Handling ‘Incoherence’ According to the Speaker's On-Sight Categorization

Paoletti, Isabella

doi:10.4135/9781446216958.n11

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This larger category is apparently inclusive of an indefinite set of contemporary (cf. T's use of the adverbial phrase even...anymore) members co-categorizable with T, B, C, and D. Notably, all of these participants are first language speakers of Japanese, and "categorizable on-sight" (Paoletti 1998) as Japanese. These aspects of T's lines 1 and 2 utterance work together to make her line 1 "we" hearable as indexing we Japanese, a possible metonym for the membership category Native speaker, 3 and to make T's question hearable specifically as being relevantly answerable only by B, C, or D, who are co-categorizable with T on the basis of (at least) appearance and language expertise, and overtly co-categorized with T (and an indefinite set of contemporary Japanese) by the pronoun we and the use of gaze.…”

Section: Operationalizing "Membership Category"mentioning

confidence: 97%

On developing a systematic methodology for analyzing categories in talk-in-interaction: Sequential categorization analysis

Bushnell¹

2022

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay, I discuss one direction for developing a systematic, data-grounded analysis of categories in talk-in-interaction. This framework is developed around two main analytical foci. The first examines how the participants themselves work to publicly associate some set of normatively and morally accountable actions, rights, obligations, entitlements, attributes, etc. (i.e., category-bound predicates; see, e.g., Jayyusi 1984; Sacks 1972a, 1972b, 1979, 1992; Watson 1978) to the various turn- and sequence-generated categories built up by their actions-in-talk, and to explicit categorial formulations (i.e., labels, metonyms, descriptions, etc.) and their indexers. The second is concerned with how the participants recognizably and relevantly accomplish the sequential organization and turn by turn management of their categorization work. The notions of rhetorical (see Edwards 1991, 1997, 1998), conditional (Schegloff 1968, 1972), and retro-relevance (see Schegloff 2007a on ‘retro-sequences’), along with response priority (Bilmes 1993, 1995; see also Bilmes 1988) are introduced as sequential analytical tools for developing a systematic, data-based analysis of these practices.

show abstract

Section: Operationalizing "Membership Category"mentioning

confidence: 97%

On developing a systematic methodology for analyzing categories in talk-in-interaction: Sequential categorization analysis

Bushnell¹

2022

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In moving from a 'wh-question' to a tag question Naui is interactionally displaying that he already 'knew' the answer to the question, in addition to the 'perceptually available' (Jayussi 1984) evidence in front of him. As is visible in figure 3, in his reformulation Naui is treating M1 as 'European', categorising M1 on sight (Paoletti 1998) orienting to M1's white skin colour as a mutual resource for understanding that M1's ancestors would come from Europe. Thus, the prechallenges do not work to find something out, rather they work to provide for the conditional relevance of a particular answer, regardless of the knowledge state of the question-asker.…”

Section: Working Up the Known-in-common Answermentioning

confidence: 99%

Enticing a challengeable in arguments

Reynolds¹

2022

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on an interactional practice found in one form of adversarial talk, arguments during protests, where participants work to ‘entice’ a particular answer from an opponent using an uncontroversial questions in order to challenge the opponent on the basis of their own answer. Based on a collection of arguments during protests posted to YouTube, this article uses conversation analysis (CA) in order to investigate the way in which participants employ these uncontroversial questions as ‘pre-challenges’, using speaker selection, recipient focused topics and a moral ordering of talk to work to obligate a particular answer from the recipient. The results of the analysis illustrate several ways in which participants manipulate epistemics, speaker selection, and recipient design as resources for enacting social conflict.

show abstract

“…The author may present the original transcript immediately below, or as a separate block of text (e.g., Paoletti 1998). Another possibility is to alternate between the original and the translation in a subsequent line-by-line manner.…”

Section: Lost In Translation?mentioning

confidence: 99%