Part III – Interactional Analysis
Chapter 7: Bullying
Cooperative learning design is the dominant form of teaching in the two schools. Accordingly, students spend a considerable time working in groups away from adult supervision. Teachers’
attention is usually distributed over several groups. Acting on their own, students quite often
indulge in matters that seem irrelevant to the school task, e.g., listening to music. However, in cases where groups are formed of heterogeneous members, e.g., two boys and a girl, or two Arabs and a Somali, bullying regularly emerges. Power asymmetry is at the heart of bullying, where bullies usually target a certain characteristic or quality about a victim that is perceived as a negative characteristic or a “weakness”. This chapter will focus on three types of bullying among the peer-group, depending on the “features” being targeted: 1- sexual harassment, where gender issues seem to be at play, 2- ethnic bullying, where ethnicity and color are targeted and 3- individual bullying which is concerned with a certain individual characteristic that is perceived by the bully – and some bystanders – as a deficiency or a weakness. These three categories are based on the way previous researchers have configured bullying (e.g., Zins 2007; Cowie 2008). Participants in this study – as the examples will show- do not orient to the different categories as different types in some cases, as the victims show similar responses and reactions to all bullying. Whether a bully targets a gender characteristic, ethnic characteristic or individual characteristic, victims orient to it as something
“personal”, and their reactions become violent as a bullying scene persists. Bystanders, i.e., students who happen to be in the scene mostly react by laughter or they might assume different statuses and alignments. Some general features about all forms of bullying are the following: a- bullying is time consuming and might take all the time allocated for a group work, b- it leads to the distraction of not only the bully and the victim, but also the bystanders, c- the languages employed in the process seem to serve different functions. d- A prominent feature of all the bullying is its dependence on allusions, metaphors, similes, puns, and other figures of speech and subtle forms of talk. e- “Bullies” and “victims” are categorical terms used in the analysis, and the two categories sometimes seem to be intermingled, where a “victim” might seem as a “bully” by overreacting. The analysis will be concerned with the participants’ methods in doing bullying, and the different roles assumed by bystanders, including teachers’ intervention.
Bullying – Research and definitions: There is no consensus among researchers on a single definition for bullying (Cowie 2008; Dixon and Smith 2011; Zins 2007). One definition is by Sveinsson and Morris (2007: 11) who consider bullying as “the intentional and unprovoked aggression that involves disparity of power between the victim and his or her perpetrator(s)”. In defining bullying, most of the literature focuses on one or more characteristics of the following: 1- negative behaviors, 2- repeated over time, 3- towards someone who has difficulty defending themselves, and they mostly 4- stress the imbalance of power and deliberate intent (Cowie 2008;
Dixon and Smith 2011). Others stressed the point that bullying usually takes place in a context of a group of peers (Salmivalli 1998). Nevertheless, each of these criteria is debated as Dixon and Smith (2011) tackle their problematic nature, assuming a difficulty in categorizing behaviors as “positive”
or “negative”, or the duration and frequency of such behaviors to be regarded as “bullying”. Cowie (2008) considers that it is enough for harassment to happen once to be categorized as bullying or even to happen without “deliberate intention” (Dixon and Smith 2011). It is also assumed by many researchers that undesirable behaviors are understood to potentially serve some function within the relationship. If an intervention focuses on stopping certain types of behavior but does not
adequately addresses the functions they serve, people may employ alternative behaviors to fulfill
the same purpose. Verbal aggression may replace physical aggression; indirect aggression may replace verbal aggression and so forth. To understand the particular function behaviors are serving, it is necessary to identify the underlying process that is generating them (Dixon and Smith 2011:
16).
Research concerned with bullying distinguishes between direct physical, direct verbal and indirect aggression. Direct physical aggression includes such behaviours as pushing, hitting, punching or kicking. Direct verbal aggression may take the form of yelling abuse at another, name-calling, using insulting expressions or making verbal threats. Indirect aggression, sometimes referred to as social aggression or relational aggression, as the term implies, uses less direct forms of aggressive behavior such as spreading malicious rumors about another, excluding a person from the group, etc. (Cowie 2008: 3). Moreover, indirect aggression has been divided into subtypes, reactive (e.g. an angry or defensive response to provocation) and proactive aggression41 (e.g. to obtain a desired goal such as the bully’s need to dominate others or to acquire status in the peer group) (Cowie 2008: 4; Salmivalli 1998).
Some researchers distinguish between Bias Bullying which is related to “ethnicity” and
“gender”, and individual bullying, which refers to discrimination on a more individual basis (Smith 2011: 22). In some studies, the distinction is based on the basis of its motivator. Cowie (2008) refers to racist bullying: (mostly when children from ethnic minority groups experience indirect bullying of a racist nature for example, because of the color of their skin); gender bullying: which might include sexual bullying and behaviors ranging from sexual name-calling by boys, to rumor-spreading and destruction of sexual reputations (this form doesn’t take into account the dispute as a form of confrontation, rather deals with bullying from a retrospective); homophobic bullying which is concerned with such groups as lesbians – gays / or children of lesbians and gays. Smith (2011:
30) defines bias bullying in the following manner: “some bullying is based on, or justified by the fact that the victim being a member of a particular group – often a marginalized or disadvantaged one – rather than on individual characteristics.”
Pikas (1989) distinguished two types of victims: the so-called passive victim, who has not directly provoked the bullying; and the provocative victim, who can be thought to have contributed to their being bullied by having acted in an annoying, provocative way around peers. Most of the research on bullying focuses on bullies and victims, and very little attention is paid to the various roles played by the group in a bullying episode. However, Cowie (2008: 7) and Salmivalli (1998) distinguish four participant roles: Assistants actively participate in the bullying through physically restraining a victim; Reinforcers provide positive feedback to a bully by shouting encouragement;
Outsiders contribute indirectly to a bullying situation through silent approval or by not taking a stance against a bully and finally, Defenders actively defend victims by intervening in the bullying process. Research in this field asserts that the role that a bully-victim takes is context-dependent and not necessarily stable and static over time (Cowie 2008: 8). We can assume as well that the roles played by the group/bystanders are not static and in the same episode we might see passive Outsiders turning into Defenders, or even Reinforcers turning into Victims – and we might see the same bully launching remarks of bias bullying towards a Somali, and intimidating personal insults staged against a girl.
41 Salmivalli (1998) considers the proactive type as bullying, and excludes the reactive type from the definition in that according to her bullying “is typically not a reaction to a provocative act on the part of the victim (although bullies may justify their actions by claiming so (p: 11)”
Through their review of the literature on bullying, Dixon and Smith (2011) state that the most used approach to find out about school bullying is pupil self-report data in questionnaires, where information is limited to what is in a structured questionnaire. Peer nominations is another method, where pupils are asked to nominate classmates for involvement in roles such as bully or victim; and to a lesser degree direct observations by watching in the playground or by using audio and video recordings. Smith doesn’t recommend the last method as it is time consuming, and it may be biased towards detecting physical bullying, rather than more subtle verbal and indirect forms. Experts in the field refer constantly to the limitations of the methods used in data collection (e.g., Dixon and Smith 2011; Salmivalli 1998), and that little is known about what the victims do in actual bullying situations (e.g., Salmivalli 1998: 16).
Interviews and questionnaires might tell us about the rate of bullying and the reasons behind it, but many issues remain obscure, like for example the way victims react, and the way bullies
manipulate the environment for their own interests. In the following two sections, we will see forms of bullying (the first is sexual/gender bullying, while the other ethnic bullying) that are video-recorded during the participants’ involvement in group work/collaborative learning sessions. The method of data collection in the current study, and which is represented by videorecordings bypasses to a great extent the limitations mentioned by Dixon and Smith, and Salmivalli. The data shows that the victims are not completely helpless, and they resort to different strategies to defend themselves. We also see how the bullies exploit the situation and context, to the extent that their bullying behavior seems to be almost parasitic to the official activity. The recordings also show the actual language and actions taken by the participants – including the behavior of different
bystanders and the way they act in the process of bullying. As we saw in the previous chapter, code-switching is employed to exclude teachers and prevent them from intervention. Interestingly,
victims might become defenders of bullies when teachers detect or suspect that bullying is going on.
A micro analysis of the episodes will necessarily increase our understanding of what bullying is, and how participants act and behave in real time, rather than knowing about bullying from retrospective and ethnographic interviews. As Sacks (1992: 27) argues: “the trouble with
ethnography based on interviewing is that they’re using informants; that is, they’re asking questions of their subjects. That means that they’re studying the categories that members use, to be sure, except at this point they are not investigating their categories by attempting to find them in the activities in which they’re employed.” In the ethnographic part of this study, I referred to the hierarchical relationships that dominate the social-scene of the schools being investigated, and that ethnicity and gender seemed to be essential elements that shape the social relations among the participants. In this chapter, hierarchical relationships, for example male superiority and female inferiority, or Arab superiority over Somali will be investigated in the participants’ actual interactions.
It is important to stress that the victims might orient to the characteristics being targeted as having a sexual or racial nature, but the reactions are not necessarily any different from each other, and teachers are mostly kept out and not given a chance to intervene in an effective way. An adult observer, on the other hand, might orient to the different types as belonging to different categories depending on the traits being targeted and on the participants involved. This chapter is structured according to the categories used in previous research (gender, ethnic, individual). This structure aims at showing the reader how the participants orient to the three types and to stress the point that there is no essential difference in the participants’ methods in doing the different types of bullying.
Even the categories “bully” and “victim” are based on the assumption that one disputant is weak or vulnerable in some way and the other is strong. What researchers might call a “victim”, for
example, based on interviews might not be as such interactionally, and a “victim” is capable of initiating verbal and physical violenc, just like the “bully”. Moreover, the categories “bully” and
“bullying” are used by a teacher in two examples only of the sequences of this chapter, and yet the participants (disputants, bystanders) do not agree with these categories and orient to the “bully” as
“comedian” and to the “bullying process” as a game.
The examples which will be analyzed in this chapter are taken from two lessons, the duration of each is 90 minutes, and in this sense the examples represent case studies (of the same participants, sitting in the same place, to do a certain activity, in the presence of the same teachers, and these case studies of bullying are solely from school A). Examples from other lessons, and from school B will also be used to support certain analytical issues.
A- sexual harassment:
The following examples are taken from a group work session in history class, where two boys (Adham and Musa) and a girl (Ilham) were instructed by their teachers to work in the class (one teacher is Danish male, the other is Arab female). The class was nearly empty, as the rest of the pupils were also working in groups, but outside the classroom (pupils and teachers might enter the class from time to time). The group were provided with sheets of papers, and were required to read certain passages and answer questions. Each pupil had to contribute in a specific way. One has to read aloud, another has to give a summary, and a third must provide a title, and collaboratively, they had to answer the questions using their own words. From the very start, the two boys start to make intimidating remarks about Ilham as they whisper to each other from time to time and share a giggle. In the following episode, Ilham shows reluctance to cooperate with the two boys, and creates excuses to leave the group. (Teacher is Danish male) Example: (7.1)
1-Adham: jo hun skal, jeg er [ligeglad eller jeg gider ikke.
2-Musa: [men jeg skal først finde en overskrift
3-Ilham: ADHAM IKKE VÆRE SÅ ond (0.3) 4-Adham: jeg er ond (0.9)
5-Musa: sådan er det bare big boss (1.9)
6-Ilham: du plejer at være sød mod piger Adham (.) kom så (0.3)
7-Adham: (addresses Teacher) hun har ikke fundet et afsnit he:::he:::. (2.3)
8-Teacher: Ilham↑
9-Ilham: ja↑ (0.4)
10-Teacher: nu skal du koncentrere dig (1.4) 11-Adham: [ hun er sammen, hun er sammen to lak- 12-Ilham: [ jeg kan ikke arbejde med to drenge 13-Teacher: jo: [ jo:
14-Adham: [hun er sammen to lækre drenge og så vil hun ikke arbejde
15-Teacher: hvad mere forlan[ger du↑
16-Ilham: [jeg skal på toilet (1.5) 17-(Musa and Adham laugh – Ilham walks away) 18-Adham: hun er irriterende
19-Teacher: jamen så [ fortsætter i to
20-Adham: [Ilham↑ jeg kommer med hehehe
1-Adham: yes she must, I don’t [care or I will not bother 2-Musa: [but I must first find a title 3-Ilham: ADHAM DON’T BE SO evil (0.3)
4-Adham: I’m evil (0.9)
5-Musa: that’s how it is big boss (1.9)
6-Ilham: you used to be sweet with girls Adham (.) go on (0.3) 7-Adham: (addresses Teacher) she has not found a paragraph he:::he::: (2.3)
8-Teacher: Ilham↑
9-Ilham: yes↑ (0.4)
10-Teacher: now you must concentrate (1.4)
11-Adham: [she’s together, she’s together with two delic- 12-Ilham: [ I can’t work with two boys
13-Teacher: ye:s [ ye:s
14-Adham: [she’s together with two delicious boys and she will not work
15-Teacher: what more do [you want↑
16-Ilham: [ I have to go to toilet (1.5) 17- (Musa and Adham laugh – Ilham walks away) 18-Adham: she is annoying
19-Teacher: well so [continue you two
20-Adham: [Ilham↑ I’m coming with you hehehe
Ilham: I can’t work with two boys (12)
The group is engaged in a cooperative work, and they have to coordinate their efforts to accomplish the required work. Lines (1 -5) reveal two oppositional stances, as Adham insists that Ilham has to do her part, Musa aligns himself with Adham, while Ilham rejects to cooperate. In (6) Ilham alludes to Adham’s history and that he used to be kind with girls, and therefore he has to be kind to her. By this, Ilham has placed herself within the frame of girls and females, while Adham is within the frame of boys, and she appeals to the gender categories, rather than to the category of “fellow pupils”. In (7) Adham rejects Ilham’s request, and takes action that reveal him as “evil” by reporting Ilham’s shortcomings to the teacher, i.e., she hasn’t accomplished what is required from her. The teacher intervenes, requesting from Ilham to concentrate. Reporting someone’s
shortcomings/misbehavior to the teacher is against the norms of the participants (as we have seen in the previous chapter) but in the context of this episode, reporting to the teacher is to be seen as a way of bantering and putting more pressure on the opponent party. Moreover, this reporting from the point of Ilham could be seen unavoidable as the teacher noticed that the group is quarreling.
Ilham responds to the teacher – and to the bantering – by providing an excuse regarding her inability to accomplish her job, namely, that she cannot work with two boys (12), and thus she appeals again to the categories boys and girls. Adham proceeds with his bantering in (11-14), providing reasons as to why Ilham has to comply and cooperate with the group, i.e., she is working with two delicious boys. On one hand, Adham praises himself and his peer Musa and the category of males they belong to, while on the other he pinpoints Ilham’s deficiency in that all the conditions that are likely to entice her to concentrate are available. By this, Ilham is not treated as an asexual fellow pupil, rather as a female sitting between two attractive boys. The participants, thus, orient to gender categories interactively. Moreover, this orientation to gender categorization seems to be marked as it moves into the sexual realm by the use of “lækre = delicious”. The teacher in (15) aligns himself with Adham’s position, as he asks the rhetorical question what more do you want?
The question is an agreement with Adham that Ilham has all the reasons to cooperate. Now that the two boys and the teacher have formed a front in Ilham’s face, Ilham withdraws from this argument by stating that she will go to the toilet (16). The two boys laugh in (16), an indication that they succeeded in subduing/teasing her, and while she was still within the hearing range, Adham tells her I will come with you, a statement which shows how the process of bantering moved from the category of innocent and playful comments and became sexual harassment. Adhams’ method of
harassment is incremental, where he starts with opposition, then he appeals to gender categories as he categorizes himself as a sweet boy, and ends with a bizarre suggestion, i.e., to join Ilham in the toilet. His final proposal to accompany her in the toilet can be construed as a way of testing the limits, and whether he can transgress further. Ilham’s defensive method is comprised of avoiding the confrontation by withdrawing from the scene. Perhaps Ilham’s orientation to gender issues is the very thing that has invited Adham to start with sexual harassment, especially Ilham’s coquettish manner and actions in (3) and (6).
In the following examples, we will see the methods employed by Adham and Musa in their quest to harass Ilham, and the counter strategies employed by Ilham as she defends herself. One method is comprised of uttering nonsensical terms, which have no meaning in Danish, but a meaning can be generated in the Arabic language. Example (7.2)
1-Ilham: det er kedeli:gt 2-Musa: Hold din [kæft
3-Adham: [hvad du kost↑(0.5) 4-Musa: hehe hvad du kost↑ (2.3) 5-Adham: hvad du koster↑
6-(Ilham pretends searching in her pencilcase)
1-Ilham: it’s bori:ng 2-Musa: shut your [mouth
3-Adham: [ what you food? (0.5) 4-Musa: hehe what you food42? (2.3) 5-Adham: what do you cost?
6-(Ilham pretends searching in her pencilcase)
Adham: what do you cost (5)
In (1) Ilham complains that the activity she and her group are doing is boring. Musa responds with an insult (2), while Adham produces a nonsensical question in (3). The nonsensicality is due to the word kost = food/or whore (slang) which is a noun, in time the question in hand requires a verb after du =you. The syntactic structure of the question is also erratic, in that a verb has to follow hvad = what. However, the participants are likely to interpret the nonsensicality of the question by focusing on the term which is rendering the question nonsensical, and this term is “kost”, and which sounds the same as the Arabic word kos = cunt. Musa in (4) reacts by laughing and then he parrots the same question to Ilham. Adham in turn (5) attempts to make more sense, by producing another nonsensical question, which on one hand reduces Ilham into a slut as he asks her How much do you cost?, replacing kost (noun) with koster (verb) while at the same time maintaining a word that contains the syllable kos. All these meanings and associations of sounds are comprehensible as playing on sexual content for the three bilingual participants. As in the previous example, when
42 Kost (Danish) might also mean broom (English)
Adham offered to go with Ilham to the toilet, and she didn’t respond, Ilham chooses to remain silent in this episode, and pretends searching her pencil case as if she is not hearing what the boys are saying.
Play on words can be an effective method in sexual harassment, and contrary to previous research on bullying which shows the victims as completely helpless, we see the victim here resorting to various methods to counter the bullies. Example (7.3)
1-Adham: kom [ nu læs
2-Musa: [ Herfra dertil (1.3) er det meget for dig↑(0.6) 3-Ilham: rigtig meget
4-Musa: er da-muss-koss he:::he: (1.2)
5-(Ilham bends her head down and partly hides a smile with her hand).
6-Adham: (smiling) læ:::s (1.7)
7-Musa: kom nu bare (.) det er kun dertil (0.4) 8-Ilham: kun her↑ (0.8)
9-Musa: nej dertil 10-Ilham: okay (0.4)
11-Adham: skal jeg læse det for dig↑
12-Ilham: ja (0.5) læse det for mig 13-Musa: nej↑ (0.7)
14-Adham: Ilham e::r (.) kom nu læs (1.5) 15-Ilham: jeg er lesbisk (.) ved i det↑ (0.5) 16-Musa: ja (0.6)
17-Adham: Du er også ordblind, læs (0.8) 18-Ilham: (reads) xxxxxx
19-Adham: Ilham er blevet en mand,[du har fået en grov stemme
20-Musa: [har du glemt kameraet↑
21-Ilham: hvad↑
22-Musa: har du glemt kameraet↑
(Ilham looks at the camcorder and covers her face)
1-Adham: come [now read
2-Musa: [from here to there (1.3) is it too much for you↑
(0.6)
3-Ilham: really too much
4-Musa: is Damascus (= this one’s dick sucked a cunt) he:::he:
(1.2)
5-(Ilham bends her head down and partly hides a smile with her hand).
6-Adham: (smiling) rea:::d (1.7)
7-Musa: just come on (.) it is only till there (0.4) 8-Ilham: only here? (0.8)
9-Musa: no till there 10-Ilham: alright (0.4)
11-Adham: should I read it for you?
12-Ilham: yes (0.5) read it for me 13-Musa: no↑ (0.7)
14-Adham: Ilham is = penis (.) come on read (1.5) 15-Ilham: I’m a lesbian (.) do you (plural) know that? (0.5) 16-Musa: yes (0.6)
17-Adham: you are also dyslexic, read (0.8) 18-Ilham: (reads) xxxxxxxx
19-Adham: Ilham has become a man, [you’ve got a rough voice 20-Musa: [have you forgotten the camera?
21-Ilham: what?
22-Musa: have you forgotten the camera?
(Ilham looks at the camcorder and covers her face)
Musa: have you forgotten the camera? (22)
In this episode, Adham urges Ilham to start reading (1); Musa provides directions regarding what is required to be read (2), followed by a direct question that shows Musa as someone concerned about Ilham, and whether the amount of reading she is supposed to read is too much for her; Ilham
responds with an affirmative really too much, an upgrading format (3); Musa switches from the serious to the satirical tone in (4), as he asks Ilham the nonsensical question er damaskus (is
Damascus)? Musa’s laughter after uttering the question is based on the notion of pun related to the term ( er Damascus / er da-muss-kos ), where er in Danish means (is), while in Arabic it means penis, da = this, Muss = suck, and kus means cunt. In using this pun, Musa was repeating the same format of his question in (2) (er det meget for dig= is it too much for you) and he can easily avoid the blame in case of detection, in that such a pun is like a boomerang: if you hear what I say dirty, then you have a dirty mind, and he can avoid the blame by stating that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the capital of Syria. Musa’s laughter is an invitation to others to join the laughing;
Ilham demonstrates an understanding of Musa’s pun as she bends her head down, and hides a smile.
(Musa: er Damascus)
Adham smiles while he urges Ilham to start reading (5), while Musa returns to the serious tone as he urges her to read, minimizing the required effort of reading as he tells her it’s just until her; in (8) Ilham is doubtful about Musa’s directions, and wants confirmation, so she asks only here?, Musa corrects himself in (9), as he refers to a bigger passage to read. In (11) Adham volunteers to read the passage for Ilham, demonstrating that he is concerned about her. But as soon as he starts to read, he shows that he is sarcastic as he starts with Ilham e::r. Like Musa when he produced his pun of er Damascus, where he showed interest and concern in helping and directing Ilham, Adham does the same, where he shows concern and interest in helping Ilham in reading, but what he utters is
another pun, Ilham e::r which in Arabic means Ilham is penis, in addition to læs =read which might contain the sounds of lesbian. The two boys chose to talk about sex implicitly using pun; they exploited the sounds of words which bear double meanings in Danish and Arabic. Ilham, on the other hand, responds to this sexual harassment explicitly by declaring to the two boys that she is lesbian, and by asking them if they already know about this (15). Her categorization of herself as a lesbian could be seen as a way of defending herself and a way of telling them that she is a female and yet she is one who has no interest in boys. Her explicit talk about sex is met with rejection from the two boys, where Musa responds with Ja=yes (16) without further elaboration and without showing surprise about Ilham’s declaration, while Adham attacks her in (17) accusing her of being dyslectic. As she starts reading (19) Adham proceeds with implicit sexual comments, producing a statement which accords with his previous pun, i.e., Ilham is a dick, as he comments on her voice and that it has become rough and Ilham has become a boy. It is as if the explicit talk about sex has the power to remove Ilham from the category of females and place her in the category of males.
Adham’s talk about Ilham’s transformation overlaps with Musa’s warning to Ilham that there is a camcorder. This warning reveals that talk about sex is acceptable for the boys as long as it is implicit, and it becomes unacceptable once it becomes explicit.
Ilham copies what the boys are doing, but she does it differently as her terms can be explained only in Danish. She practically succeeds -at least momentarily - to stop their playful use of words.
She talks about herself, while they talk about her. Seemingly, she acts as helpless and submissive, receives orders and obeys them. However, her strategy of countering the boys’ implicit sexual talk is comprised of making the topic explicit. Musa’s strategy is comprised of prefacing his pun with an offer of help or concern. The same strategy is repeated by Adham. In their allusive talk, the boys seem to be soliciting allusive responses from Ilham, so they can proceed with the conversation.
Sacks (2000: 434) argues that the proper literal way to talk about sex is to talk about it allusively.
So that if you talk about sex literally you’re not talking about sex properly, you’re talking about sex
“frankly”. The boys’ allusive talk is countered by Ilham, where she avoids allusiveness and resorts to talk about sex frankly. It is safer for them to do it implicitly, by manipulating the situation and the rules of language and be in the safe mode.
Harassment can be done by whispers, and the victim might opt for new defensive methods. In the following episode, Adham proposes to inscribe letters and tattoos on Ilham’s hand, for which she accepts. Example (7.4)
1-Adham : (reads what he writes) shee::::l (1.0) med to e’er kaman a'ashan haik tseer °sexy° (0.3)
2-Ilham : hvad sagde du↑ (.) SEXY↑ (looking at the camcorder) 3-Adham : ne::j↑ (hits Ilham with his fist on her shoulder) fuck dig↑ hvorfor lyver du↑ (1.5) khalas jeg tager også den der dayeb↑
(Ilham stands and clearly feels pain, and complaints saying:
Abbaha)
4-Ilham : jeg er ligeglad 5-(boys laugh)
6-Ilham : kom så::
7-Adham : khalas jeg tager din penalhus (0.6) 8-Ilham :kom så:: (0.4) genfortælle
9-Musa : nå ja (0.5) handlede ,ok den handlede om 10-(Ah whispers to Ilham)
11-Ilham : hvad sagde du↑ hvad ER jeg↑
12-Adham: du er så sød (.) jeg sagde
1-Adham : (reads what he writes) shee::::l (1.0) with two e’s extra in order to make it °sexy° (0.3)
2-Ilham : hvad sagde du↑ (.) SEXY↑ (looking at the camcorder) 3-Adham : no::↑ (hits Ilham on her shoulder) fuck you↑ why are you lying↑ (1.5) well I’ll take this one as well alright↑ (this one= pen)
(Ilham stands and clearly feels pain, and exclaims in Somali:
father )
4-Ilham : I don’t care 5-(boys laugh) 6-Ilham : go ahea::d
7-Adham : that’s it I’ll take your pencil case (0.6) 8-Ilham: go ahea::d (0.4) retell
9-Musa : well yes (0.5) it deals, alright it’s about 10-(Adham whispers to Ilham)
11-Ilham : what did you say↑ what AM I↑
12-Adham: you are so sweet (.) I said
Adham: fuck you why are you lying? (3)
In this episode, Ilham uses a strategy of amplifying what has been whispered to her. In (1) Adham writes on her hand the word sheel, and he reads what he writes, telling Ilham that he is writing the