Advertisement

‘I’m a Greenie’: Stances of Political Self and Other

  • Jay M. Woodhams
Chapter

Abstract

When we talk about politics, we generate identities that can be recognised through discourse—this recognition occurs through stances that interactants take in relation to one another. This chapter presents the case of a discussion with Ashley, who develops a ‘greenie’ political identity alongside that of her conversational partner and in response to the interactional demands of the moment, all the while operating under higher-order discursive influences. This chapter examines the process in action, from the point of first contact through to explicit confirmation of Ashley’s political leaning. It shows that it is only in relation to others that our political selves can be fully understood.

References

  1. Ahmed, H., Balzarova, M., & Cohen, D. A. (2014). To sell or not to sell; that is the question? Stakeholders’ supremacy in the New Zealand electricity industry. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(03), 410–414.  https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argaman, O. (2009). Linguistic markers and emotional intensity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9127-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, P. (1990). Politeness revisited – The dark side. In A. Bell & J. Holmes (Eds.), New Zealand ways of speaking English (pp. 277–293). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377–396.  https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers ‘so’ and ‘oh’ and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661–688.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burridge, K., & Florey, M. (2002). ‘Yeah-no he’s a good kid’: A discourse analysis of yeah-no in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 149–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0726860022000013166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coupland, J. (Ed.). (2000). Small talk. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 36(1), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Internal Affairs. (n.d.). Environment Canterbury. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from http://www.dia.govt.nz/Resource-material-Our-Policy-Advice-Areas-Environment-Canterbury.
  13. Deverson, T., & Kennedy, G. (Eds.). (2005). The New Zealand Oxford dictionary (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Du Bois, J. W., & Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4), 433–451.  https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Electoral Commission. (2018). New Zealand election results. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/.
  18. Englebretson, R. (Ed.). (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., Whitson, J. A., Anicich, E. M., Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: The reciprocal relationship between power and self-labeling. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2020–2029.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(2), 131–156.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner, R. (1998). Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 204–224.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1167322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18(3), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haggerty, J. H. (2007). ‘I’m not a greenie but…’: Environmentality, eco-populism and governance in New Zealand experiences from the Southland whitebait fishery. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(2), 222–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Holmes, J. (2000). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: Small talk in government departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 32–61). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2004). Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society, 33(3), 377–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, discourse and ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holmes, J., Marsden, S., & Marra, M. (2013). Doing listenership: One aspect of sociopragmatic competence at work. Pragmatics and Society, 4(1), 26–53.  https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.4.1.02hol.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Lazzaro-Salazar, M. (2017). Negotiating the tall poppy syndrome in New Zealand workplaces: Women leaders managing the challenge. Gender & Language, 11(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Íñigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language & Politics, 3(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Paper in Linguistics, 17(2), 197–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(5), 435–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk, 26(6), 699–731.  https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.  https://doi.org/10.1075/p&c.17.2.06kec.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lambertz, K. (2011). Back-channelling: The use of yeah and mm to portray engaged listenership. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 4(1/2), 11–18.Google Scholar
  43. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McClure, M. (1998). A civilised community: A history of social security in New Zealand 1898–1998. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  48. Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mullany, L. (2006). ‘Girls on tour’: Politeness, small talk, and gender in managerial business meetings. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nielsen, D., & Hay, J. (2005). Perceptions of regional dialects in New Zealand. Te Reo: Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand, 48, 95–110.Google Scholar
  51. Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–437). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence lessons to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 455–476.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Semino, E., & Masci, M. (1996). Politics is football: Metaphor in the discourse of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Discourse & Society, 7(2), 243–269.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  56. Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280–300.  https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-80-3-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitehouse, H. (2014). ‘Not greenies’ at school: Investigating the discourses of environmental activism in regional Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 30(1), 106–111.  https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2014.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitehouse, H., & Evans, N. (2010). ‘I am not a greenie, but’: Negotiating a cultural discourse. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodhams, J. M. (2011). Trimming the safety net: Metaphorical representations of social welfare in New Zealand political discourse (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  60. Woodhams, J. M. (2012). A journey towards employment: Metaphorical representations of social welfare in New Zealand. Metaphor and the Social World, 2(1), 41–60.  https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.2.1.03woo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay M. Woodhams
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations