Abstract
This paper examines the connection between ethnic identity, the articulation of these identities through discourse and the ideologies indexed by these identities in the interaction of Malaysian speakers. Based on selected episodes of radio discussions, the study focuses on how speakers identify or self-categorise themselves, in such a way that makes ethnic identity relevant to the discussion. The study draws upon existing literature on types of identities in interactions and membership categorisation analysis (MCA) in investigating how speakers make ethnic identity relevant to the discussion on Malaysian issues through the act of self-categorisation. In the context of these discussions, the membership categorisation device (MCD) ‘Malaysian’ and ethnic identities acquire very specific meanings through the practice of self-categorisation. While some speakers focused on the ethnic culture and traditions, others are more interested in sharing their experiences based on their own ethnic identities and interactions amongst the society. Social issues like dealing with rights and obligations of certain ethnic or social groups and developing one’s sense of ethnic identity, among others, motivate speakers to offer their stance on these issues. In this way, their views and expressions of ethnic identity come to position themselves in terms of these interactional specific roles and identities as Malaysians.
Keywords
Introduction
The recent study seeks to explore the construction of identity, the articulation of these identities in discourse and the features indexed by these identities in the interaction of Malaysian speakers. The connection between ethnic identity, how identities are articulated through discourse and the ideologies indexed by these identities have been much discussed in discourse analytic research. Identities may be communicated in different ways, they may be openly discussed and focussed upon, or indirectly and symbolically conveyed (De Fina, 2006; Van Dijk, 2009). According to Van Dijk (2009), identity work is done indirectly through the association of meanings, sounds, words, expressions of a language and styles and they are continuously associated with qualities, ideas, situations, social representations, and entire ideological systems. These are then related to social groups and categories which are seen as shared or representative of a process in creating meanings based upon accepted social meanings.
The study of identity and ethnic identity has taken various directions and approaches from the social constructionist perspectives and ethnomethodological approaches which aimed to provide a systematic discourse analysis of identity construction. Bucholtz and Hall (2005) offer a framework for the analysis of identity in linguistic interaction in terms of its social practices based upon five principles: emergence, positionality, indexicality, relationality and partialness. De Cilia et al. (1999) suggest that different identities are constructed in discourse based on context that includes the social field, the situational setting of the discursive act and the topic of discussion. The concept of identity denotes an element that is changeable through time and the process of engagement. In their study on Austrian identity, they demonstrate how national sameness, uniqueness and difference are constructed in discourse and the use of linguistic devices and discursive strategies for these constructions. Meinhof and Galasinski (2005: 18) argue that universal linguistic resources are not possible in the construction of identity and suggest that identities, whether ethnic, regional or local, are context-bound, ‘language constructs ethnicity here and now, rather than universally or permanently’.
In discourse analytic research, the meanings and types of identity have also been widely discussed. Tracy and Robles (2012: 20) describes identity as a term with many meanings, and includes the most personal aspects of who people are, as well as group level identification. They divide identities into master, interactional and personal identities in the understanding of everyday talk. Master identities refer to those aspects of personhood which are presumed to be relatively changing and stable, such as gender, ethnicity, age, national and regional origins. Interactional identities refer to specific roles that people take on in a communicative context with regard to specific other people and these are situation-specific and relationship-specific; while personal identities refer to the individuals’ personality and character, their relationship with others and their attitudes about events, issues, and other people. These also include features of the personality aspects of self; the kinds of relationship that people have with others, and the stances people take. Personal identities may be bound up with master and interactional identities. For instance, people may have a certain stance on an issue due to their ethnicity and cultural beliefs and this is seen in how they interact with other speakers. In everyday interaction, communicators may have multiple identities of these three broad types. Some of these identities are visible, are brought to interaction and shape how people talk; others are built up in the interaction through the particular ways each person expresses self and treats the other (Tracy and Robles, 2012).
De Fina (2006) states the differences between individual and collective identity. For instance, a person can negotiate his/her own identity as an individual and is uniquely responsible for the kind of image he/she projects as an individual, however, when talking to members in a group such as an organisation, part of the discursive constructions will involve the identity of the community that they represent. In addition, while some identities will have personal and concrete referents, others such as those related to national or religious communities may be abstract and not be associated with particular people (De Fina, 2006). The differences between personal and social identities are also highlighted, in that social identities describe large categories of belonging that concern, race, gender and political affiliation, while personal identities may include not only sets of membership categories, but also moral and physical characteristics that distinguish one person from another (De Fina, 2006). Furthermore, social identities do not always correspond with well-defined macro-social categories such as gender or age, since new identities are continuously being created, such as identities to new online communities (Facebook, chatroom, twitter) (De Fina, 2006). Thus, whatever identities emerge will be allocated and negotiated in the everyday processes of communication and it is through those that they usually become available to people.
The establishment of an identity could also be illustrated by having an identity with a socially defined role with associated behaviours. This can be applied to the context of a radio phone-in programme. For instance, the hosts of the programme have socially defined roles with associated behaviours, in which they are expected to introduce the programme and topics of discussions, invite callers to call in and discuss issues with radio callers. On the other hand, as part of the callers’ socially defined roles, they are expected to discuss issues with the hosts of the programme and will construct their identities with relevance to the discussion. Barker and Galasiñski (2001: 41) assert that identity cannot be used to demonstrate and predict aspects of linguistic behaviour. It is impossible to make general assumptions which concerned identity and specific social groups, however, certain forms of linguistic behaviour can be predicted and these will be evident in specific identities in talk-in interaction when an institutional context is examined. Thus, speaker identity in the context of an interaction is significant and will designate the actions found in the sequence, as each speaker operates within their allotted role to conduct the discourse. Zimmerman (1998: 90) suggests three different classifications for identity in interaction: situational, discourse and transportable. Transportable categories refer to categories that accompany the individual in every interaction, such as ‘woman’, ‘old age pensioner’ or ‘young male’. Discourse identities describe who does what, in any given interaction, while situational identities refer to those individuals who remain constantly within their defined role in an interaction, for example, doctor and patient.
In discussing the construction of identity in radio interactions, it is significant to include the concept of ‘indexicality’ and ‘local occassioning’. Garfinkel (1967) used the term ‘indexicality’ to characterise the project of ethnomethodology, in which ‘Members’ accounts are reflexively and essentially tied for the rationality to the socially organised conditions of their use’. This is derived from the philosophical term that is concerned with a type of expression whose meaning is in part determined by features of the context of utterance, and thereby may vary with that context. According to Silverstein (1992), ‘indexicality’ is based on the idea that symbols (and not only linguistics ones) will ‘index’ or point to elements of the social context. However, words, accents and expressions may also become associated with aspects of the larger context as when they draw out specific traits, ideas, activities and properties that may be seen as typical of certain social identities. Among indexicals are the use of personal pronouns, such as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’ or ‘us’ to indicate one’s identity or social identities.
Researchers who look upon identity as a communicative process that takes place within concrete social contexts and practices also highlight the importance of paying close attention to the details of local talk in order to understand how identities are brought about and negotiated. In attending to these local understandings, the concept of ‘local occasioning’ which has been borrowed from Conversation Analysis (CA) states that ‘for a person to “have an identity” is to cast into a category with associated characteristics or features and that such casting is indexical and locally occasioned’ (Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998: 3). Local occasioning concerns the idea that the way people present their identity or attribute identities to others crucially depends on the context in which the discourse takes place, and also shapes that context, which then makes identities relevant and consequential for subsequent talk. Thus, social roles and identities which are associated with them may be relevant in these social occasions and practices.
In Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA), Sacks (1992: 40) concludes that there is a classification system or a ‘class of category sets’ in which each set comprised a series of initial descriptors, such as age, race, religion and occupation. This system is used to signify membership of the individual to each specific category as relevant. Thus, the process allows each individual in the society to become ‘classified’ by assigning membership of a particular group. Furthermore, each representative group has an accompanying body of knowledge and inferences that define its social identity. Identity can also change, since it is dependent upon context or situation and essentially, the way people are perceived can change according to circumstances and this may be described as context-relevant (Sacks, 1992).
The study of identity has also seen further developments in both conversation analysis (Sacks, 1992; Hutchby and Woofitt, 1998; Schegloff, 1997) and membership categorisation analysis (Hester, 1998; Hester and Eglin, 1997) in which both methodological approaches are adopted to explicate how identities are constructed and invoked in talk. Widdicombe and Woofit (1995) have explored the sequential accounts of members of youth sub-cultures, while Hester (1998) has investigated the categorisation of ‘problem children’ as ‘deviant’ in conversations between teachers and educational psychologists. Such constructions of identity and the ascription of category are traced in the turn-by-turn sequences of talk. Therefore, as mentioned by Antaki and Widdicombe (1998), identity is treated as locally-managed by participants, which is a dynamic and flexible resource whereby people ascribe and resist identities during everyday conversation. Schegloff (1997) views that in order to analyse the identities of speakers, one must look at the categories that speakers themselves invoke, rather than from the perspectives of the analysts’ categories. It is also argued that speakers display their common sense or cultural knowledge when they focus on some aspect of the interaction. From this perspective, shared cultural knowledge enables speakers to mobilise relevant identity categories to accomplish their views in talk, as Sacks (1992) claimed that culture is an ‘inference-making machine’. Thus, interaction may be examined at the micro-level in which speakers make relevant the identities and category ascriptions. Additionally, a CA approach includes a focus on speakers’ orientations to identity, as well as the cultural positions of both speaker and listener in the construction and the context of the conversation (Wetherall, 1998).
Radio talk offers one of the few media environments in which ordinary members of the public are given the opportunity to speak on issues and events in their own voices (Hutchby, 2005: 81). Many aspects of research on radio phone-ins have been conducted, among them include; the social organisation of talk: Bell and Garrett (1998), Dori-Hacohen (2014), Fitzgerald and Housley (2002), Hutchby (1992a, 1992b, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2001), Liddicoat et al. (1992), and Thornborrow (2001a) ; the categorial organisation of talk-in interaction and how public identities are constructed: Ferenčik (2007), Fitzgerald and Housley (2002), and Hutchby (2001); the stages of a radio call on host-caller interaction (Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002; Hutchby, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2001; Liddicoat et al., 1992; Thornborrow, 2001a). Most of these investigations have traditionally been conducted in single host scenarios, whereby one host interacts with one caller but few studies have looked at multi-hosts scenarios (Ames, 2012, 2013). The discursive strategies and choice of language in the interactions between speakers are dictated by assumed shared participant knowledge. According to O’Keefe (2006: 31) the knowledge and resources employed and the choices made at any moment in the activity are indicative of some socio-historic and socio-commonage assumed by those who participate. Thus, identities are also constructed by the participants themselves to justify their opinions and show relevance to their contributions in talk.
The construction of identities have taken a different perspective in studies on radio talks. Hester and Fitzgerald (1999), Fitzgerald and Housley (2002), Hutchby (1999), Ribeiro (2010), and Thornborrow (2001b), have illustrated how participants built identities for themselves which are seen to justify their opinions in the discussions. Lay participants built public identities for themselves and routinely draw upon a range of discursive resources to construct situated, local identities which provided a warrant for what they have to say (Thornborrow, 2001b). Through a process of self-identification according to social or professional categories, or by providing details to ground their talk, they accomplished their status as participants at that moment of talk.
Fitzgerald and Housley (2002) adopted an ethnomethodological approach in demonstrating that interaction on public access radio could be seen to rely upon categorical and sequential identities that were built up and developed upon over the course of interaction. Focussing upon the categorical features within media interaction, together with the sequential organisation, it was found that identities were reflexively developed in conjunction with the sequential flow of interaction. Participants’ senses of culture, society, behaviour, political perspective etc. informed the discourse of radio phone-in talk and interaction and these were considered as locally occasioned matters and were generated from and within the social and sequential organisation of the programme. Ribeiro (2010) adopted a discourse-historical approach and a CA framework, in exploring the discursive construction of Portuguese national identity by looking at personal deictic forms in order to uncover the participants’ allegiance and non-allegiance to certain groups referred to in the radio phone-in programme. The use of ‘us’ and the ‘other’ were discursively represented when constructing national identity. Her study also revealed that the dominant discursive construction of national identity were very much ingrained in the Portuguese collective past, collective history, collective memory and canonical writers, as illustrated in the semantic macro-areas.
Political radio phone-ins have also seen a focus of investigation on national identities. Thornborrow and Fitzgerald (2013) used Conversation Analysis (CA) in analysing the discursive frameworks in a UK political radio phone-in programme between 2002 and 2010 and the implications of those frameworks for public engagement with politicians. Through this locally-oriented tasks, participants’ institutional and discursive identities are made. In another study, Thornborrow and Fitzgerald (2017) examined the ways in which political engagement was constructed within the forum during the run up to the UK General Election on the BBC’s 2015 phone-in Election Call. Using Membership categorisation analysis (MCA) as the basis of analysis, it was shown that there was particular emphasis on callers’ geographical locations through personal social identities, in comparison to previous Election Call that showed participants constructing political categories through personal social identities.
The discussions on identity show that there are issues in the exemplification of precise identity distinctions, as individuals can be classified with many differing identities in vast numbers of categories. Thus, there must be a pre-determined context to establish which identity is given prominence at any interaction in ordinary talk. Furthermore, an infinite list of categories can be created including social class, belief and values systems, but there is a need to note that only certain aspects of identity will be present or relevant in specific domains or contexts.
The present study seeks to explore how participants in radio talk employ discursive strategies to authenticate talk with reference to their own ethnic identities and others and the representation of the Malaysian identity in their discussions on ‘Malaysian issues’. Aspects of indexicality and local occasioning will also be considered in the context of the discussion and how these features shape the context of the discourse and the relevance on the features of identities that are brought up in the on-going interactions in the context of radio talk. These elements are seen to be consequential for subsequent talk and help to display the relevance to the topic of discussion.
Methodological framework
The study draws upon existing literature on types of identities in interactions (Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998; De Fina, 2006; Tracy and Robles, 2012; Van Dijk, 2009; Zimmerman, 1998) in investigating how speakers make ethnic identity relevant to the discussion on Malaysian issues within a radio talk show through the act of self-categorisation. In the context of these discussions, the membership categorisation device (MCD) ‘Malaysian’ and ethnic identities acquire very specific meanings through the practice of self-categorisation. The methodological approaches of Conversation Analysis (CA) and Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA) are also adopted to investigate the discursive resources used by callers with regard to their master and personal identity categories when discussing topics on Malaysian issues and the interactional identities associated with the roles as hosts and callers of the programme. In CA (Sacks et al., 1974), the norms of the turn-taking structure involve the participants’ understandings of one another’s action during the ongoing interactions and turns are developed in response to prior turn(s) in the talk. In radio interactions, these actions are illustrated in the interactional identities of hosts and callers. In Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA) (Sacks, 1972, 1995) the approach focuses on the examination of how members organise their interaction by using categories, devices and predicates, which are then seen to map onto a category or collection of categories. In Sacks’ (1995) famous example ‘The baby cried. The mommy picked it up’, the analytical consideration involves categorising ‘baby’ and ‘mommy’ with the membership categorisation device (MCD) ‘the family’ in order to make sense of the story. There are also further sets of analytical concepts called membership categorisation devices (MCD), membership categories (MC) and category-bound activities (CBD). In relation to radio phone-ins, the membership categories (MCs) such as ‘host’, ‘caller’, ‘parties to a phone-in’ are viewed as membership categories of the MCD ‘programme relevant category’ (Hester and Fitzgerald, 1999; Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002), while category-bound activities (CBAs) describe how certain activities are common-sensically tied to specific categories and devices. Thus, the CBAs of ‘host’ are tied to the activity of introducing the topic, summoning the caller, questioning caller etc.; while that of ‘caller’ involve acknowledging the host’s greeting, answering the question, relaying information etc. (Fitzgerald, 1999; Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002). These ideas of categories or descriptions involved a conception of an array of ‘collections’ or a shared ‘stock of common sense knowledge’ which are seen to sum up the membership categorisation devices (MCDs). These descriptions of a shared ‘stock of common sense knowledge’ can also involve participants’ sharing of local or world knowledge in the context of the discussions. This study attempts to demonstrate how participants offer descriptions of a shared ‘stock of local’ and social knowledge which are predicated to and associated with their own ethnic identities and considerations of ‘other’ ethnic identities in their discussions on Malaysian issues with regard to ‘race’ and ‘national unity’. For instance, in offering their stance on the issue, callers provide their ethnic identity in relation to the topic together with their associated predicates or characteristics of that particular ethnic category. Participants use linguistic features to ascribe the types of identities (individual, social or collective) which shape the context of the discourse and make these features of identities relevant and consequential for subsequent talk.
The corpus
The data were transcribed according to Hutchby and Woofitt’s (2008) transcription conventions. Taking CA and MCA (Sacks, 1995) as the basis for analysis, the study focuses on how talk is mobilised, located and made relevant within the conversational context and the accomplishment of social and cultural identities by speakers to the context of the discourse. The corpus consists of 9 hours of selected episodes from BFM (Business RadioFM), which is one of the most popular radio stations which is fully broadcast in the English language. There are two hosts for each episode of talk. The structure of the radio phone-in programme is composed of an introduction to the topic of the day, which then sets the range for callers’ input in the form of a remark or a comment. The topics of discussion usually centred on an issue related to a particular event or news of the week or that which concerned national interests. For instance, one of the topics taken for analysis involve a statement by the minister in charge of national unity who had urged the government to remove the race category from official forms to help form a unified nation. So the notion of ‘bangsa Malaysia’ (Malaysian race) came about as a major step in an effort to promote national unity. In most government official forms there is a race box in which Malaysians need to indicate their ethnic identities, as Bumiputera or Malays, Chinese, Indians or ‘Others’. The ‘Others’ category include those who do not belong to any of the three main ethnic categories.
Another topic that is also related to national unity was also taken for analysis. This involved the topic on ‘English medium schools as the answer to national unity’. The medium of instruction in government schools is Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) and since there have been issues of racial segregation because of the establishment of private-English medium and vernacular schools (Chinese and Tamil schools), students are segregated and this does not promote a unified nation. Thus the implementation of English as the medium of instruction could encourage students of other races or from private schools to join government schools.
For the purpose of analysis, only these two topics of discussion will be the focus of the study. Topics of discourse such as ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and ‘national unity’ are popular topics of discussion that interest callers of different races to call into the programme. These types of topics could attract 10 to 28 callers for a 2-hour call-in programme. The issue of race is a sensitive topic of discussion among Malaysians. ‘Bangsa’ is the Malay word that is equivalent to the word ‘race’ in English. ‘Forging a national identity varies according to the nature of the society. The ideal expression of national identity is easily achieved in a homogenous society, like in Malaysia, whose populace are linked through a single language, education system, dominant belief system, heritage and a common history. Malaysians can identify with the mores and lore of their ancestors and take pride in them’ (Mohamed, 2019, New Straits Times). Thus, a collective national identity can be measured in a society that embraces various ethnic groups. Malaysia has a multi-ethnic community, which comprise the Bumiputera (69.1%), Chinese (23.0%), Indians (6.9%) and Others (1.0%) (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2018). ‘Bumiputera’ includes the Malays and the indigenous groups, also called ‘Orang Asli’ who live in the outskirts of rural areas and this group of people observe their own traditional lifestyles, customary rites and speak in their own minority languages.
In these contexts of discussion, callers relate to their own ethnic identities and the Malaysian identity to bolster their opinions on such topics, not only in the interactions between the hosts and caller but also in relation to other callers’ opinions. In other words, callers not only display their master ethnic identities in their talk but offer personal identities of their stance on the topic based upon other ethnic categories and their association with the collective membership category (MC) as Malaysians. Features of the Malaysian identity is displayed in talk by callers with regard to the importance of the national language (Malay) and the different ethnic categories predicated to the membership category device ‘Malaysians’.
Data analysis and discussion
The data shows that radio callers mobilise their collective knowledge of other ethnic categories such as ‘Malays’, ‘Chinese’ or ‘Indians’, by associating them with their personal experiences. They also offer suggestions that make their views applicable to the MC ‘Malaysians’. As noted by Hutchby (1996b), the category of ‘witnessing’ involves the descriptions of callers’ categorisation of collective knowledge or experience and these are seen when callers offer the descriptive categorisation of other master ethnic identities such as ‘Malays’, ‘Chinese’ or ‘Indians’ with regard to their own ethnic identities that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Thus, these membership categorisation devices (MCDs) of social and cultural knowledge of other ethnic identities are displayed by callers in order to authenticate their talk as legitimate speakers on the subject in question, as well as to bolster their opinions.
The analysis show how callers assert membership of a topic-relevant category based on knowledge of other ethnic identities. Topic-relevant categories offer a bridge between the caller’s experiential background and knowledge concerning the topic under discussion (Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002). The experiential background and social knowledge of others’ cultures seem to further justify the relevance of their contribution on the topic and highlight the authenticity of their opinion in the development of talk. The analysis of data shows that callers who called in not only relate their personal identities on the topic but also support them with social and experiential knowledge of other ethnic identities. These are displayed in the predicates associated with the particular ethnic category in terms of beliefs, social culture and religious practices. In establishing their personal stance on the issue, callers also justify their opinions based on their own ethnic identities especially which regard to the issue on ‘bangsa Malaysia’ (the Malaysian race). Participants present their national identities as Malaysians as well as, ascribe identities to others that belong to the MC ‘Malaysians’ and these are evident in the discursive strategies used by the participants. The linguistic realisation of the use of personal deictic expressions to refer to the Malaysian identity such as ‘we’, ‘us’ or ‘our’ is evident in talk. Furthermore, participants situate the argument on the basis of the context of the discussion or ‘local occasioning’ which are consequential for subsequent talk, and this help to display the topic-relevance to the topic of discussion.
Constructing national identity as a collective membership category
The examples discussed here consists of an episode on the controversial issue on ‘English medium schools as the answer to national unity’. This topic came about due to the segregation of schools based on race and having English as the medium of instruction would encourage more students to join government schools which at present subjects are taught in Malay. One feature that is particularly interesting is illustrated in the way members of the public share their social knowledge and experiences on ‘national unity’ by associating them with their own ethnic identities and ‘others’. Participants show a different perspective of how they perceive national identity and these are reflected in the different discursive strategies employed when discussing the topic on language and national unity. It is observed that a speaker may construct his/her own identity in the actions accounted for in the discourse by using ‘I’, or generalising those actions as a collective membership category (Malaysians) by using ‘we’ or ‘us’. Another striking observation is the way participants relate to patterns that indicate their footing in the constant shifts of referent. Footing refers to instances of talk where participants’ alignment, set, stance, posture or projected self is somehow activated (Goffman, 1981: 128).
The use of the collective membership identity (I’m representing the youths) in providing an account of collective experience on the education shift from Bahasa Melayu (BM) (Malay language) to English and back ‘to BM’ as the medium of instruction is seen in the following extract (lines 740–741, 743). This provides evidence of the caller’s shared knowledge and experience when discussing the Malaysian education system, which has undergone a period of transition 1 .
Extract 1: BFM3
The question by H1 (what was that like for you) allows the caller to share her experience about the system. The caller (C19) relates her disagreement with the education system, in which she considers that the implementation of the policy of ‘BM’ or ‘English’ instruction has changed too fast (lines 745–748). In line 749, the second host (H2) tries to refocus the caller on her prior statement about the implementation stage of the ‘language’ to ‘national unity’. The caller provides a lengthy monologue on the category-related actions with regard to the implementation of the policy: ‘the time needed to implement and improve the policy, the drop in the quality and to work on ‘one good quality syllabus’ which can be further built upon and improved’. The reference to the views made by ‘earlier callers’ and the display of social identity categories of ‘non Muslims’ or ‘non-Malays’ that do not go to ‘national schools’ (lines 751–759) further justify the caller’s arguments. By providing further social categories of ‘non-Muslims’ and ‘non-Malays’, the same related membership category means that a person who is not a Muslim belongs to the category of ‘non-Malays’ and vice-versa. Thus, this seems to suggest that talk of prior callers has provided further category-related actions for the caller to present knowledge of other social culture on the topic of discussion. This supports the notion that talk in phone-in programmes are sequentially and categorically related which are made possible by the callers’ contributions to the contexts of discussion.
The example below shows another instance of how a caller’s contribution can be made relevant based upon collective knowledge and experience.
Extract 2: BFM3
The deictic expression ‘we’ in line 609 places the caller in the relevant collective MC ‘Malaysians’ (speaker inclusive). Here, the caller agrees with ‘earlier callers’ that having ‘different languages’ or ‘being brought up by different languages’ means that people ‘cannot unite’ (lines 606–609). We can see a shift in the caller’s personal identity ‘I agree’ to a more collective opinion in using the membership device ‘we’ to show agreement with earlier callers (lines 606–609). This example shows how a caller from speaking with relevance as a member of the MC ‘Malaysians’ moves from a personal speaker category when presenting his opinion on the issue, to a collective category on the language factor (lines 609–610). In lines 617 to 618, the caller presents another collective category ‘minority races’ and the category-related predicates associated with them: ‘They grow up to become more and more protective of their own culture their own languages (.) because of the fe:ar and because of ur ur ur a kind of protection against (.) the unfairness that the government’. This example reflects how the collective membership of social knowledge about certain groups of society (minority groups that are protective of their own culture and languages) is being projected in talk by a caller in order to justify his personal identity.
It is also observed in the analysis of data that new topics emerged in the development of talk and these are explored and expanded upon to show the relevance of the Malaysian identity. In other words, callers regard themselves as speaking with relevance as members of the MCD ‘Malaysians’ in general. The following extract shows a caller’s account of his experience and his personal views as a Malaysian.
Extract 3: BFM3
Here, C17 expresses his understanding that a lot of Malaysians do not know ‘how to speak Bahasa Melayu’ (Malay language), thus showing his experiential knowledge on the present situation in Malaysia (line 669). In providing an account of his daughter not having any more ‘non-Malay friends’, he is interrupted by H1 who further questions his earlier statement that ‘a lot of Malaysians do not know how to speak BM’ and whether the education system was partly blamed for the failure (lines 676–679). The indexical expression ‘we’ places the host on the collective MC Malaysians (speaker inclusive) who had gone through ‘twelve years of education in BM’, and which he further expresses his disappointment of the fact that Malaysians cannot speak BM. This shows how the host and caller are able to situate the argument with the exchanges of shared knowledge within the present situation.
The caller’s affirmative statement (because there are vernacular schools), shows the relation to earlier discussions on the topic in that many non-Malays have opted for ‘vernacular schools’ and ‘private schools’ as their preferred choice of education since the implementation of Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) as the main medium of instruction in the education system. In line 716, the caller makes reference to Malaysians who are not able ‘to respond in Malay’ thus further indicating that the descriptors of the MC ‘Malaysian’ apply to those members who are able to speak Malay. This is another example that illustrates how a caller relates to the MC ‘Malaysians’ by including ‘other Malaysians’ like ‘them’ (speaker inclusive) but exclude Malaysians not like them or deficient in certain predicates (not being able to speak BM).
The examples illustrate that the collective category ‘Malaysians’ are associated with typical traits and activities that include able to speak and uphold the national language (Malay) and considerations for people of different races and languages. The issue of the national language is seen as crucial to promote national unity as evident in callers’ expressions of opinions that affect the Malaysian society in general.
Building ethnic and personal identities to national identity
Having an opinion on the topic is one of the predicated tasks of the category ‘caller’ in a phone-in programme which then makes the occupancy of this category acceptable and callers can then provide their stance on the issues under discussion (Fitzgerald, 1999; Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002). There are two ways that callers display their topic-opinion. First, callers may express their personal opinions based on their own ethnic identities and experiential background to the topic under discussion, thus justifies the relevance of their contributions and highlights the authenticity of their opinions that will be developed in the subsequent talk. The second involves the callers’ personal opinions based on their own perspectives of the issue in question that reflect their personal identities.
The following extract shows how a second caller (C2) into the show describes his ethnic identity as an ‘Indian’ to justify his opinions on ‘removing the race box’. There are exchanges of turns between the two hosts (H1 and H2) and caller to request the caller to clarify his stand on the issue in which he is of the opinion that differentiating people based on race will segregate people further.
Extract 4: BFM1
In this example, the caller (C2) starts his turn (line 118) by expressing his view that race, religion and cultural heritage are equally important, although it is not clearly stated in this initial turn whether he agrees or disagrees with the issue. However, further justification on the issue is seen in the next few turns. The indexical expression ‘we’ indicates the caller speaking as a member of the collective category ‘Malaysians’ which is evident in: ‘we need to maintain some of our ah cultural inheritance that we all need to stay in line’ (lines 120–121). Thus, this provides his standpoint as speaking as a Malaysian. The prompt for an example by the second host (H2) (line 122) allows the caller to further clarify his earlier statement by displaying his master identity ‘being an Indian’ and providing predicates of ‘the ‘traditional beliefs and practices’ that ascribes someone ‘an identity’ that is important for this cultural category (lines 124–126). He further justifies that ‘cultural identity’ should be maintained as long as it does not ‘interfere with political administration of the country’. This argument supports his stand that having race religion on ‘official forms’ allows the government to differentiate and treat people differently (lines 130–131). A strong statement then concludes his arguments: ‘That is totally wrong totally wrong and it can never achieve One Malaysia if this continues’. One Malaysia is a concept introduced by Malaysia’s former Prime Minister to promote national unity.3
In line 135, the first host (H1) starts with a pre-question ‘let me ask you this’ to further question the caller on his arguments. The host uses this pre-question (Schegloff, 1987) to manage the interaction as a means to secure an exclusive turn of talk. This pre-question shows the institutional function of host and constructs their roles in this institutional setting. The interactional roles of both hosts are made available here when one of the hosts sees the opportunity to further challenge the caller on the notion of ‘cultural identity’ and the conflict with his ‘national identity’. The interactional identities between host and caller are displayed when the host (H1) takes the role of questioner to call upon the caller’s ethnic identity ‘being an Indian’, and the conflict of ‘having a national identity’. In response to the host’s questions, the caller provides a scenario of his own cultural identity and the predicates associated with it (Divali celebrations) and the social knowledge about another cultural category (Malays) and ‘halal food’ that is associated with this specific cultural category (lines 138–139, 141, 143, 145–146). In other words, the ‘cultural conflict’ between one’s own ethnic identity and national identity is illustrated in the social knowledge that one has about the cultural membership category (the Malays) and the category-related predicates (halal food) that is associated with this cultural membership category. This establishes the caller’s personal views with regard to cultural and social knowledge about the MC ‘other Malaysians’. This example describes how the caller presents his personal view from the perspective of having an Indian identity and then moving on to describe other cultural categories that may seem relevant to the topic on ‘bangsa Malaysia’. In other words, the caller categorises himself as a member of the MCD ‘Malaysians’ as well as his own ethnic identity by providing a position statement on the topic and then developing his arguments on social knowledge about other specific cultural categories in the subsequent turns. This shows how as Malaysians it is acceptable to accept other social groups as part of their cultural celebrations. It further illustrates how a caller may provide a general opinion in his initial turns about the issue but change the focus of discussion to a more personal level, either on elements that may affect them personally or with regards to members of other cultural groups. The interactional identities of hosts and caller are at play here, in that, the context of the discourse allow hosts to further question the caller on his perspectives of the issue with relevance to the caller’s ethnic identity and his national identity as a Malaysian. The predicated action of caller allows the caller to develop his argument, that is heard as a predicate of his cultural identity ‘being an Indian’ and belonging to a certain cultural membership category.
The next example shows how the 26th caller to the programme offers his opinion from the perspective of being an ethnic Chinese on the importance of the national language (Malay).
Extract 5: BFM1
The evidence of ethnic identity is displayed in the caller’s utterances (lines 934–938): I’m a Chine:se yet I don’t speak I don’t really speak Chine:se well but with Malay (.) it gets me around (.) a lot so I don’t see a problem why (.) why Malay why
As seen in the above extracts, the topics ‘English is key to national unity’ and ‘bangsa Malaysia’ bring callers to present their views based on their own ethnic category and at the same time prompt participants to offer their perspectives as ‘Malaysians’ on issues that affect them personally. Callers use one form or another of collective construction to link their personal experience in or ethnic identity with other members of a particular category or to suggest that their point is applicable to a wider constituency than merely their own personal experience. In other words, the occurrence of the deictic referents ‘we’ and ‘us’ show the membership devices used as referents to the collective MC ‘Malaysians’, whereby speakers present their personal identities on the topic not only from their own personal stance but also build their opinions on shared collective knowledge and experience by situating them to the current situation in the Malaysian context. Thus, the current context here refers to how Malaysians present their perspectives on ‘national unity’ and ‘bangsa Malaysia’ which has been much a part of how it can affect them personally and offer their voices as Malaysians.
When callers come into the programme and offer an opinion, they are placed in a topic-opinion category and this may be preceded by a topic-relevant category when their perspectives on the issue show relevance to the topic of discussion (Fitzgerald and Housley, 2001). The following example illustrates the caller’s personal stance on how he feels about ‘removing the race box’ with regard to the social category of a ‘Bumiputera’ and the religious category of a ‘Muslim’.
Extract 7: BFM1
In this particular example, the caller does not indicate his opinion explicitly on the issue of ‘removing the race box’ even though in his initial turn it is evident that he has ‘nothing against national unity’ (line 223). His turn is further developed with reference to the suggestion on removing the race box and the many aspects that need to be looked into. The issue of ‘race’ and its category-related predicates are evident in his speech: ‘race-based political party’, ‘seven per cent bumiputera discount’ and the issue of ‘eligibilty’ (lines 230–233, 335). The affirmative token ‘correct’ in the host’s next turn indicates the shared local knowledge between host and caller on the issue related to the social category ‘bumiputera’. In its local context, a ‘bumiputera’ is a Malay term used to describe the Malay race and other indigenous peoples in Malaysia. Bumiputeras are given privilege rights, such as, the entitlement to a seven-percent discount on houses or property, and other preferential policies which include quotas for the following: admission to government educational institutions, qualification for public scholarships, positions in government sectors, and ownership of businesses. Therefore, the emphasis on the reference ‘bumiputera’ illustrates the eligibility in applying for certain concessions related to one’s race category and highlights the importance of stating one’s race in order to account for such privileges. The attempt by H1 to stop the caller from pursuing the subject (just to stop you right there)’ shows a disagreement to the caller’s prior statement on ‘a race-based party’ (lines 238–242). This attempt to stop the caller from pursuing the subject further indicates the institutional role of the host, in which he sees that certain statements need to be clarified, in that joining a ‘political party’ is ones prerogative and has no focus on race. The affirmative device ‘okay’ that occurs three times in the caller’s speech indicates his acceptance to that of the host’s opinion. The deictic reference ‘we’ categorises the caller as a ‘Muslim’ and aspects of ‘religious regulations’ and predicates related to the social category of ‘Muslims’ are evident in the caller’s utterance (lines 244–247). Even though the caller does not explicitly indicate in his prior turns that he disagrees with the topic on ‘removing the race box’, the category-related predicates offered seem to lead to the opinion that he disagrees with the proposal.
The discussions illustrate that interactional identities of hosts and caller are observed in the management and organisation of the interactions. The hosts play the institutional roles of seeking callers’ opinions, clarifying certain issues and developing the talk based on the callers’ opinions, while the predicated category of caller involves answering questions and developing arguments to justify their opinions. These interactional identities of host and caller demonstrate the roles of the participants and how the phone-in programme is locally managed, in that turns are organised and developed based on the local context and topics of discussion.
Conclusion
The study reveals that Malaysian speakers in talk-in-interaction include aspects of cultural and social features of identity in their presentation of opinions on issues related to the ‘Malaysian race’ and ‘national unity’. For instance, callers include aspects of their cultural, social and religious identities, as well as the social knowledge of others’ cultural identities in talk to indicate their views on them. These themes are further supported by category-bound predicates as evident in their elaboration and justification of opinions. Speakers speak from their own standpoint and with relevance to their ethnic category with considerations of other cultures and religions. This shows how as members of the MC Malaysian there is shared knowledge and understanding in line with their own ethnic identity to indicate their stand on the local context of discussion. In other words, callers display categorical aspects of culture in their utterances in their presentation of opinions in relation to their own ethnic identity or ‘others’ social identities. In presenting their personal perspectives on the topics discussed, callers also generalise their opinions as Malaysians and what certain policies on ‘race’ and ‘language’ would to the general sector of the community. These are evident when the topics are rather controversial and may be sensitive to people’s cultural and religious backgrounds. The collective category of being a ‘Malaysian’ thus justifies the callers’ claims of shared, cultural and experiential knowledge in relation to the Malaysian society.
The study demonstrates that speakers do identity work by associating features of social culture with regard to their ethnic category that make them relevant to the local context of discussion. These ethnic identities acquire very specific meanings through the act of self-categorisation when speakers speak from their own standpoint on Malaysian issues that require certain changes to government policies. While some speakers focus on the ethnic culture and traditions, others share experiences and knowledge of other ethnic and social groups to justify their arguments. Malaysia has a multi-cultural community, thus issues such as rights and obligations of certain ethnic and social groups are given some considerations as evident in the exchanges of viewpoints by speakers and changes to policies may have an impact on the society. Speakers develop their sense of ethnic identity and this motivates them to offer their stance on these issues. In other words, their personal identities and how they feel about certain issues come across in their arguments when they interact with the hosts of the programme. Thus, their views and expressions of ethnic identity come to position themselves in terms of the interactional and specific roles and identities as Malaysian and these are built in talk. Hence, the expressions of their personal identities are likely to depend on their ethnic identities with regard to their interactional roles as callers to the programme.
The findings suggest that Malaysian speakers speak with relevance based upon the collective membership category as ‘Malaysians’. These associations to the MC ‘Malaysians’ are continuously called upon as seen by how subsequent callers picked up and elaborated on these socially shared representation of the category. The concept of ‘local occasioning’ is demonstrated in which the way people present their identity or attribute identities to others not only depends on the context in which the discourse takes place but also shapes that context, which thus makes identities relevant and consequential for subsequent talk (Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998). This is seen in the representation of features and predicates of ethnic identities which make them relevant to the context of the discourse about ‘race’ and ‘national unity’. Callers present their identities as Malaysians and ascribe identities to others as Malaysians in the context of the discussions, thus display shared understanding and knowledge and situate their arguments in the local context. Therefore, while categories and roles may be context-dependant, the indexical meanings may vary depending on circumstances and participants. By using the deictic expression ‘I’ in offering a personal opinion on the issue and then shifting to the plural deictic referent ‘we’, it then demonstrates speaker’s inclusivity as members to the category ‘Malaysians’. Thus, the choice of the language and knowledge employed indicate some socio-cultural elements that are assumed by the participants in the discussions.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support for the research and publication of this article from University of Malaya Special Research Grant (BKS071-2017).