Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

Approaches to Discourse 2: A Critique of Interactional

Sociolinguistic Analysis towards Ka:rmik Proverbial
Discourse Analysis
Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, CIEFL, Hyderabad, India

Gumperz (1982a) and Goffman (1967a, b) developed interactional socio-

linguistics view of discourse independently from the perspectives of
anthropology and sociology – “as a social interaction in which the emergent
construction of meaning is facilitated by the use of language” (Schiffrin
1994:134).

According to Gumperz, cognition and language are affected by social and

cultural forces and therefore “a general theory of verbal communication
which integrates what we know about grammar, culture and interactive
conventions into a single overall frame work of concepts and analytical
procedures” (1982a: 4) is needed for discourse analysis. Consequently, in
order to build upon his earlier ideas, he introduces three concepts:
1. contextualization cues (“signaling mechanisms such as intonation,
speech rhythm, and choice among lexical, phonetic, and syntactic
options … said to affect the expressive quality of a message but not its
basic meaning [Gumperz 1982 a: 1(b)] and by helping to signal
contextual presuppositions, contextualization …. Influence both the
expressive quality of a message and its basic (prepositional) meaning
(ibid 131).
2. contextual presuppositions; and
3. situated inference.
These contextualization cues which are the marginal features of language
relate what is said to the contextual knowledge that contributes to the
presuppositions necessary to the accurate inferencing of what is meant.
Gumperz also points out that involvement is another important aspect
needed for situated inference. Thus, a general theory of discourse must
begin, according to Gumperz (1982 a: 3), by: “specifying the linguistic
and socio-cultural knowledge that needs be shared if conversational
involvement is to be maintained, and then go on to deal with what is
about the nature of conversational inference that makes for cultural, sub-
cultural and situational specificity of interpretation”.

According to Schiffrin (1994:105), Goffman’s focus on social interaction

complements Gumperz’s focus on situated inference. To Goffman (1967a),
‘self’ is a social construction and one way of viewing it as such is through the
notion of ‘face’ (the positive social value claimed by a person). In social
interaction, both ‘self’ and ‘face’ have to be maintained. To sum up,
“Goffman describes the form and meaning of the social and interpersonal
contexts that provide presuppositions for the decoding of meaning (Schiffrin

1|Page
Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

1994:105). Finally the emphasis on interpretation of context by Gumperz and

the organization of social life by Goffman show that language is indexical to
the social world: an index to the cultural background and to the social
identities and relationships.

The basic assumption that language contextualizes and is contextualized

provides for a single exchange to have “multiple interpretations associated
with different social identities and the use of different background
knowledge” (Schiffrin 1994: 401). Therefore,
1. social contextualization of the utterance,
2. the interpersonal and interactional consequences in an exchange, and
3. speaker identity create different contexts in which utterance meaning
is situated.

Let us illustrate how these factors will be useful in the analysis of proverbial
exchanges.

1) Social Contextualization of the Utterance

Gumperz (1982a) mentions that contextualization cues reflect the context. In
example (1) given below, there is a high pitch in the rising intonation in the
first question “Where is L…?”. The Hearer B inferred this as an exclamation
based on his background knowledge. Had B not taken the background
knowledge into consideration and only the contextual knowledge at the time
and place of the utterance, he would have inferred an angry elicitation
instead. Therefore, the same intonation pattern evokes different meanings in
different contexts. To put it in other words, the same intonation functions as
a contextualization cue to different contexts and accordingly yields multiple
interpretations by providing different contextual presuppositions necessary
for different situated inferences.

The reply provided in the form of a proverb constitutes itself a context to

make a contextual presupposition for a situated inference. A looks at the
aesthetic appeal of the proverb and expresses his admiration for conveying
two meanings at the same time by its use in that context – Note that A
derives the ‘given off’ information (that L... will not see him) as the given
information from his perspective and the ‘given’ information (that L... let him
down) as the ‘given off’ information – as follows:

(1) A : L… e:dandi
L…. where is he, sir
(L… is the name of the person, withheld to protect privacy)

2|Page
Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

‘Where is L..., sir?’

(a)
B : mandini muncha:la, masi:du katta:la.
Group drown should mosque build
‘Drown the people, build a mosque’
(b)
A : e:vi sa:metha va:da:randi!
What a proverb you have used!
‘What proverb (you) used Sir!’
(c)

Furthermore, the motivation for the use of an utterance in a particular

context is the context itself. However, it is a dispositional reaction to the
contextual action. It is dispositional because there is a choice operating in
each and every utterance. Thus all the utterances in the above exchange are
motivated by the context only. This context is a crucial factor in the
propositioning of the utterance. However, the choice as well as the
textualization of the utterance goes beyond context: it is equally dependent
on the speaker’s intentionality and linguistic repertoire. For example, if B
does not know the proverb (lack of repertoire), he simply cannot use it there.
In a similar way, if B does not intend to censure L.., he will also not use the
proverb. Interactional sociolinguistics approach has not considered the role
of intentionality for speech acts and linguistic repertoire for textualization of
a speech act which also structure the coherence and sequence in discourse.
What Interactional Sociolinguistic Analysis does is to consider how but not
why and in what language (style) an utterance reflects and creates the
particulars of an interactional order (see Schiffrin 1994: 29, 31).

This component can be brought in as a generalization at the paradigmatic

level from an examination of discourse data. For example, the codependency
between self and context, self and other as resources, context intentionality,
and linguistic repertoire can be considered as bases for variation in the
structure of discourse.

2) Interpersonal and Interactional Consequences in an Exchange:

Schiffrin (1994:115) points out that “social meanings of acts can be
formulated in terms of their interpersonal and interactional consequences,
thus providing another context in which utterance meaning is situated”. This
applies to proverbs in exchanges also, as can be seen in the following
example:
(2) A: i: sandarbhanga ku:l drinksu ippincha:li
this context according to cool drinks give should
‘On this occasion, cool drinks be given’.

B: talli ki chi:retle:du ga:ni pinatalli ki sa:re

data:nanna:tta.

3|Page
Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

mother to saree give cannot but (maternal) aunt to sa:re gave

said he that
‘He cannot give a saree to his mother but gave a sa:re to his
amount’.

[Sa:re is a gift of clothes, food stuffs and other domestic items given on
special occasions such as marriage (sent by the bride’s family along
with the bride), birth ceremonies etc.]

B’s (who is a clerk) brother’s daughter (niece) passed in her examinations in

distinction and he breaks the news to his colleague A (the superintendent) in
the office.

Utterances 2 (A) and (B) are conventionally seen as face-threatening, being

an imperative in the first instance and a censure in the second instance
(which is a Telugu proverb). But are they really so in this context? No, they
are not. Let us see why it is so. A and B are friends and have a jovial and
warm relationship. They are also intimate. That is why A is permitted to
intrude upon B’s freedom of action (negative politeness and issue an order 2
(A) which is considered without any offence. B’s utterance 2 (B) is a rejection
of A’s order and is an enhanced modification of A’s informal request and a
promise to fulfill that modified order. There are two possibilities here.

1. It would threaten A’s positive politeness, if A thinks that B is hedging.

However, B is not hedging; he is merely boasting via a bigger promise.
That is known from the background interpersonal relationship between
A and B. At the same time, A has missed his cool drinks and wants to
tease B on that account. So B light-heartedly jokes using the proverb
as a discourse strategy. This fact is confirmed by his laugh.
2. The same proverb in a different interpersonal setting, for example, in a
cold relationship between A and B may trigger a potential censure
threatening B’s positive politeness. Thus, we have seen that
interpersonal relationships alter the social meaning. What is significant
is attitudes towards each other alter interpersonal relationships and
attitudes are products of individual disposition – products of
dispositional reactions (triggered by one’s traits, knowledge, and
va:sana:s (internalized habits). They also alter the emergent sequence
of discourse as a consequence of these dispositional reactions to the
socioculturalspiritual contextual practices. For example, in a formal
relationship, A would not have used an imperative in the first instance
(2A) and B again would not have used the proverb in the second
instance in (2 B) – A would have opted for an indirect or polite or no
request and consequently concluded the exchange with an
acknowledgement or a support.

4|Page
Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

One hypothetical exchange can be constructed as follows:

(2i) A: ‘I heard that your brother’s daughter got distinction in the

examinations.’
‘Very happy, sir’.
‘Is there any party for us? / Do you (like to) give us a party?’

B: ‘Oh, no, sir.’

‘Like that nothing I thought’
The number of utterances increases to three in A’s turn and there is no
proverb in B’s turn. It is the va:sana (the internalized habit to use a
proverb) of the Speaker B that triggered the choice of the proverb and
not merely the context- since the context is the same but the choice
of the utterance: one, a proverb; the other, not a proverb is not the
same. In a similar way, the first utterance is a statement followed by
an indirect request with an implicature for getting the party. There is
social distance enacted in the language and this social distance is
created by dispositional choices resulting in response biases. In other
words, it is not merely the context; not merely, the cultural practice;
but it is the dispositional (socioculturalspiritual contextual lingual
actional) cognition that decided the choice of the form, the content and
the style of the response. Hence, there is a need to incorporate the
dispositional component into the analysis of the discourse structure.

3. Speaker Identity:
Schiffrin (1994:115) points out that speaker identity is another facet of
context in which interactional approaches situate utterance meaning. In
proverbial exchanges, proverbs can function as contextualization ones that
signal speaker identity and relationships at a general level of social status
and power.

Proverbs used as advice, admonition, and warming generally indicate an

unequal relationship between the Speaker and the Hearer. We seek or get
advice from someone whom we hold in esteem; someone will admonish or
reprimand another of he is held in low esteem; someone will threaten
another if he is weaker in power; and so on. They also reflect a person’s
cultural status such as learned, vulgar, humorous, etc. Let’s take an example
to illustrate how social identity is inferred from proverbs.

3. A: mi:ru Ve:da:lu ne:rchukunnara:ndi:?

you Ve:da:s learnt sir i.m.

5|Page
Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

B: e:do: iyam pato:to:pah kaupi:na samrakshana:rdhamani

Something this hustle and bustle loin cloth protection for that
Telugu pari:kshalako:sam, Sanskrutham pari:kshalako:sam
Telugu for examination, Sanskritham examination for,
tarva:ta Ve:da;lu. alla:ga varasaga: voka da:ni
tarva:ta okati.
later on Vedas like this serially one after the
other
prathye:kanga: e:mi: le:dandi
specially like anything not (there) sir.

‘Something like the hustle and bustle for the protection of a loin cloth,
examination for Telugu, Sanskrit for the examination, later on Ve:das, like
this serially one after the other had to be learnt. That is all but specially
anything is not learnt’. It is the use of the Sanskrit proverb in it together with
his peculiar pronunciation of the Sanskrit version that marks the man as
familiar with Sanskrit and indexes his social identity as probably a pandit –
he is actually a retired Telugu Pandit.

4. A : paipu thi:sukoste: ni:llu po:dda:mani

pipe take coming (brought) water let us put saying
ni:lla suplaiyi le:du
water supply not there.
‘Having coming with the pipe, to put water, there is no water supply.’
[When I want to put water by bringing the pipe, there is no watersupply.]

B: le:vaka le:vaka Ellayyaki le;sthe: Ellavva

pakkalo: le:danta.
Not getting up not getting up Ellayya to getting up, Ellavva the
bed in not there that.
‘Not getting up, not getting up when it (penis) got up for Ellayya, Ellavva
is not there in bed’.

The proverb reeks with countryside lewd humour that is appealing and has a
humorous effect on the hearer. It indexes the speaker A as well-versed in
folklore – the person is known among his friends to be well-versed in
Telangana (in Andhra Pradesh, India) proverbs but how deep is his
knowledge is not known. The reply is a characteristic of only a person well-
versed in folklore, well-versed in humour, and sensitive to such usage by
practice and alertness, and not of others. Had the person not been well-
versed and not inclined to use proverbs – that too humorous proverbs with
sexual connotations – this proverbial utterance is unlikely to take place. The
point is that all the speakers need not be aware of this proverb, or would like
to use this proverb in a similar context, or the same context if they come
encounter such a conversation. In fact, later on I informed the same to other
6|Page
Proverbial Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Proverbs 2Interactional Sociolinguistics (1999)

friends but they did not use the same proverb, or a similar proverb. They
simply laughed at the event. Therefore, it is the individual’s expertise,
inclinations, and va:sana:s that ultimately determine the lingual reaction to a
turn in discourse and not other factors such as context, and culture by
themselves alone. Hence, there is a need to incorporate dispositionality as
a component in discourse analysis and initiate a new approach in the Ka:rmik
Linguistic Theoretical paradigm. In the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theoretical
paradigm, discourse is motivated from disposition and language is
considered as a resource for the construction of dispositional (ka:rmik)
reality.

So far we have seen how interactional approach to discourse is useful in

analyzing the sequential coherence in conversation. Even though language
contextualizes and is contextualized, why and how an utterance is chosen
as well as textualized by context and social identity is not given adequate
attention in this approach also.

References

Gumperz, John (1982a). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press
Goffman, Erwin (1967a). “On face work”. In Interaction Ritual. New York:
Anchor Books
------ (1967b). “The nature of deference and demeanour”. In
Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge USA:
Blackwell

7|Page