Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Data and transcription
- 1 An introduction to conversation and gender
- Part I Gender, person reference and self-categorization
- Part II Gender, repair and recipient design
- 5 ‘Girl – woman – sorry!’: On the repair and non-repair of consecutive gender categories
- 6 Gender, routinization and recipient design
- 7 Recipients designed: Tag questions and gender
- Part III Gender and action formation
- Part IV Gender identities and membership categorization practices
- References
- Author index
- Subject index
6 - Gender, routinization and recipient design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Data and transcription
- 1 An introduction to conversation and gender
- Part I Gender, person reference and self-categorization
- Part II Gender, repair and recipient design
- 5 ‘Girl – woman – sorry!’: On the repair and non-repair of consecutive gender categories
- 6 Gender, routinization and recipient design
- 7 Recipients designed: Tag questions and gender
- Part III Gender and action formation
- Part IV Gender identities and membership categorization practices
- References
- Author index
- Subject index
Summary
Introduction
In organizational contexts – such as medical consultations, emergency calls or health-visitor interactions – each service provider interacts, over time, with successive individual clients in order to achieve a set of identical institutional tasks. Although for each client their case is unique and personal, from the organizational perspective most clients are ‘routine cases’, and ‘all agencies have procedures for the routine management of multiple cases, for “processing” cases by assigning them to routine categories and so on’ (Drew & Heritage, 1992a: 51). Even (or perhaps especially) in situations that are very traumatic for the individual client concerned, service providers use routine interactional procedures to accomplish their institutional goals, such that analysts working with institutional talk are likely to find ‘a “density” or concentration of repeatedly deployed particular conversational machinery’ (Zimmerman, 1992b: 459–60) in these interactions. Analysis of calls for emergency assistance, for example, shows common ‘interrogative-insertion’ sequences, designed to elicit repair on or verification of a prior turn (Zimmerman, 1992b); and medical encounters in which doctors tell parents that their children have developmental disabilities commonly show a routinized ‘perspective display series’, designed to elicit from the parent their view of the child's disability in the hope that the medical diagnosis can be done as an agreement with the parents' views (Maynard, 1992). Across multiple different interactions, then, the same protocol is followed, the same kinds of questions asked, the same advice proffered, the same ‘conversational machinery’ employed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conversation and Gender , pp. 112 - 134Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
- 11
- Cited by