Messages from My Father-In-Law: Indexing Membership and Proximity in Long-Distance Voicemails

Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language & Communication

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Messages from my father-in-law: Indexing membership and proximity in long-distance voicemails

Jonna M. Yarrington

University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210030, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA

abstract

Keywords: This is a linguistic anthropological analysis of 18 voicemails left by the author’s father-in- Anthropological linguistics law on her telephone over 11 months. Semiotic analysis shows that the speaker in- Discourse analysis corporates his communications into his daily personal and religious rituals, evidencing a Semiotics mode of discursively constructing and performing kinship relations and eliciting responses in imagined, or perhaps just slowed, talk-in-interaction. The speaker brings membership licensing, religious ﬂuency, and social proximity necessitated by the bond of marriage. He leaves, with his voicemails, the self-renewing possibility of the strongest of future kin relations, despite being separated by a physical distance of over 2300 miles. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

What is my father-in-law thinking when he leaves voice messages on my phone on Sunday mornings? What is he doing with those voice messages? More importantly, what does he think he is doing with those voice messages? This paper borrows from the work of Michael Silverstein on indexical order and the link between the “macro-sociological” and micro “talk-in- interaction” (2003). I use this frame of semiotic analysis to replay 18 voicemails left over a period of 11 months on my cell phone in Arizona and Virginia by my father-in-law who lives in southeastern Virginia and whom I will call Jim.1 These messages, with durations ranging from 22 s to 1 min, 37 s, show that Jim incorporates his communications with me into his daily personal and religious rituals, which themselves do not cohere into distinctive or mutually exclusive categories. These communications are Jim’s attempts to participate in and affect me and my husband’s lives. Overlapping indices pervade the voicemails, showing that Jim is, perhaps in shorter increments than sociolinguists are used to, attempting to discursively construct and perform kinship relations and ritual practices, while also eliciting responses in a type of imagineddor perhaps just sloweddtalk-in-interaction. These practices play out in a number of discursive devices visible in the transcripts, ultimately evidencing a tendency for Jim to elicit interaction and effectivity through relations sustained by his communicatory acts, which stretch to condense the 2300 miles that separate us. Each voicemail follows a general pattern. There exist a number of discursive strategies and practices that voice a range of indices serving to connect the three of us (me, Landon, and Jim) to each other and to our relevant, shared kin network. Of the 18 messages, 17 were placed from Jim’s home landline and one from the landline at his church; 10 were placed on Sunday mornings, and most occurred between the hours of 4 a.m. and 10 a.m. his time. Message 13 seems to be one of the most

E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 I provide Jim a pseudonym to the extent I am able. I do not provide my husband, Landon, with a pseudonym. Since it is easily accessible knowledge that I am married to Landon, who is also in anthropology, it would be unfeasible for me to attempt to hide his identity. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.06.001 0271-5309/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33 25 representative, containing eight of the 13 discursive constructions I have combed out for analytic purposes (to be discussed further in Section 3). Message 132 Date: Sunday His time: 7:44 a.m.

1 Good morning Jonna Yarrington. This is Jim Yarrington, Landon 2 Yarrington’s dad. Just callin to: to be sure you- to remember to wish 3 God a happy birth- a happy father’s day. And to call your dad too. But 4 anyway uh you guys get up and go to church on father’s day. That’dbe 5 a gift to me. I already talked to Landon’s answerin machine. So uh 6 anyway watch the mailbox and uh see ya in church. I’m prayin that the 7 “hounds of heaven”- that’s C.S. Lewis instead of he’d call it the Holy 8 Spirit he’d call it the “hounds of heaven”.I’m calling for the hounds 9 of heaven to keep buggin yall til yall give in to church. Alright. 10 Call me. Buhbye.

Though Message 13 was left on Father’s Day and all messages are not left only on marked days, it is still fair to characterize it as the most representative of all the messages for three reasons. First, it contains the introductory cluster (“Good morning Jonna Yarrington. This is Jim Yarrington, Landon Yarrington’s dad”) that is repeated, at least in part, in 17 of the 18 messages. This, after having known Jim for over ﬁve years, and after having been married to his son more than 10 months before this particular message was recorded. Second, Message 13 offers a glimpse of the religious language Jim wields in many of his voicemails, reinforced with quotations from pastoral messages, devotionals, or the Bible (in this case, it was C.S. Lewis). Third, Jim is heard in Message 13 using “yall” as a second person address, with latent ambiguity in number. This is a common occurrence in the voicemails, along with “you guys,” a construct that I will argue covers the fusion of his two silent interlocutors, me and Landon. In this way, the meaning of marriage in terms of kinship relations translates into Jim’s discursive and symbolic practices.3 Silverstein (2003) provides a position from which we may mine an ontological point that is transferrable to my analysis of my father-in-law’s messages. He argues for the key role of ritualization in propping up indexicality. “Guarantor” may be the most appropriate word for what Silverstein theorizes is the role of ritual in connecting the macro (i.e., ideological) to the micro (i.e., practices in, or instantiations of, interaction). In fact, for Silverstein, authority stemming from ritualization is the fundamental value that “appears to achieve self-grounding” and licenses indices by a “recurrent stipulative or ‘baptismal’ essentialization” (2003, 203). In this paper, I argue that the three common characteristics of Jim’s voicemailsdcommenting on our shared name, using religious language, and discursively marrying his interlocutors as co-addresseesdevidence that the voicemails are multi- layered in indexical meaning, but ultimately grounded in Jim’s ritualization of kin relations. First, I feel it is imperative for me to address the pragmatics of voicemail messages. Second, I present transcript data to illustrate Jim’s ritual sealing and resealing of our kin connection through emphasis on our shared name, religiously inclusive discursive strategies, and use of yall, you guys, and other modes of turning an addressee into a heterogeneous singular. Finally, I turn to Silverstein’s (2003) ontological point about indexical order to draw a broader conclusion about what my father-in-law is doingdor what we are doing togetherdwhen he leaves voicemails on my telephone.

2. The pragmatics of a voicemail

To analyze the 18 voicemails, it is necessary ﬁrst to address the pragmatics of the voicemail message as a medium for communication and interaction. Some literature exists addressing voicemails linguistically and sociologically. Most recently, Mishler (2008) writes about the structure of voicemails, detailing what he argues is a recurring format of open-body-close. He notes the increasing use of voicemails for cell phone users, though the strict correlation he suggests previously existed between voicemails and service interactions is not immediately clear. “Voicemail [on cell phones] no longer serves just as a medium for service transactions; it is an important social channel through which relationships are maintained” (Mishler, 2008, 168). Hobbs (2003) looks at voicemail as a medium through which strategies of politeness are enacted; for her analysis, Hobbs draws data from voicemails left at a law ﬁrm.

2 Transcript Conventions: (.) ¼ pause; . ¼ lower pitch; ^^ ¼ higher pitch; dash within a word (“talk-ing”) ¼ emphasized syllables; bold ¼ emphasis; repeated consonant (“annd”) ¼ lengthened consonant; colon within a word (“a:nd”) ¼ lengthened vowel; ! ¼ punctuated but not lower or higher pitch; underline ¼ articulated separate words; w ¼ creaking; comment in brackets (“[swallow]”) ¼ transcriber comment; ellipsis in brackets (“[.]”) ¼ transcriber has excerpted a section. 3 It is outside the scope of this paper to delve into detail on the historical or present characteristics of my relationship with Jim which constitute “kinship.” Thus, in the interest of focusing on a linguistic anthropological analysis, I avoid detailing much about anthropological kinship (see Peletz, 1995). 26 J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33

Academic analyses were done in the 1990s on voicemails, when cell phones began to come into vogue. Often cited, it seems, is the work of Gold (1991), who writes of discursive devices that mitigate a situation where one converses without an interlocutor. Álvarez-Càccamo and Knoblauch (1992, 474) wrote of the message as a “one-sided social action,” a moment in which “the course of action does not depend on coordination and synchronization of reciprocal action.” Dingwall (1992) writes of a preference for politeness displayed in voicemails, attributing the feature to the lack of opportunity for correction or repair inherent in the medium. Liddicoat (1994) points to similar strategies as compensatory for the lack of an interlocutor, as well. Cultural anthropologists have been confronted with recordings and recorded messages as transmissions of behavior with socio-cultural causes and effects across long distances and/or spans of time. Notably, Karen Richman (2005) writes about cassette tapes sent transnationally from Haiti northward to locations in the U.S., which connect practitioners of Haitian vodou to priests or priestesses (houngan or manbo) and other ritual experts in Haiti. On the flip side of being the recorder, Charles Hirschkind (2001) is notable for writing about ethical practices of listeners, who receive cassette sermons taped and exchanged in Egypt. Is it accurate to analyze voicemails as communications or even discourse? Should these “turns” of discourse, if that is how we want to conceptualize them, be considered imaginary conversations or actual turns? Manning (2008) analyzes rants written by Starbucks baristas on the internet; he calls these rants “imaginary conversations.” Like Manning’s data, Jim’s voicemails fall somewhere between “imaginary” and “real,” since as talk-in-interaction they are really something more like a prolonged turn, or like turns broken by lengthened pauses. A full analysis of voicemails may actually help to undermine such a dichotomy as between the real and the imaginary, which is in this case analytically rather useless. Pragmatically, the line between the real and the imaginary is non-existent because they are both recognized as moments of turn-taking by interactants or witnesses, as Manning notes for his rants (2008, 103) and as I will show in the metapragmatic maneuvering Jim and I depend on to organize our calls and messages. For all practical purposes, “imaginings [of talk] have real consequences for the empirical object [of talk]” (Manning, 2008, 102). For this reason, I use the terms “addressee” and “interlocutor” interchangeably. I also use Silverstein’s “interactant,” which facilitates semiotic descrip- tion. While Jim is the speaker and the voicemail is his turn, it seems a clear and reasonable claim to also say that for all intents and purposes, Landon and I are eachdand togetherdaddressees, interlocutors, and interactants for Jim’svoicemails. Goffman gives a foundational overview of “the management of turn-taking” in interactions (1983, 130; see also Goffman 1997). The turn has since been used as a unit for analysis. In Silverstein (2003), we see the extension of the unit of a turn into a unit of an “interval-instant” (2003, 195), which is ideal for the voicemail, itself both an interval-instant of sorts and a turn. By definition, because of the absence and immediate silence of the addressee, the voicemail cannot offer a response to itself. Only through the transparent actions of the speaker could any sort of response of an alter be devised in real time, without a return call or further interference (i.e., further interaction simultaneously with the voicemail, such as receiving an e-mail or text message, or a face-to-face encounter). In this way, the “mediated interactional discourse” of a voicemail (Mishler, 2008,168) may be ideal for looking at strategies of identity formed in interaction. Viewing a message as a turn, we may also consider that the message-receiver is perhaps the original initiator of the voicemail by not picking up the call, refusing the turn which answering would entail. This is George Costanza’s tactic in Seinfeld (Episode 4, Season 2), when he refuses to answer a call from his girlfriend and sets up a voicemail greeting meant to make him sound believably absent, though he is sitting next to the machine and can hear her message, thereby eliciting information from her, in a sense, without the obligation of interaction in real time. George listens as his voice sings on the machine: “Believe it or not, George isn’t at home. Please leave a message at the beep. I must be out or I’d pick up the phone. Where could I be? Believe it or not, I’m not home” (David and Seinfeld, 1991). Interestingly, this greeting voices a dilemma everyone imaginably could experience when setting up their voice mailboxdhow, when forced with no particular addressee, to refer to oneself? Naming oneself implies a third-person stance but also necessitates a distance that may come across as stodgy or false. In Jim’s and my case, I do not remember intentionally trying to miss his calls. Rather, my missing calls is more a function of the distance between Virginia and Arizona and the times we were each free to call. For 15 of the messages, I was in Arizona, between two and three hours behind Virginia time.4 Merely because of the time difference, Jim, Landon, and I have established a certain turn-taking mode that accounts for the difficulties of timing our calls. He calls early our time and leaves messages; we try not to call him back too late his time. His schedule is somewhat less flexible than ours because of the hours he works. This is our mode of operating not only with him, but with other friends and family members in Virginia as well. Though we may categorize voicemail as turn-taking interactions, we should acknowledge the communicative constraints of the medium, since it is not face-to-face interaction. Practical constraints of communication exist in any context. As Manning notes, Goffman sees conversation analysis in general as isolating a series of universal “systemic constraints,” derived from “sheer physical requirements and constraints of any communication system” (Goffman, 1976, 265 quoted in Manning, 2008, 112). As such, Manning continues, “conversation is in this sense a ‘craft,’ a techne, a kind of ‘work,’ in the sense of being a technical set of procedural solutions to a set of natural problems of communication” (Manning, 2008, 113).

4 Virginia observes daylight savings time changes and Arizona does not. Three messages were in the two-hour difference; all others were in the three- hour difference. This means, for example, that when Jim called at 4 a.m. his time, it was actually either 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. my time. See Appendix A for metadata on all calls. J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33 27

What are the limiting conditions of voicemails? What is required of a message for it to “work”?Thesequestionsare particularly persistent in transcription and analysis of my father-in-law’s voicemails. I would like to make two notes about the conditions with which Jim is working. First, he does not use a cell phone but uses a landline that has caller identiﬁcation. So when he leaves his home phone number (in three of the 18 messages) it is reasonable to think he may think I might not be able to remember, see, or save his number. In the language of semiotics, the presuppositions and entailments he operates with are shaped by the pragmatics of his turn and the facilitation of the next turndmore so than in “normal,” non-voicemail interaction. My ﬁnal point about limitations of voicemails is that the medium itself may be a looming intervening variable, in that my greeting may work to prime Jim to respond to it or prime him to otherwise use the words I have used. The greeting he hears when he calls may affect how he leaves his message, including priming for style, voicing, stance, footing, etc., keeping in mind the variety of indices these effects may impact. My Voicemail Greeting

1 Hi you’ve reached Jonna Yarrington. Please leave me a message and 2I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you.

Not only might this suggest that Jim is primed to say my name, but most importantly it suggests that it cements his turn as a response to my greeting and my identity as a Yarrington, as one of his own family, with all that that entails. With this intervening variable in mind, the medium itself, we can give consideration to the other content of the messages which demonstrate that Jim brings considerable and interesting discursive devices and content to the messages.5

3. Jim’s kinship rituals

From Jim’s 18 messages, I found 13 discursive constructions. What I call discursive constructions are segments of messages (or chunks of discourse) that seem to get repeated in Jim’s various messages in particular combinations. Fig. 1 displays the type of construction with exemplar tokens of that type of the actual messages. It is clear that Jim’s messages generally consist in references to Yarringtons (me or him) or to other kin; instructions on practices, like getting up, going to church, and praying; religious speech that is generally summoning God either indirectly (through quoted speech) or directly (through access granted by prayer); content mostly consisting of news from home; and metapragmatic work referencing the call or message itself. It is important to note that I have included construction type L, reference to Landon’s mom who is Jim’sex- wife, of which there is no token. I note it in the list to mark the conspicuous absence of this particular referent. I will focus on three commonly occurring construction sets which provide linguistic evidence for the ritualization of kin relations. First, to demonstrate Jim’s use of naming and focus on “Yarrington,” I will pull evidence of construction types A, D, and E. Second, to discuss his use of religious language, data comes from construction types C, H, I, and J. Third, the evidence for Jim’s discursive marriage of his interlocutors, Landon and me, who are also married in real life, comes from construction types B, C, G, J, and M. See Fig. 2 for a visualization of the sets. In the meantime, in the transcripts I provide, there appears some of the other constructions and considerable overlap between the analytic units I have made (i.e., the construction types themselves) and overlap in sets of construction types. This multiplicity, I hope, will not undermine my analysis, but might further entrench the idea of multiple indices moving in multiple directions simultaneously by the behavior of one animator. Jim makes it clear in nearly every message that I am a Yarrington, thereby binding our relationship as in-laws. In some instances, it is clear he considers himself to be reacting to the greeting that he has just heard.

Good mornin Jonna Yarrington. Still sounds good. (from Message 2)

Hey Jonna this is Jim Yarrington Landon Yarrington’s dad (.) your (.) father in law. (.) yeah father in law. (from Message 3)

Good mornin Jonna this is Jim Yarrington Landon Yarrington’s dad. It’s a joy to hear that (.) Jonna (from Message 4) Yarrington on the answerin machine.

Good mornin Jonna Yarrington. Every time I hear that I get excited. (from Message 6)

Good mornin Jonna Yarrington. That sounds good. (from Message 8)

Good mornin Jonna. This is- answering machine sounds good uh- Jonna Yarrington. (from Message 9)

Good morning Jonna Yarrington. This is Jim Yarrington, Landon Yarrington’s dad. (from Message 13)

Good mornin Jonna. That sure does sound good Jonna Yarrington by the way. (from Message 16)

Hello my favorite- my most favorite daughter in law. Hey! Jonna this is Jim. (from Message 18)

5 It is also important to note that, although I am not entirely sure, it seems that Jim calls Landon’s cell phone before he calls mine. He leaves messages there too, which I have not asked Landon to listen to or analyze. Further fruitful analysis should be made in comparing and contextualizing a set of voicemails left for Landon with the set I analyze here. 28 J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33

Fig. 1. Discursive construction types and tokens. (See Appendix B for incidence of discursive constructions in each voicemail.)

Fig. 2. Construction type sets used as evidence.

ThesimplefactthatJim’s Yarrington sequence is at the opening of his messages would indicate either or both the possibilities of being primed by my greeting or the importance he feels or places on emphasizing our relationship from the outset. Apart from the priming, this may be the clearest evidence in the 18 voicemails that Jim literally ritually classiﬁes me as his kin, both noting and enacting the borrowing of names that happened for me when I married into his family. “Ritual” seems to be an ideal word to describe the overall use and tone of Jim’s voicemails. The line between personal ritual and group ritual becomes blurred, not only by the general pragmatics of the voicemail as an interaction, as noted, but also by Jim’s use of religious language. In previous work in anthropological linguistics, the study of religious language has grappled over the unstable dichotomy of personal and yet communal religious discourse (Keane, 1997). It is clear that Jim’s voicemails may be personal rituals, left at roughly the same times of the day, on the same days of the week. But they are connected to his attendance at church and often he, himself, connects his call to attendance at church by asking us to “get up, go to church.” He voices the Bible and sometimes devotionals, in effect making some of my voicemails mini-Bible studies or moments of serious religious reﬂection. Messages 14 and 17 evidence these processes of interaction, bringing personal religious experience to a family-interaction level (viz., between us Yarringtons), and to a community-interaction level (viz., among members of a church community). Message 14 Date: Sunday His time: 7:03 a.m. J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33 29

1 Good mornin Jonna this is Jim, Landon’s dad? 2 Again what a joy it is to talk to you guys like we did last night. 3 But anyway I’m runnin a little bit but a lot of the daily meditation 4 today that I read (.) This is the short version of Oswald Chambers.6 5 “Then what’s next to do? Everything who asks receives” 6 This is Luke 10- L-Luke 11:10. 7 “A pauper does not ask out of any reason other than to completely 8 hopelessness and painful condition of his poverty.” (.) 9 “Blessed are the paupers in spirit” and this is Matthew 5:3. It’s one of 10 the beatitudes. What I’m getting out of that (.) for you guys (.) and I’m 11 prayin for the Holy Spirit to keep buggin yall till yall go to church. (.) 12 If God is blessin ya thus far (.) and you’re not going to church like you 13 should maybe- and you’re not tithing, what would He do if you guys 14 would go to church and give him song praise and prayer. It’s gonna be 15 better Jonna. I hate to be preachin to you but that’s how much I care 16 about yall and care about God. Alright. Get up. And get Landon to call 17 his aunt. And you talk to her too Jonna. Uh my brother said she’sa 18 little bit down and out and I dunno. Anyway I’m gonna send her a card 19 then see how she goes with me cause (.) I-I told her not to do it. She’s 20 already complainin that her back hurts. Man at this age? 73 or 21 whatever? You gonna have to do some physical therapy. Alright. 22 Call me. Joy talkin to yall and talk atcha later. Buhb- See ya in church. 23 Buhbye.

Message 17 Date: Sunday His time: 6:16 a.m.

1 Good mornin Jonna that sounds pretty good. But anyway Jonna this is 2 Landon’s dad. And if you know I’m callin you it means a lot to me as 3 well as you do. But uh just called Landon and I’m prayin for yall cause 4it’s a little pressure over there I imagine. But anyway this is Oswald 5 Chambers. Um this is the short version. My brother gave me like a 6 rollade- roll of card- roll of calendar thing that gives you the short 7 version of the devotion. So today it says “Judgment in the love of God. 8 The time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God.” This is 9 First Peter 4:17. [swallows] “Every element of our own self reliance 10 must be put to death by the power of God. The moment we recognize 11 our complete weaknesses and our dependence upon him will be the 12 very moment that the spirit of God will exhibit his power.” Alright 13 Jonna I’m prayin for you guys. Maybe not as much as I should be but 14 I’m prayin. So you guys do your part. Yall go into God’s house to 15 thank- give him song praise and prayer. Maybe tell the pastor what’s 16 goin on. Buddy you- I’m here to tell ya honey you get the whole 17 congregation prayin for you (.) look out. Alright. Call me.

Jim draws us into his kinship network by weaving Landon’s aunt (Message 14, Line 17) and Jim’s brother (Message 17, Line 5) into religious content that requires membership and ﬂuency in a community for comprehension and participation. In a Durkheimian sense, in which the spirit of the religious community transcends the presence of the community itself (Durkheim, 1912), the communities that Jim makes present are organized both in terms of kinship and religious afﬁliation. The Oswald Chambers devotional from which Jim gets his Bible quotes for Messages 14 and 17 is arguably the material bridge that links the personal to the communal rituals. Jim is also known to use (and pass on to me and Landon) a devotional called “The Upper Room” (the title is a reference to the room in which Jesus held the last supper). When we receive care packages from Jim, there is always at least one page excerpted from an Upper Room devotional booklet. Each day in an Upper Room booklet has a title, a Bible verse, and one to two paragraphs of testimony by a person whose name appears at the bottom. There are various places in the booklet which refer to a website, where one can go to see pictures of the person who is testifying or of the particular story they are telling. (For example, if one reads a short story written by a husband about a sick wife, the link will update readers on the woman’s progress, show a picture of her and her husband, and give readers the

6 Oswald Chambers (1874–1917) was a Scottish Baptist evangelist and teacher. 30 J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33 opportunity to comment.) Devotionals are useful for the purpose of bringing religious feeling, arguably a spirit of pure community (again, following Durkheim), into one’s own personal daily, often singular, rituals. If Jim is enacting a marriage of personal ritual and community ritual in his Sunday-morning communications, he is also enacting another symbolic marriage, between Landon and me. He does this most obviously by the use of yall or you guys, but also in more subtle ways, sometimes by mistake (and repair), and on occasion with recourse to explicit metapragmatic talk about calls and messages. I offer samples from ﬁve messages, in each of which are construction types that instruct us two as a unit (B, C); make explicit the addressee/addressee combination (G); connect religiously to a dual-but-singular alter (J); or maneuver metapragmatically for a speciﬁc two-in-one alter (M).

1[.] Yall get up and go give thanks to God (from Message 2) 2 somewhere (.) this mornin. [.] And see ya in 3 church. Talk to ya later. Tell him to call but you call 4 me too. Buhbye.

1[.] Hey um just saw the weather channel looks like (from Message 3) 2 yall are getting a little rain. And we are getting 3 ^shmashed^it’s like a nor- a mini northeaster. I 4 want to talk to you (.) al-so in case he dutint say that 5I’m not callin but anyway. He calls and says he’s 6 gon call back but he doesn’t call back (.) but um. (.) 7[.]

1[.] Hey! (.) um (.) hate to call ya m-not really. love (from Message 4) 2 to call ya but (.) can’t never get him to answer. (.) 3I’m almost sure you guys aren’t in this ﬂood. (.) But 4I’m lookin at the news now and lookin at Boulder 5 Colorado. It’s just cra-zy. (.) I mean (.) well (.) I 6 said to Landon it’s- it’s comical I don’t mean to say 7 comic- (.) i:t’s (.) ng-ng- different. That the news’ll 8 say (.) they don’t believe in god (.) but it says in this 9 instance it’sinbiblical proportions. So anyway 10 yall be careful, ya go to church tomorrow and call 11 me. Alright. (.) Got a car race tonight. Talk to ya 12 later. Buhba. But that’s the little boys. The big boys 13 are tomorraw

1[.] You guys get up and go to church today. Uh (from Message 5) 2 Landon’s got that free ride. I have no doubt that he’s 3 received it. Um that’s which way we’re prayin. [.] 4 Alright. You guys get up and go to church. [.]

1[.] The moon is supposed to be brightest at 7:30 in (from Message 12) 2 the morning. How that is, I don’t know cause it’s 3 already sunlight then. But anyway it’s supposed to 4 be brighter in the morning. But it’s bright now dude 5 er- honey. Talk to you later. Buh bye.

In the segments, in various ways, it is clear that although Jim knows he is talking most likely just to me, he is also communicating through me to Landon and possibly with Landon at the same time. Treating us as a joint addressee allows for the completion of the symbolic marriage that had originally been a rite of passage and a change in our shared kin network. Message 4 (lines 11–13) is particularly interesting in that the content is not something I ever discussed with Jim, myself. Landon occasionally has the opportunity to talk with his dad about NASCAR races. The added content (“Got a car race tonight. . . . But that’s the little boys. The big boys are tomorraw”) occurs during and after the official closing moves (“Alright.” and “Talk to ya later. Buhbye.”). This out-of-place placement of this out-of-place content suggests that Jim is inserting it for Landon’s benefit, perhaps as a final thought he would have liked to leave on Landon’s voicemail. The repair in Message 12 offers further strength to the idea that Jim marries Landon and me ritually and discursively in these voicemails. His dude er- honey may indicate that he is talking to us both, but does not come up with a direct plural addressee to use in place of what he might normally use, either dude or honey. He may have momentarily forgotten which voicemail he was leaving. Or, in a universe of multiple and ordered indices, the reality may actually be all of the above. As Jim’s “most favorite daughter-in-law,” also his only daughter-in-law, in his messages, I am interchangeable and com- bined with his son. Jim might strategically use me as another way to get to Landon (“tell him to call” in Message 2, line 3; “he calls and says he’s gon call back but he doesn’t” in Message 3, lines 5–6; “can’t never get him to answer” in Message 4, line 2; etc.). Or he might decide to send us a joint message (“yall get up” in Message 2, line 1; “you guys aren’t in this flood” in Message 4, line 3; etc.). More than once, Jim changes a dude into a honey (Message 12, lines 4–5; also in Message 17 not excerpted here). This discursive marriage further cements my daughter-in-law status, which in turn re-justifies Jim’s messages anew. J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33 31

4. Conclusions about long-distance speech

To bring Jim’s messages back into analytic focus, we must mine Silverstein (2003) to add texture and depth to our analytic concepts. Silverstein posits that indexicality requires foundational belief in essential characteristics. He asks where the authority in this belief comes from, in the search for the key to a truly dialectical understanding of interaction between sharing and contesting individuals. Silverstein suggests that, It is, of course, the nature of what we recognize to be ritual, or at least relatively ritualized tropic invocation of essentializations (naturalizations) to make believers of us all. . . . Every macro-social framework in which micro- contextual indexicality is locatable seems to be centered on certain relatively ritualized manifestations of the indexical signs in organized configurations that license or warrant their occurrence elsewhere.” (Silverstein, 2003, 203) The essentializations that are, at base, tautological and self-grounding are rituals in the sense that humans essentialize in- interaction. It is Durkheim’s project in another lightdto question what it is that holds social interaction together.7 The sort of ritualization Silverstein refers to is a different type of ritualization than iterative or recurrent practices in some sociolinguistic phenomena, such as that described by Tannen (1994, 43) when she writes that conversation is a ritual, during which people expect ritual expressions at certain points of transition. Silverstein’s indexicality-grounding ritual is different because it is ritual in the sense of the roots of human basis for the indexicalities being summoned. This strong sense of “ritual” is not about the ritual of a conversation, as a habit or a routine (cf. Williams James on habit, James, 1896, 1975). Rather, it is the more fundamental, encompassing, and self-justifying ritual which might have more in common conceptually with the idea of Bourdieu’s (1979) “habitus” than of James’“habit.” By virtue of analyzing the semiotics of communication, necessarily built on signs from the foundations developed following Peirce and others, Silverstein uses the concepts of presupposition and entailment, which he writes are the two aspects that constitute indexical meaning. Presupposition is the aspect of “indexical ‘appropriateness-to’ at-that-point autonomously known or constituted contextual parameters: what is already established between interacting sign-users, at least implicitly, as ‘context’,” thus a sort of moveable a priori. Entailment, on the other hand, is the aspect of “indexical ‘effectiveness-in’ context: how contextual parameters seem to be brought into beingdi.e., causally and hence existentially entaileddby the fact of usage of the indexical (Sin)sign [¼token] itself” (Silverstein, 2003, 195). We might shorten these explanations to presuppositions as prior sharedness and entailments to effectivity in interaction. The question remains as to how it is human ritualization can ensure the prior and the effectuated. With ritualization and the couplet of presupposition and entailment established theoretically, how might we find these in the data I have been provided by my father-in-law? Ritualization, simultaneously in both the weak and strong senses, of routine and naturalization, respectively, is played out by Jim as he cements and re-cements his and my identities in interaction through leaving voicemails. For him, calling my phone and saying my name (often along with his and his son’s) as I have shown, is a routine and ritual for him, a way in which he passes his Sunday morning time and in which he re-establishes the use of daughters-in-law and fathers-in-law, with me and him standing as particulars. The same can be said of the inclusive religious language Jim uses. By involving me in his religious life, he invites me to participate in his family of both his kin network and his church network, which overlap. By interaction, he asks for participation, which would further naturalize our relationship; thus, the voicemails are self-grounding. Finally, Jim’s addressee strategies belie the authority he rests on my marriage to his son. Either addressing us jointly as yall or you guys, making a mistake and repairing it from buddy or dude to honey, or speaking directly to my husband through me, he marries us both ritually and routinely. With presuppositions and entailments, it is useful to note what it is that Jim brings to these moments of interaction and what he leaves. By cementing kinship relations that are, at this point, presupposed, he brings a certain Yarrington membership licensing, a presupposed religious fluency, and an assumption of the closeness in communication that is necessitated by the social bond of marriage.8 It reminds me of my wedding. Upon entering the reception hall, three women approached me to welcome me to the “Mrs. Yarrington Club.” Interestingly, one of these women was Landon’s mother, Jim’s ex-wife, whose conspicuous absence from all of Jim’s voicemail messages was noted above. Jim witnessed this event and has, perhaps, decided to continue the tradition of onomastic metapragmatic discourse. So, what does Jim leave when he leaves me voicemails? As I have attempted to show in this paper, Jim leaves the possibility for the strongest of future kin relations. With every message he reignites the possibility of knowing me and my husband and affecting our future lives as a family. He leaves explicit invitations, “call me,” and instructions, “get up go to church,” and lets the justification for the voicemail imply further justification for a presence in our social space. Jim ritualizes (and routinizes) our kin relations to discursively participate in and affect the lives of me and my husband from over 2300 miles away.

7 In his classic textbook on anthropological theory, Marvin Harris (1968,467)writes,“While radical social science followed Marx into a consideration of what it would take to make the social organism ﬂy apart, the conservatives, such as Spencer, Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, and Malinowski, busied themselves with calculations of the reasons for its holding together.” While Silverstein offers an ontologyof non-requisite sharedness (and thus a sort of original position of possible contestation), I would still argue that his project falls within the scope of ﬁnding ways in which social life coheres, rather than fractures. The most apt theoretical comparisons may be Bourdieu (1977) on misrecognition and Gramsci (1975) on the terrain of struggle (that which it is agreed upon to contest). In linguistic anthropology, the concept that cries out for comparison is genre (cf. Hanks, 1987)orpossiblyideasof“bivalency” strategies (Woolard, 1999). 8 Jim is demonstrating a process of making kinship present. Cf. Miller 1998, 35, who discusses consumerism and shopping in regard to the kin relations that are present in the consumer’s mind. I thank Landon Yarrington for bringing this similarity to my attention. 32 J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank her father-in-law. Thanks also to Landon Yarrington, Brackette F. Williams, Drexel G. Woodson, Norma Mendoza-Denton, Jennifer Roth-Gordon, and James F. Harris.

Appendix A. Chart of Jim’s voicemail metadata

Message # Jim’s location9 Date (2013) Day Jim’s real time10 My real time11 My location Message duration 1 Home 17 Nov Sun 6:44AM 4:44AM Arizona :47 2 Church 3 Nov Sun 7:55AM 5:55AM Arizona :22 3 Home 10 Oct Thurs 10:11AM 7:11AM Arizona 1:00 4 Home 14 Sept Sat 9:05AM 6:05AM Arizona :55 5 Home 18 Aug Sun 4:28AM 4:28AM Virginia 1:37 6 Home 11 Aug Sun 4:08AM 4:08AM Virginia :40 7 Home 9 Aug Fri 1:37PM 1:37PM Virginia :32 8 Home 21 July Sun 6:44AM 3:44AM Arizona :35 9 Home 16 July Tues 7:02AM 4:02AM Arizona :30 10 Home 7 July Sun 7:56AM 4:56AM Arizona :45 11 Home 1 July Mon 5:45AM 2:45AM Arizona :36 12 Home 22 June Sat 1:43PM 10:43PM Arizona :40 13 Home 16 June Sun 7:44AM 3:44AM Arizona :42 14 Home 9 June Sun 7:03AM 4:03AM Arizona 1:37 15 Home 24 May Fri 6:06AM 3:06AM Arizona :39 16 Home 19 May Sun 6:52AM 3:52AM Arizona 1:02 17 Home 5 May Sun 6:16AM 3:16AM Arizona 1:15 18 Home 30 Jan Wed 6:24PM 4:24PM Arizona :25

Appendix B. Incidence of discursive constructions in Jim’s voicemails

Voicemail (n ¼ 18) Discursive constructions

ABCDEFGHIJKLM 1 XXX X 2 XXX X X 3 XXX X 4 XXXX X X 5 XX X XX X 6 XXX X X 7 X X 8 XXX X X 9 X X 10 XXX XX 11 XXXX 12 XX X X 13 XXXX XX X X 14 XX X XX X X 15 XX X X 16 XXX X X X X 17 XXXXXX X 18 XX X X Total 1191293828526014

References

Álvarez-Càccamo, C., Knoblauch, H., 1992. ‘I was calling you’: communicative patterns in leaving a message on an answering machine. Text 2 (4), 473–505. Bourdieu, P., 1977 [2013]. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, New York. Bourdieu, P., 1979 [1984]. Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (R. Nice., Trans.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

9 All phones used by Jim are land lines with caller ID. Receiving phone is a cell phone. 10 To calculate our respective times, I had to take two factors into account, our respective locations and daylight savings time changes in Virginia. Here are the details: Virginia daylight savings: between Sunday 3/10/2013 at 2 a.m. and Sunday 11/3/2013 at 2 a.m.: Arizona is behind Virginia 3 h; before Sunday 3/10/2013 at 2 a.m.: Arizona is behind Virginia 2 h; after Sunday 11/3/2013 at 2 a.m.: Arizona is behind Virginia 2 h. Daylight savings means: Call #1, Call #2, and Call #18 are in the 2-h difference range; the rest of the calls #3–17 are in the 3-h range. However, from the dates 7/25/2013 (5 p.m.) to 8/24/2013 (4 p.m.), I was in Virginia, meaning the recorded time was Virginia time for calls #5– 7, thus no real time difference. 11 Same as previous note (for his real time). J.M. Yarrington / Language & Communication 39 (2014) 24–33 33

David, L., Seinfeld, J., 1991 (3 Feb.). The Phone Message. Season 2, Ep. 4. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. Dingwall, S., 1992. Leaving telephone answering machine messages: who’s afraid of speaking to machines? Text 12 (1), 81–101. Durkheim, E., 1912 [1995]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (K.E. Fields., Trans.). Free Press, New York. Gold, R., 1991. Answering machine talk. Discourse Process. 14, 243–260. Goffman, E., 1997 [1978]. Frame analysis of talk. In: Lemert, Branaman (Eds.), The Goffman Reader. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, pp. 167–200. Goffman, E., 1983. Footing. In: Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 124–157. Goffman, E., 1976. Replies and responses. Lang. Soc. 5, 257–313. Gramsci, A., 1975 [2007]. Prison Notebooks, vol. 3. Columbia University Press, New York (J.A. Buttigieg., Ed. and Trans.). Hanks, W.F., 1987. Discourse genres in a theory of practice. Am. Ethnol. 14, 668–692. Harris, M., 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: a History of Theories of Culture, ﬁrst ed. Columbia University Press, New York. Hirschkind, C., 2001. The ethics of listening: cassette-sermon audition in contemporary Egypt. Am. Ethnol. 28 (3), 623–649. Hobbs, P., 2003. The medium is the message: politeness strategies in men’s and women’s voice mail messages. J. Pragmat. 35, 243–262. James, W., 1896 (June). The Will to Believe. Address to the Philosophical Clubs of Yale and Brown Universities. The New World. James, W., 1975 [1981]. Pragmatism and the Meaning of Truth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Keane, W., 1997. Religious language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26, 47–71. Liddicoat, A., 1994. Discourse routines in answering machine communication in Australia. Discourse Process. 17, 283–309. Manning, P., 2008. Barista rants about stupid customers at Starbucks: what imaginary conversations can teach us about real ones. Lang. Commun. 28, 101–126. Miller, D., 1998. A Theory of Shopping. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Mishler, A., 2008. The discourse of voicemail. Hermes J. Lang. Commun. Stud. 40, 167–197. Peletz, M., 1995. Kinship studies in late twentieth-century anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24, 343–372. Richman, K., 2005. Migration and Vodou. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Silverstein, M., 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Lang. Commun. 23, 193–229. Tannen, D., 1994. Talking from 9 to 5. Women and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex and Power. Avon Books, New York. Woolard, K., 1999. Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 8 (1), 3–29.

Jonna M. Yarrington is a doctoral student in the School of Anthropology at the University of Arizona.