1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 28, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

For airline pilots, the call of ‘checklist complete’ is officially prescribed talk to claim that the crew’s joint conduct of a checklist is over, and the task can be understood as closed. However, very often this call is not the final talk for the task. This paper uses naturally occurring data, transcriptions of pilots interacting on actual passenger flights, to show that the recipient pilot commonly says something in response. That pilot might say or These two non-official responses do interactional work. They allow the other pilot to know that the call of ‘checklist complete’ was itself heard, and that there is now a shared crew understanding that the checklist is closed. Such an understanding is critical in the airline cockpit where it is crucial to perform tasks in strict sequential order. and are evidence of pilots’ orientation to their work as a progression through a series of tasks, and where there is value in making salient that one task is closed and it is legitimate to move to a next task. The paper examines how officially scripted talk for work is actually realised in situ.

© 2005 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.28.2.05nev
2005-01-01
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aral.28.2.05nev
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antaki, C.
    (2002) “Lovely”: turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies, (4), 5–23. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040010101
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040010101 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arminen, I.
    (2001) Closing of turns in the meetings of alcoholics anonymous: members’ methods for closing ’sharing experiences’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 211–51. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34‑2_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2005) Institutional interaction: studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aston, G.
    (1995) Say ‘thank you’: some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 57–85. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.1.57
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  5. BASI (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation)
    BASI (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation) (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.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Beach, W.A.
    (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Button, G.
    (1987) Moving out of closings. In G. Button & J.R.E Lee (Eds.) Talk and social organization (pp.101–151). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1990) On varieties of closings. In G. Psathas (Ed.) Interactional competence (pp.93–147). Washington: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Condon, S.
    (2001) Discourse ok revisited: default organization in verbal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 491–513. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00039‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00039-4 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cushing, S.
    (1994) Fatal words: communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Döpke, S. , Brown, A. , Liddicoat, A. , & Love, K.
    (1994) Closings in talkback radio: institutional effects on conversational routines. In R. Gardner (Ed.) Spoken interaction studies in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, SeriesS, 11, 21–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew, P. & Heritage, J.
    (Eds.) (1992) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FSF (Flight Safety Foundation)
    FSF (Flight Safety Foundation) (1997) Flight crew’s failure to perform landing checklist results in DC-9 wheels-up landing. Accident Prevention, 54 (5), May, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, J.A.
    (2004) The amplitude shift mechanism in conversational closing sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation (pp.257–297). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.13gol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.13gol [Google Scholar]
  15. Guthrie, A.
    (1997) On the systematic employment of okay and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415. doi: 10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut [Google Scholar]
  16. Hazlehurst, B.
    (2003) The cockpit as multiple activity system: a computational model for understanding situated team performance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13 (1), 1–22. doi: 10.1207/S15327108IJAP1301_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1301_1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heath, C. & Luff, P.
    (2000) Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489839
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489839 [Google Scholar]
  18. Helmreich, R.L.
    (1994) Anatomy of a system accident: the crash of Avianca flight 052. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4 (3), 265–284. doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap0403_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0403_4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopkins, A.
    (2005) Safety, culture and risk: the organisational causes of disasters. Sydney: CCH Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hutchins, E. & Klausen, T.
    (1996) Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.) Cognition and communication at work (pp.15–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174077.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174077.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hutchins, E. & Palen, L.
    (1997) Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L.B. Resnick , R. Säljö , C. Pontecorvo , & B. Burge (Eds.) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: essays on situated cognition (pp.23–40). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03362‑3_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. LeBaron, C. & Jones, S.
    (2002) Closing up closings: showing the relevance of the social and material surround to the completion of an interaction. Journal of Communication, 52 (3), 542–565. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02561.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02561.x [Google Scholar]
  23. McHoul, A. & Rapley, M.
    (Eds.) (2001) How to analyse talk in institutional settings: a casebook of methods. London: Continuum International.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mjøs, K.
    (2001) Communication and operational failures in the cockpit. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 1 (4), 323–340.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mondada, L.
    (2003) Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their tasks. Visual Studies, 18 (1), 58–73. doi: 10.1080/1472586032000100083
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586032000100083 [Google Scholar]
  26. Nevile, M.
    (2001) Understanding who’s who in the airline cockpit: pilots’ pronominal choices and cockpit roles. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.) How to analyse talk in institutional settings: a casebook of methods (pp.57–71). London: Continuum International.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2004a) Beyond the black box: talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2004b) Integrity in the airline cockpit: embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37 (4), 447–480. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2005) 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 (pp.32–45). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (in press). Making sequentiality salient: and-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies, 8 (2).
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nevile, M. & Walker, M.B.
    (2005) A context for error: using conversation analysis to represent and analyse recorded voice data. Aviation Research Report, B2005/0108. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Department of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra. Available viawww.atsb.gov.au
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rendle-Short, J.
    (1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), 19–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8 (4), 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  34. Stivers, T. & Heritage, J.
    (2001) Breaking the sequential mold: answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text, 21 (1/2), 151–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Taggart, W.R.
    (1994) Crew resource management: achieving enhanced flight operations. In N. Johnston , N. McDonald , & R. Fuller (Eds.) Aviation psychology in practice (pp.309–338). Aldershot: Avebury.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ten Have, P.
    (1999) Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.28.2.05nev
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error