THE EFFECTS OF THE SOCIAL CONSTR

Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Volume 1, 2004

THE EFFECTS OF THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ELDERLY ON THE WAY ELDERLY FATHERS, YOUNGER SONS, AND ELDERLY PEERS INTERACT AND COMMUNICATE

M. A. Mayouf

Abstract

This research investigates the effects of the social construction of the elderly, in Sebha (Libya), on the way they interact and communicate with younger sons and peers. Three elderly fathers were recorded conversing (separately) with their younger sons, and elderly peers. Subjects were interviewed. Analyses show interesting interactional features: (a) fathers speak more than their sons, (b) sons very rarely produce overlapping or verbal rejection, and could not raise certain topics (i.e., sexual topics) when talking to their fathers. In contrast, elderly peers freely produce interruptions, overlapping, and rejections in their conversations. The findings are discussed with reference to the Libyan society and culture, and in comparison with findings from other societies and cultures.

Introduction

It is acknowledged that language science has historically ignored elderly people (Coupland, Coupland & Giles 1991). However, in recent years, it could be said that a considerable amount of research has been conducted in the field of elderly language and communication. This paper investigates the effects of the social construction of the elderly in Libyan society on the way the elderly interact and communicate with their younger sons and elderly peers. In communities such as that in Sebha, Libya (Bedouin, Arabic, and Muslim) the elderly have significant social status, familial role and power.

The aims and motivations of this study are: (a) to examine the differences in the elderly interaction and communication with younger sons and elderly peers in Sebha; (b) to study the social status of the elderly; and (c) to study how it affects their way of interacting and communicating with younger sons and elderly peers.

Literature review

It is argued that recognising someone as elderly can be chronologically and/or biologically motivated. Elderliness may also be constrained by culture (be culture specific); whereas 70 can be elderly in some cultures, elderliness could begin from the age of 45 in other cultures (Maxim & Bryan 1994). The average of life expectancy could be a standard of measuring elderliness as well. In Libyan society, a person can be considered elderly from the age of 50. He/she will be very proud to be dealt with (interactionally and communicationally) as an elderly person, for the sake of respectfulness and prioritisation. Consequently, the age of elderliness seems to be relative rather than absolute (Maxim & Bryan 1994). In this research, the elderly respondents were at the age of 60 or more (for more definitions and age of the elderly, see Bond, Coleman & Peace 1993; Unicent 1995). .

Linguistic features of discourse and communication involving the elderly

Many studies in the field of elderly language have concentrated on the linguistic features of elderly language and discourse (talkativeness, verbosity, secondary baby talk (BT): simple vocabulary, simplified grammar, increased repetitions, kind words, imperatives, and tag questions to provide no more alternatives to the recipient) (Caporael & Culbertson 1986; Coupland et al. 1988; Gold et al. 1993; Ruscher & Hurley 2000, among others). There is also the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) in the literature, which studies some interactional and communicational characteristics and strategies used in cross-generation elderly interaction and communication. For instance, younger interactants, when communicating with the elderly, contextually change their language for the purpose of increasing or decreasing differences between them – convergence and/or divergence – (Giles & Powesland cited in Coupland, N., Coupland, J. & Giles 1991). Young interactants attune their speech to the elderly to augment or reduce the social and sociolinguistic distance between them.

Social and psychological features of discourse and communication involving the elderly

Societies have constructed different social and cultural attitudes towards elderly people. The image of an elderly person -with a wrinkled forehead, bags under their eyes, grey hair (sometimes bald in men), a curved back, and heavy steps – is perceived by society in two different ways: (1) optimistically and with respect for their wisdom, experience and heritage, and on the other hand, (2) pessimistically: they are perceived as roleless pensioners, psychologically and physically disabled, burdens, old fashioned, and most importantly, the association with death – gerontophobia (fear of death). Etymologically, the term ‘old’ has different implications: wisdom; endearment (old friend); conservatism (old guard); and surprisingly, the Devil (Old Nick) (Covey cited in Coupland, Giles & Wiemann 1991, p.91).

Elderly people in the Middle East are much respected (Slater cited in Maxim & Bryan 1994). In Eastern societies, for example Muslim communities, the elderly – although of course there are exceptions – still have an effective and active social role. They lead tribes, head families, are compulsorily consulted and are organisers and representatives of social ceremonies; i.e. to engagements, weddings, social compromises, participants and organisers. It is notable that the Koran recommends younger people to respect and look after their elderly parents “The Lord hath decreed, that ye worship none save Him, and (that ye show) kindness to parents. If one of them or both of them attain to old age with thee, say not “Fie” unto them nor repulse them, but speak unto them a gracious word” (Quran 17, p.23 cited in Pickthall 1978). In addition, legislation in Libya, for example, takes into consideration any compromise or social treaty achieved by or between elderly people of families or tribes.

In contrast, in modern societies where industrialisation dominates (mainly in Western societies), the attitude towards elderly people is increasingly negative; perhaps for their lack of productivity (the elderly are not as productive as the younger). Moreover, socially, adolescents would and/or should quit their parents’ home from the age of 16 or more, in which case parents will lose their role and power over them. However, what concerns us in this action is that parents would lose the opportunity of having daily interactions with their younger sons/daughters; parents will only talk to each other and/or to their pet(s).

Generally, such societies often treat elderly individuals like children. For example, elderly people obtain a reduction in consumer goods and transportation tickets. A traffic sign indicates “children crossing the road” and a similar traffic sign advises drivers of “elderly (disabled) crossing the road”. In the UK, the elderly (60+) and children (16- ) are both allowed free medical prescriptions (Coupland, Coupland & Giles 1991, p.12).

Methodology

Research questions

Key question

How may the social construction of the elderly affect their way of interacting and communicating with younger sons, and elderly peers?

Sub-questions

1- How does society (in Sebha) perceive the elderly?

2- What are the linguistic and interactional features of discourse involving the elderly that could show an influence of the social status of the elderly?

3- What is the position of the elderly in Sebha?

4- How can the discourse of the elderly in Sebha, Libya be characterised?

Sample

Social and familial aspects

In structured interviews, respondents revealed that they live in large families (12-15). The level of education of 2 elderly fathers was illiterate whereas 1 elderly respondent is a secondary school graduate. In contrast, the 3 younger sons are university graduates. The elderly respondents are 2 pensioners and 1 jobless. The younger respondents are 2 employees and 1 self-employed. The elderly and younger respondents state that they all cooperate and participate in the family expenditures. The younger sons describe it as a faithful duty to be a breadwinner for their family alongside with their father. Elderly fathers (respondents) insist that they attend social events, i.e. engagements, weddings, and funerals, as family and tribe representatives. In contrast, younger respondents declare that they attend such social events only to represent themselves (see table 1).

Table 1: The Social Status and Role of Elderly Fathers and Younger Sons

Respondent Category	Elderly fathers	Younger sons
Age	60+	25+
Status	Married	2 single 1 married
Education	2 illiterate 1 secondary school level	University graduate
Average number of children	12-15	1
Average of children’s age	15-35	None
Job	1 jobless 2 pensioners	2 employee 1 self-employed
Family breadwinner	1 no 2 yes	Yes
Attending social events, as?	Yes, Family and tribe representatives	Yes, Self representatives

Data collection and data analysis instruments

It is worth noting that structured interviews and audiotape recording instruments are employed in this research as data collection instruments. Respondents were identified judgementally (see Milroy 1987), and were informed about the aims and objectives of this research. Younger son respondents have played the role of gatekeeper for approaching their elderly fathers. The structured interviews were conducted by the researcher himself as 2 elderly respondents were illiterates, and for the sake of standardisation (see Bryman 2001). Moreover, for avoiding the researcher’s influence on his respondents, the younger respondents were asked to conduct the audiotape recording and record their conversations with their elderly fathers. In the elderly peers case, an elderly friend of the researcher acted as a gatekeeper and did the audio recording.

Conversation Analysis (CA) method and the Socialist constructionist approach are employed as instruments of data analysis. CA is adopted for analysis of the sequencing and organisation (turn-taking, repair, overlap, and adjacency pairs, etc.) of the recorded conversations (see Seedhouse 2004). In addition, the social constructionist approach is implemented to figure out the relationship between the social interactants and their social culture and values, and how such relationship can be expressed in the social agents’ talk-in-interaction performance (see Shorter 1993).

Findings and discussion

Data from structured interviews show that elderly fathers may involve their sons in making decisions in the family. Moreover, the strategies which elderly fathers (respondents) follow when their younger sons violate family conventions are advising them; but if that does not work, elderly fathers would unhesitantly tongue-lash or physically punish their violating sons. Elderly father respondents notice differences between the familial relationships in the past and the present, e.g. sons were not allowed to sit, argue, and/or negotiate with fathers. On the other hand, younger sons (respondents) are happy with their existing social and communicational relationships with their fathers, and wish to retain them with their sons in the future.

Linguistic and interactional aspects

What do elderly fathers and their younger sons talk about?

Interestingly, the elderly father/younger son familial and social relationship noticeably controls the types of topics that could be raised when conversing with each other. Respondents were asked about the raisability of three main topics: social; financial; and sexual topics. Elderly and younger respondents state that they would involve a mediator (chiefly the mother) when discussing the son’s desire to get engaged or married. In contrast, when the topic is about the father’s desire of getting married, younger sons (respondents) insist that they could not at all talk to their fathers about it. Similarly, elderly fathers could not talk to their sons about the former’s troubles with wives. Younger sons would still call for a mediator to report to and discuss with their fathers any troubles they (sons) might have with their wives.

Moreover, it can be noticed that the raisability of financial and economic topics between elderly fathers and their younger sons is distributed between ‘could be directly raised’ in the case of elderly father to younger son, and ‘have to be raised directly’ in the situation of younger son to elderly father. It can also be reported that elderly fathers as well as younger sons could not talk at all to each other about sexual and romantic issues such as the sons’ girlfriends and romance, sexual, physical and/or psychological problems, fertility troubles, and contraception. Nonetheless, elderly fathers declare that they could raise the topic of their son’s fertility problems not face-to-face with the son but via a mediator. Respondents reveal that it is undesirable for elderly fathers and younger sons to jointly listen to or watch music, songs, and loving poems, and romantic series or movies. In contrast, listening to and watching news, documentaries, Koranic recitation and sermons are comfortable activities for an elderly father and his younger sons. To sum up, most familial and social topics could not be raised directly between elderly fathers and their younger sons. Rather, those topics could be raisable via a mediator who mostly is the mother. In addition, the calling for a mediator can not be registered when the raised topics are about finance and economics. Such topics could be raised directly by fathers with younger sons, and have to be raised directly in the situation of younger sons to elderly fathers (see table 2). Finally, sexual and romantic issues are very hard to raise between elderly fathers and younger sons, either directly or indirectly. It should be noted that a mediator can be called for in case an elderly father would like to discuss his son’s probable fertility problem.

Table 2: Topics that Could/Could not be Raised between Elderly Fathers and their

Younger Sons

Respondents Topics	Elderly fathers to younger sons	Younger sons to elderly fathers
Sons’ desire to get married or engaged	Via a mediator	Via a mediator (mother)
Fathers’ desire to get married	Could not be raised at all	Could not be raised at all
Troubles with wife	Could not be raised at all	Via a mediator
Having debts	Could be directly	Have to be raised directly
Lending	Could be indirectly	Have to be raised directly
Purchasing/ selling (car, house, farm)	Could be directly	Have to be raised directly
Starting/ stopping a new business/ job	Have to be raised directly	Have to be raised directly
Girlfriends and romantic issues	Could not be raised at all	Could not be raised at all
Physical/ psychological sexual problems	Could not be raised at all	Could not be raised at all
Sons fertility problems	Via a mediator (mother)	Could not be raised at all
Fathers fertility problems	Could not be raised at all	Could not be raised at all
Contraception	Could not be raised at all	Could not be raised at all
Listening to/ watching music, poems, songs, movies	Could not be raised at all	Could not be raised at all

How do elderly fathers and their younger sons talk to each other?

Elderly respondents reveal that they usually place their request to their younger sons as an order. For example, if they would like to ask for a glass of water, they would say (جيب اميه) [jeeb imaya] ‘bring water’. Elderly respondents describe addressing their younger sons with phrases like ‘please’ and ‘could you’ as begging and suppliant that can be responded to with refusal from sons. Hence, employing order styles indicates allows no choices for the sons to select (e.g. ‘yes dad, there you are’ or ‘sorry dad, I can’t, I’m busy). By contrast, younger respondents express that they usually produce their applications to their elderly fathers in ‘explain then ask’ style (e.g. my friends have invited me to a dinner, could you allow me to join them?). Moreover, younger sons declare that they usually do not produce verbal rejection to what their fathers might say, ask, and/or invite them to do. They do not produce interruption when conversing with their fathers. Younger respondents portray it as very unacceptable to address their elderly fathers with such interactional moves (verbal rejection and interruption). On the other hand, elderly fathers find it very acceptable to produce verbal rejection and interruptions when discoursing with their younger sons. Elderly respondents state that they prefer to produce a direct and strong rejection (see table 3 for examples on phrases used for rejection and interruption). Elderly fathers and younger sons (respondents) exhibit their preference for uttering a direct and clear verbal agreement when conversing with each other (see table 3). We would argue that elderly and younger interactants may produce the same utterances to express their agreement, but those utterances may carry different contextual and interactional functions. Agreement produced by elderly fathers to younger sons mostly functions as an endorsement (and giving a-go-ahead) to the sons’ invitation and application, whereas younger sons’ agreement utterances could serve as an acceptance to the fathers’ invitation or order.

Table 3: Interactional Accounts in Elderly Father/Younger Son Conversations

Respondent Account	Elderly fathers to younger son	Younger sons to elderly fathers
Presenting a request	Order	Explain then ask
Verbally rejecting	Strongly and directly	Could not be produced
Phrases for rejecting	لا [laa] (NO)	باهي يسهل الله [bahi yester Allah] (fine, may God facilitate)
Verbal agreeing	خلاص [khlaas] (alright)	حاضر باهي [haadir bahi] (ok, fine)
Interruption	Very acceptable, لالا مش هكي [la la mosh hiki] (no, no, not like this)	Could not be produced

In elderly father/younger son naturally occurring discourse, it can be seen that elderly fathers chiefly acquire their turns either by slight overlapping or interrupting their sons’ talk. As mentioned previously (see table 3 above), elderly fathers find it acceptable to perform interruption and overlap when interacting with their younger sons. In extracts A1, A2, and A3 below, the father performed an interruption to his son’s speech. Despite violating the norms, the father (new speaker) did not cede his turn to allow his son (current speaker) to finish his turn. To the contrary, the son ceded his turn to his father (see Seedhouse 2004).

Extracts (A1, A 2. and A3) below show interruption and overlap by an elderly father interacting with his younger son. This conversation is between a father talking to his son about his trip to a therapist curing with herbs (May 2003).

(Extract A1)

Son: حمو غادي زي سبها ولاآ::

[ ]

→ Father: لا كويس، برودة والله

(Translation of extract A1)

Son: Is it hot in there like Sebha, or::

[ ]

Father: No, it is nice, by Allah

(Extract A2)

Son: طبيب هو ولا شنو؟

Is he a doctor or what?

Father: هوا في الأول كان ممرض، غير قالوا أنظر كيف مشي لإيطاليا ولا كيف دورة ولا مم

Firstly he was a nurse, then it is said that he somehow got a scholarship to Italy or mm

Son: مشي دورة لإيطاليا؟

He has been to a scholarship to Italy?

Father: إيه

Yeah

Son: شنو غا//دي:::

Is it th//ere:::

→ Father: //لابدا محصل مجلة ولا حاجة مستفاد منها

//He [the therapist] had got a journal or anything else as guidance

(Extract A3)

Son: زحمة عليه؟

Does he [the therapist] have lots of clients?=

Father: زحمة

=crowded

Son: عرب واجدة

Lots of people?

Father: واجدة بكل

Too many

Son: من سبها ولا غير م//ن

From Sebha or just fro//m

→ Father: //من سبها، من طرابلس، من بنغازي، من مصراتة.......

// From Sebha, from Tripoli, from Benghazi, from . Mustrata……….

Elderly fathers can also perform overlap to seize the turn when conversing with their younger sons. In extract B below, we can notice that the father overlaps his son to acquire the turn. Again, the father did not apply himself to the norms and give up the turn when he realized that his son has not yet finished his talk. Rather, he carried on his turn, causing considerable overlap. Extract B shows the occurrence of overlapping and turn-taking in elderly father/younger son conversation. The father is discussing with his son the selling of their farm.

(Extract B)

Son: شن ينزرع فيها الوقت هذا

] [

Father: ينزرع فيها

كل شي، ينزرع فيها الخضروات وينزرع فيها القصبة الصيفية.....

)translation of extract B(

Son: what could be grown in it this time?

[ ]

Father: everything can be grown in it: vegetables, summer grasses

Interactants normally respond to actions they prefer in an unhesitant or quick manner. By contrast, dispreferred offers and invitations are usually replied to by responses that are accompanied with hesitation and delay and are often with markers, e.g. ‘well’ or ‘oh’ as well as by positive comments and appreciation (Seedhouse 2004, p.26). Interactants producing dispreferred responses often moderate their responses by using apologetic and explanatory statements.

(Extract C1)

→ Son: باهي اي باهي كيف بتديرو تووا نسجلووهم أني و صرار كان ها

Ok, yah, ok, what are you going to do, if so we will write down the guest list, Sarrar and I.

→ Father: لآ

Son: آه؟

So?

Father: أني الي نسجلك بيش تعرف اللي تعزمه

It is I who is going to list them for you to know who you invite.

Extract C1 above shows how an elderly father (subject) produces his dispreferred utterances to his younger son. The son (in the arrowed line) offered his father that he and his brother Sarrar would write the guest list. The father replied in a bald, unmitigated refusal ‘no’. Mitigated and/or explanatory utterances can not be identified even when the son, in the second turn, asked for justification or an alternative for his suggestion. The father did not show any attempt to moderate his refusal as he insisted in the last line on the idea that he is the person in charge of issuing the guest list ‘I am who is going to list them for you to know who you invite’. A similar style of performing dispreferred utterances was expressed by the same elderly father in extract C2 below.

(Extract C2)

Son: قبل أني قتلا لحم نقسموه و خلاص

Before, I suggested that we should distribute raw meat only.

→ Father: انتز لالالا

Ntz, [smacking lips in disagreement] no, no, no

The father expresses his refusal of his son’s suggestion to distribute raw meat among friends and neighbours instead of cooking large meals and inviting them at the house to celebrate the seventh day of the son’s first baby daughter. In fact, the father’s refusal utterances this time have become stronger and more emphatic ‘no, no, no’ preceded by a gesture ‘ntz’ which could noticeably demonstrate the father’s irritation and disagreement with his son’s suggestion.

In contrast, younger sons seem to express their disagreement with what their elderly fathers may say or offer in a completely different style from their fathers’. Unlike his father in extracts C1 and C2 above, the son in extract C3 below produced an unenthusiastic agreement ‘well, that’s fine’ to express disagreement with his father’s decision to receive the guests in one of the guest rooms in the family’s house. The son’s unenthusiasm appeared clearer when he raised his caution (in the son’s second arrowed turn) that it might be very hot in this room. However the son’s turn is headed by an agreement utterance ‘ok’, the word ‘but’ comes to minimise the agreement and raise cautiousness and embedded disagreement instead.

(Extract C3)

Father: المربوعا هدي أه؟

This guest room, yah?

Son: لا خلاص

→ well, that’s fine

Father: وازو الصغار....أه؟

Choose from the children, yah?

Son: باهي غير ضغط بس مرات

→ Ok, but it just might be very hot

Despite his disinclination for inviting guests and serving cooked food, the son in extract C4 below responded positively to his father’s listing of what should be cooked for the party. The son revealed his preference enthusiastically by repeating ‘ok, ok’.

(Extract C4)

Father: شن بيديرو هما ليل هوا بيديروو آ آ بيديروو آ آ مكرونا وكسكسي

What shall we do, it is night, we’ll do a a , we’ll do a a pasta and cous cous

Father: هريسا؟ هريسا وخضرا ومشروب آه؟

Hareesa? Hareesa and vegetables and drinks, yah?

→ Son: باهي باهي

Ok, Ok

Why do elderly fathers and their younger sons talk like that?

Elderly fathers as well as younger sons suggest that their social and religious values have a significant influence on the way they interact and communicate with each other. That can be seen clearly from the elderly and younger respondents’ judgments and comments on sons who produce certain interactional accounts (i.e., overlapping, interruption, talking more than listening, etc.) when talking to their elderly fathers. The respondents were asked to comment on hypothetical situations (see table 4). It is noticeable that the respondents’ comments exhibit social (i.e., unlawful, impolite) and religious (blessed by God, sinner) criteria.

Table 4: Elderly Fathers’ and Younger Sons’ Judgments and Comments on Younger Sons who

perform some Interactional features when interacting with their Elderly Fathers

Respondent Account	Elderly fathers	Younger sons	Comments
Interruption	Very bad	Very bad	Disobedient
Overlapping	Very bad	Very bad	Impolite
Verbal rejection	Very bad	Very bad	Unlawful son
Verbal agreement	Very good	Very good	Blessed by God
Raising sexual topics	Very bad	Bad	Impolite
Listening more than talking	Very good	Very good	Praised by parents
Talking more than listening	Very bad	Bad	Impolite
Raise their voices	Very bad	Very bad	Astray and sinner

In conclusion, elderly fathers (respondents) notice big differences between elderly father/younger son interaction in the past and in the present: sons did not dare to raise any topics apart from religious ones with their fathers. Sons in the past were more obedient to their fathers, and could not attend or talk in a conference of elderly people. Despite what could be seen as a social and religious interactional obligation on younger sons, younger respondents express their happiness with having such an interactional and conversational relationship with their fathers, and wish to retain it with their sons in the future. Elderly fathers and younger sons (respondents) agree that the factors which shape and organise such familial, social, and interactional elderly father/ younger son relationships are: tradition, culture, religion, and legislation. They conclude that there is no significant influence of factors like economic status, education level, and health situation of interactants on the familial, social, and interactional elderly father/younger son relationships.

Elderly/ elderly interaction

(Extract EA2)

1- Elderly1: من وين جبتهن؟

2- Elderly2: من هنا

3- Elderly1 : لا ماهو من هنا↑

4- [ ]

5- Elderly2: قتلك من هنا

6- [ ]

7- Elderl3: أهو هنا الرشاد قدا::مك

8- [ ]

9- Elderly2: ما فيه شي

(Translation of extract EA1)

1- Elderly1: from where did you get them [the dice stones]?

2- Eldery2: from here

3- Elderly1: no, not from here↑

4- [ ]

5- Elderly2: I told you, from here

6- [ ]

7- Elderly3: here are the stones in front of you.

8- [ ]

9- Elderly2: there is no thing in there.

In extract EA1 above, performing of overlapping appears to be freely conducted by the three elderly father interlocutors. In lines 3-9 (English version), three overlapping incidences have occurred. It can be noticed here that elderly interactants (subjects) do not show any attempts to repair the occurrence of overlapping. As can be seen in lines 3-9, the three elderly fathers talk at the same time, quarrelling about where to find stones for their dice game. Each current speaker insisted on finishing his statement despite being overlapped. On the other hand, each new speaker violated the norms and did not give up the turn to the current speaker; but carried on talking.

Unlike elderly father/younger son interaction, where younger sons cede their turns to avoid overlapping their fathers, elderly interactants (current speakers and new speakers) do not give up the turn to each other. Rather, elderly current and/or new speakers show an insistence to finish their turns despite causing considerable overlap. Elderly interactants in lines 3, 5, and 7 uttered full statements that had not been affected by the occurrence of overlap. In contrast, in elderly/younger interactions (extract A3 above) heavy overlapping was impracticable. Younger sons always give up their turns to their elderly fathers whether they are current or new speaker to avoid overlapping. Therefore, heavy overlapping cannot be identified in elderly father/younger son discourse.

Furthermore, what may characterise the producing of interruption in elderly/elderly discourse is that the new speakers do not employ excusing or mitigating phrases either in the beginning or at the end of their interrupting statement. Rather, elderly interactants equally do not feel hesitant or embarrassed by producing interruption when interacting with each other. On the other hand, younger son interactants exhibit strong hesitance and reserve to producing interruption when conversing with their elderly fathers.

In extract EA2 below, the three elderly father interactants were quarrelling about where to find stones for their dice game. In line1 (in the English translation), elderly 1 asked elderly 2 where he brought the stones from. A normal exchange of turns can be noticed in line 1 and 2, where elderly 2 replied (from here). However, the mechanism elderly 1 employed to repair elderly 2’s answer to his question was in the trajectory other initiated other repair with a bald and unmitigated style. That led elderly 2 to be infuriated, thus he overlapped his interlocutor and raised his voice to express his anger (line 3). It seems that elderly 3 involved himself in the dispute (line 7) and tried to end up the argument by suggesting to elderly 2 where he could find stones ‘أهو هنا الرشاد قدا::مك’ (here are the stones in fro::nt of you). Yet, elderly 3’s involvement to repair elderly 2 and elderly 1 as well was not a mitigating one. His raising of his voice and lengthening of ‘fro::nt’ can also be considered as a provoking and dispreferred style of repair. Thus, it can be read here that elderly interactants (subjects) employ the least preferred technique (other-initiated other-repair) to repair each other. Moreover, they raise their voices and perform overlap when producing repair, which may lead to augmentation of the repair into argument or dispute.

(Extract EA2)

1- Elderly1: من وين جبتهن؟

2- Elderly2: من هنا

3- Elderly1 : لا ماهو من هنا↑

4- [ ]

5- Elderly2: قتلك من هنا

6- [ ]

7- Elderly3: أهو هنا الرشاد قدا::مك

8- [ ]

9- Elderly2: ما فيه شي

(Translation of extract EA2)

1- Elderly1: from where did you get them [the dice stones]?

2- Edlery2: from here

3- Elderly1: no, not from here↑

4- [ ]

5- Elderly2: I told you, from here

6- [ ]

7- Elderly3: here are the stones in fro::nt of you.

8- [ ]

9- Elderly2: there is no thing in there.

It can be concluded that overlapping, interruption, raising voices, disputing, and repairing accounts are increasingly produced in elderly/elderly conversations. Moreover, romantic poems and stories can be openly raised (see extract EA3).

(Extract EA3)

Elderly2: بعد الشياب بعد الشياب بت- بتقرا؟

Elderly1: بعد الشياب آ الله دايم بعد الشياب، دلالك غاب، رفيقك تم تقول غراب

Elderly2: لاحول الله

[ ]

Elderly3: لاحول ولا قوة الا بالله ( ) راهو يشعر

(Translation of extract EA3)

Elderly2: after elderhood after elderhood, you go- you’re going to study

Elderly1: after elderhood a:: Allah is the eternal, after elderhood, your wishes have disappeared as your lover became like a crow

Elderly2: no ability but with Allah

[ ]

Elderly3: no ability and no power but with Allah ( ) he is rhyming.

Summary of the findings

Elderly fathers (respondents) speak much more (time-span of speech) than their younger sons. In contrast, younger sons very rarely overlap their elderly fathers, and verbal rejection by the younger sons of what their elderly fathers have asked for or offered during the interactions was hardly ever identified. Moreover, the structured interviews reveal that younger sons could not raise certain topics with their elderly fathers, i.e. sexual issues, getting engaged or married. These topics should be raised with elderly fathers via a mediator (mothers, aunts, etc.). In contrast, elderly peers communicate and interact with each other in an equal way. They freely interrupt, overlap, and produce rejection in their conversations. In addition, there are no restrictions on the topics that could be raised among them. Sons who interactionally overlap, interrupt, reject, and/or raise their voices when conversing with their elderly fathers are socially and culturally considered disobedient, impolite, and sinners.

It can also be concluded that elderly people, i.e. in the West (deserted by offspring and/retired/nursing home residents) would be facing two processes of ‘deactivation’ (interactional and communicational). Furthermore, elderly father/younger son interaction and communication are constrained and organised by factors such as tradition, culture, religion, legislation, and social values. Thus, there is no significant influence of factors like economic status, education level, or health condition of the interactants on the way they perceive and interact with each other.

Conclusion

The research has discussed the social construction of the elderly in the Libyan society in Sebha. It has examined how social agents (younger sons and the elderly) perceive elderly fathers, and how such perception is unveiled and reflected in the way those social agents interact and communicate with each other in society.

Data from structured interviews and analyses of 3 elderly fathers/younger sons naturally occurring conversations and 3 elderly/elderly conversations show that elderly and younger interactants are not constrained by conversational norms (mentioned in CA) to organise and control interactions. Rather, elderly fathers and younger sons, and elderly peers seem to be considerably influenced by their social construction, culture, and values, which consequently affect the way they interact and communicate with each other.

About the author

Mayouf Ali Mayouf is a PhD student at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, School of Education, Communication, and Language Sciences.

mayouf1@hotmail.com

References

BOND, J., COLEMAN, P., AND PEACE, S., 1993. Ageing in society: an introduction to social gerontology. 2^nd ed. London: Thousand Oaks, Sage.

BRYMAN, A., 2001. Social research methods. Oxford, New York: Oxford University

Press.

CAPORAEL, L. R. AND CULBERTSON, G. H., 1986. Verbal response modes of babytalk and other speech at institutions for the aged. Language and communication, 6, 99-112.

COUPLAND, N., COUPLAND, J., GILES, H., AND HENWOOD, K., 1988. Accommodating the elderly: invoking and extending a theory. Language and Society, 17, 1-41.

COUPLAND, N., COUPLAND, J. AND GILES, H., 1991. Language, society and the elderly: discourse, identity and ageing. UK, USA: Blackwell.

COUPLAND, N., GILES, H. AND WIEMANN J. M., 1991. “Miscommunication” and problematic talk. USA: Sage Publications Ltd.

GOLD, D. P., ANDRES, D., ARBUCKLE, T. Y., AND ZIEREN, C., 1993. Off-target verbosity and talkativeness in elderly people. Canadian journal of aging, 12, 67-77.

MAXIM, J. AND BRYAN, K., 1994. Language of the elderly: a clinical perspective. London: Whurr.

MILROY, L., 1987. Observing and analysing natural language: a critical account of sociolinguistic method. Oxford; New York: Blackwell.

PICKTHALL, M. 1978. The glorious Quran: transliteration in Roman script, with original Arabic text, and English translation. Delhi: REGD

RUSCHER, J. B. AND HURLEY M. M., 2000. Off-target verbosity evokes negative stereotypes of older adults. Journal of language and social psychology, 19,141-149.

SEEDHOUSE, P., 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

SHORTER, J., 1993. Conversational realities: constructing life through language. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage.

UNICENT, J. A., 1995. Inequality and old age. London: UCL Press.