Potter (1996) makes many interesting comments on our paper. Unfortunately we cannot address them all in detail and we therefore focus on four points which we consider focal and of interest to the readers. According to Potter, we are too swift in our dismissal of the treatment of footing in discourse-analytic work; we hold a naively realist account of footing; we adopt too finicky a notion of context; and finally we are halfhearted in our appreciation of reflexivity. We provide a brief set of comments on these sympathetic misgivings, drawing on the relevant controversies in studies of talk.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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. 137-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Coulter, J. (1994). Is contextualizing necessarily interpretive?Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 689-698.
3.
Dewey, J. (1975). Lectures on psychological and political ethics-1898. New York: Hafner Press. (Original work published 1898.)
4.
Edwards, D. , & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
5.
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? In W.E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology-building society (pp. 229-258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
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.
7.
Potter, J. (1988). What is reflexive about discourse analysis? The case of reading readings. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity (pp. 37-52). London: Sage.
8.
Potter, J. (1996) Right and wrong footing. Theory & Psychology, 6(1), 31-39.
9.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
10.
Woolgar, S. (1986). On the alleged distinction between discourse and praxis. Social Studies of Science, 16, 309-317.
