Positioning: assigning and adopting identity roles

The kind of identity that emerges in interaction is greatly dependent on the identity positions assigned to or adopted by the speakers and therefore analyzing the identity positions is a key aspect of this study. In their article Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 586) define the concept of identity quite loosely – but deliberately so – as follows: “Identity is the social positioning of self and other.” According to Ribeiro (2006: 49), positioning is a notion that has been used in connection with analyzing the “contextualization processes in everyday talk (or texts)” for example in sociology and psychology. In the study of positioning one is interested in the

“strategic interactional moves” that are made by the conversation participants (Ribeiro, 2006:

49-50). Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 592) expand on the idea of social positioning in the second principle of the framework, which they call the positionality principle. It is defined as follows:

“Identities encompass (a) macro-level demographic categories; (b) local, ethnographically specific cultural positions; and (c) temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles” (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 592).

In relation to the positionality principle Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 591-592) argue that there are three levels of identity positions, which together contribute to the emerging identity. The levels include the socially large-scale identity categories (i.e. “macro-level demographic categories”) such as categories related to age, social class or gender. To the contrary, the more locally available identity categories, i.e. “local, ethnographically specific cultural positions”

(Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 591-592) involve categories that are probably not available prior to analysis but instead can be detected only with the help of an ethnographic analysis. Category in a general sense, according to Silverman (2011: 258), can be understood as referring to a type of identity, such as ‘manager’, ‘employee’ or ‘philanthropist’. Categories can be organized into collections (e.g. ‘mother’, ‘baby’ and ‘father’ belong to ‘family’ collection of categories or ‘manager’, ‘employee’ and ‘trainee’ belonging to ‘work’ collection) and, therefore, the use of categories is defining because choosing one category from a collection of categories means that other categories in that collection cannot be used to identify a person (Silverman, 2011: 258). To continue with the ‘family’ category example, if one is to be categorized as ‘mother’ it results in other categories (such as ‘baby’, ‘father’) of ‘family’

collection becoming excluded. In other words, the defining nature of a category is actually twofold. First, the category used bears a specific type of meaning, the kind that dictionaries provide, such as the dictionary definitions for the categories ‘leader’ and ‘manager’ discussed in the section two. Second, a choice of using a certain category (such as ‘leader’) excludes the use of other categories (such as ‘employee’ or ‘trainee’) within a category collection (‘work’).

In comparison to the aforementioned groupings of identity categories, probably the most briefly occupied categories are the interactional positions, in specific the “temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles” (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 591-592). The temporary roles (such as a critic or a listener) and orientations taken on during the unfolding of a discourse contribute to the emergence of identity at a very basic level (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 591). Similar to larger sociological and ethnographic identity categories, the temporary roles are instrumental in the development of “subjectivity and intersubjectivity in discourse”

(Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 591). Regardless of their temporary nature, these roles are

participants’ responses to the arbitrariness of the flow of discourse. The occupation of different temporary roles in conversation may contribute to the build-up of ideological associations with large-scale and local identity categories, and the ideological associations then may have an effect on the actions taken in a conversation (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005:

591). As a result, conversation participants can adopt different identity positions such as a temporary role of an evaluator or a more permanent role related to one’s profession by employing different linguistic resources.

Also Zimmerman (2008) deals with the idea that speakers adopt roles of varying degrees of temporality within a talk-in-interaction. In a similar way that Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 591-592) understand the temporary roles and orientations as interactional positions adopted and abandoned by the participants during an interaction, Zimmerman (2008: 90, 92) explains that the sequentiality of interaction causes the interaction participants to adopt different types of discourse identities such as questioner – answerer or storyteller – story listener. In other words, the discourse identities (Zimmerman, 2008: 90) are a manifestation of the interaction participants’ engagement in the discourse and their adherence to the progression of the discourse as well as to the actions accomplished during it. By initiating an action, such as asking a question, the initiating party simultaneously adopts the discourse identity of a questioner and assigns the reciprocal discourse identity of an answerer to the addressee (Zimmerman, 2008: 90). In order to avoid confusion, following Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005:

591) positionality principle, the term temporary role will be used when referring to the roles that are adopted/assigned temporarily in reaction to the unfolding of the conversation.

Zimmerman (2008: 90, 94-95) also introduces the concept of situated identities, which arise from the speakers’ orientation toward the interactive event and the activities and agendas relative to it. The situated identities differ from discourse identities in that the latter may change from turn to turn whereas the former tend to remain unchanged during a specific interactive event. However, these two operate together in interaction as the “oriented-to situated identities” provide the context, which guides the speakers in employing relevant discourse identities in order to accomplish a specific activity. (Zimmerman, 2008: 90-95). For example, in a broadcast interview the situated identities would be interviewer – interviewee

and/or host – guest and discourse identities could be for example questioner – answerer, story teller – story listener or introducer – introduced.

In terms of this study the aforementioned levels of identity categories and their relative (im)permanence is a relevant aspect to bear in mind. I assume that a leader identity can be manifested on any of the levels identified in the positionality principle. As the focus of this study is on an interview that takes place at a certain time and place I presume that the

“temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles” will be most apparent in the data. Some of the “macro-level demographic categories” (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 592) such as identity categories related to age, occupation or gender, are clearly visible and thus easier to detect than other less visible ones. The “local, ethnographically specific cultural positions” (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 592) bear less relevance for my analysis. The data consists of a broadcast interview, which is a specific type of activity within the media genre.

In more specific, broadcast interview is public discourse with its own particular cultural characteristics. However, the focus of the present study is on the public interaction instead of the cultural characteristics of the media genre and therefore the analysis of the discursively emerging identity positions is appropriate.