Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Context Contests Debatable Truth Stateme

    Hochgeladen von

    Eduardo Espíndola
    17 Ansichten13 Seiten
    OIE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    OIE

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    17 Ansichten13 Seiten

    Context Contests Debatable Truth Stateme

    Hochgeladen von

    Eduardo Espíndola
    OIE

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 13
    Context contests: debatable truth statements on Tanna (Vanuatu) LAMONT LINDSTROM itor introduction 2 Lamont Lindstrom musk in order interact tla the way they do. The maltese mode ha merges from thee ferent contrivtions an perspectives sone n wih te foumal properties ofthe communicative sytem canbe seen through a vary of fering devices, with power being one of them, Context contests: debatable truth statements on Tanna (Vanuatu) On June 15, 198, around seventy-five people on Tanna Island, Vanuatu, ‘father and son.' The meeting went 1 fist ight and general melee. Subseque nd repair the dispute. The meeting ended debate filed to clear the a Without a consensual resolution. To undestand what people said to eachother at this meeting, why they Iailed to resolve their problem, and why tlk led to violence, me obviously need to know about “contest.” Reading a transcript of what people said ‘during debate is not enough. Context informs the text. This island meeting, like any speech event, needs to be situated within the actors eullutal horizons. But how ean we be more specific? What aspects of the eultura ‘OnTEXT shoul we note? Ta This chapter, Tw an approach to content I borrow from Foucault (1981). Ia this, the context of talk consists of "orders of discourse.” Context is a set ofeultutal rules, conditions, and practies| that govern how people talk. People have to attend to local conditions for talking in order to converse in ways that sound authentic, meaningful, and worth saying. They also have to pay attention to existing, surrounding “aliscourses” ~ oF Bodies of organized, loeal Knowledge. The term “die course” sometimes refers to conversation ~ what inthis chapter I instead call “talk” This tlk takes place inthe context of cltural "iscourses" or “complexes of signs and practices which organize social existence’ and social reproduction” (Terdiman 1985. 54) ‘This approach to discursive context demands that we pay attention to several kinds of power. Fist there is the power of culture (or contest) ‘itself, Is dificult to converse authentically unless one talks bythe ules. Already existing discourses and al can be said. Secondly, these ing discourses and these condition for taleng empower people lly. Some have rights to talk. Some do nat. Some people may claim ‘expertise over important bodies of knowledges some are ignorant of those ‘scours. When people come together to talk, they arrive endowed with Debatable truth statements on Tanna (Vanwats) 103 ‘an occasionally say the unsayable. They can contest the context, by ‘evoking available alternative oF competing discourses, There isan itere Felation between talk and context Ifcontet informs the text, 80 an 4 text inform its context. Orders of discourse ate not monolithic (Foucault 1978 95-6; Terdiman 1985; see also Bakhtin 1981: 271-3). Even within the most hegemonic culture, possibilities for counter-iscourses exis, Further mor ihe various discourses within acalure may be contradictory. Talk that taucin the context of one may be construed false in the context ofa second During the debate analyzed here, the contextual background was not fixed. People played wit its loose ends and its contradictions in order to win the debate: to a wlite to what they said to devalue the talk oftheir ‘opponents, As some speakers strove to establish the truth of what they sid in terms of one loeal island discourse, others labored to devontextwalize ‘his, evealing its falty in the terms ofa second, Disputants, furthermore, semetimes reused t recognize the vale, or “seriousness,” of some of the atements of ther eval, They avoided hearing, for example, the subtex ‘wal meanings of metaphors, allegories, or other indieet speech, fnessing thoie rivals” statements as mee tivia or nonsense (see MeKelin 1990), Although contexUclturevotders of discourse largely determine the lists ‘of what can be said, people talking in contest nonetheless find room to regotiate and resist, given the “dynamie character of human action and Jhuman understanding” (Duran, this volume, p. 72). 1 Context asa discursive order Te OG TTT) aad ae Fave Observe, There eR wo pea analytes of context: the one, stemming from the cognitive sciences, focuses on information-processng structures in our heads that help us ‘understand talk, The other, more sociological, breaks doven those features of interpersonal speech events tht influence our production of talk, Both approaches bundle up cognitive andlor social aspests of context into packages beled frames schema, schemata, scripts, or speech events (See Tannen 1979). Talk occurs in this manner within frames; in terms of 3 rental schema or sript; or is embedded within the several constituent elements of a specch event different conversational rights and resources Context ita field of power relations. I is not, however, a frozen fed Contest oll as poole lk Preexisting discourses and discursive condi ors do set mis on tale, But they are never totlly determinant. People These concepts of “frame” (Batevon 1972; Goffman 197A), “schema,” tnd “speech event” have been dominant models for thinking. about context. Context is olten futher sored an bro compe See cinmnee Sas noon seme anton Ge Fs DOL APS However ploted, thee models of context often grant context an inert nevtrlty: contest isa neutral field forthe play of speech evens, oF isthe ‘cumulation of cognitive schemata that are cued to foreground. past understanding * 104 Lamont Lindstrom Debaable ruth atements on Tanna (Vanuats) 105 Foucault's “orders of discourse,” on the other hand, spot relations of power, and of resistance, inherent in context. People converse in a context full of conditions that govern authentic, “audible” forms of talk and, furthermore chat organize who may talk, This, Foucault calls ‘rarclaction” of speaking subject: “none may ener the order of discourse if he does not satisfy certain requiements oF fhe isnot rom the outset qualified 10 do. s0” (1981: 81-2). Secondly, an order of discours tstablishes conditions under which tak is heaed to be true ofl. "Iti aways possible that one might speak the truth in the space of a wild exterionty, but one isin the ruc only by obeying the rules ofa discursive ‘policing’ which one has to reactivate in each of one's discourses” (1981 eb, with different rights oll the truth; 2) establish regions of knowledge and regions of “silence”; (3) set trath conditions ~a “regime of truth”; and (3) link that eegime of sath “in exclu relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which 1d” (Foucault 1980: 138) To analyze the reflexive relationship of ‘ebate to its context, therefore, Ihave in mind a content ful of discursive evices and procedures, not one composed of disinterested cognitive Schemata or the comfortable fuenture of speech evens, Abandoning the neutrality of schema, frame, and xposch event, contex: tual analysis begins instead by asking what kinds of tak can be heard and understood, and what kinds of talk anno, Ate al pat ie ‘SpeaK and (0 speak the truth? Can talk carry all meanings? Let's take context, instead, tobe an apparatus by which our talk most of the time is ‘organized and controlled: A set of devices and procedures that protect ruling powers and truths, in Foucault’ terms, Instead of speech event Personnel, e's ook for dispaately qualified “subjects: istead of contex, tual ends, Jet's look for relations of power and tuth; instead of conte tua norms, let's look for rules, devices, and procedures of discourse conta os detie The wonText OT talk 10 De sets of discursive procedures nd conditions that oxganize the qualification and opportuntics of speakers ‘make statements, and that establish conditions under which those sate ments are heard as authentic or rue. Foucault (1981. 52-61) identifies three general kins of discourse contol procedures, Somie endow certain ‘people with better rights and opportunities to talk than others, tn the ‘debate analyzed here, for example, a wife's beating was at sue. Although the injured woman wis present, she didnot speak. Under the conditions of Tanna’s discursive order, women’s talk is muted Secondly, some proved res establish areas of taboo oF “silence” by making certain Kinds of talk appear inauthenti, mad, irrational, or false, Finally, other conditions working from within a discousse serve to protect and reproduce thet discourse. An_example here is the “discipline” (Foucault 1981 Disciplines organize knowledge by contirming which statements are tae Which ae false, and which are inaudible: "in order to be part of iscipline, a proposition has to beable tobe inscribed on a certain type of theoretical horizon. .. within is own limits, each discipline recognizes {rue and false propositions; bu it aso pushes beck a whole teratology of knowledge beyond its margins” (1981 6). In sum, people talkin & context of existing discursive orders that (1) endow people with different qualifications andl opportunities to talk and 2 Debates on Tanna The debate, or dspute-setlement meeting, is the main instttionalized forum for the resolution of sociat problems on Tanna (see Lindstrom 1981). Concerned leading men set the dete for a mecting and send ‘messages of invitation to thi partis to come “witness” the proceedings ‘Witesses tend to be older, powerful leaders of local groups, and also leaders of the several polico-religious organizations onthe island. Debates take place at forest clearings shaded by magnificent banyan trees. Here, men also convene daily #0 prepare end drink ave (Piper ‘methysticu). People attending a debate sit along the periphery of these circular clearings. Disputants, consistent with iland dual, sit a ant pod points, facing one another across the clearing. The third patie who witness debate mediate this dualism, positioning themselves between the ta sides, To speak, men stand and enter the center ofthe clearing, They hold the center until they are done expositing and then return tothe periphery 10 sit, Debate rarely takes the form of question/answer of other sorts of sjacency pairs, at does in the Fijian Indian Pancayat (Brenneis 190; see also Goldman 1983: 19). Instead, speakers deliver statements. These statements may be terse or extensive; devoted to ane point, or addressed toa numberof points and fellow speakers. Debaters do refer to statements made by previous speakers. As the floor i seiacquired, however, topical and speaker interactions often are not adjacent. One to several subsequent Statements by ether speakers may have occupied the floor in the mea while. Direct questioning or accusation of others uncommon; speakers address their statements 10 the audience in. general, or to important witnesses uninvolved in the dispute isell. If dxputants do confront one another directly, nervous others hasten to interrupt and reditect the debate Speaking continues until about 4 p.m, when men need to begin the day's kava preparation, or their journeys to teach home villages before nightfall. People ordinarily pretend that a decsion will be Cound, oF a dispute settled, in one day's mesting - before dus, in fact, so that kava 106 Lamont Lindstrom Preparation may property begin. Shared kava between antagonists atthe end of the day symbolizes the achievement ofa consenss and thea feast apparent resolution of dispute ‘The debate [analyze inthis chapter was convened to resolve a familia dispate between Misisten and hs son Kara Ouihi, Long-standing i feeling exsied between father and son. These had, in pat, grown out of problems in Kara Ouihi's and hs brothers’ marital arrangements, Tannese ‘marriage practice i one of sster-exchange. When man martes he elves ‘up one of his sisters or other female relatives in exchange for his wife Marriage agreements are often complex and difficult 10 organize. Most men rely on the goodwill and expertise of their fathers to carry out negotiations, but Misvaren had been Jess than helpful and genesous, Kara (Outhi was also angry that his father, a8 yet, had refused to bestow any ot the familys set of traditional personal names on his grandchildren, al of whom were sill known by European appellations. Personal names, on Tana, give boys specific rights to various land plots in locale (Lindstrom 15), Friction between Misiuaren and his son had! worsened following the boy. When Kara Oui brought his son's body from the island's hospital (where he had been taken in a use-hteh ‘typical onthe island ~ after traditional medicines had Lledo cre ‘serious case of malaria), Misiuaren refused to let a rave fox his rancor ‘be dg in his village. Misuaten als stuck his wite Sevoki for teasons tht were imitddid in later recounting ofthe event This was the dispate that about sity men and fifteen women (including the abused Seroki) gathered to resolve. The most important point at nse was the cause of Kara Ouiti’s son's demise, People, aordeng (9 island \iscourses about kinship relations, took this death ss at index of the family’s discord, and ofthe necessity to settle this conflict quickly, leat, ‘angry ancestors ill oft nyone ese, The second important point concerned the fats ofSerok's beating. Why had Misivaren clubbed his wife, and with What instrument? Misivaren, Kara Oui, supporters, and witnessee all made statements about these events In 0 doin, each side evoked several alternative island disciplines in order to dislocate the truth value of the Statements of the other ‘Alter ninety minutes or so of dispute, debate took a dangerous turn. Misiuaren and Kata Ouibi began addressing each other directly. Misi Fen, not dissuaded by witneses’ attempts to rediect talk along safer channels, then erased to his son's side of the Kava-denking ground fo strike him. Kara Ouih’s brothers and supporters managed te shld him from the blow, and other participants dashed to get hold of Misiaen, who had grabbed a log a an impromptu club In the meanwhile, however, o fof Misiaren’s younger allies sauck up behind Kenat, Kara Oui slossificatory brother, and knocked him unconscious with «Blow. Women Debatable ruth statements on Tanna (Vanuatu) 107 eened and milled about, Most of the rest of the men rushed into the ‘enter inthe clearing to seeure both Misiuaen and Kara Oui and to put 4 top to several sie-fights between supporters of eae Alter Kenat had been revived by a pounding on his chest and n dowsing of cold water, important witnesies managed to convince everyone to find their places agninon the periphery ofthe clearing in order to keep debate alive I tak had collapsed, and antagonists departed, the deepened social fissure would have been even more difficult to repair. An hour’ additional slscusion resulted in the typical Tannese rerponse to serious confit. A revived Kenat and his assailant would exchange a pig and a kava root, ‘Misivaren, on the one hand, and Kara Ouiti, on the other, would do likewise. The latter exchange, however, went awry. Only Kara Ouihi and his supporters drank kava together that nigh, Misiuaren went off with Ms allies and stayed away from home for a number of days unl tempers had «poled to some degree. The debate's dramatis personae, to summarize included the following: The Father Misuaren (MI “Te Beaten Wate Seroki The Bereaved Sen Kara Oui (KO) The Sons Mate Supporter Kei (KI) The Assaulted Brother Kenat Some Witnesses, Kauke (KA); Narua (NA); Nouae (NO) ‘Toillustrat relations betwee talk snd context, except statements made by some ofthese people during their debate. (Speake are ientied by the abbreviations Inted above) Fllowing Foucul (1972 8,87), Take the “statement” 10 be the basi unit, or “funtion,” of discourse, At Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982 4) read Foucault, theve statements ae best understood a serious speech acs” ~the sort talk produced by person ‘who “speak with author beyond the range of tele merely personal situation and power.” ‘These are satements whose claims to be tre of reality take place “in context in which ruth and falsity have serious soca es." This perhaps expel charactristicof the sort of truth is produced during a dispute soting debate Tanna’ cnearive order comtioned the fxm, the uth value, and the tmeaning of the statements made n debate, but so ai these statements Conjure up and occasional shit the contestal order, 35 people contested tortext 10 their advantage. In tho fst of the chapter, Tempore thee felations between dacursvecontaton te ane hand, an debate sa Tent meaning, and statement truth value, on the other.” Discussing statement meaning, I will be most concerned with discourse procedures that “rarefy" the speaking subject. Given Tanna's discursive conten what are peoples rights to talk and to mean what they say? Discussing statement uth, Twill be most concerned with discourse procedures, such a8 the That Goines Whether ak ngs oe or ound ake so all may cee cei ies teva nay eee ‘een onesee aes aan er ee first, Discussion of the other side of the story ~ contexts effects on fone Mach nog sac aan ea Sorat oendharetcwe tet wattage iat ih na le ae ee Sieh pd tO cope eas 1 Mt an aa 2 Ren emi pa mc mig int. ‘at of fs wale Seok Alton Seo as tig, Sanage, om he ‘aM tink he nol Pave smeing to may" Unter he sons of 1 ood speding to fmmle we to teh aad Mature ha Soins yp tak fom hi tc ie ‘oes sac he dnaponting rest awl dependence i) 110 Lamont Lindstrom At various turns throughout the de autempts to change the topic. He returned 'a number of times t0 hi Statement that the mesting should address problems of national indepen ence. He sidetracked debate in other ways fo0, altering to open More ‘general discussion abou the valve of European versus traditional personal ‘ames, and about the universal problems of sorcery and cursing. tis supporters also cued inappesite topics with extended ases “These statements, however, remained asides, Misuaren's antgonists succeeded for ninety minutes in reframing the debate, keepin it “on track” by panying these attempts to defame, Witness Kauke, for example, in some exasperation stated: , Misiuaren continued is 11 KA:Kimaha ahonapwohnuveen nag me sikniahe We did't come here today to worry over your personal names, That rests inside the kave-draking gouad group, 13 Matric thane aia nkiarden ou Kova sini, Werte istening otis small ae (problem) of yours, we came for 14 Tahanwee me eka oa hi a: nuke fo ra? ‘We came to ten why you started; what wos the cause o 1 1S Men mee pen raba naha praneme roe? {Wcontinaed wl the rouble with the ok woman; what was it The competition in dspute-setlement meetings of this sort to defame and reframe transgresses (atleast on the surface) Grccian maxim of conversational cooperation. Disputants violate conversational rules of ‘quantity by reveling oo Hite; they Violate principles of conversational relevance by veering off on tangents or making Statements about topics having litle to do with preceding talk; they violate principles of manner by nding behind obscure and ambiguous language; and they violate principles ‘of quality by insisting on alternative truths, ss discussed below, Disptatioas talk needs fo be analyzed not aly for devices that ensure oderence and cohesion (see Tannen 1984), but also for those mechanisms by which speakers achieve sudden shifts and underminings of context, and thereby ‘of unpalatable meanings an truths, and how they bring about breakdowns fof conversational coherence. It docs not always pay to be understood, particularly where someone else has established the contextual limits of Understanding Shifts and lack of cohesion in debate frustrated more witnesses than just Kauke (lines 11-15), in that reaming attempts oscurred frequently. The competition to frame and deframe. perhaps helps us understand the ‘debates transformation into a fight. Violence hes strong decontextualiing Debatable truth stremenes on Tanna (Vanuatu) — LL effets, Misiuaren's statements (we can count nonverbal sigas such at ting a elu es stares 0) transformed tall context fom debate fe bran. The ramon occurred thus 16 KO: Naphaion savant kup er. is (Miser) lk. (Guts) preceded (the chilis death). 17 Na nar nh rand inl mp a wopin no. What he sid we for him (the hi) to get oof Bee. Mi: Karu Oui Apna nagar, mun Hino rom Kira Oui Stop talking, you ae rong! 19 KO dt nel i Putdowa the cub! Put down the abt 20-ME: Ms iturin mua kino rome! You kom that you di wrong! 24 KO dnt nef at Pat down the cab Pat doen the eb 22-Mks Mu hina nakoanek amie vipa a? ‘You mae my head sore rgarng my grandchildren, huh? 23 Mutua ak tkapwat Mi lak ua Powaba ns? St rowaha nas? A, a, €? St rouniha na? Tasted you tsp. 1 asked wh runes the milk? Who rind she tk? He hh hh? Who cued he xk? 24 Kl: Hows, haoual ona va! Beat beat, best him wih [melee “This unusual series of adjacency pais signaled the recontextuatization o debate into fracas. Misiusten’s demand that Kara Oui “stop talking” (ine 18) and Kier call for an attack on Misiuaren (line 24) along with parallel nonverbal statements ~ Misvaren's picking up a club ~ trans formed the context and the identities of those in attendance: “witnesses became “fighters” oF “referees. Ttalk cues new contexts and transform ensing ones, aso dear at the contextuel order informs the meaning of Statements. In this regard, Durant (198) has erticized Grice’ location of meaning in an independent speaker's intention that his statements induce an understanding in an audience (intending also that this audience recognize that intention), With [Samoan data, Doranti argues that 2 speakercentred approach ofthis sort builds on Wester, culturally specific theories of the speaking person Situation of meaning ‘within an individual's intentions. nepects active audience contributions othe determination of the meaning ofa statement. Does an audience merely recognize a speaker’ intentions, or i its contribution 1o-astalement’s meaning greater than this? ‘onextual and relational theories ofthe pewson and oF rant suggests that meaning in Samoa “Is seen as the Product ofan interaction (words included) and not necessarily as some: 114 Lamont Lindstrom 30.NA: Tk Masuaron i ame aor mata nermame hint pam rake Koma ‘aim Hinata hana aio awaken You Misivren you ae ban but people ave seen al of your ‘rcs cores). They se your trieks om Nouar, a witness, reworked Misiuasen’s statement thatthe problem was “aothing” (ine 25) and called, instead, for more debate 31 NO: Nu ik a ma tala rina rake nagar, rukure mss ‘aka mua ncaa tupivoh nega Now Tsay tha brotherslew bs ose the debate an sit down dosed the debates that people stop talking 52 ‘Mamie n na eam pars han noe w sarin fa mvipwuk {ramakure, mete pam nermana ‘Bur everyone has heard of the thing we te dd to my grandson (Kara Oui) siting here, news eared everyone 33 Tha nema bamaphir. Tk vouapmah nen maa fo, init tain, eoupweh nasigion nagharien. ‘You see everyne sl aking. Dont you two pth you wil You and botherintam, dnt you tne cs the hate 34 Poul ncrmaraa he pa Let people spl everyting ox, Although, inthis ease, the audience did not reformulate Misiaren's Jocutionary act, it did determine its illocutionary fore. The confession was ‘ot a confession; sorrow not sorrow; debate not dosed. Whether statement meanings are anchoted principally to speaker intentions or to audience recognition depends upon the sort of subjectivity known within local discursive orders ~ on loeal discourses about the "person." These orders, moreover, establish differenti qualifications to talk ana to mean what one ‘ays. They, furthermore, endow certain subjects with best rights. end ‘opportunities to control the public hearing of what i sti, Discursive contexts that inform talk meaning are not innocent. 4 Context and statement ruth Theories ofthe ruth of statements often locate that truth inthe relation Ship of a statement to its context. I context is the "real world,” truth depends upon the aevuraey of a statements reflection of facts in that world. If context, however, isthe way in which the world is culturally percsived, and discusively ordered and communicated, a statements ruth then depends on its relationship to the prosedures and devices of ts formulation and enunciation on how people ae able to compose and utter that statement, In disputes and in other sorts of discourse where a Statement’s tuth is directly at stake, debaters take pains tO invoke “trendy” aspects of context in which to fx thee talk and inform its ruth Debatable truth statements on Tanna (Vanuat) 1S Debate antagonists at Lamanuapen, for example, enunciated contra tory statements shout te principal sues! A. Why did he baby di? 35 ML: Tob oka marie pee route i ad 5 fal planing. 1 open up something for you two tose abou the es of family plating (resing ponpartam sex tboos, ich po sons moses lk. 36° Nama trimua hint ma hiareire ou tokwtakwme takai ‘nap nagierion min taken you say that you dsrgand me mane, 1 bring ost this tk and Place it into dncssion) no Hip nin? Rat nay brothers! 8 Inf rouarai affa mipwukroueiua lamnal nari? AP A? Why di yo two secretly arty my andl and go dowe int the sh (have seal intercourse? Hu? Hub? 38 Rowavah rousin fae anal na. You two went secretly ita the bah, cal intercourse Misivaren slated that his son and daughterin-aw’s se spoiled her milk, a recognized cause of illness in ‘sland etiological discourse. Kara Ouihi and his supporters, in opposition, accused Misivaren ‘of cursing the eh 40 KO: Dk maken reraa ira mua rai! memba Yeu (Misuaren) cared him that he mus die. 441 Kk latunouth meses ramatan mask emarenri ramen fatunonthi The Day was musing well but Your bad words went nto the shia BL Why was Seroki beaten? 42 KI: [a nip oft ah pat, Seok ram phe Reva nl he poe The morning of he ght up here, Srok sent Reva to me down He came (with her mesige) “He has just Begun tory beat {4 KO: Sou natn, aha, ikinata a em noha mata mam rece. 4s hamasat temp fie Wom pap Wertwo wailed on Tuesday morning, ub, Wednesday morning 116 Lamont Lindstrom 46 ax hus riptokeb mia mua mama tnvehe makurra anak You see he (Misuaren) dn’ want mother come to we 57 Mua arma tukuria te svat fn, savin fase feo, prone trou ” “He wants mothe ofilow hs (ba) way, whatever his fasion the le woman st Follow. lee, Kier! and Kara Ouihi claimed that Misivaren was angered by his wife Serok' desire to see her dead grandson and her son staying a quarter mile away or so in Kien’s hamlet (lines 46-7). Misiuaren, on the other hand, gave a couple of reasons for why he bea his wife The fist was thet he and Seroki fel into an argument regarding transportation of goods exchanged with Serok's brother the day ofthe child's funeral 480M: Ne mata ino ama miu tak mohe mua iki niu "Now she was angry wih me ovr the tack, wanting that help 4 Narn’ makure matpare nah; na ripko mh iokamuasltakme ‘She turned ay siting looking towards the mountain; est tht struck her boca ofthis ut | trned round and wet over to fete tha thing (8c) siting tere 50 Marup snake seroui, Knosted (he) wh tha smal one, Si Fakta, "Rif ak nat ova Tsai, "Why do you two st down when Pv asked someting” ‘Masinaha it nak no arpa a opin ah Nom tat al there was Misiuaren, later, aso claimed tht it was simply the death of his grandchild hich angered him enough to beat Serok ‘Who was ting the truth? The diepatants put forward contradictory statements. How did each side work within the context of sland discourses to assert that they were telling the truth? Fat, islanders recognize that Serious statements can be true; island discourses adit the possbiity of tnuth. Debate commentators, for example, frequent challenged the truth (riparkienien) of statements uttered by disputants. Narua, for example, supporter of Kara Oui, stood to demand the real truth behind Misia en's statement regarding the child's demise 59. NA: Msaaren mi Reve wkrauakure roi mua Kreg ma nas Misaren and Reva sting here seem to sy hat he milk was ad hat he mi ws bad 54 Ki kta samakure Alin raat? Kira sin ro ‘auketuw rans a naphtien? Debatable truth saroments on Tanna Vanuatu) 317 ‘But we siting hee asking who i sigh? OF you two, whore tnowor eng ak T have argued elsewhere (Lindstrom 1990a) that the “wll to truth” on ‘tana differs from that which operates in orders of dscoutse elsewhere To take “falsity” as ruth’ pizeipal opposite mstransltes local evaluative sensibilities, Untrue statements are lies, more than they are false Nefien, the island term that comes closest to notions of objective falsity in Western orders of dicoure, builds on * semantic core meaning of “hypocrisy.” As a procedure of statement evalustion, Tannese falsehood this implicates and aceuses statements maker as much as it does its meaningful content. ‘The compulsively familiar apparatus of objective referential truth and falsity belongs to regimes of discourse alien to the island. Tn sland: discursive orders, a statement’s truth value depends fteatly on who said it, and ow it was said ‘With this in mind, we can understand why peopl, in this debate, attempted to devalue the statements of antagonists by challenging the Conversational quaifations of those who made statements aswell the Sjasiness” oftheir act of stating (Foucault 1981: $4). To drain truth value from an uniriendly statement, local strategy demands that antagonists aim their fie at the statement maker (as lie). This is more effective than exiting the referential it between a statements content andthe posited teal world, Narua, therefore, accused Misiuaren of having “corners” (ine 40); Kies? denounced him ar a “radio” (.e., notoriously untruthful) ‘Misiaren, in turn, when Kier! brought forward an armload of hefty lubs and dumped these onto the ground of the forum, also complained of “ticks.” ‘That is, he questioned the jotness of Kies act of stating in addition to his statements referential teuth value: 55 Kl: Mon aor hit npert nino ramos! pranema Bignen ook at these pisces of wood he Bet his old women with! 56 ML: Pah ak toot su. Tek nah rw Bio. rik wi. Let me site coretiy about ths. Ts 2 tek, 9 ik the Thee rik they eh ST Matas okaraselprancra iv 50 akon ra But tht one the one T beat the old woman mith, tht ane eat 58 Koiakuvah niper ew maa pranoma reason ke rvin muvee rai opin titan? TW had waa this to best my olf woman with, would she be abe to walk to this pace today? 2 Macwad tt sou prance mts fe raat ‘My word, f were to beat my old woman (with that 3 Kil ise wha trouble are yu two 9 “ mi aay at te ash Aung the ah oe he) the ak to teh ie th ale ph dour tat ‘aes knowledge of place: knowlege of ance stories, myth, and song an right to contol the public construction af ign lc ev in i Debate th semen Ta (Vanaae) 19 tang dev cope sts ta ean commen oie th tee sors of events i icin mbt eh pie the tay death (inet 36-9) "Thi wae a ste mone, Maas ‘other nares» il can case nes although tess commonly death) Mls statement thatthe ay i of sped i fe 23) te imate tah cnn oe oa ine of meine aerore, ans drive ede aes stan “acs {Gm ont. ne8) ec santil sera ne eee ‘Miaren, pling Wt tee condos, tented seve in to go Hews tha ane tisha iowa ees Sent poi wa wy. Was eee sh ha aged Mion fy ‘aml n oder o pete her gander dates off ad ‘ingot her wats crpe (ne 4)? Or ma it tha Maen eos sens y the dst oh rand, mic es om he tha agit a iat nd ir ny Baie ‘chs ahs ip wth eed ea om Moc Senile that sparked bi age, at i unemenle ‘kina that iwi a it ors and ead pin ins 4) Kare i tent hs ced at ay a cage ‘iin colest ef ecole nev fe, speech evens or che (Ti we mh ics stomp vo oneoer the dts powers ed 122 Lamont Lindsrom ‘onditions in tems of which some people have better qualification and ‘opportunity to make meaningful truth statements, Cognitive schemata, otignating in previous shared experience, and interpersonal qualities of speech events certainly comprise talk's context; bat so. do discursive conditions, devices, and procedures that repulse and organize taking and Secondly oiling Gaswnive onder often comprise multiple nes of power that allow conraitory tats In dput, therefore, person can {Ma meaning and ut valve to his sstements by evoking favorable ‘lscouses in whose terms is alk fn authentic, Or nose terms he has beter personal quslifatons to speak, and to speak the Guth Conversely, others can rst oF negae'a statements truth valve it 9

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen