Cover not available
Part of
Emotion in Multilingual Interaction
Edited by Matthew T. Prior and Gabriele Kasper
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 266] 2016
► pp. 153–176

Negative self-categorization, stance, affect, and affiliation in autobiographical storytelling

| University of Washington
This study examines pejorative self-categorizations in troubles-tellings vis-à-vis the Hindi and English medium education of two Indian women within the institutional context of qualitative research interviews. Sequential conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis are combined to analyze how the interviewees manage emotional displays in relation to socio-linguistic identities and categories. Analysis reveals that while explicitly discriminatory categorizations with accompanying affect-implicative resources such as laughter tokens and prosodic variation are produced by the interviewees to reference themselves, this is done in the pursuit of recipient affiliation. Findings demonstrate that these Hindi-speaking interviewees orient to the same desire for recipient affiliation to their expressed emotional stances as has been found in monolingual and English troubles-tellings produced in interview and non-­interview settings.
Keywords: autobiographical storytelling, Hindi, membership categorization analysis, negative self-categorization, qualitative research interviews, troubles-tellings
Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.266.07san
References (54)
References
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1999. “Coherent Voicing: On Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create it and How to Describe it, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 11–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of ‘Disappointment’.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
. 2012a. “Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 113–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “Some Truths and Untruths about Final Intonation in Conversational Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., and Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. “Taking a Stance on Emotion: Affect, Sequence, and Intersubjectivity in Dialogic Interaction.” Text & Talk 32 (4): 433–451.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1998. “Complaints about Transgression and Misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Charles Goodwin. 2000. “Emotion within Situated Activity.” In Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, 239–257. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., Asta Cekaite, and Charles Goodwin. 2012. “Emotion as Stance.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 16–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku. 2001. “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text & Talk 21: 187–220.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories.” In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2005. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Kristine L. Fitch, and Robert E. Sanders, 103–147. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John C., and D. Rod Watson. 1979. “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Heritage, John C., and Rod D. Watson. 1980. “Aspects of the Properties of Formulations in Natural Conversations: Some Instances Analysed.” Semiotica 30 (3–4): 245–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hester, Sally, and Stephen Hester. 2012. “Categorial Occasionality and Transformation: Analyzing Culture in Action.” Human Studies 35: 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin (eds.). 1997a. Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 1997b. “Membership Categorization Analysis: An Introduction.” In Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. by Stephen Hester, and Peter Eglin, 1–23. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3): 219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jayyusi, Lena. 1984. Categorization and the Moral Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1978. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984a. “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1984b. “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems 35 (4): 418–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Is ‘No’ an Acknowledgment Token? Comparing American and British Uses of (+)/(−) Tokens.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1345–1383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and John R. E. Lee. 1981. “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a “Troubles Telling” and a “Service Encounter.” Journal of Pragmatics 5: 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1987. “Notes on Laughter in the Pursuit of Intimacy.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 152–205. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jiwani, Yasmin, and John E. Richardson. 2011. “Discourse, Ethnicity and Racism.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 241–262. London: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2012. “Affiliation in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 350–369. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John K. 2004. “Getting Back to Prior Talk: ‘And-uh(m)’ as a Back-connecting Device in British and American English.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 377–400. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923/1989. “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” In The Meaning of Meaning, ed. by C. A. Ogden and I. A. Richards, 296–336. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2012. “Storytelling in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 492–508. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi, and Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2006. “Facial expression in an Assessment.” In Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods, ed. by Hubert Knoblauch, Bernt Schnettler, Jürgen Raab, and Hans-Georg Soeffner, 127–142. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2012. Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies 9: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Matthew T. 2016. Emotion and Discourse in L2 Interviews. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2012. “Emotion, Affect and Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 330–349. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by Richard Bauman, and Joel Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandhu, Priti. 2010. “Enactments of Discursive Empowerment in Narratives of Medium of Education by North Indian Women.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
. 2014a. “The Interactional and Narrative Construction of Normative and Resistant Discourses about Hindi and English.” Applied Linguistics 35 (1): 29–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “‘Who Does She Think She Is?’ Vernacular Medium and Failed Romance.” Journal of Language , Identity, and Education 13 (1): 16–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Stylizing Voices, Stances, and Identities Related to Medium of Education in India.” Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 34 (2): 211–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol: I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnell. 2005. “Introduction: Multimodal Interaction.” Semiotica 156 (1–4): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Valk, Ineke. 2003. “Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France.” Discourse and Society 14 (3): 309–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1992. “Discourse and the Denial of Racism.” Discourse and Society 3 (1): 87–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. “Political Discourse and Racism: Describing Others in Western Parliaments.” In The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, ed. by Stephen Harold Riggins, 31–64. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Watson, D. Rod. 1997. “Some General Reflections on ‘Categorization’ and ‘Sequence’ in the Analysis of Conversation.” In Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. by Stephen Hester, and Peter Eglin, 49–76. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 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.