Cover not available
Article published In:
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Studies in Language 43:2] 2019
► pp. 329–363

Referring expressions in categorizing activities

Rethinking the nature of linguistic units for the study of interaction

 | University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
ORCID logo | University of California, Los Angeles
Linguistic units as traditionally conceived by linguists favor structural features and referential meanings. In this paper, we propose a new way of understanding the nature of linguistic units by analyzing the interaction of multiple semiotic resources (gestures, bodily movement, eye gaze and speech) in social interaction. We focus on the discursive activity of “categorizing” in different situations and in two languages, English and Mandarin Chinese. Categorizing is broadly defined as any activity that involves explicitly or implicitly classifying people or objects into types. We show that the meanings of linguistic units (including the referential) may be distorted or incomplete when forms are extracted from their contexts and analyzed in isolation. Instead, we argue that an interactional, activity-based view, focusing on the deployment of linguistic elements as part of a coordinated system of semiotic resources, will enable us to understand the nature of linguistic units in a more productive way.
Keywords: categorizing, linguistic unit, referentialism, activity, semiotic resource
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Key concepts and approaches to categorizing
    • 2.1Cognitive approaches to categorization
    • 2.2Previous work focusing on categorizing as social action
    • 2.3Rethinking categorizing as a socially-motivated activity
    • 2.4Methodological tools used in MCA
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Data analysis
    • 4.1English data
    • 4.2Mandarin Chinese data
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16066.may
References (48)
References
Austin, John. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Butler, Carly & Ann Weatherall. 2006. “No, we’re not playing families”: Membership categorization in children’s play. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(4). 441–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2005. Is confusion a state of mind? In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 161–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Wallace L. Chafe (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 203–74. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1991. Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology 1(4). 515–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter. 2005. Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, Richard, William Housley & Carly W. Butler. 2009. Omnirelevance and interactional context. Australian Journal of Communication 36(3). 45–64.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, Barbara Fox and Sandra A. Thompson. 2013. Units and/or action trajectories?: The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. In Beatrice Szczepek and Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – Units of action, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garot, Robert & Tim Berard. 2011. Ethnomethodology and membership categorization analysis. In Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone & Paul Kerswill (eds.), The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics, 125–138. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experience. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4). 272–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual attention. Semiotica 62(1/2). 29–49.Google Scholar
. 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96(3). 606–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Transparent vision. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Pointing as situated practice. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet, 217–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2011. Contextures of action. In Jürgen Streek, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world, 182–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics 11. 1–54.Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 141. 237–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hester, Stephen, & Peter Eglin. 1997. Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. In Stephen Hester & Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis, 1–23. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mayes, Patricia. 2010. The discursive construction of identity and power in the critical classroom: Implications for applied critical theories. Discourse & Society 21(2). 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Becoming an autonomous writer: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conference. Discourse Studies 17(6). 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Patrick Gonzales, & Sally Jacoby. 1996. “When I come down, I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 328–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1972. On the analyzability of stories by children. In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 325–345. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1992. Lectures on conversation. (Vol. 11, G. Jefferson, ed.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 501. 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1925. Sound patterns of language. Language 1(2). 37–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. 2007a. A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 391. 462–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Keith H. Basso & Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3). 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. (ed.) Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1999. Body movement and participant alignment in Mandarin Chinese conversational interactions. Chicago Linguistic Society 351. 125–139.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, Paul H. & Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE 8(1). e52961. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. (Anscombe, G. E. M., trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Mayes, Patricia
2024. Low Transitive Constructions as Typical Clauses in English: A Case Study of the Functions of Clauses with the Nonverbal Predicate be in Stance Displays. Languages 9:12 ► pp. 372 ff. DOI logo
Malyuga, Elena N. & Wayne Rimmer
2021. Making sense of “buzzword” as a term through co-occurrences analysis. Heliyon 7:6 ► pp. e07208 ff. DOI logo
Suomalainen, Karita, Anna Vatanen & Ritva Laury
2020. The Finnish se että initiated expressions. In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Hongyin
2020. NP clustering in Mandarin conversational interaction. In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Language, Multimodal Interaction and Transaction [Studies in Chinese Language and Discourse, 14], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2024. 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.