Identity in (Inter)action: Introducing Multimodal Interaction Analysis (Trends in Applied Linguistics)

Identity in (Inter)action Trends in Applied Linguistics 4 Editors Ulrike Jessner Claire Kramsch De Gruyter Mouton ...

Author: Sigrid Norris

63 downloads 755 Views 13MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Identity in (Inter)action

Trends in Applied Linguistics 4

Editors

Ulrike Jessner Claire Kramsch

De Gruyter Mouton

Identity in (Inter)action Introducing Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis

by

Sigrid Norris

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-1-934078-27-3 e-ISBN 978-1-934078-28-0 ISSN 1868-6362 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Norris, Sigrid Identity in interaction : introducing multimodal interaction analysis / Sigrid Norris. p. cm. — (Trends in applied linguistics; v. 4) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-934078-27-3 (alk. paper) 1. Interpersonal communication. 2. Oral communication. 3. Social interaction. 4. Discourse analysis—Germany. I. Title. P94.7.N675 2011 401'.41—dc22 2011015472 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliogra¿e; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2011 Sigrid Norris Cover image: Roswitha Schacht/morgue¿le.com Typesetting: IBT Global, Troy, NY Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Chapter 1 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Some Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 From Discourse Analysis to Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6

Discourse Analysis: Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Discourse Analysis: The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Example 1 Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Is Identity Visible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Discourse Analysis: Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Example 2 Revisited . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.3 Moving Towards a Holistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.3.1 A Holistic Analysis: Some Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.4 Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter 2 Identity in (Inter)action: Theoretical Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.1 Identity: A Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2 Is Identity Intentional? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.3 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4

Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mediational Means or Cultural Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site of Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice and Nexus of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 42 44 46

2.4 Foreground-Background Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.4.1 Frame Analysis of Focused Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.4.2 Foreground, Mid-Ground, and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.4.3 Foreground-Background Continuum: A New Notion for (Inter)action and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.5 Site of Engagement, Action, the Foreground-Background Continuum, and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

vi

Contents

Chapter 3 Collecting and Transcribing Ethnographic Data: A Case Study of Two Women Living in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.1 Data Collection: What Was Collected for This Study? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.1.1 Creative Writing about the Participants as One Data Collection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.1.2 An Average Day in the Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.2 What Does Creative Writing Add to Descriptive Field Notes, Collected Texts, Audio and Video Recordings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.3 The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.3.1 Andrea: A Self-Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.3.2 Anna: A Self-Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.4 Collecting and Transcribing Multimodal Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.4.1 Multimodal Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.4.2 Multimodal Transcription. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3.4.3 What Is a Transcript? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

3.5 A Flexible Transcription System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7 3.5.8

Some Conventions: Spoken Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Conventions: Proxemics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Conventions: Posture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Conventions: Gesture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Need to Transcribe Qualitatively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Flexible Component in Multimodal Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Flexible Conventions: Modal Relationships in Interaction . . . . Modal Con¿gurations of Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84 85 85 86 86 87 89 90

3.6 Modal Hierarchies: Considerations for Transcription. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 4 Modal Density, Actions, and Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.1 Focused Actions and Phenomenological Identity Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.1.1 High Modal Density: Intensity of a Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.2 High Modal Density: Modal Complexity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4.1.3 High Modal Density: Intensity Plus Modal Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.2 Mid-Grounded Actions and Phenomenological Identity Production. . . . . . . 100 4.2.1 Medium Modal Density: Intensity of a Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.2.2 Medium Modal Density: Modal Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.3 Medium Modal Density: Intensity Plus Modal Complexity . . . . . . . 104

Contents

vii

4.3 Backgrounded Actions and Phenomenological Identity Production . . . . . . 106 4.3.1 Low Modal Density: Intensity of a Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.3.2 Low Modal Density: Modal Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.3.3 Low Modal Density: Intensity Plus Modal Complexity . . . . . . . . . . 109

4.4 Modal Density: A Relational Notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 4.4.1 Modal Density, Matched and Mismatched Attention Levels. . . . . . . .111

4.5 Interview, Site of Engagement, Action, and Modal Density . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5

Higher-Level Action: Personal Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher-Level Action: Family Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher-Level Action: Friend Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher-Level Action: Italian Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher-Level Action: Caterer Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120 125 126 130 133

4.6 Site of Engagement, Interview, Actions, and Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Chapter 5 Horizontal Identity Production; and Mastery and Appropriation of Identity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.1 Horizontal Interwoven Identity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.1.1 Focused Higher-Level Actions and Parallel Identity Element Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 5.1.2 Matched and Mismatched Levels of Attention in Interactions . . . . . 147

5.2 Identity: Mastery and Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.2.1 Magazines and Identity Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5.3 Interview and Horizontal Identity Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6

Foregrounded Family Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foregrounded Personal Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foregrounded Divorcee Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foregrounded National Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foregrounded International Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity beyond the Foreground: Simultaneous Identity Element Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.7 Identity Produced through Micro and Macro Actions . . . . . . . . . . . .

161 162 163 165 167 168 176

5.4 Transcription of Macro Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Chapter 6 Vertical Identity Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 6.1 Identity and Layers of Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

viii

Contents

6.2 Outer Layers of Discourse: Producing a General Identity Element . . . . . . 181 6.2.1 Two Divergent Outer Layers of Discourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 6.2.2 General Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

6.3 Intermediary Layer of Discourse: Producing a Continuous Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 6.3.1 Continuous Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

6.4 The Central Layer of Discourse: Producing an Immediate Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 6.4.1 Immediate Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

General Identity: Coercion or Agency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Continuous Identity: Coercion or Agency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Immediate Identity: Coercion or Agency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Layers of Discourse, Actions, and Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Vertical and Horizontal Identity Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Chapter 7 Shifting Identity, Saliency of Identity, and Identity Change . . . . . . . . . 211 7.1 Higher-Level Discourse Structure: Identity Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 7.1.1 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

7.2 Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Beat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 7.3 Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Head Toss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 7.3.1 Shopping in an Italian Supermarket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 7.3.2 Head Toss: Shift in Focus and Shift in Foregrounded Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

7.4 Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Hand/Finger Beat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 7.4.1 Writing Shopping Lists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 7.4.2 Hand/Finger Beat: Shift in Focus and Shift in Foregrounded Identity Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

7.5 Semantic/Pragmatic Means: Deictics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 7.5.1 Deictic Gaze Plus Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 7.5.2 Deictic Motion Plus Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

7.6 Signaling System: A Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 7.7 Saliency of Identity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 7.8 Identity Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 7.8.1 Initial Identity Element: Wife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 7.8.2 Auxiliary Identity Element: Artist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 7.8.3 From Initial to New Identity Element: Divorcee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

7.9 Self-Perception of Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Contents

ix

Chapter 8 Stabilizing Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 8.1 Stabilizing Identity: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 8.2 Person Identity: Anna. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 8.2.1 Person Identity: Anna’s Habitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 8.2.2 Stabilizing Person Identity: Higher-Level, Lower-Level, and Frozen Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

8.3 Stabilizing Person Identity: Interweaving Identity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 269 8.4 Stabilizing Person Identity: A Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 8.5 Stabilization of Person Identity: Complex Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Chapter 9 Investigating Identity in (Inter)action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Determining Identity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Need for Ethnography and Inclusion of Creative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differentiating Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigating Identity in (Inter)action through Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

275 278 279 285

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

To the memory of my father

F ranz P eter Leise

Preface

Identity: I have been interested in identity for a long time, and have read much about identity from many different angles. I have thought about identity, investigated identity, and discussed identity. In most of the literature, the notion of identity appears to be Àeeting, ephemeral, and transitory. Identity appears to be something that we can talk about, but cannot grasp. Identity appears to be something that only some researchers can ever come close to understanding—and always and only from a particular angle—as identity is located in the invisible social construction, embedded in the historical body, and is hidden in media, politics, and everyday language alike. Students are often taught just enough to wake their curiosity at the same time as to inspire them with some awe. Identity: embedded in the group and the society but also in the psychology of the individual, identity appears to be impossible to bring together to truly make sense of and explain. Yet, when investigating real people in their everyday lives identity emerges; it becomes visible, explainable, and graspable. In the everyday actions that people perform, in the objects that people own, or the houses that people live in, identity becomes cogent when investigating people’s families, friends, networks, and social groups that they belong to. When investigating identity in everyday life, identity suddenly appears loud and clear. People do things, and everything that people do is taking action. People eat, shop, work, bring up children, talk to friends, call relatives, build and furnish houses, listen to music, read magazines and newspapers, and do much more. When taking all of the communicative modes into consideration that people use in their everyday lives to perform the actions that they perform, suddenly the connections between actions and belongings, between individual and society, and between the hidden and the overt begin to make sense. It is this kind of sense-making of identity that I hope to accomplish by writing this book. Of course, such sense-making and the methodology originally developed for a better understanding of identity did not happen in a vacuum. It has taken many years for me to be able to write this book, many years in which I have worked with many people: from my mentor Ron Scollon to the many participants in my studies, and the friends and colleagues, who were all involved, helping me in ways that they sometimes did not even know, helping me to gain a deeper understanding of identity production and to formulate my thoughts.

xiv

Preface

This book introduces a theoretical framework, which allows the analysis of what has been termed context in traditional discourse analysis, shedding new light on everyday identity production. I do this by illustrating the development of a framework that is now called multimodal (inter)action analysis (MIA) (Norris, 2004). With MIA, I explicate the multiplicity of (inter) actions that social actors are simultaneously engaged in. Here I present the ef¿cacy of the framework for identity production based on an extended ethnographic study. I thus use identity production to elucidate the theoretical/ methodological framework at the same time as I use the theoretical/methodological framework to illuminate everyday identity production. Social actors orchestrate a range of multiple modes of communication in their everyday life in order to accomplish various higher-level actions simultaneously, whereby they produce their identities. At the same time, objects and the environment with and in which the actions take place give off messages about the social actors’ identities and structure the interactions in some ways. The notion of modal density combined with a foreground-background continuum codi¿es the idea that a social actor is aware of and/or attends to simultaneous actions together with other social actors, objects, and the environment, constructing several identity elements simultaneously. The framework was developed based on the two longitudinal case studies presented here. I conducted these case studies at the verge of the Millennium in Germany. During that year, I stayed and lived with the participants four times. Each time spanned between four and eight weeks so that my complete time spent in the ¿eld comprised about six months. The rest of the time I stayed in close contact with the participants as they continued to collect audio data, magazines, newspapers, and books that they read. During my ¿eldwork I lived with the participants and I became socialized into their everyday lives and their networks. While my original interest had been identity production, it nevertheless has taken almost ten years, several other ethnographic studies, my writing of Analyzing Multimodal Interaction, and the publication of my ¿rst poetry book, for me to be able write this book.1 In order to be socialized into the participants’ worlds and to be able to understand their identities better, I did everything the participants did. I met their extended families, their close friends, the neighbors, the school and preschool teachers of their children, Andrea’s lawyer (as she was going through a divorce at the time), and many other people that they interacted with on a regular basis including the baker, the butcher, the newspaper lady, and the real estate agent who eventually sold Andrea’s house.

Preface

xv

Identities are always co-produced, and I was convinced that I could only understand the participants’ moment-by-moment identity construction by understanding the positionings among the participants and the many social actors that they interacted with on a regular basis. While the study focuses on two particular social actors, the analysis is possible only through the understanding of these social networks. When studying social actors through long-term ethnography, the ethnographer becomes enmeshed in their everyday life to some extent. The ethnographer, although a researcher in the ¿eld, is nevertheless a person. It is this personal involvement that is often not discussed in later accounts of the ¿ndings. However, I believe it is a worthwhile undertaking to try to illustrate some of the issues one may ¿nd and the changes that a researcher may go through due to an ethnographic study. Chapter 3 illuminates some of this personal researcher involvement.

What Is Identity? The term identity itself is used in different ways in psychology, linguistics, or cultural studies. I use the term identity or multiple identity element production rather than the presentation of self or role particularly because the term identity has these various connotations. Harris (1989), for example, distinguishes between several terms in the following way: she says that the individual is the biological term for the social actor, the person is the sociological term, and the self is the psychological term. Identity may refer to either the psychological or the sociological make-up of a social actor. In my view, identity is constructed socially as well as psychologically through what Nishida (1958) calls the internalized historical self. I use the term identity production much in the same sense as Scollon (1997) uses it, focusing on the performance of social actions in real time. These social actions, while certainly co-constructed at the moment of occurrence, are nevertheless part of the social actor’s habitus.2 Some of the identity elements that I refer to in this study are generally accepted as identities. These are the national and international identities. However, I also refer to some other identity elements as the mother identity, the friend identity, or the divorcee identity, which are not usually termed identities, but rather are termed roles. However, the participants in this study co-produce these identity elements within their networks. These identity elements are very similar to the survivor identity of bone-marrow transplant patients that Hamilton (1998) found in one of her studies.

xvi

Preface

While I was in the ¿eld, I videotaped everyday recurring interactions, for example, when the participants would frequently sit together, drinking coffee and sharing magazines, or when they would regularly make shopping lists together. I also videotaped them shopping, alone or together, interacting with their children and other family members, or with myself. I focused my data collection on the everyday un-marked interactions. The analysis was ¿eldwork and data driven. The participants, both mothers of young children, were often involved in several higher-level actions simultaneously. For example, they would write a shopping list for a catering event at the very same time as they would watch the older children and play with the younger ones. By performing these higher-level actions simultaneously, they would construct various identity elements concurrently. My audio-visual data clearly displayed the multiple simultaneously ongoing actions producing the participants’ identity elements, yet I found that I ¿rst had to develop a theoretical/methodological framework (Norris, 2004) that would allow me to analyze the data correctly. Additionally, while audiotapes focus the analyst’s attention on the spoken language, videotapes diffuse such a focused attention to language use, displaying that spoken language is but one mode of communication that social actors employ when communicating. The realization that analyzing one mode without the others leaves out much of what is being communicated, guided me to incorporate the modes of communication that were most commonly used by my participants in the study. These were the modes of spoken language, gaze, gesture, posture, and proxemics, and the modes of layout, print, recorded music, and color. By incorporating multiple modes into a discourse study, I incorporated the context3 as an intricate part of the ongoing interactions. Modes of communication are not easily separable; they are interlinked and often interdependent. For example, gaze is necessarily linked to posture; layout is linked to the ongoing interaction. While my data clearly displayed that I could not interpret the participants’ spoken utterances to their fullest extent without analyzing the other modes that they employed, my data dictated that I ¿rst develop a theoretical/methodological framework in order to be able to analyze this data correctly. Thus, while I entered the study and conducted my ¿eldwork with a main focus on identity construction, this main focus shifted away from identity and towards developing multimodal (inter) action analysis during the analysis in the years 2000/2001. The framework called multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009a, 2009b) now allows the incorporation of concurrent actions and multiple modes in everyday interaction; and with this book, I am going back to my original data and my original topic of identity production.

Preface

xvii

Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this book in various ways. I would like to express my gratitude especially to the late Ron Scollon, for the many hours of conversation and discussion of the framework that is introduced here. It was Ron who had suggested an ethnography to study identity; it was also he who taught me the importance of action. I can truly say that without him, this book would have never come about. Further, I would like to thank Ruth Wodak and Heidi Hamilton, who gave me helpful advice during my study particularly in regard to identity production; and Theo van Leeuwen, with whom I had many conversations about the multimodal framework presented here. I am also thankful for comments and conversations about identity that I had with Michael Bamberg, Allan Bell, Rodney Jones, Paul McIlvenny, David Middleton, Pirkko Raudaskosky, and Suzie Scollon. I have spoken with many people at conferences, via email, and during my workshops and lectures on identity production at universities across the world and always received valuable feedback. I am also thankful to Scott Creighton for redigitizing all my videos when I ¿rst came to New Zealand. I would like to particularly thank the participants of this study, Andrea and Anna. I am grateful that they allowed me into their lives to the extent they did. Not only have I learned a great deal about how individuals in their everyday life produce identity, but I have gained two new friends. I would also like to thank the members of their networks, who embraced me at the time, and allowed me to take part in their lives together with Andrea and Anna. My family has been involved in this book in many ways, and I would like to thank them for their loving support throughout the study and the writing phases. Alan especially has taken the time to read the manuscript and has given me detailed comments on wordings and Luke has taken the time to help with the last ¿nishing touches. All of these people had an impact on the development of my thoughts. However, the statements made, the views expressed, and the shortcomings in this book are the sole responsibility of the author.

Notes 1. The German poems included in this book are reprinted from my poetry book that was published in 2008 by the Deutscher Lyrik Verlag, Aachen, while the translations are published for the ¿rst time in this volume.

xviii

Preface

2. The terms identity and habitus intersect to some extent. 3. There are, of course, various notions of context. The view that I am taking here grows out of interactional sociolinguistics. However, I would like to mention also Cicourel and Van Dijk, who have worked extensively on the notion of context.

Chapter 1 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis A satisfactory understanding of the nature and unity of men must encompass and organize, not abstract from, the diversity. In this tradition, a theory, whatever its logic and insight, is inadequate if divorced from, if unilluminating as to, the ways of life of mankind as a whole. —Hymes (1972:41)

Identity is a widely discussed topic,1 and while much research gives insight into particular aspects of identity, I propose a new way of looking at identity by taking a different theoretical and methodological perspective. This perspective, called multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, 2004), allows the researcher to investigate identity in a more holistic way. While many discourse studies analyze the spoken language, this book moves on from discourse to multimodal discourse analysis, introducing a theoretical/methodological framework, which allows the analysis of what has been termed context 2 in traditional discourse analysis, arriving at a theory and methodology that illuminates everyday identity production in new ways. In terminology, I deviate from the term identity construction,3 which is more often used in literature, calling it identity production. With this term, I would like to emphasize an ever present creative aspect within the actual performance of actions by individuals without, however, losing an also ever present but less variable aspect within the habitus of particular individuals. I would like to emphasize an ever present creative aspect within the (inter) activity between an individual and others as well as between an individual and their environment, without, however, losing an ever present but less variable aspect within the social group(s) and the environment. Further, I deviate from the commonly used term interaction, calling it here (inter)action, instead. With the term (inter)action, I broaden the commonly used notion of interaction: (inter)action potentially encompasses each and every action that an individual produces with tools, the environment, and other individuals. Thus, and as will become clearer in later chapters, even when one individual acts with objects, acting within the environment, these actions are viewed as (inter)actions that produce identity.

2

Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis

I illustrate the framework called multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, 2004), which affords the analysis of a multiplicity of (inter)actions that social actors are simultaneously engaged in. Here, I present the framework based on an extended ethnographic study of two women living in Germany. I use examples of their everyday identity (co)production as the vehicle to elucidate how multimodal (inter)action analysis can be used to examine identity production in everyday situations. Social actors orchestrate a range of multiple modes of communication in everyday (inter)actions in order to accomplish various higher-level actions simultaneously, whereby they (co)produce their identities. Such (co)production of identity is not limited to a (co)production with other social actors, but is also and always created with objects that an individual uses and with the environment in which the individual acts. Objects present in the setting and the environment give off messages about the social actors’ identities and structure the (inter)actions in some ways. The notion of modal density combined with a foreground-background continuum captures that a social actor is aware of and/or attends to simultaneous actions (including frozen actions), constructing several identity elements simultaneously. The term identity element deviates slightly from the more commonly used term identity fragment. The term element connotes a part of a whole which builds a whole in itself; while the term fragment connotes a shattering of a whole that does not build a whole in itself. With the term elements I would like to emphasize the notion that they can be arranged and re-arranged in various ways, that some can be discarded and others can be taken on to make a different larger whole. While the term fragment is more like a piece in a puzzle, where the larger whole always stays the same and the pieces have to ¿t in a particular way to make that whole. Multimodal (inter)action analysis, growing out of discourse analysis, allows us to investigate these multiple identity elements that social actors produce, re-produce, and change in (inter)action. An identity element, a whole in itself much like the larger identity that it is a part of, is malleable in and through (inter)action; and every change within an element produces a change in the lager identity of the social actor.

1.1

Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Some Background

Multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, 2004) was motivated by the application of theoretical notions of mediated discourse analysis (Scollon, 1998, 2001b) and the employment of visual research methods to discourse analysis.

Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Some Background

3

With its focus on human action, the theoretical framework of mediated discourse analysis encourages an integration of non-verbal modes of communication into a discourse study. At the same time, visual methods promote the analysis of many communicative modes and aid the researcher in examining the intricate interplay among the modes within communicative events. Sapir throughout his writing, and even more notably Pike (1967), had observed that the focus on ¿eldwork had naturally led to an appreciation that spoken language as social activity was embedded within complex con¿gurations of actions. Fieldwork combined with visual recording methods led me to examine naturally occurring (inter)action in a more holistic sense, investigating the complex con¿gurations of concurrent actions and the setting. A more holistic analysis of communicative events, however, brings about many challenges. A major challenge becomes the focus of study. For example, when analyzing an audiotape of a naturally occurring (inter)action the analyst focuses on the verbal mode, or the mode of spoken language. When analyzing a videotape of a naturally occurring (inter)action, the analyst’s focus becomes diffused; the mode of spoken language no longer has primacy. Also, what would be considered context in an analysis of an audiotape, has to be re-de¿ned when working with video recordings. It immediately becomes apparent that the context is intricately intertwined with the (inter)action and that the context, which includes concurrent actions and visual elements, is merely composed of an abundance of communicative modes. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) de¿ne a communicative mode as a semiotic resource with known meanings and regularities attached to it. This de¿nition permits an organization of modes that suits the analytical questions of the researcher. While communicative modes such as spoken language, gaze, gesture, posture, proxemics, color, and music are generally established as modes, other modes can be classi¿ed in various ways. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) for example, speak of the mode of furniture. Similarly, we could speak of the mode of eating utensils. While there are many different ways to classify communicative modes in great detail, I use the communicative mode of layout as a broader overarching mode that refers to relevant objects in the world such as furniture, pictures on the walls, or in short, the layout of an apartment, a store, or a city street. Although, this mode is divisible into many other communicative modes, for the focus of this multimodal (inter)action analysis on identity production, such a sub-division is not always necessary, but is used when it is of value. As Holland et. al (1998:27) reiterate ‘our communications with one another not only convey messages but also always make claims about who we are relative to one another.’ Identity is produced through naturally occurring (inter)

4


actions, and a multimodal (inter)action analysis of naturally occurring (inter) action attempts to study (inter)action and with it identity production holistically; however, this endeavor is not always easy to achieve. Every (inter)action has a history (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990), which is often different for each participant and cannot easily be traced. Social actors and the objects used do not arise at the moment of (inter)action, but rather are extensions of the histories of the individuals under study. As Bourdieu argues, ‘“interpersonal” relations are never except in appearance, individual-to-individual relationships and . . . the truth of interaction is never entirely contained in the interaction’ (Bourdieu, 1977:81). I argue that the same is true for the resulting identity production. The analyses used to introduce multimodal (inter)action analysis and its applicability for the study of identity throughout this book are driven by ethnographic ¿eldwork and a close tie with the participants in the study described. Each (inter)action is inÀuenced by social forces including, but not limited to, normative social behavior and the language(s) spoken, which are not easily disentangled from the communicative event itself. Every interaction is composed of different events that started at different times and do not necessarily end concurrently for all participants (Goffman, 1981). While an analysis of these larger social forces and a larger account of naturally occurring (inter)action is valuable, such an analysis can be achieved only by ¿rst examining how the various communicative modes play together in smaller segments of (inter)action. This book attempts to explicate the interplay of several communicative modes in brief segments of naturally occurring (inter)action to shed light upon identity production. Instead of viewing the modes of communication as the focus, this book focuses on the multimodal identity production of two women in Germany. On the one hand, the interplay of communicative modes is thus discovered and multimodal identity production becomes the vehicle to explicate the theoretical and methodological notions that underlie a multimodal (inter)action analysis within a multimodal (inter)action framework. On the other hand, the need for a multimodal framework for the analysis of identity production becomes apparent.

1.2

From Discourse Analysis to Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis

Before outlining this multimodal framework, I show the development from discourse analysis to multimodal (inter)action analysis through two examples. In these examples, I compare the mostly mono-modal4 analysis of the


5

audio recordings with the multimodal analyses of the video recordings of the same (inter)action. These two examples demonstrate that the multimodal analyses give greater insight into identity production than the audio recordings. While discourse analysis can give detailed insight about the verbal identity production, many non-verbal actions and the surrounding layout cannot be incorporated, and some of the complexity is lost. These examples also demonstrate that multimodal analysis is greatly driven by the technology, in this case the digital video recorder, which is used to record the naturally occurring (inter)actions. Just like multimodal (inter)action analysis is driven by technology, discourse analysis was driven by technology for 30 years. Discourse analysis has relied on the tape recorder as the technology to record naturally occurring language. The tape recorder focuses the analyst on the auditory interactions and speci¿cally on the spoken discourse. Multimodal (inter)action analysis, therefore, naturally evolved from discourse analysis. Discourse analysis, as heterogeneous as the ¿eld is, is ostensibly the study of language beyond the sentence, with a focus on naturally occurring language. I concentrate on interactional perspectives, and as Schiffrin (1994) asserts, interactional sociolinguists view ‘discourse as a social interaction in which the emergent construction and negotiation of meaning is facilitated by the use of language’ (Schiffrin, 1994:134). The focus of discourse analysis is on language use, and discourse analysis takes the utterance or the text as its unit of analysis. The following example focuses on the multiple identity productions of one participant, which are discussed as context and thus separated from the actual interaction in a discourse study. Many actions that a multimodal (inter)action analysis includes are left out in traditional discourse analysis. In order to show the evolution of discourse analysis to multimodal (inter)action analysis, I start out by analyzing the transcript of an audio recording of a brief interaction, focusing on the discursive actions. Then I analyze the multimodal transcript of the video recording of the same (inter)action, this time taking the non-discursive actions into account. With the ¿rst example I would like to elucidate the concept of context. As Goffman asserts, ‘many crucial facts lie beyond the time and place of interactions or lie concealed within it’ (Goffman, 1959:2). Therefore, the context of any given interaction is of great importance to discourse analysis. Schiffrin (1987:5) emphasizes that all language is context-speci¿c, and ‘that language reÀects those contexts because it helps to constitute them.’ Goffman (1959) differentiates between expressions that a participant gives, which include ‘verbal symbols or their substitutes which he uses . . .

6


solely to convey the information’, and expressions that a participant gives off, which includes a ‘wide range of actions, that others can treat as symptomatic of the actor . . . for reasons other than the information conveyed in this way’ (Goffman, 1959:2). With its concentration on the auditory, discourse analysis focuses on the expressions that a participant gives, and for a large part disregards the expressions a participant gives off. In Goffman’s sense, then, discourse analysis with its concentration on the verbal signals and their substitutes, views ‘communication in the traditional and narrow sense’ (Goffman, 1959:2). When incorporating the visual, including a broader view of context and non-verbal expressions into discourse analysis, we initiate multimodal (inter)action analysis.

1.2.1 Discourse Analysis: Example 1 In discourse analysis, we give the context or background, before discussing a transcript of an interaction or segment thereof, and I follow this convention, here. In the following excerpt, the participant, Andrea, is talking to the researcher. Only Andrea is speaking at this moment in time. Her son is playing on the Àoor not far from her. Andrea is German and in her mid thirties. She is a mother of two boys and is currently moving because of a divorce. Her new apartment is scattered with objects. By profession, she is an architect, an artist, and a part-time caterer with her friend Anna. She considers herself a stay-athome mother, however, and schedules her work around her children. Before separation, she and her husband had assumed stereotypical gender roles. At the moment of this interaction, loud music is playing in the background. Andrea is sitting on the Àoor and setting up a telephone and computer. The researcher is sitting across from her in a chair. This book assumes that all communication is co-produced, however not only (co)produced with other individuals, but also (co)produced with objects and the environment. Thus, it is important to sometimes focus on one individual at a time. Illustrating this point, the ¿rst excerpt focuses on Andrea. In the following audio transcript I utilize the transcription conventions designed by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) combined with transcription conventions described in Tannen (1984). For this brief excerpt of talk, it is important to mention only that punctuation reÀects intonation, not grammar, and numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate length of pauses in seconds. Here, as in all audio transcripts, I ¿rst give the original German utterance, then a direct word-by-word English translation, and after that a free English translation.


7

Audio transcript 1.1: Andrea and ‘the USB’ (1)

Andrea:

un das? (1) an this? (1) ‘and this? (1)’

(2)

müsst ich ja eigentlich damit anschliessen (2) should I emphasis really withthat attach (2) ‘I should actually attach it to that (2)’

(3)

das kann ja wohl nicht sein. (3) this can emphasis emphasis not be. (3) ‘this really can’t be true. (3)’

(4)

lass ich für später (2) leave I for later (2) ‘I’ll leave it for later (2)’

(5)

jetzt hab ich die US B. (2) now have I the USB. (2) ‘now I have the USB. (2)’

(6)

was stehtn da jetzt what says emphasis it there now ‘what does it say there’

(7)

was is denn das jetzt? what is emphasis that now? ‘what’s that supposed to mean?’

Reading this short excerpt, within the given context, we know that Andrea is trying to attach the computer and the telephone. Andrea is speaking, while the researcher takes up the listener position. The content of Andrea’s utterances, the pauses, and the intonation all show that she is unsure of exactly how to do what she is doing. She even seems to be unsure of what it is she is looking at. We know that she is going through a divorce, and although the words in this brief excerpt do not explicitly demonstrate it, we can surmise that Andrea is not used to dealing with tasks like the one she is working on. This may lead us to infer that she is performing an action that her ex-husband used to perform, taking on a role that he used to have. During playback as well as during ethnographic ¿eldwork, we do learn that before the divorce

8


they had adopted stereotypical gender roles. The identity element that we can glean from this example then is the divorcee identity element.5

1.2.2 Discourse Analysis: The Problem When taking part in this interaction however, one ¿nds that there is much more being communicated than can be discovered through audio recordings and discourse analysis. One observes that more identity elements are present in this interaction, identity elements that are not displayed verbally. Goffman (1959) discusses identity, and emphasizes that there are two very important facets that display identity: (1) the setting, including furniture and the physical layout; and (2) the personal front, including age, sex, spoken language patterns, facial expressions, gestures, and the like. In discourse analysis, the setting is only hinted at in the description of the background or context, and almost all parts of the personal front are ignored. Setting and personal front can also be theorized as modes of communication. Furniture, physical layout, verbal and non-verbal communication all can be de¿ned in this way. Ruesch and Kees (1956) assert ‘that any form of action, whether verbal or nonverbal, has communicative function. As soon as another person interprets a signal with some degree of accuracy, it must be codi¿ed in terms that qualify as language’ (Ruesch and Kees, 1956:48). What they call language, I call a communicative mode, and certainly a similar statement can be made about the layout of a living room, a house, or a neighborhood.

1.2.3 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Example 1 Revisited When viewing the video clip of the prior audio excerpt, we discover a complexity of the (inter)action that was lost through the audio recording and the theoretical focus on spoken discourse. This complexity is shown in the multimodal transcript of the (inter)action. Here I adopt one of the multimodal transcription methods discussed in Norris (2002, 2004). In this new transcript, the visual image is most salient: The reading path of this transcript is linear and strictly coded, following Western ideology . . . the trajectories of the reading path in this multimodal transcript are most salient to next most salient, and also top to bottom and left to right. Instead of organizing the transcript by lines, this multimodal transcript is organized by images . . . Instead of employing punctuation marks to indicate intonation, the multimodal transcript visualizes the rising and lowering of intonation . . . Overlap is indicated by utterances touching in the transcript . . . Short pauses are indicated by spaces between the written words relative to the


9

pace of spoken language, and longer pauses are indicated by the lack of spoken language in or around one or more images. (Norris, 2002:113)

In Figure 1.1 we see Andrea gazing at an object, which she is holding in her right hand, while she is saying un das? ‘and this?’ with rising intonation: Here, gaze, gesture, and talk are all focused on the object that Andrea is concentrating on. In the (inter)action as well as in the representation, it is apparent that her utterance ‘and this?’ is more a question to herself, than a ¿rst part of an adjacency pair, which would require an answer from the other participant in the (inter)action. Figure 1.2 again consists of two video captures. Here, we see Andrea pointing the object that she is holding in her right hand towards the telephone, looking in the same direction, and starting her next utterance müsst ich ja eigentlich ‘I should actually’. In the middle of this utterance, Andrea shifts her gaze from the telephone to the researcher, ¿nishing her utterance by saying damit anschliessen ‘attach it to that’.

Figure 1.1 Overlap of gesture, gaze, and talk.

Figure 1.2 Shifting attention.

10


In the ¿rst part of her utterance illustrated in image 1 of Figure 1.2 Andrea is still solely focused on her work, which is apparent in her gaze and gesture. Then, as illustrated in image 2 of Figure 1.2, she shifts her attention brieÀy towards the researcher by shifting her gaze away from the telephone in her direction. After that, as illustrated in Figure 1.3, Andrea shifts her gaze back to the object in her hand, indicating that she does not expect verbal (inter) action. Andrea scrutinizes the object in her right hand again, reads the label that is attached to the object, turns it in the rhythm of the music, and comments das kann ja wohl nicht sein ‘this really can’t be true.’ In Figure 1.3 it becomes evident that Andrea is either performing for the camera and/or researcher or talking herself through the task, and that she is not addressing her utterances directly towards the researcher, as it was interpreted in the audio excerpt before. Not only is Andrea reading the label, but she is also moving the computer attachment in circular motion in the rhythm of the background music as can be seen in the last two images of Figure 1.3. Here, the question of performativity as well as the notion of talking oneself through a task is opened up, and a correct analysis of the excerpt can be gained only through long-term ethnographic study. Ample evidence in this particular study concerning this particular individual shows that Andrea is talking herself through the task. Interestingly, however, even though Andrea often talks herself through tasks when she is trying to focus her attention, and friends and acquaintances have quite regularly commented on this habit, she claims that she is performing either for the camera or for others when no camera is running. Thus, here, the participant, when made aware of her self-talking, claims to perform, while others sharing these kinds of moments invariably claim that she is talking herself through a task. In (inter)actional terms, we can say that, no matter what Andrea is intending to do, she is communicating to others that she is talking herself through a task. Thus, this is an example of how what a social actor intends to communicate and what the social actor communicates may be quite different.

Figure 1.3 Reading the label.


11

Figure 1.4 Back in the box.

In Figure 1.4, we see how Andrea puts the object back in a box, saying lass ich für später ‘I’ll leave it for later’. With a swift hand motion, Andrea tosses the object back in the box. At the same time, she shifts her gaze to the object she had been holding in her left hand. As soon as she lets go of the attachment, she brings her right hand up as can be seen in the second image of Figure 1.4 and holds the attachment in both hands, apparently reading the label, which is attached to its side. While she is holding the object in both hands, reading the label, she comments jetzt hab ich die USB ‘now I have the USB’ as can be seen in Figure 1.5, images 1–3. She is reading the small print when she says was steht denn da ‘what does it say there’ (images 4 and 5). Then (image 6) she begins her next utterance and right after, as shown in image 7, Andrea is looking up, her facial expression giving off the same confusion that her utterance was ist denn das jetzt ‘what’s that supposed to mean’ gives. The images in these multimodal transcripts show the immediate surroundings of the speaker as well as her façade, her dress, her approximate age, and her sex, and some of her facial expressions and gestures, which all give off interpretable signs. Andrea is talking more to herself than she is actually talking to the researcher who sits close to the camera. Except for one direct gaze in the researcher’s direction or the direction of the camera in Figure 1.2 (in the second image) Andrea focuses either on the objects themselves and/or their labels, or she gazes in space away from the researcher. Thus, through visual methods, we can determine that the speaker/listener positions, that seemed to be apparent in the talk, are actually not what we had perceived from the audio recording at all. Although the researcher does play the role of listener in this excerpt, the speaker does not direct all of her utterances towards the

12


Figure 1.5 Head-movement and facial expression.


13

researcher, which can be seen in Andrea’s gaze and head-movements as well as in her gestures. Here we see how she communicates to the other through non-verbal behavior that she is talking herself through a task (even if she herself may not intend to convey this). Visual methods of recording and transcribing illustrate how the Àow of talk may be continuous, while gaze and/or gesture are changing. This is especially visible in Figures 1.2 and 1.5. Clearly, modes of communication build an integrated whole in interpersonal (inter)action, yet many modes are lost through audio recording and become perceptible only in video recordings.

1.2.4 Is Identity Visible? Visual research allows us to perceive Andrea’s identities through other modes than language as well.6 The divorcee identity, for example, which Andrea gives (to use Goffman’s terms) through the mode of talk as discussed earlier, she simultaneously gives off through her actions. Figure 1.6 illustrates how Andrea is handling objects, looking at one item, putting it back in a box, and so on. The hesitations in her actions give off the same expression that the content of her utterances, her intonation, and pausing give. Additionally, her facial expression gives off her uncertainty. At the same time, the divorcee identity is also displayed in the setting as can be seen in Figure 1.7. In the surroundings, we can detect many piles of objects, as well as moving boxes and an empty bookcase, which all are a result of the divorce.

Figure 1.6 Divorcee identity given off through lower-level actions.

14


Figure 1.7 Divorcee identity visible in the setting.

The divorcee identity is very prevalent at this moment. However, there are also other identities that can be viewed in the images that could not be gleaned by analyzing the spoken discourse alone. These identities are not at all apparent in the mode of talk, but are very visible. For example, there is the artist identity, which is evident in the setting, as shown in Figure 1.8. Paintings and an easel display Andrea’s identity as an artist. Also visible in this brief (inter)action is Andrea’s identity as a mother, as demonstrated in Figure 1.9. Andrea’s son is playing next to her on the Àoor, while she is working on the computer and the telephone. Thus, identity in many respects is visible. To illustrate the importance of the visual in (inter)action a little more, I give one other example.

Figure 1.8 Artist identity visible in the setting.


15

Figure 1.9 Mother identity, her son playing next to her.

1.2.5 Discourse Analysis: Example 2 The participants of the following brief interaction are Andrea and her friend Anna. Andrea and Anna are equal partners in a small catering business. Here they are working on a catering event. Now (and from here on throughout the book when giving verbal transcripts), I use the transcription conventions of Tannen (1984). This time the following conventions are relevant in the transcript: (1)

Such brackets

show overlap two voices at once

(2)

Such brackets indicate latching of two utterances without a perceptible pause

(3)

CAPS means emphatic stress

(4)

Punctuation reÀects intonation, not grammar

Anna had spoken with a client and is now letting Andrea know what they need for the upcoming party the next day. There is much background noise of playing children and others talking. Throughout the excerpt, the background noise and others talking will not be incorporated. I concentrate here solely on the verbal interaction between Anna and Andrea.

16


Audio transcript 1.2: Anna and Andrea Working a Day before an Event (1)

Anna:

ne Minestrone a minestrone ‘a minestrone’

(2)

wir brauchen ne Käseplatte we need a cheese platter ‘we need a cheese platter’

(3)

und ne Aufschnittplatte and a cold cut platter ‘and a platter of cold cuts’

(4)

Andrea:

genau exactly ‘exactly’

(5)

das machen wir morgen that do we tomorrow ‘we’ll do that tomorrow’

(6)

ähm den Käse gucken wir jetzt ahm the cheese look we now ‘well, we’ll do the cheese now’

(7)

Anna:

(8)

(9)

ja den Käse gucken wir jetzt yes the cheese look we now ‘yes we’ll do the cheese now’ und die Wurst schnell morgen früh and the cold cuts quickly tomorrow morning ‘and the cold cuts quickly tomorrow morning’

Andrea:

(10) Anna:

mhm und dann verschiedene eingelegte and then various pickled ‘and then various pickled’


(11)

wie Oliven such as olives ‘like olives’

(12)

sie wollten auch gefüllte Champingnons they wanted also ¿lled champignons ‘they also wanted ¿lled mushrooms’

(13)

jetzt hab ich gedacht now have I thought ‘now I thought’

(14)

dass wir die mit verschiedenen that we them with different ‘we’ll do them with’

(15)

Füllungen machen ¿llings make ‘a variety of ¿llings’

(16) Andrea:

das is auch ne gute Idee that is also a good idea ‘that’s also a good idea’

(17) Anna:

nich alle mit einer Füllung machen not all with one ¿lling make ‘not just with one ¿lling’

(18)

sondern wir machen einfach but we make just ‘but we’ll make’

(19)

verschiedene Füllungen different ¿llings ‘a variety of ¿llings’

(20) Andrea:

das is ne gute Idee that’s a good idea ‘that’s a good idea’

17

18


Anna has information that she is now sharing with Andrea. Andrea quickly gets involved and starts talking about the timings in lines 4 through 6, saying ‘exactly, we’ll do that tomorrow, well we’ll do the cheese now’. Anna repeats ‘we’ll do the cheese now’ in line 7, and right after this repetition, Anna restates Andrea’s ‘we’ll do that tomorrow’, by saying ‘and the cold cuts quickly tomorrow morning’ in line 8. These repetitions display involvement and signal Anna’s listenership, as discussed in Tannen (1989). The overlap in lines 15 and 16 and the latching in lines 19 and 20 show the involvement of the speakers. This transcript demonstrates that Andrea and Anna work as a team. While Anna has more information about the event and what is needed, Andrea is the one who is devising a time plan. Anna’s repetitions, utterances, and intonation all display solidarity, and the identity elements constructed in this communicative event are the identity elements of two equal business partners.

1.2.6 Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Example 2 Revisited However, when we look at the video clip this display of solidarity is contradicted. While Andrea is sitting, Anna stands close to her, bending down and resting her arms on the table. Anna and Andrea non-verbally co-construct employer/employee identities throughout this brief (inter)action. Anna displays the more powerful position and Andrea displays the less powerful position through the employment of other modes. The other modes of communication become apparent when we look at a multimodal transcript of the same (inter)action, which is illustrated in Figure 1.10.7 In Figure 1.10, images 1–2, we see how Andrea and Anna ¿rst take turns, gazing at each other. This turn taking is consistent with the patterns of gaze-distribution described by Kendon (1967) and Goodwin (1981). Kendon (1967:52–53) notes that an individual’s perceptual activity within interaction functions in differing but interrelated ways. Gaze functions as a means of monitoring and regulating as well as a means of expression. The speaker often gazes at the listener at utterance endings and phrase boundaries. This can be observed in Andrea’s and Anna’s (inter)action. On the other hand, in Figure 1.11 (Figure 1.10, image 4) we can detect how gaze can indicate the deferent or dominant orientations of participants (Exline and Fehr, 1982). Here, we see how Andrea gazes up at Anna in a deferent demeanor. Argyle and Cook (1976) also comment on the factors of gaze and dominance. This demeanor of deferent gaze, however, is a component of Andrea’s


Figure 1.10 Multimodal transcript.

19

20


Figure 1.11

Gaze displaying deferent orientation towards participant.

head-movements, as can be seen when looking closely at Figure 1.10, images 2–4, replicated in Figure 1.12. At ¿rst, Andrea is gazing at Anna in total gaze, which is ‘the extent a person looks another in the face, regardless of what the other does’ (Exline and Fehr, 1982:113). Then, Andrea bows her head down and leaves it in the lowest position for a little while. At this point, Anna gazes at Andrea in total gaze. In the third image, Anna is still gazing at Andrea, and Andrea is now looking up at Anna. Andrea’s head-movement, which resembles more a bow than a nod, already suggests deferent demeanor. This demeanor is then reinforced by Andrea’s glancing up at Anna. Interestingly, as Andrea bows her head down, Anna starts a deictic hand gesture, pointing at Andrea with her

Figure 1.12 Andrea’s head-movement and glancing up coincide with Anna’s deictic gesture.


Figure 1.13

21

Posture, gesture, and gaze.

pen. Andrea’s glancing upwards coincides with Anna’s gesture at its furthest point. Here, Anna appears to convey dominance with her gesture. Then in Figure 1.10, images 7–10, replicated in Figure 1.13, posture comes into play more prominently than before. Andrea’s position barely changes in these four images. Her full gaze is ¿xed on Anna, while Anna is getting up from her leaning position into a standing position. As she is standing up, Anna is performing an iconic gesture with her right hand/arm, sweeping it in front of her body from right to left. This gesture gives off what her utterance gives, but stresses a rather different characteristic of what she is communicating. While she is saying ‘not all just with one ¿lling’, she conveys the quantity of mushrooms with her hand/arm gesture. Here, we observe that ‘both spoken language and gesture refer to the same event, but each present a somewhat different aspect of it’ (McNeill, 1992: 13). Then, standing up more erect, Anna engages in mutual gaze with Andrea (Figure 1.13, image 3) and then follows the prior sweeping hand/arm gesture with another sweeping hand/arm gesture. This time she moves her hand/arm in front of her body from left to right, opening up the hand, stressing her utterance-part ‘verschiedene different’.

22


The difference in postural position and the use of space with Anna’s sweeping gesture reinforces the dominance/deference positions and (co)production of employer/employee identity elements. I have shown this short clip to several people with and without the soundtrack and asked them for comments. All viewers commented that Anna was the dominant person in this (inter)action. Therefore, I suggest that Anna’s and Andrea’s posture, gaze, head-movement, and gesture, all convey dominance and deference in the way described above. Yet, I do not wish to imply that Andrea and/or Anna are consciously acting in this way in order to convey their demeanor. As Goffman (1959) points out, the expressions given off are often of an unintentional kind. What is being communicated, however, is not unimportant in everyday (inter)action, as it has direct bearing on the identity productions of the participants involved. Whereas the overall impression of Anna’s dominance, which is visual in the multimodal transcript, was lost in the audio recording, visual research methods illustrate the contradictions that exist between the verbal and the non-verbal modes. Posture, gaze, head-movements, and gesture all display a power-distribution that contradicts the power-distribution that we perceived through only the verbal mode. Ruesch and Kees (1959) argued that if we disregard those statements that are codi¿ed in non-verbal terms, we lose much information and are likely to misinterpret these messages. Nevertheless, nonverbal communication should also not be overemphasized, and we need to understand that it is never one person alone who constructs the power relationship of any one moment. Many studies have shown, for example, that a participant feels more con¿dent in their own environment. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to mention that the above (inter)action takes place in Anna’s kitchen. Andrea is the visitor and visitors are more likely to take on the more deferent demeanor, while Anna, being the host, is more likely to take on the dominant position. However, had Andrea not taken on the deferent demeanor to such an extent, Anna would also not have come across as strongly dominant as she did. The (co)production of each other’s identity elements as employer and employee cannot be overemphasized, especially when investigating power relationships in (inter)action and the resulting identity production; and identity production and power are always closely linked. The complexity of face-to-face (inter)action becomes apparent when multiple modes are taken into consideration. Many aspects of this communicative event are contradictory: the verbal mode suggests solidarity between Andrea and Anna and suggests the identities of equal business partners; gaze, gesture, and posture imply Anna’s dominance within the (inter)action, and suggest that the two women produce themselves and each other’s identity elements as employer and employee; and the setting, Anna’s home, to some extent, controls the participants’ dominant/deferent demeanor.

Moving Towards a Holistic Analysis

1.3

23

Moving Towards a Holistic Analysis

When using visual methods of recording naturally occurring (inter)actions instead of solely audio recordings, a discourse analyst is lead to view communication in a more holistic sense. As Van Leeuwen and Jewitt (2001) note, In the case of conversational analysis and ethnomethodology visual analysis is not so much a matter of analyzing images (with or without their consideration of their context) as of analyzing the dynamic unfolding of speci¿c social practices in which non-verbal communication (pointing, gaze work, and so on) and images (including signs, maps and diagrams) play a role. (Van Leeuwen and Jewitt, 2001:3)

In addition to non-verbal communication among the participants and images that play a role within the (inter)action studied, visual records also emphasize the importance of the setting in which the (inter)action takes place. In traditional discourse analysis, which is focused on the verbal mode of communication, the non-verbal and image-based dynamics within the (inter) action are blended out. Even in some image-based conversation analyses, the context is still not considered to be part of the (inter)action. For instance, as the ¿rst example illustrates, Andrea’s son, who is quietly playing next to her, seems to be irrelevant for the (inter)action and Andrea’s identity production. Also the paintings, the easel, the moving boxes, and the piles of objects are considered to be of no communicative value for the study of the dynamic unfolding of speci¿c social practices. Yet, we need to take all of these communicative modes into consideration if we truly want to shed some light onto the construction of identity. The communicative signi¿cance of gaze, gestures, posture, and the like is also usually not taken into consideration by traditional discourse analysts. Discourse analysts, who do take some non-verbal communication into consideration, often emphasize the importance of the communicative mode of spoken language in their studies.8 Visual research methods allow, and to some extent demand, that we integrate other communicative modes, providing insight into the complex interplay among the modes in a communicative event.

1.3.1 A Holistic Analysis: Some Implications When employing visual research methods, there are far-reaching implications for discourse analysis. The furthest-reaching implications are theoretical and methodological. While discourse analysis takes the utterance or the text as its unit of analysis, visual research steers us away from a focus on language, and guides us to consider the mediated action as the unit of analysis (Scollon,

24


1998, 2001b; Norris, 2004; Norris and Jones, 2005). With the mediated action as unit of analysis, we can view language as just one mode of communication that is present among other modes, without language necessarily being primary. Of course, by taking the mediated action as the unit of analysis, and by decentralizing language, we actually open up a new ¿eld, namely multimodal (inter)action analysis. With multimodal (inter)action analysis growing out of visual research combined with discourse analysis, analytical implications result from embracing numerous non-verbal communicative modes and the setting: the ¿eld of non-verbal communication is vast in itself; and an inclusion of an analysis of the setting is possible only if we consider the macro and the micro social structures, which shape the environs. Furthermore, there are implications for transcription, as I have argued elsewhere (Norris, 2002, 2004). While discourse analysis has devised a neat transcription system, this system is not necessarily functional when conducting multimodal (inter)action analysis. For multimodal (inter)action analysis, a transcription method that is image-based is more constructive. The theoretical, methodological, and analytical implications all called for a conceptual framework that illustrates the connections of the various communicative modes. The interplay of various kinds of communicative modes, some of which are visual-kinesic, while others are linear-segmented, and again others do not ¿t either of these de¿nitions, needed to be theorized in order to enable multimodal (inter)action analysis. Multimodal (inter)action analysis, then, should be able to reveal how ‘meaning is made in all modes separately, and at the same time’ and how ‘meaning is an effect of all modes acting jointly’ (Kress et al., 2001:1). This book does not simply investigate the multimodal ways in which social actors (co)construct meaning, but investigates how social actors with their everyday actions (co)produce their identities and how such (co)produced identities—or rather identity elements—take on a durable aspect across time and space. With this focus, the author intends to open a new window on how to understand everyday identity production in the moment and across time and space in its vast complexity; at the same time offering a creative framework that researchers and students can use as a starting point for further investigation.

1.4

Structure of the Book

Chapter 2 follows naturally from this one, giving some theoretical background with detailed description and illustration of the units of analysis (the

Structure of the Book

25

lower-level, higher-level, and frozen actions), the concepts of site of engagement and practice, and the heuristic notions of the foreground-background continuum. Chapter 3 begins with an argument for the necessity of ethnographic research to illuminate the analysis of identity and discusses two case studies in detail. It is these two case studies that are used as examples throughout the book. Because of the ethnographic nature of the study, this chapter includes a day in the researcher’s life. This chapter also details how I came to propose creative writing as one data collection tool for this kind of ethnographic data. My thoughts here go hand in hand with Lemke’s (2008) ideas on research into identity, where he says: We need to extend our semiotic repertoire of semiotic resources to more fully develop their potential for gradation and nuance, for ambiguity and polysemy, or, to the extent that such resources do already exist, what is needed are better ways of combining the de¿ nitive and the evocative forms and genres available to us. Our dominant intellectual and cultural traditions have preferred to keep them separate, allocating social power to the categorically based representations and marginalizing those closer to the phenomenological realism of the experiential as mere amusements. (Lemke, 2008:29)

Besides some personal accounts of the researcher’s experience in the ¿eld and the explicated relevance to conducting ethnographic research, the participants also introduce themselves in this chapter. The chapter then turns to multimodal transcription, discussing the theoretical as well as the methodological side of it. Chapter 4 ¿ rst takes the heuristic model illustrated in chapter 2 to compose the modal density foreground-background continuum. It then goes on to explain the notion of modal density, linking it to sites of engagement, actions, and identity, looking in detail at excerpts of one sociolinguistic interview, also illustrating that the verbal in a multimodal study is far from irrelevant. Language is still viewed as a very important communicative mode, particularly due to its high informative value. While these examples allow for a theoretical and methodological discussion, they also give the reader an understanding of particular identity elements that are demonstrated throughout the book. Drawing on the case studies introduced in the previous chapter, chapter 5 illuminates how the use of the foreground-background continuum in conjunction with the notion of modal density sheds light on simultaneous identity element production. The simultaneous identity element productions are

26


here termed horizontal identity production. The chapter further addresses how the notions of mastery and appropriation can be incorporated and do become relevant when studying identity. Chapter 6 turns to vertical identity production, illustrating how to incorporate three layers of discourse from the societal/institutional to the network and the central discourses surrounding a social actor. When teasing these different layers of discourse apart, we ¿nd that one and the same identity element is layered so that there is a general, a continuous, and an immediate part to each identity element. While most of the time these parts overlap, these parts can also be dislodged and become visible. In chapter 7, identity shift, saliency of identity, and identity change are discussed. Identity is produced through higher-level actions and social actors, while (co)constructing several at any one time, and shifting their focus from one to another. This shifting in-and-out of focus is regulated through a higherlevel discourse structure, the semantic/pragmatic means. Saliency of identity may become visible in the amount of time that a social actor is spending on particular higher-level actions that produce particular identity elements. Of course, identity is also always developing, and sometimes, there are major changes in an individual’s identity. This aspect of identity change is discussed by looking at Andrea’s identity change from wife to single mother. Identity is not only produced horizontally through simultaneity, and identity elements can not only be dissected vertically to demonstrate the various layers; identity elements do not only shift in a social actor’s attention/ awareness levels, becoming more salient at one time than at another; identity does not only always develop, shift, and change. Identity elements are also connected by social actors through the actions that they take in their world; identity elements are connected by social actors through narrative snippets (also a higher-level action) that link the past to the present and enable a newly imagined future; and identity elements are connected by social actors through their use of material modes such as furniture, clothes, and their own façade; identity elements are connected by social actors to build their own person identity which is viewed and produced like a stabilized identity. This person identity, however, is not a ¿xed identity, but rather is a social actor’s continuously evolving identity. Chapter 8 explains how the person identity is a continuous process of producing a whole by newly connecting identity elements as they are changing with one another and with the past and the imagined new future. Chapter 9 is forward looking, giving the reader pointers on how to determine identity elements when conducting a study; discussing how, when utilizing the framework illustrated in this book, a short ethnography can yield

Notes

27

good data; and summing up the various concepts used, illustrating how they are linked. In a way, this is a chapter for a quick reference when conducting research into identity production.

Notes 1. See: Butler (1993); Caldas-Coulthard and Iedema (2008); Coupland and Gwyn (2003); de Saint-Georges and Norris (2000); Gergen (1991); Grossberg (1996); Harre (1979); Holland et al. (1998); Lemke (2002b, 2008); Mead (1934); Norris (2000, 2001); Wodak et al. (2000). 2. Some other discussions of context from various angles: Duranti (1992), Goodwin and Goodwin (1992), Schegloff (1992), and Kendon (1992). 3. Please see: communication as co-construction discussed in detail in Goodwin (1981), Schegloff (1982), Tannen (1984), and others. 4. I would like to emphasize mostly mono-modal, as the tape recorder does not truly record mono-modally, but I would like to imply the focus on the spoken discourse, here. 5. Chapter 2 discusses the concept of identity as it is used in this book in detail. 6. See: Scollon and Scollon (2003). 7. Here I give the word-for-word English translation in the text boxes in the top right of each image, as intonation is important for further analysis of the segment. I omit the free translation in order not to clutter the multimodal transcript. 8. Some of the scholars that use visual research methods, adding gaze and gesture to discourse studies, are Goodwin (1981, 1986), Goodwin and Goodwin (1992), F. Erickson (1990;), Ochs and Taylor (1992). Also Kendon (1992) and McNeill (1992) (although they are not actually working in a discourse analysis framework).

Chapter 2 Identity in (Inter)action: Theoretical Concepts . . . one’s actions produce one as a person who is competent or not in some social practice, and in the second place, they produce one as someone with an identity . . . —Scollon (2001b:142)

2.1

Identity: A Discussion

Goffman (1959) explores identity construction and reception from a social psychological view. As a framework, he employs the metaphor of theatrical performance, and uses the term performance for ‘all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some inÀuence on the observers’ (Goffman, 1959:22). He distinguishes between the “setting”, involving furniture, décor, physical layout, and other background items, which . . . tends to stay put geographically speaking; and the “personal front” to refer to the other items of expressive equipment, the items that we most intimately identify with the performer himself and that we naturally expect will follow the performer wherever he goes. As part of personal front we may include: insignia of of¿ce or rank; clothing; sex; age, and racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech patterns; facial expressions; bodily gestures; and the like. (Goffman, 1959:23–24)

Scollon (1998) argues that ‘in any communication, the primary players or participants are those who are in such a relationship with each other that they mutually co-construct both the events in which they participate and the identities of themselves in those events’ (Scollon, 1998:267). He further argues that the co-construction of event and identity are logically prior to the production of texts. This logical sequence does not, however, represent a temporal sequence within the interaction. Identity is co-constructed simultaneously as is the event itself, and identities are, therefore, always relational to the other participants as well as to the event that is being co-constructed.

30

Identity in (Inter)action: Theoretical Concepts

Goffman suggested that the self, then, ‘is not an entity half-concealed behind events, but a changeable formula for managing oneself during them’ (Goffman, 1974:573). Similarly, Stuart Hall argues that: the theorization of identity is a matter of considerable political signi¿cance, and is only likely to be advanced when both the necessity and the ‘impossibility’ of identities, and the suturing of the psychic and the discursive in their constitution, are fully and unambiguously acknowledged. (Hall, 1996:16)

Cultural studies is mainly concerned with the concept of identity and its political importance in cultural struggles. However, Stuart Hall (1996) distinguishes between two historical models of identity production in cultural studies. The ¿rst model presupposes a fundamental essence to any identity, which is de¿ned by common origin and/or common experience. ‘Struggling against constructions of a particular identity takes the form of contesting negative images with positive ones, and of trying to discover the “authentic” and “original” content of the identity’ (Grossberg, 1996:89). The second model rejects the existence of original identities, and claims that identities are always relational, incomplete, and ever changing, de¿ned by only marking differences. Besides the notion of difference, we also ¿nd the notion of fragmentation in cultural studies. Fragmentation stresses the multiplicity of any one apparent identity, and sees a particular or lived identity as ‘a kind of disassembled and reassembled unity’ (Haraway, 1991:174). ‘Identities are thus always contradictory, made up out of partial fragments’ (Grossberg, 1996:91). I somewhat similarly conceive identity to be fabricated of multiple parts, which, as Wodak et al. emphasize, are always situated in the Àow of time, ever changing (Wodak et al., 2000), taking up the notion discussed by Grossberg and Haraway. However, rather than speaking of fragments of identity, I speak of identity elements (Norris, 2007). I view identity as process rather than being; I view identity as always developing rather than static; I view identity as (co) production—and with that what Holland et al. (1998:33) term ‘(co)development—the linked development of people, cultural forms, and social positions in particular historical worlds’—rather than simple (co)construction. In this sense, identity is embedded and (co)produced in what I call the social-timeplace of a particular social actor together with other social actors, together with and within the historical time, together with cultural tools, and together with and within the environment. Social-time-place of a particular social actor has the following meaning: the social actor lives within particular social structures, within a particular


31

historical moment, and in a particular place—all of these, the social structures, the historical time, and the particular place—bring with it affordances and constraints for particular identity production. Thus, a social actor’s identity is mediated by and mediates the social-time-place in actions that are performed and that are understood by other social actors as practices or parts of practices of that social-time-place in which the actions are performed. Certainly, there is much more to say about identity, which has been discussed in a broad range of literature including psychology, sociology, philosophy, cultural studies, and sociolinguistics. Since it would be impossible for me to present all of the literature, I now only present the theoretical accounts of identity that are essential for the heuristic perception of this multimodal concept, discussing the notion of identity as the vehicle to present this framework. I arrived at the term identity elements originally from a notion of chemical elements, some of which are more permanent (gold, for example, is quite permanent), and others of which are more volatile (hydrogen, for example, is quite volatile), where the permanent elements last over long durations without changing and the volatile elements easily combine with others. Gold, in this sense, could be viewed as similar to a social actor’s façade, which does not usually change drastically in the short term, while an identity element such as a work identity element may be closer to hydrogen, possibly changing quite quickly. But there is still another notion that I have in mind when I speak of identity elements, and that is the notion of these ‘pieces’ somehow more or less ¿tting together to produce the social actor’s person identity, which is discussed in detail in chapter 8. The identity elements that I discuss in this book are taken to be of heuristic value. They are not distinct categories or clear units. The identity elements, which I found to be of great relevance for the women, are particular to these women at the social-time-place when the speci¿c data pieces were collected. At the outset, I was particularly interested in the women’s family, personal, national, and international identities. However, here I have to note that in the beginning these identity elements were superimposed in order to gain an analytical understanding—or to start somewhere. The actual identity elements which are parts or aspects of these larger concepts of identity that I arrived at during the study, however, were data driven. The women’s national identity elements are quite strong, but are generally not focused upon in everyday interactions since these identity elements are deeply rooted in the women’s habitus and are mostly taken for granted.1 Aspects of the family identity element sometimes included the mother, the housewife, and the divorcee identity elements, which I will be discussing in detail in the following chapters. Parts of the personal identity element

32


sometimes included the women’s friend identity element, their work identity element as caterers, and in Andrea’s case, the artist identity element. I emphasize sometimes, because at other times, these identity elements were quite distinct from one another; so that a woman actually distinguished between the family and the mother identity elements; she distinguished her personal identity element from her friend identity element and so forth. These categories are not, as mentioned above, set categories. They are heuristic units, allowing us to describe a social actor’s identity production. In everyday life, the women do not produce just one of these identity elements, consciously distinguishing between national, family, or personal identity elements; or consciously distinguishing between artist, mother, and caterer identity elements. While it is useful to distinguish among these various identity elements for analysis, a social actor in everyday life weaves them together seamlessly as will become apparent in chapter 8. In this study, I focus on social-time-place identity production within (inter)action, analyzing the performance of higher- and lower level-actions. The identity elements, which I show as being produced by the participants at the moment of social-time-place, are always seen to be co-produced within the participant’s network and/or their environment. Some actions may be coconstructed with the researcher, others may be co-constructed between Anna and Andrea, and again others may be co-constructed between peripheral members (like the butcher) and other participants, and again others may be co-constructed with the environment and objects within. However, the identities that can be inferred through the co-constructed actions are not only coproduced among the interactants, but are rather always co-produced within the participant’s ‘invisible’ social network and their social-time-place. This means that the participant’s network and society also enforce a particular identity production for the social actor, so that the co-production is actually layered. First, there is the co-production of identity between two (or more) social actors, or the co-production between a social actor and the environment and/ or cultural tools that they use. Second, there is the co-production of identity between the participant and the closest social actors within the network, which are the people that the participant interacts with most frequently. Third, there is the co-production of identity between the participant and the social actors within the network that the participant interacts with frequently, and so on. In this view, all identity elements are multiply co-produced between the participant, the social actors, and the environment she (inter)acts with and her social network as such during a speci¿c socio-historic time and place.2 This social-time-place includes the place of (inter)action. As the place becomes multimodally analyzable, the concept of place is viewed as tangible.


33

Identities are multidimensional, and sets of identities are orchestrated at certain moments in social-time-place; they are not ¿xed, and can be foregrounded, mid-grounded, or backgrounded (or anything in between) during (inter)actions. Some identity elements are adopted at certain times, some change fairly quickly, and some are discarded after a while altogether. A change in identity can be discovered in my data. Throughout the year of study, the construction of Andrea’s divorcee identity changes continually and is eventually discarded altogether. Some identities such as national identities are macro-socially necessitated, other identities such as family identities are micro-socially enforced, while again other identities such as the friend identities are chosen by the individual and made possible in their social-time-place. However, even though some identity elements are macro-socially necessitated and others are micro-socially enforced, a social actor does have agency; just as the chosen identity elements, which appear to be agentive, entail aspects of micro and even macro social forces, so that agency is somewhat restricted. Agency and micro and macro social forces are continuously producing some kind of tension, a tension that sometimes is relatively small and may stay unnoticed, or a tension that sometimes becomes very strong in the everyday lives of social actors and becomes overwhelming. During my research, I focused primarily on naturally occurring situations. However, in order to triangulate the data collection, I elicited the participants’ reaction in two ways. First I elicited their reaction during what I called the ritual magazine-reading hour. This elicitation was conducted through the mode of print. The second form of elicitation was the informal interview, which I conducted several times about different topics during the ¿eldwork. In the last informal sociolinguistic interviews, I directly asked about the participants’ family, personal, national, and international identities. The concept of identity as I use it in this book includes all fully or partially (co)produced identi¿cations, be they identi¿cations with roles, nations, or social groups (in both the narrow and the broad sense). In essence, each social actor produces some role-linked identity elements such as being a child, a parent, or a grandparent; each social actor produces some nationlinked identity elements, even if only through speaking a certain language or dialect; and each social actor produces some social-group-linked identity elements, be the social group a nuclear family, an extended family, a neighborhood, or an ethnicity. Social actors often (co)produce different identity elements at different times and with different social actors. Social actors act as children when (inter)acting with their parents, but (inter)act as the parent when (inter)

34


acting with their own child. The same social actors also exhibit some kind of national identity and some types of social identity—and often all at the very same time. Scollon (1997) has noted that identity is (co)produced at a moment in time; and Hall (1996) views identity as a process of identi¿cation; while Cole (1996) or Wertsch (1998) see identity as part of group practices of identi¿cation. I believe identity is a process in which social actors (co)develop, and (co) change in their social-time-place. Identity, while socially produced, is nevertheless creative and to some degree agentive; identity is (co)produced through (co)constructed actions with social actors, the environment, and cultural tools on the one hand, and stabilized through practices on the other. If we want to gain a better understanding of identity production in everyday life, we want to sum up that identity is produced in the moment; identity production is a process; and identity production is embedded within the social groups: identity is (co)produced within the social actors’ social-time place. A social actor’s identity is thus (co)produced in the moment by the social actor with other social actors and/or cultural tools and the environment. Each moment follows a previous microscopic to large-scale moment of a social actor’s identity production and precedes another. This continuity (or discontinuity) of small and large-scale identity production builds a process that is deeply embedded in the social actor’s habitus, the social actor’s agency, and the social actor’s social groups—whereby habitus, agency, and social groups are not synonymous, but three distinct and often conÀicting aspects. Identity in this sense is not solely agentive, but it is neither solely prescribed by a social actor’s historical body, nor by society, nor the cultural tools used, nor the environment. Rather, there is a continuous mediation and tension between all of them.

2.2

Is Identity Intentional?

While social actors have—at least to some extent—agency in producing their own identity, social actors do not usually perceive themselves to produce a certain kind of identity. The identity production that appears so clearly phenomenological to others does not necessarily feel phenomenological to the social actors producing the identity. In other words, identity often is produced by a social actor inadvertently rather than intentionally, but the produced identity is often read by other social actors as intentional. This discrepancy may have something to do with the fact that social actors are always keen to understand others—at least to some extent—and in

Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis: Theory

35

everyday (inter)actions, social actors are more aware of what others are saying or doing than what they say or do themselves. While social actors often can recall nuances in what others said or did, they rarely can recall exactly what they themselves said or did in response. Social actors often act quicker than they process the action; and spectators process the action of others faster than they process their own actions. Thus, while identity production is to a large extent phenomenological, it is ¿rst of all more phenomenological for the spectator than for the social actor acting; but it is second of all re-perceived by the social actor acting through the phenomenological response that others bestow, so that social actors perceive themselves through the actions of the others. As others never can know a complete identity of any one other social actor, these re-perceptions are always and only partial; and while a social actor may know what others perceive, they may not feel that the assigned identity is correct, refuting or negotiating it in following (inter)actions. It is these perceived, re-perceived, refuted, or negotiated identity productions in (inter)action that I am analyzing with the help of multimodal (inter)action analysis.

2.3


Multimodal (inter)action analysis is anchored in mediated discourse analysis (Scollon 1998, 2001a, 2001b; Norris and Jones, 2005), which is an integrative theory of human action organized by the three main principles of social action, communication, and history. The principle of social action entails that the focus of mediated discourse analysis is the social action, leading the analyst to discover how action in society is taken and to what extent discourse plays a role in social action. This focus on social action ¿rst guides the analyst away from investigating systems of representation as such and, secondly, steers the researcher away from assuming simple links between discursive and/or non-discursive actions and social structures. Social actions are presumed to be complexly and often directly and indirectly linked to other social actions. The principle of communication refers to the fact that an action can be termed social only if the action is communicated. While discourse is of primary interest to mediated discourse analysis, this theory encourages the analyst to incorporate nonverbal and multimodal communication as mediated discourse analysis sets out to discover to what extent discourse plays a role in social action. The role of discourse in social action can be discovered by looking beyond discourse and by incorporating non-verbal and multimodal actions.

36


The principle of history requires that shared meaning derives from common past. In order for a social action to be communicated, the social action has to be interpretable by other social actors, and interpretation is always based in shared history. While mediated discourse analysis particularly focuses on the un¿nalizability and irreversibility of social action, the theory assumes that every social action in real time is simultaneously the production and re-production of social structures (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990), taking the sociocultural histories of the habitus of the social actors as well as the histories of the mediational means into account (Nishida, 1958; Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; and Wertsch, 1998). Habitus (Bordieu, 1977, 1990) or the historical body (Nishida, 1958) refers to an organization of durable and transposable dispositions that a social actor accumulates as a consequence of social action. Habitus is the internalization of social practices and actions, and with that the internalization of mediational means or cultural tools,3 making it possible for the social actor to perform such action or employ such mediational means without conscious reÀection. Thus, habitus is a product of history and at the same time produces and re-produces individual and collective history. Mediated discourse analysis is an overarching theory, fusing various discursive and non-discursive theories including but not limited to discourse analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, critical discourse analysis, and action and practice theory. While mediated discourse analysis integrates various other theoretical notions, it does not compel an all-inclusive study, but rather promotes the ability to approach the study of interaction from various different angles. Multimodal (inter)action analysis primarily builds upon the discursive theories of discourse analysis and interactional sociolinguistics as well as upon the non-discursive action theory and aspects of the ¿eld of non-verbal communication, sound, and music. Multimodal (inter)action analysis, thus, is driven by the theoretical notions of mediated discourse analysis and visual research methods, and strongly builds on discourse analysis. As will become evident in later chapters, multimodal (inter)action analysis views discourse as an integral part and the analysis of sociolinguistic interviews is not contradictory to a multimodal analysis, but a part thereof. Mediated discourse analysis builds the fundamental theory for multimodal (inter)action analysis, which implies that while incorporating the different ¿elds of study, the theoretical notions that are applied are all mediated discourse notions, which are extended and developed to build novel methodological thought. Thus, a social actor’s spoken language is viewed as action, just as is the performance of gesture or posture. While not all mediated discourse notions are applied in this book, the three principles of social action,


37

communication, and history are always adhered to. Whereby the notion of social action is re¿ned, this idea of communication reaches beyond the focal point of social actors, and the principle of history is explicated heuristically through micro and macro analyses.

2.3.1 Action One aspect of mediated discourse analysis that is always adhered to is the ecological unit of analysis.4 The ecological unit of analysis is the mediated action, which is the social actor when taking an action with or through a mediational means. The notion of mediated action emphasizes the fact that social action is grounded in social actors and objects in the world, highlighting the irresolvable dialectic between social action and mediational means. A most important aspect here is the aspect of mediation. Actions are always mediated, and they are mediated not only by cultural tools as commonly understood, but by the very social-time-place that the social actors live in. When looking at the simple action of Andrea pushing a shopping cart in a supermarket (Figure 2.1), it becomes apparent that Andrea (the social actor) plus the shopping cart (the meditational means) equal the action of pushing the cart. The other thing that becomes apparent is that this very action is possible only during the very social-time-place that Andrea lives in. It would not have been possible 100 years earlier in exactly this same way. While incorporating many aspects of discourse analysis and/or interactional sociolinguistics, the unit of analysis builds the fundamental difference between multimodal (inter)action analysis and discourse analysis or an interactional sociolinguistics framework, in which the utterance builds the unit of analysis. Thus, in multimodal (inter)action analysis, when a social actor utters the words und ich bin der König ‘and I am the king’ as illustrated in Figure 2.2, the utterance is an action. At the same time, there is also a slight difference to mediated discourse analysis. In multimodal (inter)action analysis, we take the mediated aspect of an action as given, realizing that all actions are mediated, and are usually multiply mediated. When examining the example in Figure 2.2, the utterance und ich bin der König ‘and I am the king’ comes about through the use of multiple meditational means: air, lungs, larynx, mouth, teeth, and lips are only some of the meditational means involved; and the actual language, in this case the German language, is another. Certainly, one can revisit the above example in which Andrea is performing the action of pushing a shopping cart (Figure 2.1) and can easily name multiple meditational means that are involved there.

38


Figure 2.1 An action is a social actor acting with/through a meditational means.

Figure 2.2 Spoken utterances are mediated actions.


39

It is thus posited that there exists no action that is not mediated, and the notion of mediation will not be further alluded to. Further, instead of speaking of the mediated action, I have demarcated the mediated action into the lower-level action, the higher-level action, and the frozen action. Each of these actions is always mediated in multiple ways. The lower-level action is a communicative mode’s smallest meaning unit. For the mode of spoken discourse, the smallest meaning unit is the utterance. For the mode of gesture, as illustrated in Figure 2.3, the smallest meaning unit is the gesture unit, with the pre-stroke, the stroke, the post-stroke hold (when present), and the retraction phase. In Figure 2.3, Katie plays with her left foot; then she points to a piece of paper that Andrea is supposed to give her. She holds the pointer in a post-stroke hold and then retracts her left hand, moving it back to the starting position, to her left foot. Here, the complete gesture, from beginning to completed retraction, is viewed as a unit. For the mode of posture, the lower-level action is the postural shift; and for the mode of gaze, it is the gaze shift. Social actors act in these incremental units, seldom paying much attention to each one individually, and often more concerned with the fact that they accomplish a higher-level action. A higher-level action is produced through a multiplicity of chained lowerlevel actions that interlink and play together in diverse ways. An example of a higher-level action is a conversation, a class, or a dinner. Higher-level actions are constructed through the lower-level actions that social actors perform at the very same time as they produce the lower-level actions. In other words, a conversation such as the one illustrated in Figure 2.4 is constructed through the many utterances, postural and gaze shifts, and gestures that the participants perform, but, at the same time, the participants perform the many chains of lower-level actions in order to converse. In the higher-level action shown in Figure 2.4, Andrea is conversing with her friend Käthe about an imagined emigration to America.

Figure 2.3 A gesture unit.

40


Figure 2.4 The higher-level action (conversation) is constructed through a multitude of chained lower-level actions (utterances, gestures, head movements, and so on) at the same time as the lower-level actions come about because of the higher-level action (the conversation).


41

Not all modes construct actions in this same way. Some modes, particularly objects and the environment, that have more permanent materiality, have actions embedded in them. These, I call the frozen actions. Frozen actions are thus embedded in the material world. When looking at Figure 2.4, we see that there are a book and other objects lying on the table. Since the table is standing in Andrea’s dining room, we may assume that she has placed the items there. The action of placing the items on the table is therefore embedded in the very objects. Objects and the environment are infused with prior actions that are then retained in the very objects and the environment. Often social actors assign objects and the environment actions that are closest to them in time and space. When coming home, ¿nding the mail on the counter, you will assume that somebody living with you has placed it there. This action of placing the mail onto the counter is closest in time and space to you at that time. It is less likely that you will consider all of the other actions that inadvertently are embedded in the mail on your counter. Some of which are the fact that a mail clerk had to sort the mail, another had to deliver the mail to you, etc. However, it is not always the case that the actions closest in time and space to you are the ones you notice. In the case of mail, you will likely be interested in a distant action in time and place, and this would be the action of sending the mail. In this case, saliency plays a role, and here a more crucial role. Whether it is closeness of time and/or space or whether it is saliency, an action is imprinted in the material object. Therefore, objects with more permanent materiality such as mail or the book and other objects on Andrea’s dining room table always entail frozen social action(s). To sum up, actions come in frozen form; they are performed on a higherand a lower-level. A conversation, like the one between Andrea and her friend Käthe illustrated in Figure 2.4, is viewed as a higher-level action. Or this same conversation can be analyzed by examining the lower-level actions; i.e.: each gaze shift, utterance, or gesture employed can be analyzed in this way. Lowerlevel actions, in turn, build chains of lower-level actions, which intersect with other chains of lower-level actions. In Figure 2.4 for example, Andrea’s utterances spoken throughout build a chain of utterances: und dann machen wir hier und da dann suchen wir uns nämlich da en schönes Häuschen am Wasser und dann leben wir teilweise hier und da ‘and then we’ll be here and there then we’ll ¿nd a nice little house there near the water and then we live here and there.’ Similarly, Käthe’s utterances build a chain: hier und da hier und da ‘here and there here and there.’ The chains of utterances overlap in Figure 2.4, image 9 where Käthe says hier und da ‘here and there,’ and Andrea overlaps with hier ‘here.’ The chains of utterances also partly intersect with chains of gesture units as can be seen in Figure 2.4: Andrea says ‘here,’ lifting her right forearm/

42


hand as if she was holding on to the ‘here’ as seen in image 2; she says ‘and there’ moving the hand back and above her right shoulder as if she was holding onto the ‘there’ as shown in image 3; she retracts the hand (as seen in image 4); and then, in image 5 begins the next gesture; in image 6, we see Andrea moving her hand over her shoulder again, but this time further back, Àattening her palm/thumb and curling her ¿ngers as she says ‘then we’ll ¿nd’; and continues saying ‘a nice little house there near the water,’ bringing her hand forward as seen in image 7, producing a wave and retracting her hand as seen in image 8; in image 9 she then moves her hand upwards in a similar holding gesture as in image 2 saying ‘here;’ and moves her hand over her shoulder in image 10, saying ‘and there’. Within a conversation, a multitude of chained lower-level actions (such as utterances, gestures, posture, and proxemics) build the higher-level action as the lower-level actions are produced by the higher-level action. Thus, higherand lower-level actions constitute each other. While multimodal (inter)action analysis, as mentioned above, takes the notion of mediation as given, it cannot be emphasized enough that the notion of mediation is thus realized as one of the most important notions in the framework. When something is being taken as given, as here the notion of mediation, it is viewed as accepted, expected, and taken to be factual. While we usually take it as just that in this book, there are, depending upon the focus of a study, sometimes reasons that lead the researcher to tease the notion apart from the action again, in order to investigate the mediation(s) present. Mediation is thus of upmost importance for the study of multimodal (inter)action analysis, but once understood and internalized as valid, the researcher does not always have to de-construct the notion of the social action.

2.3.2 Mediational Means or Cultural Tools The term mediational means or cultural tools (and I will use these two terms interchangeably throughout this book) is used to refer to any semiotic object to mediate social action and, as mentioned above, all social action is mediated.5 Often a social action is mediated by multiple mediational means. The conversation between Andrea and Käthe, for example, is mediated through their social-time-place, and by the mediational means of posture, gesture, gaze, and spoken language, as well as the mediational means of the layout of the room including the furniture, the objects on the table, and so on. Such multiple mediational means are interlinked in complex ways. Mediational means and their complex interplay are central in this book, which illuminates


43

how the employment of the mediational means or communicative modes, such as language, gesture, gaze, or the layout of a room, give insight into the construction of identity. Wertsch (1998) notes the difference in materiality of cultural tools. While spoken language appears to have no materiality compared to written texts for example, he argues that spoken language nevertheless has momentary materiality. Spoken language (or the mode of communication) is no less real and therefore material than written text (or the communicative mode of print). The difference lies in the continuity of existence. While a spoken utterance fades as it ends, a written text may continue to exist for many years. A spoken utterance is straightforwardly de¿ned as a mediated action. The social actor employs the mediational means of language (and of course other mediational means as the vocal folds, the articulators, etc.) to perform the action of producing the utterance. An existing written text, on the other hand, is less effortlessly de¿ned as a social action, and yet, in order to produce the text, a social actor had to perform a mediated action or a chain of mediated actions. As Wertsch (1998) points out, mediational means can be mastered or appropriated by social actors. Mastery and appropriation can be intertwined, but are often quite distinct categories. Mastery refers to the absence or incompleteness of internalization. While social actors often “know how” to employ a cultural tool, the use of the tool may never be fully internalized. Wertsch gives the example of multiplication: The overall use of the mediational means to solve the problem of multiplying 343 by 822 is one that for most people is never fully internalized. Instead of speaking of internalization in such cases, it would again seem to be more appropriate to speak of mastering the use of a cultural tool. (Wertsch, 1991:51)

Wertsch takes the term appropriation directly from Russian, which is called privoenie and means “the process of making something one’s own”. Bakhtin (1981) speaks of the process of appropriating the mediational means language: Language is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into the private property of the speaker’s intention; it is populated—overpopulated— with the intentions of others. Expropriating it, forcing it to submit to one’s own intentions and accents, is a dif¿cult and complicated process. (Bakhtin, 1981:294).

This quote from Bakhtin can be extended to other communicative modes. Subtleties in the Russian language, which encompasses a much more distinct

44


pre¿x system than English does—here translated as ‘a- and expropriated’— show that for a social actor to appropriate a cultural tool fully (be it a word or an object), the social actor has to expropriate it ¿rst. The word expropriate means to take the other meanings which are attached to that cultural tool and re-shape these meanings into ‘one’s own’. This process is then called appropriation. The process of appropriation, therefore, is always combined with some resistance or friction between the cultural tool and the social actor. Any mediated action, whether performed during the real-time moment of study, or frozen in continuous materiality that is present during that moment of study, constructs social identities, and a mediated action always takes place within a site of engagement.

2.3.3 Site of Engagement Scollon (1998, 2001b) de¿nes a site of engagement as ‘the real-time window opened through an intersection of social practice and mediational means that make that action the focal point of attention of the relevant participants’ (Scollon, 2001b:3–4). The site of engagement de¿ned in this way refers to the momentary focal point in a real-time interaction. In order to incorporate an analysis of frozen mediated actions and several higher-level actions that are being performed at the very same time by the social actors involved in the (inter)action within the concept of a site of engagement, the site of engagement needs to be re-de¿ned. Since the magnitude of a mediated action depends upon the focus of study, the magnitude of the site of engagement also has to depend upon the focus of the study. When investigating higher-level actions like conversations, the notion of a site of engagement, therefore, has to be expanded. First, even though not the ¿nal version that I will arrive at in a moment, we need to expand the original notion of the site of engagement, so that the ¿rst re-de¿nition reads: A site of engagement is the real-time window opened through the intersection of social practice(s) and mediational means that makes that lower (or higher) level action the focal point of attention of the relevant participants.

By expanding the notion of a site of engagement to allow the analysis of higher-level actions within a site of engagement, the concept of a site of engagement overlaps to a certain extent with Goffman’s notion of a social encounter (Goffman, 1981). Goffman points out that social encounters are usually bracketed by the opening and closing of the event. Therefore, when analyzing higher-level actions as taking place within a site of engagement,


45

this higher-level action is bracketed by an opening and a closing of the site of engagement. In this way, the conversation between Andrea and Käthe above can be analyzed as taking place within a site of engagement. The higher-level action (the conversation) has a clear opening when Käthe enters Andrea’s house and a clear closing when Käthe leaves. Here, the conversation ends. The site of engagement is the real-time encounter that takes place between the opening and the closing of the event. While this expansion of the site of engagement opens up this concept from just a momentary point to a possibly longer expanse in real time, this de¿nition of a site of engagement still focuses only on the lower or higherlevel action which is the focal point of attention of the relevant participants. This book moves away from the usual focus of discourse studies on the focal point of interaction, and incorporates less and even un-focused aspects of (inter)action into the multimodal analysis, including less focused mediated actions that the participants are performing and also embracing frozen actions. Because of the incorporation of less and un-focused as well as focused (inter) action into the study, the notion of site of engagement needs to be further re-de¿ned. The de¿nition, which I use in this book thus builds upon the ¿rst re-de¿nition above, and the second re-de¿nition reads: A site of engagement is the real-time window opened through the intersection of social practice(s) and mediational means that makes that lower (or higher) level action the focal point of attention of the relevant participants, and radiates from there encompassing the intersection of practices and mediational means that make those lower- or higher-level actions the less focused or un-focused points of attention of the relevant participants.

This second re-de¿nition of a site of engagement takes Scollon’s (1998, 2001b) original de¿nition as the starting point, adds the notion in the ¿rst rede¿nition, which broadens the real-time window of the site of engagement, and then stretches the concept by adding other intersections of social practice and mediational means that make other lower or higher-level actions the less or un-focused points of attention of the relevant participants. By de¿ning a site of engagement in this way, the analyst is led to ¿rst focus on the lower- or higher-level action which builds the focal point of attention of the relevant participants. The conversation between Andrea and Käthe, during which they are constructing their friend identities, builds the focal point of attention of the two participants. Once the focal point of attention is de¿ned, the analysis radiates to the other lower- or higher-level actions which are being undertaken at the very same time by the very same participants with lower rates of attention/awareness, and then radiates even further to the

46


frozen mediated actions, for example incorporating the layout of a room, the color scheme of the walls and curtains, or the objects on the table. While the conversation between Andrea and Käthe was analyzed above, the analysis of that site of engagement is not complete until the other actions that the participants perform at the very same time are analyzed. For example, while Andrea and Käthe are engaged in their conversation, Andrea’s two and Käthe’s two children are playing nearby. Both Andrea and Käthe are producing their mother identity elements (through the performance of the higher-level action of watching the children) at the very same time as they are producing their friend identity elements. However, they are both less focused upon the higher-level action of watching the children than they are upon their conversation. At the same time, there are still other mediated actions being performed and/or present in a frozen state, through which identity elements are being produced that the two participants are even less, but still are, aware of. A site of engagement is thus always a real-time, irreversible unique moment in time, which comes about through the intersection of linked practices and mediational means.

2.3.4 Practice and Nexus of Practice Speci¿c constellations of practices intersecting with the mediational means during a site of engagement construct the social actors’ identities.6 To give just one example, the practice of sitting together at the table when conversing can be described as a norm within German culture. This practice intersects with the mediational means of table and chairs. When Andrea sits next to Käthe and rests her left leg on the table (as can be seen in Figure 2.4), this practice intersects with the mediational means of table, illustrating the comfort she feels around Käthe, building a part of her friend identity element. A mediated discourse analysis emphasizes that a mediated action is interpretable only within practices and produces and re-produces social identities within a nexus of practice. A nexus of practice takes into account that most practices can be linked to different practices within different sites of engagement. The notions of practice and nexus of practice are assumed, but these notions are not closely examined in this book, which focuses on actions that are performed through the use of mediational means within sites of engagement, constructing the participants’ identity elements. In order to outline a multimodal framework of analysis for the analysis of identity, this book applies in particular the three theoretical notions of mediated action, mediational means, and the above re-de¿ned notion of site of engagement.

Foreground-Background Continuum

2.4

47

Foreground-Background Continuum A signi¿cant feature of any strip of activity is the capacity of its participants to “disattend” competing events—both in fact and in appearance—here using “disattend” to refer to the withdrawal of all attention and awareness. (Goffman, 1974:202)

The concept of foreground and background essentially was discussed by Goffman (1974), who differentiated between the storyline and the disattended track. The storyline, in this case, is equivalent to the foreground, and the disattended track is equivalent to the background. Goffman described the storyline as a given activity which ‘provides an of¿cial main focus of attention’ (Goffman, 1974:201), and suggested that the disattended track refers to ‘the withdrawal of all attention and awareness’(Goffman, 1974:202). Thus, the disattended track equates to the background on the foreground-background continuum, as we will see.

2.4.1 Frame Analysis of Focused Interactions Goffman (1961, 1963, 1974) has been particularly interested in “focused interaction”, social encounter, or the attentional track, and showed that participants engaged in a focused activity come to share a de¿nition of the situation, or a frame that de¿nes the sense in which the utterances and activities are to be taken.7 Tannen and Wallat (1993) take up the notion of framing and demonstrate how individuals balance multiple and conÀicting frames. They show how a pediatrician, examining a cerebral palsied child, shifts between three frames, while helping a video crew video-tape the examination, answering the mother’s questions, making the mother and child feel comfortable, and explaining the examination to the medical students for whom the videotape is taken. With this study, Tannen and Wallat expand Goffman’s notion of framing, illustrating that this focused encounter entails more than one frame for the pediatrician. The other participants within the interaction, however, do not take up the very same frames nor do they take up as many frames as the pediatrician. While Tannen and Wallat demonstrate how one participant balances multiple frames, frame analysis encourages the idea that frames are taken up one at a time. The focus of study is the attentional track displaying how the pediatrician focuses on a certain frame, taking up distinct footings with respect to the four parties involved.

48


The concept of a foreground-background continuum builds on this notion of framing, but also diverges from it by allowing the analysis of various simultaneous actions as well as frozen actions.

2.4.2 Foreground, Mid-Ground, and Background The notion of foreground, mid-ground, and background has been signi¿cant in art and also in music and sound dubbing in radio and ¿lmmaking. Usually, soundtracks are divided into three stages. These three stages were described by Murch, a key sound technician in the ¿lm industry (Weis and Belton, 1985), as foreground, mid-ground, and background. Others have given these three stages different terms. Schafer (1977), for example, quotes the radio engineer A. E. Beeby explaining the three stages as follows: The three-stage plan divides the whole sound scene (called ‘Scenic’) into three main parts. These are ‘the Immediate’, the ‘Support’, and the ‘Background’. The chief thing to bear in mind is that the ‘Immediate’ effect is to be listened to, while the ‘Support’ and ‘the Background’ are merely to be heard. (Schafer, 1977:157)

The three-stage plan was also adopted by Schafer (1977) and by Van Leeuwen (1999). While they used different terms than Beeby and Murch, the division into three zones is equivalent. Van Leeuwen (1999) notes: The ‘three-stage plan’ means dividing the sounds which are heard simultaneously into three groups and then hierarchizing these groups, treating some as more important than others. What is made important in this way will vary, but it will always be treated as a ‘signal’, as something the listener must attend to and/or react to and/or act upon, while background sounds are ‘heard but not listened to’, disattended, treated as something listeners do not need to react to or act upon. [In] music sometimes there might just be two layers, a foreground and a background, instead of three. (Van Leeuwen, 1999:16)

2.4.3 Foreground-Background Continuum: A New Notion for (Inter)action and Identity I adopt the terms foreground, mid-ground, and background, as used by Murch, but then add the notion of a continuum.8 While a three-stage plan seems to

Foreground-Background Continuum

49

be perfect for sound and sound technicians, human (inter)action is often more complex, and does not necessarily only occur at three stages. The continuum allows the analysis of more stages of attention/awareness and also suggests the Àuidity of interaction. While (inter)action may be happening on more than three stages, it may also happen on only two, and not necessarily the foreground and the background, but may be occurring in the foreground and the mid-ground or in the foreground and at a point on the continuum between the mid-ground and the background, or the mid-ground and the background. The notion of the multimodal foreground-background is essentially like the three-stage plan discussed above with the added concept of a continuum. The notions described in Van Leeuwen (1999) can in a slightly different way be applied to analyze (inter)action. Similarly to Van Leeuwen (1999), this multimodal framework works with the constant dialectic between production and reception. Production is considered in this framework as the focus of study centers on the participants’ identity construction on their trajectories. While reception is necessarily considered in two respects: ¿rst, reception allows the analyst to draw inferences about the production-side of communication; and second, reception is necessary for a mediated action to be communicated. Van Leeuwen describes how the three stages come about. He was ‘dividing the sounds which are heard simultaneously into three groups and then hierarchizing these groups, treating some as more important than others’ (Van Leeuwen, 1999:16). Similarly, I am dividing the simultaneous higherlevel actions, including the objects that the participant is employing, and also the objects and the environment that are just present (and therefore, frozen actions) within the interaction into groups, and then hierarchizing these groups, showing that some are more important to the social actor than others. As Van Leeuwen (1999) notes, ‘What is made important in this way . . . will always be treated as a “signal”, as something the listener must attend to and/or react to and/or act upon’ (Van Leeuwen, 1999:16). In this multimodal framework, we can determine what is important to the participant by viewing what the participant treats as a signal, what the participant attends to and/or reacts to and/or acts upon. A social actor often is aware of other higher-level actions, displaying the awareness and/or unawareness by the employment of communicative modes. Awareness and attention are to some degree used interchangeably here, as a social actor is aware of the higher-level actions that they pay closest attention to. In other words, the analyst can read the level of awareness off of the amount of attention that a social actor pays to a certain higher-level action. Thus, in the example illustrated in Figure 2.4, we can read the attention that Andrea and Käthe pay to the conversation off of their actions.

50


A social actor may focus on one higher-level action and attend to several others at differing levels of awareness. In the above example, both Andrea and Käthe are paying some attention to their young children. The higher-level actions that a social actor actively attends to through the employment of some modes are located between the fore- and the mid-ground, while the higherlevel actions that are largely out of awareness of the social actor are located in the background of the continuum.9 Van Leeuwen (1999) explains that ‘background sounds are “heard but not listened to”, disattended, treated as something listeners do not need to react to or act upon’. Similarly, with a multimodal framework, one can determine which higher-level actions are present, but disattended and not reacted to or acted upon by the participant(s). In the example above in Figure 2.4, neither Andrea nor Käthe are, for example, paying much attention to the higher-level action of Käthe visiting Andrea. An analysis utilizing the notion of a foreground-background continuum most easily starts at the focal point of (inter)action. This focal point constitutes the originally de¿ned site of engagement (Scollon, 1998, 2001b; Norris, 2002). This site of engagement (here: the beginning of analysis) reÀects the highest point of attention/awareness of the participant(s). In the above example in Figure 2.4, this is the conversation between Andrea and Käthe. From here on, the site of engagement radiates to the activities that the participants are less aware of and pay less attention to. In the above example in Figure 2.4, this would be Andrea and Käthe watching their young children; and then their (co)constructing the action of visiting. Thus the continuum in Figure 2.5 is to be read from left to right. The left-most end of the continuum demonstrates the foregrounded action that the participant is engaged in. The arrow to the right illustrates that the awareness/attention of the participant decreases from left to right. The oval around the continuum shows that the analysis of a site of engagement radiates from the focal point of attention to the less aware simultaneous actions. Figure 2.5 illustrates the foregroundbackground continuum with the starting point of the site of engagement and the theoretical radius of the site of engagement as it is de¿ned in this book.

Figure 2.5 Foreground-background continuum and site of engagement.

Site of Engagement, Action, Foreground-Background Continuum, Identity

2.5

51

Site of Engagement, Action, the ForegroundBackground Continuum, and Identity

When investigating identity in everyday life, the theoretical/methodological framework of multimodal (inter)action analysis allows us to understand how identity is produced in everyday actions and in everyday sites of engagements. Sites of engagements not only are material places in which the (inter)actions take place, they are not only the times during which the (inter)actions take place, and they are not only the psychological or historical make-up which make the (inter)actions possible. A site of engagement is all of this. It is the window opened to make the (inter)action possible; and thus clearly links to the concept of a social actor’s social-time-place discussed above. While a site of engagement is the intersection of practices and mediational means that make the irreversible actions possible, the social-time-place is the broader concept of social structural, historical, and place-embeddedness of a social actor. Each and every (inter)action is performed within a site of engagement. So much so, that we can presume this concept as long as we remember that each (inter)action is non-repeatable because the window that made the (inter)action possible will never be exactly the same again. The notion of a site of engagement encompasses the notion of complexity in everyday life. In the previous chapters and from here on, every example illustrates a site of engagement found in my study of Andrea and Anna. Actions, higher-level, lower-level, and frozen, are a part of a site of engagement as the site of engagement make them possible, and the actions in turn also construct part of the site of engagement. These two concepts are closely interlinked. However, actions are more easily understood, because analysts can use their senses to make sense of the actions they study. It is the phenomenological nature of actions that makes them graspable, and it is for this reason that I will speak more of social action than of sites of engagements from here on. Nevertheless, we should remember that phenomenology is the study of things as they are perceived. It is not the study of things as they are. Actions are perceivable by social actors participating in the action, but they are also perceived by social actors studying them. In (inter)action, it is most useful when we study how particular actions are performed by one and how they are received by another social actor. Meaning resides in the giveand-take, and only rarely, if ever, just in a social actor’s mind. Also, while I do not want to discard the psychological side of (inter)action, I am here only interested in the phenomenologically perceivable side of the psychological. Attention/awareness, as will become apparent in the next chapter, clearly is a phenomenological production.

52


Identity in this book is thus viewed as phenomenologically (co)produced through various levels of action within sites of engagement and within a particular social-time-place. All actions that social actors perform also produce identity, which is continuously read off and reacted to by other social actors. Just as social actors sometimes pay more attention to a particular action that they perform, so do others perceive that they pay more attention to that very identity element that they produce with the action. However, social actors may only be aware of the action that they perform and they may, if asked, even deny that they simultaneously produce a certain identity element. This denial is not uncommon. Yet, when you ask any other participant who is present while the social actor performs that action, they are very apt to pinpoint the identity element that the social actor produces. Actions produced by a social actor are very identity telling, producing enduring identity projections within the surrounding networks, but at the same time, they sometimes seem to be ephemeral and even incomprehensible to the social actor performing the action and producing the identity element. When, at other times, a social actor pays attention to producing certain identity elements, this appears to make the concurrent negotiation of actions more dif¿cult. The (co)production of identity is emphasized. Identity is always (co)produced with other social actors, with time and place, and with the environment. However, identity production in everyday life is often not intentional by the social actor performing an action, but is just as often read as intentional by others. The intention of the social actor lies in the performance of a certain higher-level action, but is read as intentional production of identity by others. Thus, in interaction identity becomes clearly phenomenological, but at the same time, the social actor producing the identity element(s) does not necessarily experience their own identity production as phenomenological. The phenomenological identity production in everyday life thus is always embedded in the give-and-take of interaction, and can often not be located in the performer themselves. With the heuristic model of a foreground-background continuum of attention/awareness, we need to keep in mind that the social actors themselves foreground, mid-ground, and background particular actions, while others in interaction assign these actions particular identity elements. In other words, social actors in their own mind concentrate upon the actions that they perform, while others in interaction assign the actions identity-meaning and act in accordance to the identity-meaning they have assigned. In turn, they perform actions that they in their own mind concentrate on, and the other social actor assigns these actions identity-meaning, again acting in accordance with that meaning. Identity-meaning is thus

Notes

53

always assigned to others, while identity-meaning is not usually perceived by the social actor performing the action. Actions and identity are so closely interconnected in interaction that they cannot be viewed as two completely different concepts. An action always is identity-telling and identity is always produced through action. One is not possible without the other. There is no action that does not speak of identity and there is no identity without an action. While higher-level actions are actively and intentionally performed by the social actor, identity is (usually) unintentionally produced through the performance of the higher-level actions. Others in interaction in turn interpret the higher-level actions that others perform in identity-terms, assigning the identity, which was inadvertently produced by the social actor, intentionality. Because of the intentional and phenomenological production of actions by social actors and the consecutive assigning of identity to the phenomenological performance of the action by others, identity becomes phenomenological in interaction. Even though the performer may not perceive their identity as phenomenological, the interlocutors will clearly perceive it as phenomenological.

Notes 1. The women’s social class identity is also quite strong and, similarly to the national identity, usually is taken for granted; but since both women belong to the same social class and they usually interact with others from their social class, class is not studied and/or discussed further. 2. The social network in this sense is a heuristic category, not an entity. 3. The terms mediational means and cultural tools are used interchangeably. 4. See: J. Habermas (1984, 1987), Norris (2003), Norris and Jones (2005), Scollon (2001a), Wertsch (1998). 5. See: Scollon (1998), Wertsch (1998, 2005). 6. See: Bourdieu (1990), de Certeau (1984), Engeström (1987). 7. On frame: also see Bateson (1972). 8. See: Norris (2004), Weis and Belton (1985). 9. Bourdieu (1977): the notions of habitus and genesis amnesia come into play here.

Chapter 3 Collecting and Transcribing Ethnographic Data: A Case Study of Two Women Living in Germany The insistence that identities are embodied, and that embodied experience is fundamental to our sense of self, has led us to want more phenomenologically authentic accounts of identity, or at least of the experiences associated with recognition and performance of aspects of identity. —Lemke(2008:29)

When realizing that identity in (inter)action is always (co)produced with other social actors, with time and place, and with the environment, we realize that in order to understand the identity that speci¿c social actors (co) produce, we need to understand the social actors surrounding them; we need to understand the times and the places in which the identity is (co)produced; and we need to have an understanding of the immediate environment and the objects within. Only ethnographic data collection allows us to collect the breadth and depth of data necessary to analyze identity production in (inter)action of social actors in their everyday life. Certainly, other methods of data collection are often used to study some aspect of identity. However, this book is not concerned with some aspect of identity, but with identity production of speci¿c social actors in their everyday life (inter)actions.1 I have divided the ¿rst parts of this chapter into narrated accounts of daily life of a researcher in the ¿eld and explanations of why and how this is relevant. The narrated accounts, straying away from common academic writing style, are placed into grey areas on the page, while the explanations appear below the narrated accounts on white parts of the page. I have written these ¿rst parts of the chapter for two reasons: 1. I would like to exemplify the issues that arise for the researcher when conducting ethnographic studies of people in their everyday lives; and 2. I would like to illustrate that the researcher is also affected as a person by conducting the research.

56

Collecting and Transcribing Ethnographic Data

In order to give the reader a feel of the personal involvement and the simultaneous—and very important—distancing necessary for a researcher conducting such studies, I turn to narrated accounts plus explanations. The interspersed narrated accounts are summarized from my ¿eld notes and diaries collected at the time. They are meant to enlighten the reader about typical encounters that can occur during ethnographic research; they are not, however, a kind of self-analysis. Thus, the excerpts of narrated accounts below are not part of the actual ethnographic study, but hopefully will be useful for the researcher embarking on a new research project of this kind, giving some understanding of the how-to of managing involvement and distancing in the ¿eld. While we try to teach and/or learn ethnographic research methods, I believe most books do not emphasize the dif¿culties that can—and often do—arise in the ¿eld. One such major dif¿culty is found in the very role that the researcher takes up to the participants they study.

3.1

Data Collection: What Was Collected for This Study?

This book is based on two one-year developmental longitudinal case studies. All but this one chapter focus on the theoretical and methodological tools that allow a researcher to study identity in everyday life (inter)actions, while they all also give insight into the participants’ identities as they were produced at the time of data collection. As mentioned brieÀy in the last chapter, it is necessary to study social actors in many different (inter)actions within their social networks in order to interpret their identity production through their performance of particular (inter)actions. Developmental long-term case studies allow the analyst to gain the breadth and depth needed to make some claims about identity production of particular social actors in their everyday life. Such a long-term study may also allow the analyst to observe changes in identity production, an example of which is given in chapter 7. Making use of mediated discourse methodology (Scollon, 2001b), ethnographic ¿eldwork was combined with participant observation, contrastive observation, focus-group discussions, and sociolinguistic interviews. The data for this book consists of an abundance of ¿eld notes, about 60 hours of audioand videotapes of naturally occurring interactions, several hours of taped informal sociolinguistic interviews, and over 500 still photos plus a range of other material collected as can be seen in Table 3.1. Most of the data was collected in the area of Cologne, Germany, and additional data was collected in Mallorca, Spain. Ruesch and Bateson (1951) and Scollon (1998) point out that the incorporation of various forms of data collection is crucial for mutual triangulation checks. Table 3.1 gives an overview of the data collected.


Table 3.1

57

Collected Data

10 Hours of Audiotapes

Naturally occurring interactions. The participants were asked to record short (15–30 minute) everyday interactions of their choice before my stay with them. They recorded mealtimes; doing homework with their older children; magazine-reading hours; shopping trips with and without children; and times when they had friends over for coffee.

4 Day-Diaries

The participants were asked to list their activities during two regular weekdays (about a month apart). In these diaries, the participants listed everything from getting up in the morning, making breakfast, and taking the children to school and/or preschool; they listed which radio station they listened to; which TV program they watched and for how long; who they talked to; where they shopped and what they bought, etc.

Magazines, Newspapers, and Books

One week before I entered the ¿eld, the participants were asked to collect the magazines, newspapers, and books they were reading during that week, marking the articles they read.

Field notes

I took ¿eld notes of actual higher- and lower-level actions performed. The focus was twofold: (1) on identity production of the participants within their networks, with objects in time and place; and (2) on the multiple modes the participants employed.

35 Hours of Audiotape

Naturally occurring interactions, 10 of which overlap with videotapes.


Informal interviews

15 Hours of Videotape

Naturally occurring interactions, 10 of which overlap with audiotapes.

500 Still Photos

Still photos were taken (1) to supplement audio recordings (when video recording was perceived to be too intrusive); (2) of the objects, i.e.: house interiors, paintings.


Naturally occurring interactions. The participants were asked to tape short (15- to 30-minute) everyday interactions on a regular bases after I left the ¿eld. (continued)

58


Table 3.1

Collected Data (continued)

Magazines, Newspapers, and Books; TV, Radio, and Music (CD)

During ¿eldwork, I read all of the magazine articles, all of the newspaper articles, and all of the books the participants read. I watched all the TV programs they watched, listened to the radio stations they listened to, and listened to the music they listened to.

Family and Social Networks

During ¿eldwork, I met their close and many of their extended family members; I met their friends and acquaintances, as well as their favorite store owners and clerks.

Creative Writings

During ¿eldwork, I wrote many poems; numerous children’s stories, but most importantly one called “Mr. Glück.”2

From the outset of the study, I collected ‘normative data’, which entails members’ generalizations, in ¿eld notes as well as in audio- and videotapes. The ‘objective data’ or neutral observations, as Scollon (1998:278–91) calls this type of data, was mainly collected through the use of audio- and videotapes and still photos, as well as through the collection of magazines, books, and music. Although it is understood that this type of data is not objective, as there can be no objective data collection, this type of data refers to the taped actual ongoing interaction that the analyst can play and re-play for analysis. I, furthermore, collected ‘concrete personal or subjective data’, which entails the individual members’ experiences. This form of data was collected in ¿eld notes as well as in audio- and videotapes. Finally, I collected ‘contested data’, which involves researcher’s interaction with the members under study. Since I conducted a large part of the ¿eldwork as participant observer, the interactions naturally grew out of the ethnographic method. Contested data was recorded in ¿eld notes as well as in audio and video recordings. As each form of data has its own weakness, a collection of various forms of data allowed triangulation and supported the analysis of the participants’ identities on the one hand, but maybe more importantly in this case, led to the discovery of methodological tools for the analysis of identity on the other hand. Besides mutual triangulation checks, this study also employed playback methodology (Tannen, 1984). Playback methodology was utilized throughout data collection and analysis and recorded either in ¿eld notes or in audiotapes and incorporated into the analysis at relevant points. For the type of study that


59

I conducted, playback methodology cannot be emphasized enough. A study such as the one discussed here builds upon trust by the participants and the researcher alike. Conducting ¿eldwork, looking in on individuals’ lives, is a wonderfully broadening experience as long as the researcher respects that the social actors under study are the ones who do know best.

Playback Methodology While I often arrived at groundbreaking, and from the point of view of the participants quite unforeseen, analyses of identity productions, I always showed the participants the data pieces that led me to the analysis, and then asked them for their understanding of it, before I introduced my own. Many times, the participants were very surprised about the depth of understanding that my analysis allowed, and usually they went away with a feeling of having gained a better understanding of themselves because of the analysis. Other playback sessions were used for me to gain a better understanding of a situation. If, for example, I came across a data piece that I could not fully understand because I lacked the knowledge about the broader frame of reference or a person whom I had not heard of before, I used playback sessions to broaden my data. An audio or video session was then supplemented with more ¿eld notes that came out of the playback session. Through playback sessions, the participants were involved in the research, and they were viewed and felt as co-researchers. They themselves became more and more interested in the data that was being collected and they were eager to learn the analyses. As the above account illustrates, as researchers of this kind, we actively change the ¿eld during ¿eldwork. The participants are involved in profound ways and this involvement changes their understanding of themselves.

Living in the Field During the ¿eldwork, I lived with the participants, sometimes moving from one apartment to the other. Andrea and Anna were living (for most of the ¿eldwork) in the same house. Anna and her family occupied the

60


lower, and Andrea and her children the upper Àat. But for the most part, I lived with Andrea, and I resided with my equipment consisting of camera, video camera, audio recorder, and laptop in her living room. Ethnographic ¿eldwork is an intense and personal experience during which the participants as well as the analyst are changed in some ways. The notion that an ethnographer can act as a Ày on the wall, not having an impact on the ¿eld they study, and that the ¿eld in turn does not change the researcher is simply incorrect. As soon as a researcher enters and engages with the people they study, the ¿eld—as it had been without the researcher present—has been changed. A researcher conducting ethnographic research ¿rst of all opens up the idea to the participants that they and their life world are worth studying; next, the researcher focuses the participants towards the researcher’s topic of interest. In this case it was identity production in everyday life. In other studies the focus may for example be workplace practice, culture, or language shift. Whatever the researcher is studying, the researcher needs to respect the way the participants have thought about the topic. It is the participants who are the ones who know best. However, at the very same time it is unlikely that the participants have taken much time to think about their (inter)actions in just the way that the researcher does and it is unlikely that they ever would have thought about the topic in great depth in that particular way had the researcher not begun studying them. Thus, the researcher changes the outlook of the participants.

Participants Pro¿t Directly from the Research In my ethnographic study, the participants, as most social actors, were highly interested in their identity production, but, as many social actors they knew, they had a limited understanding of the complexity that is involved. I always conduct my research thinking of the value for the participants. There is an active involvement and active attempt to facilitate understanding in participants if and when they can pro¿t from such aid.

By studying and analyzing the participants, researchers can offer insight into their identity which may be of great use to the participants. Because of


61

viewing the ¿eld as changed as soon as a researcher enters it, we are aware of the impact that we have and can actively help the participants understand their own identity production, further actively changing the ¿eld.

The Researcher Changes the Field and the Field Changes the Researcher No doubt, the participants changed due to the study and due to my involvement with them, but so did I; and this is another important thing to remember when one conducts ethnographic research such as this one—the researcher will change as a person. The ¿eld has an impact upon the social actor we call ‘the researcher’ just as the researcher has an impact upon the ¿eld. This give-and-take was possibly most visible to me because I was studying identity production. While the participants changed their awareness towards identity production, towards the actions that they performed and what they meant, changing some of the actions and enhancing others, as researchers, we take on actions that are prevalent in the ¿eld and/or those that are to our personal liking.

Example of How One Researcher Changed I took on the action of drinking a cup of latte in the morning; or, through constant observation of Andrea painting, I began to paint. But maybe more interestingly, when problems and feelings of the participants were too complex to jot down in ¿eld notes, I turned to writing poetry to capture the feel of the moment. Identity, as I soon discovered, could not be solely captured in audio- and videotapes, and could not be solely captured in academic writing. While writing of poetry was not new to me, it was new to me to write poems to capture problems and feelings of participants. In this way, I added another data collection method to my ethnographic ¿eldwork: creative writing. However, having been brought up with the notion that academic and creative writing are two very different areas, and that data collection was—at least to some point—more

62


objective than creative writing, I tried to keep the two separate in my own mind in the beginning of ¿eldwork. I did not however keep the two separate in my notes. My ¿eld notes were laced with poems, sayings, stories, and pieces of creative writing. I was convinced that I needed to write creatively at the same time as collecting (subjective) objective data. There was so much more to Andrea’s and Anna’s life and their identity production which was impossible to collect as normative, concrete personal subjective or contested data. Here, we ¿nd that the researcher may not only change some of their daily actions, but that a researcher may change the outlook on what is and what is not data.

A Researcher’s Diary During ¿eldwork, I often also jotted down my own impressions, my own thoughts, and my own feelings. Sometimes, I simply divided the page using the right side for my personal notes and the left for observations; other times, I typed detailed personal accounts into a separate document. In these personal writings, poems and creative pieces about my personal thoughts and feelings are laced with typical personal narrative accounts. Researchers are not only researchers who distances themselves from the ¿eld in order not to mix in their own ways of being and doing things. A researcher is also a person; and this person has thoughts, opinions, and feelings. These thoughts, opinions, and feelings should be placed into a diary and be separated from ¿eld notes. The researcher in the ¿eld takes up a single role from the perspective of the participants; and the participants see the researcher as the person that they are getting to know. However, since the researcher keeps a distance from the participants, not allowing their own opinions, thoughts, and feelings to interfere with the research, researchers necessarily are taking up two roles from their own perspective: 1. the researcher who is conducting the research in the ¿eld; and 2. the person with opinions, thoughts, and feelings, who is (to a large degree) separate from the researcher.


63

3.1.1 Creative Writing about the Participants as One Data Collection Method ‘We are still a long way from knowing how to integrate the knowing of narrative, poetry and art with that of analytical accounts of identity.’ (Lemke, 2008:29)

Identity production always embeds social and societal currents as well as individual experiences, perceptions, feelings, and dreams. Individual experiences, perceptions, feelings, and dreams are all interwoven with the social and societal currents. Neither is separate from the other, but all are enmeshed, incorporated in one another, and (co)produce each other. It is this inherent complexity that is sometimes dif¿cult to express in academic writing. Therefore, I add creative writing as another academic form of data collection method. As Lemke points out in the above statement, ‘We are still a long way away from knowing how to integrate the knowing of narrative, poetry and art with that of analytical accounts of identity’ (Lemke, 2008:29). However, I would like to suggest that poetry and other art forms may help unite shorter and larger time scales, connecting directly with the participants under study, but also connecting with social actors in the immediate and auxiliary networks, and with the society they live in. When the poems and/or short stories are directly connected to the participants under study, creative writing allows us to freeze emotions, trends, social currents and undercurrents, hopes, dreams, feelings, contradictions, and unspoken desires. All of these are important when investigating identity production. As Gadamer explains . . . what we experience in a work of art and what invites our attention is how true it is—i.e., to what extent one knows and recognises something and oneself. But we do not understand what recognition is in its profoundest nature . . . if we only regard it as nature . . . if we only regard it as knowing something again that we know already—i.e., what is familiar is recognised again. The joy of recognition is rather the joy of knowing more than is already familiar. In recognising what we know emerges, as if illuminated, from all the contingent and variable circumstances that condition it; it is grasped in its true essence. (Gadamer, 2006:113)

As researchers we perceive the emotions of those we study; we perceive the contradictions that the social actors feel or display; but writing these down in their full complexity is sometimes easier in poetic style. Simultaneously, a poem (or other art forms) can be a way to communicate the subtleties of

64


identity to the participants and to others. While poems are viewed as data in this study, and while some poems are included in this book, this is still only a small step towards integrating art forms with scienti¿c analysis. Here, poems are offered as data pieces to supplement the reader’s understanding of some subtle identity productions that were found during ¿eldwork. Creative pieces are partial, and should be used together with objective, subjective, and contested data, adding an important piece in ethnographic data collections. Rather than taking creative writing as distinct from collecting the objective data (such as audio and video taping everyday interactions), subjective data (such as member’s generalizations), or contested data (researchers interacting with participants in the ¿eld), we can add creative data (researchers creatively recapitulating the perceived feelings and other experiences of participants for short time scales and feelings, social movements, and trends perceived in the ¿eld for the larger time scales). Using four methods of data collection then allows for the various kinds of triangulations. With multiple triangulations, these four methods of ethnographic data collection increase the possibility that the research leads to a more complete understanding of identity production.

Creative Writing: Participants’ and Others’ Reactions I realized that the participants gained much understanding of their own identity production through the creative writing—a point that is hardly surprising as the pieces were written about their lives. Interestingly, though, I learned this in the ¿eld through the reactions of the participants; and their reactions induced identity change in me as the researcher. While I had previously made a clear distinction between academic and creative writing, these boundaries became more blurred, and while, as mentioned above, I had tried to keep the boundaries clear in my own mind, I have changed my view. From the beginning of ¿eldwork, I had been very open with the participants about my writing, actively inviting them to read my ¿eld notes whenever they liked and always leaving my notes in places that they could see, and thus, they also soon found my poems about them and their lives, which were interspersed throughout my notes. Andrea and Anna had a very strong reaction to the poems, asking me to read them out to them aloud; they would call each other, and friends or family members, reading the poems to them; they copied the poems into their notebooks and were always eager for me to write the next one.


65

While I had used poetry to jot down the feel of the moment in the ¿eld, they in turn discovered that these poems spoke to them; but what was interesting, the poems spoke to a larger audience as well, which I gradually found out because the participants’ families and the immediate and extended networks were sharing these poems with other networks.

As the above narrative account illustrates, the poems led the participants and other members in their networks to recognise themselves in a new, and according to their responses, different and sometimes deeper way. For the participants and their networks, the poems seemed to freeze some of the essence that Gadamer speaks about.

Poetry: Another Form of Data By now, many of those poems have been published (Norris, 2008), but had it not been for the ¿eldwork, had it not been for the participants in the study and members in their close and extended networks, it would have been unlikely that I would have published poetry; and it would have been just as unlikely that I would have proposed that creative writing can be yet another form of ethnographic data collection. I realized that my poetry and my creative writing is not only a way for me to freeze moments of the participants’ lives that I could not easily express academically, but that these writings also speak to people. Of course, this realization also illustrated that I expressed through poems, stories, and other creative pieces what was phenomenological—or perceivable—but what was dif¿cult or even impossible for me to express non-creatively. Andrea summed it up at some point during ¿eldwork, when she said ‘you paint pictures with your words’ and these pictures entailed the feelings and some of the complexities of the participants’ lives between the lines as much as within the words themselves. Thus, as a person, researchers may change some of their everyday actions, but with that also change a part of their identity. But, these accounts lead us to the question of what is data and what is not. In ethnographic studies of the kind illustrated in this book, data is everything that is collected in the ¿eld that tells us something about the participants under study. Thus, there are the video and audio recordings, the photos, books, music, etc., but

66


there may also be creative pieces that tell us about the participants’ lives. The importance is that the focus of the data has to always be the participants under study. But as a researcher, you will likely also collect what I call non-data: These may be your personal diaries; poems or short stories that you write about your own feelings, your own experiences and your own thoughts about your life in the ¿eld. They may be evaluations of situations or people that you may jot down somewhere. All of these, in the end, will tell you more about yourself than about a situation or the people that you have evaluated. They will inform about your own shortcomings and your own emotional and psychological states at particular times in the ¿eld. They are not, however, data. Thus, when I discussed earlier how I had changed during ¿eld work, these are personal notes to show the reader that the ¿eld can have an effect on you as a person. These notes, however, are not data. In order to give the reader a glimpse of the everyday life of an ethnographer, illustrating some of the positive but also some issues that a researcher may ¿nd, I now tell a narrative of an average day in the ¿eld from the researcher’s perspective, interspersed with explanations. Here, I intend to highlight the dif¿culties of involvement and distancing that the researcher has to cope with. When reading the brief narrated pieces, I hope it will become clear just how involved the researcher has to become, without, however, losing the distancing necessary to make this type of research possible.

3.1.2 An Average Day in the Field

An Average Day in the Field: The Set-Up I had set up camp in Andrea’s living room, neatly placing most of my belongings behind Andrea’s sofa, which we turned into a bed at night. There was a desk located next to the sofa, which I could use sometimes, and which I normally used when everyone was asleep or when there was a quiet mid-day break if Andrea was not using it. While I was present, which certainly had more or less of an impact on the participants (more at ¿rst, while later I was quite taken for granted by family, friends, and the extended network, almost having become a part of the families), I was always careful to follow Andrea’s or Anna’s lead.


67

A researcher needs to follow the participants on their terms, needs to engage with their topics of interest, and try to always ¿t into their life worlds, largely leaving their own ideas, ways of living and being in the world, their opinions and their goals (other than the goal to study the participants) behind. In this way, a large part of the researcher’s own individual identity is put on hold during ¿eldwork, as the researcher does not interact with the participants on their own terms.

A Researcher in the Field: A Person without Opinions Rather than being a Ày on the wall, I was trying to actively understand their life world and in order to do that I had to leave my own life world— at least to the extent that this is possible—behind. I tried not to worry about my own ways of doing things, my own wishes or needs (such as the wish to sleep a bit longer), tried not to bring in my own opinions, but let things happen as they happened. For this reason, and as the participants still remember, I was a very easy person to be with. For me it was not quite that easy. I always kept myself in check by writing into my diary late at night, acknowledging my own opinions, thoughts, and feelings there. By doing this, I did not have to bring in my own opinions, thoughts, or feelings when conducting my ¿eldwork, but could focus in the ¿eld solely on my observations and my ¿ndings. Keeping your own opinions, thoughts, and feelings in check is the most dif¿cult thing during ¿eldwork. The best way to manage it is to always think and remind yourself that this is their life, that they are doing things and believing things for their own reasons, and that they know better what is good and right for them than you can possibly know. As a researcher, this helps to focus you away from yourself and focus you onto the participants. It allows you to step back from your own life world, in which you do know and you do have opinions, thoughts, and feelings about people and situations. In the ¿eld, you do what the participants do, and you do not do what you would do in your own life world: you leave yourself at home to ¿t into the ¿eld. While this may be a very dif¿cult task especially for the beginning researcher, it veri¿es to the participants that they know what they are doing, that you do not judge them about their behavior and their way of living. It illustrates to the participants a true respect of their life, and it is this respect that fosters trust. While not the easiest for the researcher as a person, it is

68


easiest for the participants, and it allows the researcher to gain a deep understanding of the participants’ identity.

An Average Day in the Field: Early Mornings In the morning, between 5:30 and 6:00 I was usually ¿rst woken by Andrea’s cat shortly followed by her two children. All three had the habit of running into the living room, jumping on the sofa, which we had turned into my bed, the two boys then happily and loudly requesting that I tell them a good-morning story. When I would sleepily try to stall them a little, gaining time to think of a new story, Andrea would walk into the room with a large cup of latte, chirping a happy good morning. Often, right after that, I could hear Anna’s two boys running upstairs, and next they’d also be jumping on the sofa, eager to listen to the goodmorning story. About 20 minutes afterwards, I’d hear Anna coming up the stairs and I knew it was time to ¿nd an ending for the story, an ending that four boys would accept as good. A good ending and a promise to tell another story at night would usually ensure a smooth transition to breakfast and preschool or school. As this little recall of the mornings of my ¿eldwork illustrates, the researcher becomes part of the family. Such closeness with the participants has positive effects upon the research, as the participants open up about their lives and the researcher learns much in a fairly short time. But, for the researcher, the closeness with the participants also brought with it certain issues.

Participants’ Closeness: Issues for the Researcher 1. The participants and their children were getting close to me, but I kept my personal opinions, thoughts, and feelings away from them. Such a one-sided focus in a relationship—the researcher’s focus on the participants’ lives without the researcher allowing her own everyday life to play a role—inadvertently leads to an imbalance of friendship, so that at the end of the year I had become their good friend, while they had not become my friends. 2. I was required to always participate as a close friend. Such closeness brings with it an abundance of social responsibilities; and sometimes,


69

the information given was only given to the friend, but not to the researcher. This blurring of friend-researcher roles (from the perspective of the participants) made it even more important to use playback methodology. While both of these points are dif¿culties to handle for the researcher, overall, the positives much outweigh the challenges; these two points are further discussed below after the average day in the ¿eld.

An Average Day in the Field: Mornings and Mid-day As soon as Anna had taken her two boys downstairs, and Andrea was helping her two boys get dressed, it was my turn to get ready. Right after the children had eaten some breakfast, we all went to drop them off at preschool and school, talking to many mothers and fathers on the way. I always took my ¿eld notebook, a pen, and the audio and video camera, not usually knowing where I’d end up that morning. Once the children were in school, Anna and Andrea would discuss what their morning looked like and sometimes I had a choice of who I would follow, sometimes they made that decision. Anna and Andrea parted ways to shop, visit relatives or friends, and often they came back together in the late morning to read magazines. As the children came home from school, Anna or Andrea cooked a meal and most days we would all eat together. After lunch, the children went off to play or take a nap, and sometimes, there was an hour of quiet time. I would use this quiet time to log the tape(s) collected that morning, to make notes in the ¿eld notebook to link the tape(s) to speci¿c entries, and to write down my impressions in form of a personal diary. The diary was particularly important because the participants were so close to me, and because I had to put my own opinions, thoughts, and feelings somewhere. My diary was very personal and was not part of the data. However, the longer I was in the ¿eld, the more I became the researcher, who did not need to have opinions, who worried less and less about personal thoughts and feelings, having fewer and fewer diary entries.

The more experienced you become as a researcher, the easier it becomes to play that role and to disengage from your own opinions, thoughts, and feelings.

70


Communicating with the Participants While I had entered the ¿eld wanting to audio- and video-tape the participants’ interactions in order to understand their everyday identity production, and while I had kept my creative writing-self as separate from my academic undertaking, it was these two forms of expression that became much more integrated. I was writing more and more poetry. But the poetry was divided into my personal poems and poems about Andrea and Anna. The poems about Andrea and Anna became data, while my personal poems did not. I also began writing a novel manuscript (that is still sitting in one of my drawers). The novel manuscript actually has little to do with Andrea and Anna and their identity production, but embeds the societal understanding that I gained, the dif¿culties that were felt, the hopes that came out through the TV programs they watched, the novels they read, and the music they listened to, but that could not be captured in video or audio recordings of their everyday actions that illustrated the phenomenological identity production. Because the novel manuscript has little to do with Andrea’s and Anna’s personal life, it is not viewed as data for this study. In the ¿eld, I realized that I could communicate my understanding of the participants’ situations and their identity production much easier to them through poetry and/or other creative writings than through academic writing. Every piece of writing that allowed me and them to better understand what was going on in the lives of the participants, how they saw themselves, how they were viewed by others, and how they were situated and built a part of society, thus built a part of the data.

There is a very ¿ne line between what can be data for a study such as the one explained in this book and what cannot. The criterion to distinguish is, however, not dif¿cult: the researcher needs to disentangle whether the piece is about the people they study or about the researcher themselves. If it is about the participants, it is data; and if it is about the researcher, it is not. Without creative forms of expression to capture the feel of identity, I would have missed some of what was there; but what is more important, it would have been more dif¿cult for me to communicate my understanding to the participants. It was these creative forms of writing that gave me the possibility to jot down or discuss those aspects which were very important for the participants.


71

While ¿eldwork had taken me beyond the commonly academic phenomenological descriptive research, poetry allowed me to express aspects of Andrea’s and Anna’s lives and their very personal traits.

An Average Day in the Field: Afternoon and Early Evening Afternoons were busier and noisier than mornings. Usually Andrea and Anna spent afternoons working on catering events; family members and friends would drop by; and the children were playing and doing homework. As busy as everyone was, this was a good and most necessary time for me to take ¿eld notes. The video camera could capture only parts of the ongoing activities, the audio recorder could capture parts of it (often the recorded children playing in the background are too blurred to understand), and everything was identity producing for Andrea and Anna. What fascinated me most during these busy times was that both Anna and Andrea were juggling work, visitors, children, and their own friendship very smoothly; and it was this smooth juggling of various identity elements that led me to the discovery of the foreground-background continuum. Right there, in the ¿eld, it was apparent that the women did not engage in one activity at a time. They were involved in all of the activities simultaneously, simply paying more attention to some than to others. Evening meals were usually not shared between the two families, and I usually had dinner with Andrea and her children. After dinner, once the children were ready for bed, Anna’s two boys would come up and I would tell the promised good-night story. Sometimes, the children would request that I write down the stories that I told, and I still have a good number of children’s stories somewhere in my drawer. One in particular, a story I had called ‘Mr. Glück’, I printed and bound for the older of Andrea’s two boys. It is a story about a boy whose parents went through a divorce; it is a story that ended up in the divorce court, and a story that in turn ended up being evaluated by two or three psychologists and in the end was rated as valuable for the child and non-prejudiced. Little things that a researcher does can have unforeseen effects, as can be seen by the story ‘Mr. Glück’ ending up in a divorce court. Researcher involvement should never be taken too lightly. As researchers, we are inclined to get involved with the lives of our participants; and as researchers, we owe it to

72


the participants that we do get involved. Researcher involvement is one of the ways of giving back to the ¿eld. But especially because researchers need to try to give back to the ¿eld, researchers need to be particularly mindful of when, how, and in which way they get involved in the participants’ lives. All of the researcher’s’ actions in the ¿eld are representative of their academic work, and researchers need to be careful to act in ways that truly help the participants.

An Average Day in the Field: Evening and Night Once the children were in bed and the kitchen was cleaned, Andrea and I sat down to talk. Often times, Anna came up to join us once her family was asleep and we would sit up and talk until about midnight, at which point Andrea and Anna retired. As soon as I was left alone, I spent two to three hours logging tape(s), jotting down ¿eld notes, writing in the diary, writing poems and children’s stories, and transcribing parts of the tapes. Then, after about three hours of sleep, ¿rst Andrea’s cat, then her two children, then Anna’s two children, would all jump on the bed ready for the good-morning story, while I savored my large cup of latte. Even now, almost ten years after I collected the data, I still like a good fresh latte in the morning, and the participants, especially Andrea, are still quite close to me.

Ten Years Later As I am writing these lines, I am just returning home to New Zealand after having spent three months conducting a new study in Germany with Andrea as one of the participants. When I ¿rst had the idea of this study, I contacted Andrea and she was excited to be a participant. Once I was in the ¿eld for a couple of weeks, Andrea introduced me to her friends as her best friend. I could see why she felt the way she did: for the past ten years she could call me or email me at any time and talk about her life, discuss her problems, and I would gladly listen. What she had not realized, however, was the fact that I had kept my researcher’s distance: I had not called or emailed her to talk about my life, never discussed my problems with her, and never expected her to listen. What had resulted was that I knew her very well, but she did not know me.


73

I gathered the data that I set out to gather, spent much time with Andrea, and after data collection was complete, explained our relationship to her. Needless to say, Andrea had many questions. She knew me only as the researcher, but did not know me as a friend—but Andrea had a very positive reaction to the revelation. I stayed in the ¿eld, studying others, for two more months and spent my free time with Andrea. In these two months, she began to get to know me as a person, and now, while researching Andrea has come to an end, we are in the process of developing a new friendship.

Why do I mention my relationship with Andrea in this book? As a researcher of identity, you need to keep your distance to the participants no matter how much you like them. While you are not objective as a researcher, as a researcher you are able to view the participants through an analytical lens. This is what I call objective (subjective). As a friend who interacts with others in their everyday life, you are not able to view others in this analytical way. As a friend, you need to show your own opinions, thoughts, and feelings when interacting, and your own life necessarily becomes enmeshed with your friends’ lives. Once that happens, you are no longer conducting objective (subjective) research, but view the world just as subjectively as everyone else in their own lives. Thus, if the participants become your friends, you no longer are a researcher and you need to stop that project. Certainly, there are areas of study which do not necessarily inhibit your analytical eye, and it is quite alright to collect data from friends or even family members. An example of this is Tannen’s (1984) research, where she audio-taped friends during dinner and then analyzed the conversations. Another example is Norris (2002), where I studied ¿ve boys interacting with a computer, analyzing their interaction multimodally. Investigating how participants speak or how they interact is possible even when a researcher is close to the participants. When studying identity, however, researchers need to be careful not to let their own identity get in the way. If a researcher does study their friends or if they do try to study their family, the data will tell us more about the researcher’s identity than about the identity of the participants. When studying identity production, the researcher needs to keep the distance to the participants as described above. Conducting research on identity production is not easy, and the most dif¿cult part is doubtlessly to keep the necessary distance to the participants while the participants are getting closer and closer to the researcher. Another dif¿culty is that the participants will not

74


notice this relationship imbalance. The relationship is ¿ne for them because the researcher is always there. The participants are getting plenty of attention. The researcher is interested in their lives, and probably more so than most others in their lives. But a researcher cannot con¿de in them; and in the ¿eld the researcher is often left with only her diary, sometimes making ¿eldwork a lonely experience for the researcher.

Andrea’s Reaction Looking back at our recent conversations, Andrea realized that she got the better end of the deal. She had a friend all along; and has had a good friend for ten years. Plus, she had a researcher, who was always ready to give her insight that a friend could not give. Andrea will miss the researcher; but she also realized that there is now an opportunity to develop a new kind of a friendship and is excited to now have a friend whom she can also support.

3.2

What Does Creative Writing Add to Descriptive Field Notes, Collected Texts, Audio and Video Recordings? Wenn man darüber nachdenkt, was und wie ein Mensch ist, liefern die Künste und die Künstler wichtige Muster und Belege. When thinking about, what and how a person is, [you will ¿nd that] art and artists provide us with important schemata and representations. (Bilstein, 2009: 14) A reÀection on what truth is in human science must not try to reÀect itself out of the tradition whose binding force it has recognized. (Gadamer, 2006: xxiii)

Creative pieces based on the experiences of the participants under study become as much a part of the collected data as the audio and video records, the ¿eld notes, or the participants’ day-diaries. They reÀect a truth that is particularly visible when the participants relate to these kinds of data. Yet, the analyses of art forms, including poems, differ from social scienti¿c analyses. As Gadamer points out:

What Does Creative Writing Add?

75

. . . the human sciences are connected to modes of experience that lie outside science: with the experiences of philosophy, of art, and of history itself. These are all modes of experience in which a truth is communicated that cannot be veri¿ed by the methodological means proper to science. (Gadamer, 2006: xxi)

A researcher analyzes the ¿eld notes, day-diaries, and audio and video recordings using social theory and method, arriving at an analysis that could be re-produced and arrived at by other researchers were they to analyze the same data. But when analyzing art forms, each researcher may arrive at a somewhat different reading, diverging from the necessity of scienti¿c inquiry which requires reproducibility. Gadamer, speaking of inquiry forms including poetry, suggests that ‘ . . . in its own work it must endeavour to acquire as much historical self-transparency as possible’ (Gadamer, (2006: xxiii).’ It is this self-transparency that a researcher can strive for in the art forms that are collected; and the selftransparency in a piece of art is found when the participants under study can relate to it. The poems in this book are viewed as data pieces and offered as such. As Coleridge pointed out, ‘ . . . the reader [of poetry] should be carried forward, not merely or chieÀy by the mechanical impulse of curiosity, not by a restless desire to arrive at the ¿nal solution, but by the pleasurable activity of the journey itself’ (Coleridge, as cited by Dewey, 2005:3–4).’ It is in this spirit that I add some of the poems produced as data during ¿eldwork for the reader to engage with on their own terms. Dewey (2005) discusses what an English critic, Mr. A. C. Bradley, said ‘. . . we are to think of a poem as it actually exists; and an actual poem is a succession of experiences—sounds, images, thought—through which we pass when we read a poem . . . A poem exists in unnumerable degrees.’ And it is also true that it exists in unnumerable qualities or kinds, no two readers heaving exactly the same experience, according to the ‘forms,’ or manners of response brought to it. A new poem is created by everyone who reads poetically . . . (Dewey, 2005:112)

The poems are placed into grey text boxes, and are added to the audio and video analyses. In this way, the poems illustrate some phenomenological data that is presented; they are not, however analyzed.3 While we will ‘still remain a long way from knowing how to integrate the knowing of narrative, poetry and art with that of analytical accounts’ (Lemke, 2008:29), I hope that the

76


addition of some poems to this otherwise scienti¿c text will move us a little closer to integrating the knowing that Lemke addresses.

3.3

The Participants

At the time of the study, Andrea and Anna were between the ages of 35 and 40, of upper middle class social status, and living in Germany near Cologne. Andrea is German and Anna is German-Italian. I found one of the participants, Andrea, for this study through my own network in Germany. Andrea, in turn, found Anna through her network. The participants in this study are friends who know each other very well. They both have children under ten. Andrea has two boys ages seven and four, while Anna has two boys and a girl ages nine, four, and two. Anna is married, while Andrea was at the time of study going through a divorce. The two participants in this study describe themselves in the following paragraphs, an idea that I found very effective in Barton and Hamilton’s ethnographic analysis of the literacy habits of lower class individuals in Lancaster (Barton and Hamilton, 1998). By letting the participants speak for themselves, I hope to introduce the reader to the participants in a more personable way, allowing them to display their identities in their own words, before going over to the analysis. I have become a friend to both women during the course of interacting with them over a period of one year, and I cannot thank them enough for letting me enter their lives to the extent they did.4 Important to note is the fact that the data collected for this book was completed almost ten years ago and the women have both changed. Thus, their everyday identity production as described here was their everyday identity production of that time. While the study is a valid study for everyday identity production, the actual identity production of these two women is quite different now than it is presented in this book. I believe this is in fact a positive aspect of writing this book so much later; it is a way of protecting the participants’ actual identities. In the following paragraphs I give a loose translation of Andrea’s and Anna’s self-introduction. While both have produced their little narratives in German, I present only the English version here because I am not using these excerpts for analysis, but rather would like the reader to gain some insight into the two participants, whose everyday life identity production this book is about. Later, when giving examples that are used for analysis, I always present the data in its original German and add the English translation.

The Participants

77

3.3.1 Andrea: A Self-Description My name is Andrea. I am 38 years old and have two boys, David and Tim. David is seven years old. Tim is four and a half. I am currently going through a terrible divorce, yet I am the happiest person ever. I know that seems like a contradiction, but in my case it is not. I am so glad I woke up, am no longer trapped in a false relationship, and have the opportunity to live my own life as I please. My two boys are most important in my life, and I also value my many good friends. My boys and I just moved out of the house I built for our—well, let me call it our then-family—three years ago. The three of us now live in a cozy little apartment above Anna and her family. I am an architect by profession and an artist at heart. Painting has been very therapeutic for me in these turbulent times, and my paintings have actually been rather successful in this area in Germany.

Moment

moment

geniesst den moment

living in the moment

den du fühlend erwählst

that intuitively you choose

fragst nicht nach falsch oder richtiger wahl

not asking about wrong or right choices

gibst dich dem moment hin ohne verlangen ohne sorgen ohne hast

you surrender to the moment without desire without worries without haste

bewegst dich von einem zum anderen moment

you move from one to the other moment

genüsslich erlebend

sensually experiencing

dem anderen dein ganzes gebend

giving the other your all

so tanzt du durchs leben

this way you dance through life

78


von einem zum anderen vom kleinen zum grossen

from one to the other from the trivial to the signi¿cant

moment

moment

3.3.2 Anna: A Self-Description My name is Anna. I am 36 years old and have three children. I like to read and to do puzzles, but haven’t done any of that for a while, I just haven’t taken any time for myself for a while now. Yes, actually, my best friend is of the opinion that I would have been a good Mother Teresa because I always do everything for others. I’m always surrounded by people who seem to be unable to deal with life on their own, just like the partner of my mother-in-law, who has been living with us since my mother-in-law passed away a few weeks ago. Now I am trying to ¿nd an apartment for him near us, ¿nd him some work, etc. This is my life, everyone else is ¿rst. I like it that way. My family is most important to me, but I also have a very large circle of friends, with whom I am in constant contact.

das leben

life

ich höre den zug in der ferne und schwermut droht mich zu überrollen

I hear the train in the distance and melancholy threatens to capsize me

das leben ist hart nichts ist einfach denke ich . . .

life is hard nothing is easy I think . . .

ein helles kinderlachen erweckt mich

cheerful children’s laughter refreshes me

wie schön das leben doch ist wie wunderbar und leicht

how beautiful life is how wonderful and radiant

denke ich

I think

Collecting and Transcribing Multimodal Data

3.4

79


When speaking of transcription, we generally speak of phenomenological data that has been collected through audio or video recorded data collection methods. It is these types of data, and particularly the video recorded data, that this section is about.5

3.4.1 Multimodal Data Video analysis of multimodal interaction entails multiple methodological steps. Some ¿rst theoretical, methodological, and analytical decisions of when, which interaction, and from which perspective to video record arise in the ¿eld. Once the tapes are collected, the researcher can play and re-play the interactions in order to select representative samples and start transcribing. Transcribing multimodal interactions is a very complex process. Goodwin (2001) notes that we are at the very beginning when it comes to transcribing visual phenomena. The task of multimodal transcription is a task of translating the visual and audio aspects into some printable format. Video captures help in this process, as the images themselves communicate many modes that are not easily translated into language. One such example is the mode of color, which is used in magazines as a highly elaborated mode, and yet as Kress and Van Leeuwen have noted, this mode is not easily translatable. Similarly, exact body posture takes many words to describe, while an image illustrates a posture much more clearly and easily. The mode of recorded music, on the other hand, is still not easily translated.6 Multimodal transcription, especially when incorporating as many different modes as are incorporated into this study, entails multiple transcripts of any one interaction. A phenomenological multimodal analysis requires multimodal data collection. While a tape recorder does certainly not record mono-modally, it does only record the audio modes. A video camera, on the other hand, not only records the audio interaction, but also the visual side of interaction and the immediate surroundings. However, a video camera also only records speci¿c aspects of any interaction. Data collection is always interlinked with theoretical, methodological, and analytical decisions. Theoretical decisions relate to what is actually recorded and what is left out. Methodological decisions involve the choice of data collection method at a given time, as for example audio, visual, or participant observation without recording, once the theoretical focus has been determined. Often situations permit a choice in method, but just as often situations demand the researcher to employ a certain method. Once a method is

80


established, the researcher has to make analytical decisions. If using a video camera, for example, the researcher has to determine where to place the camera. The mini DV records multimodal interaction without much intrusion, however, the camera position is crucial as every camera position focuses on a certain section, excluding others. I recorded interactions, which I found to be of great analytical importance, using three and even four methods at the same time. This way, I obtained a video record of the interaction from one point of view, an audio record of the interaction from a different position, and also ¿eld notes describing the interaction, including my own participation. While far from perfect, such data collection does foster triangulation. Just as data collection involves theoretical, methodological, and analytical concerns, transcription methods entail theoretical, methodological, and analytical concerns. Therefore, I now ¿rst give a brief overview of transcription in the ¿eld of multimodality, and then illustrate transcription conventions for MIA which I use in this book. Multimodal transcription is a constant interplay between analysis and method of description, and, of course, is always based in theoretical assumptions. The task of a multimodal transcript is not to analyze the images that are incorporated, but rather to use the images in order to describe the dynamic unfolding of speci¿c moments in time in which the setting and the non-verbal play as much a part as the verbal.

3.4.2 Multimodal Transcription Goodwin (2001) emphasizes the process of transcription and representation of multimodal analyses: The complexity of the phenomena involved requires multiple methods for rendering relevant distinctions . . . any transcription system must attend simultaneously to two separate ¿elds, looking in one direction at how to accurately recover through a systematic notation the endogenous structure of the events being investigated, while simultaneously keeping an eye on the addressee/reader of the analysis by attempting to present relevant descriptions as clearly and vividly as possible. (Goodwin, 2001: 161)

Much of multimodality today is focused upon the analysis of texts. O’Halloran for example writes: ‘New semiotic frameworks are presented for the analysis of a range of discourse genres in print media, dynamic and static electronic media and three-dimensional objects in space’. Or, Baldry and Thibault (2005) propose their book as a contribution to the development of a theoretical model


81

and an analytical approach which is both functional and meaning-based. They say ‘we do not explore in this book discourses that occur in various kinds of natural settings . . . However, we believe that the toolkit proposed here can be adapted to these forms of multimodal discourse analysis without too much dif¿culty’ (2005:xvi). Further, Machin (2007) de¿nes a social semiotic approach to visual communications, drawing mainly on the work of Kress and Van Leeuwen, which provides a tool kit for the analysis of visual compositions such as advertisements, magazine pages and covers, photographs, schoolbooks, web pages, etc. Or Bateman (2008) presents a new approach to analyzing page-based documents, such as magazines, books, web pages, newspapers, and so on. These are just a few books that currently de¿ne multimodality as a primarily text-based area of study. However, Jewitt (2005) uses video data, observational notes, and links these to sketches of the computer screen or the classroom layout. Earlier, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson devised a transcription system in 1974; Ochs (1979) argued that transcription conventions—whether we transcribe talk as top-to-bottom, or left-to-right, or as a musical script—all make a difference; and Tannen (1984) devised a transcription system, which diverges from these others. No matter which transcription system is used, it is generally well understood that the transcript guides—or even forces—the analyst into a certain direction of analysis, which, of course, simultaneously constrains the analyst to a certain interpretation as well. Before discussing the transcription system of multimodal interaction analysis, I problematize the very notion of transcription below.

3.4.3 What Is a Transcript? ‘What is a transcript’ is a very important question and it is one that is usually not asked.7 Usually, researchers speak of transcription, presupposing that everyone knows exactly what is meant by the term, and yet, we may all have very different ideas of what can be termed a transcript and what cannot. The Thesaurus de¿nes a transcript to be a “record, transcription, copy, or text.” Certainly, to de¿ne a transcript as transcription is not very helpful, and the notion of it being a text will never be argued, but leaves us with the problematic to de¿ne text. Thus, we can safely say that, according to the Thesaurus, a transcript is either a record or a copy. However, we do not necessarily use the term in this sense, exactly. There are very few—if indeed any—discourse analysts who would claim that an audio record of spoken discourse is

82


a transcript. Rather, we speak of audio records as raw data. The audio record is not the real thing, but it is also not the transcript. In multimodal discourse analysis, we may record video, and, again, the video becomes the raw data—a record of the real event—but not the transcript. A transcript is a ¿rst analysis, which is used for the purposes of further analysis as well as for the representation of analysis. Thus a transcript has a dual function. What that ¿rst analysis looks like depends not only upon the raw data, but also upon the further analysis that the transcript is meant to aid. For video analysis, I have devised a Àexible transcription system, which on the one hand fosters a ¿rst analysis and on the other hand aids the researcher to present the data to others.

3.5

A Flexible Transcription System

A Àexible transcription system grows out of the notion that a transcript, once completed in whichever form, already is a ¿rst analysis of the raw data. We cannot deny that we embed our theoretical understanding within a transcript, and it is exactly this that I would like to look at in more detail: My own theoretical assumption, coming from mediated discourse analysis, is that the mediated action is the unit of analysis. Mediated actions can be hierarchized into lower-level actions, which are the smallest meaning units of a communicative mode—such as a gesture, a postural shift, or an utterance; and higher-level actions, which are made up of a multiplicity of chains of lower-level actions, as a presentation for example may be made up of visuals, utterances, gestures, and so on. In a PowerPoint presentation for example, the visuals display frozen actions, illustrating thoughts or higher-level actions that have been embedded on the slides at a prior time, and, as the presenter pushes the keys to call up the slides, the presenter each time performs a lowerlevel action. At the moment, I would like to mainly focus on higher-level actions, which are an event or interaction, and their make-up in terms of lower-level actions, which need to be represented in a transcript. As Jewitt (2005:37–38) claims, a transcript is a representation of an event. However, a transcript is not only a representation of an event, a transcript is a theoretically loaded representation of an event. In 2002 I published the article “The Implication of Visual Research for Discourse Analysis: Transcription beyond Language” in which I ¿rst argued that the inclusion of images into verbal transcripts allowed us a more comprehensive analysis of interactions, and then concluded by proposing a


83

multimodal transcript based on images, rather than discourse plus images. There, I was studying ¿ve boys playing a computer game. Figure 3.1 illustrates that the reading path, based on the work by Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), directs the viewer ¿rst to the large image of the ¿ve boys playing the computer game. Due to its size, this image becomes most salient. Next, the reading path moves top to bottom and left to right.8 In 2004, in my book Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework, I discussed the two sides of transcription, the idea of a transcript facilitating analyses as well as allowing the representation of complex analyses. Further, I showed that it is valuable for analytical purposes to produce individual transcripts of each communicative mode, such as layout, gesture, gaze, or spoken language, which could then be collated with the help of time as the reference, to produce—what I called—a ¿nal multimodal transcript of the site of engagement. For the individual modal transcripts and the ¿nal transcript, I devised speci¿c transcription conventions that make it possible for other researchers to follow and replicate. Transcription conventions allow that—were various researchers transcribing the same event—the transcripts would in fact look

Figure 3.1 The screen grab as the basis for transcription.

84


identical. Because only transcription conventions allow such rigor in qualitative analysis, transcription conventions are very important. In interaction analysis, it is not enough to simply explain that one chooses a certain aspect of an event and then investigates the modal compositions, but it is highly important to devise and follow some conventions that, at a later time and by a different researcher, can, in fact, be replicated. Therefore, I adopt and extrapolate upon transcription conventions here.

3.5.1 Some Conventions: Spoken Language The transcription conventions for spoken language9 are adopted from Norris (2004: 66), using a mixture of Sacks,’ Schegloff, and Jefferson’s (1974) and Tannen’s (1984) conventions for spoken language. Conventions a–f are always used for audio transcripts. Conventions g and h are added when producing the audio transcript as a ¿rst transcript that is later collated with the other modal transcripts (such as the transcript for proxemics, posture, or gesture) to build a ¿nal multimodal transcript. Here time is used as a reference point to allow for exact collating of transcripts. In the audio transcript, time is used to mark beginning of utterances, speaker changes, and noises. Further, a visualizing of the utterances (using an audio computer program) is necessary to reproduce the intonation for the multimodal transcript. a. Punctuation reÀects intonation, not grammar. b. Brackets show overlap: Two voices at once c. CAPS indicates emphatic stress. d. Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate length of pauses in seconds. e. Latching is indicated by such brackets. f. - marks a glottal stop or abrupt cutting off of sound. g. 0:00.00 indicates the minute, second, and millisecond (or frame) of the beginning of an utterance. h. In order to replicate the intonation patterns as wave forms in the multimodal transcript, each utterance is viewed in an audio program (a sample is illustrated in Figure 3.2).


85

Figure 3.2 Pitch of an utterance.

Figure 3.2 shows the actual pitch in wave form and the superimposed utterance ich bin Andrea ‘I am Andrea’. It further illustrates the utterance in wave form as it would appear in a multimodal transcript.

3.5.2 Some Conventions: Proxemics Transcription conventions for proxemics are adopted from Norris (2004: 68): a. First we provide an initial still image that shows the distance that the participants are taking up to one another and to relevant objects (we start this visual transcript at the same time in the clip as the verbal transcript). b. Then, we provide images for each change in proxemic behavior by the participants and mark the time in minutes and seconds milliseconds/ frame of the clip.

3.5.3 Some Conventions: Posture Transcription conventions for posture are adopted from Norris (2004: 68): a. First we provide an initial still image that shows the posture that the participants are taking up. b. Then we provide every postural change by each participant, and mark the time in minutes, seconds, and milliseconds/frame of the clip.

86


3.5.4 Some Conventions: Gesture Transcription conventions for gesture are adopted from Norris (2004: 69): a. We illustrate the onset or rest position, then the stroke or highest position, and then the retracted or rest position of the gesture; and the highest and lowest position for a beat. b. Some gestures should also be illustrated by showing the mid-points of the preparation and/or the retraction. If the gesture includes a poststroke hold, we indicate it with a separate image. c. We always mark the exact times of the stills in the clip. The same is done for gaze and so on. In this way, the researcher produces many transcripts, transcribing one mode at a time. Many modes will overlap, and because of the exact timings on the screen grabs and noted in the audio transcript, the researcher can then produce a ¿nal transcript that illustrates such overlaps or distinctness. When producing the ¿nal transcript, as indicated above, spoken language has to be re-produced, illustrating intonation patterns and loudness that replicate the actual intonation patters seen in an audio program as closely as possible, because, as McNeill (1992) and many others have shown, gestures often mark intonation; and the sound quality or pitch differences are important meaning-makers in interaction. Once all modes are transcribed, the researcher can assemble a ¿nal transcript that illustrates the complete moment of interaction. At this point, the researcher can use arrows and numbers to indicate the direction and times of movements, and much more.

3.5.5 A Need to Transcribe Qualitatively Using these conventions has led me to the discovery that natural interaction cannot be quanti¿ably transcribed. The unfolding of modal use does not develop in a simultaneous timely manner. In other words, naturally occurring interaction cannot be transcribed successfully by using every second, fourth, or sixth frame, because postural shifts, gestures, gaze shifts, and so on do not occur at clock-time intervals. When looking at the excerpt of a multimodal transcript in Figure 3.3, we see that the frames used to transcribe the excerpt of the complete event are not abiding to a certain time interval.


87

Figure 3.3 A need for qualitative transcription: modal use is not linked to time intervals.

Here, in Figure 3.3, I have highlighted the variation in time interval, adding the time in large numbers on the screen shot: the second screen grab is 3 seconds and 54 milliseconds after the ¿rst, the third is 3 seconds and 55 milliseconds after that, the fourth is 3 seconds and 13 milliseconds later, while the ¿fth occurs 11 seconds and 39 milliseconds after the fourth and the sixth occurs only 55 milliseconds after that. Had I used the same time intervals for each of the screen grabs, I would have missed much of the modal meaning-making going on, on the one hand, and duplicated screen grabs without giving new information, on the other hand. Because of this discovery, I have come to the conclusion that clock time, while useful as a reference for transcription purposes, is not useful when embedded in the transcription process as an interpretive tool.

3.5.6 The Flexible Component in Multimodal Transcription By transcribing each mode separately before merging these single-mode transcripts into the ¿nal transcript, I have discovered that there are hierarchical

88


changes among modes within interactions. These changes are not dissimilar to changes in modal composition from one image or web page to another. However, these hierarchical changes are often fast and usually left unnoticed in interaction. In order to illustrate the modal Àuctuations in interaction more clearly, I use Figure 3.4. If, for example, we assume that the cube in Figure 3.4 connotes an action and the circles connote the various modes given on the right of the cube, we ¿nd that modes in interaction are theoretically of equal importance. However, in interaction, modes vary in hierarchical relationships to each other as depicted in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.4 Theoretically, all modes are equal in interaction.

Figure 3.5 In practice, modes Àuctuate in relation to one another.


89

I have found that either any one mode can take on a super-ordinate position in the hierarchy of other modes in action; or that same mode can take on an equal position as another or other modes; or the same mode can be subordinated to other modes. Such ¿ndings have direct impact upon transcription, and I propose that such positioning of modes should be visible in ¿nal transcripts by superimposing the modes right on top one another, so that the following Àexible transcription conventions apply.

3.5.7 Some Flexible Conventions: Modal Relationships in Interaction a. Hierarchical or equal positioning of modes are illustrated by utilizing the Western reading path from top-to-bottom and left-to-right. b. Utilize clock time as reference; and to determine pauses and utterance length. c. Imbedding of modal con¿gurations of action. d. Illustrating rhythm and timing in interaction either by duplicating images to show length, or by utilizing circles, arrows, or other art form to show duration of action. When using the above Àexible conventions in a transcript, we are more able to show when and how modes in use are hierarchically positioned to one another; we are more able to illustrate what is called a modal aggregate (Norris, 2011b); and we are more able to demonstrate when modes in interaction are of equal importance to one another. I deliberately say more able, because, while a transcript is a representation of an analysis of an interaction, a transcript is always limited in scope. For example, a text-form-transcript does not represent modes such as smell or the haptic experience that social actors may have. While smell is lost unless indicated in a textbox, haptic experience may be inferred to some extent by the viewer. However, while a transcript is thus limited, our awareness of the limitations help us illuminate those aspects that are lost in transcription through other means of representation. Even though there are shortcomings, a Àexible transcription system such as the one presented here is necessary, when looking at multimodal discourse in light of actions that carry meaning, rather than viewing multimodal discourse as primarily textual. As discussed above, in interaction we ¿nd that modal con¿gurations of those actions differ from moment to moment (Norris, 2009a). Because of this variation in modal con¿guration, hierarchical

90


positioning among modes within higher-level actions needs to be illustrated in the ¿nal transcript.

3.5.8 Modal Con¿gurations of Actions Modal con¿gurations10 will come into play only marginally in this book as I am here interested in the analysis of identity productions of social actors in their everyday life. Modal con¿gurations may be more important when investigating modal make-up of interaction, which would be a topic for another book. Nevertheless, since transcription is of great importance to any study in multimodal interaction analysis, it is important to understand that modal con¿gurations are always squarely embedded in the transcripts, because, as I noted elsewhere: . . . while we can investigate the interplay among modes at a given moment in (inter)action, we cannot presume that a modal con¿guration at one point in time utilised by one social actor is translatable to the same modal con¿guration at a different point in time utilised by the same or another social actor. Modal con¿gurations change and meanings of modal con¿gurations change. What we can say about modal con¿gurations at a given point in time, however, concerns the hierarchical and non-hierarchical structures that can be found among the modes used. Thus, the notion of modal con¿guration allows us to understand the interplay of communicative modes as they are structured in relation to one another within a higher-level action that a social actor performs. (Norris, 2009a:84)

Just as modal con¿gurations in higher-level actions differ from moment to moment and in the performance of one social actor as well as in the performance of other social actors, identity is produced through a variety of modal con¿gurations. This notion exempli¿es the multifaceted complexity of identity production in everyday life. While a social actor may produce an identity element through hierarchically structured modes at one moment, the social actor may, in fact, produce the same identity element with the very same meaning through equally structured modes at a different moment. But similarly, one and the same modal con¿guration in a higher-level action may produce different identity elements. Thus, we can say that modal con¿gurations, while noteworthy and certainly important in trying to understand communication, will not allow us to simplify phenomenological identity production. A social actor does not (co)produce the same identity elements together with other social actors,

Modal Hierarchies: Considerations for Transcription

91

time, place, and the environment by using the exact same modes in the exact same way. Identity production is Àuid, complex, multimodal, and multicon¿gurational. However, we may ¿nd that some social actors (co)produce some of their identity elements by using certain modes more and/or in a particular hierarchical way, than they use the modes to (co)produce other identity elements.

3.6

Modal Hierarchies: Considerations for Transcription

While modal hierarchies shift and change from one moment to the next, some modes may have more precedence than others in interaction. For the linguist, the precedence usually is language, however, a multimodal approach often tells us otherwise. Imagine, for a moment, that you are making a phone call to your best friend in another country. Now think about the modal precedence. Is it the language that you use? I would argue that it is not language, but rather the mode which I will call the mode of object or the mode of object handling to be more speci¿c. The explanation is easy: You will not be able to make a phone call to your friend without the telephone or, to be more speci¿c, without you using the telephone. Thus, the mode of object handling supersedes the mode of language, because just speaking will not get you heard by your friend unless your friend is in close proximity to you. Let’s think of a different example, a dinnertime conversation. These conversations have been well studied by many linguists. Each time, language is taken to be of prescedence, and we have learned much about the language that is used, the topics that are addressed and discussed, and so forth at these events. However, investigating such an event multimodally, we will have to conclude that it is the dinner itself that has precedence over the language being used. Without the dinner, a dinnertime conversation could not come about. But does that matter, you will ask, and in fact, yes, it does matter if we want to truly understand communication in its vast complexity. What these two brief examples illustrate is that the physical actions within the physical world with its objects may often supersede the verbal and/or the embodied non-verbal. This does not mean, however, that language becomes irrelevant or that the language used is not studied. Language is a part—and at times the most important part—in an interaction as we will see in the following chapters, when the participants requested that I audio-tape their interviews. For the participants, their verbal accounts were the most important mode at the time. The non-verbal, which I recorded in my ¿eld notes, however, also built an important aspect as we will see.

92


When transcribing multimodal data and positioning the modes in hierarchies, aggregates, and/or equal states onto the transcript, the analyst needs to always consider which modes make the use of other modes possible, which modes can be used without the use of others, and which modes are distinctly interconnected. Thus, modal con¿gurations do have to always be considered. Of course, the notion of modal con¿guration grows out of the notion of modal density, which is discussed in the next chapter, and both concepts relate directly. However, there is still more to transcription of multimodal data, especially when taking a more macro approach, which is discussed in chapters 5 and 8.

Notes 1. As mentioned before, identity is viewed here as (inter)actively produced. Internalized thoughts of self are only brought into the study if and when this is discussed by the participants, or these may by hinted at in the poems provided. 2. Some of the poems were personal poems and they are not included in this book. The story is only hinted at in this table, however, no parts of it are included in this book. 3. Please do note that I write all creative pieces in my native tongue, German. Thus, I present my original creative pieces on the left side of the textbox, and the translation is presented on the right. 4. Both of them have taken part in my recent study as well, but this data has not been analyzed yet and the current book incorporates only data from my earlier study. 5. See: Jewitt (2009); Norris (2004); Van Leeuwen and Jewitt (2001). 6. On modes see: Argyle and Dean (1965); Dittman (1987); Efron (1941); Ekman (1979); E. T. Hall (1966); Haviland (2000); Kendon (1967, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1992); Krahmeret al. (2002); Norris (2010a, 2010b, 2011b); ScheÀen, (1964, 1974). 7. See: Ochs (1979). 8. Here, in order to highlight that Will is using the mouse, I have circled his hand and his name. 9. About spoken language see: F. Erickson (1990); Goffman (1981); Goodwin (1980, 1981, 1986, 1994); Goodwin and Harness Goodwin (1992); Gumperz and Hymes (1986);Hymes (1974) Ochs and Taylor (1992); Schiffrin (1987, 1994); Scollon (1976, 1979); Tannen (1984, 1989). 10. See: Norris (2009a).

Chapter 4 Modal Density, Actions, and Identity

Finnegan (2002) emphasizes that the process of communicating may be more, or less, purposive, organized and conscious; more or less mutually inÀuential or recognizable; work simultaneously or sequentially on multiple levels; develop and change during its temporal process; draw on relatively standardized systems or on less widely agreed or only partially shared conventions; and involve more, or less, explicit interacting among the enactors who (to different degrees and in different ways) participate more (or less) creatively in the process and at greater or lesser temporal or spatial distance from each other. (Finnegan, 2002:37)

I found exactly what Finnegan (2002) describes in the above quote. But then I wondered how to make sense of these Àuid, simultaneous, and sequential processes of communication that are taking place on various levels, in time and space, with other social actors, and with the environment. How was it, I asked myself, that Anna knew just how and when to interact with Andrea as a friend and how and when to interact with her as a co-owner of the small catering business. At times, these interactions addressing and perceiving Andrea as either a friend or a co-owner were quite distinct, while they almost appeared to overlap at other times. Teasing these interactions apart multimodally, however, showed that they did not so much overlap as they were both produced simultaneously.1 But how can a social actor produce several identity elements at the very same time—and with the same social actor as interlocutor? When investigating language alone, it often appeared that either one or the other identity element was produced. Sometimes, they appeared to be produced in quick succession. But when investigating the same interactions multimodally, it became clear that the apparent distinction in language use was primarily due to the need of speaking sequentially. Even though doublevoicedness (i.e.: irony or parody) allows simultaneous identity production, it was fairly uncommon in this study that the social actors performed two or more higher-level actions with different social actors through the use of double-voicedness of language, saying two or more different things at the very same time.

94

Modal Density, Actions, and Identity

While spoken language in everyday life of these participants favored sequential communication, this sequential communication was just one— and sometimes only a small—aspect of the overall communication between Andrea and Anna. The problem at ¿rst was that I did not know why it was obvious, or better yet, what made it so obvious that simultaneity was ongoing at the same time as sequential communication. That multiple identity elements were being produced could be seen by anybody. Each time I showed clips of my ¿eldwork to colleagues and students they could pick it out just as well as I could. Thus, there was no doubt that something was at play, something that we as social actors in interaction all recognize, and yet, it was something that had not been theorized. Initially, during ¿eldwork and analysis, I developed the notion of the foreground-background continuum of attention/awareness that I introduced in chapter 2. This was the obvious piece of the puzzle. It illustrates that social actors can, and often do, produce several identity elements on different levels of attention/awareness. Thus, Anna may easily produce a friend identity element with Andrea in her foreground and a co-owner identity element in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness. But (and even after having asked ten researchers and they all ended up with the same analysis) this still left the nagging question of how do we know? The answer lies in what I have called modal density. Having studied chemistry, I could not help but think of density. There are points in chemical substances when density is high, and other points when density is much lower. Thinking about water, for example, we know that water has its highest density when in Àuid form, which decreases as water reaches its gaseous state. Water’s density decreases as temperature increases. When looking at the graph in Figure 4.1a, you see that the x-axis represents the increasing temperature, while the y-axis represents increasing density. Without going into details about density of water or other substances, I would like to now move on to the analogy in interaction as illustrated in Figure 4.1b. There, I used a graph similar to that in Figure 4.1a, but used the notion of decreasing attention/awareness as represented on the x-axis and the notion of modal density as represented on the y-axis. Leaning my theorizing on chemistry, I hypothesized that, were we to take the x-axis, or the foreground-background continuum, as the phenomenological mind of a social actor, and the y-axis, or the modal density, as the phenomenological production of an action and with it of an identity element, this would explain why it is obvious to researchers where exactly to place identity elements or higher-level actions onto this heuristic foreground-background continuum. Modal density, as theorized here, is the perceivably produced

Focused Actions and Phenomenological Identity Production

Figure 4.1a Density of water.

95

Figure 4.1b Modal density foregroundbackground continuum.

higher-level action and with it the perceivably produced identity element—or it is what I called the obvious aspect, earlier.2

4.1


Modes in interaction, I further hypothesized, had to have high density when a social actor was focusing upon a higher-level action and with/through it produced that—primarily for other social actors clearly perceivable identity element. While social actors themselves in everyday life focused upon actions, the identity elements which were (often inadvertently) produced, presented themselves through phenomenological production clearly to other social actors in interaction (and to the researchers studying them). But what does it mean for a higher-level action to be produced with/through high modal density? Actions that social actors perform differ widely; which modes, and in what way social actors employ them in order to construct an action, vary just as widely. High modal density, I found, could come about in three different ways: 1. High modal density could come about through intensity of a mode; 2. High modal density could come about through modal complexity of multiple modes that were intertwined in interaction; and 3. High modal density could come about through intensity plus modal complexity, where several modes were both intense and simultaneously complexly intertwined.

96


I now illustrate the concept of modal density and the three ways of how high modal density can come about, utilizing data collected during my ethnographic study of Andrea and Anna. At this point, I am interested only in the focused actions that are displayed as they are the ones that demonstrate high modal density.3

4.1.1 High Modal Density: Intensity of a Mode In the following example, Andrea is shopping with Anna and Anna’s little daughter, when she receives a phone call from her lawyer. Andrea ¿rst looks at the number and then answers, utilizing high modal density and employing high intensity of the modes of object handling and spoken language in image 2 and 3 of Figure 4.2. In this example, in image 3 of Figure 4.2, Andrea no doubt focuses upon the action of speaking to her lawyer about divorce procedures, and, by doing so, she produces the identity element we may call a divorcee identity with high modal density. The high modal density demonstrates that she produces this identity element (through the (co)constructed action) in the foreground of her attention/awareness as illustrated in Figure 4.3. Whether Andrea consciously produces this identity element or whether she inadvertently produces it, matters little in interaction. An identity element does not have to be intended by the social actor producing it, but will always and easily be read off by others interacting with the social actor. Anna, who is close by, does not interrupt Andrea during her phone call because she is well aware of Andrea’s focus at the time, just as she is well aware of the identity that Andrea produces. Once Andrea has ¿nished the phone conversation, Anna asks und wie geht’s jetzt weiter? (and how goes it now on?) ‘and what’s next?’ This question directly refers to the divorce procedure, illustrating Anna’s familiarity with that part of Andrea’s life and now (co)producing Andrea’s divorcee identity element.

Figure 4.2 High modal density through modal intensity.


97

Figure 4.3 Andrea produces her divorcee identity element with high modal density through modal intensity of the modes of object handling and spoken language.

4.1.2 High Modal Density: Modal Complexity In the following example, Andrea and her children are about to have lunch with Anna and her children and the researcher. Andrea is utilizing high modal density, employing high complexity of a multiplicity of the modes of spoken language, gaze, posture, gesture, proxemics, and object handling when she distributes utensils and makes some last arrangements before she sits down, as can be seen in Figure 4.4. Here we ¿nd that Andrea is focused upon the action of having lunch with the children and Anna and the researcher. Andrea is here focused on her mother identity element, interacting with the four children and making sure the children have what they need. Anna, who at ¿rst questioningly repeats the sentence Theo utters, schmeckt wie Salz ‘tastes like salt’, leaves the mothering to Andrea and begins an interaction with the researcher. Andrea and Anna often, albeit not always, took turns with mothering when they were all together, and interacting with all of the children. Here, Andrea produces a stronger mother identity element than Anna, using high modal density through modal complexity as illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.5. Through her actions, Andrea clearly produces a mother identity element, which is easily read off by others, no matter if she is consciously producing this identity element or not.

98


Figure 4.4 High modal density through modal complexity.

Figure 4.5 Andrea produces a mother identity element in the foreground of her attention/awareness through modal complexity.


99

4.1.3 High Modal Density: Intensity Plus Modal Complexity In the example illustrated in Figure 4.6, Anna checks the receipt of a large shopping trip, dividing expenses between herself and Andrea, utilizing high modal density, employing high intensity of the modes of written language, object handling, and posture, which are all also complexly interlinked. Through checking and distributing expenses for a catering event, Anna produces her caterer identity element. Anna is focused upon the action, and possibly is quite unaware of her producing the caterer identity element. Nevertheless, she produces it in the foreground of her attention/awareness as illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.7 below. Andrea, who is present, has taken it onto herself to watch the children; and even Anna’s children, who are playing close by, understand that their mother is focused upon her work.

Figure 4.6 High modal density through modal intensity plus modal complexity.

Figure 4.7 Anna produces a caterer identity element in the foreground of her attention through modal intensity plus complexity.

100


Social actors focus on actions. They intend to get certain things done. Their focus is the accomplishment of this or that action, not usually, however, their identity production. Others surrounding and interacting with the social actor, on the other hand, demonstrate their understanding of the identity that is being produced by the social actors, reacting accordingly. In this case, Anna’s children do not disturb her. Identity, it seems, is often not produced knowingly by the social actor themselves. Identity, however, appears to be perceived by others as if identity elements were consciously produced by the social actor. While social actors in action focus upon the action at hand, other social actors interacting with that social actor ¿rst and foremost read the identity element(s) being produced through the action. At the same time, of course, these social actors, who readily perceive the identity element(s) of that social actor, are usually quite unaware of the fact that they themselves also produce identity elements that are read off by others. Having discussed how modes in interaction have to have high density when a social actor is focusing upon a higher-level action and with/through it produced that—primarily for other social actors—clearly perceivable identity element, I now move on to the next heuristic stage on the modal density foreground-background continuum, the mid-ground. Of course, when we realize that social actors, aware of the focused identity elements of others, are often quite unaware of their own identity production in interaction, we will not be surprised that social actors are even less aware of their phenomenological identity production occurring through construction of actions on the midground of their attention/awareness.

4.2

Mid-Grounded Actions and Phenomenological Identity Production

The graph in Figure 4.1b above illustrates the continuum and highlights the foreground (or focus), the mid-ground, and the background, as I was hypothesizing that modal density had to diminish proportionately to the amount of lesser attention/awareness that social actors paid to the action that they were constructing, and the modal production that allowed for the phenomenological perception of identity element(s) that were (usually inadvertently) produced through the action. A social actor pays attention to and is aware of the actions that she performs. However, other social actors, as they assign identity to the actions, do not distinguish between action and identity element. For others in interaction, the action and the identity element of a social actor merge. Action is


101

identity and identity is action—in the mind of one social actor perceiving the other. The same, I believe, is often not true for the social actor perceiving self-identity elements. The self-identity elements are often not as clear to the performer as they are to the observer. But I shall take up this point again in chapter 9, and would now like to return our focus to the construction of midgrounded and backgrounded actions. Social actors pay less attention to and are less aware of the actions that they perform in the mid-ground of their attention/awareness, and even less of those that they perform in the background of their attention/awareness. Actions constructed on these levels of attention/awareness (and on any in between) are constructed with less modal density than those constructed in the foreground (or the focus).

4.2.1 Medium Modal Density: Intensity of a Mode The example in Figure 4.8 illustrates how Andrea is joking and commenting on Anna’s little girl playing in the children’s corner of the cafeteria, while Anna is checking the receipt of their shopping trip. While Anna is certainly focused upon the action as illustrated in Figure 4.6 and the graph in Figure 4.7, Anna listens to Andrea’s mocking and responds to it with a glance in her direction as can be seen in Figure 4.8. While Anna pays less attention to Andrea, she does listen to Andrea, as can be seen in the glance and the facial expression (and the response as is discussed below). Here, because Anna is focused upon the receipt and the adding machine as illustrated in Figure 4.6, the primary mode for her interaction with Andrea is spoken language. Through this mode, Anna (co)produces a friend identity element with Andrea. Even though Anna herself does not say much during the excerpt, she does listens and respond (here with gaze and later with an utterance) to what Andrea says, demonstrating her awareness. Anna’s use of medium modal density demonstrates that she pays less attention to Andrea than she pays to her receipts. Therefore, we can position this friend identity element in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness as seen in Figure 4.9. In the graph, in Figure 4.9, I have incorporated Anna’s foregrounded identity element. While the focus of a social actor in interaction can easily be determined without us being aware of the mid- and/or backgrounded actions and produced identity elements, a mid-grounded (or backgrounded) action and/or identity element can be determined only relationally. Modal intensity and modal complexity are not quanti¿able notions: they are both relational notions, only.

102


Figure 4.8 Medium modal density through modal intensity.

Figure 4.9 Anna pays less attention to Andrea than to the receipts for the catering event, producing her friend identity element in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness.


103

4.2.2 Medium Modal Density: Modal Complexity In the following example, Andrea is shopping with Anna and all ¿ve children for a catering event. At this time, Andrea has three boys sitting on her shopping cart while she is trying to ¿nd the items on her list. Here, Andrea is focused upon shopping, reading her list as illustrated in images 1 and 4 of Figure 4.10 and looking down the aisles for items as can be seen in images 2 and 3 of Figure 4.10. While Andrea is focused upon the action of shopping for a catering event, producing her caterer identity element in the foreground of her attention/ awareness, she simultaneously pays medium attention to the children sitting on her cart. Multiple modes are complexly intertwined as she is (co)constructing this action, producing a mother identity element in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness as illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.11. Andrea’s interaction with the three children, and her produced mother identity element, are modally complexly (co)constructed. She utilizes the modes of object handling, posture, proxemics (pushing the children on the cart), gaze (making sure the children are safe), and spoken language (warning

Figure 4.10 Medium modal density through modal complexity.

104


Figure 4.11 Andrea produces a mother identity element in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness through modal complexity.

the children of an upcoming turn). However, all of these modes are employed while Andrea focuses on shopping.

4.2.3 Medium Modal Density: Intensity Plus Modal Complexity In the following example, Andrea is shopping for a birthday present for a member in her network. Anna, Andrea, and the researcher have decided to buy a present together, and here, Andrea is calling Anna to talk to her about possibilities. Andrea is clearly focused upon the higher-level action of speaking with Anna about price, but at the very same time she speaks with the researcher, who is taking the video, saying sonst nehmen wir das (otherwise take we this) ‘otherwise we’ll take this one.’ With these two higher-level actions, Andrea produces two friend identity elements, one with Anna in the foreground, and one with the researcher in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness, as illustrated in the transcript in Figure 4.12. Andrea’s focused and her mid-grounded identity elements are illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.13. Here, the mid-grounded friend identity with the researcher is produced through intensity of the mode of spoken language and the mode of touch, and these two modes are complexly intertwined with the modes of posture, proxemics, and gaze.


105

Figure 4.12 Medium modal density through modal intensity plus modal complexity.

Figure 4.13

Andrea produces a friend identity element with the researcher in her midground of attention/awareness through modal intensity plus complexity.

106

4.3


Backgrounded Actions and Phenomenological Identity Production

Modal density, as mentioned above, diminishes proportionately to the amount of attention/awareness a social actor pays to an action and the phenomenological perception of identity elements that are concurrently produced. The further back in a social actor’s attention/awareness an action is (co)constructed and with it an identity element is (co)produced, the lower the modal density.

4.3.1 Low Modal Density: Intensity of a Mode When Anna was checking and distributing expenses of her shopping trip with Andrea for a catering event, Anna, as discussed so far, was paying focused attention to that action as illustrated in Figures 4.6 and 4.7. Simultaneously, she was paying medium attention to Andrea, who was sitting across from her, watching the children and commenting on their play as illustrated in Figures 4.8 and 4.9. When revisiting the third image in Figure 4.8, which is re-produced a little larger in Figure 4.14, we can see that Anna’s oldest son is standing behind her.

Figure 4.14 Low modal density through modal intensity.


107

Figure 4.15 Anna produces a mother identity element in the background of her attention/awareness through modal intensity.

When now revisiting Anna’s attention/awareness levels for these interactions, we ¿nd that she produces a caterer identity element in the foreground, a friend identity element with Andrea in the mid-ground, and a mother identity element in the background, as illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.15. While Anna was working with the receipt and listening to Andrea’s mocking, Anna was aware of her son standing behind her due to the closeness (the mode of proxemics), but she was not paying much attention to him, demonstrating low modal density through the employment of an intense mode.

4.3.2 Low Modal Density: Modal Complexity Low modal density can also come about through modal complexity. In the following example, Andrea and Anna are working on another catering event. Here, they are sitting at Anna’s kitchen table, making shopping lists. Andrea is the one who is writing the lists, while Anna adds up what needs to be bought for the recipes that they have chosen. While the two of them are concentrating on working, the children are playing quietly behind Andrea and to the right of Anna on the Àoor. Neither Andrea nor Anna are paying much attention to them. Focusing here on Andrea, we can say that she produces a mother identity element in the background of her attention/awareness. This moment is illustrated in Figure 4.16.

108


Figure 4.16 Low modal density through modal complexity.

Andrea, who in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness is waiting for a call from one of her friends, is focused on the higher-level action of writing the shopping lists. Simultaneously, she listens to the children, using the mode of spoken language; and she also utilizes her posture to listen to noise, steps, and toys, where the children are in the room (the mode of proxemics), and what they are doing. The attention/awareness levels that Andrea employs are illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.17. While a number of modes are used by Andrea for the higher-level action of watching the children, none of these modes take on particular intensity for Andrea at this time. The modes are complexly intertwined one working together with the others to monitor the children without getting involved in their play.

Figure 4.17 Andrea produces a mother identity element in the background of her attention/awareness through modal complexity.


109

4.3.3 Low Modal Density: Intensity Plus Modal Complexity Low modal density may also come about through modal intensity plus complexity, as in the next example, in which Andrea and Anna are still writing their shopping lists, but now Anna’s little daughter, Katie, has woken up from her nap and is sitting on Andrea’s lap as shown in Figure 4.18 below. Andrea is holding Katie using modal intensity plus complexity of the modes of touch, proxemics, and posture, which are all intense and complexly interlinked. Nevertheless, Andrea pays little attention to Katie at this moment. Andrea is focused upon the higher-level action of writing a shopping list, producing a caterer identity element; she is mid-grounding a higher-level

Figure 4.18 Low modal density through modal intensity plus complexity.

110


Figure 4.19 Andrea produces a mother identity element in the background of her attention/awareness through modal intensity plus complexity.

action with the researcher who is standing in the kitchen across from Andrea, producing a friend identity element with her as she is answering a question, saying doch das machen wir gleich (emph that do we soon) ‘we’ll do that soon’; and she is backgrounding the higher-level action of having sleepy Katie in her lap, producing a mother identity element. These three resulting identity element productions are illustrated in the graph in Figure 4.19. While Andrea does not pay much attention to Katie in her lap, she certainly is paying some phenomenological attention to her through the modes of touch, proxemics, and posture; and no doubt, she is aware of the sleepy child.

4.4

Modal Density: A Relational Notion

Modal intensity and/or complexity takes on different levels of density for social actors in interaction because of and in connection with the other actions that are being (co)constructed. When intensity and/or complexity builds high, medium, or low density for a social actor in interaction can—in fact—be determined only by looking at the (inter)action(s) holistically. As mentioned above, modal density—be it intensity of a mode, complexity through the interplay of many different modes, or through intensity and complexity of several modes—is always and only relational. While it appears easy to de¿ne a focused higher-level action, and much research investigates


111

only the focused attention of social actors in interaction, it is not as simple to de¿ne a mid-grounded or backgrounded higher-level action because these are always and only relational. A social actor who is engaged in simultaneous higher-level actions pays most attention to one (the focused higher-level action), pays a little less to another (the mid-grounded higher-level action), and pays even less to yet another (the backgrounded higher-level action). But just how the actions are multimodally (co)constructed and how modal density comes about in one higher-level action or another varies greatly. Thus, exactly when intensity or complexity or both build high, medium, or low modal density is always relational to how other higher-level actions are simultaneously (co)constructed. The concurrently produced identity elements are also in Àux, are always relational and not set as a given. As an example, Anna and Andrea often took turns mothering their children, and strangers often assigned all ¿ve to either Anna or Andrea. There were other times when the women took on an identity element of adult friend for the children of the other, producing a friend identity element with them.

4.4.1 Modal Density, Matched and Mismatched Attention Levels While social actors (co)construct actions, they do not have to (co)construct them with equal modal density. An action constructed with medium or low modal density by one participant can be (co)constructed with high modal density by another, thus resulting in mismatched attention levels producing the same identity element. An example of this is the interaction between Andrea and Anna in Figure 4.8. Anna’s higher-level action of interacting with Andrea as discussed above and illustrated in Figure 4.8 and re-presented in the ¿rst row of Figure 4.20 below, builds medium modal density, so that Anna produces a friend identity element with Andrea in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness level. Andrea, on the other hand, (co)constructs the higher-level action of interacting with Anna with high modal density, producing a friend identity element with Anna in her foreground of attention/awareness. Figure 4.20 shows a continuation of the interaction, taking a closer look at Andrea. As we recall, Andrea had said die Katie putzt. na was so’n richtiges Mädel ist das muss auch putzen. ‘Katie is cleaning. well what a real girl is also has to clean.’ and Anna had brieÀy looked at Andrea as she was saying this. Anna then returned her gaze to her paperwork and said hat’se von dir ‘she picked it up from you’ to which Andrea responds in disbelief, pointing at herself and saying von mir ‘from me?’ and then laughs as can be seen in the last image of Figure 4.20.

112


Figure 4.20 Andrea foregrounds the interaction with Anna, producing a friend identity element in her focus.

In Figure 4.20, we see that Andrea is speaking, looking, and reacting to Anna, illustrating high modal density at this very moment. Andrea focuses upon Anna. But, as demonstrated above in Figure 4.6 and in the continuation of the (inter)action in Figure 4.8, Anna pays more attention to her action of sorting out the bill than she pays attention to Andrea’s joking; and when looking at image 3 in Figure 4.20, we can see that Anna pays even less attention to her son than she does to Andrea as also discussed above. However, for her son, the interaction with his mother builds high modal density. For him, standing close to her and watching her work is his focus. Therefore, we arrive at the attention/awareness levels illustrated in Figure 4.21 for the three social actors in simultaneous interaction. In the given example, Anna focuses upon the bill, producing a caterer identity element in the foreground of her attention/awareness. Anna further engages with Andrea in joking, producing a friend identity element with Andrea in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness; and she engages with her son through the close proximity, producing a mother identity element with him in the background of her attention/awareness. In the same example, Andrea focuses upon her interaction with Anna, producing the friend identity element in her foreground of attention/awareness with Anna. Andrea further engages with the children, producing a mother identity element by watching her children in the mid-ground of her attention/awareness. Andrea pays little attention to sorting out the bill and engages with it only when


Figure 4.21 Three mismatched identity element productions in interaction.

113

114


Anna asks her a question in regard to it. Therefore, Andrea produces her catering identity element in the background of her attention/awareness. Also in the same example, Anna’s son focuses upon his mother and the actions she performs, producing a son identity element with his mother, Anna. Figure 4.21 illustrates the various identity elements that are produced through the actions the three social actors perform. During playback Anna explains: Audio transcript 4.1: Anna’s explanation of her interaction with Andrea during the video excerpt illustrated in Figures 4.6, 4.8, and 4.20. (1)

Anna:

ja die Andrea, yes the Andrea, ‘yes Andrea,’

(2)

die hat ja she has yes ‘she’

(3)

die hat mich unterhalten she has me chatted ‘chatted with me’

(4)

und auf die Kinder aufgepasst and the children watched ‘and watched the children’

(5)

mit dem Rechnen, with this math ‘this kind of math’

(6)

das interressiert die nicht so. that interests her not so. ‘does not interest her much.’

Audio transcript 4.2: Anna’s explanation of her interaction with her son and her own actions during the video excerpt illustrated in Figures 4.6, 4.8, and 4.20.4 (17) Anna:

ja der braucht manchmal die Nähe. yes he needs sometimes the closeness ‘yes, he sometimes needs closeness’


(18)

klar wusste ich dass der da stand, sure knew I that he there stood ‘of course I knew that he was standing there’

(19)

das ist doch mein Sohn. that is emphasis my son. ‘he is my SON.’

(20)

aber sonst but else ‘but other than that’

(21)

hab ich nicht über ihn nachgedacht have I not about him thought ‘I did not think about him’

(22)

in dem Moment at that moment ‘at the time’

(23)

und du warst ja auch noch da, and you were emphasis also also there, ‘and of course you were there as well’

(24)

aber dich hatte ich ganz vergessen. but you had I completely forgotten ‘but I had completely forgotten about you’

(25)

weisst du, know you, ‘you know,’

(26)

wenn ich so mit einer Rechnung beschäftigt bin, when I such with a bill work on, ‘when I am working on a bill like this,’

(27)

dann konzentrier ich mich total da drauf. then concentrate I myself totally on that. ‘then I completely concentrate on it’

115

116


(28)

ja, yes, ‘well,’

(29)

und Andrea is halt meine Freundin and Andrea she is emphasis my friend ‘and Andrea is my FRIEND’

(30)

bei der hab ich dann so halb zugehört and with she have I then such half listened ‘and I listened half-way to what she was saying’

(31)

und wenn der Shawn dann noch da steht, and when the Shawn then also there stands, ‘and when Shawn is also standing there,’

(32)

dann ist mir alles andere egal. then is me everything else unimportant. ‘then I don’t care about anything else.’

Audio transcript 4.3: Andrea’s explanation of her interaction with Anna during and her thoughts about the video excerpt illustrated in Figures 4.6, 4.8, and 4.20. (1)

Andrea:

ja du warst ja beschäftigt yes you were emphasis busy ‘well you were busy’

(2)

und da hab ich eben die Anna unterhalten and then I emphasis the Anna chatted ‘and so I chatted with Anna’

(3)

die hat sich ja auf den Partyservice konzentriert she has herself emphasis on the party service concentrated ‘she fully concentrated on the catering’

(4)

und ich hatte da keine Lust zu and I had there no interest in ‘and I didn’t feel like it’


117

(5)

bin schon froh wenn sie das macht mit den Rechnungen. am pretty happy when she that does with the bills. ‘I’m pretty happy when she takes care of the bills.’

(6)

ja, yes, ‘well,’

(7)

da pass ich dann lieber so auf die Kinder auf then watch I then rather to the children ‘I much prefer to watch the children’

(8)

die waren ja da in der Spielecke they were emphasis there in the play corner ‘they were in the play corner’

(9)

musste ich nicht viel aufpassen. had I not much to watch. ‘I did not have to watch them much.’

(10) Researcher: aber der Shawn but the Shawn ‘but Shawn’ (11) Andrea:

der brauchte mal seine Mama. he needed once his mom. ‘he just needed his mom.’

As the above excerpts of playback sessions demonstrate, social actors themselves speak of their own actions, while they invoke identity elements for others. I have found in this and several other studies that social actors in their everyday life usually focus upon the actions that they perform, while others in the environment perceive these actions as identity telling. However, there are also instances when social actors produce their identity element(s) consciously. An example of conscious identity production is a sociolinguistic interview that I employed several times during my research. In such an interview, social actors are focused upon their own identity production through the open-ended questions asked.

118


4.5

Interview, Site of Engagement, Action, and Modal Density

In this section, I give an example from one of the interviews with Anna. When interviewing as with all other collected data, I gave participants a choice of audio or video recording. For this interview, Anna chose audio recordings and I supplemented the recordings with ¿eld notes. During ¿eldwork, I had devised a way to record non-verbal behavior and objects used by the participants as shown in Figure 4.22. In this way, audio recorded interviews with their strong verbal content can still be analyzed multimodally. When quickly jotting down non-verbal behavior, we do not have time to spell things out. Therefore, we abbreviate as much as possible. In the method described here, relevant objects are given a shape plus general directional placement of the object by the social actor is indicated by arrows. While gaze (either at the interviewer or elsewhere) is recorded only through an arrow. Gestures are abbreviated in the following way: r/l/b (right/left/both) + f/s/b (forward/sideways/back) + o/c/u/d (open/closed/up/down) + pu/pd (palm up/palm down); and a retraction of the described gesture is recorded as g/ret. Posture is indicated through double-arrows, while legs (usually including feet) are described as l: r/l/b (legs: right/left/both) + f/s/b forward/sideways/ back. Similarly, shoulders are recorded as s: r/l/b (shoulders: right/left/both) + f/s/b (forward/sideways/back, and the same with shoulders plus trunk, but here we indicate s/t (shoulders/trunk) before the r/l/b (right/left/both) +f/s/b (forward/sideways/back). Depending upon the data, of course, a researcher may have to add other abbreviations. As long as you are consistent, these ¿eld notes will become very valuable. In the interviews below, we can see that a supplement of the audio records with these kinds of notes has yielded an analysis that would have been impossible without these notes on the social actor’s non-verbal behavior. The following interview illustrates: (a) that even during interviews, the mode of spoken language is interdependent upon the other modes employed; (b) how the notion of site of engagement is applied; and (c) how the notions of site of engagement and modal density are linked. A moment-to-moment analysis of speci¿c utterances and the accompanying non-verbal mediated actions exempli¿es how Anna brings into play some of the same modes to construct different identities. While a social actor cannot gaze in two different directions at one moment or cannot turn to two directions at the same time, a social actor can position the body in a way that constructs participation with several social actors on different levels simultaneously. In the following, excerpts of one interview are represented; for space reasons, I represent excerpts rather than the complete interview.


119

Figure 4.22 A quick method of jotting down some modal use during audio recorded interactions.

At the time of the interview, Anna was ironing, and she was watching an Italian TV program. Her two-year old daughter was playing on the Àoor behind her. This site of engagement came about one mid-morning in September 2000 when Anna let the researcher know that she had time for the interview. The site of engagement lasted for 35 minutes, during which Anna expressed her own ideas about her family, personal, friend, national, and transnational identity elements. The site of engagement ended when Anna

120


had ¿nished talking about her own view of her identity. At this point, she also stopped ironing. She turned the iron off and stepped away from the ironing board, moving into the kitchen to make lunch for the family. Anna spent most of the time speaking about her family identity element, while she spent much less time talking about her personal, friend, national, and international identity elements. This fact gives some insight into the importance that Anna places on certain identity elements during the time of telling. She gives highest priority to her family identity element, speaking for about half of the interview on this topic. Anna gives the next highest priority to her friend and her national identity elements, and less to her personal identity element. Anna places still less importance on her international identity element. Some of the information stated in the interview was veri¿ed throughout the ¿eldwork, while some information however was not in accordance with the observations. As Bourdieu (1977, 1990) notes, social actors are mostly unaware of their personal habitus. Therefore, it is not surprising that the participants do not comment on certain aspects of their identities during the interview, or state beliefs that are acceptable within the society, which, however, may be contradicted in the participants’ everyday lives.

4.5.1 Higher-Level Action: Personal Identity Anna spoke about her personal identity element for a brief moment. First, she discussed her personal identity element at the time before she married, and she then spent a brief moment on her current personal identity. Anna describes her personal identity element as something she has, but has and/or takes little time for. This current personal identity element appears to be consumed by her family identity, as she explains in transcripts 4.4–4.10, which are all part of one long interview as can be seen in the line numbers. Audio transcript 4.4: Anna speaks about herself (1)

Anna:

wie ich so bin? how I so am? ‘the way I am?’

(2)

Researcher: ja du bist, yes you are, ‘yes who you are,’


(3)

Anna:

121

tja ich ganz allein well I all alone ‘well I myself’

(4)

ich bin I am ‘I am’

(5)

zum Beispiel eine Leseratte for example a reading rat ‘a bookworm for example’

(6)

Researcher: Schlimme bad person ‘bad girl’

(7)

Anna:

mhm,

(8)

ich verschlinge Bücher, I devour books ‘I devour books’

(9)

ich puzzle gern, I puzzle like, ‘I like to do puzzles’

(10)

alles Sachen für die ich im Moment leider nicht die Zeit ¿nde, all things for which I at the moment unfortunately not the time ¿nd, ‘all things for which I currently don’t ¿nd the time,’

(11)

nicht die Zeit nehme, not the time take, ‘don’t take the time,’

(12)

ich den Platz nicht habe I the space not have ‘I don’t have the space for’

122


(13)

weil dafür müsste ich mir erst die Zeit nehmen because for this would have to I me ¿rst the time take ‘because for this I would ¿rst have to take the time’

(14)

aufzuräumen und Platz zu schaffen to clean up and space to make ‘to clean up and make some space’

(15)

aber es gibt so Sachen, but it gives such things, ‘but there are some things,’

(16)

also wie gesagt lesen und puzzeln, such as said read and puzzle, ‘as I said such as reading and puzzling,’

(17)

das sind so Dinge, that are such things, ‘these are things,’

(18)

darauf vergess ich alles andere. then forget I everything. ‘then I forget everything else.’

(19) Researcher: mhm. (20) Anna:

interessiert mich dann nicht, interested me then not, ‘then I’m not interested,’

(21)

dann interessiert mich gar nix mehr. then interests me nothing at all more. ‘then I’m interested in nothing else.’

(22) Researcher: aha. (23) Anna:

dann beschweren sich meine Kinder, then complain themselves my children, ‘then my children complain,’

(24)

dass ich für sie keine Zeit mehr habe und nichts mehr tue, that I for them no time more have and nothing more do, ‘that I have no time for them and do nothing for them,’


123

(25)

Sven beschwert sich, Sven complains himself, ‘Sven complains,’

(26)

dass nix mehr läuft, that nothing more runs, ‘that nothing gets done anymore.’

(27)

dass er nix zu Essen kriegt und was auch immer, that he nothing to eat gets and whatever else emphasis ever, ‘that he doesn’t get anything to eat and whatever else,’

Anna talks for a few more minutes about this topic, stating that she likes sewing and other practical things. Then, a lower level of a higher-level action is opened up by Anna placing the iron on the ironing board, and is closed by her picking it up again as illustrated in Figure 4.23. This action is comprised of only a few seconds, during which Anna utters the following words: Audio transcript 4.5: Anna emphasizes the impossibility for her to do what she likes (58) Anna:

dann BESCHWEREN sich alle anderen then COMPLAIN themselves all others ‘then everybody COMPLAINS’

(59)

weil sie sich vernachlässigt fühlen. because they themselves neglected feel. ‘because they feel neglected.’

After having placed the iron on the ironing board, Anna straightens her upper body to an erect position and faces the interviewer directly. Her gaze meets the interviewer’s and she employs a gesture. The stroke of the gesture coincides with the word BESCHWEREN ‘COMPLAIN’. With her palm down, she moves her right hand/arm forward and away from her body, before retracting the arm. With this gesture Anna emphasizes the impossibility for her to do what she likes doing, because her family reminds her of her responsibilities. During these few seconds of this lower level of a higher-level action, Anna employs all of the modes discussed so far displaying Anna’s focus on her personal identity. The modes of proxemics (which however has not changed), posture, gaze, gesture, and spoken language are employed simultaneously and interdependently. Anna utilizes all of these modes to emphasize

124


Figure 4.23 Recorded modal use in ¿eld notes.

her point (that her family complains when she does take time for herself): she stands up in an erect position, gazes at the interviewer making eye contact, gestures, and speaks all at the same time. None of the modes employed are more distinct than the other modes. In this instance however, the distinctness lies in the multiplicity and intricacy of modes employed. At the same time, Anna still employs the mode of proxemics to her daughter, portraying her family identity. Anna concludes her utterance and her voice fades out when she says ‘fühlen feel’. At the same time, she looks down as her shoulders move forward and she picks up the iron and proceeds with her action of ironing. The identities on the identity continuum have just shifted again helfen

helping

ich helf dir dich zu ¿nden

I’m helping you to ¿nd yourself

ich helfe dir deinen weg zu gehen

I’m helping you to ¿nd your way


das sagst du mir . . .

that’s what you tell me . . .

und dabei halte ich mich fest an dir

but instead I am holding on to you

125

4.5.2 Higher-Level Action: Family Identity When Anna picks up the iron, she constructs the closing of the prior higherlevel action and also the opening of the next higher-level action. At this moment in time, just long enough for Anna to take a long deep breath, Anna focuses on her family identity, before she starts talking about her friend identity as shown in Figure 4.24.


126


While Anna picks up the iron, she turns back and gazes brieÀy at her daughter, then turns around and places the iron on the piece of clothing in front of her, closing this site of engagement and opening the next. Here, Anna utilizes the modes of proxemics (although it has not changed), posture (by turning her trunk around), and gaze (looking at Katie), constructing the focus on her family identity. Again, these modes are closely intertwined and one could not be employed without at least some of the others. While Anna does not employ the mode of spoken language in this instance, the multiplicity of modes that she does utilize construct this as a separate higher-level action with a distinct focus, which developed—at least in part—through her prior discourse.

4.5.3 Higher-Level Action: Friend Identity When Anna breathes out, she constructs the closing of the higher-level action above by turning her trunk back to the prior position, gazing at the ironing board. She opens a new site of engagement by starting her next utterance with the drawn-out ich ähm ‘I ahm’, switching the topic to her friend identity. Anna moves the iron across the piece of clothing when she starts her utterance: Audio transcript 4.6: Anna speaks about how she views friendships (61) Anna:

ich ähm ‘I ahm’

(62)

pÀege ganz INTENSIV (1), cultivate very INTENSIVELY (1), ‘very INTENSIVELY cultivate (1),’

(63)

die Kontakte zu meinen Freunden, the contacts to my friends, ‘contact with my friends’

(64)

das ist was that is something ‘that is something’

(65)

was mir unheimlich wichtig ist. what to me impossibly important is. ‘that is of utmost importance to me.’



127

128


Figure 4.25 illustrates that at the beginning of the utterance in line 61, Anna’s gaze is focused on her ironing. While saying pÀege ‘cultivate’(line 62), she looks at the researcher in direct gaze, lets go of the iron, straightens her posture, and performs a gesture, which starts when she utters ganz ‘very’. Anna moves both of her arms out in front of her upper body, spreading the arms to the sides, opening her palms upward. The stroke of the gesture coincides with the word INTENSIV ‘INTENSIVELY’. This gesture reproduces and, therefore, emphasizes her utterance. The opening of the hands outward shows the amount of importance she places on cultivating her friendships. She pauses for one second after this word, putting even more emphasis on this message. Anna then continues her utterance, saying die Kontakte zu meinen Freunden. ‘the contacts with my friends.’ (line 63). During the words die Kontakte ‘the contacts,’ she performs the retraction of her gesture, putting her right hand on the iron, the left on the piece of clothing, and adjusting her posture. She gazes down at her ironing during the words zu meinen Freunden ‘with my friends’, then gazes at the researcher again, this time without adjusting her posture, while she says das ist was was mir unheimlich wichtig ist ‘that is something that is of utmost importance to me.’ (lines 64 and 65). At the end of this utterance, she moves her gaze down and focuses for the next stretch of spoken language on her ironing. There is no perceptible pause in the string of talk, yet Anna’s eye gaze clearly marks the end of this higher-level action. During these few seconds of this lower-level higher-level action, Anna employs all of the embodied modes discussed so far, focusing on her friend identity. She then comments on her husband before she returns to speaking about her friends: Audio transcript 4.7: Anna speaks more about friends (80) Anna:

also ich hab auch well I have also ‘well I also have’

(81)

zum Beispiel viele Freunde, for example many friends, ‘many friends for example,’

(82)

die sich untereinander überhaupt nicht mögen, who each other at all not like, ‘who do not get along with each other at all,’


(83)

129

die so ganz unterschiedlich sind who so very different are ‘who are very different’

(84) Researcher: mhm (85) Anna:

die oft auch sehr eifersüchtig sind, who often also very jealous are, ‘who are often even very jealous of each other,’

(86)

so sind zum Beispiel im Moment, so are for example at the moment, ‘at the moment for example,’

(87)

die meisten halt the most emphasis ‘most of them are really’

(88)

unheimlich eifersüchtig auf Andrea utmost jealous of Andrea ‘very jealous of Andrea’


weil wir sehr viel Zeit miteinander verbringen, because we very much time with each other spend, ‘because we spend a lot of time together,’

(91)

aber wie gesagt but as said ‘but as I said’

(92)

trotzdem pÀege ich auch diese anderen Sachen. nevertheless cultivate I also these other things. ‘nevertheless I also cultivate those friendships.’

(93) Researcher: mhm While this friend identity element could also be taken as part of her personal identity element, the interview and the ¿ndings recorded in my ¿eld notes

130


suggest that Anna clearly distinguishes between the two. Anna repeatedly emphasizes the fact that friendships need active participation. Also, to her, this friend identity element is more actively emphasized and thus appears to be more important to her, than her personal identity element. The friend identity element—as Anna perceives it—is something she does, while the personal identity element—as Anna perceives it—is something she is. While she negates her being, she embraces her doing. ich gehe

I’m walking

ich gehe und ich weiss nicht wohin

I’m walking and I don’t know where

der weg schlängelt sich wie wie ein Àuss—

the path winds itself like a river—

ich sehe eine biegung vor mir

I see a bend ahead of me

und wandere ich diese kurve entlang enthüllt sich gleich eine neue

and once I wander along this bend another one instantly becomes visible

ich gehe doch wohin dieser weg mich führt das weiss ich nicht

I’m walking but where this path will lead I do not know

ich lade dich ein komm doch ein stück mit!

I invite you walk with me for a stretch!

4.5.4 Higher-Level Action: Italian Identity Without a perceptible pause in her string of utterances, Anna opens the next higher-level action, again by standing the iron on the ironing board and straightening her posture, looking at the researcher as can be seen in Figure 4.26.



Audio transcript 4.8: Anna speaks about her connection with Italy (94) Anna:

und was mir auch ganz wichtig ist, and what me also very important is, ‘and what is also very important to me,’

(95)

dass ist so mein, that is so my, ‘that’s my,’

(96)

ja wie soll ich sagen, yes how shall I say, ‘well how shall I put it,’

(97)

meine Verbindung nach Italien. my connection to Italy. ‘my connection with Italy.’


das ist mir auch, that is me also, ‘that’s also,’

(100)

mir persönlich ganz wichtig, myself personally very important, ‘very important to me personally,’

131

132


(101)

einmal für mich once for myself ‘¿rstly for myself’


und zum Zweiten auch für meine Kinder. and to the second also for my children. ‘and secondly also for my children.’

After these lines, Anna makes a personal comment, and then continues her ironing and speaks more about her Italian identity. As the researcher asks her if she feels Italian or German, she says: Audio transcript 4.9: Anna speaks more about her national identities (112) Anna:

beides. both. ‘both.’

(113)

beides, both, ‘both,’

(114)

ich kann nicht sagen, I cannot say ‘I can’t say’

(115)

ich fühl mich deutsch I feel myself German ‘I feel German’

(116)

oder ich fühl mich italienisch. or I feel myself Italian. ‘or I feel Italian’

(117)

ich bin immer hin und her gerissen. I am always back and forth ripped. ‘I am always torn.’


133

These statements focus on her conscious thoughts about the two identities, and she goes into some detail to explain just how dif¿cult and torn she has felt because of the two national identity elements. In her everyday life actions, however, she juggles her two national identities without much dif¿culty, as will become apparent throughout this book. For example, the interview is conducted in German, while an Italian TV and/or music program is playing on the television. Yet, her conscious thought about these identity elements diverge quite drastically from her enacted life. Just how thoughts, feelings, and actions are connected (or disconnected) will be discussed further in later chapters as well. Anna then continues to speak about several other topics. Finally, as Anna had been speaking more about how she takes no time for herself, but then slows down her speech, the researcher closes the topic and asks Anna a question, opening the following higher-level action.

4.5.5 Higher-Level Action: Caterer Identity Once Anna begins to talk in line 391 (Figure 4.27), she again places the iron onto the board, straightens her posture, and gazes at the interviewer.


Audio transcript 4.10: Anna speaks about the catering (388) Researcher: gut. good. ‘OK.’

134


(389)

wie wichtig ist dir die Zeit für den Partyservice, how important is you the time for the catering, ‘how important is the time you take for the catering,’

(390)

wie wichtig ist dir das? how important is you that? ‘how important is that for you?’

(391) Anna:

och das ist mir wichtig, oh that is me important, ‘oh that is important to me,’

(392)

aber es muss sich einfügen in alles andere. but it has to itself ¿t into all others. ‘but it has to ¿t with everything else.’

(393)

es muss sich in mein Familienleben einfügen, it has to itself in my family life ¿t, ‘it has to ¿t with my family life,’

(394)

ich werde nicht dafür mein ganzes Familienleben umkrämpeln I will not for that my whole family life change ‘I wouldn’t change my whole family life for it’

(395)

oder hier irgendetwas einschränken dafür. or here anything limit for that. ‘or constrain something.’

(396)

das kann, that can, ‘it is,’

(397)

das ist nicht mein neuer Lebensinhalt that is not my new life meaning ‘it isn’t my new life ful¿llment’

(398)

und auch nicht mein Lebensmittelpunkt. and also not my life middle point. ‘and also not the most important thing in my life.’



das ist mir schon wichtig it is me still important ‘it is however important to me’

(401)

und ich bin auch froh, and I am also glad, ‘and I am HAppy,’

(402)

dass es so gut läuft, that it so well runs, ‘that it’s going so well,’

(403)

aber but ‘however’

(404)

ich seh das ein bisschen gelassen I see that a bit leisurely ‘I’m pretty relaxed about it’


es muss auch machbar bleiben ne. it has to also doable stay yes. ‘it has to be doable you know.’

(407)

aber das hab ich auch von Anfang an gesagt, but that have I also from the beginning on said, ‘but I have also said this from the very beginning,’

(408)

also ich weiß, so I know, ‘I know for example,’

(409)

dass Andrea das ein bisschen anders sieht. that Andrea that a little differently sees. ‘that Andrea looks at this a bit differently.’

135

136


For Anna, the business indicates something about her personal identity, which is—at least to some extent—negated by her family identity element. She ¿rst assures that she would not change her family life for the business, and then states in lines 397 and 398 that it is not her new ful¿llment or the most important thing in her life. In this account, the caterer identity element is not about her identity as a business owner, but is perceived as a part of her personal identity element. However, in everyday life her business identity element can be perceived in many interactions as separate from her personal identity element. Con¿guration of identity elements is always dependent upon the situation as well as upon the other participants that social actors interact with.5 Needless to say, Anna strongly constructs a caterer identity element when interacting with clients, while the caterer identity element in Anna’s view at home is constructed as part of her personal identity element. This reÀects some of the constant organization and re-organization of the identity elements of a social actor, which is discussed further in chapter 6. sorgen

worries

sorgen soll der mensch haben

everyone should have their

sorgen um die er sich dann kümmern kann

worries that they can take care of

besorgt soll der mensch sein

everyone should be worried

besorgt genug sorgen zu haben um sein leben nicht zu vergeuden

worried to have enough to worry so not to waste their life

sorgend vergeudet so der mensch sein besorgtes leben

worried hence everyone wastes their worried life

und macht sich keine sorgen darum

and does not worry about it

4.6

Site of Engagement, Interview, Actions, and Identity

The notion of site of engagement can be a valuable delineator even when investigating interviews. According to Scollon (1998), and as discussed previously, a

Site of Engagement, Interview, Actions, and Identity

137

site of engagement is the window opened up that makes an interaction possible. A site of engagement encompasses the time, place, histories of social actors, objects and the environment, and the practices that make the actions that are being constructed possible. The notion of site of engagement is an ephemeral concept that is deeply important to illuminate the historical authenticity, and the situatedness of all actions.6 The scope of the term site of engagement is wider than the terms event or activity. A site of engagement incorporates the practices that social actors have learned through socialization, which are embedded not only in the social actors’ psychological make-up and in the given environment, but are also in the situation and the other social actors, who (co)construct the realtime action. Practices themselves, of course, also incorporate the historicity of actions that are possible and made possible in a particular society at a particular time-place with particular social actors. The example of the sites of engagement of an interview above illustrates that actions come about at a certain moment in time, in a certain place, within a historical moment. All identity-telling actions not only come about through Anna utilizing the communicative mode of spoken language, but language is also intricately intertwined with many other modes. The meaning of the mode of spoken language is partially constructed and also emphasized through the gestures, the posture, and the gaze that Anna employs. At the same time, the meaning of the posture, the gesture, and the gaze are partially constructed and emphasized through the mode of spoken language. Spoken language alone would not carry the very same meaning as all of these modes together, just as any other mode alone would not carry the same meaning without her using the mode of spoken language. While the informative value of the mode of spoken language is undoubtedly higher than that of any of the other modes employed to (co)construct her narrative account, the communicative value, allowing social actors to draw inferences, is necessarily heightened by Anna’s employment of the modes of posture, gaze, and gesture. Intertwined with her narrative and of particular importance is Anna’s use of the iron and her use of posture, gaze, and gesture to delineate one spoken higher-level action from another. All of the modes play together, and their intricacy allows for an integrative meaning making and displays the focus of the speaker. The second higher-level action, during which Anna is taking a deep inbreath, is just a moment between utterances, a moment that in traditional discourse studies is termed a short pause. However, this multimodal analysis illustrated that it is not a pause at all; it is rather a moment of re-focusing during which Anna brieÀy monitors her daughter’s activities and focuses on her own identity as a mother.

138


Anna’s actions in the site of engagement (or in this particular sociolinguistic interview) focus upon her identity. She portrays herself, and this self-portrait tells of Anna’s habitus, about her memory, and about how she embeds herself within her family, her network, and society at the time-place of telling. While spoken language primarily allows a social actor to produce identity sequentially, the use of other modes allows a social actor to produce simultaneous actions and identity elements. When Anna looks back to check on her daughter while pausing in her speech, she apparently produces her mother identity sequentially. However, she in fact produces her mother identity element throughout the interview, but focuses only upon her child at this very moment. A lack of focused attention, however, does not indicate a lack of all attention as discussed earlier. During the interview, Anna for the most part pays more attention to the telling of her narrative accounts and to the researcher than she pays attention to her daughter. However, she has neither forgotten that her daughter is playing behind her, nor is she completely unaware of the child. At the moment when she does turn around to focus on the child, Anna has just spoken about her family complaining when she does what she likes, performing her perceived personal identity element, but at the same time, the child has been very quiet for a moment. It is in part the lack of noise that draws Anna’s focused attention to her daughter. Simultaneously, Anna produces a participant identity element during the interview, because this interview comes about only because of the research. While during everyday interaction, the identity that Anna or Andrea often produce with the researcher is in fact a friend identity element, at some particular moments, the participant identity element takes on precedence. Simultaneous identity productions are what I have termed horizontal identity productions, and it is particularly simultaneous—or horizontal—identity production, which is discussed in detail in the next chapter.

Notes 1. For mind and thought see: Bateson (1972); Chafe (1994); Hegel (1988); Holland and Quinn (1987); Rogoff (1990); Vygotsky (1978); Wertsch (1985). 2. See also: Norris (2004). 3. Here, transcripts are kept fairly bare in order to focus the reader upon the points made, only. 4. This is a continuation of the above transcript.

Notes

139

5. Also see Wodak et al., 2000. 6. My notion of social-time-place is broader than the site of engagement. Socialtime-place incorporates the overarching social, historical, and environmental embeddedness: for this study it would be the social structures in the year 2000 in Germany.

Chapter 5 Horizontal Identity Production; and Mastery and Appropriation of Identity Elements . . . one’s actions produce one as a person who is competent or not in some social practice, and in the second place, they produce one as someone with an identity . . . Scollon (2001b:142)

This chapter concentrates on the production of multiple identity elements, showing how social actors can orchestrate several identity elements simultaneously by utilizing various or the same communicative modes. The focus of this chapter is the simultaneous or horizontal identity production hinted at in the last chapter.1 Again, the modal density foreground-background continuum of attention/awareness levels facilitates the visualization of this concept. The term horizontal refers to the fact that identities are produced simultaneously through concurrent higher-level actions. The notion of horizontal identity production implies that a social actor produces several identity elements often with several social actors, objects, and the environment and always through the employment of various communicative modes simultaneously.2 A foreground-background continuum helps analyze this notion. The higher-level action that a social actor focuses on in a given moment in time, thereby producing a particular identity element, is the foregrounded identity element; the higher-level action which a social actor is aware of, but does not focus on, thereby producing a particular identity element, is a midgrounded identity element; and the higher-level action which the social actor is unaware of and does not focus on, thereby producing a particular identity element, is the backgrounded identity element. As the term continuum suggests, this concept proposes that there are more than the three positions of foreground, mid-ground, and background. As discussed in chapter 2, all identity elements positioned on the continuum are situated in relation to one another, and the analysis always starts at the focal point of interaction, and proceeds from there. Modal density helps us identify which higher-level action a social actor is focused upon, which higher-level actions the social actor mid- and

142

Horizontal Identity Production

backgrounds during simultaneous (co)construction of actions and the resulting (co)production of identity elements. Modal density is not a quanti¿able notion. Modal density—with either modal intensity or modal complexity or both—is a relational notion. It is possible to determine where to place the higher-level actions (or the concurrently resulting identity elements) on the heuristic foreground-background continuum of attention/awareness only if we investigate all of the simultaneous actions. The next section illustrates how such an analysis is conducted. Here, Anna produces several identity elements simultaneously.

5.1

Horizontal Interwoven Identity Elements

In the following example, Andrea is sitting in Anna’s kitchen, telling Anna about a text-message exchange that she has had with her almost ex-husband that morning. Andrea’s then almost ex-husband was living elsewhere and had the habit of scheduling visits with their children, which, in the last minute would not come about. Here, as illustrated in Figure 5.1, Andrea tells Anna the newest reiteration of the ostensible scheduling time with the children, and Anna produces several identity elements simultaneously. While Andrea is sitting at the kitchen table, Anna is putting groceries away while listening to Andrea’s story. During this segment of interaction, Anna focuses her attention on moving the groceries that she had just bought and brought in from her car before Andrea came into her kitchen. Through this higher-level action, Anna produces her family identity element, constructing herself as a housewife, a segment-identity element that is subsumed in Anna’s family identity. She deliberately takes objects and food items off of the bench onto where she had placed them earlier and stores them away in the refrigerator or cupboard or places them on the kitchen counter. Anna utilizes the modes of proxemics, posture, walking, gaze, and object handling in a complexly intricate way, producing high modal density. Every social actor coming into the kitchen would be able to read off Anna’s focus at this time. In the transcript in Figure 5.1, Anna takes three trips from the bench to place items elsewhere in the kitchen. Only in images 1 and 16, when Anna is closest to Andrea who is sitting on a chair at the table next to the bench, and in images 9 to 11 when Anna is approaching the bench to pick up items, does she gaze at Andrea. In images 8, 9, and 12, Anna uses backchannel responses, saying ja ‘yes’ ja ‘yes and naja gut. ‘oh well ¿ne.’ Anna uses spoken language twice (image 8 and 12) without looking at Andrea. Her backchannels and her


143

tone imply that she has heard similar stories many times before, that this is nothing new, and that it all was to be expected. Anna’s facial expression, however, in images 9 to 11 and particularly in image 10 is worried, checking up on her friend Andrea, to see if she is O.K. Once she has realized that Andrea is dealing well with the situation, she no longer spends time gazing at her until the end of Andrea’s story, when she laughs with Andrea. Throughout this segment, Anna mid-grounds the higher-level action of listening to Andrea by: using the modes of spoken language (listening and back channeling); the mode of gaze (intermittently looking at Andrea when her higher-level action of moving groceries allows this); and the mode of facial expression. Facial expression is the lower-level action that Anna uses most strongly in this brief mid-grounded excerpt of the interaction, demonstrating that she is concerned about what Andrea is saying. Simultaneously, Anna interacts with her children, who are all playing close by, and Nick can be seen in the images in Figure 5.1. This interaction is (or these interactions to be more speci¿c) are backgrounded in Anna’s attention/awareness. The children are content at this time and there is no need to pay much attention to them. This backgrounded interaction is produced through the mode of proxemics and the mode of spoken language (Anna listening to the children on some level). Modal density is thus much lower than the modal density she uses for the mid-grounded higher-level action with Andrea or the foregrounded higher-level action of stowing the groceries away. Anna’s arranging the groceries in the foreground of her attention produces her family identity element in the foreground of her attention. She interacts with Andrea in the mid-ground of her attention, producing her friend identity element; and she interacts with her children in the background of her attention, producing her mother identity element. Figure 5.2 illustrates the identity elements that Anna produces simultaneously.

5.1.1 Focused Higher-Level Actions and Parallel Identity Element Production While social actors can only (co)construct one higher-level action in the focus of their attention, one and the same focused higher-level action can produce more than one identity element. At the same time as Anna produces the family identity element in the foreground, Andrea produces two identity elements in the foreground. The higher-level action that Andrea engages in is the action of telling her friend Anna about the text messages her almost ex-husband has sent her. Through this narrative, Andrea produces both a friend identity

144


Figure 5.1 Anna’s horizontal identity production.


145

146


element with Anna and a divorcee identity element through the topic of the narrative. Without going into too much detail here, as this notion is discussed in depth in the next chapter, I do wish to point out that Andrea’s focused identity production is mismatched with Anna’s as can be seen when comparing Figures 5.2 and 5.3.

Figure 5.2 Anna’s simultaneous identity production during the excerpt in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.3 Andrea’s friend identity element with Anna during the excerpt in Figure 5.1 and her simultaneously produced divorcee identity element.


147

As these two graphs in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 demonstrate, Andrea pays full attention to the interaction with Anna, telling her the narrative, while Anna only mid-grounds the same interaction.

hilfe

help

dein ton schreit nach hilfe

your tone screams for help

doch ich helfe dir nicht

yet I am not helping you

du musst dir selber helfen nicht ich

you have to help yourself not I

mein ton sagt dir ich glaube an dich

my tone tells you I believe in you

dein ton wird ruhig und sicher

your tone becomes calm and con¿dent

5.1.2 Matched and Mismatched Levels of Attention in Interactions Identity is continually produced, read off, and reacted to during interaction. Social actors are aware of another’s attention levels, and interaction runs particularly smoothly when the social actors in interaction use the expected attention level for the (co)constructed action. The expectation is not, as one may at ¿rst believe, always a matching of attention levels among social actors involved in interaction. Sometimes, it is in fact the mismatch of levels of attention that is sought. Most important is the matching of expectations of attention levels. As, when two (or more) social actors have different expectations in (co)constructing a certain interaction, the interaction can become strained. Attention levels are continuously adjusted as will be illustrated in the next chapter. However, here, it is important to mention for horizontal identity production, that the same attention level in all social actors involved is not necessarily the favored constellation.

148


While social actors sometimes seek focused attention from one another, focused attention is not always expected or sought. Often, in interaction, the mid-grounded attention level of another is preferred by the one focusing upon a certain action (as the narration in the example of Andrea and Anna above). Focused attention of a listener in interaction, for example, brings with it a certain amount of pressure. When a social actor focuses upon a narrator, the listener monitors the narrator, asserting a certain kind of pressure onto the narrator. When, however, a listener uses a mid-grounded attention level when listening to a narrator, this allows the interlocutor to express themselves freely without the felt pressure of being fully monitored. The mid-ground of attention of another for this reason is often sought by social actors. It is a comfortable and comforting level of attention, where interaction is accomplished with ease and taken for granted while something else is done by at least one of the social actors involved. It is the mid-ground where the naturalness (Selbstverständlichkeit) of interaction occurs, where the social actors predominantly experience a sense of belonging and of togetherness. Here, interaction relies more upon the metamessage than the message, and successful interaction in the mid-ground is possible only through a deep understanding between the social actors involved. If such deep understanding is not apparent, focused attention is needed to comprehend, repair, and empathize. In a focus group discussion, a friend of Andrea’s, Käthe, explains: Audio transcript 5.1: Käthe speaking about her marriage (1)

Käthe:

aber jetzt muss ich sagen but now must I say ‘but I have to say’

(2)

und durch diesen ganzen Krempel von Andrea and through this whole stuff from Andrea ‘and because of all of Andrea’s trouble’

(3)

und auch von anderen Freunden, and also from other friends, ‘and also that of other friends,’

(4)

man lernt draus, one learns from that, ‘one can learn from it,’

(5)

ich hab das als Chance gesehen I have that as chance seen ‘I saw it as a chance’


(6)

Researcher: mhm

(7)

Käthe:

(8)

(9)

und der Max auch and the Max also ‘and Max did too’ und wir haben gearbeitet and we have worked ‘and we worked’

Researcher: gut. good. ‘O.K.’

(10) Käthe:

und das hat uns die Augen geöffnet. and that has us the eyes opened. ‘and it opened our eyes.’

(11) Researcher: ja. yes. ‘O.K.’ (12) Käthe:

dann haben wir mal reinen Tisch gemacht, then have we once cleared table done, ‘then we had a heart-to-heart’

(13)

mal so ein paar Sachen aufgearbeitet once such a few things worked through ‘we worked through a few things’

(14)

und mal geguckt and once looked ‘and took a closer look at’

(15)

warum der eine vom anderen why the one from the other ‘why one was’

(16)

ja enttäuscht ist yes disappointed is ‘disappointed in the other’

149

150


(17)

und äh and ahm ‘and ahm’

(18)

man ihn nicht versteht. one them not understands. ‘why one doesn’t understand the other’

(19) Researcher: mhm (20) Käthe:

und dann and then ‘and at that point’

(21)

kommen dann so Sachen come then such things ‘then these and those things’

(22)

und Dinge auf’n Tisch and things on the table ‘come to the open’

(23)

und wenn man das dann weiß and when one that then knows ‘and once you know this’

(24) Researcher: dann ist es einfach then is it easy ‘then it’s easy’ (25) Käthe:

wenn man wirklich miteinander redet when one really with each other talks ‘when you really talk to each other’


und sich nicht nur Vorwürfe macht and each not only complaints makes ‘and when one not only complaints about the other’

(28) Researcher: mhm


(29) Käthe:

151

dann kommt so eine ganze Menge raus. then comes so a whole lot out. ‘then lots of things come out.’


aber so but so ‘but now‚’

(32)

akzeptiert jetzt jeder jeden, accepts now each the other ‘we accept each other’

(33)

seinen Freiraum. each free space. ‘and the space we need.’

As the excerpt of Käthe’s narrative explains, focused attention is needed when things are going wrong, when an underlying deep understanding of the other is not a given. Here, Käthe explains that she and Max had heart-to-heart conversations in order to save their marriage. They looked at Andrea’s ongoing divorce and decided that they did not want their marriage to go in that direction, realizing that a successful long-term relationship is built upon a deep understanding and acceptance of the other. This deep understanding has to be built and fostered through focused interaction. Thus, here we see that focused interaction is an important component of interaction, but it is not the only important component. Participants, as Käthe above, allude to focused interaction in order to build or repair, while mid-grounded attention is sought for the feeling of belonging and connectedness. Andrea, for example, said to Anna at several points the following and similar utterances during the study: Audio transcript 5.2: Andrea telling Anna how much she enjoys spending time with her (1)

(2)

Andrea:

das ist so richtig schön bei dir. that is so really nice with you. ‘it is so very nice to be with you.’ ich kann kommen I can come ‘I can come’

152


(3)

wann ich will when I want ‘whenever I like’

(4)

und du and you ‘and you’

(5)

hörst mir immer zu listen me always to ‘always listen to me’

(6)

egal was du gerade machst. no matter what you at the moment do. ‘no matter what you are doing.’

Here, Andrea does not request Anna’s focused attention, but rather expresses the fondness of the times with Anna while Anna is involved in some other kind of focused attention. I asked Andrea about this speci¿cally during playback (and have asked many other social actors in many other interactions ever since, who all give very similar responses). Audio transcript 5.3: Andrea speaks about her interaction with Anna in the video excerpt illustrated in the transcript in Figure 5.1 and similar interactions (1)

Researcher: wenn du zur Anna kommst when you to Anna comes ‘when you are at Anna’s’

(2)

dann hat die ja meistens irgendwas zu tun then has she yes often something else to do ‘then she usually has something else she is doing’

(3)

und irgendwie hört sie dir ahm and somehow hears she you ahm ‘and somehow she does’

(4)

nicht so zu not so to ‘not listen to you’


(5)

wie du mir jetzt zuhörst as you me now listens ‘as you are listening to me right now’

(6)

weisst du, know you ‘you know’

(7)

sie hört dir schon zu she listens you also to ‘she does listen to you’

(8)

aber sie konzentriert sich eigentlich but she concentrates herself really ‘but she is actually concentrating’

(9)

auf was anderes. upon something other ‘on something else’

(10) Andrea:

klar doch. sure emphasis. ‘of course.’

(11)

muss sie auch must she also ‘and she has too as well’

(12)

soll sie auch should she also ‘and she should too’

(13)

ich ¿nd es nur schön I ¿nd it just nice ‘I just think it’s nice’

(14)

dass ich reden kann that I talk can ‘that I can talk’

153

154


(15)

und sie versteht mich einfach and she understands me just ‘and she just understands’

(16) Researcher: und dass sie sich auf was anderes ahm and that she herself on something else ahm ‘and that she ahm’ (17)

konzentriert? concentrates ‘concentrates on something else?’

(18) Andrea:

jaha yehes ‘well’

(19)

sie kennt mich ja she knows me yes ‘she does know me well’

(20)

da brauch man das nicht immer then need one that not always ‘then one doesn’t always need that’

(21)

will ich auch gar nicht want I also at all not ‘I really don’t want that either’

(22)

wär ja komisch would be emphasis strange ‘that would actually be strange’

(23)

dann hätt ich das Gefühl then would have I the feeling ‘then I’d have the feeling’

(24)

die versteht mich nich she understands me not ‘she doesn’t understand me’

Identity: Mastery and Appropriation

(25)

155

wenn sie an jedem Wort hängen würd. if she on each word hang would. ‘if she hung on my every word.’

In general, in everyday interactions, attention levels may be mismatched, and mismatched attention levels are comforting in situations where interlocutors truly understand each other. This often is possible in family interactions and interactions among close friends. Such non-given focus presents acceptance and exerts the feeling of belonging. When, however, a true understanding in interaction is not given or new understanding is sought, matched focused interaction is required in order to give and receive the messages necessary to interact successfully. When social actors produce several identity elements on different levels of their attention/awareness, we can speak of horizontal identity production. Besides horizontal simultaneous identity production, identity is also produced vertically, as discussed in the next chapter. I now move on to the practice of magazine-reading hour and mastery versus appropriation of identity elements.

5.2


Mastery and appropriation of identity elements are important aspects of horizontal identity construction. Mastery and appropriation of identity elements is perceptible in the cultural tools that the participants utilize; however, mastery and appropriation of identity elements becomes perceptible only through ethnographic ¿eldwork and the employment of visual research methods. To elucidate how mastery and appropriation work in identity production, I ¿rst discuss a nexus of practice of the participants (Scollon, 2001b), which I call the ‘ritual magazine-reading hour’. After discussion of the magazinereading hour, I illustrate the interplay of several identity elements within an informal sociolinguistic interview of Andrea, illustrating that she, too, produces several identity elements simultaneously. Horizontal identity production of the interviews starts with the focal point of attention of the interaction, here, the verbal identity production by the participants. The analysis then radiates to other simultaneous productions of identity by the participants. One simultaneously produced identity element is the participant identity element, which is (co)produced strongly by the participants and the researcher and then, during the interview, is backgrounded by all social actors.

156


5.2.1 Magazines and Identity Production Both women are avid readers, often reading magazines together. The magazines are of particular interest here, because whenever one of the women bought a magazine, she would share it with her friend. During ¿eldwork, the researcher was soon integrated into this nexus of practice and able to share magazines that she bought. ‘A nexus of practice is de¿ned as the intersection or linkage of multiple practices such that some group comes to recognize “the same” set of actions’ (Scollon, 2001b:5). This sharing of magazines had a certain ritualstructure: One woman would invite the others to have coffee with her. At this time all magazines would be brought and stacked in the middle of the table. Then, during coffee and talk, each participant would take whichever magazine she was interested in. In Figure 5.4, we see Andrea and the researcher reading magazines, while Anna is making coffee in the background. The women read several magazines of different kinds: women, home furnishing, gardening, children, and education. Magazines, as well as the articles within them and the language that is being used, can be theorized as cultural tools (Scollon, 1998, 2001b). Identity elements are produced through the

Figure 5.4 Magazine-reading hour.


157

employment of cultural tools (in this view, language, gaze, gesture, and so on are also cultural tools), but here I would like to look at the broader mediational means, the magazines and the articles within them. Social actors produce identity elements by taking mediated actions, which are actions taken with or through mediational means, and magazines and articles are such mediational means, here. As Wertsch (1998) illustrates, social actors often appropriate cultural tools without conscious reÀection. These appropriated cultural tools are part of a person’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1977). Wertsch, building on Vygotsky (1978), also differentiates between the appropriation and the mastery of a cultural tool. While a social actor usually masters an appropriated cultural tool, the actor does not have to appropriate the tool in order to master it. For example, a person might appropriate a certain cultural tool without being overtly aware, giving off a certain identity element, or the social actor may master another mediational means without appropriating it, giving off a different identity element. Also, I believe, the mastered or appropriated employment of mediational means can give insight into the mastery or appropriation of identity elements. If an identity element is not appropriated, the agent will reject that identity element to some degree, while actually mastering it to a certain extent or even fully. This notion brings with it the question of what Anna’s personal identity element, discussed in the last chapter, really is. On the one hand, she appears to master the identity element of being an avid reader, of liking to do puzzles and so on, while on the other hand, she rejects this identity element, claiming that there is no time in her life for this, and thus, appears not to appropriate this identity element. Anna’s friend identity element, in contrast, is a fully appropriated identity element. Of course, appropriation as well as mastery also becomes part of the habitus, ‘history turned into nature’ (Bourdieu, 1977:78). Certainly, Anna does have a personal identity element. But, interestingly, it is not exactly what she perceives it to be, which illustrates quite clearly that she is appropriating this identity element without being overtly aware of it. In her account in the interview discussed in the last chapter, as well in other interviews, she discards her personal identity element as something for which there is no time. However, the personal identity element that she views as her personal identity element is an identity element of the past, one that she may master, but she no longer appropriates. The actions are those actions that she used to perform, those actions she used to identify with and enjoy. During the year of the study, however, Anna produced a different kind of personal identity element, a kind that is not foreign to her, but one that she does not fully consciously perceive as her personal identity element, which, however, others perceive as her personal identity element. Anna is indeed an avid reader, but she does not forget the world around her when she reads. The action of

158


reading is certainly a part of her personal identity element; another part of her personal identity element is the action of helping others. Anna enjoys and takes great pride in helping others. This is an action that she does not perceive as part of her personal identity, but it is an action that others perceive as such. Further, Anna enjoys cooking various kinds of foods. The action of food preparation is part of her very personal identity production. Thus, when asking someone in her network about Anna’s personal identity, one hears the following: Anna is immer für alle da; sie kocht gerne; und sie liest alles was es gibt. ‘Anna is always there for everyone; she loves to cook; and she reads anything under the sun.’ Why it is that social actors may not perceive themselves as others do is further discussed in later chapters, but one of the reasons is that when a social actor has fully appropriated an identity element, they are often not strongly aware of it—it no longer matters; it is simply a part of them. The reading choices that Anna and Andrea made during the ‘ritual magazine-reading hour’ reÀected their personal, family, national, and international identity elements. The family identity element was the women’s strongest identity element during the ‘ritual magazine-reading hour’. This primacy of their family identity element was apparent since many magazines centered on the family and the home, or more speci¿cally on children. However, during ‘ritual magazine-reading hours’ the women’s personal identity elements were closely interwoven with their family identity elements, which was evident in their primary and secondary topic choices in the print-media as well as in their talk. Often, when they started talking about personal items in the magazines (for example clothes) they would soon change the topic to family, stating in some way that family came before personal objects and/or needs. Their national identity elements were also evident in their choice of print-media. Many magazines were written in German; some were written in Italian. Similarly, they were mastering to some extent their international identity elements, whether or not they were identifying in this way, which was evident in their knowledge of the international products displayed, some of their likes and dislikes.

5.3

Interview and Horizontal Identity Production

Informal sociolinguistic interviews gave the participants a chance to verbalize their own identity elements as they perceived them. Excerpts of one of Anna’s interviews are presented in the last chapter, while excerpts of one of Andrea’s interviews are presented below. The researcher asked each participant to talk about themselves as if they were introducing themselves to an audience that did not know them, focusing on their identities. Only


159

during breaks in the Àow of speech did the researcher ask a question. These interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed. Before the interviews, the researcher also took still photos of the participants and the setting. Since this chapter concentrates on multimodal identity construction, this analysis includes brief verbal excerpts and images that reÀect the identity construction of Andrea during the sociolinguistic interviews. But it also draws on the interview represented in the last chapter. Both interviews can be viewed as true accounts of the participants’ beliefs about these particular identity elements at the moment of telling.3 However, what social actors are aware of, what they recount in interviews and what they do in their everyday lives does not have to—and often does not—exactly coincide. The participants were asked to focus on personal, family, national, and international identity and both talked about some other aspects of their identities that they found important. While the participants’ speech is focused by the open-ended request of the interviewer, the setting or the environment in which the interview took place was not structured by the researcher. The participants knew about the interview in advance, they knew that they were expected to talk for a stretch of time, and they selected the time and place of the interview. Both women found a time and place during which they could talk without being interrupted. They both placed great emphasis on the content of their spoken language, and both participants requested that the interviews were audio-taped. A video camera seemed unnecessarily intrusive to the participants at this point. The use of a tape recorder instead of a video camera naturally focuses the analyst ¿rst of all towards the analysis of the spoken discourse. In order to counter-balance this primary focus on spoken language, the researcher took detailed ¿eld notes about the participants’ nonverbal communication as discussed in the previous chapter, and took still photos of the participants and the settings in which the interviews occurred.4 Anna’s verbal account of her identity, as presented in the last chapter, took place in her living room with her ironing the family’s clothes, quietly watching an Italian TV program, and taking care of her daughter who was playing behind Anna. During the site of engagement of the interview, Anna focused on one identity element at a time, utilizing the mode of spoken language, sometimes intertwined with gaze and gesture, producing each focused identity element in the foreground of her attention/awareness. She simultaneously produced her family identity element (through the higher-level action of ironing), her Italian national identity element (through the higher-level action of watching TV), and her mother identity element on various and shifting levels of her attention/awareness. Further, but far backgrounded (in the later stages of the interview), she produced the participant identity element and, of

160


course, she continuously produced the German national identity element by constructing all but the higher-level action of watching TV through her use of German language, gesture, dress, and much more. The German national identity element is far backgrounded as it is taken for granted and fully appropriated to a degree where the social actor no longer pays any attention to it at all. It nevertheless is there and noticeable for all other social actors—particularly those not coming from Germany. For example, at some point in the interview Anna comments that her relatives, even when she is in Italy, view her as their German cousin. Thus, her German national identity element is inscribed in many of her lower-level and higher-level actions. Also, while Anna speaks at great length about her Italian national identity, she does not speak about her German national identity at all, again illustrating appropriation. In some ways, then, interviews are interesting not only for what is being said, but particularly for what is not being said. However, it would be wrong to believe that all identity elements that are appropriated are always non-reÀected upon by social actors, which is a point taken up again later. An interview, as alluded to so far, is a higher-level action, and in multimodal interaction analysis we are interested in those aspects that are focused on in the interview itself at the same time as we are particularly interested in what the participants are doing while giving the interview. An interview is informative when we are interested in what participants are thinking, believing, and wishing to articulate. What they in fact do or did, however, cannot be straightforwardly surmised through interviews, but what they are doing and where they are located during the interview can be quite identity-telling. Here, I am interested in the production of identity elements during interviews as they are portrayed through spoken language and those identity elements that are simultaneously (co)produced with and through the environment, time and place, as well as with the researcher. The following site of engagement came about in September 2000. One evening, after Andrea’s children went to bed, she took the time for the interview. This site of engagement lasted for 34 minutes. When Andrea looked up and asked if that was all, the researcher took this cue to turn off the tape recorder. Andrea spoke an equal amount of time about her family and her personal identity elements and, when looking at the time she used to speak about each identity element, she placed only slightly less importance on her divorcee identity element. If we can assume that Andrea speaks more about those identity elements that are important to her than about those that are not as consciously important to her, her national identity element, according to the time used in this interview, is as important as her international identity element, with her speaking about both for only few minutes. The importance that Andrea places on certain identity elements in this interview broadly


161

reÀects some of the importance of each of these identity elements during the study. However, the importance of some identity elements shifted during the year, and the identity elements that she is not as conscious of, such as the national identity element, are prevalent throughout the study. There are also some discrepancies found in how Andrea distinguishes between identity elements in the interview as opposed to the distinction that becomes apparent in her everyday life. Andrea begins the interview by discussing the personal freedom that she has gained due to the separation from her husband and about her current family identity.

5.3.1 Foregrounded Family Identity Element In 34 minutes, Andrea spent about a quarter of the time talking about her family identity. She commented at one point: Audio transcript 5.4: Andrea speaks about her family (218) Andrea:

meine Familie. my family ‘my family.’

(219)

ich und zwei Kinder. I and two kids. ‘two kids and I’

(220)

drei Personen. three persons. ‘three people’

(221)

diese Familie this family ‘this family’

(222)

stelle ich auch oft in meinen Bildern dar (3) illustrate I also often in my paintings (3) ‘I often illustrate in my paintings as well (3)’

(223)

die Kinder the children ‘the children’

162


(224)

sind das Wichtigste in meinem Leben. are the most importance in my life. ‘are the most important thing in my life.’

Andrea’s statements about her family identity element at times clearly correspond with some of the ethnographic ¿ndings. However, as discussed in detail in the next chapter, Andrea is in the process of changing this identity element. Here, she states her single mother identity element as fact, while in everyday life at this very point she still was producing more of a divorcee identity element. The statements illustrate that she is in the process of constructing a single parent family identity element. Interestingly, Andrea displays a much stronger family identity element— and one that is closer to that of herself as the previous housewife as discussed in the next chapter—during the context of the ‘ritual magazine-reading hours,’ than she does during many other actions in her everyday life. This emphasis of her previous family identity element displays in part the inÀuence that participants have on each other. Anna, who produces a very strong family identity element, inÀuences some of the reading choices and the topics that are being discussed. At the same time, Andrea’s emphasis of a family identity element during ritual magazine-reading hours illustrates that identities are in Àux and are always situated in the Àow of time.

5.3.2 Foregrounded Personal Identity Element Andrea spent eight minutes discussing her personal identity element. During the interview, Andrea includes the catering business and her work as an artist in her account of her personal identity element. This inclusion, however, is not consistent with my ethnographic work. During Andrea’s everyday interaction, she usually differentiated between catering, artist, and personal identity element. But here she asserts: Audio transcript 5.5: Andrea speaks about herself (249) Andrea:

ich mache das I do that ‘I do’

(250)

was mir Spass macht. what me fun makes ‘what I like’


(251)

ich male I paint ‘I paint’

(252)

und jetzt haben wir den Partyservice and now have we the catering business ‘and now we have the catering business‘

(253)

und mir fallen bestimmt and me come up with surely ‘I surely will think of’

(254)

noch andere Sachen ein. also other things. ‘something else.’

163

Social actors have a multiplicity of identity elements to choose from, and the composition of these multiple identity elements depends upon the context and the participants in a given event. As Wodak et al. (2000:22) explain, ‘ . . . in the identity of any given individual several of these social identities or their components—identity fragments, so to speak—are intertwined.’ Here, we see that Andrea’s work and artist identity elements are closely intertwined with her personal identity, making it easy for her to consolidate these identity elements in this interview.

5.3.3 Foregrounded Divorcee Identity Element For almost as long, Andrea talked about her divorce. She addresses the changes in her life, the pain, and the freedom that she was feeling: Audio transcript 5.6: Andrea speaks about her divorce (10)

als Person as person ‘as a person’

(11)

stehe an einem neuen Lebensweg, stand on a new lifepath, ‘I am standing on a new pathway of life,’

164


(12)

Lebensabschnitts-weg. lifepart-path. ‘a part of a new pathway of life.’

(13)

hat sich letztens has itself lately ‘which just recently’

(14)

ganz fürchterlich gegabelt. very badly forked. ‘forked tremendously.’

(15)

dieser Weg hhh this path hhh ‘this pathway hhh’

(16)

ich habe mich entschieden I have myself decided ‘I decided’

(17)

nach rechts zu gehen. to the right to go. ‘to go to the right.’

(18) Researcher:

hhh

(19) Andrea:

hhh

(20) Researcher: Mann mit husband with ‘with husband’ (21) Andrea:

pf, ph,

(22)

der ist längst gegangen he is already left ‘he’s long gone’


(23)

165

und in sone Schlucht gefallen hhh and in a gorge fell hhh ‘and has fallen into some kind of a gorge hhh’

Audio transcript 5.7: Andrea again speaks about her divorce (494)

keine empfehlenswerte Diät, no suggested diet, ‘not a diet I’d suggest,’

(495)

Trennung hhh divorce hhh ‘divorce hhh’

(496)

aber eigentlich but somehow ‘but somehow’

(497)

andererseits wieder klasse. on the other hand again cool. ‘and in a different way also cool.’

The fact that she spends seven minutes talking about her divorce shows that this identity element is almost as strong as her family and personal identity elements. At this stage of her divorce, she differentiates clearly between the divorcee identity element and her family identity element. In contrast to this, at the beginning of the research, Andrea’s family identity element was still very much intertwined with her divorcee identity as will become apparent in the next chapter.

5.3.4 Foregrounded National Identity Element Andrea spent ¿ve minutes on her national identity. To the question if she felt German, Andrea answered slightly reluctantly: Audio transcript 5.8: Andrea speaks about her national identity (645) Researcher: und wie fühlst du dich? and how feel you yourself? ‘and how do you feel?’

166


(646) Andrea:

oh ich glaube meine Oma oh I think my Grandma ‘oh I believe my Grandma’

(647)

hat ein bisschen französisches Blut hhh has a little French blood hhh ‘has some French blood hhh’

(648) Researcher: hhh (649) Andrea:

weil der ihre Vorfahren Franzosen waren because her her ancestors were ‘because her ancestors were’

(650)

Hugenotten. Huguenots.

(651) Researcher: aha. Audio transcript 5.9: Andrea speaks more about her national identity (679) Andrea:

wobei ich natürlich im Grunde where I of course in reality ‘whereby I of course always’

(680)

wenn ich im Ausland wäre when I in foreign country were ‘if I was in a foreign country’

(681)

immer always ‘I’d always’

(682)

ich bin Deutsche. I am German.’ ‘be German.’

In these statements as well as in the rest of these ¿ve minutes about Andrea’s national identity element, she questions her national identity element to a certain extent, while she acknowledges it at the same time. Andrea has traveled extensively, which becomes apparent in her statements about her national


167

identity element. When she views herself from the inside of the nation, she is reluctant to conform to all norms. Whereas, when she views herself as being outside of Germany, she reinforces her German national identity element.

5.3.5 Foregrounded International Identity Element Andrea denied having an international identity, very much in the same way as Anna did. However, while Anna’s rejection of an international identity is apparent throughout the study, this is not so for Andrea. During the interview Andrea spoke about this identity for a few minutes, and when the researcher asked her about some of her shopping of an American brand name, she stated: Audio transcript 5.10: Andrea speaks about her international identity element (858) Andrea:

und wenn die französisch wär, and when it French were, ‘and if it were French,’

(859)

wäre es mir auch egal. would it me also be unimportant. ‘I wouldn’t care either.’

(860)

das sind einfach Klamotten, that are just clothes, ‘those are just clothes,’

(861)

die mir gefallen. which me like. ‘that I like.’

(862) Researcher: mhm (863) Andrea:

das hat nix damit zu tun that has nothing with to do ‘that has nothing to do with’

(864)

aus welchem Land das Zeug kommt. from which country the stuff comes. ‘where the stuff comes from.’

168


(865) Researcher: wo die herkommt where it from comes ‘where it comes from’ (866) Andrea:

das interessiert mich that interests me ‘I’m not interested in that’

(867)

überhaupt nicht die Bohne. at all not the bean. ‘at all.’

This straightforward rejection of Andrea’s international identity element signi¿cantly conÀicts with the ethnographic ¿ndings. Throughout the ¿eldwork, Andrea made a point of shopping for international items and also verbalized her international identity element while shopping, stating that she buys real Italian coffee, American-type bread, and so on, because such items make her feel more in touch with the world. These ¿ndings clearly point to the fact that Andrea is mastering this identity element to a certain extent, even though she has not appropriated it. However, Andrea’s rejection of an international identity element generally matches the social expectations in Germany at the time, as shown in Norris (2000). While many Germans seem to master the international identity element to a certain degree, they verbally reject this identity. A discourse of rejection of an international identity element thus is socially suitable. Therefore, Andrea’s rejection is not surprising; she only reacts in a socially proper way. Only a long-term ethnographic study and visual research methods allow such an account of the identity elements and the habitus of the participants. So far, the analysis has focused upon the sequentially foregrounded identity elements, which Andrea constructs through their employment of the mode of spoken language.

5.3.6 Identity beyond the Foreground: Simultaneous Identity Element Production A multimodal analysis, including the analysis of concurrent actions of the participants as well as the analysis of the setting, demonstrates the horizontal identity construction of the participants.


169

Tilmann Habermas (1999) discusses the construction of three identities simultaneously through the communicative mode of layout. However, he focuses on only one mode, which is employed by the social actor to construct various identities simultaneously. Certainly each individual mode does function in this way as every message always entails metamessages. This function of every mode, however, is not considered as horizontal identity construction. Horizontal identity construction always refers to the simultaneous productions of identity through the employment of various communicative modes in various constellations. As mentioned earlier, Goffman (1959) differentiates between expressions that a participant gives, which includes ‘verbal symbols or their substitutes which he uses . . . solely to convey the information’, and expressions that a participant gives off, which includes a ‘wide range of action, that others can treat as symptomatic of the actor . . . for reasons other than the information conveyed in this way’ (Goffman, 1959:2). Expressions that a participant gives off may be given off non-verbally. Similarly, the setting also gives off certain expressions. Expressions which the setting may give off include expressions given off through objects, room layout, and the like. Within an apartment for example, objects give off some kind of expression to the onlooker as the social actor, which may make sense within the context of the personal history of the social actor. In other words, the social actor interpreting the messages that are given off, interprets these messages through their personal experience. While a certain type of furniture may in fact give off a certain inclination of the social actor, who is living there, an analyst, who is trying to determine the world of the participants on their trajectory, can do this successfully only by merging her- or himself into the participants’ world. Thus, a setting can give off certain expressions, but the intended meaning by the owners can be perceived only through a thorough and long study of the participants. What an object means to one social actor may be quite different to another. Eco (1968/1972), discussing aesthetic objects, points out that such objects necessarily have to have multiple meanings. Because of this multiplicity of meaning, identity of social actors cannot easily be read off of objects in the world. Figure 5.5, for example, shows one of Andrea’s paintings. This still photo of a painting was taken in Andrea’s apartment. Andrea painted this painting herself, and this image, therefore, constructs part of Andrea’s artist identity element, which is also visible in the many other paintings she has produced and which can be found throughout her apartment. Another still photo of one of Andrea’s paintings was taken in Anna’s apartment as illustrated in Figure 5.6.

170


Figure 5.5 One of Andrea’s paintings in her apartment.

This painting is placed above the couch in the living room in Anna’s apartment. Here, the painting constructs Anna’s art-lover identity element or her friend identity element with Andrea. A painting in this room does not, however, construct an artist identity element of anybody living in the apartment in which this painting is found. Similarly, both Andrea and Anna use coffee cups, which are white and about the same shape, as illustrated in Figure 5.7.


171

Figure 5.6 One of Andrea’s paintings in Anna’s apartment.

For Andrea, who emphasizes the fact that she drinks only ‘real Italian coffee,’ this coffee cup gives off her international identity element. However, this white cup helps Anna to produce her Italian identity element. Anna does not emphasize the fact that she drinks only ‘real Italian coffee’;

172


Figure 5.7 Two similar cups producing different identity elements for the participants.

to her, Italian coffee is so much part of her habitus that she takes no notice of it whatsoever. Andrea’s verbally announcing that she drinks only ‘real Italian coffee’ displays that she has not appropriated the art of Italian coffee drinking, but has mastered it only so far. Here, then, we can see that not only the rejection, but also the announcement of certain practices may indicate mastery rather than appropriation. I need to add here that Andrea had been a tea-drinker before she was going through the divorce, and had in fact acquired the taste for coffee for only about a year by the time this research was conducted. As these two examples show, identity cannot easily be read off of the objects somebody possesses. The same objects may have very different meanings to different people, displaying different parts of their identities. Nevertheless, social actors do acquire certain objects in order to present and re-present their own identities. Tilmann Habermas (1999) discusses the use of objects in living spaces such as apartments. He explains:


173

. . . die Wohnung kann gleichermassen der Selbstdarstellung, dem Empfangen von Gästen, der Sozialibität dienen. In diesem Akt der Identitätspräentation stellt sich der Gastgeber zugleich als Besonderer wie als Mitglied einer bestimmten Subkultur oder sozialen Schicht dar . . . . . . the apartment functions simultaneously as self representation, the reception of guests, and the presentation of sociability. Thus, hosts represent themselves through this action of self-representation as special and at the same time as a member of a sub-culture or social class . . . (Tilmann Habermas, 1999:122)

This excerpt touches upon the simultaneous construction of three identity elements and, more importantly, the dialectic relationship between the action of representing and presenting identity through the use of cultural tools. While social actors actively acquire objects that re-present their identity, they, at the same time, acquire objects that then present the identity to others. An apartment, just like one single cultural tool as a painting, can give off several different identity elements. This simultaneous construction of several identity elements by one cultural tool (or mode) is taken up further in chapter 6, in which I illustrate that a combination of various modes can give insight into vertical identity construction, which is the compounding of identity across a hierarchy of levels of action. Kress et al. (2001) assert that meaning is made in many various ‘modes at the same time and separately’. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) de¿ne a mode of communication as a set of signs with known meanings and regularities attached to them. This study adheres to this de¿nition of a mode, adding the notion of ‘as it is being used’ (Norris, 2009b). Similarly, as meaning is made in various modes at the same time and separately, identity elements are produced in various modes simultaneously and separately. Identity production, therefore, occurs sequentially (for example through the mode of spoken language) and non-sequentially (for example through the mode of layout). When viewing identity production in this way, it becomes apparent that participants may produce several identity elements simultaneously, even during an interview. During the interview, Andrea is sitting in her living room, as can be seen in Figure 5.8, image 1. The setting gives off several of Andrea’s identity elements. When viewing the image, we see some of Andrea’s paintings behind her chair. These paintings ¿rst of all display her artist identity element. In Figure 5.8, image 2 represents the family identity element, which Andrea also speaks of during the ¿rst eight minutes of this site of engagement:

174


Figure 5.8 Andrea during the interview; objects present.


175

a mother and two children. Andrea speaks German and adheres to all the social norms, giving off her German national identity element. Furthermore, we can ¿nd many international objects in Andrea’s small apartment. For example, there is a wok (Figure 5.8, image 3), in which Andrea likes to cook, as she articulates, richtig Chinesisch ‘real Chinese dishes’. An Italian-style coffee maker (Figure 5.8, image 4) and, as Andrea emphasizes, richtigen Italienischen Kaffee ‘real Italian coffee’ from Italy also displays her international identity. Andrea has traveled a great deal and she likes to bring back objects from different countries. One such example is the fabric she brought back from India to make a curtain for the children’s bedroom (Figure 5.8, image 5). The American inÀuence is also easily spotted. In the kitchen, we ¿nd American-style bread and cornÀakes (Figure 5.8, images 6 and 7). Since Andrea emphasizes the ‘real-ness’ of the international items in her verbal actions, we can gather the fact that Andrea does not appropriate any of these items, but masters this international identity element. Andrea’s personal, family, national, and international identities are all present in the setting. Visual data reveals how ‘meaning is made in all modes separately, and at the same time, how ‘meaning is an effect of all modes acting jointly’ (Kress et al., 2001:1). While Andrea is constructing her personal identity element through the verbal mode in the interview, for example, we perceive the other identity elements in the background of the identity continuum. At the same time, one must not forget the researcher’s presence and the resulting participant identity element that Andrea produces at this time. Visual research allows the perception of Andrea’s and Anna’s personal, family, national, and international identity elements, which are evident in the setting, through other modes. When viewing the images, we perceive the objects in the room and/or apartment, where the interaction takes place. As Goffman asserts, ‘many crucial facts lie beyond the time and place of interactions or lie concealed within it’ (Goffman, 1959:2). When using visual methods (even when audio recording an interview), we can learn more about identity production than if we used only the data from the audiotaped interview. While the visual means accentuate the importance of the setting, in which the interaction takes place, an analysis of the setting is possible only if we consider the macro and the micro social structures from the perspective of the participants, which shape the environs. Taking a macro as well as a micro approach is further discussed in chapter 8. Incorporating the analysis of multiple modes into a discourse study permits the analysis of the participants’ identity elements that build a part of their habitus. When analyzing real-time sites of engagement, many identity

176


elements which are integrated into Andrea’s and Anna’s lives become apparent. The visual data presents how these identity elements are produced and displayed by the setting and through the actions performed. Both women verbally acknowledge a personal, family, and national identity element. The focus on their social-time-place shows that several identity elements are present throughout each site of engagement, while others are produced only verbally and then disappear such as Anna’s friend identity during the interview. However, this identity element does not disappear in the larger context. Since cultural tools can either be appropriated or mastered, we ¿nd that Anna barely masters an international identity element, while Andrea actually masters this identity element quite well, however, she does not appropriate it. The objects that the women have acquired express some international aspects in their habitus, but for Anna they speak more of globalization than of identity. The meaning of these objects is quite different to Andrea than it is for Anna. Anna truly does not identify in any international way. Andrea, on the other hand, acknowledged during playback that she does identify in an international way to some extent. This identi¿cation is equal to the mastering in Vygotky’s sense. As can be seen in Anna’s rejection of the international identity element, this internationalization is still part of her habitus, as is apparent in her dress, whether or not she identi¿es with it. The notion of elementization and multiplicity of the participants’ apparent identities becomes very much perceptible when integrating nonverbal actions and the setting into a discourse study. I suggested that the concept of a foreground/background continuum is helpful in visualizing the fact that participants produce several identity elements at the very same time on different levels of awareness in the interaction. While the focus throughout the interview was on the mode of spoken language and the identity elements that were produced through this mode, other identity elements were present and became possible to analyze through the incorporation of still photos.

5.3.7 Identity Produced through Micro and Macro Actions As the above section illustrates, identity is not only produced in sequential or simultaneous micro increments at any one moment in time. While some identity elements are produced through micro actions, others may be produced through previous actions that are at the time of some micro production of an identity element located in the environment as frozen actions. Such frozen action could be viewed as identity production on a more macro level than the level that is usually investigated in a discourse study. The focus upon only

Transcription of Macro Data

177

the micro in many studies is a result of the methodology used and the theoretical notions underlying the methodology. Multimodal interaction analysis not only allows such integration of a more macro level, it, in fact, pushes the researcher to investigate more than just a micro (co)construction of actions in interaction. In the example of Andrea’s interview, the immediate environment integrated into the analysis, and in chapter 8, identity production across time and space is investigated. Moving beyond micro analysis also brings with it issues for transcription that have to be resolved. In chapter 3, I have discussed transcription of video excerpts in detail; however, here I would like to brieÀy revisit the notion of transcription.

5.4

Transcription of Macro Data

When looking at identity production in a holistic way, we realize that there is more to identity production than the minute moment-by-moment (co)constructed actions that produce identity. Identity is located in the environment as it is in Andrea’s apartment; identity is located not just in a moment of time, but also across time; identity is multiple; and identity is often redundant as will become clear in the next chapter. Audio recorders as well as video recorders often miss the simultaneity in any one interaction; and transcription conventions, even the Àexible ones proposed in chapter 3, limit the researcher to transcribing only that which is visible in that very record. More than one camera can be helpful, but bringing the footage together and transcribing it in synchronic fashion is not always easy; and even when it is successfully done, the researcher using multiple video cameras still often primarily focuses upon the (co)construction of the micro actions that come about sequentially. Identity is not produced clearly sequentially. It is present, as much as it is produced in sudden moments, as much as it is circular. Forcing our attention too much upon sequential happenings does not allow us to see the presence of identity, does not allow us to understand and explain exactly that which every social actor in their everyday life in fact lives, reacts to, and inadvertently knows. When incorporating images as the ones in the section above into a transcript, we gain a macro understanding that social actors in their everyday life inadvertently know. These are the times when you use a playback methodology and ask the social actors themselves; they answer, yes, of course, everybody knows that; and everybody does, yet, no research methodology so far has been able to easily incorporate these macro tidbits of information.

178


In multimodal interaction analysis, an image can be used as part of a transcript, even if and when it is not part of the sequential organization of the original video- or audio-tape. It does not matter if I take the image of the painting on the wall during the interview, or if I take it before or after. The researcher’s action does not have to be simultaneous in order to illustrate simultaneity. The image, however, has to have been hanging on that wall during the time of the interview. This is the point of simultaneity that is important—not the sequence of data collection. Similarly, it matters little in which order images in the environment are taken. It matters a lot, however, that the researcher notes the simultaneity in ¿eld notes and can then later assemble them into a transcript in order to show the simultaneity correctly. In order to gain a better understanding of the circularity of identity production and to gain a better understanding of identity production across time and space, we have to move away from allowing recording and transcription methods to force us into a strictly sequential analysis. Nevertheless, when investigating simultaneous action in interaction, a sequential transcript such as the one used above in Figure 5.1, which adheres to the conventions proposed in chapter 3, is useful; and throughout an analysis the researcher needs to move from sequential to simultaneous and from simultaneous to sequential. Both aspects are equally important, and it is noteworthy that sequences happen simultaneously as well, as is discussed next.

Notes 1. For behavior see: Condon and Ogston (1967); Heims (1977); Norris (2006). 2. On horizontal identity production, also see Norris (2007). 3. While the notion of identity elements was in fact invoked during analysis. During the study, the participants were asked about their identity construction as described. 4. An image of Anna and the setting during this interview as well as further discussion can be found in Norris (2004:22).

Chapter 6 Vertical Identity Production [Discourses] originate outside their performers and are imposed upon people, through recurrent institutional treatments and within interaction, to the point that they become self-administered. Categories carry an association to those who use them and are subject to them—an association with power—as artifacts do an association with tasks and those who perform them. —Holland et al. (1998: 62)

6.1

Identity and Layers of Discourse

Discourses are mediational means as much as paint brushes and an easel; a word and the larynx; or a gesture and its performing hand. Discourses, just as material cultural tools, have affordances and constraints; they position the social actors embedded in the discourses instantiating the discourses, or even those social actors who are only peripherally re-enacting the discourses. Identity is produced through manual actions that social actors perform, but identity is also produced through various layers of discourse.1 In order to delineate these layers of discourse in a way that stays analyzable, but also noting that there often (if not always) are many more layers if we were to tease them all apart, multimodal interaction analysis as a method starts with three layers of discourse, each of which is multiple: 1. The outer layers of discourse, which are formed by the larger society, and which are enforced by the extended networks that a social actor is part of and by institutions that the social actor engages with. These outer layers of discourse produce what I call general identity elements of a social actor. 2. The intermediary layers of discourse which are formed by a social actor in connection with and through their networks; where a social actor enacts certain long-term actions within their immediate and extended networks. These intermediary layers of discourse produce what I call continuous identity elements. 3. The central layers of discourse which are formed by a social actor enacting certain immediate actions, or the kind of actions that have

180

Vertical Identity Production

been discussed in the last chapter. These central layers of discourse produce the immediate identity elements, or the identity elements that the social actor is producing and others are directly or indirectly responding to. The outer layers of discourse refers to the societal forces that are enacted, re-produced, and forced upon a social actor from the outside, and that the social actor has to respond to and/or deal with. These identity enforcements are as real as they are opaque; and as long as a social actor is producing their own identity elements in compliance, these outer layers of discourse which force particular general identity elements upon a social actor stay invisible. As soon as a social actor does not comply with any one of the outer layers of discourse in regard to an enforced general identity element, that outer layer of discourse becomes apparent. The intermediary discourses refer to the network forces that are enacted, re-produced, and forced upon a social actor, where the social actor builds a vital part but is also deeply embedded in the social structures. As long as the social actor complies and agrees with these forces, the continuous identity elements are produced seamlessly and invisibly. When a social actor, however, does not act in accordance to the networks’ unwritten rules, regulations, wishes, desires, ethical, and moral considerations, these discourses become apparent. The central discourses refer to the actions that the social actor enacts, re-produces, and forces upon others, where the social actor is viewed as truly agentive, even if acting upon others in ways that are enforced through the outer or the intermediary layers of discourse. In fact, every higher-level action, from having a conversation to painting a wall in a room or hanging up a painting, is viewed as an action that is produced by drawing on the central discourses, which in turn produce the immediate identity elements that are discussed in the previous chapter. These three layers of discourse are viewed in multimodal interaction analysis as building three vertical layers of an identity element; and vertical identity element production is apparent in the levels of discourse that a social actor refers to and/or enacts simultaneously. The social-time-place of social actors in interaction always consists of layered discourses, and social actors respond to and enact those layers sometimes simultaneously, and sometimes not. In the following sections, I illustrate how drawing on and enacting two or three layers of discourse has the effect of multiplying a certain identity element by looking in particular at Andrea’s divorcee identity element. Andrea’s divorcee identity element was exceedingly strong at some points during the year of study; while it was not present at the very beginning and

Outer Layers of Discourse: Producing a General Identity Element

181

then changed during the year and eventually ebbed away. In the next chapter, I discuss this identity change in detail, but for now, I would like to illustrate why and how identity elements sometimes seem exceedingly strong, while other identity elements appear to be barely present. Vertical identity production emphasizes an identity element; and in order to illustrate how vertical identity is construed, I now start by discussing each of the three levels of divorcee discourse in Andrea’s life world at the time of this study. I call the three levels of discourse the general, the continuous, and the immediate divorcee discourse. Here, I begin with the societal and larger network discourses which play an integral part in producing the general divorcee identity element.

6.2


Society with its laws and regulations, mediating forms and institutions produces the identity of a social actor in a broad sense. General identities are constructed through actions and produced through the practices in the social-time-place that a social actor inhabits, all of which concern the identity elements by and large. In the example of Andrea, outer layers of discourse encompass the discourses around divorce and divorced women with children; around support and child support; around custody and/or visitation rights of the father; and around how a woman formerly married and embedded in a traditional part of society consisting of other housewives is now viewed by that part and by society as a whole. Outer layers of discourse thus produce a general identity element, but when looking at this in detail, we discover that there are many different outer layers of discourse regarding just one identity element. Each of the discourses forces particularities of the identity element upon the social actor. Many of the outer layer discourses overlap, many enforce the same particularities of an identity element, but some also diverge greatly. In the following example, I discuss two outer layers of divorcee discourse that diverge to illustrate this point.

6.2.1 Two Divergent Outer Layers of Discourse Before a divorce can become legal, a social actor has to ¿le for divorce. In the case of Andrea and her then-husband, as with many couples who are going

182


through a stretch of uncertainty of where the relationship is going, the action of who ¿les ¿rst for divorce becomes relevant, as the party ¿ling for divorce ¿rst is the party making claims on the other; or so it was perceived by Andrea and her network. In Andrea’s case, she ¿led for divorce ¿rst, thus formally and legally initiating the break in the relationship. This initiation, however, was a result of her husband’s actions which she and her closer and further networks saw as a break in the relationship: he had an affair and was living with his girlfriend. For Andrea, her then-husband had initiated the break in the relationship by living with another woman; and for Andrea, the ethical, moral, and emotional break was reason for her to ¿le for divorce. Andrea, at the time of ¿ling for divorce, saw herself forced to take legal action, as she was not willing, and she was not ethically, morally, and emotionally prepared, to stay married under the circumstances. Simultaneously, her closer and extended networks, all of the social actors she interacted with frequently and infrequently, compelled Andrea to take the legal step and ¿le for divorce. Here, Andrea found herself in circumstances in which she had no other choice but to deal with the situation legally. Thus, the ethical/moral/emotional divorcee discourse forced Andrea into the legal divorcee discourse. Both of the discourses are outer layer discourses, and both enforced their own particulars of a divorcee identity element upon Andrea. Thus, Andrea ¿rst reacted to the ethical/moral/emotional divorcee discourse. As soon as Andrea ¿led for divorce, she opened up a second discourse, the legal divorcee discourse, which now developed side-by-side with the ethical/moral/emotional divorcee discourse. What we ¿nd here, however, are two discourses that are clashing: on the one hand, there is the ethical/ moral/emotional discourse of what it means to break the relationship of marriage; and on the other hand, there is the legal discourse of what it means to break the relationship of marriage. Andrea, her family and friends, as well as her extended network focused upon the ethical/moral/emotional side of the divorce. For Andrea, and everyone connected to her, her then-husband had initiated the divorce with his actions. Andrea, after trying to talk with him many times at length about the impossibility of such an arrangement for her, without success, subsequently ¿led for divorce. As Andrea was the one who ¿led for divorce, she was viewed legally as the one who initiated the divorce. The law, even though aware of the ethical/ moral/emotional side of the divorce, saw her as the initiating party. Andrea, who had wanted to work things out with her then-husband, but was unable to do so, had ¿led for divorce only because she saw herself in a bind. Andrea, who at the time could see only the ethical/moral/emotional side of the divorce,


183

in turn was greatly upset about her husband’s lawyer and the court repeatedly telling her that she had wanted the divorce. In court, she was viewed as the initiator. In her own mind, her then-husband was the initiator. This is an example in which the two outer layers of divorcee discourse, the ethical/ moral/emotional divorcee discourse and the legal divorcee discourse, clash. Once the legal divorcee discourse was initiated, the legal divorcee discourse clashed, became enmeshed in, or began to control the ethical/moral/ emotional divorcee discourse. These two distinct outer layers of divorcee discourse became intricately intertwined for Andrea; and because the distinctions were unclear, many of the divorcee procedures were confusing and obscured to her. The legal discourse became very strong before the divorce was ¿nalized and became even stronger once Andrea ¿led for sole custody of the two boys. During the custody battle, the ethical/moral/emotional divorcee discourse and the legal divorcee discourse clashed once again: Ethically/morally/emotionally, Andrea viewed herself as the person who wanted the best for her sons. There were numerous reasons for her to believe that it would be best for the children if she had sole custody; and again for numerous reasons, her networks compelled Andrea to ¿le for sole custody for ethical/moral/emotional reasons. Similar to the initiation of the legal divorce, Andrea now saw herself in the position of having to take legal action. Legally, as soon as Andrea took the step of ¿ling for sole custody, she was the one who initiated the custody battle, and with that she was positioned as an irresponsible person who wanted to take the children away from their father. Once again, the ethical/moral/emotional and the legal divorcee discourses clashed. Andrea became the culprit, while her ex-husband was positioned opposite her. As the legal battle waged, her ex-husband’s side tried hard to demonstrate Andrea’s alleged wrong-doing. During this time, again Andrea was portrayed as the one who had wanted the divorce in the ¿rst place. In their argument, she had distanced herself from her husband, and now, as an extension of that, she was distancing he children from him as well.

angst

fear

rabenschwarz die gedanken

thoughts raven black

bleischwer der atem

breath leaden

184


vorsichtig die bewegung

movements deliberate

unruhig die augen

eyes restless

unnatürliche ruhe

unnatural calmness

angst

fear

ausgebreitet im ganzen körper

spread throughout the body

angst

fear

pure kalte angst unbeschreibliche angst

pure icy fear fear beyond description

angst

fear

The legal discourse during this time began to control the ethical/emotional discourse. Andrea, for example, was ordered to take the boys and have them undergo psychological evaluations to determine their wishes, desires, and needs in regard to the family constellation. These evaluations were particularly stressful for the older son, David, and to reassure him that everything would be alright, the researcher sat down to write a children’s story, which was called ‘Mr. Glück’. It is a story about a little boy, whose parents are going through a divorce. David had just learned to read, and he read and re-read the story. Then he took it to his teacher, who asked to keep it over night. The teacher, then told David’s father about ‘Mr. Glück’, and next, Andrea was ordered by the court to hand over the children’s story. The ex-husband’s side of the custody battle insisted that the researcher, being linked to Andrea since the researcher was at the time living with her, had written something that positioned David against his father. Thus, now the court ordered that the story had to be psychologically evaluated by two distinct psychologists to evaluate this claim. Six weeks after having handed over ‘Mr. Glück’, Andrea heard back from court and received two highly positive evaluations in the mail, stating that the story was


185

very helpful for a child whose parents were going through a divorce and that the child was neither positioned against or for a certain parent. These are just some of many examples of how the legal divorcee discourse was controlling and overseeing the ethical/moral/emotional divorcee discourse. Through the outer layers of discourse, the ethical/moral/emotional divorcee discourse and the legal divorcee discourse positioned Andrea in two distinctly different ways: 1. Andrea was positioned by her networks as the woman who was left by her husband and whose husband did not care about the children and acted irresponsible with them; and 2. Andrea was positioned by the legal divorcee discourse as the woman who had initiated the divorce and who acted irresponsible because she wanted to claim the children for herself. While for her network, Andrea was a hurt woman, who had been wronged by her husband, and a good mother who had no choice but to ¿le for sole custody in order to keep the children safe, for the legal side, Andrea was a sel¿sh woman who was incapable of coping with her marriage problems, and a bad mother who could not see the importance of a father in the life of her children. These two social forces were exerted upon Andrea, sometimes sequentially, but just as often at the very same time. Andrea, unable to reconcile these two outer layers of identity, went into psycho-therapy when the forces of the legal discourse became too overwhelming. The general divorcee identity elements for Andrea were thus highly confusing and conÀicting. For her and her network, these two were often confused as the same one, and this ostensibly one general identity element as a result was a confused/fearful divorcee identity element for Andrea.

allein

alone

so voll und doch so leer

so ¿lled up and yet so empty

so entspannt und doch so angespannt

so relaxed and yet so tense

gebremst in voller fahrt

choked in full force

ein hilfeschrei verhallt im nichts

a scream for help dies away into nowhere

186


allein

alone

nicht einsam nur allein

not lonely just alone

so allein

so alone

The general divorcee identity element thus oscillated between hurt woman/good mother and sel¿sh woman/bad mother, which were continuously produced through the outer layers of discourse. Concurrently, two other layers of discourse, the intermediary and the central divorcee discourses, were ongoing, producing continuous and immediate divorcee identity elements for Andrea.

6.2.2 General Identity Outer layer discourses are imposed upon people, through repeated institutional treatments and within interaction, to the point that they become the perceived general identity elements. The general identity elements as a result are not agentive, but are prescribed to social actors as categories such as mother, divorcee, or friend. Some of these categories build roles within society; some describe the status of a social actor, and are social formations. No matter how the outer layers of discourse categorize general identity elements, each category is culturally distinctive and embedded in the social-time-place of that society. Outer layers of discourse thus prescribe the general identity elements, and, as long as social actors have internalized and appropriated these prescriptions, the general identity elements are not visible in interactions. In other words, in Anna’s and Andrea’s social-time-place, if a mother organized her life around the children, she was perceived as a good mother. Her general mother identity element would fully overlap with her continuous and her immediate identity elements and only her immediate mother identity would be perceived. The outer layer discourses, however, become visible if there is tension between the produced general, continuous, and central identity elements as was the case in Andrea’s divorcee identity elements. When this happens, the three levels of one identity element become separately visible and we can clearly distinguish between them. Further, when taking a closer look at the

Intermediary Layer of Discourse: Producing a Continuous Identity Element

187

outer layers of discourse, one can ¿nd moments in which only the general identity element is present. As an example, in court and during the legal battle that Andrea and her ex-husband fought, Andrea’s general divorcee identity element was present only. While Andrea’s lawyers used the outer layer network discourse, positioning her as the hurt woman/good mother, her then-husband’s lawyers used the outer layer legal discourse, positioning her as the sel¿sh and incapable woman/bad mother. During court, all other levels of discourse and with them other levels of the divorcee identity element were absent. The outer layer discourses were overwhelmingly strong during the sessions in court and Andrea had little agency. She, in fact, felt that she had no agency: she had to succumb to one or the other outer layer discourse, and there was no room for her to establish herself differently. Certainly, Andrea did have some agency, but her agency did not lie in how her divorcee identity element was produced, but rather in how she responded to the produced general divorcee identity elements that were administered to her.

6.3


Networks with their unwritten laws and regulations, mediating forms and tight to loose connections produce the identity of a social actor in an intermediary sense. Continuous identity elements are constructed through actions and produced through the practices in the social-time-place that a social actor inhabits, all of which concern the continuity of an identity element by and large. The intermediary layers of discourse encompass the particular discourses around Andrea’s divorce and around the divorced Andrea with her two children; around support and child support for Andrea; around Andrea’s custody battle and/or visitation rights of the father; and around how Andrea, who had formerly been married and embedded in the traditional networks of other housewives, is now viewed by the women and the men in her networks. The continuous divorcee identity element is also produced through longterm actions that Andrea is performing in and with her networks because of the divorce. Here, I give the example of Andrea moving from their house into an apartment. The selling of the house as a result of the divorce, Andrea’s efforts of ¿nding a new place to live for herself and the two children, and the actions of moving objects from the house to the apartment, all produced a divorcee identity over a long transitional period of time. Family, friends, and social actors from her wider network all helped during this transitional

188


period, and Andrea was positioned and positioned herself as the woman who was left by her husband, and who had no choice but to leave the house that her then-husband and Andrea had built just a few years earlier. The intermediary divorcee discourse within her networks was one of need: Andrea needed to ¿nd an apartment; Andrea needed help packing; Andrea needed help moving; Andrea needed support. The intermediary divorcee discourse within her networks was also one of non-agency: Andrea had been wronged by her then-husband; Andrea had to move out of the house into an apartment; the divorce had happened to Andrea. It was not something that she had chosen, and all of the resulting longer-term actions in this transitional period were not agentive, but simply had to be done.

wenn nichts mehr stimmt

when nothing is right

wenn nichts mehr stimmt und nichts mehr passt

when nothing is right and nothing ¿ts

wenn nichts mehr so ist wie es war und nichts mehr so wird wie es werden sollte

when nothing is as it was and nothing will be as it was supposed to be

dann weisst du dass alles sich ändert egal ob du es willst oder nicht egal ob du der veränderung zustimmst

then you know that everything changes no matter if you want it or not no matter if you embrace the change

egal was du willst

no matter what you want

du kannst es nicht aufhalten nur den prozess verlängern und je mehr du ihn verlängerst desto klarer wird es dir sein dass du nichts dagegen tun kannst

you’re not able to stop it can only lengthen the process and the more you lengthen it the clearer it will become that there is nothing you can do about it


gerade so als hätte diese veränderung ein bewusstsein dem du dich unterwerfen musst ob du willst oder nicht—

just as if this change had a mind which you have to obey if you want to or not—

wenn nichts mehr so ist wie es war wird es nie wieder so sein wie es sein sollte

when nothing is as it was it will never be as it was supposed to be

egal was du tust

no matter what you do

189

Almost all of the friends that her then-husband and Andrea had in common condemned her then-husband’s actions and sided with Andrea. While this was positive for Andrea, it reinforced Andrea’s emphasis upon her helplessness. The continuous divorcee identity element for Andrea was thus one of helplessness and one without agency. This identity element was an angry/ sad/helpless divorcee identity element. Intermediary layers of discourse are imposed upon social actors and imposed by the social actors onto others through repeated interactions within the closer and extended networks, to the point that they become the perceived continuous identity elements. The continuous identity elements as a result are to some extent agentive and to some extent not agentive. They are on the one hand prescribed to social actors within the network, and also prescribed by the very same social actors to others; but these prescriptions are always in Àux, are being negotiated and re-negotiated, and are adopted and changed through interaction. This mixture between agentive and nonagentive allows for social development and a social actor’s change within the network. Social actors within the network thus (co)develop as they (co) construct particular higher-level actions that are linked to and build the network-speci¿c practices. While networks and the intermediary discourses, similar to institutions and the outer layers of discourses, prescribe categories and categories are network-culture speci¿c, the network speci¿city is always in negotiation with and by the social actors who build the networks in the ¿ rst place. Other than institutions and the outer layer discourses,

190


these networks and their intermediary discourses are less prescriptive and more malleable. However, similar to outer layers of discourse, as long as social actors have internalized and appropriated the intermediary discourses, the continuous identity elements are not visible in interactions. In other words, in Anna’s and Andrea’s social-time-place, if a social actor spends much time with their friends, they are perceived as a good friend. Thus, in Anna’s case, her continuous, general, and central friend identity elements overlapped fully, making only her immediate friend identity element perceivable in her everyday life. When, however, a continuous, general, and immediate identity element does not comply with the norms of the intermediary discourse, a continuous identity element becomes visible. This again was the case for Andrea’s divorcee identity element. In her network, and thus in the intermediary discourses that had an impact upon Andrea’s everyday life, social actors with young children were married. She was the only one in her immediate network to go through a divorce; and in her extended network, there was only one woman with young children of approximately the same age as Andrea’s who had gone through a divorce. However, this woman lived far away, and she was not tied into the networks that Andrea was usually interacting with in her everyday life. Most of the higher-level actions that Andrea performed were connected to her closer networks. When investigating these actions performed that link the intermediary discourses, we are investigating higher-level actions of a higher order and of a longer-duration time scale; on the one hand, they are what we call practices, where we ¿nd habitual actions or actions that can be recognized by social actors of the networks as more or less the same actions; on the other hand, they are particular higher order higher-level actions that are performed over a longer duration of time. For example, mothers of school age children in Anna’s and Andrea’s networks oversee their children’s homework. While each higher-level action of monitoring or checking homework is distinct, so that it is not the very same action from one day to the next, the higher-level actions are still recognizable as a higher-level action of overseeing the children’s homework. In this case, we speak of practice. On the other hand, for example Anna oversees her children’s homework in a particular way. While again, each higher-level action of monitoring or checking homework is distinct, and not the same actions from one day to the next, the higher-level actions build another higher order of a particular higher-level action: the higher order higher-level actions of Anna monitoring her children’s homework.


191

The notion of practice is an abstraction of actions—be they higher-level or lower-level—while the long-duration higher order higher-level actions are actions viewed by social actors within a network as those actions performed by a certain social actor as they usually perform them. In other words, the level of practice is ‘how one monitors a child’s homework’ in the network; while the higher order higher-level long-duration action is ‘how Anna monitors her children’s homework.’ While social actors do abstract and enforce practice—or the abstraction of action—which is commonly found in discourse as normative discourse such as ‘one monitors homework by overseeing it, but not helping too much, and then checking the results’, social actors in interaction also focus upon the higher order of a longduration higher-level action—or the situated higher order of higher-level actions—which is often found in discourse as a generalizing discourse speci¿c to a social actor such as ‘Anna always makes sure her children can do the work, then she gives them time alone to complete it, and after that she checks the homework and goes over mistakes with the children, helping them correct it.’ Thus normative discourse is an abstraction of how something is done within the network, while higher order long-duration higher-level actions are viewed as speci¿c to a social actor within the network. These two discourses, the normative discourse on the level of abstracted practice and the higher order long-duration higher-level social-time-place situated actions, produce and enforce continuous identity elements for the social actors within the network. The two discourses, as long as they overlap, appear as one, but as soon as there is divergence, they become visible.

6.3.1 Continuous Identity Both discourses are present in the example of Andrea’s divorce, but the situated discourse plays the major role, overshadowing the discourse of practice and normativity. Andrea’s higher order long-duration higher-level action of moving (which entails many trips over the time of several days) from their house into an apartment is viewed in her network and by herself on the level of practice, where the network enforces how a move is accomplished. Simultaneously, Andrea’s higher order long-duration higher-level action of moving is viewed by her network and by Andrea on the level of social-time-place situated action, an action that resulted from her divorce. Thus, while utilizing the discourse of practice and normativity of how to accomplish a move while moving her items, both the network and Andrea focus upon the move as a

192


higher order long-duration higher-level action that directly produces Andrea’s continuous divorcee identity element. On this intermediary layer of moving discourse, Andrea was positioned by her network as the woman who had been wronged by her then-husband, a woman who had been suddenly left and needed help in order to put her life back together. Andrea’s agency was overshadowed by this portrayal of a needy, helpless woman. When a higher order of a higher-level action with its long-duration time scale is the focus, as was the case in Andrea’s move from house to apartment, it is possible that only a continuous identity element of a social actor is produced. A small part of the move is illustrated in Figure 6.1, where Andrea is shown moving and cleaning objects and organizing bits and pieces to arrange her new apartment.

Figure 6.1 Andrea producing a continuous divorcee identity element.


193

Here, as illustrated in Figure 6.1 and during large parts of the physical move from the house to the apartment, Andrea focuses only upon the higher order higher-level action of the move, only producing her continuous divorcee identity element, while the general and the immediate divorcee identity elements were absent. The higher-level actions of arranging, cleaning, and tidying, some of which are illustrated in Figure 6.1, are not new to Andrea. All of the higherlevel actions of arranging, cleaning, and tidying are actions that are well embedded in Andrea’s habitus, and the higher-level actions of arranging and cleaning objects, or tidying a room are not actions that by themselves give off a divorcee identity element. They are actions that Andrea performs without having to focus upon them. When asked what she was doing during the video excerpt of which the above transcript in Figure 6.1 is a part, Andrea said ich hab weitergemacht mit dem Umzug (I have further done with the move) ‘I’ve worked some more on the move.’ When asked what she was thinking about she answered a little perplexed an den Umzug natürlich? woran sonst. (on the move of course? what else) ‘about the move, of course? what else.’ When I probed further, asking her whether she was thinking about what exactly she was doing, she said nö. hab doch nur geräumt. hab überlegt was ich als nächstes hole und wann ich endlich alles hier hab. (no. have emphasis only tidied. have thought about what I as next get and when I ¿nally all have here) ‘no. I only tidied up. was thinking about what I should get next and when I ¿nally will have everything over here.’ This playback illustrates that Andrea was focused upon her move (the higher order higherlevel action), and not upon the higher-level actions of arranging, cleaning, and tidying. While the actions of arranging, cleaning, and tidying do not give off a divorcee identity element by themselves, the higher order higher-level action of moving with its long-duration time scale, of which the higher-level actions of arranging, cleaning, and tidying are a part, clearly do give off Andrea’s divorcee identity element in her network, producing Andrea’s continuous divorcee identity element in her social-time-place. While Andrea focuses upon the higher order long-duration higher-level action of moving and thus produces her continuous divorcee identity element, it is noteworthy that Andrea is not focusing upon the practice of moving, and neither is anyone in her network. A continuous identity element, if differentiated from the general and the immediate identity elements, is social-timeplace situated for a speci¿c social actor, and produced through higher order long-duration higher-level actions.

194

6.4


The Central Layer of Discourse: Producing an Immediate Identity Element

Social actors with their habitus and the mediated actions that they are used to performing in their social-time-place or those that they are newly learning all produce a social actor’s identity in the immediate sense. Immediate identity elements are constructed through actions and produced through practices that the social actor engages in. A practice, again, is a theoretical abstraction of actions that are performed by social actors and that are recognized by other social actors as the same kind of actions. Handing, for example, is a practice. Handing is learned in early childhood; it is recognizable by other social actors and is therefore responded to by other social actors without questioning the action. The central layer of discourse and the resulting immediate identity element production often overlaps with the outer layers of discourse and the resulting general identity production as well as with the intermediary layers of discourse and the continuous identity element production. In some cases, however, where these discourses and resulting identity element productions do not overlap, a central layer of discourse and its resulting immediate identity element production may be produced on its own. Andrea’s divorcee identity element, again, gives an excellent example of this possibility. The central layer of discourse that results in Andrea’s immediate divorcee identity element production is (co)constructed in her social-time-space through actions that Andrea’s ex-husband used to perform. Each time when Andrea was (co)constructing an action that he had formally been performing while they lived together, Andrea was reminded of the loss of her prior wife identity element and became aware of her newly—and not yet fully mastered, and certainly not appropriated—divorcee identity element. The actions that she was performing instead of him came with a certain kind of frustration at the beginning, as she had problems performing them. These very same actions, once she began to master them, also came with a feeling of accomplishment and a resulting feeling of con¿dence. The central divorcee discourse for Andrea was one of can-do: Andrea kept repeating ich kann das (I can this) ‘I can do this’ whenever she performed an action that her ex-husband used to perform. With this utterance, she granted herself the con¿dence necessary to try a new task. At the same time, by performing actions she had never performed before, she gained more and more skill and in turn raised her self-con¿dence. Andrea, who in the beginning of her divorce had been reluctant to perform those actions which she had so far considered to be male-oriented actions, gained a feeling of

The Central Layer of Discourse: Producing an Immediate Identity Element

195

pride each time she did accomplish such a male-oriented task. As Andrea accomplished more of such tasks, she began to view the distinction between male- and female-oriented tasks as nonsensical. Ich kann das (I can this) ‘I can do this,’ she would say, and continue saying wofür brauch ich da einen Mann? (what for need I there a man?) ‘what would I need a husband for?’ The actions that Andrea had taken on reluctantly gave her increasingly more con¿dence, and she began to seek out more of these actions. It is also here, in the central layer of discourse, where Andrea felt to be agentive. Andrea did things because she wanted to do them. Andrea did not ask others for help, because she wanted to learn to live by herself. Andrea’s older son, David, also began to take on Andrea’s phrase: Mama, du kannst das. (Mom, you can this.) ‘Mom, you can do this.’ he would say whenever she began a task that she had never performed before, or when a new task was frustrating her. On this level of discourse, Andrea was very busy, working hard, and learning to cope with her life. Here, Andrea demonstrated a fast pace and a willingness to learn, which was sometimes viewed in her network as overdoing it. schnell

quick

rennend schreite ich daher

in a trot I walk along

angetrieben von einer unbekannten kraft

powered by an unknown force

warum? wozu?

why? what for?

und warum nicht?

and why not?

Andrea, who was taking much help from her networks on the level of the intermediary discourse, was refusing help from members of her networks on the central layer of discourse, repeatedly saying ich kann das doch. mach ich selber. (I can that emphasis. make I myself.) ‘I can do this. I’ll do it myself.’ This became a motto, and funnily, this motto coincided with the I-do-itmyself-phase of Andrea’s youngest son. This immediate divorcee identity element for Andrea was one saturated with agency, con¿dence, and success. Because Andrea took no help from the members of her networks, she could

196


enhance and enforce her agency on this level of discourse. However, while we can differentiate between the immediate, the continuous, and the general identity elements in Andrea’s divorcee identity element, these three broader layers of discourse are often intertwined when looking at other actions that social actors perform in their social-time-place, making it dif¿cult to discern them.

6.4.1 Immediate Identity During parts of the physical move from the house to the apartment, when Andrea was alone with her children either in the house or in the apartment, only the immediate divorcee identity element was produced, while the general and the continuous divorcee identity elements were absent. For example, as soon as Andrea had found the apartment, and the ¿rst items were moved from her house, she attached the telephone as can be seen in Figure 6.2. Here, illustrated in Figure 6.2, Andrea is performing an action that her ex-husband used to perform. She is unsure of exactly how to attach the telephone as is apparent in her use of spoken language as she says ich hoffe angeschlossen. jetzt brauch ich en Telefon um zu wissen ob’s auch funktioniert. (I hope attached. now need I a telephone as to know if it also functions.) ‘I hope it’s attached. now I need a telephone to see if it’s also working.’ This is a very early example and one of the ¿rst actions that her husband used to perform that Andrea performs. During this higher-level action, Andrea is aware of the divorce because her ex-husband used to perform the action. It is this action of wiring the telephone, an action that Andrea has never performed before, and an action that she at this point in time still believes to be a male action, which produces her immediate divorcee identity element. As she explains eigentlich sollte er ja so was machen. eigentlich Männersache.

Figure 6.2 Attaching the telephone.

General Identity: Coercion or Agency?

197

und jetzt muss ich seine Arbeit mitmachen. (actually should he emphasis such things do. actually male-thing. and now must I his job also do.) ‘this is something he should be doing. it’s a man’s job. and now I am also doing his kind of work.’ Andrea’s focus is thus on the action as the action that her ex-husband should be performing. It is not her kind of action, and she performs it only because he does not. Here, Andrea does not (inter)act in relation to the outer layers of discourse and also does not react in relation to the intermediary layers of discourse. Thus, here she does not produce a general or a continuous divorcee identity element, but produces only an immediate divorcee identity element, reacting in relation to the central layer of discourse, or the discourse of what her husband used to do and she now is doing.

6.5

General Identity: Coercion or Agency?

When considering the outer layers of discourse, which are represented, enforced, and mediated by institutions, it appears that social actors are coerced into taking on particular identity elements. As we saw in the case of Andrea, institutional discourses can be overwhelmingly strong, disallowing identity element formations within these discourses that are not already embraced. In Andrea’s case, the court on the one hand enforced the incompetent woman/ bad mother divorcee identity element (her husband’s lawyers) and on the other hand enforced the hurt woman/good mother identity element (her own lawyers). In court, there was no in-between. However, even though there was a strong enforcement of either one or the other divorcee identity elements for Andrea, she did have a choice of which identity element she wanted to take on for herself, and which identity element she wanted to reject. Clearly, then, Andrea could employ agency. What we ¿nd here is that there is dialogism between what is possible or prescribed through the outer layers of discourse, and what the social actor agentively makes possible for themselves through particular actions that they take. In this case, Andrea agentively produces her general divorcee identity element by responding to the outer layers discourse. A social actor always has to respond to these discourses in some way, even if it is only by ignoring them. While Andrea does respond in an agentive way, her agency is highly limited by the choice though, inducing a feeling of anxiety. Simultaneously, the incompetent woman/bad mother divorcee identity, which is imposed on her by her husband and his lawyers, at times becomes overwhelmingly strong, inducing a feeling of apprehension and fear. Both her limited agency

198


concerning choice and the strength of the—by her rejected—divorcee identity element of the other side, cumulate in a feeling of helplessness and angst. Thus the dialogism, which is present, is not really recognized by Andrea and she wrongly views the divorcee identity element as one with many conÀicting claims, observations, and nuances. In fact Andrea seeks the help of a psychologist to make sense of the outer layer discourses, who helps her to exercise agency to dialogically produce her divorcee identity element of hurt woman/good mother. Top-down outer layer discourses are strong and enforce categories which a social actor has to ¿t into. These discourses coerce a social actor into certain identity elements, which in turn are accepted by these discourses. While social actors do have some agency to choose one or another identity element option, social actors do not have the choice to produce an identity element that is not parallel to those enforced by the institutional discourses. Agency for a social actor is thus highly limited when it comes to the production of general identity elements.

6.6

Continuous Identity: Coercion or Agency?

When considering the intermediary layers of discourse, which are represented, enforced, and mediated by networks, it appears that networks simultaneously enforce identity elements as the social actors belonging to the networks are producing and reinforcing these identity elements. In a way, social actors are part of close networks that allow for the identity elements of the social actors. At the same time, however, these close networks then also enforce these identity elements. Thus, there is agency for a social actor ¿rst of all in choice of some networks. Once a social actor is embedded in a network, the identity element production that made the social actor choose the network to begin with is now enforced by the network onto the social actor. Identity element change, while possible, is not easily performed; and once identity element change is imminent, the network(s) that the social actor is a part of take on initial positioning if and when it coincides with the values of the network and then enforce and reinforce this identity element back onto the social actor. In Andrea’s case, for example, she had been embedded in a close network when she moved into the house with her then-husband and her two children. At that time, she produced a strong housewife identity element, an identity element which was valued in the network she joined. Then, once her thenhusband left her, Andrea reacted as helpless and hurt. In turn the network

Continuous Identity: Coercion or Agency?

199

positioned her as the needy, helpless, hurt woman whose husband left her. In audio transcript 6.1 Anna points out Andrea’s helplessness. Audio transcript 6.1: Anna mentions Andrea’s helplessness (1)

Anna:

irgendwie hab ich immer so das Bedürfnis somehow have I always so the need ‘somehow I always feel like’

(2)

ich muss mich um den Henry kümmern, I must me about the Henry care ‘I have to care for Henry’

(3)

ich muss mich um Andrea kümmern, I must me about Andrea care, ‘I have to care for Andrea,’

(4)

irgendwie hab ich immer so das Gefühl, somehow have I always so the feeling, ‘somehow I always think,’

(5)

dass da that there ‘that there are’

(6)

dass ich Menschen um mich rum hab that I people around me around have ‘people around me’

(7)

die alleine das who alone that ‘who by themselves’

(8)

irgendwie nicht so ganz somehow not so all ‘can’t get their life’

(9)

geregelt kriegen. ruled get. ‘together.’

200


As transcript 13 illustrates, Anna views Andrea as someone who needs her help, since she alone cannot get her life together. Certainly, Anna was not all wrong at the time of telling, but what is more important here is the fact that Anna, who is part of Andrea’s close network, verbalizes the network’s view of Andrea: within the network, Andrea’s continuous divorcee identity element is produced and enforced as a needy and helpless divorcee identity element. As we will see in the next chapter, for a successful identity element change, Andrea feels that she has to leave the network. The network with its intermediary layer of discourse is thus an enforcer of identity elements, almost but not quite as strong as institutions and the outer layers of discourse, and is an enforcer of a different kind: the network reinforces those identity elements initially agentively produced by the social actors themselves. The difference between the two layers of discourse is that the intermediary layer of discourse ¿rst takes on the identity element as the social actor produces it, and only following the social actor’s agentive self-positioning does the network reinforce that very same positioning; whereas the outer layers of discourse come before the social actor’s self-positioning and the social actor has to produce identity elements within the present options.

6.7

Immediate Identity: Coercion or Agency?

When considering the central layers of discourse, which are represented, enforced, and mediated by social actors in interactions, it appears that social actors possess the strongest form of agency. Social actors make choices not only of what kinds of actions to perform, but of how to perform these actions in their own social-time-place. On this layer of discourse and on this immediate level of identity production, social actors are agentive—to a point. Agency, as with the other two layers, lies in choice. However, as with the two other levels, choice is also limited. But choice is limited in different ways from the other two layers of discourse: while institutional discourses prescribe identity elements and intermediary or network discourses reinforce those identity elements produced by the social actors themselves, central discourses enforce identity elements through cultural tools, the environment, and through culturally learned ways of doing things. While agency of a social actor is stronger within the central discourses and thus immediate identity element production is more agentive on this level than on the other two levels, agency is nevertheless quite restricted. For example, while Andrea does have agency in choosing to connect the telephone (illustrated in Figure 6.2) by herself or ask someone for help, she has to, if she

Immediate Identity: Coercion or Agency?

201

wants to simply and cheaply connect the telephone, connect it at the one place in the apartment where the connection is available. The layout thus directs her to also place the telephone within that room. Similarly, this wall connection also forces her to place her desk in a certain spot in that very room if she wants to connect her computer as she does. Further, when we think about her working on the computer, it is evident that she cannot simply connect the computer part in any way she pleases. The cultural tool computer forces her to connect speci¿c parts in speci¿c sequences. Of course, central discourses are also deeply embedded within the intermediary and outer layers of discourse. While it is useful to disconnect these layers for analytical purposes, these disconnections are always just heuristic. In everyday life, they play together in intricately interwoven ways, shaping each other to varying degrees. In everyday life, living is accomplished in a bottom-up and a top-down way simultaneously. In a maybe too simpli¿ed abstraction, we could say that bottom-up identity element production is accomplished in the following way: Immediate identity elements are acquired, produced, and re-produced without the social actor being aware of their own identity element production. Networks in turn are chosen to ¿t the acquired identity elements; and networks choose the social actor who produces the valued identity elements. For the social actor these network choices usually simply feel right, but are chosen out of the awareness that the networks reinforce the identity elements that the social actor already has acquired; for the network-social actors, a new member simply is like us. Then, when a social actor comes into institutional contact, the social actor prefers those institutional discourses that embrace at least some of the identity elements that the social actor produces. In turn, institutions prefer social actors that produce the valued identity elements. Simultaneously, still speaking in a maybe too simpli¿ed manner, the topdown identity production is accomplished in the following way: An institution favors certain identity element productions and forces a social actor to comply with these favored identity element productions. Enforced identity elements are taken on by social actors as their own and carried into their networks. Networks—or intermediary discourses—grow, in which the identity elements that are now taken on by the social actors in the network from the outer layer discourses are valued. In turn, individual social actors act in accordance with the intermediary and the outer layer discourses within their own central discourses, now producing immediate, continuous, and general identity elements that are overlaid and match perfectly. As mentioned above, this is a very simpli¿ed way of looking at the three layers of discourse. However, identity elements of different vertical levels,

202


as the ones discussed so far, do not often appear singularly. In everyday life, rather than ¿nding a clear bottom-up and top-down movement between the layers, layers of discourse are produced and re-produced in complex ways. Many times, two and even three layers of discourse are at play simultaneously, producing two and three layers of the same identity element. Again, Andrea’s divorcee identity element gives us an excellent example to illustrate this complexity.

6.8

Layers of Discourse, Actions, and Modes

Layers of discourse are intertwined with, embedded in, and/or peripheral to the actions that social actors (co)construct through their use of a multiplicity of communicative modes. How these embedded discourses work in everyday life is best explained through an example. In this example, we are taking a look at a higher-level action that Andrea performed, ¿rst of all drawing on her central divorcee discourse, producing an immediate divorcee identity element. Simultaneously, however, as we see below, some modes are linked to and re-produce some other levels of discourse. Once the phone was wired, Andrea worked on attaching the computer for many hours over the course of ¿ve to six weeks. Each time, she would take a box with cables and attachments off a shelf, place it in the middle of the living room Àoor in approximately the same place; then she would sit, facing the desk where she wanted to position the computer, read labels, instructions, and try to understand what she had to do. She repeatedly mentioned in one way or another that she had never been allowed to work on the computer when she was living with her husband. This repetition had a calming effect upon her, as it gave her the patience she needed. She was determined to complete this task by herself without help from others, and most de¿nitely without help from a male. Andrea moved through these many hours of learning about computer parts becoming more and more empowered. While in the beginning, she showed the frustration visible in her face as can be seen in Figure 1.5 in chapter 1, she later became more con¿dent, smiling and laughing, applauding her own accomplishments, but also being self-reÀexive of her earlier identity production. Audio transcript 6.2: Andrea is self-reÀexive (1)

Andrea:

ich freu mich richtig I happy myself really ‘I’m really happy’


(2)

jetzt kann ich wieder mit meinem Computer spielen. now can I again with my computer play. ‘now I can play with my computer again.’

(3)

wie schön, how nice, ‘it’s fun,’

(4)

Researcher: mhm

(5)

Andrea:

203

jetzt versteh ich nämlich was now understand I actually something ‘now I’m beginning to understand it’

(6)

wie blöd ich doch war how stupid I emphasis was ‘I can’t believe how stupid I was’

(7)

hätt ich schon viel früher should have I already much earlier ‘I should have done this’

(8)

selber machen sollen. myself do should. ‘a lot earlier.’

The concrete moment, the sites of engagement, of which the speci¿c actions discussed in this chapter are representative examples, lasted for 55 minutes. The site of engagement opened up when Andrea started to open a box of attachments and cables, and ended when she dropped the computer attachments and cables, some of which were partly assembled, back into the box. At this point she declared mach ich später weiter. (do I later continue.) ‘I’ll work some more on this later.’ A different site of engagement of Andrea working on the computer was discussed and illustrated in Chapter 1 in Figures 1.1 to 1.9. There, Andrea is sitting on the Àoor in the middle of her living room, surrounded by piles of objects, including shoes, clothes, binders, and a small computer adapter box with cables. Throughout, the researcher is sitting in a chair across from and slightly to the left of Andrea, writing. The video camera is situated on the desk next to the researcher.

204


The site of engagement discussed in this chapter takes place a few days later. As Andrea is inserting a music CD into the CD player, Andrea again explains the following in audio transcript 6.3. Audio transcript 6.3: Verbalizing the central and the intermediary divorcee discourses (1)

Andrea:

eigentlich hatte ich ja keine Ahnung wie das geht. actually had I emphasis no idea how that works. ‘I really had no idea how this works.’

(2)

der hat mich ja nie gelassen. he had me emphasis never let. ‘he really never let me do anything.’

(3)

aber ich hab jetzt schon so viel gelernt, but I have now already so much learned, ‘but by now I have already learned so much’

(4)

eigentlich klasse. actually great. ‘really wonderful.’

(5)

und da hab ich einen Grund and there have I a reason ‘and now I have a reason’

(6)

jetzt nicht mehr zu räumen now no longer to tidy up ‘no longer to tidy up now’

(7)

sieht zwar schlimm aus hier, looks but bad here, ‘looks pretty bad here,’

(8)

aber ich setzt mich jetzt but I sit myself now ‘but I’ll just place myself’

(9)

einfach mitten ins Durcheinander hhh just middle in mess hhh ‘right in the middle of this mess hhh’


205

In audio transcript 6.3, we see that Andrea verbalizes the central divorcee discourse, speaking of her husband never allowing her to perform these kinds of actions. Further, she addresses the intermediary divorcee discourse by speaking about the mess in which she will place herself now in order to perform the action of working on the computer. At this point, David, Andrea’s son, is sitting on the Àoor closer to Andrea than to the researcher, playing with Dominos. David is in Andrea’s peripheral vision while she is working, whereas the researcher is sitting outside of her peripheral vision. As Kendon (1982) has noted, ‘a participant in interaction must take into account how the other is acting in relation to his or her own actions, [which] is, of course, a reciprocal process’ (Kendon, 1982:450). Thus, even though Andrea is focused on her work, she must act in relation to the other participants present. For Andrea at this moment, her action of working on the computer is closely linked to the divorce, and we can surmise that the action thus produces her divorcee identity element(s). Throughout this site of engagement, loud hard-rock type music is playing on the CD player, which is also something that happens often when she is performing an action that her ex-husband used to perform. During playback, I asked Andrea about the music as follows: Audio transcript 6.4: The music (1)

Researcher: die Musik war ja wieder ganz schön laut. the music was emphasis again emphasis pretty loud. ‘the music was again really loud.’

(2)

Andrea:

ja ich brauchte das. yes I needed that. ‘yes, I needed that.’

(3)

mal wieder once again ‘again’

(4)

wenn der schreit when he screams ‘when he screams’

(5)

dann brauch ich nich than need I not ‘than I don’t have to’

206


(6)

blöde Scheidung stupid divorce ‘stupid divorce’

(7)

haste gesehen have you seen ‘did you see’

(8)

hab ich heute morgen have I this morning ‘I got this this morning’

(9)

vom Gericht gekriegt from court got ‘from court’

Andrea had received a letter from the divorce court, which she was not happy about. Here, Andrea responded to this outer layer of divorcee discourse, producing her general divorcee identity element by playing very loud music. The lyrics of the music du hast mich mit der ganzen Stadt schon betrogen (you have me with the whole town already cheated) ‘you’ve cheated on me with everyone in this town’ directly reÀect Andrea’s outer layer network discourse, emphasising the wrong-doing of the person who cheats on the other. By playing this song over and over in response to the court letter, Andrea responds to the tension between the two outer layer discourses on some level, even though at this point she is not truly aware of the duality of the outer layers of discourse.2 The action of working on the computer is illustrated in Figure 6.3. Images 1 and 2 of Figure 6.3 show Andrea dancing a little as she positions herself behind the box with computer attachments. As soon as she is kneeling, she says aber wie ich da jetzt was (but how I there now what) ‘but how I’m supposed to’ (illustrated in Figure 6.3, image 3) kon¿gurieren muss das weiss ich nicht (con¿gure must that know I not) ‘con¿gure this here that I do not know’ (illustrated in Figure 6.3, image 4) reicht das nicht wenn ich das Ding kon¿guriere. (is enough not if I this thing con¿gure.) ‘isn’t it enough if I con¿gure this thing.’ (illustrated in Figure 6.3, images 5 and 6). Andrea smiles while she says this in Figure 6.3, image 4 and starts to read the label on the computer part in her hand in image 6 (after which she turns to the instruction booklet which is not shown here). In the example, illustrated in Figure 6.3, Andrea produces three layers of identity: she produces a general divorcee identity element by playing the


207

Figure 6.3 Three levels of discourse: producing Andrea’s general, continuous, and immediate divorcee identity element.

music in response to the divorce court letter; she produces her continuous divorcee identity element by placing herself in the middle of the mess that is a result of the divorce; and she produces an immediate divorcee identity by (co) constructing a higher-level action that her ex-husband used to perform. With these three layers of a divorcee identity element, Andrea addresses three layers of discourse: she addresses the outer layers of discourse through the

208


mode of music; she addresses the intermediary layer of discourse through the mode of spoken discourse and the mode of layout; and she addresses the central layer of discourse through the performance of connecting some computer parts. While Andrea addresses these three layers of discourse, producing three layers of a divorcee identity, Andrea takes an active part in negotiating the three layers of discourse and with it the three layers of her divorcee identity. The outer layer of discourse and the divorcee identity element of an incompetent wife/bad mother identity are aggressively rejected, and the other outer layer divorcee identity, the identity of a hurt woman/good mother, is also contested. Here, through music, Andrea produces the divorcee identity element of the strong woman who, although having been wronged, recovers from the hurt and is ready to retaliate. The intermediary layer of discourse, produced through the move itself, is also re-negotiated. Here, Andrea brushes off the move and the many piles of objects as just a chore and as something that simply can be put aside. Andrea also re-negotiates the central layer of discourse and her immediate divorcee identity element. Here, Andrea views the immediate divorcee identity as a positive thing that has opened her eyes and allows her to perform actions which she had not been able to perform when she was married. The immediate divorcee identity was thus being re-negotiated from a can-do to a want-to-do attitude. Of course, all of these renegotiations are happening at the very same time. With the screaming music, Andrea demonstrates her rebellion against the forced outer layer discourses and her positioning of either one of the general divorcee identity elements. But the music does not stop there. The music, with its high modal density, reaches beyond the general divorcee identity into the continuous divorcee identity, which has Andrea positioned as a needy, helpless, hurt woman. The music telling of a strong person, and Andrea’s brushing aside the piles of objects and the move also demonstrate Andrea’s feeling of no longer wanting to be viewed as helpless. Further, the music impacts the central discourse and Andrea’s immediate identity element. While she starts out by saying that he never allowed her to do such things, she also reÀects upon her progress and then, once the music is playing, she happily produces the immediate divorcee identity element. Here is no resentment towards her ex-husband as we could glean from the moment when she was attaching the telephone (illustrated in Figure 6.2); here, Andrea is glad to be able to work on the computer. In this example, illustrated in Figure 6.3, Andrea thus addresses and responds to all three layers of discourse simultaneously, re-negotiating and empowering her in all three layers of divorcee identity, injecting a bit of agency into each one with the help of the mode of music. But besides these three layers of vertical identity that Andrea is producing and negotiating, Andrea also produces two other horizontal identity elements at this time.

Vertical and Horizontal Identity Production

6.9

209

Vertical and Horizontal Identity Production

During the excerpt illustrated in Figure 6.3, Andrea’s son David is playing in Andrea’s peripheral vision, and the researcher is sitting at the desk next to the camera. When Andrea says kon¿gurieren muss das weiss ich nicht (con¿gure must that know I not) ‘con¿gure this I do not know’ (illustrated in Figure 6.3, image 4), she speaks to the researcher. When we now look only at Figure 6.4 and plot the identities that Andrea simultaneously produces onto the modal density foreground-background continuum, we ¿nd that Andrea produces the three layers of divorcee identity in the foreground of her attention/awareness as discussed in detail in the last section. Further, throughout the excerpt illustrated in Figure 6.4, Andrea (co)produces a mother identity element with David, with proximity and gaze building medium modal density; and she (co)produces a participant identity element with the researcher by addressing her, but more so by having positioned herself towards the camera, which was standing on the desk next to the researcher, a little further in the mid-ground of Andrea’s attention/awareness. Here, we can not say that Andrea pays no attention to or that Andrea is barely aware of the researcher. However, we can say that Andrea for the most part is a bit less aware of the researcher than of her son David, as he plays in her peripheral vision, and unless Andrea looks up as she does in Figure 6.3, image 4, she does not engage with the researcher. Yet, speci¿cally in Figure 6.3, image 4 as reproduced in Figure 6.4, the mid-grounded identity elements of mother and participant are reversed, so that here Andrea pays more attention to the researcher and less to her son David. In Figure 6.5 we see the vertical and the horizontal identity elements for Andrea in Figure 6.3, image 4 (or Figure 6.4, image 1) plotted on the heuristic graph, the modal density foreground-background continuum.

Figure 6.4 Andrea’s horizontal identity production during the excerpt in Figure 6.3.

210


Figure 6.5 Vertical and horizontal identity production as illustrated in Figure 6.4.

Thus, here Andrea produces the three vertical layers of her divorcee identity element in the foreground, and produces a participant and a mother identity element in the mid- or background of her attention/awareness, sometimes paying more attention to one or the other. Vertical identity elements, when produced simultaneously, are perceived as one salient identity element. However, when they are all produced at the same time, they do not always have to be produced on the same level of attention/awareness. Vertical identity elements, just as horizontal identity elements, can spread throughout the attention/awareness levels. After having used Andrea’s divorcee identity elements to illustrate vertical identity production, the next chapter demonstrates identity change, using Andrea’s identity element change from wife to single mother via this divorcee identity element.

Notes 1. See: Bourdieu (1984); E. Erickson (1963); Gergen (1994); Goffman (1961); Luhmann (1998); Norris (2005). 2. This, she only understood once I analyzed the vertical layers of discourse.

Chapter 7 Shifting Identity, Saliency of Identity, and Identity Change like other events in nature, no body movement or expression is without meaning in the context in which it appears . . . like other aspects of human behavior, body posture, movement and facial expression are patterned, and, thus, subject to systematic analysis. —Birdwhistell (1970:49)

While a social actor can focus on only one higher-level action at a time, a social actor can perform several vertical or horizontal identity elements simultaneously in the foreground. An example of simultaneous vertical identity element production was given in the last chapter, where I discussed Andrea’s three layers of the divorcee identity element (see Figure 6.5); and an example of simultaneous horizontal identity element production was given in chapter 5, where I discussed Andrea producing a friend identity element with Anna and a divorcee identity element in the foreground of her attention/awareness. Both the vertical and the horizontal identity productions are closely tied to the higher-level action that the social actor (co)constructs within a particular site of engagement. Whereas multiple identity elements can be produced through one higherlevel action in the foreground of a social actor’s attention/awareness, a social actor often shifts the focus of higher-level actions that they are simultaneously (co)constructing. These shifts in focused higher-level action are regulated in a higher-level discourse structure through what I call semantic/pragmatic means.

7.1

Higher-Level Discourse Structure: Identity Shifts

When considering phenomenological horizontal and vertical identity element production, we can demonstrate how social actors structure the foregrounding of higher-level actions that display a shift in foregrounded identity element(s). Although the signaling system or higher-level discourse structure indicates any shift in foregrounded higher-level action, I here continue to focus on identity production.

212

Shifting Identity, Saliency of Identity, and Identity Change

The modal density foreground-background continuum investigates the social actor’s awareness/attention level in regards to higher-level actions performed and, as in the case of music in the example illustrated in Figure 6.3, modes present, which then impact and are integrated into the actions that social actors perform. A social actor structures the shifts in foregrounded higher-level actions by performing pronounced lower-level actions before the shift occurs. Before discussing aspects of the signaling system, I discuss the theoretical background, or the signaling system that Goffman (1974) and Kendon (1992) referred to as the directional track. Then, I demonstrate how social actors signal a shift in foregrounded actions, which also entail a shift in foregrounded identity element(s) through the employment of beat gestures and deictics. The ¿rst examples show the signaling function of some beat gestures. In order to illustrate the relevance of the higher-level discourse structure, the examples of the beat gestures are explicated in great detail, showing the interaction before and after the occurrence of the beat. The examples of deictics as signaling means are discussed focusing on the essence of the signaling means. I call the pronounced lower-level actions means, as discussed in detail in Norris (2004) and also further below.

7.1.1 Theoretical Background Goffman (1974) discussed the directional track as a disattended track of interaction. He noted that in joint participation there is a stream of signs that are themselves excluded from the content of the activity, which, however, serve as a means of regulating, bounding, and qualifying the storyline. Kendon (1992) builds on this notion of disattended track, showing that the ability of social actors to treat each other’s behavior in a differential manner—attending to some aspects of communication as signi¿ers, while treating other aspects as not to denote anything, makes focused interaction possible. Both Goffman and Kendon analyze how focused interactions are established and maintained. The establishment of focused interaction is viewed from the perspective of several individuals, explicating how social actors arrange themselves. Kendon and Ferber (1973) for example discuss how social actors demonstrate a readiness to be a recipient of another’s address by moving into synchrony with him or her. The higher-level discourse structure that I am presenting here, however, differs from the disattended directional track that both Goffman and Kendon describe. The higher-level discourse structure is a signaling system that social actors use to structure their shifts in foregrounded higher-level action. Here, I discuss only shifts in higher-level actions, which also display a shift in foregrounded identity elements of the social actor as mentioned above.

Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Beat

213

The higher-level discourse structure is similar to what Ekman and Friesen call regulators. Regulators are related to the conversation, the Àow and the pacing of the exchange. ‘The most common regulator is the head nod, the equivalent of the verbal mm-hmm; other regulators include eye contacts, slight movements forward, small postural shifts, eyebrow raises, and a whole host of other small nonverbal acts’ (Ekman and Friesen, 1969:34). The higher-level discourse structure is made up of similar signaling devices as the regulators. However, while the regulators within conversation or within a foregrounded higher-level action are small, slight movements, or un-pronounced lower-level actions, the signals that indicate a shift in foregrounded higher-level action are pronounced lower-level actions. I call these pronounced lower-level actions semantic/pragmatic means (Norris, 2004) in order to differentiate between the signals and the modes that they belong to. There, I explain that semantic/pragmatic means have a dual function. 1. A means functions semantically by marking the end of a foregrounded higher-level action (or the beginning of a new higher-level action), facilitating the organization of higher-level actions in the performer’s own mind. 2. A means functions pragmatically by communicating the upcoming occurrence of a shift in foregrounded higher-level action to the other participants. (Norris, 2004:117) The means that are discussed in this chapter fall into two categories. The ¿rst type of signaling means falls into the category of beats, and the second type of signaling means falls into the category of deictics. I discuss two means, belonging to the category of beats in great detail: the head toss and the hand/¿nger beat. Then I discuss two means, belonging to the category of deictics: gaze and talk, and motion and talk. Each shift in foregrounded higher-level action also gives off a shift in foregrounded identity element, which is illuminated by plotting the shift onto a modal density foregroundbackground continuum.

7.2

Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Beat

One means to signal a shift in higher-level action is the beat. Efron (1941) and Ekman and Friesen (1969) called this type of gesture the baton, naming it after the musical instrument. Kendon (1967) and McNeill (1992) call these brief gestures beats. Beats differ from other gestures in that they have only two movement phases, while other gestures consist of three movement

214


phases. Beats consist only of in/out or up/down phases, and have the same form regardless of the discourse content. They are generally seen to have a structuring function. Both Kendon and Mc Neill have mainly discussed the hand or ¿nger beat. Mc Neill (1992), who largely discussed gestures that corresponded with tellings of narratives, argues: Beats reveal the speaker’s conception of the narrative discourse as a whole. The semiotic value of the beat lies in the fact that it indexes the word or phrase it accompanies as being signi¿cant, not for its own semantic content, but for its discourse pragmatic content. Examples are marking the introduction of new characters, summarizing the action, introducing new themes, etc. Thus beats mark information that does not advance the plot line but provides the structure within which the plot unfolds. (Mc Neill, 1992:15)

Similarly, as McNeill asserts that beats can mark the introduction of new characters or introduce new themes, I argue that beats can also introduce a new higher-level action that the social actor focuses on. I have found that beats can be performed with other parts of the body as well.

7.3

Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Head Toss

In the following example, Andrea indicates a switch in higher-level action, displaying a change in foregrounded identity by means of a head toss. A head toss is a back-forth movement of the head, comprising a two-movement phase, as illustrated in Figure 7.1. The ¿rst video capture of Figure 7.1 shows Andrea before the head toss. The second video capture illustrates the furthest point of the back-movement phase, and the third video capture shows the end-point of the forth-movement phase of the head toss. The two movement phases demonstrate that the head toss is a beat gesture. The duration of the head beat is not quite two seconds.

Figure 7.1 Head toss.


215

7.3.1 Shopping in an Italian Supermarket An analysis of the head toss in a one-minute-long segment illustrates the regulatory function of the beat. The site of engagement comes about in an Italian supermarket, while Andrea is shopping for a catering event. The participants in the communicative events are Andrea and the researcher. This particular higher-level action is buying grissini, which begins when Andrea is standing in front of a shelf full of Italian bread sticks, and closes, when she moves away from the shelf placing the chosen boxes of grissini into her shopping cart. While the researcher was standing a little further down the aisle out of Andrea’s peripheral vision, Andrea was looking at all of the different types of grissini, in order to decide which ones to buy, and then takes the boxes after having made her decision. Andrea’s modes of proxemics (to the shelf), posture (her body turned towards the shelf), gaze (focused on the items on the shelf or her shopping list), employment of the mode of print (reading the shopping list as well as reading the labels on the boxes of grissini), and object handling (her manual action of taking boxes off of the shelf and holding them), all demonstrate Andrea’s foregrounded focus upon the higher-level action of shopping for grissini, displaying her work identity element as a caterer. At the same time, Andrea mid-grounds her friend identity element.1 She had been talking with the researcher before this higher-level action of buying grissini had opened up. But while she foregrounds buying grissini, her embodied mode of proxemics displays her friend identity in the mid-ground of the continuum. Because this is an Italian supermarket and all labels are in Italian, Andrea has some language dif¿culty, bringing about some awareness of her national identity element. Andrea’s shopping list is written in German mixed with Italian. It states the Italian product and a German explanation, such as grissini—Brotstangen ‘grissini—bread sticks’ and Andrea displays dif¿culty with the Italian labels throughout the shopping trip in this Italian food store. While she produces her German national identity in the background of the continuum, her national identity is less taken for granted than it would be in a German food store, but is, nevertheless, not focused upon. Andrea’s national identity for this site of engagement does not reside in the far background, as she is slightly aware of it. Figure 7.2 illustrates how Andrea determines which grissini she is going to buy. While she is extending her right hand/arm, she is verifying that the label of the box is identical to the item on her list. Once she is sure that the item is the correct one, she starts collecting boxes of grissini, picking them up one by one with her right hand, placing them ¿rst in her left hand, and then moving the boxes to her left arm in order to stack them more easily as illustrated in Figure 7.3.

216


Figure 7.2 Andrea decides which grissini to buy.

Andrea takes ¿ve boxes and extends her right hand to take hold of the sixth box, when she performs her head toss as illustrated in Figure 7.4. At the furthest point of the head toss, Andrea gazes at the researcher. The peak of the back-movement phase of the head toss coincides with the placement of the sixth box on top of the other boxes in Andrea’s left hand. Then, as soon as she has performed the forward-movement phase of the head toss, she employs the embodied mode of spoken language, saying sechs ‘six’. Then she takes hold of the seventh box, and walks toward the researcher saying ‘grissini grissini grissini grissini’ and laughing as illustrated in Figure 7.5. She places the boxes of grissini into the shopping cart and, as the researcher is taking a photo of the grissini boxes on the shelf, keeps talking to the researcher, saying ich geh mal zu der Wursttheke noch was holen (I go once to the sausage counter else something get) ‘now I’ll go to the sausage counter to get something else’. With these words both Andrea and the researcher turn around and walk towards the counter, which is located on the other end of the store, chatting on the way.

Figure 7.3 Collecting boxes of grissini.


217

Figure 7.4 Andrea performs a head toss and starts speaking.

Figure 7.5 Andrea is engaged in interaction.

7.3.2 Head Toss: Shift in Focus and Shift in Foregrounded Identity Element Andrea’s head toss carries a regulatory function indicating a shift in her foregrounded higher-level action, displaying a shift in her foregrounded identity. Highlighting the immediate actions surrounding the head toss demonstrates this regulatory function more clearly.

218


First, Andrea was concentrating on her shopping, collecting ¿ve boxes of grissini without looking at the researcher or saying anything. Then she performs a head toss while she is picking up the sixth box, employing the mode of gaze, looking at the researcher. When she is already taking hold of the next box, she says sechs ‘six’. After she has taken the seventh box, she turns, moves towards the researcher laughingly saying grissini, grissini, grissini grissini. The shift in higher-level action is evident in Figure 7.6 Andrea indicates a shift in her foregrounded action of shopping to interaction with the researcher, entailing a shift from caterer identity element to friend identity element with the researcher. This shift in foregrounded identity

Figure 7.6 Andrea’s shift in foregrounded higher-level action and with that in foregrounded identity.


219

is illustrated with the modal density foreground-background continuum in Figures 7.7 and 7.8. The head toss indicates Andrea’s shift in foregrounded higher-level action from shopping for the catering event to conversing with the researcher. By shifting the foregrounded higher-level action, Andrea displays a shift in foregrounded identity. At the same time as she had been foregrounding her

Figure 7.7 Andrea foregrounds her work identity before she performs the head toss.

Figure 7.8 Andrea foregrounds her friend identity after her performance of the head toss.

220


caterer identity element while collecting the boxes of grissini off the shelf, she foregrounds her friend identity element by talking and laughing with the researcher. During the head toss, Andrea employs the mode of gaze, looking at the researcher. Her employment of the mode of gaze also illustrates her shifting focus from shopping to interaction. However, the gaze does not have the regulating function, but rather is a by-product of the head toss, because there was no need to perform a head toss in order to utilize the mode of gaze to look at the researcher. Again, to refer to Kendon and McNeill (1992), beats do display higher-level discourse structure and the head toss is one technique to perform a beat. The head seems to be especially functional to perform a beat when the hands are occupied.

7.4

Semantic/Pragmatic Means: The Hand/Finger Beat

Anna’s hand/¿nger beat in the following example also indicates a switch in foregrounded higher-level action, displaying a switch in foregrounded identity. A hand/¿nger beat typically consists of an up-down or back-forth movement of the hand and/or ¿nger. In this instance, Anna extends the hand/¿nger with the pen she is holding, hitting the tabletop with the back of her pen four times, performing four beats in a row, as illustrated in Figure 7.9. In the eight images, the ¿rst of each two video captures in one row illustrates the up-movement phase, and each second capture demonstrates the down-movement phase of the beat. The beats are performed in quick succession (images 1–8).

7.4.1 Writing Shopping Lists The analysis of the hand/¿nger beat in interaction makes the regulatory function of the beat more evident. In this site of engagement, Andrea and Anna plan their next catering occasion. They each have a piece of paper in front of them, making different lists. Anna had just stood up when she realized they had forgotten some items. This higher-level action comes about when Anna leans on the table and begins writing again, and it ends when Andrea remembers a certain Italian drink. Figure 7.10 illustrates the opening of this site of engagement. As illustrated in Figure 7.10, Anna exclaims Ruccola ‘ruccola,’ and Andrea chimes in, saying genau ‘exactly’ and Parmesan brauchen wir noch


Figure 7.9 Anna performs four hand/¿nger beats in a row.

221

222


Figure 7.10

Writing a shopping list.

‘and we also need parmesan.’ Anna repeats Parmesan ‘parmesan’ writing it on her list; then she sits down. As illustrated in Figure 7.11, Andrea adds brauchen wir da noch en Eis oder wie ‘do we need some ice cream for that or what.’ Anna gazes intently at her list saying nein ‘no,’ while Andrea continues to gaze at Anna, apparently waiting for an explanation. When Anna, however, does not react, Andrea refers to an illustration of the drink in a magazine when she says das sah nur so aus ‘it only looks like that’ as illustrated in the ¿ rst image of Figure 7.12. Then, Anna overlaps with the last part of Andrea’s utterance, saying der Prosecco muss noch in ‘the prosecco still has to’ and pointing at the refrigerator, but cutting off her utterance as can be seen in the second image in Figure 7.12. Anna then moves her hand forward shaking it ever so slightly saying nee das sieht das trinkt man nich so ‘no it looks you don’t drink it like that’ as shown in the last two images of Figure 7.12. At ¿rst, Anna uses the same words in her answer that Andrea had been using in her question, saying nee das sieht ‘no that looks’. She then breaks off and repairs her statement, saying

Figure 7.11

Fully engaged with the list.


Figure 7.12

223

Still engaged with the catering.

das trinkt man nicht so ‘you don’t drink it like that’. The repaired utterance reveals that the illustration of the drink in the magazine, which Andrea is thinking off, actually did show the drink with ice cream. The generalized statement with the general man (one) ‘you’ also displays Anna’s knowledge of how to make the drink correctly. But when Anna does not explain further, Andrea says also das sah nur so aus als ob ‘so it only looked as if’ (Figure 7.13) at which point Anna reacts by gazing at Andrea, saying hast du hier schon getrunken ‘you have had it here before’ and performing the four hand/ ¿nger beats as she ¿nishes this utterance. Thus, when Andrea continues to gaze at Anna questioningly, instead of explaining the difference between the illustration and the way that Anna is used to making the drink, Anna looks up at Andrea and says hast du hier schon getrunken ‘you have had it here before.’ When Anna utters the pronoun du ‘you’, she stresses the word and performs a deictic gesture with her pen, pointing at Andrea. Anna then performs the four hand/¿nger beats in a row, and after the beats, knocking the tabletop with the back of her pen as illustrated (in Figure 7.9) here in Figure 7.13. From this moment on, Anna

224


Figure 7.13

Andrea gazes at Anna questioningly and Anna reacts.

fully focuses upon the higher-level action of conversing with Andrea, now foregrounding a friend identity element and no longer gazing back at her list or speaking about what else needs to be done for the catering event. The hand/¿nger beat indicates a shift in focus. Anna is no longer foregrounding the higher-level action of writing a shopping list, she is now foregrounding the higher-level action of conversing with Andrea, as illustrated in Figures 7.14 and 7.15. Anna is foregrounding the higher-level action of conversing, talking with Andrea on a personal level, through the employment of the modes of proxemics (sitting close to Andrea even though the mode has not changed, though its meaning has), posture (having turned her shoulders and head towards Andrea), gaze (looking at Andrea), and gesture (nodding her head in response to Andrea’s utterances). Thus, Anna is here foregrounding her friend identity element with Andrea, while her caterer identity element has moved between the fore- and the mid-ground on the continuum. Anna is still very much aware of the higher-level action of writing a shopping list. This is apparent in her proxemics (the closeness to the list), her posture


Figure 7.14

225

Anna is focused on the higher-level action of conversing.

(the left shoulder is still turned towards the list), and her action of holding the pen. At the same time, her mother identity element remains in the mid-ground of the attention/awareness, because of her proxemics to the children,2 while Anna’s national identity elements continue to be taken for granted. Andrea says war das ‘was that’ as illustrated in Figure 7.14, and while she is continuing her utterance, Anna moves her head up even higher, and moving it back down in a nod, as shown in Figure 7.15.

Figure 7.15

Anna is focused on the interaction.

226


While saying this, Andrea performs a deictic gesture, pointing into space, illustrating a far-away point in the past as can be seen in Figure 7.15. Anna’s nodding veri¿es that Andrea is thinking of the correct drink and time when she had it. Andrea’s facial expression displays comprehension and involvement, as illustrated in Figure 7.16. Andrea says ohh dieses leckere ‘oh this tasty,’ while Anna gazes directly at Andrea and nods one more time. Andrea rephrases her utterance, showing that she now knows which drink Anna is thinking off, as illustrated in Figure 7.17.

Figure 7.16

Anna is focused on Andrea’s reaction.

Figure 7.17

Anna continues to gaze at Andrea and back channels.


227

While Andrea says oh tödliche ‘oh deadly,’ Anna is now giving a back channel response, saying ‘mhm.’

7.4.2 Hand/Finger Beat: Shift in Focus and Shift in Foregrounded Identity Element Anna’s hand/¿nger beats in this site of engagement carry a regulatory function indicating a shift in her focus from the higher-level action of writing a shopping list to the higher-level action of conversing. Focusing on Anna’s actions before and after the hand/¿nger beats highlights the regulatory function of these beats. Before Anna performs the four hand/¿nger beats extended with her pen, she is focused upon writing a shopping list for an upcoming catering event. After the performance of the four beats, Anna focuses on Andrea as a friend by talking about a personal event in Anna’s and Andrea’s life, when they drank a certain Italian drink. The shift in Anna’s focus from the higher-level action of writing a shopping list to the higher-level action of conversation is evident in Figure 7.18. Anna indicates a shift in her foregrounded action of writing a shopping list to conversation, entailing a shift from work identity to friend identity. This shift in foregrounded identity is illustrated with the modal density foreground-background continuum in Figures 7.19 and 7.20. In this site of engagement as illustrated in Figures 7.10 to 7.11, Anna utilizes the mode of spoken language and the mode of print almost simultaneously, listing the items. She foregrounds writing her list, which is evident in her employment of the modes of print, proxemics (to the paper, making it possible for her to write), posture (which is closed and focused upon the action of writing), gaze (which is focused on the list), and spoken language (saying the items while writing them down); and writing down and repeating what Andrea is saying. By foregrounding the higher-level action of writing a shopping list with Andrea, Anna foregrounds her caterer identity element. Anna and Andrea are sitting at Anna’s kitchen table and ¿ve children are playing near-by. Anna occasionally reminds the children not to be so noisy. These occasional remarks display that Anna’s mother identity element, which is produced through the higher-level action of interacting with the children, is located in the mid-ground of the continuum. The German and Italian languages, which are both used by Anna, are not completely taken for granted here, displaying Anna’s national identities in the background of the continuum as illustrated in Figures 7.19 and 7.20.

228


Figure 7.18

Anna’s shift in foregrounded higher-level action and with foregrounded identity.


Figure 7.19

229

Anna foregrounds her caterer identity element before she performs the four consecutive hand/¿nger beats.

Figure 7.20 Anna foregrounds her friend identity element after her performance of the four hand/¿nger beats.

While Anna and Andrea are planning this catering event, they have personal exchanges every so often. Such exchanges demonstrate that Anna is producing her friend identity sometimes in the mid-ground (as before the hand/ ¿nger beats) and sometimes in the foreground (after the hand/¿nger beats).

230


Before Anna performs the four hand/¿nger beats she is focused upon the higher-level action of writing a shopping list. By focusing on her shopping list, she displays her foregrounded caterer identity element. Once she has performed the hand/¿nger beats, Anna focuses on the higher-level action of conversing with Andrea, thereby foregrounding her friend identity element with Andrea. Anna is employing the mode of gaze, looking at Andrea, while she is performing her beats. However, the gaze does not appear to have the regulatory function indicating the shift in higher-level action and identity element, as Anna had shifted her gaze to Andrea before, without shifting her focus away from writing the shopping list. While Anna is indicating a shift in her focus verbally in Figure 7.13, starting to talk personally to Andrea, saying ‘hast du hier schon getrunken ‘you have had it here before’, Anna indicates her foregrounding the conversation through the performance of the beats. Once Anna has performed the beats, she stays focused on the higher-level action of conversing, employing the embodied mode of posture, gaze, and gesture. With this, she foregrounds her friend identity element, while the caterer identity element moves into the mid-ground at this point in time.

7.5

Semantic/Pragmatic Means: Deictics

Deictics can also function as means to indicate a shift in foregrounded higherlevel action. In this section, I describe the deictic means of deictic gaze plus talk and deictic motion plus talk. I have found that many of the deictic signaling means are coupled with the mode of spoken language.

7.5.1 Deictic Gaze Plus Talk In the following example, Andrea is sitting at Anna’s kitchen table, holding Katie in her lap. Andrea’s son David is walking by, brieÀy gazing at her. Andrea has been sitting quietly, moving tired Katie with her upper body in some rhythm. In Figure 7.21 Andrea is looking at a towel that is hanging over a chair. This gaze is a deictic gaze, and has a similar function as the deictic gesture of pointing. Her gaze indicates a shift in higher-level action of rocking tired Katie to engaging her son in reading. David catches this gaze as can be seen in Figure 7.21, image 3 and is gazing at the towel for a split second, but then walks past when Andrea says oh guck mal was isn das fürn tolles Handtuch ‘oh look

Semantic/Pragmatic Means: Deictics

231

Figure 7.21 Deictic gaze indicates a switch in higher-level action from interacting with Katie to interacting with David .

what kind of a great towel is that’, almost stopping her movement, and looking more intently at the towel (Figure 7.22). The second image in Figure 7.22 shows that Katie has followed Andrea’s directive and looks at the towel and David has turned and come closer. David is looking at the print on the towel as can be seen in the last image of Figure 7.22, and Andrea reads out loud da steht ja Küchenchef bin ich ‘it says there I am the kitchen chef.’3 She shifts from the higher-level action of rocking Katie to the higher-level action of engaging with her son in interaction through the means of gaze and then also talk. While David had taken Andrea’s gaze as the cue to look at the towel brieÀy, her gaze had more re-focused her own attention than David’s. Andrea’s summons oh guck mal ‘oh look’ on the other hand gets David’s attention and he turns around and comes closer to look at the towel. While Andrea’s shift in foregrounded higher-level action was indicated by her deictic gaze, she actively shifts her son’s attention using the mode of language. The shift in higher-level action also entailed a shift in identity for Andrea. She shifted from a mother plus friend identity element with Anna, holding and rocking Anna’s little girl to a mother identity with her own son, engaging him in reading and interaction.

Figure 7.22

Talk as second indicator that a change in higher-level action has occurred.

232


7.5.2 Deictic Motion Plus Talk In this example, Andrea is sitting at Anna’s kitchen table, looking at a fashion magazine. She is lea¿ng through the pages. Then she stops the lea¿ng motion and starts to pull the magazine close to her nose. While she is lifting the magazine, she says boah wie die riecht ‘wow the way this smells.’ At the highest point in her motion (illustrated in Figure 7.23, image 2), she concludes her statement. Then, she moves the magazine to approximately the same distance as before (as seen in Figure 7.23, image 3), and continues to leaf through the pages, but keeps talking to Anna about what she sees. In this example, Andrea shifts from the higher-level action of reading to the higher-level action of interacting with Anna. Here, Andrea employs the motion at the same time as she speaks. The shift in higher-level action entails a shift in foregrounded identity element from personal identity element to friend identity element.

7.6

Signaling System: A Discussion

Pronounced lower-level actions, which I call means, structure higher-level discourse. Social actors employ these means to mark their shifts in foregrounded higher-level action. Here I showed only means that Andrea and Anna employed when also shifting their foregrounded identity elements. However, there are many more means that signal a shift in foregrounded higher-level action.4 Some of these are hand/arm gestures, like pointing to objects or social actors. The means are found just before a shift in foregrounded higher-level action occurs, so that these means signal the end of one higher-level action or the beginning of the next. Often, a second or more goes by after a social

Figure 7.23 Motion and talk indicate a switch in higher-level action from reading to interaction.

Saliency of Identity Elements

233

actor has employed a means and before the social actor foregrounds the next higher-level action. This signaling system, structuring foregrounded higher-level actions, reveals that social actors have to structure simultaneous (inter)actions that are happening on various levels of awareness/attention—at least when these higher-level actions are foregrounded. As soon as one higher-level action that is present in the mid- or the background of the modal density continuum is foregrounded or a higher-level action is newly (co)constructed in the focus of attention/awareness, the social actor indicates this shift through the employment of these pronounced lower-level actions described above to themselves and to others. The higher-level discourse structure consisting of semantic/pragmatic means regulates higher-level actions coming into and out of the focus of a social actor, and sometimes these shifts simultaneously display a shift in focus on a particular identity element. While these micro shifts are important in interaction, the identity elements that a social actor is focusing on more in their everyday lives are stronger on an intermediary level as well. The next section discusses the saliency of identity elements visible on this intermediary level of discourse.

7.7

Saliency of Identity Elements

As social actors shift their focus from one higher-level action to another and— every so often—also shift their identity elements, we ¿nd that social actors more often focus on particular identity elements than on others; and we also ¿nd that a social actor keeps some identity elements continuously on some level of their attention/awareness. Thus, it is not only the focus that expresses the saliency of identity elements, but it is the continuity of an identity element present in a social actor’s attention/awareness that informs of saliency. Throughout this book, you will have noticed that Andrea and Anna are almost always involved with their children at some point on their attention/ awareness. Sometimes these interactions with their children take place in the foreground, sometimes in the mid-ground, and sometimes in the background of their attention/awareness. On the intermediary layer of discourse, which is closely connected to the networks in which Anna and Andrea are members, identity production links to the value of the network and the duration and amount of attention/awareness a particular social actor is expected to pay to that identity element. What is noticeable in the intermediary layer of discourse is that the mother identity

234


element of both women is very salient. Simultaneously, the most common identity shift into and out of the focus for both women, when investigated over a long period of time, is the shift into and out of a mother identity element. For both of the women, the three vertical layers of the mother identity element are merged, so that both Andrea and Anna experience the general, the continuous, and the immediate identity elements as one. Andrea’s divorcee identity element with all of its different and conÀicting vertical layers was also very salient for a period of time. During this time, the vertical layers of identity were sometimes focused on together as in the example in the last chapter, but sometimes they were split in Andrea’s attention/awareness so that the immediate divorcee identity element resided on a different level in her attention/awareness than the continuous and the general divorcee identity elements. Andrea, during the saliency of the divorcee identity element in her everyday life, tried to experience the three layers of the identity element as one, which caused her great distress. Once an identity element is divided into the three layers resulting from three different layers of discourse, and once realizing that social actors themselves try to experience these three layers of identity as one, we come a step closer to understanding why social actors agentively take on the general and continuous layers of forced identity: an identity element is experienced as an agreeable part of the self when in synchrony with its layers. Therefore, an agentive striving towards normative identity elements is preferred by a social actor, while a discord among the layers of identity elements is dis-preferred and may result in a social actor’s psychological stress as was seen in Andrea in regard to the divorcee identity element. Saliency of an identity element can thus be enjoyed by a social actor as an important part of the self—in analytical terms, these are successful mergers between outer, intermediary, and central layers of discourse; or saliency of an identity element can be viewed by a social actor as a serious stress factor—in analytical terms, these are variances between outer, intermediary, and central layers of discourse. Of course, identity elements do not always fall into these two extremes, but are many times located somewhere in-between, are negotiated and re-negotiated between the layers and particularly within the intermediary layer of discourse. Thus, saliency of identity elements also changes over time, even though some identity elements are salient for long durations and others may stay throughout a social actor’s life within their network. One such long-duration identity element is Anna’s family identity element. While the higher-level actions that Anna performs have undergone some changes due to the growing age of her children, her family identity element was very strong throughout the study. Nevertheless, we cannot predict how her family identity

Identity Change

235

element will change over time. Some identity elements are very strong for a while and then change; they also may change only due to normative progressions linked to aging. Not all identity elements are adopted and stay with a social actor for long durations, going through the normative progression linked to aging. In order to illustrate how identity elements can change quite drastically, I now revisit Andrea’s divorce in the next section.

7.8

Identity Change

Identity change is a phenomenon that can come about in two ways: 1. a social actor is forced to change an identity element; or 2. a social actor agentively embraces a new identity element, inducing the change themselves. I have found an example of each of these in my studies, but only the ¿rst kind in the study of Andrea and Anna. While the identity change comes about with a difference in agency, the actual process of change is somewhat similar, even though Andrea’s change in identity is a little more complex because it entails a change in relationships and roles. Here, I examine the change in Andrea’s identity from wife to single mother. This change was induced by her then-husband and developed via the production of a divorcee identity element. But, as in my other studies, one in which a stay-at-home mother changed her identity to a working mother, Andrea’s change in identity from wife to single mother was accompanied by the production of what I would like to call an auxiliary identity element. An auxiliary identity element in both cases was a newly developed identity element that had not been present before the identity change was induced. For an identity change, which is non-agentively induced and that entails a change in relationships and roles, we can ¿nd the production of an interim identity element as well as an auxiliary identity element. However, not all identity changes move through an interim identity element. But, due to my studies, I believe that we may always ¿nd an auxiliary identity element when a social actor is going through a change of identity.

7.8.1 Initial Identity Element: Wife At the beginning of the study, Andrea displayed her wife identity element. In the example illustrated in transcript 7.1 Andrea speaks with her friend Käthe, after Andrea found out that her then-husband had a girlfriend and had decided to move in with her. Here, Käthe asks Andrea what she will do now

236


and Andrea explains that she’ll wait and that he will come back. This excerpt was recorded in ¿eld notes as it occurred at the time when the researcher was turning on the video recorder. Figure 7.24 illustrates the continuation of transcript 7.1 with the setting and the two women sitting exactly as they had been during the prior few utterances that were not caught on camera. Audio transcript 7.1: Andrea displaying a wife identity (1)

Käthe:

und was machste jetzt and what do you now ‘and what are you going to do now’

(2)

Andrea:

lass ihn machen let him do ‘leave him alone’

(3)

der kommt schon wieder he comes emph back ‘he will come back’

(4)

Käthe:

meinst’e? think you? ‘you think?’

(5)

Andrea:

der hat doch alles he has emph everything ‘he’s got everything’

(6)

was er will what he wants ‘that he wants’

(7)

Käthe:

aber ob er das sieht, but if he that sees, ‘but if he can see that,’

(8)

Andrea:

der hat seine Sauna he has his sauna ‘he’s got his sauna’

Identity Change

(9)

die liebt er which loves he ‘which he loves’

(10)

seine Kinder his children ‘his kids’

(11) Käthe:

ja yes

(12)

warten wir’s mal ab. wait we emph. ‘let’s wait and see.’

(13)

ich war doch in der Stadt I was emph in the city ‘I’ve been to the city’

(14) Andrea:

und? ‘and?’

ewige liebe

everlasting love

du wolltest eine liebe die ewig hält

you wanted a love that was everlasting

du warst dir sicher dass es soetwas gibt

you were certain that it existed

jetzt zerbricht deine liebe

now your love is failing

und du schliesst deine augen

and you close your eyes

237

238


du wolltest eine liebe die ewig hält

you wanted a love that was everlasting

und du bist dir sicher dass es soetwas gibt

and you are certain that it exists

Figure 7.24 Andrea displaying a wife identity element.

As illustrated in transcript 7.1 (and Figure 7.24), Andrea has not yet and does not intend to change her wife identity element. However, as the problems with her then-husband grew, Andrea realized that a change was imminent.

7.8.2 Auxiliary Identity Element: Artist Auxiliary identity elements do not come out of nowhere. Usually, there is a history of either similar identity elements having been present at a point in time earlier in the life of the social actor or they are identity elements that have been suppressed for some reason. Identity change, especially the kind of identity change Andrea is going through, where there is a change in family relationships and roles, brings about a kind of identity vacuum, in which new identity element productions, which the social actor had not perceived as possible before, become possible. Auxiliary identity elements are often found in a social actor’s narratives where the social actor may explain why the actions (which would produce the identity element) are not possible in their social-time-place. Because auxiliary identity elements are talked about by the social actor or in relation to the social actor; and even though they are not performed by the social actor, members of the networks are not surprised when a social actor begins performing these identity elements.

Identity Change

239

Andrea, for example, had always wanted to become an artist, but she was discouraged by her parents as a young person; later in life within her network, Andrea had always been reminiscing about how much she had wanted to become an artist. Thus, it was not surprising that Andrea took on the auxiliary identity element of an artist as soon as the identity vacuum was created by the realization that the relationship with her then-husband had ended for her. One weekend, not long after her then-husband had moved out, and during which the children were with their father, Andrea suddenly felt the need to paint. She drove to an art store, bought paint and brushes, went back to her house, turned the music on really loud, and began to paint on walls. First, Andrea painted the screaming face with other ¿gures positioned around the face, which is shown in Figure 7.25. The image is primarily painted in a dark to a light blue, with only the ¿gures to the top right of the screaming face being painted in red. Here, Andrea visualized the angst and pain she felt. Next, Andrea painted two larger than life adult ¿gures on the wall holding hands and placed pictures of their children on the ¿replace. The ¿gures were kept in blue, while the background was ¿re red. Here, Andrea visualized

Figure 7.25 Andrea’s scream.

240


Figure 7.26 A happy family distraught.

the intent of keeping the family together, but also illustrated that the union was under ¿re, as seen in Figure 7.26. After that, Andrea painted an image of two children holding Àowers, illustrated in Figure 7.27. This image was in stark contrast to the other two, as the background was in bright orange, the ¿gures wore blue jumpers, and the ¿gures had a face and hands. In her network, the painting of the children was perceived as a happy image, while the scream was perceived as terrifying, and the image of two adults without faces holding hands with the boys’ pictures set in front was regarded as nice, although everyone also commented on the fact that the two blue adult ¿gures were standing in ¿re. Andrea embraced this new auxiliary identity element. She showed everyone in her network the wall paintings that she had produced over the weekend, told everyone just how wonderful she had felt during and after painting, how liberated she felt because she had done something she had always wanted to do. Andrea had found a new agentive identity element, which took up part of the vacuum left by her realization that her marriage had ended. She decided to make her dream come true and become an artist.5

Identity Change

241

Figure 7.27 Happy children.

traum

dream

verwirkliche deine träume

make your dreams come true

oder träume von der verwirklichung deiner träume

or dream about making your dreams come true

um sie dann zu verwirklichen

to then make your dreams come true

oder sie gänzlich der traumwelt zu überlassen

or to leave them completely to the world of dreams

träume!

dream!

Andrea began to buy canvas, an easel, more paint, and more brushes, and she painted regularly. At ¿rst, her ¿gures were usually surrounded by ¿re,

242


visualizing the burning of relationships, but then Andrea began to paint Àowers, ¿sh, and the very important painting which she called Meine Familie ‘My Family,’ which is illustrated in Figure 7.28. This painting shows one adult and two children. The ¿gures look a bit like the ¿gures that she had painted behind the stove, which all members of her network liked. The ¿gures are without faces, they are kept in blue, and they also have a red background. However, in this painting, the red is not perceived as ¿re; it is simply perceived as contrastive. This general perception has two reasons: one is the way the red is used, but the other is the way Andrea speaks of these paintings. When speaking about the two ¿gures behind the stove, Andrea would explain ja, die verbrennen da grade mal so (yes, they burn there just emphasis so) ‘yes, they’re just burning up over there’ with an intonation and a waving hand/arm gesture indicating that nothing can be done about that and that she does not care. When speaking about the painting with the adult and two children, contrastively, Andrea said ja, das ist MEINE FAMILIE ‘yes that is MY FAMILY’ with a loving tone emphasizing the two words ‘my family’ with a happy smile on her face. This painting, illustrating Andrea’s new family constellation shown in Figure 7.28, in fact became a very important mediational means for Andrea and the children, as will be discussed in the next section.

kreative momente

creative moments

es gibt dinge die sind nicht machbar

there are things that are impossible

es gibt leute die man nicht trifft

there are people that you don’t meet

es gibt augenblicke die man nicht versteht

there are moments that you don’t understand

dann gibt es momente

then there are moments

in denen man mehr ist als man selbst

when you are bigger than yourself

in denen man die welt sieht aber in einem anderen licht—

when you see the world but in a different light—

Identity Change

in denen man versteht— was nicht zu verstehen ist.

243

when you understand— what can’t be understood.

Figure 7.28 Meine Familie ‘My Family.’

7.8.3 From Initial to New Identity Element: Divorcee Before her then-husband moved out, Andrea had fully embraced the wife identity element and, even once the relationship was falling apart, still held up this initial identity element. Then, once Andrea herself had realized that

244


under the circumstances she no longer loved the man she had loved before, she took the advantage to build her auxiliary identity element, the artist identity element. In her painting, Andrea could deal with the angst that developed because of the loss of her wife identity element and the insecurity of the future. While the auxiliary identity element ¿lled the vacuum to a certain extent, Andrea still had to deal with the consequences of the break-up on all three layers of discourse: the outer layers of discourse, the intermediary layers of discourse, and the central layers of discourse, as discussed in the last chapter. Andrea was now positioned by the outer layers, the intermediary layers, and even the central layers of discourse as the divorcee, and she herself took on the divorcee identity element(s). Andrea, however, had painted the painting she called Meine Familie ‘My Family,’ and this painting illustrated where Andrea wanted to end up: she wanted to become a single mother. Vygotsky (1978) discusses at length the use of objects by social actors to control their own psychological processes. Andrea did exactly that with the painting she called Meine Familie ‘My Family.’ Andrea placed this painting on a visible wall. She repeatedly spoke about and referred to the painting, often saying such things as da is es doch. meine Familie. (there is it emphasis. my family.) ‘there it is. my family.’ or she would turn to her oldest son, explaining weisst du, David, das ist jetzt unsere Familie. (know you, David, that is now our family) ‘you know, David, that’s now our family.’ and she would point to the painting. Also, when Andrea was overcome by her angst not to have the family that she had envisioned to always have—with two parents and two children—she was able to pull herself together as soon as she had a glimpse of the painting. As soon as she noticed the painting, even when in great despair, she recognized that she did have a family and that the constellation was now one adult and two children. Often, she would then say, ich weiss gar nicht was ich hab, ich hab doch ne Familie, da is se doch (I know at all not what I have, I have emphasis a family, there is it emphasis) ‘I don’t know what I’m saying, of course I have a family, there it is.’ pointing to the painting. Or, when Andrea was in despair and saying das ist einfach nicht was ich wollte für meine Kinder. ich wollte so gerne ne richtige Familie (this is just not what I wanted for my children. I wanted so much a real family) ‘this isn’t what I wanted for my children. I so much wanted a real family.’, her son David would say aber Mama, wir sind doch eine richtige Familie, guck doch. (but Mommy we are emphasis a real family, look emphasis) ‘but Mommy we are a real family just take a look’ pointing to the painting. As soon as Andrea had begun moving objects from the house to the apartment, she moved the painting and it was the ¿rst painting/picture she hung up on a wall as can be seen in Figure 7.29.

Identity Change

Figure 7.29

245

Positioning the painting Meine Familie ‘My Family’ in the new apartment.

Thus, the painting called Meine Familie ‘My Family’ was a symbolic object that affected Andrea’s and her children’s mental development from viewing a family as consisting of two adults plus children to a family consisting of one adult plus children. Eventually, this repeated experience with the painting became internalized (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) and Andrea and her two children no longer needed to refer to the painting to understand that they were a real family.6

246


As this example illustrates, Andrea produced a tangible object that enabled her and her children to envision and mentally develop towards a new family identity element. This mediational means, the painting, was accelerating the change of identity element in Andrea’s central layers of discourse. However, the intermediary layers and the outer layers of discourse were holding on to the divorcee identity elements. Andrea soon began to realize that she had to minimize the outer layers of discourse of the divorcee identity element ¿rst. In order to do this, she needed to make the divorce ¿nal which came with division of assets and so on. As the divorce was going through, her troubles and worries about her children began, so that Andrea then decided to ¿le for sole custody, again, hoping to minimize the outer layer discourses once a settlement had been reached. By the time Andrea had managed to minimize the outer layer discourses, enforcing her divorcee identity element, she had also managed to emphasize the single mother identity element in her central discourses. Thus, now the outer layers of discourse no longer positioned her general identity element as a divorcee, but rather as a single mother. Her immediate identity element had changed to a single mother identity element, primarily with the help of the painting that she had called Meine Familie ‘My family’, but her networks still enforced Andrea’s divorcee identity element in the intermediary layer of discourse, positioning her continuous identity element as such. Because Andrea was not able to change the intermediary layer of discourse as fast as she would have liked to, she decided to move far away into a village where nobody except for one friend knew her history and her exhusband. This friend, as mentioned earlier in the book, was divorced with two children of about the same age as Andrea’s children. With this move, Andrea successfully changed her identity element from wife to single mother. She developed new networks, and the intermediary layers of discourse all positioned Andrea as the single mother that she represented herself to be in the beginning when she joined the networks.

7.9

Self-Perception of Identity

When social actors go through identity element change, as Andrea developed from a wife identity element to a single mother identity element, identity elements are noticed. Social actors say things such as ‘I was X and now I am no longer X, but Y’ or they say ‘I was X, now I am Y, but I want to be Z.’ Social actors take an active part in developing from one to another identity element and they usually produce some kind of an auxiliary identity element as well.

Self-Perception of Identity

247

This kind of identity change is stressful, and social actors go through stages of anxiety and angst, but it is also liberating and full of new possibilities. Identity change forces social actors to become more agentive than they had been before. This agency in turn compels social actors to reÀect upon who they are and who they would like to become, inducing the use of tangible objects to direct the change into the wanted direction. Thus, self-perception of identity is heightened when going through identity change. This self-perception of identity differs greatly from the everyday nonself-perception of identity in un-reÀected actions. The everyday mundane activities are often performed and are habituated. The social actor knows just what to do and how to do it, and therefore does it without reÀections. In chapters 3 and 5, I discussed Anna’s personal identity. In her narratives about her personal identity (chapter 3), she portrays herself quite differently than she is perceived by others. In chapter 5, I mentioned that Anna enjoys and takes great pride in helping others. This is an action that she does not perceive as part of her personal identity, but it is an action that others perceive as such. Here, Anna’s identity had developed in an un-reÀected manner. Anna’s self-perceived and reportedly neglected personal identity element and her produced personal identity element in everyday life were not the same. This example illustrates that who social actors believe themselves to be and who they produce themselves to be may differ. Sometimes certain identity telling actions may be carried in memory and viewed as personal identity, so that the felt personal identity in fact is an identity element of the past, as in Anna’s case during the study. What we see in this example is the development of an identity element, and the unawareness of the social actor of the change. While Anna used to be the person who got lost when doing puzzles, reading books, or doing projects—particularly when her ¿rst child was very young—Anna’s central discourses objected and demanded a change in her identity towards the family and mother identity elements. Each time she tried to resurrect her self-perceived personal identity element, the central discourses objected in similar ways, always demanding her to produce the family and/or mother identity elements, instead. In her memory, Anna still is the person who does puzzles, reads books, and so on, and loses herself while performing these actions. In everyday life, however, Anna has adjusted her personal identity element in a way that more closely aligns with the family and mother identity elements; she reads magazines, cooks elaborately, and helps family members and friends. Even though Anna has changed her personal identity element, she still carries the old identity element in her narratives about herself, reconciling

248


through narratives these differences between her own understanding of who she is and the person she produces herself to be in her everyday life. While Anna was certainly aware of the actions that she was performing, such as reading magazines, cooking elaborately, and helping family members and friends, she was not reÀecting upon the actions and on how they positioned her in relation to others. Without such reÀection, identity stays invisible to the social actor displaying the identity, but is clearly visible to others. Quite contrary, Anna was reÀecting upon her past personal identity element, reminiscing how she liked doing puzzles and projects and how she liked reading books and getting lost in all of these actions, not worrying about anybody or anything around her. With this reÀection, this personal identity element was visible in Anna’s memory, allowing her to believe herself to still possess that identity element. Thus, in this ¿rst example we ¿nd that the imagination of a social actor (Andrea imaging a new family constellation) can develop a successful identity change. Such agentive change requires self-reÀection and promotes identity awareness. Whereas, in the second example, habituated and un-reÀected action makes a social actor’s identity change invisible to themselves, and imagination (or remembering of a past identity element) can be mistaken for a current identity element. Either way, however, the identities develop and are continuously negotiated and re-negotiated in interaction. While some identity elements, as for example Andrea’s interim divorcee identity element, are unstable, other identity elements, such as Anna’s family or national identity elements, are more stable, only changing slightly in interaction and slowly over time. Major identity change as in the case of Andrea’s divorce, bringing with it a feeling of angst and anxiety on the one hand and a feeling of freedom and new found possibilities on the other, is not commonly sought in a social actor’s everyday life. More common is the social actor’s yearning to live a coherent life, which brings us to the question of stabilizing identity, which is discussed in the next chapter.

Notes 1. While Andrea is not viewed by the researcher as a friend, Andrea does view the researcher as her friend and acts, portraying this identity. In fact, what we ¿nd here, is a mismatch of identity which is a challenge for a researcher as discussed in chapter 3.

Notes

249

2. Whereby the noise level cannot be forgotten. However, in this instance Anna does not display a sign of focusing upon the noise. 3. See: Lemke (2002a, 2003). 4. See: Norris (2009a). 5. For a detailed analysis of Andrea becoming an artist, see Norris (2011a). 6. Also see: Lemke (2000, 2008).

Chapter 8 Stabilizing Identity . . . the longer term aspects of our identity are not determined by a single performance. They constitute patterns across time, across situations, even across clusters of situation types . . . We can perform longer-term identities through how we enact an identity-in-practice, and we can constitute and change longer-term identities in the same way. —Lemke (2008:24)

While identity is continuously negotiated; while identity is partially enforced by outer, intermediary and central discourses surrounding a social actor; while a social actor possesses agency to a greater or lesser extent when interacting and producing their immediate, continuous, or general identity elements; while identity elements may change drastically and with a great deal of reÀection by a social actor or may change more or less imperceptibly and un-reÀected by a social actor; and while identity is always developing, identity is also stabilized in everyday life, producing what I call the person identity of a social actor. Person identity is the social actor’s produced overall identity: person identity is produced by social actors at the same time as it is imposed on them by others in connection with the various layers of discourse. My participants in this and in other studies tried to produce a stable person identity for themselves and others, which was an attempt that was unfeasible in and by itself, but which, in reality resulted in a continued linking and re-negotiation between several—always developing and changing—identity elements. I found that social actors crave a—forever unattainable—stable person identity; and in some ways fear an—always present—un-known and constantly developing and changing person identity.1 This chapter delineates how multimodal interaction analysis allows us to unravel what a person identity is and how it is produced in everyday life. die furcht

the fear

warum fürchtest du dich vor dem unbekannten?

why do you fear the un-known?

252

Stabilizing Identity

warum fürchtest du dich vor dem ungewissen?

why do you fear un-certainty?

das bekannte wiegt dich in sicherheit.

the known cradles you in security.

das gewisse lässt dich stark werden.

certainty gives you strength.

doch siehst du nicht wie trügerisch das bekannte ist wie trotzig das gewisse.

but don’t you see how erroneous the known is how harsh certainty.

die sicherheit die du suchst

the security that you are seeking

¿ndest du nicht

you will not ¿nd

schon gar nicht im bekannten im gewissen.

especially not within the known within certainty

denn die sicherheit, die du suchst—

because the security that you are seeking—

gibt es nicht.

does not exist.

8.1

Stabilizing Identity: An Overview

Instead of investigating merely micro, minute-by-minute, identity construction, the question of this chapter is: who is the social actor overall? Yet, instead of dismissing identity production in the minute, I emphasize that identity is always (co)produced by social actors, groups, and the environment; that identity production is always read off by others in minute increments, as it is read off overall.


253

Stabilization of identity, however, is not a static identity production, but rather is an identity production in a social actor’s social-time-place within and in connection with the central, intermediary, and outer layers of discourse. This stabilization of identity—which is not ¿xed, but rather allows the social actor to make sense of their past, present, and future actions and the resulting identity productions—is necessary for social actors to make sense of themselves and of others over longer-duration time scales. Because my ethnographic studies have not exceeded one year, I will not delve into a discussion of durations longer than a year, because stabilization of identity does not allow us to make identity formative predictions. Identity, even though stabilized in everyday life, is continuously developing; may change quite suddenly and drastically due to changes in outer, intermediary, or central layers of discourse that a social actor is entrenched in; or may drastically change due to an imagined change by the social actor themselves; and will always change, adapt, and develop, even if not drastically. Thus, how a social actor produces themselves to be within one year, for example, does not necessarily give us insight into how the social actor will produce themselves ten years later.2 What we can say, however, is that no matter how the identity elements of a particular social actor develop and change, the social actor will always portray some kind of person identity— even though it may be a quite different person identity in ten years from the person identity that we discovered during the year of study. Person identity is analyzable by examining the macro identity frame of a social actor as well as the micro actions that the social actor performs. This person identity entails previous experiences in the lives of the ones reading the identity as well as learned ways of being and acting in the world in the lives of the ones enacting their identity; with more or less individual psychological make-ups originating from these. Who a social actor is and who a social actor can be interpreted to be is thus not a simple (co)construction by social actors engaged in certain interactions, but is a (co)production by these social actors with—and within—their social-time-place including objects and the surrounding environment, in addition to, afforded and constrained by, the already-existent, albeit more-or-less constantly developing and changing, psychological identity that each social actor believes themselves to be. This chapter bridges the micro (co)construction of actions that social actors perform and the macro identity frame, allowing us to glean the person identity of social actors, showing that the micro identity-telling actions are informed and made possible by the macro identity frame of a social actor and, at the very same time, the macro identity frame of the social actor is produced

254


by particular micro identity-telling actions that the social actor performs and (co)constructs. Each micro action and each macro identity frame is afforded and constrained by the group(s) that the social actor belongs to and the group(s) that the social actor interacts with, while it is afforded and constrained by the institutions that the social actor has contact with. In order to illustrate the workings of person identity production, I focus on the micro actions and the macro identity frame of one particular social actor, Anna, continuously, however, also pointing to the effects of group belonging and the central and intermediary layers of discourse and the larger societal embeddedness and the outer layers of discourse. When thinking of identity production in an encompassing way, we need to consider all three layers of discourse as they force identity elements upon a social actor and also need to consider the social actor’s actions in their socialtime-place, displaying agency—sometimes more and sometimes less—when negotiating their multiple identity elements, either reÀected and full of awareness or un-reÀected and un-aware. The notion of a macro identity frame draws on Goffman’s (1974) frame analysis, but views this type of frame in the widest possible way, linked to one social actor, encompassing all possibilities of actions and relationships with members of particular groups, from which only a certain number of actions and relationships are ever selected. Thus what I call a macro identity frame here looks at a social actor in a most holistic way. For example, a social actor is afforded certain identity elements through engaging with others. A social actor who has never engaged with social actors speaking Italian nor has any other learned experience with that language, for instance, does not have the affordance to produce the action of uttering an Italian sentence. On the other hand, a social actor, who has none of those experiences and is not afforded the opportunity to speak Italian, may well have the affordance to perform an action that the social actor may view ‘as Italian,’ such as drinking a glass of Italian wine. As a social actor learns, the circumference of the macro identity frame grows, while, at the very same time, the identity frame also inhibits the social actor from performing actions that lie outside of this macro identity frame. Certainly, a New Zealander drinking a glass of Italian wine does not create an Italian identity, but rather may create a food-and-wine lover’s identity; whereas an Italian drinking a glass of Italian wine in New Zealand may very well create and re-create the social actor’s national identity. One and the same action often has different meanings for different social actors, and sometimes one and the same action has different meanings for the


255

same social actor, as is illustrated in section 8.2.1. below. These differences in meaning have to do with what Nishida (1958) calls the ‘historical body’ of the social actor or what Bourdieu (1977) calls ‘habitus’. Historical body or habitus is the accumulation of all of a person’s experiences. Experiences in turn are often linked to relationships, time, place, and particular objects within; and relationships, time, place, and particular objects within are in turn linked to social actions. Thus, it is not the action alone that (co)produces a social actor’s identity element, it is the social actor’s habitus in connection with possibly other social actors and indeed time and place and particular objects within that allows an action to (co)produce a part of a social actor’s identity. Therefore, the argument what a social actor does (the action that they perform) will tell us something of their personal identity, is in its rudimentary form incorrect. As analysts we can, in fact, not determine much about a person’s identity by simply investigating an action. If we, for example, derive an identity element from several utterances that a social actor makes, we may fully misinterpret these actions as illustrative of identity, because we would project our own habitus onto another’s utterances and interpret the utterances from our perspective (Bakhtin, 1981). Such an interpretation would in the end say more about our own identity than about the identity of the other social actor. The resulting kind of misinterpretation of identity is very common in everyday life and especially in intercultural or cross-cultural interactions, where each social actor views the world from their own perspectives. It is this kind of give-and-take of everyday life in everyday interactions, these interpretations, misinterpretations, acceptances, and refusals of identity between social actors acting in the world, that Scollon (1997) refers to when he argues that each action a social actor takes establishes identity. In that very sense, when investigating identity production as it is being accomplished between social actors acting and interacting in the world, this is a true statement. When, however, investigating person identity production of a particular social actor (something Scollon was not analyzing), we cannot say much by looking at singular or even several actions that a social actor performs. Similarly, when trying to determine the identity of a social actor by simply looking at an image of the social actor is often times misleading. While we may determine the sex of a social actor portrayed in an image, their gender is often not represented. While we may determine biological ethnicity by looking at facial features and skin color, a social actor’s social and lived ethnicity may not be the same and therefore may not be visible. When trying to determine identity of a social actor by simply looking at an image, we are likely to stereotype a social actor, but are unlikely to actually say much about their lived identity.

256


In this chapter, I would like to examine Anna’s person identity to illustrate the stabilized identity as it is being produced and re-produced in the moment-to-moment unstable (co)construction of actions. Person identity production, as the term is used here, differs from personal identity element production that was used earlier in the book, where the term personal identity element was used in the sense of experiencing the self of a social actor, both from the social actor’s point of view and from others’ point of view. Person identity production encompasses the notion of national identity as it is produced by social actors in their life world, and the notion of role when social actors identify with the roles they enact. In other words, person identity entails all identity elements. Thus, person identity is a social actor’s overall perceived and perceivable identity. When investigating person identity production in everyday life in this way, it is not a simple matter of collecting data of actions people take, analyzing them, and then knowing a social actor’s person identity. In order to understand identity production of a social actor, we need to understand their past, their relationships, and their world; in other words, as argued in chapter 3, this type of analysis can be accomplished only by conducting ethnography over a long period of time. Only if we understand an individual in depth can we say something about their person identity production. We can interpret their actions only by taking the social actor’s historical body into account; and leaving out our own habitus, refraining from making the common mistake of seeing others simply through our own eyes. Only once we view the actions that social actors take, considering their habitus and their environment, including the social and cultural affordances and constraints that the social actors themselves may be only vaguely—if at all—aware of, do we see the data through analysts’ eyes and are we able to make claims about a social actor’s person identity production. Understanding a social actor’s historical body in connection with the actions that they take allows us to understand their macro identity frame. This picture of identity is always relational and always (co)produced by the participants, the social-time-place, the objects and the environment, and within the three layers of discourse. It is relational to the prior experiences that the social actor has had and relational to the expectations that have been formed through their histories. Who a social actor is, how a social actor is positioned, or how a social actor presents themselves, and who the social actor is taken to be, is often complex and the three points are rarely completely overlapping. Nevertheless, more or less sustained person identities appear in everyday life. Such more or

Person Identity: Anna

257

less sustained person identities are not stable in the sense of being ¿xed, but are negotiated as stable in un-stable ever changing everyday life. When investigating identity production multimodally, we can gain insight into such macro identity production by investigating the social actor’s façade, their everyday actions and interactions, and the objects that they surround themselves with—but all of these can be assigned personal identity-meaning only when we take a social actor’s historical body and their social-time-place with the three layers of discourses into consideration.3 Surely, the macro identity frame is closely interconnected with social norms of group belongings as discussed in chapter 6, which are stronger in some cases than in others. For example, a social actor appears to have more possibilities of action granted by institutions and the social actors’ networks to consume various kinds of foods or drink (although there are also social pressures applied), while, however, a social actor has fewer possibilities of action granted by these layers of discourse to enact a certain national identity. In other words many social actors in New Zealand may drink a glass of Italian wine, but very few social actors in New Zealand can claim to be of Italian nationality. A social actor usually engages in only a selected number of actions with certain individuals, often in heavily socially normative ways and permanently accompanied by learned inferences and behaviors. Further, any social actor’s person identity as it can be perceived and described is nevertheless always only partial. In everyday life, a social actor with a particular historical body situated in society, surrounded by social norms, embedded in many relationships of various kinds, in some ways actively produces identity at the same time as identity is imposed upon them, as discussed earlier. Person identity of a particular social actor is understood by a social actor’s surrounding relationships, is interpreted and re-interpreted because of prior actions that are either (co) constructed, are learned through narration, or are visible in the frozen actions existent in the environment.

8.2


Anna’s person identity is produced through higher-level actions, lower-level actions, and frozen actions, all of which are embedded in and intertwined with her historical body. Her person identity encompasses the notion of national identity as it is constructed by her through language choices, through objects and the frozen actions embedded within, and through the actions she

258


takes moment-to-moment. Anna also identi¿es with the roles of mother, wife, daughter, and friend in her life world. Anna may produce identity elements in quick succession, or she may produce identity elements simultaneously. Each identity element is produced with different duration, on different time scales (Lemke, 2000), and in different rhythms (Norris, 2009b). Yet, while identity elements may be quite diverse in diverse situations and coproduced with diverse other social actors, we do ¿nd that identity is also stabilized in Anna’s social-time-place. As I have illustrated in earlier chapters, social actors often perform simultaneous actions and social actors often (co)produce several identity elements simultaneously. Such simultaneous actions and identity elements can be heuristically placed on a foregroundbackground continuum, which illustrates that the social actor pays most attention to what they foreground and least attention to what they background at the time. While the model of the foreground-background continuum is often used for micro analytical purposes, the model is also useful for identity construction over time as I have shown in the last chapter. Yet, no matter where identity elements end up on the foreground-background continuum, their durability over time also allows us to analyze saliency in a social actor’s everyday life. Social actors thus pay more or less attention to some identity elements, producing these over long durations or in quick succession, allowing us to perceive the stabilization of their person identity over time.

8.2.1 Person Identity: Anna’s Habitus A social actor’s habitus or historical body is weaved into everyday actions through the higher-level action of telling snippets or sequences of narratives. These snippets came out in everyday interactions with friends, family members, members of the wider network, or in sociolinguistic interviews, where the researcher interacted with Anna, asking some open-ended questions. As examples, I give a few such narrative snippets that give some insight into Anna’s habitus. When reading these excerpts, the reader needs to keep in mind that these are selected from many of hours of data. Using Van Dijk’s (1976a:290) words, the excerpts are a ‘partial description of a selected number of actions, often even in a heavily transformed way. . . . ’ Narratives and snippets of narrative, thus allow a social actor to transform and re-negotiate past actions. However, these examples illustrate some of Anna’s consciously perceived thoughts about who she believes herself to be and/or who she portrays herself to be at the time of the telling in her social-time-place, as well as giving us


259

some inadvertent insight into the affordances and constraints that she may not consciously be aware of herself. As you will see below, Anna appears to contradict herself in the narrative snippets, but when we take her habitus into consideration, we ¿nd that the meaning of what she says differs in the examples. The excerpts come from different days and months and were collected throughout a whole year. Not one excerpt was spoken on the same day. In order to illustrate that these snippets come from different excerpts, I always begin to number a new excerpt with (1). Audio transcript 8.1: Growing up (1)

Anna:

aufgewachsen? grew up? ‘grew up?’

(2)

ja meistens in Deutschland. yes mostly in Germany. ‘well mostly in Germany.’

(3)

meine Eltern sind mal nach Italien gegangen, my parents are emphasis to Italy went, ‘my parents moved to Italy at some point,’

(4)

da war ich noch klein, there was I still little, ‘when I was still little,’

(5)

aber irgendwie war das wohl nicht so ganz das Wahre but someow was that emphasis not so all the reality ‘but somehow that wasn’t really that great’

(6)

und dann waren wir ganz schnell wieder in Deutschland. and then were we very fast again in Germany. ‘and then we were back in Germany in no time.’

Audio transcript 8.2: My mother (1)

Anna:

ja meine Mutter yes my mother ‘yes my mother’

260


(2)

die war Deutsche she was German ‘she was German’

(3)

als sie starb, as she died, ‘when she died,’

(4)

das war ganz schlimm that was very bad ‘that was very hard’

(5)

für meinen Vater und für mich. for my father and for me. ‘on my father and I.’

Audio transcript 8.3: My father (1)

Anna:

mein Vater, my father, ‘my father,’

(2)

das ist so ein richtiger Italiener. that is such a real Italian. ‘he’s a real Italian.’

(3)

der spricht auch nie Deutsch mit mir. he speaks also never Germany with me. ‘he also never speaks German with me.’

(4)

und ich sprech immer Italienisch mit ihm. and I speak always Italian with him ‘and I always speak Italian with him.’

Audio transcript 8.4: My children (1)

Anna:

mit meinen Kinder with my children ‘with my children’


(2)

sprech ich eigentlich kein Italienisch. speak I actually no Italian. ‘I usually don’t speak Italian.’

(3)

das wär mir einfach zu anstrengend. that would be me just too dif¿cult. ‘that would just be too dif¿cult for me.’

(4)

weisst du, you know ‘you know’

(5)

wenn alle rund herum nur Deutsch reden. when all round around only Germany speak. ‘when everybody around only speaks German.’

(6)

wir leben nun mal in Deutschland we live emphasis once in Germany ‘we happen to live in Germany’

(7)

fänd ich komisch wenn alle Deutsch reden feel I strange when all German speak ‘I would ¿nd it strange when everyone speaks German’

(8)

und dann red ich mit meinen Kindern Italienisch. and then speak I with my children Italian. ‘and then I speak Italian with my kids.’

(9)

und der Sven würd das auch nicht verstehen and the Sven would that also not understand ‘and Sven wouldn’t understand it either’

(10)

und wenn der Vater es nicht versteht and when the father it not understands ‘and when the father doesn’t understand’

(11)

wär schon komisch. would be emphasis strange. ‘would be pretty strange.’

261

262


Audio transcript 8.5: Speaking Italian (1)

Anna:

ich sprech viel Italinisch. I speak much Italian ‘I speak lots of Italian.’

(2)

da ist mein Vater, there is my father, ‘there’s my father,’

(3)

und dann hab ich auch viele Verwandte in Italien, and then have I also many relatives in Italy, ‘and then I also have many relatives in Italy,’

(4)

red auch viel mit meiner Tante da, speak also much with my aunt there, ‘I do talk a lot with my aunt there,’

(5)

und wir fahren natürlich auch zu Besuch. and we drive of course also for visit. ‘and we of course also visit them.’

Audio transcript 8.6: Friends (1)

Anna:

och, oh, ‘oh,’

(2)

ich hab ganz viele Freunde. I have very many friends. ‘I have lots of friends.’

(3)

Familie und Freunde sind mir sehr wichtig. family and friends are me very important. ‘family and friends are very important to me.’

(4)

eigentlich das Wichtigste. emphasis the important. ‘really the most important.’


263

The excerpts that I have selected and presented here allow the reader to glean elements of Anna’s person identity. Transcripts 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 tell us something about Anna’s childhood and her parents; transcript 8.4 informs a little about Anna’s language choice at home with her children; transcript 8.5 conveys her close relationship with family in Italy; and transcript 8.6 discloses Anna’s view of the importance of family and friends. Narratives not only give insight into a social actor’s historical body, but also allow us to glean how an individual has—often inadvertently—taken on some normative actions, how the individual views particular roles, and/or how an individual identi¿es with a certain power structure in society. Language, for Anna, is closely related to relationships and to place. She speaks Italian with her father, who does not speak German with her, even though they live in Germany and he can speak German: here language is linked to the father. She speaks German with her children, because she lives in Germany and because her husband4 only speaks German: here, language is linked to place and to her husband; she speaks Italian with her relatives in Italy: here, language is linked to place and to the relatives, who do not speak German. In the last case, Italian is the only choice, while in the other cases, speaking to her father in Italian and speaking with her children German, are, in fact, choices. When we realize that Anna’s father lives in Germany and can speak German, it may appear that Anna is contradicting herself when she says in transcript 8.4: (7)

fänd ich komisch wenn alle Deutsch reden feel I strange when all German speak ‘I would ¿nd it strange when everyone speaks German’

(8)

und dann red ich mit meinen Kindern Italienisch. and then speak I with my children Italian. ‘and then I speak Italian with my kids.’

and states in transcript 8.3, when she is speaking of her father: (4)


But, in fact, Anna does not contradict herself. Anna displays various identity elements in the above excerpts at various moments in time that are linked

264


to her historical body and her relationship with the speci¿c social actors (here, her children as opposed to her father). Each relationship in a social actor’s habitus is somewhat distinct from another, or at least, each group of relationships (here, her parent as opposed to her children) is linked to a somewhat distinct identity element (her identity element of a daughter and that of a mother which, in these cases, both also make up roles). Each of these identity elements abides by more-or-less strict social norms and portrays a difference in power. In transcript 8.3, Anna portrays her father in the power position, and as the one who chooses the language. (3)

der spricht auch nie Deutsch mit mir. he speaks also never Germany with me. ‘he also never speaks German with me.’

(4)


Whereas she portrays herself in the power position in transcript 8.4 and as the one who chooses the language that she speaks with her own children. (1)

(2)

Anna:

mit meinen Kinder with my children ‘with my children’ sprech ich eigentlich kein Italienisch. speak I actually no Italian. ‘I usually don’t speak Italian.’

While the action of speaking Italian in Germany appears to be the same when Anna converses with her father or when she converses with her children, especially if she was saying the very same utterance, the action in fact would have a different historical background, would be linked to a different group of social actors (i.e.: parent and children), and would establish different power relations between her and the other(s). As this example illustrates, one can truly understand identity-telling actions only when one considers a social actor’s habitus alongside. For Anna, only an Italian utterance to the father and a German utterance to her children can carry a meaning that embeds her perceived power relations. Such narrative sequences, which give insight into the historical body of a social actor, are often embedded alongside the actions


265

that social actors take. Often, habitus-telling narratives can also be found in some of the objects, embedded as frozen action.

8.2.2 Stabilizing Person Identity: Higher-Level, Lower-Level, and Frozen Actions In this section, we see how a social actor’s actions, lower-level, higher-level, and frozen, allow for a stabilization of person identity. To review, the multimodal transcript in chapter 1, Figure 1.10 is a representative sample of Anna in interaction with Andrea when they are planning a catering event. Here, as illustrated in Figure 8.1 (which is the ¿rst screen grab of Figure 1.10) Anna produces lower-level actions, such as gazing at Andrea, speaking the utterance wir brauchen ne Käseplatte ‘we need a cheese platter’ and so on, and gesturing with her right hand, underlining particular words, as part of the higher-level action of organizing a catering event. Some lower-level actions are illustrated in Figure 8.2. The lower-level actions are brief and Àeeting, developing chains over time, where each lower-level action is preceded by one and followed by another.

Figure 8.1 Higher-level action, Anna and Andrea planning a catering event.

266


Figure 8.2 Lower-level actions: gaze, head movement, and gesture.

These chains are rhythmically embedded in the higher-level actions that make them possible and/or relevant, and which these chains of lower-level actions altogether co-construct. Thus, minute increments of lower-level actions, all of which have different durations, build chains, linking one chain of lower-level actions to others, such as linking utterances to gestures. These minute identity-telling lower-level actions sustain and produce the higher-level action that the social actor intends to perform. In other words, if Anna intends to organize a catering event, she performs a multitude of chained lower-level actions, such as reading lines in a cookbook, noting down ingredients, speaking with Andrea about the event, and many more, that allow the intended higher-level action to come about. Brief and Àeeting identity-telling actions produce higher-level actions and are, in fact, produced because of the higher-level action that the social actor is performing; but higher-level actions and brief lower-level actions also create a much larger picture of the social actor. Identity in everyday life is not only produced through such incremental lower-level and higher-level actions, but is reinforced through higher-level actions that span longer time scales. Anna, for example, tells the following narrative (transcript 8.7) at some point during data collection after the catering event discussed in chapter 1, which links the past with the current time of the telling, and gives pointers to the future. Audio transcript 8.7: The catering business (1)

(2)

Anna:

ja mit dem Partyservice, yes with the party service, ‘yes with the catering,’ das war eigentlich so. that was actually so. ‘that was actually like this.’


(3)

ich koch doch so gerne I cook emphasis so like ‘I really like to cook’

(4)

und dann wurd ich mal von Bekannten gefragt and then was I emphasis from acquaintances asked ‘and then I was asked by one of my acquaintances’

(5)

ob ich ihnen nicht was machen könnte if I them not something make could ‘if I couldn’t make something for them’

(6)

die hatten da ein grosses Familienfest they had there a big family party ‘they had a big family party’

(7)

und sie würden es auch bezahlen and they would it also pay ‘and they would pay for it too’

(8)

dann hab ich das mit der Andrea gemacht then have I that with the Andrea made ‘and then I did that with Andrea’

(9)

und es war ganz toll. and it was really great. ‘and it was really great.’

(10)

und allen hat es so gut geschmeckt. and all has it so well tasted ‘and everyone thought it tasted so good.’

(11)

und wir haben so’n Spass gehabt. and we have such a fun had. ‘and we had so much fun.’

(12)

und dann haben wir auch noch was verdient. and then have we also emphasis what earned. ‘and then we earned something too.’

267

268


(13)

und da haben wir gedacht, and there have we thought, ‘and then we thought,’

(14)

warum machen wir das nicht so richtig. why make we that not so real. ‘why don’t we do this for real.’

(15)

und jetzt spricht sich das so rum and now speaks it that so around ‘and now word gets around’

(16)

und wir haben ganz gut zu tun. and we have pretty good to do. ‘and we have much to do.’

(17)

aber hauptsächlich kam das nur durch Freunde but primarily came that only through friends ‘but mainly it started because of friends’

(18)

und ich helf eben immer gern. and I help emphasis always like. ‘and I always really like to help people.’

In lines 1 and 2, when Anna says ja mit dem Partyservice, das war eigentlich so. ‘yes with the catering, that was actually like this,’ she begins by linking current time of telling with the past. In lines 13 and 14, Anna uses present perfect, indicating past und da haben wir gedacht, warum machen wir das nicht so richtig. ‘and then we thought, why don’t we do this for real.’; and then she switches to present tense in line 15 when she says und jetzt spricht sich das so rum ‘and now word gets around.’ Then, in line 18, Anna ends the brief narrative by pointing to a much longer duration of time, when she says und ich helf eben immer gern. ‘and I always really like to help people.,’ indicating continuation. Identity is stabilized by the social actor, making sense of their own higherlevel actions and assisting others in interpreting the higher-level actions. This sense-making and assisting is often accomplished through narratives, where the past is explained. As the past is being talked about in the present, the narrator aligns the past with present actions and simultaneously aligns them with imagined future actions. Following Van Dijk (1976), the past in narratives is fragmentary and may be rearranged, changed, and/or adopted to make it

Stabilizing Person Identity: Interweaving Identity Elements

269

¿t the present and newly imagined future actions. While past actions allow for present actions, the present actions also may change the past. Similarly, imagined futures are established in the present, but, and maybe more importantly, these imagined futures then shape the present. These linking of past and future projections, connecting and shaping the present as well as connecting and shaping (or re-shaping) the past and connecting and shaping (or imagining) the future, allow for a stabilization of identity in everyday life. When connecting the moment-to-moment identity element that Anna constructs in the example of chapter 1, Figure 1.10, where she plans a catering event together with her friend Andrea, and the narrative (transcript 8.7) that explains and links these actions forward and back in time with her habitus and her imagined future at the time of telling, we see how Anna produces a coherent and stable identity element over a long term. Thus, here we see how the two different scales—one the minute actions, and two the transformed and partial description in the narrative—link and have a stabilizing effect. Thus, narratives can be one higher-level action used by social actors to sustain identity across longer durations of time. However, narratives are not the only higher-level actions that allow social actors to stabilize identity across long-duration time scales. As discussed before, a social actor often performs several higher-level actions simultaneously and thereby co-produces several identity elements simultaneously.

8.3

Stabilizing Person Identity: Interweaving Identity Elements

Simultaneity of actions allows for an interweaving of identity elements that in turn have a person identity stabilizing effect. Sometimes one identity element is foregrounded in the larger experience of time; sometimes it is mid- or backgrounded. While identity elements move in and out of the social actor’s focus, some sustain on the (heuristic) foreground-background continuum of attention/awareness for long durations. It is these identity elements that sustain which in turn stabilize person identity over time. Identity elements are interwoven, spanning time and place. Anna, for example, says in transcript 8.6, lines 3 and 4 Familie und Freunde sind mir sehr wichtig. eigentlich das Wichtigste. ‘family and friends are very important to me. really the most important.’ The sociolinguistic interview continues and she discusses the importance of her children, clearly displaying a mother identity in her foreground of attention/awareness. When we now consider Figure 8.3, where Anna is shown shopping for a catering event with her

270


Figure 8.3 Anna (and Andrea) taking the children shopping for a catering event.

children (and Andrea), we see that the two identity elements of mother and caterer are interwoven. While Anna primarily focuses upon the action of shopping, foregrounding her work identity element as a caterer at this time, she mid-grounds her mother identity element, interacting with her children throughout the shopping trip. Here, the interweaving of her work identity element with her mother identity element underscores her claim that her family is most important to her. Thus, we ¿nd that Anna’s sustained attention/awareness, even though on different levels, sustains the mother identity across time, place, and primary action. Similarly, when we follow Anna shopping, we ¿nd her in an Italian store (in Germany). Inside of the store, all food is Italian, and all clerks speak Italian. Again, Anna foregrounds her identity as caterer, and mid-grounds her mother identity element as the children are present as well, but now also produces an Italian identity element through her everyday action of buying Italian products and speaking Italian to the staff. While this identity element is backgrounded during the shopping trip, it nevertheless interweaves her national identity with her mother identity and her caterer identity elements. Here we ¿nd that Anna’s (co)produced Italian identity element sustains her attention/awareness across time, place, and primary action. Simultaneously, shopping at a store, which primarily caters to Italians in Germany, forms an identity sustainable piece in the chain of identity-forming actions; especially when linking it back to the narrative excerpt that was recorded about six weeks prior to the shopping trip, where Anna says in transcript 8.5 in line 1 ja ich sprech viel Italinisch. ‘yes I speak lots of Italian.’. Anna speaks Italian; she buys and cooks Italian food, and has many Italian objects in her home entailing frozen actions.

Stabilizing Person Identity: A Discussion

8.4

271

Stabilizing Person Identity: A Discussion

The complexly interwoven identity elements—through simultaneous (co)production on various attention/awareness levels over time, through the telling of narratives, and through frozen actions entailed in objects in the environment alone and together—stabilize a social actor’s person identity. A stabilized person identity is achieved by the social actors themselves with and through the social groups and their norms, affordances, and constraints; a stabilized person identity is achieved by the social actors in connection with relationships to other social actors; and a stabilized macro identity is achieved by the social actors through the actions that become frozen in objects in the real world. In this way, social actors interweave identity elements in everyday life. Just as higher-level actions and with them the production of identity elements can have high, medium, or low modal density, a higher order of higher-level actions and with them of identity productions can have high, medium, or low modal density. Anna’s (co)production of her Italian national identity, illustrated in this chapter for example, has a medium-high modal density overall: Anna listens to Italian music, drinks Italian coffee, watches Italian TV, speaks Italian with her father and relatives in Italy, shops in Italian food stores, and cooks Italian food. This modal density is relationally at the same intensity as her (co)production of her German national identity, which is apparent, but only gleaned at in this chapter and throughout the book. While all social actors (co)produce some kind of stabilized person identity in their everyday lives, we are truly at the very beginning of analyzing the complexity and the stabilization of identity. However, it is important to note that social actors—just as illustrated with examples from Anna’s everyday life during the course of one year—produce their person identity by interweaving several identity elements at any one time. Anna’s national identity, in the example above, is interwoven with other facets of her personal identity; her national identity is linked to the roles she enacts and identi¿es with, differing for her when performing as the child, the partner, or the mother. In everyday life, identity is (co)produced by social actors in their socialtime-place, society, the environment, and objects in the world. Rather than focusing on one identity element at a time, social actors (co)produce multiple identity elements. Multimodal interaction analysis allows us to gain some new understanding about the complex linkages that social actors create in their everyday life, demonstrating that each identity element as it is being produced is connected to, interwoven with, and overlaid by other identity elements. Social actors stabilize their person identity over time by weaving the present to the past and the imagined future, thereby continuously incorporating the development and change as it occurs. Social actors stabilize their

272


person identity by utilizing materiality through objects and the environment and by navigating identity elements over long durations of time on the various levels of their attention/awareness, negotiating their identity elements separately in interaction with different social actors and simultaneously producing an ever developing person identity. Accordingly, in order to understand stabilization of person identity over longer duration of time we need to understand the complex linkages between multiple identity elements.

8.5

Stabilization of Person Identity: Complex Links

Social actors produce and display themselves as a certain person, even though not necessarily as the same person when interacting with different social actors from different networks. A stabilization of person identity is always closely linked to the social actor in speci¿c networks that interact with the social actor, and can be perceived as stabilization only within and with a certain group or interconnected groups of people. Within and with a different group or interconnected groups of people, the same social actor may produce a different person identity, which, however, also will be displayed through complexly interlinked identity elements, making sense of and sustaining over time, even though they will always develop and change. Thus, there is not necessarily one person identity per social actor; there may be, and often there are several person identities per social actor, which will to some extent overlap, but will also to some extent diverge and even clash. Person identities of a social actor are always produced in connection with and through the central, intermediary, and outer layers of discourse. The more varied central, intermediary, and outer layers of discourse the social actor engages in, the more varied person identities the social actor will (co) produce. However, most often these different person identities overlap to a great extent and the social actor will make some claims in order to bring the varied person identities together as a larger overall person identity. The example of Anna is fairly straightforward, because Anna is interconnected with networks that center on family and friends. Many members of her networks have met each other and/or are aware of each other’s presence in Anna’s life. Thus Anna can largely form one person identity that interconnects all of her identity elements. This, of course, is not always the case. A social actor may produce identity elements that link to some and not to other identity elements; a social actor may produce identity elements which are in some cases quite distinct from each other; a social actor may produce identity elements which may conÀict with one another. In any case, person identity is

Stabilization of Person Identity: Complex Links

273

established and sustained over time and across the social-time-place of the social actor. Person identity of a social actor, however, is not a static identity and is not viewed the same by the various social actors that they interact with. There are always power differences; there are always role differences; and there are always different ways of negotiating person identity in everyday life as illustrated in the example above. Person identity is produced in interaction with other social actors, within the social-time-place and in connection with a social actor’s own and the interacting social actor(s) historical bodies. On the one hand, the resulting person identity is a connecting of identity elements by the social actor producing them and it is a sense-making of the continuous shifts, developments, and changes within and among the various identity elements. Person identity is produced, re-produced, adjusted, developed, and sometimes drastically changed in connection with the productions, re-productions, adjustments, developments, and sometimes drastic changes of the identity elements. Narratives and narrative snippets tie the present to the past and the imagined future, thereby creating a past-to-present-continuation and creating a new present-future-possibility.5 Thus narratives and narrative snippets are shaping and re-shaping particular identity elements to make them ¿t the currently perceived or aspired person identity. Objects, with their entailed frozen actions, give a social actor’s identity elements a stronger durability due to their materiality. In Andrea’s case, for example, the many painting related objects are ¿lled with frozen actions, giving her artist identity element continuity that an identity element produced through Àeeting communicative modes such as her friend identity with Käthe, which is primarily produced through the mode of object handling (telephone) and language, does not possess. Higher-level actions, producing a certain identity element, that are (co) constructed with diverse social actors and in various ways; higher-level actions, producing a certain identity elements, that are (co)constructed on various levels of attention/awareness of the social actor; and higher-level actions, producing a certain identity element, which are performed simultaneously with other higher-level actions, producing other identity elements of the social actor in their various ways, (co)constructed with different or the same social actors, in similar or different ways, all speak of the social actor’s person identity. Anna, for example, (co)constructs the higher-level action of preparing for a catering event with Andrea, producing a caterer identity element. Anna performs different higher-level actions with clients, preparing a catering event,

274


producing a caterer identity element. She sometimes focuses on preparing for a catering event, sometimes she mid-grounds this higher-level action, and at other times she backgrounds it. Anna performs these higher-level actions, that all have in common that she is preparing for a catering event, simultaneously with watching her children on various levels of her attention/awareness, producing a mother identity element, and simultaneously—and every so often—while interacting with her father or her aunt in Italy, producing an Italian identity element, while interacting with her friends, producing a friend identity element, while interacting with her husband and/or while making preparing a meal for the family, producing her wife or family identity elements, and while speaking and interacting in German, producing her German national identity element. While all of these identity elements are developing and constantly negotiated and re-negotiated in everyday life, Anna, nevertheless, produces a sustained person identity in her social-time-place, a person identity that—at the time of the study—was made up of a family identity element, a mother identity element, a friend identity element, a caterer identity element, an Italian identity element, and a German national identity element. While all of these identity elements take on different saliency at different points in Anna’s everyday life, while they sometimes overlap, and while they consistently evolve, they all co-existed and sustained during the year of this study.

Notes 1. See: Cole (1996); Goffman (1959); Ewing (1990); Leander (2002); Van Dijk (1976a, 1976b; Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983). 2. My new study of Andrea’s identity production for which I collected data in 2010 will give us insight into longer-term identity production; but at this time, the data has not been analyzed to an extent that would allow me to include aspects in this book. 3. Wodak et al. (2000) are of particular interest in regards to employing a historical perspective to identity construction. 4. Anna herself calls Sven her ‘husband’. 5. See Norris (2011a) for more information about narrative snippets and identity.

Chapter 9 Investigating Identity in (Inter)action

There are many ways of doing identity analysis in linguistics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, and related ¿elds. This book introduced yet another way of doing identity analysis: multimodal interaction analysis. Because multimodal interaction analysis is a fairly new theoretical/ methodological framework, I would like to use this chapter to summarize some of the conceptual thoughts and tools that the book introduces.

9.1

Determining Identity Elements

When investigating identity in interaction, the ¿rst question may be How do we determine social actors’ identity elements? and the answer, as given in chapter 2, will be to begin by analyzing those identity elements that you know must be (or should be) present. When investigating identity production in a workplace, you will know the roles of the individuals that you are studying. Thus, you will ¿nd an employer and an employee; or you may ¿nd a secretary and a superior; or a mail clerk and a worker. Thus, there, you would begin with the roles that the social actors should be producing. But then, you need to study them closely and multimodally to determine if they in fact do produce these roles as identity elements; you need to determine whether they have mastered or appropriated the identity elements; whether they are producing these roles as identity elements at all; or whether they produce identity elements that are outside of the role-linked identity elements instead. Thinking back to Anna for a moment, you will remember that I sometimes differentiated between mother identity element and family identity element, and sometimes I collapsed these two identity elements. The reason for this differentiated discussion of the two identity elements as separate or collapsing the two as one family identity element was data driven. Anna in her everyday life was either differentiating or collapsing them. When studying identity production in everyday life multimodally, one will ¿nd that identity elements are quite Àuid. They are produced and re-produced, negotiated and re-negotiated in everyday life; they are enacted separately or together as one; but not only are they sometimes teased apart and at other times merged,

276

Investigating Identity in (Inter)action

they may be mixed differently in interaction. Andrea, for example, sometimes mixed her new-found artist identity element with her personal identity element and sometimes merged the two. At other times, she mixed the artist identity element with her work identity element as a caterer, and differentiated between personal and artist identity elements. Identity elements become visible in the ¿eld and jump out at the researcher when analyzing the data. When beginning by looking to investigate a role as possible identity element, this possible identity element becomes the point of departure. One may ¿nd the role in fact is an identity element for a social actor, but one may also ¿nd something quite different. In one of my other studies, I was looking at the work practices and the identity production of a small computer repair business owner. In my attempt to investigate his major identity element, I began with the most obvious, his possible identity element of a small business owner. Within a few weeks however, I found that his major identity element was caring for his two-year old son; and that this identity element was overshadowing his work identity element. If I was going to study his major identity element, as I had set out to do, I was going to study not his work but his father identity element. As this example illustrates, it does not really matter with which possible identity element you begin: the social actors that you are studying will produce their identity elements as they do, and the data will move the study into their direction. What is important, however, is that you are open to what is in fact being produced by the participants and not hold on to your—possibly quite wrong—direction of study. In the case of the small computer business owner, I re-directed my study, investigating what he was actually doing and which identity elements he was producing. If you cannot re-direct your study, however, you need to ¿nd participants who produce those identity elements that you would like to investigate: a pilot project of several weeks will allow you to determine if your chosen participants produce those identity elements that you are interested in. However, my own view is to study what you ¿nd and not to impose your study’s point of departure onto a ¿eld site. If, for example, I had held onto my point of interest in the above mentioned study of the computer business owner; and if I had primarily investigated his work identity element, discarding the father identity element as irrelevant, I would have distorted his actual identity production. A study can be adjusted, a participant cannot; and a participant’s identity production in their everyday life needs to be studied as it is and not as a researcher or a research proposal wants them to be. What this means, however, is that your study will develop and most likely will not turn out to be what you had proposed in the ¿rst place. When I started out studying Anna and Andrea, I had proposed to study their national

Determining Identity Elements

277

and European identities during the formative time of the European Union. At the time, this seemed a worthwhile undertaking. However, within a few weeks in the ¿eld, I realized that neither Anna nor Andrea were producing a European identity, and that their production of a national identity was not enhanced due to the political changes, either. While national identities were certainly present, both women and their networks were not interested in politics; they read no political magazines or even columns in newspapers; they did not watch political programs on TV; they did not listen to political commentary on the radio. Even though there was much talk about the European Union in my own networks (which did not overlap with Anna’s and Andrea’s networks) in Germany, neither Andrea nor Anna was interested in the topic. However, instead of imposing my own interests, I studied them as they were in their everyday life, investigating their identity production. When studying identity production of social actors in their situated life worlds your study may take you into directions that you had not thought of before. While my study of Andrea and Anna did not take me in the direction that I had set out to move in, this study did lead me to devise a new multimodal theoretical/methodological framework allowing us to: a) Incorporate all modes of communication into a discourse study and with that analyze much of what had been termed context so far; b) Explicate how social actors produce simultaneous identity elements on different levels of attention/awareness; c) Illustrate how a single identity element is made up of three different parts: the general, continuous, and immediate identity element; d) Demonstrate how social actors shift identity elements in and out of focus; e) Show how saliency of identity elements develop in short and long durations; f) Explain how social actors change identity elements altogether; g) Present how social actors sustain a person identity across time, place, and activities. Thus, while my study did not give us insight into a—to me—very interesting historical time of political change in Germany, my study did yield results that I had not even considered when writing the original research proposal, or once I entered the ¿eld to study Andrea’s and Anna’s everyday identity

278


production. When I ¿rst set out to study them, I had wanted to use a mixed method between mediated discourse analysis (Scollon, 1998, 2001b) and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1989; Wodak et al., 2000). While mediated discourse analysis with its emphasis on action proved to be most fruitful, even though not detailed enough for what I needed, critical discourse analysis unfortunately proved to be wrongly placed. But even mediated discourse analysis took me only so far, and I soon had to look to multimodality (Kress and Van Leewuen, 2001) and non-verbal behavior (Argyle and Cook, 1976; Birdwhistell, 1970; Dittman, 1987; Ekman, 1979, and much more). Suddenly it became apparent that there was no framework that allowed the inclusion of verbal, non-verbal, and material objects in the world; there was also no framework that gave a researcher the ability to analyze simultaneous identity production either horizontally or vertically; and yet in order to analyze the data that I had collected by studying Andrea and Anna in their everyday lives, I needed such a framework. Thus, ethnography is likely to lead you into directions you had not thought of before.

9.2

The Need for Ethnography and Inclusion of Creative Data

Certainly, a year of ethnographic data collection and the possibility for researchers to live with participants, audio and video recording them in their everyday life for long durations, may not always be feasible. However, I believe if we want to examine multimodal identity production in everyday life, ethnography is indeed needed. Multimodal interaction analysis as a theoretical/methodological framework does help, and I am ¿nding that an ethnographic study of three to four months coupled with sociolinguistic interviews and playback methodology yields adequate data. Creative data, such as the poems in this book, allows the researcher to jot down the feel of the moments that are not so easy to describe in academic language, because they are linked to wider societal undercurrents or because they relate to many other social actors that one encounters during research, but is not really studying, yet who have an impact on those who we do study. Maybe you think that you are not a creative writer, but that should not hinder a researcher to use the art of writing to note that which is not easily described. Maybe you can express your thoughts and feelings in drawings or other art forms. My suggestion is to try and see whatever works for you. We need to move away from letting research methods constrict how we study and how we express our ¿ndings; we need to free ourselves from our own habits of

Differentiating Concepts

279

thinking in long-learned terms and experiment with new ways of understanding the vast complexity of that which we call identity. Creative data should be collected in connection with and in addition to the collection of ‘normative data’ which entails members’ generalizations, ‘objective data or neutral observations,’ ‘concrete personal or subjective data’ which entails the individual members’ experiences, and ‘contested data’ which involves researcher’s interaction with the members under study. When studying identity, one form of data is not enough to say much about this very intricate and complex topic. However, when including all of these different types of data, a broader understanding of identity emerges. Objective data yields multimodal transcripts and in connection with concrete personal, creative, and contested data leads to our understanding of horizontal identity production. Normative data expresses the various layers of discourse and in connection with objective data, concrete personal and creative data leads to our understanding of vertical identity production. Concrete personal or subjective data gives us the participants’ stories, which, in connection with objective data, normative and creative data leads to our understanding how social actors are sustaining a person identity. Further, merging creative data with the three other kinds of data leads to our understanding of feelings that may be hidden in those data, such as fear was hidden in much of my data, but was quite prevalent in the creative data.

9.3


I have introduced many concepts in this book: some new and some that have been around for a little while. When someone is introducing and using many different concepts, I always wonder if we really need all of them. Therefore, I would like to now take a close look at the concepts and illustrate why we need them all and how they all relate. Multimodal interaction analysis takes the action as its unit of analysis. An action is a social actor acting with or through a mediational means or cultural tool. Thus, an action is always mediated. In order to analyze various levels in interaction from micro to macro, we distinguish between the lower-level action, which is a pragmatic action unit of a communicative mode (such as an utterance for the mode of spoken language or a gesture unit for the mode of gesture), and the higher-level action, which in modal terms is an accumulation and intersection of many chains of lower-level actions. A social actor usually is involved in a higher-level action (such as a conversation or a dinner), and the higher-level action enables or produces particular chains of lower-level

280


actions. However, simultaneously it is the many chains of lower-level actions that make the higher-level action possible. Thus, the various levels of action constitute each other. The next higher order higher-level action is a new addition to the action levels: here, we speak of those actions that are similar or of the same kind, but are directly linked to one particular social actor as in the example of Anna overseeing her children’s homework. This higher order higher-level action is in fact an accumulation of higher-level actions, each of which is somewhat distinct but also shows similarity to the other higher-level actions. Higher order higher-level actions are the situated higher-level actions of social actors, while the concept of practice denotes an abstracted level of lower- or higherlevel action. Thus, we speak of handing as a practice or we can speak of cooking as a practice. While every social actor understands the practice of handing or cooking, these practices are not linked to speci¿c social actors. Actions are produced in a site of engagement, which is the situated window opened up for the various higher-level actions to take place. The concept of site of engagement incorporates the historical moment in the lives of the social actors (co)constructing the actions and thereby (co)producing identity elements. It also incorporates the situated place in which the actions take place; and the psychological make-up of the social actors at that moment in time and place. The concept of site of engagement is thus situated to speci¿c social actors acting in the world in a speci¿c clock time and in a speci¿c environment. The concept of social-time-place is new in this book. This concept encompasses an overarching situatedness of actions and modal use on all levels from the micro to the macro. Social-time-place incorporates the notions of: 1. the society at the time of acting and producing identity (in the study of Anna and Andrea: German society); 2. the broader time frame at the time of acting and producing identity (in the study of Anna and Andrea: around the Millennium); 3. and the broader place in which the actions are (co)constructed (co)producing identity (in the study of Anna and Andrea: Germany) Social actors usually (co)construct several higher-level actions and with that (co)produce several identity elements simultaneously, paying varying degrees of attention to the differing higher-level actions and identity elements. The concept of a modal density foreground-background continuum allows an analyst to relationally place identity elements (or higher-level actions) onto the heuristic attention/awareness levels of a particular social actor. Simultaneity can thus qualitatively be analyzed and can be visualized and explicated.


281

Because social actors can focus on only one higher-level action at a time, we ¿nd a higher-level discourse structure in interaction. This higher-level discourse structure is made up of what I call semantic/pragmatic means: a social actor utilizes these means, which are always pronounced lower-level actions, semantically to help themselves re-focus and pragmatically to indicate to others an upcoming shift in their focus. When investigating identity production, we ¿nd that social actors often (co)produce several identity elements simultaneously. Utilizing the modal density foreground-background continuum, we can plot the simultaneously produced identity elements onto the heuristic model of a social actor’s attention/awareness levels. We speak of horizontal identity production when investigating simultaneously produced identity elements as in the example of Anna simultaneously producing her caterer identity element and her mother identity element when she is shopping with the children for a catering event. When investigating a social actor’s general, continuous, and immediate identity element production of one and the same identity element, we are investigating vertical identity element production. The concepts of: outer layer discourses producing a general identity element, intermediary layer discourses producing a continuous identity element, and the central layer discourses producing an immediate identity element, are new in this book. Social actors usually merge these three layers, but when investigating change of an identity element (as in the case of Andrea’s divorcee identity element), the separation of the three layers becomes visible. Social actors strive to stabilize their identity across time, place, and activity. When analyzing stabilization of identity, we ¿nd that this stabilization, in fact, is not a ¿xed form of identity, but rather a continuous adjustment of identity in interaction in everyday life. Social actors are often not aware of the constant development and adjustment that they are actively attending to. Social actors often claim as Anna claims that they have not changed as can be seen in transcript 9.1. Others, however, as Andrea (see transcript 9.2) are aware of their change. Audio transcript 9.1: Anna has not changed (1)

(2)

Researcher: und and ‘and’ wie hast du dich persönlich how have you yourself personally ‘how did you personally’

282


(3)

verändert change ‘change’

(4)

in den letzten zehn Jahren? in the last ten year? ‘in the last ten years?’

(5)

Anna:

och oh ‘well’

(6)

ich so ganz persönlich? I so all personally? ‘I personally?’

(7)

och oh ‘well’

(8)

ich hab mich gar nicht geändert I have myself emphasis not changed ‘I have not changed at all’

(9)

bin noch so wie früher am emphasis such as earlier ‘I’m just as always’

Audio transcript 9.2: Andrea has changed (1)

Researcher: und and ‘and’

(2)

wie hast du dich persönlich how have you yourself personally ‘how did you personally’

(3)

verändert change ‘change’


(4)

(5)

in den letzten zehn Jahren? in the last ten year? ‘in the last ten years?’ Andrea:

ich? I? ‘me?’

(6)

total totally ‘completely’

(7)

ich bin ganz anders I am all different ‘I am very different’

(8)

um mich rum around me around ‘all around me’

(9)

hat sich auch so viel verändert has itself also so much changed ‘so much has changed as well’

(10)

hm

(11)

ich bin jetzt ich I am now I ‘I’m now myself’

(12) Researcher: warst du das vorher nicht? were you that before not? ‘and you weren’t before?’ (13) Andrea:

nö no

(14)

ich war so I was such ‘I was the way’

283

284


(15)

wie die mich alle wollten how they me all wanted ‘they all wanted me to be’

(16)

jetzt bin ich ich now am I I ‘now I am myself’

(17)

ich hab mich grad mal so gefunden hhh I have myself currently emphasis so found hhh ‘I just found myself hhh’

(18)

is noch gar nich lange her hhh is emphasis at all not long ago hhh ‘not very long ago at all hhh’

(19) Researcher: und and (20)

bleibst du jetzt so? stay you now so? ‘are you going to stay this way?’

(21) Andrea:

nö no

(22)

ich veränder mich weiter I change myself ongoing ‘I keep changing’

(23)

aber im Moment but in the moment but at this time

(24)

jetzt now now

(25)

jetzt bleib ich erst mal so now stay I ¿rst emphasis so ‘for now I’ll stay like this’

Investigating Identity through Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis

285

Even though Andrea realizes that her identity changes, she also stabilizes her identity, and refers in transcript 9.2, line 25 to such stabilization. Social actors are often only aware of major changes in their lives. Andrea, who was going through such a major change, was fully aware of the change. However, when social actors do not go through major change, they are usually unaware of the incremental change in their everyday lived identity. The concept of person identity, a striving by social actors to present themselves as having one whole identity, is also new in this book. While the notion of identity elements comes from the concept that has elsewhere been called identity fragmentation, the concept of person identity investigates the linking and bridging of the various elements, investigates the social actors’ striving for reconciliation of their continued development and change with their understanding of wholeness. Person identity is thus not the same as what is elsewhere termed the core identity (Ricceur, 1992). Investigating person identity means to investigate the many identity elements and then investigating how social actors knit the different, sometimes conÀicting, and always developing identity elements to produce an—always partial—person identity. It is this constantly developing person identity that sustains across time and place, and across interactions and activities.

9.4

Investigating Identity in (Inter)action through Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis

Identity in everyday life is complex. Social actors produce their identities through the moment-to-moment actions that they (co)construct with other social actors, objects, and the environment in their social-time-place. Social actors produce their identities through practices that they have learned and appropriated as their own, displaying the social structures and roles as their own. Social actors produce multiple identity elements, sometimes simultaneously and sometimes consecutively, interwoven with other identity elements and rarely if ever alone. Identities are produced through the interplay of various layers of discourse; and the layers of discourse to some extent—some more and some less—enforce particular identity elements and not others; and the layers of discourse to some extent—some more and some less—allow agency for a social actor to produce certain identity elements in more or less different ways. Generally, it appears that outer layer discourses are more enforcing than they are agentive for a social actor and that agency grows as the layers of discourse come closer to the social actor. This, however, is not necessarily the case as we saw with Anna, who was forced by her central discourses to produce a family and mother identity element rather than her personal identity

286


element at home; or when we consider that Andrea was forced by the layout of her apartment and the telephone and electrical outlets to place her telephone and computer into a certain place in a certain room. Thus, exactly how agency is constricted and/or afforded needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis; and the framework introduced in this book is a ¿rst step to do so. When utilizing multimodal interaction analysis to investigate identity production in everyday life, we uncover these contradictions and approach a better understanding of the complexity of identity production of social actors in shorter moments and longer durations of their lives in their social-timeplace. However, at the same time, this study opens new questions about identity production. One question is How does identity change over ten years or more? and it is this question that I have embarked on answering next. Between July and October 2010, I have re-entered the ¿eld and have studied Andrea’s current identity production. Once this data have been analyzed, I intend to report on this ¿nding; but at this point, I will end here and I will take up this question in another book.

References Argyle, Michael, and Mark Cook. 1976. Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Argyle, Michael, and Janet Dean. 1965. Eye-contact, distance and af¿liation. Sociometry 28: 289–304. Baldry, Anthony, and Thibault, Paul J. 2005. Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimodal toolkit and coursebook with associated on-line course. London: Equinox. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Bateman, John. 2008. Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Bilstein, J. 2009. Die Kunst der Lehre und die Lehre der Kunst. In Koblenzer Hochschulschriften Band # 02, ed. W.-A. Liebert und T. Metten. Koblenz: Universität Landau-Koblenz. Birdwhistell, R. L. 1970. Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge. Caldas-Coulthard, C., and R. Iedema, eds. 2008. Identity trouble: Critical discourse and contested identities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The Àow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Condon, W. S., and W. D. Ogston. 1967. A segmentation of behavior. Journal of Psychiatric Research 5: 221–35. Coupland, J., and R. Gwyn. 2003. Discourse, the body and identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. de Certeau, M. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. de Saint-Georges, Ingrid, and Sigrid Norris. 2000. Nationality and the European Union: Competing identities in the visual design of four European cities. Visual Sociology 15: 65–78.

288

References

Dewey, J. 2005. Art as experience. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group. Dittman, Allen T. 1987. The role of body movement in communication. In Nonverbal behavior and communication, ed. Aron W. Siegman and Stanley Feldstein. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Duranti, A. 1992. Language in context and language as context: The Samoan respect vocabulary. In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 77–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin, eds. 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eco, U. 1968 (1972). Einführung in die Semiotic. München: UTB. Efron, D. 1941. Gesture and environment. New York: King’s Crown Press. Ekman, P. 1979. About brows: Emotional and conversational signals. In Human ethology, ed. M. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, and D. Ploog, 169–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. 1969. The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1: 49–98. Engeström, Yrjo. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Proemeta-Konsultit. Erickson, Erik. 1963. Childhood and society. 2nd ed. New York: Norton. Erickson, Frederick. 1990. The social construction of discourse coherence in a family dinner table conversation. In Conversational organization and its development, ed. Bruce Dorval, 207–38. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ewing, Katherine P. 1990. The illusion of wholeness: Culture, self and the experience of inconsistency. Ethos 18 (3): 251–78. Exline, Ralph, and B. J. Fehr. 1982. The assessment of gaze and mutual gaze. In Handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research, ed. Klaus R. Scherer and Paul Ekman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman. Finnegan, Ruth. 2002. Communicating: The multiple modes of human interconnection. London: Routledge. Gadamer H.-G. 2006. Truth and method. New York: Continuum. Gergen, K. J. 1991. The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books. . 1994. Realities and relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. . 1961. Asylum. New York: Anchor Press. . 1963. Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press. . 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row. . 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 272–302. . 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

References

289

. 1986. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62: 29–49. . 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–33. . 2001. Practices of seeing visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In Handbook of visual analysis, ed. Theo van Leeuwen and Carey Jewitt, 157–82. London: Sage. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grossberg, Lawrence. 1996. Identity and cultural studies: Is that all there is? In Cultural identity, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 87–107. London: Sage. Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes, eds. 1986. Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The theory of communicative action, vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. . 1987. The theory of communicative action, vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, Tilmann. 1999. Geliebte Objekte: Symbole und Instrumente der Identitätsbildung. Frankfurt am Main: Surkamp. Hall, E. T. 1966. The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Hall, Stuart. (1996) Introduction: Who needs “identity”? In Cultural identity, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 1–17. London: Sage. Hamilton, Heidi. 1998. Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (1): 53–67. Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge. Harre, R. 1979. Social beings. Oxford: Blackwell. Harris, G. G. 1989. Concepts of individual, self, and person in description and analysis. American Anthropologist 91: 599–612. Haviland, John. 2000. Pointing, gesture spaces, and mental maps. In Language and gesture: Window into thought and action, ed. David McNeill, 13–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hegel, G. W. F. 1988. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag. Heims, S. P. 1977. Gregory Bateson and mathematicians: From interdisciplinary interaction to social functions. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 13: 141–59. Holland, D., W. Lachicotte Jr., D. Skiner, and C. Cain. 1998. Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holland, Dorothy, and Naomi Quinn, eds. 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, ed. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

290

References

. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jewitt, Carey. 2005. Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. Abingdon: Routledge. , ed. 2009. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge. Kendon, Adam. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26: 22–63. . 1972. Some relationships between body motion and speech: An analysis of an example. In Studies in dyadic communication, ed. A. W. Siegman and B. Pope, 177–210. New York: Pergamon Press. . 1974. Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. In Nonverbal communication, ed. Shirley Weitz, 150–68. New York: Oxford University Press. . 1977. Studies in the behavior of social interaction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. . 1978. Looking in conversation and the regulation of turns at talk: A comment on the papers of G. Beattie and D. R. Rutter et al. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 17: 23–24. . 1980. Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Nonverbal communication and language, ed. M. R. Key, 207–27. The Hague: Mouton. . 1982. A study of gesture: Some observations on its history. Semiotic Inquiry 2: 45–62. . 1992. The negotiation of context in face-to-face interaction. In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 323–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, Adam, and Adam A. Ferber. 1973. A description of some human greetings. In Comparative ecology and behaviour of primates, ed. R. P. Michael and J. H. Crook, 591–668. London: Academic Press. Krahmer, Emiel, Zso¿a Ruttkay, Marc Swerts, and Wieger Wesselink. 2002. Pitch, eyebrows and the perception of focus. Unpublished manuscript. Kress, Gunther, Carey Jewitt, Jon Ogborn, and Charalampos Tsatsarelis. 2001. Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum. Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: A grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold. Leander, Kevin M. 2002. Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English 37: 198–250. Lemke, Jay L. 2000. Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture and Activity 7 (4): 273–90. . 2002a. Discursive technologies and the social organization of meaning. Folia Linguistica 35 (1–2): 79–96.

References

291

. 2002b. Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In Language acquisition and language socialization, ed. C. Kramsch, 68–87. London: Continuum. . 2003. The role of texts in the technology of social organization. In Theory and interdisciplinarity in critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and G. Weiss. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. . 2008. Identity, development, and desire: Critical questions. In Identity trouble: Critical discourse and contested identities, ed. C. Caldas-Coulthard and R. Iedema. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Luhmann, N. 1998. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Machin, David. 2007. Introduction to multimodal analysis. New York: Hodder Arnold. McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nishida, Kitaroo. 1958. Intelligibility and philosophy of nothingness. Tokyo: Maruzen. Norris, Sigrid. 2000. Visual semiotics: A reÀection of sociopolitical currents in Germany. Paper presented in the colloquium Visual Semiotics in Business and Public Discourse: Literate Technologies of Representation, Georgetown University Roundtable, Washington, DC. . 2001. The signi¿cance of a European identity at home and in public spaces in Germany. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropology Association, Washington, DC. . 2002. The implications of visual research for discourse analysis: Transcription beyond language. Visual Communication 1 (1): 93–117. . 2003. Multimodal discourse analysis: A conceptual framework. In Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis, ed. Philip LeVine and Ron Scollon, 101–15. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. . 2004. Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge. . 2005. Habitus, social identity, the perception of male domination—and agency? In Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis, ed. Sigrid Norris and Rodney H. Jones, 183–97. London: Routledge. . 2006. Multiparty interaction: A multimodal perspective on relevance. Discourse Studies 8 (3): 401–21. . 2007. The micropolitics of personal national and ethnicity identity. Discourse and Society 18 (5): 653–74. . 2008. Rosarot und schwarz. Gedichte. Aachen, Germany: Deutscher Lyrik Verlag. . 2009a. Modal density and modal con¿gurations: Multimodal actions. In Routledge handbook for multimodal discourse analysis, ed. C. Jewitt. London: Routledge. . 2009b. Tempo, auftakt, levels of actions, and practice: Rhythms in ordinary interactions. Special issue, Journal of Applied Linguistics 6 (3).

292

References

. 2011a. The process of producing art: Creative actions. In Discourse and creativity, ed. R. Jones. London: Longman. . 2011b. Three hierarchical positions of deictic gesture in relation to spoken language: A multimodal interaction analysis. Visual Communication. Norris, Sigrid, and Rodney H. Jones, eds. 2005. Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Transcription as theory. In Developmental pragmatics, ed. E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffeling, 43–72. New York: Academic Press. Ochs, Elinor, and Carolyn Taylor. 1992. Family narrative as political activity. Discourse and Society 3: 301–40. Pike, K. L. 1967. Language in relation to a uni¿ed theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Ricceur, P. 1992. Oneself as another (Soi-même comme un autre). Trans. Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rogoff, Barbara. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Ruesch, Jurgen, and Weldon Kees. 1956. Nonverbal communication: Notes on the visual perception of human relations. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735. Schafer, R. Murray. 1977. The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester, VT: Destiny Books. Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–52. . 1992. In another context. In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 191–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1994. Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Scollon, Ron. 1997. Handbills, tissues, and condoms: A site of engagement for the construction of identity in public discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1 (1): 39–61. . 1998. Mediated discourse as social interaction. London: Longman. . 2001a. Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action. In Methods in critical discourse analysis, ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 139–83. London: Sage. . 2001b. Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London: Routledge. Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Scollon. 2003. Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. . 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

293

Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Framing in discourse, ed. Deborah Tannen, 57–113. New York: Oxford University Press. van Dijk, T. 1976a. Narrative macrostructures: Cognitive and logical foundations. PTL 1, 547–68. . 1976b. Philosophy of action and theory of narrative. Poetics 5: 287–332. van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. van Leeuwen, Theo. 1999. Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan. van Leeuwen, Theo, and Carey Jewitt. 2001. Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, ed. M. Cole et al. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weis, E., and J. Belton, eds. 1985. Film sound—theory and practice. New York: Columbia University Press. Wertsch, J. V., ed. 1985. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 2005. Vygotsky’s two approaches to mediation. In Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis, S. Norris and R. H. Jones, 52–61. London: Routledge. Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2000. The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Index abstraction of actions, 191, 194 action theory, 36 affordance, 31, 179, 254, 256, 259, 271 agency, 33, 34, 187–189, 192, 195–198, 200, 208, 235, 247, 251, 254, 285, 286 aggregates, 92 appropriation of identity elements, 26, 43, 44, 141, 155, 157, 160, 172 artist identity element, 14, 32, 163, 169, 170, 173, 244, 273, 276 attention/awareness, 26, 45, 49–52, 94, 99–114, 141–143, 155, 159, 209–211, 225, 233, 234, 269–274, 277, 280, 281 auxiliary identity element, 235, 238– 240, 244, 246 background, 33, 47–52 Bakhtin, 1, 43, 255 Bateson, 53, 56, 138 beats, 86, 212–215, 220–224, 227–230 belonging, 66, 148, 155, 198, 213, 254, 257 bottom up, 201, 202 Bourdieu, 36 caterer identity, 32, 99, 103, 107, 109, 112, 133, 136, 218, 220, 224, 227, 230, 270, 272, 274, 281 central layers of discourse, 146, 153, 179, 180, 200, 234, 244, (co)production, 2, 22, 30, 32, 52, 142, 253, 271 coercion, 197, 198, 200 Cole, 34, 274 concrete personal data, 58, 64, 279 context, 1, 3, 5–8, 23, 27, 162, 163, 169, 176, 211, 277 continuity of identity, 34, 179, 180, 189–194, 233, 246, 273, 281 creative data, 25, 61–66, 70, 74, 278, 279 cultural tools/mediational means, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 42–46, 51, 53, 155–157, 169, 173, 176, 179, 200, 242, 246, 279

deictics, 20, 212, 213, 223, 226, 230–232 dialectic, 37, 49, 173, 197, 198 disattended track, 47, 212 discourse analysis, 1–6, 8, 15, 23, 24, 27, 35–37, 46, 81, 82, 278 divorcee identity element, 8, 13, 14, 31, 96, 146, 160–165, 180–195, 200, 202, 205–211, 234, 235, 244–248, 281 dominance, 18, 21, 22 Eco, 169 environment, 1,2 ,6, 30, 32, 34, 41, 49, 52, 55, 91, 93, 117, 137–160, 176–178, 200, 252–257, 271, 272, 280, 285 ethnography, 2, 4, 7, 10, 25, 55–89, 91, 96, 155, 162, 168, 253, 278 expressions given off, 22, 169 facial expression, 8, 11, 13, 29, 101, 143, 211, 226 family identity element, 31, 120, 136, 142, 143, 158–165, 173, 234, 246, 274, 275 focused attention, 106, 111, 138, 148, 151, 152 foreground, 33, 47–52 foreground–background continuum, 2, 25, 71, 94, 100, 141, 142, 209, 212, 219, 227, 258, 269, 280, 281 frame analysis, 47, 254 friend identity element, 32, 46, 94, 101, 104, 107, 110–112, 126–130, 138, 143, 157, 170, 176, 190, 211, 215, 218, 220, 224–232, 273, 274 frozen action, 2, 25, 41, 45, 48, 49, 82, 176, 157, 265, 270, 271, 273 Gadamer, 63, 65, 74, 75 gaze, 3, 9–13, 18–23, 27, 39–43, 83, 86, 97, 101–104, 111, 118, 123–128, 133, 137, 142, 143, 157, 159, 209, 213–231 general identity element, 179–181, 185–187, 196, 198, 201, 246, 251, 281

296

Index

gesture, 2, 8–13, 20–23, 27, 29, 36, 39–43, 82–86, 97, 118, 123, 124, 128, 137, 157–160, 171, 212–214, 223–226, 230–232, 244, 266, 279 Goffman, 4–8, 13, 22, 29, 30, 44, 47, 92, 169, 175, 210, 212, 254, 274 Goodwin, 18, 27, 79, 80, 92 Grossberg, 27, 30 Habermas, 53 Habermas, T., 169, 172, 173 habitus, 1, 31, 34, 36, 53, 120, 138, 157, 168, 172, 175, 176, 193, 194, 255, 256, 258, 259, 264, 266, 269 Hall, 30, 34 Haraway, 30 head movement, 13, 20, 22, 40 heuristic, 25, 31, 32, 37, 52, 53, 94, 100, 141, 201, 209, 258, 269, 280, 281 hierarchical, 48, 49, 82, 87–92, 173 high modal density, 95–97, 99, 111, 112, 142, 208, 271 higher-level action, 2, 26, 39–53 higher-level discourse structure, 211–213, 220, 233, 281 historical body, 34, 36, 255–258, 263, 264 historical time, 30, 31, 277 Holland, 3, 27, 30, 138, 179 horizontal identity production, 26, 138–143, 147–178, 209, 211, 279, 281 Hymes, 1, 92 identify, 29, 141, 157, 158, 176, 156 identity as process, 26, 30, 34 identity change, 33, 34, 198,200, 214, 235, 238, 246–248, 251, 273, 277, 281, 285, 286 identity shift, 26, 211–113, 117–119, 227, 230–234, 277 identity–meaning, 52, 53, 257 identity–telling, 53,137, 160, 253, 254, 264, 266 immediate identity element, 180, 186, 190, 193, 194, 200, 201, 208, 234, 246, 277, 281

intensity plus modal complexity, 95, 109 intention, 22, 34, 43, 52, 53 intermediary layers of discourse, 179, 180, 187, 189, 194, 197, 198, 244, 246, 254 internalize, 42, 43, 92, 186, 190, 245 international identity element, 120, 158, 160, 168, 171, 175, 176 interview, 25, 33, 36, 56, 57, 91, 117–120, 129, 133, 136–138, 155, 157–163, 167, 173, 175–178, 258, 269, 278 intonation, 6–9, 13, 15, 18, 27, 84, 86, 242 issues for the researcher, 55, 66, 68 Italian identity element, 132, 171, 254, 270, 274 Jefferson, 6, 81, 84 Jewitt, 23, 81, 82, 92 Jones, 24, 35, 53 Kendon, 18, 27, 92, 205, 212–214, 220 Kress, 3, 24, 79, 81, 83, 173, 175, 278 layers of discourse, 26, 179, 180, 181, 185–190, 194, 196–210, 234, 244, 246, 251–257, 272, 279, 285 Lemke, 25, 27, 55, 63, 75, 76, 249, 251, 258 higher order higher–level actions, 190–193, 271, 280 low modal density, 107, 109, 111, 271 lower-level action, 39, 41, 42, 57, 82 macro identity frame, 253, 254, 256, 257 macro/micro approach, 92, 175 mastery and appropriation, 26, 43, 157 mastery of identity elements, 155, 172 materiality, 41, 43, 44, 272, 273 McNeil, 21, 27, 86, 213, 214, 220 mediated discourse analysis, 2, 3, 35 36, 37, 46, 82, 278 mediation, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42–46, 51, 53, 157, 169, 179, 242, 246, 279 medium modal density, 101, 111, 209 memory, 25, 138, 247, 248

Index

micro action, 176, 177, 253, 254 mid-ground, 33, 47–52 mismatched attention levels, 111, 155 modal complexity, 95, 97, 101, 107, 109, 111, 142 modal density, 2, 25, 92–101, 106–112, 118, 141–143, 208–213, 219, 227, 233, 271, 280, 281 modal intensity, 95, 101, 109, 110, 142 mother identity element, 32, 46, 97, 103–112, 138, 143, 159, 162, 186, 197, 209, 210–234, 146, 247, 270, 274, 275, 281, 285 multimodal data, 79, 92 multimodal transcription, 8, 25, 79, 80, 87 multiple identity elements, 2, 94, 141, 163, 211, 254, 271, 272, 285 multiple meanings, 169 music, 3, 6, 10, 36, 48, 58, 66, 70, 79, 81, 133, 204–208, 212, 213, 239, 271 narrative, 26, 62–66, 75, 76, 137, 138, 143, 146, 147, 151, 214, 238, 247, 248, 258, 259, 263–274 national identity element, 31, 119, 120, 133, 158–176, 215, 225, 248, 274 negotiating, 5, 35, 52, 181, 208, 234, 248, 251, 254, 257, 258, 272–275 network, 26, 32, 52–58, 63, 65, 66, 76, 104, 138, 158, 179–201, 206, 234, 238–246, 257, 258, 272, 277 nexus of practice, 46, 155, 156 Nishida, 36, 255 non-data, 66 non-sequential, 173 non-verbal behavior, 3–13, 18, 22–24, 35, 36, 80, 91, 118, 169, 278 normative data, 58, 279 normative discourse, 191 objective data, 58, 62, 64, 279 outer layers of discourse, 179–181, 185–190, 194, 197, 200, 201, 206, 207, 244, 246, 253, 254, 272 parallel identity elements, 198

297

perception, 11, 13, 22, 31, 34, 35, 51–53, 57, 63, 64, 100, 106, 117, 130, 136, 138, 157, 158, 169, 175, 182–190, 210, 238, 240, 242, 247, 256–58, 264, 272, 273 performance, 1, 29, 32, 36, 46, 52–56, 90, 208, 227, 230, 251 person identity, 26, 31, 251–258, 263, 265, 269, 271–279, 285 phenomenological, 25, 34, 35, 51–55, 65, 70, 71, 75, 79, 90, 94, 95, 100, 106, 110, 211 Pike, 3 playback, 7, 58, 59, 69, 114, 117, 152, 176, 177, 193, 205, 278 poetry, 61, 63, 65, 70, 71, 75 posture, 3, 21–23, 29, 36, 39, 42, 79, 84, 85, 97–110, 118, 123, 126, 128, 130, 133, 137, 142, 211, 215, 224, 227, 230 power, 18, 22, 25, 82, 179, 195, 202, 263, 264, 273 practice, 23, 31, 34, 36 45, 46, 51, 137, 156, 172, 181, 187, 189, 190, 194, 276, 280, 285 prescribed identity elements, 34, 186, 189, 197, 200 pronounced lower–level actions, 212, 213, 232, 233, 281 proxemics, 3, 42, 84, 85, 97, 103, 104, 107–110, 123–126, 142, 143, 215, 224–227 reception, 29, 49 recorded modal use, 124, 125, 127, 131, 133 regulators, 213 relational, 29, 30, 101, 110, 111, 142, 256, 271, 280 repetition, 18, 202 researcher involvement/distancing, 56, 59, 66, 71, 72 rhythm, 10, 89, 230, 258, 266 Ricceur, 285 role, 6–8, 11, 23, 33, 35, 41, 56, 62, 68, 69, 186, 191, 235, 238, 256, 258, 263, 264, 271, 273, 275, 276, 285

298

Index

Ruesch, 8, 22, 56 saliency of identity element, 26, 41, 233, 234, 258, 274, 277 Sapir, 3 Schiffrin, 5,92 Scollon, R., 2, 23, 27, 29, 34, 35, 44, 45, 50, 53, 56, 58, 92, 136, 141, 155, 156, 255, 278 screen grab, 86, 87, 265 self, 30, 55, 92, 101, 173, 197, 234, 256 self-perception of identity, 247 semantic/pragmatic means, 26, 211, 213, 214, 233, 281 sequential communication, 93, 94 sequential identity production, 138, 168, 173, 176–178 setting, 2, 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 22–24, 29, 80, 81, 159, 168, 169, 173, 175, 176, 178, 236 simultaneous communication, 2, 13, 36, 48 simultaneous identity element production, 25, 29, 52, 93, 138, 155, 278 site of engagement, 25, 44–46, 50, 51, 83, 118, 119, 126, 136–139, 159, 160, 176, 203–205, 211, 215, 220, 227, 280 situated discourse, 191 social norms, 175, 257, 264 social structure, 24, 30, 31, 35, 36, 139, 175, 180, 285 social-time-place, 30–34, 37, 42, 51, 52, 139, 176, 180, 181, 186, 187, 190–196, 200, 238, 253, 256–258, 273, 274, 280, 285 society, 32, 34, 35, 63, 70, 120, 137, 138, 179, 181, 186, 257, 263, 271, 280 sociolinguistic interview, 25, 33, 36, 56, 113, 138, 155, 158, 159, 258, 269, 278

sociolinguistics, 31, 36, 37, 56 solidarity, 18, 22 space, 8, 11, 22, 24, 41, 80, 93, 118, 121, 122, 151, 160, 172, 177, 178, 194, 226 stabilization of identity, 26, 34, 248, 251, 253, 256, 258, 265, 268, 269, 271, 272, 281, 285 Tannen, 6, 15, 18, 27, 47, 58, 73, 81, 84, 92 technology, 5 tension in identity elements, 33, 186, 206 time scales, 63, 64, 190, 192, 193, 253, 258, 266, 269 top down, 198, 201, 202 transcription, 6, 8, 15, 24, 25, 79–92, 177, 178 triangulation, 33, 56, 58, 64, 80 unit of analysis, 5, 23, 24, 37, 82, 279 Van Leeuwen, 3, 23, 48–50, 79, 81, 83, 92, 173 verbalizing identity elements, 158, 168, 200, 204, 205 vertical identity production, 26, 151, 173, 180, 181, 201, 208–211, 234, 278, 279, 281 visible identity elements, 14 visual research methods, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 23, 24, 27, 36, 79–85, 141, 155, 168, 175, 176 Vygotsky, 138, 157, 176, 244, 245 Wertsch, 34, 36, 43, 53, 138, 157, 245 Wodak, 27, 30, 139, 163, 274, 278 work identity element, 18, 22, 31, 32, 215, 227, 270, 275, 276

Identity in (Inter)action: Introducing Multimodal Interaction Analysis (Trends in Applied Linguistics)

Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework

Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance

Multimodal Usability (Human-Computer Interaction Series)

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 26 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction)

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 29 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction)

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 30 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction)

End-User Privacy in Human-Computer Interaction (Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction)

Protein Interaction Networks: Computational Analysis

Multimodal Teaching and Learning (Advances in Applied Linguistics)

Instabilities in laser-matter interaction

Narrative Interaction (Studies in Narrativity)

Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interaction

Advances in Human Computer Interaction

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 33

Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity

Explorations in Applied Linguistics

Rethinking basic writing: exploring identity, politics, and community in interaction

Interaction 2

Interaction 1

Interaction Design

Laughter in Interaction (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics)

drug interaction

Interaction models

Total Interaction

Interaction models

Nonlinear Interaction

Human-Computer Interaction.. Interaction Design and Usability

Interaction Between Functional Analysis, Harmonic Analysis, and Probability (Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics)

Trends in Harmonic Analysis

Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, 4 conf., MLMI 2007

Identity in (Inter)action: Introducing Multimodal Interaction Analysis (Trends in Applied Linguistics)

Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework

Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance

Multimodal Usability (Human-Computer Interaction Series)

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 26 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction)

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 29 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction)

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 30 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction)

End-User Privacy in Human-Computer Interaction (Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction)

Protein Interaction Networks: Computational Analysis

Multimodal Teaching and Learning (Advances in Applied Linguistics)

Instabilities in laser-matter interaction

Narrative Interaction (Studies in Narrativity)

Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interaction

Advances in Human Computer Interaction

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 33

Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity

Explorations in Applied Linguistics

Rethinking basic writing: exploring identity, politics, and community in interaction

Interaction 2

Interaction 1

Interaction Design

Laughter in Interaction (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics)

drug interaction

Interaction models

Total Interaction

Interaction models

Nonlinear Interaction

Human-Computer Interaction.. Interaction Design and Usability

Interaction Between Functional Analysis, Harmonic Analysis, and Probability (Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics)

Trends in Harmonic Analysis

Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, 4 conf., MLMI 2007

Recommend Documents