Abstract

Arminen claimsthattworecentstudiesof mobilephone conversation come up with incommensurate findings. He relates this to two distinct approaches to the methodology of conversation analysis. In this reply I show that the two studies in question are not incommensurate and argue that Arminen's account is based on a partial description of the findings in Hutchby and Barnett. I go on to show how the latter study presents an approach to the problematic relationship in CA between talk and extraneous contingencies that goes further than Arminen's own proposals.