Recognitional
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Recognitional | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Luis Manuel Olguín (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026) |
| To cite: | Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2025). Recognitional. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ] |
Recognitionals are referring expressions designed to invite an addressee’s identification of a referent, like a person or a place (Sacks 1992, II: 444-52; Schegloff 1972: 91-3; Sacks & Schegloff 1979: 17; Schegloff 1996: 458-65; Stivers, Enfield & Levinson 2007: 10-2; Enfield & San Roque 2017). For example, the name “Tilcara” in Extract (1) is used as a recognitional place formulation to refer to the Argentinian city in which Diana observes, as she shares stories with fellow travelers, there is “lots of paint” during carnival season. By not problematizing the place reference and rather developing the telling to note that “[people] throw paint at you,” Isaac (at lines 2 and 4) and Carlos (line 5) tacitly confirm recognition of the place.
(1) [CCELE: Tres amigues argentines; ISA: Isaac; CAR: Carlos; DIA: Diana]
01 DIA: ((...)) h. ^En Tilcara pasaba eso t- (.) pintura: full.=
h. In Tilcara that would happen (.) lots of paint
02 ISA: =%[A:já sí [^te tiran.
[Uhu [yes they throw it at you
isa %rise eyebrows–-->
03 DIA: [ .hh [En Humahuaca no ha[bía pintura.
In Humahuaca there was no paint
04 ISA: [°Te [tiran°.
°They throw it at you°
05 CAR: [Te tiran.
They throw it at you
In an influential study, Sacks and Schegloff (1979) use the term recognitional to describe “a preference for recognitionals” that, along with a preference for minimization, operates when referring to persons in conversation. The authors discuss the preference for recognitionals as a specification of the general preference for recipient-design (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974: 727). Because the referential efficacy of recognitionals requires mutual orientation by speaker and addressee to shared knowledge about an intended referent (see, e.g., Schegloff 1996: 459 for recognition in person reference; Schegloff 1972: 91-2 for place reference; and Raymond & White 2021: 3-5, 2022, for time references), analyzing how recognitionals are used in talk-in-interaction offers us a window into the situated management of “common ground” (Clark 2020), social relationships (e.g., Enfield 2007; Stivers 2007), and norms and preferences at the bedrock of conversational interaction (e.g., Levinson 2007).
Recognitional forms for third person reference include personal names (e.g. Karen); kin terms (e.g. Dad); certain person descriptions (also called “recognitional descriptions” or “descriptors” in Schegloff 1996; “descriptive recognitionals” in Stivers 2007; see also “recognition-type descriptions” for places in Sacks 1992, II: 180), which are typically designed as definite noun phrases (e.g. that fellow who used to sit back of you); and pronouns, although these are uncommon in initial references (see Schegloff 1996: 450-8 for a discussion of locally initial and subsequent reference forms and positions). When a speaker might not be sure whether a recognitional will work to prompt referent identification, a practice known as try-marking is commonly used (Sacks & Schegloff 1979: 18). In the following extract, at line 4, Dee tries the relational term + the name “Jo” as a recognitional by marking it with rising intonation, thereby initiating a “recognition search sequence” (Sacks & Schegloff 1979:20), which continues with the elaboration on the reference at line 6, and ends with the recipient’s claiming recognition at line 7 (see Heritage 2007: 262 for an analysis).
(2) (Heritage 2007: 262) 01 Dee: And up in the North a little bi[:t 02 Mar: [The: they uh theh- 03 Mar: Ye:s.[h.hhh< 04 Dee: -> [B’t I wz talking to my cousin Jo? 05 (.) 06 Dee: -> you know [’oo lives in Lancashire .hhhh uhghhuh on 07 Mar: => [eYe:h? 08 =Sun:dee. An’ I mean u-he:r house. is very very 09 similar to (0.2) ou#rs.
In contrast to recognitional reference forms, non-recognitionals treat the recipient as not knowing or not requiring to know the referent for all practical purposes. According to Schegloff (1996), what he terms “prototypical simple non-recognitional reference forms,” which he exemplifies with referring expressions such as “someone” or “this woman,” do nothing more than conveying “non-recognitionality” (p.459). Yet some authors have suggested that including membership categories in the design of non-recognitionals and even when using generic reference forms, a speaker can do more than simply orient to non-recognitionality (see e.g. Kitzinger 2007; Stockill & Kitzinger 2007; Whitehead & Lerner 2020).
As shown by Sacks and Schegloff (1979) and research sparked by their pioneering work (see, e.g., Enfield & Stivers 2007; Lerner & Kitzinger 2007; Enfield 2012, and works cited therein), if possible, recognitionals are preferred for doing initial reference to persons, that is, for introducing a new person referent to the conversation. Sacks and Schegloff (1979) also note that, in English, names appear to be commonly selected for doing initial reference because they simultaneously satisfy a preference for recognition and minimization. Schegloff (1996) goes on to suggest that names would be preferred over descriptive recognitionals in ordinary conversation (p. 460-4). Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies show that names are indeed commonly used for initial reference compared to other recognitional forms (Stivers, Enfield & Levinson 2007: 13). Yet the selection of and preference for names vis-à-vis other recognitionals appear to vary across languages and cultures, especially when other preferences, like association of the referent to conversational participants (e.g., Brown 2007, Hanks 2007) and circumspection relative to cultural norms (e.g., naming taboos, Levinson 2007) operate concurrently along recognition and minimization.
Being preferred, names are typically unmarked recognitionals for initial reference. This means that by using a name the speaker does nothing more than referring (“simple reference” or “reference simpliciter” in Schegloff 1996; cf. Enfield 2007). Departing from using names will then be inspected by recipients for the work the other-than-a-name recognitional expression is set to accomplish in addition to doing reference. For example, using a pronoun for introducing a new referent to the conversation conveys to an addressee that they are capable of recognizing the referent by orienting to pending or ongoing matters in the community or between those speaking (see Schegloff 1996: 451 for some examples). Termed by Stivers (2007), “alternative recognitionals” are another way to do more than simple reference. When the unmarked recognitional form is available to participants, alternative recognitionals “are designed to be fitted specifically to the action in which they are embedded and therefore to work to convey the action or account for it” (p.94). Stivers describes four types of alternative recognitionals (i.e., addressee-associated, speaker-associated, demonstrative prefaced descriptions, and ‘in the know’ reference forms) which vary according to the degree of attributed responsibility and closeness between interactants. An example of a recipient-associated alternative recognitional is given in the extract below. Instead of using “Alene” or “Aunt Alene,” which are available and would be unmarked for mother and daughter speaking, Nicole uses “your s:ister” to refer to her aunt in the course of initiating a complaint about her.
(3) (Stivers 2007: 78) 01 MOM: H=hhah::: boy. 02 MOM: Y’know ah wuz thinkin maybe some uh that 03 stuff would be cheaper at uh 04 NIC: hhhh 05 MOM: Costcos, ((N smiling)) 06 (1.3) 07 NIC: Which stuff. ((possible smile voice)) 08 (1.6) 09 MOM: so- what are you grinnin’ (cuz you picked) 10 [( ) 11 NIC: -> [Cuz yer s:ister been on the phone all 12 mo:rnin’ an’ I told’er- 13 MOM: ^Which o:ne. 14 NIC: Aunt Ale:ne? [I got a cramp in my= 15 MOM: [hehhehhehhehhehheh 16 NIC: =ne:(h)ck ‘n I gotta g(h)o. 17 NIC: so–= 18 MOM: =^Whut did she [want. 19 NIC: [Sh:e wanted=tuh=w=uh 20 everything. (...)
Finally, the term “recognitional” is also used to describe self-reference frames that invite speaker identification by the addressed recipient. As Schegloff (1972:90) notes using data from phone call openings in English, whereas the frame “My name is X” presents the speaker as unknown to the call answerer, “This is X” invites recognition by orienting to possible familiarity (see also, Whitehead and Lerner 2022; and Schegloff 1979 and 2007 for an investigation of recognition in phone call openings).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Clark, H. H. (2020). Common Ground. In J. Stanlaw (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology (1st ed.) (pp. 1–5). Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, P. (2007). Principles of person reference in Tzeltal conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction. Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 172–202). Cambridge.
Enfield, N. J. (2007). Meanings of the unmarked: How “default” person reference does more than just refer. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp. 97–120). Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N. J. (2012). Reference in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
Enfield, N. J., & San Roque, L. (2017). Place Reference in Interaction. Open Linguistics 3, 582–90.
Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. E., & Fox, B. A. (1996). Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had, a beautiful, thirty-two O:lds. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora. John Benjamins.
Hanks, W. F. (2007). Person reference in Yucatec Maya conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp. 149–171). Cambridge.
Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Introduction: Person-reference in conversation analytic research. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 427–432.
Levinson, S. C. (2007). Optimizing person reference: Perspectives from usage on Rossel Island. In N.J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp. 29–72). Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, C. W., & Olguín, L. M. (2022). Análisis de la Conversación: Fundamentos, metodología y alcances. Routledge.
Raymond, C. W., & White, A. E. C. (2017). Time reference in the service of social action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(2), 109–131.
Raymond, C. W., & White, A. E. C. (2022). On the recognitionality of references to time in social interaction. Language & Communication, 83, 1-15.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Blackwell.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington Publishers.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 75–119). Free Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Conveying who you are: The presentation of self, strictly speaking. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T. (2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives (pp. 73–96). Cambridge University Press.
Stockill, C, & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Gendered ‘People’: How Linguistically Non-Gendered Terms Can Have Gendered Interactional Relevance. Feminism & Psychology 17(2), 224–36.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N.J. & Levinson, S.C. (2007). Person reference in interaction. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp. 1–20). Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, K. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2020). Referring to somebody: Generic person reference as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 161, 46–56.
Whitehead, K. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2022). When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation. Language in Society, 51(3), 403–426.
Additional References:
