Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-zmlw7 Total loading time: 0.36 Render date: 2021-06-16T10:36:29.090Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2021

Kevin A. Whitehead
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Gene H. Lerner
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Membership categories such as ‘doctor’, ‘customer’, and ‘girl’ can form a set of alternative ways of referring to the same person. Moreover, speakers can select from this array of correct alternatives that term best fitted to what is getting done in their talk. In contrast, self-references alone ordinarily do not convey category membership, unless the speaker specifically employs some sort of category-conveying formulation. This report investigates how speakers manage the categorical relevance of these simplest self-references (e.g. ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’) as a practical means of self-presentation. We first describe how speakers forestall recipient attribution of membership categories. We then consider cases where simple self-references are subjected to subsequent elaboration—via self-categorization—in the face of possible recipient misreading of the speaker's category membership. Thereafter, we introduce the practice of contrastive entanglement, and describe how speakers employ it to fashion tacitly categorized self-references that serve the formation of action. (Person reference, conversation analysis, membership categorization devices, race, gender)*

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

We wish to acknowledge the crucial guidance we have received from Celia Kitzinger in undertaking this research. A report of this investigation was presented to the 114th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (2019), New York, NY.

References

Baker, Stephanie Alice, & Walsh, Michael James (2018). ‘Good morning fitfam’: Top posts, hashtags and gender display on Instagram. New Media & Society 20:4553–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baugh, John (2003). Linguistic profiling. In Sinfree Makoni, Geneva Smitherman, Ball, Arnetha, & Spears, Arthur (eds.), Black linguistics: Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas, 155–63. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91:326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37:8396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira (2008). All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:401–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullingham, Liam, & Vasconcelos, Ana C. (2013). ‘The presentation of self in the online world’: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science 39:101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Catherine Evans (2007). Language and identity in discourse in the American South: Sociolinguistic repertoire as expressive resource in the presentation of self. In Bamberg, Michael, Fina, Anna De, & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Selves and identities in narrative and discourse, 7188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrheim, Kevin; Cole, Charlene; & Richards, Joanne (2012). The incidence of racial discrimination in post-apartheid South Africa: An audit of KwaZulu-Natal South Coast holiday accommodation establishments. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 78:2746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, & Potter, Jonathan (1992). Discursive psychology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Richard, & Housley, William (2002). Identity, categorization and sequential organization: The sequential and categorial flow of identity in a radio phone-in. Discourse and Society 13:579602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, Richard, & Housley, William (eds.) (2015). Advances in membership categorisation analysis. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod (1997). The conversation object ‘mm’: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30:131–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Bourhis, Richard Y. (1976). Voice and racial categorization in Britain. Communication Monographs 43:108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96:606–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kira, & Bucholtz, Mary (2013). Epilogue: Facing identity. Journal of Politeness Research 9:123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15:551–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian (1996). Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jackson, Clare (2011). The gendered ‘I’. In Speer, Susan A. & Stokoe, Elizabeth (eds.), Conversation and gender, 3147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Edward E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Jones, Edward E., & Pittman, Thane S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In Jerry Suls (ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, 231–62. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kang, Sonia K.; DeCelles;, Katherine A. Tilcsik, András; & Jun, Sora (2016). Whitened resumes: Race and self-presentation in the labor market. Administrative Science Quarterly 61:469502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia (2005a). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after hours medical calls. Social Problems 52:477–98.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia (2007). Is ‘woman’ always relevantly gendered? Gender and Language 1:3949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, Victoria, & Kitzinger, Celia (2007). Some uses of third-person reference forms in speaker self-reference. Discourse Studies 9:493525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, Mark R. (2019). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, Mark R., & Kowalski, Robin M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin 107:3447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeCouteur, Amanda; Rapley, Mark; & Augoustinos, Martha (2001). ‘This very difficult debate about Wik’: Stake, voice and the management of category memberships in race politics. British Journal of Social Psychology 40:3557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerner, Gene H. (1996). Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59:303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.; Bolden;, Galina B. Hepburn, Alexa; & Mandelbaum, Jenny (2012). Reference recalibration repairs: Adjusting the precision of formulations for the task at hand. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45:191212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H., & Kitzinger, Celia (2007). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies 9:526–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean-prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding, 198233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard, & Walker, Traci (2013). Phonetic resources in the construction of social actions. In Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice & Raymond, Geoffrey (eds.), Units of talk units of action, 277312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young (2010). Invoking categories through co-present person reference: The case of Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42:1219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Maxwell Atkinson, J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9:219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purnell, Thomas; Idsardi, William; & Baugh, John (1999). Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18:1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rampton, Ben (2009). Interaction ritual and not just artful performance in crossing and stylization. Language in Society 38:149–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2016). Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language 92:636–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2018). On the relevance and accountability of dialect: Conversation analysis and dialect contact. Journal of Sociolinguistics 22:161–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2019a). Category accounts: Identity and normativity in sequences of action. Language in Society 49:585606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2019b). Intersubjectivity, normativity, and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly 82:182204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, David N. (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 3174. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1972b). On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz, John J. & Hymes, Dell (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 325–45. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1978). Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In Schenkein, Jim (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 249–70. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1979). Hotrodder: A revolutionary category. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 714. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, volumes I and II. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Drew, Paul & Wootton, Anthony (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 89135. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, Deidre & Zimmerman, Don H. (eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, 4470. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992a). In another context. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 191228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992b). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97:1295–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102:161216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996b). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, Barbara (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech 41:235–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007a). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies 9:433–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007b). Conveying who you are: The presentation of self, strictly speaking. In Enfield, Nicholas J. & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives, 123–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007c). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39:462–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2009). One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In Sidnell, Jack (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 357406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidman, Gwendolyn (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences 54:402407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2009). Doing actions with identity categories. Text and Talk 29:7597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2010). ‘I'm not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men's denials of violence towards women. Discourse and Society 21:5982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan (2014). Direct and indirect self-presentation in first conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33:302–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szakay, Anita (2012). Voice quality as a marker of ethnicity in New Zealand: From acoustics to perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16:382–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. Rodney (1978). Categorization, authorization and blame-negotiation in conversation. Sociology 12:105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Candace, & Fenstermaker, Sarah (2002). Accountability in action: The accomplishment of gender, race and class in a meeting of the University of California Board of Regents. Discourse & Society 13:537–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2009). ‘Categorizing the categorizer’: The management of racial common sense in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 72:325–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2011). An ethnomethodological, conversation analytic approach to investigating race in South Africa. South African Review of Sociology 42:122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2012). Racial categories as resources and constraints in everyday interactions: Implications for non-racialism in post-apartheid South Africa. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35:1248–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2013). Managing self/other relations in complaint sequences: The use of self-deprecating and affiliative racial categorizations. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46:186203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2015). Everyday antiracism in action: Preference organization in responses to racism. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34:374–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2020). The problem of context in the analysis of talk-in-interaction: The case of implicit whiteness in post-apartheid South Africa. Social Psychology Quarterly 83:294313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A., & Lerner, Gene H. (2009). When are persons ‘white’? On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society 20:613–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A., & Lerner, Gene H. (2020). Referring to somebody: Generic person reference as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 161:4656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *