<%BANNER%>

'If You Do That, I'm Going to Be Heartbroken'

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024684/00001

Material Information

Title: 'If You Do That, I'm Going to Be Heartbroken' the Language of Jewish American Guilting
Physical Description: 1 online resource (59 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Organes, Rachel
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: act, analysis, discourse, guilt, jewish, speech
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Guilt has been a familiar topic of Jewish humor for decades but no linguistic research has looked specifically at how guilt is instilled through language. This research takes an ethnography of speaking approach to studying guilting in the Jewish American speech community. Preliminary ethnographic interviews were conducted to gain insight into how members of the community classify guilting what it is and how it is linguistically realized. Based on data provided by consultants, open role plays were carried out to elicit tokens of guilting. The data shows that guilting is an indirect speech act whose identifying characteristic is the instillation of feelings of guilt by the speaker. Guilting is typically used as a means of eliciting an action or a change in behavior from a hearer. Its success lies primarily in the relative social distance between two speakers the smaller the social distance, the more likely a guilter will be to effectively use guilting. On average women guilt more often than men and members of older generations guilt more than those of younger generations, though data shows strong evidence that guilting is not restricted to any gender, age or other demographic group.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rachel Organes.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Boxer, Diana.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024684:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024684/00001

Material Information

Title: 'If You Do That, I'm Going to Be Heartbroken' the Language of Jewish American Guilting
Physical Description: 1 online resource (59 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Organes, Rachel
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: act, analysis, discourse, guilt, jewish, speech
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Guilt has been a familiar topic of Jewish humor for decades but no linguistic research has looked specifically at how guilt is instilled through language. This research takes an ethnography of speaking approach to studying guilting in the Jewish American speech community. Preliminary ethnographic interviews were conducted to gain insight into how members of the community classify guilting what it is and how it is linguistically realized. Based on data provided by consultants, open role plays were carried out to elicit tokens of guilting. The data shows that guilting is an indirect speech act whose identifying characteristic is the instillation of feelings of guilt by the speaker. Guilting is typically used as a means of eliciting an action or a change in behavior from a hearer. Its success lies primarily in the relative social distance between two speakers the smaller the social distance, the more likely a guilter will be to effectively use guilting. On average women guilt more often than men and members of older generations guilt more than those of younger generations, though data shows strong evidence that guilting is not restricted to any gender, age or other demographic group.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rachel Organes.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Boxer, Diana.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024684:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IF YOU DO THAT, IM GOING TO BE HEAR TBROKEN: THE LANGUAGE OF JEWISH AMERICAN GUILTING By RACHEL ANTONETTE ORGANES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Rachel Antonette Organes

PAGE 3

3 To my mother and father, who guilted me into going to graduate school

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank m y thesis committee chair and adviser, Dr. Diana Boxer for inspiring my interest in Discourse Analysis. Her philosophy th at the world is your laborator y encouraged me to look at everyday conversation in a new analytical light. I appreciate her guidance and patience, as well as her sincere interest in my research. I also thank my thesis committee member and mentor, Dr. H. Wind Cowles, who willingly st epped outside the world of Psycholinguistics to lend her insight and perspective in a diffe rent domain. From the beginning she has been a great source of support within the program, and I genuinely apprec iate her continued support of my graduate research, despite my decision to focus on something outside her area of expertise. I additionally thank my professor, Dr. M.J. Hardman whose Gender and Language course has forever changed my perspective on the world. I also extend my thanks to the Program in Li nguistics at the University of Florida to Dr. Caroline Wiltshire, Dr. Ratree Wayland, and Dr. Edith Kaan, who dedicate their time to assuring the success of the student s in their department. I thank Will Kenneth, who has been my confidan t for most of my graduate career, and who has been by my side through my most difficult tasks. I also thank everyone who participated in my research for sharing their insights, reflections, and personal stories which cont ributed to the analysis presented here. Most importantly, I thank my family who has always encouraged me to be a strong, freethinking individual, and to work hard at ever ything I take on. Without their encouragement I would not have pursued a higher degree and with out their love and support and I would not be the person I am today.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAP TER 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................9 Introduction................................................................................................................... ............9 Background...............................................................................................................................9 Guilt Defined................................................................................................................10 Jewish Guilt: The Jewish Mother Stereotype.................................................................. 10 Previous Research........................................................................................................... 11 2 PRELIMINARY ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS ...........................................................14 Methodology...........................................................................................................................14 Consultants......................................................................................................................15 Ethnographic Interviews..................................................................................................15 Recording Equipment...................................................................................................... 16 Data Analysis...................................................................................................................16 The Study................................................................................................................................17 Themes of Guilting.......................................................................................................... 18 Prosodics of Guilting....................................................................................................... 19 Guilters............................................................................................................................19 Jewish mothers......................................................................................................... 20 Gender......................................................................................................................21 Age...........................................................................................................................23 Social Distance................................................................................................................24 Power...............................................................................................................................25 Is There Jewish Guilt?................................................................................................. 25 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................26 3 OPEN ROLE PLAYS .............................................................................................................31 Methodology...........................................................................................................................31 Participants......................................................................................................................32 The Role Plays.................................................................................................................33 The Guilter (G) role.................................................................................................. 34 The Recipient (R) role.............................................................................................. 35

PAGE 6

6 Follow-Up Interviews......................................................................................................36 Recording Equipment...................................................................................................... 36 Data Analysis...................................................................................................................37 The Study................................................................................................................................37 Themes of Guilting.......................................................................................................... 38 Emphasis on family.................................................................................................. 38 Emphasis on time-sharing........................................................................................ 40 Less common topics of guilting............................................................................... 41 Prosodic Features of Guilting.......................................................................................... 42 Intonation.................................................................................................................43 Lengthening..............................................................................................................43 Guilters............................................................................................................................44 Guilt-ridden Guilters................................................................................................ 45 Successfulness of guilting........................................................................................45 Recipients........................................................................................................................46 Recipient as Guilter......................................................................................................... 47 Gender.............................................................................................................................48 Age..................................................................................................................................49 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................50 4 CONCLUSI ON .......................................................................................................................54 APPENDIX ROLE PLAY CUE CARDS ..................................................................................55 Spouse-as-Guilter Cue Cards.................................................................................................. 55 Guilter Cue Card.............................................................................................................. 55 Recipient Cue Card.......................................................................................................... 55 Parent-as-Guilter Cue Cards................................................................................................... 55 Guilter Cue Card.............................................................................................................. 55 Recipient Cue Card.......................................................................................................... 56 Friend-as-Guilter Cue Cards................................................................................................... 56 Guilter Cue Card.............................................................................................................. 56 Recipient Cue Card.......................................................................................................... 56 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................59

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Subset of Jeffersons transcript notation............................................................................ 282-2 Demographic information for Et hnographic Interview consultants.................................. 282-3 Consultant descriptions of guilting.................................................................................... 282-4 Participants attit udes toward guilting............................................................................... 292-5 Themes of guilting and examples...................................................................................... 292-6 Reported linguistic features of guilting..............................................................................292-7 Female guilters, as reported by consultants....................................................................... 302-8 Male guilters, as reported by consultants........................................................................... 302-9 Age of guilters by generation, as reported by consultants................................................. 302-10 Participants beliefs about who holds the power during a guilting speech act.................. 303-1 Participant ages by role play.............................................................................................. 513-2 Participant gender by role play.......................................................................................... 513-3 Number of participants per role play................................................................................. 513-4 Topics of guilting in role plays.......................................................................................... 513-5 Topics of guilting in follow-up interviews........................................................................ 523-6 Topics of guilting...............................................................................................................523-7 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of Familial Obligations guilting........... 523-8 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of Familial Relations guilting.............. 523-9 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of Time-Sharing guilting..................... 533-10 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of other topics of guilting.................... 533-11 Tokens of guilting per gender in roles plays and follow-up interviews............................ 53

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts IF YOU DO THAT IM GOING TO BE HEAR TBROKEN: THE LANGUAGE OF JEWISH AMERICAN GUILTING By Rachel Antonette Organes August 2009 Chair: Diana Boxer Major: Linguistics Guilt has been a familiar topic of Jewish humor for decades but no linguistic research has looked specifically at how guilt is instilled th rough language. This research takes an ethnography of speaking approach to studying guilting in the Jewish American speech community. Preliminary ethnographic interviews were conducte d to gain insight into how members of the community classify guilting what it is and how it is linguistically realized. Based on data provided by consultants, open role plays were carried out to elicit tokens of guilting. The data shows that guilting is an indirect speech act whose identifying char acteristic is the instillation of feelings of guilt by the speaker. Guilting is typica lly used as a means of eliciting an action or a change in behavior from a hearer. Its success lie s primarily in the relative social distance between two speakers the smaller the social dist ance, the more likely a guilter will be to effectively use guilting. On average women guilt more often than men and members of older generations guilt more than those of younger ge nerations, though data shows strong evidence that guilting is not restricted to any gender, age or other demographic group.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Introduction Q. How ma ny Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb? A. (Sigh) Don't bother, I'll sit in the da rk, I don't want to be a nuisance to anybody. Guilting has been used in popular Jewish humor for well over a century. Though most Jews identify with the linguistics realizations of this form of hu mor, not all consider themselves innately guilt-ridden. Still, there is a familiarity about Jewish guilt that makes it an integral part of both Jewish humor and culture. Most American Jews would be able to identify the mothers response in the joke above as an instance guilting instilling a sense of guilt in an interlocutor, a definition which will be expande d upon throughout this body of research. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what guilting is. We know what it is like to feel guilty as a result of something that has been said. But how exactly is guilt instilled linguistically? What types of utterances are guilt-instilling? What function doe s guilting play in discourse? This aim of this research was to uncover th e answers to these questions. Two stages of research were carried out: preliminary ethnographi c interviews, and role plays. The purpose of the ethnographic interv iews was to gain insight into what English-speaking American Jews think about guilting how it is linguistically construc ted, how it functions as a speech act in casual everyday discourse, and what role it plays in Jewish culture. The role plays were designed primarily to elicit tokens of gu ilting in discourse among members of the Jewish American speech community. Background This research was conducted in order to study the language of Jewish guilt. We know that it is instantiated linguistically, bu t how? It seems to serve a distin ct purpose in discourse, and yet

PAGE 10

10 it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what this purpo se is and how it is achieved. In what respects does guilt-instilling speech overlap with other speech acts, such as nagging or complaining? Guilt Defined Merr iam-Websters Online defines guilt as 2b: feelings of culpability esp ecially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach This definition describes the feelings one experiences when they are guilt-ridden. It is therefore the starting point for the research que stion. Building on this definition, this research assesses how, linguistically, an interlocutor is able to make a nother interlocutor experience these feelings of culpability. It is important to psychologically distingui sh guilt from shame, two self conscious (Anolli & Pascucci, 2005) emotions which are ve ry closely related. Teroni and Deonnal (2008) found four themes which differentiate the psycho logical realizations of the two emotions: (1) reputation as a typical value for shame (2) self a nd behavior as constituti ve evaluative foci for both shame and guilt (3) undermined values and flouted norms as constitu tive formal objects of shame and guilt and (4) reparation as typical ac tion-tendency for guilt (p. 737). Whereas the focus of shame is the self in its entirety, feelings of guilt remain focused on a specific behavior and the harm it may cause others, (Anolli & Pascucci, 2005, p. 764). Jewish Guilt: The Jewish Mother Stereotype It is d ifficult to separate th e notion of Jewish guilt from the humorous stereotype of the Jewish Mother. This stereotype was originally born out of a Vaudeville act by Jewish American comedian George Jessel in the early 1920s enti tled A Phone Call from Mama (Antler, 2007). His act poked fun at his mothers verbal misc ues and mangled language (Antler, 2007, p. 2) and inspired generations of Jewish comedians to jump on the Jewish mother joke bandwagon.

PAGE 11

11 Jewish mother jokes were intensely populari zed in 1960 when they were introduced to a Broadway audience by comedians Elaine May and Mike Nichols, from Second City in Chicago: I sat by the phone all day Friday, all day Saturdayall day Sunday, the mother, Mrs. Weiss, berates her son. You neve r call. Mother I was launching Vanguard the exasperated son protests. Its alwa ys something! (Antler, 2007, p. 1) Common themes in these jokes were naggi ng, whining, and guilt-instilling maternal speech. Dan Greenburgs (1964) How to Be a Jewish Mother offered eight satirical chapters as a guide to being the Jewish mother. The book discu ssed archetypal techniques that Jewish mothers use to ensure that their children remain dependent; chief among them was creating guilt: Control guiltyou control the child.To mak[e] guilt work, Greenburg offered the Jewish mothers cardinal rule: the child must hear his mother sigh every day. This was part of the all-important Technique of Basic Suffering that Greenburg promised could be mastered by learning a list of Basic Sacrifices to Make for Your Child. (Antler, 2007, p. 137-138) Jewish comedians and writers in the second half of the twenty-first century furthered the Jewish mother stereotype through both popular culture and scholarly writing from within academia (Antler, 2007). The popularity of this genre of humor stemmed from the ability of Jewish Americans to relate to the characteri stics of the Jewish mother no matter how stereotyped or unflattering. Still today many Jewish Americans speak of being guilted not only by their mothers, but by others as well. Despite the emergence of Jewi sh guilt as a popular and stereotypical topic of humor, it cannot be denied that guilting exists within the Je wish American community, as evidenced by the data presented in this research. Previous Research Little research has been done on guilt-instilling utterances in discourse. In fact, it is nearly im possible to find studi es which address this specific speech behavior. As one might imagine, much linguistic analysis has been written on how guilt as an admission of a wrong-

PAGE 12

12 doing is expressed linguistical ly. Many studies have looked at courtroom discourse, for example, to analyze how guilt pleas are constructed. This is not the type of guilt the present research is concerned with. The goal of this anal ysis is not to assess how people admit guilt, but rather how they instill it. Previous studies have assessed admissions of guilt. For example, Riley (1997) focused on how guilt is admitted in mainly written language, such as poetry. Her analysis did not assess guilt as a feeling that results from another speakers utterances. Her concern was more with self and the psyche and how guilt is manifest in writing. Second Language Acquisition research has also explored linguistic gui lt. Rintell (1984) conducted research which analyz ed non-native English speakers perceptions of linguistic expressions of emotion. She proposed that emoti onal expressions are illo cutionary speech acts. For her study, Rintell recorded several script ed examples of dialogues containing various linguistic emotional expressions, including guilt. She then played these dialogues for non-native speakers, to assess whether they could properly perceive and interpret each of the emotions articulated. Like other research, however, th e type of guilt Rintell was looking at was an admission, not an instillation, of guilt. It is worth mentioning work done by Tanne n (2006) on familial discourse. While her research does not address guilti ng as a linguistic practice of either mothers or daughters, her exploration of other patterns of discourse between parents and ch ildren, such as criticizing, is relevant. Similarly, Tannens (2001) research on family talk also complements the present research, which deals with a degree of familial discourse. Boxers (1993) research on complaining and commiserating in American English is of definite relevance to the present research, because complaining is an integral part of the Jewish

PAGE 13

13 mother stereotype. Boxer found that complaining can be an act of solidarity which binds even those with relatively large social distance. The an alysis for the present research addresses social distance as well, but with much different conclu sions for the act of guil ting, as compared with complaining. Boxers (2001) work on nagging is of releva nce to this research because it is also stereotypical of Jewish mother sp eech. Boxer identified na gging as a speech ev ent in three parts: an initial request, a subsequent reminder, a nd a repetition of the re minder, which becomes nagging (2001, p. 51). The present research focuses h eavily on guilting as an indirect request, but differentiated guilting from nagging in that it can be a singular act pe rformed once, rather than an event like nagging, which by definition is comp rised of a sequence of compounded requests. Guilt is not entirely unexplored in other fields of research. Clearly, Freud looked at it from a psychological standpoint, but that type of research is beyond the scope of this study. Literature has been written by Jewish ethnographers and Rabbi s alike on how guilt plays a role in American Jewish culture, but that is not entirely within the scope of this research either. The focuses of this analysis were the linguistics of guilting and how it is viewed and constructed in English-speaking Jewish American discourse.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 PRELIMINARY ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS Methodology The research for the prelim inary interviews employed an ethnography of speaking approach to assessing guilting in discourse. It was concerned with the cultural ru les that govern guilting, as well as any syntactic al, morphological, and phonological factors that are involved in the guilting process. The focus of that portion of the analysis was on how a particular discourse convention, guilting, is used and viewed among a specific gr oup of speakers Jewish American L1 English speakers. The research assessed members of this speech community of practices perceptions and interpretations of guilting, in an effort to m ake the obvious obvious or the familiar strange (Wolcott, 1987, p. 41). The purpose of the ethnographic interviews wa s not to elicit and record instances of guilting in natural spoken discourse. Because so l ittle research has been done on the topic, the present research began on the most fundamental of levels. The aim of the interviews was to gather data from members of the Jewish American speech community which shed light on what guilting is and how it is used/cons tructed. The second half of this research, which used open role plays as a methodology, analyzed spontaneous toke ns of guilting as a speech act in everyday conversation. The methodology for the interviews wa s modeled after Spradleys (1979) The Ethnographic Interview Like his friendly conversation the interviews were conducted casually, to make consultants fe el at ease and comfortable bei ng open and frank. Each interview was opened by posing a series of questions to fa miliarize consultants with the interview topic, after which point the consultants guided the conversation. They were not restricted to answering

PAGE 15

15 specific questions. The preference for this methodology came from Boxer (1993). In triangulating her study of complaining through a series of ethnographi c interviews she found, through trial and error, that allo wing the consultant to speak in an unstructured, extemporaneous manner yielded more useful data. Consulta nts were not limited by specific ethnographic questions in the scope of the information they could provide. Consultants For this portion of the resear ch, 8 consultants were interviewed: 4 fem ale, and 4 male. Of these 8 consultants, 4 were from a middle-aged generation (ages 53 to 61) and 4 were from their childrens generation (ages 20 to 27) (Table 2-2). Even representation of gender and age was main tained in order to gain insight into how those sociolinguistic factors play a role in guilting. All consultants were American-born Jewish L1 English speakers with whom I had a frie ndly, if not close, rapport. The reason for interviewing intimates, and not strangers, was due to the nature of the et hnographic interview as a friendly conversation (Sprad ley, 1979). Researchers are more lik ely to get useful data from someone with whom they have a good rapport be cause informants feel comfortable disclosing information to them. Ethnographic Interviews The ethnographic interview was inform al and unstructured. Each consultant was given the following prompt: This past Yom Kippur my Ra bbi told a great joke: How many Jewish mothers does it ta ke to change a light bulb? (Sigh) Don't bother, I'll s it in the dark, I don't want to be a nuisance to anybody. What do you think about the mothers response in this joke? Have you ever experienced someone saying something similar? How does it make you feel when people speak to you

PAGE 16

16 this way? Why do you think someone would respond in this way? What do you think they hope to accomplish? Each consultant was allowed to respond at le ngth, and I interjected only to clarify their statements or to prompt further the conversati on, making sure that they had fully addressed all parts of the initial question by the end of the interview. I avoided using the word guilt (or any similar lexical variation) until after the consultant had said it. The goal was to let each consultant verbally explore their insights on the subjec t without imposing thoughts or opinions on the conversation. Interviews averaged one hour, and times varied slightly among consultants. Recording Equipment All data was recorded using Audacity (downloadable, open-source recording and editing software) and a Logitech USB desktop m icrophon e. A Dell Inspiron E1505 laptop computer was used to run Audacity and store all sound data files. Data Analysis After the data for each in terview was collecte d, the audio files were reviewed and notes were taken on each consultants data, noting time s where particularly insightful or well worded responses were given. Once all interviews were reviewed, the notes were assessed for patterns common themes, opinions, and insights that the consultants shared and grouped according to these patterns. The consultants responses were further assessed in an attempt to draw conclusions about guilting based on gender, gene ration, and other sociolinguistic factors. Once all data was compiled and organized, por tions of the consultants responses were transcribed to be used in this analysis. Because the purpose of the ethnographic interviews was to gain an insiders perspective on what guilting is (and not to actually record spontaneous tokens of guilting in natural discourse), transcripti ons employed a limited subset of Jeffersons transcription symbols (Atkinson& Heritage, 1984) (Table 2-1). These were used to convey extra-

PAGE 17

17 linguistic information such as intonation, vocal qu ality, pauses, and stress, which were of vital importance to the interpretation of the consultants re sponses. If these ex tra-linguistic qualities were not an essential part of a response, an APA style of quotation was employed in lieu of formal transcriptions. The Study As expected the joke used in the interview prompt was familiar to the consultants. Three of them provided the punch line, one groaned, one laughed knowingly, and one even supplied a follow-up joke: Q: How many Jewish sons does it take to screw in their mothers light bulb? A. None let her sit in the dark! Importantly, all consultants r ecognized the mothers response in the joke as guilting. This portion of the research presents a working defini tion of guilting, based on consultants intuitions, introspections, and anecdotes. Guilting is an indirect speech act with vary ing illocutionary forces. Most consultants described it as a request for an act to be performed or a behavior to be changed (Table 2-3). What makes it guilting, and not just indirec tly requesting, is the fact that wh at is said instills a feeling of guilt in the hearer. As one consultant theori zed about the psychology be hind it, [Guilting] is I dont want to tell you, You shouldnt do this. Wh at Im going to tell you is If you do that, Im going to be heartbroken. While most consultants reported that instilling guilt is not generally the intent of the speaker (Its not guilt for guilt s sake,), all reported it as a by-product of the act. As one consultant explained, I think guilt is just the resultI thinkpeople w ho take that approach to a situation arent trying to make you feel guilty. They are be ing coercive, but guilt isnt really the

PAGE 18

18 motivation. [The motivation is] to get people to do what they want without having to be so forward as to just ask you. More consultants felt that guilting is a subconscious act performed the way one might make any request than a conscious one (Table 2-4). But some, like the speaker above, felt that guilting can be done intentionally: Maybe sometimes the motivation really is to try to make you feel guilty and to coerce you into doing somethi ng through guilt. He added that when it is too heavy-handed, or obvious, it is ineffective. Half of the consultants reported that when they can tell they are being guilted, they are resistan t to compliance with the guilting request. Some consultants reported that guilting is a tactic, and half described it as a type of manipulation. Indeed, some saw it as a negative act, calling it underhanded, annoying, and ineffective because of its indirect nature. One consultant described it as a selling tactic a seductive method that can be consciously employed to attain a goalbut added that it is not preferable. Not all consultants viewed it nega tively, however. One consultant described guilting as a way of subtly and more socially accepta bly manipulating peoples behavior without having to go toe to toe with them. Themes of Guilting Though no consultant reported that guilting is re stricted to certain t opics, most described its usage in situations related to obligations (Table 2-5). Thes e obligations are beyond everyday responsib ilities, like cleaning ones room a nd getting good grades in school (though both of those topics were reported in examples of guilt ing). Generally guilting is used when a speaker has previously received or anticipates opposition from the hearer, because the request is out of the ordinary or something the he arer is disinclined to do. Usually these requests are ones which call upon some sort of familial loyalty or obligati on visiting relatives, making calls to family friends, spending time at home, and even marry ing within ones relig ion. These obligations

PAGE 19

19 include ones to the sp eaker themselves and are not restricted to family, though all reported obligations were to other people, not institutions. Prosodics of Guilting Consultants views varied as to whether guilting is a function of what is said, or how it is said. Most used a particular in tonation a sighing, lilting contour when they im itated guilters, whether intentionally or not. One consultant de scribed her mothers intonation as wistful whininglike, ((imitating her mother in wistful falsetto)) Oh:::, you know, like I got the vapors. Another consultant, who fe lt the intonation was the major ity of what made a statement guilting, reported that such an intonation says to him, Im he lpless. Another consultant added that a guilting in tonation evokes a feeling of pathos. Most consultants described a combination of bot h intonation and wording in what they feel constitutes guilting (Table 2-6), but one consultant said that intonation is not a factor. He felt that guilting is more about describing the consequenc es of not complying and that alone will be enough to instill guilt and (if successful) make a hearer comply Consultants who described the wording of a gu ilting statement, implied that it somehow conveyed an emotional plea often an expres sion of shame or disappointment. As one consultant described: The word choice de finitelygives you the sense of disappointing somebody, without even necessarily sa ying I will be disappointed. Guilters Consultants reported on a variety of guilters (people who guilt ) including people from both their private and professional lives. Most people seem ed to feel it was a permanent quality that some people are just prone to guilting as a method of reques ting. Three consulta nts said that guilting is a learned act, and that people are so cialized from childhood to guilt. Opinions varied on the character of guilters, with a consultant at one extreme asserting that guilters are

PAGE 20

20 unconfident and are not of str ong character, and another cons ultant on the opposite extreme stating that people who are guilters have an eas e of exhibiting their emotions. Despite these varying views, common themes were found among the consultants reports about guilters: the roles of gender, age, so cial distance and power. Jewish mothers Six of the eight consultants id en tified Jewish mothers as guilt ers (Table 2-7), but only three of those consultants reported that their own mothers guilt them, showing that their perceptions (based in stereotype) did not ma tch linguistic reality. One consultant, a sixty year old female, recently reentered the workplace after spending seve ral years working from home with a flexible schedule. When she was still working from home, she regularly spent time with her mother, who lives nearby, but once she began working in an of fice, that quality time decreased. She described her mothers guilting reaction afte r a few weeks at her new job: Amy: ((imitating her mother in wistful voice)) We used to have our Fridaysand I really miss it now that youre so bu: syinstead of coming right out and saying, Amy, I really miss doing things with you. Do you think that, now I know youre working, so you really cant do stuff with me during the week, but do you think that maybe we could do so mething on Saturday afternoons? Would you make a little time for me?But instea d she says, ((imitating her mother in wistful, falsetto voice)) Oh::, Im ::, you know, its just not the sa::me. Two consultants mentioned that their Jewish mothers-in-law are gui lters, and one female consultant, a twenty-one year old college student, described he r experiences with her guilting grandmother, who often showed up unannounced at her parents home with dinner prepared for the whole family: Cheryl: Since my grandpa die d, shes always like coming over for dinner, and sometimes shell just cook dinner and expect us toeat itand be like Oh, I made you guys dinner tonightand were like, well we already st arted preparing something, ((imitating grandmother in high pitche d lilting tone)) Oh oh nevermi:ndI guess Ill just go eat i::tSo in that case she makes us feel really guilty for not knowing that she made us dinner, which how would we? So one time specifically, last time I was home, we were supposed to eat her beef stew I think

PAGE 21

21 three nights in a rowbecause she had made itand each time my mom had gone out and gone to Publix and starte d making dinnerand we felt really bad Rachel: Yeah, but so did you eat your moms dinneror did you wind up eating [ Cheryl: Eventually, we wound up eating hers The same consultant also related a story about a friends mother, who guilted her college-age daughter into visiting home for her fathers birthday. Cheryl: It was her fathers birthday, a nd her mom, Jewish mothershe was like ((imitating her friends mother)) You know Heatheryou havent really been home for a while and its your dads birthda::yu::m, what are you doing thing weekend?So [Heather] called me and I was like, So, you know, whats up?What are you up to this weekend? ((imitating her friend in low, disappointed intonation)) Oh, Im going ho::me Why? ((imitating her friend again in same manner)) Its my dads birthda::y and my mom really wants me to go to surprise himShe wasnt really exci ted for it, but she figured shed be the good daughter and do it. Gender The consultants reported a total of seventeen wom en who are guilters (Table 2-7) and eleven men (Table 2-8). These figures are based on anecdotes consulta nts provided from their own life experiences, including ac counts of the consultants themselves guilting others. (Only accounts which specifically menti oned the gender of the guilter we re included in the figures.) Four consultants asserted opinions which support these numbers, stating that they think women are more typically guilters than men. One female consultant felt that for women, guilting is a loving manipulation. Everyone does it, but women learn earlier how to do it, and were better at it, (italics, mine). Another female consultant felt inclined to say that guilting is more common for women, but also felt that she could just be falling victim to a stereotype. One other female consultant identified herself as a feminist and strongly felt that th e stereotype of female guilters is a negative one: Janice: How it makes me feel, as a feminist it bothers me at one levelbecause I think it feeds into behavior that makes people not take you seriouslyand that disturbs

PAGE 22

22 me. I would much rather have someone beif not confrontational, at leastforthrightin making his or her needs known. Though they felt that women are more often guilters than men, several consultants did offer examples of men they know who guilt. Half of the consultants reported that their fathers had guilted them at some point, and a total of si x father guilters were reported. One participant identified his own father as a consistent guilter. This consultant, a twenty-seven year old lawyer felt that while his father does gui lt, the way he does it is differe nt from how his mother does it: Bruce: With [my dad] its much mo re of an appeal to the correct thing to do This is what family does [My mom] never uses that kind of an appeal. [With her] its either an annoyanceor its a disappointment. One male consultant, a sixty-one year old la wyer, reported that he uses guilt with his clients, but only if he has been unsuccessful in appealing to them through other means: Jon: Ive used [guilting]. And I will tell you, while its not in my natureI have said to prospective clients who wouldnt buy a lif e insurance policy I was trying to sell themI said, ((in a soft, lilting intonation )) Its ok. I::ll ex plain to your widow that your love was limited to this am ount of moneythat thats all shes gettingI got some really really nasty responses to th atSo I dont use it very often. Another male consultant, a twenty-three year old young professional, when asked if men guilt replied, No, never. When asked about his father, he explained that he took a more direct approach to requests: Ben: He tells me to do somethingWhen he asks me to do somethinghe doesnt try to guilt me, hes just like I need you to do this for me. Interestingly, this same consultant, who very strongly felt that he is im mune to the affects of guilting, belied his own use of it when relating a story about a female friend who had playfully guilted him for not visiting her more often: Ben: Like, ((imitating his friend)) Oh, you never see me, cause Im always in Ocala. Know what? I guess only my real friends will drive down to Ocala and see me. Rachel: And shes jokingbut is she?

PAGE 23

23 Ben: I think it hides some of he r real feelings that maybe th at Im (not) willing to come down and see her and hang out with her in Ocala which is true. But then again, also, my parry to what she told me th at one time is that, Well, I would come down, but your boyfriend wont invite me down when you have a surprise party. Rachel: ((laughs)) Well, so what were you doing to her? Ben: What was I doing to her? [ Rachel: Yeah! ((imitating Ben)) I would have come, but your boyfriend didnt invite me, Ben: Well, it was true, it was a surprise pa rty, and I wasnt supposed to know about it, but I did know about it, because of someone else. Rachel: Yeah so her response was sort of jokingly guilting you, Ben: Yeah! Rachel: But your response back, was, making her feel bad, right? [ Ben: Yeah, well I((laughs loudly)) I guess. Age None of the consultants m entioned age as a fact or in guilting, but th eir feedback did show a clear tendency for older people to guilt more than younger people (Table 2-9). They provided only eight examples of younger guilters, compared with seventeen reported instances of older guilters. For the purposes of this analysis, young er was defined as anyone who is the same age as one of the younger consultants (twenty to twenty-seven years). This included people mentioned by the older consultants who guilted th em at a time when the guilter fell into the younger age group. Interestingly, of the stories rela ted about younger guilters, all were instances of peers guilting other peers never of people guilting t hose older than themselves. The term older in this analysis was defined as anyone who is the same age or older than the older consultants (fifty-three to sixty-one years). This included not only people from this age group, but also people from their parents generation. Again, a ny guilters from the younger of these two generations were reported to guilt th eir peers, not someone older than themselves. Though none of the participants in this study reported younger-to-older guilting, it does happen. As a professor recently related, her daughter gu ilted her for not visiting for a longer period of

PAGE 24

24 time, as she did with her sister who recently moved to Australi a: Im going to move halfway around the worldBecause thats obviously what it takes to get you to visit and stay for a month. Social Distance W hile the consultants reported on a great variety of people who guilt, most felt that the relationship of the guilter to the recipient (pers on they guilted) affected both the reaction of the recipient and the effectiveness of the request. In ge neral, they reported that the smaller the degree of social distance, the more li kely the guilting is to work. As one consultant clarified, The relationship iswhat makes the gu ilt workThe closer your relationship is to a person, the more likely they can make you feel guilty. Indee d, all of the consultant s reported at least one example of guilting taking place be tween intimates family, frie nds, girlfriends, and boyfriends. Most consultants felt that grea ter the social distance, the more offensive the guilting is to the recipient. One male consultant, age sixty-one and a father of two, related a story about his decision to move his younger daughter from her education at a private Jewish day school to a public middle school. He was confronted by a member of his synagogue, a man his age with whom he previously had very limited interact ion, who disagreed with his decision to end his daughters Jewish education: Philip: He approached me once at some gath ering at [our synagogue] and I really didnt even know him except to say hello to himand he said, Well I understand that Karen is going to be going to public school and he just preceded to give me what-forHe came this close to telling me I was an irresponsible parentfor taking my children away froma religi ous educational backgroundI in effect just said to him, Its really none of your businessWhat surprised me about it so much is that he and I had never really been friendsPeople you know real well, you know how far you can push them before you cross the lineBut to do that to people you barely know, I thought was unsee:mly.

PAGE 25

25 Other anecdotes which contained instances of pe ople guilting those with greater social distance from themselves similarly ended with the reci pient of the guilt being offended, disinclined to comply, or both. Power Many consultants theorized about the role of powe r between guilter and hearer (Table 210). These opinions varied and were not cons istently held by any one demographic (wom en, men, young, or old). Most consultants felt that for guilting to work there mu st be a superior and an inferior player. One consultant felt that who has the upper hand can change, depending on who is doing the guilting, but decidedly felt th at the person guilting holds power over the recipient. Four consultants (including the one mentioned above) felt this way, and as one person clarified: If Im making you feel guilty for so mething, then I guess I have some sort of authority over you. She mentioned that this may be a need of the guilter, not to raise themself up, but to put someone else down. She attributed th is need to belittle ot hers to a possible low self-esteem and a (subconscious) desire to level the playing field between speakers. Three other consultants had varied opinions on the role of power. One felt that the guilter could not be in a position of pow er, because if they were, they would not need to guilt. Another person felt that in the moment during the guilti ng act the recipient holds the power, because they have the right to refusal. She added that in the long-run the recipient will likely feel bad, which would again lessen their power. Another cons ultant held a slightly different view: If a recipient accepts the guilt power play then the guilter ha s the upper hand. If they walk away from it, the recipient holds the power. Is There Jewish Guilt? Most consultants grappled with the stereotype of Jewish guilt, and rem ained undecided as to whether or not guilting is something uniquely Je wish and if it is, what makes it Jewish. As one

PAGE 26

26 consultant pointed out, many people are capable of guilting, not only Jews. Interestingly, despite not being able to pinpoint what it is that makes Jewish guilt Jewi sh, a few consultants were able to compare it to other forms of guilt. Two consultants mentioned Italian mothers as stereotypical guilters, and one elaborated from her own experience: Amy: When we were up North, we would h ear our Italian friends talking about their mothers the sa::me wa::y. ((imitating an Italian mother)) Whats the matter? Why dont you eat? Dont you like my food? Two consultants also mentioned a stereotype of Catholic guilt, but di fferentiated it from Jewish guilt, stating Catholic guilt is derived from a fear of sinning, disrespecting God, and going to hell. Jewish guilt, as mentioned previous ly, was reported to stem from a feeling of obligation and loyalty. One consulta nt felt strongly that this feeling of obligation stems from the oppression of the Jewish people throughout history, particularly since the Holocaust. Because so many people lost family members and close friend s in concentration camps survivors and their families realize the importance of family and the loyalty that stems from that closeness. Clearly, such an assertion merits further research. While no consensus was made on what Jewish guilt is, the consultants together made a case for its existence within the Jewish society, as the majority of their anecdotes identified guilters that are members of the Jewish community. Conclusion Data from the ethnographic interv iews defined guilting as an indirect speech act employed by speakers as a request for a ch ange in behavior or action. It differentiated guilting from complaining by showing that it is most often an ac t which alienates recipients, especially those of greater social distance. It also differentiated guilting from nagg ing, by showing that guilting is one singular speech act, and not an event comp rised of several related acts. Despite these differences, consultants frequently had trouble distinguishing the three behaviors from one

PAGE 27

27 another, citing instances of guilting which enta iled complaining and which felt like nagging, because of the reoccurrence of the topic of the guilting. Consultants genera lly viewed guilting as a negative act and felt that social distance is pa ramount to the extent to which guilting works. Crucially, all consultants expressed that guilti ng does not always yiel d the desired results (whether compliance or feelings of guilt or both) and that the relationship of the recipient to the guilter determined this success. Consultants identified both women and mother s as the most consistent guilters, though they did supply ample examples of men and fath ers guilting as well. Generation played a large role in guilting. Consultants felt that one can guilt members of their own generation, and members of a generation younger than their own, but they cannot guilt members of an older generation. This could be tied to how power factors into guilting, although the consultants did not agree as a whole on who holds the power in th e act of guilting. What was agreed upon is that guilting is a manipulative face-th reatening act which is commonl y, but not exclusively found in American English Jewish speech.

PAGE 28

28 Table 2-1 Subset of Jeff ersons transcript notation Notation Denotes [ Overlapping utterances = Contiguous utterances : Extension of preceding sound or syllable :: Prolonged extension of preceding sound or syllable ? Rising inflection, not necessarily a question Halting, abrupt cut-off Rising intonation Falling intonation Underlining Emphasis (( )) Eescription of phenomenon Omitted utterances Vertical ellipses Intervening turns omitted Table 2-2 Demographic information for Ethnographic Interview consultants Consultants Females Males Younger generation 2 2 Older generation 2 2 Total consultants 4 4 Table 2-3 Consultant descriptions of guilting Description Number reported* Way to elicit response 6 Indirect 4 Subsconcious 4 Manipulating 4 Conscious 3 Tactic 2 Total number of consultants who reported each description

PAGE 29

29 Table 2-4 Participants attitudes toward guilting Attitude toward guilt Number reported* Negativity 4 Guilt as ineffective 3 Guilt as effective on children 2 Guilt as effective 2 Guilt as socially acceptable 1 Guilt as underhanded 1 Intolerance 1 Resentfulness 1 Annoyance 1 Guilt is natural 1 Total number of consultants who reported each attitude Table 2-5 Themes of guilting and examples Theme Tokens Example Familial obligation 9 "You haven't really been home for a while and it's your dad's birthday." Timesharing 7 "We used to have our Fridays." Pity plea 6 "Oh that's ok, I'll just stay here by myself." Personal offense 5 "Why don't you eat? Don't you like my cooking?" Disappointment 3 "You're not living up to your potential" Other obligations 3 "It' s your responsibility." Table 2-6 Reported linguis tic features of guilting Feature Number reported* Sighing 2 Lilting intonation 2 Word choice 2 Low pitch 1 Total number of consultants who reported each feature

PAGE 30

30 Table 2-7 Female guilters, as reported by consultants Relationship to recipient Number reported* Mother 6 Peer 5 Girlfriend 2 Sister 2 Grandmother 1 Wife 1 Total 17 Total number of guilters reported by consultants per rela tionship category Table 2-8 Male guilters, as reported by consultants Relationship to recipient Number reported* Father 6 Boyfriend 2 Peer 2 Business associate 1 Total 11 Total number of guilters reported by consultants per rela tionship category Table 2-9 Age of guilters by gene ration, as reported by consultants. Generation* Number reported** Older-Younger 14 Older-Older 4 Total older guilters 18 Younger-Older 0 Younger-Younger 10 Total younger guilters 10 Total guilters 28 For each category, the generations are organize d as guilter generation-recipient generation. ** Total number of guilters reported by consultants per generation category Table 2-10 Participants beliefs about who holds the power during a guilting speech act Guilter Recipient Either No Response 3 2 2 1 Note: Numbers represent the total number of participant re sponses per category.

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 3 OPEN ROLE PLAYS Methodology The purpose of this portion of the research is to elicit tokens of guilting speech acts. Based on the information provided by consultants in the preliminary ethnographic interviews, I created open role plays for participants to perform pr ompted scenes for pairs of people to act out. I chose to create role plays rather than analyzi ng natural speech, because (as was conveyed in the preliminary interviews) guilting is a less-common speech act wh ich typically occurs between intimates. Given my limited time and resources, I chose to write role plays because they offer data containing near-natural casual speech that can be captured in a controlled experiment. Whereas natural discourse is motivated and sh aped by participants goals, role plays were designed specifically for research purposes (Kasper & Rose, 2002). I created open role plays (ones which allowed the participants to resolve the situation how they chose) because as Kasp er and Dahl (1991) explain, Because instructions to accompany open role plays specify players' roles, the initial situation, and at least one play er's communicative goal, but do not prescribe conversational outcomes nor how such outcomes are reached, the ensuing interaction is real in the context of the play, since some outcome needs to be negotiated (p.228). I additionally chose to write role plays in whic h participants retained their own identities, because data from such methodology more closely approximates authentic discourse than does data from role plays in which participants a ssume a different identity (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). Three role play scenarios were created based on feedback from consultants in the preliminary interviews. The roles in each were those of intimates spouses, parents, children, and friends and all three scenarios were centered on a theme of feelings of obligation. To triangulate the data from the role plays, I additionally conducted follow-up interviews with the participants immediately after each role play. These interviews were conducted to obtain

PAGE 32

32 the participants insights on the discourse contai ned in the role plays and on guilting in their personal experiences. Participants Participants for this study were recruited from personal acquaintances. This was done intentionally because, as with th e preliminary interviews, I want ed to use people with whom I have a friendly rapport (Spradley, 1979). Because of our relationship, these participants were more comfortable with both the role play and the interview, which provi ded more natural data and honest feedback. Participants were specifically selected who in real life held the relationships they played in the role plays. For example, real -life spouses were paired with the role play scenario written to occur between spouses. This was done to increase the chances of capturing natural conversation and acts of guilting. Indeed, many participants repor ted in follow-up interviews that they forgot they were acting and that their acting was true to life. Using strangers playing the roles of intimates may have yielded tokens of guilting, but it seems likely that using actual intimates increased that likelihood. Six pairs of participants were used two pairs for each of the three role plays: two sets of spouses, two sets of a parent and child, and two se ts of two young peers. The ages of participants mirrored the ages of consultants from the prelim inary interviews, pooled from two generations: a middle-aged generation and their childrens gene ration (Table 3-1). Spouses and parents for the role plays ranged in age from 53 to 56 and ch ildren and young peers were between ages 19 and 26. All participants were Jewish, spoke English fluently, and currently live in Northeast Florida, though some were born el sewhere. Participants assigned to the Guilter ro le (described below) met additional demographic specifications: all had Jewish parents and spoke American

PAGE 33

33 English as their first language. These demographics were crucial to maintaining consistent data. As was reported in many preliminary interviews guilting is a learned speech act, a behavior which is socialized from childhood. It was therefor e essential to use part icipants in the Guilter role who have parents that are both Jewish in order to accurately assess how guilting is performed in the Jewish community. Even representation of gender was employed for the Guilter role: three female Guilters and three male Guilters were used (Table 3-2). This was done to keep data analysis consistent with analyses from the preliminary interviews. That is I wanted to assess whether and to what extent gender plays a role in guilting. Even representa tion of gender was not maintained for the Recipient roles (described below) because consultants in prelimin ary interviews did not describe the gender of the recipient of guilt as a factor in the guilters use (or non-use) of guilting. Five Recipients were female and one was male. None of the participants are professional actors. One had exte nsive theatre experience, but I do not feel this affected the integrity of her performance. The Role Plays For each ro le play, the two participants were provided with cue cards (described below) which contained prompts for a scene to act out. Th ey were not provided with scripted lines, but simply a description of a scenario. They were instructed to improvi se dialogue based on the information provided on their cue cards. Participants were told to act as if this situation were really occurring between them and to be as honest and natural with their conversation as possible. They were further instructed that they could take the role play in any direction they wanted; they could let it unfold naturally, they we re not restricted to a specific conclusion, and they could take as much or as little time as need ed to conclude their scene. The participants were then given a few minutes to r ead the cue card and think about how they would approach the

PAGE 34

34 situation. They were allowed time to ask quest ions about information on their cue cards if anything seemed unclear. All questions were addre ssed out of earshot of th e other participant so that neither participant knew wh at each others cue card said. Th is was done to keep the dialogue spontaneous and uncalculated. Once both participants were ready, videotaping began and the participants began their improvise d scenes. I remained in the room while the scene was recorded to manage the equipment and stopped recording wh en the participants indicated that they were finished with their scene. Three role plays were written: one to be en acted between spouses (S pouse-as-Guilter), one between a parent and child (Parent-as-Guilter), and one between young (college age) peers (Friend-as-Guilter) (Table 3-3). For each of the three role play scenarios, a set of two cue cards was created one card for the Guilter (G ) role and one for the Recipient (R). The Guilter (G) role Cue cards f or the Guilter role were written to encourage the Guilter (G ) to instill feelings of guilt in the Recipient (R). Each cue card co ntained two parts: (1) background information and (2) a task. The background information described the relationship of G to R and a previous conversation between them. In all three scenario s, these previous conve rsations involved an invitation by G for R to attend an event and a reje ction by R of the invitation. The task in the role play for G was to initiate a c onversation with R which broached the topic of the event again, in an effort to change Rs mind. Each Guilter was to ld that she/he does not desire to upset the Recipient, and was instructed to keep in mi nd the Recipients feeli ngs on the matter. Both the background information and the task fo r the Guilter role were based on feedback from consultants in preliminary interviews. Most consultants felt that gui lting is an indirect speech-act used to elicit a behavior in a recipien t, which was why the task created for G was to change Rs mind. Note that the cue card did no t use the words convince or persuade in

PAGE 35

35 describing the task. Using such words may have encouraged a different speech act pleading, cajoling, commanding which would not necessarily instill feelings of guilt. G was reminded to spare Rs feelings in an effort to elicit indi rect speech acts. Crucially, the Guilter was never instructed to guilt the Recipient, because overtly stating the speech act to be elicited would remove the possibility for near -natural guilting to occur. Three Guilter roles were assigned: Spouse-as -Guilter (SG), Parent -as-Guilter (PG) and Friend-as-Guilter (FG). Three different scenarios were carefully crafted with the specific Guilter role in mind. For the SG role play, the event G invited R to was an anniversary dinner with Gs parents. For the PG role play, the event was a dinner for Rs birthday with her/his family members. For the FG role play, the ev ent was a party hosted by G (Appendix A). The Recipient (R) role Cue cards were created for Recipients that corresponded to Guilter cu e cards. Each card contained the sam e background information: G s invitation and Rs rejection. No task was provided, because the role plays were construc ted to encourage guilti ng from the Guilter, and accordingly the Recipient needed no motiv ation or direction for response. Recipient roles additionally corresponded in rela tionship to the three Guilter roles; for the Spouse-as-Guiler scenario, R was her/his spouse, for the Parent-as-Guilter, R was her/his child, and for the Friend-as-Guilter role, R was her/his friend. Though it was not overtly stated on the cue cards, in all role plays R had conflicting interests with G. For each scenario, a reason wa s given on both sets of cue cards for why R did not want to attend Gs event. This was done to create a feeling of in ternal conflict in the Recipient that many consultants in the prelimin ary interview reported to accompany the feeling of guilt. In fact, some consultants in preliminar y interviews felt that a feeling of conflict by the

PAGE 36

36 recipient was essential to the success of guilting (a bility of the guilter to elicit an act by R through guilting). Follow-Up Interviews After each role play was recorded, the participants watched the video of their role play while I took notes on their discourse. I did not have a set of questions to ask each set of participants, but rather let each role play dialogue determine th e course of the follow-up interview. Like the preliminary interviews, the follow-up interviews we re ethnographic in natu re and structured like Spradleys (1979) friendly conve rsation. In a casual, audiorecorded conversation, I asked questions targeted at identifying acts of guilting in the role play and the participants reactions to them. I asked them to reflect on what they said a nd why they said it, and also how what was said made them feel. I additionally tried to gain in sight into the naturalness of the conversation whether they felt their acting accu rately reflected what they woul d say in a real conversation. I also allowed them to relate stories and experi ences which explored the use of guilting in their everyday lives. As with the preliminary interviews in all follow-up interviews I tried to avoid using the word guilt (or any lexi cal variations thereof) until th e participant used it, to keep from influencing their input. Only in instances where I identified specific speech acts as guilting, but participants did not use the terms guilt or guilting to describe it, did I introduce the theme into the conversation. Participants were permitted as much time to answer questions as they needed and to be as candid as they felt comfortable. Recording Equipment Role plays were video-recorded using a JV C Everio S GZ-MS100 Mem ory Camcorder and played back on a Dell Inspiron E1505 lapt op using Windows Media Player. Follow-up interviews were audio record ed using a Logitech USB de sktop microphone and Audacity (downloadable, open-source reco rding and editing software). All role plays and follow-up

PAGE 37

37 interviews were stored on an Iomega 500 gigabyte external hard drive and replayed for analysis on the same laptop used for video play-back. Data Analysis All role play videos and follow-up inte rview recordings were assigned m atching participant codes for analysis. After all data was collected from the six sets of participants, videos and interviews were reviewed and notes were taken and saved as Microsoft Word documents with corresponding participant codes. Notes included information on tokens of guilting, the outcome of each role play and pert inent feedback provided in follow-up interviews. Based on notes, specific portions of discourse from both role plays and follow-up interviews were transcribed. Only discourse wh ich contained important phonological features (as determined by feedback from preliminary intervie ws) were transcribed using a limited subset of Jeffersons transcription symbols (Atkinson& Heritage 1984) (Table 2-1). As with the transcriptions from the first part of this study, if extra-linguistic qualities we re not an essential part of a response, an APA style of quotation was employed. Spreadsheets were created which accounted fo r the tokens of guilting, who guilted whom, themes of guilting, reactions to guilting, acknowledgement of guilting, and demographic information about the guilters. These spreadsheets, along with the notes and transcriptions, were used to draw conclusions about what guilting is and how it is used in discourse. The Study Data obtained from role plays and followup interviews provided examples which confirmed conclusions from the preliminary ethn ographic interviews: Guilting is an indirect speech act whose illocutionary force is to elicit an action, and whose essen tial characteristic trait is an instillation of feelings of guilt in a recipi ent. A guilting speech act is an isolated utterance one statement which instills guilt but ma ny guilting acts can be stacked within one

PAGE 38

38 conversation. (Whether or not the sequence of gui lting acts can be categori zed as a speech event is of definite interest to future research.) Guilting is generally subconscious none of the participants who guilted did it in tentionally and none recognized that it happened until watching themselves in the role play video. Tokens of guilting speech acts occurred in all six role plays and every token of guilting was recognized by both the Guilter and Recipient as such in th e follow-up interview. Members of both genders and both generations guilted, conf irming intuitions of the consultants in the preliminary interviews. Twelve tokens of guilting were identified acr oss all role plays (Table3-4). Additionally, participants provided six more tokens of gu ilting in stories they related during follow-up interviews (Table 3-5). Drawing on this data, the role play analysis focused on the topics/themes of guilting (Table3-6), phonological patterns in guilting, Guilters and Recipients, and the roles of gender and age in guilting. Themes of Guilting From the eighteen tokens of guilting, both s pontaneous in role plays and reported in interviews, two major themes emerged: 1) em phasis on family and 2) emphasis on time-sharing. Most tokens of guilt involved an appeal to the importance of one theme or the other, though within each theme were various, more specific to pics of guilting. A few tokens of guilting did not fall neatly into either theme of guilting, but be ar mentioning and are in cluded in the analysis. Emphasis on family Eight token s of guilting emphasized the importance of family. It may seem predictable that the largest theme of guilting involved a familia l theme because two of the three role play scenarios involved family events. The Guilters, however, could have used any number of appeals personal obligations, responsibilities, ethics, etc. They were not limited to discussing the

PAGE 39

39 importance of family with the Recipients, but the fact that they chose to is noteworthy. The Guilters appealed to the Recipients about two familial topics: familial obligations and familial relations. Familial Obligations Five tokens emphasized familial obligations (Table3-7). The Guilters did not overtly state that the Recipient should participate in the named event because it was their obligation to their fa mily, but the theme was conveyed nevertheless. In one Spouse-asGuilter role play, Sherry, a 53 year-old wife with a large close-knit family, tried to sympathize with her husbands unwillingness to attend the family anniversary dinner, while appealing to his sense of the importance of family: We have never made too much of a fuss and bot her about a lot of stuff and I know its our anniversary, its our big one, it s 25 years, I know that and I know you wanted to go out to like some fancy restaurant or something like that and its really really really nice, I really appreciate it, but[my sister and the family] all want to take us out to dinner for our anniversaryI know you really dont want to do that, but you know, its my familyIts more important to them than it is to us. Though she never said that he is obligated to them, Sherrys husband Frank sensed her appeal, stating in the role play, I dont know, sometimes its like an obligation on their part. Other tokens of familial obligation guilting in role plays had similarly subtle approaches. However, in the follow-up interview after the role play, Sherry describe d a typical conversation with her sister-in-law whose guilting makes very clear the importance of family: My sister-in-lawshe is so good at Well, its family and we only have family and if you dont have your family and we only have each other and if we dont do these things together then who are we going to do them with ? And they have a much smaller circle of friendsand she really depends on us a lot and like holidays, like I would love to have holidays with the friends, but (whispering) I always have to have it with the family. Familial Relations. Three tokens of guilting used familial relations to appeal to Recipients (Table 3-8). These differed from topics of familia l obligation in that they did not state or imply an obligation but simply reminded the Recipient of their relations hip to other family members.

PAGE 40

40 That relationship alone was used a basis of reasoning by the Guilter as to why the Recipient should partake in an event. Relating a story du ring the follow-up interview, Sherry described how her sister uses their relations hip to guilt her: So my sister would have been, But Im your sister, Im your only sister I want to have dinner w ith you on your anniversary. In one Parent-as-Guilter role play, Ted a 55 year old father of two, appealed to his older daughter Leah (26) to attend a family birthday dinner by reminding her th at she is the oldest grandchild and therefore speci al to the family: You know, you being the first grandchild, it means a lot to them to do something. The other Parent-as-Guilter, Judy, a 55 year-old mother of three also used a reminder of family relationships when trying to convin ce her daughter Vicky ( 24) to attend: Your attendance] will make the grandmothers very hap py. A simple mention of the grandmothers is enough reason for her to go to the family dinner. Emphasis on time-sharing Tim e-sharing was a largely-present theme in acts of guilting as well (Table3-9). Five of the six role plays contained tokens of guilting wh ich mentioned time-sharing a desire for the Recipient to share a portion of her/his time with the Guilter. The data contained six total tokens of time-sharing guilting th ree in role plays and three reported in interviews. In both Friend-as-Guilter role plays, time-sharing was the ma in topic of guilting. In one role play it was established that the Recipient, Cara, a 20 year-old college student, had been busy balancing course work and a demanding rehear sal schedule for a theatre production she was involved in. Her friend Diana, in the Guilter ro le, expressed how much she missed spending time together: Its just cause I havent seen you, you know? I feel like youv e just been so busy lately. I havent seen you in fo reverIve just really missed you.

PAGE 41

41 Joel, a 20 year-old college student used a sim ilar appeal when talki ng to his busy friend, Shannon (20): I mean, I understand th at [youre busy] but I feel like we havent seen each other for any amount of time in so long, you know? It woul d be really great if I could have a chance to, you know, we could hang out again and the partys a great chance for [that]. When Shannon explained that sh e was too busy with school-work to attend his party and offered to meet the following weekend, Joel aske d if she could make time in her schedule for him, still taking a somewhat indirect approach: I feel like, we just never see each other and I dont know if next weekend will be any differe nt. And theres no way you can move something aside to have just a few hours to spe nd with me?We never see each other. Barry, a 53 year-old husband and father played the Guilter in a Spouse-as-Guilter role play. During the follow-up interview, he described a h ypothetical scenario in which he would have intentionally guilted his father, a busy and successf ul doctor, when trying to resolve anniversary dinner plans: I would have used guilt, I would have said Well then instead of going out to medical meetings and dinners and stuff, you prob ably should have stayed with us when we wanted you instead of doing that. Less common topics of guilting A few tokens of guilting were found that did no t fa ll neatly into the larg er themes of family and time-sharing (Table 3-10). Two tokens of guilt ing, both found in role plays, expressed a fear of insulting a third party. Barrys wife, Linda (53) has a close relationship with her parents, who live in the same city. When Barry tried to convi nce her to attend a dinner with his family, she reminded him that doing so would upset her pare nts, who had also extended an anniversary dinner invitation that Linda rejected: You know [my parents] wanted to take us out to eat and I offe nded [my mom] saying I didnt really want to go out with anyone except you for our anniversary and you know I

PAGE 42

42 think shes a little bit not real happy with me right now and I cant see me going out to eat with [your family] after I told [my mom] I couldnt go. Another topic of guilting, found in a Spouse-as-G uilter role play, was a pity plea used by Sherry: Well then maybe Ill just go by myself to dinner with [my sister] on Friday and then well go out on Saturday. Her pity plea echoes the guilting voice of the mother in the joke used for the preliminary ethnographic interviews. Sherrys Maybe Ill just go by myself, is not unlike the mothers Ill sit in the dark, in that both statements make the guilter sound pitiful, attempting to evoke a feeling of pathos in the recipient. For Sherry, however, it was unsuccessful in evoking pathos and Frank clearly found the idea unrea sonable: Yeah, so what am I gonna do? Sit at home?No, I dont think so. Why dont you take her out to lunc h or something or let her take you out to lunch? One other topic of guilting was identified: an appeal to a sense of obligation to friends. Like with the appeals to familial obligation, Joel, the Guilter in the Friend-as-Guilter role play, used their mutual friends as an appeal for Sha nnon to attend his party: A lot of our friends are like mutual and theyd really like for you to be at the party, but I mean I understand youre busyIt would mean a lot to me if you came to this party. It would mean a lot to them. Prosodic Features of Guilting Phonological patterns were found in the data which showed certain prosodic features which acco mpany guilting. (The present study did not find other linguistic features syntactic or morphological that accompany guilt, though such feat ures merit exploration in future research.) A few tokens of guilting from both role plays and interviews shared distinct prosodic features. These features were not prevalen t throughout the data so it is clea r that they are not required for guilting speech acts. However, the fact that the same prosodic features were employed across

PAGE 43

43 Guilters from different role plays is important an d merits analysis. The shared prosodic features were primarily related to int onation and segment lengthening. Intonation Consultants f rom the preliminary interviews re ported an intonation that is both wistful whining and lilting that accompanies guilting. In role plays, a few tokens of guilting did contain a distinct intonational patt ern: a rise and fall within a phra se or sentence, which created a sing-songy lilt. Judy, the 55 year old mother in the Parent-as-Guilter role play, used this intonational pattern in her first and most notable token of guilting: Judy: I know that you said that youd rather be with your friends than with us but we would rea::lly like to have dinner together with just the family The second half of the sentence contains a rise in intonation beginning at the word really which falls slowly until the end of the sentence, creating a whistful quality. During one follow-up interview, Ted mocked his own use of guilti ng in the Parent-asGuilter role play and exaggerated his own performance: Ted: But then when I heard [what I said], it soundedlike you know((imitating himself)) Oh:: its oka::y. Youre just the first grandchi::ld Here Ted was exaggerating, but his use of rising a nd falling intonation revealed, at the very least, his opinion that such an intonation typically accompanies guilting an opinion likely born out his own experience with guilting (as both guilter and recipient). Lengthening The m ore common prosodic feature, found in five tokens of guilting, from spontaneous as well as reported data, was segment lengthe ning. Though Teds exaggerated imitation above contained lengthened segments, his online perf ormance in the role play also contained lengthened segments:

PAGE 44

44 Ted: So listen. Big days comin upa:nd your mother and I would rea::lly like to plan somethin for you. Like in Judys token of guilting (discussed for its intonational contours ab ove), the central vowel segment in the word really was lengthened. Te ds token above also illustrates a rising and falling intonational pattern. The most colorful example of segment le ngthening was provided by Sherry, who in a follow-up interview imitated her si ster guilting her in a hypothetical scenatrio (repeated below, with full prosodic notation): Sherry: My sister woulda been, yknow ((imitating her sist er)) But Im your si::s::ter Im your only si::s::ter I wanna have dinner with you on your annive::rsary Clearly an exaggeration, Sherrys imitation re veals her intuition that segment lengthening accompanies guilting. Her husband, Frank reacted negatively to her imitation, confirming that the combination of the rising and falling into nation and the segment lengthening does convey a whiny sound: Thats the part that aggravates [me]. If she was normal, and not a whinerif she was normal, Id say okay. More data needs to be analyzed to assess th e degree to which these prosodic patterns are typical of and commonly found in acts of guilting. Guilters Five of the six participants assigned to the Gu ilter role used guilting speech acts in their role play discourse. In follow-up interviews, two of them identified the speech acts as guilting without prompting, while the other three willin gly identified them as guilting after being prompted. None of the Guilters denied thei r use of guilting, though all of them sheepishly admitted their use of it. Clearly it was embarrassing for them to have been caught in the act of

PAGE 45

45 guilting, which some elaborated on in follow-up interviews. When asked if she felt that the language she used to persuade her friend to at tend her party was guiling, Diana reflected: Well when I first said, Oh youre so busy. I have nt seen you in so long I didnt think of it like in any way to be hurtfulBut just when [Cara said it made her feel guilty in the interview], I was like Yeahthats kinda like ow! So yeah, so I didnt mean but I guess maybe I did mean to guilt her a little bit. Guilt-ridden Guilters In f ollow-up interviews, four of the Guilters from the older generation reported their own personal feelings of guilt which they felt lead them to guilt the Recipients in their role plays. They reported a higher source of guilt their parents and families, who would likely have also been guilting them if the role play were a real -life situation. In this way, guilting can have a trickle-down effect, as Ted explained: [Had this been a real conversation] I r eally probably would have said well, you know, Your grandmothers called again, your bubbe s called again, your uncles have called againyou know, people are pressuring me to make a decisionand now saying that, I realize thats kinda a guilt way also. This trickle-down effect of gu ilting may also tie into the soci alization of guilting, but this topic merits further exploration. Successfulness of guilting The success fulness of guilting speech acts was measured by whether or not the Guilter was able to convince the Recipient to attend the na med event through guilting. Of the five Guilters who guilted, two were successful at convincing th e Recipients to attend the event. The other three Guilters did not successfully persuade th e Recipients to attend, t hough one scenario ended with the Recipient still undecided. It should be noted that while not all Guilters su ccessfully used guilt to get the Recipient to attend their event, some were successful at usin g guilt to reach a compromise. For instance, in

PAGE 46

46 the Friend-as-Guilter role play, Diana did not persuade Cara to put off studying and attend her party, but she did convince her to make time in her schedule for them to hang out. Recipients In the five role play s where the Guilters used guilting as a persuasive tactic, the Recipients recognized their guilting speech acts. In follow-up interviews, only one Recipient (in the Friendas-Guilter role play) recognized guilt without being prompted: That made me feel really guilty and really bad I felt like I was being a not su ch a good friend it just ma de me feel all around bad. The other four Recipients willingly acknowledge d the acts of guilting, and some confided that it is an act they are used to hearing from the Guilter and explained that it has varying degrees of success. As Frank, the Recipi ent in a Spouse-as-Guilter role play explained, Sometimes it works, sometimes I dont care. He did not elab orate on what makes his wifes guilting work or not. Three of the six Recipients reported feeling conflicted duri ng the role plays, a feeling which was reported by consultants in prelimin ary ethnographic interviews to often accompany feelings of guilt. Leah, the Recipient in a Parent-as-Guilter scenario clarified, [I felt obligated] only because I had other plans. It wouldnt have felt like that if I had not hing to do that night. Three Recipients reported that the guilting speech acts made them feel bad, and only one reported that the guilting annoyed him. Frank, in the follow-up interview from his Spouse-asGuilter role play admitted, The guilting makes me want to throw-up. While some consultants in preliminary interviews reported a similar av ersion to guilting, none of the other role play participants had a negative reaction.

PAGE 47

47 Recipient as Guilter One role play deserved an in-depth analysis for the exceptional dynam ic of its dialogue. As the Guilter in the Spouse-as-Gui lter scenario, Barry began the c onversation with an upbeat and logical appeal to his wife Linda: Listen[my sister and brotherin-law are] still in towna nd they wanna take us outI know you said you wanted to spend tonight [alone ] but they want to take us to [dinner]. And they know its our anniversary, so I said, since its Thursday, I have the weekend I can spend with you. We can have a quiet night over the weekend. Linda pointed out to Barry that the weekend will no longer be their anniversary. Then, in what he described in the follow-up interview as an attempt to disarm Linda with levity, he took a different approach: No it wont be our anniversary, but they real ly want [to] and they said theyre going to put us in the will. Both Li nda and Barry laughed at th is, because, as Linda explained in the interview, I saw that as, What are you crazy? Theyre not gonna put us in their will! Dont even try that. Shortly thereafter, Linda completely turned the tables on Barry, assuming the role of Guilter herself: No. I really dont want to [go] You know [my parents] wanted to take us out to eat and I offended [my mom] saying I didnt really wa nt to go out with anyone except you for our anniversary and you know I think shes a little bit not real happy with me right now and I cant see me going out to eat with [your fa mily] after I told [my mom] I couldnt go. Linda managed to fit the topics of family relatio nship, time-sharing, and fear of insult into one statement and then continued, essentially winning Barry over to her side: Linda: And you know [my parents] dont have that long to live Barry: And that trumps the, uh, ok. Linda: and I dont know how many a nniversaries were going to have with [my parents] but I know that I really dont care if I have any annivers aries with [your sister and brother-in-law]. In the end, Barry gave in to Linda s guilting and decided Well then the hell with them all, well just have a nice anniversary at home.

PAGE 48

48 In the follow-up interview Linda was very upfront about her use of guilting: But you notice how I pushed that little gu ilt thing in there, she joked, almost proudly. When asked how he felt about the turn of events, Barry was resigned: In a spousal relationship, you already know the dynamicOutcomes are understood in a sense You pretty much know how to si ze up how something is going to goSo you make the best actions for your best outcome and my best outcome is I dont want to live on my front yardwith blankets and ch airs and live on the front yard. Even before Linda assumed the role of the Guilter, Barry did not use any tokens of guilting. It is clear from this part icular role play that guilting is an act that comes so naturally to some, it does not even need to be prompted. This of course, was a special case but surely Linda is not alone in her knack for guilting. Gender Of the eighteen tokens of guilting identified in role plays and follow-up interviews, eleven had female speakers and five had male speakers. Two tokens of gender-neutral guilting were contained in hypothetical scenarios describe d in follow-up interviews (Table 3-11). Of the eleven instances of females guilting, ei ght were found in role plays, and three were reported in interviews. Of the five tokens of males guilting, four we re found in role play data and only one was reported as a hypotheti cal example in an interview. No participants reported in the follow-up interviews that they felt that women are more frequently guilters than men, but their online spe ech in role plays and reported examples in interviews showed a tendency for women to guilt more often than men. These numbers aligned with information reported in preliminary intervie ws, which contained more examples of female guilters than male guilters. It is likely, however, that there are more factors at play in such examples than simply gender alone.

PAGE 49

49 Gender was not controlled for in the Recipient roles for the current data and as such there was a disproportionate ratio of female to male Reci pients: five to one. It is entirely possible that the gender of the recipient can impact the tendenc y of the guilter to us e guilting speech acts. Other factors could also impact guilting tendencies, such as age, power, and social distance, as implied in the preliminar y ethnographic interviews. Age In prelim inary interviews, consultants i ndicated that guilting could occur between members of the same generation and from a memb er of an older generation to a member of a younger generation, but not fr om younger to older. The role play s were designed to reflect that general opinion. The Spouse-as-Guilter and Frie nd-as-Guilter role plays were designed to analyze guilting between peers in the older generation and peers in the younger generation respectively, and the Parent-as-Guilter role play was designed to an alyze older-to-younger guilting. In hindsight, it seems that the comple xity of spousal relationships may not be comparable to a young peer relationship and perh aps a Sibling-as-Guilter or even a Friend-asGuilter role play using peers from the older gene ration would have been more appropriate than the Spouse-as-Guilter scenario. Only one of the three role play scenarios placed a member of the younger generation in the role of Guilter, an admitted shortcoming of the methodology. The data does show that both of the younger Guilters did use acts of guilt ing in role plays. In analyzing just the interviews alone, which left open the possibility for participan ts to discuss younger-toolder guilting, only one example emerged (of a son guilting his father) but it was hypothetical. To even the balance of older and younger Guilters, a fourth role play could have been designed as a Child-to-Parent scenario. This would both asse ss the degree to which younger ag e groups can guilt older age groups, and would have presented even repr esentation of age in the Guilter roles.

PAGE 50

50 Conclusion The purpose of the role plays and follow-up in terviews has been to cap ture near-natural tokens of guilting in casual speech among intim ates in the Jewish American community and analyze those tokens for common themes and fo rms. A secondary purpose was to assess gender and age as factors of guilting. Tokens of guilting in this research confirmed that guilting is an indirect speech act used to elic it a behavior or action, and that it frequently has the added effect of making a recipient feel bad. Guilting is some thing that does occur between intimates in the Jewish American speech community with relati ve frequency, among members of both parent and child generations, but which is more frequently employed by women than men. Guilting can be identified by certain prosodic features, t hose of rising-falling intonation and segment lengthening. Clearly there are other issues that were brought out in the pre liminary interviews that merit analysis in further research on guilting. Further resear ch should be conducted which looks at the following themes: guilting and power, guilting and social distance, guilting and Jewish mothers, the socialization of guilting, and guilting in ot her speech communities. This study has laid the groundwork for research to be carried out which attempts to paint the full picture of what guilting is, how it is done, and the role it plays in discourse across peoples.

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-1 Participant ages by role play Participant age Spouse-as-Guilter Pare nt-as-Guilter Friend-as-Guilter Total Younger generation 0 2 4 6 Older generation 4 2 0 6 Total participants 4 4 4 12 Table 3-2 Participant gender by role play Participant gender Guilters Recipients Total Female 3 58 Male 3 14 Total 6 612 Table 3-3 Number of participants per role play Participant role Spouse-as-Guilter Pare nt-as-Guilter Friend-as-Guilter Total Guilter 2 2 2 6 Recipient 2 2 2 6 Total participants 4 4 4 12 Table 3-4 Topics of guilting in role plays Topic Role play Participant role Participant generation Participant gender Familial obligation Parent-as-Guilter Guilter Older Female Familial obligation Parent-as-Guilter Guilter Older Male Familial obligation Spouse-as-Guilter Recipient Older Female Familial relations Parent-as-Guilter Guilter Older Female Familial relations Parent-as-Guilter Guilter Older Male Fear of insult/offense Spouse-as -Guilter Guilter Older Female Fear of insult/offense Spouse-as -Guilter Guilter Older Female Friend obligation Friend-as-Guilter Guilter Younger Male Pity plea Spouse-as-Guilter Guilter Older Female Time-sharing Friend-as-Guilter Guilter Younger Female Time-sharing Friend-as-Guilter Guilter Younger Male Note: Each token of a given topic is listed in order to provide demographic details for each.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-5 Topics of guilting in follow-up interviews Topic Real or hypothetical Guilter generation Guilter gender Familial obligation Real* Older Female Familial obligation Hypothetical Older Female Familial relations Hypothetical Older Female Time-sharing Hypothetical Younger Male Time-sharing Hypothetical Older Neutral** Time-sharing Hypothetical Older Neutral** Note: Each token of a given topic is listed in order to provide demographic details for each. Participant reported a guilting sp eech act which actually occurred. ** Participant did not specify gender in a hypothetical example Table 3-6 Topics of guilting Topic Tokens Examples Familial obligations 5 "I know you really don't want to do that, but you know, it's my family." Familial relations 3 "But I'm your sister. I'm your only sister. I want to have dinner with you on your anniversary." Time-sharing 6 "I feel like you've been so busy lately. I haven't seen you in forever." Fear of insult/offense 2 "I offended [my mom] saying I didn t really want to go out with anyone except you and I cant see me going out to eat with [your family] after I told [her] I couldnt go." Pity plea 1 "Maybe I'll just go by myself." Friend obligations 1 "A lot of our friends[would] r eally like for you to be at the partyIt would mean a lot to them." Table 3-7 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of Familial Obligations guilting Tokens Female guilter Male gu ilter Older guilte r Younger guilter Role play 2 1 2 0 Interview 2 0 3 0 Totals 4 1 5 0 Table 3-8 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of Familial Relations guilting Tokens Female guilter Male gu ilter Older guilte r Younger guilter Role play 1 1 2 0 Interview 1 0 1 0 Totals 2 1 3 0

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-9 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of Time-Sharing guilting Tokens Female guilter Male gu ilter Older guilte r Younger guilter Role play 0 1 0 2 Interview 1 1 2 1 Totals 1 2 2 3 Table 3-10 Demographic break-down of Guilters for tokens of other topics of guilting Topic Female guilter Male guilt er Older guilte r Younger guilter Fear of insult/offense 2 0 2 0 Friend obligation 0 1 0 1 Pity plea 1 0 1 0 Totals 3 1 3 1 Table 3-11 Tokens of guilting per gender in roles plays and follow-up interviews Guilter gender Role play Interview Total Female 8 3 11 Male 4 1 5 Neutral* 0 2 2 Total 12 6 18 Participant did not specify gender in a hypothetical example

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION This study was the first step toward gaining a full understanding of what guilting is and the power it ho lds in conversation, but there is still much work to be done. Clearly the topic of guilting as a speech act is a deep well of opportunity for research into how this language convention operates in discourse. As with the study of any speech act (requesting, nagging, scolding), there are limitless possibili ties for sociolinguistic exploration. This study should not be assessed as a complete picture of guilting, but rather used as a springboard from which new studies can be launched. It has presen ted notable characteristics of guilting, both semantic and phonological, and explored its manifestation and functionality in L1 American English Jewish discourse. This study do es not claim that guilting is unique to that speech community and acknowledged that gu ilting does indeed occur in many other communities. New research can use this study as a basis of comparison for how guilting is used in other English speaking commun ities of practice, and as a point of inquiry into whether such a speech act/event exists in other languages.

PAGE 55

55 APPENDIX ROLE PLAY CUE CARDS Spouse-as-Guilter Cue Cards Guilter Cue Card Your fa mily has offered to take you and your spouse out to dinner to celebrate your anniversary. You have previously discussed this with your spouse, who told you that they would rather spend a quiet evening al one, just the two of you. Your family members have been nagging you and are really eager to take you both out and you would like to go along with their plans and make them happy. You want to broach the subj ect with your spouse again, but you dont want to upset them, since you know thei r feelings on the matter. You, however, would like them to comply, and spend your anniversary with your fa mily. When you enter the room, you initiate a conversation with your spouse about going to dinn er with your family, hoping to change their mind. Recipient Cue Card Your spouses fam ily has offered to take you and your spouse out to dinner to celebrate your anniversary. Your spouse discussed this wi th you previously, and you told them that you had hoped to celebrate by spending a nice quiet evening alone, just the two of you. You are reading the paper when your spouse enters th e room and initiates a conversation with you. Parent-as-Guilter Cue Cards Guilter Cue Card Your childs birthday is approaching and you would like to hold a sm all family dinner at your home to celebrate. When you mentioned this to your child, they told you that they wanted to make plans with friends instead. You want to broach the subject with your child again, but you dont want to upset them, since you know their feelings on the ma tter. You would really like to

PAGE 56

56 do something nice for your child, however, and w ould like for them to spend the evening with you. When you enter the room, you in itiate a conversation with your child about having a family dinner at home, hoping to change their mind. Recipient Cue Card Your birthday is approaching and your parent s have offered to have a sm all family dinner at home to celebrate. Your parents discussed th is with you previously, and you told them that you had hoped to make plans to go out to dinner with friends for that evening. You are reading a book when your parent enters the ro om and initiates a conversation. Friend-as-Guilter Cue Cards Guilter Cue Card You are throwing a party at your hom e this weekend and you have invited your friend to come. They are always busy lately and rarely make time to hang out with you. When you invited them to come to your party, they told you they ha d work to do and declined the offer. You want to broach the subject with your friend again, but you know their feelings on the matter and dont want to upset them. You really miss spending ti me with them, however, and would like for them to be there. When you enter the room, you in itiate a conversation about your party, hoping to change their mind. Recipient Cue Card You have been very busy lately, and have not m ade much time to hang out with friends. Your friend has invited you to a party they are having this weekend, but y ou regretfully declined the offer because you have work to do. You ar e reading when your frie nd enters the room and initiates a conversation with you.

PAGE 57

57 LIST OF REFERENCES Anolli, L. & Pascucci, P. (2005). Guilt and guilt-proneness, shame and shame-proneness in Indian and Italian young adults. Personality and Individual Differences (39), 763-773. Antler, J. (2007). You Never Call! You Never Write! A History of the Jewish Mother. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boxer, D. (1993). Complaining and Commiserating: A Speech Act View of Solidarity in Spoken American English New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Boxer, D. (2001) Nagging: The familial conflict arena. Journal of Pragmatics (34), 49-61. Dahl, M. & Kasper, G. (1991) Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (13), 215-247. Hymes, D. (1962) The Ethnography of Speaking. In T. Gladwin and W. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, DC: Anth ropological Society of Washington, 13-53. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics : The ethnography of communication New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 35-71. Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Language Learning (52), 1-341. Riley, D. (1997). Is There Linguistic Guilt? Critical Quarterly 39 (1), 75-111. Rintell, E.M. (1984). But How Did You FEEL About That?: The Learners Perception of Emotion in Speech. Applied Linguistics (5). 255-265. Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Tannen, D. (2001). I Only Say This Because I Love You: How the Way We Talk Can Make or Break Family Relationships Throughout Our Lives New York, NY: Random House. Tannen, D. (2006). Youre Wearing That? Understanding Mothers and Daughters in Conversation New York, NY: Random House. Teroni, F. & Deonna J. (2008) Di fferentiating shame from guilt. Consciousness and Cognition (17), 725-740.

PAGE 58

58 Wolcott, H. (1987). On Ethnographic Intent. In Spindler, G. and Sp indler, L. (eds.), Interpretive Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 59

59 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rachel Antonette Organes was born in Jacksonville, Florida on January 21, 1984. She graduated from Stanton College Preparatory High School in Jack sonville in the spring of 2002. In the fall of 2002, Rachel began her studies at the University of Florid a, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in linguistics in May 2006. Rachel briefly attended the George Washington University in Washington, DC, befo re deciding to take a short break from her academic career. She worked for nine months as the Administrative Assistant for the Society of Wine Educators, where she helped develop e ducational materials and plan national wine conferences. In the fall of 2007, Rachel returned to her education in linguistics at the University of Florida, focusing on discourse analysis under the guidance of Dr. Diana Boxer. While there, she worked as a Teaching Assistant for both th e Linguistics Program and the University Writing Program, earning the 2008-2009 University of Florida Student Teaching Award. She also worked as a Research Assistant in the Language and Cognition Lab under the guidance of Dr. H. Wind Cowles. Rachel graduated with a Master of Arts degree from the University of Florida Program in Linguistics in August 2009.