■Jef Verschueren
Department of Linguistics
University of Antwerp
jef.verschueren@uantwerpen.be
Ethnography of Communication and History:A Case Study of Diplomatic Intertextuality and Ideology1
This article shows that an ethnography of communication approach is not only relevant to an understanding of how ways of speaking and language codes define the social-group boundaries of specific speech communities,but(1)that it can be equally pertinent to the analysis of the ideologies and language use of certain communities of practice,and(2)that it can be used to trace historical developments in such communities of practice intertextually.The“commu-nity of practice”on which I concentrate is the evolving segment of the world of international diplomacy that was preoccupied with the formulation of legal frameworks regulating warfare from1856to1939.The source materials consist of a compilation of treaty texts,and the focus of the analysis is(a)on basic communicative terminology surrounding concepts such as arbitration,armistice,declarations of war and of neutrality,mediation,ultimat
um,and the like,and(b)on regulatory discourse surrounding means of communication,from“bearers of flags of truce”to cables,postal correspondence,telegraph ships,and wireless telegraphy. Ingredients of context-specific and historically situated ideology of communication are brought to the foreground.[ethnography of communication,history,intertextuality, ideology,diplomacy,pragmatics,community of practice]
Introduction
I n many ways,the ethnography of communication is a thoroughly“historical”field
of inquiry.Not only does it have a50-year history itself;2its ambition to docu-ment and explain how ways of speaking and language codes,as sources and products of situated practices,define the social-group boundaries of specific speech communities implies a clear focus on dynamics,variability,and change.Though such a dynamic dimension is present in most good examples of the ethnography of communication,there have been few attempts,as far as I know,to apply the approach systematically to historical data or to emphasize a diachronic perspective expli-citly.Somehow,Yakov Malkiel’s(1964)“Some Diachronic Implications of Fluid Speech Communities”and William Labov’s(1972)“On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change”do not count as exceptions,though they appea
red in the pioneering volumes of Gumperz and Hymes(1964,1972).Malkiel’s emphasis on thefluidity of speech communities,both synchronically and diachronically,both internally and at the fringes,is most useful for an ethnography of communication,but he is less interested in the communicative processes that shape these communities than in the structural sediments of those processes in the form of dialectal variability.Labov is Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,Vol.23,Issue3,pp.142–159,ISSN1055-1360,EISSN1548-1395.©2014 by the American Anthropological Association.All rights reserved.DOI:10.1111/jola.12033.
142
Ethnography of Communication and History:A Case Study of Diplomatic Intertextuality and Ideology143 obviously interested in social mechanisms,but the1972article concentrates com-pletely on sound changes,and society comes in as a correlational object,even if there is a heavy emphasis on changes in progress within identifiable communities,thus requiring a seriously ethnographic approach.Thus both seem to be slightly off center for analysis of situated and metapragmatically framed forms of verbal interaction in speech communities that posits the speech event—or communicative practice—as its basic unit of analysis(Gumperz1972:16).3Clearly,there have been some truly histori-cal instances of research under theflag of the ethnography of speaking.A prominent
example is Bauman’s(1974)examination of the ambivalent role of the minister’s speech in a17th-century community of Quakers,later expanded to his(1983)general account of the symbolic functioning of speaking versus silence in Quaker society in the same period.
Against that background,the main purpose of this article is to provide an additional illustration showing that the conceptual apparatus developed in the eth-nography of communication,including the speech event or activity type(labeled “communicative practice”in what follows),speech community,and linguistic reper-toires(as developed in the classic contributions to Gumperz and Hymes1964and 1972,Bauman and Sherzer1974,and in Hymes1974,Gumperz1982,Saville-Troike 1982),is entirely relevant for an understanding of the historical development of non-local discourses that reflect a cohesive body of interaction by being explicitly linked intertextually and by being based on a unifying,underlying set of ideological assumptions.Specifically,the intertextual and ideological dimensions at which I am aiming link this paper to John Gumperz’s legacy.The central message of hisœuvre, in my interpretation,has always been the fundamental connection between minute details of situated language use and larger formations defined socioculturally,insti-tutionally,and in terms of interactional power.The latter are constituted by the former;the former are not interpretable without the latter.
The materials with which I work are exclusively written documents.Therefore,I leave it up to my readers to judge how ethnographic my investigation really is.In that respect,my limitations are the same as those experienced by Bauman(1974,1983). Unlike in Bauman’s case,however,the written records that I use are also not “located”within a specific community in the traditional sense of that word.Nor am I dealing with what could be conveniently called a social“network.”A“speech community”in Gumperz’s sense is characterized by a shared world of communica-tive practices and generally agreed-upon norms of communication.More implicitly, coevalness and co-presence seem to be required.Bauman’s17th-century community of Quakers meets all of these criteria.But what if a community shares practices and norms,but not time and space?In search of an appropriate label for such a case, which is exactly what I shall be dealing with,I feel compelled to interpret the notion of speech community,for the present purposes,in terms of a community of practice that is not confined to a specific,locally situated and temporally bounded context of co-participation.4To clarify this,I shallfirst have to say something about my data.
International Diplomacy as Community of Practice
The community of practice on which I shall concentrate—sharing communicative practices and norms while not being co-eval or co-present—is the evolving segment of the world of international diplomacy t
hat was preoccupied with the formulation of legal frameworks regulating warfare from1856to1939.The source materials consist of a compilation of treaty texts,published in Brussels in1943by Marcel Deltenre under the title General Collection of the Laws and Customs of War on Land,on Sea,under Sea and in the Air,According to the Treaties Elaborated by the International Conferences since1856(see Figure1).Since this is a highly cohesive set of similar-status docu-ments with multiple intertextual links,I am not facing the problem of other types of
historical ethnography,dealing with fragmentary archival sources or a range of different forms of evidence (images and artifacts,in addition to texts).
This book was printed and distributed under the German occupation of Belgium during World War II,in a limited edition of 150copies reserved for the heads of state of countries involved in the agreements it collected.5This LXXVI+885-page volume presents all of the compiled texts in four languages,French,Dutch,German,and English,printed in four columns spread out over two facing pages.At the beginning of every new treaty text,on top of the columns it says explicitly which text is the official one and which are translations.For most of the older texts,the French is the “Texte officiel.”At the bottom of the columns,the sources are indicated.Again,for many of the older texts,there is no source for the translations,and the editorial staff of the publishing house is said to be responsible (whic
h then makes the book deviate slightly from its anticipated character as a “collection”).The result,if the original is in French,is usually quite correct Dutch (though with an archaic ring to the present-day ear)and quite idiomatic German,but the English is slightly non-idiomatic here and there and contains more than just accidental spelling errors.Native speakers of English may have been hard to come by in German-occupied Belgium in 1943.In the present context,this is merely a descriptive remark,but it would gain significance in an analysis focusing on the differences in meaning landscapes that may be evoked even by the most careful and accurate translations of the “same”text.
If communities of practice are characterized by the fact that membership fluctuates and does not require co-presence,international diplomacy is a particularly
good
Figure 1
1943Treaty Textsarchaic
144Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
Ethnography of Communication and History:A Case Study of Diplomatic Intertextuality and Ideology145 example,as participants in the process continuously change.Thus the Declaration of Paris of1856,establishing some Rules of Maritime Law in Times of War(signed in Paris, April16,1856)was negotiated by Austria–Hungary,France,Great Britain,Prussia, Russia,Sardinia,and Turkey.Of those,Sardinia would cease to exist as a separate diplomatic agent onlyfive years later,after playing a vital role in the creation of the newly founded Kingdom of Italy in1861.Prussia was in the middle of a period of upheaval,transforming itself into the German Empire by1871,only to be radically transformed again as a result of World War I,a war that also meant the end for Austria-Hungary.On the other hand,the declaration was also adhered to by small independent entities soon to be incorporated into the German Empire.Some had been allies of Prussia during the Austro-Prussian war of1866(Anhalt,Baden, Hamburg,Lübeck,Mecklenburg,Oldenburg,Sachsen-Altenburg,Sachsen-Coburg-
Gotha),while some were Austrian allies to be annexed by Prussia after the war (Hannover,Hesse-Kassel,Hesse-Darmstadt,Nassau,the Kingdom of Sachsen, Württemberg).Other entities adhering to the declaration were the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies,the Roman States,Parma,Modena,and Tuscany(all to become part of a united Italy),and a—by now obscure—entity such as Danubia(to be integrated into a new Kingdom of Romania in1881).
Despite the disappearance or transformation of specific agents involved,the texts of treaties and declarations from1856to1939are written in such a way that they build upon each other.Thus,within the community of practice,agreements regulating warfare are treated as preserving their validity across thefluctuations of membership. The dynamics involved are quite similar to the relations between newcomers and old-timers which motivated Lave and Wenger(1991)to introduce the notion“com-munity of practice”in a theory of situated learning:patterns of shared practice are central,but so is the orientation to community over time.The150heads of state of countries involved in the agreements,for which the150printed copies of the com-pilation were intended,are considered the heirs—in the world of1943—to the trans-mitted texts.The compilers explicitly adopt the position of educators introducing the products of the community’s earlier practices as input for a new generation of practitioners.6
Intertextual Cohesion
The treaty texts and declarations collected by Deltenre(1943)form a cohesive body of international interaction.They are linked intertextually,sometimes explicitly,some-times implicitly,using change-of-state verbs and comparatives,or both,as in the following example:
(1)
Thinking it important[...]to revise the general laws and customs of war,either with a view to defining them with greater precision or to confining them within such limits as would mitigate their severity as far as possible;
Have deemed it necessary to complete and explain in certain particulars the work of the First Peace Conference,which,following on the Brussels Conference of1874,and inspired by the ideas dictated by a wise and generous forethought,adopted provisions intended to define and govern the usages of war on land.
(Deltenre1943:p.251;from the Second International Peace Conference,The Hague,
1907,section IV“Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land”;
acts signed at The Hague,October18,1907)
The second paragraph refers explicitly to(the texts resulting from)two earlier meetings,representing work to be“completed”and“explained.”More implicitly,“revising”laws presupposes earlier formulations,and“greater precision”suggests a clear point of comparison.
This intertextuality is seriously complicated,though,by a complex temporal dimension.As Table1shows,not all members of the diplomatic community of
Table1
Dates of declared adherence to a selection of declarations and conventions
by a selection of states
Declaration of Paris of 1856Convention
of Geneva
of1864
Declaration of
St.Petersburg
of1868
Brussels
Conference
of1874
First International
Peace Conference,
The Hague,1899
Second International
Peace Conference,
The Hague,1907
Argentina185618791907
Austria(-Hungary)185618661869187419001909
Belgium185618641869187419001910
Bolivia187919071909
Brazil1858190619071914
Bulgaria18641900
Chile185618791907
China190419041917
Colombia19061907
Congo1888
Cuba190719071912
Denmark185618641869187419001909
Dominican Republic19071907
Ecuador185619071907
Ethiopia1935
Finland1922
France185618641869187419001910
Germany1906187419001909
Great Britain185618651869187419001909
Greece18561865186918741901
Guatemala1856190319071911
Haiti1856190719071910
Honduras1898
Italy1864186918741900
Japan1887188619001911
Korea1903
Liberia1914 Luxembourg188819011912
Mexico1909190519011909
Montenegro18751900
Netherlands185618641869187419001909
Nicaragua189819071909
Norway1910
Panama190719071911
Paraguay19071907
Persia187418691900
Peru185718801907
Poland1925
Portugal185618641869187419001911
Prussia185618641869
Romania187419001912
Russia185618671869187419001909
Salvador1858187419071909
Serbia18761900
Siam189519001910
South Africa1896
Spain1908186418741900
Sweden1909
Sweden and Norway18561864186918741900
Switzerland185618641869187419001910
Turkey18561865186918741900
United States of America188219001909
Uruguay185619001907
Venezuela18941907
146Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。