In this reply to Wetherell and Potter's (1998) reading of my article (Morgan, 1998) I construct their response as a turn-in-talk. This draws attention to my status as `second turn-taker' and allows me to acknowledge that alongside our continuing disagreement I am indebted to Wetherell and Potter's response for providing me with resources to draw my attention more closely to issues of rhetoric and dialogue.
de Lauretis, T. (1989). The essence of the triangle. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 1, 3-37.
2.
Gergen, K.J. (1994). The limits of pure critique. In H. W. Simon & M. Billig (Eds.), After postmodernism: Reconstructing ideology critique (pp. 58-78). London: Sage.
3.
Grosz, E. (1989). Sexual subversions. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
4.
Heritage, J. , & Atkinson, J.M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Morgan, M. (1998). Speaking subjects, discursive worlds: Readings from Discourse and social psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8, 359-376.
6.
Potter, J. , & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
7.
Schegloff, E.A. (1996). Turn organisation: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 54-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Schor, N. (1989). This essentialism which is not one: Coming to grips with Irigaray. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 1, 38-57.
9.
Wetherell, M. , & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf; New York: Columbia University Press.
10.
Wetherell, M. , & Potter, J. (1998). Discourse and social psychology-eleven years after. Theory & Psychology, 8, 377-388.
