🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard,

I'm kind of curious about how Garfinkel makes sense out of new things that
happen in a discourse community?  Also, does he do anything with the
possibility of "error" in interpretation by receivers?  Certainly there
are certain kinds of "messages" which are unlikely to be interpreted in an
odd way ("Take out the trash") but others ("We need all Americans to protect
the peace") might have far wider range of responses.  Does Garfinkel do
anything with this possibility?

The reason I bring this up is because its seems to me that different kinds
of rhetorics demand different degrees of precision in sending and
receiving.  The level of redundancy (repetition, rearticulation) in an
advertisement (but perhaps not an advertising campaign) and a presidential
address would seem to be different.  Perhaps we need to think about the
relation of agreement to rhetorical practices on the basis of what is
trying to be achieved.  Is it a vague feeling of association/sympathy or a
request/demand for very strong and knowlegable support for an important
policy?  What are your thoughts?

It's also interesting that you should bring up the question of how diverse
communities respond to television news.  I wonder if we could understand
at least part of what broadcast news "communicates" to most of us is that
most of what happened to _us_ today _isn't_ "news"?