7.1.2 Constructing various identities to satisfy c...
Different identities have their own communicative values and are dynamically constructed to satisfy different communicative needs. Now, let us think again about the examples of constructing the identity of a layperson. To give advice is one of the main tasks for advice-givers in academic advising interaction. Although an advice-giver is expected to be an expert in certain research fields, academics cannot know everything very well in a research field even if they are experts in this research field and if they are not quite sure about what they will suggest, their default identity of an expert will be threatened. Under this circumstance, if an advice-giver constructs an identity of a layperson, the threatening will be greatly diminished because the construction of this identity greatly reduces the commitment to what s/he will suggest. Thus, the identity of a layperson is constructed negatively to save the advice-giver’s positive face and protect his/her default identity of an expert in this type of academic interaction. This is one of the communicative needs to be satisfied through constructing this identity. The details of other identities constructed to satisfy communicative needs are presented as follows:
The identities of an authoritative expert and a knowledgeable expert are constructed to show the advice-givers’ high commitment to what they are suggesting or will suggest and to strengthen the illocutionary force of their advising acts and, consequently, to reinforce their perlocutionary effects. The construction of these two identities directly aims to satisfy the primary communicative need. The construction of these two identities can also meet the advice-giver’s positive face want (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987), thus also satisfying the secondary communicative need.
The identity of a modest expert, as a preferred image in Chinese socio-cultural context, is straightforwardly constructed to meet the advice-giver’s positive face want. Meanwhile, the construction of this identity conceals the advice-giver’s higher power and expertise and can encourage the advice-receiver’s “actions be unimpeded” by the advice-giver (Brown &Levinson, 1987, p. 62), thus mitigating the imposition of advising on advice-receivers. In this respect, the identity of a modest expert is constructed to indirectly meet the advice-receiver’s negative face want.
The identity of an amiable expert shapes an image of being friendly in academic advising interaction, thus establishing solidarity between two parties and closing their emotional distance. To be amiable is a desirable image for an expert in such an academic context, so the identity of an amiable expert, in this respect, mainly meet the advice-giver’s positive face want.Meanwhile, establishing solidarity and closing emotional distance can highlight the equal status between two parties in interaction, thus mitigating the imposition of advising. The construction of this identity therefore also meets the advice-receiver’s positive face want.
The teacher identity is constructed to make salient the asymmetrical relationship of teacher-student, which may strengthen the illocutionary force of advising acts. The construction of this identity mainly and directly aims to satisfy the primary need.
The identity of a collegial researcher is constructed to make salient the collegial relation between two parties, which conceals the asymmetrical power relation and highlights the membership of two parties and their equal status, thus mitigating the imposition of advising. The construction of this identity therefore mainly meets the advice-receiver’s positive face want. The identity of a novice researcher is constructed by advice-givers to directly reduce the imposition of their advising acts and mainly meets the advice-receiver’s negative face want.
Table 7.1 Identities constructed to satisfy communicative needs in academic advising interaction
Note: “+” indicates the degree of salience. If “√” is followed by “+”, it means that this communicative need is more salient to be satisfied when its corresponding identity is constructed in the current context. If “√” is followed by “-”, it means that the primary communicative need (or the communicative goal of performing advising acts effectively) is finally satisfied by the satisfaction of the secondary communicative need, which is, in turn,satisfied by the construction of various identities.
The identity of a virtual advice-receiver is constructed to close the emotional distance between the interlocutors through the use of pragmatic empathy, which can encourage the advice-receiver’s “freedom of action”(Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61) and reduce the imposition of advising acts on advice-receivers. The construction of this identity therefore mainly meets the advice-receiver’s negative face want.
To sum up, different identities, which can be used as pragmatic resources,may satisfy different communicative needs in academic advising interaction.Moreover, constructing one identity can satisfy different communicative needs,but with different degrees of salience. Table 7.1 shows the communicative needs to be satisfied through constructing different identities in academic advising interaction.
Advising has been considered as a dilemma in some institutional interactions (e.g., Tracy, 1997, 2002). Tracy (2002, pp. 29-30) points out that:
In a nutshell, the dilemma academic advisors face is this: to be a fair gatekeeper, treating all students similarly, it is best to use a distanced, impersonal, formal style. This can be achieved with everyone. In contrast, to be a friendly helper is best enacted by using an interest-showing style that seeks to build rapport. The more an advisor uses the impersonal style to ensure fairness, the less he will succeed as a friendly helper. The more a person seeks to build rapport and to be interpersonally friendly, the less likely she is to be a consistently fair gatekeeper[2].
In academic advising interaction in question, the expert advice-givers also face a dilemma: the more an advice-giver seeks to strengthen the illocutionary force of advising, the less s/he will seek to build rapport. The more an advice-giver seeks to build rapport, the less s/he will seek to strengthen the illocutionary force of advising. To deal with the dilemma, an advice-giver often needs to make a balance between strengthening the illocutionary force of advising and building rapport in terms of context (Chen,2004a; Yuan, 2011a). The construction of various identities in academic advising interaction, which aims to satisfy different communicative needs, is an attempt to make such a balance.