Culture in Communication
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
284 FRANCA ORLETTI
8. ME: facevano tante cose là. ballavano= ME:they did a lot of things
there. they danced=
9. MA: =insomma era un punto di ritrovo MA:so it was a meeting place
10. ME: eh! eh un punto di ritrovo eheh… ME:yes. yes, a meeting place
eheh …
This narrative inverts the roles of native/non-native opposition. It is Medina
who explains to Marisa what the “occupied convent” really was, not the other
way around. The fact that Medina knows more about Roman life than Marisa
does is unsurprising since Marisa in a way is also an immigrant, having moved
from Sardinia to mainland Italy (referred to by Sardinians as “the Continent”).
Nor has she lived in Rome for as long as Medina has. The fact that both
women are immigrants creates a relationship of “co-membership” (Erickson,
Schultz 1982) that often emerges in their conversational choices, though not in
this extract in which there seems to be a state of communicative asymmetry
with Medina occupying the dominant role. This role reversal is clear in the
interactional development when Medina changes tack at the end of her narra-
tive and asks Marisa a question — “you never came there?”.
The entire narrative puts Medina in a position of power in that she is the
one who assumes the teaching role, explaining to Marisa events from her past
that she may not know as well as details about the place she lived for over a
year — a place that was regarded as a kind of cultural institution in Rome
during that period. Medina’s role as a guide is signalled by her constant use of
“sai”,
3
a discourse marker used in Italian to involve the interlocutor by
attributing him or her with knowledge that he or she undoubtedly does not
possess.
This new arrangement lasts for a very short time. After a few more words,
in which Medina explains how she then bought her house, we return to the
interview frame. The interview comes to an end, after further question-answer
exchanges, in extract 3 below:
Extract 3
1. MA: è ora di pranzo. ti ringrazio MA:it’s time for lunch. thanks a
moltissimo lot.
2. ME: niente. grazie a lei ME:not at all. thank you.
The fact that it is Marisa who opens the closing sequence is perfectly in line
with the definition of the situation and linguistic event which the participants
have agreed to recognise, namely the research interview, in which the inter-
285
T
HE CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
viewer rather than the interviewee opens and closes the interaction. What is
striking here is the expression used by Medina as a closing formula in
response to Marisa. Her “grazie a lei” is a return to the “lei” address form that
signals a formal relationship between interlocutors at a point when the recipro-
cal use of the informal “tu” form seems to have already been consolidated.
However, this may not be a lapse into the social relationship of formal
courtesy triggered by the contextual frame. Medina may be using the entire
phrase as a crystallised, idiomatic form without conceiving of “lei” as some-
thing separate from it. Medina has clearly learnt the form as an unanalysed
chunk representing a conversational formula for responding to thanks and is
using it in this way here.
5.2 A discussion about politics
We now turn to the second interaction:
Interaction 2
Setting: informant’s home
Participants: Marisa, Medina, Sara (Medina’s daughter)
Extract 4
MA = Marisa, the native; ME = Medina, the non-native; SA = Sara, Medina’s
daughter
(Marisa knocks at the door)
1. ME: chi è? ME:who is it?
2. MA: sono Marisa MA:it’s Marisa.
3. ME: ciaoo! vieni qua vieni ME:hellooo! come here, come.
4. MA: ero preoccupata per voi. non vi MA:I was worried about you (.)
ho più visto ed ho pensato che I haven’t seen you around and I
eravate tutti malati thought you might all be sick in bed
5. SA: no io SA:no me.
6. MA: ah vedi che c’era qualcuno malato MA:ah! you see? there was
someone sick!
7. ME: ((ride)) ME:((laughs))
8. MA: ma ho detto questa famiglia che fa? MA:I said to myself what has
non si vede più in giro! happened to this family? no one has
seen them around!
9. ME: ((ride)) ME:((laughs))
10. MA: invece voi state guardando la MA:but here you are instead
286 FRANCA ORLETTI
televisione e ve ne fregate di me watching TV, you couldn’t care less
che mi preccupo per voi if if I was worrying about you
11. ME: ((ride)) ME:((laughs))
12. SA: ((ride anche lei)) SA:(( laughs too))
13. MA: ma avete ospiti? disturbo? MA:but do you have visitors?
am I disturbing you?
(con ironia)) me ne devo andare? ((ironically)) should I leave?
14. SA: ((parla sotto voce: il fratello SA:((whispering: her brother is
dorme)) asleep))
15. ME: no, no le rompi le scatole, dove vai ME:no no. you’ll disturb him,
di quà di là what are you doing running around
like that?
((dove vuoi accomodarti, ((where do you want to sit,
in cucina o in salotto?)) in the kitchen or the living room ?))
16. MA: andiamo in cucina che è più MA:let’s go in the kitchen. it’s
piccola va! cosier, you know.
stai facendo i compiti? guarda cosa are you doing your homework? here,
ti do, look what I’ve got for you,
per te e Michele for you and Michael
17. SA: che carino! grazie! SA:oh, how nice! thank you!
18. ME: proprio a te pensava ME:she was just thinking of you
19. MA: eh pensava e perchè non sei venuta MA:humph! thinking of me/ and how
a trovarmi! come you never came for a visit!
20. ME: noo stamattina siamo andati dal ME:noo! we went to see the
dottore doctor this morning
21. MA: e perchè? MA:oh! why?
22. ME: c’ha avuto la bronchite c’aveva MA:she’s had bronchitis. she
quando venuta te no? ((visita had it when you came didn’t she
precedente di M.)) ((Marisa’s previous visit))
23. MA: aah! MA:aah!
24. ME: e dopo ha detto — questa bronchite ME:and then she said — this
non deve uscire fuori non deve bronchitis is not supposed to leave
andare scuola the house it’s not to go to school
e dopo stata a casa perchè se no and after stayed home because if not
dice che// she says that//
25. SA: guarda che carino mamma SA:(showing gift)//look how
((il regalo)) nice it is, mom!
26. ME: eh bello, dai vieni ((siediti)) ME:mmm, nice! come on sit down here!
27. MA: no no, te l’ho detto MA:no no I told you I’ve come
sono scesa per vedere une certa down to see a certain Mrs Medina
signora Medina che non si fa vedere who never calls on anyone
28. ME: io poi ogni tanto esco entro esco ME:well, I, now and then, go
entro out, come back, go out, come back!!
29. MA: eh si! esci, entri, entri esci MA:that’s right! in and out, out and in!
30. ME: lei stata male solo che io esco con ME:yeah but she been sick so I
287
T
HE CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
Michele poi a scuola una settimana just go out with Michael then to
chiusa! school closed for a week!
31. MA: si è vero per le elezioni MA:yes that’s right for the elections
32. ME: eh! poi sabato ero uscita poi sono ME:yeah then saturday I had go then
rimasti col padre ieri neanche tutta they stayed with their father,
giornata yesterday not even all day,
pranzo fuori tutti quanti lunch out for all of them
33. MA: pensavo che fossi preoccupata MA:I thought you were worried
per le elezioni about the elections
34. ME: che preoccupata? ME:why worried?
35. MA: se avessi potuto votare chi avresti MA:if you had been eligible to
votato? vote who would you have voted for?
36. ME: ammazza ladri ME:those who kill the thieves
37. MA: chi sono gli ammazza ladri? MA:who are the ones that kill
the thieves?
38. ME: quelli là ti fregano tutti soldi ME:those guys, they take all
your money
39. MA: ma hai visto i risultati, MA:but did you see the results?
tutti i fascisti che hanno vinto, all those fascists who won? what a
che vergogna! disgrace!
40. ME: eh che credi che essere che ME:yeah. who you think they
vincono? are that win?
41. MA: chi credi che vince? MA:who do you think is the
winner?
42. ME: ma non c’è nessuno sono tutti ME:there’s no one, they’re all
uguali the same
This exchange takes place about two years after the first one, shortly after the
Rome mayoral elections. Like all the other encounters between Medina and
Marisa, this take place in Medina’s house and has no special goal. In this first
extract there is an extended opening sequence with an exchange of greetings
followed by conversational routines that normally occur in this type of en-
counter. The central topic of the encounter, the electoral results, emerges
gradually after Medina’s comment on the fact that the schools had been closed
because of the elections. Although Marisa directs the conversation towards the
election topic, she cannot be considered to have introduced it, since the topic
would not have emerged at all without Medina’s utterance, as can be seen in
lines 31 to 33.
In this extract the discourse topic is jointly constructed. The entire inter-
action seems to develop according to an equal distribution of participation
rights, even though cultural difference is made relevant through both the
discourse content and the native’s pedagogic role. The latter underlines the
288 FRANCA ORLETTI
linguistic inequality between the two; it should be noted that in ll.36–42
Marisa reformulates Medina’s words on no less than two occasions, even
though she has failed to understand what Medina is saying and the kind of
discourse she is constructing. In l.37ff. Marisa fails to realise that the expres-
sion used by Medina — “ammazza ladri” — is not a pidginised version of the
Italian “chi ammazza i ladri” or “chi ammazzano i ladri” (the one(s) who
kill(s) the thieves). There are two further interpretations of what Medina
meant to say. In the first, “ammazza” is a Roman dialect form being used as an
intensifier. The native version would be “ammazza che ladri”, the equivalent
of “sono proprio dei ladri” (they’re real thieves) in standard Italian. In the
second, “ammazza” stands for “massa”, used metaphorically in Italian to
indicate a large quantity; Medina’s comment could thus be interpreted in
standard Italian as “massa di ladri” (a bunch of thieves”) or “sono tutti una
massa di ladri”) (they’re all a bunch of thieves). Due to the similarity between
the two Italian expressions and to the fact that either can occur in the same
sequential collocation and with the same function (i.e. as comment), they may
have been reinterpreted in the variety of Italian used by Medina as a single
expression. What is important is that these expressions, or their contamina-
tion, are perfectly appropriate to the kind of discourse that Medina is formulat-
ing. This discourse might be defined by the Italian expression “piove, governo
ladro” (“it’s raining and it’s the government’s fault”), which acts as a refrain
throughout its formulation. In this kind of political discourse, generic claims
such as “all politicians are corrupt” and “it’s all the government’s fault” are
repeated, with the speaker adopting no precise political position beyond a
vaguely negative attitude towards those in power. It is the kind of discourse
that is constructed by people at the market or on buses, involving interlocutors
who meet for the first and presumably only time. Even though it can be
formulated by people who know one another, its emergence indicates a
reluctance to become involved in a genuine political discussion.
The misunderstanding, however, stems from the fact that Marisa is
convinced that she is producing a genuine political discourse with Medina. It
becomes clear, however, in l. 42 that the discourse is of the “it’s raining and
it’s the government’s fault” type when Medina states that all politicians are the
same. What we have here is a case of “intercultural miscommunication”
(Gumperz and Roberts 1991), although it has little in common with those
analysed by Gumperz. In this case, the non-native demonstrates a full, native-
like awareness of the communicative routines and discourse schema of the
289
T
HE CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
social and communicative networks in which she is involved each day. The
misunderstanding in this case stems from the fact that the interactants, while
drawing on the same communicative and cultural repertoire, act according to
different discourse schemata, failing to agree on the definition of the linguistic
activity in which they are involved. Unlike the cases analysed by Gumperz,
Marisa’s misunderstanding is not produced by the fact that a particular expres-
sion might have different interpretations depending on the different cultural
backgrounds in which it is read but stems from the fact that the native and non-
native speakers construct parallel but different discourses. Once the phase of
temporary “miscommunication” has passed, the conversation resumes on an
equal footing on the subject of the conditions of immigrant workers in Italy.
As is typical in a conversation between women friends, it moves in an entirely
casual manner from personal topics to more general issues such as the condi-
tion of women in Italy and Eritrea. Towards the end of the interaction the
arrival of Sara brings about a sudden change, shifting attention to the hanging
up of her rag doll and the tea that Marisa and Medina are drinking. Medina’s
attitude makes the whole of this interaction highly significant. What makes
this encounter interesting is not so much the fact that it concerns topics like
politics that are not strictly connected to domestic matters and takes place on
an equal footing, but that at the end Medina presents a positive view of her
own cultural identity.
Extract 5
1. SA: mamma dove l’appendiamo? SA:mom, where should I hang
((il pupazzo)) it up? ((the doll))
2. ME: Sara e che so! ME:Sarah! how should I know!
3. SA: ooh! a me non me l’hai fatto SA:oh! you didn’t make one for
((il té)) me ((a cup of tea))
4. ME: chi? il té lo vuoi? ((ride)) ME:who? tea you want?
((laughs))
5. SA: eh SA:mmm!
6. ME: fai i compiti su! ME:do your homework, go on!
7. MA: prima i compiti poi il té MA:first your homework, then
some tea!
8. ME: limone vero ((rivolta a Marisa)) ME:lemon, right? ((to Marisa))
9. MA: si, si limone MA:yes, yes lemon
10. ME: aah! dimenticato quella lascia stare, ME:aah! forgot it! don’t touch it
ti metto la tassina ohi ohi ((ride)) ((the glass)), I’ll get you a cup ohi
ohi ((laughs))
11. MA: lascia stare che mi va bene lo stesso MA:don’t bother, it’s all the same
290 FRANCA ORLETTI
((bere il té da un bicchiere di vetro)) to me((i.e. drinking tea from a glass))
12. ME: vedi ti ha pensato come mia ME:see? I thought of you as my
paesana, hai capito? countrywoman you understand?
13. MA: questo è bello che mi hai pensato MA:it’s nice that you thought of
come tua paesana, dammi un me one of yours. give me a teaspoon,
cucchiaino per cortesia would you?
14. ME: ti brucia? ME:too hot?
15. MA: o con il dito ((con ironia)) MA:or with a finger ((joking))
16. ME: ah con il dito ME:ah, with a finger.
17. MA: va bene che mi hai pensato come MA:I’m glad you thought of me
tua paesana tanto quando ti as one of your countrywomen, ‘cause
trasferisci ti vengo a trovare when you go back, I’ll visiting you.
18. ME: ma magari! ME:ooh I hope so!
In this sequence we see the way in which the opposition between in-groupness
and out-groupness, generally used by natives to categorise non-natives, is
used by Medina to affiliate Marisa with her own group. The affiliation is
achieved implicitly through non-verbal behaviour (i.e. pouring tea into a glass
rather than a cup) and formulated explicitly (l.12). Marisa evaluates this
behaviour positively (l.13) and also expresses the desire to visit her when she
leaves Italy (l.17). In Medina’s words and Marisa’s response we see how
native/non-native opposition is not always loaded with negative values for the
non-native group, and how it is impossible to restrict analysis to the identities
exhibited in the interaction. We also need to consider values associated with
the identities and the extent to which they are shared by the interactants.
6. Conclusions
Our data have shown, on the one hand, asymmetries in communicative roles
occurring in interactions where what was made relevant was more the type of
linguistic activity than the native/non-native opposition involved, and, on the
other, symmetries in participation status in interactions where this opposition
was made relevant. The native/non-native opposition remains in the back-
ground but is not enough to justify an unequal distribution of participation
rights. It is the activation of contextual frames such as the interview which
leads to asymmetry in interactional power. It might therefore be argued that
native/non-native interaction is not intrinsically asymmetrical.
Analysis of the details of the conversation reveals how the process of
positioning and the negotiation of social identities make use of all the instru-
291
T
HE CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
ments, both linguistic and interactional, available to the participants, from the
use of a word to the use of a discourse topic. It shows how identities are multi-
faceted complexes of attributes and qualities and how different participants
can attribute opposing qualities to a single identity, that of the non-native.
Through their discourse practices the participants compare the value judge-
ments by which they evaluate identities. Initially negative judgements, which
are often the result of stereotypes, are overturned in this subtle interactional
game. The interaction also creates affiliations between members of different
categories.
Finally, although this is not clear from the translation, the interactional data
also show that in the acquisition of second language competence such as that
achieved by Medina after 17 years in Italy, there is no longer a relationship
between communicative capacities and linguistic capacities in the strict sense.
Medina’s Italian is full of fossilised forms, and often has agreement problems
because of her generalised use of the third person singular for verb forms; this
sometimes creates difficulties in interpretation for her listeners. Nonetheless, it
allows her to play the subtle discourse game of “performing her social identity”
and to negotiate the contextual frames to be regarded as operative for the
ongoing interaction. This is thus a further demonstration of the need, assuming
there still is one, to distinguish communicative competence from grammatical
competence, as Hymes (1972) proposed many years ago.
Notes
1. This position is close to that of Schiffrin (1996): “The view offered here suggests that
identity is neither categorical or fixed: we may act more or less middle class, more or less
female, and so on, depending on what we are doing and with whom. This view forces us
to attend to speech activities, and to interactions in which they are situated, as a frame in
which our social roles are realized and our identities are displayed and even further, as a
potential resource for the display (and possible creation) of identity.” (p.199).
2. As regards the importance of contextualization work in making brought along aspects of
context relevant, Auer (Auer 1992: 27) states: “Lack of such contextualization work may
render visible features of the situational context irrelevant for interaction; a participant’s
gender may then be as interactionally unimportant as the presence of a piano in the
room.”
3. “Sai” is generally translated (and has been translated here) as “you know”, even though
its discourse function in Italian does not correspond exactly to the discourse function of
“you know” in English, as described by Schiffrin (1987).
292 FRANCA ORLETTI
References
Auer, P.
1992 “Introduction: J. Gumperz’ approach to contextualization”. In P. Auer & A.
Di Luzio (eds), The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins
B.V.
Bateson, G.
1972 “The message ‘This is a play’”. In G. Bateson, Steps Toward an Ecology of
Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Boden, D., and Zimmerman, D.H. (eds)
1991 Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chaput Waksler, F.
1989 “Erving Goffman’s sociology: An introductory essay”. In F. Chaput Waksler
(ed.), Erving Goffman’s Sociology, Human Studies, Special Issue, 12: 1–2,
1–18.
Cicourel, A.
1972 “Basic and normative rules in the negotiation of status and role”. In D.
Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press, 229–
258.
Davies, B., and Harré, R.
1990 “Positioning: Conversation and the production of selves”. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behavior, 20: 43–63.
Drew, P., and Heritage, J. (eds)
1992 Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Setting. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Erickson F., and Schultz J.
1982 The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H.
1970 “On formal structures of practical actions”. In C. McKinney and E.A.
Tiryanan, Theoretical Sociology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts,
338–366.
Gergen, K .
1987 “Toward self as relationship”. In K. Yardley and T. Honess (eds), Self and
Identity: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Wiley, 53–63.
Goffman, E.
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1974 Frame Analysis. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Greatbach, D.K.
1988 “A Twin-Taking System for British new Interviews”. Language in Society,
17: 401–430.
Gumperz, J.
1992a “Contextualization on Revisited”. In P. Auer and A. di Luzio (eds),
The Contexualization of Language. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins B.V., 39–53.
293
T
HE CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
1992b “Contextualization and understanding”. In A. Duranti, Ch. Goodwin (eds),
Rethinking Context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. and Roberts, C.
1991 “Understanding in intercultural encounters”. In J. Blommaert and J.
Verschueren (eds), The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Com-
munication. Amsterdam: J . Benjamins B.V.
Harré, R.
1987 “The social construction of selves”. In K. Yardley and T. Honess (eds), Self
and Identity: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Wiley, 41–52.
Heritage, J.
1985 “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of talk for an
‘overhearing audience’”. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, vol. III. London: Academic Press, 95–119.
Hinnenkamp, V.
1991 “Talking a person into interethnic distinction: A discourse analytic case
study”. In J. Blommaert and J. Verschueren (eds), The Pragmatics of
Intercultural and International Communication. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins
B.V.
Hymes, D.
1972 “On Communicative Competence”. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds),
Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–285.
Le Page, R.B., and Tabouret Keller, A.
1985 Acts of Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishler, E.G.
1986 Research Interviewing. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Orletti, F.
1983 “Pratiche di glossa”. In F. Orletti (ed.), Comunicare nella vita quotidiana.
Bologna: ll Mulino.
Philips, S.
1972 “Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs
children in community and classroom”. In C. Cazden, D. Hymes, and V.
John (eds), Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sacks, H.
1992 Lectures on Conversation, vols. 1 and 2. G. Jefferson (ed.). Oxford,
Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D.
1996 “Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity”. Lan-
guage in Society, 25, 167–203.
Taylor, Ch.
1991 “The dialogical self”. In D. Hiley et al. (eds), The interpretive turn: Philoso-
phy, science and culture. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 304–314.