Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-8hm5d Total loading time: 0.301 Render date: 2022-05-29T09:15:04.434Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2006

GEOFFREY RAYMOND
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, 2834 Ellison Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9430, graymond@soc.ucsb.edu
JOHN HERITAGE
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, 264 Haines Hall, 375 Portola Plaza, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551

Abstract

Scholars have long understood that linkages between the identities of actors and the design of their actions in interaction constitute one of the central mechanisms by which social patterns are produced. Although a range of empirical approaches has successfully grounded claims regarding the significance of various forms or types of identity (gender, sex, race, ethnicity, class, familial status, etc.) in almost every form of social organization, these analyses have mostly focused on aggregated populations, aggregated interactions, or historical periods that have been (in different ways) abstracted from the particulars of singular episodes of interaction. By contrast, establishing the mechanisms by which a specific identity is made relevant and consequential in any particular episode of interaction has remained much more elusive. This article develops a range of general analytic resources for explicating how participants in an interaction can make relevant and consequential specific identities in particular courses of action. It then illustrates the use of these analytic resources by examining a phone call between two friends, one of whom relevantly embodies “grandparent” as an identity. The conclusion offers observations prompted by this analysis regarding basic contingencies that characterize self-other relationships, and the role of generic grammatical resources in establishing specific identities and intimate relationships.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Antaki, Charles, & Widdicomb, Sue (1998) (eds.). Identities in talk. London: Sage.
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, & Heritage, John (1984) (eds.). Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, Benjamin (2000). Language and negotiation of ethnic/racial identity among Dominican Americans. Language in Society 29:555582.Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A. (1996). Conversation about illness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berlin, Isaiah (2002). Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society 33:469515.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace, & Nichols, Johanna (1986) (eds.). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Collins, Randall (1988). The micro contribution to macro sociology. Sociological Theory 6:242253.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In I. Markova andK. Foppa (eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue, 2948. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
Drew, Paul (2002). Out of context: An intersection between life and the workplace, as contexts for (business) talk. Language and Communication 22:477494.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Heritage, John (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work, 365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, Paul, & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1997). Institutional discourse. In Teun van Dijk (ed.), Discourse analysis: A multidisciplinary introduction, 92118. London: Sage.
Fenstermaker, Sarah, & West, Candace (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power, and institutional change. New York: Routledge.
Fenstermaker, Sarah; West, Candace; & Zimmerman, Don (1991). Gender inequality: New conceptual terrain. In Rae Lesser Blumberg (ed.), Gender, family, and economy: The triple overlap. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Giddens, Anthony (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gill, Virginia (1998). Doing attributions in medical interaction: Patients' explanations for illness and doctors' responses. Social Psychology Quarterly 61:342360.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, Erving (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper & Row.
Goffman, Erving (1983a). The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48:117.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1983b). Felicity's condition. American Journal of Sociology 89:153.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96:606633.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1:155.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Heritage, John (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 299345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In David Silverman (ed.), Qualitative analysis: Issues of theory and method, 161182. London: Sage.
Heritage, John (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27:291334.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2002a). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Cecilia Ford et al. (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 196224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, John (2002b). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34:14271446.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Greatbatch, David (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 93137. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68:1538.Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert, & LeBaron, Curt (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31:5974.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1983). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 30.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. Lerner (eds.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 4359. Philadelpia: John Benjamins.
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of information. Philadelpia: John Benjamins.
Kitzinger, Celia (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology 10:163193. Reprinted in Paul McIlvenny (ed.), Talking gender and sexuality, 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia, & Frith, H. (1999). Just say no? Using conversation analysis to understand how young women talk about refusing sex. Discourse & Society 10:293316. Reprinted in M. Wetherell et al. (eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene (1996). ‘Finding face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59:303321.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moerman, Michael (1974). Accomplishing ethnicity. In Roy Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology, 5468. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mulkay, Michael, & Gilbert, G. Nigel (1982). Accounting for error: How scientists construct their social world when they account for correct and incorrect belief. Sociology 16:165183.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 79112. New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 57101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey (2000). The voice of authority: The local accomplishment of authoritative discourse in live news broadcasts. Discourse Studies 2:354379.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68:939967.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics, 325345. New York: Holt, Rinhehart & Winston.
Sacks, Harvey (1984). On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 413429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, Harvey (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisation, 5469. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 75119. New York: Free Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 4470. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work, 101134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 437485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29:163.Google Scholar
Sharrock, W. W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In Roy Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology, 4553. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Starr, Paul (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
Stivers, Tanya (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38:131158.Google Scholar
Wakin, Michelle, & Zimmerman, Don (1999). Reduction and specialization in emergency and directory assistance calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32:409437.Google Scholar
West, Candace, & Zimmerman, Don (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society 1:125151.Google Scholar
Whalen, Jack, & Zimmerman, Don (1998). Observations on the display and management of emotions in naturally occurring activities: the case of “hysteria” in calls to 9-1-1. Social Psychology Quarterly 61:141159.Google Scholar
Whalen, Marilyn, & Zimmerman, Don (1987). Sequential and institutional contexts in calls for help. Social Psychology Quarterly 50:172185.Google Scholar
Whalen, Marilyn, & Zimmerman, Don (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society 19:465492.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12:5197.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 2243. Cambridge: Polity.
Zimmerman, Don (1984). Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications, 210228. Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Zimmerman, Don (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work, 418469. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, Don (1998). Identities, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicomb (eds.), Identities in talk, 87106. London: Sage.
338
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *