One of the issues studies of language alternation among bilingual speaker still have to resolve is that of the base language (Auer, 1997; Deprèz de Hérédia, 1991), of a scheme of interpretation (Garfinkel, 1967), with respect to which categories of language alternation are identified. Starting from the fact that the need for a scheme of interpretation is not felt by analysts only, but also by speakers themselves, this paper argues that, in order to “discover” the relevant scheme, a speakers' own perspective must be adopted. Therefore, the paper illustrates this perspective by examining two activities bilingual speakers accomplish while talking, namely medium repair and other-language repair. Both activities are accomplished when, missing the mot juste in one language, speakers draw on their other languages to overcome that difficulty. As the discussion shows, through their own orientation to their language choice acts while accomplishing these activities, speakers themselves reveal, to one another and to analysts as well, the scheme they are attending to here and now. As that scheme speakers themselves orient to need not consist of the use of one language, in the paper, I refer to it, not as the base language, but as the medium of a bilingual conversation.
Alvarez-Caccamo, C. (1998). From 'Switching Code' to'Code -Switching': Towards a reconceptualization of communicative codes. In P. Auer. (Ed.), Codeswitching in conversational (pp. 29-48). London : Routledge.
2.
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam : Benjamins Publishing Company.
3.
Auer, P. (1988). A conversation analytic approach to codeswitching . In M. Heller(Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 187-214). Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
4.
Auer, P.( 1995). The pragmatics of codeswitching: A sequential approach . In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on codeswitching (pp.111- 135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Auer, P. (1997, October). Why should we and how can we determine the "Base Language" of a bilingual conversation. Keynote speech given at the 1st International Symposium on Bilingualism, Vigo, Spain.
6.
Bilmes, J. (1992). Mishearings. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler(Eds.), Text in context: Contribution to ethnomethodology (pp. 779-798). Newbury park: Sage Publications.
7.
Deprèz DEHérédia, C. (1991). La double inconstance: Fonction poétique et analyze stylistique du codeswitching. ESF-Barcelona, Papers for the symposium on codeswitching in bilingual studies: Theory, significance and perspectives. (pp. 73-92).
8.
Gafaranga, J. (1998a). A three-step agreement sequence in bilingual talk: Interturn codeswitching as a discoverable object. Working paper, No 95, Center for Language in Social Life, Lancaster University.
9.
Gafaranga, J. (1998b). Elements of order in bilingual talk: Kinyarwanda-French language alternation. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Linguistics and Modern English language, Lancaster University, U.K.
10.
Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M.C. (1998). Do speakers speak a language? Evidence from two bilingual settings. Working paper, No 94, Center for Language in Social Life, Lancaster University.
11.
Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M.C. (1999, April). Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition of codeswitching. Paper read at the 2nd International Symposium on Bilingualism, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
12.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991). Language selection and switching in Strasbourg . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.
14.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On the structures of practical social action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tirykian(Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337-366). New York : Meredith Corporation.
15.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan(Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts(pp. 41-58). London: Academic Press.
16.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
17.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp.126-144). London: Sage Publications.
19.
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation . In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee(Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86-100). Clevendon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
20.
Lee, J.R.E. (1987). Prolog: Talking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee(Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 19-53). Clevendon , Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
21.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreement and disagreement with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. J. Atkinson & J. Heritage(Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
22.
Ryave, A.L., & Schenkein, J.N. (1974). Notes on the art of walking . In R. Turner(Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 265-274). Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.
23.
Sacks, H. (1967). Next-speaker selection technique, paired utterances . In. G. Jefferson(Ed.). ( 1992). Harvey Sacks: Lectures in conversation, (Vol. 1, part VI, pp. 665 - 674). Padstow, Cornwall: T. J. Press Ltd.
24.
Sacks, H. (1972). Adjacency pairs: Scope of operation. In G. Jefferson(Ed.).(1992). Harvey Sacks: Lectures in conversation, (Vol. II, part VII, 521-532). Padstow, Cornwall: T. J. Press Ltd.
25.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & R. E. Lee(Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54-69). Clevendon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
26.
Schegloff, E.A. (1984). On questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage(Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 28-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn - taking system. In G. Button & R. E. Lee(Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70-85). Clevendon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
28.
Schegloff, E.A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social problems, 35(4), 442-457.
29.
Schegloff, E.A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman(Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp.44-70). Cambridge : Polity Press.
30.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P.Drew & J.Heritage(Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self- correction in the organization of repair in conversation reprint). In G. Psythas(Ed.),(1990). Interaction competence (pp.31-62). Washington DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
32.
Schenkein, J. (1978). Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 1-6). New York: Academic press.
33.
Sharrock, W.,& Anderson, B. (1986). The ethnomethodologists. London : Tavistock Publications.
34.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1991). Epistemology: Professional skepticism. In G. Button. (Ed.). Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 51-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Streeck, J. (1983). Social order in child communication: A study in microethnography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
