‘We’ as social categorization in Cha’palaa,
a language of Ecuador
Simeon Floyd | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
This chapter connects the grammar of the first person collective pronoun in the Cha’palaa language of Ecuador with its use in interaction for collective reference and social category membership attribution, addressing the problem posed by the fact that non-singular pronouns do not have distributional semantics (“speakers”) but are rather associational (“speaker and relevant associates”). It advocates a cross-disciplinary approach that jointly considers elements of linguistic form, situated usages of those forms in instances of interaction, and the broader ethnographic context of those instances. Focusing on large-scale and relatively stable categories such as racial and ethnic groups, it argues that looking at how speakers categorize themselves and others in the speech situation by using pronouns provides empirical data on the status of macro-social categories for members of a society.
References (34)
References
Allport, Gordon. 1954.
The Nature of Prejudice
. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. “The nature of pronouns.” In
Problems in General Linguistics
, 217–222. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
Brewer, Marilynn and Wendi Gardner1996. “Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self representations.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
71(1): 83–93.
Curnow, Timothy J.2002. “Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit.”
Linguistics
40(3): 611–627.
Cysouw, Michael. 2003.
The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeBoer, Warren. 1995. “Returning to Pueblo Viejo: History and archaeology of the Chachi, Ecuador.” In
Archaeology in the Lowland American tropics: Current Analytical Methods and Applications
, Peter W. Stahl(ed.), 243–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, Connie. 2002.
Complex Predicates in Tsafiki
. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Egbert, Maria. 2004. “Other-initiated repair and membership categorization—some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization.”
Journal of Pragmatics
36(8): 1467–1498.
Enfield, Nicholas J.2009.
The Αnatomy of Μeaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, Nicholas. J.2011. “Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency.” In
The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation
, Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig(eds), 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitzgerald, Robert and Housley, William. 2002. “Identity, categorization and sequential organization: The sequential and categorial flow of identity in a radio phone-in,”
Discourse & Society
13(5): 579–602.
Floyd, Simeon. 2010.
Discourse Forms and Social Categorization in Cha’palaa
. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Hester, Stephen and Eglin, Peter. 1997a.
Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorisation Analysis
. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Hester, Stephen and Eglin, Peter. 1997b. “Membership categorization analysis: An introduction.” In
Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorisation Analysis
, Stephen Hester and Peter Eglin(eds), 1–23. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Housley, William and Fitzgerald, Robert. 2002. “The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis.”
Qualitative Research
2(1): 59–83.
Housley, William and Fitzgerald, Robert. 2009. “Membership categorization, culture and norms in action.”
Discourse & Society
20(3): 345–362.
Housley, William and Smith, Robin J.2011. “Telling the CAQDAS code: Membership categorization and the accomplishment of ‘coding rules’ in research team talk.”
Discourse Studies
13(4): 417–434.
Jayyusi, Lena. 1984.
Categorisation and Moral Order
. London: Routledge.
Jijón y Caamaño, Jacinto1914.
Los Aborígenes de la Provincia de Imbabura: Los Cayapas en Imbabura
. Madrid: Blass y Cía. Impresores.
Lerner, Gene H.1993. “Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in interaction.”
Text
. 13(2): 213–245.
Levinson, Stephen C.2005. “Living with Manny’s dangerous idea.”
Discourse Studies
, 7(4–5): 431–453.
Leudar, Ivan, Marsland, Vitoria, and Nekvapil, Jirí. 2004. “On Membership categorization: ‘Us’, ‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse.”
Discourse & Society
15(2): 243–266.
Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom. 1990.
Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity
. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. “The MIR Membership Categorization Device.” In
Lectures on Conversation
, Gail Jefferson(ed.), 40–48. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.”
Language
52(2): 361–382.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. “Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization.”
Discourse Studies
. 9(4): 433–461.
Siewierska, Anna. 2004.
Person
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description,” in
Meaning and Anthropology
, Keith Basso and Henry Selby, (eds), 11–55. New York: Harper and Row.
Stokoe, Elizabeth H.2003. “Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorisation in neighbour disputes.”
Feminism and Psychology
13: 317–344.
Urban, Greg. 1989. “The ‘I’ of discourse,” In
Semiotics, Self, and Society
. Benjamin Lee and Greg Urban, (eds), 27–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wade, Peter. 2010.
Race and Ethnicity in Latin America
. 2nd
edition. London: Pluto Press.
Wechsler, Stephen2010. “What ‘You’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person marking, self-ascription, and theory of mind.”
Language
86(2): 332–365.
Whitten, Norman E., Jr. 1974.
Black Frontiersmen: A South American Case
. New York: Schenkman.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Floyd, Simeon, Lila San Roque & Asifa Majid
2018.
Smell Is Coded in Grammar and Frequent in Discourse: Cha'palaa Olfactory Language in Cross‐Linguistic Perspective.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 28:2
► pp. 175 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.