18
.S(utlics in thcSocial andCulrural Foundations of Language ''hc ailrr of this series is to deverop theoreticar perspectives on lhe essentiar social antr cullural charactcr of ranguage by merhodorogic^r "^a ..pi.i*, enrphasis on theoccur- rcncc of languagc in irs comnrunicative and interactional set(rogs, on the soci.- culturally grounded .,nreanings" and ..functionsl, "i'fi"gr,r,i" forms, and on the srciar scicnrific study of ranguage useacross curtures. tt *i-t thusexplicare theessen, tirlly cr'nographic nalure o[.^linguisric. data, *;;;; ;;;",r"eousty occuning or cxpcrirncntally induced' whether normative or variational,'whether synchronic or dia_ :l::l_"1:_ Y"*:appearing in rhe series wi'make *Ur"",i"" and rheorerical conrri_ t'utlo's ro lhcdebare over rhesocioculturar-functionar and structurar-fo'nar trature of trtnguagc, an<r wilr represenr the. conccms "f ..i;;i;; i;;e soc,orogy and anrhro_ ill}9,j":tr,ilffi, a.nthropotogicar tinguisrics, ,..irir"s"tr,t.., ""., -;;",";t,;;;i; Editorial Board Keith H. Basso Wolfgang Klein John J. Cumpcrz SrephenC. Levinson ShrrleyBrice Heath Elinor Ochs Dell H. Hymes Bruce Rigsby Judilh '1. lrvine Michael Silverstein I Charles L. Briggs: Learning How_to Ask: A Sociolingui-rtic Appraisol of the Role of the Inkrview in Social Sciince Research 1 l""ril K_arriel: Talking Srroight; Dugri Speech in lsraeli Sabra Culture 3 Barnbi Il- Schieffelin ana Elinor o.nr'i*.1, irriguo)" soriotiroti<tn auoss Culture.s 4 Susan U. Philips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (cds.): Language, Sex,attd - Geruler in Cornparative per.Jpectiye* 5 Jcff Siegcl: Languoge C<tnract irt a prattration Envirorrrne,t: A socioringuisric flisrory of Fiji* * FodhcoDtinp Langu age sociali zation across cultLrfes Edited by BAMBI B. SCHIEFFELIN New York University and ELINOR OCHS University oJ Southern Califurnia !; t., CAUnNIDGE UNfYERSITY PRESS i.1l L :] ,: r '.1 :. 1 ;.. '1 '':

Language Socialization Across Cultures

Tags:

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Language socialisation across cultures

Citation preview

Page 1: Language Socialization Across Cultures

.S(utlics in thc Social and Culrural Foundations of Language''hc

ailrr of this series is to deverop theoreticar perspectives on lhe essentiar social antrcullural charactcr of ranguage by merhodorogic^r "^a

..pi.i*, enrphasis on the occur-rcncc of languagc in irs comnrunicative and interactional set(rogs, on the soci.-culturally grounded .,nreanings" and ..functionsl,

"i'fi"gr,r,i" forms, and on thesrciar scicnrific study of ranguage use across curtures. tt *i-t thus explicare the essen,tirlly cr'nographic nalure o[.^linguisric. data, *;;;; ;;;",r"eousty occuning orcxpcrirncntally induced' whether normative or variational,'whether synchronic or dia_

:l::l_"1:_ Y"*:appearing in rhe series wi'make *Ur"",i"" and rheorerical conrri_t'utlo's ro lhc debare over rhe socioculturar-functionar and structurar-fo'nar trature oftrtnguagc, an<r wilr represenr the. conccms

"f ..i;;i;; i;;e soc,orogy and anrhro_

ill}9,j":tr,ilffi, a.nthropotogicar tinguisrics, ,..irir"s"tr,t..,

""., -;;",";t,;;;i;

Editorial BoardKe i th H. Basso Wol fgang K le inJohn J . Cumpcrz Srephen C. Lev insonShr r ley Br ice Heath E l inor OchsDell H. Hymes Bruce RigsbyJudilh '1.

lrvine Michael Silverstein

I Charles L. Briggs: Learning How_to Ask: A Sociolingui-rt ic Appraisol of the Role ofthe Inkrview in Social Sciince Research

1 l""ri l K_arriel: Talking Srroight; Dugri Speech in lsraeli Sabra Culture3 Barnbi I l- Schieffelin ana Elinor o.nr' i*.1, irriguo)" soriotiroti<tn auossCulture.s

4 Susan U. Phil ips, Susan Steele, and Christine Tanz (cds.): Language, Sex, attd-

Geruler in Cornparative per.Jpectiye*5 Jcff Siegcl: Languoge C<tnract irt a prattration Envirorrrne,t: A socioringuisricflisrory of Fiji*

* FodhcoDtinp

Langu age sociali zationacross cultLrfes

Edited by

B A M B I B . S C H I E F F E L I NNew York University

and

E L I N O R O C H SUniversity oJ Southern Califurnia

! ;

t . ,

CAUnNIDGEUNfYERSITY PRESS

i . 1 lL : ], : r ' .1:. 1

; . . ' 1' ' :

Page 2: Language Socialization Across Cultures

8. Teasing and shaming in Kalulichildren's interactionsB A \ , r s r B . S c H t E r p E t - t t t

lntroduction

, An important issue facing researchers interested in language socialization is

I how children leam to use culturally appropriate rhetorical means to negotiate II and accompl ish certa in pragmat ic ends. Forexampre, how do young.f , i r . t , "n I

acquire the culturally specific routines and affective disptays necessary tomanipulate others to obtain what they want and keep what they do not wiih togive up?

This chapter examines exchanges in which Kaluri adults verbaily tease andshame children to achieve a variety ofends. Teasing and shaming, two relatedspeech acts and speech events, figure prominently in Kaluli adult-adult andadult-child verbal interaction. Kaluli adults try ro avoid physical interventionwhen trying to influence others, especially small children. Instead, they preferverbal manipulation through teasing and shaming, ancl socialize their childrento do the same. As in many other pacific cultures, such as Samoa (Ochs inpress), one of the major ways in which social contror is achieved is throushmembers' fear of being publicly confronted and shamed. This is especiatty t-hecase when individuals take something that is not theirs to take, as in cases oftheft or adultery. When members feel that the risk of getting caught is low,they may attempt such acts, and, if they are not caught, there may be littleconsequence for them. However, if they are caught, confrontation can occur,and shaming, which is serious, wiil be public. Thr.ughout these affectiverymarked exchanges individuals try to preserve their social relationships, whillat the same time attempting to get what they want. Ideally, once compensa_tion is paid and balance is restored, relationships can continue as before.While adults may teasingly shame young children, shaming is taken veryseriously by adults among themselves, ancl is not made light of. One questionthat this chapter addresses is: How do children acquire the necessary cultural

1 6 5

Page 3: Language Socialization Across Cultures

Teasittg and sharning in Kaluli children's interacliotrs 1611 6 6 B n r ' a n t B . S c r t t E F F E L l N

and l inguist ic knowledge to part ic ipate in these comlnunicat ive contexts ' l To

understand t l r is process, wc must consider socia l , cul tural , and l inguist ic

factors that organiz.e this dornain of language socialization.Most studies of chi ld socia l izat ion have taken the v iew that socia l izat ion is

an in lernal izat ior) process by which a person acquires at t i tudes, values, andsocia l and personal at t r ibutes. The focus of most socia l izat ion studies hasbeen to re la le what is done to the chi ld in order to understand the behavior andpcrsonal i ty of thc adul t . Wentworth (1980) has cr i t ic ized th is nrechanis( icv iew of socia l izat ion, which focuses pr imar i ly on outcomes, and of fers arliffcrcnt pcrspective, one that takes socialization as an actual interactionaldisplay of t l re sociocul tural environment. From this perspect ive, socia l izat i<,rnis scen as a dcnronstrat ion or presentat ion to a novice of the ru les wherebyappropr iate behavior might be consrructed. In addi t ion, i t is a presentat ion oftechniques, procedures, modes of interpretat ion, and inforrnat ion. L ikespeech, wlr ich is shaped according to t l re addressee, mernbers 'cul ture isalways plesented to someone.

' fhus, as Wentwonh points out , the contex( of

any socia l iz- ing act iv i ty is nrodi f ied by the structure of the interact ion, as wel las by the part ic ipants and their rc lat ions to one another' fhe

analysis of tcasing and shaming presented here is cornpatrb le wi th theinteractional (rarlework sugges(ed by Wentworth.

'I'o understand some of the

ways irr which children learn how to interpret and appropriately respond toteasing and shanr ing, I exanr ine spontaneous interact ions between Kalul i care-givers (a l r r rost exclusively morhers) and their young chi ldren. l t is in theseinteractions that caregivers display to their young childrcn the appropriateways (o both understand and eventually respond to these frequent routines.For th is analysis, teasing and sharning wi l l be taken as sequences or speechacts wrt l r a part icular rhctor ical force where speakers at te lnpt to inhib i t orchangc a person's ac( ions as wel l as convey a part icular af fect ive messageabout the re lat ionship between those indiv iduals involved and an audience orpotent iu l audicnce of farni ly , peers, and comrnuni ty. Of pr inre i rnportance isto understand not only the forrns and functions ofthese particular speech acts,but to detail the social proccss of thesc acts and the type of social universe inwhich (hese interact ions f rec;ucnt ly occur. ln part icular , I consider the l in-guist ic resources and turn- taking a.d sequencing convent ions that const i tutetlte particular discourse strategies used in teasing and sharning. These strat-egres vary according to the age of the addressee. Children must learn how topar( ic ipate in i r r teract ions involv ing these two related speech acts or events, aswcl l as learn how to d ist inguish thern f rorn one another when l inguist ic fornrsare s inr i lar . Only t l ren can they t reat teasing and shanr ing as part of a cul tur-a l ly convent ional ized systenr of socia l contro l .' l 'easing

is pervasive in everyday socia l interact ions: Kalul i seems to enjoyvartous degrees of verbal provocat ion. Teasing creates te l )s ion, as one isnever colr rp letc ly sure wlr ich way an interact ion might swing, owing to the

uns(able nature of many of the teasing frames. Although teasing may appear

to be an act o[ serious consequence, it ranges in terms of key (tlymes 1972)

frorn having few serious imntediate consequences (bo modali'(o no purpose')

to being playful , contro l l ing, or pointedly mal ic ious. Kalul i d ist inguish be-

tween teasing and tricking anri between what is done among adults and be-

tween adults and children. Kaluli name different kinds of teasing based on the

desired outcome of the speech act or specch event. For example, enleab 'lease

to nrake angry' ancl kegab'tease in mock anger' mark different affective keys.

There are also terms to name responses in teasing routines' For exarnple'

a: la:nyab'does not care ' descr ibes the turn when one is not provoked dur ing

teasing; i t contrasts wi th debab' teases back' and wi th wa./ ' return" which

intlicates a comeback that matches the initial teasing move'

Duranti ( 1984) has pointed out that much (tf con(ellrporary speech-act theo-

ry has focused on tlre centrality ofthe recognition ofa speaker's intentions as

a crucia l aspect of interpretat ion. The impl icat ion of th is is that "mcaning is

already fully defined in the speaker's mind serone the act of speaking' Thc

adclressce is little more than a passive recipient wlro can cither guess it right or

wrong. The role of context is that of a rnere adjunct that may help the hearer if

conflicting interpretations seem possible" (p. l). As Duranti tnakes clear

from his analysis of lhe fono (a western Sanroan speech event involving

political oratory) ancl from the cross-cultural rcscarch of others (for example,

kochman 1983; Ochs & Schiet fe l in 1984; Rosaldo 1982), th is v iew of inten-

tionality and interpretation is ethnocentric and ignores the interactive role that

language plays in mediating and negotiating social relations'

ln understant l ing Kalul i teasing and shaming, i t is inrportant to take into

account a Kalul i v iew of interpretat ion. According to Kalul i , one doesl t ' t

know what another thinks or feels. -I'he

most obvious nranifestation of this

or ien(at ion is that Kalul i prefer not to ta lk about or gucss what might be in

anotlrer's mincl, but talk about or act on what has been already said or done.

This suggests that Kaluli do nol focus on figuring out or trying to recognlze

the intentions of a speaker as the sole deternrinant of a response, but instead

provide a response that helps shape the hearer's desired outconle in any

interaction. ln many cases, the desired outcome of teasing is ambiguous or

has several possible and acceptable outcomes. Ilow any particular tcasing

utrerance is taken is up to speaker, addressee, and even audience ln a given

interaction, a speaker may be less than cornmitted to a particular position and

may wait for an addressee's response (as an indication of one possible out-

come). A particular type of response can help negotiate and shape the mean-

ing of an initial utterance. For exanrple, unless the addressee takes an utter-

ance as a challenge, it does not become one The same goes for an utterance

intended to tease or shame_ In these situations, the nteaning of the exchange is

co-constructed in an ongoing manner by participants. Given the potential

ambigui ty of the tone or key of teasing s i tuat ions, an addressee might provide

Page 4: Language Socialization Across Cultures

1 6 8 B e M s r B . S c r r r r F F r r - r N

an equally ambiguous response to push the speaker to make a more seriousconrmitment to his or her utterance. The exchange can continue in this nrannerfor some tirne as each menrber takes an equal share in attempting to definewhat is going on.

Kaluli tease each other using a rich repertoire of linguistic devices thatfigure inrportantly in a variety of relationships (adult-adult, adult-child, andchild-child) and social contexts including domestic activities such as foodpreparation and sharing, work situations, casual play, and disputes. Further-more, teastng sequences may be initiated by children as well as by adults.

Cultural and linguistic setting

The Kaluli peopler live in a rain forest on the Great Papuan Plateau in theSouthern I l ighlands Province of Papua New Guinea (E. L. Schief fe l in l9?6).They nurnber approxinrately 1,200 and live in about twenty longhouse com-nruni t ics. Kalul i society is general ly egal i tar ian, lacking in the . .b ig man"pattern of social organization so common in the papua New Guinea high-lancls. Men ut i l ize extensive networks of obl igat ion and reciproci ty in theorganization of work and the accomplishntent of nrajor social transactionssuch as bridewealth.

The majority of the Kaluli are nronolingual speakers of Kaluli, a non-Austronesian verb-f inal language (8. B. Schief fet in 1986). Kalul i everydaylife is overtly focused in verbal interaction. Talk is thought of and used as ameans of expression and nranipulat ion. In th is general ly egal i tar ian society, i tis difficult to compel anyone to do something that he or she does not wish todo. Teasing and shaming can be irnportant means ofpersuasion, in ad<lition tobeing crucia l for socia l contro l and cr i t ical in the publ ic management ofothcrs. Anrong the Kalul i , where indiv iduals must make their own way andnrove others to act, verbal skills get you what you want, need, or feel owecl.Extensive dcr'arcation of kinds of speaking and speech acts further substanti-ate the observation that Kaluli are encrgetically verbal. Talk is a printary wayto bc socia l , and a pr i rnary indicator of socia l competence (B. B. Schief fe l inrn press).

Kalul i use two cul tural ly s igni f icant and opposing strategies in face-to- faceinteract ions: assert ion and appeal (8. L. Schief fe l in 1976). Assert ion involvespu(ting oneself forward in a strong, self-confident manncr; appeal draws onvcrbal strategies of begging in an attempl to make sonteone feel sorry for thespeaker and act on his or her behalf. Kaluli say that even very small childrenare able to beg and elicit feelings of pity front others, but as ihey get oldertlrey must be shown how to be verbally assertive. Teasing (dikideab) an<lshanring (.rasideab) are found onry in the assertive nro<tality of interaction,and consequently they must be explicitly taught to young children.

Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children's inteructions 169

Teasing and shaming in childhoo<t

From about 6 months of age, infants are involvetl in teasing and sharningroutines. These sequences are usually short and involve calling the infant aname such as wa:ji or wu:fi fo

'retard' or 'retard fruit'. After calling the infantsuclr a narne. the adult will usually laugh or smile to rnark the event as notserious. Adults are careful not to frighten small infants and therefore teasethem gently. As the child gets older, additional names are added, such as theproper names of the few individuals known to act in strange and undesirableways.

When children reach the age of 3 or so, rnore serious name-calling begins.

This usually occurs when an adult is angered or frustrated by the actions of a

child who is expected to know better. For example, a caregiver might say to a

child who has taken more than his or her share of food, Gosc gal 'You are a

dog!', refening to the habit of dogs to take what is not theirs. Other names

refer to undesirable physical characteristics and are also applied situationally.

These names do not stay with an individual over titrte or contex(s. Such names

include: kuf aba 'extended stomach' (from eating too much), migi bamu'flal

nose' , migi sambo' long nose' , bo badiyo: 'b ig breasts ' , and ganrrs iyo." 'short

thing'. However, it should be emphasizcd that children are not stigrnatizerl by

these names, nor are they used in order to traumatize or hurt the child. These

names are often used when an adult is exasperated or frustrated by a child's

inappropriate behavior. As in all teasing in Kaluli childhood, no one is ever

marginalized or pushed out. One's familial relationships are enduring, and,

given that, (hey are both taken for granted and constantly exercised.

ln addition to name-calling, there are sets offormulaic phrases used only in

teasing older children. For example, one set is used in mock offers to trick or

provoke the addressee into thinking (hat he or she can eat or take sonrething

the child in fact cannot. These forms make use of a second person pronoun(gi) followed by a verb inflected for third person minus the final consonant.

Even though there is no explicit negative marker, f<rrnts such as gi nal ancJ gi

d ia! mean'you don' t eat ! ' and 'you don' t take! ' respect ively. These for tns are

productive for future tense as well as for dual and plural addressee nlarking.

Speakers use gi na./, for example, when another person requests (either vcr-

bally or nonverbally) what they are eating. The speaker, while offering the

food to the other, says, "Ci na!" and withdraws the food. 1'his type of

exchange infuriates people, as it tricks them into thinking that the food will be

shared, when in fact it will not be. Adults begin instructirrg children of 22

months or so to use these expressions with older children or adults who are

begging for their food. (One way that adul(s can tease each other is to use

children in the middle.) By the time children are about 30 nronths old, they

are able to direct these expressions to older children and adults, and are

continually encouraged to do so.2 Once children are over 3 years, adults direct

I

IIII

I

Page 5: Language Socialization Across Cultures

l ' 7 0 R . r r ' r n r B . S C T T E F F E L I

these fornrulaic expressions to them to tease thcm when they are begging

inappropriately -Teasing occurs over a range of situations, but the most frequent involve

sharing and rights to food. Every claim seerns to be negotiable, since who getswlrat to eat often depcnds on the situation at hand and what individuals can getaway wi th, not on str ic( ru les of ownership. Since indiv iduals rarely makedirect staterncnts of authority, interactions such as the ones that follow arefrequent in fanrilics, and are among the frequent contexts for teasing. Withinsuch contexts as taking or sharing food, Kaluli use rhetorical questions, third-party thrcats, formulaic expressions, and sarcastic statements to tease andsharne.

Example I

[Motlrer is in thc house with a number of people, including her daughters, Yogodo(age 7) and Waye (age 9). Yogodo has taken ata, a wild nut, that does not belong toher. lWaye + Mo: Yogodowo: ukayo: nab.

Yogodo uka cat (3d pers. pres.)Yogodo is eating the uka.

lNo resportsefNo:l Yogodowo: ukayo: nabo!Mothcrl Yogodo is eating the uka!

Mo + Wayc: Ni wangalo?!What should I do?!

llxample 2

{Mothcr, Yogodo, Abi (age 3), and Waye find a packet of salt belonging (o anothermember of the household, Eyobo. 'I'he

children begin to eat it, and one asks who itbelongs to. T'hcrc is no answer. Yogodo takes it away and Abi starts to beg for it.lMo + ch i ld ren : Sa langa: ! Salana: ! |

Somconc could say something! Someone could say something!!llyobo-wa: salana:Eyobo (erg.) could say something.

ln situations such as these, children will be teased in order to prevent orchal lengc act ion so shaming wi l l not occur. Chi ldren may be shamed, forexample, if they refusc to share food with their parents, who alnrost alwaysgive i t to them. In such s i tuat ions, parents wi l l use sarcast ic ut terances such asGelo: tno:nt ianl ' l don' t g ive to you! ' , meaning the opposi te, of course: " Ia lways give to you!" l f a chi ld takes too much, to sharne him or her a parentnright say, Ge lu:lula:su diab! 'You are taking such a little bit!'

Other types of teasing routines occur especially between siblings and cous-ins. Somc interact ions are basical ly p layful and involve te l l ing a chi ld that adesired object (that has been hidden) is in plain sight or threatening to touch achi ld wi th st inging net t les whi le te l l ing the chi ld that they are harmless leaves.Older s ib l ings beconte very ski l l fu l at managing these s i tuat ions, increasing

I

I

I

Teasing arul shaning in Kaluli children's interactio,ts lll

the tension just enough to keep up the interest and agitate the young childwhile at the same time making sure that the child does not lose control, thusterminating the interaction. However, away from the watchful eye of themother, older children may tease younger ones in less benign ways, tellingthem to eat bad or uncooked food or items (hat Kaluli don't usually eat ortelling a young child that Mother has gone away. Older children have beenobserved to be relentless in their torment of younger children, provoking thernto crying tantrums. When ntothers do find their srnall children provokedbeyond a manageable limit for no good reason, they will become angry attheir older children, yelling, among other things, Dlkizlia:saDo./ 'Don't tease!'

Whereas adults are gentle in their teasing of preverbal children, they willpurposely provoke a 2-year-old to tears. For example, in trying to discourageher 28-month-old daughter from nursing, one rnotller told her that she had tonurse the dog. At first the child found this funny, but the teasing continued,and the mother eventually pressed the dog to the child's face. This resulted ina frustrated and angry child, reduced to tears, which ended only when themother offered the breast to calm her down. In another situation a motherteased her 3O-month-old daughter when the little girl, not seeing her infantbrother, asked where he was. The rnother's reply was that the baby had died.The little girl did not believe her and continued asking, and her mother wasinsistent. Provoked to tears, her loud crying woke up the baby, who had beensleeping in a dark corner. ller mother quickly distracted lrer and she wascalm.

These acts of verbal provocation, variations of which were observed repcat-edly in every family, have a dramatic contour: sudden initiation and increasedprovocation to tears, with just as sudden calming and changing focus. Theseinteractions help lay the foundation for culturally salient and culturally specif-ic emotional responses to grief that have been documented for adults (8. L.Schief fe l in 1976).

Teasing, shaming, and (sturned-over words"

Many languages in Papua New Guinea draw on a varic(y of linguistic devices(like lexical substitutes) and manners of speaking (sarcasm, rhetorical qucs-tions, euphemisms) to achieve a variety of ends (Franklin 1912; Laycock1977; Strathern 1975). In Kaluli they are known ^s bale to 'turned-over

words' (Feld & Schieffelin 1982). Kaluli luse bale to in joking, challenging,teasing, and shaming among other speech acts. Bale to is the most significantcomplex of linguistic resources for the Kaluli, necessary and salient acrossmodes of language use (conversation, stories sung-texted weeping and song),speech acts, and contexts (Feld 1982). Expressions that either are or make use

Page 6: Language Socialization Across Cultures

1 1 2 B a v u r B . S c u r s , p r e l t n

of bale to lv lve a l tego: 'underneath ' or synrbol ic -" rn ing. I learers n lust have

particular typcs of social and linguistic knowledge to understand these forms

and make sense of what a speaker may be conveying.

An important aspect of the extensive use of teasing and shaming in every-

day interactions is the use of these linguistic devices whose meanings are not

solely available frorn the surface syntactic form of the utterance. Through

continuous use and display of thesc fornrs, young children acquire both pro-

duction and comprehension of tlrese "turned-over words." One of the most

pervasive and in many ways least complex of these linguistic devices said to

have an underneath (lrcgo:) is the rhetorical question (RQ). RQs are usedwidely in interactions involving teasing, whiclr ranges in tone and mannerfrom the playful and benign to the provocational and angry. In addition, RQsare used in interactions with the intention of confronting and potentiallyshaming an indiv idual .

RQs are different fronr inforrnation-seeking questions ev€n though theymay use the sanre lexicon and syntactic fornrs. Information questions have aperceptible rise and lengthened final vowel, and the speaker usually waits forthe addressee to respond before taking the next turn. In contrast, RQs have aperceptiblc fall and clipped final vowel, and a speaker may fire offseveral inrapid succession, leaving no space for the addressee to respond. Given thatRQs call for no answer, this turn-taking procedure is not surprising. Informa-tion-seeking questions are for the most part unambiguous; the meaning(hego:) of RQs may not be. The lrcgo: of RQs is always different from theliteral proposition contained in the inforrnation question. For example, "ls ityours?" rneans " l t is not yours!" and "Did I say * proposi t ion" means " l

d id not say i proposi t ion." RQs are used to chal lenge c la i rns, proposi t ions,and actions in order to redirect or terminate the actions of an addressee. Ofirnportance in their effectiveness are the sequencing and mode of theirdel ivery.

Spcakers franre RQs through various linguistic rneans, some of whichrendcr thc RQ partially ambiguous, leaving the assignment of meaning to theaddressee. This sets up the way in which the addressee will proceed as ncxispeaker. After assessing tlre addressee's reaction, the speaker may adjust forthe desired effect of (he next turn.

Such teasing and sharning situations contrast with contexts where speakersare decidedly unambiguous in their intended tone and message. For example,within the ada. relationship in which Kaluli ntothers convey to their youngchildren how they are to feel sorry for younger siblings and give them food,they use formulaic verbal constructions and nonverbal expressive behaviorsstr ic t ly associated wi th these nreanings (8. B. Schief fe l in l98l) . In thesesituations spcakers use a set of contextualization cues (Gunrperz 1977) thatsignal how the message is to be interpreted. These contextualization cues and

l'easing and shaning in Kululi children's interactions r73

affect keys include aspects of surface fornr, prosody, paralinguistic features,sequencing order, situational and discourse history, and context of the talk.

. In teasing and shaming s i tuat ions, contextual izat ion cues do not set up a

single simple interpretive frame or affective key, and participants tnust payclose attention to what is going on to interpret often shifting or anrbiguouscues. This c lose moni tor ing is especia l ly cr i t ical in teasing and sharning,where, wi th in the context of k inship re lat ionships, a l l iances may momentar i lyshift or reorganize. The boundaries of key shift as speakers and addresseesassess face-saving needs in exchanges where what constitutes entitlement,access, and orvnership is negot iable.

The socialization of rhetorical questions in teasing and shaming

What in the verbal environment of y<-rung Kaluli clrildren may facilitate thelearning of teasing and shaming forms that lay the foundation for the learningof more complex bale to'turned-over words' as well as the social and lin-guist ic inferencing pervasive in Kalul i ta lk?

The foundations for learning how to understand these verbal forrns of socialcontrol are laid down in the early interactions between caregivers and chil-dren, before infants are capable of verbalization. The earliest pattern is asfol lows.

Example 3

[Sel ig iwo: (9 rnonths) has crawled to the woodpi le and is pul l ing hi rnsel f up. ]Mo + S: Aba fa: la:naya' / l

Where are you climbing?![Mother takes baby off the woodpilel

ln dyadic interact ions, a caregiver 's u( terance (usual ly a RQ) fo l lowed by heraction sets up a sequence consisting of a verbal message followed by theappropriate consequential behavior. In sequences such as the one above, thecaregiver physically intervenes and provides the child with a model of thedesired outcome. Such sequences frequently occur between caregivers andtheir preverbal children, as small children tend to act in objectionable ways;forexample, putting objects in their mouths that are not considered safe, andcrawling near potentially dangerous areas.

However, a great many interactions involving Kaluli caregivers and theiryoung children are organized triadically. Triads typically involve the mother,her language- learning chi ld, ant l another s ib l ing or mcmber of the household.As part of teaching their 2-year-old children how to use language in interac-tions with otbers, molhers tell them what to say, using an imperative a:la:ma'say

l ike that ' fo l lowing the ut terance to be repeated. The intended ( th i rd-

Page 7: Language Socialization Across Cultures

1 1 4 B n u g r B . S c t t t r r r n t - r

party) at ldressee rnay be an infant , an older chi ld, or an adul t . The ut terance(hat the 2-year-old is expected to repeat is shaped according to the intendedaddressee.

Example 4

lWhen her son Scl ig iwo: (7 months) was cry ing, Mother speaks to her daughter Ma: l i(24 rnonths).1Mo - Ma: l i +> S: Wanga ya: laya?! A: la:ma.

Why are you cry ing?! Say l ike that .Ma: l i + S: Wanga ya: laya?Mo -> Ma : l i + ) S : Ya : l a : sabo ! A : l a :ma .

Don' t cry lMa: l i + S: Ya: la:sabo!

Iloth utterances (RQ and negative imperative) are said in such a way (highvolurne, exaggerated intonat ion) as to star t le (he infant , get h is at tent ion, andchange his trchavior.

'I 'hus irr using a RQ to a preverbal child in this way (to

stop hinr crying) the nrother is atternpting to distract (ha:nulab) the child fromhis cry ing. She is a lso involv ing her 2-year-old daughter in th is caregiv ingsi tuat ion and instruct ing her in what she wi l l say when taking care of theinfant by herself. llowever, there is an undcrlying proposition to the RQ"Why are you crying'?!" namely, "'fhere is no good reason for you to becry ing; therefore, you should not cry." This is made expl ic i t in the negat ivedircc(ivc (lra( follows. While it is unlikely that the preverbal addressee under-stands thc proposition that is irnplied in the RQ, the 2-year-old who is in theprocess of learning the untlerlying proposition comes to understand the rhe-torical lirrce of suclr utterances and the desired outcomc.

A sequencc using s i rn i lar I inguist ic forrns (negat ive imperat ives and rhe-tor ical qucsl ions) towards aclr iev ing sornewhat d i f ferent interact ional ends isfound in situations of control that are the precursors of situations that willcven(ual ly be used to threaten a chi ld wi th sbanr ing.

Iixample 5

[As Sel ig iwo: ( I I rnonths) takcs sonrerhing belonging ro Babi , Morher speaks to Ma: l i(28 months). IM + Ma: l i - ) S: I l ia :sabo! A: la:ma.

Don' t take! Say l ike that .Ma : l i + M : Huh?M + Ma: l i - ) S: Dia:sabowo: l A: la:nra.

Don' t take!Ma: l i + S: Dia:sabo!N, l + Ma: l i +) S: We Babiya:no! A: la:ma.

This is Babi 's lMa: l i + S: We [3abiya:no!M - Ma: l i +) S: Ga:nowo: ' ) ! A: la:rna.

I t is yours?!Ma: l i - S: Ga:nowo:?!

Teasitrg and shaning, in Kaluli chiltlren,s i,trerocrions 175

The participants in these situations (both nrothers and their 2-year-oltl chil-dren) make no denrands on the preverbal infant to respond verbally _ onlynonverbally, as these utterances are intended to clrarrge the infant's action.Again, the imnrediate desired ends on the part of the adult is to change the

infant's actions through explicit verbal instruction. Such sequences are cont-

posed of three conrponents. ln i t ia l ly there are negat ivc imperat ives cxpl ic i t ly

indicating tlte irnmediate desired action or outcome (Dia:.sabo! 'Don't you

takel'), an assertiotr indica(ing the reason (in this case, ownership by amrther

indiv idual) , and f inal ly , an RQ support ing the preceding assert ion that turns

the interaction back to the addressee in the fornt of a question, Utterances

such as Gd. ' r tor"o:?! ' ls i t yours?! 'are to be read " l t is not yours ( to (ake)."

In this exanrple, as in the majority of others, the object that is in question

belongs lo none of the speakers, but to a third person who nray or rnay ttot be

present. Sequences of th is type are repcatedly found in Kalul i farni l ies,

1 'hough the preverbal chi ld nray not understand the indiv idual ut terances,

hear ing the rout ine formulat ion of these re lat ively shod, syntact ical ly s i rnplc

emphatic utterances across a variety of contexts rninirnally conveys the tnes-

sage that one's act ion should be changed or ler ln inated. At least the i l r fant

rnay be distracted frorn the course of action. Caregivers always separate each

proposition into a single utterance, avoiding the use of more corr)plex clause-

chaining construc( ions. This pat tcrn of using a s ingle proposi t iorr per ut ter-

ance in teasing and shaming sequences cont inues wel l heyond the chi ld 's own

product ive use of complex syntact ic construct ions and becolnes part o l ' the

key of the speech event itself. These sanle routitres continue to be uscd in

fanr i ly interact ions wi th c l r i ldren of a l l agcs. They arc not s i r r rp l i f ic t l for

young children or made tnore contplex for older orres,

At the in(eractional level, caregivers leavc no "turn spacc" to the infant,

s ince in these s i tuat ions, as in a l l others, the infant is not expected to respond.

No interpretat ion is expected. Speakers are usual ly unambiguous abou( their

desire to control the situation. They select linguistic forrns approprizrtc t() the

si tuat ion, using as much volume and repet i t ion and as nrany crnphat ic markers

as are needed to achieve their ends. Using both verbal and nonverbal nreans,

they must reorganize a situation in which behavior needs to be changed. 'l 'here

is no expcctat ion that the infant wi l l actual ly comprehend what is said, just

that he or she change the current behavior.

By the tirne infants are about 14 ntonths old, nrothers a<.ld an additional

conrponent to such verbal sequences involv ing socia l contro l . Ol ten f ranred as

either an RQ, Go:no: nro:sintlilowaba?/ 'Aren't you ashamed'l!" or a direc-

t ive, Si l r / i /onol 'Be ashamed! ' , chi l t l ren are to ld expl ic i t ly how t l rey are

supposed to feel when confronted about taking sonrething that is not theirs to

take. In addi t ion, at th is t ime caregivers ntake extensive use of th i rd-party

threats to add ernphasis to these sequences in situations whcn children arc

acting inappropriately. Such utterances take the fornl Ge sann:ib! 'Sonteone

)

I

t

;

Page 8: Language Socialization Across Cultures

1 7 6 B n M s t B . S c t t l e . r r r . l l

wi l l say sotnet l r ing to you! 'or Dowa: samo: ib 'Your father wi l l say some-

thing (to you)'. The threat is of being publicly and verbally confronted and

consequently sharned. The "sornething" that someone will say is "ls it

yours?!" or a sintilar RQ. Mothers and other caregivers never (hreaten chil-

drcn with what they thentselves might or could do, but always refer to a third

person who is not present, or sonleone (like the researcher) who would not

actually do anything at all. (Refercnce to the researcher as punitive agent was

acti vely discouraged !)-I'he

pattern of using third-party threats was consistent with language usedwith o lderchi ldren as wel l as between adul ts. Given the organizat ion of socia lrelationships in Kaluli society, first-person threats are potentially too dan-gcrous and explosive. One rnight be pushed to act on his or her threat . whichwould dcfcat the point of the exchange.

'I'o be called on one's threat could

shut the interact ion down, wlren the point is to cont inue using verbal means ofsocia l contro l to achieve a part icular end. In any case, g iven the di f f icul tyindiv iduals in th is society have compel l ing one another to do something,regardless of their age, verbal rnanipulation with threats that speakers cannotact on reduces the direct confrontational nature of social control wlrile marn-taining a high level of drama. Thus, well before infants are using language(hcnrselves, mothers are speaking to them (as well as directing tbeir oldersiblings to speak to tlrenr) with the use of a specific set of single-propositionlinguistic devices to control or alter their behavior. As they get older, thesesanre l inguist ic devices begin to take on the speci f ic af fect ive keys of teasingand sharning them.

I)iscussion

Several issues have corrre out of these data. First, a particular fornt conveys a

[t"c diffcrent typc ofrhetoricql force or accomplishes a different outcome depend-' ing.on thc age af the addressee.. For younger preverbal infants, the desiredeffect may be distraction caused by utterances being directed to them to startlethenr. Fbr the older preverbal infants, the caregiver may believe that the childcan understand the direct inrperative, and the renrainder of the sequence inwhich i t occurs holds lhe chi ld 's ar tenr ion wi thout the chi ld fu l ly comprehend-ing t l re ut terances. Or f inal ly , as chi ldren nrature and begin to acquire a fu l lerrange of l inguist ic expression, the caregiver nray bel ieve that they wi l l a lsoundcrstand how they are expected to feel about the actions that arc takingplace.

Second, wi th the sanre addressee, teasing rout ines nray thenrselves shi f t in

t l , l ru i Nl f ways that are purposeful ly intended to t r ick or confuse, p lay or rest , put down

. - . or ntock-t l t tca(err (he int l iv idual . Theref t - r re, we see l row l inguist ic forrns inrl 1- i t irrteractional routines have different meanings or rhetorical r;Ilr

""."rai"g i;

i

Teasing arul shaming in Kaluli children's i,tteractions lll

who the addressee happens Lo be, as well as having speakers using sirnilarroutines and forms to ob(ain varying affective outcomes from the sarneaddressee.

Third, from the data exarnined (eighty-three trours of tape-recortled andtranscribed spontaneous family interactions) one can find the following se-quent ia l combinat ions. ' l 'hese are di rectcd to infants who have not yet begunto speak (under 20 months) and occur the rnajoriiy of the timc with a.'1a.nra intr iadic s i tuat ions wi th o lder s ib l ings.

( l ) C la im /RQ ( "Th i s i s B ' s ! I s i t you rs? ! " )(2) RQ/cla im ("Who are you?l This is your brother 's !" )(3) RQ/negat ive di rect ive ("Why are you cry ing?! Don' t cry!")(4) RQ/negat ive habi tual ( "What are you eat ing?! One doesn' t eat i t ! " )

(5) Negat ive di rect ive/c la int /RQ/RQ ("Don' t take i t ! l t 's father 's . Who are

you?l Aren' t you ashamed?!")

In a l l of these sequences RQs are uscd confrontat ional ly . Kalul i cal l these

RQs szrsidecb 'someone sharnes'. By using these forms speakers challenge or

attempt to terminate the action performed by the adtlressge.Ttre nqi used die

the very ones that speakers clairn would be said in third-party threats, such as"Someone wi l l say something." No Kalul i chi ld wants to be chal lenged,teased, or sharned. Yet interactions involving children are nrarked by the

pervasive use of these fornrs. -I

hey serve the caregivers' needs to control their

young children and socialize thenr to display culturally appropriate behaviors.

There is no expected response to these utterances and therefore no negotiated

interpretation on the part of a listener. The speaker is unambiguous about the

intended meaning, using these forms to control the young child's bchavior.

Notably absent in these interactions are negative statements (such as "lt

isn ' t yours!" or "You shouldn' t eat i t " ) fo l lowed by a RQ. Thus thc l is tener

has to learn to make the logical connection between the RQ and another

utterance in order to understand the nreaning and pragmatic force of the RQ

and the interact ion. That is , the sequences ofc la ims, negat ive di rect ives, and

negative habituals with the RQ provide discourse-based propositional sup-ports for inferring how the RQ is to be interpreted by the preverbal child.

ln addition, these in(eractions aid the older language-learning child in nras-

tering the appropriate sequencing and delivcry style o[ RQs in teasing or

shaming routines. Through triadic routines using a:la:nn, they participate inand talk through sequences directed to the younger child. The younger childmay not understand what is being said, but he or she will see the social

interaction displayed. Children nrust learn, for exanrple, that RQs are not tobe answered like information questions. ln interactions, children untler 24

months occasional ly answered RQs. When th is happened, everyone would

laugh at the chi ld 's response, then quickly throuBh direct instruct ion usinga:la:ma tell the child the appropriate way to talk back. Young children must

Page 9: Language Socialization Across Cultures

1 7 8 l l n u n r B . S c r r r e n p r . L r u

learn that IlQs alc meant to changc their behavior, but also that they might try

to renegotiate thc claim or challenge the speaker with another RQ. Over timethcy learn (hat they sh<luld feel ashamed when confron(ed with RQs if com-pl iance wi th d i rect ives is not for thcorning.

' l 'hc d iscr>urse structure involv ing RQs in teasing and shaming is somewhat

differerrt when older children are the third-party addressees in direct instruc-tion scqucnces using a:la:nta. In these sequcnces, the supporting material for

tltc ltQs is largcly dropped. I'hat is, the rno(her instructs the child in using aser ics of RQs (and other l inguist ic devices such as formulaic expressions),bui ld ing scqucnces of thcse forms alone. One such exatnple fo l lows.

Iixample 6

lWanu (27 r l )onths), h is s ister Binat ia (5 years) , cousin Manra ( l l years) , nnd Motherare cat ing sal t that bclongs to lsa, another s ister . lMo+ W-> M & I l : Aba :nowo :? ! A : l a : n ra .

Whose is i t?! Say l ikc that .W - ' M & B: Aba:nowo?!Mo + W -> M & B : Ga :nowo : ' / ! A : l a :ma .

ls it yours?lW > M & 8 : G a : n o w o : ? !Mo + W - '> M & I l : Cc oba?! A: la:nra.

Who are you?!l ] + W +> Mo: Ga:nowo:?l A: la:ma.

ls it yours'l!Mo - -+ W r> M & B : Na :noka : ! A : l a : n ra .

I t ' s m ine !

In scqucnces usingi : lu:nut . fcareBivers usual ly ins ist that t l re c-hi l< l use thecorrect fornr, and not paraphiase or innovate. lf the child does not rcpeat whatthe caregivcr providcs, other at teorpts wi l l be nrade to get the chi ld to do so.ln her spcech di rectcd 1o the young chi ld, the rnother (and other adul ts) a lsoconlcs to rely solcly on the special for-nrs used for teasing and shaming. Thusby the tinrc children are .2 years old,l'speech directed (o them draws on avar icty of cxpressions that tease or shair re thern for the purposcs of sJcia lcorr t to l .'

Language dirccted to the child changes as the chilc.l gets older, from morecxpl ic i t ly statcd c la ims to ones that are less so. Because of constant exposureto these forrns across contexts and their use by caregivcrs in t r iadic s i tuat ionsto assist young chi l then in get t ing contro l over what caregivers see as theirs, i tslrould conrc as no surprise that children use RQs spontaneously and appropri-atc ly in certa in contexts by the t ime they are 2 years o ld- Even when they donot fu l ly a11iculate a l l of the words, they convey the rhetor ical force of theirut terancc wi th the corrcct intonat ional contours and other contextual izat ioncucs. At t l r is age, I lQs appear both in chal lenges and in teasing, especia l ly ins i tuat ions involv ing thc dist r ibut ion of food and thc possession of desiredtubjccts. Children use a range of tcasing expressions by the time they are 30

7'easing attd,shaning in Kaluli children's interactio,ts ljg

months old; their use of explicit reference to sharning appears muclr later.Kaluli consider the ability to tease and shanre through rhe use of Res to be asign of social competence in young children. Th_e5q-arc__thg- verbal meansthrou gh whr9l1_y.o_qrg ebildren-ca+$e-str:*4.:urd.iqd_gpeqdent

I can sumrnarize some of the ways in which valences of different factolsinvolved i r r teasing and shaming change and shi f t over developrrrental t ime.These are i l lustrated as sets of cont inua.

Preverbal infants - , 3-year-old children( I ) Structure:

- I . r i ad i c i n te rac t i oDS+Dyad i c i n te rac t i ons

(2) Means of contro l :Nonverbal + verbal control + Verbal corrtrul

(3) Meaning:Literality of forms Nonliterality of forrns

(4) Contex(:Increasc in importance of situational and discourse history kr the interaction

(5) Key:Increase in key varialion

(6) lnterpretation:Increase in co-construction of in(eractions

feasing and shaming in Kaluli society

Having taken a developmental perspect ive, i t is impor lant to be caut ious whenl inking the ways in which teasing and shaming are uscd in interact ions involv-ing children with interactions between adults- For one, the slakes are differentfor adults than for children. For adults, nrotives are an important issue,whereas young children often act because they don't really know or undcr'-stand. Whcreas teasing and slrarning are perrr'asive in farnily inte-ractions, theaffective key is not usually heavy or traumatic, in that children are no( subjected (o serious or permanent consequelces resulting frorn being teascd orshamed. For the Kalul i , teasing and shaning are syslemat ical ly part of in-teractions with children, and as such, (hey operate on many lcvels, are struc-tured dyadically and triadically, and are expressctl both verbally and nonver-bal ly . They are used to teach chi ldreg how kr be part of Kalul i society, (o

include them rather than set them ap-art.Ilowever, these modes of interaction do even more, and it is irrrportant to

consider why they are so pervasive in this egalitarian society, where anyperson may try to control another and where people usually do rrot want toappear to deny each other anything. ln several senses, RQs provide an interac-tional context in whiqh both speakgr and addres-see have sonre choice in whatthe outcome wi l l be. RQs maintain the speaker/adclressee re lat ionship whi leallowing one periori to try to control another. ln pro<lucing an RQ in response

' l t r-l 9o

l

I

Page 10: Language Socialization Across Cultures

1 8 0 B a u n r l l . S c t t t r n r e L I N

to an action or clainr, the speaker is not boldly denying the requester. Unlike

negative directives, RQs put the ball back in the addressee's court, providing

him or hcr with the option to respond (in a limited number of ways) qr toremain silent. RQs call for no answer, but they do keep communication openan4 acknowledge the othgr. An RQ (with its hego: 'underneath') provides theadtlressee witlr some face-saving protection, a great deal more than one wouldhave after ncgative directives, which increase status differentiation andchange the speaker/addressee relationship. The message may be similar, butthe n)etacornmunicalion is mrt.

Yet another rcason that teasing and RQs in general are so cornmon in Kaluliinteractions may have to do with the fact that Kaluli enjoy interactions thathave some creative tension in them, where the outcome is potentially unpre-dictable and dependent on the individual's ability to be clever. The forms oftalk used in teasing and shaming, especially RQs, can create a drama(ictension in an interaction, a tension that keeps the channels ofcommunicationopcn and the outcome unpredictable.

Whcreas the Kaluli value assertivencss and directness, they value theirsocial relationships even more. Given the Kaluli sense of individual autono-my, it is'not surprising that these modes of social control are used at thebcginning of social lifc, in interactions that involve preverbal infants.

No(es

'I'hanks g0 to those who supported the research on which this chapter is based: theNational Science Foundation and thc Wenner-Cren Foundation for AnthropologicalRcscarch. Buck Schieffelin, Steve Feld, Peggy Miller, Lawrence Canington, andElinor Ochs offered other types of invaluable support.I The data on which this analysis is based were collccted during the course of (wo

years' ethnographic and Iinguistic fieldwork (1975,7\ among rhe Kaluli in theSouthern llighlands Province of Papua New Guinea. This study on the develop-rncnt of communicative competence among the Kaluli focused on four childrenwho wcre approximately 24 months old at the stafl of the stutly. However, anadditional twelve children (siblings and cousins) were included in the study; theirages ranged from birth to l0 years. 'I'he

spontaneous corrversations ofthese chil-drcn and their families were audiorccorded for one year at monthly intcrvals, witheach monthly sample lasting three or four hours. Detailed contcxtual notes accom-panied the audiotaping, and these annotated transcripts, along with interviews andobserva(ions, forrn the data base.

2 The actluisition of these teasing fornrs by young children is discussed in Schieffelinr 986.

References

Duran(i, A. 1984. ln(en(ions, self, and local theories of meaning: words and socialaction in a Samoan contexl. Center for Human Information Processing, TechnicalReport 122. Univers i ty ofCal i fornia, San Diego.

Teasittg and shaming in Kaluli children's interaclions 181

Fefd, S. 1982. Sound and sentime,tt: birds, weeping, poetics and song in Kaluliexpression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Feld, S. & Schieffelin, B. B. 1982. Bale to: 'Ttrne<l

over words' in Kaluli. Paperpresented at the 1982 Georgctown University Round Table on Languages andLinguistics.

Franklin, K. 1972. A ritual pandanus language of Ncw Guinea. Oceania 43:.66-76

Gumperz, J. 1977. Sociocultural knowledge in conversa(ional inference. ln M. Sav-

il le-Troike, ed., Linguistics and anthropology. Georgetown University Round

Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Ceorgetown Universiiy

P r e s s , p p . 1 9 1 - 2 1 1 .Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social l i fe. In J. Gutnperz

& D. Hymes, eds., Directions in sociolinguistics: tlrc ethnograPhy of commu-

nication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 35-71.

Kochman, T. 1983. The boundary beiween play and nonplay in Black verbal ducling.

Language in Sociery 12:329-337.Laycock, D. C. 1977. Special languages in parts of the New Cuinea area. In S. A.

Wurm, ed., New Guinea area languages and languagie 'r laly' vol' 3. Pacific

L ingu is t i c ser ies C, no . 40 . Canbena: Aus t ra l ian Nat iona l Un ivers i ty , pp . 133-

1 5 0 .Ochs, E. ln press. Culture and language acqttisit ion: acquiring cotnnruni<:ative com-

petence in Weslern Samoa. Carnbridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. 1984. Language acquisit ion and socialization: three

developmental stories and their implicit ions. ln R. Shweder & R. LeVine, eds.,

Culture theorr-: essa),s on mind, self and emoliott- Cambridge: Carnbridge Uni-

versity Press, pp. 276-320.Rosaldo, M. 1982. The things we do with words: l longot speech acts and speech act

theory in philosophy. Language in Society l l:203-237.

Schieffelin, B. B. 1981. A sociolinguistic analysis of a relationship. Dis<-rsurse Pro-

cesses 42:189-196.1986- The acquisit ion of Katuli. ln D. Slobin, e<I. The cross-linguistic study of

Ianguage acguisit ion. Hil lsdale, N. J.: Erlbaurn, pp. 525-593.In press. How Kaluli children learn whal to say, wlnt to do' and hotv to feel

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schieffelin, E. L. 1976. The sorrow of the lonely and the buning ofthe dancers. New

York : S t . Man in 's Press .Strathem, A. 1975. Veiled speech in Mt. Hagen. In M. Bloch, ed. Poli l ical language

and oratory in traditional soctery. London: Academic Press, pp. 185-203.

Wentworth, W. M. I980. Conlext and unLlerstanding: an inguirv into socializaliotr

,fteorv. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.

Page 11: Language Socialization Across Cultures

I 9 B A N N l l . E , T s E N B E R G

Mexicano l ro rncs . Unpub l ished P l r .D . d isser ta t ion , Un ivers i ty o f Ca l i fo rn ia ,Berke ley .

Goffrnan, E. l9]5. Franrc unalysis. New York: Macrnil lan.G r i c e , H . P . l 9 T 5 . L o g i c i n c o n v e r s a ( i o n . l n P . C o l e & J . P . M o r g a n , e , J s . , S y u a r a n d

sentontits, vol. 3: Speu:h acl.r. New York: Academic Press, pp. 4l-58.Gunrperz. L l. 1971. Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. ln M.

Savil le-'I 'roike, ed., Linguistic.t ottd anlhropolog)- Georgetown UnivcrsityRound

' I ' ab le on Languages and L ingu is t i cs . Wash ing ton , D.C. : Georgc town

Univers i ty Press , pp , 19 l -212.Heath , S . B . l98 l - Teas ing ta lk : s t ra teg ies fo r language learn ing . Presented a t the

Amcrican Anthropology Association Meeting, Los Angeles, December.l loppcr . R . . S ims, A . I - . . & A lber ts , J . K . 1983. Teas ing as Daddy 's c lassroorn .

Prcscnted at lhe Child Language Confcrence. Glasgow.Radc l i f fe -Brown, A . R. 1940. On jok ing re la t ionsh ips . AJ i i ca 13 : | ,95-210.Simmons. L. W., ed. 1942. Sun Chief: the autobiograplry ol a l lopi /ndiarr. New

Havcn: Ya le Un ivers i ty Press .

10. Teasing as language socializationand verbal play in a white working-class communityP n c c v M t t - l B n

In the following narrative a young mother tiorn the working-class conrnrunlty

of South Baltirnore recalls an incident that occurretl whcn slre was in junior

high school :

When I got free lunch, you know, we wcnt through the catetcria, and (he SrouP in thetable would al l s tand up and say, "You 8ot f ree lunch t ickets" ls ingsong intonat ionl ,you know, and they, all of em around the room start hittin the tables and ev€rythinAnd I would stand up and Isays, "Wel l , wel l , you al l th ink you're real ly (easin

somebo<.|y. At least I know I 'm agett in somethin f ree and youse ain ' t . Hahaha. Whatdo you th ink of that?" And they shut their ntouths, boy.

They did. And the ladies that g ive the food out , they just laughin thci r ta i ls of f backthe re .Theysay , "D idyouhea r tha t l i t t l eg i r l , shes toodup the re . "And I s i t downandI says, "You see, I 'm gonna cnjoy my f ree lunch." I was eat in, boy. cat in.

And I says, "l even got 15 cents to buy nte a fudge bar" [laughsl 'fhey

cotne inthere with boloney sandwiches in them bags. I'd say, "You can eat that stale boloney.I 'm get t in je l lo on the s ide of my plate" f laughsl .

Nora tells this tale with pride and pleasure. [{er proficicncy in the art of

teasing enabled her to outwit her peers and to transforrn a potentially painful

experience into an occasion for self-display.

Teasing, as practiced by three families frorn Soutlr llaltirnore, is a cotnplex

form of verbal play, marked as such by modifications of the normal pattern of

speech. Although teenagers and adults are the most irnaginative practitioners

of this genre, even 2-year-olds show sonle understanding of the elernents of

teasing. L ike other local var iet ies of socia l p lay, for example, pretend play

with dol ls (Mi l ler & Garvey 1984) and rhymes and verbal garnes (Mi l ler

1982), teasing occurs first at home in interaction witlr mother and otlrer

caregivers.Teasing is not just a type of p lay, however. I t is a lso a key to language

socialization in these families. ln every community particular tlremes are

t99

Page 12: Language Socialization Across Cultures

2 ( X ) P E c c Y M r r - L E R

enrphasized in the socia l izat ion of the young. ln South Bal t imore one thenre intlrc socialization of girls has to do with affection, sympathy, and the lovingcare of babies. Tcasing mani fests th is theme insolar as most teasing of youngchi ldren is done af fect ionatc ly. But teasing is more reveal ing of another theme- thc high value placed on interpersonal skills of self-assertion and sclf-defense.

-feasing is related to the ability to stand up for oneself, to speak up in

angcr, and to l-ight if necessary.Teasing thus represents the intersection of several irnportanr questions in

thc stut ly of language development and socia l izat ion: What are the bel iefs andvalues that caregivers hold about language and the social world? What kindsol ' language socia l izat ion strategies do they use wi th novice speakers? t low docaregivcrs ' bel ic ls and pracl ioes al fect language learning' l And which aspectsof the chi ld 's developing communicat ive system are cxplo i ted for p layfulpurposcs'?'l'he objective of this paper is to address these questions through ancxatninat ion of teasing as pract iced in one urban working-c lass conrnruni ty.

'I'he study

'fhe study is part of a larger invcstigation o( early language developnrent in

South Bal t inxrre, a comrnuni ty of nr ixed Cernran, Pol ish, t r ish, l ta l ian, andAppalachian descent (Mi l ler 1982). Amy, Wendy, and Beth were f i rs t -bomchildrcn of rnothers who had conrpleted from eight to twelve ycars of school-ing-

'l 'wo oI the rnothcrs received public assistance; one was ernployed as a

rnachine opcrator in a factory. Al though the chi ldren l rad i rnportant , of tendai ly , contacts wi th nrembers of an extended fami ly, the rnother was thepr i lnary caregiver in every case.

' fhc study was longi tudinal in dcsign and ethnographic in approach, corn-

bin ing intcnsivc obscrvat ions of the chi ldren in the contexts of everyday l i fewi th an inquiry into the bel iefs and values of their fami l ies. A ser ies of twelvevideo rccordings was made during the third year of life (age at outset variedfronr l9 kr 2-5 lnonths). Each child was observed in the rowhouse living roornas shc intcracted with hcr rnother and other family members.

-I'he mothers

were interv icwed per iodical ly throughout ihe study.'l 'he

vidcotapes were transcribed in detail, with each transcript including arccold of wha( the chi ld said, a record of what other speakers said, a runningdescr ipt ion of thc chi ld 's nonverbal behaviors, and a descr ipt ion of contextualfeatures and ofothcr speakers ' behaviors. (See Mi l ler 1982 for t ranscr ipt ionproccdures. )

1 'hc presen( analysis was based on samples I to Vl for each of t l re chi ldren,cncorr)passrng a rnean length of u l terance per iod ofaboul 1.5 to 2.2 mor-plrenrcs and an age range of 19 to 22 nronths for Amy, 24 to 2j months forWcndy, antl 2-5 to 28 months for Beth.

-l-easing in a wlile workittg'cla.rs c<tnunurity 201

I

!

I

II

Teasing as language socialization

A previous analysis led to the ident i f icat ion ofdi rcct instruc( ion as a stratcgy of

ear ly language socia l izat ion in South Bal t i rnore (Mi l ler l9t l2) . 1 'h is analysis

revealed that the rnothers of Amy, Wendy, and Beth be licvetl in the ilnportance

of teaching 2-year-olds to talk and that they routincly gave direct instruction in

various aspects of language and speaking during the mean length of utterancc

per iod of i .5 to 2.5 Inorphenles. ' l 'hat

is , they expl ic i t ly to ld t l re c l r r ld what t r r

iay or ho* to say it or quizzed her on these matlers, using such teaching tleviccs

ase l i c i t ed im i t a t i on ,p romp ts ' d i r ec t i ons toasko r t e l l , a r r d tu to r i a | ques t i ons .These interactions provicled opportunities for the child to actluire various kinds

of social antl linguistic knowledge - to answer and ask whai-questions; to asscrt

and comply verbal ly and nonverbal ly ; to part ic ipate appropr iate ly in convcrsa-

t ion; to take care of . .babies" in mother ing play wi th dol ls ; and to rhyntc, s ing,

and play verbal games. ln addi t ion, a <levelopmcntal analysis ofone category of

r l i rect instruct ion(nanr ingpeopleant l th ings)foroneofthcnrother chi ldpairs

revealed that the rnother's instructions were well adapted to the child's level of

understanding about nanring.

These findings concerning direct instruction tell part but by no means all

- of the story of language socialization in South Baltimore One guesti<ln that

remained concerned the finding of tlifferences across fanrilies in the frequency

of direct instruction. Although all three fantilies used this strategy on an

eve rydaybas i s , t l r e r cwas inc l i v i dua l va r i a t i on i n t l r e i r r c i denceo fd i r ec t i n -rtru.tion. A second qucstion concerned the possibility of cotnplerrtentary

types of socia l izat ion strategies ' Did caregivers engagc novice speakers in

oti,". typ", of patterned interactions that did not involve explicit instructiotr in

linguage and speaking?

ff"Xin*lt one such type of patterned interaction' ln the first six satnples

rrJ.iiifu$ne ,.qu.n..r-*"r" identifie4 for llerh, rwelve f.r Arny, and nine

for Wendy. A sequence consisted of at least two turns (where one could be

nonve rba l ) conce rn ingas ing l cd i spu ted i ssue .Ca reg i ve rs i n i t i a t ed teasesasaway of redirecting ttre child's activity-qr secu{ng ller obedience.

-Ihey plqy;

fu l iy d isputed the chi ld 's c la im to valued objects (e g ' , toys ' food) ' re la-

t ionships (c.g. , at tachrnent between nrother and chi ld) , abi l i t ies (e 'g ' danc-

ing, f ight ing, buik l ing), or qual i t ies (e.g. , pret t iness, nrat t r r i ty) '

From a discourse standpoint, the typical teasing sequence began with the

caregiver issuing a nrock threat , chal lenge, or insul t and the chi ld responding

with a <lenia l , counterc la im, or nonverbal counteract ion. Fol lowing th is in i t ia l

exchange, tnother and child exchanged a series of denials, counterclaints' or

counteractions. 'l-he

intcraction then contifued until one speaker yielded to the

other, they reached a stalemate, negotiated a nlutual|y acceptable resoluiion,

escalatecl the argument into an exchange of r i tual b lows, or lost intercst and

changed the subject.

Page 13: Language Socialization Across Cultures

202 Pc<;cy Mrr_r r , r<

l lxanrple I I

Arny I l , l9 n ron thsAntl

IA has bccn dr ink ingM's soda l

. _ g rmnle cup/[A rcachcs for cup inM's hand l

lM gazes at A, pushesA away with fistaga ins t A 's be l l y lIA rc tu rns M 's gaze IIA smi les l

[A raises fist toward mrn/M, s rn i lesJ

[A tu rns in c i rc le ] look /

lA s t r i kcs f igh ter ' spose, legs apart, arrnsat shoulder lcvel, f istraised toward Ml[M srn i les a t A l[A swats a t M, k ickssofa next lo MlIA turns around andrur rs down ha l lway l

[A runs back intrrl i v ing roonr l

IA tu rns away]

It,aughsl

I Laughsl

You're gonna get punchedr ight in the gdrIProvocative tone].

Marlene (nother)

Ya wanna f igh t? [Loud ly ]

Huh?Do ya? [Laughsl

Peggy: She knows howobv ious ly ILaughs l .Amy.

Do ya'l

Lemme see your fistl

Example 2

Beth Vl, 28 months

[N has been trying toredirect B's activityl

[Very short switchingpause between N'sutterance and B'sl[B wheels aroundtoward dolll

IB kneels next to doll,looking at NllB picks up dol l l[B holds doll to chest,looking at Nl

[B walks away intoadjoining roomJ

I'ea.sirtg in a n'hite workiilg-cldss conununity 20f

Betlt Nora (mother)

I 'm gonna get the babyIS ingsong in tonat ion l .

myl

that Pe€gybaby/

yes/

I find yours/

No, i t a in ' t your baby.That's rfiy baby [Veryrapid ly l .

I t 's Peggy's baby?

Wel l , where's mine' l

No, that 's a l l r ight . Youdon' t have to f ind i t .Come here. That's allright. I got a baby in mybel ly .

[A lurns and faces M,raiscs chin dcfiantlyl[A falls to floorl oh ulpr{A junrps toward sofal lshricisl

This sequence opens with Nora threatening to seiz-e a doll that Beth has aspecial right to play with. Beth replies, "my," asserting her claim to the doll.

The two then exchange counterclaims. Nora: "No, it ain't your baby. That's

my baby." Beth: "that Peggy baby." ln the renraining turns Nora and Beth

negotiate a settlement: Nora concedes that the doll is Peggy's (and by implica-

tion Beth's to play with) and Beth offers to find a doll for Nora.

In addition to having a characteristic discourse form, teasing was set apart

from the surrounding stream of talk by a va1lety qf contextualiz-ation cues.

Cumperz (1977) defined contextualization cue as any aipeA-iif ttie sfrface

form of utterances - such as prosodic and paralinguistic features and lexical

and phonological choice - that signals how message rneaning and sequcncing

patterns are to be interpreted. Several of tlre cues that allow for the con-

textualization of teasing are illustrated in Exx- I and 2. These include sing-

song intonation, emphatic stress, unusually short switching pause, loud deliv-ery, rapid delivery, provocative tone of voice, frequent use of words related to

f ight ing(e.g. , punch, f ighi , f is t ) , f requentuseofpossessivewords, anduseofthe modal pa(icle "well." Although teasing sequences tended to be redun-

ln this cxarnple Marlene pushes Arny away and threatens to punch her lortlrinking hcr soda. Amy responds by raising her fist - in effeci a nonverballhrcat. I'he two then exchange a series of threats; the rnother,s are verbal(e.g. , "Ya wanna f ight?"; . .Do ya?") ; Amy,s are nonverbal (e.g. , ra iset lfist, raised chin)' That these threa(s are not intended to be serious is indicatedby the acconrpanying snrires and laughter, and the tease eventuaty dissolvesinto cxuberant physical p lay.

Another example, th is one invorv ing Beth and her mother. Nora, revolvet laround conf l ic t ing c la ims to mv dol l .

Page 14: Language Socialization Across Cultures

Z O 4 P e c c v M r r - l r n

dantly nrarked- no one sequence contained all of these cues, an.l in fact tlredistritrution of cues tendcd to vary across thc three rnother-child pairs. I;orexarnple, Beth and her rnother were much more likely than the others to usesingsong intonat ion and possessive words.

Other contextual izat ion cues that rnarked teasing sequences were forrr ru la iccxprcssions, such as "hahaha," "heeheehee," "yeayeayea," and "heck oni t . " In addi t ion. nonverbal accornpaninrents to teasing included gestures(c.g. , rubbing onc index f inger ovcr the other, ra ised f is t , ra ised chin) ; repeat-ed or pr<rlonged nrutual gaze: and hitting or swatting at the other speakcr.

This. thcn, is a general descr ipt ion of interact ions in which the mothersteascd t l re chi l t l rcn. Front a languagc socia l izat ion standpoinl , i t is necessaryto ask what thesc intcract ions nleatr t to thc nrothers. One source ofevidence inthis regard contcs fronr (he interprctive conltnents and asidcs that one of thernothers r)rade spontalteously during three of the sequences. In all three casesNora rcfcrred a1>provingly to Beth's anger. lror exanrple, "t like her whcn shegets urad. I ' rn te l l in you, she' l l , she' l l take that ashtray and throw i t , dunrp i ta l l ovcr the f loor and she' l l tear up stuf f l ike th is. She's got a temper."

At l t l i l ional dara were obtained at the end of the study (af ier a l l the v id-eotapes had been collected) when Nora offered inter?retations of variousinteract ions, inc lucl ing teasing sequences. For exarnple, ln response ro oneteasing scqucnce she explained as fo l lows her reasons for teasing: . ,Teasing

wi l l nrakc her want to learn on l rer own, i t cncourages her to be indepentJent ,it rnakes hcr rtrad. gives nre a chance to encourage her if she has trouble( t lefcnr l ing hcr c la i rns or d isplaying her abi l i ry) . I say, 'You're st i l l l i r r te. l r 'sal l r ig l r t . ' " Nora addcd that one can' t tease too of ten because Beth wi l l justg ive upt shc ' l l be too insul ted.

' I ' l rc cv ic lence, then, f r .orn Nora's spontaneous con)ments dur ing teasing

sequerrces and Ironr hcr reactions u[)on later viewing video recordings ofteasing scquences provide sorne clues about her understanding of teasing persc. ln addi t ion, rcrnarks nrade by al l (hree nrothers dur ing the interv iews helpus to f i t teasing into the broader p icture of their bel iefs about chi ld rear ing,Ianguage learnir rg, and af fect ive socia l izat ion.

Eaclr of the t r rothers repeatedly expressed her intent ion (o equip herdaughter wi th the values and ski l ls she would need as she grew older andvcrr turet l out into the wor ld. Tl r is nreant teaching her the names of people andthings, help ing her to par l ic ipate in conversat ion, and encouraging her to beaf fcct ionate and syrnpathct ic (Mi l ler 1982). l r a lso nreant inst i l l ing strength,pr ide, and independcnce and help ing the chi ld to learn how to contro l hurtfeel ings, how to dcfend hersel f , and when to speak up in anger (Mi l ler &Spclry in press).

' I 'easing sequences provided one context in which these

valued ski l ls and qual i t ies could be t ransnr i t ted. Or, as Amy's ntother, Mar-lenc, erpla ined i t , teasing prcpares the chi ld to stand up for hersel f in real- l i fedisorr(cs:

Teusittg itt tt white workin1-<'loss t'omntunity 2O5

That 's why a lot of t i rnes when we used to p lay l i t t le ganres togelher, I 'd takc my f is tand likc punch her in the chest. You know, not hard enough to hurt her, but, youknow, to knock her down. She'd get back up. She'd th ink i t was funny, r ight ' l Or I 'dtakc niy fist and I'd hit her in (he arm and then she'd hit me back and I'd Pretcnd it hur(and [ 'd (say). "Oh," you know, bt t l i t toughened her up. When she got out thcre lowhere somebody really meant it, then she realized, you know, "tley, this is it, thcy'rcreal ly p ick in on me." And shejust , you know, punch back. So, I th ink that helps too.i f you s i t down aml ( ry to te l l your k id, vou know, "Hey" you know, " they' rc g()nnapunch you, you punch them." And by act lng th is out wi(h thcnr. By pushing t l rerndown and lettin thenr feel theirsclf hit the floor, whatcver. I think it totrghcns them uP.And I th ink that 's good tbr a g i r l nowadays. anyway, because rv i th everyth ing tha( 'sgoin on, cven a girl has to defend herself. And, yeah, I think that's g.oorl

Thus, teasing interact ions had, in part , a ser ious in(enl : to impart to the

chi ld essen( ia l surv ival sk i l ls . l lowever, the mothers c l id not associ l te teasing

with language learning in the salne straightlorward way that lhey associated

teaching wi th language learning. In their v iew' chi ldren are taught to ta lk;

they are teased to lalk back.

'Ihe children as novice teasers

At the age of 2 Anry, Wendy, and Betlr alrcady knew how to respond nonver-

bal ly to mock threats, chal lenges, and insul ts. They ra iscd f is ts, gave def iant .

looks, rubbed one index finger over the other, and swatted at the opponent-

They also showetl sonre ability to respond verbally and with approprrate

content , using such words as " f ight , " "punch," "bcat ," "s l rut up" '

"dummy," "punk." and " fat . " ln the fo l lowing sequence, fcrr example '

Wendy says, "I beat you" after her mother has repeatedly made fttn of her

nowdered face.

Exarnple 3

Wendy l l , 25 nron t l rsWeudl'

[W has put powder tttther face|

' l

lW bur ies head in L 'sneckl

momnlY/

lW hi ts p layful ly atL l[W leans back on L 'slcgs. facing L,smi l ingl [Laughs I

Liz (nntlrcr)

Lo()k at yo$r facc

I Laughsl

ILaughs I

Page 15: Language Socialization Across Cultures

I2 0 6 [ ' E c ( i Y M l L l - E R

[L po in ts a t W's face l(L po in ts aga in l

l [ . po in ts aga in ]

lW t r i cs (0 s i t up bu t l laughs lis laughing too hardl

[Both laughing [Laughsltogethcrl

lL po in ts a t W's facc ]

[L pokes W's [Laughs ls lomach I

\W lungcs for LlI beat you/

{ L s h a k c s W l

[W bur ics facc in L 's [No ises ]chcs tJ

l l - pushes W up; rubsW's checks l

[W lungcs fo r L l

[W and L p lay fu l l y [Laughs ls lap and h i t oneanothcr , laugh ing l

Look at your face. Yougot powder.

{ Laughsl

\ f 'n"rc is a lso sonre evidcnce that the chi ldren were beginning to assume therole of tcaser, in i t iat ing sequences by issuing mock threats, insul ts, or chal-lcngcs. For exatnple, Anry srni lcd at her mother and said, "Shut up, punk"(Arny l l l , 20 rnont l rs) . Wendy struck playful ly at her ntother 's hand, laughingand saying, "Urn bad! urn bad!" (Wendy l l , 25 months).

I t is Bcth, l rowever, wl to provides the nrost evidence of a developinguDderstanding of teasing. She engaged in the largest number of sequences(twenty) and achieved the most prof ic iency in teasing. Microlevel analysisacross the s ix sarnples revealed advances in Beth 's understanding of var iousasl)ects ol'teasing. She becanre rnore adcpt at interpreting her rnother's mes-sages and at producirrg her own.

For exarnple, in the ear ly samples Nora's openers in teasing sequenceswcre often repeated or rephrased several times before Beth respondcd. Whenshe did reply, hcr responses were l i rn i ted to denials or counterc la ims. By thef inal sample Beth rcsponded prompt ly to a s ingle opening ut terance. This isi l f ustratcd in Ex. 2.

- I 'he nrother says, " l 'm gonna get the baby." and Beth

vcry rapidly retorts and takes possession of the doll. Fronr this we can inferthat lJetlr undcrstood her nrother's urterance as a threat requiring immediatecountcract ion, both verbal and nonverbal_ By the f inal sarrrp le Beth had alsoadded several dispute tactics to her repertoire: She coulrt yield t. her mother's

Teasing in c rvhi te working-c loss cornrnuni t .y 2Ol

argument, contr ibute escalat ing c la i rns, and take an act ive part in negot iat inga resolution of the conflict.

In addi t ion, the f inal sample contained three sequences in which Bethresponded with markeLl counterclaims or challenges to lrer nrother's precedingutterance, which was unmarked or unclearly marketl as a teasing opener.Whatever Nora's original intention, Beth transformed the interaction into ateasing sequence. lnterestingly, all of these interactions were preceded bycommands from Nora to which Beth refused to comply. These sequencessuggest that Beth was beginning to try out the role of lcaser and that she did so

first in contexts of defiance.There were developments, too, in Beth's use of contextuai-lzatlon cues.

From the very beginning and consistently throughout the sirmples, slre used a

large proportion of possessive constructi()ns and nlarked her utterances appro-pr iate ly wi th emphat ic st ress.

Singsong intonat ion underwent part icular ly dranrat ic change. ln the f i rs t

three samples Beth used s ingsong only once and th is in imi tat ion of hermother 's preceding ut terance. ln Sample lV she produced a tota l of th i r ty-three utterances with singsong intonation, and only five of these occurredwith in teasing sequences. An examinat ion of the remaining twenty-eight in-

stances revealed that thc majority were formulaic expressions such as"yeayeayea," directed at no particular person and occurring in contexts of

sel f -expression or d isplay, as Beth reveled in her own physical agi l i ty . Less

frequently, singsong intonation occurred in contexts of defiance or as Beth

seized possession of some object. Frorn the adult standpoint, Beth's use of

singsong was an instance of overgeneralization. She had not yct narroweddown tlre contexts of appropriate use. Front Beth's standpoint, this explosion

of singsong was a form o[ practice play, pleasurable for its own sake but also

a way of understanding th is type of intonat ion. In Sample V s ingsong was

used in nruch the same way but nruch less frequently.Final ly , in Sarnple Vl Beth used s ingsong intonat ion appropr iate ly In the

course of a teasing sequence.

Example 4

Beth Vl, 28 rnonthsBeth

[N has been urging []to ask Grandma forpaper to write onl[B puts pen under n6-oh/ [Provocative tonelarm, poutsl

IB holds Peggy's pen,pouts, gazes defiantlya r N l

Nttra (ntother)

Wel l , then, I don ' t careWel l , then , don ' t ask her

ILaughs]Haha.I lee .

ILaughsl

Page 16: Language Socialization Across Cultures

2 0 8 P E c c y M l l l e n

[B gazes at Nl

Teasing in a white working-class tomrnunily 2O9

Teasing as verbal play

So far I have described teasing from the perspective of language socialization.Different facets emerge if we look at teasing as a forrn of verbal and socialplay. Following Schwartzman (1978), one might say that teasing is charac-terized by allusion to arguments, fights, and displays of anger. In teasing onemodifies or plays with the pragmatic resources of language. To tease is toconvert a dispute into a mock dispute.

Garvey (1977) has shown that social pretense requires a considerableamount o[ communication. Each player needs to convey lo the other that shehas adopted a playful attitude. This may be accomplished by enacting a role oridentity, that is, by assuming the appropriate voice quality, content of speech,gestures, and so on. The pretend slate may also be indicated by signals such aslaughter or giggling or by referring explicitly to the pretend transformation(e .g . , " l ' l l be t he x " ; " Le t ' s p l ay x " ) .

In teasing sequences the mothers - and the children to a limited extent -

enacted (he functional role of contestant. They issued threats, insults, andchallenges and used various tactics to sustain, escalate, and resolve the dis-pute. They marked thcir utterances with emphatic stress, provocative tones,

and rapid delivery; pouted, stared, and raised chins defiantly. They seized

possession of disputed objects, made fighting gestures, and swatted andlunged at the opponent.

The players communicated the playful nature of these disputes in a variety

of ways. Perhaps most obvious were the accompanying srniles and laughter"Amy and Wendy used these signals in the earliest recorded teasing sequences,that is , at 19 and 25 months, respect ively. Beth gave no such s ignals in theearly sarnples, suggesting that she did not yet understand that teasing was not

to be taken literally. By 27 months, however, she too signaled her apprecia-

tion of teasing as play, and during one iequence her mother explicitly drew

attent ion to th is: "She knows I 'm playin. Look at those eyebal ls . Get out of

here. [-ook. she wants to laugh. I see her wanna laugh. She wants to laugh. I

could see that smile startin to come on."With the exception of asides such as this, the playful transfortnation was

not explicitly referred to in teasing interactions. To propose at the outset"Let's tease" (as one might say "Let's play house") would be to violate the

basic rule of a tease that dictates the deliberate creation of conflict or tension(Heath l98l). There were other ways of distinguishing (playful) teases from(nonplayful) disputes, however. Teasing singsong and teasing gestures weretwo such markers. AIso the mothers encouraged their daughters to aggressagainst them only in play, not, for example, when the nrother was discipliningthe child. A child might be threatened for disobedience, but she would not bethreatened with a punch in the face or challenged to put up her fists. It is as

[B rcaches f<rr rapc (hat/box I

[B gazes a t N l

[B approaches N,extends pen towardN, ch in ra iseddefiantlyl

IB sticks pen underarm, p ivo ts , wa lksaway l

[B faces N again,nods onceernphatically on"Peggy, " gazes a t N l

that Peggy pen/

[B clutches pen ro I hold it/her, nodding, gazes atN l

Don't look a( me like that

I don ' l care .

I got a pen too, hear?

ILaughs l

Wanna see how fast I ge(i t? [Rap id ly ]

G ive i t here ! [Veryrapidly, loudlyl

Well, then you better bequiet. lTo Peggyl I l ikeher when she getsmad .

Pefgy pen/

Peggy pen/

Peggy pen/ISingsongl

Singsong intonat ion marks t l re c l intax of th is sequence. Unt i l th is pointBeth has simply reiterated her challenge that rhe pen ii eeggy,s, implying thatshe (Beth), not her mother, has a special right to use it. The mother, fJr nerpart, has. used a variety of dispute tactics (demanding that Beth cease beingprovocativc, claiming indifference, asserting that she too has a pen). Beththen intensifies the provocation by marking her utterance with singsong into_nation and by thrusting the disputed pen in her mother,s face. Her motherth.eatens to take the pen, Bcth stands her grountt, and ihe nrother reiteratesher threat. The sequence ends on a nrore conciliatory note: Beth re(ains thepen but claims nerely to hold it.

Al though Arny, Wendy, ancl Berh used a var iety of d ispure tact ics intcaslng episodes, it was uncommon for them to fret or whine in resDonse to atease. On the few occasions in which such responses did occur, the mothers,reactrons var ied f rom sympathy to shaming the chi l t l for being a . .s issy. , ,

InI{cath's ( I 98 I ) report of teasing as practiced in a black working-class conrmu-nity, she noted that the only option not open to young boys was to assume therole of a baby or younger child in ,"rponr" to a tea-se.

Page 17: Language Socialization Across Cultures

2 1 0 P E c c y M u . r . n

though the rnother, as teaser, assumed the rule of an older, bullying child andchose the content of her utterances accordingly. Content was thus an impor-tant marker signaling the playful nature of teases.

One of the reasons why social play, such as teasing, requires considerablemetacomnrunicative work is because of the unstable nature of the frame "this

is play" (Bateson 1972). lf one is not careful, a tease can slip into a realdispute. Nora was acknowledging this aspect of teasing when she said thatone should not lease too olten or the child will becorne insulted and stoptrying. On anotlrer occasion she complained that anothcr adult teased un-k indly: " ( l Ie was) teasin her, but st i l l that can go through a chi ld 's mind."

Teasing exists, then, in int inrate re lat ion to real d isput ing. In th is i t issirnilar to "playing the dozens," as practiced in poor urban black commu-ni t ies. Playing the dozens is a type of r i tual insul t , of ten sexual in content , andtightly constructed out of rhymes or puns. According to Abrahams ( 1962), thestrict fornral structurc of playing the dozens is necessary because of the highlyvolatile nature of the issues. This type of verbal play is, in his words, "per-ilously close to real life. " For ihis reason it is practiced first in safe situations,that is, in interaction with other adolescent males. Among adults it can leadbeyond the verbal to physical fights. Teasing too is learned initially in safecontexts, in interaction with caregivers wlro do not retaliate for real. By thetime Amy, Wendy, and Beth ventured beyond the rowhouse stoop to moredangerous encounters, they had had extensive experience of teasing.

'I'his preparation for life in their own cornmunity did not neccssarily equip

thern for intcraclions with outsitlers, however. The close conneciion betweenteasing and real disputing renders it particularly susceptible to misinterpreta-tion by persons who are not familiar with the local norms of communication.Speech genres such as teasing and playing the dozens depend n<lt only on anunderstanding of the general rules of face-to-face interaclion but on specificcul tural knowledgc (Phi l ips 1973). One has to be able to read the subt le cuesthat distinguish a tease fronr a literal dispute. When children from non-nrainstreanr groups, for examplc, b lack migrant chi ldren (Lein 1975) andAn re r i can lnd ians (Ph i l i p s 1973 ) , t ake the i r va r i e t i eso f t eas ing in to thec lass -roonr, tcachcrs nray mistake a tease for a deliberate display of disrespect.

In conclusion I would l ike to address one f inal quest ion, ra ised by Sachs( I 980). She asked what, i f anything, chi ldren learn about language structureor use frorn playful interactions. She concluded that pretend play betweenadult and child provides a good opportunity (though not a necessary one) forlearning to use language to structure the world. Teasing provides a differentkind <rf learning opporlunity.

'l 'easing reveals the close connection between

language and action and sensitiz,es the child to the potential of language forargurnent, self-assertion, and self-defense. Teasing demands that the child bealert to nuances of speech and demeanor. She must be able to think on her

Teasing in o tuhite workittpg-class community 2ll

feet, to deliver the swift retort or counteraction. Teasing also sensitizes the

child to the possibility ofplaying with the rules of language use, ofextracting

a communicative act or event from its ordinary context and treating it non-

literally.'the child whose verbal imagination takes root in teasing gains not

only a surv ival tool but an appreciat ion ofsome of the playful and t ransform-

ing possib i l i t ies of language.

Notes

This work was supporterl in part by National lnstitutes of Mental Ilealth Grant no.

l RolMH344 l 3-01 .I The foltowing format is used in all examples:

'l 'he sample is identified by roman

numeral, indicating the number of the sample' and by the child's age in months

Column I containi a description of nonverbal behaviors, with the actor identified

by first initial. column 2 contains (he child's uttcrancesi column 3, otlrer speakers'

uit.ron.".. Paralinguistic information (e.g , intonation' rate ofdelivery) is given in

brackets irnmediately after the utterance.2 The three vertical dots indicate that material has been omitted from a lengthy

episode.

References

Abrahams, R- D. 1962. Playing the dozcns. Journal of Amcricttrt Forklore 75:2O9-

220.Baleson, G. lgTz. Atheoryof p layandfantasy ' ln Stepstr t ture<oktgyof mttrd 'New

York: Bal lant ine, pP. 177-193Carvey, C. 1971 . Play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press'

Cumo"ir . J . J . lg71- Sociocul tu ia l knowledge in conversat ional inference. ln M.

3aville-Troike, ed., Linguistics arul anrhropology' Washington, D'C': George-

town Universiry Press (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and

L ingu i s t i c s ) , PP - l 9 l - 21 l .Heath, Sl B. 1981. Teasing talk: strategies for language learning. Paper presented at

the Anrerican Anthropological Association Mee(ing, Los Angeles' December'

Lein, L. 1975. "You were ta lk in though, oh yes, you was": b lack American migranl

childrcn: their speech at home and schrtol Anthropoktgy and E<Iucalion Quar'r e r l y 6 : l - l l .

Milfer, ir. 1982. Amy, Wendy, and Beth: leorning language in South Baltintore.

Austin: University of Texas Press.Mi l ler , P. & Garvey, 'C. 1984. Mother-baby ro le p lay: i ts or ig in in socia l support ' ln

I. Bretherton, ed., symbolic play: the representation td xscial understanditrg.New York: Academic Press, pp. l0 l -130.

Miller, P. & Speny, L. L. In press. The socialization of ange r and aggression. Merrill-

Pabner Quarterlv.Phi l ips, S. U- 1973, Teasing, punning, and put t ing people on Paper presenied at the

American Anthropological Association Meeting, New Orleans' November'

Page 18: Language Socialization Across Cultures

2 1 2 P s c c y M r r - r - e n

Sachs, J . 1980. The ro le o f adu l t -ch i ld p lay in language d"u" lop* "n t . In K . H.ftubin, ed., Clti ldren's play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 33-4g.

Schwartzman, IL B. 1978. Transformations: the onthropology of children's ploy.New York: Plenum.

ll. The acquisition ofcommunicative style in JapaneseP n r R r c r n M . C l n N c y

One of the most striking meeting places of language and culture can be f<rundin communicative style. The notion of communicative style has been definedby Barnlund (1975) to include the topics people discuss, their favorite formsof interaction, the depth of involvement sought, the extent to which they relyupon the same channels for conveying information, and the extent to whichthey are tuned to the same level ofmeaning, such as factual versus emotionalcontent. Obviously, communicative style is one aspect of "cornmunicativecompetence," relating, in particular, to the "rules for use" that governspeakers' production and interpretation of language appropriately in con(ext(llymes 1972). Communicative style, which I will define loosely here as theway language is used and understood in a particular cu[(ure, both reflects andreinforces fundamental cultural beliefs about the way people are and thenature of interpersonal communication- As Scollon (1982) has argued, chil-dren's acquisition of culture-specific patterns of communication is an ex-tremely important part of their socialization, since such patterns serve as oneof the primary sources of information on cultural values concerning socialrelationships and interaction. Thus acquisition of communicative style plays apart in the development of children's social cognition, thereby helping toshape their world view (Whorf 1956) or "reality set" (Scollon & Scollonl 9 8 l ) .

Japanese communicative style

It is widely recognized that the communicative style of the Japanese is intu-itive and indirect, especially compared with that of Americans. As Azuma etal. (1980) have said, verbal expression among the Japanese is "context de-pendent, indirect, rich in connotation and evasive in deno(ation." The basis

2t3