My interviewee asked me to keep his identity anonymous. To do that, I have decided to give him a name, different from his own, so that reading and writing that paper would be more natural. Let’s pretend his name is Jake. Jake is in his twenties and is an international student from Turkey, and he studies graphical design in an institution different from Suffolk.

1)

I did my best to guide him into giving me the six components of the Labovian analysis. To get the abstract part, I asked Jake what the interview would be about, to which he replied: “This interview is about my personal story as an international student. I will be discussing the reasons that made me pick the U.S. and how that influenced me to be who I am as you know me.” Then the story started unfolding naturally. The orientation was the first part of the story: why he picked the U.S. – “After high school, I was sent to the military, as all guys must go. I went and long story short – I got shot twice for the time I was there, and I almost died. I didn’t want to go back to the field, you know, so I decided I would get away as far away from Turkey as possible. I was lucky that I knew English so well. I hadn’t even fully recovered from the second shot, but I had already booked a flight to Boston.” Then the complicating action followed: “I went on a bus to the closest airport, and I called my mom. She was okay with it since no mother wants to lose her son in a war, am I right? (laughs) I got on that plane, and that was it. I was here, and I was alive. I escaped, and I regret nothing. I enrolled in a university, and here I am now – studying and working for a better, brighter future.”

The evaluation part follows: “I haven’t bothered going back for Chrismas or the summer break, for example, since they will catch me at the airport border and will stick me in jail for running away. I know I will never go back, which sucks a little, but it is better than jail or dying, or dying in jail. I do miss my family a lot, yes, but I know I have their support.” The result is in the following sentence: “Going through this was very traumatizing, but if it didn’t happen, I wouldn’t be here, and I wouldn’t appreciate life as much.” I could not identify a coda. Something Jake could have said is: “And that’s why I became an international student – the U.S. is my safe space far away from home. The U.S. gave me that distance, that I so desperately needed, as well as that good education I have always wanted.”

2)

One of the problems with the Labovian approach, according to Patterson, is that it is an event-centric approach – the narrative clauses and the evaluative clauses of the interviewee should be very well distinguished, which is frequently a severe problem, as it is often a fine or even nonexistent line. For example, Jake said that the first time he got shot was in the liver, but the second time was in his head. Thankfully, he was wearing a helmet, which saved his life. Jake also pointed out that when he got shot, he never heard the shots, but his friends on the field did. And then he proceeded to talk more about how he felt at the time, as well as in the hospital. He told me which part he shared with his mother, as well as what he did not tell her. I did not include this part of the story in the Labov’sLabov’s analysis, as it is hard to decide if it reflects the events that happened, or his feelings more. Since I felt this is not the main plot of the story, so I decided to cut that part out of the analysis, but in actuality, this is the part where he is the most passionate about his experience and feelings. That leads me to believe that I cannot include an essential part of the story, which is a significant loss. As a result, this limitation is illustrated.

Another claim that Labov makes is that a good narrative story fits neatly into the Labov model of analysis, which is entirely false and limiting. This claim deduces that every narrative that does not fit perfectly into the model is flawed, imperfect, not worthy, or that its storyteller is inexperienced when it comes to sharing a story from past experiences. How is that even possible? Every person has a story to share, as every person has experienced life and its events, which is unique for everybody. People are conversable creatures by essence, and sharing experiences is key to connecting with others and forming relationships. Therefore it is literally impossible for a person to be an inexperienced storyteller, even if the story does not fit perfectly into the Labov model. Also, every story is told differently every time it is shared. In Jake’sJake’s case, there is a coda missing. My point is that a coda might be identified the next time he shares his story with somebody else, as no story can be retold the exact same way twice.

3)

Jake used the discourse construction of identity method to explain why he identifies as an international student. According to DeFina, “Discourse identities are related to people’s roles as speakers and refer to discourse positions such as storyteller or audience member. ” In this case, he is both the speaker and the storyteller of his narrative. His experience helped him become the person he is today, it helped him form his cultural identity, and it also serves me, as the interviewer, as a tool to understand better why he identifies in the way he does. I guided him with questions, and then I just listened.

4)

One of the audience responses Jake might have, that Muncey mentioned, is the “Ah, but you are different”, and that is an entirely valid response. Jake’s story is unique – not many countries force everybody to go to the military, not everybody that enters the army goes on war, and not everybody that goes on the field gets shot, let alone twice. So in a sense – yes, Jake is different.
One response to that back might be imaginative participation. It is a fact that Jake’s story is one in a million, but “Someone else has to imagine what it feels like” to be him. Empathy is the critical part – people do not need to have experienced the same trauma to be empathetic and to be able to put themselves in another person’s shoes.

Another response might be common sense. Not much explanation is needed here, in my opinion, just some examples – Nobody wants to be forced to go in the army against their will; nobody wants to go on the field and kill people; nobody wants to risk their life in such circumstances; no mother wants to lose her child in a war; nobody wants to stay in a dangerous warzone; everybody wants to feel happy and safe; everybody wants to have a bright future – it is all common sense. Although Jake’s story is different, it turns out all that Jake wanted were the essential necessities to feel well, just like everybody on this planet. This is how his story connects to every other person on this earth, and this is why his story is worth listening to.

5)

This whole narrative analysis ties well with my revised topic, as it gives a story that is worth elaborating on. It provides a new perspective on the meanings behind being an international country. It also proves that despite all the different stories, people can connect on the fundamental stuff that everybody strives to have. It shows how cultural identity can be built literally from scratch, and it also confirms that a strong will can be the drive that keeps a person going, despite the barriers that the circumstances can build. It also proves that home is where your heart belongs to – if it leads a person away from their birthplace, that is entirely normal and understandable.