Unpacking The Self

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/242654763
Unpacking “Self”
Article in Social Psychology Quarterly · December 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0190272513498398
CITATIONS READS
17 4,534
1 author:
Galina Bolden
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
49 PUBLICATIONS 1,380 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Galina Bolden on 16 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Social Psychology Quarterly
XX(X) 1–29
Unpacking ‘‘Self’’: Ó American Sociological Association 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0190272513498398
Repair and Epistemics spq.sagepub.com
in Conversation
Galina B. Bolden1
Abstract
Goffman’s work on footing has paved the way to specifying the analytic concepts of speaker
and hearer in social interaction. This article empirically examines participants’ moment-
by-moment negotiated understandings of speakerhood in the context of conversational
repair—sequences of talk dedicated to resolving problems of hearing, speaking, or under-
standing. I demonstrate that participation in repair sequences reflects interactants’ orienta-
tions to socially distributed rights to knowledge, or epistemics. Even though speakers are
ordinarily entitled to speak on their own behalf and, thus, to repair their own talk, the appli-
cation of this right is a contingent, negotiated, and sometimes contested matter. Using the
methodology of conversation analysis to examine a large corpus of video-recorded English,
Russian, and bilingual multiparty interactions, I show how asymmetries in participants’
experiences and expertise are drawn upon in the process of repair resolution, suggesting
a respecification of the notion of ‘‘self’’ as it pertains to repair.
Keywords
conversation analysis, epistemics, repair, participation, identity
In fine-grain analysis, . . . it may be communication as a dyadic exchange

that the notion of the individual as between a speaker and a hearer is vastly
such will prove too imprecise, and oversimplified. Hymes (1974:54) argued
instead a need will appear to use that ‘‘the common dyadic model of
a variety of technically defined terms. speaker-hearer specifies sometimes too
many, sometimes too few, sometimes the
—Erving Goffman, Relations
in Public, 1971
wrong participants,’’ and Goffman (1981)
advanced this argument by decomposing
This article examines the role of episte- the notions of speaker and hearer in his
mics (or knowledge management) in the work on footing. Goffman’s view of
organization of social interaction. By speaker as a laminated entity highlights
focusing on how interactants orient to
and manage epistemic considerations in 1
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
the context of conversational repair, the
article aims to unpack the analytic con- Corresponding Author:
Galina B. Bolden, Department of Communication,
cept of speakerhood. Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New
It has long been observed by scholars Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
of social interaction that the view of Email: gbolden@rci.rutgers.edu
Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

2 Social Psychology Quarterly XX(X)
distinct stances a person can assume and the conventional notion of speaker is
enact in relationship to the words being imprecise, specifying (to reappropriate
produced. These stances are grounded Hymes 1974:54) ‘‘sometimes too few,
in participants’ differential rights and sometimes the wrong participants.’’1 Tak-
responsibilities to speak to the matter at ing inspiration from Goffman’s largely
hand—as the words animator (who artic- theoretical work on participation, this
ulates the words), author (who selects the article examines empirically participants’
words), and/or principal (whose views are own, moment-by-moment negotiated
being presented). Furthermore, Goffman understandings of speakerhood by look-
categorized hearers on the basis of their ing at conversational repair—sequences
rights and responsibilities to participate of talk dedicated to resolving problems
in the interaction. of hearing, speaking, or understanding
Goffman’s (1981) work on footing con- (e.g., Hayashi, Raymond, and Sidnell
ceptualizes speaker and hearer as analyt- 2013; Kitzinger 2013; Schegloff, Jeffer-
ically separate, almost entirely isolated, son, and Sacks 1977). Repair sequences
entities (Goodwin and Goodwin 2003). are particularly apt for such an investiga-
However, the picture is more complex tion due to the relevance of the identity of
and dynamic when interaction between the speaker of the problematic talk to
speakers and hearers is taken into repair organization. We will see that the
account. For instance, hearers can be, in person who speaks the words subse-
various ways, implicated in the speaker quently targeted by repair initiation is
role: for example, when a speaker not always treated as having the rights
reenacts the words of a hearer (Goodwin (or exclusive rights) to them, and in
1984) or when words are produced fact, in the course of repair resolution,
together or on behalf of several copartici- several interlocutors may claim—and be
pants (Lerner 2002b). The possibility afforded—epistemic rights to what was
that individuals can act together as a col- said. In other words, the right to repair
lective entity is captured by Goffman’s one’s own talk is a negotiated and some-
(1971) notion of a ‘‘with’’—a participation times contested matter. I will examine
unit in which individuals visibly display how participants’ asymmetrical epistemic
their togetherness in public settings. standing vis-à-vis what is being said
Goffman’s notion of withs has been is enacted and negotiated in repair
extended beyond visible conduct to talk- sequences—a process that brings to light
in-interaction, especially in conversation epistemic underpinnings of the notions
analytic work concerned with aspects of of laminated speaker (Goffman 1981), on
conversational organization that enable the one hand, and withs (Goffman 1971)
several participants to act as a single or collectivities (Lerner 1993, 2002a;
unit (a multiperson ‘‘party,’’ ‘‘team,’’ Schegloff 1995), on the other.
‘‘association,’’ or ‘‘collectivity’’): for exam- The article is organized as follows.
ple, turn-taking (Lerner 1995; Schegloff After a brief discussion of the data and
1995), action sequencing (Lerner 1993), method used in the study, an overview
and storytelling (Goodwin 1984, 1986;
1
Goodwin 1997; Lerner 1992; Mandelbaum Following Egbert (1997), the term multiper-
1987). son rather than multiparty interaction is used
Overall, Goffman’s (1971, 1981) work in this article to allow for the fact that in dealing
with conversational repair, conversationalists
on participation and subsequent conver- may act collectively as incumbents of a multiper-
sation analytic research on organization son party (Lerner 1993) or individually as a sin-
of multiperson interaction indicates that gle-person party.

Repair and Epistemics 3
of research on epistemics and repair AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON

organization is presented. The remainder EPISTEMICS AND REPAIR
of the article examines the role of epi-
The article examines the intersection of
stemic considerations—those relating to
repair organization with the ‘‘epistemic
‘‘epistemics of experience’’ and then
order’’ (Heritage 2008). Research on epis-
‘‘epistemics of expertise’’ (Heritage
temics has a long tradition in sociology
2013:392)—in other-initiated repair. In
and allied disciplines (for a review, see
the conclusions, I discuss the implications
Stivers, Mondada, and Steensig 2011).
of the study for our understanding of the
For instance, Goffman (1983:12) asserted
organization of repair and the notion of
the centrality of ‘‘the cognitive relation
speakerhood.
of the participants, that is what it is
each can effectively assume the other
DATA AND METHOD knows’’ for the interaction order. Conver-
The data for this article come from video- sation analytic research on epistemics
recorded face-to-face everyday multiper- deals with ways in which ‘‘the interac-
son interactions between family members tants assert, contest and defend’’ knowl-
and friends. Two corpora are used: one is edge claims (Heritage 2013:370). It
a collection of recordings of bilingual has been shown that epistemic considera-
(Russian and English) conversations in tions—including matters of epistemic
families of Russian American immi- access (what is assumed to be known to
grants; the other is a compilation of whom) and epistemic rights (who has the
English-language recordings made in the right to know what)—are central to how
United States. Overall, approximately 60 social actions are designed and under-
recordings of interactions between three stood, for example, whether an utterance
to eight participants (each 30 to 90 is a question or an assertion (e.g., Heri-
minutes in length) are used. Instances of tage 2012a, 2012b). Further, epistemics
repair sequences that involve multiple plays an important role in conversational
participants were identified, transcribed, turn-taking: for instance, the allocation of
and analyzed using the methodology of turns among individual participants
conversation analysis (e.g., Stivers and (Lerner 2003) and multiperson parties
Sidnell 2013). The results reported in (Lerner 1993, 2002a) is organized by ref-
this article are based on an examination erence to participants’ relative epistemic
of approximately 150 cases in which statuses. This article extends our under-
other-initiated repair is resolved with standing of the role of epistemics in talk-
the involvement of somebody other than in-interaction by looking at how epistemic
the trouble source producer. Other types considerations (especially matters of epi-
of multiperson repair sequences are being stemic access and rights) enter into the
investigated as part of a larger project organization of participation in repair
(see Bolden 2011, 2012). All names and (cf. Robinson 2013).
other identifiers have been anonymized Repair is a central mechanism by
in the transcripts. The conversation ana- which people maintain intersubjectivity
lytic transcription conventions employed in conversation (Schegloff 1992). Repair
in this study are described in Hepburn organization refers to a set of practices
and Bolden (2013). When relevant to the for dealing with problems of hearing,
analysis, the details of gaze direction are speaking, and understanding talk
transcribed following Goodwin’s (1981) (Schegloff et al. 1977). According to
conventions. Schegloff et al. (1977), repair machinery

consists of repair initiation, which occupy the identities of self and other:
launches a repair activity; repair solution, that is, the person who articulates the
which effects repair; and the target of words that are being repaired and the
repair, referred to as the trouble source person initiating repair. While much of
(or repairable). The initiation of repair the work on repair was based on tele-
suspends the ongoing course of action phone (i.e., two-person) conversations,
until the problem is dealt with and the this view of repair as a dyadic exchange
repair solution is provided. Repair can is largely supported by data from multi-
be initiated by either the speaker of the person interactions (Egbert 1997). Thus,
trouble source (referred to as self) or by other-initiated repair is typically treated
a recipient (referred to as other). This as having been addressed to the producer
article examines other-initiated repair of the trouble source (self), who then
sequences—namely, sequences in which resolves the repair by providing a repair
repair is initiated by a recipient of the solution. This can be seen in Excerpt 1,
trouble source turn via a repair initiation taken from a dinner conversation
(e.g., What?). between four participants. In line 3,
Michael initiates repair on Vivian’s com-
Organization of Participation in plaint (in line 1) with an ‘‘open class’’
Repair Sequences repair initiation ‘‘What?’’ (Drew 1997).
In the transcript, TS stands for trouble
Schegloff et al. (1977:361) show that other-
source, RI for repair initiation, and RS
initiated repair sequences are dyadic
for repair solution.
exchanges between two interlocutors that
Excerpt 1: Take that (Chicken Dinner; 23:00)
Around the table: Vivian, Shane, Nancy, Michael

1 TS> VIV: [I wz]gunnuh take that Michael,
2 (0.6)
3 RI> MIC: Wha[:t? ((looks at VIV))
4 RS> VIV: [Ah wz g'nna take[that little pe]e-
5 MIC: [Oh h_e : r e.]
Michael’s repair initiation is addressed addressed to the producer of the trouble

to Vivian explicitly via gaze, selecting her source—‘‘the one participant ordinarily
as the next speaker (Lerner 2003). How- entitled to complete the repair’’ (Lerner
ever, even when no form of explicit 2003:195). Excerpt 2 is an illustration.
addressing (e.g., gaze or an address In lines 1–3, Irina is talking about a finan-
term) is used, participants ordinarily cial scandal during which many people
treat repair initiation as having been lost their investments.

Excerpt 2: Four million (M 3-2; 20:35)

Around the table: Irina, Nadia, Luba, Alex
1 IRI: >That’s like one of Mat’s grandma’s friends<
2 lost her: (.) retirement.
3 TS> had four (b)illion dollars saved in there¿
4 (1.2)
5 RI>ALE: Four what¿ ((looking down))
6 RS>IRI: Four million dollars in there¿

7 (1.0)
8 IRI: which is like nothing in comparison to the other people¿
In line 5, Alex is looking down while ‘‘speak for yourself,’’ according to which
initiating repair (‘‘Four what¿’’) and thus people have a special right (and a respon-
does not—explicitly—address anybody. sibility) to speak on their own behalf (cf.
However, because the repair initiation Goffman 1971). It is also consistent
targets Irina’s talk, she is the one who is with the structural preference for self-
being tacitly selected (Lerner 2003) to correction (over other-correction) in
respond to the repair initiation (which allowing the producer of the trouble
she does at line 6). source to repair his or her own talk
Note that the other copresent partici- (Schegloff et al. 1977). In Heritage’s
pants in these two conversations could (2008:307) words, ‘‘the organization of
potentially respond to the repair initia- repair is generally designed to respect
tion since they may well have access to the rights of speakers to ‘say what
the information the repair initiator is they wish to say’ and to own it.’’ In
seeking (that is, they may have heard other words, repair mechanisms—with
and understood the trouble source their built-in structural bias for self-
turn).2 Yet it is the speaker of the repair- correction—support and enable the distri-
able who typically resolves repair (Bolden bution of participation in repair activities
2011; Egbert 1997). This empirical gener- such that the speaker’s rights to his or her
alization is consistent with what Lerner own talk are respected.3
(1996) calls the conversational maxim to Even though other-initiated repair is
typically a dyadic exchange between
a recipient who initiates repair and the
2
In both instances, the repair is initiated in speaker of the trouble source who
the next turn, the prototypical position for initiat-
ing repair (Schegloff 2000b) that creates the
3
‘‘prior-as-next’’ turn-order bias (Sacks, Schegloff, Note that while the preference for self-
and Jefferson 1974:708–709). Instances of correction is grounded in the organization of turn-
delayed repair initiation (especially those that taking, the relative infrequency of other-correction
rely on tacit addressing) are hard to find, but (vis-à-vis other-initiation of repair) is indicative of
there is some indication that even delayed repair participants’ orientation to the trouble source speak-
initiations are ordinarily treated as being (tacitly) er’s epistemic primacy over his or her own words
addressed to the speaker of the trouble source. (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977).

provides a repair solution, other interloc- maintaining the progressivity of the

utors may become involved in repair reso- unfolding course of action and respecting
lution. For instance, Egbert (1997) found socially distributed rights to knowledge
that once repair is initiated (and before (or epistemics). In this study, I expand
a repair solution is provided), other par- on the role of epistemics in repair to dem-
ticipants may reissue the repair initiation onstrate its systematic relevance to repair
(e.g., by repeating it). It has been docu- organization beyond the limited context of
mented (Bolden 2011, 2012; Egbert other-selection.4 A more comprehensive
1997; Lerner 1993) that other interlocu- understanding of the role of progressivity
tors may provide a repair solution in place in repair sequences awaits further inves-
of, or in addition to, the trouble source tigation (but see Bolden 2011; Stivers
speaker. For instance, somebody may and Robinson 2006).5
self-select (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson The general argument is that the right
1974) to provide a repair solution in to repair one’s own talk is a negotiated
response to a repair initiation apparently and sometimes contested matter. In multi-
addressed to the trouble source speaker person conversation, participants operate
(Bolden 2012; Egbert 1997). Alternatively under sometimes cross-cutting pressures:
(and much less commonly), the repair ini- the right to repair their own talk, on the
tiation may be addressed to—and select— one hand, and the right to speak to their
somebody other than the trouble source own experiences or on the basis of their
speaker (other-selection; Bolden 2011). expertise, on the other. The analysis
This article extends our rather limited shows that in the process of repair resolu-
understanding of other-initiated repair tion, one’s experiences and expertise may
in multiperson (vs. dyadic) conversation in fact supersede or challenge the right to
by investigating situations in which self-repair that comes from the local role
somebody other than the trouble source as the producer of the trouble source.
speaker provides a repair solution by In the following, I first examine how
either self-selecting or being selected. interlocutors orient to ‘‘epistemics of
How can these situations be accounted experience’’ in repair sequences and
for? And what do they suggest about then analyze their orientation to ‘‘episte-
repair organization more generally and mics of expertise’’ (Heritage 2013:392).
the notion of self as the speaker of the We will see that epistemics of experience
trouble source? Answering these ques- and expertise play a role in who gets to
tions will shed light on participants’ provide a repair solution in response to
understanding and negotiation of a repair initiation. In terms of repair
speakerhood.
While instances of other participants’ 4
See also Robinson (2013) on how epistemic
involvement in repair may initially seem considerations play into participants’ under-
like deviations from the general norm standing of what action repair initiation
that the producer of the trouble source accomplishes.
5
In order to delineate the role of epistemics in
should repair his or her own talk, data repair, the excerpts discussed in this article are
analysis shows that they are not random selected so as not to raise progressivity consider-
occurrences. Bolden (2011) has demon- ations. For example, responses to repair initiation
strated that other-selection (i.e., selection are provided immediately without delay, which
of somebody other than the trouble source eliminates an orientation to progressivity as an
account for other participants’ involvement
producer to provide a repair solution) dis- (Lerner 2002a; Stivers and Robinson 2006). How-
plays participants’ orientation to two ever, both progressivity and epistemics may be
organizing features of talk-in-interaction: simultaneously at play (Bolden 2011).

organization, a distinction will be made Goffman’s [1981] terms, acts as the ani-
between situations in which an interlocu- mator, the author, and the principal)
tor who is not the trouble source speaker and, thus, has a right and a responsibility
is explicitly addressed and selected by to repair the trouble source (Heritage
the repair initiator to provide a repair 2008; Stivers et al. 2011). In a multiperson
solution (i.e., other-selection) from situa- conversation, it is, however, possible that
tions in which somebody self-selects to other participants have (or are assumed
provide a repair solution in addition to— to have) access and sometimes even pri-
or in place of—the addressed trouble mary epistemic rights to what the trouble
source speaker. I show that these are alter- source turn conveys. This produces
native ways of dealing with asymmetries in a rather complex situation in which partic-
participants’ epistemic rights. I also argue ipants have competing claims to the
that the analytic concept of self as an indi- repairable and thus competing rights to
vidual speaker who produced the trouble provide a repair solution. In the following,
source (Schegloff et al. 1977) should be I examine how interlocutors resolve these
replaced with the concept of self as a some- differently grounded epistemic claims by
times-multiperson party. This reconceptu- analyzing their participation in repair
alization brings repair organization in activities. The analysis will show that in
alignment with turn-taking organization, resolving repair, the right to speak to
which describes the allocation of turns to one’s own experiences, feelings, and so on
parties rather than individual persons supersedes or challenges the speaker’s
(Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1995). locally derived right as the producer of
the trouble source.
EPISTEMICS OF EXPERIENCE
Research on epistemics or knowledge A Coparticipant Has Epistemic
management in conversation (e.g., Labov Primacy over the Trouble Source
and Fanshel 1977; Lerner 1996; Pomer- Since knowledge of experiences is firmly
antz 1980; Sacks 1984) has shown that bound to the individual who has lived
as a general rule, people have epistemic through them, when somebody talks
rights to speak for themselves: that is, to about experiences or life circumstances
talk about their own ‘‘thoughts, feelings, of a copresent participant, that partici-
experiences, hopes, and expectations’’ pant retains privileged access to what is
(Heritage 2013:377) as well as, to some being said. For example, he or she is
extent, about experiences of those who expected to confirm (or deny or elaborate
are categorically bound to them, such as on) what is being said on his or her behalf
their own relatives, friends, and the like (Labov and Fanshel 1977; Lerner 1992,
(Raymond and Heritage 2006). Goffman 1996). The organization of repair sequen-
(1971:38) referred to this as an individu- ces is sensitive to these socially distrib-
al’s ‘‘information preserves’’—a territory uted epistemic rights. Specifically, as
over which a person has primary rights. shown in Bolden (2011:253) and illustrated
The right to repair one’s own talk (dis- in the following, ‘‘when the trouble-source
cussed previously) is an instantiation of turn coveys information to which a copre-
this right to ‘‘speak for oneself’’ (Lerner sent person has primary epistemic access,
1996). It is grounded in the person’s local the repair initiation selects that person—
interactional role as the speaker of the and not the speaker of the trouble source
trouble source, who—ordinarily—selects turn—to provide a repair solution.’’ Or, to
what to say and how to say it (i.e., in use Goffman’s (1981) terminology, the

repair initiation is addressed not to the ani- his turn. The repair initiation (‘‘[Side-,] (.)
mator (the person who utters the repair- you mean this "way?’’ accompanied by
able) but to the principal whose views are a pointing gesture to a part of the house;
(claimably) being expressed and who thus see Figure 1) is a proffer of a candidate
retains primary epistemic rights over understanding of Corry’s reference to
what is being said (cf. Lerner 2002a). ‘‘the si:de entrance’’ on the drawings
In Excerpt 3, Bianca, Corry, and their (line 1). The key observation is that this
adult daughter Angela are discussing ren- repair initiation is addressed not to the
ovation plans for Angela’s house. Angela producer of the trouble source (i.e.,
has been showing Corry the architectural Corry), but to Angela, the owner of the
drawings for the renovations while house being renovated who, arguably,
Bianca (who had claimed not to under- has the epistemic primacy over this infor-
stand the drawings) stepped away from mational territory.6 On the transcript, the
the conversation. On Bianca’s return, horizontal line indicates gaze at the per-
Corry starts explaining the drawings to son whose name is placed above the line.
her (lines 1–3), and in line 4, Bianca inter- Vertical lines [|] are used to indicate the
rupts the explanation to initiate repair on onset of other nonvocal conduct.
Excerpt 3: Side Entrance (Fam 23:05)
Around the table: Angela, Bianca, Corry

((Bianca walks up to the table and begins to sit down))
..BIA________________
1 TS> COR: |This is the si:de entrance of the house¿
|((COR points to the drawings))
2 (0.2) ((BIA nods slightly looking at the drawings))
3 COR: She go[es in ]
.. ANG____________________________
4 RI> BIA: [Side-,] (.) you mean this nway?
|((BIA points left; see Figure 1))
COR: ...BIA________...ANG____
5 RS> ANG: |>Nope<, (.) it’s on this side.

|((ANG points right))
|((BIA and COR continue looking at ANG))
6 (0.2)
7 BIA: ººoh. |(‘key)ºº
|((BIA looks down at the drawings))
8 COR: An’ she go in,=
6
By taking on the task of explaining the architectural drawings, Corry enacts his expertise in this
domain. To address a repair initiation to him is to respect both his rights as the trouble source producer
and his claimed expertise. When Bianca addresses the repair initiation to Angela rather than Corry, she
privileges Angela’s epistemic rights (as the owner of the house) over Corry’s. The role of expertise is dis-
cussed in a later section; however, further research is needed to account for how experience- and exper-
tise-grounded entitlements are negotiated in repair.
Figure 1. Bianca (center) addresses the repair initiation to Angela (left) in line 4, Excerpt 3
The repair initiation (line 4) is preserves’’ (Goffman 1971) may supersede

addressed explicitly, via gaze, to Angela those derived from the local identity as
(see Figure 1), and both Angela and a producer of the trouble source. At the
Corry comply with this selection.7 Angela very least, the expectation that the trouble
immediately provides a repair solution source producer will be addressed by
(line 5) and Corry remains silent (until other-initiation of repair is relaxed so
line 8, where he resumes the explana- that the interlocutor with primary epi-
tion). Furthermore, upon seeing that stemic rights over the repairable may
the repair initiation is addressed to be selected to resolve repair. In sequen-
Angela, Corry shifts his gaze toward ces of this sort, the repair initiator treats
Angela (during line 4; see Figure 1), the trouble source speaker as not having
thus demonstrating his expectation that the final epistemic authority over what
she will speak next. was said, but rather as acting (as an ani-
In this excerpt, a speaker formulates mator) on behalf of another interlocutor
something to which another copresent who retains epistemic rights as the prin-
interlocutor has (or may be seen to have) cipal (Goffman 1981). This suggests that
primary epistemic rights. When repair is the rights and responsibilities of the
initiated on this turn, the repair initiation speaker of the trouble source to self-
selects the person with epistemic primacy repair become distributed among two
over the matter at hand rather than the (and potentially more) interlocutors in
speaker of the repairable. This and other accordance with their epistemic rights
instances of other-selection (see Bolden to what is being said.
2011) suggest that epistemic rights derived
from a person’s own ‘‘informational
The Trouble Source Is Produced by or
7
on Behalf of Coexperiencers
While ‘‘you’’ in ‘‘you mean’’ could refer to
Corry, the speaker of the trouble source, the Turns that are subsequently targeted as
gaze clearly designates the addressee. trouble sources are ordinarily produced

by a single interlocutor, the trouble This sharing of rights to repair

source speaker. However, they can also becomes evident when the repair initia-
be produced in collaboration with tion is addressed to both producers of the
others—a situation that, to my knowl- trouble source as comembers of a single
edge, has not been examined in the repair party. In Excerpt 4, Natasha and Oleg (a
literature. For example, a current married couple) are telling the other par-
speaker may recruit another participant ticipants about a daycare center that
to, in some way, collaborate with the failed to open due to licensing problems.
action he or she is carrying out (Lerner Natasha and Oleg’s children attend a day-
1993). By inviting another interlocutor’s care center owned by the people who
collaboration, the speaker displays that failed in this new venture. At line 1, Nata-
this other participant also has epistemic sha begins formulating part of the telling
access and rights to speak to the matter (i im skazali shto:/‘‘and they were told
at hand and may act as a ‘‘consociate’’ of that’’) but then, before completing her
the other in the action in progress (Lerner turn constructional unit (Sacks et al.
1992, 1993). The analysis in this section 1974), she recruits her husband Oleg to
will show that when such collaboratively help with the telling (line 3). This affords
accomplished actions become targeted by Oleg access to the floor and thereby the
a repair initiation, the coproducers of rights to act as a coteller (cf. Lerner
the trouble source turn are treated as 1992), and they continue with the telling
sharing the rights to the trouble source together (lines 4–12). At line 11, when
and thus the rights to repair it. In other one of the recipients, Kira, initiates repair
words, they are treated as coincumbents to check her understanding of the telling,
of a single party (or a with; Goffman she explicitly addresses both Natasha and
1971). Oleg via gaze (see Figure 2).
Excerpt 4: Daycare (I 9; 24:05)
Around the table: Seva, Natasha with baby, Oleg, Kira
1 NAT: i im ska[zali shto: (0.2)

and them told that
and they were told that...
%2< >PDPD
3 NAT: shto?/ ((to Oleg))

what
4 OLEG: Print [shop kakojta ta:m by(l)/

some there was
Some {print shop} was there
5 NAT: [Print shop (nu) tam by:,l/

PRT was there
{Print shop} was there
6 (0.5)
7 OLEG: i sho tam i: (akvancy) nis no good?/

and that there and
And that there ( ) {is no good}

8 (1.0) ((Oleg makes a dismissive gesture))

9 NAT: V[së:/
all
That’s it
10 OLEG: [U nix prapa[li (bab-)

with them lost dough
They lost their (dough-)
NAT__________________..OLE_____ ((Figure 2))

11 RI>KIRA: [V etam pame|sche¿nii
in this space
In that space
|((Oleg starts nodding))
12 an[i ne magli º(stavit’)º]/

they not could put
they couldn’t ( )?
13 RS>OLEG: [Mm mm/ ((nods))
14 RS>NAT: [D a : : / posle ta]vo kak ani: vsë: vsë uzhe tam

yes after that as they all all already there
Yes/ this is after they did absolutely everything there
Figure 2. Kira (right) shifts her gaze from Natasha (left) to Oleg (center) during line 11, Excerpt 4
In line 11, while producing her repair initiation, both provide a repair solution
initiation, Kira first looks at Natasha simultaneously (lines 13–14), which
and then, within the same turn-construc- shows that they both treat the repair ini-
tional unit (Sacks et al. 1974), turns tiation as having been addressed to them.
to Oleg, thus apparently addressing In Excerpt 4, the speaker elicited col-
the repair initiation to both of them laboration from another interlocutor,
(Figure 2). In this way, the repair initia- thus granting him the right to speak to
tor respects both tellers’ epistemic rights the matter at hand. However, this sort
and treats them as comembers of a party of collaborative action does not have to
of tellers. In response to this repair be invited, as participants may deploy

their shared knowledge of the events to ing about their son’s birthday party and
join in on the action in progress as conso- especially about the people in charge of
ciates or comembers in a collectivity made the establishment where the party took
relevant by the action, for example, as place (lines 1 and 6–8). When, in line 9,
cotellers in the ongoing telling (Lerner Seva initiates repair, he explicitly
1992). In Excerpt 5, Oleg and Natasha addresses it to both cotellers (Natasha
are acting as cotellers, together complain- and Oleg) via gaze.
Excerpt 5: Waiter or Owner (I 13; 6:00)
Around the table: Seva, Natasha, Baby, Boy, Oleg, Kira, Lena
1 OLEG: (Tot) papasha xatel dra[ca s (nim) vmeste/
that father wanted fight with him together
That father wanted to have a fight with him
%DE\>'DGD
3 OL?: Mm
4 KIRA: Shto ty [(g-) (.) Tak ploxa byla?/ ((to Natasha))

what you so bad was
Really It was so bad?
5 SEVA: [( )
6 OLEG: Nu ne [plaxa byl-

PRT not bad was
It wasn’t bad-
7 TS> NAT: [On prosta v`t nu- (.) g:a:dkij takoj chelave,k/
he just PRT PRT nasty such person
He is just (.) such a nasty person
8 vot vsë: [byla ne tak/

PRT all was not so
Everything was wrong
.... NAT____... OLEG_____ ((Figure 3))

9 RI> SEVA: [On- on eta kto/ afica?nt/
he he that who waiter
He- who’s he, the waiter?
NAT: SEVA____________________
OLEG: SEVA____________
KIRA: SEVA____
10 (.) ((NAT’s face shows confusion; KIRA looks at NAT))

11 SEVA: ili kto/[ili xazja?in/

or who or owner
Or who, or the owner?
12 RS>KIRA: [Mm: ((negative token start; head shake))
13 RS>OLEG: Xa[zjain/
owner
14 RS>NAT: [Xaznja:pin/
owner
15 NAT: A zde:,s’/vot zhnaesh narmal’nye lju:di/

PRT here PRT you-know normal people
And here you know good people
The repair initiation in line 9 (On- on initiation seems to be based on the preced-
eta kto/ afica?nt/‘‘Who is he, the ing telling, from which it is quite appar-
waiter?’’) targets the locally subsequent ent that ‘‘waiter’’ is not a plausible under-
pronominal reference on (‘‘he’’) in Nata- standing. Given its timing, Kira’s
sha’s preceding turn (line 7). As Seva pro- response may in fact be occasioned by
duces his repair initiation (line 9), he Natasha’s embodied enactment of confu-
shifts his gaze from Natasha to Oleg, sion (line 10) that indicates that Seva’s
thus apparently addressing both of candidate understanding is not only
them, as comembers of a telling party. incorrect but ‘‘off base’’ or inapposite.
In lines 12–13, both Oleg and Natasha (Natasha’s stance is further revealed in
respond almost simultaneously (each her emphatic and rather incredulous pro-
with hazjain/ ‘‘owner’’). This sort of repair duction of the correction xaz"ja:#in/
resolution displays participants’ orienta- ‘‘owner’’ in line 12.) By intervening into
tion to epistemics in that it reaffirms the the repair sequence in this sequential
cotellers’ equal rights to speak to the mat- environment, Kira demonstrates to the
ter at hand, the rights that had been others that she, another unknowing
invoked and made relevant in the preced- recipient to the telling, has followed and
ing talk. understood it. This might serve to relieve
In line 12, another participant—Kira Natasha and Oleg of responsibility for
(Seva’s wife)—also intervenes with Seva’s misunderstanding.8 What is
a response to the repair initiation, negat- important for the analysis at hand is
ing Seva’s first candidate understanding that the others visibly disattend Kira’s
aficant (‘‘waiter’’). Kira’s response follows
8
a micro-pause (line 10) during which Kira While it is difficult to argue for the relevance
of relational categories (e.g., spouses) in data like
looks at Natasha, whose facial expression
these, it may be noted that these kinds of inter-
shows confusion (the eyebrows drawn ventions are often done by partners and other
together; this facial expression is held relational intimates (as also seen in Excerpt 7).
until Natasha produces her correction in It might be that by proffering a repair solution,
line 14). Note that up to this point, Kira the intervening person displays accountability
for the inapposite action (repair initiation) of
has been acting as an unknowing recipi-
their relational intimate (see Bolden 2011 for
ent of the telling with no direct access a discussion of another kind of repair action
and thus little epistemic claim to this that might be category-bound to relational
topic. Her response to Seva’s repair intimates).

repair solution (e.g., they do not shift Leading into Excerpt 6, Seva has been
their gaze toward her) and proceed with trying to convince Oleg to use his tax
the repair sequence. This indicates that accountant, and Oleg has been skeptical
participants do not simply aim to have about this recommendation. To bolster
understanding problems resolved, but to his argument, Seva introduces an exam-
have them resolved by those interlocutors ple of a friend (named Rifka) who had
with primary epistemic rights to do so. received a large tax refund with the help
In the prior two instances (Excerpt 4 of the recommended accountant (lines
and Excerpt 5), the repair initiation was 4–5). While referring to this friend, Seva
addressed to a team of interlocutors who looks toward his wife Kira, as if recruiting
have (and are assumed to have) equal her as a witness to his assertion—some-
access and rights to the matter at hand body who can attest to its veracity. In
and who collaborate in producing the this way Kira is granted rights to talk
action targeted by the repair initiation. on Seva’s behalf and to defend his posi-
The data show that in this context, the tion. In line 7, Kira adds to Seva’s argu-
repair initiation may also be addressed ment by suggesting that this friend’s
to the producer of the trouble source large tax refund didn’t come from a mort-
turn. In such circumstances, the unad- gage credit (‘‘they didn’t even have
dressed participant may self-select to a house’’) as a way to strengthen Seva’s
also provide a repair solution, thus recommendation of the accountant.
reclaiming his or her role as a consociate
in the collaborative action.
Excerpt 6: Taxes (I 14; 17:40)

Around the table: Seva, Oleg, Kira
1 SEVA: >Vsë zakonna=T`st’< ana::, (0.2) ((to Oleg))

all lawful that-is she
It’s all legal, that is she...
2 OLEG: That sounds like a bit too much.
3 (.)
4 SEVA: P`chemu/<Um- u menja nas srebjata pal:: u menja etat

why with me us guys ge(t) with me that
Why/ I have we have guys who got I have this
... KIRA____________________________________
5 pal:u- Rifka paluchila chetyrnacat’ tysjach
ge(t) NAME got fourteen thousand
Rifka got fourteen thousand
6 vasvr[ata/
back
7 TS> KIRA: [U nix dazhe doma ne byla/ ((to Oleg))
with them even house not was
They didn’t even have a house
8 (.)

9 RI> OLEG: Ah?/ ((gazes to Kira))
10 RS>KIRA: [U nix dazhe doma ne byla/=

with them even house not was
They didn’t even have a house
|
OLEG: |KIRA_____....SEVA__________
|
11 RS>SEVA: [U nix dazhe doma (ºneº)-
with them even house not
They didn’t even {have} a house
12 =.hNu u nas byla/ My byl:i tam ana tam nu my my padali
PRT with us was we were there she there PRT we we filed
We had/ We were there and she we filed...
((continues to explain))
In line 9, Oleg initiates repair on thus visibly validating both of their

Kira’s turn with ‘‘Ah?’’ addressing it responses.
(explicitly via gaze) to Kira. This is an In this section, we have seen some of
‘‘open class’’ repair initiation (Drew the ways in which repair sequences
1997), commonly treated as indicative of unfold when two participants are (known
a problem of hearing, and in fact, in line to be) equally positioned vis-à-vis the
10, immediately following the repair initi- events in question (e.g., as coexper-
ation, Kira responds by repeating what iencers) and thereby have more or less
she had said in the prior turn. In line equal epistemic rights to talk about
11, however, in exact overlap with Kira’s them. The analysis showed that repair
response, Seva also provides a repair solu- initiators may orient to coexperiencers’
tion, repeating (almost entirely) Kira’s epistemic rights by addressing the repair
trouble source turn. In doing so, Seva initiation to both interlocutors (as in
appears to claim epistemic rights to the Excerpt 4 and Excerpt 5) and, in doing
repairable, even if he wasn’t its speaker, so, treat the coexperiencers as comembers
treating it as if it were produced on his of a single party. Additionally, when
behalf as well. In this context, this repair initiation is addressed to a single
action is a particularly strong form of person (the trouble source producer)
endorsement of what Kira had said. rather than to both team members, the
Further, the responses to the repair initi- unaddressed coexperiencer may also prof-
ation (in lines 10–11) are produced in fer a repair solution (Excerpt 6). By prof-
extended—yet seemingly noncompeti- fering a repair solution, the intervening
tive—overlap (Schegloff 2000a), suggest- speaker reflexively demonstrates his or
ing the speakers’ orientation to their her entitlement to the trouble source
shared rights to the turn space as coin- and acts as a comember of a party with
cumbents of the addressed party (cf. the trouble source producer. Overall, the
Lerner 2002b). Note as well that analysis in this section shows that inter-
while the repair solution is being pro- actants orient to the role of ‘‘the speaker
duced (lines 10–11), Oleg (the repair ini- of the trouble source’’—or self—as belong-
tiator) shifts his gaze from Kira to Seva, ing not to an individual animating the

words but, potentially, to a party of indi- access to intervene by proffering a repair

viduals (a with; Goffman, 1971) who solution. The interventions are however
share epistemic rights to the repairable. ordinarily disattended by others, which
indicates that repair is organized by refer-
ence to participants’ relative epistemic
The Trouble Source Is Indirectly
rights to the repairable rather than sim-
Known to a Copresent Other
ply their access to it (cf. Drew 1991).9
It is not uncommon in multiperson con- In a multiparty conversation, several
versation that several participants have interactants may know the answer to
epistemic access to what is being said a repair initiation simply on the basis of
(e.g., they may have heard the story the prior conversation, without having
before), yet only the speaker has (or is any special access to the repairable. Typ-
assumed to have) epistemic primacy over ically, this sort of indirect knowledge is
the trouble source as the rightful ‘‘owner’’ not used as a warrant for intervening
of the experience. Pomerantz (1980) made into a repair sequence, as it may be diffi-
a distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 cult to claim epistemic rights on the basis
knowables: Type 1 knowables refer to of such minimal access.10 However, it does
direct, firsthand knowledge; Type 2 to occasionally happen. An instance of this
secondhand, indirect, or hearsay knowl- was shown in the previously discussed
edge (see also Sacks 1984). Whether a per- Excerpt 5, where Kira proffered a repair
son knows (and is expected to know) solution (line 12) before the producers of
something directly (Type 1) or indirectly the trouble source (Natasha and Oleg)
(Type 2) matters for how conversational responded to the repair initiation. We
actions are designed and understood: for observed that the others visibly disat-
example, whether a statement is designed tended her intervention.
and understood to inform or to request Similar observations can be made
confirmation from the addressee (Heri- about Excerpt 7. Mira is describing
tage 2012b; Labov and Fanshel 1977; a house her family used to visit. The
Pomerantz 1980). The distinction
owner of the house is mentioned some
between Type 1 and Type 2 knowables
40 seconds prior to the segment. In lines
plays a role in repair organization. The
1–9, Mira is talking about how she and
analysis shows that in situations when
her family used to come to the swimming
the producer of the trouble source turn
pool at the house. Aaron and Zhenya (a
has epistemic primacy over what he or
married couple) are Mira’s relatives. In
she said as the ‘‘owner’’ of the experience
line 10, Aaron initiates repair (Tak
(that is, the repairable is a Type 1 know-
che¿j bassejn/‘‘Whose pool?’’), address-
able), the repair initiation is addressed
ing the repair initiation to Mira explicitly
to him or her (see also Bolden 2011). Still,
via gaze as well as tacitly as the speaker
other knowing interlocutors (those with
of the trouble source (Lerner 2003).
secondhand or Type 2 knowledge of the
repairable) may use their epistemic
10
In accordance with interactants’ orientation
to progressivity, these sorts of interventions do
occur when the addressed trouble source speaker
is seen as being unable to respond to the repair
9
Such interventions might also be contested, initiation in a timely manner (Stivers and Robin-
but due to space limitations, no data to demon- son 2006). In such situations, the intervening
strate this are presented. speaker delays providing a repair solution.

Excerpt 7: Swimming pool (I 7a; 42:40)
Around the table: Lena, Aaron, Mira, Zhenya
1 MIR: I edinstevae shto my vot le:,tam/ (.)

and only that we PRT summer
And the only thing, in the summer
2 kagda my k nim pae,xali/

when we to them went
when we went to visit them
3 (0.5)
4 TS> tak tam u nix eh: bassejn./

so there with them pool
they have a swimming pool there
5 (0.8)
6 va dvare/
in yard
in the backyard
7 (0.8)
8 MIR: Tak: (.) Monik: (0.2) kupa,lsja/ Lena kupla,las’/

so NAME swam NAME swam
So Monik went swimming, Ira went swimming
9 i: [zagarali ani/
and sunbathed they
and they were sunbathing
10 RI>AAR: [Tak che¿j bassejn/ ((gazes at Mira))

so whose pool
Whose pool?
11 RS>ZHE: U sas[edej]
with neighbors
The neighbors’
12 RS>MIR: [Vot ]etaj sasedi/

PRT that neighbors
Those neighbors’
13 AAR: A/[sa[se,di/da¿/] ((gazes at Mira))

oh neighbors yes
Oh, the neighbors?
14 LEN: [( [ ] )]
15 MIR: [(Sase ) ]ººYahºº]/ Da/

neigh yes

Immediately following the repair initi- trouble source (or self) by proffering an
ation, in line 11, Zhenya (Aaron’s wife) unsolicited repair solution, their epistemic
proffers a repair solution. Zhenya appar- access to the repairable may not be seen as
ently bases her response on Mira’s prior adequate grounds for such comembership.
telling; however, she has no direct access
to this information (having been acting EPISTEMICS OF EXPERTISE
as an unknowing recipient up to that
So far I have examined repair sequences
point) and thus little right to talk about
in which two (or more) participants have
it. Zhenya may be intervening here in order
some sort of experience-based access to
to demonstrate that she, unlike Aaron, has
the trouble source: that is, they experi-
been an attentive listener and that the tell-
enced the events in question or know
ing has been adequate (see also note 8).
about them indirectly (e.g., having been
Zhenya’s repair solution does not stand,
told about them by those who did). I will
however, and Mira goes on to provide her
own repair solution (in line 12). Note that now turn to the role of epistemics of
Mira starts speaking in overlap with Zhe- expertise (Heritage 2013) in repair orga-
nya at a point where the thrust of Zhenya’s nization, that is, epistemic authority aris-
turn is projectable in Russian. Aaron looks ing from specialized, professional, subject
at Mira throughout this sequence and then matter, or linguistic knowledge. Prior
again addresses Mira to confirm the repair research has shown that participants’
solution (line 13), thus disattending Zhe- expertise—both in terms of access and
nya’s intervention. rights to specialized knowledge—may be
In sum, when a recipient can claim no drawn upon and made relevant in the
special rights to the repairable, his or organization of interaction. For example,
her contributions, even when they ade- action design and word selection may dis-
quately resolve repair, are disattended. play the speaker’s relative expertise and
This finding is consistent with what authority in a particular relevant domain
Egbert (1997) observed in her research of knowledge vis-à-vis the addressee as
on repair in German conversation. While well as the speaker’s assessment of the
Egbert’s study did not look at the distri- addressee’s relevant expertise (e.g., Drew
bution of epistemic rights between the 1991; Kitzinger and Mandelbaum 2013;
participants, a re-examination of the Peräkylä 1998). The analysis will show
data analyzed in her article offers support that interlocutors also orient to (and in
for the finding that repair solutions prof- doing so, reconstitute) asymmetries in
fered by those with no special epistemic their expertise in the course of repair reso-
rights to the repairable are treated as inad- lution. This is evident when (a) a more
equate by the others. Overall, these analy- expert participant is selected to repair
ses demonstrate that participants orient to the trouble source produced by a novice
asymmetries in epistemic rights, rather and (b) participants use their expertise to
than simply epistemic access, in carrying intervene by proffering a repair solution
out repair. This helps explain why, in when they have not been selected.
a vast majority of cases, it is only the
speaker of the trouble source who provides
repair solution in response to repair initia- The Trouble Source Is Produced by
tion (as discussed in the literature review). a Novice
While interlocutors may attempt to reflex- Bolden (2011, 2012) demonstrated that
ively constitute themselves as comembers when the trouble source is produced by
of a party (a with) with the producer of the a person who may be seen as lacking full

interactional or linguistic competencies a half—are capable of competent participa-

(e.g., a young child or a language learner), tion in a variety of repair activities, includ-
the repair initiation may be addressed not ing responding to other-initiation of repair
to the speaker of the trouble source (i.e., addressed to them (Forrester and Chering-
the language novice) but rather to another ton 2009). It is thus best to see the selection
participant who thereby is treated as an of the caregiver over a child as an interac-
expert (cf. Schegloff et al. 1977:381).11 tional move that reconstitutes epistemic
For example, when the trouble source is asymmetries between the two, rather than
produced by a very young child, the repair something driven by the child’s lack of
initiation may be addressed to the child’s interactional expertise.
caregiver—the child’s ‘‘omnirelevant conso- Excerpt 8 is from a dinner conversation
ciate’’ (Lerner 2002a)—rather than the involving a boy of approximately 2.5 years
child. When this happens, the repair initia- of age, his father and mother, a baby, and
tor treats the child as lacking expertise to two dinner guests. Just prior to this
speak for himself or herself and treats the extract, the boy is asked if he had hurt him-
selected caregiver as responsible for speak- self, and he responds with net (‘‘no’’; line 1).
ing on the child’s behalf (cf. Stivers and The boy then asks to be taken off his high
Majid 2007). It should be pointed out, how- chair (‘‘I want to get down’’; line 1), and
ever, that this treatment of young children his dad grants the request (line 3). Follow-
as lacking interactional expertise may or ing Dad’s response to the child, Kira, one of
may not be rooted in the child’s ‘‘actual’’ dis- the guests, turns to Dad and asks him what
played competencies; in fact, child language the child said (line 4)—that is, she initiates
development studies show that even very repair on the child’s talk and selects Dad to
young children—as young as a year and provide a repair solution.
Excerpt 8: Baby talk (I 13; 34:45)
Around the table: Seva, Mom, Baby, Boy, Dad, Kira
1 TS> BOY: NET/ JA[: XACHU: SLE::::ST’/=

No I want climb-down
No I want to get down
2 KIRA: [Ne:t/
no
3 DAD:
=(Go outside)/ (.) Slezaj/=
climb-down
Get down
4 RI> KIRA: =Shto on skaz[a?l/ ((to Dad))
what he said
What did he say?
5 DAD: [Slest’ xochet/

climb-down wants
He wants to get down
11
I would expect that asymmetries in professional expertise might be also used as the basis for other-
selection (i.e., addressing repair initiation to the subject expert rather than the novice trouble source
producer). However, so far I have no examples of this practice, possibly because I have not examined
interactions where participants are expected to have sharply asymmetrical professional expertise.
Kira’s selection of the father over the intermediary between her and the
child as the next speaker is locally respon- child.12
sive to the father’s displayed understand- Excerpt 9 is from the same interaction.
ing of the child’s talk (in line 3). By In line 1, the boy announces that some of
selecting the father rather than the child his toy cars ‘‘spilled into the cage.’’ This
to provide a repair solution, Kira seems announcement appears to be addressed
to treat the child as lacking the neces- to the entire table (the boy cannot be
sary interactional (linguistic, cognitive, seen in the frame), and at line 2, one of
etc.) expertise to provide the repair solu- the guests (Kira) initiates repair on it (V
tion and, simultaneously, treat the kakuju kle:tku/‘‘Into what cage’’). Rather
child’s father as capable of speaking for than addressing the repair initiation to
the child. By addressing the father the speaker of the trouble source (the
rather than engaging the child in a repair boy, who stands right next to her), Kira
sequence, Kira defers to the father as turns away from the boy and looks at his
a child’s consociate and a rightful expert mother, thus selecting her to provide
who can (and perhaps should) act as an a repair solution.
Excerpt 9: Playpen (I9; 31:50)
Around the table: Seva and Mom with the baby (left), Dad and Kira
(right), the boy (off camera, right)
1 TS> BOY: |<U menja prapusypalas’ mnoga v kletku mashi|nak>/
with me spilled many in cage cars
Many of my cars spilled into the cage
|((Kira looks at Boy smiling)) |((Kira starts
turning to
Mom))
2 RI> KIRA: |V kak[uju kle:t[ku/
in what cage
Into what cage
|((Kira is looking at Mom))
3 MOM: [U h- u : [:h/
4 DAD: [º( )º
5 RS> MOM: .h A vot on nazyvaet {pack ‘n play,}/ on nazyvaet kletaj/
PRT PRT he calls he calls cage
He calls “pack ‘n play” he calls it a cage
6 <m=pf=no::[: : : [: ((to Baby))

7 DAD: [Aeh:|:[:: (ºeta ja plo[xaº)
PRT I badly
8 KIRA: [A:: [Etat shtoli- (.)
oh this what
|((Kira turns to Dad))
12
While Kira does occasionally speak to the boy directly in these recordings, this action may also be
seen as constituting Kira’s own relatively low expertise and/or entitlement to interact with the child.

9 kak on nazyvaeca/ Mane?[zh shtoli/=

how it is_called playpen what
Is that – what is it called – a playpen?
10 MOM: [Da/
yes
11 =({Dou[ble} u nas)
with us
(We have a double)
12 DAD: [ºDa daº/
yes yes
13 KIRA: A::/
oh
Kira’s repair initiation (line 2) targets These examples suggest that by

the boy’s problematic usage of the term addressing a repair initiation to some-
kletka (‘‘cage’’). Similarly to Excerpt 8, body other than the trouble source
by addressing her repair initiation to the speaker, the repair initiator may be ori-
boy’s mother, Kira seems to treat the enting to asymmetries in participants’
mother as more capable to provide a repair interactional expertise, attributing to the
solution than the child. Note that the repair trouble source speaker the interactional
initiation is launched immediately on the role of a novice—somebody who is unable
problematic turn’s completion before any to speak on his or her own behalf—and to
interlocutors could display their under- the selected speaker the role of an expert
standing of the boy’s talk. Since Kira has who has both the relevant knowledge
no evidence that Mom has understood and the rights to speak on behalf of the
what the boy said, her selection of Mom trouble source speaker. Bolden (2011,
over the child appears to be guided solely 2012) showed that this practice is not lim-
by Mom’s status as the child’s ‘‘category- ited to young children (and their care-
bound consociate’’ (Lerner 2002a). The givers) but can also be used with people
mother’s repair solution (line 5) conveys who are (seen as) lacking sufficient lin-
her expertise in the child’s vocabulary guistic proficiency (e.g., language learners
(thus, enacting her identity as a caregiver) or non-native speakers). Other-selection of
as she explains the usage of the problem- a more competent participant over a less
atic term (kletka/‘‘cage’’) as particular to competent one indicates that the repair
her son (cf. Kitzinger and Mandelbaum initiator treats the two interlocutors (the
2013).13 Note also that in line 8, Kira turns producer of the trouble source and the
to Dad for further clarification, thus includ- selected other) as members of a party
ing him into the team of caregivers possess- with distributed responsibilities to do
ing expert knowledge of their son’s self-repair, one acting in place of the other
vocabulary. in repair resolution.
13
As Kira turns to face the mother, her gaze
passes by her (Kira’s) husband. The fact that The Trouble Source Is within the
she does not address him with her repair initia- Expertise of a Copresent Other
tion shows that ‘‘a caregiver’’ is a procedurally
consequential identity category in the selection In research on interactions with language
of a next speaker. novices (e.g., language learners), Bolden

(2012) showed that participants may use validated by others. The following two
their linguistic expertise as a license to excerpts illustrate some of these
enter a repair sequence as a ‘‘language trajectories.
broker’’ by self-selecting to provide In Excerpt 10, the participants are
a repair solution. Here I will demonstrate playing the game of Risk, a turn-based
that expertise in a specialized domain of board game in which players aim to
knowledge can be used in a similar way occupy ‘‘territories’’ by ‘‘attacking’’ other
as a warrant for proffering an unsolicited players’ ‘‘forces’’ (game pieces). As evident
repair solution. When, in response to from this segment (see lines 1–3), Bob is
a repair initiation that displays its speak- a novice player, and Chris acts as—and
er’s difficulty in understanding some is treated by Bob as—an expert. In lines
technical or specialized knowledge, an 1–3, Bob (who is in the midst of his
unaddressed participant proffers a repair game turn) asks Chris about the rule on
solution, this participant enacts his or her redistributing ‘‘forces’’ on the board (that
expertise in the relevant domain and is, moving game pieces between different
thereby demonstrates his or her comem- territories). Chris responds in lines 4–5,
bership in a party of experts (together and (in line 6) Bob begins to repeat Chris’s
with the addressed trouble source words to (arguably14) confirm his under-
speaker). Such interventions can be done standing of what Chris has said. Follow-
so as to defer—or not—to the trouble ing this repair initiation, both the speaker
source speaker’s rights to repair his or of the trouble source (Chris) and another
her own talk and may—or may not—be player (Diana) respond.
Excerpt 10: Last Move (Risk 1 3:50)

Around the table: Alex, Bob, Chris, Diana, Eden
1 BOB: An’ then: I can:: (.) Wait.
2 Can I move around like forces now¿
3 <’n like re[distribute things?]
4 TS> CHR: [uhm: that’s ]the la:st mo:ve

5 [in your turn.]
6 RI> BOB: [That’s the ]la:st mo[ve ( )
7 RS> CHR: [Ver[y last thing in your turn.
DIA: .... BOB_____________________
8 RS> DIA: [Mm hm

|((Diana nods))
14
It is possible that Bob simply sets out to display his understanding of Chris’s words (as a third posi-
tion receipt; Schegloff 2007) rather than to confirm it via repair initiation (Schegloff 1996). However,
Bob’s low epistemic status in relation to Chris, most locally demonstrated by his question in lines
1–3, does appear to contribute to the other participants treating Bob’s repeat as a request for confirma-
tion (Heritage 2012b).

9 BOB: Oh, okay.
10 CHR: So [if you wanna do anything else, gott[a do first.
11 DIA: [So if you want- [(ºMmº)
12 BOB: Okay,
The repair initiation (line 6) is the same time, by producing a minimal,

addressed to Chris tacitly (since it targets nonintrusive response (Jefferson 1981),
his immediately preceding turn) and pos- Diana demonstrates only a limited enti-
sibly explicitly via gaze (Bob slightly rai- tlement to the turn, deferring to Chris’s
ses his head toward Chris, though his right to provide a repair solution. Note
exact gaze direction cannot be seen on as well that in lines 10–11, both Chris
the video). In line 7, Chris, the selected and Diana go on to offer further elabora-
speaker of the trouble source turn, pro- tion almost simultaneously. Here they
vides a repair solution. Almost simulta- are again acting as a team of explain-
neously with Chris’s response, Diana ers—and again, Diana orients to this as
also confirms Bob’s understanding: she rightfully Chris’s turn and drops out of
produces a closed-mouthed ‘‘Mm hm’’ the overlap. In spite of her two attempts,
(line 8) and a head nod (which starts neither Bob nor Chris (vocally or visibly)
slightly earlier). In his discussion of a sim- acknowledge Diana’s participation in
ilar case, Lerner (2002a:20–1) writes that this sequence.
‘‘by responding [to the repair initiation] A different sort of trajectory is evident
with a reconfirmation [the intervening in Excerpt 11 taken from a lunch conver-
speaker] is responding as a coexplainer, sation between Allyson, her adult daugh-
thus reflexively demonstrating her enti- ter Candice, and a relative Bethany. Both
tlement to respond as a member of the Allyson and Candice appear to be in the
explaining team and thereby as a coin- medical field, Allyson currently attending
cumbent of the party to whom an explana- a nursing program. Just prior to this seg-
tion-related question should properly be ment, Allyson announces that she will
addressed.’’ This analysis aptly describes soon take a ‘‘state test’’ (not shown) ‘‘for
Diana’s participation in this segment. By ph(r)obonomy’’ (line 1), directing this
providing a response to the repair initia- announcement to Candice. Bethany finds
tion, she acts as a coincumbent (with the term ‘‘ph(r)obonomy’’ problematic and
Chris) of the party of game experts. At initiates repair on it (line 3).
Excerpt 11: Phlebotomy (LC2; 3:30)

Around the table: Allyson, Bethany, Candice
1 TS> ALL: |But th’one for ph(r)obonomy, not the nonep for thuh::
|((ALL and CAN are looking at each other))
|((BETH is looking down))
2 (.)

....ALL___
3 RI> BETH: For what?=
4 ALL: =dialys[is ( ).]
5 CAN: [Mm::::. ] ((with mouth full of food))
AL..
6 RI> BETH: Barphamany? ((BETH looks at her food))
7 RS> ALL: ºNo[:.º
8 RS> CAN: [t! Phlebotomy.

|((CAN and BETH look down; ALL looks at CAN))
9 ALL: ºPhle[botomy.º ((continues to look at CAN))

10 RS>CAN: [(tho) ehm |(0.2) t! takin’ your blood out.
|((CAN extends her arm and demontrates taking blood))
|((ALL looks down, brings pita to her mouth))
|((ALL looks up to CAN))
|((BETH look at CAN;
CAN))Figure 4))
11 (4.0) ((everybody is eating))
12 BETH: You gonna be tested on that? ((to ALL))
Bethany’s repair initiation targets the also responds to the repair initiation, first
term ‘‘ph(r)obonomy’’ (‘‘For what?’’; by correcting Bethany’s hearing (in line 8)
line 3) and is addressed to Allyson, the and then going on to explain this techni-
speaker of the trouble source, explicitly cal term to her (in line 10). Candice’s
via gaze. Possibly due to the interruptive intervention—particularly, the correction
placement of this repair initiation (before ‘‘phlebotomy’’ (line 8)—might be occa-
Allyson’s turn-in-progress in line 1 is pos- sioned by Allyson’s mispronunciation of
sibly complete), this repair initiation the term (as ‘‘ph(r)obonomy’’) in line 1.
appears to be disattended: Allyson contin- ‘‘No plus correction’’ being a common for-
ues her in-progress explanation of the test mat for other-correction, Candice’s correc-
for Candice (line 4), who acknowledges tion (in line 8) is timed precisely so as to
the explanation (line 5).15 Bethany then interject before Allyson might provide
reissues her repair initiation, now in the her own, possibly inaccurate, correction
form of a candidate hearing (‘‘Barpha- of Bethany’s candidate hearing. Candi-
many?’’; line 6). This repair initiation is ce’s intervention (in line 8) might thus
again addressed to Allyson both explicitly accomplish an embedded correction of
(via turn-initial gaze toward Allyson, Allyson’s misspeaking while also overtly
before shifting gaze down to the food) correcting Bethany’s mishearing (Jeffer-
and tacitly, as the producer of the trouble son 1987). Allyson then quietly repeats
source. Allyson responds by rejecting Candice’s correction (line 9), thereby
Bethany’s hearing (‘‘ºNo:.º’’; line 7). The accepting it.
key observation here is that Candice By participating in repair resolution in
this way, Candice enacts her expertise in
15
The inaudible part of Allyson’s turn in line 4 the domain invoked by the technical term
might be dealing with the repair initiation. phlebotomy as a comember (with Allyson)

of the ‘‘medical experts’’ party, using this and both can be in various ways resisted
expertise as a warrant for the interven- (or not) by others. Responses to unsolic-
tion (Kitzinger and Mandelbaum 2013). ited repair solutions may be a product of
Here, unlike Excerpt 10, Candice’s partic- the local interactional context (specifi-
ipation is ratified by the others. Allyson, cally, the in-progress course of action)
the producer of the repairable, accepts and a mechanism through which the (per-
Candice’s correction (line 9), speaks qui- ceived) epistemic authority of the inter-
etly (as if deferring to Candice), and, vening person vis-à-vis the trouble source
throughout the repair resolution (lines speaker is negotiated.
8–10), continues to visibly attend to her.
Bethany, the repair initiator, eventually CONCLUSIONS
turns to look at Candice as well, as Can-
This article has examined how epistemics
dice explains the term to her (line 10).
enters into the organization of repair in
Furthermore, even though Candice
multiperson interaction. The overall
slightly delays her entry into the repair
argument has been that even though,
sequence (line 8), she (unlike the inter-
generally speaking, the local role of the
vening speaker in Excerpt 10) takes over
producer of a trouble source entitles one
the repair (e.g., twice outlasting Allyson
to repair one’s own talk, this right may
in overlap; lines 8 and 10). In this way,
be contested and sometimes even super-
Candice enacts her entitlement to partici-
seded by other epistemic considerations:
pate in repair resolution and, in doing so,
claims epistemic authority over the rele- specifically, those having to do with epis-
vant domain. temics of experience and expertise. To
The data presented in this section summarize, first, when the trouble source
show that one can use expertise in a par- is produced on behalf of another copresent
ticular relevant domain to join the repair participant, the owner of the experience
in progress and, in doing so, enact preserves the right (and the responsibil-
comembership in the party of experts. ity) to repair the trouble source. In such
Such a demonstration of expertise is an circumstances (see Excerpt 3), repair ini-
implicit claim of authority over the target tiators ordinarily address the owner of
knowledge domain, and as such, it may be the experience rather than the trouble
(tacitly) contested (as in Excerpt 10) or source speaker. Second, when two inter-
validated by the other participants (as in locutors share experiential access and
Excerpt 11).16 Thus, there are some paral- associated epistemic rights to what the
lels between how participants use their trouble source conveys, they may be trea-
expertise and experience as warrants for ted as sharing the right to repair the trou-
intervening into a repair sequence. As ble source and act together as repair con-
we saw, both experience- and expertise- sociates. Coexperiencers can both be
based interventions can be proffered in explicitly addressed with a repair initia-
ways that display more or less entitle- tion (Excerpt 4 and Excerpt 5). When
ment to repair another person’s talk, they are not (that is, when the repair ini-
tiation is addressed to the producer of the
16
Given the centrality of expertise in these repairable), the unaddressed participant
matters, it would be interesting to examine (in may claim epistemic rights to the repair-
a future study) how this sort of sequences unfold able by (also) providing a repair solution
in interactions where participants are expected to
(Excerpt 6). Third, interlocutors can
have sharply asymmetrical, institutionally vali-
dated, technical or professional expertise (e.g., deploy epistemic access as a wedge into
institutional talk). a repair sequence even when they do not

have epistemic rights to what is being comembership in a party of speakers.

said. In such cases (Excerpt 5 and Excerpt This reconceptualization of the notion of
7), their participation may not be ratified self, and repair organization more gener-
by others. Additionally, interlocutors may ally, finds support in some prior research.
deploy their specialized subject matter For instance, in his examination of how
and interactional expertise to participate individuals tell about a past event they
in repair resolution. We saw that partici- coexperienced, Lerner (1993:230) sug-
pants orient to differences in their inter- gested that the preference for self-correc-
actional competencies when they address tion (Schegloff et al. 1977) might operate
repair initiation to a caregiver rather over parties rather than individuals
than a young child, who is thus treated (that is, that coincumbents of a party
as less interactionally competent than can freely correct each other). Further-
the addressee (Excerpt 8 and Excerpt 9). more, Egbert (1997) showed that several
Further, knowledgeable, unaddressed interlocutors can act as a collectivity of
participants can intervene with a repair repair initiators in other-initiated repair
solution and thereby enact their coincum- sequences, thereby suggesting that the
bency in the party of experts (Excerpt 10 analytic concept of other should also be
and Excerpt 11). The article has detailed seeing as referring to a potentially multi-
participants’ moment-by-moment negoti- person party.
ation of speakerhood in repair sequences The organization of repair is closely
and the epistemic underpinnings of par- tied to, enabled by, and derives from the
ticipants’ rights and responsibilities to organization of turn-taking (Sacks et al.
repair the talk of self and others. 1974). The phenomena discussed in this
From this analysis emerges a rather article are fundamental to how turn-
complex picture of repair organization in taking is organized and specifically to
multiperson interaction—one that is sen- how parties are formed and how turns at
sitive to different sorts of epistemic con- talk are allocated to parties (Lerner
siderations. One way to reconcile these 1993, 2002a; Schegloff 1995). This close
observations with what we know about symbiotic relationship between repair
repair organization is to rethink the con- and turn-taking and the fact that turn-
cept of self as the speaker of the trouble taking is organized by reference to parties
source, that is, the individual who articu- (Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1995) offer
lates the repairable. So far repair has additional support for seeing repair as
been conceptualized as a sequence of being organized by reference to the same
actions organized by reference to individ- analytic unit as turn-taking—namely,
ual interlocutors or persons: the speaker parties rather than individuals.
of the trouble source (self) and the repair Repair is often used as vehicle for other
initiator (other) (Schegloff et al. 1977). actions (Kitzinger 2013; Schegloff 1997),
The data examined here demonstrate, and thereby, interlocutors’ participation
however, that self should be seen not as in repair sequences is sensitive to and
a person who has produced the repairable informed by what actions are being
but as a party that may be inhabited by accomplished via repair in the context of
several interlocutors acting as a with or its occurrence. This article has looked sys-
a collectivity. Interlocutors may indeed tematically at circumstances under which
act in concert with others during repair various others become variously involved
sequences, or use their knowledge and in repair resolution, but not as systemati-
epistemic rights to join in repair resolu- cally at what these various involvements
tion, thereby reflexively enacting their accomplish. Acting in concert with others,

respecting or infringing on others’ episte- on a draft of this article. The analysis has also
greatly benefited from data sessions at Rutgers
mic territories, may have numerous inter-
University and at Loughborough University (UK).
actional payoffs and outcomes that
deserve further investigation.
REFERENCES
In his recent review of the study of
epistemics in conversation, Heritage Bolden, Galina B. 2011. ‘‘On the Organization
(2013) suggests that future research of Repair in Multiperson Conversation: The
Case of ‘Other’-Selection in Other-Initiated
should explore the multidimensionality
Repair Sequences.’’ Research on Language
of epistemic status. It appears that repair & Social Interaction 44:237–62.
sequences are a fertile domain for such an Bolden, Galina B. 2012. ‘‘Across Languages
investigation, since in negotiating under- and Cultures: Brokering Problems of
standing, participants routinely have to Understanding in Conversational Repair.’’
Language in Society 41:97–121.
reconcile differently grounded epistemic Drew, Paul. 1991. ‘‘Asymmetries of Knowledge
entitlements: those arising from their in Conversational Interactions.’’ Pp. 29–48
experiences, expertise, as well as their in Asymmetries in Dialogue, edited by I.
speakerhood. While often all of these Markovà and K. Foppa. Savage, MD:
Barnes & Noble Books.
align and, in effect, become invisible,
Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘‘‘Open’ Class Repair Initia-
sometimes (as this report showed) these tors in Response to Sequential Sources of
differently grounded entitlements pull in Troubles in Conversation.’’ Journal of Prag-
different directions, as it were, bringing matics 28:69–101.
their complex interaction into light, mak- Egbert, Maria M. 1997. ‘‘Some Interactional
Achievements of Other-Initiated Repair in
ing it possible to examine the role of epis-
Multiperson Conversation.’’ Journal of
temics in repair and speakerhood. Pragmatics 27:611–34.
This article has also contributed to our Forrester, Michael A. and Sarah M. Chering-
understanding of what it means to be ton. 2009. ‘‘The Development of Other-
a speaker—a fundamental concern of Related Conversational Skills: A Case
Study of Conversational Repair during the
social psychology scholarship (e.g., Potter Early Years.’’ First Language 29:166–91.
and Wetherell 1987)—by examining how Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public:
interlocutors visibly orient to, negotiate, Microstudies of the Public Order. New
and contest the rights and responsibilities York: Basic Books.
associated with speakerhood in a context Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
where these concerns are demonstrably Goffman, Erving. 1983. ‘‘The Interaction
relevant to participants themselves. This Order.’’ American Sociological Review
grounds Goffman’s work on footing and 48:1–17.
participation in details of interactants’ Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Orga-
nization: Interaction between Speakers and
conduct, resulting in a fuller and more
Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
nuanced understanding of these concepts. Goodwin, Charles. 1984. ‘‘Notes on Story
Structure and the Organization of Partici-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pation.’’ Pp. 225–46 in Structures of Social
Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis,
Versions of this article were presented at the Cen- edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage.
ter for Language, Interaction and Culture at New York: Cambridge University Press.
UCLA (February 29, 2012) and at the Free Uni- Goodwin, Charles. 1986. ‘‘Audience Diversity,
versity of Bolzano-Bozen, Italy (May 23, 2013). I Participation and Interpretation.’’ Text
would like to thank all participants for their feed- 6:283–316.
back, and especially John Heritage, Manny Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Good-
Schegloff, and Tanya Stivers. I am grateful to win. 2003. ‘‘Participation.’’ Pp. 222–44 in A
Gene Lerner, Jenny Mandelbaum, Jeff Robinson, Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edi-
and Manny Schegloff for their helpful comments ted by A. Duranti. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1997. ‘‘By-Play: Lerner, Gene H. 1992. ‘‘Assisted Storytelling:
Negotiating Evaluation in Story-Telling.’’ Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical
Pp. 77–102 in Towards a Social Science of Matter.’’ Qualitative Sociology 15:247–71.
Language: Papers in Honor of William Lerner, Gene H. 1993. ‘‘Collectivities in Action:
Labov, vol. 2: Social Interaction and Dis- Establishing the Relevance of Conjoined
course Structures, edited by G. R. Guy, C. Participation in Conversation.’’ Text
Feagin, D. Schiffrin and J. Baugh. Philadel- 13:213–45.
phia: John Benjamins. Lerner, Gene H. 1995. ‘‘Turn Design and the
Hayashi, Makoto, Geoffrey Raymond, and Organization of Participation in Instruc-
Jack Sidnell. 2013. Conversational Repair tional Activities.’’ Discourse Processes
and Human Understanding. Cambridge: 19:111–31.
Cambridge University Press. Lerner, Gene H. 1996. ‘‘Finding ‘Face’ in the
Hepburn, Alexa and Galina B. Bolden. 2013. Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction.’’
‘‘The Conversation Analytic Approach to Social Psychology Quarterly 59:303–21.
Transcription.’’ Pp. 57–76 in The Handbook Lerner, Gene H. 2002a. ‘‘Practice Does Not
of Conversation Analysis, edited by T. Make Perfect: Intervening Actions in the
Stivers and J. Sidnell. Oxford: Blackwell. Selection of Next Speaker.’’ In Plenary
Heritage, John. 2008. ‘‘Conversation Analysis Address to the Conference on Language,
as Social Theory.’’ Pp. 300–20 in The New Interaction, and Culture. Los Angeles: Uni-
Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edi- versity of Los Angeles, California.
ted by B. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. Lerner, Gene H. 2002b. ‘‘Turn-Sharing: The
Heritage, John. 2012a. ‘‘The Epistemic Engine: Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interac-
Sequence Organization and Territories of tion.’’ Pp. 225–56 in The Language of
Knowledge.’’ Research on Language & Turn and Sequence, edited by C. E. Ford
Social Interaction 45:30–52. and S. A. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Heritage, John. 2012b. ‘‘Epistemics in Action: versity Press.
Action Formation and Territories of Knowl- Lerner, Gene H. 2003. ‘‘Selecting Next
edge.’’ Research on Language & Social Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation
Interaction 45:1–29. of a Context-Free Organization.’’ Language
Heritage, John. 2013. ‘‘Epistemics in Conver- in Society 32:177–201.
sation.’’ Pp. 370–94 in Handbook of Conver- Mandelbaum, Jenny S. 1987. ‘‘Couples Shar-
sation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. ing Stories.’’ Communication Quarterly
Stivers. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. 35:144–70.
Hymes, Dell H. 1974. Foundations in Sociolin- Peräkylä, Anssi. 1998. ‘‘Authority and
guistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Phila- Accountability: The Delivery of Diagnosis
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. in Primary Health Care.’’ Social Psychology
Jefferson, Gail. 1981. ‘‘The Abominable ne? An Quarterly 61:301–20.
Exploration of Post-Response Pursuit of Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. ‘‘Telling My Side:
Response.’’ Pp. 53–88 in Sprache der gegen- ‘Limited Access’ as a ‘Fishing’ Device.’’
waart, edited by P. Shroder. Düsseldorf: Sociological Inquiry 50:186–98.
Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann. Potter, Jonathan and Margaret Wetherell.
Jefferson, Gail. 1987. ‘‘On Exposed and 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology:
Embedded Correction in Conversation.’’ Beyond Attitude and Behaviour. London:
Pp. 86–100 in Talk and Social Organiza- Sage.
tion, Intercommunication, edited by G. But- Raymond, Geoffrey and John Heritage. 2006.
ton and J. R. E. Lee. Philadelphia: Multilin- ‘‘The Epistemics of Social Relations: Own-
gual Matters. ing Grandchildren.’’ Language in Society
Kitzinger, Celia. 2013. ‘‘Repair.’’ Pp. 229–56 in 35:677–705.
The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2013. ‘‘Epistemics, Action
edited by T. Stivers and J. Sidnell. Oxford: Formation, and Other-Initiation of Repair:
Blackwell. The Case of Partial Questioning Repeats.’’
Kitzinger, Celia and Jenny S Mandelbaum. 2013. Pp. 261–92 in Conversational Repair and
‘‘Word Selection and Social Identities in Talk.’’ Human Understanding, edited by M. Haya-
Communication Monographs 80:176-98. shi, G. Raymond and J. Sidnell. Cambridge:
Labov, William and David Fanshel. 1977. Cambridge University Press.
Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Sacks, Harvey. 1984. ‘‘On Doing ‘Being Ordi-
Conversation. New York: Academic Press. nary.’’’ Pp. 413–29 in Structures of Social

Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Repair in Conversation.’’ Language

edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. 53:361–82.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, Tanya and Asifa Majid. 2007. ‘‘Ques-
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail tioning Children: Interactional Evidence of
Jefferson. 1974. ‘‘A Simplest Systematics Implicit Bias in Medical Interviews.’’ Social
for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Psychology Quarterly 70:424–41.
Conversation.’’ Language 50:696–735. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. ‘‘Repair after Steensig. 2011. ‘‘Knowledge, Morality and
Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Affiliation in Social Interaction.’’ Pp. 3–24
Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversa- in The Morality of Knowledge in Conversa-
tion.’’ American Journal of Sociology tion, edited by T. Stivers, L. Mondada and
97:1295–345. J. Steensig. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1995. ‘‘Parties and Talk- sity Press.
ing Together: Two Ways in which Numbers Stivers, Tanya and Jeffrey D Robinson. 2006.
Are Significant for Talk-in-Interaction.’’ Pp. ‘‘A Preference for Progressivity in Interac-
31–42 in Situated Order: Studies in Social tion.’’ Language in Society 35:367–92.
Organization and Embodied Activities, edi- Stivers, Tanya and Jack Sidnell. 2013. The
ted by P. ten Have and G. Psathas. Wash- Handbook of Conversation Analysis.
ington, DC: University Press of America. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. ‘‘Confirming Allu-
sions: Toward an Empirical Account of
Action.’’ American Journal of Sociology
104:161–216.
BIO
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. ‘‘Practices and
Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Galina B. Bolden is an associate profes-
Repair.’’ Discourse Processes 23:499–545. sor in the Department of Communication
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000a. ‘‘Overlapping at Rutgers University. She has conducted
Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking conversation analytic research on the
for Conversation.’’ Language in Society
organization of talk-in-interaction in
29:1–63.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000b. ‘‘When ‘Others’ English and Russian languages in ordi-
Initiate Repair.’’ Applied Linguistics nary and institutional settings, as well
21:205–43. as on the organization of bilingual talk.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organi- Her recent work centers on repair organi-
zation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversa-
zation and aspects of social interaction in
tion Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. immigrant families. She is currently
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and coauthoring Transcribing for Social
Harvey Sacks. 1977. ‘‘The Preference for Research (with Alexa Hepburn).
Self-Correction in the Organization of
View publication stats

Unpacking The Self

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpacking The Self

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Social Psychology Quarterly · December 2013

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In fine-grain analysis, . . . it may be communication as a dyadic exchange

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

of research on epistemics and repair AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Excerpt 1: Take that (Chicken Dinner; 23:00)

Around the table: Vivian, Shane, Nancy, Michael

3 RI> MIC: Wha[:t? ((looks at VIV))

4 RS> VIV: [Ah wz g'nna take[that little pe]e-

5 MIC: [Oh h_e : r e.]

Michael’s repair initiation is addressed addressed to the producer of the trouble

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Excerpt 2: Four million (M 3-2; 20:35)

1 IRI: >That’s like one of Mat’s grandma’s friends<

2 lost her: (.) retirement.

3 TS> had four (b)illion dollars saved in there¿

5 RI>ALE: Four what¿ ((looking down))

6 RS>IRI: Four million dollars in there¿

8 IRI: which is like nothing in comparison to the other people¿

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

provides a repair solution, other interloc- maintaining the progressivity of the

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Excerpt 3: Side Entrance (Fam 23:05)

Around the table: Angela, Bianca, Corry

2 (0.2) ((BIA nods slightly looking at the drawings))

3 COR: She go[es in ]

5 RS> ANG: |>Nope<, (.) it’s on this side.

The repair initiation (line 4) is preserves’’ (Goffman 1971) may supersede

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

by a single interlocutor, the trouble This sharing of rights to repair

Excerpt 4: Daycare (I 9; 24:05)

Around the table: Seva, Natasha with baby, Oleg, Kira

1 NAT: i im ska[zali shto: (0.2)

3 NAT: shto?/ ((to Oleg))

4 OLEG: Print [shop kakojta ta:m by(l)/

5 NAT: [Print shop (nu) tam by:,l/

7 OLEG: i sho tam i: (akvancy) nis no good?/

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

8 (1.0) ((Oleg makes a dismissive gesture))

10 OLEG: [U nix prapa[li (bab-)

NAT__________________..OLE_____ ((Figure 2))

12 an[i ne magli º(stavit’)º]/

13 RS>OLEG: [Mm mm/ ((nods))

14 RS>NAT: [D a : : / posle ta]vo kak ani: vsë: vsë uzhe tam

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Excerpt 5: Waiter or Owner (I 13; 6:00)

4 KIRA: Shto ty [(g-) (.) Tak ploxa byla?/ ((to Natasha))

6 OLEG: Nu ne [plaxa byl-

8 vot vsë: [byla ne tak/

.... NAT____... OLEG_____ ((Figure 3))

10 (.) ((NAT’s face shows confusion; KIRA looks at NAT))

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

11 SEVA: ili kto/[ili xazja?in/

12 RS>KIRA: [Mm: ((negative token start; head shake))

15 NAT: A zde:,s’/vot zhnaesh narmal’nye lju:di/

Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2013

Excerpt 6: Taxes (I 14; 17:40)

1 SEVA: >Vsë zakonna=T`st’< ana::, (0.2) ((to Oleg))

4 SEVA: P`chemu/<Um- u menja nas srebjata pal:: u menja etat

NAT______________..OLE_ ((Figure 2))

.... NAT... OLEG_ ((Figure 3))