The text deals with Harold Garfinkels theorizing of what Karl Mannheim called ‘documentary meaning’, and established as a foundation of all historical disciplines, and what Garfinkel calls the ‘documentary method’ of lay and professional sociological reasoning. The commentary tries to establish the systematical position of the chapter in Garfinkel’s ‘Studies in Ethnomethodology’, and, indeed, in Garfinkel’s social theory at the time of publication. This position involves, and redefines, Weber’s definition of sociology, Schutz’s sociology of knowledge and especially, the very idea of a common stock of. typifications, and the discovery of ‘historical time’, or ‘Geschichtlichkeit’ in each micro-sequential interaction. Some consequences are drawn, or sketched, for ethnomethodology as a steady thorn in the side of sociology, and vice versa: for lay and professional sociology as an equally steady thorn in the midst of ethnomethodology.

中文翻译：

---

从文献意义到文献方法：哈罗德·加芬克尔民族方法学研究第三章初评

文本涉及哈罗德·加芬克尔 (Harold Garfinkels) 对卡尔·曼海姆 (Karl Mannheim) 所谓的“文献意义”的理论化，并确立为所有历史学科的基础，以及加芬克尔 (Garfinkel) 所谓的非专业和专业社会学推理的“文献方法”。该评论试图确立该章节在加芬克尔的“民族方法学研究”中的系统地位，事实上，在加芬克尔出版时的社会理论中。这一立场涉及并重新定义了韦伯的社会学定义、舒茨的知识社会学，尤其是共同存量的概念。典型化，以及在每个微序列交互中发现“历史时间”或“Geschichtlichkeit”。为民族方法学绘制或勾勒出一些后果，作为社会学方面的一根稳定的刺，反之亦然：