THE IDENTITY OF THE MAIN CHARACTER IN NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE ’ S DR . HEIDEGGER ’ S EXPERIMENT : A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

This study analyzes the language used in the construction of the personal identity of Dr. Heidegger through the labels attached to him, both given by self and by others, and his stance-taking. The researcher applies Discourse Analysis to analyze the main character’s utterances. The researcher also uses Indexicality Principle by Bucholtz and Hall (2005) as a mechanism to analyze identity. The qualitative content analysis is used to analyze thoroughly and interpret text data to draw inference towards the utterances on the short story. The result of the study shows that Dr. Heidegger is labeled mostly with negative words by others, however, he responded to combat these labels by using reappropriation or by revaluing the existing labels. Moreover, the stances taken by Dr. Heidegger are found to position himself among others. Together with the labels given by self and others, and his interlocutor(s) in his talk-in-interactions the findings reveal that he is a strange old man, who is very curious and knowledgeable. Lastly, the conclusion can also be drawn that language and discourse are central to the construction of identities that are not always determined by a person himself, but also bound up with how others perceive him.


INTRODUCTION
Language is not only a tool for communication but also a means of identification.It plays a significant role in shaping a person's identity and in distinguishing how he/she may be different from another person.Khokhar, et al. (2016) asserted that although individuals may distinguish themselves by their racial features, the type of dress they wear, the food they eat, and the house they build, it is the language that distinguishes individuals most precisely.They argued that people tend to construct their identities in powerful languages.According to De Fina, Bamberg, and Schriffin (2006), while individuals use language to convey images of themselves, they also use it to identify others, to classify and judge people, to align themselves with others signaling their similarities, or to distance themselves from others underlining their differences.Apparently, in these and many other ways, language and discourse are central to the construction and negotiations of identities.
De Fina, Schriffin and Bamberg (2006) averred that the closeness of this connection has often been recognized in the past, but it is only in relatively recent times that identity has become a well-accepted and independent field of inquiry in discourse analysis as well as in many other disciplines in social sciences.They added that recent trends in the study of identity within discourse bring together theorizations on the self, the role of interaction in the creation of personal and social worlds and the contribution of language to socio-cultural processes.The incorporation of these different trends speaks of the interdisciplinary nature of this recent effort at redefining the field.The twenty years of reflection and debate about identity and language resulted in the emergence of a new paradigm.
Traditionally, some scholars view identity as housed primarily within an individual mind, so that the only possible relationship between identity and language use is for language to reflect an individual's internal mental state.Although the sense of self is certainly an important element of identity, researchers of individuals' language use have shown that the only way that such self-conceptions enter the social world is via some form of discourse, hence the analysis of labels and stances.
This study is a linguistic analysis of the construction of identity through the use of labels and stance-taking.This will be useful in understanding the identity of the main character in Nathaniel Hawthorn's Dr. Heidegger's Experiment which college students and English majors study in the classroom.Classroom discussion in literature subjects can become highly interactive and participatory as students become more aware of how one's language, society, and culture can influence the construction of a person's identity.Likewise, this study can be used by English teachers as a springboard in the discussion of grammar lessons, especially with word classes like adjective, adverb, noun, pronoun, verb, preposition, and conjunction.
Generally, this study also aims at analyzing the language used in the construction of the personal identity of the main character in Nathaniel Hawthorne's Dr. Heidegger's Experiment.Specifically, it seeks to (1) identify the labels used to describe the main character; (2) analyze the stances used by the main character in the talk-in-interaction, and (3) come up with a composite identity for the main character based on the labels and stances identified.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A study on discourse analysis by Bamberg, De Fina, and Schriffin (2011) about Discourse and Identity Construction examined the construction of identity from a discursive point of departure which requires two lenses: the lens of discourse and the lens of construction, and bringing them to focus on identity.They decided to approach the task by starting with a thorough overview on the topic of discourse, the way discourse theory and discourse analysis have developed in the field of language studies and emerged as a new domain for theory and research over the last 60 years.Alongside some discussions, they provided a sharper understanding of how construction is deeply embedded in discourse and how and why discourse becomes relevant for what is called 'identity practices'.
Petar Kurečić (2012) wrote a paper entitled Identity and Discourse in Critical Geopolitics: A Framework for Analysis.In his paper, the relationship between discourse and identity was studied through a critical discourse analysis, which focuses on the political and social context in which identities arise and develop.He revealed that identity as a dynamic phenomenon is inseparable from the social and historical context.It is the result of continuous interaction between a community and the space occupied by that community.
In 2012, Veronica Koller also wrote an article entitled Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines that presents an approach to analyzing collective identity in discourse that distinguishes the linguistic and semiotic description of textual features from their socio-cognitive interpretation.She argued that collective identities are theorized as conceptual structures comprising beliefs and knowledge, norms and values, attitudes and expectations as well as emotions, and as being reinforced and negotiated in discourse.Her study suggested a number of linguistic and semiotic features to ascertain what collective identities are constructed in texts and how, such as social actor representation, process types, evaluation, modality, metaphoric expressions, and intertextuality.
Another study by Fatmawati (2015)  Descriptive research was used in order to identify, classify, and describe Mikhail's utterance which contains the use of label and stance-taking.Based on the data collected, Mikhail labels himself mostly with positive labels, whereas other people did the opposite.The findings reveal that Mikhail is a kind of arrogant person based on the labels given by self.
Furthermore, the more he puts a label on himself in a society, the less he gets labels from others.Lastly, his tendency to position himself along epistemic scale "certainty" and misaligned with his interlocutors in talk-in-interaction has successfully transformed him into a spiritual leader.
Veva Desi Nalalia (2017) in her recent study about "Identity Construction among Facebook Users" stated that identity is something unique of someone that can make a person different from others.This study is aimed at examining the stance and style of Facebook users' personal identity construction through language use.She concluded that Facebook users perform affective positioning stance in order to express his feeling and position themselves along the affective scale.Facebook users also perform epistemic positioning stance in the order of degree or certainty to object discussion and positioning themselves along the epistemic scale.Lastly, Facebook users take alignment stance via imitation, feedback, and agreement.Moreover, Facebook users also construct their identity by using some styles that occur in their utterances.The dominant type of language style in Facebook users' utterances in their status updates was casual style.

RESEARCH METHODS
This study examined how the main character in Nathaniel Hawthorne's Dr. Heidegger's Experiment identifies his social interaction through his language use.The researcher analyzed the text of the short story focusing to the identity of the main character using 'Indexicality Principle', one of the frameworks presented by Bucholtz and Hall (2005) as a mechanism to analyze identity.
In conducting the study, the researcher used Qualitative Content Analysis design.The qualitative content analysis was the most appropriate research design to be applied in this study since it aims at analyzing thoroughly and interpreting text data to draw inference towards the utterances on the short stories.Moreover, the researcher also utilized Descriptive Research Design in analyzing the data.Using descriptive approach was particularly appropriate because an accurate and authentic description was required.
The data source of this research was taken from Dr. Heidegger's Experiment, a short story written by Nathaniel Hawthorne.Dr. Heidegger's Experiment was first published anonymously as The Fountain of Youth in the January of 1837 issue of Lewis Gaylord Clark's The Knickerbocker magazine.It was included later that year in the collection of Twice-Told Tales.Dr. Heidegger's Experiment is Hawthorne's first treatment of the elixir of immortality theme, which haunted him throughout his life.It was chosen by the researcher as the subject of the study because the story is one of the most famous short stories of Nathaniel Hawthorne.Also, the researcher analyzed how Nathaniel Hawthorne created the identity of Dr. Heidegger through analyzing his utterances talking into consideration the two of Hawthorne's favorite themes which he used in the story: the consequences of tampering with nature and the rejection of conventional morality.
The instrument that the researcher used was the short story Dr. Heidegger's Experiment by Nathaniel Hawthorne and the words that describe the labels and stances of the main character.As the only instrument for this research, the researcher needs to consider the pertinent features of the research in order to avoid biases.Moreover, this research regarded the role of the researcher as the outside viewer, also called as etic -wherein the researcher did not participate on any certain activity, phenomenon, or program related to the data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Based on the data analysis, the researcher identified the linguistic devices, labels, and stances which construct Dr. Heidegger's identity.Label is divided into two categories, namely: label by self and label by others.On the other hand, stance can be divided into three types such as evaluation, positioning (affective and epistemic), and alignment.Bucholtz and Hall (2005) argued that identity may be linguistically indexed through the use of labels.Thus, labeling refers to how a person uses words to describe the identity of self and others.Plangger et al. (2013) described label as a metaphoric word or phrase that defines the labeled person's identity and constructs the relationship between the labeled and the labeler.A label attached to a person can be analyzed in order to find out his/her identity construction.Label possesses both positive and negative values.Its effect varies depending on the response of each person and society toward that label.However, not all labels attached to a person can truly describe his/her identity.In reality, labeled persons have little or no choice or opportunity at all to oppose the labels attached to them, compelling them to accept these labels.Therefore, a label gradually influences a person's behavior and changes his/her identity.

Label
The analysis of Dr. Heidegger's and his friends' utterances reveals 16 labels attached to the main character.These labels are categorized based on the labels put by self (Dr.

Heidegger) and by others (the author and his friends).
As shown from the data in Figure 1, there are 8 (eight) or 50% labels used by Dr. Heidegger to describe himself.These are rheumatic, desirous, watchful, cautious, old, curious, discerning, and concerned.On the other hand, there are also 8 (eight) or 50% labels that are used by others to describe Dr. Heidegger, namely: complaisant, bothersome, unusual, old, dignified, eccentric, old soul, and cool.The frequency of use of each label is presented in character.Among all the labels attached to him, old has the highest frequency (6 times or 20.69%), followed by the dignified and old soul (4 times or 6.89%).Meanwhile, unusual, bothersome, eccentric, complaisant, and cool have an equal frequency of 3.45% or used only once.On the labels used by Dr. Heidegger for himself, the highest frequency is the word concerned with four occurrences (4) or 13.79%, followed by desirous, watchful, and discerning with an equal frequency of 6.89% or used only twice.Meanwhile, old, rheumatic, curious, and patient have an equal frequency of one (1) or 3.45%.
Below are some examples and explanation of the labels used to construct Dr. Heidegger's identity.

Dr. Heidegger's Labels Given by Self
There are eight labels used by Dr. Heidegger to identify his identity, namely: desirous, old, rheumatic, curious, cautious, watchful, concerned, and discerning.On the next page are three examples of Dr. Heidegger's labels given by Self.

Desirous
The first label that the main character used to describe his identity is the adjective desirous.This label is used to indicate the main character's strong intention to find out if his experiment really works.As a doctor, Heidegger was compelled to prove the efficacy of the elixir of youth that he discovered.However, he needed people for his experiment.He needed volunteers who would be willing to help him.He needs their assistance.So, he invited to his house four of his old friends whom he knew would be willing to be the subjects of his experiment.This desire for help is explicitly stated in the following:

Excerpt 1:
"My dear old friends, said Dr. Heidegger, motioning them to be seated, "I am desirous of your assistance in one of those little experiments with which I amuse myself here in my study." The foregoing lines obviously reveal the main character's label that he himself used.This label given by "self" to his identity as the main character in the story carries a positive value which he attributes to himself.As a human being, he wanted to have a better understanding of how things work.As a doctor, he was constantly seeking more knowledge, and, in this story, it was knowledge on how to reverse the aging process.Thus, he invited his old friends in the experiment because he knew that they would gladly comply with his request for help.
Furthermore, this label gives the main character a positive or a valuable trait in his role as a doctor.It suggests that those in the medical field must continually search for knowledge in order to alleviate or cure the ailments that have affected those who are sick, especially those who are aging.

Concerned
As he had been filling the glasses with the water, he noticed the excitement of his friends.Thus, he gave them words of advice contained in the following: Excerpt 2: "Before you drink, my respectable old friends," said he, "it would be well that, with the experience of a lifetime to direct you, you should draw up a few general rules for your guidance, in passing a second time through the perils of youth." In Dr. Heidegger's utterance above, it can be implied that he was concerned.When his friends finally decided to agree and drink the elixir, he never failed to warn and gave them advice.It could be surmised that he was worried about the safety of his friends.Being young again could expose them to potential risks, or they could be involved in the same mistakes they did before.He wanted to guide and remind them about the experience that they went through when they were young once.He wanted to make sure that his friends would not commit the same mistakes again the second time.This label ascribes a positive value for Dr.
Heidegger.This suggests how mindful he is with his friends' behavior, and how he wanted them to gain wisdom now that they would pass the perils of youth again.However, despite Dr. Heidegger's warning, his friends still did not learn anything and committed the same mistakes they had in the past.

Discerning
This label by self is pointed out indirectly from Dr. Heidegger's reaction when he saw his friends drinking the elixir.He implicitly labeled himself as discerning upon seeing his friends' enthusiasm over the experiment, their eagerness was overwhelming.

Excerpt 3:
"Drink, then," said the doctor, bowing."I rejoice that I have so well selected the subjects of my experiment." In Dr. Heidegger's utterance above, he describes how happy he was that he was able to select well the subjects for his experiment.This utterance also reveals the doctor's good judgment.He could have chosen other subjects for his experiment, but he chose his four old friends instead.Dr. Heidegger knew their backgrounds such as how they were when they were young, and how different their lives were now that they were old.In his pursuit to gain more knowledge, he did not just stop on the medical aspect but decided to combine his knowledge about the elixir and his goal of understanding human behavior.He knew that his friends were the perfect subjects for his experiment.He did not just achieve his goals in conducting the experiment, he also gained more knowledge about human frailty.

Dr. Heidegger's Labels Given by Others
There are eight labels used by others to describe the character of Dr. Heidegger in the story, namely: old, old soul, unusual, eccentric, bothersome, complaisant, cool, and dignified.Some are explained below.

Old
The word old comes from the phrase old doctor which was uttered by the widow who wanted to have another glass of the water of youth.Literally, the label describes the main character as an old doctor, a skillful person who specialized in the science of healing.

Excerpt 4:
"My dear old doctor," cried she, "pray favor me with another glass!" The excerpt indicates that Dr. Heidegger was as old as his friends.He was their contemporaries.They belonged to the same age bracket that is why they were the subjects of his experiment.Dr. Heidegger did not take this as a negative label; he accepted the label and even used it to label himself as can be seen in his own dialogues.Thus, this label can indicate a person having lived for a long time.It can also connote a person who had become wise.

Old Soul
This phrase old soul is the label used by Widow Wycherly to describe Dr. Heidegger several times in the story.In this particular instance, she asked Dr. Heidegger to dance with her because she wanted to celebrate her regained youthfulness with the doctor.

Excerpt 5:
"Doctor, you dear old soul," cried she, "get up and dance with me!"And then the four young people laughed louder than ever, to think what a queer figure the poor old doctor would cut.
Obviously pointed out in this label is the widow's reference of an old soul to the doctor as someone dear to her or a special friend who had given her another chance at life.The label carries a positive value thus the doctor did not take offense in being called an old soul.He might have remained old, but he was already satisfied with what he had.He was uninterested in the things that his young friends found exciting.

Dignified
The label dignified was ascribed to Dr. Heidegger to describe his reaction towards the result of his experiment.This trait is embedded in the following lines.

Excerpt 6:
One limped across the floor, like a gouty grandfather; one set a pair of spectacles astride of his nose, and pretended to pore over the black-letter pages of the book of magic; a third seated himself in an arm-chair, and strove to imitate the venerable dignity of Dr. Heidegger.
The dignified persona of Dr. Heidegger was shown after all his friends became young again, and they were all celebrating mirthfully.Amidst the loud laughter and unruly behavior of his friends, Dr. Heidegger remained calm and prim.These characteristics almost awed his friends.Despite their merrymaking, Dr. Heidegger was still able to keep his mysterious visage.This label implies a positive label for Dr.
Heidegger.This shows his composure amidst the exulted reaction of his subjects toward their regained youthfulness.
Overall, most of the labels attached by others were taken with positive value by Dr.
Heidegger.Although the labels like, old, bothersome, and eccentric may carry a negative stigma, Dr. Heidegger responded to combat these labels by using re-appropriation or by revaluing the existing labels.According to Galinsky et al. (2003), re-appropriation or revaluing is an alternative route to an increased intergroup status that does not have pitfalls of ignoring a stigmatizing label.This kind of self-labeling has several potentially positive consequences.The historically negative connotations of the labels are challenged by the proud, positive connotations implied by a person's use of the term as a self-label.For example, when Dr. Heidegger was labeled as old, he also labeled himself as old to revalue the meaning of the word old.This example, emphasizes that implicit in the concept of reappropriation is the idea that language is an ongoing process of negotiation, a power struggle over the connotative meaning of symbolic referents.As such, self-labeling can serve to diffuse the negative connotation of the word (Galinsky et al., 2003).Moreover, by revaluing the meaning of the labels given to him, Dr. Heidegger, even if he was considered as an eccentric man by some people, the people around him still thinks of him as a wise man.Galinsky et al. (2003) further argue that in successful re-appropriation, an alternative vision is presented that does not necessarily change the underlying denotative meaning of a concept but transforms the connotative evaluative implications.

Stance Acts of Dr. Heidegger
In this part, the researcher presents the analyzed data of Dr. Heidegger's utterances based on Du Bois' Theory of Stances.According to Du Bois (2007), stance can be approached as a linguistically articulated form of social action whose meaning is to be constructed within the broader scope of language, interaction, and socio-cultural value.Setting the problem in this way brings into play several aspects of language in interaction.Moreover, he also averred that stance can be achieved dialogically by social actors through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the socio-cultural field.
There are three types of stance acts, these are evaluation, positioning (epistemic and affective), and alignment.Figure 3illustrates the findings in terms of Dr. Heidegger's stancetakings.
Figure 3 shows that positioning is the most frequently used stance by Dr. Heidegger which constitutes 17 or 44% of the total stances.Positioning stance consists of two types: affective and epistemic.The affective stance has seven (18%) while epistemic has ten (26%).
Meanwhile, the least frequently used stance is the alignment, which constitutes 9 or 23% of the total stances taken by Dr. Heidegger.Evaluation stance is in the middle frequency which constitutes 13 or 33% of the total stances.The results are analyzed in order of evaluation, positioning (epistemic and affective), and alignment.

Evaluation
Evaluation is the process whereby a stance-taker orients to an object of stance and characterizes it as having some specific quality or value (Du Bois, 2007).There is a total of "My dear old friends," repeated Dr. Heidegger, "may I reckon on your aid in performing an exceedingly curious experiment?" While talking with his friends, Dr. Heidegger evaluated the physical condition of his four friends and the kind of experiment he wanted to perform.The object of his stance or the person evaluated is the noun friends, which refers to Mr. Medbourne, Col. Killigrew, Mr.
Gascoigne, and Widow Wycherly.The stance predicate old is used to evaluate his four friends' physical characteristic negatively.
Still, in excerpt 7, Dr. Heidegger also evaluated the experiment he wanted to perform on his friends.He used the stance predicate curious to evaluate the object of the stance which is an experiment since he was also not sure of the effect of the experiment on his four friends.
The stance implies neither positive nor negative judgment towards the experiment.

Excerpt 8:
"This rose," said Dr. Heidegger, with a sigh, "this same withered and crumbling flower, blossomed five-and-fifty years ago.It was given me by Sylvia Ward, whose portrait hangs yonder…" Here the subject of the stance that Dr. Heidegger evaluated is the rose.Dr. Heidegger used the evaluative predicate withered and crumbling flower to it.The stance implies a negative judgment regarding the flower's condition when he showed it to his friends.This was done to convince his friends that if a withered flower could bloom again with the use of the water, then there is also the possibility for their youth to be restored.

Positioning
According to Du Bois (2007), positioning is the act of situating a social actor with respect to responsibility for stance and for invoking socio-cultural value.Positioning as a stance is registered overtly through several discrete linguistic elements, including pronoun, verb, adjective, modal, and adverb.There are a total of 17 (44%) positioning stances taken by Dr.
Heidegger.The data are further divided into two types: those utterances that contain affective positioning and those that contain epistemic positioning.

Affective Positioning
Affective stance is the speaker's feeling about a proposition, an utterance, or a text (Irvine, 2009).There is a total of 7 or 18% positioning stances taken by Dr. Heidegger.There are two kinds of lexical features in Dr. Heidegger's affective stance predicate, namely: verb and adjective.The affective stance predicate indexes specific aspects of the subject's feelings, positioning the speaker subjectively along some scale of affective value.The lexical features found in Dr. Heidegger's stances are categorized as follows:  Adjective: desirous  Verb: amuse, rejoice, selected, bemoan, protest, love On the next pages are illustrations of Dr. Heidegger's affective stances controlled by adjective and verb.

Excerpt 9:
"My dear old friends," said Dr. Heidegger, motioning them to be seated, "I am desirous of your assistance in one of those little experiments with which I amuse myself here in my study." In excerpt 9, there are two affective stances taken by Dr. Heidegger such as I am desirous of your assistance and I amuse myself here in my study.Both stances index personal pronoun I as the stance-taker, which is then followed by the affective adjective desirous and affective verb amuse, indexing the affective predicate.The first affective predicate expresses Dr.
Heidegger's desire for the assistance of his friends for his experiment.He positions himself affectively by choosing a position along an affective adjective desirous.Dr. Heidegger performs as the stancetaker, while your assistance in one of those little experiments becomes the stance object, and desirous becomes the affective predicate.Meanwhile, the second stance expresses his feeling of being amused.The object of stance is my study and the stance predicate is amuse, which positions Dr. Heidegger along an affective scale of being amused by something.

Epistemic Positioning
Epistemic stance is the speaker's degree of commitment to a proposition (Irvine, 2009).It concerns with the truth-value of a proposition and the speaker's degree of commitment to it.
There is a total of 10 or 26% positioning stances taken by Dr. Heidegger.The lexical features of Dr. Heidegger's epistemic stance consist of adverb, adjective, verb, conjunction, and modal. Adverb: no, surely, not, never, rightly (expressing certainty)  Adjective: possible, informed Excerpt 10: "…Now, would you deem it possible that this rose of half a century could ever bloom again?" "Nonsense!" said the Widow Wycherly, with a peevish toss of her head."You might as well ask whether an old woman's wrinkled face could ever bloom again." Based on Dr. Heidegger's utterance in excerpt 10, he performs epistemic stance by uttering would you deem it possible and could ever bloom again.The object of the stance is the rose, and the stance predicates are: would, possible, and could.Since Dr. Heidegger uses the yes or no question by asking his four friends if they thought that the rose could bloom even if it was already half a century old, he expresses a conditional mood and doubts if they do believe him or not.Dr. Heidegger's question also implies his request for confirmation from the people he was talking to, therefore, it indexed a certain degree of epistemic scale which expresses likelihood or doubt.

Excerpt 11:
"…The famous Fountain of Youth, if I am rightly informed, is situated in the southern part of the Floridian peninsula, not far from Lake Macaco." In the above utterance, rightly informed is the stance predicate which expresses Dr.
Heidegger's knowledge about the stance subject which is the Fountain of Youth.This utterance can position Dr. Heidegger along the strong epistemic scale as knowledgeable.
However, because of the conjunction if, it can be analyzed that Dr. Heidegger is not sure if the Fountain of Youth is really situated in the southern part of Floridian peninsula or not; therefore, Dr. Heidegger is along the epistemic scale of being uncertain.

Alignment
Alignment can be defined provisionally as the act of calibrating the relationship between two stances, and by implication between two stancetakers (Du Bois, 2007).It implies agreement and disagreement with someone, which in conversation, is usually the person being addressed.Alignment as a stance has two types namely: alignment, which consists of imitation, feedback, and agreement; and disalignment which consists of changing the topic, disagreement, and refusal (Fatmawati, 2015).There is a total of 9 (23%) utterances of Dr. Except 14:

Disalignment via Changing Topic
"That is certainly a very pretty deception," said the doctor's friends; carelessly, however, for they had witnessed greater miracles at a conjurer's show; "pray how was it effected?""Did you never hear of the 'Fountain of Youth,'" asked Dr. Heidegger, "which Ponce de Leon, the Spanish adventurer, went in search of, two or three centuries ago?" In this utterance, Dr. Heidegger asked a question instead of answering the query thrown at him.This indicates that he prefers to change the topic rather than to give them a direct answer.Dr. Heidegger takes either the negative or positive pole.He did change the topic because he wanted them to have a better grasp of the experiment that they would undertake.

Disalignment via Refusal
"Doctor, you dear old soul," cried she, "get up and dance with me!"And then the four young people laughed louder than ever, to think what a queer figure the poor old doctor would cut."Pray excuse me," answered the doctor, quietly."I am old and rheumatic, and my dancing days were over long ago.But either of these gay young gentlemen will be glad of so pretty a partner." In the excerpt above, Dr. Heidegger refuses Widow Wycherly's request to dance with him.His refusal indicates his disalignment with Widow Wycherly, however, this utterance either takes him towards the negative or positive pole, because he gave another stance, I am old and rheumatic, and my dancing days were over long ago.This stance was done to let her understand his refusal to her request.
Overall the analysis shows that Dr. Heidegger's alignment has higher frequency constituting a total of six (6) utterances and only three (3) stances for disalignment.Since alignment is the act of calibrating the relationship between two stances, the high frequency of alignment indicates Dr. Heidegger's tendency to take the positive pole towards his interlocutor.Dr. Heidegger, therefore, has the personality to align himself not by forcing or giving all the information he knew, but rather by allowing his friends to explore and to learn by themselves the consequences of their actions.

The Composite Identity of Dr. Heidegger
The findings reveal that the labels attached to Dr. Heidegger and his stancetaking have created his identity.The labels attached to him, both by self and others can define and make him very different from other people.Meanwhile, he takes the stances in order to evaluate, position, and align himself with others.
Moreover, the labels are given by others to Dr. Heidegger, namely: complaisant, troublesome, unusual, cool, old, dignified, eccentric, and old soul would point to the conclusion that the society regards him as a strange but respected man.In contrast, the selflabels that Dr. Heidegger ascribes to himself, namely: watchful, discerning, curious, old, cautious, concerned, desirous, and rheumatic would clearly lead to the conclusion that he is a sensible and curious person.Therefore, by analyzing the labels that others attach to the character, it can be deduced how they view or regard him in society.Meanwhile, by analyzing the labels given by Dr. Heidegger to himself helps determine how he defines himself among people in his milieu.
The labels are given by self and others to Dr. Heidegger also have other functions besides to construct his identity as the main character in the story.These labels likewise describe his condition as old and rheumatic, and his personality as an old soul, curious, and cautious.
Being labeled by others as old, and labeling himself as old is considered by Galinsky et al. (2003) as a response to stigmatizing label.Galinsky et al. (2003) have suggested that reappropriation or revaluing the existing label is the third way for combating the negative implication of derogatory labels.This example emphasizes that implicit in the concept of reappropriation is the idea that language is an ongoing process of negotiation, a power struggle over the connotative meaning of symbolic referents.As such, self-labeling can serve to diffuse the negative connotation of the word (Galinsky et al., 2003).It can also further be argued that in successful re-appropriation, an alternative vision is presented that does not necessarily change the underlying denotative meaning of a concept, but transforms the connotative evaluative implications.
Meanwhile, among the three kinds of stances in the story, positioning is the one frequently used, consisting a total of 17 (44%).It is followed by an evaluation with a total of 13 (33%), and alignment with a total of 9 (23%).The relationship between stance and identity construction relies on its function in displaying subjectivity, which Du Bois (2007) defines as the relation between the stancetaker and the object of stance, and inter-subjectivity which he defines as the relationship between one speaker's subjectivity and other person's utterance.Dr. Heidegger constructs his identity through stancetaking by evaluating an object, positioning himself along the affective or epistemic scale, and aligning or disaligning with his interlocutor(s).
The findings on Dr. Heidegger's stances show that he evaluated people, things, and situations.His evaluations consist of positive and negative values, depending on his view towards the subject of stance.Moreover, Dr. Heidegger performs affective positioning stances in order to express his feelings and to position himself along the affective scale.As the main character, he uses verbs and adjectives as stance predicate.The object of his stance includes people, things, situation, and emotion.
In order to express his degree of commitment towards the object of stance, Dr. Heidegger performs epistemic stances.The lexical features or the stance predicate in Dr. Heidegger's epistemic stance consists of adverbs, adjectives, verbs, conjunctions, and modals.
On the other hand, Dr. Heidegger assorts himself towards his interlocutor by taking alignment and disalignment.Dr. Heidegger takes alignment stances via agreement and feedback, while for disalignment; he takes the stances via refusal and changing topic.
Moreover, it is undeniable that an utterance can contain two or all three kinds of stances.
The utterances of Dr. Heidegger show the ways he evaluated objects, positioned himself in an utterance, and aligned himself with his interlocutors.This clearly points to the conclusion that he was observant and wise, he knew how to interact well with people in his successfully achieved what he really wanted in his experiment, and he gained not just scientific knowledge but moral knowledge as well.

CONCLUSION
Based on the result of the study, it can be concluded that language is not just used for communication.It is also a great tool to create an identity of an individual.Based on the labels (self and others) and stances analyzed, the researcher was able to conclude that the composite identity of Dr. Heidegger is an extraordinary combination of varied attributes.He was a strange man who lived by his own set of rules that were very different from the society where he belonged; however, despite being a strange man, he was a knowledgeable man, and his curiosity led him to conduct an inexplicable experiment.He was not interested in growing young again, nor in figuring out how the fountain of youth would work.He seemed content with his old age and experiences.He already learned his mistakes in the past, and growing young again would not change these.This also makes Dr. Heidegger a wise man.From his experiment, he was able to establish that humans would only make the same mistakes over and over.Despite some negative traits ascribed to him, he was still well-respected by society.
surroundings.He knew very well how to handle a situation and deal with persons with a different personality.By knowing what they wanted and giving it to them without forgetting to remind them what could possibly happen to them afterward, makes him a character infused with a discerning quality.His utterances show that he wanted more than just knowing the effect of the water from the Fountain of Youth.More than that, he also wanted to figure out its effect on the outlook or mindset of human beings.Through his stances, by evaluating his surroundings, positioning himself, and aligning himself with other people, Dr. Heidegger " said Colonel Killigrew, who believed not a word of the doctor's story; "and what may be the effect of this fluid on the human frame?""Youshalljudge for yourself, my dear Colonel," replied Dr. Heidegger; "and all of you, my respected friends, are welcome to so much of this admirable fluid as may restore to you the bloom of youth."Thestance of Dr. Heidegger shows that he aligns himself with Col. Killegrew.By uttering You shall judge for yourself, he indicated that he understood the colonel's doubt, therefore, he wanted Col. Killegrew to see for himself if what he said was true or not.In the conversation found in excerpt 13, Dr. Heidegger takes his stance in relation to Widow Wnycherly's utterance.Dr. Heidegger expresses his agreement when she asked him to give him another glass of water from the Fountain of Youth.In this stance, Dr. Heidegger takes a positive pole in the alignment stance.