Article published In: Language as Action
Edited by Maurice Nevile and Johanna Rendle-Short
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3] 2007
► pp. 34.1–34.15
Damage control
Closing problematic sequences in hearing-impaired interaction
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 1 January 2007
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0734
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0734
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 cooperating 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.
References (22)
Button, G. (1991). ‘Conversation-in-a-series’. In Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, edited by Boden, D.; Zimmerman, D. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Erber, N. P.; Lind, C. 1994. ‘Communication therapy: Theory and practice’. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology (Monograph) Gagne, J.P.; Tye-Murray, N., editors., Research in Audiological Rehabilitation: Current Trends and Future Directions, 271, 267–287.
Gagne, J. P.; Rochette, A. J.; Charest, M. 2002. ‘Auditory, visual and audiovisual clear speech’. Speech Communication 371: 213–230.
Gardner, R. 1994. ‘Conversation analysis transcription’. In Spoken Interaction Studies in Australia, edited by Gardner, R. 185–191. Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
2001. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Goodwin, C.; Goodwin, M. 1987. ‘Concurrent operations in talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments’. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–54.
Heritage, J. 1984. ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement’. In Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by Atkinson, J.; Heritage, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hetu, R. 1996. ‘The stigma attached to hearing impairment’. Scandinavian Audiology 251 ((Suppl 43)): 12–24.
Jefferson, G. 1987. ‘On exposed and embedded correction in conversation’. In Talk and Social Organization, edited by Button, J.; Lee J.R.E. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
2004. ‘Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction’. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Lerner, G. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paoletti, I. 1998. ‘Handling “incoherence” according to the speaker’s on-sight categorization’. In Identities in Talk, edited by Antaki, C.; Widdicombe, S. London: Sage Publications.
Perkins, L. 2003. ‘Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation’. In Conversation and Brain Damage, edited by Goodwin, C. New York: Oxford University Press.
Picheny, M.; Durlach, N.; Braida, L. 1985. ‘Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech’. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 281: 96–103.
1986. ‘Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech’. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 291: 434–446.
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. ‘Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences’. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981, edited by Tannen, D. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. (pp. 71–93).
1995. ‘Sequence-closing sequences’. Sequence Organization. (Ms.) 186–200: Department of Sociology, UCLA.
Schegloff, E. A.; Jefferson, G.; Sacks, H. 1977. ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language 531: 361–382.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Saalasti, Satu, Kati Pajo, Barbara Fox, Seija Pekkala & Minna Laakso
Chinn, Deborah
Sparrow, Karen, Christopher Lind & Willem van Steenbrugge
Ekberg, Katie, Louise Hickson & Caitlin Grenness
Barnes, Scott & Alison Ferguson
Barnes, Scott
Lind, Christopher
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.