Resistance

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Resistance
Author(s):	Bogdana Huma (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-9580)
To cite:	Huma, Bogdana. (2023). Resistance. 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: 10.17605/OSF.IO/M4XKS

Resistance represents the interactional accomplishment whereby an individual temporarily suspends their partial or full collaboration with an interlocutor in the joint “definition of the situation” (Goffman 1959: 51), for example by disagreeing or disaffiliating with the interlocutor’s assertion or assessment, or by misaligning with the deontic or epistemic terms of the unfolding course of action (Humă, et al., frth.). Most forms of resistance are reactive to some prior action (though see Gill, et al. 2010 on pre-emptive resistance) and slow down or halt the progressivity of the ongoing course of action or activity (though see Zayts & Schnurr 2011 on medical providers’ resistance to clients’ refusal of genetic testing).

Within conversation analytic literature, the term “resistance” has been employed in various ways. Four main uses of “resistance” can be delineated, outlined below from narrow to broad.

(i) In its narrowest sense, resistance is understood as a type of responsive action, specifically as the dispreferred response type to directives and requests (Craven & Potter 2010; Kent 2012). In the extract below, resistance is exemplified by Jess’s “I: don’ want” (line 3) in response to Dad’s request that she finishes her fish.

(Kent 2012: 716)

01  Dad:    Er: (.) C’n yuh finish your fi:sh (.) 2 plea:se.
02          (0.2)
03  Jes: -> I: don’ want

(ii) More broadly, resistance has been used to describe one of the interactional effects accomplished by epistemically misaligned responses to questions. For example, Heritage and Raymond (2012) note that repeats in response to polar questions resist the constraints imposed by the questions (see also Lee 2015 for an analysis of resistant responses to polar questions in Korean). Similarly, Hayashi and Kushida (2013) found that iya-prefaced responses to wh-questions resist the epistemic stance of the question, its assumptions, the type of response that is solicited, or the larger course of action which the question is a part of. The latter is illustrated in line 4 below. By prefacing his response to Toshiki’s inquiry about the magazine issue with “iya” Diago displays his understanding of it as a preliminary to a larger course of action aimed at retrieving the magazine for Toshiki to read.

(Hayashi & Kushida 2013: 250)

01  Toshiki:    eh- (0.3) ↑kore tte ↑kono mae no sa- (0.4) kihuh
                this QT this before LK
                Huh- (0.3) Where is the previous issue of...

02              bun wa doko ni aru n. <<points at a comic magazine on the floor>>
                part TP where at exist FP 
                ...this ((comic magazine))?

03		 (0.7)

04  Daigo: ->   iya moo kukutte moota wa.
                already have.bound FP
                iya I’ve already bound it ((with other old magazines)).

Note that in this understanding, resistance can, but does not have to, be accomplished via a dispreferred responsive action.

(iii) Most frequently, the term “resistance” has been used to refer to the interactional effects of responsive actions that modify, partially fail to address, or outright discontinue the proposed or ongoing course of action or activity (Berger, et al. 2016; Glenn 2003; Muntigl 2023). In this understanding, resistance is “realized through acts of disconfirming or disagreeing, rejecting advice, or not providing a ‘relevant’ answer (i.e., avoidance)” (Muntigl 2013: 18) and it is linked to progressivity, affiliation, practical epistemics (Muntigl 2013) and deontics (Stivers & Timmermans 2020). In the extract below from a sales call, we see the prospect refusing to answer the salesperson’s information solicitation (lines 5-7). His non-answer frustrates the progress of the sale by not only thwarting the ongoing course of action, but also closing off avenues for future collaboration (Humă 2018).

(Humă 2018: 171)

01  Salesperson:    And so who [would ↑b]e the best person to .hh=
02  Prospect:                  [  Okay. ]
03  Salesperson:    =literally send an email to now and perhaps (then) 
04                  follow that up,.hh when the time co:mes as we’d 
05                  li[ke to] °review° [(                    )]
05  Prospect: ->      [We:ll]          [there wouldn’t be any:] (.) purpose
06                  behind it because we do have a: a longstanding contract, 

It is worth noting that responsive actions categorized as resistant differ in the extent to which they hinder progressivity, misalign with initiating actions, and display disaffiliation. For example, compared to rejections and refusals, that are disaffiliative, misaligning, and thwart the ongoing course of action, transformative answers, which resist a question’s design or/and agenda (Stivers & Hayashi 2010), can be less disaffiliative and misaligning. Stivers and Hayashi (2010) note that while transformative answers modify the project of the original question, they may do so in the interest of rendering it (more) “answerable”.

(iv) In its most comprehensive understanding, resistance has been defined as “an interactional phenomenon that impedes, or outrightly suspends attempts at sequential, social, or moral control over the target” (Joyce 2022: 232). Compared to (iii) this understanding of resistance also encompasses the pushback against the social and moral implications of the resisted courses of action. These implications – such as membership categorizations (Day 1998; Higgins 2007; Okazawa 2021) – are treated by the resistant party as unwarranted, unwanted, undesirable, or otherwise problematic. The following extract, taken from Joyce (2022: 239), illustrates resistance in a public dispute between two train passengers. Ann repeatedly resists (at lines 2, 6, 8, and 10) Sue’s enticements and, thus, hinders the progression of the enticing sequence (Reynolds 2011) and its categorial and moral implications of (not) having a job.

(Joyce 2022: 239)

01  Sue:     d↑o you ha↑ve a job?
02  Ann: ->  °do [  you°]
03  Sue:         [do you] wor:k yes I do >have a j’b<
04  Ann:     tha↑t’s good for [ yo↑u: ]
05  Sue:                      [d↑o you] ha↑ve a jo↑↑b?
06  Ann: ->  tha↑t’s good for yo↑u? O:h WOw:?
07  Sue:     do you work?
08  Ann: ->  O:h WOw:?=
09  Sue:     =>are you emp<loy:ed.=
10  Ann: ->  =round of app*lause for the working lady*
                          *clapping------------------*

Additional Related Entries:

• Affiliation
• Alignment
• Deontics
• Directive
• Epistemics
• Membership categorization
• Preference
• Progressivity

Cited References:

Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442.

Berger, I., Kitzinger, C., & Ellis, S. J. (2016). Using a category to accomplish resistance in the context of an emergency call: Michael Jackson’s doctor. Pragmatics, 26(4), 563–582.

Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442.

Day, D. (1998). Being ascribed and resisting membership in an ethnic group. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in Talk (pp. 151–170). Sage.

Gill, V. T., Pomerantz, A., & Denvir, P. (2010). Pre-emptive resistance: patients’ participation in diagnostic sense-making activities. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(1), 1–20.

Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday Anchor Books.

Hayashi, M., & Kushida, S. (2013). Responding with resistance to Wh-questions in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46(3), 231–255.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruitier (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press.

Higgins, C. (2007). Constructing membership in the in-group: Affiliation and resistance among urban Tanzanians. Pragmatics, 17(1), 49–70.

Humă, B. (2018). The Interactional Organisation of Initial Business-to-Business Sales Calls with Prospective Clients. Ph.D. dissertation, Loughborough University.

Humă, B., Joyce, J. B., & Raymond, G. (frth.). What does 'resistance' actually look like? The respecification of resistance as an interactional accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.

Joyce, J. B. (2022). Resistance in public disputes: Third-turn blocking to suspend progressivity. Discourse Studies, 24(2), 231–248.

Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 711–730.

Lee, S.-H. (2015). Acquiescence and resistance in disconfirming responses to polar questions. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 124–142.

Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: requences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 49(1), 18–37.

Muntigl, P. (2023). Extended disaffiliation: Withdrawing and opposing. In Interaction in Psychotherapy: Managing Relationships in Emotion-focused Treatments of Depression. Cambridge University Press.

Okazawa, R. (2021). Resisting categorization in interaction: Membership categorization analysis of sitcom humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 33–44.

Reynolds, E. (2011). Enticing a challengeable in arguments: Sequence, epistemics and preference organisation. Pragmatics, 21(3), 411–430.

Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1–25.

Stivers, T., & Timmermans, S. (2020). Authority under siege: How clinicians transform patient resistance into acceptance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(1), 60–78.

Zayts, O., & Schnurr, S. (2011). Laughter as medical providers’ resource: Negotiating informed choice in prenatal genetic counseling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(1), 1–20.

Additional References:

Bloch, S., & Antaki, C. (2022). How professionals deal with clients’ explicit objections to their advice. Discourse Studies, 24(4), 385–403.

Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403–442.

Clark, C., Drew, P., & Pinch, T. (1994). Managing customer ‘objections’ during real-life sales negotiations. Discourse & Society, 5(4), 437–462.

Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: Identity, expertise, and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141–168.