Introduction The significance of ceremonial and ritual conduct or settings in human affairs has been noted by sociologists from a wide variety of theoretical persuasions. Within the functionalist tradition the social cohesion attendant upon a ceremonial occasion was, of course, pivotal to Durkheim’s analysis of suicide (Durkheim, 1952; Phillips and Feldman, 1973). For Merton (1957) it was the latent function of group solidarity which gave the Hopi rain dance its analytical distinctiveness whilst for Shils and Young (1953) the significance of the British coronation lay in its reaffirmation of tradition and continuity. For interactionists the notion of ceremony or ceremonial forms has figured more as a model or metaphor to be applied in the analysis of conduct which, when considered in the light of other criteria, does not warrant such a depiction. A good deal of Goffman’s early writing (e.g. 1972a, 1972b) employs this tactic and its application has been made in particular to medical settings by other writers (Strong, 1979; Silverman, 1984). Most recently ceremonial occasions or settings have witnessed the attention of researchers working within, or employing the findings of, conversation analysis (CA), a development which is part of a more general interest shown by CA in speech exchange in formal or institutional settings. This extension of CA research from its hitherto prevailing focus on naturally occurring conversation has been accompanied by a productive and continuing debate concerning the overall sociological contribution of CA (Goffman, 1981; Hester, 1981; Dingwall, 1980; Watson, 1983). Recent CA research which has been conducted within institutional contexts can be found in Atkinson and Drew’s (1979) analysis of verbal interaction in judicial settings; in Maynard’s (1984) research into the negotiations that constitute the discourse of plea bargaining; in Atkinson’s (1984) discussion of the techniques of political oratory; whilst Mulkay (1984) has examined the discourse of one particular ceremonial form-the Nobel Prize ceremony. Inter alia such studies have demonstrated that organizational structures characteristic of naturally occurring social interaction are operational in these institutional settings but that in addition, such settings have certain properties not found in the former. Indeed as Atkinson (1982) has argued the speech exchange typical of many institutional settings is not merely coincidental to such settings but constitutive of them: it is precisely what gives them their formality. The present paper offers some empirically grounded observations as to how this apparent paradox is possible. It can be seen both as an addition to the corpus of studies dealing with the formal analysis of speech exchange in institutional settings and secondly as an inquiry into the substantive structure of that setting-a particular ceremonial form-in its own right. The setting under consideration here is that which has increasingly come to characterise the conclusion of sports competitions or tournaments-
Read full abstract