Linguistic approaches to the analysis of identity

of receiving communicative messages that contain negative social evaluations.

With respect to the equation of face work with relational work in Locher (2004: 51), I will take a different stance: I share her view of ‘relational work’ as an umbrella term for the work interactants do on the relational, or interpersonal, level of communication. In this

respect, relational work is closely intertwined with interactive identity construction. However, I will employ the label ‘face work’ in a slightly different way. I conceptualise it as a metaphor that highlights a certain aspect of identity work, i.e. the relational work resulting from the sensitivity of human interactants toward the social evaluation of their identities in interaction.

In Section 5.2, I established the link between the three self-motives and face work: The human need for self-enhancement corresponds with Goffman’s idea of the requirement to confirm and protect ‘sacred’ faces in interactions (even though it is a well-established point that in many contexts interactants gladly ‘desecrate’ their fellow interactants for various reasons, cf. Bousfield, 2008). The self-assessment motif, on the other hand, may set the desire to be evaluated favourably by others in competition with the need to be assessed accurately. Moreover, the self-verification motif may lead interactants with partly negative concepts to strive for negative evaluations, thus causing clashes with their

self-enhancement motives and ultimately producing ambiguous patterns of self-presentation (cf.

Section 5.7; Chapter 12).

The terms ‘face’ and ‘face work’ are theoretical second-order terms, and metaphorical terms in particular. As such, they do not necessarily fit into a framework for the analysis of identity like a missing piece of a puzzle – rather, they are part of a metaphor that adds

another perspective to the overall picture. As argued above, according to Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 10), metaphors inevitably highlight some aspects and hide others; and Goffman’s own conceptual extensions of his metaphorical approaches are often overcharged with aspects that are not highlighted very well (cf. Section 5.1). However, to my knowledge, there is as yet no analytical concept that captures the issues discussed above as neatly as the face

metaphor, especially in combination with Holly’s (1979) improvements. For this reason, I have chosen to juxtapose different approaches to the analysis of relational work in my study, despite the fact that they often overlap in some ways. To further support this point, in the following section, I will turn to linguistic identity theory as well as to positioning theory.

the course of the turn toward a concept of identity as interactively constructed, the approaches become more dynamic and context-oriented. In this respect, there are clear parallels between the history of research on politeness and face work and the history of research on identity; this is apparent because these developments are all embedded in the larger constructionist turn in the social sciences (as established above). The second overarching characteristic is that proponents of the different approaches to the study of identity display an increasing openness towards synthesising their efforts.

Although there are many disciplines, schools, and fields associated with the study of identity, in this section I will selectively refer to contributions made in the contexts of

sociolinguistic theories, the study of talk-in-interaction, the study of narratives, and psychological positioning theory. Other relevant influences, such as Critical Discourse Analysis, linguistic anthropology, or social identity theory will not be covered in this chapter (cf. Bucholtz and Hall 2005; de Fina, Schiffrin and Bamberg 2006).

In traditional sociolinguistics, the early variationist approach after Labov (1966) concentrates on the connection between linguistic variation and social variables (such as ethnicity or gender). Social categories are presupposed to be ontologically existent, clear-cut entities that are ‘out there’ (cf. de Fina 2007). In contrast, recent sociolinguistic approaches employ qualitative analyses of naturally occurring interactions; they emphasise the role of context (which they regard as a fluid and dynamic phenomenon); they view social categories as co-constructed in talk; and they focus on clusters of linguistic characteristics, rather than on single properties (cf. Coupland 2007).

A crucial category in the sociolinguistic approach to identity is the concept of ‘style’

(cf. Coupland 2007). It is described as “a highly context sensitive discourse strategy to present personas or groups“, and, as such, “a situational resource for identity displays“ (de Fina 2007: 57). In linguistic terms, style represents an array of characteristic features, such as prosodic patterns (e.g. tone, tempo, rhythm), lexical choices, pragmatic strategies,

’performance devices’ like reported speech, and repetition, or preferences for specific communicative genres (cf. de Fina 2003: 24; Auer 2007: 12). As these features only convey social identities implicitly, they are referred to as ‘indexical’ (cf. Bucholtz and Hall 2004). The concept of indexicality implies that “linguistic features do not ‘mirror’ social identity categories in the simple sense of the word”, but that their social meanings are negotiated locally (Auer 2007: 7). Crucial focal topics in the sociolinguistic discussion of identity are, for example, the roles of topic management, language choice, code-switching, or the use of reference terms to co-construct identities (cf. de Fina 2007).

The proponents of the talk-in-interaction method offer an approach to identity that is influenced by classic Conversation Analysis (cf. Sacks 1992) and by ethnomethodology (cf.

Garfinkel 1967). Their analysis of identity in interactions relies on the identification of the

‘occasioning’ of social categories, i.e. the interactional achievements that make identity categories salient in talk (cf. Antaki and Widdicombe 1998: 3):

The idea that having an identity means being cast into a category related to certain characteristics draws attention to how identities are connected to social categories that get defined based on their association with activities.

(De Fina 2008: 208)

An important aspect of the talk-in-interaction approach is the rejection of ‘pre-existing’ social categories as a source of analysis. Instead, only those categories that are occasioned in talk are regarded as relevant to the interaction, as well as to the analysis. Thus, there is a strict focus on situated interactive co-construction of identity in talk (cf. Antaki and Widdicombe 1998). In a related approach, the proponents of membership categorization analysis (MCA) identify situated category-bound activities on the micro level of talk (cf. Sacks 1992). In this view, activities may be tied to particular categories, so that “people establish identities in terms of doing age or doing gender” (Bamberg, de Fina and Schiffrin 2011: 184).

A recent essay by Bucholtz and Hall (2005) summarises the foundations of different linguistic approaches to the analysis of identity. It includes five principles that underlie most of the academic work in this area undertaken within the social constructionist paradigm.

According to the ‘emergence principle’, identity emerges in particular interactive contexts.

The ‘positionality principle’ holds that different identity positions are co-constructed in single interactions. These positions may be related to macro level categories as well as to cultural positions or temporary stances and roles. The ‘indexicality principle’ states that different, more or less explicitly communicated indexical processes are at work when identities are constructed. The ‘relationality principle’ emphasises the fact that identities are

intersubjectively co-constructed. The ‘partialness principle’ claims that:

[A]ny given construction of identity may be in part deliberate and intentional, in part habitual and hence often less than fully conscious, in part an outcome of interactional negotiation and contestation, in part an outcome of others’ perceptions and

representations, and in part an effect of larger ideological processes and material structures that may become relevant to interaction.

(Bucholtz and Hall 2005: 606).

The authors conclude that identity is a dynamic and multiple concept that is constantly shifting; for this reason, it is now often referred to as ‘identities’, rather than as ‘identity’ (cf.

de Fina 2006). In brief, Bucholtz and Hall sum up the common ground of identity research after the social constructionist turn. This is especially apparent with respect to the focus on dynamic and socially co-constructed concepts, on interactivity and performativity, as well as on the importance of context (cf. de Fina, Schiffrin and Bamberg 2006; Bamberg, de Fina and Schiffrin 2011). Many of these aspects can be traced back to poststructuralist theories

(Bourdieu 1977; Butler 1990; for a criticism of the disregard of the second wave of practice theorists in linguistics, see Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2013).

Another approach that follows a social constructionist direction and that has been extremely influential for the linguistic analysis of identity is research on narratives. Initially, Labov and Waletzky’s (1967) narrative theory pursues a structural path. However,

psychological theorising brings the importance of autobiographical ‘life stories’ in identity construction to the fore (cf. Bamberg 2009: 136). In the course of the interactive turn, the concept of ‘small stories’ is introduced:

Our aim then has been to shift emphasis from stories about the self, typically long, teller-led, of past and single non-shared events to stories about short (fragmented, open-line) tellings about self and other of ongoing, future or shared events, allusions to tellings, deferrals of tellings, etc.

(Georgakopoulou 2013: 59)

De Fina (2003: 19f) points out that narratives fulfil different functions with respect to identity construction: Narrators simultaneously perform cultural ways of telling stories; they negotiate their social roles; and they express membership in social groups (cf. Georgakopoulou 2010).

In the last decade, narrative analysis in the sociolinguistic tradition has increasingly joined forces with the psychological school of positioning analysis. Its earliest representatives are van Langenhove and Harré (1999), who defend against static and mentalist approaches to identity in psychology; and who define positioning as a “discursive process” (Harré 2010:

53). The act of positioning is characterised as “the assignment of fluid ‘parts’ or ‘roles’ to speakers in the discursive construction of personal stories” (van Langenhove and Harré 1999: 17). In this view, interactants constantly position themselves and others with respect to social meanings. An initial positioning act (a ‘first order positioning’) may be contested and challenged; in this case the interactants implicitly negotiate to come up with a ‘second order positioning’ (van Langenhove and Harré 1999: 20). Bamberg (2004; 2008; 2007; 2009) further advances the theory, but he also “aims at scrutinizing the inconsistencies,

ambiguities, contradictions” and the navigation “between different versions of selfhood and identity in interactional contexts” (Bamberg 2009: 140).

By now, a shared academic discourse has emerged in narrative research in psychology and linguistics, as linguists have come to embrace positioning theory, just as psychologists have adopted linguistic ideas and methods (cf. Bamberg, de Fina and Schiffrin 2011; Georgakopoulou 2013; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2013; Miller 2013). In particular, there are two central aspects that positioning theory contributes to the analysis of identity in discourse: First, it distinguishes between three levels of narrative analysis. The first level is concerned with the question of “how characters are positioned within the story”. The second level relates to the manner in which the “speaker/narrator positions himself (and is

positioned) within the interactive situation”. The third level refers to the issue of “how the speaker/narrator positions a sense of self/identity with regard to dominant discourses or master narratives” (cf. Bamberg and Georgakopoulou 2008: 385). Thus, the focus of analysis is not merely on the narrative itself, but also on its function in the ongoing interactive

situation. Personal stories are not regarded as reflections of identities, but as sites for the construction of identities (cf. Günthner 2007: 435; cf. Section 5.2). Moreover, by including the social macro level in the form of master narratives, positioning theory manages to bridge the gap between the macro level and the micro level of identity analysis, or ‘capital D’ and ‘small-d’ discourses (cf. Bamberg and Georgakopoulou 2008: 380).

Furthermore, positioning theorists argue that narratives enable interactants to navigate between three identity dilemmas:

(a) sameness of a sense of self over time in the face of constant change; (b)

uniqueness of the individual vis-à-vis others faced with being the same as everyone else; and (c) the construction of agency as constituted by self (with a self-to-world direction of fit) and world (with a world-to-self direction of fit).

(Bamberg 2009: 132)

Thus, the construction of identities by means of acts of positioning is considered as an ongoing struggle to manage these dilemmas, to accommodate storylines in the face of shifting contexts, and ultimately to succeed in having the other interactants agree to one’s identity claims. In sum, positioning theory is an approach that lends itself usefully to the existing linguistic discourse on the analysis of identity in conversations. This is true not only with respect to the genre of narratives, but also regarding a more general scope of interactive analysis.

At this point, the conceptual and methodological links between the study of identity and the study of face work, politeness, and impoliteness have been made clear. I have shown that these research fields have experienced an interactive and dynamic turn rooted in the social constructionist paradigm shift. Moreover, the concepts of ‘face work’, ‘relational work’, and ‘identity construction’ are clearly overlapping to a strong degree. Also, the methodological tools used in the studies are increasingly converging, as evidenced in the growing number of researchers who use mixed-method approaches in their analyses and who combine different issues within the fields of (im)politeness, face, and/or identity (see, for instance, Holmes and Schnurr 2005; Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain 2007; Holmes, Marra and Schnurr 2008; Marra and Angouri 2011; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2013; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Bou-Franch and Lorenzo-Dus 2013; Miller 2013, Georgakopoulou 2013).