Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings: Repairing and Correcting in Public 9780367435561

Citation preview

Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings

This book investigates the ways in which participants in political activities use micro-practices for solving issues of speaking, hearing and understanding as fundamental for the activities they engage in. Based on extensive video recordings of public meetings within a political grassroots project in the field of urbanism, it adopts a conversation analytic and ethnomethodological approach to social action, examining the use of interactional repair in processes of claiming, negotiating, contesting, distributing and establishing knowledge in public. As a study of the ways in which people interact in political meetings, address problems of intersubjectivity and manifest their understanding – or lack of understanding – of political talk, Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings sheds light on the relationship between interactional problems and political problems. It will thus appeal to scholars in sociology and political sciences with interests in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, social interaction, social order, and political practice. Hanna Svensson is Associate Researcher at the University of Basel, Switzerland.

Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Series Editors: Andrew Carlin, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK and K. Neil Jenkings, Newcastle University, UK. Series Advisory Board: Peter Eglin (Emeritus, Department of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada) Dave Francis (Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK) Michael Lynch (Department of Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University, US) Aug Nishizaka (Department of Sociology, Chiba University, Japan) Anne Warfield Rawls (Department of Sociology, Bentley University; Department of Socio-Informatics, University of Siegen; Director of the Garfinkel Archive, US/Germany) Wes Sharrock (Department of Sociology, Manchester University, UK) Roger Slack (Department of Sociology, Bangor University, UK) Rod Watson (Department Economic and Social Sciences, Télécom ParisTech, Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, France)

Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis are cognate approaches to the study of social action that together comprise a major perspective within the contemporary human sciences. Ethnomethodology focuses upon the production of situated and ordered social action of all kinds, whilst Conversation Analysis has a more specific focus on the production and organisation of talk-in-interaction. Of course, given that so much social action is conducted in and through talk, there are substantive as well theoretical continuities between the two approaches. Focusing on social activities as situated human productions, these approaches seek to analyse the intelligibility and accountability of social activities ‘from within’ those activities themselves, using methods that can be analysed and described. Such methods amount to aptitudes, skills, knowledge and competencies that members of society use, rely upon and take for granted in conducting their affairs across the whole range of social life. As a result of the methodological rewards consequent upon their unique analytic approach and attention to the detailed orderliness of social life, Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis have ramified across a wide range of human science disciplines throughout the world, including anthropology, social psychology, linguistics, communication studies and social studies of science and technology. This series is dedicated to publishing the latest work in these two fields, including research monographs, edited collections and theoretical treatises. As such, its volumes are essential reading for those concerned with the study of human conduct and aptitudes, the (re)production of social orderliness and the methods and aspirations of the social sciences. Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings Repairing and Correcting in Public Hanna Svensson For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Directions-in-Ethnomethodology-and-Conversation-Analysis/book-series/ ASHSER1190

Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings Repairing and Correcting in Public

Hanna Svensson

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Hanna Svensson The right of Hanna Svensson to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Svensson, Hanna, author. Title: Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings: Repairing and Correcting in Public / Hanna Svensson. Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2021. | Series: Directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis | “Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business.” | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020015603 (print) | LCCN 2020015604 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367435561 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003004110 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Public meetings—France—Lyon—Case studies. | Social interaction—France—Lyon—Case studies. | Conversation analysis—France—Lyon—Case studies. | Ethnomethodology— France—Lyon—Case studies. Classification: LCC JF1525.P8 S893 2021 (print) | LCC JF1525.P8 (ebook) | DDC 302.34/6—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020015603 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020015604 ISBN: 978-0-367-43556-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-00411-0 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of figures List of participants Transcript conventions Acknowledgments

vi viii xi xiv

1

Introduction: action, institutionality and public political meetings 1

2

Repairing interaction 34

3

Repairing for others: claiming a trouble of understanding 93

4

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing for others 130

5

Correcting for others 179

6

Conclusion: repair, knowledge and institutions 212 References Index

227 239

Figures

Extracts 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2a 2.2b 2.2c 2.3 2.4 2.5a 2.5b 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10a 2.10b 2.10c 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18a 2.18b 2.18c 3.1 3.2

CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 5 CAB_FC_250908_01.05.57 10 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 14 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 18 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 20 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 22 CAB_FC_181109_GPB_00.33.17 37 CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.39.02 40 CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.40.04 40 CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.40.04 43 (30) [Post Party:I:14] 44 THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE [CH:6408] 45 CAB_FC_141008_00.59.14 46 CAB_FC_141008_00.59.14 47 CAB_FC_150913_DON_00.59.39 50 CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.09.13 56 CAB_141008_PLE_TRI1_00.26.22 59 CAB_150913_ADPB_BRL_DEL_00.46.00 63 CAB_FC_211008_01.29.41 67 CAB_FC_211008_01.29.41 68 CAB_FC_211008_01.29.41 70 CASBLA_280611_groupe_jaune_ 00.17.08 72 CAB_21_140613_VIS_Douves_01.41.48 74 CAB_FC_181108_ATE_GPA_02.03.55 76 CAB_FC_211008_01.12.26 78 Jefferson_1972:318_waiter 81 Jefferson_1972:295_counting 81 CAB_FC_250313_02.11.07 84 CAB_FC_031012_01.52.34 86 CAB_FC_031012_01.52.34 88 CAB_FC_031012_01.52.34 89 CAB_FC_211008_00.00.00 94 CAB_FC_160609_00.19.34 95

Figures  vii

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7a 3.7b 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13a 4.13b 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5a 5.5b 5.6a 5.6b 5.7 5.8 5.9a 5.9b

CAB_FC_211008_02.16.54 96 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 97 CAB_181108_ATE_GPA_00.13.12 101 CAB_FC_181108_ATE_GPA_01.58.10 105 CAB_FC_211008_00.50.00 108 CAB_FC_211008_00.50.00 111 CAB_FC_021208_ATE_GPC_01.32.52 112 CAB_141008_00.35.37 116 CAB_261108_ATE2_GPA&B_00.39.22 120 CAB_FC_261108_ATE_GPA&B_00.37.17 123 CAB_150913_DON_00.09.45 132 CAB_211008_00.15.22 136 CAB_FC_211008_00.37.33 139 CAB_FC_031012_02.18.54 141 CAB_FC_160609_01.45.36 143 CAB_FC_211008_00.42.00 145 CAB_FC_211008_01.06.55 149 CAB_FC_141008_01.30.12 152 CAB_031012_02.46.25 156 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45 160 CAB_FC_141008_00.52.01 164 CAB_FC_031012_02.17.58 167 CAB_FC_141008_01.45.30 169 CAB_FC_141008_01.45.30 171 CAB_26_150913_Journée_Associations_DON_01.02.49 181 CAB_FC_211008_02.25.49 185 CAB_FC_211008_02.28.03 187 CAB_FC_191108_ATE_GPC_02.13.50 188 CAB_FC_211008_02.17.29 190 CAB_FC_211008_02.17.29 192 CAB_FC_211008_01.04.23 195 CAB_FC_211008_01.04.23 198 CAB_FC_031012_02.20.39 200 CAB_FC_211008_00.01.36 203 CAB_FC_181109_GPB_00.23.01 205 CAB_FC_181109_GPB_00.23.01 206

Images 1.1 Information meeting CAB_141008 24 1.3 Consultation meeting CAB_181108_GPA 25 1.4 Consultation meeting CAB_181108_GPB 25 1.5 Consultation meeting CAB_280611_GPJ 26 1.6 Inauguration of the park CAB_150913 26

Participants’ names and roles with their abbreviations used in the analysis By alphabetical order

All names are pseudonyms. The gender categories are indicated for clarifying pronoun referencing in the analysis and have not been identifiable as consequential for the analysis. The occupational categories derive from information gathered within the project in forms of self-categorizations on the video recordings or documentation provided by the institution. They are not analytical categories. Alide, Pierrot; AID (m). Public servant, Grand Lyon. Baunin, Christine; BAU (f). Participating citizen. Bert,  Yves; BER (m). Vice President of Grand Lyon (Agglomeration of Lyon). Elected official and responsible for the project. Baldot, Eva; BLO (f). Participating citizen. Baril, Miron; BRL (m). Participating citizen. Belingard, Charles; BLE (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Calvin, Mathieu; CAL (m). Invited external specialist, urbanism. Capelli, Martine; CAP (f). Elected deputy in a district neighboring the park. Cedres, Robert; CER (m). Participating citizen. Cédric, Émile; CED (m). Participating citizen. Cellier, Eric; CEL (m). Participating citizen. Charvet, Aline; CHA (f). Participating citizen, engaged in non-related political councils. Colin, Manuel; COL (m). Participating citizen, member of district council. Cyril, Léonard; CYR (m). Participating citizen. Daumat, Philippe; DAU (m). Vice-president of Grand Lyon in charge of projects related to urbanism and agglomeration.

Participants  ix Delors, Yves; DEL (m). Mayor in a neighboring district to the future park and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Donzé, Isabelle; DON (f). Public servant, Grand Lyon. Edgar, Jonathan; EDG (m). Participating citizen. Faurier, Sébasiten; FAU (m). Participating citizen. Fontain, Jerôme; FON (m). Participating citizen. Fior, Patrique; FIO (m). Invited external specialist, urbanism. Géomard, Jacques; GEO (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Gilles, Bruno; GIL (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Jacquier, Alain; JAC (m). Participating citizen. Jaure, Édouard; JAU (m). Participating citizen. Jeanneret, Christine; JEA (f). Participating citizen. Jegon, Antoine; JEG (m). Participating citizen. Laurent, Yves; LAT (m). Participating citizen. Lemercier, Jeannette; LEM (f). Participating citizen living close to the future park. Leroy, André; LER (m). Participating citizen. Lignal,  Michel; LIG (m). Appointed landscape architect in charge of the project. Luc, Xavier; LUC (m). Participating citizen. Marc, Christian; MRC (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Marcel, Yves; MAR (m). Participating citizen. Michel, Oscar; MIC (m). Participating citizen. Navarro, Sylvie; NAV (f). Executive project manager. Nélille, Marcel; NEL (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association Naturama. Nilard, Quarantin; NIL (m). Participating citizen. Pernéty, Julie; PER (f). Facilitator. Poujade, Marc; POU (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan.

x Participants Prévost, Pierre-Alain; PRE (m). Facilitator. Ralle, George; RAL (m). Invited external specialist, urbanism. Romain, Alex; ROM (m). Participating citizen. Rosse, Félix; ROS (m). Participating citizen. Sandoz, Aurélie; SAN (f). Participating citizen. Suard, Dominique; SUA (m). Participating citizen and member of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Tursin, Aline; TUR (f). Participating citizen. Urban, Thierry; URB (m). Invited external specialist, urbanism. Valernaud, Paul; VAL (m). Participating citizen and president of the Association de Défense du Parc Blandan. Vezard, Ludovic; VEZ (m). Invited external specialist, urbanism. Vozier, Irène; VOZ (f). Participating citizen. Zanar, Julie; ZAN (f). Participating citizen.

Transcript conventions

xii  Transcript conventions

Transcript conventions  xiii

Acknowledgments

I would like to start with giving thanks to the persons who participated to the Parc Blandan project and agreed to be recorded throughout the public procedures. This work would not be possible without your consent. I am also grateful to the Swiss National Foundation for the generous funding of my doctoral studies and the research project “Speaking in Public,” directed by Lorenza Mondada. It provided the possibility to devote several years exclusively to research, and I am deeply aware of the privilege. My supervisors Lorenza Mondada and Heiko Hausendorf have been ­critical for accomplishing this work. Thank you for supporting me throughout the intellectual and institutional proceedings. A big Merci to my colleagues at Maiengasse 51. Nynke van Schepen, David Monteiro, Burak Tekin, Lorenza Mondada, Sofian Bouaouina, Sara Keel, Anne-Sylvie Horlacher, Florence Oloff, Sara Merlino – your company in the midst of and between data collecting ventures, office hours, conference organizations, workshops and data sessions has been crucial for my love and respect for what we are doing. I also want to express my gratitude to the EM/CA community for the intellectual generosity I enjoy, in various forms, during workshops and conferences. A special thanks goes to Jeff Robinson. Your critical reading and genuine engagement in our discussions were crucial for completing this work. I would also like to thank Andrew Carlin and Neil Jenkings for their editorial support and the production team at Routledge for finalizing this manuscript and guiding me through the publishing procedure. A special thanks to Luisa Alvares for your substantial help with the index. Muito, muito obrigado... Lorenza, I don’t remember what made me apply for the exchange program to Lyon but I remember well the impression you made when I first attended class. That impression has stayed and grown and with time you have become much more than a supervisor. Yet, it is for your professional passion, patience, generosity and, more than anything, expertise, that I am light-heartedly indebted for your help to work this book into being. Merci pour tout. Mamma, Mirjam, Debora, Benjamin and Amos. You’re my best friends. Thanks for knowing how to laugh about cry-ables and for being warm strength, love and presence. I continue to grow with you. Yonna, thanks

Acknowledgments  xv for being so close at a distance. Papa Bruno, merci pour être lumière et amour et toi. Luisa, thanks for helping me to talk problems into solutions albeit not knowing their components. Märta, thanks for instructing me in daring by doing it. Wassim, ‫حياتي‬. Konis tack för (att) It’s OK. Burak, I am happy not thanking you for being with me to a bitter end, but celebrating us continuing a beginning. Your friendship and willingness to argue with me over and about transcripts, dense paragraphs and coffee payments are invaluable. Ariman, Riverside Boxing, pappa, Renée, Cannon Beach, Sam and the drums, L’Anse de la Fausse Monnaie, Stågan. Thank You, named or not, for believing that I can do things and walking parts of ways with me.

1

Introduction Action, institutionality and public political meetings

They are unavoidable, they are inescapable; there is no hiding place from their use; no moratorium; no time out; no room in the world for relief. (Garfinkel and Sacks 1986)

It appears that democracy faces increasing challenges worldwide, including free and fair elections, freedom of the press, political rights and civil liberties. Alongside growing right-wing populist political movements with explicit anti-democratic agendas, “great power” governments are openly accused of interfering with national elections by, for example, spreading dubious information via unconventional platforms like social media. Moreover, notions like “information war” and “alternative facts” emerge as commonplace terms for questioning news coverage in conventional media in order to legitimately mobilize political opinion. In short, the access to and distribution of “adequate” information are increasingly recognized and debated as a practical problem for members of society. However, we tend to perceive and act in a world that comes to us in order, presume that people around us perceive the same world and trust our commonsense understanding regarding how things are. To share a world in common is a social achievement and builds on situated, social practices for establishing intersubjectivity. The earlier quote features in a set of constraints that Garfinkel and Sacks formulate as the essential characteristics for discerning social practices, i.e. what makes action, context and natural language recognizable as such (1970:173). Their “unavoidability” is indicative of their reflexive, ceaseless reproduction. The occurring and recurring practices of natural language that compose intelligible social action are the same procedures that are used for identifying and solving emerging troubles with actions done into being. This allows members to establish intersubjectivity in a situated, emergent way in and through interaction. This research is interested in the practical procedures members

2 Introduction of society engage in to establish emerging speech as official, publicly ratified knowledge. I examine how interactional repair, as a fundamental social practice for solving emerging troubles of speaking, hearing, understanding and accepting various aspects of social interaction, is used in a participatory democracy project in urbanism to produce shared knowledge. The empirical study is based on extensive video recordings of a participatory democracy project in urbanism in Lyon, France. The political project ensued from the agglomerate city council’s purchase of an ancient military site in the center of the city. Grand Lyon eventually initiated a participatory project, inviting citizens to contribute to the reconceptualization of the military site into a public park. The project spanned over seven years and included a variety of participatory activities. The public meetings principally evolved around tasks related to distributing and exchanging information in order to have a common ground for discussing conceptual issues among the participants engaged in the project, including citizens, specialists, civil servants and politicians. In this way, it was not only a practical, interactional problem to establish and ensure intersubjectivity during the meetings but also an institutional, political problem. This book examines the interactional practices the participants use to manage the distribution of information among them, which directly concerns their demonstrable orientation to issues of access to and the distribution of knowledge as essential for the participatory democratic work they engage in. All public meetings that were organized for engaged citizens were video recorded within what later evolved into the Swiss National Science Foundation funded research project “Speaking in public: Social interactions within large groups.” This chapter offers an overview of Ethnomethodology (EM) and Conversation Analysis (CA), which constitute the conceptual framework for this work. After reviewing the theoretical underpinnings for approaching social action as a scientifically legitimate and relevant topic of investigation, I discuss institutionality as a praxeological achievement and review relevant research on political meetings and public speech. I then present the data in detail and explain the methodological principles that allow for documenting and eventually reconstructing the orderliness of social action.

Turning to action EM and CA, as cognate conceptual approaches to the study of social action, are concerned with the demonstrable orderliness of situated, recurrent practices that allow to construe social structures. The development of EM (Garfinkel 1967) is built on Parsons’ (1937) structural-functional sociological program and relates to the development of Schütz’s (1964) social phenomenology, later Wittgenstein’s (1958) interest in natural language and Goffman’s (1959) concern about face-to-face interaction as a topic of analysis in its own right. In contrast to social theories defending

Introduction  3 the view that the actions that members of society engage in are determined by “external” structures imposed on them (ranging from how they use natural language to how they engage in and with societal institutions), EM and CA are interested in just how members of a community construe social structures in emergent, situated and ordered ways (Heritage 1984b; Schegloff 1991b). With the term ethnomethodology, Garfinkel (1967:11) refers to “[…] the investigation of the rational properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions as contingent ongoing accomplishments of organized artful practices of everyday life.” He recognizes that by treating their respective undertakings as accountable, intelligible and meaningful, participants to interaction reflexively establish their doings as rational “for all practical purposes.” These observations resulted in a praxeological approach to action as the situated foundation of social structures. The term ethnomethodology thus refers to the practices, or methods, that members of society deploy to ensure a reciprocal passable understanding of the actions they engage in. The term member does not refer to individuals but to persons that, when “[…] they are heard to be speaking a natural language, somehow are heard to be engaged in the objective production and objective display of commonsense knowledge of everyday activities as observable and report-able phenomena” (Garfinkel and Sacks 1986:160). Garfinkel’s interest in explaining the norms underpinning social order occasioned his renowned breaching experiments. By pursuing social conduct contravening implicit “rules” for how to behave in various interactional contexts, the experimenters provoked their subjects to explicate reasons for emerging conflict, providing “negative evidence” for what thereby was revealed as normative, common rules. The observations amounted to the conclusion that interactants orient to their respective and coordinated actions as accountable, meaning that they are observable-and-reportable (1967:1), inspected for their agreement with reflexively construed norms and occasioning sanctions if they depart from the norms. CA developed as a research program within this intellectual framework, prompted by an interest in the recurring conversational practices by which social order is produced within and across settings (Heritage 1984b; Sacks 1995; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974; Schegloff and Sacks 1973). A social practice is composed of various interactional resources and recognizably accomplishes specific actions by virtue of its formal properties – e.g. the action it accomplishes in a specific sequential position by a specific party with a specific format. What Sacks (1995) and Schegloff and Sacks (1973) treated as a fundamental question for participants to interaction – Why that now? – is explained by the essentially indexical concerns of What?, When?, Who? and How?. The initial work within EM and CA recognized natural language, including its whole range of embodied resources, as extensively used to accomplish social action. In their criticism of sociology’s continuous attempts to account for social phenomena through “objective description,” thus attempting to escape indexicality, Garfinkel and Sacks (1986)

4 Introduction argue for recognizing the situated and contingent character of social action. By appreciating indexicality as an inextricable feature of natural language and consequentially of social actors’ practical accomplishments – including scientific undertakings – the “problem of indexicality” is dissolved. By showing that the glossing of an action, such as “formulating,” is an accountable practice of natural language, they reveal the impossibility of formulating members’ practices in a constructional way through “objective” description, since the members’ displayed understanding of the activity they engage in is irremediably indexical.1 Garfinkel and Sacks conclude that since members of society use natural language to achieve social action, natural language is not only a resource for acting, but reflexively constitutes a topic of investigation in its own right. Therefore, sociological reasoning cannot escape from the procedures by which natural language, with its indexical properties, is rendered intelligible by the members who use it (Garfinkel and Sacks 1986:157–158). As Garfinkel points out, members – as firsthand analysts of unfolding social actions – are not “interested in” or continually conscious about just how ordinary social activities are accomplished. The practices that reflexively order social reality are essentially “seen but unnoticed” (1967:41–42). This observation of ordinary members’ ordinary approach to ordinary practical achievements contrasts with the scientific analyst’s ambition: “For members to be ‘interested’ would consist of their undertaking to make the ‘reflexive’ character of practical activities observable; to examine the artful practices of rational enquiry as organizational phenomena without thought for correctives or irony” (Garfinkel 1967:9). Turning to actual phenomena allows an explanation of these conceptual underpinnings. Extract 1.1 is drawn from a public information meeting in the beginning of the participatory democracy project. When we join the interaction, invited specialists have just provided a presentation about the condition of the buildings on the site of the future park and the citizens are invited to make remarks and ask questions. When a citizen, Lemercier (LEM), requests the budgetary costs for demolishing buildings on the site (3–8) the invited urbanist Vezard (VEZ) and the civil servant and executive manager of the project, Navarro (NAV), refuse to respond, claiming that they don’t have the information (7–10). This, in turn, prompts the facilitator Prévost (PRE) to respond on behalf of them by publicly postponing the inquiry (11–12) and then to project sequence closure by reclaiming the microphone from Lemercier (14). The video recorded interaction is represented in the transcript, which renders linguistic and embodied interactional resources (see transcript conventions). The screenshots represent synchronized and composed video angles, whose occurrence in time is represented in the transcript. Lemercier is visible in the left image and Prévost, Navarro and Vezard in the right.

Introduction  5

Extract 1.1 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

6 Introduction

Extract 1.1 (Continued).

In this extract, the citizen Lemercier explicates what she is doing by formulating it as an action in a series of actions, retrospectively anchoring it in the prior question and prospectively making relevant an answer (3–8). By explaining the contextual relevance of her intervention she claims what she is doing as justifiably inspect-able with regard to its presumed relevant aspects (Garfinkel and Sacks 1986; Schegloff 1988). Social interaction unfolds over time and interactants orient to actions’ sequential placement, that is when they emerge, as essential for their intelligibility (Schegloff 1996, 2007b; Schegloff and Sacks 1973). Lemercier’s request for the budgetary information is also sequentially accountable as her displayed understanding of when it is done, that is, subsequent to the facilitator’s public selection of her as the next speaker (1), which she acknowledges in an embodied way as she accepts the microphone he offers her (2, figure 1) and

Introduction  7 takes the turn (3). Lemercier initiates her contribution by providing her name (3) and address (4), complying with the institutional representatives’ explicit request at the beginning of the meeting to present oneself when engaging in public speech. By providing this particular account for as whom she is doing the request (as a citizen living close to the future park), a context in which that category is relevant to invoke is retrospectively acknowledged and prospectively established. That she chooses the inclusive pronoun on ‘we’ instead of je ‘I’ also indexes that she does not only speak – and request – on behalf of herself, but on behalf of an interactional party that is hearable as “the participating citizens.” This is also displayed in her embodied positioning. As opposed to addressing the ensemble of the attending participants, she keeps her body directed to the institutional representatives throughout her turn whilst acknowledging the others in the room as part of the participation framework with linguistic means. The accountability of the request’s formal properties, or how it is done, is further manifested in its linguistic format. The interrogative particle est-ce que indicates the action’s inquiring character, and the inclusive neutral third person in singular on, translatable as ‘we,’ indicates the subject. The auxiliary modal verb pouvoir, ‘can,’ conjugated in the conditional tense and the full verb avoir, ‘have’ (4–6) projects the object for the request – the budgetary costs (6–7) – indicating the formality of the setting. Regarding the indexical, situated features of social interaction, there is seemingly no question for the participants of whom on ‘we’ refers to (4), what prior question the “current” question is expanding (5), what budget it concerns (6–7) or what Prévost is aiming for when he reclaims the microphone by stretching his arm after it (11–14). This shows that neither linguistic deixis nor the indexical properties of the setting represent an obstacle for the analyst, but instead furnish the publicly manifested and demonstrable evidence of the participants’ displayed understanding of the unfolding interaction. Discussing the sociological problem of description, Schegloff (1988) argues that the problem of the social sciences’ attempt to provide “objective” accounts of social phenomena is that descriptions of participants’ undertakings are grounded in the analyst’s interpretation of them, rather than in the comprehension of the participants’ displayed understanding and situated analysis of what they are doing. The number of ways in which matters may be described is infinite and social actors make accountable choices in describing their assumed-to-be-shared reality. If social structures are construed by situated practices, through natural language, participants’ orientation to these structures as ordered and meaningful is only accessible as they are manifested in the interaction. The scientific interest thus concerns the practices or methods that interactants use to accomplish social action. The analyst’s task is to warrant the description of social phenomena by reconstructing the situated relevancies for the participants as they manifest these in the interaction. Hence, “[…] the correctness of any particular characterization is not by itself an adequate warrant for its invocation” (Schegloff 1988:2, building on Sacks 1963, 1972). To gloss

8 Introduction ­

Introduction  9

Political meetings as institutional interactions The participatory democracy project in urban planning that constitutes the basis for this study was initiated by the agglomerate city council of Lyon, Grand Lyon. The institutional agenda in terms of principal actors, the tasks to be accomplished and a preliminary calendar were communicated in the initial call for participation through distributed flyers, inviting citizens to engage in the meetings. Whereas Grand Lyon was explicated as the political institution in charge of the project through the logotype and in the text, the citizens in the agglomeration of Lyon were explicated addressees (avec vous, la caserne deviendra parc ‘with you, the caserne will become park’; dessinons ensemble l’avenir du parc blandan ‘let us draw together the future of the parc blandan’). Apart from dates and locations for the meetings, the addressees were informed about the nature of the planned activities (réunion publique ‘public meeting’; ateliers de travail de partage d’état des lieux ‘workshops to share knowledge about the site’; ateliers de receuil des attentes ‘workshops to gather expectations’), some background information about the site and the institutional acquisition of it, and the general objectives concerning the consultative process. The political and institutional motivation for the project, and consequently for the public meetings, was straightforward. However, people participating to the meetings also engaged in “ordinary conversation” as they meet colleagues or neighbors. What warrants a description of the interactions pursued at the public meetings as “institutional” does not rest on an a priori assumption. Instead, it relies on the participating interactants’ demonstrable orientation to their respective undertakings as accountable ways of organizing the interaction as a public, political meeting. To claim that an interaction is institutional involves showing that the interactional procedures are recognizable and thus reflexively consequential for the institution as an institution (Drew and Heritage 1992:3–4). This study examines how other-initiated repair practices are indicative of and consequential for the institutionality of the studied interactions. Institutionality as a praxeological achievement It is a practical problem for participants in interaction to make their actions recognizable as actions that conform with, and are relevant for, the institutional framework within which they are pursued. Consequently, the problem for the analyst is to recover the practices members use to render their actions procedurally consequential for the interaction as institutional. What is it in the interactants’ conduct that makes it recognizable as conduct that is shaped by and adjusted to the institutional context whilst renewing that very same context? In contrast to other approaches to “context” in social sciences, context within an EM and CA approach is thus not invoked as an explicative frame for linguistic conduct, but treated as dynamically produced by the participants in the interaction. Drew and Heritage (1992) observe three general yet distinctive features of participants’ conduct in institutional interactions: (i) the orientation to specific goals or tasks to be solved or accomplished, (ii) the constraints on the participants’

10 Introduction respective contributions to the activity and (iii) the special character of the participants’ manifested inferences in the interaction. Some interactional phenomena have also been identified as particularly relevant for construing institutionality, including turn-taking organization, overall structural organization of the interaction, sequence organization, turn design, lexical choice, and epistemological and other forms of asymmetry (Drew and Heritage 1992; Drew and Sorjonen 1997; Heritage 1997). Specific designs of these phenomena are recurrently used to recognizably establish and negotiate the tasks, constraints and presumed relevancies that are characteristic for institutional settings. In Extract 1.2, drawn from the first public meeting within the project, the facilitator Prévost (PRE) explicitly formulates what tasks the participants are expected to engage in during the meeting. The participants have just been offered a general presentation of the project and the official representatives and watched a short movie introducing the site.

Extract 1.2 CAB_FC_250908_01.05.57.

Extract 1.2 (Continued).

12 Introduction This extract illustrates how the framework for ensuing activities is formulated on behalf of the institution. Institutional interactions routinely reveal a distinct distribution of tasks and actions among the participants, linked to their respective institutional roles. In the participatory democracy project, for example, the elected political representatives, the public servants and external specialists provide information about and within the project, whereas the facilitators are responsible for organizational tasks and the attending citizens ask questions and make comments. These roles embody various rights and obligations related to situated expectancies and imply asymmetries regarding interactional proceedings (Schegloff and Sacks 1973). In ordinary conversation, the overall sequence organization is not predefined, but contingent on the setting’s situated particularities. In institutional settings, on the other hand, activities may be ordered in advance, and the interaction is divided into more or less specified and explicated phases, each phase being oriented to accomplishing the general task at hand (Robinson 2013b). For instance, in contrast to “ordinary” conversation, institutional interactions often have a pre-allocated turn-taking system such as court proceedings (Atkinson and Drew 1979; Drew 1992), mediation hearings (Garcia 1991), news interviews (Greatbatch 1988; Heritage 1985) and political meetings (Mondada 2013b). This has institutional consequences. For example, in their examination of the recommencement of a staff meeting at a radio station, in which a chairman organizes the turn-taking as going “round the table,” Atkinson, Cuff and Lee (1978:148) note that: […] an utterance-by-utterance selection principle is transposed by the chairman’s having established pre-allocated slots for himself, and by the way speaker slots are chained into a round forewarning future speakers about what they might appropriately do or say. By such a device the chairman might be seen to give each his “rightful say” in an organized and perhaps democratic manner, and to effect a scheduled episode recognizable to those present as a round, so that each could play an appropriate part, knowing what is happening and using that knowledge to contribute to an organized and commonly oriented-to event. Along the same lines, Mondada, Svensson and van Schepen (2017) show that using a table-based turn-taking system in these political meetings construes groups in the room that, in turn, has political implications for the interaction. In Extract 1.2, Prévost provides verbal instructions for just when and how the citizens are supposed to talk, including after having made a bid and been allocated the turn (9–10), by talking briefly (11–12) in the microphone (10), after presenting oneself and making oneself visible (14–16) – and by embodied means, as the facilitator enacts how to bid for

Introduction  13 the turn by raising his own index (figure 4). These constraints are reflexively acknowledged and established as legitimate. The citizen Charvet raises her arm as the facilitator projects to finish his turn (12, figure 5), which the facilitator treats as bidding for the turn, as he selects her as the next speaker both verbally and by pointing to her (13–14, figure 6a, 6b). The facilitator formulates the expectation that the citizens are expected to do “reacting,” which Charvet adheres to by tying her turn to what a prior speaker and institutional representative said (3, 6, 8). Prévost also formulates a reservation regarding the conditional relevance of the citizens’ interventions as not necessarily prompting answers (7). A generic normative sequence organization is thus lifted by virtue of the interaction’s institutional character. The normative framework for how to design turns at talk also tends to be less rigid in ordinary conversation than in institutional interactions, where participants manifest their orientation to setting-specific constraints and tailor generic practices for specific institutional goals. Participants design their turns so as to facilitate the activity, for example by projecting turn completion (16) (cf. Arminen 2001; Mondada 2007a; van Schepen 2019), mobilizing embodied resources to render visible the procedures of turn-taking publicly (9; 14, Mondada 2007b, 2013b), or to progress to the next activities (8–9; 14) (Deppermann, Schmitt, and Mondada 2010). In Extract 1.2, the facilitator explicates constraints on the format of the citizens’ contributions as turns at talk, i.e. that they are expected to be brief (11–12), that they make themselves visible when they talk and that they introduce themselves (14–16). The time constraint is moreover explained with the moral and political account that as many citizens as possible should get the right to talk. By complying with these locally construed rules, Charvet reflexively establishes them as warranted and relevant for the context. Institutional interactions are more or less formal (Atkinson 1982) and the institutional constraints within the project clearly differ between various activities. In this project, the information meetings, for example, have a significantly clearer structure with pre-allocated turns, whereas the turn-taking system during the brainstorming sessions is looser and more slots for the citizens to bid for or take the turn are created. The specific normative frameworks that characterize how institutional interactions are structured are intrinsic to the goals or tasks that participants establish as relevant for the institution. For instance, Clayman and Reisner’s (1998) examination of editorial meetings showed how assessments are designed and mobilized to do “gatekeeping” regarding proposals’ newsworthiness, and Clayman and Fox’s (2017) investigation of journalistic questionings shows how adversarial roles are negotiated through question-answer sequences.

14 Introduction The participants in this setting orient to these situated constraints as normative and morally accountable and sanctioned when transgressed. This is demonstrable when, for example, questions that are off-topic or politically delicate are being postponed (Mondada, Svensson, and van Schepen 2015) or when participants taking the turn are not ratified as speakers (van Schepen, Mondada, and Svensson 2014). Furthermore, although participants pervasively comply with the constraints and asymmetries that are inherent to the institution, they also challenge them (Mondada and Keel 2017). This is noticeable in the continuation of Extract 1.1, where Lemercier and another citizen, Cédric, challenge the terms of the interaction with respect to both procedural and epistemic aspects. We join the interaction again as the facilitator postpones the question about the budgetary costs for demolishing buildings and closes the sequence by requesting back the microphone from Lemercier.

Extract 1.3 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

Introduction  15

Extract 1.3 (Continued).

As the facilitator projects sequence closure (11–12; 14–15), Cédric departs from the locally established turn-taking system as he self-selects without first bidding for the turn (15, figure 7). Moreover, he counters the institutional representatives’ claim that they can’t respond to Lemercier’s question due to lack of knowledge. In this way, he challenges both the assumed distribution of knowledge among the participants and the rights and obligations to accomplish certain actions. The way in which the participants treat his intervention reflexively establishes it as diverging from locally established norms in various ways. Especially the repair sequence (17–19), claiming a trouble of hearing and publicly selecting Cédric through a stopping gesture (17, figure 8), orients to Cédric’s self-selection as both sequentially and normatively dis-preferred. This is related to political organizational constraints regarding how to speak in public within the project. It also results from the ecology of the setting as a

16 Introduction large-group activity that put constraints on the audibility of the participants’ contributions. The facilitator’s repeat of Cédric’s repaired turn in the microphone (21) and Navarro’s negative answer (23) substantiates these aspects as procedurally consequential for how the interaction unfolds as an institutional interaction. The delicacy of challenging the constraints of who is doing and knowing what in this context, as it is configured at this point in time, is further demonstrated in how the facilitator modifies the citizen’s action when repeating it (21, see Chapter 4). This shows how the management of political agendas surfaces in the interaction, as the institutional framework is “talked into being” (Heritage and Clayman 2010). Institutional interactions are also associated with specific inferential frameworks. The ways in which participants understand and respond to courses of action in institutional interactions differ from ordinary conversation with regard to sequence organizations, lexical choices and the participants’ categorization of social relations and identities. For example, Mehan’s study on questions in “ordinary” interaction and classroom interaction shows that the inferential framework of the classroom interaction is procedurally consequential for how a simple question-answer sequence is carried out. The question “What time is it,” is not heard as an actual request for the hour but solicits a different account (Mehan 1979:285). This is also manifested in how participants orient to institutional roles, social identities and relations. Examining the recommencement of a meeting, Atkinson, Cuff and Lee show how the participants’ respective roles are locally and reflexively construed through their turns at talk. This, in turn, provides for the meeting to be appreciated as appropriately brought into being so that business may be considered as having been done in a legitimate manner (Atkinson, Cuff, and Lee 1978:146). Through a comparative analysis of two facilitators at work in these political meetings, Mondada (2017) shows how participation is alternatively fostered or restricted through the facilitators’ interactional practices when managing the activity as facilitators (see also Pomerantz and Denvir 2007). The acceptance or refusal of initiated actions like doing “proposing” is related to the participants’ respective authorities (Asmuß and Oshima 2012), and facilitators can for example postpone actions that are initiated by laypersons by virtue of their professional role (Mondada, Svensson, and van Schepen 2015). The relevance of membership categories does not ensue from what is referentially correct, but it is emergent and reflexively established as such in the interaction: “[…] actual membership in a category is not a sufficient basis or grounds for using it to categorize someone” (Schegloff 2007a:474). Depending on local contingencies and the activities the participants are engaged in, multiple membership categories can become relevant (Mondada 2011a). The analyst’s understanding of relevant categories must therefore be warranted by the participants’ demonstrable use of some category in order for them to make sense of the unfolding interaction. In this way, the rights and obligation that are intrinsic to the respective categories can be revealed. In Extract 1.3, the participants display their orientation to inferential frameworks through various interactional phenomena. For example, Cédric manages political delicacy in his recipient design for locally established

Introduction  17 interactional parties. By formatting the correction of the professionals’ negative epistemic claim concerning the budget with the inclusive third person singular “on,” literally translatable as “one” and vernacularly used as “we” (15, 19), he claims that the requested information is information known by “everyone.” At the same time, he provides for a vagueness regarding the blame-relevance of the addressed professionals. An alternative would be to, for example, use the second person plural vous ‘you’ (i.e. “you know the costs”), which would claim that the institution deliberately withholds information. Lemercier, on the other hand, leaves out this ambiguity in her subsequent request as she, through the imperative in second person plural donnez nous le budget ‘give us the budget,’ explicitly addresses the professionals as the party with the ability and obligation to provide the citizens (nous ‘us’) with the budgetary information (22, figure 10). In this way, interactional parties are constructed as potential political adversaries by situated, indexical means. The facilitator, on the other hand, resists the implicit accusation that the information is not provided due to a political agenda. As he counters the correction by repeating the second negative answer with the same structure as Lemercier just did (non on les connaît pas, ‘no one doesn’t/we don’t know them’), he insists that the requested information is not available (25). It is also noticeable that the facilitator is heard to do repeating contributions on behalf of two different interactional parties, as opposed to asking and answering a question on behalf of himself. In sum, the institutionality of a setting is a situated, practical and coordinated achievement. Consequently, the analytic endeavor is to ground an institutional claim in the observable and reportable particularities of the interaction that render it observable as such for the participants. These particularities are revealed by virtue of what actions are achieved, how they are organized and formatted and how the participants orient to the distribution of rights and obligations to initiate, engage in and eventually accomplish them (Drew and Heritage 1992). The participants to these public meetings manifestly orient to the explicated constraints to establish their speech as public speech, which is expected to address specific topics and to be designed for a large number of participants within an institutional framework. Furthermore, the interaction is produced and treated as public speech within a public political context. Political meetings and public speech One specificity of meetings is the large number of participants, which is procedurally consequential for the interaction (Schegloff 1995), for example with regard to turn-taking (Mondada 2013b) but also for the organization of other-initiated repair (Bolden 2011; Egbert 1997). In meetings, the allocation of turns at talk, the organization of sequences and the general progression of the activity often is decided in advance (Drew and Heritage 1992), and a facilitator or mediator can be in charge of the thematic and temporal agenda (Atkinson, Cuff, and Lee 1978). These institutional roles are inherent to the specific settings and they are locally achieved and continuously negotiated (Deppermann, Schmitt, and Mondada 2010; Mondada 2011a; Pomerantz and Denvir 2007).

18 Introduction Research on multi-party institutional settings has focused on interactants’ practical problems, such as how public speakers hold the attention of recipients that do not speak (Atkinson 1982), how reactions to political talk through applause as a collective response are organized (Atkinson 1984) and solicited (Heritage and Greatbatch 1986) and how the audience during a congressional candidate’s election campaign reflexively co-construct the public speeches (Duranti 2003). The ways in which laypersons that are part of a large group manifest themselves remain understudied, but Clayman (1993) examines how individuals initiate booing as dis-affiliative responses in political meetings, and notable research has shown the relevance of embodied features for turn taking in large group multi-party interaction (Heath and Luff 2013; Heath and Mondada 2019; Mondada 2013b). Much research on political speech concerns how professional competence is expressed and how it relates to the distribution of power within institutional settings. A growing body of research focuses nevertheless on the significance of interactional competence and pursues studies on laypersons’ locally achieved political participation in broadcasted political speech (Bovet 2007; Clayman and Fox 2017), radio phone-ins (Fitzgerald and Thornborrow 2017), press conferences (Keel 2017), town meetings (Townsend 2009), public speeches (Llewellyn 2005; McIlvenny 1996), large group political actions (McIlvenny 2017) and participatory democracy meetings (Berger 2011; Mondada 2013b). Participants use vernacular interactional practices for managing emerging political issues, for example when the citizens pursue answers to questions (van Schepen 2019) and when they correct public inscriptions of their proposals in this setting (Svensson 2017). Several of these aspects are observable in the continuation of Extract 1.3. The professionals pursue their claim that they cannot provide the budgetary costs due to “not knowing.” This prompts Cédric and Lemercier to further insist on their claim that the institutional representatives are non-willing rather than non-able to provide the requested information.

Extract 1.4 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

Introduction  19

Extract 1.4 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

20 Introduction By announcing the location of the budgetary information, Cédric upgrades his prior epistemic stance from claiming that the requested information is known to demonstrating it (26) (cf. Sacks 1995:II:140–43; 157). Lemercier, in turn, insists on the existence of a voted budget in overlap. This displays her knowledge about the political institution’s procedures and furthermore proclaims that its representatives are accountable for sharing this information (27–30, figure 11). Another citizen also engages in requesting an answer (24), which further establishes the citizens as talking as one interactional party. The pursuits prompt Navarro to engage in answering (29), but she suspends her turn and requests the microphone from the facilitator (32), thereby embodying the relevance of audibility for speaking in public. Prévost, in turn, repeats Lemercier’s response pursuit. However, by modifying it from a statement to an inquiry (32), he efficiently projects a yes/no-answer regarding the existence of a budget instead of answering a criticism, suspending the conditional relevance of providing actual numbers. This reveals a delicacy of challenging a co-participant’s negative epistemic claim. Interestingly, Lemercier orients to this publicly by producing an increment to her prior assertion as well as to the facilitator’s question, qui est de combien, ‘which is how much’ (34, figures 12–14, cf. 27–30; 32). By positioning the relative clause adjacent to the facilitator’s modified interrogation, she skillfully reclaims the conditional relevance set up by her initial course of action when requesting the sum. In pursuing the requested information, the participants challenge and negotiate the  claimed distribution of knowledge within the participation framework. The request for the budget eventually does get a response.

Extract 1.5 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

Introduction  21

Extract 1.5 (Continued).

When Navarro takes the turn, she retrospectively addresses the citizens’ attribution of knowledge to the institution by specifying what information she is able to provide (the cost for demolishing the hangars) and by situating it within a temporal framework; aujourd’hui, ‘today’ (35). As Lemercier nonetheless insists on the budgetary information (36), Navarro formulates a candidate understanding of the request and ties it to her own previous specification of what information she holds (37–38). In this way, she retrospectively reformulates the question on behalf of Lemercier and solicits alignment from her through the incremental negative interrogative (40–41), which Lemercier also provides in overlap (42). The formal terms of the request are thus publicly renegotiated before Navarro engages in answering. However, she organizes a row of resources – hesitation marks, stretched vowels, self-repair, an inserted pause and audible swallowing – that projects a dis-preferred action and delays the eventual announcement of the budget (44–47) (Pomerantz 1984; Pomerantz and Heritage 2012). The announced sum is confirmed as controversial, as the citizens respond with whistling and produce dis-affiliative tumult (Clayman 1993; Llewellyn 2005). Lemercier’s subsequent repair initiation solicits a repeat of the numbers, which further challenges the institution (53). Navarro repairs her prior turn by means of repeating the amount (55), which again provokes reactions in the audience and publicly establishes the sum as high and politically problematic (56). This shows that the presence of an overhearing audience, i.e. participants that are implicit recipients of the unfolding talk although not explicitly addressed or actively participating, is consequential for how the interaction proceeds

22 Introduction (Atkinson 1984; Atkinson and Drew 1979; Heritage 1985; Hutchby 1995; Mondada, Svensson, and van Schepen 2017). For example, the overhearing audience in court proceedings is consequential for the sequential structure of the speech, where cross-examined witnesses’ answers are repeated fully or partially in order to ensure that the jury, as a present recipient (although non-speaking party, which, for instance, hinders initiation of repair in case of emerging trouble), is guaranteed a “correct” perception of the proceedings (Drew 1992) (cf. Chapter 4). Accordingly, Drew and Heritage point out that: “[…] the presence of an audience whose members may assess the moral character of the focal participants may help to limit the extent to which the latter depart from formal turn-taking procedures” (1992:27). Lemercier’s repair initiation on the announced sum, which prompts Navarro to repeat the sum and the citizens to again do disapproving, displays the public character of the unfolding speech. Navarro continues the presentation of the budgetary costs, which she concludes with a presentation of the price per square meter, thereby minimizing what previously provoked the harsh reactions.

Extract 1.6 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

Introduction  23 The participants do not only react verbally to the reported amount, but Lemercier also writes down the information, thereby publicly treating the information provided as public information “for the record” (44–72). The way in which the extended sequence is eventually brought to closure further ascertains the setting as an institutional setting. The facilitator’s très bien ‘very well’ (69) does not assess the quality of the information provided (Heritage and Clayman 2010), but it works as a sequence closing third, retrospectively treating the prior sequence as completed and projecting the initiation of the next sequence (Schegloff 2007b). This is further manifested by him giving the floor to the next speaker (70) and Lemercier giving thanks for the provided information, thus aligning with the sequence closure (71). The giving thanks also indicates the formality of the setting and retrospectively acknowledges the intersubjective attainment of the sequence. Unpacking this extended question-answer sequence shows how the participants’ particular usage of vernacular interactional practices construes the interaction as a political meeting. The institutionality of the setting is locally produced and contingent on the participatory framework in which it is pursued. This book’s principal interest concerns how the formal properties of other-initiated repair sequences are adjusted to and consequential for the public meetings as a political project where the situated production of shared knowledge is treated as central for the participatory aspects of the proceedings. Before discussing interactional repair, I will describe the corpus and discuss some methodological preliminaries for the ensuing analysis.

Presentation of the data and methodological considerations The conceptual framework that an Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic approach to social action involves, prompts and issues from rigorous methodological concerns. These include an understanding for the examined setting, how it is chosen, documented and eventually subjected to investigation. This section describes the audio and video recordings of the participatory democracy project that constitute the data for this research and discusses methodological issues concerning data collection, transcription and analysis of naturally occurring interaction. A participatory democracy project in urban planning In Lyon, France, in 2008, the agglomerate city council Grand Lyon procured a centrally located old military site from the army and engaged in transforming it into a public park. The political administrative body initiated a participatory democracy project, inviting the citizens to take part in a series of public meetings together with elected political representatives, public servants and consultant experts in urbanism and landscape architecture. The public call for participation resulted in a significant number of citizens attending the participatory process, amounting to 400 people on some occasions. The participants

24 Introduction engaging in the process introduced themselves as members of various categories, ranging from “inhabitant in the immediate surroundings,” “environmentalist,” “sport activist” and “representative of association” advocating rights for pedestrians or people with physical disabilities to “representative of district councils,” etc. The public activities included information meetings, collective guided visits of the site, brainstorming sessions and animations during the official opening of the park in 2013 and 2014. The motivation for the project was explicitly formulated as pertaining to local participatory democracy. In fall 2008, four information meetings were organized. The first public gathering included information about the former military site and general information about the project. The subsequent information meetings discussed historical aspects of the site, about public parks in Lyon and in Europe and about the site’s geographical specificities. The meetings were organized so that invited specialists provided public presentations, followed by slots where the citizens were invited to ask questions and make comments. Professional facilitators were appointed to manage organizational aspects such as allocating turns, administrating the passing of the microphone and coordinating the alternation between various activities (see Images 1.1 and 1.2). Although this initial phase was principally informative in nature, it was explained as fundamental for the participatory process, in the sense that it was claimed to

Image 1.1 Information meeting CAB_141008.

Image 1.2 Information meeting CAB_131108.

Introduction  25 provide for an even distribution of factual knowledge among the participants, which the officials proclaimed would form the framework for subsequent discussions. The citizens were also offered guided visits of the site, which provided them with firsthand access to its then-current state. This experience was recurrently mobilized as accounts for proposals or criticisms that the citizens forwarded in later exchanges. The second phase of the participatory process was launched shortly thereafter. It was organized as two rounds of consulting meetings in smaller groups of 20–30 participants, including facilitators, political representatives and executive civil servants. The organizers first asked the participants to provide proposals concerning how to conceptualize the park with regard to “atmosphere,” “usages” and “style/identity.” In the second round, a facilitator presented a summary of the previous discussions and then proposed to develop three topics that were identified as particularly conflictual, namely the mixed populations in the park, the usages of the public space and the utilization or demolition of the existing buildings on the site (Images 1.3 and 1.4).

Image 1.3 Consultation meeting CAB_181108_GPA.

Image 1.4 Consultation meeting CAB_181108_GPB.

26 Introduction Following this, the participatory activities were put on hold for two years, apart from two information meetings about the proceedings of the project. During the second part of the participatory work, in 2011, the citizens were again invited to engage in consulting meetings, this time in collaboration with the executive architect in charge of the project. These workshops involved hands-on work on maps of the site with images and post-it notes, developing spatial conceptual aspects (Image 1.5). On this followed another two information meetings in 2012 and 2013 and guided visits of the construction site were offered to interested citizens. The first public inaugural ceremony of one part of the park was held in 2013, and a second one was organized in 2014 (Image 1.6). In all, the video corpus within the research project Speaking in Public amounts to a documentation of 26 public events, lasting two to four hours

Image 1.5 Consultation meeting CAB_280611_GPJ.

Image 1.6 Inauguration of the park CAB_150913.

Introduction  27 each, amounting to approximately 60 hours of multi-source audio and video recordings. The project’s principal investigator, Dr. Prof. Lorenza Mondada, acquired the authorization from the executive authorities to video record the participatory process comprehensively. The participants were informed about the recordings and consented to them at the beginning of each public event. All personal names in the corpus and other references that could allow the disclosure of delicate information have been replaced with pseudonyms. Although a substantial number of persons participate continuously during the project, there is an observable fluctuation regarding their attendance. The participants therefore continuously face the issue of addressing interactional parties with different degrees of, and access to, knowledge about the project and its procedure(s). Some topics recurred during the project, such as the management or demolition of buildings on the site, and were progressively established as politically delicate. This is evidenced by explicit references to them as delicate, and reflexively established as such by them recurring in a substantial number of complaints, repair and correction sequences. In this way, the interactional procedures manifest and embody the political issues as they emerge within the project over time (cf. Mondada 2018b). Whereas the corpus includes extensive video recordings of all public events within the participatory process, it does not include documentation of the political and administrative work before and between the public events. The enquiries discussed in this book concern the information meetings and the first round of consulting meetings, which are essentially public in character. The extracts I discuss that are drawn from the guided visits and the first official opening of the park serve as comparative elements to the collected instances where the focal phenomena are observable. Methodological considerations Research in EM and CA has developed rigorous methods for investigating the situated, emergent order of social interaction as it occurs in its natural environment. Sacks points out that by using experimental or invented data as the basis for analyzing social structures, the researcher is unavoidably dependent on the community’s acceptance of the premises for the data as “reasonable.” Naturally occurring data, on the other hand, are inherently valid as an empirical basis for observation. Furthermore, looking closely at what “really” happens provides for the possibility to observe phenomena that cannot be imagined through a priori assumptions and accordingly included in experiment designs (1995:419–420, II). These observations engendered elaborated practices for collecting and handling empirical data, comprising audio and video recordings of naturally occurring interaction. CA, moreover, aims for an accumulation of instances that can assert

28 Introduction the participants’ demonstrable orientation to the reproducibility and procedural consequentiality of the interactional practices they use (Heritage 1984b; Mondada 2012). The remainder of this chapter accounts for and discusses some principles for collecting, transcribing and analyzing data that allow an elaborate examination of the structures of social action. Collecting data Audio and video recordings have the advantage that they can be replayed. This provides for the possibility to engage in repeated inspection of the data and to produce meticulous transcriptions, allowing us to capture the continuous temporal unfolding of social interaction. Schegloff observes that the technical development of recording technologies has had the same import for students of social sciences as, for instance, the microscope has had for natural sciences (1996:166). The possibility to keep record of raw data in the form of recordings, as well as its subsequent representation in form of transcriptions, allows for and even invites persons within or outside the research community to inspect, evaluate and eventually disagree with the analysis of a rendered piece of interaction (Goodwin 1994; Sacks 1984). An important body of research within CA has been pervasively based on telephone calls. More recently there has been a significant turn to collecting and analyzing video recordings. This is partly due to technical developments and the decreasing relative cost of purchasing it, facilitating access to video capture technologies. It is also the result of the appropriate appreciation of the relevance of other embodied aspects than just speech for engaging in social interaction. Participants in interaction treat bodily movement, artifacts and the general ecology of the setting as significant for the accountability of situated actions (Mondada 2006, 2018). The nature of the recorded setting, the technical equipment and how it is used, constrains what interactional phenomena can subsequently be reconstructed and examined with regard to its formal properties (Mondada 2012). Epistemological choices are made in the initial contact with the informants, in choosing recording equipment and its placement in the setting, in the postproduction of the data and organization of the corpus, and in the transcription conventions and chosen screenshots. These choices are contingent on the affordances of the ecology in which the participants interact and are consequential for what emerging interactional relevancies the analyst can subsequently grasp. The ambition is that the recordings of the unfolding activity provide for the possibility to later reconstruct and account for the participants’ displayed understanding of the interaction they engage in. Both static and mobile cameras were used for the recordings of these public meetings. Whereas the latter aimed at capturing the larger participation framework, typically including the audience, official representatives and a facilitator moving around, the research team also manipulated static cameras, striving to capture individuals in the large audience as they took the floor. The sound sources include the “official” sound from the loudspeakers

Introduction  29 connected to the microphones, “local” audio sources from the cameras in the audience as well as additional audio recording devices placed on the tables where the official representatives were seated. Additional data were also collected, comprising the public documents published on the project’s website and the PowerPoint slides presented during the meetings. Transcribing data The secondary data of the audio and video recordings consist of careful transcriptions of features that the participants orient to as relevant for the situated accomplishment and intelligibility of their actions. Whilst the textual and visual representation of the recordings in the form of transcripts and screenshots suspends the flow of social interaction, they also reveal its inherent temporality (Jefferson 1985; Mondada 2018). By reconstructing multimodal aspects including their relative emergence in time, prosodic features, linguistic specificities, gesture trajectories, the transcription renders the interaction’s local structure transparent for the reader. Aligned screenshots allow visual presentation of relevant points in time of embodied conduct. Transcripts go through various complementary stages, and are elaborated in accordance with and depending on the social practice of interest. This is especially the case for multimodal notations, whose nature and deployment depend on the phenomenon in question (Goodwin 2000; Mondada 2014, 2018). How a transcription is organized raises issues about granularity and readability and, more importantly, it is an analytical concern. The assumption that any detail may be procedurally consequential for the interaction imposes the task on the transcriber to discern what the participants orient to as relevant for the intelligibility of the interactional phenomenon that is subject to analysis. This includes prioritizing the detailed transcription of some aspects before others such as prosody, facial expression, gaze or artifacts in the surroundings. This is consequential for the readability and for the analysis. The epistemological problem of description, as discussed by Schegloff (1988), thus also applies to the EM and CA as scientific enterprises. As Goodwin justly acknowledges: “It is not possible to work in some abstract world where the constitution of knowledge through a politics of representation has been magically overcome” (1994:607). This problem includes how to refer to participants in the transcripts. In the case of the present study, it would eventually have facilitated for the reader if the participants were referred to with “institutional roles” such as “FAC” for “facilitator” and “CIT1,” CIT2,” “CIT3…” for the attending citizens. To apply analytical categories to the participants in this way may however not be warranted for the analysis. Consequently, the participants are referred to with pseudonyms, striving to reveal the relevance of eventual categories through the analysis. In the “List of participants,” the participants that are present in the analyzed extracts are provided categories such as “Participating citizen” and “Public servant.” For readers that are

30 Introduction not acquainted with the data, this might provide guidance in following the transcriptions as well as the analysis. When I refer to “institutional representatives” or “political representatives” in the analysis, this is warranted by the observation that the participants intervening as attending citizens pervasively address the engaged professionals as representing the (political) institution in charge of the project. The transcription system deployed within CA was initially developed by Gail Jefferson (Jefferson 1985, 2004), whose close attention to the importance participants give to the smallest details in speech provided for our current understanding of the sequential organization of interaction. The transcription conventions applied in this study build on Jefferson’s principles, developed by Mondada (2019). They constitute a relatively small set of conventions that allow for a maximal freedom regarding the representation of significant multimodal details in the interaction as it unfolds over time. The data have been transcribed with help from the software Audacity 2.0.3 and QuickTime Player 7 Pro. The screenshots that are integrated in the transcriptions are sometimes modified by inserting circles and arrows. These symbols seek to render visible directions or trajectories of embodied aspects that are indicated in the textual transcript, but whose temporality disappears in the frozen image, or to draw the reader’s attention to particularly relevant details in the image. The use of arrows might be ambivalent regarding whether they indicate what the participants display themselves to be “seeing” or what the analyst wants the reader to “see” in the image. I have chosen to annotate images with circles for drawing attention to relevancies for the reader, while arrows indicate the participants’ trajectories of gaze or other embodied conduct. The participants gave their permission to publish the images for scientific purposes and I have chosen to use screenshots of the recordings without employing any postproduction on the images. As a result, they are sometimes blurry and maybe aesthetically atypical. To be transparent regarding the rendering of the actually occurring interaction is however a fundamental recommendation within CA. Moreover, the images produced by the researchers behind the cameras provide an additional confirmation of the practical problems that issue from an emerging trouble and ensuing repair sequence such as in cases of self-selection in a specific turn-taking system. The audience members are recurrently referred to as citizens and not as “people” or “inhabitants.” This descriptive and ultimately analytical choice is made on the grounds that the participants first and foremost attend by virtue of their possible categorization as citizens, as their presence implies a response to the institutional call to citizens of Grand Lyon. Although additional categorizations are invoked, the participants exercise their right as citizens to participate in the project as a political project. Regarding the translation from French to English in the transcriptions, I have tried to stay as close as possible to a literal translation without losing the readability of the action accomplished by the turn. When grammatical features

Introduction  31 in the speech are relevant for the understanding of the participants’ undertakings this is explained in the analysis rather than glossed in the transcription. Analyzing data The methodic recommendation in CA regarding analyzing social action is to approach data in an “unmotivated” way (Sacks 1984:27; Schegloff 1996:172). This allows observing aspects of the interaction that the participants orient to as relevant, rather than delimiting the identification of occurring phenomena to the analyst’s expectations. Despite the indexical character of social action, the locally produced and observable orderliness of interaction is recognizable through the procedural methods that participants mobilize systematically, recurrently and across different contexts and settings. Analyzing recordings of naturally occurring interactions thus seeks to take into account the specificity of the setting as well as the generality of the procedures. The observed instances of specific social actions, recognizable through recurrent practices within and across sets of collected data, are assembled and their recurrence is demonstrated in collections (Schegloff 1996). This evidences the context-free and context-sensitive nature of interactional practices (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974:699). The methodic handling of recorded interactions resembles a naturally occurring laboratory, which, by virtue of the practices’ demonstrable recurrent and describable order, shows that “sociology can be a natural observational science” (Sacks 1984:21). However, the recurrence of social practices to accomplish recognizable action, represented as “collections,” is not an artifact of social science analysis. Rather, it is the reflexively established foundation of the orderliness that participants in interaction produce and reproduce.2 For the analyst, however, observed instances of social, locally accomplished order can prove themselves to be more or less suitable for scientific treatment as “phenomena” (Schegloff 1996). Social practices occur and recur with various frequencies, ranging from ubiquitous practices for taking turns at talk (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974) or telephone conversation openings to the police (Schegloff 1968) to less frequent practices such as initiating and accomplishing “noticings” and jointly instructed vision in ecologically complex, multi-party and mobile contexts (Mondada 2016a). The observation of incipient collections is nevertheless of significant scientific interest (Mondada accepted). Heritage summarizes CA in terms of the three following assumptions: “(1) interaction is structurally organized, (2) contributions to interaction are contextually oriented and (3) these two properties inhere in the details of interaction so that no order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (1984b:241). This means that there are an infinite number of potentially relevant details for the situated construing of each and every instance of interaction. Although verbal practices, or “talkin-interaction,” are pervasively used in order to achieve social action, it is not

32 Introduction automatically the only or most relevant modality for rendering action intelligible. The technical advancements allowing for video recordings of ecologically highly complex interactional contexts challenge, but also allow for, a deepened understanding of social orders. Mondada (2016a:20–21) points out that: […] multimodal details are possibly infinite, although only a limited range of them are considered as relevant and oriented to by the participants; they constitute complex multimodal Gestalts clustering various embodied and linguistic features unfolding within intertwined (related but not isochronic) temporalities; these Gestalts are locally assembled by the participants in a way that is contingent on the local material environment and that shows the continuity between the specific formats of embodied conducts and their ecology. Importantly, this does not imply that complex multimodal Gestalts are too complex for members to recognize as meaningful actions. Regarding the generalizability of specific contextual configurations, Mondada (2016a:21) demonstrates that: […] specificity and systematicity of conducts are not mutually exclusive dimensions to consider but different faces of the same coin. Multimodal Gestalts are established as responses to practical problems and as implementations of recognizable actions: they are recipient-designed and thus adjusted to the local dynamic embodied participation framework; they are responded to and are formatted in a way that reflexively considers others’ responses, embedding them in the emergent action formation; various multimodal conducts have a sequential implicativeness that can be responded to, at different moments, by diverse multimodal practices and by different co-participants, which complexify sequential organization (through multiple temporalities being considered parallel, though in delayed or anticipated ways). These principles of sequential organization (Garfinkel 2002; Schegloff 2007) constitute the foundations of the methodicity of social action, as they are oriented to by the co- participants/members and documented by the analysts looking behind their shoulders. It is with this broader understanding of recurrent practices for accomplishing social action that the recordings of the public meetings that constitute the empirical basis for this study have been approached. This book focuses on the ordinary practices with which the participants identify and solve interactional problems in order to produce shared knowledge and negotiate access to information in public political meetings. Troubles emerge on every level of interaction, and members who reflexively

Introduction  33 establish an ordered system for interaction naturally have methods for solving them (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). The subsequent chapters build upon the analytic approach outlined in this chapter. Chapter 2 introduces other-initiated self- and other-repair as a fundamental vernacular practice to establish intersubjectivity in interaction and discuss previous findings. Chapters 3-5 examine three other-initiated repair practices that the participants to the public meetings use for managing emerging claimed issues of intersubjectivity and for establishing shared knowledge. Chapter 6 discusses how the findings illustrate how repair practices relate to the situated production of knowledge, and what we can make of the observation that participants in interaction orient to shared knowledge as essential for institutional and political procedures.

Notes

2

Repairing interaction

Introduction The term intersubjectivity concerns members’ situated, practical accomplishment to reflexively and reciprocally establish emerging, unfolding courses of action as intelligible and acceptable for all practical purposes. As troubles emerge, interactional repair is a fundamental resource for dealing with them (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 1991a, 1992; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Its reported observability in all languages examined in this respect so far has resulted in the hypothesis that repair is a universal interactional practice (Dingemanse et al. 2015:2). Repair practices target and solve claimed troubles on all levels of interaction, ranging from phonetic features of talk (Jefferson 1974), lexical choices (Jefferson 1987) speakership (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974) and action recognition (Schegloff 1992) to sequentially misplaced actions (Drew 1997) and the management of speakers’ incompatible positions (Robinson 2006). Research on repair in Conversation Analysis (CA) has, to a large extent, concerned its “technical” specificities. Attributions and claims of knowing and understanding, emergence of problems and solutions to them are, however, indicative features of social interaction: For the purposes of conducting their everyday affairs persons refuse to permit each other to understand ‘what they are really talking about’ in this way. The anticipation that persons will understand, the occasionality of expressions, the specific vagueness of references, the retrospective-prospective sense of a present occurrence, waiting for something later in order to see what was meant before, are sanctioned properties of common discourse. They furnish a background of seen but unnoticed features of common discourse whereby actual utterances are recognized as events of common, reasonable, understandable, plain talk. Persons require these properties of discourse as conditions under which they are themselves entitled and entitle

Repairing interaction  35 others to claim that they know what they are talking about, and that what they are saying is understandable and ought to be understood. In short, their seen but unnoticed presence is used to entitle persons to conduct their common conversational affairs without interference. Departures from such usages call forth immediate attempts to restore a right state of affairs. (Garfinkel 1967:41–42) Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks indicate two essential features of the organization of repair (1977:364). Claiming and soliciting a solution to a trouble does not necessarily entail its successful resolution, which implies the differentiation between initiating repair and repairing. The other feature concerns the parties engaged in the repair sequence, i.e. the differentiation between self and other with regard to who does the action on which repair is initiated and who repairs it. The distinction between self and other refers to interactional parties and not to persons, since several persons can initiate repair on and provide solutions to the same trouble source (Bolden 2011; Egbert 1997; Lerner 1993). These distinctions provide the possibilities of self-initiated self-repair, self-initiated other-repair, other-initiated self-repair and other-initiated other-repair. This differentiation is relevant, since (i) the sequential placement of the repair initiation in relation to the trouble source differs depending on whether it is initiated by self (the party producing the trouble source) or by another party; (ii) the techniques for initiating repair differ depending on whether it is the speaker of the trouble source or another participant who initiates repair; and (iii) the sequential trajectories differ: whereas self-initiated repair generally is solved within the turn containing the trouble source and does not make a next action conditionally relevant, other-initiated repair engenders a sequence, projecting a repair solution (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:365–369). This latter feature entails that other-initiated repair is not only a practice of turn value, but that it has an action organization (Schegloff 2000:208). Since virtually every aspect of social interaction can be claimed to be troublesome, repair is always a relevant next action (Sacks 1995; Schegloff 1992). Self-repair is reportedly far more common than other-repair. This is partly explainable by the observation that sequential opportunities for “self” to initiate repair emerge before opportunities for “other.” Despite the distinctive features of self- and other-repair, they are related in the sense that, “[…] (a) they operate on same domains, and (b) their respective placement can be characterized not only as ‘distinct’ […], but as ordered relative to each other” (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:370). The interactional functions of repair also include the implementation of additional interactional aims whilst claiming troubles of audibility, understandability and acceptability (Drew 1997; Egbert 1997; Schegloff 1997a).

36  Repairing interaction This book examines how participants use other-initiated s elfrepair and other-initiated other-repair as interactional resources for managing institutional and political issues, particularly with respect to the production and distribution of publicly shared knowledge. In this chapter I discuss the technical organizations and conceptual specificities of other-initiated self-repair and other-initiated other-repair, respectively. The comparative analysis of repair sequences examining what action is accomplished, who initiates and operates repair (which interactional party: “self” and/or “other”), when it is initiated and accomplished (in what sequential position) and how it is done (with what format) ­suggests that the participants orient to other-initiated self- and other-repair as distinct social practices.

What action? Targeting and solving claimed troubles of audibility, intelligibility and acceptability Initiating repair primarily involves claiming some aspect of interaction to be so problematic that the unfolding course of action cannot progress without the trouble being solved. Whereas other-initiated self-repair claims and solves emerging troubles of hearing, understanding and accepting aspects of interaction, the formal properties of other-initiated other-repair imply that claims of and solutions to emerging troubles are restricted to issues of acceptability and treated as doing correction.

What? Other-initiated self-repair Other-initiated self-repair refers to sequences where another interactional party than the doer of an action, targets and solicits a solution to a trouble that self proposes. The repair initiation makes conditionally relevant a second action in the form of a repair solution. In Extract 2.1, the facilitator Pernéty begins one of the first brainstorming workshops by explaining that they will proceed by discussing in small groups before engaging in a collective discussion. One of the citizens, Jacques, criticizes this organization and claims that the discussion should “go in circles.” This prompts the facilitator to suspend her turn and initiate a pardon-formatted repair. The citizen treats the repair initiation as claiming a trouble of hearing, as he repairs his prior turn by repeating the trouble source. The facilitator, in turn, validates this solution by responding to the remark, thereby resuming the suspended progressivity of the interaction.

Extract 2.1 CAB_FC_181109_GPB_00.33.17.

38  Repairing interaction As the facilitator explains how the work will be organized (1–3), Jacques self-selects in overlap and produces a critical alternative proposal regarding how to organize the collective discussion, by drawing three circles with his finger and suggesting that they will tourner en ronds ‘go around in circles’ (4–5, figures 1–3). In this way, he indicates the organizational features of the meeting as consequential for the political activity and identifies this point in time as relevant for negotiating the terms of the meeting. The facilitator initiates repair by tilting her head to her left toward the end of Jacques’ turn expansion (5, figures 4–5) and slightly leaning forward during the “pardon,” which she produces with a rising intonation (6). This gestalt is similar to the observed gestures mobilized to initiate repair in second language conversations (Seo and Koshik 2010) (cf. the “pardon” in Extract 1.3, line 14, which is produced with falling intonation, a lower voice than surrounding speech and heard as a request for the microphone). The facilitator’s “pardon” tacitly selects Jacques as the next speaker (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), retrospectively displays a problem with his previous turn and prospectively solicits a solution (5–6). Jacques’ subsequent repeat displays his understanding of the repair initiation to claim a trouble of hearing (8). Jacques makes both a verbal repeat of his prior turn and of the iconic gesture of going around in circles, establishing his prior action as a multi-modally composed gestalt (8) (cf. de Fornel 1990). He omits however the expansion j’ai l’impression hein ‘i have the impression huh’ (4–5), which upgrades the suggestion’s assertiveness. Subsequent to the citizen’s repair, the facilitator has the possibility to claim that her own previous turn (6) was doing something else than claiming a trouble of intersubjectivity. When she instead treats the trouble as repaired and resumes the sequence by doing a relevant next action, i.e. responding to Jacques’ proposal (9, 11), she reflexively establishes Jacques’ displayed understanding of her prior “pardon” as claiming a trouble of hearing and initiating repair to be adequate. Their mutual understanding is thus accomplished in two interrelated ways. On the one hand, it is displayed through the (partial) compliance with the conditional relevancies set up by the repaired action. On the other hand, it is manifested in the absence of a third position repair (Schegloff 1988, 1992). Since every turn is susceptible to repair, every turn that is not repaired displays a reciprocal tacit acceptance of prior actions as an intersubjective achievement. The open-class apology-formatted other-initiated self-repair sequence is indicative of that the trouble source turn is not produced at a transition relevant place, violating norms of sequential implicativeness both with regard to turn-taking and relevant next actions (cf. Drew 1997:95). The overlap implies a possible trouble of hearing, which both the speaker of the trouble source and the repair initiator treat it as consequential throughout the repair sequence. The repair initiation suspends the projected relevant next action according to the  conditions set up by the trouble source turn and opens up a side sequence. The repair initiation is treated as targeting a trouble of hearing, which is displayed by the citizen’s repeat of his prior turn and tacitly confirmed by how the facilitator subsequently resumes the sequence. The reasons for glossing

Repairing interaction  39 it as a repair sequence are not only available for the analyst, but they constitute the participants’ public manifestation of their respective ongoing analysis of the interaction (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974:729). This aspect is central in this setting, and indicative of the participants’ monitoring of the unfolding interaction by virtue of its public character. What? Other-initiated other-repair When a trouble of acceptability emerges in interaction, speakers can propose a solution to it by replacing the problematic aspect with an alternative, engaging in other-initiated other-repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:376). Participants to interaction recurrently treat this practice as doing correcting (Robinson 2009:566–567; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:363; Sidnell and Barnes 2013:338). Schegloff et al. make a distinction between repair and correction, the latter being treated as a subclass of repair. This owes to the observation that “[t]he term ‘correction’ is commonly understood to refer to the replacement of an ‘error’ or ‘mistake’ by what is ‘correct’” and that “[r]epair/correction is sometimes found where there is no hearable error, mistake or fault. […] Furthermore, hearable error does not necessarily yield the occurrence of repair/correction” (1977:363). However, repair and correction are recurrently used interchangeably in the literature (Jefferson 1987; Keating 1993; Robinson 2009; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977; Sidnell 2014; Svennevig 2008); how the two terms relate to each other remains unspecified (but see Macbeth 2004). Whereas self-correction, or self-initiated self-repair, which renders a speaker’s analysis of their unfolding turn’s adequacy publicly accessible (Jefferson 1974), has been the subject of investigation in a variety of CA studies, other-correction has been investigated less often. One explication for the uneven attention given to the practices might be the reported skewed distribution of prevalence between self- and other-repair. Self-initiated repair is reported to occur more frequently than other-initiated repair and the observation that other-initiated other-repair is recurrently treated as doing correcting has occasioned its categorization as being socially dis-preferred. On the other hand, other-corrections are reported to be frequent in, for example, instructional activities and classroom situations (Macbeth 2004; McHoul 1990; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Other-initiated self-repair involves (at least) two parties engaging in soliciting and proposing solutions to claimed problems with hearing, understanding and accepting aspects of the unfolding interaction. Other-initiated other-repair targets and solves claimed troubles of acceptability by means of one single operation, replacement. The following piece of data provides an example. It emerges during one of the brainstorming sessions as the facilitator Prévost reformulates one of the participants’ proposals concerning the usages of the park and the modes of mobility there inside. The initial proposal called for the use of different non-motorized means of transportation in the park.

40  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.2a CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.39.02.

As the facilitator returns to this proposal, he only retains the diversity of the means of transportation and several citizens correct the formulation from “diverse” means of transportation to “soft.”

Extract 2.2b CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.40.04.

Repairing interaction  41

Extract 2.2b (Continued).

42  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.2b (Continued).

The facilitator’s framing of the proposal as reporting what he “heard” (1) refers to Turin’s previous turn (see Extract 2.2a) and characterizes the circulation in the park as done with “diverse” means of transportation, focusing on the multiplicity and completing it with an embodied parody (1–3, figures 6–8). The question is politically delicate, since the discussion about the presence of motorized vehicles in the future park is recurrent and tense, and the characterization “diverse” possibly includes motorized vehicles as a category. The facilitator moreover claims this formulation to be reported speech, which implies that it will go to the record as the citizens’ proposal if retained as such. The political implications of this are displayed in the citizens’ correction by replacing “diverse” with “soft” (4–10), which excludes all forms of motorized modes of transport. The facilitator acknowledges the correction by repeating it with a rising intonation and a nod upward (11, figure 9). The citizens manifestly hear this as a questioning repeat resisting the correction, which prompts them to upgrade it by negating the first formulation (13) and accounting for its replacement (14–15). The facilitator complains that the correction is interruptive and sequentially misplaced (16–17). By arguing that his turn is not yet complete, he resists the claimed inadequacy of his prior turn, implying that the rectification would not be needed, if he was let to finish it. This attempt to transform the claimed trouble of acceptability into a problem of turn-taking establishes the correction as a dis-preferred course of action in this situation. Composing the complaint with an embodied gestalt of victimization and exhaustion (16–17, figures 10– 12) reveals that correcting and, ultimately, criticizing are in play. Engaging in other-initiated other-repair attributes the responsibility for the claimed trouble to the producer of the trouble source (Robinson 2006:140–141). This is one explanation for why it is typically heard as also doing criticizing. The facilitator’s public display of this provokes laughter in the audience (18), which further manifests the situation as delicate.

Repairing interaction  43 The extract shows the sequence organization of other-initiated otherrepair. The claimed trouble (3) is targeted and settled by replacing it with a “correct” candidate (4–10) that the speaker of the trouble source acknowledges by repeating it (11) (Jefferson 1987). The citizens do not claim a problem of understanding or hearing the facilitator’s description, but establish and solve a problem of accepting the reported speech as the proposal to be retained for the record. After a side sequence treating the inscription of a prior proposal, the facilitator returns to the issue of modes of transport, but retrospectively frames the corrected formulation as a matter of choice. This is also corrected, which prompts the facilitator to downgrade the issue by producing a jocular formulation.

Extract 2.2c CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.40.04.

As the facilitator returns to the proposal, he elaborates it by explicating previously mentioned modes of transportation – by bike and by feet – and then refers to the corrected term with the concluding formulation donc c’est des déplacements que vous appellez doux ‘so it’s the transportations that you call soft’ (35). In this way, he retrospectively alters the correction from targeting an adequate versus an inadequate term to an issue of preference or opinion on behalf of the citizens. This is embodied by the second person pronoun in plural vous ‘you,’ referring to the citizens

44  Repairing interaction as a party who chooses how to name the issue: appelez ‘call’ (35). Whereas two participants confirm this (37, 39), a third citizen, Baldot, corrects it by replacing the subjective agency in the subordinate clause que vous appelez doux ‘that you call soft’ (35) with qui s’appellent doux ‘that are called soft’ (40). Baldot thereby claims that the term is conventional knowledge and terminology, as opposed to a matter of choice. Moreover, this reinforces and further legitimizes the initial correction. The facilitator acknowledges this second rectification with the agreement token okey ‘okay’ before repeating it, orienting to and reflexively establishing a [x-y-y] organization of the other-repair sequence (42). He persists nevertheless in resisting the critical aspect of the correction by retrospectively formulating it as an attempt to educate him (42–43) and ironically joking about it as a lack of competence on his own behalf. This prompts again laughter in the audience (44), further establishing the situation as delicate. The extended elaboration of the proposal shows the participants’ negotiation of whether the correction concerns a subjective choice of description (2–3; 35), versus a political choice of description (4–10; 13–15), or eventually versus a norm of “calling things for what they are” (40). The citizens claim the primary right to author the proposals they put forward. This is manifested in the explications of and accounts for the first correction (13–15) and the eventual production of the second correction (40). The citizens manifestly expect the facilitator to use “proper” terminology and they treat his responsive actions to the corrections as resisting them and as pursuing a political agenda. The facilitator, in turn, treats the citizens as correcting him by virtue of his professional role, being in charge of retaining the citizens’ proposals. By opposing its relevance (16–17), framing it as a matter of personal choice of naming (35) and finally treating it as a laughable, recounting it as a lecturing activity (42–43), he treats this as delicate. In his study of “oh” as an interactional resource to display a change of state token in informing sequences, Heritage (1984) treats some examples of other-corrections as “counter-informings.” He argues that, whereas producing an “oh” in this environment displays a change of state with regard to knowledge, withholding an “oh” in response to a counter-informing, and only producing a “repeat-plus-acceptance,” like D in Extract 2.3, the speaker manages to avoid treating the counter-informing as a correction (1984a:314, also analyzed in Robinson 2009:567).

Extract 2.3 (30) [Post Party:I:14].

Repairing interaction  45 Looking specifically at the management of counter-informings, Robinson writes that they solicit “[…] accepting or rejecting responses, and normally include information that facilitates the other’s ability to reconcile speakers’ positional incompatibility, such as explanations” (2009:562). Analyzing sequences where such information is not provided, he demonstrates that “[…] withholding ‘adequate’ reconciliatory information can be a practice for holding initial speakers accountable for ‘knowing better’ or ‘figuring it out on their own’” (2009:573). Such corrective sequences thus have the characteristic feature that the corrective turn does other things than only replacing the trouble. In Extract 2.4, Ida makes a request for reaching Sister Maryana (1–3), which presupposes that it is possible to reach her. This presupposition is corrected by Abby, who declares it to be “impossible” (8) without explaining why (Robinson 2009:71).

Extract 2.4 THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE [CH:6408].

Robinson’s analysis argues that the counter-informing “That’s impo:ssible” (8) not only exposes their positional incompatibility regarding the possibility to reach Sister Maryanna (or not) but, moreover, withholds relevant information that would help Abby to reconcile with the counter-informing and to accept it. This prompts Ida to produce a questioning repeat (10) that solicits an explanation, which is provided by Abby (12), who thereby gives “[…] more, or more ‘adequate’, reconciliatory information, regardless of whether or not the counter-informing is ‘objectively’ adequate in this regard” (Robinson 2009:572). In cases where a speaker points out an inaccuracy with prior speech without providing an alternative and “correct” candidate, what tacitly emerges is a normatively bound issue of claiming to hold relevant knowledge without sharing it. Robinson’s treatment of counter-informings, or other-corrections, as a display of speakers’ positional incompatibility is relevant for how repairing relates to correcting, since it implies that a prior turn is treated as an emerging issue of taking position on some matter and not a mere “trouble of speaking” (cf. Jefferson 1974). In the political meetings, the professionals and political representatives use the practice of correcting premises for actions in order to invalidate citizens’ criticisms. The citizens nevertheless renegotiate the officials’ corrections by retrospectively reformulating the

46  Repairing interaction terms of the initial action, thus refuting the professional’s claim that there might be a problem of positional incompatibility. Extract 2.5 provides an example of this. It is drawn from one of the information meetings after a presentation of the current state of the buildings on the site. When Cellier asks the controversial question if an underground parking lot has been planned, the officials refute the question by declaring that nothing is planned at this point. By correcting the premise for the question, he imposes on the citizen to alter its terms as a condition for them to respond to it.

Extract 2.5a CAB_FC_141008_00.59.14.

Repairing interaction  47 Subsequent to Cellier’s question of whether an underground parking lot is planned (1–2, figure 13), a silence follows (3). Cellier’s question formulation displays the assumption that practical (political) decisions concerning specific future constructions on the site have already been made. The facilitator orients to the question as problematic by raising his eyebrows, hand and shoulders, whilst turning to the officials, delaying the answer and indicating trouble with the particle ben ‘well’ and a temporal reference (3–4, figures 13, 14). One of the invited specialists, Vezard, initiates a non-answer, both verbally and bodily, by raising his hand in a stopping gesture (5, figures 15, 16). This is collaboratively completed with the facilitator who corrects a premise for the question by stating that nothing is planned, whilst establishing mutual gaze with Vezard. The prosodic emphasis on the negating particle rien ‘nothing’ (6) refutes the presupposition that there is a trouble of political transparency. In this way, he displays an institutional relevance of publicly asserting that the current phase of the project is essentially informative and does not concern concrete, political decisions.

Extract 2.5b CAB_FC_141008_00.59.14.

48  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.5b (Continued).

Cellier acknowledges the correction by self-selecting in overlap and aligns with it through a pro-forma agreement non non mais ‘no no but’ (7) (Schegloff 2007), before retrospectively framing it as a trouble of misspeaking through a third position repair (8–9). After hesitating and restarting the turn (8–9), he redoes his previous intervention but transforms it into a proposal (11). The issue’s controversial character is further established as another citizen, Laurent, self-selects in overlap and produces a counter-proposal by using the same term, although in a negative form. As Laurent does this he turns to Bert, the political responsible for the project, who sits in the audience (10, see figure 17). In this way, Laurent uses the slot, allocated to the officials, and responds on behalf of them. This shows that not only do the officials closely monitor the citizens’ formulations of possibly delicate matters but also the citizens do this, treating emerging speech as on-record public speech that may have political implications for the project. The facilitator eventually frames it as an issue of linguistic formulation (11–13) while reorienting to the officials, thus making an answer from them relevant next. Laurent, on the other hand, pursues his own response to Cellier’s intervention as problematic

Repairing interaction  49 in an embodied and public way, waving “no” with a raised index finger, addressing Bert and Cellier alternatively (13, figure 17). Cellier, in turn, pursues an answer from the officials by providing an argumentative account for his prior question, also going against Laurent (14–15). Bert orients to the controversial aspect of Cellier’s proposal by self-selecting and initiating a refutation of the proposal. The facilitator Prévost also treats Cellier pursuing the proposal as delicate. By turning to the officials and proposing a reason for postponing an answer, he claims that the question is misplaced with regard to the current activity within the project (19–21, figure 18) (cf. Mondada, Svensson, and van Schepen 2015). Laurent’s refutation is thus not acknowledged by the officials or by Cellier as a legitimate answer, which shows the distribution of entitlement to engage in particular courses of action in this institutional framework. Navarro eventually bids for the turn (21) and provides an institutional account for not responding (23–26). By claiming that the issue requires further studies, she builds on the facilitator’s prior correction of the premises for the citizen’s question, while casting it as a rational matter and due to a lack of information, as opposed to being a political issue. At the same time, she displays taking responsibility for the institution’s obligation to respond to the participants’ enquiries. Correcting the premise for a question and subsequently reformulating its terms thus allow the participants to locally negotiate the production of official and publicly distributed information. The counter-informing alters the initial action’s relevance by pushing back on its accuracy and prompts a revision of its terms. The citizen’s subsequent account for the rationale behind the initial action reveals the interactional work the participants engage in for agreeing about what emerging elements pass and do not pass as acceptable information for the record. Other-initiated other-repair does not claim a trouble of intersubjectivity with regard to hearing or understanding. Rather, the correcting party claims a trouble of displayed “knowledge” or accuracy on behalf of the speaker of the trouble source and claims a need for a “correct” alternative. These sequences can be differentiated from sequences that are doing disagreeing, where the participants manifestly establish a trouble of diverging opinions. This is observable in the following piece of data. It is drawn from the recordings of the official opening of the park, as Laurent, a citizen who was particularly engaged in the participatory project, discusses the access to the park with Donzé, a member of the administration who was partially responsible for the participatory procedure. The discussion about the infrastructural connection to the park in general, and by bicycle in particular, was recurrent and lively during the participatory meetings. In Extract 2.6, Laurent questions the claimed political effort to acknowledge and promote bicycle traffic. As Donzé refers to bicycle lanes as coming “against traffic,” Laurent objects to this formulation and on the importance of referring to roads with “double directions” in order to recognize bicycles as legitimate vehicles.

50  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.6 CAB_FC_150913_DON_00.59.39.

Repairing interaction  51

Extract 2.6 (Continued).

52  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.6 (Continued).

Repairing interaction  53

Extract 2.6 (Continued).

Donzé initiates a cultural account for the discussion about bicycle lanes against traffic (1–2) and explicates the difference between the two notions double sens ‘double direction’ and contre sens ‘counter direction’ as a category-bound differentiation, depicting Laurent as different from people in general, alluding to “motorists” (2–4, figure 19). Laurent establishes a disagreement in overlap by claiming that this is a problem due to motorists’ ignorance (6–8). The disagreement is further established through the subsequent overlaps (6–7; 8–9; 11–12; 13–14) during which Laurent initiates, abandons and restarts an elaboration of his objection (12, 13) whilst Donzé struggles to continue her argument with embodied and linguistic means (14–16, figures 20–23). Donzé eventually declares her opinion on the topic to be legitimate as she uses a bike herself, thereby displaying that she engages in the discussion as an ordinary citizen and not as an official (17–19, figures 24–26). Moreover, she establishes a relationship between Laurent’s opinions and the membership categorization “bike defender” (21), and dismisses it as one among other relevant categories, dismissing it as a subjective opinion (22–25). This amounts to a second description of bicycle lanes as going “against traffic,” which emerges as a descriptive relative clause to the noun phrase ce sytème de vélo ‘this system of bike’ (27–28), which construes it as a neutral declarative and as “common sense.” It is projectable as delicate by several hesitation marks and a pause (25–28) and emphasized through her embodied gestalt (28, figures 27–29). Laurent replaces à contre sens with à double sens in overlap whilst looking away (29, figure 28), displaying doing disagreeing. Interestingly, Donzé continues her turn without acknowledging the correction (30–32). This prompts Laurent to again self-select and retrospectively exhibit the replacement’s local relevance as a disagreement by proposing an account for it (33–34, figure 30). The observation that

54  Repairing interaction Donzé still not responds (35) reveals that she does not acknowledge that her prior choice of description was a “problem of speaking,” i.e. a “mistake” – which would warrant a recognition of the replacement. Indeed, the absence of confirmative elements on behalf of Donzé displays a situated problem of taking position vis-à-vis a political question and affirms that correcting problems of intersubjectivity imply a reciprocally acknowledged course of action (Jefferson 1987). Laurent persists by invoking “pedestrians” as another relevant membership category in support of his argument (36–37, figures 31, 32) and explicitly requests confirmation (39) before he engages in elaborating the embodied and linguistic exemplification of people in traffic (39–47, figures 33, 34). Note that the reference to “understanding” (39) refers to the argument for choosing one reference over another, and not to a problem with the sequential implicativeness in lines 27–29. Whilst Donzé projects disagreement with a preemptive non mais ‘no but’ before continuing with an account for her choice of reference as a “question of habit” (40–42), Laurent self-selects again in overlap and pushes the argument of categorization even further by enlarging “pedestrians” and “bikers” to les gens ‘people’ (43), claiming his argument to be generally applicable and commonsensical. Participants in interaction treat other-initiated other-repair to deal with troubles of acceptability and are heard as depicting and operating on a claimed trouble source as inadequate. The observation that other-repair is both initiated and operated by another party than the party producing the trouble source is consequential for how the sequence is organized. The replacing practice is consequential for recognizing the action as solving emerging troubles of acceptability. Whereas replacements can be done in such a way that they recognizably treat emerging issues as “mistakes,” they can also be done in order to manifest and pursue a disagreement and clash of political visions to which lexical choices and membership categories are associated. In this case participants engage in interactional work to display that they are doing disagreeing, as opposed to rectifying an emerging inaccuracy for all practical purposes. This reveals the situated interactional work that participants engage in to claim potentially interactional issues as problems of moral orders.

Who repairs? The distinction between “self” and “other” More than one person is engaged in social interaction and participants orient to who is doing what as central for solving fundamental interactional issues such as opening and closing conversations (Schegloff 1968; Schegloff and Sacks 1973) and taking turns at talk (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). More importantly, participants orient to themselves and others as interactional parties and the number of parties in interaction is procedurally consequential for how it is accomplished (Schegloff 1995:35): Turn-taking is organized for any number of participants, but the number of participants is directly organized into number of parties. Both can change;

Repairing interaction  55 people can come and go in the course of talk-in-interaction, but, more directly consequential, even if that number stays the same, the number of parties into which those participants may be seen to be organized (because they see themselves so to be organized, and embody that stance in their conduct) can change continuously as the contingencies of the talk change, contingencies most centrally supplied by the participants themselves and the nature of the talk which they undertake with one another. As troubles emerge in interaction, participants orient to the distinction between “self” and “other” as consequential for its sequence organization (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 2000:211; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). In other-initiated self-repair sequences, an interactional party initiates repair by claiming a trouble with another party’s course of action, which the party producing the trouble typically solves. In other-initiated other-repair sequences, the repair is initiated and operated by the same party. In multi-party interaction, several persons can initiate and operate repair on the same trouble source while doing it as one interactional party with regard to self and other (see Bolden 2011, 2013; Egbert 1997). Drawing on Goffman (1981), Goodwin and Goodwin re-specify how the emergence and locally accomplished establishment of interactional parties have implications for the participation framework: As the modification of structure of the talk adapts to changes in the relationship between speaker and hearer it simultaneously formulates that relationship in terms of how it is relevant to the action of the moment. The details of the talk, the action displayed through that talk, and the participation framework, mutually constitute each other. The talk is reflexive in that it refers to itself, but the scope of what counts as “itself” includes not only phenomena in the stream of speech, but also the relevant mutual alignment of speaker, hearer and action […]. (2004:230) It is in this way that participants – and analysts of social interaction – understand their speech to be done by a certain party, for a certain party. Who? Other-initiated self-repair Extract 2.7 illustrates how several participants, as one interactional party, claim a trouble with the facilitator’s talk and solicits him to repair it. It is drawn from the beginning of one of the brainstorming sessions, as the facilitator Prévost presents how it is organized. As an introduction, he indicates some given constraints and introduces one of the official representatives, Sylvie Navarro, as the gatekeeper to these constraints, by categorizing her as representing the “public power.” Several participants initiate repair on this term, claiming a trouble of acceptability, which prompts the facilitator to replace it with an alternative.

56  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.7 CAB_FC_181108_GPA_00.09.13.

Repairing interaction  57

Extract 2.7 (Continued).

58  Repairing interaction The facilitator’s categorization of Navarro as representing la puissance publique ‘the public power’ (4, figure 35) prompts several citizens to claim a problem with this description of her institutional function in this context through critical noise and laughter (6–9). In this way, they retrospectively target a trouble and solicit a solution to it as one single interactional party. This prompts the facilitator to solicit an affirmation of the terminology’s adequacy from Navarro, c’est comme ça qu’on dit hein ‘it’s like that that one says huh/’ with a defensive posture (10, figure 36). The including pronoun on ‘one; we’ can refer both to the “right” way of saying and to what people say in general. However, by addressing her, he establishes a party of “officials,” in contrast to a party of “citizens,” and treats her as entitled to assess the adequacy of the category he attributes to her. Navarro confirms the term verbally (12), although her smile and head shakes display an awareness of the category’s controversial nature. In this way she treats on dit as referring to a stereotypical way of saying, rather than an “adequate” way, and establishes that the issue is related to normative considerations of how to describe her status in this specific (political) setting. The citizen-participants insist, however, on further refuting the term (11, 13 15), while the facilitator pursues a defensive line (14 16). Interestingly, Navarro does not treat the citizens’ reaction as surprising, but acknowledges the criticism verbally and bodily with a hand gesture and a laughing facial expression (17, figure 38). The facilitator proposes a repair solution in overlap by providing an alternative description of Navarro’s function, namely as representing the “local collectivity.” The repair is complemented with an iconic, circular gesture and produced as a request for confirmation, orienting to the issue of acceptability on behalf of the citizens (18, figures 37, 39). This alternative formulation retrospectively recognizes the initial attribution as inadequate and acknowledges the fact that Navarro does not have any political power. Although one citizen verbally accepts the candidate term (20), the facilitator produces two additional requests for confirmation (21, 24) that the citizens also provide (22, 23, 25), before he resumes his previous turn in a way that is syntactically fitted to where it was suspended (26, cf. lines 3–4). Which interactional party initiates repair in terms of who (self or other) and as whom is both consequential for the sequence organization and for interactional bearings in terms of the institutional relevancies it establishes in the form of membership categorization. The participants publicly display and negotiate their respective understanding of their relative epistemic and deontic rights to legitimately categorize themselves and each other as interactional parties within this official framework. That the participants let surface what categories that belong to the institutional activity (Sacks 1995:II:370) and that they negotiate the distribution of rights to ascribe categories in relation to it accomplishes the political and participatory democratic aspect of the activity. The facilitator invokes the corrected membership category to legitimate Navarro as the relevant authority for recalling the rules of the meeting. In this way, the issue addresses a problem related to the categorization of the procedure that they engage in as controlled by representatives of an external political “power” or as being “collectively” managed.

Repairing interaction  59 Several persons embody the repair-initiating party, which is manifested in the facilitator’s treatment of the objections as “one” repair initiation instead of, for example, treating each and every one of them as consequential for what is relevant to do next. This is ratified by the citizens’ eventual acceptation of the candidate repair. As in Extract 2.1, the repair in Extract 2.7 is initiated by another participant(s) than the speaker of the trouble source. The repair initiation in Extract 2.1 claimed a problem with hearing. In this case, the participants do not manifest a need to clarify the trouble source, but to replace it. They treat a prior description as not acceptable – rather than not intelligible – which renders the principal business of this sequence recognizable as doing “correcting” (cf. Jefferson 1987). However, the repair-initiating party leaves it to the speaker of the trouble source to solve the problem. This differs from how other-initiated other-repair is organized. Who? Other-initiated other-repair One critical difference between other-initiated self-repair and other-initiated other-repair is that in the latter, another interactional party than the party producing the trouble source targets and proposes a solution to the claimed trouble source. For example, in Extract 2.2, the citizens target the facilitator’s description of transporting modes in the park as “diverse” as unacceptable, by replacing it with the candidate description “soft.” Extract 2.8 is drawn from one of the first information meetings, as a citizen criticizes the specialists’ previous description of the access to the park by various means of transport (cf. Extract.  2.6). The emerging complaint concerns the officials’ previous characterization of access to the future park by bicycles as “well served.” When the citizen Laurent announces this as the upshot for the criticism, the facilitator Prévost corrects him in overlap by replacing the reported estimation with “passable.”

Extract 2.8 CAB_141008_PLE_TRI1_00.26.22.

Extract 2.8 (Continued).

Repairing interaction  61

Extract 2.8 (Continued).

Laurent’s initial self-categorization as a cyclist (1) and reported difficulty to access the site, based on personal experience (2–8), prospectively legitimize his subsequent complaint about the official’s description of accessing the site by bicycle as “well served” (8–10, figure 40). In addition to countering the prior description, the complaint tacitly suggests that politically driven measures should be taken regarding the infrastructure around the site. The facilitator initiates the correction when the citizen’s action is recognizable as a criticism and immediately after the production of the trouble source (11, figure 41). By replacing bien desservi ‘well served’ with passable ‘passable,’ the facilitator counters Laurent’s implicit claim about the political institution’s perspective on bikers’ rights in the traffic. Following the correction, the facilitator turns to the officials and produces a request for confirmation (11) and, subsequently, a clarification of the term (14, figure 42). He thereby orients to them as the authors of the initial description and entitled to confirm or disconfirm the adequacy of the reported speech. Two other participants repeat and confirm the correction in overlap and orient in this way to the sequential relevance of acknowledging the correction in second position (12, 13, 15). Similar to Extract 2.5, the replacement of the reported term with a “correct” alternative dismisses a premise for Laurent’s complaint. He is essentially targeting the institutional assessment of the feasibility to bicycle to the park, and if the report of that assessment is incorrect, the criticism is not warranted – at least not on these terms. This understanding is reflexively

62  Repairing interaction established by Laurent’s subsequent apology and account for the “error” as due to a misunderstanding of his (17–18). His retrospective withdrawal of the criticism (18) displays his understanding of the correction (11) as refuting the legitimacy of his prior action. However, the facilitator alters this understanding as he turns to Laurent (21) and counters the withdrawal (non non mais- ‘no no but-’) before pursuing a clarification of  the  term “passable” (22–24). Although the facilitator’s correction establishes the participants’ right to an adequate public record of what they are saying, he also acknowledges the criticism’s relevance for the activity they are engaged in and defends the citizens’ right to question an ambiguous description. This is further evidenced by the fact that the first proposed explanation of the term by a member of the audience, (ça veut dire) on peut passer ‘(it means) one can pass’ (16), is not acknowledged as such. That the facilitator pursues an explanation from the officials (21–24) shows that he is talking as a facilitator, and is treating the public aspect of the interaction as relevant for the activity where emerging descriptions ought to be officially ratified as public and shared knowledge. The participants manifestly hear the replacing practice as doing correcting. The speaker of the trouble source does not treat the correcting other-repair as making relevant a clarification of the trouble source but as providing an adequate alternative rendering of the officials’ prior speech. Whereas Laurent hears the correction as addressing a trouble with his prior turn on an action level, thus canceling its legitimacy, the facilitator retrospectively and prospectively establishes it as a trouble of the terms on which the complaint is made. The facilitator’s subsequent repair initiation on the meaning of the trouble source is addressed to the officials and not to the citizen. In this way he transforms the initial description “passable” into a matter that is legitimately subject for discussion. This ultimately excludes the reading of the other-initiated other-repair as addressing a trouble with hearing or understanding of the targeted trouble. As a matter of fact, the only sequential environment where a replacement subsequently is treated as related to a trouble of hearing and/or understanding is when the displayed grounds for the correction are countered in third position. This leads us to the sequential positioning and organization of repair.

When is it done? The sequential positioning and organization of repair One fundamental aspect of social action’s intelligibility is its sequential positioning. Unfolding courses of actions are inspected for their relevance with respect to previous actions and for what they project next, which displays the participants’ situated understanding of the interaction. Each emerging feature inextricably alters the way in which the local environment

Repairing interaction  63 is made relevant for the ongoing activity and the unfolding interaction represents a continuous passing-by of repair-opportunity spaces. If an action is not recognizable as relevant for what a previous action projected to come next, it will be inspected for the relevance of initiating repair. Furthermore, repair sequences ensue until an acceptable reciprocal understanding for all practical purposes is attained among the participants. The term position refers to when the repair is initiated in relation to the claimed trouble and does not necessarily correspond to turns succeeding the trouble source. Other-initiated self- and other-repair occur in second, third and fourth position after the claimed trouble source (Schegloff 1992, 2000; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). In the literature on interactional repair and in the examples examined so far, other-initiated self- and other-repair both occur in second position. Examining repair sequences in second and third position suggest however that repair initiations in third position seem to be distinct from those in second position, in that they correct the retrospective displayed understanding of what was relevant next.

When? Repairing in second position Repair initiations in second position can address – and eventually solve – issues of hearing, understanding and accepting aspects of the interaction. The following piece of data is drawn from the inauguration weekend of the park, which coincides with the Associations’ Day that also takes place in the new park. The mayor of one of the surrounding districts, Delors (DEL), walks around amongst the stands, and we join the interaction as he engages in a positive narration with two acquaintances, Romain (ROM) and Lenoir (LER), about the inaugurate events day before. Romain initiates repair on the time reference when it becomes clear that there is a trouble with understanding the upshot of the narrative.

Extract 2.9 CAB_150913_ADPB_BRL_DEL_00.46.00.

64  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.9 (Continued).

Repairing interaction  65

Extract 2.9 (Continued).

Delors produces a positive assessment of the day before and stresses its relevance by repeating the time reference hier ‘yesterday,’ in turn-final position (2–3). Romain aligns with the assessment in overlap, but at a transition relevant place, with a quiet ouais ‘yeah’ (4). Delors treats this minimal response as problematic, as he subsequently produces an increment through the place indexical ici ‘here’ (6, figure 43). This particularize that the assessment did not refer to the day before in general, but to specific activities taking place in the park. In this way, he displays that Romain’s mere alignment with the positive evaluation was not the projected, relevant next action. After a pause, projecting trouble (7), Romain initiates repair by producing a partial repeat of the trouble source turn hier ‘yesterday’ with a rising intonation, whilst tilting his weight to his left foot (8–10, figure 44). This multi-modally composed gestalt retrospectively indexes a problem with understanding what Delor’s turn was doing. While Delors initially treats the repair initiation as a candidate understanding (oui hier ‘yes yesterday’), he

66  Repairing interaction then provides an extended telling about the activities he previously referred to (10–12). After an initial aligning response token (13), Romain continues with a request for confirmation regarding the time for the inauguration, which Delors confirms through repeat (15). In this way, Romain retrospectively displays what he previously thought that Delors referred to and provides at the same time a legitimate account for aligning with the telling instead of treating it as news. Delors responds by providing additional information of the happenings from the previous day by announcing the important number of participants (17), which eventually prompts a positive change of state token from both Romain and Lenoir (18, 19), which Delors confirms in overlap (20, figure 45). The repair sequence reveals that Delors primarily engaged in doing news-telling, soliciting some elements of appreciation. In Extracts 2.1–2.9 we have seen that both other-initiated self-repair and other-initiated other-repair occur in second position and manage issues of hearing, understanding and accepting various aspects of the interaction. When repair is initiated in third position on the other hand, it is claiming a problem of accepting another participant’s displayed understanding of an action. When? Repairing in third position Other-initiated self-repair and other-initiated other-repair can be initiated in overlap with the same turn and in the next turn. In Schegloff’s extensive study of “repair after next turn,” he states that [t]hird position repair may be thought of as the last systematically provided opportunity to catch (among other troubles) such divergent understandings as embody breakdowns of intersubjectivity – that is, trouble in the socially shared grasp of the talk and the other conduct in the interaction. (1992:1301) In this sense, third position repair retrospectively revises a previous action, repairing another participant’s displayed understanding of what that previous action made relevant, as this understanding is manifested in second position. Third position repair can be glossed as a “delayed self- correction” (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:370), where the initial speaker takes the responsibility for the difficulty to recognize the retrospectively displayed “motive” of the prior action (see Macbeth 2004:724–729). It can also be treated as a correction of an other’s understanding. Sidnell puts it as follows: A recipient may have failed to properly understand a first-position utterance but nevertheless produced a response to it, one based, that is, on a faulty understanding. Where this happens, the problematic understanding is recognizable in the response. The speaker of the first-position utterance can then set about repairing the problem in third position. (2014:380, italics mine)

Repairing interaction  67 This is interesting for discussing trouble responsibility, trouble of understanding and trouble of “production.” In accordance with Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks’ (1977) observations that every aspect of interaction can become a “repairable,” and that while “errors” are not necessarily corrected, elements that are not apparently “erroneous” do get corrected, third position repair ultimately displays the “self”-correcting party’s non-acceptance of the next action as the relevant next action (see also Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974:728–729). The following piece of data provides an example. Extract 2.10 is drawn from one of the information meetings, as the facilitator Prévost publicly selects and queues next speakers bidding for their turn. The establishment of next speakers is achieved through the distribution of the microphone, which is organized by the facilitator and two aides. In this extract, the facilitator asks a citizen to pass the microphone to the selected next speaker sitting behind him. The emerging problem is the citizen’s displayed understanding of the facilitator’s action as offering him the floor instead of requesting assistance.

Extract 2.10a CAB_FC_211008_01.29.41.

68  Repairing interaction After the public selection of the next two speakers (2), as the facilitator moves toward Cedres, Marc displays his understanding of being preselected by withdrawing his gaze. By providing the microphone beforehand, the facilitator ensures that the participant is ready to talk when it is their turn. This is a recurrent practice for managing next-speaker queues (Heath and Mondada 2019), which might be available for the participants but requires their monitoring of the queue formation. When Prévost arrives in front of Cedres and holds out the microphone to him, both Marc and Cedres look at the facilitator (3, figure 46). Cedres, however, displays his understanding of the outstretched microphone as offering him the floor and refuses it.

Extract 2.10b CAB_FC_211008_01.29.41.

Repairing interaction  69 Although it might be clear to Marc what the facilitator is doing, it is not clear to Cedres. He understands the outstretched microphone as an offer to speak in public, as manifested in his embodied refusal by looking down and shaking his head (4, figures 47–49). The refusal of the mic prompts the facilitator to correct Cedres’ manifested understanding of his prior action by an initial negation (5). Whereas the first action was formatted with exclusively embodied means, i.e. the facilitator’s movement of his arm, the repair is done through a linguistic formulation of this action as a request for assistance, whilst pointing to Marc (7, figure 50) (Heritage and Watson 1980). The pause between the negation and the action formulation is explained by the fact that Prévost retracts his arm to speak into the microphone. The fact that he is next to Cedres and thus, for all practical purposes, do not need the microphone in order to make himself heard by him shows that the facilitator orients to the public and transparent character of the interaction, even for the practical issue of passing the microphone. This transparency is related to the turn-taking system, which is embodied in the queuing of next speakers and the publicly available organization of this queue (Heath and Mondada 2019). Right after Prévost’s initiation of the action formulation (7), Cedres displays an understanding of the facilitator’s reaction as a correction of his prior understanding of the facilitator’s first action and turns around, orienting to Prévost’s pointing as relevant for understanding what he is doing (7, figure 51). The initiation of him turning around prompts Marc to lift his arm, stretching for the microphone. This displays for Cedres that he is the referent of Prévost’s pointing. Moreover, by initiating the lifting of the hand, he enacts the projected next action, showing that he is complying with the initiated course of action of passing the microphone. One additional point worth mentioning is a fourth party’s orientation to the correction. Subsequent to the facilitator’s non non (5), Baldot’s sudden orientation to the facilitator (6, figure 50) displays her understanding of the situation as trouble-relevant. Subsequent to Cedres’ identification of Marc as the projected recipient of the microphone, he complies with the request as the facilitator extends his arm.

70  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.10c CAB_FC_211008_01.29.41.

Cedres’ recognition of Marc as the recipient of the microphone results in an embodied and verbal explication of this understanding (9, figure 52), which publicly acknowledges his prior reaction as erroneous. This, in turn, prompts some laughter from a citizen out of frame, as well as from Baldot

Repairing interaction  71 (10), displaying the humoristic and delicate character of the situation. Prévost, who re-initiated his previous action when Cedres was turning back (Extract 2.10b, line7), now gives the microphone to Cedres who passes it to Marc (11, figures 53–55). The understanding of the situation in terms of what is the relevant next action and which previous action prompted the current course of action is manifestly not shared among the participants. Although we can talk about a general situation of “repairing a trouble in the interaction,” the facilitator publicly corrects Cedres’ displayed understanding of his own prior action. Although the formulation of the previous action self-repairs it by retrospectively clarifying what the outstretched arm projected, it is essentially projective in the sense that it does that action for another first time, prompting Cedres to pass the microphone as soon as the recipient of this action has been established by indexical, situated means (7–11). The meaning of “another first time” is twofold here. This turn (7) reflexively recognizes Cedres’ displayed understanding of this first action as misplaced. Cedres has not made a bid for the turn, and offering him the microphone is therefore not a relevant next action at this point. The retrospective explication thus accounts for the initial action as relevant and within the order of the setting (Garfinkel 1967:9–10). Moreover, the account literally makes the request for another first time, re-launching the sequence that requests assistance for the practical problem of getting the microphone to the next speaker. This is distinctive from doing self-correction, which displays and revises an anticipatory analysis of one’s own unfolding turn: Prévost’s retrospective explication is prompted by Cedres’ displayed erroneous understanding. The sequential position in which the correction is produced demonstrates that it is not an elaboration of an ongoing first action, but an operation on a second action. Furthermore, the sequence differs from other-initiated self-repair in two additional respects. First, the facilitator does not display any problem of accessing Cedres’ action with regard to audibility or intelligibility. Instead, he claims a trouble of understanding on behalf of Cedres. Second, the correction does not merely solicit a solution to a targeted problem in the interaction; the problem is targeted and treated as solved by the participants via the correction – i.e. the formulation of the initial action – which does that action for another first time with both linguistic and embodied resources. In sum, other-repair in third position claims a trouble of acceptability with regard to how a prior or unfolding action is understood by the recipient by virtue of the responsive action. Indeed, it is a practical problem for participants in interaction to target which aspect of a prior troublesome turn is problematic. The next section discusses the various formats participants use to target a trouble source, and the consequences that this has for the proposed repair solution.

72  Repairing interaction

How is it done? Repair formats The formatting practices for initiating repair are significant for its intelligibility and for locating the nature of the trouble source as claiming problems of hearing, understanding or accepting prior or unfolding courses of action. The formatting aspects of repair include, for example, lexical choice (Drew 1997; Robinson 2006, 2014; Sorjonen 1996), grammatical features (Benjamin 2013; Fox, Hayashi, and Jasperson 1996), prosodic features (Benjamin and Walker 2013; Curl 2005; Persson 2015a; Selting 1988), epistemic positions (Robinson 2013a; Sidnell and Barnes 2013) and embodied or gestural features (Egbert 1996; Floyd et al. 2015; Goodwin 2000; Mortensen 2016; Seo and Koshik 2010). The issue for “other” soliciting “self” to repair, is to target what is trouble-some in the interaction. The issue for “other” repairing “other” is to produce a recognizable replacement of the trouble with an alternative. How? Other-initiated self-repair Four generic formats for “other” to initiate self-repair have been described in the literature (Kitzinger 2013:249; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:367; Sidnell 2006). They include “open class” repair initiations, category-specific interrogatives, partial or full repeats of the trouble source and candidate understandings. “Open-class” repair initiations display that a prior action has been registered, but do not specify the problematic aspect. They are often formatted with an apologetic expression like “sorry,” “pardon” or “excuse me,” or an open nonback vowel monosyllable similar to the English “Huh” (Enfield et al. 2013). Participants often treat “open-class” repair as claiming a trouble of hearing, which engenders a repeat of the trouble source turn (Drew 1997). Extract 2.11 is drawn from a brainstorming workshop. The attending participants work on maps of the site in smaller groups, and are asked to propose locations in the future park for entrances, pathways and the like. In this extract, Poujade (POU) and Bole (BLE) repeatedly ask Marc (MRC) to indicate a second entrance, represented by a repositionable note. Marc eventually produces an open-class repair, which prompts a repeat of the trouble source.

Extract 2.11 CASBLA_280611_groupe_jaune_ 00.17.08.

Repairing interaction  73

Extract 2.11 (Continued).

74  Repairing interaction Both Bole and Poujade engage in drawing Marc’s attention to the need for indicating the other entrance linguistically and by pointing at the map, whereas Marc keeps looking down in front of him without taking any recognizable notice of the request (1–4, figure 56). The repeated requests reveal that a response is noticeably absent, and Marc eventually produces an openclass repair initiation in overlap hein, ‘huh,’ whilst leaning forward toward the point on the map to which his colleagues are pointing, displaying that he recognizes himself as an addressee of a prior action that he did not grasp (5, figure 57). The repair initiation prompts Poujade to produce a verbatim repeat (6–7) and both Bole and Poujade further explicate the linguistic indexical elements by pointing to the other side of the map (6–8, figures 57, 58). Marc follows their pointing with his gaze (5, figure 57) and after the collaboratively completed explication by Poujade and Bole (9–10), Marc takes a note and projects writing (1), publicly manifesting his understanding of and alignment with the pursued request. The repeats and subsequent compliance show that the participants treat the trouble as stemming from an issue of hearing. Category-specific interrogatives such as who, where, when, how, which one and why display more understanding of the nature of the trouble source and solicit specific explications (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:367). In Extract 2.12, drawn from the recordings of the guided visits that were offered during the construction work, a citizen, Fontain (FON), asks the guide Lignal (LIG) about the existence of a barrier on a specific wall. Lignal claims a problem of understanding the location Fontain refers to through the question word où ‘where’ (4).

Extract 2.12 CAB_21_140613_VIS_Douves_01.41.48.

Repairing interaction  75

Extract 2.12 (Continued).

After Fontain has asked about a barrier on a specific wall, indicated linguistically and by pointing (1, figure 59), he orients to the following pause (2) as projecting trouble and reformulates his inquiry into a request for confirmation, oui ‘yes’ (3). After another pause (4), Lignal initiates repair with the interrogative où ‘where’ (5), targeting a problem with the location, which he follows up with a candidate understanding and pointing gesture (6–7, figure 60). Fontain, who re-initiates pointing with his whole arm at the same time as Lignal (6, figure 60), proposes a repair solution by indexing the wall (8), thereby displaying his understanding of Lignal’s repair initiation as targeting a problem of location. However, Lignal produces another proposed explication of the indicated place through a further description (10), confirmed by Fontain (12), before eventually answering the question (13). His answer retrospectively explains for the three repair initiations (5, 7, 10), which, as it appears, do not only orient to a problem of locating the barrier. Actually, Lignal’s declaration that the wall is the barrier, retrospectively counters the terms for Fontain’s initial question. Producing a full or partial repeat of the trouble source turn is another practice for targeting a problem. By repeating parts or the entirety of the trouble source turn, the repair initiator displays having heard at least parts of the trouble source unit (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:368). Robinson (2014)

76  Repairing interaction argues that this format can be treated as conveying a problem either of agreement or understanding, depending on the participants presumed respective knowledge about the emerging trouble source. This is in line with Robinson’s and Kevoe-Feldman’s (2010) study on full repeats of questions as a way to initiate repair on a trouble of acceptability of the action type. In second language interaction, on the other hand, interactants can use this format to indicate language-specific problems of understanding (Lilja 2014). Extract 2.13 is drawn from the end of one of the brainstorming workshops. The facilitator closes the meeting by announcing the activities for the next meeting, which will begin with reports from various associations and political councils. As he arrives at the announcement of l’Association de Défense du Parc Blandan, generally referred to with the acronym l’ADPB, he hesitates and abandons his turn, displaying a problem with announcing the name. This prompts a citizen to provide the adequate acronym. The facilitator initiates repair by partly repeating the trouble source, which prompts the citizen to repair by repeating the acronym.

Extract 2.13 CAB_FC_181108_ATE_GPA_02.03.55.

Repairing interaction  77

Extract 2.13 (Continued).

The facilitator enumerates the concerned actors with a rising intonation while counting on his finger (2, figures 61, 62). That he has trouble with subsequently producing the acronym of Association de Défense du Parc Blandan is recognizable in several ways. The first attempt is abandoned and restarted, but in a lower voice, as a rush-through, with falling intonation and whilst pointing with his head toward the table where the members of the association are seated (3, figure 63). The subsequent retraction (3) is manifestly recognizable as initiating a word search, as one of the citizens, Baldot, provides the acronym (4). Prévost acknowledges the candidate as relevant by orienting to Baldot and by repeating it, although repeating the third bi-labial phoneme bé with a prosody that indexes it as incomplete, targeting the last two letters as problematic and soliciting a solution to the problem (5, figure 64). Baldot repairs by repeating the acronym in a louder voice (6) and Prévost displays “paying attention” by leaning forward. By subsequently repeating the correct acronym and an excuse (7, figure 65), he moreover orients to Bolin’s intervention as corrective and the misspeaking as apology-implicative. Lastly, by providing a candidate understanding or a re-saying of a trouble source turn, often framed by “you mean,” the repair initiator displays a certain degree of hearing and understanding, but solicits a verification from the speaker of the trouble source turn (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:368). Benjamin (2012) argues that this particular format can be used as a means to override a problem of contiguity between the trouble source and the repair initiation when some time has passed between the two, and Antaki (2012) shows that candidate understandings are affiliative and dis-affiliative depending on whether they solicit new information or not. Moreover, Pomerantz (1988), drawing on Sacks (1995), discusses the use of candidate understandings or “correction invitation devices” as an effective means by which access to specific knowledge can be displayed and solicited. Extract 2.14 is drawn from one of the information meetings as a citizen, Valernaud, provides a lengthy explanation of a building on the site. Eventually, the facilitator proposes a candidate understanding of the upshot of the citizen’s long turn.

78  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.14 CAB_FC_211008_01.12.26.

Repairing interaction  79

Extract 2.14 (Continued).

Valernaud projects to continue his lengthy and positive evaluation of a building on the site (7, figure 66) when the facilitator produces a candidate understanding of the upshot in overlap (8). The sequential positioning suggests that the facilitator initiates repair as a means to close the citizen’s intervention and again take control of the floor (cf. Chapter 4). It is prefaced with the concluding donc ‘so’ and formulates what Valernaud’s action is doing, the wrapping-up-aspect being enhanced by him making circular movements with his hand (8). By pointing to Valernaud, the facilitator publicly reselects him as the next speaker (9–10, figures 67a, b) and treats the speech as public speech for the record, tacitly claiming the solicited clarification as beneficial for the ensemble of the participants. Whilst Valernaud initially shrugs, displaying reluctance vis-à-vis the formulation (9–10, figure 67), he eventually confirms it with the response particle voilà before again turning to the audience (11). The facilitator treats Valernaud’s confirmation of his candidate understanding as projecting sequence closure by gesturing to the audience, nodding (12, figures 68a, b) and producing a concluding response token (13). Valernaud, however, uses this same slot for continuing his intervention (14). By producing a syntactically fitting continuation, retrospectively transforming the previous sequence as a prospective introduction to a proceeding topic, he successfully resists the facilitator’s attempt to bring his intervention to a close and initiates a new sequence. The repair shows how the facilitator claims a problem of understanding the upshot of an unfolding

80  Repairing interaction turn as a means to manage the public production of shared knowledge and practical issues of speakership. There has long been an interest in why interactants choose to initiate repair in one way or another. Repair initiations that localize the trouble source by repeating a part of the problematic turn or offering a candidate understanding are considered “strong” and socially preferred compared to claims of little or no understanding of a prior turn (Dingemanse et al. 2015; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). This is related to the observation that in self-initiated self-repairs of turns doing other-initiated repair, the repair initiation is revised from less specific to more specific formats. Kendrick’s examination of the timing of other-initiated repair in English also shows that specific other-initiations of repair are more frequent than “open” and “weak” ones and that specific other-initiations occur earlier in the transition space. This converges with the claim that dis-preferred alternatives are delayed (Kendrick 2015; Pomerantz and Heritage 2012). On the other hand, when more than one repair sequence is needed to solve a problem, speakers use increasingly specific practices (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:369, see Extract 2.13). Moreover, Robinson (2006) suggests that there is a preference for formatting the repair initiation in such a way that the party initiating the repair takes the responsibility for the trouble, for example by using an apology-based format. Correspondingly, Svennevig (2008) argues that interactants orient to a preference for trying the “easiest solution first,” which, he argues, is to claim problems of hearing and understanding rather than problems of acceptability. He claims that this is related to issues of problem responsibility: Hearing and understanding repair initiators may be considered as placing the responsibility on the repair initiator (by admitting a failure to hear or understand), whereas acceptability repair initiators place it on the speaker of the trouble source turn (by implying that s/he has said something wrong or inappropriate). Presenting a candidate solution to an acceptability problem thus exposes the potential inadequacy of the interlocutor in a way that candidate solutions to hearing or understanding problems do not. (Svennevig 2008:339) When a repair initiation claims a problem of acceptability (Benjamin and Walker 2013; Macbeth 2004:722; Svennevig 2008), correction recurrently emerges as the principal interactional business yielding self-correction (Jefferson 1987). The following piece of data appears in various publications on repair and correction and it is treated as an instance of other-initiated self-correction (Haakana and Kurhila 2009:153; Jefferson 1972:318, 1987:87; Robinson 2006:140; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:377).

Repairing interaction  81

Extract 2.15 Jefferson_1972:318_waiter.

Al initiates correction in line 2, on what he claims to be a problematic gender categorization in Ken’s previous turn. The trouble is targeted by a repeat of the trouble source with a marked prosody of the grammatical gender marker (2). Ken corrects himself by producing an alternative description with the feminine gender marker (3) and, as Robinson points out, the subsequent excuse indicates that he recognizes his prior speech to be erroneous and takes the responsibility for the problem (Robinson 2006:140). Al’s subsequent assessment (4) further manifests it as a problem of acceptability as opposed to a problem of understanding to whom Ken was referring to in the first place. These attending activities of apologizing (3) and assessing (4) manifest the participants’ orientation to “correcting” as the main interactional business. One crucial difference between claiming troubles of hearing or understanding and accepting aspects of prior or unfolding courses of action is therefore the claimed degree of “possibility” to progress with the interaction. When an interactant recognizably initiates repair due to a deliberate choice of not letting something “pass as an understandable” (Moerman 1988:180) – as opposed to not being able to, due to troubles of hearing or understanding – this is heard as engaging in correction. Jefferson discusses the instructive character of indicating error in the following piece of data, where Susan initiates correction on how her younger playmate Steven does counting during a hide-and-seek game (1972:295; see also Macbeth 2004:723 and Schegloff 1984:41).

Extract 2.16 Jefferson_1972:295_counting.

82  Repairing interaction Susan initiates correction by repeating the four last units of Steven’s counting sequence, marking “eleven” prosodically. Steven does not recognize the “eleven” to be troublesome but repeats the counting unit. This prompts a third party, Nancy, to repeat only “eleven.” In this way she specifies the trouble source at the same time as she corrects Stephen’s just-displayed understanding of what Susan’s first repeat was doing, which prompts Stephen to produce a revised and “correct” counting. As Jefferson points out, it is not game-relevant to correct “eleven” to “seven” in the counting, since it is the interval between the numbers that is consequential for the game and not the numbers per se (especially since Steven continues with the fitting next number, “eight,” after the erroneous “eleven”). She argues that the correction therefore is related to the instruction of a normative organization with regard to how to count in that language (1972:295–296). This is further demonstrated by the assessment “That’s better,” which follows Steven’s correction (cf. Macbeth 2004:727–728). An important body of research within Ethnomethodology and CA has taken a specific interest in instruction and correction (Lindwall, Lymer, and Greiffenhagen 2015) and studied this in a variety of settings such as music rehearsal (Keating 1993), cooking (Mondada 2014), classroom interaction (Kääntä 2010; Macbeth 2004, 2011; McHoul 1990; Weeks 1985), dance classes (Keevallik 2010), dental education (Hindmarsh, Hyland, and Banerjee 2014), handcraft classes (Lindwall and Ekström 2012) and in mobile vehicle training (Levin et al. 2017). Regarding classroom instruction, Macbeth (2004:721) notes that: In the instruction of novices of one kind or another, it is presumed that there are things they do not know or cannot do, and their instruction is then unavoidably played out on fields of normative knowledge and expectations. If knowledge (re)production is the charge of classroom instruction, the production of correct knowledge, and thus correction, unavoidably become a part of the practical and professional organization of the setting, and one of the prevailing orientations of the parties in the room. Macbeth’s claim that repair and correction are co-operative but distinctive practices is partly based on the observation that repair and correction demonstrably can operate within the same sequence and that there is an order to the co-operation, where problems of understanding are solved before problems of acceptability (2004:729). He suggests that whereas repair is related to issues of solving problems of intersubjectivity, corrections are related to normativity and instructing activities. Regarding the sequential organization of corrective repair sequences, it is significant that although a correction-initiation recognizably orients to a

Repairing interaction  83 problem of acceptability and invokes issues of normativity (Macbeth 2004; Svennevig 2008), it does not replace the trouble source in the next position. It initiates a sequence, where the production of a “correct” candidate by the producer of the trouble source is projected as the relevant next action. This differs from other-initiated other-repair, where the trouble source is targeted through the proposed solution to it, that is, a replacing candidate. This interactional operation tacitly claims – and demonstrates – access to and understanding for the targeted trouble source. How? Other-initiated other-repair Doing other-initiated other-repair, or other-correction, targets and solves the problem by means of the same interactional operation (Jefferson 1987; Weeks 1985). In other words, by replacing the trouble source with a candidate, the correcting party publicly claims to be knowledgeable about and to take moral responsibility for the solution to the claimed problem. As a consequence, other-corrections can be rejected (Jefferson 1987:94). In Jefferson’s demonstration of the difference between exposed and embedded corrections, she makes a fundamental observation regarding both conceptual and technical distinctions between them. Embedded corrections do not engender a sequence, but the trouble source is simply replaced by the “correct” alternative at a later point. Exposed corrections differ in the sense that “correcting” becomes the principal interactional business, demonstrable through attendant activities or “accountings” such as apologizing, complaining and instructing (Jefferson 1987:88). This, in turn, can have sequential implications for the interaction such as extended sequences or side sequences (Jefferson 1972, 1987; Schegloff 1972). In this way, Jefferson shows that also self-repair – or replacements of components of one’s prior talk – can be manifested as doing correcting through the production of accountings (Jefferson 1987:96). These observations confirm and elaborate on the problem of “correctness” in its strictest sense (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Participants orient to issues of misspeaking – or rather “misdoing” – as they engage in correcting and attending accounting activities. Nevertheless, this raises the question of how to account for subsequent alternative descriptions of some matters as recognizably doing replacing due to a problem of acceptability. In other sequential environments, such as assessing activities (Pomerantz 1984) or during word searches, subsequent alternative descriptions are not treated as corrective replacements. This is observable in Extract 2.17, which is drawn from one of the later information meetings concerning how the construction work on the site proceeds. Referring to the information that a large number of visitors are expected in the park, a citizen asks whether any parking places have been planned. As Navarro answers, she manifests having trouble finding a quantifying specification which prompts fellow participants to provide candidate solutions.

84  Repairing interaction

Extract 2.17 CAB_FC_250313_02.11.07.

Repairing interaction  85

Extract 2.17 (Continued).

Navarro progressively establishes the account of the radius as troublesome by self-repairing (3–4, figure 69) and suspending her turn while looking at the architect in charge of the project, Lignal, soliciting a collaborative completion from him through a reported discourse with an inclusive pronoun and rising intonation: on avait dit ‘we had said’ (4, figure 70). Instead of receiving assistance from Lignal, a citizen, Belard, self-selects and proposes a descriptive in overlap, un kilomètre ‘one kilometre’ (5), which manifests that Navarro is heard to engage in a word search. As Navarro does not acknowledge this proposal (6–7) Belard repeats it (8), treating the absence of a response as an issue of hearing on behalf of Navarro. The repeat prompts Navarro to gaze at him, recognizing him as the current speaker but not acknowledging the proposal verbally (8–9, figure 71). Navarro’s lack of uptake prompts Belard and another official representative, Donzé, to respectively propose two other alternatives. Whereas Belard specifies the number of

86  Repairing interaction inhabitants in the radius (10), Donzé proposes the estimated time it takes to cross it on foot (11). Navarro turns to Donzé, tacitly selecting her as the next relevant speaker, which prompts her to repeat the proposal (13). Navarro, in turn, ratifies this as fitting by repeating it and adding the conclusive particle voilà (14–15, figure 72). Navarro’s subsequent elaboration of this description, which actually includes Belard’s first proposal (16–17), treats both candidate descriptions as legitimate alternatives. In this sequential environment, the participants do not orient to the successive alternatives as corrective replacements but as proposals that are more or less suitable for what the speaker of the trouble source, engaging in a word search, is heard to project. In comparison, in Extract 2.18, a professional corrects a citizen’s contribution in an embedded way. During another information meeting, Zanar asks a question concerning the planned service lane and parking place in the future park, which she refers to as comprising 48 parking spaces (3). When Navarro responds to the question, she replaces this number with “twenty-five.”

Extract 2.18a CAB_FC_031012_01.52.34.

Repairing interaction  87

Extract 2.18a (Continued).

During Navarro’s answer (24–32, figure 73) she claims to have forgotten the number of parking places and turns to Lignal, requesting assistance (32, figure 74). As he engages in answering and recognizably searching for the number (34), Zanar proposes a solution through a syntactically fitted

88  Repairing interaction completion of his turn, repeating the number she indicated before (36). That Navarro turns to the audience at this point suggests that she heard the proposed number of parking spaces, but Lignal nevertheless produces an alternative number in overlap (38). As Navarro repeats Lignal’s proposal in the microphone (39, figure 75) and projects sequence closure with the particle voilà (42), she treats the two candidate numbers as mutually exclusive, and dismisses the citizen’s candidate alternative. However, although Zanar continues with a follow-up question about the exits (43) and none of the participants orient to the replaced number as a correction at this point, Zanar eventually returns to the issue about the parking. When she again refers to it as planned to provide “forty-eight” parking spaces, the officials engage in exposed correction.

Extract 2.18b CAB_FC_031012_01.52.34.

Repairing interaction  89

Extract 2.18b (Continued).

Zanar returns to the issue of the parking lot as a preliminary for a follow-up question, and rejects the officials’ prior replacement by again stating the higher number of parking spaces (56–57). The officials’ subsequent explicit correction of the number suggests that they hear it as rejecting their prior embedded correction. Bert corrects Zanar in overlap while turning to Navarro (58, figure 76) who also corrects the number and increases the epistemic stance with the modifier en fait ‘in fact’ (59–60). Bert repeats the correction, also orienting to the audience (61, figure 77). The immediate production of the corrections, the epistemic assertion and Bert’s repeat, reveals that the two numbers are not compatible. It also shows the political delicacy of the topic and the attention the officials pay to the adequacy of the publicly claimed size of the parking lot. The participants’ orientation to the interaction as a public and political activity is further evidenced by how Zanar responds to the correction.

Extract 2.18c CAB_FC_031012_01.52.34.

90  Repairing interaction Zanar treats the replacement as a correction by producing a pro-forma agreement ah ouais ‘oh yeah’ before again challenging the officials’ assertion, grounding her own claim with reference to the institution’s website (62–63). In this way, Zanar justifies the candidate alternative and retrospectively establishes pursuing that alternative as rejecting the officials’ previous embedded replacement, which displays that she hears that replacement as doing correcting. This challenge prompts Navarro to explain the discrepancy between the written information on the website and the information just provided (64–67), which Zanar eventually accepts (66). Other-initiated other-repair is accomplished by replacing an emerging problematic aspect of the interaction with an alternative. However, in some sequential environments, successive alternative descriptions are not heard as doing replacement. Moreover, whereas embedded replacements may be accepted as such in a first place, they can retrospectively be challenged and thereby established as doing correcting. This last extract shows moreover that the participants use embedded and exposed corrective practices to manage the situated production of public and shared knowledge for the record during the political meetings.

Discussion As Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks point out, repair and correction are distinct practices (1977:363). Nevertheless, they are recurrently used as interchangeable terms. The ways in which corrective actions are referred to include repair (Bolden 2018), acceptability repair (Benjamin and Walker 2013; Svennevig 2008), alternative descriptions (Sidnell and Barnes 2013), counter-informings (Heritage 1984a; Robinson 2009), disagreements (Goodwin 1983; Kitzinger 2013; Sidnell 2006) and instructions (Macbeth 2004). This is not a problem per se, given that there is no determined one-to-one relationship between the courses of action people engage in and the interactional practices and resources that they mobilize to accomplish them. The arbitrary use of “repair” and “correction” is nonetheless unfortunate, since participants manifestly orient to them as projecting different interactional trajectories due to conceptual distinctions – occasioning different organizational features. Macbeth’s (2004) work on repair and correction in classroom interaction proposes that they are overlapping though distinctive practices. The observations yielded from examining the recordings of the public meetings confirm and elaborate this suggestion. In other-initiated self-repair sequences, the repair initiation targets a problem of audibility, understandability or acceptability and solicits a solution to that problem, that is, projects a repair as the relevant next action. It claims a problem with establishing intersubjectivity for all practical purposes. Subsequently, the repair operation provides – or at least proposes – a solution to

Repairing interaction  91 the problem in next position. The responsibility for why the emerging trouble emerged can be negotiated (Robinson 2006; Svennevig 2008) and claimed to be due to various reasons. The speaker of the trouble can be claimed to have a problem with speaking, or the repair initiator can claim to have a trouble of hearing, understanding or accepting (the terms for) an unfolding course of action on behalf of themselves or on behalf of a third party. In any case, the repair initiator claims the trouble in question to be so severe that the interaction cannot progress without it being solved – which is what ultimately warrants its production. Whereas repair practices do not, a priori, concern “correctness,” the participants do orient to emerging troubles of “error” in the corrective sequences discussed in this chapter, and they solve this through replacement. Other-initiated self-correction indicates a prior action as unacceptable or erroneous and solicits a replacement of that element or a “correct” candidate. When engaging in other-initiated other-repair and replacing an aspect of another participant’s action, the correcting party claims, by character, to “know” what the party responsible for the inadequacy “should have” done, or how it should have been done. The correcting party does not display a problem of speaking, hearing or understanding on behalf of “self,” but on behalf of “other.” This is the very premise for the possibility – and claimed entitlement – to pull off a correction. Going back to Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977:380): When the hearing/understanding of a turn is adequate to the production of a correction by “other,” it is adequate to allow production of a sequentially appropriate next turn. Under the circumstance, the turn’s recipient (“other”) should produce the next turn, not the correction (and, overwhelmingly, that is what is done). Therein lies another basis for the empirical paucity of other-corrections: those who could do them do a sequentially appropriate next turn instead. As the authors point out, this is another reason for why other-corrections often are heard as involving disagreement. The organizational particularity of replacement, that it does not necessarily open up a side sequence if the participants do not orient to the correction as the principal interactional business, provides for the possibility of embedded corrections (Jefferson 1987). This reveals the significance of letting things pass as understandables for all practical purposes (Moerman 1988:180). During the public meetings, the participants engaging in other-correcting orient to the sequential and political implications its absence or omission would engender in terms of shared understanding for the task at hand as problematic. The claimed overall activity in the participatory democracy project is not to socialize participants into an interactive order (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), but to engage in activities such as distributing-and-establishing-relevant-information-for-the-project. In this

92  Repairing interaction sense, the correcting practices are crucial for restoring the normative order when “erroneous” information is produced. Initiating repair is always warranted in the sense that it retrospectively claims a prospective problem with doing a fitting next action. It can nevertheless be questioned or challenged in terms of its local relevance, with respect to the attribution of knowledge among the participants (see Chapter 3). However, it cannot be rejected as erroneous in the way a correction can. Whereas a repair initiation by default is questioning in its format, a correction is declarative and accomplished through replacement. During the information meetings in this institutional setting, where the central activity is to provide and distribute information as a premise for engaging in the deliberative participatory democracy project, repairing and correcting are recurrently mobilized to solve emerging problems of producing, distributing and establishing information. Therefore, these data are particularly interesting for examining how repair and correction as generic social practices for managing intersubjectivity in interaction relate to practical issues of the situated construction of shared, public knowledge. Institutional and political issues of claimed rights to and distribution of information, as well as attributed obligations to provide information by virtue of locally established social roles, are partially negotiated through repair practices. The following chapters discuss repairing practices that participants mobilize when they do not let things pass as understandables. In Chapter 3, I examine sequences where the professionals claim a problem of understanding through a partial repeat of a prior trouble source turn on behalf of “other(s).” In Chapter 4, I describe repeats of repair solutions to claimed troubles of hearing as a professional practice to establish unfolding speech as public speech. Chapter 5 focuses on corrections of emerging information as a professional practice for ensuring that adequate knowledge is produced and established for the record.

3

Repairing for others Claiming a trouble of understanding

Introduction In Chapter 2, we looked at other-initiated self- and other-repair as fundamental social practices for dealing with emerging troubles in interaction. In this chapter we will examine how members display that they initiate repair for an interactional party other than the parties engaging in the repair sequence. Establishing and distributing shared knowledge is a central task for the participants attending the public meetings. It is a practical problem for the participants to manifest this and to achieve it and repair practices are an important resource for solving emerging troubles as the institutional activity is talked into being. Moreover, by claiming troubles of understandability on behalf of other(s), the participants also use interactional repair as a resource to establish just this as a principal task. First, we will consider how sharing information is established as a central task for and during the public meetings. I then discuss the organizational specificities of multi-party interaction and how repair practices are used to manage the participation framework and form overhearing third parties that are consequential for the interaction. The examination of the various solutions that are prompted by a partial repeat initiating repair reveals that the participants display their estimation of their respective knowledge about the matter at hand. These observations allow examination of the professionals engaged in the meetings that recognizably initiate repair on behalf of an overhearing party, doing “facilitating.” Establishing and distributing shared knowledge as an institutional task The people participating in these public meetings orient to the distribution of knowledge and their claimed rights and access to information as crucial for the activity they engage in as a participatory democracy project. This is observable and accounted for in the political project’s organizational features as well as through linguistic explications.

94  Repairing for others The citizens are offered several information meetings and guided visits of the park before they engage in the consulting brainstorming workshops. During the information meetings, political representatives and external professionals such as specialists in history and urbanism provide the participants with information about the site. The guided visits that are proposed offer the participants a firsthand experience of the site. The documents presented during the public meetings and the ensuing summaries of the meetings are published on the project’s website and the officials continuously invite the citizens to consult this material. The meetings are organized so that invited specialists and official representatives give informative presentations, after which attending citizens ask questions and make remarks. Professional facilitators are engaged to administer organizational issues, such as turn allocation, to ensure the participants’ equal access to the floor and to secure a shared basis of attained information. Moreover, the institutional authorities explicitly claim that the consultation is structured to maximize the exchange of knowledge and information among the participants. The following piece of data is drawn from the third information meeting. The principal officer and politically responsible for the project, Bert, explains the contents of the meeting by formulating the general purpose as a matter of establishing shared knowledge.

Extract 3.1 CAB_FC_211008_00.00.00.

Bert self-repairs his initial description of the meetings’ “perspective” as elaborating un diagnostic ‘a diagnostic’ of the site (1–2) by suspending the turn and inserting un diagnostic partagé ‘a shared diagnostic’, emphasizing “shared” by stretching the accentuated syllable (3). In this way, he establishes the activity as a political task where the professionals’ interventions are expected to be beneficial and consequential for the project’s participatory aspects. The participants also reflexively address the issue of shared knowledge by the way in which they organize the interaction. As they engage in

Repairing for others  95 public speech, they are continuously faced with the issue of addressing interactional parties with different degrees of relevant knowledge about the task at hand. The professionals explicitly orient to this as a practical problem, which is managed through various actions and practices (Mondada 2013b; Mondada, Svensson, and van Schepen 2017). One case in point is emerging explanations of technical terminology that may not be known by all participants. In Extract 3.2, a citizen has previously asked about the legal status of the park and whether it is part of the agglomeration of Lyon or of the city of Lyon. As she takes her turn, she introduces herself as being a member of the group “SCoT,” which she thereby claims to be a relevant referent for the sort of information she solicits. After that the official representative Daumat has responded, his colleague Bert bids for the turn and provides an explanation of the acronym “SCoT” and warrants the explanation by referring to a possible lack of understanding among the participants.

Extract 3.2 CAB_FC_160609_00.19.34.

Before giving the floor to Bert, the facilitator proposes a prospective candidate formulation of Bert’s following action as “completing” the previous answer (2). Bert rejects this action ascription by announcing his action as an “exercise in translation” of the acronym “SCoT” (5). In this way, he publicly frames what he is doing as explaining prior information – as opposed to providing additional information. Bert’s invocation of a possible trouble

96  Repairing for others of understanding among the participants (5–6) also prompts Daumat to initiate an explanation in overlap with Bert (7–9), which further reveals an orientation to the accountability of producing public talk as intelligible talk. As the professionals warrant the acronym’s explanation by referring to tout le monde ‘everyone’ (6) as an inclusive unit and third party, they establish the overhearing audience as a constituent party of the participation framework (Goodwin and Goodwin 2004; Mondada 2013b). Furthermore, they explicitly claim that they engage in explaining for the participants by virtue of their status as an overhearing audience (Greatbatch 1988). By claiming to preempt a possible problem of understanding, they also attribute a disparate distribution of knowledge among the participants and proclaim an institutional orientation toward an equal distribution of relevant knowledge among them. Toward the end of the same meeting, the mayor of one of the districts adjacent to the park, Delors, addresses the issue of diversity among the participants as he argues for a shared participatory approach to, and within, the project.

Extract 3.3 CAB_FC_211008_02.16.54.

Repairing for others  97 The excerpt is drawn from a longer intervention by Delors, who closes this information meeting. By retrospectively categorizing the meeting as a “consultation” (1–2) to which the participants contribute with various needs and resources (3–7) and addressing the citizens as parties that should work with – or for – each other, he prospectively establishes a morally laden framework for the project (7–13). In addition to formulating the general activity of the meeting as “participatory,” he also voices and formulates a prospective agenda, according to which the participants are expected not only to take themselves into consideration but also “others.” The institutional representative thus explicitly orients to the general interest of a common understanding of the activity, the diversity of reasons for the participants to take part in the project and the problems of “self” and “other” as significant for pursuing the institutional task. These excerpts reveal the participants’ concern about sharing knowledge and ensuring intersubjectivity as constitutive of the activity as a participatory and democratically permeated activity. The participants establish the relevance of these issues reflexively, by mobilizing and organizing context-free interactional practices in specific, context-bound ways. Establishing and distributing shared knowledge by means of interactional repair One way that the participants to the meetings secure that specific information is made public through speech is claiming a problem with its local production and solicit a solution to it. Extract 3.4 is collected from one of the information meetings concerning the building constructions on and around the future park. (This is an elaborated analysis of Extract 1.5.) Prior to this sequence, a citizen, Lemercier, has requested information about the budget for demolishing existing buildings on the site. The officials first refused to answer the question and accounted for it by claiming not to hold the information. After an extended corrective sequence, the project’s coordinator, Navarro, agrees to provide the expected costs for demolishing buildings on the site (cf. Extracts 1.1; 1.3; 1.4). We join the interaction as Navarro eventually declares the expected costs. As she reads out the numbers, Lemercier claims a problem of hearing it, which prompts a public repeat of the trouble source.

Extract 3.4 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

98  Repairing for others

Extract 3.4 (Continued).

Navarro’s announcement of the costs is progressively established as sensitive matters throughout the turn by stretching vowels, the hesitation mark euh ‘eh,’ self-repairing the elevation of the costs from the imperfect to the present tense and inserting a pause before announcing the numbers, whilst alternatively looking at Lemercier and at her papers (1–2). Whereas Lemercier initially prepares to write down the projected information (2–3,

Repairing for others  99 figure 1), the announced sum prompts her to look at Navarro (3, figure 2). Navarro orients to this gaze as projecting trouble and suspends her ongoing turn, which is syntactically but not prosodically complete (3). Another citizen whistles, publicly orienting to the numbers as news, and the noise in the audience manifests the sum as politically delicate and retrospectively confirms Navarro’s projected difficulty (4). These reactions also demonstrate that the information provided was audible and intelligible for several persons in the audience. Nevertheless, Lemercier leans forward and produces a partial repeat of the trouble source turn, the preposition à ‘to,’ followed by the question word combien ‘how much’ (6, figure 3), which makes relevant a clarification of the announced costs. In response, not only Navarro repeats the sum (8) but also the facilitator Prévost (9), showing that he also heard the initial announcement. By repeating the trouble source rather than elaborating on the number or responding to Lemercier’s turn as a criticism, the professionals treat the repair initiation as due to a trouble of audibility and not ­understandability or acceptability. The reiterated reactions in the audience (10) reveal however that the audience treat the sum as problematic and that the repair is heard as concerning the ensemble of the participants. While the citizens insist on demolishing almost all buildings on the site, the officials argue that demolishing buildings is more expensive than renovating them for new use. For the institution, announcing factual costs implies that this information can be used as an economic argument for or against demolishing buildings during the subsequent brainstorming workshops. Moreover, providing information about a budget presupposes that the executive authorities have already taken certain economic decisions independent from the ongoing consultative meetings, which would be in conflict with the claimed participatory democracy aspect of the enterprise. In this way, the participants orient to the repair as a practice for securing the situated production of shared knowledge. In so doing, they reflexively establish the distribution of information as politically accountable and related to the participants’ rights and obligations to participate to the activity. The observation that the facilitator also engages in repairing in overlap with the speaker of the trouble source and that several persons in the audience, other than Lemercier, show themselves concerned with the repair brings us to the organizational features of repair in multi-party interaction.

Repair in multi-party interaction The previous section showed that participants implicitly and explicitly treat shared knowledge as significant for the activity they engage in and that they use repair practices for managing emerging possible problems of intersubjectivity. In addition to this, some organizational features of multi-party

100  Repairing for others interaction allow the participants to manage the participation framework through repair sequences, which, in turn, reveals the importance the participants attribute to interactional parties. By ensuring that a specific interactional party clarifies the trouble source, the participants establish specific institutional roles and the overhearing audience as consequential for how repair sequences are carried out. The number of participants in interaction is procedurally consequential for how social actions are accomplished (Schegloff 1995). In multi-party interaction and in difference from interaction including only two persons, several persons can initiate and operate repair on the same trouble source (Bolden 2011; Egbert 1997; Lerner 1993). Furthermore, initiating repair can be used as a device to enter or exit a conversation (Egbert 1997; Lerner 1993), thereby modifying the participation framework. Drawing on Goffman’s notion of participation framework (1981), Goodwin and Goodwin refer to participation as “[…] actions demonstrating forms of involvement performed by parties within evolving structures of talk” (2004:222). They show how participants in conversation repair participation through, for example, verbal re-starts of an initiated turn, demonstrably orienting to the co-present interactants’ participation stance. Bodily practices such as pointing and shifting gaze are also fundamental for the configuration of embodied participation frameworks and recipient design (Goodwin 1979, 2007; Mondada 2013b). Goodwin notes: “Seeing how the addressee is responding to the current action is clearly consequential for the organization of the subsequent action” (2007:57). The situated establishment and continuous modulation of participation frameworks are, moreover, crucial for the accomplishment of tasks that are specific to institutional and political interactions (Clayman 1993; Mondada 2015; Mondada, Svensson, and van Schepen 2017). Extract 3.5 is drawn from the beginning of the first brainstorming workshop within the project, as the facilitator Prévost instructs the participants about the upcoming work to formulate conceptual proposals regarding the future park and the procedural conditions for accomplishing the task. We join the interaction as the facilitator explains the different categories of the buildings on the site. Buildings put in category 1 and 2 will be preserved due to their historical interest whereas the preservation of buildings put in category 3 is subject to discussion, and buildings in category 4 will be demolished. The facilitator refers to the buildings in category 2 with the spatial indexical là ‘there.’ A citizen, Gilles, initiates repair on this description, thereby tacitly selecting the facilitator to repair the claimed problem. Although another citizen, Nilard, self-selects and proposes a repair solution, Gilles pursues initiating repair until the facilitator and institutional representative eventually provides the solicited clarification.

Repairing for others  101

Extract 3.5 CAB_181108_ATE_GPA_00.13.12.

102  Repairing for others

Extract 3.5 (Continued).

Repairing for others  103 The facilitator declares that the buildings placed in category 2 will, dans le principe ‘in principle’ (1–3), be preserved, and sanctions the statement by referring to the project’s coordinator, Sylvie Navarro (2). By claiming to only provide information on behalf of the institution, he orients to his professional role as a facilitator, and to the issue’s political delicacy. Navarro reflexively establishes the latter as she engages in further describing this category, accounting for the preservation of the buildings as owing to their “patrimonial interest” (6–8). Gilles initiates repair with the question word lesquels ‘which ones,’ which makes relevant a clarification of the indexical reference des bâtiments là ‘the buildings there’ (5). Nilard, a citizen seated at another table, proposes a repair solution verbally and bodily, through the explanation prés de celui où on est là ‘close to this one where we are now,’ while looking and pointing down with both hands (7–9, figures 4, 5). Although initiating repair tacitly selects the speaker of the trouble source as the next speaker (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974:717), Nilard displays himself as being entitled to repair the problem (cf. Bolden 2012). He also displays his understanding of the prior first action as establishing an opportunity for conjoined participation within an association of participants (Lerner 1993:223). By proposing this particular repair solution, Nilard treats Gilles’ repair initiation as a problem of hearing or understanding the indexical reference, versus aligning with Gilles’ previous action as a politically challenging undertaking. Gilles and Nilard establish mutual gaze during the repair (7, figure 5), which suggests that Gilles heard Nilard’s repair. As they are still engaged in mutual gaze, Gilles nevertheless repeats the repair initiation, “which ones” (10), before looking back at the facilitator at turn completion (11, figure 6). In this way he displays that the repair initiation is addressed to the facilitator (cf. Goodwin 1980) and that he does not acknowledge Nilard as entitled to repair the trouble. Nilard insists nevertheless on his entitlement to repair and repeats, in turn, the repair solution verbally as well as bodily by pointing down: celui où on est là ‘this one where we are now’ (11). Gilles rejects Nilard’s contribution again by keeping his gaze on the facilitator and initiating repair for a third time (13). By modifying the format from the question word lesquels ‘which ones’ to a partial repeat of Nilard’s proposed repair solution (13), using it as a candidate understanding celui-ci ‘this one here’ (13), Gilles alters the repair initiation from claiming a trouble of hearing (displayed through the WH-question) to requesting a confirmation of a candidate understanding. As he indicates the location of the building in which they are with his index finger (14, figure 7), elaborating Nilard’s prior embodied repair (cf. 11, figure 6), he moreover displays that his displayed understanding of the reference to the invoked buildings is more comprehensive than previously claimed, at least with regard to the first repair initiation. Nilard insists on repairing a third time by producing a confirmation token: notamment ‘typically’ (17). This format claims a high entitlement to assert the proposed understanding and treats Gilles’ turn as a first and not

104  Repairing for others as a third action. Gilles acknowledges Nilard’s third answer by gazing at him and nodding (17–20) before again looking at the facilitator. This essentially manifests that the issue for Gilles is not primarily to solve a problem of claimed “personal” understanding, but that a representative of the institution provides the solicited information in public. Prévost eventually confirms and elaborates the proposed understanding (18–22). Interestingly, in suspending his confirmation and restarting with the adversative conjunction mais, ‘but,’ followed by the suggestion that the information about buildings of patrimonial interest is already known to Gilles (21), the facilitator treats the repair initiation as not being warranted. Gilles and two other citizens seated at the same table confirm the facilitator’s treatment of the solicited information as sensitive and align with the facilitator’s attribution of knowledge to them through the agreement token ben ouais ‘well yeah’ (20–24, figure 8). By retrospectively manifesting themselves as addressees of the repair solution, the two other participants retrospectively frame Gilles’ repair initiation as being done on behalf of an interactional party. In this way they form, adjust and negotiate associations of participants through repair practices (cf. Lerner 1993:214) and, moreover, establish them as politically relevant. By pursuing a repair solution from the facilitator, the participants display the significance they attribute to institutional roles and the repair sequence is progressively recognizable as being initiated and pursued to ensure that a specific piece of information is distributed among the participants and officially established as shared knowledge for the record. Although Gilles’ claimed problem of understanding is solved through Nilard’s repair solution, this does not solve the practical problem of rendering that information public. As the participants negotiate the entitlement to engage in repair sequences by establishing, acknowledging or refuting emerging participation frameworks, they display their use of interactional repair to vehicle additional actions to reestablish an interactional party’s claimed problem of hearing or understanding. In this way, the use and organization of repair have procedural consequences for the institutional activity. The participants orient to knowledge and understanding as social objects, construed in and through the unfolding interaction.

Displaying and attributing knowledge when repairing Other-repeats are used as a vehicle for various actions depending on the sequential position in which they are produced (Schegloff 1996:177–179). What Jefferson identified as a questioning repeat handles not only problems of understanding but also of acceptability of the prior turn (Jefferson 1972; Robinson 2009). Furthermore, they can display alignment (Egbert 1997), astonishment (Selting 1996) and disbelief or non-alignment (Benjamin and Walker 2013; Heritage 1984a:339–344; Kim 2002; Pomerantz 1984; Schegloff 1997a, 2007b; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977; Wu 2006). It is a practical

Repairing for others  105 problem to render a repeat hearable as initiating repair, and furthermore to specify how to understand what action the repair initiation projects as the relevant next action in terms of problem solving. The prosodic realization is significative in this respect (Benjamin and Walker 2013; Golato and Betz 2008; Persson 2015a; Selting 1996), as well as asymmetries in language proficiency (Svennevig 2003). Moreover, Robinson (2013a) argues that participants solve the diagnostic problem of emerging repair initiations through partial repeats by monitoring issues of knowledge ascription in the participation framework. If the participant initiating the repair is estimated by the other participant(s) to be knowledgeable about the repeated element, the repeat will be treated as “doing disagreeing” with the initial action, rather than displaying a problem of understanding. The repair sequence in Extract 3.6 shows that the participants’ proposed repair solutions to a problematic reference both depend on situated spatial contingences and on their respective claimed and assumed knowledge about the identified trouble source. It is drawn from one of the brainstorming sessions as a citizen requests more information about a specific location on the site, which he refers to linguistically with the indexical là derrière ‘there behind’ and by pointing to a map he is holding (2). A citizen at another table, Jeanne, initiates repair on the locative reference through a partial repeat of the trouble source unit and the question word où ‘where’ (4).

Extract 3.6 CAB_FC_181108_ATE_GPA_01.58.10.

106  Repairing for others

Extract 3.6 (Continued).

The intelligibility of Poujade’s indexical là derrière ‘there behind’ (2) owes to the co-occurring pointing gesture (Goodwin 2003; Mondada 2014), which indicates the reference first on the photo below and then on the photo above, forming an embodied multi-modally composed action beyond the turn at talk (2–3, figure 9). Jeanne, who sits behind Poujade at another table, does not have visual access to the point of reference and initiates repair on it (4). Scrutinizing the room to localize Jeanne (4–9), it takes time for Poujade to respond to the repair initiation. Another citizen, Jaure, who is seated in front of Poujade, proposes a first repair solution by explicating the reference as visible on the photographs whilst pointing to them with his pen (6–7, figure 10). In this way, he displays an understanding of Jeanne’s trouble as due to a trouble of identifying the visual field of reference. Subsequently, another participant, Belingard, self-selects and proposes a candidate solution by providing a relative but not indexical explanation of the reference (8). This relative description allows for an understanding of the reference regardless of visual access to the photographs. However, the precondition for this candidate description to make sense to Jeanne is that she knows where

Repairing for others  107 “the walls of the fortification” are (cf. Sacks and Schegloff 1979). This suggests that Belingard attributes this knowledge to her. Moreover, Belingard proposes this repair solution although he is seated behind the photographs and does not have visual access to the map to which Poujade refers, displaying that he has prior knowledge about what Poujade’s question concerns. Poujade provides a third repair solution in overlap through a verbal repeat of Belingard’s repair and an embodied repeat of his own and Jaure’s previous pointing to the photography (9–10, figure 11). In combining these means of clarification, he orients to various possible grounds for Jeanne’s claimed trouble. Several interactional parties can engage in and contribute to repair sequences in multi-party interactions. Various practices for initiating repair claim various degrees of access to or understanding for the trouble source. Moreover, the proposed repair solutions also display that the participants have different degrees of knowledge about the site and that they ascribe knowledge to each other. By targeting claimed troubles through partial repeats of trouble source units, specific pieces of information are singled out and publicly clarified. The professionals recurrently initiate repair on behalf of the attending citizens as a possibly unknowing interactional party.

Initiating repair for “other(s)” The previous sections in this chapter have demonstrated that the participants orient to shared public knowledge as central for the institutional task they engage in. They make use of repair practices for managing the production and distribution of shared public knowledge and they establish emerging associations of participants as significant for the way in which they solve troubles in interaction, for example by initiating repair and providing repair solutions on behalf of such associations. Moreover, the participants claim and attribute knowledge to others by the way in which they initiate repair on and solve targeted problems. The remainder of this chapter concerns the professionals’ recurrent use of other-initiated self-repair during the public meetings to preempt a problem of understanding on behalf of the attending citizens. In doing that, the professional embodies an institutional role, proclaiming to deploy an ordinary remedy for problems of intersubjectivity to ensure common understanding and shared knowledge within the institutional setting. First, we examine sequences where the targeted trouble source is a newly introduced reference, which the citizen and speaker of the trouble source turn projects to be central for the continuation of his or her intervention. The repair initiations are produced in overlap with the trouble source turn and target the trouble through a partial repeat and an interrogative, whilst displaying that the repair initiation is done on behalf of a possibly unknowing overhearing audience. The repair operation is claimed to be ratified with

108  Repairing for others respect to a collective understanding of the trouble, before the suspended course of action is pursued. We then examine sequences where the trouble source involves a complaint and a politically challenging action. The participants orient to the professionals’ repair initiations of politically delicate actions as not being warranted, that is, that the professional practice is not legitimately used with respect to the distribution of knowledge among the participants. Initiating repair for other(s) on possibly unclear references During the information meetings, the facilitator recurrently initiates repair on a projectable trouble of understanding an emerging reference, whilst displaying to do this on behalf of an association of participants. In Extract 3.7, Valernaud, who represents an association in the city that is actively working for reconstructing the site into a public park, makes a remark about one of the buildings on the site, which he argues is of particular interest. As he refers to the building as “number fifteen” whilst pointing to the map that is projected on the wall, the facilitator targets this reference as problematic and initiates repair on it in overlap.

Extract 3.7a CAB_FC_211008_00.50.00.

Repairing for others  109

Extract 3.7a (Continued).

Valernaud introduces the issue of “building fifteen” as a “small remark” (2–3), and as he continues with the relative pronoun qui est ‘which is,’ he projects that his intervention will concern that particular building without further specification. This choice of reference presumes that the addressees (i.e. the official representatives), as well as the overhearing audience, associate this number to a building represented on the map. The facilitator initiates repair in overlap and solicits first a visual indication and then a linguistic specification of the reference (4, figure 12ab). The request

110  Repairing for others to see the building on the map is formatted with the inclusive pronoun in third person singular on, translatable as ‘we’ and the explicit verb voir ‘to see,’ followed by the question c’est lequel ‘which one is it.’ In this way he claims publicly that he does not have a personal problem of understanding what building Valernaud refers to, but that he initiates repair on behalf of an interactional party and suggests a potential collective trouble, orienting to the participants’ equal right to access relevant information. The sequential position of the repair initiation attests this claim further. The facilitator initiates repair just after Valernaud mentions the building but before it is clear what will be said about it. In this way, the repair initiation prevents a projected trouble for unknowing participants to understand what Valernaud’s turn is doing as it unfolds. It is also important to note that the trouble source turn is not addressed to the facilitator but to the official representatives. In this sense, what the facilitator targets as problematic is not interactionally relevant for him at this point, at least not with regard to the production of a relevant next action. It is however relevant by reason of his undertaking as a facilitator. While the addressees demonstrably understand the reference and can answer the individual citizen, the facilitator orients to the overhearing audience as a partaker in the participation framework. Vezard, one of the specialists, initiates an early response to the repair initiation by raising his hand with a vertical palm and explicitly claims not to be able to answer (4–7, figure 13) (cf. Beach and Metzger 1997; Heritage 1984a). In this way he displays an understanding of belonging to an interactional party that is entitled to and tacitly selected to answer (Bolden 2011). The facilitator orients to Vezard raising his hand as projecting a non-answer early (4–5) and initiates repair again, transformed to a partial repeat, “the fifteen,” and the locative interrogative “where is it” (5, figure 13). This displays that the facilitator heard the initial reference and hence is targeting a problem of understanding the reference. The second repair initiation prompts three participants to engage in repairing, displaying their understanding to be legitimate next speakers. Whereas Vezard repeats not knowing (8), Navarro proposes a solution (10) and Valernaud repeats his previous pointing to the map before engaging in repairing verbally (9, figure 14). Their respective descriptions of the building as “the barrack” (10) and as “the former self service” (12) presume a depiction of the buildings’ former usage to be a sufficient description for repairing the trouble (12, cf. Extract 3.6) (cf. Sacks and Schegloff 1979). Valernaud suspends the repair during the time it takes for the facilitator to walk across the room to the map, adjusting the timing of his response to local contingencies owing to the ecology of the setting. Thereby, he orients to the professional character of the facilitator’s repair initiation and the relevance of publicly indicating the building on the map. However, the facilitator does not accept the proposed specification of the building as a repair solution and pursues an identification of the building on the map. In this way he manifests the relevance of soliciting a specific type of repair solution, i.e. a clarification of the location that is publicly accessible for the collectivity.

Repairing for others  111

Extract 3.7b CAB_FC_211008_00.50.00.

112  Repairing for others Following Valernaud’s proposed repair, the facilitator extends the sequence by repeating it, further pursuing it as a claimed trouble of understanding (14). The map and the facilitator are out of the camera frame, but the ensuing instructive sequence carried out by several participants (16–24, figure 15) allows us to understand that the facilitator engages in a publicly available pointing activity, indicating the building on the map. Whereas the facilitator claimed to speak on behalf of an association of participants when initiating the repair, the participants engaging in solving the repair progressively establish another association of participants, manifesting the activity’s collective character. The partly overlapping instructions are not competitive, but they concurrently guide the facilitator to the accurate location on the map, which the facilitator eventually acknowledges (25). This closes the sequence, and Valernaud resumes his turn with the pronoun il ‘it,’ reflexively confirming the reference as clarified (27). This facilitator’s assessment of the reference to the building as essential for the ensemble of the participants to have access to, attests and further establishes the discussion about the future of the buildings in the park as delicate. This also manifests the institutional orientation to public speech as politically relevant for the unfolding activity. Furthermore, it shows that the professionals use interactional repair to establish and distribute shared knowledge during the public meetings. In Extract 2.8, the facilitator’s public display that he initiates repair on behalf of an interactional party was principally accomplished through verbal resources. In the next extract, the facilitator primarily demonstrates this through embodied resources. Contrary to the previous sequences in this chapter, the trouble source in this sequence is not a spatial reference, but an abstract notion of “public space.” During a brainstorming workshop, a citizen, Luc, argues that the observation that the park is “a public space directly linked with the surrounding city” is of particular relevance for its conceptualization and that this aspect should be addressed further in the discussions. The facilitator Prévost identifies this abstract spatial relationship as possibly problematic for other participants and initiates repair by repeating it.

Extract 3.8 CAB_FC_021208_ATE_GPC_01.32.52.

Repairing for others  113

Extract 3.8 (Continued).

114  Repairing for others

Extract 3.8 (Continued).

Luc prospectively frames his intervention as concerning the espace public en lien direct avec la ville qui est autour, ‘public space linked directly with the city that is around,’ composed with drawing spaces in front of him (2–3, figure 16). The sequence shares a number of features with Extract 3.7. The targeted trouble source is introduced as the main topic for Luc’s turn and moreover explicitly framed as something that is of interest for the assembly of the participants and that “should be assumed” (1) from that point on. The notion has features of technical vocabulary which might not be accessible for everyone and it also addresses an agitated discussion within the project, concerning whether the park should be open or closed at night. Like in Extract 3.7, what the facilitator treats as a projectable trouble in the unfolding turn does not make a response conditionally relevant from him at this point. Prévost also orients to a collective interest as he initiates the embodied preparation for halting the sequence immediately after the production of the trouble source unit (4). He raises his arms with his palms up to a “stopping gesture” (figure 17) and initiates repair in overlap through a partial repeat of the problematic unit with a rising interrogative intonation

Repairing for others  115 (l’espace public en lien ‘the public space linked’). This embodied, publicly recognizable suspension of the unfolding turn displays that the repair initiation is relevant for the assembly of the participants (4, figure 17). This is evidenced by the fact that not only Luc but also Baunin, a citizen seated at another table, engages in repair by repeating the first subsequent element in the prior trouble source turn, following Prévost’s partial repeat (6; 7, cf. 2–3). In this way they both treat the repair initiation as claiming a trouble of hearing and not of understanding and Baunin displays herself as entitled to repair as a participant to a collective activity. The facilitator initiates nodding simultaneously with the onset of Luc’s repair solution (7, figure 18), doing confirmation rather than displaying a change of state token. Moreover, he does not accept the repeats as solutions to the claimed trouble but pursues the repair initiation in overlap with them (9). By explicitly requesting an explanation of meaning (9), he clarifies the trouble as a trouble of understanding, and even as a conceptual problem, as opposed to a trouble of hearing. Prévost also composes the second repair initiation with circular gestures beside his head, publicly displaying a need for further explanation in an embodied way (figure 19) (cf. Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:369; Svennevig 2008). Luc first repeats the remainder of his previous turn (10), which was suspended due to the overlap (8–9), but then provides an explanation of the targeted notion (on passe de la rue au parc sans forcément qu’il y ait rupture ‘one goes from the street to the park without necessarily there being a rupture,’ lines 12–13), complying with the conditional relevance set up by the modified repair initiation. The facilitator again engages in nodding simultaneously with Luc’s repair, doing “confirming” the explanation (12, figure 20). After this second repair, Luc suspends his speech (13–14) and only resumes his prior turn (15–16) after the facilitator provides further confirmation through more nodding (14). The facilitator’s nodding during the extended repair sequence embodies the facilitator’s double orientation to how the interaction unfolds. While he acknowledges that the citizens make a conditionally relevant next action by proposing a repair solution, he also revises their demonstrated understanding of what kind of trouble his prior repair initiation targeted. Moreover, the nodding publicly claims that the repair solution is “already known” to the facilitator and establishes the retrospective clarification as something that can be subject to evaluation. This is similar to what research on classroom interaction has identified as Initiation-Reply-Evaluation sequences, where the answer to a question the teacher asks the students is assumed to be known by the teacher who assesses the answer (Macbeth 2004; Mehan 1979). Although the facilitator explicitly expresses a need for clarification, thereby claiming a problem of understanding, his embodied gestural conduct makes it publicly recognizable that the repair initiation is not due to a matter of personal understanding, but that it orients a possible trouble of understanding for other participants.

116  Repairing for others Extract 3.9 provides yet another instance where the facilitator displays initiating repair for a possibly unknowing overhearing audience, in this case by explicit means, and also evaluates the repair solution to close the side sequence (cf. Extract 3.8). The extract is drawn from one of the information meetings as a citizen, Marcel, makes a comment about a part of a road adjacent to the future park and which he refers to as la nouvelle voie rapide ‘the new fast track.’ The facilitator orients to this choice of reference term as possibly problematic for other participants. As in Extract 3.6, the facilitator and the speaker of the trouble source solve the problem by making the reference publicly visible on a map. Unlike Extracts 3.7 and 3.8, no other participant self-selects to engage in repairing. This is explainable by the fact that the facilitator explicitly solicits Marcel to clarify the trouble, treating him as an authority. As it was observed in Extracts 3.7 and 3.8, the facilitator targets what the citizen and current speaker introduces as the focal referent for the following

Extract 3.9 CAB_141008_00.35.37.

Repairing for others  117

Extract 3.9 (Continued).

118  Repairing for others intervention as a possible problem of understanding. Marcel names “the new fast track” three times (lines 1–5) and frames it as a subjective means of reference: c’que j’appelle ‘what i call’ (lines 1–2). With this formulation, he orients to the possibility that the term might not be publicly established as shared knowledge but at the same time claims it to be a legitimate description – the alternative would be to use an inclusive pronoun or neutral reference. Marcel also refers to the road in an embodied way by pointing to the map and tracing the outline of the road in the air (1–3, figure 21). Like in the Extracts 3.7 and 3.8, the intervention is framed as a remark and does not make any response conditionally relevant from the facilitator at the point when he initiates repair. Prévost initiates repair in overlap through a partial repeat and an explicit request for clarification with the imperative redites nous ‘tell us again,’ in first person plural (6). In this way, he both displays that he is talking on behalf of an association of participants and as a facilitator. By invoking Marcel’s prior choice of description as personal and not shared knowledge through the indexical vous appelez ‘you call’ (7), the facilitator establishes Marcel as the interactional party who is selected and assumed to expand on the topic. This is further established by the initiated account for the repair initiation parce que ‘because’ (7), which however is abandoned due to Marcel taking the turn in overlap. The facilitator also points to the map, framing the trouble as a spatial reference, and puts his index finger in front of his mouth as he orients to the audience (6–7, figure 22, cf. Extracts 3.7, 3.8). By mobilizing these embodied, gestural resources, he publicly halts the progressivity of the sequence and claims a general and common interest in clarifying the targeted issue. Marcel begins to repair in overlap with the facilitator and repeatedly points to the map, tracing the track in the air (8–9, 11, figure 23, cf. Extracts 3.6, 3.7). His initial description is modified from using the definite article le ‘the’ to the indefinite article une ‘a’ (9) before continuing with a description referring to the name of the road and the characteristic that it is a twoway track (9–10), before repeating his initial framing of the reference as a personal naming (12). In this way he orients to the concern of providing a description for which less prior knowledge about the site is presumed. Interestingly, the facilitator accomplishes Marcel’s repair in overlapping collaboration with him. He does this both verbally with là et là ‘there and there’ (11) and in an embodied way by drawing the outline of the fast track whilst pointing at the map (figure 24). The co-occurring indexical reference displays that he has independent knowledge about the referent that he previously claimed was problematic (cf. Extract 3.7), and further claims that the repair was initiated on behalf of a possibly unknowing overhearing audience. Once the referent is made clear, the facilitator produces an explicit agreement token, on est d’accord ‘we agree,’ and raises his arms in a stopping gesture, treating the repair solution as something that was previously negotiable but that is now settled (13, figure 25). He also evaluates the repair by assessing the reference as “clear” (14). In this way he retrospectively

Repairing for others  119 explicates the repair initiation as soliciting public clarification and establishes that interventions are justifiably subject to repair if they are not transparent to the co-participants. This demonstrates the facilitator’s orientation to the participants’ right to have access to relevant information. It also indicates the speakers’ obligation to produce transparent public speech. The sequences analyzed in this section show that the professional facilitator displays the projectability of an emerging problem through the repair initiations’ sequential positioning as well as through linguistic and embodied resources. The facilitator does not initiate repair in transition relevant places – when a next action is conditionally relevant – but in overlap with the current speaker when an element is recognizable as potentially constituting a possible trouble source for other(s). As he manifests that the unfolding interaction is monitored not only with reference to his own knowledge or understanding but also with reference to an attribution of knowledge to the assembly of the participants as a collectivity, this reflexively establishes his speech as professional speech. In addition to this sequential evidence, the facilitator displays that he initiates repair on behalf of other(s) through lexical choices including using inclusive first person plural pronouns (Extracts 3.7, 3.9), evaluative response tokens (Extracts 3.8, 3.9) and embodied practices, showing that he clarifies the trouble in concert with the trouble source speaker (Extracts 3.8, 3.9). In this way, he deploys the context-independent interactional resource of initiating repair through a partial repeat of the trouble source turn together with question words as a professional resource for specific means, which are sensitive to and consequential for the institutional setting in which they are produced. Using the practice in politically delicate environments Social interaction unfolds over time, which entails that our understanding of “now” depends on how it is understood to relate to what happened before and what it projects to happen next. Although initiating repair is suggested to always be a relevant next action, owing to its feature of being a fundamental resource for remedying emerging troubles in interaction (Schegloff 2007b), it is never a projected or solicited next action. This section examines two instances where the participants orient to the facilitator’s repair initiations as not being warranted. The examination of Extracts 3.7–3.9 in the previous section showed that the participants in this institutional context orient to their respective rights to have access to relevant information as significant for how they engage in the activity. Evidence for this is that the facilitator initiates repair on behalf of possibly unknowing participants in overlap with unfolding speech, before transition relevant places and without waiting to see what will happen next, i.e. whether a further explication will ensue or a retrospectively manifested misunderstanding surfaces in third or fourth position (cf. Schegloff 1992).

120  Repairing for others This section examines instances where the facilitator claims to initiate repair on behalf of unknowing “others(s)” retrospectively. When other participants treat the facilitator’s repair initiation not to be warranted, the facilitator expands the repair sequence and retrospectively re-specifies the grounds for its initiation. This is done (i) by framing the repair initiation as what Jefferson (1972) identified as “wisecracks” and what Schegloff (1987) treated as “non-seriousness” and (ii) by accounting for the repair initiation by invoking assumed discrepancies in the distribution of knowledge among the attending participants (Mondada 2011a). The next sequence occurs after a citizen and member of a district council, Colin, has presented a survey conducted by the district council. The presentation included a summary of the answers to two questionnaires that had been distributed to habitants in the area and concerned their hopes and expectations about the future park. One of the questionnaires reportedly made use of open question formats whereas the other one comprised alternative questions. In response to a challenging comment from a citizen about the differences between the answers to the two questionnaires, Colin acknowledges that the results from the questionnaire with “open questions” have been left out from the summary. As he argues that this is due to their “monstrous” character, the facilitator initiates repair, targeting the expression as problematic. When the attending citizens treat the repair initiation as non-justified, Prévost retrospectively reframes it as a joke by playing with the literal meaning of the word.

Extract 3.10 CAB_261108_ATE2_GPA&B_00.39.22.

Extract 3.10 (Continued).

122  Repairing for others Colin’s acknowledgment that a part of the citizens’ solicited opinions has been dismissed and his alleged explanation for this, that they are monstrueux ‘monstrous’ (2), prompts negative reactions in the audience (4). This, in turn, prompts Colin to engage in an elaboration of his account (6), and the facilitator to initiate repair, which shows that they both hear the other participants’ reception of Colin’s account as problematic. Similar to the Extracts 3.7–3.9, the facilitator targets the trouble source through a partial repeat of the trouble source unit “monstrous,” followed by the elaborated “how”-interrogative dans quel sens ‘in what sense’ (7–8). Prévost also walks to Colin whilst doing circular hand gestures requesting elaboration (7–9, figures 26, 27, cf. Extract 3.9) and positions himself on Colin’s left side facing the public. In this way, he displays that the repair sequence is recipient-designed for the ensemble of the participants and does not only concern him personally. Moreover, before and during the repair sequence, he keeps his hands in front of his chest and nods (figure 27), doing “confirming” rather than “comprehending,” claiming that the solicited information is relevant for everyone (cf. Extract 3.8). More importantly, it recognizably casts the repair initiation as a possibility for Colin to revise his previous description (Schegloff 2007b). This is endorsed by the absence of other participants displaying any attempt to engage in the repair, although the facilitator is turned to and gazes at the ensemble of the participants. It is also indicated by the repair initiation’s sequential placement. Contrary to Extracts 3.7–3.9, Prévost does not initiate the repair in overlap with the trouble source turn, but in overlap with Colin’s elaborated description of the questionnaire (6–7). This is explainable by the fact that the targeted description is not projected as a main referent for an initiated multi-unit turn (cf. Extracts 3.7–3.9), but it is an adjective embedded in the citizens’ answer. Consequently, the repair initiation is hearable as subsequent to and prompted by the participants’ reaction to Colin’s response. In soliciting a clarification of the adjective, the facilitator retrospectively provides the possibility to alter the politically charged description. In this context, the generic interactional practice to seek remedy for claimed troubles of understanding is thus deployed to secure the institution’s claimed participatory political agenda within the project. This is further manifested in the facilitator’s response to Colin’s repair solution, which treats Prévost’s repair initiation as a “real” problem of understanding through the explanation, ben il y a de tout ‘well there’s everything’ (9). The turn-initial French particle “ben” shares similarities with the English “well” (cf. Schegloff and Lerner 2009) but seems to be yet more subtle, in the sense that it retrospectively treats what was previously claimed to be problematic as evident (Bruxelles and Traverso 2001) (cf. Extracts 2.1, 2.5). Prévost, in turn, repeats the repair with falling intonation, preceded by “ah” and concurrent explaining hand gestures (10, figures 28, 29). Colin treats this as a request for confirmation by making an additional repeat and producing

Repairing for others  123 confirmation tokens (11), pursuing the sequence as managing an actual problem of understanding on behalf of the facilitator. Interestingly, this prompts the facilitator to explicitly dismiss Colin’s displayed understanding by a turn-initial non mais ‘no but’ and a following account for the repair initiation (12–13, figures 30, 31). In referring to the literal meaning of the adjective “monstrous” (hideous; gruesome) and repeating his prior hand gestures, Prévost retrospectively casts the repair initiation as a joke (Jefferson 1972; Schegloff 1987), forming a sarcastic gestalt indicating that Colin’s repair solution did not fit with his repair initiation as a created slot for revising the problematic description. In short, the facilitator does not accept a publicly established understanding of the repair initiation as prompted by a “real” problem of understanding of his. The absent response on behalf of Colin prompts the facilitator to eventually reorient to the public completely (14) and close the sequence (15, 17). In Extract 3.11, the facilitator explicitly refers to discrepancies in the distribution of knowledge among the participants as a retrospective account for the repair initiation when it is treated as not being warranted. The sequence is drawn from the same meeting as Extract 3.10 as a citizen, Edgar, complains to the presenter Colin that he did not mention some of the buildings on the site, which he refers to as the buildings “below.” The facilitator initiates repair on the indexical reference relatively late and in a sequentially disjunctive position.

Extract 3.11 CAB_FC_261108_ATE_GPA&B_00.37.17.

Extract 3.11 (Continued).

Repairing for others  125

Extract 3.11 (Continued).

Edgar’s complaint that information about the buildings “below” was missing in the presentation is produced with a falling intonation and indexical gestures pointing to the left (3–4, figure 32). By soliciting an explanation in this way, Edgar exhibits that the remark is recipient-designed for Colin and that he presumes that the reference is intelligible for him. After a silence, during which Colin starts shaking his head, projecting a negative answer (5) he aligns verbally with the criticism (6, figure 33) but does not project any further explanation. The facilitator, who is still oriented to Edgar, initiates repair on his remark through an elaborated “when”-interrogative, hearable as projecting “what do you mean” and a repeat of what he retrospectively targets as the problematic spatial reference quand vous dites en bas\ ‘when you say below\’ (8). As in Extract 3.10, the facilitator is not the addressee of the remark. By initiating repair on an action recipient designed for someone else, the facilitator orients to the intelligibility of public talk. At the same time, the repair initiation implicitly provides grounds for Colin’s non-answer to the criticism and thereby come to Colin’s aid in the politically delicate situation. By inserting an inquiry of reference the facilitator suspends the conditional relevance of answering to the accusation (Garcia 1991). However, this is sequentially misplaced, since Colin already has answered, although manifestly not according to the expectations (6) (cf. Robinson 2009). After a pause, Edgar engages in repairing but abandons it, framing the repair solution as self-evident through the turn-initial ah ben euh ‘oh well eh’ (10, cf. Extract 10), thereby treating the repair initiation as not being warranted. Another citizen-participant, Jeanne, self-selects and affiliates with the facilitator in overlap, by providing an account for the repair initiation: il faut préciser c’est tout ‘one has to be precise that’s all’ (11) (Egbert 1997). By insisting that Edgar’s reference is not precise, she affiliates with Prévost, retrospectively sanctions the claimed need for clarification as warranted and prospectively justifies a repair. Colin, in turn, self-selects in overlap with

126  Repairing for others Jeanne and provides a specification of the trouble source by proposing a description that the ensemble of the present participants all have direct access to: the building in which they are “now,” composed with a pointing “here” gesture with both hands (12–13, figure 34). Colin thus demonstrates having understood the reference and provides a repair solution to the facilitator’s claimed trouble of understanding, while still not answering to the criticism. Edgar also engages in repairing again and repeats his previous pointing gesture (14, figure 34). The repair solution is thereby provided both by the speaker of the trouble source and by the recipient of the trouble source turn. In response, the facilitator produces verbal and gestural agreement tokens (15), treating the claimed trouble as solved, before he closes the sequence (16). Edgar extends nevertheless the sequence by providing a further explication, both verbally and by pointing (17, figure 35). In this way, he treats the repair initiation as due to a “personal” and actual problem of understanding on behalf of the facilitator. This prompts the facilitator to account for the repair initiation, which he justifies by referring to the discrepancy in the distribution of knowledge among “everyone” (19). This reference is specified with an inclusive hand gesture, designating the citizens in the audience (18–21, figure 36). After the turn-initial response token addressing Edgar’s second repair solution (d’accord ‘okay’), the subsequent account is formatted similarly to the account in Extract 3.10. It is initiated with non non mais ‘no no but’ before a verbal justification and gesticulation. The facilitator thus retrospectively explicates an ascribed lack of knowledge of “other(s)” as a valid account for initiating repair. This section has shown that the participants orient to the relevance of initiating repair as procedurally consequential for how the interaction unfolds. When laypersons treat what the professionals claim to be a trouble as self-evident understanding, they display that they expect the professionals to hold certain information. That it is heard as such is evidenced by the observation that the professional retrospectively provides accounts for initiating repair when it is not treated as warranted. The repair initiations in these cases moreover target politically delicate situations, providing the challenged party with a slot to minimize emerging criticism. This further explains the facilitator’s interactional work to account for the repair initiation when this opportunity is not taken and the claimed trouble is treated literally. That this is done by claiming that the targeted trouble does not issue from a lack of “personal” knowledge, but that it is due to an assumed discrepancy of knowledge among the participants exhibits the facilitator’s concern to talk and to be heard as talking as a facilitator.

Discussion This chapter has shown that the professionals mobilize other-initiated repair on behalf of other(s) as a means to establish and distribute shared

Repairing for others  127 knowledge. In the examined sequences, the professional displays the anticipation of a projected trouble through sequential, linguistic and embodied resources. This contributes to our knowledge about the additional actions interactants use repair practices to do in multi-party interaction and how it is organized to recognizably do just that. One of the principal institutional activities during these public meetings is formulated explicitly as exchanging information and establishing shared knowledge (Extracts 3.1–3.3). Managing the distribution of information is a practical problem for the participants. As they engage in public talk, the participants display what they assume to be common knowledge through their choices of reference. Whereas the participating citizens mobilize repair to ensure that manifestly delicate pieces of information are repeated or clarified in public and on behalf of the institution (Extracts 3.4, 3.5), the facilitator recurrently uses this as a professional practice (Extracts 3.7–3.11). By monitoring emerging references in unfolding public talk as potentially problematic and initiating repair on behalf of other(s), the facilitator demonstrates his attribution of knowledge to a collectivity. The facilitator establishes and embodies his institutional role by publicly proclaiming to mobilize this interactional resource to ensure a common shared understanding for relevant information. The professional initiates repair prospectively when an incipient referent is projectable as central to the citizen’s unfolding intervention and potentially troublesome for third parties (Extracts 3.8, 3.9). In these cases, the repair initiation is produced in overlap with the trouble source turn and pursued until a clarification is publicly produced. In cases where the trouble source constitutes a politically delicate issue, the facilitator initiates repair when the trouble is recognizable as delicate by virtue of how it is treated by the participants (Extracts 3.10, 3.11). Interestingly, these are also the cases where the participants treat the repair initiation as not being warranted. In the cases of prospective repairs, the facilitator does not initiate repair at transition relevant places. Instead they are produced in overlap, when a possible trouble source for other(s) emerges. The placement of the repair initiations within the citizens’ unfolding multi-unit turns displays that the facilitator treats the targeted referent as being of particular relevance for comprehending the projectable ensuing turn. As the facilitator manifests the unfolding interaction as monitored not only with regard to his own knowledge or understanding but also with reference to the knowledge he attributes to a collectivity, he establishes his speech as professional speech. When the facilitator initiates repair on elements that emerge as politically delicate, they are produced later – when they are publicly recognizable as critical – and only retrospectively established as made on behalf of third parties. In this way, the professional’s orientation to political agendas is demonstrable in the sequential positioning of the repair initiation. The trouble sources are targeted through a partial repeat of the troublesome turn and additional interrogatives, soliciting a public clarification of

128  Repairing for others what is claimed to be problematic. Initiating repair with this format is rare in this corpus, compared to “open class” repair initiations and alternative descriptions or replacements (see Chapters 4 and 5). When the facilitator initiates repair, he invokes the current participation framework through inclusive pronouns like on; nous ‘we; us’ (Extracts 3.7–3.9) and embodied resources like pointing and looking to the audience (Extracts 3.8, 3.10, 3.11). In this way, he displays that the repair is initiated for a third party and on behalf of an association of participants. This is further manifested through the subsequent evaluative response tokens of proposed repair solutions (Extracts 3.6, 3.8, 3.9) and gestural embodied gestalts (Extracts 3.8–3.11), displaying that he clarifies the trouble in concert with the trouble source speaker (Extracts 3.8, 3.9). The analysis confirms and extends previous findings concerning the organization of repair in multi-party interaction. Several persons may engage in proposing solutions to initiated repair(s) on targeted troubles, displaying that they consider themselves entitled to do so as members of an interactional party or association of participants (Extracts 3.4–3.8, 3.11). Whereas this can be done in an unproblematic way, the repair solution can also be rejected as a legitimate candidate as the participants pursue an official statement on behalf of the institution (Extract 3.5). The participants thus negotiate their respective entitlement to talk on behalf of locally established associations of participants as interactional parties – and eventually as institutional representatives – by means of the situated organization of the repair sequence. How the professional subsequently treats the repair solution and retrospectively accounts for initiating repair is contingent on who provides the repair solution. When the participants treat the repair initiation as redundant, the facilitator moreover retrospectively frames it as non-serious (Extract 3.10) or invokes a presumed discrepancy of shared knowledge among the participants as a justification for initiating repair (Extract 3.11). In this way, the locally manifested relevance for claiming a trouble of hearing or understanding is procedurally consequential for how the repair sequence evolves. When the citizens do not treat the repair initiation as a professionally justified action, treating it as unwarranted and prompted by a “personal” trouble of understanding, the facilitator opposes this. Claiming troubles of understanding as a professional is thus manifestly delicate in this setting. The analysis also reveals the participants’ procedural negotiation of rights and obligations to access, hold and claim knowledge. Shared knowledge is established and distributed by means of interactional repair, which is evidence for knowledge and cognition as social objects, procedurally constructed in situ during the unfolding interaction (Goodwin 2007; Mondada 2008, 2011a). By soliciting clarifications of claimed troubles of understanding from participants that engage in public talk, the professional party demonstrates an institutional orientation to the participants’ right to access relevant information. They moreover orient to the speakers’ obligation to produce speech

Repairing for others  129 that is comprehensible for a collectivity. This is revealed in the close monitoring of and adjustments to local contingencies and the ecology of the setting, such as when Valernaud suspends the repair solution during the time it takes for the facilitator to walk across the room to the publicly displayed map, thereby aligning with the facilitator’s undertaking as being of public interest (Extract 3.8). By claiming that the repair is initiated on behalf of an association of participants and in service of a collective intersubjectivity, the facilitator deploys this generic interactional practice as a means to establish an institutional participatory agenda within the project and manage politically delicate environments. By alleging shared knowledge to be crucial for the activity, the professionals establish their speech as professional speech and establish the production and distribution of shared knowledge as essential for the political project they engage in. Reflexively, this institutional and political aspect is procedurally consequential for how the interactional practice of repair is used and organized.

4

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing for others

Introduction The previous chapter showed that the participants orient to public and shared knowledge as an integral part of the activity as an institutional, political activity. It also showed that the participants ensure a publicly sanctioned degree of intersubjectivity “for the record” by means of interactional repair. As the participants claim to target and solve problems of understanding for a possibly unknowing third party, the overhearing audience is reflexively established as an interactional party that is procedurally consequential for the interaction. One intrinsic feature of the public meetings is the large number of attending participants, which sometimes amounts to several hundred. This is consequential for organizational aspects of the activity such as hiring professional facilitators to allocate turns and using microphones when engaging in public speech. These particulars incorporate an orientation to audibility as a possible practical problem for the participants. As issues of hearing nevertheless emerge, the participants use interactional repair practices to solve them. This chapter focuses on a recurrent and particular organization of open-class repair sequences that demonstrably orient to an overhearing audience’s possible trouble with hearing. Open-class repair is a fundamental practice for claiming emerging troubles of hearing in interaction. Whereas it has been relatively well researched in “ordinary conversation” (Drew 1997; Enfield et al. 2013; Robinson 2009; Schegloff 1997b, 2004; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), its organization and sequential trajectories in institutional multi-party interaction remain understudied. When examining the open-class repair sequences during the public meetings, it appears that they are all initiated by a professional, with one exception. They are all treated as claiming troubles of hearing (cf. Drew 1997) and all of them, but two, are extended by a repeat, which addresses the overhearing audience and makes public the repair solution. The professionals’ public repeats of repair solutions display an institutional orientation to ensuring access to information and shared knowledge among the participants, as this is

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  131 at risk due to possible troubles of audibility. That initiating open-class repair can be heard as a professional practice to manage emerging issues of establishing shared knowledge and turn-taking in institutional large group interactions has not yet been treated in the literature. In the next section I review research on open-class, other-initiated self-repair and give an example of how the practice is purportedly used and organized in “ordinary conversation,” which serves as contrast to the sequences identified in the public meetings. I then discuss repeating as a generic interactional resource and a central feature of the extended repair sequences for their intelligibility as doing repair for “other(s).” The main analytical section examines open-class initiated repair sequences emerging during the information meetings and how they are tailored to claim the relevance of a collective access to speech in public as a way to foster participation in the institutional activity while negotiating on what terms.

“Open-class” repair The way in which an emerging trouble in interaction is targeted reveals the claimed nature of the trouble (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). “Openclass” repair initiators, taking forms such as huh, what and sorry (Drew 1997; Enfield et al. 2013; Huhtamäki 2015; Robinson 2006, 2014; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:368; Sidnell 2006), are argued to be the “weakest” kind of repair initiators since they do not locate the problematic element in the preceding interaction, but only claim that there is a problem. The observation that they typically engender a full repeat of the prior action reveals that they, as opposed to understanding checks for example, are heard as claiming a problem of hearing (Schegloff 2004; Svennevig 2008). They can nevertheless issue from other troubles (Benjamin 2013; Drew 1997; Robinson 2006) and be used to display and manage non-alignment (Drew 1997; Kitzinger 2013; Schegloff 1997b). The observation that open-class repair initiations take various forms (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977) and do various actions (Schegloff 1997a) prompts an interest in why one alternative is selected over another. Egbert (1996) argues that the German “bitte,” comparable to the French and English “pardon,” is chosen over other repair initiations such as “hm,” “häh” and “was” when the participants’ spatial configuration does not allow for mutual gaze or when mutual gaze is momentarily broken. In this way, this specific format is used to reconfigure the participation framework so that joint focus of attention can be achieved among the participants. Robinson (2006) and Svennevig (2008) argue that the selection of one repair initiation format over another is related to more general issues of social preference for “easy solutions” (Pomerantz 1984) and the situated negotiation of responsibility (Pomerantz 1978) for possible “blameworthiness.” Svennevig shows that interactants initially choose to initiate repair on what they orient to as the

132  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing easiest kind of trouble to solve problems of hearing, before they move on to address other issues. He argues that when open-class repair initiators are heard as claiming a trouble of hearing, they can be used to work as “placeholders” to mobilize time to figure out whether other kinds of troubles are at stake. Robinson (2006) looks more specifically at apology-formatted repair initiations and argues that this format allows management of issues of trouble responsibility. The repair initiator takes responsibility for the need to halt the progression of the ongoing sequence by initiating repair through an apology (Jefferson 1972, 1987). This draws on the claimed structural preference for self-correction (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), which implies that the need for initiating repair will possibly manifest some neglected error on behalf of the speaker of the trouble source (Robinson 2006:140). The way in which the repair solution in response to an open-class repair initiation is produced is, in turn, crucial for understanding what the non-diagnostic repair initiation is heard to target. Schegloff (2004) shows that by omitting or adding some elements to the repeat of the trouble source turn, so-called “dispensables,” the repair orients to the larger sequential environment, i.e. what the trouble source turn was doing. In line with this, Curl (2005) shows that the prosodic features of the repairing repeat of the trouble source depend on how it fits sequentially to its interactional context. When the trouble source is sequentially appropriate the repeat is prosodically upgraded, whereas non-fitted actions show reduced phonetic patterns in the repeat. Moreover, claiming not to hear can be mobilized in order to specifically solicit the repeat as a means of postponing a non-preferred responsive action to the trouble source turn (Schegloff 2007a). The following sequence is drawn from the inauguration of the park as Donzé, one of the officials from Grand Lyon, welcomes visitors at the entrance to offer information and answer to questions about the park. As she explains the usages of various buildings to Michel, a visitor, Donzé initiates repair on his proposed understanding of Donzé’s explanation of the type of activity that is planned for the old castle.

Extract 4.1 CAB_150913_DON_00.09.45.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  133

Extract 4.1 (Continued).

134  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.1 (Continued).

Donzé explains the plans to turn the castle into a hotel with a restaurant (1–4), looking alternatively at the map and at Michel, pointing at the buildings on the map. Michel makes a positive assessment and response token after the first part of her turn (4, figure 1), but the absence of a subsequent response token (5) prompts Donzé to request a confirmation (6, figure 2). In overlap with this, Michel produces a proposed understanding of the kind of business that is planned, “bed and breakfast” versus “hotel” (7, figure 3), formatted as a declarative with the negative tag-question “no,” whilst pointing at the castle on the map (figure 4). Donzé looks to Michel and initiates repair through the apology-formatted open-class pardon ‘pardon’ (8). Once they establish mutual gaze, Michel proposes a repair solution by a full repeat of his prior turn (9, figure 5), both verbally and by redoing the pointing gesture (10, figure 6, cf. figure 4), treating Donzé’s repair initiation as claiming a trouble of hearing. The trouble source turn is partly produced in overlap with Donzé, pursuing an uptake, which possibly causes a problem of hearing. Moreover, it is ambiguous. It can be heard as a candidate understanding of how a restaurant

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  135 and a hotel work together, or, as an alternative proposal for how to describe the commercial project. The former reading would imply an issue of understanding on behalf of Michel and explain his repair. The latter would however be sequentially and topically disruptive, as Donzé projects a response token as the relevant next action (6). Interestingly, Donzé treats Michel’s repaired turn as an alternative proposal and refutes it, but modulates it with the downgrading “rather” and a turn-final conjunction “but,” alluding to the possibility that the current plans could be changed (11). Michel’s repeated agreement and nodding (12) does confirming rather than displaying a change of state token. In this way, the repair initiation provides Michel a slot to redo a delicate action for another first time, and/or delays a dis-preferred second action, to refute Michel’s proposal. Either way, they both treat it as a trouble of hearing and retrospectively establish the trouble source turn as an alternative proposal, which Donzé counters as soon as it is repaired through repeat. In the instances analyzed in the remainder of this chapter, drawn from the information meetings, the professionals demonstrably use this generic practice to manage issues of turn-taking, establish emerging speech as public speech and negotiate the terms of locally produced public, shared knowledge. A central feature for these sequences to be recognizable as doing just that is to extend the sequence with a second repeat.

Repeating to render public Repeating is an interactional practice that recognizably designates an action’s formal relationship with a prior action as “the same” or as “doing it again.” This definition allows for retrospective transformations regarding deixis, tense shift, speaker change and prosodic modification but excludes paraphrases and cases with lexical changes (Schegloff 1997a:525). Other-repeating practices accomplish various social actions, and they occur in three sequential positions with reference to a first saying, that is, in first, second and third position (Schegloff 1996:177–179). When occupying the first position in a sequence the repeat can initiate repair (Benjamin and Walker 2013; Jefferson 1972; Robinson and Kevoe-Feldman 2010; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977; Wu 2006). When the repeat is produced in second position, it typically responds to a previous action and does “doing confirmation” (Heritage and Raymond 2012; Schegloff 1996; Sorjonen 1996; Svennevig 2003, 2004). When produced in third position, repeats manifest a receipt or acceptation of a prior utterance in the sequence (Goldberg 1975; Kim 2002; Schegloff 1997a) such as in corrective environments (Betz et al. 2013; Robinson 2009; Svennevig 2004). Persson, who has looked at the specific format [ah + repetition] in corrective sequences in French, shows that this format displays a receipt of the interlocutor’s turn while acknowledging his or her own previous turn as

136  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing inadequate (2015a:119). Whereas repeats with falling intonation are heard as displaying a registration of information or accepting a correction and project sequence closure, repeats with rising intonation may have a pivotal function, projecting a minimal response without initiating repair (Betz et al. 2013; Schegloff 1997a; Svennevig 2004). Examining “echoing” other-repeats in native/non-native interactions in public service interactions, Svennevig shows that when they emerge in second position, following a repair initiation or a first pair part projecting more than a minimal response, the echoing repeat displays acceptance or a strong commitment to answer the initial  question. Arguing that issues of authorship are negotiated in both cases, Svennevig notes that this is different from repairs made in third position, expanding the prior sequence and “[…] displaying hearing or understanding of the previous utterance rather than taking a position on it” (2003:288; see also Sorjonen 1996; Svennevig 2004). The repeats examined in this chapter extend open-class initiated repair sequences and they function as sequence closing thirds (see Schegloff 1997a, 2007b). During the information meetings, the professionals repeat prior repair solutions not only to retrospectively manifest a registration of prior talk but also to recognizably forward what they orient to as possibly troublesome for the overhearing audience (Heritage 2007; Svennevig 2010). In Extract 4.2, the facilitator orients to a possible trouble of hearing among the participants and takes back the floor by repeating emerging overlapping talk in public. A citizen, Nelille, has made a critical remark about a just presented biological study of the site’s flora and fauna, claiming that some elements were missing in the report. The invited specialist Vezard answers and eventually claims that he does not have the requested and missing information. This prompts Nelille to self-select in overlap and provide a retrospective formulation of his prior intervention as doing “recommending.” The facilitator closes the sequence by repeating Nelille’s turn in the microphone.

Extract 4.2 CAB_211008_00.15.22.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  137

Extract 4.2 (Continued).

Nelille maintains a skeptical listening posture during Vezard’s response (1, figures 7a, b) and as he claims not being able to answer (1), Nelille selfselects in overlap and insists on the issue’s importance by verbal and gestural means (3, figures 8, 9a). Despite the challenging character Vezard does not treat the follow-up as response implicative, as he puts down the microphone  (4). The facilitator’s subsequent repeat (4) of Nelille’s self-selection manages several interrelated issues. By doing the repeat in the microphone, addressing the audience, he both orients toward a possible problem of audibility for the listening participants and the speakers’ right to be “on record” as they speak in public. By omitting the turn-initial adversary mais ‘but’ (3), he nevertheless modifies Nelille’s action to a less critical one. By adding monsieur dit ‘mister says,’ the facilitator also explicitly does “re-saying,” showing that he is talking as a professional and leaving the authorship of the repeated turn to the citizen. Moreover, the repeat allows the facilitator

138  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing to legitimately take back the floor and initiate a next sequence by selecting a next speaker (6). This is also noticeable in the facilitator’s initial stopping gesture during Nelille’s turn (3, figure 8), which he transforms to a pointing during the re-saying (4, figure 9). Repeating is a recurrent practice in institutional settings (Drew 1992) and intrinsic to the profession of facilitating and mediating (Mondada 2015). Notwithstanding its context-independent features, it is used in specific ways for specific means in this context, which is procedurally consequential for the activity. In the following we will examine how repeating emerging repair solutions is used as a professional practice.

Publicly repeating the repair solution to a claimed trouble of hearing The remainder of this chapter examines cases where a professional extends open-class initiated repair sequences by repeating the repair solution in public. The sequences are drawn from the information meetings during the first phase of the participatory democracy project. The significant differences between the sequences include what action the trouble source is doing and whether the repair is publicly recognizable as initiated within or as an interactional party. The following two sections discuss sequences where the trouble source provides new or additional information to the ongoing discussion. In cases where a professional provides information to the ensemble of the participants and another professional produces a co-telling outside the microphone by adding or elaborating on the propositional content, the first speaker initiates repair and repeats the repair solution in the microphone. In cases where a participant self-selects and proposes additional information about a prior or current topic, the facilitator initiates repair and publicly repeats the repair solution in the microphone. In cases where the emerging trouble source constitutes a criticism forwarded by a citizen, a professional initiates repair and subsequently reproduces the repair solution in the microphone but modifies it, orienting to the delicacy of the initial action. Finally, in the case where the professionals do not mobilize the focal practice in a relevant sequential environment, the participants orient to this as noticeably absent. Initiating repair on a “co-telling” A principal activity during the information meetings consists of the professionals providing the attending citizens with information about the project. As a current speaker omits or claims to forget some piece of information, another person within the professional party can self-select and provide complementary information. When a trouble of hearing with that contribution emerges, this engenders a repair sequence, following which the initial speaker publicly repeats the repaired trouble source turn in the microphone.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  139 In this way, the professional establishes the prior turn’s relevance for the overhearing audience as public speech. In Extract 4.3, Calvin, a member of the public department in urban planning, presents the current state of the existing buildings on the project site. The buildings have been divided into four different categories, depending on their estimated patrimonial, historical and/or practical value. Buildings belonging to categories (1) and (2) will certainly be preserved and restored, whereas the buildings belonging to category (3) are subject to discussion and those in category (4) will be demolished. The professionals are seated facing the audience with a projected presentation behind them (figure 8) and Calvin has just explained a slide representing the distribution of buildings among the four categories (figure 9). During the transition to the next presentation slide, Navarro elaborates his description by providing the total amount of square meters the buildings in the category (4) constitute. Calvin initiates repair on her contribution and then repeats the repair solution in the microphone.

Extract 4.3 CAB_FC_211008_00.37.33.

140  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.3 (Continued).

Calvin has just shown the distribution of the four categories within the total area of 40,000 square meters of construction on the site (figure 9). Within them, categories (1) and (2) together represent a bit more than 10,000 square meters, category (3) a bit more than 9,000 square meters and category (4) about 18,000 square meters. Calvin ends his turn by noting that the hangars that are already under destruction belong to the fourth category (1–5, figure 10). During the transition to the next topic, which is publicly available through the change of presentation slide (6, figures 10–11), Navarro self-selects and adds information about the size of the hangars outside the microphone (7). Calvin turns to Navarro during her unfolding turn, after his preparatory lip or tongue click projecting turn beginning (7–8) and then initiates repair with an open-class “pardon”-format (10, figure 13). Navarro repairs her prior turn through a repeat with a louder voice, thus treating it as a problem of hearing (11). As the repair solution projects turn ending, Calvin turns back and repeats the repair solution in the microphone, orienting to the audience as the principal addressee of the information. By nodding and inserting the assertive effectivement ‘effectively’ (12) and expanding the information by further explicating the importance of the reported numbers – 13,000 out of 18,000 – (13–14), he publicly aligns with and recognizes the repair as relevant. The sequence establishes the two officials as an interactional, professional party, addressing the attending citizens. It also establishes their speech as public speech, ensuring that talk that could be perceived as “private” rather than “public” is recognizably reproduced for the ensemble of the participants. At the same time, Navarro’s effort to specify the important size of

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  141 the construction area that is already on its way to be demolished reveals the officials’ concern with construing an image of the site as not being too crowded with buildings. In this way, the repair sequence also addresses the controversies around the topic of constructed areas in the future park. This reveals the professionals’ orientation to multiple, though converging, political agendas that are talked into being through the repair practice. This is also observable in Extract 4.4, where a professional, Daumat, replies to a forwarded criticism regarding the intent to accommodate a police station in the park. A citizen has just objected to this, raising the concern that it will imply motor vehicles in the park. As Daumat counters the criticism by asserting that there are police stations without parking lots, projecting a search for examples, Navarro self-selects and provides a candidate in overlap. Daumat initiates repair and then repeats the repair solution in the microphone.

Extract 4.4 CAB_FC_031012_02.18.54.

142  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.4 (Continued).

Daumat is initially oriented to the audience (1, figure 14), and his emerging problem with exemplifying police stations without parking lots becomes recognizable as he looks to his right, produces an audible in-breath and initiates a prospective formulation of what he is doing (2). Navarro’s candidate example is partly produced in overlap (3) and prompts Daumat to initiate repairing in latching, comment ‘how,’ whilst looking to her (4, figure 13). Like in Extract 4.4, Navarro’s louder repeat of the trouble source turn demonstrably treats the repair initiation as claiming a trouble of hearing. The formulation of her doing “exemplifying,” par example ‘for example’ (5) displays that she is doing co-telling as a part of the professional party. Daumat aligns with the response token oui ‘yes’ before repeating the repair in the microphone, addressing the overhearing audience (6–7, figure 16). He thereby confirms Navarro’s candidate example as relevant before providing an additional example (7), produced as a next item in a list, and co-constructed with Navarro through the request for confirmation, which she provides by nodding (7). In this way, they co-construct a professional party producing a list of examples for the citizens. Daumat further manifests this through formulating it as a logical conclusion of reasoning, ultimately refuting the citizen’s prior criticism (9–10). As in Extract 4.4, the repeat-extended repair sequence establishes the professionals’ speech as public speech, produced by a single interactional party addressing the citizens. In Extract 4.5, the trouble source is produced in the sequential environment of an explicit word search by one of the professionals. Bert, the politician responsible for the project, is closing one of the information meetings

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  143 and has just invited the attending participants to share a drink and announces that they will be offered a DVD of the film about the former military site that was produced for the project and shown in the first meeting. As he describes the movie, he acknowledges that he has forgotten the name of one of the two colonels and protagonists in the movie. Navarro, who is seated beside him, provides the name away from the microphone, and after initiating repair, Bert repeats the name in the microphone.

Extract 4.5 CAB_FC_160609_01.45.36.

144  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.5 (Continued).

During Bert’s initial announcement (1–5), both he and Navarro are oriented to the audience (figure 17). As Bert projects the naming of the two colonels, Navarro retrospectively identifies his prior cut-off and repeat of the possessive pronoun nos ‘our’ as projecting trouble and turns to him (3). The possessive “our” (3), claiming a certain degree of familiarity, renders his difficulties with finding the name more delicate. This is manifested by the attested recognition token that a participant in the audience produces in response to the announcement of the colonel Faurier (4). Bert’s explicit acknowledgment that he does not remember the name of the second colonel is produced in the present tense and claims a temporary trouble as opposed to admitting not knowing the name for example (5). The understanding of this turn as an online commentary is further evidenced by him continuing with the conjunction et ‘and’ (7), projecting the production of the second name. However, Navarro provides the colonel’s name in overlap with Bert’s account for the late delivery (6, figure 18), and turns to the audience again (7). Bert’s relatively late repair initiation (9) is explainable by the fact that he has already produced a conjunction, projecting to progress with his turn (7), and only recognizes Navarro’s contribution after that. During the silence (8), he turns to Navarro and produces a “pardon” with rising intonation (9; figure 19). Navarro repeats the name at the point at which they achieve mutual gaze, leaning to one another (10; figure 20). During the repair solution

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  145 (10), Bert turns again to the audience and repeats the name in the microphone (12, figure 21) before resuming the suspended announcement (13–14). As in Extracts 4.3 and 4.4, the professional’s reorientation to the audience and the repeat of the repair solution retrospectively identifies the name as relevant for the ensemble of the participants and establishes what could be taken for private speech as public speech. The fact that a participant in the audience self-selects and also produces the name in overlap with Bert repeating the repair (12) further manifests a common orientation to the relevance of announcing the colonel’s name in public. That the professionals are engaged in a co-telling activity and provide public speech as one interactional party is recognizable both in the way in which the complementary elements are produced and then publicly repeated subsequent to the repair. In other cases, new or complementary information might be added in other sequential environments and by different interactional parties. Initiating repair on new or additional information In the previous section, the repair sequences emerged in a sequential environment where the trouble source was produced as a co-telling and where the subsequent public repeat of the additional information established the professionals as a cohesive interactional party addressing the attending citizens. It also happens that a different interactional party self-selects to provide new or additional information. In these cases, the facilitator initiates repair and repeats the repair solution in public and displays that he is doing “re-saying.” In this way, the facilitator construes a context where talking as a facilitator is significant for the distribution of knowledge within the participation framework. In Extract 4.6 the executive manager of the project, Navarro, and an invited specialist in urbanism, Vezard, have just answered a citizen’s question about the number of floors in one of the buildings on the site. As the facilitator initiates the next sequence, Navarro self-selects and provides additional information in overlap. The facilitator initiates open-class repair, which Navarro treats as claiming a trouble of hearing by repeating her previous turn. After the repair, the facilitator repeats the repair solution in the microphone (see Chapter 5, Extract 5.6 for an extensive analysis of the corrective sequence).

Extract 4.6 CAB_FC_211008_00.42.00.

146  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.6 (Continued).

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  147

Extract 4.6 (Continued).

148  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.6 (Continued).

As Navarro projects turn completion, Prévost initiates selecting the next speaker among the citizens by alternating his attention between Navarro and the audience (1), taking back the microphone from Navarro and progressively scrutinizing and pointing to the audience (2–5; figure 22). The particle “voilà” (4) retrospectively closes the previous sequence and prospectively projects the opening of a new sequence, inviting the participants to bid for the floor. The citizens reflexively establish this as a transition relevant place to make bids for taking the turn by raising their hands. Charvet’s bidding for the turn (5, figure 23) prompts a preselection by the person in charge of the microphone, Donzé, who starts walking toward her before the facilitator has made a public selection (6). This displays the participants’ orientation to and monitoring of the progressivity of the institutional activity. Navarro’s self-selection in overlap with Prévost, providing verbal and embodied additional indications about the building on the map (5; figure 23), prompts however the facilitator to turn and point to Navarro with his palm open (5–9; figures 24, 25), initiating a “pardon”-formatted repair. In this way, he publicly suspends the next-speaker selection among the citizens and selects Navarro as the next speaker. During the pause following the repair initiation, the participants display their understanding of the repair initiation’s sequential implicativeness in this context. Charvet, who is bidding for the floor with her arm raised, first lowers her index finger (8; figure 26). When Navarro looks to the facilitator, who raises his head and leans it slightly backward when they establish mutual gaze while withholding his pointing gesture toward her, Charvet lowers her arm (figure 27), treating the initiated next-speaker selection as being suspended. Navarro repairs her turn through repeat but omits the last deictic là ‘there’ (compare lines 5–6; 9), and again directs her gaze to the map, redoing the pointing to the building (9; figure 26, cf. Extract 4.1). In this way she acknowledges that the first reference was not to be taken for granted as accessible for everyone. Prévost initiates repeating Navarro’s repair in overlap

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  149 with her and also directs his gaze to the map and reenacts her pointing to it (11–12; figure 28). In contrast to the extracts in the previous section, the facilitator extends the repeat by explicating it as reported speech through the turn-final me dit on ‘they tell me’ (12), displaying that he is talking as a facilitator. Charvet demonstrably orients to the facilitator’s repeat as projecting closure of the inserted sequence and resuming of the previous activity. By again raising her arm with an extended index finger, she anticipates the impending relevance of again making a bid for the floor and the facilitator to select a next speaker. This confirms earlier findings regarding the suspension of gestural embodied conduct during repair sequences (Floyd et al. 2015; de Fornel 1990). However, in this multi-party interaction, not only the repair initiator but also the attending participants suspend the ongoing activity and monitor the sequential unfolding of the institutional activity, adjusting their actions to what is recognizably projected as relevant next actions. Prévost resumes the activity where it was previously suspended by turning to the audience and selecting Charvet as the next speaker by pointing at her and nodding (13; figure 29). This, in turn, prompts Donzé to resume her previously suspended walk toward Charvet and to give her the microphone (14, figures 29–30). The trouble source in Extract 4.6 was a late elaboration of previous speech by the same speaker. The trouble source in Extract 4.7 emerges as a professional self-selects in overlap with a citizen’s unfolding turn. The citizen, Poujade, is concluding a longer intervention about one of the buildings on the site, which is placed in category (3) and therefore subject to debate regarding whether it will be demolished or preserved for future use. After evoking various possible historical uses of the building, which do not originate from the documentation provided within the project, he makes a recapitulation by insisting on the building’s general importance. Vezard, one of the recruited specialists in urbanism, self-selects in overlap and suggests a possible former usage of the building. The facilitator Prévost initiates repair on Vezard’s proposal and then repeats it in the microphone.

Extract 4.7 CAB_FC_211008_01.06.55.

150  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.7 (Continued).

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  151

Extract 4.7 (Continued).

Poujade projects completion of his long multi-unit turn with the concluding donc ‘so’ (1) and an assessment of the building as “useful” (1–2), but then returns to the question of how the building relates to the other buildings on the site (2–3, figure 31). Vezard self-selects in overlap with Poujade and provides a candidate answer, suggesting a former use of the building and treating his turn extension as a request for information (4). Despite Vezard’s downgrading epistemic stance modifiers peut-être ‘maybe’ and je sais pas ‘i don’t know’ (4), the facilitator Prévost turns to him and initiates repair on his intervention, treating him as a knowledgeable party who contributes with relevant information (5). Like in Extract 4.6, the facilitator configures the repair initiation in such a way that the unfolding activity is suspended in favor of the professional’s intervention. By walking toward the speaker of the trouble source and pointing to him, the facilitator does more than tacitly selecting Vezard as the next speaker by virtue of the repair initiation, but publicly selects him as the next speaker (5; figure 32). By repeating his prior turn, Vezard treats the facilitator’s repair initiation as issuing from a trouble of hearing (6). Poujade also initiates repair on Vezard’s candidate answer in overlap (7). However, instead of pursuing his repair initiation, he turns to the facilitator, orienting to him as the projectable next speaker. In this way, Poujade orients to the described practice’s sequence organization and reflexively establishes the expectancy that the relevant next action is a public repeat of the repair solution (8; figure 33). This prospective orientation also displays the participants’ orientation to the facilitator as responsible for the meeting’s organizational aspects. As in the Extract 4.6, the facilitator withholds the pointing and gazes to Vezard until turn completion, before turning to the audience and repeating the repair in public (8–9, figure 34). The repeat of the repair is also extended with a formulation of his action as re-saying the repair: dit monsieur ‘says mister’ (9), explicating the attribution of authorship to the information to the previous speaker (Mondada 2015). The repeat closes the repair sequence and projects the resumption of the suspended sequence. Interestingly, Poujade does however not treat Vezard’s suggestion as a relevant response to his prior comment. Whereas the confirmation token voilà

152  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing acknowledges the suggestion (10), Poujade does not align with it and he repeats instead his initial claim – that the building has an historical value (11). In this way, he retrospectively pushes back on Vezard’s treatment of his turn as a request for information and instead constructs it as a political point about whether the building should be demolished or not. The way in which the facilitator manages the repair sequence manifests his orientation to solve possible troubles of audibility. Moreover, the embodied intervention in the ongoing activity also manages issues of turn-taking: walking to Vezard and maintaining the pointing to him establish him as the next eligible speaker. The retrospective explicit framing of the repeat as reported speech also establishes the facilitator’s speech as professional speech and his orientation to the attribution of authorship to emerging speech in public. Extract 4.8 further reveals the professional aspect of the facilitator’s practice of initiating repair and publicly repeating the solution. Contrary to Extracts 4.3–4.7 it is a citizen who initiates the repair sequence. In response to a question about the sergeant Blandan after whom the garrison is named, the facilitator selects an attending citizen and member of an interest association, Géomard, to answer the question by virtue of attributing a momentarily specialist role to him. During the narration, Géomard neglects to denote where the sergeant was killed. Another citizen, Marignan, self-selects and provides this information in overlap. This prompts Géomard to initiate repair and the facilitator to subsequently repeat the repaired turn in public.

Extract 4.8 CAB_FC_141008_01.30.12.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  153

Extract 4.8 (Continued).

154  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.8 (Continued).

Géomard’s trouble with recounting where the sergeant died is recognizable in the pauses and self-repairs in lines (5) and (7) where the preposition à ‘in,’ projecting a place reference, first is replaced with a temporal reference (5) and then a concluding conjunction (7). The second abandoning prompts another citizen, Marignan, to self-select and repeat the preposition together with the place in overlap with Géomard whilst looking at him (8, figures 36a, b). This sequential environment is similar to the specialists’ co-telling contributions and, in this way, Marignan displays an entitlement to provide the information without bidding for the turn. The facilitator Prévost who previously was oriented to Géomard (1–7, figures 35a, b) turns to Marignan during the self-selection (8, figures 36a, b). Interestingly, Marignan looks to the facilitator immediately after his contribution, orienting to him as the relevant next speaker and treating this sequential environment as a relevant slot for him to initiate repair (9, figure 37). However, Géomard initiates repair with the open-class repair initiator comment ‘how’ before Prévost takes the turn (10), tacitly selecting Marignan, the speaker of the trouble source, as the relevant next speaker. Marignan offers a repair solution in latching by repeating the place reference (11), which prompts Prévost to repeat the name in public after turning to the audience (13, figures 38, 39). The facilitator produces the repeat with a louder voice than the surrounding talk, further displaying that he is doing “repairing.” As he points to Marignan (13, figure 39) and extends the repeat with me dit on ‘one tells me’ like in Extracts 4.6 and 4.7, he further displays that he is doing “facilitating.” Although the facilitator did not initiate the repair, he retrospectively treats it as “public talk” and relevant for the ensemble of the participants. The way in which the interaction continues shows that the repeat not only ensures a general access to the additional information but also allows for the facilitator to manage the issue of who speaks when. Whereas Géomard attempts to resume his prior narrative (15), the facilitator treats the repeat of the repair as closing the sequence by producing a voilà (16) and subsequently making an upshot of the story himself (17). Géomard, in turn, repeats the facilitator’s summary in overlap, claiming his right to complete his suspended turn (18). The extracts in this section demonstrate the facilitator’s use of open-class repair sequences during the public meetings as a recurrent practice to manage

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  155 possible troubles of hearing emerging speech in public. The trouble sources are self-selected talk produced in overlap, providing additional information to just-previous and/or unfolding talk. In this way, these contributions constitute a practical problem for the facilitator regarding whether to acknowledge them as eligible contributions or not. They also differ from the repair sequences emerging in a co-telling situation, in that the facilitator explicates that he repeats on behalf of another interactional party. By extending the repeated repair with a formulation that retrospectively designates him as the addressee of the trouble source turn and prospectively construes it as relevant for the assembly of the recipients, he reflexively establishes the institutional and public character of the setting and his role as doing facilitating. This is particularly clear in Extract 4.8 where a citizen initiates repair, treating the additional information as addressing him, and the facilitator’s public repeat retrospectively establishes the trouble source as recipient designed for the ensemble of the participants. Relatedly, Extracts 4.6–4.8 show the attention participants pay to issues of accessing and keeping the floor. This is especially apparent when the trouble source is produced in overlap with a citizen’s unfolding speech. That the facilitator’s practice of repairing and repeating additional information also is a way to manage issues of turn-taking is also revealed in the interactional work the citizens engage in to subsequently resume their suspended turns (see Extract 4.7, lines 10–11; Extract 4.8, lines 14, 18). That the professionals orient to public speech as locally produced and tacitly ratified shared knowledge “for the record” is further discussed in the section below, where the emerging trouble sources involve criticisms. In these cases, the professionals reproduce the repair solutions but retrospectively transform them to actions that are not so offensive. Initiating repair on politically challenging actions When the open-class repair sequences emerge in delicate environments, such as when the trouble source turn is doing criticizing or complaining, the professionals retrospectively modify the action conveyed in the trouble source turn when they repeat the repair solution in public. In Extract 4.9 there is no appointed facilitator present and the meeting is chaired by Bert, the elected politician responsible for the democracy project, with help from aids on the floor who distribute the microphones. The information meeting presents the advancements of the project and the current and future plans for the park. We join the activity as the previous question-answer sequence is closed and the professionals initiate the next topic on the meeting’s agenda. A citizen, Cyril, self-selects without the microphone and questions prior information regarding the problem of how to limit the access of motorized vehicles in and around the future park. Several professionals initiate repair on the intervention, demonstrably claiming a trouble of audibility, which prompts the citizen to repeat the trouble source. In contrast to Extracts 4.3–4.8, the professional’s subsequent repeat of the repair modifies it to a different and less delicate action.

156  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.9 CAB_031012_02.46.25.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  157

Extract 4.9 (Continued).

158  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.9 (Continued).

Daumat and Bert initiate the next sequence by concurrently localizing the microphone, monitoring their colleagues as possible next speakers (1–2) and collaboratively establishing Bert as the next speaker through the prospective allez ‘go’ (2, 3) and by providing him with the microphone (2–4, figure 40). The citizen Cyril self-selects at the last possible point before Bert takes the floor (cf. Extracts 4.2, 4.4, 4.7). This shows that the participants monitor the activity’s sequential unfolding and that this point in time is identified as a relevant slot for taking the turn before the professionals initiate the next topic. Cyril suggests using studs to solve the recurrent issue of how to prevent motorized vehicles to use the planned service road (5). The issue of the service road has already been brought up four times during this meeting (see CAB_17_FC_01.53.00; -02.34.00; -02.39.00; 02.42.30). The why not X-formatted inquiry heavily questions the credibility of the professionals’ prior assertion that the service road will not be used. At the same time, it makes an account from the professionals conditionally relevant, displaying the expectation that they can and should provide this (Bolden and Robinson 2011). Several official representatives initiate repair, claiming a trouble of audibility. Bert and Daumat visibly lean forward (5, figure 41), and Daumat further claims a problem of hearing by making the iconic gesture

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  159 of putting his hand behind his ear (10–12, figure 3). Both Navarro and Lignal frown (7–14, figure 42) and produce a partial repeat of the trouble source turn, targeting Cyril’s practical suggestion to be the trouble (7, 10). The professionals’ concurrent repair initiations display their orientation to Cyril’s self-selection as addressing them as an interactional party. This is further manifested by two participants in the audience who align with Cyril’s suggestion (8) and repeat it (9). By proposing these attempts as candidate repair solutions, the citizens elaborate the participation framework and construe an interactional party that is oppositional to the institutional representatives. The repair initiations prompt Cyril to repeat his prior turn but he uses the slot to alter it (12–14). In the trouble source turn the modifying adverb juste ‘just’ elaborated the verb limiter ‘to limit,’ but in the repaired turn it is displaced to an added if-clause. In this way it modifies the object instead, that is, what is reportedly “just,” or “only,” a service road (5; 12–14). The criticism’s modifying element is thus challenging the issue’s alleged triviality instead of minimizing the proposed way to solve the problem too. In this way, the citizen aggravates the displayed distrust in the professionals’ claim that the street will only be used as a service road. The audience’s applause in response to the repair further establishes the oppositional participation framework and enhances the challenging nature of Cyril’s intervention (15–16). The delicacy of the sequence is also manifested in the professionals’ responses. Navarro establishes mutual gaze with Daumat and Bert (14–18) and draws back her head in a skeptical posture, whilst Daumat produces a series of impatient hand gestures (figure 43) before hiding his eyes behind his hand (24, figure 44). In this way, they both display a trouble with Cyril’s action. This is made further explicit in Bert’s subsequent public repeat of the repaired turn, which he produces in overlap with the applause (17–19). Orienting to Navarro, he repeats but modifies Cyril’s action from a challenging question to a rhetorical question, which he subsequently goes on to answer himself (21; 24–26). This is done through several operations. First, Bert adds the first part of the negation, which was omitted in the trouble source turn and the repairing turn (pourquoi pas versus pourquoi ne pas), which renders the question more formal. Moreover, he omits the adverbial juste “just” from the if-clause, which pushes back on the inquiry’s challenging character. The repeat is also different with regard to its prosodic realization: the interrogative intonation is altered into a falling declarative intonation and the utterance is pronounced in a low pace with several stretched syllables. The professional thus transforms what virtually seems to be a full repeat of the repair, from a criticism requesting an account to a rhetorical question to which the professional himself responds. In this way, Bert retrospectively orients to but prospectively escapes the delicacy of the situation.

160  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing As he completes the repeat, Bert turns to the audience (19–20) and produces an initial formal alignment with the criticism (21) but then reconditions the issue as dealing with the problem of how to limit the service road (21). In this way, he refutes the insinuation that there is reason to mistrust the reported planned use of this street, before engaging in an account of the difficulties with managing this sort of issue (24, figure 44). Extract 4.9 reveals that the professionals orientate to which interactional party produces the claimed trouble, and the nature of the action, as consequential for how the practice of repeating the repair in public is accomplished. In the previous sections, the trouble source proposed some sort of information addressing the assembly of the participants. In this case, the trouble source makes conditionally relevant an account from the professionals and publicly challenges them. Bert’s bodily orientation to his colleague Navarro during the public repeat, the modification of the action and the subsequent defensive response, shows that political delicacy is locally established through the sequence organization. This is also the case in Extract 4.10, drawn from one of the early information meetings concerning the buildings on the site (see Chapter 1 for an extensive analysis of the sequence). A citizen, Lemercier, requests the budgetary costs for demolishing buildings on the site. The official representatives, Vezard and Navarro, do not comply with the request, claiming not being able to provide the information due to lack of knowledge. This prompts the facilitator Prévost to publicly respond on behalf of them by postponing the inquiry and then to project sequence closure by reclaiming the microphone from Lemercier. However, another citizen, Cédric, self-selects and claims that the requested information is known (12). The facilitator initiates open-class repair on the correction and after Cedric’s repair, the facilitator reproduces the repair in public (18) but transforms it from a declarative to an interrogative.

Extract 4.10 CAB_FC_211008_01.09.45.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  161

Extract 4.10 (Continued).

162  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.10 (Continued).

Subsequent to Lemercier’s question (3–8, figures 45a, b) and the officials’ refusal to answer due to the claim of not knowing (7–12), Cédric self-selects and challenges the professionals’ claim that they cannot respond to Lemercier’s requested information. Like in previous extracts (Extract 4.3, 4.6, 4.9), he does this at the point where the facilitator projects to initiate the next sequence (14). While addressing Prévost through his bodily orientation (15–16, figure 46), Cédric formats the counter proposal with the inclusive third person singular pronoun on ‘we,’ claiming it to be common knowledge. In this way, he displays his turn being particularly recipient designed for the professionals and during the following pause he nods to the facilitator, further pursuing a response (16). Cédric does not produce the trouble source turn in overlap, but in a low voice, without a microphone and as a non-selected speaker. Prévost initiates repair through a stretched “pardon” with rising intonation and while publicly selecting him as the next speaker by pointing to him

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  163 (17, figure 47) (cf. Extract 4.7). Cédric repairs his prior turn through repeat but omits the non mais ‘no but’ (cf. 15), recognizing that he is now the selected speaker (Schegloff 2004). Interestingly, he also enhances his statement’s evidential character through the open palm hand gesture, insisting on the legitimacy of the objection (19, figure 48). In resemblance with Extract 4.9, the facilitator repeats the repair in the microphone but turns to the professionals. In this way, he orients to a possible “practical” problem of audibility but also retrospectively acknowledges that Cédric’s initial action primarily addressed the institutional representatives (16). However, whereas Cédric formatted the question as a statement, challenging the professionals’ previous claim of not knowing, the facilitator reproduces it as an interrogative. He formats it as a yes/no question with rising intonation and replaces the verb savoir with connaître, which downgrades the turn’s initial epistemic stance. He also adds the modifier actuellement ‘currently’/‘at the moment,’ which inscribes the claimed knowledge within a temporal framework and recycles the previous reason for postponing the question as an issue of timing. In this way, Prévost transforms the citizen’s intervention from a correction into an inquiry, manifestly orienting to the sequence as delicate. While the project’s executive manager Navarro insists on not responding, both linguistically by the format conforming non ‘no’ and by shaking her head (18), Lemercier reproduces her request (17) and yet another citizen self-selects and objects to it (19). The facilitator Prévost also makes this non-answer public by turning to Cédric, pointing to him and voicing the negative answer (20), projecting sequence closure. The facilitator’s modification of the citizen’s initial action as he repeats the repair changes the conditional relevance from responding to a challenging correction of a prior claimed epistemic status to answering a yes/no interrogative. In this way, the repeat is recognizably adjusted to a specific institutional agenda. The professionals orient to political delicacy as procedurally consequential for the situated organization of recurrent practices to publicly repeat repair solutions as a means to solve claimed troubles of hearing. Repeating additional information on behalf of the facilitator: orienting to the practice as noticeably absent The previous three sections in this chapter have discussed open-class initiated repair sequences that are extended with a public repeat of the repaired trouble, manifesting emerging speech as public speech. Whereas the repeat is subject to modification when the initial action is politically challenging, Extract 4.11 reveals that the participants orient to the public repeat as noticeably absent when the facilitator does not produce it subsequent to an “open-class” repair sequence. The extract is drawn from an information meeting as a citizen, Marc, makes a remark about a so-called fast track adjacent to the park, which is significant for the discussion about the infrastructure bordering the future park. As he engages in the description, another citizen, Laurent, self-selects and adds the information that bicycles are allowed on this road. Whereas the facilitator does not recognize this contribution as legitimate public speech and instead attempts to stop the progress of his unfolding turn, Marc eventually repeats this information in public.

164  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.11 CAB_FC_141008_00.52.01.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  165

Extract 4.11 (Continued).

Prévost looks at the audience as Marc engages in describing the fast track (1–2, figures 49a, b). As Laurent visibly projects to self-select by raising his hand (1–2, figure 50) before taking the turn (3), the facilitator attempts to hinder this vocally through a schh schh (4) and a stopping gesture (2, figures 50, 51a, b). This reveals that the facilitator recognizes him taking the turn, but that he does not treat it as a legitimate contribution, which Laurent

166  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing acknowledges through laughter (6). Interestingly, whereas the facilitator repeats the hushing, treating the laughter as pursuing an illegitimate selfselection (7), Marc assesses Laurent’s contribution as relevant for the ensemble of the participants and repeats in the microphone (8). In this way, he also orients to an institutional acknowledgment of Laurent’s intervention as noticeably absent. That Marc’s repeat is heard as doing repeating on behalf of the professionals is evidenced in facilitator’s subsequent additional repeat (9). After looking to Marc (9, figure 52), Prévost turns to the audience and retrospectively establishes Marc’s repeat of Laurent’s contribution as relevant by doing “late” what was expected to be done “before” (9–11, figures 53a, b). The facilitator’s repeat is treated as closing the side sequence and Marc resumes his prior turn. By adding the turn-initial adversary mais ‘but,’ he prospectively contrasts Laurent’s contribution with his own intervention (11). This suggests that Laurent’s announcement is heard not only as an informative contribution but also as a political contribution. Whereas Marc’s announcement addressed the fast track’s material construction, Laurent’s remark concerns its functional and infrastructural characteristics, which sets forth the bicycle as a noteworthy vehicle in this context. Marc repeating Laurent’s contribution acknowledges the public relevance of emerging speech, although he does not treat it as relevant for his own contribution. Laurent also acknowledges this, as he raises both his arms into a defensive posture (11, figure 53a). The extract attests that not only the professionals but also the ensemble of the participants monitor the unfolding interaction as public and inspect emerging speech for its common interest. The orientation to public relevance is also noticeable in sequential environments where the participants do not use the focal practice and also not orient to it as missing. Negative cases In the recordings of the information meetings, two instances were identified where open-class initiated repair sequences are not extended with a repeat and not oriented to as absent. They allow to further distinguish the specific sequential environment that the participants orient to as relevant for repeating a repaired trouble source in public. In Extract 4.12 the citizen Vozier has just been selected as the next speaker and offered the microphone. As he pursues an answer to a previous question about the infrastructure allowing access to the park from the adjacent eighth district, another participant starts to talk in overlap, causing a problem of audibility. After some self-repairs on behalf of Vozier, the political responsible Bert eventually initiates repair and then answers the question without repeating the repaired trouble.

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  167

Extract 4.12 CAB_FC_031012_02.17.58.

168  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.12 (Continued).

As Vozier’s turn unfolds (3–5, figure 54) a participant on the first row coughs loudly (4) and assesses the general activity negatively (6–7). While she self-selects without access to a microphone, her emerging talk also produces a trouble with hearing Vozier. The officials and participants in the audience, respectively, manifest this by leaning forward, grimacing, holding their hands

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  169 behind their ears (6–9, figures 55, 56) and doing hushing (8). Vozier, in turn, engages in self-initiated repair by repeating the element concurring with the loud cough (9) and producing an alternative description and specification of what his question concerns (le pont piéton, 11). Bert eventually initiates repair with an open-class apologetic format (13, figure  57) and, in contrast to all other instances, with a falling intonation. In this way he acknowledges that Vozier recognizably has already attempted to self-repair (Robinson 2006). Vozier repairs his prior action through repeat, though condensing the second part and action formulation (15), treating the trouble as minimal with regard to understandability. Bert ratifies the repair by nodding and formulating a prospective answer in overlap (16, 17), ratifying the repair as accomplished and then responds without repeating the repair in public. The absent repeat is explainable by how the sequence differs from the previously analyzed extracts in two significant ways. First, in all other cases where the examined practice is used or oriented to as noticeably ­ absent, a non-ratified speaker self-selects and produces talk in overlap with a current speaker. In this case, the speaker of the trouble source is already the selected and established speaker in public. The other citizen’s self-selection is not what emerges as the trouble source, but what causes a trouble of hearing for the unfolding turn at talk. Second, the trouble source does not add to, elaborate or challenge information concerning the current or a prior action. Instead, it constitutes a general complaint, which does not contribute to the unfolding activity. In Extract 4.13, there are other issues at stake. A citizen, Lemercier, questions a just-presented study concerning the public parks in Lyon by claiming that a specific park was missing but should be included in the report. In response, the presenting party refutes the critique by stating that the park Lemercier refers to is too far away to be taken into account in this discussion. However, another participant in the audience also counters her criticism, which prompts her to further justify it. As a disagreement develops, Lemercier eventually initiates repair but the repair solution is not repeated in public.

Extract 4.13a CAB_FC_141008_01.45.30.

170  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.13a (Continued).

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  171

Extract 4.13a (Continued).

Lemercier’s criticism (2–4, figure 58) is followed by a relatively long pause, projecting trouble (5), before several participants refute it as illegitimate (6, 7, 10, 11, figures 59a, b). Lemercier does however acknowledge the argument and initiates a justification of its relevance (9–13). This prompts the facilitator to reflexively establish the situation as conflicting by embodying a division between the opposing interactional parties through a stopping posture (12, figure 60). This is loosened as Lemercier again is established as the public speaker and develops her argument (13, figure 61). New reactions follow however and a participant in the audience, Sandre, self-selects and contests Lemercier, which prompts her to initiate repair outside the microphone.

Extract 4.13b CAB_FC_141008_01.45.30.

172  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.13b (Continued).

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  173

Extract 4.13b (Continued).

174  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing

Extract 4.13b (Continued).

As Lemercier justifies her criticism (13–15), Sandre first displays nonalignment by tilting her head to the side (14) and then producing a linguistic and embodied disagreement in overlap (17–18, figure 62). This prompts Lemercier to initiate open-class repair, comment, ‘what,’ in overlap and outside the microphone, while turning to Sandre (19, figure 63). Sandre repairs by repeating both the verbal counter argument and her prior gestures, treating Lemercier’s repair initiation as claiming a trouble of hearing (20). The facilitator treats Sandre’s self-selection as illegitimate through a stopping gesture (19, figure 63) and by interrupting her repair (21). Prévost’s explicit call for suspending the unfolding exchange attendez attendez bon, ‘wait wait well’ is not heard as projecting a public repeat of the emerging speech, as it was observable Extracts 3–10. This is revealed by the fact that Lemercier responds to Sandre in overlap with the adversary non non mais ‘no no but’ (22) and further established as the facilitator takes the microphone from Lemercier and closes the sequence (26, figure 64). Lemercier in turn, treats this as an interruption through a defensive posture similar to Laurent in Extract 4.11 and the particle bon, ‘well’ (24, 26–30, figure 66). Meanwhile, the elected politician Bert also engages in the exchange by initiating another counter argument (25) and Sandre pursues her line of argument by drawing a large circle with her hand, indicating the relevant area by embodied means (26, figure 65). The extended exchange between the opposing parties prompts the facilitator to impede the parties’ ongoing discussion in an embodied way (28–34, figures 67, 70), before he finally closes the sequence by initiating selecting a next speaker (35). Neither the facilitator nor the other participants orient to the emerging trouble source and the ensuing repair sequence as talk that is relevant to make public through repeat. One explanation for this is that Sandre’s self-selection in overlap does not propose new information but counters a pursued criticism that the officials already have

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  175 dismissed as irrelevant. This is observable in the adversary and negative format (17–18, 20), which Lemercier also recycles (22). Both Lemercier and the facilitator treat the overlapping talk as primarily doing “arguing” and the exchange is manifestly not treated as legitimate public speech. This shows that the difference the participants make between speaking in “private” and speaking in “public” is observable and reportable in the interaction’s sequential organization. These two instances are distinctive in the sense that the participants do not treat the open-class initiated repair sequences as a resource for addressing emerging and plausibly inaudible talk as relevant for the audience by repeating the repair. This reveals the participants’ monitoring of emerging talk as relevant contributions for the record and the overhearing audience.

Discussion This chapter shows that the professionals recurrently extend open-class repair sequences by repeating the repair in public during the political meetings. Reproducing the repair in public ensures a shared access to information within the larger participation framework and for the overhearing audience, which reflexively establishes a professional, institutional orientation to the participants’ right to produce and access emerging talk as public talk. The open-class repair sequences emerge as participants self-select. An important number of the self-selections are partly produced in overlap (Extracts 4.4–4.8, 4.11, 4.13), which gives rise to a possible problem of audibility. This is aggravated by the fact that the trouble source turns are produced outside the microphone, in a large room, with a considerable number of participants. In several cases, the emerging trouble sources are produced just before a new sequence and/or topic is projectable or initiated (Extracts 4.3, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10). This reveals the participants’ close monitoring of how the interaction unfolds and their orientation to the sequential unfolding as consequential for the institutional and political activity they engage in. Moreover, the self-selections that are treated as trouble sources are further problematic when they are doing a challenging action. The professional aspect of how the repair sequences are carried out is observable in distinct ways in the three sequential environments in which they emerge. When the professionals provide information as one interactional party addressing the audience, the emerging talk and subsequent repair sequences are recognizably designed as doing co-telling (Extracts 4.3–4.5). A professional within that interactional party provides supplementary information outside the microphone, whereas the current speaker repeats the repaired turn in public. In this way, the professionals display that what could be private talk is public talk, recipient designed and relevant for the ensemble

176  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing of the participants. On the other hand, when a participant self-selects and adds information to a current or prior topic, the facilitator initiates and organizes the repair sequence as a facilitator (Extracts 4.6–4.8). In addition to the repair initiation’s tacit next-speaker selection (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974), the repair initiations in this context are multi-modally composed in such a way that they publicly select the next speaker by pointing and walking to the speaker of the trouble source, suspending the projected (Extract 4.6) or ongoing (Extracts 4.7, 4.8) activity. The institutional aspect of the examined sequences is also observable in the format. Most of the repair sequences are initiated with the apology-format pardon (Robinson 2006), which represents the formal register of open-class repair initiations in French (as opposed to, for example, “hein,” “comment” and “quoi”). The question word “comment” (“how”) is used in two cases and, interestingly, these are cases where a professional party initiates repair on a colleague’s talk in a situation of co-telling (Extract 4.4) and where a citizen initiates repair on another citizen’s talk (4.13). These lexical choices reveal and reflexively establish the formality of the setting with reference to the interactional parties respective interactional roles, as they talk the institution into being (Drew and Heritage 1992; Heritage and Clayman 2010). The extracts also reveal the participants’ orientation to interactional repair as a multi-modally composed practice. The participants not only do verbatim repeats but also reproduce relevant embodied aspects of previous actions (Extracts 4.6, 4.13). When the repaired trouble source includes the establishment of a visual reference, the facilitator also reproduces this feature as he repeats the repair solution in public (Extract 4.6). The analysis also confirms earlier findings regarding the suspension of gestural embodied conduct during repair sequences (Floyd et al. 2015; de Fornel 1990). In this multi-party setting not only parties directly engaged in the repair sequence suspend the current activity but also the attending participants. This is manifested in the way in which they orient to repair initiations as warranted suspensions of projectable or just initiated actions such as a nextspeaker selection (Extract 4.6) and in how they adjust their actions to what are projectable as relevant next actions (Extracts 4.3, 4.6). Previous research shows that repeats often display a receipt of new information in third position (Heritage 1984a:315–318). It is noticeable that the professionals do not provide this kind of receipt token in any of the identified open-class repair sequences. In all extracts, the public repeats are demonstrably recipient-designed for another party than the speaker of the trouble source and repairing party. Nor are they treated as receipt tokens by the repairing party. The negative observation of confirmations or rejections shows that these are not treated as requests for confirmation either. This should be compared with the repair sequences in Chapter 3, where the repairing turn recurrently is assessed as, for example, “it’s clear” (see

Repairing a possible trouble of hearing  177 Extract 3.10). This suggests that the participants treat claimed problems of understanding differently from claimed problems of hearing. By explicating that the repeat of the repaired turn is reported speech, the facilitator attributes authorship of the contribution to the speaker of the trouble source. In this way, he reflexively establishes his professional role as facilitating the activity for the attending participants. At the same time, this displays an institutional agenda regarding the participants’ rights and obligations to provide and access emerging talk as public talk. This is indicative in cases where the emerging trouble source is challenging the institution (Extracts 4.9 and 4.10). The observation that the professional in these cases reproduces the repair but retrospectively modifies the prior turn to a less offensive action reveals the delicacy of this professional aspect. In reproducing the repaired turn, the professionals acknowledge the citizens’ right to talk in public. Nevertheless, they also reveal an institutional agenda where what is projectable as becoming established as official information and shared knowledge can be subject to modification if not agreed with by the institution on these terms. The participants orient to the absence of a repair initiation in a relevant sequential environment as missing, by doing it on behalf of the facilitator who, in turn, treats it as doing just that (Extract 4.11). This shows that the participants hear open-class initiated repair sequences as a context-specific resource to render emerging speech public. The only two identified cases during the information meetings where the repair is not repeated in public attest that what is targeted as trouble sources in these cases do actions, and are produced in sequential environments, that differ from the cases where the repair sequence is extended through repeat (Extracts 4.12; 4.13). More specifically, the emerging trouble source turns are not treated as relevant for the collective. Previous research has shown that open-class repair initiations can be used as a means to fill the next slot as “place holders” or time gainers to manage dis-preferred actions. The repair initiation suspends the relevant next action until after the repair solution, and the open-class format provides the speaker of the trouble source with a slot to do the prior action for another first time (Schegloff 2007b; Svennevig 2008). In this setting, the extended open-class repair sequences are used as a means to manage political issues by reproducing the citizens’ challenging actions in a modulated and less delicate form (Extracts 4.9; 4.10). Whereas repeating is a recurrent practice for doing “facilitating” in this setting (Mondada 2015), the specific practice of extending open-class initiated repair sequences with public reproductions of repair solutions allows participants to manage several interrelated issues. By recurrently extending the repair sequences with a public repeat of the repaired turn, the professionals display the relevance of audibility and shared access to public talk as a practical problem during the meetings. Moreover, they reflexively manifest

178  Repairing a possible trouble of hearing an institutional orientation to the distribution of publicly ratified information within this participation framework as significant for the political task they are engaged in. This shows that the large number of participants, as an intrinsic part of the ecology of this institutional context, is procedurally consequential for how the open-class repair sequences in these information meetings are organized and carried out. In sum, the participants mobilize and organize the ordinary contextindependent practice of claiming and repairing troubles of hearing in specific context-dependent ways to deal with political issues, which shows that situated practices for repairing interaction and speaking in public are significant for institutional and eventually political procedures.

5

Correcting for others

Introduction The previous chapters show that the attributed distribution of knowledge among the participants is consequential for if, when and how other-initiated self-repair practices are carried out during the public meeting. This attests that the participants treat shared access to the unfolding talk to be central for the interaction as public, political talk. In this chapter, I examine other-initiated other-repair, or other-corrections of references and descriptions of states of affairs during the public meetings. Attending citizens, official representatives from various institutions and political representatives in charge of the project, keep records of the meetings in the form of written documentation. These notes are treated as public records, which are published on the project’s website and constitute the basis for following meetings’ agenda. The participants also hold each other accountable for statements made in previous meetings. It is a practical problem for members to adequately refer to names, places, times and technical terms (Sacks 1972) and when emerging information is depicted as erroneous, the participants replace the trouble source with an alternative. Correcting prior descriptions of matters is a members’ practice to manage and negotiate interactional and socially delicate matters (Goodwin 2000; Jefferson 1974; Robinson 2009; Sacks 1972; Schegloff 1972, 1988; Sidnell and Barnes 2013). Contrary to examinations of disputatious courses of action (Kitzinger 2013; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), this chapter focuses on corrections of factual elements that are demonstrably done for an “unknowing audience” (Haakana and Kurhila 2009). That the participants orient to the corrections as legitimate is explainable by the trouble sources’ factual character (cf. Kendrick 2015; Weeks 1985) and is indicative of an institutional relevance of establishing accurate shared knowledge. Jefferson explains three basic features that are observable in corrective sequences (1987:90): (1) Correcting as the current interactional business, with discontinuation of the ongoing activity, with utterances now occupied by the doing of correcting, (2) the possibility for attendant activities – Accountings – which

180  Correcting for others address lapses in competence and/or conduct, and (3) the presence of the (X, Y, Y) series which constitutes “correction of one speaker by another” (and its alternative, the (X, Y, X) series via which a proffered correction is rejected). This indicates that exposed other-correction, solving problems of acceptability in interaction, has a sequence organization – notwithstanding that the claimed trouble is targeted with the same means by which it is solved, that is, through replacement. Other-correction thus differs from self-initiated self-repair, or self-correction, which does not make relevant an action from the “other.” It also differs from other-initiated self-repair, which involves a repair initiation targeting a trouble as a first pair part, projecting a solution, which might or might not be acknowledged. This chapter discusses corrections that are designed to recognizably do “correcting for the record.” The next section discusses the proposed preference for self-correction (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977) and provides an example of other-correction from “ordinary” conversation, which contrasts with the other-corrections identified during the meetings. I then examine the organizational differences between sequences where the participants correct within an interactional party for an overhearing audience and when they correct another interactional party.

A preference for self-correction? Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) report a skewed distribution in their data set of repair sequences, where self-repair is far more frequent than other-repair. This suggests a social-organizational preference for self-repair over other-repair. The organizational evidence for this claim is that (i) opportunities for self-initiated repair occur before opportunities for other-initiation within the turn-taking system (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974), (ii) other-initiations yield self-repair, (iii) interactants are argued to withhold other-corrections past transition relevant places in favor of self-repair, (iv) when other-repair does occur it is produced with a modulated format (proposing that participants treat them as dis-preferential) and (v) when they are produced in an un-modulated format they occur in a specific sequential position – after understanding checks and “correction-invitations” (Sacks 1995:21–25, I: 3). Extract 5.1 exemplifies other-initiated other-repair of an emerging indexical spatial reference. It is drawn from the recordings of the inauguration of the park, where official representatives receive visitors to provide information and answer to questions about the park. In this extract, Laurent, who took part in the participatory meetings from the very beginning of the project, is engaged in a discussion with one of the officials, Donzé, about how the outcome of the project reflects the participatory procedure. We join the interaction as Laurent points out an asphalted area, which he is worried will be used as parking places. When denoting the area, he points at the wrong place on the map, which Donzé corrects.

Extract 5.1 CAB_26_150913_Journée_Associations_DON_01.02.49.

182  Correcting for others When initiating the complaint about possible future parking places, which was discussed in detail during the participatory meetings, Laurent refers to the place verbally (là-bas derrière la poudrière ‘over there behind the powder keg’ and by pointing to the upper left area on the map (5–6, figure 1). During the pointing, Donzé produces a verbal agreement, ouais ‘yeah’ (7), but steps forward and replaces the spatial reference to the powder keg: la poudrière elle est là la poudrière\ ‘the powder keg it is there the powder keg\’ (9, figure 2). The partial repeat of the trouble source unit, which is produced as a declarative (in contrast to the repair-initiating repeats in Chapter 4), composed with a pointing gesture, displays her understanding of Laurent’s prior action but claims a problem of acceptability with regard to one aspect of its terms. The initial virtual agreement (7) is followed by a silence (8), which Laurent manifestly hear as long, since he self-selects in overlap with the emerging correction (9–10). This converges with previous claims that participants recurrently withhold other-corrections past transition relevant places (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Laurent excuses himself (11) in response to the correction and thus retrospectively establishes the misdoing as apology-implicative. His subsequent partial verbatim repeat of the correcting turn, preceded with the indexical ici ‘here,’ and a re-doing of the pointing to the correct placement on the map, acknowledges and accepts the correction (13, figure 3). The following laughter (16) and the long pause (17) before Laurent resumes his turn (18) reveal how the erroneous reference undermines the complaint’s legitimacy. In sum, the delayed correction and the following apology and laughter indicate that both participants orient to the misspeaking and to the correction as organizationally and socially dis-preferred. Examining the timing of other-initiated repair, Kendrick (2015) finds that whereas other-initiated self-repair tends to be produced with a significant delay in comparison to responses to polar questions, other-initiated other-repair in his data is produced without delay. This counters the claim that interactants withhold other-corrections beyond transition relevant places as a systematic resource to allow for the speaker of the trouble source to self-correct and indicates that the preference organization of other-initiated other-repair might differ from other-initiated self-repair. Kendrick further notes that although he did not find any organizational evidence for corrections to be dis-preferred actions, their tendency to be restricted to specific types of trouble sources (such as proper names, numbers or mispronunciations) stands in contrast to other-initiated self-repair, which operates on all interactional aspects. This could imply that there is, after all, a possible systematic bias against their use (Kendrick 2015:12). Another important point about the proposed preference for self-correction concerns the observation that other-initiated other-repair often is treated as “disagreement” (Kitzinger 2013) and heard as “interactionally offensive”

Correcting for others  183 (Hayashi, Raymond, and Sidnell 2013). Returning to the proposed explanation for this (cf. p. 91): [w]hen the hearing/understanding of a turn is adequate to the production of a correction by “other,” it is adequate to allow production of a sequentially appropriate next turn. Under the circumstance, the turn’s recipient (“other”) should produce the next turn, not the correction (and, overwhelmingly, that is what is done). Therein lies another basis for the empirical paucity of other-corrections: those who could do them do a sequentially appropriate next turn instead. (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:380) In short, if one can produce what is the projected and thus relevant next action, one should do this. If a correction is done instead, this is likely to be understood as a disagreement or a criticism. The authors note nevertheless that other-corrections seem to appear more frequently in contexts where one party is “not-yet-competent” (such as in parent-child interactions) where, they argue, correcting is a course of action that aims to socialize children into self-correcting (1977:381). Building on this when examining repair in classroom interaction, Macbeth (2004) proposes that correction is an essential feature of instructive activities. Haakana and Kurhila (2009) examine other- corrections in “ordinary” conversation in Finnish and argue that although other-correction is less frequent than self- and other-initiated repair in their data, they would not describe it as “rare.” Furthermore, they propose that rather than being an issue of social preference (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977), the difference in frequency might ensue from the practical problem that in order for a correction to be relevant, an “error” has to be produced but also recognized, tracked and treated as such by co-participants. Accordingly, and in contrast to Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks’ observation that other-corrections that do occur are produced with modulated formats of uncertainty or as joke-marked, Haakana and Kurhila find that the other-corrections in their data are typically not try-marked. Syntactical elaborations of the corrections in their data are used as a resource to target the trouble in case of a delay rather than marking it as a dis-preferred action (2009:164). Other-corrections are reported to appear in an un-modulated format after understanding checks and “correction-invitations” and in situations of co-story-telling: “There, an ‘as-of-some-point-non-teller’ of a bid, or subsequently as a vehicle, for being a co-teller of the story-making, with the initial teller, a ‘team’” (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:380). In line with this, Haakana and Kurhila observe that corrections occur more frequently in multi-party interactions where, they argue, “[…] the corrections are not produced only for the one who made the error, but also for an ‘audience’”

184  Correcting for others (2009:175). In this way, corrections can be mobilized in order to establish social relations such as “being a couple,” or simply assuring the correctness of some elements for an “unknowing audience.” In this setting, the participants recurrently correct publicly conveyed information. We will see that the corrective sequences’ organizational features are contingent on (i) whether one or several participants correct another participant within and as an interactional party for an overhearing audience or whether a participant corrects another participant as an interactional party and (ii) whether the correction is heard as ensuring the adequacy of claimed facts or heard as proposing an alternative description of some matters.

Other-correcting within and as an interactional party During the public meetings, one or several professionals recurrently target an aspect of another professional’s prior or ongoing action as inadequate by replacing it with an alternative. In these cases, the participants orient to correcting as the principal action. In this section we will look at instances where a professional, who is engaged in providing information to the attending participants, produces a troublesome turn, which one or several other professionals correct. As in Chapters 3 and 4, the participants orient to the larger participation framework as significant for how they organize the other-initiated other-repair sequences. However, whereas the professionals orient to the relevance of providing adequate information to the collectivity, there are observable differences between corrections of “factual” and “descriptive” elements. Correcting facts During the public meetings, the professionals continuously provide practical information such as places, names and the like, as well as reports of previous meetings, discussions and unfolding events. The participants recurrently identify and engage in remedies for errors in the production of such information. The corrections’ temporal, sequential positioning is contingent on locally established relevancies. In Extract 5.2, the professional corrects the error immediately after the production of the trouble source. Towards the end of the meeting, Bert, who is politically responsible for the project, provides information about future meetings and procedures. When he announces the date of the next conference, four of his colleagues correct him by replacing the inadequate date with an alternative (4–7). This prompts Bert to repeat the correct date twice (8, 10) before resuming his suspended turn (11–12):

Correcting for others  185

Extract 5.2 CAB_FC_211008_02.25.49.

Bert adjusts his unfolding speech to his manipulation of a folded document on the table. By slowing his pace of talk and inserting a pause (2–3, figure 4), he displays that the document is relevant for pursuing his course of action, possibly projecting a problem with conveying the information. As he announces the date (3), four of Bert’s colleagues immediately correct him, targeting and solving the trouble by replacing douze with treize (4–7). In this way, Bert’s colleagues do not claim a problem of understanding what Bert refers to, but they claim

186  Correcting for others and solve a problem of misspeaking on behalf of him. The corrections are not withheld but instead done in latching with the correctable, after the completion of a turn constructional unit but not in a transition relevant place. The number projects a specification of a month and Bert’s term is not prosodically complete. The informative course of action that Bert is engaged in is explicitly addressed to the audience (1–2). However, the corrections do not address the audience directly but they are recipient-designed for Bert. Whereas Navarro formats the correction as a “no” + noun phrase (4) (cf. Haakana and Kurhila 2009), Alide, Donzé and Prévost only provide the correct date (5–7, figure 5). The corrections are also produced in lower volume than surrounding talk, which further evidences that the corrections are done by and for professionals within one interactional party. Bert takes the turn in overlap and repeats the correction with a louder voice, without displaying surprise, retrospectively orienting to the corrected element as an issue of misspeaking (8, figure 5). In this way he acknowledges the correction without orienting to the correcting parties and by continuously addressing the audience, reflexively establishing it as correct(ed) information that is relevant for all participants. After a pause, during which he reads the document (7), Bert repeats the correct date a second time (9) and produces talk that is designed as “self-talk,” only partly audible and produced in faster pace and lower volume than surrounding talk (9–10), before continuing his previously suspended turn with a syntactically fitting prepositional phrase (10–11). By resuming the informative course of action in this way, he aligns with his colleagues’ repair design and ensures that the correct date is announced with a minimal hindering of the interaction’s progressivity. In this way, the professionals are doing “being a single party.” In sum, the correction is produced in latching with the trouble source and by other(s) than the speaker of the trouble source, while carried out between parties within the “professional party” as a means to accomplish the task of distributing correct information. The trouble is targeted by means of providing its solution and designed to interrupt the principal course of action minimally. The correction is acknowledged and aligned with through subsequent repeats, which retrospectively establishes the replacement as a correction and ensures that the adequate information is made public and established as shared knowledge. Meanwhile, the primary course of action is pursued through the syntactically fitted turn continuation and the maintained orientation to the overhearing audience as the principal recipient of the now correct(ed) information. In this sense, they maintain an orientation to distribute adequate information as the primary interactional business. In Extract 5.3, the correcting party anticipates the emerging trouble source even earlier and proposes alternative information before the announcement of the inadequate information. This sequence is drawn from the very end of the same information meeting, as the facilitator provides practical information concerning the next assembly. When announcing the place with the indexical ici ‘here,’ another professional immediately corrects him and indicates the correct location with a pointing gesture and the name of the correct building, which the facilitator acknowledges through repeats and an apology.

Correcting for others  187

Extract 5.3 CAB_FC_211008_02.28.03.

188  Correcting for others Like in Extract 5.2, the emerging trouble source is preceded by elements projecting a possible problem. In this case, the facilitator abandons the turn when it projects announcing place or time for the next meeting and restarts with a different syntactical construction that further postpones the projected informative element (1, figure 6). Moreover, he formats it as a request for confirmation through the turn-final hein ‘huh’ (2). Alide manifestly orients to this as projecting trouble as he engages in pointing (2, figure 7) and announces the location for the next meeting (3), displaying an understanding of the trouble’s nature as being related to the change of location for the next meeting. Although the facilitator proceeds with announcing the date and not the place (2), Alide’s anticipatory trouble solution is significant, as the facilitator continues with indicating the wrong location through the indexical composition here ‘ici,’ while by pointing downward (4, figure 8). Alide immediately re-engages in indicating the right location by again pointing (5–7, figure 9) and corrects him verbally by saying non ‘no’ and announcing the correct location (6). The facilitator acknowledges Alide’s announcement as a correction by raising his index finger (6, figure 9) and repeating it and apologizing and repeating it a second time to the audience (7). In this way, he orients to the misspeaking as delicate. As in the Extract 5.2, the facilitator resumes his previously suspended turn with a syntactically fitted prepositional continuation pour ‘for,’ projecting an elaboration on the content of the next meeting (7). The two professionals thus co-construct the corrective sequence so that it interferes minimally with the progressivity of the activity while ensuring that adequate information is distributed among the participants. Extract 5.4 is drawn from the very end of one of the brainstorming sessions. The facilitator Pernety erroneously announces the next meeting to take place the week after. Navarro, the project’s manager who is seated on the side, corrects her by indicating the accurate date (the second of December), which Pernety repeats in public.

Extract 5.4 CAB_FC_191108_ATE_GPC_02.13.50.

Correcting for others  189

Extract 5.4 (Continued).

The facilitator strongly projects to close the meeting by giving thanks and announcing the meeting the following week, whilst withdrawing physically from the floor (2–3). Navarro immediately corrects the erroneous announcement of the time for the next meeting. She initiates the correction bodily by starting to lift her arm after the production of the trouble source (3) and raising her pen vertically in front of her (5, figure 10), before she accomplishes the correction verbally with the initial negation non ‘no,’ followed by the correct date. The pause between the problematic element and its replacement (4), the repeated “no no” and the small pause that precedes the correction (5), is contingent on the increasing volume in the room due to the participants starting to leave the meeting and it also serves to draw Pernety’s attention to Navarro (Goodwin 1980; Mondada 2014b). In response to the replacement, the facilitator turns back to the audience and repeats the correction, preceded by the particle ah, indexing her prior action as inadequate (6) (Persson 2015a). Pernety moreover raises her hand with two fingers extended, making publicly visible the second of December as the correct date in an embodied way (6, figure 11). Like in Extracts 5.2 and 5.3, the repeat is addressed to the audience, which both shows the relevance of conveying the correct date and manifests that she hears the correction to be recipient-designed for “others,” i.e. the audience and participating

190  Correcting for others citizens. This shows her orientation to Navarro’s correction as legitimate and as embodying an institutional obligation to distribute correct information. As she turns back to Navarro, Pernety again repeats the correct date and the incorrect date (8). This second repeat, which is recipient-designed for Navarro and not for the audience, displays a social relevance of also acknowledging the correction to the correcting party. The corrected information is the last element during the meeting in terms of public speech, which explains the absence of a syntactically fitted turn continuation, as it is observable in Extracts 5.2 and 5.3. These extracts show the professionals producing immediate, minimal corrections of emerging erroneous information as a means to ensure the distribution of adequate information during the public meetings. In Extract 5.5, the professionals withhold the correction to the next transition relevant place. Delors, who is the mayor in one of the districts bordering the future park, sums up the present meeting and provides information about future activities. As he provides information about the forthcoming brainstorming workshops, he announces that the participants will be divided into four groups. His colleagues initiate a correction of this information in a non-public way right after its production. The public correction is however suspended until the projectable initiation of the next sequence.

Extract 5.5a CAB_FC_211008_02.17.29.

Correcting for others  191

Extract 5.5a (Continued).

When Delors initiates the invitation to the next meeting, he explains the forthcoming work in groups with several hesitation marks and restarts (1–2), projecting trouble. When he eventually announces the number of work groups he turns to the facilitator and solicits confirmation, which he obtains (2, figure 12). When he resumes his turn (3), Delors requests another confirmation regarding the time of the next meeting (3), which the facilitator again confirms in an embodied way by nodding (3, figure 12). This shows the professionals’ orientation to the significance of construing and establishing information in situ in a collaborative way. Immediately after the production of what emerges as a trouble source (2), Capelli, who represents the mayor of another district in the city, looks down and scrutinizes the documents in front of her, orienting to the relevance of monitoring the adequacy of conveyed information (2, figure 12, cf. Extracts 5.2–5.4). To Capelli’s right side and to the facilitator’s left side, close to the camera but outside the camera frame, stands another official representative, Donzé, together with the person in charge of passing the microphone. After readings her documents, Capelli turns to Donzé (3–4, figure 13) and indicates “three” with her fingers (4, figure 14) before returning to the documents (4). In this way, she corrects a third party in a non-public way. During Capelli’s initiated correction, the facilitator looks to Donzé (4) and makes a complying hand gesture with a raised arm and vertical open palm (4, figure 15). This suggests that he retrospectively acknowledges that the information he previously confirmed as correct in fact is incorrect and that he prospectively takes on the responsibility to correct it in public.

192  Correcting for others In this way, the professionals coordinate to take notice of the incorrect information as such internally, as a professional interactional party. At this point, Delors has already continued to the next topic and the possibility to interfere minimally has passed (cf.  Extracts 5.2–5.4). Moreover, the facilitator does not have access to a microphone at this point. The correction is passed over to the facilitator and suspended for all practical purposes. Almost a minute later, Delors projects turn completion, and the facilitator corrects the inadequate information in public.

Extract 5.5b CAB_FC_211008_02.17.29.

Correcting for others  193

Extract 5.5b (Continued).

At Delors’ turn closure, Bert, who is the preselected next speaker, stands up and projects to take the floor (10). The facilitator, however, requests the microphone from the microphone assistant by extending his arm (6–11) and then takes the turn in overlap with Bert, orienting to this moment as the relevant place for doing the correction before progressing to the next activity. The facilitator precedes the correction with a prospective mitigated formulation of his action, referring to it as a précision ‘precision,’ multi-modally composed with a raised index finger (11, figure 16). The replacement of the inadequate information is done verbally through an initial informing about the correct number of groups followed by a negation of the incorrect number, accompanied by hand gestures indicating the numbers with his fingers (11–13, figures 17, 18) (cf. Capelli, 4, figure 14; Extract 5.4). The speaker of the trouble source, Delors, who orients to the facilitator during the correction (12), acknowledges it verbally in overlap (13) but at a possible transition relevant place. This early excuse shows the importance the corrected party pays to acknowledge and display alignment with the correction. He also forms an apologetic gestalt, turning and lowering his torso with lifted shoulders, publicly displaying to have made a mistake (13–14, figures 19, 20).

194  Correcting for others Bert who suspended his turn as the facilitator initiated the correction does not resume it at this point, but produces instead an additional verbal confirmation and a brief laugh (15), orienting to the distribution of correct information as an institutionally shared responsibility and a collaborative enterprise. Capelli, in turn, who initiated the correction and turned to the facilitator when the public correction was projectable (6), leans back in her chair as he initiates correcting (11). However, when Delors engages in apologizing, she leans forward and looks at him, establishing mutual gaze. Delors treats this as claiming responsibility for correcting the mistake and acknowledges it verbally and by nodding and smiling (15–16, figure 21). He subsequently looks to Donzé, who is still out of the image, pointing to her and smiling (17, figure 22), also recognizing her as partaker in the correcting procedure. This shows that correcting can be thanks-implicative in this setting where the distribution of correct information is an integral part of the institutional activity. Extract 5.5 shows that the professionals orient to the distribution of rights and obligations regarding the public establishment of correctly provided information and shared knowledge as central for the institutional task they are engaged in. This shows again that whilst providing incorrect information is delicate and makes an apology relevant, correcting is a legitimate and even collaboratively accomplished activity in this institutional framework where it is done for the (unknowing) audience. In sum, this section shows that the professionals recurrently correct emerging inadequate facts during the public meetings. The participants orient to misspeaking as delicate and account and/or apologize for this. In this way, they treat the activity of distributing information in public as a normative issue of institutional responsibilities to provide adequate information. The professionals correct the inadequacies immediately after their production and target and solve the problem by merely replacing the erroneous element with an alternative, sometimes prefaced with the negation non ‘no.’ The speaker of the trouble source acknowledges the correction by repeating it and may even treat it as thanks-implicative. Correcting descriptions As the professionals distribute information during the public meetings, they recognize and target factual references as inadequate. They also target emerging descriptions as correction-implicative. Interestingly, these sequences differ significantly from the factual corrections. Although they are not withheld past transition relevant places they are produced with modulated formats and both the correcting and the corrected party orient to the correction as delicate. Extract 5.6 is collected from an information meeting as a citizen, Edgar, asks about the number of floors in one of the buildings on the site. Vezard, an official representative, answers that there are two floors in the building on top of ground floor. Navarro, the project manager, corrects this in next turn by claiming that there is only one floor on ground floor. Navarro initiates the correction after the production of the trouble source but then suspends it until next turn and reformulates it.

Correcting for others  195

Extract 5.6a CAB_FC_211008_01.04.23.

196  Correcting for others

Extract 5.6a (Continued).

Correcting for others  197 The inquiry about the number of floors implicitly addresses the building’s potential usefulness, which relates to the much-debated issue of how many and which buildings on the site will be preserved (1–3). Whereas Prévost initially orients to Navarro as the relevant person to answer this question (4, figure 23), she refuses the mic and looks to Vezard, passing over the question to him (4, figure 23). This shows that while at least part of the information that the professionals convey is already distributed among them, the distribution of responsibility regarding who does what is negotiated in embodied, situated ways. Vezard formulates his response as being memory conditioned, alors de mémoire ‘so from memory’ (5). This displays some uncertainty regarding his response that there are, in all, three floors in the building (5–6). Navarro displays attentiveness as Vezard announces that the building has deux étages ‘two floors’ by leaning forward. At the next transition relevant place, she leans further forward (6) and scrutinizes the map projected on the wall, before making a bid for the floor by turning to Prévost (7–10, figure 24). Interestingly, Fior, another official representative seated to her right, assures the correctness of Vezard’s response through a confirmation token (9) in overlap with Navarro’s verbal bid for the turn (8–9). This suggests that he understands her embodied conduct and bid for the turn to project correction and pushes back on it. The participants thus orient to conveying information as a sequential environment where correcting practices may occur. When Navarro gets the microphone, she corrects Vezard’s answer by retrospectively modifying his response. In contrast to the factual corrections, Navarro expands her turn with several self-repairs and modulations. After abandoning an initial pro-forma agreement with the previous responses: y a effectivement- ‘there’s effectively-’ (cf. Extract  5.1), Navarro restarts her turn and projects a prospective formulation of the correction in simple future tense on va d- ‘we will s-’ (12). This is also abandoned and transformed into moi je dirais plutôt ‘me I would rather say,’ which further downgrades the correction and prospectively frames it as a personal choice among alternative descriptions. Her subsequent candidate description proposes an alternative counting of the floor in the buildings, composed with a publicly visible counting on her fingers (12–16, figures 25, 26). Navarro also orients to the map during the following pause (16) and then provides an account for the correction, explaining that the second floor above ground floor that Vezard previously referred to is not usable (17–20, figures 27–29). Navarro uses this account as an aspect signifying that there are only two floors in the building (20). By subsequently returning the microphone to the facilitator, she projects to close the sequence (21). The correction is clearly more elaborate than the corrections in Extracts 5.2–5.5. This is explained by the observation that the trouble source is more elaborate than the factual references in the previous extracts. Moreover, Navarro’s candidate description explicitly treats the answer’s correctness as dependent on what answer she hears the question to make relevant – that is, the building’s usability.

198  Correcting for others The participants orient to the number of floors as a matter of description. However, Vezard retrospectively establishes Navarro’s intervention as a legitimate correction verbally and by composing an apologetic posture, raising his hand with a vertical palm (22, figure 30). After a side sequence, due to the facilitator initiating repair, Vezard completes his retrospective alignment and claims the trouble source as an unintended problem of misspeaking.

Extract 5.6b CAB_FC_211008_01.04.23.

Correcting for others  199 After a repair sequence (24–28) (see Chapter 4, Extract 4.6), Vezard initiates a second repeat of the correction whilst pointing to the map, which he abandons due to the overlap (29, figure 31). After the facilitator’s public repeat of Navarro’s prior turn (30–31), Vezard self-selects nevertheless again and acknowledges the correction. By retrospectively explicating the trouble with the apologetic autant pour moi ‘my mistake,’ Vezard publicly establishes the prior sequence as doing error correction (32–34). In this way, he takes responsibility for the error as a misspeaking of his and orients to it as apology-implicative. By fully aligning with the replacing description he restores the professional interactional party as a collaborative association of participants. Vezard manifests this further by again repeating Navarro’s alternative description, referring to the “second floor” instead of “attic floor” (33), incorporating the politically laden account of the problem of its usage (34). Vezard thus publicly establishes this information as legitimately revised and, more importantly, to be relevant for the overhearing audience. In this way, the professionals collaboratively construe the correction as principally being an issue of providing the attending participants with accurate information. In contrast to the corrections of factual elements, Navarro addresses the correction to the audience instead of the speaker of the trouble source and the public correction is downgraded and formulated as an alternative description. The extended corrective turn does not only replace the previously reported number of floors but also makes publicly available a political understanding of what issue the citizen’s prior question addressed, that is, to what extent the building is relevant for future interests. In this way, the participants treat descriptions of states of affairs as politically implicative announcements and emerging, locally produced and publicly established facts that are subject to revision if not acceptable as such. Vezard’s subsequent repeat not only orients to the relevance of acknowledging her intervention as a correction but also retrospectively claims his initial answer as a misspeaking and ultimately establishes him and Navarro as speaking in agreement and as an institutional and professional interactional party. What emerges as a trouble source and correctable in Extract 5.7 is also a politically delicate description. The extract is drawn from an information meeting during the second phase of the project, whose objective is to inform the citizens about its current proceedings. We join the interaction as Navarro initiates an announcement about the ongoing construction work of the service road bordering the park, which is much criticized. Whereas the professionals claim that the purpose of the service road is to allow professionals (such as gardeners and construction workers) to access the site, the inhabitants in the immediate surroundings are worried that it will increase the traffic in the area. When Navarro brings up the question about the service road, she refers to it as a “road,” which her colleague Bert corrects.

200  Correcting for others

Extract 5.7 CAB_FC_031012_02.20.39.

Correcting for others  201

Extract 5.7 (Continued).

Navarro initially refers to the road construction as la voie de desserte ‘the service road’ (2), which prompts Bert to look to her and scrutinize her over his glasses during the continuation of her talk, displaying attentiveness to the topic (2, figure 32; cf. Extract 5.6a). Navarro continues with a description of the placement of the service road and its usage (2–4), which she claims involves a circulation between two roads (4–5). Interestingly, someone in the  audience produces a response-cry at this point, treating the topic as delicate (7). Navarro continues by building on her previous reference with the indexical cette rue ‘this street’ (8), which invokes associations to regular traffic rather than to a restrained professional usage. Bert, who has kept his gaze steady on Navarro until this point (2–9), grimaces immediately after the production of “road” and stretches out for the microphone. He corrects the prior usage description in overlap with Navarro (“servicing” versus “circulation”) (9–11) with a modulated format that shares several similarities with the correction in Extract 5.6. The replacing candidate is preceded by a prospective formulation in simple future tense and with an inclusive pronoun: on va dire ‘we will say’ (9). Note that this is the same construction as Navarro initiated but then abandoned for a more subjective format in

202  Correcting for others Extract 5.6 (line 12). In this way, Bert claims to correct on behalf of a professional interactional party. Moreover, by using the format “x rather than y,” he explicates the replacement as a normative matter and a choice between alternative descriptions (9–10, cf. Extract 5.6). Finally, he accounts for the correction with a “because”-framed format that alludes to political grounds (cf. Extract 5.6). The political delicacy is manifested in the grimace, the explicit replacement of the previously described usage of the road (service versus circulation), the subsequent account with laughter (10–11) and the nod to the side, which co-occurs with the retrospective announcement of the inadequate reference (10, figure 33). Bert completes the account with an embedded replacement of the reference, referring to rue (8) instead of voie (11). Both the speaker of the trouble source, Navarro, and the architect in charge of the project, Lignal, turn to Bert when he self-selects (9, figure 33). Navarro initiates a first verbal alignment with the correction in overlap but abandons it (12). She then re-issues an explicit agreement before reproducing Bert’s second replacement as the main reference for her subsequent and previously suspended talk (13). Whereas Navarro reorients to the screen in front of her as soon as the target of the correction is recognizable (10, figure 34), Lignal continues to look at Bert and takes a questioning posture by sustaining his gaze and grimacing while tilting his head to the side (10, figure 34). In this way, he publicly dis-aligns with the correction, treating it as illegitimate and not warranted. Extracts 5.6 and 5.7 differ from the sequences correcting factual elements in that they treat the trouble sources as deliberate choices of description. Although the corrections are not withheld beyond transition relevant places, they are produced with extended and modulated formats. An overt orientation to issues of legitimacy and relevance to do the correction are also observable, for instance when Lignal’s embodied non-alignment indexes the correction as delicate and not warranted (cf. Chapter 3). This shows that the nature of the trouble source is consequential for how correcting sequences are organized. It also shows that politically delicate matters surface and are managed through other-initiated other-repair, as a way to negotiate the acceptability of emerging candidate descriptions. Still, the professionals engage in interactional work to construe the corrections as being done as a professional party for the overhearing audience. In sum, the professionals recurrently use the practice of other-initiated other repair, or correction, to manage emerging troubles of acceptability regarding factual elements and descriptions. The corrections of factual elements differ substantively from corrections of descriptions. This is observable in the correction format, but also in how the corrected party acknowledges and eventually repeats the correction. However, the professionals design the corrective sequence as revising prior inadequate information as a professional interactional party for the overhearing audience in both cases.

Correcting for others  203

Other-correcting another interactional party Although less frequently, participants in the public meetings also identify and correct emerging inadequacies in another interactional party’s prior or ongoing talk. After examining an instance where a professional corrects a layperson, we will discuss an instance where a citizen corrects a professional party. These cases serve to further illuminate the specificities of professionals correcting within and as an interactional party. It also shows the complexity of correction as an interactional practice more generally. Professionals correcting citizens Extract 5.8 represents an instance where a professional revises a citizen’s inadequate name reference through a corrective replacement in next turn. It is drawn from the beginning of an information meeting, as the facilitator solicits comments from citizens attending the guided visits of the future park. The citizen Faure begins his account by giving thanks to the association “Robins des Villes” that was in charge of organizing the guided visit. This association has taken the name Robins des Villes, a wordplay with the French name for the literary character “Robin Hood,” Robin des Bois, which can be translated as “Robin of the Cities.” When Faure closes his turn by again giving thanks to the association, he inaccurately refers to them as “Robin des Bois,” which the facilitator corrects in the next turn.

Extract 5.8 CAB_FC_211008_00.01.36.

204  Correcting for others

Extract 5.8 (Continued).

Faure first expresses thanks to the association Robins des Villes, which is the actual name (1–2). His second reference Robins de Bois ‘Robin Hood’ is however erroneous (8). The facilitator reacts immediately by raising his head and looking around (8–9) but suspends the correction until next turn (11). When Faure returns the microphone, the facilitator corrects the misspeaking, establishing to adequately refer to proper names as a normative issue that is of public interest. In contrast to corrections of factual elements, this trouble does not constitute a practical informative problem but invokes a normative order of reference. The correction is produced in the next turn, but not demonstrably withheld to provide Faure with a possibility to self-correct (cf. Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Nevertheless, Prévost does orient to the correction as a delicate action, as he formats it substantially different from the corrections discussed in the prior sections. This is partly explainable by the observation that some time has passed between the trouble source and the moment at which the facilitator has access to the microphone again, which implies more interactional work to target the erroneous element than when it is produced adjacent to the trouble (Haakana and Kurhila 2009; cf. Extracts 5.2–5.4). Prévost relates the incorrect and correct references temporally by formulating the replacement as general information that “Robins de Bois” has become “Robins des Villes” (11). Furthermore, the facilitator raises his hand and extends his index finger. While he initially addresses the audience (11, figure 35), he then turns to the speaker of the trouble source, explicitly addressing him (11, figure 36). Faure does not have the microphone anymore and is not in the camera frame at this point. Consequently, we do not have any demonstrable evidence

Correcting for others  205 of him acknowledging the correction. However, at least one other citizen aligns with the correction (14). The subsequent laughter in the audience also furnishes evidence that the facilitator is heard as doing “correcting” (16). The fact that the citizen has already produced the correct name reference once shows that this is not a problem of “knowing” for the citizen, nor of “instructing,” for the facilitator, but the correction invokes a normative order of producing accurate references as these are announced in public. However, the facilitator does not initially address the speaker of the trouble source in public but formulates the correction as a general information with a passive format. In this way, he displays a delicacy regarding correcting others, when they do not belong to the same interactional party. Citizens correcting professionals Extract 5.9 provides an example of a citizen correcting a professional. It is drawn from the beginning of one of the brainstorming meetings as Bert, the politically responsible for the project, provides information about the projects’ budget constraints. When he explains the procedure for the voting of the budget, he refers three times to the city of Lyon as the executive political institution, whereas the actual responsible institution is the municipality of Lyon. When Bert projects to move on to the next issue, a citizen self-selects and corrects the inadequate reference.

Extract 5.9a CAB_FC_181109_GPB_00.23.01.

206  Correcting for others Bert refers to the city of Lyon as the executive political framework three times (5, 8, 11). In contrast to all other corrective sequences discussed in this chapter, none of the participants displays any orientation to the reference as inadequate at this point. Only when Bert projects to move on to the next topic, one of the citizens, Suard, self-selects and corrects the reference.

Extract 5.9b CAB_FC_181109_GPB_00.23.01.

Correcting for others  207

Extract 5.9b (Continued).

When Bert recognizably projects to initiate the next topic (14), Suard selfselects by raising his arm and producing a turn-initial excuse. In that way, he acknowledges that he departs from the established turn-taking system and reflexively institutes it further, before he engages in the correction (15). Prefacing the correction with the construction vous avez dit, ‘you have said,’ both allows Suard to retrospectively target the trouble source in the previous turn and to prospectively make recognizable that a correction is underway (16). The use of the verb dire ‘to say’ in this sequence contrasts with the corrections addressing descriptions ( je dirais, on va dire). Furthermore, the pronoun in second person plural (vous ‘you’) makes an explicit distinction between the correcting party and the speaker of the trouble source. In contrast to the extracts discussed earlier, where the professionals design the corrective sequences as providing adequate information as one interactional party, Suard explicates Bert as accountable for the inadequate information. Again, this other-initiated other-repair is not claiming a problem of hearing or understanding, but the correcting replacement embodies a problem of accepting a misspeaking on behalf of another. Suard composes the correction multi-modally by raising his pen vertically (16, figure 37), which contributes to render the correction publicly recognizable as such (cf. Extract 5.8). By withholding the correction until what is recognizable as the end of the larger unit, Suard manifests his understanding of this point in time as a transition place and as the “last possible point” to make the correction (cf. Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977:373). The correction prompts Bert to excuse himself in overlap, raising his arm, palm up, forming an apologetic gesture (18, figure 38), displaying misspeaking as (politically) delicate. Bert’s subsequent repositioning of his body, resulting in his hand being placed on his forehead, which provides the misspeaking an iconic gestalt, and a second excuse followed by a repeat of the correction (21, figure 39) further characterize the trouble source as a mistake. This is, moreover, made explicit by Bert, who continues by retrospectively formulating the incorrect reference as a lapsus ‘slip of the tongue’ (24).

208  Correcting for others Interestingly, when repeating the correction, Bert attributes it to Suard, pointing at him and looking at him over the glasses (20, figure 40). In this way, he publicly orients to the distribution of correct information as relevant and the correction as legitimate. Suard’s repeat of the correction in overlap with Bert, and another citizen’s confirmation token, manifests this legitimacy further. Extract 5.9 shows that when a citizen corrects a professional, also when the trouble source is a factual element, the correction format is substantively different from when participants within a professional interactional party correct an emerging inadequate reference for the audience. It is not a disputable question of how to name something, but which political institution is in charge of the budgetary costs for this project. This explains why the correction ultimately is thanks-implicative. Although Suard might be argued to display a certain orientation to correcting as delicate by delaying the correction to the “last point” before Bert initiates the next topic, he excuses himself for the self-selection and places the replacement in turn-final position. The participants nevertheless orient to correcting inadequate factual information as legitimate and relevant.

Discussion This chapter discusses correcting as a professional practice to identify and solve emerging troubles of factual and descriptive aspects of public speech. The way in which the participants organize the sequences suggests that correcting is recurrently used as a practice to ensure that inadequacies are revised and repeated for the overhearing audience. The participants treat the emerging replacements of prior elements as doing “correcting” in all examples. The trouble source is targeted through its replacement, which the speaker of the trouble source subsequently repeats (Jefferson 1987). Moreover, the participants orient to the corrections as apology- and/or thanks-implicative. The significant difference among the corrective sequences depends on whether the trouble source is a factual or descriptive element. In Extracts 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5, the inadequate information is preceded by hesitating elements such as stretched vowels and pauses, projecting the possibility of an emerging trouble. This explains the early identification and production of a candidate solution to the trouble source. These instances contrast with Extract 5.4, where the trouble is not projectable and where there is a gap between the production of the trouble source and the correction. When the professionals identify factual information as erroneous, they target and solve this problem by immediately replacing the inadequate information with correct information (Extracts 5.2–5.4). They also produce the corrections in a lower voice and faster pace than surrounding speech (Extracts 5.2–5.5). This indicates that they are recipient-designed for the speaker of the trouble source and not as public speech. Conversely, the

Correcting for others  209 trouble source speakers’ acknowledgment of and alignment with the correction are recipient-designed for, and addressed to, the overhearing audience and not the correcting participant(s). Although the corrected participants manifest a double orientation by engaging in attendant activities such as apologizing and giving thanks, the principal activity remains conveying information to the audience. In this way, the corrective sequence establishes professionals as one interactional party, which orients to conveying adequate information as the principal course of action during these meetings. This also explains why the professionals correct without delay and with minimal, non-modulated formats (simple replacement of the trouble source or “no” + replacement). Delayed corrections can be explained by the participants’ practical problem to identify and produce a correction that recognizably identifies a prior reference as inadequate and replaces it (see Haakana and Kurhila 2009). Only one instance of a withheld factual correction was identified in this corpus (Extract 5.5). This delay is explainable by practical contingencies related to the multi-party setting and organizational aspects such as access to the microphone. Corrective insertions can be argued to hinder the progressivity of the interaction (Stivers and Robinson 2006) since they delay the production of next actions and therefore are “dis-preferred.” On the other hand, the interactional, institutional and ultimately political implications of not revising wrong information are indeed treated as even less preferred. The observation that the practices used by participants to format corrections of factual elements differ substantially from corrections of descriptions seems related to this. Whereas the factual corrections are produced with a minimal format and are not designed as public talk, descriptive corrections are expanded turns that address both the overhearing audience and the speaker of the trouble source. The participants correcting descriptive elements orient to what emerge as trouble sources as possibly problematic when the problematic issues are recognizable as politically delicate, which is shown in their displayed attentiveness to their colleague’s unfolding talk (Extracts 5.6, 5.7). These corrections are more or less explicitly formatted as an alternative and normatively preferred description, using the inclusive pronoun on ‘we’ or je ‘I’ and the verb dire ‘to say’ with a prospective construction (“I would say”, “we will say”). Moreover, they are followed by accounts. This shows that the participants orient to corrections of descriptive elements as making relevant explanations, establishing them as socially delicate. The participants also orient to correcting descriptions as more politically charged and they question their relevance (Extract 5.7). The analysis of two corrective sequences of factual elements that are not produced among professionals shows that the participants orient to this as more delicate than to correct within and as an interactional party. This is shown by the fact that the participants in these cases withhold the correction to the next turn (Extract 5.8) or to the last possible point before initiating the next topic (Extract 5.9). These corrections are also formatted

210  Correcting for others differently from the corrections among professionals. In Extract 5.8, the facilitator formulates the correction as revising a narration without explicitly attributing the misspeaking to the citizen and speaker of the trouble source. In this way, he minimizes the personal responsibility of the misspeaker. The citizen correcting the professional, on the other hand, holds the professional publicly accountable for the misspeaking but provides several prospective cues that a correction is underway. This shows the participants’ expectations of the interactional parties’ respective obligation to possess and provide correct information, and the normative order that it invokes. The corrections are made publicly recognizable by the correcting party as well as by the corrected party. The correcting party indexes this both prospectively and retrospectively through linguistic and embodied resources, by replacing the trouble source with an alternative reference and composing a “corrective” gestalt, for example by raising a hand with the index finger extended (Extracts 5.3, 5.8). The participants also deploy gestures as an integral part of correcting, for example by indicating numbers. The corrected party acknowledges the correction by repeating the correctable and providing accounts and composing apologetic gestalts. This displays the participants’ orientation to correcting inadequacies in this setting as a legitimate, relevant and even collaborative action. The correction repeats both acknowledge and align with the revision and forward the corrected information to the overhearing audience. This double orientation is particularly clear in, for example, Extract 5.4, where the facilitator first addresses the audience and then produces a second repeat recipient designed for the correcting party. The corrections are treated as putting things to right as public speech. When comparing the professional corrections in this chapter with the corrections treated in Chapter 2, it appears that the situated accomplishment of other-initiated other-repair heavily depends on the course of action that the participants are engaged in, which interactional party it is that corrects and the nature of the trouble source – for example whether the trouble source is recognized as doing informing, describing or criticizing. These findings do not provide for a generic account of other-correction in interaction as a fundamental practice for solving emerging troubles of acceptability. However, they do show that participants treat replacements as doing correcting, that the corrections issue from a problem of acceptability (as opposed to audibility or understandability) and that this practice is used recurrently to ensure the situated production of adequate information in and through public speech. Contrary to previous accounts of other-corrections, correcting factual elements in this institutional setting can be treated as legitimate and collaborative. Conveying and exchanging information is a central task during the meetings. Having access to practical information and shared knowledge about issues that are relevant for the (political) discussion is also crucial for participating in the project. The corrections embody the

Correcting for others  211 participants’ orientation to their respective rights and obligations to have access to information and establish “adequate” shared knowledge in public and for the record. As the earlier analysis shows, the practical problem of publicly distributing “adequate” information is also a political problem. This chapter contributes to our understanding of the organization of correction as a fundamental resource to establish shared knowledge through public speech in this specific setting. Moreover, it contributes to our understanding of the participants’ demonstrable understanding of the situated production of shared knowledge and publicly ratified facts as intrinsic to the political activity.

6

Conclusion Repair, knowledge and institutions

Other-initiated self- and other-repair is a fundamental resource for solving emerging problems in interaction. Its procedural aspects allow for the situated, moment by moment production of intersubjectivity for all practical purposes. The central interest of this book is how the participants to political meetings identify, claim and eventually solve problems of hearing, understanding, speaking and accepting public speech as a means to establish shared knowledge and manage institutional agendas. Prior research has primarily focused on the sequential and formal aspects of repair practices (see Chapter 2). This book confirms but extends these findings by showing that participants to the political meetings use these generic practices for specific institutional and political aims. Laypersons and professionals recurrently use interactional repair to claim and solve interactional problems that involve access to and distribution of propositional knowledge within the participation framework. By using repair practices to negotiate their respective rights to access and obligations to share information, they display that the situated production of shared knowledge is politically relevant. The specific ways in which problems of intersubjectivity are claimed and solved reflexively establish the normative order(s) within the activity as a participatory democracy activity. In their seminal paper on the organization of turn-taking in interaction, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) explain the significance of resources for fixing emerging problems in a sequentially organized way, within a reflexively construed normative order which the participants talk into being. The essentially normative underpinnings of social order are revealed by that which participants identify as departures from it (Garfinkel 1967; Schegloff and Sacks 1973) and the procedures for coming to terms with emerging problems in interaction are a fundamental resource for social actors to analyze and display their understanding of how the interaction unfolds. The number and nature of emerging problems in interaction are infinite. Nevertheless, the interactional resources social actors mobilize for targeting and solving them are recurrent, publicly available and recognizable as doing just that. Sharing and discussing information is explicated as the principal activity during the public meetings. Therefore, it is not surprising that the described

Conclusion  213 repair practices pervasively concern the normative underpinnings of the situated production and distribution of information and propositional knowledge.

Repairing as a professional practice The introductory analysis of repair sequences identified in these recordings confirms but extends previous claims about what principal action(s) participants understand other-initiated self- and other-repair to do (Chapter  2). The systematic comparison between the two suggests that participants orient to “self” and “other” as consequential for the sequence organization and for what kind of problem the participants hear the repair to address. The differences are observable in the sequences’ formal properties. In other-initiated self-repair, sequences identifying and proposing a solution to a targeted problem involve distinct interactional parties. In other-initiated other-repair sequences, identifying a problem is done by means of proposing a solution to it and consequently done by the same party. If “self’s” proposed solution to “other’s” repair initiation is not accepted, this results in another repair sequence(s) until the trouble is solved. Although the grounds for initiating repair may be questioned and negotiated (Chapter 3), the repair initiation itself cannot be refused as “inadequate.” Conversely, other-initiated other-repair can be simply rejected, eventually resulting in explicit disagreement. Whereas other-initiated self-repair concerns issues of hearing, understanding and accepting aspects of the prior or ongoing interaction, other-initiated other-repair essentially addresses issues of acceptability and is treated as doing “correcting.” Issues of acceptability, treating some aspect of the interaction as inadequate, are solved through replacement by “self” or by “other.” Whereas participants treat evoked problems of hearing and understanding as relating to intersubjectivity, they treat issues of acceptability as relating to normativity. The corrected parties in these data recurrently acknowledge corrective replacements by repeating the corrected element, giving thanks or apologizing. However, to produce successive alternative descriptions of matters is not necessarily heard as doing “correcting.” This observation shows the need to further examine the formal properties of “replacing” and the actions this practice is used to do. No systematic study has yet been conducted that exclusively concerns the organization of repair in French and the actions that it can vehicle (but see de Fornel 1990 and Persson 2015b). This review of the state of the art of research on repair on these data in French contributes to and converges with prior research on repair as a fundamental interactional practice with generic formal properties. In Chapter 3, I discussed establishing and distributing information and shared knowledge as a principal activity during these public meetings. The chairman and the organizers explicate this in public, and its significance is reflexively established in the participants’ use of repair practices to ensure

214  Conclusion solving eventual problems with access to and management of propositional knowledge. The trouble source is targeted with a partial repeat, which prompts an elaboration of the problem by the speaker of the trouble source turn in these data. Both laypersons and professionals participating in the meetings use this resource in order to clarify specific prior talk in public. However, by claiming to initiate repair on behalf of a possibly unknowing third party and furthermore accounting for it by referring to an attributed distribution of knowledge among the participants, the facilitator establishes the practice as a professional practice. In this way, the professionals display an institutional orientation to the participants’ rights and obligations to provide and access publicly conveyed information. That the participants orient to expectations regarding their displayed access to and distribution of information is also demonstrated by the fact that the audience sometimes orient to the professionals’ repair initiations as not being warranted. In these cases, the professionals produce jokes or explanations for the repair sequence, which suggests that it is socially delicate to initiate repair on a claimed trouble of understanding when it is not necessary. In Chapter 4, I examined instances where the professionals initiate repair on claimed problems of hearing emerging contributions by participants who self-select during the public meetings and then repeat the repair solutions in public. The formal properties of these extended open-class repair sequences differ by virtue of the sequential environment in which the trouble source turn is produced: (i) when the trouble source emerges as a co-telling among professionals during an informative course of action, (ii) when a participant self-selects and provides additional information about unfolding or prior talk and (iii) when a citizen and layperson self-selects and produces a politically challenging action. In a co-telling context, the participants design the repair sequence in such a way that the informative course of action is pursued as one professional interactional party, addressing the audience. When a participant self-selects in a question-answer environment and provides additional information, the facilitator designs the repair initiation so that it publicly selects the speaker of the trouble source as the next speaker. Moreover, the professional attributes the contribution and repaired trouble to its author when they subsequently repeat it in public. The observation that the participants orient to the practice as noticeably absent when it is not produced suggests that it is a situated expectancy in specific sequential environments. To publicly repeat the repair solution in the microphone, allow the ensemble of the participants to gain access to the repaired element, but this slot also allows for the professional to eventually alter key aspects of the trouble source turn. In sequential environments where a citizen self-selects and produces a criticism, the professionals do not produce a full repeat of the repaired turn, but retrospectively change the initial action to a less delicate undertaking when they repeat the repair in public. In all, I identified 13 instances of open-class initiated repair sequences during the public information meetings. In all cases but two, a professional repeated the

Conclusion  215 repair solution in the microphone. The examination of these cases further explains the public repeats of the repair as related to establishing public talk as talk for the record which should be accessible for all participants – on certain terms. The repair sequences in Chapter 4 that emerge in a situation of “co-telling” provide additional information or elaborate prior or unfolding talk. These environments have a corrective character in the sense that the professionals modulate or alter what is produced as shared knowledge. However, they are not corrections in the sense that they recognizably target a prior element as inadequate through a replacing alternative. This is, however, the case in Chapter 5. The participants recurrently use correcting practices during these meetings to ensure that the information that professionals convey is adequate. The corrections of factual elements that are produced within and as a professional party are minimal in their format, suggesting that, in this context, the participants orient to a preference for the activity’s progressivity rather than a preference for self-correction. Furthermore, by engaging in attending activities, such as apologizing for a prior misspeaking or thanking for a correction, the participants treat the adequacy of conveyed information as central for the activity they engage in by virtue of it being publicly shared information for the record. The formal properties of the corrections among professionals that target “descriptive” elements differ from corrections of “factual” elements. They are delayed, produced with elaborated formats explicating it as a choice of description, addressed to the overhearing audience, as well as the speaker of the trouble source and followed by accounts. This shows that the participants orient to the nature of the trouble source as consequential for how they organize corrective courses of action. Furthermore, this reflexively construes a differentiation between elements that can be defined as “factual” and elements that are choices of “description.” In this way, the participants manifestly consider recognizable descriptions as possible “versions” of facts. This calls for further investigation concerning the formal properties, or recognizability, of these eventual categories. The observed situated, public production of “facts” by means of interactional repair addresses the question of how the procedural know-how of claiming and solving problems in interaction is related to propositional knowledge as a publicly available achievement in interaction.

Knowing in and as action Knowledge may be regarded as the evidence of, premise and warrant for many professional and lay proceedings. The findings discussed in the previous chapters inform us about how the situated achievement of intersubjectivity and propositional knowledge are made accountable on institutional grounds and how interactional repair indicates how they relate to each other. Whereas epistemological studies investigate knowledge as a research topic in its own right, a number of disciplines ranging from philosophy to

216  Conclusion linguistics and pedagogy are concerned with its direct or indirect relation to social action. This book considers action as an accountable, publicly available social phenomenon, which is empirically demonstrable through systematic examination of naturally occurring interactions. Accordingly, knowing and understanding are procedural and publicly available practical accomplishments, rather than cognitive and private phenomena. As Garfinkel writes, “there is no reason to look under the skull since nothing of interest is to be found there but brains” (1963:190). This radically praxeological approach to knowing and understanding resonates the philosophical turn toward knowledge as a holistic and situated phenomenon. In contrast to classical reasonings about knowing and understanding as the result of hidden mental processes, Ryle (1949) and Wittgenstein (1958) argue for an incarnated, situated and observable account of knowledge. Ryle writes: “The traditional theory of the mind has misconstrued the type-distinction between disposition and exercise into its mythical bifurcation of unwitnessable mental causes and their witnessable physical effects” (1949:22). Regarding the observable properties of knowledge in and as action, he proposes a differentiation between “knowing that” and “knowing how,” criticizing the prevalent claimed relationship between intelligence and intellect (1949:20): What distinguishes sensible from silly operations is not their parentage but their procedure, and this holds no less for intellectual than for practical performances. ‘Intelligent’ cannot be defined in terms of ‘intellectual’ or ‘knowing how’ in terms of ‘knowing that’: ‘thinking what I am doing’ does not connote ‘both thinking what to do and doing it’. When I do something intelligently, i.e. thinking what I am doing, I am doing one thing and not two. My performance has a special procedure or manner, not special antecedents. In this way, Ryle takes a procedural approach to knowing as demonstrable through its public manifestation. Practical skills can be achieved and exercised without the actor being able to explain the procedures that allow for its achievement. Conversely, it is possible to provide a theoretical account for a practical procedure without being capable of exercising it. In this way, “to understand” some matters ought to be considered as the use of the means by which a course of action is organized so that it is recognizable as doing that particular course of action – such as doing “speaking in public.” Accordingly, Ryle recognizes natural language as an example of knowledge as a publicly displayed understanding of the procedures that allow for its construction, demonstrable through their application (1949:47): Misunderstanding is a by-product of knowing how. Only a person who is at least a partial master of the Russian tongue can make the wrong sense of a Russian expression. Mistakes are exercises of competences.

Conclusion  217 Wittgenstein, in turn, argues for a differentiation between “mental states,” such as experiencing excitement or pain, and praxeological “understanding” of some matters (Wittgenstein 1958:143–155). He further elaborates on the difference between understanding and manifesting understanding (1958:149): If one says that knowing the ABC is a state of the mind, one is thinking of a state of a mental apparatus (perhaps of the brain) by means of which we explain the manifestations of that knowledge. Such a state is called a disposition. But there are objections to speaking of a state of the mind here, inasmuch as there ought to be two different criteria for such a state: a knowledge of the construction of the apparatus, quite apart from what it does. In this way, understanding is not conceived as a punctual and absolute achievement of knowledge about propositional content, but a justifiable application of a specific procedure under specific circumstances. Claimed knowledge is reflexively ratified as such through its display in a particular situation and inspected for its relevance in that situation. Consequently, Wittgenstein gives the following recommendation (1958:154): Try not to think of understanding as a ‘mental process’ at all. – For that is the expression which confuses you. But ask yourself: in what sort of case, in what kind of circumstances do we say, ‘Now I know how to go on,’ when, that is, the formula has occurred to me? – In the sense in which there are processes (including mental processes) which are characteristic of understanding, understanding is not a mental process. (A pain’s growing more and less; the hearing of a tune or a sentence: these are mental processes.) Originating from the phenomenological tradition of philosophy, Schutz developed another take on social actors’ knowledge as he took an interest in how it relates to the issue of intersubjectivity. As Heritage puts it, the “problem of intersubjectivity” concerns the question “how can two or more actors share common experiences of the natural and social world, and, relatedly, how can they communicate about them?” (1984b:54). Heritage explains that although Schutz observed that it is impossible for humans to appreciate identical experiences of some matters we assume, for all practical purposes, that this is the case. As a consequence, we act as if our experiences are identical – a “world known in common and taken for granted.” Garfinkel elaborated the idea of social actors’ presumed “world in common” and proposed that this is due to the procedural nature of social interaction (1967:41–42). He writes: ‘Shared agreement’ refers to various social methods for accomplishing the member’s recognition that something was said-according-to-a-rule

218  Conclusion and not the demonstrable matching of substantive matters. The appropriate image of a common understanding is therefore an operation rather than a common intersection of overlapping sets. (1967:30) Arguing that propositional content, or “knowing that,” cannot be appreciated as such if it is not recognizably done as that also implies the necessity of “knowing how” to claim and manifest knowledge in an accountable way. To claim a problem with hearing, understanding and accepting aspects of unfolding courses of action on behalf of “self” or “other(s)” is fundamental for ensuring a shared understanding for emerging propositional content. This study shows that these practices are also fundamental for claiming, displaying and attributing knowledge on behalf of “self” and “other(s).” This praxeological approach to “the problem of intersubjectivity” essentially alters the issue from being an epistemological problem to a member’s problem, and consequentially a topic of investigation for scholars interested in social structures. Schegloff explicates the problem of intersubjectivity as the very basis for social theory (1992:1296): […] without systematic provision for a world known and held in common by some collectivity of persons, one has not a misunderstood world, but no conjoint reality at all. That is, the problem of intersubjectivity (or cognitive order) is theoretically anterior to whatever formulations of problems of order or conflict are part of the tradition of social theory. Absent intersubjectivity, the terms of any social theory – whether they refer to interests or values, persons or roles, authority or power – by definition cannot name anything oriented to or effective with any regularity or commonality, for there could not be any common recognition of them. Schegloff insists on members’ establishment of intersubjectivity as intrinsic to their co-construction of social action, arguing that intersubjectivity is not only a […] mere convergence between multiple interpreters of the world (whether understood substantively or procedurally) but potentially convergence between the ‘doers’ of an action or a bit of conduct and its recipients, as co-producers of an increment of interactional and social reality. (Schegloff 1992:1299) In this way, he designates action as the principal means by which members of a society cooperatively and reflexively construct society. The social organization of taking turns at talk (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974) is a classic example of understanding as an action that can

Conclusion  219 be accounted for by the procedures through which it is publicly manifested. Moerman and Sacks point out that the practical accomplishment of displaying reciprocal understanding that turn-taking incorporates issues from the management of two interrelated tasks (1988:83): […] the collaborative location of transition points, and the collaborative use of means for arriving at who speaks after any current speaker. These are tasks which, on the situated occasions of their solution, are tasks of understanding. And participants so interpret them. They take failing to talk when one has been selected to and another stops as evidence of failing to understand what has been said. In this way, the turn-taking system embodies the evidence of the interactants’ achievement of intersubjectivity. The reciprocal acceptance of reference to methodical proceedings and propositional content is manifested in the know-how of the procedures that allow for its accomplishment. As Schegloff and Sacks put it (1973:297–298): […] by an adjacently positioned second, a speaker can show that he understood what a prior aimed at, and that he is willing to go along with that. Also, by virtue of the occurrence of adjacently produced second, the doer of a first can see that what he intended was indeed understood, and that it was or was not accepted. Also, of course, a second can assert his failure to understand, or disagreement, and inspection of a second by a first can allow the first speaker to see that while the second thought he understood, indeed he misunderstood. It is the through the use of adjacent positioning that appreciations, failures, corrections, etcetera can be themselves understandably attempted. Participants display their understanding of the unfolding interaction through the resources they use to retrospectively claim a problem with recognizing its prospective features. There is no process anterior to the procedure of indicating a failure of understanding in order to achieve understanding. The understanding of an unfolding interaction’s procedural character is established in the procedures by which its local breakdown is indicated, that is, through repair practices. This interactional competence also allows participants to claim interactional problems in order to manage other issues. It is this particularity that Moerman addresses in his introductory commentary to his and Sacks’ chapter on turn-taking. He points out than instead of referring to turn-taking practices as events of “understanding,” they ought to be treated as “the events that pass or fail to pass as understandings” (Moerman 1988:180). The observation that the participants to the public meetings recurrently use practices for repairing on behalf of other(s) attests the relevance of this recommendation. Repairing and correcting problems of hearing, understanding and accepting aspects of public speech are manifestly

220  Conclusion treated as a social issue of letting events pass as displayed understandings of a world known in common – or not. These “understandings” include the estimated understandability of technical terms, the (in)audibility of emerging speech and the acceptability of descriptions of various matters. Research within Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis has a long-lasting interest in knowledge as a situated, sequential and embodied achievement. Construing, transferring and understanding knowledge and embodied skills are also the focal task of many institutional settings such as the research environment (Mondada 2005), classroom interaction (Kääntä 2010; Macbeth 2004, 2011), instructive activities (Hindmarsh, Hyland, and Banerjee 2014; Hindmarsh, Reynolds, and Dunne, 2011; Keevallik 2010; Lindwall and Ekström 2012; Mondada 2011b) and interdisciplinary workplace meetings (Mondada 2008). In their study on scientists’ optical discovery of a pulsar in the Crab Nebula, Garfinkel, Lynch and Livingston conclude that in order to examine the discovery as eventually ratified scientific propositional knowledge, it does not suffice to consider the de-temporalized scientific output, but the analyst “[…] need[s] to identify what that consists of as their local, interactionally produced recognized, and understood embodied practices” (1981:135). Along the same lines, Goodwin shows how institutional knowledge is construed through practices of “professional vision” in his examination of an archeological field excavation and the legal argumentation in the politically consequential law case about the police beating of Rodney King. He writes: “An event being seen, a relevant object of knowledge, emerges through the interplay between a domain of scrutiny […] and a set of discursive practices […] b eing deployed within a specific activity […]” (1994:606). The ways in which participants to interaction refer to propositional knowledge publicly display their understanding of and reflexively establish these matters as such. This resonates with Sacks’ observation concerning the difference between claiming to know and demonstrating to know (1995:II, lecture 9. See also Heritage 2007; Hindmarsh, Reynolds, and Dunne, 2011; Mondada 2011b; Wittgenstein 1958:144–155). This, in turn, is directly related to the observation that members’ reciprocal knowledge ascription (Heritage 2007; Sacks and Schegloff 1979) and assumed distribution of knowledge within a participation framework (Goodwin and Goodwin 2004; Mondada 2011b, 2013a) are procedurally consequential for how they organize the activity. For example, Goodwin (1979) shows how a speaker can reflexively manifest and accordingly adjust the recipient design of an unfolding utterance by modifying its propositional content in agreement with its assumed news value, that is, the recipient(s) epistemic access to the content. The analysis in previous chapters shows that the participants recurrently manage and refer to epistemic issues by virtue of them as inherent aspects of the institutional activity they engage in. Furthermore, they recurrently use repair practices to claim and display their own and other’s knowledge and attribute knowledge to others.

Conclusion  221 Research on the relevance of social epistemics for social interaction has increased significantly in Conversation Analysis in the last years. It concerns participants’ claimed “rights” to knowledge, their monitoring of how the distribution of claimed knowledge is morally ordered (Stivers, Mondada, and Steensig 2011) and the claim that social epistemics are primordial in social interaction (Heritage 2012c, 2013; Heritage and Raymond 2005). The latter has prompted a lively discussion (Heritage 2018; Lynch and Macbeth 2016), which addresses essential issues for the field (Lindwall, Lymer, and Ivarsson 2016; Sormani 2013) as it debates some of Conversation Analysis’ fundamental principles (Heritage 1984b:241–244). Heritage (2012a) argues that epistemic status, that is, participants’ relative epistemic access and right to some territory of knowledge, can be distributed on a two-polar gradient going from more knowledgeable (K+) to less knowledgeable (K−). Participants continuously monitor their relative epistemic positioning, which is displayed in the action formation or epistemic stance that the participants take vis-à-vis the unfolding interaction. The reciprocated orientation to epistemic status and stance is argued to work as the “engine” for social interaction: […] the role of epistemic status in the production and recognition of actions adds a further, and significant, order of relevance for this consideration. If no turn-at-talk can be fully grasped as an action without taking epistemic status into account, the organization of social action itself is profoundly intertwined with epistemic considerations. Correspondingly, monitoring epistemic status in relation to each and every turn-at-talk is an unavoidable feature of the construction of talk as action. (Heritage 2012b:386) Research on how epistemic access and epistemic rights are consequential for the intelligibility of action formation includes, for example, particles such as “oh,” displaying a change of state token (Heritage 1984a, 1998), the difference between ach and achso in repair uptake (Golato and Betz 2008), partial questioning repeats as a means to initiate repair (Robinson 2013a), the production of alternative subsequent descriptions (Sidnell and Barnes 2013) and how the organization of repair reflects the participants’ orientation toward the distribution of their relative knowledge (Bolden 2013, 2018). The analysis proposed in this book converges partly with these findings. The participants demonstrably orient to the distribution of knowledge among them as significant for the relevance of initiating repair. For example, when a trouble source has been clarified, the repair sequence is extended by a public repeat of the repair solution for the overhearing audience. The professionals also refer to the attribution of knowledge to others’ as an account for legitimately initiating repair. However, what professionals and laypersons claim and demonstrate themselves and others to know is ultimately negotiated and established in the interaction and it is not an assumed precondition.

222  Conclusion Although much work on the distribution of propositional knowledge has focused on “ordinary” settings in conversations between family and friends, Mondada argues for its particular relevance in institutional interactions, […] where normative and moral expectations coupled with epistemic perspectives are strongly associated with membership categories and category-bound activities, and where the relevant distribution of knowledge and expertise is consequential for the achievement of tasks and practical purposes, as well as for social affiliation. (Mondada 2011a:27) Epistemic asymmetries regarding the rights and obligations to hold, seek, claim and demonstrate access to knowledge in institutional settings have, for example, been researched in classroom interaction (Antaki 2013; Kääntä 2014), medical interactions (Heritage and Robinson 2006; Raymond 2014) and guided visits (Mondada 2013). In the context examined in this book, the participants recurrently orient to the asymmetric distribution of information among them as consequential for how they organize the interaction. Moreover, they publicly explicate this as consequential for organizing the meetings in the first place. To distribute information and publicly establish shared knowledge is explicated as the key objective with the information meetings and crucial for participating to the project. The interactional work that laypersons and professionals engage in for dealing with the asymmetry of knowledge displays that they orient to this as consequential for the participatory democracy aspect of the activity. The analysis also shows that the participants’ epistemic positions are established in situ. The distribution of access to propositional knowledge, the right to access information and the obligation to provide it in an intelligible way are publicly negotiated during the interaction. It has been argued that the “territorial right” to certain epistemic positions is consequential for some forms of social institutions (Heritage and Raymond 2005). This book attests the important interactional work participants engage in to negotiate and eventually establish such positions. The participants manifest their expectations regarding their respective rights and obligations to hold knowledge. This is, for example, demonstrable by the fact that the citizens can orient to professionals’ claimed problems of understanding, embodied in the repair initiation, as not being warranted. The participants also mitigate or even deny to hold or to have access to information for political reasons. On the other hand, the participants attribute knowledge to others while claiming “not knowing” themselves. These issues manifestly relate to the normative order that is inherent to this institutional activity. Whereas displaying “not knowing” runs the risk of appearing ignorant, having access but not telling runs the risk of appearing non-transparent. Consequently, the participants orient to interactional problems as politically laden, and

Conclusion  223 political issues are conversely claimed as ensuing from interactional problems. Members’ orientation to the distribution of knowledge as epistemic positions is ultimately a situated achievement. During the public meetings, epistemic positions are observable and publicly constituted and demonstrated by the participants, for the participants, through specific uses of generic repair practices. In sum, the practices for solving procedural problems in interaction are principal practices for managing the construction of propositional knowledge. Knowledge is socially constituted and it can only, and must, be understood as it is produced and maintained within institutions (Heritage 1984b:6). Hence, it is the procedural construction of knowledge that constitutes social institutions. In the case of public meetings within a political participatory democracy project, the situated production of and locally managed distribution of knowledge are manifestly intrinsic to and consequential for the activity as an institutional and political activity. The participants recurrent use of procedural know-how of claiming and solving problems on behalf of themselves or others depends on and is consequential for the situated production of shared knowledge. In this sense, the participants in these data make recourse to interactional repair as a fundamental practice for managing the democratic aspects of the political meetings.

Summing up Repair practices are essential interactional resources to claim, disclaim and negotiate situated manifestations of understanding in interaction. This book shows that the generic social practice of interactional repair is consequential for accomplishing the public meetings as a democratic procedure. Participants treat organizational features of the interaction as relevant and consequential for the political activity they engage in. Examining how the participants claim and solve emerging troubles reveals that the participants’ orientation to emerging talk as public speech, that is likely to be retained for the record, is consequential for how they use and organize the repair practices. The ensemble of the participants, including official representatives and attending citizens, also monitors the distribution of knowledge within the participation framework and attributes knowledge to interactional parties. This, in turn, is consequential for how they use interactional repair to establish emerging talk as publicly shared knowledge. Interactional repair has the sequence-organizational specificity that it suspends what is projected as a relevant next action. The participants claim problems of understanding, hearing and accepting emerging elements in interaction, but they also tailor the repair practices to alter information and modify the conditional relevance that prior and projected courses of actions set up when these are politically delicate. In this way, the specificity of these data contributes to our understanding of the generic features of interactional

224  Conclusion repair. However, the described repair practices and the specific, displayed aims for which they are mobilized are not exclusive to institutional political interactions and some particularities in how the repair sequences are organized are for example inherent to the number of parties participating to the interaction (Bolden 2011; Egbert 1997; Schegloff 1995). The specific social interactional achievements that are accomplished through repair in this setting are likely to be found in “ordinary conversation” as well as in other institutional setting. The ultimate evidence of this is the observation that the participants treat the specificities of the repair sequences as recognizably doing repairing for “other(s).” Each and every locally accomplished task in social interaction evidences reflexively constituted institutions in their own right (Sacks 1995:2, 370–375). A specificity regarding the use of repair practices in this setting is the potential political consequences they are treated as having. Research within Conversation Analysis and Ethnomethodology can nevertheless inform our institutions’ practical concerns. Heritage notes that “[…] the detailed investigation of interactional conduct within news interviews should illuminate a considerable range of constraints and considerations that may influence the immediate, interactional generation of on-air news and opinion” (1985:95). The observation that participants engaged in social interaction produce publicly ratified shared and official knowledge in a situated, emergent way by embodied, indexical means does not put into question the validity of interactionally established shared knowledge as “facts.” On the contrary, the procedural undertaking of establishing interactional elements as objects of knowledge is an accountable course of action that the participants manifestly orient to as central for the institutional and political activity. More importantly, they orient to this as significant for the project’s participatory and democratic aspects. The interactional work they engage in to clarify, negotiate and eventually validate emerging talk as public speech results in officially ratified information and shared knowledge for the record. Analysis of social interactional practices attempts to take into account the specificity of the setting as well as the generality of the procedures. The concern is not the order or system itself, but the methods by which order is accomplished in its recognizable and recurrent nature, which the interactants reflexively establish as the interaction unfolds. Schegloff (1996:164) points out the difference between studying social action in a political sense of social change and in a strictly social sense, the latter being the foundation for reflexively establishing and reproducing social structures. In this way, meticulous analysis of social interaction constitutes a scientifically significant resource for developing our understanding of how political institutions and democratic processes are organized and morally ordered. Examining the use of interactional repair in the context of public meetings within the framework of a participatory democracy project reveals that the participants use these ordinary practices for institutional, political means. The participants’ methodical organization of sequences claiming to address

Conclusion  225 local issues of intersubjectivity shows that the formal properties of action have significant implications for our routine understanding of political action and the moral orders that are its foundation. The knowledge frameworks that constitute the structures of our political institutions are situated interactional achievements. Today, when democratic procedures and the existence of verifiable “facts” are (again) disputed in public discourse, further investigations into how social actors and participants in interaction actually understand the situated production of shared knowledge are more relevant than ever.

References

Antaki, C. (2012). “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.” Discourse Studies 14(5): 531–47. Antaki, C. (2013). “Recipient-Side Test Questions.” Discourse Studies 15(1): 3–18. Arminen, I. (2001). “Closing of Turns in the Meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous: Members’ Methods for Closing ‘Sharing Experiences’.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(2): 211–51. Asmuß, B., Oshima, S. (2012). “Negotiation of Entitlement in Proposal Sequences.” Discourse Studies 14(1): 67–86. Asmuß, B., Svennevig, J. (2009). “Meeting Talk: An Introduction.” International Journal of Business Communication 46(1): 3–22. Atkinson, J. M. (1982). “Understanding Formality: The Categorization and Production of ‘Formal’ Interaction.” The British Journal of Sociology 33(1): 86–117. Atkinson, J. M. (1984). “Public Speaking and Audience Responses: Some Techniques for Inviting Audience Applause.” Pp. 370–407 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, M. A., Cuff, E. C., Lee. J. R. E. (1978). “The Recommencement of a Meeting as a Member’s Accomplishment.” Pp. 133–53 in Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Edited by J. Schenkein. New York: Academic Press. Atkinson, J. M., Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. Atkinson, J. M., Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beach, W. A., Metzger, T. R. (1997). “Claiming Insufficient Knowledge.” Human Communication Research 23(4): 562–88. Benjamin, T. M. (2013). Signaling Trouble: On the Linguistic Design of OtherInitiation of Repair in English Conversation. Groningen: s.n. Benjamin, T., Walker, T. (2013). “Managing Problems of Acceptability through High Rise-Fall Repetitions.” Discourse Processes 50(2): 107–38. Berger, M. (2011). “Micro-Écologie de La Résistance. Les Appuis Sensibles de La Parole Citoyenne Dans Une Assemblée d’urbanisme Participatif à Bruxelles.” Pp.  101–30 in Du civil au politique. Ethnographies du vivre ensemble. Edited by M. Berger, D. Cefai, and C. Gayet. Bruxelles: Peter Lang (« Action publique »).

228 References Betz, E., Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., Golato, A. (2013). “Third-Position Repeats in German: The Case of Repair- and Request-for-Information Sequences.” Gesprächsforschung 14: 133–66. Bolden, G. (2011). “On the Organization of Repair in Multiperson Conversation: The Case of ‘Other’-Selection in Other-Initiated Repair Sequences.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 44(3): 237–62. Bolden, G. (2012). “Across Languages and Cultures: Brokering Problems of Understanding in Conversational Repair.” Language in Society 41(1): 97–121. Bolden, G. (2013). “Unpacking ‘Self’: Repair and Epistemics in Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 76(4): 314–42. Bolden, G. (2018). “Speaking ‘Out of Turn’: Epistemics in Action in Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Studies 20(1): 142–62. Bolden, G., Robinson, J. D. (2011). “Soliciting Accounts with Why-Interrogatives in Conversation.” Journal of Communication 61(1): 94–119. Bovet, A. (2007). La mise en question du génie génétique dans l’espace public suisse. Analyse des pratiques médiatiques de mise en forme et de mise en oeuvre du débat public. Université de Fribourg (Suisse). Bruxelles, S., Traverso, V. (2001). “Ben: Apport de la description d’un “petit mot” du discours à l’étude des polylogues.” Marges Linguistiques 1/1(2): 38–55. Clayman, S. E. (1993). “Booing: The Anatomy of a Disaffiliative Response.” American Sociological Review 58(1): 110–30. Clayman, S. E., Fox. M. P. (2017). “Hardballs and Softballs: Modulating Adversarialness in Journalistic Questioning.” Journal of Language and Politics 16(1): 19–39. Clayman, S. E., Reisner, A. (1998). “Gatekeeping in Action: Editorial Conferences and Assessments of Newsworthiness.” American Sociological Review 63(2): 178–99. Curl, T. S. (2005). “Practices in Other-Initiated Repair Resolution: The Phonetic Differentiation of ‘Repetitions’.” Discourse Processes 39(1): 1–43. Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., Mondada, L. (2010). “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(6): 1700–18. Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd S, et al. (2015). “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLoS ONE 10(9): e0136100. Drew, P. (1992). “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” Pp. 470–520 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P. (1997). “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Drew, P., Heritage, J. (1992). “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” Pp. 3–65 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P., Sorjonen, M-L. (1997). “Institutional Dialogue.” Pp. 92–118 in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Edited by T. A. van Dijk. London: SAGE. Duranti, A. (2003). “The Voice of the Audience in Contemporary American Political Discourse.” Pp. 114–34 in Linguistics, Language, and the Real World: Discourse and Beyond: Georgetown University Roundtable in Languages and Linguistics, 2001. Edited by D. Tannen and J. Alatis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

References  229 Egbert, M. (1996). “Context-Sensitivity in Conversation: Eye Gaze and the German Repair Initiator Bitte?” Language in Society 25(4): 587–612. Egbert, M. (1997). “Some Interactional Achievements of Other-Initiated Repair in Multiperson Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 27(5): 611–34. Egbert, M. (2004). “Other-Initiated Repair and Membership Categorization – Some Conversational Events that Trigger Linguistic and Regional Membership Categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 36(8): 1467–98. Enfield, N. et al. (2013). “Huh? What? – A First Survey in Twenty-One Languages.” Pp. 343–80 in Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Edited by M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Floyd, S., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., Torreira, F. (2015). “Timing of Visual Bodily Behavior in Repair Sequences: Evidence from Three Languages.” Discourse Processes 53: 175–204. de Fornel, M. (1990). “De la Pertinence Du Geste Dans Les Séquences de Réparation et D’interruption.” Réseaux 2:119–53. Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M., Jasperson, R. (1996). “Resources and Repair: A CrossLinguistic Study of Syntax and Repair.” Pp. 185–237 in Interaction and G rammar. Edited by E. Ochs, E. Schegloff and S. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garcia, A. (1991). “Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument.” American Sociological Review 56(6): 818–35. Garfinkel, H. (1963). “A Conception of, and Experiments with, ‘Trust’ as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions.” Pp. 187–238 in Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Approaches. Edited by O. J. Harvey. New York: Ronald Press. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., Livingston, E. (1981). “The Work of a Discovering Science Constructed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11(2): 131–58. Garfinkel, H., Sacks, H. (1986). “On Formal Structures of Practial Action.” Pp.  157–89 in Ethnomethodological Studies of Work. Edited by H. Garfinkel. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. First published in J. D. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian, eds., Theoretical Sociology. (1970). Pp. 337–66. New York: AppletonCentury Crofts. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1981). “Footing.” Pp. 124–59 in Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Golato, A., Emma, B. (2008). “German Ach and Achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft 27(1): 7–37. Goldberg, J. A. (1975). “A System for Transfer of instRuctions in Natural Settings.” Semiotica 14(3): 269–96. Goodwin, C. (1979). “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology 37: 97–121. Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50: 272–302. Goodwin, C. (1994). “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist 96(3): 606–33.

230 References Goodwin, C. (2000). “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(10): 1489–522. Goodwin, C. (2003). “Pointing as Situated Practice.” Pp. 217–41 in Pointing Where Language Culture and Cognition Meet. Edited by K. Sotaro. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goodwin, C. (2007). “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse & Society 18(1): 53–73. Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M. H. (2004). “Participation.” Pp. 222–44 in A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Edited by A. Duranti. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Goodwin, M. H. (1983). “Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children’s Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 657–77. Greatbatch, D. (1988). “A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews.” Language in Society 17(3): 401–30. Haakana, M., Kurhila, S. (2009). “Other-Correction in Everyday Interaction: Some Comparative Aspects.” Pp. 152–78 in Talk in Interaction. Comparative Dimensions. Edited by M. Haakana, M. Laakso, and J. Lindström. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., Sidnell, J. (2013). “Conversational Repair and Human Understanding: An Introduction.” Pp. 1–40 in Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Edited by M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, C., Luff, P. (2013). “Embodied Action and Organisational Interaction: Establishing Contract on the Strike of a Hammer.” Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 24–38. Heath, C., Mondada, L. (2019). “Transparency and Embodied Action: Turn Organization and Fairness in Complex Institutional Environments.” Social Psychology Quarterly 82(3): 274–302. Heritage, J. (1984a). “A Change of State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” Pp. 299–345 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, J. (1985). “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” Pp. 95–117 in Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse. Edited by T. A. van Dijk. London: Academic Press. Heritage, J. (1997). “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data.” Pp. 161–82 in Qualitative Research - Theory, Methods, and Practice. Edited by D. Silverman. London: SAGE. Heritage, J. (1998). “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27(3): 291–334. Heritage, J. (2007). “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” Pp. 255–80 in Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Edited by T. Stivers and N. J. Enfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (2012a). “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. Heritage, J. (2012b). “Epistemics in Conversation.” Pp. 370–94 in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Heritage, J. (2012c). “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52.

References  231 Heritage, J. (2013). “Action Formation and Its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies 15(5): 551–78. Heritage, J. (2018). “The Ubiquity of Epistemics: A Rebuttal to the ‘Epistemics of Epistemics’ Group.” Discourse Studies 20(1): 14–56. Heritage, J., Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell. Heritage, J., Greatbatch, D. (1986). “Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences.” American Journal of Sociology 92(1): 110–57. Heritage, J., Raymond, G. (2005). “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1): 15–38. Heritage, J., Raymond, G. (2012). “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” Pp. 48–85 in Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Edited by Jan P. de Ruiter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D. (2006). “Accounting for the Visit: Giving Reasons for Seeking Medical Care.” Pp. 48–85 in Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Edited by J. Heritage and D. W. Maynard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J., Watson, D. R. (1980). “Aspects of the Properties of Formulations in Natural Conversations: Some Instances Analysed.” Semiotica 30(3–4): 245–62. Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C. (2003). “Transcending the Object in Embodied Interaction.” Pp. 43–69 in Discourse, the Body, and Identity. Edited by J. Coupland and R. Gwyn. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hindmarsh, J., Hyland, L., Banerjee, A. (2014). “Work to Make Simulation Work: ‘Realism’, Instructional Correction and the Body in Training.” Discourse Studies 16(2): 247–69. Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., Dunne, S. (2011). “Exhibiting Understanding: The Body in Apprenticeship.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 489–503. Huhtamäki, M. (2015). “The Interactional Function of Prosody in Repair Initiation: Pitch Height and Timing of va ‘What’ in Helsinki Swedish.” Journal of Pragmatics 90: 48–66. Hutchby, I. (1995). “Aspects of Recipient Design in Expert Advice‐giving on Call‐in Radio.” Discourse Processes 19(2): 219–38. Jefferson, G. (1972). “Side Sequences.” Pp. 294–333 in Studies in Social Interaction. Edited by D. N. Sudnow. New York: Free Press. Jefferson, G. (1974). “Error Correction as a Interactional Resource.” Language in Society 3(2): 9–181–99. Jefferson, G. (1985). “An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter.” Pp. 25–34 in Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3 (Discourse and Dialogue). Edited by T. A. van Dijk. New York: Academic Press. Jefferson, G. (1987). “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation.” Pp. 86–100 in Talk and Social Organisation. Edited by G. Button and J. R. E. Lee. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [Originally in Studium Linquistik, (1983) vol. 14, 58–68.] Jefferson, G. (2004). “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” Pp. 13–31 in Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

232 References Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher Turn-Allocation and Repair Practices in Classroom Interaction. A Multisemiotic Perspective. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Kääntä, L. (2014). “From Noticing to Initiating Correction: Students’ Epistemic Displays in Instructional Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 86–105. Keating, E. (1993). “Correction/Repair as a Resource for Co-Construction of Group Competence.” Pragmatics 3(4): 411–23. Keel, S. (2017). “The Interactive Achievement and Transformation of a ‘Revolutionary Category’ – The ‘Sans-Papiers’ – During Public Press Conferences.” Journal of Language and Politics 16(1): 59–82. Keevallik, L. (2010). “Bodily Quoting in Dance Correction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(February 2015): 401–26. Kendrick, K. (2015). “The Intersection of Turn-Taking and Repair: The Timing of Other-Initiations of Repair in Conversation.” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (March): 1–16. Kim, H. (2002). “The Form and Function of Next-Turn Repetition in English Conversation.” Language Research 38(1): 51–81. Kitzinger, C. (2013). “Repair.” Pp. 229–56 in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lerner, G. H. (1993). “Collectivities in Action: Establishing the Relevance of Conjoined Participation in Conversation.” Text 13(2): 213–46. Lerner, G. H. (2003). “Selecting next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization.” Language in Society 32(2): 177–201. Lerner, G. H. (2013). “On the Place of Hesitating in Delicate Formulations: A Turn Constructional Infrastructure for Collaborative Indiscretion.” Pp. 95–134 in Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Edited by M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levin, L., Cromal, J., Broth, M., Gazin, A-D., Haddington, P., McIlvenny, P.,  Melander, H., Rauniomaa, M. (2017). “Unpacking Corrections in Mobile Instruction: Error-Occasioned Learning Opportunities in Driving, Cycling and Aviation Training.” Linguistics and Education 38: 11–23. Lilja, N. (2014). “Partial Repetitions as Other-Initiations of Repair in Second Language Talk: Re-Establishing Understanding and Doing Learning.” Journal of Pragmatics 71: 98–116. Lindwall, O., Ekström, A. (2012). “Instruction-in-Interaction: The Teaching and Learning of a Manual Skill.” Human Studies 35(1): 27–49. Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., Greiffenhagen, C. (2015). “The Sequential Analysis of Instruction.” Pp. 142–57 in The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J. (2016). “Epistemic Status and the Recognizability of Social Actions.” Discourse Studies 18(5): 500–25. Llewellyn, N. (2005). “Audience Participation in Political Discourse: A Study of Public Meetings.” Sociology 39(4): 697–716. Lynch, M., Macbeth, D. (2016). “The Epistemics of Epistemics: An Introduction.” Discourse Studies 18(5): 493–99. Macbeth, D. (2004). “The Relevance of Repair for Classroom Correction.” Language in Society 33(5): 703–36. Macbeth, D. (2011). “Understanding Understanding as an Instructional Matter.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 438–51. McHoul, A. (1990). “The Organization of Repair in Classroom Talk.” Language in Society 19(3): 349–77.

References  233 McIlvenny, P. (1996). “Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal Audience Participation in Popular Public Discourse.” Language in Society 25: 27–60. McIlvenny, P. (2017). “Mobilising the Micro-Political Voice: Doing the ‘Human Microphone’ and the ‘mic-Check.’” Journal of Language and Politics 16(1): 110–36. Mehan, H. (1979). “‘What Time Is It, Denise?’: Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom Discourse.” Theory Into Practice 18(4): 285–94. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Publication. Moerman, M., Sacks, H. (1988). “On Understanding in the Analysis of Natural Conversation.” Pp. 180–86 in Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Edited by M. Moerman. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Publication. Mondada, L. (2005). Chercheurs En Interaction. Comment Émergent Les Savoirs. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes. Mondada, L. (2006). “Video Recording as the Reflexive Preservation and Configuration of Phenomenal Features for Analysis.” Pp. 51–68 in Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods. Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology. Edited by H. Knoblauch, B. Schnettler, J. Raab and H-G. Soeffner. Bern: Peter Lang. Mondada, L. (2007a). “L’interprétation Online Par Les Co-Participants de La Structuration Du Tour in Fieri En TCUs: Évidences Multimodales.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 47: 1–31. Mondada, L. (2007b). “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9(2): 194–225. Mondada, L. (2008). “Production Du Savoir et Interactions Multimodales.” Revue D’anthropologie Des Connaissances 2(2): 219–66. Mondada, L. (2011a). “The Management of Knowledge Discrepancies and of Epistemic Changes in Institutional Interactions.” Pp. 27–57 in The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Edited by T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mondada, L. (2011b). “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 542–52. Mondada, L. (2012). “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Data Collection.” Pp.  32–56 in Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Mondada, L. (2013a). “Displaying, Contesting and Negotiating Epistemic Authority in Social Interaction: Descriptions and Questions in Guided Visits.” Discourse Studies 15(5): 597–626. Mondada, L. (2013b). “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-Party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 39–68. Mondada, L. (2014). “Pointing, Talk and the Bodies: Reference and Joint Attention as Embodied Interactional Achievements.” Pp. 95–124 in From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Utterance in Action. Edited by M. Seyfeddinipur and M. Gullberg. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mondada, L. (2015). “The Facilitator’s Task of Formulating Citizens’ Proposals in Political Meetings: Orchestrating Multiple Embodied Orientations to Recipients.” Gesprächsforschung 16(16): 1–62. Mondada, L. (2016). “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(3): 336–66.

234 References Mondada, L. (2017). “Organiser Le Débat, Favoriser La Participation: Analyse Comparée Des Pratiques de Deux Animateurs de Réunions Politiques.” Pp. 161–202 in Participation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle. Edited by L. Mondada and S. Keel. Paris: Harmattan. Mondada, L. (2018). “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction. Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research in Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 85–106. Mondada, L. (in press). “The Situated and Methodic Production of Accountable Action: The Challenges of Multimodality.” in Harold Garfinkel: Praxis, Social Order, and the Ethnomethodology Movement. Edited by J. Heritage and D. W. Maynard. Chicago University Press. Mondada, L., Keel, S. (2017). “Introduction: Participation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle.” Pp. 9–47 in Participation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle. Edited by L. Mondada and S. Keel. Paris: L’Harmattan (Cahiers de la nouvelle Europe). Mondada, L., Svensson, H., van Schepen, N. (2015). “‘Why That Not Now’: Participants’ Orientations towards Several Organizational Layers in Social Interaction.” Bulletin VALS/ASLA 101: 51–71. Mondada, L., Svensson, H., van Schepen, N. (2017). “A Table-Based Turn-Taking System and Its Political Consequences.” Journal of Language and Politics 16(1): 83–109. Mortensen, K. (2016). “The Body as a Resource for Other-Initiation of Repair: Cupping the Hand Behind the Ear.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1): 34–57. Parsons, T. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press. Persson, R. (2013). “Intonation and Sequential Organization: Formulations in French Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 19–38. Persson, R. (2015a). “Indexing One’s Own Previous Action as Inadequate: On Ah-Prefaced Repeats as Receipt Tokens in French Talk-in-Interaction.” Language in Society 44: 497–524. Persson, R. (2015b). “Registering and Repair-Initiating Repeats in French Talk-in-Interaction.” Discourse Studies 17(5): 583–608. Pomerantz, A. (1978). “Attributions of Responsibility: Blamings.” Sociology 12(1): 115–21. Pomerantz, A. (1984). “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes.” Pp. 57–101 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, A. (1988). “Offering A Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs 55(4): 360–73. Pomerantz, A., Denvir, P. (2007). “Enacting the Institutional Role of Chairperson in Upper Management Meetings: The Interactional Realization of Provisional Authority.” Pp. 31–51 in Interacting and Organizing. Analyses of a Management Meeting. Edited by F. Cooren. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pomerantz, A., Heritage, J. (2012). “Preference.” Pp. 210–28 in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Raymond, C. W. (2014). “Epistemic Brokering in the Interpreter- Mediated Medical Visit: Negotiating Patient’s Side and Doctor’s Side Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 47(4): 426–46.

References  235 Raymond, G., Heritage, J. (2006). “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society 35(5): 677–705. Robinson, J. D. (2004). “The Sequential Organization of ‘Explicit’ Apologies in Naturally Occurring English.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(3): 291–330. Robinson, J. D. (2006). “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 73(2): 137–61. Robinson, J. D. (2009). “Managing Counterinformings: An Interactional Practice for Soliciting Information That Facilitates Reconciliation of Speakers’ Incompatible Positions.” Human Communication Research 35(4): 561–87. Robinson, J. D. (2013a). “Epistemics, Action Formation, and Other-Initiation of Repair: The Case of Partial Questioning Repeats.” Pp. 261–92 in Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Edited by M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, J. D. (2013b). “Overall Structural Organization.” Pp. 257–80 in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Wiley-Blackwell. Robinson, J. D. (2014). “What ‘What?’ Tells Us About How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 47(2): 109–29. Robinson, J. D., Kevoe-Feldman, H. (2010). “Using Full Repeats to Initiate Repair on Others’ Questions.” Research in Language and Social Interaction 43(3): 232–59. Ryle, G. (2009) [1949]. The Concept of Mind. (2009th ed). Oxon: Routledge. Sacks, H. (1963). “Sociological Description.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology 8: 1–16. Sacks, H. (1972). “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” Pp. 325–45 in Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Edited by J. Gumperz and D. Hymes. New York: Rinehart & Winston. Sacks, H. (1984). “Notes on Methodology.” Pp. 2–27 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. Heritage and At. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Edited by G. Jefferson. TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. (1979). “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” Pp. 15–21 in Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. (1974). “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4): 696–735. Schegloff, E. (1968). “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70(6): 1075–95. Schegloff, E. (1972). “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” Pp.  75–119 in Studies in Social Interaction. Edited by D. N. Sudnow. New York: Free Press. Schegloff, E. (1984). “On Some Questions and Ambiguities in Conversation.” Pp. 28–52 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. (1987). “Some Sources of Misnderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction.” Linguistics 25: 201–18. Schegloff, E. (1988). “Description in the Social Sciences I: Talk-in-Interaction.” IPRa Papers in Pragmatics 2: 1–24. Schegloff, E. (1991a). “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” Pp. 150–71 in Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Edited by L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, S. D. Teasley. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

236 References Schegloff, E. (1991b). “Reflection on Talk and Social Structure.” Pp. 44–70 in Talk and social structure. Edited by D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman. Polity Press. Schegloff, E. (1992). “Repair after next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97(5): 1295–345. Schegloff, E. (1995b). “Parties and Talking Together: Two Ways in Which Numbers are Significant for Talk-In-Interaction.” Pp. 31–42 in Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities. Edited by P. ten Have and G. Psathas. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Schegloff, E. (1996). “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 161–216. Schegloff, E. (1997a). “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Processes 23(3): 499–545. Schegloff, E. (1997b). “Third Turn Repair.” Pp. 31–40 in Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov. Volume 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures. Edited by G. R. Guy, F. Crawford, D. Schiffrin, and J. Baugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Schegloff, E. (2000). “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair.” Applied Linguistics 21(2): 205–43. Schegloff, E. (2004). “On Dispensability.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 37(2): 95–149. Schegloff, E. (2007a). “A Tutorial on Membership Categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 462–82. Schegloff, E. (2007b). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. (1977). “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53(2): 361–82. Schegloff, E., Lerner, G. H. (2009). “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115. Schegloff, E., Sacks, H. (1973). “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8(4): 289–327. Schütz, A. (1964). Collected Papers II Studies in Social Theory. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague: Springer Netherlands. Selting, M. (1988). “The Role of Intonation in the Organization of Repair and Problem Handling Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 12(3): 293–322. Selting, M. (1996). “Prosody as an Activity-Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-Called ‘Astonished’ Questions in Repair Initiation.” Pp. 231–70 in Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Edited by E. Couper-Kuhlen and M. Selting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seo, M. S., Koshik, I. (2010). “A Conversation Analytic Study of Gestures that Engender Repair in ESL Conversational Tutoring.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(8): 2219–39. Sidnell, J. (2006). “Repair.” Pp. 1–38 in Handbook of Pragmatics. Edited by J. Verschueren and J.-O. Östman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sidnell, J. (2014). “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” Pp. 364–99 in Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Edited by N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, J. Sidnell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sidnell, J., Barnes, R. (2013). “Alternative, Subsequent Descriptions.” Pp. 322–41 in Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Edited by M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References  237 Sorjonen, M-L. (1996). “On Repeats and Responses in Finnish Conversation.” Pp. 277–327 in Interaction and Grammar. Edited by C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, S. A. Thompson. New York: Oxford University Press. Sormani, P. (2013). “Review of: Tanya Stivers / Lorenza Mondada / Jakob Steensig (Eds.): The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation.” Gesprächsforschung Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion 14: 67–84. Stivers, T., Mondada, L., Steensig, J. (2011). “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” Pp. 3–24 in The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Edited by T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, T., Robinson, J. D. (2006). “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35(3): 367–92. Svennevig, J. (2003). “Echo Answers in Native/Non-Native Interaction.” Pragmatics 13(2): 285–309. Svennevig, J. (2004). “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies 6(4): 489–516. Svennevig, J. (2008). “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-Initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(2): 333–48. Svennevig, J. (2010). “Pre-Empting Reference Problems in Conversation.” Language in Society 39(2): 173–202. Svensson, H. (2017). “Surveiller et Corriger: L’accomplissement Interactionnel de la Révision d’une Inscription Publique.” Pp. 203–32 in Participation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle. Edited by L. Mondada and S. Keel. Paris: Harmattan. Townsend, R. M. (2009). “Town Meeting as a Communication Event: Democracy’s Act Sequence.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 42(1): 68–89. Van Schepen, N. (2019). “Political Transparency Matters: Citizens Challenging Officials via ‘Have You Planned X’-Type Questions.” Discourse & Society 30(5): 521–35. Weeks, P. A. D. (1985). “Error-Correction Techniques and Sequences in Instructional Settings: Toward a Comparative Framework.” Human Studies 8(3): 195–233. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Wu, R-J. R. (2006). “Initiating Repair and Beyond: The Use of Two Repeat-Formatted Repair Initiations in Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes 41(1): 67–109.

Index

action see ascription; social action acceptability 35–6, 58, 80–3, 180–2, 213; see also repair; trouble accountability 8, 28, 96; accountable 3–4, 6–7, 20, 99, 207, 216–18 adequacy 39, 58, 89, 184, 191, 215; see also inadequacy; shared knowledge adjacency pair 8 addressee 104, 109–10, 125, 140, 155 agenda: institutional 9, 129, 163, 177; political 17–18, 44, 97, 122 agreement: -token 44, 104, 118, 126, 160; pro-forma 48, 90, 197; shared- 217 alignment 21, 65, 74, 198, 202, 209; display- 104, 193, mutual- 55; non- 104, 131, 174, 202 alternative description 83, 90, 169, 199, 202, 213 announcement 21–2, 98–9, 144–5, 166, 199, 202 answer 6, 48–9, 95, 166; candidate- 151, 197; prospective 169; negative 16–7, 125; non- 47, 110, 163; question13, 23, 155, 214; requesting an- 20; apologetic 199 argument 53–4, 99, 171; counter- 174 ascription: action- 95; knowledge- 105, 220 assessment 13, 81–2, 112, 151; institutional- 61; positive- 65, 134 association of participants 103–4, 112, 118, 128–9, 199; see also participation framework asymmetry 10; of knowledge 222 audibility 16, 71, 130; (in)audibility 220; problem of 90, 137, 163, 166, 175; see also relevance; trouble authority 58, 116, 218 authorship 136–7; attribution of 151–2, 177

blame-relevance 17 brainstorming sessions 13, 23–7 citizens 12–3, 17–18, 23–7, 30, 46–9, 223 clarification 79, 100, 103, 107, 110, 118, 122, 125; public- 119, 127–8; retrospective- 115: of the term 61–2 clause: subordinate 44; if- 159; relative 20, 53 competence 44, 180, 216; interactional 18, 219; professional 18 complaint 27, 42, 59, 61–2, 108, 125, 169, 182 context 1, 13, 16, 31, 145; -free 31, 97, -independent 119, 138, 178; institutional 9, 119, 178; interactional3, 32, 132; political- 17; -relevance 6, -sensitive 31 Conversation Analysis (CA) 2–8, 206–10, 220–1, 224 correction 36, 39, 80–2, 90–2, 190–4, 197–9, 202–11; “correction invitation devices” 77; delayed- 66, 182, 209; descriptive 209; embedded 83, 91; exposed- 83; facts 184, 209; other44–5, 83, 179–80, 182–4, 203–11; self- 39, 66, 71, 80–1, 91, 132, 180–4; see also other- ; repair; selfconfirmation token see token “counter-informings” 44–5, 49, 90 criticism 3, 58–62, 138, 141–2, 159–60, 171, 214 data: naturally occurring 23–31 democracy 1–2, 208–11; participatory democracy 9, 99; project 12, 23–4, 92–3 description 7, 179–84, 194, 215, 220–1; alternative- 58, 83, 90, 169, 213; replacing- 199

240 Index deixis 7, 135 disagreement 53–4, 90–1, 174, 182–3, 213, 219 embodiment 3–4, 28–30, 53–4, 69–72, 115, 118; parody 42; see also repair entitlement 91, 103–4, 128, 154 epistemic access 220; asymmetry 222; positions 221–2; right 58, 220–1; negative epistemic claim 17, 20; social221; -stance 20, 89, 221, 151, 163; status 163, 221 “error” 67, 81, 91, 132, 183–4; -correction 199 ethnomethodology 2–8, 82, 174, 220, 224 facilitator 12–25, 36, 44, 94, 145 fact 184, 209–11, 215, 224–5; alternative- 1 floor: bid for the- 148–9; take the- 158, 193 formal properties 3, 7, 23, 28, 36, 213–15, 225 formulation 40, 42–3, 79, 142, 155; question- 47–9; alternative- 58; reformulate- 21, 39, 45, 49, 75, 194 format 36, 202; correction- 202, 208; modulated 180, 183, 201 Garfinkel, H. 1–5, 35, 216–7, 220 gaze 29, 74, 99–100, 202; mutual -47, 103, 131, 134, 148, 159, 194 Gestalt 38, 42, 65, 123, 193, 207; “corrective”- 210 gesture: stopping- 15, 47, 114, 118, 138, 165, 174 iconic- 38, 158, circular- 58, pointing- 75, 106, 126, 134, 148, 182, 186; open palm- 163; complying- 191; apologetic 207 goals see tasks Goodwin, C. 29, 55, 100, 220 Goodwin, M. H. 55, 100 hand: raise 47; open-palm 148, 163, 191, 198, 207 head: shake 8, 58, 69, 125, 163, 204; tilt 38, 174, 202 hein (French) 38, 58, 74, 176, 188 Heritage, J. 3, 8, 31, 217, 221, 224 inadequate 43, 54, 184, 202–3, 208, 213–15; inadequacy 42, 80, 91 increment 20–1, 65, 218

indexicality 3–4, 7, 31, 33, 224 inferential frameworks 16–17 information: budgetary 6, 17, 20–1; “for the record” 23, 49, 215; meetings 13, 24; request 97, 105, 136, 151–2, 160, 162; withhold 17 informings see “counter-informings” interactional: repair 2, 34, 63, 97, 104, 128, 215, 223–4; -party 20, 93–112, 184–202; 203–10, 214; oppositional interactional party 159, resources 3–4, 36, 212, 223 interaction: large group 2, 18, 131; social- 6–8, 217, 221, 224; monitor39, 119, 127, 166, 175 intersubjectivity 1–2, 34, 49, 66, 82, 97, 212–3; problems of 99, 107, 217–9, 225 intonation: interrogative 114, 159; falling 38, 77, 122, 125, 136, 169; rising 38, 42, 77, 85, 136, 144, 163 institution: institutionality 1, 10, 17; institutional interactions 9, 12–3; framework 16–7, “-representatives” 30; roles 16, 17, 29; setting 12, 18, 23; -task 93, 97; see also agenda; multi-party Jefferson, G. 30–5, 67, 81–3, 91, 104, 120, 179–83, 212 joke 120, 123, 183, 214 Kendrick, K. 182 knowledge 29, 212–25; attribution of- 21, 92, 104–7, 119; distribution of 2, 15, 20, 36, 93, 108, 123, 145; common 127, 162; common-sense3; discrepancy 120, 126, 128; hold 45, 128; lack of- 126, 160; shared 2, 23, 62, 90, 93–9, 127–9, 155, 177, 194; accurate/adequate shared- 179, 210–11; publicly shared- 223–5 lapsus 207 layperson 18, 126, 203–14, 221–2 laughter 44, 58, 182, 202, 205 mais (French) 48, 104, 126, 137, 163, 174 meetings: political 9, 16–23, 45, 90, 212–23; consulting- 25–7; see also information; public member 1–4 membership category 54, 58

Index  241 microphone 6–7, 16, 67–9, 145–9, 168, 214–15 misspeaking 48, 83, 186–8, 199, 207, 215 misunderstanding 62, 119, 216 Mondada, L. 12–3, 16, 27, 30, 32, 222 multi-modal 65, 106, 176, 193, 207 multi-party 31; -institutional 18, 130; interaction 55, 99–128, 149, 183; setting 176, 209 natural language 1–4, 8, 33, 216 negative interrogative 21 nodding 79, 104, 115, 135, 140, 169, 191, 194 normative framework 13 no room in the world for relief 1 norms 3, 8, 15, 38, 44 noticeably absent 8, 74, 138, 163–6, 169, 214 obligation see rights and obligations officials 8, 46–8, 58, 62, 97, 162; representatives 28, 55, 94, 159–60, 179–80, 223 on (pronoun, French) 7, 17, 58, 85, 103, 115, 118, 149, 154, 162, 201, 209 order: normative 92, 204–5, 212, 222; social 3–4, 32 “ordinary conversation” 9, 12–13, 16, 131, 180, 183, 224 other- 54 : -correct- 179–84, 203–10; -initiated 17, 23, 35–6, 63, 66; -repair 39–55, 59–62, 83–92, 179–84; -repeat 104, 135–6; see also selfoverhearing audience 21–2 overlap 21, 38, 48, 53–4, 58–9, 65–6, 74, 88–9, 96, 99, 107–8, 114–19, 125–7, 148–9, 154–5, 169, 174–5, 207–8 pardon (French) 36, 38, 72, 134, 140, 148, 162, 176 participation 9, 16, 23; -framework 20, 55, 100–105, 128, 159, 175–8, 223 political: -delicacy 16, 27, 89, 103, 159–60, 163, 202; representatives 12, 23; -transparency 47, 69; -speech 18 see meetings; see also agenda preselect- 68, 148, 193 private see public projection: 53, 119, 127, 151, 175–7, 194; of trouble 108, 114 practice 1–23; recurrent 31, 68, 154, 163, 177; see also social practice

preference 43, 80, 180–3, 215; social- 80, 131–2 presupposition 45, 47 problematic 36, 39, 49, 65–6, 72, 175, 209; politically- 21 procedurally consequential 9–17, 29, 54, 100, 119–26 procedure 4–9, 31–3, 178, 216–19, 223–5 professional 17–18, 44, 99–107, 138–45, 155–63, 194, 202 pronoun 43, 118; inclusive 23, 119, 128; possessive 144; relative 109; see also on (pronoun, French) prosody 29, 77, 81 public: park 2, 23–4, 108, 169; meetings 2, 9–10, 93–4, 130, 203, 212, 223; servants 12, 23, 29; speech 7, 17–8, 48, 79, 155–63, 208–11, 223; -power 55, 58; see also shared knowledge praxeological 3, 8–9, 33, 62, 216–18 question 20–3, 46–9, 74–6, 92, 103, 163; see also negative interrogative; repeat; sequence recipient design 16, 122, 125, 176, 210, 220 reflexivity 3–4, 13, 38, 175–7, 212–3, 217–8 reformulation see formulation refusal 16, 34, 46–7, 58, 104, 160 relevance 6, 16, 29, 44, 49, 53, 62–3; of criticism 62; of audibility 20, 177; conditional- 13, 20, 115, 163, 223; institutional 47, 179; public- 166; sequential 61 repair 15, 21–2; acceptability- 90; embodied- 103; initiate 35, 55, 155; initiation 22, 38, 59; interactional 34, 63, 97, 176, 212–15 open-class- 72, 131–2, 145, 160, 174–8; practices 34–5, 91–2, 107, 213, 220–3; -sequence 15, 35–6, 44; see also other- ; selfrepeat 16, 21–2, 135, 163, 177 replacement 54, 72, 90–1, 180, 208–10, 213; see also correction re-saying 77, 137–8, 145, 151 response see answer rights and obligations 17, 99, 128, 194, 211–4, 222 robin hood 203–4 Robinson, J. D. 45, 75–6, 80–1, 105, 131–2

242 Index rules 3, 13; see also norms Ryle, G. 216 Sacks, H. 1–12, 27–33, 35, 220 Schegloff, E. 7–8, 28–9, 66–7, 120, 132, 218–19, 224 selection: self- 15, 30, 159, 169, 174–5; public 6, 68 self- 54; other-initiated ()-repair 55–9; ()-initiated ()-repair 35–9, 169, 180; see also correction; othersense 34, 106, 224; common- 1–3, 53 sequence 8–10, 14, 224–5; -closing third 23, 136; closure 15, 79, 83, 136, 163; organization 151, 160, 180, 184, 213; question-answer- 13, 16, 23, 155; extended- 83, 97, 115, 142, 177, 214; see also repair sequential: analysis 8; placement 6, 35, 122; position 3, 36, 71, 110, 135, 184 trajectories 35 Sidnell, J. 66 situated: expectancies 12, 214, relevancies 7 social: action 2–8, 23–33, 202–11; order 3, 198; practice 1–3, 31, 34–6, 83, 209–11; structures 2–3, 7–8, 27, 224–5 speech: reported- 42–3, 61, 149, 152, 177; see also political; public

telling: co-telling 138, 145, 154, 175–6, 214–5 thanks: -implicative 194, 208 time 6, 27, 30; for another first- 71, 135, 177 token: change of state- 66, 221; confirmation 103, 123, 151 transcription 29–31; -conventions xi-xiii trouble 2, 34–5; of acceptability 39–41, 51, 64; of hearing 38, 103, 115, 130–78; of intersubjectivity 49; -responsibility 67, 80; of understanding 93–29; source 35–6, 80–3, 97, 214–15, 221; target(ed) 62, 72–7, 107–14, 122, 126, 177 turn: -taking 10–13, 15, 18, 152; -at-talk 106, 169, 221; see also floor understanding: 2–3, 43, 58–62, 93–115, 148, 220; understandability 35, 90, 169; candidate-65, 72–5, 77, 79–80, 103; claim- 71, 74, 80; display(ed)4–7, 28, 38, 66–7, 106, 216; problem of- 74, 80, 96, 107–15, 122–6; see also misunderstanding; praxeological; trouble video recordings 27–33 Wittgenstein, L. 33, 216–20