Eva Duran Eppler
e.eppler@roehampton.ac.uk
Roehampton University, London
Four women, two codes, and
one (crowded) floor:
The joint construction of a
bilingual collaborative floor
Gender and Spoken Interaction
in honour of Jennifer Coates
edited by Eva Eppler & Pia Pichler
Aim
This paper aims to establish if
four Austrian Jewish émigrés in London
index their ethnic and gendered identities
on a bilingual collaborative floor.
If they do, it will illustrate how they do it.
Outline
1. Introduction
2. The data
3. Gendered and ethnic interactional styles
& bilingual code-switching
4. Four women, two codes and one crowded
floor
5. Conclusion
6. References
Indexicality
Language users tend to associate particular
linguistic forms with specific kinds of
speakers or contexts of speaking (a basic
assumption of variationist sociolinguistics).
Meaning derived in this way from contiguity
or association is known in the semiotics of
C. S. Peirce (1960) as indexicality.
Indexicality Silverstein (2003)
First-order indexicality is the semiotic work
of forming associations between a
linguistic variable and a category of
speakers.
First order indexicality renders a
linguistics feature available for association
with stereotypes associated with the
category, and thus enables it to become a
second order index.
Indexicality Silverstein (2003)
Second-order indexicality brings ideology
to bear on the relationship noticed.
Second-order indexicality involves the
politically and/or morally loaded cultural
construal of the first-order indexical
association with an intentional content or
meaning.
At this second level, actors rationalize, explain, and thus evitably
naturalize and ideologize the sociolinguistic associations
(indexical relations) they have registered at the first order.
For this paper
First order indexicality is important
…because I aim to show
which conversational strategies that have
often been associated with ethnic (Jewish)
and gendered (female) interactional styles
are being used by the speakers,
which ones are not,
and why.
I will argue that ….
…code-switching facilitates the
construction of a collaborative floor,
because the use of the “other” code for
specific functions is less likely to be
constructed as seizing the floor and
because a change in language requires
speakers to pay even closer attention to
each other at all linguistics levels than in
monolingual mode.
The data
This paper is based on a corpus of …
German/English bilingual interaction
drawn from a community of Austrian Jews,
refugees from the Holocaust,
living in London, UK.
Sampling & Data Collection
• contact letter was sent to a random
sample (50) of Austrian Jewish refugees in
London
• The complete data set consist of
approximately forty hours of audio
recordings
• slightly over fifteen of which are
transcribed in the LIDES format
The data this paper is based on
were extracted from
slightly over eight hours (93,235 words) of
group recordings,
using participant observation during card
game and gossip sessions,
involving the central participant DOR, three
of her friends from the refugee generation
(TRU, MEL and LIL) and the researcher
Emigranto
• German/English bilingual mode of
interaction
• Linguistically Emigranto is characterised
by heavy intra-sentential code-switching,
frequent changes in code at speaker turn
boundaries, and the alternating use of two
or more “codes” or languages within one
conversational episode.
Features of discourse style
that have been preferably associated with
female and Jewish ways of speaking
(You might want to note them down,
we’ll need them later for a little exercise.)
Feminine interactional style
•
•
•
•
•
facilitative
supportive
conciliatory
person / process orientated and
collaborative
Holmes (2006: 6)
Collaborative floor (Edelsky 1993)
is an interactional structure which is jointly
accomplished by all speakers involved in
the conversation
The classic components of the collaborative
floor are: short turns, jointly constructed
ideas and utterances, overlapping speech,
repetition, joking and teasing.
Features of feminine
interactional styles
which are said to contribute to the
‘cooperative’ nature of informal talk among
female friends include the components of
a collaborative floor listed above,
• latching (turn transition without pause) and
• self- and other-completions (following
incomplete utterances and false starts)
Features of Jewish
interactional styles
•
•
•
•
latching,
cooperative overlap and
participatory listenership
‘persistence’, Tannen (1981) /
‘sustained disagreement’ Schiffrin (1984)
• Joking and teasing
(Blum-Kulka 1997)
Summary methodology
I use
a fine-grained micro-analysis to the data,
and
supplement it with tools developed by
interactional sociolinguistic work on
bilingual code-switching.
New Caterer Example
Argument Development
New √ cook @
AJR Day Centre
Old caterer
Israeli ?
New caterer √
Czech
Old caterer
Czech & Israeli √
New caterer
English √
Refugee or
émigré?
Extract 1
1. MEL: die X hat mir heute gesagt, dass ein new cook jetzt in Cleve Rd is(t).
%tra: www told me today, that there is a new cook in Cleve Road now.
2. DOR: a new caterer .
3. TRU: I don’t know about new cook - . a new caterer .
4. MEL: oh I see # a new caterer ,, I see .
5. TRU: the Israeli gave it [/] gave it +...
6. LIL: he is not any more # the Israeli ?
7. TRU: no no it (i)s a new caterer .
8. DOR: is(t) ein [/] ein Tscheche . [:= is a Czech]
9. TRU: what -? this new one is a Czech ?
10. DOR: nein # is(t) English # glaub(e) ich [:= I think] # I do-'nt know [//]
%tra:
ich weiss es nicht .
11. TRU: wie kommst’ auf Czech ? [:= why do you think he’s Czech?]
13. DOR: nein der Israeli war Czech . [: = no, the Israeli was Czech.]
14. TRU: was he ?
15. TRU: I thought he was an Israeli .
16. DOR: nein er war Czech . [:= no he was Czech.]
17. TRU: how can he be an Israeli , when he is a Czech ?
Activities: laughter
18. DOR: er ist gefahren von der Tchoslowakei nach Israel .
%tra: he travelled from Czechoslovakia to Israel
19. TRU: oh I see ,, der [!!] [:= he] or his parents ?
20. DOR: [!] das hab(e) ich ihn nicht gefragt .
%tra: that I didn’t ask him
21. TRU: why did-'nt you - .
Activities: laughter
File Jen1, lines 1335-1367
The search for the right word
Extract 2 Brainwave
1. *TRU: etwas [%tra: something/sort] of #
a # what’s it called ?
2. *DOR: ++ a brainwave .
3. *TRU: +, ja # in the last minute .
File Jen1, lines 2634-2636
Extract 3 Charwoman
1. LIL: my charwoman +//.
Comment: LIL addresses EVA
2. LIL: +^ you know what a charwoman is ?
3. LIL: a cleaner +/.
4. TRU: cleaner # charwoman # is(t) beides Englisch [:=both are English] +...
5. LIL: oh yes .
Activities:
laughter
6. LIL: die Aufwartefrau , wie die Deutschen sagen .
%tra: charwoman, as the Germans say
7. MEL: Bedienerin [:= charwoman, Austrian German]
8. LIL: +, comes Tuesdays and Fridays .
File Jen1, lines 334-42
Extract 4 Zusammenhang ‘Connection’
1. EVA: seitdem versuche ich Spezialisten
zu fragen, ob es da irgendeine +...
%tra: since then I have been trying to ask
specialist whether there is a
2. DOR: ++ zusammenhang
%tra:
connection
3. EVA: +, zusammenhang gibt.
File IBron, lines 560-63
Extract 5 – dead, stationary or stuck?
1. LIL: +^ the window is down about that much.
Action: gesture indicating how wide the window was
open
2. LIL: +, [/] about that much and it can't be moved
up or down.
3. LIL: it’s just # dead .
4. MEL:
++
stationary .
5. EVA:
++
stuck .
6. LIL: it’s just
stuck .
Jen1.cha, lines 111-119
Extract 6 The car crash
1. LIL: he took the number and his name and since +/.
2. XXX: the lorry didn't +/.
3. MEL: oh Dorit told [>] me +/.
4. DOR:
ich [<] hab(e) geglaubt the lorry is [>] xxx .
%tra:
I thought the lorry is
5. LIL:
no [<] # the lorry didn’t do +/.
6. DOR: der wind hat (e)s aufgeblasen und the lorry hat +/.
%tra: the wind has blown it open and the lorry has
7. LIL: but the lorry didn’t +/.
8. MEL:
++ lock the door auf [:= open] ?
9. MEL: das haben wir gedacht ,, weisst ?
%tra: that’s what we thought,, you know?
10. LIL: and he got out -? .
11. LIL: and he was very nice -? .
12. LIL: and he helped me tie it up -? because the door [>] didn’t close -? .
13. MEL:
[>] of course .
14. DOR:
[>] na so was [:= oh no].
15. LIL: ++ and the window didn’t close -? .
16. MEL: und [/] und das andere is(t) auch eingequetscht worden ?
%tra: and [/] and the other [part] has been squashed as well?
17. LIL: well the front looks pretty awful -_ .
18. MEL: ach Gott [:= oh God].
19. LIL:
+, through the impact of [>] the door - !
20. MEL:
[>] ja ja [<] .
21. LIL: the hinges and +...
22. MEL: na so was -_ [:= oh no] .
23. LIL: +, they [the hinges] are out of alignment and [/] and everything +...
24. DOR: that’s very unfortunate .
25. LIL: terrible .
26. MEL: schrecklich [:= awful].
File Jen1.cha, lines 27-56
Conclusions
The analysis of six typical extracts from
the Emigranto data has shown that the
participants in the natural conversations
combine strategies which hitherto have
only been shown to index either female or
Jewish or Austrian/English identity to
express that they are bilingual, Austrian,
Jewish women living in London, UK.
Similarities
The analysis of the ‘Emigranto’ data has
shown that those linguistic features,
strategies and topics that have been
indexed with both
female and Jewish ways of speaking,
are prevalent (fast turn-taking, latching,
cooperative overlap, participatory
listenership, stories on personal topics on
emotional experiences).
Differences
Where female and (Eastern European) Jewish
conversational styles diverge, the discourse
patterns that index gendered meaning prevail:
disagreement is not sustained and the talk is
conciliatory, facilitative, supportive, egalitarian
and cooperative. The ‘normative, appropriate
and unmarked means of signalling’ female
identity (cf. Holmes 2006: 7), win out over
culturally normative components of Jewish
interactional style (Schiffrin 1984).
Differences
• Speech rate
 where Eastern European Jewish and
Viennese discourse patterns diverge, the
conversational styles that index Austrian
identity seem to prevail in the speech of
the four Ashkenazi Jewish women.
Conclusion interactional styles
The way of speaking outlined in this paper is thus
most fully realised in interaction among the
Austrian Jewish women living in London
(as opposed to in interaction with people who typically draw on other strategies)
First, they only code-switch in in-groups situations.
Second, unlike other Eastern European Jews, they
speak slowly.
Third, where ethnic and gendered ways of
speaking clash, the style that has been indexed
with female identity prevails.
Conclusions
Bilingual code-switching
This study adds to our knowledge of
gendered and ethnic interactional styles
...that the bilingual use of linguistics features
that are indexed with them can facilitate
the construction of a collaborative floor.
Conclusions
Bilingual code-switching
bilingual code-switching can become just
another building block in the construction of
an egalitarian collaborative floor because
• overlapping utterances are not in direct
competition with the main turn
• the joint construction of bilingual utterances and
sequences requires speakers to pay even closer
attention to each other at all linguistics levels
than the monolingual production of a
collaborative floor
References
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1997. Dinner Talk. Cultural Patterns of Sociability and
Socialization in Family Discourse. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edelsky, Carole. 1993. Who’s got the floor? In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Gender and
Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 189-230.
Eppler, Eva. 2003. German/English LIDES Database. Talkbank
<http://talkbank.org/data/LIDES/Eppler.zip> (accessed 08/07/09).
Holmes, Janet. 2006. Gendered Talk at work. Constructing Gender Identity through
Workplace Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pichler, Pia & Eva Eppler (eds.) (2009) Gender and Spoken Interaction. Houndsmill,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 31135.
Tannen, Deborah. 1981. New York Jewish Conversational Style. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 30: 133-48.
Tannen, Deborah (ed.) 1993. Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 2005. Conversational style. Analysing Talk among Friends. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gender and Spoken Interaction
in honour of Jennifer Coates
edited by Eva Eppler & Pia Pichler
Dankeschön!
Thanks for the invitation &
your attention
Diolch yn fawr iawn Bangor!