Sei sulla pagina 1di 26

Journal of Sociolinguistics 12/5, 2008: 668693

Language ideologies in interviews:


A conversation analysis approach
1
Petteri Laihonen
University of Debrecen, Hungary
This study aims to combine tools from the fields of Language Ideologies
and Conversation Analysis, despite their differences, in an analysis of
metalinguistic discourse in research interviews. The goal is to show what
Conversation Analysis can offer the study of language ideologies. To this
end, the study investigates howinteractionshapes and (re)constructs explicit
descriptions, statements, evaluations, etc. of language. Single-case analyses
of phenomena typically of interest in the field of Language Ideologies are
performed to shed light on how talk about language is constructed and
shaped in research interviews carried out in the Rumanian Banat. The
analysis of language ideologies, such as language standards, is thus
connected to the analysis of interactional structures, such as repair. In
general, theanalyses showhowtalkabout languageis producedanddesigned
for the turn-by-turnstructures of interaction. The analyses also highlight the
intersubjective character of talk about language.
KEYWORDS: Language Ideologies, Conversation Analysis, research
interviews, argument, language standards, repair, the Banat
INTRODUCTION
Following the principles of the study of Language Ideologies, in my previous
research I have investigated multilingualism in the Rumanian Banat. Based
on interviews with multilingual inhabitants, I studied how they describe
multilingualismandmonolingualism. Further, I examinedideas theyhave about
different languages, and what kind of explicit evaluations of appropriateness
and correctness they make about these languages. Then, in order to discover the
originandconnections of the ideas inalarger cultural context, acomparisonwas
made between the interviewees descriptions about language and the writings of
local and national intellectuals. This approach allowed comparison of different
discourses, such as folk and elite, or local and national (see Laihonen 2001,
2007).
The goal of this article is to move beyond the inventory and comparison
of language related discourse by taking a deeper look at the interactional
characteristics of the language ideologies in the data. The need to take a more
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 669
microscopic look has grown on the one hand fromthe need to explicate howthe
interviewing technique itself, its routines and its social setting, have influenced
the data. Onthe other hand, fromamore specific perspective, I wishtoexplore the
interactional routines andstructures inwhichlanguage ideologies are embedded
in the interviews.
In this study, language ideologies are defined as explicit metalinguistic
discourse or talk about language. From a traditional sociolinguistic view,
language ideologies, for instance under the label of attitudes and beliefs, have
been treated as representations of internal mental processes and phenomena
(Woolard 1998: 56, 16). According to the traditional paradigm, attitudes and
beliefs are subjective, stable experiences located in the individual. However, this
notion is rather limited. Instead, the focus is now turning to the variable nature
of beliefs and attitudes and their discursive construction as well as to their real-
life contexts. As scholars breach the mental paradigm, the social character of
beliefs and attitudes is increasingly coming to the fore (see e.g. Puchta and Potter
2002). This study aims to show how the social character of talk about language
can be analysed with a new combination of methods.
On the empirical level, the focus of research is now on the interactional or
discursive construction of evaluative and argumentative talk or narrative. From
an interactional point of view, talk about language is a part of conversational
action, such as answering, defending, blaming, accusing or apologizing. Such
actions are always done after or prior to other actions that constitute the context
for the metalinguistic talk. For instance, a defensive action is not understandable
without a(potentially) threateningprevious action. As PuchtaandPotter (2002:
347) point out, statements containing beliefs or attitudes are often produced,
among others, in particular recurrent interactional contexts to resist a certain
view or a possible counter-argument.
Previous research on language ideologies has leaned on both the mental
metaphor and the interactional one. This article aims to take the interactional
approach further than has usually been the case in the field of language
ideologies. Although interactional data have been variously used in research
on language ideologies (e.g. Jaffe 1999; Heller 2007), such data have often
served to exemplify how certain political, cultural or historical phenomena are
represented or trajected (Heller 2007) in them. From a different theoretical
angle, thegoal is toexploreinteractions as relativelyself-sufficient startingpoints.
That is, the focus is onthe local, interactional orientations and understandings of
the participants in the data at hand. However, in this approach, the trajectories
of the data might be discussed as an extension of a detailed interactional analysis
(cf. Schegloff 1987).
Froma methodological point of view, this study is anattempt to bring together
insights from the fields of Language Ideologies and Conversation Analysis (CA
hereafter). The goal is toshowwhat CAcanoffer the studyof language ideologies.
The central argument is that language ideologies can also be analyzed in their
interactional forms. Further, despite the discrepancies between the two research
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
670 LAIHONEN
trends, whichwill be explicatedinsome detail, researchers of language ideologies
have insights to gain fromCAmethods in the investigation of interactional data.
Finally, conversation analysts interested in applying CA might also profit from
this experiment in cross-fertilizing the two fields.
In the empirical part, single-case analyses of phenomena of interest for
language ideologies are carried out to shed light onhowmetalinguistic discourse
is constructed and shaped in research interviews. Two interactional structures
have been chosen for investigation which would clearly benefit from combining
the approach of Language Ideologies with CA. First, after an introduction to the
structure of interviews, how argument on language issues can develop between
two informants will be analysed. This analysis will illuminate how competing
languageideologies mayemergeinaninterview. Secondly, thearticlewill explore
theconnections of repair andtheconstructionof languagestandards. Inthis case,
the interviewer adopts the role of a language expert, whereas the interviewee
constructs and maintains the subordinate role of a substandard speaker. Both
examples include an element of conflict or asymmetry in which it typically takes
two to tango. My claimis that, at least in these particular cases, the interactional
approach is the best, if not only, method of analysis for the language ideologies
in question.
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
The term language ideology has many roots, interpretations and applications
(see Woolard1998; Kroskrity2000) of whichI focus here ontalkabout language
or linguistic varieties. From this perspective, the study of language ideologies is
concerned with the construction of linguistic contrast and difference, which
is analyzed together with the ideas about social and linguistic difference that
socially positioned speakers present (Gal and Irvine 1995: 970). Gal (2006a)
further defines the field as a form of discourse analysis exploring the cultural,
metapragmatic assumptions of howlanguage is connected to its speakers and to
the social world. This is combined with the CAapproach to analyze participants
displays of understandings of language related issues. For example, I will show
how answers often display possible cultural assumptions that participants
interpret a question to imply.
On the linguistic level the term language ideologies turns our attention to
metapragmatics (language about language use) or metalanguage (language
about language). The definitions of language ideology vary according to the
character and location (or site/siting, Silverstein 1998) of the metalanguage
under study. In this study the search is for talk about language that is mainly
sited in explicit talk about language, that is, metalinguistic discourse in research
interviews (cf. Gal 1993: 350). Leaving aside grammatical structures and other
forms of implicit metalanguage (see e.g. Irvine 1998), I focus on how different
descriptions, evaluations and explanations related to language or language use
are produced, delivered, constructed, used and reacted upon in interviews. The
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 671
analysis shows how the occurrence, character, structure and detail of such
transparent metalanguage are influenced by the local, interactional structures.
This will demonstrate how metalanguage is connected to the social situation.
Furthermore, speculations about inner feelings or beliefs can be left out of the
discussion.
CAfocuses onthe characteristics of interactionthroughthe empirical analysis
of interaction in its own terms. In practice this means the qualitative analysis of
sequential patterns of turn-formation and turn-taking. Basic analytic questions
include, for example, What is the participant doing in this turn and how?
This study draws on previous CA research on turn-taking, adjacency pairs
and repair. Through such concepts, the aim is to illuminate the structures and
interactional locations where talk about language occurs in the interviews. One
application of CA is to find out how turn-formation, turn-taking or sequential
patterns construct and maintain the social roles, relationships and identities of
the speakers (e.g. Antaki and Widdicombe 1998). Such previous research has
brought insights into how, among other things, world views or social position
are constructed in situ during talk-in-interaction. This line of investigation has
also analyzed the turn-by-turn level details of the social roles and identities of
the interviewees and interviewers.
Anthropologists doing research on language ideologies might have
reservations about using CA in their studies. Practitioners of research on
language ideologies would emphasize the need to construct the relationship
between interactional structures and local social meanings through a large
range of ethnographic data (e.g. Schieffelin and Ochs 1986: 168). CA has
no autonomous method for collecting and using background data; however,
it has been generally recognized that practitioners of CA should have native
competence in the materials they analyze (Schegloff 1996: 17). Furthermore,
while analyzing foreign data, such competence should be acquired through
ethnographic work (see especially Moerman 1988). Nevertheless, CA is highly
critical of the range of ethnographic observations or historical data in the
analysis, since their potential amount is limitless (Schegloff 1997). Thus,
Schegloff (1997: 182) has emphasized that only such data is relevant to the
analysis (and reporting) which is oriented to (through reference or other means)
by the participants of the analyzed interaction. That is, a CA-type analysis,
unlike the study of language ideologies, rigorously resists relating conversational
materials to some pre-determining external socio-cultural or historical cause.
Finally, applied CA studies (see Schegloff 1987) have demonstrated how such
features might be observably relevant for the interlocutors. In such a case, it is
possible to consider the gains the CA approach brings to the analysis of such
concepts and features. This is the common point of interest for the fields of CA
and Language Ideologies that is pursued in this article.
According to Briggs (2007: 686; see also Cicourel 1988; Heller 2007),
an investigation of the ideological dimensions of an interaction should also
consider how discourses are connected to earlier and future contexts, texts and
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
672 LAIHONEN
discourses. Following CA principles, such considerations are restricted to only
those phenomena (e.g. traces of other discourses) which are clearly warranted
by the analysed interactions. Even though the interactants may be drawing on
already circulating ideas about multilingualism, languages or standardness, the
exigencies of interactioninany case shape and reconstruct these ideas. However,
beyond the scope of this study, CA could be used to compare these interviews
with other interviews (from another period of time) or with naturally occurring
conversations (cf. ten Have 2004: 8384).
The reader may be justified inasking what language ideologies CAcarries, and
whether these might be incompatible with the Language Ideologies approach.
The major fundamental assumptions of CA, such as interaction is structurally
organized (Heritage 1984: 241), have become generally accepted. However,
further findings, such as (a detailed) repair structure or preference organization,
might be culturally relative and thus shaped by local language ideology. Further,
CA has originally developed its analytical tools and categories by analyzing
mainly American tape-recorded materials. However, from early on (see Sacks,
Schegloff and Jefferson 1974: fn10) cultural variability has been treated as
an empirical question. It is also true that comparative research has pointed
to language (e.g. Lerner and Takagi 1999) and culture based (e.g. Kotthoff
1993) differences. However, so far basic CA categories have survived the test.
In this study I followthe assumption that interactional resources, such as repair
or preference organization are available in my materials. Reliance on these
categories is based on cultural knowledge received by fieldwork and previous
research. Finally, a basic requirement of CA is that the reader should have
enough information to reproduce the analysis (Sacks 1992: 27). That is, the
given transcripts can be re-analyzed and the reader does not have to rely on
hidden analytical processes or categories.
DATA
The data consists of interviews carried out inthe northernRumanianBanat. The
Banat is a historical regionsituated betweenthe rivers Mures, Tisza and Danube.
In the east it borders the South Carpathian mountains. The peace treaty of
Trianon (1920) ratified the 20th century division of the Banat between three
countries: Serbia (approximately 33%of the territory), Rumania (approximately
66%) and Hungary (approximately 1%). The main towns in the northern
Rumanian part are Timisoara and Arad.
Throughout its history, the Banat has been a mosaic of many ethnicities
and nationalities. During the Habsburg Monarchy the region was the target
of organized and spontaneous migration of diverse ethnic groups. In the late
19th century the migration flows reversed so that by the early 20th century
the ethnic group currently in power had become a growing majority (in 1930
Rumanians made up 57%of the population of the Rumanian Banat). According
tothe latest Rumaniancensus from2002(www.recensamant.ro) the Rumanian
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 673
Banat is inhabited by more than a million Rumanians, more than a hundred
thousand Hungarians, forty-thousand Roma, twenty-five thousand Germans,
twenty thousand Serbs and several other small groups (Ukrainians, Slovaks,
Bulgarians, Croats, CzechandJews). Most of the minorities, accountingpresently
for only 18 percent of the regions population, live sporadically in multi-ethnic
communities (see Wolf 2004 for details).
The interviews were gathered in connection with a Hungarian-Finnish
fieldwork project (19972000) titled The Lost Future die expatrierte Kultur
(Barna and L onnqvist 2000). The goal of the fieldwork for the Finnish party,
lead by the ethnologist Bo L onnqvist, was to collect life histories, accounts of
everyday life, intercultural contacts and language use among the Germans and
Hungarians.
2
The majority of those interviewed can be considered members of
the working class, with a few exceptions (farmers, factory workers, gardeners
and drivers are the most typical occupations). The project collected nearly two
hundred interviews, mainly during brief visits to the informants homes. The
interviews were unstructured, open-ended and conversation-like. They were
carried out in Hungarian or German, audio-recorded and transcribed. Analysis
has been done on the original tapes and transcriptions, but for the purposes of
this presentation mainly the English translations are used.
The majority of the informants are members of a minority, bi- or multilingual,
Catholicandmiddle-agedor older women. Thedistancebetweentheinterviewers
and interviewees was more a professional than a cultural one. The interviewees
were surprisingly talkative considering that not so long ago all contacts with
foreigners had to be reported. Our impression was that many of the informants
were eager tohave their storyheardanddocumentedinsome way. (see Laihonen
2005: chapter 2 for details.)
THE INTERVIEW AS A TOPIC OF ANALYSIS
According to ten Have (2004: 8485) interviews are the major contemporary
tool for the production of what he calls people displays for the needs of society
and research. Mainstreamsocial science researchstill sees the interviewas a one-
way information gathering event. However, CAresearch has demonstrated how
informant accounts are strongly influenced by interaction with the interviewer.
Furthermore, in a study of life-history interviews, Mishler (1997: 239240)
concludes that:
[. . .] it is [. . .] important to be clear that her story is only one retelling, one of many
stories she might have told about her life and work in different contexts and with a
different interviewer. The shape, structure, content of the story she told me reflects
what we were doing together it was interactionally produced.
Karhu (1995) and Tainio (2000) in turn have thrown new light on dialect
interviews by analysing the roles and identities that are displayed in the
interactional details of language use by both interviewee(s) and interviewer.
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
674 LAIHONEN
All in all, there is a growing awareness of the need to see the interviewas a topic
of analysis, and not just as a device for recording information or linguistic data
provided by the informant (see e.g. ten Have 2004; Potter and Hepburn 2005).
From the rich array of interview formats, I focus here on the semi-structured
research interview. Structured or standardized interviews can be recognized
through the scripted questions often used to verify peoples opinions and beliefs.
The semi-structured interview, in turn, utilizes a looser set of topics and themes
which are allowed to develop freely in order to gain insight into how people give
meaning to, categorize and account for their worlds in interaction (see Hutchby
and Wooffitt 1998: 173ff).
Semi-structured interviews have variously served as data for investigations
into language ideologies (e.g. Gal 1993). In the field, a major contribution to the
critical study of interviews was made by Briggs (1986, 2007). He stressed the
importance of investigating the place of the interviewas a communicative event
in a given community. His main insight is that finding out how the informants
perceive interviews and howknowledge is passed on in a community should tell
us what information can be accessed through interviews and what should be
investigated through other methods. In a similar manner Cicourel (1988) has
investigated the interview as an elicitation procedure. Both Briggs and Cicourel
are concerned about whether interview techniques can enable both accurate
representations of the mental schemata and models of the informants, as well as
authentic retrievals of native communicative events from the past.
The approaches of Briggs and Cicourel are sometimes parallel to CA, especially
when analysing transcripts, but still differ from CA in some crucial respects.
First of all, Briggs and Cicourel lean on both the mental and the interactional
paradigm. Furthermore, they are concerned about whether the interviewees
give a truthful and authentic report on their life. From the CA point of view
interviews are not a resource for mapping external reality, but rather they are
to be analysed as part of the reality under study (ten Have 2004: 84). Taking
into account Briggs and Cicourels insights and following CA guidelines, the
goal of analysis in the present article is to find out how language issues are
evaluated, explained or accounted for in interview talk and with whom, for
what end and in what context. The statements are considered here as specimens
from a large pool of possible accounts, the validity or veracity of which is not
scrutinized (see ten Have 2004: 73). Instead, the aim is to discover why such
particular statements have been chosen on this particular occasion, how they
are interactionally structured and what is being accomplished through them.
STRUCTURE OF INTERVIEWS
In order to understand the nature of my data and as background to the further
analyses, I will demonstrate some of the basic turn-by-turn characteristics of
interaction in research interviews. According to ten Have (2004: 58), in most
cases an interview is based on some sort of question-answer sequences, where
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 675
the interviewer asks the questions and the informant provides answers. Before
asking the next question, the interviewer also often evaluates the relevance,
detail or adequacy of the answers in some manner. First, I will briefly examine
two simple examples from my data and then elaborate on some further issues
and complications around this basic question-answer-(evaluation) structure.
3
Excerpt 1 (IR =Interviewer, IE =Interviewee)
1 IR: was ist ihre Muttersprache
2 IE: Deutsch
3 IR: Deutsch
1 IR: what is your mother tongue
2 IE: German
3 IR: German
Here the question by the interviewer invites a minimal answer from a closed
set of terms (languages). After the answer is provided, the interviewer repeats
it. Following ten Have (2004: 60), such repeats register the data provided by
the informant as shared knowledge that can be elaborated in the later course
of the interview. By a repeat the interviewer evaluates the answer as fitting the
expectations of the question. This is not always the case:
Excerpt 2
1 IR: welche Sprache haben die Juden-
2 IE: = auch ungarisch auch rum anisch auch deutsch ja-
3 IR: = aber als Muttersprache
1 IR: which language have the Jews-
2 IE: = also Hungarian also Rumanian also German yeah-
3 IR: = but as a mother tongue
Here the interviewee, a retired German lady from a small town, interprets the
question in a different way from the interviewer. The informant interprets the
interviewers question as which languages have the Jews spoken, but this
does not fit the interviewers expectations of the right kind of answer. Thus
through third position self repair (Schegloff 1992) the interviewer repairs the
trouble source, her initial question, putting it in a less ambiguous form. After the
repair turn (line 3), the question should be interpreted in the same way by both
speakers.
The first two examples represent question-answer sequences where the
questions invite a closed set of answers. The next excerpt demonstrates how
such questions may be extended and elaborated by both participants. The
example is taken from the beginning of an interview. Before it, the informant
has been told that she will be asked about languages in the region. After some
practical arrangements have been dealt with, the first question is put by the
interviewer:
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
676 LAIHONEN
Excerpt 3
1 IR: akkor o o el osz or szeretn ek ilyen altal anos
2 k erd eseket feltenni hogy o o (0.4) hogy o o hol sz uletett
3 IE: Angyalk uton (.) magyarul Angyalk ut rom anul
4 Fntnele es n emet ul Engelsbrun
5 IR: igen (.) akkoriban hogy hvt ak
6 IE: Engels- Fntnele (.) volt akkor amikor az en
7 ap am fiatal volt akkor Engelsbrun volt
1 IR: so uh first I would like to ask general
2 questions like uh (0.4) like uh where were you born
3 IE: in Angyalk ut (.) in Hungarian Angyalk ut in Rumanian
4 Fntnele and in German Engelsbrun
5 IR: yes (.) what was it called back then
6 IE: Engels- it was Fntnele then (.) when my
7 father was young it was Engelsbrun
The first question where were you born is a closed one. That is, the question
is linguistically designed so that it invites an answer from a specific category,
in this case a place name. However, the linguistic structure alone does not
define the type of a likely answer. The answers to questions such as where
were you born and where are you from depend on shared knowledge (Myers
2004: 6062). Here the place given is the same village where the interview is
taking place. Thus, there is no need for further information due to lack of shared
knowledge.
The interviewees answer contains a short answer and an extension. First she
provides a one word answer Angyalk uton. As mentioned, this answer should be
sufficient since the place name is obviously known by the interviewer. However,
after amicro-pause, the informant, aHungarianwomaninher fifties, extends her
account, stating the place name inthree languages (inHungarianAngyalk ut in
Rumanian Fntnele and in German Engelsbrun). According to our experience
in the region, the active use of a place name in three languages is very rare.
In fact, this is the only case in the data where a place name is provided in
alternative languages without this being explicitly requested. Why, then, is
this extension delivered here? The reason could be that the participants in an
interview routinely orientate to the overall goals of the interview (see Myers
2004: 130131). In this case, the interviewee has been told that the interviewer
is interested in the role of languages in the region. From this perspective the
extension of the answer (lines 34) can be seen as an indication that the
interviewee orientates to producing talk which she assumes is of interest to the
interviewer.
The interviewers second turn begins with a receipt, yes, which displays
that the answer meets the expectations of the question. The follow-up question,
(line 5) what was it called back then, builds on the informants answer to the
first question. In comparison to simply asking the next question on the list, this
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 677
resembles everydayinteractionandstructurallyimplies spontaneous interest in
thetopiconthepart of theresearcher. This alsodemonstrates that theinterviewis
semi-structured and not a standardized survey interview. Survey interviews often
contain only pre-planned questions which should be posed in the same order
and maybe even verbatim, come what may (Schaeffer and Maynard 2005).
In this data, the interviewees answers are sensitive to the amount of shared
knowledge of the parties and the general (assumed) goals of the interview. The
interviewer in turn can build his questions as elaborations of the informants
answers.
Fact-finding, closedquestions oftencharacterize the beginningof aninterview.
Such questions invite short answers. Even though they may be elaborated, such
elaborations are seldom treated as a basis for telling more (ten Have 2004: 59
61). After closed questions a different formof interactionmay take place whichis
characterized by open-ended questions inviting a longer response. Open-ended
questions beginwithexpressions suchas what or how, whichgive the interviewee
an open choice of terms and categories:
Excerpt 4
(The discussion has been about how inter-ethnic marriages were rare in the past,
but nowadays are very frequent)
1 IR: es akkor hogy fogadt ak a vegyes h azass agokat r egebben (- - -)
2 IE: h at elfogadt ak nem volt akkor se hogy gy ul olj ek egym ast (.)
3 IR: [igen]
4 IE: [elfogad]t ak csak (.) m egis jobban
5 szeretik hogyha megmarad a nyelv
6 IR: igen
7 IE: aa- a csal adban- hogy ugye ha ak armilyen csal ad volt ugye ha
8 m ar egy m as nemzetis eg ment a csal adba
9 IR: igen
10 IE: akkor m ar ugyeee (0.4) m as nyelvet kellett hogy besz elj unk m ar
11 ugye nem- ha jelen volt az illet o akkor m ar nem besz elhette az u
12 nyelv et (- - -) ugye rosszul esik hogy nem tudod hogy mir ol van sz o
1 IR: and how were mixed marriages seen in the past (- - -)
2 IE: well they were tolerated there wasnt any hatred back then either (.)
3 IR: [yes]
4 IE: [they] were tolerated (.) but still they like it better
5 if the language is kept up
6 IR: yes
7 IE: uh- in the family- because you know if there is a family of any kind
8 you know if a person from another nation has come into the family
9 IR: yes
10 IE: then you know (0.4) we had to speak the other language since you
11 didnt- if the personwho was present could no longer use his language
12 (- - -) you know you feel bad if you dont know whats being said
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
678 LAIHONEN
The question (line 1) how were mixed marriages seen in the past comes after
the informant, a Hungarian woman in her fifties, has stated howsuch marriages
are very typical now, but were less frequent in the past. In this manner, the
question builds on the shared knowledge of the speakers. The question may be
seen to imply that attitudes were different in the past. The answer (line 2) treats
the question in a way that it would suggest that there has been a change in
morality. That is, in her answer the interviewee addresses the assumed negative
implications of the question: well they were tolerated there wasnt any hatred
back then either. This answer is designed as a dispreferred answer already
throughthe pre-disagreement tokenwell [h at]. It contains anegative statement,
thus resisting a presumed hostile argument (i.e. there was hatred in the past).
After dealing with this possibly offensive interpretation, the informant moves
on to answer the question. She does this by repeating the beginning of her
account they were tolerated (.) but . . . (line 4) and then moves on to elaborate
on her answer. That is, there is something wrong with mixed marriages;
however, the problems are described in the present tense, indicating their
timelessness.
If we examine the interviewers turns in this excerpt, we can see that the
several yes receipts (lines 3, 6 and 9) serve the purpose of indicating that the
informants talk is the kind of answer the interviewer is looking for. They also
invite the interviewee to continue instead of signaling that the question has been
exhausted. At the same time, yes is a neutral device, whichthe interviewer uses
inconstructing a professional role, just passing the ball back into the informants
court. Here also their neutral prosody supports this interpretation. In everyday
conversation, an affiliative receipt (you are right, of course, etc.) would be
the norm (Heritage 1985: 9698). Such a receipt might be requested by the
informants frequent you know (see ten Have 2004: 58). In any case, an
affiliative response or a follow-up question would be interpreted as evidence that
no more elaboration is needed to make the point. From this perspective, the
length and detail of the interviewees answer to an open-ended question depend
on the interviewers responses to it.
After this demonstration of the basic question-answer-evaluation structure of
research interviews, we might consider its implications for the investigation of
talk about language. The examples above support the notion that the primary
context of talk about language should be defined as the details of the interaction.
If we concentrate solely on the informants answers, we lose sight of the fact
that talk about language is constructed to meet the expectations of the question,
the general orientation of the interview and the amount of shared knowledge.
An answer might also be constructed to resist some of the assumptions
indicated by the question. Similarly the length and detail of the interviewees
answer to an open-ended question depend on the interviewers responses
to it.
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 679
ARGUMENT
Fromthe point of viewof CA, argument, conflict andhostilityhave beenanalyzed
in everyday interactions (e.g. Dersley and Wootton 2000) and in institutional
contexts such as news interviews (e.g. Clayman and Heritage 2002). However,
argument or conflict has not been much discussed in the context of the research
interview(but see Tainio 2000). The study of language ideologies has focused on
representations of competing language ideologies or onhowlanguage ideologies
canbe contestedor resisted(e.g. Gal 1993; Jaffe 1999). Folkviews have generally
been found to challenge dominant views. Furthermore, the analysis of struggle
and debates over dominance inside elites has not been neglected either (e.g. Gal
2001). However, the analysis of contesting folk views ininteractionhas not been
attempted to date. The following analysis aims at investigating how contesting
talk about language can develop in the form of an argument during a research
interview.
In the following excerpt two informants are participating in the interview. In
such situations the informants routinely talk to each other as well. At times they
have different views about language issues, as in the following. The excerpt can
be summarized as follows: the interviewer delivers a sensitive question about the
fact that grandchildren do not speak the first language of their grandparents; the
first informant denies that it would be a problem; the second informant does not
agree with this; an argument between the two informants develops.
Excerpt 5
1 IR: es hogy erzi mert a k et unok aja nem besz-
2 nem tud magyarul nem besz el magyarul
3 Kati: h at
4 IR:

On szerint [mi- - -]
5 Kati: [m ar an]nyi- nekem nem olyan furcsa (.)
6 mi ert nem furcsa? mert mondtam az- mikor osszeker ultem
7 a f erjemmel o nem tudott magyarul ugyhogy ez n alunk nem
8 valamii olyan ujdons ag hogy mink rom anyul besz el unk (.)
9 mink ketten is hogy most m ar tudunk- na tud magyarul j ol de mink
10 itthon mind rom anyul besz el unk na besz el unk magyarul amit
11 besz el unk es ak[kor-
12 Mari: [ en (- -)] ezt m ar NEM SZERETEM
13 (.) en sokszor mondom mi er gy ul oljem en az en nyelvemet (.)
14 mi ert nem besz elhetek en m ar u[gye-
15 Kati: [Mari] n eni nem ugy GY

UL

OLJ

UK
16 de mink- mink m ar ugy megszoktuk eztet
17 Mari: h at az [(- - -)]
18 Kati: [(- - -) amikor] Gigi hoz- hozz ank ker ult az valahogy
19 n alunk volt nem vagy egy evig vagy kett oig itthon voltak
20 (.) mink nem besz elhett unk magyarul hogy o o- o ne ertse hogy
21 mit besz el unk nem?
22 Mari: h at
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
680 LAIHONEN
23 Kati: h at akkor en hogy ertem mag at ha en mondjuk besz elek n emet ul
24 nem? es maga nem ert egy sz ot sem es valahogy nehez ere esik
25 IR: nem j ol erezn em magam
26 Kati: igen persze gy megszoktuk ugyhogy n alunk ez nem-
27 Mari: igen mert n ez mint o o van o o a XXn al rozik a ek (- - -) is
28 Kati: igen igen
29 Mari: NA J

O (,) ugye az h anyszor r ank- r ank kiab alt en nem


30 tudtam sehogy se besz elni Rozival rom anyul [- - -]
31 Kati: [nem ez] nekem nincsen
32 Mari: nem tudtam vele besz elni en mindig magyarul kellett hogy
33 besz elj ek vele o m ar ugy a vej evel avval besz eltem rom anyul
34 Kati: igen igen
35 Mari: de o amikor meghallotta m ar akkor mindj art (.) a a szidott
36 benn unket @limba voastr a [(- - -)@]
37 Kati: [(- - -) ] a mi vej unk
38 u megint nem t or odik besz elhet unk t ule (.) de ugy van hogy nem
39 erzed (.)te j ol magadat, nem (.) hogy besz elsz es hogy o ne erezze
40 es gondolja hogy or ola besz elsz vagy en tudom
1 IR: and how do you feel since the two grandchildren dont speak- dont
2 know Hungarian dont speak Hungarian
3 Kati: well
4 IR: in your opinion [what(- - -)]
5 Kati: [its not] so- its not that strange to me (.)
6 why isnt it strange? because as I said when I got together with
7 my husband he didnt know Hungarian so it wasnt anything
8 new for us to speak Rumanian (.) for
9 the two of us either since we know- now he knows Hungarian well
10 but we use Rumanian at home you see we use Hungarian
11 as often as we use and [then
12 Mari: [now I (- - -)] DONT LIKE THAT
13 (.) I often ask why should I hate my language (.)
14 why cant I use [what
15 Kati: [Mari]
16 we dont like HATE it but we- but weve just got used to it
17 Mari: well thats [(- - -) ]
18 Kati: [(- - -)when] Gigi mov- moved in he was like
19 two years with us, wasnt he? they lived at home for a year or two (.)
20 we couldnt speak Hungarian because he
21 wouldnt have understood what we were saying, right?
22 Mari: well
23 Kati: well how do I understand you if I speak lets say German
24 ok? and you dont understand a word so you would like feel bad
25 IR: I wouldnt feel good
26 Kati: yes of course so we got used to it with us its not a-
27 Mari: yes because see like uh its uh by the XX with Rozi (- - -) too
28 Kati: yes yes
29 Mari: WELL FINE (.) how many times has he shouted- shouted at us I was
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 681
30 never able to speak Rumanian with Rozi [- - -]
31 Kati: [no I] dont have that
32 Mari: I couldnt speak with her I had to speak Hungarian with her uh
33 so like with his son-in-law with him I spoke Rumanian
34 Kati: yes yes
35 Mari: but when he heard us immediately he (.) ah ah (.) mocked
36 us @your language [(- - -@)]
37 Kati: [(- - -)] our son-in-law
38 doesnt care because we can speak for him (.) but its
39 like you dont feel (.) good, right (.) if you speak he
40 shouldnt feel and think that you are talking about him or whatever
The researcher first picks out from the previous interaction the statement that
the interviewee is to account for. That is, the Hungarian informant named
Kati has stated that her grandchildren speak Rumanian with her. About ten
minutes earlier in the interview she has provided this information and given a
rationalization for it. Namely, that the informants daughter did not have time
to nurse them, and thus they were nursed by a speaker of Rumanian. Clayman
and Heritage (2002: 768769) have analyzed questions where an informant
is made accountable for his previous actions. Their point of departure (2002:
768) is that accounts are requested only for potentially unordinary actions.
Thus, such inquiries imply that the informant has, if only potentially, behaved
improperly. The question: how do you feel since the two grandchildren [. . .] do
not speak Hungarian invites the informant to give an account of her feelings.
Following Edwards (1999), emotions are at times constructed in contrast to
rational behaviour and views. Here, too, the interviewers question seems to
invite an emotional account that would contradict the earlier rational account
(e.g. I dont like it, but thats how things are).
The informant, Kati then provides the elicited elaboration on the issue.
Already her hesitation (h at, well) displays that she does not agree with the
proposed assumption (i.e. that she should feel bad about her grandchildren not
speaking Hungarian). That is, she does not accept the invitation to contradict
her earlier factual account withanemotional concession. Instead, Kati displays
consistencywithher earlier position. She delivers negative assessments: not that
strange to me; it wasnt anything new (lines 5 and 78). This can be taken as a
further indicationthat she has interpretedthe interviewers questionas negative.
After this, she begins also to rationally defend her position: her husband did not
at first speak Hungarian either; they mostly speak Rumanian at home; etc. That
is, she resists the implications of the question in emotional and rational terms
which support each other. However, she is interrupted by the other informant,
a senior Hungarian grandmother from the same hamlet (lines 1213): now
I DONT LIKE THAT (.) I often ask why should I hate my language . . . This
interruption consists of a complaint (I dont like that, see Drew 1998), directed
against Kati, and an uncooperative reformulation of Katis previous turn (why
should I hate my language?).
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
682 LAIHONEN
After a complaint, disagreement is preferred, otherwise the recipient would
be interpreted as accepting the complaint. A denial should be delivered without
delay. Here, the criticised party begins in overlap with the complaint. Kati begins
her disagreement with recipient selection ([Mari] n eni). That is, the primary
recipient is the other informant, not the interviewer. According to Dersley and
Wootton(2000) the preferredseconds inresponse tocomplaints are denials of the
type didnt do it. The disagreement is constructed so that it first has an explicit
component denying the previous negative formulation (line 16): we do not like
HATE it. Furthermore, Kati provides an account that Dersley and Wootton call
thenot-at-fault -type: but we- but wejust got usedtoit (line16). Inother words,
Maris complaint that Kati would have deliberately or even maliciously avoided
speaking Hungarianis denied and that the family rather let circumstances decide
which language they use. A further extension of this is the explanation of their
Rumanianson-in-lawmoving in(lines 1821): whenGigi mov- moved in. . . we
could not speak Hungarian because he wouldnt have understood what we were
saying, right? The account by Kati is designed to indicate that it was other things
that prevented her family from using Hungarian rather than an unwillingness
to do so (see Drew 1998: 316; Dersley and Wootton 2000: 384). That is, there
is no hatred involved, only a spontaneous, normal development. This type of
response to complaints admits that there is some justice in the complaint but
simultaneously demonstrates that the fault is not the speakers. Moreover, some
general circumstance beyond the control of the addressee of the complaint is to
blame.
The reasoning by Kati in lines 1516, 1821 and 2324 is accepted by the
interviewer (line 25: I would not feel good), but rejected by the other informant,
who provides a contrastive example. Following Dersley and Wootton(2000), the
not at fault defencetypicallyinvites athirdpositionfollow-upcomplaint whichis
geared to showthe defiance of the defence. Here Mari does this through recalling
an unpleasant instance with Rozi with whom she used to speak Hungarian.
Rozis son-in-law did not approve of this and mocked their speaking Hungarian
(lines 2936). Finally, Kati in turn claims that their son-in-law does not care
and they could speak Hungarian as well (lines 3740).
Through these complaints and defences Kati and Mari establish and maintain
the roles of a complainer-complainee in the interaction. This is achieved by
persistent denial of each others accounts. According to Dersley and Wootton
(2000: 383), an alternative would be to deliver counter complaints, which often
leads to escalation of the antagonism. Here the disagreement is thus conducted
in a somewhat supportive manner: the issues brought up by the complainer are
dealt with and her action of complaining is accepted.
According to Drew(1998: 322), [t]he very existence of conflict and schismin
social life depends on the possibility of there being alternative and competing
accounts of the same social event. Here, the prolonged disagreement or
dispute sequence forces the informants to clarify their positions in more
detail and more sharply than normal interviewer questions, continuers and
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 683
displays of understanding would. Both informants are doing being normal
(see Widdicombe and Wooffitt 1995: 100101). In other words, Kati makes a
sustained effort to show that it is normal to use a language all the participants
understand. To do otherwise would exclude a family member. This is done,
because it is normal, not because one is forced into it. Mari in turn claims that
it is normal to speak ones own language whenever possible. Furthermore,
Mari implies that it is not normal (or possible) to require that she should start
speaking Rumanian with a person she is used to speaking Hungarian with.
Drew (1998: 296) calls this kind of evaluating of ones own or others conduct
explicit moral work, which is typically carried out through complaining. In other
words, normality is connected to morality: what is constructed as normal is also
interpreted as morally right.
According to Tsui (1994: 147), complaints are usually possible only if the
interlocutors know each other very well. Further, following Tainio (2000: 39)
arguing in front of a third party might emphasize the intimacy and solidarity
of the arguing parties. Here, the complaint can be seen to begin a sequence
where the informants are the primary interlocutors and the interviewers
control of the interaction is postponed. Thus simultaneously having more than
one informant can be a resource, since additional informants may pursue
uncooperative roles and activities more easily without endangering the friendly,
but distant researcher-informant relationship. It should be noted however, that
the emotional stance, which seems to be maintained throughout the excerpt
(note that the frequent use of emotional terms: like, hate or feel), has been
initiated by the researchers question . . . how do you feel . . ..
Fromthe point of viewof language ideologies we witness two normative ways
of connecting language with social phenomena in competition. That is, on the
one hand it is considered normal and paramount to use a language all hearers to
a social event understand. On the other hand, it is considered more important to
speak ones own language when possible. These competing language ideologies
(Gal 1993) are not constructed by the analyst through comparing different data,
but by the informants in situ.
REPAIR
The next phenomenon to be demonstrated could initially be characterized as a
chain of action in connection with a contact expression. Acontact expression
means a word or a phrase that is interpreted as an element from another code
(language) by the participants in the interaction.
4
A contact expression is
pointed to by the interlocutors when they replace such elements or explicitly
refer to the outgoing talk as mixed. In the terms of Auer (1984: 26), the
participants make use of the potential other-code status of such expressions. In
the following examples, a contact expression is marked as problematic by one
speaker and replaced by a standard expression by another speaker. For analytic
purposes, a standard expressionis defined as a word or expressionthat is treated
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
684 LAIHONEN
as preferred by the participants in comparison to another expression, which is
treated as inferior.
The investigated chain of action can be characterized in CA terms as a repair
sequence withsomecomplementaryactivityattachedtoit, suchas confirmingand
apologizing. That is, the repair sequence is followed by an explicit commentary
on the problem source, also linking it in general terms to the language spoken
by the informant. In this manner, the repair sequence draws attention to an
expression used by the informant. The examples are taken from interviews
where Hungarians from Hungary interview minority Hungarians living in the
Rumanian Banat. (For the sake of making sense of the translations, the contact
expressions and the corresponding standard and slang forms are marked in bold.
The superscript co(ntact), st(andard) and sl(ang) mark the different forms used
in the original.)
Excerpt 6
1 IR: es a f erj enek mi volt a foglalkoz asa
2 IE: a f erjem? (.) o szanit ar volt ocer szanit ar (.) es azut an elv egezte
3 a felcser iskol at (- - -) inszpektor szanit ar
4 IR: ez o o azt jelen[ti
5 IE: [egy] ilyen o o hogy mondjam eg eszs eg ugyi (.) inszpektor
6 IR: [fel ugyel o nem (- - -)]
7 IE: [- - -]
8 IR: es annak a munk aja mib ol all mert a v ed on oket ismerem
9 en ugye hogy azok j arnak de f erfiak mit csin al[nak
10 IE: [igen] de
11 f erfiak mennek kontroll alj ak a resztaur antokat van egy
12 szektorja es ott a tisztas agot meg az elelmet (.) meg a-
13 IR: ezt k ozeg eszs eg ugyi fel[ ugyel onek mondj ak]
14 IE: [igen igen gy van]
15 IR: k oj alos
16 IE: oszint en sz olva keverj uk (.) de meg erts uk(h)
17 IR: igen
1 IR: and what was your husbands occupation?
2 IE: my husband? He was a
co
sanitator
co
(.)
co
sanitator officer
co
(.) and
3 then he finished health school (- - -)
co
sanitary inspectorer
co
4 IR: which uh mea[ns]
5 IE: [how] should I say it (.)
st
health
st co
inspectorer
co
6 IR: [
st
inspector
st
right (- - -)]
7 IE: [- - -]
8 IR: and what does such a person do I know what nurses do
9 they go around but what do the men [do
10 IE: [yes] but
11 the men go around they inspect the restaurants (.) he has
12 a section where he looks for cleanliness and foodstuff and-
13 IR: thats called a
st
public he[alth inspector
st
]
14 IE: [yes yes thats it]
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 685
15 IR: a
sl
PHI
sl
16 IE: to be honest we mix (.) but we do understand it heh
17 IR: yeah
Here the expression inszpektor szanit ar (line 3) is treated as problematic by the
interviewer (line 4). The typical flow of topics and question-answer-evaluation
sequences is thus cut by a repair sequence consisting of negotiation over this
problematic term. That is, the lexical items used by the informant become the
topic of the interaction for a while. The question what was your husbands
occupation?, invites a simple, factual answer, which the interviewee, an elderly
Hungarian lady, delivers. After such an answer a minimal receipt and a new
question by the interviewer would be a very typical successive action. However,
here a new sequence begins, namely an other-iniated repair sequence. The
interviewer first displays that he does not understand the term (line 4). That is,
the interviewers turn: which uh means can be analysed in CAterms as a repair
initiator. Then the interviewee reformulates the term to eg eszs eg ugyi inszpektor
(line 5) which is repaired by the interviewer to fel ugyel o (a standard Hungarian
word for the term inspector, line 6). The interviewee also displays uncertainty
over the correct term (how should I say it, line 5). The interviewer continues
to request more information on the term, finally giving the correct term:
k ozeg eszs eg ugyi fel ugyel o (public health inspector, line 13), and its abreviated
version: k oj alos (line 15). Finally, the sequence is terminated by a remark
on language forms by the informant. That is, the interviewee makes a self-
critical evaluation of her language use (to be honest we mix [languages], line
16). Agreement with this evaluation is expressed by the interviewer. That is,
through repair and explicit reference to mixedness, the interlocutors construct
such forms as oficer szanit ar or eg eszs eg ugyi inszpektor as what the interview
participants call mixed language. After this the interaction returns to normal
interviewing.
Next, the implications of this other initiated repair sequence on the social roles
of the participants is examined. For everyday conversation this kind of repair
is atypical: a self-initiated repair tends to be preferred (Schegloff, Jefferson and
Sacks 1977). According to Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 68), an other-initiated
repair draws attention to a lapse in performance, and thus it can be interpreted
as a slight put-down. Other-initiated repair also has potential implications for the
relationship of the interlocutors. In this case, through initiating the repair and
later correcting and evaluating the interviewees turns from a linguistic point
of view, the interviewer takes the role of a (standard) Hungarian language
expert. This is underlined by the interviewers general formulation: Thats
called a public health inspector. The interviewer produces the term also in
its colloquial metropolitan Hungarian: k oj alos (line 15). This emphasizes the
event as a standard instruction event: there is no interactional need, or request
by the informant, to provide the term. Finally, the interviewee accepts the role
of a non-pure Hungarian speaker.
5
In the sequence she first produces displays
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
686 LAIHONEN
of uncertainty (how should I call it), then she tries several terms and gives
explanations of the term. That is, even though the repair sequence is initiated by
the interviewer, the interviewee cooperates actively init. The interviewee takes a
subordinate role explicitly by stating, in an apologetic, self-denigratory manner,
that speakers like her mix languages. This linguistic identity is reproduced by
the interviewer through agreeing (line 17) with the interviewees negative self-
evaluation.
To sum up, in Excerpt 6, beyond typical interview activity, there is an
additional sequence of correcting lexical items to standard Hungarian forms.
In this example, that appears to be a norm that both orient to. The interviewer
takes the role of a language expert, whereas the interviewee accepts, constructs
andmaintains the subordinate role of anon-pure or mixed Hungarianspeaker.
In the next example, the interviewee initiates the repair sequence himself:
Excerpt 7
1 IE: akkor nehezen lehetett megtal alni-
2 megkapni aa- (.) a aprobare hogy mondj ak
3 IR: az enged elyt vagy-
4 IE: az enged elyt gy van h at bocs anat [most m ar en is-
5 IR: [nem probl ema- nem
6 probl ema] kezd unk mi is belej onni
7 IE: kezdek hogy mondj ak m ar en is kezdek vegyesen besz elni
8 gy is ugy is mert h at tudja idehaza n alunk csak a csal adban
9 besz elnek magyarul mikor kimegy unk m ar a gyerekek [sem
1 IE: . . . then it was difficult to find- get aa-
2 (.) a
co
aprobare
co
how do you say it
3 IR: a
st
permission
st
or-
4 IE: a
st
permission
st
well thats it Im sorry [I am beginning too-
5 IR: [no problem- no
6 problem] we are getting used to it too
7 IE: I am beginning to what do you call it even I am beginning to speak a
8 mixed language because youknowthey speak Hungarianhere while
9 in the family when we go out even the children [dont
Here the repair of a contact expression aprobare (permit, line 2) is initiated by
hesitation and a repair initiator (hogy mondj ak) how do you say it (cf. Auer
1984: 5860). The interviewer provides the desired term az enged elyt (line 3)
whichis instantlyapprovedbythe interviewee. Finally, the interviewee explicitly
apologizes and evaluates his own language negatively as mixed language (even
I am beginning to speak a mixed language, lines 78). According to Robinsons
(2004) study onexplicit apologies inEnglish, speaker-initiated apologies contain
aclaimthat thespeaker mayhavecausedoffensetothehearer. Similarlyhere, the
informant signals that he mayhave offendedthe researcher byusingaRumanian
expression. After an apology, a response is awaited by the co-participant. Here,
the interviewer provides an instant no problem- no problem we are getting
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 687
used to it too. Following Robinson (2004: 302304), such responses confirm
that a possible offense exists, but claim that no offence was actually taken, at
least on this particular occasion. In other words, the no problem response
includes the agreement that a problem may exist, simultaneously negating it.
Suchresponses are routinely designed as a preferred second activity to apologies.
The follow-up we are getting used to it too implies that a problem might exist,
but it is not relevant on this particular occasion. Finally, the use of mixed
elements as a possible cause for offense in interaction with standard Hungarian
speakers is further constructed and maintained through the interviewees
detailed explanation as to why he is no longer speaking pure Hungarian.
In this example, the interviewee is more active in establishing precisely the
same roles as in the previous example. The interviewer is accorded the role of
an expert on standard Hungarian, the interviewee the negative role of a mixed
speaker. Both examples examined so far indicate the norm of avoiding lexical
items that can be considered what the interviewees call mixed.
According to Mazeland and ten Have (1996: n.p.), an interview inevitably is
a meeting of two strangers, a confrontation of two worlds. The two examples
indicate an asymmetry in the norms of language use. That is, the interviewer
is established as an authority on pure Hungarian forms, which thus seems to
be the assumed norm for these interviews. The above excerpts demonstrate the
possibility of bringing these identities to life when the interviewer is a Hungarian
from Hungary and the informant is a member of the Hungarian minority in
Rumania. This is transparent also in the way the informant connects her/his
status as amember of agroupwiththe use of contact expressions. This is achieved
through the use of first-person plural forms, such as keverj uk we mix; idehaza
n alunk in our family. These plurals include the speaker and her unspecified
equals, but not the interviewer.
Language standards have attracted much scholarly attention in the field of
language ideologies (e.g. Gal 2006a, b). The focus has primarily been on the
analysis of generalized, philosophical, scientific and political discourses. On the
practice side, for instance Jaffe (1999: 15) states that the stigmatization of
mixed forms is often expressed as an explicit language ideology, but seldom
leads to any kind of sanctioning in everyday language practice. However, as
Kroskrity (2000: 19) has noted, language users may express language ideologies
throughinteractional rituals. Insupport of this perspective, the repair sequence
investigatedabove demonstrates howapiece of language ideologyis constructed,
accepted and maintained by two speakers in interaction. That is, the use of
contact expressions may be treated as a problem by the interviewer or the
interviewee. In the repair sequences the interviewer is treated as having access
to the standard. The standard itself is treated as universal, the way the language
is. The informant is collaboratively treated as having problems in achieving the
performance required for the situation.
These examples demonstrate how attitudes to or presumptions about the
standard may be empirically accountable and analysable in talk. Furthermore,
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
688 LAIHONEN
theypoint toapotential interactional juncture where knowingthe standard can
be made explicitly relevant. Finally, the Hungarian in Hungary is constructed as
superior to that of the Banat. This might be connected to explicit discourses on
howsome Hungarians fromRumania feel out of place in Hungary (see Laihonen
2001: 2728).
I would like to stress that here the language ideologies around the standard are
constructed as an interactional routine. That is, the topical flowof the interview
is interrupted by the following structure:
. . . basic topical flow of interview
1. problematic term used by the informant
2. repair initiation by either of the participants
3. standard term by the interviewer
4. self-criticism/apology by the informant
basic topical flow of interview. . .
Insum, the standard language ideologyandthe interactional context where it is
constructed are inseparable in these examples. Finally, the sequence is produced
in collaboration and builds on the potential identities of the interlocutors as
standard and substandard speakers.
CONCLUSION
The study of language ideologies has widened our knowledge of how cultural
ideas about language are developed, contested and circulated. In exploring these
questions it has often focused on the macro dimensions connecting talk about
language to other materials and discourses with the aim of discovering the
ways it is voicing some underlying broader socio-political phenomenon, such
as group consciousness (Gal 1987), or participating in world-wide semiotic
processes (Irvine and Gal 2000). This report points to another direction. Based
on the insight that talk about language is significantly produced and designed
for the turn-by-turn structures of the interaction, I argue that it is profitable to
attend to interactional features as a part of the project of investigating language
ideologies. Combining Language Ideologies research with CA enhances our
understanding of the discursive and interactional construction of talk about
language. Further, the immediate social setting and the real-life contexts of
language related talk can be explicated in detail. Finally, CA can provide
important insights to the intersubjective and collaborative nature of language
ideologies.
This article provides an exercise in analysing interview talk from the
Rumanian Banat through the lens of CA. The analyses demonstrate how the
interviewer and the interviewee together construct statements, accounts and
evaluations about language. That is, statements about language are recipient
designed, and they are sensitive to the expectations, invitations or implications
of earlier talk. Furthermore, they are accepted, denied or reformulated in the
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 689
forthcoming talk. A further relevance of single case analyses lies in showing
how certain interactional environments and structures influence language
ideologies. Arguments provide an interactional environment in which to contest
language ideologies. Language standards in turn may be regimented through
repair sequences.
From the point of view of the investigated community, the different roles
of the interviewer and interviewee become clearest in the case of language
standards. Inthat case, the HungarianinHungary is collaboratively constructed
as superior to that of the Banat. That is, the use of non-standard forms in these
sequences is implicitly and explicitly connected to an underdog minority identity
andcontrastedwithasuperior, universal norm. Thecaseanalysis of anargument
shows howpeople may have different language ideologies whichare constructed
as detailed counter arguments. This analysis points to the variability of language
ideologies in the region and shows howcontesting language ideologies can exist
as an everyday activity in the Banat.
NOTES
1. I thank Arja Piirainen-Marsh for her generous help and encouragement in
developing this article. Also, insightful comments by the anonymous reviewers
and by editors Allan Bell and Monica Heller have improved this study markedly.
Any remaining shortcomings are my responsibility.
2. Other participants in the Finnish group were: Anssi Halmesvirta, Pasi Hannonen,
Kirsi J arvel a, and the author. The fieldwork was funded by the Hungarian Studies
project of the University of Jyv askyl a (Finland). The Finnish participants had
individual research interests (see Hannonen, Barna and L onnqvist 2001). The
Hungarian research group, engaged in religious ethnology, was headed by G abor
Barna. His assistant Bertalan Pusztai and students from the University of Szeged
(Hungary) gatheredinformationondonatingvotive pictures for apilgrimage church
in Radna.
3. Transcription symbols:
= latched to the previous talk
(0.4) measured pause
(.) micro-pause less than 0.2 seconds
@ change of voice
well- cut-off of the preceding sound
? question intonation
, continuing intonation
. falling intonation
rising intonation
(- - -) unclear
[] overlapping talk
CAPITALS stressed volume

italics

an utterance in Rumanian
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
690 LAIHONEN
4. Auer (1984: 57) uses the term heteroglossic lexical item. From a CA perspective
suchelements cannot beuniversallydefinedas code-switching solelyonalinguistic
basis. This is because the bilingual speakers repertoire may in some cases not make
a distinction between the two languages. The definitions of code-switching should
be made on the basis of detailed sequential analysis of a particular interaction (do
the participants treat the element as code-switching?), thus traditional approaches
and terms for describing code-switching must be rejected here (see Auer 1984:
2627.) For reasons of space and clarity I use mainly nontechnical terminology for
code-switching. The terminology applied CA uses (Auer 1984; Li Wei 2002) differs
greatly from mainstream traditions, and it is unnecessary to introduce it in detail
here.
5. Pure or non-pure Hungarian and mixed are terms used by the informants.
REFERENCES
Antaki, Charles and Sue Widdicombe (eds.). 1998. Identities in Talk. London:
Sage.
Auer, Peter. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Barna, G abor and Bo L onnqvist. 2000. The lost future die expatriierte kultur.
Schweizerisches Archiv f ur Volkskunde 96: 121143.
Briggs, Charles. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role
of the Interview in Social Science Research. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Briggs, Charles. 2007. The Gallup poll, democracy, and the vox populi: Ideologies of
interviewing and the communicability of modern life. Text & Talk 27: 681704.
Cicourel, Aaron. 1988. Elicitationas aproblemof discourse. InUlrichAmmon, Norbert
Dietmar and Klaus Mattheier (eds.) Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the
Science of Language and Society. Second volume. NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. 903
910.
Clayman, Steven and John Heritage. 2002. Questioning presidents: Journalistic
deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan.
Journal of Communication 52: 749777.
Dersley, Ian and Anthony Wootton. 2000. Complaint sequences within antagonistic
argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 375406.
Drew, Paul. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on
Language and Social Interaction 31: 295325.
Edwards, Derek. 1999. Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology 5: 271291.
Gal, Susan. 1987. Code-switching and consciousness in the European periphery.
American Ethnologist 14: 637653.
Gal, Susan. 1993. Diversity and contestationinlinguistic ideologies: Germanspeakers
in Hungary. Language in Society 22: 337359.
Gal, Susan. 2001. Linguistic theories and national images in nineteenth-century
Hungary. In Susan Gal and Kathryn Woolard (eds.) Languages and Public: The
Making of Authority. Manchester, U.K.: St. Jerome Publishing. 3045.
Gal, Susan. 2006a. Language, its stakes andits effects. InRobert E. GoodinandCharles
Tilly (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press. 376391.
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 691
Gal, Susan. 2006b. Migration, minorities and multilingualism: Language ideologies
in Europe. In Patrick Stevenson and Clare Mar-Molinero (eds.) Language Ideologies
and Practices. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillian. 1327.
Gal, Susanand JudithIrvine. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How
ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62: 9671001.
Gal, SusanandKathrynWoolard. 2001. Constructinglanguages andpublics. InSusan
Gal and Kathryn Woolard (eds.) Languages and Public: The Making of Authority.
Manchester, U.K.: St. Jerome Publishing. 112.
Hannonen, Pasi, Bo L onnqvist and G abor Barna (eds.). 2001. Ethnic Minorities and
Power. Helsinki, Finland: Fonda Publishing.
Heller, Monica. 2007. Distributed knowledge, distributed power: A sociolinguistics of
structuration. Text & Talk 27: 633653.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity
Press.
Heritage, John. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for
an overhearing audience. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis
vol. III. London: Academic Press. 95117.
Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis: Principles and
Applications. Oxford, U.K.: Polity Press.
Irvine, Judith. 1998. Ideologies of honorific language. In Bambi Schieffelin, Kathryn
Woolard and Paul Kroskrity (eds.) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press. 5186.
Irvine, Judith and Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation.
In Paul Kroskity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities and Identities. Santa
Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. 3583.
Jaffe, Alexander. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Karhu, Anna. 1995. Murrehaastatteluvuorovaikutustilanteena. Murteiden Matkassa.
Studia Carelica Humanistica 6. Joensuu, Finland: Joensuun yliopiston
humanistinen tiedekunta. 92109.
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context
sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22: 193216.
Kroskrity, Paul. 2000. Regimenting language. In Paul Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of
Language: Ideologies, Polities and Identities. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of
American Research Advanced Seminar Series. 134.
Laihonen, Petteri. 2001. Multilingualism in the Banat: Elite and everyday language
ideologies. InPasi Hannonen, BoL onnqvist andG abor Barna(eds.) Ethnic Minorities
and Power. Helsinki, Finland: Fonda Publishing. 1145.
Laihonen, Petteri. 2005. Multilingualism and language ideologies in the
Romanian Banat. Unpublished licentiate thesis. University of Jyv askyl a, Finland.
thesis.jyu.fi/06/URN_NBN_fi_jyu-2006326.pdf
Last accessed on 12 January 2007.
Laihonen, Petteri. 2007. Die Banater Schwaben und Ideologien uber die
Mehrsprachigkeit. Ungarn-Jahrbuch 28: 91110.
Lerner, Gene and Tomoyo Takagi. 1999. On the place of linguistic resources in the
organization of talk in interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese
grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 4975.
Li, Wei. 2002. What do you want me to say? On the Conversation Analysis approach
to bilingual interaction. Language in Society 31: 159180.
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
692 LAIHONEN
Mazeland, Harry and Paul ten Have. 1996. Essential tensions in (semi)open research
interviews. Last accessed on 2 May 2008. www2.fmg.uva.nl/emca/ET.htm
Mishler, Elliot. 1997. The interactional construction of narrative in medical and life-
history interviews. In Britt-Louise Gunnarson, Per Linell and Bengt Nordberg (eds.)
The Construction of Professional Discourse. London: Longman. 223244.
Moerman, Michael. 1988. Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Myers, Greg. 2004. Matters of Opinion: Talking About Public Issues. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Potter, Jonathan and Alexa Hepburn. 2005. Qualitative interviews in psychology:
Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology 4: 281307.
Puchta, Claudia and Jonathan Potter. 2002. Manufacturing individual opinions:
Market research focus groups and the discursive psychology of evaluation. British
Journal of Social Psychology 41: 345363.
Robinson, Jeffrey. 2004. The sequential organizationof explicit apologies innaturally
occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 291330.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson with
introductions by Emanuel Schegloff. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics
for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696735.
Schaeffer, Nora and Douglas Maynard. 2005. From paradigm to prototype and
back again: Interactive aspects of cognitive processing in standardized survey
interviews. Hedwig te Molder and JonathanPotter (eds.) Conversation and Cognition.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 114133.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. Betweenmacroandmicro: Contexts andother connections.
In Jeffrey Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Richard M unch, Neil J. Smelser (eds.) The
Micro-Macro Link. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. 193
207.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided
defence of intersubjectivityinconversation. American Journal of Sociology97: 1295
1345.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Confirming allusions: Towards an empirical account of
action. American Journal of Sociology 104: 161216.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1997. Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society 8: 165
187.
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-
correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361382.
Schieffelin, Bambi and Elinor Ochs. 1986. Language socialization. Annual Review of
Anthropology 15: 163191.
Silverstein, Michael. 1998. The uses and utility of ideology: A commentary. In Bambi
Schieffelin, Kathryn Woolard and Paul Kroskrity (eds.) Language Ideologies: Practice
and Theory. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 123148.
Tainio, Liisa. 2000. Pariskuntapuhe ja kokemusten rajat. Viritt aj a 1: 2345.
ten Have, Paul. 2004. Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology.
London: Sage.
Tsui, Amy. 1994. English Conversation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Widdicombe, Sue and Robin Wooffitt. 1995. The Language of Youth Subcultures. New
York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wolf, Josef. 2004. Development of Ethnic Structure in the Banat 18901992. Vienna,
Austria:

Osterreichisches Ost- und S udosteuropa-Institut.
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: A CA APPROACH 693
Woolard, Kathryn. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In
Bambi Schieffelin, Kathryn Woolard and Paul Kroskrity (eds.) Language Ideologies:
Practice and Theory. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 347.
Address correspondence to:
Petteri Laihonen
University of Debrecen
Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies
H-4010 Debrecen Pf. 103.
Hungary
petlai@cc.jyu.fi
C
The author 2008
Journal compilation
C
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Potrebbero piacerti anche