The chronotope and other literary devices

Chronotopes, literally ‘time and space’, can be seen as ‘invokable chunks of history organizing the indexical order of discourse’ (Blommaert Reference Blommaert2015:1). For Bakhtin the chorontope ‘is the place where the knots of narrative are tied and untied’ (Reference Bakhtin and Morris1994:187), where competing ideologies are played out through turning time, space, and character into a negotiated semiotic resource (de Saint-Georges & Duc Reference de Saint-Georges, Duc and Morello2007). Rachel Falconer (Reference Falconer, Bemong, Borghart, Dobbeleer, Demoen, Temmerman and Keunen2010:111) points out that in Bakhtin's understanding of narrative, characters ‘gradually acquire a sense of historicity, of being embedded in specific times and places’. Bakhtin developed the concept of the chronotope to describe the interrelationship between character, time, and space. The chronotope is a formally constitutive category that determines the image of the hero or character in literature (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin and Morris1994). A character is always determined by the particular text in which she or he participates and it is the chronotope that defines the text type and its generic distinctions (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981).

The hero of the epic novel is presented as finalized, complete, and unchanging. That is, ‘All his [sic] qualities are given at the very beginning, and during the course of the novel they are tested and verified’ (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin, Holquist and Emerson1986:12). An example of this type of genre is the ‘novel of ordeal’ in which the hero lacks any sense of historical becoming because time is atemporal and boundless while space lacks historical localization (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin and Morris1994). In the epic novel, the character is a ‘texted hero’ who is ‘ready-made and predetermined’ (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin, Holquist and Emerson1986:13). What is gained by this kind of chronotope is a focus on the ‘durability and continuity of human identity’ (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin and Morris1994:19) as the principal character faces and responds to a series of challenges through which s/he is tested.

This contrasts dramatically with what Bakhtin calls the bildungsroman or the realistic type of novel that documents the emergence of the character who is described as participating in a process of ‘essential becoming’ (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin, Holquist and Emerson1986:20). The realistic novel is therefore a tale of emergence that is achieved chronotopically through assimilating real historical time. The realistic novel is ‘heteroglossic’ because it provides an ‘orchestration of multiple social voices within an artistic unity’ (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin and Morris1994:19). Heteroglossia enters through the characters’ discourse, which is a ‘polyphonic conveyor of otherness’ and a ‘product of unfinishedness’ (Wall Reference Wall1984:45). Thus, while the hero or anti-hero of the epic tale is reliably static and fixed, the hero of the bildungsroman is fluid and malleable and shaped by time and space. In this article we illustrate Parneet's mother's authorial control of Mami Ji, as a stock character, and her manipulation of the sister-in-law's indexical value in Parneet's socialisation. This sits in contrast to the polyphonic processes of Parneet's wider socialisation. While Mami Ji remains unchanged in time and space, Parneet's becoming is unfinished, fluid, and malleable.

Over several decades Tannen has identified and described a number of linguistic analytic tools to describe how people involve others in ‘pervasive’ and ‘spontaneous’ ways (Reference Tannen2006a:600). Tannen (Reference Tannen2007:27) defines involvement as ‘an achievement in conversational interaction’ in which speaking and listening include ‘elements and traces of the other’. She defines involvement strategies as working through sound and meaning for engagement and stresses the ecological relationship between speaker and listener. Following Tannen, we use the three primary strategies she identifies (repetition, dialogue, and detail) and adapt them for our own analytic purposes to describe how mother and daughter are involved in the daughter's socialization through the construction of Mami Ji. In addition, we consider another involvement strategy—translanguaging.

Ordinary conversations between women in families

That socialization processes are fundamental to mother-daughter relationships is uncontested. According to Harrigan & Miller-Ott (Reference Harrigan and Miller-Ott2013:115), ‘Researchers have established that among all family dyads, the mother-daughter relationship tends to be the strongest and longest lasting … characterized by bonding, interdependence, and emotional connection’. It is characterized as central to a young woman's life and provides important sources of support and encouragement through life's transitions. Much less scholarship has been written about in-law relationships. In-law relationships are characterised as the joining of two separate and distinct familial identities through marriage, which then require the ‘management of intergroup boundaries’ (Rittenour & Soliz Reference Rittenour and Soliz2009:69). In-law relationships are ‘nonvoluntary’ because ‘members effectively cannot leave due to the extreme costs associated with dissolution’ (Morr Serewicz Reference Morr Serewicz2008:266). Studies on mother-in-law or daughter-in-law relationships, which make up the bulk of in-law research, have described the importance of ‘linchpins’ in triads (Morr Serewicz Reference Morr Serewicz2008:265) or the induction of ‘newcomers’ into family units (e.g. Prentice Reference Prentice2009). Studies of sister-in-law relationships in families are very rare. We could find none that took a discursive orientation to understanding in-law relationships in families.

In her work on dinner table talk in families, Blum-Kulka (Reference Blum-Kulka1997) suggests such ordinary family conversations have the double function of being both a sociable and socializing event. On the one hand, they are an opportunity for the building of rapport, a ‘union with others’ (Simmel Reference Simmel, Parsons, Shils, Naegele and Pitts1961:161), while on the other, hand they carry important socializing functions (Blum-Kulka Reference Blum-Kulka1997:36). Blum-Kulka describes the ways children are socialized through dinner table talk to use language in socially and culturally appropriate ways, which she calls pragmatic socialization (Reference Blum-Kulka1997:3). Socialization happens in part through metapragmatic commentary (Reference Blum-Kulka1997:143), which parents use to ‘reveal the cultural norms of appropriate conversational behaviour’ (Reference Blum-Kulka1997:143). In Blum-Kulka's study, metapragmatic comments were one of the ways in which family members explicitly discussed verbal (in)appropriateness. Like talk at the dinner table, the three speech events investigated in this article between mother and daughter provide opportunities for the ‘enhancement of familial cohesiveness’ (Blum-Kulka Reference Blum-Kulka1997:36), that is, family sociability. However, as we show here, these events were also occasions of pragmatic socialization that attracted metapragmatic commentary.

In relation to daughters and mothers, Tannen (Reference Tannen2006b) describes the challenge of finding a way to be ‘as close as you want to be (and no closer) without that closeness becoming intrusive or threatening your freedom and your sense that you are in control of your life’ (Tannen Reference Tannen2006b:4). She suggests that typical of female relationships in families is an orientation to create rapport by claiming sameness even if this entails ‘compromising literal truth to achieve emotional truth in the demonstration of goodwill’ (Tannen Reference Tannen2006a:603). Similarly, Coates (Reference Coates, Coates and Cameron1988:104) argues that women in private conversation between equals ‘develop topics progressively’. That is, they maintain good social relations by jointly producing a topic through cooperation rather than competition. Schiffrin's research on mother-daughter relationships argues that the family provides our first set of social relationships and affords ‘the semiotic background for virtually all of our stories’ (Schiffrin Reference Schiffrin1996:170). She explains how narratives are always acting towards another person, and so the invocation of a ‘story world’ always has consequences for the ongoing relationship. She counsels against viewing values and beliefs as properties of ‘individuals alone’ and suggests ‘who we are is sustained by our ongoing interactions with others, and the way we position ourselves in relation to those others’ (Schiffrin Reference Schiffrin1996:197).

Research methods and key participants

The data analysed here come from a study that was a thirty-month collaboration between universities in Birmingham, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Tilburg (Blackledge et al. Reference Blackledge, Blommaert, Creese, Hyttel-Sørensen, Jonsson, Normann Jørgensen, Juffermans, Kroon, Lainio, Li, Martin-Jones, Muhonen, Nassri and Kaur Takhi2013). The focus of the present article, though, is research conducted in Birmingham and centres on key participants in and around a heritage language school in Birmingham, UK. We collected four kinds of data: observational field notes, audio recordings of interactions between participants at home and school, semistructured interviews, and field documents, including teaching materials and photographs. Over the course of a year in the Panjabi heritage language school we made forty-two observations of classrooms, with each visit producing extensive field notes, redrafted four times for their analytical value. We collected 104 audio recordings from our research participants and conducted fifteen interviews. We observed and recorded a fourteen-year-old female student, Parneet, in class intensively over twelve weeks. However, the recordings we refer to here took place outside of school time when we were not present. Parneet recorded herself twenty-one times over twelve weeks, which totalled 120 minutes of audio-recorded data. The majority of these recordings included interactions with her mother. Parneet and her mother also took part in two separate in-depth interviews at the end of the data-collection period.

Parneet was born in Hertfordshire, a rural county in England, and moved to Birmingham, England's second largest city, at the age of eleven. In her interview Parneet describes learning Panjabi in terms of connecting past worlds to current practice. She states that her life in Birmingham requires living with both languages in order to ‘connect’ to people. Parneet's mother was also born in the UK but when she was ten months old she went to India with her family. The family stayed in India for seven years, at which point they returned at the insistence of her own mother, Parneet's grandmother. When the family returned to the UK, therefore, Parneet's mother was seven or eight years old. Although other members of the family have visited India since, Parneet's mother has never returned.

In the next section, we examine three interactional extracts in which Parneet and her mother audio recorded themselves. While these recordings were being made, we were simultaneously observing and audio recording Parneet in her Panjabi heritage language classroom every Saturday. We did not follow her into her home, however. The choice of when to record and what to submit to the research team was left to Parneet and her mother. A regular home-recording event they submitted was ‘hair-brushing’, in which Parneet's mother brushed and styled Parneet's hair. We present two of these interactions here. The final recording is of a local shopping excursion made to buy Parneet an outfit to wear at the gurdwara, the Sikh temple. We make several points in relation to these audio recordings. First, we identify a number of discursive strategies used by the mother to involve her daughter. The involvement strategies we describe include those discussed earlier: constructed dialogue, repetition, detail, and translanguaging. Second, we argue that Mami Ji is crucial in creating a connectedness between Parneet and her mother as her ‘difference’ produces an opportunity for their ‘sameness’ (Tannen Reference Tannen2006b). Third, we describe the reappearance of Mami Ji across speech events as chronotopic, providing mother and daughter with a dramatic icon who becomes an emblematic benchmark of how not to speak, how not to behave, and how not to dress.

Parneet, mother, and Mami Ji

In example (1), Parneet is asking her mother about whether at home they speak the kind of Panjabi her teacher at heritage language school is warning against. Parneet's worry is that her family's variety is nonstandard and therefore insufficient to pass the upcoming Panjabi language examination for which she is preparing.Footnote ¹

1. (1) Short clips or phrases

   1. 1 Parneet: you know when you speak Panjabi do you say things like with mair

   2. 2 <I> and mera <mine> and stuff at the beginning then and then hai

   3. 3 <is> or whatever at the end?

   4. 4 Mother: I don't know

   5. 5 Parneet: cos you say short clips or phrases I am thinking

   6. 6 Mother: it's not just that

   7. 7 Parneet: [referring to her hair] it's all puffy

   8. 8 Mother: Mami Ji <mother's brother's wife> was saying to me that when she

   9. 9 was talking to me that I was using a lot of Hindi words hana?

   10. 10 <right?> and I said am I? she goes yeah. so

   11. 11 Parneet: probably why we don't understand Panjabi

   12. 12 Mother:  no I think it might be because you know at the gurdwara

   13. 13 <Sikh temple > there's these men that come there they are Gujarati

   14. 14 hana? <right?> and oh Hindi bolde sirf hana? <they speak

   15. 15 Hindi only right?> Hindi hana? <right?> So mein roj svaire

   16. 16 nu <I always in the morning> I speak Hindi with them every

   17. 17 morning hana? <right?>

   18. 18 Parneet: [while brushing hair] need to clip that back

   19. 19 Mother: so do you see what I'm saying? so . it's pretty difficult for me like

   20. 20 because. I don't find it difficult English Panjabi Hindi

In this hair brushing speech event a small-n narrative (Tannen Reference Tannen2008) occurs in line 8. The story tells of a sister-in-law, Mami Ji, who accuses the mother of mixing her languages too easily. The mother counters this version of events with another small story of her visits to the gurdwara, or Sikh temple. From our interview with Parneet's mother, we know she attends the temple regularly to do Seva or selfless service early in the mornings in keeping with her religious beliefs. In the narrative she describes Hindi as a useful resource to communicate with people practising Sikhism from a range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. She dramatizes a conversation with Mami Ji who, in the continuing narrative, is proved to be wrong about separating Hindi, Panjabi, and English because to do so would lead to a breakdown in communication at the temple. Indeed, as the narrative makes clear, mixing languages is required for people to understand one another in the temple context. Her evaluation of Mami Ji is that she must be wrong because untangling languages is not only undesirable but also “difficult” (line18) for a bilingual person like herself.

Tannen (Reference Tannen2010) describes ventriloquizing as a resource for temporarily borrowing discursive characteristics associated with particular identities in family discourse through ‘abduction’ (Bateson Reference Bateson1979), which, ‘by analogy or association’ (Reference Bateson1979:308), gives voice to recognizable family members by borrowing their identities. In example (1) the mother borrows aspects of Mami Ji's voice and identity to fashion herself as distinctive from her sister-in-law. Ventriloquizing Mami Ji allows the mother to distance herself from the characteristics she associates with Mami Ji. This is a slight departure from Tannen's (Reference Tannen2010) work on ventriloquizing in families, which has observed that ventriloquized voices allow the speaker to borrow identities often to create rapport in the here and now. Tannen provides positive examples of alignment between the narrating voice and the narrated voice. However, Mami Ji's voice is systematically borrowed in order to disalign from the identity she represents. Implicit in the story is that Mami Ji has no right to make such observations about ways of speaking because she is out of touch with the reality of multilingual life in the temple, and, unlike the mother, does not attend the gurdwara regularly enough to know. The mother frames her dialogue with Parneet through an earlier dialogue with Mami Ji. The mother begins rather benignly in reporting the conversation between the two sisters-in-law, with nothing in the reporting verbs to immediately indicate hostility.

• Mami Ji   was saying to me

  • she     was talking to me

  • that I   was using

“Saying”, “talking”, and “using” are not inflected with any overt emotional opposition. The rhythm of these introductory phrases introduces Mami Ji's ventriloquized voice in fairly neutral terms. The neutrality of the reporting verbs, however, masks the strong resistance the mother takes up towards Mami Ji's proposition that languages should be kept separate. While there is no obvious discursive link between Parneet's questions to her mother about Panjabi grammar and Mami Ji's reported views about too much Hindi in the mother's Panjabi, Mami Ji's entry into the small story suggests prior texts about Mami Ji. For example, the absence of any specific temporal or place marker as Mami Ji is introduced into the narrative suggests she appears regularly in conversations between mother and daughter. The mother does not need to tell Parneet who Mami Ji is, and where and when she last spoke to her. Mami Ji is presented as somebody the narrator regularly chats to in unremarkable ways. In keeping with Bakhtin's analysis of the epic genre, neither time nor space is salient in the narrator's reference to Mami Ji. Rather Mami Ji's introduction as an immediately recognisable stock character from their repertoire delivers the message. In line10 Mami Ji's voice is ventriloquized directly as if these conversations are regular: “and I said, am I?”, “she goes, yeah.”

Conversations with and about Mami Ji appear as unmarked between Parneet and her mother. Parneet does not require further contextual information to make sense of the story. Her prior experience with these kinds of small narratives about Mami Ji means Parneet is immediately active in making sense of the unfolding conversation. Within the narrated event, Mami Ji is already a ‘formally constitutive category’ (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin and Morris1994:184), who can be regularly retrieved across speech events and relied upon to deliver a message.

In addition to the recycling of Mami Ji, her appearance also allows the discussion to be reframed to something that presents the mother in a more favourable light. Example (1) begins as a question about Panjabi grammar but is reframed as a discussion about communication in bilingual settings. In the opening question “do you say things like with mair <I> and mera <mine> and stuff at the beginning then and then hai <is> or whatever at the end?”, Parneet institutes her mother as the Panjabi expert in the family. The pronoun in the phrases “you speak” (line 1) and “you say” (lines 1 and 5) establishes her mother as a proficient speaker of Panjabi able to adjudicate about grammar. Her mother's Panjabi does not escape negative evaluation, however. Parneet's reference to “you say short clips and phrases I am thinking” (line 5) and later, “probably why we don't understand Panjabi” (line 11), which is likely to refer to her brother's lack of Panjabi proficiency as well as her own, explicitly evaluates her mother's Panjabi negatively, due to its “short clips”. The introduction of Mami Ji in line 8 reframes the conversation from one focused on Parneet's mother's poor Punjabi to one about her skilful multilingualism. Discourses from school and home clash here as the realities of life in multilingual Birmingham trump the dogma of the language classroom.

Language practices and ways of speaking are being evaluated here. On the one hand, there is an ideology about correct language use and the maintenance of linguistic standards that comes from the classroom and the voice of Mami Ji, while on the other, there is an argument for translanguaging and flexible bilingualism across language boundaries (Creese & Blackledge Reference Creese and Blackledge2010, Reference Creese and Blackledge2011). Parneet's mother challenges the ‘frozen, standardized version’ (Rymes Reference Rymes2014:37) of a pure institutionalized variety (Blommaert Reference Blommaert2015), and describes a community context in which the kind of competence she possesses is of function and value in the relationships she maintains. Not only does she argue this point, however, she also practices it. In lines 12–16 she creates an implementational space (Hornberger Reference Hornberger2005) for translanguaging. She repeats hana within and across turns, which serves to involve her daughter by seeking confirmation through rising intonation. She moves easily through her multilingual repertoire and uses a variety of resources to dispute the usefulness of linguistic purity (Blommaert, Leppänen, & Spotti Reference Blommaert, Leppänen, Spotti, Blommaert, Leppänen, Pahta and Räisänen2012), and in doing so reframes the argument. In the mother/daughter debates about linguistic proficiency, grammatical correctness, and the mixing of languages, the multivoicedness of different perspectives and tensions becomes manifest. Recognisable is the polyphonic nature of discourse that upholds complex social debates through a range of conflicting voices. Parneet's socialisation is therefore opened up to competing ideologies that are embedded in historical time or ‘chunks of history’ (Blommaert Reference Blommaert2015) organised across spatial and temporal realms. While Mami Ji remains unchangeable across different temporal and spatial realms, Parneet is allowed ‘to become’.

One small additional point in relation to example (1) is the parallelism between untangling hair and untangling languages. In particular, the word clip(s) is shared in both themes, for example, “clip back” and “short clips and phrase”. Hair brushing and styling appears to be an intimate social space for ‘straightening out’ family positions on family norms. The language of hair also features in the second example below where the mother is braiding her daughter's hair into “plaits” and endeavouring to keep it straight. In this second example, there is a strong moralizing message about the kind of woman Parneet should become. Mother and daughter are discussing what women should wear at weddings, and in particular whether it is appropriate for married women to wear their own “lengha” to another woman's wedding. A lengha is a traditional wedding dress consisting of a fitted blouse and long skirt. Mother and daughter are again working on Parneet's hair. In addition to Mami Ji, who is also referred to as Sonia, we also meet Dorinda Massi. Massi is a kinship term referring to sister.

1. (2) Wedding lengha

   1. 1 Parneet: mum what do Indians wear to a wedding seeing as we wear white

   2. 2 to a funeral?

   3. 3 Mother: well the bride usually wears red

   4. 4 Parneet: oh and then people can just wear anything?

   5. 5 Mother: yeah

   6. 6 Parneet: so it's not like themed?

   7. 7 Mother: it's the same as like an English wedding it's not really you know

   8. 8 how some sort of newly-wed girls they kind of start wearing

   9. 9 their wedding lengha on somebody else's wedding which isn't

   10. 10 nice. because it's not considered as nice just like on an English

   11. 11 wedding when somebody goes around wearing white hana?

   12. 12 <right?> white dress hana? and I really think that's unfair you

   13. 13 shouldn't do that hana?

   14. 14 Parneet: ok

   15. 15 Mother: [referring to hair] do you want plaits?

   16. 16 Parneet: no

   17. 17 Mother: there's lots of other the bride

   18. 18 Parneet: [referring to hair] just want it straight

   19. 19 Mother: the newly-wed bride well she might be like a month old or

   20. 20 whatever hana? but she's got loads

   21. 21 Parneet: a month old?

   22. 22 Mother: meaning you know a month married

   23. 23 Parneet: oh wedded

   24. 24 Mother: but she's got plenty of other clothes you know in her dowry hana?

   25. 25 Parneet: hmm

   26. 26 Mother: there's no need for her to wear her wedding lengha. it's not her

   27. 27 wedding hana? but

   28. 28 Parneet: did anybody wear theirs to yours?

   29. 29 Mother: err no but Sonia Mami Ji <mother's brother's wife> wanted to

   30. 30 wear it on Dorinda Massi's <mother's sister's> wedding

   31. 31 Parneet: but Sonia Mami Ji got married oh well her first wedding?

   32. 32 Mother: I mean she'd been married a few years as well and she wanted to

   33. 33 wear that you know. why wear it on her wedding day hana? why

   34. 34 why do you know what I mean?

   35. 35 Parneet: hmm

   36. 36 Mother: it's very silly and being especially being

   37. 37 Parneet: does it make it less special for the person whose wedding it actually is?

   38. 38 Mother: of course of course that's what I'm saying it's being selfish I mean

   39. 39 she had plenty of other times to wear it and especially a family member you know? I can even understand if it was somebody

   40. 40 else hana? outside but

   41. 41 [recording ends]

Parneet starts by asking her mother about Indian weddings and, while styling Parneet's hair, her mother talks about the tradition of Indian brides wearing red. In imparting this information she expresses strong views against already married women wearing their own lengha to somebody else's wedding. According to her mother this is “not nice” and “unfair”. When Parneet asks her mum if this happened at her wedding, her mother tells a story not about her own wedding but about the wedding of her sister, Dorinda Massi. In the story Mami Ji is condemned for thinking about wearing her own lengha to Dorinda's wedding because this is insensitive and indifferent to the needs of other women. In doing so, Mami Ji becomes the character to disagree with. The moralising message given by her mother is that Parneet should take note and distance herself from such selfishness. Through the discourse she constructs, the voice of Mami Ji rings loud and clear. The mother achieves this by drawing on discursive schemes to set up opposition to Mami Ji including narration, repetition, reframing, and imposing a paradigmatic framework for making comparisons between the general and the specific.

Parallelism is an important feature of this interaction. The mother first makes a general complaint about women dressing inappropriately across cultural traditions before providing a specific story about Mami Ji. This paradigmatic contrast requires the listener to actively make a link between the general and the particular. As the mother moves from opinions about generalized women dressing carelessly at Indian and English weddings, to Mami Ji, a ‘scalar effect’ (Blommaert Reference Blommaert2015:16) is produced. Evidence grows in size and scale about the dangers of having such women within the family as a distant unknown other is brought perilously close into the heart of the family through marriage and in-law relationships. For example, the adjectives not nice and unfair with regards to the generalized “somebody” in lines 9–12 are reframed and accentuated as very silly and being selfish in relation to Mami Ji in lines 36 and 38. Especially is repeated in quick succession in lines 36 and 39 to emphasize Mami Ji's silliness and selfishness.

Reframing of the dispute occurs on several different levels throughout this interaction. For example, the mother reframes Parneet's question about making it ‘less special’ for the bride if another woman wears her lengha to the wedding, to an explicit metacomment about breaking such rules. In line 38 the mother reframes less special to selfish. Moreover, the generalized villain of the opening interaction becomes linked to Mami Ji through the same pronoun, she, and the adjective, plenty. For example, the expression “she's got plenty of other clothes” (line 24) in relation to the generalized other is repeated about Mami Ji when the mother says, “she had plenty of other times to wear it” (line 39). These discursive features link the two characters and have the effect of positioning Mami Ji as the named exemplar for all attention-seeking women. The personal experience narrative about Dorinda Massi's wedding draws parallels across the two time zones using the chronotope of Mami Ji to connect the two. Parneet is expected to learn from the two parallel worlds of the ‘there and then’, and the ‘here and now’, and absorb which norms should not be violated.

Parneet's opening question is not about norms of appropriate dress behaviour. Her initial concern was about customs and rituals at Indian weddings. However, this question appears to be of little interest to either of them and they do not follow this topic with any real conviction. The categories of Indian and English are glossed over unproblematically by both mother and daughter, while the norms and behaviours of difference within a family are given much more careful attention. For example, Parneet's question in line 1, “mum what do Indians wear to a wedding seeing as we wear white to a funeral” positions her as both in and out of the category of ‘Indian’. However, the mother chooses not to focus on ‘cultural difference’ but rather on cultural similarity. The authoritative message is, don't wear the same colour as the bride in either Indian or English ‘culture’. It is a message about appearance, gendered relations, and family relational histories. It is also a comment on the entry of strangers into families and the shifting of the primary family unit (Rittenour & Soliz Reference Rittenour and Soliz2009). While ethnicity and national culture appear to be of little interactional value in the transcript, family relationships much closer to home serve as important points of distinction. Difference from Mami Ji is a resource for mother and daughter to establish what they have in common. Their joint stance towards Mami Ji binds them, and her appearance in the storyline provides a useful indexical that Parneet should take up an opposition to Mami Ji and agree with her mother. As in example (1), not only should they not speak like Mami Ji, they should not behave like Mami Ji. In example (2), the mother successfully combines time and spatial zones through Mami Ji and asks her daughter to join her in the interactional present to comment on family histories and biographies. We see two chronotopes in play. The first reliably represents Mami Ji as a disreputable character regardless of the time or space she occurs in, while the second exposes Parneet to family histories and spatial contexts and a heteroglossia of voices out of which she is to make meaning.

Other involvement strategies are in play in this example and these can be grouped under ‘detail’ (Tannen Reference Tannen2007). Cultural traditions are brought to life in reference to colour (red and white), style (lengha), ceremonies (weddings and funerals), and age (young brides, newly wedded brides, older women). These scenes are also painted through the juxtaposing of different narrative types. Small-n narratives about Dorinda Massi's wedding in which Mami Ji features large are linked into big-N narratives about the social norms of how women should behave in relation to one another. Parneet shows a clear understanding of her mother's socialization message when she says in line 37 “does it make it less special for the person whose wedding it actually is?”, allowing her mother's metacommentary in line 38 (underlined here) “of course of course that's what I'm saying”. This evaluative comment has the effect of returning the discussion from a particular instance to a more general point about culturally and social appropriate norms.

In the next section we leave the home setting and the brushing of hair, and join mother and daughter in the car while out shopping. They are driving along Soho Road in Birmingham to buy a salwar kameez outfit for Parneet to wear to the gurdwara for religious holidays. A salwar kameez is a traditional outfit of South Asia and consists of trousers and top in a variety of different styles. Soho Road is a busy main road in Birmingham, approximately two miles outside the city centre and sometimes called Little Punjab because of its ethnically focused food and clothes shops. We join the conversation, while they are driving along, at the point where mother and daughter have been in mild disagreement about the kind of outfit Parneet should buy. While her mother would like Parneet to buy a pink, sparkly, nonpatterned outfit, Parneet would prefer a nonpink, nonsparkly, and patterned one. However, despite this minor disagreement, the shopping trip ends in agreement when Mami Ji and her daughter Selena make an appearance through constructed dialogue in the interaction. The discussion is also about driving skills and ‘Asianness’.

1. (3) Look at all that leopard

   [Driving in the car]

   1. 1 Parneet: [referring to a shop window] oh look

   2. 2 Mother: hana? <right?>

   3. 3 Parneet: they've a lot of fabric

   4. 4 Mother:  hmm ah look at all that leopard. I am sure your Mami Ji would like that

   5. 5 Parneet: I hate leopard print or false animal prints

   6. 6 Mother: I just hate it I know I don't like it either [makes a sound expressing disgust]

   7. 7 Parneet: and why would you want a suit that looks like that. they're really irritating

   8. 8 Mother: Mami Ji loves them, I can tell Selena loves it as well

   9. 9 Parneet: I don't like them at all, I think to be honest when you compare

   10. 10 Selena and Mami Ji and stand them next together that's daughter

   11. 11 and mother and me and you you can tell that my taste has still gone

   12. 12 on yours because you've influenced my taste, like her taste is more

   13. 13 like that, mine is more old taste, I like yours. isn't this meant to be

   14. 14 Mother: [referring to a driver of another car] ah it's typical isn't it. our Asian

   15. 15 people they just park wherever they want to don't they?

   16. 16 Parneet: [amused:] look where he's parked [hums a tune]

   17. 17 Mother: look at them motay jihay pichay bethay kiddha khanday aa <the

   18. 18 fatties sitting in the back how they are eating> do you see it?

   19. 19 Parneet: haa <yes>

   20. 20 Mother: [laughs] I want to go that way. excuse me. I want to go that way

   21. 21 Parneet: when you. signal signal

   22. 22 Mother: he's reversing

   23. 23 Parneet: [in a stylised Indian accent:] oh dear [in normal accent:] mum

   24. 24 signal to tell him that you're going that way

   25. 25 Mother: well I think he knows. I think he was waiting for the other guy to

   26. 26 reverse

   27. 27 [horn beeps]

   28. 27 Parneet: [in a stylised Indian accent:] oh dear, Badial [the name of a department store]

This example is the most overtly socialising. Parneet directly comments on taste within families, and the influence of mothers on daughters. Ways of dressing and good and bad taste within families are at the heart of this interaction. As in examples (1) and (2), the discursive strategies used to voice and oppose Mami Ji are heteroglossic and include repetition, reframing, and the use of detail. Other distinctions are also salient. In particular there is an ambivalence to being Asian, with simultaneous signs deployed to perform in-group belonging and out-group distancing. Discursively this is partly achieved through the deployment of stylisation (Rampton Reference Rampton2011) and translanguaging.

As they drive along Soho Road, Parneet points out a shop window with “oh look”, commenting on the material on display. The interjection appears as a sign of encouragement that it might be worth looking further. The mother appears to follow Parneet's gaze and repeats the exclamation with “ah look” but adds further detail, “at all that leopard” in line 4. They quickly agree they both “hate” leopard print with Parneet first articulating her feelings in line 5, “I hate”, and her mother emphasising this further in line 6 with “I just hate it”. The mother underscores this shared reaction to leopard skin further by reiterating “I don't like it either”, which is again echoed in line 9 by Parneet's “I don't like”. The mother makes a guttural sound indicating disgust in line 6 and this sets the scene for the entry of the character Mami Ji in line 8. As in example (2), Mami Ji serves as a prototype of bad taste that is achieved through the mother's construction of discourse to characterize her. Moreover, the mother extends the remit of danger associated with such bad taste by introducing Selena, Mami Ji's daughter, into their interaction. However, the mother does not assign Selena with the same bad taste assigned to Mami Ji. She is constructed as on the unfortunate end of Mami Ji's intense and unpleasant influence. This again widens the danger of Mami Ji's remit to influencing the next generation. This small narrative about the tastes of Mami and her daughter by the mother leads, in lines 11 and 12, to Parneet making a metapragmatic comment on mothers influencing daughters. Parneet places two mother-daughter relationships side by side for direct comparison, declaring “I like yours” [taste] (line 13), and acknowledges her mother's direct influence, “you've influenced my taste” (line 12). A discussion about which material Parneet should have for her salwar kameez has been reframed by both mother and daughter to be one about taste and mothers’ influence on daughters. The pair make a small-n narrative work for a bigger social purpose, and a story about leopard skin takes on big-N coverage of themes about femininity, style and family norms.

Their discussion about Mami Ji also mediates their earlier disagreement about choosing Parneet an outfit. As others have observed (SchiffrinReference Schiffrin1996; Tannen Reference Tannen2006b) there is a tensional interplay between sameness and difference, solidarity and distance in mother and teenage daughter relationships due to the complementary nurturance-dependence relationship that Blum-Kulka (Reference Blum-Kulka1997:37) describes as ‘structurally nonegalitarian’. Encounters of disagreement between mothers and daughters can therefore be described as occurring between ‘unequal intimates’ (Blum-Kulka Reference Blum-Kulka1997:37), although the balance of power in such relationships must also be viewed as in constant flux and negotiation. Tannen (Reference Tannen2006a, Reference Tannen2006b) has shown that the mitigation of conflict in families can take place through voicing other family members through such strategies as ventriloquizing and rekeying. Through these discursive strategies, tense moments can be turned into more humorous exchanges. In example (3), Mami Ji serves as a resource to manage the mother and daughter's earlier argument about choosing material for Parneet's salwar kameez. Mention of Mami Ji is a discursive strategy of ‘intertextuality in interaction’ (Tannen Reference Tannen2010) because her character reminds mother and daughter they share more than they disagree about in terms of fashion. Gordon points out, ‘mutual access to a set of prior texts and membership to the same group’ (Gordon Reference Gordon2009:10) is the glue that holds families together. Mami Ji's chronotopic value invokes mother and daughter solidarity achieved not only through the invocation of her voice but also through her opposition to other detail, including colour, print, pattern, and texture.

The tensional interplay between solidarity and distance is in further evidence in example (3) where, in addition to Mami Ji, it also plays out in terms of ethnicity and distinctions around ‘Asianness’. Three discursive strategies are used to make social distinctions with a driver and his family with whom they compete for a parking space. The first is the use of pronouns. In lines 14 and 15 the mother places herself inside the category ‘Asian’ and then immediately outside of it: “ah it's typical isn't it our Asian people they just park wherever they want to don't they?”. Whereas our aligns with Asian people, they places Parneet and her mother outside of the category. The use of pronouns as shifters (Jakobson Reference Jakobson1971) both connects and distances the mother and daughter in relation to the amorphous Asian community.

The second strategy is the deployment of stereotypes. The mother positions Asian people as overweight, and as bad drivers. Reyes (Reference Reyes2006) argues that stereotypes are not necessarily or always discriminatory and prejudicial, but can be socially resourceful. Parneet and her mother appear to use a stereotype here to distance themselves from the group in the car while acknowledging a connection to them. Stereotypes provide a resource to be both out of and also within the ethnic group (Blackledge & Creese Reference Blackledge, Creese, Arnaut, Blommaert, Rampton and Spotti2016). They allow Parneet and her mother to make careful and important distinctions of difference within a nebulous category ‘Asian’.

Such ambivalence is evidenced in a third discursive strategy illustrated in Parneet's stylised Indian accent. Parneet's repetition of “oh dear” (in lines 23 and 27) in a stylised Indian accent introduces parody into the event, which in turn provides a further discursive resource for separating the pair from this community. In his ethnography of adolescents in the Midlands, Rampton revealed how ‘Asian English represented distance from the main current of adolescent life, and it stood for a stage of historical transition that many youngsters felt they were leaving behind’ (Reference Canagarajah2011:1243, italics in original). Such language use was associated with ‘a surfeit of deference and dsyfluency, typified in polite and uncomprehending phrases like “jolly good”, “excuse me please”, “I no understanding English” ’(Reference Canagarajah2011:1243). Parneet's use of stylised Indian English in lines 23 and 27 are timed to support her mother's point that Asians cannot drive. In line 15 her mother's utterance that Asians “just park wherever they want” indexes inappropriate and “typical” behaviour from India. Indian English is used to parody such people here.

Finally, an example of translanguaging as an involvement strategy occurs in lines 17 and 18. The well timed, “look at them motay Jihay pichay bethay kiddha khanday aa <the fatties sitting in the back how they are eating> do you see it?” can be viewed as a style resource that provides an in-the-moment sharing of linguistic resources and endorsement of a ‘familylect’ (Søndergaard Reference Søndergaard1991) that contests the separation of languages. Translanguaging, here exemplified in the rapid shuttling between languages (Canagarajah Reference Canagarajah2011), holds up the flexible bilingualism argument that appeared in example (1) in opposition to Mami Ji.