These case studies of cultural representations of war and conflict prompted discussions on the relation of cultural production and cultural reception. Their use and reception is contingent. BAHALOUL's study contributed to this diffusion of concepts of hegemony by emphasizing what can be done with a cultural product after its production. The latter started a series of debates embracing judicial, political, and artistic accounts of war and its multiple others. Let us finally assemble some of the core results with regards to possible avenues of future collaboration in the realm of cultures of war discourse.
The results are of different kinds: the first concerns, what one could call vaguely "mechanisms of war-discourse-formation"; the two others concern basic properties of military accounting. The scholars are confronted with a subject matter that is morally, ethically, and practically challenging. The scholars encounter matters of war that are heavily moralized and politicized in ways that frustrate various ethnomethodological analytical modes that have been prolific in other fields of ethnomethodological scholarship, such as emergency calls, gossiping, software development, or cross-examination in the criminal court.
The well-tried exercise of "indifference," the focus on "interactional accomplishments," and the reference to the "ethnomethods" is much more difficult to uphold and to justify, when it is about matters of war and the "accounting for combat related killings. Obviously, our own research is deeply engrained in the respective political culture of war discourse. What is more, this material basis may provide some insights into how members could produce "plausible deniability" LYNCH by ways of co-producing a record of their military work while it took place.
This is not to say that the soldiers in our case studies deliberately "covered up a lie. Already during combat, they produce evidence for "all practical purposes" including tests and examinations on "wrongdoings" and "malpractice".
For example, the cockpit crews in the Kunduz bombing managed to co-produce an orderly account, demonstrating recipients to come that they "did follow a command" and that they did so with some professional skepticism SCHEFFER. Military practice is, to some degree, oriented towards the tribunals that would allocate responsibilities for combat action. The tribunals engage their own epistemic objects and procedures. They ritualize certain tests and questions, while bracketing out or outsourcing others to "natives" or "experts. In all polities, the tribunals allow for some "practical" military autonomy.
It is on this level that the military is bound or rebound to societal norms—or, on the contrary, the society is bound to military ones. Accounts that passed a tribunal may enter the status of an official version: something can be claimed with good reason or no longer requires justification. Tribunals provide for or refuse legitimization, while linking the military "ceremonially" and "factually" to moral and legal norms.
Those "official accounts" may be one class of sedimented cultural representations. Not all memorialized content passed such debates or examination. Others seem to emerge in light of certain cultural preferences that are widely produced and reproduced, reflecting cultural exposure to and acquaintance with matters of war. The data sessions and case studies assembled for this workshop showed a preference for rather "fluid" cultural analysis: one that focuses on the methods and techniques of communicating war, rather than the common sense assumptions of war as something solid and unchangeable.
The praxeological preference was neglected, however, in studies that focused on persisting frames of military conflict. Certain sedimented attitudes, categorizations, convictions, etc. Cultural representations can stabilize conflicts and drive a society towards very foundational militarization. This is reflected in accounting-practices in combat, where certain lives, figures, regions, etc. The workshop, thus, did invest analytical attention less to the consolidation of these three layers of accounting and more to their interplays and overlaps.
What is more, the interplay of the realms of meaning challenges the bases of "reductionist" studies that disrupt the mechanisms of meaning production and lock in meaning-processes within hermetic cultural or interaction systems. At various sites studied, the military members or soldiers employ an ethics of symmetry. This symmetry is produced even though it may be absent in the actual combat-situation. This works by help of generalization and categorization: they are capable of killing us, which is why we must kill them.
The symmetry might be realized later and elsewhere. An enemy that is not capable of combat-related killings does not allow for this "ethics": military measures would seem disproportional. The "military other" is constructed as potent, armed, willing; as somebody to treat as an enemy proper. Related to the military ethic is an accountant's maxim.
This maxim can be observed in various cases and instances. It is used and allowed for in various tribunals. It seems basic for the use and tendency of accounts that are put together in combat-situations. The maxim was phrased by workshop members this way: "If something can be seen as a threat, account for it as a threat.
A lot of combat-related killings reflect this "practical" maxim. It highlights what it means to be a soldier and to send out soldiers to conflict. Finally, we report the most relevant points that have been discussed and that will be discussed further in order to plan future activities in the trilateral CuWaDis collaboration. The workshop members agreed that future workshops should involve again data sessions. There is a huge need to develop the skills and to compare the trans- sequential analysis of the new natural data on combat including the institutional records on the judicial and political inquiries and public reviews of this data.
In terms of approaches, the CuWaDis group considers new studies on combat-technologies as an important extension of the analytical scope in order to assemble a rather potent research connection. In general, more case studies on the in situ accounting for combat-related killings are needed to tackle the questions and hypotheses generated so far. What is more, a future workshop will explore the selected hypotheses, here especially those on the military maxims. These maxims require more cases and more sequential reconstruction, in order to gain reliability.
A group of workshop participants will develop a co-authored piece on the maxim that if observed occurrences can be interpreted as threats somehow, they should be accounted for as such. The case studies on "friendly fire," the "troubling figures," and the drone pilots' identification practices point all in this direction and ought to be tested in light of deviant cases.
A co-authored paper would be a strong expression of a joint, cross-cultural research orientation. Right from the start and despite the analytical orientation of our case studies, the "accounting for combat-related killings"-perspective related to critique. This seemed unavoidable because of the subject matter—and perhaps, because of the selection of publicly problematized cases. Many speakers introduced their talks by showing solidarity with the victims. These gestures are themselves relevant phenomena of "accounting for combat-related killings.
The cooperation between CDA- and EM-scholars in the field of "war discourse" led to and will lead to what one could call "mutual productive irritation. For the moment being, we can name four critical potentials:. EM turns critical, because it abstains from rituals of critique.
Its "indifferent" sequential reconstructions can deliver new accounts and re-accountings that no longer follow the logic of official examinations and investigations e. Because they do not aim for evaluation and assessment, they open up for practical dynamics, established preference structures, and basic at times contradictory demands. These versions turn critical even more so in light of the institutional self-description. EM's reconstruction of discourse-in-action embraces often unaccounted felicity conditions.
The sequential or trans-sequential reconstruction can specify how it is possible and for whom to contribute, when, and with what in the practical dealings. The felicity conditions concern the possibilities to be a member, to participate, or to even have a relevant say on the matter. The question "what does it take to do this," demarcates the transgression from a descriptive to an analytical account on the systematic selectivity of the accounting for combat-related killings. EM can show that members' situated "doing being critical" is conditioned by the professional tasks at hand.
Delivering a critique is not just a matter of will or moral convictions or an ethical stance, but first of all of the task at hand that allows or disallows doing this. Critique cannot be separated from the work that is done in the first place. This includes the scholarly work as well, and points to the cultural and political conditions under which academic work is done. An extra critical potential takes shape when assembling the various settings of accounting in terms of a multi-sited cultural analysis. Next to academic critique, we find critique in public debates, in legal processes, amongst soldiers themselves, etc.
Critical EM accounts for the various struggles and collaborations amongst these diverse settings on who would be charged in the case of certain deviant "combat-related killings. This implies a historic and cultural selectivity what killings are considered as problematic at all, and which are treated as "proper military doings"; SACKS, , p.
These potentials for critique within EM case studies came up in the course of our presentations, commentaries, data sessions, and discussions during the workshop. These meaning, they have been empirically related to the subject matter of cultures of war discourse and analytically to the approaches brought together during the three days. It will take more empirical work to fully embrace these points towards something like a critical ethnomethodology on "accounting for combat-related killings.
The move towards recovering the critical potentials of EM studies is one example of the collaboration of radical different analytical schools, such as EM and CDA in light of the subject matter. CDA may consider some explorations towards sequential micro-analysis in order to explicate the contingencies, eventfulness, and dynamics of discourse formations. Across both camps, we may focus on ongoing epistemic, political, and ideological struggles around, by way of, and between accounts of combat-related killings. See the debates on new wars, small wars, permanent wars, which are themselves part of the communal dealings with these phenomena.
It is a relative distinction, not an absolute one. It implies that expertise and knowledge acquired through engagement in warfare can be unlearned. The process of unlearning in relation to the German army, including its inability to mobilize troops for combat in short time, is currently a matter of public discussion in Germany. However, it extends to the inability of the parliament or the courts, to hold the military accountable for their actions. What is more, we provide some "good reasons" for these differences from the point of view of the necessities and demands that the practitioners are confronted with.
We, thus, privilege the situational grounds of the institutional work. VII and his distinction of direct and indirect moralizing in a criminal case of murder. He analyzed the membership categories military-military as a relational pair used by the pilot when asked how he felt about knowing that someone was "probably being killed by his bombs": "what is relevant in the first instance is not that we are the military of the US and they of Vietnam, but that we are both military; Alayan, Samira Arab education in Israel: Lessons from positive learning experiences of Palestinian-Israelis.
Garfinkel, Harold Studies in ethnomethodology. Common sense knowledge of social structures: The documentary method of interpretation. In Jerome G. Manis Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sites of violence—Gender and conflict zones. Goodwin, Charles Professional vision. American Anthropologist , 96 3 , Communicating war through the contemporary British military memoir: The Censorship of genre, state, and self.
Practices of authorial collaboration: The collaborative production of the military memoir. Speaking out: Testimonial rhetoric in Israeli soldiers' dissent. Quaderni di Studi Semiotici , , Media dialogical networks and political argumentation. Journal of Language and Politics , 3 2 , Pino, M.
Full text access
Delivering criticism through anecdotes in interaction. Discourse Studies, 18 6 , Elina Weiste is a qualitative health care researcher and conversation analyst. She has a PhD in sociology and a clinical degree in occupational therapy. In her PhD, she explored how therapeutic relationships are managed in clinical interaction. Elina studies interaction in different types of psychiatric consultation e.
Elina is using her research findings in the design of CARM workshops to improve clinician-client interaction in the fields of rehabilitation and mental health care. Weiste, E. Sarah J White is a conversation analyst and qualitative health researcher with a particular interest in researching communication in surgical practice, including clinic consultations and interactional authenticity in simulations. She is a senior lecturer at Macquarie University and leads the Professional Practice stream in the flagship pre-clinical degree, the Bachelor of Clinical Science.
Sarah was awarded her PhD from the University of Otago in and has professional and academic experience in clinical communication, quality and safety in health care, and medical education. White, S. Weatherall, A. Mediation Theory and Practice , 1, Dr Emily Hofstetter Emily Hofstetter is a conversation analyst, with expertise in examining institutional settings. Huma yorksj. Dr William A. Epilepsy and Behavior, 64 A , — L. Jenkins lboro. Dr Steve Kirkwood Dr Steve Kirkwood is a senior lecturer in Social Work and his research focuses on justice and identity, particularly on criminal justice social work and the integration of asylum seekers and refugees.
Dr Heidi Feldman Dr. Dr Mario Veen Mario Veen is a philosopher and educational researcher who has been doing conversation analytic work for since Pino lboro. Dr Elina Weiste Elina Weiste is a qualitative health care researcher and conversation analyst. Dr Sarah White Sarah J White is a conversation analyst and qualitative health researcher with a particular interest in researching communication in surgical practice, including clinic consultations and interactional authenticity in simulations. Weatherall vuw. Buy your copy from amazon now! Captain, First Officer , specific pilot actions e.
In specialist language and linguistics journals there are few studies of language in aviation, and these studies have also tended to be quantitative, that is coding and counting particular kinds of utterances, and to be motivated by a concern to understand aviation language as it is used in some kind of unusual or non-routine situation.
That is, these studies have been interested in communication when things go wrong, rather than in routine situations when everything is as it should be see also Allen and Guy By coding and counting utterances across a large database these studies isolate instances of talk from the immediate interactional contexts which gave rise to them. For example, Linde looks at politeness in flight crew communication and its possible effect in emergency and accident situations, Morrow et al. The Workplace as Social Interaction 13 instrument design.
So the industry is able to recognise the value of studying closely talk between pilots as it occurs, in context and utterance to utterance. Yet while this accident data is naturally occurring talk, it is typically non-routine talk, that is, talk occurring at or around moments of crisis. Also, such data is often gained from recording pilots in cockpit simulator sessions, rather than from actual scheduled flights, or is based on coded observations rather than transcribed data. Methodology So far I have set out my general interest and aims, and the wider context for the study, and I have presumed some understanding of the methodology used.
In the next section I outline this methodology, and then introduce the data to be used and explain how it was collected and transcribed. Ryave and Schenkein , for example, discussed how people accomplish even apparently simple and everyday actions such as walking together or alone, and how a lone walker avoids following or joining a walking group. Collections of ethnomethodological studies include, for example, Psathas a , Garfinkel , Coulter b , Boden and Zimmerman , Button b , and Watson and Seiler The Workplace as Social Interaction 15 Heritage of ethnomethodology.
Garfinkel includes CA studies as ethnomethodological studies. Goffman discussed in detail how ordinary people managed to do perfectly ordinary things, like asking for the time or passing one another in the street. There are many discussions of the development and basic principles of CA, sometimes comparing CA to discourse analysis and other approaches to language and interaction recent examples include Silverman ; Hutchby and Wooffitt ; ten Have Talk is ordered in that participants coordinate their turns at talk to manage, for example, who talks, when, for how long, and what about.
Jefferson ; Speier ; Sacks et al. Jefferson , b, ; Jefferson et al. Sacks , ; Jefferson ; C. Therefore conversation analysts do not rely on hours of detailed observational notes, interviews with participants, or other ethnographic techniques. Instead, conversation analysts will always work with the evidence of the transcription data before them Schegloff b.
Any claims must be supported by evidence in the data. It is the participants themselves, through their talk, who must make an identity relevant i. A conversation analyst would look for evidence in the data, in the talk, that a particular identity was relevant not just for the analyst but for those participants in that interaction. Transcribing Talk The very process of transcription is an important part of the discovery process for the conversation analyst.
See Hak and Silverman for recent and extended discussions of context and CA. For discussions of CA and how it differs to ethnographic approaches to context, see for example Moerman ; , Miller , Nelson , Hak , or Silverman , Conversation analysts transcribe these numerous features, and still others see next section , because they have all been found to be interactionally significant. One advantage of transcribing talk using conventions developed in CA is that transcriptions are able to show so much more about what is actually happening in an interaction.
The transcriptions reveal how participants do not just take turns at talk, but make contributions to an interaction by coordinating a range of resources, in real physical contexts and in real time. Naturally occurring talk itself, the words that are actually spoken, never occurs alone. Talk is just one of many resources available to participants in their collaborative work to achieve intelligible interaction. Research on non-talk features of interaction has informed studies of teams in sociotechnical workplace settings, as discussed earlier. For example, C. Looking mainly at what occurs within turns, C.
Goodwin ; see also Goodwin and Goodwin The casual telling of a story during a meal can actually involve precise coordination of talk with child care, distributing food, the timing of eating activity, as well as gaze direction, smiling, nodding, and body position, as C. Goodwin describes. Just before the story begins Ann, and all of the other participants, are fully occupied with eating. Ann places food on her fork and starts to raise it to her mouth. Goodwin in which participants work together to perform separate activities simultaneously.
Goodwin describes how, in the telling of the story, the non- addressed recipient coordinates his food serving activities with reference to the emerging structure of the story so that he serves food during the background parts of the story but not during the punchline C. Similarly, C. Goodwin argues that she makes her leaving both visible and available to her coparticipants. Seeing talk in this way highlights just what it is that participants accomplish as they jointly construct their interaction.
Talk is just one of the things that participants can do. The talk that occurs when real people interact in real settings, and for purposes which have real meaning for them, does not occur alone, and is not understood alone. Such talk is accompanied by a range of other resources available to participants. These resources can include body orientation and movement, such as gaze and gesture, periods of silence, the location and use of objects and physical features of the setting, relevant spaces, and the organisation and performance of tasks. Whether the interaction is a casual greeting in the street, a conversation over a meal, or reading a checklist on a commercial airliner, talk is not all that participants attend to, and it is not all that analysts of talk-in-interaction should attend to.
It is for this reason that many researchers, including Schegloff a, , b, and C. Indeed, for the participants the contributions of talk may be less significant than other available resources for understanding what is going on as the interaction develops. Collecting the Data This book explores routine talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit, the talk that airline pilots routinely produce as they interact to go about their normal working life flying planes, and therefore it was critical that the data used was naturally occurring.
The book uses video data of pilots recorded during actual scheduled domestic airline flights. I arranged with a leading regional airline in Australia, Skywest Airlines of Western Australia, and with another airline, to sit in the cockpit and film the pilots during scheduled passenger flights. The talk-in-interaction I recorded is naturally occurring in that it would have occurred had I not been sitting in the cockpit.
The pilots were not flying the planes and talking to each other in order for me to collect data. I was very fortunate to be able to collect this data. Naturally this wariness has increased since the terrorist attacks of September 11 Individual pilots also have their own personal concerns about being filmed in their workplace. Pilots at one airline told me of a colleague who had been demoted as a result of a picture taken by a visitor to the cockpit during one of his flights.
I wrote a detailed proposal outlining my aims, my methods, conditions under which I would collect and use the data, and possible findings and their implications for industry practice. Before approaching the airlines I developed my knowledge of the commercial aviation industry and its practices, including crew training and operating procedures, terminology, radio protocol, aircraft types, cockpit instrumentation and the functioning of aircraft systems, as well as issues of specific interest to the industry concerning safety and pilot performance.
I read numerous general texts on aviation and commercial aviation, official accident reports, airline general training and operations manuals cockpit procedures etc. I watched commercially available information videos on specific aircraft types, showing pilots at work during scheduled flights and in sessions in full mock-up cockpit simulators ITTV , ; B.
I attended a conference on aviation psychology papers published in Hayward and Lowe , and Lowe and Hayward , and I met with human factors research psychologists working with military flight crews, and with air accident investigators. In all I made eighteen flights to video flight crews. Twelve flights were made on the Fokker 50 aircraft, a seat twin propeller regional airliner.
These flights ranged in duration from thirty minutes to two and a half hours, but most were between one and one and a half hours. The other six flights were on Boeing aircraft, a twin engine jet airliner seating approximately passengers, and these flights lasted a little over an hour. From the jumpseat, I could easily see and film both the pilots31 and almost all the cockpit instrument panels. The Workplace as Social Interaction 23 C.
For example, I was not able to use multiple cameras or a tripod, and lighting proved to be a problem on two night flights, but I was at least fortunate that my participants never moved too far away. I filmed with an ordinary handheld video camera and I had access to a cockpit headset, assigned to the jumpseat, which allowed me to record everything the pilots could hear. Also, recordings were later dubbed onto audio tapes through sound filtering equipment to minimise the volume of aircraft engine noise, with some success. Other Data In addition to data I collected myself, I also use as data commercially produced cockpit videos of pilots at work on scheduled flights of European and American airlines.
One video was of a full flight eighty minutes B. I transcribed audio data for six takeoffs and ten landings, which varied in length from just one and a half minutes to around fourteen minutes. I also referred to transcriptions from cockpit voice recordings which were made subsequent to airline accidents and incidents and are included in reports by investigative bodies such as the American National Transportation Safety Board NTSB e.
BASI b, Stewart ; MacPherson ; Cushing ; Job , , These transcriptions often include the routine talk occurring prior to any abnormal situation developing on the flight and so they were helpful for general background and for supporting 32 Flights were of numerous aircraft types including the Boeing , and , the McDonnell Douglas DC, and the Airbus The transcription conventions used here are presented at the beginning of the book.
I made this choice because the highly specialist nature of the data already makes the transcriptions here difficult enough to follow and understand for those with no background in aviation. Jefferson , and Zimmerman a , for example, show what can be gained from aiming for greater phonetic detail in transcription, but among conversation analysts there is no universally agreed desired level of phonetic detail for transcriptions.
Rather, there is recognition that transcribing is part of the analysis process and that transcriptions will always reflect the purposes and directions of analysis. Transcriptions are always only ever representations of reality, not the reality itself, and these representations are valuable if they do the work analysts ask of them. The work required of the transcription examples presented in this book is to allow and make public analyses of cockpit talk-in-interaction. For confidentiality reasons I have changed details in transcriptions to conceal the identity of pilots, flights, and if possible airlines.
I have used fictitious names and genders for pilots. Whenever possible I have used generic terms for locations City, Town, Smalltown etc. Details in some examples may make it impossible to conceal the identity of the airline and in these cases I have changed the actual callsign to at least conceal the identity of individual flights. Video stills show as little identifying detail of individual pilots as possible. Transcribing Video Data: Representing Non-talk Activity My approach to transcribing video data is informed by other studies which seek to relate talk and non-talk activities of interaction, but these studies vary with respect to the level of detail by which talk and non-talk activities are represented, and how they relate to one another.
As with describing audio data only, transcribing video is part of the process of analysis and the detail provided in the transcription reflects the emerging directions and purposes of analysis. For cockpit talk-in-interaction it became analytically valuable to transcribe the beginning, duration, and ending of non-talk activities relative to talk, to other cockpit sounds, or to periods of no-talk. The transcriptions of cockpit talk-in-interaction needed to show precisely when a pilot pressed a button, moved a lever, looked at a printed chart, pointed to a display, and so on, and when the movement which actually initiated that activity began or ended.
I will use two segments of my own transcribed data to show some of the transcription issues to be dealt with, and the approach I have taken to them. So, line 1 shows that some I measure these times without talk using a handheld stopwatch. This method has its advantages and disadvantages, as any method does, but I found it to be acceptable for my purposes. A recent discussion of various methods for transcribing periods without talk can be found in ten Have A period without talk is not necessarily a silence. For example, there are aural alerts, such as buzzers, tones, or automated recorded voice warnings.
Other sounds include clicks when levers are moved, or sounds external to the cockpit such as the engines or movements of external surfaces of the aircraft, such as wing flaps or the landing gear. Line 3 shows how precisely to indicate when a sound occurs within a period of no-talk. Line 3 indicates a period of 3.
This 3. To the right of the 3. Between the 0 and 3. These arrows are joined by underlining to represent the duration of the buzzer i. Indicating these times is a very precise way to show how a period of no- talk is structured with respect to the sounds, other than talk, which occur. Also, a period without talk and is not necessarily a period in which the participants themselves are not doing anything interactionally significant, as the work of C. Goodwin, Kendon, and others has shown, and as Part II of this book explores in great detail.
Participants may be conducting non-talk activities, for example a hand movement, which are treated by the participants themselves as contributing to the interaction. So while a period without talk, itself, can be treated as significant by participants, it is also important to transcribe what participants do in the period to see how that period itself is structured with respect to interactionally significant actions. My concern is to indicate precisely when a non-talk activity occurs, that is, precisely when a non-talk activity begins and precisely when it ends.
I will use the segment above to show how I represent the timing of a non-talk activity relative to the flow of talk. They are represented between double brackets i. Where there is more than one non-talk activity for a line of talk or silence or other sound they are listed below one another in the order in which they began as do Ochs, Gonzales and Jacoby Lines of non-talk activity are numbered according to the line of talk with which they are concurrent, and also have a letter suffix. Perhaps such terms reveal the emphasis of some early CA work on telephone conversations.
Recalling the discussion above of approaches to transcription, there is no universally agreed method for labelling lines of transcription which describe non-talk activity. I have chosen the approach used here because it allows me to identify and easily refer to lines of non-talk activity, while also allowing me to present segments of data with or without non-talk activities included. The value of the latter will become apparent in Part II where my focus is the way in which talk and non-talk activities are coordinated. In Part II I discuss examples of data by first introducing and discussing a transcription with features of talk alone, and then discussing the transcription of the same segment of data but with non-talk activities included.
The approach used here allows the numbers of lines of talk to remain consistent across the two transcriptions of the same segment of data. I now turn to a different segment of data to show how it is also necessary to indicate precisely when a particular non-talk activity begins and ends, relative not to talk but to a period of no-talk.
The Line 1 shows that Line 1 shows that 0. She moves the index finger of her left hand to the right of AP button and she moves the other three fingers of her left hand down from the button and off the panel. This will be the focus of Part II. The Organisation of this Book The core of this book consists of three data analysis Parts, with each Part further divided into two chapters. The book ends with a Conclusion and Implications chapter. Parts I, II and III each briefly reviews some relevant literature, and then proceeds by presenting and analysing numerous transcribed segments of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction data.
These segments are drawn from a number of different flights, which were flown by different crews. My approach, in keeping with many ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies e. Jefferson , is to work through numerous data examples and in this way to slowly build a picture of this or that aspect of talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit.
That is, by working through many examples it becomes possible to see how some practice, something that pilots say or do, or something about how or when they say or do it, is important for accomplishing their work as airline pilots. By their very nature the data examples here are often very technical and include specialist aviation terms or expressions, or specialist aviation usages of familiar terms or expressions.
It would be practically impossible for me to explain every detail in every instance. Instead, in each example I give sufficient explanation to allow the reader to understand what is going on, and therefore to understand the aspect of talk-in-interaction that the example reveals. Such explanations are given prior to or during the analysis of the example, or sometimes in a footnote. I have also provided a Glossary of key aviation terms. In Part II, Chapters 4 and 5 take particular advantage of the video data to see how pilots coordinate their talk and non-talk activities. To conduct their flight pilots must perform tasks which involve talk and one or more non-talk activities, such as moving as lever, turning a dial, pressing a button, looking at a display.
Part II reveals the extraordinary precision with which pilots coordinate these non-talk activities with their talk, and explores the significance of this precise coordination for the conduct of their work as airline pilots. Part III, with Chapters 6 and 7, looks at how pilots integrate their talk within the cockpit, to each other, with their talk beyond the cockpit, to air traffic controllers. This Part shows how pilots come to relevant understandings about who has said what, who understands what, and what they are each supposed to do, through processes of talk-in- interaction as they fit together occasional interaction with participants beyond the cockpit with their ongoing interaction with one another within the cockpit.
Chapter 8 presents the Conclusion and Implications of the book. This chapter summarises the findings of the three data analysis Parts, and points to the value of studying processes of routine talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit for general understandings of talk-in-interaction, and for other relevant fields. It discusses possible specific implications of the findings for the commercial aviation industry and related research fields such as aviation human factors , and for accident investigation.
Kendon says the following about the demands of interaction upon an individual Kendon ; emphasis added. It is a sobering thought, for researchers and passengers alike, that airline pilots must necessarily simultaneously engage in the skilled performances of both interaction and piloting a plane. Just how they do so is the interest of this book. Chapter 2 Accomplishing Cockpit Identities: 1 Prescribed Pronominal Forms Introduction to Part I As part of their routine work to fly a plane airline pilots must work together as a team, a flight crew, to successfully perform the activities of numerous tasks, and develop necessary shared and individual understandings as their flight progresses.
To this end pilots occupy and act according to a limited range of recognised professional identities, each identity aligned to certain duties and responsibilities. The work of personal pronouns is shown to be not limited to anaphora or simple social deixis e. This Part explores how, in the setting of the modern airline cockpit, personal pronouns are a socially deployable resource for pilots to invoke relevant identities as they work together to fly a plane.
Each pilot will always have two formal identities. As the senior ranking pilot the Captain is always the pilot with ultimate command on the flight, regardless of which pilot is the PF, and the Captain has primary responsibility for the conduct and welfare of the flight. This familiarity allows each pilot to better understand what the other pilot is doing at any one time, and understand what the other pilot might do at some future time.
Such familiarity also allows each pilot to understand what the other pilot is attending to, and knows about the flight, moment-to-moment. Also, each pilot knows what the other pilot is supposed to do and know. This chapter looks at one way this familiarity or knowledge of identities is created, displayed and drawn upon. Through their pronominal choices pilots develop and demonstrate to one another their evolving understandings of these cockpit identities, from the engine start up and takeoff through to the landing and engine shut down. Pronominal choices indicate which identity pilots are occupying, at any given moment, in a setting where more than one identity may be available and legitimate.
Pronominal choices help to allow pilots to make visible and be accountable for their moment-to-moment understanding of the identities they each occupy. Prescribed Pronominal Forms 35 Traditional Accounts of Personal Pronouns Traditional accounts of English grammar tell us that pronouns substitute or stand in for noun phrases e. Quirk and Greenbaum ; Bernard ; Eagleson et al.
Typically, such accounts display the various personal pronouns in a table in which they may be arranged according to person, number, gender and case. Even proponents of functional grammar, interested in the study of language as a social phenomenon, have discussed personal pronouns primarily in terms of textual reference and cohesion Halliday ; Halliday and Hasan Brown and Gilman , and later others within sociology including Friedrich , Elias and Errington , began to link the use of pronominal forms to wider social categories and structures.
A Different View of Personal Pronouns In naturally occurring talk-in-interaction pronouns do not behave just as the grammar books tell them to, and they are not merely substitutes for nouns Sacks , V Throughout his lectures, Sacks , and especially V1 frequently comments on personal pronouns. This opens the possibility that specific patterns and expectations of pronominal choice may develop over time linked to relevant organisational identities. Schenkein a; Duranti ; M.
Other studies consider the strategic use of pronouns towards particular social or pragmatic ends, for example being polite Koike , recounting experiences Kitagawa and Lehrer , establishing an addressed recipient Lerner a , and mitigation Haverkate Personal pronouns come out of hiding in neat grammatical tables and into discourse, social situations, social structures and social change. Personal pronouns might substitute for, and refer backwards and forwards to, noun phrases, but they also contribute creatively to the nature of the speech situation itself by defining the characteristics and identities of the individuals involved and their relationships to one another.
Pronominal choices in naturally occurring talk-in-interaction are inseparable from the selves, identities, group memberships, and identities participants adopt for themselves and ascribe to others. Pronominal choices allow participants to establish how they are related to one another within the interaction. The indexicality of talk, its unalterable connectedness to a particular situation, is played out in pronoun choices which create alignments between talkers and their topics and their hearers that must be attended to in order that conversation continue.
Footings shift continuously in a seamless display of close attention to the sequential production of meaning, and in so doing demonstrate that interactants are attuned to the moment, to fulfilling their involvement obligations. In talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit, pronominal choices allow pilots to invoke and make salient, for self or other, relevant cockpit identities.
Prescribed Pronominal Forms In the remainder of this chapter I look at examples of personal pronouns which occur as part of wordings which are officially prescribed for pilots. Recall that examples are drawn from a number of different flights, which were flown by different crews. There is also a Glossary of key aviation terms. Some pronominal forms are prescribed for the pilots, or scripted, as part of wordings which the pilots are required to use as they perform particular tasks. These wordings are given in operations manuals and company policies which the pilots are required to follow as professionals employed by their airline.
Operations manuals and company policies specify, for many aspects of the flight, exactly what the pilots are meant to say to each other, and when they are to say it. Such manuals and company policies, with the wordings which the pilots are required to use, must be approved by the appropriate aviation authority as part of the process for an airline to be granted a license to operate.
How do pronouns, as part of prescribed wordings, emerge in the flow of naturally occurring cockpit talk-in-interaction? What do these prescribed pronouns look like when they are not part of a script on a printed page, but become talk produced by pilots on a flight?
The following two examples occur as different crews prepare their flights for takeoff. The pilots brief each other with critical information for their conduct of the takeoff, including particular instrument settings which will be used. Waypoint2 zero seven five 7 to Waypoint3 0.
Reading out these details is something the Captain is required to do, as the PNF on this flight, and as I have described above it is part of a process whereby the pilots brief one another to ensure they share an understanding of how the takeoff will proceed. There is then 3.
After 1. Lerner a. For these pilots, the second person form unambiguously assigns the identity of PF to the FO. Through their use of prescribed pronouns, as they brief each other for the takeoff, the pilots make salient and become publicly accountable for their understanding of who is PF and who is PNF, that is, who is the pilot in control of the flight and therefore most immediately in control of the takeoff.
- CARM Affiliates.
- The Artificial Kidney: Physiological Modeling and Tissue Engineering (Tissue Engineering Intelligence Unit 3)?
- A Basic Guide for Valuing a Company.
- On Development.
- Grounds for Murder?
The pronouns signal that this control is distributed rather than shared. Pronouns also occur in prescribed wording assigning responsibility for the use of specific controls in the cockpit to perform specific non-talk activities. Again, such wordings are formally prescribed for the pilots in operating procedures. However, we can still consider their significance as the pilots develop and demonstrate to each other their understandings of what is going on, of who is doing what and in what identity, at a particular point in their conduct of the flight. Prescribed Pronominal Forms 41 How do pronouns, as part of prescribed wordings, enable relevant non-talk activity in the cockpit?
Use of particular cockpit controls may be accompanied by prescribed wording, including pronoun choice. The following examples show pilots talking as they use the power levers for controlling engine power and the control yoke. There is then an exchange of turns about the power levers lines It is the FO, as the PF on this flight, who has the responsibility, now, to use the power levers.
Beyond The Black Boxes: What Investigators Look For To Unravel The Causes Of Airplane Crashes
Unlike the power levers, of which there is just one pair located between the pilots and within easy reach of both, there is a control yoke on each side of the cockpit, one for each pilot. In this sense a control yoke can be thought of as roughly equivalent to the steering wheel of a car. Like a steering wheel, a control yoke is placed in front of each pilot and is generally manipulated by two hands. According to formal operating procedures, only one pilot, the pilot in the identity of PF, is to make inputs to the plane via the control yoke. That is, only one of the two yokes is active on any flight.
The Captain is the PF. Again, the wording is prescribed for the pilots in formal operating procedures. The pronominal forms signal that control of the yoke is not shared but is distributed according to the individual identities of PF and PNF. That is, the identities of PF and PNF are the salient ones with respect to the activity of controlling the yoke.
A shared understanding of this, and specifically who is in control this time around, is something to which both pilots explicitly contribute through a turn at talk in a scripted sequence during the takeoff. Again it is the Captain, and PF, who initiates the sequence: 1 The talk which initiates the exchange of turns about control of the yoke does not claim to take control, but rather relinquishes control.
This chapter has introduced the idea that a traditional grammatical unit, personal pronouns, can also been seen in interactional terms. That is, personal pronouns can be seen as significant in terms of the interactional work they do, the part they play as participants make and interpret contributions to interaction. The chapter has considered a handful of examples where the pronouns which are used are prescribed for pilots.
These pronouns are included in formal wordings for procedures that the pilots must follow to perform tasks to fly their plane. The next chapter considers non-prescribed personal pronoun forms which are not part of any formal wordings the pilots must follow. These include personal pronouns which occur as embellishments of formal wordings. These wordings are prescribed for pilots in manuals of operating procedures and company policies.
In the data there are also numerous instances of pilots using pronominal forms which are not officially prescribed for them. That is, by choosing from the possible pronominal forms pilots are able to choose to adopt for themselves, or assign to another, one of the possible cockpit identities. This chapter considers such non- prescribed pronominal forms. Indeed a plural form may be understood to refer to the flight itself as the relevant identity. What is important is that a plural form is chosen, and that therefore the pilot chooses not to make salient one of the possible individual identities.
The choice of such a pronoun presents some action, or hearing, or understanding etc. External Participants: Talk beyond the Cockpit For the conduct of any flight the pilots must talk with participants external to the cockpit. In examples of such talk we will see that the pilots use first person plural forms to invoke the identity of crew member. Pilots talk to external participants via a microphone attached to the headsets which pilots wear, or if the pilots are not wearing their headsets for example during cruise flight via a hand-held microphone.
In either case any talk by one pilot to an external participant is also potentially hearable by the other pilot. The focus line is marked by an arrow.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
The Captain alone will actually move the power levers, but starting the engines is something that occupies the attention of both pilots and in which both pilots participate. If anything is amiss both pilots are responsible for bringing this to the attention of the other, and both pilots are involved in sorting out the problem. The crew identity may be made salient when the pilots speak over the radio during the flight. As I mentioned above, by invoking the crew identity, rather than one of the available individual identities, a pilot can be heard to speak on behalf of both pilots, indeed on behalf of the flight itself.
The handler is not concerned with which individual pilot will start the engines, but that the crew of a particular plane will start the engines, that the engines of a particular plane will be started. One airline with whom I flew to collect data flies to some remote towns, and throughout any flight the PNF makes a number of general or open radio broadcasts which are directed to any aircraft tuned to that radio frequency. These broadcasts are most commonly made at points in the flight when the plane is in areas where the potential for other air traffic is higher, that is, prior to takeoff, during the initial climb, beginning the descent, during the approach, and just after landing.
The purpose of the broadcasts is to make other air traffic, and air traffic controllers, aware of the present location and future movement of the plane. According to the air traffic control conditions under which the pilots are flying, the pilots are legally responsible for ensuring their aircraft remain a certain distance from one another. In short, the pilots do not speak as one individual to another, but as one flight to another.