Goebel Paper

download Goebel Paper

of 22

Transcript of Goebel Paper

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    1/22

    Building Community: Identity,

    Interdiscursivity and LanguageChoice in Everyday Narrative

    Zane GoebelGraduate School of Letters,

    Nagoya UniversityJAPAN

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    2/22

    1. INTRODUCTION

    Aim - to show the relationships between everyday

    narrative (EN), code genesis and identity/communityformation projects in a diverse setting.

    Thesis My main argument is that:

    1)by participating in EN (and conversation moregenerally) old-timers and newcomers alike are engaged

    in ongoing identification projects.

    2)Part of this process is the building of new linguisticrepertoires that are indexed (but never fixed) to a

    particular identity.

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    3/22

    1.1 How the paper will proceed

    2. Language, Socialization & Identity (Re)production.

    3. Narrative Analysis

    4. Fieldwork methods & setting

    1. Methods

    2. Local patterns of exchange

    3. Enregistered varieties

    5. Building community, identity and linguistic repertories

    6. Social identification and reification across speech settings

    7. Conclusions

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    4/22

    Language Socialization - Through observation & participation

    in recurrent settings newcomers learn, that is, index linguisticforms with context > forms part of CC (e.g. Ochs 1988).

    Communities of Practice (COP) identities, communities, and

    the meaning of linguistic forms are outcomes of their

    negotiation in situated interaction (e.g. Wenger 1998)

    A COP can be as small as two participants.

    Social Identification is constantly evolving and relies upon the

    appropriation of resources from various timeframes

    (Wortham 2005, 2006)

    Social identification relies upon the linking of linguistic forms

    from one speech situation to the next = interdiscursivity

    2. Language, Socialization & Identity (Re)production

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    5/22

    Timeframes (TF), social identification & reification

    5

    SHORTEST TF

    Initial Situated

    Interaction

    LONGEST TF (Resource Set 1)

    Enregistered varieties (Agha2003) that link social personaand characteristics withlinguistic forms

    RESOURCES SET 2

    Local styles = lang

    + context)

    PROCEDURAL TF

    Subsequent

    interaction

    RESOURCES SET 3

    Styles as a result ofparticipation in otherCOP

    RESOURCE SETS1, 2 & 3)

    Resources and indexical relations built in procedural timeframe

    increasingly mediate appropriation of Resource Sets 1 & 3

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    6/22

    3 Narrative Analysis

    6

    EverydayNarrative

    Canonical

    Casual Conversations

    Recent events

    Not performance

    Multiparty

    Some Differences

    Gathered using interviews

    Life Histories

    Performance

    One teller

    Similarities

    Often about problematic events or things that run counter to

    tellers expectation (Ochs & Capps 2001; Ochs 2004)

    Used to socialize newcomers about community expectations

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    7/227

    Based on 2.5 years fieldwork in two RT in Semarang

    Primary fieldwork methods drawn from EOC (e.g. Hymes) &

    interactional sociolinguistics (e.g. Gumperz), including:

    participation in, recording, observation of interactions, such as monthly

    meetings, working bees (Kerja bakti), religious festivals (halal bihalal,

    natalan, pengajian, etc.), daily conversations among neighbors, sporting

    events/games

    Post-recording playback interviews Use of questionnaires in the last few months of fieldwork asking for

    judgments about social relationships based on transcribed talk and

    contextual info.

    Semi-structured interviews in the last month

    4 Fieldwork Methods and Setting

    4.1 Methods (Details in Goebel 2000, 2002, 2005)

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    8/22

    4.2 Local patterns of linguistic exchange

    CONTEXT INTRA-ETHNIC INTER-ETHNIC

    Unfamiliar/stranger kramaJavanese Indonesian

    Familiar/Intimate ngokoJavanese ngokoJavanese

    8

    Table 2: Indexical relationships between code choice & context

    Reflected prolonged (1-8 years of interaction), frequent

    (daily or weekly) and intense (more than just a greeting)

    These locally developed styles with their links to context are

    local language ideologies (see Appendices B & D)

    These styles are contextualization cues and/or resources

    which help signal intent and interpret talk in interaction.

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    9/229

    Enregisterment can be defined as processes which produce a

    register that is differentiatable within a language. These

    processes rely on meta-discourse in literature, media +

    adoption in schooling. Such processes help index social

    characteristics and personas to a language variety over time in

    public spaces (Agha 2003; 2006). Education and the popular mass media have unintentionally

    enregistered ethnic identity with language in Indonesia, e.g.

    Indonesian as a language of the stranger and local

    languages as the language of insiders and adequation

    (Goebel 2007, Forthcoming, Under review) See Appendix E.

    Such enregistered varieties can be appropriated and

    recontextualized in situated interaction.

    4.3 Enregisterment in Indonesia

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    10/2210

    Look at talk that occurs in 2 re-occurring female RT meetings.

    Usually the heads of household would attend, though of the

    23 households rarely were there more than 15 attendees.

    There were was one newcomer, Bu Zainudin, who attendedboth meetings.

    To visually represent what newcomers might perceive I have

    put Indonesian in plain font, ngokoJavanese in redbold,

    and bold italicsindicates those forms that can be classified

    as either ngokoJavanese or Indonesian).

    5 Building community, identity and linguistic repertories

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    11/22

    Diagram 1 An RT meeting in RT08

    11

    Diagram 05 An RT meeting in RT08

    Extract 13 taken from Tape

    Recorder

    entrance

    Kris* YudiantoZainuddin*

    Joko

    Feizal*

    Mardiono

    Pujianto Taufik* Nurholis

    Abdurrahman*

    Sumaryono*

    SuntoroNaryono

    d

    oo

    r

    table

    divider stairs

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    12/22

    Bu Naryono

    123

    45

    Bu Manurung #kui lho# .+ditarik?+wongkan? ngga pernahketemuyo ndewek karep kih? .

    lepas ngono lho soko tanggungjawab#RTiki ndewek kihemoh# =

    That Bu Manurung, asked [formonetary contributions she] cannever be found, yeah [her]

    individual wish is to not take anyRTresponsibilities, [she] is notinterested

    Bu Joko

    6 = lho ojo manggon neng ken

    (???)

    Well dont live here(???) (???)

    Bu Naryono

    78

    anu opo ndewek ora tahu tekoloh?kan? ya nggak boleh ok =

    Ah what is it, [she] has nevershown up, [you] arent allowed

    Bu Sumaryono

    9 = dia tuh dia statusnya di sini apa? = She, what is her [residency] status hereBu Naryono

    10 = lah iya That is right.

    Bu Sumaryono

    1112 dia di sini minta surat RT kan? jangan>DIKASIH> = She is here, [if she] asks for an RTletter, dont GIVE IT [to her]

    Extract 1 Socialization: (Re)producing norms for conduct

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    13/22

    As can be seen in lines 1-5, 7-8 Bu Naryono states her

    expectations for RT members through pointing to someone

    who has deviated from these expectations.

    The expectations:

    Make contributions to the upkeep and running of the

    neighborhood,

    Attend neighborhood meetings.

    Note also that while Bu Naryono mentions these expectations,

    it is Bu Joko and Bu Sumaryono who cite solutions orsanctions.

    Thus, we can say that there is a co-construction of RT norms

    and what it means to be a member of this RT (IDENTITY).

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    14/2214

    We can see the inter-related nature of social practiceand identity through seeing expectations about practicesimultaneously defining what social characteristics

    contribute to identity or membership in this setting.

    The us and them/her dichotomy being invoked here is

    given further emphasis through recourse to local language

    ideologies, longer-term ideologies (i.e. enregisteredforms) and resources from membership in other COPs

    Especially the ideology of regional languages (in this case

    ngokoJavanese) as the language of insiders andIndonesian being for conversations with outsiders.

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    15/22

    Extract 2 Socialization through language usage:(Re)producing norms for speaking conduct

    Bu Naryono

    131415

    = wong lag emben ngentoh nang ken? .saya tuhsewaktu waktu#pind:ah# =

    A while ago [she] camehere [and said] at sometime or another I will move[from here].

    Bu Sumaryono

    16 = kabehW:ONG? = AllPEOPLE[move]

    Bu Naryono

    17 = lah iya = That is right.

    Bu Sumaryono

    18 semua ORANG wongkantor

    aja tidak ada menetap

    All PEOPLE, even office

    workers, none stayforever.

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    16/22

    What is interesting in the above extract is the alternation from

    ngokoJavanese on lines 13-14 to Indonesian on lines 14-15.

    In this case it can be classified as codeswitching because incontrast to her earlier alternation between I and NJ which

    could be found within one sense unit, here there is a clear

    pause separating different code choices.

    It helps highlight insider-outsider relationships with ngoko

    Javanese being used by an insider, Bu Naryono, and

    Indonesian being reportedly used by Bu Tobing, the deviant

    outsider.

    Are these repertoires i.e. NJ among locals appropriated by

    observer (Bu Zainudin)??

    B Z i di

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    17/22

    Extract 3 (Re)producing or reifying norms for speaking conduct?Bu Zainudin

    1234

    5678

    tohBu (.2) itu katanya kan adik (.1) itulohBu adik saya itukan waktu pertamakali bawabarang itu minta itu mintatolong samaadik saya soal engga

    ada laki laki yang mau ngangkutngangkut nurunin itu adik sayaditolong (.2) dia (.3) dia ngangkut itumalam malam itu bawakke ruma:h?terus dia =

    HehBu he said [my] younger brotherright, [I] mean my younger brother right,the first time when goods were brought[by truck to next door], [they] asked

    asked for help from my brother becausethere were nomen to lift and unload [thetruck]. [So] my younger brother helped,he, he lifted and carried it into thehouse.

    Bu Naryono910

    =jeneng ngerepotk tonggokokngono kuwi jeneng=

    Hemthats called inconveniencingthe neighbors, thats what doingthat is called.

    Bu Zainudin

    1112 = yasoalnyaenggaada siapa siapawaktu itu {sih Bu haha Yeahthe problem was at that time therewas notanybody around Bu haha

    Bu Naryono

    1314

    { lahsalah wong gowobarang ra nggowo { wongpiy

    Yeah[well] thats the problem ofthe person who brought the goods, [gee how stupid] not [also] bringingsomeone with [to do this].

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    18/22

    I interpret Bu Zainudins usage of NJ forms soalthe

    problem/because and bawakto bring something for

    someone (lines 6 & 8) as evidence for developing linguistic

    repertoire indexed with these participants.

    This is so because Bu Zainudin actually knew both NJ & KJ but

    chose not to use it in all of the interaction > testing the

    interactional waters

    In subsequent interactions over the 2.5 years fieldwork was

    undertaken these speaker moved increasingly to NJ exchange

    in an (inter-ethnic interaction)

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    19/22

    6 Conclusions

    In bring this all together perhaps the most important point is:

    There is a difference between competence in a languagevariety and a developing communicative competence

    The later is tied with a particular community of practice, anew linguistic medium, and an emerging identity, such as

    regular attendee of RT meetings, reliable payer of RTdues, frequent conversation partner, and increasingly

    competent user ofngokoJavanese.

    In this sense our newcomer, Bu Zainudin, can be seen to

    have chosen not to continue the exchange in ngokoJavanesebecause she is aware that doing so may have been indicativeof a type of identity that wasnt yet ratifiable.

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    20/22

    THANK YOU

    QUESTIONS?

    COMMENTS?

    References Cited and other useful sources

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    21/22

    References Cited and other useful sourcesAgha, Asif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication23: 231-273.

    Agha, Asif. 2006. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Alvarez-Cccamo, Celso. 1998. From 'switching code' to code-switching. In Peter Auer (ed.) Code-switching inconversation: Language, interaction and identity. New York: Routledge.29-48.

    Auer, Peter. 1995. The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In Lesley Milroy and Pieter Muysken

    (eds.) One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.115-135.

    Gafaranga, Joseph. 2001. Linguistic identities in talk-in-interaction: Order in bilingual conversation. Journal ofPragmatics33: 1901-1925.

    Gafaranga, Joseph, and Maria-Carma Torras. 2002. Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition ofcodeswitching. The International Journal of Bilingualism6: 1-22.

    Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1995. Code-switching in community, regional and national repertoires: The myth of

    the discreteness of linguistic systems. In Lesley Milroy and Pieter Muysken (eds.) One speaker, twolanguages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.68-89.

    Goebel, Zane. 2007. Enregisterment and Appropriation in Javanese-Indonesian Bilingual Talk.Language inSociety36: 511-531.

    Goebel, Zane. Under Review. Language, Region, and Ethnicity in Indonesia. Bijdragen tot de Taal, Land- enVolkenkunde.

    Goebel, Zane. Forthcoming. Enregistering, Authorizing and Denaturalizing Identity in Indonesia.Journal of

    Linguistic Anthropology, 18/1.Gumperz, John Joseph. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In John Joseph Gumperz and Dell H.Hymes (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.35-71.

    Ochs, Elinor. 1988. Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in aSamoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    References Cited and other useful sources

  • 7/29/2019 Goebel Paper

    22/22

    References Cited and other useful sourcesOchs, Elinor. 2004. Narrative lessons. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.)A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology.

    Oxford: Blackwell.269-289.

    Ochs, Elinor, and L Capps. 2001. Living Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Oesch-Serra, Cecilia. 1998. Discourse connectives in bilingual conversation: the case of and emerging Italian-French mixed code. In Peter Auer (ed.) Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity.

    New York: Routledge.101-122.Schieffelin, Bambi B., and Elinor Ochs (eds.). 1986. Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Wortham, Stanton E. F. 2005. Socialization beyond the Speech Event. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology15: 95-112.

    Wortham, Stanton E. F. 2006. Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic

    Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.