MODELO DE SIMULACIÓN DE CONTROL ESCALAR PARA MAQUINA DE INDUCCIÓN

The turns-at-talk which precede the production of linguistically “classed” categories furnish a routine locus for ontological work. This may occur within the turn-constructional unit (hereafter, TCU; see Sacks et al., 1974) that precedes the production of the linguistically “classed” category or can be explicated over several anterior turns-at-talk. Extracts 15-17 illustrate this pattern.

Extract 15: SWB2446

((A telephone-call. Sandra and Richard have discussed American foreign policy. Richard has recalled his experience in South America.))

Ric: .hh Well you were in (.) ↑Chile¿

group in the sense tha- ((Voice creaks.)) that

San: Þ =working actually in the house and ↓home 129

The linguistically “classed” category in focus is ‘the ↑middle ↓class:.’ (ls. 132-133) produced by Sandra. The focal sequence begins as Sandra adheres to Richard’s

“itemised news enquiry” (l. 99; see Button and Casey, 1985: e.g. 6), concerning her time in Chile. In this telling, Sandra disconfirms the expectation that she came into contact with many Americans, recalling only the high density that accompanied her as part of her company (ls. 103-108). Continuing, Sandra enacts a move that is comparable to “defensive detailing” (see Jefferson, 1985a: e.g. 444): She reports that the company embodies different connotations today than it did when she was a member; specifically, the connotations of “not-working/skiving/truancy” are positioned as new acquisitions, and which did not obtain during her tenure (see ls.

115-121 and 123-125). Here, Sandra then transitions (i.e. ‘an-’ [l. 127]; ‘actually’ [l.

129]; see C. Goodwin, 1979: 111; Clift, 2001) into a topically-related telling concerning her role within the organisation. This is the backdrop against which the linguistically “classed” membership category, ‘the ↑middle ↓class:.’ (ls. 132-133), is produced.

Like Extracts 11-14, this linguistically “classed” category verbalises its “classed”

hearability at its point of production through the inclusion of the term ‘↓class:.’ (l.

133). Sandra, however, does not self-explicate how concept and device is relevantly understood on this occasion – nor how it is delimited by this particular (i.e. ‘↑middle’

[l. 133]) gradation. In this case, how “social class” is understood appears to be furnished, instead, through Sandra’s preceding turns-at-talk. Firstly, this includes a designedly derivative assessment, ‘So. (.) that was quite ↑specialised.’ (ls. 130-131).

113 This upshot specifies the nature of the work in which Sandra was involved.

Accordingly, by explicitly categorising that same population as ‘the ↑middle ↓class:.’

(ls. 132-133), Sandra makes available “the-specialised-nature-of-working-in-the-House-and-Home-programme” ¹¹⁴ as grounds by reference to which the category can be understood. The second feature, in contrast, invokes a disjunctive state of affairs.

This is one with which incumbency in the linguistically “classed” membership category is expressly (i.e. ‘Although’ [l. 131]) contrasted: ‘=Although I was living in the ↑slums:: I was (0.2) really working with the ↑middle ↓class:.’ (ls. 131-133). This component, as an ‘asymmetrical contrastive pair’ (Whitehead and Lerner, 2009: 616), demarcates what is explicitly not encapsulated within the category of ‘the ↑middle

↓class:.’ (ls. 132-133); in this case, again, ‘living in the ↑slums::’ (ls. 131-132). ¹¹⁵

Thus, it is Sandra’s upshot (ls. 130-131), in addition to her contrast (ls. 131-132), which indicate how her avowedly “classed” membership category can be understood on this occasion. Again, this pertains to the “specialised-nature-of-working-in-the-House-and-Home-Programme”, and “not-living-in-the-slums”; a unique ontology of

“social class”. These two features are instantiated over her preceding turns-at-talk and are positioned by Sandra such that they are accommodated by her linguistically

“classed” membership category. Some indication is therefore provided of the operative ontology that underlies this category prior to its production. However, the status of these features remains equivocal. For example, they are neither positioned explicitly as a/the “constitutive” component(s) of the category (see Jayyusi, 2014

113 On “So”, as upshot adumbrative, see, e.g., G. Raymond (2004: 186-189).

114 This has been anonymised.

115 For the inverse, retrospective operation of this practice, see §5.5.3.2.

[1984]: 25-26), nor as explicitly “bound” (e.g. Sacks, 1974 [1972]: 221-224) to or

“generated” thereby (see R. Turner, 1970: n.p.g. [EJBH: 184] in Jayyusi, 2014 [1984]:

37). They are simply employed, instead, to describe the same population to which Sandra has previously referred. They are treated as practically synonymous, to this effect. ¹¹⁶

Two comparable cases in which co-interlocutors encapsulate ontologies through the talk that precedes the (co-)production of linguistically “classed” categories are presented in Extracts 16 and 17.

Extract 16: UCDiscLab [Bar]

((A face-to-face interaction; audio-only. Hugh has topicalised Roger’s hitherto unsuccessful efforts at starting a relationship with Maggie, a non-present party.))

Hug: Þ Because she never (di) ↑really have a job::.

127 linguistically non-“classed” categories, see Whitehead (2013: 53-54).

Hug: And she’s trying to snag a guy that’s really way 131

up there.

132

(0.2) 133

Jac: Yeah.

134

(0.8) 135

Hug: An’ (.) all power to her.=but at the same time is 136

there’s ( ) you gotta go for a (0.2) 137

( ) (packer) right¿

138

(1.1) 139

Jac: I ↑think so.

140

(1.7) 141

Jac: I don’t think she thinks so.

142

The linguistically “classed” category here is ‘upper middle ↑Cla:ss.’ (l. 129). This category is produced by Hugh in a categorisation of the non-present party, Maggie.

Like the category within Extract 15 (i.e. ‘the ↑middle ↓class:.’ [ls. 132-133]), this category does not self-explicate how “social class” is understood in this moment; and nor Maggie’s status, specifically. It indicates only that the category is hearable as

“classed”, and that whatever comprises or undergirds this category is stratified gradationally and that Maggie is classifiable as ‘upper middle’ (l. 129) along this undisclosed spectrum. Like Extract 15, however, once Hugh’s ascription is contextualised against his preceding turns-at-talk, greater access is afforded to the operative ontology of this category.

In this case, Hugh has asserted that Maggie is oblivious (ls. 124-125); a trait he attributes to her employment history – and, specifically, her lack, thereof: ‘Because she never (di) ↑really have a job::.’ (l. 127). Hugh’s classification of Maggie as ‘upper middle ↑Cla:ss.’ (l. 129) follows this account in the subsequent turn. This classification is neither explicitly nor directly bound to Hugh’s prior account – such as by way of “explanatory connective” (here, see Parry, 2013: 106), for example.

Nonetheless, by virtue of its consecutive sequential positioning, it is hearable against this backdrop as a possible “formulation” (here, see H. Garfinkel and Sacks, 1970;

Heritage and R. Watson, 1979), follow-up categorisation and/or reworking of his previously (post-positioned) account. ¹¹⁷

Hugh’s categorisation of Maggie as ‘upper middle ↑Cla:ss.’ (l. 129) is therefore hearable such that it encompasses this predicate of “never-really-having-had-a-job”, in some capacity. Thus, while this category does not announce how it is understood, at its point of production, Hugh’s preceding account (i.e. l. 127) furnishes some specification of this category.

A final example of this prospectively organised ontological work can be observed in Extract 17; a telephone call between John and his father, Adam.

Extract 17: CallHome-eng-6298

((A telephone call. John has phoned Adam to discuss purchasing a land lot in Peru.))

Joh: Per [square metre. [They’re three thousand=

405

117 On this sequencing, see §6.4.

Ada: [People that DO have money.=

The linguistically “classed” category in this extract is the ‘growing middle [((…))]

class.’ (ls. 434 and 436). This is produced by John within an assertion (ls. 415, 417 and 419), counter-assertion (ls. 418, 420, 422, 424, 428, 430 and 432), qualification sequence (ls. 434, 436-437 and 439; here, see Coulter, 1990), concerning the distribution of wealth (cum “social class”) in Peru. Like the linguistically “classed”

categories produced in Extracts 15 and 16, this category does not explicate the salient property that underpins its organisation upon its point of production. It indicates only that the category is avowedly “classed”, and emergent (i.e. ‘growing’ [ls. 434 and 439]). ¹¹⁸ Nonetheless, like Extracts 15 and 16, this property can be derived from the

118 On the “temporal” constitution of “classed” categorial incumbencies, see §7.3.2.

For further instances in which “wealth” is reconstrued, retrospectively, in “classed”

terms, see McHoul and R. Watson (1984: 292-293, 297) and Widdicombe (2017: 471).

immediately preceding talk. In this case, this ontology is supplied as a “qualification”

or “modification” (see Lynch, 1985: Ch. 7: e.g. 208-209), by John, to his previous

“counter-assertion”.

In the just-prior talk, John has counter-asserted that people in Peru either have lots of money, or none (ls. 418, 420, 422, 424, 428, 430 and 432); an assertion that designedly (e.g. ‘just the opposite is [((…))] t[rue.’ [ls. 418 and 420]) counters Adam’s prior generalisation (i.e. ‘people over there [don’t] have any [((…))] Money’ [ls. 415 and 417]). The focal membership category is then mobilised, by John, in the service of qualifying his counter-assertion (see 1Þ), inserting an interstitial category within his proposed polarity; namely, ‘a growing middle [((…))] class’ (ls. 434 and 436). Again, in this turn, John does not explicitly locate the salient ontology by reference to which

“social class” – and/or, indeed, this particular stratum (i.e. ‘middle’ [l. 434]) – is relevantly organised. The focal category absorbs its meaning, instead, by virtue of its sequential placement and pragmatic function. Specifically, it is by qualifying the terms of John’s prior counter-assertion (e.g. ‘but’ [l. 434]) that he predicates the salient ontology of the category in terms of relative wealth. While the category is not then self-explicated through its linguistic form, its ontology is made available through the local sequential context that is established by the progenitor of this category; and, specifically, through the social action of qualifying.

Extract 17 thereby supplies a third case in which a linguistically “classed” category is produced by a co-interlocutor by which to environ a unique ontology that has been made available through their preceding talk. Worth noting, here, is that this analysis is not simply some logical derivation – or ‘academic’ (Schegloff, 1984a: 36) abstraction – that is divorced from the situated business of the ongoing interaction;

nor, equally, is it a product of ‘reconstructed logic’ (see Kaplan, 1973: n.p.g. in W.

Sharrock and Anderson, 1982: 80), or of intellectualising the ‘adequacy of members constructs’ (see Heritage, 1984a: 52; see also, Heritage, 1990/1991: 330, fn. 7), to borrow the fallacies. Instead, this self-same understanding of the focal category can be seen to be locally processed by the co-interlocutors themselves. Adam, for example – the recipient of the since-qualified counter-assertion – attests to this shared conceptualisation when he subsequently reconfigures the category of ‘=*The growing

middle ↑cla[ss.*]’ (l. 439), on these very grounds: ‘[.hh ]hh (.) But that middle class [is ] pretty high Class if they can [((…))] spend that >kind of money.<’ (ls. 440-441 and 443; see 2Þ). In this case, Adam predicates his reconfiguration of the category,

‘=*The growing middle ↑cla[ss.*]’ (l. 439), into ‘pretty high Class’ (l. 441), on the basis of its organisation in terms of “relative wealth”, proposing that the ability to spend that amount of money is one that is bound (here, see Sacks, 1974 [1972]: 221-224) to an avowedly higher (i.e. ‘pretty high’ [l. 441]) “classed” category. Adam, therefore, indirectly accepts the previously established premise set forth by the linguistically “classed” category insofar as he subsequently upgrades it in analogous terms (i.e. “relative wealth”).

In summary, Extracts 15-17 are examples in which linguistically “classed”

membership categories are mobilised by co-interlocutors to admit unique ontologies of “social class”. These extracts are connected sequentially. In each case, the progenitor of the focal category makes available this ontology through the foregoing talk. In Extract 15 (i.e. ‘the ↑middle ↓class:.’ [ls. 132-133]), this was accomplished through a designedly derivative assessment (ls. 130-131), and the production of an

‘asymmetrical contrastive pair’ (ls. 131-132; Whitehead and Lerner, 2009: e.g. 616).

In Extract 16 (i.e. ‘upper middle ↑Cla:ss.’ [l. 129]), this was “premonitored” ¹¹⁹ by the terms of an anterior account (l. 127) and subsequent proposition (ls. 124-125). Lastly, in Extract 17, the membership category a/the ‘growing middle [((…))] class.’ (ls. 434 and 436) was predicated upon the terms of the progenitor’s preceding counter-assertion (ls. 418, 420, 422, 424, 428, 430 and 432). Aspects of co-interlocutors’

foregoing talk thus furnish an inferential context against which linguistically “classed”

categories can be understood, and which, as Extract 17 has demonstrated, can be recognised by co-interlocutors, in situ.