Howard --_Language Socialization and Hierarchy

Language Socialization and Hierarchy

Introduction

Social relationships are crucial for human connection and belonging.
Navigating social interactions requires understanding and utilizing communicative resources.
Hierarchies, though sometimes subtle, are present in most social structures.
Hierarchy involves differential value assigned to individuals, roles, identities, and even linguistic resources.
Understanding hierarchy is essential for language acquisition and social development.
Practices of hierarchy contribute to the (re)production or contestation of social inequality.

Status and Roles

Linton (1936) and Parsons (1951) defined 'status' as cultural rights/duties linked to social positions and 'roles' as expected conduct.
Structural-functionalism views social stratification as arising from inequality among status roles.
Ethnomethodologists see status hierarchies as emergent within interactional and semiotic processes (Cicourel 1972; Giddens 1979; Goffman 1967).
Goffman conceptualized 'face' as a positively valued self-image managed in social encounters.
Status asymmetries can precede and condition social encounters.
Roles are dynamic, socially constructed categories produced in 'discourses of identity' (Blommaert 2005: 210).
Individuals may hold multiple roles in interactions, signaled through contextualization cues (Gumperz 1982; Hymes 1972).
Roles are understood in relation to other available positions, contributing to hierarchical relations (Harré 1993; Mühhäusler and Harré 1990).

Marking Status Asymmetries

Status asymmetries are marked via semiotic resources, especially those showing respect.
Respect involves affirming the value and dignity of others.
Goffman (1967: 44) notes societies mobilize members as self-regulating participants in social encounters.
Interaction rituals confirm relationships and sustain interaction order (Goffman 1967: 57).
Displays of respect use linguistic/extra-linguistic resources, including genres, interaction rituals, speech acts, and linguistic repertoires.
Respect can be shown through languages, registers, speaking styles, honorifics, address forms, and embodied comportment.
Semiotic resources become associated with social relationships/identities through recurrent use and metapragmatic discourses (Agha 2003, 2004; Ochs 1992; Schieffelin 1990).

Language Socialization and Modeling

Adults' child-directed speech may not model status-linked forms children need to learn.
Children master communicative practices through various socializing practices beyond modeling.
Chapter examines Northern Thai (Muang) children's socialization into person reference practices that index hierarchical social relationships.

Social Hierarchy as Semiotic Practice

Inquiry into social hierarchy should include socio-cultural understandings that individuals develop over their lifecourse.
Individuals hold diverse perspectives on hierarchies influenced by experiences, identifications, desires, aspirations, and commitments.
Speakers' perspectives include understanding the social nature of conduct, evaluation of persons, their status, meanings, effects, and consequences of social conduct.
Continuity and transformation of social hierarchies involve socially distinctive understandings and emergent qualities from human agency.
Structures are 'never either total or exclusive' (Williams 1977: 113).
Heterogeneous social understandings influence practical social actors' actions, which in turn transforms the field of activity (Bourdieu 1990; de Certeau 1984; Giddens 1979).
Language socialization into social hierarchies involves recognizing social meanings of behavior and conducting oneself in socially recognizable ways.

Implications of Hierarchy

Children's socialization into hierarchy impacts their learning, education, and societal participation.
Participation in social practices allows novices to envision a path to full social group membership (Gee 2004).
Hierarchies can exist within institutions across different societies.
Schools create hierarchies between teachers/students and among students based on performance.
These hierarchies can result from institutional validation of socio-culturally preferred ways of communicating, thinking, and acting (Bernstein 1972; Bourdieu 1984).
Navigating institutional power involves adaptation to or alienation from childhood experiences.

Socialization into Hierarchy

Children/novices need to learn role-linked models of conduct and personhood (Agha 2003, 2004).
Knowing how to speak to superiors or teachers requires knowledge of conduct models.
Metapragmatic discourses link ways of speaking, feeling, and acting to hierarchical social positions.
Reflexive activity gestures towards social differentiation like situation, gender, age, ethnicity, and class.
Speech styles that mark hierarchy are used differently by social groups.
Social hierarchies can be multiple (gender, age, education, class, role, expertise) and constantly negotiated (Jacoby and Gonzalez 1991; Ochs 1988).
Socialization involves awareness of social hierarchy's meanings and resources for enacting it.
Research examines semiotic resources, socializing encounters, strategies, and novice participation.
Analysis must consider interactional, developmental, and historical contexts.
Practices should be examined for recognizability across social domains, frequency, and authority.
Widespread practices generate social stereotypes, while others emerge in interactions.

Ochs' Work in Samoa

Ochs' (1988) work on language socialization in Samoa documented the variability in children’s socialization into social hierarcies.
Samoan society is organized according to hierarchies of rank, gender, and age.
Lower-ranking individuals show respect to higher-status individuals through certain behaviors.

Caregivers and Communicative Practices

Caregivers' interventions in children's communicative practices address situational contingencies (Howard 2009b).
Representations of speech and discourses about language typify social life and speech behavior.
Caregivers guide children to mark hierarchy, prompting particular communicative practices (Burdelski 2009, Clancy 1986, Demuth 1986, Morita 2003, Song 2009, Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo 1986).
Explicit prompting may not always explain meanings (Garrett and Baquedano-López 2002).

Subtle Linguistic Resources

Subtle linguistic resources for marking hierarchy are tacitly grasped.
Children infer cultural expectations and ideologies from socially coordinated activities (Ochs 2002: 103).
This is seen in directives (Ochs 1988), honorific verb forms (Cook 1990, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2008), silence (Meek 2007), and person reference (Morita 2003; Song 2009).
Learners acquire nuances of Japanese pragmatic particles through social interaction (Morita 2005).
Acquisition of person reference in Japanese (Morita 2003) and Korean (Song 2009) shows adults using child-directed registers.
Adults model communicative practices for marking hierarchy.
Children acquire language forms appropriate to their social position (Andersen 1986).
Samoan children learn 'give' before 'come' due to its association with higher status (Platt 1986).
Japanese children use correct request forms for their status (Clancy 1986).

Representations of Language Use

Representations of language use tie ways of speaking to social roles.
Reported speech embeds characterizations and evaluations of conduct.
Mothers re-present polite utterances positively (Clancy 1986).
Children parody language (Rampton 2002, 2006) and dramatize speech registers (Andersen 1986; Gordon 2002).
These representations idealize and evaluate status-linked language.

Discourses About Language

Discourses about language highlight suitable ways of speaking.
Accounts explain reasons for behavior (Scott and Lyman 1968).
They define problematic behavior and suggest remedies (Sterponi 2003).
Mothers provide accounts for reference to third parties (Morita 2003; Song 2009).
Accounts invite awareness of consequences (Clancy 1986; Lo 2009).
Teachers socialize students into cultural significance of responsibility (He 2000).
Representations and discourses tie communicative styles to ethnicity (He 2000; Lo 2009), class (Errington 1998; Howard 2010; Irvine 1990), and gender (Burdelski and Mitsuhashi 2010).
Politeness is recognized differently across social domains.
Competing models of hierarchy can lead to resistance (He 2003; Lo 2009; Morita 2009).
He (2003) explored tensions between respect for authority and children's responses.

Socialization into Hierarchy in Northern Thailand

Research focuses on the Muang community in Northern Thailand.
Thailand has ethnolinguistic diversity, with most people being Buddhist and speaking Tai-Kadai languages.
Kam Muang, Central Thai, Isan, and Southern Thai are major regional dialects.
Muang people constitute a large percentage of the Northern Region's residents.
Kam Muang was the official language of the Lanna Kingdom.
Standard Thai is the language of government, education, and media.
Muang vernacular is distinct from Standard Thai.
Language varieties are located in hierarchies that extend beyond the village.
Evaluations associate ways of speaking with identity, location, activity, and relationship (Howard 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2010).
These schemes are socially positioned and partially shared.
Children are socialized into styles of respectful speech (Howard 2009b).
Socialization varies across social domains (Howard 2010).

Studies of Muang Children

Studies examined language socialization in a village and a municipal school.
Children negotiated social relationships in conventional and novel ways.
Socialization varied across age groups/class-based social domains.
Kindergarten children used person reference terms for deference to adults.
Peer language use varied between village children (Kam Muang) and middle-class children (Standard Thai).
Socialization into respect at school led to socialization into Standard Thai.

Ethnographic Research

Fieldwork conducted in a peri-urban community outside Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Observed interactions of Muang children at home/school.
Children taught in Standard Thai.
Sample included less privileged villagers, as middle-class families sent children to privileged schools.
Summer study at the Municipal school in Chiang Mai.
Ethnographic interviews with families, teachers, and community members.

Registering Social Hierarchy

Status asymmetries are highly salient to Muang speakers.
Muang social structure is organized according to age, gender, social status, rank, and role.
Hierarchies guide authority and obedience.
Practices are subject to metapragmatic discourses associating respect with moral personhood.
Adults highlight polite and respectful conduct for children.

Person Reference Systems

Reference to speech-event participants is through personal pronouns, titles, kin terms, and names.
Choices index status of interlocutors.
Speakers may only use pronouns to refer to the speaker (I) and the addressee (you).
Pronouns 'refer to or index the speaker and addressee in a speech event and do not replace or stand for a noun' (2001: 6).
The actual use of pronouns in Thai speech is very limited.
Nouns are also used to refer to speech event participants.
Terms carry social meanings and mark relative social positions.

Linguistic Considerations

Like other hierarchically organized societies, it is nearly impossible to avoid linguistically marking the social relationship between interlocutors in Muang speech events.
Enfield notes person reference instantiates culture-specific views of the person (2007: 97).
Pronouns index status, while nouns describe social roles.
Choice of person reference conveys demeanor and identity.
Muang children use terms from Standard Thai and Kam Muang.
Research contributes to understanding of social registers.

Socializing Practices of Person Reference

Children are exposed to language use, representations, and discourses that tie person reference to relationships.
In asymmetrical situations, person reference is regimented and reciprocal.
Adults model terms children should use.
Teachers referred to themselves as khruu (teacher)
Adults at home referred to themselves with the appropriate kin term.

$diaw \text{ } khun \text{ } khruu \text{ } ca \text{ } h\hat{a}j \text{ } so\stackrel{\vee}{n} \text{ } n\acute{a}m \text{ } ph\acute{a}\stackrel{\vee}{n}g \text{ } \acute{a}j$
$\text{'Mrs. Teacher (=I) am going to have you anoint the Buddha.'}$

k\text{ } n\text{\DJ}oo\text{`}\text{ } t\hat{\imath}i\text{ } n \text{ } \ntild{\text{o}}\text{ } \text{\DJ}oo\stackrel{\vee}{n}g \text{ }\acute{\text{-}}\left(\centerdot\right)\acute{\text{cun}}\text{ } ca \text{ } p\acute{\imath}k \text{ } b\tilde{\text{a}}an \text{ }(0.4)\text{ } p\hat{\imath}i \text{ } ca \text{ } h\tilde{\text{an }}\text{ }\text{\dj} \text{\dj} \text{ } ? \text{ }\acute{\text{n}}i i
$\text{' before litt - (.) little sister June ( = you) go home (0.4) elder sister (=I) will give (you) this. '}$

Speakers self-refer with nouns that describe relationship, invoking asymmetrical relations.
Teachers used children’s nicknames.

\text{\dj} \text{OO} \text{ } \acute{a} \text{ } n\stackrel{\vee}{n}g \text{ } p\acute{a}am
$\text{' ah little brother Palm '}$

kh\text{\DJ}o\stackrel{\wedge}{n}g \text{ } n\overset{\vee}{\text{uu}} \text{ }\text{\dj}a\text{laj} \text{ } l\hat{\text{uu}}k \text{ } t\grave{\imath}t \text{ } l \text{ thaaw} \text{ } \acute{\text{a}}\text{\dj} oo p
$\text{'What is mouse 's ( = yours) , kid? (That is) stuck on (your) shoes. '}$

$diaw \text{ } n\stackrel{\vee}{\text{oo}} \text{ m}\acute{a}j \text{ he}n$
$\text{' Wait. Little brother ( = I) can 't see '}$

khruu \text{ } kha \text{ } krap\text{\dj}o\stackrel{\wedge}{n}g \text{ } \text{}((unintelligible)) \text{ }n\text{\dj} \text{uu cam d}\acute{a}j \text{ }n\acute{a} \text{ } kh\acute{a}
$\text{' Teacher (honorific)? A container ((unintelligible)) mouse ( = I) remembered it (honorific). '}$

\text{\dj} \text{\dj} \acute{a}aj \text{ }\text{\dj}aam \text{ } t\text{\DJ}ua \text{ }\tilde{n}a \text{ } j\text{ } l a \text{ } n \text{ maa} \text{ }\text{\dj} \text{OO} \text{`} $\text{' Big brother Arm ( = he) is bigger than Noam ( = I) . '}$

\acute{\text{\dj}} \text{a}\text{ f}\grave{a}ak \text{ } khun \text{ } khruu \text{ w} \acute{a}j \text{ } k \text{ }n\text{\DJ}oo
$\text{' Ah, submit it to Mrs. Teacher first. '}$

Teachers' daughters identified their mothers as Mrs. Teacher when addressing students.
Nonreciprocal practices were modeled by adults and children.
Mass-mediated representations showed deference to teachers.

Peer Groups and Shifting Dynamics

Person reference varied in peer groups.
Children invoked multiple social relationships and identities.
Socialization practices differentiated by age, younger children's deference prompted and corrected.
Older children were expected to know socially appropriate behavior.

\text{Mai to Art: } t\varepsilon\acute{\text{ }} \acute{\text{\dj}}i i\text{\dj}aam \text{' True, little Art . '}
\text{Jen: }t\varepsilon\acute{\text{\dj}} \acute{\text{\dj}} i i \text{ aam }\textthorn \tilde{\text{a}} \text{ a ' She said “ True, little Art . ” '}
\text{Mai:}\acute{\text{}}\acute{\text{\dj}}\text{ } i \text{ aam paj len \text{' Little Art , go play. '}}
$\text{Mai 's aunt: hee heh heh heh heh '}$
\text{Mai 's mom: }\acute{\text{}}\acute{\text{\dj}}i i \text{ aam \text{' Little Art '}}
\text{Pae:}\acute{\text{\dj}}ii\text{aam paj l \text{\dj} \text{\DJ} n \text{' Little Art go play '}
\text{Jen: }n\text{\DJ}oo \text{ m}\acute{a}j \text{ p}\grave{a}ak \text{ b}\text{\DJ}oo dii \text{ w} \acute{a} \acute{\text{\dj}}} \acute{\text{\dj}} i i \text{ aam w} \acute{a} \text{: \text{' Little sister Mai (your) mouth is not good, (you) said “ little Art ” ! '}}
\text{Pae: } \text{b}\text{\DJ}oo caj (0.4) \acute{\text{\dj}}} \acute{\text{\dj}} i i \text{ aam }\text{b}\text{\DJ}oo \text{ }c\text{\DD}aj i \text{t s not (0.4) “ little Art . ” it ’ s not. '}

Misuse of a disrespectful term was greeted with parody.
Children were explicitly told disrespectful speech was not good.

\text{Eck to younger brother: } H \text{\dj}ua ph\text{\DJ}\text{\dj} aa m hnnh hnnh hnnh hnnh \text{' your father ’ s head hnnh hnnh hnnh hnnh '}
\text{Mother to Eck (from next room): }\acute{\text{\dj}} \acute{\text{\dj}}\acute{\text{\dj}} eek eek eek p \grave{a}ak n\text{\dj}uu \text{' Eck (.) Eck (.) Eck (.) (your) mouth, hunh! '}

Life Stages and Social Relationships

Life stages impacted socialization as children/adults inhabited forms of social relationships.
Young children constructed egalitarian social spaces.
Older adults marked age-based hierarchies.
Children reciprocated status-neutral terms.

Stereotypes and Language Use

Adults typified children's play groups as egalitarian.
Children used informal pronouns when out of earshot.
haa (I) and khi (you) were subject to evaluation.

James \text{ to whole group: }kh\text{\DJ}ian c p\text{ n k }\text{ph} \text{ waa} p\text{n} c\acute{a} \text{ }pik \text{ }paj \text{ }lɛɛ \text{' Write my (}p\text{\dj} \text{n) name? Because I (}p\text{\dj} \text{n) am going home now. '}
James \text{ to one boy: }diaw haa kh\text{\DJ}ian h \text{' Here, I ’ ll (}haa\text{) write it for you. '}

Children marked age-based hierarchies when seeking compliance.

\text{Pae to Mai: (inviting)) }n\text{\DJ}oo \text{ n}\acute{A}ng t\grave{a}k p\hat{\imath}i \text{b}\text{\DJ}oo \text{' Would little sister ( = you) like to sit on big sister ’ s ( = my) lap? '}
\text{Pae to Mai: (offering)) }\text{\dj}oo \text{ n}\text{\DJ}oo \text{ maj lo: }\text{ŋ} \text{ maa} \text{ n\acute{A}ng t\grave{a}k p\hat{\imath}i \text{' Here! little sister Mai ( = you) come do:wn and sit on big sister ’ s ( = my) lap. '}

Adults intervened in activities, highlighted social expectations.
Adults invoke the hierarchical sibling relationship.
Adolescent friendships are hierarchically ranked.

Social Class and Language

Social class impacts the multilingual repertoires of person reference.
Middle-class children spoke Standard Thai, forbidden from using Kam Muang.
At school, they used Standard Thai pronouns.
For the most part, they continued to use Muang pronouns that indexed solidarity and friendship.

Village Schools and Kindergartens

At the village school, students were expected to use Standard Thai registers.
Kindergarten children sang a song that instructed them to greet each other in Standard Thai.

$th kap chan, sawat dii$
$\text{you and me, hello}$

The teacher corrected children’s performance of the waj.

Conclusion

Hierarchy is central, and social relations are marked explicitly.
Children in Northern Thailand experience commentary on conduct.
Respect is experienced as vital and natural.

Modeling and Social Relationships

Practices are modeled for children in various ways.
Muang adults explicitly refer to relationships with children.
Meanings are conveyed through representations of language use.

Person Reference Practices

Practices of person reference sketch social landscapes.
Children learn to inhabit hierarchies but are unaware of distinctions.
The social domain can’t be overlooked.
Nuanced use of "haa" is not grasped by adults.
Adults scold, negatively evaluate, and characterize it as simply inappropriate for children to use.

Complex Interplay of Factors

Children also draw upon models of idealized categories.
Children’s activities and social networks reflect their understanding of who they are and what they aspire to become.