Identity in interculturality: Using (lack of) cultural knowledge to disalign with an identity category (original) (raw)
Related papers
Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach (coauthored with Mary Bucholtz)
Discourse Studies, 2005
The article proposes a framework for the analysis of identity as produced in linguistic interaction, based on the following principles: (1) identity is the product rather than the source of linguistic and other semiotic practices and therefore is a social and cultural rather than primarily internal psychological phenomenon; (2) identities encompass macro-level demographic categories, temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles, and local, ethnographically emergent cultural positions; (3) identities may be linguistically indexed through labels, implicatures, stances, styles, or linguistic structures and systems; (4) identities are relationally constructed through several, often overlapping, aspects of the relationship between self and other, including similarity/difference, genuineness/artifice and authority/delegitimacy; and (5) identity may be in part intentional, in part habitual and less than fully conscious, in part an outcome of interactional negotiation, in part a construct of others’ perceptions and representations, and in part an outcome of larger ideological processes and structures. The principles are illustrated through examination of a variety of linguistic interactions.
Identity in Intercultural Interaction: How Categories Do Things
Although identity has become a key topic in second language research, it is a problematic notion to research when considered to exist only in the individual's head. By operationalizing identity as the social display of self in relation to others, discourse analytic approaches such as Conversation Analysis (CA) and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) instead locate identity in interaction. hus, this makes identity observable through the sequential details of talk. his paper (1) introduces the CA/MCA approach to identity as a social accomplishment and then (2) applies it to identity ascriptions in a study abroad context and an online English-speaking practice chat room. he analysis initially focuses on the role of epistemics and how discursive displays of knowledge help accomplish identity. It then goes on to demonstrate some of the ways that participants use identity categories as an interactional resource. アイデンティティーの概念は第二言語研究においても近年その重要性を増しているが、 内 在的で不可視な存在であるため研究対象としては疑義的なものであった。 この研究は、 社 会的表象としてのアイデンティティーを相互行為の中に突き止めるのではなく、 会話分析 や成員カテゴリー化分析等の談話分析的手法を用いて会話記録の詳細からアイデンティ ティーを解明する。 まず会話分析と成員カテゴリー化分析の方法論を検証し、 それらの分 析方法を用いて短期留学とオンライン英会話チャッ トルームの環境下での帰属意識の表 示と機能を分析する。 本稿では成員関係の認識的機能と、 またその推論的な知識の表示 が参加者自らのアイデンティティー完遂にどう機能しているかに焦点を合わせる。 そして実 際に参加者が成員カテゴリーを会話方策としてどう使用しているか論証する。 Ever since the increase in post-structural approaches to research such as those of Bonnie Norton (2000) * and David Block (2003), identity has become a major focus within Applied Linguistics. Teachers and learners alike are interested in the efect that acquiring a second language (L2) can have on the way we see ourselves, * Greer, T., Brandt A., Ogawa, Y. (2014). Identity in intercultural interaction: How categories do things.
Dominant theories of identity in the social sciences appear ill-equipped to take into account the fact that individuals may simultaneously refer to multiple identities in seeking to relate to/make sense of one another during interpersonal interactions. This chapter reviews the ways in which (i) Social Identity Theory, (ii) Identity Theory and (iii) Intersectionality can be applied to analysing such situations, the aspects foregrounded by each respective theoretical framework, and the perceived limits of each. It then argues the case for situating analyses on the level of ―identity traits‖ (behaviours attributable to a particular identity or identities), rather than of identities, in order to bypass a certain number of conceptual limitations and cast light upon the ways in which individuals may seek to privilege not only accountability (Garfinkel 1967) but also coherency between intersecting identities during an interpersonal encounter.
Harvey J. Hames I would like to thank the organizers of this conference for allowing me the opportunity to explore a subject which is of great personal interest, and to able to do it with reference to Ramon Llull, someone for whom the question of identity was central for the purpose of achieving "real" dialogue, albeit, under his terms.
Theorizing Language and Discourse for the Interactional Study of Identities
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 2016
The following commentary critically reflects on the pragmatic and semiotic approach to language and identity articulated by Tapia, Rojas, and Picado (Culture & Psychology, Tapia et al. 2017). The following questions are central: 1) What theoretical position is (tacitly) being articulated regarding the nature of language and discourse? Although the authors admit that an explicit theorization of language and discourse is not their focus, the absence of a clear theoretical position is conspicuously problematic. And 2) is there an unintended cognitivism present in the way the authors formulate the relationship between language/discourse and identity? After discussing these questions, select parts of a radical interactional approach, grounded in discursive positioning, will be presented as an amendment to the present work, insofar as it attempts to both articulate a progressive theorization of language and discourse and avoid an unintended slide into cognitivism.