child to initiate talk about a topic of
interest to them, it must be oriented to by the adult who takes up the proffered topic.
Second, the sequential environment in which a new topic is introduced affects
the success of take up of the topic. We saw how Bibi’s attempt to initiate a new topic
with a “news announcement” (Button & Casey, 1984) was unsuccessful because the
nominated recipient, Emily, was involved in ongoing talk with Margot. Orientation
to topic is accomplished collaboratively, and the nominated topic of “poor old
Shirley” may not have been taken up by the mother because it was considered
“sensitive or controversial” (Sacks, 1976). Analysis showed the methods used to
avoid “not getting onto the sensitive or controversial topic” that included continuing
to orient to an existing topic (Cherry Shoes), not providing the SPP, and gaze
avoidance towards the initiator of the topic.
Third, questions were identified as an important resource for accomplishing the
introduction of a topic. Analysis also revealed how the questioner, in initiating a
question-answer sequence, could exert their right to talk again. In this way, a
question can exert a kind of interactional control over how the topic unfolds.
Furthermore, the questions contributed to building a collaborative recount and
supported topic expansion.
!
=#)B4$,!R!"&B(')*!")*C!N@,(<?!0)1(*2!3$)*4(1$.! HFJ!
Finally, gaze was an important means whereby members nominated next
speaker. When not involved in the ongoing interaction, family members appeared to
monitor the ongoing talk evidenced through their gaze. While the mutual gaze of
speakers was apparent in the interactions, avoidance of gaze was explicated as a
means for accomplishing an avoidance of talk with the speaker. Gaze was effective
in terminating the introduction of a topic, and effective also in maintaining topic.
Gaze towards food provided an accountable reason for gaze avoidance and lack of
uptake of topic.
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HFU!
Chapter 8 $
P-CC<$NC=$@9C6D9@RF$'C482671C47$
The thesis has shown how family members assemble social orders through
mealtime talk. The everyday social interactions of two families during naturally
occurring mealtimes were video recorded by family members. Episodes of the video
recorded data of the family interactions were transcribed and then subjected to fine-
grained analysis using the combined approaches of ethnomethodology, conversation
analysis and membership categorization analysis. In so doing, the study contributes
to understandings of the interactional resources families use and how they use them
as they assemble and maintain social orders during family mealtime. More broadly,
the study provides empirical data to show how children demonstrate their social
competence as they engage in social activity with their siblings, and with adult
family members.
This final chapter shows how the “settinged” (Sacks, 1995, p. 517) character of
the mealtime is evidenced and makes salient the way in which the “multipartiness” of
the setting is consequential for how turns at talk are achieved. Next, the chapter
presents the theoretical and methodological significance of the study. Finally, the
chapter provides suggestions for further studies and identifies the implications of the
study for mealtime practices within other institutional settings, such as schools and
childcare settings.
Focussing on talk and social interaction of the family members, the research
questions identified in Chapter 1 were:
• What are the social interactions and practices happening in family
mealtime contexts?
• What interactional methods and procedures do members draw on during
family mealtime?
• How do the interactions contribute to the social orders of mealtime and
family interaction?
• What does the study contribute to understandings of family interactions?
The adoption of an ethnomethodological approach required that the research
questions were not narrowly set in advance. Rather, beginning with “unmotivated
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HFF!
looking” (Sacks, 1984b, p. 27) meant that I was open to “discovering phenomenon
rather than searching for instances of already identified phenomena or for some
theoretically preformulated conceptualisation of what the phenomena should look
like” (Psathas, 1990, pp. 24-25). Thus, additional research questions emerged during
the analytic process that began with “noticing” something, posing questions about
how the observed feature was produced so that it was observable, and then
describing the methods used by the members to produce the feature that was noticed
(Francis &, Hester, 2004, pp. 25-26). For example, during the early analytic stages of
the sequences presented in Chapter 5, I noticed how Max moved to gain his mother’s
attention (see line 74) and how he seemed to take centre stage as he described what
the medicine tasted like. In Chapter 6, I observed Ben’s close observation of his
sister and his Oma. These noticings lead to questions about how the features I
observed were produced by the members. Following these beginning observations,
selected episodes of family mealtimes were transcribed and subjected to fine-grained
analysis.
Drawn together in the theoretical significance of the findings are four
substantive themes that address the broad research questions. Themes here refer to
what members were “seen to do” (Danby, 1998, p. 309) during family mealtime
interactions and, as such, constitute the phenomenon identified by the analyst. While
each theme is addressed separately, the themes are connected. Prior to discussing the
analytic themes, the chapter now turns to the family mealtime setting and its
importance for what and how social interactions and practices occur.
!9A$%A@@14D$
Each mealtime discussed in the analysis chapters included three or more family
members who came together to eat their meal at the mealtime table. The contexts
include breakfast and evening mealtime, when families are most likely to come
together in kitchen and dining settings to share family meals. These times are
“centralised” occasions (Ochs et al., 1996, p. 96). Identifying time and place as
characteristic features of the mealtimes captures taken-for-granted understandings of
mealtimes; however, such an approach may miss the way in which mealtimes also
are practical accomplishments of members. In this way, the concept of a mealtime is
more than a time indicated on a clock or a place to eat, or just about eating. Rather,
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HFR!
mealtime is a social activity that members organise and produce through their talk
and interactions in such a way as is recognisable as family members having a meal.
!9A$7A@@14DA<$893=38@A=$CN$N3G12E$GA32@1GA$
Sacks (1995) identified the notion of the settinged character of activities in his
discussion of therapy sessions. He questioned the way in which a setting could be
invoked “without formulating which setting now” (p. 517). A settinged activity,
according to Sacks (1995), refers to the way in which specific features of the setting
are identifiable in the interaction. Sacks suggested that a setting is not simply
invoked but, rather, members “make a setting out of some course of activities, … by
beginning to develop things like time in it” (p. 521). The invocation of time as
important in the setting supports the use of terms such as “early and late”, terms that
are “specifically features of settinged events” (Sacks, 1995, p. 521). The idea of a
settinged activity was used to describe fairy club, a lunchtime game played by young
children, where “a distinct order and set time, place and membership categories”
were used to understand actions within the club (Butler, 2008, p. 189). The
mealtimes presented in this study also can be understood as a “settinged activity”.
The settinged activity of family mealtime is evidenced in at least four ways.
First, members orient to a temporal ordering of mealtime. For example, in the
Vanderloos family, as shown in Chapter 5, grace was said prior to eating. Will
announced the settinged activity when he said “you can’t eat yet” (line 16) and Julia,
the mother, directed the family members “okay everybody jis say grace first” (line
18). Though no endings or closings of meals are presented in the thesis, observations
of the video-recorded data show how leaving the table and/or commencing other
kinds of activities, such as playing chess or continuing to look at the bookclub
brochure, follow the completion of eating. Part of the orientation of members to the
temporal ordering of mealtime is the way in which members orient to routines in the
setting.
Second, the way in which eating and organising food were oriented to as
central to each mealtime setting also suggests the “settinged character of activities”
(Sacks, 1995, p. 521). Generally, without instruction or prompting, members sat on a
chair, at the table, and ate their meal from a plate. The orderliness with which this
happened invoked particular “settinged” characteristics of mealtime. There were
occasions during the mealtime when a member breached this orderliness. For
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HFG!
example, in Chapter 5, Max was asked to sit on his chair properly, Will was asked to
wait because Ben was not ready and it was noted that Ben had too much food in his
mouth. In Chapter 6, Ben was directed “Ben DON’T do that (the) chair it’s no good
for the legs”. When social breaches happened that disrupted the orderliness of how
meals were accomplished, it was made visible through noticings and sometimes a
reminder of the rules. Sometimes justifications for the rule were provided with the
notification of the breach, as was the case when Adele told Ben to sit on the chair
properly. Both adults and children issued the noticing of breaches.
Third, membership categories within the device family were oriented to in each
setting and, when invoked, took priority. In Chapter 5, family members oriented to
the mother’s central role in organising and managing the distribution of food. For
example, Julia, used the third person reference term as she offered Ben a cup of tea
“Ben mums made you a >cup of tea love”.
Fourth, the settinged activity of mealtime was invoked through assessments
and formulations. For example, in Chapter 5, Julia provided the formulation, “it’s jist
that we are having brekkie” (lines 51-52), invoking settinged practices about how
breakfast occurs in the family. While what it means to “have brekkie” was not
explicitly stated, the relevance of what this occasion means was implicitly noted and
its implication assumed as understood by Henry. Thus, following Julia’s formulation
(lines 51-52), Henry refocuses on the meal and food as he requests milk (line 54).
Positive assessments of the food usually proffered by the mother also invoked the
settinged character of activities, bringing the focus back to the meal and food
(Mondada, 2009). For example, in the data corpus, Julia provided a positive
assessment of the eggs as “these are yum eggs” and “nice eggs”. Thus, as part of the
settinged character of the meal, assessments demonstrate an orientation to a valuing
of food being consumed by the members and a re-orientation to matters of food.
This thesis makes a contribution to how the settinged character of family
mealtimes is invoked by explicating what members do within the setting. As
discussed, the temporal ordering of activities within mealtime, the orderliness with
which eating and organising food occurred, the invoking of membership categories
to organise social activity and finally the use of both assessments and formulations to
reorient members back to the meal and food were identified as ways in which
members invoked the settinged character of family mealtime.
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HFY!
-3G12E$GA32@1GAF$)$G62@1:3=@E$7A@@14D$
The number of family members present at mealtimes characterised the
mealtime as multiparty interaction. The orientation to “multipartiness”, a term used
to describe more than two members co-present, was explicated as potentially always
relevant in terms of how members engaged in the activity of family mealtime. As
Sacks noted, “numbers matter” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 2, p. 127) in relation to who has a
turn at talk and how turns at talk are accomplished. For example, members need to
mobilise strategies to accomplish two party talk, that is, talk with just one other
person. The number of people present means that two-party talk is never secured for
more than one turn (TCU) because, at each TRP, it is possible for speaker change to
occur (Sacks et al., 1974) and there may be several people vying for a next turn.
Thus, even though X may have addressed a turn to Y and Y took the next turn,
another speaker may self select at the TRP. In this way, the multipartiness of the
setting is potentially always relevant in terms of who will be the next speaker. For
example, in Chapter 5, Max was directed by his mother to answer his brother, Henry.
Max’s failure to respond at the TRP was oriented to by Ben who proffered a
candidate answer (Pomerantz, 1988). Thus, in a multiparty setting, two-party talk is
fragile or tenuous because it is always possible for another member to take a turn at
the next TRP or to interrupt the ongoing talk.
The family members in the study used a number of interactional resources for
indicating to whom they were addressing their turn and thus signalling a possible
next speaker. This included using address terms such as mum, using “recipient
indicators” (Lerner, 2003) such as “you”, gazing towards the intended speaker and,
moving to be closer to the possible next speaker.
While the number of members present influenced how turns at talk and
progressivity of talk, were accomplished, also significant for how mealtime was
accomplished was the co-location of family members in close proximity to each
other over an extended period of time. The physical closeness of members meant that
it was possible for members to hear the talk of other members and also to see what
they were doing. So, in the case of the Vanderloos family (see Chapter 5), even when
a member left the table to go to the kitchen, which was adjacent to the mealtime table
and separated only by a small servery, it was still possible for family members to
hear the ongoing interactions. While initially aligning this potential to hear the talk of
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRI!
other members with the notion of an overhearing audience, close examination
revealed that, unlike talk for an overhearing audience (Heritage, 1985), mealtime talk
was not necessarily produced for an overhearing audience, though it may have been.
Rather, it was possible for other members to hear some or all of the talk of other
members because members were co-located.
How members oriented to the talk of other members during family mealtimes
was evidenced in a number of ways including members gazing towards the speaker,
smiling as they gazed towards the current speaker and self-selecting, and buying into
the ongoing talk. Moving to be closer to the talk was observed also as a way in which
members oriented to the ongoing talk. For example, Julia, in Chapter 5, moved to be
closer to the speaker, Max, as he was telling a story about the taste of the medicine.
Thus, while not necessarily talking, co-present members’ actions show their
orientation to ongoing social activity.
While Chapter 5 addressed specifically multiparty talk, each chapter in this
thesis presented data drawn from multiparty mealtime settings. Understandings about
the interactional resources members mobilised to signal a possible next speaker have
been highlighted. Additionally, the possibility of other members overhearing talk
within co-located mealtimes shows the complexity of the setting for managing
interaction and implications for the progressivity of talk. The theoretical significance
of the study is now discussed.
!9AC=A@1832$%1D41N18348A$CN$@9A$-14<14D7$
This section draws together four themes that emerged from one or more of the
mealtimes episodes. They are:
• Shared family knowledge is relevant to, and consequential for, mealtime
interactions.
• Topic is a shared resource for social interaction.
• The membership categorization device family is important for organising
social action.
• Children’s competence in organising social action during family mealtime
is an ongoing accomplishment.
Each theme is now explained in more detail.
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRH!
%93=A<$N3G12E$T4CK2A<DA$=A2AJ34@$@C$34<$8C47Ad6A4@132$NC=$GA32@1GA$
14@A=38@1C47$$
The first theme is that family knowledge is relevant and consequential for
accomplishing social order during family mealtime. Family knowledge encompasses
knowledge of past events, knowledge of people about whom reference is made,
knowledge of places that family members frequent, and knowledge of the activities
in which members engage. Some of this knowledge was shared knowledge among
most family members, while some knowledge was shared with perhaps just one other
member. The link between prior knowledge and the present interactions points to
how the “past” is consequential for the present mealtime interactions. This shared
history shows how family knowledge is relevant for how social order is
accomplished. Thus, family knowledge is a resource that members draw on for
initiating and sustaining family interaction.
The study showed how family knowledge is used and oriented to by family
members in their interactions. One way in which family knowledge is invoked is
through family members buying into talk. Buying into talk accomplished a number
of actions that included justifying or accounting for the action of the previous turn,
challenging the action of the previous turn and contributing to the progressivity of
the talk. In self selecting to buy into the talk, members made relevant that they had
knowledge about what was being discussed and that this knowledge was important
for the ongoing social action. For example, in Chapter 5, when Henry proffered the
knowledge, “you haven’t tasted that,” his statement challenged Max’s claims about
tasting the milk of a dead cow and, in Chapter 7, Bibi bought into the talk when
Margot was having difficulty answering the questions posed by her father. In this
way, the unsolicited proffering of members’ knowledge appears to invoke particular
rights to buy into talk because members know about the matter being discussed.
Thus, knowledge about someone, in this case another family member, is linked to the
device family and appears to be viewed as predicate-bound with rights to have a say.
Buying into talk was not something that only parents and other adults did, as children
also were observed buying into the talk and contributing their knowledge to the
ongoing interaction.
On some occasions, members were invited to “help out” with knowledge that
then became consequential for the ongoing action. Thus, knowledge became a
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRO!
resource for sorting out interactional troubles, such as when a member did not
answer a question posed to them. For example, in Chapter 8, Margot requested help
from her father, Steve, to answer a question posed by her mother, Emily. As noted by
Sacks (1995), father/daughter is a standardised relational pair. One relational pair
that “constitutes a locus for a set of rights and obligations concerning the giving of
help” (Sacks, 1972, p. 37) is collection R. There are two categories within the
collection, people it is “proper to turn to” (Rp) and people “not proper to turn to” (Ri)
(Sacks, 1972, p. 40). As an incumbent of the category child, it is proper (Rp) for the
child, Margot, to turn to her father for help. Sacks (1972) also proposed collection K,
which he described as “a collection constructed by reference to special distributions
of knowledge existing about how to deal with some trouble” (p. 37), usually
comprised of professionals and laypeople/clients. As with collection R, collection K
also includes those who are either “proper” to turn to (Kp) or not proper to turn (Ki).
In this case, the request for help is linked to the knowledge the father possesses (Kp)
about the matter being discussed.
Knowledge about members and about members’ activities was evident in the
ways in which members invited other members into the talk by using questions
designed with an orientation to the co-participant’s knowledge (Sacks, 1995). Adults
proffered questions to children to bring them into the mealtime talk (see Chapter 7)
using what might be described as “child-relevant topics” (Speier, 1973), a strategy
that Speier (1973) asserts involves the adult orienting to the category child and, as
such, takes into account the activities and interests of children. Analysis showed that
children also oriented to the knowledge of the recipient of their turn in the design of
questions to initiate talk with adults. For example, in Chapter 7, Margot, designed her
turn with an orientation to what her mother presumably knew. Thus, irrespective of
whether the family member was a child or adult, the design of members’ turns
showed an orientation to what knowledge or topic the recipient might be expected to
know something about.
Shared or assumed knowledge between family members was evident in the use
of indexical expressions and references to people who were not present. For
example, in Chapter 7, Bibi introduced an absent member as “poor old Shirley – I
said this would happen to her.” Bibi’s use of the indicator term “this” suggests that
the recipient, Emily (Bibi’s daughter), knew something about the matter of Shirley.
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRS!
Close analysis of family mealtime interactions draws attention to the way in
which family knowledge is important for how social order is accomplished by
members. The study highlighted how family knowledge was employed to buy into
talk, being invited to help out, to sort out interactional troubles and in the design of
turns of talk.
!C:18$37$3$793=A<$=A7C6=8A$NC=$7C8132$14@A=38@1C4$
The second theme, drawn from analysis presented in Chapter 7, identifies
“topic” as a resource for social interaction. It illuminates what “topic” talk is “being
used to do” in family mealtimes (Schegloff, 1990, p. 52) by the members, and goes
beyond a focus on the content of the talk. For example, in Chapter 7, Margot utilised
the talk of her grandmother about “cherries” to initiate talk with her mother about
cherry shoes. Thus, a co-participant’s talk touched off a new topic of talk and was
thus used as a resource for subsequent interaction. However, as discussed in the
previous theme about how members’ knowledge about matters were oriented to by
other members, “what” members “knew” about was related to the topics that were
included in family mealtime talk. Thus, there is a relationship between the topic of
talk and with “whom” the topic is initiated.
One way in which topic is linked to knowledge about co-participants is the way
in which topics accomplish something of interest to “us”. On some occasions, the
“us” was observed to be two members; for example, in Chapter 7, when Margot and
Emily oriented to talk about the cherry shoes. However, on other occasions, the “us”
involved all family members, as was the case in discussions about Margot’s day with
daddy, as family members bought into the talk or were invited to contribute details of
the day’s activities (Chapter 7).
.AGQA=791:$83@ADC=1`3@1C4$<AJ18AF$(G:C=@34@$NC=$C=D341714D$7C8132$
38@1C4$$
The third theme discusses the use of membership categorization devices.
Within the setting of the family mealtime, categories within the device family
members were observed to be always potentially relevant. This understanding means
that, when the device “family members” is invoked, the device has “priority in terms
of organising action within-and only in-situated interaction” (Fitzgerald, Housley &
Butler, 2009, p. 48). Thus, family members can be described as a locally occasioned
omnirelevant device (Sacks, 1995) within family mealtimes. This device operates
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRJ!
both at an “organisational level” and at “an immediate level (the sequential and
categorical flow of the interaction” (Fitzgerald et al., 2009, p. 49). The way in which
the omnirelevant device “family members” was invoked and generated was through
the actions that particular turns accomplished and through the use of category terms,
such as mum and grandma (Bibi). In addition, the use of third person reference
terms, such as Daddy and Bibi, invoked standard relational pairs (Sacks, 1995)
within the device family members. As turns at talk accomplished a particular action,
member’s identity as a particular category within the device family members was
produced. For example, all members oriented to the category of mother as the
provider of the food, the person who offered food and the person children checked
with before taking an additional helping of food (Chapter 5). This orientation was
evidenced as the children directed requests for additional food to the mother, for
example, “mum can you give me a cup a tea”. The mother oriented also to the role as
she granted requests and offered more food to the children. Explicating how this
device is oriented to by the family members shows also the central role that the
mother had in family mealtimes.
While the device family members was omnirelevant in each sequence
examined in the analysis chapters, other devices also were used for producing and
making sense of social action. Thus, there was a layering of devices, where, for
example, the device haircuts, oriented to by members in Chapter 6 worked as a
device within the broader device family members. At other times, other devices were
relevant to the ongoing interaction. For example, in Chapter 7, the device “daddy’s
work” was important and oriented to by members.
The analysis chapters identified the ways in which particular membership
categorization devices were mapped and used by members to produce and make
sense of action. Developed during the analytic process presented in Chapter 6, and
from engagement with the literature pertaining to membership categorization
analysis, were a series of questions that helped focus the analysis. These questions
may be helpful for beginning analysts and, in this way, they make a methodological
contribution in terms of how to approach the analytic process. The questions were:
• Which device is being oriented to by members?
• How is it invoked?
• What are the rules of application used by members?
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRU!
• What predicate or category bound activity is tied to the category?
• Could there be more than one device?
• Are the devices connected? If they are connected/layered, how?
• Does the device have priority once it is invoked? This points to the device
being omnirelevant.
• How is the device being used by the members to organise their activity and
actions?
The study shows how membership categorization devices are important for
organising social action and offers new insights into how a young child
collaboratively accomplishes the mapping of members to particular categories. The
questions developed during the analysis make a methodological contribution to the
area of membership categorization analysis.
'912<=A4_7$8CG:A@A48A$14$C=D341714D$7C8132$38@1C4$<6=14D$N3G12E$
GA32@1GA$
As discussed in Chapter 2, the “competence paradigm” (Danby & Baker, 1998;
Danby, 2002; James & Prout, 1998; Hutchby, 2007) critiqued a range of assumptions
about children that had been privileged in developmental psychology and sociology
(Hutchby, 2007). For example, Piaget (1969) posited that children developed through
pre-determined stages, a position that was strongly critiqued by the competence
paradigm (Hutchby, 2007). While not “denying that human beings develop over time
and in describable ways, nor that appropriate social behaviours are learned and not
natural” (Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998, p. 8), the competence paradigm recognises
children as social agents whose social competence is a “practical accomplishment”
(Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998, p. 22) observable in the “actual interactional
practices” (Cromdal, 2009, p. 1474) in which they are involved. As a practical
accomplishment, research about children’s social competence is conducted in situ, in
the ordinary everyday activities in which children are involved (Hutchby & Moran-
Ellis, 1998). As social actors, children co-construct the “social order – the
organisation of social relations” (Danby, 2009, p. 1597), turn by turn in their
interactions with others. Using empirical data of interactions between adults and
children and children and children, the findings of the thesis shows how children
competently “manipulate the resources of language and interaction” (Hutchby &
Moran Ellis, 1998, p. 19) to manage their participation within family mealtime. Also
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRF!
revealed is the “depth and range of interactional competence” (Hutchby, 2005, p. 67)
that children demonstrate in the course of their everyday lives (Hutchby, 2007). For
example, Max, in Chapter 5, gained and maintained the attention of other members,
his siblings, as he told his story using sweeping movement of his gaze and prosodic
features such as shortening and elongation of words, creating a “sibling social order”.
In Chapter 6, a game between the grandmother, Oma, and her granddaughter,
Thomasina, revealed a sophisticated mapping of family members to the membership
categorization device that sorted out who had haircuts. The way in which mapping
was mutually accomplished highlights also how Oma oriented to Thomasina as a
competent member within the mealtime setting. Thus, children’s competence is a
practical accomplishment observable in the everyday activities in which they are
involved.
The way in which children initiated interactions with adults, and initiated and
propelled the sophisticated mapping of members into particular categories challenge
the notion of “children’s restricted rights” (Sacks, 1995, Vol. 1, p. 265) as
conversationalists. Children’s restricted rights refer to how membership of the
category “child” accords the child a subordinate status as a conversationalist in
interactions with adults. In contrast, “adults” are bestowed with particular rights as
conversationalists (Speier, 1976). The “asymmetrical distribution of speakers’ rights”
(Speier, 1976, p. 101) in adult-child interactions suggest, for example, that adults
may restrict in some way children’s participation in interaction and that children
have “special ways” (Sacks, 1995, p. 230) of accommodating for their restricted
rights and getting into talk with adults. It is now over thirty years since Harvey Sacks
and Matthew Speier introduced the idea of children’s restricted rights. In this time
span, we have seen the emergence of the “competence paradigm” (Danby, 2002;
Hutchby, 2007; James & Prout, 1998), supported now by a range of studies drawing
on empirical data (Butler, 2008; Cobb-Moore, 2008; Cromdal 2009; Danby & Baker,
1998; Evaldsson, 2005; Theobald, 2009). In these studies, children were seen to be
active in initiating interactions and “managing” interactions with adults, thus
contesting previous assumptions about their restricted rights and highlighting how
“rights” in conversation are an in situ accomplishment rather than something that is
predetermined because of membership of a particular category. Recognition of
children’s agency is also exemplified in Australia becoming a signatory to the United
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRR!
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC). The empirical data
and analysis presented in this thesis and legislative changes highlight children’s
agency and bring into question the taken-for-grantedness of children’s restricted
rights.
The “family order is an arena of action” (Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998, p. 18)
and one that encompasses the intersection of “arenas of action” (Hutchby & Moran-
Ellis, 1998, p. 16), those of child and adult arenas. As explicated in this thesis,
children drew on resources to manage interactions within their own arenas, a sibling
arena and those between adults and children. In so doing, they showed how they
competently traversed between “multiple social orders” (Danby & Baker, 1998,
p. 158) or arenas of action. Specifically, in the sequence (in Chapter 6) where Max
told his story about the milk from a dead cow to his brothers, who were gathered as
an assembled audience, we see a social order established and maintained by the
children over a series of turns. The extended sequence of interaction is accomplished
with their mother in close proximity and privy to the ongoing accomplishment of this
social order. Though she makes attempts to initiate talk with the boys, the boys do
not take these up. The telling, however, is drawn to a close as the mother moves
towards the mealtime table and directs a question to one child, Henry. In replacing
the children’s social order with one that she initially establishes with Henry, her
actions might be similar to those of the teacher who “restores” order in classrooms
(Danby & Baker, 1998) with “her own version” (p. 157) of social order.
.A@9C<C2CD1832$%1D41N18348A$
This study offers a number of methodological contributions in relation to data
collection and data analysis. First, the families assumed responsibility for data
collection. Second, how family members oriented to the presence of the video
camera and how this orientation was consequential for the ongoing construction of
situated interactions are relevant to other researchers using video recorders to collect
data. Third, how lexical choices made by the analyst during the analytic process
presuppose a particular analytic perspective.
The first methodological consideration was that of families taking
responsibility for the collection of the data. This approach was an unexpected
outcome of the trials for data collection where having the researcher present during
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRG!
the mealtimes meant that the interactions seemed uncomfortable for all participants.
In taking responsibility for data collection, families made decisions about which
mealtimes to record, where the video camera would be situated, and the length of the
recording time. Important for the success of this approach was information for
families about how the data would be analysed by the researcher, that is, that
gestures and other paralinguistic features would be recorded and used in subsequent
analysis. Both written and verbal details about how the data would be used were
provided for families as part of the initial package (see Appendix B). One family was
provided with additional detail about the methodology of conversation analysis from
the initial proposal for this research. This information influenced the decisions made
in relation to the placement of the video recorder because the mother was conscious
that this analytic approach examined both talk and paralinguistic features. As a
researcher, changing the data collection practice to have family members make such
decisions about where and what to videorecord in terms of family mealtime
interactions highlighted the need to inform members of the relationship between data
collection and analysis. Implications for the researcher included ensuring that all
equipment was working, that demonstrations about how to use the equipment were
provided, and that a notebook or diary was provided so that families could include
the date of recording and make field notes. The field notes included the date of the
videoing, what the family had been doing during the day and plans for the next day
(see Appendix E). Evident also in the way in which visiting members of the extended
family oriented to the study was a need for such people to have information about the
study. This would be similar to the information provided in the original information
package for families.
A second methodological consideration revealed in the study was the way in
which family members oriented to the camera and to the researcher. While I was not
present during the data collection phase, members talked about me in relation to the
video and to the study. They oriented to me as “researcher as friend”. Furthermore,
while the video-camera was oriented to by adults and children, the video-camera
itself was positioned by the adults as out-of-bounds to the children during recording
and was offered as a resource or “treat” to view after the recording.
A third consideration involved the researcher decisions about the layout of the
transcript and how to refer to members. Researchers make lexical choices during the
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HRY!
analytic process. The lexical choices made by the researcher to discuss sections of
transcript predispose a particular reading of the transcript. Throughout the analysis
presented in Chapter 7, I was conscious of the vulnerabilities of an analysis with a
focus on topic. The cautions provided by Schegloff (1990) were revealed as I tried to
explicate the methods used by the members to nominate topic, and to show an
orientation to topic. It was a particularly difficult task to talk about the methods used
by members without at least gesturing towards and naming the topic to which the
members appear to orient. For example, in the last section of Chapter 7, Emily, the
mother, asked her daughter the question, “wasn’t Mikey at work today Margot?”.
Thus, what initially was a kind of lexical choice about whether or not to use the
phrase “Margot’s day with daddy” or “at daddy’s work” had implications for how I
might complete the analysis. If I had chosen to name the initial discussions as, for
example, at daddy’s work, then the introduction of talk about going to the swings
with Daddy may need to be discussed in terms of a topic shift. So while topic
continues to be members’ business and “something done within the conversation by
participants” (Schegloff, 1990, p. 52), analysis involves the analyst to some extend in
the business of what is topic. In this way, analysis becomes not just a technical
endeavour, but a theoretical and ethical one.
-6=@9A=$(4JA7@1D3@1C47$
Engaging in the process of fine-grained analysis means that only a small
portion of the data collected was selected for analysis. Beginning with unmotivated
looking (Sacks, 1995), I looked for something of interest within the talk and activity
and then selected extended sequences that were presented as analysis chapters.
However, the analytic process meant that I was revisiting constantly the video
recordings, revealing other sequences that were of interest. In the mealtime presented
in Chapter 5, the children were viewing bookclub brochures with a view to selecting
and purchasing a book. Will was asked to read the description of the book he would
like to purchase which resulted in assistance from both his mother and elder brother.
This provoked an interest in how family literacy practices occur in settings such as
family mealtime. Also in the data presented in Chapter 5 are instances of disputes
among the siblings. The ways that these were dealt with interactionally is a topic for
further investigation. Examples of disputes occur in other recordings, thus rather than
look at an extended sequence of talk in one episode, a corpus of data of disputes
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HGI!
could be examined across the mealtime data. In addition, constant engagement with
the data presented in Chapters 5 and 6 has provoked an interest in the central role the
mother and other female relatives play in accomplishing social order.
As well as my interest in mining for additional ore (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997)
from the data already recorded and mined, I am interested in two additional matters.
Engagement in the analytic process has sharpened my interest in observing everyday
activities that I encounter in my daily life. For example, from my study, I can see and
hear my neighbours (aged 8, 4 and 2 years) playing in their back garden, in their pool
or on their scooters and bikes. Often, their father joins in this play with the children.
Following the listening to these interactions, I am interested in how play interactions
occur in the context of family life.
Talking with others about my research has resulted in extended conversations
about meals and interactions with family members. One conversation with a friend
and colleague centred around how she communicates with her grandchildren who
currently live in Holland. The use of Skype provided this family with video
conferencing facilities that enabled the members to both see and hear each other.
How members assemble social order in this manner is a topic for further
investigation.
Linked with mealtimes is the procurement of food at the supermarket. Often
children accompany adult family members on shopping trips. Supermarkets position
items of interest to children within their easy reach. Anecdotally, these excusions
result in children either grabbing the contested item from the shelves or pestering
their parents for the particular item. This phenomenon colloquially is referred to as
“pester power”. The way in which this phenomenon is accomplished interactionally
is another possible topic for further investigation.
(G:2183@1C47$
There has been an increased emphasis on mealtimes because of their
relationship to issues around nutrition and health. Emphasising health and nutrition
in policy texts, such as the National Early Childhood Development Strategy (Council
of Australian Governments [COAG], 2009) and accreditation requirements for
childcare settings (National Childcare Accreditation Council, 2006), draws on
research that highlights the relationship between healthy beginnings and positive
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HGH!
trajectories for children during their life course (Hertzman, 2004). However, the
social interaction aspects of mealtimes in institutional settings, such as in long day
care centres and schools largely has been ignored in research.
The National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC, 2006) has identified
seven quality areas within childcare. Both quality area 1 (staff relationships with
children and peers), and quality area 6 (health, nutrition and wellbeing) are linked to
practices that occur during mealtimes within childcare settings. As noted, the
interactional aspects of mealtimes are identified as an important criterion for quality
services. A recent NCAC publication aimed at encouraging positive mealtimes and
positioning mealtime as a time for developing language skills (Shaw, 2009) and
provided suggestions for educators working in childcare about how to support
positive interactions. For example, one suggestion was that adults sit with the
children and talk about what they are eating (Shaw, 2009).
There is a need for empirical evidence of the interactions within mealtimes in
early childhood education settings. Studies of mealtimes, whether in early childhood
education or family settings, may help educators working with young children and
their families to see the rich interactional opportunities mealtimes provide, the
interactional competence that children demonstrate during mealtimes, and the
important roles that adults assume as co-participants with children. To date, there is a
paucity of research around eating practices within childcare settings, and thus limited
empirical evidence investigating the interactions within early childhood settings.
As with childcare centres, school sites and playgrounds largely have been
ignored as sites for understanding eating as a social and thus interactional
phenomenon (Wiggins et al., 2001). For example, within Queensland schools,
government (Education Queensland, 2005) now regulates the kinds of foods that
school tuckshops can supply to children. While such an initiative is proactive in
terms of reducing children’s access to unhealthy food, the Smart Choices: Healthy
food and drink supply strategy for Queensland schools (Education Queensland,
2005) privileges the nutritional aspect of mealtimes and ignores mealtimes as
interactional and social activities. Understanding what and how children interact
during mealtimes within school sites will contribute another perspective about issues
to do with health and nutrition.
!
=#)B4$,!G!]0&&-!/&,!"#&@?#4_Q!=&<'*@.(&<.! HGO!
The data collection procedure adopted in this study has implications for family
research focusing on interaction. Rather that utilising surveys or interviews, a
common practice in research with families, this study successfully used an approach
where families recorded their own interactions using video cameras. While
acknowledging that such a practice might be unwieldy with larger projects, it was a
useful practice for smaller research projects with the potential to collect rich data that
would not be possible with surveys or interviews. Improvements in the video
technology and the reduced size of video cameras such as the flip-video may further
support families’ participation in the collection process. In particular, video data
enable researchers to capture the multimodal resources members draw on in their
interactions within families.
'C482671C47$
In beginning this study, I could never have imagined the complexity of the
family mealtimes nor the interactional competencies that young children demonstrate
as they interact with family members including adults and siblings. The capacity to
look from within, using fine-grained analysis, has illuminated what family members
actually do during mealtimes. The study showed the constant and sophisticated work
of establishing and maintaining social orders and the rich array of interactional
resources that members draw on during family mealtimes.
!
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGS!
References
Alanen, L. (1998). Children and family order: Constraints and competencies. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 29-45). London: Falmer Press.
Alanen, L. (2001). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 11-22). London: Routledge Falmer.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures in social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). (2007a). Family facts and figures – Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/glossary.html
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). (2007b). Family facts and figures – Family type, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/familystructure/ftype06.html
Baker, C. (1997). Enthnomethodological studies of talk in educational settings. In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Oral discourse and education (Vol. 3, pp. 43-52). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, C. (1998). Transcription and representation in literacy research. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath & D. Lapps (Eds.), A handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching the communicative and visual arts (pp. 108-118). New York: Macmillan.
Baker, C. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership categorisation in texts and talk. In A. Lee & C. Poynton (Eds.), Culture and text: Discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies (pp. 99-113). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Baker, C., & Perrott, C. (1988). The news session in infants and primary school classrooms. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(1), 19-38.
Beach, W. A. (1993). The delicacy of preoccupation. Text and Performance Quarterly, 13(4), 299-312.
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ ‘okay’ usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325-352.
Beals, D., & Tabors, P. (1995). Arboretum, bureaucratic, and carbohydrates: Preschoolers’ exposure to rare vocabulary at home. First Language, 15(1), 57-76.
Benson, D., & Hughes, J. A. (1991). Method: Evidence and inference – evidence and inference for ethnomethodology. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 109-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGJ!
Berko Gleason, J., Perlmann, R., & Greif, E. (1984). What’s the magic word: Learning language through politeness routines. Discourse Processes, 7(4), 493-502.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1994). The dynamics of family dinner talk: Cultural contexts for children’s passages to adult discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(1), 1-50.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bowman, M. (1994). Using video in research. Spotlights: The Scottish Council for Research in Education, 45, 1-3.
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439-1465.
Butler, C., & Weatherall, A. (2006). ‘No, we’re not playing families’: Membership categorization in children's play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 441-470.
Butler, C. W. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Butler, C. W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2462-2474.
Button, G. (1991). Introduction: Ethnomethodology and the foundational respecification of the human sciences. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp.1-9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3-55.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1988/89). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 61-92.
Capps, L., & Ochs, E. (2002). Cultivating prayer. In C. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 39-55). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Church, A. (2009). Preference organisation and peer disputes: How young children resolve conflict. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Cicourel, A. (1972). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. New York: Free Press.
Cinotto, S. (2006). “Everyone would be around the table”: American family mealtimes in historical perspective, 1850-1960. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111 (Spring), 17-34.
Cobb-Moore, C. (2008). Young children’s social organisation of peer interactions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/18357/
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGU!
Cobb-Moore, C., Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2009). Young children as rule makers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1477-1492.
Cocks, A. J. (2006). The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining children’s agreement to research participation. Childhood, 13(2), 247-266.
Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Coulon, A. (1995). Ethnomethodology: Qualitative research methods, 36. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2009). Investing in the early years: A national early childhood development strategy. Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-07-02/docs/national_ECD_strategy.pdf
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419-442.
Cromdal, J. (2006). Socialization. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 11, pp. 462-466). North Holland: Elsevier Ltd.
Cromdal, J. (2009). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1473-1476.
Danby, S. (1997). What’s the problem? One teacher’s response to conflict in an early childhood classroom. In M. Goos, K. Moni, & J. Knight (Eds.), Scholars in context: Prospects and transitions (pp. 23-27). Mt Gravatt, Qld: Post Pressed.
Danby, S. (1998). Interaction and social order in a preschool classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld.
Danby, S. (2002). The communicative competence of young children. Australian Journal Early of Childhood, 27(3), 25-30.
Danby, S. (2009). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: An epilogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1596-1599.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998a). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood: A global journal of child research, 5(2), 151-175.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998b). “What’s the problem?” – Restoring social order in the preschool classroom. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 91-140). London: The Falmer Press.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (2000). Unravelling the fabric of social order in block area. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 91-140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (2001). Escalating Terror: Communicative strategies in a preschool classroom dispute. Early Education and Development, 12(3), 343-358.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGF!
Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Accounting for young children’s competence in educational research: New perspectives on research ethics. Australian Educational Researcher, 31(3), 35-50.
Davidson, C. (2009). Transcription for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 36-52.
Davidson, C. (2010). Transcription matters: Transcribing talk and interaction to facilitate conversation analysis of the taken-for-granted in young children’s interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 115-131.
Dedaic, M. N. (2001). Stepmother as electron: Positioning the stepmother in a family dinner conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(3), 372-400.
Education Queensland. (2005). Smart Choices: Healthy food and drink supply strategy for Queensland schools. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/healthy/food-drink-strategy.html
Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(1), 1-5.
Evaldsson, A. (2005). Staging insults and mobilizing categorizations in a multiethnic peer group. Discourse & Society, 16(6), 763-786.
Fiese, B., Foley, K., & Spagnola, M. (2006). Routine and ritual elements in family mealtimes: Contexts for child well-being and family identity. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111(Spring), 67-89.
Fitzgerald, R. (1999). Method in media interaction: An ethnomethodological analysis of a radio phone-in show (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wales, Bangor, Wales.
Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W. (2002). Identity, categorization and sequential organization: The sequential and categorical flow of identity in a radio phone-in. Discourse & Society, 3(5), 579-602.
Fitzgerald, R., Housley, W., Butler, C (2009). Omnirelevance and interactional context. Australian Journal of Communication, 36(3), 45-64.
Forrester, M. A. (2008). The emergence of self-repair: A case study of one child during the preschool years. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 97-126.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society, and social interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Gardner, H., & Forrester, M. (Eds.). (2010). Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGR!
Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 131-156.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. D. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Gillen, J., & Hancock, R. (2005). Exploring “eating events” in interactions between children and family members. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Gillen, J., & Hancock, R. (2006). “A day in the life”: Exploring eating events involving two-year old girls and their families in diverse communities. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(4), 23-29.
Gillis, J. R. (2003). Children and family time. In A. M. Jensen & L. McKee (Eds.), Children and the changing family (pp. 49-64). London: Routledge Falmer.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97-121). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 272-302.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation Semiotica, 62(1-2), 29-49.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
Goodwin, M. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26(4/5), 513-541.
Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 93-110.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62(1-2), 51-75.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H (1987). Concurrent operation on talk: Notes on the interactive organisation of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-54.
Grieshaber, S. (1997). Mealtime rituals: Power and resistance in the construction of mealtime rules. British Journal of Sociology, 48(4), 649-666.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGG!
Grieshaber, S. (2004). Rethinking parent and child conflict. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487-508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1997). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interactions in everyday life. London: Sage Publications.
Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1985). Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. Van-Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Discourse and dialogue (Vol. 3, pp. 95-117). London: Academic Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291-334.
Heritage, J. (2010). History taking in medicine: Questions and answers. In J. Heritage & S. Clayman (Eds.), Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions (pp. 135-153). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Press.
Heritage, J. C., & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analysed. Semiotica, 30(3/4), 245-262.
Hertzman, C. (2004). Making early child development a priority: Lessons from Vancouver. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/early_childhood.pdf
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 1-24). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Hester, S., & Francis, D. (2000). Ethnomethodology and local education order In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 1-19). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HGY!
Hester, S., & Hester, S. (2010). Conversatonal actions and category relations: An analysis of a children's argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33-48.
Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. Discourse Processes, 9, 37-55.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 262-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 59-83.
Hutchby, I. (2005). Children’s talk and social competence. Children and Society, 19(1), 66-73.
Hutchby, I. (2007). The discourse of child counselling. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Hutchby, I., & Moran-Ellis, J. (1998). Situating children’s social competence. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 7-26). London: The Falmer Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
James, A. (1982). Confections, concoctions and conceptions. In B. Waites, T. Bennett & G. Martin (Eds.), Popular culture: Past and present (pp. 294-307). London: Open University Press.
James, A. (1998). Foreword. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. vi-x). London: The Falmer Press.
James, A., & James, A. L. (2004). Constructing childhood: Theory, policy and social practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.
James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.
Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYI!
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79-96). New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Jefferson, G. (1983). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. Tilburg papers in language and literature (August), 1-15.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 191-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 25-34). London, UK: Academic Press.
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86-100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jefferson, G. (1996). On the poetics of ordinary talk. Text and Performance Quarterly, 16(1), 1-61.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 152-205). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kendon, A. (1985). Behavioural foundations for the process of frame attunement in face-to-face interaction. In M. Cranach, M. Brenner & G. P. Ginsburg (Eds.), Discovery strategies in the psychology of action (pp. 229-253). London: Academic Press.
Kincheloe, J. (2002). The complex politics of McDonalds and the new childhood: Colonising kidworld. In G. Cannella & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kidworld (pp. 75-122). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Some uses of third-person reference forms in speaker self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 493-525.
Lapadat, J. (2000). Problematizing transcription: Purpose, paradigm and quality. International Journal of Research Methododology, 3(3), 203-219.
Larson, R., Branscomb, K., & Wiley, A. (2006). Forms and functions of family mealtimes: Multidisciplinary perspectives. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111(Spring), 1-15.
Laurier, E., & Wiggins, S. (2011). Finishing the family meal: The interactional organisation of satiety. Appetite, 56(1), 53-64.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYH!
Leiminer, M. J., & Baker, C. D. (2000). A child’s say in parent-teacher talk at the pre-school: Doing conversation analytic research in early childhood settings. Contemporary Issues in early Childhood, 1(2), 135-152.
Lerner, G. H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213-245.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: “Second person” reference in multiparty conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 281-294.
Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 225-256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177-201.
Lerner, G. H. (n.d.). Practice does not make perfect: Intervening actions in the selection of next speaker. Unpublished article. University of California.
Lewis, M., & Feiring, C. (1982). Some American families at dinner. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Sigal (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children. (pp. 115-145). New York: Plenum Press.
Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Livingston, E. (2008). Ethnographies of reason. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory Culture Society, 17(26), 26-54.
Lynch, M., & Peyrot, M. (1992). Introduction: A reader’s guide to ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 113-122.
Mackay, R. W. (1991). Conceptions of children and models of socialisation. In F. C. Waksler (Ed.), Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings (pp. 23-37). London: Falmer Press.
Mandell, N. (1991). The least adult role in studying children. In F. C. Waksler (Ed.), Studying the social worlds of children (pp. 38-59). London: Falmer Press.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276-322). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mayall, B. (1994). Children’s childhoods: Observed and experienced. London: Falmer Press.
Mayall, B. (1999). Children and childhood. In S. Hood, B. Mayall & S. Oliver (Eds.), Critical issues in social research (pp. 10-24). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Mayall, B. (2001). Understanding childhood: A London study. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualising child-adult relations (pp. 114-128). New York: Routledge Falmer.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYO!
Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Milton Keyes, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organisation of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(4), 301-316.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
McHoul, A. (2008). Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction – Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 823-826.
McHoul, A., & Watson, D. R. (1984). Two axes for the analysis of “commonsense” and “formal” geographical knowledge in classroom talk. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(3), 281-302.
McLarty, M. M., & Gibson, J. W. (2000). Using video technology in emancipatory research. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(2), 138-148.
Mehan, H. (1993). Why I like to look: On the use of videotape as an instrument in educational research. In M.Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 93-105). London: Falmer Press.
Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 809-821.
Mondada, L. (2009). The methodical organization of talking and eating: Assessments in dinner conversations. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 558-571.
Narvanen, A., & Nasman, E. (2004). Childhood as generation or life phase. Young, 12(71), 71-91.
National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) (2006, 31 January). Quality Improvement and Accreditation System (QIAS) – 7 Quality Areas and 33 Principles. Retrieved from http://www.ncac.gov.au/child_care_professionals/qias_quality_areas.asp
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1999). Transcription as theory. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 167-182). London: Routledge.
Ochs, E., Pontecorvo, C., & Fasulo, A. (1996). Socializing taste. Ethos, 61(1-2), 7-46.
Ochs, E., & Shohet, M. (2006). The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development 111(Spring), 35-50.
Ochs, E., Shohet, M., Campos, B., & Beck, M. (2010). Coming together at dinner: A study of working families. In K. Christensen & B. Schneider (Eds.), Workplace flexibility: Realigning 20th-Century jobs for a 21st-Century workforce (pp. 57-72). London: ILR Press.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYS!
Ochs, E., Smith, R., & Taylor, C. (1989). Dinner narratives as detective stories Cultural Dynamics, 2, 238-257.
Ochs, E., Smith, R. C., & Taylor, C. E. (1996). Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem solving through co-narration. In C. L. Briggs (Ed.), Disorderly discourse narrative, conflict, and inequality (pp. 95-113). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992a). Family narrative as political activity. Discourse & Society, 3(3), 301-340.
Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992b). Science at dinner. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 29-45). Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.
Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. E. (1992c, April 4-5). Mothers’ role in the everyday reconstruction of “Father knows best”. Paper presented at the Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Berkeley, California.
Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (1992). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 37-72.
Pan, B. A., Perlmann, R., & Snow, C. E. (1999). Food for thought: Dinner table as a context for observing parent-child discourse. In L. Menn & H. Bernstein-Ratner (Eds.), Methods for studying language production (pp. 205-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paugh, A., & Izquierdo, C. (2009). Why is this a battle every night?: Negotiating food and eating in American dinnertime interaction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(2), 185-204.
Paugh, A. L. (2005). Learning about work at dinnertime: Language socialization in dual-earner American families. Discourse and society, 16(1), 55-78.
Payne, G. (1976). Making a lesson happen: An ethnomethodological analysis. In M. Hammersley & P.Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 33-40). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Payne, G., & Hustler, D. (1980). Teaching the class: The practical management of a cohort. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 49-66.
Perakyla, A. (1997). Reliability and validity in research based on tapes and transcripts. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 201-220). London: Sage Publications.
Perakyla, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Research, theory, method and practice (pp. 283-305). London: Sage.
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: Limited access as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186-198.
Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYJ!
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152-163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a Candidate Answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360-373.
Pomerantz, A., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, and the study of courtroom interaction. In D. J. Muller, D. E. Blackman & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 283-297). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. Van-Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64-91). London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes & L. Yardley (Eds.), Quantitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 73 - 94). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Prout, A. (2005). The future of childhood: Towards the interdisciplinary study of children. London: Routledge Falmer.
Psathas, G. (1990). Introduction: Methodological issues and recent developments in the study of naturally occurring interaction. In G. Psathas, Interaction Competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 1-24). Washington: International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
Psathas, G. (1995a). Conversational analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Psathas, G. (1995b). The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In G. Watson & R. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Psathas, G. (2008). Reflections on the history of ethnomethodology: The Boston and Manchester “Schools”. American Sociology, 39, 38-67.
Psathas, G., & Anderson, T. (1990). The “practices” of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78(1/2), 75-99.
Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta & H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 1-23). Aldershot, UK: Averbury.
Ramey, S. L., & Juliusson, H. K. (1998). Family dynamics at dinner: A natural context for revealing basic family processes. In M. Lewis & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence (pp. 31-52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYU!
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organisation: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939-967.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677-705.
Rendle-Short, J. (2007). “Catherine, you’re wasting your time”: Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1503-1525.
Rosenberg, M. (2005). Tackling childhood obesity. Every Child, 11(1), 28-29.
Sacks, H. (1972). “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology”. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31-74). New York: Free Press.
Sacks, H. (1984a). 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.
Sacks, H. (1984b). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 413-429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1991). On the analyzability of stories by children. In F. C. Waksler (Ed.), Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings (pp. 195-215). London: Falmer Press.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes 1 & 2. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organisation of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). The simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75-119). New York: The Free Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 104-152.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987a). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70-85). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987b). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101-114.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYF!
Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of coherence in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995a). Discourse as an interactional achievement 111: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 185-211.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995b). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lecturers on conversation: Volume 1 & 2 (pp. ix-lxii). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995c). Parties and talking together: Two ways in which numbers are significant for talk-in-interaction. In P. Ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated Order: Studies in social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 31-42). Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437-485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. (2002). Opening sequences. In J. E. Katz & M. A. Aakhaus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 326-385). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007a). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 433-461.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007b). Sequence organisation in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007c). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 462-482.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1986). The ethnomethodologists. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
Shaw, M. (2009). Making meal times positive. Putting Children First, 12(December), 18-19.
Shrum, W., Dugue, R., & Brown, T. (2005). Digital video as research practice: Methodology for the millennium. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), 1-19.
Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYR!
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Smart, C., & Neale, B. (1999). Family fragments. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Smart, C., Neale, B., & Wade, A. (2001). The changing experience of childhood: Families and divorce. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Snow, C., & Beals, D. (2006). Mealtime talk that supports literacy development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111(Spring), 51-66.
Sparrman, A. (2005). Video recording as interaction: Participant observation of children’s everyday life. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(3), 241-255.
Speer, S. A., & Hutchby, I. (2003). From ethics to analysis: aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology, 37(2), 315-337.
Speier, M. (1972). Some conversational problems interactional analysis. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 397- 427). New York, NY: Free Press.
Speier, M. (1973). How to observe face-to-face communication: A sociological introduction. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.
Speier, M. (1976). The child as conversationlist: Some culture contact features of conversational interactions between adults and children. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 98-103). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd with the Open University Press.
Speier, M. (1992). The everyday world of the child. In C. Jenks (Ed.), The sociology of childhood: Essential readings (pp. 181-188). Aldershot, UK: Gregg Revivals.
Stanton, R., & Hills, A. (2004). A matter of fat: Understanding and overcoming obesity in kids. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Sterponi, L. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 79-100.
Sterponi, L. (2009). Accountability in family discourse: Socialization into norms and standards and negotiation of responsibility in Italian dinner conversations. Childhood, 16(4), 441-459.
Stivers, T. (2001). Negotiating who presents the problem: Next speaker selection in pediatric encounters. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 1-31.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367-392.
Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education, 14(3), 184-203.
Sudnow, D. (1978). Ways of the hand: The organization of improvised conduct. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
!
D$/$,$<'$.! HYG!
Szymanski, M. H. (1999). Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language in Society 28(1), 1-23.
ten Have, P. (2002). The notion of member is the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), 1-24.
ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage Publications.
Theobald, M. A. (2009). Participation and social order in the playground (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29618/
Thomas-Lepore, C. E., Bohanek, J., Fivush, R., & Duke, M. (2004). “Today I…”: Ritual and spontaneous narrative during family dinners (Working Paper No. 31). Retrieved from Emory Center for Myth and Ritual in American Life website: http://www.marial.emory.edu/pdfs/Thomas__31_04.pdf
Turner, B. S. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waksler, F. C. (1991). Studying children: Phenomenological insights. In F. C. Waksler (Ed.), Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings (pp. 60-69). London: Falmer Press.
Waksler, F. C. (1996). The little trials of childhood and children’s strategies for dealing with them. London: The Falmer Press.
Watson, R. (1997). Some general reflections on “categorization” and “sequence” in the analysis of conversation. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 49-76). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Wiggins, S. (2004a). Good for “you”: Generic and individual healthy eating advice in family mealtimes. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(4), 535-548.
Wiggins, S. (2004b). Talking about taste: Using a discursive psychological approach to examine challenges to food evaluations. Appetite, 43(1), 29-38.
Wiggins, S., Potter, J., & Wildsmith, A. (2001). Eating your words: Discursive psychology and the reconstruction of eating practices. Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 5-15.
Wingard, L. (2007). Constructing time and prioritising activities in parent-child interaction. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 75-91.
Wootton, A. J. (1981). Children’s use of address terms. In P. French & M. Maclure (Eds.), Adult-child conversation (pp. 142-158). London: Croom Helm.
Wootton, A. J. (1981). The management of grantings and rejections by parents in request sequences. Semiotica, 37(1/2), 59-89.
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIH!
)::A4<1M$5$
(4NC=G3@1C4$34<$'C47A4@$a38T3DA$
!*A@@A=$@C$:=C7:A8@1JA$:3=@181:34@7$
!!=$<4,$!/&,!>$),<(<?!P<<&5)4(&<!E@$$<.*)<-!i<(5$,.(42!&/!"$'#<&*&?2![('4&,()!;),C!D&)-!6$*5(<!h,&5$!E!JIUY!!N)4$!!N$),mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!P!)1!7,(4(<?!4&!2&@!):&@4!12!,$.$),'#!B,&f$'4!Q),"/*'B(-0%$"*&#*6$&-#(6$+<*R"*&"&-.+(+*)4*("#$%&'#()"*&"0*+)'(&-*)%0$%1*"#(.!B,&f$'4!(.!B),4!&/!12!;#N!B,&?,)1!)4!E@$$<.*)<-!i<(5$,.(42!&/!"$'#<&*&?2!cEi"d!)<-!12!.@B$,5(.&,.!),$!9..&'()4$!;,&/$..&,!%@.)<!N)<:2!)<-!;,&/$..&,!9<<!0),,$**8!!!P!)1!(<4$,$.4$-!(<!,$'&,-(<?!c5(-$&!)<-n&,!)@-(&d!$5$,2-)2!(<4$,)'4(&<.!-@,(<?!/)1(*2!1$)*4(1$.8!"#(.!7&@*-!(<5&*5$!12!f&(<(<?!2&@!)4!1$)*4(1$.!&<!)BB,&A(1)4$*2!F!&'').(&<.!&5$,!)!J!7$$C!B$,(&-8!P!7&@*-!:$!(<4$,$.4$-!)*.&!(<!,$'&,-(<?!1$)*4(1$.!)4!-(//$,$<4!4(1$.!-@,(<?!4#$!-)2!)<-X!7#$,$!B&..(:*$X!,$'&,-(<?!O!1$)*.!&@4.(-$!4#$!/)1(*2!#&1$8!+/!'&@,.$X!P!7&@*-!.$$C!4&!/(4!(<!7(4#!2&@,!.'#$-@*$.!(<!$5$,2!(<.4)<'$8!!"#$!,$'&,-(<?.!&/!4#$.$!.$..(&<.!7(**!(<!4#$!/(,.4!(<.4)<'$!:$!4,)<.',(:$-!)<-!)<)*2.$-8!"#$,$!1)2!:$!&'').(&<.!7#$<!.#&,4!$A'$,B4.!7(**!:$!@.$-!/&,!$-@')4(&<)*!B@,B&.$.8!P/!2&@!#)5$!'&<'$,<.!):&@4!2&@,!)<&<21(42!:$(<?!1)(<4)(<$-X!4#$<!2&@!1)2!).C!2&@,!/)'$.!4&!:$!:*@,,$-8!!!P4!(.!)<4('(B)4$-!4#)4!(<5&*5$1$<4!(<!4#$!B,&f$'4!1)2!:$<$/(4!2&@,!/)1(*2!:2!B,&5(-(<?!(<.(?#4.!(<4&!2&@,!$5$,2-)2!1$)*4(1$!B,)'4('$.8!"#$!,(.C.!)..&'()4$-!7(4#!4#(.!B,&f$'4!),$!<&!?,$)4$,!4#)<!4#&.$!$AB$,($<'$-!(<!$5$,2-)2!*(/$8!!P!#)5$!$<'*&.$-!)<!(</&,1)4(&<!.#$$4!)<-!'&<.$<4!/&,18!%#&@*-!2&@!)?,$$X!(<!B,(<'(B*$X!4&!B),4('(B)4$!(<!4#$!.4@-2X!P!7&@*-!:$!#)BB2!4&!'&1$!)<-!4)*C!7(4#!2&@!):&@4!7#)4!4#$!.4@-2!1(?#4!$<4)(*8!;*$).$!'&<4)'4!1$!(/!2&@!#)5$!)<2!^@$.4(&<.!&,!'&<'$,<.8!P!7(**!:$!(<!B#&<$!'&<4)'4!(<!4#$!'&1(<?!7$$C8!!o&@,.!/)(4#/@**2!h(**()<!`@.'#!"$*$B#&<$Q! JYOSORRO!c7Cd!T1)(*Q! ! ?8:@.'#p.4@-$<48^@48$-@8)@!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIO!
!!
'C47A4@$NC=G$
!
P!mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!&/!mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!'&<.$<4!4&!h(**()<!
`@.'#!'),,2(<?!&@4!4#$!/&**&7(<?Q!!
!
H8 5(.(4(<?!&@,!#&1$!-@,(<?!1$)*4(1$.!)<-X!7#$,$!B&..(:*$X!
)''&1B)<2(<?!@.!7#$<!/)1(*2!1$)*.!),$!'&<.@1$-!&@4.(-$!4#$!#&1$g!
O8 ,$'&,-(<?!)!:,($/!(<4$,5($7!):&@4!1$)*4(1$!B,)'4('$.!7(4#(<!&@,!
/)1(*2g!
S8 ,$'&,-(<?!c)@-(&!)<-!5(-$&d!/)1(*2!1$)*4(1$.!&<!)BB,&A(1)4$*2!F!
&'').(&<.!&5$,!)!J!7$$C!B$,(&-g!)<-!
J8 4,)<.',(:(<?!)<-!)<)*2.(<?!4#$!,$'&,-(<?.!&/!&@,!1$)*4(1$!
(<4$,)'4(&<.!
U8 (<!.&1$!(<.4)<'$.X!@.(<?!.#&,4!,$'&,-$-!$A'$,B4.!/&,!$-@')4(&<)*!
B@,B&.$.8!
!
P!@<-$,.4)<-!4#)4!h(**()<!`@.'#!(.!)!#&*-$,!&/!)!.@(4):(*(42!<&4('$!/,&1!4#$!
=&11(..(&<!/&,!=#(*-,$<!o&@<?!;$&B*$!)<-!=#(*-!h@),-()<8!!
!
P!)'C<&7*$-?$!)<-!)''$B4!4#)4!h(**()<!`@.'#!)<-!#$,!.@B$,5(.&,.!')<!@.$!4#$!
(</&,1)4(&<!)<-!,$'&,-(<?.!/&,!,$.$),'#!)<-!$-@')4(&<)*!B@,B&.$.8!P!)*.&!
)'C<&7*$-?$!4#)4!4#$!/(<-(<?.!)<-!4,)<.',(B4.!&/!(<4$,)'4(&<.!')<!:$!-(.4,(:@4$-!
&<!4#$!:).(.!4#)4!12!(-$<4(42!)<-!4#$!(-$<4(42!&/!12!/)1(*2!7(**!,$1)(<!
'&</(-$<4()*8!
!
%(?<$-Q!mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
!
N)4$Q!mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Statement of consent for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
Centre for Learning Innovation
Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove Q 4059
“Social and moral orders of family mealtimes”
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIS!
(4NC=G3@1C4$79AA@$
32!,$.$),'#!B,&f$'4!(.!4(4*$-!Q),"/*'B(-0%$"*&#*6$&-#(6$+<*R"*&"&-.+(+*)4*("#$%&'#()"*&"0*+)'(&-*)%0$%1*9.!4#$!4(4*$!.@??$.4.X!4#(.!B,&f$'4!7(**!(<5$.4(?)4$!'&<5$,.)4(&<.!)<-!.&'()*!(<4$,)'4(&<.!&/!2&@<?!'#(*-,$<!-@,(<?!1$)*4(1$.!7(4#!4#$!/)1(*28!"#$.$!1$)*4(1$.!1)2!:$!)4!#&1$!)<-!&@4.(-$!4#$!/)1(*2!#&1$8!!
"#$!,$.$),'#!(<5&*5$.!12!5(.(4(<?!2&@,!#&1$!&<!)BB,&A(1)4$*2!F!&'').(&<.!&5$,!)!J!7$$C!B$,(&-!)<-X!7#$,$!B&..(:*$X!)''&1B)<2(<?!2&@,!/)1(*2!/&,!)!1$)*!&@4.(-$!4#$!#&1$8!"#$!(<4$,)'4(&<.!-@,(<?!1$)*4(1$.!7(**!:$!5(-$&!)<-!&,!)@-(&!,$'&,-$-8!"#$.$!,$'&,-(<?.!7(**!<&4!:$!.#&7<!4&!4#$!?$<$,)*!B@:*('X!:@4!.#&,4!$A'$,B4.!1)2:$!@.$-!/&,!$-@')4(&<)*!B@,B&.$.8!P4!(.!$AB$'4$-!4#)4!4#$!B,&f$'4!1)2!:$<$/(4!2&@,!/)1(*2!:2!?(5(<?!2&@!(<.(?#4.!(<4&!2&@,!$5$,2-)2!1$)*4(1$!B,)'4('$.8!"#$!,(.C.!)..&'()4$-!7(4#!4#$!B,&f$'4!7&@*-!:$!<&!?,$)4$,!4#)<!4#&.$!$<'&@<4$,$-!(<!-)2!4&!-)2!*(/$8!
`&4#!4#$!,$.$),'#!-)4)!)<-!/(<-(<?.!7(**!:$!@.$-!&<*2!/&,!,$.$),'#!)<-!$-@')4(&<)*!B@,B&.$.8!
"#$!C(<-.!&/!^@$.4(&<.!4#)4!P!)1!(<4$,$.4$-!(<!)<.7$,(<?!(<'*@-$Q!
• \&7!-&!'#(*-,$<!)<-!)-@*4.!(<4$,)'4!(<!1$)*4(1$!'&<4$A4.b!!• "&!7#)4!-&!'#(*-,$<!)<-!)-@*4.!&,($<4!-@,(<?!1$)*4(1$!'&<4$A4.b!!• \&7!-&!4#$!(<4$,)'4(&<.!'&<4,(:@4$!4&!4#$!.&'()*!)<-!!1&,)*!&,-$,.!&/!1$)*4(1$!
)<-!/)1(*2!(<4$,)'4(&<b!
o&@,!B),4('(B)4(&<!(<!4#(.!B,&f$'4!(.!5&*@<4),28!P/!2&@!-&!)?,$$!4&!B),4('(B)4$X!2&@!')<!7(4#-,)7!/,&1!B),4('(B)4(&<!)4!)<2!4(1$!-@,(<?!4#$!B,&f$'4!7(4#&@4!'&11$<4!&,!B$<)*428!o&@,!-$'(.(&<!4&!B),4('(B)4$!7(**!(<!<&!7)2!(1B)'4!@B&<!2&@,!'@,,$<4!&,!/@4@,$!,$*)4(&<.#(B!7(4#!Ei"8!
;*$).$!'&<4)'4!4#$!,$.$),'#$,!&,!#$,!.@B$,5(.&,.!(/!2&@!,$^@(,$!/@,4#$,!(</&,1)4(&<!):&@4!4#$!B,&f$'4X!&,!4&!#)5$!)<2!^@$.4(&<.!)<.7$,$-8!
;*$).$!'&<4)'4!4#$!D$.$),'#!T4#('.!+//('$,!&<!cIRd!SGFJ!OSJI!&,!$4#('.'&<4)'4p^@48$-@8)@!(/!2&@!#)5$!)<2!'&<'$,<.!&,!'&1B*)(<4.!):&@4!4#$!$4#(')*!'&<-@'4!&/!4#$!B,&f$'48!
P!*&&C!/&,7),-!4&!2&@,!(<5&*5$1$<4!)<-!4#)<C!2&@!/&,!2&@,!.@BB&,48!
!
h(**()<!`@.'#!!"$*$B#&<$Q! JYOSORRO!c7Cd!
T1)(*Q! ! ?8:@.'#p.4@-$<48^@48$-@8)@!!
Information sheet for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
Centre for Learning Innovation
Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove Q 4059
“Social and moral orders of family mealtimes”
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIU!
)::A4<1M$'$
,A@3127$CN$c1<AC$+A8C=<14D7$CN$-3G121A7$
,3@A$f$
!3:A$<A@3127$ 5=1AN$76GG3=E$CN$AJA4@7$14$J1<AC$
* E%&"'(+*E&6(-.*
OS8HI8IF!")B$!Z&8!H!>@<'#!c,$.$),'#$,!B,$.$<4d!
3),?&4!)<-!3@1!/&,!*@<'#8!3@1!?$4.!4#$!*@<'#!/&,!3),?&4!7#(*$!3),?&4!7)(4.!)4!4#$!4):*$8!>@<'#!(.!.)<-7('#$.X!.*('$.!&/!/,@(4X!'$*$,2!.4('C.!)<-!1(*C8!P<(4()**2!4#$,$!(.!5$,2!*(44*$!4)*C(<?!K!4#&@?#!1@1!(<4,&-@'$.!.&1$!4)*C!):&@4!)!:(C$!4#)4!3)'C)2!,$'$(5$-!/,&1!.&1$&<$8!3@1!(<4,&-@'$.!4)*C!):&@4!7#&!(.!?&(<?!4&!,$)-!4&!3),?&4!:$/&,$!.#$!?&$.!4&!.*$$B!4#(.!)/4$,<&&<8!"#(.!(.!,$*$5)<4!
:$')@.$!`(:(!c?,)<-1)d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
HI8HH8IF!")B$!Z&8!O!>@<'#!c,$.$),'#$,!B,$.$<4d!
Z&!.&@<-!/&,!4#$!/(,.4!Y!1(<@4$.8!3),?&4!)<-!1@1!/&,!*@<'#8!3@1!:,(<?.!4#$!*@<'#!4&!4#$!4):*$8!>@<'#!(.!.)<-7('#$.!)<-!/,@(48!%&1$!4)*C!):&@4!4#$!/,@(4!(<!4#$!.#&B.!/&**&7$-!:2!4)*C!):&@4!-&?!/&&-!)<-!4#$!<)1$.!&/!B$&B*$!7#&!3),?&4!5(.(4$-!(<!=)(,<.8!!3),?&4!).C.!):&@4!4#$!<)1$!&/!4#$!4&7<!7#$,$!N)--2!(.!7&,C(<?!4&-)28!%&1$!/(<?$,!B*)2!&''@,.8!3&,$!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!4#$!<)1$.!&/!B$&B*$!C<&7<!4&!
3),?&4!)<-!,$*)4(&<.#(B.!:$47$$<!B$&B*$X!.@'#!).X!?,)<-1&4#$,!)<-!?,)<--)@?#4$,8!"#$!1$)*!(.!/(<(.#$-!)<-!1&4#$,!)<-!-)@?#4$,!*$)5$!4#$!4):*$!4&!7).#!4#$(,!#)<-.8!
!
!
! !!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIF!
HO8HH8IF!")B$!Z&8!S!`,$)C/).4!c,$.$),'#$,!B,$.$<4d!
`,$)C/).4!(.!&<!4#$!5$,)<-)#!)4!3),?&4V.!*(44*$!4):*$8!!=*$)<(<?!&/!4#$!4):*$!&''@,.!)<-!4#$<!:,$)C/).4!(.!B*)'$-!&<!4#$!4):*$8!3@1!.(4.!&<!4#$!/*&&,!:$.(-$!4#$!4):*$!)<-!&//$,.!4&!'@4!@B!3),?&4V.!B)<')C$.8!3),?&4!-,(<C.!#$,!1(*C!)<-!7)4'#$.!).!1@1!'@4.!@B!4#$!B)<')C$.8!9<!@<@.@)*!<&(.$!(.!#$),-!(<!4#$!:)'C?,&@<-8!N(.'@..(&<!(<(4()4$-!:2!3),?&4!):&@4!4#$!&,(?(<.!&/!4#$!<&(.$!$<.@$.8!3@1!B,&B&.$.!4#)4!(4!1(?#4!
:$!4#$!:&2.!<$A4!-&&,!1&5(<?!)!4),B)@*(<8!3),?&4!&,($<4.!4&!4#$!,$.$),'#$,!)<-!).C.!(/!.#$!#).!/(<(.#$-!#$,!B)<')C$.8!3@1!(<4,&-@'$.!4)*C!):&@4!4#$!<)1$!&/!4#$!<$7!:):2!<$A4!-&&,8!!%&1$!:(,-.X!B&..(:*2!',&7.X!),$!.^@)7C(<?8!N(.'@..(&<!&''@,.!):&@4!4#$!7#$,$):&@4.!&/!4#$!:(,-.8!3),?&4!(<4,&-@'$.!4)*C!):&@4!#$,!$@B#&X!)!1@.(')*!(<.4,@1$<48!`(,4#-)2.!)<-!4#$!)?$!-(//$,$<4!1$1:$,.!&/!4#$!/)1(*2!7(**!:$!)4!4#$(,!<$A4!:(,4#-)2!),$!-(.'@..$-8!"#$!1$)*!(.!/(<(.#$-!)<-!3),?&4!(.!).C$-!4&!4)C$!#$,!.#)C2!:)'C!4&!4#$!C(4'#$<8!!
OF8HH8IF!")B$!Z&8!J!`,$)C/).4!c,$.$),'#$,!B,$.$<4d!
`,$)C/).4!(.!&<!4#$!5$,)<-)#!)4!3),?&4V.!*(44*$!4):*$8!3),?&4!),,(5$.!/(,.4!)<-!.(4.!-&7<!7(4#!#$,!B)<')C$.!)<-!'&11$<'$.!4&!$)48!3@1!),,(5$.!)<-!.(4.!-&7<!&<!4#$!/*&&,!:$.(-$!4#$!4):*$8!3),?&4!).C.!/&,!.&1$!&/!1@1V.!B)<')C$8!%#$!:&,,&7.!1@1V.!C<(/$!)<-!'@4.!.&1$!B)<')C$8!!3@1!4$**.!3),?&4!4#)4!N)--2!7(**!:$!#&1$!4&<(?#4!c#$!#).!:$$<!7&,C(<?!)7)2!/&,!)!<@1:$,!&/!-)2.d8!3@1!).C.!3),?&4!(/!.#$!')<!,$1$1:$,!
7#$,$!-)--2!(.!7&,C(<?8!3),?&4!,$')**.!4#$!<)1$!&/!4#$!4&7<X!4#)4!(.X!`&@,)8!3),?&4!<&4$.!4#)4!-)--2!(.!?&(<?!4&!?$4!.&1$!',):.!&<!4#$!7)2!:)'C!/,&1!`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
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIR!
HJ8IO8IR!")B$!Z&8!U!>@<'#!c94!'&//$$!.#&Bd!c,$.$),'#$,!B,$.$<4!)<-!.$)4$-!)4!4#$!4):*$!7(4#!3),?&4!)<-!1@1d!!
94!4#$!'&//$$!.#&B8!"#$!7)(4,$..!'&1$.!)<-!7$!B*)'$!&@,!&,-$,8!N(.'@..(&<!):&@4!3),?&4V.!.7(11(<?!*$..&<.!)<-!.4,)4$?($.!/&,!.7(11(<?!.)/$*2!),$!-(.'@..$-8!3),?&4!*&&C.!)4!4#$!1$<@8!3),?&4V.!1(*C!.#)C$!(.!:,&@?#4!4&!4#$!4):*$8!3),?&4!&,($<4.!4&!7#)4!(.!&@4!4#$!7(<-&78!"#$!4$)!),,(5$.!)<-!-(.'@..(&<!-$5$*&B.!):&@4!7#)4!3),?&4!?&4!/&,![)*$<4(<$V.!N)28!"#$!.'&<$.!),,(5$!)<-!3),?&4!).C.!7#$<!#$,!.)<-7('#$.!
),$!'&1(<?8!M#$<!4#$!.)<-7('#$.!),,(5$!3),?&4!'&11$<'$.!$)4(<?!)<-!4#$<!).C.!/&,!.&1$!.'&<$.8!N(.'@..(&<!-$5$*&B.!):&@4!.&1$!.#&$.!4#)4!3),?&4!*(C$.!7(4#!'#$,,($.!&<!4#$18!"#$!.$^@$<'$.!B,$.$<4$-!(<!=#)B4$,!R!1)C$!,$/$,$<'$!)*.&!4&!'#$,,2!.#&$.8!3),?&4!?&$.!/&,!)!*(44*$!7)*C!4&!*&&C!)4!.&1$!&/!4#$!4#(<?.!(<!4#$!.#&B8!M#$<!.#$!'&1$.!:)'CX!-(.'@..(&<!&''@,.!):&@4!7#)4!.#$!7(**!-&!4&-)2!)<-!):&@4!)!B&..(:*$!5(.(4!4&!4#$!9@.4,)*()<!q&&!4&!.$$!`(<-2!)<-!4#$!C&)*).8!!3),?&4V.!,$'$<4!4,(B!4&!.$$!N(.<$2!&<!P'$!(.!-(.'@..$-8!!M#$<!4#$!1$)*!(.!'&<'*@-$-X!7$!1&5$!/,&1!4#$!4):*$8!
HR8IO8IR!")B$!Z&8!F!N(<<$,!c,$.$),'#$,!B,$.$<4d!
N(<<$,!(.!)4!4#$!-(<(<?!4):*$8!3@1X!3),?&4!)<-!4#$!,$.$),'#$!),$!B,$.$<48!%&1$!4(1$!(.!.B$<4!B,(&,!4&!4#$!1$)*!.$44(<?!@B!4#$!')1$,)8!3),?&4!(.!B),4!&/!4#$.$!B,$B),)4(&<.!)<-!.B$<-.!4(1$!1&5(<?!4#$!')1$,)!)<-!<&4(<?!7#)4!.#$!')<!.$$8!D(:.!),$!.$,5$-!/&,!-(<<$,8!3),?&4!.4),4.!$)4(<?!&<'$!4#$!,(:.!),,(5$8!"#$!.&@<-!(.!5$,2!B&&,!&<!4#$!4)B$!7(4#!4#$!5&('$.!)*1&.4!<&4!)@-(:*$8!
OU8IO8IR!")B$!Z&8!R!N(<<$,!c/)1(*2!,$'&,-$-d!
TA4$<-$-!.$^@$<'$.!/,&1!4#(.!1$)*4(1$!),$!B,$.$<4$-!(<!=#)B4$,!R8!9**!4#$!/)1(*2!(.!B,$.$<4!(<'*@-(<?!`(:(!c?,)<-1)d8!"#$!,$'&,-(<?!'&11$<'$.!7(4#!`(:(!)<-!3),?&4!7)(4(<?!)4!4#$!4):*$!4)*C(<?!):&@4!'),-!?)1$.8!;),4.!&/!4#$!1$)*!),$!.*&7*2!:,&@?#4!4&!4#$!4):*$!)<-!3),?&4!(.!).C$-!4&!1&5$!4&!#$,!'#)(,8!`(:(!(<(4()4$.!4)*C!7(4#!#$,!-)@?#4$,!cT1(*2d!):&@4!7#$4#$,!&,!<&4!.#$!#).!/&@<-!&@4!)<2!
(</&,1)4(&<!):&@4!4#$!.@,/!,(-(<?!*$..&<.8!3),?&4!4$**.!-)--2!4#)4!4#$2!),$!?&(<?!4&!:@2!)!'),-!?)1$!7#$<!4#$2!?&!4&!D&'C28!3@1!)<-!-)-!.(4!-&7<!4&!$)48!3@1!&//$,.!'#$$.$!)<-!&4#$,!'&<-(1$<4.!4&!1$1:$,.!&/!4#$!/)1(*28!")*C!):&@4!'#$,,2!:&&4.!(.!(<(4()4$-!c.$$!=#)B4$,!Rd!/&**&7(<?!`(:(V.!'&11$<4!):&@4!4#$!'#$,,($.!(<!4#$!:)'C!/,(-?$8!3),?&4!(<(4()4$.!4)*C!):&@4!e$//2!c)!/)1(*2!/,($<-dX!7)<4(<?!4&!C<&7!4#$!7#$,$):&@4.!&/!e$//28!%&1$!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!7#&!(.!B('C(<?!r4#$1V!@B!$5$<4@)4$.!)<-!7#$<!)<-!7#$,$!4#$!B*)<$!*$)5$.8!`(:(!(<(4()4$.!4)*C!):&@4!7#)4!3),?&4!(.!?&(<?!4&!:$!7#$<!.#$!(.!)!:(?!?(,*8!3@1!(<4,&-@'$.!4)*C!):&@4!3),?&4V.!-)2!7(4#!N)--28!"#$!/&'@.!(.!&<!7#&1!.#$!.)7!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIG!
)<-!7#$,$!.#$!7$<48!"#$!7#&*$!/)1(*2!:@2.!(<4&!4#$!4)*C!7(4#!/&,!$A)1B*$X!`(:(!).C(<?!7#)4!3),?&4!:,&@?#4!#&1$!/&,!`(:(!/&,!*@<'#8!")*C!):&@4!)!B,&B&.$-!$5$<4!4&!5(.(4!)!/,($<-!(.!(<(4()4$-!7#('#!.$$1.!4&!*$)-!4&!4)*C!):&@4!N)<($*!<&7!:$(<?!)!:(?!:):28!N)-!4)*C.!):&@4!#(.!7&,C!$AB$,($<'$!.4@-$<4!')**$-!h&*-(8!"#$!7#&*$!/)1(*2!:@2.!(<4&!4#$!4)*C!(<'*@-(<?!3),?&4!7#&!1)C$.!4#$!'&11$<4!L!r*(C$!4#$!4#,$$!:$),.V8!"#$!B#&<$!,(<?.!)<-!3@1!)<.7$,.!(48!3),?&4!-$'*),$.!4#)4!.#$!(.!/(<(.#$-8!"#(.!,$.@*4.!(<!-)-!-(,$'4(<?!#$,!4&!$)4!.&1$!1&,$!B$).8!9/4$,!.&1$!4(1$X!4#$!5(-$&!(.!4@,<$-!&//8!
! S&"0$%-))+*E&6(-.$
HR8IR8IR!")B$!Z&8!G!T5$<(<?!3$)*!
9**!4#$!/)1(*2!cN)-X!\$<,2X!M(**()1X!3)A(1(*()<X!`$<$-('4X!"#&1).(<)d!(.!.$)4$-!)4!4#$!4):*$!7#(*$!1@1!)-f@.4.!4#$!')1$,)!L!?,)'$!(.!*$)-!:2!-)-!(<!)!/)(,*2!(</&,1)*!7)28!N)-!B&@,.!'@B.!&/!4$)!/&,!4#$!/)1(*28!%&1$!:,($/!&,($<4)4(&<!4&!4#$!')1$,)!L!4#$!'#(*-,$<!),$!$)4(<?8!3@1!&,?)<(W$.!1&,$!.)@.)?$.!)<-!4#$<!/(<)**2!.(4.!-&7<!/&@,!)<-!)!#)*/!1(<@4$.!(<4&!4#$!1$)*8!!3@1!(<(4()4$.!4)*C!
7(4#!\$<,2!):&@4!#(.!(<4$,5($7!4&1&,,&78!"#$,$!(.!.&1$!4)*C!):&@4!#&7!4&!$)4!4#$!:,$)-!7(4#!4#$!/&,C!)<-!(<.4,@'4(&<.!),$!B,&5(-$-8!3&,$!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!4#$!5(-$&!)<-!`$<$-('4!#).!.&1$!')<-*$.!:@,<(<?8!\$!:$<-.!-&7<!4&!:*&7!&<!4#$!')<-*$!)<-!.(<?$.!#(.!#)(,8!3@'#!*)@?#4$,!&''@,.!).!)!,$.@*4!&/!4#$!.(<?$(<?!&/!`$<$-('4V.!#)(,8!`$<$-('4!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$!4&!*&&C!)4!#(.!#)(,!(<!4#$!1(,,&,8!\$!4#$<!1&5$.!4&!4@,<!&//!4#$!*(?#4!.&!4#)4!$5$,2!&<$!(.!$)4(<?!7(4#!')<-*$!*(?#48!"#$,$!(.!1&,$!.$,5(<?!&/!4$)8!M(**()1!1&5$.!4&!*&&C!)4!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-$,!)<-!<&4('$.!4#)4!4#$!,&&1!(.!B,$442!:*)'C8!"#(.!<&4('(<?!,$.@*4.!(<!4#$!*(?#4.!:$(<?!4@,<$-!&<8!`$<$-('4!'&<4(<@$.!4&!&,($<4!4&!4#$!')<-*$.!)<-!.(<?.!).!#$!'*)B.!#(.!#)<-.8!3@1!)<-!N)-!4)*C!):&@4!),,)<?$1$<4.!/&,!4#$!7$$C$<-8!Z&7!)4!)4!4#$!5(-$&X!\$<,2!(.!).C$-!4&!,$4@,<!4&!4#$!4):*$8!"#&1).(<)!1&5$.!4&!4#$!5(-$&!)<-!4)*C!):&@4!4#$!):.$<4!,$.$),'#$,!$<.@$.8!!")*C!):&@4!4#$!7$$C$<-!'&<4(<@$.!7(4#!3)A!,$^@$.4(<?!4&!)''&1B)<2!N)-!4&!`,(.:)<$8!"(-2(<?!@B!'&11$<'$.!7(4#!1&,$!4)*C!):&@4!4#$!):.$<4!,$.$),'#$,8!!"#$!'#(*-,$<!<&7!'&1$!)<-!?&!/,&1!4#$!-(<(<?!,&&18!\$<,2!)<-!%)1!),$!).C$-!4&!7(B$!@B!)<-!'*$)<(<?!@B!&/!4#$!1$)*!'&11$<'$.8!M)4'#$-!:2!"#&1).(<)!)<-!`$<X!3)A!.$4.!@B!/&,!'#$..8!!N)-!'&11$<'$.!7).#(<?!@B!)<-!\$<,2!)<-!M(**!7(B$!@B8!3@1!'*$)<.!`$<V.!$2$.!7#(*$!?$<$,)*!'*$)<(<?!&''@,.!)<-!4#$!'#(*-,$<!B*)28!!
HG8IR8IR!")B$!Z&8!Y!T5$<(<?!3$)*!
=)1$,)!(.!&<!)<-!"#&1).(<)X!3)AX!`$<!)<-!N)-!),$!)4!4#$!4:*$!B*)2(<?!'#$..8!3@1!.$,5$.!4#$!1$)*!)<-!).C.!N)-!4&!.#(/4!4#$!'#$..!?)1$!/,&1!4#$!4):*$8!\$<,2!)<-!M(**()1!f&(<!4#$!4):*$8!"#$!"[!(.!)@-(:*$!(<!4#$!:)'C?,&@<-!)<-!N)-!).C.!/&,!(4!4&!,$1)(<!&<!@<4(*!)/4$,!4#$!7$)4#$,!,$B&,48!!h,)'$!(.!.)(-!)<-!1@1!,$1(<-.!$5$,2&<$!4&!4#(<C!):&@4!*(44*$!\)1(.#!7#&!(.!?&(<?!:*(<-8!3@1!).C.!\$<,2!4&!4$**!N)-!):&@4!#(.!
(<4$,5($78!\$!(.!$<'&@,)?$-!4&!4$**!):&@4!#(.!)44,(:@4$.!)<-!4#(<?.!#$!/(<-.!'#)**$<?(<?8!!"#$!/)1(*2!$)4.!4#$!1$)*8!\$<,2!(<4,&-@'$.!)<!(4$1!&/!(<4$,$.4!/,&1!4#$!<$7.8!"#(.!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OIY!
,$*)4$.!4&!)!.4&,2!):&@4!+.)1)!:(<!>)-$<!)<-!#&7!#$!(.!4,)(<(<?!B$&B*$8!3@1!$AB*)(<.!4#)4!.&1$!4#(<?.!&<!4#$!<$7.!1(?#4!:$!B,&B)?)<-)!)<-!4#)4!7$!7(**!7)4'#!4#$!9`=!<$7.!4&!#$),!7#)4!4#$2!.)2!):&@4!4#$!,$B&,48!3@1!).C.!7#&!7)<4.!.&1$!,$)**2!2@112!-$..$,4!)<-!'&11$<4.!4#)4!N)-!-&$.<V4!C<&7!):&@4!(48!\$<,2!.@??$.4.!4&!3@1!4#)4!.#$!.#&7.!h(**()<!7#)4!",(.#)!#).!1)-$!/&,!@.8!3@1!#&*-.!@B!4#$!4),4!4&7),-.!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-$,!)<-!$AB*)(<.!4#)4!",(.#)!1)-$!(4!/&,!@.!:$')@.$!`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
HY8IR8IR!")B$!Z&8!HI!`,$)C/).4!
TA4$<-$-!.$^@$<'$.!/,&1!4#(.!1$)*4(1$!),$!B,$.$<4$-!(<!=#)B4$,!U8!"#(.!(.!)!.'#&&*!1&,<(<?!L!(4!:$?(<.!7(4#!4#$!/&@,!:&2.!.$)4$-!)4!4#$!4):*$!*&&C(<?!)4!:&&C'*@:!:,&'#@,$.8!!`&&C'*@:!(.!(1B&,4)<4!4#,&@?#&@4!4#$!1$)*!L!B),4('@*),*2!/&,!M(**8!!3@1!$<4$,.!4#$!,&&1!)<-!)<<&@<'$.!?,)'$8!h,)'$!(.!'#&,)**$-!:2!4#$!/)1(*2!1$1:$,.8!"#$!:&2.!$)4!'$,$)*!)<-!4#$<!:)'&<!)<-!$??.!(.!.$,5$-!).!$)'#!:&2!/(<(.#$.!#(.!:)'&<!)<-!$??.8!N(.'@..(&<!):&@4!7#)4!3)AV.!
1$-('(<$!4).4$.!*(C$!)<-!1&,$!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!4#$!:&&C'*@:!:,&'#@,$.!&''@,.8!+<'$!4#$!:)'&<!)<-!$??!(.!.$,5$-X!3@1!1&5$.!:)'C!4&!4#$!4):*$!)<-!&,?)<(W$.!'@B.!&/!4$)8!3@1!4#$<!.(4.!-&7<!4&!#)5$!#$,!:)'&<!)<-!$??.8!9!-(.B@4$!-$5$*&B.!:$47$$<!3)A!)<-!M(**!):&@4!)''$..!4&!4#$!:&&C'*@:!:,&'#@,$.8!3@1!)<-!\$<,2!!(<4$,5$<$!(<!4#$!-(.B@4$8!`$<!1&5$.!),&@<-!)<-!4)C$.!.&1$!:)'&<!4&!4#$!/(,$!c4#$!/)1(*2!#)5$!)!7&&-!/(,$!(<!4#$!*&@<?$!,&&1d8!3&,$!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!4#$!:&&C'*@:!(<5&*5(<?!4#$!:&2.8!9<&4#$,!*(44*$!-(.B@4$!&''@,.!:$47$$<!M(**!)<-!3)A!L!:&4#!1@1!)<-!\$<,2!)?)(<!(<4$,5$<$8!\$<,2!)<-!`$<!1&5$!/,&1!4#$!4):*$!4&!*&&C!)4!:,&'#@,$.!c<&7!&@4!&/!')1$,)!5($7d8!!N)-!'&1$.!(<!)<-!f&(<.!4#$!/)1(*2!/&,!:,$)C/).48!\$!4)*C.!4&!3@1!)<-!4#$!:&2.!)<-!4#$<!'&11$<'$.!4&!)44$<-!4&!`$<V.!$2$.!cP4!.$$1.!4#)4!`$<!#).!.&1$!(,,(4)4(&<!(<!#(.!$2$X!B&..(:*2!'&<f@<4(5(4&@.d8!3)A!)<-!M(**!'&11$<'$!/(**(<?!(<!4#$!&,-$,!/&,1!/&,!4#$!:&&C'*@:8!3@1!)<-!N)-!4)*C!):&@4!4#$(,!:@.(<$..!)<-!N)-!1&5$.!4&!?(5$!3)A!.&1$!1$-('(<$8!"#&1).(<)!),,(5$.!)<-!(.!7$*'&1$-!:2!3@1!L]\$**&!12!*(44*$!;,(<'$..$$_8!3@1!B@4.!"#&1).(<)!(<!4#$!#(?#'#)(,!)<-!B,&5(-$.!'$,$)*!/&,!"#&1).(<)8!N)-!)<-!3)A!),$!B*)2(<?!'#$..!L!\$<,2!f&(<.!(<8!;,$B),)4(&<.!:$?(<!/&,!?&(<?!4&!.'#&&*!)<-!3@1!4(-($.!4#$!C(4'#$<8!"#&1).(<)!)<-!`$<!),$!.4(**!(<!4#$!C(4'#$<!7(4#!`$<!B*)2(<?!'#$..!7(4#!N)-!)<-!"#&1).(<)!.4(**!$)4(<?!#$,!:,$)C/).48!"#$!4)B$!$<-.!).!4#$!:&2.!-&!4#$(,!f&:.!)<-!?$4!4#$(,!:)?.!,$)-2!/&,!.'#&&*8!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OHI!
HS8IY8IR!")B$!Z&8!HH!T5$<(<?!3$)*!c)4!4#$!/),1d!
`$<X!9-$*$X!+1)!)<-!"#&1).(<)!),$!)4!4#$!4):*$!7#(*$!3@1!.$4.!@B!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-$,8!h,)'$!(.!)<<&@<'$-!)<-!'#&,)**$-8!N(.'@..(&<!(<(4()4$-!:2!+1)!/&'@.$.!&<!4#$!B@,B&.$!&/!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-(<?8!"#&1).(<)!)44$1B4.!4&!?$4!.)*4!)<-!B$BB$,!/,&1!4#$!-(.B$<.$,.8!`$<!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$!)<-!?&$.!4&!4#$!5(-$&!,$'&,-$,!)<-!4&*-!4&!,$4@,<!4&!4#$!4):*$8!%&1$!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!"#&1).(<)V.!
#)(,'@48!9-$*$!B&(<4.!&@4!4&!`$<!4#)4!2&@!')<!.$$!4#$!(1)?$!&/!4#$!B),4('(B)<4.!&<!4#$!r*(44*$!7(<-&7V8!+1)!?$4.!1&,$!4&).4!/,&1!4#$!C(4'#$<8!`$<!)<<&@<'$.!4#)4!#$!7)<4.!4&!7)4'#!)!N[N!4#)4!.$$1.!4&!(<(4()4$!)!*(44*$!-(.B@4$!7(4#!9-$*$8!"#&1).(<)!?&$.!4&!4#$!5(-$&!)<-!3@1!?&$.!)<-!?$4.!#$,!)<-!:,(<?.!#$,!:)'C!4&!4#$!4):*$8!3@1!&//$,.!.4,)7:$,,($.!)<-!`$<!5&*@<4$$,.!4&!?&!)<-!?$4!4#$1!/,&1!4#$!C(4'#$<8!"#&1).(<)!B*)2.!1@.('!).!.#$!#(4.!4#$!'@B.!7(4#!.&1$!'@4*$,28!"#&1).(<)!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$!)<-!?&$.!4&!4#$!5(-$&8!%#$!,$4@,<.!4&!4#$!4):*$!7#$<!3@1!4$**.!#$,!4#)4!+1)!7(**!?$4!#$,!.4,)7:$,,($.8!9-$*$!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$8!%4,)7:$,,($.!),$!.$,5$-!)<-!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!4#$!4).4$!)<-!'&.4!&/!4#$!.4,)7:$,,($.!&''@,.!:$47$$<!3@1!)<-!+1)8!
HJ8IY8IR!")B$!Z&8!HH!`,$)C/).4!c)4!4#$!/),1!)<-!.&@<-!-(-!<&4!7&,Cd!
+<!4#$!5$,)<-)#!)4!4#$!/),18!
$ T(%C6&"*E&6(-.$
SI8IU8IR!")B$!Z&8!HO!T5$<(<?!3$)*!
3@1!)<-!#$,!47&!-)@?#4$,.!")2*&,!)<-!T*&-($!),$!B,$.$<4!/&,!-(<<$,!)4!4#$!-(<(<?!4):*$8!"#$!4$*$5(.(&<!(.!)@-(:*$!(<!4#$!:)'C?,&@<-8!"#$!.&@<-!(.!<&4!)@-(:*$!/&,!4#$!/(,.4!G!1(<@4$.!&/!4#$!,$'&,-(<?8!")2*&,!*('C.!#$,!B*)4$!4#)4!,$.@*4.!(<!)!-(.'@..(&<!):&@4!#&7!4&!$)4!B,&B$,*28!T*&-($!<&4('$.!#$,!.(.4$,!.B(4!&@4!.&1$!/&&-X!7#('#!)?)(<!,$.@*4.!(<!4)*C!):&@4!$)4(<?!'&,,$'4*28!3@1!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$!4&!?$4!1&,$!*).)?<)!/&,!")2*&,8!N@,(<?!
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
!
9BB$<-('$.! OHH!
SH8IU8IR!")B$!Z&8!HS!T5$<(<?!3$)*!
3@1X!-)-!)<-!4#$!47&!'#(*-,$<X!")2*&,!)<-!T*&-($!),$!B,$.$<4!/&,!4#$!$5$<(<?!1$)*8!M#(*$!B,$.$<4X!-)-!.4)2.!(<!4#$!C(4'#$<X!4#,&@?#!4#$!'#(*-,$<!&,($<4!4&!#(1!-@,(<?!4#$!1$)*8!"#$!4$*$5(.(&<!(.!)@-(:*$!7(4#!4#$!F!&V'*&'C!*&')*!<$7.!B*)2(<?8!T*&-($!7)(4.!)4!4#$!4):*$!)<-!'&1B*)(<.!4&!#$,!/)4#$,!4#)4!.#$!-&$.<V4!#)5$!)!-,(<C8!3@1!'&11$<'$.!4&!:,(<?!4#$!1$)*.!4&!4#$!4):*$8!;,(&,!4&!:,(<?(<?!T*&-($V.!1$)*!4&!4#$!4):*$X!1@1!
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e&,-&<!4#$<!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$!7(4#!#$,!B*)4$8!"#$,$!(.!.&1$!4)*C!):&@4!7#)4!1@1!B*)2$-!7#$<!.#$!7).!)!*(44*$!?(,*8!"#(.!,$.@*4.!(<!'&@<4(<?!4&!.$$!4#)4!)?$!)4!7#('#!.#$!B*)2$-!4&@'#!/&&4:)**8!e&,-&<!.4)<-.!&<!4#$!'#)(,!)<-!-&$.!.&1$!-)<'$!1&5$.8!")2*&,!*$)5$.!4#$!4):*$!)<-!1@1!4@,<.!&//!4#$!5(-$&8!
!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OHO!
)::A4<1M$,$
!=3478=1:@1C4$%E7@AG$
The transcription system used to transcribe conversational data was developed by
Gail Jefferson (2004). The following notational features were used in the transcripts
presented in the thesis.
The following punctuation marks depict the characteristics of speech production, not
the conventions of grammar.
s!! ! )!*$/4!:,)'C$4!(<-(')4$.!4#$!&5$,*)B!&<.$4!t!! ! )!,(?#4!:,)'C$4!(<-(')4$.!7#$,$!4#$!&5$,*)BB$-!.B$$'#!$<-.!u! <&!:,$)C!&,!?)B!:$47$$<!4@,<.!cI8Sd! <@1:$,!(<!.$'&<-!)<-!4$<4#.!&/!)!.$'&<-!(<-(')4$.!4#$!*$<?4#!&/!
)<!(<4$,5)*!c8d! ! :,($/!(<4$,5)*!c*$..!4#)<!I8Od!7(4#(<!&,!:$47$$<!@44$,)<'$.!%&QQQ,,2! '&*&<!,$B,$.$<4.!)!.&@<-!.4,$4'#!&/!(11$-()4$*2!B,(&,!.&@<-!7(4#!
(<',$).$.!(<!4#$!<@1:$,!&/!'&*&<.!(<-(')4(<?!4#$!*&<?$,!B,&*&<?)4(&<!
2&@! ! @<-$,*(<$!(<-(')4$.!$1B#).(.!!! ! .#(/4.!(<4&!#(?#!B(4'#!
#! ! .#(/4.!(<4&!*&7!B(4'#!
N+h! ! *&@-!4)*C!(.!(<-(')4$-!:2!@BB$,!').$!#$2b! ! )!^@$.4(&<!1),C!(<-(')4$.!)!,(.(<?!(<4&<)4(&<!-&?v! )!%B)<(.#!^@$.4(&<!1),C!(<-(')4$.!)!.@:.4)<4()*!,(.$!4#)4!$<-.!@B!
(<!4#$!1(-!4&!1(-K#(?#!$<-!&/!4#$!.B$)C$,V.!,)<?$!#$,$X! ! )!'&11)!(<-(')4$.!)!'&<4(<@(<?!(<4&<)4(&<!7(4#!)!.*(?#4!,(.$!-(-8! ! )!/@**!.4&B!(<-(')4$.!/)**(<?X!/(<)*!(<4&<)4(&<!:&&4.! @<-$,*(<$!(<-(')4$.!.4,$..!&,!$1B#).(.!5()!B(4'#!&,!)1B*(4@-$8!"#$!
*&<?$,!4#$!@<-$,*(<$!4#$!?,$)4$,!4#$!$1B#).(.!°.&/4°! ! .&/4$,X!^@($4$,!.&@<-.!
8w^@('Cx! 4)*C!(.!.B$$-$-!@B!x.*&7w! 4)*C!(.!.*&7$-!-&7<! !8###! ! )!-&4!B,(&,!4&!#!(<-(')4$.!)<!(<K:,$)4#!###! ! (<-(')4$.!)<!&@4K:,$)4#!c!!!!!!!!d! ! 4#$!4)*C!(.!<&4!)@-(:*$!c#&@.$d! ! 4,)<.',(:$,V.!:$.4!?@$..!/&,!4#$!4)*C!c-&dnc-(?d! 47&!$^@)**2!B&..(:*$!#$),(<?.!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OHS!
4&?$4#$,a! )<!$A'*)1)4(&<!1),C!(<-(')4$.!)<!)<(1)4$-!4&<$!!N,K-(,4! )!.(<?*$!-).#!(<-(')4$.!)!<&4('$):*$!'@4!&//!&/!4#$!B,(&,!7&,-!&,!.&@<-!cc7)*C(<?dd! )<<&4)4(&<!&/!<&<K5$,:)*!)'4(5(42!l! ! (<-(')4$.!.1(*(<?!7#(*$!4)*C(<?!)<-!C<&7<!).!+9(-$*#&-H!!
!
9BB$<-('$.! OHJ!
)::A4<1M$#$
'C:E$CN$-1A2<$bC@A7$]$c34<A=2CC7$-3G12E$
Date & Meal Notes
17.07.07
Evening
Meal
Will had an interview (3 way) 8 am this morning at school with Mr Connor
(pseudonym) (who speaks quickly) – Henry imitates him during the meal. As part of
their (the school) Values Education, Will wants to extend himself – risk take in self
appointed activities. Henry mentions this on the tape that he is going to write a letter of
things he would like to do and give to Mr Connor. Will had gymnastics this afternoon
– does not want to nominate for the Digby (pseudoymn for name of town) Competition
because the only routine he knows is for the P Bars – it is hard to hear his reasonings.
Missed our prayer at the beginning. Will likes to have a candle on and so does Ben.
Ben got a lovely white candle for himself and Will had his Reconciliation candle
going. When all the lights go out – Ben thought turning all the lights out would be a
good idea. Henry has his 3 way interview tomorrow and I asked him if he was ready to
which he replies yes. That might be hard to hear. Max had to be picked up from school
because he had swollen glands so he’s not 100%. Max is currently learning how to play
chess which is being played after nearly every meal. Rupert always makes the tea for
the family. Meal is sausages and gravy, corn-cobs, mashed potato, mashed sweet
potato and onions (for Dad and Mum) – sometimes dessert though filled up on bread
tonight. Thomasina always has a couple of biscuits to dunk in her cup of tea. Mum
looks shocking!! Everybody helps clean up and usually Rupert washes up and the two
big boys wipe up. Rugby League at Willow (pseudonym for name of town) the 28th
(B&W Ball) – so we’ll probably miss that one! Why? Because VIP are coming! The
bye mentioned is regarding this weekends football. Rupert goes to the Trading Exp in
Bristol (pseudonym for name of town) on the 27h July. Max is keen to go with him so
Dad can buy him a new game for the Game Boy Advance. I bought him “The
Incredibles’ yesterday (they already had it!). So Max is keen to get another. All the
kids are keen to know where Gillian is and what she is doing and the workings of the
camera on the tripot. I hope you can hear the dialogue. The tea being served is very
audible and the fork hitting the floor is audible too. Max and Ben to go to the doctor
tomorrow. While the washing and wiping up is occurring, Thomasina plays with Henry
and I by hiding under the sideboard. She asks me for Rock-a-bye-baby after I redo her
socks. She like it to be rough. Then Henry gives her one too. Henry brushes his teeth
before wiping up so he can get to his NINTENDO DS LIGHT and his new game
straight after he has finished his chores. I’ve had an extremely busy day and feel very
behind.
!
9BB$<-('$.! OHU!
!18.07.07
Evening
Meal
Eve a bit disorganised tonight as today’s agenda included (for mum), 9-10 am helping
in the prep classroom and 10-11 am helping in Will’s classroom and Max and Ben to
the doctors at 1:45 pm. I also had an interview with Henry’s teacher. We had visitors
from 5-6 pm. Early this morning, Henry was given some whips from a local fellow and
father of 2 boys. Henry and Rupert have been doing whip cracking with them. The
whips were a gift of thanks – that started Will, he wanted 2 matching whips as well. So
that accounts for the conversation that Rupert started after tea. Leisha, a friend of the
family, brought around a lovely dessert for us. The second visitor today was our friend
Kath who comes each Wednesday.
19.07.07
Breakfast
Thomasina slept in. Rupert is late in because he was up most of the night for night
trading. Book club choices are the main topic of conversation.
13.09.07
Evening
Meal (at
the farm)
Mum (Julia), Thomasina, Benedict are at the farm with Oma and Aunty Adele. Oma
and Aunty Adele are staying overnight. The evening meal is scrambled eggs on toast.
Everybody is pretty tired. We had had a very early start and travelled to Chillo
(pseudonym for name of local town) (arrived about 7:30) to do some farm jobs. We did
not get back to the farm until about 2 pm. We worked all afternoon. The kids played in
the trough and by the mealtime, all were pretty out of sorts.
14.09.07
Breakfast
Did I have the microphone on? Sitting on the verandah of the farm. I’d been painting
and the kids had been eating ham. Not really a good one to watch.
top related