In this response article, I focus on two issues. First, I discuss the problem, raised by the commentators, of ‘categorial ambiguity’ in membership categorization analysis, and make suggestions about how to approach it. Second, I argue that, as conversation analysts have demonstrated the ‘systematics’ of interactional practices, membership categorization analysis should also begin to build a robust corpus of studies of ‘categorial systematics’.
BenwellBMStokoeE (2010) Identity in social action: Conversation, narratives and genealogies. In: WetherellMMohantyCT (eds) The Sage Handbook of Identities. London: SAGE, pp. 56–77.
2.
EdwardsD (2005) Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies7(1): 5–29.
3.
HeritageJ (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
4.
HeritageJRaymondG (forthcoming) Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In: de RuiterJP (ed.) Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
HesterSEglinP (eds) (1997) Culture In Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Boston, MA: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and University Press of America.
6.
PomerantzAMandelbaumJ (2005) Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In: FitchKLSandersRE (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 149–171.
7.
RaymondGHeritageJ (2006) The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society35(5): 677–705.
8.
SacksH (1992) Lectures on Conversation, vols I and II, ed. JeffersonG. Oxford: Blackwell.
9.
SchegloffEA (1992) Introduction. In: SacksH, Lectures on Conversation, vols I and II, ed. JeffersonG. Oxford: Blackwell.
