Exchange structure 532 Steven: One, two, three, (pause) four, five, six,
(pause) eleven, eight, nine, ten
Susan: Eleven? —eight, nine, ten
Steven: Eleven, eight, nine, ten
Nancy: Eleven?
Steven: Seven, eight, nine, ten
Susan: That’s better
Whereupon the game resumes.
In Jefferson’s analysis this side sequence, which she labels a misapprehension
sequence, begins with a questioning repeat—an interrogative item which
indicates that there is a problem in what has just been said, whose function
is ‘to generate further talk directed to remedying the problem’. Questioning
repeats occur typically after the questioned utterance has been completed,
because only then can one be sure that the speaker is not going to correct
himself or explain the unclear item. An interrupting questioning repeat is
liable to attract a complaint not a clarification, ‘if you’d just let me finish’.
Jefferson suggests initially that the misapprehension sequence has a three-
part structure, consisting of ‘a statement of sorts, a misapprehension of
sorts and a clarification of sorts’. The example above is in fact more complex,
consisting of a statement followed by two misapprehension and clarification
pairs. So far Jefferson’s side sequence looks rather like Schegloff’s insertion
sequence. There are, however, two major differences: firstly, because the
first item, the statement, is not a first pair part, the other items are in no
sense inserted and thus there is no expectation of who should speak at the
end of the sequence or of what type of utterance should follow; secondly,
while the sequence misapprehension—clarification looks like a pair, there
is actually a compulsory third element in the sequence, an indication by the
misapprehender that he now understands and that the sequence is now
terminated— ‘That’s better’ in the example above, or ‘yeah’ in the example
below.
3 Statement: If Percy goes with—Nixon I’d sure like that
Misapprehension: Who
Clarification: Percy. That young fella that wh—his daughter was
murdered (1.0)
Termination: Oh yea:h Yeah
In addition, because the first item, the statement, is not a first pair part, the
conversation cannot resume with the second pair part as happens after an
insertion sequence, so there remains the problem of a return. Jefferson
observes that:
It is not merely that there [occurs] a return to the on-going sequence, but
that to return to the on-going sequence...is a task performed by participants.