CONTRATACIÓN DE UN ASISTENTE EN MONITOREO Y EVALUACIÓN

Eades (2003) studied the way indigenous Australians are treated in the legal system. She found that the conventions of Aboriginal English (AE) put indigenous people at a serious disadvantage in a legal system that relies on and enforces Anglo conventions of communication. Eades points out some of the causes of misunderstanding are discourse strategies such as silence, gratuitous concurrence, question formation and interruption. For example, silence is ‘important and positively valued’ (2003: 202) by speakers of AE. It signals the importance of the topic under discussion and as such can be understood as a sign of respect and attention. The rules of the courtroom, however, construe silence from a witness or suspect as evidence of decep- tion or lack of co-operation.

Gratuitous concurrence describes how speakers of AE may answer ‘yes’ to closed questions, ‘regardless of either their understanding of the question or their belief about the truth or falsity of the proposition being questioned’ (Eades 2003: 203). In any communication context, this conven- tion may lead to miscommunication with non-AE speakers. In a legal context, this can be very damaging and lead to serious injustice. There are other aspects of questioning conventions that differ for speakers of AE. Eades notes that it is not unusual for a declarative with rising intonation to be understood as a question that invites more than simply a ‘yes/no’ response. It is treated as ‘an invitation to explain’ (2000: 172). But because speaking rights in the courtroom are restricted, any extended speech may also be construed negatively in the legal context. Because of the differing discourse

strategies of AE and Anglo speakers, AE speakers are often interrupted and silenced in the court. Eades finds that such interruptions are often made by the judge. Example 7.7 is a transcript of an interaction between an AE witness and an Anglo judge. The judge’s interruptions are linked to the witness trying to provide a detailed response to what is, for non-AE speakers, a closed question.

Example 7.7

31. J: Have you spoken to them since? 32. W: Oh [(xxxxx)

33. J: [Since this event?= 34. W: =at court I did yeah– last=

35. J: =Have you indicated to them what you’re telling me that you feel it was unwarranted and that you’re sorry for it? 36. W: Yeah– yeah it’s=

37. J: =You’ve said that to them? 38. W: Yeah– yeah.

39. J: You tell me that truly?

40. W: Yeah (1.2) I said it when I got charged that that was– you know– my stupidness

(adapted from Eades 2000: 174)

The question asked in line 31 could be answered with a simple ‘yes’, and given that the judge keeps asking the question, it is clear that this is what he wants. When the witness tries to provide more than this, the judge interrupts. Had the witness been allowed to speak at line 32, the judge may not have needed to ask so many questions. These misunderstandings occur because of different communicative conventions in what look like the same language. When obviously different languages are involved in the same communica- tive context, it is at least easier to anticipate misunderstandings.

Can you think of other contexts where cross-dialect miscommunication may occur? What are the consequences of this?

Activity 7.6

Misunderstandings occur all the time, even between speakers of the same variety. Sometimes this can be resolved with metalinguistic talk. In the case where varieties have significant differences, however, difficulties may be harder to resolve. As Eades’ work shows, the common conventions of communication that would inform such metalinguistic talk may not be present. A misunderstanding when making a purchase in a store is benign;

however, a misunderstanding when being arrested is dangerous. As we have already noted (Chapter 1), discrimination linked to cross-dialect communication has been found in the areas of education, housing, employ- ment and the general accumulation of social capital.

7.9 CROSSING

Code-switching (see 7.7.1) demonstrates membership of a particular language community on the part of the speaker. There are a variety of reasons why a speaker may switch linguistic codes, whether consciously or unconsciously. It may be related to the topic or it may occur if another person joins the conversation who can only speak a particular code or variety. A switch may, therefore, also indicate solidarity and inclusion or, conversely, distance and exclusion (see Milroy & Gordon 2003: 209).

Crossing, ‘language crossing’ or ‘code crossing’, on the other hand, describes the practice of using language that is associated with, or belongs to, ethnic groups that the speaker doesn’t belong to. As we have seen in Section 7.6, competence in a language, or the ‘right’ to use it to claim membership of a group, may have to be ratified. The sociolinguist Ben Rampton demonstrates how crossing involves ‘borrowing’ a variety and perhaps trespassing on language territory that one can’t authentically claim. Rampton’s preliminary definition is that crossing ‘refers to the use of language which isn’t generally thought to “belong” to the speaker’ (1997: 2). Rampton thus differentiates crossing from code-switching by stating that crossing involves a ‘disjunction between speaker and code that cannot be readily accommodated as a normal part of ordinary social reality’ (Rampton 1995: 278). That is, according to the normal ‘rules’ of communication, the speaker should not be able to use the code. Therefore, the speaker can only use this code when the ordinary norms of ‘social reality’ and communication do not apply. As Rampton puts it, ‘crossing either occasioned, or was occasioned by, moments and activities in which the constraints of ordinary social order were relaxed and normal social relations couldn’t be taken for granted’ (1997: 2).

Rampton’s research study involved two years of ethnographic field- work with teenagers in a South Midlands town in England. He recorded conversations, interviewed participants and also asked them to comment on the data he’d recorded. He analysed instances of crossing into Panjabi, conversations involving stylised Asian English and those where Creole features were evident. He found that there were three different contexts where crossing occurred:

1. when the teenagers interacted with adults 2. when they were with their peers

3. events such as listening to bhangra2 _{music, which was very influential}

Rampton concluded that crossing performed a variety of functions for the speakers. For example, it indicated resistance to adult norms, challenge of expectations about ethnicity, and indication of identities not related to ethnicity. Significantly, crossing appears to be connected to ‘liminality’ and the ‘liminoid’ (Rampton 1997: 7). Liminal spaces exist in between recog- nised, ratified spaces. Liminal spaces are often defined by what they are not. For example the language of the participants in Rampton’s study took place in the school playground. The playground is potentially a liminal space because while it is on school grounds it is not subject to the normal school rules of the classroom. Because it takes place in liminal spaces, ‘crossing never actually claimed that the speaker was “really” black or Asian’ in the way that code-switching does, and it also suggests that in ‘normal’ spaces, ‘the boundaries round ethnicity were relatively fixed’ (1997: 7).

While researchers first looked at teenagers, Rampton’s research suggests that the mixing of different styles isn’t just a feature of adolescent speech. Even though there may be a perceived connection between such stylisation and a particular period of life, other data suggests that older speakers also employ different styles (see Rampton 2011b).

Shankar (2008) also found crossing among students in her study at a California high school. Example 7.8 is a transcript of three South Asian (Indian subcontinent) American students interacting at lunch time.

Example 7.8

Setting: ‘a lunchtime conversation [where] Kuldeep (M) uses Spanish in an exchange with Uday (M) and Simran (F)’ who use Punjabi (Shankar 2008: 274). Bolded words are South Asian Accented English, italicised words are Punjabi, underlined words are Spanish.

1. Uday: Saleya eh garbage can vai? [Is this a garbage can, stupid?] 2. Kuldeep: No habla Inglés [I (sic) don’t speak English].

3. [loud round of laughter]

4. Kuldeep: Don’t know what you say . . . 5. Simran: Throw that fuckin’ shit out!

6. Kuldeep: Oh balle! Hon boleya! [Oh wow! At least you’re talking to me now!].

In line 2 Kuldeep reacts to being scolded by Uday (line 1) (for not throwing his rubbish in a bin) by saying in Spanish that he does not speak English. Everyone laughs at Kuldeep’s Spanish response in part because they often use Spanish when joking with each other, and also because Uday’s repri- mand was in Punjabi and therefore did not rely on knowing English. Kuldeep then responds that he doesn’t understand Uday, using South Asian American Accented English. Simran reiterates the reprimand in English and Kuldeep responds sarcastically in Punjabi. This use of Spanish in line 2 represents crossing; these students learn Spanish at school but do not use it in everyday life. Shankar explains:

By occasionally speaking in Spanish in a school environment where they are routinely mistaken for Latinos, [these] boys use Spanish as a way to mock faculty who cannot easily differentiate between them and Latinos. Ridiculing this misrecognition is a continual source of humor for [these] teens.

(Shankar 2008: 274)

In Example 7.8 we see a range of varieties used in a single interaction to do different kinds of things. The use of Punjabi can be understood as signalling their shared ethnicity, while the use of Spanish in this humorous way signals their shared understanding of what Spanish means in this context. As Shankar explains, it also indirectly comments on the way they are misidenti- fied in the school context. The use of Spanish helps them manage their status as ‘other’ at the school. What looks like a simple conversation has a number of layers and meanings.

7.10 SUMMARY

Language can be used to demonstrate or claim an ethnicity. However, because the link between language and ethnicity is not straightforward, any claims to an ethnicity may be challenged. Such a challenge may be directly posed by an ‘authentic’ member of the group. The claim may also not be acknowledged because of lack of understanding of the linguistic features and semiotic resources used to signal ethnicity. Further, what looks like a claim to ethnicity may in fact be something else, as we saw in the case of crossing. How claims are made, how ethnicity is performed, depends on the local context, including the interactional situation, and the features available for exploitation. Moreover, it is important to consider the range of features a speaker relies on, as it may be the use of a specific combination of features that makes the claim to ethnicity and identity. Being able to use a linguistic variety brings with it cultural capital. In the case of ethnolects, this might be minimal because of linguistic subordination. In addition, linguistic subordina- tion also means that ethnolects are disparaged, misunderstood and result in speakers being vulnerable to a variety of risks that can be more or less serious.

FURTHER READING

Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S. and Torgensen, E. (2011) ‘Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2): 151–96.

Eades, D. (1996) ‘Legal recognition in cultural differences in communication: The case of Robyn Kina’, Language & Communication, 16(3): 215–27.

Gumperz, J. J. (2003) ‘Cross Cultural Communication’, in R. Harris and B. Rampton (eds) The Language, Ethnicity and Race Reader, London: Routledge: 267–75.

Labov, W. (1972c) ‘Academic ignorance and Black intelligence’, The Atlantic, 72 (June): 59–67.

Shenk, P. S. (2007) ‘“I’m Mexican, remember?” Constructing ethnic identities via authentication discourse’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2): 194–220.

van Dijk, T. (2004) ‘Racist Discourse’, in E. Cashmere (ed.) Routledge Encyclopaedia of Race and Ethnic Studies, London: Routledge: 351–5.

Warren, J. (1999) ‘Wogspeak: Transformations of Australian English’, Journal of Australian Studies, 23(62): 85–94.

NOTES

1 This was a popular stage show that toured in Australia in the 1990s. 2 A kind of Panjabi music.



