Polish

56

the referent and the speaker. Tanaka talks about her university years, when she met two other people with the same name as hers, even written with the same character. One Natsu was a boy, and the speaker marks him with the suffix –kun, predominantly used towards males, especially those younger (or not much older) than the speaker. The other was a younger girl, and she receives –chan, with implications of femininity, immaturity, or both. This creates a distinction between their names and the name of the speaker, which has so far kept appearing in the conversation without any suffixes at all, whether used by Suzuki or Tanaka herself. A first name without any additions would suggest a very high degree of intimacy if used as a reference to a person, but in this case the lack of any suffixes can instead be explained by the fact that Natsu, as appears in the conversation excerpt, is not so much a reference to the woman who bears the name, but rather to the name itself as a linguistic unit. This allowed Suzuki to omit any honorific elements that might have been otherwise expected.

57 Peter: jaki dzieciak

Mark: ona licencjat właśnie obroniła Peter: ona ma dwadzieścia jeden lat

Mark: no to dzieciak no co ty chcesz John: no

Peter: a my jacy dorośli wtedy byliśmy nie?

Mark: no tak ja się nie czułem Peter: ja się jeszcze nie czuję

Peter: oh, my sister is coming here between two and three o’clock Mark: she’s gonna eat up our pasta

John: not if I have anything to say about that Peter: you know the question is

Peter: the question is whether yesterday she drank a huge amount of alcohol or just a lot

*laughter*

Mark: pathology *laughter*

Peter: listen, she can drink so much it’s unbelievable John: that kid?

Peter: kid?

Mark: she just got her Bachelor’s degree Peter: she’s 21 years old

Mark: so she’s a kid, come on John: yeah

Peter: and how mature were we at that age?

Mark: right, I didn’t feel very mature Peter: I still don’t

In this conversation, the focus turns to Peter’s sister. Peter gives her exact age – 21 years – so we start with an objective anchor for her identity. But what this figure should mean is debatable, and indeed debated within talk.

John firmly maintains that the sister is a “kid,” and hence it is unexpected for her to have a high tolerance for alcohol. This is relevant to the experience with drinking liquor, but also to biological maturity, since grown

58

adults can naturally process more alcohol than children. Mark, who at first seems to be opposed to the proposition that the sister is a kid, reminds John that she recently graduated from university. This may be another reference to the passage of the time, since Bachelor’s degrees are rarely conferred to teenagers or pre-teens. However, it is possible another kind of maturity is relevant to Mark – an academic maturity that can only be achieved with directed effort and not simply by waiting. In the next turn, however, Mark changes his mind and clearly states that he also considers the sister to be a

“kid.” Peter then concedes that perhaps his sister is somewhat immature, but not more than usual, as evidenced by the men’s own experiences at that age.

This exchange shows that co-constructing a seemingly basic identity such as “kid” is in fact a multi-dimensional negotiation. In addition to the multiple scales of maturity mentioned above, there is also the legal definition of adulthood, which according to the Polish law is reached on one’s 18^th birthday.

The speakers ignore this definition when reaching their consensus. In fact, the brother also puts himself outside the group of “mature people,” just like his sister was placed, despite him being now well above the legal threshold of adulthood.

Before the discussion concerning age, Peter and Mark co-construct another identity for the sister – that of a heavy drinker. Peter proposes two possibilities concerning his sibling’s alcohol intake during the previous evening: that it was either large or very large, therefore jokingly excluding the possibility of moderation or abstinence. Mark responds with laughter and a curt remark: “pathology.” For speakers of Polish, this word brings to mind the expression “pathological family,” denoting a household troubled by issues such as domestic violence or – particularly relevant in this case – alcoholism. The comment may sound harsh and serious, but is not received as such. Despite being witnessing a family member described very negatively, Mark does not seem to be offended and chooses not to comment further on the subject, even though the insult could be interpreted to target the whole family, including Mark himself. This is one of several examples of a potentially grave insult being smoothly received in a group of close friends.

The following is a conversation between Polish men in their twenties:

59 Excerpt 4

Peter: ej pamiętasz Kowalskiego?

Mark: no pamiętam Kowalskiego

・・・

Mark: to był zły człowiek

・・・

Peter: zły?

Mark: nie, głupi strasznie moim zdaniem .. o tym samym Kowalskim rozmawiamy? ten blondyn taki?

Peter: tak tak Mark: on chyba rok nad nami był w liceum nie?

Peter: przeż on u tej u Nowaka se podczas lekcji wkładał a później Nowak do niego z takimi tekstami jak on miał na imię?

Mark: nie pamiętam on miał jeszcze brata Peter: Jan, jakoś tak

(・・・ or [...] marks parts of the conversation edited out for relevance)

Peter: hey, do you remember Kowalski?

Mark: yeah I remember Kowalski

・・・

Mark: he was a bad man

・・・

Peter: bad?

Mark: no, just terribly stupid in my opinion .. are we talking about the same Kowalski? the blonde guy?

Peter: yeah yeah

Mark: he was one year our senior in high school, right?

Peter: he put some (tobacco inside his eyelids) during Nowak’s classes and then Nowak would say to him what was his first name?

Mark: I don’t remember he had a brother also Peter: Jan, something like that

60

The speakers reminisce about a former schoolmate. Mark insults his intelligence. They keep referring to him using his last name, as they do when talking about the teacher. Using only the last name without titles of any sort is an address form typical for male groups, in Japanese and English (Voransuki 2008). It used to address peers or subordinates, with less intimacy than is implied by using first name. Mark and Peter both remember the man by his last name, but both have trouble remembering his first name, suggesting that within their circles it was probably not used to address Kowalski very often, if it was used at all. The example shows that in some cases one aspect of a person’s identity – in this case the last name – can dominate address so much that it overshadows other potential forms, preventing them from being retained in the memory of addressers. The speakers are able to recall several facts about Kowalski: that his hair was blond, that he was one year senior in school, that he had a brother and that he engaged in mischief during classes.

Something as basic as his first name, however is only recalled without complete certainty and with some mental effort.