Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Sexuality
Vol. 5:1 (2016) ► pp.37–60

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Challenging heteronormativity

Recontextualizing references to members of gay male and lesbian couples

 | California State University, San Bernardino, USA
Published online: 11 March 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.5.1.02hei
Because gay male and lesbian couples have broken from the heteronormative binary of cross-sex relationships, it is necessary to examine the conversational practices used by gay men and lesbians to refer to members of same-sex couples. While gay and lesbian couples use typical reference terms for romantic partners, I contend that this use challenges heteronormative language assumptions because these conversationalists apply the terms lover, partner, and boyfriend/girlfriend to reference co-couple members of same-sex couples, not cross-sex couples. They recontextualize terms normatively associated with reference to cross-sex romantic partners. I used conversation analysis to examine the data, which includes transcriptions of video and audio recordings of gay male and lesbian couples interacting in home environments. The findings suggest that reference terms are recontextualized beyond their heteronormative boundaries.
References (60)
References
Alberts, Jess K., Yoshimura, Christina G., Rabby, Michael & Loschiavo, Rose. 2005. Mapping the topography of couples’ daily conversation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3): 299–322.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds). 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohanek, Jennifer G., Fivush, Robyn, Zaman, Widaad, Lepore, Caitlin E., Merchant, Shela & Duke, Marshall P. 2009. Narrative interaction in family dinnertime conversations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 55(4): 488–515.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brontsema, Robin. 2004. A queer revolution: Reconceptualizing the debate over linguistic reclamation. Colorado Research in Linguistics 17(1): 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brumark, Åsa. 2006. Non-observance of Gricean maxims in family dinner table conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8): 1206–1238.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2005. Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482–502.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah & Kulick, Don. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 2013. The discursive production of everyday heterosexualities. Discourse & Society 24(5): 536–552.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2002. Can you be gay and lesbian in Australian English? Australian Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 23–33.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalley, Phyllis & Campbell, Mark David. 2006. Constructing and contesting discourses of heteronormativity: An ethnographic study of youth in a Francophone high school in Canada. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 5(1): 11–29.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillow, Megan R., Afifi, Walid A. & Matsunaga, Masaki. 2012. Perceived partner uniqueness and communicative and behavioral transgression outcomes in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 29(1): 28–51.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Heritage, John. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Paul Drew & John Heritge (eds), 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan & King, Ruth. 1994. Feminist meanings and the (de)politicization of the lexicon. Language in Society 23(1): 59–76.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds), 121–138. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fast, Nathanael J., Heath, Chip & Wu, George. 2009. Common ground and cultural prominence: How conversation reinforces culture. Psychological Science 20(7): 904–911.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felmlee, Diane, Orzechowicz, David & Fortes, Carmen. 2010. Fairy tales: Attraction and stereotypes in same-gender relationships. Sex Roles 62(3–4): 226–240.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Daena J. & Baxter, Leslie A. 1996. Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research 23(1): 87–114.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hajek, Christopher & Giles, Howard. 2005. Intergroup communication schemas: Cognitive representations of talk with gay men. Language and Communication 25(2): 161–181.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harvey, Keith. 1997. ‘Everybody loves a lover’: Gay men, straight men and a problem of lexical choice. In Language and Desire: Encoding Sex, Romance, and Intimacy. Keith Harvey & Celia Shalom (eds), 44–60. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Camp talk and citationality: A queer take on ‘authentic’ and ‘represented’ utterance. Journal of Pragmatics 34(9): 1145–1165.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, Joanne. 2012. ‘Challenge’ or ‘collaboration’ social interaction and recontextualization: McDonald’s CSR report. Critical Discourse Studies 9(2): 149–162.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian & Wooffitt, Robin. 1998. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia. 2005a. Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems 52(4): 477–498.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. ‘Speaking as a heterosexual’: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language & Social Interaction 38(3): 221–265.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurdek, Lawrence A. 1995. Lesbian and gay couples. In Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives. Anthony D’Augelli & Charlotte Patterson (eds), 243–261. New York: Oxford University Press.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science 14(5): 251–254.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lalor, Therese & Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2007. ‘That’s so gay’: A contemporary use of gay in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27(2): 147–173.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Land, Victoria & Kitzinger, Celia. 2005. Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption. Research on Language & Social Interaction 38(4): 371–416.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund Ronald. 1958. Concerning Trobriand clans and the kinship category Tabu. In The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Jack Goody (ed), 120–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. & Kitzinger, Celia. 2007. Introduction: Person-reference in conversation analytic research. Discourse Studies 9(4): 427–432.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. Optimizing person reference – Perspectives from usage on Rossel Island. In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Nicholas J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds), 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Jenny. 1987. Couples sharing stories. Communication Quarterly 35(2): 144–170.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Interactive methods for constructing relationships. In Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Phillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron & Jenny Mandelbaum (eds), 175–185. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Margutti, Piera. 2007. Two uses of third-person references in family gatherings displaying family ties: Teasing and clarifications. Discourse Studies 9(5): 623–651.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markey, Charlotte N. & Markey, Patrick M. 2013. Gender, sexual orientation, and romantic partner influence on body image: An examination of heterosexual and lesbian women and their partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(2): 162–177.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConnnell-Ginet, Sally. 2003. ‘What’s in a name?’: Social labeling and gender practices. In The Handbook of Language and Gender. Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds), 69–97. Malden, MA: Blackwell.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2014. Focusing on normativity in language and sexuality studies. Critical Discourse Studies 11(1): 49–70.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motschenbacher, Heiko & Stegu, Martin. 2013. Queer Linguistic approaches to discourse. Discourse & Society 24(5): 519–535.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1988. Personal reference in English. Language in Society 17(3): 317–349.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ould, Patricia & Whitlow, Julie C. 2011. Same-sex marriage and context-specific kinship terms. Journal of Homosexuality 58(8): 1085–1109.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2014. <[URL]> (October 14, 2014)
Patterson, Charlotte J. 2000. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family 621: 1052–1069.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2005. ‘I’ve got a paper-shuffler for a husband’: Indexing sexuality on talk-back radio. Discourse & Society 16(4): 561–578.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. George Psathas (ed), 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Studies in Anaphora. Barbara Fox (ed), 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schilt, Kristen & Westbrook, Laurel. 2009. Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: ‘Gender normals,’ transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society 23(4): 440–464.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. Repairing person reference in a small Caribbean community: Generic organization, local inflection. In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Nicholas J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds), 281–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solebello, Nicholas & Elliott, Sinikka. 2011. ‘We want them to be as heterosexual as possible’: Fathers talk about their teen children’s sexuality. Gender & Society 25(3): 293–315.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, Nicholas J. & Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Nicholas J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds), 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2006. On ethnomethodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction. Sociological Review 54(3): 467–494.    Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Titscher, Stefan, Meyer, Michael, Wodak, Ruth & Vetter, Eva. 2000. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis: In Search of Meaning. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waitzkin, Howard. 1985. Information giving in medical care. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 26(2): 81–101.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weston, Kath. 1995. Forever is a long time: Romancing the real in gay kinship ideologies. In Naturalizing Power: Essays in Feminist Cultural Analysis. Sylvia Yanagisako & Carol Delaney (eds), 87–110. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew J. & Zeitlyn, David. 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 61–92.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, Linda A. & Kroger, Rolf O. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Roberts, Graham H.
2020. Border crossing: Grayson Perry’s queerly utopian English journey. Queer Studies in Media & Popular Culture 5:2 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue