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 .