IDENTIFICACIÓN DE PROBLEMÁTICAS Y POTENCIALIDADES

From the systematicity of Type 1 arose a desire to extend our knowledge of sociodemographic factors by providing explanations to the distribution of linguistic features among these social variables. Type 2, or practice-based identity, suits sociolinguistics research whose main interest is observing the construction of identity as it unfolds through joint practice. That is, Type 2 is primarily concerned with describing identities in terms of the activities people engage in – as members of a study group, basketball team, etc. – which are believed to describe someone’s identity more accurately than predetermined social labels. Mendoza-Denton defines these practices as “participation in common social projects, or in voluntary affiliation groups that are defined around activities or enterprises” (Mendoza-Denton, 2002, p. 486). In placing emphasis in social practice, both the interlocutor and the audience (i.e. the individual and the addressee) are in the forefront for the negotiation and construction of social identities. Thus, identity is defined as practice-based phenomenon in that it is determined by speakers’ participations in activities and their negotiations of roles and identities through language use. This differs greatly from Type 1’s labels, which were largely based on the researcher’s point of view and their ascribed labels. Rather than describing a subject with an arbitrary identity, such as one like “female”, belonging to the “20 – 30 age group” (or young adults), there is a tendency to conduct ethnographic research to uncover a person’s role in society.

Type 2 sought to revise variatonist understandings of sociodemographic categories like class and gender, placing an emphasis in the local construction of social relationships and straying away from hierarchical stratifications. For instance, Charlotte Linde (1988) examined the negotiation of identities in the joint practice of cockpit interactions. While it had been previously assumed that there were fixed hierarchical identities for participants in organizations (or work place settings) related to occupation and class, Linde wanted to bring into question the predetermined hierarchical positions and argue for the role of identity negotiations among participants. In doing this, she

examined the negotiation of authority status in task based situations and found that participants’ negotiation of authority varied from moment-to-moment, according to the task at hand and who was an expert in that task (Linde, 1988, p. 2). In this way, rather than describing participants in terms of their roles and occupations, e.g. pilot and co- pilot, and how they used language in their fixed identities, Linde was able to explain the shift in identity negotiations beyond the hierarchical sociodemographic titles and describe linguistic behaviour and the negotiations of identity in joint practice.

The sociocategorical understanding of gender was questioned by Eckert and McConnell-Ginnet’s (1992) article Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice. In this article Eckert & McConnell-Ginnet discussed their dissatisfaction towards the way gender had been previously conceptualised as a fixed entity in sociolinguistics, arguing for a more local definition of gender rooted in ethnography, through the approach of community of practice.

The community of practice approach (CofP), originally theorized by Lave and Wegner (1991), views people affiliations of social identities as the outcome of their multiple engagements in society or different communities. These communities of practice represent “ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations – in short, practices – emerged in the course of a mutual endeavor” (Eckert & McConnell- Ginnet, 1992, p. 464). CofP viewed an individuals’ identity as emerging from the different communities they socialized in, such that not only were their identities defined in terms of how they saw themselves, but also how they saw others, and how others saw them in joint practice. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet argued that in the mutual engagement of practices subjects “create, sustain, challenge, and sometimes change society and its institutions” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992, p. 462). This statement echoes much theoretical frameworks in practice-based studies, which strongly opposed to fixed models of society, and believed that predetermined categories were not representative of more locally-constructed groups. Community of practice is one of the methods that was developed as a reaction to categorical studies which argued for a more local view of identity and gave subjects more agency towards their construction of identities.

A community of practice, defined above, could be a garage band, a book club, a marriage, a sports team, a group of friends, etc. The key idea behind CofP is that subjects’ identities and affiliations are formed voluntarily; their identities are created and assigned in mutual practice. While engaging in social practice, subjects develop ways of speaking and being

according to the different communities they engage in. Penelope Eckert’s (1989) study of adolescents in a Detroit high school is a well-known example to how this type of research is carried out. She conducted her research in a predominantly white, suburban high school and found that the social hierarchy of high school, particularly in terms of class, did not reflect the categorical affiliations and language use of the parents’. Furthermore, she found that - while social class was an important factor to consider in adolescents’ speech - more local community affiliations such as that of jocks and burnouts were more salient ways of identification among youth and, therefore, more accurate descriptors of language use. Eckert’s study contributed to the wider array of variationist studies in that she noted other practices, in addition to linguistic practices, that were used as symbols or semiotic tools towards construction of group identity. CofP advocates for the incorporation of other non-linguistic symbolic tools in addition to language as a tool, in other words “rather than investing language with a special analytic status, the community of practice framework considers language as one of many social practices in which participants engage.” (Bucholtz, 1999, p. 210). Another way community of practice distinguishes itself from sociodemographic models is that it is treats a community as a heterogeneous entity, it sees individuals’ orientation to a community as variable, understanding that not all speakers orient the same way to the same practice, but that they each have their own personal identity within the community. Under CofP, social identities are “rooted in action rather than categories” (Bucholtz, 1999, p. 210).

Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) seminal study of acts of identity describes another practice-based approach that has been instrumental in modelling language as a form of social practice. The Acts of Identity framework emerged as a reaction to the fixed label of ethnicity and its inability to capture the social and linguistic changes occurring in postcolonial Caribbean islands, Belize and St. Lucia. Accordingly, they came up with a more local approach to identity which granted speakers more agency by focusing in the active construction of identity in interaction. Their approach argued that speakers have the ability to adopt linguistic behavior particular to social groups in order to perform acts of identity, or to create or perform their own social identities (p. 14). Their theory rests on the assumption that speakers engaging in joint practice are negotiating their identities with regards to social groups, or making acts of identities, through variable language use. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s framework is in par with previously mentioned approach

of communities of practice, as they emphasize the role of practice and social group alignment in the construction of identities. One of the examples provided in their study was of an old lady who shares stories and has the capacity change her speech style as well as “shift her identity” according to her audience. This ability to shift appropriately according to addressee resonates with Giles et al. (1991) accommodation theory, which argues that “when people interact, they adjust their speech, their vocal patterns and their gestures, to accommodate to others” (Giles et al., 1991). However, the authors go further than Giles’ distinction of association and dissimilarity so as to state that speakers can shift their behaviour according to who they are speaking to and to the degree to which they wish to be identified to someone and “proclaim political and cultural identity” (p. 14). This exemplifies the main argument that Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s put forth, which claims that “the individual creates for himself[/herself] the patterns of his of his [/her] linguistic behaviour so as to resemble those of the groups with which from time to time he [/she] wishes to be identified or so as to be unlike those from whom he [/she] wishes to be distinguished.” (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985, p. 181).

The contribution of Type 2 studies is found in the explanations it brings forth to the local construction of identity. In questioning labels of sociodemographic methods, and wanting to explain identity as it is constructed in social practice, emphasizes the role of the individual’s perception of themselves (personal identity) with regards to larger social groups (social identity). Further, while sociodemographic details are part of one’s self conception and identity, (e.g. the same way our occupation can play an influential role in defining ourselves), it is also important to see how the label is challenged, altered, and negotiated through different practices. In identifying different social practices, or evolving conditions, Type 2 studies present the linguistic outcomes of partaking in different activities in our daily lives.

Some have criticized Type 2 studies in their definitions of language use (i.e. meaning in language) are bound to the social practices in which you engage in, rather than promoting creative agency beyond the practices informants engage in (c.f. Cameron, 1990). Type 2 studies have been said to simply “aggregate” behaviour and conceptualize identity in terms of these behaviours and social practices. This dissatisfaction of agency in Type 2 led to an even more fluid and flexible way of theorizing identity: one that is not category-bound, nor practice-bound, rather highlights the non-structural uses of language.