5.2 Tacit regulation: the scope of acceptability
5.2.3 Lexical accommodation
This section concentrates on lexical accommodation as a language-regulatory practice that illustrates adjustments that speakers make to their own language. The focus is on accommodation, because it can show how speakers take up others’ linguistic usage, and thus sheds light on the ways that a co-interactant’s language can affect a speaker’s language. Speakers can either reuse a lexical item used by a co-interactant (i.e.
accommodate to another speaker) or reject the item (i.e. either maintain their own speech habits or emphasise divergence from the interlocutor). Lexical accommodation is considered both in its immediate interactional context and in terms of recycling lexical items within a group discussion and across group meetings.
Accommodation as the immediate repetition and recycling of lexical items
Accommodative practices are usually divided into speech convergence and divergence (e.g. Giles et al. 1991: 62–67). Convergence means making one’s speech more similar to that of the interlocutor(s), for instance by adjusting one’s pronunciation, and divergence means making it less similar and thus accentuating differences between self and other. A third term, maintenance, is often used to describe situations where a speaker maintains his or her own speech style, but does not accentuate differences as in divergence. This terminology has been revised in Gallois et al. (2005), where accommodation is used to refer to regulation of communication in order to appear more like each other, which means that the interlocutor or the interlocutors are treated as ingroup members, whereas non-accommodation refers to regulation in order to appear more distinct. In terms of modifying one’s speech, accommodation basically means convergence.
Non-142
accommodation, then again, can take different forms (Gallois et al. 2005): (1) counter-accommodation (or divergence), that is, speakers maximise the difference between themselves and their interlocutors; (2) under-accommodation (or maintenance), that is, speakers maintain their own behaviour without moving towards their interlocutors and (3) over-accommodation (or negatively perceived convergence), that is, accommodation to stereotypes of interlocutor groups, which often takes patronising forms, such as foreigner talk.53
In this study, I partly adopt the new terminology, and talk about accommodate to in the meaning of converge. The new terms listed under different forms of non-accommodation are used interchangeably with the old ones, as they seem to correspond to a sufficient degree. However, since in over-accommodation, a speaker actually tries to accommodate, although fails to do so in a way that would please the interlocutor, it is not really a case of non-accommodation, but rather failed accommodation – and this is how it is treated in this study. I use the terms to refer to accommodative practices, not speaker intentions or interpretations.
The following analysis focuses on lexical accommodation, that is, the reuse and recycling (accommodation/convergence) or rejection (divergence and maintenance) of lexical items used by co-interactants in the interaction. The analysis explores lexical accommodation in its immediate interactional context, but also considers the recycling of lexical items within one group discussion and across group meetings. For one, this means a similar focus to, for instance, Cogo (2009, see also Cogo and Dewey 2006), who explores other repetition (of both lexical items and other features) by looking into the immediate interactional context as in the example (5.46) from her data below:
(5.46)
Chako: my [specific interest in point Sila: [yeah
Chako: when did language i mean … because [of revolution,
Sila: [mhm mhm
Chako: did language change?
Sila: yeah [it’s it changed
Chako: [specifically intentionally
53 For over-accommodation in ELF interaction, see Carey (2010).
143
Sila: → because of revolution ↓ but it also changed from the beginning of the twentieth ce[ntury
Chako: [yeah
(Cogo 2009: 262, original emphasis) This kind of immediate repetition is a clear indication of one speaker accommodating to another, and it can be taken as an acceptance of the phrase used.
However, Sila’s use of the zero article (because of revolution) seems to remain temporary, since Cogo (2009: 263) points out that the speaker has a tendency to use definite articles in other contexts. The accommodation thus shows that Chako’s formulation (because of revolution), which deviates from Sila’s general tendency of using the definite article, is accepted by Sila, but that later on, Sila continues to stick to her preferred tendency. This supports Hülmbauer’s (2009: 327) claim for the situationality of such usage.
However, the main purpose of my analysis is to see whether the use of lexical items (especially the use of items that deviate from ENL) is limited to immediate accommodation, as in the above example from Cogo (2009), or whether they are kept in later use and thus recycled at a later point in the same discussion or in other meetings.
While immediate accommodation can show alignment to another speaker and acceptance of certain usage, recycling of items would suggest that the speakers may be constructing patterns of acceptability (and perhaps also new norms).54
Before turning to the analysis, it is important to consider the criteria for treating the recycling of a lexical item as accommodation, since if a speaker uses an item previously used by another speaker, s/he may not necessarily be accommodating, but simply using an item that she would have used anyway without the prior use of the word in the interaction. The immediate interactional context can be taken to demonstrate accommodation, but when there is no immediate repetition, it is more difficult to prove that we are actually talking about accommodation. If no immediate context can be found
54 Accommodation is often divided into short-term and long-term accommodation (Trudgill 1986), where long-term accommodation can be seen as the product of short-term accommodation processes. Since this is not a longitudinal study (even if the data come from interrelated speech events), I do not mean to make claims about long-term accommodation, which would require showing that the accommodation has led to a more permanent change in the speakers’ language (see Trudgill 1986). However, for my purposes, the term short-term accommodation is too broad, because it covers both the immediate repetition of items and the recycling of items later on in the same or interrelated discussions. Since this difference is
important in terms of language regulation, I do not talk about short-term accommodation, but rather refer to immediate repetition or reuse of lexical items as opposed to the adoption and recycling of items.
144
to support the claim, the analysis is supported by other means (i.e. unconventionality of the lexical item and the increase in its preference of use).
Analysis
The analysis first takes a look at instances where the group members can be found to settle for one lexical item. The first set of examples comes from the guided group and concerns the adoption of a code-switched lexical item in the group. In example 5.47, we can see that S1 refers to a Finnish organisation with its Finnish name55.
(5.47)
S1: ((…)) and then i had a look at metsähallitus which would be maybe the forestry
M2: it’s the forest and park services S1: okay
M2: (i think)
S1: okay well forest and park services er they have some more stuff quite a lot of stuff um i found ((…))
(GG, B09C2GGW, 2nd occurrence of metsähallitus) We can see that S1 also attempts to translate the name, but one of the mentors intervenes to do it for her. M2’s translation offers an alternative way to refer to the organisation, but only Metsähallitus was used later on, which suggests that the Finnish name became the preferred variant in the group. This is exemplified in example 5.48, which further shows that the term is used not only by a Finn (S3) but also by a NS of German (S2) in the group.
(5.48)
S2: yeah i think that it was unpublished but <M2> [right] </M2> [maybe] maybe there’s still some way to get it maybe W-W-F or or metsähallitus has it and we can get it (from there) i don’t know
55 Interestingly, the Metsähallitus website does not translate the name of the organisation into English (see
<http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Sivut/Home.aspx>, accessed 10 Feb 2013).
145
S3: i think somewhere in metsähallitus er they sa(id) that five more deaths per year and species will be gone or something like that
(GG, B09C2GGW) In this case, S2’s adoption of the Finnish name cannot be explained by immediate accommodation; rather, S3 is the one who accommodates to S2, and S2 has adopted the lexical item from an earlier stage in the discussion. We can also see that the usage persists across group meetings, as M2 talks about Metsähallitus in the fourth meeting (example 5.49).
(5.49)
M2: yeah it says that the- these areas that are within (these) lines they are, erm areas where the the ministry of a- agriculture and forestry has set some fishing regulations <S2> mhm-hm </S2> and this is where metsähallitus has implemented some regulations over, these state-owned water areas and then (light) grey is (this) voluntary regulations that have been agreed with with (co-ops) there
(GG, B09C4GGW) We can thus see that the use of metsähallitus has become preferred use in the group.
This shows that code-switching in ELF can result in the adoption of lexical items outside the English language.
Similarly, unconventional lexical items can be adopted as the preferred ones. In one of the meetings, S1 started talking about cottage people (i.e. people holidaying in a summer cottage)56, as illustrated in examples 5.50 and 5.51.
(5.50)
S3: yeah but our minist- ministry of agriculture and forestry is thinking that (it should be voluntary), so that’s the problem @@ <SS> (xx) @@ </SS> yeah
56 In Standard English, the closest equivalent is cottager, which according to Collins English Dictionary can mean either of the following: (1) a person who lives in a cottage, (2) a rural labourer or (3) (chiefly in Canadian English) a person holidaying in a cottage, especially an owner and seasonal resident of a cottage in a resort area (<http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cottager>, accessed 10 Feb 2013). The third meaning is what is intended here.
146
S1: i think the problem that um fish that they want to catch like cottage people in saimaa they are these small little (xx) things and you won’t really be able to [catch them] <NS5> [(no)] </NS5> because they’re good they’re tasty NS5: but they’re so tiny
S1: yeah but that’s [(why you need lots of them)]
SS: [(xx)] @@
(GG, B09C2GGW) The first of the examples (5.50) shows that the lexical item is not paid attention to by the other group members. Rather, the immediate turn following S1’s turn is NS5’s comment on the kind of fish the cottage people would like to catch.
The second example (5.51) illustrates the continued use of the lexical item.
(5.51)
S1: i was just thinking maybe we could sort of (the) whole presentation could be about different ways of protecting the animal <SU> mhm </SU> so and then we could just sort of take different examples of different techniques and maybe not focus so much on the (gill nets) and all that because that’s sort of well looked into and maybe in that five-minute presentation we’d focus on the (gill nets) and sort of talk to the cottage people saying we know this is bad so stop doing it and then make the rest of (our job) easier
(GG, B09C2GGW) In the data, there are no occurrences of immediate repetition of cottage people that would indicate lexical accommodation, but because of the unconventionality of the item, it is likely that NS5 and S3, who used the item later in the same meeting (examples 5.52 and 5.53 below), adopted it from S1. Let us look at example 5.52 first.
(5.52)
S2: it it looks like we are going to set up this the design for the (xx)
NS5: well the five-minute presentation are we have we basically decided that that’s going to be er (you know) focusing on the fishing issue of, cottage people
<SU> [(yeah)] </SU> [because] if so you can start (on a) power-point presentation full of (pretty pictures of) (xx) seals
147
(GG, B09C2GGW) The short pause in NS5’s turn right before cottage people, which implies slight hesitation of using the item, suggests that her use of the item was influenced by S1. What is notable is that NS5, as a NS of Canadian English, uses the item in the first place, since in Canadian English, cottagers is the conventional way of expressing the meaning intended here.
Example 5.53 shows yet another speaker using the same unconventional lexical item.
(5.53)
S3: and people try to start some in some forum some discussion about this and they @@ take the opinions of the @@ what could saimaa cottage people think <SU> @@ </SU> (xx)
(GG, B09C2GGW) That three different speakers used the same item in the same session without anyone proposing alternative expressions suggests that the item was accepted in the group. This lends support to Firth’s (1996) and Hülmbauer’s (2009) findings of the reuse of unconventional lexical items in ELF, but it further implies that such items can be kept in later use and recycled beyond the immediate interactional context.
In the group’s presentation, though, we notice that NS5, the NS in the group, talks about cottagers rather than cottage people (example 5.54):
(5.54)
NS5: ((…)) we know that this changing every few months might be difficult for people to remember so we have proposed erm making, a promotional
calendar that would be distributed to all of the cottagers around lake saimaa and the people living in savonlinna that would have lots of pretty pictures as well as remind them each month ((…))
(GG, B09CSgp: Presentation) Even though the unconventional item became the accepted form in one of the meetings, it thus seems that there are conflicting forces at play. In this case, NS5
148
accommodated to the group; but in the presentation, which is a different register from the group-work study event, she appears to have returned to her own idiolect.
The following set of examples suggests another path for starting to prefer a specific lexical item, in this case IMPLEMENT as opposed to EXECUTE. Example 5.55 starts with M1 asking S3 to clarify a chart illustrating conservation areas of the Saimaa seal.
(5.55)
M1: can you explain it again i don’t know how to read it
S3: oh okay that dark green er (this) conservation area is executed <M1> [mhm-hm] </M1> [(so)] they [have done] <NS5> [so] </NS5> something there M1: [(yeah)]
NS5: [(about)] six per cent
S3: about yeah er light green is er state land conservation n- not executed [and]
<M1> [mhm-hm] </M1> white is private land conservation not executed M1: yeah but how does this relate to saimaa seal these numbers or
S3: er well this is (a) whole finland <M1> [mhm] </M1> [so] that’s not the er, not just right but er it gives a a some kind of picture about how natura areas
@(are)@ (are er) taken care of
M2: so even though there are these natura 2000 areas that are planned to to protect saimaa seal but they are not like implemented so they have no status in practice
S3: yeah and in this table i collected some of the er saimaa natura areas and there you can see how much of those areas are (protected) and how much not
(GG, B09C5GGW) In the example, after M1’s request, S3 explains about the implementation of conservation areas illustrated in the chart (a topic first discussed in a previous session that M1 did not attend), but M1 indicates trouble understanding the relevance of what S3 is saying. S3 then starts to explain her point again, with M2 intervening with a mediation turn (see section 5.2.2). What is noticeable in this example is that S3 uses the lexical item
EXECUTE, whereas M2 replaces the item with IMPLEMENT. We thus have a case of divergence, which, however, does not seem to take a stand as to the acceptability or accuracy of the usage. Rather, it appears that the mediation turn requires an alternative
149
item to increase the likelihood that the others (in this case M1 in particular) understand the point S3 is trying to make. As we can see, M2 also clarifies that S3 talks about natura 2000 areas rather than just natura areas, and she specifies that the conservation areas concern the protection of the Saimaa seal. Increasing explicitness in this way was a key element of mediation turns analysed in section 5.2.2 (see also Hynninen 2011).
In the last group work session, the students gave a mock presentation that was commented on by an instructor of English (E1). This is illustrated in example 5.56.
(5.56)
S3: ((…)) so that means that it the seal should be protected in everywhere and breeding and (resting) areas are protected and it’s nice we have eleven natura areas for saimaa seal that is nice but as you can see these are almost all of the natura areas and how many seals are there er we have two national parks then we have private conservation areas and lastly last we have areas that are not executed percent of those so we have eleven areas for saimaa seal yeah M1: so is this like er there’s a certain size of the area and then fourteen percent of
the area which should be protected (for) like linnansaari is protected M2: mhm yeah
S3: yeah
M1: so how can they be natura areas if they are not protected at all
NS5: they’re on paperwork they’re natura [2000] <S3> [yeah] </S3> areas however no one’s actually doing anything <S3> yeah [(i think that)] </S3> [to make]
actual conservation @(happen there)@ </NS5>
S3: yeah it is on the paper and they are doing the [plans] <M1> [yeah] </M1> for how <M1> [i think it’s] </M1> [how this] is really done
M1: it’s good that you say that like clarify it <S3> eh </S3> (xx) (this thought) E1: mhm
S3: yeah M1: [(or) (xx)]
E1: [would you care to also clarify] (what) the last (column) is not executed it was a little bit confusing for me the others were very clear but i wasn’t sure what not executed means in this case
150
S3: er that they have and i read about er these areas they said that ways to execute this conservation area and the situation now mostly not executed ninety-nine percent so [the the]
N55: [[(so)]]
E1: [okay so the] conservation measure is not put into [practice]
S3: [huh]
NS5: yeah
E1: (so it means) the conservation measures haven’t been S3: done yeah
E1: implemented okay
S3: maybe (we could put implemented) [(or something)]
E1: [yeah] (but) it might be an idea to just to
NS5: [change it to implemented or something like that]
E1: [(xx) (how you could say that or) [(something)]]
M1: [yeah] an- and couldn’t you just take the the column with conservation area because there’s nothing in there <SU> mhm i [agree] </SU> [out] of it so that it [it’s easier to]
((…))
S3: er ways for protecting the seal are already there er there are many kinds of laws which should be done in natura areas but mostly they are not executed as usual. </S3>
E1: mhm <NAME S3> just before you sit down you did really well with the terminology and stuff (there) but just a couple of words to to keep (an an ear at) (xx) one was survival (xx) (incorrect) survival (but) the other one was strict strict protection i think you pronounced it /straikt/ or something like that (but they are the only two that) might confuse someone if they are (a bit) mispronounced (the others were fine I think) just strict protection
M1: do we want to go through the slides then ((…))
(GG, B09C6GGW)
151
As we can see in the example, in her part of the presentation, S3 again talks about conservation areas that are not executed. This time E1 takes up the matter (would you care to also clarify) and first asks S3 to explain what she means by it. Following S3’s answer, where she continues using the lexical item EXECUTE, E1 suggests alternative ways of expressing the same thing (put into practice, implemented). The latter is taken up by S3 in the following turn, as well as by NS5, who intervenes to suggest the adoption of IMPLEMENT instead of
EXECUTE. Interestingly, E1 does not suggest changing the lexical item, but rather to think of how to explain the idea. Here we thus have the English instructor picking up a lexical item that he had trouble understanding, but he is not the one suggesting that the item should be changed. Rather, that is how S3 and NS5 interpret E1’s intervention.
The continuation of the exchange in example 5.56 shows that S3 persists in using
EXECUTE, but in the group’s actual presentation and the ensuing discussion, it appears
EXECUTE, but in the group’s actual presentation and the ensuing discussion, it appears