Younghogan’s Weblog

Second Language Acquisition Final Paper Identity and Meaning-Making in Teenagers’ Second Life Activity 英文三 971002033 王炳璿 Hogan Introduction The record of on-line chat is a suitable material to learn how teenage students associate themselves with the peer group. I am most interested in the interaction between them, the students, since I have the background of sociology learning. On this respect, I think I will take some of the idea from behaviorism, along with the knowledge we learn from ecological aspect. The environment is highly emphasized, rather than the Chomskian perspective of innate ability of language learning. I look from the point of view of people’s interaction, and thus concluding from that, the construction of meaning. Like the question I put forth on the presentation of chapter 2, “what is language?” Well, lots of the students in class agreed that language is mainly something about communication and meaning making. It is all about transporting meaning from one person to another (speaker and listener). Meaning appears when the language is being used by people, not generating all by itself. A quick example from our Theater Performance this semester will explain for me. (One thing I just found that in role-play, meaning is highly fluent, unfixed, which I assume it comes from the transitional state of people back and forth from reality to fiction.) I played the character Tom in a play. TOM: His position is that of a shipping clerk, mother. AMANDA: A job you will have if you have more get-up! The “get-up” here originally means the ambitious and aggressive intention for a working man, with which a man earns himself a better job with better payment. The meaning remains as the condition stays the same. But after I had my physical collapse, the pun was created. The circumstance (with the people in it) now was that I, unable to neither stand nor walk, sat in the wheelchair, talking to my mother, Amanda. Now read the text again and see how it goes differently. The “get-up” changes from an attitude to the physical condition that I wasn’t able to do. From this example which the actors in the play found hilarious, I’m trying to say that the meaning is never fixed. Instead, it comes along with the environment and the people in it. (Which according to van Lier, this is called “the affordance”.) Likewise, in the on-line chat in Second Life, the students underwent a similar process of entering the world of fiction, where they took up different roles. But in the meantime, they didn’t seclude themselves completely from the reality. They brought some pieces of real life into role-play, the virtual world of Second Life. Therefore, they not only played a role, but also kept their original identities in reality and it became more interesting when they were in fact having a dual self participating in the chatting activity. Abstract The paper contains two main theses. The first one is the process of finding identity and the second one is the process of meaning-making. Both are done by the use of language. Language here is a powerful tool. It is said to be fluxional. Though grammar may appear important, the most stunning thing I realized over the past two months is that there is no such thing that is so stiff in the world of language, not the use, the meaning, or the pronunciation. What’s more, it changes when we use it and because of that, it facilitates our need to communicate with this special characteristic. Even, there are so much variations and possibilities in it, with which we can create language play. This of course happens most often in activities, role playing for example. The paper makes use of the students’ on-line chat in Second Life, through a series of small games. Their situation is of all the most interesting, being transitional between the two worlds of reality and virtual; two sets of linguistic background, one in Chinese, one in English. I will discuss more and deeper into these two aspects. In the first part of identity, I put forth the idea of joking relation, which is very useful in looking at the students’ interactions and behaviors. Method Joking relation and relation of avoidance First I am going to explain the idea of “joking relation” and the oppositional idea of “relation of avoidance”, which I learned this semester in Spencer’s Renaissance Drama. (David Graeber, Manners, Deference, and Private Property, 696-703) Relation of avoidance is something that comes from the system of hierarchy. It is mainly constructed by one’s property and is discreetly categorized. Take the relation between the noble and peasant for example; the noble owns wealth and this furthermore enhance their higher status, compared to the peasant, who owns less in fortune. The contrary idea is the “joking relation”, which simply means the opposite. It doesn’t necessarily have something to do with “cracking a joke”, but much more to do with the violation of normal regulation. The relationships of joking are rather loose and arbitrary, compared to that of avoidance. In tribes, people don’t vary much in terms of property, and thus they’re not stiffly categorized into different hierarchy. The reason why I pick this idea as one of my major method to explain the students’ on-line chat is obvious-they’re in joking relation. Students, or as we say peers, are on the same level. That is, they are not differentiated from category to category. The relation between them is easy, relaxing, instead of tense, highly classified. So of course cracking a joke is in the realm of joking relation because it violates the common usage of language and creates new meanings in it. Identity Building identity is another main theme in this paper. A little psychological knowledge, according to Erikson (1959), he pointed out in a chart that there are 8 stages, with each has its own crisis, throughout the life-long process of “self-synthesis”, in which the main crisis during the stage of teenage is finding one’s own identity. At this age, teenagers tend to look for a group they can identify with and from which they solidify their identity. They interaction is important because how he or she plays a part in it determines how others judge him or her and hence influencing the identification. Meaning-making The meaning-making is the third part of my perspective to look into their chat. This is also the part where I am going to take some of the approaches from representation. But unlike the Peircean theory, I emphasize more on the interpretation of sentences, how students encode and decode. Based on the essay After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation by George Steiner (1998), in which he viewed translation from the perspective of language study, I learned that every speaker and listener (sender-receiver model) is a translator who decodes the information. It involves the restructuring that occurs in information-processing (McLaughlin, 1987). But note that a translation is not merely imitating but independent as he or she is. Hence the process of representation is a lot more complex than I thought. At least I know one thing, “grammar is not prerequisite of communication, rather it is a byproduct of communication.”(Hopper, 1998) The emphasis on correctness is not so important here but how students translate the information. Discussion Identity in joking relation and relation of avoidance The topic of “self” and the development involved in language learning/using appeal me, too. “Self exists objectively from the outset by virtue of its embodiment” (Butterworth, 1999). Self is constantly being constructed, not fixed. A person forms the idea of self, or even, his or her identity among people all the time. It is a flowing movement of changing and adjusting to the interaction with people. Now I am hyper-sensitive to this word, “interaction” because that’s what it is all about, interacting with others, having conversation. From joking relation and relation of avoidance, I discuss the identity. I selected some of the sentences to form my idea, such as where Rampton (2002) points out that “teenagers spend enormous effort in experimenting with and establishing language rituals that create and solidify their identities and sense of self.” It’s clear that I am going to use the conversation, i.e. the on-line chat, between the students, especially Stella’s, since I set out with social respect. What’s more, the main theme, ecological linguistic, is more of a study about relation between people and the environment, altogether in a social world. And the reason why I bold-mark the word “ritual” is because this is actually a fairly crucial idea. In The Uses of Goods by Mary Douglas (43), she manifested the idea of ritual in the paragraph of fixing public meaning. Ritual, in essence, is like a ceremony, suggesting the action where one thing moves from one status to another in a public sense. Just like graduation ceremony as one type of ritual, students move from “undergraduates” to “graduates”. It shows the change of identities. Also, being public is important, too. It requires more than two people to acknowledge the change. We are going to see a perfect example here. At [03:44], Stella tried to respond to what Jess said at [03:43], “stella looks stupid but smart indeed”. She said, “look smart and indeed smart” in return, exclaiming that her achievement of solving the riddle was a well-done performance (The P1 in types of language play.)(Cook, 2000) that made her noticeable. She wanted everyone to know that actually she’s not stupid. This the time when her words became a kind of ritual, making known by all the others her change of status, or people’s image of her. Apparently, Stella didn’t want to be labeled “stupid” in the peer group. Therefore, by this chance she proved that by her performance and by using her own language, which is grammatical parallel to the one Jess said, she could move from the original “Stulla” to a new person who is not stupid. The first example gave us a glance at how Stella built her identity among her peers during the conversation. Speaking of it, chat record is in fact a good material because it is daily and casual, enough to show us the habits of them. They have the habit of chatting on-line in such platform as MSN. I believe the chatting on Second Life is not so different. As a consequence, their relation in reality was brought to the virtual world. By that I was saying that although they took up roles, they still shoed the actual self in this activity. Using the idea of joking relation, the line is not discreetly separated. Just the opposite, we have to think of the world outside the Internet so as to look at the text with more contemplation. [03:31] Stella Summerwind: Isabella eats shit ^^ [04:09] Stella Summerwind: claidy gp die! One reason I say this is because sometimes Stella addressed to the same person but she called her with her real name, instead of the user name they establish. In the text above, she was talking to the same person, Isabella, whose real name in real life was Claidy. The boundary was being broken down. This jumping from two identities is the flowing of meaning, unfixed identity of two worlds, again the idea of joking relation. Another thing about joking relation is that it often involves the action of attack. Joking attack, like young animals playing together, which in the eyes of ours it seems like fighting, is the action of retaining the joking relation. I interpret some of the dialogues as the so-called joking attack. (a) [04:14] Nina Arnica: stulla!!! [04:14] Stella Summerwind: what’s wrong with u Nina! (b) [03:31] Stella Summerwind: Isabella eats shit ^^ (c) [04:09] Stella Summerwind: claidy gp die! The above seemingly rude words were actually the evidence of joking attack. This is way how joking relation is maintained. Like I said, if two people keep a distance, as if a line is drawn between them, then they’re in the relation of avoidance. Literally, they may not touch each other or, even, speak to the other. In the joking relation, however, the participants are free and open. They may behave relatively unregulated. And the behaviors include argument, questioning, criticism, ambiguities, and the multiplicity of meaning, such as puns and jokes. Based on P2 in language play, use in congregation and/or intimate interaction, Stella answered the mocking from Nina by talking back. This can be seen more like the casual interaction between good friends instead of admonishment. “What’s wrong with you!” can be interpreted in a harsh way. But still, this can suggest the intimacy, seeing that only real, nice friends can call each other names without harming the harmony. By doing so, she can actually pull both of them closer, which is good when there was competition going on and they were in the same team. The joking relation was to affirm the intimacy. By speaking dirty language to the person at the opposite team, also who had just mistakenly shot her to death, Stella here suggested the antagonism against Isabella, P3 in language play. But after all, they’re still friends in reality so she didn’t want to put the words too harsh. Therefore, she added the expressional mark “^^” to show that she was not actually angry and to soften the voice of that sentence which can be categorized as a non-verbal cues. In the world of Internet, we are not able to see or hear when only the sentences can be seen. The basic tools for communication such as expressions, gestures, and even the voices or tones are deprived. When only words are left on the screen to be seen, lots of information is lost in this process. Thus, some of the adjustment is being invented. Emoticons are most commonly seen and popular for it is easy to use and grasp. The simply expressional marks are like smiling eyes “^^” or the smiling face “” (made up by a colon plus a right bracket). These are to facilitate our needs to communicate when lack of the above-mentioned mechanism. In the last example she showed antagonism because Isabella was the rival in the other team when she was, at the same time, the person who killed Stella at the beginning. But this is much harsher than “Isabella eats shit ^^”. Therefore I categorized it as the inversion of social order as to tell someone to die (P5). Of course, this is also “alternative reality” so Stella was being tough to the character in the game though here she was calling the actual name in the reality, which further intensifies the words. The joking relation here is somewhat different to Nina and to Isabella. I judge it to be that when joking-attacking Nina, it was a sign of membership. But to Isabella, she attacked her in that they were enemies. Still, it doesn’t mean that they are against each other in reality. So to pull the action of attack back a little bit, she applied the emoticon. This, however, is on the term of relation of avoidance. Because she needed to uphold the friendship in reality in order to differ from it, Stella took two different approaches, one to Isabella, one to Claidy. Meaning-making process Again and again the Van Lier reminds us in his book that, from the ecological perspective, language is not merely the mixture of grammar, sentences, but something alive with people using it, making meaning of it. And because of that, the language use differs from person to person, each having characteristic his or her own and thus creating the presence of self. (108) On page 109, it is even more firmly asserted, “language is not a ‘fixed code’”. On page 110, the author gives us several aspects of signs, among which I will focus more on the artifacts, the human-made ones. These happen when in certain circumstances (on-line chat) words come to their new meanings, uses. People are the machines of making meanings whereas the language people use is more like a play ground for all the things to make happen. On page 55(van Lier), as the opening, “language is embedded in the physical and social world, and is part of other meaning-making systems;” I agree with that. On the other hand, I hold more doubt on Chomsky’s theory about innate ability to acquire a language. The first example he gives us on page 56, the “THNAK you VEry MUCH!” is an evident that we do learn from the environment, from people around; and we use the language, the phrases for example, to interact and communicate. “This phrase becomes a tool, an instrument to get attention and to cause merriment,” I immediately think of that in the midterm paper, I point out that Stella did try a lot to achieve this, to gain attention or, most of all, to cause merriment. Stella, from my daily observation, is a girl who tries very hard to be cute. But that doesn’t mean she’s pretentious, but just the opposite. She’s cute because she’s real to herself and shows real feelings. She might not be as skillful as Matt in English, but she has her own ways of using language and often brings us laughter! In the conversation, Stella used a lot of words to show her excitement or enjoyment such as “ya” which she uses in real life as well. Plus, she’s not coy when it comes to jokes, even when those jokes are coming toward her. For example at [03:44] she said “look smart and indeed smart” to face a joke on her. This shows that she can even turn it into her own advantage by altering the word a little bit. This usage in the form of grammatical parallel tells us that Stella can be really smart! On page 67, however, I do find something that is again related to my report. As it says, “Indices…can be used analytically as indicators of the success or failure of a person’s linguistic sign work…” It is a matter of “the open flow between iconic and symbolic systems”, which I think it would play a major part in conversation. But “ya” doesn’t play a crucial role in interaction. Another type of language play that appears the most is probably the non-verbal cues, i.e. emotional symbols or icons for expressions. However, these symbols she used are somewhat different, especially that at [03:53] =皿= 凹. This sign signifies a rock gesture. Since it’s composed by Chinese character, non-native speaker would not be able to comprehend it. Then again, this is a powerful and quick way to express one’s feeling about the situation or the event. Others are like “^^” which is a much simpler one suggesting smiling eyes. Other players might use “” or “lol” which are more commonly seen in English speaking countries. I saw these in comments on Youtube or other websites a lot. They are “Types of interaction that can be particularly revealing are stories, jokes, and conversations…vehicles for indexing…”(67), along with three-part set of macrofunctions on page74, how language functions or rather, how speakers use it is important as well, especially when jokes and storytelling take up a big portion in their chat. Above all, the interpersonal function suits the most for its relations with identities and relationships, which is a big issue in discussing their chat. Echoing with the earlier paragraph, teenagers would try to create solidarity or to find their identities amid their peers. In the class we talked about dirty language, this can also be seen in the dialogue between Stella and Nina. This interaction may also suggest their action of maintaining a relationship. As what I nailed down, parodies contain semantic instability and multiplicity of meaning, such as puns and jokes. This part I focus on how Stella used language play, how she played with jokes. Switching codes, from one language to another, can be semantic instability (Amber wants to da deer.). This brings me back to Cook’s types of language play, in which S1 stands for the intermediate meaning, foreign language as one example. And jokes may provide meaning-drifting. Non-verbal cues like emoticon. (=皿= 凹) Therefore, the affordance we talked today becomes available. On page 92, figure 4.2 shows us the correlation of perception, interpretation, and action, given the environment of affordance. From the top of the page, “it is action potential, and it emerges as we interact with the physical and social world” to the bottom of the same page, “affordances arise out of participation and use, and learning opportunities arise as a consequence of participation and use.” During the on-line chat, students were playing and participating in the game. And because of this participation of the students, the affordance thus existed. The environment provides the opportunities for them to use English but also Chinese at some certain occasion (Da jia); and they were to tell jokes. As it says on page 101, “learners… can orient to those cues and act upon them appropriately in interactions.” In conversation, students, i.e. the participants, can modify their language use according to the others, and to the affordance. Example is around [03:49], Stella noticed that in this game, they used “da jia” instead of “fight”, so she altered her word choice and at [03:52] she screamed “打架!打架!打架!” Result Reference