Exploring troubles

Exploring troubles is a move present in almost all troubles talk episodes. Team members try to pin-point the trouble and then inquire and elaborate on its different facets or aspects. Team members ask for clarification or elaboration or prompt further explanations with their own contributions. With this they give their team members the space to expand on the trouble and aid in constructing it. The following example illustrates the forms this exploration takes and the importance it has for troubles narration:

5.4-3 P3_M2_E4: The team is discussing an exam they have written recently 437 Bruno: I/ I answered all three questions by the way 438 Bev: ↑WHY?↑

439 Bruno: Because I’m/ because I didn’t read through the 440 Jay: Yeah/ he answered all three hhhh

441 Bev: Oh my::.

442 Bruno: All three questions 443 Alden: hhhh

444 Akshya: You had time for that? 445 Bev: Yeah?

446 ((laughter))

447 David: hhh no one had time for that.

448 Bruno: Not at all/ that’s why I answered each question just writing s:o much

449 Alden: You know last time/ I asked Bruno “which question you answer”/ Bruno shocked

450 Bruno: I was shocked exactly/ When he a:sked me “which question did you answer?” I thought/ “what the hell? What he’s asking me?” 451 ((laughter))

452 Bruno: And he said ”yeah, you have to answer just one question”/ I said “n::::o”

97

This extract is part of a longer troubles talk episode. At the beginning of the episode most team members agree that they have failed at least one exam. This paves the way for Bruno to tell his team about his personal trouble with the exam which will probably result in him actually having to re-take it (unlike the others). He starts with a short self-disclosure only stating “I answered all three questions by the way” (line 437), which is followed by a brief pause. While Bev answers with a surprised “WHY?” (line 438) fairly quickly, she is not interrupting Bruno in his explanations. It seems Bruno is actually done with his utterance and is not attempting to elaborate further. Since personal troubles are rarely shared, it seems that he is leaving it up to the team to pursue this topic further, thus respecting their association rights. Bev’s answer, however, signals interest in the story and asks for more information, prompting Bruno to explain that he did not read the brief properly (line 439), which seems to be a crucial part of the story in order to understand what happened. However, it seems that we maybe would not have learnt this had Bev not prompted Bruno to continue. During the next few turns team members alternatingly provide their take on the situation and inquire further. Jay confirms and repeats the story but laughs at the end, suggesting they treat the incident with humour, something Bruno could have contested but does not, which permits a humorous treatment of the incident for the others. Bev at the same time (line 441) states “oh my::.” suggesting that she attributes a certain amount of gravity to the situation and commiserates with Bruno. While neither Jay nor Bev at this point produces a question, their utterances nonetheless explore different facets of the trouble and probe which take on it is deemed appropriate. Humorous and serious treatment both belong to the stylistic domain. While Bev’s utterance provides a recognition of the gravity and is thus affiliative, it is Jay’s more humorous utterance that is adopted by the team. Here it seems to function mostly in mitigating the threat this incident poses for Bruno’s face. Making it a laughing matter essentially establishes it as “not too bad” and “something that could have happened to any of them”.

Next Akshya adds “you had time for that?” (line 444) directly inquiring for a continuation of the story. Her question initially only prompts loud laughter in the group, with which its slightly ludicrous nature seems to be emphasised and ultimately David responds “no one had time for that” (line 447). Bruno then explains “Not at all. That’s why I answered each question just writing s:o much” (line 448). This ultimately prompts Alden to share his take on the situation as Bruno only realised his mistake in a conversation with Alden, which the two then narrate together.

Overall the questions in this example seem less focused on eliciting a specific piece of information but seem more targeted at helping to elicit the story by signalling interest and by directly allocating turns and with that interactional space to Bruno. The same is true for the other utterances which highlight specific aspects or nuances or add individual takes on the situation. While this is one of the few instances where somebody is sharing a personal trouble, nonetheless that person is not developing a full narrative but still co-constructs it with the team that knows enough of the context to be able to add specific cues to it, constructing it at the same time as a grave but hilarious mistake and with that as completely forgivable. In this

98

example we can see again a shared use of the floor by all team members. This time team members purposefully create space for Bruno’s troubles which suggests again a rapport enhancing management of the participatory domain. In this case the turn taking is less fast- paced than in the previous example, generating a more harmonious and attentive mood. Team members jointly commiserate but also laugh at the troubles after this seems to be established as an appropriate response.