Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T19:35:30.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Action in time: Ensuring timeliness for collaborative work in the airline cockpit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2007

MAURICE NEVILE
MAURICE NEVILE
Affiliation:
School of Languages and International Studies<,> Division of Communication and Education<,> University of Canberra<,> ACT 2601 Australia<,> maurice.nevile@canberra.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the airline cockpit it is critical to say and do things at the appropriate time and in the appropriate order. When a pilot is responsible for initiating a next action but has not yet done so, the pilot not responsible can prompt or perform the action with talk that is prefaced with and. Rather than make conspicuous another's possible lapse, and-prefaced talk presents the not-yet-initiated action as timely and merely occurring routinely next in sequence. And occurs in talk for monitoring another's conduct and for maintaining accountability in the temporal organization of work by situating actions acceptably in time. This article points to the value of seeing grammatical forms as consequential for just how work gets done in particular settings, and especially for identifying local means of creating order for agenda-based activities. The article analyzes transcriptions of pilots interacting in the cockpit on actual scheduled passenger flights.

Keywords

andaviationcollaborative workconversation analysisethnomethodologyinstitutional interactionrepairsequential organizationtemporal organization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 233 - 257
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antaki, Charles, & Widdicombe, Sue (eds.) (1998). Identities in talk. London: Sage.
Auer, Peter; Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth; & Mueller, Frank (1999). Language in time: The rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arminen, Ilkka (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
BASI (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, Australia) (1996). Boeing 747-312 VH-INH, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, New South Wales, 19 October 1994. Investigation Report 9403038. Department of Transport and Regional Development, Canberra, Australia.
Button, Graham (ed.) (1993). Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology. London: Routledge.
Button, Graham, & Lee, John R.E. (eds.) (1987). Talk and social organization. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Button, Graham, & Sharrock, Wes (1998). The organizational accountability of technological work. Social Studies of Science 28:73–102.Google Scholar
Chaiklin, Seth, & Lave, Jean (eds.) (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Collett, Peter (1989). Time and action. In D. Roger & P. Bull (eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective, 218–37. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Drew, Paul, & Heritage, John (eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, Alessandro (2003). Language as culture in U.S. anthropology: Three paradigms. Current Anthropology 44:323–47.Google Scholar
Engeström, Yrjo, & Middleton, David (eds.) (1996). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ford, Cecelia; Fox, Barbara; & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.) (2002). The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FSF (Flight Safety Foundation) (1996). Two engines separate from the right wing and result in loss of control and crash of Boeing 747 freighter. Accident Prevention 53(1):1–8. January.Google Scholar
FSF (Flight Safety Foundation) (1997). Flight crew's failure to perform landing checklist results in DC-9 wheels-up landing. Accident Prevention 54(5):1–15.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold (2002). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. A.W. Rawls (ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Goffman, Erving (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. London: Allen Lane/Penguin.
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96:606–33.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science 25:237–74.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1996). Transparent vision. In Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson (eds.), 370–404.CrossRef
Goodwin, Charles (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology 43, Special Issue on Repertoires of Timekeeping in Anthropology:S19–S35.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1996). Seeing as a situated activity: formulating planes. In Engeström &Middleton (eds.), 61–95.CrossRef
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1996). Informings and announcements in their environment: prosody within a multi-activity work setting. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margaret Selting (eds.) Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 436–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Heath, Christian, & Luff, Paul (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Heath, Christian, & Nicholls, G. (1997). Animated texts: Selective renditions of news stories. In Resnick et al. (eds.), 63–86.CrossRef
Helmreich, Robert L. (1994). Anatomy of a system accident: The crash of Avianca Flight 052. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 4:265–84.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry, Language in Society 27:291–334.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, Fox, & Thompson (eds.), 196–224.
Heritage, John, & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23:1–29.Google Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin, & Klausen, Tove (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Engeström &Middleton (eds.), 15–34.CrossRef
Hutchins, Edwin, & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In Resnick et al. (eds.), 23–40.CrossRef
Jacoby, Sally, & Gonzales, Patrick (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2:149–81.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Sally, & Gonzales, Patrick (2002). Saying what wasn't said: Negative observation as a linguistic resource for the interactional achievement of performance feedback. In Ford, Fox, & Thompson (eds.), 123–64.
Jefferson, Gail (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2:181–99.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In Button &Lee (eds.), 86–100.
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Keating, E. (1993). Correction/repair as a resource for co-construction of group competence. Pragmatics 3:411–23.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Lerner, Gene H. (2004). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37:151–84.Google Scholar
Local, J. (2004). Getting back to prior talk: and-uh(m) as a back connecting device. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Cecelia Ford (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies of phonetics and prosody for conversation, 377–400. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Luff, Paul, & Heath, Christian (1993). System use and social organisation: Observations on human-computer interaction in an architectural practice. In G. Button (ed.), 184–210.
Luff, Paul (2002). Broadcast talk: Initiating calls through a computer-mediated technology. Research on Language and Social Interaction 35:337–66.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael; Livingston, Eric; & Garfinkel, Harold (1990 [1983]). Temporal order in laboratory work. In J. Coulter (ed.), Ethnomethodological sociology, 416–49. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
Macbeth, Douglas (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society 33:703–36.Google Scholar
McHoul, Alec (2005). Aspects of Aspects: On Harvey Sacks's “missing” book, Aspects of the sequential organization of conversation (1970). Human Studies 28:113–28.Google Scholar
McHoul, Alec, & Rapley, Mark (eds.) (2001). How to analyse talk in institutional settings: A casebook of methods. London: Continuum.
Mazeland, Harrie, & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: its use as a resumption marker. In Selting &Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), 141–69.CrossRef
Mondada, Lorenza (2003). Working with video: How surgeons produce video records of their tasks. Visual Studies 18:58–73.Google Scholar
Murphy, Keith M. (2005). Collaborative imagining: the interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica 156:113–45.Google Scholar
Murray, S.R. (1997). Deliberate decision making by aircraft pilots: A simple reminder to avoid decision making under panic. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 7:83–100.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice (2001). Understanding who's who in the airline cockpit: Pilots' pronominal choices and cockpit roles. In McHoul &Rapley (eds.), 57–71.
Nevile, Maurice (2004a). Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Nevile, Maurice (2004b). Integrity in the airline cockpit: Embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37:447–80.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice (2005a). ‘Checklist complete.’ Or is it? Closing a task in the airline cockpit. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 28(2):60–76.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice (2005b). You always have to land: Accomplishing the sequential organization of actions to land an airliner. In S. Norris & R. Jones (eds.), Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis, 32–44. London & New York: Routledge.
Nevile, Maurice (2006). Making sequentiality salient: And-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies 8:279–302.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice (in press). Talking without overlap in the airline cockpit: Precision timing at work. Text and Talk.
Nevile, Maurice, & Walker, Michael B. (2005). A context for error: Using conversation analysis to represent and analyse recorded voice data. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 5(2):109–35.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, & Jacoby, Sally (1997). Down to the wire: The cultural clock of physicists and the discourse of consensus. Language in Society 26:479–505.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 152–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, Anne W. (2002). Introduction. In Harold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Raymond, Geoffrey (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37:185–218.Google Scholar
Resnick, L.B.; Säljö, R.; Pontecorvo, C.; & Burge, B. (eds.) (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Richards, Keith, & Seedhouse, Paul (eds.) (2004). Applying conversation analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation. Gail Jefferson (ed.). 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn-taking organisation. In Button &Lee (eds.), 70–85.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In Eduard H. Hovy & Donia R. Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues – an interdisciplinary account, 3–38. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23:499–545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21:205–43.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson, Gail; & Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53:361–82.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Ochs, Elinor; & Thompson, Sandra A. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson (eds.), 1–51.CrossRef
Schiffrin, Deborah (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10:41–66.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Selting, Margaret, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.) (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Sköries, Ulrike (1998). Features of a blame type using and: An analysis of an example. Journal of Pragmatics 30:49–58.Google Scholar
Suchman, Lucy (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, Lucy (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In Resnick et al. (eds.), 41–62.CrossRef
Szymanski, Margaret, H. (1999). Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language in Society 28:1–23.Google Scholar
ten Have, Paul (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Turk, Monica J. (2004). Using and in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37:219–50.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3:447–56.Google Scholar