In:Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff
Edited by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner and John Heritage
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 273] 2017
► pp. 189–205
Referring to persons
Linguistic gender and gender in action – (when) are husbands men?
Published online: 24 May 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.10kit
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.10kit
We examine the relationship between the linguistic gender intrinsic to person reference terms (such as ‘husband’, ‘man’, ‘he’) and the actions participants use them to do. We show that analysts cannot rely on the fact that a term is gendered linguistically as evidence that participants are using it in order to ‘do gender’. First, we show that linguistically gendered terms are not necessarily deployed by reference to their gendered properties, or in order to make gender relevant. Second, we show that linguistically gendered terms are nonetheless a resource for making gender relevant interactionally. Third, we show that the relevance of gender may be invoked or disattended over the course of an interaction in the service of local interactional goals.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Linguistically gendered terms can be chosen without making gender relevant to the action in which participants are engaged.
- 3.Linguistically gendered terms can be used as a resource for making gender relevant – but the relevance of gender can be negotiated and contested.
- 4.Gender is invoked or disattended over the course of an interaction in the interests of local interactional goals.
References
References (18)
Jefferson, Gail. 1987. “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button and John R.E. Lee, 86–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kitzinger, Celia. 2000. “Doing Feminist Conversation Analysis.” Feminism and Psychology 10 (2): 163–193.
. 2005a. “Heteronormativity in Action: Reproducing Normative Heterosexuality in ‘After Hours’ Calls to the Doctor.” Social Problems 52 (4): 477–498.
. 2005b. “Speaking as a Heterosexual: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (3): 221–265.
Kitzinger, Celia, and Rose Rickford. 2007. “Becoming a 'Bloke': The Construction of Gender in Interaction.” Feminism and Psychology 17 (2): 214–223.
Klein, Noa L. 2011. “Doing Gender Categorization: Non-Recognitional Person Reference and the Omnirelevance of Gender.” In Conversation and Gender, ed. by Susan A. Speer and Elizabeth Stokoe, 64–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Land, Victoria, and Kitzinger, Celia. 2005. “Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexual presumption.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(4): 371–416.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.
Sacks, Harvey. 1972. “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 392–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and their Interaction.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask you a Question?’” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 104–152.
. 1996. “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2007. “Categories in Action: Person-Reference and Membership Categorization.” Discourse Studies 9 (4): 433–461.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, and Sacks, Harvey. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53(2): 361–382.
Whitehead, Kevin, and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “When Are Persons ‘White’?: On Some Practical Asymmetries of Racial Reference in Talk-in-Interaction.” Discourse and Society 20 (5): 613–641.