Human Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 183–198

Generalization: A Practice of Situated Categorization in Talk

Special Issue

Abstract

This paper analyzes four instances in talk of generalization about people, that is, of using statements about one or more people as the basis of stating something about a category. Generalization can be seen as a categorization practice which involves a reflexive relationship between the generalized-from person or people and the generalized-to category. One thing that is accomplished through generalization is instruction in how to understand the identity of the generalized-from person or people, so in addition to being understood as a practice of categorization, generalization can also be understood as a practice of identification. Somewhat incidentally, this paper also illustrates the importance of certain methodological issues related to membership categorization analysis and contributes to the growing body of work that connects membership categorization analysis with sequential conversation analysis.

Keywords

Categorization practices Generalization Identification practices Membership categorization analysis Reflexivity 

References

  1. Bilmes, J. (2008). Generally speaking: Formulating an argument in the US federal trade commission. Text and Talk, 28, 193–217.Google Scholar
  2. Bilmes, J. (2009). Kinship categories in northern Thai narrative. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 29–56). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P. (2007). Principles of person reference in Tzeltal conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 172–202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, C. W. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Cuff, E. C. (1994). Problems of versions in everyday situations. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.Google Scholar
  6. Francis, D., & Hart, C. (1997). Narrative intelligibility and membership categorization in a television commercial. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 123–151). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and the University Press of America.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanks, W. F. (2007). Person reference in Yucatec Maya conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 149–171). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harding, V. (1980). The other American revolution. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Afro-American Studies University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  11. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and the University Press of America.Google Scholar
  13. Jefferson, G. (2004a). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  14. Jefferson, G. (2004b). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Kasper, G. (2009). Categories, context, and comparison in conversation analysis. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 1–28). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  16. Mazeland, H., Huisman, M., & Schasfoort, M. (1995). Negotiating categories in travel agency calls. In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 271–297). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  17. Neale, J. (2001). A people’s history of the Vietnam war. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
  18. Paoletti, I. (2001). Membership categories and time appraisal in interviews with family caregivers of disabled elderly. Human Studies, 24, 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prados, J. (Ed.). (2003). The White House tapes: Eavesdropping on the president. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
  20. Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. Human Studies, 22, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 23–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stivers, T. (2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 73–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Watson, R. (1997). Some general reflections on ‘categorization’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 49–75). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and the University Press of America.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Zinn, H. (1999). A people’s history of the United States: 1492–present. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Electro-CommunicationsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations