Constructing Identity through Talk, Space, and the
Body
Scott Phillabaum
UCLA Department of Applied Linguistics
scottp@ucla.edu
Introduction
This paper seeks to tackle the complexity of how identities and hierarchies
are constructed and displayed in the course of a dance class in the Cambodian
community of Long Beach, California. Hierarchy is accomplished by participants
through a range of interactive work (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1990). This array
of interactive work makes use of a constellation of sign systems, only one of
which is talk. Extending the examination of Goffman’s ‘social situation’
(1964) to include space and the body, this paper hopes to show how different
participation statuses and different hierarchies are displayed by participants
in this dance class through the exploitation of talk, space, and the body.
Ethnographic Background
With a population of approximately 40,000, the Cambodian community of Long Beach,
California and its surrounding areas is the largest Cambodian community in the
United States. Along the Anaheim Street corridor know to many as the heart of
“Little Phnom Penh,” signs written in Khmer script rise up, filling
walls, billboards, and storefronts while images of Cambodia’s ancient splendor
stand in striking contrast to the urban landscape within which they are embedded.
Like many recent immigrant communities, the Cambodian community in Long Beach
straddles the new world of the United States and the world of older generation
Cambodians who continue to speak Khmer and practice traditions brought over
from Cambodia. Within this mix of cultures, many young Cambodian-Americans continue
the traditions of their parents. One way in which they do this is through the
arts program at The Arts of Apsara Gallery & Cultural Center.
The Arts of Apsara Gallery & Cultural Center is housed within the United
Cambodian Community, Inc. (UCC), a non-profit organization that serves the Cambodian
community. Each week a steady flow of students attends Saturday morning workshops
at UCC to learn Classical Cambodian dance. That young girls from Long Beach
come to The Arts of Apsara Gallery & Cultural Center to study Classical
Cambodian dance is a very interesting phenomenon. Historically, those who learned
classical dance were the personal dancers of the King of Cambodia (Sophiline
Cheam-Shapiro, personal communication). After the Khmer Rouge, however, this
situation changed as Classical Cambodian dance was opened and represented as
the quintessential art form of Cambodia. A generation later, Cambodian-Americans
share in this tradition through classes at The Arts of Apsara Gallery &
Cultural Center. Here, teachers and artists who survived the killing fields
of the Khmer Rouge instruct girls in ancient traditions. Out of this mix of
urban America and a classical Cambodian art form, a uniquely Cambodian-American
identity emerges.
The Data
The data examined in this paper are drawn from the beginning of one of the Saturday
morning dance classes at The Arts of Apsara Gallery & Cultural Center. It
is the first class after the winter holiday break, and at the beginning of the
class, the students are sitting on the floor watching a videotape of their recent
performance at the ‘Miss Cambodia’ pageant. Not all of the girls present
performed at this event; nonetheless, all are directed towards the television
set. As the performance reaches its end on the videotape, Cathleen, the instructor,
turns to the class and begins to speak. All of the girls have been attending
classes at The Arts of Apsara Gallery & Cultural Center for some time except
for Toni and Charya, who have arrived for their first class on this morning.
Space and the Construction of Identity
Adam Kendon has argued that all space is located, that “a person doing
something always does it somewhere and his doing always entails a relationship
to the space which has in it the objects or people with which the doing is concerned”
(1990). Because all activity happens somewhere, that somewhere must be attended
to in order to gain an understanding of the nuances of that activity and the
participation statuses that interactants occupy in the activity. In the current
data, the activity of the dance class takes place in The Arts of Apsara Gallery
& Cultural Center.
This physical space is crucial to understanding the current data, as the built
environment of the gallery itself contributes greatly to how identities are
displayed and differentiated. For example, a large table sits directly in front
of the gallery entrance. During the dance class, parents and relatives of children
in the class, the researcher, and other visitors occupy this space. This is
a transitional or liminal space between the outside world, the street, and the
‘sacred’ dance area, much like the vestibule of a church. This area
is ‘offstage’ and is a location in which non-participants in the activity
of the dance class congregate. The individuals who occupy this location display
this identity through hushed speaking and an orientation that usually centers
on each other and not on those engaged in learning to dance.
In contrast, students from the dance class sit at the table only before class,
during breaks, or after class. Because the Saturday morning workshops are so
heavily attended, the students represent a range of ages and abilities. As a
result, not all of the students learn the same dances, nor do they all participate
at the same time. This means that those not participating at any given moment
must occupy a different space from those onstage. As visible in the map of the
gallery, there is limited space and so the table seems like a natural place
for the non-participating students to congregate. What occurs, however, is something
very different. Instead of occupying open spaces at the table, non-participating
students move to the bench visible at the bottom of the map or they sit on the
floor in the space between the table and the dance space. In this way, they
display their identity as participants in the larger activity of the class itself,
but as non-participants in the activity in progress. Moreover, while occupying
these positions, students further differentiate themselves from those engaged
in the activity onstage through the kind of activity and talk in which they
engage while inhabiting this space. 1 The current data provide a nice demonstration
of these displays.
At the beginning of this interaction, all participants share the same basic
orientation. Seated on the throw rugs that make up the dance area, the lower
bodies of all students are pointed in the direction of the television set on
which they are watching the videotape of their recent performance. Schegloff
(1998) and others have argued that the direction in which a person’s lower
body is pointed displays their orientation and participation status in the ongoing
interaction. This notion is particularly relevant in the current data, as it
provides a resource for beginning to differentiate identities within the larger
group of dancers.
First, the data show a clear division into two groups, which I call “teacher
and older students” and “younger and new students”. Several things
become visible from this representation. Along the left side of the gallery,
Srey, Khinai, Sam, Parita, Charya, and Toni sit side-by-side in a straight line.
This contrasts quite strikingly with the arrangement of the remaining students
who sit bunched together in a semi-circle. Moreover, a gap of one to two meters
is noticeable between these two groups. The physical division into two apparently
different groups, however, is not all that contributes to the argument that
these are indeed two separate groups. The talk and embodied action support this
argument as well.
Recall that the performance the students are watching on the television set
did not involve all of the students who are present at this particular class.
The relevance of the video, then, is much greater for those who actually participated
in the performance than for those who did not. Among the girls seated along
the left periphery, no one participated in the performance. Although the lower
bodies of the younger girls are pointed in the direction of the television set
and though Srey and Khinai seem focused on that activity, Sam, Parita, Charya,
and Toni are engaged in other activities. Sam and Parita appear to be looking
at each other and not at the television. In addition, they are whispering softly
to each other, engaged on their own in an activity in which no one else is participating.
Furthermore, Toni, who is attending the class for the first time, is holding
Sam’s braid in her hand and playing with it as Charya looks on. This constellation
of embodied action makes visible a division in identities that the teacher,
Cathleen, later defines through her talk.
The Transcript
1 Cathleen: Okay. (4.4)
2 like
how old are you guys?
3 (0.4)
4 Toni: • I’m thirte:en •
5 (0.4)
6 Charya: •I’m twelve •
7 (0.2)
8 Cathleen: ((slaps right leg with right hand))
9 (3.8)
10 >they
can< join with us, right? (0.2)
11 •for
Choun Por •
12
(3.6)
13 you
guys, (0.2) go ahead have a seat on the be•nch,
14
(1.6)
15 or
if you guys wanna learn Choun Po:r, (0.5)
16 it’s
up to you guys
17 (1.1)
18 y-
you’re gonna wait for your group >it’s up to you.<
19 (3.8)
20 Sam: (…)
21 (1.0)
22 Cathleen: Okay
23 (1.5)
24 questions
on (0.2) Choun [Por=
25 Sam:
[ •come he:re •
26 Cathleen: =hand movement <and footwork>
27 (1.1)
28
>go ahead< a:sk
Talk and the Construction of Identity
Just as the physical space of the gallery is essential to understanding how
hierarchies are displayed and made relevant in this interaction, so is the talk
as participants in this interaction also display identities through the talk
they employ. As noted earlier, the distribution of speaking rights is related
to spatial arrangements in a group. At the beginning of the segment, Cathleen
is seated closest to the television set. In many ways this physical arrangement
defines who Cathleen is, since the person seated in this position has the ability
and the authority to manipulate the television and the VCR. Moreover, being
seated in this position means that when Cathleen turns
4Phillabaum 5around, she will see all of the students, having no one seated
behind her. As such, this spatial arrangement provides Cathleen with the resources
to direct the trajectory of the class through her command over the physical
environment as well as her control over the distribution of speaking rights.
This control over the distribution of speaking rights, in turn, allows Cathleen
to shape and define identities, and to display through her talk and embodied
action which identities should be made relevant. A more detailed look at lines
1-13 reveals how this occurs.
Cathleen’s talk in line two begins with a question directed at Toni and
Charya, both of whom are attending class for the first time. As discussed above,
their identity as new students is visible in the physical space they occupy,
seated at a distance and on the margins of the activity space. With Cathleen’s
question, however, their identity as new students also becomes noticeable and
salient through talk. First, Cathleen’s question, like how old are you
guys?, indicates that there is certain information about the girls she does
not know. In the dance class, a student’s age is vital information as it
defines which students dance together as well as which dances they are old enough
to learn. The question, therefore, makes visible their identity as new students.
A second way that Cathleen’s questions makes visible Toni and Charya’s
identity as new students is through the words that form the question. Rather
than address Toni and Charya by name, as Cathleen does later with the older
girls in the class, she refers to Toni and Charya in line two as you guys.
This use of you guys together with the use of they in line 10,
embodies through talk the physical distance between Toni and Charya, seated
along the margins of the activity, and the group of older girls to which, in
theory, they should belong. This distance is underscored even more through Cathleen’s
contrastive use of the pronominals they and us in line 10. Here,
the public display of who constitutes the older group of students is displayed
through talk and the body. By using the pronoun they, Cathleen defines
Toni and Charya as ‘other’, distant, and not of the older group. This
she contrasts with the pronominal us, which is spoken in accompaniment
with a shift in eye gaze, a slight twist of the torso in the direction of the
older students, and a noticeable decrease in volume. With the completion of
this utterance, Cathleen illustrates the group divisions observable in the physical
occupation of space through embodied talk in interaction.
The Body and the Construction of Identity
Different participation statuses are observable in other forms of embodiment
as well. Compare the line drawing of Srey with that of Toni, Charya, Parita,
and Sam. In the first drawing, Srey sits with her back straight in a vertical
and erect posture; her legs are drawn under her, and her hands sit motionless
in her lap. This rigid pose contrasts markedly with the relaxed position of
the four girls in the second drawing. In this drawing, Sam’s torso is bent
forward and twisted to the right; her legs are folded off to the right, and
her hands lie at her side as she leans forward towards Parita to Phillabaum
6Phillabaum whisper something to her. Similarly, Parita’s back is bent
forward and slack, her right shoulder sits elevated above the left one, her
torso tilts slightly to the left, and her legs are in front of her with the
left leg in towards her and the knee pointing upwards. The remaining students
in this group, Toni and Charya, also lean slightly to the left, their backs
are somewhat relaxed as well, and their legs are positioned to the side.
By deploying their bodies in the physical space of the dance class in this way,
these students display their relevant identities in the current activity. First,
Toni and Sam position their bodies like bookends encasing Charya and Parita.
Moreover, their eye gaze focuses on what is occurring within the activity bounded
by the physical positioning of their bodies. In this way, they ostensibly remove
themselves from the larger activity in progress. In contrast, Srey demonstrates
a very different participation status in the interaction through the deployment
of a number of semiotic displays. First, she adopts a posture that is identical
to Cathleen’s. Additionally, she directs her eye gaze at Cathleen and not
at the activity in which Sam, Parita, Charya, and Toni are engaged to her left.
Through these two physical displays, Srey exhibits an alignment with the larger
activity of the dance class as well as an alignment with the teacher, Cathleen.
A second way in which the body displays different participation statuses in
the current data is through the embodied collaborative completion of utterances.
In this interaction the distribution of the right to perform certain actions
is related to the spatial arrangements in a group, and the performance of these
actions displays important information about identities. Srey’s embodied
completion of Cathleen’s utterance in line 13 nicely illustrates this.
Cathleen begins this utterance with a point in the direction of the group of
younger and new students as she pronounces the words you guys. Neither
a verbal nor an embodied go-ahead follows this summons (Schegloff, 1986) to
the younger group of students. Instead, a brief (0.2) second pause between the
summons and the subsequent directive go ahead have a seat on the be•nch,
Srey completes Cathleen’s utterance through a gesture that indicates both
the motion of getting up and the movement to the new location of the bench.
Prior to addressing the younger group of girls, Cathleen raises her right hand
to her mouth into a readied position for the deployment of the subsequent gesture.
Then, as she starts to say you guys, her arm moves downward into a position
parallel to the ground and her hand moves into a pointing gesture directed at
the younger girls. At this moment in the utterance, Cathleen has not indicated
what she is about to say. However, before Cathleen finishes uttering the word
guys, Srey initiates her gestures towards the bench and completes it
before Cathleen begins to speak again. In fact, Srey and Khinai begin to stand
up and move in the direction of the bench before Cathleen reaches the word seat.
In this way, Srey displays a very different identity from the other students
in the younger group. By assuming the right to collaboratively engage in modes
of action with a higher status individual and by assuming the right to project
the trajectory of Cathleen’s utterance, Srey highlights her identity and
status – already visible in her erect posture and eye gaze – within
the younger group of students.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to demonstrate how participants in interaction employ
a multitude of semiotic resources to display, differentiate, and make relevant
different identities. In the current data, the physical space of The Arts of
Apsara Gallery and Cultural Center provided participants with resources for
displaying group affiliations and engagement in the activity of the dance class.
Moreover, the physical locations the different students inhabited demonstrated
how participants exploit the built environment in the construction of social
stratification (Keating, 2000). The current data also provided examples of how
participants exploited embodied talk in interaction via posture, eye gaze, and
gesture to carry out action and to construct meaning. An examination of any
of these sign systems in isolation would at best have resulted in a partial
understanding of the construction and display of hierarchy. Only through exploring
the full constellation of sign systems that the participants in this interaction
employ do we gain insight into how identities are displayed, differentiated,
and made relevant.
References
Duranti, A. (1992). Language and Bodies in Social Space: Samoan Ceremonial Greetings.
American Anthropologist, 94(3), 657-691.
Goffman, E. (1964). The Neglected Situation. In The Ethnography of Communication.
John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds. American Anthropologist, 66, 6, pt. II,
133-136.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Interstitial Argument. In A. Grimshaw
(Ed.), Conflict Talk (pp. 85-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the
Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keating, E. (2000). Moments of Hierarchy: Constructing Social Stratification
by Means of Language, Food, Space, and the Body in Pohnpei, Micronesia. American
Anthropologist, 102, 303.
Kendon, A. (1990). Spatial Organization in Social Encounters: The F-Formation
System. In A. Kendon (Ed.), Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in
Focused Encounters (pp. 209-238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The Routine as Achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body Torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535-596.
Notes
1 See Duranti (1992) for a discussion of how space and the use of floor mats
contributes to the construction and differentiation of identities in the Western
Samoan fono.
2 Hanks (1990) provides an illuminating discussion of indexicals and their use
in the differentiation of social identities.