Conversation Analysis and the Study of Bilingual Interaction

This paper is written by a linguist who is working with language in interaction within the paradigm of Conversation Analysis. The topic of the paper was inspired by a seminar where the socalled Køge Project researchers, who investigate Turkish-Danish bilingual students in Denmark, invited researchers with different backgrounds and approaches to work on data from the Køge Project corpus (see Holmen & Jørgensen (eds.) 2000). The paper contains deliberations about how Conversation Analysis can contribute to the study of bilingual interaction, and focuses on methodological problems and advantages of doing Conversation Analysis on bilingual data. The first part of the article briefly outlines the fields of “Conversation Analysis” and “the study of bilingual interaction” and sums up the methodological lessons from my earlier analyses of the data from the Køge Project. Then the author proceeds to showing some aspects of conversation-analytical methodology through concrete analyses of extracts from the Køge Project data

Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective

In our paper, we give an overview over what is known about some of the most frequent interjections in Danish talk-in-interaction: ja (‘yes’), nej (‘no’), mm (‘mm’), nå (approximately ‘oh’), and okay (‘okay’). We review the CA/IL literature on these words, and we present our own exemplary analyses of single instances of these words in extracts from our corpus of recorded, naturally occurring Danish interactions. Based on this, we argue that sequential position, epistemics, and affiliation and alignment should be taken into account when describing and categorizing dialogue particles in talk-in-interaction. Prosody and other phonetic cues are important for the realization of the above dimensions and functions and we review what is known about prosodic and phonetic cues plus add some of our own observations, without launching a full phonetic and prosodic analysis

The Copenhagen declaration : wrapping up the Interlaken reform?

Abstract extracted from the beginning of the introduction.Published: 27 Jan 2022The European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR or the Court) is aremarkably active international court, second in output of judgments onlyto the European Court of Justice, an institution with more than six timesthe budget and jurisdiction over private and public law questions in a widerange of fields.1 By comparison, the ECtHR deals only with cases againstits 47 Member States concerning one or more of between one and twodozen fundamental rights depending on which protocols the respondentstate in question has signed. Nevertheless, the Court receives tens of thou-sands of applications every year from the around 830 million citizens itsjurisdiction encompasses, and since the 1990s it has been unable to processthese cases at the rate they were lodged, leading to the build-up of abacklog of cases

How to deal with really good bad-faith interpreters : M.A. v Denmark

Published online : 04 July 2022Can a State that no-longer officially pursues an integration agenda for a group of refugees claim integration as a legitimate aim to interfere with the fundamental rights of said group? If domestic courts’ careful consideration of international human rights law and practice widens the State’s margin of appreciation, is it then narrowed when States ignore national and international organisations’ warnings of non-compliance with human rights law? Can the European Court of Human Rights refer to EU-law to establish the existence of a European consensus when the respondent State in question has opted out of EU-regulation in the area? The Grand Chamber judgment M.A. v Denmark from 9 July 2021 raises these questions but answers only some. This article aims, through an analysis of M.A. v Denmark and its political and legal background, to seek some answers in this carefully worded judgment

Editorial : maieutic or meddlesome? : reflections on the roles of the journal and the author

There is a fair amount of road to travel between a submitted draft and a published article. For authors, publishing takes time, effort, and in some journals a significant monetary contribution as well. For editors and peer reviewers it also entails a fair amount of (usually unpaid) labour. By one estimate scholars and scientists globally spend more than 15,000 years peer reviewing annually, and to that we would have to add the significant amount of time spent revising articles, copy editing, formatting and generally making pieces ready for publication. So free it is not; even at a Diamond open access journal such as ours. Since publishing incurs costs, it is worth enquiring at regular intervals into what sort of added value academic publishing and peer review contributes, for the author, for the editor, for the legal community, perhaps even for the world