Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
L2ProficiencyasaFunctionofCulturalIdentityinInterlingualCouples
11
cialsalienceinthatidentitybecomesthesocialpositioningofselfandothers
(Bucholtz&Hall,2005,p.586).BucholtzandHall’sconceptsofsameness
anddifferencetakeacentralpositioninourstudy—twophenomenological
processesthatemergefromsocialinteraction.Accordingtotheauthors(2003,
p.369),samenessallowsforindividualstoimaginethemselvesasagroup,while
differenceproducessocialdistancebetweenthosewhoperceivethemselvesas
unlike.
InanearlierstudyGonçalves(2010)re-conceptualizesthesaliencyofin-
dividuals’situatedpastidentities,positions,andpracticesandjuxtaposesthem
withindividuals’currentsituationalidentities,positions,andpracticesinorder
tofacilitatetheirrejectionofhybridity,byproposingthetermssituatedand
situationalidentitieswithinethnographicstudies.Situatedidentityisdescribed
as“anindividual’ssenseofself,whichisoftencharacterizedas‘stable,’‘fixed,’
and‘unchanged’inthatitishowindividualsconsiderthemselvestobeoract
inherently”(Gonçalves,2010,pp.81ff.).Furthermore,situatedidentitiescan
alsorefertohowindividualsare“seen,”placedorsituatedbyothersascertain
individualswithinaspecificcontext.Asituationalidentity,ontheotherhand
ismoreflexible,dynamic,temporaryandcanbeconstructedbyoneselforco-
constructedbyothers(Gonçalves,2010,pp.81ff.).Havinganalyzedindividuals’
first-orderperceptionofidentityinaSwisscontext,Gonçalvesconcludedthat
hybridityultimatelymeans“scrutinizinginterpersonaldiscoursewithinaninti-
matecommunityofpracticewherethepositioningofselfandotherconstantly
emerges”(2010,p.86):
Whileitisimpossibletoaccountforidentity“asawhole,”[…]individuals
livinginabinationalrelationshipcometotermswiththeirhybridcultural
identitiesbydiscursivelyco-constructingthisnotionand,simultaneously,
performinghybriditybydrawingonanarrayoflanguageresourcesand
linguisticfeatures.(Gonçalves,2013,p.544)
Finally,itisalsointerestingtonotethatsomeneuroscientists(e.g.,Aron,Fisher,
Mashek,Strong,Li,&Brown,2005)havecharacterizedromanticloveasnot
somuchaspecificemotionasa“motivationstate”withrespecttoanimpera-
tivetobewiththebelovedandtoprotecttherelationshipinquestion.Clearly,
suchanimperativeis,amongotherthings,connectedtoseekingoutmeansof
communicationandtodevelopingandlookingaftersuchmeans—withobvious
implicationsforskillsinrelevantlanguages.
