Extract 8
1 Richard: it’s often not the role of the par ent to be the
2 one there to na:g .hhh and the- when i go in to
3 advise parents how to- (.) to coach them how to
4 help their- their children=
5 Ruth: =but you have to be the one to na:g Ri 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 >or letters are coming home< .hh soev ery ev ening
9 >i say to my son< .hh have you got any
homework↑
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 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 ofMother-cum-Expert emerges with significant interactional
benefits, and when 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 topic-relevant Experts .