University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Communicative rights and responsibilities in an East Los Angeles barrio: An analysis of epistemic modal use

(USC Thesis Other)

Communicative rights and responsibilities in an East Los Angeles barrio: An analysis of epistemic modal use

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. T he quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f th e copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. COMMUNICATIVE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN AN EAST LOS ANGELES BARRIO: AN ANALYSIS OF EPISTEMIC MODAL USE by Madeleine Noel Youmans A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Linguistics— Applied Linguistics) May 1995 Copyright 1995 Madeleine Noel Youmans R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 9621660 UMI Microform 9621660 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by Madeleine Youmans under the direction of h..$x........ Dissertation Committee, and ap-proved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted b y The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of D O CTO R OF PH ILOSOPHY Dean of Graduate Studies Da t e . . 3 0 , _ # 199 5 ............ ;..... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Acknowledgements First, I am grateful to the residents of Lemon Grove for being wonderfully cooperative participants in this study. I would like to thank Robert B. Kaplan, Robert Rueda, and David Eskey for serving on my dissertation committee. Dr. Kaplan, in particular, deserves great thanks for his extremely valuable substantive as well as stylistic guidance and his ability to keep me on track. Without his relentless— yet unfailingly supportive— pressure during the last several months, I would have had a much more relaxing, but infinitely less productive, year. I would also like to thank Stephen D. Krashen, James Gee, and William Rutherford for serving on my qualifying committee. Heartfelt and boundless thanks go to G. Genevieve Patthey-Chavez, the "unofficial" member of my committee, who has served as a colleague, a mentor, and a continuing source of inspiration and goodwill. I look forward to a good deal of enjoyable and fruitful work with her in the future. I credit Stephen D. Krashen for granting me permission to study my passions, convincing me that it's all right to pursue what makes one happy, no matter how trivial it may seem to others. I also appreciate the experience of having studied with such an inspired, and inspirational, scholar. James Gee taught me to look at social relations in a new way, opening up realms of inquiry for me. I have missed him and his difficult questions during my last years at U.S.C.. As for colleagues in the U.S.C. Department of Linguistics, I must first credit Ellen E. Touchstone for her cooperation in research studies, her willingness R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to share ideas, and her friendship. I am also happy to have encountered the Applied Linguistics colleagues who began study with me in 1987, including (but not limited to) Dwight Atkinson, Martha Bean, Constance Gergen, and John Hedgcock, without whom graduate school would have been a lot less interesting, intellectually stimulating, and amusing. I thank the Freshman Writing Program for providing me with support for graduate study, and my colleagues there, particularly Faun Bembach Evans, for their contributions to my intellectual and professional development. I am grateful to my students at U.S.C., Long Beach City College, and elsewhere for providing me with endless challenges, stimulation, and a good laugh now and again, as well as the all-important paycheck every month. Last, but definitely not least, I thank my family and friends for their continual reassurance that I could, and would, indeed complete the degree which this dissertation represents. My parents, Lynn and Margaret Youmans, provided ongoing moral (as well as financial) support. My sister Claire's organizational talents, which she has developed as both an attorney and a writer, were of great help in developing my initial outline. I thank all of my non-academic friends from San Diego to Seattle, from Chicago to New York, and in countries throughout the world for staying friends with me during this intense time. I would also like to give great thanks to my husband. Dr. Adrian J.L. Feuchtwanger, for without his emotional and intellectual support, this project would not have materialized. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii List of Tables ix Abstract xi I. Introduction 1.1. Genesis of the study 1 1.1.a. The researcher's entree into Lemon Grove 1 1.1.b. The relationship of this study to the study of literacy 4 1.2. Focus o f the study 6 1.3. Situating this study within current linguistic research 9 1.4.. Chapter organization 9 II. Motivating perspectives and literature review 2.1. Motivating perspectives 15 2.2. Literature review 18 2.2.a. Critical Language Study: Power language 18 2.2.b. Epistemic modals vis-a-vis sociolinguistic power 22 2.2.c. Politeness 23 2.2.d. Sociocultural/historical background 26 III. Data collection and methodology 3.1. Historical setting: The evolution o f a community 30 3.2. Current setting 36 3.2.a. Demographic data 36 3.2.b. The gang 47 3.3. Participants 48 3.3.a. Madeleine 49 3.3.b. Crystal 49 3.3.c. Teddy 49 3.3.d. Lester 50 3.3.e. Lucky 50 3.3.f. Lisa, Inez, Jaime, and others 51 3.4. Data collection 52 3.5. Methodological perspectives 56 3.5.a. Qualitative-quantitative research orientation 56 3.5.b. Perspectives on data analysis 59 3.5.c. Ethnomethodological orientation 59 3.5.d. Variability concept 61 3.5.e. Chapter summary 61 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. V IV. Content analysis of transcripts: Genesis of hypothesis 4.1. Lemon grove values as instantiated in conversational content 70 4.1.a. Truth 70 4.1.b. Hypocrisy 72 4.1.e. Positive vs. negative politeness 76 4.2. Anglo middle-class values as instantiated in conversational content 81 4.3. The choice to focus on epistemic modals in this study 84 4.4. Comments on the data analysis which follows 85 V. Data presentation: "True" modals 5.1. Modality: Background 89 5.2. Modals selected for study 92 5.3. Definitions of usage and examples 93 5.3. a. Might 93 5.3.a.l. Might: Possibility 93 5.3.a.2. Might: Polite hedges 93 5.3.a.3. Might: Self-protective hedges 95 5.3.b. May 98 5.3.b.l. May: Possibility 98 5.3.b.2. May: Polite hedges 99 5.3.c. Could 100 5.3.C.I. Could: Possibility 100 5.3.C.2. Could: Polite requests 101 5.3.C.3. Could: Advice to others 102 5.3.C.4. Could: Permission 103 5.3.C.5. Could: Ability 105 5.3.d. Can 106 5.3.d.l. Can: Possibility 106 5.3.d.2. Can: Polite request 107 5.3.d.3. Can: Ability 107 5.3.d.4. Can: Permission 108 5.3.d.5. Can: Suggestion 109 5.3.e. Should 110 5.3.e.l. Should: Expectation 111 5.3.e.2. Should: Suggestions ("We should") 111 5.3.e.3. Should: Advice ("You should") 112 5.3.e.4. Should: Advice to self ("I should") 113 5.3.e.5. Should: Advice to third parties ("S/he should") 114 5.3.f. Must 114 5.3.g. Will 116 5.3.g.l. Will: Certain future 117 5.3.g.2. Will: Commitment 118 5.3.g.3. Will: Willingness 119 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. vi 5.3.g.4. Will: Hedged future 119 5.3.g.5. Will: Descriptions of typical behavior 121 5.3.g.6. Will: General truths 122 5.3.g.7. Will: Polite requests 122 5.4. Chapter summary 123 VI. Data presentation: Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs 6.1 Epistemic modal verbs selected for study 131 6.2. Think 132 6.2.a. Think: Thinking: To use one's mind, thought processes 133 6.2.b. Think: Tentative belief or opinion 133 6.2.c. Think: Deliberative: To express speaker content in the proposition asserted 135 6.2.d. Think: Emphatic 138 6.2.e. Think: Mitigating 138 6.3. Know 142 6.3.a. Know: Acquaintance and familiarity (first prototypical use) 143 6.3.b. Know: Awareness of facts (second prototypical use) 144 6.3.c. You know: 145 6.3.C.I. Conjoint knowledge 146 6.3.C.2. Emphatic 147 6.3.C.3. Attributive 149 6.3.C.4. Appealing 150 6.3.c.4.a. Appeal for understanding: Clarification 150 6.3.c.4.b. Appeal for understanding: Involved 151 6.3.c.4.c. Appeal for empathy 153 6.3.c.4.d. Appeal for agreement 154 6.3.C.5. Linguistic imprecision 156 6.3.C.6. Softening o f suggestions 157 6.3.C.7. Attention-getting 159 6.3.C.8. Rhetorical questions 160 6.3.d. I know: 161 6.3.d.l. Affirmation of understanding 161 6.3.d.l.a. Following form of you know 161 6.3.d.l.b. Following another speaker's comment 162 6.3.d.I.e. Referring to knowledge external to the speech situation 162 6.3.d.2. Affirmation of agreement 163 6.3.d.3. Affirmation of empathy 165 6.3.e. I don't know: 166 6.3.e.l. Reply to information question 166 6.3.e.2. Avoiding assessment 167 6.3.e.3. Prefacing disagreement 170 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Vll 6.3.e.4. Avoiding explicit disagreement 171 6.3.e.5. Avoiding commitment 173 6.3.e.6. Minimization of impolite beliefs 174 6.3.e.7. Marker o f uncertainty 175 6.3.e.8. Categories not considered by Tsui 176 6.4. Feel 177 6.4.a. Feel: Awareness 177 6.4.b. Feel: Touching 178 6.4.c. Feel: Impressions 178 6.4.d. Feel: Emotions and sensations 178 6.4.e. "Feel like" 179 6.4.f. Feel: Beliefs 179 6.5. Epistemic modal adverbs 181 6.5.a. Maybe 182 6.5.a.l. Maybe: Prototypical use 182 6.5.a.2. Maybe: Polite hedges 183 6.5.b. Possibly 185 6.5.c. Probably 186 6.5.C.I. Probably: Probability 186 6.5.C.2. Probably: Polite hedges 187 6.5.d. Definitely 188 6.5.e. Certainly 190 6.6. Chapter summary 191 VII. Data analysis: Discussion 7.1. Use of epistemic modals as evidential 202 7.1.a. Differential uses of will 205 7.1.b. Differential uses of think 206 7.1.e. Differential uses of know 207 7.1.d. Differential use of you know (Emphatic) 207 7.1.e. Differential use of feel (Emotion/Sensation) 208 7.1.f. Differential use of probably (Probability) 208 7.1.g. Trends in the use of epistemic modals as evidentials 209 7.1.g.l. Evidential functions used only, or more often, by Anglo speakers 209 7.1.g.2. Evidential functions used only, or more often, by Lemon Grove speakers 212 7.2. Use o f epistemic modals as non-evidentials 214 7.2.a. Differential uses of suggestion and advice functions 215 7.2.a.l. Could, can, and you know as used in negatively polite suggestions or advice 216 7.2.a.2. Should as used in suggestions or advice 216 7.2.b. Differential uses of hedging functions 217 7.2.b.l. Polite hedges 218 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. viii 7.2.c. Trends in the use of epistemic modals as non-evidentials 218 7.2.C.I. Non-evidential functions used only, or more often, by Anglo speakers 218 7.2.C.2. Non-evidential functions used only, or more often, by Lemon Grove speakers 219 7.3. Sociocultural explanations 220 7.3.a. Chicano sociocultural patterns: Familism and communalism 221 7.3.b. The evolution of epistemologies 225 7.3.c. Specific uses of negative politeness: The Anglo, middle-class "advice culture" 229 7.3.d. Reasons for the continued existence of divergent epistemologies 234 7.4. Chapter summary 240 VIII. Conclusions and recommendations for further research 8.1. Implications of findings 248 8.1.a. Potential for enhanced cross-cultural communication 248 8.1 .b. Epistemic modal use as social reproduction 251 8.2. Recommendations for further research 255 8.3. Final comments 256 Appendix A: Transcription conventions 261 Appendix B: Selected New York Times Book Review Best Sellers 262 Appendix C: Selected transcript passages 270 Bibliography 302 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IX LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. ■ Age by language spoken at home and ability to speak English. 39 3.2. Age data. 40 3.3. Persons in household. 41 3.4. Household type and relationship. 42 3.5. Educational attainment: Persons 25 years and over. 43 3.6. Household income in 1989. 44 3.7. Poverty status in 1989 by sex and age. 45 3.8. Occupations of employed persons 16 years and over by sex. 46 3.9. Employment status of persons 16 years and over by sex. 47 3.10. Transcript details. 55 5.1. Summary of modal use. 125 6.1. Summary: Uses of think and feel. 192 6.2. Summary: Uses o f know. 193 6.3. Summary of epistemic modal adverb use. 194 7.1. Totals of quantitative analysis: Evidential (instances per 20,000 words). 203 7.2. Totals of quantitative analysis: Non-Evidentials (instances per 20,000 words). 204 7.3. Functions used more often by Anglo speakers. 210 7.4. Functions used solely by Anglo speakers. 211 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. X 7.5. Functions used solely or more often by Lemon Grove speakers. 213 7.6. New York Times Best Seller entries of the "advice" genre. 231 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ABSTRACT xi This study compares the use o f epistemic modals (selected auxiliaries, verbs, and adverbs) in the speech o f Chicano barrio residents with the epistemic modal use of Anglo visitors to the community. Transcribed conversational data collected over a period of one year serve as the database. The different patterns of epistemic modal use which emerge are demonstrated to be tied to different epistemologies held by the two groups o f speakers. Specifically, the barrio residents demonstrate a strong preference for truth and a dispreference for hypocrisy, whereas the Anglo visitors seem to perceive truth as more malleable and hypocrisy as less absolute. These epistemologies are instantiated linguistically through epistemic modal use: The Chicano speakers tend to use epistemic modals primarily to index the evidential weight of their propositions. In the infrequent cases when they use epistemic modals for non-evidential functions, they tend to use them to express positive politeness. They tend not to use epistemic modals which express certainty about the future, nor do they tend to use them to give directives, advice, or suggestions, arguably due to their preference for truth. In contrast, the Anglo speakers use epistemic modals for many non-evidential functions, particularly for giving directives, advice, and suggestions. The non-evidential uses o f epistemic modals in the Anglo speech function largely to express negative politeness. It is proposed that the mainstream, Anglo speakers use such functions due to their R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. xii relatively more flexible perception of absolute truth and mainstream culture's acceptance of linguistic hedging. These two divergent epistemologies are argued to be the result o f the two groups' different sociocultural circumstances. The Chicano participants are shown to value familism and communalism due to their historical and current living and working patterns as well as the influence o f the Catholic church. In contrast, the Anglo participants are argued to value individualism and personal independence, due also to their historical living and working patterns as well as the strong historical influence of Protestantism on mainstream culture. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Genesis of the study 1.1.a. The researcher's entree into Lemon Grove1 Kress states that "language provides the most finely articulated means for a nuanced registration of differences in power in social hierarchical structures" (1989: 53). It follows, then, that the study of the nuances of language can provide a finely articulated means for investigating and elucidating such differences in power in social hierarchical structures. At the time when I needed to choose a dissertation topic, I was becoming keenly interested in such issues. Having studied the relationship between language, power, and social hierarchies extensively in a seminar with Gee,2 I became interested in finding a local (Los Angeles-area) setting in which to do primary research for my dissertation.3 In general, I wished to study the relationship between a marginalized community and the dominant society through a situated linguistic investigation which incorporated an analysis o f beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies and their contributions to language use. I hypothesized that such a socially situated linguistic study would reveal noteworthy connections between socially constructed ideologies and language use, which, in turn, might provide insights into some of the reasons that the community continued to experience marginality with respect to mainstream society. It was at this time that Gee serendipitously informed me of a project being put together by a former University of Southern California (U.S.C.) Heisman R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. trophy winner (here called Bill Getty, a pseudonym). Bill had helped establish the East Los Angeles Youth Activities Foundation (hereinafter called the Foundation), an organization set up to promote sports and other constructive activities in the Boyle Heights Lemon Grove housing project (see 3.2.a below for a description of the Lemon Grove community), as it has long been believed that the lack of recreational activities can contribute to the antisocial activities of gangs (Vigil 1988). Indeed, some of the first gang programs, established in the 1940s, focussed on boxing (Moore 1991), which was one of the Foundation's most important organized activities. Bill claimed that the Foundation had lessened violence in the Lemon Grove community; in fact, he reported that violence had decreased 90% since the Foundation had begun its programs. Bill recruited U.S.C. graduate students to deliver literacy tutoring in the gym, the locus of the Foundation's activities. The first few meetings were exciting gatherings o f students studying in the Departments of English, Communication Arts and Sciences and Linguistics and in the School of Education. In the meetings, the students had heated discussions as to the type of literacy program they would establish. Because such planning had been emotionally and intellectually intense, the first time several of us ventured into Lemon Grove, walked up to residents, introduced ourselves, and just began talking was very exciting. For some, this represented a first visit to the barrio (see Chapter Three for a discussion of this term). At first it was not easy to approach groups of individuals who obviously were gang members; however, the interest sparked by R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 these initial encounters strengthened my determination to conduct research in this community. There is great potential for valuable sociolinguistic research in such a community; however, due to the real physical danger involved in working in a neighborhood known primarily for its notorious gang, the research potential in such communities is not often realized. I therefore found this an ideal opportunity to conduct a potentially groundbreaking study.4 Bill talked of soliciting private funding for the project, but this funding never materialized; Michael Milken had been considered a likely source of financial support, but he was subsequently imprisoned. Unfortunately, interest faded not only among potential sponsors but among tutors as well: After the first few weeks, only five tutors remained, two of whom would drop out within the year.5 Crystal (another Caucasian tutor discussed in subsequent chapters), LaRae (a Caucasian graduate student in Education),6 and I were the only tutors with strong backgrounds in literacy: LaRae had done a good deal o f volunteer tutoring under the Laubach Literacy scheme, while Crystal and I had studied the subject extensively in an academic context. However, LaRae was too busy with her dissertation to do more than tutor on an individual basis. Thus, the "literacy program," like the proposed funding, never actually materialized. Nevertheless, I knew that I had found a rich source of data and experience, and I tutored for approximately one year, all the while tape-recording conversational data. I was greeted by impassive, penetrating stares upon each trip into Lemon Grove for the duration of the study, but I was always treated politely7 by individuals and was R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. actually surprised at the trust and the welcome I received from the participants.8 I have a number o f good memories from my experience and I hope in earnest that my presence there constituted a positive contribution to the community, l.l.b . The relationship of this study to the study of literacy This study grew out o f an initial desire to study beliefs and attitudes about literacy in Lemon Grove. The hypothesis was that beliefs about literacy which conflicted with those of the dominant society could be linked to the residents' status as members of an underclass. This hypothesis was based on the recently emerging evidence that different ethnic and social groups view and practice literacy in diverse ways. Examples include the "new literacy studies" (so named by Gee 1990) of Cook-Gumperz (1986), Heath (1983; 1986), and Street (1984). Levison asserts that "literacy...should be treated as a function of societal need" (1984: 150), while Langer states that "who the people are and how they live makes all the difference in how they will learn as well as how they will use literacy" (1987: 17). It follows, then, that people will view and acquire literacy as a function of its relative place in their lives, families, and communities (Goodman 1985; Park 1987). These different attitudes toward, and practices of, literacy can be more or less beneficial in the context of different groups' participation in the larger society (see, e. g., Cook-Gumperz 1986, Gee 1990, Heath 1983; 1986). Such research is based on a presumption of a "difference" or "discontinuity" orientation, studies of which highlight cultural differences underlying social problems. Heath (1983; 1986) is perhaps the best-known R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sociolinguist functioning within this paradigm, having demonstrated that white, middle-class children are most successful in school because of the close match between home and school literacy uses. Black and white working-class children, on the other hand, are said to experience a mismatch between the types of literacy their families use and those expected at school. Hence, many children may be left behind by a school system ill-equipped to deal with those whose home experience is not compatible with the school environment. However, more recent studies suggest that to blame literacy levels and practices for minorities' relative lack o f "success" in the dominant society may be oversimplifying a complex issue. It has been shown that minorities' literacy practices may not be "different but equally valid," as many studies have claimed; indeed, they are not always drastically different from those of the majority. For example, Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) have demonstrated that unemployed, black welfare families in an urban ghetto, whom many would stereotype as illiterate or "marginally" so, were in fact highly literate in the ways needed to be successful in a school environment, and thus presumably should "succeed" more than they do in mainstream life. The mothers had gotten good grades in elementary and high school, sometimes in community college, and their children were, for the most part, "good students." One woman's husband wrote eloquent poems, and was very well-read: He kept a list of "classic" books he had read, owned, and intended to read.9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 Similarly, Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, and Shannon (1994) have shown that the home experiences of Mexican immigrants' children not only are not "deficient" in preparing the children for school: In many respects, they are not even qualitatively different from those o f the majority. Their research demonstrates that Mexican parents engage in many o f the same language and literacy practices as Anglo parents do with their children, practices which the "discontinuity" studies have deemed "necessary" for a "match" between the learning conditions in the home and the school environments. Nevertheless, such children often do not experience success in school environments.1 0 This line of research led this study in a direction parallel to, but divergent from, a study of literacy. It led to the hypothesis that there may indeed be a "discontinuity" between Lemon Grove and the mainstream society, but that this discontinuity may not be found in the overt cultural practices related to literacy. Rather, other more subtle, value-laden, language-related factors may be operating in the complex processes which contribute to the continued marginality of minorities such as Mexican-Americans.1 1 Through observation and preliminary analysis, it was determined to focus on issues of differing community values as indexed through linguistic markers of evidentiality. This direction of study promised to be more revealing than a study of beliefs and attitudes about literacy. 1.2. Focus of the study Gumperz states that "in the United States, American English is the primary language...but this common language hides an underlying diversity in values and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 discourse conventions" (1982b: 6). It is precisely this "underlying diversity in values and discourse conventions" that I sought to elucidate in this study; in particular, I wished to investigate how values were reflected and instantiated through discourse conventions. A perusal of the conversation data led to the hypothesis that different value-driven epistemologies were held by the Lemon Grove speakers and the Anglo literacy tutors.1 2 As explained in Chapter Four and thereafter, Lemon Grove speakers showed a strong preference for truth and a dispreference for hypocrisy, whereas the Anglo participants seemed to view truth as more malleable and seemed to perceive what the Lemon Grove speakers viewed as "hypocrisy" as less absolute and less socially dispreferred.1 3 Epistemic modals emerged as linguistic forms which would best index these divergent epistemologies; by definition, they relate to epistemology, which means that they are interwoven with attitudes and beliefs about knowledge and responsibility. (See Chapter Two for details on the general choice of epistemic modals and Chapters Five and Six for the rationale behind the choice of specific modals.) A combination qualitative-quantitative analysis was undertaken to investigate the following research questions: i) Would Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo literacy tutors use epistemic modals in qualitatively similar or different ways? ii) Would Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo literacy tutors use epistemic modals in quantitatively similar or different ways? iii) If qualitative and/or quantitative differences were uncovered in epistemic modal use as described in / and ii, how could these differences be linked to the divergent epistemologies discovered in a content analysis of the data? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The general importance o f this study lies in the fact that Chicanos tend to be one o f the most marginalized groups in the U.S. (See Vigil 1988 for a comprehensive discussion o f marginality, particularly with respect to Chicano gang members.) Ample evidence demonstrates that they continue to experience low income, low levels of educational attainment, high rates of unemployment, and high rates o f poverty (Department o f Commerce 1990, Keefe and Padilla 1987, Mirande 1985, Vigil 1988). To be optimistic, any study which aims to elucidate subtle sources of misunderstanding and miscommunication between Chicanos and the dominant society may help improve communication and thereby reduce Chicano marginality in the future (see Chapters Two, Seven, and Eight). To be less optimistic, epistemic modality can be shown to index underlying social dynamics; indeed, different uses o f epistemic modals can illuminate different evidential stances toward "what is." This study's results suggest that certain patterns of epistemic modal use serve those in power while they do not serve those not in power; hence, the development of divergent epistemological stances. Illuminating the impact of these differential use patterns can at least increase understanding o f social relations, whether or not it can help change them. Following social constructionists such as Bourdieu and Passeron (1977), Gee (1990) states that Discourses,1 4 especially those which maintain the status quo, are designed to reproduce themselves and thus are not particularly responsive to efforts at change; this is explained in greater detail in Chapters Two and Eight. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1.3. Situating this study within current linguistic research Evidentials in general have been the subject o f relatively little research. (See Chapter Two for a review of such research.) This study contributes to general research into evidentiality; that is, how speakers index reliability of their conversational propositions. It contributes to the relatively larger body of work on epistemic modals as they are used for both evidential and non-evidential functions (see Chapters Two, Five, and Six), and is particularly important in that most previous research in this area has not been done on American English. As the findings elucidate the use of epistemic modals for politeness, the study also contributes to the relatively sparse research base concerning the politeness strategies of speakers o f American English, both standard and non-standard varieties. The study is consistent with what has been the general aim of sociolinguistic research since its inception some twenty years ago in that it seeks to situate language within its social context, showing how language and social relations are inextricably intertwined (Gee 1990, Gumperz 1970; 1982a; 1982b). 1.4. Chapter organization The rest of this study shall be presented in seven additional chapters. Chapter Two elaborates on motivating perspectives and provides a literature review. Chapter Three addresses data collection and methodological issues. Chapter Four provides a content analysis of the data, exploring Lemon Grove epistemology-driven values and explaining the choice of epistemic modals for units of analysis. Chapter Five presents an analysis of modal auxiliaries, while R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 10 Chapter Six presents an investigation into epistemic modal verbs and adverbs. Chapter Seven interprets the findings within a socio-historical-cultural framework. Chapter Eight concludes by discussing the implications o f these findings for social relations. The study concludes with appendices in which certain raw data are presented and with a bibliography o f pertinent research. Notes for Chapter One: 'Those familiar with my work may know that my Master's thesis was based on a year's worth of research I did under a National Institute of Health training grant for the study of language in Alzheimer's Disease. Hence, it may be asked how I made the transition from speech errors and repairs in the discourse of Alzheimer's patients to the study of epistemic modal use in an East Los Angeles barrio. When the time came to choose a dissertation topic, my interest had been shifting increasingly from psycholinguistics to sociolinguistics, a field I had explored to some degree; indeed, my Master's exam was a comprehensive discussion of the sociopolitical aspects of literacy. This study was a natural outgrowth of my interest in literacy, as explained in section 1.1.b. 2 See Gee 1990 for an idea o f material covered, as the seminar was largely based on this text, which was at that time a work-in-progress. 3 I was initially interested in studying literacy in minority communities in Hawaii due to that state's interesting ethnic mix and the ensuing marked power differentials; however, James Gee discouraged me from doing so based on practical and logistic concerns as well as his belief that such research was already being carried out. 4 Before the students agreed to deliver literacy tutoring in Lemon Grove, we were assured by Bill Getty that the participants— particularly Jaime and Teddy, the highest-ranking gym workers (discussed in Chapter Three)— had promised to protect us during our visits to the community. The participants reassured us upon our first visit that they did indeed intend to protect us. We realized that they had no control over outside influences; for example, if a rival gang performed a drive- by shooting and we were caught in the crossfire, it would not be for lack of "protection." However, we were assured that the local gang members would not give us trouble, and we appreciated the sincere efforts the participants made to reassure us that we would be safe in their community. Not only did the participants live up to their promise of protecting us from their own gang members, they also gave us practical advice as to where to park and where to conduct lessons safely; for example, we were advised not to work in the front of R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 11 the gym or near the door due to the potential risk of rival gang shootings (discussed in Chapter Three). This "protection" also entailed a certain amount o f protection for female tutors from romantic advances by male community residents. Though one participant (Teddy) engaged in mild flirtation, my colleague and I did not experience unwanted attention from other males, which we have not always found to be the case in the company of large groups of Latino males. We interpreted this "immunity" to male advances as a sign of respect, and appreciated it as it allowed us to conduct our work in an open and professional manner. 5 One tutor left after the first week when her car stereo was stolen. She was understandably angry; however, it is less understandable for her to have blamed our literacy students, saying that it was their responsibility to "protect" us as they had promised they would. (See Note 4.) It seemed unrealistic for her to expect a few people to prevent any occurrence o f crime in such a crime-plagued neighborhood. Neither Crystal nor I directly experienced any criminal act during our year in Lemon Grove, nor would we have been surprised if we had. We understood that our participants were operating in good faith in their promise to protect us; however, we also understood that they were not infallible. 6 A 11 participant names except mine are pseudonyms. 7 Horowitz (1985) reports a similar experience in the Chicago barrio she studied; the gang members in her study were invariably polite to her and to her associates, citing their upbringing as the reason. 8 As is chronicled in one of the transcripts, residents explained that, had I been Black, I might not have been welcomed. Blacks and Chicanos have a history of conflict in this housing project, and the few black families who have moved in have reportedly been harassed by the longer-term Chicano residents (e. g., Molotov cocktails have been thrown at black-inhabited apartments). The Black-Latino conflict is discussed by Ross (a Black), who states that "they [Latinos] cannot expect the African American community to embrace their struggle while they disrespect ours" (1994: B7). He alleges that Latinos are quick to point to the social goods disproportionately possessed by Blacks (such as representation in the media and Postal Service jobs) when arguing for the Latino cause. The participants informed me that if a white person ventures into the project, it is assumed that s/he is a) lost, b) looking for a drug dealer, or c) from a social-service agency. Because none of these reasons for entering the barrio is considered hostile, white visitors to Lemon Grove are generally not treated badly. 9 Though such a documenting practice is not common of mainstream, educated people, and might be more commonly seen among auto-didacts, it nevertheless R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 12 demonstrates this man's interest in, and access to, the literary "canon" of privileged society. 1 0 Some of minorities' lack of "success" in school environments and beyond may be attributed to prejudice and discrimination. Gee, in discussing Graffs (1979) work on literacy in nineteenth- century Canada, states that in reality...literacy was not advantageous to the poorer groups in terms of either income or power. The extent to which literacy was an advantage or not in relation to job opportunities depended on ethnicity. It was not because you were "illiterate" that you finished up in the worst jobs but because of your background (e.g. being black or an Irish Catholic rendered literacy much less efficacious than it was for English Protestants). (1990: 61) In other words, many underclass minorities may indeed be illiterate or marginally so; nevertheless, those who do attain a high standard of literacy do not necessarily profit from it in terms o f gaining social goods. "Terms designating ethnicity are highly politicized and change with the prevailing sociopolitical climate. In Chapter Three, I refer to the early California settlers as Hispanics because they, unlike modern-day Chicanos, in fact came from Spain. Horowitz cites Penalosa's (1973) definition of Chicanos as Mexican-Americans "committed to the defense of Mexican-American values" and states that they "feel that they differ socially and culturally...from other Latins" (1985: 47-48). Ramos defines "Chicanos" as "...U.S.-bom persons of Mexican descent who became politically involved in the 1960s and '70s..." who are "...proud of [their] Mexican roots and yet happy to tell anybody that [they] enjoy turkey at Thanksgiving." He explains that the terms Hispanic and Latino are objectionable to some because they "...misidentify and demean the majority of Latinos in greater L.A., who are of Mexican descent," and that new Chicano groups have recently emerged in the L.A. area (1993: B3). Gee asserts that the "local community identity" of Chicano constitutes a Discourse (1990: 145). I refer to Lemon Grove residents as Chicanos in some instances because they are primarily second-generation and that is what they have called themselves in my presence. (They have also used the terms Mexican and Mexicano, neither of which is strictly accurate for the second generation and beyond.) As reported by Mirande, "...'Chicano1 is a word self-consciously selected by many persons as symbolic of positive identification with a unique cultural heritage" (1985: 2). I avoid the term Hispanic in referring to immigrants from Mexico (or their descendants) both because of widespread objections to its implicit (hegemonic) emphasis on Spain as well as its vagueness. As Blea explains, "the term 'Hispanic' includes Chicanos, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central and Latin Americans, Europeans, and several island groups, plus other Spanish-speaking R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 13 people" (1988: 131). However, I also use the term Latino, without any intent to obscure the participants' Mexican heritage. Though the hyphenated term may seem unwieldy, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of Lemon Grove residents are Mexican-American. This term, too, has prompted objections: Mirande (1985) sees it as contradictory, as Mexicans are, by nature, from the continent of America and should therefore not be "hyphenated." He uses the analogy that Mexican- American is to Negro or colored what Chicano is to black. However, this argument simply shows how such terminology changes over just a few years: In the current climate of political correctness, there is a growing trend for the general public to call people African-American, whom they were only recently taught to call Black. (Interestingly, the term African-American is often used alongside the term white. Because it is still being debated whether Black or African-American is the preferred term to refer to persons of African descent, I have chosen here to use the more conservative term Black, recognizing that it may seem contradictory to refer to persons of other ethnicities by geography of historical origin when Blacks are designated by color. Also contributing to my choice of Black is the reality that just as the term Anglo is problematic as to its accuracy, so too is the term African-American.) It should be clear that, in this study, ethnic labels are used merely descriptively and none is used with pejorative or hegemonic intent. Regarding the term Anglo, it is recognized that this is not by any means an accurate term (since many Caucasians are not o f British descent); however, it is the term most commonly used to designate non-minority U.S. residents in current California popular culture and in the sociological research used for reference in this study. These sociologists' (e. g., Blea 198C, Keefe and Padilla 1987) findings are based on comparisons between Chicanos and Anglos', hence, it would be ill-advised to invent or adopt another term to use elsewhere in the study only to revert back to the term Anglo in the sociocultural discussion in Chapter Seven. The Anglos discussed here are, in fact, at least partly of Anglo descent; what is meant, however, transcends a simple designation of ethnicity. The Anslos in this study are white, middle-class, educated members of the dominant culture who speak Standard American English, and all of these characteristics are believed to contribute to their language use, iust as Lemon Grove speakers' language use is argued to be a result of a combination of their cultural traditions, ecological conditions, and sociopolitical marginalitv. (It is recognized that the Anglo participants' high level of education makes them atypical members of the white middle class; however, comparison research does not usually study the highly educated. Similarly, it is recognized that the Lemon Grove participants may be atypical members of their community in that they have slightly higher income and occupational status than many other residents. However, "typical" members would have been less likely to participate in the study.) At the outset of this study, I intended to focus primarily on the language o f the Lemon Grove Chicanos. However, the patterns which emerged in the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 14 Anglo tutors' speech also proved extremely interesting. I am therefore left with the less-than-optimal situation of generalizing about the Anglo middle class based on data from three speakers. I do, however, believe and argue that the patterns exhibited by the Anglo speakers represented in this study indeed fit more general sociocultural patterns and are therefore generalizable, as discussed throughout the study and, in particular, in Chapter Seven. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the number of Anglo participants is small. It would be ideal to test the results of this study on a larger corpus o f Anglo speech data, a matter which may be undertaken in further study. ,2It is recognized that numbers of speakers from both groups are small. It is not my intent to make sweeping generalizations about Anglos or Chicanos from this study's results; however, the differences between the two groups' epistemic modal use patterns which were uncovered are interesting in and of themselves, and suggest the importance of replicating this study on a larger scale. 1 3 It is recognized that such terms as truth and hypocrisy are not neutral terms. Such terms are relative and have been contested throughout history; however, it does not seem possible to find neutral equivalents. Such notions as truth and hypocrisy are socially constructed and may be interpreted differently by different groups; indeed, this is a central finding of this study. Furthermore, I do not mean to imply that hypocrisy is a phenomenon inversely distributed with truth (meaning that if one is not truthful one is necessarily hypocritical, and vice-versa); however, I chose these terms because it seemed that, to Lemon Grove speakers, those who do not speak the truth risk accusations of hypocrisy (see Chapter Four). M Gee defines a Discourse as a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or "social network", or to signal (that one is playing) a socially meaningful "role." (1990: 143) This definition of Discourse (with a capital D) goes far beyond language, emphasizing the inherent socially situated nature of language and the resulting impossibility of separating language from its social context. Gee gives examples of Discourses such as "being an American or a Russian, a man or a woman, a member of a certain socioeconomic class, a factory worker or a boardroom executive...a member of a sewing circle, a club, a street gang, a lunchtime social gathering, or a regular at a local bar" (1990: 143). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 15 CHAPTER TWO: MOTIVATING PERSPECTIVES AND LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Motivating perspectives Social constructionism holds that language helps to reproduce the oppressive and unequal status quo of any given society (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). Bazerman clarifies the role of language in social reproduction, arguing that "since language is one of the chief mechanisms by which our sense of reality is negotiated, the way language opens up or closes off various reality-productions deserves close attention" (1990: 78).1 Gee also underscores the contribution of language to "reality-productions," using the linguistic term Discourse (as defined in Chapter One) to define ways of doing, valuing, and believing. The methodology which has grown out of this orientation is called Critical Discourse Analysis or Critical Language Study (CLS). Critical language practitioners, such as Fairclough (1989), Kress (1989; 1991) and Redish (1983), argue for the necessity of critically analyzing discourse to uncover relationships of power and inequality among conversational participants as well as between participants and the larger society.2 In this way, researchers may uncover individuals' "tacit theories" (Gee 1990) and the ideologies they reflect; for instance, it is possible to examine the degree to which a given individual has (or has not) internalized dominant-society values and ideologies.3 It is argued that individuals' language reflects as well as instantiates power, conflicting value systems, and the ensuing issues of self-identity, as "talk itself is R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. constitutive o f social reality" (Gumperz 1982b: 3). Thus, the social-constructionist CLS orientation is ideal for examining issues o f conflicting social realities as indexed linguistically. Much of this constitutive and indexical function o f certain linguistic features (e. g., different functions of epistemic modals, the use of passives and nominalizations, or the use of inclusive vs. exclusive pronouns) is argued to be the result of the informants' allegiances to differing (and often non-complementary) social networks, or Discourses as Gee defines them (1990). Gee contends that "any Discourse...will marginalize viewpoints and values central to other Discourses" and that "Discourses are intimately related to the distribution o f social power and hierarchical structure in society" (1990: 144). Thus, through the analysis o f linguistic items used non-complementarily by members of different Discourses, it is possible to elucidate potentially hegemonic linguistic practices which may not be consciously realized by interlocutors. In this way, the "difficulties... [which] arise when individuals of different cultural backgrounds communicate" may be elucidated, "even in cases w here we find no overt conflict o f values and goals" (Gumperz 1982b: 2; emphasis added). Because power relationships, value systems, and issues of self-identity are under investigation, the linguistic features selected for study here are epistemic modals;4 that is, they are features which index speakers’ attitudes toward knowledge and knowing.5 Such verbal instantiations of epistemologies index speakers' attitudes toward the evidential weight o f their conversational assertions. Work on epistemic modals (Holmes 1982; 1984; 1985; 1986; 1988, McCarthy R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1991, Ostman 1981, Tsui 1990) as well as research on evidentiality (Chafe 1985; 1986, Biber and Finegan 1989) has provided a basis for this analysis. Also consulted were grammarians' discussions of modality (Collins COBUILD 1990; 1992, Halliday 1985, Huddleston 1988, Jespersen 1964, Palmer 1979, Pollock 1982, Quirk et al. 1972/1985, Warner 1993). CLS itself suggests the study of certain linguistic features, such as pronouns, verb voice and nominalizations (Fairclough 1989), as a way o f illuminating conflicting ideologies. Although those features are not studied here, it is argued that the study of epistemic modals falls within the same paradigm because features such as pronouns, verb voice, and nominalizations are epistemologically based as well.6 Although there has been research into different populations' conflicting language uses, some of this work has been argued to be problematic (e. g., Bernstein 1971). Other research has tended to be more ethnographic than discourse-analytic, and has been disproportionately focussed on language use differences manifested in the educational system (e. g., Heath 1983; 1986).7 This study, in contrast, demonstrates how different language use preferences in disparate communities can shed light on more general community value systems, and how such different values as instantiated linguistically can contribute to the continued marginalization of minority populations. In other words, this study provides a discourse-analytic perspective on the ways in which community value systems are bome out linguistically and comments on the ensuing mismatch R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 18 between such value-driven community language use and that of mainstream society. As for the broader purpose o f such study: I agree with Grimshaw (1990: ix-1) that "increased understanding [of linguistically indexed conflict] may...contribute to reduction of species-threatening varieties of social conflict" and lead to "improved theoretical understanding and empirical knowledge of...race and ethnic relations...socially relevant applications on the interpersonal (and perhaps riifrapersonal), intra-institutional, community and international levels" (Grimshaw 1990: 1) which, in turn, may aid in the "amelioration of social problems" (Grimshaw 1990: 6). 2.2. L iterature Review 2.2.a. Critical Language Study: Power language One of the major components of CLS is the study of what has commonly been called "power language." CLS practitioners recognize that power language is difficult to define: In the context of power language, Fowler and Kress state that "We cannot tell you in advance what constructions are going to be significant in the texts you collect..." (1979: 197). Furthermore, because power language is socially constructed, it varies across settings and over time. Thus, in this study, the definition of "power language" is not limited strictly to the language of power situations in which, for example, rules of parliamentary procedure apply (i. e., law courts, board meetings, etc.). Here, I define power language broadly as follows: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 19 Language which may have originated, and may most often be used, in such marked settings descrbed above, but which has become the discourse "capital" (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977, Gee 1990) of the powered elite in any given society, available at their disposal and for their benefit. To use Freire's metaphor, the elite may withdraw from the power language "bank" to which the proletariat does not have access (Freire 1991; 1993), gaining social goods in the process (Gee 1990). Mastery of power language is typically considered the ability to discuss official matters through the use of legalistic lexical items, and the ability to speak "diplomatically" by distancing oneself linguistically (which, as argued by Fairclough 1989, entails proficiency in the use of passives, nominalizations and other grammatical constructions).8 Further, it includes the ability to assume a controlling stance in conversation and to marginalize conversational participants through such strategies as tum-taking control (Fairclough 1989). Redish (1983: 153) describes such "bureaucratic" language as "nominal, full of jargon and legalistic," and states that it serves to mark in-group/out-group membership. Power language can in fact carry power: For example, the use of official-sounding words gives an individual the appearance of intelligence and credibility that s/he may not deserve, and the ability to speak diplomatically allows one to express his/her opinion without direct, personal repercussions. Moreover, if a speaker is able to maintain the floor through tum-taking control, s/he can often maintain power in that interaction. Those who do not control such uses of R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 language are constantly at risk of having unequal rights to self-expression and self-presentation, and the consequences which ensue. Some o f the most compelling arguments for this view are made by British and Australian linguists (see, for example, Eggington 1990, Fairclough 1989, Kress 1989; 1991, Martin 1990) who contend that minorities often do not have access to such language.9 Power language carries social prestige, and is used by those in privileged societal positions: Redish explains that "the specialized features o f any complexified1 0 language emerge...from a desire among members of a group to be seen as separate" (1983: 164). In other words, the language of power is tied to Discourse allegiance; those allied with dominant Discourses will have control of and access to this form of "cultural capital" (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977) and those who are not will not. The ability to use power language is, therefore, necessary for full literacy (as used broadly by Gee 1990)1 1 in dominant Discourses. For example, literate Australian Aborigines feel disadvantaged because they are excluded from the secret language...not the kind of English you [white Australians] teach them [Aboriginal children] in class, but your secret English. We don't understand that English, but you do. To us you seem to say one thing and do another. That's the English we want our children to leam. (Bain 1979 cited in Martin 1990: 34) In Smith's (1984) terms, these children are excluded from the "club" of language users of the dominant society and, consequently, the benefits the club entails— the "cultural capital" that such language affords (Fairclough 1989). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 21 It is clear that minorities often simply do not have access to the "cultural capital" of power language: This may be due to a de facto separatist educational system, marginalization from elite institutions, and a number o f other factors which cannot be covered in adequate detail here.1 2 However, it is usually assumed that minorities do not use such language because they cannot. In other words, focus has been on minorities' lack of ability to use such language (as discussed above) rather than on the possibility that cultural prescription may preclude it. This study is different from those discussed above in one crucial respect: Here, it is hypothesized that different and conflicting cultural attitudes of the community and the larger society about knowledge and responsibility will determine speakers' relative "ability" and desire to use such language, language which is a hallmark of the dominant society. Thus, "ability" is only a small part o f a larger and more complex system which operates to determine language use choices. In this study, the "power language" in question is the use of epistemic modals for reasons other than the prototypical function of indexing one's level of certainty about a statement with propositional content. These additional uses exhibited by the study's Anglo participants will be demonstrated to carry dominant-Discourse power, even if that is not speakers' overt intent. It will be argued that typical (middle-class, in particular) Anglo sociocultural behaviors have led them to have greater access to, as well as a greater preference for, this form of power language. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 2.2.b. Epistemic modals vis-a-vis sociolinguistic power As discussed above, the ability and social permission to use power language is a prominent feature of dominant-society discourse. For example, it is demonstrated in Chapter Six that the outwardly innocuous evidential expression I think appears to carry a very different meaning in the two groups of speakers discussed: Lemon Grove residents tend to use it literally, as in "I'm not sure," while the white, middle-class participants seem to use it as a politeness strategy to soften statements, advice, or suggestions which may not be appreciated by their hearers. In other words, whatever its intent, I think becomes a vehicle to obscure power. This matter is discussed further in Chapter Seven. As asserted above, and as argued in detail in Chapter Seven, success in a society arguably dominated by the white middle class carries with it a heavy component of this type of manipulation of language for one's own aims (Fairclough 1989), and such manipulation— or lack thereof— is interwoven with attitudes and beliefs about responsibility issues which are often revealed linguistically (for example, through the use of epistemic modals). This is not to imply that such "manipulation," as in the example of I think, above, is always (or even often) deliberate and conscious: Such language use comes naturally to those in privileged positions1 3 and is generally taken for granted. Through the critical study of evidentials and other markers of epistemology as they occur in conversation, this study describes the Lemon Grove community's patterns o f linguistically indexed beliefs about responsibility for what one can R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 23 know and say. It is argued that conflicts between community-members' beliefs about such responsibility and what is the norm in privileged society lead to a discontinuity between the kind of language community members may use (i. e., have the ability and cultural permission to use), and that required for "success" in the larger society. For example, consider the power language activity of speaking "diplomatically" by distancing oneself through the use of passives, nominalizations, and the like. One might assume that if Lemon Grove residents do not do this, it is because they cannot. However, evidence is presented that it is not merely a lack o f knowledge o f such forms or linguistic control which prevents speakers from using "diplomatic" language. Rather, the community's strong dispreference for hypocrisy, which is amply demonstrated in both the content and linguistic features of residents' speech, may prevent community members from using this (unwittingly) manipulative white, middle-class (Fairclough 1989) function o f language.1 4 A more detailed discussion of and rationale for the specific epistemic modals chosen for study here is presented in the respective data chapters, Five and Six. 2.2.c. Politeness Politeness theories are integral to this analysis because notions of politeness seem strongly linked to cultural differences in the use of epistemic modals. Consider, once again, the example of the contrasting uses of I think between Lemon Grove residents and their Anglo, middle-class conversational partners. As R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 24 stated above, this expression seems to have a purely evidential use in Lemon Grove speech; that is, it is used to indicate a relative level o f certainty. In Anglo, middle-class utterances from the same conversations, however, this literal meaning is extended to include "I know, but I don't want to say it too forcefully." In other words, it indicates a level of certainty as well as a concern for politeness, as it softens the potential insult-value of certain "inherently impolite" (Leech 1983) illocutions. This is an example o f what Kress calls the general Anglo politeness convention which "suggests that the powerful should not normally openly assert their power" (1989: 55). Some of the best-known research into politeness is that of Brown and Levinson (1978; re-issued with revisions, 1987). The revised monograph emphasizes cross-cultural variation in politeness, rejecting the "cultural bias found in the Gricean account of communication" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 9); indeed, "what counts as polite may differ from group to group, from situation to situation, or from individual to individual" (Gumperz in Brown and Levinson 1987: xiii). Brown and Levinson define "positive face," an integral element of politeness theoiy, as "the desire to be approved o f' (1987: 13), but admit that what brings approval varies culturally, based on notions of "the nature of the social persona, honour and virtue, shame and redemption...," and discuss cross-cultural conflicts which occur due to different definitions of "'good' behavior in interaction" (1987: 14). For example, they report that such notions as "tact" may be ethnocentric, giving the example of the Phillipine Ilongot, who emphasize R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 25 group membership rather than individual feelings or intentions (Rosaldo 1982 cited in Brown and Levinson 1987). This is in direct contrast to a more typically Western notion o f tact, which Leech describes as "the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking society"1 5 (1983 cited in Brown and Levinson 1987: 15). Thus, the need for approval itself may be universal; however, what constitutes "approved-of behavior differs cross-culturally. This study supports the notion that Anglo, middle-class culture prefers negative politeness, defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) as politeness which places minimal restrictions on the addressee's options and more generally by Leech as "minimizing the impoliteness of impolite illocutions" (1984: 83-84). The hypothesis (discussed in Chapters Four and Seven) is that Lemon Grove residents, in contrast, prefer positive politeness, though a demonstration of the relative validity of that hypothesis is not undertaken in detail here. As stated by Brown and Levinson, "critical attention is being focussed on the language use of nonpowerful or disadvantaged groups (...ethnic minorities., .for example) and here the question of cultural particulars versus universal patterns is foregrounded" (1987: 29). The study of the interaction of politeness with epistemologies is important for the reasons stated above: Lemon Grove residents' "failure to match another ethnic group's standards of linguistic decorum may be fatal to...social advancement" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 33).1 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 26 2.2.d. Sociocultural/historical background Because this study makes claims about non-complementary value systems, the ensuing divergent epistemologies, and the consequent differences in language use among speakers from two communities, it is necessary to provide an overview o f the social history o f the development of the communities concerned. As the Anglo, middle-class dominant society serves here as the unmarked case,1 7 a review o f Mexican-American history, sociology, sociolinguistics, and social psychology was undertaken. The work o f researchers such as Estrada et al. (1985), Mirande (1985), Moore (1991), Romo (1983), and Vigil (1988) provides history of the neighborhoods of East Los Angeles. These researchers explain the evolution of social, political, and economic phenomena which have created the demographics and social conditions o f today's East L.A. Blea (1988), Horowitz (1985), Keefe and Padilla (1987), Martinez and Mendoza (1984), and, again, Moore (1991) provide insights into the cultural values, attitudes, and practices of Chicanos. Horowitz (1985), Huff (1990), Moore (1991), and Vigil (1988 and 1990) discuss the sociological implications of the presence of a strong and longstanding gang in a Mexican-American neighborhood. Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, and Shannon (1994) reveal the quality and types of interactions ("intercultural transactions") between residents of a predominantly Mexican community and the Anglo society. Data from the 1990 U.S. Census provide current demographic information on the Lemon Grove community. Finally, a review of Omstein-Galicia (1981) and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 Sanchez (1983) provided evidence that the phenomena observed in this study's data were not merely rule-governed features of "Chicano English" and that they had yet to be-documented. The sociological studies mentioned briefly above will be discussed in detail in Chapter Seven. In the meantime, Chapter Three begins with a discussion of the historical and current setting of the study, providing an in-depth description of the evolution of East Los Angeles into the predominantly Chicano, predominantly low-income, marginalized community that it is today. Notes for Chapter Two: 'Shuy describes "social constructivism" in practice as "somewhat like the ethnographer's effort to observe a situation, then find the meaning in it" (1987: 103). He adds that constitutive phenomenology asserts that objects are neither in the mind (innatism) or [sic] in the world (empiricism). Rather they are constituted by intentional acts o f consciousness. That is, the process is cumulative.... Recently, there has been a shift from focus on the personal to that of the social structure in interaction (Goffman 1959, 1961, 1963; Garfinkel 1952, 1963, 1967; Cicourel 1964, 1973; Mehan 1982). These scholars study interactional activities as processes that are carried out among people.... (1987: 103) 2 Critical linguists have tended to focus on written text; in this study, their methods are applied to transcripts of oral language. 3 Gee (1990) holds that all actions are ideologically motivated; thus, the concept of a neutral "common sense" is rendered impossible. When individuals appeal to "common sense," therefore, they are merely following the theories they have developed about the world based on their involvement in different social networks, however tacit such theories may be. Critical Language theorists advocate the unearthing of such "tacit theories" with the goal o f uncovering ideological motivations for existing societal power relationships. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 28 A Epistemic modals are those forms which index degrees of certainty or probability, such as the modal auxiliaries might and may, the verbs to know, to think, to believe, the adverbs maybe and probably, and so on. Such features have been documented in detail in the literature (e. g., Holmes 1982; 1984; 1986; 1988, McCarthy 1991, Ostman 1981, Palmer 1990, Tsui 1991, Warner 1993). 5 In Chapter Four, it is explained that a perusal of the conversational content of the data led to the general choice of epistemic modals; in Chapters Five and Six, reasons for the analysis of specific modals are explained. 6 Though linguistic features such as pronouns, verb voice and nominalizations have not yet been explicitly categorized as epistemics, they serve this function. For example, as Fairclough (1989) describes, the use o f agentless passives obscures agency, thereby obscuring responsibility, and the ensuing necessary use of nominalizations obscures action by eliminating active verbs. Similarly, the use of pronouns such as I vs. we can indicate the relative responsibility a speaker is willing to take for what is said— whether s/he is willing to assume full liability or whether s/he needs the solidarity of the other(s) implied in we. ’Studies such as Heath's (1983) tend to focus on the impact of values relating specifically to language and literacy. For example, Heath's study demonstrated that communities had different uses for literacy stemming from different value systems about literacy. This study, in contrast, focusses on more general value systems— such as the relative importance of "telling the truth" and avoiding hypocrisy— which translate, albeit a bit more indirectly, into different patterns of language use. 8 Smitherman states that what is stressed in Standard English is "propriety...verbosity, and pretentiousness rather than life, vigor, and truth" (1977: 210; emphasis added), and that to some Black people, "correct" English seems to be a "bombastic, convoluted and jargon-filled language" (1977: 211). ® It must be emphasized that this study is concerned with English as a language and with the Anglo middle class as these entities are instantiated in the U.S. It is possible that the entities are differently instantiated in Australia (which was founded as a penal colony) and in Britain (which has a long history of power and privilege in a hereditary elite), and that the entities are instantiated differently in other "power languages" (e. g., Mandarin in China and Taiwan, Spanish in Spanish-speaking Latin America, French in French-speaking Africa). I0 Redish's use of "complexified" (i. e., "made complex") rather than "complex" implies that such language is deliberately made complex in order to exclude the less privileged. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 29 "Gee defines "literacy" in the same broad fashion as he does "Discourses"; that is, literacy involves much more than the ability to read and write. "Literacy" in dominant Discourses requires an understanding o f the social practices, beliefs and underlying ideologies o f those Discourses. 1 2 It is recognized that factors such as prejudice and discrimination are inexorably linked with language-use issues such as those discussed here. However, treatment of such sweeping social issues in adequate detail is beyond the scope of this discussion. For a discussion of such issues, see Shapiro 1987. "Sociocultural reasons for the Anglos' use patterns of epistemic modals are discussed in greater detail in Chapter Seven. "Ryan (1979) argues that ethnic minorities fail to profit from available opportunities due to opposing social pressures in favor of their native speech styles. Gee would explain this as the tendency of Discourses to reproduce themselves and be "resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny" (1990: 144). "Note that the notion o f a unified "English-speaking society" may, in and o f itself, be spurious. "By using Brown and Levinson's term "failure" I do not mean to imply that Lemon Grove residents' language use is "deficient" or that they should necessarily converge to the dominant society's norms. I agree, however, that in current reality, the "performance of minority group members in communication tasks [is] defined by majority group members" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 33), and that elucidating mismatches between majority and minority language use could eventually help reduce social inequity. "Very few sociological or sociolinguistic research studies concentrate on the Anglo middle class. The only substantial work on Anglos reviewed here is Hall and Hall's (1990) comparison research on French, German, and Anglo middle-class business people. (Some research which has been done, such as the Anglo dinner- table-conversation research by Ochs et a l, has yet to be published.) This is no doubt because as the dominant group, the Anglo middle class has come to be considered the "norm." Research on how and why certain subgroups (Latinos, Blacks, gangs, the Anglo working class, teen mothers, etc.) diverge from this norm is infinitely more common. Information about Anglo, middle-class culture therefore came largely from comparisons with Chicano culture found in the Chicano sociology literature, the politeness literature, some CLS work, and personal experience. A discussion of typical Anglo sociocultural living and working patterns is provided in Chapter Seven. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 30 CHAPTER THREE: DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY 3.1. Historical setting: The evolution of a community As mentioned in Chapter Two, a necessary component of the analysis of community-grounded data is a discussion of the sociohistoric factors which have influenced the data and have thus contributed to the findings. Any study which makes claims o f language use resulting from conflicting epistemologies must attempt to explain how and why such divergent epistemologies have developed. As Gee says, "all Discourses are the products of history..." (1991: 145), and the Lemon Grove "truth" Discourse is no exception. A brief discussion of the evolution o f East Los Angeles is thus in order. Hispanics1 have been in Southern California throughout its history; in fact, some claim that they are an "internally colonized" group (Blea 1988; Keefe and Padilla 1987; Mirande 1985) as they are native to the continent of North America and still live primarily in those parts o f the U.S. which formerly belonged to Mexico. Indeed, the "Californios" were the majority in the region, both numerically and sociopolitically, until the 1860s, when large numbers of Anglo settlers began to push them out (Mirande 1985; Romo 1983). (For a comprehensive history of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in Southern California, see Romo 1983.) An indication o f Hispanics' status in Southern California at that time is that English was not even taught in Santa Barbara schools until 1858 (Camarillo 1979). However, after the capture o f Los Angeles R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 31 and even before the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was ratified in 1848 (Romo 1983), increasing numbers of Anglos began to settle in Los Angeles and the rest of Southern California, much to the dismay o f Mexican pueblo residents. Anglo dominance was achieved swiftly: Estrada et al. (1985: 166) state that most Mexicans did not actually own land in California, and those who did found it difficult and costly to prove ownership in court. Therefore, Anglos "were generally successful in retaining land forcefully taken from Mexicans."2 According to Mirande, "by the latter part of the nineteenth century Chicanos were concentrated in the least desirable, most menial and lowest-paying occupations" (1985: 33). East Los Angeles, the site of the present study, was settled in the 1920s by a diverse population. Inexpensive housing attracted Jews, Armenians, Italians, Japanese, and "members o f a Russian pietistic sect, the Molokans" (Gustafson 1940 cited in Moore 1991: 11). Through the 1940s, Mexicans built makeshift dwellings in "ravines and hollows" (Gustafson 1940 cited in Moore 1991: ll) .3 Thus, over time, East L.A. became increasingly inhabited by Mexicans. The construction of housing projects in the area after World War II hastened this process (Moore 1991). During the 1930s, aircraft, auto-assembly, tire, and auto-parts plants were employing large numbers of Mexican-Americans (Moore 1991). This was consistent with the trend during the previous two decades of Mexican-American heads of household being employed largely (79% in Los Angeles) as blue-collar R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 32 workers (Pitt 1966 cited in Mirande 1985).4 Mexicans were also employed in other types of manufacturing as well as in service industries (Moore 1991). Manufacturing expanded during and after World War II, and the result was an influx of vast numbers of newcomers into Los Angeles County; however, Mexican-Americans were largely missed by this boom. It was at this time that East Los Angeles, now clearly a "Mexican area," began to fall drastically below the rest of the city with respect to income, education, and employment, while population density remained higher than in other neighborhoods (Moore 1991). Because the aerospace industry now supplied almost 40% of manufacturing jobs (Moore 1991: 14), "unskilled" Mexican workers were no longer suitable. Furthermore, the aerospace plants were not, as were previous industries, located near East Los Angeles. The factories around East Los Angeles continued to employ Mexicans, but the income-prestige gulf between these positions and those available in the defense industry continued to widen. Thus, standards of living continued to worsen. The construction of two freeways (Interstates 5 and 10) in the 1950s did not help matters, displacing residents, reducing housing, and increasing noise and air pollution (Moore 1991). Not only were living conditions substandard and employment scarce, but Mexican-Americans experienced prejudice and discrimination fueled by the Anglo- dominated media. Estrada et a l report that "the press, for its part, helped to raise feelings against Mexicans" (1985: 175). The infamous 1942 Sleepy Lagoon case (Estrada et al. 1985; Moore 1991; Romo 1983) and the ensuing Zoot Suit Riots R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 33 (Vigil 1990) are considered "the turning point" in the "sharp increase in media and police activities that focused on the youth population....Newspapers especially took aim at the dress o f the pachucos, the label for Mexican-Americans who wore zoot suits and affected a 'hip' street style" (Vigil 1990: 119). Indeed, "the city continued to be barraged with sensationalist newspaper publicity about the so- called dangers posed by Chicano youth well into the 1950s" (Moore 1991: 16). Newspapers and television stations persisted in disseminating inflammatory, biased accounts o f Chicano youth behavior, and the community continued to protest this negative publicity as well as the ensuing police harassment and brutality. In a 1953 issue o f The Eastside Sun, Ralph Guzman, a journalist who was to become the first Chicano political scientist, wrote..."Today our Eastside community is again a scapegoat. It has been abused, vilified and condemned by newspapers with reckless editorial policies, public officials sick with personal prejudices, and well meaning but confused civic leaders. Narcotics, youth gang warfare, sadistic crimes, drunken brawls and all manner of crime have been attributed to the one part of the city that does not object— the Eastside!" (Moore 1991: 16-17) In the same year, the Sun reported that "When teenagers in other parts o f the city go astray, the newspapers call it juvenile delinquency, but when Eastside kids wander from the straight and narrow they are immediately tagged as 'Rat-Packs,' 'Mad Dogs,' and 'Bloodthirsty Hoodlums'" (Moore 1991: 17). Nearly two decades later, KABC-Channel 7, reporting on the East Los Angeles Riots of 1970-71 (protesting police brutality), asserted that the violence was "senseless, pointless" and that Sheriff Peter Pitchess had stated that "They can't say we provoked them this time" (Morales 1972: 119 cited in Mirande 1985: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 34 80-81). The news report went on to say that "such immature displays by a minority o f the citizens there are major obstacles in keeping it from gaining the position o f respects it deserves" (Morales 1972: 119 cited in Mirande 1985: 80- 81).5 This "blame the victim" approach infuriated the Chicano community, and these conflicts were part o f the reason for the Chicano Movimiento of the 1970s.6 (For a detailed discussion of the Movimiento, see Estrada et al. 1985.) Despite the consciousness-raising impact of the Movimiento, by the 1980s not much had changed in East L.A. (Moore 1991). East Los Angeles residents, who by this time were nearly all of Mexican descent, were still overwhelmingly poor and less educated than other county residents. Their housing was comparatively old, and renters disproportionately outnumbered homeowners. Because many East L.A. plants had closed, the manufacturing jobs traditionally held by Mexican-Americans were scarce, while the aerospace industry had enjoyed another boom in the 1970s which once again had bypassed East L.A. While many Mexican-Americans were still employed in manufacturing, wages were low and conditions poor because the industry had learned how to take advantage of the large numbers of illegal immigrants. Legal workers could not demand better wages or conditions when illegals were lining up to work in their place.7 These are the conditions that still operate today in East Los Angeles. Estrada et al. argue that "Chicanos lag behind the rest of the U.S. population by every measure of socioeconomic wellbeing— level of education, occupational attainment, employment status, family income, and the like" (1985: 182). Keefe and Padilla R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 35 concur, stating that "Chicanos continue to predominate in working-class occupations, with limited opportunities for social status or political impact in the larger society. Discrimination, social segregation, and subordination contribute to the persistence of Chicanos' unequal status" (1987: 22). At the time of this writing (1994), the underclass status of many East Los Angeles Chicanos remains the same as that described in the preceding paragraph with respect to income, housing, education, and the like (see U.S. Census data in section 3.2.a); to make matters worse, racial-ethnic conflicts have been increasing in the past several years. For example, Chicanos participated to some extent in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots8 (though predominantly in South-Central, rather than East, Los Angeles) which were prompted by the not-guilty verdicts in the Rodney King police beating trial. Though Rodney King is Black, many Chicanos identified with the case as they have historically experienced (as described in section 3.1), and continue to experience, disproportionate police brutality.9 The State of California passed Proposition 1871 0 (in November 1994), which denies illegal immigrants welfare, non-emergency medical care, and public education." This proposition is viewed by many, particularly Latinos, as thinly-veiled racism,1 2 and predominantly Latino high schools (and some community colleges) have experienced student walkouts and demonstrations.1 3 California's recently reelected governor, Republican Pete Wilson, an ardent supporter of 187, has, of late, been pressuring the Federal government to police the U.S.-Mexican border more efficiently and to cover the costs of illegal immigration reportedly incurred by the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 36 state of California,1 4 a move which many Latinos also see as racist. In addition, American citizens and legal residents have expressed deep concern that U.S. manufacturing is shifting increasingly to Mexico to take advantage o f that country's inexpensive labor pool, despite the passage o f the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is proposed to enhance trade between the U.S. and Mexico without causing large numbers of U.S. job losses to Mexico. It is typical in times o f economic hardship, such as the recession still being experienced by the state of California,1 5 for scapegoating to occur.1 6 This is so because it is easier for the majority to blame minorities than to look for other causes (such as their own poor political choices) of their economic woes. However, an apparent logical explanation for the increased Anglo-Latino friction in Southern California does not lessen its negative impact on cross-cultural understanding and the continued marginalization of Chicanos in this area. 3.2. Current setting 3.2.a. Demographic data The Lemon Grove (a fictitious name) housing project, located in Boyle Heights, is reportedly the oldest public housing project in Los Angeles (Vigil 1988). As are many sections of East L.A., Lemon Grove is populated almost exclusively by lower-working or underclass families of Mexican origin. Vigil explains that the project is one of five East Los Angeles housing projects established by the federal government to "help stem social problems for low-income enclaves in the Los Angeles vicinity...[which] have become barrios R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 37 in their own right (i. e., mostly low-income Mexicans and... [stresses] that contribute to gang formation)" (1988: 21).1 7 Data from the 1990 U.S. Census provide more specific details on the community.1 8 A total o f 1,214 households were surveyed, 1,100 of which were families.'9 The total number of persons was 5,742: 2,850 male and 2,892 female. Of this total, 5,563, or 97%, were reported as being of Hispanic origin. O f those persons of Hispanic origin, 5,213, or 94%, were reported to be of Mexican descent. Significantly smaller percentages o f residents were of Puerto Rican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Salvadorean, or "other Hispanic" origin. A total of 2,347, or 41%, reported having been bom in the state of California; 3,027, or 53%, reported foreign birth. The remaining residents reported birth in other states, in U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico, or abroad, of American parents. Residential stability seems high, as discussed in Chapter Seven: O f persons five years of age and over (4,983), 2,719, or 55%, reported being in the same house in 1990 as they had been in 1985. An additional 1,691, or 34%, reported having been in Los Angeles County in 1985. Thus, 89% o f the area's population had been in Los Angeles County for at least five years. Regarding language use, o f persons five years of age and over (4,983), 4,507, or 90%, reported speaking Spanish at home.2 0 A total of 430, or 9%, reported using English only. However, of total Spanish-speaking households (1,150), 623, or 54%, reported that they were not linguistically isolated. Similarly, 2,597 out of 4,507 Spanish-speakers (see Table 3.1), or 58%, reported speaking R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. English "well" or "very well."2 1 Reported abilities in speaking English and Spanish of persons 5 years o f age and over are shown in Table 3.1. Age data for this Census tract are shown in Table 3.2. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 39 Table 3.1. Age by language spoken at home and ability to speak English. 5 to 17 years: Speak only English 246 Speak Spanish: Speak English "very well" 662 Speak English "well" 639 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 277 Speak Asian or Pacific Island Language: Speak English "very well" 10 Speak English "well" 0 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 0 Speak other language: Speak English "very well" 0 Speak English "well" 0 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 0 18 to 64 years: Speak only English: 175 Speak Spanish: Speak English "very well" 699 Speak English "well" 495 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 1,549 Speak Asian or Pacific Island Language: Speak English "very well" 4 Speak English "well" 4 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 6 Speak other language: Speak English "very well" 18 Speak English "well" 0 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 4 65 years and over: Speak only English: 9 Speak Spanish: Speak English "very well" 39 Speak English "well" 63 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 84 Speak Asian or Pacific Island Language: Speak English "very well" 0 Speak English "well" 0 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 0 Speak other language: Speak English "very well" 0 Speak English "well" 0 Speak English "not well" or "not at all" 0 Total: 4,983 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Table 3.2. Age data. Under 1 year 174 1 and 2 years 311 3 and 4 years 274 5 years 105 6 years 160 7 to 9 years 536 10 and 11 years 256 12 and 13 years 247 14 years 131 15 years 140 16 years 115 17 years 144 18 years 136 19 years 133 20 years 137 21 years 92 22 to 24 years 369 25 to 29 years 500 30 to 34 years 360 35 to 39 years 317 40 to 44 years 278 45 to 49 years 200 50 to 54 years 226 55 to 59 years 93 60 and 61 years 42 62 to 64 years 71 65 to 69 years 47 70 to 74 years 67 75 to 79 years 28 80 to 84 years 39 85 years and over 14 Total: 5,742 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 41 At the time o f this Census, the community was fairly young: 5,341, or 93%, of residents were under the age of 55, while 2,593, or 45%, were under 18. Households ranged from one to seven or more occupants, with the largest number (22%) reporting 7 or more household residents. Table 3.3 illustrates complete household occupancy data. Table 3 3 . Persons in household. ~ ~ — 1 — — — — — — — 100 134 194 194 172 157 263 1,214 Many families were reportedly headed by single parents: 1,100 householders were represented, while only 654 spouses were reported living in the household. There were, on average, over two children per household reported. Details concerning household type and relationship are given in Table 3.4. 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons 6 persons 7 or more persons Total: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Table 3.4. Household type and relationship. 4 2 In family households: Householder 1,100 Spouse 654 Child: Natural-born or adopted 2,656 Step 135 Grandchild 237 Other relatives 443 Nonrelatives 329 In nonfamily households: Male householder: Living alone 24 Not living alone 14 Female householder: Living alone 76 Not living alone 0 Nonrelatives 31 In group quarters: Institutionalized persons 0 Other persons in group quarters 43 Total: 5,742 Regarding educational attainment, for persons 25 years of age and over (2,282), 1,499, or 66%, reported completion of grades lower than ninth grade. Complete educational attainment data are found in Table 3.5. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 43 Table 3.5. Educational attainment: Persons 25 years and over. Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Total: Family income levels are shown in Table 3.62 2 , while poverty status is summarized in Table 3.7; these data indicate that 3,045 persons, 55% of the area's population, had income below the poverty level in 1989. Of total households, 290, or 24%, reported public assistance income in 1989;2 3 a total of 340 persons, or 28%, reported no earnings in 1989. 1,499 533 187 20 19 18 6 2,282 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Table 3.6. Household income in 1989. Less than $5,000 96 $5,000 to $9,999 295 $10,000 to $12,499 137 $12,500 to $14,999 81 $15,000 to $17,499 109 $17,500 to $19,999 64 $20,000 to $22,499 63 $22,500 to $24,999 75 $25,000 to $27,499 33 $27,500 to $29,999 66 $30,000 to $32,499 32 $32,500 to $34,499 13 $35,000 to $37,499 37 $37,500 to $39,999 12 $40,000 to $42,499 36 $42,500 to $44,999 12 $45,000 to $47,499 7 $47,500 to $49,999 15 $50,000 to $54,999 18 $55,000 to $59,999 7 $60,000 to $74,999 6 (No incomes reported above this level) Total: 1,214 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 45 Table 3.7. Poverty status in 1989 by sex and age. Income in 1989 above poverty level: Male: Under 5 years 169 5 years 3 6 to 11 years 118 12 to 17 years 180 18 to 64 years 801 65 to 74 years 31 75 years and over 14 Female: Under 5 years 106 5 years 27 6 to 11 years 199 12 to 17 years 139 18 to 64 years 745 65 to 74 years 52 75 years and over 44 Total: 2,628 Income in 1989 below poverty level: Male: Under 5 years 223 5 years 53 6 to 11 years 372 12 to 17 years 202 18 to 64 years 635 65 to 74 years 8 75 years and over 10 Female: Under 5 years 229 5 years 22 6 to 11 years 234 12 to 17 years 248 18 to 64 years 773 65 to 74 years 23 75 years and over 13 Total: 3,045 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 6 Occupational status is shown in Table 3.8., indicating that most employed residents held working-class positions. Table 3.8. Occupations of employed persons 16 years and over. Managerial and professional specialty occupations: Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations 28 Professional specialty occupations 29 Technical, sales, and administrative support occupations: Technicians and related support occupations 19 Sales occupations 94 Administrative support occupations, incl. clerical 151 Service occupations: Private household occupations 30 Protective service occupations 14 Service occupations, except protective and household 257 Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations 37 Precision production, craft, and repair occupations 221 Operators, fabricators, and laborers: Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors 478 Transportation and material moving occupations 70 Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 116 Total: 1,544 H Overall employment status of persons 16 years of age and over is summarized in Table 3.9, indicating that 22% of men and 37% of women in the labor force reported being unemployed. A total o f 357 out of 1,171 Hispanic households, or 30%, reported no vehicles available. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 7 Table 3.9. Employment status of persons 16 years and over by sex. Male: In labor force: In Armed Forces 8 Civilian: Employed 979 Unemployed 213 Not in labor force 431 Total: 1,631 Female: In labor force: In Armed Forces 0 Civilian: Employed 565 Unemployed 207 Not in labor force 1,005 Total: 1,777 These Census data demonstrate that Lemon Grove residents fit the characterization of East Los Angeles Mexican-Americans discussed in section 3.1 with respect to education, income, employment, occupational status, poverty, and crowded housing. As discussed by Vigil (1988), such social conditions combine to create the condition of "multiple marginality"; he argues that this is a key predictor of gang membership, which is discussed in the next section. 3.2.b. The gang A prominent feature of Lemon Grove, one not touched upon by the U.S. Census, is the local gang; one of the oldest in the city, it is the most outwardly apparent and powerful social force in the community. As explained by Vigil, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. "older, larger gangs...are usually located in long-established urban...barrios...[and serve as] a major socialization factor throughout the barrio and nearby areas" (1988: 8). Many residents are active gang members, and a good many others are veteranos (older, former members). Gang graffiti covers the "shop and business walls, fences, bridges, apartment houses..." of the project and surrounding area, though there are several "historical and cultural murals, popular since the 1960s Chicano movement" on the large side walls of project buildings, presumably to discourage graffiti, or 'plaqueando'" (Vigil 1988: 116). Several of this study's participants are members of the gang, and all are associated with it through family or friends. Despite the proliferation of graffiti and the community acknowledgement of the overt realities of the gang, most residents "frown on the graffiti" (Vigil 1988: 116) and "upgrade and decorate their homes and gardens" (1988: 24). Indeed, many residents plant flowers, adorn their front doors and keep their apartments and small gardens neat and pleasant.2 4 This symbolic denial of the gang's antisocial side (e. g., graffiti) seems to serve as a metaphor for deeper feelings: The participants in this study, even those who still consider themselves a part of the gang, speak freely about the negative aspects o f the gang and its influences in the community. 3.3. Participants This study considers as participants both the Anglo literacy tutors (including this researcher, known here as Madeleine) as well as the project residents. There are two major Anglo participants and five major Chicano R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 9 participants, though others are represented in certain conversations. It should be noted that all o f the Chicano participants are related or connected in some way, through friendship, family, cohabitation, or marriage. This is indicative of the dense web of relationships typically found in the barrio, an important point which will be discussed in detail in Chapter Seven.2 5 3.3.a. Madeleine I taped most o f the conversations and am represented in most of the transcripts. I am a middle-class, Caucasian graduate student/English language and composition instructor, and at the time of the tapings, I was in my mid-twenties, living in Burbank, California. 33.b. Crystal Crystal is the next-most-frequently-represented non-Chicano on the tapes. At the time of these tapings, she was a middle-class, Caucasian graduate student and writing instructor in her mid-twenties, living in the Los Feliz and Glendale suburbs of Los Angeles.2 6 3.3.c. Teddy Teddy is a Mexican-American gang member bom and raised in Lemon Grove, 26-27 years old at the time of these tapings. He had recently begun working at the gym under the supervision of his brother Jaime, the director. Teddy served as liaison between the community and outside organizations, and was in charge of some o f the youth programs. He often expressed a desire to "get ahead," move away from the barrio and move on with a career. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 50 33.d. Lester Lester is a gang member bom in Mexico who immigrated to the U.S. at age four. A polio survivor, Lester uses a cane or wheelchair most of the time. At the time of these tapings, 24-year-old Lester worked at the gym, under friend Teddy's supervision, as coach for several youth sports teams. Though he had been offered a seemingly "better" position as case manager for the separately funded Community Center next door, he chose the gym due to his commitment to his friends and the neighborhood children. He expressed a desire to attend college in Texas one day, perhaps on a wheelchair basketball scholarship. He had had a friend who had gone to college in Texas and thought it would be a good idea to get away from the projects so he would not continue to "fuck up." 33.c. Lucky Lucky is a 38-year-old Chicana mother of three who grew up in Lemon Grove and was, at the time of these tapings, living in L.A.'s Echo Park with her boyfriend Jaime, Teddy's brother; however, most o f her time was spent in Lemon Grove. Lucky was one former resident who had actually "gotten out" and was no longer living in public housing, though she reported barely scraping by on her own and lacked such basic necessities as a telephone. Lucky was never officially part of the gang, but admits to having "hanged around with them." Having begun as a volunteer, she was employed by the Foundation as cook in the gym's snack bar, and also assisted with some of the girls' programs such as arts and crafts. She had been in a Southern California women's prison on a felony drug-possession charge R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 51 (she stated that she was holding the drugs for a dealer) and, though she was trained as a firefighter in prison, she feels that is "a man's job." She was interested in working with children, perhaps as a teacher's aide, but realized that the drug charge would prove to be an obstacle and sometimes mentioned trying to obtain a pardon. She spoke o f getting her GED, but did not actually study for it with Crystal or me; during tutoring sessions, she preferred to talk about personal and community matters. 33.f. Lisa, Inez, Jaime, and others Other community residents appear in certain transcripts. There are Lisa and Inez, Chicanas who became salaried employees of the Community Center during this study. They are in their late 40s-early 50s, with grown children and grandchildren. Lisa is a former drug user whose daughter was at one time married to (and has children by) Jaime, who is Teddy's brother and Lucky's boyfriend. During my year of research, Lisa obtained her GED, though Inez failed the test by a small margin. Both women could be seen as typical responsible citizens of the troubled community: Vigil states that "most of the barrio residents are law abiders who have learned how to cope with ecological conditions" (1988: 24).2 7 Jaime also appears in the transcripts: As discussed above, this Chicano gang member was the "boss" at the Youth Activities' Foundation gym. Also represented is a female, Caucasian Legal Aid attorney as well as three other Chicana community residents, Ellen, Jenny and Alice. Alice, a lifelong Lemon Grove resident and employee o f Community Youth Gang Services, was killed by gang R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 52 members just out of prison shortly after this taping, for allegedly having "talked to the police." Though the Los Angeles news media linked the killing to her participation in a film about "La Erne," the Mexican mafia, this study's informants disagreed. 3.4. Data collection Data were collected during the one-year period I served as a weekly volunteer literacy tutor in Lemon Grove. As discussed in Chapter One, there was originally talk of establishing a full-blown literacy program; however, for various reasons detailed above, that never came to pass. Therefore, I ended up going into the community, making several initial contacts, and setting up meeting times on an informal basis.2 8 Dittmar (1976: 193) explains Labov's (1972) notion of the Observer's Paradox: "The aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain this [sic] data by systematic observation." Thus, it was of utmost importance that I become established as a regular visitor to the neighborhood to ensure that my data would be as authentic as possible. Therefore, I waited until I was confident that I had achieved the trust of the contacts before I began to tape- record our meetings. Because I believed in working with residents on the aspects of literacy most desired by and relevant to them, I allowed them to determine the direction of our tutoring sessions. As is clear in the transcripts, a "tutoring session" usually turned into a conversation about personal and/or community R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 53 issues. I sensed that what some participants needed was simply a friendly ear, and after awhile, I stopped trying to guide the meetings back to literacy per se. I felt that this approach served the participants' needs as well as those of my research; indeed, Dittmar states that "participant observation [and] unstructured interviews" (1976: 191) are ideal ways to obtain rich sociolinguistic data.2 9 I tape-recorded a number of meetings and used several sessions which Crystal had recorded for me,as well as for her own possible future research. We appear together on most transcripts because we went to Lemon Grove in pairs for safety. Most conversations took place in the gym, either upstairs in the office next to the weight room, or downstairs in the basketball, boxing and handball area. To avoid the heat and sports noise we sometimes sat in bleachers behind the gym, but residents cautioned us to stay inside and away from the front because of the risk o f drive-by shootings. It seems that their concerns may have been informed and justified, because I found a bullet casing in the street just outside the gym door one afternoon, and heard unmistakable, very close gunfire on another afternoon. Whether or not these were the results o f drive-by shootings is unknown; however, they indicate that residents or passersby were armed and using their weapons. On one or two occasions we ventured out to local Mexican restaurants or catering trucks, but frankly I was afraid to be seen driving gang members outside their territory, as they often recounted stories of drive-by shootings they had experienced, some of which took place during this study.3 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 54 The primary data selected for this study are transcripts of nine taped conversations with community residents which add up to a total of 25,746 words from Lemon Grove speakers and 22,794 words from Anglo speakers. For the quantitative analysis, the data were normed to figures for 20,000 words. Data are often normed to increments of 10,000 words, but because both groups produced approximately 20,000 words, this figure was thought to be more comprehensible to this study's audience. The following were also examined: i) A transcript of a press conference after the shooting o f a young gang member by Sheriffs deputies, ii) A transcript of the community-center meeting which followed, and iii) A transcript o f a meeting between community residents and an Anglo legal aid representative regarding that same incident. However, the press conference and community-center meeting were not included in the analysis as they were of a different genre (public speech rather than conversation) and much o f one meeting was held in Spanish.3 1 The transcription conventions are given in Appendix A. Table 3.10 presents the lengths, dates, and participant names for each transcript. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 55 Table 3.10. Transcript details. Word counts Date Participants* 1,604 1 /27/91 Madeleine, Crystal, Lucky 3,590 1/31/91 Madeleine, Crystal, Lester 7,519 2/17/91 Crystal, Lisa, Teddy, Lucky, children 7,559 2/24/91 Madeleine, Crystal, Lucky 13,904 3/12/91 Madeleine, Crystal, Lucky 1,219 3/12/91 Madeleine, Teddy 2,225 8/5/91 Crystal, Legal Aid rep., Lisa, Inez, Jenny, Alice 4,926 9/11/91 Madeleine, Teddy 5,964 9/11/91 Madeleine, Teddy *Note that names listed here are those of the primary participants; other speakers are represented as well. The database of nine transcripts represents only a proportion of the actual conversations with residents, but typical logistic concerns such as tape recorder malfunctions, dead batteries, and background noise prevented successful taping of all encounters.3 2 I had planned to continue volunteering in the community and collecting more data; in fact, I had intended to interview participants to supplement the conversational data. However, violence grew within the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 56 community, some involving my contacts, and there were rumors that some of the participants had been "talking to the police." As mentioned above, Alice, who was closely associated with the participants in this study, was murdered for "talking to the police."3 3 I made the difficult choice to end my work in Lemon Grove when I felt it was simply too dangerous to continue.3 4 Thus, the data collected and analysis conducted were influenced to some degree by the disturbing turns of events in this community.3 5 3.5. Methodological perspectives 3.5.a. Qualitative-quantitative research orientation There tends to be a current bias in favor of quantitative research in the academic community; qualitatively oriented branches of inquiry are, unfortunately, often deemed "unscientific and impressionistic" (Taylor and Cameron 1987). However, qualitative research has a place in sociocultural studies, and can be shown to be compatible with— indeed, the necessary accompaniment of— quantitative sociolinguistic research. The following explains the rationale for the combination o f qualitative and quantitative research methods employed in this study. Much social science research is carried out in the behaviorist tradition: People are treated as "subjects" whose verbal responses to "stimuli" (questions) are analyzed quantitatively, which leads, presumably, to "objective" findings (Mishler 1986). However, this orientation is inadequate for the study of sociocultural matters. Mishler argues that, in purely quantitative research, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 57 the suppression of discourse is accompanied by an equally pervasive disregard of respondents' social and personal contexts of meaning....Where issues of context are addressed, they are treated as technical problems rather than acknowledged as essential components o f meaning-expressing and meaning-understanding processes. (1986: viii) (For complete detail see Mishler 1986.) By disregarding context and reducing human language behavior to purely numerical results, researchers miss (or mash) telling and valuable pieces of information. Quantitative measures merely reveal that people behave in a certain way; qualitative measures provide a frame for this evidence, attempting to explain why. As stated by Kress, "the listener/reader, speaker/writer, [should be seen] not as an isolated individual, but as a social agent, located in a network of social relations, in specific places in a social structure" (1989: 56). In addition, quantitative research is based on the notion that numerical frequency creates significance. This is true in a statistical sense; however, mere statistical significance, while informative, is not the only criterion which determines the importance of the use of linguistic items. According to Gee (personal communication), discourse analysis should not generally be done using quantitative measures only: Counting instances o f linguistic items and presenting quantitative comparisons is informative, but if it is the sole basis of a study, less- frequent but telling uses of linguistic items will be overlooked or dismissed as "insignificant." While generalizations cannot be made based on less-frequently occurring items, such items often provide interesting insights into language use trends and the sociocultural factors operating to produce such trends. The importance of this study's "small" results will be illustrated in Chapter Seven. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 58 The data used in this study were gathered in naturalistic conversational settings, to ensure to the extent possible that participants would use linguistic forms in their natural contexts. Quantitative measures were carried out on the data: Each instance of each function o f each epistemic modal studied was counted and comparisons were made between the two groups' quantitative uses of the functions. However, infrequently occurring items were also analyzed as to their contributions to general trends in the use patterns, and the speech-situation- contexts surrounding the uses of items were considered. Finally, wider contexts were considered in the interpretation of the data; that is, social, historical, and cultural patterns of the two groups of speakers were analyzed to attempt to explain the evolution of the different patterns of language use. There is much precedent for qualitative social research in the literature. Sociological research is quite often conducted via qualitative observation (Schwartz 1990), and there are exemplary precedents for the qualitative analysis o f language; for example, Redish (1983) demonstrates the value of qualitative discussion of bureaucratic power language, as does Fairclough (1989) through a variety of texts (both are discussed in Chapter Two). Finally, Brown and Levinson state that "there are intrinsic difficulties in trying to obtain quantitative measures of [for example] politeness strategies in naturalistic interactional data" (1987: 22). Measuring politeness strategies quantitatively was, in fact, accomplished successfully in this study; however, qualitative research provides an important backdrop for the analysis. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 59 3.5.b. Perspectives on data analysis A variety of theoretical and methodological orientations are represented in the data sources and units o f analysis in this study. As a sociolinguistic study, it focusses on transcribed conversational data. However, due to the mutually constitutive nature of language and context (Ochs and Schieffelin 1984, Schieffelin and Ochs 1986), observations on the community, social setting and participants as well are provided and the content of conversational data are analyzed as well to allow adequate context for the linguistic analysis. The idea that social processes are played out through micro-level events is derived from activity theory (e. g., Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Giddens 1984), which appears in this study in the form o f Critical Discourse Analysis. As discussed in Chapter Two, CDA is a major motivating perspective of the study, and its methodology is employed here. 3.5.C. Ethnomethodologica! orientation Though it does not follow the strict principles of Conversation Analysis (i. e., it does not investigate the sequential ordering of statements), this study is based on an ethnomethodological model of social interaction. According to Taylor and Cameron, ethnomethodologists hold that interlocutors carry out "the practical methods o f situated, publicly displayed negotiation" (1987: 123). Taylor and Cameron state that "ethnomethodology...views 'practical reasoning' activities as being managed by social actors (’members') who strive to produce what they and others in the community will recognize as orderliness in those activities" (1987: 101). Dittmar asserts that "speakers modify stimuli from the external environment R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 60 in accordance with their cultural background, and derive from these the communicative norms for the situation concerned" (1976: 190-191). Ethnomethodologists examine phenomena of which ordinary conversational participants have only tacit knowledge, assuming that actors design their behaviour with an awareness of its 'accountability1 ...aware o f the rule relevant to the situation in which they find themselves...; thus, rules are conformed with...because actors are generally aware of the consequences...of non-conformity. (Taylor and Cameron 1987: 102) Garfinkel's notion of "intersubjectivity" assumes different individuals' experience of their surroundings and the interactions in which they participate; however, this does not prevent actors from achieving an intersubjective, 'shared world'....We operate under the common assumption that there are no interactionally relevant differences between our experiences and that, if some should arise, they will inevitably be made public through our own behaviour and its normative accountability. (Taylor and Cameron 1987: 104; emphasis added) Thus, despite differences in individuals' perceptions of and responses to their social environments, interactants tend to assume a sort of universality of experience. As becomes clear in the analysis, it is my contention that despite individual differences within actors' "shared worlds," this "common assumption that there are no interactionally relevant differences between our experiences" helps perpetuate a mismatch between the linguistic instantiations of values and belief systems in Lemon Grove and those of the dominant society, which, in turn, helps perpetuate the marginality of the residents of Lemon Grove. It will be shown that there are in fact "interactionally relevant differences" between the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 61 value systems and ensuing linguistic choices of Lemon Grove residents and those of the dominant society, differences which this study aims to elucidate. 3.5.d. Variability concept This study is undertaken from a Variability Concept (Difference Model) orientation rather than a Deficit Hypothesis. Though the study argues that linguistic and linguistically indexed differences between the speech o f Lemon Grove residents and that of the dominant society may be detrimental to the former, it is not meant to serve as a value judgment. Rather, the study sets out to perform a descriptive procedure...the discovery of socially-determined speech norms....The aim is theory construction, and explanation of...linguistic differentiations caused by the intervention of social parameters, and of their correlations with the social structure. (Dittmar 1976: 103) As Dittmar explains, "the description of speech variation is concerned with the type and degree of structural and functional interference, as well as social relation and interaction between two given linguistic systems" (1976: 104). This study attempts to show differences and conflicts between linguistic structures and functions of the speech of representatives of two populations and the ensuing social consequences. 3.5.e. Chapter summary This chapter has served to elucidate both the historical and current demographic and sociological conditions in the Lemon Grove community as well as to introduce the study's participants within this sociocultural context. In R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 62 addition, it has explained the methodological underpinnings of the study. In Chapter Four, the content of the conversational data are looked at qualitatively to uncover potential differences in epistemologies between the Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo participants. It will be shown that conversational content supports the notion of a prevailing epistemology in Lemon Grove which places great value on truth; in contrast, the Anglo participants exhibit through their language use a different epistemology in which truth is much more relative and malleable. Notes for Chapter Three: 'The term Hispanic is the most accurate to use here because these settlers did, in fact, come from Spain and were not Indian in ancestry. 2 Kaplan (personal communication) reports that those Hispanics with the largest land grants under the Spanish crown preserved their holdings well into the 20th century as their land rights were in fact protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo. However, the majority of Hispanics in California were then, as they are now, occupying the lower strata o f society. Small landowners, and those without official title to the land they occupied, could not afford to defend what they saw as their land rights in court. 3 Vigil (1988) claims that barrios have tended to emerge in the least geographically desirable areas o f cities (such as lowlands); however, Kaplan (personal communication) alleges that it is a Western European notion that the most desirable land is on high ground. He points out that in Latin American cities such as Caracas and Rio de Janeiro, the most desirable residential areas are on the flat whereas the slums are on higher ground. Thus, Vigil, a Chicano, seems to have internalized dominant-society values as to the relative desirability of land. It is indisputable, however, that other features of many barrios which Vigil (1988) describes as undesirable— such as lack of paved roads, sewer service, and electricity— are considered undesirable across cultures when alternatives are available. 4 The working-class status o f Mexican-Americans is argued to be a result of prejudice and discrimination as well as their low educational attainment (which may also be, in part, a result of prejudice and discrimination). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 63 sMoore cites Klein, Maxson and Cunningham (1988) to argue against the "validity o f police and media interpretations" of violence in East L.A. barrios, describing a "series o f sensational and often contradictory reports" (1991: 3). She asserts that "both police and media assumed that the increase in gang-related violence was related to the increase in gang involvement in the sales o f cocaine and crack. However, when these assumptions were actually tested with Los Angeles Police Department data for the period from 1983 to 1985, they proved to be wrong" (1991: 3). Mirande goes a step further, arguing that The schools, the media, and publishing take on added significance for contemporary Chicanos, for these have become the primary vehicles for indirect, symbolic, cultural oppression. They have become, in other words, the primary vehicles for mobilizing bias against the Chicano....We...lack control over the transmission of symbols that shape public images of ourselves....(1985: 82) 6 Shaw argues that "coverage o f minorities continues to be skewed to the negative and the sensational" (1990: A l), particularly regarding Blacks and Latinos; he explains that, until recently, the mainstream press has (wrongly) believed that minorities are not part o f its paying readership and has thus not felt financial pressure to present more fair and representative coverage. ’Estrada et al. contend that "Mexicans— particularly without legal rights and privileges— are especially desirable for agribusiness, marginal industries, seasonal work, or in businesses quickly affected by economic downturns" (1985: 181). It is for this reason that it is often argued that the U.S. economy needs— indeed, thrives upon— illegal workers, and that the U.S. government turns a blind eye to illegal immigration when the economy may benefit from an influx of low-wage workers. interestingly, when I discussed the role of Latinos in the Los Angeles Riots with a Mexican Long Beach City College student, she assured me that "they were all from El Salvador." 9 A s discussed elsewhere in this study, one of the most publicized claims of excessive force took place in Lemon Grove when a 19-year-old gang member was shot dead by Sheriffs deputies. A wrongful death suit was finally settled in 1994, awarding the man's family $450,000. 1 0 Boesche attributes the passage of Proposition 187 to a trend toward "new social Darwinism" (1994: B7), stating that the message is simple: The real enemies of your individual prosperity are not powerful and wealthy elites, but rather African R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 64 Americans too lazy to work hard and stubborn Latinos who refuse to learn English. (1994: B7) The individual-centered ideology criticized here is discussed in Chapter Seven as to its contribution to mainstream thinking. "Though Proposition 187 passed overwhelmingly, it was immediately challenged in court, primarily due to the unconstitutionality of punishing children for illegal acts committed by their parents (i. e., denying children education based on their parents' illegal status). Macias reports that the supporters o f the Proposition were aware of this unconstitutionality: the prohibition of educational services to undocumented students... [is] clearly unconstitutional as a result o f the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyer vs. Doe, which struck down similar laws in Texas. Ron Prince, co-chair of the Pro 187 Committee, and Harold Ezell, former INS Regional Commissioner and co-author of the Proposition, clearly indicated they were more interested in using the initiative process to provide an opportunity to go into court and challenge Plyer vs. Doe. They confessed to writing, placing, and supporting an illegal proposition on the ballot, so that governmental and public monies could be used to overturn a Supreme Court decision they didn't like. (1994: 3) At the time of this writing, the Proposition has not yet been implemented, and is not likely to be for some time. However, controversy continues to brew; for example, a 12-year-old Mexican boy recently died of acute leukemia because his illegal-immigrant parents were trying to save up money to take him to a private doctor, fearing deportation if they went to a local hospital. 1 2 Echoing the sentiments o f many, one of my Mexican-immigrant Long Beach City College students (a naturalized citizen) expressed her deep sadness at the passage of Proposition 187, which she sees as an indicator o f widespread anti- Latino sentiment: She stated, "Now we know what they think of us." Mario Salgado, executive director of the Civil Rights network, asserts that "We feel the Republican Party is trying to scapegoat the Latino and immigrant community for their own political gain, and that's immoral" (Feldman and McDonnell 1994: A36). Rodriguez and Chavez contend that "if [Governor Pete] Wilson has accomplished anything, it is giving racism a face— his own" (1994: B7). "Shuster and Johnson (1994) report that students in such communities as Los Angeles, Pacoima, Woodland Hills, Huntington Park, Bell, South Gate, Pasadena, and Fremont have staged walkouts in protest of Prop. 187. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 65 1 '’Opponents of Proposition 187 argue that illegal immigration benefits the U.S. economy rather than hurting it. For example, there are undeniable economic benefits in having an inexpensive labor force for childcare, housecleaning, farmwork, garment manufacture, and meat packing, just to name a few industries where illegal- immigrants prevail. A recent caller to KFI-AM 640-Los Angeles radio stated that he was able to keep meat prices down at his plant by hiring illegals at $7.00-$8.00 an hour instead of legal workers at $15.00 an hour. Similarly, childcare by illegal immigrants is often paid at the rate of only $100 a week. If legal residents performed all the jobs that illegal residents currently perform, prices would be much higher for many goods and services. 1 5 Califomia was particularly hard-hit by the decline of the defense and aerospace industries brought on by the end of the Cold War. At the time of this writing, California’ s economy is still lagging behind that of many other states, despite the fact that the economy of the U.S. as a whole has shown improvement in recent months. 1 6 Scheer states that "our economic malaise has nothing to do with immigration..."; he adds, however, that "historically, in this country as elsewhere, the easiest target is the stranger....Today, it’ s the illegal immigrant" (1994: B7). 1 7 Vigil defines barrio simply as "a neighborhood in a Chicano community, a district in a Mexican colony" (1988: 177). However, Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, and Shannon report that the traditional social-science definition of barrio stipulates that such communities "share features that distinguish them from other neighborhoods: They lie within the confines of physical boundaries such as freeways or railroad tracks and are residentially and socially segregated neighborhoods" (1994: 24). Furthermore, a barrio must have "been labeled by its residents with a name that distinguishes it from the rest of [the city]" (1994: 25). Lemon Grove is marked by these two barrio criteria. The term barrio carries much deeper significance for Chicanos than "neighborhood" generally does for Anglos: It implies a profound sense of community pride, home, and territory which is to be defended at all costs. Vigil quotes the typical rationale behind gang fighting of a 16-year-old Corona gangster: "We had to defend our barrio...," and states that some barrios have graffiti warnings at their entrances such as "Death to Outsiders" (1988: 130). While Black gangs are often held together by monetary goals such as drug dealing, the Black underclass often expresses similar feelings about the 'hood (i. e., neighborhood, a term popularized by the recent film Boyz n the Hood and a high- school-student-run food-processing company, Food from the ’ Hood). 1 8 A 11 statistics given here in reference to the 1990 Census, both in text and in tables, are from the Department of Commerce 1990 Census o f population and housing. It is estimated that minorities are underrepresented by approximately 5% (Kaplan, personal communication). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 66 1 9 The data reported here are from the 1990 U.S. Census tract which included the Lemon Grove housing project and several blocks surrounding it to the north, east, and west. 2 0 Other languages, represented in very small numbers, include Arabic, Tagalog, Native North American languages, and Vietnamese. 2 1 This figure may in fact be higher for persons of Hispanic origin; as shown in Table 3.1, the Census did not report speakers o f English only by ethnic origin, so figures for monolingual English speakers of Hispanic origin were not included in this percentage. This figure o f 58% is based only on those residents who reportedly spoke Spanish; thus, 58% of Spanish speakers are bilingual. 2 2 As noted above, the Census tract which includes the Lemon Grove project also encompasses several blocks surrounding it in three directions. As these surrounding blocks are made up of private residences (mostly rentals, it appears), it is possible that the incomes of residents there may be slightly higher than those o f Lemon Grove residents, as the former group's housing is not subsidized. Thus, the Census figures given here for income may be higher, on average, than the actual incomes of Lemon Grove residents. However, such income differences between the project residents and inhabitants of the surrounding neighborhood may not actually exist. Renters of private houses might be eligible for, but avoid obtaining, government-subsidized housing due to illegal immigration status; they might instead live with larger numbers of people to make housing less expensive. Thus, it is difficult to make predictions regarding demographic differences which may exist between Lemon Grove residents and residents of the surrounding blocks. Suffice it to say that the surrounding houses are, for the most part, dilapidated; Lemon Grove apartments seem more desirable (cleaner, neater, better maintained) from the outside. 2 3 It is not clear whether rent-subsidized apartments are considered public assistance income. 2 4 In one of the transcripts, Lisa explains to Teddy that maintaining attractive surroundings is crucial for the maintenance of community morale and respect: L: //You know one thing one thing one thing I do know that that front yard looks shitty again...and it's all the little homies that hang around there and trample everything and T: //Well if I see a lot of kids writing on the on the that garden L: You know what it needs? It needs to be roped off a little, or if you're going to go through there have some have some bricks laid right there, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 67 because you know that looks messy, I think something like it it looks down on everybody around here, because you know this is our recreation center and it looks shitty out there, so they’ re going to say "Well, you know, people don't give a damn," you know just and then it it was beautiful, they had planted the beautiful flowers and everything, it's all shot to hell. I'm I'm I'm I'm glad that they're not...putting any graffiti on there, it looks nice and clean and everything, but uh I noticed that that other one was painted again and it's it's been staying clean. 2 5 In transcript excerpts, speakers are denoted by their first initials. Some speakers have the same first initials (e. g., Lisa, Lucky, and Lester); however, discussion of the excerpts generally provides the full names of the interactants. In cases when two speakers have the same first initial, the second letter of each name is given as well (e. g., Li for Lisa and Lu for Lucky). 2 6 Crystal is a somewhat atypical member o f the educated, Anglo middle class in that she has some personal knowledge of the drug culture; this understanding gave her a certain solidarity with the Lemon Grove participants. 2 7 It is often assumed that most, if not all, residents of gang-, crime- and drug- plagued neighborhoods are involved in the antisocial activities; they are seen as tacitly, if not overtly, responsible. This viewpoint frequently manifests itself in legislation which attempts to hold parents legally responsible for their children's illegal behavior (such as graffiti "tagging"), as if they somehow must condone it. However, many people live in these areas due to low income or other reasons which limit their residential choices. Furthermore, it must be remembered that there are many positive reasons for living in such a neighborhood as Lemon Grove, and that to receive these benefits, some residents prefer to adapt to the surrounding climate, as problematic as it may be. Horowitz notes that the same was true in her study, stating that "many of those who can afford to move to a "nicer" area do not. They stay and repair their homes, reasserting the image o f the community as a good place to live" (1985: 39), and that "the common culture and support of kin outweighed all problems o f the community" (1985: 40). In that Lemon Grove is a city-run public housing project, those whose incomes would allow them to move out would be forced to do so; nevertheless, many residents seemed to be comfortable in Lemon Grove for a variety of reasons. These will be discussed in detail in Chapter Seven. 2 8 Each visit to Lemon Grove was a bit of a gamble, even though I always set up appointments with residents: I did not expect them always to be there, and they were not, I estimate, about 20% of the time. I feel that this was perhaps due to different cultural perceptions about the meaning o f an appointment, as well as the simple constraints of life: Sometimes last-minute family conflicts, transportation difficulties, money shortages or child-care crises interfered with commitments to R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 68 meet with me. It is not often recognized the degree to which such "life realities" prevent the underclass from living the orderly, planned existence of the middle and upper classes. This difference in the realities o f underclass vs. middle-class life will prove important in the data analysis which follows. 2 9 Objections are often raised that "White researchers can't do research with minority groups" (Hagedom 1990: 253). Indeed, minority researchers may be more successful in some respects. However, Hagedom adds that "value can be demonstrated through reciprocity.... Commitment to the informants and their community is also valuable. Unless the researcher is perceived as being 'on the community's side,' information will be distorted consciously and the researcher misled" (1990: 254). Thus, by showing residents empathy and respect, and allowing them the freedom to determine the direction of tutoring sessions, I not only accomplished what I consider responsible social research— I also contributed to the authenticity of my data. 3 0 I only visited Lemon Grove once at night. The East Los Angeles Youth Activities Foundation gave an awards ceremony at which Crystal and I were presented with plaques of appreciation for our work in the community. The ceremony consisted of a dinner, an awards presentation and dancing to an "oldies" band, a typical favorite in the barrio (Moore 1991, Vigil 1988). However, we left shortly after the dinner. With most of the community (including numerous gang members) gathered in one spot, especially with alcohol freely available, it is well known that the potential for drive-by shootings is high. 3 1 Regrettably, though I understand a good deal of Spanish, I do not speak it; furthermore, it would be theoretically unsound to analyze linguistic forms such as those studied here in translation, as it is beyond the scope of this study to determine whether these epistemic modals have the same functions in Spanish. 3 2 The fact that we always met in the gym made background noise a constant problem; in the gym itself, there was frequently noise from basketball, handball, boxing, or children's play, while upstairs in the office area, noise from the adjacent weightroom was continuous. 3 3 On May 10, 1993, a 30-year-old member of the Lemon Grove gang was convicted o f Alice's ambush murder (Ford 1993). 3 4 Though Alice's murder was the final factor in my decision to discontinue my work in Lemon Grove, much other violence had occurred as well. As mentioned, a 19-year-old gang member was shot several times in the chest at close range by Sheriffs deputies after a brief confrontation involving shouted insults and bottle- throwing. The young man died in the arms of one of this study's participants (Lester), who was present (arrested, and briefly detained) at the altercation, an event which became notorious in the Los Angeles news media due to claims of R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 69 excessive force. The police accounts differ greatly from the accounts of this study's participants who were present. (In 1994, the young man's family was finally awarded $450,000 for wrongful death). At one point, it seemed that there were weekly news reports o f violence occurring in Lemon Grove, from shootings to arson. Though Lemon Grove had never been safe, the violence escalated dramatically during my time there. 3 5 Hagedom explains that the danger inherent in fieldwork involving gang members can be minimized, in that "honest relationships with informants and sound methods o f collecting data will reduce the probability of violence" (1990: 256). Indeed, this is how I operated in the community until the violence escalated beyond a point which I felt represented a reasonable risk. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 70 CHAPTER FOUR: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TRANSCRIPTS: GENESIS OF HYPOTHESIS Before a decision was made to concentrate on epistemic modals, it was necessary to review the content o f the data to get a sense of the types of linguistic items which would be the most profitable to study. The following observations about the content o f the conversational data led to the hypothesis that the Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo participants were operating from different epistemological bases, particularly regarding the importance of truth, the limits of hypocrisy, and the value o f consistency in talk and behavior.1 4.1. Lemon Grove values as instantiated in conversational content 4.1.a. Truth Observation and analysis of the transcripts show that this community places great value on various aspects of truthfulness. One facet of this is simply a requirement to tell the truth: If something is not true, one must not say it, and if something is true, one is obligated to say it. It could be said that, in the case of truth, speakers have relatively less freedom to decide whether or not to express themselves: They are culturally required to do so. The following passage, in which Lucky is preparing for a meeting with the Foundation, is one of the best examples of such prescribed truth-telling. Nobody in the community believes that Marisol is an appropriate candidate for a certain job. For this reason, Lucky feels obligated to announce and explain this at the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 71 meeting. (In all o f the following excerpts, key points are underlined for emphasis.):2 (I)3 L: Well, look at Marisol. Marisol ain't worth nothing. If Marisol really cared too, she would've been here, she would'a been asking us what we needed and stuff. She didn't do none of that. F did more for us than what she did. And now that the money's come in, what, now she wants to be director? She wants to sit up there on her fat ass and collect all the checks? Shit. We don't need her here. We don't need— we needn't have her here break something that's not broken. You know. (...) C: Yeah. One thing when you talk to Bill, it's, it's I think a real good idea to be real diplomatic, though...instead of just cornin' right out and saying "I don't want M here, 'cause all she's gonna do is sit on her fat ass," 'cause that automatically sets it up as an an-you're antagonizing. L: I know, but see, nobody wants her here. The most telling line in Lucky's speech is "I know, but see, nobody wants her here." Lucky acknowledges that criticizing Marisol outright might sound antagonistic, but feels bound by the truth: That "nobody wants her here." Several lines later, Crystal encourages her to soften what she has to say by implying that others are involved. To this, Lucky responds that "everybody's gonna say their say-so." In other words, she should not speak for others— she should only discuss what she knows to be the truth. A more prevalent conversational topic is the hypocrisy inherent in not being explicitly truthful and consistent in one's words vs. one's deeds. Examples in which such hypocrisy is discussed will now be examined. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 72 4.1.b. Hypocrisy An important facet of truth is the way in which people deal with their own personal truths. Community members are bound by both their word and their behavior, and the two must be consistent. This observation is supported by the literature; for example, Blea affirms that "many Chicanos are persons o f their word" (1988: 96). Consider, for example, the following excerpt in which Lester explains why his mother does not attend local anti-gang meetings: (2) L: She she used to go up to the meetings a lot, but then she goes "They're nothing but hypocrites." ((laughs)) I say, "Why do you say that, Mom?" She goes, "Well, the reason they go there, they talk about keeping drugs off the streets and keeping gang violence and do this, do this, let's do that, and what really it it all boils down to is that their own sons are out there doing it too. C: Yeah. L: First of all, you gotta clean up the house before you clean out the streets. (...) L: The majority, vou know, of the of the good people in there wan- w- wanna help out their community, but then again, they th- they really hold back, because of their sons, vou know, because of their kids. M: Really? L: Why should I go tell these kids to get off the street when mv kids do the same thing over here? (...) L: That's what my mom always thought, you know, "That's that's why I never, you know, I just want to listen, and I co- out I come out mad. Really mad. At them, really, n- not at myself, because I'm not the one that's, you R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 73 know, 'cause I know what I got at mv house, nothing but drug heads, nothing but g- gang members, you know," she knows what she gots, I guess. "First o f all, if I wanna make a change, I gotta make a change on you guys. Which I can't even do no more, 'cause you's already old enough to do your own thing." M: Yeah. L: And I say, "Well, that's true." Umm hmm. Here, Lester illustrates that there is a sort o f community taboo against speaking up against an activity in which one's family members are involved. In the following excerpt, Lucky discusses what she sees as the hypocrisy of one of the Foundation leaders:4 (3)5 C: And at least Bill, I think Bill is a somewhat more sympathetic ear, but still, I don't know...sometimes I get the impression that he doesn't really care what happens with, like, the literacy program and stuff L: //I feel the same way C: //Because you know, we submitted that list of books to him a long time ago, and nothing ever came of it— nothing. M: Well, he's a big talker. I mean I think he has good intentions but I know that L: IIYeah. but vou better put those to action C: //Exactly While Madeleine makes excuses for Bill’s "good intentions," Lucky points to the hypocrisy he will show unless he "put[s] those to action." Crystal agrees, which makes the perhaps obvious point that "putting intentions to action" is also R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 74 a value o f the Anglo middle class; however, this value seems not to be as crucial to the middle-class Anglo participants as it is to Lemon Grove speakers. This will be shown through data analysis in Chapters Five and Six and discussed in Chapter Seven and Eight. Because the Lemon Grove epistemology privileges telling the truth and living up to one's words, intentions expressed through words are taken as promises.6 Teddy also expresses his frustration at Bill not having put his words to action and not exhibiting consistent behavior: (4)7 T: So...there's a lot of shit that’ s really going on that's unanswered. We're supposed to get money for computers M: Yeah T: You guvs are supposed to get printouts, deskes.8 a little classroom-type thing. Where is it all? You know? Bill gets mad 'cause we don't answer his phone calls, how about when he didn't answer ours? M: Right. See, we never thought we were going to get paid, he told us we were, but we never thought we really were, but we thought you guys would have enough money to operate the Foundation. T: Well, now we're looking at it different now. M: Right. T: I have the feeling that they just wanna fuckin' walk out on us. Because you want to know why? Jaime told me. They thought, I guess they figured, by coming in and giving these Mexicans...a job, part time, minimum wage, or a job full time, minimum wage and a title n- and a title and a nice little office, like this we could manipulate 'em...and ...the way that works is you use a stick with a fuckin' carrot and fight, give him a fuckin' carrot and we'll kick his ass, you know? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 75 Note that Madeleine concedes that while Bill told her the literacy tutors would be paid, she and the others never took those words seriously. She seems more accepting of empty promises than Teddy is. Also note that Teddy connects the perceived hypocrisy o f the Foundation leaders to racial prejudice and the general untrustworthy nature o f dominant society institutions (foundations, businesses with tax-write-off privileges, etc.). These larger consequences will be discussed in the concluding chapters. Consider also the following excerpt in which Teddy recounts a community press conference with sheriffs and representatives from other communities: (5) T: Well, you know, then...they had some people come out, you can see they're straight out prejudiced, they come out and says "Well, you're demanding an independent investigation on all these sheriffs, why don't you demand one on all these illegal aliens? M: Okay. T: Why don't you demand one on the border, huh? Why don’ t you demand one if and and and and and send them all back? You know...I looked at him and I said "You fuckin’ idiot, don't vou know where the real wetbacks came from?" I savs. I said "You're a wetback, you're an immigrant, vour greatgrandfather's an immigrant, there wouldn't be no America 'cause everybody from America is an immigrant, from Christopher Ca- when Christopher Columbus first discovered America...everybody on that bom was an immigrant." Teddy expresses his disgust at the hypocrisy of Americans who accuse others of being "illegal" just because their own ethnic origins are not so outwardly marked.9 Finally, the following excerpts, in which Teddy reports a recent confrontation with police officers, further illustrate his disdain for hypocrisy: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 76 ( 6 ) T: All right. I told 'em, number 2 , 1 said, number 2: How do you expect to be respected when you, when you guys walk up on somebody and say "Spread your fuckin' knees" or "Get on your fuckin' knees you stupid motherfucker." How do vou expect for us to talk to vou with respect if vou ain't showin' us no respect? * * * (7) T: "In fact" — I said, "In fact, you guys come out, what, and tell kids, and publicize "Stay off the streets, stay off, stay off a' gangs, stay off a' drugs and stay outta gangs," right? When yet, you guys are own, your own fuckin' gang. How can you tell my little brother and my nephew not to become a gang member, or not to sell drugs and then turn around and beat the fuck outta me in front a' everybody? You know what my nephew's gonna do? "Fuck you, fuck that cop, he beat my uncle's ass." "You guvs contradict yourself, vou guvs are full of shit." I told 'em. In Teddy's opinion, the police aren't to be trusted because they do not behave consistently. They do not treat people the way they expect to be treated or behave the way they expect others to behave. In these examples Teddy expresses his disapproval of what, to his community, is the hallmark of hypocrisy. 4.1.c. Positive vs. negative politeness Because one of the central linguistic claims of this study is that Anglos manipulate language (specifically through epistemic modal use) a great deal more for politeness than do the Lemon Grove speakers, it might seem that it is being argued that Lemon Grove residents are not polite, or at least are not concerned with politeness. This study certainly makes no such claims; the politeness strategies o f Lemon Grove residents are presumed to differ from those of Anglos and to emerge through a different constellation of linguistic means. This is an R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 77 important point to explore because "...politeness has to be communicated, and the absence o f communicated politeness may...be taken as absence of the polite attitude" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 5). If two cultures value and express politeness differently, the potential for misunderstanding is high (see, e. g., Scollon and Scollon 1981). The differences in politeness in the two communities may be best explained via Brown and Levinson's (1987) concept o f positive and negative politeness.1 0 Briefly explained, positive politeness "addresses the hearer's positive face" (Scollon and Scollon 1981: 173); that is, "the desire to be approved of' (Brown and Levinson 1987: 13). Negative politeness, in contrast, "is addressed to the hearer's negative face, that is, his right to independence of activity and autonomy in relation to the relevant social sphere" (Scollon and Scollon 1981: 174).1 1 For the educated, middle-class Anglos in this study, negative politeness is clearly important; indeed, "...English-speaking academic speech communities tend to constitute "negative-politeness cultures" (Brown and Levinson 1978: 250), with a consequent fascination for devices which attenuate negatively affective speech acts" (Holmes 1984: 348).1 2 In contrast, for Lemon Grove residents, the preservation of positive face seems to emerge as relatively more important. Consider, for example, the passage above in which Lucky wishes to criticize Marisol openly at the meeting. It continues as follows: (8) L: So that girl, she don't really care about us. or what's going on C: //Yeah R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 78 L: in the gym, or the kids or anything, she just wants her money C: //Yeah //Yeah //Yeah L: Now that it's there. M: If they're gonna pay someone, they might as well pay someone who lives down here, you know, that's gonna be right in the community. C: Yeah. There are wavs of saving that, though, without like putting yourself directly into the conflict, you know saying things like, it seems to me L: //That's right, I know. That's why I wanna learn how to talk the wav, vou know, without, um. hurting somebody's feelings C: //Yeah L: Saying things the wrong way C: //Yeah, it's a hard, it's a hard thing, 'cause I know I tend to, I tend to just say what's on my mind and I tend to antagonize people that way. M: Yep. C: And I've been practicing L: //But I've been quiet too long. I've been quiet too long. Lucky, like Crystal, sees the value of not criticizing Marisol too harshly at the meeting. But for her, the reason is to avoid "hurting people's feelings" (thus maintaining positive face), while for Crystal, the important goal is not to "put yourself directly into the conflict" (thus maintaining negative face). In other words, Lucky emphasizes being nice to others, which results in solidarity— while Crystal emphasizes deference— in this case, diplomacy— as a way to get what one wants (here, Marisol's dismissal) without unwanted repercussions. This apparent R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 79 concern with positive face is supported by one of Lucky's major criticisms of Marisol— that she does not care about other community members, and only wants her money. In other words, Marisol (according to Lucky) does not care about solidarity relations with the community (which would preserve positive face) but just wants to do what benefits her (preserving negative face). It seems that not following the positive-politeness norms leads to disapproval in this community.1 3 The following example illustrates the same point. Here, Lucky relates stories of her boyfriend Jaime's alleged infidelity, stating that she intends to pretend that she herself has witnessed him with another woman to avoid involving her friends in the conflict. (9) L: That uhm...that they didn't know, that there's a lot of people that seen him with her, they don't know who she is but they know that she has...red, long hair and that and that they know me but they don't want to tell me because that I'm a very nice person and they don't want me to get hurt, that M: //Was she the one who was in the weight room that time? L: Yeah. M: Okay. L: //That they don't want to get that they don't want to hurt me. umm M: //Where have they seen 'em? L: I don't know, that's why I want all of them to come and 11 want them to tell me, one person only told me this, but I want all the other ones to come and tell me so that way when I DO tell him, when I DO confront him, I want to tell him that I seen him and what times and what days and stuff, so I won't get anybody involved and uhm and I and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 80 M: //Mm HMM C: //Mm hmm C: //This is like if vou said vou were there witnessing it yourself it carries a lot more weight than if it was a third party, doesn't it? M: //Or he-said-she-said C: Mm hmm. This passage demonstrates that concern for others' feelings is high priority for the Lemon Grove residents. Lucky's friends don't want to hurt her feelings, and she doesn't want to get them in trouble for giving her details on Jaime's philandering. Note that the Anglo participants misinterpret Lucky's desire to keep the matter between her and Jaime, assuming instead that she is planning to present her evidence as more reliable when she makes an accusation. The view of evidence as manipulable implicitly expressed here is consistent with the Anglo tendency to raise or lower the evidential weight of their own statements relatively freely when compared to Lemon Grove speakers, a matter which will be explored through linguistic analysis in Chapters Five and Six and explained in sociocultural context in Chapter Seven. Another example o f Lemon Grove residents expressing concern with positive face is found in the following exchange between Teddy and Madeleine: (10) T: Eh, I wouldn't, hev. Madeleine. I'd never do anything to hurt vou. man, not vou and Crystal M: //I know R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 81 T: //Maybe Jonathan, and maybe Jonathan and Kevin M: //(laughs) Maybe Jonathan and Kevin, right T: //But not you and Crystal, you know what I mean? Here, Teddy communicates positive politeness in two ways. First, he "claim[s] in-group membership" with Madeleine and Crystal (by stating that he might hurt other tutors but not them). By claiming an ingroup relationship, he "exaggerate^] his relationship" with Madeleine and Crystal, and further emphasizes his point with "Eh," "hey," and the intensifiers (Labov 1984) "never" and "anything" (Brown and Levinson 1978: 107 cited in Scollon and Scollon 1981:173). 4.2. Anglo middle-class values as instantiated in conversational content As discussed in Chapter Two, little sociolinguistic research has been done on the Anglo-American middle class, who have been considered the "unmarked" group. Thus, there is little sociolinguistic literature upon which to base claims about Anglo, middle-class values regarding truth vs. hypocrisy and the importance of consistency in talk and behavior. However, the examples above provide compelling evidence for values which diverge from those present in Lemon Grove. For instance, Example 1 in section 4.1.a., above, continues as follows: C: Yeah. One thing when vou talk to Bill, it's, it's I think a real good idea to be real diplomatic. thoueh...instead of iust cornin’ right out and saving "I don't want M here, 'cause all she's gonna do is sit on her fat ass." 'cause that automatically sets it up as an an-vou're antagonizing. L: I know, but see, nobody wants her here. (11) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 82 C: You could just say M: //You could say that C: //You could just sav vou know, that. "It appears to be the case that.. .that several, several . Ciystal is cut off before she finishes her suggestion. However, there is a striking contrast between Ciytal's conception of the purpose of Lucky speaking out at the meeting and Lucky's own purpose. Crystal focusses on the meta-message— that Lucky might be seen as "antagonizing"— while Lucky focusses on the message itself— that is, the truth value of what she has to say. This serves as evidence that the Anglo participants feel freer to hedge the content of a statement for the sake of the meta-message that might be conveyed. Also consider the second example in section 4.1.b., above: (12) C: And at least Bill. I think Bill is a somewhat more sympathetic ear, but still. I don't know...sometimes I get the impression that he doesn't really care what happens with, like, the literacy program and stuff L: //I feel the same way C: //Because you know, we submitted that list of books to him a long time ago, and nothing ever came of it— nothing. M: Well, he's a big talker. I mean I think he has good intentions but I know that L: //Yeah. but vou better put those to action C: //Exactly R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 83 In this example, both Crystal and Madeleine excuse Bill's failure to live up to his promises. Crystal prefaces her criticism with the hedged positive statement that she "thinks" that "Bill is a somewhat more sympathetic ear," and will only criticize him tentatively: She "sometimes gets the impression" that he doesn't "really" care. Similarly, Madeleine hedges what probably would have been a critical comment had she not been interrupted, stating "I think he has good intentions, but...." Both are more willing to forgive unkept verbal promises than Lucky, who says very directly that "You better put those to action." The Anglos' relatively lower expectations for promises are illustrated even more clearly in this example, also discussed above in section 4.1 .b.: (13) T: You guys are supposed to get printouts, deskes, a little classroom-type thing. Where is it all? You know? Bill gets mad 'cause we don't answer his phone calls, how about when he didn't answer ours? M: Right. See, we never thought we were going to get paid, he told us we were, but we never thought we really were, but we thought you guys would have enough money to operate the foundation Madeleine freely admits that though Bill had told the tutors they were going to be paid, they "never thought [they] really were." This provides yet more evidence that truth is manipulable, and that Anglos accept such manipulation when acting as either speakers or hearers. The point which emerges from this content analysis is that the middle-class Anglos in this study seem to have a tacit understanding of a buffer zone, which is subject to speaker finesse, between the actual content of a statement and the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 84 meta-message it might convey. They perceive this buffer zone as operating in their own utterances as well as in those they hear from others. For example, they feel it is appropriate to use distancing and deference (hence downgrading the "truth") to minimize the impoliteness o f a statement if such impoliteness might result in negative consequences to the speaker. Similarly, they expect others to hedge the truth for personal reasons; for example, they expect Bill Getty to make empty promises and are not overly upset when he fails to live up to them. To put it simply and broadly, there seems to be a certain amount o f agreed-upon leeway for "saying what you don't mean." Indeed, the linguistic analysis of epistemic modals, details of which are given in Chapters Five through Eight, strongly supports this hypothesis.1 4 Regarding politeness, an adequate discussion of Anglos' seeming preference for negative politeness is given above in secion 4.I.e. This will be demonstrated in the analysis o f epistemic modals which follows, and it will be analyzed with respect to sociocultural context in Chapter Seven. 4.3. The choice to focus on epistemic modals in this study The above analysis demonstrates that different attitudes toward truth, hypocrisy, evidence, and politeness produce a contrast in the content of the speech of Lemon Grove residents vs. that of the Anglo participants. Hence, the question became how best to examine this contrast linguistically. As discussed in Chapter Two, epistemic modals are inherently interwoven with issues of power and social relations; this more focussed look at the data indicated that the analysis of such R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 85 modals would speak directly to the more specific issues of truth, hypocrisy, the manipulation of evidence, and politeness. 4.4. Comments on the data analysis which follows In Chapter Five, the analysis of epistemic modal auxiliaries will be undertaken, and their relationship with epistemological issues will be elucidated. The chapter will begin with grammatical background on the modals and a rationale for the specific modals chosen, after which the quantitative analysis will be conducted. Each modal function will be described and its instances counted; in the case of qualitative or quantitative differences between Anglo speaker use and Lemon Grove speaker use, explanations will be proposed. Such explanations will be further developed in a comprehensive discussion of the data in Chapter Seven. Notes for Chapter Four: 'It should be recalled that such terms as "truth" and "hypocrisy" are recognized to be relative; however, it seems impossible to find neutral terms, and these seemed the best terms through which to encapsulate the prevailing epistemology of Lemon Grove (see Chapter One). 2 As stated in Chapter Three, I refer to speakers by their first initials and clarify their identities in text, unless there are two speakers with the same first initial, in which case I give the second letter of their first names as well. The participants' names are as follows (descriptions are found in Chapter Three): Lemon Grove: Teddy, Lucky, Lester, Lisa, Inez, Jaime, Ellen, Alice, Jenny, and miscellaneous children and adults who appear for one or two lines of talk. Anglo: Madeleine, Crystal, and Legal Aid representative (designated by LA). 3 For an extended passage from this transcript, see Appendix C. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 6 4 Bill, the maker of empty promises, is not Anglo but Black. This analysis does not include an examination of Bill's actual language or the values of the Black community in the housing project where he grew up; however, it could be proposed that Bill, having graduated from a prestigious university with a largely wealthy student body, has internalized the language/value norms of the dominant society. This is a subject of mere speculation. 5 For an extended passage from this transcript, see Appendix C. ‘ There is evidence that while Chicanos do tell the truth in words, they prefer to show it through actions which others may observe and from which others may draw their own conclusions. For example, Marianne Diaz-Parton, a Chicana gang- member/ex-convict currently working for Community Youth Gang Services, was featured on a recent Jerry Springer talk show (December 1, 1994) with girl gangsters from Los Angeles. When Springer asked her what she told the girls to convince them to get out of gangs, she replied, "I try to show them by my actions, not by words." This can be explained by the "truth epistemology" for which I argue here. Sensory evidence (seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting) is seen as highly evidentially reliable (Chafe 1985; 1986). Thus, performing actions which others could then perceive through the highly reliable mode of sensory perception might be seen as providing the ultimate "truth" with no potential for misunderstanding. 7 For an extended passage from this transcript, see Appendix C. 8 Teddy pronounces the word "desks" with two syllables so that it sounds like "deskes." This seems to be the result of the reduction of word-final consonant clusters found in the variety of English spoken in this community: Residents pronounce "tests" as "tesses," for example, like some speakers of Black English Vernacular. Here, it seems that Teddy has standardized the consonant cluster reduction (by pronouncing the "k") but has not reduced the word to the standard norm of one syllable. This is indicative of his status between the Lemon Grove Discourse and that of the mainstream society. 9 As discussed in Chapter Three, in the U.S. Census tract encompassing Lemon Grove, 47% of residents were bom in the United States or U.S. territories, which means they have legal residency status. Still more residents bom outside the U.S. are likely now to be legal residents or naturalized citizens, in view of the large numbers of illegals who gained legal status via the 1987 Amnesty program. Thus the stereotype of "illegal alien" is unfounded for a good proportion of this population. McDonnell reports that fewer than 20% of Latino immigrants in Los Angeles are there illegally (1994: B3). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 87 1 0 It is recognized that using the terms "positive" and "negative" to describe politeness may seem to some counter-intuitive and/or cumbersome. Tannen states that "one problem with the terms positive and negative is the possible and certainly unintended value judgments associated with them" (1984: 15). However, as these terms have been well established in the literature in some of the best- known studies on politeness, I prefer not to create potentially confusing alternative terms. Furthermore, some alternative terms which have been created (such as Scollon and Scollon's terms "solidarity" and "deference" politeness) prove to be less than explanatorily adequate. The original terms will be used here. "Tannen states that negative politeness has been said to be "the strategy o f choice of those in a position of powerlessness" (1984: 15). With respect to this study's data, I strongly disagree; in contrast, negative politeness is shown to instantiate power (see Chapters Seven and Eight). 1 2 Scollon and Scollon (1981) report that Brown and Levinson (1978) have characterized the Western U.S. as a positive-politeness system. However, the literature does not necessarily agree on this point, and I argue that as the Anglo participants are members of the English-speaking academic speech community conducting academic work, they may be more predisposed toward negative politeness. In any case, the point here is not to categorize groups of speakers' overall politeness systems based on previous findings; rather, it is to characterize politeness strategies based on the data at hand. 1 3 Marisol is reportedly Filipina. An apparent native speaker of English, she could pass for a second-generation Latina, speaks Spanish and exhibits in many ways a Latina identity. However, a number of community members, aside from just Lucky, dislike her intensely. Perhaps their perception of these politeness issues plays a role in this ill feeling. 1 4 Kaplan (1990) cites Eggington's (1990) summary of the differences between oral- culture and literate-culture power values. For example, he reports that "power discourse is written by those representating power institutions. Institutions make decisions, not individuals" (1990: 87). The importance of the institution to mainstream, Anglo culture is discussed in Chapter Seven. Furthermore, in literate cultures, the spoken word is not as carefully articulated as the written word. It is not the final message. It does not need to have a high perceived truth value. The truth value of an utterance exists only when the message is written and the written version is subjected to scrutiny....The only verifiable truth lies in the written text. (Kaplan 1990: 87) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 8 Thus, with respect to "power language," it appears that the Anglo participants in this study are operating more from the perspective of a literate culture, whereas the Chicano participants are operating more from the perspective o f an oral culture. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 89 CHAPTER FIVE: DATA PRESENTATION: "TRUE" MODALS Through a content analysis of the data, evidence was presented in the previous chapter that divergent epistemologies are held by Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo visitors to the community. In this chapter, such epistemologies as instantiated through the use of epistemic modal auxiliaries will be examined. The chapter begins with a discussion of modality. 5.1. Modality: Background Halliday explains that "modality refers to the area of meaning that lies between yes and no— the intermediate ground between positive and negative polerity [sic]" (1985: 335). In philosophical semantics (Halliday 1985), modals are classified as either "epistemic" or "root." "Root" modals include the "deontic" (Huddleston 1988) modals of "volition, permission and obligation" (McCarthy 1991: 84); Warner gives the example of a music teacher saying "You must play this ten times over" (1993: 15). The other type of "root" modals, called "dynamic," evaluate "the occurrence o f events or the existence of states of affairs as necessary, important, advisable, possible, desirable, etc. within a circumstantial frame of reference;" for example, "Clay pots must have some protection from severe weather" (Warner 1993: 15). Epistemic modals, those studied here, "make judgments about the possibility, etc. that something is or is not the case" (Palmer 1979: 50), involving "a statement of the speaker's attitude towards the status of the truth of a R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 90 proposition." For example, the expressions I think and I know express epistemic modality in that they index speakers' relative certainty about the contents of their utterances. As discussed in the previous chapter, observation and a content analysis of the data led to a theory of epistemological differences between Lemon Grove and the (predominantly) white, middle-class, educated community concerning the values surrounding truth and attitudes toward it. It was thus hypothesized that these value differences would play out through precisely those linguistic items which index speakers' attitudes toward truth. However, epistemic modals do more than that: They "also serve to express aspects of affective or communicative meaning in a variety of different social situations" (Holmes 1982: 11). By using epistemic modals, speakers can "qualify their commitment to assertions, soften and hedge their judgements and orders, boost and strengthen the expression of their feelings...." An epistemic modal may "function affectively as a politeness device" (Holmes 1988: 21). Lakoff highlights this function of hedges, which may not indicate a speaker's actual uncertainty: "There is another justifiable use in which the hedge mitigates the possible unfriendliness or unkindness of a statement— that is, where it's used for the sake of politeness" (1975: 54). Fraser defines such mitigation as "a strategy for softening or reducing the strength of a speech act whose effects are unwelcome to the hearer" (1980: 342, cited in Holmes 1984: 345). Epistemic modals’ are used when "we may want to be polite or tactful, or to indicate our feelings about what we are saying" (Collins COBUILD 1990: 217).2 For example, Collins R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 91 COBUILD explain that "it would normally be rude to say to a stranger, 'Open the door'....Normally, you would say to a stranger, 'Will you open the door?', 'Would you open the door?', or 'Could you open the door?', depending on how polite you want to be" (1990: 218).3 This "polite" use o f epistemic modals is tacitly presented throughout the literature as universal among English speakers and independent of culture.4 However, as Gumperz states in his introduction to Brown and Levinson's (1987) revised work, "what counts as polite may differ from group to group, from situation to situation, or from individual to individual" (1987: xiii; emphasis added). This notion of community-based differences in politeness indicates that community value systems may dictate how, and by what means, politeness may be conveyed. Because the use of epistemic modals for non-epistemic meanings necessarily obscures the speaker's true beliefs, such use could conceivably be seen as "hypocritical." Hence, it was hypothesized that Lemon Grove speakers, who express a preference for telling the truth and seem unwilling to manipulate language to obscure their feelings about truth, would not exhibit these "polite" uses of epistemic modals. Here was yet another reason to choose epistemic modals as a window into the community-based value systems which interact with language use which, in turn, influences the relative effectiveness of communication between the two communities studied. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 92 5.2. Modals selected for study What have been traditionally considered "true" modals, often called "modal auxiliaries," are actually a subset of epistemic modals. According to Chafe (1985), the modals may and might are evidentials. Both of these modals express weak possibility: Some grammarians contend that might is weaker than may (e. g., Pollock 1982), while others point to a mere difference in formality (e. g., Collins COBUILD 1992). Clearly, epistemic modals such as can, could, should, will and must should also be included as evidentials. Can and could express strong theoretical possibility (Quirk et al. 1985)5 whereas shoidd indicates expectation that an event will occur (Collins COBUILD 1990; Pollock 1982) with near certainty (Jespersen 1964). While will is often thought of as simple future (Jespersen 1964 discusses this then-emerging use), its use indicates speaker certainty— Collins COBUILD state that "you use 'will' when you are assuming that something is the case, and you do not have any reason to doubt it" (1990: 223).6 According to Holmes, these modal verbs are some of the most frequent "devices for signalling degrees of certainty" along with "expressions involving lexical verbs, such as I think" and "adverbials such as...probably..." (1982: 17), all of which are included in this study. Because modal verbs serve as the prototype of epistemic modals, they are examined first. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 93 5.3. Definitions of usage and examples7 5.3.a. Might 5.3.a.l. Might: Possibility According to Collins COBUILD, "might and may are used mainly to talk about possibility (1992: 399). Examples o f this use follow: (1) Lemon Grove: T: ...Like Jaime told like Jaime told like Jaime say said earlier today, if the pro if the program goes, hey, I'm still going to work here. I'm still going to volunteer for the kids. I might not be the Foundation, or hey, it might not be a commitment like there is now, but I'm still going to be coaching the football team or baseball team, I'm still going to come around and help Hugo out, I'm still going to try to raise monies, you know what I mean? (2) Anglo: L: I don't know, they told, they said I don't know how...that person that told me said that there's a lot of people mad with Jaime for doing what he's doing to me, um...they just don't know how to come up and tell me. C: Kevin might, Kevin might know, Kevin Miller. He might know. L: You think so? C: Yeah, he might. This use— strict possibility without any overtones of hedging or politeness— seems to be qualitatively and quantitatively indistinguishable in the two communities. Lemon Grove: 10.10/20,000 words Anglo: 14.92/20,000 words 5.3.a.2. Might: Polite hedges Collins COBUILD further state that "might is often used in polite suggestions. You might like to comment on his latest proposal. I think it might R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 94 be a good idea to stop the recording now" (1992: 399). Though this definition is useful and examples are found in the data, I find it necessary to expand it, as might is sometimes used for politeness in other forms besides suggestions. This use of might for polite hedges was not found in Lemon Grove speech. Anglo examples follow: (3) Anglo: C: This person that told you, do you think that they might be doing it just to get back at him for something? L: Hmmm, I would, I thought about that. C: Like they might have an ulterior motive and not your best interest in mind? L: I I thought about that, uh...I've I've been following it too closely. Here, Crystal uses the tentative might because to question the motivations of Lucky's friends is potentially offensive to Lucky. As discussed below, such tentative hedges are often used when the speaker has information which may be unwelcome to the hearer. This is similar to Tsui's (1991) category of I don't know used for "Minimization of Impolite Beliefs" (see Chapter Six). This use accomplishes negative politeness because it increases the hearer's options. By bringing up the possibility that Lucky's friends might have "an ulterior motive," Crystal invites Lucky to criticize her friends, putting Lucky in the position of committing an impolite act herself. By hedging with might, however, Crystal gives Lucky the option of also responding tentatively, thereby minimizing her own impoliteness. Leech's (1983) Tact Maxim seems to be R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 95 making a contribution here as well. He explains that the Tact Maxim not only applies to the speaker's utterance: It also includes not putting the hearer in a position to break the maxim. Thus, by allowing Lucky the freedom to respond tentatively (via negative politeness), Crystal also uses tact in not forcing Lucky to be tactless herself. As stated above, the use of might for polite hedges was not found in Lemon Grove speech. This is consistent with the hypothesis that Lemon Grove residents would not exhibit such manipulations of evidentials for reasons other than expressing genuine evidential weight. This will be discussed in more detail presently. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 8.77/20,000 words 5.3.a.3. Might: Self-protective hedges Another type of hedge found only in Anglo speech was what I have called the self-protective hedge. On the continuum of politeness, this type falls closer to protecting the speaker's interests than the hearer's, though it does both. The speaker is polite to protect the feelings of the hearer while maintaining his/her own credibility: This use may be classified as maintaining one’ s own negative face. It seems to occur when the Anglo speakers wish to give information for which they don't want to be held entirely accountable. For example, consider the following (Madeleine has been helping Lucky write her resume; Ellen has just asked if Madeleine "finds people jobs"): R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 6 (4) Anglo: M: Uhm, I don't really find jobs for people, what we're supposed to be doing is tutoring people in literacy so it can be anything from learning how to read, to studying for a G.E.D., to just improving your reading, to helping fill out job applications, or anything...so we decided to do this today, I made Lucky do it! Yeah, I'm not I'm not like any kind of job consultant but I can help people learn how to present themselves in a way that they might get a job. Here, Madeleine has been asked if she "finds people jobs." To avoid raising false hopes in Lucky and Ellen, she explains rather lengthily that she only prepares people so they might get one.8 Note the other markers of tentativeness expressed by negatives plus intensifiers (Labov 1984) such as "I don't really," "...any kind of job consultant": These reinforce the hedge. Other examples of self-protective hedges follow: (5) Anglo: C: Yeah, you might even meet some people from the gang program, 'cause the gang program usually come to this 'cause it's adult literacy and you're an adult, and we do literacy with you, so I thought it would be cool to have you come talk. Here, Crystal is trying to convince Lucky to speak at an upcoming conference. She hesitates to promise too much, however, and indicates that Lucky only might meet people from the gang program. The general "hedge mood" is reinforced by usually and I thought. A final example of a self-protective hedge follows: (6) Anglo: M: Do control KD. No, you have to go like that C: //Do it simultaneously? M: Yeah. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 7 C: Okay. M: It might get you out into another menu and then you can exit. C: Okay, cool. M: Hopefully it'll give you that, wait a minute, is it showing the menu at the top? In this example, Madeleine is giving Crystal instructions about the computer. Despite her position as a relative expert here, she does not want to promise too much; that is, that her instructions will achieve the desired results. Thus, she uses the hedge might, which is reinforced by hopefully,9 Also consider the following: (7) Anglo: M: ...I'm just doing my paper and I don't need to be writing any opening remarks, I said I'll get up and introduce myself and stuff, do that, 'cause I can't deal with it at the moment. C: Yeah. Although it'd be kind of cool if you could maybe say some stuff about Lemon Grove. M: I might be able to. C: We should work it out. M: I don't know, Crys, my paper's due two days after that and I'll be doin' that the whole day, so I don't know if I can work anything else out. This example is replete with evidentials and other hedges used for politeness, some of which are discussed below (i. e., I don't know and maybe). Madeleine says that she might be able to speak about Lemon Grove at the conference to avoid an outright refusal. This is similar to Tsui's (1991) category of I don't know used for "Avoiding Commitment" (see Chapter Six). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 98 It is not surprising that this use, albeit rare in Anglo speech, was not exhibited by Lemon Grove speakers at all. This use, once again, calls upon an evidential to serve as something other than an evidential, a type of language function which Lemon Grove residents generally do not use. Although this function does preserve the speaker's negative face, the politeness expressed to the hearer is positive. While unable to make firm commitments, the Anglo speakers still tentatively indicate that they are aware of the hearers' wants and are "taking them into account" (Brown and Levinson 1978: 107 cited in Scollon and Scollon 1981). Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 3.11/20,000 words 5.3.b. May 5.3.b.l. May: Possibility May, like might, prototypically indicates possibility (Collins COBUILD 1992), but can also be used for politeness. It was much less frequent in the data than might, perhaps due to the nuance of formality it carries. The possibility function was found only among three speakers: Two Anglo participants and one Lemon Grove resident. Examples follow: (8) Lemon Grove: (Teddy and Madeleine are discussing a letter being typed on the computer) T: But it's too low, huh. M: I think so. I think you better print one more to be professional, and we won't put it down so far. T: We may have to scoot this all over again. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 9 (9) Anglo: (Also working on computer files) C: Okay. Control Z. That gets us down. Let's try report again. He may have erased it off of here. M: He may have stored it on a disk, but I'm not sure he knows how. No qualitative or significant quantitative differences were found between the two groups. Kaplan (personal communication) speculates that the propensity of mainstream American elementary school teachers to perform endless drills on the difference between can and may has led to general avoidance of the modal, which would explain its rarity of appearance in these data.1 0 Lemon Grove: .78/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 5.3.h.2. May: Polite Hedge The use of may as a polite hedge occurred only once, in Anglo speech: (10) Anglo: C: The way, the way you can say all that without actually naming her name, saying anything, is that you can say you know that it seems to be the general feeling here in the center that certain people who are wanting to be, you know, director, may not be the most appropriate candidates, because general feeling is against it, without having to say "I don't like her," "She done me wrong,"1 1 you know, that kind of stuff. Here, Crystal is instructing Lucky on how to be diplomatic in an upcoming meeting. She instructs her to hedge with may not when arguing against a certain candidate for a job. This is similar to the use of might as a polite hedge to soften potentially unwelcome information; however, it is possible that Crystal uses may to express the nuance of formality which would be appropriate in the context of a meeting. The politeness that Crystal suggests is negative, as it "dissociate[s] R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 100 S[peaker], H[earer] from the particular infringement" (Brown and Levinson 1978: 136 cited in Scollon and Scollon 1981: 174); in other words, Crystal suggests that Lucky dissociate herself from the potentially offensive comment about Marisol by using the tentative may rather than the more evidentially reliable (and hence more direct) verb to be. Though it only occurred once, this is a noteworthy example because, not only does the Anglo speaker use the polite may, but she also prescribes it for the Lemon Grove speaker's use. This is perhaps the most explicit example of an Anglo acknowledging (albeit, perhaps, unconsciously) a Lemon Grove resident's failure to use this type of politeness. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: .88/20,000 words 5.3.c. Could Could, like can, is prototypically "used to talk about...the possibility of something being the case" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 115). It is different from can in that it conveys conditionality. It can also be used for "requests, offers, and suggestions" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 402-3). In these data it was used for polite requests, suggestions, permission and ability. Possibility will be considered first. 5.3.C.I. Could: Possibility Examples of this use follow: (11) Lemon Grove: C: ...it's gonna be hard for you to do much of anything without a G.E.D. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 0 1 L: Well, that's why I'm go- gonna go to school right there to the occupation center. M: How are you gonna make money? L: Hmm? They could put me in a job training. (12) Anglo: M: Did you tell him I called? L: Yeah. M: Yeah, I'm gonna call him and see what's see what's up. This could be it. No, maybe not. C: I don't know which one it is. Now you're learning Wordstar. Okay, goddamn it, I don't know which one it is. M: It could be like...w' i' well, it's not report. Who is it addressed to? Is it addressed to G? Numbers were too small to claim significant qualitative or quantitative differences between the two groups' use. Both groups seem to use this function to express possibility without overtones of politeness. Lemon Grove: 3.88/20,000 words Anglo: 6.14/20,000 words 5.3.C.2. Could: Polite requests This use is negatively polite in that it asks about conditional ability when what is really being assessed is the addressee's willingness to do what the speaker requests. This infrequent function occurred only among Anglo speakers: (13) Anglo: C: Which assignment is that? Is that one you developed? Is- could could you get a copy o f that to me for the Diversity Project? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 102 Though the number o f occurrences of this form is too small to be conclusive, it is interesting that the Lemon Grove residents did not use this form at all. Once again, among Lemon Grove speakers, evidentials are not used for purposes other than indicating evidential weight, whereas they are used among Anglos, generally for negative politeness. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 5.3.C.3. Could: Advice to others Here, the most common use by far was in advice to others, such as you could. However, suggestions such as we could or I could were also found. Differences in quantitative use among the two groups were striking here. Consider the following examples: (14) Lemon Grove (Lucky, speaking to Ellen): L: Ellen, if you look in the ads you could even be a h- a housekeeper and you can live with the people 'cause you don't even have no kids, they give you your room and board and everything and pay you. (15) Anglo: C: Hey, they have they have numbers here, la discriminacion in work illegal, you can claim discrimination right here M: Yeah, you could C: //You could call one of these numbers here, Office of Special Counsel, Department of Justice here, they've got 800 numbers, they've got Los Ang- s- Southern California number for employees who feel they've been discriminated against (inaudible) M: //I think you should call those numbers R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 103 (16) (Lucky, discussing a confrontation) L: And then after she goes, "You want to start shit? You want to get like get Jaime in trouble?" I said, "Yeah, 'cause I am going to tell him at the right time I am going to tell him, what does he think he is, saying that I'm not worth six fifty? (laughs) M: (laughs) That's pretty bad. Well, we still could do a resume for you so you could just have it in writing, in a really good...way just to hand to him to show him what you're worth...Teddy says he wants to do something about him...too. Despite the quantitative difference between the two groups, qualitative usage did not differ. In both groups, could is used to make suggestions. Using this conditional evidential for suggestions is negatively polite in that it leaves the possibility open for the addressee to refuse, based either on inability or on the implied condition, thereby preserving his or her freedom of decision-making. It is not surprising, then, that this polite use is not frequent in Lemon Grove speech.1 2 The implications of the great quantitative differences between the two groups' uses of this function are discussed in Chapter Seven. Lemon Grove: 3.11/20,000 words Anglo: 37.73/20,000 words 5.3.C.4. Could: Permission This use appears to be similar both qualitatively and quantitatively in the two groups:1 3 (17) Lemon Grove (Lucky discussing troubles with Jaime): L: Yeah, like Jaime tells me to, "You should just find yourself another job" too. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 104 M: He just, he just wants you out of here so he could just run this place (laughs). C: //(inaudible) L: He could have this place, after I get my G.E.D. I will look for another place...get me a better job, maybe. * * * (18) (Two children are requesting crayons from Lisa) Ch: Could we have cray- crayons? L: (to another) In what table? C: Crayons? L, C and Children: (inaudible overlap) L: Okay, lemme show, lemme show you what I have, okay? Ch: Could you give me the ball? (19) Anglo: C: You don't want to get up there and say things, like, you know, talk about how we work with you on the computer and and resume and stuff? L: //And say (sings) I want to be free, free to know the things I do are right? (laughs) C: //Sure, you could say that. You can say that, that's part of you that's all part of Lucky.1 4 In the first Lemon Grove example, Lucky gives Jaime permission to "have" the Lemon Grove gym. In the second, the children ask permission to have crayons. The last utterance by the child contains an instance of could which is not for permission, but a polite request. In the Anglo example, Crystal grants Lucky permission to sing her song at the upcoming conference. The power differential R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 105 inherent in granting permission is reinforced by the fact that she interrupts Lucky to grant the permission, thereby assuming a dominant role in the interaction. Lemon Grove: 3.11/20,000 words Anglo: 3.52/20,000 words S.3.C.5. Could: Ability This use was qualitatively similar in the two groups, but quantitatively quite different. This difference may be explained by the fact that Lemon Grove residents tend to use the Black English/Chicano English could in many places where speakers of Standard American English would use can (see Note 4). Though Lemon Grove residents used the Ability function of could more often than the Anglos, the Anglos used the Ability can more (see below), so the totals even out quite remarkably.1 5 Examples follow: (20) Lemon Grove (Lucky discusses a deaf girl she used to care for): L: She did a lot o f harm to herself, she hurt herself real bad. M: That's really sad. L: And, and I I was young, too, and I was, man I know I could help her, 'cause I always used to try to talk to her and show her (laughs). (21) (Ellen and Lucky discuss Lucky's resume): E: She's trying to get you another job besides this one or what, Lucky? L: No, that's that's my resume showing those assholes that I have skills, that I could do shit. (22) Anglo: M: This was a Chinese guy, I took a singing class and he's trying to sing, he had a decent voice but he just had a really thick accent and he didn't R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 106 understand Scar- Scarborough Fair, so he'd go "Paw-se-ley, rose-a-mary and...", he couldn't say it. Note that in the Anglo example, Madeleine uses couldn't to indicate past ability, whereas Lucky says "I could do shit" to mean present ability. Lemon Grove: 43.50/20,000 words Anglo: 15.79/20,000 words 5*3»d« C>3n The prototypical use of can indicates "the possibility of something being the case" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 115). Additional uses include polite requests, ability, permission, and suggestions. The use that is most often cited in the literature but, in fact, was one of the least frequently occurring in the data, will be considered first: Possibility. 5.3.d.l. Can: Possibility This use was rare in Anglo speech and nonexistent in Lemon Grove speech. Consider the following Anglo example: (23) Anglo: M: W- d-, you think you'd want to go do that, work in construction? You can make a lot of money. A lot of times they only let women sit there and hold the sign, you make like fifteen bucks an hour. Numbers are too small here to draw conclusions about these use patterns; however, as this use of can is a true evidential, rather than a polite use, there is no reason to believe that Lemon Grove speakers would use it any differently from the Anglo speakers. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 3.51/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 107 5.3.d.2. Can: Polite request This function, rare in these data, is similar to the polite request function of could, above. It too is negatively polite in that it asks about ability rather than willingness, giving the hearer the opportunity to refuse on those grounds. Walker gives the following example: (1) Can I ask you the extent of your formal education? (1987: 60). She states that conversants understand that such a question has little to do with either the speaker's ability to ask, or with the hearer's granting of permission to the speaker to ask. What is being sought is, of course, information about education.... (1987: 60) It was only used twice, by the same speaker (Teddy1 6 ) and in the same utterance, in Lemon Grove, while it was not used at all among the Anglos. The example follows: (24) T: Can you please keep it down? Can you please keep it down? It seems that both groups are more likely to use the more deferential could for polite requests. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words Anglo: 0/20,000 words. 5.3.d.3. Can: Ability As stated above, can is often used to indicate present ability (Pollock 1982). There are numerous examples from both groups, such as the following: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 108 (25) Lemon Grove (Teddy and Lisa discussing gang violence in the neighborhood): T: You know you know these guys have been real patient, Lisa, it's the seventh time they've shot at the barrio. C: Now they're starting to get pissed off? T: Nobody can hold 'em back now. (26) Anglo (Madeleine, Crystal, and Lucky writing Lucky's resume): L: My writing's my writing's no good, you write it (laughs). M: So's ours. C: So's ours, that's why we're gonna do it on the computer, eventually. M: As long as I can read it. Though quantitative differences between the two groups' use exist, these can be explained by the Lemon Grove residents' tendency to use the alternative Chicano English could to mean present ability (see above). Lemon Grove: 44.28/20,000 words Anglo: 60.54/20,000 words 5.3.d.4. Can: Permission Like could, can is sometimes used to ask or grant permission. The following are examples from both groups: (27) Lemon Grove (Madeleine and Teddy discuss business letter format): T: (laughs) Nah, bullshit, eh!...Can I do this? M: You could if you want.1 7 T: Even though it's not really professional. M: It's okay. Why did you want to split that up? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 109 (28) Anglo (Madeleine asks for one of Teddy's new business cards): M: ...What is this? Can I have one? T: Yeah! M: Okay. Cool! Though Anglos used this function more than Lemon Grove speakers, the numbers are too small to be conclusive. Furthermore, some Anglo uses were mere functions of the speech situations (e. g., Madeleine granting herself permission to write something on Lucky's resume: "So I can say you were eventually promoted to supervisor..."). With such small numbers, even one conversational topic can produce quantitative differences. Lemon Grove: 4.66/20,000 words Anglo: 7.02/20,000 words 5.3.d.5. C an: Suggestion Like could, can can be used for suggestions; however, it seems less tentative (and therefore less polite) as the conditional nuance of could is not present (Leech 1983). This function is polite because it credits the hearer with ability in the same way that you know credits the hearer with knowledge. Furthermore, it expresses negative politeness in that it tells the speaker what s/he is able to do, but does not presume to suggest outright that s/he actually do it. The following are among the examples found: (29) Lemon Grove (Lucky and Ellen): L: Ellen, if you look in the ads you could even be a h- a housekeeper and you can live with the people 'cause you don't even have no kids, they give you your room and board and everything and pay you. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 11 0 (30) Anglo: C: The only thing the only thing you can do you guys can do is just talk to people about it. Though the qualitative uses seem similar, there are vast quantitative differences between the two groups in the use of this function. It is interesting to note that the only other Lemon Grove example besides the one above involves a suggestion to oneself: (31) Lemon Grove (Lisa discusses recruiting literacy students): L: You know maybe maybe uh we're going to have a meeting uh and I can go home and take it upon myself to mention to mention it again because like I say, 11 met people that don't know even...they don't even know how to write their name. This demonstrates that suggestions using evidentials, particularly directed toward others, are not popular among Lemon Grove speakers, supporting the hypothesis that Lemon Grove speakers do not use evidentials for politeness. The quantitative differences found here are discussed in a sociocultural context in Chapter Seven. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words Anglo: 33.34/20,000 words 5.3.e. Should When used as a modal, should indicates an expectation that something will happen (Collins COBUILD 1992; Pollock 1982); however, it has several additional functions. Should can be used to make suggestions (we should), give advice (you should), discuss what others ought to do (s/he should), or reflect on what one ought to do (I should). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ill 5.3.e.l. Should: Expectation Anglo speakers used this function more than twice as often as Lemon Grove residents; however, this evidence is inconclusive because instances of use were so few. Nevertheless, this quantitative difference is interesting in that Lemon Grove residents tend to make fewer highly reliable statements about the future (see the discussion of will in section 5.3.g). Examples follow: (32) Lemon Grove (Ellen): E: ...I should be able to get a leave of absence and I could still have it till the till the end of March. (33) Anglo: M: Yeah, if you gave, if you gave them ten years of service I think there should be something provided for that kind of leave of absence. I don't see why not. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words Anglo: 5.26/20,000 words 5.3.e.2. Should: Suggestions ("W e should") Anglo participants used this function over six times as often as Lemon Grove speakers, though numbers are still small. This use of should is very direct; it threatens the hearer's negative face in that it suggests a course of action not determined by the hearer. Thus, it is not surprising that Anglos often softened the suggestion with negatively polite hedges such as I think or maybe. Even though the speaker includes herself in a "we should" suggestion, she must still consider the negative face of the hearer, who is also included. It is also noteworthy that the example shown here only comes after another Anglo speaker says the phrase R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 112 first, so that the Lemon Grove speaker's use seems to be other-repetition. Furthermore, the only other Lemon Grove example was phrased as a question ("Should we?"), Examples follow: (34) Lemon Grove (Madeleine, Crystal, and Lucky): C: ...I still think we ought to call up Mar- call up and say we're Marla and (inaudible) M: //I think we should too L: I think we should too! (35) Anglo: M: I don't mind 'cause I'm just doing my paper and I don't need to be writing any opening remarks, I said I'll get up and introduce myself and stuff, do that 'cause I can't deal with it at the moment. C: Yeah. Although it'd be kind of cool if you could maybe say some stuff about Lemon Grove. M: I might be able to. C: We should work it out. M: I don't know, Crys, my paper's due two days after that and I'll be doin' that the whole day, so I don't know if I can work anything else out. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words (In question form: .78/20,000 words) Anglo: 9.65/20,000 words (In question form: 1.75/20,000 words) 5.3.e.3. Should: Advice ("You should") This even more negative-face-threatening function was used a great deal more by Anglo speakers than Lemon Grove speakers. In 25% of the Anglo occurrences, you should is hedged with I think or maybe for negative politeness. Examples follow: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 113 (36) Lemon Grove (Ellen, Lucky, and Crystal): E: I'll even deal with a part-time job right now, then I could just get housekeeping or something, but I need it. C. Yeah. E: 'Cause if I can't get my job back... C: Yeah, I do have to go, 'cause I gotta go and drop some stuff off. L: //You should try and get a part- time job (inaudible) (37) Anglo (Lucky and Madeleine): L: I know, that's Teddy's favorite word when he wakes up in the morning, fuck (laughs) M: He wants to do something like apply for jobs, so...he wants to do his resume. You should go tell him to. L: Tell him to? M: Yeah. Lemon Grove: 3.88/20,000 words Anglo: 28.08/20,000 words 5.3.e.4. Should: Advice to self Though this function was uncommon, the Anglos still used it over twice as often as the Lemon Grove speakers. Examples follow: (38) Lemon Grove (Lucky): L: Man, I should've stood into typing 'cause I was taking shorthand and all that. (39) Anglo: M: See, I stopped putting uhm I stopped putting high school stuff on my resume, maybe I should put it in 'cause I had a couple good things. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 114 As instances of this use are small in number, it is not clear if important quantitative differences would exist in a larger database.1 8 Lemon Grove: 3.10/20,000 words (In question form: 1.55/20,000 words) Anglo: 7.90/20,000 words (In question form: 1.75/20,000 words) 5.3.e.5. Should: Advice to third parties ("S/he should") This function (s/he should) was more common than the previous category in both groups; nevertheless, the Anglos used it a good deal more than the Lemon Grove residents. Anglos could be expected to use this function more because it refers to future action and is backed by strong evidential weight: If a speaker says that someone should do something, it implies that the speaker is certain (or nearly so) that s/he is correct about what is right for this third party in the future. As discussed throughout this study, Anglos are more likely to make strong statements about the future. Examples follow: (40) Lemon Grove: L: Well, that's why she- that's why she's that's why she's dumb right there because she shouldn't even let nobody know that she has money. (41) Anglo: M: ...I really think your friend should call the uhm number down here and talk about your old job, why don’ t you make1 9 her do that? Lemon Grove: 4.66/20,000 words Anglo: 10.53/20,000 words (In question form: .88/20,000 words) 5.3.f. M ust The epistemic modal function of must is used "to say that you believe something is true" (Collins COBUILD 1990: 414), "to say that you strongly R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 115 believe something is the case, because of particular facts or circumstances" (Collins COBUILD 1990: 415). It was infrequent in the speech data of both groups. Examples follow: (42) Lemon Grove: T: He told me, "Stay the fuck out of it, before you get hurt, stay the fuck out of it." M: Get hurt by who? The sheriffs? T: Somebody m ust have called him up and told him something. You know? And the only one that was on the hot spot at that time was Robert Acosta. (43) Anglo: M: How come he and Teddy have different last names, Lucky? L: 'Cause they're not huh from the same dad. M: Oh, really? They look so much alike I thought they were. L: No. M: Their dads both m ust have been big men. L: No. This function was so infrequent that no significant differences can be claimed; however, note the difference in the evidential reliability of Teddy's use versus Madeleine's use. Teddy uses must to report that Bill Getty had discovered some information about him, saying that somebody must have told him. Madeleine uses the function to theorize that Teddy and Jaime's fathers must have been big men. Here, Madeleine uses the highly reliable function of must though she is merely speculating; in contrast, Teddy's information seems more reliable and more worthy R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 116 o f the use of a strong evidential. This supports the general finding that Lemon Grove speakers do not use highly evidentially reliable epistemic modals with the wide range of reliability as do the Anglo speakers. This is discussed further in the section which follows. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words Anglo: 3.51/20,000 words 5.3.g. Will Jespersen explains that though it still carries some meaning of volition, will has almost lost that nuance and has come to mean pure future in most cases: It is a natural consequence o f the notion of volition that it generally has reference to what is to happen in the future; hence the auxiliary will comes to be used extensively to express first a volition- coloured future and finally a future time without such colouring. In course of time the meaning o f the verb has become weakened, and to express real volition we must now generally use other verbs: mean, intend, want, choose. (1964: 272) Indeed, recent literature simply states that will is "used to make statements and ask questions about the future" (Collins COBUILD 1990: 622), when "something is certain to happen or be the case in the future" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 224). Jespersen asserts that the "pure future" (1964: 273) use of will is "extremely frequent in the second and third persons" (274). However, "in the first person will does not lend itself so well as in the others to the expression of mere futurity" (Jespersen 1964: 274). Therefore, additional categories are needed to analyze will. The speaker who says "I will" is not only making a statement about the future: S/he is making a statement about his/her conscious and willing action in R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 117 it. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the separate category of "Commitment." Some uses of will express a stronger sense of volition than others: Hence the category "Willingness." Will is also used for hedged comments about the future, descriptions of general behavior, general truths, and polite requests. 5.3.g.l. Will: Certain future This may be considered the prototypical use of will, as discussed above. Examples from both groups follow (here, in contracted form): (44) Lemon Grove: C: 'Cause we were thinking about maybe coming down like Thursday or something, Thursday morning. L: She'll be here. C: Umm hmm. L: I won't. (45) Anglo: L: We were supposed to get paid on the 15th, now we're gonna get paid on the 22nd. M: Oh, I'll believe that when I see it. Qualitatively, both groups seem to use this function in the same way. To account for the quantitative differences, I offer the following explanation: Just as Lemon Grove residents are reluctant to use evidentials for reasons other than expressing evidential weight, it makes sense that they would also be reluctant to make strong predictions about the future as often as the Anglos. As is argued throughout this study, Lemon Grove residents value the truth. Stating that R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 118 something will happen may seem too strong to them if they are not absolutely sure, whereas the Anglos, who tend to use evidentials more freely and widely, may not feel this prohibition. Furthermore, Kaplan (personal communication) has provided the insight that residents of such a marginal community may not feel comfortable making strong predictions about the future. After all, their job situations and incomes are usually tenuous if not nonexistent, and gang violence claims lives around them every day. It follows, then, that they would hesitate to talk about future plans with much certainty.2 0 Lemon Grove: 15.54/20,000 words Anglo: 30.71/20,000 words 5.3.g.2. Will: Com m itm ent In this use, speakers use first person, singular or plural, to commit to something in the future. Examples follow: (46) Lemon Grove (Lucky): L: Give me those big...rocks...and I'll make you a wall. (47) Anglo (Teddy and Madeleine): T: Keep losing weight! M: I will! You too! (laughs) No qualitative differences were found; however, quantitative differences exist. These can be explained as above (see Note 16): Living and social conditions of Lemon Grove residents may make it more difficult and ill-advised for them to commit strongly to future actions. Furthermore, they may not wish to make such commitments unless they are sure of being able to live up to them. As discussed R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 119 in the previous chapter, Lemon Grove residents, like most Chicanos, tend to live by their word. Lemon Grove: 12.43/20,000 words Anglo: 46.50/20,000 words 5.3.g.3. Will: Willingness This category is only subtly different from that of Certain Future. Some uses of will for future imply slightly more volition than others. This shows, as Jespersen (1964) contends, that though will has evolved to mean certain future in most cases, it carries an element of volition. Examples follow: (48) Lemon Grove: L: He w on't leave. That's why I need them to tell me, those ladies, so I could tell him. (49) Anglo: C: Why is it though that he uh...he w on't leave now: Both of these examples imply a sense o f volition; as they are in the negative, the volition is unwillingness. It is not just that Jaime is not going to leave Lucky's house due to some unknown circumstance: He is not going to leave because he is not willing to do so. No qualitative or quantitative differences were found. Lemon Grove: 2.33/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 5.3.g.4. Will: Hedged future In this use, will is accompanied by an evidential adverb hedge such as maybe. The following are examples of this function: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 12 0 (50) Lemon Grove: L: I wanna get me some rolling pins, hey, m aybe I'll go to the second to the second hand store or something maybe I could get a few rolling pins. (51) Anglo: T: Yeah, but I still gotta get out, though. I gotta get out of the neighborhood. C: //Wellyouwillsomeday, maybe, I don't know, it's up to you. (52) M: Well, maybe she’ll see you doing your resume and everything and then she’ll do hers, she started to a little bit. Both quantitative and qualitative differences are evident here. First, as shown below, the Anglos used this function over seven times as often as Lemon Grove speakers. This is consistent with the above argument that Lemon Grove speakers prefer not to use evidentials except for what they consider their true evidential value. It would, therefore, seem inconsistent to use a form which indicates commitment or certain future with a hedge. Regarding the qualitative differences, an interesting point should be noted: Lemon Grove residents invariably used the form with "I" (e. g., "Maybe I'll") whereas Anglos used the form with all persons. As is discussed below, based on the high value placed on truth, Lemon Grove residents hesitate to speak for others, and I would predict that this prohibition would be particularly strong with a modal which prototypically indicates certain future. Lemon Grove: 2.33/20,000 words Anglo: 16.67/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 121 5.3.g.5. Will: Descriptions of typical behavior Will can be used to explain behavior that usually occurs. This use was rare, and seemed quantitatively and qualitatively the same in the two groups. Examples follow: (53) Lemon Grove: L: And stuff that she thinks is important, and when it says "junta," and she'll know it's a meeting C: //Uh huh L: You know, she reads that. (54) Anglo: L: They bring food down here to bribe me into going. M: And you w on't eat any of it. Both o f these examples describe what speakers know from personal experience to be typical behavior. Lester has seen that his mother typically reads notices marked with junta, and Madeleine and Crystal have observed that Lucky typically does not eat the food that they sometimes bring to the gym. This function carries high evidential reliability based on sensory evidence, a very reliable mode of knowing (Chafe 1985; 1986). Thus, it is not surprising that no quantitative or qualitative differences were found. It is predicted that Lemon Grove speakers would feel comfortable using such a strong evidential when the evidence behind it was highly reliable. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words Anglo: .88/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 122 5.3.g.6. Will: General truths This use occurred several times in Anglo speech but was absent in that of Lemon Grove residents. It is similar to "descriptions of typical behavior," above, but tends to have a wider scope of reference. The following Anglo example demonstrates its use: (55) C: Even worse, because a lot of times you'll find like one ethnic M: //Oh, her person is C: group will be even more discriminatory against another ethnic group. It is not surprising that Lemon Grove residents would use m il for descriptions of typical behavior and not use this more general function. As discussed elsewhere in this study, Lemon Grove residents hesitate to make high-reliability predictions in general, and also hesitate to speak for others. This supports the argument for their preference for speaking only the truth as they know it. These "general truths" are not based on evidence which Lemon Grove speakers consider adequately reliable (i. e., sensory evidence, as discussed in section 5.3.g,5); hence, they seem to avoid making such statements. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 6.14/20,000 words 5.3.g.7. Will: Polite requests This final use is similar to the requests with could you and can you above. Only one example was found in the corpus: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 123 (56) Anglo (discussing Lucky's resume): M: It's pretty long...cool. Don't tell me you don't have any skills, you just don't think o f them as skills! (laughs) Here you go, will you hang onto that? Numbers here are too small to lead to meaningful conclusions; however, as this is a negatively polite use of the type common to Anglos, it is predicted that with more speech data, the Anglos would use it more often than the Lemon Grove speakers. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: .88/20,000 words 5.4. C hapter sum m ary This analysis of modals as traditionally defined shows that Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo middle-class participants exhibit qualitatively and quantitatively distinct patterns o f modal use. First, using modals, the Anglo participants tend to manipulate the evidential weight of propositions for communicative goals other than indicating evidential reliability while Lemon Grove residents do not. Specifically, the Anglos use modals to accomplish politeness, usually negative politeness, while the Lemon Grove residents do so only rarely. A second and related finding is that the Anglos seem to use modals which make strong claims about the future much more freely than do Lemon Grove residents. These two findings support the notion that Lemon Grove as a speech community holds its speakers to more stringent rules concerning epistemic modality: That is, epistemic modals are used almost exclusively for making "genuine" judgments about evidential weight. In contrast, the Anglo, middle-class R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 124 speakers exhibit a wider variety of uses of epistemic modals, uses which could contribute to miscommunication with conversational participants of different cultural backgrounds. As will be demonstrated in the next chapter, these differences between Anglo and Lemon Grove modal use are found in epistemic modal verbs and adverbs as well. Table 5.1, below, summarizes both groups' uses of the modals discussed in this chapter. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 125 Table 5.1. Summary of modal use. Function Uses per 20.000 words: Lemon Grove uses Anglo uses Might: Possibility 10.10 14.92 Might: Polite Hedge 0.00 8.77 Might: Self-Prot. Hedge 0.00 3.11 May: Possibility .78 1.75 May: Polite Hedge 0.00 .88 Could: Possibility 3.88 6.14 Could: Polite Request 0.00 1.75 Could: Advice to Others 3.11 37.73 Could: Permission 3.11 3.52 Could: Ability 43.50 15.79 Can: Possibility 0.00 3.51 Can: Polite Request 1.55 0.00 Can: Ability 44.28 60.54 Can: Permission 4.66 7.02 Can: Suggestion 1.55 33.34 Should: Expectation 1.55 5.26 Should: Suggestion 1.55 9.65 Should: Advice 3.88 28.08 Should: Advice to Self 3.10 7.90 Should: Advice to 3rd parties 4.66 10.53 Must: Belief 1.55 3.51 Will: Certain Future 15.54 30.71 Will: Commitment 12.43 46.50 Will: Willingness 2.33 1.75 Will: Hedged Future 2.33 16.67 Will: Typical Behavior 1.55 .88 Will: General Truths 0.00 6.14 Will: Polite Requests 0.00 .88 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 126 Notes for Chapter Five: 'To maintain clarity, I use the term "epistemic modal" here regardless of a given item's primary function, whether it is "expressing the speaker's confidence about the validity of a proposition" or serving "as [a] pragmatic device modifying the illocutionary force of utterances for interpersonal reasons" (i. e., as politeness strategies) (Holmes 1988: 23). 2 Collins COBUILD (1990; 1992) are used as expert sources in this study because these volumes are based on a computer analysis of a corpus of 100,000,000 words of naturally occurring text. Admittedly, the corpus represents only British English and only written text; nevertheless, these volumes constitute undoubtedly the single most authoritative source currently available for grammatical definitions of contemporary English. 3 In the examples "'Will you open the door?', 'Would you open the door?', [and] 'Could you open the door?" (Collins COBUILD 1990: 218), the use of modals to soften the directive exemplifies negative politeness. In each case, the modal serves to give the hearer increased options to refuse. The use of will allows the hearer to refuse based on unwillingness (though it would be considered somewhat impolite to do so; thus, this example is arguably the least polite of the three). The use of would is more polite in that it implies some unstated condition upon which the hearer could base refusal; and the use of could is the most deferential of all, because it asks about ability (rather than willingness) with an implied, unstated condition. Thus, the hearer could presumably refuse based on two options: A professed lack o f ability or an appeal to this implied, unstated condition. 4 In several articles, Holmes discusses the quantitative differences between men's and women's uses of such modals. However, she does not bring up the possibility of variation by ethnicity, social class, speech community, etc. This may be simply because such research is relatively recent and has not yet reached the point of such socially situated analysis: Holmes herself criticizes previous research for having used "concocted or artificial utterances in a social vacuum" rather than actual speech data (Holmes 1988: 40). Indeed, much of this pragmatics-oriented research (e. g., Tsui 1991) presents data isolated from its social context. 5 In the variety o f Chicano English spoken in Lemon Grove, as in Black English, "can" is rarely used. "Could" is used in most cases where Anglo speakers would use "can" to indicate present ability, as in the following example: L: //'Cause he's not gonna use my ass to save up so he could get what he wants. Moore presents data that also show this use: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 127 "We used to dance in Maggie's house, on the porch, because her mother used to let us hang around on her porch. She said 'You could hear the records all you want as long as you behave'". (1991: 30; emphasis added) 6 Various hierarchies of modal strength have been proposed; however, these are often contested, particularly by scholars of American English, as most such hierarchies are based on British English. Furthermore, a hierarchy or modality cannot be static; it must be adjusted according to regional and dialectal variation. For example, in a hierarchy describing regional dialects of the Southern U.S., the expression might could would have to be included. Due to this lack of agreement on a fixed hierarchy, as well as the minimal importance such rigid definitions have to this study, a general model for a hierarchy is proposed, following Halliday: Modal Auxiliaries Verbs Adverbs Yes shall know absolutely Neutral No shall not don't know absolutely not In this model, epistemic modal auxiliaries, verbs, and adverbs are each listed along a "line o f indeterminacy" from yes to no. Examples of each type of epistemic modal are placed at each end o f the line of indeterminacy; however, as one o f the central findings of this study is that such hierarchies are relative, I have chosen not to fill the hierarchy in completely. 7 In the interest of focus, I am only defining the epistemic uses of these modals, not the deontic or dynamic uses. 8 In fact, by assisting Lemon Grove residents with resumes, I could only improve the odds of their finding employment. First, the residents had to make the effort to use the resumes to apply for jobs (which, to my knowledge, Lucky never did); in addition, certain residents have features in their backgrounds which make it very difficult to get a job (such as Lucky's prison term). 9 The frowned-upon— but commonly used— adverb hopefidly was not studied here; however, it seems to indicate a level of certainty similar to that of I think, falling somewhere between maybe and probably. 1 0 I remember such an example from my own educational experience: My first- grade class had a long-term substitute who would respond to requests of "Can I go to the bathroom?" with "If you are able." I cannot remember the teacher's R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 128 name; however, I do remember to this day that we called her "Mrs. May-I" behind her back. Thus, Kaplan's explanation seems plausible to this researcher. "Note that Crystal converges to Lucky's speech norms by using the nonstandard "She done me wrong." This could be an instance of other-repetition, as Crystal has just heard Lucky use this nonstandard form. However, it could also be seen as an attempt at positive politeness. "Some of the quantitative difference may be a result of the novice/expert roles which may be assumed in the Lemon Grove/Anglo speech situations in these data. However, most conversations in this database are general rather than instructive. Moreover, there are a number of encounters in which the Lemon Grove residents are in the expert role; for example, Teddy is the expert on police, the problems in the neighborhood, Foundation-internal problems, and even back pain. Similarly, Lucky is the expert on prison life, and Lisa is the expert on children's art activities. Ways in which Lemon Grove speakers may index their expert status through politeness is an important question for further study; however, the results of this study indicate that it is not done through the use of the epistemic modals. "Though this use does express politeness, the permission function of could is pervasive enough to have become a fixed expression; thus, it would be expected that if Lemon Grove speakers were to use any evidential politeness form, this would be a likely candidate. l4 In this example, note that Crystal shifts from could to can in granting Lucky permission to sing her song. This shift from focus on conditionality to focus on ability represents a shift from stronger to weaker negative politeness. Perhaps because Lucky has expressed a desire to perform an action (singing), Crystal feels that the strong negative politeness expressed by the more deferential could is not necessary (as she does not need to grant Lucky as many options to refuse), and thus shifts to the still-polite, but less so, modal can. Furthermore, this shift to can indicates Crystal's approval of the action (singing). By giving Lucky fewer options to refuse, Crystal implicitly indicates that she does not wish her to refuse. See Section 5.3.d.4. (Can: Permission) for a can-could shift in the opposite direction. 1 5 If the totals for the ability uses of can and could are added together, the following figures result: Lemon Grove: 68.19/20,000 words Anglo: 66.77/20,000 words "Teddy is arguably the participant most acculturated to dominant-society norms and values. Thus, it is predictable that his speech would reflect some of this acculturation to Anglo speech norms. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 129 1 7 Here, Teddy asks if he can do something and Madeleine replies that he could "if he wants." This shift from ability to conditionality, which increases negative politeness, indicates Madeleine's disapproval of the proposed action. The conditionality expressed by "if you want" implies that there is another option which is preferable; in other words, it implies "You could if you want, but there are reasons why you should not." By stating "you could if you want," Madeleine absolves herself of personal responsibility for the results o f Teddy's action. Teddy seems to have perceived not only this disapproval but also the reason behind it, as he responds with "Even though it's not really professional." And despite the fact that Madeleine confirms that "It's okay," she goes on to ask why he wanted to do it— once again, expressing her preference for an alternative state of affairs. 1 8 Kaplan (personal communication) predicts that such differences might be found in a larger database due to the sense of guilt and personal responsibility (Rodriguez 1994) entailed in the (Anglo-espoused) Protestant ethic. Middle-class Anglos tend to discuss personal responsibilities and the guilt which ensues when they do not live up to these responsibilities. This seems to be largely a result of the strong motivational-developmental (Bhola 1987) ideology of individualism which operates in the United States. Achievements and failures are seen as the responsibility of the individual alone, and social circumstances are not seen as particularly important; hence, the popularity of individual-centered social programs such as "Just Say No" (to drugs) and "True Love Waits" (for sex). Such programs are based on the presumption that individuals are capable of making decisions and carrying out actions fully independently from their social environments. This individual-centered ideology is discussed in detail in Chapter Seven. l9This use of make seems very strong; however, I tend to use it in an atypical, weaker manner in my idiolect; for me, it means, roughly, "to try to get someone to do something." 2 0 It has often been claimed that Mexican-Americans are not future oriented. This has been met with strong objections by researchers in the field of Chicano sociology, and many Chicanos resent this stereotype. However, Moore cites a 23- year-old Chicana who confirms that "Mexicans are more prone to 'live for the day and we'll see about tomorrow later'" (1991: 95). Similarly, a Chicana counselor who recently visited my Long Beach City College ESL class explained that "Mexicans always say something will happen in the future 'if God wants it to,"' a comment which was met by understanding laughter from Mexican students. (This notion of "God's will" is discussed in Chapter Seven as having roots in the Catholic faith.) Here, I contend that Lemon Grove residents' tendency away from future orientation is due to cultural prescriptions against claiming what may not be true as well as the impact of violence and changing circumstances inherent in a marginal community. (See Scollon and Scollon 1981 for an interesting discussion of Athabaskans' cultural prescriptions against making predictions about the future— even saying "See you tomorrow".) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 130 Rather than seeing a lack of future orientation as a deficit or an inborn ethnic trait, we may interpret Chicanos1 unwillingness to make strong predictions about the future as an intelligent adaptation to conditions under which they live. Patthey-Chavez (personal communication) relates that living in Mexico made her understand the wisdom in not expecting or predicting too much about the future; she mentions frequently malfunctioning telephone lines to illustrate that life for Mexicans does not have the organized and predictable quality experienced and expected by the Anglo middle class. Life for Chicanos in Lemon Grove similarly lacks organization and predictability to some degree. For example, the simple fact that 30% of Hispanic households in the area do not have access to a vehicle, as reported in Chapter Three, makes realizing everyday plans more difficult. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 131 CHAPTER SIX: DATA PRESENTATION: EPISTEMIC MODAL VERBS AND ADVERBS 6.1. Epistemic modal verbs selected for study As discussed in Chapter Five, modality is often thought of as a "closed class of modal verbs" such as must, can, will, and may, but "lexical" words such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs can have epistemic modal meanings as well. The analysis of such lexical items provides a window into modality which goes beyond what can be found by looking only at modals as traditionally defined. Indeed, McCarthy states that studies such as Holmes (1983) have shown that "put together, other word classes express modality more frequently than modal verbs...in terms of frequency, the verbs and adverbs are considerably more frequent than the nouns and adjectives" (1991: 84). Holmes argues for the study of epistemic modal verbs and adverbs, stating that "expressions involving lexical verbs, such as I think...are almost as frequent in the usage of native speakers as modal verbs. And adverbials such as...probably...are by no means infrequently used as devices for signalling degrees of certainty" (1982: 17). In this chapter, a subset of a class of verbs such as appear, assume, doubt, look as if, suggest, and think will be examined (McCarthy 1991: 84). These verbs carry interpersonal meaning regarding assertion, tentativeness, commitment, and detachment (McCarthy 1991: 85). Preliminary review of these data led this analysis to several verbs which, in the most prototypical, unmarked case, express a speaker's relative certainty R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 132 toward knowledge. Verbs selected for study here are think, know, and feel. These verbs were chosen because they are known to occur frequently in conversation (Holmes 1988), and are indeed used frequently in the data by both Anglos and Lemon Grove residents, whereas more erudite epistemic modal verbs, such as appear and suggest, are less used in general, rarely used by Lemon Grove residents, and not often used by middle-class Anglos in casual conversation.1 As Ostman (1981) remarked, the literature on epistemic modal verbs is still sketchy: Some functions of some verbs have been classified and analyzed in detail, while others have not. Furthermore, the research has been done on different varieties of English: American, British, Australian, and New Zealand. Thus, some modification of findings is obviously required. Thus, the analysis which follows is based on a combination of sources: Usage references, available descriptions of certain uses, and usage categories which I have defined for this study. 6.2. Think The verb think can be used in five different ways: 1. Thinking: To use one's mind, thought processes; 2. Tentative: To have a tentative belief (fact-based) or opinion (non-fact- based); 3. Deliberative: To express speaker confidence in the proposition asserted; 4. Emphatic: To provide emphasis; R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 133 5. Mitigating: To soften the weight of a directive. (Not a true indicator of evidential weight of a statement. Minimizes the evidential weight of the proposition for the sake of politeness.) Examples o f each of the above usages are presented below: 6.2.a. Think: Thinking: To use one's mind, thought processes Collins COBUILD give the example "I'll fix us both a gin-and-tonic while I'm thinking" (1992: 714) to illustrate this prototypical use. Examples follow: (1) Lemon Grove: L: Yeah. I can't even think right now. (2) Anglo: M: ...If you think about it, I was bom in the city o f Los Angeles, comma, I'm 27 years old now, and you pause, so whenever you have those pauses, you have a comma. This is the most straightforward, unmarked use of the verb and there appears to be no difference between the use patterns in both groups. Lemon Grove: 6.21/20,000 words Anglo: 8.77/20,000 words 6.2.b. Think: Tentative belief or opinion According to Holmes, this "tentative" function is used when the "speaker is genuinely uncertain about the information asserted (modal meaning)" (1985: 33). I think can express tentativeness about a belief (fact-based) or an opinion (non-fact-based). Examples follow: (3) Lemon Grove: T: Jaime? About for how long did Lester say (Alfredo's gang tag) was awake for? About twenty minutes, I think. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 134 In the above example, "the quantity hedge about contributes to the expression of uncertainty...and supports a modal analysis. About and I think are modally harmonic" (Lyons 1977: 807). (4) Anglo: M: I think she just got, like way overcommitted...I don't know, I don't see her anymore at all. Here, Madeleine reinforces the tentativeness of this use with the hedges just and like and finally admits, "I don't know." She strengthens her explanation of why she doesn't know, reinforcing the tentativeness, with the emphatics anymore and at all. Similarly, in the following example, Madeleine underscores her uncertainty with the filler um and question intonation after she gives Lucky's daughter's name: (5) Anglo: M: And she said her daughter, um, I think Marisa? Anglo speakers used this function approximately three times as often as Lemon Grove speakers. This is consistent with other findings in that, as discussed above, Lemon Grove residents hesitate to discuss with any kind of certainty that of which they cannot be sure. Just as they seem unwilling to make highly reliable statements about the future, they also seem reluctant to discuss uncertainties with a phrase which to them indicates reliability or high evidential weight. It is tentatively proposed that Anglos perceive a wider zone of relative reliability within which I think can be used, whereas Lemon Grove residents perceive only the high end of this reliability zone. In other words, to Lemon Grove speakers, I think seems to carry high evidential reliability, whereas for the Anglo middle-class R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 135 speakers, the reliability behind a proposition need not be so high for this function to be used. It is predicted that Lemon Grove speakers have other ways of expressing such uncertainty— which to them would seem more uncertain and less reliable than I think— however, such strategies are not elucidated in this study. Lemon Grove: 7.77/20,000 words Anglo: 23.69/20,000 words 6.2.c. Think: Deliberative: To express speaker confidence in the proposition asserted Collins COBUILD describe this use as "giving your opinion about something"2 (1992: 714). Holmes calls this use "deliberative," stating that it is "used by speakers to express their personal confidence in the proposition asserted; it contributes a deliberative element of meaning, adding weight to the speech act by asserting the speaker's confident belief in its validity"3 (1985: 33). Examples follow: (6) Lemon Grove: M: You were jumpier when you used to smoke, though. C: Oh, yeah. M: //Way jumpier— now I think you're a lot C: Mellower. L: 'Cause you're like (makes strange noise and laughs) C: I'm always like that, though, Lucky, and I don't think that (inaudible) L: //No, but I think it's 'cause o f that, though. C: No, it's probably because I drank a lot when I was younger. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 136 L: Well that's that's what I think, it's because of that. *** (7) L: //Wait wait wait. Hmm. C: No, that's Ted's story, we better not look at that, he'd be PLOIZED! I think it's this one, report three TSL. L: Okay, try it. C: Yeah, I'll try it...okay. (11 lines later) L: I think it's that other one, I told you. (11 lines later) C: I can't find it, Lucky. L: Yeah, I think it's that one, I told you. (8) Anglo: M: I think, I think he wouldn't. C: Yeah. L: I would hate Kevin if he did that. C: No, Kevin wouldn't. M: //He wouldn't do that. Note that in both Lemon Grove examples, Lucky makes her point by repeating I think. In the first, Crystal contradicts Lucky, but Lucky holds fast to her point through the repeated use of I think. In the second, Lucky continues to state that she thinks they need the other file. This is not to say that Lucky fails to R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 137 emphasize her point: In fact, she repeats "I told you" twice to the point of perseveration (Bean 1991). The key point here is that she does not provide emphasis by raising the evidential weight of her proposition. In contrast, the first Lemon Grove example (example 6) and the Anglo example both show Anglos raising the evidential weight of propositions to emphasize their points. In example 6, Crystal starts off with "I don't think..." and changes to "...it's probably," which is arguably slightly stronger. In the final example, Madeleine is quick to change her deliberative "I think, I think he wouldn't" to "He wouldn't" to reassure Lucky. Crystal joins in to do the same: Before Madeleine can even rephrase the statement, Crystal begins to rephrase it in the same way. This use of I think is deliberative in that it emphasizes the speaker's responsibility for the validity of the proposition; however, it is evidentially more reliable to make the absolute statement "He wouldn't," removing the qualifier of any particular speaker's opinion. Thus, Lucky wants to be listened to for what she thinks, and will not claim certainty to achieve this. The Anglo speakers imply certainty by eliminating the deliberative qualifier. This is yet another example of the Anglo participants using epistemic modals much more freely than Lemon Grove residents. It is, therefore, not surprising to find a quantitative difference: Just as in the tentative use of I think, above, Lemon Grove residents hesitate to speak strongly about what they do not know to be true. The data show that they do, in fact, emphasize their R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 138 opinions with I think', however, they seem to be more selective about which opinions they choose to emphasize. Lemon Grove: 21.75/20,000 words Anglo: 44.75/20,000 words 6.2.d. Think: Em phatic This infrequent use occurred only in Anglo speech at the rate of 2.63/20,000 words. Though these "deliberative" occurrences could be subsumed under the category by that name, they are expressed strongly enough to warrant separate consideration: (9) Anglo: M: Do "X." Yeah, see, somehow, someone turned off the menus being shown at all times and I think if you're, obviously if you're learning it you should have the menus on. Note the other emphatics in the example which reinforce the emphatic quality of I think such as "obviously" and "you should." As stated above, Lyons (1977) refers to this type of reinforcement of mood as harmonic modality. 6.2.e. Think: M itigating Gumperz argues that giving suggestions or advice is an intrinsic Negative Face Threatening Act (1970: 66). This implies that some negative politeness may be used to mitigate, or soften, the impact of the Face Threatening Act. This "mitigating" use of think is a subset of the tentative function, which Holmes says may be called upon when "the speaker wishes to take account o f the addressee's feelings (affective meaning)" (1985: 33). Holmes argues that this use "softens a directive...the function of I think is to attentuate or soften the force of a speech act R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 139 which could be interpreted as impolite" (1985: 34). This polite use is described in Collins COBUILD as follows: "...if you want to contradict someone or to say something which might be unwelcome to them, you can avoid sounding rude by using a reporting verb such as 'think' or 'believe,"' e. g., "'I think it's time we stopped"' (1992: 594). This use is negatively polite in that it places the responsibility for the opinion on the speaker: In other words, while I think it's time we stopped, I'm not forcing you to say that it is. In contrast to the absolute, independently valid "It's time we stopped," the mitigation with I think allows the possibility for other opinions. This use was strikingly apparent among the Anglo speakers and nonexistent among Lemon Grove speakers. As in the use described in 6.2.c., above, the Anglo participants change the evidential weight o f statements for a purpose other than indicating a level of certainty. Here, however, they lower, rather than raise, the statements' reliability. The following examples from a meeting o f four residents, Crystal, and a female Anglo Legal Aid representative show how prevalent this pattern is among the Anglo speakers: ( 10) LA: See, I think that's something that you need to, to make known. (11) LA: I think what we need to do is uh, you're talking about the concern, the safety of the residents here. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 140 * * (12) C: I think that’ s, I think that's a good point, that when you talk, when you talk to the press or whoever, I think you wanna make it clear that you're not trying to say that the anger and the hatred and the rage is is something to be afraid of or something to be dismissed. ** (13) C: ...And what I think you definitely heed to do is you need to let the press and whoever know... (14) C: 'Cause, 'cause I think you might best bet would be to talk to the Sheriffs. * * (15) LA: Yeah, but I think as far as getting anywhere with the Sheriffs Department you need to get in with (County Supervisor). Similar statements occur in a conversation between Lucky, Crystal and Madeleine about an upcoming meeting: (16) M: And you've already given him your proposal? Or you haven't— you're gonna give it to him when he comes? L: I'm thinkin' about it. C: I think you should. 'Cause it'll make you look better... (19 lines of talk) L: What if I give it to him before the meeting? C: I think that would be good 'cause it'd give 'im a chance to review it. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 141 Madeleine exhibits the same pattern when helping Teddy write a letter to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After-two politeness-marked attempts to get Teddy to change what he has written, which he has ignored, Madeleine still uses the polite I think to soften the force of the instructions: (17) T: I put Mr. Ted Garcia? M: It's probably better just to put Ted 'cause you shouldn't really put titles so much in these kind of things. So he's puttin' it in anyway. (T is typing) You should put a comma after Garcia. T: Right,I knew that, I was just testing you! (laughs) M: //Ted Garcia, comma Not! (laughs) T: I was just testing you, Madeleine. M: You know what else? I think it'd be more professional if you just typed in Ted Garcia, instead of Mr. Garcia...it's like more regular, professional, business style.4 *** Similarly, when printing the letter, Madeleine has a clear idea o f what looks correct, but expresses it tentatively, nevertheless: (18) T: But it's too low, huh. M: I think so. I think you better print one more to be professional, and we won't put it down so far. Crystal exhibits the same function when discussing a recent relationship which didn't materialize: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 142 (1 9 ) C: ...I s- told him today I didn't want to see him anymore. I said, "I don't think it's gonna work out." Note that while Crystal says straight out that she (definitely) "didn't want to see him anymore," she reports having used the more tentative (McCarthy 1991) "I don't think" when she actually told him this. The softening function of I think is especially clear when we consider the linguistic environments in which it is embedded. Strong directives such as "You definitely need to," "You wanna" and "You better" are accompanied not only by the tentative I think but also by other "modally harmonic" (Lyons 1977: 807) softeners such as might and just. Once again, this use of I think represents an instance of Anglo speakers modifying evidential weight for the sake of negative politeness. A unifying discussion of the politeness function of this use as well as other politeness markers in these passages will be presented in Chapter Seven. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 30.71/20,000 words 6.3. Know Of the three epistemic modal verbs analyzed in this study, know has been the subject o f the most research. This is probably so because it is the most pragmatically complex; indeed, the data of this study allowed me to augment the already rich classification systems synthesized from the literature. Hence, the analysis has been broken down as follows: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 143 6.3.a. Know: Acquaintance and familiarity (first prototypical use) 6.3.b. Know: Awareness o f facts (second prototypical use) 6.3.c. You know: 6.3.C.I. Conjoint knowledge 6.3.c.2. Emphatic 6.3.C.3. Attributive 6.3.C.4. Appealing 6.3.c.4.a. Appeal for understanding: Clarification 6.3.c.4.b. Appeal for understanding: Involved 6.3.c.4.c. Appeal for empathy 6.3.c.4.d. Appeal for agreement 6.3.C.5. Linguistic imprecision 6.3.C.6. Softening o f suggestions 6.3.C.7. Attention-getting 6.3 ,c.8. Rhetorical questions 6.3.d. I know: 6.3.d.l. Affirmation of understanding 6.3.d.l.a. Following form of you know 6.3.d.l.b. Following another speaker's comment 6.3.d.I.e. Referring to knowledge external to the speech situation 6.3.d.2. Affirmation of agreement 6.3.d.3. Affirmation of empathy 6.3.e. I don’t know: 6.3.e.l. Reply to information question 6.3.e.2. Avoiding assessment 6.3.e.3. Prefacing disagreement 6.3.e.4. Avoiding explicit disagreement 6.3.e.5. Avoiding commitment 6.3.e.6. Marker o f uncertainty 6.3.e.7. Minimization o f impolite beliefs 6.3.e.8. Categories not considered by Tsui 6.3.a. Know: To have "acquaintance and familiarity" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 334) with something or someone. This may be considered one of the two prototypical uses. There seems to be no qualitative difference between the two groups' use of this function; however, Lemon Grove residents used it approximately twice as often as Anglos. An explanation for this quantitative difference is given in section 6.3.b. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 144 (20) Lemon Grove: L: No, I know her for years. (21) Anglo: • M: Is that how you guys know each other? * * * (22) C: Do you know Spanish? Lemon Grove: 31.07/20,000 words Anglo: 15.79/20,000 words 6.3.b. Know: To have "awareness of facts" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 344). This function is the second prototypical use of know, and once again, Lemon Grove speakers used it nearly twice as often as Anglos, though no qualitative difference is immediately apparent. Examples follow: (23) Lemon Grove: T: ...they want to know if she took off, if she's been to Mexico, if she's been anywhere else... (24) Anglo: M: Well, she just never knows if anybody likes her for herself or for her money. Lemon Grove: 92.45/20,000 words Anglo: 57.91/20,000 words It is not absolutely clear why the Lemon Grove residents use these two prototypical functions o f know nearly twice as often as the Anglo participants. The following is tentatively proposed: Because the Lemon Grove epistemology prefers truth and disprefers hypocrisy, it is possible that this might increase the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 145 importance of defining the literalness of reality. These two functions of know are among those most literally connected with knowledge and they carry high evidential reliability. It is shown throughout this text that Lemon Grove residents tend not to make statements about matters of which they cannot be sure; it follows that when they were sure about something, they would be more likely to say so with a form indicating high reliability. Just as not telling untruths receives high priority, it seems that expressing knowledge that one does know is important as well.5 6 J.c. You know You know has traditionally been dismissed as a mere "verbal filler" (Holmes 1986: 16) used to give the speaker planning time. Ostman explains that "some people seem to use the particle you know constantly, and it is no doubt largely this 'overuse' o f you know that has fostered an uninformative characterization of you know as a pause-filler on a par with silent pauses and vocalizations" (1981: 27). A closer examination in fact reveals a number of distinct uses. Holmes (1986) classifies you know under two broad categories: Expressing Confidence/Certainty and Reflecting Uncertainty. Within each category, she proposes several sub-categories: Category 1 includes "conjoint knowledge," "emphatic," and "attributive," whereas Category 2 includes "appealing" and "linguistic imprecision." In these data I have found additional uses not described by Holmes which I have attempted to classify according to her system. These R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 146 additional uses will be shown to support the hypotheses o f this study.6 The data will now be considered in light of this classification scheme. 6J.C.1. You-know: Conjoint knowledge This use "points to the status of the utterance as relevant background information" (Holmes 1986: 8), and while calling the hearer's attention to what s/he indeed already knows may seem redundant, it often serves to introduce a narrative based on this background information. Examples follow: (24) Lemon Grove: T: You know all that stuff I was talking about losing weight? Remember when I was boxing? (25) Anglo: M: You know, we were here first, I hope we get to go before all these people, let's make sure we do, huh? When they open, man, let's run up there. In the first example, Teddy launches into a story about his failure to lose weight by reminding Madeleine that he used to talk about losing weight when he was boxing. In the second, Madeleine calls attention to the fact that her party had arrived at the restaurant first, though this information is redundant to her addressees, so that she can lead into proposing a plan for actually ordering first. This does not have a strong politeness component because the knowledge the speaker is attributing to the addressee is in fact genuine (i. e., knowledge-based). There are not numerous examples in these data, but what there are show the use to be indistinguishable in the two communities. Lemon Grove: 3.11/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 147 6 3 .C .2 . You know: Emphatic7 Holmes explains that "instances of you know in this category are used to emphasize, intensify, or boost the strength o f the speech act, to stress the speaker's confidence and hence reassure the addressee concerning the validity of the proposition asserted.... This meaning can be paraphrased as 'let me assure you'" (Holmes 1986: 8). Following are two of her examples: 5. Young woman joking to neighbour in presence o f flatmates I'm the boss around here you knowll 6. Young woman to flatmate discussing smoking it's worse than eating you know// (1986:8) (25) Lemon Grove (Jaime, talking about the Sheriffs shooting of a resident): J: You know, they're always doing what they could, what they did that night, but that night they done killed somebody, you know, now, they just started all this shit, you know. Similar examples can be found in the conversation between residents and a Legal Aid representative after a community shooting: (26) L: You know, like, those things, I mean, they're makin' us sound like a, we're a bunch of animals out in the, out in the jungle, and C: //Yeah L: And you know. * * * (27) L: And that's what I'm gonna say. We don't need her here— we don't need her here, you know. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 148 (28) Anglo: C: Yeah, you know, that's the thing though is, I was saying the other night, too, is that the people didn't ask for literacy, you know, Bill Getty just assumed that this is something you guys wanted and he brought us in... In the first example, the emphatic quality of you know is reinforced by other emphatics such as the intensifies always, done, just, all, and shit (Labov 1984). In the second, intensifies such as like, I mean, and a bunch have the same effect.8 In the third, Lucky emphasizes her point by repeating "we don't need her here," stressing the "don't" in the repetition, and concludes with the emphatic "you know." The emphatic aspect o f the Anglo example is reinforced by Crystal reporting that she "was saying [it] the other night too": The point she is making is not merely something she just thought up. While no qualitative differences were found between the two groups' use of this function, Lemon Grove speakers used the function twice as often as Anglos. It is not completely clear why this quantitative difference exists; however, it is proposed that this may be a result of Lemon Grove residents' seeming concern with positive face. The use of a strong you know may be interpreted as positively polite in that it reinforces in-group membership between the speaker and hearer. The use of you know draws the hearer into the proposition being expressed. In contrast to asking you know? (i. e., "Do you know?), stating a firm you know assumes mutual understanding; in effect, the speaker is saying, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 149 "I don't have to ask you if you and I understand each other; I can state it without question." Lemon Grove: 39.62/20,000 words Anglo: 20.18/20,000 words 63.C.3. You know: A ttributive When speakers use this category of you know, they attribute knowledge to their hearers: Holmes paraphrases this use as "I'm confident you know the kind of thing I mean."9 She states that the speaker "expresses positive politeness in generously crediting the addressee with relevant background knowledge and experience or confidently anticipates agreement with the proposition asserted" (1986: 9). Examples follow: (29) Lemon Grove: L: They come they come in English and Spanish. My mom knows how to read Spanish. M: Your mom knows how to read Spanish? L: Broken, you know, [with falling intonation] (30) Anglo: M: ...and I said, "Well we've already talked to a couple of people about going to PCCLAS, and you know going to TESOL and everything else..." No qualitative or quantitative differences were found. This supports the notion that when Lemon Grove speakers do use epistemic modals for politeness, the politeness expressed is positive. Lemon Grove: 30.30/20,000 words Anglo: 35.97/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 150 6i.c.4. You know: Appealing Holmes states that "in some cases, you know serves this function of an appeal for reassurance...from the addressee in the context o f an account o f embarrassing experiences or the sharing o f veiy personal information or feelings...; in other cases, you know requests reassurance or agreement from the addressee in the context of a negatively affective or critical comment by the speaker" (1986: 10). She explains that this function— sometimes called a "hedge" (Lakoff 1975)— has been emphasized in previous research. In dealing with this study's data, I found it more explanatorily adequate to break this category down further into three subcategories: Appeal for U nderstanding, Appeal for Em pathy and Appeal for Agreement. 6.3.c.4.a. You know: Appeal for understanding: Clarification Ostman paraphrases this use, which is often utterance-final with rising intonation, as "do you see what I mean?" (1981: 23). These appeals for understanding serve as straightforward comprehension checks: (31) Lemon Grove (Teddy clarifies a spelling problem in a letter he's typing): T: No, I didn't want to spell it left, you know like left, you know? (32) Anglo: M: We're going to have to help Lucky organize her resume so that it um doesn't look like it's like "Here's what I learned in prison," but yet "Here's a bunch o f dates and what I did," you know what I mean?1 0 There is no apparent difference between the patterns of use of this infrequent function in the two communities. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 151 Lemon Grove: 3.88/20,000 words Anglo: 4.39/20,000 words 6.3.c.4.b. You know: Appeal for understanding: Involved Appeals for understanding frequently occur, not unexpectedly, in the "involved" speech (Tannen 1984) characteristic of emotionally charged discussions. Consider, for instance, the following examples from a conversation in which Teddy is expressing deep frustration about his job due to the Foundation's lack of money for sponsored activities. It is not surprising that he would request understanding in a number of instances: (33) T: They get buses every weekend, every time they have a field trip...this summer, they went camping every weekend, every week they were sending kids up camping. M: Right. T: You know? They get monies, they set aside monies for Magic Mountain and all the kids go free. They do Knott's Berry Farm, all the kids go free. * * * (34) T: I get paid like five hundred every two weeks. That's all right, but you know, come on, don't squeeze fuckin' blood outta me...you know? Teddy also demonstrates this use when discussing the distressing trend of increased violence in the neighborhood: (35) T: See, none of the guys, I don't wanna see none of the guys get killed...you know what I mean? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 152 (36) T: I might turn around and get the shotgun up and go go shoot back 'cause I love these dudes, man, they're my friends, man, I grew up with them...they’ re like a damn family, you know what I mean and...you know it's getting too close, man, it's gettin' too too hot in there. Finally, Lester demonstrates the same function when discussing his mother's reluctance to get involved in anti-gang activities: (37) L: Why should I go tell these kids to get off the street when my kids do the same thing over here? M: Yeah, (laughs) L: //You know? M: Yeah. It's hard. L: It's hard, you know. (This last "you know," stated with falling intonation, could also be classified as emphatic) As stated above, this function of you know often appears when personal information is being revealed, as follows: (38) Anglo: C: I don't know, that's always been my dream, you know, go down there... Here, Crystal is discussing her lifelong dream to start a literacy program in Jamaica. The personal nature of this revelation leads to the interpretation of an appeal for understanding in an involved context. There seems to be no qualitative difference between this use of you know in the two communities; however, the quantitative differences are striking. These R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 153 differences can be explained by the fact that the emotionally charged situations of Anglos were not frequently discussed. Furthermore, if, as is first proposed in Chapter Four, Lemon Grove residents do value positive politeness highly, this serves as one more instance in which they seek solidarity and a sense of in-group membership with their hearers by seeking affirmation of understanding of highly emotional matters. Lemon Grove: 37.29/20,000 words Anglo: 7.02/20,000 words 6.3.c.4.c. You know: Appeal for em pathy Certain functions of you know are similar in some respects to the tag question (Holmes 1986) and in this "appeal for empathy" use as defined here, you know fits Kress's description of tag questions in that it "solicits support from the other participant, and thereby downgrades the answer from the status of 'information' to the status of 'request for support'..." (1989: 53). In other words, this "empathetic" function of you know has little to do with knowing, per se, and more to do with the interaction between participants. Examples follow (Speakers are Lucky and Madeleine): (39) Lemon Grove: L: I'm not...I'll be nervous 'cause it's gonna be something different to me. Because th- this ain't like like these people, you know, you know.1 1 *** (39') L: That's why it gets me mad, it's why does it have to be my friend? M: Yeah. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 154 L: You know? Oh, man. Anglo participants did not exhibit this use; however, it was so infrequent that this may not be noteworthy. Once again, the lack of this function in Anglo speech could be a result of conversation topics: Anglos did not often discuss situations which might evoke empathy from addressees.1 2 And, once again, this may be another instance in which Lemon Grove speakers seek affirmation of their positive face. Lemon Grove: 2.33/20,000 words Anglo: 0/20,000 words 6.3.c.4.d. You know: Appeal for agreem ent Ostman paraphrases this function, normally utterance-final with rising intonation, as "do you agree?" (1981: 23). However, she does not separate this function from "are you attending" or "do you see what I mean." She states that this category is potentially problematic in that it is difficult to distinguish between the functions of this "Interrogative you know" and the "Declarative" (Ostman 1981: 23) functions of you know such as the function Holmes (1986) calls Attributive. The following examples illustrate this point: (40) Lemon Grove (Lisa and Crystal discussing violence): L: Wouldn't it be beautiful if we could see all of these people just work together, instead of trying to kill each other off, you know? C: Yeah. L: And specially, specially...specially neighborhoods like this. C: Umm hmm. Yeah. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 155 (41) Anglo: M: If they're gonna pay someone, they might as well pay someone who lives down here, you know, that's gonna be right in the community. C: Oh, that's right. M: //Y’know. The first example could conceivably be an involved appeal for understanding or an emphatic considering the use of the universal quantifier all and the adverb just. The second could arguably be emphatic use. However, both can be argued to be appeals for agreement if we consider that with this function, the speaker "wants an immediate nod, or uhuh response from the addressee" (Ostman 1981: 23). In both examples, the speakers are answered right away— with "yeah" and "Oh, that's right"— the latter of which clearly indicates agreement. This suggests that the addressees have understood the use o f you know to be requests for agreement. However, it is obvious that the category is indeed problematic and that these, the only examples found in the data, are by no means definitive. It appears, then, that the use of I know to affirm agreement is more prevalent than the use of you know to request it; as discussed, this function of I know often occurs independently of you know (discussed in section 6.3.d). There is no evidence that the two communities use this function in a qualitatively different manner, and numbers are too small to make quantitative claims. Lemon Grove: .78/20,000 words Anglo: 2.63/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 156 6.3.C.5. You know: Linguistic imprecision Here, "you know serves as an appeal to the addressee for tolerance while the speaker searches for the appropriate lexical item, introduces more specific and precise information, or recasts the utterance after a false start" (Holmes 1986: 10). Holmes breaks this down into three subcategories: Signalling lexical imprecision, introducing qualifying information, and indicating false start. These uses appeared in the data from both populations; however, because the categories have to do with speech error research rather than a sociolinguistic analysis, just one set of examples is provided here: (41) Lemon Grove (Signalling lexical imprecision): L: And that's why I was thinking at the time, but I didn't realize there's better things in life and to be doing things you know living the wrong way.... (42) Anglo (Indicating a false start): C: Oh, well, we feel that if everyone's working towards one goal and everyone has one goal in mind, there's no need to tak- to you know to have any sort of training seminars on cross-cultural differences. In the first example, Lucky signals lexical imprecision by rephrasing the vague term "doing things" as "living the wrong way." In the second, Crystal makes a false start with "tak-" and then recasts the utterance, choosing a new verb (to have) after you know. Lemon Grove: 38.06/20,000 words1 3 Anglo: 29.83/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 157 6.3.C.6. You know: Softening of suggestions: "You know, you could" The final use of you know discovered in this corpus is not discussed in the literature; however, I have deemed it a subcategory of "attributive" under Holmes's (1986) scheme. In this corpus it occurs only in the speech of Anglos, and I have called it you know, you could because it occurs frequently in this form (or as you know, you can). A number o f the Anglos' attributive uses, phrased slightly differently, are very similar to this in function; however, to show the frequency in which this use occurs in its pure form, I have separated these instances out. In the same way that I think is used to soften directives, you know is used to soften less-prescriptive and inherently more polite suggestions (you could or you can). Examples follow: (43) Anglo: M: You know, you could create a presentation as to what you want to do with the foundation but you need funding, right? *** (44) M: ...You know, you could recruit people to form a board and to be the fundraisers * * * (45) LA: You know, you can send a press release1 4 *** Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 18.43/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 158 I have classified this function as being closely related to "attributive" in that it is "generously crediting the addressee with relevant background knowledge and experience" (Holmes 1986: 9). Ostman aptly states that "a speaker will use you know when the addressee does NOT know what the speaker talks about. That is, the fact that the speaker uses you know is as such evidence that it is not at all clear that the 'You' knows" (1981: 17). However, though Holmes quite logically considers this positive politeness, I feel that an alternative interpretation is possible. To suggest that someone do something is potentially wegarfve-face-threatening, as it interferes with the hearer's desire not to be impeded in what s/he wishes to do. The Anglo speakers are suggesting courses of action that the addressees probably do not, in fact, know about, but the attributive use of you know makes the act less face-threatening in a negative sense in that it implies that the suggestions are, on some level, the hearers' own ideas. In this case, as is illustrated throughout this study, Anglo speakers exhibit a preference for negative politeness. This use of you know is particularly striking because, until now, no Anglo language use pattern has presumed to comment on the level of certainty of others' knowledge. Above, it was demonstrated that Anglos both raise and lower the evidential weight of their own propositions for communicative purposes other than indicating a true level of certainty, namely politeness. Here, also for the sake of politeness, Anglos manipulate the expression of their addressees' knowledge: They attribute knowledge which may not exist to their hearers. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 159 The Anglo speakers tend to use I think to soften directives while they use you know to soften suggestions.1 5 This may be because directives are generally perceived as • so strong that speakers cannot presume to attribute so much knowledge to their addressees. Because I think is speaker-oriented, speakers can take responsibility for the level of certainty being expressed, even if this level is "false" and is being expressed only for politeness. Because suggestions are weaker and hence less face-threatening,1 6 perhaps on an unconscious level it seems more polite to use the hearer-oriented, attributively polite you know. In other words, depending on the strength of the negative-face-threatening act, speakers can choose a style of politeness: Both are negatively polite, but you know gently attributes knowledge to the hearer while I think makes the speaker seem hesitant about the strength of his/her own knowledge.1 7 Both serve to give the pretense o f equalizing the knowledge o f the conversational participants: I think weakens that o f the speaker while you know strengthens that o f the addressee.1 8 63.C.1. You know: A ttention-G etter Holmes (1986) states that this sentence-initial use serves to get the addressee's attention. It often occurs when a speaker is breaking into the utterance of the previous speaker: (47) Lemon Grove (Madeleine and Lester discuss possible causes of homosexuality): M: You know, it seems like it could be either way. L: //You know, it's a lot of theories about that. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 160 (48) Anglo: L: It's too bad because this is what we're trying to get our kids away from. C: I know. L: From all this violence, and drugs and everything and everything C: //You know I saw I saw two black homeboys was it- was it- were they, are they starting to mix it up with some o f the black gangs, because I saw two black homeboys up on the bus on the comer of X and uhm the street here, X and Y waiting for the bus. They were homeboys definitely, I mean you could tell the way they were dressed. Though Lemon Grove speakers used this function more often, numbers were small and there seems to be no qualitative difference between the two communities' use. Lemon Grove: 7.77/20,000 words Anglo: 4.39/20,000 words 6.3.C.8. Rhetorical questions A subset of the Attention-Getting function, above, is the rhetorical question, which appears in several forms. These broke down as follows: You know w hat? Lemon Grove: 20.97/20,000 words Anglo: 3.51/20,000 words You know w hat x? Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: .88/20,000 words You know why/how x? Lemon Grove: .78/20,000 words Anglo: 0/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 161 W ant to know why/how x? Lemon Grove: 3.11/20,000 words Anglo: 0/20,000 words Most of these uses are not quantitatively different in the two communities. The high incidence of You know whafl can be explained by one speaker's tendency to use it repeatedly it in a ritualistic manner in the way that some speakers repeatedly usejow know, as discussed by Ostman (1981). 6.3.d. I know Just as you know can serve as an appeal for understanding, an appeal for agreement, or an appeal for empathy, I have found I know to function as an affirmation of such understanding, agreement or empathy. It occurs in three distinct contexts: As a response to you know, as a response to a statement with propositional content, and in reference to some knowledge external to the immediate speech situation. Examples of each use follow: 6.3.d.l. I know: Affirmation of understanding This use might be paraphrased as "I understand what you have just said," and is sometimes followed by a direct object (e. g., "that"). 6.3.d.l.a. I know: Following a form of you know. (49) Lemon Grove: C: Yeah. There are ways of saying that, though, without like putting yourself directly into the conflict, you know, saying things like, it seems to me L: //That's right, I know. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 162 (50) Anglo: T: Just messing with you, you know that, right? M: I know that. Lemon Grove: .78/20,000 words Anglo: .88/20,000 words No qualitative or quantitative differences were found. 6.3.d.l.b. I know: Following another speaker's comment (with propositional content): (51) Lemon Grove: C: Yeah. One thing when you talk to Bill, it's, it's I think a real good idea to be real diplomatic, though...instead of just cornin' right out and saying "I don't want Marisol here, 'cause all she's gonna do is sit on her fat ass," 'cause that automatically sets it up as an an-you're antagonizing. L: I know, but see, nobody wants her here. (52) Anglo (Madeleine and Lucky work on Lucky's resume): M: How long did you do each thing? So you worked for Cal-Trans, right? L: Yeah. Well, let me see, that's all part of the program M: //Yeah I know but I just like I want to find some specific ways about talking about this Lemon Grove: .78/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words No qualitative or quantitative differences were found. 6.3.d.l.c. I know: Referring to knowledge external to the speech situation: (53) Anglo (Discussing Lucky's work experience in prison): L: How about laundry? (laughs) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 163 M: That's a skill. I know, you laugh 'cause you you're just not used to thinking that what you do is worth money, that's worth money! In this example, Madeleine's I know does not refer to any information that has been exchanged between the two participants. It could be paraphrased as, "I know why you are laughing, because there is a 'general truth' in the world that being able to do laundry is not considered a skill worth money." Numbers here are admittedly small; nevertheless, this use was not found among Lemon Grove speakers. I hypothesize that they would be reluctant to make reference to such "general truths" because of the evidential presumptions that entails. First, as illustrated above, Lemon Grove residents hesitate to discuss truths which they are not completely sure of. This is shown in their apparent reluctance to use will for general truths, discussed in Chapter Five. Furthermore, it would be overstepping one's boundaries in Lemon Grove to make statements about others' knowledge, knowledge about which one doesn't have personal experience.1 9 Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 63.d.2. I know: Affirmation of agreement This use could be paraphrased as "I agree with what you have just said." Examples follow: (54) Lemon Grove (Discussing Ellen's denied leave of absence): M: You should be able to after ten years, that's really bad. E: I know. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 164 * * * (55) C: The only thing the only thing you can do you guys can do is just talk to people about it, you know, we can't go door to door and get everybody involved L: III know (56) Anglo (Madeleine, Crystal, and Lucky): M: Well, he's a big talker, 11 think he has good intentions but I know that L: IIYeah, but you better put those to action C: //Exactly M: III know. Jaime was raggin' on that, saying, you know, "He really, he promised all these things that he just did not deliver at all when he was recruiting you guys." *** (57) M: I wish they'd start writing...songs like that about men now, I'm tired of that about women, women aren't like that all the time. C: //Oh, I know. (58) M: I wonder what Brittany wrote. C: I know. No qualitative or quantitative differences were found. Lemon Grove: 3.88/20,000 words Anglo: 4.39/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 165 63.d.3. Affirmation of empathy Here, I know serves to reassure the hearer that the speaker not only understands what s/he is saying, s/he also sympathizes. It is used in involved conversations, usually about emotionally charged or personal topics. Consider the following examples: (59) Lemon Grove: C: Well, that's like we were supposed to be getting paid to come down here and we L: //I know, I know, huh2 0 (60) Anglo: L: It's too bad because this is what we're trying to get our kids away from. C: I know. (61) M: It is nerve-racking, though. I spoke at it last year and I got really nervous. I don't like speaking at those things. L: //See? //See? Lookit, see? M: I know. C: I know. I get totally nervous every time I speak. *** (62) L: I'll be all nervous 'cause it's gonna be something different to me. Because th- this ain't like like these people you know you know C: //Umm hmm R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 166 L: what I'm talking about? C: Yeah, I know what you mean. No qualitative or quantitative differences were found for this infrequent, positively polite function. Lemon Grove: 2.33/20,000 words Anglo: 3.51/20,000 words 6 J.e. I d o n 't know Tsui provides a comprehensive classification o f the pragmatic functions of I don't know based on the work o f Leech (1983). She demonstrates that while the "central meaning which unifies all instances o f its occurrence [is] a declaration of insufficient knowledge" (1991: 620), for some uses of I don't know, the actual act of knowing (or not knowing) has little to do with the function of the utterance. Her categories follow: 6 3 .e.l. I d o n 't know: Reply to information question In describing what she has deemed the prototypical meaning, Tsui states that I don't know is generally thought of as a "reply to an information question when the speaker is unable to supply the requested information" (1991: 607). Examples follow: (63) Lemon Grove: M: What's her last name? L: I d o n 't know, I have it, I have it in the paper over there. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 167 (64) Anglo: L: Deborah, remember Deborah? M: I don't remember Deborah. L: Meryl? The doctors? M: No. L: You never met them? M: I do n 't know, maybe not. In both cases, the speakers genuinely lack the information asked of them. Lucky doesn't know the woman's last name, and Madeleine doesn't remember having met Deborah and Meryl, though she may have: I don't know does not rule out the possibility. Though Tsui puts this use into a category of its own, I prefer to count these instances under the prototypical function of know, above: Awareness of facts. When using this function, speakers express their lack o f knowledge of factual information. 63.e.2. I d o n 't know: Avoiding assessment Tsui explains that "one way of declining to make an assessment is to claim insufficient knowledge of the referent, hence denying the proper basis for its production" (1991: 610). This category may be considered a more specific subcategory of the first, above. (65) Lemon Grove (Li = Lisa; Lu = Lucky): C: Yeah that would be really good, say is the computer working? Do you want to go up and work on it some? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 168 Li: //I guess so Lu: I don't know, I don't even know how to work it (66) (Lucky cannot remember job dates for her resume) L: Not too long, not for a long time, I don't even know when that was, that was in the '70s...about '78, '77...uhm not too long, either. (67) Anglo: M: Umm, she's just, like, super busy trying to finish her dissertation, I think, she just got, like, way overcommitted...I don't know, I don't see her anymore at all. In the first example, Lucky genuinely does not know how to use the computer, so she is being truthful in her claim of insufficient knowledge for assessment; she emphasizes her lack of knowledge with the intensifier even. In the Anglo example, note that Madeleine finishes her answer by emphatically claiming insufficient knowledge of the referent (former tutor LaRae) by saying that she doesn't "see her anymore at all." At first she attempts to answer with conjecture, hedging with just, like and I think, but finally admits that she simply does not have the requested information and explains why. Two other possible examples were found in the Anglo data: (68) (After having discussed insertion in the linguistic sense, Madeleine and Crystal are discussing a man Crystal has been dating.) C: What does he know? M: About insertion? C: I don't know, (laughs) Shut up, Madeleine. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 169 Crystal realizes that Madeleine is making a sexual joke and claims insufficient knowledge of the referent--in this case, her boyfriend— to answer the question. (69) L: Okay, what do you want what do you want to talk about? C: Oh, I d o n 't know. Did you guys call that place yet? Here, Crystal claims insufficient knowledge of what she and Lisa could possibly talk about in deference to Lisa. This is another example of Anglo use of negative politeness: By claiming insufficient knowledge o f subjects to discuss, Crystal lets Lisa choose, thereby allowing her more freedom o f action. While this use occurs in both groups, Anglo speakers' claims of insufficient knowledge are not always truthful. The only instances among Lemon Grove speakers were truthful: Lucky can truthfully claim that she doesn't know how to use the computer, and has honestly forgotten the dates o f a particular job. However, two of the three Anglo uses might be called untruthful: In the first, Crystal denies sexual knowledge of her boyfriend, and in the second, she denies knowing what she wants to talk about. In the first, the hedge is self-protective, while in the second, it is negatively polite. Both of these "untruthful" uses could be interpreted by Lemon Grove residents as hypocritical. This interpretation will be discussed in Chapter Seven. Lemon Grove: 1.55/20,000 words. Anglo: 2.63/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 170 63.e.3. I don't know: Prefacing disagreements Fraser defines mitigation as a strategy for softening or reducing the strength of a speech act whose effects may be unwelcome to the hearer (1980: 342). Tsui argues that "prefacing a disagreement with a declaration o f insufficient knowledge reduces the speaker's commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed in the disagreement, hence mitigating its face-threatening effect" (1991: 611). This use, then, functions purely for politeness. Like the mitigating use of I think detailed in section 6.2.e, in this use, the speaker lowers the evidential weight of the statement for reasons which have nothing to do with his/her actual attitude toward the relative certainty of the statement. This use was not found among Lemon Grove speakers. Anglo examples follow: (70) Anglo (Madeleine, Crystal, and Lucky): L: It's b- it? s better than being all messed up in my head I'll go go and and say I'm I'm stressed out on my job, call up that place, what is it called? C: Oh, yeah, Workman's Comp or whatever. M: Call up the Legal Rights Defenders. C: //Yeah. M: Call 'em up and say that. You could. C: I don't know that you'd have a case. M: I don’t know, those guys can make a case out of anything (laughs). C: That's true but you got to pay them a nice fee. M: Yeah but they usually those places you only pay if you win. That’ s how they work. They just prey on people who would have nothing to give them otherwise. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 171 C: Yeah. *** (71) C: I wouldn't make any m- fast moves...until you get it worked out so you can (inaudible) get money somewhere else. L: Why? C: I don't know, because it could all backfire in your face and you'd end up without a job and you still wouldn't be working here, and you're not making any money to make ends meet. L: Still living with him? He ain't doin', I'll throw his shit out the door ev- even if I have to do that like I like...I'm gonna tell when I do find out to leave and if he if he if he wants to kick my ass I'll say do what you want to do, I'd rather be dead or whatever than to be with you. In the first example, Madeleine prefaces her disagreement with Crystal with I don't know. In the second, Crystal does not think that Lucky should just quit her job without making other plans. Lucky's query of "Why?" implies that she disagrees with Crystal, who then prefaces her potentially unwelcome explanation with I don't know. Numbers here are admittedly small; nevertheless, it may be telling that this "untruthful," negatively polite use is only exhibited by Anglos.2 1 Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 2.63/20,000 words 63.e.4. I don't know: Avoiding explicit disagreem ent Gumperz (1970), in his discussion of verbal strategies, describes the important strategy of avoiding disagreement. He states that such avoidance can be accomplished through the use of hedges; more specifically, the speaker "may choose to be vague about his own opinions" (1970: 116). Tsui highlights this R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 172 function o f I don't know, stating that "one of the functions of I don't know is to disagree with a prior assessment without stating it explicitly" (1991: 615). She gives the following example (1991: 613): B: It was a lot in those days. C: Well, not really B: /p YEAH/ ((laugh)) /pWELL/ /o i/p I don't know/ Tsui explains that "when C...disagrees...B resorts to I don't know...B, by saying 1 don't know has accomplished a disagreement with C without stating it explicitly" (1991: 613). This use was found only in one example from Lemon Grove: (72) Lemon Grove (Discussing Madeleine's doctors): T: Those bastards just want to make money off you. M: I don't think so. I know some of them do, but I think this guy's okay. T: I d o n 't know, I'm just M: I know, thanks for the ideas T: //Find out. I don't believe in doctors, you see? Here, Teddy disagrees with Madeleine's implication that (at least some) doctors are trustworthy.2 2 However, apparently not wishing to argue, he responds with I don't know, and continues with "I'm just," implying "I'm just trying to help you." Though I would not have predicted finding this use in Lemon Grove speech, as it involves manipulating an evidential for (negative) politeness, this one use does not invalidate the general trend against Lemon Grove speakers using such functions. Once again, this example is from Teddy, argued throughout this text R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 173 to be the most dominant-society-acculturated speaker in this corpus; therefore, he would be the most likely to have adopted some Anglo politeness norms. Lemon Grove: .78/20,000 words Anglo: 0/20,000 words 6 3 .e S . I do n 't know: Avoiding com m itm ent This use of I don't know is "neither a refusal nor a compliance, but rather a conveyance of discomfort and reluctance...often exploited...in response to invitations, offers, requests for permissions, or any other speech acts which solicit commitment from the speaker" (Tsui 1991: 617). This use was not found in Lemon Grove speech; however, there are examples in the Anglo data: (73) M: ...I'm just doing my paper and I don't need to be writing any opening remarks I said I'll get up and introduce myself and stuff do that 'cause I can't deal with it at the moment. C: Yeah. Although it'd be kind of cool if you could maybe say some stuff about Lemon Grove. M: I might be able to. C: We should work it out. M: I d o n 't know, Crys, my paper's due two days after that and I'll be doin' that the whole day, so I d on't know if I can work anything else out. Here, Madeleine asserts that she does not have time to participate in an upcoming conference. Nevertheless, Crystal tentatively requests her to do so with "It'd be kind of cool if you could maybe say some stuff about Lemon Grove." Madeleine avoids commitment with "I m ight be able to" (see discussion of might in Chapter R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 174 Five). When Crystal pushes, Madeleine again avoids commitment with two statements o f I don't know. In light of the evidence being amassed here, it is not surprising that Lemon Grove residents did not use this function. Once again, this is the use of an evidential for politeness, something which Lemon Grove residents tend not to do. However, while negative politeness is the Anglo norm, this instance may be interpreted as positive.2 3 Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 63.e.6. I d o n 't know: M inimization of impolite beliefs This use, based on Leech's (1983) Politeness Principle, allows speakers to lower the evidential weight o f statements which may not be received positively by their hearers. It is similar to the Appealing use of you know, discussed above. Not surprisingly, this use was not found among Lemon Grove speakers. An Anglo example follows: (74) Anglo: M: Okay, God, will they take messages, do you have anybody who's more reliable to take a message? (laughs) 'Cause I don't know if I'd want one of those guys taking your messages about a job. Though Madeleine seems fairly sure that her hearer (Lucky) will see the humor in her criticism of the men who answer the phone at the gym, she still softens the proposition that she wouldn't want them to take a telephone message for Lucky by using the polite I don't know. The politeness expressed here is negative: Madeleine uses the speaker-oriented form to put the focus on her own opinion ("/ R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 175 don't know if i ’d want..."), thereby implying that addressee Lucky does not have to share her opinion. The politeness is reinforced by the contracted conditional would (see Chapter Five). The fact that this function does not occur in Lemon Grove speech supports Brown and Levinson's argument against the notion of a universal Politeness Principle. Instead, as they state, "the distribution of politeness...is socially controlled" (1987: 4-5). Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 2.63/20,000 words 6.3.e.7. I don't know: M arker of uncertainty In this use, "I don't know is put in as a qualification of what has been said and what is going to be said" (Tsui 1991: 620). Examples follow: (75) Lemon Grove: L: Because I heard that it's it's gonna close down. That's just a rumor, I don't know if it is. (76) Anglo: M: And she said her daughter, um, I think Marisa? L: Marisa. M: Needs help in reading, and I said, you know, it probably wouldn't help-hurt Marisa just to come and read with us. You know, this might not be over her head. C: Yeah. L: //Nah, I don't think that it would be. C: It might be, 1 don’t know. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 176 Again, while Tsui considers this a discrete category, I find it more explanatorily adequate for quantitative analysis to count these instances under one of the prototypical uses, Awareness of Facts. As in Reply to Information Question, the uncertainty that this function expresses is actually a lack of awareness of certain facts. 6.3.e.8. I d o n 't know: Uses not mentioned by Tsui Tsui did not consider among her functional categories of I don't know several uses which relate to the knowledge of facts but which are not replies to information questions or markers of uncertainty. For example, she did not identify the common declaration of a lack of knowledge of facts which occurs independently o f questions. For efficiency of analysis, I have added these instances to the category of Awareness of Facts; however, it is informative to consider the following examples: (77) Lemon Grove: L: They're gonna start uh uh for the for the kids. C: Uh huh. L: I don't know what it's called but they're gonna start it. (78) Anglo: M: Yeah, I'm gonna call him and see what's, see what's up. This could be it. No, maybe not. L: //Y up. C: Nope. M: What's the deal with (inaudible)? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 177 L: Well he, he wrote her a letter. C: I don't know which one it is. Now you're learning Wordstar. Okay, God damn it, I do n 't know which one it is. In the first example, Lisa states that she does not know the name of the new program. In the second, Crystal states that she does not know what computer file to look at. Both are expressing an insufficient knowledge o f facts without having been prompted by a question. Finally, both groups used constructions such as "I don't know how to do x" and "I don't know why x." For efficiency of analysis, I have considered the former a subset of Acquaintance and Familiarity (the second prototypical use of know) and the latter, a subset o f Awareness of Facts. To know how to do something is to be acquainted or familiar with a procedure, and to know why something is a certain way is to be aware o f facts. 6.4. Feel According to Collins COBUILD (1992),/ee/ has six major uses, as follows: 6.4.a. Feel: Awareness This straightforward use of feel indicates awareness via the sense of touch or feeling inside one's body. (78) Lemon Grove/Anglo: T: You could normally feel it if it's a slipped disk. 'Cause I had a slipped disk. M: Really? And did you feel it? T: It bothered me. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 178 No qualitative or quantitative differences were found. Lemon Grove: 3.88/20,000 words Anglo: 3.51/20,000 words 6.4.b. Feel: Touching "When you feel an object, you touch it deliberately in order to find out what it is like" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 247). No examples were found in the corpus. 6.4.c. Feel: Impressions Collins COBUILD explain that "the way something feels is the way it seems to you when you hold it or touch it" (1992: 247). No examples were found in the corpus. 6.4.d. Feel: Em otions and sensations This function describes a person's experience of an emotion or sensation, (e. g., "I feel lonely.") Examples follow: (79) Lemon Grove (Lucky discusses speaking at an upcoming conference): L: I'm not...I'll be nervous 'cause it's gonna be something different to me. Because th- this ain't like like these people you know you know what I'm talking about? C: //Umm hmm Yeah, I know what you mean. L: And it's gonna feel like weird to me, I'm gonna be like (laughs). (80) Anglo (Crystal and Lisa discuss the shooting of a young community member): C: It's something that has to be acknowledged, it's a natural feeling that any human being would have, any mother, any friends would feel at the loss o f another person, we feel it when somebody dies naturally R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 179 L: //Yes C: And natural causes, we feel angry, so naturally and and it's the sheriff does make a convenient, the sheriffs do make a very convenient accessible target While qualitative use is similar in the two groups, Lemon Grove speakers used this function over twice as often as the Anglo speakers. However, with numbers this small, only a handful o f occurrences account for this difference. The subject matter o f participants' discussions explains the disparity: In at least two transcripts, much of the discussion focusses on the Sheriffs shooting of a community member, in which the residents discuss how they feel at length, using the verb itself. Lemon Grove: 10.88/20,000 words Anglo: 4.39/20,000 words 6.4.e. "Feel like" In this use, a speaker expresses awareness o f "having some of the qualities or feelings of that person or thing" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 247). No examples were found in the corpus. 6.4.f. Feel: Beliefs Like think, fe el can mean that one believes "that something is the case or that something should be done" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 241). Examples follow: (81) Lemon Grove: T: The thing that they do, they they have commercials, "Stay in school, don't use drugs," uhm..."Education is the most important," that was put together by Jesse Jackson. M: Was it really? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 8 0 T: Yes, it was started by Jesse Jackson. M: I didn't know that. T: //So then and and uh he raises money ’ cause he's got all the black NBA players to cover him. They feel that they're giving to a good cause. Why not give ten thousand of their yearly contracts to a good cause? (82) Anglo: C: I find that a lot like a lot of my Latino students L: //Because C: Tend to think that way, they tend to see life is just kind of the way it is and you can't really change it L: Yeah C: Especially the ones from places like El Salvador who've grown up in really bad you know civil war situations feel that it's just the way it is, you know, there's nothing you can change. Because Anglos use 1 think for politeness, it was expected that they might use the Belief function of fe e l in the same way. However, this did not prove to be the case: No politeness uses of feel were found. This is, I now believe, due to subtle differences between the evidential nature of think and that of feel. Feel is based on sensory evidence— its prototypical meaning implies the actual physical act o f touching. In Anglo culture, such sensory evidence (based on seeing, hearing, and feeling) is highly reliable (Chafe 1985); thus, if the aim of using politeness is distancing, it is preferable to use a slightly less evidentially reliable verb such as think rather than a more reliable one such as feel. The point of hedging with think is to minimize the speaker's force behind the proposition. To R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 181 use "I feel" would seem just a bit too strong to accomplish the desired politeness, due to the sensory origins o f feel. Lemon Grove: 5.44/20,000 words Anglo: 6.14/20,000 words 6.5. Epistemic modal adverbs According to Chafe (1985), most knowledge is communicated as if it is factual; only in a minority of cases is it lexically signalled. However, when lexical signals are used, the adverbs maybe, probably, and certainly are among the most common. Holmes (1984) discusses the role of such evidentials in "modifying the strength or force of speech acts." She defines two broad categories: Downtoners and Boosters. Downtoners attenuate (or weaken) the force o f a speech act while Boosters strengthen (or emphasize) its force. Holmes states that some adverbs can serve as "content or other-oriented Downtoners" which suggest that the "content is dubious or uncertain" (1984: 360), giving the examples of possibly and probably. Similarly, Holmes classifies adverbs such as certainly (described by Biber and Finegan 1989 as "certainty adverbs") as "content-oriented Boosters" (Holmes 1984: 354). Put in simpler terms, "adverbs of probability are used to indicate how certain you are about something" (Collins COBUILD 1992: 20-21). Collins COBUILD propose the following hierarchy of adverbs of probability, "arranged from least certain to most certain: conceivably, possibly, perhaps, maybe, hopefully, probably, presumably, almost certainly, no doubt, doubtless, definitely" (1992:20-21). In this analysis, I chose the adverbs which R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 8 2 seemed, in an overview of the data, to be the most likely to occur, and which represented all points on the probability continuum. These were possibly, maybe, probably, definitely, and certainly,2 A An analysis of maybe will be conducted first. 6.5.a. M aybe 6.5.a.l. M aybe: Prototypical use Collins COBUILD state that "you can use maybe...to indicate that something is possible, although you are not certain about it" (1992: 385). This use was quantitatively and qualitatively similar in the two groups. Examples follow: (83) Lemon Grove (Teddy teases Madeleine): T: Eh, I wouldn't, hey, Madeleine, I'd never do anything to hurt you, man, not you and Crystal M: //I know T: //maybe Jonathan, and maybe Jonathan and Kevin M: //(laughs) maybe Jonathan and Kevin, right T: //But not you and Crystal, you know what I mean? (84) Anglo (Madeleine discusses her resume): M: See, I stopped putting uhm I stopped putting high school stuff on my resume, maybe I should put it in 'cause I had a couple good things Lemon Grove: 11.65/20,000 words Anglo: 13.16/20,000 words R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 183 6.5.a.2. Maybe: Polite hedge A function found only among Anglo speakers was the use of maybe as a negatively polite hedge. Examples follow: (85) Anglo (Madeleine, Crystal, and Ellen): E: A lot o f people were telling, s- some o f my friends says "Why do you go to your work and show them, the people from unemployment, that you didn't receive your benefits (inaudible), and how your boyfriend passed away and you just weren't ready to go to work and 'cause I was there ten years, why can't I get three months leave of absence? M: You should be able to after ten years, that's really bad. E: I know. C: Yeah, that is bad. E: Then they wrote me a letter said that I resigned. M: Sounds like maybe you need to call the uhm some kind of employment commission. C: Yeah. (86) M: ...Maybe you should start a new paragraph and say "I hope this will help," you know, "Expedite her citizenship," whatever. * * * (87) T: I'm writing this letter on behalf of my mother (name), (inaudible) According to my knowledge (inaudible) I cannot recall a time in my life when my mother had to leave the state for any reason. M: That's about enough. Then you can maybe start a new paragraph and say, "I hope this will," you know, "this is the information you need, if you have any questions please call me, " and then give your phone number... R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 184 In these examples, Madeleine softens her directives and suggestions— Negative Face Threatening Acts, according to Gumperz (1970)— with maybe for politeness.2 5 This is similar to the I think you should and You know you could uses, discussed in sections 6.2.c and 6.3.C.6, respectively. In the following examples, maybe is not used to mitigate directives or suggestions, but for other politeness goals: (88) Anglo (Crystal and Lisa): C: Yeah. Yeah, where is Lucky today— we're supposed to work on G.E.D.? L: //She, yeah, she's supposed to come in, but then (inaudible) C: Well, we'll wait and see. Are is she g-, are you guys gonna be around this week, because maybe Mad and I could come down again during the week. L: I work every day until five o'clock. C: Umm hmm. L: (inaudible) C: //'Cause we were thinking about maybe coming down like Thursday or something, Thursday morning. L: She'll be here. C: Umm hmm. (89) C: ...When I talk about this I'm gonna refer to more than just you, I’ ll probably talk about Teddy and Lester too, but I won't n-1 won't name their names uhm, but one o' the things I thought would be kind o f cool would be for you to uhm maybe talk a little bit about the stuff that we've been doing down here, stuff that we've done with other people. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 185 In the first example, Crystal demonstrates negative politeness by suggesting that she and Madeleine come down to tutor on Thursday. Though the suggestion is directed at herself, the implication is that the Lemon Grove residents may accept or reject the offer; hence, the negatively polite maybe, which leaves the option open to Lisa. In the second example, Crystal is not giving a directive or even a suggestion; she is making a polite request. This negative politeness is evidenced by the use of maybe, as well as a number of other items in this heavily modalized passage (other hedges include I thought, kind of, the conditional would, uhm, and a little bit). This use supports the general finding that Lemon Grove residents are reluctant to use evidentials for communicative goals other than expressing evidentiality, and also supports the notion that the Anglo speakers tend to prefer negative politeness strategies. As discussed throughout this study, politeness is done in other ways in Lemon Grove, but not through the seemingly "false" manipulation of evidentials. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words2 6 Anglo: 21.94/20,000 words 6.5.b. Possibly According to Collins COBUILD, "you use possibly to indicate that you are not sure about something....You also use possibly when you are asking someone to do something in a very polite way" (1992: 530). This adverb was chosen for analysis because I thought it might show a similar pattern to the polite hedge uses of maybe, might, 1 think, etc.; however, it did not appear in the corpus. It seems R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 186 that speakers from both groups tend to express both evidentiality and politeness by other linguistic means. 6.5.c. Probably Collins COBUILD assert that "you use probably to indicate that a statement is very likely to be true" (1992: 537). This use was the predominant one in these data; however, I also found a polite use which is not discussed in the literature. The prototypical meaning of probability will be considered first. 6.5.C.I. Probably: Probability Both groups used this prototypical function, as follows: (90) Lemon Grove: M: Do you have any relatives you could visit who wouldn't be (laughs) mad at you, who wouldn't be mad at your mom? T: //No, I think they'd be glad just to see us. M: Right. T: Probably I have a few of them that look like me. M: Probably 'cause your other brothers look like you. (91) Anglo: C: Well, how do you think it would be like if Madeleine and I came down here without you guys and no one knew why were coming down here, we'd probably get an unwelcome welcome reception too, wouldn't we? Qualitatively, the use seems the same in the two groups. To explain the fact that Anglos used this function twice as often as Lemon Grove speakers, I point once again to the hypothesis that Lemon Grove speakers may be less likely to use R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 187 evidentials in general, particularly those with high reliability, as they are unwilling to state with certainty that which they do not know for sure. Lemon Grove: 11.65/20,000 words Anglo: 21.06/20,000 words 6.5.C.2. Probably: Polite hedge While this use was uncommon among Anglos it did not occur at all among Lemon Grove speakers. In the following examples, probably is used in deference: (92) Anglo: L: //W- e- e- even, it counts even if I was busted that I that I learned how to (inaudible) M: Yeah. You mean y- the stuff you learned while you were in prison? L: Yeah. M: //Yeah, that counts. It's probably a little harder to sell it since you've been in prison, but, you know...how long has it been since then? L: Since I been busted? It's goin' on five years that I been out. M: That's good. * * * (93) T: I put Mr. Ted Garcia? M: It's probably better just to put Ted 'cause you shouldn't really put titles so much in these kind of things. So he's puttin' it in anyway. (T is typing) You should put a comma after Garcia. T: Right, I knew that, I was just testing you! (laughs) M: IITed Garcia, comma Not! (laughs) T: I was just testing you, Madeleine. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 8 8 M: You know what else? I think it'd be more professional if you just typed in Ted Garcia, instead of Mr. Garcia...it's just more regular, professional, business style. 'Cause see like here, they have everybody's names, and they don't have Mr. Getty, Mr. Edwards, you know, they have the full name. In the first example, Madeleine is trying to reassure Lucky that her prison work experience "counts." To avoid being too discouraging, she mitigates the fact that such experience will be harder to "sell" by prefacing it with probably. This mitigation is further evidenced by her use of the softener a little. In the second example, Madeleine softens her suggestion that Ted omit "Mr." in his signature on a business letter. The politeness expressed is negative in that it allows the hearer to make up his mind whether or not it actually is better just to put Ted. This mitigating effect is reinforced by the other qualifiers in this passage such as just and really. Furthermore, when Ted either doesn't hear her the first time or chooses to ignore the advice, Madeleine presents it again with "You know what else?" politely attempting to call his attention once again to the suggestion. This supports the claim that Anglos use evidentials to express (primarily negative) politeness while Lemon Grove speakers do not. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 3.51/20,000 words 6.5.d. Definitely Though a few examples were found in the corpus, definitely did not prove to be as fruitful an item as was hoped. It was used only twice by Anglos and not at all by Lemon Grove residents. However, the two examples which did occur were interesting: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 189 (9 4 ) //You know I saw I saw two Black homeboys was it- was it- were they, are they starting to mix it up with some of the Black gangs, because I saw two black homeboys up on the bus on the comer of (street name) and uhm the street here, (street names) waiting for the bus. They were homeboys definitely, I mean you could tell by the way they were dressed. //How do you know? They looked like they look--I couldn't tell if they were Crips or Bloods 'cause usually they're they're those guys are like Crips or Bloods, they're (inaudible) //They fly their colors, //(inaudible) around here. They've got they were- these guys weren't flying colors. They would not be around here. //These guys weren't flying colors. Yeah, these guys weren't flying any colors but they looked like homeboys, I mean they dressed like homeboys, they looked like dope dealers, you know dope-dealer homeboys 'cause they were all dressed up with gold jewelry and shit. In this example, Crystal states that the Black men she saw were definitely homeboys. Interestingly, as soon as Crystal asserts this, Teddy asks for evidence, which Crystal has not as yet presented. She begins to explain when Lisa interrupts with what she would consider definitive evidence: If they were homeboys, they would be flying colors. Teddy contradicts her, and then Crystal goes on to explain herself in detail, stumbling over her words. At first, Crystal was willing to assert that these men were definitely gang members with the vague evidence that "you could tell the way they were dressed." However, the Lemon R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. C: T: C: L: T: C: T: C: 190 Grove participants require more evidence to back up such an assertion, which prompts Crystal to go on. Once again, this shows the contrast between Anglo and Lemon Grove use of evidentials: Anglos are much quicker to make strong claims using evidentials. Consider also the following example: (95) C: ...And what I think you definitely need to do is you need to let the press and whoever know, I mean if they're still gonna be here for another half hour or so maybe you can even go out there and make a statement... Here, Crystal wishes to make a strong directive with definitely; however, she mitigates this with I think. It seems, then, that Anglos are willing to make strong claims o f high reliability when discussing less personal subjects, but couch such claims in negatively polite tentativeness when the statements may be perceived as negative-face-threatening acts. These two uses of definitely show once again that Anglos use evidentials more freely: In some cases speakers boost the force of their claims, while in other cases high-reliability evidentials are used in concert with softeners if the content of the statement may be unwelcome. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 6.5.e. Certainly Certainly only appeared once in the entire corpus, and it was used by an Anglo: (96) C: Is there a phone book in the office? L: No, I don't think so. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 191 C: Oh. 'Cause there's a...you can certainly call Legal Aid and ask them, you know, who do I talk to about this? Because legally, if they're, if you're on their payroll, and they're supposed to be paying you, they have to pay you. In this example, Crystal seems certain about the matter being discussed. There are no softeners or mitigating strategies here; no uses of I think or maybe. There are not enough occurrences to tell if the two communities use this function in the same way or avoid it to the same degree. Lemon Grove: 0/20,000 words Anglo: 1.75/20,000 words 6.6. C hapter sum m ary The analysis of epistemic modal verbs and adverbs provides increasing support for a theory of epistemologically based communicative differences in Lemon Grove vs. the Anglo middle class. The numerical results of this analysis are summarized in Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 192 Table 6.1. Summary: Uses of think and feel. Function Uses per 20.000 words: Lemon Grove uses: Anglo uses: Think: Thinking 6.21 8.77 Think: Tentative Belief 7.77 23.69 Think: Deliberative 21.75 44.75 Think: Emphatic 0.00 2.63 Think: Mitigating 0.00 30.71 Feel: Awareness 3.88 3.51 Feel: Emotions/Sensations 10.88 4.39 Feel: Belief 5.44 6.14 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 193 Table 6.2. Summary: Uses of know. Function Uses per 20.000 words: Lemon Grove uses: Anglo uses: Know: Acq/Fam. 31.07 15.79 Know: Aware/Facts 92.45 51.97 You Know: Conjoint Knowldg. 3.11 1.75 You Know: Emphatic 39.62 20.18 You Know: Attributive 30.30 35.97 You Know: Appeal/Und. 3.88 4.39 You Know: Appeal/Inv. 37.29 7.02 You Know: Appeal/Emp. 2.33 0.00 You Know: Appeal/Agr. .78 2.63 You Know: Lx. Imprec. 38.06 29.83 You Know: Soft. Suggest. 0.00 18.43 You Know: Attention-Getter 7.77 4.39 You Know: Rhetorical Ques. 24.86 4.39 I Know: Affirm/Und. 1.55 4.39 I Know: Affirm/Agr. 3.88 4.39 I Don't Know: Avoid. Assessmt. 1.55 2.63 I Don't Know: Pref. Disagr. 0.00 2.63 I Don't Know: Avoid Expl. Disagr. .78 0.00 I Don't Know: Avoid. Commitmt. 0.00 1.75 I Don't Know: Minim. Imp. Bel. 0.00 2.63 m s aa R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Table 6.3. Summary of epistemic modal adverb use. iiiw u a a w — b — m a — — B w a — — 194 Function Uses per 20.000 words; Lemon Grove uses: Anglo uses: Maybe: Possibility 11.65 13.16 Maybe: Polite Hedge 0.00 21.94 Probably: Probability 11.65 21.06 Probably: Polite Hedge 0.00 3.51 Definitely 0.00 1.75 Certainly 0.00 1.75 The study's Anglo participants use a variety of epistemic modal verbs (and to a lesser extent, adverbs2 7 ) for a range o f purposes, most having to do with speech situations in which they feel compelled to express some form of (usually negative) politeness. And, again, the reluctance o f Lemon Grove speakers to use epistemic modals to make highly reliable statements about the future or truths outside their frame of reference is apparent. Finally, there appears to be some evidence that, when the Lemon Grove speakers infrequently express politeness using epistemic modals, this politeness is positive rather than negative, the latter being the Anglo norm. The primary remaining task is to interpret these findings within a sociocultural context. This will be undertaken in Chapter Seven, after an overview of the findings of Chapters Five and Six is presented. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 195 Notes for C hapter Six: 'Verbs such as seem and appear occur in very marked contexts; for example, when Crystal is coaching Lucky on diplomatic meeting-speak, she uses both: C: //You could just say you know, that, "It appears to be the case that...that several, several L: //Well, I feel C: people" *** (12 lines later) C: Yeah. There are ways of saying that, though, without like putting yourself directly into the conflict, you know saying things like, it seems to me It is noteworthy that such verbs occur in Crystal's lesson on how to perform like a dominant Discourse member in a quintessentially dominant-Discourse situation. 2 Collins COBUILD give the example "I think you should go" to illustrate this "opinion" use (1992: 714). I disagree, however, and would instead classify their example under the use explained in 6.2.d., softening for politeness. This is not merely a statement of an uncertain opinion; it is, in fact, "something which might be unwelcome" to the hearer (Collins COBUILD 1992: 594). 3 Though the deliberative use of I think contributes evidential weight to the proposition by adding the element o f speaker confidence, it still carries less evidential weight than the unqualified proposition. For example, "I think he'll come later," though said with confidence, is less reliable than the absolute, unqualified "He'll come later." The unqualified statement implies that there is some outside source of absolute veracity which assures that "He'll come later." The evidential weight added to the former utterance comes from the speaker's willingness to commit him/herself to the proposition; however, this does not mean that s/he is always correct. In fact, stating "I think x" implies "But others may have other opinions." 4 In this last line, Madeleine even prefaces her statement with "You know what else?" as if new information is to follow. This serves to reinforce the tentative nature of I think. 5 The function of know as an instantiator of reality is shown in the following example, in which Madeleine and Lucky discuss Teddy's rumored child: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 196 M: I heard he had a kid or something. L: I don't know no kid. Here, Lucky states that she has no acquaintance or familiarity with any child that Teddy might have. To her, that serves as highly reliable evidence that no such child exists. In this case, the act of not knowing serves as the instantiator of reality; Lucky feels that she knows Teddy and his circumstances so well that if he had a child, she would know about it. 6 O f all the forms examined in this study, you know is perhaps the most problematic because it is often difficult to distinguish between certain seemingly confounded functions. This is an inevitable result of the attempt to categorize functions which necessarily overlap. As with all epistemic modals, you know has layers of meaning: It always expresses a certain nuance of its prototypical meaning, while other functions are layered on top. These layers of meaning can be likened to what is uncovered when peeling an onion: The core meaning is the small, dense center, while other functions take on higher relative importance closer to the surface. Thus, categorization becomes a matter not of defining one singular function, but o f defining the most prominent, given the context of the utterance. The definition of the most prominent function is appropriate here in that the purpose o f categorization is not to create air-tight definitions; rather, categories serve as a device through which use patterns of the two populations can be compared. 7 I initially struggled with this category because it seems inexorably confounded with involvement. Without being able to hear Holmes's examples, it was hard for me to see the distinction between emphasis and involvement that the author had obviously heard in her examples. This indicates that the difference may be identifiable largely through intonation contours. For instance, example 5 seems to indicate involved speech rather than actual emphasis, and while 6 is conceivably emphatic, without more context it is hard to determine whether this use of you know is, in fact, more an indicator o f involvement. Furthermore, I noted that all four of Holmes's examples for this category are addressed to friendly acquaintances: Neighbors (who are apparently friendly enough to joke with), flatmates, and friends, all conversations with whom might be characterized as involved. However, Kaplan (personal communication), who is well acquainted with Holmes’s population of study, explains that this emphatic use of you know is highly characteristic of Australian and New Zealand speech. I have found that it occurs in the American English represented in this study's data and can be distinguished from other categories, though less saliently. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 197 8 As discussed above with reference to Lyons (1977), Ostman confirms that "the modality and mood of an utterance can be indicated by an excessive use of modal elements" (1981: 41). Ostman demonstrates with the following example from Halliday (1980): (43) Surely they can’ t be leaving as early as this, can they do you think? Ostman argues that the underlined elements in the example "all reinforce the particular mood that the utterance is made to convey— Correspondingly, we can say that a 'you-know mood' is transmitted by an utterance that contains an abundant number o f you knows" (1981: 41). A number o f similar examples exist in these data: In the two examples just given, the overriding impression is emphasis, whereas in others, there are numerous markers o f tentativeness, and so on. 9 A1so included here were instances of "You know what I mean," a more explicit form. 1 0 The "appeal for understanding" use o f you know? with question intonation is often phrased more specifically as "You know what I mean?" or "You know what I'm saying?" There are no significant semantic differences between the variations, though the latter two are obviously easier to classify. "Here, Lucky's use of you know takes on an emphatic quality achieved by repetition. 1 2 It might be argued that the power relationship between the Lemon Grove residents and Anglo participants was structured in such a way that the Anglos could not evoke empathy from the Lemon Grove residents, or that the Anglos, as outsiders, could not seek such empathy. However, this is not the case: There are examples of Anglos seeking empathy in the data, such as Madeleine discussing her back pain or Ciystal discussing problems with her boyfriend. Though they did so less frequently, the Anglos did discuss emotionally charged subjects; for instance, in addition to the examples above, Crystal discussed problems she was having with her dissertation committee. "Quantitative differences here may be partially accounted for by the simple fact that one Lemon Grove participant (Lester) is a stutterer. "This example could be interpreted in two ways: It could serve either the softening function discussed in section 6.3.c.6 or the attention-getting function discussed in 6.3.c.7. In fact, it could serve both functions simultaneously. It is argued in this study that it is impossible to identify one single function for each epistemic modal use; rather, the primary functions can be identified, but these primary functions do not preclude other functions operating simultaneously. It R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 198 should also be noted that these softening functions were used most often by one Anglo speaker (Madeleine). 1 5 There is one instance in which Madeleine uses you know with a directive; however, other than that, the patterns are remarkably distinct. 1 6 Suggestions such as you can and you could are less face-threatening because even when not prefaced by you know, they are already negatively polite. Both speak to ability rather than willingness, which gives the hearer more options: In other words, the speaker says you could, implying you should, but not saying it directly. The speaker merely raises the hearer's awareness o f his/her own abilities rather than prescribing a course of action. 1 7 Tsui argues that "prefacing a disagreement with a declaration of insufficient knowledge reduces the speaker's commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed in the disagreement, hence mitigating its face-threatening effect" (1991: 611). In the same way, prefacing a directive with a declaration of less knowledge (/ think) mitigates the face-threatening potential of the directive. 1 8 I offer another tentative explanation for the use o f you know with suggestions and I think with directives. Because I think is speaker oriented, it is less inclusive: It does not include the hearer's opinions. In contrast, you know is hearer-oriented; therefore, when a speaker says you know, s/he is explicitly involving the hearer. More than just hearer-oriented, you know is interactive: The speaker communicates, in essence, "You know, you could do x, and I know that you could because I am telling you so." The effect of you know, then, is one of solidarity, despite the fact that it is also negatively polite (which, according to Scollon and Scollon 1981, indicates "deference" rather than "solidarity"). I think, on the other hand, has a subtle distancing effect. Because suggestions are less inherently impolite than directives, it makes sense that they would be made with more solidarity than directives, which would be made with more distance. 1 9 Lemon Grove residents do not often talk in generalities about "the way the world is." When they speak for others, they make a great effort to justify their right to do so. For example, consider the following passages in which Lisa is empathizing with the mother of the youth shot by Sheriffs deputies (particularly relevant passages are underlined for emphasis): L: //You know, because us as mothers. I don't think anybody knows that feeling unless they've gone through it. (...) L: You know, what I'm saying is, you felt that hostility that they have, that tension, whatever, that's in there, that I know hurts. I know it does. And R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 199 this is one o f the things, you know. It hurts me that I think I seen the boy constantly but I didn't know who he was. I didn't want to know. I never spoken to, uh probably a he- good morning, good afternoon, good evening,...But I can feel because I am a mother. Lisa justifies her right to speak for the youth's mother because she, too, is a mother. Similarly, before making a general statement about "a lot o f' Chicanos, Lisa qualifies it with her own experience having "heard it so much in different families," and quotes directly to emphasize this fact: L: //Like a a lot of our people you know they think that, I've heard it so much in different families. "Well, he's already...sixteen, he has to get a job," and this and that, "He's just going to have to quit school, because you know, I need help," and this and that. By moving from a generality to a directly reported quotation of speech which she herself has heard, Lisa avoids speaking for others. Lisa uses the direct-reporting strategy to strengthen the reliability of her statement which might otherwise be suspect in a culture which does not presume to speak for others. Finally, when Jaime is discussing the general feeling of the neighborhood's older women toward the Sheriffs, he personalizes it with the example of his own mother: J: B'cause, you know, even mv mother, the these ladies here, they see the sheriff— they get scared. They see black and white— they don't get scared. Another relevant example may be found in Chapter Four, in which Lucky is reluctant to speak for other residents despite Crystal's suggestion that she do so; instead, she wants to let "everybody" say "their say-so." The one Lemon Grove resident who tends to speak in generalities about Mexicans, Blacks, and the like is Teddy; however, this is not inconsistent with his position in Lemon Grove. As a gym administrator, he has become semi- acculturated to dominant Discourse norms and values and tends to diverge from his fellow community members in certain respects (for a comprehensive discussion of Teddy's position between (at least) two Discourses, see Youmans 1991). In contrast, Anglo participants do speak in generalities, sometimes appealing to the authority vested in text: M: I mean, I think, I think, I've read that sometimes it's really hard for even, you know, good parents who wanna do the right thing by their kids, their kids will still go be in gangs and that it's really hard. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 0 Lester has been discussing his mother's unwillingness to get involved in gang prevention because her own sons are in the gang. To respond, Madeleine makes a general statement about families of gang members, and uses the fact that she has read about it as authority to support her statement. This appeal to authority vested in text is characteristic o f the power values of literate cultures (Eggington cited in Kaplan 1990). 2 0 Here, Lucky achieves emphasis by repeating you know. 2 1 This use is negatively polite in that it "dissociates S" (speaker)..."from the particular infringement" and ''minimize[s] threat" (Brown and Levinson 1978: 136, cited in Scollon and Scollon 1981). The speaker backs off with 1 don't know, minimizing his/her involvement and hence reducing the face-threatening potential. 2 2 Though Madeleine ultimately rejects Teddy's suggestion to go to a chiropractor with "thanks for the ideas" (implying that she is not going to follow up on them), she attempts politeness by acknowledging that Teddy is partially right about doctors with "I know some o f them do" (just want to make money). Teddy avoids explicit disagreement by stating "I don't know." 2 3 Most instances of politeness found in Anglo speech are directed toward Lemon Grove residents, whereas this exchange is between two Anglos. I argue throughout this text that the Anglos show a preference for negative politeness; however, this instance is argued to be positive. Here I posit that this is so because the interaction is between Madeleine and Crystal, two Anglos whose relationship is clearly defined as friendship and has no overtones of novice/expert status. In this situation, maintaining friendly relations would take precedence as a communicative and interpersonal goal. As explained by Scollon and Scollon, positive politeness is "directed more to the general nature o f the relationship between interactants" (1981: 174). 2 4 Though Chafe (1985) states that possibly is relatively uncommon in speech and more common in writing, it was studied here because Holmes, who has done numerous quantitative studies, mentions it; furthermore, it seemed advisable to look at an evidential adverb which fell somewhere in the middle between high and low reliability. Chafe (1985) seems to have been correct with respect to these data, in which there are no instances o f possibly. 2 5 Note that Madeleine also says "That's about enough," which seems to be another softening/mitigating strategy. 2 6 These was one instance o f maybe used as a polite hedge which could have been used by a Lemon Grove resident; however, the speaker's identity is uncertain: There were several people on the periphery who added comments from time to time but who were not part o f the conversation. I did not tape that conversation R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 1 so I do not know who made the utterance; therefore, this instance was not counted. 2 7 Adverb analysis was not particularly productive except for the finding that Anglo speakers used maybe quite often as a polite hedge. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 2 CHAPTER SEVEN: DATA ANALYSIS: DISCUSSION As demonstrated in Chapters Five and Six, Lemon Grove speakers and the Anglo middle-class participants showed different patterns of epistemic modal use. Table 5.1 in Chapter Five presented a summary of epistemic modal auxiliary use, while Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 in Chapter Six summarized epistemic modal verb and adverb use. The results encapsulated in these tables led to the general conclusion that the Anglo speakers tended to use epistemic modals for functions other than expressing evidential weight, while the Lemon Grove speakers tended not to do so. Results are explained more specifically in the analysis of Table 7.1. 7.1. Use of epistemic modals as evidentials Table 7.1 displays the totals of epistemic modals used as true evidentials. (Table 7.2 displays the total o f epistemic modals used as non-evidentials. These uses will be discussed in section 7.2). Uses were categorized based on the modals' primary functions. For example, while maybe can indicate possibility, it can also be used primarily as a polite hedge; thus, the polite hedge uses of maybe were categorized as non-evidentials, since expressing evidentiality was not their primary function. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 203 Table 7.1. Totals of quantitative analysis: Evidentials (instances per 20.000 words'!. Function Anslo Lemon Gi Might: Possibility 14.92 10.10 May: Possibility 1.75 .78 Could: Possibility 6.14 3.88 Could: Ability 15.79 43.50 Can: Possibility 3.51 0.00 Can: Ability 60.54 44.28 Should: Expectation 5.26 1.55 Must: Belief 3.51 1.55 Will: Certain Future 30.71 15.54 Will: Commitment 46.50 12.43 Will: Willingness 1.75 2.33 Will: Hedged Future 16.67 2.33 Will: Typical Behavior .88 1.55 Will: General Truths 6.14 0.00 Think: Tentative Belief 23.69 7.77 Think: Deliberative 44.75 21.75 Think: Emphatic 2.63 0.00 Know: Acquaintance/Familiarity 15.79 31.07 Know: Awareness o f Facts 57.91 92.45 You Know: Emphatic 20.18 39.62 You Know: Attributive 35.97 30.30 You know: Appeal for Clarification 4.39 3.88 You know: Conjoint Knowledge 1.75 3.11 I Know: Affirmation o f Underst. 4.39 1.55 I Know: Affirmation/Agreement* 4.39 3.88 Feel: Awareness 3.51 3.88 Feel: Emotion/Sensation 4.39 10.88 Feel: Beliefs 6.14 5.44 Maybe: Possibility 13.16 11.65 Probably: Probability 21.06 11.65 Definitely 1.75 0.00 Certainly 1.75 0.00 TOTALS 481.67 418.70 *1 Know: Affirm ation of Agreement was counted in both evidential and non- evidential categories as its functions overlap. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 204 Table 7.2. Totals of quantitative analysis; Non-evidentials (instances per 20.000 words). Function Anelo Lemon Grove Might: Polite Hedge 8.77 0.00 Might: Self-Protective Hedge 3.11 0.00 May: Polite Hedge .88 0.00 Could: Polite Request 1.75 0.00 Could: Advice 37.73 3.11 Could: Permission 3.52 3.11 Can: Polite Request 0.00 1.55 Can: Permission 7.02 4.66 Can: Suggestion 33.34 1.55 Should: Suggestion 11.40 2.33 Should: Advice 28.08 3.88 Should: Advice to Self 9.65 4.66 Should: Advice to Third Parties 11.40 4.66 Will: Polite Requests .88 0.00 Think: Thinking 8.77 6.21 Think: Mitigating 30.71 0.00 You Know: Appeal/Involved 7.02 37.29 You Know: Appeal /Empathy 0.00 2.33 You Know: Appeal/Agreement 2.63 .78 You Know: Lx. Imprecision 29.83 38.06 You Know: Softening Suggestions 18.43 0.00 You Know: Attention Getter 4.39 7.77 Rhetorical Questions 3.51 25.74 I Know: Affirmation/Agreement* 4.39 3.88 I Know: Affirmation/Empathy 3.51 2.33 I D.K.: Avoiding Assessment 2.63 1.55 I D.K.: Prefacing Disagreement 2.63 0.00 I D.K.: Avoiding Disagreement 0.00 .78 I D.K.: Avoiding Commitment 1.75 0.00 I D.K.: Minimizing Imp. Beliefs 2.63 0.00 Maybe: Polite Hedge 21.94 0.00 Probably: Polite Hedge 3.51 0.00 TOTALS 395.81 156.23 *1 Know: Affirm ation of Agreement was counted in both evidential an evidential categories as its functions overlap. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 5 As Table 7.1 shows, the Anglo speakers and Lemon Grove speakers did not differ significantly in their quantitative use of evidentials: The Anglos used 62.97 more evidentials per 20,000 words than did the Lemon Grove speakers. This figure demonstrates that overall, the two groups used a similar number of evidentials throughout the database. However, the quantitative differences between the groups' use of individual modals are revealing. First, it seems that both groups use epistemic modals to talk about possibility in much the same way. There are no significant differences in the Possibility uses of such modals as might, may, could,' and maybe. (Differences in the use of can are discussed in section 7.1.g.l.). Similarly, the two groups do not exhibit significant differences in their use of evidential modals to appeal for, or to affirm, understanding. The main differences found are in the uses of will to make strong statements about the future, uses of think to express belief, the prototypical uses of know, the use of feel to express emotion and sensation, and the Probability use of probably. These differences will be discussed in the order presented in Table 7.1, beginning with differences in the uses of will. 7.1.a. Differential uses of will Table 7.1 shows that Anglo speakers used the following functions of will much more frequently than did the Lemon Grove speakers: Certain Future, Commitment, Hedged Future, and General Truths (see also Table 7.4 for ratios). As proposed in the content analysis (Chapter Four) and discussed in the data analysis (Chapters Five and Six), it makes sense that Lemon Grove speakers make R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 20 6 fewer strong statements about the future in the form of certain future predictions, commitments, and statements about general truths because the Lemon Grove epistemology places such a high value on truth. Therefore, a Lemon Grove speaker would weaken the truth value of a statement if s/he discussed it in a manner which surpassed actual certainty; in doing so, s/he would risk being seen as hypocritical. In contrast, the Anglo speakers make such future-oriented statements more freely, as discussed throughout this text: First, they seem to be less bound by truth than are Lemon Grove speakers, and second, their life realities are such that they may predict the future with more certainty and confidence (see Chapters Four and Five). Furthermore, for a Lemon Grove speaker to hedge the truth by qualifying the strong evidential will with a "downtoner" such as maybe would seem inconsistent; something is either true or it is not, and it cannot be somewhere in between as the Hedged Future use of will suggests. The Anglo speakers seem to see will as less inherently absolute in that they hedge it much more often. The Anglos do not seem to perceive negative consequences if what they say will happen turns out not to occur. 7.1.b. Differential uses of think As shown in Table 7.1, Anglo speakers used the Tentative Belief and Deliberative functions of think much more frequently than did Lemon Grove speakers. As discussed in Chapter Six, these differences are also explained by Lemon Grove residents' seeming reluctance to make strong statements about what R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 7 they are not sure to be true. It seems that Lemon Grove speakers are more selective about which statements they are willing to modify with think, as to them, the use o f think seems to imply a significant level o f evidential reliability. They appear reluctant to modify a proposition with the even stronger Deliberative think. 7.1.c. Differential uses of know Table 7.1 indicates that Lemon Grove residents used the two prototypical functions of know (Acquaintance and Familiarity and Awareness of Facts) a great deal more often than did the Anglo speakers (see also Table 7.5 for ratios). In Chapter Six, it was proposed that this phenomenon is the result of the strong Lemon Grove preference for truth. If a culture values truth to a high degree, it follows that its members would also value the instantiation of such truth through discourse; in other words, when the truth is known, it is important to establish that the evidence behind the truth is sound with the use of a strong evidential. The prototypical uses of know seem to do just that: They establish the literalness of what speakers know to be reality versus hypothetical, malleable, possible worlds. In contrast, for the Anglos, truth is more mutable and less absolute; thus, they may not perceive a need to establish the truth o f truthful propositions. 7.1.d. Differential use of you know (Emphatic) As is evident in Table 7.1, Lemon Grove speakers used this function approximately twice as often as did Anglo speakers. Though this difference may bepartially due to one speaker's tendency to use the function extremely often, it also points to a potential difference in politeness strategies between the two R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 8 groups. Though the emphatic you know does serve primarily as a true evidential, another layer of meaning relates more to the interpersonal relationship between speaker and hearer, as in all uses of you know. The use o f you know indicates a desire to involve the hearer in the proposition being asserted. This use relates to positive politeness, which serves to reinforce in-group membership between interlocutors. Other, smaller quantitative findings support a Lemon Grove preference for positive politeness; these will be discussed in sections 7.1.g.2 and 1.2x2. 7. I.e. Differential use of feel (Emotion/Sensation) Lemon Grove speakers used the Emotion/Sensation function of fe el over twice as often as did Anglo speakers, as shown in Table 7.1. While numbers are small, this difference is worthy of discussion in that it can be explained in the same way as the Lemon Grove speakers' frequent use of the prototypical functions of know (7.1 .d). Because this use offeel is implicitly based on the highly reliable mode of sensory evidence (Chafe 1985), like know, it serves to establish a sense of literal reality. If someone feels a certain way, the implication is that the feeling comes from reliable evidence and is therefore tangibly real. 7.1.f. Differential use of probably (Probability) Anglo speakers used the Probability function of probably almost twice as often as did Lemon Grove speakers, as Table 7.1 illustrates. Like the Tentative Belief and Deliberative functions of think, it is proposed that this function is used more discriminatingly by Lemon Grove speakers, to avoid making statements R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 9 which might be perceived as less than truthful. The Anglo participants seem to use this function o f probably more freely within a wider range of evidential reliability, while the Lemon Grove speakers seem to reserve their use of the function for only highly reliable propositions. 7.1.g. Trends in the use of epistemic modals as evidentials Sections 7.1.a through 7.1.f discuss only the greatest quantitative differences between the two groups' use o f epistemic modals. However, there were other functions which one group o f speakers did not use at all: These differences have not yet been analyzed because the instances in the speech of the other group were small in number. Furthermore, there were functions which one group used more than the other, though instances were small in both groups. These results cannot be considered conclusive: Indeed, it may not be telling that one group did not use a function at all if the other group used it (e. g.) only three times in 20,000+ words. However, when these differences are examined in total, trends appear which are worthy of discussion.2 7.1.g.l. Evidential functions used only, or more often, by Anglo speakers Table 7.4 shows evidential functions used solely by Anglo speakers, while Table 7.3 shows those functions used more often by Anglos. The functions with the largest quantitative differences between groups are discussed above; here, the smaller differences will be considered. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 0 Table 13. Functions used more often by Anglo speakers. Functions used more often by Anglo speakers: Function Instances per 20.000 words: Anglo/Lemon Grove: You Know You Could - Softens Suggestion Can - Suggestion Could - Advice Should - Advice (You Should) Will - Hedged Future Should - Suggestion (We Should) Will - Commitment Should - Expectation Think - Tentative Belief or Opinion I Know - Affirm/Understnd. Should - Advice to Self Should - Advice to 3rd Parties Must - Belief Think - Deliberative Will - Certain Future Probably - Probability I Don't Know - Avoiding Assessment 18.43/.78 (Ratio of 23.63) 33.34/1.55 (Ratio of 21.51) 37.73/3.11 (Ratio of 12.13) 28.08/3.88 (Ratio of 7.27) 16.67/2.33 (Ratio of 7.15) 9.65/1.55 (Ratio of 6.23) 46.50/12.43 (Ratio of 3.74) 5.26/1.55 (Ratio of 3.39) 23.69/7.77 (Ratio of 3.05) 4.39/1.55 (Ratio of 2.83) 7.90/3.10 (Ratio of 2.55) 10.53/4.66 (Ratio of 2.26) 3.51/1.55 (Ratio of 2.26) 44.75/21.75 (Ratio of 2.06) 30.71/15.54 (Ratio of 1.98) 21.06/11.65 (Ratio of 1.81) 2.63/1.55 (Ratio of 1.70) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 1 Table 7.4. Functions used solely by Anglo speakers. Function Instances per 20.000 words Think - Mitigating 30.71 Maybe - Polite Hedge 21.94 Might - Polite Hedge 8.77 Will - General Truths 6.14 Can - Possibility 3.51 Probably - Polite Hedge 3.51 Might - Self-Protective Hedge 3.11 Think - Emphatic 2.63 I don't know - Minimization of Impolite Beliefs 2.63 I don't know - Prefacing Disagreements 2.63 I don't know - Referring to Knowledge Oustide Speech Sit. 1.75 I don't know - Avoiding Commitment 1.75 Certainly 1.75 Definitely 1.75 Could - Polite Request 1.75 May - Polite Hedge .88 Will - Polite Request .88 You know what x? .88 — — B— — — BBIflllBMIHIWIU— — ^ — MB R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 2 As shown in Table 7.4, Anglos used can for possibility, think for emphasis, certainly, and definitely for certainty, whereas Lemon Grove speakers did not use them at all. Though numbers here are small, these results support the general trend for Lemon Grove speakers to use evidentials less freely to avoid making statements which may not prove to be truthful. Similarly, Anglo speakers used must to express belief 2.26 times as often and I know to affirm understanding 2.83 times as frequently as Lemon Grove speakers, as shown in table 7.4. These results can be explained in a similar way. 7.1.g.2. Evidential functions used only, or more often, by Lemon Grove speakers Table 7.5 shows evidential functions used more often by Lemon Grove speakers.3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 213 Table 7.5. Functions used solely or more often by Lemon Grove speakers. Functions used more often by Lemon Grove sneakers: Function Instances Der 20,000 words: L.Grove/Anelo: Rhetorical Question - You know what? 20.97/3.51 (Ratio of 5.97) You know - Appeal for Understanding - Involved 37.29/7.02 (Ratio of 5.31) Feel - Emotions/Sensations 10.88/4.39 (Ratio of 2.48) Know - Acquaintance and Familiarity 31.07/15.79 (Ratio of 1.97) You know - Emphatic 39.62/20.18 (Ratio of 1.96) You know - Conjoint Knowledge 3.11/1.75 (Ratio of 1.78) Know - Awareness of Facts 92.45/57.91 (Ratio of 1.60) Functions used solely by Lemon Grove speakers; Rhetorical Question - Want to know why/how x? 3.11 You know - Appeal for Empathy 2.33 Can - Polite Request 1.55 I don't know - Avoiding Explicit Disaagreement .78 Rhetorical Question - You know why/how x? .78 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 4 The only function not discussed above is you know for Conjoint Knowledge, which Lemon Grove speakers used 1.78 times as often as Anglos. This difference can be explained in a similar way as the other uses of you know, discussed above: These functions accomplish positive politeness by emphasizing similarities and mutual understanding between speaker and hearer. 7.2. Use of epistemic modals as non-evidentials Regarding non-evidential use o f epistemic modals, a different pattern emerges. Table 7.2 (see page 204) shows that Anglos used a total o f 305.81 per 20,000 words o f the epistemic modals studied as non-evidentials, while Lemon Grove speakers used a mere 156.23. This represents a statistically significant difference, i. e., p < .001.4 Thus, the Anglo and Lemon Grove speakers do not differ only in the manner in which they use epistemic modals to report evidential weight; they also differ in their use of epistemic modals to index non-evidential meaning, quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The largest individual item differences make the greatest contribution to the statistically significant omnibus difference. The function categories which represent the largest differences between Anglo and Lemon Grove use are the following: i) Think (Mitigating), ii) You know you could (Softening Suggestions), iii) Maybe (Polite Hedge), iv) Can (Suggestion), v) Could (Advice), vi) M ight (Polite Hedge), and vii) Should (Advice). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 21 5 Four o f these functions (you know you could, should, can, and could) are used only for advice or suggestions, while the other three (think, maybe, and might) are often used to soften advice or suggestions as well (e. g., "I think you should x," "maybe you should y" or "you might want to z"). Therefore, all o f the primary non-evidential functions fo r which the Anglo speakers use epistemic modals involve suggesting courses o f action to their hearers. As discussed in Chapters Five and Six, this is generally done through negative politeness; of the seven functions above, only should is not negatively polite; however, it is often used with a hedge, such as I think or maybe, which makes it negatively polite. On the other hand, the non-evidential functions used a good deal more by Lemon Grove speakers are you know (Appeal/Involved) and rhetorical questions (with you know, e. g, you know what?). In contrast to the functions preferred by the Anglo speakers, both of these express positive politeness, as do other, less frequent functions. To capture the patterns of use, modals will be analyzed here in terms of their relationship to each other rather than in the order presented in Table 7.2. 7.2.a. Differential uses of suggestion and advice functions These functions include the following: i) Could (Advice), ii) Can (Suggestion), iii) Should (Suggestion), iv) Should (Advice to both self and others), and v) You know (Softening Suggestions). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 6 Some o f these are used as softeners while others, though used to make the suggestions (or give advice) themselves, inherently cany the softening function of negative politeness. Could, can, and you know will be considered first. 7.2.a.l. Could, can, and you know as used in negatively polite suggestions or advice These three functions are similar in that all are negatively polite. As discussed in Chapter Five, could and can afford the hearer increased options in that they speak to the ability, rather than willingness, of the hearer to perform the action suggested or advised; in addition, the conditional mood of could augments the degree of politeness expressed. Modifying a suggestion with you know further enhances the negative politeness in that it attributes the suggestion to the hearer's own knowledge, thus making it seem like the hearer's own idea. The Anglo speakers' tendency to use these a great deal more than Lemon Grove speakers not only demonstrates an Anglo, middle-class preference for negative politeness, however; it also suggests a propensity to tell others what to do. This tendency will be discussed in section 7.2.c. 7.2.a.2. Should as used in suggestions or advice While these functions are not themselves negatively polite, they are often combined with softeners such as I think or maybe. For example, 25% of the Anglos' negative-face-threatening Advice instances of you should (as opposed to we should or s/he should) were hedged with such forms. However, the fact that these Advice and Suggestion uses of should are not softened in many cases suggests that, despite the Anglos' tendency to use negative politeness, such R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 7 politeness is not applied to all potentially face-threatening utterances. Making such remarks without hedges seems to presume that the role relationships (expert/novice) are clearly understood and do not need to be marked with deference. Not surprisingly, therefore, many of these non-hedged Advice instances of you should were not found in general conversation but rather in speech situations where the Anglos' expert roles were clearly defined (such as Madeleine working on the computer with Teddy and on a resume with Lucky, Crystal giving advice about a meeting, and the Legal Aid representative giving advice about contacting the County Supervisor). The Anglos' tendency to use should for advice not only to hearers but to third parties as well as themselves indicates that their sense of the appropriateness of this function extends beyond the relationship with the hearer. Giving advice to third parties (s/he should) indicates a general Anglo-participant tendency to speak for others as well as to presume to know what is right for a certain person in the future; this is in direct opposition to Lemon Grove speakers' epistemologically based unwillingness to do both of these, as discussed in Chapters Five and Six.5 7.2.b. Differential use of hedging functions Just as the Anglo speakers tended to use negatively polite modal functions to soften advice and suggestions, so too did they use politeness forms to mitigate other propositions which may be unwelcome to their hearers. The greatest R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 8 quantitative differences occurred in the use of might, maybe, and I think (Mitigating). 7.2.b.l. Polite hedges Might, maybe, and I think, used to mitigate information which hearers may perceive as unwelcome, were used only by Anglo participants, as shown in Table 7.2 (see also Table 7.4). They were used to soften a variety of propositions, ranging from suggestions to criticisms of Lemon Grove residents' friends and co workers. Once again, this demonstrates an Anglo preference for negative politeness; furthermore, it suggests that the Anglos may feel freer to perform face- threatening acts, perhaps knowing that they may fall back upon mitigating strategies such as these to preserve face. Total numbers of potentially face- threatening acts and how they were or were not mitigated were not measured: This is suggested for further study. 7.2.c. Trends in the use of epistemic modals as non-evidentials In addition to the non-evidential functions which showed great differences in frequency of use, there were others which, despite small numbers, deserve consideration. Those used solely or primarily by Anglos will be discussed first. 7.2.C.I. Non-evidential functions used only, or more often, by Anglo speakers The Polite Hedge function of probably, used only by the Anglos, is similar to the Polite Hedge functions o f maybe and might, above, though it occurred less frequently. Besides the polite hedges, there was also the category of might as a Self-Protective Hedge, a function also used only by Anglo speakers. As defined R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 9 in Chapter Five, this function accomplishes both negative and positive politeness in that it shows consideration for the hearer's feelings while at the same time protecting the speaker's negative face. The use of I don't know for Avoiding Assessment is a similar function in that the politeness communicated can be either positive or negative; this function was used by both groups, but more often by Anglos, as shown in Table 7.4. These differences in use patterns support the notion that Anglos manipulate evidential weight for purposes other than expressing evidentiality, quite often to mitigate potentially offensive statements such as suggestions or advice. Also supporting this hypothesis are the negatively polite functions of I don't know for Minimization of Impolite Beliefs and Prefacing Disagreements, used by Anglo speakers only. Other politeness functions used solely by Anglo speakers, too small to be considered, are found in Table 7.4. 7.2.C.2. Non-evidential functions used only, or more often, by Lemon Grove speakers Lemon Grove speakers used five functions which Anglo speakers did not; though their occurrence is small in number, they support the notion that Lemon Grove speakers prefer positive politeness. The Rhetorical Question use of want to know why/how? and the Appeal for Empathy use of you know both express positive politeness by drawing the hearer into the interaction and hence emphasizing solidarity between speaker and hearer. The negatively polite use of can for Polite Requests occurred only twice by the same speaker; this goes against the tendency of Lemon Grove speakers not to use epistemic modals for negative politeness. However, as discussed in Chapter Five, this speaker (Teddy) is R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 0 arguably the Lemon Grove participant most acculturated to dominant Discourse norms and values; this acculturation may explain his use of a negatively polite function (albeit an uncommon one). The other two functions used only by Lemon Grove speakers only occurred once each, which makes the number too small to be particularly interesting; nevertheless, both are positively polite (see Table 7.5). As for non-evidential functions used more often by Lemon Grove speakers, these too express positive politeness: The Rhetorical Question use of you know what? and you know used as an Appeal for Understanding-Involved both draw the hearer into the discussion, and the latter explicitly invites the hearer to demonstrate in-group membership with the speaker through an understanding of important personal issues. 7 3 . Sociocultural explanations The above analysis strongly suggests that the Lemon Grove residents and the Anglo participants used epistemic modals, both evidential and non-evidential, differently. The Anglo speakers tended to use them in a more generalized manner; that is, they used evidential more often to discuss the future and seemed to perceive them as having wider ranges of reliability. They used non-evidentials for negative politeness, usually to mitigate suggestions, advice, or other "inherently impolite" (Leech 1983) illocutions. In contrast, Lemon Grove speakers tended to use evidentials to express evidential weight only, showing an apparent reluctance to use (what they perceive as) highly reliable evidential modals to discuss the future. Furthermore, they tended not to give advice with epistemic modals; when R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 1 they did use non-evidential functions, these functions tended to express positive, rather than negative, politeness. The remaining task, then, is to explain how and why the divergent epistemologies o f Lemon Grove and the Anglo, middle-class participants have developed and led to these linguistic instantiations of these epistemologies. It is proposed that differential patterns o f family relationships as well as cultural living and working patterns are at the root of this issue. 7.3.a. Chicano sociocultural patterns: Familism and comntunalism As was argued in Chapter Four, the transcript content supports the notion that the prevailing epistemology of Lemon Grove differs from that of the dominant society as represented by the Anglo, middle-class participants. Chapters Five and Six, and the discussion of results in sections 7.1 and 7.2, provide linguistic evidence to support that finding. In Chapter Three, the historical background of the Lemon Grove community was discussed. The sociohistorical discussion will be resumed here, where it will be argued that divergent epistemologies may be the result of historically based family, living, and working patterns which are different for Lemon Grove residents and for the Anglo, middle-class participants. First, it must be established that Chicanos are in many ways distinct both from mainstream Anglos and from Mexicans who remain in Mexico. Keefe and Padilla argue that their study "provides convincing evidence that the culture of Chicanos who have lived for generations in the U.S. is distinctive and...possessing many unique features, rather than simply an amalgamation of Mexican and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 2 American cultures" (1987: 7). Buriel makes the self-evident but often overlooked point that "today the overwhelming majority of Mexican Americans are descendants o f 20th century immigrants. Consequently, a major portion of Mexican American culture has its foundation in the values and behavior of Mexican immigrants" (1984: 97). He argues against the prevalent assumption among many social scientists...that Mexican immigrants are "just like" Mexicans living in Mexico....Mexican immigrants are not typical Mexicans, because if they were they would have remained in Mexico as is typical of most Mexicans. (1984: 118-119) Because immigration is selective, the values of Chicano communities differ from those of Mexican communities in general.6 The work o f these researchers explains why Chicanos cannot be assumed to be culturally similar to Mexicans, to Anglos, or simply somewhere in between.7 Specifically, Mexican-Americans exhibit a strong sense of familism, stronger than that of either Mexicans or Anglos. For example, Dworkin gave "a list o f positive and negative statements describing persons of Mexican descent" (1965 cited in Buriel 1984: 123-4) to Mexican-Americans— both those bom in the U.S. and those bom in Mexico. Those bom in the U.S. agreed to "strong family ties" while those bom in Mexico did not. The strength of the Chicano family is supported amply in the literature; for example, Keefe and Padilla report that "even the fourth-generation Mexican-Americans...retain...their value of and involvement in large and local extended families" (1987: 7), explaining that the tendency for later generations to select compadres who are relatives (rather than friends, as is R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 223 common in Mexico) strengthens the kin network.8 This almost universal propensity for well-developed networks of local primary kin was one of the major findings of Keefe and Padilla's (1987) study. Chicanos tend to have "a high degree of residential stability," whereas Anglos are much more mobile (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 136). In fact, "more than 50 percent of the [Chicanos'] third generation's relatives live in the [same] town or county" (1987: 139). This may be because "Chicanos know from experience that relationships with Anglos can be painful and disadvantageous. This self- imposed behavior...confines the Chicano to the barrio" (Blea 1988: 103). Whatever the reason, many Mexican-Americans socialize most with family members living locally, and "find it psychologically rewarding to be with 'their own kind'" (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 158). Keefe and Padilla (1987: 8) argue that "it is the value and practice of extended kinship which...[is] a key cultural trait reinforcing ethnic social boundaries and the symbolic dualism of Chicano/own versus Anglo/other." In contrast, Anglos have been shown to be "more transient" and "mobile" (1987: 10, 140).9 This mobility results in smaller local kin networks.1 0 Furthermore, Anglos tend to have smaller families,1 1 and do not have a system of "fictive kin" analogous to compadrazgo.I2 This difference in family relationships does not go unnoticed by Chicanos, who report that "the Mexican family has closer ties, whereas in the Anglo culture, 'once the kid reaches a certain age, then R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 4 you're gone and you don't get in the house no more'" (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 85). According to Keefe and Padilla (1987: 171), both Anglos and Chicanos report large percentages of friends from their own ethnic groups (70% for first- generation Mexican-Americans, 74% for Anglos and 49% for second-generation Mexican-Americans). Anglos profess to have even more Anglo friends than Chicanos do Chicano friends. However, what seems to be important is not necessarily the ethnicity of friends, but the nature of these friendships and the quality of interaction within them. Chicanos do a large amount of their socializing within their kin networks. They tend not to make friends at work, and when they do, they choose friends from their own ethnic group.1 3 Indeed, "it is not uncommon to meet a third- or fourth-generation Mexican American who does not speak Spanish and knows relatively little about his/her cultural background, but retains pride in his/her Mexican heritage and enjoys associating with Mexican people" (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 52), particularly family members. The Lemon Grove community fits this pattern closely. Mirande reports that "the statement frequently made in jest that 'everyone in the barrio is related to everyone else' is not without some factual basis" (1985: 225). In fact, it became clear during this study that Lemon Grove is made up of a dense web of family relationships. Among the participants of this study, Teddy and Jaime are brothers, Jaime is Lucky's boyfriend, and Lisa's daughter was R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 22 5 married to Jaime. This illustrates that in Lemon Grove, as in many barrios, kinship transcends social relationships and living arrangements. Not only do the participants in this study live in close proximity to kin of all kinds, they work with them as well. Thus, their primary relationships (family) and secondary relationships (work) are with the same people. This fact will prove significant to this analysis. The values of a "territorial gang" (Taylor 1990),1 4 such as the one firmly entrenched in Lemon Grove, serve only to reinforce the sense of familism and community as discussed above. For example, an East L.A. gang member shows her familial loyalty to non-family members when she reports that "nobody put down White Fence1 5 in my presence, you know, cause I say 'Hey, you don't talk that way about my barrio, you know. This is where I live, you know'" (Moore 1991: 71). In gangs, the kin network is extended to "homies," to whom gang members frequently refer using kinship terms (for a comprehensive discussion of Chicano gangs in East Los Angeles, including Boyle Heights, see Moore 1991 or Vigil 1988). Thus, the sense of family is only strengthened, both literally and figuratively, by the presence of a longstanding gang in the community. Not only do most residents have at least one relative in the gang, the gang stands for a sort of "Active kin."1 6 7.3.b. The evolution of epistemologies As argued above, the Lemon Grove participants' primary and secondary spheres of interaction overlap to a great degree. In contrast, middle-class Anglos R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 6 tend to have much greater exposure to true "secondaiy" relationships--that is, people "out in the world," away from their primary kin networks. Though Anglos associate more with their own ethnic group than do second-generation Chicanos (such as Lemon Grove residents), a greater number of these associations tends to be with co-workers and others with whom they do not share a familial intimacy. Thus, the interaction is of a qualitatively different nature. Functional families tend to adopt certain "coping-with-conflict" strategies which allow the maintenance of fairly harmonious relationships. The familial bond is perceived as so important that the acceptance of certain (bad) behavior is seen as necessary to preserve the kin network. Furthermore, there is the simple reality that family members are forced together through living arrangements; thus, it is in members' best interest to forgive and forget so that they experience the least amount of collective and individual stress.1 7 In a family, a person can often "say what s/he thinks" to a fairly forgiving audience. Families expect and tolerate a large degree of disagreement and disagreeable behavior.1 8 Perhaps this explains why, as was observed in Chapter Four, Lucky's first impulse was to go to the community meeting and proclaim (aided by certain expletives) that no one in the community wanted Marisol to get the job. Here, Lucky seems to operate in a sort of "family mode": She says what she thinks, not immediately perceiving an inherent "meeting formality" as the Anglo participants do. However, when one steps outside the family circle, as in mainstream Anglo society, much less is taken for granted. Relationships are more fragile and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 7 tenuous: If a worker shows anger to his/her boss, the boss can fire the worker and effectively terminate the relationship. Similarly, in acquaintance/friend relationships, parties can simply "drift apart" if one perceives the other to be behaving in an inappropriate or unacceptable manner. Such relationships are much more inherently transitory.1 9 Thus, to preserve such potentially ephemeral relationships, other types o f strategies need to be learned. "Secondary" contacts will not tolerate the breaches of politeness common in families, as discussed above. This brings the discussion to the extreme importance of negative politeness in the Anglo, middle-class world. As suggested throughout this work, negative politeness can be defined in two ways. The broad definition, as stated by Leech is "minimizing the impoliteness o f impolite illocutions" (1983: 83-84). A more precise definition is that offered by Brown and Levinson (1987), which stipulates that negative politeness allows the hearer the greatest possible freedom of action. The second definition can be shown to be merely a subset o f the first. Leech (1983) argues that to request or demand is inherently impolite. However, this "inherent impoliteness" simply stems from the fact that these acts restrict the hearer's options. Negative politeness accompanying these "impolite" acts would make it easier for the hearer to say "no." For example, asking "Can you do x?" gives the hearer the option of declining on the grounds of inability, and "Could you" goes one step further by adding an implied conditional "if'-clause to the request. Though these negatively polite forms may be (consciously or tacitly) understood R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 8 by those who use them as mere politeness strategies, the actual prototypical meanings do serve to allow the hearer greater freedom, hence their status as indices of negative politeness. Brown and Levinson state that "English-speaking academic speech communities tend to constitute 'negative-politeness cultures' (1978: 250), which, according to Holmes, entail "a consequent fascination for devices which attenuate negatively affective speech acts" (1984: 348). However, it seems that such a preference for negative politeness goes beyond the academic sphere into the everyday life of educated Anglos. Consider, for example, Leech's summary of politeness: To put matters at their most basic: unless you are polite to your neighbour, the channel of communication between you will break down, and you will no longer be able to borrow his mower.2 0 (1983: 82) Through this example, Leech reduces politeness to mere tactics to get what one wants from others. In other words, by affording others symbolic freedom of action, one obtains tangible freedom of action: The gain of material or social goods. This is very different from positive politeness, which might be described as "Unless you are polite to your neighbor, he will not like you, or he will think you do not like him." In this case, the loss would be one o f friendship rather than gardening tools. Indeed, negative politeness is what middle-class Anglos rely upon on a daily basis to preserve their secondary relationships, relationships which Lemon Grove residents are less likely to have. Scollon and Scollon "argue that deference R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 9 [their term for negative] politeness, in fact...reflects the dynamics of the real situation o f distance when strangers meet, or in...gatekeeping encounters..."2 1 (1981: 188). In other words, this is the politeness typical o f "secondary" encounters, a type which is more accessible and familiar to most Anglos because they have more of these encounters. This type of politeness seems to be derived from "instrumental" (goal-oriented) as opposed to "integrative" (social-relationship- oriented) motivation as described by Gardner and Lambert (1972).“ Negative politeness strategies, then, can be seen as elements of "power language" as introduced in Chapter Two. Such strategies are used for the acquisition of "social goods (money, power, status)" (Gee 1990: 144) within secondary relationships. These strategies play an important role in the language of job interviews, business deals, community meetings, apartment-rental negotiations, consumer complaints, and so on. Therefore, whether the Anglo speakers mean to do so or not (and in these data, it seems fairly clear that they do not), they are using language functions which may in fact be hegemonic. Power relationships are kept tacit, and truth and consistency are secondary to goal- oriented manipulation o f evidential weight. The implications of this will be discussed in further detail in Chapter Eight. 73.c. Specific uses of negative politeness: The Anglo, middle-class "advice culture" As discussed above, this study's Anglo speakers did not simply show a preference for negative politeness in their use of epistemic modals; they showed a tendency to use non-evidential epistemic modals, particularly polite forms, to R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 0 give directives, suggestions, and advice. I propose that this is an outgrowth of the predominantly Anglo, middle-class "advice culture" which occupies a strong position in mainstream U.S. society. The importance o f advice to the mainstream middle class is elucidated by a brief look at eight recent New York Times book reviews, one from 1993 and seven from different months o f 1994 (see Appendix B). There are three categories of books reviewed: Fiction, Nonfiction, and Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous. The mere existence of this last category demonstrates the importance of advice as a genre of communication within mainstream society. Sample titles from this category include the following: i) Men are from Mars, women are from Venus (Ways to improve communication and relationships between the sexes); ii) Stop the insanity (A prescription for women to achieve physical and psychological health and fitness); iii) Ageless body, timeless mind (A physician's advice about aging); iv) First things first (Ways to organize your life to be successful); and v) Real moments (Ways to cope with life's problems). A perusal of the Nonfiction category yields many similar titles, exemplified as follows: i) The lessons o f love (The author tells how she recovered from the death of her 12-year-old son); ii) Running from safety (A middle aged man's reflections on what he has learned from life); iii) Women who run with the wolves (How myths and folk tales can enable women to understand their psyches); iv) The way things ought to be (Anecdotes and opinions offered by the talk show host [Rush Limbaugh]); and v) The book o f virtues (Moral stories adapted from the Greeks, the Bible, folklore and elsewhere). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 231 Table 7.6. New York Times Best n — m u i i w a M M B M a m a M Date of review; July 4, 1993 February 13, 1994 March 20, 1994 April 10, 1994 May 15, 1994 June 19, 1994 August 7, 1994 October 30, 1994 (See Appendix B for complete I entries of the "advice" genre. I H M H — Entry numbers; 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 2, 4, 6, 15 3, 7, 9, 13, 14 3, 10, 12, 14 4, 6, 13, 14 3, 7, 11, 12, 16 6, 7, 12, 14 Review Best Seller lists) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 23 2 As shown in Table 7.6, 40 of the 120 total nonfiction entries, or 33%, may be classified as advice-giving. Many other nonfiction entries are very close to this genre, dealing with various authors’ "reflections on life." This serves as evidence that middle-class (predominantly Anglo) Americans— as exemplified by the readers of bestsellers— not only tend to give advice, as shown by this study’ s results; they also like to receive it.2 3 This, too, can be related to the general cultural traits of many middle-class Anglos vs. those of the Lemon Grove Chicanos, as described above. The act of giving advice suggests three conditions: i) The speaker feels confident discussing future events with some certainty; ii) The speaker presumes some control over such future events; and iii) The speaker is willing to speak for others. These three presumptions behind advice-giving can be shown to be lacking in the Lemon Grove "truth" epistemology. Because the Lemon Grove residents place such a high value on truth, they do not make strong statements about the future using epistemic modals. The fact that their lives often lack the orderly, predictable quality of typical Anglo, middle-class life also contributes to this dispreference for discussing the future with highly reliable linguistic forms.2 4 Furthermore, their seeming cultural taboo against speaking for others makes a contribution to this linguistic pattern as well. In contrast, middle-class Anglos tend to want to exercise control over future events. This is perhaps due to ideological contributions from Protestantism and capitalism.2 5 Because o f their secure societal status, they are, in actuality, able R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 233 to exercise more control over life events than are members of the underclass such as Lemon Grove Chicanos (see above).2 6 Their seeming willingness to speak for others and suggest courses of action can be traced to the strong individual-centered ideology operating in mainstream U.S. culture. Bhola (1987) calls this ideology "motivational-developmental," and its basic principle is that individual motivation leads to individual development: Individuals are responsible for their own successes or failures, and social circumstances are not seen as important. This philosophy is pervasive in mainstream U.S. culture (particularly among conservatives), and is exemplified by the preponderance of individual-centered social programs such as "Just Say No" (to drugs).2 7 The idea that anyone can succeed in America, the "land of opportunity," if s/he works hard enough by "pulling him/herself up by his/her own bootstraps," is deeply rooted in mainstream consciousness.2 8 Horowitz (1985) confirms the prevalence o f this individualistic ideology among Anglos; Castaneda argues that such "self-initiativeness" results from Anglos' "modem" loyalty to institutions rather than community (1984). Mainstream Anglos are, indeed, loyal to institutions: The most important institution in the U.S. today is arguably the corporation, as is evidenced by the New York Times Nonfiction Bestseller status of Reengineering the corporation (a manifesto for business innovation) (from July 1993 list: See Appendix B). In contrast, the Chicanos o f Lemon Grove seem to have maintained the more "traditional" (Castaneda 1984) loyalty to the community in terms of close family R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 23 4 ties and "extended-family" associations such as those of compadrazgo and the local gang. The mainstream corporate ethic holds that most actions are justifiable in the name o f profit, whereas Lemon Grove Chicanos seem to feel a strong responsibility for the effects of their actions on family and community members. Therefore, it is not remarkable that Anglos tend to give (and receive) advice more freely than do Lemon Grove residents or Chicanos in general. The notion o f responsibility behind such advice seems to differ greatly between the two groups. If mainstream Anglos give advice, it seems ultimately the responsibility of their hearers to accept or refuse the advice. If the hearers act on the advice, they have made individual choices to do so. Thus, the advice-giver is absolved of responsibility for the consequences. In contrast, for Lemon Grove Chicano speakers to give advice seems to carry greater import. They seem to take more implicit responsibility for such advice due to their strong communal values. It is thus not surprising that, not only did they not use the negative politeness functions o f epistemic modals in general, they also tended not to use the advice functions which emerged as so common in the Anglo speech data.2 9 7.3.d. Reasons for the continued existence of divergent epistemologies It has been established via the literature and this study that middle-class Anglos use epistemic modals for negative politeness due to cultural patterns which diverge from those o f Lemon Grove, particularly with respect to directives, suggestions, and advice. However, it is not adequate to say Lemon Grove residents simply lack exposure to, or a need for, such politeness strategies in their R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 235 relatively insular sphere of social interaction. It has been shown, above, that there may be cultural reasons behind Lemon Grove speakers' dispreference for the use of epistemic modals for advice. There is also evidence that they actively disprefer negative politeness in general. The sociocultural and historical discussions above provide a compelling explanation for this dispreference. As discussed in the literature (e. g., Blea 1988, Keefe and Padilla 1987) and as evidenced from a qualitative examination of this study's conversational data, sociocultural factors have led many Chicanos to live in barrios and to experience most of their social interaction with other Chicanos, particularly with (extended) family members. Furthermore, circumstances have caused a higher percentage of them (vis-a-vis the mainstream population) to be unemployed, and even those who are employed tend to socialize only with other Chicano co- workers. However, it would be wrong— perhaps even patronizing— to assume that Chicanos exhibit these patterns only due to circumstances beyond their control. It is not simply a matter of enjoying each other's company, or of accepting the lot in life forced upon them by the dominant society, both of which are cited above as contributing factors. The reason Mexican-Americans tend to live and socialize with their own kind is not just the result of socioeconomic circumstances. As shown by Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, and Shannon, "being of Mexican descent and living in a Mexican- immigrant community does not necessarily entail linguistic and cultural isolation" (1994: 93). In some part such "isolation" is voluntary. At best, many Chicanos R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 6 seem to feel that "Anglo ways" are simply irrelevant and inapplicable to their lives; at worst, many have developed an active dislike and distrust of Anglo society. Blea reports that "the Chicano feels an ambivalence and antagonism toward life outside the barrio. Antagonisms are often felt toward Anglos simply because they are Anglo. There is also a basic antagonism to anything that is considered middle class" (1988: 103-4). Some describe Anglos as "cold" (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 68), "starchy, more stand-offish and less affectionate'" (1987: 94), or "more isolated and unfriendly" than Chicanos (1987: 63). Even those who do not hold personal prejudices against Anglos are bound to feel the impact of, and resent, the "persistence of racial discrimination within the larger population" (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 1). They realize that despite some generational mobility, Chicanos continue to predominate in working-class occupations, with limited opportunities for social status or political impact in the larger society. Discrimination, social segregation, and subordination contribute to the persistence of Chicanos' unequal status. (Keefe and Padilla 1987: 22). One recurring criticism of Anglo society which surfaces in Chicano conversations is its propensity for what Chicanos view as "hypocrisy." For example, one Chicano inteiviewed stated that "’ appearances are everything' to Anglos"...(Keefe and Padilla 1987: 94).3 0 Criticisms of this perceived hypocrisy which arose in the Lemon Grove data were discussed in the content analysis in Chapter Four. For example, Teddy expressed his disgust at an Anglo visitor stereotyping the Lemon Grove residents as "illegal aliens" simply because their ethnicity was more physically apparent; he saw this as hypocritical because the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 7 Anglo, too, was a descendent of immigrants, as are most residents of the U.S. Furthermore, even when Chicanos are not outwardly criticizing Anglos for their hypocrisy, they nevertheless indicate how important avoiding hypocrisy is in their own communities. For example, consider the following comment made by a young Chicana about her neighborhood's attitude toward the local gang: "Oh those in the neighborhood th a t d id n 't have no family [in the gang], they were negative....Name-calling, like 'You girls are up to no good. You're going to end up tramps'" (Moore 1991: 71; emphasis added). In other words, only those who did not have family in the gang would speak out against it, because it would be hypocritical to speak out against something that a family member was involved in. This is similar to the statements that Lester made about his mother's unwillingness to get involved in anti-gang activities since her own sons were involved in the gang (reported in section 4.1.b): 0) L: She she used to go up to the meetings a lot, but then she goes "They're nothing but hypocrites." ((laughs)) I say, "Why do you say that, Mom?" She goes, "Well, the reason they go there, they talk about keeping drugs off the streets and keeping gang violence and do this, do this, let's do that, and what really it it all boils down to is that their own sons are out there doing it too. In Moore's study, "the gang norm continued to insist that, since the gang was 'all for the neighborhood,' the neighborhood must be 'all for the gang,' or at the worst, neutral" (1991: 70). This claim indicated that it would be hypocritical if the neighborhood did not support the gang because the gang supported the neighborhood. Blea reports that "many Chicanos are persons of their word" R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 8 (1988: 96); it is not acceptable to say one thing and do another. Due to the importance o f the family in Chicano culture, it is not even permissible to say one thing and have your fam ily members do another: Personal responsibility extends beyond the self.3 1 Perhaps the ultimate example of (what Chicanos might see as) Anglo hypocrisy is found in the recurrent media accounts believed by Chicanos to be, at best, distorted and, at worst, fallacious. Several historical examples of contested media reports were given in section 3.1. Lemon Grove residents expressed a similar distrust of the media. Consider the following examples: (2) (Lisa and Crystal, discussing coverage of the Alfredo Jalisco shooting): L: I mean, those things that were in the newspaper, have, have you read it? C: Yeah. I've I, in fact, I have a copy of the newspaper right here. L: You know, like, those things, I mean, they're makin' us sound like a, we're a bunch of animals out in the, out in the jungle, and C: //Yeah L: And you know. (3) (Inez, Lisa and unidentified resident discussing coverage of shooting): I: My question is, okay, say for instance...(unintell) when Teddy just finished saying what he said, and I say, this is what the mothers feel, whatever it is I'm gonna say...What would you print? The one that would make you more money? ?: The one that would make you more money. I: Or the one that would be...I don't know, the people wouldn't buy this. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 9 (4) (Teddy, reporting a conversation with police): T: "In fact" — I said, "In fact, you guys come out, what, and tell kids, and publicize "Stay off the streets, stay off, stay off a’ gangs, stay off a' drugs and stay outta gangs," right? When yet, you guys are own, your own fuckin' gang, (emphasis added) * * * (5) (Teddy, discussing police attitudes toward gang violence): T: If the fuckin' city cared about it, they could have put an end to it 25 years ago. But nobody cares about a fuckin' problem until it's publicized, until it starts coming out in the newspaper, until the media listens to it. and then there's this whole big commotion about it. (emphasis added) All four of these examples (2, 3, 4, and 5) show concern that the Lemon Grove community is being misrepresented in the media; that is, in the legitimized public language of the dominant society. Examples 3 and 4, in particular, carry implicit criticisms of hypocrisy: Inez argues that the Anglo media print what "would make [them] more money,"3 2 and Teddy elucidates the hypocrisy inherent in police using media to speak out against gangs. In the last example, Teddy expresses frustration at the fact that the media-which he views as corrupt— is seen as the only valid and legitimate channel of transmission of problems in the barrio. He considers it hypocritical that the dominant society ignores problems until they are legitimized and validated through the (corrupt) media. Seen in this context, it is no wonder that Chicanos ignore, avoid, or distrust what they feel Anglo society represents. Considering their level of frustration with media (the quintessential symbol for Anglo communication), it is not surprising that they eschew the language with which the dominant society continues to perpetuate hegemony. The language used in negative politeness. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 0 which we have seen to be favored by Anglos, must seem to embody the very values o f the Anglo society that Chicanos abhor.3 3 To hedge and soften-to complexify and obscure— to change levels o f evidential weight— all of these negatively polite functions of typical Anglo middle-class language must, on some conscious or unconscious level, seem simply false. Here again, it would seem, is another example of the dominant society being less than truthful to get what it wants.3 4 7.4. C hapter summary This chapter has summarized and analyzed the total quantitative findings and interpreted them within a sociocultural context. Specifically, it was argued that Lemon Grove's "truth" epistemology is the result of familism, communalism, and the tendency to have insular and overlapping spheres of social interaction. These patterns, it was argued, have led to the linguistic choices exhibited by Lemon Grove residents in the use of epistemic modals. In contrast, the Anglo speakers' epistemic modal use was traced to the tendency of middle-class Anglos to be more mobile and transient with less-developed kin networks and more- developed "secondary" networks. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the Anglo participants come from a culture which highly values both the giving and the receiving of advice. These factors are argued to explain their linguistic choices in the use o f epistemic modals. In the next and final chapter, the implications of these findings are discussed. The extent to which such findings have potential to improve majority- R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 241 minority social relations is considered, and suggestions for further study are proposed. Notes for Chapter Seven: 'Quantitative differences in the Ability uses o f could and can are not considered here as they reflect a dialect difference between Standard American English and Chicano English, as discussed above. 2 Tannen states that interpretation is not fished out of the air. The fact that something is not provable does not mean that it is not demonstrable....There is evidence in...data in the form o f recurrent patterns. I do not base interpretation on phenomena that appear once, but rather on phenomena that recur. Therefore, they are demonstrably motivated, not random. (1984: 37) In this study, the smaller quantitative differences are discussed when one group used a function at least 1.6 times as often as the other group and when the number of instances in the larger group is at least 2 (following Tannen). These requirements are used to avoid the analysis of random or aberrant findings. Patthey-Chavez (personal communication) cites a general statistical principle that if an event occurs three times more often in one group than in another, that difference will always be significant no matter how small the n; thus, examining differences greater than half o f this amount~1.5 times— seemed a logical starting point for analysis. 3 No evidential function was used only by Lemon Grove speakers. 4 Chi-Square omnibus test results = 19.373 with p c.COl for 1 df. 5 As proposed in Chapter Five, the Anglo tendency to use I should may indicate a concern with the personal responsibility (Rodriguez 1994) and guilt (Kaplan personal communication) associated with the Protestant ethic. Protestant ideologies are discussed in section 7.2.c. 6 For example, contrary to popular belief, Buriel asserts that "The origins of gang activity are not to be found in traditional Mexican-American cultures" (1984: 115). ’Montano-Harmon (1988) studied the rhetorical patterns in the writing of Chicano, Anglo, and Mexican high-school students and showed that the patterns were significantly different. This serves as additional evidence for the necessity of R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 2 viewing Chicano culture as separate both from that o f Anglos and that of Mexicans. 8 Blea (1988), Horowitz (1985), and Keefe and Padilla (1987) describe the institution of compadrazgo, the choosing of godparents from among friends or relatives. The compadres play a large role in family life, particularly in such religious rituals as children's baptisms, first communions, confirmations and quinceaneras (girls' fifteenth-birthday debuts). 9 Hall and Hall (1990) performed comparative sociocultural research on French, Germans, and native-born U.S. citizens. In the U.S. sample, which they call "American," they studied the American-European culture...and not the many other cultures represented in the American population. This dominant or mainstream business culture is the norm to which people with other cultural backgrounds are expected to conform.... (1990: 139-140) Based on this research o f Americans o f northern European origin, they conclude that "Americans are highly mobile. Statistics indicate that the average American family moves every four to five years; many American business firms transfer employees every two years" (1990: 144). I0 Keefe and Padilla (1987) recognize that geographic mobility is associated with occupational status, which tends to be higher among Anglos than Chicanos in their sample. However, even when they controlled for occupational status, they found Chicanos to be significantly more geographically stable. "Many Chicanos follow the Catholic church's teachings against contraception; this practice, combined with generally lower levels of education among Chicanos, may contribute to Chicanos' relatively larger families. 1 2 Though some Christian Anglo families do have godparents, these godparents generally assume a much less important and ongoing role than do Chicano compadres. They often live long distances from godchildren and therefore see them rarely, which makes their role more symbolic than involved. Furthermore, they do not generally take part in religious rituals throughout their godchildren's childhood and adolescence (with the possible exception of Greek Orthodox godparents, whose duty is not complete until they have served in their godchild's wedding). "Horowitz reports that "many jobs [held by Chicanos] are structured to limit opportunities for the workers to socialize. In addition, though the workers may perform the same unskilled jobs they may have nothing else in common" (1985: 191). In her study, only some middle-aged men who had been working the same R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 243 shift at the same job for over ten years ever socialized with anyone at work who was not from the neighborhood. Horowitz observes that "socializing occurs with friends [and relatives, as she states later] from the neighborhood" (1985: 191). 1 4 Taylor aptly defines a territorial gang as one which "designates something, someplace, or someone as belonging exclusively to the gang....Once the gang has defined its territory, the next step is to defend that territory from outsiders" (1990: 197). However, he makes the overly broad and simplistic claim that the purpose o f defending the "territory" is to protect the gang's "business" such as drug dealing. While this may be true for some gangs, and to some extent in the barrio, it is well documented that, for Chicano barrio gangs, the barrio represents something more symbolic: It is their beloved home. This tendency to reduce gang membership to a route to drug dealing is the all-too-common result of superficial gang research o f the type discussed by Moore (1991). 1 5 White Fence, like the Lemon Grove gang, is one of East L.A.'s oldest and most notorious gangs (Vigil 1988). This gang was featured in the popular film of the late 1980s, Colors. 1 6 Horowitz (1985) reports that when gang members have children, they frequently ask other gang members to serve as compadres. In these situations, two fictive kin functions overlap: Friends become fictive "family" both through gang ties and the compadrazgo relationship. 1 7 Patthey-Chavez (personal communication) reports that Chicanos in the barrio seem aware of the fact that they "can't get away from each other" and act accordingly. 1 8 This tolerance could account for the acceptance of what Patthey-Chavez (personal communication) deems the Chicano "in-your-face" conflict behavior. Tolerance of others, in general, seems to be the rule in many barrios: "Chicanos...tolerate...what some Anglos would call deviant behavior. The local winos and junkies are examples of deviants living in, and being accepted by, the Chicano community. Although they are not courted, they are not treated badly or totally neglected" (Blea 1988: 104). Here is yet another case in which the preference for familism and dispreference for anything which hints at hypocrisy guides the practices of Mexican-American communities. 1 9 Hall and Hall, discussing the mobility of European-Americans, state that This frequency of moving means that Americans [sic] are forced to meet and interact with strangers and learn to make new friends easily. It also helps explain why many Americans [sic] form superficial relationships more often than deeper and more lasting ones. (1990: 144) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 4 2 0 Hall and Hall echo a similar sentiment, stating that to mainstream Americans, "being a good neighbor...means...lending tools..." (1990: 144). 2 1 One o f my Mexican-American Long Beach City College students is currently involved in a lawsuit regarding excessive force by an Anglo security guard at the county welfare office (an exemplary location for a gatekeeping encounter). She claims that it all resulted from a misunderstanding. It would be interesting to have recorded the speech exchanged to see if conflicts in politeness strategies contributed to the physical conflict that resulted. 2 2 Castaneda discusses the differences between traditional and modem ideologies, arguing that a shift from the former to the latter entails "divesting oneself of...forms of loyalty (referring to community as defined by kinship, region, social stratification, and ethnicity) and...seeking the development of impartial (to ethnic, regional, social, and kinship loyalties) institutions in order to regulate conduct and resources." He adds that "human identity evolved another option, identification with such institutions rather than with the traditional sense of community" (1984: 38-39). Castaneda stops short of categorizing either Anglos or Chicanos; however, it might be argued that Chicanos are more "traditional" as they privilege values such as the "ethnic, regional, social, and kinship loyalties" discussed above. Indeed, Blea confirms that "Chicano culture teaches communal values. People are members of the same human community and are not to be competed against. In fact, the culture teaches that community members assist one another" (1988: 18). Anglos, in contrast, could be argued to be more "modernistic" in that they are more concerned with individualism and "self-initiativeness" (Castaneda 1984: 38). Horowitz asserts that "little within the Chicano community prepares them [Chicanos] for the competitive, individualistic Anglo world o f social relationships..." (1985: 201). As Castaneda observes, traditional societies are more cooperative, while modernistic ones are competitive. The analysis of Anglos as modernistic makes sense, then, in terms o f Leech's theory of the four illocutionary functions, one of which is competitive. He states that in competitive illocutions, the politeness is negative; "its purpose is to reduce the discord implicit in the competition between what Speaker] wants to achieve and what is 'good manners'" (Leech 1983: 104). As discussed above, Anglos are in more frequent competitive interactive situations; hence, it is no surprise that they have evolved into a more modernistic Discourse, and that they use the competitive speech functions (negative politeness) associated with it. 2 3 Not only do the Anglo participants seem willing to receive as well as give advice, they give advice to the Lemon Grove residents on how to give advice; for example, they instruct Lucky how to use negative politeness in advising the Foundation members not to hire Marisol. This illustrates the pervasiveness of such advice-giving in these participants' culture as well as the seeming "naturalness" of advice-giving for the Anglo participants. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 24 5 2 4 Goldenberg and colleagues at Los Angeles City College are currently doing research with Mexican immigrants which shows that, in contrast to stereotypes, Mexican parents are very future-oriented when it comes to plans for their children; however, they have a certain sense of realism as to what is within and what is beyond their control. They do not seem to share the Anglo, middle-class sense that what they dream for their children may, in fact, be brought about. This relates to the general perceptions about control of future events which seem to contrast in middle-class Anglos and Mexicans or Chicanos. 2 5 Hall and Hall, referring to members o f the (primarily) European-American dominant culture, state that "Americans [sic] pride themselves on being fiercely individualistic. They want to be 'their own person.'...For Americans [sic], it's 'every man for himself" (1990: 147). This is argued to be a result of the influence of Protestant ideologies on mainstream culture. Rodriguez illustrates the communalism o f Catholicism versus the individualism of Protestantism through a personal example: what I learned as a Catholic schoolboy is that prayer is deeply communal, the link holding a congregation together. It was our great advantage as Catholics. If low-church Protestantism gave Christianity an understanding o f the "I," our great pronoun as Catholics was the "we." (1994: M l) This Protestant propensity to concentrate on the individual is argued to have contributed to mainstream Anglos' sense of personal agency and control. Kaplan (personal communication) contrasts the Catholic position that what happens in life is "God's will" with the position of most Protestant sects that humans have the power to control their own destinies. This is argued to be the foundation of the so-called "Protestant ethic," "a strong work ethic which the early settlers from northern Europe brought with them when they came to the American continent" (Hall and Hall 1990: 145). Capitalism is founded on the idea of control of one's destiny based on competition: "May the best man win." This, too, assumes that if humans try hard enough, they may succeed as they wish. 2 6 Another factor which may contribute to Anglos' sense of agency and control may be their ideology surrounding property ownership. Kittredge (1987) argues that, especially in the Western U.S., Americans have developed the ideology that property is to be owned and absolutely controlled: If one owns property, s/he may exploit it in any way s/he sees fit without regard for the ecosystem on such property or the surrounding society. This, he argues, has led to dire environmental consequences. It is proposed here that because the Lemon Grove residents, like many Chicanos and other members of the underclass, do not own property, they exercise their "ownership" more in terms of personal relationships. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 6 2 7 This Republican-founded anti-drug program is based on the idea that any child who has enough self-esteem as an individual can choose to "say no" to drugs. The program focusses on instilling self-esteem in individual children rather than working to combat the social problems within communities which tend to have high rates of drug use. 2 8 This ideology is called into question in situations when the contribution of social conditions is proposed to outweigh individual motivation. For example, in the Persian Gulf War, Black women were grossly overrepresented with respect to their numbers in the general U.S. population. Conservatives contended that it was each Black woman's individual "choice" to have entered the military, while many liberals argued that because Black women have fewer "choices" in current society than less-marginal citizens (i. e., white men), their "choice" to enter the military had been socially constructed. Similarly, the "Just Say No" (to drugs) program has enjoyed only limited success; to explain this, some liberals argue that drug use can no longer be explained away as an "individual choice" when whole communities are "choosing" such a maladaptive way of life. With respect to teenagers in gangs, Jerry Springer, in a recent airing of his television talk show (December 1, 1994), stated that "these [gang] kids can only turn their lives around if they personally choose to....[gang membership] is of their own personal choosing...." This serves as an example of the motivational- developmental ideology being applied to gang membership. 2 9 It must be reemphasized here that though the Anglo participants were ostensibly literacy tutors, the majority of the conversational data is just that— conversational— and does not have a novice/expert quality. 3 0 Hall and Hall also state that "appearances are important to Americans [sic]" (1990: 152), referring to members o f the dominant society of northem-European origin. 3 1 In her discussion of a Chicago barrio, Horowitz asserts that "the honor of a man is linked not only to his own actions and perhaps to the honor of his peer group, but also to that of his family" (1985: 23). 3 2 Blea explains what she sees as a fundamental difference between Chicanos' and Anglos' orientations toward money and profit: In Chicano culture success means stability, growing old, and living in peace. Money and resources are also valued; but in contrast with most Americans, Chicanos do not live their lives continuously seeking progress and with profit in mind. (1988: 18; emphasis added) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 7 3 3 As proposed in Chapter Four, content analysis suggests that when Lemon Grove residents are polite, they seem to prefer positive politeness. However, as this study was undertaken to analyze epistemic modal use, the only politeness examined was that which emerged as functions of these modals. What appeared is a fairly clear picture o f Anglo negative politeness using epistemic modals; however, very little was discovered about Anglo positive politeness or politeness strategies of Lemon Grove residents. These are issues for further study. However, it is known that Chicanos "traditionally have been cooperative" (Blea 1988: 96), a quality which Blea associates with their tendency to keep their word. This is yet another reason to postulate that they may prefer positive politeness. Positive politeness involves taking into account the wants and needs of the hearer and making the hearer feel in-group membership with the speaker. This type of politeness would naturally follow from a high value on cooperation: People cooperate when they share common goals and desires and a feeling of belonging. Thus, the communal/cooperative nature of Chicanos would predict a predisposition for positive politeness. As stated above, this may be examined in further research. 3 4 It should be noted that in this discussion I have not meant to adopt a deterministic view of majority-minority social relations such as that of Bernstein (1971), a controversial position which was met with numerous criticisms. I do not mean to imply that there is nothing that can be done about different groups' unequal status with respect to mainstream society; specifically, I do not believe that Chicanos are locked into an unalterable social future. I believe that it is in society's best interests for both majority and minority groups to attempt to understand the roots of social conflict, some of which are linguistic, and use such understanding to better social relations, thus improving the social status of marginalized minorities. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 8 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 8.1. Implications of findings 8.1.a. Potential for enhanced cross-cultural communication As argued throughout this study, differences in language use patterns contribute to misunderstandings between different cultural groups, thus serving to perpetuate ineffectual and unproductive communication between the groups. Miscommunication between different cultural groups has consistently been shown to contribute to cultural conflict, serving to reinforce existing prejudices and stereotypes. Gumperz' (1982a) study of East Asians in Britain, Labov's (1972) study of urban Blacks, and Scollon and Scollon's (1981) study o f Athabaskans represent some of the seminal, best-known, and most respected studies of this orientation; other recent studies (e. g., Michaels 1981; 1985) as well as this one have contributed to the understanding of this phenomenon. Implicit in all such studies is the hope that, if the sources of cross-cultural miscommunication can be identified, interlocutors may be able to change their behavior consciously to reduce such miscommunication. Real-life experiments based on this hope have recently gained attention in the Los Angeles news media. For example, Renford Reese, a graduate student in U.S.C.'s school of Public Administration, has launched a program called "Colorful Flags," the objective of which is "to break down racial mistrust by teaching five basic statements (social etiquette), in the five most spoken languages in...school district[s]" (Reese 1994: 1). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 4 9 However, the present study differs from many other cross-cultural studies in terms of its more subtle level of focus. For example, Gumperz (1982a) showed that much of the "crosstalk" he identified between Indians and British English speakers occurred not so much as a result of language but rather as a result of language-re/a/ec/ practices (which, according to Gee, are integral elements of Discourses) such as the Indians' habit of presenting copies of credentials at job interviews, a custom which was disconcerting to the British interviewers. This type of culture-bound communicative act is more salient and more easily recognizable as divergent from the norm than are subtle differences such as pause length (i. e., in Scollon and Scollon's study) or prosody (e. g., Gumperz 1982a).1 Still less salient, however, are the differences in epistemic modal use studied here. Because the same forms are used— but for different purposes and in different frequencies— it required a rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis to show that the two groups used many of these forms differently. The patterns of use were complex: Even when the two groups seemed to use a function qualitatively similarly, quantitative differences were quite revealing, and vice-versa (see Chapter Three for a discussion of the qualitative-quantitative interface). If such differences were difficult to uncover using standard research methods, it follows that they would be even less salient to the average speaker and hearer. Differences in job interview behavior, pause length, and prosody could conceivably be perceived by an untrained eye or ear. Thus, they would presumably be more responsive to conscious efforts at change. To use Scollon R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 0 and Scollon's example, Athabaskans could presumably be taught that Anglos expect them to take their conversational turns more quickly, while Anglos could presumably be taught to give Athabaskans what they see as adequate time to take their conversational turns. However, it is questionable whether speakers could be trained effectively to modify their use of epistemic modals for the sake of cultural sensitivity. Despite the seeming "teachability" of such sources of miscommunication, it is recognized that it is very difficult to change language behavior without encountering conflicts relating to personal identities (Scollon and Scollon 1981). Highlighting the connection of language to personal identity, the major tenet of his Discourse theory, Gee explains that we must remember the Scollons' warning that for many social groups this practice [changing language behavior] will mean a change o f identity and the adoption of a reality set at odds with their own at various points.2 (1990: 67) The trained Anglo sociolinguists in this study simply behaved as they always did with acquaintances: They were as polite as they knew how to be. They were not consciously aware that what constitutes good behavior for them might be oppressive to their conversational participants, whether or not it is perceived as such by their hearers. Furthermore, they did not recognize their conversational participants' alternative behavioral strategies for what they were; that is, value-driven, community-motivated, tacitly-agreed-upon ways of communicating. Instead, they either misinterpreted them (as in Lucky's discussion of Jaime's infidelity, discussed in Chapter Four) or tried to change them, instructing Lemon Grove residents on such social behaviors as how to act at R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 251 business meetings or how to present proposals. This is illustrative of the point made in Chapter Two that "we operate under the common assumption that there are no interactionally relevant differences between our experiences..." (Taylor and Cameron 1987: 104). Despite the Anglo participants' conscious, articulated attempts to be non-threatening, non-controlling, and non-judgmental, their epistemic modal use told a different story. It is questionable, then, that even very aware speakers could make adequate use of what might be called their sociolinguistic "Monitors" (Krashen 1982) to modify the impressions they convey. 8.1.b. Epistemic modal use as social reproduction The fact that most o f the differences lie in politeness strategies further complicates the task described above. Fairclough argues that "politeness is based on recognition of differences of power, degrees of social distance, and so forth, and is oriented toward reproducing them without change" (1989: 66). In other words, politeness is inherently set up to reproduce the hegemony of the dominant society, and would thus be most resistant to change. (For a comprehensive discussion of dominant societies' tendency to reproduce themselves, see Bourdieu and Passeron 1977 or Gee 1990.) For example, the deferent style of negative politeness which seems to give the hearer more options may simply end up couching directives and suggestions in the appearance of politeness. A speaker's expression of politeness to a hearer, by apparently giving him/her increased options, may serve to obscure the power relationship between the participants: The hearer may perceive the seemingly benevolent (or at least benign) politeness R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 2 more strongly than the impact o f the message being conveyed. Furthermore, according to Leech (1983), a speaker's use of tact strongly encourages the hearer to use it himself. Thus, a reply to a tactfully presented directive is likely to be tactful acquiescence. Such de facto social control by dominant-society agents may be to a great extent unconscious— it is simply the "common-sense" behavior acquired by members of privileged social classes.3 Critical Discourse Analyses, such as those by Fairclough (1989) and Kress (1989; 1991), demonstrate that politeness strategies can indeed serve to reproduce hegemony in that they obscure agency and blur the defining lines o f power relationships. To illustrate with examples from this study, employing the negatively polite you can or you could to give directives or suggestions obscures the power relationship between the participants as well as the agency of the speaker. While it seems to give power to the hearer, it merely obscures the fact that it is actually the speaker who is telling the hearer what to do, thus placing the apparent (but not actual) responsibility for the decision to act or not upon the hearer. This works in tandem with the individual-centered, Anglo, middle-class "advice culture" defined in Chapter Seven; hedging directives or suggestions with negatively polite form s simply reinforces the notion that it is the hearer's individual choice to act or not, thus serving to obscure the speaker’ s impact and thus lessen his/her responsibility i f such advice is taken. The use of polite hedges such as I think, maybe, might, and probably also seem to lessen the force of the propositions they modify; however, if the speaker has greater power, these simple R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 253 politeness markers will not actually diminish that power.4 They merely make the interaction more outwardly palatable to all concerned.5 By seeming to equalize the nature of the relationship between interlocutors, such politeness markers allow the power imbalances inherent in every interaction to continue, sometimes unrecognized by either speaker or hearer.6 There is no question that, despite the efforts made by the Anglo participants in this study not to assert power over the Lemon Grove speakers, these Anglos do carry more power in the dominant society. They are of the dominant ethnic group, highly educated, more financially secure, and more familiar with the implicit and explicit requirements for "success" in what was described in Chapter Seven as a competitive environment. They not only hold the objective credentials for success (i. e., education and job experience), they possess the subjective credentials of controlling Standard American English and, more importantly, belonging to the privileged ethnicity.7 Thus, even within their naturalistic, "friendly" encounters with the Lemon Grove speakers, there is an implicit power differential. Consequently, the linguistic forms which the Anglos use to minimize their power are, whether they like it or not, inherently hegemonic. Although the Anglo speakers' aim is to be polite, the result is the covert assertion of dominance. The overarching goal o f this study was to contribute to the understanding of miscommunication between Chicano barrio residents and the dominant society. This goal has been accomplished. However, the goal of using such information R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 4 constructively to reduce cross-cultural conflict and the related Chicano marginality may not be as attainable as originally hoped. It seems somewhat unrealistic (and perhaps undesirable) to expect speakers to be able to abandon their deeply held values and socially constructed epistemologies in conversation in the name of better understanding between diverse groups. As stated by Gee (1990), language use is inextricable from issues of self-identity, both conscious and unconscious. This fact, combined with the fact that it is in socially dominant parties' best interests to preserve their power and status, makes it unlikely that widespread social change will be brought about by the elucidation of different, epistemologically based patterns of epistemic modal use. Gee, referring to attempts to enact social change through the elucidation of cross-cultural communicative differences, states that "there is a deep paradox here— and there is no facile way of removing it, short of changing our hierarchical social structure and the school systems that by and large perpetuate it (1990: 67).8 An additive approach is perhaps the best alternative;9 that is, perhaps Chicano speakers as well as Anglo, middle-class speakers could learn about the epistemologically based values attached to epistemic modal use and learn ways to modify such use to accommodate to interlocutors belonging to the other cultural group.1 0 For Chicanos, this could potentially lead to more favorable perceptions by Anglo interlocutors, which, in turn, could lead to decreased prejudice and discrimination;1 1 for Anglos, this could lead to increased understanding and tolerance of a group with whom they share an uneasy coexistence.1 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 255 8.2. Recommendations for further research On the linguistic level, the categories o f epistemic modal functions must be confirmed and refined through analyses o f the talk o f other interlocutors in other settings, including Anglo, middle-class speakers, underclass Chicanos, and others. The forms themselves seem to be used universally among speakers of English; however, in what specific junctions, why, and how often they occur appear to vary according to cultural values and practices. Other epistemic modals such as additional verbs, additional adverbs1 3 and epistemic modals from other grammatical categories should be examined as well in order to produce more generalizable results. Furthermore, it would be instructive to examine different linguistic instantiations of such values as dispreference for hypocrisy other than by means of only the highly informative but nonetheless limited epistemic modals. It would be illuminating to identify and examine other features which might index Lemon Grove speakers' reluctance to speak with high evidential reliability regarding things about which they cannot be absolutely sure. Such research would elucidate whether their tendency not to use highly reliable epistemic modals for less-than-certain propositions can be extended beyond the category of epistemic modals into other linguistic realms.1 4 In addition to exploring what else might be uncovered through the analysis o f epistemic modals (or other epistemology-driven linguistic forms), politeness as expressed through diverse linguistic forms should be studied more extensively. Much seems to have been uncovered in this study about Anglo, middle-class use R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 6 of epistemic modals for negative politeness, and a possible preference for positive politeness among Lemon Grove speakers was proposed and discussed. A clearer and more developed picture o f Anglo middle-class vs. Chicano barrio politeness could be developed in this way, adding to what as yet seems a relatively sparse body of literature. As Bean observes, "linguistics, like social psychology, faces the challenge of integrating phenomena occurring at very different levels of analysis" (1991: 268). This challenge is exemplified by the present study's attempt to elucidate a connection between values developed in conjunction with community marginality and the use of epistemic modals. This connection should be explored further, with additional inquiry undertaken into the relationship between Chicano community values and subtle forms of linguistic expression. Ideally, such inquiry would at least contribute to a recognition and respect for value-based communicative differences which would no longer be considered by the mainstream to be the simple result of a lack of appropriate education. 83. Final comments In this study, I have refined the definitional categories of certain epistemic modals, analyzed their evidential and non-evidential uses in the speech of some Anglo middle class and Chicano underclass speakers, and shown how both positive and negative politeness are expressed through epistemic modal use. Furthermore, I have illustrated how the different epistemic modal use patterns exhibited by those Anglo and Chicano speakers can be traced to different R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 7 epistemologies operating in the two groups. I have demonstrated the connections between such epistemologies and historical and current sociocultural living and working patterns, illustrating how such patterns have contributed to the formation of culturally based ideologies. I have concluded with comments on the possible contributions such knowledge can make to increased crosscultural understanding and decreased crosscultural conflict, recommending that both the majority and minorities use such sociolinguistic understanding to attain improved social relations, though this task is recognized to be difficult. It is hoped that the findings o f this study will contribute to general understanding in the field of sociolinguistics as well as in crosscultural social relations. I intend to pursue further studies of this nature, using the rich data from Lemon Grove (which I have not even begun to exhaust) as well as data from other minority and majority speakers, to continue to explore problems in cross-cultural understanding. Minority populations are rapidly increasing in the U.S.; indeed, in certain areas (such as Los Angeles), they already constitute the numerical majority. As explained in Chapter Seven, majority-minority conflicts are being exacerbated by the greater presence of minorities and the fears and prejudices engendered by this population shift, especially in times of economic stringency. Hence, I see such studies as potentially contributory— even if only in a small way— to the reduction of intercultural stress. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 8 Notes for C hapter Eight: ’Gumperz (1982) found that British customers judged Pakistani cafeteria workers to be "rude" due to the falling intonation on their offers o f "gravy." British patrons expected the offer to be made with question intonation, as in "Would you like gravy?" rather than with falling intonation, which was interpreted roughly as "Here is the gravy— take it or leave it." 2 Hall, recounting his experience o f studying the language and cultural behaviors of the Navajos, brushes the question of identity shift aside, stating that already, I was learning how to enter and leave situations and how to comport myself in ways congruent with those of the Navajos. As in learning a new language, I did not see these adaptations as giving up any p art of my own personality, which is a common fear of many Americans [sic] and their excuse for not taking other cultures seriously. (1994: 87; emphasis added) Here, Hall states that feelings of giving up one's identity when learning a new language and culture serve merely as an "excuse" not to learn about that culture. However, it is argued that as a member of the dominant society, Hall would feel less threatened by any shifting identity he might experience than would a member of a minority group. His culturally based identity is the privileged one in this society; to add a Navajo identity does not take away from the power he has by virtue of his social position. Adding a Native American identity might seem nothing more than a novelty, one which makes research easier and more convenient. In contrast, marginalized minorities lack widespread, mainstream social acceptance of their cultural identities; hence, they must develop a cultural pride rooted in their own communities, a pride which constitutes a type of power for these communities. This self-esteem based on cultural identity must be difficult to maintain within a larger society which does not value or accept the culture; thus, minorities must fight to keep it from being subsumed by the cultural identity of the majority, a conflicting identity which has historically marginalized them. This may explain minorities' resistance to standard English; as stated by Fairclough, "people know it is someone else's language and not theirs" (1989: 58). 3 It should be recalled that Gee (1990) argues that no behavior is the result of "common sense;" rather, all actions are ideologically motivated, whether the actor is aware of the underlying ideology or not. Hence, in Gee's opinion, the "theory- practice" distinction is a false dichotomy. 4 Walker (1987) discusses lawyers' use of polite forms such as "Can I ask you x" in addressing witnesses in the courtroom. She argues that "the force of the hidden imperative must not be ignored, and the request, however politely phrased, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 5 9 becomes an order" (1987: 60). This serves as evidence that the politeness expressed by a speaker does not, in many cases, actually serve to reduce the power differential between speaker and hearer. 5 Tannen states that deference (i. e., negative politeness) "seems hesitant...[and gives the impression that the speaker] is giving the option of decision to the other. However,...the use of the strategy may be merely conventionalized" (1984: 12). 6 The fact that the Anglo speakers made such widespread use of hedges for politeness supports what Kress calls the general Anglo politeness convention which "suggests that the powerful should not normally openly assert their power" (1989: 55). As discussed throughout the text, the purpose of these hedges seems to be to equalize the power relationship between speakers (though they do not actually do so). 7 The Anglos' status as women makes them somewhat marginal to the mainstream power structure; however, well-educated Anglo women with significant job experience would rank higher on a general societal power scale than most Chicanos or Chicanas, especially those who lack the objective criteria listed in the text. 8 The logical conclusion from Gee's argument is that the "hierarchical social structure" should be changed with the goal of improved social relations. However, advocating such social change comes dangerously close to falling victim to Freire's "fallacy of false consciousness." Freire argues that those who do not agree with his revolutionary socialism-influenced plans for government reform are simply the victims o f their own marginal status; in other words, they cannot be thinking fo r themselves unless they agree with his theories. This notion is evidently fallacious. While I do agree that some social restructuring might help minorities overcome marginality (though I am at a loss to suggest a potentially effective type of social restructuring), I do not agree with Freire that a neo-communist solution is the answer. 9 Here it is fitting to return to the example of the Aborigines' desire to learn the "secret language" of white Australians, in which "you [whites] seem to say one thing and do another" (Bain 1979 cited in Martin 1990: 34). Despite value conflicts which come with attaining proficiency in another group's culturally prescribed discourse conventions, benefits can be attained by both dominant and minority groups if these divergent discourse strategies are made explicit and their underlying reasons and overt effects are elucidated. 1 0 Hall discusses the benefits of learning more of the language and linguistic behaviors of the Navajos: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 6 0 I discovered that as I began to acquire more and more of the overt patterns of Navajo behavior, life became smoother and more rewarding, which is difficult to explain....I was simply more at ease with my crews, more relaxed, more a part of the total situation. There was less difference between us than before....Adjusting your tempo to that of a new country does make a difference...you are communicating a kind of kindred spirit that makes your alien presence easier to take. These are actions the people of the world need to know right now. (1994: 87) "The degree to which such prejudice and discrimination are linguistically based is questionable. However, it has been shown (e. g., Michaels 1981; 1985) that unfavorable judgments are made by majority group members about speakers of nonstandard varieties. Thus, it seems that the more such speakers of nonstandard varieties are able and willing to converge to standard norms, the more similar to the majority they will appear; therefore, they may be perceived more favorably. Such accommodation is recognized as difficult, especially for minority group members, but seems advisable. As stated by Kipling, All good people agree, And all good people say, All nice people like Us, are We And everyone else is They. (Kipling cited in Rose 1990) 1 2 In adopting an additive approach, it is assumed that both parties benefit. For example, in additive bilingual education programs in which Anglo children study Spanish while Latino children study English, both languages are presented as desirable social goods and both groups are meant to benefit from one another. However, as Edelsky (1991) argues, because o f the higher status of English in mainstream U.S. society, the English-speaking children learning Spanish are often highly praised for the mastery of a few simple expressions, while the Spanish speaking children learning English are often criticized for not attaining fluency. "For example, it seems that the adverb just would be a fruitful one to analyze as it can have either a "boosting" or "downtoning" function, following Holmes' definitions. ,4Rueda (personal communication) has aptly pointed out that epistemic modality, as well as other linguistic indices of such cultural values as the importance of truth, should ideally be examined not only in greater and wider detail but also across a variety of contexts. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Appendix A: Transcription Conventions 261 // (...) 9 word word Overlapping utterances Untimed pause Text has been omitted Rising intonation Stressed speech (except where specially designated for emphasis) Example o f epistemic modal R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Appendix B: /Ve» v York Times Book Review Best Sellers 262 July *. 1993 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers W«M Fiction Alt •eS w««es On tilt nus Nonfiction " m i o * U m 1 T W C — to m OF MAP*SOM COW TT. by Robert Jam es Weller. (W arner, 1 1 0 3 .) A pnotog raoner and • lonely farm er's w tla m low s. 47 1 TOE WAT TMtMOS OUCNTTO BE. by Rusn H. UmOeugfiSd. (P ocket. R l > A necdotes endopuuons offered by in# talk snow M ac 42 2 FUCAOINO GUILTY. By SctKt Tunjw, (Farrar. Straus A Giroux. 124.) a law yer in pursuit of hts Arm's m using pon n er and a m uium itU on^odar fund. 2 3 2 m e FIFTHS, b y Oaetd H albert cam. ( VHUrt. 177.39.) A loum alltl's a ooaL potltlcai. econom ic and cultural history of tftc 1630's. ) I 3 THE CUCMT.by Jtmn C nsfiam . (OotiMeday. 12130.) A deadly secret, revealed by a law yer |u lt before be kilts himaetL p resen t! prooiem a for an 1 l.y ea ro n j boy. 4 14 3 OATS OF CRACK. by Arthur A th e and Arnold Ramperaad. (KoopL D C ) "Hie m em oirs ol (he lace tennis star. 11 2 4 r x c SCORPft) ILLUSION. by Robert Ludium. ( S tn u m , S23J3.) A form er navai « ffk » r tracks down a terrorise conspiracy heeded o y a vengeful w «n<A 3 3 4 WOMEN WHO RUM WITH TMC WOLVES. Oy C lansaa PlnxoU EjtAa. (SalU nttna. £2fl.) How m yths and folk (ales ca n enable wom en to understand their peyctwA 2 47 5 UKC WATER FOR CHOCOLATE, by Laura EsQjiveL (OouM eday.St7.3b.) F roatreab n .iova.h ooe— and reapaa — sam pled by a w om an on a M eaxaa n u x l 4 12 5 RtENGMCCfOMOTMS CORPORATION, by Michael H am m er and J a m es O u m o y . (H arper BusU m s . 0 3 .) A m an ifests for Biaineaa innovsuarc reclassified bits w eek asnneflctkm , 4 c GAWtM. b y Jam es CUuslL (D elacorta. SHJO.) 7 * u Cordial reU tm tsiupa and la r n m m betw een the Japanese and fo r tu n e rs n Yokohama a 1M2. 6 THE REAL ANITA N 1U . by O aeld Brack. (F ra e P ress. 0 4 2 3 .) a )ournaUsrs account of the ratauonahlp betw een (he law professor and Clarence Thom as. 4 B CRUEL A UNUSUAL, by Patricia 0 . ComweU. (S cn b n em , n t . ) Or. Kay S carpeua investigates m ysteries ur*otvm« a m an executed for murder. 7 7 HEAUMOAND TMCMINO.by BUI M oyers. (DouOieday 0 3 .) C onversations with pnyticiana and other* about the reiauooahlpof sielaiesa to Oeougnta and em otions. 4 20 OH. TMC r u c t a Y O tr a o o tb y Or. Sm m . (Random House. U 2 J 3 .) The proM em sef finding your way through life: in w vroeandpicrorm 123 8 8 CARE OFTMSBOUC. by Thom as Moor*. (HerperGoUina. H tiW .) Spirituality and everyd ay Ufa. B 20 C O r u u s u m a YOU. b y M ary H turns Clark. (S la m 4 Schuster. 8 3 .) A ttie v tsa n n ew s reporter ha* m ystlfytng cep ei m ica s wnen sh e covers a sun | . 0 0 9 ‘ CMBRACCO CT THE UCKT. by B etty J. Cadle with C unia T aylor. (C old Leaf Pros*. 1I4J3.) A women** n e sr d e e ih experience. S B 10 PtCS m HEAVEN, b y Barbara K lngsolver. (HarDerCoUUts.X22.) The u r e a se s and strains cha< befall a m other and her adopted Qterofcee daughter. LI 2 10 TMtMKJNO OUT LOUD, by A im s QumtUen (Random Kouae. f lZ ) E ssay* an currant copies By the N ew York Tlm ae eoium atsL 7 I t 11 PAPEROOLL.by R ooert B. Parker. (Putnam . llt-M .) U Spenser tracks u m killer of an u p p er< n ist Boston <*omaa to her past in a sm all South Carolina town. 4 .11 SECRET C W SM O W U , by D eborah Laaka. (M orrow. CO.) T he unhappy m s m a g e s of a woman raised as a Mormon. • S 12 m s LAST COMMAMO. by Tlm otny Zana. (Spectra/ Bancanv a i J S . ) The (Inal votum e o f a * tta r Wars* trilogy. 10 11 12 •LAMA MAKES UR HER MIMO.by B ailey WTute. (Addlson»w«sley. 11723.) Life ui a uny G eorgia town; by a flm -g ra d a teacher and radio com m entator. 10 4 13 ClhBTtlN** OrCaMB. by AUn U tn u n a n . (Pamneon. 117.) F am asies said to b ed ream ed by Albert Cinateui us 1903. wnen ne w u a young patem clerk. IB 13* RACE MATTERS, b y Cam el W««L ( BeeCon. 113.) A P nnceton p rofessor a ssays isiu a s at (acting M ack A m ericans and su ggests w *ys (or audraasuig them. U 1 14 m s RE0 HORBCMAN. by Stephen C oonu. (Pocket. 12J.) An Am erican iruetitfencw officer itr u c iie e to ootaut control of S oviet m .rlesr forces. 2 14 BANKRUPTCYIPBb. by H arry £ . F lggw Jr. w ith . Gerald J. Swanson. (Little. Brown, 119.73.) The coltapee of A m e n o s under G overnm ent debt. 12 22 15 OCCEPTIOR. by Am anda Quick. (B antam . SIS j r .) R om antic and cnaottc esp en en o es of a young woman «me u raisingunraly nephews in R egency Ragland. IB 2 15* TMKTCOF P40LET. by B en|am tn HofL (Dutton. SI A) A spects efT aotecofU naopny explained through (he •cu on e of an A . A . M Um a te racier. IB « Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 263 F e b ru a ry 13, 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers T T ii* W M Fiction J S ! weak* On U u n u s Week Nonfiction WMII O* Lit! 1 DISCLOSURE, by M ichael Cnchton. (Knopf. (24.) A compai«r-<nd usu-y execu tive rejects the advances of his boss and is accused b y her of sexual ha ru am en t. 1 4 1 EMBRACED OY THE UGMT. by B etty J. Cadie with Curtis T aylor. (C old Leaf P r o a , 11133.) a woman's * near-death experience. 1 4 0 2 TM C a m O G tt OF MADISON COUNTY, by Robert Jam es Waller. (W arner. (11.93.) A photographer and a io n ety fa rm er'sw ifein Iowa. 2 TV 2 TMC BOOK OF VIRTUES, by w illiam J. Bennett. (Sim on A Schuster, (2730.) Moral s to n e s adapted from the G reeks, the Bible, folklore and eisew nere. 2 B 3 SLOW WALTZ IN CtDAR U N O . by Robert Jam es Waller. (Warner. S IM S.) Prom Iowa to India: the rom ance of a professor and a colleague's wife. J IS 3 SOUL MATES, by Thom as Moore. (HarparCoillni. (23.) a peychocheraptst rttaciiaiMe love and retauonslitpA. 3 9 4 FATAL CURE. by Robin CooK. (Putnam . S U M .) a series of m ysterious deaths h eu n tsa couple who oracnce m edicine in a sylvan Vermont town. 4 3 4 TMC HIDDEN LIFE OF DOCS, by EUxabeth M arshall Thom aa. (D avison/H ough too M ifflin. S ltJ L ) An an alysts of canine behavior. S **■ 5 UKC WATT* FOR CHOCOLATE, by Laura Esquivel. (Doubieday.S17.S0.) Frustration, love.hope — and recipes — sam pled by a w om an on a M exican ranch. • 4 4 5 WOULDN'T TAME NOTHING FOR MY JOURNEY NOW. by M aya A ngeiou. (Random House. 117.) E ssays about Ufa and death. good and evu. 7 19 C D RAO LOVE. by Jonathan Katierman. (Bantam . R 2 M .) The p tyeh otogist^ etective A lex Data ware tracks a se n e s of violent deaths. S 4 .6 HAVING OUR SAY, by Sarah and A. EUxabeth Oelany w ith A m y Hill Hearth. (K odam na. CO.) Two Mack l is t e n , both of them over 100. reflect ao their ttvea. S I t 7 HONOR BOUND, by W. E . B. Cnffln. (Putnam . (22M .) Three A m erican servicem en an a m ission to sabotage Carman ecttvilies ui Buenos Aires in 1942. 7 3 7 SEJMLANCUACK. by Jerry Semfetd. (B antam . H IM .) O bserve tions on life's pleaaum a and oroeals by the star of the teievtsion show "Seinfeld." 4 U Q FAMILY BLESSINGS, by LaVyrie Speneer. (Putnam . I 0 I22J9.) a widow's affection for the close friend of her son. lulled M a n accident, e m i t s fam ilial tension. 8 SEE. 1 TOLD YOU SO, by Rush K. Ltmbaugh 3d. ( Pocket. R L ) More com m ents on the state of the nation by the talk show noaL 4 13 C D SMtLLA'S SENSE OF SNOW, by Peter Hock. ( Farrar. Straus A Giroux. (21.) In Copenhagen and Greenland, a w om en investigates a child's m ysterious death. 10 C 9 FURTHER ALONG THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED, by M. Seoct P eck. (Sim on A Schueter, C L ) D iscussions of love, self w steem , reuuonsiupe and spiritual growth. 11 19 10 TMC CLIENT, by John C ru h am . (Doubleday. (23 jfl.) a deadly secret, revealed b y a law yer just before he kills him self, preeents problem s for an ll-yetr-oldboy. • 4 0 ' 10 PRIVATE PARTS, by Howard S tem . (Sim on A Schuster, (22.) The m em oirs of the radio aad -teiev u io n personality. • 17 11 WITHOUT REMORSE, by Tom Clancy. (Puutam . 124.19.) John Kelly b ecom es involved tn a Pentagon protect to rescue prisoners held In North Vietnam. • 2 3 11 WOMEN WHO RUN WITH THE WOLVES, by CUrtesa Plnkota E sU s. (B a lla n u n e.0 3 .) How m yths and folk tales can enable w om en to understand thetr p sy c h o . 10 79 12 VOYAGER. by Diana Cabaldon. (Deiacorte. t t lM .) A woman finds tove whiM com m uting between llth* and w u x e m u r y Scotland. 13 2 12 RCENCINCCRJNOTHE CORPORATION, by Michael H am m er and J a m es Q iam py. (H arper S iam ese. S 3 .) A m anifaaio for buMneao innovation. 12 23 13 GRAND PASSION, by Jayne Ann K reito. (Pocket. 122.) A rom antic encounter betw een a sm allenn keeper and the m an behind a large hotel chain. a 13 FLY FTSNIMG THROUGH THE MIDUFE CRISfS. by Howell R aines. (M orrow, (22.) a journalist iooea at m iddle a g e through the p ru m o f h is favon te sperL 13 4 14 TMC BOOK OF CUTS, by G am aon Keillor. ( Viking. (22.) A collection o f sto n e s about Am erican m en and the strains of contem porary Ufa. 12 9 14* A HISTORY OF COO. by Karen A rm strong. (Knopf. (7730.) The developm ent of m onotheism over the past 4.000 y e a n in Judaism . Christianity and Islam . 14 9 15* MR. MURDER. by Dean Koontz. (Putnam . S U M .) A m ystery w riters happy fam ily life is endangered by a m adman determ ined to Kill him and take Ms place. IS 14 15 LISTENING TO PROZAC, by Peter a K ramer. (Viking. (2X ) A p aych lairu i discu sses raood-changlng m ed icsu on s and thetr effects on a person's self. 23 Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous 1 MAGIC CYC. by N. E. Thing Enterprises. (Andrews A M cM eeL llIJV ) Doalgne in color that take on new qualities when acn itln aod at length. 2 4 3 STOP THE U rBA N rm by Susan P ow ier. (Sim on A Schuster, (22.) A p reecnptlcn for w om an to eciuevw physical aad peychotoglcal health and fltnesa. 1 IB 2 MEM ARC FROM MARS. WOMEN ARK FROM VENUS, by Jonn Gray. (HarperCoUlaa. U l ) Communicating. 2 IB 4 AGELESS BOOT, TIMELESS HUSO, by Oeepak Chopra. (H arm ony. SZL) A phyaidan’t atfvtee about aging. 4 29 1 IS IBM an ii ill i a i ii ■ we m i ■ a ^ ^ tee* to . i ^ ^ i m rm ir R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 264 M arch 20, 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers Fiction w m i O n Liat TkU w«#a Nonfiction J £ l v m t O iliu 1 ACC10CMT. by D anielle S te e l (Delacorte. (23^3.) A ear collision involving tour teervegera tragically a lie n the live* of (iv« fam ilies. 1 S 1 CMBJtACSD BY TMC UCHT. by B eity J E edle wun Curtu Taylor. (Cold L eaf P ress. 111.93.) a woman's nee r ^ e a th expenenca. 1 49 2 DISCLOSURE. by M ichaal Cnchton. (Knopf, ( 2 1 ) A coaiputtfH ndtm ry executive rejects the advance* of ins boas and is a ccu sed by M r of sexual harassm ent. 2 • 2. TM C BOOK OF VIRTUES. by William J. BennetL (S im o n * S chuster.(27.30.) Moral s to n e s adapted from th e G reeks. the Bible, folk to re and elsew M re. 2 12 3 TM C CUCSTIMC PROPHECY. by Jam as RedflekL (Warner. (17.13.) An ancient m anuscript, found in Peru, provides insignia into achieving a fulfilling Ufa. « 2 i C O MOW WE DIE.by SM rwm B. Nuland. (Knopf, ( 2 0 A physician and surgeon re flee is on "life* final chapter.* to 2 4 TMC RRIOCCS OF MAOISON COUNTY. by Rooert Jam es Waller. (W arner. IM.13.) A photographer end a lonely fa r m e r s w ife in Iowa. 3 M 4 SOULMATES. by Thom as Moore. (HarperColllna. (23.) A payeftetneraptse d iscu sses love and relationships. 2 kMO cn SCOW WALTZ IM CCOAR U N O , by Robert Jam es Waller. (W arner. S1I.S9.) From Iowa co India: the rom ance of a professor and a colleague's wife. 4 20 cn MIDNIGHT IN TMC GARDEN OF COOO AKO EVIL by John BerondL (Random House, (2 1 ) The m ysterious death of a young m an in Savannah, Ga. 9 2 CD TM C CAT WMO CAMCTO BREAKFAST,by U llan Jackson B raun (Putnam . S U M .) Jim Q willcranand his feline sleuths in v cstiia i* a s e n e s of catastrophes. f 4 cn WOUUON'TTAKC NOTHING FOR MY JOURNEY NOW. by M aya Angeiou. (Random House, S17.) E ssays •bout life and death, good and evtL 4 24 7 UKE WATCR FOR CHOCOLATE, by U u r a E sq u ivel (Doubleday.117.30.) Frustration love, hope — and recipes — sam pled by a wom anon a M exican ranch. S 4» 7* HAVING OUR BAY, by Sarah and A. Elisabeth Dal any with A m y HID Heartn. (Kodansha. (20.) Two black sisters, both of them over 100, reflect on tM ir Uvea. T 1« 0 0 f AMtLY BLESSINGS. by LaVyrt* Spencar. ( Putnam . R 2J 3 .) A wtdow-s affection for the close friend of M r son. killed m an accident, creates fam ilial le m o n . 7 g Q ZLATA'S OIARY, by Zlata FUlpovic. (Viking, 111.91) t O T M Clary kept by a girl Uvtng m warworn Sarajevo, from 1991 (w M n sM w as 11 y e a n old) to I N I CD ROCtil WARRIOR 1 1 1 Red CeB. by R knard M arctnko and John W etsm ar. (P ocket. (22.) An attem pt to (top nuclear m aterials from reaching Norm Korea. 12 2 9 MY U V 1 S .b y Roeeanne Araotd.(Rallantlna. (22.) TM television personality discusses M r professional life and private affairs. IB 2 10 FATAL CURE. b y RoMn Cook. (Putnam . (22.13.) a series of m ysterious deauts haunts a couple w ho practice m edicine in a sylvan Vermont town. • g 10* A DRINKING LIFT, by P e te KamllL (Little. Brown. (21.93.) T h em * m o m of a N ew York Dom -endbrad (run-A m erican journalise S 9 11 WTTMOVT REMORSE. by Tom Clancy. (Putnam . ( 2 0 3 .) John K elly becom es involved In a Pentagon project to rescue prisoners M id In North Vietnam. 29 • 11. SEfMLANCUAGC. by Jerry Seinfeld. (B antam . (11.93.) ObservoUona an life's pleasures and ordeals by tM star of tM M levuian show -Seinfeld." ■ 2S 12 M CM ALLY'S C A P tlt, by Lawrence Sanders. (Putnam . (12.93.) Archy M cNally’s search for tM thief o f a fam ily’s M irtoom s uncovers a s u in g e f surprise*. is 4 12 TMC HIDDEN (JFC OF DOOS, by C llssbeth M enM II Thom as. (D avison/H oughton M ifflin. SIC.E3.) An analysts o f ca/une behavmr. A 20 13 RAMA REVEALED, by Arthur C Clark* and Gentry Lee. (S p ectra/Santam . (72.13.) T M concluding volum e m a s e n e s about tM voyage of a siArefup. i t 4 13 MAKCS MC WANNA HOLLER, by Nathan MeCalL (Random House. (22.) The Ufa of a young black m an ui America: tM m em oirs of a Washington P ost reporter. I 14* SCCONO MATURE, by Alice Hoffman. (Putnam . (72J3.) a w om an adoots a "wolf (040" and. by leaching him, learns a lot about good and eviL 1 14 ANSMEARCRETi My Story, by AravMargret with Todd Gold. ( Putnam , Q 3J3.) T M autobSograpny of tM Swedlsh-Oora. lUlnots-brad actress and entertainer. 12_____ 4_ 15 BARER. by A. £ Crispin. ( Pocket, (22.) T M storm y life of (pock's fatM r, an illustrious am bassador for tM "Star Trek" Federation. to 4 15 WOMEN WHO RUN WITH THE WOLVES, by CUrisaa Ptnkola E stes. (BellanU M . (22.) How m yths and (oik talea can enable wom en to understand thetrpsycM a. 14 EJ Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous MAOtC CYC. W N . t Thin* EfUersrtsea. (A n d n w i A M cM ev l.tl2 .ti.) Designs m coto* tnat U kM oniw * qua h u es when scrvtuuaed at length. MCN ARC FROM MARS. WOMEN ARC FROM V U M . by John Gray. (H arp*rC oillne.i2i.) C ommvmcatm*. ITOhTME INBAMrm&y Suaan P ew ier. (XlmonA 2 _ 21 k l u a it r , >1L) A p m c n tu o A tor wom en to tcA w w pnyncat twfl pa|» lw w t m M ilU* *»d H ia w a A C t U I I ROOT. TWELCBB MIWO, by C N i p U O w pra. 4 14 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 265 April 10, 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers Thi» Fiction i t s TM * V M Nonfiction £ £ W n u O mLM 1 TMC CCLCSTINC PROPHECY. by J a m es RedfVHd. (WtrTKf, 117.93.) An ancient m anuacnpc found in Peru, provides iruignts uito aem evtng a lidfUUng Ufa. 1 4 1 EMBRACED BY THE UCNT. b y Retry J. Eadto with Curtis Taytor. (Cold L eaf Proas, 319-93.) A w om an’s aear-deam experience. 1 49 CVI TM C BRIOCES OF MADISON COUNTY. by Robert Jam es W aller. (W arner. 111.93.) A photographerend a lonely fa r m e r s w ife in Iowa. 4 47 2 HOW WE DIE. bySherertn B. N ulasd. ( K n o p f .m ) A physician and surgeon reflects on 'Ufa’s final c h ap ter.' 2 A 3 ACCIDCMT, by Danielle SteeL (D eU cortc. *23.93.) A careolUaion involving four teeo-egers tragically alters the liv es of five fam ilies. 2 g 3 THE BOOK OPVTRTVES. by W illiam J. Bennett. (Sim on A S chuster. 0 7 .3 0 .) M oral sto n es adapted from th e G reeks. the Bible, (olklore and elsew tw ta. 3 IB 4 DISCLOSURE, by M ichael Crtenton. (Knoof. « 4 . ) A com ouier-industry executive rejects m e advances of fus boss and is accu sed b y her of sexu al haraasm ent. 3 12 4 . ZLATA'S OtARY. by Zlata PUipovtc. (Viking. S1CJ3.) The diary kept b y a girt Uvuig tn warworn Sarajevo, from 1991 (w hen sh e w as 11 y ea rs old) to 199L 4 d 4 5 SLOW WALTZ IN CCDAR U N O . by Robert Jam aa Waller. (W arner. S l S t l ) From Iowa to India: m e rom ance of a p rofessor end a colleague's w ile 3 22 5 MIONlCMTtM TME GARDEN OF GOOD AMD CY1L* by John BerendL (R andom House. 122.) The m ysterious death of a young m an ut Savannah. Ca. s 9 6 UKC WATVR FOR CHOCOLATE. by Laura EsquiveL ( Doubled* y, J 17.50,) Frustration. tev*. nop e— and recipes — sam pled by a w om an on a M exican ranch. 4 1 3 6 MARES ME WANNA HOUER. by Nathan McCall. (R andom H ouse. *33.) The life of a young black m an ui A m erica: the m em oirs e f a Washington P oet reporter. 7 4 7 ROCUC WARRIOR lit Red C ad.by Rlcnard M arcinko and John Wets m an. ( Pocket. *22.) An attem pt to stop nuclear m aterials from r e s clung N orm Korea. 7 S 7 SOUL MATES, by T hom as Moore. (KarperCoUins. *23.) A p eycnotherapat d iscu sses love and relationships. g 13 C O TM C CAT WHO CAMC TO BREAKFAST. by Lilian Jacttaon B rau n (P u tn a m .119.93.) Jim Q w iU eranand nis feline sleuths investigate a series of catastrophes. 4 7 8 HAVING OUR SAY. by Sarah and A. E lizabeth O elany with A m y Hill Hearth. (Kodanaha. 120.) T w o black l is t e n , both o f them over 100, r e fle a on th eir lives. • 19 9 ON OANCCROtfS GROUND, by Jack H iggins. ( Putnam . 13X93.) Powerful in ie m tlc o n a c sr v to prevent Use transfer of Hong K ong to Q una in ipgT. 1 9 WOULDN’T TAKE NOTHING FOR MY JOURNEY NOW. by M aya A ngsiou. (R andom H ouse. 117.) E ssa y s about life and death, ^ o d aad evtL • 27 10 RIVER GOO, b y Wilbur Smith. (D unne/St. M artin's, I3«.*3.) Ambition, greed and rom ance tn E gypt a t m e tim e of the Pharaona. 11 2 10 A DRINKING U FE . by P ete KamUL (Little. Brown. C l A3.) T he m em oirs o f a N ew York bom -end-bred Irun-A fnencan journalist. 11 S 1 1 FATAL CURE* by Robin Cook. (P utnam . 12193.) A se n e s of m ysterious deaths haunts a couple wno practice med*cin« in a sylvan V erm ont town. • 11 11 ITOOK A U O U N * AMO KEFT ON TICKIN', by L ewis G ruxxrd. (VILlard.119.) The Late hum orist's doecrtptioa of fus experience following heart surgery. 4 12 WITHOUT REMORSE, by Tom Clancy. (Putnam . 134.93.) John K elly becom es involved in a P entagon project to rescue p risoners neld to North V ietn am 31 12 SCJNLAMGUACC. b y Jerry S etaff id. (B antam . 119.93.) O baerva lions on life’s p laam res and ordeets b y the star o f th e television show “3etnf»ld." ID at 13 FAMILY BLXSUNQS. by LaV yrle Spencer. ( Putnam . 11193.) a widow's affection fo rm e c lo se fn en d o f her son. killed in an accident, crea tes fam ilial tension. 10 • 13 REXMGIMCEJUNQ THE CORPORATION, by M ichael H am m er sa d J a m es Qiarapy. (H arper Busm ens. 123.) A m anifesto for bus w ees innovation. 13 34 14 SECOND NATURE, by A lice H od m an (Putnam . m .9 3 ) a w om an edoota a “wotf m a n ' and. by teaching turn, learns a lot about good and evtL 12 4 14 WOikEN WHO RUN WTTM THE WOLVES, by C la m sa PtokoUEscAa. (BaUAncma.X3X) How m yuia and folk taiee can enable wom an ta understand thetrpsychea. 14 94 15 MCNALLY’BCAPGR.by L aw rence Sanders. (P utnam . 122.93.) Arcny M cNally's search lor th e U uefof a fam ily's heirloom s uncovers a su in g o f surprises. 13 7 15 TMC MIDDEN UFE OF DOGA, by Elizabeth M arshall T hom as. (D evtaon/H oughton M ifflin 119-90.) Aa snaiyais of peaavior. 12 13 Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous 1 m a g ic CYI. by N. E. Thing E nterprises. (A ndrew s A M c M e e t9 ll9 3 .) Design* in color that take on new qualities when scrutinised a t length. 1 U 3 FIRST THINGS FIRST, b y Stephen R. Covey. A. Roger M em ll aad R ebecca R. M em lL (Simon A Schuster. 123.) w a y s to organise your life to be su ccessful. 4 3 2 MEN ARC FROM MARE. WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS. by John Cray. (HarperCoiiina. SIX) C om m unicating. 2 4 4 4 ITOPTHE IMSAMTm b y Susan pow ter. (Sim on A SchiMter. XZ2.) A dvice on wom en's health and fltnean : M umm rvhcci m m n«w**. tor u m eeM mmm M«roi M. u U M sm ie e iw paw t o w i m r i m w | BUM* «awr m u t o f (*ft arnee. M M " * * <-■ ■» 'h w i m m. imMMIi m M ) , MMJMtCSMy MWIMM •» rwWV— « M M I* ait MM MUma IM Ull' 11a AM M M W l I t o U lM OMi • f > 1 M M ftfl M N t f M llM > M illtll fTM M M M « BH M M M P** R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. May 15. 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers Fiction 1 THE CCLCSTINE PROPHECY. by Jam es Redfleld. (Warner. 117.93.) An ancient m anuscript, found tn Peru. provides in sign u into achieving a fulfilling Ufa. t I t C M REMEMBER ME. by M ary H iggins Clara. (Sim on A Sen inter. 12130.) A fter an estranged couple reconcile, they find tnem setve* haunted by a m ysterious force. 2 3 CO is FOR KILLIR.br Sue Grafton. (Holt. S22.93.) Kmsey Millhone investigates the strange death of a w aitress's daugnter. I 4 4 TMC BRIDGES OF MAOIION COUNTY, b y Robert Jam es w aiter. (W arner. 114.93.) a photographer end a lonely farmer’s w ife m Iowa. S U c n in c a COLD, oy Clive C luster. (Simon A Schuster. H O Oirk Pitt contends witn a n n g of thieves for p osseeiion of ancient artifacts m tn# Peruvian Andes. I CD THE OAT AFTER TOMORROW, by Allan Folsom . (Little. Brown. 124.93.) a young doctor, haunted by his father's m urder, stum bles into a tangle of international conspiracies. a 4 7 THE ALIENIST, by Caleb Carr. (Random House. 0 2 .) A joumaicss and a psycnotogtst track down a m urderer tn tun*«fm >e<siuury Manhattan. • S CO LOVERS, by Judith Krmnti (Crown. 0 2 .) Rom anes, rivalry and fun am ong half a doteti couples. 7 S CD DISCLOSURE. by Michael Cncntorv (Knopf. 0 4 .) a com puiertndiui ry executive rejects the advances of hts boss and is accused by her of sexual haraaam enc • 17 1 0 UKE WATER FOR CHOCOLATE, by Laura E sq u ivel (DouM edsy. 117.30.) F natratiort.tove.hope — end raetpee — sam pled by a woman on a M exican ranch. 3 2 97 11 ACCIDENT, by Oameite SteeL (D eiaccm e. 0 X 1 3 .) A car collision involving four teen-agers tragically aners the lives of live fam ilies. • 13 1 2 SLOW WALTZ IN CEOAR RENO, by Robert Jam ea Waller. (Warner. 114X3.) From Iowa to India: the rom ance of a p rofessor and a col league's wife. It 2 ft 13 CHARAOE. by Sandra Brown. (Warner. O t X3.) Following a heart trenJplant operation, a television host finds her life enriched — and threatened. to 3 14 THE FIST OF COO. by Frederick ForsytlL (Bantam , t i l t ) ; ) Spies, traitors and brave w a m o rs a t work during the Persian C ull wap. ts 2 15 ON OANCEROUS GROUND, by Jack H lggihi. (Putnam . 172.93.) Powerful interests conspire to prevent the tran sferal Hong Kong to Oitna in 1947. 14 « S Z . Nonfiction 1 EMBRACED BY THE UCHT. by B elly J. Eedle w un Curtis Taylor. (C old L eof P rsu .S te.9 S .) A w om an’s n eard eath experience. 1 S3 CM REBAt My S tory. by Reba M cEntire with Tom C arter. . (Bantam . 12X 91) t h e autobiography of the country singer. 2 2 3 THE BOON OF VIRTUES, by WttUam J. Bennett. (Simon A Schuster. 177X0.) Moral sto n es adapted from the C reaks, the B ible, folklore and elsew here. 3 21 4 MIONIQMT IN THE OAROEN OFCOOO AND EVIL, by John BerendL (R andom House. 12X) The m y tten o ta death of a young m an in Savannah. C a. 4 » * cn o u t BONGS IN ANEW CAFE.by Robert Jam es w aiter. (W arner. 114X3.) N ineteen e s u y s dealing w un his m emoriae by a novelliL-pbotograpbcr-musician. • S CD H O W W SD tE.by$henvtn 8 . Nuland. (Knopf. 13*.) A p n y stesn and surgeon reflects on 'fife’s final chapter.* S u 7 DIPLOMACY, by Henry Kissinger. (Simon A Schuster. 135.) w a y s in w hich the art of diplom acy and the balance of pow er have shaped Ute world w e u vem . g 4 CD ZLATA’S DIARY, by Zlata FUlpOvtc (VUting. 114.19.) The diary kept by a girt living m warworn Sarajevo, from 1901 (whan sh e w as 11 year* old) to I N I 7 » CD HAVING OUR ft AY. by Sarah and A. Elizabeth D elany with Am y M U1 Hearth. (Kodansha. 120.) Two black ttstera. both o f them over 100. reflect an th etrliveu 12 24 10 SOUL MATES, b y THomes Moore. (HarperCoUlm, 123.) A psychotherapist dlacuascs tove and relationships. _ to 1ft 11 MARES ME WANNA HOLLER, by Nathan McCalL (Random H ouse. 123.) The life of o young black m an in America: the m em oirs of a Washington P ost reporter. • • 12 WOMEN WHO RUN WITH THE WOLVES, by Clarnaa Plnkola E stes. (Ballantlna. C X ) How m yths and folk tales can enable w om en to understand their paychea 14 91 13* SAVED BY THE UCHT, by Darmlon Brinkley with Pawl Perry. (V llU rd. 114.) An account of two ncar-death experiences b y a South Carolina buaweeeman. 11 4 14 WOULDN'T TAKE NOTHING FOR MY JOURNEY NOW. by M ere Angctou. (R andom House. SI7.) E ssays about Ufa aad death, good and eviL 13 13 TMEHIOOEN UFE OF OOCft. by Elizabeth M arshall IS 3B Thom**. (D avison / Houghton Mifflin. SIBJ9.) An analysis of canine behavior. Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous ■ i IN TMC KfTCMtN WITH ROSIE, by R osie Oafcey. 1 1 (Knopf.114.93.) Recipee by OprxJi Wtnfrey’saoofc. 3 3 MACIC EYE. b y N . C. Thing Efiiarpnasa. ( Andrew* A 1 M cM eeL llX tS.) O estgnaio color that take on new QualUW* when scrutinised a t length. 17 C . A M C M etLllXtX) a second collection of dupHciteua Oesigna in color. 4 MEN ARE FROM MARS. WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS. 4 by Jonn G rey. (H arparC om na.121) Com m um caung. 91 • » » * » « wtW n MtM ntw vs. iwt m i m h i m m a# m M. m i m m m m m ewe 1 wh im iih s u m m tm r i w o n ( tin R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 6 7 [une 19, 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers 'It,, Fiction J iS £ Z Z ThU Week Nonfiction i Z W#«*| PttLiU 1 THE CHAMBER, by John Grisham . (Douoieday, n o s . ) a law yer represents a racist wno is on death row lor nta part in a IM7 bomotng in M ississippi t 2 1 EMBRACED BY THE UCHT. by Betty J. E adlc with Curtis T aylor. (C old L eaf Pres*. 2IIJ3.) A woman's n eardcatn experience. 1 SB 2 THE CELUT1NC PROPHECY, by J a m n Redfieid. (W arner. 217.91) An ancw m manuscript. found tn Peru, provides insights into achieving a 1 ulfUlui* Ufa. 2 IS 2 O-OAY. JUNE s. 2 9 4 4 . by Stephen E. Ambroee. (Simon A Schuster. 230.) An account of the Allied . in v a m n o f N orm andy 34 year* ago. 9 2 3 tM CACQLO,ayCUveCuuter. (Sim onB Schuster. 224.) Oira p tu contends wun a n n g of thieves for possession of ancient artifacts tn m e Peruvian Andes. 3 s 3 STAND1NO FIRM, b y Oan Quayle. (HarperCoUtnss Zondtrvan, 223.) The form er V ice President recalls his Ufa. esp ecially during the Ruali y e a n . 2 9 4 OH. THE PEACES YOtrLLCCHby S?. Jsus*. (R andom House. 2 I2 J 1 ) T heprootem sof finding your way through life, in verse and Ptcturea. U 1 4 THE BOOK OF VIRTUES.by WUUam J. BennetL (Sim on A Scnuster. 22730.) Moral sto n es adapted from the G reeks, th e B ible. folklore and elsew here. 3 -a* 5 REMEMBER ME. by M ary K iggms Clark. (Sim on & Scnusier. 22130.) A fter an estranged couple reconcile, they find ihemaetve* haunted by a m ystenoua fores. 4 5 M1QMCKT IN THE CARDEN OF 6 0 0 0 AKO EVIL, by John BerendL (Random Houae. 221) The m ystenoua death of a young m an tn Savannah. G a 3 IS 6 THE BJtfOCES O f M A0I90N COUNTY. by Robert fam e* Wetter. (W arner. 21933.) A photographerand a farm er's ionety w ife in (owa. S 97 6 BEYOND PEACE, by Richard Nlaon. (Random House. 223.) An agenda o f foreign and dom estic policies for the l/tuted S tates to pursuetn the posi«otd war era. 4 s 7 THE AUENIET, by Caleb Carr. (Random House. 223.) A journalist and a paych otocw uacK down a m urderer m tum -of-tn*<enm ry Manhattan. 7 20 7 REBAt My B lery. b y R eb e Me Enure w tw Tom Carter. (Bantam , S223L ) T he autobwgrapnyof the country singer. 9 7 00 NIGHT PREY, by John Sandford. (Putnam . 2 2 U 1 ) Lucas Oavenoort investigates a ca m uwotvuig a body found tn a wildlife preserve. 12 4 8 THE HALOEMAN D tA M U . by K. R. Haldeman. (P utnam .22730.) N otes m ade by the m an who was Richard Ninon's chief of staff from I9S9 to 1971 7 3 CD 13 FOR KILLER, by Sue Grafton. (Holt. 22233.) Kinsey Millhone investigates th e strange death of a w aitress's daughter. « 9 9 SAVEO BY THE UCHT. by O ennnn Bruikley with Paul Perry. ( v u u r d . l i t . ) An account of cw onear^aath experience* by a South Carolina Dux m esa man. 10 9 10 PRINCE CHARMING. by Julie Garwood. (Pocket. 221) a lady m Victorian London d iscovers the man of her dream t, who irves in Montana. 10 4 10 HOW WE DIE. by Sherw ui fLNuland. (Knopf. 224.) A physician and surgeon reflects on “tile's (Inal chapter." ^ 21 11 11 ALL GOOD TM 1N6S.. ..b y M lcfta el JanF nedm an. (Pocket. 220.) ~3tar Trek- '! Enterprise crew tn a s to Quash an #1 to n to elim inate m e human race. B 3 11 OLD BONUS IN A NEW CAFE, by Robert Jam es Waller. (W arnsr.219.t3.) N ineteen essay* dealing with hi# m em ories b y a novetut-pnctpgrepner-m ueician. 9 t o 12 MISTRESS.by Amanda Quick. (Bantam . 219.91) a form er schoolteacner't efforts to unmoaa oer sum 's blackm ailer tn London's high society. t 12 UFE OF TMC PARTY, by ChnstPOher Ogden. (U lU *. Brown, 22193.) A two*repfty of Pam eta K am m an. the. United State* A m bassador to France. 1 13 * WALKING SHADOW, by Robert B. Parher. (Putnam . SI9 9 1 ) Spenser looks into m e m urderof a m em ber of a theatrical troupe m s M aisseftusettstpw n. 2 13 EOUL MATES, by THomas Moore. (HarperCoHms. OS.) A psychotherapist d iscu sses love end relationships. 12 23 14 THE FIST OF 6 0 0 . by Frederick Forsyth. (Bantam . 22333.) Sows, traitora and brave w sm o ra at work during the Persisn Gull war. 22 7 . 14 WOMEN WHO RUN WfTM THE WOLVES, by Clarissa Pin kola E stes. ( Balia ru m e. 2 11) How m yths and folk tales c sn cttabl* w om en to understand their psyches. 9 3 15 T U m n e l VISION, by Sara P a m s v y . (O elaeone. 22133.) The private ey e v. L warsAawsai probes a m urder and a scandal in an agen cy for the hom eless. 29 2 15 ZLATA'S OtARY, by Zlata Flllpovtc. (Viking, 21931) The diary kept by a girl living ui warworn S araiw o, Irom 1991 (w hen sh e w as 11 y e a n old) to 1991 13 Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous 1 IN THE KITCHEN WITH ROSIE, by Roaw Daley. (Knopf, 214.92.) Recipes oy Oprah Winfrey's coek. 1 • 3 sta tu e EVE n , by N. E . Thing E m erprues. (Andrew* A McM eeLSILM .) A eeoon acollectionef designs. 2 B 2 MIK ARC FROM MARS. WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS. by JtHinGray. (HamerColMns. 221) Ways to improve com m w ucstien and m a t MRsnipe between the m a c *. 3 SS 4 MAOtCEYE.byN. E.ThHig EM *rpneaa.(Androw* A MCMMLJI233.) Oasigna in color that take e e new QuallOes when k rut mixed at length. 4 3 3 , R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 6 8 A u g u s t 7. 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Seilers s s . Fiction J a S S £ 1 Nonfiction -- 4 TX< OtTT, by OuueUa S t n l ( D elacen a, SI V ) A I 3 | woman's casual v u itta a traaU town cftAnfaa the Uvaa o4 m any o1 l u titfUM tanu. u wet! u her own. A EMBRACED BY TMC OGJfT. by Betty J. Eadle w ith 3 43 [■ CurUaTaytor. (Gold L eal P ress, J lsJ d .) A wom an's oaar^aatA aj^erM oon. • O THICNAM SBA.byJoAnGrtihaov (Doubledey, t • / S34.SS.) A law yer represents s r s a s i wno IS oo deecb i w foe tus o e n to a IMT te m a ta f tm U b u u io ^ . r \ TMEACCMOA. by Bob Woodward. (Sim on SScfiuater. 1 7 / Q O TT toM narw onaasaoftM C U ntonW M taH ouaa. • . . . O YYICC&XSTWI|P1tOPMSC7*by Jamae RedlteM. 3 3 3 j (W ir m f.x i7 .ti.) An ancw nt manuscript. (ound in l^ont, M m tdea tm itb u imo ncM evuit s (UtfUUns Ufa. Q MOON SHOT, by Alan Sbeoard and Oeba Slayton with 4 4 0 J a y B areraa and H ow iiC BenadtCL (Turner, n i . t t . ) ~ ; How Am ericana ranched m e moon U» July IWI, A TVS BBIDQKS OP MAOtSQNCOUKTY. by Robert 1 104 t f Jam esW siier.(W antar.S14.»9.) A photocjvpAerand a l i r w i ' i lonely w tie u> low s. A TNB BOOCt O f V B m iB S, by WUUam J .B e w ia a t u I f (Sim on A Scbuater. C 7 J 0 .) Moral atenaa adapted v (rom the Croetta, the Bible. loUUore and etaewkero. C P o u n c A L t r c o * * t c r b x o tim k s t o k k s , try « 7 0 Jam es Fbm C arw r. (M acm illan. SCI3.) C la ss* u l a rotm m to avotdoifendlA f current saMibUUiae. C MiDHOONTtMTNXOAItOftNOrOOOOAMOCVIUby 1 23 0 John Berandt. (R andom Houea. C l ) The m yatenoua dea tn e l a youns'm aa w Savaadab. Ca. c v t f f r m m o TO OAM. by Barbara Taylor B rad /ora 4 3 O (K e r a a r C a m n a .a o A w o a a A U M stacD p ealicreA a ct 01 VMUnca destroys her pertoca fam ily Ufa n SAVCO ST TUB UCHT, by Daimton Brinkley w tm Paul t 14 0 Perry. ( V U lant SIC) a a e e a u e t e l tw o near death aipetlanooo b y e South Carolina buamaasmaA. 7 T M AliCMtST, by Caleb Carr. (Random Kouac. 133.) 7 t? / A journalist aed a p aycn ctojat tree* down a m urderer m rum<*«<no cen tu ry Manhattan. . 7 ' MOTKCXUEBS OAMMTVRS, by Hope Cdetman. U 2 f (A d d laom W w iey.S X ) T he a n en a n o ea e l woman alta r um d oathaol thotr m otb en . n OtSM(Y*t TMK UOM K1M0. adapted by Oon FaffuM fk 1 O (M oueeW erM .l4.S4.) The com i/iso t ace of anim al royalty, cstd in words and p n m O 0 4 > A t, JUMK 4 . 1 S 4 4 . b y Stepban E. Amorooa. 4 * Q (Slm onA Scbuetar. SBC) The AiUad Invaaina /"V. U V B O rT H K P U n T .b y a irU tp p h erO td en .d ju M . 7 4 H Brown, S34.SS.) A biography o< Pmmeta H am n u A , iha . U oued S tates A m bnaaadertofranoA - ( A RSBAj My Story* by BebaM cEnUre with Tom C aner. 13 14 j U * (B antam . CCLSC) T he e o u stry a u r’aautatMocroohy. J J ' TM KtSBSOM Sor LOW* by Melody Baatua. 1 I I (H arp arS an F ran oaox Sla.) The author talla how aha recovered trom the daatb ol her n -y a a ro M io n . • A ^ SOUL MATES* by TTlomaa Mcora. (HarvarCoUM . 10 SO t / 113.) A paychotharaptat dlicueiaa l o w and rotauonahtcM. u r s BT4M(MNafWM*by D an Q u ayle (Karea«CatU*a/ 4 12 1 0 ZoruMrvan. S23.) T he lorm er Vice PraeMenr recaJla w m e U fa eaoeciau yd u rm s the Suab y o a m A A O AVCSAJUm SNOTM AIIIttOTW SIiP.byOave 11 « | ^ f Barry. (CrmeiLS3B.)AcoUacUonalhumarpM coe. n tMOUC IMftUCNCC by Slava M s roal. ( Putnam. • 2 j P T t l ,) A dalanaa attorney finds him self caucnt in a w »e o# m urder aad d eceit within his own lanuly. ^ / * \ 7X 1 CROSSIMO, try Corm ac McCarthy. (Knoof, SIX) S 7 J W A youns Am erican com es of a ge traveling wttb a row • o i l into M in c tfi m ythic i t e m . ■ 4 -4 PIATWQ r o d TXf ASU1S. fry Elisabeth C e o r ic 14 2 | 1 ( Bantam. 231J3.) A ca se tnvoivuic a n o n . infMsUry. cn c a a ta a d m urder tn um E nglish countrystoa. A n ASMKMSCXMC.by M ary K ltsln e d a r k . (S im on * 13 IS | £ Schuster. e g , 30.) A lter an esi ranged cou(Me reconcile, they find them setvea haunted by a m ysterious (area. A O TMS WATERWORKS, by C. L. O oaniww. ( Random 10 • Houaa. >D .) U fa M the New York Q ty a l 1471 aa witnessed by * l* d ed new spaperm an A a (MCA GOLD. by Clive Cussier. (Sim on & Schuster, 13 13 n « .) Chrk P m contends with a ring o f cu rv es for possession o f sn o e n t artifacts in the P en m a n Andos. A ZT CAU ATrwe U le .b y RuchM BoltorL (Harcourt Brace, 1 1 0 11S43.) A btaclt w om an rocalUi her troubtadehUdhonrt— _ _ tnChartaatm LCC A r OOWKTOWN. by A nm R ivers Siddons. 11 1 | 0 (MarDerCotliA*.H4.) A w om an team * about Ufa end th a w a y so f m en m Atlanta d u n n s the IMO**. A n * W OM £M W M O«M W miTKXW OLVCS.byCUrtaaa IS S7 1 0 Pinkoia ErtOa. (BaUanuoa.S33.) How myuta and loth * talas can enable w w e n ta an dentaad thetr paychea. Advice, How*to and Miscellaneous ■ 1 IM TXgKIYCttCMwmt IIM1C. by Rasta D aley. 1 IS 1 (Knopf. I14SL ) AecapeebyObreA w in(rey*«Boh. n a iA 4 lC « y t e .b y N . e.n u n gen terp n ees.(A n d rw w e S IS O a M cM eeL SIiaa.) A aetano cotlacuowol deeiana. .— 0 MCM ARC fftOMMAJCS. WOMKJSARS PROM VOWS* 3 - 4 4 • A ~ “ MACIC CYC* b y N. L ITUnt Cmerpnaaa. (Ana raws A 4 2 * ■~*T M c A w t l l l W .) P a eiy w M am ertAattaAaanaaw R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. O ctober JO, 1994 THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW Best Sellers Fiction £ 2 <£2 % Nonfiction £ 2 £ r . : 4 INSOMNIA, toy Stephen Kin*. (Viking. JZ7.C9.) A 1 2 | — tt* T — m n rliT -tftn -r n r r lm in filein lea irm i.h sfto fcl sinister forces a t work in thetr sm a ll M aine town. A DON'T S7AMO TOO C IO M TO A NARCO S U N , toy Tim J 4 J Aden. (H y p sn o n .S II.tt.) A necdotes and m e d ia Hone -• on Ufs toy tits sta r of “ Home Improvement.* Q TALTOS. toy Anno Rlc*. (Knopf. $23.) T h eiw rrtvorof a S ' 4 ' / ip e tie a o f w u ch a sco p eiw lU iA lsM rlta M tesea u elto "The Wltchlna Hour" and-L aaher" O 1A R 0A IU P W t i A M isiaif.toy Barbara Buafv 1 r / (O rew /Scntonem . f3A ) The ( o m x r F irst L^dy racsUs her tlfd f fe m cRUSiood to Oie prsesnt. O O M T O F M O « o c.to y tem O a n cr.(F l utM in.S3SJS.>r‘ »- J ia c x * y a d a fld C L A .a e ee ta v a .e J ep e n e e e p le tto f* i V , lin k sA r o o n c a ’a is m t e r y andaum om y, v * < r ’ t k O iAACCl M C J W o r t CAT CTORtU, toy Jam sa H errw t 2 S *. ‘ 0 (St. M a n ts'a .S ltJ d .) A ooltoctim at u la a toy tne * . ; : YorkaAln) v steftm rta s. A TNKCCULKTIKCPROSMCCY. toy Jam as Retffletd. » \ (W arner.ll7.toS.VAaanOaot m anaaenpt. foundIn ? * j , i V - l^eru.providedm ettfm IntoecfttevtR gofull lUin*Ufa: \ t - * ^ s r t 1 • A ' T M SN O TZO «C byR lctw (O R rm ten.(R andom K euM . 4 3 aw O X ) The dtacoveryof a letltal vtrua. m ore tnfactiotM than H X V , and Uis slfarts to n sep H from spreading C P O U T K A ltr CORRECT U D T tN t STOMCS, fry ! ! * ? “<•*. I S 3 Jam es Ftow G am er. (M scm Ulao. OLM.) Q a ia lc taJm ’ '}■ re ip sn toavo*daffenqlatcorrealasnatblU ttaa. * r ' » f •' « . ' J .C -OOULY.toy DoUy R anon. (HarperCotllna, $35.) The • 3 3 autobioirspby w tAs o am try sb tfer. LORO O f CM AOSrby Robert Jordan. (T or/D oh sn y, 1 Q $ 2 921) The sixth ro fu m eef "The W bsetef T im e.* a a ? --> i te n ta sy a sc s; *• t*'*il; ' 0 COUtolAMOOO. toy Peut Retaer. (K em sm . I1C.M.) 1 • Q E s s a y on th e ups and deM w aeC tsam ais fry the 4 te te v ts w ataran d stand up comsdldft. * 7 NOTNmS LASTS FORCVCR. by Sidney Sheldon. • S ’« J / O n o n e e .m .) T hree *i am aa doctors la S ea T* fra n cttca contend MiUikrvent, b e u v y e n and kllterv. V r" - 7 TNC SOON O f V M T V U , toy WBIIam J. Isn n stL • « l / (S ttssn A ScAuater.ISS.) Moral atartm adapted from f ; tf> sC rasfr,a.th siaio.fom orean d slaeo»ieia. ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ... - - - . . . - . i f . / t t Q TNC BODY f ARM,toy P etrteU CocrrwslL (Scribners, t -T O m . ) O f. K ay Scarpetta tnveetifates the toJMiapptnB and m srder of a em ail North CaraUiMslrL 0 E A S E lA ll. b y C o o fftey C Ward and Kan lu m a . T « 0 (KnapC,SOd.) A dU Jiatim tsd h latoryofth sfam s. 0 NOORDtMAMTTWC.toy O ortsK esm sG codartn. I t 2 M (Sim on A ScAuater. $30.) TNa roles e f FranAIln and w glean er R oosovaU durtnt Wertd War It. J A MIONIOKT IN TNC QJdtStM O f OOOD AMO CVTU by IO 34 1 M JoM BerendL (R andom H oses. $23.) Thsm yM ertous dm th ef a youna m ao m $a vannaA. C-a. 4 4 ALLTNCTirotfCLCMTNtVrORLD.toyR. J.CTReurM. t 1 I (AuanucM ontAly.SXL) A hum onet amatdery Ute problem s of overpopulation, lamina, e a t o p e il dtasAter. siArde hatred, piactM end poverty. A O RtMtMtNOfMOMBATCTT, toy RWtard Bacn. (Morrow, IB 3 1 / * t n . ) A m lddls m sB m an's refWcUona * vmal h sftas learned from Ufa. 0 WILD NORSES, toy Otck Prmneta. (P utnam . $2119.) A $ 4 M film m aker pursues th e s e e m ccnlidod to M m toy a tfyw s ractotf a a so n . H A TNC BRUMES orKAOIBOMCOUNTT. by Robert t l t d J I ) Jantsa w aller. (W arner. SIAM.) A photographer and a la r m s fa lonety w ua in low s. A A TMC R tfT . toy D anielle StseL (D elacofT a,|l$.) A 1 0 14 | 1 woman's casu al v tu t U > a tm aU town cflaacee the U v * • 7 of rneaycf Its inhabitants, a s w eU aeb er own. A O STARTRCX rVOCRATXMt, by Judith and GarfWtd I | / R eew sw S tm n a. (Rocket. $32.) Captain K lrt and Caacaifl P icard m eat both c a n y out vital mlaatooa. 4 0 SPCNCSRVtUX.byN*tsQviOeM Ula.(W efTM f.raJ9.> 1 u j A coid w ar veteran tetMrm to hla Ohio h om ston a end rvcu ea an old Itam s Item her sadistic Hue bend. 4 0 A L L I fABC. toy M ary M atalin and Jam es CarvtUa R % I v J wtth P eter Knobfer. (Random House end Simon A w Schuster. C3L) THa IM tP n otd em U ieam p eiB n (ftreusn the oysa of remaM lcaUy levorw d consultants. A A BROTHERS AND S fS T lR S , toy Beto* M oors Campbell. 1 4 a | £ i (Putnam . $22Jd.) D ie teyeU kasofabU cfcw om ariare tested toy c e d e s cu ss' behavior tn a Um A nfetoebaaiu 4 A MOTNCRtEBB OAU«*fTERS, toy H ops E delm aa. 12 14 ItoL ( AddtaoA W ealsy. C3L) The egportencas of vmnven a lter the d eath s o( ihetr m o tn sn . -t r~ A tO N O f TNS C tttC t/f, toy Jcfui Irvtftd. (R andom SB • | 3 House. 133.) R e tim in g ta Ala native India, a Canadian physician enw untara a rasrderer he once knew. J P TNC LAST BMB TO ALNUQUCPQUR. toy LewW 14 4 13 C r tsa r d . C dlied toy O snde Fsrrta. (LoncatresL $70.) A ooU ecd on sf esa a y o b y the lata eyndlca tad hnmoflaL Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous A St CM ARXneOOl KAJtS. WOMOt A ftt FROM VEMWS, 1 7 1 1 toy JofM C ray. (H aroerCsUlnt. SZL) w a y s to im prove csm m tm leaUon a a s retedonshipa toe re a m (M sated. Q MAOIC CTCM. toy N. E.T3UIVI Cntarprtssa. (Andrews ) S . O A McMoet. IIX M .) Ooatanain color that tatoeen new puallOas nrwn servUataed at lesfth . O IN TNC RirCMtMWTTNMOdfC. toy R eals D aisy. 2 • 2 7 C m (Knopf. $1422.) R e t i e * toy Oprah V M n / t coofc. A REAL MOMOVTB,fry BarPara O eA aeetU . (O etacorte, 4 3 *+ 12129.) W ays 10 oops wtth life’s problem*. rvfleci M M n f a r n , tor Um avVa«S Oct. II. M LMS >—M M tor— n ln H iito w M W n | M iM i w M n (jOt im m , t o W t o i m otm . ■ w m iiiiM . of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 0 Appendix C: Selected passages from transcripts Longer passages from several transcripts are given here to provide evidence of how the data from which short examples were drawn occurred in context. These passages represent approximately 10% of the total database. C.l. Transcript 2: Madeleine, Crystal, Lucky, 1/27/91 1 L: Is N supposed to come? 2 C: I dunno. I haven't talked to her— I was gonna come down last 3 Sunday and I called her last Saturday night to tell her I couldn't 4 make it because I had so much work to do. I'm preparing for my 5 oral defense tomorrow. 6 M: She's gotta get up in front of her committee. 7 C: Yeah— God (sighs), (inaudible) 8 L: We're supposed to have a meeting tomorrow. 9 C: Oh, yeah? Now this meeting's about the money, right? 10 L: And who they're gonna hire, and who they're not gonna hire. 11 C: Oh, really? 12 M: So, like your proposal will have something to do with that, right? 13 C: Good. 14 L: Yeah. 15 M: Is Bill Getty comimg to the meeting? 16 L: They're all supposed to be here. 17 M: And you've already given him your proposal? Or you 18 haven't— you're gonna give it to him when he comes? 19 L: I'm thinkin’ about it. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 271 20 C: I think you should. 'Cause it'll make you look better if you have 21 some kind of, like, this is what I'm giving my committee tomorrow. 22 If you can give 'em something in writing that's concise and short, 23 that just basically hits 'em with points, many times, it makes you 24 look a lot better 'cause it shows that you're prepared. You know, 25 you're responsible and prepared. 26 M: Yeah. 27 L: (inaudible) 28 M: His? (gestures toward Teddy) 29 C: I doubt it. Bill's a pretty sharp guy. 30 M: Well, I mean I think he means-she means his head. 31 L: Over Jaime's. 32 C: Oh, yeah. That's ok— I mean, the problem in that is that Bill has 33 always maintained that this community center is to be run by the 34 people here, and he wants them to make all the decisions, but yet 35 L: //But we don't 36 get to make any 37 C: //But when it comes down to it in reality, only a few 38 privileged people get to make decisions and those are usually the 39 men. The women usually don't have any say, so it's like part of 40 the reason you're going to Bill is because you need— he needs to 41 know 42 L: //What if 43 I give it to him before the meeting? 44 C: I think that would be good 'cause it'd give 'im a chance to review 45 it. 46 L: So at least he could see it, I mean. 47 C: Yeah. 48 L: And then he could come out and say what he has to say on the 49 meeting, huh R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 2 50 C: //Right 51 L: //And 52 this way I could just tell him that I wrote a proposal and he could 53 just bring up my name, huh. 54 C: Yep. 55 M: Yep. You could even tell 'im that you think that you know the 56 way that the relations work at the center and stuff is that the men 57 take over everything, and that you can't really go 58 C: //Yeah 59 M: through them and write it yourself, 'cause there's no way 60 C: //Right 61 M: they'll letcha do it. It's like Affirmative Action, in a way 62 C: Yeah. You know, and part of the reason why you're going to him 63 over Jaime is because, you know, if you go through Jaime, you're 64 just not gonna, you're gonna be, you're just gonna remain on the 65 outside, you know. 66 L: Yeah. 67 C: It's hard. 68 L: It is. 69 C: It's hard. 70 M: Yep. 71 C: And at least Bill, I think Bill is a somewhat more sympathetic ear, 72 but still, I don't know...sometimes I get the impression that he 73 doesn't really care what happens with, like, the literacy program 74 and stuff 75 L: HI feel the 76 same way R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 273 77 C: //Because you know, we submitted that list o f books to him 78 a long time ago, and nothing ever came of it— nothing. 79 M: Well, he's a big talker, I mean I think he has good intentions but 80 • I know that 81 L: //Yeah, 82 but you better put those to action 83 C: //Exactly 84 M: //I know. Jaime was raggin' on that, 85 saying, you know, "He really, he promised all these things that he 86 just did not deliver at all when he was recruiting you guys." 87 C: //Umm hmm. 88 L: Well, look at Marisol. Marisol ain’ t worth nothing. If Marisol 89 really cared too, she would've been here, she would'a been asking 90 us what we needed and stuff. She didn't do none of that. F did 91 more for us than what she did. And now that the money's come in, 92 what, now she wants to be director? She wants to sit up there on 93 her fat ass and collect all the checks? Shit. We don't need her 94 here. We don't need— we needn't have her here break something 95 that's not broken. You know. 96 C: Yeah. 97 L: We're doing good without her. 98 C: Yeah. 99 L: And that's what I'm gonna say. We don't need her— we don't need 100 her her, you know. 101 C: Yeah. 102 L: There's other, there's other things that we need than her being here. 103 That we could use the money for. 104 C: Yeah. One thing when you talk to Bill, it's, it's I think a real good 105 idea to be real diplomatic, though...instead of just cornin' right out 106 and saying "I don't want M here, 'cause all she's gonna do is sit on R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 4 107 her fat ass," 'cause that automatically sets it up as an an-you're 108 antagonizing. 109 L: I know, but see, nobody wants her here. 110 C: You could just say 111 M: //You could say that 112 C: //You could just say you know, that, "It 113 appears to be the case that...that several, several 114 L: //Well, I feel 115 C: people" 116 L: //That's how, that's how it's gonna be, everybody's gonna say their 117 C: //Yeah 118 L: you know, their say-so. 119 C: Umm hmm. 120 L: So that girl, she don't really care about us, or what's going on 121 C: //Yeah 122 L: in the gym, or the kids or anything, she just wants her money 123 C: //Yeah //Yeah //Yeah 124 L: Now that it's there. 125 M: If they're gonna pay someone, they might as well pay someone 126 who lives down here, you know, that's gonna be right in the 127 community. 128 C: Yeah. There are ways o f saying that, though, without like putting 129 yourself directly into the conflict, you know saying things like, it 130 seems to me R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 275 131 L: //That's right, I 132 know. That's why I wanna learn how to talk the way, you know, 133 without, um, hurting somebody's feelings 134 C: //Yeah 135 L: Saying things the wrong way 136 C: //Yeah, it's a hard, it's a hard thing, 137 'cause I know I tend to, I tend to just say what's on my mind and 138 I tend to antagonize people that way. 139 M: Yep. 140 C: And I've been practicing 141 L: //But I've been quiet too long. I've been 142 quiet too long. 143 C: Yeah. Well you can just say, you know, that, you know, you can 144 just say well one of the, one o f the uh 145 L: //Ok, lookit, I could do this way. 146 Either I can go for her, or go against her...I don't trust her no more. 147 I tried to put my trust in her, and 148 C: //Uh huh 149 //Yeah 150 L: she messed it up for me. 151 M: How come you don't trust her anymore? 152 L: 'Cause, just, I just don't, I don't trust her no more. She did me 153 wrong and that's it. 154 C: Yeah. 155 L: I will not talk to her now, 'cause she's a snake. And I, I— she done 156 me wrong already and that's it. 157 C: Yeah. Yeah. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 6 158 L: I confided in her about something and, boom— what did she do? 159 She turned and she stabbed me. 160 C: The way, the way you can say all that without actually exactly 161 • naming her name, saying anything, is that you can say you know 162 that it seems to be the general feeling here in the center that certain 163 people who are wanting to be, you know, director, may not be the 164 most appropriate candidates, because general feeling is against it, 165 without having to say "I don't like her," "She done me wrong," you 166 know, that kind of stuff 167 L: //Oh, no, I'm not gonna say none of that 168 C: //Without getting your personal 169 opinion into it 170 L: //But I'm just, I'm just telling yous. 171 C: Right. 172 L: Right. 173 C: Without getting your personal opinion into it, you know. I gotta 174 do that tomorrow, like with my committee, (inaudible) 175 L: Yeah. You haven't done nothing wrong to a person 176 C: //Yeah 177 L: And then you confide in them or 178 C: //Yeah, yeah, and then they turn 179 around and stab you and they don't stand up for you 180 L: //That's right. That's right. 181 C: Yeah. 182 L: That's how come (inaudible). I will not. 183 C: Yeah. Yeah, when they got more power than you, or potentially 184 more power than you, you gotta be real careful how you word it. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 7 185 186 L: //Ah, Marisol don't got no power. Than what we have here? 187 C: Yeah. What is she-she’ s with (politician)'s office? 188 L: Not no more. 189 C: Oh, what happened? 190 L: She quit. She quit that to come here. 191 M: Oh. 192 C: Oh. Ok. 193 194 L: And not only that, everything she touches she messes up. (all (laugh) And we don't need that! 195 196 197 C: Well, look at how long it took those guys to get paid. You know, she kept telling 'em oh, the paycheck's coming, the paycheck- and they never did come. 198 L: I know. 199 C: And L 200 201 L: //They haven't got paid for 2 months. I haven't got paid for a month. 202 M: How are you supposed to live if you don't get paid? 203 204 205 L: And I'm getting very angry inside because I have to be borrowing money for the bus, to come back and forth— He doesn't know I haven't 206 C: //Umm hmm 207 208 209 L: paid my rent! I owe 40 more dollars for the rent— by the time Saturday-Sunday comes I think I’ m gonna have to him about 30 more dollars. 210 C: How many people are not getting paid? 211 L: All the ones that work here. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 27 8 212 C: Ok. 213 L: Teddy, Jaime, Lester 214 M: //Who's supposed to be payin' 'em again? 215 L: Marisol. 216 M: Uh huh. 217 C: Do you have papers (?)? 218 L: That's what we're supposed to know tomorrow. At the meeting. 219 C: You guys, you guys should like get together and write up some 220 kind o f thing, basically protesting the fact that you haven't gotten 221 paid. 222 L: They know. 223 C: Yeah, but if you put it in writing, there's s-, there's like 224 somebody higher than these people here that you can send it to, 225 then it's gonna make them look bad. 226 M: Yeah, I mean sometimes you really have to, I mean if it goes 227 months and months and you don't get your paycheck, and people 228 aren't doin' 229 C: //Yeah 230 M: anything about it 231 C: //Because there's a labor board 232 L: //You know what, and I would-, and I 233 wouldn't even mind, ok, I know they're gonna pay us sooner or 234 later, but it's not that, it's just that I need to get around, you know 235 C: //Y eah, 236 yeah— there's a labor board you can go to, too, the fair labor and 237 wages act board, or something, and you can call them, and 238 complain, lodge a formal complaint against them. 239 M: Is there a phone book in there? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 7 9 240 C: Is there a phone book in the office? 241 L: No, I don't think so. 242 C: Oh. 'Cause there's a...I'm not sure what you would call it, but I 243 mean you can certainly call legal aid and ask them, you know, who 244 do I talk to about this? Because legally, if they're, if you're on 245 their payroll, and they're supposed to be paying you, they have to 246 pay you. 247 M: Yeah, they can't tell you it's gonna come in a couple months. 248 C: Yeah. That's against the law 249 L: //That's Marisol. That's Marisol all 250 the time. C.2. Transcript 5: Madeleine, Crystal, Lucky, 3/12/91 1 M: ...Lucky should come with us to PCCLAS, huh? 2 C: Yeah. 3 L: To where? 4 C: The Pacific Coast Conference on Latin American Studies, it's 5 gonna be in uhm Orange County next year, next fall, and they h- 6 they we already told them that we wanted to have you guys here 7 from the center come and talk about meeting us and the kinds of 8 things that 9 L: That we do? 10 C: //the problems the problems of getting a literacy program 11 started here— you don't have to name any names, but you can bitch 12 M: (laughs) 13 C: Because, see, a lot of people they think, oh it's real all well and 14 good to go and start a literacy program, but they don't realize like 15 all the problems, 16 L: Yeah R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 0 17 18 C: like all the cultural problems that are already there that you get to deal with, like all the men want to control the computer 19 M: They think, you know, they're gonna come in-- 20 21 L: //There's a lot of, they've got um, Bill brought a lot o f computers in. 22 C: Good. 23 L: They're gonna start uh uh for the for the kids. 24 C: Uh huh 25 L: I don't know what it's called but they're gonna start it. 26 27 28 M: Do you know, too, that the guy who was gonna fund a lot of this is now in jail--you know Michael Milken, he's a junk bond king, that's who was supposedly originally gonna pay for a lot of this. 29 L: Oh, yeah? 30 31 M: //That's who Bill Getty knew, and then he got put in, put in the pen (laughs). 32 33 C: See that's another thing we we wanna talk about, is the fact that the funding has been so bad. 34 35 36 M: Yeah, they told us we were gonna get paid for this and stuff and that's not why we did it obviously or we wouldn't still be here, if there was no chance. 37 38 39 40 L: //I know, but that's still not the point, that's not the point though, man, shit, you don't you don't even have to come out of your way to come and teach, to come and help. 41 M: We do 'cause we like it, but it would've been nice 42 C: //Right 43 M: 'cause we just don't make much money anyway. 44 C: //To get paid. Yeah. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 281 45 L: Yeah, like Jaime tells me to, "You should just find yourself another 46 job" too. 47 M: He just, he just wants you out of here so he could just run this 48 place (laughs). 49 C: //(inaudible) 50 L: He could have this place, after I get my G.E.D. I will look for 51 another place...get me a better job maybe. 52 M: Sure. 53 L: maybe I'll...meet me a nice old man that's gonna take care of me 54 (laughs) 55 M: It's possible! 56 L: An old, old man that has money. 57 C: (laughs) 58 L: I won't do nothing with him, I'll just take care of him. 59 C: //Call her a gold digger 60 M: No, I don't think he'll go for that, (all laugh) 61 C: You heard that song "Gold Digger?" 62 M: Yes. 63 C: That's Lucky. 64 L: I can't do that. I can't 65 C: //The videos to that song it’ s so funny, they got 66 these women dressed up in like these bikinis and the hard hats, and 67 they're digging for gold, and the guys are all sitting around in 68 group therapy 69 M: //Oh, God. 70 C: bitching about gold digging women that they go out with. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 2 71 M: I wish they'd start writing...songs like that about men now, 72 I'm tired of that about women, women aren't like that all the time 73 C. //Oh, I know. 74 No, and there are a lot of men that go out with women just for the 75 money or for the sex. 76 M: That's right, because I know, I mean. 77 L: //They're sickening, especially the married 78 men who always want to be with women 79 M: I had a friend who was really rich, and she inherited a lot of 80 money, then this guy married her, she put him through law school 81 and he turned out to be really abusive, and she divorced him— then 82 he tried to get a bunch of her money when she was divorcing him. 83 (laughs) 84 L: It's always like that— people that have money like that— they're sad. 85 they're sad because they're always trying to mess up each other all 86 the time 87 M: //Yeah. 88 M: Well she just never knows if anybody likes her for herself or for 89 her money. 90 L: Well that's why she- that's why she's that's why she's dumb right 91 there because she shouldn't even let nobody know that she has 92 money. 93 M: That's right. 94 L: //She should move into a a a little house have her nice house 95 M: //Yeah 96 L: then just live in the little house like like, you know, like she's just 97 one of us, and see how much that guy likes her. 98 M: //That’ s right. 99 L: For herself, not her money. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 283 100 M: //Well, see, she had, she owned a houseboat when she 101 was like 21 years old, a really nice— it wasn't really extravagant, but 102 it was a house that nobody, probably like my parents could afford, 103 so I mean why should she be able to? (laughs) So (laughs) I think 104 they knew she had some money! 105 L: Well she probably let it be known. If she was if she was to find 106 somebody and not let 'em know that she has money then she will 107 know if the person loves her for her. 108 M: That's right. 109 L: For herself. 110 M: That's right. 111 C: (inaudible) Should we call Teddy? 112 L: //And you know what? I even told Marisol too, I said 113 "Yeah, and who who's the one that came out and said I didn't have 114 no skills? Fuck. You what me to tell you what I know what how 115 what to do?" And she just, 11 told her "I did this I did that I did 116 this and that and I'm not worth six fifty," I said, "Fuck, I'm worth 117 more than that shit," I said, "Who came out and said that, you 118 did?" She goes, "No." I said, "Oh, Marlon, that's what I heard, 119 Marlon said that." She goes, "Marlon wouldn't talk like that, 120 Lucky." 121 M: Who's Marlon? Is that (surname of local politician)? 122 L: Marlon, Marlon, the one that gives us our checks. 123 M: Oh, okay. 124 L: And then after she goes, "You want you want to start shit? You 125 want to get like get Jaime in trouble?" I said, "Yeah 'cause I am 126 going to tell him at the right time I am going to tell him, what does 127 he think he is, saying that I'm not worth six fifty? (laughs) 128 M: (laughs) That's pretty bad. Well we still could do a resume for 129 you so you could just have it in writing, in a really good...way just 130 to hand to him to show him what you're worth...Teddy says he 131 wants to do something about him... too. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 4 132 L: //W- e - e- even, it counts even if I was busted that I 133 that I learned how to (inaudible). 134 M: Yeah. You mean y- the stuff you learned while you were in 135 prison? 136 L: Yeah. 137 M: //Yeah, that counts. It's probably a little harder to sell it since 138 you've been in prison, but, you know...how long has it been since 139 then? 140 L: Since I been busted? It's goin' on five years that I been out. 141 M: That's good. 142 L: I even wanna send in in one of those what do you call? To 143 Sacramento? Um...What the shit is it called. Well for them to 144 close up my my case to close up my records. 145 C: Oh, yeah. 146 M: Oh. I've never heard o f that, but...so that they won't keep it open 147 in case you get busted again, is that it? (laughs) 148 L: No. No more. I mean, I won't if I ever go back in it's going to be 149 for killing somebody. 150 M: Probably Marisol! (laughs) 151 L: (laughs) She ain't even worth it. It ain't even worth it, I I can't 152 leave my kids. 153 M: Yeah. 154 C: Well, here. This is what you should do. For a resume. 155 M: Let's do it right now. 156 C: The first thing you gotta do is you gotta write down all the 157 different skills you have. Just list them. 158 L: My writing's my writing's no good, you write it (laughs). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 5 159 M: So's ours. 160 C: So's ours, that's why we're gonna do it on the computer, eventually. 161 M: • As long as I can read it. 162 C: //And I'll show you, I'm workin' on something 163 right now, it's what they call a curriculum vitae, which is like an 164 academic resume. 165 M: I just did mine, I'm gonna turn it in with my...stuff. 166 C: //And this is mine, this is 167 my rough draft. 168 M: I should have brought mine 'cause I had a few copies at home. 169 C: Umm hmm...And this is, this for my (inaudible). This is for my 170 fellowship application when I applied last year. 171 M: Oh, yeah? Well. I'm applying this year, are you applying this 172 year? 173 C: //And this is fuckin'Joe's 174 CV. N o,'cause if I go to Illinois, Joe's fuckin'CV. 175 M: //I wonder who's applying this 176 year, I wonder if I have a decent chance of getting it. 177 C: Not if any of the General men are applying. You don't. 178 M: I should've put in my my award for...National French Contest, if 179 you put in that. 180 C: Umm hmm. 181 M: 'Cause I won the National French Contest for Washington and 182 Alaska at the highest level. Thank you, high school history. 183 C: Uh huh. 184 M: I forgot you were Phi Beta Kappa. 185 C: Umm hmm. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 6 186 M: You and Eileen are sorority sisters (laughs). I ain't no Phi Beta 187 Kappa. 188 C: Well, it ain't no big deal, I'll tell you that. About the only thing it's 189 good for is a CV. 190 M: It's good for that, though. 191 L: Lisa was all tensed yesterday. 192 C: Really? 193 M: About her GED? 194 L: No, about that bitch. 195 M: //About that...(laughs). 196 C: //About that bitch (says in funny voice) 197 That bitch! That dope! It's that sex she be havin' with all them 198 men! (imitating Alma, former landlady) (laughs) 199 M: (laughs) 200 C: Yeah, I told my students yesterday about Alma 'cause we were 201 talkin' about immigration. 202 M: Cool. 203 C: And immigrants. 204 M: //Umm hmm. 205 C: And I said, "I used to live with this woman and she always used 206 to make these excuses about why immigrants shouldn't be 207 working." C3. Transcript 9: Madeleine and Teddy, 9/11/91 1 M: I heard about that here and I was wondering if you were down 2 there. 3 T: You should have went, Madeleine. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 M: 5 T: 6 7 8 9 M: 10 T: 11 M: 12 T: 13 M: 14 15 T: 16 M: 17 T: 18 M: 19 T: 20 21 22 M: 23 T: 24 M: 25 T: 26 M: 27 T: 28 29 30 2 8 7 Really? You would have been a good example o f speaking how people have told you, like me and Jaime...how we've told you, you know, you know like. You know, I didn't um hear about it until it was already happening. Oh. So what happened? Uhm when the ma- they told it like it was. Haven’ t there been like nine deputy shootings in the month of August or something like that? Something like that. And Alfredo is just one of them. Um. Uhm. So what'd you say to Sherman Block? First, when they called my name...you know the name sounded familiar 'cause o f what I said, "Sherman Block, I'm coming after your job," you know what I mean? (laughs) (laughs) Yeah, I saw that on t.v. And I said it in middle of a press conference. I saw that...on all the news stations. "Sherman Block, I'm coming after your job." Yep. Well anyways...well somebody says, you know, when somebody says they're going to come get your job...they're going to get you removed from your job, you're not going to forget that name, right? Everybody everybody that talked (inaudible). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 8 31 M: //(inaudible) 32 (loud thump) 33 M: Oops. 34 T: Damn, don't break the fuckin' (inaudible) (laughs). Hey, do you 35 know a lawyer named Steve Yeoman, Youman, Yagman? 36 M: //Huh-uh. 37 No, huh-uh, why? 'Caues it's like my name, huh? 38 T: Yeah. Your name. Well anyways...when they called my name, for 39 Sherman Block was was being other people giving their testimony. 40 M: Right. 41 T: (inaudible) go like this, huh? 42 M: You should, you got to lick it, though...right? I mean, are you 43 going to mail it or what? 44 T: No. 45 M: Gonna take it down there? 46 T: My my mom's gonna hand-deliver it 47 M: Okay. 48 T: Uh. Any way...Can you please keep it down? Can you please keep 49 it down? (to other men in the room) So anyways, uhm, it was like 50 this three times (inaudible) this ain't before...when he came out...he 51 gave an introduction on how good the sheriffs department was. 52 M: Of course. 53 T: He showed stats, how there are ninety-nine thousand gang 54 members...and he showed stats how gang gang uhm drive-by 55 shootings are, have increased and continued to increase, he said 56 how drug busses [sic] has been up from ninety eighty two to now, 57 they've increased in hu, in hu, in in a...enanimous [sic] way, you 58 know what I mean? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 8 9 59 M: Yeah. 60 T: He had council members from...Lakewood come up and testify how 61 beautiful the sheriffs are. 62 M: Sure. 63 T: How people who come in from Rolling Hills come and say we 64 need the sheriffs, we need this, we need that, we're in support...of 65 Sherman Block, people from Walnut...California came in and say 66 we need sheriffs this and that, Palos Verdes came in and said uhm 67 we speak highly for the sheriff and for Sherman Block and. 68 M: Something about Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. I mean why do 69 they want the sheriff 'cause they're you know they're never going 70 to have any... problems there I mean they're all white and rich, 71 right? 72 T: //Well well 73 well. 74 M: 'Course they want the sheriffs around. 75 T: Well, you know, then...they had some people come out, you can 76 see they're straight out prejudiced, they come out and says "Well, 77 you're demanding an independent investigation on all these sheriffs, 78 why don't you demand one on all these illegal aliens? 79 M: Okay. 80 T: Why don't you demand one on the border, huh? Why don't you 81 demand one if and and and and and send them all back? You 82 know...I looked at him and I said "You fuckin' idiot, don't you 83 know where the real wetbacks came from?" I says, I said "You're 84 a wetback, you're an immigrant, your greatgrandfather's an 85 immigrant there wouldn't be no America 'cause everybody from 86 America is an immigrant, from Christopher Ca- when Christopher 87 Columbus first discovered America...everybody on that bom was 88 an immigrant. 89 M: What about the Indians? 90 T: They're they they're natives, we took that land from the 91 Indians...and I speak as we as Americans, you know what I mean? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 29 0 92 M: Yeah. 93 T: Americans took California took Nevada took Texas took uh uh 94 Montana, Washington and all them states from Mexico! 95 M: Right, and Mexico took it from the Indians. 96 T: No, no, there's no history on that, so don't sav that. Mad! (laughs) 97 M: //There is too, Spain took it 98 from the Indians! (laughs) 99 T: No no no no, don't say that. Look up history, there's no place in 100 history where it states that! 101 M: Okay. 102 T: Okay? But what I'm saying...is why in the hell is he going to 103 stereotype me by him saying go back, now they're here! This is 104 our country, you know what I mean? 105 M: The people they kill, the sheriffs kill, they're not illegal aliens, he 106 wasn’t an illegal alien. 107 T: I know he wasn't. 108 M: He was an American citizen! 109 T: Yeah, but, see, to them, his mother's a wetback, you know. 110 M: Right. 111 T: And and it's it's it's sorry to say you know it's sorry to say 112 Madeleine, nice people that I've met like you. that I love and 113 admire for coming down into the neighborhood and helping us out 114 have to pay for what some idiotic asshole is doing, you know. 115 M: We do. 116 T: //And it's stereotypes, one person stereotypes the rest. 117 M: That's right. 118 T: You know. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 291 119 M: That's right. 120 T: You m-, like me. When you met me, sure I was a gang member, 121 but you had to take the chance and gamble and getting to know 122 • me...you had to risk getting robbed, you had to risk getting hurt, 123 getting shot, getting runned out, but you had to risk it. and I I 124 could imagine it was a scary fuckin' feeling, you know, saying "I'm 125 going to work with this big fuckin' Mexican dude, doesn't ever 126 smile," you know what I mean, got stabbed in his arms, got shot, 127 and affiliated with the gang, now...where did you get that from, the 128 thoughts...my appearance, you know what I mean, my appearance, 129 and it's true! 130 M: Sure. 131 T: Because you hear of gang members doing this and gang it stays in 132 the mind of people that they're all the same. 133 M: Right. 134 T: Just like, when I met you and I met Jonathan, I says "Either they're 135 going to put us down...uhm, they're here for their own 136 interest... they're going to be here...for awhile, they're going to leave 137 and never come back, you know, and they're probably going to talk 138 good in front of me and talk all kinds of shit behind my back, you 139 know what I mean? But, in order for me to get to know you I had 140 to gamble and I had to take that chance and I had to I had to 141 accept that fact that I’m going to take it as a lost or I’m going to 142 win or come out gaining from it, and you want to know something. 143 M: What? 144 T: We're winning. 145 M: I think so. 146 T: And you know and it's the same because you know what? Why 147 can't the rest of the fuckin' world be like that...why can't the rich, 148 white Caucasian accept a low-income, hardworking Mexican as a 149 human being? 150 M: 'Cause that's not what they see on the news. They don't see the 151 low- income hardworking Mexicans, they see all the gang bangers R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 2 152 and they see people shooting everybody and dealing drugs so they 153 just generalize from that. They don't see the people, you know. 154 T: //But then, but then...we see KKK...we see cross 155 • burnings, you know what I'm talking about. 156 M: //You see sheriffs shooting people. 157 T: We see white deputies killing Blacks and Hispanics. We film we 158 see uhm Hispanics getting harassed constantly. We see we see 159 uhm the glass ceiling, you know what I mean? 160 M: Yeah. 161 T: We see how the majority of big incorporations and big corporations 162 work. They help their kind get up and it's with the Blacks and it's 163 with the Mexicans they got to get up, for some reason or another 164 one Mexican, he's worked so hard to get where he's at, then 165 another one's coming up behind him, he'll push him down. 166 M: Why do you think that is? 167 T: You want to know why? 168 M: Yeah. 169 T: Lack o f security. 170 M: Really? 171 T: He feels he- he feels job threatened, you know what I'm talking 172 about? 173 M: Yeah. 174 T: He feels real job threatened. 175 M: So he doesn't want to help out other Mexicans? 176 T: He don't. They'll try to make him fuck up, and they try to make 177 look like he can't handle the job, and it's a natural thing. 178 M: Well if if minorities, though, won't help each other out, who's 179 going to help them, you know what I'm saying? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 3 180 T: Yeah. 181 M: I mean, if Mexicans won't hire other Mexicans and help 'em pu- 182 you know be promoted. 183 T: Well, it's like it's like this: I got my bone, go get yours, you 184 know? 185 M: Right. 186 T: And you have to prove yourself, not only yourself, you just got 187 to...put up with all the shit that comes your way. 188 M: Yep. 189 T: You know, and I and I really can't answer why you know what I 190 mean. 191 M: You think it would work better if people would help each other out 192 more? 193 T: I think, okay like Ricardo Maldonado Maldova. 194 M: I don't know him. 195 T: Maldova, the movie star from uh uhm Fantasy Island. 196 M: Oh, right, Mantalban, right. 197 T: Mantalban, him, Cesar Romero, the girl from the original Batman? 198 M: Right. 199 T: Uhm Marlon Brando, uh Edward James Olmos. (talks with Jaime) 200 Right here. 201 J: Gordon from the Summer Youth Program called, he said to call 202 him as soon as possible. 203 T: Here. 204 J: Who's this for? 205 T: /yThat's mom's letter. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 4 206 J: Who? 207 T: That's ma's letter. So, you know, uh so you know Fernando 208 Valenzuela, Castillo, the Castaneda brothers who played 209 professional baseball, Max Botoya, a professional football player, 210 Munoz, he plays for the s- uh the Bengals, um Fernandez, he's a 211 Puerto Rican, uhm. 212 M: Mary Joe Fernandez who plays tennis. 213 T: Mary Joe Feman-, oh I'm not into tennis. 214 M: She was number five seed at Wim- at the U.S. open, oh Ted! 215 T: Ow! 216 T: Ah, you mentioned tennis and it threw me off. Ow! 217 M: Sorry (laughs). 218 T: That fuckin'hurted, ah, you're too much (laughs). 219 M: (laughs) Sorry. Slam! 220 T: Oh, don't make fun of me. 221 M: Go like this. 222 T: It's all right (approximately one minute of silence) So anyways, 223 the pain's gone (inaudible). 224 M: I threw you off because I named a tennis player. 225 T: Oh yeah, well anyways, if them people really want to help, you 226 know what they'd start doin? 227 M: What? 228 T: They'd start doin' what the Negroes did. They they created an 229 American, a Black African scholarship program, they got uhm uhm 230 they have Negro literacy classes, they got bonuses set aside for uh 231 Mexi uh uh Black Americans educational educational things, and 232 how do they raise money, you know how they raise money? One 233 Black man like Jesse Jackson get up and say, "We need the help, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 5 234 235 236 237 238 M: 239 T: 240 241 242 M: 243 T: 244 M: 245 T: 246 247 248 249 M: 250 T: 251 M: 252 T: 253 254 M: 255 T: 256 257 M: 258 T: 259 M: raise money for our little brothers." What happens? Bill Cosby gets on the phone and all these other people start "Hey, I'll give $100,000, I'll give this, I'll give that." The NBA right now, that stay in school? Yeah. The thing that they do, they they have commercials, "Stay in school, don't use drugs" uhm..."Education is the most important," that was put together by Jesse Jackson. Was it really? Yes, it was started by Jesse Jackson. I didn't know that. //So then and and uh he raises money 'cause he's got all the Black NBA players to cover him. They fed that they're giving to a good cause. Why not give ten thousand of their yearly contracts to a good cause? Right. They make millions anyways. That's right, plus they save money on taxes if they give it. And that's a write off, you know. But a lot o f Mexicans, when they make it, they forget...where they came from. You don't think the Blacks forget where they came from? A few. But like Jim Brown, like uhm, Jim Brown said, he called them house niggers. Huh. You know what a house nigger is, right? //It's like a slave right. Uh. Wow. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 6 260 T: You know now...I think that if they were to come back and start 261 some kind o f pro, there is programs on, there is programs 262 (inaudible). 263 M: //Well, there's like the Foundation. 264 T: Oh. but the Foundation don't know shit, the fuckin' program sucks. 265 it's fucked. Bill ain't doin' nothing for us, Marlon ain't doin' nothin' 266 for us. They expect us to handle it, it's fucked, it's fucked, 267 Madeleine, excuse my language, it is. They haven't reimbursed 268 you guys for shit. 269 M: No, but they should be usin' their money for something else, not 270 payin' us. 271 T: Well...we haven't seen our back pay. 272 M: How long have they not paid you for? 273 T: They paid us a percentage of it. We don't have no vans. We don't 274 have a special budget for buses. We're in a world of competition. 275 we're competing with pros. We are competing...with city 276 demonstration programs. We are competing, no, we are competing 277 with state funded 278 M: //Competing for funds? 279 T: programs. 280 M: Competing for what? 281 T: Hold on, hold on. 282 M: Okay (laughs). 283 T: We are competing...with other non-profit organizations that have... 284 special budgets. When we started and we got our monies and got 285 our new equipment, our recruitment was up to three fifty a day. 286 M: Three fif-, h- how? 287 T: Three hundred and fifty kids a day. 288 M: Really? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 7 289 T: They'd be in and out through the whole day, this gym was packed, 290 - you seen it. 291 M: Yeah. 292 T: We haven't received no equipment, we've been together for two 293 years. Since Bill and them got the ring and everything donated and 294 we haven't received no other kind o f equipment, no speed 295 bags...We uh the ring hasn't been ih adjusted, fixed, the loose uh, 296 sc- uh the uh things uh the nuts are screw, the brackets that are 297 holding up the punching bags, they're busted; that cable that ran 298 from the ceiling to the bars to the to support the the piece of metal 299 that came like this, it busted off, uhm Jim uh we d- uh Jimmy 300 Olvera who's not here, he comes only on the day. 301 M: Who's that? 302 T: A head trainer. 303 M: Okay. 304 T: Okay, now we got other organizations, right? That have a special 305 budget. It...it takes us two weeks to apply for a bus. If we're 306 lucky, we'll get the bus. It's got to get approved and everything. 307 Next door, they get buses every fuckin' weekend. 308 M: What is their organization next door? 309 T: Lemon Grove Community Service Center. 310 M: Okay. 311 T: They get buses every weekend, every time they have a field 312 trip...this summer, they went camping every weekend, every week 313 they were sending kids up camping. 314 M: Right. 315 T: You know? They get monies, they set aside monies for Magic 316 Mountain and all the kids go free. They do Knott's Berry Farm, all 317 the kids go free. They do Disneyland and all the kids go free. 318 Universal Studios, they go free. What do we have to work with? 319 It's hard to run a good program if you don't have the right tools. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 320 M: Right, the money. 321 T: The money, we need the money. Now there's monies but they 322 don't want, uh they don't want to cough the monies up. 323 M: Really? 324 T: Bill Getty, look. You know there's monies, I know there's monies 325 for us. We told 'im, Bill, with the money that was saved from 326 Mar, from Marisors...Marisol's uh uh paying get?...Get us a van, 327 Marlon came up with an excuse, "Oh, insurance, and insurance this, 328 insurance that," or, you know, "We don't want to get a van, 'cause 329 if an accident happens... we'll lose everything, no." You know 330 what I mean? 331 M: Yep. 332 T: And if they don’t want to get us a van, set us money aside for 333 special funds. We can we can pay for our fuckin' buses. 334 M: Right. 335 T: So what's happening now? Our recruitments dropped, and it's 336 dropped real bad. Me and Jaime are are are trying to keep it up 337 and trying to do whatever we could do to keep the recruitment 338 coming. But what do we have to work with? 339 M: Do you still have your sports team here? 340 T: We still got our football teams, we still got our baseball teams, but 341 even then we still got to raise our own monies for uniforms, we 342 still got to go beg every other parks for baseball equipment. 343 M: Right. 344 T: You know? And then when these other people come out, these 345 other organizations that I hear come out with a program, shit. Our 346 tank gets empty. 347 M: Right. You mean like the Community Services Center? 348 T: Yeah, they got tickets, they go to dra- they go see drama plays at 349 the L.A. theatre for free. You know, they got a lot going on--why? 350 Because they have money to spend on for a budget. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 9 9 351 M: Where do they get their money? 352 T: Uh, every, I guess the beginning o f the 1st of the year. 353 M: Who gives it to them, though? 354 T: The city. 355 M: And you're not affiliated with the city? 356 T: Uh...no. 357 M: It's a private foundation, right? 358 T: Jaime, we're not affiliated with the city, huh? 359 J: No. Only that we use their facility. 360 M: 'Cause this is the city's facility, right? 361 T: So you know how do you expect us to run something and do 362 something positive when we ain't got the right fuckin' material to 363 do it? 364 M: Well, it looks like somebody else needs to be in charge of raising 365 money for the foundation 'cause they're not doing a good job. 366 T: Matt trying to raise money, right? And he's talking about the 367 amateur athletic foundation comes in, there ain't no kids and 368 (inaudible) matter, they're going to cut our funds...you know? 369 M: How can there be any kids if you don’t have anything to set up 370 for? 371 T: That's it. Staffs getting pissed off because they've been at $4.25 372 for almost a year now. 373 M: Really? 374 T: Then he wants me and Jaime to work a year without no raise. 375 M: What do you guys get paid? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 0 0 376 T: I get paid like five hundred every two weeks. That's all right, but 377 you know, come on, don't squeeze fuckin' blood outta me...you 378 know? 379 M: Right. Have you actually gotten your pay, have you guys? 380 T: Yeah, th- they're getting paid now, we got monies to pay us, you 381 know? 382 M: Right. 383 T: But, why, you know, they're the board of what, what good is a 384 board going to do for us...if the board ain't giving us nothing. 385 M: Right. 386 T: You know? That's the use of saying, "Hey, I know bill Getty," 387 Jaime, how long has it been since we had a board meeting? 388 J: Too long. 389 T: Like three months? 390 J: Too long. Three months. 391 T: You see what I mean? 392 M: Yep. 393 T: So...there's a lot of shit that's really going on that's unanswered. 394 We're supposed to get money for computers. 395 M: Yeah. 396 T: You guys are supposed to get printouts, deskes, a little classroom- 397 type thing. Where is it all? You know? Bill gets mad 'cause we 398 don't answer his phone calls, how about when he didn't answer 399 ours? 400 M: Right. See, we never thought we were going to get paid, he told 401 us we were, but we never thought we really were, but we thought 402 you guys would have enough money to operate the Foundation. 403 T: Well, now we're looking it different now. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 301 404 M: Right. 405 T: I have the feeling that they just wanna fuckin' walk out on us. 406 Because you want to know why? Jaime told me. They thought, 407 • I guess they figured, by coming in and giving these Mexicans...a 408 job, part time, minimum wage, or a job full time, minimum wage 409 and a title n- and a title and a nice little office, like this we could 410 manipulate 'em...and ...the way that works is you use a stick with 411 a fuckin' carrot and fight, give him a fuckin' carrot and we'll kick 412 his ass, you know? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 0 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bazerman, C. 1990. Discourse analysis and social construction. In W. Grabe, et al. (eds.) Annual review o f applied linguistics, 11. New York: Cambridge University Press. 77-83. Bean, M. S. 1991. Getting heard: Perseveration in the speech of a young Latino learner. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Ph.D. diss. Bernstein, B. B. 1971. Class, codes and control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bhola, H. S., 1987. Destined for literacy. Educational Horizons. 66,1. 9-12. Biber, D. and E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text. 9, 1. 93-124. Blea, I. I. 1988. Toward a Chicano social science. New York: Praeger. Boesche, R. 1994. Homeless? Hungry? It's all your fault. Los Angeles Times, December 1: B7. Bourdieu, P. and J. P. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfit, C. (ed.). 1983. Learning and teaching languages fo r communication: Applied linguistics perspectives. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Buriel, R. 1984. Integration with traditional Mexican-American culture and sociocultural adjustment. In J. Martinez and R. H. Mendoza (eds.) Chicano psychology. Orlando: Academic Press. 95-130. Camarillo, A. 1979. Chicanos in a changing society: From Mexican Pueblo to American Barrios in Santa Barbara and Southern California, 1848-1930. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Castaneda, A. 1984. Traditionalism, modernism and ethnicity. In J. Martinez and R. H. Mendoza (eds.) Chicano psychology. Orlando: Academic Press. 35-40. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 303 Chafe, W. L. 1986. Evidentially in English and in general. In Chafe, W. L. and J. Nichols (eds.) Evidentially: The linguistic coding o f epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 261-272. Chafe, W. L. 1985. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, and A. Hilyard (eds.) Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences o f reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105-123. Collins COBUILD. 1992. Collins COBUILD English usage: Helping learners with real English. London: HarperCollins. Collins COBUILD. 1990. Collins COBUILD English grammar: Helping learners with real English. London: HarperCollins. Cook-Gumperz, J. (ed.). 1986. The social construction o f literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. The 1990 census o f population and housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Dittmar, N. 1976. A critical survey o f sociolinguistics: Theory and application. New York: St. Martin's Press. Edelsky, C. 1991. With literacy and justice fo r all: Rethinking the social in language and education. London: The Falmer Press. Eggington, W. 1990. Contrastive analysis of Aboriginal English prose. In C. Walton and W. Eggington (eds.) Language: Maintenance, power and education in Australian Aboriginal contexts. Darwin, N.T.: Northern Territoiy University Press. 151-159. Estrada L. F., F. C. Garcia, R. F. Macias and L. Maldonaldo. 1985. Chicanos in the United States: A history of exploitation and resistance. In Yetman, N. R. (ed.) Majority and minority: The dynamics o f race and ethnicity in American life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 162-184. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman. Feldman, P. and P. McDonnell. 1994. Prop. 187 foes urge boycott of Nabisco, Disney. Los Angeles Times, December 9: A3,36. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ford, A. 1993. Man guilty of gang counselor's murder. Los Angeles Times, May 11: B3. Fraser, B. 1980. Conversational mitigation. Journal o f pragmatics. 4:341-350. Freire, P. 1993. Pedagogy o f the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Freire, P. 1991. Lecture given at the University of Southern California. Gardner, R. C. and W. E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gee, J. P. 1990. Social linguistics: Ideology, Discourses, and literacies. London: The Falmer Press. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution o f society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giles. H. and R. N. St. Clair (eds.). 1979. Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goodman, K. S. 1987. Growing into literacy. Prospects. 15,1: 57-65. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. Vol. 3. Gumperz, J. J. 1982a. Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (ed.). 1982b. Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. 1970. Verbal strategies in multilingual communication. In Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 23. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hagedom, J. M. 1990. Back in the field again: Gang research in the nineties. In C. R. Huff (ed.). Gangs in America. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 240-259. Hall, E. T. 1994. West o f the thirties: Discoveries among the Navajo and Hopi. New York: Doubleday. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 305 Hall, E. T. and M. R. Hall. 1990. Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Heath, S. B. 1986. Critical factors in literacy development. In S. de Castell, A. Luke and K. Egan (eds.) Literacy, society and schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. 1983. Ways with-words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Holmes, J. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied linguistics. 9. 1: 21-44. Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in society. 15: 1-22. Holmes, J. 1985. Sex differences and mis-communication: Some data from New Zealand. In J. B. Pride, (ed.) Cross-cultural encounters: Communication and miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine. 24-43. Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal o f pragmatics. 8:345- 365. Holmes, J. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC journal. 13. 2: 9-28. Horowitz, R. 1985. Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Huddleston, R. 1988. English grammar: An outline. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jespersen, O. 1964. Essentials o f English grammar. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. Kaplan, R. B. 1990. Literacy and language planning. Lenguas modemas. 17: 81-89. Keefe, S. E. and A. M. Padilla. 1987. Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 0 6 Kittredge, W. 1987. Owning it all. St. Paul, MN: Grey wolf Press. Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergammon Press. Kress, G. 1991. Critical discourse analysis. In W. Grabe, et al. (eds.) Annual review o f applied linguistics, 11. New York: Cambridge University Press. 84-100. Kress, G. 1989. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Labov, W. 1984. Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (ed.) Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 43-70. Labov, W. 1972. Language in the inner city: Study in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi, and G. C. Phares (eds.) Papers from the 8th regional meeting o f the Chicago linguistic society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 183-228. Langer, J. A. (ed.). 1987. Language, literacy and culture: Issues o f society and schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles o f pragmatics. New York: Longman. Levison, M. E. 1984. The real American reading problem. Reading improvement. 21. 2: 150-157. Macias, R. F. 1994. California adopts Proposition 187. LMR1 news: December. 3-4. Martin, J. 1990. Language and control: Fighting with words. In C. Walton and W. Eggington (eds.) Language: Maintenance, power and education in Australian Aboriginal contexts. Darwin, NT: Northern Territory University Press. 12-43. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis fo r language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 0 7 McDonnell, P. J. 1994. Study seeks to debunk stereotypes of Latinos. Los Angeles Times, October 21: B3-4. McDonnell, P. J. and R. J. Lopez. 1994. 70,000 march through L.A. against Prop. 187. Los Angeles Times, October 17: A l. Michaels, S. 1985. Hearing the connections in children's oral and written discourse. Journal o f education. 167: 36-56. Michaels, S. 1981. Sharing time: Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in society. 10. 4: 423-442. Milroy, L. 1980. Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Mirande, A. 1985. The Chicano experience: An alternative perspective. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Mishler, E. G. 1986. Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Montano-Harmon, M. 1988. Discourse features in the compositions of Mexican, English-as-a-second-language, Mexican-American/Chicano, and Anglo high school students: Considerations for the formulation of educational policies. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Ph.D. diss. Moore, J. W. 1991. Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Moore, J. W. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, drugs, and prison in the barrios o f Los Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Navasky, V. 1994. McCarthyism? No, historic nativism. Los Angeles Times, December 15: B7. Omstein-Galicia, J. (ed.). 1984. Form and function in Chicano English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ostman, J.- O. 1981. You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. Essex: Longman. Park, R. J. 1987. Three approaches to improving literacy levels. Educational Horizons. 66. 1: 38-41. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 308 Pollock, C. W. 1982. Communicate what you mean. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Price. J. B. (ed.). 1985. Cross-cultural encounters: Communication and miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar o f the English language. London: Longman. Ramos, G. 1993. Ethnic name game. Los Angeles Times, October 11: B3. Reese, R. 1994. Colorful flags [program mission statement], Los Angeles, CA: Leadership Institute, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California. Rettig, S. 1990. The discursive social psychology o f evidence: Symbolic construction o f reality. New York: Plenum Press. Rodriguez, A. H. and C. A. Chavez. 1994. Latinos unite in self-defense on Prop. 187. Los Angeles Times, October 21: B7. Rodriguez, R. 1994. A loss of faith. Los Angeles Times, November 27: M l. Romo, R. 1983. East Los Angeles: History o f a barrio, 1900-1930. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Rose, P. I. 1990. They and we: Racial and ethnic relations in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ross, K. 1994. Is Black-Latino friction a voting booth issue? Los Angeles Times, October 24: B7. Ryan, E. B. 1979. Why do low-prestige varieties exist? In H. Giles and R. N. St. Clair (eds.) Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sanchez, R. 1983. Chicano discourse: Socio-historic perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Scheer, R. 1994. Prop. 187 is a search for scapegoats. Los Angeles Times, October 27: B7. Schieffelin, B. and E. Ochs. 1986. Language socialization. Annual review o f anthropology. 15: 163-191. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 0 9 Schwartz, A. J. 1990. Lecture, Education in Pluralistic Societies. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shapiro, M. 1987. Language and politics. In R. B. Kaplan et al. (eds.) Annual review o f applied linguistics, 7. New York: Cambridge University Press. 74-75. Shaw, D. 1990. Negative news and little else. Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11: Al. Shuster, B. and C. Johnson. 1994. Hundreds of students stage walkouts to protest Prop. 187. Los Angeles Times, October 21: B3. Smith, F. 1986. Insult to intelligence. New York: Arbor House. Smith, F. 1984. Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smitherman, G. 1977. Talkin and testifyin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Street, B. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Taylor, C. S. 1990. Gang imperialism. In C. R. Huff (ed.) Gangs in America. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 103-115. Taylor, D. and C. Dorsey-Gaines. 1988. Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, T. J. and D. Cameron. 1987. Analyzing conversations: Rules and units in the structure o f talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Tsui, A. B. M. 1991. Pragmatic functions of I don't know. Text. 11. 4:607- 622. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 1 0 Vasquez, O. A., L. Pease-Alvarez and S. M. Shannon. 1994. Pushing boundaries: Language and culture in a Mexicano community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vigil, J. D. 1990. Cholos and gangs: Culture change and street youth in Los Angeles. In C. R. Huff (ed.) Gangs in America. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 116-128. Vigil, J. D. 1988. Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Walker, A. G. 1987. Linguistic manipulation, power, and the legal setting. In L. Kedar (ed.), Power through discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 57-80. Walton, C. and W. Eggington (eds.). 1990. Language: Maintenance, power and education in Australian Aboriginal contexts. Darwin, N.T.: Northern Territory University Press. Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Youmans, M. 1991. Conflicts and Discourses in an East Los Angeles Barrio: Implications for theories of literacy. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. TS. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Communicative rights and responsibilities in an East Los Angeles barrio: An analysis of epistemic modal use

PDF

An analysis of United States overseas English language policy, 1938-1990

PDF

Correspondence and faithfulness constraints in optimality theory: A study of Korean consonantal phonology

PDF

Borrowing and borrowability

PDF

A Syntactic Analysis Of The Writing Of Some Fourth-Grade, Fifth-Grade, And Sixth-Grade Caucasian Children In The Los Angeles Schools

PDF

A syntactic analysis of the written language of selected Black elementary school children with reference to sociological variables

PDF

A Comparison Of Selected Writing Criteria Used To Evaluate Nonnative Speakers Of English At A California State University

PDF

Child As Apprentice-Narrator: Socializingvoice, Face, Identity, And Self-Esteem Amid The Narrative Politics Of Family Dinner

PDF

A necessary epigone: The fantastic and "dvoeverie" in the works of A. K. Tolstoi

PDF

A cross-cultural validation of the reading hypothesis: The relationship of pleasure reading to writing proficiency and academic achievement among Taiwanese senior high school students

PDF

City correspondence: Text and photograph in modern Paris and New York

PDF

A waste of effort: Psychological projection as a primary mode of alienation in selected novels by Kawabata Yasunari

PDF

Auroville: Problems in language communication. Is Suggestopedia the solution?

PDF

A dynamical systems approach to asymptotic diagonalization and integration of linear differential systems

PDF

Causativity in Korean: Syntactic causative, control, and purpose

PDF

City subjects: Shoplifters, bag ladies, and other figures of urban transgression in contemporary literature and film.

PDF

A case grammar of the parker manuscript of the "Anglo-Saxon chronicle" from 734 to 891

PDF

Grammaticalization and the development of functional categories in Chinese

PDF

Japanese Accent: An Analysis Based On Acoustic - Phonetic Data

$An investigation of the system sodium stearate-water by means of x-ray diffraction and differential thermal analysis$

PDF

An investigation of the system sodium stearate-water by means of x-ray diffraction and differential thermal analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Youmans, Madeleine Noel (author)

Core Title Communicative rights and responsibilities in an East Los Angeles barrio: An analysis of epistemic modal use

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Applied Linguistics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Robert D. (committee chair), Eskey, David (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-487280

Unique identifier UC11352135

Identifier 9621660.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-487280 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9621660-0.pdf

Dmrecord 487280

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Youmans, Madeleine Noel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA