EVIDENTIALS FORM COMPOSITES OF RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN THE KENNEWICK MAN DISPUTE

BY CITLALIN XOCHIME, B.S.

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts

Major Subject: English with an Emphasis in Technical and Professional Communication

New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM December 2005 Copyright 2005 by Citlalin Xochime

Evidentials Form Composites of Rhetorical Strategies in the Kennewick Man Dispute, a thesis prepared by Citlalin Xochime in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, has been approved and accepted by the following:

_________________________________________________________________________ Linda Lacey Dean of the Graduate School

_________________________________________________________________________ Barry L. Thatcher Chair of the Examining Committee _________________________________________________________________________ Date Committee in Charge: Dr. Barry L. Thatcher, Chair Dr. Eric L. Morgan Dr. Patricia G. Wojahn

ii

ABSTRACT
EVIDENTIALS FORM COMPOSITES OF RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN THE KENNEWICK MAN DISPUTE BY CITLALIN XOCHIME, B.S.

Master of Arts New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico, 2005 Dr. Barry L. Thatcher, Chair This study examines discursive features of rhetorical processes within the specific cross-cultural context of the Kennewick Man case. This case gained national prominence in 1996 when an ancient human skeleton was unearthed in Kennewick, Washington, and a dispute over heritage and ownership of the remains erupted among local indigenous groups and a group of American scientists. The primary Kennewick constituencies in the dispute include a group of U.S. scientists, a Native American tribal coalition, respective lawyers, and agents on behalf of a government program for the protection of Native American cultural patrimony. Looking at publicized records including court documents and statements affirmed by the primary constituencies, this study has a trifold aim: 1) to identify a composite of rhetorical strategies by means of evidential qualification, 2) to determine whether intercultural communication variability exists, and 3) to analyze the rhetorical effects on the specific, crossiv

cultural communication context of the Kennewick Man dispute. To engage this study, I use a discourse analysis to examine discursive features and to build a composite of rhetorical strategies employed. Results show that evidentials of contrast have the rhetorical effect of problematization; while degree-of-reliability evidentials reinforce or attenuate other evidentiary proof. Deduction evidentials illustrate how precedence is used to analyze problematic features of such general or universal premises. Citation evidentials highlight use of literature proficiency and interact with argumentation; while induction evidentials have a leap effect on moving an argument from particular(s) to a generalization that magnifies the interpretation or significance of the particular(s). All of the evidentials have the effects of circumventing favorably or unfavorably a constituency's or a counter-constituency's position for Kennewick custody. Findings from this study may be useful for increasing our understanding of strategic sources of dominion or suppression in texts that otherwise may remain hidden in layers of sociopolitical, historical, and legal context. .....................

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................. LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................... Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... Statement of the Problem...................................................................... Research Questions, Aims, and Hypothesis.......................................... Purpose of the Study.............................................................................. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................... Kennewick Man/Ancient One............................................................... The Native American Graves and Repatriation Act.............................. Culture................................................................................................... Intercultural Communication................................................................ Context................................................................................................... Collectivism versus Individualism........................................................ Particularism versus Universalism........................................................ Analogic versus Analytic Reasoning..................................................... Discourse Analysis/Rationale................................................................ 3. RESEARCH METHODS........................................................................... Methodology.......................................................................................... First-Level of Abstraction: Unit of Analysis......................................... Second-Level of Abstraction: Intercultural Communication Variability.... vi

viii ix

1 1 8 10 14 14 15 17 18 22 23 31 33 36 40 40 45 50

Page 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................. Evidentials Form Composites of Rhetorical Strategies......................... Evidentials Posture Constituency and CounterConstituency Argumentations................................................................ Contrast Evidentials and Problematization......................................... Degree-of-Reliability Evidentials and Evidentiary Proof................... Mode of Knowledge Evidentials: Deduction, Citation, and Induction..................................................... The Deductive/Analytical Effect and Use of Precedence................. Citation Evidentials, Literature Proficiency, and Argumentation...... The Inductive Effect: A Leap from Particular(s) to Generalization.. 5. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... Summary of Study, Research Aims, and Purpose.................................. Summary of Results, Discussion, and Implications for the Field of Rhetoric......................................................................... First Level of Abstraction.................................................................... Contrast Evidentials.......................................................................... Degree-of-Reliability Evidentials..................................................... Deduction and Induction Evidentials................................................ Citation Evidentials........................................................................... Second Level of Abstraction................................................................ REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 52 52 58 58 61 63 63 65 66 69 69 71 71 71 73 74 76 77 80

vii

L I S T O F TA B L E S Table 1. American Indian and Anglo Worldviews Contrasted.............................. 2. Intercultural Communication Variability and Activity.......................... 3. Preliminary Coding Scheme of Intercultural Communication Variables... 4. Coding Explication Example...................................................................... Page 25 49 50 51

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Evidential Coding Scheme......................................................................... 2. First-Level of Abstraction: A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Native Americans vs. U.S. Scientists Using Mode of Knowledge Evidentials..................................................................................................... 3. First-Level of Abstraction: A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Native Americans vs. U.S. Scientists Using Degree-of-Reliability and Contrast Evidentials............................................................................. 4. Abstraction at Two-Levels: Evidentials Marked/Unmarked by Intercultural Communication Variability Among Native Americans vs.U.S. Scientists......................................................................................... 5. Abstraction at Two-Levels: Citation Evidentials Marked/Unmarked by Intercultural Communication Variability Among Native Americans vs.U.S. Scientists..................................................................... Page 46

53

54

56

57

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem This study examines discursive features of rhetorical processes in the legal dispute over ownership and heritage of the Kennewick Man. I analyze the arguments for custody of the ancient human remains within a discourse-analysis framework. The rhetorical situation centers on arguments for custody of the deceased, on rights to scientific inquiry, and on heritage based claims. This rhetorical situation is the connective interface between the wider scope of the intercultural communication context and the specific, rich text feature analysis of evidentials or attitudes toward knowledge which illustrate strategic differences in argumentation and epistemological stance. Findings from this study are used to build composites of rhetorical strategies and to examine their effects on the specific cross-cultural communication context of the Kennewick Man case. This case gained national prominence in 1996 when the well preserved human skeletal remains of an ancient man were found alongside the Columbia River on federal land in Kennewick, Washington. The Kennewick remains were radiocarbon dated between 8,340 to 9,200 calendar years before present (BP) (Taylor, Kirner, Southon, and Chatter 1171). Initially, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claimed the remains for local indigenous tribes. The Corps cited the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and awarded the remains to the Colville Confederated Tribes, to the confederated tribes of the Umatilla, to the Yakama Indian Nation and the Nez Perce tribe, and to the Wanapum band (Crawford 211). Kennewick Man is also known by the tribal coalition as 1

Techaminsh Oytpamanatityt or as the Ancient One (Kennewick Man Remains para. 7). Following repatriation, controversy erupted in the scientific community, and a lawsuit over ownership of Kennewick Man was filed by a group of eight, renowned Euroamerican scientists seeking custody. Their lawsuit initiated an eight-year period of litigation that still has an impact on researchers and indigenous communities today. Indian Affairs Committee hearings held in July 2005 have initiated redress and reinterpretation of repatriation law (Jantz para. 3). In the research community, some scientists continue to express their disapproval of repatriation legislation that would empty our museums of all evidence of early peoples lives--because some citizens find offensive research that might contradict their worldview (Jantz para. 2). Key court documents from the original lawsuit highlight arguments that reflect on evidentiality or attitudes toward knowledge as well as possible cultural influences on communication. Intersecting these arguments are conflicts over interpretations of Native American identity and concerns about the time-frame reach of protective patrimony rights under repatriation law as well as individual rights under constitutional law. Lawyers on behalf of the tribal coalition emphasized that NAGPRA was intended to provide Native Americans with the same burial protection for their deceased as that offered to other Americans. Yet, controversy over the remains and the ancestry of Ancient One was stirred by the U.S. scientists seeking the right to proceed with further invasive study. This experimentation was sought by the researchers in an effort to rule out alternative theories on the origin of Ancient One and on the peopling of the New World (Schneider and Barran para. 3; Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35994 & 02-35996. 04 Feb. 2004, 2

1586). These alternative theories are based on skull-size variations found amongst very ancient human skulls, but not all experts share this view. Early American expert Christy Turner of the University of Arizona has reported that only Indians were found among New World skulls under study thus far (qtd. in Morell 280). In genetics, more than a decade of evidence provides no support for a diverse genetic population in the prehistoric New World other than a small number of founding lineages such as those discussed in the literature whose descendants spread throughout North and South America, remarks David Glenn Smith, a molecular anthropologist at the University of California, Davis (qtd. in Morell 280). Approximately 97% of all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sampled and tested from contemporary indigenous based populations shows one of the four major founding haplogroups identified with New World ancestry (Green, Derr, and Knight 989; Brown et al. 1852). Evidence from other mtDNA studies involving ancient samples from various regions of the New World, including results from the ancient remains of the Southwestern Anasazi, Utah Fremont, and Western Illinois Oneota, confirm the presence of the four founding New World haplogroups (a specific DNA composite) among ancestral mtDNA as well (O'Rourke et al. 15; Stone and Stoneking 1153). Furthermore, a few of the very ancient remains have been used in DNA testing, including the remains of Wizard Beach Mummy, a 9,200-year-old skeleton from Nevada. All testing thus far shows the same DNA markers among the ancient samples as seen in contemporary, indigenous populations (qtd. in Morell 191). Despite surmounting evidence in the literature from multiple scientific disciplines, the eight U.S. scientists argued that the identities of the founding Native Americans populations are unknown; thus, the ancestral origin of the Ancient One 3

remains unknown. The scientists opposed the tentative repatriation of Kennewick Man and claimed that NAGPRA violates their right to [pursue] scientific inquiry (Andrews Part III. Controversies para. 8). Constituencies involved in the dispute, including physical anthropologists Douglas W. Owsley of the Smithsonian Institute and Richard L. Jantz of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville state, if a pattern of returning [such ancient] remains without study develops, the loss to science will be incalculable and we will never have the data required to understand the earliest populations in America (qtd. in Slayman para. 16). Concerned about the possible interference that repatriation would have on scientific endeavor and its public knowledge base, Jantz reflects on this view adding that Rare evidence, such as the Kennewick Man, give scientists and the public glimpses of the variety of people who were here prior to modern Indians. How, or whether, these early people were related to modern Indians is not known and can only be learned by scientific study of their remains. (para. 7) Robson Bonnichsen, another one of the Kennewick constituencies and former Professor of Anthropology at Oregon State University, states [Native American] Repatriation has taken a life of its own and is about to put us out of business as a profession (qtd. in Killion 304-5). In support of the plaintiff scientists, Amici Curiae (friends of the court) and expert linguists Ives Goddard and William Shipley are concerned ...that if NAGPRA is interpreted in such a way as to extend its reach to the remote past, not now a provision of the law, that access to the past will be lost to science in the attempt to explore our common human patrimony to the detriment of the public not only in the United States, but worldwide. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. Goddard 1-2). Goddard is Senior Linguist at the Smithsonian Institution, and Shipley is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. 4

In a countering view by the Natives, Umatilla trustee and religious leader Armand Minthorn remarks, Some scientists say that if this individual is not studied further, we, as Indians, will be destroying evidence of our own history. We already know our history; it is passed on to us through our elders and through our religious practices (qtd. in Slayman para.11). Horace Axtell, Nez Perce, conveys a native cultural view which holds that traditional burial practices are deemed vital to indigenous livelihood and responsibility: We have an inherent responsibility to care for those who are no longer with us. Our tradition, spiritual beliefs, practices and culture teach us that when a body goes into the ground, it is meant to stay there until the end of time. When the remains are disturbed above the ground, their spirits are at unrest. To put those spirits at ease, the remains must be returned to the ground as soon as possible. (qtd. in Crawford 213) In some Native cultural practices, even biological materials drawn from indigenous people for research purpose still are considered to be a part of the body and are to be treated as such (Foster, Bersten, and Carter 698). In an article dealing with the body titled (Re)Constructing Bodies: Semiotic Sovereignty and the Debate over Kennewick Man, religious and culture scholar Suzanne J. Crawford argues that the most prevalent rhetorical aim in support of awarding Kennewick Man custody to the American scientists is that of a universalist position. Crawford states that the scientists position is a universalist and humanistic one reflective of the dominant white culture from which it comes: the [Kennewick] body belongs not to Native American tribes but to all humanity (215). Universalism is a cultural influence on communication that concerns axioms which apply to everyone in most circumstances, and I discuss this in greater detail in the literature review. Crawfords criticisms concerning cross-cultural differences are not 5

unique. Other Native People question how the unearthing and study of their ancestors benefits and contributes to the well-being of Indian people (Mihesuah American Indians 96). Devon A. Mihesuah, Choctaw member and editor of the Repatriation Reader, studied the complexity of repatriation in greater detail and identified a cross-cultural conflict involving 1) some American Indians and sympathizers who want tribal remains and sacred objects repatriated and never studied; 2) some American Indians who are willing to allow the study of remains and certain burial objects but who expect them to be returned to tribes afterward; 3) American Indians who believe remains should be studied for educational purposes and not repatriated; 4) American Indians who object to desecration and scientific study but for religious reasons do not want skeletal remains returned to their tribe; (Introduction 4) According to Mihesuahs reader, included in this intercultural conflict are nonacademic grave robbers, amateur archaeologists, the archaeological community, social scientists, scientists, and museum directors--all of whom take differing stances concerning repatriation (4). The arrival of Kennewick man onto the repatriation scene has resulted in volatile debates [among] those wanting Kennewick Man repatriated and those who want to retain his remains for scientific study (Mihesuah Introduction 9). Mihesuah raises questions that seem to shadow every discussion concerning Ancient One: Who owns Kennewick Man? Is he European, Asian, or indigenous to the United States? The answer to this (and who answers it) will have a strong impact on Native rights and NAGPRA (Mihesuah Introduction 9). Reflecting on this conflict, this study begins an inquiry into the rhetorical posturing 6

of the Kennewick dispute to examine such strong tides of contention. My inquiry takes a closer look at key arguments for Kennewick custody as they are situated in a greater intercultural communication context. Some of these arguments are expressive of evidentiality or in conveying attitudes toward knowledge as well as indicating possible cultural influences on communication. An overview of key records in the Kennewick case, including court documents and public statements, reveals a rich cross-cultural discourse that concerns rhetorical heritages, epistemological stances, cultural worldviews, and power discourse. These discourse interactions are bound to a common sociopolitical, historical, and legal context. The Kennewick discourse in particular highlights questions on whether scientists have privileged rights for custody of ancient human remains based on their appeal to pursue scientific inquiry as an individualistic right to know under the law. In securing this right to scientific inquiry, the scientists reaffirm their position by holding a view that the origin of Kennewick Man remains unknown to the world. This form of investigation is instrumental in the professional pursuit of scientific-knowledge based inquiry and to subsequent publication in scholarly journals. Research findings enter the social purview of literate specialists thereby increasing the knowledge base and by driving the professional praxes of research inquiry and the further publication of findings. In following the scientific method, knowledge derived by analytical methodology is powerfully viable in sociopolitical Western spheres. Scientific knowledge is highly regarded as underlying universal truth, especially in a U.S. court of law. However, from a Native perspective, James Riding In, a Pawnee repatriation activist and scholar, views scientists professional 7

activities as sacrilegious and destructive in which they [profess] a legal and scientific right to study Indian remains and burial goods (Repatriation 107). Interestingly, scholarly entitlement in this dispute involves individualistic, scientific inquiry in order to acquire such knowledge. Individualism is another cultural influence on communication that reflects a view involving a reliance on the self rather than on a group in ones interactions in the surrounding social milieu. This brings into question whether individualistic study in the form of scientific inquiry is a strong factor for filling in gaps-in-knowledge based claims concerning ancestry within the legal context of the Kennewick Man case. What does a proposed scientific inquiry into the identity of ancient human remains tell us about how modes of knowledge concerning heritage are conveyed or not? For Natives, collective knowledge in the form of oral tradition informs a community about its creation, its origin, and thereby its heritage. For the scientists, the answer is in an experiment. Research Questions, Aims and Hypothesis In the Kennewick case, the right to scientific inquiry is tied with acquiring custody of the Dead such that scientists may satisfy knowledge based claims concerning heritage. Are these eight American scientists expressing universalism orientated rhetoric in speaking on behalf of the world, since the scientists claim is that the origin and identity of Kennewick Man remains unknown to the world? Is the rhetoric of the American scientists individualistic in their quest to acquire such knowledge concerning ancestry and heritage via individualistic inquiry and findings? What do evidentials tell us about attitudes toward knowledge in the Kennewick dispute? What rhetorical strategies are employed and what cultural influences on communication, if any, are evident in this context? Are the U.S. scientists intentions 8

and arguments for custody of the Kennewick remains primarily founded on both individualism and universalism? These questions highlight research aims that I explore in this study on rhetorical strategies in the Kennewick Man dispute. Critical ethnographer J. Thomas posits that a principle edifice of inquiry in this field is that critical researchers begin from the premise that all cultural life is in constant tension between control and resistance (qtd. in Creswell 75). Taiaiake Alfred, director of the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Victoria, observes that what is often viewed as Native resistance is actually more of a cultural, or a political, or a social struggle (qtd. in Arrests of First Nations). Tension, struggle, control, and resistance are all strong vocabulary for conveying that cultural life is in conflict. With these concepts of tension and struggle in mind, this study has a trifold aim: 1) to identify a composite of rhetorical stratagems employed by the constituencies by examining evidential qualification, 2) to determine whether rhetorical strategies are marked by intercultural communication variability, and 3) to analyze the rhetorical effects on the specific, cross-cultural communication context of the Kennewick dispute. In reaching these aims, this study may expose communication differences such as a preference for certain types of evidentials over others as well as preferences marked by cultural influences on communication such as those to be discussed in the literature review (for example, individualism vs. collectivism and universalism vs. particularism). These proposed differences might show that such identifiable orientations are salient in the rhetoric of the American scientists in contrast to the rhetoric of Native Americans in the Kennewick dispute.

To guide these research aims, I look at publicized records including court documents and press-release statements affirmed by the primary constituencies involved in the legal dispute. I hypothesize that differences in rhetorical strategies may emerge as indices of broader cross-cultural communication processes involved. To engage this study, I use a discourse-analysis framework to resolve discursive features and to build a composite of rhetorical strategies. The primary Kennewick constituencies are grouped into two factions: 1) the first group includes U.S. scientists, their lawyers, and their Amici Curiae scholars; 2) the second group includes the Native American tribal coalition, their lawyers, and their agents on behalf of a government program for the protection of Native American cultural patrimony. From this point on, the respective factions are referred to generally as the U.S. Scientists or as the Native Americans; however, these terms specifically represent a respective faction as explicitly stated here. Purpose of the Study Unraveling rhetorical processes of argumentation in text, that are bound within complex sociopolitical, historical, and legal contexts, involves the analysis of rhetorical stratagems. Such strategies might implicate key processes that may exhibit cultural influences on communication--which in turn may drive power-discourse mechanisms as emergent phenomena in texts. This study examines discursive features in rhetorical processes and within the specific cross-cultural context of the Kennewick Man case. Such an examination is purposeful for determining which rhetorical strategies are employed, how attitudes toward knowledge are conveyed, and how both queries may reflect on cross-cultural communication variability. This study is also useful for building a composite of discursive practices and for 10

analyzing rhetorical effects on the Kennewick dispute. In a study titled Eurocentric Influences on News Coverage of Native American Repatriation Issues: A Discourse Analysis, Cindy L. Killion identifies four primary motifs or strategies that functioned to reinforce the dominant Eurocentric ideology in the New York Times and Washington Post (iv). These findings include an emphasis on scientific method versus other ways of knowing (Killion iv). While Killions study identifies discursive practices showing how the privileging of the scientific perspective and its mode of knowing occurs in the media, the study does not examine rhetorical processes of argumentation between Native Americans and U.S. scientists. The Killion study also does not focus on intercultural communication differences among Euroamericans and Native Americans. Such an investigation of rhetorical processes in argumentation between two cross-cultural groups might provide an explanation on how strategic differences disempower or confer power to an opponent. To examine discursive differences in detail at the level of argument, this study looks at evidentials that highlight strategic differences in argumentation and epistemological stance (Barton Evidentials 745-769); and, this inquiry takes a step into a newly chartered zone of work in intercultural communication studies (Thatcher L2 Professional Writing 41-69; Thatcher Writing Policies 364-99; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1-274; Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 696-702). This study also contributes to works in critical linguistics and discourse analyses (Dunmire Constructing 1-220; Dunmire Naturalizing 221-65; Huckin 155-176). My original hypothesis posits that differences in rhetorical strategies may arise as indices of the broader intercultural communication variability involved. 11

These proposed rhetorical differences may have fueled the controversy that exists over the remains and the heritage of Ancient One. Intercultural scholar Barry L. Thatcher explains that rhetorical differences [are] rhetorical strategies that originate in larger cultural-historical contexts [and] serve as a repertoire of strategies which writers appropriate and individualize to make sense of everyday rhetorical situations" (Writing Policies 368). On closer reading examination, proposed differences in this studys particular rhetorical situation may reveal intricately interwoven discursive practices. In turn, these processes may arguably emanate from the breadth of rhetorical patterns possible within the greater mosaic of the cultural-historical context and cultural system. Ferdinad de Saussure remarks that in language there are only differences, adding that Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonetic differences that have issued from the system. (qtd. in Derrida 11) Jacques Derrida points out that essentially and lawfully, every concept is inscribed in a chain or in a system within which it refers to the other, to other concepts, by means of the systematic play of differences. Thus the difference of which Saussure speaks is itself, therefore, neither a concept nor a word among others (11). R.S. Zaharna reminds us that intercultural scholarship grew out of the anthropological tradition: rigorous scientific inquiry employing methods of observation and documentation of Other cultures (92). This discourse analysis applies that intercultural scholarship and proposes that differences exist in the 12

rhetorics of Native Americans and of U.S. scientists who are involved the Kennewick custody dispute. This study also seeks to trace the origins and the connections of proposed differences to the greater intercultural communication ambience. Understanding the relationship between the text under study and its crosscultural/rhetorical context may help mediators to bridge the chasm of contentious relations amongst indigenous peoples and Americans, whom disputes over heritage and ancestral claims divide. My hypothesis that strategic, rhetorical differences springboard from broader rhetorical landscapes within greater cultural spheres involves the use of a discourse analysis (DA). DA is useful for resolving discursive features and for building a composite of rhetorical strategies. Findings from this study may also be useful as well as purposeful for increasing our understanding of strategic sources of dominion or suppression in texts; which, otherwise, may appear to be contextually innocuous or culturally unconnected to broader communication variability; or, that may remain hidden in layers of wider sociopolitical, historical, and legal contexts.

13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Kennewick Man/Ancient One From the scientific viewpoint, indeed very little is actually known about Ancient One. Researchers think that Ancient One was a middle-aged hunter with a prominent nose and large, muscular legs that most closely match physical characteristics attributed to present-day Polynesians or SE Asians (Chatter 307). Anthropologist James Chatter reports that although born healthy, Ancient One suffered multiple injuries throughout his life. These injuries were found in the skull, left arm, chest, and hip, including a spearhead point lodged into his pelvis (Chatter 297). In July of 2001, Constance Holden reported in the Science journal that four missing leg bones from the original Ancient One skeletal frame had mysteriously reappeared at the Benton County sheriffs storage facility in Kennewick, WA. The four leg bones were documented as missing during an inventory taken in 1997 at the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, WA where the remains were temporarily housed. Today, the skeletal remains are stored at University of Washingtons Burke Museum in Seattle, WA (King para. 1). Since 1996 when the skeletal remains of Ancient One were exposed and found in a diminishing embankment alongside the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, the tribal coalition has sought to claim the remains for respectful reburial. Yet, cross fires of legal action amongst the constituencies have ensued, and pieces of the skeletal remains have been subject to disappearance, reappearance, and testing while in the possession of government officials (Holden 27). Beyond this tumultuous legal backdrop is the historic drive behind NAGPRA enactment and its 14

turbulent record as well. The Native American Graves and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and implementation exists for the protection of Native American burial sites, cultural items, sacred objects, and cultural patrimony (NAGPRA as amended). NAGPRA was established on November 16, 1990 (Public Law 101-601. 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) in response to Native-American activism and copious historical evidence in U.S. federal archives and in research institutions that Native American human remains were stolen, tampered, and mishandled throughout the entire colonial era (Final Federal Court para. 1; Court Ruling para. 3). In 1793, Thomas Jefferson, the father of American archaeology, endorsed burial excavation claiming he had the right to systematically excavate and remove the remains of over 1,000 known Native American graves on his plantation by virtue of a higher order called science (Andrews B. Case 2: Group Research para.1). Countless Native American remains were ostentatiously displayed, sold, or studied in U.S. American museums, mercantile industries, or in university laboratories (Gough Compliance para. 9). A now defunct branch of scientific study in the early 1800s known as phrenology spawned a theory that intelligence was based on race (qtd. in Andrews Part III. Controversies para. 8). Phrenologists traveled from town to town testing intelligence levels and personality traits by feeling the shape of peoples skulls (Ellis Test para. 1). In supporting the theory, phrenologists collected and compared Native American skulls to European skulls under the societal presupposition that Europeans represented the standard form of high intelligence and morality (Andrews 15

Part III. Controversies para. 8). In 1868, the Surgeon General called for urgent action on behalf of army officers to procure Indian skulls, native weaponry, and other cultural artifacts for study (Trope and Echo-Hawk 126; Andrews Part III. Controversies para. 8). As part of the investigation, the Army collected more than 4,000 deceased Native American bodies from graveyards and battlegrounds to study how modern bullets damaged the human body (Lawson 2002). Jack F. Trope and Walter R. Echo-Hawk report that national estimates on the number of deceased Native people [who] have been dug up from their graves for storage or display by government agencies, museums, universities, and tourist attractions range between 100,000 and two million dead (125). In tandem with these disturbing historical findings, the status of a Native American as a recognizable person within the context of federal law did not occur until 1879. Thereafter Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924 (qtd. in Trope and Echo-Hawk 130). These events and the documented abuses of Native Americans paint a somber backdrop and cast a tarnished reflection on the contentious history of Native American/U.S. Government relations in the course leading to the drive toward NAGPRA enactment. The definition of Native American within the context and implementation of NAGPRA is discussed by Francis P. McManamon, a representative from the U.S. Department of the Interior that administers NAGPRA. McManamon frames the words Native American as a term understood by the U.S. government to mean human remains relating to tribes, peoples, or cultures that lived in what is now the United States before the documented arrival of European explorers. The remains would be considered Native America regardless of the time 16

frame when a particular group might have begun to live in this area and regardless of whether these groups were culturally affiliated or biologically related to present-day tribes. (qtd. in Crawford 217) Culture Culture has a myriad of definitions, depending on its source, the discipline, and the lexicographer's philosophy. R. Keesing summarizes four strong theories of culture in which each view reflects an orientation parallel with its disciplinary positioning and philosophy: 1) structural functionalism conceptualizes culture as a system that humans utilize to adapt to their environment. A central tenet of the adaptive function of structural functionalism is the role of culture as an organizing regulatory system. 2) ethnoscience offers a view of culture as a cognitive system of shared beliefs and knowledge of shared rules that govern an individual's behavior. 3) classic structuralism views culture as the manifestation of a universal unconsciousness, suggesting that individuals project their own psychological structure onto the world. According to the theory, culture thus becomes a representation of the individual's own super-ego. 4) symbolic structuralism views culture as being composed of symbols and the shared meanings that are attached to those symbols. (qtd. in Rosenthal para. 3) Native American scholar H. Henrietta Stockel uses a widely shared definition of culture, emphasizing that [culture] should be understood to mean the cumulative experiences of a people that are transmitted, verbally and by example, to subsequent generations. As such, a culture is alive and active, always adding or deleting, adapting, adopting accommodating, incorporating, resisting, rejecting; culture is a moving target for change. (XVIII) Joe and Miller point out that although few anthropologists and sociologists agree on the finer details of the definition of culture, most concur on three major concepts: 1) culture includes the rules and symbols by which people organize and assign 17

meanings to their life experiences; 2) culture is learned; and 3) culture is shared (2). This study resonates closely with the definition of culture from the symbolic structuralism view. Sonja K. Foss remarks that a symbol is something that stands for or represents something else by virtue of relationship, association, or convention (4). We spend our lives immersed in symbols: How we perceive, what we know, what we experience, and how we act are the results of the symbols we create and the symbols we encounter in the world (Foss 3). This study does not center on the depth of cultural symbols nor on the breadth of social practices in use today; rather, it focuses on the rhetorical intricacies of intercultural communication flourishing within the ideological fabrics of a greater symbolic and cultural ambience. Intercultural Communication Intercultural communication research is concerned with how culture influences communication according to communication scholar R. S. Zaharna (86); and, it is characterized with documenting the cultural variations in communication patterns (87). Zaharna refers to the communication literature in which Oliver (1962) and Smith (1966) are most frequently cited for proposing a relationship between culture and communication. As Smith states, communication and culture are inseparable (qtd. in Zaharna 86). Zaharna adds a few brief descriptions of culture from the literature: Culture [is] described as a blueprint (Folb, 1982), road map (Hall, 1976), imprint (Dodd, 1982) and even collective unconscious (Barnlund, 1982) (86). In interdisciplinary fields, culture imparts the meaning for various forms of communication behaviors (Zaharna 87). Zaharna elaborates on this ubiquitous and underlying connection between culture, communication, and language: 18

Culture provides the meaning for...communication behaviors such [as] spoken language or nonverbal gestures, as well as the rules and norms that govern when and how these behaviors should be used. Cultures influence on perception provides clues on how messages [are] structured and interpreted. As numerous intercultural scholars note, each culture has its own unique world view or means for making sense of the world. (87) Early language-study research affirms this relationship between language and cultural expression. The 20th century linguist and anthropologist E. Sapir summarized his language-study conclusions rather generally with the now renowned statement: Language is a guide to social realityit powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes (qtd. in Trujillo Sez). In current communication research aims, some intercultural studies focus on exploring cultures impact on communication behavior at the individual or interpersonal level (Zaharna 86). Contemporary scholars using the germinal works of noted anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1958, 1967)...began exploring how behaviors and their meaning varied from one culture to the next (Zaharna 87). During the 1970s, the intercultural communication field blossomed from its central tenet of increasing [our] understanding of culturally-mediated communication phenomena (Zaharna 88) to its branching pinnacle in Halls (1976) observation that much of a culture's influence was out-of-awareness. Even though culture completely surrounded its own members, they lacked an in-awareness knowledge of its presence and force. Thus, the ultimate goal of intercultural scholars was to expose the hidden dimensions of culture that lay out-ofawareness and bring them in-awareness. With this goal in mind, three identifiable research avenues emerged: culture-specific, culture-general, and intercultural interaction. (qtd. in Zaharna 88) These research directives, including culture-specific, culture-general, and intercultural interaction, guided studies in the three important directions. The focus of 19

culture-specific studies is on observing and describing communication behaviors of a specific culture (88). Culture-general studies report on commonalities or universals across cultures (89); and, intercultural [interaction] scholars study crosscultural interactions between groups and between individuals from different cultures. (89-90). Zaharna also provides a concise outline on the pioneers, approaches, and exemplary works of each of these research directives. Culture-specific studies were piloted by anthropologists, including Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Clifford Geertz, who sought to describe the beliefs and cultural practices of communities. Edward T. Hall introduced important concepts such as proxemics and contexting which gave intercultural scholars important tools with which to discuss the differences found among cultures (88). Zaharna notes that the culture-specific approach continues to stir interest and to expand its scope of inquiry today. He cites studies that discuss ways for dealing with Arabs (Nydell, 1987), Australians (Renwick, 1991), Chinese (Wenzhong and Grove, 1991), Greeks (Broome, 1996), Mexicans (Condon, 1995), or Russians (Richmond, 1996) (89). Culture-general inquiry aimed to introduce methods for explaining and comparing phenomena across cultures. Halls (1959) cultural map, for example, identified ten cultural rules for ten human activities: [including] interaction, association, subsistence, [etc.]... (89). Other studies envisioned cultural continua for organizing cultural variations along a spectrum of behavioral possibilities (89). This view shifted study from a focus on individual behaviors...[to] a look at a broad spectrum of communication patterns (89). Some examples and citations of these continua from Zaharnas research include (89): 20

individualism/collectivism (Hui & Triandis, 1986) high-context/low context (Hall, 1976) past oriented/future-oriented (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961) linear/non-linear (Dodd, 1982) doing/being (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961, Okabe, 1983; Stewart, 1972) direct/indirect (Levine, 1985)

Intercultural communication research combined benefits of both culturespecific and culture-general research to frame the study of individuals engaged in cross-cultural communication interactions. Instead of looking at cultures separately (culture-specific) or as static variations (culture-general), intercultural scholars studied how cultural influences affected communication between individuals and between groups: Focus shifted from individual communication behaviors to exploring on how different behaviors affected the communication process (i.e., Brislin 1982; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Samovar et al., 1981). These works include many of the adaptation and adjustment studies. Scholars also used cultural continua to analyze more complex communication contexts such as negotiations, conflict management, and diplomacy (see, Cohen, 1991; Fisher, 1980; Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990; Ting-Toomey, 1985, 1988). (Zaharna 88-9) In overview of Zaharnas comprehensive summary, this study employs the third research directive on the study of interactions in intercultural communication and also makes use of the second directive and its cultural continua of variation in communication. With these research directives in mind, a look into the related literature poses other challenges for pursuing intercultural scholarship. For example, the early days of intercultural inquiry capture the debate that addresses which methodology best resolves the study of intercultural phenomena. Zaharna reflects on this ofttimes searing debate over methodology among scholars in the quantitative and qualitative research camps: The quantitative researchers, who dominated the field, sought to distill cultural theorems and axioms 21

from numerical data obtained through rigorous scientific inquiry (qtd. in Zaharna 90). This research camp situated themselves apart from the cultural data which they analyzed in seeking to resolve cultural ambiguity through precision, objectivity, and reliability (90). In contrast, the qualitative researchers situated themselves as embodied in the cultural web of the phenomenon under investigation. The qualitative camp did not attempt to isolate themselves from the ambiguities of cultural phenomena; rather, they devised methods including narrative analysis (Fisher, 1987) and metaphor analysis (Deetz, 1984) for capturing nuances that characterized a cultural context under study (90). Recently, intercultural scholars have come to terms with this debate by recognizing the balanced and complementary nature of quantitative and qualitative methods and [by] advocating a triangulation of the two approaches which appreciates their separate strengths (Zaharna 90). Context Edward T. Hall describes context as a property of communication which comprises a continuum ranging from high context at one end of the spectrum to low context at the other (60). A high-context communication or message, states Hall, is one in which most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message (61). Thus, high-context communicators synthesize meaning based on the communication context combined with internalizations of the communicators (Thatcher Cultural). High-context communications may also be viewed as indirect, subtle, complex, evasive, and situational, according to Thatcher in the article Cultural and Rhetorical Adaptations. A low-context communication is the diametrical difference to a high22

context communication. That is, low context is a form of communication where the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code (Hall 61). Collectivism versus Individualism Collectivism involves the act of engaging the self, the worldview, and interactions with the world as originating from within ones social group or kindred (Thatcher, Writing Policies 370). In contrast, Thatcher describes individualism as an act of engaging ones self-identity, ones worldwide perspective, and ones way of dealing with the world as originating from an acknowledged reliance on the self (Writing Policies 370). Individualism and collectivism are observable phenomena with defined orientations concerning ones worldview and interactions with the world. Differences in these two orientations unfold when different cultures make contact, bringing their respective orientations into intercultural communication contexts. An example of this cross-cultural variability in communication is drawn from an astute observation on U.S. individualism and Din (Navajo) collectivism in a second language (L2)-acquisition study by Gloria Dye. Dye remarks how the U.S. mass-literate society valorizes and legitimates book knowledge gathered from literate specialists and by method of individual creativity: ...the mass literate culture that has evolved over the last hundred years validates knowledge that comes from books, and values individual creativity over the collective contribution. The development of Din literacy creates an awareness of this Western preference for knowledge from literate specialists. (qtd. in Dye 615) In contrast to this Western preference for individualism, the Din have knowledge gathered from the collective contribution, which includes oral tradition and their collective knowledge base (615). Individualism may also be reinforced within the 23

context of the law as exemplified in a statement by a U.S. scientist in the Kennewick dispute: As Professor Tribe has noted, [t]he right to know . . . may include an individuals right to acquire desired information or ideas free of governmental veto, undue hindrance, or unwarranted exposure. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. Findley.) In contrast, collectivism is reinforced as appropriate in the form of a joint claim filed by Native Americans in a tribal position paper from the Kennewick dispute: The two principles of interpretation laid out in section I. of this brief - that this is remedial Indian legislation that should be construed liberally and that the agency interpretation is entitled to deference - further support a finding that joint claims such as were presented in this case are appropriate. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994 & 02-35996. 13 Mar. 2003.) This study interprets the concepts and phenomena of individualism and collectivism as both are reinforced within the context defined, discussed, and exemplified here and as drawn from the subsequent literature cited. When people with differing cultural orientations make contact, the clash of worldviews often overlap into all aspects of life, including into discourses on bioethical concerns. In a bioethics study looking at native and non-native worldviews, David A. Rosenthal found differences in cultural orientation concerning the dynamics of identity, health, and wellness among American Indians in contrast to an Anglo worldview. Rosenthal remarks, in the American Indian belief system, health is not only a physical state but also a spiritual state as well (para. 7). Some key differences in cultural orientation are summarized by Joe and Miller in Table 1 (4). This table highlights characteristics of individualism in the Anglo worldview such as the individual is primary; whereas, collectivism is characterized in the American Indian 24

Table 1. American Indian and Anglo Worldviews Contrasted American Indian Worldview Group-life is primary. Respects elders, experts, and those with spiritual powers. Time and place viewed as being permanent, settled. Introverted; avoids ridicule or criticism of others if possible. Pragmatic; accepts what is. Emphasizes responsibility for family and personal sphere. Observes how others behave; emphasis on how others behave, not on what they say. Anglo Worldview The individual is primary. Respect youth, success, and social status. Time and place always negotiable; plans for change. Extroverted; seeks analysis and criticisms of situation. Reformist: changes or fixes problems. Emphasizes authority and responsibility over a wide area of social life. Eager to relate to others, emphasize how others feel or think.

Incorporates supportive non-family, or other Keep the networks of family, friends, and helpers, into the family network. acquaintances separate. Seeks harmony. (Joe and Miller 4) Seeks progress.

worldview in the idea that group life is primary (Joe and Miller 4). The Joe and Miller study contrasted the worldviews of American Indians and Anglo Americans and how each group manages disability. This study found that an individualistic value-set of the Anglo world carries with it personal responsibility and thus personal blame and social stigma [concerning disability] (8). Other key research findings point out that if an American worker is injured on the job, insurance coverage will provide medical care, re-training, and support. If, however, the injury is the fault of the individual, such as the result of a suicide attempt, criminal action, or an accident related to drunkenness, no insurance coverage would apply and no social support would be readily available (5-6). This 25

means that in Anglo culture, the cause or blame of disability rests on the individual, and the consequences [from actions related to the disability] focus attention upon the victim (6). In contrast, the group value set [that is] characteristic of Indian culture may offer support and relief when supernatural or cultural taboos are found to be the cause of disability (8). Seeking out the cause of illness is far more important in American Indian culture than it is in finding fault in the individual whether or not the disability is stigmatized. These findings strengthen the position that American Indian culture rests upon assumptions of respect for life, spirituality in nature, the primacy of the group over the individual, and the need to tolerate, accept, and support each other (Joe and Miller 27). Primacy of the group over the individual is a key feature of collectivism. Whereas, group privileging is hardly the case from an Anglo worldview in which ones identity and ways of coping with the world depend largely on self-reliance. The social organization of the U.S. reflects this Anglo worldview in its legal system, which stands primarily on a pillar of individualism that serves such interests. Another intercultural communication study by genetics researchers Foster, Bersten, and Carter illustrates the differences between collectivism and individualism in western studies of Native American populations. Genetics researchers of indigenous populations in recent history have opened bioethical debates of interest to the intercultural communication expert. Often, these bioethical exchanges introduce questions dealing with collective risks as opposed to individual risks in human population studies. Collective risks involve potential damage from research study that affects all members of a specified group or group rights. Members of the 26

specified group may or may not be research study participants. Individual risks are potential risks from research study that may affect the actual research study participant or rights on an individual level (Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 696). In the Foster, Bernsten, and Carter study, the authors cite the following questions on the variety of collective and individualistic issues that may arise in a socially specified population, such as a Native American tribal population under study:
What research ethics are appropriate in culturally diverse situations? How can the autonomy of both communal and individual decision-making

be respected in the recruitment of study participants? people?

How can researchers minimize the risks of stigmatizing entire categories of How can individual privacy be protected in small populations? Who should profit from valuable information derived from a unique

population?

Under what conditions can DNA collected for one project later be used for

other research? (697)

These questions raise a number of implications for socially identifiable populations in the literature or for collectivists populations in general under study. Conventional western medical practice allows for socially defined populations to be identified ethnically, regionally, genetically, and linguistically in research databases and in scientific literature for publication purpose. Data from these publications may suggest a particular genetic predisposition amongst a specified group that may infringe on the collective concerns of members from within the identified group (that is, cultural members who never agreed to individual informed consent). For example, in the 1970s, African Americans were subject to 27

discrimination in employment and in health insurance coverage when the sickle cell trait was identified in this group (qtd. in Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 697). Still, the western convention of disclosure of socially identifiable/collectivist populations under investigation is a standard feature of American study. Individualism in American medical practice continues to shape subject rights, and informed consent by individuals continues to weakly address collective issues (696). Little effort has been cultivated to address the collective concerns of socially identifiable populations in which resounding discrimination is evident and in which other cultural concerns are expressed as the result of study disclosure. American culture has a central tendency to identify with individualism (Bennet 7). This orientation includes individualistic thought patterns in research practices carried out by primary scientific and social investigators who generally seek individual informed consent. This form of individualism is especially ubiquitous in the medical profession workplace where the approach and convention of western medicine ethics involves safeguarding subject rights according to (U.S.) federally funded research policies. In most cases, the bioethical approach will focus on addressing individualistic concerns. The Euroamerican paradigm in securing individualistic rights often does not accommodate collective bioethical issues of culturally diverse populations under study. One challenge in addressing collective issues remains in elevating researcher awareness to avoid applying foreign social structure onto study participants from other cultures (Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 697). This challenge among others was undertaken in the Foster, Bernsten, and Carter study on communal discourse. These authors proposed a model for genetic researchers in negotiating an agreement with a 28

Native American tribe (Apache) under study. The negotiations were based on party collaboration and conjoined efforts on the part of the scientists to encourage communal discourse that addresses indigenous ethics. Some Native American ethics include communal decision-making variables that are otherwise nonexistent or shortsighted in an individualistic rights approach. In evaluating bioethical implications, U.S. researchers or scientists may view the western social structure as irresolvable from other cultural frameworks in what author LaRay M. Barna describes as an assumption of similarity attitude (qtd. in Bennet 173). Barna describes this attitude as an intercultural communication barrier in which the assumer narrows cultural differences in futile attempts to facilitate intercultural communication or to lessen the discomfort of dealing with difference (qtd. in Bennet 174). Foster, Bernsten, and Carter reiterate on the charge of Barnas intercultural barrier by emphasizing how the genetics researcher must avoid the superimposition of foreign social apparatus onto Native American cultures under study (697). Findings from the Foster, Bernsten, and Carter study allowed for a number of provisions that were drawn into agreement on behalf of the collective risks raised among the Apache during preliminary research study deliberations. These provisions varied in limitations, exclusions, and in foci in comparison with subject and author rights deliberations from an individualistic approach. The scope of research investigation was based on Apache concerns that research undertaken needs to be specific (that is, particular) and relevant to communal concerns. Additional scientific inquiry aside from this agreement requires Apache pre-approval. Manuscripts containing Apache findings are required to 29

undergo Apache review in which any objections to the use of the Apache name are resolved or the results are published without identifying the Apache tribe as the subject (Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 698). Intellectual property generated by the study, which remained in the possession of the supporting (university) institution, was subcontracted to recognize contributing members (such as the primary investigators and the Apache) in this agreement. This sharing of intellectual property is highly unusual in observance of well established practice in western medicine as well as limited legal precedent that study participants who donate biological substances (for example, blood or DNA) have no legal bindings on the intellectual property generated from their biological samples (qtd. in Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 698). Overall, the Foster et al. findings bring to light intercultural communication variability and ramifications that may spring forth from the subject/researcher relationship in which study participants differ in culture and social apparatus background from the social conventions of the primary investigators. The Foster et al. study also showed how the Apache subjects originate from a particularly orientated, communal identity culture. In contrast, the genetic researchers are schooled in western medicine ethics and originate from a universally orientated American culture that operates on individualistic parameters. Foster, Bernsten, and Carter exercise caution on the researcher assumption that collective issues are automatically addressed by the western medicine standard of obtaining informed consent of individuals. Furthermore, the authors results indicate that, in some populations, private social units may have a larger role in communal decision-making than do public authorities (Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 699). 30

Ultimately, the conclusions from this study reinforce the priority of investigator responsibility in securing that human subjects who share socially recognizable identities are protected from collective risks (Foster, Bernsten, and Carter 699). Additionally, this study provides an opening view on a cross-cultural context involving issues of Native American collectivism and U.S.-scientist individualism and how this intercultural communication context affects discourse interactions. Particularism versus Universalism Thatcher states that collectivist cultures which embody hierarchal, sociopolitical schema give rise to particularism, meaning that laws, policies, and procedures are applied differently to everyone, depending on that persons social standing (Writing Policies 370). In contrast, universalism operates on the premise that regardless of differences, each person is subject to equal treatment under the law or policy (Thatcher, Writing Policies 370). U.S. Equal Opportunity Employer Laws call attention to some of these differences in the language of employment hiring policies, which explicitly prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability (Federal para. 1). With respect to administrative action, particularism considers such differences while universalism does not. Simply put then, universalism involves axioms that apply equally to everyone in most (universal) circumstances; whereas, collectivism involves axioms that apply differently to each one depending on particular circumstances. Daniel Callahan imparts the meaning of universal, as a concept defining a virtue, a rule, a principle, or a moral perspective that is valid under most circumstances for most people most of the time (para. 5). This definition is not an 31

absolute term completely since most implies that one can almost always imagine a possible exception (Callahan para. 5). Callahan argues that this possible exception is not a sufficient reason to reject universals; and, in fact he remarks, The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights was shaped by a small group of philosophers, thinkers, and statesmen very much imbued with natural law concepts, with a taste for universal moral truths, and with a belief in certain basic and underlying human needs and desires, true for all times and places. (para. 12). Callahans example demonstrates that the concept of universalism is an observable phenomenon in the rhetoric of these U.N statesmen, thinkers, and philosophers. In contrast, the following statements in the Kennewick dispute call for and explicate by means of particularism: The trust doctrine has given rise to the principle that enactments dealing with Indian affairs are to be liberally construed for the benefit of Indian people and tribes, (Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976) - a canon of construction similar to that applicable to remedial civil rights legislation. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994 & 02-35996. 13 Mar. 2003, 8) Because of its trust responsibility and treaty obligations, the Federal government has assumed the specific responsibility for protecting and fostering the well-being of Indian people, including the continuation of their societies, cultures and communities. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994 & 02-35996. 13 Mar. 2003, 8) These two examples from the Kennewick dispute were declared by the Native American Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and U.S. Agencies on behalf of protecting Native American patrimony. Both examples illustrate how principles and treaty obligations (axioms) are to be administered and upheld with respect to the particular interests, benefits, and protective rights of Indian people. Another example from the Kennewick dispute illustrates just the opposite in a statement adhering to universalism: This trust relationship applies to all Federal 32

agencies and to federal action outside Indian reservations (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994. 25 Mar. 2003, 8). Another example from the Kennewick dispute illustrates how U.S. scientists may reinforce a rule that applies particularly: Because of the foregoing considerations, scholars agree that oral traditions cannot be taken as invariably accurate accounts of past events, particularly in the case of traditions that are said to be more than several generations old. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. Simic 8.) The rule that the rhetor wants reinforced in this example is that scholars cannot define oral tradition as a constant variable that accurately recounts past events, particularly when the oral evidence is several generations old. All of these examples illustrate how rhetoric may be oriented toward universalism or toward particularism when axioms are discussed, interpreted, and reinforced by the rhetor(s). This study interprets the concepts and phenomena of universalism and particularism as they are defined, discussed, and exemplified here and as reinforced in the literature cited. Analogic versus Analytic Reasoning Analogism is a method of reasoning or argument on which a basis of comparison is issued that draws upon resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike (analogism). Thus, the core argument of analogism focuses on drawing relationships among two things on a basis of similarity. For example, Patrick Glenn in Legal Traditions of the World discusses gyras, which involve a form of analogical reasoning in the forth component of Islamic legal tradition.

33

Glenn suggests that this form of analogism is significant in its role of excluding more absolute forms of thinking (162). Gyras provide space for one undergoing litigation to argue by means of forming analogy, that is, to call upon relationships on a platform of similarity and to find characteristics or particularities among those variables in any such established relationship. The strategy of drawing upon similarities of two like things is a feature of analogical reasoning present in the examples from the Kennewick dispute: (N-100.03) ...there are no provisions for scientific study of inadvertently discovered remains in NAGPRA, and as such, no means by which courts may redress plaintiffs alleged harms. Accordingly, plaintiffs are not within the zone of interest protected by NAGPRA and their claimed harms cannot adequately be redressed. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994. 25 Mar. 2003, 11). Indeed the spread of legends, one form of oral tradition, is similar to the dissemination of rumors. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. Simic 4)

(S-100.01)

The first example N-100.03, by Native Americans, illustrates by analogy that the plaintiff scientists lack constitutional and prudential standing to pursue this action. The analogy is drawn by first making the point that no provisions exist in repatriation law by which to redress plaintiffs alleged claims of harm committed. Then, this point is extended to another point that is analogous in effect to the first. That is, the second point is made to reinforce plaintiffs lack of coverage under NAGPRAs protective zone of interest. Both points are similar because both reinforce that the plaintiffs lack solid standing for pursuing this matter since they have no protections under repatriation law. The second example (S-100.01) was made by an amicus curiae scholar on behalf of the plaintiff scientists. This example clearly positions an analogy between the spread of legends and frivolous rumors 34

in an effort to discredit oral tradition evidence in the Kennewick case. In contrast to analogy, analyticity is an analytical approach which is a method of reasoning based on a material or an abstract entity that is then broken down into its constituent elements for determination or study of the essential elements (analyticity). Thus the core argument of analyticity involves resolution of elements in any such analysis. Given that the Kennewick dispute takes place largely in a court of law within a legal context, the voluminous use of the analytical approach to reasoning is to be expected. Examples of analytical reasoning in the Kennewick dispute include samples N-2230.32 and S-2230.45: (N-2230.32) NAGPRA is remedial Indian human rights legislation, enacted to protect Native American burial sites and the removal of humans remains. As such, Congress foreclosed these academics from asserting the right to challenge repatriations in order to conduct what amounts to peer review of previous government studies of the native remains; consequently, plaintiffs lack prudential standing. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994 & 02-35996. 13 Mar. 2003, 16) As previously noted, historical accuracy is secondary to the metaphysical, moral or cultural purposes of myths. Consequently, nothing in a myth can be assumed to be factual unless unambiguously confirmed by external sources. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. Simic 25)

(S-2230.45)

In each of the samples N-2230.32 and S-2230.45, a central premise, precedence, or observation/fact is provided and succeeded by a break down, an abstraction, or by an analysis of the central premise conveyed. In addition to looking at intercultural communication variability in the form of the binaries collectivism vs. individualism, particularism vs. universalism, and analogic vs. analytic reasoning, this study provides a framework for inquiry by means of a discourse analysis.

35

Discourse Analysis/Rationale The method of discourse analysis (DA) is used for the following research aims: 1) to form a composite of rhetorical stratagems employed by the constituencies by means of evidential qualification, 2) to track discursive features of intercultural communication variability, and 3) to determine if any rhetorical differences emerge as a result. Findings from this study are used to draw a composite of strategies and to analyze their effects on the rhetorical situation. Rhetorical differences in the arguments under study might contribute to an explanation on how such effects influenced, reinforced, and established power relations within the cross-cultural context of the Kennewick Man case. My original hypothesis posits that differences in rhetorical strategies may arise as indices of the broader intercultural communication variability in the Kennewick dispute. Discourse analysis in an examination of evidential qualification will indicate any emergent rhetorical differences. Understanding these differences in an intercultural communication context will be useful for interpreting the power relations and for analyzing the strategic effects on the wider rhetorical patterns implicated. Resulting differences are thought to be discursive features in forming an abstraction of the argumentation that each constituency builds. To initiate this investigation, I begin with a rationale for this methodology of choice. In the article Content Analysis: What Texts Talk About, Thomas Huckin opens up the discussion in the textbook, What Writing Does and How it Does, with a point for departure on thinking about analyzing texts and textual practices: The logical starting point for analyzing texts is to consider the meaning of the text. All texts are about something (that is, they have content); and the most direct way of 36

taking account of this is through content analysis (13). Huckin also provides a synopsis on the development of content analysis as the methodology was first articulated by communication scholars in the early 20th century: Content analysis was first used to measure the objective features (article length, size of headline, etc.) of newspaper stories. During World War II its scope was broadened to include various forms of propaganda including nonprint discourse. By the 1950s, content analysis had established itself in communication research as virtually synonymous with discourse analysis. (13) As a type of content analysis, discourse analysis (DA) is an analytical method employed in social science fields such as communication studies, sociology, and anthropology. DA is a useful method for research, practical applications, and pedagogical assessment in composition, education, and applied linguistics/ESL (Bazerman and Prior 1). Ellen Barton describes DA as a method for analyzing the ways that specific features of language contribute to the interpretation of texts in their various contexts. Broadly defined, discourse analysis is the study of the ways that language is organized in texts and contexts. ( Linguistic 57) Barton adds that discourse analysis pays particular attention to the ways that language in context is organized at and above the level of the sentence (Resources para. 3). The scope of DA study can investigate features of texts and contexts as small and specific as aspects of sentence structure, or it can investigate features of texts and contexts as large and diffuse as genres and sociocultural worldviews (Linguistic 57). Barton argues that DA contributes uniquely to our knowledge about the production, interpretation, and acquisition of written language, adding that the research aim is to describe the conventions of language in context, thereby articulating the connections between the structure and function of language in use 37

(Barton Resources para. 1, 2). Barton suggests that due to its methodological potential, DA should fill an increasingly useful role in the field of composition, where it can answer questions about the production, interpretation, and acquisition of written language (Resources para. 1). As a generative linguist, Barton describes how many linguists investigate language as both a cognitive and social object, viewing language as a set of structures and a variety of functions. Under this view, speakers have internalized the rules and constraints that underlie the grammatical structures of their language, and they have learned various conventions that underlie situational and contextual functions of language in use. Two key terms in linguistics, then, are structure and function: a structure is a unit of language (sound, syllable, word, phrase, clause, sentence); a function is a use of language for a particular purpose, whether that purpose is informational, expressive, or social. (Linguistic 58) As a research method, discourse analysis is useful for analyzing language structure that contributes effectively to language function and interpretation within the varying contexts of the oral or written discourse under study. The realm of discourse analysis includes genre analysis, linguistic discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis to specify a few. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) offers a powerful arsenal of analytic tools which is useful in the study of written and spoken discourse (Huckin 157). CDA aims to uncover the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias embedded within close reading examinations of texts (qtd. in McGregor Critical Discourse Analysis). Discursive practices refer to specific patterns of producing, distributing, and consuming knowledge and artifacts within specific fields of action (Kamberelis and Luna 252). Huckin affirms that [CDA] enriches the analysis further by insisting that such close reading be done in conjunction with a broader contextual analysis, including consideration of discursive practices, intertextual relations, and sociocultural 38

factors. To some extent, these activities resemble the sort of analysis done in cultural studies; but CDA puts more emphasis both on the fine-grained details of text and on the political aspects of discursive manipulation. (157) Central to CDA is exposure of ulterior sources of dominion or suppression in texts and their method of development within sociopolitical, historical, and legal contexts. Dunmire argues that several critical linguistic studies on texts have unraveled the linguistic devices, processes, and structures that function in advancing socially constructed ideology in the media from which these texts originate (Naturalizing para. 1). Findings from Dunmires work in a critical linguistic analysis (CLA) of the Persian Gulf conflict and related high-profile media portrayals have demonstrated how rhetorical and linguistic processes were activated to create a projected event as a factual account by the New York Times and Washington Post (Naturalizing para. 1). The questions posed in this study aim to examine cross-cultural communication interactions and to unfold rhetorical processes, in which a discourse analysis may show emergent discursive differences. These proposed differences may contribute to a composite of effective rhetorical strategies for custody of Ancient One. Discursive practices also might be driving rhetorical processes which may be implicated in orchestrating the power roles in the Kennewick dispute.

39

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Methodology This study works within the discourse analysis framework of Thomas Huckin. Huckins framework originates from his 1992 work titled Context Sensitive Discourse Analysis and is outlined below. Context Sensitive Discourse Analysis. 1. selecting an initial corpus that is of intrinsic interest to the audience (in composition studies, many researchers begin with a corpus of student writing, a collection of disciplinary articles in the sciences or humanities, or a set of texts from an institutional workplace); 2. identifying salient patterns, usually by scanning texts holistically; 3. determining interestingness (how are the identified patterns interesting in composition studies?); 4. selecting a study corpus (sampling); 5. verifying the pattern (coding, counting, and other forms of empirical analysis); 6. developing a functional-rhetorical analysis (explaining the significance of a pattern in its context). (qtd. in Barton Linguistic 66-7) Huckins model renders that all choices in discourse study must be made with the larger field of composition and rhetoric in mind (Barton Contrastive 223). The key phrase in Step 3 is determining interestingness; Huckin defines this as something that is perceived as both useful to theory-building or pedagogy and [that is] original [such as in composition] (qtd. in Barton Contrastive 223). Step 6 in particular emphasizes the social dimensions of writing (Barton Contrastive 223). Working within Huckins framework, Barton expands on Step 2, describing what makes up a salient pattern in more detail (Linguistic 66). 40

In her discussion on rich text features, conventions, and patterns, Barton adds that Rich text features are particular features in a text or a set of texts that are associated with conventions of meaning and significance in context. Rich features are defined as those features that point to the relation between a text and its context. Rich features have both linguistic integrity (i.e., they have structural features of languages, so they can be defined in linguistic terms and then categorized, coded, counted, and otherwise analyzed empirically) and contextual value (i.e., they can be conventionally connected to matters of function, meaning, interpretation, and significance). The connection between a feature and its contextual value is a convention of language use. In this method, then, the connection between structure and function is the primary focus of [rich text] analysis. A convention is an interpretive association between the typical use of a feature and its meaning in context. A pattern is the conventional relationship between a structural feature and its function, meaning, or significance in context. (Linguistic 66) The entire approach that Barton elaborates on is called rich text analysis. This study adopts Bartons definition of rich text features and employs her expanded approach to rich text analysis. This study also uses Chafes definition of evidentiality in its broadest meaning as involving expressions of attitudes toward knowledge, [in which] knowledge is defined as information whose status is qualified in one way or another (qtd. in Dunmire Naturalizing para. 13). Scholarly interest in evidentiality began with the study of American indigenous languages, especially those of Northern California, where the marking of evidentiality through verb suffixes is widespread (Chafe and Nichols 20: viii). Evidentials code for degrees of reliability of evidence and for other epistemological considerations including, mode of knowing, or the various ways in which knowledge is acquired, and source of knowledge, or the origination of the information presented (Dunmire Naturalizing para. 13). 41

Dunmire notes that by omitting evidential qualification, information is constructed as factual or presupposed (Constructing 19). Although English lacks a specific grammatical category for evidentials, Barton points out that ...a variety of optional, nonpropositional constructions can function as evidentials [in English], including modals such as must or should; sentential adverbs like possibly, normally, and undoubtedly; sentence-initial conjunctions such as but; prepositional phrases like of course and in fact; and predications such as I believe that and X claims that. (Evidentials 746) Barton adds that evidentials include metadiscourse expressions that express a writers attitude toward knowledge; examples include words and phrases like probably, generally, I think, I believe, and oddly enough (Resources para. 32). In her work titled Linguistic Discourse Analysis, Barton provides a typology of evidentials within a working frame that is based on Chafes identification of three general categories of evidentials (72): 1) Degree-of-reliability evidentials evaluate the reliability of knowledge, with expressions such as probably, certainly, generally, and virtually. 2) Evidentials specifying the mode of knowledge--belief, induction, deduction, sensory evidence, and hearsay--cover a range of expressions. Evidentials indicating knowledge based on belief, for instance, include I think, I believe, and in my opinion. Evidentials indicating type of reasoning include seem (induction) and thus (deduction). In written language, evidentials of hearsay include the conventions of citation. 3) Contrast evidentials mark contrast between knowledge and expectation, and include hedges and other contrastive expressions such as of course, in fact, oddly enough, but, however, nevertheless, and actually. (Linguistic 72). Barton explains that identifying an evidential in a text is thus a matter both of analyzing form and interpreting function: an evidential is a nonpropositional word or phrase used to express an attitude toward knowledge (Evidentials 746).

42

In her work titled Evidentials, Barton argues that a discourse analysis of evidentials reveals the ways that experienced and inexperienced academic writers take an epistemological stance (a perspective on knowledge-making) (qtd. in Barton Resources para. 32). Other work on evidentials includes Dunmires examination of evidentials in news articles from the Washington Post and New York Times, showing how this device was instrumental in fabricating an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia as if the information and its construction were factual (Constructing 17). Coding evidentials is discussed by a number of discourse scholars. Dunmire views evidential coding as a constitutive feature of the discourse through which different forms and types of knowledge are constructed and accorded varying degrees of reliability, epistemic stance, and social values (Constructing 18). This study adopts Dunmires approach to evidential coding and employs Chafe typology of evidentials as elaborated on by Barton (see Figure 1 in this study, page 46) in Linguistic Discourse Analysis (72) and in Evidentials (745-769). In this study, the rhetorical situation centers on arguments for custody of the deceased, on rights to scientific inquiry, and on heritage based claim which concern Ancient One. Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey view argument as a genre that can be illustrated in the study of academic writing: Argument is more unified than is commonly understood, and far more unified than the fragmentation of academic fields might imply. Every scientist or scholar, regardless of field, relies on common devices of rhetoric: on metaphors, invocations of authority, and appeals to audiences....But... argument is more diverse than is commonly understood....Every field is defined by its own special devices and patterns of rhetoric. (qtd. in Barton Evidentials 747) Barton distinguishes argument from argumentation noting that argument is a specific term, describing the presentation and support of a thesis or claim... 43

argumentation, in contrast, is a broader term, describing the genre of the entire essay (Evidentials 747). In composition studies, scholars have made great strides in understanding the rhetoric of inquiry and strategies of argumentation in specific fields (see work by Bazerman and Paradis; Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey; Swales; Myers; Nash; Jolliffee) (Barton Evidentials 747). In this study, as mentioned earlier, the rhetorical situation centers on arguments for custody of the deceased, on rights to scientific inquiry, and on heritage based claims. This rhetorical situation is the connective interface between the wider scope of the intercultural communication context and on the specific rich text feature analysis of evidentials or attitudes toward knowledge which illustrate strategic differences in argumentation and epistemological stance. Thatcher emphasizes that the rhetorical situation is the point of interaction or mediation between the larger rhetorical patterns and the particular, author, audience, contextual demands and constraints, and local culture (L2 Professional Writing 42). Rhetoricians have designed research methods for studying the relationships between the larger rhetorical patterns and the specific rhetorical situation; however, Thatcher points out that this research has not been crosscultural (L2 Professional Writing 42). This study recognizes the rhetorical situation of argument as the point of interaction between the intercultural communication context of the Kennewick Man case and the specific, rich text features of evidentials under study. Thus, this view establishes the rhetorical situation of attitudes toward knowledge and arguments for custodial right with respect to their relationships between text and context.

44

This study aims to apply the methodology of DA to key legal documents from the Kennewick dispute. Janice Schuetz recounts that treaties, letters, oral histories, speeches, ritual performance, media reports, biographical narratives, protests and demonstrations, political hearings, and legal proceedings are all rhetorical constructions that influence audiences (xii). In following Schuetzs examples, I gather data and background information from publicized records including court documents and press-release statements from the constituencies. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has discarded oral history evidence from the tribal coalition in this case, and the retrieval of these key documents for data collection purpose is unlikely prior to data analysis. First-Level of Abstraction: Unit of Analysis Once gathered, the data are analyzed into rhetorical motifs. These motifs are discourse constructs containing an argument in the Kennewick dispute which also reflects on the rhetorical triad of ethos, pathos, and logos in general. Specifically, each motif expresses solely or in combination evidential qualification that 1) reflects reliability of knowledge, 2) signifies mode of knowledge, or 3) that marks a contrast between knowledge and expectation as outlined in Chafe and Bartons typology of evidentials in Figure 1. On further detail, each rhetorical motif is an exemplar or uniform unit consisting of an independent clause or of a single or a multiple sentence-level construct taken by a constituency in rhetorical support of a position for custody. Once identified and sorted, each motif is coded for evidentiality in text and for intercultural communication variability in context. Evidential coding is the first level of abstraction while intercultural communication variability is discussed at the 45

Evidential Coding Scheme

1000-numbered series Degree-of-reliability certainly perhaps evidently possibly generally probably in fact undeniably obviously undoubtedly of course virtually

2000-numbered series Mode of Knowledge belief deduction induction hearsay sensory evidence

3000-numbered series Contrast Evidentials actually oddly enough but of course however nevertheless in fact unfortunately

46
10-numbered series Belief I believe I guess, I suppose I think in my opinion 20-numbered series Induction for instance it appears it seems must 30-numbered series Deduction as a result as such therefore thus 40-numbered series Sensory Evidence I feel I see I hear 50-numbered series Hearsay/Citation in written language, includes the conventions of citation. (Barton Evidentials 746). Figure 1. Evidential Coding Scheme. This typology of evidentials is a working frame that is based on Chafes identification of three general categories of evidentials. This listing is not exhaustive, but it focuses on the works of Chafe, Barton, and Dunmire (Barton Evidentials 745-769, Linguistic 72, Resources para. 32; Dunmire Constructing Appendix A, Naturalizing 221). Hypothesis: A model is invented that predicts what will or will not count as evidence (Dunmire Constructing Appendix A). can should could would presumably affirms argues asserts assumes claims presumes proclaims proposes says states suggests tells

second-level of abstraction. Beginning at the first-level of abstraction, the following sequence of three sentences in example S-2030.01 is coded as an exemplar rhetorical motif on the basis of forming a solely expressed rhetorical feature that expounds by logos generally and that represents the evidential mode of knowledge specifically by means of deduction: (S-2030.01) Both the 'Windust' and 'Cascade' phases are archaeological analytical units. They are not ethnic categories. As such, it is not scientifically accurate to attempt to link any present-day [Native American] group with any earlier ancient group using the phase concept. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. 28 May 2003. Baker 8.)

In example S-2030.01, this statement by the scientists is denoted with an S label; and, this motif is numerically categorized as expressing the evidential qualification of mode of knowledge by means of deduction. These motifs are numerically labeled in the mode of knowledge category by the two-thousand numbered series (2000.00) and by deduction in the thirtieth position (30). Each exemplar unit of analysis in the thirtieth-position series of deduction is identified by its count in the ten one-hundredths position (0.01). As such, this exemplar construct is then counted as a unit of analysis. Also at the first-level of abstraction, rhetorical appeal is founded on the ethics of citation as evoked by scientists in example (S-2050.01): (S-2050.01) Further, W. Raymond Wood, in an analysis of the utility of the phase concept for studies of ethnogenesis, concluded that: Tracing a dynamic social entity such as a tribe into a past that is populated by such intuitively derived phases transforms interpretation into rank speculation. (Bonnichsen et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. Baker 8.)

This motif is numerically identified in the evidential mode of knowledge category by the two-thousand numbered series and by hearsay (citations) in the fiftieth position 47

(2050.01). Each exemplar unit of analysis in this hearsay category is identified by its count in the ten one-hundredths position (0.01). Evidentials of citation (hearsay) often overlap or embody one of the other evidentials or may interact with the authors argumentation in other ways. For instance, the use of concluded in sample S-2050.01 emphasizes a strong degree of closure on the discussion of the usefulness in the phase concept for studies of ethnogenesis. Because of the overlap of interaction between evidential qualifications with regard to motifs in the hearsay/ citation category, analysis of these motifs in this particular category will include discussion on other notable qualifications as well. Upon definition as a unit of analysis, both examples S-2030.01 and S-2050.01 are rhetorical motifs subject to analysis at the second-level of abstraction. In two more examples of rhetorical appeal that specifies mode of knowledge, the following statements were issued when the tribal coalition filed a joint claim for custody, asserting that the remains were those of an ancestor. Referring to the skeleton in a tribal position paper, Umatilla trustee and religious leader Armand Minthorn wrote, (Slayman para. 10) (N-2010.01) (N-2010.02) If this individual is truly over 9,000 years old, that only substantiates our belief that he is Native American. (qtd. in Slayman para. 11) From our oral histories, we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time. (qtd. in Slayman para. 11)

These motifs are defined by appeals founded on belief and are argued by a key Umatilla trustee and religious leader. Thus, the categorization of these motifs is first by N for Native American, second by mode of knowledge in the 2000-numbered series, next by its expression of belief in the tenths position, and lastly by its count as a belief in the ten-hundredths position. Evidential qualification of each rhetorical 48

motif as a unit of analysis constitutes the first-level of abstraction. The second-level of abstraction involves coding for intercultural communication activity in context as defined in Table 2 and as exemplified earlier in the literature review.

Table 2. Intercultural Communication Variability and Activity. Intercultural Communication Variable Analogical Reasoning Defining Intercultural Communication Variability in a Rhetorical Motif Function is analogism: a method of reasoning or argument on which a basis of comparison is issued that draws upon similarities among like characteristics of two things Function is analyticity: an approach based on a material or an abstract entity that is then broken down into its constituent elements for determination or study of the essential elements Collectivism involves the act of engaging the self, the worldview, and interactions with the world as originating from within ones social group or kindred (Thatcher Writing Policies 370). Individualism involves the act of engaging oneself, ones worldwide perspective, and ones way of dealing with the world as originating from an acknowledged reliance on the self (Thatcher Writing Policies 370). Particularism functions on the premise that laws, policies, and procedures are applied differently to everyone, depending on that persons social standing (Thatcher Writing Policies 370). Universalism operates on the premise that regardless of social standing, each person is subject to equal treatment under the law or policy (Thatcher Writing Policies 370).

Analytical Reasoning

Collectivism

Individualism

Particularism

Universalism

49

Second-Level of Abstraction: Intercultural Communication Variability Tables 2 and 3 outline a preliminary coding scheme of intercultural communication variables. These variables constitute the second-level of abstraction in this study. Each unit of analysis at the first-level of abstraction is now subject to the coding scheme at the second-level of abstraction of cross-cultural communication variability. Examples of these binaries were drawn from the literature, defined, and exemplified earlier in this studys literature review as well. The numerical coding of these variables in Table 3 is as follows: the 100-numbered series codes analogical reasoning variability; the 200-numbered series codes the variable of analytical reasoning; the 300-numbered series codes the variable of collectivism; the

Table 3. Preliminary Coding Scheme of Intercultural Communication Variables. Intercultural Communication Variable Analogical Reasoning Analytical Reasoning Collectivism Individualism Particularism Universalism Numbered Series

100 200 300 400 500 600

50

400-numbered series codes the variable of individualism; the 500-numbered series codes the variable of particularism; the 600-numbered series codes the variable of universalism. Thus in application, the first rhetorical motif founded on deduction as a mode of knowledge evidential qualification and identified as constituting analytical reasoning is labeled by the numerical value of 2230.01, where the numerical places explicate as illustrated in Table 4. Table 4. Coding Explication Example. An example of an abstraction involving two-levels of analysis is as follows.
Code 2230.01 Analysis 2000.00 200.00 30.00 2230.01

Coding Explication
labels it as mode of knowledge (evidential qualification) labels it as an example of analytical reasoning (intercultural variable) labels it as deductive (mode of knowledge evidential) labels it as the first example of a motif founded on deduction

51

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Evidentials Form Composites of Rhetorical Strategies The data on evidentials in this study form composites of rhetorical strategies used in argumentation between constituencies in the Kennewick dispute. Argumentation, as previously defined in Research Methods, refers to the genre of an entire effectual work. A data collection of legal briefs, such as the works examined in this study, represent an abstraction of argumentation. In contrast, argument refers to specific developments in framing, supporting, and presenting a thesis or claim (Barton Evidentials 747). This study looked at arguments specifically at two levels of abstraction to illustrate strategic differences in argumentation and epistemological stance. Looking at the first-level of abstraction (Figures 2 and 3), evidentials of contrast have the rhetorical effect of problematization; while degree-of-reliability evidentials introduce the effects of reinforcing or attenuating other evidentiary proof. By far the most prevalent evidential or attitude toward knowledge is deduction, mode of knowledge. These evidentials ground argumentation in analytical reasoning (as discussed at the second-level of abstraction), which is highly regarded as underlying universal truth in U.S. courts of law. Evidentials of citation have the effect of highlighting use of literature proficiency. This effect illustrates a constituencys literate mastery of recounting historical and legal precedence and illustrates mastery over the rhetorical situation; this effect also builds on evidentiary proof by reinforcing argumentation with literature review. Citation evidentials also interact with a constituencys argumentation. Evidentials of induction empower a 52

53

54

rhetors interpretation of a particular that is otherwise undefined by an empirically derived given or by a sociopolitical, historical, or legal precedence. All of the evidentials have the effects of circumventing favorably or unfavorably a constituencys or a counter-constituencys position for Kennewick custody. At the second-level of abstraction, deductive evidentials were all marked by the variable of analytical reasoning (Figure 4). Deductive/analytical reasoning was employed strategically by both constituencies as expected given the legal context of this dispute. In a few instances, citation and degree-of-reliability evidentials were marked by intercultural communication variability, including universalism, particularism, and collectivism (Figure 5). Little was gleaned from the remaining data on intercultural communication variability other than some the variables were observed but not sufficient enough to draw an interpretation of possible effects on strategies. Overall, based on these findings, no firm conclusions can be drawn to suggest that cultural influences exist in the communications between constituencies involved in the Kennewick Man dispute. However, the various evidentials do form empirically sound composites of rhetorical strategies which constituencies appropriated to advance their argumentation in this case. Although these composites look the same for both constituencies as both are marked by the same evidential uses (Figures 2 and 3); nonetheless, as I will now argue, all of these evidentials have the effects of posturing favorably or unfavorably a constituencys or a counterconstituencys argumentation for Kennewick custody.

55

56

57

Evidentials Posture Constituency and CounterConstituency Argumentations Contrast Evidentials and Problematization Evidentials of contrast have the rhetorical effect of problematization. Barton defines problematization as showing that a prevailing assumption, idea, view, or situation needs reexamination, reconceptualization, or reevaluation of some kind (Evidentials 748). Swales, Williams, and MacDonald argue that in the academy, the strategy of problematization is used to situate and ground an inquiry. This foregrounding is for the purpose of narrowing a more specific purpose, thesis, point, or argument of an essay (qtd. in Barton Evidentials 748). For example, problematization can be a direct identification of the problem as in Example 1: (Example 1) The idea of competing theories that concerns cultural and linguistic migrations has previously informed us on the hypothesized origins and migrations of Indo-European (IE)-speaking peoples. New findings from research using genetics data combined with linguistic reconstruction theory are increasingly relevant for establishing IEmigration trails across continental Europe and for finding a proto IElanguage homeland. These new findings will be useful for introducing genetic evidence which correlates with linguistic evidence to suggest that gaps in the two strongest competing theories leave room for further explication on IE-language origins. (Xochime 2)

Example 1 is a straightforward identification of a problem because it situates what we already know theoretically about the origins of Indo-European speaking peoples and then complicates what we know by introducing new evidence. This prepares us to reconsider and to reevaluate the existing evidence, thereby marking this example as a form of problematization. Problematization can also be established by use of an evidential of contrast in a juxtaposition that postures prevailing knowledge in contrast to expectancy. For example, in the Kennewick dispute, Native Americans used a total of 38 contrast 58

evidentials (Figure 3) of which some were used to problematize scientists rights to study cultural artifacts. Two results, N-3000.01 and N-3000.04, demonstrate how juxtaposing and contrasting scientists rights with expectancy over interpretation of the law has the rhetorical effect of problematization: (N-3000.01) There are a number of provisions designed to address concerns of museums and the scientific community, such as provisions dealing with scientific study of cultural items, 25 U.S.C. 3005(b), the standard of repatriation applicable to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony, 25 U.S.C(c) and carefully crafted definition of such terms as sacred objects, 25 U.S. C. 3001(3)(C). However, the accommodations made to scientific and museum interests do not in any way detract from a conclusion that the central purpose of NAGPRA - in fact, in the end, the only reason that it even exists - was to rectify centuries of discrimination against Native Americans. The District Court ordered that plaintiffs [scientists] be permitted access to the human remains at issue upon the provisions of 36 C.F.R. Part 79, which, in part, implement the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 217 F.Supp.2d at 1166-1167. Once the conclusion that NAGPRA applies is made, however, the use of these regulations is simply not warranted.

(N-3000.04)

The use of however is an evidential of contrast feature in these two results because it functions as a metadiscourse marker to stress problematization of situated or prevailing knowledge with expectancy over interpretation of the law. This form of contrast evidential complicates the prevailing assumption concerning scientists rights by recalling NAGPRAs applicability before such rights in N-3000.04 and by objectifying the purpose of NAGPRA in N-3000.01. Result N-3000.01 is further qualified by degree-of-reliability evidentiality since the use of in fact further objectifies and intensifies the foundational purpose of NAGPRA. Degree-ofreliability evidentials are discussed in greater detail in the next subsection. The next result S-3000.08, from the scientists, also illustrates the form and function of a 59

contrast evidential by means of a juxtaposition in which a prevailing view is contrasted with expectancy: (S-3000.08) The comparative method indicated that a certain sound unit should be present in proto-Algonquian yet that particular sound was found in none of the daughter languages.

Here again in S-3000.08, a preexisting assumption is contrasted with expectancy in the form of a contrast evidential and its effect of twisting that assumption into a new light. In this result, expectancy for finding a particular sound never measures up with the preexisting assumption. Barton adds that contrast evidentials also mark a shift between a neutral description and a critical reconceptualization (Evidentials 748). For example, the scientists used a total of 25 contrast evidentials (Figure 3) of which some were used to reconceptualize a preexisting situation or a notion as in the following results labeled S-3000.06 and S-3000.25: (S-3000.06) So, too, recognition of the First Amendment's protection for scientific discovery would not absolutely prohibit limits on such discovery, for example, to protect national security. Cf. United States v. Edler Industries, Inc., 579 F.2d 516, 520 (9th Cir. 1978). But such protection would require the court to balance First Amendment rights against governmental regulatory interests. Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 765. The Tribal Claimants and Dr. Boxberger claim that these myths are at least 10,000 years old since they refer to floods, volcanic eruptions and other geologic events characteristic of the end of the last Ice Age. DOI 10292. However, such events were not limited to that time period.

(S-3000.25)

In each result, the scientists invoked reconceptualization of a prevailing view by use of a contrast evidential as marked by sentence initial but or however. Result S-3000.06 posits a neutral explanation of First Amendment protections, then it contrasts that explanation with a critical reconceptualization in which such 60

protection incurs court balancing between amendment rights and government interests. Similarly, result S-3000.25 relays neutral information from Native myths which retell about natural phenomena of geologic events in the last Ice Age; following this information is an understanding that such events have occurred in other eras as well, raising a point in which to critically reconceptualize the neutral or prevailing information. Both of these examples illustrate the effect of contrast evidentials in shifting discourse between neutral description and critical review. In this study, contrast evidentials placed second and degree-of-reliability evidential placed third among evidentiality use by both constituencies (Figure 3). Contrast evidentials marked shifts in discourse between neutral or prevailing views to critical reevaluation, while degree-of-reliability evidentials affected the standing of other evidentiary proof. Degree-of-Reliability Evidentials and Evidentiary Proof Scientists used 22 degree-of-reliability evidentials while Native Americans used 16 of them to introduce the effects of reinforcing or attenuating other evidentiary proof (Figure 3). This was accomplished by qualifying the extent of reliability of other proof and claims. Most degree-of-reliability evidentials in use by the scientists were to reinforce or to discount the reliability of other fundamental evidence relevant to the Kennewick case as in the results S-1000.02 and S-1000.03: (S-1000.02) (S-1000.03) NAGPRA clearly requires appropriate evidentiary support for claims of cultural affiliation. Simply stated, it is impossible to determine with any degree of scientific certainty which ancient group made the weapon that is imbedded in Kennewick Man's pelvis.

61

The use of clearly in S-1000.02 and the uses of impossible and degree of scientific certainty in S-1000.03 all mark these results as degree-of-reliability evidentials in form and in function. The form is a qualifier (clearly, impossible) and the function is on the evidentiary proof. That is, these evidentials mark or call it into question other evidentiary proof by highlighting its reliability or lack thereof. In other results, Native Americans used several in fact degree-of-reliability evidentials to fortify other evidentiary proof of relevance as in N-1000.03: (N-1000.03) In fact, as noted, in the case of inventories Congress specifically made clear its intent not to authorize new scientific studies even in an instance where agencies and museums were being instructed to determine the cultural affiliation of the remains and objects in their possession.

Barton adds that degree-of-reliability evidentials are also used to mark claims within arguments (Evidentials 752) as exemplified in result N-1000.05 by the Native Americans: (N-1000.05) Indeed, the commentary to the regulations clearly addressed this question as follows: [a]nother commentator recommended changing all references to Indian tribe in this section to Indian tribe or tribes to reflect the fact that Indian tribes may bring joint claims for certain items.

Result N-1000.05 uses indeed to affirm how commentary to the regulations is qualified clearly in addressing language that bears on a claim--which in turn reflects its qualification as fact. All combined, degree-of-reliability evidentials were an effective means by which to strengthen ones arsenal of strategies or to weaken the opponents. That is, these evidentials function as rhetorical arsenal by marking claims or other evidentiary proof and by qualifying the reliability of such proof favorably or unfavorably in another light.

62

Degree-of-reliability and contrast evidentials are two of the three types of evidentials that were described by Chafe. The third attitude toward knowledge or type of evidential as described by Chafe is mode of knowledge. These evidentials are subcategorized as belief, induction, deduction, sensory, and as hearsay/citation (see Figure 1, page 46).
Mode of Knowledge Evidentials: Deduction, Citation, and Induction The Deductive/Analytical Effect and Use of Precedence. The most

prevalent evidential or attitude toward knowledge is deduction, mode of knowledge (Figure 2). These evidentials ground argumentation in analytical reasoning (Figure 4) since deductive reasoning is a component of analytical reasoning. The distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning begins with a given, or a precedence, or an empirically derived evaluation from which one deduces reasoning. Thereby, deductive reasoning is intrinsically analytical since it breaks down from given knowledge or from general or universal premises. In contrast, inductive reasoning has no given, and therefore, one must induce reasoning, from particulars to a generalization leap, based on study that does not lead from direct analysis of given information. Results of deductive evidentials involving given information in the form of precedence followed by deduction/analytical qualification include the following two results labeled N-2230.45 and N-2230.24. Each result is followed by brief discussion: (N-2230.45) The exacting scientific connection required by the lower court to sustain a link between ancient remains and present day tribes would render NAGPRA a nullity, as no remains older than a few hundred years could ever be repatriated.

63

Result N-2230.45 provides given information in the form of a precedence that relays a lower courts requirement in establishing a precise, scientific connection between ancient human remains and modern tribes. Drawing from this requirement, the Native Americans deduce a hypothetical enforcement of the requirement by the use of the deduction evidential would. In doing so, the Natives deduce reasoning that exposes a flaw in the requirement, which compromises the reasoning underlying the lower courts ruling (that is the precedence). The next result is N-2230.24: (N-2230.24) Magistrate Judge Jelderks held that joint claims are permissible under NAGPRA only in very limited circumstances and that the tribes in this case could not file a joint claim. 217 F.Supp.2d at 1141-1143. Again, this interpretation would greatly change how NAGPRA has been implemented since its inception. As the tribes pointed out in their brief, almost 48% of all repatriations have been to joint claims.

Result N-2230.24 reiterates on a ruling (a precedence) by Judge Jelderks in which the tribal coalition was denied joint-claim filing status. This ruling was due to Jelderks interpretation that NAGPRA has a limited circumstances rule concerning joint claims. This reiteration of the ruling is set up by the Native Americans as given information that is once again followed by a hypothetical enactment marked by deductive reasoning. The use of would marks this transition from a given to a hypothetical enactment that contradicts the limited circumstances interpretation. This hypothetical/deductive effect renders Jelderkss interpretation and ruling inconsistent with the almost 48% status of all repatriations going to joint claims. Establishing precedence in the form of given information or in the form of general or universal premises is a powerful strategy of deductive reasoning that becomes an important feature in the use of citation evidentials as well.

64

Citation Evidentials, Literature Proficiency, and Argumentation. The tally of citations in this study was reduced to an analysis of in-text citation evidentials (Figure 2) with distinct, qualifying features. These evidentials were marked by verbs as listed in Figure 1 and included subjects marked by pronouns (and antecedents) or named, identifiable institutions, statutes, codes, amendments, studies, or authorities and such that were not simply parenthesized. These citation evidentials had the effect of highlighting use of literature proficiency. This effect illustrates a constituencys literate mastery of recounting historical and legal precedence and illustrates mastery over the rhetorical situation; this effect also builds on evidentiary proof by reinforcing argumentation with literature review as in the following four results: (S-2050.49) As Boas observed, avenues of travel and points where people come into frequent contact are major channels for the diffusion of motifs, plots and narrative themes. Thompson concluded that "Language frontiers or even the boundaries of linguistic families have played little role in retarding or facilitating the spread of this tale" across the continent. Nothing in NAGPRA suggests that the evidence cannot point to a reasonable connection between the remains and more than one tribe. Executive Order 13,084 (1998) requires federal agencies to engage in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

(S-2050.51)

(N-2050.33) (N-2050.08)

Barton argues that evidentials of citation are hardly neutral expressions used to introduce source materials; rather, citation evidentials interact with the authors problematizations and argumentation (Evidentials 751). For example, in result S-2050.49, Boas observed, avenues...and points... indicating that this expert is 65

capable of observing broad intersections or key points of interactions for the diffusion of motifs, plots and narrative themes. Thereby, the Boas citation interacts with the constituencys argumentation to reflect the quality of expertise cited here. Result S-2050.51 shows that Thompson concluded... suggesting that the topic of linguistic families is going to foreclose on further discussion soon. By sealing off the discussion with Thompsons conclusion, this result attempts to derail arguments on linguistic families from further contemplation. In result N-2050.08, the citation evidential Executive Order 13,084 (1998) requires invokes strong vocabulary with legal implication. This result interacts with the constituencys argumentation by use of an effective citation that invokes powerful and authoritative action. All combined, citation evidentials were an effective means by which to highlight use of literature proficiency, in establishing precedence in particular, as well as to interact strategically with a constituencys argumentation. The Inductive Effect: A Leap from Particular(s) to Generalization. A rhetors interpretation of something particular can be empowered by evidentials of induction use (Figure 2). This empowerment happens when a rhetor interprets something particular that is otherwise undefined by an empirically derived given or by a sociopolitical, historical, or legal precedence. The inductive effect is a leap from particular(s) to a generalization that magnifies the interpretation or significance of the particular(s). Result S-2020.04 illustrates this effect: (S-2020.04) The arbitrary nature of the Secretarys determination is further underscored by his statement that the determination he made was informed by, but not controlled by, the evidence as a scholar would weigh it. COE 26; ER 6. This statement seems to imply that the rational methods developed by scholars for verifying and assessing evidence relating to oral traditions can be ignored by government decision makers at their convenience. 66

Result S-2020.04 references a particular statement made by the Secretary in weighing his determination. This particular reference by the scientists is then followed by the use of seems to make a leap to a generalization that the Secretarys statement implies something more. That implication is that government decision makers can selectively ignore the scientific method for analyzing oral tradition evidence. No where, in this result, is there given information stating that the Secretary actually selectively ignored the scientific method for analyzing oral tradition evidence. Instead, the use of seems magnifies that particular statement and its interpretive effect in this result. Two more results, S-2020.01 and S-2020.02, also illustrate the inductive effect in which a particular view is magnified into a grand generalization, thereby empowering the rhetors interpretative leap: S-2020.01 Tribal claimants persist in viewing Kennewick Man as a relative or family member. While such a view is understandable in light of the historical and religious background of Indian tribes, there simply must come a time at which a skeleton stops being a relative and becomes an artifact. If there is not such a point, all archaeology must come to an end. (Findley 7) While in most cases arising from nineteenth century grave-robbing, this point [at which a skeleton become an artifact] will not have been reached, [however] a skeleton which is five times older than Julius Caesar simply must be beyond that point. (Findley 7)

S-2020.02

In result S-2020.01, the scientist/rhetor acknowledges a particular view held by tribal claimants in which Kennewick Man is recognized as kin. Subsequent to pointing out this particular view, the scientist makes an inductive leap to a generalization that there is a point at which a skeleton stops being a relative and becomes an artifact. Similarly, result S-2020.02 reiterates on that particular point at which a skeleton is still a relative, even acknowledging some skeletons as relatives, as in most cases arising from nineteenth century grave-robbing. Then, using the inductive evidential 67

must, the scientist leaps to the conclusion that a skeleton five times older than Julius Caesar must be an artifact and is beyond the point at which kinship is recognized. In summary of the results on mode of knowledge evidentials found in this study, deductive evidentials and analytical reasoning were the most salient forms of rhetorical strategies in use by the constituencies on both sides of the Kennewick dispute. Deduction is intrinsically analytical and this type of reasoning springs from given knowledge or from general or universal premises. Citation evidentials had the effect of highlighting use of literature proficiency for establishing precedence in particular. This effect illustrates a rhetors literate mastery of drawing upon historical and legal precedence as well as interacting strategically with an opponents argumentation. That is, citation evidentials build on evidentiary proof by reinforcing argumentation with authority, precedence, and credence. In contrast, the inductive effect illustrates a particular view that is then magnified into a grand generalization, thereby empowering the rhetors interpretative leap. All of the mode of knowledge evidentials emphasize authority, precedence, and rhetor empowerment.

68

CONCLUSION Summary of Study, Research Aims, and Purpose This study examined arguments in an analysis of evidentials in the legal dispute over ownership and custody of the Kennewick Man. Evidentials express attitudes toward knowledge by qualifying information that is constructed as factual or presupposed. Using a discourse-analysis framework and instruments of evidential qualifications, this study had three aims: 1) to identify a composite of rhetorical strategies, 2) to analyze the rhetorical effects of arguments on the specific, crosscultural communication context of the Kennewick Man dispute, and 3) to determine whether intercultural influences on communication exist. Results highlighted composites of rhetorical strategies and formed abstractions of argumentation and epistemological stances. Arguments for custody were drawn from a data collection of legal briefings submitted by constituencies to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bonnichsen et al. v. The United States of America et al. For study purposes, the primary Kennewick constituencies were grouped into two factions and referred to generally as the U.S. Scientists or as the Native Americans; however, these terms specifically represented a respective group that participated in key arguments in support of plaintiff scientists or Native American defendants in the legal dispute. On closer examination, this study was conducted using rich text feature analysis of arguments for Kennewick custody. Arguments pertained to an aspect in the triad of ethos, pathos, or logos in general and exemplified evidential qualification in particular. Particular findings were then used to induce a wider range of explanations of rhetorical effects on the 69

specific cross-cultural context of the Kennewick Man dispute. Results on evidential qualification at the first level of abstraction were also used to examine intercultural influences on communication at the second level of abstraction. In gathering data, discourse analysis (DA) was the preferred research method since DA is useful for analyzing language structure that contribute effectively to language function and interpretation. Broadly defined, DA is the study of ways that language is organized in texts and contexts (Barton Linguistic 57). The context of this study was framed by the rhetorical situation, which functioned as the connective interface that anchored the wider scope of the intercultural communication context and the specific, rich text feature analysis of evidentials under study. Barton argues that the use of evidentials illuminates differences between arguments [composed by experienced writers versus inexperienced writers] and, in so doing, reveals underlying differences in the epistemological stance of each group (Barton Evidentials 745). Dunmire found that an examination of evidentials and other linguistic devices showed the construction of a projected event unfolding as a factual account in which the interested status of the speech was suppressed. Similarly, findings from this study may be useful for increasing our understanding of strategic sources of dominion or suppression in texts that otherwise may remain hidden in layers of sociopolitical, historical, and legal contexts. Although this study did not provide a direct explanation on strategic sources of dominion or suppression in texts, it offered clues. These clues include rhetorical effects due to the use of evidentiarys that may expand or minimize boundaries of rhetorical landscapes. Other effects included the building up or the leveling of other evidentiary proof as a form of rhetorical arsenal. 70

To expand on implications of these findings more closely, results at the first level of abstraction are summarized next followed by suggested implications for the field of rhetoric. Summary of Results, Discussion, and Implications for the Field of Rhetoric First Level of Abstraction Contrast Evidentials. At the first level of abstraction, my results showed that evidentials of contrast had the rhetorical effect of problematization. Defined earlier, problematization expresses that a prevailing assumption, idea, view, or situation requires reinvestigation, reevaluation, or reconceptualization. In the results found, contrast evidentials (see Figure 1, page 46) served as metadiscourse markers that reflected on shifting discourse boundaries of knowledge and its interpretation. That is, these evidentials invoked conflict and problematization due to the close pairing of expressed knowledge with a contrasting point that thwarts expectancy over interpretation of the knowledge conveyed. This effect called into question the basis of that knowledge, its scope of meaning, and/or its supposed interpretation. This in turn provoked reconceptualization as exemplified in result N-3000.10: In short, the NAGPRA process was not designed to be adversarial. Rather, the NAGPRA process was designed to be cooperative with an agency having an obligation to work closely with potential tribal claimants. Result N-3000.10 expresses an artifact of knowledge that the NAGPRA process was never intended to be adversial. Subsequently, the use of rather acts a metadiscourse marker which shifts the discourse boundaries of that knowledge artifact from a relay in discounting the adversial view (what the 71

NAGPRA process is not) to an accrediting of a cooperative one (what the NAGPRA process really is). Some discourse scholars have argued that the strategy of problematization is useful in foregrounding an arguments boundaries. Swales, Williams, and MacDonald had argued that in the academy, the strategy of problematization is useful in foregrounding an argument for the purpose of narrowing a more specific purpose, thesis, point, or argument of an essay (qtd. in Barton Evidentials 748). In this study, contrast evidentials most often invoked critical reconceptualization of a legal right by twisting assumptions about that right in a new light; but in a sense, contrast evidentials also helped to frame an arguments boundaries by not allowing the knowledge conveyed to remain free without questioning or to remain limited, foreclosed, neutral or static in its scope of meaning or supposed interpretation. This again was accomplished by expressing an artifact of knowledge, by marking it with a contrast evidential, and by provoking reinterpretation of that knowledge artifact with a contrasting point; this, in effect, is problematization in which the expected range of meaning in context is expanded, restricted, or redefined. The rhetorical strategy of problematization informs the field of rhetoric on how prevailing notions, assumptions, and views are disrupted and thwarted into a new light of critical reconceptualization, often redrawing--minimizing or expanding-the boundaries of that views reach. Contrast evidentials help us to recognize how boundaries of knowledge artifacts are drawn and redrawn. The implications for understanding this are many: What knowledge artifacts are important to minimize or to expand on with regard to interpretation and why? Why is it important to change boundaries of interpretation? Who benefits from these shifting effects and how so? 72

In this study, I found that problematization by means of contrast evidentials marked shifts in discourse between neutral or prevailing views to critical reevaluation, altering knowledge boundaries of rhetorical landscapes. Barton found that contrast evidentials and problematization reflected on the epistemological stance adopted by the academy at large: Even before an author can attempt to argue for a specific contribution in the form of a thesis, recommendation, or suggestion, the ground has to be laid via problematization. Within this epistemological stance, the primary way of knowing is based on contrast, and scholarly research is framed not by common questions but by critical reconceptualization of prevailing ideas or situations. (Evidentials 754) Further inquiry into the function of contrast evidentials might suggest that the purpose of foregrounding is to expand or restrict boundaries of meaning from which knowledge conveyed is granted in argumentation. So, in this study, while contrast evidentials were rhetorically useful in redrawing boundaries of rhetorical landscapes, in contrast, degree-of-reliability evidentials were most effective as rhetorical arsenal. Degree-of-Reliability Evidentials. Degree-of-reliability evidentials functioned as rhetorical arsenal by marking claims or other evidentiary proof and by qualifying the reliability of such proof favorably or unfavorably in another light. These evidentials affected the standing of other evidentiary proof with reinforcement or attenuation by use of form and function. The form was a qualifier (certainly, impossibly) and the function was on strengthening or weakening other evidentiary proof invoked in this dispute. The rhetorical effect was on recasting the knowledge artifact of other evidentiary proof by empowering or defusing it in another light. The degree-of-reliability effect was not as broadly effectual as remapping boundaries of knowledge such as I discussed with contrast evidentials; rather, the 73

effect was analogous to creating rhetorical arsenal that targeted specific evidentiary proof. This opened the possibility for that proof to be defused below or reloaded beyond its typical effect. Recognizing the degree-of-reliability effect is important for understanding how other evidentiary proof is orientated to be valued or devalued. Barton argues that degree-of-reliability evidentials are used to mark claims within arguments (Evidentials 752) by evaluating the status of knowledge (Evidentials 746). This is the same finding in this study too in the same sense that the value of other evidentiary proof is valorized, devalued, and modified accordingly. This study also finds that degree-of-reliability evidentials manipulated an increase or a decrease in the rhetorical force of other evidentiary proof. This strategy of strengthening or weakening other evidentiary proof informs the field of rhetoric on how knowledge as evidentiary proof is manipulated to increase or to decrease its rhetorical effectiveness. With further inquiry, a study on degree-of-reliability evidentials might possibly expose how strategic differences in argumentation confer power or disempower an opponent, indicating strategic sources of dominion or suppression in texts. Other strong factors that may possibly contribute to exerting influences of power on discourse include the use of deduction and induction evidentials. As mentioned and as illustrated earlier in Figure 1, deduction and induction evidentials fall under the category of Mode of Knowledge in the evidential coding scheme. Deduction and Induction Evidentials. Deduction evidentials illustrated how precedence is useful in the analysis of problematic features of given knowledge. Using an analytical lens in some instances reflected back unfavorably onto such precedence, general, or universal premises by exposing flaws in them. 74

This deductive effect was instrumental in supporting my claim that deduction is intrinsically analytical since it involves analysis of given knowledge that has been founded on general or universal premises. Deductive evidentials also inform the field of rhetoric on how deductive reasoning may actually be useful for marginalized groups who are overpowered by a dominant discourse community such as may have occurred in this legal dispute under study. That is, the dominant discourse in a U.S. court of law is the scientific and legal use of precedence. Marginalized groups such as Native Americans often are not recognized as having or as setting precedence; whereas, the dominant discourse community has full authority or increased binding power on what knowledge artifacts are determined to be accepted, granted or conceived as setting precedence. So, in the case of the Kennewick Man dispute, the use of deductive reasoning provided a channel for Native Americans to challenge the system of precedence set up by the dominant discourse community of scientific and judicial authorities. Native Americans were able to turn precedence around and to expose flaws in them by analysis and by means of deductive reasoning. The alternative was to accept a given artifact of knowledge as a legally binding precedence that did not necessarily serve the interests of the marginalized groups of Native Americans in the Kennewick dispute. In contrast, induction evidentials had a leap effect on moving an argument from particular(s) to a generalization. The leap effect was instrumental in expanding the rhetors interpretation of a particular(s) reference used in an argument. The leap effect included 1) magnifying the rhetors interpretation of the particular, 2) magnifying the particulars significance, and 3) implicating the particulars meaning to suggest that it had more meaning or significance in context than actual 75

representation in text. Because there were not that many instances of the inductive effect in the results of this study, further inquiry may help us to understand how the leap effect is useful in contrast to the use of deductive reasoning. Since deductive reasoning depends on a given or a precedence and inductive reasoning does not, the circumstances and choices for using inductive reasoning may rest entirely on the lack of precedence. Deductive and inductive reasoning reflected on logos while citation evidentials contributed primarily to ethos and secondly to logos. Citation Evidentials. Citation evidentials highlighted use of literature proficiency and interacted with argumentation to build ethos. The citation effect illustrated a constituencys mastery of recounting historical and legal precedence and building on evidentiary proof by reinforcing argumentation. This includes contributions to the body of deductive reasoning used in argumentation in which establishing precedence is important. Citation evidentials also inform us about the level of authority exerted in establishing precedence. In many instances, citation evidentials focused on statutes, codes, amendments, studies, or authorities, indicating that authority was at stake. The broader picture suggests a relationship between all of the evidentials and aspects of ethos and logos in the rhetorical triangle. All of the different evidentials formed composites of rhetorical strategies that constituencies appropriated in support of custody in the Kennewick dispute. All of these evidentials at the first level of abstraction had the global effects of circumventing favorably or unfavorably a constituency's or a counterconstituency's position for Kennewick custody. Results on evidential qualification at the first level of abstraction were then used in a contrastive binary framework at the second level of abstraction. 76

Second-Level of Abstraction Looking at cultural influences on communication at the second-level of abstraction, no firm conclusions were drawn to suggest that a composite of cultural influences exists in the discourse constructs under study. One explanation may be due to the loss of key court documents in the Kennewick dispute. The documents in question contained the oral histories of the Native Americans. The loss of these important records was noted earlier as the The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had discarded this evidence. This reaction by the Court is perplexing in light of the fact that the King James version of the Bible that rests inside U.S. courts of law is in fact a manuscript itself, containing oral histories and legends of an ancient peoples. Another explanation for not finding a composite of cultural influences on communication is the choice of methodology. A larger study such as a case study, involving interviews and extensive content analyses (of media reports, critiques, and such), may be required to index notable differences and thereby elicit evidence of intercultural communication variability. Furthermore, results from the intercultural communication binaries of individualism vs. universalism and collectivism vs. particularism were insufficient to draw an interpretation of possible effects on strategies and context. Although, recurring results were observed in the binary category of analytical versus analogical reasoning. Recurrence was important in this analysis because argumentation was defined earlier as the genre of an entire effectual works such as the data collection of legal briefings analyzed in this study. Furthermore, C. Miller defines genre as typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations (qtd. in Dunmire Genre 93). By instrument of defintion, the recurrent use of analytical reasoning in these 77

legal briefings was identified as the single, key feature of cultural influence on communication. This study showed that both constituencies strongly exerted the cultural influence of analytical reasoning in argumentation. This finding--which showed the recurrent use of analytical reasoning-suggests that there may be larger sites of inquiry to investigate: hegemony and assimilation. How far did the Native American constituency go to adapt an anglicized rhetoric in this legal dispute and was the rhetoric really anglicized? Is analytical reasoning the hallmark strategy in U.S. courts of law, and if so, what is so Anglo about analytical reasoning? As mentioned earlier, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals discarded key oral tradition evidence that the Native American constituency submitted in a text based version to the court. An analysis of those key documents may have illustrated the recurrent use of analogical reasoning. Why did the court discard those documents? Does this action by the court reflect on Anglo hegemony and on a forum exclusive to analytical reasoning in one of the key branching pinnacles of U.S. government? When is analytical reasoning effective and when is it not and why? When is analogical reasoning effective and when is it not and why? Who gets to decide what form of reasoning is most critical in specified contexts such as legal disputes? If Natives use more analogical reasoning in certain contexts, then what is so Native about analogical reasoning and why is it more or less effective in certain contexts more so than others? As one can imagine, many questions remain that were never answered in this text based analysis under study. Dunmire reminds us that due to the limitations of text based renderings, discourse analyses only provide partial explanations of social actions on specified contexts undertaken for study. Certainly, to the field of rhetoric, 78

this study sheds light on many tangents of inquiry and provides several stepping stones to larger sites of inquiry on strategic differences in argumentation and epistemological stances. This possible range of study combined with intercultural communication inquiry might help us better understand the complex relationship between a text and its socipolitical, historical, and legal context.

79

REFERENCES analogism. Websters College Dictionary. Random House, 1991. analyticity. Websters College Dictionary. Random House, 1991. Andrews, Lori B. Do the Dead Have Interests? Policy Issues for Research After Life. American Journal of Law & Medicine 1998. Highbeam Research, Inc. <http://highbeam.com>. Arrests of First Nations Activists Raise Questions. CBC Canada Online. 29 Jun 2005. 1 Jul 2005. <http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_arrestsnative20050628>. Barton, Ellen L. Contrastive and Non-Contrastive Connectives Written Communication 12.2 (1995): 219-239. _____. Evidentials, Argumentation, and Epistemological Stance. College English 55 (1993): 745-769. _____. Linguistic Discourse Analysis: How the Language in Texts Works. What Writing Does and How It Does It. Eds. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 57-82. _____. Resources for Discourse Analysis in Composition Studies. Style 22 Dec. 2002. Barton, Ellen L., and Gail Stygall eds. Discourse Studies in Composition. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 2002. Bazerman, Charles, and Paul Prior, eds. What Writing Does and How It Does It. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. (57-82). Bennet, Milton J., ed. Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1998. Bonnichsen, et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. 02-35994. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 25 Mar. 2003. _____ et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35994 & 02-35996. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 13 Mar. 2003. _____ et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35994 & 02-35996. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 04 Feb. 2004.

80

_____ et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Findley. _____ et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Goddard. _____ et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 28 May 2003. Baker. _____ et al., v. United States of America, et al. No. 02-35996. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Simic. Brown, Michael D., et al. mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link Between Europe/Western Asia and North America? American Journal of Human Genetics 65 (1998): 1852-1861. Callahan, Daniel. Universalism and Particularism. The Hastings Center Report 1 Jan. 2000. HighBeam Research, Inc. <http://highbeam.com>. Chafe, Wallace and Johanna Nichols, Eds. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. 20 vols. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. Chatter, James C. The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton From Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65.2 (2000): 291316. Court Ruling Will Not End Indian Remains Controversy. News and Communications 4 Feb. 2004. Duke University. 5 Feb. 2004 <http://www.duke news.duke.edu/2004/02/court_0204.html>. Crawford, Suzanne J. (Re)Constructing Bodies: Semiotic Sovereignty and the Debate over Kennewick Man. Repatriation Reader. Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. 211-36. Creswell, John W. Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003. Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. 1972. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1982. Dunmire, Patricia L. Constructing a Projected Event: A Critical Linguistic Analysis of the 1990 Persian Gulf Conflict. Diss. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 1995. _____. Genre as Temporally Situated Social Action. Written Communication 17.1 (2000): 93-138.

81

_____. Naturalizing the Future in Factual Discourse: A Critical Linguistic Analysis of a Projected Event. Expanded Academic ASAP 9 Apr. 2004. Written Communication 14.2 (1997): 221-44. Dye, Gloria. Language Learning in the American Southwestern Borderlands: Navajo Speakers and Their Transition to Academic English Literacy. Bilingual Research Journal 26.3 (2002): 611-630. Ellis, Albert. Best of the Century. Psychology Today 1 Nov. 1999. Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 20 Apr. 2004. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 20 May 2005 <http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html>. Final Federal Court Brief for Judge Jelderks. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center. Tri-City Herald, Assoc. Press, and other Wire Services 3 Jun 2003. Tri-City Herald. 29 Jun. 2005 <http://www.kennewick-man.com/kman/legal/story/3280896p-3310404c.html>. Foss, Sandra K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 3rd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2004. Foster, Morris W., Deborah Bernsten, and Thomas H. Carter. A Model Agreement for Genetic Research in Socially Identifiable Populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 63 (1998): 696-702. Glenn, H. Patrick. Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001. Gough, Robert P. United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Congressional Testimony 20 Apr. 1999. Green, Lance D., James N. Derr and Alec Knight. mt DNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico. American Journal of Human Genetics 66 (2000): 989-998. Hall, Edward T. The Power of Hidden Differences. Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Ed. Milton J. Bennet. Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press, 1998. 53-67. Holden, Constance. Kennewick Man: Missing Thighbones Suddenly Reappear. Science 293 (2001): 25-7.

82

Huckin, Thomas. Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse of Condescension. Discourse Studies in Composition. Eds. Ellen Barton and Gail Stygall. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 155-76. Jantz, Richard L. How a Simple or was Injects Religion into Science. The Seattle Times Online. 24 June 2005. The Seattle Times Company. 1 Jul 2005 <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002346169_kennewick24.html>. Joe, Jennie R. and Dorothy Miller. American Indian Cultural Perspectives on Disability. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona, 1995. Kamberelis, George and Lenora de la Luna. Childrens Writing: How Textual Forms, Contextual Forces, and Textual Politics Co-Emerge. What Writing Does and How It Does It. Eds. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 239-77. Kennewick Man Remains Slated for Scientific Study. Indianz.com. 19 Jul 2004. Noble Savage Media, LLC and Ho-Chunk, Inc. 1 Jul 2005 <http://www.indianz.com/News/2004/003450.asp>. Killion, Cindy L. Eurocentric Influences on News Coverage of Native American Repatriation Issues: A Discourse Analysis. Diss. Univ. of Oregon, 1995. King, Anna. Kennewick Man to Be Studied in Seattle. Tri-City Herald, Assoc. Press, and other Wire Services. 20 Jun 2005. 29 Jun 2005 <http://www.kennewick-man.com/kman/news/story/6626941p-6512469c.html>. Lawson, Willow. Skeletons in the Closet. ABC News 2002. ABC News. 6 Oct.2003 <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/museum_bones000809.html>. McGregor, Sue L. T. Critical Discourse Analysis -- A Primer. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum 15.1 (2000). 08 Apr 2004 <http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/151/mcgregorcda.html>. Mihesuah, Devon A. American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences. Repatriation Reader. Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. 95-105. _____. Introduction. Repatriation Reader. Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. 1-15. Mihesuah, Devon A., ed. Repatriation Reader. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Morell, Virginia. Anthropology: Kennewick Man's Contemporaries. Science 280 (1998):191. 83

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Public Law 101- 601. 16 Nov. 1990. 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. ORourke, D.H. M.G. Hayes, and S.W. Carlyle. Spatial and Temporal Stability of mtDNA Haplogroup Frequencies in Native America. Human Biology 72 (2000): 15-34. Riding In, James. Repatriation: A Pawnees Perspective. Repatriation Reader. Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. 106-20. Rosenthal, David A. Cultural Identification of American Indians and Its [sic] Impact on Rehabilitation Services. The Journal of Rehabilitation 65.3 (1999). Schuetz, Janice. Episodes in the Rhetoric of Government-Indian Relations. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002. Schneider, Alan L. and Paula Barran. Kennewick Man Lawsuit. Barran Liebman LLP Offices 18 Aug 2004. Friends of the Past. 29 Jun 2005 <http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/040818Update.pdf>. Slayman, Andrew. Special Report: A Battle over Bones. Archeology Online 50.1 (1997). May 2004 <http://www.archaeology.org/9701/etc/specialreport.html>. Stone, Anne C., and Stoneking, Mark. mtDNA Analysis of a Prehistoric Oneota Population: Implications for the Peopling of the New World. American Journal of Human Genetics 62 (1998): 1153-1170. Stockel, H. Henrietta. On the Bloody Road to Jesus: Christianity and the Chiricahua Apaches. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 2004. Taylor, R. E., D. L. Kirner, J. R. Southon, and J. C. Chatters. Radiocarbon dates of Kennewick Man. Science 280 (1998): 1171-1172. Thatcher, Barry L. Cultural and Rhetorical Adaptations for South American Audiences. Technical Communication: Global Issues, Local Concerns 46.2 (1999): 177-95. _____. L2 Professional Writing in a U.S. and South American Context. Journal of Second Language Writing 9.1 (2000): 41-69. _____. Writing Policies and Procedures in a U.S. and South American Context. Technical Communication Quarterly 94 (2000): 365-400. Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner. Riding the Waves of Culture. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. 84

Trope, Jack F. and Walter R. Echo-Hawk. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History. Repatriation Reader. Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000: 123-68. Trujillo Saez, Fernando. Cultural Awareness in Writing: Pedagogical Implications of Contrastive Rhetoric. Communication presented/displayed in the First International Conference on English Studies: Past, Present and Future. University of Almeria 19-25 Oct. 1997. Xochime, Citlalin. Nascent Migrations of the Indo-European Speaking Peoples. English 552 term paper, New Mexico State University. 5 May 2005. Zaharna, R.S. Intercultural Communication and International Public Relations: Exploring Parallels. Communication Quarterly 48.1 (2000): 85-100.

85