Person Reference and a Preference for Association in Emergency Calls

ABSTRACT

Person reference is pervasive in talk. Conversation analytic work has identified preferences in person reference relating to recognitional reference. However, the principles shaping nonrecognitional reference are less well understood. We propose a preference for association in an institutional setting in which recognition is not relevant. Our data are calls to the New Zealand police emergency line that were institutionally classified as family harm. Using a collection methodology, we found that nonrecognitional person reference typically takes the form my x which directly associates speaker and referent, for example, “my partner,” “my ex-partner,” “my dad.” Initial references that suggest no association (e.g. “someone” or “an abusive guy”) were subsequently revised by callers using self-repair or targeted by call takers through questions that seek clarification about association. The shifts from nonassociative to associative references demonstrate participants’ orientations to the relevance of association and are evidence of a preference for association in the setting under examination. Data are in English.

Person reference and a preference for association in calls to police

The practical problem of person reference, as with the wider domain of word selection, is that there is an almost infinite range of possible ways to refer to someone (or something). Conversation analytic research has identified basic principles underpinning widely observable patterns in person reference. However, these principles have been established with respect to recognitional reference in which the central matter is the shared knowledge of the referent between speaker and recipient. Membership categorization analysis has been used to explain aspects of nonrecognitional reference when category terms are used. We draw on both these approaches to further extend what is known about preference organization and person reference, using evidence from one institutional setting.

The interactions we study here, emergency calls to police, are times when person reference is nonrecognitional because the parties can reasonably assume that knowledge of the referent is not shared. However, identifying parties to a scene is pervasively relevant for institutional purposes. Callers may be strangers or known to other parties in the emergency. The latter is overwhelmingly the case in our data because of the institutional classification of the calls as family harm. It turns out that the maximal property identified for descriptions (Drew, 1992) also applies to nonrecognitional reference in our data, because evidence points to a preference to select a reference form that maximizes the association between the speaker and the referent where possible.

The systematics of person reference

The competing requirements for progressivity and intersubjectivity structure social interaction. Sacks and Schegloff (1979) first documented how these preferences are organized in the domain of person reference. They identified two preferences in person reference: minimization (which attends to progressivity) and recipient-design (which attends to intersubjectivity). Minimization entails using a single reference in which possible and recipient-design entails using a recognitional reference where possible. Recognitional references (typically personal names) are designed for a recipient who knows the referent. Nonrecognitional references (for example, category terms such as “a woman”) are designed for a recipient who does not know the referent. Thus, when recognition is possible, the speaker’s analysis of their recipient—who they are and who they know—is fundamental to selecting a person reference form. However, in some institutional contexts, such as the calls to police, speakers can reasonably assume recipients do not know referents. Thus, recognition is not relevant, bringing a preference around nonrecognitional references into sharp relief.

Preference around recognitional reference is well-documented, but the principles for nonrecognitional references have received less attention. Schegloff (1996) distinguished between prototypical nonrecognitionals like “someone” and descriptions and categories that accomplish actions other than indicating nonrecognition-ability. However, Whitehead and Lerner (2020) showed that even the use of prototypical forms can be shaped by the relevancies of interactional context. Schegloff further noted that nonrecognitional reference,

is an immense territory, and one of deep importance for sociology, perhaps even more than it is for linguistics. Most significant in this regard is its inclusion of all the category terms for types of persons in a culture’s inventory, by reference to which are composed a society’s understanding(s) of ‘the sorts of people’ there are, what they are like, how the society and the world work in short, its culture (cf., for Sacks, 1972a, 1972b). (pp. 464–465)

Our aim in this article is to map some details in the relatively unchartered territory of nonrecognitional reference. We do so by focusing on a setting in which recognition is not relevant to the selection of person reference.

Establishing preference in person reference

This article proposes that in emergency calls to the police, association is a basic principle governing participants’ selection of person reference. A preference for association has been long-established for place reference. Schegloff (1972) noted that references formulated relative to members (e.g., my/your house) are preferred over others (e.g., geographical formulations like address) when recognition is possible. Given that association is preferred in place formulations, it stands to reason that person reference, a practice even closer to the heart of social relations, would also exhibit such a preference. Indeed, cross-cultural work has suggested a preference for association in recognitional person reference (Brown, 2007; Hanks, 2007). Relatedly, using a nonrecognitional form when a recognitional one is possible runs the risk of being understood as withholding information (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2012; Whitehead & Lerner, 2020).

Theoretically, it seems reasonable to suggest a preference for association in nonrecognitional reference more broadly, although our empirical work limits the scope of our claims to the setting under investigation. In recognitional reference, recipient design and minimization are prioritized, rendering the preference for association virtually invisible. For example, Stivers et al. (2007) suggested association is subordinate to recognition and minimization respectively. However, they noted “non-recognitionals most often take the form ‘my daughter,’ ‘a colleague of mine,’ ‘my cousin’ even though ‘this guy’ or ‘this woman’ would be possible.” (p. 15). Our work presents an initial investigation of the theoretically indicated principle of association shaping nonrecognitional reference.

The empirical basis for the preference for recognition reported in Sacks and Schegloff (1979) can be traced back to the Fall 1971 lecture, “Selecting Identifications” (Sacks, 1995, p. 444). In that lecture, Sacks documented the forms of evidence needed to constitute a preference for recognition. We present parallel kinds of evidence to support our claim for a preference for association in nonrecognitional reference. The first form of evidence is documenting typical patterns. Typicality is shown when there is straightforward progression. Smooth progressivity is also associated with structural preference in a different domain—sequence organization (Schegloff, 2007a). The second form of evidence is that participants orient to its relevance even when absent. Sacks showed that speakers pursue recognition through practices like try-marking and recipients through practices like asking who it is. In our analysis we show similar pursuits of association by both callers and call takers.

Nonrecognitional reference and membership categories

There are debates about the distinctions and overlap between conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis (Schegloff, 2007b; Stokoe, 2012). However, Schegloff (2007c) located Sacks’s work on membership categorization within the domain of person reference. Membership categorization devices (MCDs) are collections of categories and rules of application. Categories are inference-rich storehouses of commonsense knowledge (Fitzgerald & Housley, 2015). The economy rule holds that a single category term from any MCD can do adequate reference, and the consistency rule states that if multiple people are being categorized, the same MCD can be used.

In calls to the police, the MCD most closely associated with the relevant action is crime. Within that device, there are collections of categories (e.g., victim, perpetrator, witness, suspect) that can be used to identify parties to the scene. In our data, a second MCD of family is also relevant. Sacks (1972a, 1972b) referred to family as a team-type MCD in which categories across different collections comprise a larger unit. One of those collections is the relationship, which consists of categories organized in standardized relational pairs (e.g., partner–partner, parent–child, stranger–stranger). Members of these pairs have commonsense rights and responsibilities to each other. A further complexity is that the two relevant MCDs, family and crime, can partition parties in the scene differently. This partitioning inconstancy (Schegloff, 2007c, p. 468) means that the same people can be categorized as co-members of a family but different members within the crime device. For example, within MCD family, parties share category membership (e.g., as partners), but within MCD crime, one member is the perpetrator and the other the victim.

In calls for victim support, inferences about relationship categories and the location of home are also central for establishing a shared understanding of the crime of domestic violence (Tennent & Weatherall, 2019; Weatherall & Tennent, 2020). In a context in which the alternative MCD is a medical emergency rather than a crime, family categories account for why callers (e.g., a wife) are seeking help on behalf of the patient (e.g., her husband) due to commonsense rights and responsibilities to care (Kitzinger, 2005). Categories are also associated with commonsense knowledge and morality. For example, when victims of sexual harm are categorized as children, it elevates the moral nature of the emergency (Rafaely & Whitehead, 2020).

Person reference in emergency calls

Emergency calls have been extensively studied (for a review, see Kevoe-Feldman, 2019). However, person reference has not been a clear focus of investigation, even though identifying parties to the scene is central to establishing the “policeability” of the problem (Zimmerman, 1984, p. 213). Callers regularly describe both their physical proximity and social relationship to the problem to account for their knowledge and motive for reporting the incident (Whalen & Zimmerman, 1990). In establishing their social position, callers invariably reveal their relationships to the other parties involved in the incident being reported. For example, the description “somebody jus’ vandalized my car,” which appears as the canonical example of the structure of the call (Zimmerman, 1984, p. 214), includes the nonrecognitional reference “somebody.” As a nonrecognitional, it conveys that the call taker will not know the person and, as our analysis will highlight, that the speaker does not know them either. The caller is understandable as a first-party caller and the combination of the person reference and the activity (vandalized my car) accomplish a policeable problem, which the call taker treats as sufficient to dispatch police. Notably—and in contrast with our data—the nature of the crime is one that commonly occurs between strangers.

One available resource for identifying people when recognition is not relevant is the selection of category terms. Descriptions of what is happening are also central to producing the policeable problem and can tacitly invoke relevant parties. As noted, descriptions have a maximal property when there is a shared cultural understanding of what is encompassed in a description (Drew, 1992). In police calls, not producing a maximal description can delay or disrupt the provision of help. For example, Garcia and Parmer (1999) analyzed the trouble that occurred when a caller initially described “shots fired” and only later revealed two police officers had been killed. In our data, participants orient to a maximal property for references when the closest association between speaker and referent is relevant. This maximal property means the MCD family is typically used to select initial references in the form my x. Variations, although intelligible in the service of establishing policeability, remain accountable in terms the relationship between speaker and referent.

Our data are emergency calls to police that were classified by call takers as family harm. “Family harm” is the term used by police for issues related to domestic violence.¹ Family violence is notoriously underreported (Lambie, 2018), with a small body of interactional research documenting how disclosures of violence are accomplished (Tegler et al., 2023; Tennent & Weatherall, 2019) and the practical challenges of reporting when a perpetrator is co-present (Stokoe & Richardson, 2023). The point of difference in this study is that these calls have been institutionally coded as family harm, rather than that being an analysts’ categorization. Therefore, our work more closely follows the analytic logic of Sacks (1972b), in which a classification of family harm is the starting point for analysis rather than the outcome. The institutional categorization of the calls provides a perspicuous setting (Garfinkel, 2002) for studying the principles that that are being followed to arrive at such a classification. We find that association in nonrecognitional references is used and oriented to as relevant for understanding the nature of the incident as one requiring the police.

Data and method

Our data are 50 calls made to the New Zealand emergency police number. In New Zealand, the emergency number is 111. Calls are first answered by an operator and then connected to fire, ambulance, or police. When police call takers pick up calls, they log details in a digital casefile that is also accessed by dispatchers. The first task for call takers is to enter the address, the event type, and a “headline” description of the problem before the job can be sent to dispatch. Our data are cases that were categorized by the call takers as family harm event types. From all calls tagged as family harm in the month of February 2020, a random sample of 50 calls were selected for the research.

Emergency calls are recorded by police, although callers are not informed of this. We obtained approval from the Evidence Based Policing Center and the University Human Ethics Committee to use these recordings for research. The first author and a research assistant manually edited the sound files to redact all information that could reasonably be expected to identify individuals. Identifying information like names, addresses, and contact details were replaced with white noise using Audacity software. Redacted calls were checked by a member of police before being released to the research team.

Once released, calls were transcribed following Jefferson (2004) and Hepburn and Bolden (2017). Redacted information is marked with transcribers’ comments in the extracts below. From an initial observation that descriptions of the problem regularly included reference to others using relationship categories, we narrowed our analytic focus to person reference. We examined the different reference forms used and discovered that my x was a typical form. By examining participants’ orientations to departures from this pattern, we came to understand that we had identified a preference for association in these nonrecognitional references.

Analysis

The analytic section is organized to follow the logic originally used by Sacks (1995, p. 444) to present evidence for a preference for recognition in person reference. We follow that logic to argue for a preference for association when recognition is not possible or relevant. We begin with clear cases in which the person reference straightforwardly associates speaker and referent through a single category term in the form my x. Smooth progressivity points to structural preference (Schegloff, 2007a), and in the first examples the interaction progresses smoothly after the minimal reference that maximally associates the speaker and referent through the relationship term selected.

Having established a typical pattern, we next examine participants’ orientations to departures from it. We consider cases in which initial references are nonassociative but the matter of a relationship between the caller and the referent is subsequently oriented to as relevant. We first show cases in which callers shift to associative references and then present ones in which call takers pursue it.

Associative nonrecognitional reference

The cases in this section were selected for their typicality. They are associative nonrecognitional reference forms, formatted as my x. The relationship category term x maximally associates speaker with referent.

Extract 1 begins with a routinized opening (line 1) and the provision of an address (line 2), which is redacted in the sound file and the transcript under the ethical requirements for the study. After the call taker solicits the reason for calling (line 5), the caller produces a description that includes the target nonrecognitional reference (line 7).

Extract 1. (37_08.02_111) My partner

Rather than recognition, the reference is designed to provide the recipient with an understanding of the relevant parties to the scene, which is essential for a description of a policeable problem warranting emergency help (M. R. Whalen & Zimmerman, 1990). The use of a single category term meets the person reference preference for minimization and the economy rule for membership categorization. The category “partner” is from the relationship collection that displays that the caller knows the referent. The reference is associated with the speaker with the possessive “my” (line 7). Together, these aspects of the nonrecognitional reference are the minimal form to maximize the association between the speaker and the referent.

The caller progresses straightforwardly to subsequent references with the gendered pronoun “he” and “him” to describe the problem: “he’s just ~being abusive~” (lines 7–8) and her request for help, “I just ~want him gone.~” (line 8). The gender of parties is institutionally relevant for determining the incident type. For example, “male assaults female” is a specific definition used by police (New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2017). Here, the caller’s hearably female voice allows for an understanding of gendered intimate partner violence. The call taker orients to the caller’s turn as a policeable problem, confirming address (line 11) to advance the project of dispatching police.

In Extract 2 there is similar smooth progression to a next activity after a minimal, nonrecognitional reference that maximizes association is used in the reason for the call. It begins after a standard opening in which only the location of the incident has been established.

Extract 2. (32_08.02_111) My ex-partner

The caller’s description of the problem begins with the reference “my ex-partner” (line 3) which identifies the person she is calling about. The referent is associated to the speaker with “my” and the category term “ex-partner” indicates the type of relationship. The category term makes commonsense inferences available—namely, that the caller can equally be categorized as an ex-partner. Thus the (potentially) policeable problem is occurring within the standardized relational pair ex-partner/ex-partner (Sacks, 1972a). The caller describes the ex-partner’s problematic conduct as “refusing to leave” (line 3), which formulates the ex-partner’s presence at the caller’s home as accountable and indicates prior attempts to resolve the issue have been unsuccessful (Edwards & Stokoe, 2007). The further description, “he’s leaving now because I’ve called you” (line 4), not only makes the ex-partner’s gender visible through the pronoun “he” but suggests that the problem has been partially resolved by the act of calling. However, the call taker’s shift to the interrogative series (line 5) treats the situation as warranting police intervention nonetheless.

The next excerpt is a third case of minimal associative reference in which there is progression of the institutional business, albeit disrupted with a trouble in hearing due to background noise. The resolution of the trouble shows the call taker’s orientation to the importance of understanding the relationship between the caller and the referent.

Extract 3. (10_02.02_111) My dad

The caller’s first turn is a reason for calling rather than an answer to the location question. The reference “my dad” identifies a party to the scene and the descriptions “too drunk” and “getting violent” (line 5) produce a policeable problem. However, the turn occurs in overlap with a raised voice shouting in the background, which creates a trouble in hearing for the call taker. The call taker initiates repair using a category-specific interrogative (Schegloff et al., 1977) that targets the person reference “who < who is it sorry?” (line 7). This repair initiation displays the call taker’s orientation to securing this detail as important for progressing the institutional business of the call.

The caller’s repair solution, “it’s my dad and he’s getting violent” (line 9), effectively formulates the reason for the call another first time. In both the original and this reformulated reason for the call, the caller uses “my dad” (line 5 and line 9), which is a single category term from the relationship collection that is maximally associated to the speaker. The call taker repeats, “your dad” (line 10), preserving the association between caller and referent with “your” before moving to the next relevant activity of securing the address (line 10). That an associative reference form is maintained across the repair sequence is strong evidence of its relevance to the institutional business.

The analysis so far has presented three typical and straightforward cases that show how maximal association can be achieved using a single relationship term in the form my x. The next case is less straightforward, and there is some trouble in progressivity. In it, minimization is relaxed. The extract shows the caller’s orientation to both relational and age categories as relevant for producing a description of a policeable problem.

Extract 4. (04_01.02_111) My fifteen year old daughter

The caller begins a minimal reference form “my dau-” (projectable as my daughter) but cuts off before this is complete (line 2). The first attempt at a solution “my fif-” is also cutoff before the repair solution, “my fifteen year old daughter” (line 2) is produced and the progressivity of the turn resumes. Both trouble sources and the repair solution are preframed with “my” (line 2), which maintains that element of the association between speaker and referent.

Because a single category can do adequate reference (Sacks, 1972a), deviations from the economy rule are marked The caller’s repair orients to the relevant action of establishing an urgent need for police help. Referring to a daughter invokes the caller’s category membership as a parent, making available inferences about commonsense relations between parents and children. The additional description of the daughter’s age makes different inferences available (possibly associated with the category teenagers), which is treated by the caller as more fitted to her description of incipient violence, “trying to beat me up!” (lines 2–3). Thus, to produce an intelligible policeable problem, categories from two collections are needed.

Speakers shift from nonassociative to associative reference

In this section, we show that callers orient to association even when they depart from it in initial references. Callers shift from nonassociative to associative references in environments in which their initial descriptions do not intelligibility identify parties to an emergency.

In Extract 5, the emergency number has been called as a preventive intervention to “settle a situation” (line 3). When asked for a description of the problem, the caller first uses a nonassociative reference, “this person” (line 6), but shifts within the same turn to, “my partner” (line 7).

Extract 5. 48_13.02_111 This person/my partner

The initial reference “this person” (line 6) is a prototypical nonrecognitional (Schegloff, 1996) that does not associate speaker and referent, instead suggesting a relationship of strangers. However, the caller treats this reference as a trouble source, interrupting the problem description to respecify the reference before resuming with, “is fuckin gone and smashed up shit around the house” (line 8). The repair solution, “my partner” (line 7), is the minimal associative my x form that maximally describes their relationship.

The repair shows an orientation to the relevance of association for the intelligibility of the problem. This self-repair is a kind of just-in-time inclusion that Whitehead and Lerner (2009) documented for racial categories. One inference associated with the domestic location “the house” is that people there are known. (Indeed, if it was a stranger who had caused damage, the incident would be intelligible as a break-in and uncertainty as to the emergency status would be unwarranted.) Thus, the caller orients to the generic reference form and its inferences as inadequately fitted to the action, in a similar way to that documented by Whitehead and Lerner (2020) in a study of nonrecognitional forms in mundane talk. However, more precise reasons for the initial referent form are not evident in the data.

In Extract 5, it is the speaker who orients to the trouble with the referent. In the next extract, it is the recipient who indicates trouble. In Extract 6, the caller’s initial reference to “someone” (line 2) suggests he does not know the referent. However, after the call taker initiates repair, the caller shifts to an associative reference, using the collective relationship category “my kids” (line 5).

Extract 6. 08_02.02_111 Someone/my kids

The generic nonrecognitional reference “someone” (line 2) indexes a stranger relationship between the speaker and the referent. Alongside the description of the problem, “fighting outside” (line 2), the understanding being built is of a third-party caller (cf., Whalen & Zimmerman, 1990).

However, the call taker’s modified repeat of the caller’s turn (line 4) indicates a trouble in understanding rather than progressing the call. In response to this repair initiation, the caller reformulates the description to “my-my kids have fight” (line 5). This replaces the nonassociative reference “someone” with “my kids,” a collective relationship category associated to the speaker. The call taker again initiates a repair with a modified repeat (line 7), showing that they have not yet understood the description as a policeable emergency. The category “kids” invokes the caller’s own membership as a parent, a category with commonsense rights and responsibilities to children. The caller orients to these responsibilities with the account, “I can(h)n’t stop them” (line 8), displaying that he is unable to resolve the issue and thus has turned to police (cf., Edwards & Stokoe, 2007).

Thus in Extract 6, the caller shifts to associative references in the face of the call taker’s other-initiations of repair. The next extract also shows a shift in reference after a recipient displays trouble in the next turn. A distinctive feature of Extract 7 is that the initial reference is the pronoun “he” (line 2).

Extract 7. 49_13.02_111 He/my brother-in-law

The initial description of the problem, “ = he’s com- (po-pock) = he’s coming in” (line 2), uses a locally subsequent reference form (the pronoun “he”) in initial position that is a marked way of doing reference. Schegloff (1996) suggested marked references like this can be used for actions such as picking up where one left off. Here it seems connected to the ongoing urgency of the caller’s immediate circumstances, which is captured in the transcript with the latched answer to the call taker’s question.

However, the call taker repeats the question, “what’s happening there?” (line 3), treating the caller’s description as insufficient for the forward progress of the call. Neither the reference nor the description have produced an intelligible description of a policeable situation. In response to further pursuit by the call taker (line 5), the caller produces another description that uses an initial reference form. This identifies “he” (line 2) as “my brother in law” (line 8), using a relationship category that is directly associated to the speaker. The shift to an associative reference establishes the caller’s relationship and the description “trying to smash me” describes relevant policeable conduct that categorizes the referent as the perpetrator.

The analysis so far has shown typical cases of association and deviations that are subsequently addressed by speakers. The third and final section shows recipients pursuing association. That both speakers and recipients orient to the relevance of association even when it is not initially present is evidence in support of our claim for a preference for association constituting this institutional setting.

Recipients pursue associative references

The following cases show call takers targeting callers’ reference forms. When callers use nonassociative references but describe problems at home, call takers ask questions that seek clarification about the nature of association. When callers use associative references but associate to a third party, call takers pursue direct speaker–recipient association.

In Extract 8, the initial reference “the suspect” (line 5) suggests the referent is not known to the speaker. However, when further description makes a relationship inferentially available, the call taker explicitly pursues the matter of association.

Extract 8. (03_01.02_111) The suspect

The initial reference comes as the caller rushes through a transition relevant place to describe immediate events, “>yep. = but um- but < the suspect is leaving” (line 5). The definite article “the” does not associate the speaker to the referent and the category term “suspect” comes from the MCD parties to a crime. Within this device, the caller can be understood as a witness/bystander. The reference and the initial description of damage to a car suggests a public nature to the incident, such as a road collision, and a relationship of strangers.

However, the caller’s subsequent description of “grievance and disturbance” (line 16) in the domestic location of “my house” (lines 16–17) makes a different MCD inferentially available in which association is possibly relevant. The call taker displays an inference that people in one’s home are generally known by asking, “do you know these people?” (line 19). The locally initial reference form “these people” marks this as deviation from the so-far-unproblematic use of subsequent references and shifts from the singular “they” (line 11) to the plural “these people” (line 19). The question halts the progressivity of the action by returning to the matter of establishing parties to the scene. The question is a yes/no interrogative that presupposes some relationship. Thus, through both turn design and sequential position, the call taker’s question treats the caller’s initial reference as accountable.

Although an affirmative answer to a yes/no interrogative is structurally preferred (Raymond, 2003), the caller’s response is delayed by nearly a second of silence (line 20), delivered with intra-turn delay as “uh yeah” (line 21) and followed by additional talk that does more than just answer the question. These characteristics of dispreferred responses (Schegloff, 2007a) display an understanding of having violated a norm. The caller displays an understanding that her reference is accountable by producing a new reference for the same person. She begins “it’s my- (.)” which is projectable as on its way to my x before the cutoff and brief pause. Instead, the reference that is produced is “my children’s da:d” (line 21), which associates the referent to a third party rather than the caller directly. Although this establishes an association as co-parents, other aspects of a relationship are unspecified. The caller orients to that vagueness as a trouble. With a sound-stretch on “da:d” and “um” she continues speaking through a possible point of turn completion to produce an additional reference “my ex” (line 21) in the typical minimal form.

The call taker collaboratively completes the caller’s turn (Lerner, 2004), producing the increment “partner” (line 23), which the caller accepts (line 24), and then adding a further increment to the turn “smashed the car” (line 26), which is also accepted (line 27). Effectively, the jointly produced turn parses as my ex partner smashed a car, which bears a striking resemblance to the reasons for calling in the first section as a minimal associative nonrecognitional and problem description.

This case shows how the MCDs of crime and family differentially partition speakers and referents. Members of categories like suspect and witness may only know each other through the crime, but within the MCD family, there are existing relationships that predate the crime. The caller’s selection of “suspect” is fitted to the action of urgently providing relevant details in a way that “my children’s dad” is not. However, when inferences of association emerge, nonassociative reference run the risk of being seen as withholding information (cf., Pomerantz & Heritage, 2012; Whitehead & Lerner, 2020)

In Extract 9, the initial reference “an: abusive gu:y” (line 2) is also nonassociative and targeted by the call taker as a trouble.

Extract 9. (42_13.02_111) An abusive guy

The person reference “an:: abusive gu:y” (line 2) is a nonassociative reference that does not convey any relationship between speaker and referent. The indefinite article “an” does not associate the referent to the speaker, and the categories are not drawn from the relationship collection. Instead, the combination of category term “guy” and the characteristic “abusive” accomplish an understanding of the referent as a perpetrator of gendered violence. The reference thus works to establish a policeable situation even though the caller’s turn ends without an explicit description of the problem.

After the details of the address are confirmed, the call taker begins a wh-question that is reformulated as yes/no interrogative about the caller’s relationship (line 23). The locally initial reference form “this person” (line 23) configures this as a new activity (Schegloff, 1996), whereas the question design displays a presupposition that the caller does know the person. This presupposition displays the call taker’s inference that people in a location referred to as “our place” (line 3) can be presumed to be known.

Although the caller’s response is a type-fitted “yup” (line 25), it comes after significant delay (line 24) and is prefaced by a sound-stretched “ah:” (line 25), which suggest the answer is not straightforward. The caller claims knowledge of the referent without demonstrating it, which the call taker treats as noticeably absent by repeating the caller’s “yup?” with rising intonation (line 26). The latched interrogative, “who is he to you” (line 26), makes explicit the format of a required answer—a relational term that is associated to the caller. A second latched interrogative shifts to a yes/no request for confirmation, “is he an ex partner?” (line 26), displaying an inference of a possibly relevant relationship category.

The caller responds with a reference, “he’s my (.) brother’s father” (lines 27–28), that does not fulfill the preference for speaker-association despite it being specified in the call taker’s question. Instead, the referent is associated to the speaker’s brother. The categories brother, sister, and father can be collected within the MCD family, and the consistency rule means that unmarked references will be heard as members belonging to the same family (Sacks, 1972b). The caller’s marked reference counters these inferences and marks that her brother’s father is not her own.

After the reference is receipted by the call taker (line 30), the caller continues speaking, adding “drunk and abusive” (line 31) as an increment to her reference. This shows her orientation to the problem-relevant aspects of who he is—someone who is causing a policeable problem—rather than the call taker’s institutional focus on categorizing the nature of her relationship and thus the incident (i.e., as intimate partner violence vs. family harm).

In Extracts 8 and 9 nonassociative reference was done through category terms. In Extract 10, it is done by a name. Although this displays the caller’s knowledge of the referent, it leaves ambiguous the nature of their relationship. We have included the name as a pseudonym in the extract for clarity and under ethical requirements. Later, the call taker initiates a sequence of turns by asking, “who is he to you” (line 40), which orients to the preference for association.

Extract 10. 02_01.02_111 Joe Bloggs and he’s trying to take my son out in the cold

The caller’s provision of address (lines 2–3) occurs as a man’s voice can be heard in the background (line 4). After an extended address confirmation sequence (not shown), the caller selects as next speaker to provide the reason for the call. This begins with a reference using a first and surname (line 21). This reference is recipient-designed for the task of recording details that identify the relevant parties in the case file (which the call taker orients to by requesting the spelling at line 24). One function of using a name is that the caller can use subsequent references including pronouns (line 21–23) and first name (line 26). Note how these references differ from “my son” (line 21), which uses the minimal associative form.

After the spelling of the name is confirmed (line 38), the call taker orients to the caller’s relationship as the next relevant activity. The question, “who is he to you?” (line 40) uses the subsequent reference “he” and treats a relationship reference as absent. The question design sets up a relationship category associated with the speaker as a preferred answer. Yet the description, “he is my son’s father” (line 41), associates the referent to her son rather than to herself directly.

The call taker treats this answer as inadequate and pursues the matter of association. The follow-up question supplies two alternatives, “your current or your ex partner?” (line 42). Both options are associated to the caller with “your” while “current” and “ex” partition the category of partner. The question goes unanswered for over two seconds (line 43) before the caller produces the noticeably quieter “°ex°” (line 44). The caller’s delayed response and minimized answer are evidence of difficulty with the question. The caller’s quieter speech may be an attempt to avoid being overheard by the very person to whom she is referring (cf., Stokoe & Richardson, 2023). The call taker does not hear the call taker’s quieter turn and pursues a variation on the question that uses the minimal “your partner” (line 46), to which the caller repeats her turn “ex!” (line 47). Notably, the caller’s initial response (line 44) and confirmations (lines 47 and 49) all take the minimal form “ex” without directly associating (i.e. my ex).

By using a full name, the caller has indicated some knowledge of the referent and facilitated one institutionally relevant task of recording details. However, the other institutionally relevant task of establishing association goes unfulfilled. The call taker pursues association explicitly and shows that it is not merely a family relationship of co-parents but a direct association that is necessary for the forward progression of the delivery of help.

The final extract shows the call taker pursuing association even when an associative reference is initially used. This case highlights the institutional relevance of the maximal property of descriptions, whereby the closest relationship between speaker and referent is pursued as relevant. The reference “my baby dad” (line 5) is used as a single category and does associate speaker and referent as co-parents. However, the call taker pursues a direct association between speaker and referent.

Extract 11. 46 13.02_111 My baby dad

The reference “my baby dad” invokes caller and referent’s co-membership in the category parents while also making relevant a baby as a party to the scene. Following the consistency rule (Sacks, 1972a), caller, baby, and “baby dad” are heard as members of a family. One commonsense inference is that family members share a home. However, the singular self-reference in “my house” (rather than our house) and the noteworthiness of his being “here” (line 5) formulates the referent’s presence as unwelcome. The caller’s shift to unmarked subsequent reference “he” (line 5) in the description of the problem displays an understanding that identification of relevant parties has been accomplished.

However, the call taker displays that the reference is insufficient for the forward progress of the activity. A response is noticeably absent at line 6, and even after additional problem description (line 7), there is a second of silence (line 8) before the call taker produces a question that orients to the reference as needing further specification (line 9). The locally initial reference form “your ex partner” (line 9) deviates from the caller’s use of the pronoun “he” and marks this question as a new activity rather than straightforwardly progressing the ongoing course of action (Schegloff, 1996).

The trouble is that, although the reference has made an association of co-parents inferentially available, the direct nature of the caller’s association with the referent has not been established. The yes/no question displays the call taker’s inference of one category membership that would make co-presence at home accountable. The caller denies that inference with a negative answer and alternative categorization, “no he’s my current partner” (line 11). The further description that he “came home angry” (line 11) provides an alternative explanation for why his presence is unwelcome.

The extracts in this section have all shown recipients’ orientation to the preference for association. The initial forms included a category term (i.e. “the suspect”), a description (“an abusive guy”), and a personal name that were all adequate for identifying the parties to the crime but were oriented to as insufficiently associative by the recipient. The final case had a minimal associative form (“my baby dad”), but its ambiguity was oriented to as a trouble source, with the recipient pursuing more specific relationship information.

Discussion

Person reference involves a complex interplay of relationships between speaker, recipient, and referent. In contrast to the research on recognitional reference (which concerns shared knowledge between speaker and recipient), our focus on nonrecognitionals highlights relations between speaker and referent. We have demonstrated that, in this institutional setting, participants orient to a preference for nonrecognitional references that make explicit the association between speaker and referent. Our findings extend Stivers et al.’s (2007, p. 15) claim that speaker-associated references are a common nonrecognitional form by providing empirical evidence for a preference for association in the institutional context of emergency calls.

One form of evidence for the preference for association comes from the typical use of initial references in my x form. Minimal nonrecognitional associative reference can be accomplished through a single category term from the relationship collection, which is further associated to the speaker with my. Such references are routinely followed by a smooth progression of the interaction. When more than nonminimal associative forms were used (e.g., “my fifteen year old daughter” in Extract 4) we found the caller was primarily orienting to the relevance of policeability. Thus recipient-design when recognition is not at stake is about institutionally relevant business. Identifying the relevant parties and incident descriptions to accomplish an urgent policeable problem are primary actions. The preference for association may be relaxed if it compromises those actions.

Further evidence for the preference for association comes from both speakers’ and recipients’ orientations to references as insufficiently associative. We showed that speakers shift to associative references and that recipients pursue association by asking about it. When call takers’ responses indicate a lack of uptake, callers switched from nonassociative to associative references (Extracts 5 and 6). These shifts display callers’ understandings that establishing association between parties in the scene is a relevant precursor to being granted emergency help. Call takers likewise oriented to association as relevant by pursuing it. When callers used nonassociative references but described problems located at home, call takers explicitly asked about their knowledge of or relation to the referent (Extracts 8–10). These questions mobilize commonsense inferences that people at home are typically known and display that associative identification is necessary for the forward progress of the call. When callers used associative forms but did not directly associate themselves (e.g., “my baby dad” in Extract 11), call takers pursued more direct speaker-referent association. Callers’ relationships to referents are thus treated by participants as properly having a maximal property, which indicates the closest relationship between the two parties (cf., Drew, 1992).

Callers and call takers can display different understandings of what counts as maximal association. Some references, like “my baby dad” (Extract 11), provide maximal relationship information by categorizing speaker and referent as parents and including the presence of a baby within the family. However, the call taker oriented to a maximal reference as specifying the direct association between speaker and referent (i.e., whether they are current or ex-partners). Thus, it is not merely association but shared understanding of what is maximal about it.

In emergency calls, references identify parties to a scene of a possible crime, which necessitates a focus on the categorical relevancies of nonrecognitional reference. Unlike medical emergencies in which referents are identified as patients in need of help (Kitzinger, 2005), the referents in our data are identified as cause of the help being sought. Describing category-bound activities like “being abusive” (Extract 1) or “getting violent” (Extract 3) identifies referents as perpetrators, invoking callers’ respective membership as victims within the MCD crime. Whether the parties are strangers or known to one another is institutionally relevant for selecting the appropriate event code. When parties to the scene are identified as members of relationship categories or the problem is located at home, commonsense inferences produce an understanding of family violence. Thus, references play a key role in the institutional classification of the incident, which must happen before officers can be dispatched.

We have shown that nonrecognitional references like “someone” or “this person,” which Schegloff (1996) described as prototypical, house an ambiguity that is problematic in this institutional context. That ambiguity is the nature of association. Speakers can use nonassociative terms when the referent is unknown or when the referent is known to them. In mundane interaction, these generic person reference forms can be used to indicate minor characters in a story (Whitehead & Lerner, 2020), but in emergency calls, referring to a perpetrator of a crime has different relevancies. Although there are always multiple possible categories or references to identify someone (Sacks, 1972a), the relationship of parties to the scene to each other is evidently a constitutive interactional aspect of these institutional calls. Thus, association is a necessary aspect of identification. Callers who use nonassociative references when associative references are available risk being treated as withholding information in the same way as speakers who use nonrecognitional references when recognitionals are available (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2012; Whitehead & Lerner, 2020).

Our claims for the preference for association in nonrecognitional reference are restricted to this institutional setting. Future research on different settings will establish whether association is a more generic principle governing nonrecognitional reference. Recognition predominates mundane interaction, so institutional interactions are uniquely suited for examining nonrecognitional reference. There are, of course, some institutions in which participants may know each other (e.g., doctor–patient interactions), and recognitional reference may be possible. However, in institutional environments like emergency calls, recognition is neither possible nor relevant. It is only in environments in which recognition is not possible that alternative principles governing person reference are rendered visible.

The organization of preference in person reference is not the same as in other domains like sequence organization (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2012). By drawing on Sacks (1995, p. 444), our work further demonstrates the evidence required to establish preference organization for person reference, applying it to nonrecongitionals. Association is subordinate to recognition and minimization in recognitional reference (Stivers et al., 2007). However, it remains to be seen how fundamental the relationships between preferences for association, minimization, and recipient-design are when recognition is not available.

Nonrecognitional reference is a natural site for integrating membership categorization analysis and person reference. Category terms are a pervasive practice for nonrecognitional reference, although reference and categorization are distinct practices (Schegloff, 2007b). A distinctive feature of our data is that the MCDs family and crime are both relevant. Calls have been institutionally classified as family harm, and we have shown the members’ practices for coding to that incident type. Analyzing how and when participants draw on categories within these different devices helped us understand how the preference for association was operating even in cases of nonassociative initial references. In other institutional contexts, different MCDs will be relevant, and association may manifest differently.

Although gender was not a focus of our analyses, the findings nevertheless have relevance for understanding how reports of family violence are accomplished. Nonassociative references can be a resource for reporting violence without disclosing a relationship to the perpetrator. Categories like “the suspect” (Extract 8) and “an abusive guy” (Extract 9) identify referents within the MCD crime that are fitted to the institutional context. However, the location of problems at home invokes commonsense inferences about the kinds of people and activities that happen there (cf., Tennent & Weatherall, 2019), making the alternative MCD of family relevant. Using a nonassociative reference or associating the referent to a third party can be strategies to increase social distance between speaker and recipient. This seems perfectly understandable when the referent is involved in a custody dispute, property damage, or violence against the caller. However, these references result in interactional trouble, with call takers halting the progressivity of the call to pursue association. These forms of interactional trouble may underlie reported difficulties in seeking help for gendered violence (cf., Weatherall & Tennent, 2020).

This article makes an original contribution to person reference by examining a setting in which recognition is not possible. By doing so, we have also provided evidence in support of a preference for association that has been established for place reference (Schegloff, 1972) and theorized for recognitional reference (Stivers et al., 2007). Sacks (1995) established the kinds of evidence needed to support claims of a preference. By following his analytic logic, we have provided yet another example of the power of conversation analysis to uncover practices that lie at the heart of social relations and the organization of talk-in-interaction.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Chelsey Gardiner for her tireless support redacting the data and to Kate Mora and the team at Evidence Based Policing Centre for making this project possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ The term “family violence” is widely used in place of “domestic violence” in New Zealand, reflecting legislative change that replaced the Domestic Violence Act (1995) with the Family Violence Act (2018).