Expressing Language in Darkmans and Ghostwritten

Nicola Barker's Darkmans is a novel of pure experimentation. Everything from the absence of a coherent plot to the use of typical dialogue tags are different from the typical novel. Barker's form is highly experimental. we have already seen experimentation with "typical" form in several of the other novels in this class. Kelman's experimented with Sammy's language, Smith and Mitchell experimented with narration as well as language, and once again in Barker's novel we see this kind of experimentation. 
However, I want to draw a parallel between the representation in Barker's novel in relation to Mitchell's portrayal of language specifically.
As discussed in class, Mitchell's Ghostwritten employs the use of "transfer" to get his reader to understand, that although the text is written in English certain characters are actually speaking in other languages, such as Quasar in the first and final sections is supposedly speaking Japanese. However, Mitchell does not do anything other than tell his reader that this is how he wants them to read. Barker takes a different (and I believe a more successful) approach to this idea in her novel.
In Darkmans, the character of Gaffar is supposed to be Kurdish. Barker both tells us this through his physical description but also through his speech. Barker bold faces the text in his dialogue that is supposed to be Kurdish in order to make it stand out as different. For example, 'You're too, dman skinny already," Gaffar protested, "what do you want salad for? You need some good protien. Chicken. Steak. Lamb. Not salad. Salad's shit. Just water with a dash of color...' (Barker 221). Here Barker bold faces the words that are supposed to be in another language and does not bold the words that are supposed to be English. This provides the reader with a physical clue to the language in the novel, unlike in Mitchell's novel were we as readers just have to pretend. So in spite of the fact that all the words are in English, the bolded words suggest to the reader that Kelly only understand the non-bold words in Gaffar's lines of  dialogue. This is how Barker suggests/demonstrates language in her text more successfully than in Mitchell's novel, through her use of nontraditional and experimental writing techniques.