7.2.4 Interadaptability of identity construction a...
The relationship between structure and context is interadaptable or bidirectional in verbal communication (Chen, 2010; Jaffe, 2001; Verschueren,1999, 2008). For example, to choose a term of address in interaction may be based on an assessment of existing social relationships, which form a communicative context, and at the same time a social relationship may be affected by choosing a term of address. Similarly, the option for constructing identities indicates the adaptation to certain contextual correlates and the option for contextual correlates constrains the option to construct identity construct in interaction. Thus, identity construction and contextual correlates are interadaptable or bidirectional in dynamic interaction through the making of linguistic choices. For example,
(7-13) PhD DPPM-3:
1 T4：语料库呢，使用语料库有两种方法。
‘As for corpus, there are two methods to use it.’
2 T2：哎。
‘Mm.’
3 T4：第一种方法是corpus-based。
‘The first method is corpus-based.’
4 T2：对。
‘Right.’
5 T4：那就是完全以语料库为基础进行统计。
‘That is completely based on the corpus to use statistics.’
6 T1：对。
‘Right.’
7 T4：还一个呢，一种方法就是你现在要用的方法，叫corpus-illustrated。
‘The other one is the method you want to use now, called corpus-illustrated.’
8 T2：Illustrated哎。
‘Illustrated’
9 T4：就是以语料库拿自，我需要什么例子我从语料库中拿，
‘That is, take (the examples) from the corpus. I take the examples I need from the corpus.’
10 T1：(找了…)就是这个语料 [(…)]
‘Find the data (you need).’
11 T4： [找了这个]作为
[例证，叫corpus-illustrated]
‘Find the examples (from the corpus and use them) as your data. This is called corpus-illustrated method.’
12 T3：[不是自己编的]
‘The examples are not made up by yourself.’
13 T1：[不是自己编的]
‘The examples are not made up by yourself.’
14 T2：[哎哎哎，对]
‘Mm Mm Mm, yes’
15 T4：这个((XXX))在这个语料库语言学当中他做的，他做了详细的分析，哪哪些是corpus-based,
‘As for (the difference), XXX ((the name of the scholar)) makes a detailed analysis about which is corpus-based,’
16 T2：对对对。
‘Right right right.’
17 T4：哪些是corpus-illustrated。但我们一般都分不清，啊我是corpus-based，实际上你不是，
‘which is corpus-based. But generally we can’t distinguish them. You think your method is corpus-based, but in fact it isn’t.’
18 T1：其实是
‘Actually it is’
19 T4：你是corpus-[illustrated]，
‘your method is corpus-[illustrated].’
20 T1： [概念]是不一样的。
‘The two notions are different.’
→ 21 T4：就是我从语料库中找我所需要的例子,而我不需要的我把它放掉。
‘That is, I find the examples I need from the corpus. I will exclude the examples I don’t need.’
22 T1：对。
‘Right.’
23 T2：对对。
‘Right right.’
24 T4：(应该这样的)
‘It should be like this.’
→ 25 T1：我也不用标注它，我找到就找到，找不到就算，
‘I don’t need to do tagging. If I find it (I will use it), and if I can’t find it, I will let it be.’
26 T3：哎呵呵。
‘Mm (laughs softly)’
27 T1：找到几个算几个。
‘How many you can find, and then how many you can use.’
28 T2：嗯嗯嗯。
‘Mm Mm Mm.’
In this example, two advising acts are performed by T4 and T1 respectively. The advising act performed by T4 is a self-introduced one, whose head act appears in line 21, while the advising act performed by T1 is an embedded one, whose head act appears in lines 25 and 27.
From lines 1 to 11, T4 constructs an identity of a knowledgeable expert by introducing the ways of using a corpus and the differences between the corpus-based and corpus-illustrated methods. This exemplifies a common way for participants to “produce their authority interactively through the use of linguistic resources that index relative expertise and knowledgeability”(Oliveira et al., 2007, p. 124). In lines 15 and 17, T4 continues to construct his identity of a knowledgeable expert by mentioning one of the important literatures concerning corpus linguistics. Based on this identity of a knowledgeable expert, T4 directly points out that the method used by the PhD student in his study is actually corpus-illustrated, not corpus-based in lines 17 and 19, and then directly gives his advice in line 21. The construction of this identity adapts to the power relation between the advice-giver and the advice-receiver in this context. The asymmetrical power relation derives from the asymmetry of knowledgeability between them. The construction of this identity serves to be a basis for giving advice.
Moreover, in this process, T4 alternately uses the singular form of the first person pronoun “我” (‘I’) and the singular form of the second person pronoun “你” (‘you’) to construct an identity of a virtual advice-receiver and his default identity of an expert. The construction of the identity of a virtual advice-receiver may close the emotional distance between the advice-giver and the advice-receiver. At the same time, T4 constructs an identity of a collegial researcher by the explicit use of “我们” (‘we’) in line 17, which indicates solidarity and closeness (Benwell & Stokoe, 2002). The construction of this identity helps to put himself and the PhD student into the same group,thus closing their social distance, which indicates the main adaptation to the correlate of social distance.
Finally, in the embedded advising act, T1 constructs himself an identity of a virtual advice-receiver, thus again closing the emotional distance between them, which indicates the adaptation to the correlate of emotion.
This example clearly shows that identities are dynamically constructed through the making of linguistic choices, which mark the activation of different contextual correlates in this dynamic process. Generally, this indicates that identity construction and contextual correlates are dynamically interadaptable through the making of linguistic choices.
Furthermore, the construction of a single identity may adapt to more than one contextual correlate. For example, in addition to adapting to the social distance between advice-givers and advice-receivers, the identity of a collegial researcher may also be constructed to adapt to the correlate of emotion in the mental world because using “我们” (‘we’) to replace “你”(‘you’) is a way of showing pragmatic empathy. Thus, the construction of the identity of a collegial researcher is constrained by at least two contextual correlates in this type of academic interaction. This is similar to what has been found by Ran and Fang (2008) and their study shows that the use the rhetorical questions adapts to various contextual correlates such as emotion,power relation, social distance and politeness. Table 7.2 presents the contextual correlates which may be adapted to in identity construction in academic advising interaction.
Despite the fact that the construction of one identity may adapt to more than one contextual correlate, only one of the correlates is optimally chosen for the current need, because the contextual correlates differ in the degree of salience in the current interaction and only one of the above becomes the most salient. He (2003) also argues that some contextual parameters can be optimally chosen in certain cultural contexts. For example, “power relation is one of the optimal items in certain cultural contexts” (He, 2003, p. 40). In addition, modesty can be considered as one of the “culturally favored features” in the Chinese context (He, 2006, p. 74).
Table 7.2 Contextual correlates of identity construction in academic advising interaction
Note: “+” indicates the degree of salience. “√+” means that this contextual correlate is more salient than others in constructing the identity they correspond to.
Although the advice-givers’ construction of the identity of a collegial researcher is constrained by at least two contextual correlates, social distance and emotion in academic advising, the degree of salience of these two contextual correlates is different. The correlate of social distance between advice-givers and advice-receivers is higher in the degree of salience than the correlate of emotion because “我们” (‘we’) makes more salient the participants’ membership of the same group.
In one cultural context, certain discourse patterns and speech acts can be optimally chosen in verbal interaction, as He (2006, p. 76) points out, in Chinese cultural context, such discourse patterns are often employed as optimal items to give advice: “其实这个问题我也不太懂” (‘Actually I don’t know much about this.’), “我对此知之甚少，所以我说的不一定对，希望……别介意” (‘I know little about this, so maybe what I said is not right. If so, I hope you don’t mind…’) and “可不可以这样认为?” (‘So do I understand that…?’),and the like. These patterns are often used to construct certain identities in verbal interaction, as shown in Chapter Five on the linguistic choices which are often made to construct certain identities. This implies that some identities are optimal ones in certain communicative contexts because these identities are constructed through making optimal choices in these contexts.
To sum up, identity construction, as a means of satisfying communicative needs, is constrained by and adapts to various contextual correlates, which are negotiable when the interaction unfolds. Identity construction is interadaptable with contextual correlates in academic advising interaction through the making of linguistic choices.