Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

прагматика и медиа дискурс / Teun A van Dijk - Communicating Racism

.pdf
Скачиваний:
87
Добавлен:
08.06.2015
Размер:
5.13 Mб
Скачать

272 Communicating Racism

a.Analyzing and Representing the Communicative Context

Obviously, the story and the opinions of the young man (M) are being produced in response to (interview) questions of the interviewer. The processes of understanding discourse in general, and questions in particular, will be dealt with later. At this point, it is relevant, however, that discourse production takes place in a communicative context, in this case within a more or less informal interview with a university student. In order for M to make a relevant contribution to the conversation, he must first have an adequate cognitive representation of this communicative context, namely, in terms of an episodically stored, particular context model. This model represents, for instance, (a) M himself in his actual role of interviewee, (b) the interviewer, (c) the type of communicative situation and context type (interview), (d) the overall goals of the context, and of M and the interviewer in particular, and so on. At the macro level, this context model will monitor the overall production process, as well as the overall structures and strategies of the interview.

At the local level of this, continuously modified, context model, M also represents the previous dialogical turn(s) of the interviewer. These are questions about M's experiences with foreigners, and more specifically a request for a concrete story. By conversational tale, activated from general semantic (social) memory about the structures and strategies of conversation in our culture, M construes an obligation to respond to the question and request to give personal information about foreigners (Labov & Fanshel, 1977). That is, he must produce a coherent next unit ("reponse") of an adjacency pair. In other words, as part of the communicative context model, M sets up an interactional goal dominated by a proposition such as "I must tell about my experiences with foreigners."

Note that this fragment of the context model is partly derived, topdown, from the understanding of the whole communicative context ("I am participating in an interview"), which also allows the inferences of specific propositions as expectations (e.g., "He will ask some questions about my experiences or opinions"), and partly, bottom-up, from the understanding of the previous turns of the interviewer. This understanding is represented in the "text representation" (or text model) in episodic memory. This interpretation, however, relates to what the text refers to or is about, that is, a situation model. In this case, the ínterviewer performs the speech acts of a question and a request, and hence refers to the very communicative context itself, as represented in the context model. In other words, situation model and context model at this point are overlapping. How speech acts are cognitively processed will not be detailed here (see below for understanding discourse in general). Rete-

Interpersonal Communication

273

vant, however, is that the question or request is in accordance with the (rules of) conversation, that is, adequate at this stage of the interview context as represented by M in his context model (they would be less adequate if the interviewer had already asked the same question before and M had already answered it fully).

In this initial stage of the production process, M has derived an interactive and conversatíonal goal from the context model, which must and can be reached only by providing requested information through the performance of a specific speech act, namely, an assertion. So, one of the first steps in the actual production of the next contribution (turns, moves, sentences, propositions at different levels of analysis and, hence, of production) to the conversation is the planning of an appropriate speech act.

Expressing requested information in an assertion is an appropriate next turra in an adjacency pair introduced by questions or requests for information, and also agrees with the overall structures and strategies of interview discourse. Hence, M decides that an assertion as his next turn is an appropriate speech act, given the context model at this particular moment. Once checked for appropriateness, the plan may actually be formed, that is, a (macro)proposition is constructed that represents, ínitially only globally, the (speech) act that will be executed.

However, there is a next constraint to be taken care of by M: The assertion is appropriate only when it can be interpreted as an answer to the earlier question or request of the interviewer. This also mearas that the information to be conveyed by M must more or less satisfy the lack of knowledge expressed by the interviewer. The proposition(s) expressed by the planned assertion of M, therefore, must provide this information, in this case (personal) experiences with "foreigners." Thus, after the analysis and (re)production of the global and local communicative context and the planning of an adequate (speech) act in that context, the semantic content of the speech act becomes relevant.

b. Macro- Semantic Production

Given the interview context and the previous questions (i.e., as represented cognitively by M), M is conversationally entitled to express more than one single proposition. The question and the request for a story permit him to take the floor for the expression of a whole sequence of propositions, by the performance of a sequence of assertions, and, thereby, by telling a story. It follows that M will probably generate not simply a plan for a single speech act, nor retrieve from knowledge a simple proposition. Rather, planning will take place at the macrolevel, both pragmatically and semantically: M represents a (plan for a) macrospeech act, and a macroproposition for its content. Also, both the earlier request to tell a story, and the questions

274 Communicating Racism

about personal experiences, trigger the notion of a story, and, therefore, M must also retrieve a story schema and rules that will provide the overall narrative functions of the (global) speech acts and propositions to be expressed in the next turn.

The introductory talk (not transcribed here) leading to the interview proper had already introduced the concepts of "neighborhood," "foreigner" and "personal experiences." This means, first, that the actual questions of the interviewer were expected: M already strategically projects ahead the likely course of the interview. Second, the contents also, as represented by the text model, of such introductory talk already provide the propositions that may be used to activate and possibly retrieve relevant information from memory, namely, about "foreigners." The local question being asked, therefore, is not only expected as a speech act, but also the information requested may already have been activated by M. It is assumed that the general proposition, "I had experiences with foreigners," strategically (hypothetically) construed during the introduction, and now being confirmed by the previous question, is used as a retrieval cue to search through memory.

c. The Situation Model

Because personal experiences are concerned, this information will primarily be searched for in episodic memory. Situation models are scanned for those that feature both M and some ethnic minority group member(s). More specifically, the previous turns had focused attention on Surinamese, who were judged to have caused trouble for M. Hence, the search is more specific and scans models with (a) Surinamese, and (b) negative events, according to the "biased" strategies of ethnic information processing discussed in the previous chapter.

Priming negativity. At this point, it is highly relevant for our discussion to witness that the question of the interviewer (line 3) is apparently interpreted as a question about negative experiences with foreigners ("never have trouble ..."). The explanation for this fact may be given in tercos of the overall negative evaluation dominating the "foreigner" attitudes of M: "foreigners are (cause) trouble." Also, for people who do not have negative attitudes about ethnic minority groups, such questions may at least trigger negative concepts, which may be explicitly denied by a strategic move: "I have no trouble with... °' That is, negative stereotypes may be known, but not endorsed, in which case a denial is in order. This also happens here in the answer of M, but only for Turks and Moroccans. Another (oran additional) explanation may be sought in the priming of remarkable, interesting, and, therefore, often negative, experiences through the notion of

Interpersonal Communication

275

a story. And a third explanation may depend on the circumstance that interviews—for instance, in the press—about experiences with foreigners have often featured questions or answers implying negative evaluations. Hence, apart from one's own negative attitudes, about foreigners in general and about Surinamese in particular, there may be other cognitive and contextual factors that prime the search for negative situation models. So, the negativity bias in this case derives both from general attitude schemata in social memory, activated during the introduction, and possibly old context models about this kind of interview, as well as from the interpretation and representation of the previous turns in the text and context models.

d.From Situation Model to Semantic Representation

With the information about interesting (narratable) negative experiences with Surinamese as a search cue, M indeed finds a situation model that satisfies these conditions. Search time and effort may be detected in the typical hesitating (task repetition) of M's turn beginning in line 8: "Story, yes ...." The affirmative "yes" may be interpreted as signaling that the search has been successful and that an appropriate situation model has been found. Together with the current context model, it is this situation model that will control the production of the various phases of the (narrative) turn now initiated. The situation model provides the information requested by the interviewer. Given the plan for an overall assertion, functioning as a narrative, as discussed aboye, this speech act may now receive its semantic content. Basically, semantic representations in discourse production provide the semantic representations (propositions) of the sentences that will be sequentially produced. This is the reverse process of what happens in discourse understanding, in which propositions of a represented text model will be used to update a new situation model. Now, the situation model is the basis for "new" information to be expressed and conveyed to the other speaker. We shall see shortly that discourse may also express information from other memory sources, such as attitude schemata. Information about personal experiences, however, will be retrieved predominantly from situation models in episodic memory.

e.Model Search and Narrative Schema

Situation models may be very detailed and complex, however. Also, not all information in them may be equally

276 Communicating Racism

relevant for appropriate assertions (for instance, information the speaker assumes to be already known to the hearer), nor is all information equally "interesting" for storytelling. Hence, a model cannot simply be "read off." A strategic selection must be made, also constrained by search limitations: not all information in the model may (still) be retrievable at this moment. Often, only the higher-level (macro)propositions of the event can be retrieved, which provide information of a summarylike story. This is also the case in our example. M gives very few details about what actually happened. He may not remember more, or more may not be relevant at this moment within the context of the interview. And yet, a story is required, so that for each of the conventional narrative categories (Setting, Complication, Resolution, Evaluation, and so on, see Chapter 2), M must retrieve at least one (macro)proposition. This is exactly what he does, for instance, as follows (we represent propositions here, not the actual expressions of the interview; the propositions between parenthesis are not [fully] explicit in the conversation):

SETTING:

I once walked on Nieuwendijk with my cousin. My

 

cousin is still a free man.

ORIENTATION: Four Surinamese boys came along. They made a funny [provocative?] remark. I said something [provocative?] back.

COMPLICATION: We had a fight. (I was cut with a knife.) RESOLUTION: —

EVALUATION/

 

CONCLUSION:

I do not like these Surinamese guys.

We see that the major narrative categories are filled with propositions retrieved from the situation model. As we have witnessed earlier (Chapter 2), the Resolution category is missing. There is no (re)solution to the fight event, except maybe implicitly that he and his cousin lost (he was cut with a knife, and there were four of them and he and his cousin only two). There is no explicit Evaluation either, except perhaps in the subtle stylistic undertone of words such as funny remark and the sociolectally specific word used for "entering a fight or a brawl" in Dutch (matten). There is, however, a post hoc, evaluative Conclusion, which is the semantic, narrative, conversational, and interactive upshot of M's story: I do not like these (young) Surinamese guys.

At that point, M can return to one of his main goals in the interview: to express negative opinions about foreigners or Blacks. Indeed, the story was told as an appropriate answer to the question of the interviewer, but at the same time, it has the important interactional and persuasive function of providing a "good example" and, hence, a "good

Interpersonal Communication

277

reason" for the opinion that "Surinamese are bad." We return to these persuasive strategies below, but it should be borne in mind that the selection of information from situation models, as well as their narrative constraints, already strategically prepare these persuasive moves in talk. Indeed, M will not tell any odd story, and certainly not a story that would represent Surinamese in a good perspective, or M in a bad perspective. M explicitly refers to, and deictically points to a scar that results from the fight. This makes him and his story both credible and narratively interesting, and, therefore, also, his negative opinion more convincing.

We see that the search for the situation model, as well as the search within the model, is very much constrained (and assisted) by a number of semantic, narrative, and persuasive goals or functions. Thus, when planning a story, the superstructure category of the Setting requires the search for time, place, participants, and circumstances. This is precisely what M does as we may see from his initial sentence (line 8): he mentions himself, somebody else, the circumstance (action engaged in), and the location. At this point, there is an interesting and apparently irrelevant remark. He mentions the fact that his cousin is "still a free man" (Dutch: nog een vrijejongen), that is, not yet married. Cognitively, this simply suggests that the model schema node featuring his cousin triggers the person schema he has about this cousin. Apparently, the fact that this cousin is unmarried is a high-level proposition in the schema (M himself is married), and, therefore, for M a relevant identification of the cousin. Apart from this identification, there does not seem to be much relevance for the story or for the interview(er), unless the marital status of his cousin is mentioned as an implicit explanation of why they were walking on that street in the first place: No time of day is mentioned, but the fact that a knife fight was taking place suggests that it occurred during the evening or night (this narrow shopping street is very crowded during the daytime), which again may be more probable when the cousin is not home with his wife. Also, being on sick leave and, hence, being at home in the daytime may make him more aware of his being married. Similar processes take place for the semantic insertions into the other narrative categories. The Orientation is supplied with the direct circumstances and conditions that lead to the Complicating events, and so the Surinamese, and the conflicting acts, are mentioned. The search for the very relevant number of Surinamese is signaled in the story by the usual expression, "let's see", which also signals that the speaker still remembers exactly (he is counting them "in memory," that is, from the situation model), which is a criterion of credibility and, hence, a persuasive move of narrative credibility enhancement.

The "core" of the story is minimal. A fight and a knife cut are suffi-

278 Communicating Racism

cient to express the relevant Complication. The relevance of those events is heightened by the fact that M does not simply say "I was cut with a knife," but directly points to the present result of the cut. The story expresses virtually only the highest relevant macropropositions of the situation model. It is a ministory, which, with its summarizing nature and terseness, may be interpreted as a fast but effective preparation for the evaluative conclusion. This evaluation may as such also be stored in the situation model: M will most certainly have represented the Surinamese, who he claims fought with him, in an overall negative modifier under the "They" participant node in the situation model. The use of a Conclusion marker "So" (Dutch: dus), repeated in isolated position several times in his talk, marks the narrative conclusion, but may also signal the evaluative inference about Surinamese from the situation model.

We have now briefly and still informally sketched how the (macro) pragmatic, semantic, and narrative structures of M's conversational story fragment are being produced cognitively. Overall, this storytelling appears to be controlled by the current context model, the (fragmentary and provisional) text model of the previous turns of the conversation, and especially the situation model of a (negative) personal experience. These models tell the cognitive process why, what, when, and how information must be provided by M in the interview. We also saw that many of the aspects of the production process already prepare the strategic dimension of the story for persuasive purposes.

f.The Role of Ethnic Prejudice Schemata

M does not merely tell about personal experiences. Before and after the story that expresses a relevant situation model, he also formulates general opinions about foreigners. Indeed, the story provides "proof" supporting his earlier evaluative belief that "Surinamese cause trouble." The expressions in the first few turns (lines 1-5) suggest that M has generalized models about ethnic encounters. At first, these do not appear to be very specific (you see them, you greet them). This lack of detail and the reference to trivialities may be strategic, though, and an example of the we!!-known move of avoidance. Then, the encounters become specific, namely, in the sense that they may mean "trouble" or not, a negativity search cue we have discussed aboye. M makes a distinction, however, between immigrant workers, on one hand, and Surinamese, on the other. It appears as if, at this poínt, not only generalized models (based on actually experienced models) are used, but also abstract attitude schemata about specific eth-

Interpersonal Communication

279

nic groups among the "foreigners" These schemata have already been activated in the interview introduction. At this point in talk, it becomes relevant to provide information, and the first overall property activated is whether or not the foreign group causes trouble. This partially confirms the assumptions about the structure of prejudiced ethnic attitude schemata formulated in the previous.chapter.

This context-bound activation of prejudiced opinions may again be explained in several ways, as we did for the use of negative models aboye. First, the attitude (proto)schema for foreigners in general is dominated by overall negative evaluation criteria ("Do they cause trouble?"). Second, the interview context may trigger those properties (having trouble) that are particularly relevant to support other general opinions orto tell a story that illustrates these opinions. Third, M may have a personal relevance structure in his generalized models about foreigners (e.g., whether he has had several fights with them; for him, apparently, having fights is a major evaluation criterion of persons or groups).

This activation of the general prejudices about foreigners and Surinamese may also interact with the search for relevant models of personal experiences. Indeed, the fact that under the control of a negativity strategy, M comes up with a story about a violent fight and the use of a knife, both illustrates and confirms the prejudiced propositions that "Blacks are violent" and that "Blacks carry knives." In other words, retrieved models and, hence, stories about ethnic minority groups are easier to find when they feature instantiations of stereotypical prejudices. This is one of the strategic ways that ethnic prejudices control social information processing and communication about minorities. Much experimental work has found similar results about the role of ethnic stereotypes in memory, such as better recall of negative acts of out-group members (see the previous chapter for references).

Evaluation

After his story, M elaborates on the general evaluation that is both illustrated by and inferred from the story. The negative evaluation about "those guys" is denied for Surinamese as a whole. This may be the usual apparent denial move we discussed in Chapter 2, which is aimed at managing negative inferences by the hearer about the speaker. A denial of generalization in these contexts usually implies a denial of being prejudiced. In many cases, this move is further supported by evidence, such as claims about helping Jews in World War II, or having a Black friend. In this case, the support is more specific and more exceptional: His mother has a Surinamese husband (later called a friend). The rest of the interview suggests that his purported lack of

280 Communicating Racism

general prejudice against Surinamese is rather doubtful. Indeed, it is an expedient cognitive strategy for people to think that they are not prejudiced because they have a Black family member or friend, because otherwise some forro of incoherence may result in the cognitive processing of social information: If for all X it would be true that Ido not like X, this would also hold for the instantiations of X, namely, A, whom I like. Hence, one of the strategies is to deny that I have a general dislike of foreigners or Blacks. M further supports his claim by specifying the subgroup ("those young ones") he doesn't like, and adds his stereotypical evaluation of that subgroup, namely, their bragging and aggressive behavior. That stereotype, as we have seen aboye, is in perfect agreement with the particular opinion implied by his model of the fight story, which simply confirms the stereotype of the subgroup (see Crocker, Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Taylor, 1981; for this strategy of subtyping in changing attitude schemata). In our case, subgrouping in talk may express cognitive subtyping in prejudice, but also may be a move of avoiding negative self-presentation.

After a further question from the interviewer, M continues his negative opinions by expressing the highly negative attitude proposition that "all" may leave. The choice of the verb ("fuck off') signals the strength of the opinion. Again, however, this strong statement is somewhat mitigated by the standard expression that the good ones must suffer for the bad ones, which at least implies that there are good ones among them. The negative stereotype is further supported by a generalized opinion derived from his experiences. Of course, this might in principle be true in the sense that M did have only negative experiences, but it is more likely that his generalization is based on selective recall of only a few negative experiences, or that it is a generalized opinion derived from the general ethnic attitude. In other words, in social information processing about ethnic groups, people do not simply provide evidence based on models, but construct evidence by ínstantíating the general attitude: It is the general negative stereotype that tells me that I must have had only negative experiences. We find that opinions about ethnic groups are processed in a circular way: One negative experience is generalized to a general attitude opinion, and the general opinion conversely warrants the inference that there must have been examples of experiences (models) for which the general opinion must be true.

In the last passage (line 22-27), M repeats that he has no problems with other foreigners, and repeats as well his negative attitude against Surinamese. Yet, this time, he does not seem to single out young Surinamese only. Rather, he generally claims that Surinamese are welfare cheats, again based on an example, which seems to be derived from personal experiences (the friend of his mother) although he does not specify

Interpersonal Communication

281

this example in detail. The passage also illustrates the complex interplay between concrete model opinions and general prejudices: From the generic or plural, M shifts to singular personal pronouns and deictics ("he", "in [this] neighborhood").

In this example, we also witness how people represent ethnic encounters or experiences in memory. A fight is not merely represented as a fight, but as a fight with members of a specific group. This means that the properties of such a group, for instance, its aggressiveness, may be assigned to their concrete members, as represented in the model. The Surinamese he fought with were "running to type," and illustrate and prove at the same time that the stereotype is a truthful generalization. The same happens with his purported experiences with Surinamese cheating on welfare.

From Semantic Representations to

Surface Formulation

We shall not discuss in detail the complex processes of syntactic and lexical formulation for this example. Once semantic representations have been construed from selected propositions of the situation model, these must be linearly ordered and coherently connected. In our case, the description of the fight follows a more or less natural (conditional, causal) order: setting and first events are told first, and subsequent events are told afterwards. The coherence relationships also derive from the conditional and temporal links between the events, as well as from the narrative perspective ("then four Surinamese boys were coming"). Finally, surface cohesion markers may be used to signal coherence, for instance, referential identity ("we", "they"), causality ("that's why;' and "that's how"), and functional relationships such as conclusions ("So"). Some surface features directly signal underlying cognitive processing, such as the repeated "a story," and the "search signal" "let's see."

Finally, prejudice strength, possible affect generated during storytelling, and personal properties of the speaker will determine the lexicalization of the concept "fight" as a sociolectal variant, and of the concept "to leave" as the negative colloquial term to fuck off. Some of these surface formulations are apparently controlled by underlying cognitive structures and strategies, whereas others do not have this "expressive" function, but rather serve a communicative-persuasive function: They enhance truth claims, credibility, seriousness, or interestingness of the events or experiences told about. We return to these persuasive discourse strategies below.