What do you think about having beauty marks on yourHashek

1 downloads 0 Views 142KB Size Report
more powerful. For example, as Salima, a 12-year-old girl, explained to me, .... Finally, it is quite telling that although Tarek stops short of uttering the word in .... laugh nervously in the wake of realizing that my commentary may have been disre-.
bs_bs_banner



Chantal Tetreault

Department of Anthropology Michigan State University [email protected]

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”: Innovative and Impolite Uses of an Arabic Politeness Formula among French Teenagers This article addresses how French teenagers of North African (primarily Algerian) descent transform the Arabic speech act Hashek through their nontraditional and innovative uses. In French language interactions that involved adversarial teasing or public criticism of a peer, Arab French teenagers used the politeness formula Hashek as a self-corrective to simultaneously facilitate and mitigate such irreverent behavior. In addition, teenagers used Hashek as an other-corrective in order to publicly mark peers as inappropriate or rude. Thus both usages of the term (self- and other-corrective) aid teenagers in achieving impolite, nondeferential speech. In using Hashek to accomplish impolite speech, French-speaking teenagers of North African background transform this traditional Arabic linguistic practice to suit the face-needs of their adolescent peer group in France, while remaining in conversation with North African interactional rituals and cultural norms. [politeness, adolescence, France, migration, facework]

T

Introduction

his article addresses how French teenagers of North African (primarily Algerian) descent transform the Arabic speech act Hashek through their nontraditional and innovative uses.1 The data addressed here were collected during longitudinal ethnographic research (1999–2000, 2006, and 2011) with Arab French teenagers in Chemin de l’Ile, a neighborhood located 15 kilometers west of Paris, comprised of mostly low-income housing projects (les cités). In French language interactions that involved adversarial teasing or public criticism of a peer, Arab French teenagers used the politeness formula Hashek as a self-corrective to simultaneously facilitate and mitigate such irreverent behavior. In addition, teenagers used Hashek as an other-corrective in order to publicly mark peers as being inappropriate or rude. Thus both usages of the term (self- and other- corrective) aid teenagers in achieving impolite, nondeferential speech. I argue that in using Hashek to accomplish impolite speech, French-speaking teenagers of North African background transform this traditional Arabic linguistic practice to suit the face-needs of their adolescent peer group in France, while remaining in reflexive conversation with North African Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 25, Issue 3, pp. 285–302, ISSN 1055-1360, EISSN 1548-1395. © 2015 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/jola.12098.

285

286

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

interactional rituals and cultural norms. In so doing, adolescents actively negotiate a set of shifting stances in relation to an emergent code of behavior they call le respect or “respect,” that involves their complicated positioning between teenaged irreverence and cultural continuity in the context of diaspora. Hashek bears a striking similarity to what Garrett (2005) defines as a “code-specific genre,” that is, a speech act that has to be uttered in a specific language in order for its pragmatic force to be achieved. When speaking French, teenagers of North African descent retained Hashek in Arabic as a means to facilitate face-threatening teasing, and thus its power to mitigate face threats seems to be linked to its status as an Arabic politeness formula. And yet, by using Hashek in French-language interactions to facilitate and achieve the public teasing and insulting of their peers, teenagers shift the occasions for use as well as the pragmatic force usually associated with the term in Arabic interactions. So, unlike code-specific genres, the communicative value of Hashek is clearly not founded upon its uniformity as an Arabic speech act. The shift that Hashek undergoes as a code-specific genre imported into a teenaged Frenchlanguage matrix begs the question—how does it manage to simultaneously diverge from and retain similarity to the adult Arabic-language Hashek? I argue that the pragmatic malleability of Hashek is centrally linked to teenagers’ emergent facework practices. Specifically, when they import the Arabic term into their peer, French-language interactions, they are engaging in a pragmatic shift in stance that is distinct from their parents’ deferential usage. The term’s multiple meanings and uses hinge upon several interactive contingencies that are motivated by speakers’ native language, age, generation, and migration history. Hashek usage in French interactions among Arab French teenagers thereby emphasizes the interactive and changing nature of verbal genres and linguistic codes (here, Arabic and French) as well as the way that discourse practices map onto generational stances and lived experiences. Further, such an emphasis on the multiple uses and interpretations of Hashek leads to complex questions regarding the linkages not only between genres and codes, but also between politeness, facework, and stance. In Chemin de l’Ile, as elsewhere, both codes and their speakers come to embody ideological stances and meta-pragmatic stereotypes, that is, beliefs or ideologies about language use and linguistic practice that are central to interpretations of these speech events (Rampton 1995; Silverstein 1976; Urciuoli 1996; Woolard 1998). Thus, code-specific genres such as Hashek become locally meaningful in relation not only to a speaker’s social identity, but also in relation to larger reflexive processes in which meta-pragmatic stereotypes about language come to encompass identity categories and representations beyond the interaction, such as age, migration, and politeness (Agha 2007). In turn, these meta-pragmatic stereotypes inform not only linguistic practices, such as Hashek use among teenagers in French interactions, but also speakers’ everyday interpretations of those practices. I argue that the discursive reflexivity apparent here in teenagers’ Hashek use points to a larger type of cultural reflexivity relating to transcultural practices and age-specific stances toward politeness. Here, I extend Cuban anthropologist and ethnomusicologist Fernando Ortiz’s (1947) notion of transculturation to describe how cultures converge. Ortiz argued that when cultures combine, such as Spanish and African in the Cuban context, they potentially surmount differences, and even conflicts, to forge something new and transcendent. My use of transculturality differs from Ortiz’s, in that instead of viewing the combination of practices and beliefs from two groups as necessarily transcendent, I focus on the ways that French teenagers of Algerian descent forge transcultural identities through the simultaneous creation and counter-opposition of social identities such as self and other, teen and parent, French-born and immigrantborn, as well as cultural Frenchness and Arabness (cf. Woolard 1998 on simultaneity). Thus my use of transcultural refers to how Arab French teenagers experience and express migration and diaspora in ways that are related to the experiences of their parents, but that are also innovative, bifurcated, and differential.2 That is, in les cités, Arab French teenagers combine cultural and linguistic referents in their communicative styles in ways that serve to both deconstruct and reimagine the ideological

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

287

underpinnings of their multiple social identities. I argue that the linguistically and culturally transformative facework practices exhibited by teenagers’ innovative uses of Hashek demonstrate their creative responses to the hierarchical system of deference that teenagers call le respect or “respect,” a concept to which I will return below. This analysis aligns with an increasing focus in scholarship on language socialization on how youth and children become “competent participants of their [peer] social group” through language use (Goodwin and Kyratzis 2011:366). Research documents teenagers employing a wide variety of discourse practices in order to socialize peers into innovative social worlds, including gossip (Mendoza-Denton 2008; Shuman 1986, 1992), ritualized insults (Mendoza-Denton 2008; Tetreault 2009b, 2010), and communicative styles including language and clothing (Bucholtz 1999, 2011; Eckert 1989, 2003; Keim 2008; Rampton 2003; Shankar 2008). At the same time, such scholarship also illustrates the ways that youth social worlds are fashioned, at least in part, in response to widely circulating ideological discourses regarding generational, gendered, classed, ethnicized, and racialized social identities. Similarly, French sociolinguistic literature on immigrant descent populations addresses the creativity of youth language, but also the ways that teenagers are socialized into language practices and ideologies that consolidate hierarchies of socioeconomic class, gendered, racialized, and spatialized identities, and differential language status (Abu-Haidar 1995; Basier and Bachmann 1984; Billiez 1985; Boucherit 2008; Boyer 1994, 1997; Dabène 1991; Dabène and Billiez 1987; Dannequin 1999; Goudaillier 2012; Moïse 2003). The present article attempts contribute to both of these perspectives, by analyzing the push and pull of cultural innovation and constraint present in French Arab teenagers’ emergent facework norms. Recent Theoretical Frameworks for Politeness and Facework The process whereby adolescents transform Hashek from a term of “formal politeness” into a means of facilitating face-threatening acts demonstrates the general complexity of politeness and the challenges inherent to its study (Mills 2003:8–9). Here I follow Mills’s (2003:14) convention of using formal politeness “to refer to those ritualized phrases such as “please” and “thank you” which most people recognize as polite.” At the same time, also in line with Mills, my analysis questions whether these phrases are “always interpreted or indeed are always intended to function as indicators of politeness” (2003:14). Politeness was originally conceived by Brown and Levinson (1987) as the management of social “face” or positive presentation of self in social interaction (Goffman 1982)—and more specifically as the mitigation of “facethreatening acts” or FTAs (Agha 1994; Arundale 1999; Locher and Watts 2005). However, critics charge that, despite the impressive conceptual elegance and scope of Brown and Levinson’s theory, many difficulties remain unresolved with regard to its ability to explain politeness as an interpretive process that is socially constructed and emergent in interaction (Arundale 2006; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2009, 2010; Holmes 1995; Irvine 1992; Keating 1998; Mills 2003; Pagliai 2010). As Mills (2003:9) argues, “politeness cannot be understood simply as a property of utterances, or even as a set of choices made by individuals, but rather as a set of practices or strategies which communities of practice develop, affirm, and contest.” Current models of politeness thus focus on the complexities of facework, which is not seen as necessarily accomplishing perfect equilibrium (Arundale 2005, 2006). Reformulations of facework provide a promising avenue for exploring the usefulness of Hashek to teenaged peer interactions, but only if facework is understood as surpassing the mere mitigation of face-threatening acts, as scholars have argued (Arundale 1999, 2005, 2006; Haugh 2007; Locher and Watts 2005). Building upon Schegloff (1988), Arundale (2006) notes that such “rule following explanations” for facework and interaction are generally ineffective for explaining how participants manage the variety of possibilities and contingencies that arise in everyday communication. Specifically, Arundale’s (2005:59) interactionally achieved politeness model

288

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

analyzes how “each participant’s cognitive processes in interpreting and designing are responsive to prior, current, or potential contributions the other participants make to the stream of interaction.” Others working on politeness such as Locher and Watts (2005:14) argue for the expansion of the notion of “facework” beyond mere mitigation toward a broader framework that encompasses “relational work” as both polite and “non-polite, yet appropriate/politic behavior.” For example, in exchanges such as a heated family discussion, “bald on-record” (direct, unmitigated) face-threats might be taken to be frank and genuine talk, rather than as a breech of politeness. Locher and Watts’s (2005:11) model thus accounts for those moments when speakers are not “oriented to the maintenance of harmony, cooperation, and social equilibrium” and yet are accomplishing important interactional work. Still others, such as Agha (2007) and Mills (2003), focus on polite forms as linguistic resources that entail attendant cultural norms; such norms invite, rather than preclude, speakers’ strategic use and even manipulation of these forms. That is, formal politeness and other “stereotypically ‘social’ uses of language . . . depend in a fundamental way on widely shared, ideological models of language use” (Agha 2007:38). Speakers’ access to these ideological models invites critical assessment or “reflexivity” and thus, the strategic use of such forms (Agha 2007:38) and the reflexivity that attends it (Agha 2007:25). For example, building upon Friedrich (1986), Agha (2007:33) notes that the existence of such knowledge by speakers allows for the possibility that “polite language is used as a form of veiled aggression.” I argue that adolescents use Hashek as a central resource for constructing and enacting innovative facework norms within their peer group that entail the negotiation of both “unmarked” forms of interaction as well as highly salient (that is, heightened or intense) interactional moments—mocking, teasing, and public rebuke of another—that are not without risk. For these reasons, I retain the term “facework” even while I argue for its expansion. Following Arundale (2005) and Agha (2007), I demonstrate that Hashek affords adolescents the ability to actively shape their listener’s response to face-threatening talk and thus a means for “shaping [the] interlocutor’s next-turn behavior” (Agha 2007:35). The data that I explore in this article therefore demonstrate not only how adolescents elaborate innovative facework norms within their peer group, but also the mutable yet norm-mediated quality of facework more generally (Agha 2005). Hashek use among French teenagers indicates that the interactional meanings of even so-called “politeness formulas” emerge in tandem with the articulation of metapragmatic stereotypes about speakers, in this case, the juxtaposition of youthful French identities with those of their “traditional” Arabic-speaking immigrant parents. Teenagers’ transformation of this politeness formula is wholly dependent upon how emergent and local meanings of Hashek among teenagers coexist, complement, and even clash with the more broadly codified forms of Hashek that native Arabic speakers access, and, more important, with the particular kinds of politeness that their immigrant parents achieve with this Arabic term. Ethnographic Contexts for Hashek The data analyzed in this article were collected during the course of a larger ethnographic project on language practices and social identity among French adolescents of primarily Algerian descent. Data were audio-recorded in over 140 hours of naturalistic interaction, collected among roughly 60 young teenagers, aged 13–16, in semi- and noninstitutional contexts such as neighborhood associations and local outdoor playgrounds. Extensive ethnographic research (1999 to 2000) and follow-up research (2006 and 2011) were conducted in Chemin de l’Ile, a neighborhood located 15 kilometers west of Paris in the town of Nanterre. Central to France’s industrial boom in the 1950s and 1960s, Nanterre has had a long history with immigration generally, and with Algerian immigration in particular. Male Algerian workers, among them several

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

289

grandfathers of adolescents in this study, were recruited by factories in Nanterre and lived in bidonvilles (shantytowns), located about a mile away from Chemin de l’Ile. Most of the adolescents involved in this study were culturally located between what the French refer to as “second” and “third” generations, in that at least one of their parents was born and raised until adulthood in North Africa. Unlike their parents, who were by and large all fluent Arabic speakers, the adolescents in this study possessed highly variable competence in colloquial North African Arabic, with some teenagers having attained relative fluency through home use and some having only passive knowledge. Due to their varied competence in Arabic (there were very few Tamazight/ Kabyle speakers in the neighborhood), adolescents tended to speak French with one another while incorporating Arabic loan words, Hashek being just one example. When I asked my young informants what the Arabic term meant, teenagers translated Hashek into French as je te taquine (“I’m teasing you”) or je blague (“I’m joking”). In contrast, the native Arabic-speaking parents of adolescents in my study translated Hashek into French as mes excuses (“excuse me”). In parents’ usage, the term fulfilled the basic function of a politeness formula, typically used across North Africa to create polite deference for an interlocutor when speaking to other adults in Arabic. When I asked adults in the community about the discrepancy between their own and teenagers’ uses of Hashek, they often laughingly dismissed young people’s practice as either incorrect (“not real”) Arabic or derisively as a “kids’ thing,” indicating its nonserious nature. In addition to differences in code choice, teenagers’ facework norms among their peers are distinct from their parents’ and from those that seen in teenagers’ communication in intergenerational interactions, which are particularly subject to le respect. Le respect is a set of behaviors that my teenaged informants construct as commensurate with proper cultural and religious practices.3 Le respect is not just a reproduction of Arab-Muslim values that are imported wholesale from North Africa but a set of moral discourses and practices that emerge in France, and particularly in the stigmatized spaces of French cités and are central to the experience of being Muslim and Arab within a diasporic context. Adolescents in Chemin de l’Ile interpret le respect as a social code that prescribes adherence to behavioral standards including showing deference for one’s elders. Its local practice is loosely based upon an age and gender hierarchy typical of North African and Arab culture more generally (Abu-Lughod 1986). As Abu-Lughod (1986:81) notes, among Arab Bedouins a similar social hierarchy is modeled on a vision of the family in which those who are socially powerful have responsibilities to protect those who are socially weak. Similarly, in Chemin de l’Ile le respect involves the expectation that the less powerful will be protected by the more powerful. For example, as Salima, a 12-year-old girl, explained to me, “Muslims, they don’t hit. We Muslims—the men—those they respect the most, it’s the old men, the women, and the children. You can’t hit women. You can’t raise a hand against them.”4 In Salima’s depiction, “respect” is constructed both relationally and hierarchically; old men are the most respected, followed by women and children. Instead of exclusively depending upon others to receive le respect, adult men supposedly hold the power to confer it upon others; they are expected to give respect to those who are more socially vulnerable than they, namely, elderly men, women, and children. Thus, at least on an ideological level, the power to give respect to others (thereby marking them as socially vulnerable or weak) is a power that is unevenly distributed; men purportedly hold more power to give or withhold respect than women, just as middle-aged adults of both genders can give or withhold respect from the young or the elderly. And yet, as I have demonstrated elsewhere (Tetreault 2009a) and as I will demonstrate below, teenaged girls like Salima often challenge conservative generational and gender norms in practice at the same time that they reproduce these ideas discursively. Adolescents thereby engage in an interesting combination of resistance and accommodation to their parents’ morality and both reproduce and subvert normative notions of le respect.

290

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Conventional Uses of Hashek in Arabic and Nonconventional Uses in French In this section, I broadly delineate norms for codified usage of Hashek through a discussion of scholarly accounts and my own ethnographic observations. In doing so, I describe some of the ideologically normative associations concurrent with conventional use of the term by native speakers of North African Arabic.5 The term Hashek is conventionally used by North African Arabic speakers as a self-corrective when mentioning matters relating to a restricted set of topics that generally includes prostitutes, dogs, donkeys, and defecation. Kapchan (1996:274) translates Hashek from Moroccan Arabic as “forgive me for mentioning it” and notes that it is spoken “after all words that connote dirt and contagion.” Further, Kapchan (1996:274) notes that Hashek offers speakers the temporary polite containment of those categories that “inhabit a field of ambiguity . . . they are domesticated, yet still somewhat embarrassing in their public display of sexual behavior.” Similarly, Bourdieu (1966:224) claims that Hashek is used in Algeria as a means to achieve modesty in the wake of topics that purportedly hold the power to threaten the honor of the addressee, such as “the category of women.” More recent evidence indicates that even conventional uses of Hashek in North Africa are subject to social and cultural change. According to my Moroccan research consultant Amina Saadaoui, in 2009 a common use of Hashek among young, urban Moroccans included instances of mentioning Jews or Israel. This type of use in North Africa, (I never heard it used this way in France), shows that Hashek continues to function pragmatically to create deference and to repair in the wake of any mention of a social category or topic deemed potentially offensive. Its contexts of use therefore change according to shifting political and moral landscapes. A majority of the parents of adolescents who took part in my study were native speakers of an Arabic dialect from western Algeria, an area that closely borders Morocco. When speaking Arabic, their usage of Hashek corresponded to the patterns of codified usage that Bourdieu, Kapchan, and Saadaoui describe. Furthermore, native Arabic speaking adults in Chemin de l’Ile did not use Hashek when speaking French, as their children did. Below, I explore in detail the contrasting uses of Hashek in French by the French-born adolescents in my study to a) facilitate rather than mitigate face-threatening utterances and b) as an other-corrective to mark a peer’s previous utterance as inappropriate or disrespectful. Teenagers’ Self-Corrective Uses of Hashek In this section, I analyze two examples of teenagers using Hashek as a self-corrective. Both examples are taken from an extended performance during which teenaged boys (Tarek, Salim, and Ali) appropriated my microphone and audio recorder for their own purposes, mimicking the voice of an “MC” in order to mock a nearby girl, Sarah. Here Hashek is used as a resource to facilitate these socially risky actions that vacillate between play and potential insult.6 The first example below involves public teasing. In the boys’ performance, Hashek is used to recast racially stereotyped mocking— potentially face-threatening behavior—as merely playful teasing or joking. A main feature of this performance is the creation of stylized voicing (mock “Chinese”) that the three boys use to mimic Sarah, who is of Cambodian and French heritage, French-born, and a native French speaker like the boys of Algerian descent who tease her.7 Similarly to Salim and Ali, Tarek adds his own imitation of Sarah, but chooses to attribute his voicing of supposedly “Chinese” speech directly to her in turn 3 (“it’s Sarah”). Just afterward, seemingly as a means to recast his explicit mocking of Sarah as play rather than insult, Tarek utters Hashek. Some ethnographic background to the participants in this exchange is relevant to my interpretation of it. Sarah, although French of Cambodian and French heritage, lived with her brother and sister with an Arabic-speaking foster family of Algerian origin. She did not speak Arabic herself, but was conversant with the many Arabic loan words (such as Hashek) that characterized everyday teenaged speech in the

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

291

neighborhood. As well, even though antagonism is certainly part of the exchange, another relevant dynamic is clearly social intimacy. Among their peers, Salim was known to be “dating” Sarah, a fairly innocent endeavor since both teenagers were sexually inactive at the time, but clearly indicated his affection for her. Example 1 : Hashek as self-correction to facilitate mocking a peer8

1 Salim

2 Ali 3 Tarek

Nanagaga. Hé il faut parler en chinon (“chinoise”). Nanagaga Nananghaha Nananghaha Nananghaha Nananghaha! Ching chang chong ching! Nanagaga Nananghaha aiaiaiaiaiaiaiai, c’est Sarah. Hashek!

Nanagaga. Hey we have to talk in Chinese. Nanagaga Nananghaha Nananghaha Nananghaha Nananghaha! Ching chang chong ching! Nanagaga Nananghaha aiaiaiaiaiaiaiai, it’s Sarah. Hashek! (laughing, looking directly at Sarah)

The above excerpt demonstrates innovative usage of Hashek both semantically and interactionally. Tarek’s use of Hashek clearly deviates from conventional deferential uses relative to a set of culturally codified semantic categories that might offend due to their power to morally contaminate (Kapchan 1996). Rather, he uses Hashek to contain the potential insult of an idiosyncratic instance of offensive speech (mock Chinese), explicitly racist depictions of Asians and, more important, of a racist depiction of a particular Asian person who is present, Sarah. Although Sarah’s verbal response was unfortunately uttered out of my microphone’s range, she showed no apparent anger despite Tarek’s public teasing. Inasmuch as the potential for insult is thus contained or mitigated by Hashek, Tarek’s use of the term facilitates his voicing of stereotyping or racializing speech about Asians generally and about Sarah in particular and to achieve their French (that is, French-born and French-speaking) teenaged interactional goals of using racially stereotyping speech in order to tease and even flirt. Much as in the United States, racist discourse about Asians is a fixture within French society (Chun 2009; Hill 1998) and is also considered illicit and offensive speech. Here, Tarek uses an Arabic resource to facilitate his strategic use of such discourse and also to contain the insult that such racist speech might incite. His use of Hashek can also be considered strategic in that this exchange was part of an extended series of public insults, initiated by Tarek and orchestrated primarily by him with my microphone. Tarek was a gifted verbal provocateur (much more so than either Salim or Ali) and may be using Hashek in order to extend and soften his performance of insults, as I may have have taken back my microphone if he had not framed his performance as nonserious. Indeed, it is Tarek who continues the performance of public teasing using my microphone in the next example and who again uses Hashek to facilitate doing so. In these ways, the above usage is innovative not only at the semantic level, but also at a strategic interactional level. Whereas Hashek is generally used in traditional North African Arabic exchanges to create deference for the listener, in mocking Sarah, Tarek is expressly not engaging in deferential treatment of his peer, but rather in irreverent and even potentially confrontational if playful speech. Tarek’s usage therefore perfectly reproduces the prevalent teen “folk” translation of Hashek as je blaguais (“I was joking/teasing). Performances in which teenagers appropriated my microphone often involved mimicking a French television show host, a persona that speakers sometimes embodied by asking present peers bogus interview questions in order to embed mocking speech (Tetreault 2009b). In a continuation of the interaction analyzed in the previous example, Tarek uses the guise of the “public opinion interview” to mock nearby Ali, a younger boy of 13, by asking Sarah, “What do you think about the stinky breath of

292

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Ali Naifeh?” (turn 1). As part of his performance of the TV host persona, Tarek uses formal, polite language, such as the pronoun vous to specifically address Sarah, which he would not otherwise use to address his peer. As in the previous excerpt, Tarek and Salim vie for my microphone as a means to discredit or embarrass nearby peers. In turn 4, Tarek directs another bogus “personal opinion” interview question to Sarah, with a seemingly innocuous inquiry about her thoughts on “beauty marks.” The question is actually far from innocent, however, since Sarah’s face bears several large, dark birthmarks. And yet, Tarek never directly mentions Sarah or Sarah’s face but rather inserts Hashek in the “slot” where the location of the aforementioned beauty marks would normally be uttered. Example 2 : Hashek as self-correction to shift responsibility for impoliteness

1 Tarek 2 Sarah 3 Salem 4 Tarek

Que pensez-vous des coups d’haleine de Ali Naifeh? Pas de commentaire. Ça pue! Que pensez-vous- que pensez-vous des grains de beauté sur la—Hashek!

What do you (formal/plural) think about the stinky breath of Ali Naifeh? No comment. It stinks! What do you (formal/pl.) think- what do you (formal/pl.) think about having beauty marks on the/your—Hashek!

In the above example, Tarek employs Hashek in another innovative fashion, namely, to correct an incomplete utterance and an inferred rather than a spoken word. Whereas normative Hashek use in Arabic either directly precedes or follows the utterance of a particular word or semantic category that is socially recognizable as potentially offensive, Tarek’s usage involves a preemptive aspect, that is, to replace the potentially insulting or offensive word entirely. Although not uttered, several clues point to the potentially face-threatening message that Tarek intended. First, the topical focus of the sentence, “beauty marks,” clearly invites the listener to anticipate a reference to body parts. Second, the fact that Tarek directs his question to Sarah and the presence of birthmarks on her face topicalizes that body part. Finally, it is quite telling that although Tarek stops short of uttering the word in question, he includes the feminine article, la, which can be used in the beginning of a French possessive construction in which “your” is formed using the definite articles (la, le, and les) of the object possessed. In this particular case, this further contributes to the ambiguity of Tarek’s words since the feminine “la” could refer either to la figure (a polite term for face) or, more likely given the context of peer interaction, la gueule, a much less polite slang French word for “face.” La gueule, which literally denotes an animal’s snout or muzzle, roughly translates as “mug” and is clearly offensive. In addition to skirting the potential offensiveness of uttering “mug” or gueule, leaving the term unspoken may indicate Tarek’s desire to have the listener consider even more insulting or vulgar body parts where “beauty marks” might appear on Sarah’s body, such as la poitrine (chest or breasts) or la chatte (female cat, colloquial for vagina). Earlier in the recording one of the girls present, Zahira, admonished Tarek, “Pas de gros mots” (“No bad words”), ostensibly in an attempt to keep the exchange relatively civil, perhaps for me, the researcher, as well as for my audio recorder. Tarek’s use of Hashek to replace a missing word might be interpreted as an attempt at circumventing this admonishment. In this way, the use of Hashek needs to be considered in the context of the interactional frame in that there is precedent for avoiding “bad words.” As in the previous example, Hashek works as a correction, that is, to recast Tarek’s irreverent talk about Sarah’s appearance as playful joking rather than insulting. However, despite the ostensible use of Hashek to lessen the face-threatening discursive force of the unsaid word, its presence evokes what is unsaid by causing listeners to be responsible for “filling in the blank” and thereby imagining the illicit

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

293

reference, whether that be Sarah’s gueule or something else. This has complex implications for speaker authorship and responsibility (Goffman 1981; Hill and Irvine 1993). Tarek’s use of Hashek has the potential to deflect authorship of the “bad word” to his audience and, in so doing, to shift responsibility for his irreverent stance toward Sarah to his audience. Hashek here serves as a strategic means to potentially facilitate the co-construction of a face-threatening act by audience members in addition to recasting the partially spoken utterance as playful teasing. In sum, self-corrective uses of Hashek in French are central to adolescents’ teasing rituals in that they allow teenagers to actively negotiate the boundary between play and insult on a moment to moment basis (cf. Eder 1995; Irvine 1992; Kochman 1983; Rampton 1995; Tetreault 2010). As Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) as well as others note, risky teasing is often used to establish rapport among friends and consolidate intimacy.9 I argue that Hashek is a central resource for teenagers to appeal to the values of solidarity and intimacy, rather than deference and social distance, in that it facilitates risky teasing of peers. In so doing, adolescents established a shared orientation to irreverence within their peer group in contrast to the (projected) normative orientation toward deference that Hashek indexed in their parents’ Arabic language interactions. These unconventional uses of Hashek for self-correction in French demonstrate that adolescents reflexively construct interactional norms for their peer group in transcultural conversation with the norms of their parents and more generally, and with the norms of native Arabic speakers and more specifically immigrants from the bled (home country). In French-based self-corrective uses of Hashek, adolescents rely upon the meta-pragmatic associations of Hashek with the deferential stances of polite, adult Arabic speakers such as parents. These meta-pragmatic projections inform speakers’ reflexive understandings of normative use and thereby facilitate adolescents’ irreverent uses of the term. Teens’ Other-Corrective Uses of Hashek The reflexively transcultural aspect of facework that I have outlined thus far takes on further complexity when considering adolescents’ uses of Hashek that depart from conventional uses in that they are other-corrections of a peer made in front of an audience. Rather than mitigating the potentially threatening force of a teenager’s own words, other-corrective uses of Hashek most often publicly recast a peer’s words as rude or immodest. In contrast to the ubiquitous use of Hashek as an othercorrective among French-speaking teens in my fieldsite, this practice also does not appear to be common in peer-based Arabic language interactions, based upon opportunistic sampling of North African Arabic speakers in both Chemin de l’Ile and Morocco conducted by me and my Moroccan research assistant, Amina Saadaoui. However, according to our sample there is precedent for Hashek as an other-corrective in parent-child North African Arabic language interactions. In these cases, a parent may use Hashek as a corrective for an impolite or inappropriate utterance to a child even without an audience since the putative interactional goal is to inculcate the child into polite behavior rather than to publicly mark the child as impolite. Furthermore, in contrast to the pattern of using Hashek as a selfcorrective to flout culturally respectful behavior, when using the term for othercorrection, adolescents sometimes specifically used the term to mark a peer as impolitely infringing upon cultural values of le respect. In these ways adolescents’ uses of Hashek seem to indicate dual processes of transcultural innovation and continuity. Below, I address two instances of teens using Hashek to correct another speaker. The first excerpt, Example 3, shows an instance in which Hashek is used by a teenager, Cécile, to mark my behavior as inappropriate and to protect her own face in front of an audience of peers. All of the adolescent participants in this exchange were fifteen

294

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

years old at the time of the recording. As with the other examples, the exchange was recorded in the neighborhood association Cerise. Just before the exchange, the three adolescents and I were sitting on the floor in a small room of the association and chatting in a relaxed moment of socializing during a school vacation. In this example, the offense occurred when I observed that Cécile is grande, a word that means either “tall” or “big,” depending on the referent. When referring to individuals and not objects, the term conventionally means “tall” or “grown up.” However, in the following example, the term appears to take on ambiguity and the nonconventional meaning of “fat.” Example 3 : Hashek as other-correction to mark impoliteness

1 Chantal 2 Cécile 3 Chantal 4 Cécile 5 Pierre 6 Cécile 7 Pierre 8 Silence 9 Chantal 10 Cécile

Maigrie un petit peu? Oui. Hé, j’ai de ces petites jambes! Hein? De ces petites jambes. T’as vu comment elle est grande et elle ose dire ça! Hé, franchement, Mina, [[ça fait pas petit? [[Mais elle est malade, cette fille! [2.0 seconds] Parce que t’es grande aussi de là à là. Ouais ouais.

11 Silence [2.0 seconds] 12 Chantal [laughs] 13 Cécile Hashek!

Lost some weight? Yes. Hey, I have such little legs! (to the group, smiling) What? Such little legs. (triumphant, bragging tone) You see how big she is and she dares to say that! (smiling, incredulous but admiringly) Hey, really, Mina, [[that doesn’t look small? (smiling, pointing to her thigh, in a jubilant tone) [[Oh this girl is crazy! (in an appreciative tone) Because you are big/tall also from here to here. (earnest tone, pointing to my feet and head) Yeah yeah. (In a disheartened, fatigued tone, looking downward.)

Hashek! (eyes staring at Chantal, spoken in a hurt, aggravated tone) (awkward silence for 3 seconds is followed by a change in topic, initiated by Mina)

The excerpt begins when I ask Cécile if she had lost weight, normally a very appropriate line of questioning in France in same-sex company, but here a potential face-threatening act because I asked the question in front of a male teenaged peer, Pierre. Doing so potentially infringes upon le respect through a discussion of Cécile’s body in mixed-gender company, a topic which would normally be avoided by Arab French teenagers in such a context. In response to my question about Cécile’s weight, she defers by claiming to have such “little” legs, although she in fact had a strong and solidly built physique. Mimicking Cécile’s joking tone, Pierre incredulously notes that she is actually quite grande (tall/big), introducing the possible nonconventional interpretation that she is actually “big/fat” and not “little,” as she claims. I compound the ambiguity as well as the potentially face-threatening discussion by clarifying that she is grande (“tall”) in height along with gesturing from my own head to my feet. Although Cécile agrees with my comment, an awkward silence ensues, and I laugh nervously, realizing my series of gaffes: I have been speaking about her body in front of a male peer and in ways that could be interpreted as disrespectful and as indicating that Cécile was “fat/big” and not just “tall/big.” The above example is indicative of a pattern of other-correction typical among teens in Chemin de l’Ile, specifically, of marking a fellow peer as rude in the wake of

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

295

a perceived face threat. In this case, while I am not technically a peer, my standing as a cultural novice and nonnative French speaker makes me vulnerable to a type of correction that adolescents usually reserve for one another. At one level of interpretation, the exchange appears to be a case of Cécile using Hashek to reprimand me for speaking about her body in front of a male peer. However, at another level, the example more specifically indicates Cécile’s correction of my laughter, which occurs directly before Hashek, and which she may be interpreting as disrespectful. The general tone of the exchange is initially playful, but breaks down in response to my continued gaffes and inability to maintain a joking tone. For example, Cécile initially accepts her peer, Pierre, teasing her in the wake of my calling attention to her weight. When Cécile initially dissimulates any potential awkwardness by joking that she has “such little legs,” Pierre appreciatively jokes back by laughingly countering she is “tall/big” (turn 5) and also “crazy” (turn 7). In contrast, my own disfluent contributions initiate trouble. I am unable to either hear or interpret Cécile’s comment in turn 3 (Hein? or What?). Then after a long pause (turn 8), instead of joining in the joking I take on a serious tack to claim that Cécile is “tall” in turn 9, which misfires as perhaps too earnest or too belabored, given Cécile’s disheartened response, “yeah, yeah.” Finally, after another long, awkward pause I laugh nervously in the wake of realizing that my commentary may have been disrespectful given the mixed company as well as the implication that we are potentially inferring that Cécile is “fat” and not just “tall/big.” Cécile, with a serious look on her face and a hurt tone, seems to interpret my laughter as insult in itself, and responds “Hashek” in turn 13. Aside from this impressive series of gaffes on my part, the exchange provides a unique view into teens’ reappropriation of Hashek for their own innovative interactional purposes. As such, the example demonstrates an inversion of the term’s original usage and meaning as a so-called “politeness formula” in that Cécile uses Hashek in order to mark me and my behavior as impolite and inappropriate. Furthermore, Cécile uses Hashek in order to forward an interpretation of behavior that she determines to be inappropriate as a personal affront rather than a ritualized affront in the wake of a particular semantic category. This example demonstrates that teens are not using Hashek to correct another speaker for sexual impropriety, playful irreverence, or even social awkwardness, but for imputed hostile aggression or negative intentions. Here, the pragmatic force of Hashek departs significantly from Arabic speakers’ use of the term to create modest deference in the wake of immodest subjects. Norms for teenaged peer facework are being brokered that validate joking and irreverence as appropriate as long as such talk is not intended to be hostile or mean-spirited. When I laugh, it seems that Cécile believes that I am laughing at her. She rejects such behavior as inappropriate by uttering Hashek even though she has previously withstood my and her peers’ talking about her body publicly in mixed company. In other words, we see here an instance of a broader practice of teens negotiating facework norms that are distinct from local notions of le respect. In contrast, Example 4 below shows one teen correcting another for a supposed breach of le respect in the presence of their adult male tutors. In this exchange, three female students aged 13 to 15, Samira, Mounia, and Mina, were chatting with their former male tutors, Mohammad and Djamel, both in their mid-twenties, about when they would return to the neighborhood association Cerise to help with math homework. Mohammad and Djamel had completed their internship with the association and so were no longer regularly employed there; they were just visiting that particular evening. When Djamel claimed that there was a new tutor to help them, Mina complained that she was an “idiot” using the Arabic term, ‘agouna. Samira then corrected Mina’s impropriety by uttering Hashek to her, simultaneously marking her behavior as impolite and creating polite deference for her adult male tutors, Mohammad and Djamel.

296

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Example 4 : Hashek as other-correction to construct le respect 1 Samira

Hé, vous revenez quand pour les maths? Vous revenez pas après?

Hey when are you coming back for math homework? You’re not coming back after this?

2 Mohammad

We’re going to come regularly. Maybe afterward Djamel is going to come regularly. (laughing)

3 Mounia

On va venir regulièrement. Peut-être après Djamel il va revenir regulièrement. Quand?

When?

4 Mohammad 5 Mounia

Janvier, février. Février! Ah non!

January, February. February! Oh no!

6 Djamel

There’s someone for math homework. There’s a girl (to help) with math.

7 Mina

Il y a quelqu’un pour les maths. Il y a une fille pour les maths. Ah c’est une ‘agouna.

8 Samira

Hashek!

Hashek! (to Mina, while staring at her, unsmiling and insistent)

Oh she’s an idiot.

The above excerpt demonstrates a more socially complex use of Hashek for othercorrection than evidenced in Example 3 in that, in addition to publicly marking a teenaged peer as rude, the term is used to create deference for a third party, in this case, the adult, male tutors, Mohammad and Djamel. Thus we see that, like the previous examples, Hashek is not used in Example 4 in the wake of a typical or codified context; the Arabic term ‘agouna (roughly, “idiot”; literally, “beast/animal”) in and of itself does not in adult practice usually require the corrective politeness formula among native Arabic speakers. In addition, what is arguably also innovative here is Samira’s choice to utter the polite corrective both for and seemingly also to Mina. As Goffman (1981) notes, through “participation frameworks,” individuals move beyond “speaker” and “listener” toward multiple “speaker roles” such animator and author, etc. Here, Samira can be seen to author this polite utterance for Mina, in addition to scolding her with it. As noted earlier, native North African Arabic speakers rarely use the term for other-correction outside of the context of a parent correcting a child. However, here we see a teenager engaged in othercorrection of a peer in an instance that seems to be explicitly about establishing a shared cultural propriety in front of their adult, male tutors, who are also of North African descent. As such, Example 4 provides evidence for teenagers using Hashek within a French context to elaborate facework norms not only for what might occur within their peer group but also in front of adults who are cultural insiders. The discursive complexity of this example provides evidence for teenagers’ apparent ambivalence with reference to notions of le respect. Salima appears to be actively protecting the face of Djamel and Mohammad, thus taking on a simultaneously deferential and yet powerful position in their regard. Traditionalist depictions of le respect claim a preeminence of adult men for conferring respect onto women and children, as shown earlier. And yet, in the excerpt here, Samira, a female child, takes on the powerful position of conferring respect onto her adult male tutors, Mohammad and Djamel. In addition, the action that Samira takes to confer le respect toward her tutors is also an action that confers shame or impropriety onto Mina. Samira was often critical of Mina for her overtly masculine styles of dress and language. Here correcting Mina for her purportedly inappropriate behavior in front of her male tutors appears to be a way for Samira to exert social control over the older girl. Thus, in reprimanding Mina, Samira uses a so-called “politeness formula,” Hashek, to foreground her own propriety at the expense of Mina’s. And while Samira’s utterance may attempt to restore the social face of Mohammad and Djamel, her utterance also appears to be a facethreatening action toward Mina. The case demonstrates that teenagers elaborate their own (mutable, manipulable) social norms regarding facework for their peer group in reference and also in con-

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

297

tradistinction to notions of le respect which they construct as a hierarchical system of deference. By speaking for Mina, Samira achieves a performance of deference to protect Mohammad’s and Djamel’s face based upon culturally informed (yet culturally transformative) notions of “polite” behavior. Conclusion Adolescents use Hashek as a central resource for constructing and enacting innovative facework norms within their peer group. Rather than the respectful deference that the term usually indicates among adults speaking North African Arabic, Hashek facilitates irreverence and intimacy among teenagers of North African descent in a French language context. More broadly, such uses of Hashek among teenagers evidence change regarding attitudes toward le respect. These changes are complex and multiple, rather than unidirectional. In the uses of Hashek as self-correction, teenagers undermine the ethos of le respect in that they use this term to facilitate irreverent, face-threatening actions. Yet the possibility of using Hashek to manipulate the boundary between play and insult within adolescent French-language interactions is dependent upon meta-pragmatic stereotypes of Hashek in polite adult interactions in Arabic that are dependent upon codes of le respect. In uses of Hashek as other-correction, a more complex picture emerges that surpasses the mere undoing or challenging of le respect. In the excerpt in which I was corrected for inappropriate talk about Cécile’s body, Hashek was employed in response to my laughter, rather than my initial choice to talk about her body in front of a male peer. Here, instead of reinforcing demure or gendered notions of deference or le respect, Hashek constructs teenaged (or even personal/individual) notions of appropriateness based upon Cécile’s rejection of my laughter as possibly mocking. In the second case of other-correction (example 4), Samira corrects her peer, Mina, for nondeferential and potentially insulting talk in front of adult, male tutors. This example therefore fits more squarely within the rubric of le respect. And yet, Samira’s use of the term also serves to publicly mark Mina as rude, and thus seems to contradict the respectful deference that Samira is attempting to create. Furthermore, as a young girl, Samira’s choice to protect the “face” of her adult, male tutor can be seen to undermine the age hierarchy implicit in a dominant ideological construction of le respect, which would normally cast her behavior as inappropriate. Thus, Samira upholds conventional models of respect in one way, by invoking the need for deferential behavior in front of an adult, but also subverts conventional models of respect in another way; as a child, she does not have the authority or status normally necessary to protect her tutor’s “respect.” In these ways, teenagers’ uses of Hashek indicate their generationally based stances toward le respect, which are both transgressive and dynamically reflexive with regard to their parents’ facework practices. The pragmatic force of Hashek to mitigate teenagers’ face-threats in French is semantically linked to the more “traditional” and codified use of this politeness formula in Arabic. The term’s usefulness for facilitating face threatening actions among French-speaking teenagers is dependent upon its discursive life in Arabic and polite usage by native Arabic-speaking parents. Hashek therefore retains some meaning as a speech act by virtue of its status as an Arabic term, but shifts in pragmatic force when imported into teenaged French-language interactions. For example, given the choice of other available expressions in French, such as, “je blaguais” (“I was joking”) Arab French teenagers often chose Hashek due to its apparent usefulness and persuasiveness in mitigating potentially hurtful teasing (in the case of self-correction) and in public shaming of peers (during other-correction) even when different French-language terms were available for these purposes. Adolescents do not simply “break the rules” of politeness when they utter Hashek in what their parents consider socially and linguistically inappropriate ways. Rather, they articulate a set of practices and strategies that are commensurate with their

298

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

interactional goals as teenagers and which allow them to construct shared discursive norms for their peer group in reference and in contradistinction to the projected norms of their parents. These innovative practices demonstrate that facework is normmediated, a fact which invites, rather than precludes, the creative manipulation of such norms. Innovative applications of Hashek demonstrate the transcultural effects of migration upon linguistic, cultural, and generational changes to facework rituals. The reformulations of le respect that are evident in Hashek use among teenagers are a way this code-specific genre both represents and enacts more pervasive cultural and generational changes in the community, especially by reconfiguring social relationships through facework norms. Innovative uses of Hashek do not just constitute “being rude” or impolite, but rather foreground teenaged forms of solidarity and intimacy in ways that reconfigure norms for le respect in peer settings. Hashek usage thus appears to provide a way for Arab French teenagers to mediate between adherence to “traditional” models for social relationships and new ones. Teenagers are thereby socializing themselves to transcultural practices that partially dismantle and reinstate their parents’ values and norms regarding politeness and facework. Notes 1. For the sake of brevity, I will henceforth use “Arab French teenagers” to indicate that my informants were French born of North African descent. I spell the term Hashek with a capital H to denote the breathy Arabic “h”, that is, h ¯ in IPA and ‫ ﺡ‬in Arabic. In general, I follow Kapchan’s [1996] system for transliteration of Moroccan Arabic. 2. I develop a more elaborate discussion of the concept of transculturality to analyze teenagers’ shared experiences of French, North African, and globalizing cultures in my book, Transcultural Teens: Performing Youth Identities in French Cités (Tetreault 2015). 3. Le respect bears some resemblance to the Spanish-language concept, respeto (“respect”), as well as some clear differences. Respeto, like le respect, connotes a system of deference and the safeguarding of personal integrity that may, in some contexts, incorporate an ideological understanding of age and gender hierarchies (cf. Lauria 1964). However, since the 1960s in the United States, the concept has evolved into a political conceptual framework among Chicano scholars and activists to create epistemological and pedagogical frameworks to combat racism and sexism (Elenes et al. 2001; Rosaldo 1994; Valdés 1996). To my knowledge, le respect has not been mobilized as a political platform to this degree in France; at the same time, my consultants sometimes invoked the notion of le respect in order to observe the general lack of “respect” on the part of French society for Arab and Muslim communities. 4. “Les musulmans, ils ne tappent pas. Nous, les musulmans—les hommes—ceux qu’ils respectent le plus c’est les vieux, les femmes, et les enfants. Les femmes, tu ne peux pas les taper. Tu ne peux pas lever la main contre elles.” 5. I do not intend to reify the practices related to Hashek as unchanging or uniform. The possibility for manipulation is inherent to any linguistic norm, and the same can be said of codified usage of Hashek. For example, the variation in scholars’ accounts of conventional uses of Hashek in North Africa demonstrates that usage changes across time and region, not to mention across interactional contexts. 6. The topic of ritual insult has a long and rich history in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. Foundational work emphasized the centrality of ritual insults to peer interactions among male youth and distinguished between ritual and personal insult by claiming that the former was understood as “not true” (Labov 1972b) and thus less threatening than the latter (Abrahams 1962; Dundes et al. 1970; Labov 1972a, 1972b; Mitchell-Kernan 1971). Contemporary research emphasizes the relative subtlety and shifting nature of this distinction (Eder 1990, 1995; Goodwin et al. 2002; Irvine 1992; Kochman 1983; Rampton 1995; Tetreault 2010). 7. This performance exhibits many features similar to what Chun (2009) documents as “Asian mocking.” 8. Transcription conventions: An exclamation point is used to indicate combined stress and loudness; a question mark indicates rising intonation. Periods and commas are used to indicate pauses, the first within a phrase and the second at the end of a phrase. Longer pauses are indicated by seconds in brackets. Double brackets indicate overlapping speech. Parentheses indicate researcher comments. The term Hashek appears in bold type.

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

299

9. Specifically, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) note that although scholarship initially emphasized the role of risky teasing for male solidarity (Lyman 1987; Keltner et al. 1998), their research and others’ demonstrate women’s active use of such strategies to establish social intimacy with friends (Crawford 1989, 1992; Lampert and Ervin-Tripp 1998; Marlowe 1984– 1985).

References Abrahams, Roger 1962 Playing the Dozens. Journal of American Folklore 75:209–220. Abu-Haidar, Farida 1995 Language Loyalty: The Case of Algerian Immigrants’ Children in France. In Arabic Sociolinguistics: Issues and Perspectives. Yasir Suleiman, ed. Pp. 43–55. New York: Routledge. Abu-Lughod, Lila 1986 Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Agha, Asif 1994 Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:277–302. 2005 Voice, Footing, Enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(1):38–59. doi:10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38. 2007 Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arundale, Robert B. 1999 An Alternative Model and Ideology of Communication for an Alternative to Politeness Theory. Pragmatics 9(1):119–153. 2005 Pragmatics, Conversational Implicature, and Conversation. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, eds. Pp. 41–63. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2006 Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Framework for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2:193–216. Basier, Luc, and Christian Bachmann 1984 Le Verlan: Argot D’école ou Langue des Keums? Mots 8(1):169–187. doi:10.3406/ mots.1984.1145. Billiez, Jacqueline 1985 Les Jeunes Issus de l’Immigration Algérienne et Espagnole à Grenoble: Quelques Aspects Sociolinguistiques. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 54:41–56. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1985.54.41. Boucherit, Aziza 2008 Continuité, Rupture et Construction Identitaires: Analyse de Discours d’Immigrés Maghrébins en France. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 190:49– 77. Bourdieu, Pierre 1966 The Sentiment of Honour in Kabyle Society. In Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. J. G. Peristiany, ed. Pp. 191–241. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boyer, Henri 1994 Le Jeune Tel Qu’on en Parle. Langage et Société 70:85–91. 1997 Nouveau Français “Parler Jeune” ou “Langue des Cités”? Remarques sur un Objet Linguistique Médiatiquement Identifié. Langue Française 114(1):6–15. doi:10.3406/ lfr.1997.5379. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, Mary 1999 “Why Be Normal?”: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls. Language in Society 28(2):203–223. 2011 White Kids: Language, Race, and Styles of Youth Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chun, Elaine 2009 Speaking Like Asian Immigrants: Intersection of Accommodation and Mocking at a U.S. High School. Pragmatics 12(1):17–38.

300

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Crawford, Mary 1989 Humor in Conversational Contexts: Beyond Biases in the Study of Gender and Humor. In Representations: Social Constructions of Gender. Rhoda Kesler Unger, ed. Pp. 155–166. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. 1992 Just Kidding: Gender and Conversational Humor. In New Perspectives on Women and Comedy. Regina Barreca, ed. Pp. 23–38. Philadelphia: Gordon and Breach. Dabène, Louise 1991 Le Parler Bilingue Issus de l’Immigration en France. In Codeswitching as a Worldwide Phenomenon. Rodolfo Jacobson, ed. Pp. 159–168. New York: Peter Lang. Dabène, Louise, and Jacqueline Billiez 1987 Le Parler des Jeunes Issu de l’Immigration. In France, Pays Multilingue. Geneviève Vermès and Josiane Boutet, eds. Pp. 62–74. Paris: L’Harmattan. Dannequin, Claudine 1999 Interactions Verbales et Construction de l’Humiliation Chez les Jeunes des Quartiers Défavorisés. Mots 60(1):76–92. doi:10.3406/mots.1999.2165. Dundes, Alan, Jerry W. Leach, and Bora Ozkok 1970 The Strategy of Turkish Boys’ Verbal Dueling Rhymes. The Journal of American Folklore 83:325–349. Eckert, Penelope 1989 Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press. 2003 Language and Gender in Adolescence. In The Handbook of Language and Gender. J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff, eds. Pp. 381–400. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Eder, Donna 1990 Serious and Playful Disputes: Variation in Conflict Talk among Female Adolescents. In Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Allen D. Grimshaw, ed. Pp. 67–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995 School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Elenes, C. Alejandra, et al. 2001 Introduction: Chicana/Mexicana Feminist Pedagogies: Consejos, Respeto, y Educación in Everyday Life. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 14(5):595– 602. Friedrich, Paul 1986 The Language Parallax. Austin: University of Texas Press. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar 2009 Impoliteness and Identity in the American News Media: The Culture Wars. Journal of Politeness Research 5:273–304. 2010 A Genre Approach to the Study of Impoliteness. International Review of Pragmatics 2(1):46–94. Garrett, Paul 2005 What a Language Is Good For: Language Socialization, Language Shift, and the Persistence of Code-Specific Genres in St. Lucia. Language in Society 34:327–361. Goffman, Erving 1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1982 Interaction Ritual—Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon. Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Amy Kyratzis 2011 Peer Language Socialization. In The Handboook of Language Socialization. Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs, and Bambi B. Schieffelin, eds. Pp. 365–390. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, Charles Goodwin, and Malcah Yaeger-Dror 2002 Multi-Modality in Girls’ Game Disputes. Journal of Pragmatics 34:1621–1649. Goudaillier, Jean-Pierre 2012 Langues et Identités: l’Exemple du Français Contemporain des Cités. Informations Sociales (119):74–80. Haugh, Michael 2007 The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3:295–317. Hill, Jane 1998 Language, Race, and White Public Space. American Anthropologist 100(3):680–689. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680.

“What do you think about having beauty marks on your—Hashek!”

301

Hill, Jane, and Judith Irvine 1993 Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, Janet 1995 Women, Men, and Politeness. New York: Longman. Irvine, Judith 1992 Insult and Responsibility: Verbal Abuse in a Wolof Village. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Jane Hill and Judith Irvine, eds. Pp. 104–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kapchan, Deborah 1996 Gender on the Market: Moroccan Women and the Revoicing of Tradition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Keating, Elizabeth 1998 Power Sharing: Language, Rank, Gender, and Social Space in Pohnpei, Micronesia. New York: Oxford University Press. Keim, Inken 2008 Linguistic Variation, Style of Communication, and Sociocultural Identity: Case Study of a Migrant Youth Group in Mannheim, Germany. In Multilingualism and Identities across Contexts: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Turkish-Speaking Youth in Europe. V. Lytra and J. Normann Jørgensen, eds. Pp. 178–226. Copenhagen: Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen. Keltner, Dacher, Randall C. Young, Erin Heerey, Carmen Oemig, and Natalie Monarch 1998 Teasing in Hierarchical and Intimate Relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75:1231–1247. Kochman, Thomas 1983 The Boundary between Play and Nonplay in Black Verbal Dueling. Language in Society 12:329–337. Labov, William 1972a Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1972b Rules for Ritual Insults. In Studies in Social Interaction. David Sudnow, ed. Pp. 120–169. New York: The Free Press. Lampert, Martin D., and Susan M. Ervin-Tripp 1998 Exploring Paradigms: The Study of Gender and Sense of Humor Near the End of the Twentieth Century. In The “ ‘Sense’ ” of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Dimension. W. Ruch, ed. Pp. 231–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2006 Risky Laughter: Teasing and Self-Directed Joking among Male and Female Friends. Journal of Pragmatics 38:51–72. Lauria, Anthony 1964 “Respeto,” “Relajo” and Inter-Personal Relations in Puerto Rico. Anthropological Quarterly 37(2):53–67. Locher, Miriam, and Richard J Watts 2005 Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture 1(1):9–33. doi:10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9. Lyman, Peter 1987 The Fraternal Bond as a Joking Relation: A Case Study of Sexist Jokes on Male Group Bonding. In Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. M. S. Kimmel, ed. Pp. 148–163. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marlowe, Leigh 1984–1985 A Sense of Humor. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 4:265–275. Mendoza-Denton, Norma 2008 Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice among Latina Youth Gangs. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Mills, Sara 2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell-Kernan, Claudia 1971 Language Behavior in a Black Urban Community. Berkeley: University of California Language Behavior Laboratory. Moïse, Claudine 2003 Pratiques Langagières des Banlieues: Où Sont les Femmes? La Lettre de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence 51(1):47–54.

302

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Ortiz, Fernando 1947 Cuban Counterpoint; Tobacco and Sugar, translated from the Spanish by Harriet de Onís. New York: Knopf. Pagliai, Valentina 2010 Conflict, Cooperation, and Facework in Contrasto Verbal Duels. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20(1):87–100. Rampton, Ben 1995 Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Addison Wesley. 2003 Hegemony, Social Class, and Stylisation. Pragmatics 13(1):49–84. Rosaldo, Renato 1994 Cultural Citizenship in San Jose, California. PoLAR 17(2):57–64. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988 Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Paul Drew and T. Wootton, eds. Pp. 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press. Shankar, Shalini 2008 Desi Land: Teen Culture, Class, and Success in Silicon Valley. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Shuman, Amy 1986 Storytelling Rights: The Uses of Oral and Written Texts by Urban Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 “Get outa my face”: Entitlement and Authoritative Discourse. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Jane H. Hill and Judith T. Irvine, eds. Pp. 135–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, Michael 1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Meaning in Anthropology. Keith H. Basso and Henry Selby, eds. Pp. 11–56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Tetreault, Chantal 2009a Reflecting Respect: Transcultural Communicative Practices of Muslim French Youth. Pragmatics 19(1):65–83. 2009b Cité Teens Entextualizing French TV Host Register: Crossing, Voicing, and Participation Frameworks. Language in Society 38(2):201–231. 2010 Collaborative Conflicts: Teens Performing Aggression and Intimacy in a French Cité. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20(1):72–86. 2015 Transcultural Teens: Performing Youth Identities in French Cités. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Urciuoli, Bonnie 1996 Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. Boulder, CO: Westview. Valdés, Guadalupe 1996 Con Respeto: Bridging the Distances between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Woolard, Kathryn 1998 Simultaneity and Bivalency as Strategies in Bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8:3–29.