schieffelin et ochs language socialization across cultures

8/8/2019 Schieffelin Et Ochs Language Socialization Across Cultures

1/18

.S(utlicsn thc Social ndCulruralFoundationsf Language''hcai lrr f this eriess todeveropheoreticarerspectivesn lhe essentiarocial ntrcullural haractcrf ranguagey merhodorogic^r"^a ..pi.i*, enrphasisn heoccur-cnccof languagcn irs comnrunicative nd interactional et(rogs, n the soci.-ultural lyrounded,nreanings"and ..functionsl,"i'fi"gr,r,i" forms, and on therciar cicnri f ictudy f ranguageseacross urtures. t *i-t thusexpl icareheessen,ir l ly cr'nographic alureo[.^linguisric. ata, *;;;; ;;;",r"eousty occuning orxpcrirncntallynduced' hether ormative r variational,'whethersynchronic r dia_:l::l_"1:_ "*:appearing in rhe serieswi'make *Ur"",i"" and rheorericalonrri_'utlo's o h cdebare ver hesocioculturar-functionarand structurar-fo'nar rature frtnguagc,n


2/18

8. Teasing and shaming in Kalulichildren's interactionsB A \ , r s rB . S c H t E r p E t - t t t

lntroduction

, An important issue facing researchers nterested n languagesocial izationisI

how children leam to use cultural ly appropriate rhetorical means o negotiate II an d accompl ish er tainpragmat ic nds. Forexampre,how do young. f , i r . t , "n Iacquire the culturally specif ic routines and affective disptays necessary omanipulate others o obtain what they want and keep what they do not wiih togive up ?This chapter examines exchanges n which Kaluri adults verbaily teaseandshamechildren to achievea variety ofends. Teasingand shaming, two relatedspeechacts and speechevents, figure prominently in Kalul i adult-adult andadult-child verbal interaction. Kaluli adults try ro avoid physical interventionwhen trying to influenceothers, especial lysmall children. Instead, hey preferverbal manipulation through teasingand shaming, anclsocial ize heir childrento do the same. As in many other pacif ic cultures, such as Samoa (Ochs inpress), one of the major ways in which social contror is achieved is throushmembers' fear of being publ icly confronted and shamed.This is especiatty -hecase when individuals take something that is not theirs to take, as in casesoftheft or adultery. When members feel that the risk of getting caught is low,they may attempt such acts, and, i f they are not caught, there may be l i t t leconsequence or them. However, if they are caught, confrontation can occur,and shaming, which is serious, wiil be publ ic. Thr.ughout these affectiverymarked exchanges ndividuals try to preserve heir social relationships, whil lat the same time attempting to get what they want. Ideal ly, once compensa_tion is paid and balance is restored, relationshipscan continue as before.While adults may teasingly shame young chi ldren, shaming is taken veryseriouslyby adults among themselves, ancl s not made ight of. One questionthat this chapter addresses s: How do chi ldren acquire he necessary ultural

1 6 5


3/18

Teasittg and sharning n Kalul i chi ldren's interacliotrs 1611 6 6 B n r ' a n t . S c r t t E F F E L l Nand inguist icknowledge o par t ic ipate n these omlnunicat ive ontexts ' l ounderstand l r is process, wc must consider social , cul tural , and l inguist icfactors that organiz.e his dornain of l anguagesocialization.

Most studies f chi ld social i zat ion ave aken he view that social i zat ionsan inlernal izat ior ) rocess y which a personacqui res t t i tudes, alues,an dsocial an d personalat t r ibutes.The focus of most social i zat ion tudiesha sbeen o relalewhat s done o the chi ld in order o understandhe behavior ndpcrsonal i tyof thc adul t . Wentwor th (1980) has cr i t i c ized this nrechanis( icview of social i zat ion,which focusespr imar i l y on outcomes, and of fers arliffcrcnt pcrspective, one that takes social ization as an actual interactionaldisplayof t l re sociocul tural nvi ronment .From this perspect ive, ocial i zat i


4/18

168 B e M s rB . S c r r r r F F r r - r Nan equal ly ambiguous response o push the speaker o make a more seriousconrmitment o his or her utterance.The exchangecan continue in this nrannerfor some tirne as each menrber takes an equal share n attempting to definewhat is going on .

Kaluli tease each other using a rich repertoire of l inguistic devices thatfigure inrportantly n a variety of relationships adult-adult, adult-child, andchi ld-chi ld) and social contexts including domestic activities such as foodpreparation and sharing, work situations, casual play, and disputes.Further-more, teastngsequencesmay be init iated by chi ldren as well as by adults.

Cultural a nd linguistic settingThe Kalul i peopler l ive in a rain forest on the Great Papuan Plateau n theSouthern l ighlandsProvinceof PapuaNe w Guinea E. L. Schief fel in 9?6) .They nurnber approxinrately 1,200 and l ive in about twenty longhousecom-nruni t i cs.Kalul i society s general lyegal i tar ian,acking in th e . .big man"pattern of social organization so common in the papua New Guinea high-lancls.Men ut i l i ze extensivenetworks of obl igat ionan d reciproci ty n theorganization of work and the accomplishntent of nrajor social transactionssuch as bridewealth.

The majority of the Kaluli are nronolingual speakers of Kaluli, a non-Aust ronesian erb- f inal anguage 8. B. Schief fet in 1986) .Kalul i everydayl i fe is overt ly focused n verbal interaction. Talk is thought of and used as ameans f expression nd nranipulat ion. n thisgeneral ly gal i tar ian ociety, tis difficult to compel anyone to do something that he or she does not wish todo. Teasingand shaming can be irnportantmeansofpersuasion, in ad


5/18

l ' 7 0 R . r r ' r n r . S C T T E F F E L Ithese fornrulaic expressions o them to tease hcm when they are begginginappropriatelyTeasing occurs over a range of situations, but the most frequent involvesharing and rights to food. Every claim see rns o be negotiable, sincewho getswlrat o eat often depcndson the situation at hand and what individuals cangetaway wi th, not on st r ic( rules of ownership. S ince ndiv iduals arely makedirect staterncntsof authority, interactions such as the ones that follow arefrequent n fanril ics, and are among the frequent contexts or teasi ng. Withinsuch contexts as aking or sharing food, Kalul i use hetorical questions, hird-party thrcats, formulaic expressions, and sarcastic statements o tease andsharne.Example I[Motlrer s in thc housewith a numberof people,ncludingher daughters, ogodo(age7) and Waye age ). Yogodohas akenata, a wild nut, hat doesnot belong oher.Waye+ Mo: Yogodowo:ukayo: nab.Yogodo uka cat (3d pers.pres.)Yogodo s eating he uka.lNo resportsefNo:l Yogodowo:ukayo:nabo!Mothcrl Yogodo s eating he uka!Mo + Wayc:Ni wangalo?!Whatshould do?!llxample 2{Mothcr,Yogodo,Abi (age3), and Waye ind a packet f salt belonging o anothermember f the household, yobo. I'hechi ldrenbegin o eat t, and one askswho itbelongs o. T'hcrc s no answer.Yogodo akes t away andAbi starts o beg or it.lMo + ch i ld ren : Sa langa : ! Salana:Somconc ouldsay something! omeone ould say something!!llyobo-wa: salana:Eyobo (erg.) couldsay something.ln situations such as these, children will be teased n order to prevent orchal lengcact ion so shaming wi l l not occur . Chi ldren may be shamed, orexample, if they refusc to share food with their parents, who alnrost alwaysgive t to them. In suchsi tuat ions, arentswi l l us esarcast ic t terances uc hasGelo: tno:nt ianl l don't give to you! ' , meaning he opposi te,of course: Ialways give to you!" lf a chi ld takes oo much, to sharne im or her a parentnright say, Ge lu:lula:su diab! 'You are taking such a little bit!'Other types of teasing outinesoccur especiall y between siblings and cous-ins. Somc nteract ions re basical lyplayful and nvolve el l ing a chi ld thatadesiredobject (that has been hidden) is in plain sightor threatening o touch achi ld wi th st inging et t leswhi le tel l ing he chi ld hat hey are harmless eaves.Older sibl ings beconte ery ski l l fu l at managing hesesi tuat ions, ncreasing

I

II

Teasing arul shaning in Kaluli children's interactio,ts ll lthe tension ust enough to keep up the interest and agitate the young chi ldwhile at the same ime making sure that the chi ld does not lose control, thusterminating the interaction. However, away from the watchful eye of themother, older children may teaseyounger ones in less benign ways, tel l ingthem to eat bad or uncooked food or items (hat Kaluli don't usually eat ortel l ing a young child that Mother has gone away. Older chi ldren have beenobserved o be relentless n their torment of younger chi ldren, provoking thernto crying tantrums. When ntothers do find their srnall children provokedbeyond a manageable imit for no good reason, they will become angry attheir older children, yel l ing, among other things, Dlkizlia:saDo./Don't tease!'

Whereas adults are gentle in their teasing of preverbal children, they wil lpurposely provoke a 2-year-old to tears. For example, in trying to di scourageher 28-month-old daughter rom nursing, one rnotller old her that she had tonurse he dog. At first the child found this funny , but the teasing continued,and the mother eventually pressed he dog to the chi ld's face. This resulted na frustrated and angry child, reduced to tears, which ended only when themother offered the breast to calm her down. In another situation a motherteasedher 3O-month-old daughter when the l i t t le girl , not seeing her infantbrother, askedwhere he was. The rnothe r's reply was that the baby had died.The l i t t le girl did not bel ieve her and continued asking, and her mother wasinsistent.Provoked to tears , her loud crying woke up the baby, who had beensleeping in a dark corner. ller mother quickly distracted lrer and she wascalm.

These acts of verbal provocation, variations of which were observed epcat-edly in every family, have a dramatic contour: sudden nitiation and increasedprovocation to tears, with just as sudden calming and changing focus. Theseinteractionshelp lay the foundation for cultural ly sal ient and cultural ly specif-ic emotional responses o grief that have been documented for ad ults (8. L.Schief fel in1976) .

Teasing, shaming, and (sturned-over words"Many languages n Papua New Guinea draw on a varic(y of l inguistic devices(l ike lexical substitutes) and manners of spea king (sarcasm, hetorical qucs-tions, euphemisms) to achieve a variety of ends (Franklin 1912; Laycock1977; Strathern 1975). In Kaluli they are known ^s bale to 'turned-overwords' (Feld & Schieffelin 1982). Kaluli luse ale to in joking, chal lenging,teasing, and shaming among other speechacts. Bale to is the most significantcomplex of linguistic resources or the Kaluli, necessaryand sal ient acrossmodes of langua ge use(conversation, storiessung-textedweeping and song),speechacts, and contexts (Feld 1982). Expressions hat either are or make use


6/18

1 1 2 B a v u r B . S c u r s , p r e l t nof bale o lv lve l tego: 'underneath'r synrbol ic " rning. I earers lust haveparticular typcs of social and l inguistic knowledge to understand hese ormsand make senseof what a speaker may be conveying.

An important aspectof the extensive use of teasingand shaming in every-day interactions s the use of the se inguistic deviceswhose meanings are notsolely avai lable frorn the surface syntactic form of the utterance. Throughcontinuous use and display of thesc fornrs, young children acquire both pro-duction and comprehensi on of tlrese "turned-over words." One of the mostpervasiveand in many ways leastcomplex of these inguistic devices said tohave an underneath (lrcgo:) is the rhetorical question (RQ). RQs are usedwidely in interactions nvolving teasing, whiclr ranges in tone and mannerfrom the playful and benign to the provocational and angry. In addit ion, RQsare used in interactions with the intention of confronting and potential lyshaming an indiv idual .

RQs are different fronr inforrnation-seeking questions evn though theymay use the sanre exicon and syntactic fornrs. Information questions have aperceptible rise and engthened inal vowel, and the speaker usually waits forthe addressee o respond before taking the next turn. In contrast, RQs have aperceptiblc fall and clipped final vowel, and a speakermay fire offseveral inrapid succession, eaving no space for the addressee o respond. Given thatRQs call for no answer, his turn-taking procedure s not surprising. Informa-tion-seeking questions are for the most part unambiguous; the meaning(hego:) of RQs may not be. The lrcgo: of RQs is always different from theliteral propositioncontained n the inforrnation question. For example, "ls ityours?" rneans lt is not yours! " and "Did I say * proposi t ion" means ldid not say i proposi t ion. " RQs are used o chal lenge lai rns,proposi t ions,and actions in order to redirect or terminate the actionsof an addressee.Ofirnportance in their effectiveness are the sequencing and mode of theirdel ivery.

Spcakers franre RQs through various linguistic rne ans, some of whichrendcr thc RQ partial ly ambiguous, leaving the assignmentof meaning to theaddressee.This setsup the way in which the addresseewil l proceed as ncxispeaker. After assessing lre addressee's eactio n, thespeakermay adjust forthe desired effect of (he next turn.

Such teasingand sharning situations contrastwith contexts where speakersare decidedly unambiguous n their intended oneand message.For example,within the ada. relationship in which Kaluli ntothers convey to their youngchi ldren how they are to feel sorry for younger sibl ings and give them food,they use formulaic verbal constructions and nonverbal expressive behaviorsst r ict l y associated i th these nreanings 8. B. Schief fel in l98l ) . In thesesituations spcakersuse a set of contextualiz ation cues (Gunrperz 1977) thatsignal how the message s to be inte rpreted. These contextualizationcues and

l 'easing and shaning in Kulul i chi ldren's interactions r73affect keys include aspectsof surface fornr, prosody, paral inguisticfeatures,sequencing order, situational and discourse history, and context of the talk.. In teasingan d shamingsi tuat ions, ontextual izat ionues do not set up asingle simple interpretive frame or affective key, and participants tnust pay

close attention to what is going on to interpret often shifting or anrbiguouscues. This close moni tor ing is especial l y cr i t i cal in teasingand sharning,where,wi thin thecontextof k inship elat ionships, l l iancesma y momentar i l yshift or reorganize. The bound aries of key shift a s speakers and addresseesassess ace-saving needs in exchanges where what constitutes entitlement,access, nd orvnership s negot iable.

The social ization of rhetorical questions in teasing and shamingWhat in the verbal environment of y


7/18

1 1 4 B n u g r B . S c t t t r r r n t - rpar ty)at ldresseenay be an infant , an older chi ld, or an adul t . The ut terance(hat the 2-year-old is expected to repeat s shapedaccording to the intendedaddressee.Example 4lWhen er so nScl igiwo:7 months) as rying,Mother peakso he rdaughter a: l i(2 4 rnonths) .1Mo - Ma: l i+> S: Wanga a: laya?! A:la:ma.Wh y ar eyou crying?! ay ike hat .Ma: l i+ S: Wanga a: laya?Mo -> Ma: l i+) S: Y a: l a : sabo! : l a :ma.Don't cry lMa: l i+ S: Ya: la:sabo!Iloth utterances RQ and negative imperative) are said in such a way (highvolurne,exaggeratedntonat ion)as o star t le he nfant , get his at tent ion, ndchange hi s trchavior. I 'hus irr using a RQ to a preverbal chi ld in this way (tostop hinr crying) the nrother s atternpting o distract ha:nulab) the chi ld fromhis crying. Sh e is also nvolv ing her 2-year-olddaughter n this caregiv ingsi tuat ionand inst ruct inghe r in what she wi l l say when taking care of theinfant by herself. llowever, there is an undcrlying proposition to the RQ"Why are you crying'?!" namely, "'fhere is no good reason for you to becrying; therefore, ou should not cry. " This is made expl ic i t in the negat ivedircc(ivc (lra( ol lows. While it is unlikely that the preverbaladdressee nder-stands hc proposition that is irnpl ied in the RQ, the 2-year-old who is in theprocessof learning the untlerlying proposition comes to understand he rhe-torical lirrce of suclr utterancesand the desiredoutcomc.A sequencc sing si rni lar inguist ic orrns negat ive mperat ives nd rhe-tor ical qucsl ions) owardsacl r ieving ornewhat i f ferent nteract ional nds sfound in situations of contro l that are the precursors of situations that willcven(ual lybe used o threaten chi ld wi th sbanr ing.Iixample 5[A s Sel igiwo: I rnonths)akcs onrerhingelongingoBabi ,Morher peakso Ma: l i(2 8 months).IM + Ma: l i ) S: I l ia:sabo! A:la:ma.

Don't take!Say ike hat .Ma: l i+ M: Huh?M + Ma: l i -) S: Dia:sabowo: l : la:nra.Don't take!Ma: l i+ S: Dia:sabo!N, l Ma: l i+) S: We Babiya:no! : la:ma.This s Babi 's lMa: l i+ S: We [3abiya:no!M - Ma: l i+) S: Ga:nowo: ') ! : la: rna.It is yours?!Ma: l i S: Ga:nowo:?!

Teasitrg and shaning, in Kalul i chi l t l ren,s i,trerocrions 175The participants in these situations (both nrothers and their 2-year-oltl chi l-dren) make no denrandson the preverbal infant to respond verbal ly _ onlynonverbal ly, as these utterances are intended to clrarrge he infant's action.Again, the imnrediate desired ends on the part of the adult is to change theinfant's actions through expl ici t verbal instruction. Such sequencesare cont-posedof three conrponents.ni t ia l l y therear e negat ivc mperat ives xpl ic i t l yindicating tlte irnmediate desired action or outcome (Dia:.sabo! 'Don't youtakel'), an assertiotr ndica(ing the reason (in this case, ownership by amrtherindiv idual ) ,and f inal ly, an RQ suppor t ing he precedingasser t ion hat turnsthe interaction back to the addressee n the fornt of a question, Utterancessuchas Gd. 'r tor"o:?! ls it yours?! 'are to be read "l t is no t yours (t o (ake) . "In this exanrple, as in the majority of others, the object that is in questionbelongs o none of the speakers,but to a third person who nray or rnay ttot bepresent .Sequences f this type are repcatedly ound in Kalul i farni l ies,

1'hough he preverbal hi ld nray not understand he ndividual ut terances,hear ing he rout ine ormulat ionof these elat ivelyshod, syntact ical ly i rnplcemphatic utterancesacrossa variety of contexts rninirnal lyconveys the tnes-sage hat one's act ion should be changed or ler lninated.At least he i l r fantrnay be distracted rorn the course of acti on. Caregiversalways separate achproposition into a singleutterance, avoiding the use of more corr)plex clause-chaining const ruc( ions. hi s pat tcrnof using a singleproposi t ior r er ut ter -ance n teasing nd shaming equences ont inueswel l heyond he chi ld 'sow nproduct ive use of complex syntact icconst ruct ions nd becolnespar t ol ' thekey of the speech event itself. These sanle routitrescontinue to be uscd infanr i l y interact ionswi th c l r i ldren of al l agcs. They arc not s i r r rpl i f i c t l oryoung children or made tnore contplex for older orres,

At the in(eractional evel, caregivers leavc no "turn spacc" to the infant,s ince n these i tuat ions, s n al l others, he nfant s no t expected o respond.No interpretat ions expected.Speakers re usual lyunambiguous bou( hei rdesire o control the situation. They select inguistic forrns approprizrtc () thesi tuat ion, s ingas much volume and repet i t ion nd asnranycrnphat icmarkersas are needed o achieve heir ends. Using both verbal and nonverbal nreans,they must reorganizea situation n which behaviorneeds o be changed. l'hereis no expcctat ion hat the infant wi l l actual lycomprehendwhat is said, us tthat he or she change the current behavior.By the tirne infants are about 14 ntonths old, nrothers a


8/18

1 7 6 B n M s t B . S c t t l e . r r r . l lw i l l say sotnet l r ing o you! 'or Dowa: samo: ib 'Your father wi l l say some-thing (to you)'. The threat is of being publ icly and verbally confronted andconsequently sharned. The "sornething" that someone wil l say is "ls ityours?!" or a sintilar RQ. Mothers and other caregivers never (hreatenchi l-drcn with what they thentselvesmight or could do, but always refer to a thirdperson who is not present, or sonleone (l ike the researcher)who would notactual ly do anything at al l . (Refercnce o the researcher s punitive a gent wasactively discouraged)-I'hepattern of using third-party threats was consistent with languageusedwi th olderchi ldrenas well as between dul ts.Given he organizat ion f socialrelationships n Kaluli society, first-person threats are potentially too dan-gcrousan d explosive.On e rnightbe pushed o ac t on his or her threat .whichwould dcfcat the point of the exchange. I'o be called on one's threat couldshut he nteract ion own, wl ren he point s to cont inue sing verbalmeans fsocial cont rol to achieve a par t icularend. In any case, given th e di f f i cul tyindiv iduals n this society have compel l ing one another o do something,regardlessof their age, verbal rnanipulation with threats hat speakerscannotact on reduces he direct confrontational nature of social control wlrile marn-taining a high level of drama. Thus, well before infants are using language(hcnrselves, mothers are speaking to them (as well as directing tbeir oldersibl ings to speak o tlrenr) with the use of a specific set of single-propositionl inguistic devicesto control or alter their behavior. As they get older, thesesanre inguist icdevicesbegin o take on the speci f i caf fect ivekeys of teasingan d sharning hem.

I)iscussionSeveral ssueshave corrreout of thesedata. First, a particular fornt conveys a

[t"c diffcrent typc ofrhetoricql force or accomplishesa different outcome depend-' ing.on thc age af the addressee.. or younger preverbal infants, the desiredeffect may be distractioncausedby utterances eing directed to them to startlethenr. Fbr the older preverbal nfants, the caregiver may bel ieve that the chi ldcan understand he direct inrperative, and the renrainderof the sequence nwhich t occurs olds he chi ld 's ar tenr ion i thout hechi ld ful l y comprehend-in g t l reut terances. r f inal ly, as chi ldrennrature nd begin o acqui rea ful lerrangeof l inguist icexpression, he caregivernray bel ieve ha t they wi l l a lsoundcrstand how they are expected to feel about the actions that arc takingplace.

Second,with the sanre ddressee,easing out ines ray henrselveshi f t ntl , ru Nl f ways ha tare purposeful ly ntended o t r i ck or confuse, la y or rest ,pu t down. -. or ntock- t l t tca(errhe int l i v idual .Theref t - r re, e see row l inguist ic orrns nrl 1- t irrteractional outineshave different meanings or rhetorical r;Ilr ""."rai"g i;

i

Teasingarul shaming in Kaluli children's i,tteractions ll lwho the addresseehappens Lo be, as well as having speakersusing sirni larroutines and forms to ob(ain varying affective outcomes from the sarneaddressee.

Third, from the data exarnined (eighty-three trours of tape-recortled andtranscribed spontaneous amily interactions) one can find the following se-quent ialcombinat ions. ' l 'hese re di rectcd o infantswho have not ye t begunto speak under 20 months) and occur the rnajoriiy of the timc with a.'1a.nrant r iadic s i tuat ionswith older sibl ings.(l ) C l a i m /RQ ( " Th i s i s B 's ! I s i t yours? ! " )(2 ) RQ/claim ("Who ar e you?l This is your brother 's! " )(3 ) RQ/negat ivedi rect ive "Why ar e yo u crying?!Don't cry!")(4 ) RQ/negat ivehabi tual "What ar e yo u eat ing?!On e doesn't eat t!")(5 ) Negat ivedi rect ive/c laint /RQ/RQ "Don't take t ! l t 's father 's.Who are

you?l Aren't yo u ashamed?!" )In al l of these sequences Qs are uscd conf rontat ional ly.Kalul i cal l theseRQs szrsidecb someone sharnes'.By using these orms speakers hallengeorattempt o terminate the action performed by the adtlressge.Ttrenqi used diethe very ones hat speakers lairn would be said n third-party th reats, such as"Someone wi l l say something. " No Kalul i chi ld wants to be chal lenged,teased, or s harned. Yet interactions involving children are nrarked by thepervasive use of these ornrs. -I hey serve he caregivers' needs o control theiryoung children and socialize henr o display culturally appropriate behaviors.There is no expecte d response o these utterancesand therefore no negotiatedinterpretation on the part of a listener. The speaker s unambiguous about theintended meaning, using these forms to control the young child's bchavior.

Notably absent n these interactions are negative statements such as "lti sn' t yours! " or "You shouldn' teat t " ) fol lowedby a RQ. Thus thc l istenerhas to learn to make the logical connection between the RQ and anotherutterance n order to understand he nreanin g and pragmatic force of the RQan d he nteract ion.That is, th e sequences fc laims, negat ive i rect ives, ndnegative habituals with the RQ provide discourse-basedpropositional sup-ports for inferring how the RQ is to be interpretedby the preverbal chi ld.

ln addit ion, these n(eractionsaid the older language-learning hi ld in nras-tering the appropriate sequencing and delivcry style o[ RQs in teasing orshaming routines. Through triadic routines usinga:la:nn, they participate nand talk through sequences irected to the younger chi ld. The younger chi ldmay not un derstand what is being said, but he or she will see the socialinteraction displayed. Children nrust learn, for exanrple, that RQs are not tobe answered like information questions. ln interactions, children untler 24months occasional lyansweredRQs. When this happened,everyonewouldlaugh at the chi ld 's response, hen quickly throuBhdi rect inst ruct ionusinga:la:ma tell the child the appropriate way to talk back. Young children must


9/18

1 7 8 l l n u n r B . S c r r r e n p r . L r ulearn hat IlQs alc meant to changc their behavior, but also that they might tryto renegotiate hc claim or chal lenge he speakerwith another RQ. Over timethcy learn (hat they shurset ructurenvolv ing RQs n teasing nd shaming s somewhatdiffererrt when older children are the third-party addressees n direct in struc-tion scqucncesusing a:la:nta. In these sequcnces, he supporting material fortltc ltQs is largcly dropped. I'hat is, the rno(her nstructs he child in using aser icsof RQs (and other l inguist icdevicessuch as formulaic expressions) ,bui ldingscqucnces f thcse orms alone. On e such exatnple ol lows.Iixample 6lWanu 27 l )onths) ,issister inat ia 5 years) , ousinManra ll years) , ndMotherar e at ing al t ha tbclongso lsa,another ister . lMo+ W-> M & I l : Aba:nowo:? ! : l a : n ra .Whose s i t?! Say ikc hat .W -' M & B: Aba:nowo?!Mo + W -> M & B: Ga:nowo: ' / !: l a :ma.ls i t yours?lW > M & 8 : G a : n o w o : ? !Mo + W -' > M & I l : Cc oba?!A: la:nra.Wh o ar eyou?!l] + W +> Mo: Ga:nowo:?l : la:ma.ls it yours'l!Mo- -+ W r> M & B : Na:noka: ! : l a : n ra .I t ' s m i ne !In scqucncesusingi : lu:nut . fcareBiversusual ly nsist hat t l re c-hi l


10/18

1 8 0 B a u n r l l S c t t t r n r e L I Nto an action or clainr, the speaker s not boldly denying the requester.Unlikenegative directives, RQs put the ball back in the addressee's ourt, providinghim or hcr with the option to respond (in a limited number of ways) qr toremain silent. RQs call for no answer, but they do keep communication openan4 acknowledge he othgr. An RQ (with its hego: 'underneath') provides headtlressee itlr some ace-saving protection, agreat deal more than one wouldhave after ncgative directives, which increase status differentiation andchange he speaker/addresseeelationship. The messagemay be similar, butthe n)etacornmunicalion s mrt.

Yet another cason hat teasingand RQs in general are so cornmon n Kaluliinteractions may have to do with the fact that Kaluli enjoy interactions hathave some creative ension in them, where the outcome is potential lyunpre-dictable and dependenton the individual 's abi l i ty to be clever. The forms oftalk used in teasing and shaming, especial ly RQs, can create a drama(ictension n an interaction, a tensionthat keeps he channels ofcommunicationopcn and the outcome unpredictable.Whcreas the Kaluli value assertivencssand directness, they value theirsocial relationshipseven more. Given the Kaluli senseof individual autono-my, it is'not surprising that these modes of social control are used at thebcginning of social lifc, in interactions hat involve preverbal infants.

No(es'I'hanksg0 to thosewho supported he research n which this chapter s based: heNationalScience oundation nd thc Wenner-Cren oundation or AnthropologicalRcscarch.Buck Schieffelin,Steve Feld, Peggy Miller, LawrenceCanington,andElinorOchsofferedother ypesof invaluable upport.I The dataon which his analysis s basedwerecollccted uring hecourse f (woyears' ethnographic nd Iinguistic ieldwork(1975,7\ among he Kalul i in theSouthernl ighlandsProvince f PapuaNew Guinea.This studyon the develop-rncntof communicative ompetence mong he Kaluli focused n four childrenwho wcre approximately 4 monthsold at the stafl of the stutly. However,anaddit ionalwelvechildren sibl ings ndcousins)were ncluded n thestudy; heirages anged rom birth to l0 years. I'hespontaneousorrversationsfthesechi l-drcnand heir amil ieswereaudiorccordedor oneyearat monthly ntcrvals, itheachmonthly ample asting hree r four hours.Detailed ontcxtual otes ccom-panied he audiotaping, nd hese nnotatedranscripts, longwith nterviews ndobserva(ions,orrn he database.2 Theactluisi t ionf these easing ornrs y young hildrens discussedn Schieffelinr986.

ReferencesDuran(i,A. 1984. n(en(ions, elf, and ocal heories f meaning:wordsand socialaction n a Samoan ontexl.Center or Human nformation rocessing,echnicalRepor t 22.Universi ty fCal i fornia,Sa nDiego.

Teasit tg and shaming in Kaluli chi ldren's interacl ions 181Fefd, S. 1982. Sound and sentime,tt: birds, weeping, poetics and song in Kaluliexpression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Feld, S. & Schieffel in, B. B. 198 2. Bale to: 'Ttrne


11/18

I 9 B A N N l l . E , T s E N B E R GMexicano l ro rncs . Unpub l ished P l r .D. d isser ta t ion , Un ivers i t y o f Ca l i fo rn ia ,Berke ley .Goffrnan, E. l9]5. Franrc unalysis. New York: Macrni l lan.G r i c e , H . P . l 9 T 5 . L o g i c i n c o n v e r s a ( i o n . n P . C o l e & J . P . M o r g a n , e , J s . , S y u a r a n dsentontits, vol. 3: Speu:h acl.r. New York: Academic Press, pp. 4l-58.

Gunrperz. L l. 1971. Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. ln M.Savil le- ' I ' roike, ed., Linguist ic. t ottd anlhropolog)- Georgetown UnivcrsityRound ' I 'ab le on Languages an d L ingu is t i cs . Wash ing ton , D.C. : Georgc townUn ivers i t y P ress ,pp , 19 l -212 .Heath , S. B . l98 l - Teas ing ta lk : s t ra teg ies o r language earn ing . P resented t th eAmcrican Anthropology Association Meeting, Los Angeles, December.l loppcr . R. . S ims, A. I - . . & A lber ts , J . K . 1983 . Teas ing as Daddy 's c lassroorn .Prcscntedat lhe Child Language Confcrence. Glasgow.Radc l i f fe -B rown, A . R. 1940 . On jok ing re la t ionsh ips . J i i ca 13 : | ,95 -210 .Simmons. L. W., ed. 1942. Sun Chief: the autobiograplry ol a l lopi /ndiarr . NewHavcn : Ya le Un ivers i t y P ress .

10. Teasing as languagesocializationand verbal play in a white working-classcommunityP n c c v M t t - l B n

In the following narrative a young mother tiorn the working-class conrnrunltyof South Baltirnore recal ls an incident that occurretl whcn slrewas in juniorhigh school :When got free unch,you know, we wcnt hroug h hecatetcria, nd heSrouP n thetable ouldal l stand p and ay, Yo u 8o t ree unch ickets" singsongntonat ionl ,you know, and hey, all of em around he room starthittin the ables nd evrythinAnd I wouldstand p and Isays, "Wel l , wel l , yo u al l thinkyou're eal ly easinsomebo


12/18

2 ( X ) P E c c Y M r r - L E Renrphasizedn th e social i zat ion f theyoung. n South Bal t imoreone henre ntlrc social izationof girls has to do with affection, sympathy, and the lovingcareof babies. casingmani fests his heme nsolaras most easing f youngchi ldren s doneaf fect ionatcly.But teasing s more eveal ing f anotherheme- thc high value placed on interpersonal ski l ls of self-assertion and sclf-defense. feasingis related o the ability to stand up for ones elf, tospeakup inangcr, and to l-ight f necessary.

Teasing thus represents he intersection of several irnportanr questions nth c stut lyof language evelopment nd social i zat ion:What are he bel iefsan dvalues that caregivers hold a bout language and the social world? What kindsol ' language ocial izat ion t rategies o theyus ewith novicespeakers?low docaregivcrs ' el i c ls andpracl ioes l fect anguageearning' lAn d which aspectsof th e chi ld 's developingcommunicat ivesystem are cxploi ted for playfulpurposcs'?'l 'he bjective of this paper s to address hese questions hrough ancxatninat ion f teasingas pract iced n one urban working-class onrnruni ty.

'I 'he study'fhe study is part of a larger invcstigation o( early language developnrent nSouth Bal t inxr re,a comrnuni tyof nr ixedCernran, Pol ish, r ish, l tal ian,an dAppalachian escent Mi l ler 1982) .Amy, Wendy, an d Beth were f i rst -bomchildrcn of rnotherswho had conrpleted rom eight to twelve ycarsof school-ing- 'l 'wo oI the rnothcrs received public assistance; ne was ernployedas arnachineopcrator n a factory. A l though the chi ldren l rad rnpor tant ,of tendai ly, contactswi th nrembersof an extended ami ly, the rnotherwas thepr i lnarycaregiver n every case.' fhc study was ongi tudinal n dcsign and ethnographicn approach, orn-bining intcnsivcobscrvat ions f the chi ldren n the contextsof everyday if ewi th an inqui ry nto th e bel iefsand values f thei r ami l ies.A ser ies f twelvevideo rccordings was made during the third year of l i fe (age at outset variedfronr l9 kr 2-5 nonths). Each chi ld was observed n the rowhouse iving roornas shc intcracted with hcr rnother and other family members. -I'he motherswere intervicwedper iodical ly hroughout he study.'l 'he vidcotapes were transcribed n detail, with each transcript ncluding arccold of wha( he chi ld said, a recordof what other speakers aid,a runningdescr ipt ion f thc chi ld 's nonverbal ehaviors, nd a descr ipt ion f contextualfeatures nd ofothcr speakers ' ehaviors. Se eMi l ler 1982 or t ranscr ipt ionproccdures.

1'hc presen( nalysiswa s based n samples to Vl for eachof t lrechi ldren,cncorr )passrng rnean ength of ul teranceper iod ofaboul 1.5 to 2.2 mor-plrenrcsand an age range of 19 to 22 nronths or Amy, 24 to 2j months forWcndy, antl 2-5 o 28 months for Beth.

-l-easingin a wlile workittg'cla.rs c


13/18

20 2 Pc


14/18

Z O 4 P e c c v M r r - l r ndantly nrarked- no one sequencecontained all of the se cues, an.l in fact tlredistritrution of cues tendcd to vary across hc three rnother-child pairs. I;orexarnple,Beth and her rnother were much more likely than the others to usesingsong ntonat ionan d possessive ords.

Other contextual izat ionue s hat rnarked easing equences ere orr r rulaiccxprcssions, uch as "hahaha," "heeheehee," "yeayeayea," an d "heck oni t . " In addi t ion. nonverbal accornpaninrentso teasing ncluded gestures(c.g., rubbingon c ndex ingerovcr the other , aised ist , raised hin) ;repeat -ed or prprovinglyo Beth's anger. ror exanrple, "t l ike her whcn shegetsurad. ' rn tel l in you, she' l l , she' l l take hatasht ray nd throw i t , dunrp tal l ovcr the f loor and she' l l tear up stuf f l i ke this. She's got a temper."At l t l i l i onaldara were obtained at the end of the study (af ier al l th e vid-eotapes had been collected) when Nora offered inter?retations of variousinteract ions,nclucl ing easingsequences. or exarnple, n response o oneteasing cqucnce he explainedas fol lows her reasons or teasing: ,Teasingwi l l nrakcher want to learnon l rer own, i t cncourages er o be indepentJent ,it rnakes hcr rtrad. gives nre a chance to e ncourage her if she has trouble( t lefcnr l ing cr clai rns r displayinghe r abi l i ry) . say, You're st i l l l i r r te. r 'sal l r ig l r t . ' " Nora addcd hat on e can't tease oo of ten becauseBeth wil l justgive up t shc' l l be too insul ted.' I ' l rc cvic lence, hen, fr.ornNora's spontaneous on)mentsdur ing teasingsequerrces nd Ironr hcr reactions u[)on later viewing video recordings ofteasingscquences rovide sorne clues about her understanding of teasing persc . n addi t ion, crnarks radeby al l (hreenrothers ur ing he nterviewshelpus to f i t teasing nto the broaderpictureof thei r bel iefsabout chi ld rear ing,Ianguageearni r rg, nd af fect ivesocial i zat ion.Eacl r of the t r rothers epeatedlyexpressedher intent ion (o equip herdaughterwith the valuesan d ski l l s she would need as sh e grew older andvcrr turet l ut into thewor ld. Tl r is nreant eaching er he namesof peoplean dthings,helpinghe r o par l i c ipate n conversat ion, nd encouraging er to beaf fcct ionate nd syrnpathct icMi l ler 1982) . r also nreant nst i l l ingst rength,pr ide, an d independcnce nd helping the chi ld to learn how to cont rol hur tfeel ings,ho w to dcfend hersel f , an d when to speak up in anger (Mi l ler &Spcl ry in press) . I 'easingsequences rovided on e context in which thesevaluedski l l s an d qual i t ies ould be t ransnr i t ted. r, as Amy's ntother ,Mar-lenc,erplained t , teasing rcpareshe chi ld to stand p for hersel f n real - l i fedisorr (cs:

Teusittg itt tt white workin1-


15/18

I06 [ ' E c ( i Y M l L l - E R[L po in ts a t W 's face l(L po in ts aga in ll[ . po in ts aga in ]lW t r ics (0 s i t up bu t l laughs lis laughing too hardl[Both laughing [LaughsltogethcrllL po in ts a t W's facc ][L pokes W 's [Laughs ls lomach

\W lungcs for Ll I beat you/{L s h a k c sWl[W bur ics facc n L' s [No ises ]chcs tJll - pushesW up; rubsW' s checks l[W lungcs or L l[W and L p lay fu l l y [Laughs ls lap and h i t oneano thcr , augh ing l

Look at your face. Yougot powder.

{Laughsl

\ f 'n"rc is alsosonre vidcnce hat he chi ldrenwerebeginning o assume herole of tcaser , ni t iat ingsequences y issuingmock threats, nsul ts,or chal -lcngcs.Fo r exatnple,Anry srni lcdat her motheran d said, "Shut up, punk"(Arny l l l , 20 rnont l rs) .Wendy struckplayful lyat he r ntother 'shand, aughingand saying, "Urn bad! urn bad!" (Wendy ll , 25 months) .It i s Bcth, l rowever , wl to provides the nrost evidence of a developinguDderstandingf teasing.She engaged n the largestnumber of sequences(twenty) an d achieved he most prof ic iency n teasing.Microlevel analysisacross he six sarnplesevealedadvancesn Beth's understanding f var iousasl)ects l 'teasing. She becanre nore adcpt at interpreting her rnother's mes-sagesand at producirrgher own.Fo r exarnple, n the ear ly samplesNora's openers n teasingsequenceswcre often repeatedor rephrasedseveral imes before Beth respondcd. Whensh edid reply, hc r responses ere i rni ted o denialsor counterclaims. y thef inal sampleBeth rcsponded rompt ly to a singleopening ut terance. hi s isil fustratcd n Ex. 2. - I 'henrothersays, " l 'm gonnage t th e baby." and Bethvcry rapidly retorts and takes possessionof the doll. Fronr this we can inferthat lJetlr undcrstood her nrother's urteranceas a threat requiring immediatecountcract ion, ot h verbaland nonverbal_ y the f inal sarr rple eth had alsoaddedseveraldispute actics o her repertoire:She coulrt yield t. her mother's

Teasing n c rvhi teworking-closs ornrnuni t .y 2O largument , ont r ibuteescalat ing lai rns,and ake an act ivepart n negot iat inga resolution of the confl ict.In addi t ion, th e f inal sample contained hree sequencesn which Bethrespondedwith markeLl ounterclaimsor challenges o lrer nrother's precedingutterance, which was unmarked or unclearly marketl as a teasing opener.Whatever Nora's original intention, Beth transformed the interaction into ateasing sequence. lnterestingly, all of these interactions were preceded bycommands from Nora to which Beth refused to comply. These sequencessuggest hat Beth was beginning to try out the role of lcaserand that she did sofirst in contexts of defiance.

There were developments, too, in Beth 's use of contextuai-lzatloncues.From the very beginning and consistently throughout the sirmples, slre used alarge proportion of possessive onstructi()nsand nlarked her utterancesappro-pr iately wi th emphat ic st ress.

S ingsong ntonat ionunderwentpar t icular lydranrat icchange. n the f i rstthree samplesBeth used singsong only once and this in imi tat ion of he rmother 's precedingut terance. n Sample V she produceda total of thi r ty-three utterances with sings ong intonation, and only five of these occurredwi thin teasingsequences. n examinat ionof th e remaining wenty-eight n-stances revealed that thc majority were formulaic expressions such as"yeayeayea," directed at no particular person and occurring in contexts ofsel f -expression r display,as Beth reveled n he r ow n physicalagi l i ty . Lessfrequently, singsong intonation occurred in contexts of defiance or as Bethseized possessionof some object. Frorn the adult standpoint, Beth's us e ofsingsong was an instance of overgeneralization. She had not yct narroweddown tlre contexts of appropriateuse. Front Beth's standpoint, this explosionof singsong was a form o[ practice play, pleasurable or its own sake but alsoa wa y of understanding his type of intonat ion. n Sample V singsongwa sused in nruch the same way but nruch less frequently.

Final ly, in SarnpleVl Beth used singsong ntonat ionappropr iately n th ecourse of a teasing sequence.Example 4Beth Vl, 28 rnonths Beth[N has beenurging []to ask Grandma orpaper o write onl[B putspen under n6-oh/ Provocativeonelarm, poutsl

IB holdsPeggy's en ,pouts,gazes efiantlyar Nl

Nttra (ntother)

Wel l , then , I don ' t ca reWel l , then , don ' t ask her

ILaughs]Haha.I ee .

ILaughsl


16/18

2 0 8 P E c c y M l l l e n

[B gazes at Nl

Teasing n a white working-class tomrnunily 2O9Teasing as verbal playSo far I have described easing rom the perspectiveof languagesocialization.Different facets emerge if we look at teasing as a forrn of verbal and socialplay. Fol lowing Schwartzman (1978), one might say that teasing is charac-terized by al lusion to arguments, ights, and displaysof anger. In teasing onemodifies or plays with the pragmatic resources of l anguage. To tease s toconvert a dispute into a mock dispute.

Garvey (1977) has shown that social pretense requires a considerableamount o[ communication. Each player needs o convey lo the other that shehas adopted a playful attitude. This may be accomplishedby enacting a role oridentity, that is, by assuming he appropri ate voice quality, content of speech,gestures,and so on. The pretendslate may also be ndicated by signals such aslaughter or giggl ing or by referring explicitly to the pretend transformation(e .g . , " l ' l l be t he x" ; " Le t ' s p l ay x" ) .

In teasing sequences he mothers - and the children to a l imited extent -enacted (he functional role of contestant. They issue d threats, insults, andchallenges and used various tactics to sustain, escalate,and resolve the dis-pute. They marked thcir utteranceswith emphatic stress,provocative tones,and rapid del ivery; pouted, stared, and raised chins defiantly. They seizedpossession of disputed objects, made fighting gestures, and swatted andlunged at the opponent.

The players communicated the playful nature of these disputes n a varietyof ways. Perhaps most obvious were the accompanying srniles and laughter"Amy and Wendy used hesesignals n the earliest e corded easing sequences,that s, at 19 and 25 months, espect ively.Beth gave no such signals n th eearly sarnple s, suggesting hat she did not yet understand hat teasing was notto be taken literally. By 27 months, however, she too signaledher apprecia-t ion of teasing as play, and during one iequence her mother explicitly drewat tent ion o this: "She knows I 'm playin. Look at thoseeyebal ls.Ge t ou t ofhere. [-ook. she wants to laugh. I see her wanna laugh. She wants to laugh. Icould see that smile starti n to come on."

With the exception of asidessuch as this, the playful transfortnation wasnot explicitly referred to in teasing interactions. To propose at the outset"Let's tease" (as one might say "Let's play house") would be to violate thebasic rule of a tease hat dictates he deliberate creation of conflict or tension(Heath l98l). There were other ways of dist inguishing(playful) teases rom(nonplayful) disputes, however. Teasing singsong and teasing gestures weretwo such markers. AIso the mothers encouraged heir daughters to aggressagainst hem only in play, not, for example, when the nrotherwas discipl iningthe child. A child might be threatened or disobedience,but she would not bethreatenedwith a punch in the face or challenged to put up her fists. It is as

[B rcaches f


17/18

2 1 0 P E c c y M u . r . nthough the rnother, as teaser,assumed he rule of an older, bullying child andchose he content of her utteranc esaccordingly. Content was thus an impor-tant marker signaling the playful nature of teases.

One of the reasonswhy social play, such as teasing, requires considerabl emetacomnrunicativework is becauseof the unstablenature of the frame "thisis play" (Bateson 1972). l f one is not careful, a tease can sl ip into a realdispute. Nora was acknowledging this aspect of te asing when she said thatone should not lease too olten or the child will becorne insulted and stoptrying. On a notlrer occasion she complained that anothcr adult teased un-kindly: " ( l Ie was) easinher , but st i l l that can go through a chi ld 's mind."Teasing exists, then, in int inrate elat ion o real disput ing. In this i t i ssirnilar to "playing the dozens," as practiced in poor urban black commu-ni t ies.P laying he dozens s a typeof r i tual nsul t ,of ten sexual n content , ndtightly constructedout of rhymes or puns. According to Abrahams ( 1962), hestrict fornral structurc of playing the dozens s necessary ecause f the highlyvolati le nature of the issues.This type of verbal play is, in his words, "per-i lously closeto real ife. " For ihis reason t is practiced irst in safe situations,that is, in interaction with other adolescentmales. Among adul ts it can leadbeyond the verbal to physical fights. Teasing too is learned init ial ly in safecontexts, in interaction with caregivers wlro do not retaliate for real. By thetime Amy, Wendy, and Beth ventured beyond the rowhouse stoop to moredangerousencounters, hey had had extensiv e experience of teasing.'I 'his preparation or l i fe in their own cornmunity did not neccssarilyequipthern for intcra clions with outsitlers, however. The close conneci ion betweenteasing and real disputing renders t particularly susceptible o misinterpreta-tion by personswho are not familiar with the local norms of communication.Speechgenressuch as teasing and playing the dozens depend n


18/18

2 12 Ps c c y Mr r - r -enSachs, J . 1980 . The ro le o f adu l t - ch i ld p lay in language d"u" lop* " n t . In K . H.ftubin, ed., Clt i ldren's play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,pp. 33-4g.Schwartzman, IL B. 1978. Transformations: the onthropology of children's ploy.New York: Plenum. ll . The acquisition of

communicativestyle in JapaneseP n r R r c r nM . C l n N c y

One of the most striking meeting placesof languageand culture can be f

schieffelin et ochs language socialization across cultures

Documents