This chapter investigates how ethological and nationality identities are
constructed in the call-in content. Instead of searching for the explanation leading to
adequation, a concept indicating two entities are similar, as the starting point, I show that, first, the two or three groups in the call-in calls are positioned in a morally and politically equivalent category by adopting linguistic devices such as identity labels, deixis, and lexicons to show the callers’ stances to the entities. In addition, adequation is argued to be a tactic which can be used from an outside position to impose
similarities on others (Hodges, 2004). From the interactionists’ viewpoints, identity arises in interaction: “for a person to ‘have an identity’ is to be cast into a category with associated characteristics or features” (Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998). “Casting into a category” can be realized through stance-taking (Johnstone, 2007). As a result, the
allusions to and performances of the ethnological, nationality and political identities are
perceived to be scaffolded by taking stance moves, positioning entities in a morally equivalent category. In the collected data, the callers tend to position themselves as in-group members of Taiwanren. Second, the same devices can also achieve distinction to aggrandize the discrepancy between members from different groups. Third, the use of other linguistic strategies is analyzed to emphasize the differentiations of the entities’ identity relations, including semantic opposites, entailment, presupposition, negative markers, contrastive markers, rhetorical questions, codeswitching, negative
verbs and bei-constructions. The tactic of distinction can be easily found in the call-ins (about 84%), among which the linguistic device, deixis is often used (about 64.5%) to
distinguish different groups. Especially, the phenomenon that adequation together with distinction are found in the same call-in shows that they are interrelated with, rather than excluded from, each other. Fourth, another tactic of the relationality principle, authentication, is adopted to assert the callers’ realness as Taiwanren rather than citizens of China or Americans when expressing their opinions related to nationality identities.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary and Implications
The concepts of stancetaking and identity recently have been analyzed in the sociolinguistic field, especially in terms of phonological variation. However, the discussion of multiple linguistic variations except phonology in a study was rare and a high viewer rating program was influential on the individuals and representative enough to be a study target (Li 2008). Thus the study presented the relationship among linguistic devices, stancetaking and identity in the call-in show, “Da Hwa News”, using Bucholtz and Hall’s principles for analyzing identity (2004, 2005).
The three main political issues before the approaching of the presidential election, when more exaggerated discrepancy between in-group and out-group tended to be observed were the examination of Ma’s and Hsieh’s executive ability, the aftermath of the disputable activity of the pan-blue legislators, and the nationality orientation between Mainland China and Taiwan. A total of 22 sections, from March 5 to March 19, 2008, were selected and analyzed. Following tactics of intersubjectivity, the tactics of adequation, distinction and authentication were conducted and Social Identity Theory was brought into effect. In the following, the research questions will be answered respectively.
Question 1:
In terms of the tactic of identity work, adequation, how do the speakers position themselves or others?
In terms of the tactic of identity work, adequation, the speakers tended to index their orientations to the propositions of discourse, and to social identity categories inclusive of young people and Taiwanren through the adoption of linguistic features such as deixis and identity labels, and discourse devices.
Question 2:
In terms of the tactic of identity work, distinction, how do the speakers distinguish themselves from others? Do the linguistic devices differ from those adopted in achieving adequation? Are the pairs of adequation and distinction intertwined with or excluded from each other?
In terms of the tactic of identity work, distinction, speakers exaggerated the discrepancy of the evaluations toward the propositions or entities with negative verbs, bei-constructions, and discourse devices such as semantic opposites, entailments &
presuppositions, negative markers, contrastive markers, rhetorical questions, and
codeswitching apart from deixis and identities. The tactic of distinction was easily found in the call-in contents (about 84%), among which the linguistic device, deixis was often used (about 64.5%) to distinguish different groups. In addition, the intertwined relation between the tactic of adequation and distinction in this empirical study of monolingual contexts suggested the speaker’s multiple social identities.
Question 3:
In terms of the tactic of identity work, authentication, how do the speakers claim their realness as Taiwanren?
In terms of the tactic of identity work, authentication, the adoption of the linguistic
devices such as quotations, rhetorical questions, doggerels and metaphors enabled the speakers to show their stances toward their own utterances as well as toward the appraisal targets in the utterances, with whom the speakers may establish different kinds of relational engagement (Martin, 1997). In this study, the speakers
authenticated their Taiwanren identities by categorizing the members of the out-group taking stances in opposition to Taiwanren stances.
Results of the study have shown that the already existed ethnic contradiction
between the pan-green and the pan-blue has been aggrandized through the linguistic
device. The in-group members, mainly the pan-green targets, are heavily favored, and the out-group members, mainly the pan-blue targets, are generally derogated. The distinction is apparently enhanced between individuals from different political stances, which is harmful to the harmany of the society. For the sake of the contruction of a peaceful society, citizens should be encouraged to avoid watching call-in shows and treat people around them open-mindedly no matter whether they are Taiwanrens, Mainlanders, pan-green advocates, or pan-blue supporters.