John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 26:2

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be
used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post
this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu.
Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/content/customers/rights
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
 “Oh no, it’s just culture”
Multicultural identities in action in ELF interactions

Aki Siegel
Hosei University

This study investigates the dynamic identities of an Asian university student

engaged in English as a lingua franca (ELF) interactions from a membership
categorization analysis (MCA) approach (Sacks, 1972a, 1989). Studies adopting
MCA have demonstrated that identity and intercultural membership are co-con-
structed in ongoing interactions (e.g., Nishizaka, 1999; E. Zimmerman, 2007).
Nevertheless, MCA studies have yet to document the multicultural identity of
an individual and the ways in which members co-construct their multifaceted
identities in naturally occurring non-institutional ELF interactions. The study
analyzes interactions between two participants from different Asian countries,
Japan and Korea. Approximately three hours of video recorded conversations
were collected across four months. In and through the interaction, one of the
participants was found utilizing multiple cultural identities to accomplish inter-
active goals. In addition, “language-form related category-bound activity” was
used in constructing these identities. This study challenges the use of predeter-
mined social categories and suggests an organic and interactional approach to
identity construction.

Keywords: multicultural identity, membership categorization analysis, English as

a lingua franca, language-form related category-bound activity, returnee

Introduction

This article examines the multicultural identities an individual manifests in

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) interactions and the utilization of these identi-
ties in accomplishing interactional goals. In particular, I adopt the framework of
Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) (Hester & Eglin, 1997; Sacks, 1989)
and “identity-as-context” (D. H. Zimmerman, 1998) in understanding identity.
From these perspectives, identity refers to social categories or membership of a

Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 26:2 (2016), 193–215.  doi 10.1075/japc.26.2.02sie

issn 0957–6851 / e-issn 1569–9838 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
194 Aki Siegel

certain social group, such as gender, occupation, ethnicity, and nationality, which
is co-constructed in and through interaction. Therefore, the terms identity, mem-
bership category, and social category will be used interchangeably in this article.
Social categories from the perspective of MCA are not prescribed by the re-
searchers. Instead, they are jointly accomplished by the participants themselves
in the talk-in-interaction through their actions and descriptions (Antaki &
Widdicombe, 1998). Researchers can access participants’ co-constructed identities
through careful emic analysis of the language and actions they employ in the dis-
course (Schegloff, 2007). Studies from an MCA approach have demonstrated that
cultural identity is also co-constructed in ongoing conversations (e.g., Nishizaka,
1995; E. Zimmerman, 2007). In these studies, cultural identity has been used to
refer to social groups that are associated with one’s ethnicity, language, or nation-
ality. However, in the current study, “culture” is understood as not only the above,
but will also embrace one’s customs and behaviors connected with a certain social
group, as well as one’s sexual orientation.
Among scholars who study intercultural identity in social interaction, ELF in-
teractions have started to gain interest as a research context (e.g., Brandt & Jenks,
2011; Greer, 2008). ELF refers to English spoken as a contact language between
speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Archibald, Cogo, &
Jenkins, 2011). In other words, English is the language shared by all interactants
and is used in order to reach the fullest communication possible and achieve the
communicative goals (Seidlhofer, 2011). MCA studies investigating intercultural
identity in ELF interactions have presented evidence that cultural identity and cul-
tural differences are made relevant at times in ELF talk (Brandt & Jenks, 2011),
and have suggested the connection between language and cultural identity (Greer,
2008). Moreover, MCA studies have been able to document binary cultural cat-
egories becoming relevant in talk, for instance Japanese or non-Japanese identities
(Mori, 2003; Nishizaka, 1995). However, only a few studies have been conducted
regarding the multicultural identity that one person could associate him or her-
self with and make relevant through the talk-in-interaction (e.g., Greer, 2012).
“Multi-” here refers to more than two, especially referring to the plurality of cul-
tural identities with which individuals may identify themselves. MCA research on
multicultural identity can reflect the inter-related and diverse society the world
currently is from the speakers’ perspectives.
Moreover, many MCA studies of ELF interactions have been conducted in
institutional settings, such as focus group interviews at a school (Greer, 2008) or
ESL chat rooms (Brandt & Jenks, 2011), where the conversation is task-related
and these tasks are accomplished through the interaction (e.g., interview, lan-
guage learning). Therefore, how intercultural identities are made relevant through
interactions and are utilized to accomplish interactive goals in non-institutional

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 195

ELF interactions (e.g., dormitory conversation) has yet to be explored. Through

analyzing ELF talk in an international university dormitory, this article aims to
demonstrate the multicultural social categories co-constructed and utilized in and
through the interaction in naturally occurring non-institutional ELF interactions.

Analytical framework: Membership categorization analysis and

identity-as-context

This study adopts the analytical framework of MCA and identity-as-context for
analyzing the identity of the speaker. MCA is the process of organizing people
into categories or groups, and is the “central machinery of social organization”
(Sacks, 1989, p. 89). Participants in conversations may construct and use catego-
ries to express who they are and who others are in local and temporal ways in
order to accomplish social and interpersonal goals. Analyzing membership cat-
egories from an interactional and microanalytic perspective is done through locat-
ing Membership Categorization Devices (MCD) in talk. Sacks (1972b) describes
MCDs as:
[A]ny collection of membership categories, containing at least a category, which
may be applied to some population containing at least a member, so as to provide,
by the use of some rules of application, for the pairing of at least a population
member and a categorization device member (p. 332).

In other words, membership categories (e.g., family) comprise a collection of iden-

tities (e.g., mother, father), and some rules for their application (e.g., standard re-
lational pairs).
These categories can be identified through the members’ describing of catego-
ries or actions, i.e., “category-bound activities (CBA).” CBA are “activities that are
expectably and properly done by persons who are the incumbents of particular
categories” (Hester & Eglin, 1997, p. 5). Therefore, mentioning a CBA “can serve
to make relevant a category it is tied to, and the categorization device to which
that category belongs” (Schegloff, 2007, p. 475). In addition, categories often ex-
ist in “standard relational pairs,” (e.g., parent-child, wife-husband). These pairs of
categories often involve duties and moral obligations in their relationship (Stokoe,
2012). For instance, if we hear “the baby cried, the mommy picked it up,” generally,
people would understand that the baby is the mother’s child and they belong to the
category of “family.” Furthermore, the action of crying is bound to the identity of
a baby, while picking up the baby is bound to a mother.
Schegloff (2007) warns analysts that the participants in the conversation must
make the categories relevant to the members of the talk. In particular, the analysis

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
196 Aki Siegel

should seek what is relevant “to the participants in its target event” (Schegloff,
1992, p. 196). Identities become relevant when they have some “visible effect on
how the interaction pans out” (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998, p. 5). Therefore,
when analyzing the speaker’s identity from MCA perspective the social category
will need to be consequential to the action done through interaction to become
relevant to the talk. Furthermore, MCA is interested in how the categories are
brought up in the particular instance among the particular participants, “just here,
just now, and for just this purpose” (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2015, p. 4).
This study also aligns itself with the conceptual framework of “identity-as-
context” (D. H. Zimmerman, 1998). Zimmerman (1998) understands identities
being situationally contingent, and proposes three levels of identity in interaction:
discourse, situated, and transportable identities. Discourse identity is the mo-
ment-by-moment identity relating to the sequential development of the talk, such
as “current speaker” and “listener.” Situated identity is connected to the particular
situation of the interaction and the contribution of the participants “engaging in
activities and respecting agendas that display an orientation to, and an alignment
of, particular identity sets” (D. H. Zimmerman, 1998, p. 90). In a classroom set-
ting, it could be “teacher” and “student.” Finally, transportable identities are the
visible features of a person that are made relevant to the interaction. These are
“identities that are usually visible, that is, assignable or claimable on the basis of
physical or culturally based insignia which furnish the intersubjective basis for
categorization” (D. H. Zimmerman, 1998, p. 91). For example, applying this no-
tion to the two participants in the current study, Maya’s transportable identity is
an “Asian female” and Kei’s is an “Asian male.”
From these two perspectives (i.e., MCA and identity-as-context), identities are
social categories that participants co-construct and use in conversation in order
to express who they are and who others are, and to make sense of the interaction.
These categories are not only the topics of the conversation but are also used to
make utterances more legitimate or employed in order to achieve certain social
goals through the conversation.

Interculturality in interaction

Cultural identity or membership categories regarding interculturality have been

of interest to researchers adopting the perspective of MCA (Brandt & Jenks,
2011; Fukuda, 2010; Greer, 2010, 2012; Nishizaka, 1995, 1999; E. Zimmerman,
2007). Nishizaka (1995, 1999) demonstrated through analyzing interviews how
Japanese and non-Japanese (or foreigner) categories are constituted in the interac-
tion. Furthermore, Nishizaka (1999) found the interviewer saying, “henna gaijin

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 197

(strange foreigner)” in order to construct the Japanese and non-Japanese categori-

cal dichotomy in achieving his interactional goal of seeking a “foreigner’s” method
of learning languages.
Other studies have found a strong connection between cultural identity and
knowledge of the culture. Fukuda (2010) documented the ways in which discur-
sive practices create categorization, such as displaying assumptions of the inter-
locutor’s culture. She argues that by bringing up topics with clear specification of a
culture or nationality, one can make the talk interculturally relevant. Furthermore,
the participant was found refusing the positioned discourse category placed upon
them by the other. Similarly, Greer (2010) analyzed the ways in which nationality
and cultural knowledge are differentiated and negotiated in interaction at an in-
ternational school. In the interaction, a Japanese student questioned an American
student’s knowledge of a city name in the US, while the American student disaf-
filiated himself from the “American” category and other American students with
substantial living experience in the US. This demonstrates that self-claimed lack
of knowledge can be used to distance themselves from certain identity categories.
These studies have demonstrated various features of cultural identity: (a) cul-
tural identity is not always relevant in talk and only arises when it is made relevant
by the participants, and (b) cultural identity can be ascribed by others, but also can
be resisted or refuted.

Multiple cultural identities

Studies that adopt a MCA perspective to identity have demonstrated its ability to
elucidate the members’ cultural associations in talk. Nevertheless, many of these
studies have employed binary categories, such as American or non-American (E.
Zimmerman, 2007), and have not documented multiple cultural identities of an
individual. In the current globalized world, individuals may identify themselves
with more than one culture, and can have multiple and/or hybrid identities (Sung,
2014). For instance, people may have parents from two or more ethnic or cultural
backgrounds, be an immigrant to a new culture, be studying abroad, or be living in
a foreign country temporarily due to their family’s work. Therefore, an individual
may hold a variety of cultural and linguistic identities, even if their biological eth-
nicity or nationality is associated with a single culture or country.
Only a few studies have analyzed multicultural identities using MCA. For in-
stance, Greer (2012) examined how multi-ethnicity or mixed race becomes rel-
evant and is negotiated in talk. Still, more discussion is needed regarding how
speakers, who are not multi-ethnic but have cultural associations with multiple
cultures, claim membership category of multiple cultures from a MCA perspective.

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
198 Aki Siegel

Identity studies which do consider the multiplicity of cultural identities and

their changes over time, for instance with returnees, often take an interpretive
approach by eliciting narratives (i.e., narrative inquiry (Clandinin, 2007)), usu-
ally through structured interviews (e.g., Kanno, 2000a; Pavlenko & Norton, 2007).
Kanno (2000a, 2000b, 2003) identifies the bicultural identities (Canadian and
Japanese) of four returnees through their narratives. She found the participants’
cultural identity being closely associated to their language proficiency and the
country in which they are living. The participants expressed not being assimi-
lated to either cultures of Canada or of Japan, and some displayed assimilation
and comfort only with other returnees with similar backgrounds (Kanno, 2000b).
These studies suggest that it may not be possible to group bicultural or multi-
cultural individuals’ identities into binary categories, such as Canadian or non-
Canadian. In addition, these narrative studies provide us with some insights into
individuals with multicultural backgrounds.
Nevertheless, interpretive studies on multicultural identities do not demon-
strate the identity construction and use in action, and are therefore limited in
scope. The identities that are captured are presented for a specific audience (i.e.,
the researcher and teacher), and thus may be different from the identities pre-
sented to a peer or family member. In addition, it is unclear if the participants’
multicultural identities actually arise in their everyday interactions, and the pro-
cess by which their identities are co-constructed in the immediate community.
Furthermore, these narrative studies do not necessarily account for the actions
the participants are achieving through the use of the categories. Therefore, the
ways in which members construct their rich and multifaceted cultural identities
and how others respond to them in interaction from an MCA perspective have
yet to be fully investigated. As such, this study aims to analyze the connection of
claims of multiple cultural memberships through the display of cultural knowl-
edge and demonstration of CBA. In particular, I will discuss how identity can be
used to strengthen and justify one’s claim of expertise in a certain area, such as
language.

Data collection

The dataset used for this article is from a larger corpus of longitudinal ELF in-
teractions at an international university dormitory in Japan. The study analyzes
interactions between two participants from different Asian countries, Japan and
Korea. The female participant, Maya, is Japanese, and the male participant, Kei, is
Korean (both are pseudonyms and the country names are based on their univer-
sity registration). Maya was a first year student at the beginning of the recording,

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 199

and Kei a second year student and a residential assistant of the dormitory. Maya
first volunteered for the research, and then invited Kei to join.
Video recordings were made by the participants in their dormitory rooms,
and the researcher was never present. The instructions given by the researcher
were limited to the positioning of the camera; to have all participants be visible
on the camera screen. The camera was usually set on the desk, and the partici-
pants would sit on the bed or the floor while they talked. The conversations were
intentionally conducted and recorded, but conversation topics were chosen by the
participants and the content was spontaneous. Thus, this research distinguishes
itself from previous work in multicultural identity research with; (a) the analytical
framework, (b) the non-presence of the researcher at the data collection, and (c)
the ELF environment.
The first recording took place during the first few weeks Maya entered the
university in April. Four more recordings were made subsequently during the fol-
lowing months. Approximately three hours worth of video recorded conversations
between these two participants were collected across four months. The recordings
were all transcribed using Conversation Analysis (CA) transcription conventions
as displayed in the Appendix (adapted from Jefferson, 2004), and MCA was used
for analysis. Although the data was collected longitudinally, the analysis will not
take a longitudinal perspective. Rather, the analysis will focus on one recording
made in May.

Data analysis

The extracts for this study, Extract 1, 2, 3, and 4, are from the same recording
made in May, the third recording made between Maya and Kei. The length of this
particular recording was approximately 48 minutes. Through a close analysis of
the interactions between Kei and Maya, I argue that Kei’s multicultural identities
become apparent.

A West Canadian
Extract 1 begins approximately 43 minutes into the recording. Prior to this extract,
Kei explains the variety of pronunciations of English (e.g., UK, Australia). Line 1
starts after Kei pauses to think of an example to illustrate his point of the variations
of pronouncing a word when Maya suggests, “often.”

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
200 Aki Siegel

Extract 1: Maya Kei, May, Often

1 M: ↑I have (.) I have (1.0) uh::: heah::d
2 K: heard.
3 M: herh (.) uh::: (0.8) ↑ofen,
4 K: °mmh°
5 M: ↑ofen (.) maybe (.) changed (.) ↑often
6 K: mmh (.) often yeah=
7 M: =often
8 K: ↑Often and o:fen.
9 M: mhh:: (.) uh::: (0.7) ↑which (0.5) is (1.0)
10 correct? but (0.6) uhhhhh (0.8) °where°
11 °where is the country?° uh::: (.) maybe (1.0)
12 → °maybe° (0.6) °Canada?°
13 K: yeah:
14 (0.5)
15 M: [( )
16 K: [>in in in< ↑west Cana- (.) in the west
17 M: [°west°
18 K: [of Canada: (.) [(east)
19 M: [west,
[((M pointing to her left))
20 K: yeah west
21 M: whe- west (.) ah::
22 (0.6) ((M pointing to her left))
23 K: yeah west of [Canada,
24 M: [west (.) ↑mmhh
25 → K: we say <often>
26 M: often
27 (0.4)
28 K: but as you go: [further to the: ↑right
[((K pointing to his right))
29 → (0.6) you say often (.)[↑ofen
30 M: [(ofen)
31 (0.5)
32 K: ↓yeah
33 (0.8)
34 M: mhu::

In lines 3 and 5, Maya suggests two variations of “often,” and Kei confirms this
through repetition in lines 6 and 8. Maya then asks questions regarding the dif-
ference in pronunciation (line 9–11). However, there is little pause after the ques-
tion for Kei to take the turn and to answer. In contrast, Maya keeps her turn and

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 201

presents a candidate answer to her own question as, “maybe Canada” with a rising
intonation to elicit a response (line 12). Kei confirms this statement in the next
turn (line 13). Here, Maya brings up a potential social category, “Canada,” not as a
geographical location but as a group of people who speak with a certain dialect of
English. However, this potential category is not made relevant to the participants’
identity at this point.
After a slight pause (line 14), and overlapping with Maya, Kei introduces
the location “west of Canada” (line 16) and attempts to add more information.
However, Maya displays difficulty understanding the direction through repetitions
of “west”; first with a soft voice (line 17), second with a slight rising intonation and
pointing (line 17). Kei confirms this (line 20), and Maya shows understanding by
repeating “west” again, an acknowledgement of “ah,” and the same pointing ges-
ture (line 21–22). This sequence is similar to Kaur’s (2011) findings where L2 users
were found supporting each other linguistically through repair sequences to reach
mutual understandings, thus presenting their expertise over a particular linguistic
point, in this case, Kei’s expertise in English.
When they reach a mutual understanding, Kei returns to the main topic by
repeating where he left off, “west of Canada” (line 23), uses the phrase “we say,”
and models the pronunciation of “often” slowly with a clear “T” sound (line 25).
This “say” (line 25) refers to the pronouncing action of English that is associated
with a certain group of people. Therefore, Kei is using a CBA of “speaking with a
certain dialect,” and makes the west Canadian category relevant. Moreover, by us-
ing “we,” he affiliates himself with this west Canadian identity. Maya accepts this
categorization with a repetition of “often” with a similar pronunciation as Kei (line
26). Therefore, it is hearable in this sequence as Kei is a west Canadian.
Kei then juxtaposes this category with east Canada by saying “but as you go
further to the right,” accompanied with a gesture of pointing (line 28). Kei ac-
commodates Maya’s linguistic ability by using “right” instead of “east” and ges-
ture, based on the previous word search sequence, even though Maya displayed
understanding of the direction of west. Kei continues and says, “you say” (line
29). Again, he makes the east Canadian category relevant through the use of the
CBA of pronouncing a word. This “you” is not used as specifying Maya, but a gen-
eral “you” in contrast to “we.” Therefore, Kei is disaffiliating himself from the east
Canadian category. Kei then models the pronunciation “often,” first with the clear
“T” sound and then corrects himself with the dropped “T” sound (line 29). Maya
accepts this through a choral of “often” (line 30) and backchanneling (line 34).
Through the use of the CBA and demonstrating the variations of pronounc-
ing the word “often,” Kei is making the social categories of “east Canadian”
and “west Canadian” relevant to the talk. Furthermore, by using the pronouns
“we” and “you,” Kei self-categorizes himself as a member of “west Canada,” and

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
202 Aki Siegel

distinguishes himself from east Canadians. In addition, Kei displays his linguis-
tic expertise over Maya through the repair sequence of “west,” accommodating
Maya’s novice linguistic ability by using “right” instead of “east,” and modeling the
pronunciation of “often.” Maya orients to Kei’s English language expert position-
ing through requesting for repair, imitating Kei’s pronunciation (although she was
the one who suggested “often”). Therefore, it can be said that Kei displaying a west
Canadian identity and his English language expert position in relation to Maya
through this sequence.
A similar situation was found as displayed in Extract 2, approximately three
minutes after Extract 1. Prior to Extract 2, Kei explains how British English has a
different pronunciation and vocabulary system from Canadian English. He then
moves on to introduce the differences in spelling. He does so by using the word
“center” as an example.
Extract 2: Maya Kei, May, Centre
1 K: EH- (.) en even the ↑SPElling is
2 different too.
3 (0.5)
4 K: >like< when you write like <sports center>?
5 M: °mh-huh°
6 (1.0)
7 → K: >in in< ↑Canada we write (.)
8 <cee ee en tee A:R ee>?
9 (0.6)
10 M: cee ee ei (.) tee (0.3) ar ee?
11 K: °mhm° (.) <cee ee en tee A:R ee>?
12 M: °mh huh°
13 → K: but in- (.) but in a↑me::rica (.) they s-
14 → they write <cee ee en (.) tee ee ar>
15 M: tee ee ar?
16 → K: ↑CEn↓ter
17 → M: ↑cen↓ter
18 (0.8)
19 K: >like sports center shopping center<
20 M: °hahh°
21 (1.2)
22 → K: but in ↑Canada they (.) we write (.)
23 cee ee en tee A::R ee
24 (0.5)
25 M: tee(0.5)↑A::r ee
26 K: mh huh

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 203

27 M: TEE AAR EE. (.) >wow< hh

28 → K: yeah:: we we write
29 M: [°mmh huh°
30 K: [°like that°

In line 7, Kei introduces that Canadians spell “centre” with “R-E.” When doing so,
he stresses “Canada” and spells out the word slowly with the emphasis on “R” and
rising intonation (line 8). Similar to the previous example, Kei constructs the ac-
tion of spelling “centre” with “R-E” as a CBA tied to the category of a Canadian.
He then explicitly uses “we” to affiliate himself with Canadians, and as a result,
displays his Canadian identity. However, Maya shows trouble through a delayed
response and request for confirmation through a repetition of the spelling with
a rising intonation (line 9–10). Kei responds by repeating the spelling with a ris-
ing intonation to prompt response (line 11), which Maya responds with a qui-
et backchanneling (line 12). Kei then juxtaposes himself, “the Canadian,” with
“Americans.” He uses a contrastive conjunction “but” and emphasizes “America”
through elongating the vowel sound. Similar to Extract 1, “America” here refers
to the people of the country. Kei then says, “they write” (line 13–14) and makes
the “American” category relevant through the CBA of spelling. At the same time,
by using “they,” he is displaying disaffiliation from the “American” category. Kei
continues to exemplify the difference through introducing the spelling of “center”
with “T-E-R” (line 13–14). When Maya repeats “T-E-R” with a rising intonation
and requests for repair (line 15), Kei responds by repeating the word “center” us-
ing his “west Canadian” pronunciation with a clear “T” sound as “west Canadians”
pronounce it (according to Kei) (line 16).
Maya repeats this with a similar pronunciation (line 17). When there is no
uptake from Maya beyond the repetition (line 18), Kei displays his understanding
of Maya’s repetition as a display of non-understanding and repeats a similar idea
to what he had said previously (line 19, 22, 23). Kei provides examples of “sports
center” and “shopping center,” but again is followed with minimal uptake and a
long pause (line 19–21). Kei uses “but” to contrast “America” with the category
“Canada” with emphasis, followed by “they,” which is then self-repaired as “we.”
Kei then repeats the CBA, “write C-E-N-T-R-E” (line 22–23). By introducing the
CBA of “spelling center/centre,” Kei again makes the categories of Americans and
Canadians relevant to the talk. He also affiliates himself to the Canadian category
again through the use of “we” and disaffiliating himself from the American catego-
ry through the use of “they.” Moreover, he uses his “west Canadian” pronunciation
with a clear “T” sound when introducing the word “center,” which the speakers
just discussed in Excerpt 1. Therefore, similar to Excerpt 1, through this segment
Kei’s Canadian identity becomes apparent.

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
204 Aki Siegel

Maya then finally displays understand through a repetition of the spelling

with the emphasis on “R” (line 25). She repeats it again with a louder voice, and
a display of surprise (line 27). Kei recognizes that they have reached a mutual
understanding and acknowledges it with “yeah.” He reiterates the action and his
affiliation as “we write” (line 28), and suggests his turn ending with a reduced voice
“like that” (line 30).
Through analyzing Excerpt 1 and 2, Kei was found displaying his Canadian
identity with the use of the CBA of spelling and pronunciation to make a social
category relevant, and the use of “we” and “you/they” to display affiliation or
disaffiliation with that category. Moreover, he positioned himself as the English
language expert through his display of knowledge of the English language. Maya
accepts both Kei’s self-categorization as a Canadian as well as his knowledge of
the English language system through her close approximated repetition of Kei’s
pronunciation and enthusiastic uptake.
This CBA related with language form is what I call “language-form related
category-bound activity.” This can include pronunciations, spelling, grammar, or
expressions (e.g., lift vs. elevator). For instance, it could be hearable as; “In Canada
we (category) write C-E-N-T-R-E (activity).” Furthermore, by using language-form
related CBA, Kei not only presents himself as a west Canadian, he also justifies his
linguistic expertise of English through the use of his Canadian identity. He models
the pronunciations of “often” and “center,” which Maya then accepts through the
repetition of Kei’s pronunciation and backchanneling. Therefore, if only looking at
the transcript or only listening to the audio of this particular sequence, we could
interpret Kei’s situational identity as an “English language expert” or a so-called
“native speaker” of English from west Canada, and Maya as the “English language
novice” or “non-native speaker.” However, Kei displays other cultural identities
that suggest that this is not the only identity he has. Kei’s other cultural identities
will be discussed in the following section.

A heterosexual Korean
The next two extracts are again from the recording in May. Extract 3 is approxi-
mately seven minutes into the recording, and occurs prior to Extracts 1 and 2.
Maya is talking about her experience in Korea and being surprised to see two
females holding hands. Kei explains that it is a common practice for Koreans, and
suggests Maya to link her arms with her female roommate. The segment starts af-
ter Maya accepts the suggestion with hesitancy and Kei starts to explain about the
time when he was thought to be homosexual by his friends.

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 205

Extract 3: Maya Kei, May, Crossing Arms

1 K: LIKE
2 M: [hh
3 → K: [when I was in Canada- when I first
4 went to Canada?
5 M: °mhh°
6 (0.4)
7 K: >I- I- I-< I:: like crossed
8 my arms with my frie:nds [en stuff?
9 M: [°mmh°
10 (0.5)
11 → K: en they’re (.) >like< Canadian: (.)
12 friends were ve:ry sh- >like< surpri:sed
13 to see [me:?
[((K point to self))
14 M: °mmh°
15 K: like (0.6) AH:::: like ho- (.) holdin:g my
16 → frie:nds arm >right?like< Korean friends
17 → arm? (.) >like dey-< (.) dey thought me::
18 → (.) we were gay?
19 (0.5)
20 M: $kuh$
21 → K: >en I was like< $oh hh [no::$ hh
22 M: [hhhh
23 → K: $it’s just ↑cul↓tu::re$
24 (0.5) ((M folds over laughing))
25 M: >$.HHH (.) .HUhh $<=
26 K: =yeah
27 M: AHUhh
28 → K: cuz like dey don’t even (0.3) they don’t ho:ld
29 others (.)<frie:nds>
30 M: ↑mah:↓:
31 K: °yeah:°

Kei starts by telling his personal experience when he “first” went to Canada (line
3). By doing this, Kei suggests that there was a point in time he was new to the
Canadian context, and is emphasizing a contrast between how he behaved in the
past (a newly arrived Korean) and how he behaves now (possibly an acculturated
Canadian). He then continues to explain that at that point in time, he would “cross
his arms” with his friends (line 7–8), but “they,” his “Canadian” friends, were sur-
prised to see him do that action (line 11–12). Similar to Extract 2, Kei uses “they”

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
206 Aki Siegel

in order to distinguish himself from the “Canadian friends.” He also puts stress
on “me” accompanied with a rising intonation, illustrating his surprise of him be-
ing questioned and not someone else (line 13). At the same time, Kei is using the
shared assumption of Kei’s heterosexuality (Kitzinger, 2005) and displaying his
projection that Maya would affiliate with his stance of being “straight.”
In line 15–18, Kei then explains that the arms he was holding were his “Korean”
friends, and that his “Canadian” friends would think that he and his Korean friend
were “gay.” When explaining this Kei first says “my friend’s arm” then self-repairs
as “Korean friend’s arm” and clarifies the different group of friends he is referring
to (line 16). Kei then continues and uses “they” again to refer to the “Canadian”
friends (line 17). By doing this, Kei differentiates his Canadian friends from his
Korean friends that he would link his arms with and suggests his affiliation with
his Korean friends. Kei then uses “thought” (line 17), referring to the actions of
the Canadian friends. The use of “thought” not only describes that it was a past
event, but also infers that his Canadian friends were incorrect. This is followed by
“me” and then repaired as “we.” Again, Kei displays his self-category as associated
with the “Korean” friends while contrasting with the “Canadians” (line 17–18).
Kei then introduces a new social category of “gay” (line 18) as a category imposed
upon him by the otherized “Canadians.” In addition, based on the social category
“gay” and Kei’s transportable identity as a male, the “Korean friends” is hearable
as male friends.
Maya responds with a laugh, which can be heard as a “suppressed laughter”
(Greer, et al., 2015) (line 20), which is used to display disaffiliation with a reported
ascription (i.e., Kei and his friend being gay) and affiliation with the prior speak-
er’s stance (i.e., Kei being heterosexual). Thus, Maya treats Kei being categorized
into the “gay” category as laughable (Glenn, 2003), and shows her understand-
ing of Kei as heterosexual. Kei in the next turn also treats the “gay” category as
laughable. He phrases it as a story in the past by saying, “and I was like” and uses
a laughter accompanied denial and account of, “it’s just culture” (line 21, 23). Kei,
thus, refutes this other-assigned category of being homosexual. Maya further
displays alignment and solidarity to Kei’s refusal by joining the laugh (Jefferson,
Sacks, & Schegloff, 1987) (line 25, 27). Kei continues to disaffiliate himself from
the Canadians by stating “they,” and uses “even” to emphasize how Canadians do
not hold other friends’ arms or hands (line 28–29). However, he uses the present
tense suggesting that this is also his current stance in terms of the hand holding
culture. As a result, he strengthens his association to the Korean culture and mem-
bership category.
Kei, therefore, through his story telling of his past, constructs his social cat-
egory of a “heterosexual Korean new to Canada,” who the “gay” category was im-
posed upon by his Canadian friends “then.” At the same time, he portrays himself

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 207

“now” as a “Korean acculturated to Canada” who understands the Canadian per-

spective of the handholding by the same gender.
A similar instance was found in the same recording as shown in Extract 4.
This was recorded approximately six minutes after Extract 3. This time, Kei and
Maya are discussing the use of eye contact and its implications within cultures. Kei
introduces his experiences of looking at his teachers’ eyes in Korea and Canada.
Extract 4: Maya Kei, May, Look at me
1 K: [>li’< you can’ talk like (.) <thi::s>
[((K leans forward, stares at M))
2 M: [ah::
3 K: [with your teachers in Korea but (0.4)
4 >cuz it< (.) >cuz< it’s not polite >if you<
5 >if you< look right through their ey:es
6 M: mh::
7 (0.6)
8 K: but (.) >cuz it’s< (.) it may look like
9 aggress:ive? and stuff?
10 M: °mhh°
11 K: but in ↑CANADA (.) if you do::n’t look at
12 their ey:es when you’re speaking? (.) with them?
13 (0.5)
14 K: they will (.) get (.) pretty angry:.
15 [they’ll
16 M: [ahh:::
17 K: they’ll think that you’re ignoring them.
18 M: °mmhh°
19 → K: >so it< it was ↑pretty h- (.) AH: difficult
20 → for me: to like (0.7) <speak to teachers>?
21 → (.) teachers (.) by looking at their eyes?
22 (0.6) ((M nods))
23 → K: cuz I wasn’t like familiar with that.
24 M: °↑hahh°
25 (0.4)
26 K: yeah
27 (0.4)
28 K: [>eh en like< my teachers would
[((K looking down))
29 >was like< [you have to look at [me::
[((K looks at M)) [((K points to self))
30 when when you’re speaking to [me::
[((K points to self))

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
208 Aki Siegel

31 M: °mmmh°
32 → K: >°so oh°< I can’t (.) like it’s very hard
33 [for °me::°=
[((K smiles))
34 M: =↑hehehhh
35 (0.6)
36 K: [°yeah°
37 M: [.hhh $ME TOO$
38 K: $yeahh$

Kei in this sequence at first describes the eye contact culture in Korea, and how
teachers would perceive it as rude if a student looks straight into their eyes (line
1, 3–5, 8–9). He then contrasts it with the Canadian culture where teachers would
require students to make eye contact to display their attentiveness (line 11–15, 17).
Up to this point in the extract, Kei is only describing cultural differences and his
own cultural identity is not made relevant. However, in lines 19–23, Kei makes the
“Korean” category relevant to him.
In lines 19–20, Kei starts disclosing his troubles of making eye contact with
the teachers in Canada. He uses the past tense, suggesting that it is not a current
issue, but in the past. He repeats “teachers,” and adds, “looking at their eyes,” to
specify that the issue was the eye contact (line 21). Kei further adds the reason for
the difficulty was his unfamiliarity with the Canadian eye contact cultural norms
(line 23). By introducing the category of “teacher,” the “me” is hearable as a “stu-
dent” based on the principle of standard relational pairs. In addition, with the
connection to the previous extract and the prior turns, “teacher” is understood as
referring to a “Canadian teacher” in contrast to him as a “Korean student.” What is
more, with Kei’s use of the past tense in lines 19 and 23, and disclosing that he was
not familiar with the eye contact culture, he describes himself in the story “then”
as a “Korean students new to Canada.” However, it also implies that “now,” he is
different and is familiar with the Canadian eye contact culture.
Kei continues to explain his troubles by using reported speech. He introduces
the category “teachers,” rushes through “was like” while looking down. He then
looks up at Maya and quotes what the teachers would say, while stressing the two
“me” and pointing to himself to reenact the teacher (line 29–30). This is similar to
Sidnell’s (2006) finding of mutual gaze or disengagement of gaze signaling the start
of reenactment. Kei then shares his trouble by saying “it’s very hard for me,” again
with a stress on “me,” this time reenacting his past self. This stressed repetition of
“me,” especially the third time (line 33), makes the troubles-talk humorous, and
Maya treats this as laughable (line 34). What makes it laughable could be that Kei
his describing his past trouble that he has overcome, rather than a current trouble.
Compared to previous laughable troubles-talk studies (Jefferson, 1984), Kei is not

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 209

laughing in lines 32–33 (although he is smiling) to invite laughter. Nevertheless,

Maya understands Kei’s utterance as a humorous self-disclosure (Ervin-Tripp &
Lampert, 2009) and displays her alignment to it.
Therefore, similar to Extract 3, Kei is found displaying his past identity as a
Korean newcomer to Canada, and his current identity as an individual accultur-
ated to the Canadian culture. When Kei is describing his Korean culture of arm
linking or eye contact, he contrasts and disaffiliates himself from Canadians and
homosexuals. What is interesting here is that as the Korean culture is contrasted
with the Canadian culture, Kei’s past identity as a newcomer to Canada becomes
apparent. This can be seen from Kei stating, “when I first went to Canada” (Extract
3, line 3–4), or “I wasn’t familiar with that” (Extract 4, line 23) displaying his cul-
ture shock. However, the use of “when” and “first,” and the past tense imply Kei
later adapted to the Canadian culture.
To summarize, from the detailed analysis of the extracts Kei was found pre-
senting his multiple cultural identities during the talk. In Extract 1 and 2, Kei
self-categorizes and associates himself with the social category of Canadians by
using language-form related CBA and “we.” In addition, he was doing-being an
English language expert through displaying his knowledge and ability the English
language system. In comparison, in Extract 3, Kei presents his cultural association
with Korea through the story telling of his arm linking culture, at the same time
refuting the “gay” category that was imposed upon him by his Canadians friends
through denial and laughter. In Extract 4, Kei explicitly describes his past trouble
as a newcomer to Canada by contrasting the gaze culture between Canada and
Korea. He then presents his current cultural identity of being an individual accul-
turated to Canadian cultural norms. In all cases, Maya accepts Kei’s self-categori-
zation through alignment, repetition, and laughter, thus taking part in construct-
ing his identity in talk.
In the other recordings between Kei and Maya, Kei did not present these mul-
ticultural situated identities. Kei often displayed his identity as a senior to Maya
who has more knowledge about classes, the university, or the town in which the
university is located. At times, Kei would display his careless or student-like fea-
tures of losing his student card and dorm room key, or eating instant noodles all
the time. However, explicit display of his Canadian and Korean identities was not
a common phenomenon. Therefore, it can be inferred that cultural identities are
sensitive issues that arise only occasionally when related topics arise.

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
210 Aki Siegel

Discussion

Through the use of social categories, CBA, “we/me” and “they/you,” and subtle use
of laughter, Kei was found presenting his identities of a Canadian native speaker, a
newcomer to Canada, then a heterosexual Korean, all within a 48-minute record-
ing. These categories are wide-ranging and incorporate elements of knowledge,
nationality, language, mobility, and sexual orientation. The type of identity-shift-
ing described in the previous section demonstrates the subtle fluctuations that can
occur when individuals try to associate themselves with various groups.
In contrast to previous intercultural MCA studies (Brandt & Jenks, 2011;
Mori, 2003; Nishizaka, 1995, 1999; E. Zimmerman, 2007) this study is one of the
first to demonstrate that an individual may display multiple cultural identities
and its changes over time. This does not mean that the multiple cultural situated
identities arise simultaneously. More specifically, Kei’s Canadian native English
speaker identity, his Korean newcomer to Canada identity, and his heterosexual
Canadian acculturated Korean identities were never evident at the same moment
in the talk. This could be due to the fact that these identities are not standard
relational pairs, such as teacher-student, and an individual cannot be both a new-
comer and an acculturated person at the same time in the same moment of talk.
Rather, the different identities were revealed as the interaction progressed. As a
result, even within a short duration, Kei displayed multiple identities, including
different cultural identities.
Kei’s display of multiple cultural identities is similar Kanno’s (2000a, 2000b,
2003) findings with Japanese returnees, not just as a Korean-Canadian, but as
someone whose cultural identity has changed over time. Kei, through his descrip-
tion of CBA of linking arms and eye contact, along with his use of the past tense
and “we/me” and “they/you,” was able to construct his identity as a newcomer to
Canada “then” in the past, and “now” as he understands the differences and can as-
sociate with both Korean and Canadian cultures. Moreover, the analysis was able to
elucidate Kei’s complex identity of linguistically identifying himself with Canada,
but less so with other cultural behaviors such as making eye contact with teachers.
This study also demonstrated the complexity of identity and how certain cultural
identities become more apparent than others depending on the topic of the con-
versation. In many narrative studies, including Kanno’s (2000a, 2000b, 2003), it is
never shown how the multicultural identities arise and are made relevant in their
everyday interactions. In this respect, this study contributes to understanding the
multiplicity of identities in action by demonstrating precise instances of how iden-
tities surface during spoken interaction. In addition, this study has shown that
MCA has the ability to elucidate the multiple and changing cultural identities of an
individual from a single recording of a naturally occurring interaction.

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 211

The finding also suggests that participants in talk utilize identities to accom-
plish interactive goals, such as legitimizing the content of the talk or actions in
talk. Kei was not only presenting his identity, but he was also found using his
“Canadian native speaker” or “English language expert” identity in modeling
English pronunciation, explaining English spelling patterns, or supporting Maya’s
understanding. Maya aligned to this identity through self-repair work and accred-
iting the content of the talk. As documented by Greer (2013) with word search
sequences among bilingual speakers, linguistic proficiency is addressed and made
relevant in talk, and may be connected to creating social categories in and through
the interaction.
Kei’s “English language expert” identity reoccurred across all the recordings,
indicating that linguistic expertise and cultural associations do not necessar-
ily coincide and represent the same identity. For instance, Kei displayed English
language expertise and superiority over Maya throughout the five recordings and
displayed his social category being associated with Canada. However, when dis-
cussing arm linking and gaze culture, Kei displayed himself as a Korean. Therefore,
even though English may be Kei’s linguistic expertise, he may not associate himself
with Canadian culture in terms of everyday behaviors. This is similar to Okada’s
(2015) finding in classroom interaction where participants were found utilizing
identities other than the “English language teacher” and “student,” such as “sociol-
ogist” and “scientist,” in accomplishing interactive or pedagogical goals. Therefore,
it can be suggested that identities in talk are interactive devices in achieving inter-
active goals of the participants. In this case, Kei used his English language expert
identity to linguistically support Maya.
Moreover, this paper contributes to the discussion of problematizing “native”
and “non-native” speaker categories used in applied linguistic studies (Cook, 1999;
Firth & Wagner, 1997). Studies with the focus on language learning or L2 use have
categorized participants of the conversation as “native” or “non-native” based on
the person’s nationality or claim as a L1 user of the language (e.g., Varonis & Gass,
1985) with little consideration of what these categories actually represent or what
the self-ascribed identities are. MCA and CA research is not an exception (e.g.,
Hosoda, 2000). According to the participant’s conversation content of this study,
Kei’s L1 is Korean and Maya’s Japanese, and thus their conversations could be
considered as a L2-L2 user interaction. However, in terms of their self-ascribed
social categories, Kei displays himself as a Canadian English speaker, or a so-called
“native English speaker,” as shown in Extract 1 and 2. Therefore, L2 studies have
yet to consider how the speakers portray themselves as English language expert or
novice, and not from the researcher’s perspective. As presented through the data
of this current study, an individual can present expertise in a language that does
not coincide with their displayed cultural associations, nationality, ethnicity, or

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
212 Aki Siegel

appearance. Furthermore, the interlocutor may accredit the L2 speaker’s linguis-

tic and cultural expertise through the interaction and provide them the authority
and treatment towards their language ability, just as a L1 speaker may receive.
In this study, Maya accepted Kei’s knowledge and ability of the English language
through a close approximated repetition of his demonstration of the pronuncia-
tion of words and positive uptake.
It is unclear if this interactional dynamic was found due to the ELF environ-
ment or the particular participants of this study. Nonetheless, in this particular
case between Kei and Maya, the multiple cultural identity and self-and other-po-
sitioned English language expertise were created and utilized in and through the
talk-in-interaction.

Conclusion

This article aimed to demonstrate the multicultural identities one person may have
and make relevant though the talk-in-interaction. Kei displayed his intercultural
identities of a “Korean” and a “Canadian” in a single recording through his use
of language-form related CBA. Furthermore, his Canadian identity legitimized
his actions as an “English language expert.” Moreover, the analysis of a single re-
cording was able to elucidate Kei’s perspective on the changes of his identity; how
he was perceived by others in the past “then” and how he is “now.” As a result,
this study challenges the use of predetermined identities, such as “native English
speaker” or “Korean,” based on the speaker’s L1 or ethnicity. MCA studies such
as this can offer a different dimension to identity studies. This study suggests an
organic and interactional approach to identity construction, which involves taking
an emic perspective in analyzing naturally occurring conversations, and observing
what the participants are actually doing in the ongoing talk.

References

Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In C. Antaki & S.
Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Archibald, A., Cogo, A., & Jenkins, J. (2011). Latest trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars.
Brandt, A., & Jenks, C. (2011). “Is it okay to eat a dog in Korea…like China?” Assumptions
of national food-eating practices in intercultural interaction. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 11(1), 41–58. ​doi: 10.1080/14708477.2010.541260
Clandinin, D.J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. ​doi: 10.4135/9781452226552

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 213

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
33(2), 185–209. ​doi: 10.2307/3587717
Ervin-Tripp, S., & Lampert, M. (2009). The occasioning of self-disclosure humour. In N.R.
Norrick & D. Chiaro (Eds.), Humor in interaction (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ​
doi: 10.1075/pbns.182.01erv
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts
in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. ​
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x
Fukuda, C. (2010). Resistance against being formulated as cultural other: The case of a Chinese
student in Japan. Pragmatics, 16(4), 429–456. ​doi: 10.1075/prag.16.4.02fuk
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ​
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519888
Greer, T. (2008). Accomplishing difference in bilingual interaction: Translation as backwards-
oriented medium repair. Multilingua, 27(1-2), 99–127. ​doi: 10.1515/MULTI.2008.006
Greer, T. (2010). Identity in interculturality: Using (lack of) cultural knowledge to disalign with
an identity category. The Language​Teacher, 34(3), 3–7.
Greer, T. (2012). Accomplishing multiethnic identity in mundane talk: Half-Japanese teenagers
at an international school. Pragmatics, 22(3), 371–390. ​doi: 10.1075/prag.22.3.02gre
Greer, T. (2013). Word search sequences in bilingual interaction: Codeswitching and embodied
orientation toward shifting participant constellations. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 100–117. ​
doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.002
Greer, T., Usui, Y., Kato, T., Taniguchi, H., & Bussinguer, V. (2005). Suppressing laughter in the
display of (dis) affiliation. Kobe Daigakui Kokusai Komyunikeeshon Sentaa Ronshuu (Kobe
University International Communication Centre Bulletin), 2, 27–42.
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis.
Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Hosoda, Y. (2000). Other-repair in Japanese conversations between nonnative and native speak-
ers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 39–63.
Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Introduction to membership categorisation analysis. In
Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis (pp. 1–21). London: Sage Publications.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J.M. Atkinson &
J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Vol. 346–369).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.),
Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In
G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 152–205). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Kanno, Y. (2000a). Bilingualism and identity: The stories of Japanese returnees. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(1), 1–18. ​doi: 10.1080/13670050008667697
Kanno, Y. (2000b). Kikokushijo as bicultural. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
24(3), 361–382. ​doi: 10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00006-7
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two
worlds: Routledge.

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
214 Aki Siegel

Kaur, J. (2011). Doing being a language expert: The case of the ELF speaker. In A. Archibald, A.
Cogo, & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Latest trends in ELF research (pp. 53–75). Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does sexuality matter for talk-in-
interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265. ​
doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_2
Mori, J. (2003). The construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters between
Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 143–
184. ​doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_3
Nishizaka, A. (1995). The interactive constitution of interculturality: How to be a Japanese with
words. Human Studies, 18(2-3), 301–326. ​doi: 10.1007/BF01323214
Nishizaka, A. (1999). Doing interpreting within interaction: The interactive accomplish-
ment of a “henna gaijin” or “strange foreigner”. Human Studies, 22(2-4), 235–251. ​
doi: 10.1023/A:1005492518477
Okada, Y. (2015). Contrasting identities: A language teacher’s practice in an English for Specific
Purposes classroom. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), 73–87. ​doi: 10.1080/19463014.2014.961092
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language learn-
ing. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teach-
ing (pp. 669–680). New York: Springer. ​doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_43
Sacks, H. (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing soci-
ology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York: Free Press.
Sacks, H. (1972b). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.),
Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325–345). New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Sacks, H. (1989). Lecture six: The M. I. R. membership categorization device. In G. Jefferson
(Ed.), Harvey Sacks lectures 1964-1965 (pp. 89–99). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publisher.
Schegloff, E. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context:
Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schegloff, E. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3),
462–482. ​doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating Gesture, Talk, and Gaze in Reenactments. Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409. ​doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for sys-
tematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. ​doi: 10.1177/1461445612441534
Sung, C.C.M. (2014). Global, local or glocal? Identities of L2 learners in English as a Lingua
Franca communication. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(1), 43–57. ​
doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.890210
Varonis, E.M., & Gass, S.M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotia-
tion of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. ​doi: 10.1093/applin/6.1.71
Zimmerman, D.H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe
(Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zimmerman, E. (2007). Constructing Korean and Japnaese interculturality in talk: Ethnic mem-
bership categorization among users of Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(1), 71–94. ​
doi: 10.1075/prag.17.1.02zim

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 “Oh no, it’s just culture” 215

Appendix: Transcription conventions

(.) Short untimed pause.

(0.3) (2.6) Duration of silence in seconds.
↑word, ↓word Pitch rise or fall in the next phrase.
A: word [word Overlapping talk or simultaneous gesture.
B: [word
ha ha, huh, heh Laughter, depending on the sounds produced.
.hhh In-breath.
wo:::rd Extension of the sound before it.
word Some form of stress.
A: word= Latching speech.
B: =word
°word° Utterance that is quieter than the surrounding talk.
>word word< Inwards arrows show faster speech, outward slower.
<word word>
? Rising intonation.
. Falling intonation.
, A slight rise in intonation.
– An abrupt stop in articulation.
→ Feature of interest to the analyst.
((sobbing)) Other details of the conversational scene.

Author’s address
Aki Siegel
Hosei University
Faculty of Business Administration
2-17-1 Fujimi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Japan 102-8160
siegel@hosei.ac.jp

© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved