Joseph Gafaranga

Linguistic identities in talk-in-interaction: Order in bilingual conversation

Current accounts of language alternation from an identity-related perspective (e.g. Gumperz, 1982; Myers-Scotton, 1993) are based on the view that language alternation is an instance of symbolic action. However, recent developments (e.g. Auer, 1984; Gafaranga, 1999, 2000), conducted within an ethnomethodological/CA framework, view language alternation among bilingual speakers as practical social action. One of the main concerns in these new developments is the issue of order in bilingual conversation. This paper, using the methodology of membership categorisation analysis (Sacks, 1966, 1974), suggests an identity-related account of the orderliness of language alternation. It argues that, in order to account for the orderliness (i.e. the possibility) of language alternation, language preference must be viewed as a membership categorisation device. The discussion in this paper is based on conversations collected among bilingual Rwandese whose languages are French and Kinyarwanda.

Medium request: Talking language shift into being

In his landmark contribution to the field of language shift/maintenance, Fishman maintains that, for language shift to be reversed, “face-to-face, small-scale social life must be pursued in their own right and focused upon directly.” This article responds to this call to examine language shift at the level of face-to-face interaction. It describes a specific interactional practice, referred to as “medium request,” observed in the Rwandan community in Belgium, where language shift is taking place from Kinyarwanda-French bilingualism to French monolingualism. The practice consists in the fact that younger members of the community, when in interaction with adult members, constantly (albeit indirectly) request the latter to “medium-switch” from Kinyarwanda to French. The article therefore describes the practice as a specific type of language/medium negotiation, examines its various strategies, and shows how, through this interactional practice, members of the community actually talk language shift into being. (Medium request, language shift, language maintenance, language/medium negotiation, other-initiated medium repair, embedded medium repair, generalized content repair, targeted content repair, understanding check)

Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organization: The orderliness of language alternation

A common assumption in research on talk, especially in research on talk among bilingual speakers, is that people speak languages. This assumption leads to a serious issue of the orderliness of language alternation among bilingual speakers, of the possibility of conducting a conversational activity in two languages. To account for the orderliness of this type of talk, most researchers (e.g., Gumperz 1982, Myers-Scotton 1993b) have tended to focus on the symbolic dimension of language and argued that language alternation is not random for it is socioculturally significant. While language alternation does indeed have a symbolic dimension, it is also an instance of practical action and it is on this level that issues of its feasibility arise. As a consequence, another tradition of research (e.g., Auer 1984, 1988, 1995), which investigates talk among bilingual speakers as an instance of practical action, is fast developing. The problem with this tradition is that, drawing on the concept of language as an analytical tool, it can account only for some instances of language alternation. Therefore, this article comes in the thrust of this second research perspective and suggests ways of overcoming that difficulty. More specifically, the article argues for the need to suspend the concept of language, to see talk as an orderly activity and language choice as a significant aspect of that order. it argues that the concept of medium of an interactional episode, rather than that of language, can allow the analyst to account for the orderliness of language alternation, for the possibility of conducting a conversation in two languages.

‘Medium of instruction’ vs. ‘medium of classroom interaction’: language choice in a French complementary school classroom in Scotland

Abstract The aim of this paper is to account for language choice and alternation phenomena we have observed in a French complementary school classroom in Scotland. In this classroom, talk can be conducted in French (the official medium of instruction), in English (the other language in contact) and in both French and English. A critical review of the literature has revealed that current studies of bilingual classroom talk are conducted either from a ‘local order’ perspective or from an ‘overall order’ perspective. While the local order perspective is indifferent towards the phenomena we have observed in the target classroom, the overall order perspective can account only for part of the data, namely, cases where talk is conducted in the medium of instruction. Therefore, drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, this paper suggests an alternative view. Building on Gafaranga, we demonstrate that the notion of ‘medium of classroom interaction’ is a more appropriate ‘scheme’ for the interpretation of the bilingual practices we have observed.

Language alternation and conversational repair in bilingual conversation

Researchers have consistently reported language alternation in repair sequences in bilingual conversation. However, up until now, no systematic account of the relationship between language alternation and conversational repair has been put forward. The aim of this article is to fill this gap. Two main questions are addressed: (a) where in the repair sequence can language alternation occur? And (b) what does language alternation do in repair sequences when it occurs? Two main theoretical ideas are drawn upon in addressing these research questions, namely the fact that “nothing is, in principle, excludable from the class ‘repairable’” (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977, p. 363) and the fact that language choice itself is a “significant aspect of talk organisation” (Gafaranga, 1999). Applying these ideas, the article shows that language alternation can occur at any point in the repair sequence. As for the functionality of language alternation, the article shows that, among bilingual speakers, repair may be addressed to language choice itself. Alternatively, language alternation may be used as an additional resource in the organization of repair.

Comparison of face-to-face and telephone consultations in primary care: qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND There is evidence that telephone consultations in general practice are typically shorter than face-to-face consultations and that fewer problems are presented in them. AIM To compare the communicative practices of doctors and patients in face-to-face and telephone consultations, in order to understand the contrasts between the two consulting modes. DESIGN OF STUDY Conversation analysis. SETTING Eight NHS GP surgeries in Scotland. METHOD Transcription and conversation analysis of 32 face-to-face and 33 telephone consultations. PARTICIPANTS Eighteen GPs and 65 patients. RESULTS There are no underlying contrasts between the communicative practices used in face-to-face and telephone consultations. Telephone consultations are typically used by patients to deal with a limited range of single-issue concerns, whereas a wide range of different problem types is dealt with in face-to-face consultations. Most telephone consultations for new problems lead to a face-to-face meeting rather than a diagnosis, making them shorter than equivalent face-to-face consultations. Interaction in telephone consultations is continuous and orderly, but in face-to-face consultations there are periods of silence that facilitate the introduction of additional topics, including social speech and rapport building. Doctors on the telephone are less likely to elicit additional concerns than in face-to-face consultations, and ask fewer questions when patients present self-diagnosed problems or describe problems with treatment. CONCLUSION Doctors in general practice do not substantially change their communicative behaviour on the telephone. Telephone consultations are shorter and include less problem disclosure than face-to-face meetings, partly because they are typically mono-topical and partly because of intrinsic differences between the two channels.

Talking an Institution into Being: the Opening Sequence in General Practice Consultations

A visit to one’s GP (General Practitioner) is a very common social event, at least in the British context. We (patients) visit our GPs for a variety of reasons, including reporting a new medical condition, reporting developments on an ongoing concern, renewing a prescription, and even obtaining a certificate for sick leave from work. The fact that a ‘list’ (Jefferson 1990) of the reasons for visiting one’s GP can be attempted is an important indication of the nature of doctor-patient interaction. It is a goal-oriented activity, an instance of institutional talk (Drew and Heritage 1992b; Heritage 1997). At once these two facts, diversity of goals and goal-focus, lead to the important issue of opening, of how participants enter the interactional world of the consultation. Time constraints within which consultations are conducted (more or less ten minutes) add to the urgency to get the consultation underway as soon as possible. The ordinary everyday conversational method of introducing topics in a stepwise progression (Sacks 1992) is not likely to be helpful here. Rather, participants in a consultation overwhelmingly use the strategy of topic initial elicitors (Button and Casey 1984). Such topic initial elicitors include questions such as ‘How are you?’, ‘What can I do for you?’, ‘What’s the problem?’, ‘How are you feeling?’ and even commands such as ‘Fire away’. Given this diversity of first concern elicitors, the question arises as to whether they are equivalent, whether the choice between alternative ways of opening the consultation is random or whether it is orderly.

Translinguistic apposition in a multilingual media blog in Rwanda: Towards an interpretive perspective in language policy research

Researchers have called for studies that link the macro and the micro in language policy research. In turn, the notion of ‘micro’ has been theorised as referring either to the micro implementation of macro policies or to micro policies. In this article, a third way of thinking about the relationship between the macro and the micro in language policy—referred to as the interpretive perspective—is proposed. In this perspective, macro language policies and micro language choice practices are seen as interdependent, as shaping each other. The article substantiates this view drawing on a practice I call translinguistic apposition and that I have observed in a variety of ‘most highly regulated’ texts in Rwanda. However, for an in- depth understanding, the practice is described drawing on data from a single source, namely the Rwandan multilingual media blog www.igihe.com . The article demonstrates how this practice can be seen as shaped by the Rwandan macro language policy and, conversely, how the same macro policy can be seen as written into being through the same micro level practice. (Language policy, micro language policy, micro implementation of macro policy, translanguaging, translinguistic apposition, interpretive perspective)

Language choice and direct speech presentation in Kinyarwanda news articles

Aims/objectives/purpose/research questions: This paper investigates the issue of language choice in direct speech presentation (DS) in Kinyarwanda news articles. Two specific research questions are addressed: 1. What is the default medium of DS in these texts and how can it be accounted? 2. Can the default medium be deviated from and what functions does deviance serve? Design/methodology/approach: An inductive discourse analytic methodology. Data and Analysis: Data consist of instances of DS extracted from Kinyarwanda news texts published in two Rwandan news media blogs, namely Igihe and Umuseke. Findings/conclusions: Analysis of the data reveals that, in DS, the medium of the original discourse is incidental and that the default medium of DS is Kinyarwanda. In turn, this is interpreted as conforming to the general discourse organisation principle of preference for same medium discourse. Analysis also revealed that this medium can be deviated from either because of issues in the medium itself or in order to serve specific discourse-related functions. Finally, analysis revealed that, in each case, two options are available, namely to merely reproduce verbatim items from original speech and to enter them in translinguistic apposition structures. In the latter possibility, the direction of switch is found to be significant as, in the case of issues in the medium, switching typically takes the direction Kinyarwanda–non-Kinyarwanda, while, in the case of discourse-related functions, the typical direction of switching is reversed. Originality/significance/implications: Language choice in news texts, and in DS environments in particular, remains under-investigated. Therefore, this paper serves as a call for further investigations of this aspect of language use. Also, the study has practical implications for the training of media professionals in the context it has investigated.

Some Quasi-Theories of Order in Talk in Two Languages

The use of two languages within the same conversation has always been a very noticeable phenomenon for lay people and linguists alike, even though bilingual speakers themselves may not be aware of it while talking. Therefore, it may safely be assumed that both linguists and non-linguists have developed ways of dealing with the issue of its orderliness. For the sake of organising this discussion of the ways in which the issue of order in talk in two languages has been addressed, I will adopt a distinction made by Perakyla and Vehvelainen (2003) in relation to doctor-patient interaction. Perakyla and Vehvelainen note that conversation analysts and health professionals have ways of talking about doctor-patient interaction, ways which are not always equivalent. In the case of professionals, Perakyla and Vehvelainen speak of ‘professional stocks of interactional knowledge’ or ‘quasi-theories’ about social interaction. Conversely, they imply that conversation analysts develop ‘fully-fledged theories’ of social interaction. In this book, I want to adopt a similar distinction in respect of language alternation as an issue of order in talk in two languages. On the one hand, there are views and accounts of language alternation as held and expressed by professional analysts, that is people whose attention is firmly focused on addressing the issue of order in language alternation.