1887
Volume 17, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The paper seeks to demonstrate that, first, over the course of interaction in the radio phone-in events, participants display orientation to various aspects of their co-participants´ identities, second, since membership categories emerge and are developed at various sequentially relevant times, membership categorisation processes are closely tied with the event´s sequential organisation, and, third, categorisation bears on politeness aspects of interaction as the participation in the public ´arena´ causes participants´ faces to be constantly at stake. The methodological underpinnings of the paper represent the approaches of Membership Categorisation Analysis and the model of politeness based on the conceptualisation of face. The data are drawn from the corpus of (´Night Dialogues´) radio phone-ins broadcast on the Slovak public radio over the period of 1995-2004. The paper further attempts to demonstrate that participants are engaged in category work which sequentially unfolds in the course of the production of phone-in calls. Participants´ progressive involvement in talk is closely linked with the construction of ´layers´ of their categorial identities. The membership category of ´location´ represents the minimum agreed-upon canon of callers´ call-relevant identities. As the category is universally applicable, it bears the least face-threatening potential, for which reason it is used explicitely. In contrast, strategies of non-explicit categorisation, i.e. invoking categories through category-relevant predicates, apply to those topic-relevant categories which carry a significant face-threating ´load´ (e.g. ´family status´, ´political affiliation´, etc.). In summary, sequential organisation and category work are seen as being closely intertwined, with the latter also being employed as a positive and negative politeness strategy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.3.01fer
2007-01-01
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bourdieu, Pierre
    (1991) Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Drew, Paul
    (1994) Conversation Analysis. In R.E. Asher (ed), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp.749-754.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eelen, Gino
    (2001) A critique of politeness theories. Manchester, UK: St.Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ferenčík, Milan
    (2004) Social categorization and politeness in the media discourse. InSučasni doslidženia z inozemnoj filologii 2, Užgorod: Užgorodskij nacionaľnyj universitet, pp. 94-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1995) Štruktúra rozhlasového dialógu. Slovenská reč60.5-6: 281-288.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2002) Organizácia a priebeh úvodných fáz rozhlasovej kontaktnej relácie Nočné dialógy. Slovo a slovesnost63: 200-212.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2005a) Repair and identity construction in talk-in-interaction. InEnglish Is a Key. Ružomberok 2005, pp. 40-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2005b) Identita a zdvorilosť – k problému sociálnej kategorizácie v mediálnom dialógu. In J. Rusnák a M. Bočák (eds), Médiá a text. FF PU, Prešov, pp.63-86.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005c) Organization of repair in talk-in-interaction and politeness. Theory and practice in English studies 3 (2005). Eighth Conference of British, American and Canadian Studies. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 69-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006a) Non-impolite interruptions: Politeness aspects of recognitional interruptions on talk radio. Discourse Studies: Trends and perspectives. Nitra: FF UKF, pp. 47-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2006b) Členská kategorizácia v politickom diskurze a zdvorilosť. (Membership categorization in political discourse and politeness) (in press).
  13. Fitzgerald, Richard
    (msa)Talkback, community and the public sphere.
  14. (msb)Two axes of communication in talkback radio: Some techniques for building community and delivering politics agendas through public access media.
  15. Fitzgerald, Richard , and William Housley
    (2002) Identity, categorization and sequential organization: The sequential and categorial flow of identity in a radio phone-in. Discourse & Society13.5: 579-602. doi: 10.1177/0957926502013005275
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013005275 [Google Scholar]
  16. Francis, David , and Stephen Hester
    (2004) An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society and interaction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    (1989) Current developments in conversation analysis. In Roger, D. and P. Bull (eds.), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon-Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD, pp. 21-47.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. He, Agnes W
    (2004) Identity construction in Chinese heritage language classes. Pragmatics4.2/3: 199-216.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hester Stephen , and Richard Fitzgerald
    (1999) Category, predicate and task: Some organizational features in a radio talk show. In P. Jalbert (ed.), Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches. SECA, No. 5. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hutchby, Ian
    (1991) The organization of talk on talk radio. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast Talk. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1992a) Confrontation talk: Aspects of ´interruption´ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text 12.3: 343-371.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (1992b) The pursuit of controversy: Routine scepticism in talk on “talk radio”. Sociology 26.4: 673-694. doi: 10.1177/0038038592026004008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038592026004008 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1995) Aspects of recipient design in expert advice giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes19: 217-238. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544915
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544915 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1996a) Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse & SocietyVol. 7.4: 481-497. doi: 10.1177/0957926596007004003
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007004003 [Google Scholar]
  25. (1996b) Confrontation Talk. Arguments, Assymetries, and Power on Talk Radio.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1999) Frame attunement and footing in the organisation of talk radio show. Journal of Sociolinguistics3.1: 41-63. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00062
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00062 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2001) ´Witnessing´: The use of first-hand knowledge in legitimating lay opinions on talk radio. Discourse Studies. Vol 3.4: 481-497. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003004009
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003004009 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hutchby, Ian , and Paul Drew
    (1995) Conversation Analysis. In J.-O. Ostman , J. Verschueren , & L. Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.282-289. doi: 10.1075/hop.m.con4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.con4 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hutchby, Ian , and Robin Wooffitt
    (2002) Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    (1997) A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7.1: 1-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Leech, Geoffrey
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics.London & New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Longman.Leudar , Ivan, Victoria Marsland , and Jiří Nekvapil
    (2004) On membership categorization: ´us´, ´them´ and ´doing violence´ in political discourse. Discourse & SocietyVol 15.2-3: 243-266. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041019
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041019 [Google Scholar]
  33. Liddicoat, Anthony , Annie Brown , Susanne Döpke , and Kristina Love
    (1992) The effect of the institution: Openings in talkback radio. Text12.4: 541-562.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Liddicoat, Anthony , Susanne Döpke , Kristina Love , and Annie Brown
    (1994) Presenting a point of view: Callers´ contributions to talkback radio in Australia. Journal of Pragmatics22: 139-156. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90064‑7
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90064-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nekvapil, Jiří
    (2000/2001) Sociální kategorizace v interkulturním kontaktu: Základní výklad, cvičení a diskuse dvou scén z podnikové komunikace. Češtinář11: 38-52, 72-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Panese, M
    (1996) Calling in: Prosody and conversation in radio-talk. Pragmatics 6: 1.19-87.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Shields-Brodber, Kathryn
    (1992) Dynamism and assertiveness in the public voice: Turn-taking and code-switching in radio talk shows in Jamaica. Pragmatics 2.4: 487-504.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Thornborrow, Joanna
    (2001a) Questions, control and the organization of talks in calls to a radio phone-in. Discourse Studies Vol 3.1: 119-143. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003001006
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001006 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2001b) Authenticating talk: Building public identities in audience participation boadcasting. Discourse Studies Vol 3.4: 459-479. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003004008
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003004008 [Google Scholar]
  40. Watson, Rod D
    (1997) ´Some general reflections on „categorization“ and „sequence“ in the analysis of conversation´. In S. Hester and P. Eglin (eds.), Culture in Action. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Watts, Richard
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.3.01fer
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error