Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:52:48.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Category accounts: Identity and normativity in sequences of action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2019

Chase Wesley Raymond*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
*
Address for Correspondence: Chase Wesley Raymond, Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Hellems 290, 295 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA[email protected]

Abstract

This study investigates the sequentially occasioned provision of what I term category accounts in interaction. Category accounts tap into and make use of normative assumptions about identities and membership categories in order to explain away moments of what the participants view as category deviance. To introduce this concept, I focus on sequences in which speakers’ initiations of repair (e.g. Huh?) are oriented to as indicative of a problem of understanding. In the cases examined here, recipients of such initiations of repair treat divergence from some gender/sexuality norm as the source of the misunderstanding, which is revealed through their attempt to resolve the trouble by providing a category account, thereby closing the repair sequence and providing for the resumption of progressivity. These and similar accounting sequences are thus a means through which participants collaboratively normalize momentary departures from normativity, while at the same time reconstituting what exactly constitutes ‘normativity’ and ‘departures therefrom’, and for whom. (Gender, sexuality, identity, membership categorization, Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, repair, social interaction, normativity, deviance)*

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Steve Clayman, John Heritage, three anonymous reviewers, and the editors of this special issue for detailed feedback on previous versions of this manuscript. I must also thank Sandy Thompson and Betty Couper-Kuhlen, and audiences at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the University of Freiburg, and the University of California, Santa Barbara, for their thought-provoking questions, comments, and suggestions, all of which helped me to refine the analysis in various ways. My thanks also to Barbara Fox and Josh Raclaw for granting me access to their datasets to search for examples of the phenomenon explored here, as well as to Dara Chase for her assistance in locating additional cases. Any remaining errors are my own.

References

REFERENCES

Antaki, Charles (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, & Widdicombe, Sue (eds.) (1998). Identities in talk. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, John (eds.) (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., & Luckmann, Thomas (1967). The social construction of reality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5):974–98.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. (2014). Negotiating understanding in ‘intercultural moments’ in immigrant family interactions. Communication Monographs 81(2):208–38.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. (2018). Speaking ‘out of turn’: Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair. Discourse Studies 20(1):142–62.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B., & Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with ‘why’-interrogatives in naturally occurring English conversation. Journal of Communication 61:9119.Google Scholar
Brown, Joshua R. (2011). No homo. Journal of Homosexuality 58(3):299314.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5):585614.Google Scholar
Cashman, Holly R., & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2014). Doing gender in soccer (football) and beyond: Making gender relevant in Spanish-language broadcast discourse. Gender and Language 8(3):311–40.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. (2016). Political positioning sequences: The nexus of politicians, issue positions, and the sociopolitical landscape. In Robinson 2016b, 141–74.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies 20(1):90119.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Selting, Margret (2018). Interactional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark; Roberts, Seán G.; Baranova, Julija; Blythe, Joe; Drew, Paul; Floyd, Simeon; Gisladottir, Rosa S.; Kendrick, Kobin H.; Levinson, Stephen C.; Manrique, Elizabeth; Rossi, Giovanni, & Enfield, N. J. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0136100.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In Atkinson & Heritage, 152–64.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28:69101.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Holt, Elizabeth (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27:495522.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, Wallace (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 203–74. Norwood, NJ: Albex.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek (1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology 1(4):515–42Google Scholar
Egbert, Maria (2004). Other-initiated repair and membership categorization: Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 36:1467–98.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.; Fox;, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), The language of turn and sequence,14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, & Bolden, Galina B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of Its sequential placement. In Atkinson & Heritage, 299345.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1987). Ethnomethodology. In Giddens, Anthony & Turner, Jonathan (eds.), Social theory today, 224–72. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Antaki, Charles (ed.), Understanding everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 127–44. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2011). A Galilean moment in social theory? Language, culture and their emergent properties. Qualitative Sociology 34:263–70.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):129.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88:88104.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Clayman, Steven E. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2016). Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they address? Discourse Processes 53(1–2):525.Google Scholar
Heritage, John; Raymond;, Chase Wesley & Drew, Paul (2019). Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses. Journal of Pragmatics 142:185200.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):1538.Google Scholar
Hill, Amelia M. J. (2016). Suspect’ identity: The uses of race in requests for police intervention. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles MA thesis.Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert, & LeBaron, Curtis (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31:5974.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, David (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 294338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004a). A note on laughter in ‘male-female’ interaction. Discourse Studies 6(1):117–33.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004b). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 1331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. (2015). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics 1:164–90.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia (2005a). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing normative heterosexuality in ‘after hours’ calls to the doctor. Social Problems 52:477–98.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia (2005b). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38:221–65.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia, & Mandelbaum, Jenny (2013). Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs 80(2):176–98.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin (1975). Language and women‘s place. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Land, Victoria, & Kitzinger, Celia (2005). Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38:371416.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian (2007). The TalkBank project. In Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P., & Moisl, Hermann L. (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol.1: Synchronic databases, 163–80. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ostermann, Ana Cristina (2017). ‘No mam. You are heterosexual’: Whose language? Whose sexuality? Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(3):348–70.Google Scholar
Pollner, Melvin (1987). Mundane reason: Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M. (1984). Pursuing a response. In Atkinson & Heritage, 152–64.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M., & Heritage, John (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–28. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Raclaw, Joshua; Robles, Jessica S.; & DiDomenico, Stephen M. (2016). Providing epistemic support for assessments through mobile-supported sharing activities. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(4):362–79.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2012). Reallocation of pronouns through contact: In-the-moment identity construction amongst Southern California Salvadorans. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(5):669–90.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2013). Gender and sexuality in animated television sitcom interaction. Discourse and Communication 7(2):199220.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2016a). Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language 92(3):636–70.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2016b). Reconceptualizing identity and context in the deployment of forms of address. In Moyna, María Irene & Rivera-Mills, Susana (eds.), Forms of address in Spanish across the Americas, 267–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2018). On the relevance and accountability of dialect: Conversation analysis and contact linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 22(2):161–89.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2019). The grammar of intersubjectivity and normativity. Social Psychology Quarterly, to appear.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, & Stivers, Tanya (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson 2016b, 321–53.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, & Clark White, Anne Elizabeth (2017). Time reference in the service of social action. Social Psychology Quarterly 80(2):109–31.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone ‘so’ in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2):185218.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, & Heritage, John (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35:677705.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2014). What ‘what?’ tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47:109–29.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2016a). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson 2016b, 3–46.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (ed.) (2016b). Accountability in interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, & Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 1521. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, Jeffrey C., Giesen, Bernhard, Munch, Richard, & Smelser, Neil J. (eds.), The Micro-macro link, 207–34. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In Drew, Paul & Heritage, John (eds.), Talk at work: Social interaction in institutional settings, 101–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007a). Sequence organization in interaction, vol. 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007b). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39:462–82.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson;, Gail & Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53:361–82.Google Scholar
Scott, Marvin B., & Lyman, Stanford M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review 33:4662.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth H., & Smithson, Janet (2001). Making gender relevant: The construction and negotiation of gender categories in discourse. Discourse & Society 12(2):243–69.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth H. (2005). Gender talk: Feminism, discourse and conversation analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth H., & Stokoe, Elizabeth (eds.) (2011). Conversation and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2012a). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3):277303.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2012b). ‘You know how men are’: Description, categorization and common knowledge in the anatomy of a categorial practice. Gender and Language 6(1):233–55.Google Scholar
Vázquez Carranza, Ariel (2014). Sequential markers in Mexican Spanish talk: A conversation-analytic study. Essex: University of Essex PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Weatherall, Ann (2002). Towards understanding gender and talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society 13(6):767–81.Google Scholar
West, Candace, & Zimmerman, Don H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society 1(2):125–51.Google Scholar
West, Candace, & Zimmerman, Don H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society 23(1):112–22.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2009). ‘Categorizing the categorizer’: The management of racial common sense in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 74(4):325–42.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A., & Lerner, Gene (2009). When are persons ‘white’? On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society 20(5):613–41.Google Scholar