Hør dog hvad de siger - Note-to-Self: Trials & Errors

The two questions are clearly designed as the opposite of each other, and for the large majori-
ty of the informants, that is how they were perceived. For a significant minority, however, the
second question was pragmatically re-interpreted in the linguistic context constructed by the
first question. We can then have informants who are in agreement with both of the two state-
ments, saying e.g. that Scandinavian
…is good as long as it doesn’t pose any problems. […] And in the case that you have
misunderstandings, then it would be an advantage to use English [Inf22, 26.25]
This contextualization can be seen as both linguistic, in that it draws upon the first question in
answering the second, and as social, in that it construes the informant as a rational, non-
dogmatic kind of person. This shows us that even if the two questions are clearly in oppositi-
on when they are viewed rid of context, in the social and linguistic context of a social event
they may be (re)contextualised not-excluding each other; one is preferable in some situations,
the other supplements where the first comes short of target.
The contextualisations are interesting for two separate reasons. Firstly, they tell us so-
mething about the nature of the interview as a social event, a conversation. Secondly, they
give a hint as to the informants’ presuppositions, ideologies, indeed their attitudes. In seeing
what the informant picks out as the thing that needs rhetorical support, we may get a glimpse
of his take on the language political issues rather than have him following ours. We will re-
turn to this below, suffice it here to note how the use of English ‘needs’ a qualification, if you
have misunderstandings, whereas the use of Scandinavian is ‘inherently’ good. We see so-
mething similar in this excerpt:
It is very, very rare that you switch to English, because you find it embarrassing, but
you often feel like it, you know? [Inf28, 43.08]
It goes without saying that this qualitative look on the rhetorical take on the two ‘opposing’
questions says more about the informants’ attitudes towards the use of English and Scandina-
vian in inter-Nordic communication than the numerical difference of .75 on a 5-point scale in
the favour of Scandinavian.
Related to the different ‘contextualizations’ is a degree of ‘pragmaticalization’, i.e. coming to
terms with the relevance of a particular attitude object. This often means drawing upon wider
social implications of the issue or drawing upon personal experience. This process of making
sense of the questions is of course what we expect interviewee’s to go through. But still, it
202