Abstract

In this commentary, initially I return to Schegloff’s ideas about the potential promiscuity of the analyst who works with categories. I then note how Stokoe’s article is centred on working with fragments where speakers explicitly mark themselves or another speaker as a member of a specific category. I close the commentary by arguing for, at times, the inclusion of a more modest and contingent analysis that works to explore both the moments when speakers ‘go categorical’ alongside those when such category work is less explicit.