Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:48:09.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiating entitlement to language: Calling 911 without English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Chase Wesley Raymond
Chase Wesley Raymond*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology & Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, 264 Haines Hall, 375 Portola Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When individuals in the United States dial the emergency service telephone number, they immediately encounter some version of the English-language institutional opening “Nine-one-one, what is your emergency?”. What happens, though, when the one placing the call is not a speaker of English? How do callers and call-takers adapt to overcome this added communicative barrier so that they are able to effectively assess the emergency situation at hand? The present study describes the structure of a language negotiation sequence, which serves to evaluate callers' entitlement to receive service in a language other than the institutional default—in our case, requests for Spanish in lieu of English. We illustrate both how callers initially design requests for language, as well as how call-takers subsequently respond to those differing request formulations. Interactions are examined qualitatively and quantitatively to underscore the context-based contingencies surrounding call-takers' preference for English over the use of translation services. The results prove informative not only in terms of how bilingual talk is organized within social institutions, but also more generally with regard to how humans make active use of a variety of resources in their attempts to engage in interaction with one another. (Entitlement, discourse/social interaction, conversation analysis, requests, language contact, institutional talk, Spanish (in the US))*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 33 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In de Ruiter, Jan (ed.), Questions, 123–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38:1257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S., & Drew, Paul (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28:69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1998). Metropolitan police service emergency and non-emergency telephone call handling: A study of the handling of enquiries and incident reports made over the telephone by members of the public to MPS operator centres, control rooms and the new Scotland Yard information room. Report to the Metropolitan Police Service, London.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Heritage, John (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, Paul & Heritage, John (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Walker, Traci (2010). Citizens' emergency calls: Requesting assistance in calls to the police. In Coulthard, Malcolm & Johnson, Alison (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 95–110. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine (2006). “Will you or can't you?”: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38:1081–104.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Clayman, Steven E. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in “repetitional” responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, Jan (ed.), Questions, 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jean, Yvette A. (2004). Inclusive intake screening: Shaping medical problems into specialist-appropriate cases. Sociology of Health & Illness 26(4):385–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jefferson, Gail (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In Button, Graham & Lee, John R. E. (eds.), Talk and social organization, 86–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing normative heterosexuality in “after hours” calls to the doctor. Social Problems 52:477–98.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee (2009). Extended requesting: Interaction and collaboration in the production and specification of requests. Journal of Pragmatics 41:1248–71.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee (2011). Managing nongranting of customers' requests in commercial service encounters. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44:109–34.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In Hakulinen, Auli & Selting, Margret (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction, 209–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68:939–67.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and social organization, 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, Jeffrey C., Giesen, Bernhard, Munch, Richard, & Smelser, Neil J. (eds.), The micro-macro link, 207–34. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:289–327.Google Scholar
Shin, Hyon B., with Bruno, Rosalind (2003). Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000, Census 2000 brief, Issued October 2003. US Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Online: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30:315–43.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen, & Tracy, Susan (1998). Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research 25:225–51.Google Scholar
Tracy, Susan (2002). When questioning turns to face threat: An interactional sensitivity in 911 call taking. Western Journal of Communication 66:129–57.Google Scholar
Wakin, Michele A., & Zimmerman, Don H. (1999). Reduction and specialization in emergency and directory assistance calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32:409–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, Jack, & Zimmerman, Don H. (1998). Observations on the display and management of emotion in naturally occurring activities: The case of “hysteria” in calls to 911. Social Psychology Quarterly 61:141–59.Google Scholar
Whalen, Jack, Zimmerman, Don H., & Whalen, Marilyn R. (1988). When words fail: A single case analysis. Special issue of Social Problems: Language, Interaction, and Social Problems 35:335–62.Google Scholar
Whalen, Marilyn R., & Zimmerman, Don H. (1987). Sequential and institutional contexts in calls for help. Special issue of Social Psychology Quarterly: Language and Social Interaction 50:172–85.Google Scholar
Whalen, Marilyn R., & Zimmerman, Don H. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society 19:465–92.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. (1984). Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications, 210–28. (Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 35.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In Drew, Paul & Heritage, John (eds.), Talk and work: Interaction in institutional settings, 418–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. (1998). Identity, context, and interaction. In Antaki, Charles & Widdicombe, Sue (eds.), Identities in talk, 87–106. London: Sage.Google Scholar