Harvey Sacks

(1935–1975) 50
Elliott Hoey und Anne Warfield Rawls

Harvey Sacks was one of Goffman’s most impor- was formally Goffman’s graduate student, the
tant graduate students. Sacks (along with Emma- emergence of CA can be traced to Garfinkel’s
nuel Schegloff) was Goffman’s PhD student at influence on Sacks’ view of social order. The in-
Berkeley from 1960–1966. Some of Goffman’s tellectual interchange between Garfinkel and
later work, including Forms of Talk (1981), was Sacks began in 1959–1960, when the two met in
written in response to the new discipline of Con- Parsons’ seminar. Sacks, having finished his law
versation Analysis (CA) that Sacks was carv- degree at Yale in spring 1959, developed an in-
ing out (with Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, Anita Po- terest in how the law worked as a social insti-
merantz and Alene Terasaki). From 1960, Sacks tution. His interest in the use of language in le-
worked closely with Harold Garfinkel, whom he gal reasoning also drew Sacks to the linguistic
met in 1959–1960 while in Cambridge, where he theory of Chomsky. There was a profound res-
also attended Talcott Parsons’ seminars at Harvard onance between Sacks’ interests and Garfinkel’s
and Noam Chomsky’s lectures at MIT. Sacks’ re- (1967) research on how the legal reasoning of
lationship with Goffman effectively ended when juries worked: not by its own internal principles,
Goffman refused to sign-off on Sacks’ PhD in but by common-sense practical reasoning of the
1964 (replaced by Aaron Cicourel in 1966). jurists.
Sacks and Garfinkel shared an abiding con-
cern with the actual methods witnessably used
Harvey Sacks: Placement by societal members in doing the business of
in theoretical contexts everyday society, such as those employed by ju-
rists and lawyers in undertaking the activities
Having begun graduate studies with Goffman in that constitute legal settings. Garfinkel focused
1960, Sacks went on to develop the discipline on accounts for the actions members use in or-
of Conversation Analysis (CA). Although Sacks ganizing their everyday activities. Rather than
locating order in aggregate distributions of fea-
tures, or internalized dispositions, Garfinkel
E. Hoey ( )
and Sacks looked for social order in the organ-
Department of Language, Literature and
Communication, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, ization of social settings and the practices mem-
Amsterdam, Niederlande bers use to organize those settings. In 1962, Gar-
E-Mail: e.m.hoey@vu.nl finkel secured a fellowship for Sacks at the Sui-
A. W. Rawls cide Prevention Center (SPC) at UCLA, where
Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA he collected data for his PhD. Their relationship
E-Mail: arawls@bentley.edu

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2022 371
K. Lenz und R. Hettlage (Hrsg.), Goffman-Handbuch, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05871-3_50
372 E. Hoey und A. W. Rawls

continued through Sacks’ doctoral studies at of an ‘ideal speaker-hearer’ whose mental gram-
Berkeley and his appointments at UCLA and mar allowed them to distinguish what was gram-
University of California–Irvine, until his early matically acceptable. Sacks focused on “listen-
death in 1975. ing and hearing obligations” but with a different
Sacks’ interests in practical reasoning and sit- objective. He was concerned to discover the mu-
uated action bear the mark of Garfinkel’s eth- tual social obligations of listener and hearer in
nomethodology (1967). Indeed, Sacks described the context of situated ongoing interaction, and
his work as “developing a methodology for eth- the relationship of those obligations to the suc-
nomethodology” (Garfinkel archive). At the cessful accomplishment of social action. If Sacks
same time, Sacks set out to develop something did eventually take an interest in constructing a
of his own that was not wholly dependent on ‘machinery’ that could repeatedly ‘generate’ the
Garfinkel’s imprimatur (Goodwin 2019, 10). He objects we find in social interactions, he never-
wanted to create a natural observational science theless did so in a relentlessly interactional way.
of human social behavior that could “handle the What ‘the grammaticality of a sentence’ was for
details of actual events” (Sacks 1984a, 26). Chomsky, ‘the accountability of social action’ in
During the period 1960–1964 Sacks trav- sequential details became for Sacks.
elled between Berkeley and Los Angeles, work- Sacks entirely rejected Chomsky’s location
ing with Goffman and Garfinkel. These two gi- of meaning/order in grammar, or minds. For
ants of social interactionism were also in close Sacks, the meaning of action was a result of mu-
communication with each other at that time (see tual orientation to “listening and hearing obliga-
Chap. 49). In 1962–1963 they collaborated on tions”, which oriented the sequential placement
a book titled On Passing that would have con- of utterances—as ordered moves that had to be
tained Goffman’s research on Stigma and Gar- worked out in-situ. This position on grammar
finkel’s essay on Agnes. Sacks was an important and action set Sacks apart from Chomsky, and
go-between and in at least one instance was in- also from Goffman and from John Searle, whose
strumental in patching up a disagreement. It is ideas about speech acts were circulating around
important for understanding the development of Berkeley at the time. Sacks chose to focus on ac-
CA that Sacks was actively working with both countability rather than grammaticality, on ac-
scholars during this formative period. tual utterances in a sequence rather than condi-
With a firmly ethnomethodological orienta- tions of felicity, and on how utterances as acts
tion, Sacks began to look at the domain of face- set up obligations for other speakers. Indeed,
to-face behavior, which Goffman had popular- Sacks’ position was closer to Garfinkel’s concep-
ized. In this respect we can see Goffman’s in- tion of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s language games,
fluence on the development of CA. Sacks did as Garfinkel ([1960] 2019) laid out in 1960.
not merely work at the convergence of Garfin-
kel and Goffman, however, but integrated the
two in a way that transformed both. Sacks was Problems addressed and advanced
sensitive to the interactive constitution of activi-
ties in a manner that was more fine grained than The most general formulation by Sacks, of
Goffman and more systematic and detailed than his own work, is that he wanted “to describe
Garfinkel. One difference was that Garfinkel en- the methods persons use in doing social life”
couraged Sacks’ discoveries of sequential order (1984a, 21). Sacks, with Garfinkel and Goff-
and incorporated them into his work, whereas man, saw everyday activities as a vast unex-
Goffman challenged them. amined domain. The tools needed to undertake
There were other influences on Sacks’ work. such a program of research did not yet exist.
That of Chomsky is particularly apparent. At- Sacks wanted to develop them, “to see whether
tending Chomsky’s lectures at MIT (Schegloff actual single events are studiable and how they
1992, xiii), Sacks became familiar with his idea might be studiable, and then what an expla-
50 Harvey Sacks (1935–1975) 373

nation of them would look like” (1984a, 26). organization of topics and stories (1972c) in
While he shared this focus with Goffman, only conversation; the orderly production of linked
Garfinkel was trying to develop a method for actions in sequences of action (Schegloff/Sacks
doing the research. This project was truly im- 1973); the preferences for agreement and conti-
mense; it embraced nothing less than the crea- guity (Sacks 1987); conversational uses of lists,
tion of a sociological approach for uncovering repetitions (1992), numbers (1988), and jokes
the order properties of social action. The aim (1974, 1978); and the organization of repair
was “to get into a position to transform, in an al- and the achievement of ‘success’ in sequences
most literal, physical sense, our view of ‘what of talk (Sacks 1968; Schegloff/Jefferson/Sacks
happened’, from a matter of a particular inter- 1977). In some of these topics, one can detect
action done by particular people, to a matter of the influence of Goffman, as we discuss next.
interactions as products of a machinery. We are
trying to find that machinery” (1984a, 25 ff.).
The conviction that the order properties of in- Connections to Goffman’s work
teraction hold the key to the big questions—a
conviction he shared with Garfinkel—led Sacks Goffman popularized social interaction in the
to insist on studying actual events rather than 1960’s, making it a viable a domain of study in
stereotypical understandings and accounts from its own right. That Sacks addressed himself to
self-reflection, recollection, or interviews. While the everyday world of social interchange is the
an interest in the doings of everyday life was not clearest connection between them. The height
new—especially to Goffman—Sacks went fur- of Goffman’s influence on Sacks occurred dur-
ther, developing the method of using audio and ing Sacks’ first years at Berkeley. Sacks wrote a
video recordings, basing his research and teach- paper for one of Goffman’s courses (published
ing entirely on transcripts of talk, a practice he as Notes on police assessment of moral charac-
began in 1962. This methodological innovation ter 1972) that addressed police officers’ meth-
was inspired by Garfinkel’s practice of recording ods for scrutinizing ordinary appearances in the
and transcribing his own interactions. But Sacks world, with an eye toward the visibility of in-
went beyond Garfinkel in insisting that analy- congruities that may warrant investigation. This
ses stick entirely to what was available in the au- topic echoed Goffman’s ongoing concerns with
dio (and thus to participants), a practice Garfin- impression management, what is ‘given’ versus
kel subsequently emulated. Sacks’ early use of ‘given off’, and how inferences of moral charac-
transcription was later augmented by Jefferson’s ter are drawn from such impressions. Determin-
invention of transcription conventions that cap- ing what can be apperceived at a glance was a
tured aspects of talk not previously available for thread Sacks continued to follow in later work,
analysis. for example, on glances as actions and the work
Sacks’ objective was “to take singular se- of doing ‘being ordinary’ (1984b).
quences of conversation and tear them apart in However, there is at best an indirect relation-
such a way as to find rules, techniques, proce- ship between the published works of Goffman
dures, methods, maxims [which] can be used to and Sacks. While “conceptual” affinities are not
generate the orderly features we find in the con- hard to find—for example, between Goffman’s
versations” (1992, 339). In undertaking this pro- remedial interchanges (1971) and Sacks’ re-
ject, Sacks lectured and published on many in- pair organization (Schegloff et al., 1977), or be-
terrelated topics, with several emerging as par- tween Goffman’s face-work (FaW; also IR_a) and
ticular loci of interest. These include his work Sacks’ preference organization (1987)—Sacks’
on the use of membership categories (1992); work is never conceptual—always focusing on
the visibility of tasks of ordinary behavior close empirical analysis of how things are be-
(1984b); conversationalists’ ordering of turns- ing organized—so comparisons to Goffman are
at-talk (Sacks/Schegloff/Jefferson 1974); the not very illuminating. It is difficult to establish a
374 E. Hoey und A. W. Rawls

definitive lineage, in part because Sacks’ work be- In spite of his criticisms of Sacks, Goffman
gins with Garfinkel and stands at the juncture be- did embrace the use of empirical data in the
tween Goffman and Garfinkel. It is more a Gar- form of recordings, both in seminars and pa-
finkel lineage with Goffman worked in. As Sche- pers like Radio Talk (FT_d). But for the most
gloff (1992, xxiv) observed, “a serious treatment part, differences between Goffman’s approach
of the directions of influence and the interplay of to interaction and the positions taken by Sacks
ideas between [Goffman and Sacks] remains to be produced friction and misunderstanding. Nev-
written” (also Rawls 1987, 1989, 2003). ertheless, Goffman did, at Sacks’ request, take
Though their topics were superficially simi- on Jefferson as a post-doctoral researcher at the
lar, Sacks saw Goffman more as a helpful pre- University of Pennsylvania Center for Urban
cursor than the foundation on which he was Ethnography (Goodwin 2019).
building. In introducing his fall 1967 course, he
recommended students read The Presentation of
Self in Everyday Life, but warned them against Goffman and Sacks in California
making direct connections: “The sorts of things
[Goffman’s] attending and the kinds of points After completing his law degree at Yale in 1959,
he’s making in no way stand in a one-to-one re- Sacks went to MIT for a year (during which
lationship with the sorts of things that I do. But he attended Parsons’ seminars and met Garfin-
nevertheless […] that would be the best thing to kel). In fall 1960 he moved to Berkeley to take
have, if one wanted some background” (1995, up graduate studies in sociology, where he en-
619). Although the “interaction order” was the countered Goffman, whom Sacks “took more se-
field in which both labored, Sacks started with riously than he did virtually any other member
different assumptions about order, used different of the faculty” (Schegloff 1992, xxiii). Sacks en-
tools, and planted different seeds. rolled in Goffman’s courses and Goffman was
By the time he died in 1975, Goffman was on his dissertation committee. The parting of
well aware of Sacks’ research and the enormous the ways came in 1964, when Sacks’ prepared to
influence of CA, and Goffman’s later works defend his dissertation, but Goffman refused to
grapple with the ideas and methods Sacks and sign off on it.
other conversation analysts were proposing. In- The substance of their disagreement, accord-
deed, Goffman’s Forms of Talk was primar- ing to Schegloff (1995), was over what Goffman
ily a dialogue with conversation analysis (see considered a circularity in Sacks’ analysis. That
Chap. 47). The book highlights Goffman’s crit- “circularity” likely involved differences over
icism of CA as a kind of systems engineering, where meaning was located in interaction—
a view borne of his misunderstanding of CA as a topic that came up in their January 1964 dis-
mechanistic and technical, which is to say, de- cussion at the SPC in Los Angeles (discussed
void of ritual (see Chap. 23). He missed entirely below). It was rumored that Goffman also de-
the inherently sociological character of what manded Sacks cite more literature, which Sacks
Sacks was doing. This speaks to the different ap- refused to do—perhaps ironic given Goffman’s
proaches taken by Goffman and Garfinkel to in- reluctance to situate his own works in any ge-
teraction. Whereas for Goffman interaction re- nealogy. It wasn’t until 1966 that Aaron Ci-
mained a ritual enterprise, which could be stud- courel—an early collaborator of Garfinkel’s—
ied anecdotally, for Garfinkel the structure of was able to persuade Goffman to withdraw from
interaction is different each time, while com- Sacks’ dissertation committee and let Cicourel
prised of underlying rules and expectations that sign off on his PhD.
remain fairly constant. For Sacks, like Garfinkel, Beyond the analytic evidence of Sacks’ dis-
the order properties of interaction are the result sertation itself, we outline—for the first time—
of using a set of rules in an infinite number of, the disagreement between Goffman and his
nevertheless specifiable, ways. most famous student. In the early 1960’s, Sacks
50 Harvey Sacks (1935–1975) 375

was working not only with Goffman, but also a given situation. “Roles” were problematic be-
with Garfinkel and Ed Shneidman in Los An- cause, Sacks maintained, there was chasm be-
geles. Sacks’ dissertation was based on record- tween where someone is and any given role they
ings of telephone calls to the SPC (founded and might come to take on. Sacks called the whole
directed by Shneidman). In 1962, Garfinkel se- business “tricky”, likening it to “Churchill writ-
cured Sacks a research fellowship at the SPC ing a history of himself”. The way Goffman had
and Sacks moved to Los Angeles and started re- put it, a person has to act with respect to the fea-
search at the Center. In January 1964 the Center tures of a role without knowing precisely what
hosted a small conference on “suicide as a social those features are. They have to somehow ‘get
fact”. In attendance were Sacks, Garfinkel, and up there’ and act out abstracted courses of action
Shneidman along with Parsons and Goffman. and roles; the problem is how to do this.
The entire (two-day) conference was audiotaped Sacks gives the example of a pre-medical stu-
and transcribed, which affords a glimpse into the dent (referencing Garfinkel’s PhD research) as
differences between Goffman and Sacks/Garfin- someone who is precarious in coming to a new
kel that emerged in their discussion. role. The problem is how to locate those features
that are attached to the role of “a medical pro-
fessional”. This is precarious for the student be-
Contrasts between Goffman and Sacks cause any proposed ordering must accord with
“an opinion without respect to anybody”, and
During the SPC conference, it becomes clear not necessarily in accordance to “what I happen
that Goffman was analytically satisfied with ste- to think”. Even more troubling is the system-
reotypes, labels, familiar and extreme cases, and atic unavailability of an evaluation, according to
invented and elicited examples. By contrast, Sacks. They cannot ask “How did I do?” While
Sacks and Garfinkel insisted throughout on ac- they can do their best to adhere to the features
tual examples (in detail) and were more con- that they believe are appropriate to the role, they
cerned with foundational matters; how partici- have no assurance that they are going about it
pants oriented their actions, what accounts they the right way. For instance, in interviewing for
offered/accepted, and in the order properties of medical school, they cannot know whether the
actual events. Both argued that insofar as actor’s admissions board are treating them as “a med-
intentions are material to the meaning of action ical professional” or as “just another person”.
they would need to be displayed in the action it- They have to do the right things in the right way,
self. These differences appear in the audio of and the admissions board has to see those right
two events, one in 1960 and one in 1964. things as properly and legitimately done. The
problem is, how?
Although very early in his career—this was
On dramaturgy 1960, and Sacks had not yet moved to Berke-
ley—Sacks’ insistence on looking at things in-
Sacks, in a 1960 discussion with Garfinkel (dur- situ encapsulates a major difference between his
ing Parsons’ seminar), articulated his dissat- approach and Goffman’s. While Goffman was
isfaction with Goffman’s dramaturgical meta- satisfied with accounting for scenes through fa-
phor for social life. “A more subtle description miliar schemes and categorizations, Sacks, be-
of sociological phenomena would have to (de- fitting his interest in ethnomethodology, insisted
scribe) how is it that these things as stage di- on examining the local production of social or-
rections nevertheless result in an ordered sit- der.
uation” (Garfinkel/Sacks 1960, 8:20). Goff- The problem of roles would be developed
man’s move of replacing a course of action with in a sophisticated way by Sacks in his Mem-
stage directions to various roles was, for Sacks, bership Categorization Analysis (MCA). This
an abstraction disconnected from the details of could be seen as a solution to “roles” insofar as
376 E. Hoey und A. W. Rawls

it translated them into practices for categoriza- category, but rather with how something comes
tion as occasioned and used. A large body of re- to be called “an appropriate suicide” (to be seen
search in CA takes up MCA, and has been par- as a category) in the first place. Sacks expands
ticularly instructive in analysing how race and on this approach and what it would mean for
inequality are accomplished through categoriza- analysis, as opposed to Goffman’s approach that
tion. would rely on stereotypes and media portrayals
of “an appropriate suicide”. If someone wanted
such a death, Sacks asks,
On ‘appropriate suicides’
[SPC 2a.4, 27]
HS: could he count on, (2.0) let’s say, that it
At the 1964 SPC conference, the discussion of would be a matter of public discussion, and,
suicide turned to the topic of “an appropriate sui- let’s say, of voting, or of persons with esteem say-
cide”. Goffman offered examples of such a thing: ing, ‘That was appropriate’, so that he could di-
rect the possibility of, that somehow persons
“If the president gets picked up with the wrong might wrote- write a private note to those around
type of woman”, that would be an appropriate su- them, knowing that the ways they would assess,
icide. Or if not the president then “a high church they would go about deciding it, as compared to
person, somebody of real high pure status”, and doing it in a public fashion so that it would have
to be- it wo- the discussion of whether they died
if not someone with community esteem, then just appropriately would have to be in the media.
“a character” who “gets picked up in the john for
soliciting young boys” (SPC 2a/4, 22). In a char- The upshot is that “the thing about appropriate-
acteristically Goffmanian manner, he constructs a ness now becomes a matter where (1.1) the way
stage vignette with rotating characters, in which it would be established, (0.9) becomes some-
the scene so invoked is supposed to capture the thing to which the person can orient (0.5) in pro-
stereotypical grounds for “an appropriate sui- posing the character of how it came about that
cide”. His approach assumes a consensus on so- they are doing it” (SPC 2a.4, 27).
cial esteem and things that would ruin it. The ex- For Sacks, judgments of propriety are not in
change shows Goffman’s technique of summon- the first instance found in stereotypical under-
ing a scene whose familiarity is to be taken as standings. Instead, arrival at what is “appropri-
evidencing its truth. In response, Sacks seeks to ate” in a given case is a procedural question of
get at what is beneath the conception of “an ap- examining methods of justification.
propriate suicide” in the first place. He wants to Goffman, for his part, appears to concede
know if in fact people respond as Goffman claims some methodological ground. Instead of con-
they do. For Sacks, this is an empirical question: sulting his own understandings to come up with
a plausible scenario, Goffman suggests turn-
[SPC 2a/4, 22–23] ing to others: “Why don’t you ask some peo-
HS: I think it’s- it’s- you’re raising an empirical
issue. I ask now, where is it that persons, ple that you’re talking to, make a questionnaire”
(.) what is it that persons who commit suicide (SPC 2a.4, 30). Sacks questions the need to con-
(2.0) seek as traditional grounds for the sult others, however. He counters, “But they
suicide, then you will [make- can’t- but you see if the- why- why- you have
EG: [as most understandable
quote unquote= this mass of materials, and anyway they’re doing
HS:=No where they- where they c- (.) Do they it!” (SPC 2a.4, 30). In other words, there is no
claim its legitimacy in any case, that need to canvass for opinions and stereotypical
would be the issue you’re asking now. (1.0) If understandings of what people suppose would
they claim its legitimacy what do they seek, (1.0)
as the things that provide its legitimacy. happen because we can see what they are actu-
ally doing. Moreover, there is at the SPC “this
In what would come to be known as a topic-re- mass of materials”, referring to telephone calls
source distinction, Sacks’ challenge to Goffman and other documentary evidence around suicide
is not with “an appropriate suicide” as a given showing how people do these things. Their dif-
50 Harvey Sacks (1935–1975) 377

ferent stances towards sources of data echo Witt- Garfinkel, Harold: A conception of, and experiments
genstein’s methodological injunction, ”Don’t with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions.
In: O. J. Harvey (ed.): Motivation and Social Interac-
think; look!”. tion. New York 1963, 187–238.
Goffman responds by articulating the ration- Garfinkel, Harold: Studies in ethnomethodology. Engle-
ale for consulting others: “the non-suicide pub- wood Cliffs. New York 1967.
lic is involved too. You’ve got to ask them also. Garfinkel, Harold/Sacks, Harvey. Harvey Sacks and Gar-
finkel discussion on pre-medical candidate paper re:
You’ve got better information from suicides be- the nature of practical circumstances. Harvard, Spring
cause they’re constructing detail in a serious 1960 (3 audiograph records). Garfinkel Archive.
way to justi- to warrant their act. But take other Goodwin, Charles/Salomon, René. Not being bound by
people too, and ask them about the extremes, what you can see now. Charles Goodwin in conver-
sation with René Salomon [32 paragraphs]. In: Fo-
and then you get the pure case that these per- rum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative
sons are perhaps directing themselves to” (SPC Social Research 20/2 (2019), Art. 11, http://dx.doi.
2a.4, 32). Goffman’s inclination is to refine an org/https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.2.3271.
image of the “pure case” through the triangula- Rawls, Anne W.: The interaction order sui generis: Goff-
man's contribution to social theory. In: Sociological
tion of stereotypes. His picture still centers on Theory 5/2 (1987), 136–149.
an idealized self and situation. As Rawls (1989, Rawls, Anne W.: Language, self, and social order: A re-
151) argued, Goffman’s conception of the inter- formulation of Goffman and Sacks. In: Human Stud-
action order was constrained principally by the ies 12 (1989), 147–172.
Rawls, Anne W.: Orders of interaction and intelligibility:
needs of the self, whereas Sacks (with Garfin- Intersections between Goffman and Garfinkel by way
kel) would “introduce the important idea that the of Durkheim. In: Javier Trevino (ed.): Goffman’s leg-
requirements of intelligibility also impose con- acy. Lanham 2003, 216–253.
straints on the order of interaction”. Sacks, Harvey: On Understanding. Unpublished manu-
script, Garfinkel Archive. 1968.
What Goffman and Sacks have in common is Sacks, Harvey: An initial investigation of the usability of
a conception of interaction grounded on social conversational materials for doing sociology. In: Da-
contract, what Goffman referred to as a “work- vid N. Sudnow (ed.): Studies in social interaction.
ing consensus” with “involvement obligations”. New York 1972a, 31–74.
Sacks, Harvey: Notes on police assessment of moral
For Sacks, these obligations translate into “listen- character. In: David N. Sudnow (ed.): Studies in so-
ing and hearing obligations” to sequential order cial interaction. New York 1972b, 280–293.
properties of social action that bear an important Sacks, Harvey: On the analyzability of stories by chil-
resemblance to Garfinkel’s (1963) “trust condi- dren. In John J. Gumperz/Dell Hymes (ed.): Direc-
tions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of commu-
tions”. The big difference between Goffman and nication. New York 1972c, 325–345.
Sacks is the degree to which they treat social ob- Sacks, Harvey: Some consideration of a story told in or-
jects made in interaction as fragile. For Goffman dinary conversations. In: Poetics 15 (1974), 127–138.
the self is fragile, but social categories, language Sacks, Harvey: Some technical considerations of a dirty
joke. In: J. Schenkein (ed.): Studies in the organiza-
and meaning are not. Goffman lets in symbolic tion of conversational interaction. New York 1978,
meaning and consensus. For Sacks and Garfin- 249–269.
kel, all words, gestures, and actions are fragile, Sacks, Harvey: Notes on methodology. In: J. Maxwell
indexical, and must be placed in sequences of ac- Atkinson/John Heritage (ed.): Structures of social
action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge
tion in an orderly way—to acquire meaning. 1984a, 21–27.
Sacks, Harvey: On doing ‘being ordinary’. In: J. Max-
well Atkinson/John Heritage (ed.): Structures of so-
References cial action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cam-
bridge 1984b, 413–429.
Sacks, Harvey: On the preferences for agreement and
Garfinkel, Harold: Notes on language games as a source contiguity in sequences in conversation. In: Graham
of methods for studying the formal properties of lin- Button/John R. E. Lee (ed.): Talk and social organiza-
guistic events [1960]. In: European Journal of Sociol- tion. Clevedon 1987, 54–69.
ogy (2019), 148–174.
378 E. Hoey und A. W. Rawls

Sacks, Harvey: Lectures on conversation, 2 Vols. (Fall Schegloff, Emanuel A.: Goffman and the analysis of con-
1964–Spring 1972). Oxford 1992. versation. In Paul Drew/Anthony J. Wootton (eds.):
Sacks, Harvey/Schegloff, Emanuel A./Jefferson, Gail: A Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order.
simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking Boston 1988. 89–135.
for conversation. In: Language 50/4 (1974), 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A.: Introduction. In: Harvey Sacks,
Schegloff, Emanuel A./Jefferson, Gail/Sacks, Harvey: Lectures on conversation (Fall 1964–Spring 1968),
The preference for self-correction in the organization Vol. 1. Oxford 1992, ix–xii.
of repair in conversation. In: Language 53/2 (1977),
361–382.