Margaret Field
UCLA American Indian Studies Center
AAA 1998 Philadelphia
NOTE: the Navajo font in this paper will be a problem for this website- if you are interested in the examples please email me for a hard copy.
Triadic Directives in Navajo Language Use:
a Second Type of Linguistic Relativity
Following Dell Hymes (1966, 1972), several linguistic anthropologists have pointed out that members of a speech community share not only a common linguistic code but other, nonpropositional norms for language use as well, including nonverbal cues, patterns for sequencing, and participation structure in speech events. Indeed, Hymes characterized this "second type of relativity," or relativity of language use, as theoretically prior to that of grammatical, or purely linguistic, relativity. Although the work of Benjamin Whorf focuses on the latter type of relativity, his teacher Sapir devoted more attention to the question of relativity in language use, and its relationship to culture, in general. For Sapir, a central research question was the identification of socially significant, or culturally meaningful behavior, as opposed to individual or idiosyncratic forms of behavior. He argued that such socially significant, or shared behavior may be identified through looking for common ideological values which underly it, and which members of a culture use in interpreting it. Sapir (1994) insisted on the importance of identifying a "configurational pattern" as evidence in supporting any statement about cultural values. As both Sapir and Hymes have also recommended, the task of anthropologists in identifying such a basic, configurational pattern within a culture begins with the documentation of particular practices, linguistic as well as nonlinguistic, followed by the identification of a pattern uniting these practices, which may be directly related to what Sapir (1994:85) termed the "evaluative judgements" or values of the society under study.
In this paper, I follow this analytical methodology, beginning by identifying a particular social practice which I observed in my research into language socialization practices on the Canoncito Navajo reservation, that is, the use of triadic participation structure in the giving of directives (from adults to children). I then proceed to identify other contexts where the same pattern for language use may be observed in adult interaction, drawing my examples from other ethnographic work (Aberle 1961, Rushforth 1981), as well as traditional Navajo literature describing similar patterns of interaction among the deities, who, in Navajo cosmology, share a social organization much like that of human beings. Finally, I outline a configurational pattern for Navajo interaction which includes other nonpropositional aspects of communicative practice as well as grammatical forms, and suggest that the cultural values embodied by these social practices include an emphasis on individual autonomy, self-determination, and a general egalitarian ethic in all social relations. In particular, I argue, the use of triadic participation structure in the giving of directives is a strategy for indirection which works to defer authority away from the individual source, allowing the recipient of the directive greater autonomy in choosing whether or not to comply, while simultaneously diffusing authority across multiple individuals.
Examples
"Triadic directives" involve three participants: a source, an intermediary, and a target of the directive. In caregiver-child interaction, triadic directives involve a directive from an adult source, aimed at a particular child target, but mediated by a child, or group of children, as intermediary. Reported speech may or may not be involved. Examples 1-3 illustrate some differences in form for the interactional routine of triadic directive-giving:
1)1 ((On the playground, Mara falls down, skins her knee,
2 and begins crying. The teacher is standing right next
3 to her with another child, Kenny)
4-> T: Kenny, help her. Help her up.
5 ((Kenny goes over to Mara and gives her a hand up.
6 She is still crying))
7-> T: Tell her 'be tough.'
8 K: Be tough.
((Mara stops crying))
In this example, which occurred on the playground, Mara, (age 3, who is also the teacher's daughter), falls down and hurts herself only a few feet away from her mother, who is standing with other children. Rather than go to her daughter, the teacher gives triadic directives to an intermediary child (Kenny, 3) to help Mara, and to tell her to "be tough" (e.g., not to cry). This example is particularly illuminating, as it shows that triadic directives extend to situations in which they would likely not be used in mainstream non-Native American culture. As illustrated by this example, they work not only to elicit a certain behavior on the part of the target, but to socialize children into appropriate roles toward each other, that is, to teach children to take responsibility for other members of their peer group.
Example 2 involves a particular classroom role called "being-in-charge," which a different child (usually an older child) was chosen to fill everyday at naptime. One child is selected by the teacher to fill this role, and his/her duties include staying awake and making sure that everybody else stays on their mat and is quiet. In this example, Corey (4 years) is in charge, and Mara (4) is not lying down when she is supposed to be. Two parents are present in the classroom, talking with the teacher, and they are the ones who give Corey the triadic directives, e.g., to "look" and to "go get her."
2)1 Parent 1: How come Mara's not lying down?
2-> Corey, look, Mara's not taking a nap.
3-> Parent 2: Go get her, Corey.
(11/27/95 fieldnotes)
Triadic directives like the one in l.2, "look" are also commonly used in the classroom as a discipline technique, involving the entire peer group as intermediary. An English term for this type of triadic directive is shaming. In these interactions, the adult source directs the attention of the peer group (as intermediary) to the target, in an effort to get the target to perform or to stop doing some action. The form of the directive to the peer group may consist of a simple directive to 'look at' the target child, or it may include reported speech. Example (3) illustrates both of these forms:
3)1 ((T spies Gwen taking reward stickers out of the
2 teacher's sticker book))
3 T: Is Gwen being trustworthy?
4-> Look, she's taking our stickers.
5 She's being dishonest.
6-> Tell her, 'Gwen, put it back.'
7 ALL: put it back!
8-> T: tell her 'you need to be honest.'
9 ALL: you need to be honest.
This type of triadic directive particularly illustrates how diffusion of authority is related to the values on autonomy and self-determinacy. As several scholars have noted (Leighton and Kluckhohn 1948, Ladd 1957, Werner and Begishi 1968, Lamphere 1977), authority in Navajo culture is not hierarchical, but generally diffused, or deferred away from any individual source onto kin or peer group. Awareness of one's peers as a source of authority is something which Navajo children are socialized into from an early age, and the peer group is encouraged to be an autonomous, self-determinate unit, as children are encouraged to take responsibility for each other (Leighton and Kluckhohn 1948, Werner and Begishi 1968). The speech act of triadic directive-giving is one interactional form through which such social roles and expectations are not only constructed but maintained.
Triadic directives are also used by adults in particular social relationships as a strategy for indirection, where politeness is called for. For example, as Aberle (1961) notes in his study of Navajo kinship, family members who maintain a traditional yáhásin (respectful) relationship with each other often appeal to triadic participation structure in the making of requests (a type of directive). Traditionally, a yahasin relationship is maintained in two situations: 1)between adult siblings of the opposite sex, and 2) between men related through marriage. According to Aberle, mothers and sisters are often appealed to as intermediaries in the making of requests between husbands, or between husbands and fathers-in-law. Haile (1912) also observes the same interactional pattern, noting that its function is to discourage any suggestion of incestual relations between adult siblings, as well as to signal politeness in other social relationships.
Triadic directives are also found in communication between the deities in Navajo mythology. For example, Haashch'éélti'í Talking God is often employed by more powerful deities (such as the Sun, Jóhonaa'éí) in delivering requests (although he often speaks in sign language), as in the following extract:
(Not on overhead)
Haashch'eelti'i the Talking God came again to the home of Yoolgai Asdzaa the WhiteShell woman. But he took her aside where no one could hear his words. Nor did she reveal to anyone what he had said. Three days later he came back again. Again they talked where no one could overhear them. ... And shortly after Haasch'eelti'i departed ... Yoolgai Asdzaa had this to say:... "I am going to leave you... The gods of Tseyi' have sent for me." (Zolbrod 1984:292).
In this account, the deity White Shell woman is called away from her human friends to go live among the other deities, who have sent Talking God as their intermediary. According to Reichard (1950) Talking God "often acts a mentor, often directing mythical characters, warning them, or telling them the answers to test questions ... He is the only god ... with a sense of compassion" (476). Thus, his relationship with others may be described as more intimate, and less formal (yahasin) than that of other deities, and this social relationship makes him an ideal candidate for mediating directives between less intimate interactants.
The deity Wind (Nilch'i) performs a similar role between the deities and human beings, as McNeeley (1988) explains:
(not on handout)
"Little Wind or Wind's Child is ... sent to Earth Surface People as Messenger of (the deities). Such Messenger Winds are ... sent by their leaders ... to inform, advise, and protect people and to report back on people's conduct" (1988:30).
In the translated words of one of McNeeley's Navajo consultants (an anonymous elder):
(5 on handout)
There are leaders inside of the surrounding mountains. ... It is just like
Washington, D.C. In the white way- agents come from there. In just that
same way these winds are from those foremost leaders placed within the
mountains. (McNeley 1988:30)
A Configurational Pattern
Triadic participation structure in directive-giving may be tied to a larger configurational pattern in Navajo culture which, I argue here, works to constitute the values of autonomy and self determination. Other forms of interaction which contribute to this pattern include:
nonpropositional forms:
positive value on silence in interaction (Basso 1970, Christian and Gardener 1977, Scollon and Scollon 1981, Saville-Troike 1985)
avoidance of direct gaze (Hall 1969, Saville-Troike 1989, Chisholm 1996)
low volume, slow tempo (Basso 1979, Chisholm 1996)
avoidance of direct questions (Scollon and Scollon 1981, Liebe-Harkort 1983)
All of these nonpropositional aspects of Navajo interaction reflect a concern for interactants' self-determinacy, and a general cultural avoidance of coercion of any kind (Witherspoon 1977, Lamphere 1977).
The same cultural values are also reflected in the grammar of the Navajo language. Linguistically, indirection is achieved through the use of adzoodza saad polite language, which includes use of the fourth person ji- one, as well as plural verb stems (Haile 1912) in verbs of coming, going, and being in position.
Grammatical Forms:
4th person (ji-) in face-to-face interaction:
illustrating politeness through avoidance of reference to 2nd person:
Ha'¡t'¶¶sh jinin¶zin What does one (2p) want? (Y&M 1987:77)
what 4th-wants
politeness through avoidance of reference to 1st person's desires, (lest they be seen as coercive):
Ajoo¬h¡¡sh laanaa. One (1p) wants to sleep. (M. Willie, ND)
4.opt.sleep opt.particle
In Directives/admonitions:
Doo hatis njigh¡a da One does not step over people. (M. Willie, ND)
Not 4.over 4.walks neg
Ab¶nigo hojitaa¬ ¬eh One should sing in the mornings . (M. Willie, ND)
morning.sub 4.sings usually
Dah j¶zd¡ago '¡-l'ª' One should sit up straight . (T.Blackhorse,pc)
up 4_sits_sub indef_does
Plural verb stems:
Da' hoghaandi nah¶sóot™ doolee¬? Will you (guys) be at home?
Ques. Home-at pl.sit fut.
Ha'¡t'¶¶'la', doo danihidiin¶n¶gii 'adanoht'¢e da shideezh¶!
What.it.is, neg pl.we.say.rel 2p.pl.are neg little.sister
kt'¡¡dzaagóó ndahkai!
here.and.there.to asp.pl.3+walks about
How is it, that you do just the opposite of what we tell you to do, my younger sister! You wander around aimlessly!
(sic) (Haile 1912:24)
Conclusion
To conclude, I have argued that the use of triadic participation structure in the giving of directives in Navajo culture is part of a larger configurational pattern of interaction which altogether contributes toward constituting general culture values on autonomy, self-determinacy, and egalitarian social relations. This perspective on culture as communicative practice (Hanks 1996, Duranti 1997) is one which has its roots in the writings of Edward Sapir, who argued that the job of anthropologists is to identify socially significant, or culturally meaningful behavior, by means of which members of a culture interpret each others' actions and stances in any given context. As Gumperz and Ochs both argue in a recent volume on "Rethinking Linguistic Relativity" (1996), cross-cultural differences lie mostly in the valences between speech practices and the social identities which they index in particular cultures. For example, the giving of explicit, (as opposed to indirect, or mediated) directives may be perceived by Athabaskan speakers as indexing laziness and/or bossiness (Rushforth and Chisholm 1991), yet, to many non-Native Americans, the exact opposite inference may be drawn, in that triadic directives may appear to be more bossy than nonmediated directives (as they involve a directive to an intermediary as well as well as the target). Thus, the linkage between speech act and underlying values may differ cross-culturally. In some speech communities, as I argue is the case for Navajo culture, indirection in the expression of directives is considered appropriate where politeness is called for (Ervin-Tripp 1979, Rushforth 1981); in others, indirection in directive-giving may be considered rude, and a different discourse strategy, such as grammatical elaboration through the use of modals, honorifics, and/or politeness particles may be preferred (Ervin-Tripp 1979). Every speech community has its preferred linguistic routines, which not only occur with greater frequency, but may be tied to a larger pattern of communicative practice. Such patterns for interaction are also tied to specific social roles in any society, and from the analytical perspective of practice theory, these patterns for interaction work not only to constitute those social roles, but to embody cultural values, as well.
References
Aberle, David. 1961. Navajo. In Schneider, D. & Gough, K. (Eds.) Matrilineal Kinship. Berkeley: University California Press.97-201.
Basso, Keith. 1970. "To Give Give Up on Words," Silence in Apache Culture. Southwest Journal of Anthropology, 26(3):213-38.
Basso, Keith. 1979. Portraits of the Whiteman: Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbolism Among the Western Apache. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Chisholm, James. 1996. Learning "respect for everything:" Navajo images of development. In P. Hwang, I. Sigel and M. Lamb (Eds.) Images of Childhood. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 167-183.
Christian, J. & Gardener, P. 1977. The Individual in Northern Dene Thoughts and Communication: a Study in Sharing and Diversity. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper #35.
Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press.
Haile, B. 1912. Stem Vocabulary of the Navajo Language. St. Michael's Press.
Hall, Edward T. 1959. The Silent Language. NY: Doubleday.
Hanks, William. Language And Communicative Practices. 1996. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1966. Two Types of Linguistic Relativity. In Bright, W. (Ed.), Sociolinguistics. 131-56. The Hague: Mouton.
Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (Eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics.N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.35-71.
Ladd, Alan. 1957. The Structure of a Moral Code: a philosophical analysis of ethical discourse applied to the ethics of the Navajo Indians. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lamphere, Louise. 1977. To Run After Them: cultural and social bases of cooperation in a Navajo community. Tucson: University Arizona Press.
Liebe- Harkort, M.L. 1983. A Note on the English Spoken by Apaches. IJAL, 49(207-8).
Leighton, Dorothea & Kluckholn, Clyde. 1948. Children of the People. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McNeley, J. 1988. Holy Wind in Navajo Philosophy. Univ. Arizona Press.
Reichard, G. 1950. Navajo Religion. Pantheon Books.
Rushforth, Scott. 1981. Speaking to "relatives-through-marriage:" aspects of communication among the Bear Lake Athapaskans. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(1):28-45.
Rushforth, Scott & Chisholm, James. 1991. Cultural persistance: continuity in meaning and moral responsibility among the Bearlake Athapaskans. Tucson:University Arizona Press.
Sapir, Edward. 1994. The Psychology of Culture. Judith Irvine, Ed. Mouton de Gruyter.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. 1985. The Place of Silence in an Integrated Theory of Communication. Tannen, D. & Saville- Troike, M. Eds., Perspectives on Silence. 3-18.
Saville- Troike, Muriel. 1989. Ethnography of Communication: an Introduction. NY: Blackwell.
Scollon, Ron & Scollon, Suzanne. 1981. Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Werner, Oswald. & Begishi, Kenneth. 1968. Styles of Learning: The Evidence from Navajo. Unpublished manuscript.
Zolbrod, P. 1984. Dine Bahane'. University New Mexico Press.