Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1571-0718
  • E-ISSN: 1571-0726
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper maintains that the interview, understood as an interactionally achieved social practice, can be a locus for ideological work. It shows how a differentiated understanding of stance, alignment and the discourse identities that the participants assume and leave in interaction, can bring into focus aspects of ideology that would be difficult to capture otherwise. Specifically, the paper shows how mis- and realigning actions with respect to the stances conveyed by the interview participants relative to a given subject or from a given discourse identity can lead to the construction of ideology, encouraging (or not) movement along a given interview trajectory. The ideological work observed is contingent on how the participants locate themselves and others in the interview where tensions between legitimised linguistic views and discourse identity adoption, as well as contradictions with regard to other circulating discourses emerge. The paper thus suggests that (language ideological) analyses of interview data can and should be focused on the social dynamics of the participants and how their ideological presuppositions play out in the situated interaction of the interview.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Blommaert, Jan
    2010The Sociolinguistics of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511845307
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845307 [Google Scholar]
  2. Briggs, Charles
    1986Learning How to Ask
A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165990 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cicourel, Aaron Victor
    1964Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Consejería de Asuntos Sociales, Comunidad de Madrid
    Consejería de Asuntos Sociales, Comunidad de Madrid enero 2013, Informe de la población extranjera empadronada en la Comunidad de Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. De Fina, Anna and Sabina Perrino
    (2011) “Introduction: Interviews vs. ‘natural’ contexts: A false dilemma.” Language in Society40: 1–11. doi: 10.1017/S0047404510000849
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000849 [Google Scholar]
  6. Del Valle, José
    2007La Lengua Patria Común. Ideas e Ideologías del Español. Berlin: Verveurt/Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Du Bois, Jack
    2007 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interactioned by R. Englebreston , 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  8. Drew, Paul
    2003 “Precision and Exaggeration in Interaction.” American Sociological Review68: 917–938. doi: 10.2307/1519751
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519751 [Google Scholar]
  9. García Ballesteros, Aurora , Beatriz Jiménez Basco and Angela Redondo González
    2009 “La inmigración latinoamericana en la España del siglo XXI.” Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, UNAM70: 55–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, Erving
    1959The presentation of self in everyday life. USA: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Grice, Paul
    1976 “Logic in conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics: Speech Acts 3ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan , 41–49. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Heritage, John
    2013 “Epistemics in Interaction.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysised. by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers , 370–394. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Holstein, James and Jaber Gubrium
    1995The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412986120
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120 [Google Scholar]
  14. Holt, Elizabeth and Rebecca Clift
    2007Reporting Talk: reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Irvine, Judith
    2012 Language Ideology. Oxford Bibliographies Online. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199766567‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0012 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jaffe, Alexandra
    2009Stance. Sociolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kockleman, Paul
    2012 Review of ‘Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives’by Alexandra Jaffe (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology2: E105–E118.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Labov, William and Joshua Waletzky
    1967/1997 “Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience.” InEssays on the Verbal and Visual Artsed. by Helm, June , 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lerner, Gene
    2004 “Collaborative turn sequences.” 350–369. InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generationed. by G. H. Lerner , 227–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.12ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler [Google Scholar]
  20. Lindström, Ann and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2013 “Affiliation in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysised. by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers , 350–369. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Márquez Reiter, Rosina
    2011Mediated Business Interactions. Intercultural Communication between Speakers of Spanish. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Márquez Reiter, Rosina and Luisa Martín Rojo
    2015 “The Dynamics of (Im)Mobility. (In)Transient capitals and linguistic ideologies among Latin American migrants in London and Madrid.” InA Sociolinguistics of Diaspora: Latino Practices, Identities and Ideologiesed. by Márquez Reiter, R. and L. Martín Rojo , 83–101. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Martín Criado, Enrique
    2014 “Mentiras, inconsistencias y ambivalencias. Teoría de la acción y análisis de discurso.” Revista Internacional de Sociología72: 115–138. doi: 10.3989/ris.2012.07.24
    https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2012.07.24 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mazeland, Harrie
    2004 “Responding to the double implication of telemarketers’ opinion queries.” Discourse Studies6: 95–115. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039443
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039443 [Google Scholar]
  25. McIlwaine, Cathy , Juan Camilo Cock , and Brian Linneker
    2011No Longer Invisible: The Latin American Community in London. London: Trust for London.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moreno Fernández, Francisco and Irene Moreno Martín de Nicolás
    2011 “Dinámica perceptiva de la entrevista sociolingüística.” InRealismo en el análisis de corpus oralesed. by P. Martín Butragueño , 457–490. México, El Colegio de México.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Office for National Statistics, UK Census
    Office for National Statistics, UK Census 2011 www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html
  28. Ochs, Elinor
    1986 From Feelings to Grammar: A Samoan Case study. InLanguage Socialization across Culturesed. by B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs , 251–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. O’Rourke, Bernadette , Joan Pujolar and Fernando Ramallo
    2015 “New speakers of minority languages: the challenging opportunity–Foreword.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language231: 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims”. Human Studies9: 219–229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rapley, Timothy
    2011 “The art(fullness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews.” Qualitative Research1: 303–323. doi: 10.1177/146879410100100303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100303 [Google Scholar]
  32. Robinson, Jeffrey , D. Kevoe-Feldman and Heidi Kevoe-Feldman
    2010 “Using full repeats to initiate repair on other’s questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43: 232–259. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2010.497990
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 [Google Scholar]
  33. Robson, Catherine , Paul Drew and Markus Reuber
    2016 “The role of companions in outpatient seizure clinic interactions: A pilot study.” Epilepsy & Behaviour60: 86–93.10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.04.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Roulston, Kathryn
    2006 “Close encounters of the ‘CA’ kind: a review of literature analysing talk in research interviews.” Qualitative Research6: 515–314. doi: 10.1177/1468794106068021
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106068021 [Google Scholar]
  35. Seale, Clive
    (ed) 1998Researching Society and Culture. Sage: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schegloff, Emanuel
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  37. Silverstein, Michael
    2003 “Indexicals orders and the dialect of sociolinguistic life.” Language & Communication23: 193–229. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(03)00013‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, alignment and affiliation during story-telling: When nodding is a token of affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41:31–57. doi: 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stokes, Randall and John Hewitt
    1976 “Aligning actions.” American Sociological Review41: 838–849. doi: 10.2307/2094730
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2094730 [Google Scholar]
  40. Svennevig, Jan
    2008 “Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 333–348. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Talmy, Steven
    2010 “Qualitative Interviews in Applied Linguistics: From Research Instrument to Social Practice.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics30: 128–148. doi: 10.1017/S0267190510000085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000085 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomson, Sandra A. , Barbara A. Fox and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk. Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  43. Walton, Shana and Alexandra Jaffe
    2011 “Stuff White People Like: Stance, Class, Race, and Internet Commentary.” InDigital Discourseed. by C. Thurlow and K. Mroczek . 287–301Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Woolard, Kathryn and Bambi, Schieffelin
    1994 “Language ideology.” Annual Review of Anthropology23: 55–82. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415 [Google Scholar]
  45. Zentella, Ana Celia
    2007 “Dime con quién hablas y te diré quién eres: Linguistic (In)security and Latino Unity.” InThe Blackwell Companion to Latino Studiesed. by Juan Flores and Renato Rosaldo , 25–39. MA: Blackwell: Malden.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zimmerman, Don
    1998 “Identity, Context and Interaction.” InIdentities in Talked. by C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe , 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alignment , discourse identity , ideology , Latin American migrants and stance
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