A Conversational Analysis of Acholi: Structure and Socio-Pragmatics of a Nilotic Language of Uganda 9004437584, 9789004437586

Citation preview

A Conversational Analysis of Acholi

Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture Series Editors Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) R.M.W. Dixon (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) N.J. Enfield (University of Sydney)

volume 25

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bslc

A Conversational Analysis of Acholi Structure and Socio-Pragmatics of a Nilotic Language of Uganda

By

Maren Rüsch

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Gulu town, courtesy of Christina von Hörsten. This book is a revised version of the dissertation accepted by the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Cologne in July 2018. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rü sch, Maren, author. Title: A conversational analysis of Acholi : structure and socio-pragmatics of a Nilotic language of Uganda / Maren Rü sch. Other titles: Brill's studies in language, cognition and culture ; v. 25. 18795412 Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Brill's studies in language, cognition and culture, 18795412 ; 25 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020033702 (print) | LCCN 2020033703 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004437586 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004437593 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Acholi language–Discourse analysis. | Acholi language–Social aspects. | Conversation analysis–Uganda–Gulu District. | Sociolinguistics–Uganda–Gulu District. Classification: LCC PL8041 .R87 2020 (print) | LCC PL8041 (ebook) | DDC 496.5584–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020033702 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020033703

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 1879-5412 ISBN 978-90-04-43758-6 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-43759-3 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Maren Rüsch. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For April, the strongest woman I know, who showed me how starting a conversation by asking a simple question can change your life And for Elijah, may you never lose the strength to ask questions, and always be able to discover the truth in the words you are being told

∵

Contents Acknowledgements xi List of Maps, Tables, and Figures Abbreviations xvi

xiii

1 Introduction 1 1.1 About the Genesis of This Book and the Study It Comprises 3 1.2 Historical, Political and Linguistic Background: Northern Uganda and Acholi in Numbers, Graphics and Quotes 6 1.2.1 Gulu and the Northern Region 6 1.2.2 The War and Its Aftermath 8 1.2.3 Evolution of a Pre-colonial Acholi Entity 11 1.2.4 Stigmatization during the British Colonization and Beyond 13 1.3 Acholi Preliminaries: Written and Spoken Language “Standards” 16 1.3.1 Basic Grammar and Literature 16 1.3.2 Common Elision 23 1.4 On Methodology, Ethics and Conventions 26 1.4.1 Documentation of Everyday Language 27 1.4.2 Elicitation of Emic Points of View 36 1.4.3 Ethical Considerations 37 1.4.4 Conventions of Transcription 38 2 Framing Interaction 40 2.1 Action and Reaction 40 2.1.1 About Mutual Participation and Interdependency 41 2.1.2 About Language as Social Action 46 2.2 Framing and Context 49 2.2.1 About Cognition, Frames and Schemas 49 2.2.2 About Communication and Culture 54 3 Conversational Micro- and Macro-management 56 3.1 Starting from Scratch: Turns and Adjacency Pairs 60 3.1.1 Turn-Constructional Units and Transition Relevance Places 60 3.1.2 Adjacency Pairs and Preference 74 3.2 Order and Action Before, After, and Within: Sequences 80 3.2.1 Openings 81 3.2.2 Closings 86

viii

contents

3.2.3 3.2.4

Conversational Narrative 90 Listeners as Co-authors: Back-Channeling with Continuers and Assessments 118 3.2.5 Schisming as Sequential and Social Action 120 3.3 Dealing With Conversational Trouble: Repair and Overlaps 134 3.3.1 Initiating Repair and Solving Trouble 135 3.3.2 Other-Initiated Repair 138 3.3.3 Self-Initiated Repair 146 3.3.4 Searching for Words: The Case of gìnɛ̀ 149 3.3.5 Overlaps 151 3.4 Saying It Again: Repetitions 157 3.4.1 Types and Functions of Repetitions in Language Use 157 3.4.2 Diaphonic Repetition 159 3.4.3 Autophonic Repetition 164 3.4.4 Other Instances and Functions of Repetition 171 4 Socio-pragmatics 174 4.1 About Politeness, Criticism, and Evaluation 175 4.1.1 First-Wave Approaches to Politeness 177 4.1.2 Scientific Approaches to Politeness since 2000 179 4.1.3 Some Notions on Directness 190 4.2 Creating the Difference with Tiny Words: Pragmatic Markers 200 4.2.1 An Insight into the Abundance and Width of Functions 201 4.2.2 Discourse Markers vs. Modal Particles: A Taxonomy for Acholi 202 4.2.3 A Sample of Acholi Discourse Markers 205 4.2.4 Common Acholi Modal Particles Scrutinized 208 4.2.5 Drawing the Context: The perception of Modal Particles 213 4.3 Depiction of Action: Ideophones 217 4.3.1 Characteristics of Acholi Ideophones 218 4.3.2 Conversational Use 220 4.4 Ritual Interaction 227 4.4.1 De-mystifying Ritual Interaction: Definition and Meaning 228 4.4.2 Appreciating the Most Vital Ritual of the Day: The Greeting 229 4.4.3 The Freedom to React in a Dispreferred Way: Ritual Interaction in the Market 242 4.4.4 The Relevance of Storytelling as Interactive Practice 250

ix

contents

5 Non-verbal Contributions to Conversation 255 5.1 Doing Things without Words: Depictive, Deictic and Emblematic Gestures 257 5.1.1 Counting 258 5.1.2 Describing Things 261 5.1.3 Showing Places and Directions 266 5.2 Non-verbal Action in Conversation: A Note on Paralinguistic Features 269 5.2.1 Laughter and Kiss-Teeth 269 5.2.2 Some Comments on Breathing 285 5.2.3 Silence 288 5.3 A Multimodal Approach: Structure and Action through Gesture, Gaze, and Body 294 5.3.1 Sample 1: A Repetition Sequence 295 5.3.2 Sample 2: A Short Extract Full of Sounds and Body Language 299 6 A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Conversation Analysis in Acholi 313 6.1 Universal and Language-Specific Features 313 6.1.1 Contextualization and the Space and Locality of Interaction 314 6.1.2 Languaging-in-(Inter)action 317 6.2 A Multidimensional Approach 319 6.2.1 Multiple Angles of Analysis in the Research of Acholi Conversation 319 6.2.2 Conversational Interaction as Multidimensional Action 321 Epilogue

323

References 325 Index of Languages 351 Index of Subjects 353

Acknowledgements The study about conversational strategies in Acholi; the research, data annotation and translation; the writing of this book; none of this would have been possible without the help of many people. Before I begin to try to verbalize my thanks to those who helped me during the progress, many thanks go to the German Research Foundation (DFG). They kindly funded my research and gave me the opportunity to do fieldwork in East Africa. When it comes to people who helped me with this study, first and foremost, I want to express my deepest gratitude and warmest thanks to Prof. Dr. Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. The English term ‘supervisor’ does not grasp the full meaning of his role in this work, whereas the German expression Doktorvater (‘doctoral father’) truly does. I am overgrateful for his advice, the knowledge he shared with me, for the time he spent reading the manuscripts of this book and for the fact that he kept a free space in his calendar for an appointment with me whenever I needed one. I am especially thankful for his never-ending patience and his wonderful human attitude, which allowed me to be weak, stressed, confused, at times, and it gave me the chance to grow, not only academically, but also personally. Heel hartelijk bedankt! Secondly, my deepest gratitude goes to the most important people in this study: the Acholi speakers I worked with. Without all of you and the various facets that you brought to my research, this study would not have been possible, nor would it have been as multifarious. Many thanks to Daniel Obina and Susan Ajok for helping me find people to work with, and for the support to transcribe, annotate, and translate the data we collected. I am so happy that all the workloaded hours we spent were still filled with fun and we became friends in the progress! I enjoyed and appreciate the time that Paul Acaye spent to show me around Gulu when I first arrived, to connect me to people in town, and to introduce me to the great organization ‘Girls kick it!’, his colleagues and friends. Just like Daniel and Susan Ajok he was part of the research, along with Susan Lakica, who on top of that gave her best to teach me Acholi. To all the other ones whose names the readers of the study will find familiar soon, Hellen, Betty, Rita, Tonny, Richard, Martin, Francis Olara, Joyce, Brenda, and Patrick, Junior, Joseph, Geoffrey, Maliki, Muzee Okello and Emmanuel, and to those who were a precious part of the research, even though their names may not frequently appear: Jennifer, Irene, Mirriam, Lillian, Isaac, Jimmy Akema, Francis Ouma, Sam, Stephen, Jimmy Laber, Morrish, Ibrahim, Amos, Maloba, Janan, Okeny Francis, the Gulu wheelchair basketball team, everyone else involved—thank you so much, without your time and acceptance, nothing would have been there to analyze.

xii

acknowledgements

I would like to thank my second supervisor Prof. Dr. Anne Storch who gave me new ideas on what more there could be to my topic. In doing so she opened my eyes for new approaches and this was very helpful and inspiring. Moreover, she gave me insight into her own data on Acholi and Chopi, which I appreciate very much. Vielen Dank! Further warm thanks go to my colleagues, especially Jun.-Prof. Dr. Nico Nassenstein, Dr. Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Dr. Angelika Mietzner, Prof. Dr. Felix Ameka, Dr. Mark Dingemanse, Megan Göttsches and Nataliya Veit, for discussions, comments, advices, and the sharing of experiences and material. I thank Janine Traber who helped me segment parts of the data and never hesitated to scan when I could not access resources from the field, and Monika Feinen, for the creation of all the maps. I am also greatly indebted to Kieran Taylor for proof reading the manuscript. Thank you all! I owe my thanks to the colleagues from Uganda, especially Jackson Kizza Mukasa and Saudah Nyamalo from Makerere University for helping me insitu and during the application of the research permit, as well as to Dr. Lioba Lenhart for being my contact person in Gulu. My deepest gratitude goes to all those who filled in my long and tiresome questionnaires, and to Vanguard Police Primary School and Cwero Village Primary School for allowing me to visit their classes for research purposes. Thanks to Denish as well as the team of Serenity (Sankofa); you all gave me a good time during my work and in my breaks, thanks for always having my coffee ready. To all of you and whomever in Gulu I forgot: you welcomed me warmly and made me part of a big family from the beginning, apwoyo matek! Finally, I want to express special thanks those people who were not part of the scientific progress, but rather the personal one. April Buggy, to whom I dedicate this book, for being the sister I never had: In the past years, no one saw me like you did, and no one took care of me like you did, with all the ups and downs during the research and especially writing phases. Four years ago I would have never thought that we would ever have any conversation. Thank you for starting to talk to me in the first place—things happen for a reason. To my mum Christina, who never quit to cheer me up on my way, and my grandparents Ingrid and Erhard, who never stopped sending me good thoughts. To Elli—she knows for what. I am thankful to Jaqueline Biering, whose encouragementpostcards came regularly and always put a smile on my face, and Sarah Ehlers, who fondly spurred me on with a carrot and a stick as only she could, ich danke euch! And, last, but not least, my deepest gratitude to Calisto Owuor, for everything. Nibiro kaokan’geyo, kasto mane adware, nokiwuok. Erokamano nikech neokiluor bedo koda e chandruok. Gika nan’geyo e igni mokadho, nan’geyo kuom in. Cologne, June 2018

Maps, Tables, and Figures Maps 1 2 3

Gulu among the Ugandan districts 7 The Luo-Triangle: Migration of the Paluo Points of recording 29

12

Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Population in the district of the Acholi sub-region 8 Consonant inventory (based on Heusing 2004 and Hieda 2011) 17 Vowel inventory (based on Heusing 2004 and Hieda 2011) 19 Common elision in natural speech 25 [+ATR] / [-ATR] levelling of pronominal affixes (based on Heusing 2004) 26 Amount of audio- and video-data by category 28 Transcription conventions (by Jefferson 2004) 39 Conversational facts (based on Sacks et al. 1974, cited from Sidnell 2010:39) 59 Overall Structure of narratives as proposed by Labov and Waletzky (1967), cited from Rühlemann (2013:24) 91 Characteristics of the recipient roles “responsive recipient” and “co-constructive recipient” (Rühlemann 2013:11) 94 Four cases of other-initiated repair in Acholi 144 The four key loci of first-order and second-order understandings of politeness 186 Three-fold structure of pragmatic markers in Acholi 205

Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

‘Acholi Road’: Sign in Gulu town (2015) 2 Timeline of the evolution of a pre-colonial Acholi entity (based on Atkinson 1994) 13 Classification of the Southern Luo languages (based on Heusing 2004:7) 17 Elan transcription of ‘The Paten Clan’ with Susan Ajok (2016) 27 Blocked picture 35 Mutual impact through social interaction 48 The timing of activation costs with relation to speaker and listener (based on Chafe 1994:74) 51

xiv 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

maps, tables, and figures Sketch of the interleaving of comprehension and production in the recipient of an incoming turn (Levinson and Torreira 2015:14) 68 Gaze structure of mutual monitoring in a schisming sequence 126 Elements of other-initiated repair (Dingemanse et al. 2015:4) 136 Illustration of within-overlap and between-overlap (Levinson and Torreira 2015:16) 153 A mirrored repetition cluster (example 65) 167 Opening and closing a sequence with a mirrored repetition cluster (example 66) 169 Relational work (Watts 2005: xliii) 184 Direct prompt: Pé ìɔ́ ny yúgì kány ìcʊ́ lʊ̀ 50,000 ‘Do not litter here, you pay 50,000 UgX’ 191 Sign in a café in Gulu 198 Screenshot of a multi-unit turn including pragmatic markers 213 The perceived importance of modal particles and some discourse markers as categorized by speakers 214 Frequency of use of modal particles and some discourse markers compared to control-words as estimated by speakers 215 Effective occurrence of modal particles and the discourse marker wɛ́ 216 Greeting from far (example 100) 232 Boy greeting his family at home 237 Counting 259 Showing numbers 260 Two ways of showing an uncertain number 261 Showing height 262 Showing size 263 Showing fullness 263 Gesture 2: ‘rubber bullet’ (line 6, ex. 105) 265 Gesture 3: ‘rubber bullet’ (line 7, ex. 105) 265 Gesture 1: ty’ ‘à ŋwɛ́c àtáà (line 4, ex. 105) 266 Gesture 4: ty’ ’à rɪ́ŋ àtáà (line 8, ex. 105) 266 Pointing 267 Distance 267 Showing distance: ‘up to Ngai’ (line 1, ex. 106) 268 Showing distance: ‘Pajengo farm’ (line 6, ex. 21) 269 Head-position during the kiss-teeth gesture 283 Silence types (Saville-Troike 1985:16–17) 290 Refraining from a gesture as indication of the sequence’s closing and the relinquishment of the turn 294 Gesture 1: pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ (line 8, ex. 116) 299

maps, tables, and figures 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

xv

Gesture 2: pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ (line 26, ex. 116) 299 G1—moving hand up (while looking for word) 300 G2—beats with right hand behind bike, G3—similar to G1 (words found) 301 G4—clapping hands while laughing 302 G5—beat-movement with index finger 302 G6—trajectory movement from left to right 303 G7—one stroke with left hand 303 G8—one stroke with index finger down 304 G9—first stroke with index finger 304 G10—second stroke with index finger 305 G11a—mouth covered with hand during whistle, G11b—slight bending during whistle 305 G12—deictic gesture with two beats 306 G13—deictic gesture 306 G14—addressing gesture, touch of arm 307 G15—arm with stretched index finger up (i.e. I am available) 307 G16—beat-like gesture 308 G17—showing size 309 G18—depiction of the hiding place 309 G19—gesture showing inside 310 G20—depiction of the hiding place 310 G21a—pointing, G21b—pointing, G22—depiction of grabbing 311 G23a–c—clapping of hands in front of body, arms stretched 311 Manifestation of space in interaction 316 A multidimensional cluster of conversational languaging-in-interaction 321

Abbreviations 1, 2, 3 asp ben CA cfm com comp compl cop cov dem eri FPP fut grd id IDP ims intj intr loc LRA mp neg NGO nmz NRA num o obl oir ono pl pol poss prog prs

1st, 2nd, 3rd person aspect benefactive conversation analysis contrastive focus marker commutative complementizer completive copula coverb demonstrative elliptic repair initiator first pair part future tense gerund ideophone internally displaced people impersonal subject prefix interjection interrogative locative Lord’s Resistance Army modal particle negation non-governmental organization nominalizer National Resistance Army numeral object obligation marker other-initiated repair onomatopoeia plural politeness marker possessive pronoun progressive present tense

abbreviations pst PTSD qnt qp refl rel rt rti s sg sir SIT SPP sub t+1 t0 t-1 TCU TRP UgX

past tense posttraumatic stress disorder quantifier question particle reflexive relative pronoun reactive token reactive token initiator subject singular self-initiated repair schisming-inducing turn second pair part subjunctive repair resolution turn repair initiation turn trouble source turn turn-constructional unit transition relevance place Ugandan Shilling

xvii

chapter 1

Introduction As the first sun rays appear above Gulu’s houses, they find their way over the shallow sheet-metal and brick roofs and through the leaves of the trees with their bats, which still create shadows upon most of the town’s roads. A first boda, a motorbike taxi, comes down ‘Acholi Road’, navigates through the rough road at the junction next to Pece Stadium, carefully drives through puddles and muddy holes, and finally stops next to the junction, below a small wooden roof. A boda-station like so many others in Gulu, where the boda driver will wait for his first customers. Right now it is still silent in town, only the frogs in the ditches croak once in a while, a sign that the rainy season has finally begun. The boda driver parks his bike and sits on it while waiting. In a few hours the silence will be gone. But right now the choir of the frogs are the only voices heard. Suddenly the sound of a horn breaks the silence. Twice. The boda-driver lifts his arm, pointing his finger upwards. While he was sitting calmly before, he is standing now, the relaxation that his sitting position indicated yields to a tense, stretched body posture now, as he shows that he is ready to take his first customer, spotted coming out of a house. The alleged customer turns his head and spots him, then, almost synchronously, his arm soars up as well. The driver starts his bike, manoeuvers it through the mud and water once more, and stops next to his first customer. Itye nining? How are you? Atye maber. Itye? I’m fine. Are you doing well? Atye. I’m good. Even before they finish exchanging their greetings, the customer takes his seat behind the driver, his backpack on his shoulders, and holds the metal behind him. Postbus!, can still be heard as they already drive down Acholi Road to enter town.1

1 With the intention to portray not only conversational strategies, but also (relevant) impressions from the research period, several pictures are included in this work. Presented pictures and other figures are my own, unless indicated otherwise.

© Maren Rüsch, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004437593_002

2

chapter 1

figure 1 ‘Acholi Road’: Sign in Gulu town (2015)

Shortly after, a bicycle passes the stadium as it is overtaken by another boda. The squeaky sound of metallic doors can be heard. Employees at the Golden Gate Hotel, opposite the stadium, start to prepare the hotel for the day: the sound of brushes on the ground, water being poured over the tiles, chairs brought to their correct position in front of the hotel. The sun is almost up now, the shadow that covered Golden Gate’s veranda is gone. Words from the road echo in turn with replies from the hotel’s veranda, the smiles can be implicitly heard. Jal we, icoo nining? My friend, good morning! Acoo maber! Good morning! Itye? Are you doing well? Atye maber! I’m fine! Aya, apwoyo! Okay, thank you! Apwoyo! I appreciate it! Ber! You are welcome! In a few hours the chairs outside the hotel will be full with people relaxing, drinking and chatting. More people will pass and greet each other from the road, on their way to work or to meet friends in front of a salon where they like to play a board game. Some will take bodas from the stations where, by then,

introduction

3

more drivers will wait for customers, chatting and having fun. Others will go to meetings with colleagues and friends to discuss work issues or plans, others may sit down with family members in their plot to update each other about the past week. They rebuke their children, ask elders for advice, prepare food, welcome guests and listen to the radio. Or they will go to work; try to solve problems. Some will sit in the salon for hours while others will sit in the shadow of mango trees, sipping drinks with their friends. All of them, however, will talk. They will communicate with others; greet, criticize, congratulate, discuss, explain, ask, advice, invite, get angry, laugh, call someone from afar, lift their hands, shake each other’s hands, and offer a seat. They may sit in groups of many, just as a pair, or alone—communicating from a distance, right next to each other, or on a phone. The whole of Gulu town will be awake and alive like a beehive, buzzing will be heard in between the noises of motorbikes and cars, machines, and music from the shops. A buzzing momentarily louder and at times silent, fast and slow, cheerful and angry, will funnel through the air of town. This buzzing is part of interactive behavior and talk-in-interaction on the one side, while being deeply intertwined with social interaction on the other. A buzzing that characterizes one of the most fundamental human behaviors: communication through language.

1.1

About the Genesis of This Book and the Study It Comprises

My path to researching a language in Northern Uganda started long before I conducted the actual research. As my regional focus on East Africa evolved from the beginning of my studies in 2007—simply because I do not know French and the knowledge of French is arguably essential to spend a longer period of time in most areas of West Africa—the choice to learn Swahili as a first African language was certain. It was my Swahili lecturer, Omar Babu Marjan, who awakened my enthusiasm to learn even more about the language and various East African cultures. While I worked on Swahili during my undergraduate degree, I decided to change paths afterwards. I wanted to challenge myself and, as so often is the case, it was purely accidental that I ended up working on the Acholi language for my Masters in 2012. When I finished my first research on ‘Ideophones in Acholi’ in the Ugandan town of Gulu in May 2012, I knew that I would return to carry out research for my doctoral dissertation. The warmth and happiness that the inhabitants of Gulu welcomed me with being only one reason for this decision, albeit an important one. As time went by, the question of a new research topic had to be answered. I only knew a little Acholi by then, but I knew that I wanted to work on a topic referring to applied language: the

4

chapter 1

daily use of the language by speakers that surrounded me on my first fieldwork trip and the ways in which speakers liked to play with it. I was fascinated by the way that the language sounded, by the seemingly large amount of repeated phrases in conversations, by the words that everyone used but nobody could translate or explain, and by the feeling that speakers frequently appeared to speak at the same time, creating overlaps that I could not understand at that point. All of this added up to me deciding to write ‘A Conversational Analysis of Acholi’; in order to learn more about conversational strategies that speakers apply and their (grammatical, social, cognitive, and cultural) reasons to do so. This book aims to display the interactive behaviors of speakers of the Acholi language living in Gulu town, Northern Uganda, based on linguistic (verbal and non-verbal) strategies, socially guided behavior, as well as the influence of interactive practices on social evaluation. When the project was first prepared in 2013, there were no linguistic monographs on conversational strategies for any African language available. The existing studies either emphasized predominantly anthropological rather than linguistic approaches (for instance Strecker 1988 and Meyer 2010), or they were papers rather than full monographs (eg. Hoymann 2010, Dingemanse 2011b). Nevertheless, these works are undoubtedly valuable in the process of conversational studies. Strecker’s (1988, 1993) work, for instance, portrays preferences of face-strategies among Hamar speakers in Southern Ethiopia and also deals with the differing metaphorical concept of the face, in so far as it refers to fortune, success and freedom of action, rather than the Western notions of shame and social doubt. Meyer (2010) presented alternative concepts of Wolof speakers’ social space and the conversational order intertwined with it. Hoymann (2010) examines the question strategies of speakers of the Khoisan language ǂĀkhoe Haiǀǀom. She found out that, again compared to Western language use, speakers tend to use content questions in preference to polar questions. Dingemanse (2011b) shows how perceptive concepts in the Eastern Ghanaian language Siwu are expressed by means of ideophones and how these are used, not only to express aesthetics, but also to fulfill communicative functions in interactions. Being driven by those and other attempts to investigate conversational strategies extending beyond Western conceptualizations, the prime aim of this study is to provide an insight into linguistic strategies, as applied in the Acholi language, from a conversation analytic angle paired with socio-pragmatic tenors. The introductory chapters subsequent to this section consist of a brief explanation of the background information necessary to grasp the contextual and scientific frame of this study. The remaining part of Chapter 1 deals with the geographical area where Acholi is spoken, its history and development (1.2), and the grammatical preliminaries of the language (1.3). The end of the chap-

introduction

5

ter addresses the constitution of the research prior to this study and the ethic conventions (1.4). While the current state of the Acholi-region and its political and linguistic history bear an immense influence on today’s in-situ language, at the same time cultural customs are used as practices to deal with the consequences of its historical and political development. The multidimensional interdependency between a language, and the context it evolves and develops within, will become evident more than once throughout this study. Hence, the second introductory chapter aims to create a scientific foundation of the study of interaction in personal, social and cultural environments relevant for this research. A diverse set of scientific approaches to language and its context exists in a wide range of disciplines. Linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, and scholars of their sub-disciplines, all converge their approaches and the direction of their analyses from different angles. In order to provide an awareness of this state, Chapter 2 construes the meaning of ‘interaction’ as well as the concepts of social action, framing and (cultural) context. Following the introductory chapters, this book is divided into three main sections: The micro- and macro-analysis of Acholi conversations (Chapter 3), their socio-pragmatic analysis (Chapter 4), and the non-verbal features relevant for both of these sections’ analyses (Chapter 5). In Chapter 3, basic notions of Conversation Analysis are introduced and interrelated with Acholi language practices. Beginning with rather short entities such as turns (3.1), throughout the chapter, the scope is widened to longer units of talk, i.e. sequences (3.2), and then extended to challenges of structural organization such as repair sequences, overlaps, and the search for words (3.3). To conclude Chapter 3, Acholi conversations are screened for prevalent linguistic practices in the language, namely repetitions and their forms and functions (3.4). Chapter 3 mainly deals with the structural organization of the language used in conversations, although socio-pragmatic effects and cognitive origins are considered where necessary. Chapter 4 examines pragmatic functions of various expressions, among them are the term of address jàl ‘fellow’, the temporal adverb kɔ̀ ŋ ‘first’ (4.1), pragmatic markers (4.2), and ideophones (4.3). The whole Chapter 4 is framed by an introduction to politeness research (4.1) and other ritual aspects of daily social interaction (4.4), as most of the topics addressed in the sub-chapters affect these two concepts. Chapter 5 then glances at non-verbal contributions to everyday conversational encounters. Different types of gestures (5.1) are considered as well as paralinguistic features common in Acholi interaction (5.2), among them laughter and the kiss-teeth sound. Eventually, the synergy of verbal and non-verbal strategies as social actions in interaction is elucidated by the analysis of two multimodal samples of the corpus (5.3). To complete the picture of conver-

6

chapter 1

sational practices in the Acholi language, an approach to multidimensional conceptualization(s) of interaction is presented in Chapter 6. As this study is built upon documented audio- and video-data, sections of interactional extracts are used to undermine the Acholi linguistic practices discussed. The extract that an example is taken from is indicated in each sample, single examples taken from the corpus that do not belong to any of the main extracts discussed in this work are not categorized further, however. Whenever bodily behavior (gestures, body posture and the like) is relevant, pictures are extracted from the video-files. The example that the particular picture originates from is also assigned to its title.

1.2

Historical, Political and Linguistic Background: Northern Uganda and Acholi in Numbers, Graphics and Quotes We are proud of our language. And we are proud of ourselves. Susan Lakica, 29.10.2015

∵ 1.2.1 Gulu and the Northern Region The research for this study took place in Gulu town, which is the municipality of Gulu District in the northern Ugandan region. Gulu district, together with the districts Agogo, Amuru, Kitgum, Lamwo, Nwoya and Pader, form the so-called Acholi sub-region (Acholiland)—a semi-official label for the territory (Patel et al. 2012). Hence, the Acholi sub-region consists of seven of Uganda’s 111 districts and covers an area of 28,000 square kilometers (ibid.). The main source of livelihood in the municipality Gulu is still subsistence farming for between 15% to 24% of households, depending on the particular division. Yet, 75% to 85% of households stated another source of income in the census of 2014. However, the rural areas in Gulu district show another distribution of sources of livelihood, namely between 79% to almost 95 %. Therefore, subsistence farming in the urban centre is not as widespread as in the neighbouring sub-countries and far below the district’s average of 64.5 %.2 Almost half of the urban population of the northern region lives in Gulu, which is the biggest town in the region and thus the most important economic 2 Ugandan Bureau of Statistics (2014:121).

introduction

map 1

7

Gulu among the Ugandan districts created by Monika Feinen 2017

centre in the north. Nevertheless, only a third of Gulu district’s inhabitants are based in Gulu town, as seen in Table 1, which is based on numbers from the National Population and Housing Census 2014 Main Report by the Ugandan Bureau of Statistics. Within the seven districts covering the Acholi sub-region, Gulu not only has the biggest amount of people living in an urban context (i.e. Gulu town), but has more total inhabitants than any other district in the sub-region. Counting over 150,000 inhabitants (Table 1), Gulu is the seventh largest town after Uganda’s capital city Kampala, and the biggest town in the northern region.3 In

3 Ugandan Bureau of Statistics (2014).

8 table 1

chapter 1 Population in the district of the Acholi sub-region

District

Rural

Urban

Total

Agago Amuru Gulu Kitgum Lamwo Nwoya Pader Total

198,639 177,394 286,039 128,467 112,671 119,914 164,622 1,187,746

29,153 9,302 150,306 75,581 21,700 13,592 13,382 313,016

227,792 186,696 436,345 204,048 134,371 133,506 178,004 1,500,762

addition to the ‘comfortability’ that life in a town brings to research, Gulu town functions as a melting pot of Acholi speakers from the surrounding villages and districts. No other town in the region has as many speakers ‘at the spot’, and the various influences from other regional varieties of Acholi language are conspicuous. However, irrespective of small lexical or grammatical differences in the regional language varieties, this study intends to portray a common sociopragmatic and structural ground of interaction and interactants in Acholi as present in Gulu town. The majority of speakers in this study were born and raised in or close to town, yet others have their roots in Kitgum, Pader or Amuru and again others have spent some time in the capital Kampala. While their regional backgrounds may be audible when they speak (in some cases more, in others less), the conversational strategies they apply throughout conversations with others in town are similar to those speakers originating from Gulu town or the district. As suitable and nice as the town is for research, its development as such was a result of less positive events. 1.2.2 The War and Its Aftermath Caused by the war in the region that started in 1986, Gulu along with other towns in northern Uganda (e.g. Kitgum), faced a growth of population within the past decades due to the displacement and abscondence of people from rural areas (Otiso 2006). During those years, the Ugandan army fought against rebels (Lord’s Resistance Army—LRA) from the country’s north. Emerging after the power shift that made Yoweri Museveni the president in 1986, the Ugandan army (National Resistence Army/Movement—NRA) arrested suspected rebels from the north. Claiming to protect non-combats of the region, the NRA displaced a large amount of the population from the country-

introduction

9

sides into concentration camps. Studies vary in the number and percentage of internally displaced people (IDPs): Finnström (2006:203) and Oosterom (2011) speak of 1.5 million Acholi IDPs, i.e. 90% of the region’s population in the years 2005 and 2003 respectively, while Patel et al. (2012:2) and Sonderegger et al. (2011) account for “over 1.8 million”, or “nearly 2 million”, respectively. Roberts et al. (2008:2) state that, still in 2008, 80% of the population in Acholi subregion were IDPs, and that the districts of Gulu and Amuru inhabited roughly 650,000 IDPs. Roberts et al. (2008) and Atkinson (2009) speak of up to 2 million IDPs in northern Uganda, out of which 85% were forcefully displaced into concentration camps. The war turned out to be an “enormous humanitarian catastrophe in northern Uganda” (Finnström 2006:203) and “the biggest neglected humanitarian emergency in the world” (Egeland 2004, cited from Roberts et al. 2009:3). It caused an immense number of deaths, abducted women and children, the detention of suspected rebels by the Ugandan army, and a displacement of up to 90% of Acholi people from their native lands to concentrate camps, which the majority of IDPs did not leave for five to ten years (Roberts et al. 2009, Oosterom 2011). In the course of this, the northern Ugandan economy, mainly based on farming as stated above, collapsed (Patel et al. 2012). The camps were not as secure as pronounced by the government, but rather “characterised by chronic over-crowding, insecurity, social problems, and high rates of morbidity and mortality” (Roberts et al. 2008:2), as the LRA attacked the camps frequently (Roberts et al. 2009). Even though the Ugandan government claimed that the LRA was the reason for the war, they were not free from guilt either: [A] dominant narrative of the war that focuses so overwhelmingly on this single aspect promotes a simplistic, black-and-white view of the war as essentially ‘good’ (the Ugandan government and army, the US, the ICC) versus ‘evil’ (the LRA). (…) this ignores the fundamental complexity of the war and distorts the reality of those caught up in it. Indeed, for many of the people of northern Uganda, and Acholi in particular, there has been no black-and-white, no good choice from among the often gruesome violence of the LRA, the often equally extensive and brutal violence of government troops, or the typically slower, quieter, but at least equally destructive structural violence of the camps. Atkinson 2009:9–10

Due to frequent killings, abductions, abuses, rapes and mass-lootings of cattle, many inhabitants of the Northern Ugandan region did not see any other

10

chapter 1

solution other than to join the rebellion (Finnström 2006). Its recruitment of even child soldiers and women into the army had a huge impact among the whole population in the years after the war (Finnström 2006, Roberts et al. 2008, 2009). The fact that the government did not prevent this happening still has an impact on the perception of Uganda’s leadership up to the current time: The war with the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) that has plagued Northern Uganda for well over two decades is one of the reasons why the current President is so unpopular in the region. Numerous accusations of brutality by National Resistance Army and Uganda People’s Defence Force soldiers against Acholi civilians during the conflict have been levied against the government, leading many Acholi to believe that, rather than helping to restore peace in the Acholi communities, the NRM’s motives were more concerned with eradicating them altogether. Laruni 2015:213

Since 2006, displaced people started to return from the camps (Oosterom 2011), yet Gulu town and the surrounding district are still widely subject to humanitarian aid projects and NGOs specialized on peace and conflict studies. Many development programs and studies deal with psychological consequences of this long period of violence in the region: Roberts et al. (2008) measured the levels of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as well as depression. The rates of symptoms of both PTSD and depression turned out to be among the highest that studies of similar violent contexts have recorded, on a global scale, so far. Results of other studies resemble those findings (Pham et al. 2009, Pfeiffer and Elbert 2011, Vinck et al. 2007). Acholi found their own way to explain the psychological consequences of the war and named it cèn ‘vengeance ghost’: “people who witness or otherwise experience the violence of war can be disturbed with recurring nightmares and other daily flashbacks that assail their memories” (Finnström 2006:204).4 Against this backdrop, some speakers make use of traditional Acholi culture, for instance storytelling, in order to cope with their war experiences (cf. 4.4.4). However, there are also other linguistic consequences to the events: The historical development and the challenges that many Acholi speakers faced in the time of war still show an impact on some areas of today’s language use and language attitudes (cf. 1.2.4). Today the population of Acholi comprises 1.47 million people, constituting 4.4% of Uganda’s total population. It is the second largest Nilotic ethnic group

4 For more information on the topic, see Behrend (1999), or Finnström (2003).

introduction

11

after Langi (6.3%) and it is further outnumbered by five of the largest Bantu ethnic groups (i.e. Baganda, Banyankore, Basoga, Bakiga and Bagisu) and one Eastern Nilotic group (Iteso). Latest numbers indicate that there are another 27,000 speakers of Acholi in South Sudan, as of the year 2000. The language is also known by its alternate writings as Acoli, Acooli and Atscholi as well as Akoli, Dok Acoli, Gang, Log Acoli, Lwoo, Lwo and Shuli.5 In Acholi, the language is called Leb Acoli. However, the Acholi, as an ethnic group, seem to have evolved through the process of external summarization from the 19th century. 1.2.3 Evolution of a Pre-colonial Acholi Entity The region that is known today as Acholi sub-region or Acholiland was formerly inhabited by Central Sudanic speakers and Eastern Nilotic speakers (Atkinson 1989). Luo speakers, i.e. Western Nilotes, entered into the area comparably late. Luo speakers were the last of the three major linguistic groups to settle in Acholi, members of all three groups were primarily hoe agriculturalists, sharing the same basic means and mode of production; and the preponderance of members in the areas that became Acholi was overwhelmingly Central Sudanic speakers in the west and Eastern Nilotics in the east. Atkinson 1989:27

Luo migrants, so-called Paluo, originating from areas north of Uganda (now South Sudan), settled at the southern and western boarders of today’s Acholi sub-region, and many of them entered further south into the kingdom of the Banyoro-Kitara. Before the end of the 18th century, the administrative and sociopolitical system of the latter was very distinctive from the system in the north: While single lineages were common in the northern Ugandan region, among the Banyoro-Kitara, these lineages were integrated into chiefdoms, in which the chief (Luo: rwòt, pl. rwódì) had “a great deal of prestige and social position but limited wealth and coercive power” (Atkinson 1989:22). Nevertheless, this system offered security and advantages to both the members as well as the leaders of the lineages; among them the security in case of danger or catastrophes, bigger groups for hunting, representation of the lineages through their chiefdom’s leader, and others (Atkinson 1994). When the Paluo, who had settled in the Luo-Triangle, moved towards northern Uganda, it wasn’t their numbers

5 Simons and Fennig (2018).

12

map 2

chapter 1

The Luo-Triangle: Migration of the Paluo created by Monika Feinen 2017

but the ideology adopted from the Bunyoro-Kitara that was the reason for a language shift to the Luo language in the area, which was completed by the end of the 18th century. The idea of the sociopolitical structure that they brought with them developed into 60 autonomous chiefdoms based on the conglomeration of the lineages (Amone 2015, Amone and Muura 2014). Although there were comparably few Luo speaking migrants, the idea of the sociopolitical structure, which they transported, caused a language shift to Luo language and laid the basis for today’s Acholi society. The “new order”, as Atkinson (1989, 1994) calls it, transferred a positive image that inherently evolved into a positive attitude towards the Luo language. Most of the Paluo from the Luotriangle at the boarder to Bunyoro-Kitara had adopted the system of the Bantu kingdom, but had kept their language and used it to name the system’s concepts when they migrated and spread the auspicious “new order”. As the new order was hence connected to the Luo language, the positive attitude it carried lead to a language shift in the region. That way, before the end of the 19th century, most people in the territory spoke Luo as their first or second language, despite the fact that most of the area’s speakers were of Central Sudanic and Eastern Nilotic origin (ibid.). Following famines and droughts, the new chiefdoms presented themselves as one entity in the support of each other (ibid.; Amone 2015). Yet, the naming of this entity as Acholi was first undertaken at the begin-

introduction

figure 2

13

Timeline of the evolution of a pre-colonial Acholi entity based on Atkinson 1994

ning of slave trade by Arabic traders,6 who were coming from the direction of the Sudan. Before that, the inhabitants of the region were known by the particular names of their single chiefdoms. When the traders entered the territory from 1850 onwards, they named them all “shuuli”, as their language reminded them of the Shilluk language (Atkinson 1989, 1994; Amone 2015; Amone and Muura 2014). Thus, the ascribing of the Luo speaking population as one entity, by naming them, took a comparatively little amount of time compared to the process before (Figure 2). Later the term evolved into Acholi, however it was not used officially by the population of the chiefdoms and the leaders themselves until 1937 (Amone 2015). 1.2.4 Stigmatization during the British Colonization and Beyond Ever since explorers and missionaries visited Uganda and the colonization of the country began, Acholi and other ethnic groups of the northern region faced another challenge of labeling: the stigmatization of being “warlike” people (Finnström 2006:204). This stereotype developed due to the pre-colonial system in which there was little ruling influence from the rwódì: “Acholi chiefs did not rule but reigned. This means that they were not authoritarian in any way” (Amone and Muura 2014:242). However, the social structure in the chiefdoms was neither messy nor uncivilized or belligerent. Contrarily, the possibility for an equal social structure was given by the fact that, through marriages and trade, Acholi chiefdoms were not only connected economically, but also by blood. This impeded violent encounters from being a part of the search for agreement and, thus, made war against each other less likely (Amone and Muura 2014). 6 Named Kuturia (Amone and Muura 2014) or Kutoria (Atkinson 1989) by Acholi speakers.

14

chapter 1

The absence of a strict bureaucratic system and an all-encompassing state did not mean barbarism or lack of civilisation as some politicians have stated. In any case, the Acholi states were more humanely governed than their highly bureaucratic neighbours in the southern parts of Uganda, where the king had absolute powers. Amone and Muura 2014:242

In the years of the British colonial rule, the colonizers not only assumed an inherent tribal nature of the African population on the continent (Amone and Muura 2014), but also acceded prior explorers’ valuations of the Acholi as “militaristic” and thus “favored development of the southern regions of the protectorate and neglect of the north, leading to an economic imbalance” (Atkinson 2009:4, cf. Finnström 2006; Otiso 2006:15–16). Generally speaking, the British divided the Uganda Protectorate into two, namely a labour zone and a production zone. (…) The division was based on presumed natural qualities of the people of northern Uganda and those of the south. The people of the north were regarded as strong, muscular and hardworking while the southern peoples were perceived as weak, lazy but intellectually superior. Amone and Muura 2014:249

As part of this process, the British favored the sociopolitical order and administration in the southern region of the country. The kings who ruled the Bantu chiefdoms were more easily manipulated, according to their preferences, than the northern chiefs who did not have absolute power over their people (Amone and Muura 2014). As they started to establish an infrastructure in the south, the foundation of the northern region’s economic underdevelopment was laid (Laruni 2015). Throughout time, the colonizers used forced ethnic assignments to minimize the possibility of a nationalist movement against the protectorate from a combination of the single ethnicities. Their division of the country into districts based on allegedly unifying characteristics contributed to this purpose. Following the progress of separation, division and colonial pressure, the formerly created districts Kitgum and Gulu were merged to become a single Acholi district in 1937. Ethnic identity development increased due to the establishment of clear territorial boundaries between cultural and linguistic aggregates, thereby eliminating the fluid situation typical of the earlier period. The establish-

introduction

15

ment of districts based whenever possible on tribal residence contributed to a sense of district nationalism and separatism that in many cases did not exist prior to the arrival of the British. The creation of Acholi District gave rise to a single identity—the Acholi ethnic identity. Amone and Muura 2014:252

Up to the current day, “[i]t is still common (…) for people in central Uganda to regard people from northern Uganda as backward, primitive and warlike” (Finnström 2006:204, cf. Finnström 2003). In the process of constructionism, initiated by the British (Amone 2015), and the war from 1986 (Laruni 2015), a youth language has evolved in Gulu town with the aim to counter the stigmatization and counterbalance ethno-regional origin of the northern population (Rüsch and Nassenstein 2016). The Ugandan demography made it easier for the Acholi youth language, Leb pa Bulu, to be established and spread from the urban centre of Gulu town up into the rural villages. Compared to the whole country, the Gulu district reveals a very similar age demographic among the citizens: Uganda has a young population, with 78% of its people being thirty years of age or below, the numbers of Gulu district itself reflect the country’s average with 76%. Due to this demographic structure, most participants of the present study are between eighteen and 35 years old.7 Leb pa Bulu,8 which is also spoken by many of the younger speakers taking part in the study, functions as an “ethno-regional tool of differentiation from the Bantu-speaking southern parts of the country in the quest for ideological distinctiveness than as an intra-community ‘anti-language’ with inherent ‘resistance identities’ ” (Rüsch and Nassenstein 2016:174). Thus, the Acholi youth language variety emerged as one way to try equalize a northern Ugandan identity, as an “ethnic equilibrium” (ibid.: 180) to the southern and western ethnicities created through Uganda’s history.

7 Compare chapter 1.4. 8 Lorenz (2018) speaks of Leb pa Bwulu, following an alternative spelling of the sound. The affricate [bw] developed to be realized close to a voiced bilabial fricative [ß] and is today often written as ‘b’ before vowels [u] and [ʊ] (cf. 1.3.1).

16 1.3

chapter 1

Acholi Preliminaries: Written and Spoken Language “Standards”

This chapter addresses the basic properties of the Acholi language. In order to facilitate a more complete understanding of the underlying structure in the examples of the following sections, the first part of this chapter is dedicated to a preliminary phonological, morphological, and syntactic overview. It presents general grammatical rules and some papers dealing with specifics of the Acholi language. In the second part, the focus is set on the differences between written and spoken language in everyday life, especially elision and swallowed phonemes as they frequently occur in spoken language. This sub-chapter has a particularly function to support the understanding of the transcriptions of the recorded natural speech conversations. 1.3.1 Basic Grammar and Literature Complete reference grammars of Acholi are few in number. The most cited and most detailed one remains the grammar by Crazzolara (1938). Others, although noticeably shorter, are Malandra (1955) and Savage (1956), which both rely heavily on Crazzolara. As they were all missionaries in the area, their interconnection is not unexpected. However, no recent reference grammar is available. The Uganda Peace Corps (2009) provides several language learning materials, however they are not to be considered scientific. Instead, individual studies about specific linguistic aspects of the Acholi language have been published and can be consulted in the case of interest in a particular grammatical characteristic of the language. As a Southern Luo language, of the Western Nilotic branch, within the NiloSaharan phylum (Figure 3), the Acholi language is closely related to other languages like Lango, Alur, Dhopadhola and Kumam, with which it shares a high percentage of common lexemes (Heusing 2004, Storch 2005). Bavin (1982) compares how morphological and syntactic aspects of Acholi and Lango are deviant. While Crazzolara (1938) lists 23 consonants for Acholi, Heusing (2004) modifies the inventory, according to his historical-comparative analysis, and recites 17 consonants. The presence of a retroflex plosive [ɖ] as mentioned by Heusing, and occurring in only one word, could not be confirmed in the present study. Therefore, the inventory of consonants, following Hieda (2011), is considered to consist of 16 consonants:9 9 The consonants displayed in Table 2 appear as used in the standard-orthography. Language samples in this study have been transcribed using the standard orthography in order to make it easily accessible to speakers who are not linguists. If the standard orthography differs from the phonetic realization, it is represented in parantheses in Table 2 (cf. 1.4.4).

17

introduction

| Eastern Nilotic …

| Burun …

Nilosaharan | Eastern Sudanic | Nilotic | Western Nilotic | Luo | | Northern: Southern: Shilluk Acholi Anywa Adhola Jur Alur T(h)uri Kumam Bor Lango Dholuo

figure 3

Classification of the Southern Luo languages based on Heusing 2004:7

table 2

Consonant inventory

| Nuer-Dinka …

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Voiceless Plosive Voiced Plosive Nasal Trill Approximant Lateral Approximant

p b m

t d n r

w

c ɟ (j) ɲ (ny) j (y)

l

based on Heusing 2004 and Hieda 2011

k g ŋ (ng)

| Southern Nilotic …

18

chapter 1

These 16 consonants cover 20 sounds. The phonem /t/ is optionally realized as [r̥] (Heusing 2004) or [ɾ] (Hieda 2011) instead of [t].10 This phonetic realization of a rhotic (trill), rather than as a stop, occurs primarily between vowels within words or at the transition from one word to another. The variation appears to be related to speech rate as well as idiolectic differences between speakers. In standard orthography it is always written as t. The same lenition process applies to the velar fricative [ɣ] (ibid.), which occurs as an optional variant of the phoneme /k/, otherwise realized as [k].11 This allophone is generally found within one word, and in between two vowels. An exception is its occurrence at the final position of a word-stem (cf. ibid.). Again, in standard orthography, the phoneme and its allophone are represented by k. Further, Heusing (2004) describes two affricates for Acholi, realized as [pf] and [bv]. While [bv] is the result of labialization and subsequently fricativization before the phoneme *u in Proto-Southern Lwoo, [pf] provides the affricate’s voiceless counterpart before the same vowel. However, it is the stops, rather than the affricates, that are distinctive. Today bv and pf are still used in standard orthography, although they tend to be written as bw and pw respectively. Nevertheless, their orthographic representation by speakers also starts to be substituted by b and p when preceding u or ʊ. Based on the proto-language’s development it can be assumed that they are in complementary distribution in this position, which allows them to be represented by the symbols b (as in búlú or bwúlú ‘youth’) and p (as in púd or pwúd ‘still; not yet’). There is no possible confusion, as their position demands for a pronunciation as [bv] and [pf] instead of [b] and [p] in this position. Some speakers even tend to pronounce these affricates as bilabial fricatives [ß] and [ɸ]. Gemination does not occur unless morphological processes, such as suffixation, cause two consonants to join. Between two vowels the velar nasal /ŋ/ tends to be deleted,12 and in this case the following vowel becomes slightly nasalized as a trace. The trill /r/ is omitted in the word-final position and, instead, the preceding vowel is lengthened. Vowel length, however, is not distinctive. According to Heusing (2004) and Hieda (2011), there are ten vowels

10 11

12

Crazzolara (1938) describes the realization of this voiceless stop as post-alveolar [ʈ]. According to Heusing (2004), this allophone is a voiceless uvular plosive [q], the recent data collection and participatory observation in Gulu, however, corresponds with Hieda’s analysis. The same frequently happens with the alveolar nasal /n/. Its omission in speech does not have an impact on the subsequent vowel though.

19

introduction table 3

Vowel inventory

[-ATR] front back high mid low

ɪ ɛ

ʊ ɔ a

[+ATR] front central back i e

(ə)

u o

based on Heusing 2004 and Hieda 2011

in Acholi13 (displayed in Table 3), pooled into two sets; advanced tongue root (+ATR) and retracted tongue root (-ATR). Within a word root, Acholi features vowel harmony, and the same applies if a suffix is added. Acholi is a tonal language that has four tones: high, low, downstep high and double downstep high (Hieda 2011). In addition to that, it has two contour tones: a rising and a falling tone. As the rules for downstep high and double downstep high are determined by the encounter of segmental tones with floating tones, it can be analyzed in accordance with the succession of those tones and is not marked in this study.14 Floating tones, however, are marked in the case of vocalic omission (cf. 1.3.2). While falling tones are also not marked, due similar reasons, rising tones only occur in imperative forms of the verb such as nɛ̌nǃ ‘see, lookǃ’, and will be indicated as such. Present and past tense are distinguished by the use of high tone (present) and low tone (past) on the root of the verb. (1) a. à-cɪ́tɔ 1sgs-go.prs ‘I go’

13

14

While Heusing (2004) and Storch (2005) argue for a tenth, central vowel /ə/ in Acholi, Hieda (2011) mentions the back vowel /ɑ/ instead. As suggested by Blackings (2009)—who speaks of /ɑ/ as well—, the contrast between /a/ and /ɑ/ (or rather /ə/) is not sufficient enough to differentiate the two sounds in this study. Since there is no recent dictionary that covers all the lexemes of the current study phonologically, the scope of this study does not allow for a deep analysis of the two phonemes. Therefore, and because it is also not the aim of this study to present a phonological analysis of the language, /a/ and /ə/ or /ɑ/ are referred to as [a]. Hieda (2011) offers an elaborate overview of tonal demeanor in Acholi, a first summary of tonal patterns is given by Dwyer (1983).

20

chapter 1

b. à-cɪ̀tɔ 1sgs-go.pst ‘I went’ The prefix bí- denotes future, the invariable ònɔ̀ ngɔ̀ placed before the verb creates perfect tense. c. à-bí-cɪ́tɔ 1sgs-fut-go.prs ‘I will go’ d. ònɔ̀ngɔ̀ à-cɪ́tɔ asp 1sgs-go.prs ‘I have gone’ e. ònɔ̀ngɔ̀ à-cɪ̀tɔ asp 1sgs-go.pst ‘I had gone’ Acholi has subject-verb-object (SVO) sentence order. Verbs are preceded by a syntactic subject and a concordant personal pronoun prefix. An object suffix can be attached to the verb, as well as a clitic. All pronominal affixes have an equivalent independent form which precedes or follows the verb, according to the position of the respective affix. cìlìng àdíì (2) a. án à-mɪ̀yɔ̀ -gì 1sgs 1sgs-give.pst-3plo shilling intr.how.many ‘How many Shillings did I give them?’ b. én ò-rwàtɛ̀ kèd-wù wún ʊ̀’-àà ì gàŋ 3sgs 3sgs-meet.pst with-2plo 2pls 2pls-reach.pst loc home kwán-ì reading-dem ‘He met you (pl) when you were from school.’ Storch (2005) provides a typology of noun morphology in Acholi and other Western Nilotic languages. Her historical-comparative work has a special focus on number marking. Determiners like adjectives, adverbs, numerals, demonstrative or possessive pronouns and others, generally follow the word or phrase they modify. Acholi differentiates between alienable and inalienable possessive constructions. Inalienable possession is expressed by juxtaposition of the

introduction

21

possessor and possessed, whereas in alienable possession the two entities need to be connected by the possessive morpheme pà ‘of’ (as in 3a, cf. Bavin 1996). If a relative clause is added to a phrase, the relative pronoun má is added (see 4a). If the relative clause’s reference is followed by a determiner, a determiner shift affects the position after the relative clause (as in 4b, cf. Grannis 1970). (3) a. lòk pà dyɛ̀l-ì issue poss goat-dem ‘the issue of this goat’ b. dákɔ́ cà woman dem ‘that woman’ wán àryɔ̀15 c. ò-tìŋò 3sgs-drive.pst 1plo num.two ‘He carried both of us.’ (4) a. làmɛ̀r-á má à-lʊ́ bʊ̀ kór-é sister-1sgposs rel 1sgs-follow.prs chest-3sgposs ‘my sister whom I follow’ b. cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn ò-mákò nì picture rel prf 3sgs 3sgs-grab.pst dem ‘this picture that she had taken’ A progressive aspect is expressed by a combination of tyé kà and the verb. A past progressive construction consists of bèdò kà16 and the verb. The copula tyé cannot be put into past tense and instead is substituted by bèdò ‘sat, stayed’. The subsequent verb always occurs in its present tense stem.17 (5) a. à-tyé kà tám-í 1sgs-cop prog think.prs-comp ‘I am thinking that …’ 15

16 17

The correct transcription, according to phonological characteristics, is àrɪ́yɔ̀ . With reference to Acholi standard orthography and the speaker’s way of writing the word, it will henceforth be written as àryɔ̀ . The progressive marker kà derives from the noun kà ‘place’, therefore the construction can be compared to many other progressives with the literal meaning ‘to be at the place of X’. Obligation modality is discussed by Bavin (1995).

22

chapter 1

b. à-bèdò kà pény-è 1sgs-sit.pst prog ask.prs-3sgo ‘I was asking her …’ The perfective suffix -ɔ́ always occurs in the phrase-final position and denotes that an event or action is completed. ì-dyè bàr c. nyɛ́r-ì ò-mòkò-ɔ́ guy-dem 3sgs-become.entangled.pst-compl loc-middle field ‘This guy got stuck in the pitch’ d. ʊ̀ -gàmɔ̀ cènté-n-ɔ́? 2pls-receive.pst money-dem-compl ‘Did you receive the money back?’ Negation is expressed by pé, in the initial position of a statement, or kʊ̀ , following the negated phrase. (6) a. pé gì-wɪ̀lɔ̀ gìn mɔ́ neg 3pls-buy.pst thing qnt ‘They didn’t buy anything.’ b. Acholi Inn kʊ̀ name neg ‘Not Acholi Inn!’ If pé takes a predicative function as complement to tyé ‘it/there is’, in order to express existential negation, pé is postposed to the predicate. c. àyélá pé problem neg ‘(There is) no problem!’ There is no passive verb form in Acholi. Instead, an unspecified agent is expressed by the use of a third person plural, active form.18

18

See Bavin (1989) on grammaticalization and the development of the morpheme kì in verb constructions.

introduction

23

(7) pé kì-rùbù neg 3pls-mix.pst ‘It is not mixed’ (lit. ‘They didn’t mix it’) Hieda (2012) presents a descriptive analysis of complement clauses and examines the evidentiality implied in them. Myers-Scotton (2005) deals with codeswitching between Acholi and English, and her results are still applicable to today’s language situation; as can be seen in examples (8a) to (8c). While independent lexemes can be replaced by English expressions and modified with Acholi affixes (8a, 8b), if an English verb is integrated into a syntax that denotes progressive aspect (as in 8c), the verb itself is realized in the English progressive form; with final -ing. (8) a. lecturer-nɛ́ lecturer-3sgposs ‘her/his lecturer’ b. form mɔ́ -nì form qnt-dem ‘a particular form’ c. tyé kà explaining cop prog explain.prog ‘it is explaining’ 1.3.2 Common Elision Unlike the way that languages are frequently explained in grammars, speakers do not use language rigidly. They play with it, adjust it, and their pronunciation differs, for instance, due to idiolects or regiolects. The rate of speed, alone, often results in changes of languages use, either compared to a lexicon, grammar, or among different speakers. Due to the speed of talking, native Acholi speakers tend to omit vowels in conversations frequently. When a word with a final vowel is followed by a word starting with a vowel, the final vowel of the first word is commonly omitted. The elided vowels’ tone remains as a floating tone (Hieda 2011). (9) p’´ à-ŋèyò neg 1sgs-know.pst ‘I didn’t know’

24

chapter 1

The way that language occurs in the recently collected corpus of raw data is often distinct from the way it is presented in literature. To keep the transcriptions of conversational data in the corpus as close to the natural speech as possible, transcriptions have been modified to suit speakers’ everyday pronunciation during conversations. Consequently, in order to make the transcriptions comprehensible, recurring elisions are explained here. In addition to the typical vowel sandhi, particular forms regularly face an omission of consonants or vowels, among them verbs, adverbs, prefixes, question words and others. It is a common practice to omit the first consonant of a morpheme in natural speech, for instance the m- of the relative pronoun má- or mú-, or the k- of the progressive marker kà. As a consequence, the word preceding such a form may lose its final vowel due to the vowel sandhi rules. This happens frequently in the case of the copula tyé: Instead of saying àtyé kà támí ‘I am thinking that …’ (as in 5a), it is often realized as àty’´ ‘à támí in fast speech. The single morphemes’ initial and final elision is represented by inverted commas, while the underlying tone is maintained in the transcription. In doing so, the traceability of the single morphemes, lexemes, or clitics is supposed to be insured. In order to simplify understanding, Table 4 lists some common shortenings used in the transcriptions. Another striking feature of spoken language is the frequent use of the prefix ʊ̀ - to denote the second person plural, which is commonly listed as wù- in written sources. (10) tín dò jàl ʊ̀-byɛ̀lɔ̀ bag today mp guy 2pls-carry.on.shoulder.pst bag ‘Today, guy! You carried bags’ ŋwɛ́c kì lɛ̀là wún àryɔ̀ wún tyé kà 2pls cop prog race with bycicle 2pls num.two ‘and the two of you were riding bycicles.’ During the whole research period in Gulu town, speakers were never observed to have used the form mentioned in literature. When speakers or informants were asked, during the translation sessions, about the form ʊ̀ - (which I had mistakenly confused with the third person singular prefix ò- in the beginning of the research), they all identified it as wù-, saying that it should actually be written as wù- since that is the “correct” form to use. Speakers identified wù- as the normative form, but frequently used ʊ̀ - instead. Neither in my recordings, nor in daily talk within town, have I ever come across the morpheme wù- when people spoke to each other. The omission of the glide w- in front of a vowel

25

introduction table 4

Common elision in natural speech

Short form Full form Gloss

Short form Full form Gloss

‘á‘à (p’`) ‘à (k’`) ‘ì (k’`) ‘úàwé’ bè’ cɪ̀’ / cɪ́’ dɔ̀’ ɛ́’ɔ́ è’ò ’ɛ́kɛ́n én-é jà’

k’` ké’yó kó’ kù’ú kwè’ m’´ nɔ́’ nɪ̀n’ p’´ pé’è

mápà kà kì múàwéné? bèné cɪ̀tɔ̀ / cɪ́tɔ̀ dɔ̀ ŋ ɛ́ntɔ́ ènò kɛ́kɛ́n én àyé jàl

rel poss prog com rel ‘when?’ ‘also, too; yet’ ‘went’ / ‘go’ ‘then’ ‘but’ dem ‘only’ cfm ‘guy’

PREFIX’´VERB

ty’´ wà’í

kɔ̀ ŋ kényó kónó kùlú kwènè? mɛ́ nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ nɪ̀nɔ̀ pé pékè -bí tyé wàcɔ̀ ní

‘first’ ‘there’ ‘how about’ ‘there’ ‘where?’ ben asp ‘day’ neg neg fut cop ‘said that’

with [-ATR] quality like ʊ̀ - is a common feature of several other languages as well.19 Other languages of the Southern Lwoo branch, such as Anywa, also have a vocalic second person plural pronoun u- (Reh 1996). However, it is not quite clear why the originally [+ATR] vowel developed into one with [-ATR] quality. A reason may be analogical levelling, as the other plural pronoun prefixes are both also [-ATR].20 Pronominal object suffixes, just like possessive suffixes, are not affected by this since they need to harmonize vowel quality with the root vowel of the preceding word (Heusing 2004; Hieda 2011). Therefore, suffixes occur with [+ATR] or [-ATR] vowel quality, depending on the vowel quality of the word they are suffixed to (Table 5). In contrast to other languages of the branch, Acholi does not have vowel harmony of prefixes initial to the root (ibid.). Due to the frequent use of ʊ̀ - as the second person plural prefix, the realization as ʊ̀ - is taken as normative for this research and used in the transcriptions, as the aim of this study is to present Acholi conversation as it really takes place in everyday interaction, not as it is “supposed to be”.

19 20

Dimmendaal (p.c. 21.05.2018). Dimmendaal (p.c. 28.05.2018).

26

chapter 1

table 5

[+ATR] / [-ATR] levelling of pronominal affixes

Subject prefixes 1sg 2g 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

àìò- (ɛ̀-) wàwù- > ʊ̀gɪ̀-

‘I’ ‘you’ ‘he, she’ ‘we’ ‘you’ ‘they’

Object suffixes (-(n)ə̀); -(n)à -(n)ì; -(n)ɪ̀ -(n)è; -(n)ɛ̀ (-wə̀); -wà -wù; -wʊ̀ -gì; gɪ̀

‘me’ ‘you’ ‘him, her’ ‘us’ ‘you’ ‘them’

Progressive suffixes (-(n)ə́); -(n)á -(n)í; -(n)ɪ́ -(n)é; -(n)ɛ́ (-wə́); -wá -wú; -wʊ́ -gí; gɪ́

‘my’ ‘your’ ‘his, her’ ‘our’ ‘your’ ‘their’

based on Heusing 2004

1.4

On Methodology, Ethics and Conventions Célá òbícɪ́tɔ̀ wà ì lòbò àmʊ̀ nɪ́. ‘My picture will go up to the white people’s land.’ Geoffrey, 30.04.2014

∵ Self-evidently, conversational strategies are best analyzed from natural speech conversations among members of a speech community. Therefore, most of the data analyzed and presented here is taken from various types of talk: monologues, dialogues, group-discussions, and narratives. In order to cover the “everyday life” within Gulu town, speech taken from numerous occasions has been looked at. Among them are not only conversations between friends, family members or colleagues, but also service encounters in the market, a hotel and at a boda-boda-stage; where small motorcyclists are positioned to take their customers to any place in town or to the surrounding villages. Further, ritualized speech—used in interviews, or school classes—has been approached, too.21 The research for this study was conducted between 2014 and 2016.

21

The whole research was based on the ethical conventions as described in 1.4.3.

introduction

figure 4

27

Elan transcription of ‘The Paten Clan’ with Susan Ajok (2016)

1.4.1 Documentation of Everyday Language Many collective volumes deal with the advantages of language documentation in various contexts (cf. Gippert et al. 2006; Essegbey et al. 2015; Grenoble and Furbee 2010). The data for this study has been recorded as audio and video in most cases. This way transparency can be guaranteed by making raw data accessible. Moreover, the complex data can be viewed and listened to whenever necessary in the process of analysis, and most important for this study, key parameters to analysis can be reconstructed in detail after the in-situ research period. These include body language, volume of speech, speed of speech, gaze, gestures, facial expressions and para-linguistic features like laughter, coughing, clicks, etc. Recordings have been conducted only with the speakers’ consent, or the consent of a guardian adult where children were involved. The total corpus of natural speech consists of 22 hours, 48 minutes of audio and 22 hours, 09 minutes of video-recording. Out of this, 1 hour and 41minutes have been transcribed, translated and analyzed together with two main assistants, Daniel Obina and Susan Ajok.22 Comparing the number of hours which have been recorded, and the amount of time which has been fully annotated, a severe discrepancy can be seen. This divergence can be attributed to the fact that natural speech is not always as clear as elicitated speech and can, at times, be unintelligible. The amount of time recorded sorted by categories, can be seen in Table 6.23 22 23

I owe special thanks to Joanita Akello for helping me with unclear parts after my return to Germany. As some categories overlap with others (e.g. ‘kids’ and ‘school’ or ‘family’, or ‘colleagues’

28

chapter 1

table 6

Amount of audio- and video-data by category

Category

Total video

Total audio

Friends Work Training Game Colleagues Family Kids School Interview Village

4h 51m 6h 16m 0h 52m 1h 51m 5h 16m 4h 56m 7h 32m 1h 51m 0h 30m 1h 16m

4h 57m 6h 17m 0h 52m 1h 51m 5h 20m 4h 56m 7h 33m 1h 52m 1h 20m 1h 15m

Linguists always have to decide whether they want to do recordings in circumstances which may cause troubles in the audibility of data, or if they want to accept that they narrow their set of data by only conducting recordings in ideal circumstances. They also have to decide to record in a circumstance with many possible spontaneous disruptions, for example rain, which may not only cause problems when recordings are done outside, but makes noise as it hits a metal roof; children playing around the setting; people passing by and interrupting the session; or advertisement-trucks announcing their products or services with loud music that fills the streets while they are passing by slowly, a very common occurrence in eastern Africa. With the aim to cover natural speech, I decided to do recordings whenever and wherever possible, and consequently recordings were taken all over Gulu town (Map 3). I was willing to deal with the challenges of natural speech to be able to gather as much natural talk as possible. Even though just a small part of the data was completely annotated, the rest of the data still had a huge influence on the results of this study, as it could be consulted in terms of gesture, body language, intonation, and many other aspects that do not need exact transcription. My research assistants and I attempted to be as inconspicuous and uninfluential as possible in collecting conversations for this study, considering

and ‘work’ or ‘friends’) the total minutes of recording in this table are not displayed as it would indicate a wrong amount.

introduction

map 3

29

Points of recording created by Monika Feinen 2016

the fact that speakers were recorded by audio and video recorders at the time. Several authors have examined the influence of cameras and other recording devices on the behavior of the recorded (cf. Prosser 1998; Aikhenvald 2007). The general conclusion is that speakers change their behavior as soon as a recorder is on. Following this assumption, Bernard (2006) explains how reactivity can be reduced by participant observation and training to lower observer bias. Dingemanse (2011a: 11–12) describes how speakers handled the recordings he took for his research on the Ghanaian language Siwu: The excitement about the camera usually wears off after some minutes, as people broach other topics in conversation and return to whatever activity is at hand (…) Though I recognise the difficulty in demonstrating that their behaviour in such cases is not significantly different from that in

30

chapter 1

similar situations in which there is no camera, the difference, if any, is exceedingly hard to detect in the data I collected. People are comfortable being recorded and there appears to be nothing in their conduct or speech that suggests they are doing anything special. Occasionally, participants display their awareness of being recorded. Such episodes are interesting for revealing the participants’ own construals of the situation. (…) As it turns out, the men are perfectly aware of the situation, and they fall over each other to clarify that this is exactly the way it is supposed to be (…) In explaining the situation to the people in the background, the men display awareness of being recorded (“all of it is entering”) as well as an understanding of the goal of the recording … The same happened during my study. Consider this extract (11) of a talk between two friends and colleagues. This example is only transcribed at this point and features punctuation because its main function is not to be linguistically analyzed, but rather to facilitate an understanding of the speakers’ reactions to the recording situation (also 12, cf. 1.4.4). The two colleagues, Brenda and Joyce, at the beginning of the recording, talk lengthily about the research done by me. (11) Extract: cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò nì ‘The picture that she took’ 1

Joyce

kɔ̀’ òbìtérò cálwánɛ̀ kwè’ cɛ̀? ‘Where will she take those pictures of us?’ (0.13)

2

Brenda

ah, [tyé kà tɪ̀mɔ̀ gìnɛ̀ yâ, p’´ òwàcò ìtì, tyé kà tɪ́mɔ̀ :-, ‘Ah, she is doing that thing, she didn’t tell you. She is doing-,’

3

Joyce

4

Brenda

5

Joyce

6

Brenda

[tyé kà mákɔ̀ ngɔ̀ ? survey? ‘What does she take? A survey?’ (0.05) not survey, [tyé:] ì research. ‘Not survey, she is doing research.’ [research?] ‘Research?’ ty-, ty-, cálɔ̀ -, tyé researché.= ‘Sh-, sh-, the pictures, it is her research.’

31

introduction

7

Joyce

=mh. ‘Mh.’

8

Brenda

ì gìnɛ̀ local language, [éh? ‘In that thing, the local language, yes?’

9

Joyce

[mmh. ‘Mmh.’ (0.05)

10 Brenda

ɛ̀ɛ.̂ ‘Eh.’ (0.08)

11 Joyce

éé,̂ lo [cal lang]uage? ‘Eeh, local language?’

12 Brenda

[cí,-] and, by the way, dɔ̀ ng tyé kà doing PhD ’ʊ́ lʊ́ bá!= ‘So,- And, by the way, then she is doing her whole PhD!’

13 Joyce

=°a::h°. ‘Aaah!’ (0.38)

14 Brenda

cí-, (0.61) òwàí recording ènì nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ kìpènyè níngɔ̀ ? má én è [tɪ̀mɔ̀ . ‘So-,’ (0.61) ‘She said this recording makes them understand how? What she was doing.’

15 Joyce

[tɪ̀mɔ̀ . ‘Doing.’

16 Brenda

lecturer-nɛ́= ‘Her lecturer.’

17 Joyce

=éê.= ‘Eeh.’

18 Brenda

=ɛ̀ɛ.̀ ‘Eh.’ (0.21)

32 19 Brenda

chapter 1

cálɔ̀ supervisor-né pényè níngɔ̀ -, má én èbèdò kà tɪ́ [mɔ̀ . ‘Like her supervisor asks her how-, what she was working on.’

20 Joyce

[má nyútù? ‘To show?’

21 Brenda

má nyútù. (0.22) so-, ‘To show.’ (0.22) ‘So-,’ (0.55)

22 Joyce

[én dɔ̀ ng gìn ènì] dɔ̀ ng, cɪ́tɔ̀ [yábò] dɔ̀ ng, [gìwínyò ngɔ̀ ? má mɪ́tɔ̀ ]. ‘Then she, then this thing, she is going to open it then, so that they hear what? What they want.’

23 Brenda

[‘ì gìnɛ̀ dɔ̀ ng-,] ‘With this thing-,’

24 Brenda

25 Brenda

[ ya.] ‘Yeah!’ [ká ’ì-, ká gìmɪ́tɔ̀ ] wínyò audio ká gùwínyè lòk mɔ́ nì, ká mɔ́ nì-, ká gù-, gùwáí ní mɪ́tɔ̀ ngɔ̀ ? ‘If they-, if they want to hear the audio. If they can hear any words, if any-, if they-, they say they want what?’ (0.27)

26 Brenda

gì-, gìmɪ́tɔ̀ nɛ́nɔ̀ cálé kà mákò.= ‘They-, they want to see her pictures that she took.’

27 Joyce

= [éê]. ‘Eeh.’

28 Brenda

[cí ènyút]ìgì (0.29) ɛ́ntɔ́ cél ènònì én pé èromo nyútù nè àtáà. ‘So she shows them to them’ (0.29) ‘but she cannot show those pictures recklessly.’ (1.09)

33

introduction

29 Joyce

30 Brenda

31 Joyce

é [ê]. ‘Eeh.’ [wàng ’á] ngɔ̀ ? ty-, form mɔ́ nì má ìnɔ́ ngɔ̀ tyé kà explaining [ìtà ní-, ‘The face that what? It is, a particular form in which you find, it is explaining to me that-,’ [mmh. ‘Mmh.’ (0.21)

32 Brenda

ɛ̀h, myɛ́rɔ̀ (0.3) ìcóyò form ènò má nyútù ní mʊ̀ nɔ́ -, ‘Eh, it is a must.’ (0.3) ‘You fill that form which shows the white person-,’ (0.36)

33 Brenda

ín ìyé ní én ngɔ̀ ? èplaying ngɔ̀ ? gìnɛ̀ ènò n [ì ‘You are indeed the one that she what? She is playing what? That thing …’

34 Joyce

[mmh.= ‘Mmh.’

35 Brenda

=bót ngɔ̀ -, bót ngàtò mɔ́. (0.9) wàkìjí-, wà-, mɛ́ kàkà-, kàkà cál bèné tyé.= ‘… to who? Two somebody. (0.9) We-, we-, for this place-, this place also there is a picture.’

36 Joyce

=mmh.= ‘Mmh.’

37 Brenda

=nɔ́’ myɛ́rɔ̀ ín ì-gìnɛ̀-, ‘You need to-,’

38 Joyce

[°(h)eh°] ‘He!’

39 Brenda

[nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ myɛ́rɔ̀ ín] ìnyútì. ‘You need to show that.’ (0.11)

34

chapter 1

40 Joyce

= é:ê.= ‘Eeh.’

41 Brenda

=ɛ̀ɛ.̀ = ‘Eh.’

42 Joyce

=lòk ’à cél, cél ngàt ènì. ‘The issue of the picture, the picture of someone.’ (0.13)

43 Brenda

no, cél má èn ògìnɛ̀-, (2.34) cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò nì.= ‘No, the picture which she-,’ (2.34) ‘this picture which she took.’

44 Joyce

=cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò? (0.11) mmh. ‘The picture which she took? (0.11) Mmh.’ (1.65)

45 Brenda

so òmyɛ́rɔ̀ gìnɛ̀? (1.19) òmyɛ́rɔ̀ ònyútí. ‘So she has to do what? (1.19) She has to show it.’ (0.16)

46 Joyce

mmh.= ‘Mmh.’

47 Brenda

=mh. ‘Mh.’ (2.68)

48 Joyce

ahǃ ‘Ah!’ (0.53)

49 Brenda

lànínò cà àcɪ̀tɔ̀ ì St. Joe yǎǃ ‘The other day I went to St. Joe!’

Brenda explains to Joyce what I am doing and what the recordings are used for. After Joyce asked her kɔ̀ ng òbìtérò cálwánɛ̀ kwènè cɛ̀? ‘Where will she take our picture?’ Brenda realizes pé òwàcò ìtì ‘She didn’t tell you’ (line 1–2), and the two of them start a talk about the recordings and what they will be used for. When

introduction

figure 5

35

Blocked picture

they are done with this topic, they switch to a work issue almost immediately (line 49). Although speakers seemed to forget that they had been recorded once the recording was running for several minutes, they were still aware to make sure that the recording is not blocked by another person for too long, as in the example below (12). One speaker, Geoffrey, sits together with his friends in the restaurant of a Hotel in Gulu (of which he is also the manager). He reminds the waitress not to block the view of the camera. As the other speakers wave their hands to make her aware of the camera behind her, laugh, and talk all together for approximately ten seconds: (12) 1

Geoffrey nɛ̌n ìtyé gɛ́ng-, nɛ̌n ìtyé gɛ́ngɔ̀ célá, célá òbìcɪ́tɔ̀ wà ì lòbò ámʊ̀ nɪ́! ‘Look, you’re block-, look you’re blocking my picture, my picture will go up to the white land.’ (0.24)

2

Geoffrey ɪ̀serving ‘ì speed ìcɪ́tɔ̀ ! ‘Serve fast and go!’ (0.69)

3

Geoffrey jàl Joyce, mʊ̀ nɔ́ àyé tyé behind this thing. ‘Joyce, the white girl is the one behind this thing.’

36

chapter 1

Later during the same conversation, Patrick reminds his friends, after a longer period of silence only interrupted by the coughing of speaker Maliki, that they should not be silent but rather talk: kìwàí ʊ̀ bók lòk kʊ̀ ? ‘Didn’t they say you should chat?’ (13) 1

Patrick

jàl ʊ̀ lɪ̀ngɔ̀ -ɔ̀ dò! kìwàí ʊ̀ bók lòk kʊ̀ ? ‘Guys, you are quiet! Didn’t they say you should chat?’ (0.26)

2

Junior

wàty’´ ‘à bókò lòkǃ ‘We are chattingǃ’

In general, speakers were very helpful and happy about the interest in their language, so that most people agreed to be recorded in one or more situations of their life. Some main informants helped a lot in this matter, as they asked around in town to find people they knew who would be willing to participate in the study. The only challenge was that speakers often said “You should go to the village and listen to the elders, they speak the correct, deep, real Acholi”. Since I wanted to analyze the Acholi actually spoken in town, it was not an option to only interview elderly speakers in the village. 1.4.2 Elicitation of Emic Points of View In addition to the natural speech recordings made among Acholi speakers in everyday life in Gulu, data about speech acts were elicited to confirm the results of analyses on occurrences of natural speech acts, but also to get an idea of how speakers themselves perceive adequate strategies when speech acts are uttered. Throughout the whole research, an emic perspective was considered whenever possible. The research, as such, was very explorative and, except for the common structures, such as conversation analysis, politeness, and gestures, there were no plans about what may be studied; rather the results of the natural discourse analyses brought further aspects of study into being. Hence, after gathering data, transcribing and translating it, further directions of study revealed themselves. Other fields of study became apparent from simple observations in the field, such as the extensive amount of repetitions within conversations or multimodality behaviors like gaze and gestures. Questionnaires were prepared and distributed at a later point of the research, when the contents which demanded a deeper insight were clear. They contained questions about the speakers’ attitude towards their language, their

introduction

37

own experience and perception of how conversations in Acholi are structured, and how speakers “typically” behave (depending on their age and gender) while in a conversation. In addition, some generally cultural opinions about the role of children in conversations and particles which could not easily be translated, were elicited in this questionnaire. Perceptions of conversational structures and speaker behavior were inquired into with scales and questions to trigger the personal opinion of speakers. The questionnaire was completed by 40 speakers between the ages of 18 and 57 years. In the beginning, the speakers filled out the questionnaire on their own, but after the first few papers were returned, my main research assistant and I decided to meet with the speakers and sit down with them while they fill it in, to avoid misunderstandings and answer any questions that may have occurred. Although there is a single chapter about the results of the questionnaire concerning the perception and use of pragmatic markers (4.2), the emic point of view is not limited to that particular chapter. Rather the findings had an influence on the whole analysis. Another way to integrate the speakers’ own opinions and experiences was to conduct interviews about several culturallyrelated topics, e.g. weddings, funerals, religious traditions and the like. Several interviews were conducted and, like the results of the questionnaires, information gained through the interviews has been applied throughout the whole analysis. 1.4.3 Ethical Considerations Although the speech that was to be recorded was planned to be as natural as possible, the setting was necessarily staged or half-staged: For an ethical purpose, the situations and contexts in which conversations were recorded were agreed upon with the speakers involved prior to the sessions. Therefore, time and date as well as the place and participants were scheduled together with the main research assistants and the speakers. Nevertheless, it was attempted to keep the speakers’ gatherings in a normal context for them. Friends met to sit, have a drink and chat, while at working places speakers followed their everyday business, with the single change being that a camera and audio recorder were present. Every speaker was asked to accept or reject the use of his or her data; whereby they could also differentiate between the use of the annotated (written) data, the video recordings and the audio recordings independently from each other. Due to the fact that the Acholi speakers I worked with are very friendly and open-minded, and moreover, very proud of being part of a project on their language, all of them have given me their consent to use their data, audio and video recordings in scientific publications and as a means of teaching linguistic or language classes. However, there are some recordings

38

chapter 1

which will not be openly accessible because they originate from recordings that include the public. In general, we experienced no problems when wishing to film in public places. The camera and other technical devices were positioned conspicuously at the scene, and the speakers involved were instructed to tell accidental participants about the project in case they felt uncomfortable being recorded. Most of these participants who were not scheduled, but rather appeared incidentally in the recordings, were not bothered by the camera, and if they were, their data was removed from the corpus.24 For those random participants who gave their consent to the situation, their data will be used but the recordings will neither be openly accessible nor will they be used in class. Another group of speakers can only be presented with a limited access to their recordings: Children in school. During a few visits to classes and activities where students were involved, the headmaster’s and teacher’s agreement to the collection of linguistic data in class couldn’t include the publication of pictures, videos or audio data; which is why none of this material will be accessible without the children’s parents’ consent. Unlike the school recordings, the family materials will be presented fully, inasmuch as the parents of the underage children agreed for the material to be published and used in any of the ways described above. To keep my own influence on the recordings and the speakers’ behaviour as a researcher as low as I could, I stayed away from the scenes in which speakers were recorded. However, I was present at a reasonable distance and this allowed me to be an observer and gave me the possibility to take notes. 1.4.4 Conventions of Transcription The extracts that are presented in this study have been transcribed and translated with the help of two main informants, one of them female, one male. The transcription follows Jefferson’s (1983) conventions for conversation-analytical transcription, which have been modified and updated in Jefferson (2004). An overview of the main characters used in the transcribed extracts can be found in Table 7. To guarantee as precise a transcription as possible, the characters above have been used throughout the whole transcription process. No adjustments as a result of the challenges of natural speech were made. Speakers’ shortened forms of words are displayed as such, back-channeling is mentioned according 24

In this case, a disagreement with being filmed or recorded was taken into account when it was expressed by words or body language, some random participants obviously felt uncomfortable and insecure with the situation without saying so. If that was the case, in virtue of ethical research their recordings are excluded from the corpus.

introduction table 7

39

Transcription conventions

[ ] =

beginning of overlap end of overlap no break/gap

(0.0)

elapsed time by tenth of seconds

:: word

prolonged sound (the longer the sound, the more colons) stress of a word/sound (A/N: the marking of stress here differs from Jefferson’s, who uses underlining instead) shifts into low/high pitch increasing of speed of talk

↘↗ >
àbíc so ministers rel-equal almost num.five ‘So, about five’

95

Martin

àbícɛ̀l àbɪ́rɔ̀ < má óò num.six num.seven rel 3sgs.arrive.prs ‘to seven ministers arrived.’ (0.74)

[h.h.H.H] laughter ‘Hahaha!’

conversational micro- and macro-management

96

Martin

so gù-bèdò ‘à mɪ́yɔ̀ dollar kɛ́kɛ́n so 3pls-be.pst prog give.prs dollar only ‘They were just giving dollars.’ (0.23)

97

Richard

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’

98

Martin

but now but now ‘But now-,’ (0.06)

99

Tonny

ɛ́ɛ̂ rt ‘Eeh.’ (0.78)

100 Martin

ɛ́ɛ:́ gìn-ɛ̀ dɔ̀ k ‘ù-bìnò ɛ́h intj thing-dem again 3pls-come.pst rti ‘Eeh, someone came again, eh?’ (0.86)

101 Martin

uhm MPs members of parliament intj MPs members.of.parliament ‘Uhm, MPs, the members of the parliament.’ (0.33)

102 Tonny

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.42)

103 Martin

gì-bìnɔ kà nɛ́nɔ̀ nyér-ì 3pls-come.pst prog see.prs guy-dem ‘They came to see this guy.’ (0.2)

107

108

chapter 3

104 Richard

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.55)

105 Martin

cɪ́ gɪ́n gì-ŋéyò céntè mɛ́ Uganda-wá-nì dm 3pls 3pls-know.prs money ben Uganda-1plposs-dem ‘They know the money of our Uganda.’ (0.17)

106 Tonny

mmh bɛ̀r rt good ‘Mmh, good.’ (0.2)

107 Martin

àlɪ́p míyà àcɛ́l num.thousand num.hundred num.one ‘A hundred thousand.’ (0.14)

108 Tonny

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.18)

109 Martin

míyà àbɪ́c àlɪ́p num.thousand num.hundred num.five ‘Five hundred thousand.’ (0.74)

110 Martin

kónó MP ŋà ò-bìnò Betty Bigombe-gì or MP intr.who 3sgs-come.pst name-pl ŋà ↗ɛ́h eri.who rti ‘Or who of the members of parliament came? The ones of Betty Bigombe, who, eh?’

111 Martin

céntè gì-mɪ̀yɔ̀ 3pls-give.pst money ‘They gave money.’ (0.13)

conversational micro- and macro-management

112 Tonny

mmh= rt ‘Mmh.’

113 Martin

=so ká gì-mɪ̀yɔ̀ tyé kì bag-, bag-nɛ̀ so cond 3sgs-want.pst cop com bag-dem [mɔ́ --Ou]sofi [a]?-qnt name.brand? ‘So if he was given-, he has a particular bag,’

114 Martin

kà wì-yé má kétò rel 3sgs.put.pst place head-3sgposs ‘which he puts next to his head.’

115 Tonny

[ɛ́h] rt ‘Okay.’

109

[ɛ́h] rt ‘Eh.’ (0.74)

116 Martin

kì yúrù dɔ̀ k bag ŋɪ́yɔ̀ kɔ̀ ŋ com 3sgs-slide.prs again bag 3sgs.examine.prs first ‘And he opens the zip of the bag (lit. ‘he slides the bag’) again, and first checks’

117 Martin

nɛ́n-ɛ̀ dánɔ̀ ká pé gì-tyé people cond neg 3pls-cop see.prs-3sgo ‘if people are not seeing him.’ (0.55)

118 Martin

ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́= kà rwákɔ̀ prog 3sgs.insert.prs loc stomach-3sgposs ‘He is putting it inside of it.’

119 Richard Tonny

mmh= rt ‘Mmh.’

110

chapter 3

120 Martin

ɛ̀h kì twɛ́ŋ-ɛ̀ kì cákɔ̀ rt com 3sgs.straighten.prs-refl com 3sgs.start.prs cʊ́ r groan ‘Eh, then he stretches, then he starts groaning,’

121 Martin

cálɔ̀ dɔ̀ ŋ twó tɛ̀k àdádà like then 3sgs.be.ill.prs strong truly ‘like he is truly so sick.’

122 Tonny

ɛ́ɛ̂ rt ‘Eh.’

123 Richard

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (2.32)

124 Martin

so nyér-ì kà --not audible-- ò-bèdò so guy-dem prog 3sgs-be.pst ‘So this guy (…) he stayed.’ (1.15)

125 Martin

dɔ̀ ŋ pàkà (0.83) nɪ̀n-ɛ́ cí ò-òò day-3sgposs dm 3sgs-reach.pst then up.to ò-rɔ̀ mɔ̀ = 3sgs-be.suitable.pst ‘Then it reached up to his day’

126 Tonny

=ɛ́h= rt ‘Eh.’

127 Martin

=mɛ́ dwógò gàŋ= ben return.prs home ‘to return back home,’

conversational micro- and macro-management

128 Tonny

=ɛ́h= rt ‘Eh.’

129 Martin

=má dɔ̀ ŋ gì-kwànyɔ̀ kì ì ɔ̀ t yàt rel then 3pls-remove.pst from loc house tree ‘when they discharged him from hospital.’

130 Richard

°mh° rt ‘Mh.’

131 Martin

nɛ́n kì million àb-, àbʊ̀ ŋwɛ́n ò-dwògò 3sgs-return.pst see.prs com million num.nine àpár num.ten ‘He came back with about, ni-, nine, ten million UgX.’ (0.6)

132 Tonny

[↗áâh] rt ‘Aahǃ’ (i.e. ‘this is unbelievable’)

133 Richard

[ò-dwò]gò-, 3sgs-return.pst ‘He came back?’ (0.71)

134 Martin

yes [--not audible--] yes ‘Yes (…)ǃ’

135 Tonny

136 Martin

111

do] [pùd ò-dwògò still 3sgs-return.pst mp ‘Yet he came back?’ ín ì-ŋéyò Otema dɔ́ g-ɛ́ 2sgs 2sgs-know.prs name mouth-3sgposs ‘You know Otema can talkǃ’ (lit. ‘you know Otema and his mouth’)

112

chapter 3

137 Richard Tonny

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’

138 Martin

nyér-ì ènò tyé sharp má-râc= guy-dem dem cop sharp rel-bad ‘This guy is very sharpǃ’

139 Tonny

=mmh= rt ‘Mmh.’

140 Richard

=ɛ́ɛ̂ rt ‘Ehǃ’

Other than Brenda in the example above, Martin himself ensures his interlocutors’ comprehension of his story’s frame. Starting with a reference known to all of them, a man called Otema, he leads them through the frame. First he specifies that the story will be about Otema’s father, who he then calls by name, and second he introduces the place of the story’s setting, ‘IHK’ which he explains to be the ‘International Hospital of Kampala’ (line 31). The narrative clearly evolves from the situational context: The three friends, Martin, Richard and Tonny gathered together in a restaurant to help with the research in a half-staged situation. After they were told to “just sit together as friends and to enjoy some drinks and talk about anything they like, as long as it is Acholi”, they try to find a starting point. In lines (1)–(15) they help each other to apprehend the situation and their task, until Martin offers to start telling a story. It becomes quickly clear though, that the story is not an abstract one, since it is based on knowledge shared by the three friends; at diverse points the two recipients even support the dialogic nature of the conversational narrative with their participation. They act as responsive recipients when they ask questions for clarity (line 37), when they both utter repetitive phrases as active listeners (lines 133 and 135), and when they express their comprehension multiple times with continuers like mmh. Richard and Tonny also make use of non-verbal, paralinguistic features (breath and laughter, cf. 5.2) to perform their role as responsive participants. In lines (85) and (88) Richard shifts participation roles and acts as a co-constructive recipient when he contributes additional assumptions about the behavior of Otema’s father in the hospital. By doing so, he discloses his own knowledge about the story’s agent.

conversational micro- and macro-management

113

In the end17 of this extract, Martin again relies on their shared knowledge to claim a common evaluation of the narrative; he simply concludes Yes (…)! Ín ìŋéyò Otema dɔ́ gɛ́! ‘Yes (…)! You know Otema can talk!’ (lit. ‘Otema and his mouth’) and Nyérì ènò tyé sharp márâc! ‘That guy is very clever!’. This is responded to and amplified by Tonny and Richard through their affiliative reactions, indicating that both of them know this particular character trait of Otema as well. Through this closing interaction, the friends follow the assumption that “at the completion of storytelling, the provision of an evaluative stance toward the telling is due” (Stivers 2013:201), and preferably the evaluation of the speaker and recipient(s) match (ibid.). This holds true for the extract at hand: Knowing that Otema is clever and eloquent, the interlocutors conclude that his father also has the same character. In general, tellers also indicate their own stance towards the stories they tell, which can largely affect the recipients’ reactions (Norrick 2000). The separation of the narrative into idea units reveals that there is rarely a temporal conjunction at the beginning of the units. Instead, the discourse marker cɪ́ ‘then, so’ and its English equivalent are used more frequently.18 However, common occurrences are as well the relative clause má òtɪ̀mɛ̀ (mûtɪ̀mɛ̀) ‘what happend (is/was)’ that indicates a subsequent narrative (line 30), and the phrase ìnɛ́nɔ̀ (wɛ́) ‘you see’. The latter can be compared to the discursive use of ‘you see’ in English. Another small story (40) is introduced upon Joyce’s request for Brenda to tell her about an issue they are both familiar with from the past. Therefore, no additional frame is needed; evident from Joyce’s definition of the story’s topic lòk ‘à dyɛ̀lì ‘the issue of the goat’, the story’s actors wún k’` Okulu ‘you and Okulu’, and the use of the word kònó ‘how about’ in the introduction, which presages that Joyce already encountered the following topic before. Brenda indicates that she recalls the story as well (line 4) and, before she starts telling the story, indicates her stance towards the behavior of Okulu (line 6): after a pejorative kiss-teeth sound,19 she calls him ‘a very stupid person’. This strong, evaluative stance arouses interest, which in turn serves as a justification for the narrative 17

18

19

In fact, this story is followed by a next story (cf. for instance Norrick (2000) and ErvinTripp and Küntay (1997) about story-rounds) that builds up on the first story and deals with the time after Ojok left the hospital and how he spent the money. However, due to the length of the second narrative, only the first one is presented here. Strikingly, my research assistants often translated cɪ́ in this context as either ‘so’, indicating a causal development, or with the temporal conjunction ‘then’, which is actually also expressed by dɔ̀ ŋ. This leads to the assumption that cɪ́, in regard to its discursive function, carries a temporal as well as causal component. Cf. chapter 5.2.1.

114

chapter 3

event (Norrick 2000) and therefore makes Joyce ask for more details (line 7). The example below thus presents an “elicited story” (Ervin-Tripp and Küntay 1997:141). (40) Extract: lòk pà dyɛ̀l-ì ‘The issue of the goat’ 1

Joyce

wún k’` Okulu kó’ dɔ̀ ŋ 2pls com name or then ‘How about you and Okulu then?’

2

Joyce

doŋ ò-gìk kwè’ lòk mɔ̀ -nì word qnt-dem then 3sgs-end.pst intr.where ‘Where did that issue end?’

3

Joyce

lòk ‘à dyɛ̀l-ì= word poss goat-dem ‘The issue of the goat.’

4

Brenda

=éê lòk ‘à dyɛ̀l= rt word poss goat ‘Eeh, the issue of the goat.’

5

Joyce

=mmh rt ‘Mmh.’

6

Brenda

((kt)) ɛ́ntɔ́ Okulu là-mɪ̀ŋ-mɪ̀ŋ kiss-teeth but name nmz.sg-stupid-stupid [mɔ́ ] qnt ‘((kt)) But Okulu is a very foolish person.’

7

Joyce

[Okulu ò-wà-í ŋɔ̀ ] name 3sgs-say.pst-comp intr.what ‘What did Okulu say?’ (0.53)

8

Brenda

gù-lʊ̀ bʊ̀ kòr dyɛ̀l jɔ̀ -nì people-dem 3pls-follow.pst trace goat ‘Those people followed the trace of the goat.’ (0.29)

conversational micro- and macro-management

115

9

Joyce

gù-bìnò nàkà= 3pls-come.pst strengthened ‘They made an effort to come?’ (lit. ‘They came strengthened?’)

10

Brenda

=ɛ̀h [gù-bìnò] rt 3pls-come.pst ‘Eh, they came.’

11

Joyce

12

Joyce

cɪ́m nì kì-gɔ̀ -nɛ̀ ims-beat.pst-3sgo phone dem ‘that they had called him?’

13

Brenda

pàt gù-bìnò ní dɔ̀ ŋ gɪ̀-bìnò kà different 3pls-come.pst comp then 3pls-come.pst prog kɔ́ kɔ̀ dyɛ̀l redeem goat ‘It is differentǃ They came and said that they came to redeem the goat.’

14

Brenda

ní ì-ŋéyò Okulu ò-wà-í name 3sgs-say.pst-comp comp 2sgs-know.prs [làtɪ́n ànyákà-nì child girl-dem ‘Okulu said that you know that young girl-,’

15

Joyce

16

Joyce

[pàt kì nɪ̀nɔ̀ cà] Okulu ò-wàc-í different from day dem name 3sgs-say.pst-comp kónò or ‘Is this different from the other day when Okulu said’

[Okulu] >Okulu ò-wàc-í ín name name 3sgs-say.pst-comp 2sgs i- i-wàc-ìgì ŋɔ̀ 2sgs-say.pst-3plo eri.what ‘Okulu told them that you said what?’ [ní ín] ì-tyé ì [ɔ̀ t yàt pɪ̀ gìn-nɔ̀ < cop 2sgs 2sgs-cop loc house tree because.of thing-qnt ‘You are in the hospital because of something.’

116

chapter 3

17

Brenda

[éê] rt ‘Ehǃ’

18

Brenda

19

Joyce

àbínà= =gù-bìnò 3pls-come.pst come.grd ‘Did they just come?’ (0.08)

20

Brenda

=gù-bìnò àbínà 3pls-come.pst come.grd ‘They just came.’ (0.11)

21

Joyce

mmh= rt ‘Mmh’ (0.4)

22

Brenda

dɔ̀ ŋ bèné pé gù-wà-í< = >cí rwèd-é then owner-3sgposs then also neg 3pls-say.pst-comp ‘And then the owner also never said anything:’

23

Brenda

àh àyèlá pé dɔ̀ ŋ dò rt problem neg then mp ‘“Ah, there is no problemǃ”’ (0.3)

24

Brenda

cí dɔ̀ ŋ gù-dɔ̀ k dɔ̀ ŋ dò dm then 3pls-return.pst then mp ‘Then they went back.’ (0.62)

[án pé gù-gɔ̀yɔ̀ cɪ́m 1sgs neg 3pls-beat.pst phone ènò-nì gù-gìn-ɛ̀ àgínà= dem-dem 3pls-thing-dem thing.grd ‘I-, they never called but they just-,’

conversational micro- and macro-management

25

Brenda

Okulu bèné ò-yʊ̀ bʊ̀ gìn-ɛ̀-nɛ́ name also 3sgs-repair.pst thing-dem-3sgposs ò-kàtà 3sgs-pass.pst ‘Okulu repaired his thing for more than’

26

Brenda

àlɪ́p °pyèr àbɪ́rɔ̀ num.thousand num.tens num.seven ‘70,000 UgX,’

27

Brenda

ònɔ̀’ ò-bàl-ɛ̀ má-tɛ̂k° pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀-nɛ́ motorcycle-3sgposs asp 3sgs-spoil.pst-refl rel-strong ‘his motorcycle was very damaged.’

28

Joyce

°àlɪ́p° pyèr °àbɪ́rɔ̀ °= num.thousand num.tens num.seven ‘70,000 UgX?’

29

Brenda

=mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.35)

30

Joyce

áh intj ‘Ahǃ’ (0.29)

31

Brenda

°ò-kàt-ɔ́ -, ò-kàt-ɔ́ àlɪ́p pyèr 3sgs-pass.pst 3sgs-pass.pst num.thousand num.tens àbɪ́rɔ̀ ° num.seven ‘It exceeded 70,000 UgX.’

117

While Joyce actively shapes the story in the beginning, she takes over the participant role as the responsive recipient, from line (19). From there, she confines herself to the utterance of a repetition, reconfirming her understanding (line 28), and to other forms of back-channeling, like the continuers ‘mh’ and ‘aah’; just two of the common back-channeling devices in Acholi conversations.

118

chapter 3

3.2.4

Listeners as Co-authors: Back-Channeling with Continuers and Assessments Back-channeling (Yngve 1970) by interlocutors, who do not hold the floor at that particular moment of interaction, does not only take place during conversational narratives, but also in all forms of dialogic interaction: It is irreverent if the floor is held by all interlocutors to the same degree, or if it is only one speaker who talks predominantly—as in monologues or monologic sequences such as speeches or narratives. Back-channeling serves to structure the conversation, support coherence, and indicate that the recipient follows and understands the speaker’s words. It can be realized verbally or non-verbally (for instance, by nodding). Back-channeling is mainly divided into two fields: continuers and assessments (Goodwin 1986). Continuers, on a turn-level, guarantee coherent speech flow. They are actions displaying recipient’s understanding that an extended turn at talk is in progress but not yet complete, while simultaneously collaborating in the achievement of that multi-unit utterance by passing the opportunity to either (a) produce a more extended turn of their own or (b) initiate repair on the talk just heard. ibid.: 207

However, they are rarely construed as full turns (Levinson and Torreira 2015). Duncan (1972:288) states that “it is sufficient to point out that a back-channel communication does not constitute a turn or a claim for a turn.” Thus, backchanneling tokens are not perceived as conversational overlap, either (Schegloff 2000). Nevertheless, if continuers, or back-channeling by means of other reactive tokens, are missing, the conversational flow may be disrupted by speakers’ irritation. In Acholi, in addition to the common continuers also present in English, such as ‘uhum’ and ‘mmh’, three main impartial back-channeling particles can be found. These three differ in vowel quality and intonation, in order to distinguish their function and meaning; but all of them are based on a vowel array of /ee/ or /ɛɛ/. Two particles can be seen in examples (41a) and (41b), both taken from the same extract: Cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò nì ‘The picture that she took’: The first back-channeling particle in both samples, éê (sometimes emphasized with an attenuated high tone on the second syllable, éé),̂ expresses apprehension of a prior statement. The second one, ɛ̀ɛ,̀ as used by Brenda twice, indicates (finalizing) reassurance, and can also be shortened to ɛ̀h. These two are often combined and almost seem like a back-channeling adjacency pair.

conversational micro- and macro-management

119

(41) a. Extract: cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò nì ‘The picture that she took’ 1

Brenda

ò-wà-í recording ènì nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ kì-pèny-è 3sgs-say.pst-comp recording dem asp ims-examine-refl níŋɔ̀ eri.how ‘She said this recording makes them understand how?’

2

Brenda

má én è- [tɪ̀mɔ̀ rel 3sgs 3sgs-do.pst ‘What she was doing.’

3

Joyce

4

Brenda

lecturer-nɛ́= lecturer-3sgposs ‘Her lecturer.’

5

Joyce

=éê= rt ‘Eeh.’

6

Joyce

=ɛ̀ɛ̀ rt ‘Eh.’ (0.21)

[tìmɔ̀ do.pst ‘Doing.’

(41) b. Extract: cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò nì ‘The picture that she took’ 1

Brenda

nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ myɛ́rɔ̀ ín ì-nyút-ì asp must.prs 2sgs 2sgs-show.prs-dem ‘You need to show that.’ (0.11)

2

Joyce

=éê= rt ‘Eeh.’

120

chapter 3

3

Brenda

=ɛ̀ɛ=̀ rt ‘Eh.’

4

Joyce

=lòk ‘à cél cél ŋàt ènì word poss picture picture someone dem ‘The issue of the picture, the picture of someone.’

In storytelling, back-channeling can be used to indicate that the next turn is awaited, as in line (99) in example (39) above. The form éê, with rising pitch, can also be used by the speaker as a device to elicit if the listener follows and understands everything that is said. After overlapping talk, when two speakers speak at the same time, ɛ̀ɛ̀ can be used by one of them to signify that they have comprehended what was spoken simultaneously with their own talk (cf. 3.3). Additional to these two forms, the shorter form éh, or ɛ́h, frequently occur as a sign of disapproval or surprise. The question particle ɛ́h?, when used after a statement, functions as an initiator of a listener’s reaction—often expressed by one of the reactive tokens described for Acholi—and can thus be called a ‘reactive token initiator’. It may also occur with rising pitch (see example 39, line 110). 3.2.5 Schisming as Sequential and Social Action In the course of an interaction between four or more interactants, it can repeatedly happen that a sequence of talk can evolve into two sequences of turns (or, depending on the number of interactants, even more). Sacks et al. (1974:713) note the “variability in the number of turn-taking systems in operation”; in other words, the possibility that two turn-taking systems can co-exist, and call it a ‘schism’. Egbert (1993) modified this term to ‘schisming’, in order to stress the phenomenon’s function as an action. The author defines schisming as the transformation of one conversation into two simultaneous conversational clusters. A schisming can occur in a conversation with four or more participants. [It] is induced when a subset or participants breaks away and establishes a new conversation while the rest of the group continues the pre-existing conversation. Schisming can be sustained for a variable amount of time. ibid. 1993:1

This process of splitting up one single conversation also leads to the development of two participation frameworks, out of the previous one (ibid. 1993:x).

conversational micro- and macro-management

121

As Goodwin (1987:126) states, it is, in this case, the norm that a “participation framework that includes several participants and is thus capable of sustaining itself independently exists in competition” with another one. However, the notion of “competition” needs to be reviewed, in terms of the linguistic level, within which it takes place. While on a sequential, and hence pragmatic, semantic level, competitive differences may occur, Egbert (1993, 1997) seeks to provide evidence that, on a turn-level, there are phonological and syntactic overlaps between the two emergent clusters. For that reason, Egbert (1993:61) surmises that schisming is “simultaneous talk which is not in competition with the other talk for one floor but rather organized by two simultaneous floors.” One could argue that schisming itself is not a social action, however, the splitting of interaction into schisming may inherit the implications of a social action. Consider, for instance, the following extract, in which Susan and her family members talk, while Susan’s daughter lies on a blanket on the floor, covered with a mosquito net. Susan’s sister Betty lifts the net to look at the baby and, in doing so, diverts Susan’s attention from the main conversation and calls it towards her action. When this happens, the four interactants are talking about the relationship between the stepdaughter of Susan’s in-law, Rita (who is also present), and her biological mother. In the beginning of the schisming, Rita and Susan’s mother Hellen continue the conversation, while Susan requests Betty to leave the baby alone, so that she won’t disturb her sleep: Betty pé ìyěl Adada, ká ìcákɔ̀ yélònè ní táp cí òbícóò ‘Betty, don’t disturb Adada, if you start disturbing her, she will wake upǃ’. When Betty puts the net back down, Susan tells her about a present that was given to her, for her baby. Hellen shifts in between the schisming sequences when she comments on Betty’s action (line 10), but she turns back to Rita (line 12). As Betty again lifts up the net to check on the baby, Rita and Hellen keep quiet, until Susan makes a comment about her daughter that makes her, Betty, and Rita laugh. Hellen only smiles, later taking over the next turn to introduce the following sequence of their talk. (42) Extract: àcʊ́ lɔ̀ mɛ́ ŋɔ̀ ? ‘For what do I pay?’ 1

Rita

má ò-óò àóyà gù-hugging gɪ́n-ì kèd rel 3sgs-reach.prs reach.grd 3pls-hug 3pls-dem com nyár-ɛ́ kényó girl-3sgposs there ‘When she came, they were hugging with the daughter there.’ (0.41)

122

chapter 3

2

Rita

ah >kòdì dɔ́ ŋɔ̀ -nì dɔ̀ ŋ pé< intj type growth-dem then neg ‘Ah, there is no such kind of growthǃ’ (0.19)

3

Rita

kà ah >ì nɪ̀nɔ̀ dwè múnyò kì-tyé intj loc day month these.days ims-cop prog mɪ́tɔ̀ want.prs ‘Ah, on that date, these days they [i.e. the elders] want’

4

Rita

lù-kwàyò wɛ̀ŋ kì ànyírà wɛ̀ŋ kì dánɔ̀ nmz.pl-grandchild qnt com girl.pl qnt com people wɛ́ŋ< qnt ‘all the grandchildren, all the girls, all the people-,’

5

Rita

>tɛ̀kɪ̀ [[ín ì] dánɔ̀ mɛ́ gàŋ ènì wɛ́ŋ cond 2sgs loc people ben house dem qnt ‘If you are a member of this home,’ (lit. ‘if you are among all this home’)

6

Rita

nɪ̀n dwè àpàr àryɔ̀ ]< myɛ́rɔ̀ ì-cɪ́t obl 2sgs-go.sub day month num.ten num.two ‘you should go on the 12th.’

7

Hellen

8

Susan

9

Susan

[mmh] rt ‘Mmh.’ [Betty pé ì-yěl Adada ká name neg 2sgs-disturb.imp name cond ì-cákɔ̀ 2sgs-start.prs ‘Betty, do not disturb Adada, if you start’ yélò-nè ní táp cí ò-bí-cóò] disturb.prs-3sgo cov id dm 3sgs-fut-wake.up ‘disturbing her, she will wake up.’

conversational micro- and macro-management

123

10

Rita

>kádí baba-ní geŋ-ì kádí dèk cond father-2sgposs prevent.prs-2sgo cond always kádí níníŋ cond eri.how ‘Even if you father refuses, even if he completely (lit. ‘always’) refuses, even if how?’

11

Rita

wán ‘à’ícɪ́tɔ̀ < 1pls 3pls-fut-go ‘We will still go.’

12

Hellen

mh rt ‘Mhǃ’ (0.04)

13

Rita

má pùdì ò-òò àóyà rel still 3sgs-reach.pst reach.grd ‘When she had just reached-,’

14

Hellen

ènò-nì kónó kɔ́ nyɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ dem-dem or 3sgs.help.prs intr.what ‘How does this help?’ (0.02)

15

Susan

ìt-è Adada kì-kèlò name ims-bring.pst for-3sgo [bɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ má-tàr kì má-kwàr dress rel-white com rel-red ‘They brought a white and red dress’

16

Susan

wà kì òtók-é wɛ̀ŋ] up.to com hat-3sgposs qnt ‘with a hat for Adadaǃ’

17

Hellen

[cɪ́tɔ̀ mɛ́r-ɛ̀ kà kwérò degree go.prs boast-refl prog celebrate.prs degree ‘Going to proudly celebrate the degree’

124

chapter 3

18

Helen

má bénè pé gàŋí ɛ́h] rel also neg home-2sgposs intj ‘and it is not even your home, ehǃ’

19

Betty

àdáà truly ‘Truly?’ (0.13)

20

Susan

ɛ̀ɛ̀ rt ‘Yes.’ (0.25)

21

Betty

ɛ́ɛh́ intj ‘Eeh …’ (0.17)

22

Susan

tyé ì wì kà bʊ́ tɔ̀ kà cà cop loc head place sleep.prs place dem ‘It is on the bed there.’ (0.12)

Clearly, through the requests shown above, Susan aims to stop Betty from waking up her sleeping daughter. Thus, she is trying to trigger a reaction from Betty, i.e. to let the baby sleep. She does this by initiating a second cluster (or sequence), with a newly negotiated participation framework, as well as a new recipiency structure (cf. Egbert 1993). A schisming-inducing turn (SIT), like the one that Susan produces, is only one variant of schisming initiation (ibid. 1997; Goodwin 1987), yet it inhibits the typical features described by Egbert (1993): – Susan’s request is the first part of an adjacency pair (as the majority of SIT are) – it introduces a shift in topic (and action) – it is initiated by a personal reference ‘Betty’ (which is among typical initiations of SIT, just like disjunct markers) – the SIT starts a new sequence while the original, ongoing sequence undergone no contingent closure – Susan targets only one co-participant (which is the most common strategy of schisming-inducing speakers)

conversational micro- and macro-management

125

Like simple turn-taking, schisming sequences are another process within conversations that displays the mutuality inherent in human interaction. Through ongoing mutual monitoring, interactants are aware of the second cluster’s progress. Even though initially, participants shift to distinct participation frameworks, through the course of the schisming process, interlocutors can switch in between the clusters and can therefore shift to the other participation framework. In addition to that, Egbert (1993:2–3) suggests that [a]lthough both co-occurring conversations during schismings are conversations in their own right, there is an interface in between them. [Indeed] during schisming, participation in one conversation can only be fully understood by taking into account the fact that it takes place while another conversation has been established and is being sustained. In the extract above, the mutual monitoring can be tracked as the gaze-structure is reconstructed (compare Figure 9): While Rita holds a monologue about the mother of her stepdaughter (who is raised by her and her mother-in-law, Hellen), Betty’s attention shifts from Rita’s words, to her niece (Susan’s baby), on whom she focusses her gaze. When Betty lifts up the mosquito net placed over the baby, she draws Susans attention (and gaze), who then initiates a schisming sequence. As Rita monitors her sisters-in-law starting another sequence, her gaze is first directed towards Susan sitting on her left side, then to Betty on her right, while she continues talking. Hellen is the only one back-channeling Rita’s talk, the others’ gazes are on the baby. However, Hellen, after her backchanneling (line 8), also focusses on the baby, indicating that she is monitoring the other conversational sequence-cluster, while she listens to Rita. She poses a rhetoric question towards Betty: ‘How does that help?’ (line 10), and simultaneously turns her gaze back to Rita, as she continues with a concluding statement that overlaps with another utterance from Susan (line 12). Rita keeps eye-contact with Hellen until she finishes talking, before also setting her gaze on the baby; which ends the schisming sequence. Considering the gaze structure, Rita and Hellen not only keep silent until Susan’s comment makes everyone laugh,20 but the moment that they stop talking to each other is marked by a complex cluster of gaze driven conversation monitoring. As long as Rita and Hellen reconfirm their participation in the original conversation, the first conversational cluster is sustained. However when Rita, who has largely held the floor in the interaction, re-

20

Susan laughs first and hence produces a ‘contextualizing laughter’ (cf. 5.2.1).

126

chapter 3

figure 9

Gaze structure of mutual monitoring in a schisming sequence

moves her gaze from Hellen, after she finishes her utterance, the sequence comes to closure.21 Example (43) represents another example of schisming. While Maliki tries to start a sequence about him enjoying his drink (line 1), some of his conversation participants focus on another issue. The laptop, which Patrick had placed on his lap, runs out of charge as his friend, Junior, asks him to hand it over so that he can play music. (43) Extract: muzee Dube ‘Uncle Dube’ 1

Maliki

ɪ̀yɔ̀ :: [Alvaros yes name ‘Yesss, Alvarosǃ’

2

Junior

3

Junior

[mɪ̌ m’´ ‘é ì-kɔ́ m-ì give.imp rel cop loc-chair-dem ‘Give me the one which is on that chairǃ’

4

Maliki

[hmm Obina intj name ‘Hmm, Obinaǃ’

21

After the four participants laugh, the schisming cluster ends as well, and a new sequence is introduced by Hellen.

[kěl à-wót ‘ì gɔ́yɔ̀ music kány bring.imp 1sgs-go.sub com beat.prs music here jàl fellow ‘Bring it (i.e. the laptop) so that I continue playing music here, manǃ’ (0.94)

conversational micro- and macro-management

127

5

Patrick

[--not audible—(probably about the fact that the laptop is out of charge)=

6

Obina

=↗mmh rt ‘Mh?’ (0.11)

7

Maliki

kwɔ́ ɔ̀ town life town ‘Town lifeǃ’ (0.29)

8

Junior

mènó kwɔ́ ɔ̀ càrɔ̀ dem life rural.area ‘That is village lifeǃ’ (0.3)

9

Maliki

Alvaro [s name ‘Alvarosǃ’

10

Obina

11

Junior

=cwǎl kɔ̀ ŋ nì ènì kɔ̀ ŋ send.imp first dem dem first ‘Give me that one first!’

12

Obina

[ò-rwá-, ò-rwák-ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́ 3sgs-insert.prs 3sgs-insert.prs-dem stomach-3sgposs ‘Plu-, plug it inǃ’ (lit. ‘he plugs this one in’)

13

Maliki

[ìn ì-nɛ̀nɔ̀ -, ì-nɛ̀nɔ̀ Hard Target-ì 2sgs 2sgs-see.pst 2sgs-see.pst name-dem ‘Have you watched Hard Target?’ (0.08)

[↗battery= battery ‘Battery?’

128

chapter 3

14

Junior

cwǎl má-tɪ́dɪ́-nì send.imp rel-small-dem ‘Hand over that small oneǃ’

15

Junior

kɔ̀’ [ì-pǎŋ mà-tɪ́dɪ́ pol 2sgs-divert.imp rel-small kán [y here ‘Please hand over the small one hereǃ’

16

Joe

17

Maliki

18

Joe

ɪ̀yɔ̀ muzee ↗ènì= yes old.man dem ‘Yes, that old guy?’

19

Maliki

=mh= rt ‘Mhǃ’

20

Joe

=h.h laughter ‘Haha!’

21

Patrick

wɛ́ŋ battery [pé wɛ́ŋ qnt battery neg qnt ‘The whole battery is off.’

22

Maliki

[h.h.H.H laughter ‘Hahaha!’ Hard Target-ì h.h [ì-nɛ̀nɔ̀ 2sgs-see.pst name-dem laughter ‘Have you watched Hard Target, haha?’ (0.11)

[ɪ̀yɔ̀ [::: yes ‘Yesssǃ’

conversational micro- and macro-management

23

Joe

[ɪ̀yɔ̀ yes ‘Yesǃ’ (0.08)

24

Maliki

[h̚ ò-kàtɔ̀ wɪ̂l (1.03) kìgùmé] (0.26) ono 3sgs-pass.pst id exactly [H.h.h laughter ‘It passed very quickly. Exactly. Hahaha!’

25

Joe

[h.h.h] laughter ‘Hahaha!’

26

Obina

[muzee mèné old.man intr.which ‘Which old guy?’

27

Joe

[muzee-nì là-yélà old.man-dem nmz.sg-troublesome ‘This old guy is a stubborn personǃ’ (0.37)

28

Maliki

[Hard Target name ‘Hard Target.’

29

Joe

[muzee Dube old.man name ‘The old guy Dube.’ (0.4)

30

Maliki

H. [h laughter ‘Haha!’

31

Obina

[muzee ↗Dube= old.man name ‘The old man Dube?’

129

130

chapter 3

32

Joe

=ɛ̀ɛ rt ‘Yes.’ (0.24)

33

Joe

ɛ́ [h (0.3) UNCLE DUBE] H.H.H ↗ɛ́h rt name laughter rti ‘Eh, Uncle Dube, hahaha! Eh?’

34

Joe

35

Joe

36

Maliki

37

Joe

[Hard Target] name ‘Hard Target.’ jàl ‘cɔ́ ɔ̀ ok-, ò-setting kɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ ò-mwòc bòm kì guy man 3sgs-set alcohol 3sgs-burst.sub bomb com dánɔ̀ [wɛ́ people dm ‘Jal, that man sets alcohol to an exploding bomb with people.’ cà ì standard [nyér]-ì ò-setting kɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ guy-dem 3sgs-set alcohol dem loc standard ‘This guy sets that alcohol to standard.’ (1.79) muzee ènì là-chemist mɔ́ má pé old.man dem nmz-chemist qnt rel neg lár-ɛ̀ 3sgs.compete.prs-refl ‘This old man is an untouchable chemistǃ’

Schisming can also be initiated by another person joining a conversation, or when a speaker, who is not part of the current participation framework, initiates a greeting sequence towards one or many of the participants. Due to the importance of greetings in Acholi culture, this is a common occurrence. Further, a person outside the conversation can draw one (or more) of the interlocutors into a particular topic, aside from the main topic.

conversational micro- and macro-management

(44) Extract: nɛ́nɔ̀ òdílò ‘Watching football’ 1

Joe

Layibi tyé kì tùkò díkì dɔ̀ kɪ́ name cop com game tomorrow again ‘Does Layibi have a game tomorrow again?’

2

Patrick

cá’à àdíì time intr.how.many ‘At which time?’

3

Junior

draw-ɔ́ ɛ́ɛ́ tín gù-gɔ̀yɔ̀ rt today 3pls-beat.pst draw-compl ‘Yes, today they already drew.’

4

Obina

ha (1.31) ì-sending-ɔ́ intj 2sgs-send-compl ‘Ha? Have you already send it?’ (1.97)

5

Junior

tín gù-gɔ̀yɔ̀ draw-ɔ́ today 3pls-beat.pst draw-compl ‘Today they already drew.’ (0.23)

6

Obina

pékè bá neg mp ‘It is not thereǃ’ (0.78)

7

Joe

[màn pùd tyé kì point] dem still cop com point [a: (0.4) bíc= num.five ‘Like this they still have five points.’

8

BG

[án à-mɪ́tɔ̀ ] 1sgs 1sgs-want.prs ‘I need …’ (0.24)

131

132

chapter 3

9

Obina

↗ah intj ‘Ah?’

10

BG

11

Obina

12

Maliki

13

Joe

àbíc dò= num.five mp ‘It is fiveǃ’

14

BG

=tin number-gi and then password= tin.number-pl and then password ‘… the TIN-number and then the password.’

15

Joe

mɛ̌d kì =làwòr draw tín draw àryɔ̀ yesterday draw today draw num.two add.imp com àdɛ́k má nɪ̀nɔ̀ cà-nì= num.three rel day dem-dem ‘Yesterday draw, today draw, (that is) two. Add it up with the three of the other day.’

16

Maliki

Labiyi dɔ̀ k ò-gɔ̀yɔ̀ =[án à-ŋèy-ì 1sgs 1sgs-know.pst-comp name again 3sgs-beat.pst draw-ɔ́ ] draw-compl ‘I understood that Layibi drew again.’

[ah kɔ̀’ dɔ̀ k [ì-tɪ̌m intj pol again 2sgs-do.imp ‘Ah, I please need you to do …’ =[àŋ [wɛ́n num.four ‘Four.’ [én ŋɔ̀ -nì 3sgs intr.what-dem ‘What is that (exactly)?’

conversational micro- and macro-management

133

17

Patrick

=[án nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ à-ŋèy-ì gìn-ɛ̀-, án 1sgs asp 1sgs-know.pst-comp thing-dem 1sgs à-ŋèy-ì gìn-ɛ̀ 1sgs-know.pst-comp thing-dem ‘Me, I thought that the thing, I thought that the thing’

18

Patrick

gì-cwàlɔ̀ cɪ́m-ì mobile money nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ 3pls-send.pst phone-dem mobile money asp à-mɪ́tɔ̀ wá-ì jàl 1sgs-want.prs say.pst-comp fellow ‘that they sent to this phone is mobile money. I wanted to say: My friend,’

19

Patrick

Johnson tyé cɪ̌ kwányɔ̀ -ɔ́ name cop go.imp take.prs-compl ‘Johnson is there, go and pick it.’ (0.94)

20

Obina

kɔ̀ ŋ wɛ̌k let.imp first ‘Wait firstǃ’ (lit. ‘first let’, i.e. ‘first let me …’) (0.34)

21

BG

stopping kà °má wà-pùk stop place rel 1pls-rise.up.in.early.morning.pst ì-ɪ̀y-ɛ́-nì° loc-stomach-3sgposs-dem ‘Stopping from the very beginning where we started from.’ (0.25)

22

Junior

díkì bɛ̀r à-cɪ́ nɛ́n dɔ̀ k òdílò pà tomorrow good 1sgs-go.sub see.prs again ball poss Kitende name ‘Tomorrow is good. I will go to see the Kitende game again’

23

Junior

wà ì (0.47) BÀR °kwìcà° up.to loc field dem ‘there up at the field.’

134

chapter 3

Parts of the schisming sequence in example (44) take place in another local space, away from the main interaction. The beginning, as well as the end of the sequence, take place in the background of the recording. Here, not only a topic shift takes place, but also a locality shift, which separates the two sequences from another, but also joins them as two schisming clusters. In line (4) of the extract, Obina, who has just joined the group again after he was busy outside the camera’s capture, reacts to a friend of his who he talked to before (BG ‘background’), and who is not in the recording at this point. While his friends talk about sports, he talks to the girl outside the recording about mobile money that she was supposed to send to his phone; which, due to technical difficulties, could not be successfully sent. While she explains to him what her phone displays, they draw the attention of Patrick who was part of the other conversational cluster before. He shifts completely to the schisming cluster of Obina and the girl, and advices them to talk to Johnson, who works at the hotel’s reception. Once Obina and the girl are leaving the scene, Patrick shifts his attention back to the others, who still talk about sport games. Patrick’s shifting of participation frameworks demands for him to be monitoring both clusters. According to Egbert (1993), the monitoring of both schisming sequences leads to an adoption of similar sounds. In other words, when speakers coordinate their own speech with another schisming cluster, they tend to use similar syllables, words, or sounds that they hear from the other cluster. In (44) above, Patrick’s statement, in line (17), features the same words as Maliki’s simultaneously uttered turn, in line (16); both speakers use the form àŋèyì ‘I assumed that …’ (lit. ‘I knew that …’). According to Egbert (ibid.), this is not a coincidence, but rather an indicator that mutual monitoring is maintained during schisming. Thus, speakers do not only monitor reactive behavior of the participants in the sphere of their own cluster, but they extend their monitoring to the whole speech situation, in which two or more conversations can take place. Despite all this effort, conversations are not always smoothly coherent. At times, the organization of interaction gets disturbed by overlaps, or misunderstandings, as well as comprehension problems. How these disturbances can be solved, and which specific linguistic practices Acholi speakers use in the case of conversational trouble, is explained in the next chapter.

3.3

Dealing With Conversational Trouble: Repair and Overlaps

Studying everyday language use means to study language as it happens, out of the vacuum of perfection inherent in staged situations, interviews and other elicitation practices. As much as speakers try to avoid conversational trouble,

conversational micro- and macro-management

135

it is not always avertible. When problematic structures occur within talk, speakers tend to resolve them as soon as possible (Schegloff 2000; Holtgraves 2002). This resolution of conversational trouble is known as ‘repair’: By ‘repair’ we refer to efforts to deal with trouble in speaking, hearing, or understanding talk in interaction. ‘Trouble’ includes such occurrences as misarticulations, malapropisms, use of a ‘wrong’ word, un-availability of a word when needed, failure to hear or to be heard, trouble on the part of the recipient in understanding, incorrect understandings by recipients, and various others. Because anything in talk can be a source of trouble, everything in conversation is, in principle, ‘repairable’. Schegloff 1987:210

The strategies to regain structural organization, facilitating comprehension and coherence, are, seemingly, as universal as the structural organization of turn-taking in conversation itself. The various types of anterior trouble sources that commonly result in repair, likewise appear to be overarching. However, the characteristics of repair vary from situation to situation. 3.3.1 Initiating Repair and Solving Trouble Repair within a conversation is a sequence that, in its basic occurrence, consists of the initiation of repair, preceded and triggered by the so-called trouble source (turn), leading to the pursuance of a repair solution (Figure 10). In its extended version, the repair solution may require multiple turns to be accomplished, or the repair initiation itself may be delayed (Schegloff et al. 1977). Hence, repair may occur in three alternative positions: within the trouble source turn; at the TRP or the turn subsequent to the trouble source turn; or in the second turn after the trouble source turn. Although repair may occur later than this in a few individual cases, immediate repair resolution is usually preferred. This way, conversational trouble is not carried into later stages of the conversation (Holtgraves 2002). However, the “repair-initiation opportunity space” is three turns long (ibid.: 375) and its occupation depends on the type of initiation at hand: Repair can be initiated by the speaker of the current turn, or by the recipient who listens to the spoken words. The first case is commonly referred to as self-initiated repair (SIR), while the second is labeled other-initiated repair (OIR). A speaker initiates (and often solves) repair within the turn that entails the trouble source, i.e. directly after the trouble source, or in the turn transition space after the completion of the trouble source turn. Other participants wait to initiate repair until the speaker himself has passed up the opportunity to

136

chapter 3

figure 10 Elements of other-initiated repair Dingemanse et al. 2015:4

do so (Schegloff et al. 1977, Schegloff 1987). This leads to the inference that self-initiation of repair, and hence, self-solution of repair, are favored in conversation (Schegloff et al. 1977);22 likewise, other-initiation also leads to self-repair. Both types of initiation allow all participants of any conversation to repair the trouble source. The ability to repair parts of an interaction is a significant tool, not only for structural matters and coherence, but also for social purposes. For instance, self-repair can reduce or redress possible threats to dignity, as highlighted by Brown and Levinson (cf. 4.1), as it allows the speaker to save face if the listener does not have the chance to criticize or assail him/her (Holtgraves 2002). Repair can thus “be appreciated as one among a set of basic practices of interaction (…) insofar as it furnishes participants with resources for organizing social life at the point of its production” (Hayashi et al. 2013b: 2). A repair sequence, initiated by a participant other than the speaker, is commonly initiated by an appeal for further information: when something that was said has not been understood by one or more of the interlocutors, the repair is ‘requested’ and then (ideally) concluded through a repair solution; (45) and (46) exemplify this simple repair-mechanism. In (45), Susan’s suggestive statement (line 1) is the trouble source in a conversation between her, her sister Betty and her in-law Rita about the exams of their children. While Susan thinks that the exams are taken at the end of the term, Rita and Betty signify that they are, indeed, taken at midterm. Rita starts the repair initiation, but speaks with quite a low voice, so that Betty is also heard strongly when she follows. Both, therefore, initiate a repair sequence and at the same time resolve the trouble. Rita endorses Betty’s statement by repeating it again, and eventually Susan reconfirms it with another repetition of ‘midterm’; this time 22

Other aspects demonstrating the preference of SIR are (a) the predominant placement of self-initiation before other-initiation, (b) the solution of trouble occurring, overwhelmingly, instantly by oneself within the same turn as the trouble source and (c) the interruption of oneself instead of another participant interjecting in the case of repair initiation (Schegloff et al. 1977).

conversational micro- and macro-management

137

with a rising pitch in order to trigger assertion, which is given to her by Betty with the response token uhum. (45) 1

Susan

↗end of term dòŋ end of term then ‘At the end of the term then?’

T-1

2

Rita

ì half loc half ‘At half of the term.’

T0/T+1

2

Betty

no midterm= no midterm ‘No, midterm.’

T0/T+2

3

Rita

=midterm midterm ‘Midterm.’

T+3

4

Susan

↗midterm midterm ‘Midterm?’

re-confirmation

5

Betty

uhum RT ‘Yes.’

assertion

(46) Extract: jɔ̀ Pàjá ‘The people of Paja’ 1

Hellen

wà-bèdò gàŋ p’` Otema 1pls-be.pst home poss name ‘We were at Otema’s place.’ (0.97)

T-1

2

Betty

ì Acholi Inn loc name ‘In Acholi Inn Hotel?’ (0.4)

T0

138

chapter 3

3

Hellen

Acholi Inn kʊ̀ name neg ‘Not Acholi Innǃ’

4

Hellen

Acholi Inn wà-bèdò làwór name 1pls-be.pst yesterday ‘We were in Acholi Inn yesterday.’ (0.75)

5

Hellen

wà-bèdò ì nìnò cà-nì day qnt-dem 1pls-be.pst loc Pa-,(0.49) jengo name ‘The other day we were in Pajengo.’

T+1

further relevant information

concluding RS

While the repair resolution in (45) consists of a single turn, repeated by another speaker, the satisfactory reaction to the repair initiation is not achieved in Hellen’s first turn after the repair initiation by her daughter Betty in (46). Hellen cannot easily end the repair resolution by saying Acholi Inn kʊ̀ ‘not Acholi Inn’, she is required to give some extra, relevant information to resolve the case. The additional statement Acholi Inn wàbèdò láwòr ‘we were in Acholi Inn yesterday’, helps Betty to understand that her memory of a meeting in Acholi Inn Hotel was indeed correct, but does not refer to the current information given by Hellen about the meeting at Otema’s. After the repair resolution, Hellen provides Betty with the information that, at the time mentioned (nìnò cànì), they were meeting in Pajengo. Hence, in this case, the repair sequence is longer than in the first example above, and the repair resolution consists of a multiunit-turn uttered by Hellen, divided by rejection, further relevant referential information and a concluding statement, which clarifies the actual position of the meeting. 3.3.2 Other-Initiated Repair In other-initiated repair, another conversation participant initiates repair while the speaker occupies a turn. As a result, the person who initiates repair is rarely the one who resolves the trouble (Kitzinger 2013). However, other-initiated selfrepair and other-initiated other-repair both exist; as seen in (45), where Susan’s statement is repaired by her sister-in-law and sister. In (47), other-initiated selfrepair is displayed: While Susan talks about àwóbí cànì ‘that boy’, called by her friend to carry both of them on his motorbike to the village, Paul seems to have problems in recognizing who she is talking about and thus asks her to iden-

139

conversational micro- and macro-management

tify the boy further. This leads to a passage that can be seen as another repair sequence, or, even more closely resembles a complex multi-turn repair resolution: (47) Extract: àwánò mɛ́ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ‘The motorcycle accident’ 1

Susan

àwóbí cà-nì à-pé gì number boy dem-dem 1sgs-neg with number cɪ́m-ɛ́ phone-3sgposs ‘That boy whose number I don’t have.’

T-1

T0

2

Paul

mèné? intj.which ‘Which one?’

3

Susan

boda àcɛ́l-ì motorcycle.driver num.one-dem ‘One of the boda drivers.’

T+1

4

Paul

okay Ocii kónò yâ okay name or mp ‘Okay, that must have been Ocii.’ (lit. ‘how about Ocii?’)

T-12

5

Susan

Ocii kʊ̀ name neg ‘Not Ocii.’

T02

6

Susan

mà-, mà ŋwɛ́cɔ̀ rel rel 3sgs.race.prs ‘That-, that one who drives’

7

Susan

kì pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ pà Monica nì com motorcycle poss name dem ‘with the motorcycle of Monica.’

8

Paul

aha Okema rt name ‘Aha, Okemaǃ’

further relevant information/ T+12

re-confirmation

140 9

chapter 3

Susan

Okema name ‘Okema.’

assertion

Paul, who assumes he has correctly identified the initially unknown boy as Ocii (line 4), provides a statement with his assumption that is corrected by Susan (line 5). They resolve the conversational trouble together, eventually, as Susan provides further information on the person she talks about; this helps Paul identify him as Otema, the regular driver for their common friend, and Paul’s relative, Monica. It appears that complex repair resolutions occur quite often; on many occasions, despite the resolution itself being simple, the turn or sequence structure is quite lengthy. Consider (48), a discussion between employees, at the reception of the Golden Gate Hotel. Chris and Francis, who are sitting at the reception, talk about a guest who they simply call ‘the Auditor General’. Two other colleagues are standing next to the reception. They confer whether ‘the Auditor General’ will sleep in their hotel for another night as, apparently, someone called Mukungu booked his room for him and they must now wait for Mukungu to confirm his extended stay: (48) Extract: pé àbítíyò ì ɪ̀yɛ́ ‘I won’t work in it’ 1

Chris

Mukungu àyé kónì mɪ́yɔ̀ mɪ́yɔ̀ name cf soon 3sgs.give.prs 3sgs.give.prs go ahead T-1 go.ahead ‘Mukungu is indeed the on who soon gives-, gives the go ahead.’

2

Chris

pé à-ŋéyò neg 1sgs-know.prs ‘I don’t know.’

3

Staff 1

Mukungu má mèné nì name rel intr.which dem ‘Which Mukungu?’

4

Francis

auditor general bèné ò-bʊ̀ tɔ̀ málɔ̀ name as.well 3sgs-sleep.pst up ‘Did the auditor general also sleep upstairs?’

T0

T-12 (FPP)

conversational micro- and macro-management

141

5

Chris

ɛ̀h-ɛ̀h én ò-bʊ̀ tɔ̀ Mukungu àyé ò-booking rt 3sgs 3sgs-sleep.pst name cf 3sgs-booking ìt-è T02/T+12 (SPP) for-3sgo ‘No, he slept, it was indeed Mukungu who booked (the room) for him.’

6

Francis

mh rt ‘Mhm.’

7

Chris

↘mh Mukungu nyér ‘á tyé kì bar ènì rt name guy rel cop com bar dem ‘Mhm, Mukungu is the guy who has that bar.’

8

Francis

éê rt ‘Oh, yesǃ’

9

Chris

ì corner loc corner ‘At the corner.’

10

Staff 2

Mukungu Caro name ‘Mukungu Caro.’

11

Chris

ɛ̀h én àyé ò-booking ìt nyér-ì nyér-ì ènì àyé rt 3sgs cf 3sgs-booking for guy-dem guy-dem dem cf ‘Yes, it was indeed he who booked it for this guy, that guy indeed.’

T+1

When Chris asserts that the room of the auditor general was booked by Mukungu, his colleague initiates a repair by inquiring who Mukungu is (line 2). Before Chris replies to her question, Francis asks another question (line 3), which Chris addresses first. After the inserted adjacency pair sequence, Chris finally replies to his colleague’s inquiry (line 6). However, this only occurs after he finishes the other sequence with a minimal post-expansion; consisting of Francis’ reactive token mh, followed by another, assertive mh by Chris that closes the inserted sequence. After more elaboration from Chris, the second

142

chapter 3

present staff member specifies Mukungu Caro (line 9), which is actually the name of the bar at the corner closest to the Golden Gate Hotel. In order to make comparisons between various repair instances possible, Dingemanse et al. (2016) offer a detailed practice to study and analyze instances of other-initiated repair in everyday language use. Their “coding scheme” covers up to 37 steps, divided in categories from A to F, which enable a thorough consideration of other-initiated repairs. While the steps in category A deal with basic data about the language itself, as well as transcriptions and translations of extracts containing linguistic repair of any kind, the last five categories present more explicit approaches to single aspects of a particular repair sequence: Among them are repair initiation (B); the trouble source turn (C), including noise in the background of an encounter which may obstruct the sound of what is being said; a repair solution (D); visible bodily behavior during the repair sequences (E); and finally the consideration of the sequence itself (F), including the examination of participation frameworks as well as intervening turns in between the trouble source turn and the repair initiation. Category B includes the linguistic devices of OIR mentioned in Schegloff et al. (1977), for example question words, partial repetitions and others. However, it exceeds these devices through further, more explicit examinations of OIR, among them: the complexity of the repair initiation; the way of targeting the trouble through the initiation (open, restricted, external or by an alternative question); and the relevance of (dis)confirmations, required by each particular type of repair initiation. The coding scheme is supposed to function as a tool for “systematic comparison of other-initiated repair across languages” (Dingemanse et al. 2016:35) and it appears to serve its purpose well. The coding scheme was applied to a number of other-initiated repair sequences in Acholi conversations, whereby the proposed categories could be easily assigned to the particular repair instances within the conversational extracts. Table 11 displays a comparison of the four examples of OIR in the current chapter, (45)–(48), according to the coding scheme. The five main subjects to be compared in a repair sequence (i.e. repair initiation, trouble source turn, repair solution, sequence, and visible behavior) are examined to explore the shifting characteristics and relationships throughout different parts of the sequence. In Table 11, these five and their relevant features, as proposed by Dingemanse et al. (2016), are highlighted in different shades of gray. For instance, all the research questions that should be answered for the repair initiation turn (T0) are highlighted in the lightest gray, whereas everything that should be checked about visible behavior during the repair sequence is marked in the darkest shade. The answers for the four examples are high-

conversational micro- and macro-management

143

lighted in red (45), yellow (46), green (47), and blue (48). These are placed next to each other in columns below the particular examination question, so that comparison is easier. In order to analyze the repair sequence, Dingemanse et al. (2016) propose starting with the repair initiation turn: T0. First, the type of turn is determined (other-initiated repair, question-formatted news receipts, like ‘really?’ etc.). Second, an additional action—apart from repair initiation—is defined. This may be surprise or disbelief, a misaligning action like disagreement, a non-serious action like a joke, another type of action or no other action at all. After the identification of T0’s position in the sequence, the way in which the repair initiation targets the conversational trouble is analyzed. This may be openly approached or in a restricted way; in other words, the repair initiation may or may not clearly name and identify the problem that occurs in the trouble source turn: T-1. Alternative questions, as well as an external approach (i.e. the mentioning of something that is not mentioned in T-1), are other ways to target the conversational problem of T-1 in T0. Repetition and the use of content question words (‘which one?’, ‘who?’) in T0 are relevant for the comparisons as well. The utterance in turn T0 may demand for confirmation or disconfirmation in the following turn. Moreover, T0 is sometimes explicitly marked as repair initiation (‘you mean …?’) and can consist of a simple turnstructure (one turn), or a complex one (multiple turns). In (45), there are two relevant T0-turns: Rita’s ì half, and Betty’s no, midterm. Both of them are OIR, as they react to Susan’s statement. While Rita’s turn does not necessarily perform an action other than initiating repair, the turn of Betty clearly shows a misaligning action (i.e. disagreement). As they are both followed by more turns before the repair is resolved, Rita’s turn begins a nonminimal sequence. Both initiations are restricted as they clearly indicate the problem of Susan’s utterance and, while they do so, they are both repeating parts of Susan’s turn (‘term’). However, neither of them asks anything about the content of Susan’s turn, and their disagreement with Susan’s statement does not make confirmation or disconfirmation relevant. As they are simple and clear statements, the repair initiation turns of Rita and Betty do not include any particular markings to indicate that they function as repair initiation. In comparison with the other repair sequences, one can start to analyze interrelated results and conditions that lead to these conclusions. This analysis is possible using the four examples from the Acholi extracts; parts of it are displayed in Table 11. While displaying only four repair sequences, Table 11 shows that instances of other-initiated repair can be very dissimilar in terms of conversational organization. Dingemanse et al. (2016) already mention some coherences including the repetition of material in T0 when the conversational trouble is targeted

144

chapter 3

table 11

Four cases of other-initiated repair in Acholi Repair Initiation (T0)

Trouble Source Turn (T-1)

Type: OIR; question-formatted news receipts (QNR); other (O)

Sequential status? FPP; SPP; other (O)

OIR

FPP

OIR

OIR

OIR

O

Other action: none (N); surprise/disbelief (S/D); disaligning action (DA); non-serious action (NSA); other (O)

Self-repair in T-1?

N/DA

no

N

N

N

no

O

O

no

yes

no

no

Position: one and only (OO); first of non-minimal (FNM); other (O); Noise/overlap? last of non-minimal (LNM) FNM/O

FNM

FNM

FNM

no

no

Target of problem: open (OP); restricted (R); alternative question (AQ); external (E)

Visible restrictions as source for T-1?

R

no

E

OP

R

no

no

no

Type of open repair initiation: interjection (INTJ); question word (QW); formulaic (F); visible only (VO)

Recipient involved in parallel course of action?

---

no

---

QW

---

Repeated material of T-1: full (F); partial (P); no P

no

---

P

(yes)

yes

---

no

Content question word? no

no

(Dis-)Confirmation Relevant? no

yes

Added explicit marking of T0 function? no

no

no

no

S

S

Simple (S) or Complex (C)? S

S

no

no

no

145

conversational micro- and macro-management

Repair Solution (T+1) Repetition from T-1? full (F); partial (P); no no/P

no

no

---

---

P

no

Modification of T-1?

yes

yes

yes

yes

Inclusion of (dis-) confirmation of T0? no

yes

no

Visible Behavior

Participation frameworkː dyadic (D); multi (M)

Omission of ‘dispensable’ items of T-1? yes

Sequence

M

D

D

S Gazing at L during T-1?

M

yes

yes

yes

Contribution of more than two speakers to OIR sequence?

L gazing at S during T-1?

yes3

yes

no

no

yes4

yes

yes

yes

yes

Intervening material between T-1 and T0?

Does L move body or head during T0?

no

---

no

no

yes

---

---

---

Easily noticeable facial action by L? no

yes

---

no

no

Any behavior held by L from T0 – T+1? no

no

no

no

Example (45) Example (46) Example (47) Example (48)

146

chapter 3

in a restricted way, i.e. when the type or location of the trouble is indicated in the repair-initiating turn. However, this case contradicts the Dingemanse et al. claim that restricted repair-initiations, which include repeats, may make confirmation or disconfirmation relevant. Rather, external repair-initiation—i.e. one that targets something that was not mentioned in T0 (as in 46)—seem to trigger confirmation or disconfirmation in Acholi. However, the table can only facilitate a first insight into the possibilities of the comparison of conversational repair strategies in Acholi. Nevertheless, it provides a hint; that a comparison of different types of repair sequence organization, as well as of linguistic strategies applied in particular languages, may lead to further fruitful information about seemingly universal trends in the field of repair. Moreover, the comparisons may cast a light on the dependencies of subsequent organizational developments in repair sequences in single languages and crosslinguistically. 3.3.3 Self-Initiated Repair According to studies, self-initiated self-repair is preferred over any other repair organizational format; whereby the repair solution takes place in the position of T0 or T+1 (Levinson 1983; Holtgraves 2002; Schegloff et al. 1977). In some cases, other conversation participants support the self-repair, but: Typically, there is a shift from non-collaborative to collaborative organization: at first, self-repair is preferred; audience collaboration is invited only after one or more attempts at self-repair have failed. Streeck 1995:95

Commonly, self-initiated self-repair is accompanied by one of the following features: cut-offs, hesitations, continuers like uh, or sound-stretches; used by a speaker to indicate that a repair is going to take place (Schegloff 1984; Streeck 1995). The function of these practices in initiating repair is closely intertwined with their role in maintaining a turn: The implication that a turn is not yet completed goes hand in hand with a self-interrupted turn that will continue with a repair. Streeck (1995) found that in the Philippian language Ilokano, repair is mainly initiated by sound-stretches, whereas cut-offs and continuers are less common. Sound-stretching also belongs to the most common self-repair initiation in Acholi, but cut-offs occur quite often as well, while uh’s are not so common. Two typical cut-offs are displayed in (49): ànò- (line 1) and Sh-, Ch(line 2). The first cut-off serves as “prospective repair”, indicating an upcoming trouble source, while the second functions as “retrospective repair” of something that has already been said (ibid.: 93).

conversational micro- and macro-management

147

(49) Extract: àwánò mɛ́ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ‘The motorcycle accident’ 1

Susan

à-nɔ̀ -, án bè’ dɔ̀ k à-dònyò ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́ 1sgs- 1sgs also again 1sgs-enter.pst loc stomach-3sgposs kà cɪ́kɔ̀ Sharon prog instruct.prs name ‘I-, me too, I entered inside to say goodbye to Sharon.’

2

Susan

Sh-, Ch-, Brenda ò-wɔ̀ tɔ̀ kà má wà-wɪ́lɔ̀ ì name 2sgs-walk.pst place rel 1pls-buy.pst loc biscuit ɪ̀y-ɛ́ stomach-3sgposs biscuit ‘Sh-, Ch-, Brenda went to the place where we buy biscuits.’

Examples (50–51) provide common examples of sound-stretching being used as an indicator for upcoming repair: (50) Extract: àwánò mɛ́ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ‘The motorcycle accident’ 1

Susan

Brenda ò-gɔ̀y-ɛ̀ cɪ́m kì::: Okulu name 3sgs-beat.pst-3sgo phone com name ‘Brenda caaalled Okulu.’

(51) Extract: jɔ̀ Pàjá ‘The people of Paja’ 1

Hellen

tyé jɔ̀ p’` Atiya cop people poss name ‘There are the ones of Atiya,’ (0.76)

2

Hellen

tyé jɔ̀ p’` Aboy cop people poss name ‘there are the ones of Aboy,’ (0.7)

3

Hellen

kì jɔ̀ p’` Ojok cop people poss name ‘and the ones of Ojok.’ (0.87)

148

chapter 3

4

Hellen

kì jɔ̀ p’ò:::-, jɔ̀ pà-, cop people poss people poss ‘And the ones ooof, the people of-,’ (0.41)

5

Hellen

én p’` Agula gìn-ì Jabuloni 3sgs poss name 3pls-dem name ‘The one of Agula and those of Jabuloni.’ (1.18)

6

Hellen

kì::: (0.37) jɔ̀ p’` Atiya à-wàcɔ̀ com people poss name 1sgs-say.pst ‘Aaand-, did I mention the ones of Atiya?’

The two examples (50–51) portray how sound-stretching is used to facilitate repair initiation. In (50), Susan is trying to remember a name, and while doing so, she prolongs the kì to hold her turn. Hellen does something similar twice in (51): When she enumerates various different clans, she holds the p’ò:: (line 4) for about 1.36 seconds. She then changes it into pà, which may be a slight hint that she is already aware of the fact that she will not say a name starting with ‘O-’ next. She then again prolongs a word, this time the kì ‘and’, before asking her children if she has already mentioned ‘the people of Atiya’. A striking feature here is the paralinguistic realization of silence: While the lapses before the turnunits of her multi-unit turn are considerably long—longer than the average lapses before the sound-stretches start—the lapses right after the units with the sound-stretches are particularly short—shorter than the average lapse at the beginning of her enumeration. In general, sound-stretches enable a negotiation of the conversational organization, as they provide “opportunity spaces” (Streeck 1995:96): In case a sound-stretch takes too long, another conversation participant has the ‘opportunity’ to intervene and collaboratively help the speaker to express the missing word, or respectively the word that needs to be repaired. Thus, if the soundstretch is too long, the attempted self-repair is considered ‘failed’ and consequently, the intervention of a recipient is acceptable. In other words, “the longer the stretch, the more compelled the recipient may feel to treat it as a ‘repairable’” (ibid.). The same holds true for lapses: The longer a lapse between two utterances by one speaker becomes, the more likely it is that another speaker labels it as a pause, self-selects and takes over the turn. Therefore, instead of letting her lapses become too long, Hellen continues talking, even though she has not yet found what to say. Thus, she again uses a sound-stretch

conversational micro- and macro-management

149

to prolong her opportunity for self-repair—i.e. to find the words. The same seems to apply to lapses after sound-strech turns: short lapses after turns with stretches might help to indicate that the speaker is not yet ready to give up the turn, as the stretch has already challenged turn-loss for the speaker. If the lapse after a stretch is too long (or as data suggests, only as long as a lapse after a normal turn), the chances seem higher that the speaker loses the right to hold their turn. (52) Extract: jɔ̀ Pàjá ‘The people of Paja’ 1

Hellen

àŋà-gì àŋà-gì ték-ì lùtɪ́nɔ intr.who-pl intr.who-pl 3sgs-take.sides-dem nmz.pl:child má Onang cà rel name dem ‘And who else, who else, all the children of Onang are included.’

Later in the same extract (52), Hellen adapts another strategy while she continues to list more relatives of the clans: Instead of prolonging syllables while she looks for words, she starts to use the question word àŋà ‘who’ (also used: ŋà). Though, as she is aware that she is still listing people, she combines it with the plural marker -gɪ̀. Through this construction, she indicates that she is searching for a plurality and that the recipients can project the same; this means that, in the case that the repair fails, they could collaboratively suggest a plural entity to fill the slot. A similar collaborative strategy can be seen in other instances of word-search by Acholi speakers, where an expression based on the lexeme gìn ‘thing’ is frequently used. 3.3.4 Searching for Words: The Case of gìnɛ̀ Throughout conversations and monologues, such as explanations, descriptions or narrations of events in the past, conversation does not always fluently flow. Not only do cases of repair occur when someone twists one’s own tongue or incidentally utters a wrong word, but speakers also look for words when they talk. In addition to the typical refillers and continuers like uhm, hmm etc., speakers often make use of a particular lexeme in their language: a substitution for the term they are ‘looking for’. This common practice indicates that the speaker is searching for the correct word to choose or that he has forgotten which word to use. In many languages, this lexeme is derived from the word for ‘thing’, as in German dings (also further derivated as dingsbums, dingsda) or English thingy. The same applies for Acholi gìnɛ̀ ‘that thing’: Gìnɛ̀ is a frequently used initiating self-repair strategy, particularly in the case of

150

chapter 3

word-search while the speaker simultaneously aims to maintain the current turn. Just like German dings can be verbalized (gedingst ‘thingied’), gìnɛ̀ is adjustable to any syntactic environment. In the corpus it occurred as the temporary substitute for a noun, as well as whole noun phrases (53), but also as a verb (54) and in more complex verbal constructions with a gerund (55). (53) Extract: ɔ̀ mɛ́gì-wá-nì tyé sharp márâc ‘This brother of ours is very clever’ 1

Martin

ɛ́ɛ:́ gìn-ɛ̀ dɔ̀ k ‘ù-bìnò (0.86) ɛ́h? uhm MP s intj thing-dem again 3pls-come.pst rti intj MP s members of parliament members.of.parliament ‘Uhm, someone came again, eh? Uhm, MP s, the members of the parliament.’

(54) Extract: cél má nɔ́ ngɔ̀ én òmákò nì ‘The picture that she took’ 1

Brenda

nɔ́’ myɛ́rɔ̀ ín ì-gìn-ɛ̀ asp must.prs 2sgs 2sgs-thing-dem ‘You need to-,’

2

Joyce

[°(h)éêh°] rt ‘Eehǃ’

3

Brenda

[nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ myɛ́rɔ̀ ín] ì-nyút-ì= asp must.prs 2sgs 2sgs-show.prs-dem ‘You need to show that.’ (0.11)

4

Joyce

=éê rt ‘Eeh.’

(55) Extract: lòk pà dyɛ̀l-ì ‘The issue of the goat’ 1

Brenda

ɛ́ɛ́ pé gù-gɔ̀yɔ̀ cɪ́m ènò-nì gù-gìn-ɛ̀ rt neg 3pls-beat.pst phone dem-dem 3pls-thing-dem àgínà thing.grd ‘Eh, they never called but they just-,’

conversational micro- and macro-management

2

Joyce

gù-bìnò ↗àbínà 3pls-come.pst come.grd ‘Did they just come?’ (0.08)

3

Brenda

àbínà gù-bìnò 3pls-come.pst come.grd ‘They just came.’ (0.11)

4

Joyce

mmh rt ‘Mmh’

151

With this distinct syntactic complexity, gìnɛ̀ allows the recipient(s) to project and reconstruct at least the grammatical shape of the expression which the speaker intended to utter. While in (53–54) the speakers use gìnɛ̀ to indicate an ongoing turn, as they find the resolution for the substituted expression, in (55) Joyce participates in the collaborative word-search (line 2), mimicking the predefined grammatical structure of Brenda (line 1). She uses Brenda’s guideline of a verb with gerund expansion to suggest gùbìnò ábìná ‘did they just come?’, which is confirmed by Brenda who repeats the phrase. As a noun or noun phrase, gìnɛ̀ is invariant, as a verb it can take the subject pronoun prefix as well as object suffixes. Gìnɛ̀, which consists of the noun gìn and the demonstrative suffix -ɛ̀, keeps the demonstrative suffix in the same position even if an object-suffix is attached to the word. Therefore, an expression like ìgìnɛ̀gì ‘did you … them?’ is grammatically plausible. 3.3.5 Overlaps Compared to the organization of repair sequences, which are a result of misunderstandings or requests for information by the listeners, the study of overlaps in Acholi yields a different picture to the general studies. Firstly, overlaps occur frequently in the place of projected TRP’s (Holtgraves 2002; Jefferson 1986; Levinson and Torreira 2015; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 2000) and they are even more common at this point when there are more than two speakers participating in a conversation (Schegloff 2000). Example (56a) shows a short overlap at the projected TRP, while (56b) displays one that emerges when two speakers self-select as a new turn starts.

152

chapter 3

(56) a. Extract: àcʊ́ lɔ̀ mɛ́ ŋɔ̀ ? ‘For what do I pay?’ 1

Betty

mɪ̀n Patience án à-ŋéyò àtɪ́r ní kà mother name 1sgs 1sgs-know.prs straight comp place má rel ‘Patience’s mother-, I know for sure that Patience’s mother does not have anywhere’

2

Betty

térò Patience én rɔ́ mɔ̀ 3sgs 3sgs.be.sufficient.prs take.prs name [kì kány pékè] from here neg ‘to take Patience from here.’

3

Rita

4

Rita

[kʊ̀ ] kì wàcɔ̀ mɛ́rɛ́ àwácà pé neg com talk really say.grd neg ‘Noǃ It was just no serious talk,’ ní dɔ̀ ŋ ò-kwány Patience ò-tèr comp then 3sgs-take.prs name 3sgs-take.prs ‘we do not want that she takes Patience away.’

Example (56a) presents a very common form of overlap ‘between-overlap’: the overlap of one turn’s end with another one’s initiation (Levinson and Torreira 2015, cf. Figure 11). The onset of kʊ̀ ‘no’ overlaps with the preceding turn’s final words kì kány pékè ‘not from here’. With a length of 0.76 seconds, the overlap in (56a) lies below the modal duration, 0.96 seconds of overlap, in between two turns (ibid.). According to Levinson and Torreira, when overlaps occur, the most common feature that they are accompanied by is a possible TRP (37 %). The same holds true for Acholi. Simultaneous starts are very common as well, especially after a period of silence (ibid.). In (56b), a bit further into the same abstract, Rita and the other interlocutors continue to talk about the mother of Patience: Rita’s stepdaughter. When Rita apparently finishes her turn, Hellen self-selects to affirm Rita’s stance. However, Rita still wants to maintain her turn as she has not yet finished complaining about the reckless behavior of mɪ̀n Patience (the mother of Patience). This leads to a short overlap of 0.74 seconds at the beginning of both of their turns.

conversational micro- and macro-management

figure 11

153

Illustration of within-overlap and between-overlap Levinson and Torreira 2015:16

(56) b. Extract: àcʊ́ lɔ̀ mɛ́ ŋɔ̀ ? ‘For what do I pay?’ 1

Rita

pé gìn-ɔ̀ mɔ́ neg thing-dem qnt ‘Nothing else.’

2

Betty

[mɪ̀n Patience pé] twérò gìn-ɔ̀ mɔ́ mother name neg 3sgs.have.power thing-dem qnt ‘The mother of Patience cannot manage anything.’

3

Rita

[kì-ŋèyò mérè-nì yàmɔ̀ ] ims-know.pst chase.prs-dem wind ‘We knew it is chasing after the wind.’ (lit. ‘it is known that …’)

As “[t]he most obvious practice for stopping talk by more than one at a time is to stop talking” (Schegloff 2000:4), at times speakers cut-off and restart their turn when turn-initial overlap occurs. The same is done by Brenda, who watches a pregnant lady in high heels pass by together with Joyce. While Joyce is inspired to talk about a pregnancy topic by the appearance of that woman, Brenda takes the high heels as a topic (57): (57) 1

Brenda

[án à-rúkù-,] 1sgs 1sgs-dress.prs ‘I wear-,’

154

chapter 3

2

Joyce

3

Brenda

[kónó ‘bí-]tɪ́mɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ how.about 3sgs-fut-do.prs intr.what [ɪ̀y-ɛ́ kány stomach-3sgs.poss here ‘I wonder what it will do inside here (i.e. during birth).’ [án à-rúkù-,] kìcɛ́l kìcɛ́l 1sgs 1sgs-dress.prs once once ‘I wear them (i.e. high heels) once in a while.’

However, overlaps seem to occupy an, otherwise rather uncommon, property: They often occur ‘unresolved’ and allegedly unnoticed. In general, it is claimed that overlaps demand a quick resolution, which can be accomplished through various practices: One speaker can cut off, as in (57), to give room to the other speaker; increase the volume or pitch of their speech to maintain the turn; speak faster or slower; stretch sounds; or repeat elements (cf. Schegloff 2000). As well as leading to an easier resolution of the overlap situation, these features also plainly indicate that conversational trouble is occurring. According to Schegloff (2000:1), contrary to what is often assumed, the preference for ‘one party talking at a time’ and hence, overlap resolution, is rarely concerned with politeness; rather it is associated with the retention of conversational structure, in order to guarantee consistent achievement of active and reactive behavior: This is a matter not so much of politeness as of the constitutive features of commonplace talk-in-interaction, as an enabling institution for orderly commerce between people. (Of course, systems of etiquette are commonly found in societies as a social control resource to motivate and reinforce compliance.) The absence of such an organization would subvert the possibility of stable trajectories of action and responsive action through which goal-oriented projects can be launched and pursued through talk in interaction, whether to success or failure. In (58), the increase of speed functions, as a mechanism to hold the floor, can be observed. Joyce seems to speak faster and faster so that Brenda does not have any opportunity to establish her own turn, until she eventually manages to talk after several restarts and cut-offs.

155

conversational micro- and macro-management

(58) Extract: cél má nɔ̀ ngɔ̀ èn òmákò nì ‘The picture that she took’ 1

Joyce

[én dɔ̀ ŋ >gìn ènì] dɔ̀ ŋ cɪ́tɔ̀ [yábò] dɔ̀ ŋ 3sgs then thing dem then 3sgs.go.prs 3sgs.open.prs then [gì-wínyò ŋɔ̀ 3pls-hear.prs eri.what ‘Then she, then this thing, she is going to open it then, so that they hear what?’

2

Joyce

má mɪ́tɔ̀ pyér àdɛ́k °dɔ̀ ŋ time num.six com num.tens num.three then

268

chapter 5

figure 35 Showing distance: ‘up to Ngai’ (line 1, ex. 106)

wà-tyé wà Ngai°< 1pls-cop up.to name ‘At tw-, 12.30p.m. we were up to Ngai.’ |-------------G1-------------| (0.87) 2

Paul

ʊ̀ -kwɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ kéd-é Ngai-ɔ́ 2pls-begin.pst com-3sgo name-compl ‘You passed by Ngai?’ (0.11)

3

Susan

ɛ̀ɛ̀ rt ‘Yesǃ’

G1 Snapping twice while holding the arm up to indicate the direction of a place (Figure 35) In repair sequences, the same, finger snapping, deictic gesture may function as a repair initiation (cf. 46, in 3.3): As Hellen shortly hesitates, when saying that she visited Pajengo, it indicates that she has not yet finished her turn (cf. 3.1). After 1.45 seconds, Betty indicates that she knows the place Hellen means by snapping her fingers three times with a risen arm (Figure 36), taking her arm down again with the last snap. By starting to snap, Betty becomes a part of the repair sequence, collaborating with Hellen and creating a reference point. This way, Hellen can finally find and articulate the word “farm”. As she does so, she obviously agrees with Betty’s suggestion, which closes the repair sequence.

269

non-verbal contributions to conversation

figure 36 Showing distance: ‘Pajengo farm’ (line 6, ex. 21)

5.2

Non-verbal Action in Conversation: A Note on Paralinguistic Features Àbókà làm ‘Narration alone is inadequate’ Acholi Saying

∵ This chapter describes some important paralinguistic features of Acholi contribute much pragmatic meaning; the ‘kiss-teeth’ gesture, laughter (5.2.1) and the structural organization (5.2.2) of conversation. The latter is marked by audible breathing, which, seemingly universally, conduces turn-transition patterns. Further, silence plays an important role in the socio-cultural context (5.2.3). 5.2.1 Laughter and Kiss-Teeth While hand gestures, as discussed in chapter 5.1, provide a “visible action as utterance” (Kendon 2004), not every explicit demonstration of feelings, emotions, or attitude is socially accepted in most East African societies (cf. YahyaOthman 1994 on socially accepted behavior in Swahili). In order to express negative feelings such as anger, disgust or even horror, speakers therefore use less ‘obvious’ strategies, which also fulfil a variety of functions in conversational interaction.

270

chapter 5

In the conversation analytic approach, laughter is first and foremost analyzed as an “interactional phenomenon, not necessarily bound to a humorous event” (Vöge 2008:52). The use of laughter as a structured device in the progress of turn-taking (Jefferson 1979, 1984) is as well-known as the overlapping nature of laughter, which does not affect conversational orderliness (Vöge 2008, cf. Sacks 1995). The use of laughter has been studied in various approaches, among them the organization of “alignments, intimacy and distance through laughter”, “shared laughter”, “the gendered aspect of laughter”, “laughter as a means to manage linguistic incompetence” and laugther in institutional settings (ibid.: 54–55). Günther (2003) discusses six types of laughter: affiliative laughter, contextualizing laughter (indicating that an utterance is not serious), disaffiliative laughter (expressing disapproval), reflexive laughter (the laughter of the listener(s) precedes the speaker’s), heterogeneous laughter (possiblly functionally ambivalent), and others, which do not fit into any of the categories. In the Acholi corpus, several of these laughter types occur. Take, for instance, the affiliative and reflexive laughter in (107)—also (28)—, where Betty sees me clapping my hands together, in order to easily synchronize the audio and video files of the recordings later. (107) Extract: mosquito ‘Mosquito’ 1

Betty

mosquito mosquito ‘Mosquito?’

2

All

h.h.h.h laughter ‘Hahaha!’ (3.21)

3

Susan

gìn-ɛ̀ camera kì-tɪ́mɔ̀ kì-flapping thing-dem camera ims-do.prs ims-flap.prog ‘That thing, the camera, it is done the flapping,’

4

Susan

gìn-ɛ̀ kì-tɪ́mɔ̀ flap-flap-nì cà-nì thing-dem ims-do.prs ono-dem dem-dem ‘that thing is done like that flap-flap.’

5

Betty

èèê rt ‘Eehǃ’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

271

Everybody in the room laughs as she asked me if I killed a mosquito, until Susan explains the function of my action to Betty. Example (108) shows another part of the Radio Show Wàŋ-òò, where Muzee Okello explains the functions of proverbs and sayings. While he starts his explanations with a friendly, yet serious tone, he speaks of ‘unreasonable behavior’ and ‘punishments’. (108) Extract: ŋàt má márɔ̀ tɪ́mɔ̀ kɪ̀r ‘Someone who loves to commit infringement’ 1

Emma

ènò-nì pwónyò dánɔ níníŋ dem-dem 3sgs-teach.prs people intr.how ‘What does that teach people?’

2

Muzee Okello

ɛ́ ènò ì kìt pà Acoli↗ rt dem loc character poss name ‘Eh, this is in the character of the Acholi.’ (3.21)

3

Emma

mmh rt ‘Mh.’ (0.41)

4

Muzee Okello

i-nɛ́nɔ̀ ní 2sgs-see.prs comp ‘You see,’ (…) (0.44)

5

Muzee Okello

tɪ́mɔ̀ kɪ̀r ngàt ‘á márɔ̀ person rel 3sgs-love.prs do infringement ‘someone who loves to commit infringement (in the community),’ (0.16)

6

Emma

ònyò tɪ́m bwɔ̀ lɔ̀ - [bwɔ̀ lɔ̀ or behavior cheat-cheat ‘Or unreasonable behaviorǃ’

272

chapter 5

7

Muzee Okello

[nyò tɪ́m bwɔ̀ lɔ̀ or behavior cheat ‘—or to behave unreasonably—’

8

Emma

ɛ́ɛ=́ rt ‘Yeah.’

9

Muzee Okello

=myɛ́rɔ̀ ò-gìk ɔ̀ kɔ́ obl 3sgs-end.sub compl ‘should have stopped it.’ (0.32)

10

Muzee Okello

ìt ín mènò (0.17) pwód má kì-mɪ́yɔ̀ dem punishment rel ims-give.prs to 2sgs ‘That is, the punishment that they give you’

11

Muzee Okello

wɛ́k-ì kwány rɔ́ mɔ̀ ènò-nì (0.6) wɛ́k 3sgs.let.prs-2sgo take sheep dem-dem 3sgs.let.prs ki-tùm kéd-é ims-end com-3sgposs ‘is to bring the sheep, to make the sacrifice.’ (lit. ‘to end it with it’)

12

Muzee Okello

má ín ì-tɪ̀mɔ̀ mɛ́ tíŋò kɪ̀r mɔ́ -nì infringement qnt-dem rel 2sgs 2sgs-do.pst ben carry ‘The infringement that you committed may involve to carry away’

13

Muzee Okello

píg kwònò kì ‘` kènò water.of maize.flour.porrige com loc cooking.place ‘the (boiling) water for posho (i.e. maize flour porridge) from the stove,’

14

Emma

mmh= rt ‘Mh.’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

15

Muzee Okello

=mɛ́ ò-yón-è-kɔ́ ben 3sgs-pour-3sgo-compl ‘to pour it away,’ (0.19)

16

Muzee Okello

kùn gìn má myɛ́rɛ̀ kì-cám whereas thing rel obl ims-eat ‘while it was supposed to be eaten.’ (0.35)

17

Muzee Okello

wɛ́k ín dɔ̀ ŋ kà kényó (0.23) bínò place there 3sgs-come.prs let.prs 2sgs then díkì tomorrow ‘There it reaches a point the next day’

18

Muzee Okello

má cà ì-wác ní rel dem 2sgs-say.prs comp ‘when you say:’

19

Muzee Okello

ah tɪ́m má lànínò cà à-tɪ̀mɔ̀ nì intj action rel day dem 1sgs-do.pst dem ‘“What I did the other day,”’

20

Emma

ɛ́h rt ‘Eh.’

21

Muzee Okello

ò-kèlò ɪ̀r-à pékò ì ɔ̀ t-á 3sgs-bring.pst to-1sgo problem loc house-1sgposs nɛ̌n see.imp ‘“It brought problems to my house, see:” ’

22

Muzee Okello

twɔ̀ n nyɔ̀ k rɔ́ mɔ̀ -ná má-bɛ̂r male male sheep-1sgposs rel-good “‘my male sheep which is so good” ’

23

Muzee Okello

má yíb-é ò-mɛ̀tɛ̀-nì rel tail-3sgposs 3sgs-grow.large.and.wide.pst-dem ‘“and has a big and flat tail-,”’

273

274

chapter 5

24

Emma

h. [h.h] laughter ‘Hahaha!’

25

Muzee Okello

26

Emma

27

Emma

ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́ loc stomach-3sgposs ‘inside.’ (lit. ‘which its oil is found inside it’)

28

Muzee Okello

má [mɔ̀ -nɛ́ nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ tyé ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́ nì rel oil-3sgposs find cop loc stomach-3sgposs dem ‘The one with the oil in it’

29

Muzee Okello

tín lùdɪ̀tɔ̀ ] ènì dɔ̀ ŋ ò-cámɔ̀ = today nmz.pl:old dem now 3sgs-eat.pst ‘is now eaten by the elders todayǃ’

30

Emma

[h.h.h] laughter ‘Hahaha!’

31

Emma

àdádà truly ‘That’s the truthǃ’

[dɔ̀ (h)ŋ tín dánɔ̀ má-dɪ̀t ò-cá(h)mɔ̀ now today people rel-old 3sgs-eat.pst h.] [h.h laughter ‘“now today the elders eat itǃ” ’ nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ tyé [má mɔ̀ -nɛ́ rel oil-3sgposs find cop ‘Which has a lot of oil’

The dialogue reaches a point (line 24), where his remarks trigger a reaction from the host of the show, Emma. Emma starts to laugh as Okello cites a fictive problem and his laughter makes Okello laugh as well, while he continues speaking. Together, they create what Günther (2003) calls ‘contextualizing laughter’. Here, they combine different aspects together: The seriousness of the necessary knowledge of Acholi traditions and customs, as well as the accommodation

non-verbal contributions to conversation

275

for the frame that they work in, the radio show. In creating a humorous atmosphere, they do not only make the radio show a comfortable experience for their listeners, but they also create a comfortable feeling, familiar to the custom of wàŋ-òò, which gave the show its name: sitting at the fire, warming oneself, chatting with the elders about stories and life. All these aspects create comfortability for the listeners, as they are made part of a conversation type, which is familiar to them from their own experiences (cf. Baines 2017). A further type of laughter which has not been mentioned by Günther (2003), is a “bitter laugh”, a practice of seemingly inappropriate laughter described by Storch and Nassenstein (2020:17, orig. emph.) in several African languages: The bitter laugh as found in these different African settings is no laughter of funniness, hilarity, or cathartic relief, but is rather seen as a way how to deal with horror, and as a kind of swearing practice. It has become evident hat in its form it diverges from irony, sarcasm and ‘black humor’, and can rather be associated with the iconic representations of Shit happenshumor, that equally relates to a broadened understanding of swearing. The use of laughter as a practice to cope with distress and negative experiences is by no means exceptional. Sarcastic and ironic laughter are quite common features of conversations. As laughter increases pain tolerance (Dunbar et al. 2012), using it to handle uncomfortable situations with it is a reasonable strategy. Hausa speakers have their own lexeme—yāk’ē—to describe ‘a smiling expression hiding pain’. It stands in opposition to dā`riyā which denotes (‘normal’) laughter (Muhammad Muhsin Ibrahim, p.c.). An instance of laughter expressing annoyance occurs in (109a).5 Brenda and Joyce, still in the conversation about the events at Saint Joseph Primary School, wonder about the behavior of some of the students, who were acting strangely after they were given money to buy food by Brenda. (109) a. Extract: lànínò cà ì St. Joe ‘The other day in St. Joe Primary School’ 1

Joyce

ɛ́ntɔ́ ò-wà-í gù-bèdò kà complaining but 3sgs-say-comp 3pls-be.pst prog complain gù-bèdò kà: 3pls-be.pst prog ‘They were complaining, they were …’ (0.65)

5 See also example (23).

276

chapter 5

2

Joyce

gù-bèdò kà: h.h.h 3pls-be.pst prog laughter ‘they were-, hahaha!’ (0.23)

3

Brenda

bédò lù-yélà ɛ́ntɔ́ St. Joe gì-mɪ́tɔ̀ but name 3pls-want.prs be.prs nmz.pl-troublesome ‘But the ones of Saint Joe want to be troublesomeǃ’

4

Joyce

St. Joe nɛ́n cálɔ̀ lù-yélà bá name see.prs like nmz.pl-troublesome mp ‘Saint Joe really seems to be troublesomeǃ’

Another instance of this sort of ‘annoyance laughter’ can be seen in (110). While Susan was obviously angry about the driving style of the boda driver she went to the village with (line 2–8), she laughs when she explains the situation (line 9). This is definitely not a humorous story, as reflected by listener Paul, who reacts with only a few continuers that sound very serious and are not indicative of humor. (110) Extract: àwánò mɛ́ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ‘The motorcycle accident’ 1

Susan

mɛ́ ‘à kà cɪ́tɔ̀ rel 1pls prog go.prs ‘When we were going,’ (0.37)

2

Susan

bá ò-ŋwɛ̀cɔ̀ kéd-à àn bè‘ à-jʊ̀ kɔ̀ 3sgs-drive com-1sgo 1sgs also 1sgs-stop mp ‘he drove with me, I even stopped (him).’ (0.71)

3

Paul

m [mh rt ‘Mmh.’

4

Susan

[à -wà‘-í pé ì-ŋwɛ́c ‘á-tɛ̂k 1sgs -tell.pst-comp neg 2sgs-drive.prs rel-strong ‘I told him not to drive recklessly,’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

277

5

Susan

à-wà‘-í pole pole 1sgs-tell.pst-comp slow ‘I told him: “Drive slowly!”’ (0.56)

6

Susan

boda motorcycle.driver ‘“Driverǃ”’ (0.51)

7

Paul

mh rt ‘Mh.’ (0.59)

8

Susan

dwɔ̌ k ŋwɛ́c reduce.imp speed ‘“Reduce speedǃ’” (0.64)

9

Susan

h.H.h ((breaths in)) ò-bʊ̀ (h)k breath 3sgs-blow.pst laughter ‘It blew-, hahaha!’ (0.74)

10

Susan

à-òò< (0.52) kwìcà wɛ́ ì yàmò-, >à-òò there dm loc wind 1sgs-reach.pst 1sgs-reach.pst class wɛ́ class dm ‘the wind-, I reached, I reached, there in class.’ (0.18)

11

Paul

mh rt ‘Mh.’

The laughs in (109a) and (110) do not appear in a context of horror, as described for a ‘bitter laugh’, however they provide a means to cope with uncomfortable situations and experiences. They allow a type of swearing practice, in the sense of Storch and Nassenstein (2020), in that the speakers complain about the sit-

278

chapter 5

uations they recite. They do not use swear words, since this is not appropriate in many cultures, of which Acholi is one. In this way, laughter is an evaluative gesture which facilitates positive as well as negative evaluation depending on the conversational content and context. However, laughing is not the only way to express feelings such as annoyance. Another is the practice of “kiss-teeth” (Patrick and Figueroa 2002; Hollington 2017), also referred to as “suck-teeth” (Rickford and Rickford 1976). In the corpus, almost every conversation includes at least one occurrence of the kiss-teeth gesture, which functions as “a reaction and a statement which seeks to negotiate a moral standing” (Hollington 2017:90). In (109b), the conversation of Brenda and Joyce continues from where it stopped in (109a). (109) b. Extract: lànínò cà ì St. Joe ‘The other day in St. Joe Primary School’ 1

Joyce

ní ànyírà-nì gù-bèdò ‘à wác-í ŋɔ̀ comp girls-dem 3pls-be.pst prog say.pst-comp eri.what ‘These girls were saying what?’

2

Joyce

ò-myɛ̀rɛ̀ kì-pók-ìgì má céntè 3sgs-obl ims-distribute.sub-3plo rel money ‘That it should be distributed to them in cash.’ (0.34)

3

Brenda

mh rt ‘Mh.’

4

Joyce

ɛ́ɛ́ ní kì-mɪ́-ìgì má-kòm céntè rt comp ims-give.prs-3plo rel-body money ‘Eh, (they said) that they should give them cash.’ (0.28)

5

Brenda

mh rt ‘Mh.’ (0.38)

6

Joyce

pé-, pé kó’ kì-wɪ́l kó’ ŋɔ̀ neg neg how.about ims-buy.prs how.about eri.what ‘They should not buy them what?’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

279

7

Brenda

[mh] rt ‘Mh.’

8

Joyce

[pìén] gɪ̀-tyé gálɛ̀ kéd-, because 3sgs-cop delay.prs com ‘Because they are delaying with-,’

9

Joyce

gín mɪ́tɔ̀ wɛ́yɔ̀ -gì kónó ŋɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ = 3pls want.prs avoid-3pls how.about intr.what eri.what ‘they want to avoid them about what what?

10

Joyce

complaining dò =gù-bèdò kà 3pls-be.pst prog complain mp ‘They were complainingǃ’ (0.05)

9

Brenda

ní ŋà ò-mɪ́-ìgì kòm-, comp intr.who 3sgs-give.prs-3plo ca‘Who give them the ca-,’

10

Brenda

ŋà ò-myɛ̀rɛ̀ ò-mɪ́-ìgì má-kòm céntè= intr.who 3sgs-obl 3sgs-give.prs-3plo rel-body money ‘who is supposed to give them the cash?’

11

Joyce

[céntè èno]̀-nì =Acica ò-wá-í name 3sgs-say-comp money dem-dem ‘Acica. She said, that money,’

12

Joyce

ká dɔ̀ ŋ Acica pé mɪ́tɔ̀ wɪ́lɔ̀ gìn-mɔ́ cond then name neg 3sgs.want.prs buy thing-qnt ‘if Acica does not want to buy anything,’

13

Joyce

[cí Acic]a ò-mɪ́-ìgì má-kòm céntè dm name 3sgs-give.prs-3plo rel-body money ‘she should give them the cash.’ (0.23)

14

Brenda

[mh] rt ‘Mh.’

280

chapter 5

15

Brenda

[mh] rt ‘Mh.’

16

Brenda

mh rt ‘Mh.’

17

Joyce

éê ((kt)) ŋàt màn ò-wɪ́l gìn-á én rt kiss-teeth person dem 3sgs.buy.prs thing-rel 3sgs rɔ́ mɔ̀ 3sgs.be.able.prs ‘Yes, every person buys what he or she can.’

The prevalent topic in this extract is the expectation of Brenda’s and Joyce’s students to be given money instead of thin. The two speakers are not happy with the students’ reaction and after some periods of silence and back-channeling of Brenda (line 14–16), Joyce expresses her anger with the kiss-teeth gesture (line 17). [Kiss-teeth] refers to the gesture of drawing air through the teeth and into the mouth to produce a loud sucking sound. In the basic [kiss]-teeth gesture, the back of the tongue is raised toward the soft palate and a vacuum created behind a closure formed in the front part of the mouth. (…) When the air is suddenly relaxed, air outside the mouth rushes in audibly. Rickford and Rickford 1976:302–303

The gesture has African origins, where its use is still wide-spread today. However, it has found its way to Jamaica and to the African diaspora beyond, where it serves as a marker for “African/Black cultural identity” (Hollington 2017:89). Kiss-teeth is an evaluative gesture, although in contrary to laughter, it cannot connote a positive stance. It expresses various kinds of disapproval such as anger, impatience, annoyance, or disgust (Rickford and Rickford 1976:303; Hollington 2017:90). It can occur in the evaluation of any situation, as (111) shows:

non-verbal contributions to conversation

281

(111) Extracts: ín mérì pɪ̀ pork ‘You and pork’ & lòk pà dyɛ̀l-ì ‘The issue of the goat’ 1

Brenda

bè’ ò-nɔ́ ŋɔ̀ à-odering pork àyé bá ((kt)) also 3sgs-find.prs 1sgs-order pork cfm mp kiss-teeth ‘It would have also been good if I had ordered pork (instead).’ (1.03)

2

Joyce

ín mér-ì pɪ̀ pork nɪ̀nɔ̀ mɔ́ ì-bí-t(h)ɔ́ ɔ̀ 2sgs com-dem ben pork day qnt 2sgs-fut-die h.h= laughter ‘You and pork one day you will die, haha!’ (lit. ‘you and yours for pork’)

3

Brenda

pork =mh (0.94) láwòr bèné pùd à-càmɔ̀ rt yesterday also still 1sgs-eat.pst pork ‘Yet yesterday I ate pork as well.’

4

Joyce

éêh↗ rt ‘Eeh?’

5

Brenda

mmh [kì ì] office rt from loc office ‘Yes in the office.’ (lit. ‘Yes, from the office.’)

6

Joyce

7

Joyce

wún k’` Okulu kó’ dɔ̀ ŋ 2pls com name or then ‘How about you and Okulu then?’

8

Joyce

lòk mɔ̀ -nì doŋ ò-gìk kwè’ word qnt-dem then 3sgs-end.pst intr.where ‘Where did that issue end?’

[((kt))] kiss-teeth (0.38)

282

chapter 5

9

Joyce

lòk ‘à dyɛ̀l-ì= word poss goat-dem ‘The issue of the goat.’

10

Brenda

=éê lòk ‘à dyɛ̀l= rt word poss goat ‘Eeh, the issue of the goat.’

11

Joyce

=mmh rt ‘Mmh.’

12

Brenda

ɛ́ntɔ́ Okulu là-mɪ̀ŋ-mɪ̀ŋ mɔ́ ((kt)) kiss-teeth but name nmz.sg-stupid-stupid qnt ‘But Okulu is a very foolish person.’

In (111), kiss-teeth represents variants of situative evaluations. While Brenda is unhappy about her choice of juice and wishes she had ordered pork instead (line 1), Joyce cannot understand Brenda’s marked preference for pork, which she expresses separately with the kiss-teeth gesture (line 6) after stating it verbally (line 2). As they change the topic, Brenda uses the kiss-teeth gesture again, this time to indicate her stance towards Joyce; highlighting how the gesture can be directed towards a person, or how that person behaved in a particular situation (line 12). The variant nature of the kiss-teeth gesture, concerning its execution, was noted by several authors (Rickford and Rickford 1976; Patrick and Figueroa 2002; Hollington 2017). This includes lip position, the duration and the intensity of the sound (as created by the tightness of closure and the pressure of the air streem, etc.). The change of the head-position, whenever a kiss-teeth gesture is realized in Acholi conversations, has not been mentioned by any of the authors, which may be an indication that it represents an areal feature of the gesture. The change of head-positions by Brenda and Joyce, when they produce the kiss-teeth in (111), is portrayed in Figure 37. The use of a repeated click is also common (112), which is the continuation of (75). However, its function is limited to the disapproval of something that one did not expect to happen, or behavior that is rather unacceptable.

non-verbal contributions to conversation

a) … pork àyé bá (line 1)

b) ((kt)) (line 1)

c) éêh↗ (line 4)

d) mmh, kì ì ((kt)) office (line 5–6)

e) éê lòk ‘à dyɛ̀l (line 10)

f ) ((kt)) ɛ́ntɔ́ Okulu làmɪ̀ŋmɪ̀ŋ mɔ́ (line 12)

figure 37 Head-position during the kiss-teeth gesture

283

284

chapter 5

(112) Extract: lùtɪ́nɔ̀ kì jɔ̀ k-gí ‘Kids and their demons’ 1

Martin

kɔ̀’ ì-nɛ̌n kɔ̀ ŋ (0.57) ↗ɛ́ɛ́ (1.15) lù-tɪ́nɔ̀ kì pol 2sgs-see.imp first rti nmz.pl-child com jɔ̀ k-gí wɛ́ demon-3plposs dm ‘First look pleaseǃ Eh? The children with their bad behaviorǃ’ (lit. ‘with their demon’)

2

Richard

[ɛ́ɛ:́ ]= intj ‘Eeh …’

3

Tonny

[-- not audible --]

4

Martin

=tɪ́m bwɔ̀ lɔ̀ [mɔ́ má pé tíyò behavior unreasonable qnt rel neg 3sgs.work.prs ‘Unreasonable behavior that won’t work.’

5

Richard

6

Richard

7

Martin

[ènì màn nɔ́’] mègì-gí dem dem asp mother-3plposs ‘That is their mothers-,’ ènì nɔ́ gù-nɛ́nɔ̀ gìn-ì [kì bòt dem asp 3pls.see.prs thing-dem from to mègì-gí] mother-3plposs ‘They saw this thing from their mothers.’ [((click-click-click))] triple.click

The bad behavior of children is such a case. In (112), the three friends, Martin, Richard, and Tonny, have just stopped looking at Martin’s phone; where they were watching a video of teens doing things that they would consider inappropriate. As they discuss the matter, they criticize the teens’ behavior as well as their mothers’ alleged incompetence in raising them. In order to express the disapproval towards the topic, Martin clicks three times, which shows that he is wondering about the kids’ behavior in the video and at the same time criticizing it (and their mothers).

non-verbal contributions to conversation

285

As in many East African cultures, disapproval and anger are not supposed to be expressed openly in Acholi, in order not to attack anyone’s face; irrelevant of whether this person is directly involved in the conversation or not. Body language, such as gestures, are kept rather quiet and the visible expression of emotions is often stifled (cf. 5.1). Thus, modest expressions of negative emotions are mainly achieved using laughter, the kiss-teeth gesture, and other click sounds to mitigate the possible FTA created by the utterance. 5.2.2 Some Comments on Breathing Breathing is a rather neglected topic in the discipline of CA (Torreira et al. 2015). However, correlations between the length of inhalations and the subsequent turn have been found (Rochet-Capellan and Fuchs 2014). While Torreira et al. (2015) study inbreath in answers to questions, Rochet-Capellan and Fuchs (2014) examine respiratory features in semi-staged conversations. They found out that breathin is “actively involved in turn-taking” (ibid.: 8), and that the occurrence space of breathing determines the breath’s length: Turn-initial breathing is apparently longer than breathing in between turns of the same speaker. Rochet-Capellan and Fuchs argue that this supports the maintenance of a turn, as small breaths truncate gaps and small gaps are common and preferred when the turn is aimed to be maintained by a speaker (cf. 3.1.1). Aare et al. (2014) show how back-channeling is realized in accordance with the other speaker’s breathing cycle, when it is uttered as the other speaker exhales. Even though a detailed analysis on the correlation of breath and conversational structure cannot be provided in this study, examinations, on a sample basis, indicate that Acholi does not constitute an exception in this matter. For instance, audible breathing seemingly indicates that a speaker wants to hold the turn, or, respectively, to produce a multi-unit turn in the narration of events. Susan takes an audible breath before she produces several turn-units in the reconsideration of (86), example (113), which is a continuation of (37). Moreover, this audible breathing can imply a change of story, or can presage a fateful change of events; as shown in Susan’s narration (line 8). She inhales before explaining that, instead of calling the boda driver Jimmy, which was the initial plan of Susan’s colleague Brenda, Susan suggests to choose another driver. This turns about to be a very important decision in the progress of the story: Some hints start to appear in the following turns, suggesting that the decision to ride with this driver was the wrong one; for instance, his speed when driving and his alcohol consumption, which can be seen as the real reason for the accident.

286

chapter 5

(113) Extract: àwánò mɛ́ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ‘The motorcycle accident’ 1

Susan

myɛ̀rɔ̀ wà- yény ŋàt-ò mɔ́ má tyé cheaply obl 1pls- find.sub someone-dem qnt rel cop cheaply kʊ̀ neg ‘We also had to find someone who was cheap, right?’

2

Paul

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’

3

Susan

án cheaply m’ ò-’´-charging rel 3sgs-fut-charge 1sgo cheaply ‘(Someone) with a fair charge.’ (lit. ‘who would charge me cheaply’) (0.2)

4

Susan

((breaths in)) à-wà’-í okay Brenda breath 1sgs-tell.pst-comp okay name ò-mɪ̀tɔ̀ gɔ́yɔ̀ cɪ́m ‘ì Jimmy 3sgs-want.pst beat.prs phone com name ‘I said: “Okay”, Brenda wanted to call Jimmy.’

5

Paul

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.26)

6

Susan

à-pé gì number ((breaths in)) àwóbí cà-nì breath boy dem-dem 1sgs-neg com number cɪ́m-ɛ́ phone-3sgposs ‘That boy whose number I don’t have.’ (…)

7

Susan

Brenda pé ‘ì pɪ̀kɪ̀-, number p’` Okema name neg com motor-, number poss name ‘Brenda didn’t have the motor-, the number of Okema,’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

287

8

Susan

mɪ́tɔ̀ gɔ́yɔ̀ cɪ́m ‘ì Jimmy 3sgs.want.prs beat.prs phone com name ‘she wanted to call Jimmy.’ (0.43)

9

Susan

àwóbí-ní ((breaths in)) cí à-nɛ̀nɔ̀ breath dm 1sgs-see.pst boy-dem ‘Then I saw this boy,’

10

Susan

à-wà’-í ah Brenda dɔ̀ ŋ ŋɔ̀ 1sgs-tell.pst-comp intj name now intr.what ‘I said: “Ah, Brenda, what now?” ’ (0.55)

11

Susan

pé ì-yélè neg 2sgs-mind.prs ‘“Don’t botherǃ”’ (0.28)

12

Susan

wɛ̌k-á dɔ̀ ŋ-, à-lwòŋ àwóbí cà let.imp-1sgo then 1sgs-call.pst boy dem ‘“Let me-,” I called this boy,’

13

Susan

nɛ́n càlɔ̀ wél-é bè’ ↗ŋɔ̀ look like price-3sgposs also eri.what ‘it looked like his price was also what?’ (0.49)

14

Paul

mh= rt ‘Mh.’

15

Susan

làwó’ ò-tìŋ-à wɛ́ =yòt. pɪ̀-ɛ́n cheap for-dem yesterday 3sgs-carry.pst-1sgo dm à-ŋéy-è bè’ 1sgs-know.prs-3sgo also ‘Cheap. Because he carried me the day before, I also know him.’

However, breathing coordinates with more than simply turn-taking. It can, for instance, be influenced by emotional changes (Homma and Masaoka 2008).

288

chapter 5

In the same way, breath does not merely help to coordinate conversational interaction, but also performs pragmatic actions, consistent with the emotion that the speaker feels in the particular moment. Quite often, both features— structural organization and pragmatic attributes—interrelate (114). (114) Extract: jɔ̀ Pàjá ‘The people of Paja’ 1

Hellen

mà-á dò ((breaths in)) Big Daddy mother-1sgposs mp breath name ‘Oh myǃ Big Daddy …’

When Hellen realizes that the others are not able to follow her explanations, she vents her displeasure with the expression màá dò ‘oh my’. Subsequent to this exclamation, her inhale is clearly audible as she starts to repeat and explain the topic in greater detail. The breath fulfills at least two functions: On a conversation-organizational level, it provides an indication for a new, repeated start of the sequence and on a pragmatic level, it carries the exclamation’s expression of displeasure, and enhances it while introducing a new approach to the problem. Thereby, it helps to resolve the displeasure from the moment when it occurs. 5.2.3 Silence Similar to their treatment of conversational features such as ideophones, pragmatic markers, or the role of breath in conversational structuring, researchers have ignored silence for a long time (Saville-Troike 1985). However, most silence is functional, and its meaning goes beyond an indication of trouble in conversations; when a speaker does not know what to say or cannot find words. Pietikäinen (2018) speaks of “silence-in-interaction” as a counterpart to “talkin-interaction” and thus puts focus on the functional use of silence. The fact that silence behaves similarly to talking, in conversations, becomes obvious with its cooperative nature: The accompaniment of speech and silence is a joint production (Tannen 1985). Silence can only exist if all participants of a conversation refrain from speaking. This can only be successfully achieved if every speaker is, consciously or unconsciously, aware of the function that the particular period of silence carries. Therefore, rather than indicating a trouble in speech, silence is instead a sign of cognitive activity (Lemak 2012). Nevertheless, despite the fact that silence is often functional, it is not communication by default (Saville-Troike 1985). Silence in conversation variably in distinct places:

non-verbal contributions to conversation

289

Just as different kinds of overlap can be discerned, so can different kinds of absence of speech, differentiating between pauses (e.g., between units by the same speaker), gaps (between speakers), silences (meaningful absence of speech, e.g., after a question), and lapses (where no-one has self-selected to speak). Levinson and Torreira 2015:3

The variety of functions that silence can assume is displayed in Figure 38; a listing of silence types provided by Saville-Troike (1985:16–17). The possibility to interpret silence in very different ways, due to its diverse functions, makes it “probably the most ambiguous of all linguistic forms” (Jaworksi 1993:24, cited from Lemak 2012). Silence carries meaning that can replace other elements within an utterance (Saville-Troike 1985). Consequently, silence can imply the interactants’ common ground as well as their shared knowledge (Lemak 2012). This form of replacement, in order to enhance the speakers’ common ground, can be seen in the Acholi practice of elliptic repair (cf. 4.1). The initiation of elliptic repair, with a question word, creates a short period of silence, which indicates that the speaker assumes the listener knows which element fills the emerging slot correctly. Therefore, silence structures conversations and at the same time is a means to negotiate social relationships in talk (Saville-Troike 1985). However, the way silence is interpreted and evaluated involves contextualization (Koudenburg et al. 2013), socio-cultural norms and expectations. According to Tannen (1985:94–95), silence can be evaluated positively as well as negatively: The ambiguous value of silence can be seen to arise either from what is assumed to be evidenced or from what is assumed to be omitted. Silence is seen as positive when it is taken as evidence of the existence of something positive underlying—for example, proper respect (…). But silence is also seen as positive if it is assumed to represent the omission of something negative—‘If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything’ (…). Silence becomes a bad thing if it seems to represent the existence of something negative (…). But it is also negatively valued if it is assumed to represent the omission of something positive (…) As Saville-Troike (1985:4) elaborates, “[w]ithin a single speech-community, social values and norms are closely tied to the amount of talk vs. silence that is prescribed—according to social distinctions such as rank in the social hierarchy, to role (sacred or secular), or to age.” Therefore, silence can mark authority as well as subordination (Lemak 2012). In Acholi, both interpretations are rele-

290

chapter 5

A. Institutionally-determined silence 1. Locational: temples, libraries 2. Ritual (except for duly authorized speakers and occasions): religious services, legal proceedings, funerals, classes in school, punlic performances (operas, movies) 3. Membership: religious groups (nuns, monks) with a vow of silence 4. Hierarchical/structural: lower-status (less powerful) members of a society or organization versus higher-status persons 5. Taboo: persons in certain statuses (e.g. chief) or defined relationships (e.g. wife’s mother) with whom communication is proscribed B. Group-determined silence 1. Situational: access to speaking priviledge is allocated by group decision, which may be delegated (legislative bodies, committees) 2. Normative: differential speaking priviledges allocated to individuals or classes of individuals (shunning as punishment, children, audience members) 3. Symbolic: communicative actions C. Individually-determined/negotiated silence 1. Interactive a. Socio-contextual 1) Role-indicative (e.g., auditor in conversation) 2) Status-indicative (e.g.m deference, superiority) 3) Situation-indicative (e.g., context-structuring, tension-management, social control) 4) Tactical-symbolic/attitudinal (nonparticipation, anger, sorrow, respect, disapproval, dislike, indifference, alienation, avoidance, mitigation, concealment, mystification, dissimulation, image manipulation) 5) Phatic (emotional sharing) b. Linguistic 1) Discursive (prayer, fantasizing, rehearsing) 2) Propositional (negation, affirmation, consent, agreement, refusal acknowledgement) 3) Didactic (‘fill in the blank’) c. Psychological (timidity, embarrassment, fear, neurosis) 2 Noninteractive a. Contemplative/meditative b. Inactive figure 38 Silence types Saville-Troike 1985:16–17

non-verbal contributions to conversation

291

vant, albeit with distinct realizations: Children’s behavior when they approach adults, for instance kneeling and fairly low-voiced speech, suggests that their hierarchic status is low, and that they are subordinate to the adults they interact with (cf. 4.4.2). Furthermore, elderly speakers’ authority and their position as respected people of the Acholi society is also reflected in their speech flow. Compared to conversational encounters with only young participants, especially conversational narratives and explanations, elderly speakers have the right to extend the lapses in between their turns without losing them. Examples (115a–b) contrast the average duration of silence in between same-speaker turns, for a narrative sequence of a twenty-seven years old speaker (115a) and for a sequence of a speaker who is fifty-five years old (115b).6 (115) a. Extract: lànínò cà ì St. Joe ‘The other day in St. Joe Primary School’ 1

Joyce

Acica ò-wàc-í ŋɔ̀ name 3sgs-say.pst-comp eri.what ‘Acica said what?’

2

Joyce

cáwà ò-bèdò pé mɛ́ cɪ́tɔ̀ kà ŋɔ̀ kà time 3sgs-be.pst neg ben go.prs prog eri.what prog wɪ́l buy.prs ‘That there was no time to go and do what? To purchase (i.e. food).’ (0.15)

3

Brenda

mhm= rt ‘Mhm.’

4

Joyce

=so gɪ̀-gwɔ̀ kɔ̀ cènté ènì [òrwônɛ̀] so 3pls.keep.pst money dem the.day.after ‘So they kept the money until the next day,’

5

Joyce

cí ànyírà-’ì gù-bèdò kà lók ì dm girls-dem 3pls-be.pst prog talk loc

6 The results of the questionnaires show that speakers consider elderly speakers to speak rather calmly. Hellen’s way of talking in (115b) illustrates this perceived characteristic as well.

292

chapter 5

ɪ̀y-ɛ́ má-dwóŋ àtáà stomach-3sgposs rel-plenty recklessly ‘then these girls kept talking about it a lot.’ (0.36) 6

Brenda

[mhm] rt ‘Mhm.’

7

Brenda

[mhm] rt ‘Mhm.’

8

Joyce

[ní gɪ́n] dɔ̀ ŋ pé gɪ̀-mɪ́t-í gɪ́n gɪ̀-cám comp 3pls then neg 3sgs-want.prs-comp 3pls 3pls-eat jémì things ‘(They say) that they don’t want them to eat things,’

9

Joyce

kó’ cènté má kɪ̀-mɪ́yɔ̀ dɔ̀ ŋ not.even money rel ims-give.prs then ‘not even the money that they give now.’ (0.25)

10

Joyce

kéd-è Acica gɪ̀-wɛ̀yɔ̀ -gì-ɔ́ name 3pls-avoid.pst-3plo-compl com-3sgposs ‘Those of Acica avoided them about it,’

11

Joyce

ká kùménò gɪ́n dɔ̀ ŋ pé ‘ɪ̀ ò-‘í-é’ò kà cond this.way 3pls then neg 3pls 3sgs-fut-be prog bínò ì life skill come loc life skill ‘if its like this then they won’t be coming for life skill (anymore).’ (0.28)

non-verbal contributions to conversation

293

(115) b. Extract: jɔ̀ Pàjá ‘The people of Paja’ 1

Hellen

wòn Big Dad father name ‘The father of Bid Dad’ (0.75)

2

Hellen

là-dɪ́t Kizekia nmz.sg-old name ‘the elder Kizekia’ (1.52)

3

Hellen

wòn Onɛn kwàrò Onɛn-gì ènò father name grandfather name-pl dem ‘father of Onen, grandfather of those of Onen.’ (1.8)

4

Hellen

gɪ́n wɛ́ŋ lù-tɪ́nɔ̀ pà ŋàt àcɛ́l 3pls qnt nmz.pl-child poss person num.one lù-tɪ́nɔ̀ pà Ower nmz.pl-child poss name ‘All of them are children of one person, the children of Ower.’ (1.13)

5

Betty

á [á::: rt ‘Aahǃ’

6

Susan

[é:::ê rt ‘Eehǃ’

Not only are the silent pauses shorter in (115a), but there is also more backchanneling taking place. As Koudenburg et al. (2013:226) note, silence may be an indicator, not only for a “lack of consensus”, but also for “social exclusion”. In other words, the relationship between the speaker and listener(s) may be challenged in the case of silence periods that are too long, as it signals that “certain conventions or norms may have been violated” (ibid.). Hence, the back-channeling indicates that there are no problems with the short silence. In (115b), back-channeling is not occurring as it is not necessary, rather the listen-

294

chapter 5

a) Hand gesture when listing relatives: làdɪ́t Kizekia (line 2)

b) Refraining from the hand gesture (line 4)

figure 39 Refraining from a gesture as indication of the sequence’s closing and the relinquishment of the turn

ers are attentive during Hellen’s remarks. Hellen speaks quite slowly and with a confident, yet not particularly loud, voice. Her narrations are powerful and on the spot and, as such, do not require any support from her daughters or daughter in law. The silence in between her turns does not convey misunderstandings nor social threats. Instead, the pauses make her statements appear deep and emphatic. In (115a), Hellen, who explains the relation between some family and clan members, uses hand gestures to indicate that her explanatory sequence is not yet finished. When she no longer repeats the gesture and changes the position of her hands, she finally receives back-channeling from her daughters (Figure 39). The abandoning of a gesture to indicate the abandoning of one’s turn is iconic, albeit only one of the any ways in which to use hand gestures in order to finish a turn or sequence. The next chapter gives a final, deeper insight into the structure of conversation with gestures, as well as into the pragmatic functions that gestures occupy in Acholi conversations, with the aid of two conversational extracts.

5.3

A Multimodal Approach: Structure and Action Through Gesture, Gaze, and Body

In this final chapter of analysis, previous outcomes presented in the study are going to be revisited in the scope of two samples, with the aim to provide a multimodal approach to the analysis of conversation. In order to show the complex interdependency, not only of speakers’ behavior, but also of applied strategies, two samples were chosen to give an insight into what happens with the body and in the mind of the interactants.

non-verbal contributions to conversation

295

5.3.1 Sample 1: A Repetition Sequence Gesture, gaze and body-posture certainly play a role when speakers repeat their utterances.7 The function of gestures, however, exceeds the lexical and grammatical functions described by Bressem (2014). A gesture can, in fact, also be crucial for the sequential structure of a conversation. Not only cohesion in turntaking (McNeill and Levy 1993), but also sequential organization, is facilitated through the use of gesture, for instance when the gesture is repeated: “the gesture is not only a depiction of an object or an external display of what is on the speaker’s mind, but a carefully orchestrated component of an action sequence” (Streeck 2008:206). Gestures occur especially frequently in autophonic repetitions. Sample 1 is represented in (116): It displays the use of hand gestures to open and close a sequence. After a short introduction (line 1–6), Susan notes one of the main themes of her narration: the bust of Okulu’s motorbike. As the story progresses, due to Okulu’s misfortune, this bust constitutes one of the central aspects of Susan’s story about her accident. As she introduces this feature as a reason for the following development of events, Susan makes a hand-gesture (G1). (116) Extract: àwánò mɛ́ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ‘The motorcycle accident’ 1

Susan

Okulu ò-àà k’ Unyama wɛ́ name 3sgs-come.pst from name dm ‘Okulu came from Unyama,’ (0.43)

2

Paul

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.21)

3

Susan

mɛ́ bínò ì buspark= BEN 3sgs.come.prs loc buspark ‘to come to the buspark,’ (0.27)

4

Susan

ì:: =[mɛ] óò ben 3sgs.reach.prs loc ‘to reach at’ (0.84)

7 Parts of the current chapter appeared in (Rüsch 2018).

296

chapter 5

5

Paul

[mh] rt ‘Mh.’

6

Susan

police post kényó police post there ‘the police post there.’ (0.34)

7

Paul

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.23)

8

Susan

pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ò-mwòc-ɔ̀ motorcycle 3sgs-burst.pst-compl |------------G1------------| ‘The motorcycle burst.’ (1.32)

9

Paul

nóŋò pé yà ò-èrò wɔ̀ t-wʊ́ bè’´ asp neg mp 3sgs-start walk-2plposs dm ‘You had not yet started your journey?’ (0.67)

10

Susan

↗pwùdí dò not.yet mp ‘Not yet.’ (1.04)

11

Susan

pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ ò-↗mwòc-ɔ̀ = motorcycle 3sgs-burst.pst-compl ‘The motorcycle burst.’

12

Paul

=cáwà tyé [má-râc] time cop rel-bad ‘Time is badly off / bad time.’

13

Susan

[má pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀] ò-mwòc-ɔ̀ = rel motorcycle 3sgs-burst.pst-compl ‘When the motorcycle burst-,’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

297

14

Paul

=mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.5)

15

Susan

cáwà tyé má-↗râc time cop rel-bad ‘Time is badly off / bad time.’ (0.47)

16

Susan

>Okulu myɛ̀rɔ̀ cɪ́’ ‘à yʊ́ bʊ̀ pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀án bè’ dɔ̀ k à-dònyò ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́ 1sgs- 1sgs also again 1sgs-enter.pst loc stomach-3sgposs ‘I-, me too, I entered inside’

19

Susan

kà cɪ́kɔ̀ Sharon prog instruct.prs name ‘to say goodbye to Sharon.’

20

Susan

Sh-, Ch-, Brenda ò-wɔ̀ tɔ̀ kà name 2sgs-walk.pst place ‘Sh-, Ch-, Brenda went to the place’

21

Susan

má wà-wɪ́lɔ̀ ì-ɪ̀y-ɛ́ biscuit< rel 1pls-buy.pst loc-stomach-3sgposs biscuit ‘where we buy biscuits.’ (0.25)

22

Paul

mmh rt ‘Mmh.’ (0.24)

298

chapter 5

23

Susan

‘ì gúnú from there ‘From there’ (2.13)

24

Susan

Brenda ò-wɪ̀lɔ̀ name 3sgs-buy.pst ‘Brenda bought,’ (0.45)

25

Susan

Brenda ò-wàc-à name 3sgs-tell.pst-1sgo ‘Brenda told me,’ (1.05)

26

Susan

°pɪ̀kɪ̀pɪ̀kɪ̀ p’` Okulu ò-mwòc-ɔ̀ ° motorcycle poss name 3sgs-burst.pst-compl |--------------------G2-----------------------| ‘the motorcycle of Okulu burst.’ (0.69)

24

Susan

((breaths in)) àyà breath dm ‘Okay …’

G1

Open hand moves from right to left in front of body, palm up, hand closes at the word òmwòcɔ̀ G2 Hand, almost closed, moves from right to left in front of body, palm-side up, pointing-finger and thumb open up a bit at the word òmwòcɔ̀ Susan repeats the phrase pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ ‘the motorcycle burst’ several times (lines 8, 11, 13 and 26), however her statements are only accompanied by a hand gesture twice: the first and the last time she says pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ (Figure 40 and Figure 41). The gestures (G1 and G2) are rather similar and hence can be analyzed as iconic-depictive gestures of the events. As Susan only uses the gesture(s) twice (at the beginning and at the end of the sequence) before continuing on to another part of the story, it appears that the gestures underline, not only the speaker’s reinforcement of the comment, but also the structuring of the sequence. The ‘original’ function of a gesture can be extended in particular contexts. This context-dependent change of function

non-verbal contributions to conversation

299

figure 40 Gesture 1: pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ (line 8, ex. 116)

figure 41 Gesture 2: pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ (line 26, ex. 116)

has been noted by Özyürek (2017). In this case, the iconic-depictive gesture serves as sequence regulator as well.8 By using the hand gesture, Susan provides depth and emphasis to the utterance, despite her low voice. She makes it a dominant feature of the events and, in this way she frames, not only the sequence, but also the significance of the utterance pìkìpìkì òmwòcɔ̀ , with the recurring gesture. 5.3.2 Sample 2: A Short Extract Full of Sounds and Body Language Sample 2 involves boda drivers, who work from a boda station close to the Golden Gate Hotel in Gulu. Their conversation was recorded outside in the natural environment and, consequently, is not always audible or understandable due to background noises and the drivers’ position in the scene. Nonetheless,

8 In line (12), Paul interrupts Susan, saying cáwà tyé márâc ‘time is badly off’, which she repeats in line (15), to confirm his comment. This part is analyzed in chapter 3.4.

300

chapter 5

this extract (117) was chosen as a sample, since it features the use of several exclamations, sounds, and body language that are typical for the Acholi language. Thus, screenshots of the videos are included into the transcript; to provide an integral representation of the visual events in the short sequence. The sample starts with the speakers’ discussion of the possible topic they want to discuss. When one speaker suggests that the war may be a subject that interests me as a researcher (line 4), his colleagues and friends start to make fun of him, which leads the interaction into another direction than that which was supposedly planned. (117) Extract: lók pà lwɛ́ny kì àlùb ‘The talk about the war and hiding places’ 1

Boda 3

story ín bèné ì-tyé kì story dò jàl story 2sgs also 2sgs-cop com story mp fellow ‘Story, you also have a story, man,’

2

Boda 3

ŋɔ̀ má-râc kì story intr.what rel-bad com story ‘what is bad about it?’

3

Boda 2

kɔ̀ ŋ wà-cák lók aah pol 1pls-start.sub talk intj |------G1-------|

figure 42 G1—moving hand up (while looking for word)

‘Please let’s start with the talk of aah-,’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

4

Boda 2

301

là-wòt-í ŋéyò lók ‘à lwɛ́ny kì nmz.sg-walk-2sgposs 3sgs.know.prs talk poss war com |------------G2-------------| àlùb ŋɔ̀ -, eri.what hiding.place |------G3-------|

figure 43 G2—beats with right hand behind bike, G3—similar to G1 (words found)

‘Does your friend know the topic of the war and the hiding places?’ 5

Boda 4

lók ‘à lwɛ́ny kwéné talk poss war intr.where ‘The topic of war where?’

6

Boda 1

Maurice ò-bèdò twɔ̀ n là-lwòr name 3sgs-be.pst male nmz.sg-fear mû-ŋwɛ̀cɔ̀ -ŋwɛ̀cɔ mɔ́ má rel.3sgs-run.pst-run.pst qnt rel ‘Maurice was a coward who was just running, who …’

7

Boda 1

[--not audible--]

8

Boda 2

[H.H.h] laughter |--G4---|

302

chapter 5

figure 44 G4—clapping hands while laughing

‘Hahaha!’ 9

Boda 3

but Maurice ín k’ ì-nɛ̀nɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ but name 2sgs first 2sgs-see.pst intr.what [má --not audible--] rel |-----G5-----|

figure 45 G5—beat-movement with index finger

‘But Maurice, what did you see that …’ 10

Boda 2

11

Boda 2

[ènò-nì dem-dem ‘That one,’ ì-wác-í ní ŋɔ̀ ] 2sgs-say.prs-comp comp intr.what ‘how do you say that?’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

12

Boda 4

án à-bùtù ì lʊ̀ m má wún-, wù-lókò-nì 1sgs 1sgs-sleep.pst loc bush rel 2pls 2pls-talk.prs-dem |-------------G6--------------| wɛ́ŋ qnt

figure 46 G6—trajectory movement from left to right

‘I slept in the bush, which you-, all of you who speak’ 13

Boda 4

303

wún p’´ ʊ̀ -bùtù ì 2pls neg 2pls-sleep.pst loc [lʊ̀ m wàì án bush like 1sgs |--G7--|

figure 47 G7—one stroke with left hand

‘did not sleep in the bush like me.’

304 14

chapter 5

Boda 2

[ì-bùtù 2sgs-sleep.pst |--G8--|

figure 48 G8—one stroke with index finger down

‘You sleptǃ’ 15

Boda 3

[ì-mɪ́ŋ Maurice ín ì-bùtù ì lʊ̀ m 2sgs-stupid name 2sgs 2sgs-sleep.pst loc bush |-G9-|

figure 49 G9—first stroke with index finger (similar to the stroke of G8 which was not visible to the current speaker Boda3 as he had already turned)

‘Are you stupid? Maurice you slept in the same bush’ 16

Boda 3

má wán wà-bùtù ín ì-nɛ̀nɔ̀ = rel 1pls 1pls-sleep.pst 2sgs 2sgs-see.pst |-G10-|

non-verbal contributions to conversation

figure 50 G10—second stroke with index finger (also similar to the stroke of G8 which was not visible to the current speaker Boda3 as he had already turned)

‘that we slept in, did you see that?’ 17

Boda 4

((whistle)) whistle |----G11----|

figure 51 G11a—mouth covered with hand during whistle, G11b—slight bending during whistle

‘(Whistles).’ 18

Boda 2

Maurice name ‘Mauriceǃ’

19

Boda 1

kɔ̀ ŋ bèné Mau-, Maurice ì-kòm-ê pé bèné pol also name name loc-body-3sgposs neg also |----G12----|

305

306

chapter 5

ŋéyò 3sgs-know.prs

figure 52 G12—deictic gesture with two beats

‘Please! Also Maurice himself does not even know.’ (…) 20

Boda 1

Maurice wɛ́ŋ ò-bedò én railway èn name qnt 3sgs-be.pst here railway dem |----G13----|

figure 53 G13—deictic gesture

‘Maurice, everything has been at this railway here.’ (…) 21

Boda 1

ì railway there loc railway there ‘At the railway there.’

non-verbal contributions to conversation

22

Boda 4

307

wún ʊ̀ -ŋéyò kà mɔ́ kà má gɪ̀-lwóŋò 2pls 2pls-know.prs place qnt place rel 3sgs-call.prs |------------G14------------| Otuŋpili name

figure 54 G14—addressing gesture, touch of arm

‘Do you know a place that they call Otungpili?’ 23

Boda 3

yeah rt ‘Yeahǃ’ (…)

24

Boda 3

Sally ì-ko name 2sgs-loc |-----G15-----|

figure 55 G15—arm with stretched index finger up (i.e. I am available)

‘Sally, are you okay?’ (the locative -ko is a Swahili loan)

308 25

chapter 5

Boda 1

Maurice Maurice là-ŋwɛ́c mɔ́ name 2sgs-loc nmz-run qnt |--------G16--------|

figure 56 G16—beat-like gesture

‘Maurice, Maurice is such a runner,’ 26

Boda 1

má kádí Maurice ŋwɛ́c ɳwɛ̀c má-pàt rel cond name 3sgs.run.prs run rel-different ‘that if Maurice had to run it would be different.’ (…)

27

Boda 2

cán] kìt-ì wà-dènò ì- [dènò 1sgs-borrow.pst food.plate way-dem 1pls-borrow.pst [cán food.plate ‘Did you borrow plates of food like this? We did.’

28

Boda 1

29

Boda 1

30

Boda 1

[ɛ́ntɔ̀ wán] but 1pls ‘But us,’ [àlùb hiding.place the hiding place’ má wà-yʊ̀ bʊ̀ bèdò ì caiz ènì rel 1pls-prepare.pst 3sgs-be.pst loc size dem |------G17------|

non-verbal contributions to conversation

figure 57 G17—showing size

‘that we constructed was of this size.’ 31

Boda 2

àlùb cà jà’ wà-yʊ̀ bʊ̀ 1pls-prepare.pst hiding.place dem fellow |-----------G18-----------|

figure 58 G18—depiction of the hiding place

‘We constructed a hiding place like this, man,’ (…) 32

Boda 2

ì ɪ̀y-ɛ́ má wà-bùtù rel 1pls-sleep.pst loc stomach-3sgposs |----------------G19----------------|

309

310

chapter 5

figure 59 G19—gesture showing inside

‘inside which we slept.’ 33

Boda 2

ì àlùb ì-ɪ̀y-ɛ́ loc-stomach-3sgposs loc hiding.place |----G20----|

figure 60 G20—depiction of the hiding place (compare G18)

‘In it. In the hiding place.’ (…) 34

Boda 2

kùc mɔ́ bá wà-nɔ̀ ŋɔ̀ 1pls-find.pst peace qnt mp |--G21--| |---G22---|

non-verbal contributions to conversation

311

figure 61 G21a—pointing, G21b—pointing, G22—depiction of grabbing

‘We really found some peace/wealthǃ’ 35

Boda 2

ò-wàco hallo mujungu 1pls-find.pst 3sgs-say.pst hallo |------------------G23-----------------|

figure 62 G23a–c—clapping of hands in front of body, arms stretched

‘The white person said halloǃ’ As Sample 2 shows, there are very few turns without gestures, a change of gaze or bodily adjustment. Among them are deictic gestures, other pointing gestures, or iconic gestures depicting size or movements. Beats, when they are used, occur in concordance with vocal beats, or words which are supposed to be particularly emphasized. A gesture occurs when a speaker looks for a word (line 3), and the same gesture re-occurs when he eventually utters it (line 4). This suggests that the concept that is to be expressed is already cognitively available to the speaker and portrayed in the gesture, while the words are still missing. This procedure is known to most people when something is ‘on the tip of one’s tongue’. Emblematic gestures, like the indication of the availability of a boda driver and his willingness to take a person, also occur (line 24). Speakers may use the same gesture, at almost the same time, while uttering the same words, without seeing the other one (line 14–16); here, in the extract, both gestures seem to be used for emphasis. Hand gestures are, however, only one of the many non-verbal language devices displayed in the sample. A whistle, combined with a hand gesture (line 17), marks a special occurrence in this extract. Whistling is a sign of surprise, and can represent a positive or negative emotion. This amazement or

312

chapter 5

shock is sometimes expressed through the sound, volume and tone of the whistling. Furthermore, when accompanied by a hand in front of the mouth, it often indicates a deeper, rather negative emotion or shock. The hand covers the mouth and therefore hides the negative emotion, which is not supposed to be expressed overtly (cf. 5.2). As a result, the sound in combination with the hand gesture facilitates a “polite way to express a negative emotion”.9 The gestures described above cover the majority of gestures that occur in Sample 2, albeit not all. Some gestures are executed behind the motorbikes and cannot be seen very well, nor be shown in pictures. Gaze was not discussed at all, and body movement only when it was very obvious. However, 23 instances of gestures have been described in the extract—four other obvious ones were left out due to reasons of convenience—although is only 1m2s long. This means a gesture has been noticed and described almost every two seconds; without actually describing every gesture in the extract. The gestures tell us about what is going on in the speakers’ minds and how the talk is structured. They represent cultural values and norms; they can appear as emblems which represent culture-specific encodings, but they can also show that certain gestures are connected to particular thoughts and expressions, without the conscious knowledge of the user. This can have far reaching implications, not only for the analysis of Acholi conversations, but also for the universal analysis of conversational interaction, or respectively, any interaction. 9 Calisto O. Owuor, personal communication.

chapter 6

A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Conversation Analysis in Acholi The analysis of several conversations in Acholi, captured in the urban environment of Gulu town, brought to light a number of findings that can hardly be contemplated separately from each other. Though this study is structured as an overview of structural, socio-pragmatic and non-verbal features of Acholi interaction, a separate consideration of conversational processes is, although possible, rather pointless due to correlation and interdependencies between the sub-disciplines.

6.1

Universal and Language-Specific Features Each utterance has a particular past, a history, which is crucial to its power to orient others. Becker 1991:35)

∵ While organizational structure appears to be a universal phenomenon on micro- and macro-analytical levels—reflected in the basis of repetitive structures, turn-, sequence-, and repair-analysis of Acholi conversations—sociopragmatic features mainly evolve as cultural- and hence language-specific processes. As a result, non-verbal contributions to interaction, especially gestures, need to be interpreted on both levels: Their structural attributes are seemingly universal, whereas the occurrence of emblematic gestures, for instance, needs to be decoded with respect to cultural norms and values. This does not mean, however, that culturally-shaped features cannot be geographically widespread (like the use of the kiss-teeth gesture in Jamaica and among some Afro-Americans) or develop similarly in otherwise distinct speech communities (as for example direct politeness strategies). Verbal and non-verbal linguistic practices take place on the basis of assumed shared knowledge, which may, or may not, become evident within the interaction.

© Maren Rüsch, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004437593_007

314

chapter 6

One of the most important universal features is certainly the mutuality inherent in human conversational interaction. Mutual monitoring, used to achieve smooth conversational progress, and mutual evaluation, used to guarantee the best pragmatic interpretations of each other’s actions and reactions, are ubiquitous when speakers interact. A greater criticism and questioning of the lack of consideration for the listener (as a conversation participant and often the predominant focus of the speaker’s actions) is therefore advisable. There is no action in conversation without someone who evaluates and reacts, and there is no reaction without someone who acts and then re-evaluates. Just as action(s) cannot exist without reaction(s), and as a conversation cannot exist without speaker(s) and listener(s), the different dimensions of analysis, as presented in this study, cannot exist without each other and the mutual linking to each other through other (sub)dimensions. 6.1.1 Contextualization and the Space and Locality of Interaction More often than not, linguistic frames are formed by historical, demographical, or geographical structures and changes. Keller’s (1994) “invisible-hand theory” elaborates on processes that are the result of development, for instance emerging from behavior, as they have neither a concrete beginning, nor a definable ending. In Acholi language, such processes can be seen in the use of ideophones, among others. Not only urbanization, but also demographical development and its consequences, can create changes in the use of ideophones; they can lead to a growth of speakers with multilingual backgrounds. Consequently, in growing urban areas such as Gulu, linguistic concepts cannot be presumed to be known by all the other members of the community. Furthermore, more speakers in these cities are below thirty years old and their speech style differs from the elders’ way of speaking. Youth languages especially, tend to avoid ideophones, as they depict specific meanings and are easily comprehensible— a trait that speakers of youth languages rarely target. Youth languages mostly aim to exclude particular other speakers, instead of being easily comprehensible. A possible direction change, in universally focused studies, may be brought by the contextualization of conversational data: Even though organizational structures seem to be universal, CA has often been criticized for, among many things, its lack of contextualization (cf. Ten Have 1990). Although the contextualization of data, in a range of fields, has been historically criticized at various times—for example, narrative analysis in the CA-discipline (De Fina and Georgakopoulou 2013)—progress and development have finally been attained in these disciplines (Silverman 2013). The notice and analysis of, not only conversational, but also social, cultural, geographical, gender- and age-related

a multidimensional conceptualization

315

contexts as well as the speakers’ possible multilingual backgrounds, lead to a more thorough approach to interactional encounters. Kecskes (2015:114) summarizes: “So language and context are inseparable. They are each other’s contexts.” The functionality of language use (“languaging”, 6.1.2) is another aspect of contextualization: The re-framing of concepts into new contexts, for instance the transfer of politeness strategies from one linguistic context to another, allows not only concepts, but also structures to be shifted. Kecskes (2015:116) calls this the “third space”, emerging from the interplay of reaction to and recreation of context:1 Context represents two sides of world knowledge: one that is in our mind (prior context) and the other (actual situational context) that is out there in the world (…). These two sides are interwoven and inseparable. Actual situational context is viewed through prior context, and vice versa, prior context is viewed through actual situational context when communication occurs. Their encounter creates a third space. In their study on multilingualism and translanguaging, García and Wei (2014:3, orig. emph.) coined the terms “trans-system and trans-spaces; (…) fluid practices that go between and beyond socially constructed language”, yet introducing another spatial concept, especially developed for multilingual interactions. Indeed the notion of space (as well as time) in its literal and figurative meaning is inseparable from interaction as well. Different ‘types’ of space play a role in human interaction. And all of these may have effects on each other and themselves create a new spatial dimension as Kecskes’ “third space”, García and Wei’s “trans-spaces” or the “individual interaction space”, as I call it, to include more concepts than prior and actual situational context or the focus on multilingualism (Figure 63). However, just as cognitive realizations of space vary (Levinson 2003), the manifestation of space concepts in language use also varies and hence is interdependent with the participants of the particular interaction. Meaning is thus not inherent in what is said, but rather evolving from interaction when the interlocutors create it within the range of their own contexts and the interaction’s context:

1 Kecskes’ notion of prior context and actual situational context are mostly similar to Diessel’s (1999) “hearer old” and “discourse new” information in conversation (cf. 3.2.1, and Chafe 1994, for more information about the cognitive processes to activate prior contexts or hearer old information).

316

Place where conversation takes place Social space Body space (how is the space used by the interlocutors / body language, posture, movement, gestures) Mutually shared space by interlocutors Contextual space (prior context and situational context) Conversational space: Amount of talking time/participation Spatial organization of talk: shared turns (overlaps; also: schisming), silence, etc. (Inter-)Cultural space Linguistic space: Spread or reduction of language patterns (eg. ideophones) (Observation space/research)

Individual interaction space

chapter 6

figure 63 Manifestation of space in interaction

Meaning formally expressed in the utterance is co-constructed online as a result of the interaction and mutual influence of the private contexts represented in the language of interlocutors and the actual situational context interpreted by interlocutors. Kecskes 2015:116–117

Pennycook (2010) goes even further and proposes that language does not only exist in context and shapes context in the sense of Kecskes (2015), but that “all language practices are local” (Pennycook 2010:7). … language use is part of a multifaceted interplay between humans and the world. What we do with language in a particular place is a result of our interpretation of that place; and the language practices we engage in reinforce that reading of place. What we do with language within different institutions—churches, schools, hospitals—for example, depends on our reading of these physical, institutional, social and cultural spaces. We may kneel and pray, stand and sing, direct classroom activity, write on the margins of a textbook, translate between patient and doctor, ask when a cut hand might get seen to, or spray-paint the back wall; and as we do so, we remake the language, and the space in which this happens. Pennycook 2010:2

In addition to CA, trying to analyze conversation objectively from a bottomup perspective as it occurs in everyday interactions, to see language as a local

a multidimensional conceptualization

317

practice adds a valuable approach to the study of interaction. As the research on Acholi could show, not all features of speech organization are universal, some are culturally shaped, and others are created locally; moreover, they recreate the locality that speakers use them in (e.g. overlaps and gaps). The same holds for politeness patterns (e.g. encouragement of extended interaction in language socialization vs. silence and gaps, loud speech and laughter vs. body language to mitigate a possible face-threat, market negotiations). In Gulu, as in many African societies, the locality of language practices is also shaped by multilingualism, as not only translanguaging (Wei and García 2014), especially in expression of the progressive mode, but also the adoption and development of Acholi concepts into the English language and the distribution of newspapers in Lango in town shows. As Pennycook (2010:6) asserts, locality is not limited to the “micro” or the “smallness”. Instead, he explains that “doing things locally cannot rest on a pre-given account of what is local; rather local practices construct local” (ibid.: 7). Therefore ‘local’ in the current study, can refer to practices in Gulu, in Northern Uganda, among the male youth in Gulu, in the whole of Uganda, at a bar, as an example for African local practices etc. Following these assumptions, all of the studies above have in common that they see language as an activity rather than only as a pre-existing, rigid set of rules that is applied to its particular situation of use. 6.1.2 Languaging-in-(Inter)action Similar to the appreciation and inclusion of the listener as an “active” participant in the study of interactions (2.1.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4), the status of all speakers involved in an interaction should be considered truly “active”. Often, speakers are seen as the ones applying a language (system), which in itself is restricted due to its grammar. This way, speakers are seen as dependent on rigid language structures. The opposite, however, seems to be the case: Speakers are agents who use, change, develop, adjust, transfer and relinquish linguistic practices. It is their choice, consciously or unconsciously, to continuously use and shape language and the space in which they interact. Or, as Becker (1991:34) puts it: Try thinking of it this way: assume that there is no such thing as language, only continual languaging, an activity of human beings in the world. In the relevant literature,2 thus, the term “languaging” and “languager(s)” is frequently used:

2 For a detailed summary of the term’s development and research on languaging in different

318

chapter 6

The concept of languaging may be described as ‘the use of language by human beings, directed with an intention to other human beings’ (Jørgensen & Møller 2014). This means that languaging practically covers all types of linguistic communication. Møller 2015:108

Important characteristics of languaging are its status as an activity, its continuity, its inherent fluidity to be shaped by languagers and space and shape languagers and space in return. The term languaging is needed to refer to the simultaneous process of continuous becoming of ourselves and of our language practices, as we interact and make meaning in the world. García & Wei 2014:8

To consider the agency of languagers as a crucial aspect further leads attention to something else: “To think in terms of practices is to make social activity central” (Pennycook 2010:2), and therefore appreciates the inseparability of language and society (cf. 2.1.2). “The human resource of language in the shape of linguistic features is primarily a resource for social action. Languaging (…) describes the processes involving the use of this resource in human interaction” (Møller 2015:107). Considering that “language itself is an instrument of action” (Sidnell 2009:126), it is only consequent to ascribe speakers the agency of performing those actions with languaging. Just as the term ‘schisming’ is supposed to stress the phenomenon’s function as a (social) action (3.2.5), the term ‘languaging’ follows the same attempt (cf. García and Wei 2014). To look at language as a practice is to view language as an activity rather than a structure, as something we do rather than a system we draw on, as a material part of social and cultural life rather than an abstract entity. Pennycook 2010:2

To think of languaging also makes it easier to approach multilingual communities or communities with multilingual backgrounds like Gulu. In fact, “[f]ocusing on languaging, instead of on discrete languages, moves us beyond

disciplines, refer to García and Wei (2014). Moreover, García & Wei (2014) and Sabino (2018) each offer a broad overview of existing studies on languaging and translanguaging.

a multidimensional conceptualization

319

the assumption of monolingualism” (Sabino 2018:34), and allows for a natural development and perception of fluid interaction systems, like the “transsystems” in García and Wei’s sense. The multilingual and multicultural background of speakers in Gulu’s urban setting leads to constant translanguaging where concepts are transferred, extended and abandoned in the translanguaging space. Similar to the research on space and locality, these new studies likewise provide a valuable extension to traditional Conversation Analysis, as they take into account the variety of language practices and the agency of speakers and listeners throughout conversations. Mutuality leads to active sharing of time and space during languaging (2.1.1). In order to get a thorough insight into conversational language practices, I therefore propose to study not only talk-in-interaction, but rather languaging-in-interaction (which should include translanguaging-in-interaction). Languaging-in-interaction takes into account the agency of each participant of any human interaction, the various variables that influence and shape conversational organisation and includes any kind of communication, verbally, non-verbally, and even “languaging without languages” (see Love 2017 about writings, signs, and speakers without common language). This way, it may be possible to grasp the multifaceted dimensions of language use as the interactions are continuously developed: structurally and pragmatically.

6.2

A Multidimensional Approach Language is truly an multidisciplinary topic; unfortunately it is not often an interdisciplinary topic. Holtgraves 2002:5

∵ 6.2.1 Multiple Angles of Analysis in the Research of Acholi Conversation This study aimed to present a thorough analysis of conversations in Acholi. Therefore structure, socio-pragmatic features and non-verbal communication were examined with extracts taken on video from everyday interactions in Gulu. As the approach was clearly to analyze what is found, instead of looking for particular linguistic patterns, the results were manifold and at times lead deep into the language and social structure, even to history.

320

chapter 6

The bottom-up analysis brought tiny, but crucial features to light, among them reactive tokens, modal particles and the change of use of question words as elliptic repair initiators. Speakers are not always fully aware of the function and amount of times they use these rather inconspicuous markers as interviews and a questionnaire revealed, however, without them, Acholi conversations would be incomplete. The study showed that ideophones do not only have an aesthetic and pragmatic function, but also play a role in the organization of turns. It proved that overlapping talk does not necessarily lead to chaos or misunderstandings, and therefore, that cultural and historical background have a stronger influence on allegedly universal turn-organization than known before. At the same time, the study confirmed that mutual monitoring is not only part of single interactions, but also takes an important role when it comes to schisming. Thus, cognitive processes in the comprehension of information as well as in the structural development of turns were disclosed. Cultural and grammatical concepts are transferred in Gulu’s urban space and over the whole of Uganda; and it was shown how grammar and pragmatics intertwine when this happens. The analysis further gave examples for how repetition is verbal as well as non-verbal, and how non-verbal repetition (i.e. repeated gestures) do not only occur with verbal repetition, but also do sometimes not occur with every repeated utterance to facilitate sequence organization. Predominantly areal-interpreted paralinguistic features were discussed, among them laughter and the kiss-teeth gesture. The study tried to apply theories and approaches of distinct disciplines like sociolinguistics, general linguistics, pragmatics, anthropological linguistics, cognitive linguistics, history and political science, in order to provide a detailed analysis of Acholi conversation. So if one looks at the interactions as languaging-in-interaction in particular interaction spaces, it becomes clear that all speech participants constantly shape the interactions due to their intentions and that the reality around the speech participants creates the interaction as well as the speech participants create their reality. Rules may be expanded or even ignored if it serves the speaker’s intention, for example during price negotiations at the market (ex. 103b). Modal particles may be used as a practice to mitigate face-threats (ex. 87) or to emphasize the own opinion and express insistence (ex. 91). A family setting serves to explain rules to a child and direct its behavior, at the same time these interactions shape the way in which language socialization of children is perceived (ex. 101b). Gestures and paralinguistic features are used to express emotions (ex. 117), which themselves trigger a reaction of the other speech participants and therefore lead the interaction into a new, unpredictable direction. Small details, as a gap of silence that is just milliseconds too long, can lead to the urge

321

a multidimensional conceptualization moral expectations

structural organization Conversational languaging-in-interaction (verbal/non-verbal)

participation framework negotiation of relationships

socio-pragmatic evaluations language socialization

figure 64 A multidimensional cluster of conversational languaging-in-interaction

to initiate repair (ex. 46). And constant repetitions can reinforce an argument in such a way that even the other speech participants do not have a chance to be part of the interaction themselves (ex. 66) and hence create an environment in which there is no room left for compromises. Bypassers may influence a conversation that had a “closed set” of participants until then (ex 44 and 99), or they may just alter the topic and reveal the speakers’ reality (ex. 92). Those are just some of the extracts that show how languagingin-interaction works: “a social process constantly reconstructed in sensivity to environmental factors” (Canagarajah 2007:94, cited from García and Wei 2014:10). Interior and exterior effects on interaction—its contents, its results, the changes caused by it—origin in various spaces, practices and features, which all together form different dimensions in which linguistic (social) action takes place. 6.2.2 Conversational Interaction as Multidimensional Action Although structural features of interaction tend to be universal to a big extent, and socio-pragmatic properties tend to be language-specific, the two are (almost) always connected by other aspects of human interaction and developed and changed within languaging spaces. This relationship affects both structures in many dimensions and, in return, is reflected in them (Figure 64). Multidimensional correlations are the foundation of every complex, unique type of interaction. This includes the reflection of the structural processes in turn-composition, as well as the negotiations of social relationships and socio-cultural norms and values. It also involves non-verbal behaviors, which reflect not only structural attributes of the ongoing conversation, but also local concepts and moral expectations. Further, the complex interplay of speech, body language and paralinguistic features mirror underlying micro- and macro-structures and proceedings of the speakers’ mutual and external social relationships. This pre-

322

chapter 6

supposes speakers or even a society’s multicompetence (Cook 2012), an “intertwining of language and cognition” (García and Wei 2014:10). As one part of the multidimensional approach to conversational interaction, CA applies a bottom-up strategy. It facilitates the recognition of allegedly unimportant subtleties of conversation. For this reason, fine details such as nonverbal features and overlaps or glottal stops are recognized from the beginning of any analysis. Socio-pragmatic analysis, on the contrary, is mainly based on a top-down approach, in other words, it first considers culture-specific frames and rules, within which the language is applied. Both dimensions, and the many sub-dimensions which reflect them, are reflected in them and join them as one, need to be considered in order to understand language as a practice, in its interactive environment, in detail. Irrespective of analyses, the use of language by speakers will always be the most significant device available to perform social actions. In order to create peaceful and effective interaction, ongoing mutual evaluation is inevitable and essential in conversations. The assumption that the other interlocutor monitors their own (linguistic) behavior, naturally gives rise to appropriate behavior. Moreover, only through our expectations of each other, and the aim to decode and understand each other, are relationships developed successfully; not only within one speech community, but also interculturally. While misunderstandings and ‘the drop of a brick’ are natural phenomena—which will always exist alongside languages and speech communities, with their cultural specifications,—mutuality, and the interplay of the various linguistic dimensions involved in human conversational interaction, will always be the best means to achieve an understanding; of another language and of each other.

Epilogue The sun has already set as I walk back to my hotel from town, carrying two chapatis that I bought on the road in one hand. Motorbikes pass by on the dusty roads as they swirl up the sand. Two children stand on a verandah in front of a small shop on the other side of the road. When they see me, they start laughing and wave their hands: “Muno, bye!” A woman, probably their mother, turns around and smiles. I lift my hand up and wave back, I smile, but I stay silent and walk on. “Muno, bye!” Their voices are louder now. “Bye! Bye! Muno, bye!” I can hear their loud and happy, yet demanding voices until I turn around to them again, wave my hand another time and finally also reply their greeting verbally: “Bye!” After the shopping, the kids will be taken home for dinner. They will be told to wash their hands, to eat properly, maybe speak a prayer before they eat. Their mothers may gossip with the housemaid while they are cooking, their fathers may receive a call from a relative. I pass by a bar. I hear distinct voices from inside, mixed with music and the sound of bottles meeting. A group of young women and men, possibly students, cross the road and head towards me. They talk loudly, laugh, one touches another one’s arm while yet another one claps his hands together while laughing. Two of them step to the side and let me pass so that I won’t be knocked by a car coming from behind me. “Apwoyo ba!” In this moment my attention is drawn to the bar behind me on my left side again: a loud screaming and cheering comes from the bar, followed by the clap-

© Maren Rüsch, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004437593_008

324

epilogue

ping of hands and some comments from different men on the goal that just got scored. I return my head back to the road and almost step into a big pothole on Acholi road next to the police quarters. I look behind me; the group of young people cannot be seen anymore. I guess they entered the road leading to BJ’s, a small but famous club in Gulu, to enjoy their Saturday night; chatting, singing, dancing under the wooden roofs of the bar or under the stars on the grass field next to it. Arguing with laughter while playing pool, and speaking with a surprisingly low voice to each other— often too silent for my European ears—even though the music is loud. Ordering drinks with hand signs, agreeing to suggestions by raising the eyebrows, showing a direction with the lips. Then, after some time, they will go outside, raise their fingers, jump on a boda, return home, go to bed and sleep. By this time, I will have eaten the chapatis with beans and greens in simsim-paste already and be fast asleep in my hotel room. And then, for just two to three hours, Gulu will be completely quiet. Until the first sun rays appear above Gulu’s houses again, finding their way over the shallow sheet-metal and brick roofs and through the leaves of the trees.

References Aare, Kätlin, Marcin Wɬodarczak, and Mattias Heldner. 2014. “Backchannels and breathing.” Proceedings from FONETIK 2014: 47–52. Abbi, Anivata. 1975. Reduplication in Hindi. A generative semantic study. Dissertation, Cornell University. Agyekum, Kofi. 2004. “The socio-cultural concept of face in Akan communication.” Pragmatics & Cognition, 12(1): 71–92. Agyekum, Kofi. 2008a. “The pragmatics of Akan greetings.” Discourse Studies, 10(4): 493–516. Agyekum, Kofi. 2008b. “The language of Akan Ideophones.” Journal of West African Languages, 35(1–2): 101–129. Aijmer, Karin and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Aijmer, Karin, Ad Foolen, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. (2006). Pragmatic markers in translation: a methodological proposal. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 101–114). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2007. “Linguistic fieldwork: setting the scene.” STUF—Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60(1): 3–11. Ameka, Felix K. 1987. “A comparative analysis of linguistic routines in two languages. English and Ewe.” Journal of Pragmatics, 11(3): 299–326. Ameka, Felix K. 2001. Ideophones and the nature of the adjective word class in Ewe. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 25–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Amha, Azeb. 2001. Ideophones and Compound Verbs in Wolaitta. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 49–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Amha, Azeb. 2010. Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited. In Amberber Mengistu, Baker Bret, and Harvey Mark (eds.), Complex Predicates. Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Event Structure (pp. 259–290). Cambridge: CUP. Amone, Charles. 2015. “Constructivism, Instrumentalism and the Rise of Acholi Ethnic Identity in Northern Uganda.” African Identities 13(2): 129–143. Amone, Charles and Okullu Muura. 2014. “British Colonialism and the Creation of Acholi Ethnic Identity in Uganda, 1894 to 1962.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 42(2): 239–257. Anchimbe, Eric A. 2011. “On not calling people by their names. Pragmatic undertones of sociocultural relationships in a postcolony.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6): 1472–1483. Anoka, Viktor Ahamefule. 2012. African Philosophy: An Overview and Critique of the Philosophical Significance of African Oral Literature. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

326

references

Arndt, Horst and R.W. Janney. 1981. “An interactional linguistic model of everyday conversational behavior.” Die Neueren Sprachen, 80(5): 435–451. Arndt, Horst and R.W. Janney. 1985. “Politeness revisited. Cross-modal supportive strategies.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 23(4): 281– 300. Atkinson, Ronald R. 1989. “The Evolution of Ethnicity among the Acholi of Uganda. The Precolonial Phase.” Ethnohistory, 36(1): 19–43. Atkinson, Ronald R. 1994. The Roots of Ethnicity. The Origin of the Acholi of Uganda before 1800. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Atkinson, Ronald R. 2009. From Uganda to the Congo and Beyond. Pursuing the Lord’s Resistance Army. New York: International Peace Institute. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: OUP. Awoyale, Yiwola. 1981. “Nominal Compound Formation in Yoruba Ideophones.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 3: 139–157. Bagarić, Vesna and Jelena Mihaljević Djigunović. 2007. “Defining Communicative Competence.” Metodika, 8(1): 94–103. Bagwasi, Mompoloki. 2008. “Pragmatics of letter writing in Setswana.” Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 525–536. Baines, Erin. 2017. Buried in the Heart. Women, Complex Victimhood and the War in Northern Uganda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baines, Erin and Beth Stewart. 2011. “‘I cannot accept what I have not done’. Storytelling, Gender and Transitional Justice.” Journal of Human Rights Practice, 3(3): 245–263. Baldi, Sergio and Kyallo Wadi Wamitila. 2014. Ideophones in Swahili. A preliminary Survey. In Iwona Kraska-Szlenk and Beata Wójtowicz (eds.), Current Research in African Studies. Papers in Honour of Mwalimu Dr. Eugeniusz Rzewuski (pp. 39–60). Warsaw: Elipsa. Basso, Ellen B. and Gunter Senft. 2009. Ritual Communication. Oxford/ New York: Berg. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Collected Essays in Anthropoloy, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bavelas, Janet, Jennifer Gerwing, and Sara Healing. 2015. Hand and Facial Gestures in Conversational Interaction. In Thomas M. Holtgraves (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: OUP. Bavin, Edith. 1982. “Aspects of Morphological and Syntactic Divergence in Lango and Acholi.” Studies in African Languages, 13(3): 231–248. Bavin, Edith. 1989. “The ki-verb construction in Acholi. Grammaticalization of a resultative morpheme.” La Trobe working papers in linguistics, 2: 29–41. Bavin, Edith. 1995. The Obligation Modality in western Nilotic Languages. In Joan

references

327

L. Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 107–133). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bavin, Edith. 1996. Body parts in Acholi. Alienable and inalienable distinctions and extended uses. In Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability. A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 841–864). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Becker, A.L. 1991. “Language and Languaging.” Language & Communication, 2(1/2): 33– 35. Behrend, Heike. 1999. Alice Lakwena and the Holy Spirits: War in Northern Uganda 1986– 1987. Oxford: James Currey Ltd. Bell, David M. 2010. “Nevertheless, still and yet. Concessive cancellative discourse markers.” Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1912–1927. Bernard, Russel H. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. New York: Altamira. Bernstein, Basil. 1964. “Elaborated and Restricted Codes. Their Social Origins and Some Consequences.” American Anthropologist, 66(2): 55–69. Blackings, Mairi John. 2009. Acholi English—English Acholi Dictionary. München: LINCOM. Blench, Roger. 2009. The sensory world; ideophones in Africa and elsewhere. (Draft circulated for comment), pp. 1–12. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. “Indirectness and Politeness Requests. Same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 131–146. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1989. Playing it safe. The role of conventionality in indirectness. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, J. House, and Gabriele Kasper (eds.) Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies (pp. 37–70). Norwood: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1992. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 255–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boblett, Nancy. 2012. “Negotiating Participant Status in Participation Frameworks.” Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 12(1): 45–47. Bodomo, Adams. 2006. The Structure of Ideophones in African and Asian Languages. The Case of Dagaare and Cantonese. In Mugane et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 203–213). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Bolden, Galina B. 2009. “Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5): 974–998. Bressem, Jana. 2014. Repetitions in gesture. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill and Jana Bressem (eds.), Body-LanguageCommunication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (pp. 1641–1649). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

328

references

Brookes, Heather. 2014. Gesture in the Communicative Ecology of a South African Township. In Mandana Seyfeddinipur and Marianne Gullberg (eds.) Visible Utterance in Action. Festschrift for Adam Kendon (pp. 59–74). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Brookes, Heather and Victoria Nyst. 2014. Gesture in the Sub-Saharan region. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S.H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, and J. Bressem (eds.), BodyLanguage-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Vol. 2. (pp. 1154–1161). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Brown, Lucien. 2010. “Politeness and Second Language Learning. The Case of Korean Speech Styles.” Journal of Politeness Research, 6(2): 243–270. Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson ([1978]1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP. Cahill, Spencer E. 2005. Social Interaction. In George Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Vol. II (pp. 744–747). London: Sage. Campbell, Robin and Roger Wales. 1970. The Study of Language Acquisition. In John Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 242–260). Harodsworth: Pinguin Books Ltd. Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative. In Wallace Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production (pp. 9–50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chafe, Wallace. 1984. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chafe, Wallace. 1985. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance, and Angela Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, Language and Learning. The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing (pp. 105–123). Cambridge: CUP. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Discplacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Childs, G. Tucker. 1988. “The Phonology of Kisi Ideophones.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 10: 165–190. Childs, G. Tucker. 1994. African Ideophones. In John Ohala, Leanne Hinton and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Sound Symbolism (pp. 178–203). Cambridge: CUP. Childs, G. Tucker. 2001. Research on Ideophones, whither hence? In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 63–73). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

references

329

Clayman, Stephen. 2013. Turn-Constructional Units and the Transition Relevance Place. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 150–166). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Clift, Rebecca. 2014. Conversation Analysis. In Anne Barron and Klaus P. Schneider (eds.), The Pragmatics of Discourse (pp. 97–124). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Clift, Rebecca, Paul Drew and Ian Hutchby. 2009. Conversation Analysis. In Sigurd D’Hondt, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction (pp. 40–54). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cook, Vivian. 2012. Multicompetence. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny. 1977. Situated instructions: Language socialization of school age children. In Susan Ervin-Tripp and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child Discourse (pp. 103–121). Academia Press: London. Crazzolara, J.P. 1938. A Study of the Acooli Language. Grammar and Vocabulary. London: OUP. Creider, Chet A. 1977. “Towards a Description of East African Gestures.” Sign Language Studies, 14: 1–20. Creissels, Denis. 2001. Setswana ideophones as uninflected predicative lexemes. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 75–85). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. Crystal, David. 2010. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: CUP. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CUP. Culpeper, Jonathan and Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. London: Palgrave. Currie, Gregory. 2007. Framing Narratives. In Daniel D. Hutto (ed.), Narratives and Understanding Persons (pp. 17–42). Cambridge: CUP. Currie, Gregory. 2010. Narrative and Narrators. A Philosophy of Stories. Oxford: OUP. Cutler, Anne. 1987. Speaking for Listening. In Alan Allport, D. MacKay, Wolfgang Prinz and E. Scheerer (eds.), Language Perception and Production (pp. 23–40). London: Academic Press. De Fina, Anna and Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2012. Analyzing Narrative. Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: CUP. De Jong, Nicky. 2001. The ideophone in Didinga. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa KilianHatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. De Kadt, Elizabeth. 1992. “Politeness Phenomena in South African Black English.”Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3: 103–116. De Kadt, Elizabeth. 1998. “The Concept of Face and Its Applicability to the Zulu Language.” Journal of Pragmatics, 29: 173–191.

330

references

Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie and Paola Pietrandrea. 2013. Modal Particles and Discourse Markers: Two Sides of the Same Coin? In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Deppermann, Arnulf. (ed.). 2013. “Special Issue. Conversation Analytic Studies of Multimodal Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1): 1–172. Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same Same but Different’. Modal Particles, Discourse Markers and the Art (and Purpose) of Categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description (pp. 19–46). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1996. “Attitude Markers and Conversational Implicatures in Turkana Speech Acts.” Studies in Language, Amsterdam, 20 (2): 259–284. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2002. “Colourful Psi’s Sleep Furiously. Depicting Emotional States in some African Languages.” Pragmatics & Cognition, 10(1): 57–83. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2015. The Leopard’s Spots. Leiden: Brill. Dingemanse, Mark. 2009. Ideophones in unexpected places. In P.K. Austin, O. Bond, M. Charette, D. Nathan, and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory (pp. 83–97). London: School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Dingemanse, Mark. 2011a. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. Radboud University Nijmegen: Nijmegen. Dingemanse, Mark. 2011b. “Ideophones and the Aesthetics of Everyday Language in a West-African Society.” Senses & Society 6(1):77–85. Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the Cross-Linguistic Study of Ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6:654–672. Dingemanse, Mark. 2015. “Other-Initiated Repair in Siwu.” Open Linguistics, 1:232– 255. Dingemanse, Mark. 2017. On the Margins of Language: Ideophones, Interjections and Dependencies in Linguistic Theory. In Nick. J. Enfield (Ed.), Dependencies in Language (pp. 195–202). Berlin: Language Science Press. Dingemanse, Mark, Seán G. Roberts, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Rosa S. Gisladottir, Kobin H. Kendrick, Stephen C. Levinson, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield. 2015. “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLoS One, 10(9): e0136100. Dingemanse, Mark, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Nick J. Enfield. 2016. “A Coding Scheme for Other-Initiated Repair across Languages.” Open Linguistics, 2: 35–46. Drew, Paul and John Heritage. 2006c. Conversation Analysis. Volume III: Turn Design and Action Formation. London: Sage.

references

331

Drew, Paul and John Heritage. 2006d. Conversation Analysis. Volume IV: Institutional Interactions. London: Sage. Dunbar, R.I.M., Baron, R., Frangou, A., Pearce, E., van Leeuwen, E.J.C., Stow, Giselle Partridge, Ian MacDonald, Vincent Barra and Mark van Vugt, M. 2012. “Social Laughter is Correlated with an Elevated Pain Threshold.” Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 279(1731): 1161–1167. Duncan, Starkey Jr. 1972. “Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2): 283–292. Duranti, Alessandro. 1986. “The Audience as Co-Author: An Introduction.” Text, 6: 239– 247. Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Dwyer, David James. 1983. The analysis of tone in Acholi, Luo and Lango. In Dihoff, Ivan R. (ed.), Current approaches to African linguistics 1: selection of papers read at the 11th annual conference on African linguistics, April 11–12, 1980, Boston University (pp. 197–211). Dordrecht: Mouton de Gruyter/Foris Publications. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of Politeness Theories. London/New York: Routledge. Egbert, Maria. 1993. Schisming, The Transformation from a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations. University of California Los Angeles. Egbert, Maria. 1997. “Schisming. The Collaborative Transformation From a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations.” Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(1): 1–51. Elders, Stefan. 2001. Defining Ideophones in Mundang. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Elouakili, Samira. 2017. “A Conversation Analysis Approach to Attributable Silence in Moroccan Conversation.” International Research in Education, 5(2): 1–21. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. and Aylin Küntayl. 1997. The Occasioning and Structure of Conversational Stories. In T. Givón (ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives (pp. 133–166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Essegbey, James, Brent Henderson, and Fiona McLaughlin. 2015. Language Documentation and Endangerment in Africa. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fillmore, Charles and Collin Baker. 2009. A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp. 313–339). Oxford: OUP. Finnström, Sven. 2003. Living with bad Surroundings. War and Existential Uncertainty in Acholiland, Northern Uganda. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Finnström, Sven. 2006. “Wars of the past and war in the present: The Lord’s Resistance Movement/Army in Uganda.” Africa, 76(2): 200–220. Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fischer, Kerstin. 2013. Discourse Markers. In C. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1743–1748). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

332

references

Fischer, Kerstin. 2014. Discourse Markers. In: Ann Barron and Klaus Schneider, Klaus (eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse (pp. 271–294). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1991. Toward a Theory of Tense-Aspect in Narrative Discourse. In Jadranka Gvozdanović and Theo Janssen (eds.), The Function of Tense in Texts (pp. 75–97). Amsterdam/New York: North-Holland. Ford, Cecilia and Sandra Thompson. 1996. Interactional Units in Conversation. Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: CUP. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments, In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 14–38). New York: OUP. Fortune, George. 1962. Ideophones in Shona. London: OUP. Fraser, Bruce. 1980. “Conversational mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 4: 341–350. Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “Perspectives on politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2): 219–236. Friedrich, Paul. 1986. The Language Parallax: Linguistic Relativism and Poetic Indeterminacy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fuller, Janet. 2003. “Discourse marker use across speech contexts. A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance.” Mulitilingua, 22: 185–205. Gafaranga, Joseph. 2012. “Language alternation and conversational repair in bilingual conversation.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4): 501–527. García, Orfelia and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging. Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Garrod, S. and M.J. Pickering. 2015. “The use of content and timing to predict turn transitions.” Frontiers in Psychology, 6:751. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2015. Small Stories Research. Issues, Methods, Applications. In Anna De Fina and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds.), Handbook of Narrative Analysis (pp. 255–271). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel (eds.). 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin/NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Goffman, Erving. 1964. “The Neglected Situation.” American Anthropologist, 66 (6): 133– 136. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Social Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books. Gonen, Einat, Zohar Livnat, and Noam Amir. 2015. “The discourse marker axshav (‘now’) in spontaneous spoken Hebrew. Discursive and prosodic features.” Journal of Pragmatics, 89: 69–84.

references

333

Gonzalez-Lloret, Marta. 2011. “Conversation Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication.” CALICO Journal, 28(2): 308–325. Goodwin, Charles. 1986. “Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments”, Human Studies, 9(2–3): 205–217. Goodwin, Charles. 1987. “Forgetfulness as an Interactive Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2): 115–130. Goodwin, Charles. 2007. Interactive Footing. In Elisabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction (pp. 16–46). Cambridge: CUP. Goodwin, Charles and John Heritage. 1990. “Conversation Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 19: 283–307. Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 2004. Participation. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 222–244). Oxford: Blackwell. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1980. “Processes of Mutual Monitoring Implicated in the Production of Description Sequences.” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4): 303–317. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1983. “Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics, 7: 657–677. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1983. “Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics, 7(6): 657–677. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1999. “Participation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(l-2):177–180. Gough, David H. 1995. “Some problems for politeness theory. Deference and directness in Xhosa performative requests.” South African Journal of African Languages, 15(3): 123–125. Grandi, Nicola and Lívia Körtvélyessy (eds.). 2015. Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Grannis, Oliver. 1970. Relative Constructions in Acholi. Thesis, University of Michigan. Grenoble, Lenore A. and N. Louanna Fubee (eds.). 2010. Language Documentation: Practices and Values. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3 (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Grimes, Joseph. 1972. “Outlines and Overlays.” Language, 48: 513–524. Grothendieck, John, Allen L. Gorin, and Nash Borges. 200. “Social correlates of turntaking behavior.”Proceedings of the IEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2009: 4745–4748. Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness Phenomena in modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 237–257. Gumperz, John J. 1964. “Linguistic and social interaction in two communities.” American Anthropologist, 66(6/2): 137–153. Gumperz, John J. 1981. The Linguistic Bases of Communicative Competence. In Debo-

334

references

rah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse Text and Talk (pp. 323–334). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. Günther, Ulrike. 2003. What’s in a laugh? Humour, jokes and laughter in the conversational corpus of the BNC. Ph.D. Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität zu Freiburg i. Br. Habwe, John Hamu. 2010. “Politeness Phenomena. A Case of Kiswahili Honorifics.” SWAHILI FORUM, 17: 126–142. Hafez, Ola Mohamed. 1991. “Turn-Taking in Egyptian Arabic: Spontaneous Dpeech vs. Drama Dialogue.” Journal of Pragmatics, 15(1): 59–81. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harrington, Austin, Barbara L. Marshall and Hans-Peter Müller (eds.). 2006. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. London/New York: Routledge. Harrington, Austin. 2006. Action, In Austin Harrington, Barbara L. Marshall, and HansPeter Müller (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory (pp. 1–4). London/New York: Routledge. Harris, Sandra. 2010. Politeness. In Louise Cummings (ed.), Pragmatics Encyclopedia (pp. 327–330). London/New York: Routledge. Haselow, Alexander. 2011. “Discourse Marker and Modal Particle. The Functions of Utterance-Final then in Spoken English.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14): 3603– 3623. Haugh, Michael. 2007. “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2): 295–317. Hayashi, Makoto. 2013. Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 167–190). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hayashi, Makato, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell. 2013. Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. An Introduction. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell (eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 1–40). Cambridge: CUP. Hayashi, Makoto, J. Mori, and T. Takagi. 2002. Contingent Achievement of Co-Tellership in a Japanese Conversation. An Analysis of Talk, Gaze, and Gesture.” In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 81–122). Oxford: OUP. Heaths, Hirley Brice. 1983. Ways with words. Cambridge: CUP. Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2003. Politeness Distinctions in Second Person Pronouns. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person (pp. 185– 202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Heritage, John. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk. In Robert Sanders and Kristine Fitch (eds.) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 103–146). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

references

335

Heritage, John. 2006. Conversational Organization. Paired Actions. In Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds.), Conversation Analysis (Vol. II) (pp. 1–10). London: Sage. Heritage, John. 2013. “Turn-Initial Position and Some of its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics, 57: 331–337. Heritage, John. 2015. “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics, 88: 88–104 Heusing, Gerald. 2004. Die südlichen Lwoo-Sprachen—Beschreibung, Vergleich und Rekonstruktion. Cologne: Köppe Hieda, Osamu. 2011. “Tonal System in Acooli. Double Downstep and Syntactic Functions of Tone.” Studies in Nilotic Linguistics, 3: 1–35. Hieda, Osamu. 2012. “Complementation and Evidential Strategy in Acooli.” Studies in Nilotic Linguistics, 5: 73–95. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: A Taxonomy of Universal Uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 205–254). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Eva Schultze-Berndt. 2005. Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Participant-Oriented Adjuncts. An Introduction. In Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. The Typology of Depictives (pp. 1–74). New York: OUP. Hollington, Andrea. 2017. Emotions in Jamaican. African Conceptualizations, Emblematicity and Multimodality in Discourse and Public Spaces. In Anne Storch (ed.), Consensus and Dissent. Negotiating Emotion in Public Space (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Holmes, Janet. 2006. Politeness Strategies as Linguistic Variables. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 684–697). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Holtgraves, Thomas. 2002. Language as Social Action. Social Psychology and Language Use. New York: Routledge. Homma, Ikuo and Yuri Masaoka. 2008. “Breathing rhythms and emotions.” Experimental Physiology, 93(9): 1011–1021. Hoymann, Gertie. 2010. “Questions and responses in ǂĀkhoe Haiǀǀom.” Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 2726–2740. Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hymes, Dell. 1962. The Ethnography of Speaking. In T. Gladwin and W.C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and Human Behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington. Hymes, Dell. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin. Ide, Sachiko. 1982. “Japanese Sociolinguistics. Politeness and Women’s Language.” Lingua, 57: 357–385.

336

references

Ide, Sachiko. 1989. “Formal Forms and Discernment. Two Neglegted Parts of Universals of Linguistic Politeness.” Multilingua, 8(2–3): 223–248. Ide, Sachiko. 1993. “Preface. The Search for Integrated Universals of Linguistic Politeness.” Multilingua, 12(1): 7–11. Ide, Sachko. 2012. Roots of the Wakimae Aspect of Linguistic Politeness. Modal Expressions and Japanese Sense of Self. In Michael Meeuwis and Jan-Ola Östman (eds.) Pragmatizing Understanding: Studies for Jef Verschueren (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam/ New York: Benjamins. Jaques, Alexandre A. 1941. “Shangana-Tsonga Ideophones and Their Tones.”Bantu Studies, 15(3): 205–244. Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G.H. Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jefferson, Gail. 1972. Side Sequences. In D.N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–233). New York, NY: Free Press. Jefferson, Gail. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press. Jefferson, Gail. 1979. A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York: Irvington Publishers. Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “Issues in the Transcription of Naturally-Occurring Talk. Caricature versus Capturing Pronunciational Particulars.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 34: 1–12. Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles. In J.M. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge: CUP. Jefferson, Gail. 1986. “Notes on ‘Latency’ in Overlap Onset.” Human Studies, 9(2/3): 153– 183. Jefferson, Gail. 1988. “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems, 35(4): 418–441. Jirata, Tadesse and Jan Ketil Simonsen. 2014. “The Roles of Oromo-Speaking Children in the Storytelling Tradition in Ethiopia.” Research in African Literatures, 45: 135– 149. Johns, Andrew and J. César Félix-Brasdefer. 2015. “Linguistic Politeness and Pragmatic Variation in Request Production in Dakar French.” Journal of Politeness Research, 11(1): 131–164. Johnstone, Barbara. 1994. Repetition in Discourse. A Dialogue. In Barbara Johnstone (ed.), Repetition in Discourse. Interdisciplinary Perspectives 1 (pp. 1–20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

references

337

Johnstone, Barbara. 1996. The Linguistic Individual: Self-Expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Johnstone, Barbara. 2001. Discourse analysis and narrative. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, Heidi Hamilton (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 635–649). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Juzwick, Maria M. 2014. Spoken Narrative. In James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 326–341). New York: Routledge. Kabuta, N.S. 2001. Ideophones in Cilubà. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones (pp. 139–154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kádár, Dániel Z. 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual. Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. Kádár, Dániel Z. and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Kasanga, Luanga A. 2006. “Requests in a South African Variety of English.” World Englishes, 25(1): 65–89. Kasanga, Luanga A. and Joy-Christine Lwanga-Lumu. 2007. “Cross-cultural linguistic realization of politeness. A study of apologies in English and Setswana.” Journal of Politeness Research, 3: 65–92. Kashima, Yoshihisa, Emiko Kashima and Evan Kidd. 2014. Language and Culture. In Thomas M. Holtgraves (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 46–61). Oxford: OUP. Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 193–218. Kaukomaa, Timo, Anssi Peräkylä, and Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2013. “Turn-opening smiles: Facial Expression Constructing Emotional Transition in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 55: 21–42. Kaukomaa, Timo, Anssi Peräkylä, and Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2014. “Foreshadowing a Problem. Turn-Opening Frowns in Conversation”, Journal of Pragmatics, 71: 132–147. Kecskes, Istvan 2015. Language, Culture, and Context. In Farzad Sharifian (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture (pp. 113–128). London/New York: Routledge. Keenan, Elinor. 1977. Making it last. Repetition in Children’s Discourse. In Susan ErvinTripp and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child Discourse (pp. 125–138). New York: Aca-demic Press. Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change. The Invisible Hand in Language. London/New York: Routledge. Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: CUP. Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: CUP. Kendon, Adam. 1972. Some relationships between body motion and speech: An analysis

338

references

of an example. In: A.W. Siegman & B. Pope (eds.), Studies in Dyadic Communication (pp. 177–210). New York: Pergamon. Kita, Sokaro and James Essegby. 2001. “Pointing Left in Ghana. How a Taboo on the Use of the left Hand Influences Gestural Practice.” Gesture, 1(1): 73–95. Kita, Sotaro & Asli Özyürek. 2007. How Does Spoken Language Shape Iconic Gestures? In Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell and Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language (pp. 67–74). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kitzinger, Celia. 2013. Repair. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 229–256). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Koudenburg, Namkje, Tom Postmes and Ernestine H. Gordijn. 2013. “Resounding Silences. Subtle Norm Regulation in Everyday Interactions.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(3): 224–241. Kulemeka, Andrew T. 1995. “Sound Symbolic and Grammatical Frameworks. A Typology of Ideophones in Asian and African Languages.” South African Journal of African Languages, 15(2): 73–84. Kulemeka, Andrew T. 1996. “Determining the Grammatical Theory of Chichewa Ideophones.” Linguistic Analysis, 26(1–2):84–116. Kunene, Daniel P. 2001. Speaking the act. The ideophone as a linguistic rebel. In Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.) Ideophones (pp. 183–191). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William. 1982. Speech Actions and Reactions in Personal Narrative. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse. Text and Talk (pp. 219–247). Washington: Georgetown University Press. Labov, William and Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The Logic of Politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark and A. Weiser (eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lakoff, Robin. 1989. “The limits of politeness. Therapeutic and courtroom discourse.” Multilingua, 8: 101–130. Lakoff, Robin. 2005. “The politics of Nice.” Journal of Politeness Research, 1: 173–191. Lakoff, Robin. 2009. Conversational Logic. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Key Notions of Pragmatics (pp. 102–113). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lakoff, Robin. 1990. Talking Power. The Politics of Language in our Lives. New York: Basic. Langellier, Kerstin M. and Eric E. Peterson. 2004. Storytelling in Daily Life. Performing Narrative. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Laruni, Elizabeth. 2015. “Regional and Ethnic Identities. The Acholi of Northern Ugan2da, 1950–1968.” Journal of Eastern African Studies, 9(2): 212–230.

references

339

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: OUP. Leech, Geoffrey. 2005. “Politeness. Is there an East-West Divide?” Journal of Foreign Languages, 6: 3–31. Lee-Goldman, Russel. 2011. “No as a Discourse Marker.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10): 2627–2649. Lemak, Alina. 2012. Silence, Intercultural Conversation, and Miscommunication. MA thesis, University of Toronto. Lenk, Uta. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence. Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Lerner, Gene H. 1987. Collaborative Turn Sequences: Sentence Construction and Social Action. Irvine: University of California. Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language In Society, 20: 441–458. Lerner, Gene H. 2002. Turn-sharing. The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford: OUP. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman’s Participation Framework. In Paul Drew and Anthony Wootton (eds.), Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order (pp. 161–227). Oxford: Polity Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: CUP. Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human “interaction engine”. In Nick J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (pp. 39–69). Oxford: Berg. Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action formation and ascription. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Levinson, Stephen C. and Francisco Torreira. 2015. “Timing in Turn-Taking and its Implications for Processing Models of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology, 6:731. Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London/New York: Continuum. Lillis, T.M. 2006. Communicative Competence. In Jacob Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (pp. 92–99). Oxford: Elsevier. Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral Communication, Language, Power and Social Process. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2008. Relational Work, Politeness and Identity Construction. In Gerd Antos, Eija Ventola and Tilo Weber (eds.), Handbooks of Applied Linguistics. Volume 2: Interpersonal Communication (pp. 509–540). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

340

references

Lorenz, Steffen. 2018. Living with Language. An Exploration of Linguistic Practices and Language Attitudes in Gulu, Northern Uganda. PhD-Dissertation, University of Cologne. Love, Nigel. 2017. “On Languaging and Languages.” Language Sciences, 61: 113–147. Lwanga-Lumu, Joy Christine. 1999. “Politeness and indirectness revisited.” South African Journal of African Languages, 19(2): 83–92. Lydall, Jean. 2000. Having Fun With Ideophones: A Socio-Linguistic Look at Ideophones in Hamar, Southern Ethiopia. In Baye Yimam, Richard Pankhurst, David Chapple, Yonas Admassu, Alula Pankhurst, and Birhanu Teferra (eds.) Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of Ethiopian Studies (pp. 886–891). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University. Malandra, Fr. Alfred. 1955. A new Acholi Grammar. Nairobi/Kampala/Dar es Salaam: Eagle Press. Mandelbaum, Jenny and Anita Pomerantz. 1991. What Drives Social Action? In Karen Tracy (ed.), Understanding Face-to-Face Interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse (pp. 151–167). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Mashiri, Pedzisai. 1999. “Terms of Address in Shona. A Sociolinguistic Approach.” Zambezia, 26(1): 93–110. Mashiri, Pedzisai. 2004. “More Than Mere Linguistics Tricks. The Socio-pragmatic Functions of Shona Nicknames Used by Shona-Speaking People in Harare.” Zambezia, 31(1/2): 22–45. Matsui, Tomoko. 2002. “Semantics and Pragmatics of a Japanese Discourse Marker Dakara (so/in other words). A Unitary Account.” Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 867–891. Mazeland, Harrie. 2006. Conversation Analysis. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 153–162). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Mboudjeke, Jean-Guy. 2010. “Linguistic politeness in job applications in Cameroon.” Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9): 2519–2530. McClave, Evelyn. 2007. Potential Cognitive Universals. Evidence from Head Movements in Turkana. In Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell and Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in honor of David McNeill (pp. 91–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. McNeill, David. 1981. “Action, thought and language.” Cognition, 10(1–3): 201–208. McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind. What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. McNeill, David. 2012. How Language Began. Gesture and Speech in Human Evolution. New York: CUP. McNeill, David. 2014. The Emblem as Metaphor. In Mandana Seyfeddinipur and Marianne Gullberg (eds.), From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance. Essays in honor of Adam Kendon (pp. 75–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

references

341

McNeill, David. 2014. Why We Gesture. The Surprising Role of Hand Movements in Communication. Cambridge: CUP. McNeill, David and Elena Levy. 1993. “Cohesion and Gesture.” Discourse Processes, 16: 363–386. Meierkord, Christiane. 2016. Speech Acts in Ugandan English Social Letters. Investigating the Influence of Socio-Cultural Context. In Christiane Meierkord, Bebwa Isingoma and Saudah Namyalo (eds.), Ugandan English. Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalising Post-Protectorate (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Merrit, Marilyn. 1982. “Repeats and Reformulations in Primary Classrooms as Windows on the Nature of Talk Engagement.” Discourse Processes 5: 127–145. Mey, Jacob L. 2006. Pragmatic Acts. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 5–11). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Meyer, Christian. 2010. Self, Sequence, and the Senses. Universal and Culture-Specific Aspects of Conversational Organization in a Wolof Social Space. Unpublished habilitation dissertation, University Bielefeld. Mietzner, Angelika. 2009. Räumliche Orientierung in nilotischen Sprachen. Raumkonzepte—Direktionalität—Perspektiven. Cologne: Köppe. Mietzner, Angelika. 2016. Cherang’any. A Kalenjin Language of Kenya. Cologne: Köppe. Mihas, Elena. 2017. Conversational Structures of Alto Perené (Arawak) of Peru. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Moore, Leslie C. 2011. Language Socialization and Repetition. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 209–226). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Møller, Janus Spindler. 2015. Te enregisterment of Minority. Languages in a Danish classroom. In Asif Agha and Frog (eds.), Registers of Communication (pp. 107–123). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2005. “Embedded Language elements in Acholi/English codeswitching. What’s going on?” Studies in the Languages of Africa, 36(1): 3–18. Nassenstein, Nico. 2016. “A Preliminary Description of Ugandan English.” World Englishes 35(3): 396–420. Nassenstein, Nico. 2018. “Politeness in Kisangani Swahili. Speakers’ pragmatic strategies at the fringes of the Kiswahili speaking world.” Afrikanistik & Ägyptologie Online. (https://www.afrikanistik‑aegyptologie‑online.de/archiv/2018/4654). Newman, Paul. 1968. “Ideophones from a Syntactic Point of View.” Journal of West African Languages, 2:107–117. Newman, Paul. 1989. “Reduplication and Tone in Hausa Ideophones.”Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 248–255. Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Norrick, Neal. 2000. Conversational Narrative. Storytelling in Everyday Talk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

342

references

Norrick, Neal. 2001. “Discourse Markers in Oral Narrative.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6): 849–878. Nwoye, Onuigbo G. 1992. “Linguistic Politeness and Socio-Cultural Variations of the Notion of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics, 18: 309–328. O’Driscoll, Jim. 2017. Face and (im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness (pp. 89– 118). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1994. “Verbal indirection in Akan informal discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, 21(1): 37–65. Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1996. “The proverb as a mitigating and politeness strategy in Akan discourse.” Anthropological Linguistics, 38(3): 521–549. Ochs, Elinor and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1983. Acquiring Conversational Competence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ochs, Elinor and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1984. Language Acquisition and Socialization. Three Developmental Stories. In R.A. Shweder and R.A. LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion (pp. 276–320). Cambridge: CUP. Ochs, Elinor and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2011. The Theory of Language Socialization. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 1–21). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Odebode, Idowu and Adenike Onadipe. 2011. “Politeness Phenomenon in Abiku Names Among the Yoruba Africans. A Pragmatic Study.” Cross-cultural Communication, 7(4): 127–132. Odebunmi, Akin. 2013. “Greetings and Politeness in Doctor-Client Encounters in Southwestern Nigeria.” Iranian Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1): 101–117. Oosterom, Marjoke. 2011. “Gender and Fragile Citizenship in Uganda. The Case of Acholi Women.” Gender & Development, 19(3): 395–408. Orie, Olanike O. 2009. “Pointing the Yoruba Way.” Gesture, 9(2): 237–261. Otiso, Kefa M. 2006. Culture and Customs of Uganda. London: Greenwood Press. Özyürek, Asli. 2017. Function and processing of gesture in the context of language. In R.B. Church, M.W. Alibali, & S.D. Kelly (eds.) Why gesture? How the hands function in speaking, thinking and communicating (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. p’Bitek, Okot. 1962. “Acholi Folk Tales.” Transition, 6–7: 21–24. p’Bitek, Okot. 1963. Oral Literature and its Social Background among the Acholi and Lango. BA-Thesis, St. Peter’s College Oxford. Palmer, Gary. 1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Palmer, Gary B. and Farzad Sharifian. 2007. Applied Cultural Linguistics. An Emerging

references

343

Paradigm. In Sharifian and Palmer (eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics. Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Patel, Sheetal H., Herbert Muyinda, Nelson K. Sewankambo, Geoffrey Oyat, Stella Atim and Patricia M. Spittal. 2012. “In the Face of War. Examining Sexual Vulnerabilities of Acholi Adolescent Girls Living in Displacement Camps in Conflict-Affected Northern Uganda.” BMC International Health and Human Rights, 12(38): 1–12. Patrick, Peter L. and Esther Figueroa. 2002. “Kiss-Teeth.” American Speech, 77(4): 383– 397. Peace-Corps Uganda. 2009. Acholi Language Manual. Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a local practice. London/New York: Routledge. Perera, Kaushalya and Susan Strauss. 2015. “High-Focus and Time-Immediate Indexicals: A Study of Sinhala Discourse Markers me: ‘this’ and dæn ‘now’.” Journal of Pragmatics, 85: 32–46. Perrin, Laurent, Denise Deshaies, and Claude Paradis. 2003. “Pragmatic functions of local diaphonic repetitions in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 1843–1860. Petrollino, Sara. 2016. A Grammar of Hamar a South Omotic Language of Ethiopia. Proefschrift, Universiteit Leiden. Pfeiffer, Anett and Thomas Elbert. 2011. “PTSD, Depression and Anxiety among Former Abductees in Northern Uganda.” Conflict and Health, 5(14): 1–7. Pham, Phuong N., Patrick Vinck and Eric Stover. 2009. “Returning Home. Forced Conscription, Reintegration, and Mental Health Status of Former Abductees of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Northern Uganda.” BMC Psychiatry, 9(23): 1–14. Pietikäinen, Kaisa S. 2018. “Silence that Speaks. The Local Inferences of Withholding a Response in Intercultural Couples’ Conflicts.” Journal of Pragmatics, 129: 76–89. Pillet-Shore, Danielle. (2017). Preference organization. In Jon Nussbaum (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. New York: OUP. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: CUP. Pomerantz, Anita and John Heritage. 2013. Preference. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Prosser, Jon. 1998. Image-Based Research. A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London/NY: Routledge/Falmer. Psathas, George. 1990. Interaction Competence. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis. The study of Talk-in-Interaction. London: Sage.

344

references

Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2016. Sequence Organization. In Jon Nussbaum (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: OUP. Reh, Mechthild. 1996. Anywa Language: Description and Internal Reconstructions. Cologne: Köppe. Richter gen. Kemmermann, Doris. 2014. A Grammar of Mbembe. Leiden: BRILL. Rickford, John R. and Angela E. Rickford. 1976. “Cut-Eye and Suck-Teeth: African Words and Gestures in New World Guise.” The Journal of American Folklore, 89(353): 294– 309. Rieger, Caroline L. 2003. “Repetitions as Self-Repair Strategies in English and German Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1): 47–69. Riest, Carina, Annett B. Jorschick, and Jan P. de Ruiter. 2015. “Anticipation in TurnTaking. Mechanisms and Information Sources.” Frontiers in Psychology, 6(89): 1–14. Ritzer, George (ed.). 2005. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Volume 1. London: Sage. Roberts, Bayard, Kaducu F. Ocaka and John Browne. 2008. “Factors Associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Amongst Internally Displaced Persons in Northern Uganda.” BMC Psychiatry, 8(38): 1–11. Roberts, Bayard, Vicky N. Odong, John Browne, Kaducu F. Ocaka, Wenzel Geissler and Egbert Sondorp. 2009. “An Exploration of Social Determinants of Health amongst Internally Displaced Persons in Northern Uganda.” Conflict and Health, 3(10): 1–11. Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2016. Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: OUP. Rochet-Capellan, Amélie and Susanne Fuchs. 2014. “Take a Breath and Take the Turn: How Breathing Meets Turns in Spontaneous Dialogue.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369: 20130399. Rossano, Frederico. 2013. Gaze in Conversation. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 308–329). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Rossano, Frederico, Penelope Brown, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. Gaze, Questioning, and Culture. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives (pp. 187–249). Cambridge: CUP. Rühlemann, Christoph. 2013. Narrative in English Conversation. A Corpus Analysis of Storytelling. Cambridge: CUP. Rüsch, Maren. 2012. Höflichkeitsstrategien im Swahili. Eine Analyse anhand von Aufforderungen, Bitten und Vorschlägen. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Cologne. Rüsch, Maren. 2013. Ideophones in Acholi. Unpublished Master-Thesis, University of Cologne. Rüsch, Maren. 2020. Conversation Analysis. In Rainer Vossen and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (eds.), The Handbook of African Languages. Oxford: OUP. Rüsch, Maren. 2018. Repetition in Acholi Conversation. In Helga Schröder and Prisca Jerono (eds.), Nilo-Saharan Issues and Perspectives (pp. 225–241). Köln: Köppe. Rüsch, Maren and Nico Nassenstein, 2016. “Ethno-Regional Ideologies and Linguistic

references

345

Manipulation in the Creation of the Youth Language Leb pa Bulu.” Critical Multilingualism Studies, 4(2): 174–208. Sabino, Robin. 2018. Languaging without languages. Beyond metro-, multi-, poly-, pluriand translanguaging. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Language, 50: 696–735. Sacks, Harvey. 1987. On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversaton. In Graham Buton and John R.E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Samarin, William J. 1965. “Perspective on African Ideophones.” African Studies, 24(2): 117–121. Samarin, William J. 1967. “Determining the meaning of Ideophones.” Journal of West African Languages, 4(2): 35–41. Samarin, William J. 1971. “Survey of Bantu Ideophones.” African Language Studies, 12: 130–168. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New Yorg: Harcourt, Brace and Company. Savage, G.A.R. 1956. The Essentials of Lwo (Acoli). Nairobi/Kampala/Dar es Salaam: East African Literature Bureau. Saville-Troike, Muriel. 1985. The Place of Silence in an Integrated Theory of Communication. In Deborah Tannen and Muriel Saville-Troike (eds.), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 3–18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist, 70(6): 1075–1095. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk. In J.M. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 266–298). Cambridge: CUP. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Between Micro and Micro. Contexts and Other Connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, and N. Smelser (eds.), The Micro-Macro Link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1990. On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-Interaction. In B. Dorval (ed.), Conversational Organization and its Development. (pp. 51–77) Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Third Turn Repair. In G.R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin and J. Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov. Volume 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures (pp. 31–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1999. “Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis.” Discourse Studies, 1(4): 405–435. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.

346

references

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: CUP. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2009. One perspective on Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives (pp. 357–406). Cambridge: CUP. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2011. “Word Repeats as Enit Ends.” Discourse Studies, 13(3) 367– 380. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening Up Closings.” Semiotica, VIII(4): 289–327. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for SelfCorrection in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”Language, 53(2): 361–382. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Schiffrin, Deborah. 2001. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Malden: Blackwell. Schmied, Josef. 2006. East African Englishes. In Braj Kachru, Yamuna Kachru and Cecil Nelson (eds.) The Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 188–202). Basingstoke: Blackwell. Schourup, Lawrence. 2011. “The Discourse Marker now. A Relevance-Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics, 8: 2110–2129. Sekoni, Ropo. 1990. The Narrator, Narrative-Pattern and Audience-Experience in Oral Narrative Performance. In I. Okpewho (ed.), The Oral Performance in Africa (pp. 139– 159). Ibadan: Spectrum Books. Selting, Margret. 2000. “The Construction of Units in Conversational Talk.” Language in Society, 29: 477–517. Senft, Gunter. 2014. Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Routledge. Seyfeddinipur, Mandana and Marianne Gullberg (eds.). 2014. From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance. Essays in honor of Adam Kendon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Seyfeddinipur, Mandana and Sotaro Kita. 2001. “Gestures and Self-Monitoring in Speech Production.” BLS 27: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting: 454–467. Sharrock, Wes. 2006. Interaction. In Austin Harrington, Barbara L. Marshall, and HansPeter Müller (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory (pp. 286–289). London/New York: Routledge. Sidnell, Jack. 2001. “Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8): 1263–1290. Sidnell, Jack. 2007. “Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1): 229–244. Sidnell, Jack. 2009a. Participation, In Sigurd D’Hondt, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction (pp. 125–156). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

references

347

Sidnell, Jack (ed.). 2009b. Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: CUP. Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis. An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Silverman, David. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical Handbook. London: Sage. Simons, Gary F. and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Twenty-first edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online Version: www.ethno logue.com. Sommer, Gabriele and Clarissa Vierke (eds.). 2011. Speech Acts and Speech Events in African Languages. Cologne: Köppe. Sonderegger, Robi, Sacha Rombouts, Benson Ocen and Reyelle S. McKeever. 2011. “Trauma Rehabilitation for War-Affected Persons in Northern Uganda: A Pilot Evaluation of the EMPOWER Programme.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50(3): 234– 249. Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment and Affiliation during Storytelling. When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1): 31–57. Stivers, Tanya. 2013. Sequence Organization. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 191–209). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, KyungEun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. “Universals and cultural variation in turntaking in conversation.” PNAS, 106(26): 10587-10592. Storch, Anne. 2005. The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic. Cologne: Köppe. Storch, Anne. 2014a. A Grammar of Luwo. An Anthropological Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Storch, Anne. 2014b. Don’t get me wrong here, but I think I may have seen this. Knowledge, Concealment and Perception in Maaka. In Anne Storch, Johannes Harnischfeger, and Rudolf Leger (eds.), Fading Deliminations. Multilingual Settlements in a Convergence Area. Case Studies from Nigeria (pp. 133–156). Cologne: Köppe. Storch, Anne and Nico Nassenstein. 2020. “I will kill you today”—Reading “bad language” and swearing through Otherness, mimesis, abjection and camp. In Anne Storch and Nico Nassenstein (eds.), Swearing and Cursing. Contexts and Practices in a Critical Linguistic Perspective. (pp. 3–36). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Storch, Anne and Nico Nassenstein (eds.). 2020. Swearing and Cursing. Contexts and Practices in a Critical Linguistic Perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Strecker, Ivo. 1988. The Social Practices of Symbolization. An Anthropological Analysis. London: The Athlone Press.

348

references

Strecker, Ivo. 1993. “Cultural Variations in the Concept of ‘Face’.” Multilingua, 12: 119–141. Streeck, Jürgen. 1995. On Projection. In E. Goody (ed.), Interaction and Social Intelligence (pp. 84–110). Cambridge: CUP. Streeck, Jürgen. 2008. Laborious Intersubjectivity: Attentional Struggle and Embodied Communication in an Auto-Shop. In Ipke Wachsmuth, Manuela Lenzen and Günther Knoblich (eds.), Embodied Communication in Humans and Machines (pp. 201– 228). Oxford: OUP. Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft. The Manu-Facture of Meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Sugawara, Kazuyoshi. 2012. “Interactive Significance of Simultaneous Discourse or Overlap in Everyday Conversations among |Gui Former Foragers.” Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5): 577–618. Taboada, Maite. 2006. “Spontaneous and non-Spontaneous Turn-Taking.” Pragmatics, 16(2/3): 329–360. Tannen, Deborah. 1985. Silence: Anything But. In Deborah Tannen and Muriel SavilleTroike (eds.), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 93–111). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah. 1987a. “Repetition in Conversation as Spontaneous Formulaicity.” Text, 7(3): 215–243. Tannen, Deborah. 1987b. “Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk.” Language, 63(3): 574–605. Tannen, Deborah. 2007. Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: CUP. Tannen, Deborah and Muriel Saville-Troike (eds.) 1985. Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah and Cynthia Wallat. 1987. “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction. Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2): 205–216. Ten Have, Paul. 1990. “Methodological issues in conversation analysis.” Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 27: 23–51. Ten Have, Paul. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis. A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP. Torreira, Francisco, Sara Bögels and Stephen C. Levinson. 2015. “Breathing for Answering. The Time Course of Response Planning in Conversation.”Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 284. Tsuchiya, Keiko. 2013. Listenership Behaviours in Intercultural Encounters. A TimeAligned Multimodal Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Tudini, Vincenza, Anthony J. Liddicoat. 2017. Computer-Mediated Communication and Conversation Analysis. In Steven Thorne and Stephen May (eds.), Language, Education and Technology (pp. 1–12). New York: Springer.

references

349

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 2014. National Population and Housing Census 2014. Main Report. Van der Bom, Isabelle and Karen Grainger. 2015. “Journal of Politeness Research: Introduction.” Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2): 165–178. Van Putten, Saskia. 2014. Information structure in Avatime. Nijmegen: Ipskamp Drukkers. Vinck, Patrick, Phuong N. Pham, Eric Stover and Harvey M. Weinstein. 2007. “Exposure to War Crimes and Implications for Peace Building in Northern Uganda.” JAMA 298(5): 543–554. Voeltz, Erhard and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.). 2001. Ideophones. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Vöge, Monika. 2008. All You Need is Laugh Interactional Implications of Laughter in Business Meetings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern Denmark. Von Heyking, Beatrix. 2013. A Grammar of Belanda Boor. Cologne: Köppe. Warren, Martin. 2006. Features of Naturalness in Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Watts, Richard J. 1989. “Relevance and Relational Work. Linguistic Politeness as Politic Behavior.” Multilingua, 8(2–3): 131–166. Watts, Richard J. 1992. Linguistic Politeness and Politic Verbal Behaviour. Reconsidering Claims for Universality. In Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 43–69). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo Vadis? In: Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. xi–xlvvii). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.). 1992/2005. Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Westermann, Diedrich. 1927. Laut, Ton und Sinn in westafrikanischen Sudansprachen. In Franz Boas (ed.), Festschrift Meinhof (pp. 315–328). Hamburg: J.J. Augustin. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. “Different Cultures, different languages, different speech acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–178. Wilson, Margaret and Thomas P. Wilson. 2005. “An Oscillator Model of the Timing of Turn-Taking.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12 (6): 957–968. Xudong, Deng. 2009. Listener Response. In Sigurd D’Hondt, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction (pp. 104–124). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Yahya-Othman, S. 2009. “Covering one’s social back: Politeness among the Swahili.” Text—Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 14(1): 141–161. Yigezu, Moges. 2015. Nonverbal communication codes among Hamar. Structures and

350

references

Functions. In Augustine Agwele (ed.), Body Talk and Cultural Identity in the African World (pp. 133–146). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Yngve, Victor. 1970. “On Getting a Word in Edgewise.” Chicago Linguistic Society, 6: 567– 578. Zondo, Jerry. 1982. “Some Aspects of the Ideophone in Ndebele.” Zambezia, 10(2): 111– 126.

Index of Languages Adhola; see Dhopadhola Afroasiatic 218 Akan 176, 218 ǂĀkhoe Haiǀǀom 4, 57, 176 Alur 16, 17 Anywa 17, 25 Arabic 13, 58 ‘Asian languages’ 180, 182, 218 Avatime 218 Bantu 11, 12, 14, 15, 176, 180, 218 Belanda Boor 218 Bor 17 Burun 17 Central Sudanic 11, 12, 13 Proto-Central Sudanic 13 Chadic 218 Chichewa 218 Chinese 57, 179 Cilubà 218 Danish 60 Dholuo 17, 256, 258 Dhopadhola 16, 17 Didinga 218 Dutch 60 East African Englishes; see English ‘East African languages’ 176, 182–183, 256, 269 Eastern Nilotic 11, 12, 13 Proto-Eastern Nilotic 13 Eastern Sudanic 17, 218 English 23, 58, 60, 77, 87, 88, 113, 118, 149, 175, 176, 179, 180, 191, 193, 197, 201–203, 206, 211, 215, 228, 317 East African Englishes 176 Northern Ugandan English 193 ‘European languages’ 191 Ewe 176, 217, 218, 257 French 57, 176 Gbeya 218 German 86, 88, 149–150, 191, 206, 209, 211n, 263

Germanic; see Indo-Germanic ǀGui 57 Hamar 4, 218, 257 Hausa 218, 275 Igbo 176 Ilokano 146 Indo-European 149 Indo-Germanic 57, 58 Germanic 57 Italian 60 Jamaican 257 Japanese 57, 60, 179, 180 Jur 17 Kalenjin 258 Khoisan 4 Kinyarwanda 57 Kisi 218 Kiswahili Sanifu; see Swahili Korean 57, 60 Kumam 16, 17 Kwa 217, 218 Lango 16, 17, 208, 317 Lao 60 Latin 41 Leb pa Bulu (Acholi-based youth language) 15 Luganda 176 Luo 11–13, 17 Luwo 218 Maaka 218 Mandarin; see Chinese Mbembe 218 Mundang 218 Ndebele 218 Niger-Congo 218 Nilo-Saharan 16, 17, 218, 219 Nilotic 17, 219, 258 Northern Ugandan English; see English Nuer-Dinka 17

352 Omotic 218 Oromo 253 Polish 179–180 Proto-Central Sudanic; see Central Sudanic Proto-Eastern Nilotic; see Eastern Nilotic Proto-Southern Lwoo; see Southern Lwoo Romance 57 Sesotho 218 Setswana 176, 218 Shilluk 13, 17 Shona 176, 218 Siwu 4, 29, 57, 218, 220–221 ‘South African languages’ 176, 257 Southern Luo 16, 17, 177 Southern Nilotic 17, 258 Southern Lwoo 25 Proto-Southern Lwoo 18 ‘sub-Saharan languages’ 175, 176, 256 Swahili 88, 176, 180–181, 182, 183, 216, 218, 243, 269, 307 Kiswahili Sanifu 180

index of languages T(h)uri 17 Tamil 179 Tera 218 Tima 218 Tsonga 218 Turkana 208, 256 Tzeltal 60, 179 ‘West African languages’ 176, 217 Western Nilotic 13, 16, 17, 20, 50, 208, 218 Wolaitta 218 Wolof 4, 57–58 Xhosa 176 Yélî-Dnye 60 Yoruba 176, 218, 257 Zulu 176

Index of Subjects action formatting 58–59, 80n; see also sequence activation cost 50 active listening 160 actual situational context; see context address term 64, 190, 199, 243 adjacency pair 74, 80, 84, 89, 93, 118, 141, 165, 190, 197, 231, 239, 242; see also first pair part, second pair part affiliation 65, 66, 221 evaluative affiliative token 93 agency 318; see also languaging agreement 65–66, 78, 86, 160, 162–163, 169, 290 anticipatory completion 64–66; see also turn-projection, turn-transition approach-avoidance quality 43 assertive focus 196; see also elliptic repair initiator assessments 118 attitude 158, 162 attitude marker 208; see also pragmatic marker, modal particle attitudinal view 189 back-channeling 93, 117, 125, 156, 204, 206– 207, 280, 285, 293; see also continuer, reactive token Banyoro-Kitara 11 body language 142, 237, 257, 285, 321; see also gesture, multimodality, nonverbal bottom-up 174, 316, 320, 322 breath 226, 269, 285, 288; see also paralinguistic features choral co-production 65; see also turnsharing co-author 42; see also listener co-constructive recipient (PCR) 93, 94, 112 cognition 49–51, 54, 55, 67, 193, 202, 255, 288, 315n, 320, 322 cognitive process; see cognition common ground 82, 194–197, 199, 289; see also shared knowledge

communicative competence 43–44, 54 completion of TCU; see turn-transition compound action 66 compound turn 64–65 comprehension 68, 112, 135, 156, 206, 257, 320 concentration camps 9 context 5, 41, 44, 48–55, 60, 61, 75, 78, 80, 90, 92–94, 112, 158, 163, 174–175, 181, 189, 193, 200, 211, 212, 215, 220, 227, 237, 250, 256, 298, 315 actual situational context 315; see also third space prior context 315–316; see also third space social context 41, 60, 174–175, 189 contextualization 289, 314, 315 continuers 112, 117, 118, 146, 149, 276; see also back-channeling, reactive token Conversation Analysis (CA) 36, 56–59, 92– 93, 174, 190, 237, 256, 270, 285, 313–314, 316, 319, 322 co-participation 42, 45 active coparticipant 42, 93 counters 79; see als adjacency pairs cut-off 69–70, 146, 153–155 directness 190 discourse marker 77, 86, 113, 200, 201–208, 212–216; see also pragmatic marker presentation marker 203–205, 215 reception marker 203–205, 215 elision 16, 23–25 elliptic repair 197, 289 elliptic repair initiator (ERI) 194, 206n, 320; see also assertive focus emergent meaning 53 emphasis 157, 160, 165, 171, 172, 208, 216, 220, 222, 228, 234, 236, 255, 265, 299, 311, 320 epistemic authority 223, 227; see also evidence evaluation 44, 92, 185–186, 188–190, 197, 211–212, 215, 216, 229, 278, 282, 289, 321; see also reflexive occasioning

354 evaluation of narrative 91, 113 mutual evaluation 229, 314, 322 evaluative morphology 172 evidence 223, 227; see also epistemic authority extended telling 93; see also narrative face 4, 136, 158, 162, 175, 178, 285; see also politeness face-based politeness theories; see politeness face-threat 80, 179, 182, 190–193, 199, 206, 285, 317, 320 face-threatening act (FTA) 80, 190 first pair part (FPP) 74–75, 77–80, 86, 140, 144, 197, 223, 237, 239, 242; see also adjacency pair, sequence preference, counters folktale 170, 250–253; see also ritual; narrative frame 40, 42, 45–46, 51–53, 80, 190, 193– 194, 216, 239, 242, 254, 275, 299, 314, 322 narrative frame 87, 94, 112, 113 gap 39, 59, 68–69, 73, 91, 231, 285, 289, 317, 320 gaze 27, 36, 57–58, 67, 125–126, 233n, 257, 295, 311–312 gestalt iconicity 219; see also ideophones gesture 28, 40, 52, 54, 58, 73, 220, 223, 255– 269, 294, 295–299, 306–312, 320; see also body language, multimodality, non-verbal evaluative gesture 278, 280 kiss-teeth gesture 113, 257, 269, 278–285, 313, 320 goal-oriented 48, 157, 182 Grant Strategy of Politeness 182 greeting 46, 81, 89, 130, 228–243; see also ritual Gulu 6–15, 28, 89, 214, 220–221, 314, 317 head-position 282–283 hearer; see listener hesitation 69, 77, 92, 146, 223, 268 hesitation token 77 hierarchy 49, 92, 184, 200, 257, 289

index of subjects idea unit (IU) 50, 95, 113, 255n identity 14–15, 180, 184, 217, 221, 280 ideophone 4, 55, 172, 175, 217–227, 256, 266, 288, 314, 316, 320; see also gestalt iconicity illocutionary act 43, 182 imagery 218, 255, 256, 257 impoliteness 43, 89, 157, 158, 164, 181, 183, 189–190, 217, 250 indirectness 44, 176, 177, 180, 190–191 individual interaction space; see space intention 43, 84, 90n, 94, 230, 318, 320 interactional discourse 177–178 interaction frame; see frame internally displaced people (IDP) 9 interview 28, 92, 203, 215, 216 intonation unit (IU); see idea unit invisible-hand theory 314 involvement 43–44, 157, 158, 195, 225, 250, 253 joint production 42, 160, 288 kiss-teeth gesture; see gesture knowledge 43, 45–46, 47, 51, 54, 55, 92, 93, 112, 159, 174–175, 193n, 194, 202, 208, 221–222, 229, 236, 253–254, 274 cultural knowledge 49, 82, 90n, 228 knowledge schemas 52–53 shared knowledge 81–82, 113, 289, 313; see also common ground world knowledge 315 Labov-Waletzky-model 90–91 language acquisition 158 language socialization 54, 55, 172, 232, 234, 236–239, 317, 320, 321 languager 317–318 languaging 315, 317–321 languaging-in-interaction 319–321 lapse 148–149, 289, 291 laughter 27, 63–64, 112, 226, 257, 269, 270– 285, 317, 320 affiliative laughter 270 bitter laugh 275 contextualizing laughter 125n, 274 reflexive laughter 270 Leb pa Bulu 15; see also youth language

index of subjects listener 41–42, 44n, 45, 47, 50–52, 60, 64– 68, 72, 76, 80–82, 91, 93, 113, 118, 120, 135–136, 144, 148, 151, 160–161, 169, 178, 182, 185, 188, 195–196, 199, 221–223, 239, 251, 270, 275, 276, 289, 293, 314, 317 active listener 112, 317 co-listener 42 local practice 316–317 locality 134, 159, 317, 319 Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) 8–10, 253 Luo-triangle 11–12 maxim-based politeness theories; see politeness metacommunicative frame 219 metapragmatics 187–190 microsociology 47 mimetic practices 227, 229 modal particle 202–217, 230, 320; see also pragmatic marker, attitude marker moral 179–180, 228, 229, 236, 252, 254, 278, 321 moral order 188–189, 229 multicompetence 322 multilingualism 55, 221, 314, 315, 317–319 multimodality 57, 255–256, 294; see also body language, gesture, non-verbal mutual cognitive assessment 51–52 mutual impact/influence 47–48, 316 mutual monitoring 42, 47–48, 125–126, 134, 314, 320 mutual understanding 46, 51, 157, 161 mutuality 125, 314, 319, 322 narrative 9, 10, 42, 44, 52, 70, 82–84, 86–88, 90–95, 112–113, 120, 161, 170, 207, 215, 222, 223, 225, 250–253, 256, 267, 285, 291, 295, 314 conversational story 118, 291 elicited story 114 narrative structure 90, 93, 95, 113, 190, 196, 203 small story 91, 113 telling rights 92 National Resistance Army (NRA) 8 negotiation 45, 228, 242, 250, 317, 320; see also ritual negotiation of conversational rituals 229

355 negotiation of narrative structure 93 negotiation of participation roles 45, 47, 53 negotiation of participation framework 45, 92, 124 negotiation of social relationships 47, 215, 289, 321 new order 12 non-verbal 40–41, 45, 54, 57, 112, 118, 191, 232, 255–269, 311, 313, 319, 320, 321; see also body language, gestures, multimodality opportunity space 135, 148 overlap 39, 57, 59, 60, 64–66, 68, 118, 120, 125, 144, 151–157, 165, 231, 234, 270, 289, 317, 320 between-overlap 152, 157 within-overlap 153, 156–157 Paluo 11–12 paralinguistic features 112, 148, 257, 269, 320, 321 participation 41–45, 47, 64, 112, 125, 158, 195, 316 active participation 196 participation framework 44–45, 60, 93, 120–121, 130, 142, 145, 196, 197, 321; see also negotiation, participation roles ritualization of participation framework 237 shift of participation framework 125, 134, 226 participation rights 95 participation roles 44, 117, 227, 253; see also negotiation, participation framework shift of participation roles 41, 46, 60, 66, 112, 160, 227, 237 participatory listenership 159–160 personal relational ritual; see ritual politeness 36, 43, 154, 174–199, 216–217, 222, 229, 313, 315, 317 face-based politeness theories 177–179 first-order politeness 186–187 maxim-based politeness theories 177– 178, 185 politic behaviour 183–184 second-order politeness 186–187, 190 understandings of politeness 185

356 politeness marker 175, 192, 216–217 politic behaviour; see politeness post-expansion 86, 88–89, 141, 165; see also sequence posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 10 pragmatic marker 37, 175, 194, 199–205, 212– 215, 288; see also discourse marker, modal particle pragmatics 67, 174, 178, 181, 320 pre-closing 88, 167, see also sequence preference; see sequence preference presentation marker; see discourse marker prior context; see context proverbs 160, 252n, 271 reactive token 68, 69n, 73, 118, 120, 141, 204n, 320; see also back-channeling reactive token initiator (RTI) 120 reception marker; see discourse marker recipiency structure 124 recipient; see listener reciprocity 47 recognitional demonstrative 81–82, 85 reduplication 172, 219 reflexive occasioning 188; see also evaluation re-framing 193–194, 315 reinforcement 164, 171, 298 relational work 184, 188; see also politeness relationship, see social relationship repair 39, 55, 57–59, 65–66, 68, 81, 86, 118, 134–157, 158, 160, 163, 194, 256, 268, 313, 321 other-initiated repair (OIR) 86, 135–136, 138, 141–145 prospective repair 146 repair-initiation opportunity space 135; see also opportunity space repair-sequence 55, 81, 136–146, 151, 163, 268 retrospective repair 146 self-initiated repair (SIR) 135, 146–149 repetition 36, 44, 58, 77, 92, 117, 136, 142, 143, 151, 156, 157–173, 195, 227, 234, 236, 256, 265–266, 288, 295, 320, 321 autophonic repetition 159, 164, 236, 295 diaphonic repetition 159, 236 mirrored repetition 166–169

index of subjects respect 83, 155, 236–238, 241–242, 289, 290 responsive recipient (PRR) 93–94, 112, 117; see also narrative ritual 227–231, 250, 253–254, 290 covert ritual 229 personal relational ritual 229, 250 ritual interaction / communication 55, 188, 227–229, 239, 242 ritual language 46, 175 ritual narrative 90n ritual speech 26, 81 schema, see knowledge schema schisming 45, 81, 120–134, 225–226, 316, 318, 320 schisming-inducing turn (SIT) 124 second pair part (SPP) 74–80, 86, 89, 144, 191, 197, 223–224, 237, 239, 242, 249; see also adjacency pair, first pair part dispreferred SPP 77, 80, 242, 243; see also sequence preference secondary predicate 219 self-selection 59, 61, 63–64, 148, 151, 152, 199, 289; see also turn-allocation sequence 79–91, 118, 120–121, 124–126, 130, 134, 164–169, 190, 194, 206, 224– 227, 249, 256, 266, 288, 291, 294, 295, 313 post-sequence 80 pre-sequence 80, 82–84 sequence closing 58, 86–89, 164, 165, 167, 169, 225, 266, 268, 294 sequence opening 51–52, 58, 73–74, 81, 166, 169, 266, 295 sequence preference 57, 58, 75–80, 86, 136n sequence-organization 80, 239, 256, 298–299, 320 silence 36, 58, 60, 69, 72, 77, 79, 148, 152, 249–251, 257, 269, 280, 288–294, 316, 317, 320 silence-in-interaction 288 situated meaning 52–53 small story; see narrative social action 40, 46–49, 55, 56, 65–66, 81, 92, 93, 120–121, 189, 190, 222, 223, 226, 318, 320, 322 social context; see context social control 154, 253, 290

357

index of subjects social expectations 43, 54 social interaction 47–48, 53, 56, 81, 175, 184, 185, 188, 202, 228, 257 social relationship 92, 178, 182, 184, 188, 229, 253, 321 social restraints 43 sound-stretch 146–148, 154 space 50, 134, 185, 314–316, 317–318, 319, 320, 321 individual interaction space 315 third space 315 stance 65, 93, 113, 152, 199, 201, 213, 280, 282 storytelling; see narrative structural organization 57, 154, 164, 173, 225, 227, 251, 256, 257, 269, 285, 288, 289, 295, 298, 320, 321 talk-in-interaction 40, 56, 58, 60, 80, 93, 154, 157, 190, 199, 256, 319 telling rights; see narrative third space; see space third-party politeness, also: third-person politeness 182–183 token response 86, 88, 137 top-down 174, 322 trajectory 79, 154 transactional discourse 177–178 transition relevance place (TRP) 45, 61, 69, 151, 156; see also turn

translanguaging 315, 317–319; see also languaging trans-spaces 315 trans-system 315 turn 42, 45n, 56, 58, 59, 60–61, 64–74 multi-unit turn 118, 148, 213, 266, 285 trouble source turn 135, 142–143, 144, 163, 195; see also repair turn allocation 59, 61, 64, 93 turn projection 51, 66–67, 73 turn-abortion 69, 72 turn-constructional unit (TCU) 59, 61, 64, 66–67, 69, 164, 212, 231 turn-sharing 64–65; see also choral coproduction turn-taking 60–61, 125, 270, 285, 287 turn-transition 61, 66–69, 135, 164, 231, 269, see also transition relevance point, anticipatory completion urbanization 221, 314 volume 27, 69, 154, 155, 171, 219, 312 war 8–10, 13, 15, 253–254 whistling 226, 311–312 word-search 69, 149–151, 256, 268, 311 youth language 15, 47, 314; see also Leb pa Bulu