Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6740
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9935
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Individuals who share knowledge of past events may encounter different practical problems when engaging in the co-telling of those events. Drawing upon conversation analysis, this article investigates how co-tellers manage interpolated opportunities to initiate other-repair in collaborative storytelling. The analysis focuses on the placement of different repair operations on the story-in-progress and shows that co-tellers monitor the progressivity of the storytelling activity to identify proper places to initiate repair. Repairs that are initiated out of place can be oriented to as inappropriate and require more interactional work from participants. When tellers project the continuation of the story beyond a proper place, co-tellers display urgency for halting the story’s current trajectory, which shows their orientation to this moment as a last opportunity to initiate repair. This last possible point to repair the story-in-progress is what I call a “now or never” moment. Data stem from video-recorded collaboratively told stories in Spanish.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Cantarutti, M.
    (2020) The Multimodal and Sequential Design of Co-Animation as a Practice for Association in English Interaction. University of York.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clift, R.
    (2016) Conversation Analysis (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/9781139022767
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022767 [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T.
    (2007) ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 17(4), 513–552.   10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2017) A “Big Package”: Storytelling. InInteractional linguistics: Study language in social interaction (p. Online-Chapter D). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139507318
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318 [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A.
    (2005) A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive repair.’ InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in Discourse and Grammar (Vol.171, pp. 257–288). John Benjamins Publishing Company.   10.1075/sidag.17.14cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.14cou [Google Scholar]
  6. De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S.
    (2008) Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics, 18(3), 381–406.   10.1075/prag.18.3.02ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.3.02ste [Google Scholar]
  7. (2018) Mundane talk at work: Multiactivity in interactions between professionals and their clientele. Discourse Studies, 20(2), 221–245.   10.1177/1461445617734935
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734935 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dingemanse, M.
    (2020) Between Sound and Speech: Liminal Signs in Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 188–196.   10.1080/08351813.2020.1712967
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712967 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dressel, D.
    (2020) Multimodal word searches in collaborative storytelling: On the local mobilization and negotiation of coparticipation. Journal of Pragmatics, 1701, 37–54.   10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dressel, D., & Satti, I.
    (2021) Embodied Coparticipation Practices in Collaborative Storytelling. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion (ISSN 1617–1837), 221, 54–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ehmer, O., Satti, I., Martínez, A., & Pfänder, S.
    (2019) Un sistema para transcribir el habla en la interacción: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion (ISSN 1617–1837), 201, 64–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fox, B., & Heinemann, T.
    (2019) Telescoping responses to requests: Unpacking progressivity. Discourse Studies, 21(1), 38–66.   10.1177/1461445618814029
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618814029 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, C.
    (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1984) Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. InJ. M. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of Social Action (1st ed., pp. 225–246). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Günthner, S.
    (2000) Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion: Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110919974
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919974 [Google Scholar]
  16. Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M.
    (Eds.) (2014) Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.187
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, J.
    (2007) Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. InN. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction (pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jefferson, G.
    (1972) Side sequences. InD. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1978) Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. InJ. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 219–248). Elsevier.   10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kamunen, A.
    (2018) Open Hand Prone as a resource in multimodal claims to interruption: Stopping a co-participant’s turn-at-talk. Gesture, 17(2), 291–321.   10.1075/gest.17002.kam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.17002.kam [Google Scholar]
  21. Keevallik, L.
    (2012) Compromising progressivity: ‘No’-prefacing in Estonian. Pragmatics, 22(1), 119–146.   10.1075/prag.22.1.05kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22.1.05kee [Google Scholar]
  22. Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P.
    (2014) Suspending action. From simultaneous to consecutive ordering of multiple courses of action. InP. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 109–133). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.187.04kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.04kei [Google Scholar]
  23. Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J.
    (2017) Gaze Direction Signals Response Preference in Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120 [Google Scholar]
  24. König, K., & Oloff, F.
    (2018) Die Multimodalität alltagspraktischen Erzählens. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 48(2), 277–307. 10.1007/s41244‑018‑0093‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41244-018-0093-7 [Google Scholar]
  25. Labov, W.
    (1972) The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. InLanguage in the Inner City. Studies in the Black English Vernacular (pp. 354–396). University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, G. H.
    (1992) Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(3), 247–271.   10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1993) Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13(2), 213–245.   10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mandelbaum, J.
    (1987) Couples sharing stories. Communication Quarterly, 35(2), 144–170.   10.1080/01463378709369678
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378709369678 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2013) Storytelling in Conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 492–507). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.   10.1002/9781118325001.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M.
    (2001) Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. InM. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Discourse and Grammar (Vol.101, p.141). John Benjamins Publishing Company.   10.1075/sidag.10.08maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondada, L. [Google Scholar]
  32. (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225.   10.1177/1461445607075346
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2014) The temporal orders of multiactivity. Operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. InP. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 34–75). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.187.02mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.02mon [Google Scholar]
  34. (2018) Questions on the move: The ecology of question-answer sequences in mobility settings. InA. Deppermann & J. Streeck (Eds.), Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (Vol.2931, pp. 161–202). John Benjamins Publishing Company.   10.1075/pbns.293.05mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.05mon [Google Scholar]
  35. Norrick, N. R.
    (2004) Humor, tellability, and conarration in conversational storytelling. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 24(1), 79–111.   10.1515/text.2004.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ochs, E., Smith, R., & Taylor, C.
    (1989) Detective Stories At Dinnertime: Problem-Solving Through Co-Narration. Cultural Dynamics, 2(2), 238–257.   10.1177/092137408900200206
    https://doi.org/10.1177/092137408900200206 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ogden, R.
    (2006) Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1752–1775.   10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
    (2013) Preference. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.   10.1002/9781118325001.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  39. Quasthoff, U. M.
    (2001) Erzählen als interaktive Gesprächsstruktur. InK. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Eds.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp. 1293–1309). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110169188.2.18.1293
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110169188.2.18.1293 [Google Scholar]
  40. Raymond, C. W.
    (2016) Intersubjectivity, Progressivity, and Accountability: Studies in Turn Design. University of California Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2018) Bueno-, pues-, and bueno-pues-prefacing in Spanish conversation. InJ. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (Vol.311, pp. 59–96). John Benjamins Publishing Company.   10.1075/slsi.31.03ray
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.03ray [Google Scholar]
  42. (2019) Intersubjectivity, Normativity, and Grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(2), 182–204.   10.1177/0190272519850781
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519850781 [Google Scholar]
  43. Robinson, J. D.
    (2013) Overall Structural Organization. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 257–280). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.   10.1002/9781118325001.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, H.
    (1995 [1971]) Lecture 4. Spouse talk. InLectures on Conversation (Vol.21, pp. 337–443). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.   10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sacks, H.
    (1974) An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation. InR. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9780511611810.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611810.022 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1987) On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. InJ. R. E. L. Graham Button (Ed.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Wiley-Blackwell.   10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1992) Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.   10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2000) When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205–243.   10.1093/applin/21.2.205
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.   10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.   10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  54. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D.,
    (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion (ISSN 1617–1837), 101, 353–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Stivers, T.
    (2004) “No no no” and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293.   10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  56. (2008) Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.   10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D.
    (2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(03), 367–392.   10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.   10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van De Mieroop, D.
    (2021) The Narrative Dimensions Model and an exploration of various narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 31(1), 4–27.   10.1075/ni.19069.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.19069.van [Google Scholar]
  60. Young, K. G.
    (1987) Joint Storytelling: Discourse and Interaction. InK. G. Young, Taleworlds and Storyrealms (Vol.161, pp. 157–185). Springer Netherlands.   10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3511‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3511-2_5 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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