Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This article seeks to advance the usage-based discourse research that investigates meanings and processes of meaning construction in interaction by elaboratingan empirically grounded interdisciplinary model. The paradigmatic and sequential analysis employed here brings together linguistic discourse analysis with an ethnomethodological perspective, and presents an innovative take on category organization in talk,explaininghow to capture knowledge resources such as asymmetrical category contrast pairs in talk. In analyzing in detail the speaker’s taxonomy constructionin a sample conversation, the papersystematicallyexploresthefollowing two topicsrelated to the speaker: what category characteristic he is orientingto as a resource for his present talkandwhat socialmeaning the speaker’s taxonomizing isconsistentlycommunicatingin the flow of talk. The proposed model captures a color binary–used to categorize people–of the ‘colored’versus the ‘white’, entailed in theexpression ‘a so-called yellowcolored people’,and reveals that the category pair is used as an organizational device in the speaker’s argument.The paper claims that taxonomy analysis in sequence is useful to examine the selected words in relation to their semiotic resources.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barnshaw, J
    (2008) ‘Race’. In R.T. Schaefer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. London: Sage Publication, pp. 1091-1093.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benedict, R
    (1940) Race and Racism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Billig, M
    (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilmes, J
    (2009) Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic. Journal of Pragmatics41: 1600-1610. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilmes, Jack
    (2010) Scaling as an aspect of formulation in Verbal Interaction. In the proceedings of the workshop of Language Learning and Socialization through Conversationsheld by Center for Human Activity Theory atKansai University , Suita, Osaka, Japan. pp. 3-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bilmes, J
    (2011) Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies34: 129-143. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9183‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9183-z [Google Scholar]
  7. Blumberg, A
    (1980) Supervisors & Teachers: A private cold war. Berkeley: McCutchan Pub. Corp.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chilton, P
    (1996) Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from containment to common house. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2004) Analyzing Political Discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clifton J
    (2009) A membership categorization analysis of the Waco Siege: Perpetrator-victim identity as a moral discrepancy device for ‘Doing’ Subversion’. Sociological ResearchOnline14.5: 8 http:/www.socresonline.org.uk/14/5/8.html
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cruse, A.D
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2004) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Edwards, D
    (1991) Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology1.4: 515-542. doi: 10.1177/0959354391014007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354391014007 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Egan, G
    (1975/1994) The Skilled Helper: A Systematic Approach to Effective Helping. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. El Refaie, E
    (2001) Metaphors we discriminate by: Naturalized themes in Austrian newspaper articles about asylum seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics5.3: 352-371. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00154
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00154 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fairclough, N
    (2003) Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fairclough, N. , and R. Wodak
    (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258-284.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Foster, J.D
    (2009) Defending whiteness indirectly: A synthetic approach to race discourse analysis. Discourse & Society20.6: 685-703. doi: 10.1177/0957926509342062
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509342062 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fredrickson, G.M
    (2002) Racism: A Short History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goatly, A
    (1997) The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203210000
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Ideology and metaphor. English Today 87(22)2: 25-38. doi: 10.1017/S0266078406003051
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078406003051 [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1961) Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17. (Reprinted(abridged) in G. Kress (ed.) (1976) Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers. Oxford University Press, pp. 52-72.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, M.A.K. , and C. Matthiessen
    (1999) Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayashi, R
    (2013) The third on the List: Occasioned social meanings of three-part-list construction, JELS 30 (Papers from the Thirtieth Conference of the English LinguisticSociety of Japan), pp. 50-57.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. . (to appear) Rekkyo to bunrui no esunoimiron [Ethno-semantics of listing and categorization]. InGengokenkyuuniokeru kakushin to keishou. Tokyo: Hituji shobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hayashi, R. , and T. Hayashi
    (2002) Duality and continuum in indirect talk: Linguistic style and gender in clinical supervision. In D.C.S. Li (ed.), Discourses in Search of Members: In honor of Ron Scollon. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, pp. 135-169.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hester, S. , and P. Eglin
    (1997) Culture in Action. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hester, S. , and S. Hester
    (2012) Categorical occasionality and transformation: Analyzing culture in action. Human Studies35: 563-581. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑012‑9211‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9211-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hill, H.J
    (2005) Nyuuyooku taimuzushi ni miru nihon –kansetuteki shihyousei no shouko toshiteno tekisutokan rensa. [Japan in New York Times –Intertexual series as an evidence of indirect indexicality]. In S. Ide , and M. Hiraga (eds.), Ibunka to Komyunikeeshon. [Different Cultures and Communication] Kouza Shakaigengo Kagaku. [Lectures on Sociolinguistic Science] vol. 1. Tokyo: Hituji Shobou, pp. 256-273.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jayyusi, L
    (1984) Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1991) Values and moral judgment:Communicative praxis as a moral order. In G. Button , Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227-251. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611827.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.011 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jeffries, L
    (2010) Opposition in Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiu, C. , and E. Tsui
    (2011) TaxoFolk: A hybrid taxonomy–folksonomy structure for knowledge classification and navigation. Expert Systems with Applications38: 6049-6058. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.014 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kasper, G. , and T.M. Prior
    (2014) Analyzing storytelling in TESOL interview research. TESOL QuarterlyApril (doi: dx.dpo.org/)
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, G. , and M. Johnson
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Leech
    (1974) Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lyons, J
    (1963) Structural Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  41. (1977) Semantics. vol.1Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Maynard, D
    (2011) On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies34.2: 199-207. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9188‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9188-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Moore J.H
    (2008) Introduction. In J.H. Moore (ed.), Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Macmillan Social Science Library, pp.XI-XIII.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Omoto, K
    (2002) Jinshu. [Race]. In T. Umezawa (ed. Supervisor) Sekai minzoku mondai jiten. [Encyclopedia of Ethnicity Problems in the World]. Tokyo: Heibonsha, pp. 450-452.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pearson, P.D. , and D.D. Johnson
    (1978) Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pomerantz, A
    (1980) Telling my side: "Limited access" as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry50. 3-4: 186-198. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  47. (1984) Pursuing a response. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-163.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pomerantz, A. , and A. Zemel
    (2003) Perspectives and frameworks in interviewers’ queries. In H. Van Den Berg , M. Wetherell , and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sacks, H
    (1972a) On the analizability of stories by children. In J.J. Gumperz , and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 329-345.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1972b) An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D.N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 31-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (1979) Hotrodder: Arevolutionary category .In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 7-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. London: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  53. Santa Anna O
    (1999) Like an animal I was treated: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society10.2: 191-224. doi: 10.1177/0957926599010002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schegloff, E.A
    (2007a) A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics39.3: 462-482. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schegloff, E
    (2007b) Categories in Action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies9.4: 433-461. doi: 10.1177/1461445607079162
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607079162 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schenkein, J
    (1978) Identity negotiations in conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 57-78. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50009‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50009-4 [Google Scholar]
  57. Semino, E. , and M. Masci
    (1996) Politics is football: Metaphor in the discourse of Silvio Berlusconi. Discourse & Society7.2: 243-269. doi: 10.1177/0957926596007002005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007002005 [Google Scholar]
  58. Silverman, D
    (1998) Harvey Sacks. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Urano, S.
    (2009) Ruikei kara shuudan e: Jinshu o meguru shakai to kagaku [From (physical) category to (statistical) group: Society and science on race]. In T. Sakai , S. Urano , H. Maeda , and K. Nakamura (eds.), Gainen Bunseki no Shakaigaku [Sociology of Concept Analysis]. Tokyo: Nakanishiya shuppan, pp. 10-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. van Dijk T.A
    (1987) Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1996) Discourse, power and access. In C. Caldas-Coulthard , and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 84-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. West, C. , and S. Fenstermaker
    (2002) Accountability in action: The accomplishment of gender, race and class in a meeting of the University of California Board of Regents. Discourse & Society13.4: 537-563. doi: 10.1177/0957926502013004455
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013004455 [Google Scholar]
  63. Whitehead, K.A. , G. Lerner
    and (2009) When are persons ‘white’?: On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse & Society20.5: 613-641. doi: 10.1177/0957926509106413
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509106413 [Google Scholar]
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