Shame: examples from the SAfE data and a description of their functions

Since references indicate that shame in other English varieties is used only in its traditional sense (i.e., a noun or verb associated with negative states), and a cursory scan through the BNC, COCA and Strathy found no tokens to prove otherwise, this section focuses exclusively on the SAfE data. Thirty-eight tokens of shame were found in the ICE-SA. Of these, one was used in the traditional sense (… these past few weeks have probed beneath the surface of South Africa's shame …), one was used in a conventional phrase (A: … you couldn’t really enjoy it. B: What a shame) and one was in quoted form (You can’t say ‘ag, shame’ ever again …). The remaining 35 tokens were judged to be used as PMs. Six additional tokens of PM shame were taken from the interviews and one from butterfly-collecting

129 _{If shame was used with its current pragmatic functions around the turn of the 20}th _{century, then technically}

its influence should be referred to as Dutch, since Afrikaans was only formally recognised as a separate language in 1925. However, the birth of the language is generally given an earlier date. For example, the DSAE applies ‘Afrikaans’ to utterances/items from about 1870, and Silva (1996: viii) notes that some scholars place the date that Afrikaans was recognised as distinct from Dutch as earlier still.

for a total of 42 tokens. Preliminary analyses showed that all 42 tokens occur in informal or casual discourse situations. Shame is used as a response in 33 of these tokens (79%) and within narratives in nine tokens (21%). Eighteen tokens were prefaced by an interjection such as ag or oh, and all of these occurred when shame was used as a response to a previous utterance (i.e., not within narratives). In other words, an interjection + shame construction occurred in 18 of the 33 response types (55%).

An interesting addition to the information regarding the SAfE use of PM shame was an unprompted comment found in the interviews data. As described in Section 4.1.2, this set of data was originally collected by another researcher for studies unrelated to this dissertation. During one of the interviews, the researcher, R, asks if there is anything the interviewee, G, can remember that stands out about how English was spoken or used during the time of G’s childhood, to which G remarks on the popular use of shame:

(16)

G: One of the most favourite sayings was sha-ame. R: Shame, shame?

G: Everything is sha-ame. Whether it was a happy or a sad event, it sha-ame (interviews tape/page: 120331_002 / 17).130

Tokens from (16) were not included in the 42 analysed tokens because they are direct comments describing the way shame was used 70-80+ years ago. But this brief exchange is interesting for several reasons. First, referring to its sense as communicating either “a happy or a sad event” alludes to some of its contemporary uses in SAfE. Second, it implies the speaker felt either that shame was used with unusual frequency or that this sense to communicate disparate meanings was unconventional at the time or both, and thus the speaker believed it was noteworthy to mention. Third, it is evidence that in the early 1900s shame was widely used to convey meanings other than those with which it was traditionally associated, and it further implies that it was a sociolinguistic trend to do so. Fourth, it confirms the innovative use as having occurred around the turn of the 20th _{century (over 100 years ago), and it can, therefore, be assumed that this sense of shame} originated sometime during the eighty years between when the first British settlers arrived in South Africa (1820) and about 1900. And lastly, the transcription suggests a prolonged vowel production: “sha-ame”, /ʃeɪːm/. This relates to the discussion of pronunciation in Section 5.1.1, suggesting identical production to some of its contemporary prosodic use. All of these points are interesting

in situating the development of the contemporary SAfE use of shame on a timeline. But the third point is of particular interest because its suggestion of wide usage indicates PM shame was a sociolinguistic trend with a wide range of functions that are atypical of its traditional sense. One might speculate that this use is somewhat akin to the (arguably) overuse of awesome and other evaluative items (e.g., gentlemen, hectic, insane) in many English varieties whose innovative hyperbolic use broke context-specific rules and gradually led to pragmatic changes. This possibility is explored further in the diachronic analyses in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4.

To explore functional similarities, the tokens of shame in the data were judged as having an affective or hortatory function. These two basic functions often appear to overlap in the data, leading some tokens to be judged as expressing both. As such, 33 affective functions (79%) and 21 hortatory functions (50%) appeared to be expressed in the data; these are shown in Appendix C. When used as a response, PM shame, like most topic-related responses, indicates active listenership by signalling attention and communicative cooperation. Perhaps retained from its traditional sense, shame continues to express emotive and evaluative qualities, but unlike its traditional sense, these qualities appear to have ameliorated to express a softer intention. For example, in (17) shame expresses the emotive quality of sympathy/empathy (affective) and in (18) the evaluative quality is expressed by softening the previous remark or noting that it is potentially socially abrasive or unpleasant (hortatory).

(17)

B: It's sore … I don't know

A: Shame. So do you think you must go to a dentist (ice-sa_spoken\s1a-051.txt)

(18)

F: (referring to F’s male dog) I daren't take him up if he sees anybody in my flat he … absolute [laughter]

B: is he Buller A: ag shame man

(ice-sa_spoken\s1a-043.txt)

In this view of active listenership, shame is seen as procedurally communicating or attributing assumed manifest knowledge/emotion.

(19)

(The scene: Mother with her newborn baby in a pram. Another woman looks into the pram and responds to what she sees)

A: Aw, shame

(personal observation)

While this use does not follow a previous utterance, it is categorised as a response because it responds to a stimulus: a visual observation. Here, shame communicates an expression of pleasure, warm affection and recognition of something adorable. In doing so, it is hearer-oriented as it procedurally conveys the speaker’s assumed mutual knowledge/emotion; that is, the speaker presumes the mother’s adoration for her baby and mirrors it through her utterance to express her understanding and solidarity with the mother. The use in (19) is a prime example of the suggested linguistic link made in the DSAE between shame and the Afrikaans item foeitog, described with similar pragmatic functions.

Examples (18) and (19) also show the interjection + shame construction. As stated, several examples of this construction were found in the consulted references. Possible explanations for this construction are explored in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4.

When PM shame is used within a narrative, it expresses the same variety of sentiments listed above but, by comparison, is less frequent in the data. This use is found in the midst or at the end of narratives and may appear like a topic adjectival or exclamative, expressing the speaker’s attitude or emotion, thus functioning on a metacommunicative level. PM shame used in this way draws attention to pragmatic elements expressed and functions like some tags as having, as stated by Stenström, Andersen and Hasund (2002a: 173), either a “wide scope”, referring to the entire proposition, or a “narrow scope”, referring to or reinforcing a specific aspect of the proposition. As such, the token in (20) shows shame functioning with a wide scope while the token in (21) functions with a narrow scope; the specific aspect of the narrow scope in (21) is one that immediately follows.

(20)

S: they always said he was the only moffie dog they'd ever met [laughter] shame … you were spayed so early you don't know the difference

(21)

A: [describing someone visiting a friend in Groote Schuur Hospital] … and so he went in with James and then they went to Groote Schuur, and shame they bought her some flowers and some … a card or whatever which I thought was quite sweet

(ice-sa_spoken\s1a-004.txt)

Within narrative use, shame may function to urge a particular interpretation. In the case of (20), it expresses a kind of exaggerated compassion for somewhat comical effect as well as makes light of a potentially socially unpleasant topic: the dog’s sterilisation. In (21) it assists in expressing deep emotional feeling and urges a sympathetic interpretation. By this view, shame is judged as both speaker- and hearer-oriented because it expresses the speaker’s attitude and degree of expressed emotion as well as the pragmatic intentions she wants the hearer to infer during interpretation. 5.1.2.1 Summary of occurrences and functions of shame in SAfE data

In summary, the etymology of shame can be traced back to Old English with Germanic origin. Traditional definitions describe socially negative conditions or actions such as disgrace, dishonour, humiliation and scorn. As shown in Appendix C, shame is used in SAfE to function as a PM that can refer to a pleasurable endearment (affective) or urge a particular interpretation by either emphasising a point or by softening and/or distancing oneself from an unpleasant remark (hortatory). These functions are atypical compared to its use in other English varieties. Both affective and hortatory groups of functions show speaker- and hearer-orientations as shame assists in navigating through a conversational event. The two functional groups often appear to overlap in the data, leading some tokens to be judged as expressing both; more tokens, however, were judged as expressing affective- than hortatory functions. As an endearment, shame appears to affectively express a broad range of gradable sentiments from sadness and compassion to amusement (pity, sympathy/empathy, dismay, endearment, affection, admiration, pleasure). Most tokens were found to function in this way, and none of the PMs appeared to express a negative condition such as dishonour, scorn or disgrace. Hortatory functions were characterised as euphemistically softening an unpleasant or inappropriate topic or remark. These two functions are discussed in more detail below.