SOCIAL SCRIPTS AND
THE = STRUCTURE=20 OF PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE

Lisa C. Wagner, University of Louisville,=20 USA

Robert N. St. Clair, University of Louisville. USA

Abstract

Many noted scholars have investigated the domain of = practical=20 knowledge, but they have failed to articulate how this tacit knowledge = is=20 structured. It was this lack of information on the structural nature = of=20 nonverbal communication that made the research on =E2=80=9CFrame = Analysis=E2=80=9D by Erving=20 Goffman (1974) so difficult to comprehend and it is this lack of a = structural=20 analysis of habitus that failed to provide the works of Pierre = Bourdieu (1977,=20 1984) with the theoretical richness that it deserves. What makes = social=20 scripts different from frame analysis and social habitus theory is = that it=20 divulges the components of these tacit scenarios. It enables one = to not=20 only know of the vocabulary associated with these scenarios, but their = episodic functions. The reason why this articulation of the components = of a=20 social script is important is because these established patterns of = social and=20 cultural behavior provide pragmatic prototypes for other kinds of = social=20 actions. The traditional restaurant scene one culture such as = the United=20 States, for example, can explain related innovations such as the fast = food=20 restaurant, the cafeteria system, and other kinds of public dining=20 establishments. How cultures differ in their patterns of public = behavior=20 can also be ascertained by comparing their social scripts. The = result of=20 this use of social scripts is that it enables those in the cultural = sciences=20 to better describe the social patterns that constitute practical = knowledge=20 within a cultural domain.

KEYWORDS: social scripts, tacit knowledge, = sociology of=20 knowledge, non-verbal communication.

INTRODUCTION

Western cultures are concerned with rhetoric (Ong, = 1982; Olson,=20 1996). They have a long tradition of working with language as a = framework=20 for representing knowledge (St. Clair, 2002). In a Western = culture, what=20 one says is more carefully investigated than what one does. With the = advent of=20 use of images in mass communication, pragmatism, postmodernism, and = other=20 studies in the cultural sciences, the has been an increasing interest in = what=20 people do with knowledge structures in the presence of each other. = Garfinkel=20 (1967) made this a central focus of his research in the study of human=20 behavior. Goffman (1959, 1967) used the dramaturgical metaphor as = a=20 framework for discussing life as a social drama in which individuals are = playwrights who develop their own scripts, act them out, watch their own = performances, and dress themselves for the roles that they are = playing. =20 Goffman (1959) noted how these individuals also act as critics and judge = their=20 own performances in public. In a later work, Goffman (1974) wanted = to=20 demonstrate how these behaviors are contextualized and embedded in = different=20 cultural spaces or frames. Bourdieu (1977, 1984) also wrote about = social=20 drama but his focus was on the social and cultural rituals that are = inherited by=20 the citizenry of a cultural domain. His study of habitus also = dealt with=20 practical knowledge in a social setting (Bourdieu and Wacquant, = 19992). =20 The problem with these models is that they needed further = articulation. =20

The study of social scripts and how they work began = with during=20 the first generation of the cognitive sciences (Gardner, 1987) when = Schank and=20 Abelson (1977) openly discussed the significance of social scripts and = how=20 function within a social setting. They used the restaurant schema = as an=20 example of how human beings spatially enact social scripts in = life. This=20 early social script has been expanded and revised in this essay within = the=20 framework of the sociology of knowledge. Minsky (1975, 1985) was = very=20 interest in how social scripts function because he wanted to be able to = program=20 his robots to function within the social and cultural milieu of human=20 beings. It was his work that inspired this investigation of the = role of=20 social scripts as a form of practical knowledge (St. Clair, = Thom=C3=A9-Williams, and=20 Su, 2005).

Social script theory provides an account of how = social scripts=20 are organized as forms of practical knowledge. It recognizes from = Goffman=20 (1974) that social frames are performed as mini-dramas and these are = represented=20 as episodic functions. It also recognizes that by means of = analogical=20 thinking, a social script may be used to create related scripts based on = the=20 original as the source and the new creations as praxiological = metaphors. =20 Hence, one may establish structural similarities between restaurant = science, the=20 cafeteria, and the fast food restaurant. =20

SOCIAL SCRIPT THEORY

As noted earlier, the earlier cognitive scientists = did not=20 articulate the structure of these social scripts in sufficient = detail. The=20 reason for this is simply the fact that they assumed that words were = containers=20 of meaning and that language was used to organize symbols and their = associated=20 meanings. It was argued in their model of the mind as a machine, = for=20 example, that language functions as the software and the human brain = functions=20 as the hardware. They did not fully consider how language is used = to=20 organize concepts and how words would evoke links to other concept, = event, or=20 actions. What is missing from their account was the significant = role that=20 social script theory in the creation and organization of practical=20 knowledge? The reason for this can be found in the concept of = =E2=80=9Csocial=20 recipes.=E2=80=9D They did not embrace this concept. Within = existential=20 sociology, for example, it is argued that most human beings are not able = to=20 envision themselves in terms of grand theories or models of social = thought. All=20 that they know are their day-to-day existences and these are always = highly=20 contextualized (Douglas et al, 1985; chapter 6). This is because = for them,=20 life is situated (Douglas and Johnson, 1977; Kotarba and Fontana, = 1984). =20 Things may occur from one moment to the next and they must learn how to = deal=20 with these exigencies. How do they deal with these problems? = Where=20 did they learn how to cope with these problems? They learned = them as=20 mini-dramas and intercalated social acts (Lyman and Scott, 1976, = 1978). =20 They learned them by observing and experiencing similar problems in = natural=20 situations. What is a natural situation? It is one that is not = dictated by=20 the kinds of laboratory conditions found in psychological testing. = It is=20 not a situation that is taken out of context. By natural, they = mean the=20 situations that are common to everyday life. These are situations in = which=20 individuals meet each other in face-to-face encounters. It is a = common-sense=20 world in which meanings refer to feelings, perceptions, emotions, moods, = thoughts, values, and ideas shared with other members of society. = It is=20 that internal connection with others that is referred to as the meaning = of=20 life. Natural means that one is able to analyze and understand = social=20 situations from the standpoint of the members of a group or community. = Natural=20 situations depend on actual situations and circumstances. It is by = being-in-the-situation that one comes to recognize and know the social = scripts=20 within their own culture.

From these actual situations, one is able to develop = social=20 scripts of the events and the actions. These are best described as = episodic=20 events. One does not just enter a restaurant, he must follow a=20 script. That script already exists. It is one that he has = seen many=20 times as a child and has participated in frequently in life. These = scripts=20 refer to social functions. They dictate what one should be doing = at a=20 particular time and in a particular place if one is to play the role=20 characteristically associated with that script. There may be several = people=20 involved in the same situation, but they may differ in the roles that = they have=20 been given or have chosen to enact. Hence, the following is a = revision of=20 the Restaurant Schema under Social Script Theory.

The Restaurant Schema under Social = Script=20 Theory
Event Frame	Dining at a restaurant
Social Roles	Waiter, customer, cashier, busboy, manager, cook.
Episodic Functions	Enter a restaurant. Approach the host. Have someone = direct the=20 customer to a table. Have someone bring a menu to the = customer. The=20 customer peruses the menu. Have the waiter approach the = customer and=20 ask for an order. The customer puts in his order The water = leaves=20 and eventually returns with the food. The waiter signals the = end of the=20 main meal by asking about deserts. The waiter customer signals = the end=20 of the meal by asking for the bill. The waiter brings the bill = or the=20 check. The customer either pays the waiter or pays the = cashier. The=20 customer pays the cashier. The customer may leave a tip. The = customer leaves the restaurant.
Lexicon	Waiter, customer, table, main meal, deserts, tip, cashier, = restaurant,=20 the bill, the check, the menu, etc.
Script	Enter a restaurant, approach the cashier, get assigned to a = waiter, go=20 to your assigned table, accept the menus, read them, make an = order, wait=20 for the meal, eat your meal, discuss the topic of conversation = during the=20 meal, wait for the waiter to ask if you want to have a dessert, = order the=20 dessert (optional), receive the bill, leave a tip, pay the = cashier, leave=20 the establishment.

SOCIALIZATION AND ACTIVITY THEORY

How does one come to internalize these social = scripts? =20 This has been one of the unanswered aspects of theory building within=20 sociolinguistics and within the sociology of language. Most of = these=20 models discussed can readily account for behavioral patterns, but they = cannot=20 explain how these patterns are internalized. What has been missing = in=20 these theoretical accounts is Activity Theory (Ratner, 1996) which = explains how=20 social models are socially constructed. According to Activity Theory, a = child=20 learns by doing things, by following others, by trying to emulate them, = and by=20 trying to make his world similar to their world. There is agency = involved in=20 these events. The agency comes from the child, but it is an attempt to = emulate=20 the social world and the cultural world that he is immersed in. He uses = social=20 scripts and language as learning tools and experiential devices to = navigate=20 within that milieu. Co-constructionist models of cultural psychology = separate=20 the production of social relations from the ways in which individuals = utilize=20 and consume them. One learns a social script by participating in a = socially=20 constructed event. In many cultures (Hicks and Gwynne, 1996) a child is = not=20 considered to be a functioning social being until he has mastered a = certain=20 level of secondary socialization. One of the functions of = secondary=20 education is to provide children with the social scripts that they need = in order=20 to fully be accepted as social individuals. Education is compulsory = because=20 society demands that they master these social scripts. They come to = learn most=20 of their higher mental functions through social learning (Vygotsky, = 1962,=20 1978).

SENSES AND PROTOTYPES AMONG SOCIAL SCRIPTS

As noted earlier under Activity Theory, social = actions are=20 motivated. One of these actions involves dinning out either as an = individual or=20 as a family. Under social script theory, one of the procedures for = dining=20 out a restaurant was articulated as a chain of mini-procedures that = comprise a=20 mega-event. The restaurant social script may well be the ideal = scenario=20 upon which others in mini-dramas in some rather interesting ways. It is = the=20 prototypical restaurant script. What need to be discussed are the other=20 scenarios for dinning out. Many of these are discussed below. = Consider,=20 for example, the situation in which one enters a cafeteria in order to = purchase=20 a meal.

The Cafeteria = Schema=20 under Social Script Theory
Event Frame	Dinning at a Cafeteria, a self-serve = establishment.
Social Roles	No Waiters, customer, cashier, busboy, manager, cook and many=20 servers.
Episodic Functions	Enter a Cafeteria. There is no host. One encounters a = hallway or a=20 series of roped areas that guide the customer towards the serving=20 area. The customer goes along a row of food selections and = chooses what=20 he wants to eat. He either pays for his food when he exits this = area or=20 when he is ready to leave the premises. No one directs the = customer to=20 his table. He carries his own tray and finds himself a = table. There are=20 no menus. One sees what is available before him. There is no=20 waiter. One acts as his or her own waiter. Contrary to a = restaurant, one does puts in his order for food by pointing to = selections=20 along the food line. The customer is his own waiter. The = main meal=20 and the desserts are not separated from the main meal. One = purchases them=20 together and puts them on his own tray. At the end of the = mail, there=20 is no waiter to remind one to pay his bill. The customer simply = walks up=20 to the cashier with his cash register receipt and pays the = stipulated=20 amount plus taxes. The customer pays the cashier. The = customer is=20 not expected to leave a tip. The customer leaves the=20 restaurant.
Lexicon	Waiter, customer, table, main meal, servers, desserts, tip, = cashier,=20 restaurant, the cash-register receipt, the check, the menu, etc.=20
Script	Enter a cafeteria, approach the hallway, move towards the food = line,=20 pick up a tray, ask for servings from a wide range of meals = (salads,=20 desserts, main meal, etc.). There are no waiters. One serves = himself. There are no menus. The menu is a visual array along the = food=20 line. The customer leaves when he is ready. In some cafeterias, = one must=20 bus his own tray. In others, one may leave the remaining = food on the=20 table and quietly leave the establishment. =

Another kind of dinning scenario can be found among fast food = restaurants.=20

The Fast Food Restaurant Schema = under Social Script Theory
Event Frame	Dinning at a fast food establishment.
Social Roles	No Waiter, customer, cashier, busboy, no visible manager, = several cooks=20 visible in the background.
Episodic Functions	Enter a Fast Food restaurant. There is no host. There is = no one=20 to direct the customer to a table. One finds his own table after = he has=20 purchased a meal. The menu is visible to all in big letters = and with=20 pictures on the wall behind the many cashiers. One orders by = numbers.=20 The customer peruses the menu. He approaches the cashier = and just=20 states the number. There is a small dialogue about dining in = or=20 carrying out. In the first case, one receives his food on a tray;=20 otherwise it is given to him in a paper bag. After the = customer gives=20 his order to the cashier, he waits for his food. The = order is=20 filled and handed over to the customer. He is given an empty = cup so=20 that he can pour his own drinks. The customer leaves the = cashier with=20 his food and finds himself a table. There is no waiter. = The=20 customer finishes his meal, empties his tray and leaves the = restaurant.=20 There are no tips. There is no final meal to pay for as = that was=20 purchased before receiving the meal. The customer leaves = the=20 restaurant
Lexicon	Customer, table, main meal, deserts, cashiers, fast-food = establishment,=20 waiting lines, order food by the number, and the bill is=20 prepaid.
Script	Enter a fast food establishment, approach the cashier, order a = meal=20 from the menu on the wall, pay for the food before receiving it, = take the=20 food and serve your own drinks, napkins, etc. Find a table, = command it,=20 sit down, and finish the meal. Clear the table and return the tray = and=20 deposit the garbage before leaving the establishment. =20

Since social practices are goal-oriented, it should = be noted=20 that the rationale behind =E2=80=9Cdining out=E2=80=9D was to seek food = for consumption. It=20 could easily have other motives such as celebrating an event, a business = meeting, or the site of a dating scene. In the case of seeking food, one = other=20 scenario needs to be articulated, and that is the one that includes = eating at=20 home. What differs in this scenario is the pattern is a familial one. It = is=20 based on primary socialization. When one tries to orchestrate a = formal=20 dinner at home, s/he attempts to imitate the restaurant script. In such = a case,=20 the payment for the meal as some kind of social obligation is implied. =

The Eating at Traditional Home Schema = under Social=20 Script Theory
Event Frame	Dining at home at the kitchen table or dining room = table
Social Roles	Food preparer, family as customers, no cashier, wife as = busboy,=20 wife as dishwasher, wife as manager, wife as cook, wife as server, = etc.
Episodic Functions	Call for dinner begins the episode. Everyone moves to the = dinning=20 site. The wife acts as the hostess. If there are seating = arrangement=20 problems, she manages the situation. There is not menu. = If one=20 is asked a question, the interaction is verbal. The server = brings in=20 the prepared food. She sets pots and dishes of food on the table = and may=20 even personally serve each person. The menu is set; there are = no=20 special orders. If a customer puts in an order it may be=20 ignored. The server frequently leaves and returns with = more=20 food The server signals the end of the main meal by asking = about=20 desserts. The customer signals the end of the meal by leaving = the=20 table. The only gratuity is a comment about the food. Often = this is=20 not made by directly addressing the cook. There is no direct = payment=20 for the meal. There are no tips. Everyone leaves the table = except=20 for the wife who is the busboy, the dishwasher, and the = maintenance crew=20 at the kitchen site.
Lexicon	Waitress or server, family as customers, table and chairs, = table cloth,=20 utensils, dishes, pots and pans, main meal, desserts, verbal = gratuity,=20 verbal menu, individual servings, seconds, wife as hostess, wife = as cook,=20 wife as server, wife as dish-washer, wife as chef, wife as food = planner,=20 leaving the table and the clean up. =20
Script	Call to dinner. Enter the dining site (kitchen or dining room), = sit=20 down at selected places, the food is brought in and served, banal=20 conversation or group watching of television, go to one=E2=80=99s = assigned table,=20 accept the menus, read them, make an order, wait for the meal, eat = one=E2=80=99s=20 meal, discuss the topic of conversation during the meal, wait for = the=20 server to provide seconds, wait for server to announce the = dessert,=20 provide a verbal gratuity (optional), and leave the table. =20

Within a dining scene, certain roles and functions = may go=20 completely unnoticed. In a formal restaurant, for example, one does not = see what=20 is happening in the kitchen, for one is not allowed in that section of = the=20 restaurant. Each person has a definite role and function, but the = guests=20 may be completely unaware of the depth of those roles. S/He does = not know=20 what the busboy does after he leaves his station. S/He does not = know what=20 the waiters and waitresses are doing when they are not near his = table. =20 S/He does not know what the cashier does at the end of the day or how = she=20 tallies the accounts when she is ready to leave. S/He does not = know who=20 really owns the restaurant and what kind of financial obligation that = they may=20 have towards it or its customers. What they know is limited by the = social spaces=20 in the restaurant that have been provided to them. They know the = entrance, the=20 cashier=E2=80=99s booth, the hostess station, the path towards their = table, their waiter=20 or waitress, the restroom area, the d=C3=A9cor and the ambience in the = staging area,=20 and the orchestrated items of doing business at a restaurant (the bill, = charge=20 card, the tip, the account statement, etc.).
This same kind of = unnoticed activity occurs in eating at home. The members of the family = may never=20 know how much time was spent planning the meal. They do not know = how many=20 trips were made to the grocery store to prepare for the meal. They = do not=20 know how much time was spent on food preparation (cutting, dicing, = roasting,=20 frying, and freezing the food). They do not know how much time was = spent=20 in setting up the table for dinner, preparing the seating arrangements,=20 organizing the table, timing the food preparations, and serving the = food. After=20 all of the work has been done and the food is quickly eaten, they do not = know=20 what reaction the person who organized and orchestrated all of this = feels about=20 the event. They are oblivious to his/her emotions. They see = him/her as a=20 function and not a person.

Some of the different senses of the Dining Schema = can be=20 compared and contrasted below:

Site	Formal Restaurant	Cafeteria	Fast-Food Place	Eating at Home
Host	X			Traditionally, wife serves as hostess
Cashier	X	X	X
Dining Site	X	X	X	X
Waiter or Waitress	X			Traditionally, wife serves as waitress
Menu	X	Visual array along the tray line	Located on the wall	Visual, pots and pans on the table
Busboy	X	X	Customer is the bus boy	Traditionally, wife is the bus boy. She does the clean = up
Payment	Near the end of the meal	Before leaving the tray line	After ordering and before leaving the cashier	Implied obligations
Tips	X			Verbal gratuity (optional)
Conclusion of the scene	Leave the restaurant	Leave the Cafeteria	Leave the fast-food site	Change room locations

First, how does one go about constructing these=20 activities? One feasible answer is that one constructs these = activities by=20 socially participating in them. This idea was discussed under = Activity=20 Theory, and contemplates what Leontiev attempted to account for = (Kozulin, 1990:=20 257) in his articulation of the Vygotsky=E2=80=99s model of social = learning. Both=20 Leontiev and Vygotsky wanted to account for the next step of taking this = repeated event and turning it into a concept. When a person = participates=20 in such scenarios, s/he is doing it for his/her significant other. What = is=20 needed, according to Vygotsky (1978) is for that individual to do = something for=20 himself, thereby utilizing the concept as his own. S/He needs to=20 generalize his/her experience and to construct its ideal form and = experiment=20 with it. Kozulin (1990: 259) argues that this is the task of the = educator and=20 psychologist. It is his/her purpose to design special scenarios of = learning=20 activity that can lead to theoretical reasoning. This reasoning is = structured. It is embedded within a goal structure, a zone of proximal = distance.=20 It is the job of the mentor to orient the student to his stipulated = goal. =20 The mediator who guides the student constitutes a part of his own social = world.

Social behavior is scripted. The scene has = already been=20 socially constructed and individuals learn to play different roles = within the=20 theater of life (Lyman and Scott, 1976, 1978). Those who know how = to=20 perform in the theater of life (Goffman, 1959, 1967, and 1974) will be = in=20 character and have success in following the script that they have been=20 handed. They who fail at these tasks will be out of character or = will be=20 performing the wrong role at the wrong time or in the wrong place. = Social=20 Script Theory articulates those roles as social functions and they do so = within=20 the context of a situation as witnessed by others (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; = Ratner,=20 1996; Kozulin, 1998). Hence, these scripts have a social function. = They=20 are performed on front stage before others. Consider a situation = in which=20 two different announcers are watching an international soccer = game. Each=20 comes from a different culture and each has learned different scripts on = how to=20 evaluate the life performance. They will perform to these scripts. = They=20 are performing for their audiences which may be thousands of miles away = watching=20 television or listening to the radio. Even though they are witnessing = the same=20 scene, they do not describe the scene in the same way. They are on = different stages before different audiences. Consequently, they are = defining the=20 contexts of the situation in very different ways.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON PRAXIS

Inherent in the theory of praxis is the concept of = dramaturgy.=20 An excellent explication of this framework can be found in the works of = Erving=20 Goffman. In his earliest book (Goffman, 1959) on The = Presentation of=20 Self in Everyday Life, he argued that people cast themselves = into roles=20 that they play with others. His theory is based on the metaphor of = the=20 stage. People, he noted, are playwrights because they create their = own=20 social scripts in life. They are actors, because they act out = these=20 scripts. They are part of the audience because they watch = themselves=20 perform; and, they are critics because they are always judging their own = behaviors (cf., the looking glass self). The self, Goffman notes, is = expressed=20 through forms. Hence, he is intent on studying these forms of = social=20 behavior in order to ascertain their social meanings. Goffman = wants to=20 know how people manage their impressions before others (impression=20 management). People are not free to merely act the way that = they=20 want. Society is hard on individuals because it only allows a = person to=20 play certain roles and not others. Hence, people must foster = personal=20 impressions that will be seen as normal by others. They must know = how to=20 present a social self (the presentation of=20 self). They must learn how to present different = personas=20 (social masks) in the proper contexts. Hence, the = attainment of=20 self is a social process. It is also part of an ongoing = social=20 drama. People must be performers. They must present = a=20 front (being on front stage as = opposed=20 to back stage) before others. They must do these things within a=20 prescribed (stage) setting. They must give credible = appearances. =20 They must also perform in accordance to the expectations of others. They = must=20 know when to take roles and when to release them. If they fail to = do these=20 things, they may fail because they appear to be =E2=80=9Cout of = character.=E2=80=9D They=20 may also fail because they are performing to the wrong scripts. = They may=20 even fail because they do not know their roles (role=20 failure).

The Dramaturgical Metaphor in = Sociology
Setting	One performs before others on the social stage of life. =20
Playwright	The person on stage has written his/her own script. = He/She has=20 created his/her own role.
Actor/Actress	One performs the role that he/she has written for him/herself. = He/She=20 acts out the part on stage, the front stage. He/She may be a = very=20 different person off stage (back stage). He/She presents = himself to=20 others (the presentation of self). The stage is his/her = environment=20 (the setting). The significant others in his/her life are on stage = with=20 him during the performance. Role failure may occur due to several factors. The performance = is at=20 the wrong place at the wrong time; the actor is playing the wrong = role;=20 and he/she may have the wrong script.
Audience	The performer must also have a sense of the audience. He/She = must be=20 sensitive to the performances on stage and how they are being = received by=20 others.
Critics	There are two kinds of critics. One of them is assigned = the task=20 by a newspaper of other form of public media. These individuals = may or may=20 not know how to judge a play. The other kind of critic is one who = is=20 internal to the production of the play. This is the playwright = himself who=20 knows what he is judging and why he is judging it. The person on = stage is=20 also the theatrical critic of his own social drama.
The setting	There are people who professionally dress up the stage for the = ongoing=20 performances at the theater. Each individual does this in = his/her=20 own life. He/She sets his/her own scene by the way that he/she = dresses,=20 the way that he/she walks, and the way that he/she presents = himself to=20 others in proxemic expression.

The dramaturgical framework can be found in the = various models=20 of praxis. In Goffman=E2=80=99s model (1959), there is clear an agent = who performs=20 before others in the stage of life. In the performance theory of = Turner=20 (1968), the stage is communal. One performs with others on = stage. In=20 Vygotsky=E2=80=99s model (1963), as evidenced in the Zone of Proximal = Development, there=20 is a mentor who guides the young actor through the social drama that = exists=20 before him. In the St. Clair model of social scripts (2004), the = stage is=20 also communal. Not only do the participants in that social drama = know=20 their scripts, but so do the others who work in the establishment that = he is=20 visiting. In addition, they have their own social scripts that are known = as=20 roles. Some of these roles are open and others remain tacit or = even=20 invisible. The influence of these roles may be direct as in the = case of=20 face-to-face communication, or indirect such as when the manager of a = grocery=20 store orders his workers to physically arrange the products in the store = so that=20 they will entice the shoppers to buy more products.

Social scripts are everywhere. They play an = important=20 role in the social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann, = 1966). =20 For example, just as words enable people to create metaphors (Lakoff, = 1987;=20 Lakoff and Johnson, 1980), social scripts can also be used as the source = for=20 different social scripts (St. Clair, 2004). Within ethnomethodology = (Mehan and=20 Wood, 1975), it is through the use of these social scripts that people = are able=20 to function in the activities of everyday life. They are grounded = in their=20 rituals of social and cultural behavior. They are able to = negotiate their=20 surroundings within the social mindscapes of life (Zerubavel, = 1999). In=20 essence, more research needs to be done on social scripts and how they = are=20 manifested within the sociology of everyday life.

REFERENCES

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. (1966).The Social = Construction=20 of Reality. Garden City, New York: Anchor = Books.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of = Practice.=20 Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984). The Logic of = Practice. =20 Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press..

Bourdieu, Pierre and Lo=C3=AFc Wacquant. (1992). An = Invitation to=20 Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago = Press.

Douglas, Jack; et alia (1985). Introduction to the = Sociologies of=20 Everyday Life. NY: Academic Press.

Douglas, Jack and John Johnson. (Eds.). (1977). = Existential=20 Sociology: London: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, Howard. (1987). The Mind=E2=80=99s New Science: A = Study of the=20 Cognitive Revolution. NY: Basic Books, A Division of = HarperCollins.

Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in = Ethnomethodology. =20 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Erving. (1959). The Presentation of Self in = Everyday=20 Life. NY: Anchor, Doubleday and Company.

Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on = Face-to-Face=20 Behavior. New York: Anchor Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. (1996). Frame Analysis. New = York:=20 Harper Colophon Books. 1974.
Hicks, Dave and Margaret = Gwynne. =20 Cultural Anthropology. Harper Collins.

Kotarba, Joseph A. and Andrea Fontana. (Eds). (1964). The=20 Existential Self in Society. Chicago: University of Chicago = Press

Kozulin, Alex. (1990). Vygotsky=E2=80=99s Psychology: A = Biography of Ideas.=20 Harvard University Press.

Kozulin, Alex. (1998). Psychological Tools: A Sociocultural = Approach to=20 Education. Harvard University Press.

Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, Fire, & Dangerous = Things: What=20 Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, Illinois: University of = Chicago=20 Press.

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We = Live=20 By. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Lyman, Stanford and Marvin B. Scott. (1976). The Drama Of = Social=20 Reality. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Lyman, Stanford M. and Marvin B. Scott. (1978). A = Sociology of=20 the Absurd. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear = Publishing.

Mehan, Hugh and Houston Wood. (1975). The Reality of=20 Ethno-methodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Minsky, M. (1975). =E2=80=9CA Framework for Representing = Knowledge. In P.=20 H. Winston, Ed. The Psychology of Computer Vision. New = York:=20 McGraw-Hill.

Minsky, M. (1985). The Society of Mind. NY: = Simon and=20 Schuster.

Olson, David R. (1996). The World on Paper: The = Conceptual=20 and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge=20 University Press.

Ong, Walter. J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing = of the=20 Word. NY: Metheuen Co.

Ratner, Carl. (1996). Activity as a key concept for cultural=20 psychology. Cultural Psychology, 2, 407-434.

Ratner, Carl. In Defense of Activity Theory. http://www.humboldt1.com= /~cr2/reply.htm=20

St. Clair, Robert N. (2002). The Major Metaphors of = European=20 thought =E2=80=93 Growth, Game, Language, Drama, Machine, Time and = Space. =20 Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press .

St. Clair, Robert N. (2004). Literary Structures, Character=20 Development, and Dramaturgical Scenarios in Framing the Category Novel.=20 Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

St. Clair, Robert N., Su, Lichang, and Ana Clotilde = Thom=C3=A9-Williams. =20 (2005). The role of social script theory in cognitive blending. In = Manuel=20 F. Medina and Lisa Wagner (eds.), Special Issue of Intercultural=20 Communication Studies, XIV, number 1..

Sunderland. Activity Theory =E2=80=93 An Introduction.
http://o= siris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0car/hci/3_con_at.htm=20

Schank, R. C. and R. Abelson. (1977). Scripts, Plans, = Goals, and=20 Understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Turner, Victor. (1969). The Anthropology of Performance. = New=20 York: PAJ Publications.

Vygotsky. L. S. (1963). Thought and Language. = Cambridge, MA.:=20 MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of = Higher=20 Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University = Press. =20

Zerubavel, Eviatar. (1999). Social Mindscapes: An = Invitation to=20 Cognitive Sociology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lisa C. Wagner, PhD
Department of = Classical=20 and Modern Languages, University of Louisville,=20 USA

Robert N. St. Clair, PhD =
Department of=20 Communication, University of Louisville. USA

SOCIAL SCRIPTS AND THE = STRUCTURE=20 OF PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE

Lisa C. Wagner, University of Louisville,=20 USA Robert N. St. Clair, University of Louisville. USA