3.1.2 Identities and speech acts
In verbal communication, identity is mainly constructed through the making of linguistic choices. One way to construct identity is through performing speech acts. As far as the relationship between speech acts and identities is concerned, Tracy (2002, p. 65) points out that “speech acts and identities are tied in multiple ways, each both affecting and being affected by the other.” Based on her classification of identities (see Section 2.1.2), Tracy(ibid., p. 65-72) puts forward four principles to explain the relationship between identities and speech acts.
Principle 1: Preexisting identities shape speech act performance.
Principle 2: Doing speech acts builds relational identities and personal identities.
Principle 3: Speech acts are distinctive to speech communities.
Principle 4: Form and function need to be distinguished.Since the first two principles are closely related to the present discussion,these will therefore form the focus of what follows.
Principle 1 mainly says that “interactional and master identities will constrain which speech acts will be expected, allowed, or prohibited” (Tracy,2002, p. 65). For example, if a boss of a company says to her secretary, “Could you complete this report before leaving today?” and even if the boss intends to choose this expression as a real request, the secretary will not interpret it as a request, but a polite way of ordering. In this workplace interaction, the pre-existing boss-employee identities constrain what speech acts the interlocutors are expected to perform, allowed to perform or prohibited from performing. From the secretary’s interpretation of the boss’ remark it can be seen that a speech act of ordering is expected and allowed in this workplace context.
Principle 2 mainly says that performing speech acts can help to construct relational and personal identities. The relationships between people are not fixed but always changing over time. Relational change can be accomplished by beginning to perform or refraining from performing particular speech acts.For example, to perform a speech act of a request can help to change a pair of acquaintances into people in the initial stage of a friendship. It is clear that identities concerning distance/intimacy are “especially open to negotiation and renegotiation” (ibid., p. 68). On the other hand, “the speech acts a person selects, as well as his or her characteristic style, are key to how people build personal identities: as tactful or blunt, critical or supportive,trustworthy or unreliable, humorous or serious, and so on” (ibid.).
Figure 3.1 can be used to summarize the relationship between identities and speech acts in Principles 1 and 2.
Figure 3.1 The relationship between identities and speech acts
Institutional interactions are all goal-oriented, so some (one) of the speech acts will be performed more than others in certain communities of practice. In Chinese PhD dissertation proposal presentation meetings, the members of the committee are expected to perform two speech acts more frequently than others, namely asking questions and giving advice. Therefore,in general if the members of the committee perform the speech acts of questioning and advising, they will construct their identities as experts which are expected in this context. This is similar to Achugar’s (2009, p. 65) claim that “by performing certain acts and displaying certain stances, points of view,or attitudes, participants attempt to claim or assign social identities.”
Although Tracy (2002) probes into the relationship between identities and speech acts and provides some theoretical implications for the present study, one of the phenomena left untouched by Tracy’s (2002) four principles is that participants can actually construct some deviational identities in their advice-giving activity, which deviate for the moment from constructing the default identity.