Voices in discourses.pdf

Voices in discourses: Dialogism, CriticalDiscourse Analysis and ethnic identity

Sari Pietika« inen and Hannele DufvaUniversity of Jyva« skyla« , Finland

In this article we attempt to combine the Bakhtinian, dialogical philosophy oflanguage and critical discourse analysis (CDA) with our analysis of ethnicidentity. The data we discuss are an interview with a Sami journalist whoworks in the Sami media.We analyse the interview from the points of view ofdialogismand CDAto illustrate how identity must be understood as somethingwhich is both individual and social in nature. We reject the earlier essentialistinterpretations of identity which see it as purely individual and psychologicalin nature. At the same time, we argue that those views of identity that see it asexclusively socially constructed can be misleading as well.We aim to illustrateour individual-cum-social viewpoint by discussing how identity is repre-sented through a variety of voices and a variety of discourses. We discussethnic identity as related both to social level discourses that our subject drewon ^ such as the discourses of the journalistic profession or ethnicity and to‘voices’that bear witness to his experiences as an individual and his individuallife course.

KEYWORDS: Dialogism, critical discourse analysis, ethnic identity,Sami languages

INTRODUCTION

In this article, we aim at bringing together the dialogical philosophy oflanguage and critical discourse analysis (CDA) in analysing multi-facetedethnic identity. To illustrate our theoretical notions against data, we discuss acase study of a single interview with a Sami journalist working within Samimedia in Finland. Below, we analyse examples chosen from this interviewfrom our two theoretical points of view, aiming to show that identity can beunderstood in terms of interplay between the individual and the social ^ ameeting point where the discourses of the society meet the voices of the mindthrough the use of language.

The dialogical philosophy of language is based on the work of the BakhtinCircle (for an introduction, see Brandist 2002), particularly Mikhail Bakhtin(1895^1975) and Valentin Voloshinov (1895^1936). Now, dialogical thinkingenjoys a strong revival in many areas of language studies (e.g. La« hteenma« ki

Journal of Sociolinguistics 10/2, 2006: 205^224

# The authors 2006Journal compilation# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20069600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.

2001; Linell 1998; Rommetveit 1992). Below, we will discuss the possible com-mensurability between dialogism and critical discourse analysis, particularlyNorman Fairclough’s (1992, 2001, 2003) social theory of discourse wherethe influence of dialogism can be seen in such notions as dialogicality (oflanguage) and intertextuality (of texts).

In our analysis of ethnic identity we aim at making the existing linksbetween dialogism and CDA more explicit. In so doing, we will also respondto criticism levelled at certain theoretical or methodological weaknesses inCDA (Meyer 2001; Schegloff 1998; Toolan 1997; Widdowson 1996; Wodak2001)and in dialogism (Linell 1998). The strength of CDA lies in its analysisof the relationship between language and the social. CDA sees languageas dialectically interconnected with other social elements and offers aframework for conceptualising language use as an irreducible part of sociallife (Fairclough 2003: 2). Moreover, it provides methodological means foranalysing the relationship between language use and the social world (seee.g. Fairclough 2003; Wodak 2001). However, in CDA the position of theindividual is often backgrounded. This is something to which the dialogicalapproach could contribute. Similarly, although dialogism is increasinglyreferred to as a broad theoretical background, it has been justly criticised forits lack of methodological tools for analysing social and/or linguisticphenomena at a concrete level (Linell1998).

Here, we aim at showing that the notion of ‘voice’ (Bakhtin1981,1986) couldbe expanded (see also Dufva 2003) to an analysis of the individual aspects ofidentity, thus adding to the analysis of ‘discourses’ (Fairclough 2003) thathelps to understand its socially based aspects. The notion of voice may thus beuseful in mapping the meanings and significations that individuals give totheir experiences onto their ways of drawing on and using socially availableand conditioned discourses. In particular, we draw on Voloshinov’s (1973,1976) notion of intersubjectivity to discuss how the social world is connectedwith the individual realm through the use of language.

IDENTITY: SOCIALLYCONSTRUCTEDAND INDIVIDUALLY EXPERIENCED

Most contemporary theories of identity describe it as a multi-layered pheno-menon, constructed within various cultural and historical processes. Thusessentialist definitions that see identity as monolithic or permanent in natureare commonly rejected and identity is now seen to be characterised byhybridity ^ and this also suggests seeing it in terms of a multitude of identitiesand/or movements between different positions (for discussions of identity seee.g. Hall 1996).We also regard identity as socially ‘constructed’and agree withthe importance of such discursive approaches as CDA in its analysis. Here,however, we want to bring in a dialogical argument which emphasisesthe importance of exploring identity also from the individual point of view, interms of experiences and their multi-voiced manifestation in talk.

206 PIETIKA« INENAND DUFVA

# The authors 2006Journal compilation# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006

Dialogism and CDA share several assumptions that are important for theanalysis of identity. First, both dialogism and most strands of CDA conceptual-ise language in functionalist terms, that is, as a tool for making meanings,rather than as a formal structure after the manner of the formalists. Second,both emphasise a need to analyse language use, and thus also the importanceto consider the contexts of use. Both commitments are relevant for our analysisof ethnic identity: to consider language use as meaning-making in a contextmakes it possible to explore the socially shared and historically rooted signifi-cations that are present in discourses, being at the same time mindful of theunique perspectives that are brought into the talk by the individual and his/her biography.

Third, both dialogism and CDA stress the role of the social in theorising âlso relevant for the analysis of identity.While discourse studies have stressedthe necessity to study language use as an inherently social phenomenonwithin specific historical, cultural and interactional contexts (see e.g.Pennycook1994;Tannen1990), dialogism has argued that human action andconsciousness have a social origin (see e.g. La« hteenma« ki 1994; Still andCostall 1991). The emphasis on the social need not imply the exclusion of theindividual: rather, the social and the individual can be seen in a reciprocalrelationship in the sense that there is a constant dialogical inclusion in eachother (for the dialogical argument see e.g. Markova 2000, 2003).

Here, we understand ethnic identity as an individual-cum-social pheno-menon and refer particularly toVoloshinov’s (1973, 1976) notion of intersubjec-tivity which conceptualises the self both as socially constructed andindividually experienced. AlthoughVoloshinov argued that human awarenessis a production of the social and historical circumstances, he specificallyaimed at crossing the abyss between ‘psychologism’ and ‘anti-psychologism’and called for a dialectical synthesis of the two (Voloshinov1973: 39,1976: 87).For this,Voloshinov (1973: 39) developed his philosophy of the sign and arguedthat semiosis was the reality where the psyche (‘mind’) and ideology (‘dis-courses of the society’)meet: there is a continuous interplay between the ‘psy-chological’ and ‘ideological’ realities through verbal interaction (Dufva 2004;La« hteenma« ki 2001).

In an interesting parallel to present-day discourse studiesVoloshinov (1976:83) thus argued that the ‘objective milieu’ where the contents of the ‘psyche’are present is verbal discourse. This view would seem to anticipate ‘construc-tionism’ ^ an epistemological viewpoint typical of many discursive approacheswhich sees mental phenomena as ‘socially and discursively constructed’.However, considering his intersubjective stand, it would be impossible to seeVoloshinov subscribe to the extremist version of the constructionist argumentto be found in Gergen (1994) for example, where the independent ontologicalstatus of ‘psychological’or ‘mental’ phenomena is denied and they are seen asdiscursive constructions that can be reduced to social ontology (see also

VOICES IN DISCOURSES 207


Edwards and Potter 1992; for more recent discussion see e.g. Potter 2000;Potter and Edwards 2003).

Drawing on Voloshinov (1973, 1976), we argue that the forms of construc-tionism that leave the different perspectives or realities of individuals unex-plained are untenable and do not cover all aspects of identity. Although westrongly disagree with the former cognitivist conceptualisations that regardedidentity as a fixed and static property of individuals, we nonetheless argue thatidentity cannot be considered as exclusively socially constructed. Languageundeniably occupies a central position in the conceptualisation of our realitiesand linguistic productions are certainly socially constructed. As the CDA per-spective would suggest, individuals do draw on an amount of discoursesand they do so in a socially conditioned situation. However, individuals are notsimply at the mercy of social and discursive forces, but also have power toparticipate and contribute to their social environment, voicing their ways ofspeaking in an individual manner. Thus it would be possible to foregroundthese individual elements. As the dialogical perspective would suggest, inanalysing identity we need to account for such factors as individual abilities,choices and decisions along with actual events and circumstances (seeVoloshinov1973: 25^41). In analysing ethnic identity we can refer both to thediscourses drawn on or discursive representations present and the elements oflife history, particular contexts and situations that give rise to the uniquenessof the individual knowledge.

DISCOURSE MEETS VOICE: THE TOOLS FOR BRIDGINGDISCOURSE AND EXPERIENCE

Critical discourse analysis is a cover term for several slightly differentapproaches (for overviews see e.g. Fairclough andWodak 1997;Wodak 2001)all interested in the social conditions and consequences of language use.Being ‘critical’, CDA gives particular attention to power relations. Discourse isdefined as language use as social practice and consequently, discourse is seen tofigure particularly in institutional, historical and political structures andprocesses. Further, discourse is considered as an essential part of socialphenomena, construction of identity included (Fairclough 1992: 62^65;Fairclough andWodak1997: 258^259). As social aspects are foregrounded, therole and position of the individual may become overshadowed (for the role ofcognition in CDA, see e.g. van Dijk1997).

The argument that discourse has social effects and conditions is based onthe idea of dialectics: language and the social having a mutually shaping rela-tionship (Fairclough 2003). As Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 49)note, Bakhtin’s conceptualisation of language can be seen as crucial for under-standing this relationship. Fairclough (2003: 214) says, along with Bakhtin,that language use is dialogical, setting up relations between different voices.



Todescribe this dialogicalityof texts Fairclough (1992:84,101)uses the conceptofintertextuality, owingmuchparticularly to JuliaKristeva’s readingof Bakhtin.

The varying degree of intertextuality in texts can be indicative of such socialphenomena as social change, ideological struggle or hegemony. As Fairclough(2003: 47) argues, texts and talk from a particular social domain ^ for exampleconstruction of Sami identity ^ should be examined to see which voices,discourses, genres or styles are included and which may be excluded, thusbeing significantly absent. Fairclough (1992, 2003) uses the concept ‘order ofdiscourse’, originally Foucaultian, (see also Pietika« inen 2000) to examinehow linguistic variation is socially structured and constitutive of socialpractices. Thus from the perspective of CDA, the discursive aspect of identitycan be examined in terms of socially structured, particular combinations ofvoices and discourses manifested in situated text or talk.

Fairclough (2001: 123, 2003: 206) argues that discourse has constructiveeffects in three domains: as part of social activity, in constructing identitiesand social relations, and in representing the world. These three discursiveeffects roughly correspond to three metafunctions of language ^ ideational,interpersonal and textual ^ that were introduced by M. A. K. Halliday (1994)in his systemic functional theory. Fairclough (2003) has suggested that thesystemic functional theory not only makes the theorising more substantialbut also provides linguistic tools ^ such as transitivityanalysis ^ for examiningthe social embeddedness of discourse at the clause level. The linguistic meta-functions are manifested at the clause level of a text whereas the conditionsand consequences of discourse reach out towards social practices.

Our argument here is that it is possible to further bridge the linguistic andthe individual. Here, we attempt to do so with the help of the notion of ‘voice’.Bakhtin (1981, 1986) used ‘voice’ to refer to the fact that words are alwaysspoken by someone, by a ‘speaking consciousness’ so to speak (see alsoHolquist and Emerson 1981: 434; Wertsch 1991: 51). Thus the dialogicalargument suggests that language use embeds those meanings and significa-tions that an individual attaches to particular phenomena so that what theperson says in an interview, for example, is not merely a reflection of ongoingdiscourses of the society. As the dialogical and intersubjective interpretationwould have it, the individuals’ways of speaking and their ‘voices’, are acquiredby way of social interaction, from Others. But at the same time, the Others’words become truly ‘appropriated’: they are made ‘one’s own words’ (see, e.g.Bakhtin 1981: 293^294) and in the process go through processes of rewritingand reaccentuation. Thus the notion of ‘voice’ embeds the idea that words areboth unique and shared.

Further, although we use the singular form ‘voice’ here, we argue thatindividuals’ ways of speaking are characterised by multi-voicedness, orpolyphony and that the presence of many voices may also be seen as constitutiveof our identities. The concept of ‘polyphony’ which Bakhtin originally used for



literary analysis has recently also been used to discuss mental phenomenasuch as the self (Hermans 2001; Leiman1998) or an individual’s beliefs (Dufva2003). In this context, multi-voicedness may be understood as a metaphorthat describes the presence of different perspectives, or voices in one’s innerreality (see also Salgado and Hermans 2004). The multi-voicedness of themind is, in away, a product of the heteroglossia of the society ^ that is, a varietyof genres, styles, registers and discourses that Bakhtin (1986) sees characteris-tic of all language use.

In other words, surrounded by several, possibly competing and conflictingdiscourses, an individual’s ways of speaking, such as they are manifested in aninterview, for example, are multi-voiced, bearing traces of different social andhistorical contexts. We will examine some of the voices present in the talkbetween the interviewer and the subject ^ the researcher and a journalistworking in Sami-speaking media ^ and, at the same time, refer to the dis-courses that we think are drawn on, in order to see how they are articulatedtogether, what aspects may be dominant and what may be absent altogether.First, however, we discuss the societal background.

THE SAMI COMMUNITY: BACKGROUND

The indigenous Sami community in the northernmost part of Scandinavia andRussia is the arena in which we examine both the effects of discourses onethnic identity and the experience of the people involved. Today, there areapproximately 50,000^80,000 Sami people of whom approximately7000^7500 live in Finland, which is the context of this study. Today, Sami is amother tongue of about a half of the Sami peoples. All nine Sami languagesare classified as endangered (Aikio-Puoskari 2001: 9).

Both the historical and contemporary circumstances of the Sami com-munity are similar to many other indigenous peoples. The Sami have longbeen subjected to assimilatory majority policies that have resulted in a loss oftheir autonomy in the cultural, economical and juridical sense (Aikio andAikio 2001; Aikio-Puoskari 2002; Lehtola 1997; Pietika« inen and Leppa« nenforthcoming; Scheinin 2001). For example, afterWorldWar II Sami languagesbecame endangered within practically a single generation because of theFinnish-only education and stigmatisation of Sami language use. Yet, strongethnic and linguistic revival, operational since the 1950s, has resulted, forexample, in Pan-Sami movements and organisations, construction of a sym-bolic Sami Nation (Sa¤ pmi), and many resources for maintaining Sami cultureand languages, Sami-language media being one of them (Lehtola 1997;Pietika« inen forthcoming).

Sami identity thus relates to certainvery real social and political issues, suchas endangerment of the Sami languages, ongoing dispute in land-owningrights or failure to reach a consensus in the legal definition of a Sami (Aikioand Aikio 2001; Scheinin 2001). As Lehtola (1997), a prominent Sami scholar,



argues, the articulations of Sami identity have always varied through time andterritory due to the transitions and transformations which both belong to theSami identity and are imposed on it. The identity work of the Sami can thus becharacterised as a continuous dialogue with echoes from the past and thepresent and identity as a process that flows across time and place, assumingdifferent positions, practices and discourses. Instead of one singular identitythere are multiple identities, which, according to Hall (1996: 4) can be seen asstrategic and positional: identity is subject to a continuous play of history,culture and power, a matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’. Aptly,Aikio-Puoskari (2002) describes Sami identity as a meeting point where theindigenous tradition, political context past and present and the Northernterritory with its particular features meet.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Interview

For our analysis, we examined one interview with a Sami journalist workingat Sa¤ mi Radio. Jouni, whose name we use with his permission, is a forty-something male journalist with long working experience at this radio station.He lives in Sa¤ pmi and is bilingual with Northern Sami as his first languageand Finnish, inwhich he was educated, as a second language.

The interview took place in April 2003 at Sa¤ mi Radio (Inari, Finland) whereJouni was interviewed by the first author, a Finnish-speaking researcher andan ethnic Finn who knew him beforehand. This interview is part of a largerset of data collected for the first author’s research project in progress in whichthe empowerment potential of ethnic media is examined.1 Accordingly, theinterview questions focussed on such issues as journalism, empowerment,identities and languages within the context of the Sami community. However,the interview format, which was semi-structured in nature, allowed othertopics to appear such as, for example, parenthood. As it turned out, thisinterview situation could be characterised as a rather informal conversation.

Interviews must be regarded also as instances of social interactionwhere bothparticipants ^ the interviewer and the interviewee ^ contribute to the meaningsthat emerge.Thus there are constraints that are determined by the very nature ofthe interview itself, by its format, its questions and the relationship between theparticipants. Althoughwe aim at tapping into the subjective reality of the indivi-duals who are interviewed, exploring the meanings and significations theyattach to particular phenomena, the role of the interviewer is also important.Furthermore, interviews can also be seen, as Alasuutari (2001:150^151)notes,as examples of social institutions that embed various discursive practices.

Thus our understanding of how an interview works as a research methodand what kind of information can be gained by using it is between radical con-structionism and na|« ve essentialist realism. We consider the incidents and



experiences Jouni talks about as ‘real’, but at the same time we see them assubject to variation and alteration and, therefore, ‘constructed’ to a degree.Wedo not aim at capturing our subject’s one ‘true’ identity in what he says in thisinterview. Instead, we assume that identity is subjected to variation thatoccurs longitudinally during the life course, but also situationally because ofdifferent perspectives, positions and ways of talking that may be adopted indifferent contexts. Below, we aim to illustrate how identities might be displayedin an interview which both brings in certain discourses from the social leveland at the same time is a reflection of individual experience.We have consultedJouni’s opinions about the facts and interpretations presented below andomitted one minor detail.

Analysis: Voices in the discourses

We explored the interview by means of the concepts of discourses (CDA) andvoice (dialogism) to analyse the two facets of ethnic identity. While we seethese concepts as partly cross-classifying, overlapping and fuzzy, we neverthe-less argue that discourses have a potential to capture the socially constructedand representational aspects of identity and voice enables us to give space tothe inner thoughts and experiences of a single individual, thus advancing theanalysis of inner realities.

From the perspective of CDA, self-representations are not constructed in asocial vacuum but by drawing on the discourses that have prior significationsand that are socially available or possible in a given situation. Therefore, wefirst pinned down those discourses that seemed to be made use of in thisinterview, out of the many potential ones. How discourses are selected dependson individuals’ life histories, experiences and affiliations ^ and importantly,on the constraints present at a particular socio-historical moment and in aparticular communicative event (cf. Clark and Ivanic 1997: 143). In consider-ing the potentially available discourses that were not used, we were informedboth by general discussion in Finnish society and current research, includingour own work (see Dufva and Pietika« inen 2005; Pietika« inen 2000, 2003,forthcoming; Pietika« inen and Leppa« nen forthcoming).

For analytical purposes, discourses can be defined as different ways of repre-senting the world ^ particular perspectives adapted to particular domains.Thus, the discourses that are manifest in the interview can be seen as ways ofrepresenting aspects of the subject’s life from a particular point of view, butalso assuming and offering particular identity positions. As the ways of repre-senting one’s identity are accompanied by ways of using language, suchlinguistic features as vocabulary or grammatical choices are important. Theassumption that stems from systemic functional theory is that ways of usinglanguage are limited by various situational and personal factors. Here, we try topin down how Jouni positions himself across the different discourses available,while also considering the choices hemakes in his talkas an individual.



Language users ^ here Jouni ^ may draw on different discourses and thuscreate multiple ^ possibly contradictory ^ self-representations within a singletext (Clark and Ivanic 1997: 144). At the same time, although the speakersresort to discourses, and are constrained by them, they also have options inchoosing and modifying them. The ways of expressing and constructing one’sidentity are thus not exclusively determined by discourses, but are also reflec-tions of the individual and his or her life history, as indicated by the concept ofvoice. Thus interviews can also be seen in terms of a narrative of a personalhistory.What is said in the emerging interaction draws on the discourses ofthe society and is ‘represented’or ‘constructed’, but is also connected with thephenomenal world of the subject and his life history. How a person talks aboutsomething is in many ways connected with his experiences and emotions.Though the concept of voice essentially incorporates a social element, particu-lar voices are not necessarily identical with anyof the discourses of the society.Howone voices the discourses that are available is, to a degree, open.This posi-tion is echoed also in Bakhtin’s (1981: 293^294) comment about words beingat the same time ‘one’s own’ and ‘half someone else’s’. We use the concept ofvoice here as a methodological tool, a metaphor referring to the fact that whatis said is not only language (in its structural or formal sense) but also meaningsthat reflect the speaking personality, the perspectives and world-view(s) of thespeaker. And, as voices must be expressed by using conventional linguisticmeans and as they involve grammatical, lexical and rhetorical choices, wehave attempted to analyse voice using the tools of systemic-functionalapproaches and/or CDA.

In our linguistic analysis, we focus on the lexico-grammatical features,making use of some aspects of transitivity analysis (Halliday 1994; Martin,Matthiessen and Painter 1997) that is commonly used to examine therepresentational structure of a clause in terms of processes and participants(Halliday 1994; Young and Harrison 2004). As Halliday (1994) has argued,each process type (material, mental, relational) expresses a different aspect ofthe ‘world’ (action, mental, being) with the result that different types ofrepresentations of identities are implied by different lexical and grammaticalchoices.

IDENTITIES IN INTERVIEW TALK

Here, we argue that ethnic identity is constructed through various discoursesbut, at the same time, materialises as voices that draw on particular experi-ences along the life history of the individual. Thus social discourse intertwineswith individual experience in each instance of language use. When peoplespeak about their experiences, opinions and ways of doing and thinking, ashappens in an interview, they weave a narrative in which many discoursesare drawn on and many voices expressed. In this particular interview, weencountered discourses of ‘Journalism as a Profession’, ‘Sami Languages’, and



‘Parenthood’ and heard the voices of a ‘Me as a Journalist’, ‘Sami speaker’ and‘Father’.

Journalist’s identity

One meeting point between the individual and social facets of identity wasJouni’s profession as a journalist. Jouni’s work was an obvious topic as thefocus of the interview was ethnic media and its potential for empowerment.Thus professional matters were discussed throughout the interview. Theperspective that Jouni seemed to assume here was conventional in the sensethat he spoke about his work as a‘reporter of information’ rather than in termsof more recent perceptions of journalistic work, such as a‘community reporter’or a ‘participatory journalist’ (cf. Pietika« inen forthcoming). According to ourinterpretation, when talking about his profession, Jouni drew on a discoursethat we call ‘journalism as a profession’. This discourse reflects a typical early20th century view of journalism as balanced, impartial information coupledwith shared professional norms and routines (Hartley1996). Here, it was usedto represent certain principles that are supposedly shared by the members ofthe profession: thus standards of ‘objective journalism’ and ideals of ‘non-partiality’ and ‘balance’ in newswriting emerged. Also, daily routines weretalked about in a manner typical of the journalist community: these includedcomments about ‘the collectivity of the working process’ or complaints aboutthe ‘lack of time and resources’ (see, e.g. Hujanen and Pietika« inen 2004).Given the context of this interview, other discourses might reasonably havebeen expected, suchas that of ethnicminoritymediaand its particularmission,or that of ethnic media as a lifeline of an endangered culture and language.However, the way the discourses were being voiced suggests that the position ismore of a ‘journalist’ than that of an ‘ethnic journalist’, the ways of talkingemphasising the ideal of objectivity, as the sequence in Extract1below shows:2

Extract 1: A member of the journalistic profession

((�) indicates a small pause)

Kylla« ha« n me kerromme kaikenlaista prosesseista mita« on menossa ja mita« meida« npa« a« tta« ja« t, saamelaispa« a« tta« ja« t tekee ja millaisia vastauksia ne saa valtakunnanpa« a« tta« jilta« ja millaisia kommentteja tulee ulkomailta, oikeus- tai ihmisoikeusasian-tuntijalta. Mut ei me (�) Ei me olla minusta suoraan silleen saamelaisten oikeuksien(puolustajia). Eteen tee to« ita« kylla« siina« (�) Kylla« siina« . Niin. (�) Poliitikot, tutkijat onsitten kuitenkin ne, jotka ehka« enemma« n vaikuttaa siina« asiassa. No me oomme tie-tenkin va« litta« jia« siina« na« issa« asioissa jollakin tavalla. Sillei jollakin tavalla semmonentasapuolisuus koko ajan mielessa« .

We do tell about things that are going on, what the Sami administrators are doing andwhat kinds of responses they are getting from the national administration and whatkinds of comments are coming from abroad from experts on justice or human rights.But we are not (�) we are not, I think, directly (defenders) of the rights of the Sami in



that (�) yes that’s right, yes (�) the politicians, the researchers are the ones who haveinfluence in these matters.Well we are, of course, mediators in these things in someway. In away we keep non-partiality in mind all the time.

Through drawing on this discourse, Jouni seemed to represent himself as a‘member of the journalistic profession’. The linguistic choices included the useof the pronoun‘we’ ^ referring to journalists ^ and frequent use of active struc-tures such as ‘we tell’. Also, value judgements about the role of journalistsappeared: ‘we are not, I think, directly (defenders) of the rights of the Sami’,‘wekeep non-partiality in mind all the time’. By choosing verbal process verbs suchas ‘tell’, journalists were positioned in their traditional role of ‘reporters ofcurrent affairs’. Further, journalists were often talked about in the grammaticalrole of the sayer while the verbiage ^ the phenomenon being reported about êntailed actions and events that were carried out by somebody else: decision-makers, politicians or other authorities. The grammatical means seemed toreinforce the representation of journalists as ‘reporters’, not, for example, as‘participants in current political debates’or ‘activists’. This observation seems tobe further supported by the fact that verbs expressingways of being and existing(i.e. relational processes) were used to categorise journalists: they weredescribed as ‘mediating’ information, not ‘defending (ethnic) rights’.

Thus, in away, interview talk echoes discourses that are familiar from othercontexts.Words carry the meanings and the viewpoints of different contexts,or ideologies, with them, asVoloshinov (1973) argued. It is obvious that Jouni’swords about ‘good journalistic practices’ reflect discourses that are not ‘hisown’. However, it can be argued that he voiced them in away that makes themhis own. In voicing different discourses speakers do not repeat them word forword: instead, they position themselves with respect to them, either acknowl-edging or refusing the representations and positions suggested and addingnuances, modifying and reaccentuating them. Similarly, Jouni brought in thisinterview his appropriation of the discourse that was available: he made hisown position clear by meanings that were not necessarily in opposition to thediscourse but not in full harmony with it either. Thus the shared professionaljournalistic discourse was filtered into a more personal voice that spoke abouta particular time and space, for example. This voice, obvious in Extract 2below, could be called ‘Me as a Journalist’:

Extract 2: A journalist

Kylla« siina« voi olla hyvinkin niin, etta« jos ma« tekisin ta« ta« jossain ihan muualla toimit-tajan tyo« ta« niin mina« tekisin varmaan eri tavalla. Ma« oon ittekin tuota joskus ainakinhetkeksi ainakin pysa« htynyt miettima« a« n niinku kuvitellu etta« mita« mina« olisinjossain muussa toimituksessa joskus kuvitellut. tuota (�) varmaan seuraisin va« ha« nenempi miten toiset tekee juttuja ja. Seuraisin ihan. Ehka« va« ha« n yritta« isin miettia«miten toimittaja miten opetetaan tekema« a« n miten tehda« a« n hyvia« uutisjuttuja, radio-juttua. Ma« en ta« a« lla« niinka« a« n ajattele sita« etta« miten tehda« a« n hyva« juttu vaan mina«jotenkin varmaan keskityn miettima« a« n etta« mita« mina« ta« sta« asiasta kerron.



Well it might be the case that if I worked elsewhere, I mean as a journalist, I might bedoing this in a different manner. I have myself sometimes stopped to think this for amoment at least (�) I have imagined what I would be like in some other newsroom. Ihave imagined that well (�) I might follow more how others write news (�) yes, reallyfollow (�) maybe I would try to think how journalists. How they are taught to writegood news stories. Story for the radio. Here I don’t think so much about how youmake a good story but I somehow focus on thinking about what I will tell about thisparticular matter.

The instances where Jouni brought in his personal views were linguisticallymarked by frequent usage of the personal pronoun‘I’. Here his own personalityand experiences became foregrounded and he talked about things that areimportant to him, wondering, for example, what kind of a journalist he wouldhave been elsewhere. These utterances are also characterised by frequent useof verbs describing mental processes ^ ‘I have . . . stopped to think’, ‘I haveimagined’ that also indicate a more personal view, giving the speaker the roleof a senser. Here, we have a unique perspective of a person in a particularspatio-temporal position (Bakhtin1993).

Throughout the interview, multi-voicedness was manifest in the waysjournalismwas discussed. Often Jouni started by identifying a general point ofview ^ objectives of the profession and/or its practical tasks ^ and then shiftedto expressing his own views, experiences and habits. Given the linguistic andgrammatical variation (e.g. between the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘I’ and differenttransitivity choices) the speaker portrayed himself as a person who is com-mitted to the ideals and objectives of journalism, but at the same time has astrong personal involvement. The discourses of the social level intertwinewith the situated experience of an individual.

Sami identity

The issues of Saminess that were touched upon in the interview included theposition of minority communities in general, the daily routines of minoritymedia professionals, and, in particular, the language question ^ includingsuch issues as multilingualism in northern Finland and the endangeredposition of the Sami languages. An interesting point is that discourses of apolitical or cultural struggle that are often frequent in the context of indigen-ous communities (see e.g. Aikio and Aikio 2001; Pietika« inen forthcoming),were not in a very prominent position in this particular interview. Instead,Saminess was discussed mainly through a discourse of ‘Sami Languages’which foregrounds the importance of indigenous language and its usage forSami identity.

Jouni mentioned language experiences in several contexts: in connectionwith journalistic work, in talking about being a member in an ethnic minoritycommunity and also, in discussing family matters. To begin with, languageissues were inseparably intertwined with professional matters and seemed to



occupy a central position in Jouni’s professional identity: when he talked abouthis work, the discourses of ‘Journalism as a Profession’and ‘Sami Languages’were often articulated together.

Extract 3: A Sami-speaking journalist

Valmiit jututhan on saamenkielisia« . Siella« voi olla suomenkielisia« tai minka« kielisia«tahansa haastatteluja mutta ne ka« a« nneta« a« n saameksi. Mina« tietenkin kirjoitan ne jututsaameksi. Ja mina« taustatietoja yrita« n etsia« aina ensin saamenkielisen taustatiedonmutta hyvin paljon tietenkin ka« yta« n suomenkielista« englanninkielista« taustatietoa (--).Aina olen ilahtunut jos saan saamen kielella« jonkun lehdisto« tiedotteen tai jonkuntiivistelma« n jostakin raportista tai tutkimuksesta. Niita« sitten tietenkin ka« yteta« a« n.

Well, the finished stories are in the Sami language(s). Interviews in Finnish or inany other language might be used as background material but these will be trans-lated into Sami. Naturally I write these stories in Sami. And the background informa-tion. I always try to look for information in Sami but of course I also frequently use thebackground information in Finnish, in English (--) I am always delighted if I get a pressrelease in Sami or a summary of a report or a study.These naturally will be used then.

The account above illustrates howdaily journalistic practices are constrained bythe multilingual working situation. As Sami-language material is scarce, jour-nalists daily need to translate from other languages and write new materialwhich often also indicates developing new Sami expressions and words. Eventhough Jouni seemed to position himself as a ‘journalist’ rather than ‘an ethnicjournalist’, he, however, often assumed a perspective of a ‘Sami-speaking jour-nalist’, speaking particularly for revitalisation of languages. Here also an evenmore personal aspect ^ Jouni’s very own position in-between two languages andcommunities ^ was brought in, as Extract 4 below shows:

Extract 4: A Sami speaker

Sari: Sina« oot a« idinkielelta« pohjoissaamenkielinen vai kakskielinen?Jouni: Joo mie olen tota. Mie oon ensiks opinut saamen kielen. Ja sitten juuri ennen

kouluun menoa olen oppinut/(suomen).Sari: Opitko sina« sen (suomen kielen) kotonavai?Jouni: Joo opin sen kotona luultavasti joo kotona mina« opin ei na« a« muutavaihtoehtoo

ollut mulla on kuitenkin vanhempia sisaruksia joitten kautta mina« sittenopin. Koska he olivat jo huomattavasti vanhempia ja olleet jos siella« ja ta« a« lla«koulussa ja suomenkielisessa« koulussa.

Sari: Ja sulla oli suomenkielinen kouluja« rjestelma« .Jouni: Niin oli.Sari: Niin etta« ei ollu silloin vaihtoehtona. Sanotko sina« etta« ootko sina« kakskielinen

vai saamenkielinen.Jouni: no kakskielinen.

Sari: Your mother tongue is Northern Sami ^ or are you bilingual?Jouni: Yes, I am . . . well . . . I did learn the Sami language first. And then just before I

went to school I learned (Finnish).



Sari: Did you learn it (¼Finnish) at home?Jouni: Yes. I probably learned it at home.At home, yes.Thatmust havebeen it. I hadolder

siblings and it is from them I learned it. As they were considerablyolder and theyhadgone to school here and there andall intheFinnish-speaking school.

Sari: And youwent to a Finnish-speaking school.Jouni: Yes I did.Sari: So you did not have anyother option then (�) Do you call yourself bilingual or a

Sami speaker.Jouni: well bilingual.

The example is interesting, not only for what it says about how Jouni learnedSami and Finnish ^ typical to many others of his generation ^ but also for howhe addressed the interviewer’s question about his bilingualism. First, Jouniturned down the categorisation (monolingual^bilingual) the intervieweroffered him. He started with an identifying relational process (‘I am’), left theutterance incomplete, changed the wording into a mental process description(‘I learned’) and went on with a narrative of how he had learned Sami andFinnish. Although Jouni finally answered the question repeated by the inter-viewer by saying he is ‘bilingual’, it seems that this was not how he would havepreferred to conceptualise the complex position of the two languages in hislife: the learning history is different, there is asymmetry in their position inthe society and also the emotional response to them is different (see alsoPavlenko 2005). The sequence seems to be indicative of a bilingual identityposition ^ and, also, of the fuzziness of the concept of bilingual.

The Sami identity was present also inutterances where the endangerment ofSami languages was discussed. At points where the present situation wasspoken of, Jouni expressed his ‘worry’about the future of the Sami languages,emphasised the need to use ‘good’ language, worried about ‘inaccuracies’ inlanguage use and was concerned with the influence of Norwegian andFinnish on the Sami languages. Thus a (political) discourse of a ‘minoritylanguage struggle’ was not as prominent in Jouni’s talk as was the discourseof ‘Sami Language’ bringing in issues of maintaining and developing anindigenous language through practices and policies of language planning,language policy, education and media.

An important aspect of Jouni’s identity that was displayed in this interviewwas his being a father to young (Sami-speaking, bilingual) children. In termsof discourses, the ways in which Jouni spoke are typical of contemporaryparenthood in Finland: he talked about how difficult it is to strike a balancebetween work and family life and complained about the kids watchingtelevision too much. A discourse of ‘Parenthood’ was clearly present. But, inparticular, he also talked about his Sami language, its role in his own life andin his children’s lives. From this perspective, Jouni represented his concern asa father of Sami-speaking children and the problems inherent in passing onthe knowledge of the language from one generation to the next in the modern,mediated world:



Extract 5: A father of Sami-speaking children

Niin ajattelen etta« ei riita« etta« kymmenen prosenttia siita« puheesta mita« ha« n kuuleeon saamenkielista« kylla« mun mielesta« tuntuu etta« se pita« s olla sitten la« hempa« na« viit-ta« kymmenta« prosenttia mutta se on tietenkin mahdotonta ja« rjesta« a« . Ma« oon yritta« nytjoitakin videoita (tietenkinha« n) ton ika« inen haluaa katsoa videoita (opetettu) silla«no. sitten on se kieli saamenkielisia« videoita tarjolla (xx) lo« yta« a« lainata. se telkkari onpaha. siina« kin mielessa« etta« . ma« en nyt hirveen innostunut ole etta« ha« n kylla« taitaakatsoa telkkaria mutta enmina« nyt ha« nta« kylla« esta« ka« a« n katsomasta. Ma« yrita« n sittenkeksia« vaihtoehtoja sen mukaan ku. kekselia« isyys riitta« a« ja jaksaa.

I don’t think that it is enough that just ten percent of the speech he (¼ his child, 2.5years) is exposed to is in the Sami language. I do think it should be more like 50 per-cent but it is of course impossible to achieve. I have tried to get video films (becausenaturally) a child that age wants to see video films (’cos they’re accustomed to)because well . . . Then there’s the language. There are (xx) films in the Sami languageavailable. For rental. But television, that’s bad, also in the sense that [it is in Finnish]I am not too enthusiastic about it. He does watch television but I can’t really stop himdoing so. I try to think of other options as far as I can and have the energy for.

As Extract 5 above illustrates, concerns that are typical of Finnish parents ingeneral became connected with Jouni’s own situation and thus, for example,Saminess, especially with the issues of Sami languages and bilingualism. Therelational processes (e.g. ‘be’) in Jouni’s utterances described the linguisticlandscape of his everyday life from the point of view of fatherhood and mental(‘think’, ‘feel’) and material (‘stop’, ‘get’) processes were used to represent howhe negotiates his own positionwithin this landscape.

When Jouni’s talk is considered in terms of voice ^ in regarding his utter-ances as his own, testifying to his experiences, it seemed that Jouni’s voice as afather was, as might be expected, more personal and even intimate. Whenspeaking about his own youngsters and other Sami children his words wereperhaps less neutral and more emotional than elsewhere in the interview.Rare intensifiers crept in: he said he was ‘terribly’ worried about his childrenhaving enough input of the Sami language.

An interesting multi-voicedness is present here. When ‘Parenthood’discourse was drawn upon, Jouni observed that it might be ‘bad’ for childrento watch television too much, but speaking as a father of a Sami child he alsonoted that television and videos might have a crucial position in providingminority children the exposure to language they sorely need. He thus seemedto speak both as a father, a journalist and a Sami person. The perspective takenas a father brought in the kinds of shades and nuances that might have beenfamiliar from other discourses of parenthood while that of the journalistaddressed the role of the media and both were intertwined with the Sami per-spective in the observations about children’s language education. Jouni arguedfor ‘more Sami language programmes’ for children, said that Radio Sami is‘better than nothing’ in providing a Sami language environment and worried



whether journalists are accurate enough in their language use to provide agood model for children.

Throughout the interview, there was some negotiation between differentpositions ^ and perhaps, between different aspects of selfhood.The representa-tions suggested by such discourses as ‘Journalism as a Profession’, ‘SamiLanguages’ or ‘Parenthood’ mingled with Jouni’s very own situation andexperiences as a minority journalist working in two languages in ethnicmedia and as a father raising bilingual children. In all, what we see here is,therefore, an entanglement of (individual) voices intertwined with a variety of(social) discourses, and also an interplay of constraints and options that arepresent in this particular context.

DISCUSSION

Above, we have discussed a case study in which we analysed ethnic identity,such as it appeared in one interview.We argued that the social facets of identitycould be analysed by examining different discourses present in talk, assuggested by CDA, and that the individual facets of identity, emerging from aperson’s life history, could be identified in talk as voices that are, in a sense,personalised and individual appropriations of discourses, as suggested bydialogism. Doing this we argued against both the cognitively based andessentialist views of identity and the views which see it as exclusively sociallyconstructed. Our view of identity as individual-cum-social recognises theelement of (socially driven) change, alteration and variation, but also adds anelement of continuity, in the form of the life history of the individuals.Further, individuals are not seen to be exclusively at the mercy of social forces âlthough these clearly impose constraints and possibilities ^ but they arerecognised as agents who are able, to an extent, to appropriate discourses andbuild a perspective of their own that has both continuous and constantlyre-negotiated qualities.

Finally, as to the manifestations of Sami identity, several discourses wereidentified and similarly, many different voices heard. The way Jouni talkedabout his identity in this interview was a multifaceted interplay of suchpositions as ‘member of the journalistic profession’, ‘speaker of an endangeredSami language’and ‘father in a Sami-Finnish bilingual family’. There was littlemention of the ongoing political struggle of the Sami community. Jouni’s waysof speaking (as we have interpreted them) bear a strong sense of history, but,at the same time, express a confident view of the future: the Sami tradition isdescribed as a ‘fine thread’, thin, but nevertheless strong. The ‘fine thread’ ofthis tradition ^ if we are to believe Jouni ^ will not be broken, despiteoccasional expressions of worry. He is confident that his language will bepassed on to the future generations and that the media can play a role in this.The role of the ethnic media in maintaining the vitality of endangered lan-guages in the contemporary world was an issue that emerged not only



in Jouni’s case but also in interviews of other journalists in the larger set of datafrom which we chose this interview for our case study (Dufva and Pietika« inen2005; Pietika« inen forthcoming).We hope that our approach in which we aimat highlighting the interplay of the social and the individual also contributesto the discussion where the maintenance of linguistic diversity is approachedfrom both a social and a personal point of view.

NOTES

1. This article is part of Sari Pietika« inen’s research project in progress, entitledEmpowering potential of ethnic minority media, funded by the Academy of Finland.The data include interviews with Sami journalists (n ¼ 29) and ethnographic data,for example, drawings, language maps, focus-group discussions and fieldwork.

2. For the sake of clarity, it has to be pointed out that there are differences in the waystransitivity is expressed in Finnish (¼the language of the interviews) and English,which, for the present purpose, the examples have been translated into. Hence,we have aimed at providing a translation which would be as faithful to the originalas possible while at the same time allowing us to convey our point to an English-speaking audience (for analyses of transitivity in Finnish and English, see forexample Pietika« inen 2000).

REFERENCES

Aikio, Pekka and Antti Aikio. 2001. Saavatko saamelaiset ela« a« rauhassa. In MartinScheinin andTaina Dahlgren (eds.)Toteutuvatko saamelaisten ihmisoikeudet. Helsinki,Finland: Helsinki University Press.92^119.

Aikio-Puoskari, Ulla. 2001. About the Saami and the domestic legislation on theirlanguage rights. In Ulla Aikio-Puoskari and Merja Pentika« inen (eds.) The LanguageRights of the Indigenous Saami in Finland ^ Under Domestic and International Law.The Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law. University of Lapland.Finland, Juridica Lapponica 26.3^70.

Aikio-Puoskari, Ulla.2002.Kielten ja kulttuurien risteysasemalla. Kysymyksia« saamenkie-lesta« ja identiteetista« maailmojen ja aikakausien rajalla. In Sirkka Laihiala-Kankainen,Sari Pietika« inen and Hannele Dufva (eds.) Monia« a« ninen Suomi: Kieli, kulttuuri jaidentiteetti. Jyva« skyla« , Finland: Universityof Jyva« skyla« .90^109.

Alasuutari, Pertti. 2001. Johdatus yhteiskuntatutkimukseen. Helsinki, Finland:Gaudeamus.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin,Texas: University of Texas.

Bakhtin, Mikhail.1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin,Texas: University ofTexas.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1993.Toward a Philosophy of theAct. Austin,Texas: University of TexasPress.

Brandist, Craig. 2002.The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, Culture, and Politics. London: PlutoPress.



Chouliaraki, Lilie and Norman Fairclough.1999.Discourse in LateModernity. RethinkingCritical DiscourseAnalysis. Edinburgh, U.K.: EdinburghUniversity Press.

Clark, Romyand Roz Ivanic. 1997.The Politics ofWriting. London: Routledge.Dufva, Hannele. 2003. Beliefs in dialogue: A Bakhtinian view. In Ana Maria F. Barcelosand Paula Kalaja (eds.) Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Kluwer.131^151.

Dufva, Hannele. 2004. Language, thinking and embodiment. In Finn Bostad, CraigBrandist, Lars S. Evensen and Hege C. Faber (eds.) Bakhtinian Perspectives onLanguage and Culture: Meaning in Language, Art and New Media. Basingstoke, U.K.:Palgrave Macmillan.133^146.

Dufva, Hannele and Sari Pietika« inen. 2005. Museoesine vai toimiva tyo« kalu ^ uhana-laiset saamen kielet. In Leena Kuure, Elise Ka« rkka« inen and Maarit Saarenkunnas(eds.) Kieli ja sosiaalinen toiminta ^ Language and Social Action (AFinLAYearbook 63).Jyva« skyla« , Finland: TheAssociation of Applied Linguistics.13^33.

Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter.1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Fairclough, Norman.1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientificresearch. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical DiscourseAnalysis. London: Sage.121^138.

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.London: Routledge.

Fairclough, Norman and RuthWodak.1997. Critical discourse analysis. An overview. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Analysis: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London:Sage. 258^284.

Gergen, Kenneth. 1994. Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Constructions.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Hall, Stuart. 1996.Who needs ‘identity’? In Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (eds.) Questionsof Cultural Identity. London: Sage.1^17.

Halliday, Michael. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition). NewYork: Arnold.

Hartley, John. 1996. Popular Reality. Journalism. Modernity, Popular Culture. London:Arnold.

Hermans, Hubert J. M. 2001. The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal andcultural positioning. Culture and Psychology 7: 243^281.

Holquist, Michael and Caryl Emerson. 1981. Glossary. In Michael Bakhtin The DialogicImagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin, Texas: University of Texas.423^432.

Hujanen, Jaana and Sari Pietika« inen. 2004. Interactive uses of journalism: Crossingbetween technological potential and young people’s news-using practices. Media &Society 6: 383^402.

La« hteenma« ki, Mika. 1994. Consciousness as a social and dialogical phenomenon.Finlance14:1^21.

La« hteenma« ki, Mika. 2001. Dialogue, language and meaning.Variations on Bakhtinianthemes. Doctoral dissertation. Jyva« skyla« , Finland: University of Jyva« skyla« .

Lehtola, Veli-Pekka. 1997. Saamelaiset: Historia, yhteiskunta, taide. Jyva« skyla« , Finland:Gummerus.

Leiman, Mikael. 1998. Words as intersubjective mediators in psychotherapeuticdiscourse. In Mika La« hteenma« ki and Hannele Dufva (eds.) Dialogues on Bakhtin:Interdisciplinary Readings. Jyva« skyla« , Finland: University of Jyva« skyla« . 105^116.



Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in DialogicalPerspectives. Amsterdam,The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Markova¤ , Ivana. 2000. The individual and society in psychological theory. Theory andPsychology10:107^116.

Markova¤ , Ivana. 2003. Constitution of the self: Intersubjectivity and dialogicality.Culture and Psychology. 9: 249^259.

Martin, Jim, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen and Clare Painter. 1997. Working withFunctional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Meyer, Michael. 2001. Between theory, methods and politics: Positioning of theapproaches to CDA. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of CriticalDiscourseAnalysis. London: Sage.14^32.

Pavlenko, Aneta (ed.). 2005. Languages and Emotions in Multilingual Speakers. Clevedon,U.K.: Multilingual Matters.

Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics 15:116^138.

Pietika« inen, Sari. 2000. Discourses of Differentiation: Ethnic Representations inNewspaper Texts (Studies in Communication 12). Jyva« skyla« , Finland: University ofJyva« skyla« .

Pietika« inen, Sari. 2003. Indigenous identity in print. Representations of the Sami innews discourse. Discourse and Society14: 581^610.

Pietika« inen, Sari. Forthcoming. ‘To breath two airs’. Empowering indigenous Samimedia. To appear in Pamela Wilson and Michelle Steward (eds.) Global IndigenousMedia: Cultures, Practices and Politics.

Pietika« inen, Sari and Sirpa Leppa« nen. Forthcoming. Saamelaisten toisin sanoin. Toappear in Mikko Lehtonen, Joel Kuortti and Olli Lo« ytty (eds.) Ja« lkikoloniaalinen Suomi.

Potter, Jonathan. 2000. Post-cognitive psychology.Theory and Psychology10: 31^37.Potter, Jonathan and Derek Edwards. 2003. Rethinking cognition: On Coulter ondiscourse and mind. Human Studies 26:165^181.

Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1992. Outlines of a dialogically based socio-cognitive approach tohuman cognition and communication. In Astri H. Wold (ed.) The DialogicalAlternative: Toward a Theory of Language and Mind. Oslo, Norway: ScandinavianUniversity Press.19^44.

Salgado, Joa‹ o and Hubert J. M. Hermans. 2005.The return of subjectivity: From a multi-plicity of selves to the dialogical self. E-Journal of Applied Psychology.http://www.ojs.lib.swin.edu.au/index.php/ejap/article/view/3Accessed12 December 2005.

Schegloff, Emanuel A.1998. Reply toWetherell. Discourse and Society 9: 413^416.Scheinin, Martin. 2001. Saamelaisten ihmisoikeudet, kulttuuri ja maanka« ytto« . InMartin Scheinin and Taina Dahlgren (eds.) Toteutuvatko saamelaisten ihmisoikeudet.Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University Press. 38^91.

Still, Arthur and Alan Costall (eds.).1991. Against Cognitivism: Alternative Formulationsfor Cognitive Psychology. NewYork: HarvesterWheatsheaf.

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. Discourse analysis: The excitement of diversity. TEXT 110:109^111.

Toolan, Michael. 1997.What is critical discourse analysis and why are people sayingsuch things about it. Language and Literature 6: 83^103.

van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.). 1997. Discourse Analysis. A Multidisciplinary Introduction.London: Sage.

Voloshinov, Valentin N. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York:Seminar Press.



Voloshinov, Valentin N. 1976. Freudianism: A Marxist Critique. New York: AcademicPress.

Wertsch, James. 1991.Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Widdowson, Henry G.1996. Discourse and interpretation: Conjectures and refutations.Language and Literature 5: 57^69.

Wodak, Ruth. 2001.What CDA is about ^ a summary of its history, important conceptsand its developments. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of CriticalDiscourseAnalysis. London: Sage.1^13.

Young, Lynne and Claire Harrison (eds.). 2004. Systemic Functional Linguistics andCritical DiscourseAnalysis: Studies in Social Change. London: Continuum.

Address correspondence to:

Sari Pietika« inenDepartment of Communication40014 University of Jyva« skyla«

Jyva« skyla«Finland

[email protected]



Documents

Voices in discourses.pdf