Skelt2007

From emcawiki
Revision as of 05:57, 4 May 2019 by PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=INCOLLECTION |Author(s)=Louise Skelt; |Title=Damage control: closing problematic sequences in hearing-impaired interaction |Editor(s)=Maurice Nevile; Johan...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skelt2007
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Skelt2007
Author(s) Louise Skelt
Title Damage control: closing problematic sequences in hearing-impaired interaction
Editor(s) Maurice Nevile, Johanna Rendle-Short
Tag(s) EMCA, Hearing Problems
Publisher John Benjamins Publishing
Year 2007
Language English
City Amsterdam / Philadelphia
Month
Journal Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Volume 39
Number 3
Pages
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.30.3
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition Language as action: Australian studies in conversation analysis
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

When a problem of understanding arises for a hearing-impaired recipient in the course of a conversation, and is detected, repairing that problem is only one of several possible courses of action for participants. Another possibility is the collaborative closing of the part of the conversation which has proved problematic for understanding, to allow the initiation of a new, and potentially less problematic, topic. This paper examines one practice utilised by hearing-impaired interactants and their partners in achieving such closings. The action of withdrawal of engagement (via withdrawal of gaze at partner) by hearing impaired interactants, accompanied by their production of multi-unit turns at talk, brings about the closing of problematic sequences. It is proposed that these multi-unit turns address the interactional delicacy of recipients’ withdrawal of engagement at points where the speaker’s action is demonstrably incomplete. By initiating and cooper- ating with ‘strategic’ topic change in this way, participants act both to conceal the understanding problem and to avoid its potential consequences for the unfolding conversation. In doing so, they also act to keep issues of conversational competence, and the threats to face and identity which may arise from these issues, off the surface of the conversation.

Notes