\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{`Speaking as a mother': A membership categorisation analysis of
child-centric talk in a UK daytime television talk show}



\author[1]{Laura Kilby}%
\author[2]{Emily Foster}%
\affil[1]{no institution affiliation}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 17, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
In this study, we explore motherhood as an interactionally emergent
identity category which speakers simultaneously construct and lay claim
to in talk, and as a category which is imbued with moral expectations of
how its incumbents should behave. We analyse 18 chid-centric debates
from British daytime television talk show This Morning. We use
Membership Categorisation Analysis to explore how, and to what effect,
women deploy claims to motherhood. We report 3 main findings; (i)
Speakers routinely quantify their motherhood credentials as they develop
rights to be heard on child-centric matters; (ii) Speaking as a mother
habitually trumps the arguments offered by other speakers, including
those with professional expertise; (iii) Any challenge to essentialist
norms of motherhood become accountable concerns for speakers. We
conclude that whilst there is power in motherhood insomuch as it vests
women with expertise and elevates their rights to be heard on
child-centric matters, the speakers in our study of mainstream debates
about child-centric issues nevertheless construct motherhood in a manner
which (re)produces and elevates essentialised notions of gender.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy




\textbf{'Speaking as a mother': A membership categorisation analysis of
child-centric talk in a UK daytime television talk show}

\textbf{Abstract~}

In this study, we explore motherhood as an interactionally emergent
identity category which speakers simultaneously construct and lay claim
to in talk, and as a category which is imbued with moral expectations of
how its incumbents should behave. We analyse 18 chid-centric debates
from British daytime television talk show \emph{This Morning.} We use
Membership Categorisation Analysis to explore how, and to what effect,
women deploy claims to motherhood. We report 3 main findings; (i)
Speakers routinely quantify their motherhood credentials as they develop
rights to be heard on child-centric matters; (ii) Speaking as a mother
habitually trumps the arguments offered by other speakers, including
those with professional expertise; (iii) Any challenge to essentialist
norms of motherhood become accountable concerns for speakers. We
conclude that whilst there is power in motherhood insomuch as it vests
women with expertise and elevates their rights to be heard on
child-centric matters, the speakers in our study of mainstream debates
about child-centric issues nevertheless construct motherhood in a manner
which (re)produces and elevates essentialised notions of gender.

Keywords: Motherhood~; membership categorisation analysis~; gender~;
parenting~; discourse analysis; experiential expertise; moral discourse

\textbf{Introduction}

The study of motherhood and motherhood identities remains an enduring
concern for feminist research. Mackenzie and Zhao (2021) point to
seminal scholars whose work locates and problematises motherhood as
existing within prevailing gendered, heteronormative, and biological
essentialist societal discourses. Such work seeks to deconstruct
patriarchal frameworks and reveal how expectations and experiences of
motherhood are entwined with dominant ideals of gender and womanhood
(e.g. Bem, 1993; Rich, 1986). Approaching motherhood as a discourse
invites consideration of how differing forms of doing motherhood are
variously upheld, contested and (re)produced across differing sites and
forms of discourse. Aligned with the broader concept of `doing gender'
(West and Zimmerman, 1987), motherhood is not a passive identity that
one simply has, rather it is actively worked-up in interaction. Aligning
with this approach, our focus is an exploration of motherhood as an
interactionally emergent discursive membership category, available as a
resource that speakers might orient to, and potentially lay claim to
during interaction.

Membership Categorisation Analysis

Approaching motherhood in this way positions us with conversation
analysis (CA), and membership categorisation analysis (MCA). CA and MCA
originate in the pioneering work of Harvey Sacks (Sacks, 1992) as
intertwined branches of the ethnomethodological study of
talk-in-interaction. Scholars have debated MCA's status as an
ethnomethodological approach distinct from CA (e.g. Fitzgerald, 2012;
Housley and Fitzgerald, 2002; Schegloff, 2007; Stokoe, 2012), and
explored what some have cautioned as a lack of analytic specificity
within MCA. Such debates have also re-invigorated research that combines
what Housley and Fitzgerald (2015, p. 6) refer to as the MCA ``analytic
mindset'', with the methodological rigour of CA and its focus on
structure and sequence. (E.g. Butler and Weatherall, 2006; Fitzgerald
and Housley 2002; Goodman and Speer, 2007; Housley, 2002; Housley and
Fitzgerald 2009a, 2009b; Author \& Author, date; Stokoe, 2003a, 2009).

In his illustration `The Baby Cried. The mommy picked it up', Sacks
(1992), demonstrates that membership categories are inference-rich - we
mundanely hear the Baby as \emph{this} Mommy's baby. Sacks' now seminal
example is very apt given our focus on motherhood, so we stay with it to
elaborate further. The inferential pairing of \emph{this} Baby
and\emph{this} Mommy is an example of a Standardised Relational Pair
(SRP) which, in this context, exists within a Membership Categorisation
Device (MCD) of `The Family' (Sacks, 1992). This mundane inferential
work that occurs as part of everyday sense-making practices is explained
by Sacks (1992) via the Hearer's Maxim: ``if two or more categories are
used to categorise two or more members of some population and those
categories can be heard as categories from the same collection, hear
them that way'' (p. 221).

\emph{Categories and the moral order}

Categories act as inference-rich filing systems (Stokoe and
Attenborough, 2015). The deployment of categories not only invites us to
pair certain members or categories, it also brings category expectations
into play. It is precisely a concern with `what we know' about
categories, and indeed `what we expect', of and from category members,
that MCA can alert us to. The concept of category predicates (Hester,
1998), points to a host of rights, obligations and knowledge that become
mundanely bound up with membership categories (see also Sharrock, 1974;
Watson, 1978, 1983). As Jayyusi (1984, 1991) makes plain, MCA invites
consideration of how mundane morality is cemented within common sense
understandings of how category incumbents \emph{should} behave. Thus, in
Sacks' example, the Mommy, picking up the Baby is an unremarkable
matter. Jayyusi (1991, p. 240) notes that it is ``mundane reasoners''
who tie common-sense knowledge to moral praxis: expectations are locked
into place by everyday use of category labels. Normative practices are
maintained through the most routine interactions (Stokoe, 2003b) and, as
Baker (2000; p.111) points out, ``the more natural, taken-for-granted
and therefore invisible the categorisation work, the more powerful it
is''.

Motherhood identity

Prior CA/MCA research speaks to our interest in motherhood from
differing vantages and includes studies where motherhood identity is the
focal interest, and research that takes a broader interest in gender.
Stokoe's (2003a) MCA analysis of neighbour disputes examines three
gendered categories that are emergent in the data: Mothers, Single Women
and Sluts. The analysis reveals how, when responding to complaints,
members orient to mundane assumptions of `good motherhood'. For example,
in responding to concerns about noise, members ``reconstruct their noise
as normative for `good' mothers and children'' (Stokoe, 2003a, p. 325).
Interestingly, the category `good mother' is not only invoked by members
who claim category incumbency, Stokoe (2003a) also reports how
activities that are routinely linked to the category of `good mother'
are held up by complainants as activities that some mothers do\emph{not}
undertake. Thus, absent activities also become accountable matters.
Stokoe highlights that when a disjunction exists between the category
`good mother' and a set of activities, including absent activities,
which are not aligned with the category, then a category puzzle emerges
which invites alternative membership categorisation. Pointing to the
fluidity of membership categories and the multiplicity of available
MCDs, including the MCD `moral types of female', Stokoe (2003a, p. 327)
presents the puzzle as ``So, what kind of `mother' could be associated
with these sorts of activities?'' {[}and the solution{]} ``In this
alternative categorization of a `mother', a `bad' mother identity is
inferred.'' Stokoe's (2003a) study both emphasises motherhood as a moral
category, and highlights how new or more delineated categories, such as
`bad mother' emerge within the context-driven trajectory of the talk.

Elsewhere, in analysis of an interaction between a counsellor and a
mother of a child diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder, Austin and Fitzgerald (2007) consider category resistance,
exploring how the mother pre-empts her possible categorisation as a `bad
mother' and instead works up her parenting behaviours as befitting
`ordinary motherhood'. As the speaker maps her own experiences of
motherhood onto this `ordinary mother' category, she presents her
specific behaviours as aligning with category norms. Austin and
Fitzgerald's (2007) study of category resistance again emphasises
members' sensitivity to motherhood as a moral issue, and demonstrates
the locally emergent nature of membership categories, revealing how
speakers orient to motherhood as a movable concern in the talk.

Flinkfeld (2017) explores how motherhood identity is occasioned during
work-based `sick leave' meetings in Sweden and reveals motherhood as an
interactional resource with variable outcomes. On some occasions,
mundane notions of `good motherhood', (e.g putting children first),
provides a resource for members who are resisting a return to work,
whilst on other occasions, claiming some level of conflict between the
demands of motherhood and those of the workplace leaves mothers
vulnerable to challenges, either regarding their parenting ability, or
their commitment to the workplace. Thus, what might stand as `good
motherhood' from one vantage becomes an accountable matter from another.
In keeping with prior studies, Flinkfeldt's (2017) research stresses
that motherhood is ``flexibly assembled or `done' in situated ways and
to particular ends'' (p. 190), and further points to the importance of
context.

Mackenzie's (2017, 2018a, 2018b) research examining Mumsnet discourse,
highlights a significant `child-centric' narrative, and the routine
enactment of `gendered parenthood' producing ``feminine mothers and, by
extension, masculine fathers'' (Mackenzie, 2017; p. 305). Mackenzie
(2018a) reflects that, whilst some subversion of traditional motherhood
narratives does occur in these contemporary discursive environments, it
remains difficult for members to move beyond the normatively gendered
boundaries of motherhood whilst maintaining their status as `good
mothers'.

Alongside Mackenzie (2017, 2018a, 2018b), contemporary motherhood
studies feature a growing body of interdisciplinary work which focusses
on motherhood discourses online. This work variously explores how
members go about the business of doing motherhood in environments
including open-forum sites such as Mumsnet (Kinloch and Jaworska, 2021),
online blogs (Coffey-Glover 2020; Ringrow, 2020), and in more private
interpersonal contexts including messaging services such as Whatsapp
(Lyons, 2020). Mackenzie and Zhao (2021) highlight that one significant
feature of online motherhood interactions is the (re)production of
knowledge and expertise.

Lyons' (2020) analysis of an NCT (UK National Childbirth Trust) group's
WhatsApp interactions reveals how `expertise' becomes a moveable feast,
shifting between the experiential contribution made by members, and
merging experience with information from more traditional expert sources
as members co-construct their child-focused knowledge. Other studies
that similarly identify the significance of experiential expertise
within motherhood online discourse include Hanell and Sal\selectlanguage{ngerman}ö's (2017)
analysis of a Swedish online discussion forum that reveals how members'
experience comes to stand as forms of knowledge, available for others to
draw upon and use. Elsewhere, Holland's (2019) study of lesbian couples'
online journals detailing interactions with professional medical
expertise around reproductive health and transitions to parenthood
reveals the emergence of what Holland (2019, p.60) describes as
``(experiential) queer-mother knowledge'' which affords ``a valid and
valued counterpart to medical knowledge''. Lastly, Zaslow's (2012)
exploration of mothers' discussions in online health communities reveals
members' strong commitment to the value of experiential and instinctive
knowledge. Zaslow (2012, p. 1360-61) describes an underlying belief
amongst this community whereby

``maternal knowledge is instinctual and that mothers need only to follow
their `mommy intuition' if they want to find the most cogent answers to
their questions about diagnoses, parenting, schooling, and treatment
options''

Prior literature emphasises two inter-related features of motherhood:
Firstly, motherhood is a fundamentally moral category with members
routinely enacting the `right' way to \emph{do} and \emph{be} a `good
mother'; secondly, motherhood is vested with a particular kind of
expertise which provides interactional and rhetorical resource for
members. Whilst there is always scope to construct and do motherhood
differently, when mundane norms of `good motherhood' are contravened,
these become accountable matters, and new or more delineated membership
categories such as `bad mother' potentially emerge.

\textbf{The present study}

Our focus is the study of the how members develop and engage motherhood
identity during child-centric debates on a popular UK television chat
show. Specifically, we consider how speakers: (i) work up motherhood
membership; (ii) navigate and/or reproduce `good motherhood'; (iii)
construct and manage potentially accountable matters.

Public Participation Media

Public Participation Media has an enduring appeal for MCA researchers
because it presents analysts with the opportunity to access an
environment where `ordinary people' negotiate their beliefs and opinions
regarding everyday issues (Hutchby, 2001). This body of work includes
analysis of radio phone-in shows (e.g. Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002;
Housley 2002; Housley and Fitzgerald, 2002; Author and Author, date;
Ohara and Saft, 2003) and televisions broadcasts (e.g. Bovet, 2009;
Livingstone and Lunt, 1994; Myers, 2001; Tolson, 2001; Thornborrow 2000,
2007).

Livingstone and Lunt (1994) suggest that television talk shows are more
commonly aimed at an `everyday' audience, and therefore discourses of
real-life experience are typically privileged over more abstract
expertise. Another distinctive feature of television talk shows is the
significance of the studio, and/or viewing audience, whose presence
amplifies the publicly performative nature of the interaction
(Thornborrow, 2007). Given our interest in the exploration of mundane
category use and experiential expertise, television talk shows offer
fruitful site for investigation.

Data and procedure

Our data is drawn from \emph{This Morning,} a popular free to air, live
UK television daily broadcast show aimed at a daytime audience. Each
show dedicates a slot to debate a pre-determined current affairs topic
for discussion with invited guests. We collected forty-three debates
from broadcasts that aired between February 2016 - March 2019. All
debates were publicly available via YouTube at the point of collection.
Our inclusion criteria solely required that debates concern child and/or
family related issues. Examples include: ``Is it okay to tell off other
people's children?''; ``Should children be weighed in schools?'';
``Should your teen share a bed with their partner?''. Thus, whilst
motherhood is not the central topic, these are debates where motherhood
category membership might be engaged by speakers.

The first author watched all debates and identified a subset of eighteen
debates for analysis11Access to youtube links for the debates analysed
will be provided upon request to the corresponding author. In eleven of
these debates, motherhood is explicitly marked, either by participants
being categorised by other speakers, or participants self-categorising
as a mother. In the remaining seven debates, speakers orient to
motherhood via talk about their children. Each debate lasts an average
of six minutes duration. Extended sequences of talk where motherhood
category membership was focal were extracted and transcribed to aid
further detailed analysis. The first author led the analysis. The second
author watched all eighteen debates and contributed to the detailed
analysis of the selected extracts.

Analysis

\emph{Orienting to Motherhood}

We begin with a straightforward example highlighting how motherhood
identity is introduced. In the preamble to extract 1, host Holly has
framed the discussion by referring to recent media photographs of Kim
Kardashian before introducing guest Jess.

\emph{Extract 1}

1 Holly: you're a- a mu\emph{m} yours\emph{elf} {[}we've just seen

2 Jess: {[}yeah

3 Holly: those images it does seem that she's

4 g\emph{e} tting .hhh more and more r\emph{isqué} \selectlanguage{english}| would

5 {[}yeah

6 you be happy for any of your children: (.)

7 eventually to- to follow her\selectlanguage{english}|

8 Jess: .hh er:m (.) i thin:k (.) \textgreater{}i'll be honest\emph{no}
\textless{}

In extract 1, host Holly categorises Jess, stating ``you're a mum
yourself'' (line 1), positioning motherhood as focal to the contribution
that Jess will make. Jess's overlapping ``yeah'' (line 2) reflects her
category alignment. They then move to consider matters at hand.

Our next extract comes from a debate about wearing makeup in schools.
Following contribution from guest Jenna, who has conveyed strong support
for her daughter wearing make-up to school, host Eamonn interjects and
invites a contribution from guest Christine.

\emph{Extract 2}

1 Eamonn: and here's- here- hh from the head\emph{mistress's}

2 point of view \textless{}uhhh .hh \emph{whe::n} does that

3 become an issue for you\textgreater{} as to the amount

4 of makeup and how its worn\selectlanguage{english}|

5 (0.4)

6 Chris: .hhhh to start with i- i completely empathise

7 with young people and what they ha:ve (.) to

8 go through- (0.2) i've got three children

9 \textgreater{}\emph{twenty-one} \emph{nineteenfifteen} \textless{}
we've had \emph{ac} ne

10 .hh we've had other skin conditions .hh

11 we've had the teasing and we've \textgreater{}had to

12 deal with it as a family as well as a

13 school\textless{} .hhh

In extract 2, Eamon requests that Christine provide ``the
head\emph{mistress's} point of view'' (lines 1-4), but it is not until
line 13 that Christine moves to do so. Instead, after hesitation (line
5) Christine undertakes to establish her own identity as a mother.
Christine explicitly marks her motherhood by referring to her ``three
children'' (lines 6- 8). She then offers alignment with her co-incumbent
Jenna, via a three-part list (Jefferson, 1990) referring to ``acne'',
``other skin conditions'' and ``the teasing'' (lines 9 - 11), all of
which are direct reference to concerns Jenna has previously introduced.
Christine's use of the definite article in ``the teasing'', strengthens
the sense of collective experience, suggesting a phenomenon familiar to
those listening (Du Bois, 1980). In asserting ``we've had to deal with
it as a family as well a school'' (lines 12-13), first-person plural
pronouns invoke both Family and School MCDs, enabling Christine to speak
as a mother \emph{and} as a headteacher. This then becomes the
springboard from which Christine subsequently moves to disagree with
Jenna's stance.

\emph{Motherhood credentialing}

In our data, motherhood identity is often treated as the basis for a
speakers' contribution, and experience as a mother, is routinely deemed
to provide sufficient topic-relevant expertise (see Fitzgerald and
Housely, 2002) to be heard on a whole host of matters. As mothers engage
in these debates, they undertake manoeuvres which qualify, and indeed,
quantify their credentials as experts. In the following extracts, we
examine one such manoeuvre which features prominently in our data. We
refer to it as the `how many-how old' manoeuvre.

\emph{Extract 3}

1 Rachel: yeah but if you- (.) \textless{}if you weigh\emph{chi:ldren}
\textgreater{}

2 once a year .hh then \textgreater{}you don't know whether\textless{}

3 at \emph{that} point when you weigh them they

4 might just be about to have a growth spurt\selectlanguage{english}|

5 i mean i kn\emph{ow} - i- i've got three daughters\selectlanguage{english}|

6 .hh and i know that {[}.hh PSbefore a child goes

7 Eamonn: {[}uhuh

8 Rachel: up {[}they do sometimes go \emph{out} a little bitPS

9 Eamonn: {[}yeah

In extract 3, Rachel develops an argument founded on claims regarding
expectable childhood growth spurts. At line 5, she self-interrupts to
attest to her own experiential expertise on these matters ``i mean i
kn\emph{ow} - i- i've got three daughters'', before returning to her
wider stance. In the next extract we see how information regarding `how
many' children is conjoined with `how old'.

\emph{Extract 4}

1 Clare: well uh- (.) my children just to gain a bit

2 of perspective here are twenty (.) nineteen (.)

3 sixteen- ahh nearly sixteen and \emph{four} teen

4 (0.2) so i have four uh=

5 Roch: =PSso y- so you're through it no(hh)w\selectlanguage{english}|PS

In extract 4, Clare lists her children's ages (lines 2-3) before
confirming how many children she has (line 4). As with Rachel in extract
3, the `how many-how old' manoeuvre underscores Claire's experiential
expertise. The same manoeuvre is also evident in Extract 2 where
Christine states ``i've got three children
\textgreater{}\emph{twenty-one} \emph{nineteenfifteen} \textless{}''
(lines 8-9).

By the common-sense inference that a mother's job is to raise her
children (Mackenzie, 2018), this credentialing of `how many-how old'
serves as a metric by which members both construct and position
themselves within an emergent category of \emph{Mother-cum-Expert} . In
the example above, Clare's interactional achievement is indicated as
host Rochelle infers a success story, whereby Clare is ''through it
now'' (line 5). In our data, where mothers are engaged in stance taking
around issues of children and family life, motherhood is constructed by
recourse to this interactional manoeuvre which marks them out as `mother
of \emph{x} -many children (of x ages)' and thereby serves to qualify
and quantify the extent of one's expertise. Across the 18 debates
analysed, the how many-how old manoeuvre is used on 10 occasions by
participants evidencing their own credentials, and a further six times
by hosts to credential participants.

\emph{Doing it `right': Motherhood as moral business}

We now turn to consider the interactional work of motherhood. Building
on prior research which emphasises the fundamentally moral nature of
motherhood, we place our focus on moments of disagreement between
speakers as particularly fertile ground for members' moral work.

Extract 5 involves mothers, Lizzie and Anna, debating whether teenagers'
partners should be allowed to stay over in the family home. Lizzie is
supportive, whilst Anna is not.

\emph{Extract 5}

1 Lizz: =\emph{that} 's where there are- that's whe:re y- become

2 {[}a pr\emph{o} blem

3 Anna: {[}but there's- i have {[}\emph{four} ch\emph{il} dren-

4 Lizz: {[}are you saying they're not

5 {[}telling you everything\selectlanguage{english}|

6 Anna: {[}i have- yeah but i don't want to know everything

At line 1 Lizzie assumes the role of Problematiser (Thornborrow, 2007),
and Anna moves to respond, presenting her `how many-how old' credentials
(line 3) but Lizzie does not cede. Lizzie's overlap (line 4) moves to
undermine Anna's credibility, questioning her credentials as a `good
mother' by querying the level of openness in Anna's relationship with
her children (line 4-5). In response Anna asserts ``I don't want to know
everything'' (line 6). We see here how mundane moral expectations are
tied to the category of `good mother', but also how these expectations
are emergent in the interaction (Jayyusi, 1984), and remain malleable in
the hands of members. Just as Lizzie constructs `children should keep no
secrets' as a predicate of `good motherhood', Anna undoes this
category-tie, reframing this not as an issue by which her motherhood
fails, but as a feature with no place in her own measure of `good
motherhood'.

In our next extract, mothers Shona and Karen discuss leaving children
alone in cars.

\emph{Extract 6}

1 Shona: i:t's (.) a constantly evolving situation as

2 a parent=

3 Phil: =do you ag\emph{ree} with this Karen\selectlanguage{english}|

4 Karen: .hh \textless{}no:: i don't agree\textgreater{} \emph{at}
\emph{all} and i would say

5 (.) any newborn baby (.) i mea:n- mi:ne are six

6 and eight .h you can ch\emph{ok} e you can throw \emph{up}

7 .hhh y'know in less than a minute that baby

8 could have been \emph{dead} in the c\emph{ar}

In response to Shona's stance, Karen asserts strong opposition
``\textless{}no:: i don't agree\textgreater{} \emph{at}
\emph{all''}(line 4), rejecting any shared experience implied by Shona's
reference to the ``situation as a parent'' (lines 1-2). Karen then
presents a generalised account concerning ``any newborn baby'' (line 5),
before interrupting her own argument to bolster her credentials via the
`how many-how old' manoeuvre. Karen then moves to a bottom-line argument
(Edwards et al, 1995), where ``in less than a minute that baby could
have been \emph{dead} '' (lines 7-8).

We now consider interactions between \emph{Mother-cum-Experts}
and\emph{topic-relevant Experts} who do not make a claim to motherhood
category membership. The debate in Extract 7, was previously introduced
in Extract 4. Prior to Extract 7, Clare has already categorised herself
as `a busy mum'.

\emph{Extract 7}

1 Hala: and i see that as an eating disorder

2 {[}special\emph{i:st} .hh

3 Clare: {[}but- but you wouldn't- but wouldn't force

4 a child t- to \emph{eat} (.) to stuff themselves in

5 a Henry the eighth style {[}\emph{ban} quet (.) what

6 Hala: {[}well-

7 Clare: you would \emph{do} is you'd have p\emph{or} tion control

8 .h you're a {[}\emph{responsible} \emph{parent} .hh you're

9 Hala: {[}but-

10 Clare: giving them a wide variety of nutrition

In extract 7, Hala asserts her topic-relevant Expertise as an ``eating
disorder specialist'' (lines 1-2), credentialing her rights to be heard
on the matter. Clare interrupts, with a tongue-in-cheek remark about a
``Henry the eighth style banquet'' (line 5). Invoking a trope of
responsible parenting (lines 7-8), Clare both aligns her own actions
with well-worn expectations of what a `good mother' should do, and by
use of the generalising person pronoun ``you'', she elevates a claim
whereby all ``responsible'' parents are expert when it comes to managing
children's weight. Clare further bolsters her argument by asserting
wisdom related to her interlocutor's field of topical expertise, with
references to ``portion control'' and ``a wide variety of nutrition''
(lines 7, 10). Aligned with prior findings where parents engage in
debates with professional experts (E.g. Holland, 2019), we witness Clare
increasingly negate the value of Hala's topic-relevant contribution as
she assumes the role of \emph{Mother-cum-Expert.}

The next debate concerns homework. Ruth hosts, and Richard has been
introduced as a secondary school teacher.

\emph{Extract 8}

1 Richard: it's often not the role of the p\emph{ar} ent to be the

2 one there to n\emph{a:g} .hhh and the- when i go in to

3 advise parents how to- (.) to coach th\emph{em} how to

4 help their- their children=

5 Ruth: =but you have to be the one to na:g R\emph{i} chard (.)

6 you have to because if they're not doing i:t (.)

7 you know they're going to get into trou:ble

8 \textgreater{}or letters are coming home\textless{} .hh so\emph{ev}
ery \emph{ev} ening

9 \textgreater{}i say to my son\textless{} .hh have you got any
homework\selectlanguage{english}|

In extract 8, topic-relevant Expert Richard asserts his opinion
concerning ``the role of the parent'' (line 1), before contrasting this
with his own role as `advisor' (lines 2-4). Ruth then self-selects and
challenges Richard's argument (lines 5-9), abandoning her interactional
host role and instead assuming her the role of \emph{Mother-cum-Expert}
, which she marks by reference to ``my son'' (line 9). Again, we see how
topic-relevant Expertise, revered in other contexts, is undone, not by
the interactional power of the `host' but by the expertise of Ruth's
motherhood.

Our analysis thus far reveals that motherhood category membership offers
significant interactional currency for speakers when it comes to matters
concerning children and family life. We see members readily
self-categorise or take up host-assigned membership. We also witness
speakers re-locating from other host-assigned topic-relevant membership
categories before making their substantive contribution in these
debates. In these child-centric contexts, a category
of\emph{Mother-cum-Expert} emerges with significant interactional
benefits, and when \emph{Mother-cum-Experts} embrace the norms of `good
mother', members' category rights become further emboldened with a
significant moral capacity to elevate one's own position whilst
resisting, demoting, or rejecting the arguments of those who reside
outside of the category, including \emph{topic-relevant Experts} .

\emph{Accountable matters}

Our final point of investigation concerns how motherhood is
interactionally relied upon and reinforced, such that gendered norms of
womanhood and motherhood become increasingly engrained facets of an
``intersubjectively knowable world'' (Jayyusi, 1991, p. 236). In this
section we therefore consider moments in our data where members present
`problems' or vulnerabilities for motherhood. We describe these as the
barbed edges of motherhood.

In the following debate, the speaker Alice has been sharing her concerns
about the environment and future sustainability. It is against this
backdrop that she engages in a debate about opting out of motherhood.

\emph{Extract 9}

1 Alice: and with having \emph{fam} ily as well it's .hhh

2 th(h)at's PSwhat most of us \emph{want} ri:ght\selectlanguage{english}|PS and

3 you know \textgreater{}me and my partner\textless{} i'm twenty five

4 he's just about to turn thi:rty we've got our

5 PSown flat (h) you know it's- this is thePS

6 time of lifePS and .hh

Within the context of a discussion about decisions to become a mother
(or not), Alice accounts for her decision not to have children. She
orients to a widely shared desirability of motherhood with the
collective ``most of us'', appealing to those who recognise such
feelings with the tag question ``right'' (line 2), and the affiliative
discourse marker ``you know'' (lines 3, 5). Alice then lists credentials
that mark her out as a \emph{potential Mother} , with reference to ``me
and my partner'' (line 3); use of gendered pronouns; and the
announcements ``i'm twenty five he's just about to turn thi:rty'' (lines
3-4) and ``we've got our PSown flat'' (lines 4-5). Thus, fulfilling of a
host of normative criteria: being in a heterosexual relationship; a
certain age bracket; and having appropriate resources and stability. In
meeting these criteria, Alice's decision increasingly emerges as a moral
dilemma and an accountable matter. Thus, whilst making an autonomous
agentic decision to \emph{not} become a mother, Alice simultaneously
upholds traditional feminised, gendered ideals of what
women\emph{should} desire. In constructing her own decision as morally
precarious, Alice offers an apologetic account for locating herself in
the category of \emph{intentionally} \emph{childless woman} .

\emph{Resistance work}

Our remaining extracts further explore the sharp edges of motherhood by
considering some of the very few occasions in our data where speakers
either seek to challenge some aspect of normative motherhood, or who
seemingly present a threat to it in the eyes of their interlocutors.

In extract 10, the host is Holly, and the speakers are Ally who has been
categorised as a \emph{Mother-cum-Expert} , and Holly (here Hol.) who is
categorised as \emph{intentionally childless} .\emph{Extract 10} 1 Ally:
but (.) you've \emph{cho} sen (.) NOT to have children

2 Hol.: yeah

3 Ally: and i respect that decision .hh \emph{bu} t i think you

4 will re\emph{gre::t} that far- further down the track .hh

5 {[}\textgreater{}what happens\textless{} if you

6 Hol.: {[}we::ll (.) i (.) \emph{def} initely won't but-

7 Ally: mEET somebody- well \textgreater{}i'm just saying\textless{}
what happens

8 if you DO meet somebody\selectlanguage{english}| who \emph{des} perately wants to

9 have a child=

In this debate, which ostensibly concerns whether being a mother equates
to being a better boss, Ally presents a pervasive societal assumption
that a woman will later regret the decision not to have children. Ally
emphasises that her interlocutor has ``chosen'' this path (line 1),
marking Holly out as an intentionally childless, which Holly accepts
(line 2). Ally offers the cliched assertion that she ``respects''
Holly's decision, but her argument appears incongruous with such
respect. From her \emph{Mother-cum-Expert} position, Ally projects
category-earned wisdom, built upon ''\emph{implicit moral judgements,
claims and obligations''} (Heritage and Lindstrom, 1998, p. 398), that
Holly will ``regret'' her choice (line 4). Holly interrupts and attempts
to reject Ally's argument (line 6), stating ``i (.) \emph{def} initely
won't'', but Ally does not cede, and instead continues to assert her
position. Ally's question ``what happens\textless{} if you mEET
somebody'' (lines 5, 7-8) assumptively appeals to the heteronormative
SRP of Mother-Father, invoking the common-sense obligation, bound with
expectations of heterosexuality and monogamy, that `meeting somebody' is
a step towards the ultimate goal of motherhood. The debate between Holly
and Ally continues in extract 11.

\emph{Extract 11}

1 Hol.: in what way do:es changing nappies translate to:

2 (.) running a boardroom\selectlanguage{english}| exactly

3 Ally: if you can change a n\emph{a} ppy (0.4) you can change the

4 w\emph{or} ld

5 Hol.: well i can change nappies and i don't have a

6 child so:\selectlanguage{english}|

Here Holly uses ``changing nappies'' (line 1) as a category-resonant
descriptor of motherhood, contrasting this basic task of motherhood with
an empowered image of a Businessperson as capable of ``running a
boardroom'' (line 2). Ally accepts and reframes this category
descriptor, hyperbolically equating changing nappies with changing the
world (lines 3-4). Both speakers rely on common sense knowledge of the
category-bound activity as an identifier of motherhood. In lines 5-6,
however, Holly problematises this categorical tie, reframing the ability
to change nappies as not category-bound to motherhood. This offers a
striking demonstration of the capacity for normative category
expectations to be manipulated within argumentative talk, revealing the
instability of such knowledge and how it can be reconstructed in
various, and often contradictory, ways.

Our final extract, concerning a debate about gender-neutral school
uniform, illuminates how motherhood incumbents, on occasion, seek to
uphold their argument by (re)producing and policing category rights,
norms, and values as qualities and concepts that are potentially only
comprehensible to those who are members of the category.

\emph{Extract 12}

1 Angela: .hh you know as \emph{pa} rents we put up with the

2 {[}\emph{backlash} .hh

3 Paris: {[}(hh)

4 Angela: from all of this {[}as well (.) and i mean you

5 Paris: {[}(hh)

6 Angela: can chuckle as much as you like but as a

7 p\emph{arent} you know \textgreater{}you might not ap\emph{preciate}
\textless{}

8 .hh {[}this is- this is how it fee:ls .hh

9 Paris: {[}((rolls eyes))

Angela positions herself within a category of ``\emph{pa} rents'' (line
1), expressing the ``\emph{backlash} '' (line 2) faced by members of
this category due to gender-neutral children's clothing. Paris, who has
been accorded \emph{topic-relevant Expertise} as a Transgender Rights
Activist earlier in the debate, indicates her distain for Angela's
position with laughter (lines 3, 5). Angela retaliates with an `us and
them' contrast device (Housley and Fitzgerald, 2009b), echoing her
phrase ``as a parent'' (line 7), followed with the accusatory address
``you might not ap\emph{preciate} '' (line 7). This constructs Paris's
`outsider' status, as someone potentially unable to understand ``how it
fee:ls'' (line 8). Invoking her \emph{Mother-cum-Expert} incumbency in a
manner which explicitly locates Paris as an outsider, Angela elevates
her rights to be heard and undermines her interlocutor's expertise and
her capacity to appreciate an alternate perspective.

A further consideration of context illuminates the inherent normative
force of Angela's words, demonstrating the ``mundane mechanics of
prejudice'' (Housley and Fitzgerald, 2009b, p. 352). Guest Paris, a
self-identifying transgender women, is a well-known public figure who
regularly engages with the UK media to speak out on issues of
trans-rights. Paris further orients to her identity as a trans woman
throughout this debate. As such, Angela's argument takes on an
increasing cisnormative force which not only discounts Paris' argument
on the basis that she does not have membership of the category mother,
but, given mundane notions that situate cisnormative gender-based
criteria as a fundamental requirement of motherhood, Paris is hearable
as someone who \emph{cannot} occupy the category. Paris' performed
boredom (eye-roll, line 9; laughter, lines 3, 5) suggests her
familiarity with such challenges. This exchange exemplifies how the
discursive creation of moral knowledge reinforces existing societal
norms (Jayyusi, 1984, 1991). Moreover, it demonstrates how wide-scale
prejudice is routinely generated via the use of `us and them' discourse
on an interactional level, relying upon normative expectations as
constitutive of moral knowledge, and thus reinforcing the exclusion of
`outsider' individuals or minority groups from being entitled to the
same moral rights as `insiders'.

\textbf{Discussion}

In this article we examine how motherhood is engaged and enacted in
daytime television talk-show debates about parenting. Our findings build
on prior research which reveal motherhood as a moral category (E.g.
Austin \& Fitzgerald, 2007; Flinkfeldt, 2017; Stokoe, 2003a), and one
that is vested with expertise (E.g. Hanell and Salo, 2017; Hollan, 2019;
Mackenzie and Zhao, 2021). Our analysis offers further insight on both
counts.

Firstly, in examining how motherhood category membership is worked up,
we have identified a common use of what we refer to as the \emph{how
many-how old} device. We suggest that quantifying the number and age of
children serves as a powerful rhetorical mechanism which qualifies
members' expertise, and thus their rights to be heard on matters of
children and parenting. Further research might examine if this device is
engaged in other contexts where members are speaking as mothers, and
indeed consider if it is similarly engaged when members are speaking
from other parental or child-centric identities.

Across our data, members consistently foreground their arguments with
assertions of their motherhood identity and thus, their claim to
expertise on child-centric matters. Moreover, those occupying the
category of mother routinely disempower the arguments of speakers
occupying other expert categories. The fact that our analysis focuses on
a setting where the stakes and/or need for professional expertise might
not be paramount (I.e. compared to a health or educational setting), is
perhaps a factor here. However, witnessing members in our data electing
to set aside other available forms of professional expertise, preferring
instead to speak as a mother during these debates, emphasises the
rhetorical power of motherhood over other, elite membership categories.
This is especially notable given that in, other non child-centric
contexts, significant interactional power is typically wielded by
professional experts during debates with lay speakers. (c.f. Author \&
Author, date).

Lastly, in our analysis, the construction of motherhood routinely relies
upon and (re)produces patriarchal, heteronormative, cisgendered norms.
This differs from the findings of Mackenzie's (2018a) analysis of
Mumsnet discourse, which identifies some degree of gender-norm
subversion. We suggest that the differing contexts in which the talk
occurs may be a relevant factor here. Daytime television talk shows are
designed to appeal to a female-dominated home-based audience
(Livingstone and Lunt, 1994; Ohara and Saft, 2003). In contrast, as
Mackenzie (2018a) notes, Mumsnet users are likely to be working mothers.
Whilst we don't have any demographic data of the women who participated
in the debates we analysed, what we want to emphasise here is that the
talk we analysed was \emph{oriented} towards a predominantly female
stay-at-home audience. Thus the (re)production and wholesale
communication of `traditional' motherhood through the medium of daytime
television shows both speaks to a captive female audience and
potentially also works to keep its audience captive.

On the limited occasions in our data where speakers either intentionally
or unintentionally transgress the normative bounds of motherhood, it
becomes an accountable matter. We witness this when members contravene
the moral expectation that women \emph{should} desire motherhood, and
instead elect not to have children. On such occasions, women are not
only held accountable by other members about their choices, but in some
instances, they also hold themselves to account, marking out their
choices as `problematic'. (See Wager, 2000 for discussion of the
complexities experienced by women who chose not to have children).

Our analysis also indicates how biologically essentialist constructions
of motherhood are wielded in a manner which pre-emptively denies some
women possible category membership. We present one such occasion which
reveals how a trans woman is subtly excluded from possible motherhood
category incumbency, before her non-membership is then used to negate
the argument she seeks to make. Research on parenting experiences of
trans woman and men remains in its infancy (although see Averett, 2021;
Biblarz \& Savci, 2010; Ryan, 2009), and we do not have sufficient data
to add anything substantial to current knowledge. Our one example points
to the live enactment of prejudice based upon a particularised and
essentialised construction of motherhood and we align our interests with
Averett (2021, p.291) who asks ``What would it look like to de-couple
the concept of mothering from female -- often assumed to mean
childbearing -- bodies?'' We suggest that this is an area of future work
that discursive psychologists are well placed to contribute to.

In sum, our findings suggest that whilst there is power in motherhood
insomuch as it vests members with expertise and elevates their rights to
be heard on child-centric matters, the concept of motherhood itself, at
least as it plays out in these popularised, mainstream contexts,
nevertheless serves to reinforce essentialised notions of gender which
at best constrain, and at worst deny women's agency. Moreover, they
oppress women, and indeed mothers who do not conform to biologically
essentialised constructions of womanhood.

\textbf{Acknowledgements}

To be inserted

\textbf{References}

Averett, K. (2021). Queer parents, gendered embodiment and the
de-essentialisation of motherhood. \emph{Feminist Theory} , 22(2),
284--304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700121989226

Austin, H., \& Fitzgerald, R. (2007). Resisting categorisation: An
ordinary Mother\emph{. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics} ,
30(3), 36.1-36.13.

Baker, C. D. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership
categorization in texts and talk. In A. Lee A \& C. Poynton
(Eds.),\emph{Culture and Text: Discourse and Methodology in Social
Re-search and Cultural Studies} (pp. 99--113). Routledge.

Bem, S. L. (1993). \emph{The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the debate
on sexual inequality} . Yale University Press.

Biblarz, T. J., \& Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Families. \emph{Journal of Marriage and Family} , 72,
480--497.

Bovet, A. (2009). Configuring a television debate: Categorisation,
Questions and Answers. In W. Housley and R. Fitzgerald
(Eds.),\emph{Media, policy and interaction} (pp. 27-48). Ash-gate
Publishing.

Butler, C., \& Weatherall, A. (2006). No, we're not playing families:
Membership categorization in children's play. \emph{Research on Language
and Social Interaction} 39, 441--470.

Coffey-Glover, L. (2020). The boob diaries: Discourses of breastfeeding
in `exclusive pumping' blogs. \emph{Discourse, Context \& Media,} 38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100446.

Edwards, D., Ashmore, M., \& Potter, J. (1995). Death and Furniture: The
Rhetoric, Politics and Theology of Bottom Line Arguments against
Relativism. \emph{History of the Human Sciences,} 8, 25-49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/095269519500800202.

Flinkfeldt, M. (2017). What mothers do: Motherhood as a resource for
negotiating sick-leave legitimacy in Swedish sickness insurance
interactions. \emph{NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender
Research} , 25(3), 179-194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2017.1380698

Fitzgerald, R. (2012). Membership categorization analysis: Wild and
promiscuous or simply the joy of Sacks? \emph{Discourse Studies,} 14(3),
305--311.

Fitzgerald, R., \& Housley, W. (2002). Identity, categorization and
sequential organization: The sequential and categorical flow of identity
in a radio phone-in. \emph{Discourse \& Society,} 13(5),
579--602.Goodman, S., \& Speer, S. A. (2007). Category use in the
construction of asylum seekers. \emph{Critical Discourse Studies,} 4(2),
165--185.

Hanell, L., \& Salo, L. (2017). Nine months of entextualizations:
Discourse and knowledge in an online discussion forum thread for
expectant parents. In C. Kerfoot \& K. Hyltenstam (Eds.),\emph{Entangled
Discourses: South-North orders of visibility} (pp. 154-170). Routledge.

Hester, S. (1998) Describing `deviance' in school: Recognizably
educational psychological problems. In C Antaki \& S Widdicombe S
(Eds.), \emph{Identities in Talk} (pp. 133-150)\emph{.} SAGE.

Holland, S. (2019). Constructing queer mother-knowledge and negotiating
medical authority in online lesbian pregnancy journals. \emph{Sociology
of Health \& Illness} , 41(1), 52-66.

Housley, W. (2002). Moral discrepancy and `fudging the issue' in a radio
news interview. \emph{Sociology,} 36(1), 5--23.

Housley, W., \& Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of
membership categorization. \emph{Qualitative Research,} 2(1), 59--74.

Housley, W., \& Fitzgerald, R. (2009a.) Membership categorization,
culture and norms in action. \emph{Discourse and Society,} 20(3),
345-362.

Housley, W., \& Fitzgerald, R. (2009b). Membership category work in
policy debate. In W. Housley \& R. Fitzgerald (Eds.), \emph{Media,
policy and interaction} (pp. 13-25). Ashgate Publishing.

Housley, W., \& Fitzgerald, R. (2015). \emph{Advances in membership
categorisation analysis} . SAGE.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Witnessing: The use of first-hand knowledge in
legitimating lay opinions on talk radio. \emph{Discourse Studies,} 3(4),
481--497.

Jayyusi, L. (1984). \emph{Categorisation and the Moral Order} .
Routledge.

Jayyusi, L. (1991). Values and moral judgement: communicative praxis as
moral order. In G. Button (Ed.), \emph{Ethnomethodology and the Human
Sciences} (pp. 227-251). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and resource. In G.
Psathas (Ed.), \emph{Interaction competence} (pp. 63-92). University
Press of America.

** Author Reference to insert

Kinloch, K., \& Jaworska, S. (2021). `Your mind is part of your body':
Negotiating the maternal body in online stories of postnatal depression
on Mumsnet. \emph{Discourse, Context and Media} , 39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100456.

Livingstone, S., \& Lunt, P. (1994). \emph{Talk on Television: Audience
Participation and Public Debate} . Routledge.

Lyons, A. (2020). Negotiating the expertise paradox in new mothers'
WhatsApp group interactions. \emph{Discourse, Context \& Media,} 37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100427

Mackenzie, J. (2017). ``Can we have a child exchange?'': Constructing
and subverting the `good mother' through play in Mumsnet
Talk.\emph{Discourse \& Society,} 28(3), 296-392.

Mackenzie, J., (2018a). ``Good mums don't, apparently, wear make-up'':
Negotiating discourses of gendered parenthood in Mumsnet
Talk.\emph{Gender and Language,} 12(1), 114-135.

Mackenzie, J., (2018b).~\emph{Language, Gender and Parenthood Online:
Negotiating Motherhood in Mumsnet Talk} . Routledge.

Mackenzie, J., \& Zhao, S. (2021). Motherhood online: Issues and
opportunities for discourse analysis. \emph{Discourse, Context and
Media} , 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100472

Myers, G. (2001). `I'm out of it; you guys argue': Making an issue of it
on The Jerry Springer Show. In A. Tolson (Ed.), \emph{Television Talk
Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle} (pp. 173-191). Erlbaum.

Ohara, Y., \& Saft, S. (2003). Using Conversation Analysis to Track
Gender Ideologies in Social Interaction: toward a Feminist Analysis of a
Japanese Phone-in Consultation TV Program. \emph{Discourse and
Society,}14(2), 153-172.

Rich, A. (1986). \emph{Of Woman Born: Motherhood as experience and
institution} . WW Norton \& Company.

Ringrow, H. (2020). ``I can feel myself being squeezed and stretched,
moulded and grown, and expanded in my capacity to love loudly and
profoundly'': Metaphor and religion in motherhood blogs.\emph{Discourse,
Context \& Media,} 37. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.dcm.2020.100429

Ryan, M. (2009). Beyond Thomas Beatie: Trans Men and the New Parenthood.
In: Rachel Epstein (Ed.) \emph{Who's Your Daddy? And Other Writings on
Queer Parenting} (pp. 139-150). Sumach Press.

Sacks, H. (1992). \emph{Lectures on Conversation, Vols I and II} . In G.
Jefferson (Ed.). Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership
categorization.\emph{Journal of Pragmatics,} 39(3), 462--482.

Sharrock, W. W. (1974). On owning knowledge\emph{.} In R. Turner
(Ed.)\emph{Ethnomethodology} (pp. 45-53). Penguin.

Stokoe, E. H. (2003a). Mothers, Single Women and Sluts: Gender, Morality
and Membership Categorization in Neighbour Disputes. \emph{Feminism \&
Psychology,} 13(3), 317-344.

Stokoe, E. H. (2003b). Doing Gender, Doing Categorisation: Recent
Developments in Language and Gender Research. \emph{International
Sociolinguistics} , 2(1), 1-12.

Stokoe, E. (2009). Doing actions with identity categories: complaints
and denials in neighbor disputes. T\emph{ext and Talk,} 29(1), 75-97.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization
analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. \emph{Discourse
Studies,}14(3), 277--303.

Stokoe, E., \& Attenborough, F. (2015). Prospective and Retrospective
Categorization: Category proffers and inferences in social interaction
and rolling news media. In R. FItzgerald and W. Housley
(Eds.),\emph{Advances in membership categorisation analysis} (pp.
51-70). SAGE.

Thornborrow, J. (2000). Principal, plausibility and the historic
present: the construction of conflicting accounts in public
participation TV. \emph{Language in Society,} 29, 357--377.

Thornborrow, J. (2007). Narrative, opinion and situated argument in talk
show discourse. \emph{Journal of Pragmatics} , 39(8), 1436--1453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.001

Tolson, A. (2001). \emph{Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance,
Spectacle} . Erlbaum.

Wager, M. I. (2000). Childless by Choice? Ambivalence and the Female
Identity. \emph{Feminism \& Psychology} , 10(3), 389-395.
doi:10.1177/0959353500010003010

Watson, D. R. (1983). The presentation of `victim' and `motive' in
discourse: The case of police interrogations and
interviews.\emph{Victimology: An International Journal,} 8(1--2),
31--52.

Watson, D. R. (1978). Categorizations, authorization and blame
negotiation in conversation. \emph{Sociology} 12(1), 105--113.

West, C., \& Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. \emph{Gender and
Society} , 1(2), 121-151.

Zaslow, E. (2012). Revalorizing feminine ways of knowing: The challenge
to biomedical epistemology in an online mothers' health
community.\emph{Information, Communication \& Society} , 15(9),
1352-1372.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

