This paper investigates the structure and function of translinguistic apposition in Kinyarwanda news articles. In the structure, a Kinyarwanda noun phrase and a French / English noun phrase are juxtaposed as if the second clarified the first. Two major issues are identified, namely the possibility of translinguisticc apposition as practical action and its implicativeness relative to preceding and subsequent choices. These issues are identified against the background of two important discourse organisational principles, namely the principle of progressivity and that of the preference for same language discourse.
Methods:
Data were collected in two media blogs in Rwanda, namely Igihe.com and Umuseke.com using the method of theoretical sampling. They were analysed, in the tradition of the Ethnomethodology of Written Discourse, using a conversation-analysis-inspired qualitative analysis.
Results:
Translinguistic apposition is found to be possible as practical action because, organised as a parenthetical, it is shielded off from the reach of the preference for same medium discourse. It is also found to serve as a discourse-based language management strategy. Its implicativeness derives from this function.
Discussion:
Implications for the study of bilingual language use and for the practice of lexical development at the macro level are discussed.
DaoustD. (1998). Language planning and language reform. In CoulmasF. (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 436–452). Basil Blackwell.
5.
GafarangaJ. (2000). Medium repair versus other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 327–350.
6.
GafarangaJ. (2007). Talk in two languages. Palgrave.
7.
GafarangaJ. (2012). Language choice and conversational repair in bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16, 501–527.
8.
GafarangaJ. (2015). Translinguistic apposition: Towards an interpretive perspective in language policy research. Language in Society, 44, 87–112.
9.
GafarangaJ. (2019). Overall order versus local order in bilingual conversation. A conversation analytic perspective on language alternation. In FilipiA.MarkeeN. (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation (pp. 35–57). John Benjamins.
10.
GafarangaJ.NiyomugaboC.UwizeyimanaV. (2013). Micro declared language policy or not? Language-policy-like statements in the rules of procedure of the Rwandan Parliament. Language Policy, 12, 313–332.
11.
JernuddB.NeustupnýJ. V. (1987). Language planning: For whom? In LaforgeL. (Ed.), Actes du Colloque International sur l’Aménagement Linguistique / Proceedings of the international colloquium on language planning (pp. 69–84). Les Presses de L’Université Laval.
12.
KaplanR. B.BaldaufR. B. (2005). Editing contributed scholarly articles from a language management perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 47–62.
13.
KimuraG. C. (2005). From language planning / language attitude dichotomy to language management. Gengoseisaku, 1, 1–3.
14.
KimuraG. C. (2014). Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on the prohibition of Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a Slovenost, 75, 255–270.
15.
KitzingerC. (2014). Repair. In SidnellJ.StiversS. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Wiley Blackwell.
16.
LernerG. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In OchsE.SchegloffE. A.ThompsonS. A. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge University Press.
17.
MazelandH. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1816–1869.
18.
McHoulA. (1978). Ethnomethodology and literature: Preliminaries to a sociology of reading. Poetics, 7, 113–120.
19.
Myers-ScottonC. (1993). Social motivation for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Clarendon Press.
20.
NekvapilJ. (2016). Language management theory as one approach to language policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17, 11–22.
21.
NekvapilJ.ShermanT. (2009). Pre-interaction management in multinational companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10, 181–198.
22.
NekvapilJ.ShermanT. (2015). An introduction: Language management theory in language policy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 23, 1–12.
23.
NeustupnýJ. V. (1978). Post-structural approaches to language: Language theory in a Japanese context.University of Tokyo Press.
24.
NeustupnýJ. V. (2005). Foreigners and the Japanese in contact situations: Evaluation of norm deviations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 176, 307–323.
25.
PaduaJ. P. (2024). Ethnomethdology of written discourse: An analytical model for treating written discourse as ongoing social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 222, 1–16.
26.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG.SvartvikJ. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
27.
RissmanL.LiuQ.LupyanG. (2023). Gaps in the lexican restrict communication. Open Mind, 7, 412–434.
28.
RosendalT. (2009). Linguistic market in Rwanda: Language use in advertisements and on signs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30, 11–39.
29.
SamuelsonL.FreedmanS. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingualism and power in Rwanda. Language Policy, 9, 191–215.
30.
SchegloffE. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In GivonT. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 261–286). Academic Press.
31.
SchegloffE. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.
32.
SchegloffE.SacksH. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.
33.
SebbaM. (2013). Multilingualism in written discourse: An approach to the analysis of multilingual texts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 97–118.
34.
ShohamyE. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new perspectives. Routledge.
35.
SimpsonA. (2008). Introduction. In SimpsonA. (Ed.), Language and national identity in Africa (pp. 1–25). Oxford University Press.
36.
StiversT.HayashiM. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1–25.
37.
StiversT.RobinsonJ. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392.
38.
SvelschJ. (2015). Excuse my poor English: Language management in English-language online discussion forums. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232, 143–175.
39.
ten HaveP. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. Sage.
40.
ThompsonA. (2007). Journalism training and media freedom in Rwanda. Media Development, 14, 24–29.
