On some occasions of self-reference there can be two equally viable forms available to speakers: individual self-reference (e.g. `I') and collective self-reference (e.g. `we'). This means that selection of one or the other in talk-in-interaction can — akin to the selection of terms for reference to non-present persons — be guided by such considerations as recipient design and action formation. As a strategy for investigating the selection of self-reference terms, this article examines repairs to self-reference that change the form of reference from individual to collective and vice versa. We first identify two repair operations found in the domain of self-reference: aggregation (of an individual to a collectivity) and extraction (of an individual from a collectivity) and then we track the use of both operations across a range of positions in the repair initiation opportunity space (and as embedded correction). Finally we consider some of the interactional uses of aggregation and extraction repairs in resolving (and thereby exhibiting) sources of troubles associated with speaker epistemic authority and responsibility for described actions.
Bull, P. and Fetzer, A. (2006) `Who are We and Who are You? The Strategic Use of Forms of Address in Political Interviews' , Text Talk26(1): 3—37 .
2.
Buttny, R. (2004) Talking Problems: Studies of Discursive Construction . Albany: State University of New York Press .
3.
Clayman, S.E. (1992) `Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News Interview Discourse', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 163—98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
4.
Drew, P. (1991) `Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions' , in I. Markovà and K. Foppa (eds) Asymmetries in Dialogue, pp. 29—48. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
5.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) `Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 3—65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
6.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London : Sage .
7.
Enfield, N.J. (2007) `Meanings of the Unmarked: How ``Default'' Person Reference Does More than Just Refer', in N.J. Enfield and T. Stivers (eds) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, pp. pp. 97—120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
8.
Fasulo, A. and Zucchermaglio, C. (2002) ` My Selves and I: Markers in Work Meeting Talk', Journal ofPragmatics34: 1119—44 .
9.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Free Press .
10.
Goffman, E. (1981) `Footing' , in Forms of Talk, pp. 124—59 . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press .
11.
Goodwin, C. (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press .
12.
Hanks, W.F. (1990) Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
13.
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005) ` The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences' , Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15—38 .
14.
Jefferson, G. (1974) ` Error Correction as an Interactional Resource' , Language in Society2: 181—99 .
15.
Jefferson, G. (1986) `Colligation as a Device for Minimizing Repair or Disagreement' , paper presented at the Talk and Social Structure Conference, Santa Barbara, CA.
16.
Jefferson, G. (1987) `On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation' , in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organization, pp. 86—100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters .
17.
Jefferson, G. , Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E.A. (1987) `Notes on Laughter in the Pursuit of Intimacy', in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organization, pp. 152—205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters .
18.
Kamio, A. (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam : John Benjamins .
19.
Kitzinger,C. ( 2005a) `HeteronormativityinAction:ReproducingNormative Heterosexuality in “After Hours” Calls to the Doctor' , Social Problems52(4) (special section: Language Interaction and Social Problems): 477—98 .
20.
Kitzinger, C. (2005b) `Speaking as a Heterosexual: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-interaction' , Research on Language and Social Interaction38(3): 221—65 .
21.
Kitzinger, C. and Lerner, G.H. (forthcoming) `“We're Pregnant”: Crossing the Biological Divide.'
22.
Labov, W. (1972) `Rules for Ritual Insults', in D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction , pp. 120—69. New York: Free Press .
23.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation . New York: Academic Press .
24.
Lerner, G.H. (1992) ` Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter', QualitativeSociology15: 247—71 .
25.
Lerner, G.H. (1996a) `On the “Semi-permeable” Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker', in E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds) Interaction and Grammar, pp. 238—76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
26.
Lerner, G.H. (1996b) `“ Finding Face” in the Preference Structures of Talk in Interaction ', Social Psychology Quarterly59: 303—21 .
27.
Lerner, G.H. (2001) `The Search for Delicate Formulations: A Social Convention for Collaborative Indiscretion.'Paper presented at the meetings of the American Sociological Association, Chicago.
28.
Lerner, G.H. (2004) `Collaborative Turn Sequences', in G.H. Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 225—56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
29.
Lerner, G.H. and Kitzinger, C. (2007) `Relational Disaggregation: Some Uses of Both in References to Two-Person Collectivities.' San Francisco, CA: International Communication Association .
30.
Levinson, S.C. (1988) `Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman's Concepts of Participation', in P. Drew and A.J. Wootton (eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 161—227. Cambridge: Polity Press .
31.
Maynard, D. (1984) Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation . New York: Plenum .
32.
McHoul, A. and Rapley, M. (2002) ` Should We Make a Start Then: A Strange Case of (Delayed) Client-initiated Psychological Assessment' , Research on Language and Social Interaction35(1): 73—91 .
33.
Oh, S.-Y. (2006) ` English Zero Anaphora as an Interactional Resource II ', Discourse Studies8: 817—46 .
34.
Pomerantz, A.M. (1980) ` Telling My Side: “Limited Access” as a Fishing Device ', Sociological Inquiry50: 186—98 .
35.
Pomerantz, A.M. (1986) ` Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims', HumanStudies9: 219—30 .
36.
Raymond, G. (2003) ` Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding' , American Sociological Review68: 939—67 .
37.
Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006) ` The Epistemics of Social Relationships: Owning Grandchildren' , Language in Society35(5): 677—705 .
38.
Sacks, H. (1972a) `An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology', in D. Sudnow (ed) Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 31—74. New York: Free Press .
39.
Sacks, H. (1972b) `On the Analyzability of Stories by Children' , in J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 325—45. New York : Rinehart Winston .
40.
Sacks, H. (1986) ` Some Considerations of a Story Told in Ordinary Conversation' , Poetics15: 127—38 .
41.
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols, ed. G. Jefferson; with an introduction by E.A. SchegloffOxford: Basil Blackwell .
42.
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E.A. (1979) ` Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Per sons in Conversation and theirInteraction', in G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology , pp. 15—21 . New York : Irvington .
43.
Schegloff, E.A. (1979) `The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation' , in T. Givon (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 261—88. New York: Academic Press .
44.
Schegloff, E.A. (1989) `Reflection on Language, Development and the Interactional Character of Talk-in-interaction', in M. Bornstein and J.S. Bruner (eds) Interaction in Human Development, pp. 139—53. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
45.
Schegloff, E.A. (1996a) `Some Practices of Referring to Persons in Talk in interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics', in B. Fox (ed) Studies in Anaphora, pp. 437—85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
46.
Schegloff, E.A. (1996b) ` Confirming Allusions: Towards an Empirical Account of Action ', American Journal of Sociology104: 161—216 .
47.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007) `Conveying Who You Are: The Presentation of Self, Strictly Speaking', in N.J. Enfield and T. Stivers (eds) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, pp. 123—48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
48.
Schegloff, E.A. , Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) ` The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation' , Language53: 361—82 .
49.
Silverman, D. (1987) Communication and Medical Practice. London: Sage .
50.
Stanley, S. and Billig, M. (2004) `Dilemmas of Storytelling and Identity', in C. Daiute and C. Lightfoot (eds) Narrative Analysis: Studying the Development of Individuals in Society, pp. 159—76. London: Sage .
51.
Stivers, T. (2007) `Alternative Recognitionals in Person Reference' , in N.J. Enfield and T. Stivers (eds) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, pp. 73—96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
52.
Whalen, M.R. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1990) ` Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police ', Language in Society19: 465—92 .
53.
Wilkinson, S. and Kitzinger, C. (2003) `Constructing Identities: A Feminist Conversation Analytic Approach to Positioning in Action', in R. Harré and F. Moghaddam (eds) The Self and Others: Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal, Political and Cultural Contexts, pp. 157—80. Westport, CT: Praeger .
54.
Wilkinson, S. and Kitzinger, C. (2006) `Surprise as an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation' , Social Psychology Quarterly69(2): 150—82 .
