ABSTRACT
There has in recent years been some discussion and debate (e.g. Hak, 1995; Hopper, 1995; and Schegloff, 1992) concerning the study of talk that takes place in ‘institutional settings’. Much of this debate is about how (and whether) ‘institutional’ interactions are to be distinguished from those that are not institutional: for instance, if the family is an institution, why then are telephone calls between members of a family not ‘institutional’? But the question about what is special or different about ‘institutional’ interactions shades into others, including whether, since the practices and organizations of talk are generic to talkin-interaction, and are not specific to talk in any given setting, it is appropriate to separate the study of talk in one setting (for instance in medical consultations, courts, or in news interviews) from others? There is a tendency, it is argued, to treat the conduct of talk and interaction in a particular institutional setting as unique to that setting. Because researchers generally focus on one specific institutional setting, they commonly assume that any patterns or practices that are observed in that setting can be attributed to the particular organizational features and exigencies associated with that setting.
