Show Less
Redeem Token
See more price optionsHide price options
Restricted access
Discursive Construction of Bicultural Identity
A Cross-Generational Sociolinguistic Study on Oromo-Americans in Minnesota
Series:
Oromiya-Jalata Deffa
The author examines the cultural identity development of Oromo-Americans in Minnesota, an ethnic group originally located within the national borders of Ethiopia. Earlier studies on language and cultural identity have shown that the degree of ethnic orientation of minorities commonly decreases from generation to generation. Yet oppression and a visible minority status were identified as factors delaying the process of de-ethnicization. Given that Oromos fled persecution in Ethiopia and are confronted with the ramifications of a visible minority status in the U.S., it can be expected that they have retained strong ties to their ethnic culture. This study, however, came to a more complex and theory-building result.
Book (EPUB)
- ISBN:
- 978-3-653-96088-4
- Availability:
- Available
- Subjects:
Prices
CHF** SFr.71.65EURD** €66.64EURA** €67.20EUR* €56.00GBP* £45.00USD* $72.95
Currency depends on your shipping address
- Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2016. 233 pp., 20 tables
Show Summary Details
Redeem Token
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author(s)/editor(s)
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Acknowledgements
- Table of contents
- 1.1 Emergent cultural identities in a globalized world
- 1.2 Earliest studies on language and social identity construction
- 1.3 Studies on language and cultural identity
- 1.4 Outlook on methodological approaches to assess cultural identity via language
- 1.5 Triangulation of methods applied in this study
- 2.1 The particular situation of Oromos
- 2.2 Cultural heterogeneity and ethnic orientation of Oromos
- 3.1 Reification of aspects of “identity” in a constructionist analysis
- 3.2 Social Constructionist accounts of identity
- 3.3 Difference between natural and constructed qualities
- 3.4 Social constructionist accounts of knowledge generation
- 3.5 Essentialist misconceptions of culture and identity
- 3.6 Validity and applicability of relativist analyses
- 3.7 Usage-based approaches towards the discursive construction of cultural identity
- 4.1.1 Triangulation of data – the corpus
- 4.1.2 Setup of informants
- 4.1.3 Representativity – balancing social parameters
- 4.1.4 Recruiting of informants
- 4.1.5 Interview structure
- 4.1.6 Observer’s Paradox (Labov)
- 4.2.1 Triangulation of methods
- 4.2.2 Quantitative analysis
- 4.2.3 Qualitative analysis
- 5.1 Indexicality: pronoun analysis and identification
- 5.2.1 “We” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.2 “We” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.3 “They” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.4 “They” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.5 Influence of other social parameters on pronoun distribution
- 5.2.6 “We” in reference to Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.7 “They” in reference to Habeshas/Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.1 Frequency of “Oromumma” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.2 Frequency of “back home” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.4 Discussion of the quantitative findings
- 6.1 Conceptual metaphors (CMAs) in the interviews
- 6.2.1 Examples of cultural stereotyping via CMOs referring to Habesha-Ethiopians
- 6.2.2 Negative generalizations of Habesha-Ethiopians via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.3 Positive generalizations of Oromos via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.4 Positive self-positionings as Oromos via CMOs and adequation
- 6.2.5 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs in the context of illustrative anecdotes – by second-generation informants
- 6.2.6 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs – by first-generation informants
- 6.2.7 Construction of distance to the own community via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.3 Summary of major findings related to CMOs & CMAs
- 6.4.1 Self-positionings as mono-cultural Oromos
- 6.4.2 Self-positionings without adequation with Oromos – the second generation
- 6.4.3 Hybridization or distinction from Oromos - the second generation
- 6.4.4 Adequation of the second generation with Americans (intra-group distinction)
- 6.4.5 Summary of the findings on the second generation
- 6.4.6 Discussion of empirical findings
- 7. Conclusion
- 8.1 Demographics of informants
- 8.2 Transcription symbols
- 8.3 Glossay of Oromo-related terms
- 8.4 Interview log
- 8.5 Self-report questionnaire
- 9. References
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author(s)/editor(s)
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Acknowledgements
- Table of contents
- 1.1 Emergent cultural identities in a globalized world
- 1.2 Earliest studies on language and social identity construction
- 1.3 Studies on language and cultural identity
- 1.4 Outlook on methodological approaches to assess cultural identity via language
- 1.5 Triangulation of methods applied in this study
- 2.1 The particular situation of Oromos
- 2.2 Cultural heterogeneity and ethnic orientation of Oromos
- 3.1 Reification of aspects of “identity” in a constructionist analysis
- 3.2 Social Constructionist accounts of identity
- 3.3 Difference between natural and constructed qualities
- 3.4 Social constructionist accounts of knowledge generation
- 3.5 Essentialist misconceptions of culture and identity
- 3.6 Validity and applicability of relativist analyses
- 3.7 Usage-based approaches towards the discursive construction of cultural identity
- 4.1.1 Triangulation of data – the corpus
- 4.1.2 Setup of informants
- 4.1.3 Representativity – balancing social parameters
- 4.1.4 Recruiting of informants
- 4.1.5 Interview structure
- 4.1.6 Observer’s Paradox (Labov)
- 4.2.1 Triangulation of methods
- 4.2.2 Quantitative analysis
- 4.2.3 Qualitative analysis
- 5.1 Indexicality: pronoun analysis and identification
- 5.2.1 “We” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.2 “We” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.3 “They” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.4 “They” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.5 Influence of other social parameters on pronoun distribution
- 5.2.6 “We” in reference to Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.7 “They” in reference to Habeshas/Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.1 Frequency of “Oromumma” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.2 Frequency of “back home” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.4 Discussion of the quantitative findings
- 6.1 Conceptual metaphors (CMAs) in the interviews
- 6.2.1 Examples of cultural stereotyping via CMOs referring to Habesha-Ethiopians
- 6.2.2 Negative generalizations of Habesha-Ethiopians via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.3 Positive generalizations of Oromos via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.4 Positive self-positionings as Oromos via CMOs and adequation
- 6.2.5 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs in the context of illustrative anecdotes – by second-generation informants
- 6.2.6 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs – by first-generation informants
- 6.2.7 Construction of distance to the own community via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.3 Summary of major findings related to CMOs & CMAs
- 6.4.1 Self-positionings as mono-cultural Oromos
- 6.4.2 Self-positionings without adequation with Oromos – the second generation
- 6.4.3 Hybridization or distinction from Oromos - the second generation
- 6.4.4 Adequation of the second generation with Americans (intra-group distinction)
- 6.4.5 Summary of the findings on the second generation
- 6.4.6 Discussion of empirical findings
- 7. Conclusion
- 8.1 Demographics of informants
- 8.2 Transcription symbols
- 8.3 Glossay of Oromo-related terms
- 8.4 Interview log
- 8.5 Self-report questionnaire
- 9. References
Restricted access
This eBook can be cited
Chapter
- Subjects:
Prices
Chapter Price
CHF** SFr.35.00EURD** €36.00EURA** €36.00EUR* €30.00GBP* £23.00USD* $42.00
Currency depends on your shipping address
Extract
This edition of the eBook can be cited. To enable this we have marked the start and end of a page. In cases where a word straddles a page break, the marker is placed inside the word at exactly the same position as in the physical book. This means that occasionally a word might be bifurcated by this marker.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.
Or login to access all content.- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author(s)/editor(s)
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Acknowledgements
- Table of contents
- 1.1 Emergent cultural identities in a globalized world
- 1.2 Earliest studies on language and social identity construction
- 1.3 Studies on language and cultural identity
- 1.4 Outlook on methodological approaches to assess cultural identity via language
- 1.5 Triangulation of methods applied in this study
- 2.1 The particular situation of Oromos
- 2.2 Cultural heterogeneity and ethnic orientation of Oromos
- 3.1 Reification of aspects of “identity” in a constructionist analysis
- 3.2 Social Constructionist accounts of identity
- 3.3 Difference between natural and constructed qualities
- 3.4 Social constructionist accounts of knowledge generation
- 3.5 Essentialist misconceptions of culture and identity
- 3.6 Validity and applicability of relativist analyses
- 3.7 Usage-based approaches towards the discursive construction of cultural identity
- 4.1.1 Triangulation of data – the corpus
- 4.1.2 Setup of informants
- 4.1.3 Representativity – balancing social parameters
- 4.1.4 Recruiting of informants
- 4.1.5 Interview structure
- 4.1.6 Observer’s Paradox (Labov)
- 4.2.1 Triangulation of methods
- 4.2.2 Quantitative analysis
- 4.2.3 Qualitative analysis
- 5.1 Indexicality: pronoun analysis and identification
- 5.2.1 “We” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.2 “We” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.3 “They” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.4 “They” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.5 Influence of other social parameters on pronoun distribution
- 5.2.6 “We” in reference to Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.7 “They” in reference to Habeshas/Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.1 Frequency of “Oromumma” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.2 Frequency of “back home” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.4 Discussion of the quantitative findings
- 6.1 Conceptual metaphors (CMAs) in the interviews
- 6.2.1 Examples of cultural stereotyping via CMOs referring to Habesha-Ethiopians
- 6.2.2 Negative generalizations of Habesha-Ethiopians via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.3 Positive generalizations of Oromos via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.4 Positive self-positionings as Oromos via CMOs and adequation
- 6.2.5 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs in the context of illustrative anecdotes – by second-generation informants
- 6.2.6 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs – by first-generation informants
- 6.2.7 Construction of distance to the own community via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.3 Summary of major findings related to CMOs & CMAs
- 6.4.1 Self-positionings as mono-cultural Oromos
- 6.4.2 Self-positionings without adequation with Oromos – the second generation
- 6.4.3 Hybridization or distinction from Oromos - the second generation
- 6.4.4 Adequation of the second generation with Americans (intra-group distinction)
- 6.4.5 Summary of the findings on the second generation
- 6.4.6 Discussion of empirical findings
- 7. Conclusion
- 8.1 Demographics of informants
- 8.2 Transcription symbols
- 8.3 Glossay of Oromo-related terms
- 8.4 Interview log
- 8.5 Self-report questionnaire
- 9. References
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author(s)/editor(s)
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Acknowledgements
- Table of contents
- 1.1 Emergent cultural identities in a globalized world
- 1.2 Earliest studies on language and social identity construction
- 1.3 Studies on language and cultural identity
- 1.4 Outlook on methodological approaches to assess cultural identity via language
- 1.5 Triangulation of methods applied in this study
- 2.1 The particular situation of Oromos
- 2.2 Cultural heterogeneity and ethnic orientation of Oromos
- 3.1 Reification of aspects of “identity” in a constructionist analysis
- 3.2 Social Constructionist accounts of identity
- 3.3 Difference between natural and constructed qualities
- 3.4 Social constructionist accounts of knowledge generation
- 3.5 Essentialist misconceptions of culture and identity
- 3.6 Validity and applicability of relativist analyses
- 3.7 Usage-based approaches towards the discursive construction of cultural identity
- 4.1.1 Triangulation of data – the corpus
- 4.1.2 Setup of informants
- 4.1.3 Representativity – balancing social parameters
- 4.1.4 Recruiting of informants
- 4.1.5 Interview structure
- 4.1.6 Observer’s Paradox (Labov)
- 4.2.1 Triangulation of methods
- 4.2.2 Quantitative analysis
- 4.2.3 Qualitative analysis
- 5.1 Indexicality: pronoun analysis and identification
- 5.2.1 “We” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.2 “We” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.3 “They” in reference to Oromos in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.4 “They” in reference to Americans in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.5 Influence of other social parameters on pronoun distribution
- 5.2.6 “We” in reference to Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.2.7 “They” in reference to Habeshas/Ethiopians in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.1 Frequency of “Oromumma” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.3.2 Frequency of “back home” in a cross-generational comparison
- 5.4 Discussion of the quantitative findings
- 6.1 Conceptual metaphors (CMAs) in the interviews
- 6.2.1 Examples of cultural stereotyping via CMOs referring to Habesha-Ethiopians
- 6.2.2 Negative generalizations of Habesha-Ethiopians via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.3 Positive generalizations of Oromos via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.2.4 Positive self-positionings as Oromos via CMOs and adequation
- 6.2.5 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs in the context of illustrative anecdotes – by second-generation informants
- 6.2.6 Idealizations of Oromo culture via totum pro parte CMOs – by first-generation informants
- 6.2.7 Construction of distance to the own community via totum pro parte CMOs
- 6.3 Summary of major findings related to CMOs & CMAs
- 6.4.1 Self-positionings as mono-cultural Oromos
- 6.4.2 Self-positionings without adequation with Oromos – the second generation
- 6.4.3 Hybridization or distinction from Oromos - the second generation
- 6.4.4 Adequation of the second generation with Americans (intra-group distinction)
- 6.4.5 Summary of the findings on the second generation
- 6.4.6 Discussion of empirical findings
- 7. Conclusion
- 8.1 Demographics of informants
- 8.2 Transcription symbols
- 8.3 Glossay of Oromo-related terms
- 8.4 Interview log
- 8.5 Self-report questionnaire
- 9. References