Generalization: A Practice of Situated Categorization in Talk

Human Studies

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 183-198

  Hauser, Eric ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRO COMMUNICATIONS   (Japan)

Author keywords

Categorization practices; Generalization; Identification practices; Membership categorization analysis; Reflexivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960461397     PISSN: 01638548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bilmes, J. (2008). Generally speaking: Formulating an argument in the US federal trade commission. Text and Talk, 28, 193-217.
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.
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.
4. Butler, C. W. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
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.
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.
7. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
8. Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
10. Harding, V. (1980). The other American revolution. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Afro-American Studies University of California, Los Angeles.
11. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
17. Neale, J. (2001). A people's history of the Vietnam war. New York, NY: The New Press.
18. Paoletti, I. (2001). Membership categories and time appraisal in interviews with family caregivers of disabled elderly. Human Studies, 24, 293-325.
19. Prados, J. (Ed.). (2003). The White House tapes: Eavesdropping on the president. New York, NY: The New Press.
20. Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. Human Studies, 22, 139-162.
21. Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone "so" in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 185-218.
22. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
28. Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
29. Zinn, H. (1999). A people's history of the United States: 1492-present. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.