the social orders of family mealtime final 24feb2011[ august] · this study examined the everyday...

!"#$%&'()*$&+,#+%$&-$-).(*/$.#)*!(.#$

$

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#(<[email protected],)*()!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: _________________________

bowend

Typewritten Text

30th July 2011

bowend

Typewritten Text

___________________________

bowend

Typewritten Text

bowend

Typewritten Text

bowend

Typewritten Text

bowend

Typewritten Text

!

"#$!%&'()*!+,-$,.!&/!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))

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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 $

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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.

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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)!

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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))

!

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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


Figure 6.4. Ben commences to rock on his chair.

33 34


$

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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


K(/,%$*:121!`$<!'&11$<'$.!4&!,&'C!&<!#(.!'#)(,8!

33 34


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)) !

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

=#)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$<-('$.! HYY!

Appendices

)::A4<1M$)$

"6G34$#@9187$'A=@1N183@A$34<$)::=CJ32$

!

9BB$<-('$.! OII!

!

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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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


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


Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove Q 4059

“Social and moral orders of family mealtimes”

!

9BB$<-('$.! OIJ!

!

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!

!

!

! !!

buschg

buschg

!

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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

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

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#[email protected],)*()<!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!

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

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!)[email protected].!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!"#(.!

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

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!.#$!.#&7.!h(**()<!7#)4!",(.#)!#).!1)-$!/&,[email protected]!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!

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

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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

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

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!

!

buschg

buschg

buschg

!

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.

the social orders of family mealtime final 24feb2011[ august] · this study examined the everyday...

Documents