players (“we should be- you should
be”; “they played we played you played”; “we aren’t able to
play – you aren’t able to play”; “there were ten of us there were
ten of you”; “it’s not that we- it’s not that you had to work hard
back there.”.
Excerpt 20 (Meeting T2 e Meeting T3)
Meeting 2:
52 ALL1: [but (.) we should be- you should be good enough
not to gift them with a man. (1.0) because then what happens
(0.5) < there’s four of them (0.2) plus one five, (0.2) for three>
52 ALL1: [però (.) dovremmo essere- dovreste essere tanto
bravi da non regalare un uomo. (1.0) perché poi che cosa
succede (0.5) <ce n’è quattro (0.2) più uno cinque, (0.2) per
tre> (1.8)
Meeting 3:
1 ALL1: we were doing better, but I don’t know (.) let’s take
it as we saw it. (0.8) they played we played (0.5) you played
(0.5) >and you were better< apart from (.) the victories, but also
in your game play, understand? (0.5)
1 ALL1: stavamo meglio, non lo so però (.) prendiamoli per
quello che abbiamo visto. (0.8) loro giocavano noi giocavamo
(0.5) voi giocavate (0.5) h > e siete stati superiori < al di (.)
delle vittorie, ma anche come gioco espresso capito? (0.5)
7 ALL1: ah! (0.2) > so you said < Mister if (0.2) we play like
we know how there’s nothing there for anyone. The facts that
sometimes (.) we aren’t able to play- you aren’t able to play as
you know how (.)
7 ALL1: ah! (0.2) > allora tu mi hai detto < Mister se (0.2)
giochiamo come sappiamo non ce n’è per nessuno. il fatto è che
alle volte (.) noi non riusciamo a giocare- voi non riuscite a
giocare come sapete (.)
23 ALL1: [but I go back to when there were ten of us when
there were ten of you against Palermo (0.8) there were ten of
you and they didn’t get a single chance even playing (0.2) half
an hour: (.) From the attack=in practice (.............) (0.5) it’s not
that we had- it’s not that you had to work hard back there.
23 ALL1: [e ma io rivado a quando eravamo in dieci eravate
in dieci col Palermo (0.8) là eravate in dieci quelli non hanno
avuto un occasione pur giocando (0.2) mezzora: (.) all’attacco=in
pratica (.............) (0.5) non è che abbiamo- non è che avete
faticato là dietro.
These (very frequent) examples signal that the manager’s
identity constantly oscillates between being ‘a team member’
(and thereby closely identifying with the group as a whole, the
players and the coaching staff) and being a member with a par-
ticular status able to detach himself from the team in order to
furnish efficacious guidance and supervision – a distinction
reiterated shortly afterwards during Meeting T3 (see excerpt
Excerpt 21
21 ALL1: : [e (…) me as the manager (.) and I hope (0.2)
you as the players, (.) have different points of view. (…)
21 ALL1: : [e (…) io che faccio l’allenatore (.) e mi auguro
(0.2) che anche voi che fate i giocatori, (.) facciate un discorso
diverso. (…)
Adoption of a cultural perspective and a conversational
methodology has enabled us to describe how the rhetorical
manipulation of identity is a situated and social practice closely
interconnected with other processes and activities and per-
formed mainly through interactive discourse (i.e. by using lan-
guage, this being the most powerful instrument of cultural me-
Our findings show that identity was a negotiated, rhetorically
oriented and emergent outcome of the sport group’s socio-
discursive interactions, and that it was used to achieve specific
goals and to perform specific actions.
In pursuit of their rhetorical goals, the members of the team
segmented their social world by allocating themselves and oth-
ers to identity groups or categories functional to the presenta-
tion and sharing of a particular representation/interpretation of
past, present and future events. Examples are provided by the
manager, who “taught” a certain attitude by discursively creat-
ing a group of older players (as opposed to the younger ones);
by the player who gave salience to a group corresponding to a
section of the team in order to emphasise its responsibility for
errors; by the manager, who marked the characteristics of spe-
cific players in order to imagine their role in forthcoming
matches; and by the team, which analyzed itself in order to
determine its strengths and weaknesses.
It has thus been shown that the identity game served to create
a shared landscape in which the team members could meaning-
fully perform actions, take decisions, ask questions or make
One of the primary exigencies of social—and individ-
ual—life is to ensure the continuity of identities and interpreta-
tions of reality while also being able to introduce novelties and
to cope with desired or imposed changes. For groups, and sport
teams as well, this entails the constant sharing of information
about the past and the planning of new courses of action, while
respecting the complex array of roles, responsibilities and spe-
cialist practices unevenly distributed among the various team
members and in the socio-physical setting in which they act.
The ‘embeddedness’ of identity negotiation practices in the
characteristic and meaningful activities of a sport group (rather
than its existence as a cognitive and individual phenomenon) is
visible only if we adopt a sequential analysis of interactive data
such as those presented here. Were we instead to adopt iden-
tity-focused interviews or standardized scales, we would more
easily find clearly-defined borders of an abstract and general-
ized identity (identity construct), but we would necessarily be
unable to determine how identity construction and manipulation
emerge from, and are continuously shaped by, the ongoing
construction of a group’s situated social-discursive practices.
Our results consequently confirm the usefulness of primary
conversational data (transcripts of the discourse of social actors)
for analysis of the evolution and moment-by-moment construc-
tion of identity rhetoric. We believe that such an epistemologi-
cal and methodological choice may be applied to investigate,
besides the theme of identity negotiation, how other psycho-
logical phenomena in sport groups emerge interactively.
Anderson, C. B. (2004). Athletic identity and its relation to exercise
behavoir: Scale development and initial validation. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 26, 39-56.
Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.) (1998). Identities in Talk. London:
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking. A rethorical approach to so-
cial psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. four lectures on mind and culture.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: From cross- cul-
tural research to creating systems of cultural mediation. Culture &
Psychology, 1, 25-54. doi:10.1177/1354067X9511003
Cox, A. E., & Whaley, D. E. (2004). The Influence of task value, ex-
pec-tancies for success, and Identity on athletes’ achievement be-
havoirs. Journal of Apllied Sport Psychology, 16, 103-117.
Curry, T. J., & Weaner, J. S. (1987). Sport identity salience, committ-
ment and the involvment of self in role: Measurement issues. Soci-
ology of Sport Journal, 4, 280-288.
Edwards (1998). The relevant thing about Her: Social identity catego-
ries in use. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe(Eds.), Identities in Talk
(pp. 15-33). London: Sage.
Fasulo A., & Zucchermaglio C. (2002). My selves and I: Identity
markers in work meeting talk. Journal of Pragmat ic s , 34, 1119-1144.
Fasulo, A., & Zucchermaglio C. (2008). Narratives in the workplace:
Facts, fiction and canonicity. Text and Talk, 28, 351-376.
Finlay, S. J., Faulkner, G. (2003). Actually I was the Star: Managing
Attributions in Conversation. URL (last checked January 2003)
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday.
Goodwin C., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.),
A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222-244). Oxford: Basil
Harré, R. (1989). Metaphysics and methodology: Some prescriptions
for social psychological research. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 19, 439-453. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420190511
Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning.
Journal for the Theory of Soc i a l Behaviour, 21, 393-408.
Hogg M. A., & Hardie E. A. (1991). Social attraction, personal attrac-
tion and self-categorization: A field study. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 17, 175-180.
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small
group. In E. H. Witte and J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group
behaviour (pp. 227-253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which
provides for a “standard maximum” silence of approximately one
second in conversation. In D. Roger and P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation:
an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 156-197). Clevedon: Multilingual
Killeva-Jones, L. A. (2005). Identity structure, role discrepancy and
psychological adjustment in male college students-athletes. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 28, 167-185.
Locke, A. (2004). Accounting for success and failure: A discursive
psychological approach to sport talk. Quest, 56, 302-320.
MacClancy, J. (1996). Sport, identity and ethnicity. US: Berg.
Muhlhausler, P, & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguis-
tic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Black-
well Pub.
Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down I’m
in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the in-
terpretative activity of physicists. In E. A. Schlegoff, E. Ochs and S.
A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328-369). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perkins D. N. (1993). Person: Plus: a distributed view of thinking and
learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: psychological
and educational considerations (pp. 88-111). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Robert, R. S. (1999). Anthropology, sport and culture. New York, NY:
Bergin & Garvey.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversations. G. Jefferson (Ed.). Oxford:
Basil Balckwell.
Schlegoff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and
Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Schmid, J., & Seiler, R., (2003). Identity in high-performance sport;
psychometric investigations with German language adaptation of the
Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS-D). Diagnostica, 49,
176-183. doi:10.1026//0012-1924.49.4.176
Sparkes, A. C. (1996). The fatal flaw: A narrative of the fragile
body-self. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 463-494.
Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Ethnographic fiction and representing the absent
Other. Sport, Educatioin and Society, 2, 25-40.
Sparkes, A. C. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activithy: A
qualitative journey. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.
Thiele, J. (2003). Ethnographic perspectives in sport science in Ger-
many. Status Quo and Developmental Potentials. Forum Qualitative
Social Research, 4, 1.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and
identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an analyst’s and a participant’s
resource. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, (Eds.), Identities in Talk
(pp. 87-106). London: Sage.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, Context and Interaction. In C.
Antaki and S. Widdicombe, (Eds.), Identities in Talk (pp. 87-106).
London: Sage.
Zucchermaglio, C. (2005). Who wins and who loses: The rethorical
manipulation of social identities in a soccer team. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research and Practice, 9, 219-238.