This paper comments on Leudar and Antaki's (1996) argument that psychologists need to pay more attention to issues of footing and discourse participation. While strongly endorsing the general argument, problems are identified with some of the specific claims and analyses. First, the paper unhelpfully conflates the issue of failure to deal with footing with the issue of relating talk to general theories and arguments. Second, it suffers from problems of internal coherence with respect to its critique of others. Third, there are limitations to its theorizing of discourse participation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowl-edge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Billig, M. (1992). Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge.
3.
Clayman, S.E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 163-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Cook, G. (1990). Transcribing infinity: Problems of context presentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 1-24.
5.
Derrida, J. (1977a). Signature event context. Glyph, I, 172-197.
6.
Derrida, J. (1977b). Limited Inc. abc. Glyph, HI, 162-254.
7.
Duranti, A. , & Goodwin, G. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Edwards, D. , & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
9.
Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc., in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I) an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Leudar, I. , & Antaki, C. (1996). Discourse participation, reported speech and research practices in social psychology. Theory & Psychology, 6(1), 5-29.
11.
Levinson, S.C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Studies in the interactional order (pp. 161-227). Cambridge: Polity.
12.
Potter, J. (in press). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
13.
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (1990). Nigel Lawson's tent: Discourse analysis, attribution theory and the social psychology of fact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 24-40.
14.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Wetherell, M. , & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 168-183). London: Sage.
16.
Wetherell, M. , & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
