Article published In:
Language as ActionEdited by Maurice Nevile and Johanna Rendle-Short
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3] 2007
► pp. 34.1–34.15
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
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.
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References (22)
Antaki, C.; Widdicombe, S. editors. 1998. Identities in Talk. London: Sage.
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.
Skelt, L. 2006. See What I Mean: Hearing Loss, Gaze and Repair in Conversation. PhD thesis, Canberra: The Australian National University.
Ten Have, P. 1999. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Tye-Murray, N.; Witt, S.. 1996. ‘Conversational moves and conversational styles of adult cochlear-implant users’. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 291: 11–25.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Saalasti, Satu, Kati Pajo, Barbara Fox, Seija Pekkala & Minna Laakso
2023. Embodied-Visual Practices during Conversational Repair: Scoping Review. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:4 ► pp. 311 ff. 
Chinn, Deborah
2022. ‘I Have to Explain to him’: How Companions Broker Mutual Understanding Between Patients with Intellectual Disabilities and Health Care Practitioners in Primary Care. Qualitative Health Research 32:8-9 ► pp. 1215 ff.
Sparrow, Karen, Christopher Lind & Willem van Steenbrugge
2020. Gesture, communication, and adult acquired hearing loss. Journal of Communication Disorders 87 ► pp. 106030 ff.
Ekberg, Katie, Louise Hickson & Caitlin Grenness
2017. Conversation breakdowns in the audiology clinic: the importance of mutual gaze. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 52:3 ► pp. 346 ff.
Barnes, Scott & Alison Ferguson
2015. Conversation partner responses to problematic talk produced by people with aphasia: some alternatives to initiating, completing, or pursuing repair. Aphasiology 29:3 ► pp. 315 ff.
Barnes, Scott
2014. Managing Intersubjectivity in Aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47:2 ► pp. 130 ff.
Lind, Christopher
2013. Conversation repair: Ecological validity of outcome measures in acquired hearing impairment. Cochlear Implants International 14:sup4 ► pp. 48 ff.
Okell, Elise & Christopher Lind
2012. A conversation analytic view of continuous discourse tracking as a rehabilitative tool. International Journal of Audiology 51:1 ► pp. 43 ff.
Brouwer, Catherine E., Dennis Day, Ulrika Ferm, Anders R Hougaard, Gitte Rasmussen & Gunilla Thunberg
2011. Treating the actions of children as sensible. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders 2:2 ► pp. 153 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.