<!-- image -->

## The Role of Recipient Questions in Establishing Intersubjectivity and Progressing a Story in Aided Communication

Patricia Mayes University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee mayes@uwm.edu

Mary Clinkenbeard North Central College mclinkenbeard@noctrl.edu

Abstract * :  We  report  on  a  case  study  involving  two  participants:  One  participant has  a  communication  disability  and  uses  a  high-tech,  electronic  device  to speak,  and  the  other  is  nondisabled.  Th eir  interaction  diff  ers  from  typical, everyday conversation because some linguistic resources are unavailable in aided speech, resulting in frequent repair sequences and slower progression. Th e analysis shows that when the aided speaker initiates an extended telling, the  recipient  uses  questions  to  do  repair-related  actions  as  well  as  actions that  could  progress  the  story.  Th us,  this  context  aff  ords  the  opportunity  to investigate how the recipient's projections interact with intersubjectivity and progressivity.

Key  words: Questions, progressivity, projection,  aided  communication, storytelling

## 1. Introduction

Recipients' questions are an important resource for clarifying a prior speaker's utterance. Th is is particularly true when one of the conversational participants has  a  complex  communication  disability,  which  is  the  context  for  the  case study reported on in this paper. More specifi  cally, we examine how an unaided (nondisabled) recipient's use of questions progresses the speaker's actions in interaction with a participant whose speech is aided by a high-tech device.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) refers to methods that aid or augment the speaking or writing of people with communication disabilities such as cerebral palsy and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and includes both low-tech (e.g., spelling out words on an alphabet board) and high-tech (e.g., electronic speech generation) methods. Th e focus here is on high-tech AAC, in which the aided participant types an utterance into a device, equipped with speech-generating soft  ware that then vocalizes what was typed. In  this  kind  of  interaction,  some  of  the  linguistic  resources  that  typically would be used by a recipient to project the speaker's action are unavailable, resulting  in  frequent  communication  breakdowns,  repair  sequences,  and slower  progression  of  the  ongoing  project.  Th is  creates  a  context  in  which recipients  frequently  ask  questions,  in  some  cases  aimed  at  repair  and  in other cases aimed at progressing the conversation. Th is study examines how these recipient actions aff  ect the development of a story initiated by an AACusing  speaker.  Our  analysis  concerns  what  the  recipient's  questions  reveal about projecting what comes next and how diff  erent types of questions aff  ect progressivity, which has been shown to be a pervasive general preference in conversation (Lerner 1996, Schegloff   2007, Stivers & Robinson 2006).

AAC interaction diff  ers from typical everyday interaction in a number of ways. For example, due to the need to type everything before it is voiced by an AAC device, the timing of utterances diff  ers from that of everyday spoken interaction, essentially meaning that utterances are produced slowly, and there are many inter-turn delays (Higgenbotham & Caves 2002, Bloch & Wilkinson 2004, Bloch 2011). In addition, factors like typing errors or traces of words or letters that are no longer relevant to the current utterance but remain on the AAC screen oft  en lead to trouble sources and frequent repair. However, unlike repair in everyday interaction, repair in AAC interaction involves a lot of other-initiation and collaboration between speaker and recipient (Bloch & Wilkinson 2004, 2009, Mayes Forthcoming, Müller & Soto 2002). Indeed, the very same issues that lead to repair may also aff  ect a speaker's ability to execute self-repair (Perkins 2003). Th e delays and frequent repairs aff  ect topic maintenance (Higginbotham & Caves 2002) and topic shift  s (Bloch 2011). For example, it is not uncommon for recipients to lose track of the sequential context of AAC utterances, especially when there has been a topic shift  , which oft  en leads to repair work oriented toward identifying the current utterance's relation to previous talk or topics (Bloch 2011).

An additional factor in AAC utterance production is that the synthetic voices employed in such devices lack the prosodic features of natural language. For  example,  AAC  devices  may  not  have  the  option  of  raising  intonation, commonly used to show that a speaker intends to continue their turn at the end of a turn construction unit (TCU), so interlocutors must closely monitor AAC-using speakers for clues as to where a TCU has ended before acting on what the speaker has said (Bloch 2011).

All of the factors discussed  so  far signifi  cantly aff  ect participants' achievement of common ground or intersubjectivity, not only with respect to an ongoing TCU but also across turns. Indeed, these issues may be exacerbated in extended projects that oft  en consist of more than one TCU such as stories, which may be particularly diffi cult for an AAC-using participant to manage. Constructing sequential components such as story prefaces and descriptions of characters and settings, can take a lot of time and energy. Moreover, AAC-using participants may have trouble referencing previously discussed information, due to the timing delays discussed above (Higginbotham & Caves 2002). In this context, recipients oft  en take a more active role, collaborating with the AAC-using speaker in order to execute repair, as well as doing what Bloch (2011)  refers  to  as  'anticipatory  other-completion, '  in  which  the  recipient completes the speaker's turn.

Th e diffi culty  of  achieving  intersubjectivity  also  aff  ects  progressivity (Heritage  2007).  Indeed,  in  examining  how  conversational  participants achieve  intersubjectivity  with  respect  to  recognitional  reference,  Heritage (2007) argues that intersubjectivity competes with progressivity in that there can  be  no  forward  progress  when  the  recipient  does  not  understand  what the speaker is referring to. However, he goes on to point out that, '[a]bsolute security of reference is incompatible with progressivity, ' and participants must manage the linguistic resources for reference and repair in ways that strike a balance between these two principles (p. 261). To this end, participants treat recognitional reference as a responsibility that is shared between the speaker and recipients (Heritage 2007).

Th e link between intersubjectivity and progressivity brings up questions about how recipients project what comes next in the collaborative context of AAC interaction. Clearly, projection plays a crucial role in both repair and anticipatory  completion,  and  one  way  to  investigate  recipient  projection  is by  examining  the  linguistic  resources  recipients  use  to  aid  with  achieving intersubjectivity and progression. As mentioned, recipients' questions can be an important resource for clarifying a prior speaker's utterance in any context, and they appear to be particularly useful in AAC interaction. We examine how the AAC-using participant in this study tells a story and investigate the following questions: 1) what types of questions does the recipient ask and how do those questions relate to whether the recipient is engaged in repair or an action oriented toward progression (e.g., anticipatory completion)?; 2) what can we learn about how the recipient projects what comes next?; 3) what kinds of actions does the speaker do immediately before and aft  er the recipient asks a question, and does such sequencing aff  ect the progress of the telling?

Essentially,  our  study  provides  further  support  for  the  importance  of intersubjectivity  in  achieving  progress  and  seems  to  suggest  that  intersubjectivity wins out when these two conversational principles compete. Indeed, anything that disrupts intersubjectivity or common ground must be resolved before the ongoing activity continues. A crucial factor in achieving intersubjectivity in AAC interaction is the recipient's ability to project not only at the local level of turn construction but also at the more global level of understanding what sort of project the speaker is engaged in. Before discussing our analysis in more detail, we discuss previous work on projection, storytelling, and questions.

## 2. Projection

Projection  refers  to  the  ability  to  predict  what  is  coming  next  based  on 'knowledge  about  how  actions  (or  action  components)  are  sequenced' in  time  (Auer  2005:  8).  Th at  sequential  organization  is  a  primary  resource used by recipients to project the course of action as it unfolds has been well researched.  (See  e.g.,  Chevalier  &  Clift    2008,  Drew  1984,  Schegloff    1990.) Other work points to the importance of syntactic structure (Auer 2005, 2009, Chevalier  &  Clift    2008,  Hayashi  2004,  Helasvuo  2004).  Auer  (2005,  2009) argues that grammatical structure at various levels, including phonological (segmental),  phrasal,  and  clausal,  plays  an  important  role  in  projection. Essentially, recipients use their knowledge of the structural patterning in their language to project what is coming next, and knowledge of syntactic hierarchy is key to this process. Th us, syntactic structure is a resource that recipients can use to project possible points of syntactic completion within a turn. However, time is another important factor in projection in that it is not clear how long particular forms can be remembered by the recipient and possibly even the speaker (Auer 2009).

Another resource participants use in projection is prosody. For example, in English, Ford and Th ompson (1996) have found that prosody is linked to projecting completion points in a TCU, and Chevalier and Clift  on (2008: 1743) have  found  that  'the  systematic  placement  of  speech  perturbations'  (e.g., 'sound stretches' and 'the prolongation of a sound') play a role in projecting the action of an unfi  nished turn in French.

As discussed, natural prosody is not a feature of AAC utterances, and there are timing delays that might extend beyond the limits of memory. Th e lack of these resources may leave recipients confused about not only the immediate action, but also the larger trajectory of the ongoing project. In this context, recipients  can  use  whatever  resources  are  available  to  project  what  comes next. Th ese include the speaker's gaze and gestures as well as already produced structural elements such as segmental and phrasal components, which can be useful in repairing any issues with the prior utterance. However, they are apparently less  useful  for  projecting  a  longer  trajectory  and  understanding the speaker's extended project. In that case, the recipient may ask questions designed to get more information about the speaker's ongoing actions.

## 3. Storytelling

We are interested in stories as a sustained action that oft  en takes place over more than one utterance (Sidnell 2010). As discussed above, such projects may  be  diffi cult  to  manage  in  AAC  interaction.  As  such,  they  tend  to  be co-constructed.  However,  when  the  recipient  is  'unknowing'  (Goodwin

1979), as in the data we examine, co-construction is more diffi cult.  In  this context, a primary resource the recipient can use to achieve intersubjective understanding and progress the story is questions. What is at issue here is how the recipient projects which questions are relevant.

Stories have been examined from many diff  erent perspectives in various fi  elds, and how they are identifi  ed and defi  ned has undergone many changes. For  example,  in  sociolinguistics,  early  work  viewed  narrative  as  a  textual product and focused on structural elements such as beginnings, complicating actions, resolutions and so on (Labov 1972). Th is traditional view also held that narrative was centered on past events and was the performance of a single teller,  in  which  the  teller  had  exclusive  control  over  the  positioning  of  the protagonist(s) (Ochs & Capps 2001). On the other hand, conversation analysts have for some time put forth the view that stories are action-based projects, made up of more than one TCU that are produced through mutual cooperation between a teller and recipient(s) (Goodwin 1979, 1984, Mandelbaum 2013, Sidnell 2010). As such, stories are better understood as sequentially organized 'tellings'  that  are  shaped  as  conversation  unfolds  (Mandelbaum  2013, Ochs & Capps 2001, Stivers 2008). In addition, Ochs and Capps (2001) and others working on so-called 'small stories' have focused on how stories may concern future or hypothetical events and are oft  en co-constructed by more than one participant in conversation (e.g., De Fina & Georgakopoulou 2015, Georgakopoulou 2006, 2007, Goodwin 2015). As Ochs and Capps (2001: 2-3) put it, 'Th e content and direction that narrative framings take are contingent upon the narrative input of other interlocutors, who provide, elicit, criticize, refute, and draw inferences from facets of the unfolding account. '

Co-construction  is  a  particularly  relevant  aspect  of  stories  initiated  by people  with  complex  communication  needs  such  as  those  who  use  AAC. Indeed,  Goodwin  (2015)  shows  how  Chil,  a  man  who  has  a  three-word vocabulary due to a stroke, uses a combination of utterances, gestures, and other embodied actions to create sequentially meaningful contributions that prompt his interlocutors to 'guess' at his story trajectory and thus participate in the co-construction of stories that Chil has initiated.

## 4. Questions

Questions and question-answer sequences have been well researched in various settings, including everyday conversation and many institutional settings. (See,  e.g.,  Freed  &  Ehrlich  2010,  Hayano  2013,  Heritage  &  Clayman  2010, Stivers  2010,  as  well  as  Graf  et  al.  this  issue,  for  overviews.)  Stivers  (2010) argues that although questions are commonly framed as requests for information, speakers use conversational questions to accomplish a variety of social actions such as seeking agreement, doing confi  rmation requests, and doing repair work. Hayano (2013: 396) writes that questions 'pressure recipients for response, impose presuppositions, agendas and preferences, and implement various  initiating  actions. '  Indeed,  research  in  many  institutional  settings shows how question-answer sequences are instrumental in enacting institu- tional asymmetries, not only related to the knowledge diff  erential (or 'epistemic gradient') implied in asking a question (Heritage & Clayman 2010: 25), but also due to asymmetrical patterns that aff  ord or restrict the right to speak in terms of who can ask questions, who can answer, and under what circumstances. Still, Worsøe and Jensen (this volume) remind us that all interaction is  also  informed  by  everyday practices, and this can disrupt the normative patterning of question-answer sequences, as when clients in psychotherapy sessions direct questions to the therapist and end up changing the trajectory of the ongoing project.

Of course, another way such fl  uidity can be introduced in question-answer sequences is through the design of the question itself. For example,   Trane  kjær (this issue) shows how speakers in management positions use multifunctional questions in meetings with employees to accomplish diff  erent and even competing projects such as establishing intersubjectivity, encouraging employee input, and seeking compliance, all of which can lead in diff  erent directions, depending on the response.

In our study, although the interaction took place in an institutional setting, there was not a professional relationship between the participants, so there was not asymmetry associated with diff  ering institutional identities. Yet, as will be shown, the point that the trajectory of a particular interaction or the ongoing project can change at any point is very relevant in the interaction we examine. Indeed, as mentioned, tellings are oft  en comprised of multiple TCUs (or 'multi-unit turns'), and during a telling, recipient questions may temporarily pause the progression of the telling (Koenig 2006). According to Koenig (2006: 24), story recipients use such questions (termed 'oblique interventions') for various functions, including seeking 'not provided for information, showing surprise, and challenging some aspect of the multi-unit turn so-far produced. ' Our project examines how recipient questions, while always delaying the immediate progression of the story, may also contribute to its ultimate progression by addressing the interlocutors' intersubjectivty and allowing the recipient to better project what will come next in the telling. However, as Koenig (2006: 67-72) attests to, recipient questions may also occasionally lead speakers to abandon their tellings, especially in cases where the trajectory of the conversation changes as a result of the question. We examine how the recipient's questions may be used as resources for projection and co-construction as well as obstacles that hinder the progression of a telling initiated by the AAC-using speaker. Our overarching goal is to show how the recipient of a storytelling uses various types of questions to do the interactional work of repair and projection in the co-construction of the story. We attend in particular to the ways that recipient questions orient to the progression of the unfolding telling, anaphorically focusing on repairing the previous talk, or cataphorically, projecting what may come next.

## 5. Participants, Data, and Method

Th is is a single-case study of a 78-year old man with cerebral palsy (Fred) who uses a high-tech AAC device as his primary means of communication. Th e data consist of seven hours of video-recorded conversations in American English, collected over a six-month period in a care facility specializing in daycare for people  of  all  ages  with  disabilities.  Th e  co-participant  who  interacted  with Fred on a regular basis is Molly, a volunteer at the care center. Fred and Molly are friends, who had known one another for about ten years and regularly had conversations in which they chatted about everyday topics such as what had happened since they last saw each other. 1

Over the two years prior to the study, Fred had been communicating with others  using  an  iPad  equipped  with  AAC  soft  ware. 2 Th is  device  generates speech aft  er each word he types, and Fred can press a button to get the device to produce a string of typed words at any time. In addition, the device provides possible word choices while Fred types, and it pronounces words that are not necessarily  contained  in  its  memory,  thus  sometimes  producing  nonsense words.  It  also  saves  and  presents  previous  entries  that  Fred  has  input.  For example, if he types a string of letters, such as aboutthe with no space between about and the , the device will pronounce this string as though it were a unit. Th ese aspects of the device's function sometimes become relevant factors in the conversation, at times allowing the participants to avoid confusion, and at  other  times  creating  issues  with  respect  to  intersubjectivity.  Th e  extracts presented here have been transcribed using the conversation analysis system (Jeff  erson  2004)  with  a  few  modifi  cations  for  interaction  involving  AAC. (See  the  Appendix  for  the  Transcription  Key.)  Following  the  practices  of conversation  analysis  and  interactional  linguistics,  the  analysis  focuses  on sequential patterning.

## 6. Recipient Questions and Co-constructed Tellings

In  what  follows,  we  examine  how  the  recipient  used  questions  to  help  the AAC-using  participant  to  tell  a  story  that  was  not  already  known  to  the recipient. Following Stivers (2010: 2772), we defi  ne a question as a turn that is designed to seek 'information, confi  rmation, or agreement, ' as opposed to turns that are syntactically constructed as interrogatives but do some other type of action. In particular, we focus on wh-questions and polar questions, including declarative, interrogative, and tag questions, because those are the types of questions that appear in our data.

First, we illustrate the functions of anaphorically-oriented and cataphorically-oriented questions in our data, and then we analyze extracts from a longer story that contains examples of both types of questions. We consider speaker and recipient actions, the recipient's projection strategies, as well as how the questions aff  ect progressivity.

## 6.1 Two Functions of Recipient Questions

In the context of AAC interaction, where progress is slow and there are many repairs, when an AAC-using participant embarks on a multi-unit turn at talk or  an  extended  project  such  as  a  story,  recipients  oft  en  help  construct  the ongoing talk. In cases in which the recipient already knows the story, this task is likely to be more straightforward, but when the recipient does not know or has not already heard the story, the task can require a lot of interactional work and time (Luo et al. 2008). Recipient questions are a particularly useful resource in this context, and we noticed that the majority of such questions function in two ways. Th e fi  rst is oriented toward repairing the teller's prior utterance and is in that sense anaphorically oriented. Th ese include primarily candidate understandings  (e.g., you  mean  getting  back  to? )  and  other  more  general questions oriented toward reestablishing intersubjectivity (e.g., what subject are we on. ). Th e second way that recipient questions function is to advance the speaker's ongoing telling, and thus, these questions are cataphorically oriented (e.g., oh they were in your closet so he had to go through a door, huh. ). As will be shown, although these cataphorically-oriented questions may be designed to progress the story, sometimes they are unrelated and can potentially cause more delays in progress. A key factor is the recipient's ability to project what comes next.

Extract  1  shows  anaphoric,  repair-related  questions  and  cataphoric questions, both apparently designed to progress the story. In 1, Fred is telling Molly about some cookies that were taken from his room at the group home where he lives.

```
(1) Cookies [00:52:47;27 - 00:53:03;14] 01 FD:    [She is going to buy some cooking.] 02 F:     [looking at M                     ] 03 (.) 04 F:     (cookie) ((looking at M)) 05 F:     (   ) 06 M:     o:::h, 07 M: --> tha- Jamie? 08 F:     >yeah.< 09 M:     so she's gonna buy some10 F:     gu-gu11 M: --> oh, cook[ies?] 12 F:             [yeah], yeah. 13 M: --> co[ok ↑ ies.      ] 14 F:       [>yeah ↓ , yeah ↓ ], yeah ↓ <. ((glottalized)) 15 M: --> cookies. oh. to replace the on[es      ] 16 F:                                   [ ↑ yeahah ↓ ]
```

In our data, anaphoric questions all involved some type of repair of the previous  talk,  and  indeed,  most  were  other-initiations  such  as  candidate understandings. In 1, the fi  rst candidate understanding Jamie? (line 7) targets the trouble source she (line 1). Fred confi  rms this understanding in line 8. In line 11, Molly produces another candidate understanding to repair the trouble source cooking (line 1). Th is  understanding is confi  rmed by Fred in line 12 and again repeated (line 13) with additional confi  rmation (line 14). In line 15,  Molly  produces  a  polar  question  that  is  cataphorically-oriented  in  that it progresses the story, supplying the purpose of the story character's action, something that had not yet been told. About a minute and a half later, Molly produces the utterance oh they were in your closet so he had to go through a door huh . Th is turn contains both a candidate understanding oh they were in your closet , targeted at Fred's prior turn (not shown here) and the question so he had to go through a door huh which progresses the story in that it reveals another character's prior actions that had not yet been told.

## 6.2 Projection, Progressivity, and Recipient Questions

In this section, we focus on a longer story that takes some time to get started, gets interrupted by other stories, and eventually comes to what may be considered an ending about fourteen minutes aft  er the point where extract 2 begins. We break down the story to focus on segments in which the recipient's apparent attempts  to  progress  a  particular  course  of  action  through  her  questions sometimes are successful but other times lead in directions that apparently are tangential to the speaker's project. Extract 2, shows Fred attempting to launch 'Th e Pops' story by returning to a topic that he and Molly had been discussing earlier, perhaps before recording began. During this conversation, Fred and Molly are seated next to each other, Fred in a wheelchair and Molly in a chair at a small table (see Figure 1). Fred's AAC device is positioned in front of him on the tray of his chair and he uses his left   hand to type on the device with a stylus while his right arm is by his side. Th e device is positioned so that both participants can see the screen.

```
(2) Th e Pops [00:26:26;06 - 00:27:26;26] 01 FD:--> you (7.3) (where/wear) (10.9) (o)sking 02 M:     [°oh hm°.                          ] 03 M:     [((looking at device, slight nod))  ] 04 (10.6) 05 FD:--> (abou-) (5.2) (ztuh) 06 (.) 07 F:     mhehehehehehehe 08 F:     ((raises left hand away from device toward 09 face))
```

```
10 M:     .h, about the. 11 (3.5) 12 F:     ((moves left hand toward device to start 13 typing)) 14 M:     which subject. 15 (3.6) 16 F:     .h 17 FD:--> Pops. 18 F:     ((raises left hand and looks at M)) 19 M:     oh the Pops?= 20 F:     [(   )                                  ] 21 F:     [((looks to M then back down to device))] 22 M:     =or the pope. 23 FD:--> [you where/wear osking about the Pops.] 24 F:     [((looks at M))                       ] 25 F:     (  [  )] 26 M:        [yea]h. 27 M:     ((nods head))
```

Aft  er several turns (lines 1, 5, and 17) and questions by Molly (lines 10, 14, and 19) designed to perform repair-initiating actions, Fred successfully produces a complete utterance in line 23, which is aimed at launching the story. Although story prefaces are sometimes more explicit (Mandelbaum 2013, Sacks 1978), announcements like the one in line 23 sometimes function to project stories (Sidnell  2010).  In  addition,  tellers  oft  en  mention  aspects  of  the  setting  of the  forthcoming telling  (Mandelbaum 2013, Sidnell 2010), as Fred does in line  17  (and  again,  in  23)  when  he  mentions  the Pops ,  in  reference  to  the 'Pops' ('popular music') concert season of the local symphony orchestra. Th e utterance in line 23 seems to be a story-launching action, not only because of the information about the setting, but also because according to his account Fred is returning to a topic that the pair had been discussing previously. Th e return to this topic, thus, projects that Fred has something more to say about it, and that something could be a story.

Figure 1. Lines 21-22.

<!-- image -->

As the AAC device voices the utterance (line 23), Fred gazes at Molly to register her understanding of his utterance.

In extract 3, which directly follows 2, Molly asks a general question that may be aimed at progressing Fred's action.

```
(3) Th e Pops [00:27:26;26 - 00:27:53;13] 01 F:     ((looks at device and prepares to type)) 02 M: --> now did- you have a package with that too, 03 M right? 04 F:     [(                                 )] 05 F: --> [((raises eyes and eyebrows briefl   y))] 06 F: --> ((continues typing)) 07 (5.8) 08 FD:--> they (5.9) H-D09 F:     [no.                                ] 10 F:     [((slight frown and raises left hand toward 11 face))] 12 F:     ((starts to type again)) 13 (4.7) 14 M:     H-↑ D-:: ↓ 15 (1.8) 16 M:     °sounds like a disease°
```

Th e  question  in  lines  2-3  is  quite  general  and  might  be  oriented  toward eliciting more background information. Indeed, at this point, Molly cannot project beyond the fact that Fred wants to say something about the Pops. At the beginning of this recording, Fred had been telling Molly about another type of entertainment package that his brother had purchased for him. It is possible that  Molly  assumed  that  Fred  was  returning  to  the  topic  of  entertainment packages, this time with reference to the Pops. On the other hand, it is also possible  that  this  question  is  oriented  toward  obtaining  information  that Molly was interested in. In any case, Fred gives only a minimal response that seems to be affi rmative (lines 5-6) and continues typing his next utterance (voiced in line 8). Fred's minimal response includes slightly raising his eyes and  eyebrows  briefl  y  while  continuing  to  maintain  his  bodily  orientation toward typing on the device (see Figure 2). Fred's actions manage the focus of the interaction keeping attention on what he is composing on the device and limit the trajectory of Molly's question from progressing further.

Figure 2. Lines 5-6.

<!-- image -->

Line 8 contains the trouble source H-D , voiced by the device as <h> <d>, and both participants initiate repair, Fred with a vocalization and facial gesture (lines 9-11), and Molly by repeating the trouble source and making a small joke about it (lines 14 and 16). We should note that short vocalizations such as the word no in line 9 have been referred to as 'repair prefaces, ' which is 'the segment positioned between the repair initiation, if there is one, and the repair solution' (Keevallik 2012: 127). In AAC interaction, however, because there are so few resources available for self-initiation of repair, aided participants' vocalizations  of no seem  to  function  as  repair  initiators,  along  with  other actions, such as eye gaze, gestures, and laughter. 3

Subsequently, Fred is able to complete the repair himself and eventually produces the utterance they had two person who imprint .  Th e word imprint is another trouble source. In response, Molly tries to initiate repair, using the open class repair initiator what (Drew 1997) and a question that targets the trouble source that's not what you wanted to say? . Th en, she begins to ask more questions, some focused on the repair and thus anaphorically oriented, and others focused on progressing the talk and thus cataphorically oriented. Th is is shown in 4.

```
(4) Th e Pops [00:29:55;22 - 00:30:49;02] 01 FD:    i[mpre-         ] 02 F:      [((looks at M))] 03 F:     no. 04 F:     ((looks out towards camera)) 05 M:     no::? ((looks at F)) 06 M: --> what subject are we on. 07 F:     hehehehehe 08 M:     (h)gi(h)ve me a hint Fred, hehe. .h 09 F:     ((looks at device and begins to type)) 10 (3.3) 11 M: --> are you talking [about the s- the Pops]= 12 F:                     [yeaheaheah(yeaheah)  ] 13 M: =(yet)? 14 F: ((typing)) 15 M: -->   the Pops? 16 (4.1) 17 M:     well, when's the last18 FD:    they 19 M: --> they, the Pops. 20 F:     ( )((stops typing, gestures with his left 21 hand toward M)) 22 M:     oh. °okay° 23 (3.1) 24 F:     [(ah, ga::)                             ] 25 F:     [((presses a button on the screen with 26 stylus))                             ] 27 F:     [hehehehehehe ] 28 F:     [((raises his left hand with stylus to his 29 face))] 30 M:     .h.h.h, ((looking at device)) 31 M: --> [so when('s) the last time you went to]=
```

```
32 M:     [((leans back slightly, readjusts her arms] 33 M: =the Pops was ↑ - ((looking at F)) 34 F:     ((gestures over his left shoulder with his 35 left hand)) 36 M:     last month? 37 F:     ((moves head slightly and raises eyebrows)) 38 M:     before that, 39 F:     ((slight headshake, looks at device)) 40 F: ((prepares to type)) 41 M:     [right?            ] 42 M:     [((leans toward F))] 43 F:     ((smiles at M briefl   y, looks down)) 44 F:     ((prepares to type)) 45 M: --> do you have for the new season? 46 F:     ((looks up smiling, raises left hand to 47 mouth)) 48 M: --> don't they [start in September? ] 49 F: -->            [((shakes his left hand toward his 50 face))] 51 F:     ((looks back at device)) 52 F:     ((prepares to type)) 53 M: --> okay, I'll shut up and you go (  ) 54 F:     .he.he.ha.ha 55 M:     okay 56 F:     .he .h hmhmhm
```

In line 1, Fred begins to repair the original trouble source imprint (not shown in 4), and looks at Molly (Figure 3). Such gaze shift  s when a trouble source occurs oft  en prompt the recipient to produce candidate understandings and may be requests for assistance in completing the repair.

Figure 3. Line 1-2.

<!-- image -->

However, in this case, Molly is not able to project what word Fred is looking for. Although there is some structural information available in the form of a partially complete sentence ( they had two person who ) and fi  ve phonological segments (line 1), these elements do not seem to fi  t together in a way that allows prediction of an appropriate form, and Molly appears to have lost the thread of the conversation. Th is leads her to produce the general wh -question what subject are we on in line 6. She follows this in line 11 with a more specifi  c question that targets the topic they had been discussing just prior to the trouble source. Despite Fred's emphatic confi  rmation that the Pops is still the current topic (line 12), there appear to be diffi culties in maintaining intersubjectivity, as evidenced by the fact that Molly seeks another confi  rmation at line 15 and then in line 19, questions whether the pronoun they in line 18 refers to the Pops. Th ese ongoing issues with recognitional reference also seem to be due to the fact that Molly is unable to project what Fred wants to say about the Pops. Th is example shows the point made earlier that the slow development of  actions  and  sequences  in  AAC interaction makes projection at the level of  sequential  organization  diffi cult.  Aft  er  Molly's  confi  rmation  request  in line 19, Fred momentarily stops his typing, gestures toward Molly with his typing  hand,  and  produces  a  vocalization  with  a  tone  hearable  as  negative aff  ect. Molly notes Fred's actions with a change of state token oh and a quiet okay (line 22). Aft  er a 3.1 second pause, Fred produces another vocalization and presses what is likely the erase button deleting the utterance he had been working on constructing (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Lines 24-26.

<!-- image -->

When Fred stops typing, Molly shift  s her body position by leaning back slightly and looking at Fred while beginning a series of questions starting in line 31. Molly's diffi culty projecting what Fred might be saying is perhaps what leads her to ask these general questions, concerning when Fred had attended the Pops concert (lines 31 and 33), whether he would attend in the new season (line 45), and when the new season would begin (line 48). Such general questions might be an attempt to fi  nd a connection that could improve projectability, but they can also be distractions that cause further delay, impeding progress and making projection even more diffi cult. Indeed, as Auer (2009: 186) points out, 'It is unclear … how long a projection can be 'in play' in dialogical interaction before it is forgotten by the speaker, the recipient, or both. ' Fred's minimal or  non-responses  to  some  of  the  cataphorically-oriented  questions  Molly produces seem to suggest that he also understands that Molly is using these questions to try and connect what has been said so far, which would allow her to further project the trajectory of Fred's telling. Since questions project a second pair part and produce 'sequential implicativeness' (Sacks, Schegloff  , & Jeff  erson 1974, Schegloff   2007), Fred's minimal or nonresponses to some of Molly's cataphorically-oriented questions suggest that he understands her questions as potentially supplemental to the action at hand: the progression of his story.

Fred's embodied  actions provide additional resources for Molly's projection. He responds to her question so when( ˈ s) the last time you went to the Pops was (lines 31 and 33) by gesturing with his left   hand pointing over his left   shoulder (lines 34-35). Molly's candidate understandings of his gesture are last  month? (line  36) and, when this does not seem to be the answer Fred is looking for, before that (line 38) . Fred then prepares to start typing  on  the  device  (lines  39-40),  but  Molly  continues  to  ask  questions (lines 41, 45, and 48). Rather than responding affi rmatively or negatively to the polar questions Molly produces in lines 45 and 48, Fred shakes his left hand and moves it toward his face (Figure 5), a gesture that could indicate that it is his turn to talk.

Figure 5. Lines 48-50.

<!-- image -->

Molly's line 53 utterance in 4 acknowledges that too many questions from her may slow the progress of the interaction, but toward the end of the next extract she resumes the strategy of asking general questions.

```
(5) Th e Pops [00:31:01;05 - 00:31:34;02] 01 M:     so we're talking about the Pops? 02 F:     ((gestures with left hand)) 03 M:     right? 04 F:     ((prepares to type)) 05 (2.7) 06 M:     which you have tickets to 07 F:     .h (  ) ((slight head movement)) 08 M:     or John does. 09 (.) 10 M:     John [and you?] 11 FD: [las    ] 12 (4.1) 13 F:     .h 14 F:     [.h((sniff   ))] 15 FD:    [week.     ] 16 M:     °oh last week° 17 FD:    las [week.         ] 18 M:         [((looks at M))] 19 F:     (yea:h.) 20 M: --> you went last week.
```

```
21 F:     [yeah.                              ] 22 F:     [((looks down and presses a button))] 23 (.) 24 M: --> Sunday 25 F:     [( ↑ ya:::::ha) ] 26 F:     [((raises his left hand to his face and 27 laughs))] 28 M: --> right? 29 F:     yeah hehe[he  ] 30 M:              [okay] 31 M: --> [and what did they (.) play.    ] 32 F:     [((continues to laugh silently))] 33 M:     ((looking at Fred ˈ s device)) 34 M: --> so now you don't go now til November? 35 F:     ((raises eyebrows and shakes left hand)) 36 M:     you don't know. okay.
```

It is interesting to note that prior to asking more general questions, in lines 1-9, Molly recaps what she has understood about the trajectory of the interaction to this point. Although these utterances appear to be polar questions in terms of their intonation and because Molly glances at Fred as she is speaking, he only responds once with a slight head movement and vocalization in line 7 and continues typing. Th us, Molly's utterances may be designed to counter the possibility of forgetting and to assess intersubjectivity, by taking stock of the shared knowledge that had accumulated so far. While Molly was recapping the  story,  Fred  had  been  typing,  and  subsequently  produces  another  piece of information about the timing of the event (lines 11-17). In line 20, Molly produces a confi  rmation request, which Fred confi  rms (line 21). Th is question is  thus  anaphorically  oriented  in  that  it  simply  recaps  already  presented information, but aft  er that, Molly shift  s her focus to cataphorically-oriented questions involving information that had not yet been presented. In lines 24 and 28, she asks about the specifi  c day that Fred had gone to the Pops, which Fred confi  rms (lines 25 and 29).

Figure 6. Lines 32-36.

<!-- image -->

Th en,  she  asks  two  more  cataphorically-oriented  questions  (lines  31  and 34)  that  are  more  general  and  may  be  oriented  toward  helping  progress the  ongoing  telling.  Fred  does  not  respond  to  these  questions  and  instead laughs (Figure 6) and then produces facial and hand gestures, which Molly understands as indicating that he does not know the answer to these questions and perhaps more generally that these questions do not relate to the trajectory of the ongoing telling. As was noted with respect to extract 4, such minimal responses or nonresponses are one way that Fred can control the trajectory of the developing story to a certain extent and reign in the tangential trajectories that might develop otherwise.

With respect to projectability, although the question in lines 24 and 28 Sunday right? might  be  predictable  from  Molly's  prior  knowledge  of  when Fred generally attends Pops concerts, it is not projectable from the talk that had been produced prior to that point. Similarly, for the questions in lines 31 and 34, Molly seems to be relying on general knowledge of the context rather than prior utterances: In the case of what did they play , it is obvious that the orchestra played something at the concert, and in the case of so now you don't go now til November? ,  because the current conversation was taking place in October, Molly is able to guess that the next concert is likely to be at least a month away. It is possible that such tangentially related questions function to narrow down the topic through a process of elimination. Indeed, one strategy might be to eliminate what is not relevant in order to project what might be relevant.

In the next part of the interaction, Molly asks Fred to tell another, related story about who he attends the Pops concerts with. 4 Fred complies with this request and then immediately turns back to the Pops story he had been trying to tell, as shown in extract 6.

```
(6) Th e Pops [00:37:32;05 - 00:37:49;06] 01 FD:    I go with my brothers and. 02 (.) 03 FD:    his girlfrench who her name i-s is Mary 04 FD:    getting bask. 05 F:     hmhehehehe. 06 M:     hehe. 07 M: --> you mean getting back to? 08 M:     ((coughs)) 09 M: --> getting back to uh the Pops? 10 F:     °yeah°.
```

Although there are several typos and other errors in Fred's utterance (lines   1 -4), Molly does not initiate repair on anything but the last part. Indeed, both participants laugh, as is oft  en the case when the device voices an utterance with errors or nonsense forms (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Lines 5-6.

<!-- image -->

Molly does initiate repair on the last part of the utterance getting bask , using a candidate understanding that corrects the erroneous form (line 7). She follows this with a second candidate understanding that includes the missing noun phrase the Pops .  In  this  case,  it  seems  that  she  is  able  to  project  this  repair based  on  the  existing  structural  information  in  the  form  of  phonological segments: Th e word getting is well formed, and it is relatively easy to predict that bask should be back because bask only includes one extra phonological segment. Likewise, the next word to is predictable in this slot due to the fact that getting back to is a relatively common formulaic expression used to return to a previous topic. At this point, Molly has enough information to project that what follows is a noun phrase that fi  lls the blank in the phrase getting back to \_\_\_\_\_ . Based on the fact that the prior topic that the participants had been discussing for over ten minutes was the Pops, it is relatively easy to project what will fi  ll that blank, as Molly does in line 9.

Essentially,  what  we  see  here  is  that  projection  is  possible  in  relatively localized and linear contexts. Th us, in cases where there is a lot of segmental, syntactic,  and  contextual  information  that  has  already  been  produced, recipients are able to project and help repair an utterance. On the other hand, when there is not much structural information or when there is a mismatch between the  segmental  and  syntactic  information,  projection  will  be  more diffi cult (Mayes Forthcoming). Th is also suggests that anaphorically-oriented questions may be more successful in progressing the ongoing project than cataphorically-oriented questions that seem to involve more guessing on the part  of  the  recipient.  However,  it  seems  that  recipients  use  both  strategies together.

Shortly aft  er 6, Fred produces an utterance that expresses the idea that he had been trying to get to throughout the telling, which could be considered the point of the story.

```
(7) Th e Pops [00:37:59;23 - 00:40:18;23] 01 FD:--> they (6.8) had 02 (3.5) 03 M:     ((leaning over and pointing toward D)) 04 (2.5) 05 FD:--> two (14.4) person (6.9) who (13.3) could 06 (7.6) 07 M:     [okay, just- complete your thought.] 08 M:     [pointing toward device            ] 09 FD:--> (sin) ((side conversation between M and a 10 passerby)) 11 (12.2) 12 FD:    like 13 (11.8) 14 FD:--> (Louise) 15 (22.6) 16 FD:--> Armstrong. 17 M: --> okay, what- ((pointing at device)) 18 F:     (        ) ((frowns and shakes left hand)) 19 M: --> that's not20 M: --> Armstrong?
```

```
21 F:     [yeah.                   ] 22 F:     [((briefl   y looks up at M))] 23 F:     ((looks back at device and presses 24 F: the playback button)) 25 FD:--> [they had two person who could sin like 26 (Louise) Armstrong.] 27 F:     [gaze directed to Molly ] 28 M: --> ↑ o::::::h ↓ . you mean at the Pops [they did?]= 29 F:                                      [yeahah.  ] 30 M:     =like Louis Arm[strong, ]= 31 F:                    [YEA::eh ((shaking left hand 32 in the air))] 33 M:     =>cou[ld sing like him?< like (satchmo)?] 34 F:          [(                                )]
```

Fred builds the utterance in lines 25-26 in a step-by-step fashion, which could possibly make the individual words more projectable, as we saw in extract 6. However, in this case, there are many long delays between the words produced by  the  device  in  lines  1-16.  In  addition,  Molly  was  distracted  briefl  y  by  a conversation with another person (lines 9-12) and resumed paying attention during the pause in line 13. Th us, when Fred delivers what is essentially the punchline in line 16 Armstrong , she apparently does not initially understand its importance in the story, and begins to ask about it in lines 17, 19, and 20. When Fred repeats the entire utterance in lines 25-26, he shift  s his gaze to Molly in line 27 to assess her understanding (Figure 8). At this point, she is fi  nally able to put all of the pieces together, responding with the lengthened change of state token oh and questions in lines 28, 30, and 33 that apparently demonstrate surprise (Wilkinson & Kitzinger 2006) and can be heard as an appreciative assessment (Figure 9).

Figure 8. Lines 25-27.

<!-- image -->

Figure 9. Lines 30-32.

<!-- image -->

Extract 7 further supports the point made above with respect to extract 6:  Projection  occurs  on  a  relatively  local  level,  aft  er  enough  information has  accumulated.  Th is  example  also  suggests  the  impact  delays  and  other distractions have on the recipient's ability to recognize the signifi  cance of a particular referent in an ongoing multi-unit turn. Indeed, from lines 5, 9, 14, and 16, the following information had accumulated: Th ey had two person who could sin like Louise Armstrong .  Despite the typing errors, given the context that the participants had been discussing Fred's recent experience at the Pops Orchestra performance, it might be thought to be relatively easy to project that the signifi  cant information and point of the story is that there were Louis Armstrong impersonators performing at the concert. However, even though Molly has heard and repeated the name Armstong (line 20), initially, she does not quite grasp its signifi  cance with respect to the story and even asks whether it  is  related to the Pops (line 28), which had been the topic of conversation for about fourteen minutes at that point. Th is  is  likely  due  to  the  delays  in presenting  the  entire  utterance  in  which Armstrong is  the  signifi  cant  new information, as well as the fact that it took a relatively long time for all of the pieces of information to be presented, which indicates the diffi culty of keeping information active over time.

## 7. Discussion

We have examined the co-construction of a story initiated by an AAC-using speaker  and  presented  to  an  unknowing  recipient.  Our  primary  focus  was on how the recipient was able to use the available resources to maintain or reestablish intersubjectivity through careful sequential work with the AACusing speaker. Specifi  cally, we were interested in how the recipient constructed questions used for two actions: repair-related actions and actions that could progress the story.  Although, in American English, there are various types of  questions  such  as  polar  questions  that  can  be  broken  down  in  terms  of form  (e.g.,  interrogative,  declarative,  and  tag  questions),  Q-word  (or wh -) questions, and alternative questions (Stivers 2010), our data contained a mix of polar questions and Q-word questions, with no alternative questions. Our focus was not on these diff  erent types of questions, but rather on how the recipient used them to perform the two types of action, mentioned above.

Our fi  ndings show that when there was a breakdown in intersubjectivity, the  recipient  initiated  repair-related  actions  using  anaphorically-oriented questions that targeted information that had already been presented by the speaker, and she used whatever resources were available, including segmental, syntactic,  and  contextual  resources  to  design  these  questions.  When  these pieces of information complemented one another, it was easier to reestablish intersubjectivity, as shown in extract 6, but if they did not fi  t together in a predictable  way,  it  was  more  diffi cult  to  execute  repair  and  reestablish intersubjectivity (e.g., extract 4). In this case, the recipient typically produced more  general  questions  such  as what  subject  are  we  on .  As  argued,  these issues  with  intersubjectivity  point  to  the  fact  that  the  delays  in  production when a speaker uses an AAC device make it very diffi cult to project where the speaker is headed, which of course negatively impacts progressivity. However, in  attempting  to  progress  the  interaction,  the  recipient  relied  on  another resource: cataphorically-oriented questions that were rather general in nature and seemed designed to follow a trial-and-error, or process of elimination strategy. In our data, this strategy appeared to be less eff  ective in progressing the  story  and  oft  en  caused  distractions.  Th e  questions  in  extract  1 cookies, oh, to replace the ones (line 15) and in extract 5 Sunday (line 24) do seem to progress the stories underway, but in both cases, there was information that had already been presented that helped the recipient narrow the questions enough so that they were successful. In contrast, questions like do you have for the new season? (extract 4, line 45) and so now you don't go til November? (extract  5,  line  34)  were  distractions  that  could  potentially  further  delay progress if the speaker had spent time answering them.

Th ese examples also show that the AAC-using speaker is well aware of the problems in eliciting help from his interlocutors. Indeed, he used gesture, and especially eye gaze, to see if the recipient understood and possibly to prompt her to demonstrate her understanding through candidate understandings and other repair-oriented actions. On the other hand, in cases where her questions were unrelated to his project, he responded with actions that demonstrated this such as raising his eye brows, (extract 3, line 5), orienting his body toward the device and continuing to type (extract 3, line 6), gesturing (extract 4, lines 46-47 and 49-50), and sometimes by laughing (extract 5, line 32).

## 8. Conclusions

Examining  AAC  interaction  reveals  much  about  how  much  interactional work  is  necessary  when  one  (or  more)  conversational  participants  cannot speak. Despite the fact that high-tech electronic devices have done much to help people with complex communication disabilities voice their utterances, communication  mediated  by  such  devices  is  by  no  means  simple  or straightforward. General conversational principles that most speakers take for granted such as maintaining intersubjective understanding, using the tools of reference and repair, can become very diffi cult when some of the resources used in everyday talk are not available to the speaker, thereby limiting the recipient's ability to project. Of course, problems with projection are relevant to the current turn, but they become even more complex when the speaker initiates an extended project like storytelling. Still, analyzing the interaction in  this  case  study  reveals  how  resourceful  people  are  at  adapting  existing resources  such  as  questions,  eye  gaze,  gestures,  and  bodily  movements in  specifi  c  sequentially  organized  ways,  designed  to  satisfy  their  drive  to understand one another and progress the project underway.

## Appendix

## Transcription Key

| Discourse symbol   | Meaning                                               | Character symbol   | Meaning                                      |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| [ ]                | Overlapping talk                                      | FD                 | Fred's utterances produced via theAAC device |
| . ,                | Falling intonation Slightly rising intonation         | F                  | Fred's vocal utterances, gaze, or gestures   |
| , ?                | Level intonation Rising intonation                    | M                  | Molly's utterances, gaze, or gestures        |
| (.) (#.#)          | Small pause Pause counted in seconds and milliseconds |                    |                                              |
| ° word °           | Quiet                                                 |                    |                                              |
| WOrd               | Stressed word                                         |                    |                                              |
| W-O-R-             | Spelled out word                                      |                    |                                              |
| (( ))              | Transcriber's comments                                |                    |                                              |
| hehe               | Laughter                                              |                    |                                              |
| wo:rd              | Syllable lengthening                                  |                    |                                              |
| ↑ ↓                | Raised or lowered pitch relative to normal pitch      |                    |                                              |
| ( )                | Undecipherable utterance                              |                    |                                              |
| -->                | Turns for analysis                                    |                    |                                              |
| .h / h.            | Inhalation / exhalation                               |                    |                                              |
| wor-               | Cut off syllable                                      |                    |                                              |

## Notes

* We are very grateful to our study participants for generously donating their time. We also acknowledge the support of the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee's Center for 21st Century Studies for a Transdisciplinary Challenges Award, which funded the data collection and transcription that made this study possible. In addition, we thank the editors and reviewers for comments on a previous draft  .
- 1 Fred and Molly are pseudonyms.
- 2 Prior to that, he had used a low-tech type of AAC, involving a spelling board.
- 3 See Lerner and Kitzinger (2015) for more about repair prefacing in typical English interaction.
- 4 Molly may have requested this story to provide additional contextual background for the researchers.

## References

- Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text & Talk 25(1), 7-36.
- Auer, Peter. 2009. Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 46(2-3), 180-205.
- Bloch, Steven. 2011. Anticipatory other-completion of augmentative and alternative communication talk: A conversation analysis study. Disability and Rehabilitation 33(3), 229-42.
- Bloch, Steven and Ray Wilkinson. 2004. Th e understandability of AAC: A conversation analysis study of acquired dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 20(4), 272-82.
- Bloch, Steven and Ray Wilkinson. 2009. Acquired dysarthria in conversation identifying sources of understandability problems. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 44(5), 769-83.
- Chevalier, Fabienne. H. G., and Rebecca Clift  . 2008. Unfi  nished turns in French conversation: Projectability, syntax and action. Journal of Pragmatics 40(10), 1731-52.
- Drew, Paul. 1984. Speakers' reporting in invitation sequences. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis , ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 129-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Drew, Paul. 1997. 'Open' class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 69-101.
- De Fina, Anna and Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2015. Introduction. Th e handbook of narrative analysis , ed. by Anna De Fina and Alexandra Georgakopoulou, 1-17. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
- Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Th ompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic,  intonational,  and  pragmatic  resources  for  the  management  of  turns. Interaction and grammar ,  ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff  , and Sandra A. Th ompson, 134-84. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Freed, Alice and Susan Ehrlich. (eds.) 2010. 'Why do you ask?' Th e function of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2006. Th inking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry 16(1), 122-30.

- Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2007. Small stories, interaction and identities . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Goodwin, Charles. 1979. Th e interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology , ed. by George Psathas, 97- 121. New York: Irvington Publishers.
- Goodwin, Charles. 1984. Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis , ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 225-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Goodwin, Charles. 2015. Narrative as talk-in-interaction. Th e handbook of narrative analysis , ed. by Anna De Fina and Alexandra Georgakopoulou, 195-218. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
- Graf, Eva-Maria, Frédérick Dionne and Th omas Spranz-Fogasy. 2020. How to investigate the local and global change potential of questioning sequences in executive coaching? A call for interdisciplinary research. Scandinavian Studies in Language 11(1), 214-238.
- Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Question design in conversation. Th e handbook of conversation analysis ,  ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 395-414. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
- Hayashi, Makoto. 2004. Projection and grammar: Notes on the action-projecting use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1337-74.
- Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2004. Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1315-36.
- Heritage, John. 2007. Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives , ed. by Tanya Stivers and Nick J. Enfi  eld, 255-80. (Language, culture and cognition 7) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Heritage, John and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions . West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Higginbotham, Jeff  ery D. and Kevin Caves. 2002. AAC performance and usability issues: Th e eff  ect of AAC technology on the communicative process. Assistive Technology 14(1), 45-57.
- Jeff  erson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation analysis: Studies from the fi  rst generation , ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13-31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Keevallik,  Leelo.  2012.  Compromising  progressivity:  'No'-prefacing  in  Estonian. Pragmatics 22(1), 119-46.
- Koenig, Christopher J. 2006. Oblique interventions: A question-initiated sequence in  multi-unit  turn  environments.  Unpublished  manuscript,  online:  https://doi. org/10.13140/rg.2.1.2381.9284.
- Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Lerner, Gene H. 1996. On the 'semi-permeable' character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. Interaction and grammar , ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff  , and Sandra A. Th ompson, 238-76. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lerner,  Gene  H.  and  Celia  Kitzinger.  2015. Or -prefacing  in  the  organization  of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(1), 58-78.

- Luo, Fei, Lisa Bardach, Jennifer Cornish, and Jeff  rey D. Higginbotham. 2008. Personal narrative telling of AAC users with ALS. Poster session presented at the American Speech Language and Hearing Association meeting, Chicago, IL.
- Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2013. Storytelling in conversation. Th e handbook of conversation analysis ,  ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 492-508. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
- Mayes, Patricia. Forthcoming. Nouns and noun phrases in Other-initiated repair in English atypical interaction: A case study of Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Th e pragmatics of the noun phrase across languages: An emergent unit in interaction , ed. by Yoshi Ono and Sandra A. Th ompson, 179-207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Müller, Eve and Gloria Soto. 2002. Conversation patterns of three adults using aided speech: Variations across partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 18(2), 77-90.
- Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps. 2001. Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Perkins, Lisa. 2003. Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation: Interactional issues. Conversation and brain damage , ed. by Charles Goodwin, 147-62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Sacks, Harvey. 1978. Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. Studies in the organization of conversational interaction , ed. by Jim Schenkein, 249-70. New York: Academic Press.
- Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff  , and Gail Jeff  erson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696-735.
- Schegloff  , Emanuel A. 1990. On the organization of sequences as a source of 'coherence' in talk-in-interaction. Conversational organization and its development ,  ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51-77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
- Schegloff  , Emanuel A. 2007. A primer for conversation analysis: Sequence organization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment and affi liation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affi liation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1), 31-57.
- Stivers,  Tanya.  2010.  An  overview  of  the  question-response  system  in  American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10), 2772-81.
- Stivers, Tanya and Jeff  rey D. Robinson. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35(3), 367-92.
- Tranekjær, Louise. 2020. LEAN diversity management in practice: Th e multi-functionality  of  questions  as  a  resource  to  ensure  understanding,  participation  and procedural compliance in a diverse workplace. Scandinavian Studies in Language 11(1), 83-116.
- Wilkinson, Sue and Celia Kitzinger. 2006. Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2), 150-82.
- Worsøe, Line Brink and Th omas Wiben Jensen. 2020. Questioning questions in psychotherapeutic  practice:  Th e  dialogical  dynamics  of  change  in  therapy  through clients questioning therapists. Scandinavian Studies in Language 11(1), 279-317.