Jack Sidnell
PhD Anthropology, University of Toronto, 1998
Erdős number: 5
(5) James Walker & Jack Sidnell (2010)
(4) Shana Poplack & James Walker (2003)
(3) David Sankoff & Shana Poplack (1981)
(2) Václav Chvátal & David Sankoff (1975)
(1) Paul Erdős & Václav Chvátal (1972)
Sacks number: 4
(4) Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (2014)
(3) Geoffrey Raymond & Gene Lerner (2014)
(2) Emanuel Schegloff & Gene Lerner (2009)
(1) Emanuel Schegloff & Harvey Sacks (1973)
NERD NUMBER ---> 0 !!!
Supervisors: Hy Van Luong
Erdős number: 5
(5) James Walker & Jack Sidnell (2010)
(4) Shana Poplack & James Walker (2003)
(3) David Sankoff & Shana Poplack (1981)
(2) Václav Chvátal & David Sankoff (1975)
(1) Paul Erdős & Václav Chvátal (1972)
Sacks number: 4
(4) Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (2014)
(3) Geoffrey Raymond & Gene Lerner (2014)
(2) Emanuel Schegloff & Gene Lerner (2009)
(1) Emanuel Schegloff & Harvey Sacks (1973)
NERD NUMBER ---> 0 !!!
Supervisors: Hy Van Luong
less
InterestsView All (46)
Uploads
Announcements by Jack Sidnell
See also,
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/michael-silverstein-groundbreaking-anthropologist-and-linguist-1945-2020
http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52466
Monographs, edited collections, special issues by Jack Sidnell
Terms used by speakers to refer to themselves and their interlocutors form one of the ways that language expresses, defines, and creates a field for working out social relations. Because this field of study in sociolinguistics historically has focused on Indo-European languages, it has tended to dwell on references to the addressee—for example, the choice between tu and vous when addressing someone in French. This book uses the study of Southeast Asian languages to theorize interlocutor reference more broadly, significantly deepening our understanding of the ways in which self-other relations are linguistically mediated in social interaction. As the authors explain, Southeast Asian systems exceed in complexity and nuance the well-described cases of Europe in two basic ways. First, in many languages of Southeast Asia, a speaker must select an appropriate reference form not only for other/addressee but also for self/speaker. Second, in these languages, in addition to pronouns, speakers draw upon a range of common and proper nouns including names, kin terms, and titles, in referring to themselves and the addressee. Acts of interlocutor reference, therefore, inevitably do more than simply identify the speaker and addressee; they also convey information about the proposed relation between interlocutors. Bringing together studies from both small-scale and large, urbanized communities across Mainland and Insular Southeast Asia, this is an important contribution to the regional linguistic and anthropological literature.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/S/bo185856573.html
http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52466
Volume 19 Issue 3, September 2019
Guest Editor: Jack Sidnell
Guest Editor: Marie Meudec
Guest Editor: Michael Lambek
“This book demonstrates conclusively and richly the importance of studying language in particular situations in order to understand the production of meaning. It makes conversation analysis central to any account of practice, and I find this a very bold but well-supported view. An adequate account of human practice is an important goal and one that language scholars and scholars of pragmatics have a lot to contribute to. It's very well written and very erudite. This is an excellent book, which will be of great interest to many anthropologists, linguists, sociologists, communication and language scholars, as well as students of language use.” Elizabeth Keating, The University of Texas at Austin
“An excellent book that makes a real contribution to a range of fields (linguistic anthropology, ethnography, conversation analysis, the sociology of knowledge, etc.). Among the book's strengths is its integration of detailed analysis of language structure and the organization of talk with crucial issues in philosophy and ethnography. (...)This is an important book that makes genuine substantive contributions and opens up important topics for discussion in a range of fields.” Charles Goodwin, UCLA
Essays by Jack Sidnell
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1205433/full
AVAILABLE OPEN ACCESS HERE:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12412
AVAILABLE OPEN ACCESS HERE:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12413
See also,
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/michael-silverstein-groundbreaking-anthropologist-and-linguist-1945-2020
http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52466
Terms used by speakers to refer to themselves and their interlocutors form one of the ways that language expresses, defines, and creates a field for working out social relations. Because this field of study in sociolinguistics historically has focused on Indo-European languages, it has tended to dwell on references to the addressee—for example, the choice between tu and vous when addressing someone in French. This book uses the study of Southeast Asian languages to theorize interlocutor reference more broadly, significantly deepening our understanding of the ways in which self-other relations are linguistically mediated in social interaction. As the authors explain, Southeast Asian systems exceed in complexity and nuance the well-described cases of Europe in two basic ways. First, in many languages of Southeast Asia, a speaker must select an appropriate reference form not only for other/addressee but also for self/speaker. Second, in these languages, in addition to pronouns, speakers draw upon a range of common and proper nouns including names, kin terms, and titles, in referring to themselves and the addressee. Acts of interlocutor reference, therefore, inevitably do more than simply identify the speaker and addressee; they also convey information about the proposed relation between interlocutors. Bringing together studies from both small-scale and large, urbanized communities across Mainland and Insular Southeast Asia, this is an important contribution to the regional linguistic and anthropological literature.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/S/bo185856573.html
http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52466
Volume 19 Issue 3, September 2019
Guest Editor: Jack Sidnell
Guest Editor: Marie Meudec
Guest Editor: Michael Lambek
“This book demonstrates conclusively and richly the importance of studying language in particular situations in order to understand the production of meaning. It makes conversation analysis central to any account of practice, and I find this a very bold but well-supported view. An adequate account of human practice is an important goal and one that language scholars and scholars of pragmatics have a lot to contribute to. It's very well written and very erudite. This is an excellent book, which will be of great interest to many anthropologists, linguists, sociologists, communication and language scholars, as well as students of language use.” Elizabeth Keating, The University of Texas at Austin
“An excellent book that makes a real contribution to a range of fields (linguistic anthropology, ethnography, conversation analysis, the sociology of knowledge, etc.). Among the book's strengths is its integration of detailed analysis of language structure and the organization of talk with crucial issues in philosophy and ethnography. (...)This is an important book that makes genuine substantive contributions and opens up important topics for discussion in a range of fields.” Charles Goodwin, UCLA
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1205433/full
AVAILABLE OPEN ACCESS HERE:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12412
AVAILABLE OPEN ACCESS HERE:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12413
edited by Michael Hviid Jacobsen and Greg Smith.
Goffman’s essay “Footing” develops ideas he initially introduced in the final chapter of Frame Analysis. In this chapter, I survey the range of interactional phenomena Goffman analysed under the heading of footing, distinguishing several different themes and issues that run through his discussion. I then turn to consider three problems with Goffman’s analysis – its naive approach to linguistic and grammatical analysis, its lack of empirical grounding in actual occasions of interaction, and, its failure to recognize the importance of metasemiotic discourse and cultural conceptualization. To further contextualize footing, I consider a number of empirical instances and also examples from Vietnamese, a language in which footing is realized rather differently than it is in English. I also suggest some ways in which the practices of footing might be historicized. Finally, I discuss the extent to which the phenomena of footing can be generalized and recast as a feature of all human conduct.
The study of honorific pronouns largely grew out of work on European languages (Brown and Gilman 1960; Friedrich 1966; Paulston 1976; Slobin 1963) and has developed into a prodigious, and in many ways, fertile literature on so-called "address systems" (Brown & Ford 1961; Braun 1988). Nevertheless, some 60 years after the publication of Brown and Gilman‟s (1960) foundational essay, “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity,” it is perhaps time to imagine how the same discursive phenomena would have been framed with a different empirical point of departure. Here we reconceptualize this domain by focusing on the social pragmatics of speaker- and addressee-reference in Southeast Asian, as well as some East Asian, languages. Reimagined from this vantage point, pronominal address emerges as but one half of a more encompassing domain – the social pragmatics of interlocutor reference. Southeast Asian languages provide speakers with a much wider range of formal resources and functional mechanisms for signaling the relationship between speech act participants (and between these participants and third parties) than do European languages. Formally, Southeast Asian languages are notable for the range of non-pronominal, open-class nouns which can be employed in speaker- and addressee-reference. Functionally, the social indexing of the relationship between speaker and addressee is not only grammaticalized in forms that are employed to refer to the addressee. On the contrary, these languages are notable for elaborating social pragmatic distinctions in speaker-reference as well as addressee-reference. Because Southeast Asian languages recruit a much more expansive range of forms in denoting speech act participants, and because they are not functionally restricted to addressee-reference in activating social pragmatic alternations, they offer the kind of maximally differentiated systems which enable the construction of typological generalizations and implicational universals.
http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52466
In Vietnamese, speakers often refer to themselves and to their interlocutors using kin terms. Unlike pronouns, these are not marked for grammatical person and therefore not tied to the interactional roles of speaker and hearer. This fact allows for the speaker to shift the perspective from which reference is made, shifting, that is the indexical origo of the speech event and re-centering it in relation to another participant or a non-present party. We describe various permutations of this practice across a range of contexts and discuss some of the theoretical implications for an account of interlocutor reference.
http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52466
A basic finding of research on interaction is that intersubjectivity-shared understanding-requires effort. In other words, conversational participants actively work to achieve and sustain understanding, it doesn't just happen spontaneously. Most of the time this work is invisible and only its products are displayed in the form of sequentially fitted and appropriate next turns at talk. However, in sequences of repair and especially in sequences of other-initiated repair that work rises to the surface. In these moments, we can see and thus describe what participants do to achieve and sustain what they take to be adequate understanding. A typically unarticulated assumption of much scholarship in this area is that the work required to sustain intersubjectivity is evenly distributed among the participants, each having essentially equivalent responsibility to ensure that they are understood and that they understand others. This fits with a pervasive egalitarian ideology that characterizes many of the settings in which talk takes place. However, there are social situations in which these assumptions of egalitarianism do not hold. In what follows we explore one such setting and suggest that in the organization of repair we see a clear division of intersubjective labor. In our data, which consist of casual conversations between Vietnamese same-generation peers, participants continuously display an orientation to relations of relative seniority. This pervasive orientation is also reflected in the practices of repair initiation. Specifically, seniors regularly initiate repair with so-called "open class" forms such as "huh?" "ha?" which display a minimal grasp of the talk targeted, require little effort to produce and, at the same time, push responsibility for resolving the problem onto the trouble source speaker (i.e. the junior member of the dyad). In contrast, juniors often initiate repair of a senior participant's talk by displaying a detailed understanding of what has been said, either in the form of a repeat or a reformulation, and inviting the senior to confirm. This asymmetry in the distribution of initiation practices seems to reflect a division of intersubjective labor. We conclude with some thoughts on the theoretical implications of our findings and relate them to earlier efforts by feminist sociolinguists to describe the way in which women seem to be burdened more than men with what Pamela Fishman (1977, 1978) called "interactional shitwork."
This essay develops the idea of an ethical project as a form of collective action that persons take up in their efforts to transform themselves and the worlds they inhabit. Ethics takes many forms and the projects that I consider here contrast, along a number of dimensions, with the ordinary ethics described by Lambek, Das and others. In comparing a small number of specific cases (and with reference to several others), I suggest that while many such projects emphasize self (re)forming activities others focus on social reconstruction while still others prioritize world (re)description. Although all ethical projects seem to take self, society and world as targets of transformation, the relative emphasis on one rather than the others represents an important dimension of variation.
Conversation analysis is an approach to the study of social interaction which identifies and describes the stable practices of interaction and the encompassing organisations in which they are embedded. Its fundamental assumption is that naturally occurring talk is characterised by 'order at all points' (Sacks 1984), and this social order is to be found in the details of interac-tional events through detailed structural analysis of audio and video recordings of naturally occurring talk. Even though conversation analysis emerged within the field of sociology, it has predominantly focused on linguistic forms as a repertoire of practices for designing, organising, projecting and making sense of the trajectories and import of turns-at-talk. With its focus on linguistic objects as resources for constructing actions and sequences of actions in talk, the conversation analytic research enables us to understand some of the shaping factors of linguistic structures and patterns (grammar being the most researched). The rapid development of digital technologies in the last two decades has implicated conversation analytic research in three possible ways: the digitisation of conversation analytic methods, the application of conversation analysis to text-based online interactions and the automation of conversation analysis. The goal of this chapter is to contribute to a growing body of literature in the digital humanities by addressing all the above three implications. While many definitions of the digital humanities 'as smart and provocative as they are, often muddy the introductory waters more than clarify them', and most definitions reduce the digital humanities to the 'application of technologies to humanities work' Gibbs (2013: 289), this chapter is in accordance with definitions that emphasize 'studying the effects of the digital' on human cultures as much as 'using the digital' to study human cultures (Gibbs 2013: 290-294). The chapter is thus structured as follows: after a brief description of the foundational principles, basic methods and theoretical concepts of conversation analysis, we discuss the digitisation of conversation analytic research methods. We argue that while in adapting to the digital turn, conversation analysis retains its core methods for analysing interaction, digital technologies have enabled conversation analysts to better (and sometimes faster) answer long-standing questions and to pose innovative research questions that were difficult or even impossible to address without the use of digital means (e.g. searching for universal patterns in social interaction). Subsequently, we discuss conversation analytic studies of text-based online interactions, and we Conversation analysis 243 report on some of the concerns and questions that conversation analysts have raised about the suitability of applying conversation analysis-a method developed for analysing face-to-face or telephone interaction-to text-based forms of talk on social media. We conclude this chapter by pointing out possible future directions in the field of conversation analysis such as, the expansion of the analytical work on embodied language and the automation of conversation analysis.