Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion (ISSN 1617-1837) Ausgabe 19 (2018), Seite 1-131 (www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de) Overtaking as an interactional achievement : video analyses of participants' practices in traffic Arnulf Deppermann / Eric Laurier / Lorenza Mondada With contributions from: Mathias Broth / Jakob Cromdal / Elwys De Stefani / Pentti Haddington Lena Levin / Maurice Nevile / Mirka Rauniomaa Abstract In this article we pursue a systematic and extensive study of overtaking in traffic as an interactional event. Our focus is on the accountable organisation and accomplishment of overtaking by road users in real-world traffic situations. Data and analysis are drawn from multiple research groups studying driving from an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective. Building on multimodal and sequential analyses of video recordings of overtaking events, the article describes the shared practices which overtakers and overtaken parties use in displaying, recognising and coordinating their manoeuvres. It examines the three sequential phases of an overtaking event: preparation and projection; the overtaking proper; the realignment post-phase including retrospective accounts and assessments. We identify how during each of these phases drivers and passengers organise intra-vehicle and inter-vehicle practices: driving and non-driving related talk between vehicleoccupants, the emerging spatiotemporal ecology of the road, and the driving actions of other road users. The data is derived from a two camera set-up recording the road ahead and car interior. The recordings are from three settings: daily commuting, driving lessons, race-car coaching. The events occur on a variety of road types (motorways, country roads, city streets, a race track, etc.), in six languages (English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, and Swedish) and in seven countries (Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK). From an exceptionally diverse collection of video data, the study of which is made possible thanks to the innovative collaboration of multiple researchers, the article exhibits the range of practical challenges and communicative skills involved in overtaking. Keywords: conversation analysis – ethnomethodology – multimodality – driving – traffic – mobility – overtaking – coordination – driving lessons – car racing. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Automobility and overtaking – state of the art 1.1.1 EMCA studies of mobility and driving 1.1.2 Why is overtaking a relevant object of study for social sciences? 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 Overtaking – the phenomenon Typical overtaking from the perspective of the overtaker Typical overtaking from the perspective of the overtaken The dimensions of overtaking as a car in traffic 1.3. 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 Methodology and Data Presentation of the data set Methodological issues: issues in video recording driving Presentation of the transcription system 1.4. Outline of the analysis to follow 2. Pre-overtaking: preliminary local analyses; projecting the overtaking 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5. 2.1.6. 2.1.7 Perspective of the overtaker Learning to recognize an occasion for overtaking Explicit instructions and coordination with oncoming traffic Preparations without talk, sufficient perspective ahead, contraflow and precise timing Preparatory sequences of looking and avoiding being locked in Deciding to overtake on a dangerous/unusual three-lane road (01-09) Overtaking on a race circuit Summary 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 Perspective of the overtaken car Routine motorway overtaking Change in speed leading to the monitoring of potential overtakers behind Rejecting an overtaker Being overtaken that leads to waiting to overtake Becoming overtakable, then pursuing rejoining overtakers Helping the overtaker to pass Summary 2.3. General conclusions on preparing to overtake 3. Overtaking proper: passing a vehicle and being overtaken 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 The overtaking action proper from the overtaker's perspective Monitoring and coordination with oncoming traffic on a two-way road Looking far ahead as a requirement Keeping the car straight in the overtaking lane A particularly dangerous situation: a three-lane road Summary 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 The overtaking episode from the perspective of the overtaken car On the morality of cooperating with the overtaker Being overtaken by surprise Responding to an unexpected overtaker: being startled and cursing Ambiguities of driving actions in a complex traffic ecology Intertwinement of the overtaking action and its perception with the planned trajectory of the overtaken car 3.2.6 Involuntary overtaking without noticing potential danger 3.2.7 Summary Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 3 4. Post-overtaking 4.1 4.1.1. 4.1.2 4.1.3. 4.1.4 4.1.5 Re-laning – from the perspective of the overtaker Basic instructions for re-laning Preparing to re-lane: rule formulations Re-laning: normativity and corrections, orientating towards safety and altruism Taking the decision to re-enter the right lane in dense and risky traffic Summary 4.2. Assessments, comments and critiques of the overtaking by the overtaken 4.2.1 Post hoc retrospective comments by the overtaker 4.2.1.1 Accident stories: imputing dangerousness to the road 4.2.1.2 Attributing dangerous features to categories of drivers 4.2.1.3 Attributing responsibility to the just-overtaken driver 4.2.1.4 Summary 4.2.2 Post hoc retrospective comments made by the overtaken 4.2.2.1 Gender categorization 4.2.2.2 Gender categorization and blame, then revised 4.2.2.3 Revising blame attributions 4.2.2.4 The history of consecutive car encounters: emerging noticeable and blameable conduct 4.2.2.5 The history of consecutive car encounters: noticing and confirming negatively assessed conducts 4.2.2.6 On re-encountering the overtaker 4.3 Summary – Completing overtaking 5. Conclusions 6. References 7. Appendix 1. Introduction Overtaking is the fundamental, unremarkable and overlooked practice that allows the exchange of vehicle positions in flows of traffic. Overtaking involves coordination in a public ecology and moral order with others who are addressed not directly but rather distantly and anonymously (as fellow vehicles). Simultaneously, overtaking is very often interwoven with other practices taking place inside the vehicles involved. A competent driver, not to mention an attentive passenger, recognizes the occasions for its use when the difference in speeds between vehicles leads to one closing in on the vehicle in front. As a thoroughly socially organized, if barely sociable practice, it requires the coordination of action with distant others (e.g. cars, lorries and bicycles) and with proximate others (e.g. with front- and rear-seat passengers), who may themselves become involved in accomplishing overtaking. The qualities of its accomplishment, as easy or difficult, safe or risky, or slow or rapid, are in the hands of the members of the cohort of vehicles within which it occurs. Overtaking in traffic is an embodied activity, which can be topicalized (or not) by drivers and passengers. It is a skilful and risk-relevant practice that, for those reasons amongst others, is a focus of driving lessons. Overtaking, as a material practice, makes use of the array of driving technologies that the vehicle provides (dashboard controls, dashboard instruments, mirrors, brakes, accelerator, gears, etc.) Overtaking does not always take place when it is possible – it is left to the judgement of the drivers involved whether to initiate it. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 4 Overtaking is a potential object of interest for many disciplines that have sought to understand transportation, mobility and traffic, particularly those with an interest in safety and risk, for example the psychology of driving strategies (e.g. Wilson/ Best 1982) and risk taking (e.g. van der Molen/Bötticher 1988) and computer simulations of traffic flow (e.g. Xue 2006). Alongside these more obvious audiences, overtaking is of interest to researchers of social interaction studying mutual monitoring, multi-activity and mobility. While overtaking raises analytical challenges for many fields, for our own approach of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA), it raises these: • how the sequential organization and multimodal gestalts of action are accomplished by drivers and passengers in the methodic production of each instance of overtaking; • how overtaking is achieved, for example by closing in on a vehicle ahead, scrutinizing the environment, acting accountably within a series of sequentially projected next actions and adjusting the course of action by timing it with the conduct of others. Just as it raises analytical challenges, overtaking provides methodological challenges for us as researchers using video recordings from the interior of vehicles: • how to respond to and understand the particular perspectives produced on overtaking through video recording; • how to transcribe playable audio-visual recordings into readable textual–visual representations that show features relevant to overtaking. In this extended article, then, we undertake a systematic study of the practices for overtaking from an EMCA perspective. We shape the article both around the arc of overtaking, moving from its initiation to its completion, and by shifting between the perspectives of the parties who overtake and those who see themselves as overtakable or find themselves overtaken. In doing so, we also traverse sideways across practices of learning in driving lessons, everyday overtaking and more specialized overtaking in racing car driving. 1.1. Automobility and overtaking – state of the art As we have noted in our introduction, the article will focus on practices for overtaking, studied from the perspective of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA). In this section, we will locate our study within mobility studies and the existing EMCA studies of mobility. We will begin by describing overtaking as traffic members' practices for rearranging the order of vehicles. Using two typical episodes of overtaking, we will present the related perspectives of a vehicle overtaking and a vehicle being overtaken. 1.1.1. EMCA studies of mobility and driving For a long time, social encounters investigated within interactional studies have been characterized by static settings. Everyday interactions, dinner conversations, Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 5 meetings, medical consultations, television interviews and other institutional activities constitute settings in which the participants are sedentary, typically gathered around a table. The studies of these settings have focused on activities in which talk is the dominant activity – rather than practices with intermittent or minimal speech. Static practices have the methodological advantage of being easily documented by one (or more) fixed camera(s), often on a tripod and in the absence of a cameraperson. By contrast, mobile settings, events and activities have been neglected. They are often characterized by changing participation frameworks and dynamic formations; they involve the mobility of the participants' bodies and other relevant embodied and spatial features. They also present major challenges for video documentation, requiring mobile cameras and camerapersons. In short, the neglect of mobile practices arises from the culturally entrenched idea of the prototypical encounter being sedentary table talk (cf. Göttert 1988; Linke 2012) and from methodological troubles in recording mobile practices. However, in the past decade, mobile interactions have constituted a topic of increasing and substantial interest within EMCA (McIlvenny et al. 2009; Haddington et al. 2013; Broth et al. 2014). A variety of types of mobility have been explored, related to bodies in motion, ranging from activities such as walking around gardens to technologically mediated mobilities, such as the use of smartphones for navigation, and to vehicular modes, such as bicycles, cars or skis. Analyses of walking have revealed how bodies constituting mobile 'withs' (Goffman 1971) are coordinated together (Ryave/Schenkein 1974; Allen-Collinson 2006) and reflexively organized in a fine-tuned way with talk (Relieu 1999; Broth/Lündstrom 2013; Broth/Mondada 2013; Mondada 2009, 2014, 2017b, 2018c). The flying of aeroplanes has been researched in relation to both the ordinary work of pilots in the cockpit, its standard formats and their contingent implementation (Nevile 2004) and the training of pilots (Melander/Sahlström 2009; Arminen et al. 2010, 2013, 2014). Likewise, driving has been studied as an ordinary routine mode of transportation (Haddington/ Keisanen/Nevile, 2012; Laurier et al. 2008, 2012; Haddington 2010, 2012; Mondada 2012) and with a focus on driving lessons (Broth et al. 2017; De Stefani/Gazin 2014; De Stefani et al. 2018; Deppermann 2015, 2016, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d; Gazin 2015; Rauniomaa et al. 2018). Finally, cycling has been examined, from the perspective of children's socialization into cycling (McIlvenny 2014, 2015). The practices of car drivers, passengers and instructors, now form a substantial body of research. They have been of interest for the study of spatial practices and activities of navigation. Drivers and passengers not only make sense of their dynamic and changing environment, which can be challenging in terms of spatial deictic reference (Mondada 2005:92ff., Goodwin/Goodwin 2012), but also negotiate and decide on their itinerary (Haddington 2010, 2012, 2013). Interactions in cars have attracted the attention of analysts as a conspicuous setting for the study of multi-activity, because cars represent a context in which participants not only orient towards the road and the driving, but also engage in a variety of other social activities, such as talking while working, using cell phones, eating and so on (Nevile/ Haddington 2010; Laurier/Lorimer 2012; Mondada 2012; Nevile 2012). In this sense, cars have been considered as more than the means of travelling from A to B; they are 'habitable' spaces (Laurier et al. 2007). Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 6 More recently, a series of studies has addressed the methodicity of driving practices from the perspective of training by devoting particular attention instruction in formal driving lessons. The studies have made explicit the complex array of features that are oriented towards in routine and challenging driving conditions (see the special issue edited by Deppermann 2018c; see also De Stefani/Gazin 2014; Deppermann 2015, 2018d; Broth et al. 2017; Levin et al. 2017; Mondada 2017a, 2018c; Rauniomaa et al. 2018; De Stefani 2018), which are also of particular interest for contemporary auto-driving (Brown/Laurier 2017). The focus on driving practices has revealed the crucial importance of the road ecology and other participants' engagement with the road ecology, such as pedestrians and bikers (Haddington/Rauniomaa 2014; McIlvenny 2014, 2015; Merlino/Mondada in press; Merlino, Mondada, Söderström, submitted). Engagement with other road users, has, in turn, raised broader issues about the conceptualisation of social interactions, not only within the car, but also between cars and other road users (see De Stefani et al. in press). Road activities, trajectories and events concern not only human figures communicative features but also 'cars' as displaying intentions, projects, imputable actions and moralities (Broth et al. 2018, in press; Deppermann 2018d; De Stefani et al. in press). These issues of the human figure and the car are particularly vivid for the analysis of overtaking, because of the centrality of intra-car discussions, conversations and assessments and inter-car monitoring, coordination and communication. 1.1.2. Why is overtaking a relevant object of study for social sciences? At first sight, overtaking as a phenomenon appears to be relevant to research on traffic and automobility, while, for linguistics, sociology and human geography, it seems to be a rather niche or perhaps exotic topic. A closer look reveals, even preanalytically, that overtaking is a social, spatial and communicative phenomenon exhibiting a number of properties that make it a promising topic for the study of coordination, communication and intersubjectivity in contemporary society. As early as 1971, Goffman took the problem of how pedestrians coordinate their trajectories on a pavement as an exemplary situation for studying the foundational question of sociology: "how is social order possible?" He was able to show that basic mechanisms of social action become observable and can be shown to be operative in the making and reshaping of trajectories. The problem of social order and the requirements for its coming into being, apply a fortiori to the phenomenon of overtaking: it requires members who have been socialized into a shared set of driving practices to coordinate their individual and joint uses of a scarce resource (the road) by orienting both towards traffic rules and social norms and towards each driver's abilities and competences. Driving in a competent – and even expert – way is more than mechanical; it is suffused with pleasures, fears and inferences. Overtaking is one of the primary practices that foregrounds those qualities. Overtaking, then, is a utilitarian rearrangement of vehicle positions by the invisible hand of traffic, while it provides in parallel the hedonistic pursuit of passing others. Just how each instance of overtaking is pursued and accomplished, in turn, contributes to the in situ establishment of a diversity of driver identities, such as 'careful', 'dangerous' Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 7 or 'generous' drivers or cultural identifications such as 'hotrodders' (Sacks 1992), 'Sunday drivers', 'boy-racers' etc. In brief, overtaking involves the mutual monitoring of one another's actions; the deployment of indexical (non-verbal) communicative resources to display intentions and make the next actions expectable; the anticipation of others' plans and projects; and, finally, the dynamic mutual modification of projects and actions based on anticipation. Acting in these ways builds on a normative order that is known in common and reflexively produced by competent members of a society. In the context of automobility, overtaking involves additional spatial qualities that are significant for the study of social coordination. For example, if we consider the road's spatial arrangement, then on contraflow roads, on which the vehicle enters the lane of opposing traffic, the production of overtaking has to be fitted closely to the form of the road. Issues of precise timing, circumspection and deft performance are crucial. Coordination failures have potentially fatal consequences. Overtaking on contraflow roads, compared with multi-lane highways, requires a degree of attentiveness that places demands on participants' multi-activity, concerning both the coordination of monitoring and driving actions and the coordination of driving and non-driving-related activities (like small-talk, drinking, etc.; see Laurier et al. 2007, 2008; Haddington/Rauniomaa 2011; Mondada 2012; Rauniomaa/Haddington 2012). Being an automobilistic activity, overtaking involves coordinating one's vehicle with others via the limited communicative resources of the vehicle on the road (von Savigny 1980). The rich and detailed resources of face-to-face conversations are not available for organizing overtaking. While mutual access is limited, it is not as restricted as that of commercial planes in air traffic, though neither do drivers have the support of air traffic controllers. Vehicle drivers organize their relative slots in traffic on the road system themselves. Only a very restricted range of semiotic resources (such as indicators, horns and gestures – in the rare cases of low speed and visual proximity that is close enough to allow the monitoring of the body of other drivers) is available (cf. Broth et al. in press; Deppermann in press; De Stefani et al. in press; Merlino/Mondada in press). Overtaking episodes therefore pose challenges for accomplishing coordination and inter-subjective understanding. Even though they are challenging, as part of producing and maintaining traffic cohorts, drivers regularly carry out processes of overtaking more or less smoothly, safely and rapidly. For overtaking to become the familiar practice that it is, not only must reliable routines be learnt but the known-in-common appearances of overtaking need to be produced by the methods that make them recognisable as such. Understanding overtaking as a communicative phenomenon requires researchers to draw on the multimodal approach, which studies how traffic members' semiotic, praxeological and perceptive resources are used and bundled as gestalts (Mondada 2014). In contrast to other driving actions (like putting the car into motion, Broth et al. 2017; parking the car, Deppermann 2018b; turning at an intersection, De Stefani/ Gazin 2014; Björklund 2018; finding the ideal line on a race circuit, Mondada 2017a, 2018c), overtaking is inherently an interactional phenomenon: it necessarily involves two or more parties, although sometimes the overtaken party plays a passive role and may barely orient towards being overtaken. Overtaking concerns the questions of which vehicle is located in which slot of the traffic cohort; the duration and projection of the trajectories of the parties involved; and just when to overtake. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 8 Inter-vehicular judgement not only makes coordination an inevitable requirement; overtaking is also a visual perspectival phenomenon: the whole process of overtaking looks different from the perspective of the vehicle overtaking than from the perspective of the vehicle being overtaken (cf. 1.3.2 and section 2-4). While an overtaking episode may be witnessed from an impersonal bird's eye view (for example by a police helicopter surveilling the road or by a researcher analysing the data at a distance), its management is irremediably tied to the particular perspectives of the parties involved in the overtaking manoeuvre. Driver perspectives cannot coincide empirically, and the primary accountability for the accomplishment of the action lies with the party seeking to overtake. How the trajectories of traffic participants are coordinated by the members crucially depends on which kinds of participants they are (e.g. cars, buses, pedestrians or cyclists). Different members of the road, have different entitlements (by traffic code and local norms), are expected to travel at different speeds, have different means of perceiving and signalling directions and so on (cf. Haddington/Rauniomaa 2014). In contrast to the flow of pedestrians on a pavement, the overtaking of cars lends itself to video recording the social and communicative processes involved. Methodologically, the study of overtaking allows for the unobtrusive use of video technology, which enables us to capture the perspectives of traffic participants more easily than those of pedestrians. We have successfully recorded both the traffic participants and their view without interfering with the cars' trajectories and the participants' lines of sight. In our recordings of driving lessons, family trips and carsharing commutes, our drivers are only accompanied by other passengers, which thus means that we can also overhear and analyse their talk in relation to the practices of driving. The architecture of the car provides an intimate space in which conversation is not usually expected to be overheard by other road users. Therefore, drivers and passengers are able to topicalize actions and experiences in ways in which they would not be addressed in the acoustically open space of pedestrians on the pavement or cyclists on the cycle path. Thus, it is possible to capture aspects of the preparation and performance of overtaking as a series of actions of the driver's and passengers' assessment, justification and negotiation of other vehicles and their drivers (and, rarely, passengers). In short, we have a rich resource of recordings witnessing driver and passenger orientation towards the expectations of one another and of other members of traffic. 1.2. Overtaking – the phenomenon Moving as traffic along a shared path is a basic form of mobility with a profusion of emergent and locally organized properties of order and intelligibility. Traffic, while in one sense a mobile formation that flows with directional properties, is also an abidingly serial organization: one is in front of the other, one is behind the other, one is between two others, one is behind a moving queue or one is in front of a moving queue. For all manner of reasons, projects, priorities and more, the serial organization of travelling units in traffic is rearranged, and that rearrangement is typically accomplished through the ordinary practice of overtaking. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 9 Overtaking is the intelligible and accountable course of action that changes the order of entities moving together. A second becomes a first; a first becomes a second; or more dramatically a ninth becomes a first or a first becomes a ninth as eight others overtake it in succession. The course of action, while sometimes depending on one individual driver seeing and exploiting occasions to overtake (for example on a highway with reduced traffic), might also be occasioned by responding to other drivers' actions, such as when the second (or 'one behind') closes in on the first, making pulling out relevant, and might even rely on collaborative and coordinated mutual adjustments to other drivers. The initiation of overtaking itself requires judgement and timing to lead to a successful next move of, say, pulling out. It remains an accomplishment in the face of the contingencies of traffic and the path; at any point, the longer course of action may be abandoned, paused, halted or transformed into something else (e.g. 'tailgating' to harass the one in front). Ahead of overtaking's very initiation, drivers judge whether they will instead match the speed of the vehicle ahead, the vehicle ahead accelerates, removing the second vehicle's problem, or the potential overtaker foresees complexities, such as impending junctions, that rule it out. Our article does not, however, dwell on what precedes the initiation of overtaking; it begins with the next step, in which overtaking has been selected and is being committed to as the solution for a vehicle that plans to pass one or more vehicles ahead. The action of overtaking has a serial and categorial structure and one that we will then begin to examine in the organizational and lived work of performing overtaking. There are stages that themselves have a sequential order whereby each succeeds the other: 1. preparation; 2. passing; and 3. completion. In the course of overtaking, passing categories of overtaking emerge: the overtaker and the overtaken. The activity of overtaking is one that Rod Watson (2005), discussing mobile practices, called the 'category flow'; for example, an overtaking car moves through the categories of the car behind -> the overtaker -> the car in front. However, as with the documentation of the turn-taking system at work in talk, the simple formulation itself hides all manner of related properties and its fantastically variegated use, local adaptation, timing, spacing and local transformation by members of particular mobile formations. While overtaking happens across a range of mobile settings, our focus here is on cars in traffic and, as will have become apparent, not on bicycles, pedestrians, reindeer, container ships, railway trains or commercial aircraft. Restricting ourselves to cars in traffic does not mean that we do not nevertheless examine a rich diversity of settings, ranging widely from routine commuting to driving lessons to racing car driving and from twisting country roads to multi-lane motorways. This diversity offers a variation of practices, orientations and conditions. For instance, the benefit of driving lessons is that instructors verbally formulate for us how overtaking is performed in terms of: the controls of the car, the forms of visual inspection required, the manoeuvring of the car in relation to other vehicles and the road, the timing and mistiming of the actions, the analysis of other vehicles and more. More generally, the diversity of data allows our analysis to take into consideration both the high variability of the relevant dimensions shaping the organization of overtaking and some fundamental and systematic practices. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 10 A fundamental distinction that will structure the organization of our analyses is between the vehicle overtaking and the vehicle being overtaken. Without wishing to fix what are categories in flux, for brevity, we will differentiate between the two parties by referring to one as the overtaker and the other as the overtaken. To circumscribe the phenomenon of overtaking better from these two perspectives, and before further describing the data on which the article relies (see section 1.3), we present in the next sections two typical cases of overtaking in the two main settings considered, routine overtaking and instructed overtaking, and from the two perspectives of the overtaker and the overtaken. 1.2.1. Typical overtaking from the perspective of the overtaker Overtaking is routinely achieved by the driver monitoring the road ahead and seizing the moment to overtake slower vehicles without making any further comments about it. We ground our discussion of the overtaking manoeuvre with such a case before turning to a driving lesson in which the participants explicitly comment on the details of the overtaking. In our first case, the occupants of the car are travelling along a road as part of their daily commuting route from home to work and back again. It is a country road with only a few straight sections and limited long-distance visibility. There are thus only a small number of places on the route where it is possible to overtake safely. The occupants of the cars, being commuters, have an agreed route that they take to reach their workplaces, on which they know the overtaking-appropriate sections, and, of relevance here, they have a shared sense of the speed at which they usually travel. When the driver prepares to overtake, they are holding a discussion about work during which the driver is also providing an extended account of a problematic employee. As we have noted earlier, this is a typical case of overtaking: a second-positioned vehicle overtaking another slower-moving, first-positioned vehicle on a contraflow road and thereby swapping their first and second positioning. The vehicle in front is a car with a trailer behind it and, as such, also carries category-based expectations of slowness and reduced manoeuvrability. Our perspective is from that of the two car travellers in the second-positioned car that will overtake the first-positioned car. The UK road system involves vehicles driving on the left, so the driver is positioned on the right. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 11 Extract 1 (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_HabitableCars_51_Overtake_0:00) (2W, NI) 01 DRI eve 02 03 fig I mean >for- for< the types of jobs that we’re >>road curves on the left------->l.8 talking about °you know° anybody that’s going to down tools# (1.4) go away and have a (1.5) tea break #fig.1.1 Fig. 1.1 04 dri pas pas 05 06 PAS 07 dri 08 DRI eve 09 PAS 10 dri 11 12 PAS 13 DRI 14 15 PAS pas 16 DRI dri 17 dri dri cr3 18 cr4 dri dri pas 19 dri dri dri and at †twelve minutes pa•st *ten•* eve†ry morning. †hand up to steering wheel------† •nods---• *glances DRI* +it[’s just+ .h [yup (0.6) † (0.2) (0.6) † †H returns to gear stick†grips gearstick-> you can’t ‡win &‡ ‡moves car slightly twd centre of road‡ ->&straight stretch of road---> (0.6) I mean again it’s not to say that he hasn’t (0.8) on occasion +put in extra work+ +changes gear-----+ (1.6) it’s ve[ry •rare •twists slightly twd DRI-> [aye he’s done (0.3) but that’s •neither here nor there [thou•gh• ->•turns head fully to DRI-----•,,• [†yeah† †leans R† (0.5) † (0.4) £ (0.3) £ (0.2)† +(0.7)+ †(0.3)† †H to wheel------------† †indic† +gz Rm+ £passes£ €(0.3)€ ‡ (0.6) †(0.4)† (1.0) *(1.5)* (0.5) † (0.3) † (1.1)‡ €passes€ ‡pulls out----‡overtakes------------------------------‡ †cancels ind† †ch gear† *looks overtaken cr* ‡ (0.4) + (1.1) ‡ (0.3)+ (0.2) † (0.6) † ‡ret lane-------‡ +gaze Rm-------+ †ch gear† Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 12 Looking in more detail at how this typical overtaking project is organized, it begins with two cars coming into close proximity on the road, forming first and second positions, with the second car, on closing in on the first, then also having to reduce its speed (fig. 1.1). The second car in relation to the first car is provided with the resource for its analysis of the situation that, by closing in on the car in front, overtaking is relevant as a potential course of action. Part of the second car driver's sensemaking may also draw on the resource that the commuters have their speed as well as the slowness of the vehicle ahead being a category-relevant feature of cars with trailers. According to the driver's analysis, overtaking then becomes the desirable and even necessary course of action here rather than slowing down to follow the vehicle. Although the encounter between the vehicles has made overtaking desirable, it remains for the driver, and occasionally the passenger, to judge whether and when to slow and match the speed or prepare to overtake. The road is initially curving around a left corner (fig. 1.1), which means that the car ahead also obstructs the view (compared with curving the other way), thereby leaving only a very limited view ahead of the opposing lane. At line 08, the road ahead straightens. The driver shifts the car out slightly towards the middle of the road. Interestingly, the driver does not inspect the conditions ahead closely, even though he moves slightly towards the centre of the road, and he shifts down a gear (10). The reason for not making a closer inspection seems to be the two oncoming cars that are immediately and easily visible to him in the middle distance. He needs to look no further because the overtaking will not be possible. Briefly, before the two oncoming cars approach (17), the driver does make preparations for overtaking. It is at this point that he leans sideways towards the middle of the road (16) to give himself a better perspective on what lies behind the approaching vehicles. As the first oncoming car (CR3) passes him, he puts his hand on the wheel, and, immediately after CR3 has passed, he looks at the rear mirror and activates the indicator. The indicator makes his announced next action available to both the car in front (CR2) and the next oncoming car (CR4) – overtaking. Latched onto the passing of CR4 (18), the driver accelerates fairly rapidly and pulls out into the opposing lane. The passenger examines the road ahead as they move into it and then turns to examine briefly the car that they are passing (line 18). The driver then continues to move ahead of CR2 in the opposing lane. After he has checked the rear mirror (19), he returns to the home lane having successfully overtaken CR2. The seen-but-unnoticed quality of competent overtaking is a feature of extract 1. There is, for instance, no verbal description, noticing or account of the overtaking. The driver does not ask "should I overtake this guy?" or whoop as he passes the car successfully, which would mark the overtaking as a remarkable achievement that is worth noticing and celebrating. The two travellers nevertheless monitor the course of the overtaking and adjust their joint activities around it. The initiation of the shift out of position from behind the first vehicle, due to its requirement for and expectation of full attention, also makes it relevant to suspend or close the current talk. At line 15, the passenger turns to the driver, an embodied move that is perhaps pursuing a more elaborate response; however, in looking at the driver, the passenger finds the driver to be visibly engaged in the final elements of preparing to shift the Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 13 car out into the opposing lane. The driver does not return the look and instead provides a minimal agreement, yeah, at line 16, while he launches his overtaking in earnest. Not all overtaking may require topic closing or suspension; however, it is sufficiently challenging that it is a common feature of overtaking. As we see in extract 1 (see also section 2.1), to establish the necessary conditions for safe overtaking, the driver has to be able to see far enough ahead, thereby being able to establish what is happening in the space projected for the overtaking manoeuvre. It is the long view that establishes either that there is an absence of oncoming vehicles or that the next oncoming vehicle is sufficiently far away. The case shows a further typical feature of overtaking, that is: the use of the first opportunity to overtake after the oncoming traffic has passed. It may be that minimal delays are preferred, because a long delay before overtaking, when it is recognizably possible to do, is accountable and has reputational inferences (e.g. he is a nervous or inattentive etc. driver). When the second and last oncoming vehicle passes, the driver promptly accelerates and directs the car towards the other lane. The preparatory move is made with remarkably close timing to the passing of the oncoming vehicle. Another marker of the routine work of the experienced driver is, then, initiation with precise timing. The collective movement of traffic on each road establishes, by its internal measures of the speed at which vehicles are moving, that "essentially there seem to be three: 'fast', 'slow' or 'with traffic'" (Sacks 1992:vol. 1, 437). In relation to that collective speed, each driver also drives at a speed that he or she judges to be his or her speed given the conditions. In the process of overtaking, there is then a category-based discovery for the vehicles having different speeds, the slower one was in front and the faster one was behind. By dint of having 'its' speed, the second car has the possibility of continuing or returning to 'its' speed by overtaking the first car. If it cannot overtake then its driver can justifiably become frustrated by being 'delayed' or 'held-back' by the car in front. 1.2.2. Typical overtaking from the perspective of the overtaken In the second extract, an episode of overtaking is perceived, responded to and topicalized from the perspective of the party being overtaken. The extract is from a driving lesson in Germany. The instructor asks the pupil to change lanes on a fourway street. When the pupil is about to initiate the lane change to the left, a Peugeot approaches in the overtaking lane. In the stills, the overtaker is marked by a red circle. Extract 2 (Deppermann_German_driving-school_IDS_FOLK_FAHR_01_02_ 12:35-12:57) (2L, INS) 01 INS 02 tra 03 TRA tra WEIße häuser SA:GT dir das was? white houses does this ring a bell? (0.4)±(0.2) ±lays hand on indicator---> +ja dass ich misch; yes that I me +looks LSm---------> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 14 04 INS 05 06 INS 07 tra 08 INS (.) ja, yes (0.7) blink, indicate (0.35)± --->±sets indicator-----> #KEIN mensch weiß es; (.) nobody knows it #fig.2.1 Fig. 2.1: TRA sets indicator and monitors traffic behind in left exterior mirror 09 ins ins ins tra 10 11 INS ins ins tra cr1 %SO+ und #•jetz *guckst* du da is ja die AMpel,• so and now you look there PTCL is the traffic light %grasps steering wheel--------------------> .........•points ahead------------------------• *looks LSm* ->+ #fig.2.2 (1.1) jetzt •*guckst du +$jetzt guckst du was der peu#GEOT• macht-+ now you look now you look what the peugeot is doing ......•points to LSm--------------------------------•,,,,,, .......*looks LSm-------------------------------------------> +looks LSm--------------------------------+ $speeds up-------------------------------> #fig.2.3 Fig. 2.2: INS points traffic light and grasps steering wheel 12 13 INS CR1 14 TRA 15 tra Fig. 2.3: INS points left exterior mirror, TRA looks into it (0.6) $[der re]aGIERT nich, he doesn’t react $overtakes driving school car--> [ja; ] yes +#(0.7) +looks LSm---> #fig.2.4 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 15 16 INS ins cr1 so und JETZT,%$ (.) #!SCHU::L!terblick, okay and now shoulder check ---->% ----->$ #fig.2.5 Fig. 2.4: Overtaking Peugeot Fig. 2.5: Overtaker has passed, INS asks for 'shoulder check' appears in left window to prepare lane-change 17 tra 18 INS ins ins tra 19 20 INS ins 21 (0.4)+(0.25) -->+looks over left shoulder,,,, u::‡:nd •wieder <<all>in_en AU•ßen*spiegel und zurück.>‡ and again into the outside mirror and back ........•points LSm-----------•,,,,,,,,,,,,, --------------------------------->*,,,,,,,,, ‡changes lane---------------------------------------‡ (0.6) so; (.) •SO::#che •leute gibt_s auchokay such people do also exist ........•point cr1•,,,,, #fig.2.6 (0.8) Fig. 2.6: INS points at and comments on former overtaker As the extract begins, they are driving in the slow, right lane (we have shifted to the right-side-arranged road system in Germany from the left-side system of the UK). The instructor produces a noticing ('white houses, does this ring a bell?', 01). The noticing refers to a familiar landmark and indexes an instruction to change to the left lane, because they have to turn left at the next intersection to return to the driving school. In response, the pupil lays his hand on the indicator but does not operate it (02). He starts a cut-off verbal turn, which projects a formulation of the instructor's request, and looks into the left exterior mirror (03), thus showing that he is preparing for a lane change. The instructor makes explicit the request to indicate (to the left) (06), with which the pupil complies (07). The instructor criticizes the trainee for not having set the indicator earlier, referring to the fact that the other traffic participants cannot discern his intentions (08, fig. 2.1). By this he makes clear that a lane change is not just an individual action of the driver but a social Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 16 action that has to be coordinated with the actions of other road users, whose (possible or intended) trajectories may be affected by the (intended) actions of the driver. The instructor grasps the steering wheel to keep the car in the right lane (09). He starts an instruction to look into the left exterior mirror (while looking into it himself) but cuts this off and points to the traffic light ahead (fig. 2.2). As the instructor looks again into the left mirror and points to it (11), he asks the trainee to monitor the incipient overtaker, who speeds up at this point (fig. 2.3). 1 The instructor still holds the steering wheel straight, and the trainee now also looks into the left mirror. As the overtaker passes, the instructor notices that the overtaker 'does not react' (13, fig. 2.4) to the fact that the driving school car sets the indicator to the left and thus claims the right of way, which the overtaker would have to yield according to the code of traffic by letting the driving school car move into the left lane before him. After the overtaker has passed (fig. 2.5), the instructor requests the pupil to perform a shoulder check, that is, monitoring the blind spot for a possible next overtaker (16). After the monitoring of the rear mirror(s), this is the second part of the obligatory visual routine procedure of preparing for a lane change or an overtaking move to make sure that no incipient overtaker is approaching from behind. The instructor now releases the steering wheel. The pupil produces the shoulder check and immediately afterwards changes to the left lane. The instructor again requests the pupil to look into the exterior left mirror (18). The episode is closed by the instructor's implicitly critical comment ('such people do also exist', 20) while pointing at the former overtaker (fig. 2.6). He refers to the overtaker as a member of an unnamed but inferrably reproachable category ('such people') who do not stick to the rules of traffic. The overtaking action is thus criticized as a violation of the normative order of traffic, which requires an incipient overtaker to give way to another traffic participant who signals the intention to switch to the overtaker's lane. In contrast to extract 1, traffic events and actions are topicalized by the participants as part of the pedagogic business of driving instruction. This is constitutive of a driving lesson. The pupil is not yet a fully competent driver; consequently, the instructor's instructions, corrections and comments make actions and requirements observable that would remain seen but unnoticed in the case of a fully competent driver. In extract 2, it becomes evident that overtaking is an action to be planned and executed carefully, as in extract 1. However, what is also evident in this case is that being overtaken may require coordinative efforts from the overtaken party as well. The overtaken party is not merely a passive observer but another traffic participant who has to adapt his or her behaviour and plan accordingly. While being overtaken in many cases is not consequential, in extract 2, we can see how being overtaken can matter for the driving projects of the overtaken party itself (see also extract 24). The overtaking episode is assessed and handled in the face of the future goal of changing lanes, which interferes with the overtaker's trajectory. 1 His speeding up can be seen in the figures by the fact that the overtaker is fully visible in the rear windows in figs. 2.1 and 2.2, while only a small part of the back part of the overtaking car is still visible in fig. 2.3 in the rear window. This means that the incipient overtaker is now moving at a higher speed than the driving school car and is about to pass. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 17 1.2.3. The dimensions of overtaking as a car in traffic From the two opening cases, we can establish the first central properties of the activity of overtaking. In common with other forms of accountable action, each instance of overtaking is not only 'done' but is also observable and reportable. Any instance of overtaking is open to noticing, formulating, instructing (such as perhaps instructive or a lesson to be learnt), criticising, assessing, complaining and so on. Overtaking as a practice produces inter-vehicle perspectives and the relative positions of overtaker, overtaken and intra-vehicle of driver, passenger, instructor and pupil, which then predicate differing orientations towards activity and passivity, accountability and indeed culpability should anything go wrong. Competent driving does not only involve steering a car. Overtaking activities involve a whole range of activities that have to be coordinated both by the drivers themselves and with other traffic participants (cf. Deppermann 2014 on intra- vs. inter-personal coordination). Driving requires continuous monitoring of the traffic not only ahead but also behind and to the sides of the driver. Monitoring entails using equipment such as mirrors and indicators but also adapting the speed, changing gears and braking. All these activities have to be coordinated in a temporally attuned manner, they are usually performed in a series of routine steps of action (cf. Mondada 2016), which, however, always have to be adapted to the precise, and foranother-first-time, traffic situation. Overtaking happens within a normative framework, which is, in part, regulated by the code of traffic (but, in this case too, it remains indexical and has to be interpreted and implemented locally) and, in part, by negotiation (Juhlin 2010:ch. 4), as well as by implicit, non-formal normative concerns for safety and fluency (von Savigny 1980). The normative order equips participants with certain rights and duties given their current, fleeting positions on the road and vis-à-vis each other. This normative order is a basis for anticipating and planning actions but also for assessing actions and for imputing moral identities to road users. Nevertheless, as in other social fields, the situated interpretation and application of this abstract normative framework are often a matter of competing perspectives, negotiation and sometimes struggle (see e.g. Rauniomaa et al. 2016). Overtaking therefore is not simply an issue of planning and anticipating on the basis of a normative order. It is also a matter of flexible response. Drivers have to react in a timely manner, and often urgently, to unforeseen events (for instance, an incipient overtaker emerging in spite of the overtaken's right of way). One vehicle having the right of way does not guarantee that other vehicles will give way. Traffic participants always have to monitor others to detect their (possibly unexpected) behaviour in due course, renounce the right of way for safety reasons and change their planned trajectories to avoid trouble. Overtaking involves the change of the spatial and serial order of vehicles and of several traffic participants vis-à-vis each other. It is distinguishable and accountable distinct from passing an immobile obstacle and from changing lanes without overtaking (as the overtaken car does in extract 2). In this paper, we deal only with episodes of overtaking that involve a change of lanes or at least a change in the position with respect to the width of the road. Related instances with family resemblances of passing without a lane change, such as in dense traffic when cars are Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 18 moving in parallel on different lanes without changing them, are not taken into account. Of course, there are boundary cases between overtaking and these related kinds of activities, which also result in a change of the spatial order of cars. Ordinary overtaking episodes involve recognizable and sequentially related phases. Every phase involves specific practices of driving, monitoring and relating to other traffic participants. To be able both to focus on the methodical accomplishment of the practices, on the one hand, and to show how they are embedded into larger trajectories of action, on the other, the paper is structured according to the three main phases that are involved in overtaking: the pre-overtaking phase (including, for example, the preparation for the overtaking and the spotting of a possible overtaker), the overtaking proper (including, for example, veering out and passing the overtaken vehicle) and the post-overtaking phase (including, for example, moving back into lane and the participants' analysis of the just-completed overtaking action). Each phase will be analysed on the basis of data that embody the perspective of the overtaker and the overtaken. Each manoeuvre is not only progressing the overtaking but is also reportable (e.g. in formulations, instructions, critiques, comments, assessments, complaints and noticings). Whereas competent drivers' routine overtaking activities are seldom commented on, by contrast, the design of actions, their timing, their normative order, the criteria for their proper execution and so on are topicalized in instructed activities and in cases in which the actions of one participant are perceived to be problematic or even deviant by another participant. Our analyses include all these cases to be able to cover the maximal range of relevant contingencies and arrive at a comprehensive picture of overtaking practices. To identify the generic methodical practices by which episodes of overtaking are accomplished by the participants and to understand the particularization of these practices in different situations, we draw on a wide range of variations concerning the traffic conditions (inner-city streets, country roads, multi-lane motorways, race car tracks, dense traffic, no road users other than the overtaker and the overtaken, etc.), type of vehicle (slower vs. faster cars, tractors, trucks, etc.) and participants' constellations and (non-)driving-related actions (driving instruction, small talk, listening to the radio, etc.). While overtaking is a shared methodical practice, each driver in traffic must recognisably produce the local organization of overtaking for that particular situation. It is produced in distinctive detailed ways according to whether, for example, it is part of a routine journey and achieved in an unnoticed manner, part of a driving lesson, in which the pupil's actions are also produced for and sometimes by the instructor, or part of driving at high speed on a racetrack, where other specific and local rules for passing might apply and where the participants are oriented towards being faster than the others rather than merely progressing towards their destination. 1.3. Methodology and Data The study of overtaking developed in this article relies on the methodology and conceptual approach of multimodal conversation analysis. It is, however, adjusted to the challenges raised by the particular phenomenon studied. In this section, we first present our substantial data set (1.3.1); then we discuss the specific challenges Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 19 that the practices of overtaking represent for adequate video recordings of their constitution (1.3.2) and for their multimodal transcription (1.3.3). These methodological considerations constitute the framework within which the analyses are developed. 1.3.1. Presentation of the data set The analyses in this paper build on several corpora of naturalistic video recordings of car-driving activities. All the corpora were recorded within the vehicle rather than from static external locations. The situations are not experimental, nor were they created using a driving simulator. The corpora were collected in different countries, at different times, with different recording technologies and for different research purposes. The data therefore exhibit a broad range of praxeologically relevant dimensions. We exploit this variation to arrive at a comprehensive account of varieties of overtaking: the shapes that it can adopt, the practices that are used to achieve it, the conditions that impinge on it and the (interpretive, evaluative, sociosymbolic, epistemic, etc.) relevancies that are attached to it by car users. Differences in participation frameworks and their related activities are of particular importance, because we are dealing with instructed vs. non-instructed driving. In instructional settings, many aspects of driving actions and experiences are made explicit and formulated for pedagogic reasons. Instructors single out certain actions and request trainees to explain procedures, rationales and conditional relationships. In general, the descriptions, formulations and accounts of actions that we find in driving lessons allow us to identify features of driving in traffic that remain seen but unnoticed. Here, the driving actions of others are often topicalized, and their overtaking may be assessed as ill-timed, dangerous, un-entitled and so on. By contrast, in non-instructed driving – which constitutes the ordinary, baseline variety of driving with which we can examine competent overtaking playing out – overtaking is regularly achieved without any comments. It is topicalized by the co-participants when it becomes noticeable and assessable. Instructed and non-instructed driving are thus both extremely useful for us as analysts to make apparent their complementary ways of tackling the phenomenon at hand. We study extracts of driving alone and in silence vs. driving with passengers. In both, we can observe how the activity of driving can be the main and even exclusive one but can also be undertaken within a context of multi-activity (Haddington/Rauniomaa 2011). The latter is interesting for identifying patterns of coordination between driving and talking and for studying the sharing and negotiation of the driving experience. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 20 The data were recorded in seven different countries (Australia, 2 Finland,3 France, 4 Germany, 5 Sweden, 6 Switzerland 7 and the United Kingdom 8) and include six different European languages (British English, Finnish, French, German, Swiss Italian and Swedish; see table 1). Although we do not pursue a comparative focus here, the analyses make available language-specific practices of instructing actions, noticing events and assessing driving actions. At the same time, and, from an interactional and praxeological point of view, more importantly, the commonalities between the data from different languages show the generality of many of the practices that we have identified. The data represent overtaking actions in all sorts of spatial traffic contexts: driving on the left (the UK and Australia) vs. on the right; on motorways, country roads, inner-city streets and even race circuits; with oncoming traffic and with parallel lanes in the same direction; with right-lane vs. left-lane traffic; and under varying conditions of speed, visibility, traffic density, road trajectories, kinds of other vehicles, traffic regulations and so on. The data on which this article is based on are summarized in the following table: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Data collected for the project In-Car Distractions and their Impact on Driving Activities, road safety grant funded by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Australian Commonwealth Government (PI Maurice Nevile, with Pentti Haddington). Report RSGR 2010-001. The data were originally collected by Heikki Summala and his research team at the Traffic Research Unit, University of Helsinki, in a project on post-licence training, with funding from the Finnish Transport Safety Agency Trafi (decision no. 68/905/2009). The data used in this study formed the basis for Mirka Rauniomaa’s postdoctoral project Back behind the Wheel: SocialInteractional Perspectives on Older Drivers and Driver Education, which was funded by the Academy of Finland (decision no. 251757) and hosted by the University of Oulu. During the preparation of this study, Rauniomaa worked at the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, University of Helsinki (Academy of Finland decision no. 284595). The EMIC corpus was collected in the framework of the project EMIC (Espace, Multimodalité, Interaction, Corps) (2003-2004) funded by Peugeot PSA (P.I. Lorenza Mondada, research assistant Caroline Cance, student assistant Jonathan Bergena). The NURB corpus has been realized thanks to the collaboration of the coached driver with Lorenza Mondada: it features two French speakers and has been recorded by the driver in Germany. Data are hosted at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (Mannheim/Germany); seven driving lessons are available online via the Datenbank für gesprochenes Deutsch <http://dgd.ids-mannheim.de/ dgd/pragdb.dgd_extern. welcome>. The recordings were made by Darja Enns, Jürgen Immerz and Arnulf Deppermann. The data were collected within a research project on Driver Training in Practice, based at Linköping University and funded by a grant from the Committee for Educational Sciences of the Swedish Research Council (grant #721-2012-5367). The data stem from a research projected entitled The Constitution of Space in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Approach to the Study of Place Names and Spatial Descriptions financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project number PP001-119138; P.I. Elwys de Stefani; PhD researcher Anne-Danielle Gazin). The project was based at the University of Berne (2008-2012). Habitable Cars, RES-000-23-0758, (2005-2010), UK Economic and Social Research Council, Eric Laurier, Barry Brown and Hayden Lorimer. Based at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Glasgow. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 21 Country Language Author Australia Nevile Finland Australian English 9 Finnish France French Germany French 10 Germany German Sweden Swedish Switzerland Italian United Kingdom English Corpus size 90 trips 27 hours Rauniomaa 10 lessons 10 hours Mondada 7 trips 5 hours Mondada 1 lesson 45 mins. Deppermann 48 lessons 70 hours Broth 229 lesCromdal sons Levin 270 hours De Stefani 7 lessons 7 hours Laurier (shared with Haddington) 70 hours Date of recording 2010 Right/left-lane traffic left Ordinary/ instructed 2010 right instructed 2003 right ordinary 2012 no contraflow right instructed 2013 right instructed 2010 right instructed 2006 left ordinary 201213 ordinary instructed Table 1: Corpora of the video recordings of naturally occurring driving used in this paper Each fragment analysed in this article is identified by a code, 11 which gives information about two important and distinct elements: a) Information about the author of the corpus, who is, unless otherwise stated, also the author of the analysis of the fragment; b) Information about the corpus: this includes the language of the extract, the date of the recording, a reference to the original data (which might not be transparent to the reader but refers to the exact place of the clip within the wider corpus), the type of road concerned and the type of activity (see the Appendix for the labels used as well as extract 3 for their exemplification). 9 10 11 There is no talk in the data extracts from this corpus used in this paper. The recording was made in Germany, with two participants coming from France and speaking French. Cases are labelled with the following codes – see the instructions for naming extracts in a separate file: 2W = two ways in opposite directions, oncoming traffic 2L = two lanes in the same direction, no oncoming traffic 3W = three lanes, middle lane usable in both directions MT = motorway RT = race circuit INS = instructed NI = non-instructed Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 22 1.3.2. Methodological issues: issues in video recording driving Recent EMCA studies of driving, and more precisely of overtaking, have relied on and greatly benefitted from the use of video recordings. Although there has been a long tradition of video recordings of diverse and complex settings in EMCA studies, mobile practices, such as driving, continue to be a particularly challenging praxeological context to video document. In contrast to static interactions, mobile interactions have raised significant challenges in capturing dynamic and changing ecologies. The common solution has been to use multiple and mobile cameras. Video recording supposes a specific understanding and conception of the events filmed, commonsensically, analytically and conceptually (Broth/Laurier/Mondada 2014). Video recordings in EMCA (see Heath/Hindmarsh/Luff 2010; Mondada 2012) pursue the way in which the accountability of action in interaction is publicly established and maintained for and by the participants. For driving activities, this has a series of consequences: video recordings of driving have been (and still are) collected with a focus on what happens inside the car, as the locus of the social lives of the participants. For this kind of video recording, the analytical focus is on participants as groups engaged in their daily activities. Workers, families, friends and other social groups spend a lot of their life in cars; they share news, troubles and stories, so, in various ways, the car is an extension of their lifeworlds (Laurier/Lorimer 2012; Laurier et al. 2007). A complementary perspective is adopted when the video recording focuses on driving as the main activity – and on the participants as driver and passengers (or even co-drivers). The second perspective has a series of consequences: it requires the researchers to film the interior of the car and the road and the surrounding traffic ecology. To do so thus requires multiple cameras – oriented for instance forwards, in the direction of the driving car, and backwards. They allow for the analytical focus on the activity of driving and on the relevant details in the environment that are taken into consideration by the driver (and sometimes by the passengers). Thus, in short, two spaces are covered by video recordings of driving activities, the inside and the outside of the car. Video analyses of driving have undoubtedly benefitted from the development of video technologies. The first videos, from only 15 years ago, were recorded with analogue cameras with relatively low definition. Even though these recordings already used multiple cameras and wide angles (such as fish eye lenses), the quality of the recordings was incomparable with the high-definition cameras used today, which are able to render many more details and run at higher frame rates. More recently, the miniaturization of cameras has facilitated, for example, the use of three or more GoPro cameras, both inside the car and outside, clearly identifying moving details of the roadscape. This can make a real difference for the tracking of such aspects as the trajectory of the overtaking cars, which might not always be visible constantly even with two cameras (see extract 2 above). Documenting driving activities with cameras continues to be less than straightforward. The interior of the car – which might seem to be an easy target to cover with a video camera, because it is a limited and secluded environment – raises challenges for the documentation of the micro-practices that are essential to driving, such as looking at various mirrors, at the dashboard and at instruments of navigation as well as pushing buttons, moving the steering wheel, changing gears and braking Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 23 with hands and feet. The controls and other equipment are often not visually accessible to video cameras documenting the human interactions in the car, since they rely on different granularities and scales. They also mobilize parts of the body that generally escape the vision of classic cameras (e.g. the feet). Likewise, recording what is happening exterior to the car entails its own difficulties. Capturing the traffic ecology potentially involves the road in front of the driver as well as what is happening beside the car and behind it. The relevant features of the traffic are constantly changing and bring with them emergent and dynamic relevant details with shifting locations and trajectories in the roadscape (e.g. nearness to the car, moving in and out of blindspots). The unfolding and changing characteristics of the road, information displays, traffic lights turning to red or green and pedestrians and motorcyclists popping up from a diversity of lateral corners all constitute details that are very variously scattered around the car. Wide-angle lenses, 360-degree cameras and other optical augmentations help to capture these potentially relevant details for drivers and passengers as well as other devices that are increasingly available for enhancing the video study of driving, such as GPS, Google maps and other embarked software – which might be used by the analyst but also by the drivers themselves. Even though new devices are helpful, the challenges of videoing driving are not merely technological; they are central to the EMCA approach (and other theories of language and mobility) conceptually, since EMCA recordings are made within and for an approach that is committed to reconstructing the situated and emic discovery and management of driving's details by the drivers and passengers concerned. The analyses of overtaking presented in this paper draw on data that have been recorded as part of distinct projects that were coincident with different periods in the history of video technologies during the last 15 years. The use of different technologies, as we have argued, provides for different forms of evidence and different levels of access to the witnessable traffic order. Data have been used for the analyses by considering the potentialities and limitations of the situated conditions in which they have been recorded – knowing that the indexicality of videoing is an essential dimension that cannot be erased even by the finest technological advances. 1.3.3. Presentation of the transcription system The overtaking practices analysed in this article were transcribed by textually rendering the features of the relevant driving events and the talk and bodily interactions between the participants, with a strong orientation towards their timing. Building on the CA conventions (Jefferson 2004) for the hearable details of talk, we use the additional set of conventions by Lorenza Mondada for recognizable details of joint action as multimodal (see the Appendix for further references to the conventions, as well as Mondada 2018b), which we briefly illustrate on the basis of an extract. The extract is a transcription of an overtaking event during a driving lesson in Italian-speaking Switzerland (extract 3). The fragment is numbered and is identified by a conventional code (see above), which follows the same syntax for all of the excerpts studied. In this particular case, DeStefani_CHItalian_20100316LUsg2VIDPRO_5_4536/transc&anal_Mondada) (MT, INS) Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 24 refers first to the author of the corpus (De Stefani), then to the language spoken (Swiss Italian) and the corpus's code and finally to the fact that, in this case, the transcript and the analysis have been conducted by a person other than the corpus's author (here: Mondada). A further code follows, indicating the type of road that the fragment concerns (here: a motorway, MT) and the type of setting (here: instructed, INS) (see the annex for a complete list of codes). We join the action as the participants are on the motorway: the car, in the right lane, is being overtaken by another vehicle (fig. 3.1). As the driver decelerates behind the truck (01), the instructor sarcastically comments on the good weather (02, 05, 07, 09), hinting at the perfect conditions for the trainee to overtake the truck. Subsequently, the trainee initiates the overtaking. Below, we analyse the extract by showing how our analytic claims are based on the details of the transcript. Extract 3a (DeStefani_CHItalian_20100316LUsg2VIDPRO_5_4536/transc&anal_Mondada) (MT, INS) 01 cr1 tra fig (1.0) $ (4.0) # $ (0.2) ± (0.8) ± (1.2) ± $overtakes$ ±changes gear±decelerates± #fig.3.1 Fig. 3.1: CR1 is overtaking, as TRA drives behind a truck 02 INS 03 TRA 04 05 INS 06 ins tra 07 INS tra 08 09 INS 10 TRA tra è una bella giornata *ogg*i? is it a nice day today? *...*looks at TRA---> >sì.< >yes.< (0.4) a*llor*a an*diamo eh? then let’s go, right? ->*,,,*RSm* (0.3) † (0.2) * (0.3) *looks at TRA---> †smiles--->l.13 n+o*n ne*vica. it’s not snowing ->*,,,,* +looks R--> (0.4) a[bbiamo l]a possibili[tà di andare w[e have the opportuni[ty to drive [(chia+ro/dai.h). .h] [sì ( ) [(of course/go.h). h [yes ( ) -->+ Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 25 11 INS ins 12 ins a cento ven*ti *eh? at one hundred twenty right? *,,,*RSm---> (0.3)* (0.7) ->* As we join the action, the passengers are silent (01, fig. 3.1). A series of actions happens: a car overtakes them, and the trainee decelerates behind a truck. These actions are annotated in the next lines: each action is bracketed by two identical symbols (for example $overtakes$), which delimit the beginning and the end of the action that is formulated between them. The symbols are also marked in the timeline: when speech is absent, which is the case in line 01, this line is occupied by bracketed time indications. The total count is fragmented into time counts that segment the intervals needed to measure the timing of the annotations (the total count of line 01 is 7.2 seconds). The moment that is depicted in the screenshot is also inserted into and marked on the timeline using the symbol #. Each symbol, then, features on two lines, showing the synchronization between them (here between chronometered time and action description and elsewhere between talk and described action). The instructor, who utters a sarcastic noticing, in line 02, orients towards the trainee's action, consisting of decelerating behind the truck. At the end of his turn, the instructor turns to the trainee: this is annotated by delimiting the beginning of his embodied action (with *), which is further detailed in its emergent incipient phase (*…*), followed by the description of the gaze on the trainee (*looks at TRA->). This movement of the head can be interpreted in different ways by both the external analysts and the participants in the original event: turning to the left; looking to the left; looking at the trainee; giving the trainee a look; scrutinizing the trainee; staring at the trainee and so on. Commonly visual orientations are transcribed on the basis of head movements rather than visible movements of the eye (which cannot always be seen on the video recording). The participants themselves often orient towards the issue of the visibility of gaze – especially in a side-by-side setting in which their gaze proper is not mutually available. In this case, the external analyst looks at the course of actions to interpret and formulate the movement of the head as the instructor 'looking at' the trainee. This visual orientation continues from line 1 (-->) to line 5 (where the arrow hits the final bracketing symbol: -->*), while the instructor says allora ('then', 5). Here, there is a movement of the head turning back, detailed in the annotation as a withdrawal of his visual orientation (*,,,* indicates the movement back until its completion). Furthermore, in this case, this shift of the head and eye is immediately followed by a quick glance to the rightside mirror (*RSm*: these recurrent types of glance, constitutive of the driving activity, are described with a set of abbreviations, given in the appendix), by which the instructor checks the conditions for his further instruction. The precision of these annotations of the trajectory of actions depends on the type of movement described as well as on the analytical details that are relevant to and used in the analysis. In the case that we are discussing, the instructor looks at the trainee at the end of his turn (02), pursuing a specific response, which is more than the simple aligning >sì< ('yes', 03): the look stays on the trainee after her response, displaying that more is expected, and is withdrawn only on the next turn of the instructor (05). This next turn is a more explicit instruction, retrospectively Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 26 manifesting that the previous turn was not making small talk about the weather but was purposefully alluding to the good conditions to give the trainee a hint about driving faster. The instructor's invitation to accelerate (05) is responded to in line 06 with a smile, which lasts for a while. In this case, the annotation uses not only an arrow forward (-->) but also a time count as the very next symbol. The time count delimits the action, indicating where its end will be found (here: -->l.13). While the time count facilitates the reading of the transcript, it is optional, because the final bracket of the action can be found by searching onwards until the same symbol used for the initial bracket is encountered (here: '-->†'). Apart from the smile, the trainee does not modify her way of driving: again, the instructor turns his look to her (06: *looks at TRA-->), continuing to look at her (07: ->*,,,,*) until he utters another ironic comment about the weather (07), thereby pursuing another type of response. During his turn, the trainee actually begins to look on the right side (+looks R-->) and, overlapping with the next invitation to accelerate (09), answers verbally (10). The instructor utters a more explicit suggestion (09, 11), while checking his right mirror again (11-12; see above 05). He also adds a further instruction (13), which is responded to by the trainee, initiating the overtaking (14), and subsequently confirmed by the instructor (15). Next, the overtaking proper is achieved (16): Extract 3b 13 INS tra tra 14 ins tra tra tra fig fai t+u† eh?+ you do (it) by yourself right? +gaze R+ ->† *(0.2) + (0.7) ± # (0.1) *± (0.2)+(0.7)‡(0.2) *gaze L-------------------* +gaze LSm-------------------+ ±sets indicat± ‡moves to L lane-> #fig.3.2 Fig. 3.2: INS gazes on the left, TRA looks on the left and sets the indicator 15 INS 16 tra tra ins o:cchei alright (2.0) ‡ (2.2) ± (0.1) ± (0.3) • ->‡overtakes-------------------------------->> ±stops indicat± •crosses hands-->> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 27 Following the invitation of the instructor, the trainee begins to engage in the overtaking: she gazes at the right (13: +gaze R+) and then at the left mirror (14: +gaze LSm----+) – the instructor simultaneously looks left too (14). These parallel annotations show that they both visually orient towards the same direction at the same time: now they are aligned in their actions, both monitoring possible oncoming traffic in the left lane in preparation for the overtaking. Furthermore, the trainee sets the indicator. Once these preliminaries have been completed, she moves the car into the left lane. These operations are achieved in silence (lasting 2.1 seconds). Their annotation on the timeline clearly shows the succession of these actions. The preparatory moves are acknowledged by the instructor (15): what follows is the overtaking proper (16). Now in the left lane, the trainee overtakes the truck and stops the indicator – projecting that her car will stay in that lane. The instructor crosses his hands – maybe a way of relaxing. The movements or actions that continue after the end of the transcript are annotated with a double arrow instead of a single one (-->>). By registering relevant details, the transcript is itself situated within a series of representations and inscriptions of the original event, which is video recorded as it happens and then elaborated within different types of transcripts, starting with notes and raw transcripts and (never really) ending with refined transcripts. The selection of details is shaped by our interest in the stepwise embodied organization of driving, the preliminaries of the participants readying themselves and the overtaking action itself. The transcript also shows how verbal actions initiate and are intertwined with verbal and non-verbal responses (or absence of responses), provided by different types of actions. The transcript helps to make visible the timing of embodied actions, which provides the basis for their sequential analysis by the members of the driving cohort and by ourselves as subsequent external analysts of the organization of overtaking. 1.4. Outline of the analysis to follow The analytical contribution of the paper, which is the major undertaking here, is organized in three chapters: the pre-overtaking phase in which the preparation of the overtaking is performed (chapter 2); the overtaking proper (chapter 3); and the post-overtaking phase, in which the driver repositions the car in the original lane and the participants engage in retrospective comments (chapter 4). Each chapter is itself organized by approaching each phase from a double point of view: the perspective of the overtaker and the perspective of the overtaken. From within these two vehicular parties to overtaking, we then consider both the in-car activities and the communication between cars. While it is a complicated arrangement, the paper thereby pursues a situated yet systematic analysis of the practices for overtaking while simultaneously maintaining an EMCA pursuit of the numerous variations and contingencies that produce, as an observable reportable mobile matter, the moral, intelligible orderliness of overtaking. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 28 2. Pre-overtaking: preliminary local analyses; projecting the overtaking Overtaking emerges from three pre-overtaking elements: firstly, recognizing that overtaking may be possible, desired or required; secondly, the prospective investigation of the emerging conditions ahead; and, thirdly, the initiation of the action itself. The very recognition that overtaking may be possible, desired or required is unevenly distributed between the potential overtaker and the vehicle to be overtaken. The overtaker is the agent who is likely to recognize an occasion for overtaking first and has the right to decide whether to initiate overtaking. What is marked in this stage of the overtaking, in comparison with the overtaking itself, is the contingencies of whether overtaking will be attempted. Overtaking fits with the EMCA interest in occasioned activities: our interest concerns, when one vehicle meets another, how the members of traffic identify and venture on the task of overtaking, wherever it occurs (Garfinkel 1967). On each occasion, members find [overtaking] through traffic categorization practices that generate: • relevant categories of overtaking – overtakable, overtaker, to-be-overtaken, overtaken – and their dynamic ongoing transformations; • categorizations of other vehicles: as very slow/slow/less slow than me, fast and so on; • sequences of action: monitoring traffic ahead, pulling out, passing and pulling in. We are interested in the details of how drivers (and passengers) come to identify the emergent mobile situation as requiring the overtaking of a vehicle (and/or a queue of vehicles ahead). One of the perspectival qualities in the constellation commonly produced by overtaking is double asymmetry. The vehicle to be overtaken has a better view of the road ahead than the overtaker, although it is the latter that most needs that view. At the same time, the vehicle to be overtaken is the one that is less likely to be aware immediately that an occasion has arisen for overtaking, because its orientation is predominantly towards the traffic ahead. While we will concentrate on the vehicles that constitute the overtaking pair (e.g. the first and second vehicle(s), which will change positions), there are other vehicles that are third parties during the occasion that may be involved peripherally, those further ahead of the overtaken, those behind the overtaker (which might decide to follow on their tail) and those in parallel lanes or opposing lanes (which might flash lights to warn an overtaker pulling out that the overtaking is risky). Third parties, imminent overtakers and the emergent overtaken draw on a shared overtaking device (in a CA sense) to render the movements of the cars on the road intelligible. Importantly, given that the occasion can be a nerve-wracking, costly or even fatal one, it endows the overtaker with the primary and morally weighty responsibility for analysing locally the features of the traffic environment, other vehicles' projected trajectories and courses of action, the judgement of the acceleration required (and the capacity of the vehicle to achieve that acceleration) and so on. There Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 29 are, nevertheless, others involved, most obviously, in the examples that follow, driving instructors but also passengers and other drivers. To judge whether overtaking is possible, desired and/or required calls on the driver as a proto-overtaker to make his or her local analysis of the overtakability of not only the vehicle itself but also its evolving situation within a gestalt of traffic ahead, to the sides and behind. Moreover, the driver needs to consider the oncoming configuration of the road (bends, slopes, narrowing, etc.). As noted above, the potential overtaken vehicle, on noticing an incipient overtaking action beginning behind it, may then analyse whether, when and where overtaking is appropriate as well as helping it, posing an obstacle to it, resisting it or letting it pass. The judgement of where and when overtaking is possible, desired and/or required by the driver is implemented by embodied practices of noticing, looking and seeing, drawing on the optical architecture of the car with its many windows and rear and side mirrors. The intersubjective availability of this preparatory work to the occupants of the overtaker's vehicle is at its most obvious in the driving lessons in our data below, but we will also show how front-seat passengers in everyday driving situations (e.g. commuters, family or friends on a journey together) orient towards it. For the other members of traffic outside the overtaker vehicle, the relative positioning, speed and trajectories of cars are visible in an unevenly distributed manner (the road is certainly not a panopticon for travellers), and it is through that unevenly distributed visibility of the movements of each vehicle that a vehicle preparing for overtaking makes itself recognizable. It is not only the overtaker's perspective that we are pursuing; we are interested in how the multiple members of a traffic cohort examine the situation from their categorially organized perspectives. For instance, the vehicle that finds itself to be a target for overtaking, by another vehicle, analyses the situation emerging behind and ahead and may find itself to be easily overtakable, not yet overtakable or nearly impossible to overtake (and can make itself so, for example by accelerating). Locating itself as an overtakeable in a particular ecology then provides resources for the vehicle in front ofr coordinating its actions (or not) with the potential overtaker. Moreover, these practices are not strategically implemented: in most of the cases, the occasion of overtaking emerges contingently and is noticed as such within the continuously changing flow of traffic. Preparing to overtake is made apparent in the fine details of how the overtaker closes the gap on the vehicle(s) that it plans to overtake, how it adjusts its position to enhance its view of the road ahead and the activation of its flashing indicator light (though the latter can be missing entirely during successful overtaking). The vehicle to be overtaken on noticing the manoeuvres behind, may also show sensitivity by adjusting its speed downwards (or of course upwards to maintain its ordinal position in the traffic). While in routine situations there may be only minimal reference to the project of overtaking in the talk between the car occupants of either the overtaker or the overtaken, during driving lessons overtaking is frequently discussed. Given that learning to judge when and how overtaking should be initiated is discussed by the instructor and pupil in driving lessons, it neatly converges with our interests here. In routine driving discussions of overtaking, they are touched on due to either high levels of difficulty in making the manoeuvre or morally contentious manoeuvres in which drivers have pursued the project in a manner that leads to their categorization Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 30 as 'foolish', 'selfish', 'dangerous' and so on. They may be triggered by attempts to initiate overtaking, though in our material they are more commonly made as assessments on completion of the project. In terms of the driver's progression of the overtaking project, there is, within this preparatory phase, a shift from recognizing and judging the conditions that might make this an occasion for overtaking, to readiness, on finding a projectable course ahead for overtaking to beginning to shift through further courses of action. For the passengers, there is the shift to a more exclusive focus by the driver whereby he or she is very likely to disengage from conversation or other multi-activities while setting the indicator, shifting gears, moving the steering wheel and adjusting his or her body posture. Meanwhile, for the other members of the traffic cohort, the overtaking vehicle is witnessable in the triggering of its indicator, accelerating and shifting lane position towards the side from which overtaking can be launched. 2.1 Perspective of the overtaker As we have argued earlier, the vehicle behind (i.e. the incipient overtaker) is the one that notices the occasion and desirability of overtaking. It monitors the ecology and the traffic, evaluates whether it has the right to initiate overtaking and has greater responsibility for judging when and where it takes place. While it might seem as if we could treat it as the sole active party, the vehicle in front is also involved and frequently has superior visual access to the road ahead. The vehicle that plans to overtake has to engage in a fairly substantial amount of preparatory work: assessing the overtaking-relevant qualities of the vehicle ahead (e.g. its speed relative to the overtaker's own, its length and its qualities of visual obstruction), analysing the road environment, projecting the trajectories of parallel and opposing traffic, setting the indicator at the appropriate moment, moving the car in relation to the lane and the vehicle to be overtaken and more. We will begin our examination of the overtaker's preparatory work with an instructor teaching a learner how to recognize an occasion on which overtaking ought to be considered and what it is necessary to prepare the vehicle for overtaking (2.1.1-2.1.2). We then shift to an experienced driver who, by contrast, does not topicalize the driving techniques necessary for overtaking (2.1.3) given that these are seen-but-unnoticed features of routine overtaking. We will see that the driver fits his talk to the preparatory work for challenging overtaking, uses the earliest opportunity to overtake, and activates the indicator to help make the shift from preparation to the overtaking manoeuvre itself publicly available. The consequences of not taking the earliest opportunity to overtake are topicalized in the following fragment from a driving lesson. The instructor formulates the preparation for overtaking just when he and his pupil are themselves preparing to overtake (2.1.4). Having examined two typical overtaking episodes, we will then turn to two deviant cases of overtaking. In the first, we are still on the public road transport system but with an unusual road layout in which there is a shared overtaking lane for contraflow traffic (2.1.5). In this more hazardous environment, the occupants of the car overtake with caution, using a vehicle ahead as a temporary shield by staying close Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 31 behind it. In the second example, we examine overtaking on a motor-racing training-track (2.1.6). This track is a driving setting without a law or informal rule to drive on the left or right side of the road or even an expectation of a fixed side on which to pass vehicles. Instead, preparation for the overtaking involves assessing the optimum route for maintains its racing speed while leaving the car in front to try its best to move out of the way. 2.1.1 Learning to recognize an occasion for overtaking In the first extract, we have a case of overtaking correctly by merely following as a second vehicle behind a first overtaking vehicle. By forming a pair, the second car as a follower needs to carry out less work than leading vehicle. The instructor has found an occasion to instruct their trainee in analysing the situation from another perspective: that of travelling at a vehicle-appropriate speed, which will then make overtaking the relevant next action. The trainee is learning, in short, when and where overtaking ought to be performed. The driving school car is driving steadily on a motorway behind a lorry that is driving at approximately 90 km/h, that is, well below the speed limit for passenger cars (110 km/h). For the competent driver, the "scenic intelligibility" (Jayyusi 1988:272) of this situation involves seeing the lorry as a slow-moving and generally overtakable vehicle. The driving instructor's question about the current speed limit (line 01) is oriented towards the categorical implications of this scene. Extract 4 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_MT_ ts1_25_2_ 18:48_19:01) 01 INS 02 TRA 03 INS 04 ins 05 INS 06 cr1 07 INS tra ins 08 ins cr1 tra tra va e re fö hastihet här, what speed do we have here (0.7) hun::dratie, hundred an’ ten (.) mm, (0.7)* (1.3) * (0.2) *gaze RVm-----* .hh$(0.9) $overtaking car visible--> ska ru inte köra om lastbil+*en (då). (0.6)+ aren’t you going to overtake the lorry (then) +.gaze LSm-----,+ *..gaze RVm--> (0.4)* (0.6) $± (3.6) ‡ ->,,* -->$overtaking car passes-->> ±indicates->> ‡lane change->> Although the driving instructor's question receives the correct answer (01-03), there is evidence in the unfolding interactional sequence that this is not the central point of the instructor's question. In fact, he confirms the pupil's answer with only a minimal response (03). This mm, produced with rising prosody, may be hearable as inviting 'more' from the pupil. In that case, the question–answer sequence would just be a pre-sequence giving rise to an expectation of a particular kind of next action (Schegloff 1968). After just over three seconds of steady driving, in silence, Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 32 the instructor verbalizes that expectation. He asks her if she isn't going to overtake the lorry (04-07), possibly also adding the particle då (then). 'Then' signals the question's link to the expected, but absent, outcome of the preceding question-answer sequence. The instructor's two questions manifest an analysis of the current driving circumstances as making overtaking relevant. By inference, the first question, which is about the current speed limit, is also an invitation to check how fast their own car is currently travelling in relation to the specified speed limit and to correct the speed if the difference turns out to be significant. By first inquiring about the speed limit, rather than immediately requesting the pupil to overtake the lorry that is blocking their way, the instructor gives the pupil the opportunity to understand by herself what she needs to do next: an opportunity that she does not take. However, as soon as the driving instructor has inquired about her lack of action (7), the pupil initiates overtaking by first looking in the left rear-view mirror (7) and then, as soon as a car that is currently overtaking them is passing, begins to indicate left. 2.1.2 Explicit instructions and coordination with oncoming traffic Building on the previous case of instruction, we now turn to a different instructor's and pupil's embodied production of scrutinizing the environment to establish that the vehicle can pull out into the other lane. The instructor's work in this extract is to show how the vehicle itself can be, and often ought to be, moved sideways towards the middle of the road to provide a better perspective of the opposing lane. The desire for a better perspective is all the more exaggerated here because the instructor's seat is placed on the wrong side for looking around the wide vehicle ahead. While extract 4 has shown an explicit instructed preparation of an overtaking action on a motorway, extract 5 shows the explicit instruction of an equally typical overtaking action on a two-lane country road. Overtaking thus requires the use of the lane running in the opposite direction. As in extract 4, the type of vehicle is relevant to the overtaking action. Whereas in extract 4 the length of the lorry required special caution, in extract 5 the very low speed of a tractor ahead makes overtaking relevant and desirable. When the driving school car has left the no-overtaking zone (indexed by the solid line on the road), the instructor announces that they will overtake. She takes the steering wheel and guides the trainee through the whole process. Extract 5 (Deppermann_German_driving-school_IDS_FAHR_02_23_26:48-27:08) (2L, INS) 01 INS 02 03 ins jetz wer_ich dir mal HELfen-= now I will PTCL help you weil den wern mer überHOlenbecause we will overtake this one du machst dein %BLINker mal nach %LINKS, you just set your indicator to the left %.................%grasps steering wheel---->> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 33 04 tra tra ins (0.3)±(0.1)+*(0.3)# *(0.4)+ (0.4) + ±sets indicator +look LSm-------+L window+ahead--------> *look RVm*look left to opposite lane----> #fig.5.1 Fig. 5.1: INS steers car and monitors traffic behind in internal rear mirror, TRA monitors opposite lane 05 INS ins tra fig <<creaky>wolln mal +sehn;#*al+les *FREI:,>#* let’s PTCL see everything is free ------>*.......*look L window,,* ----->+look L window+ahead----------->> #fig.5.2 #fig.5.3 Fig. 5.2: INS steers car towards middle of the road and bends to the left to monitor opposite lane, TRA monitors rear mirror for potential incipient overtaker Fig. 5.3: INS veers out while shortly looking to the left for potential competing overtaker, TRA monitors road ahead After the no-overtaking zone ends and with no oncoming traffi in sight, the instructor announces that they will overtake (01-02) and asks the pupil to indicate to the left (03). She grasps the steering wheel (03) and movethe car towards the middle of the road. There is a division of labour concerning the driving actions: the instructor steers the car throughout the whole overtaking process so that the pupil only has to set the indicator and adjust their speed. In line 04, the pupil indicates. Both she and the instructor monitor the traffic behind in the mirror (04), and the trainee also monitors the blind spot with a shoulder check (04, fig. 5.1), whereas the instructor Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 34 bends to the left in order to see more of the road ahead and thereby search for oncoming traffic (fig. 5.2). The instructor then declares that 'everything is free', that is, there is no oncoming traffic visible, while briefly looking out of the left window to check that there is no competing overtaker appearing from behind that might be about to pass them (fig. 5.3). At the end of this turn, she starts to veer out, while both participants continue to monitor the traffic behind and ahead. Extract 5 is a textbook example of how to prepare for overtaking in an unproblematic, highly recurrent situation that, however, requires considerable caution. In contrast to the situation on the motorway, overtaking on a contraflow road is much more dangerous, because the overtaker has to adapt his or her actions to the possibility that there may be oncoming traffic. As in extract 4, limited sight (here: the road bending to the right and the height of the tractor) is a major impediment to making sure that the opportunity is right. In extract 5, it is the first time that overtaking is practised with this pupil. The instructor makes explicit the expected two stages of the driving actions: first, setting the indicator; second, checking whether the traffic conditions allow for the overtaking. Other actions that are constitutive of the episode, however, are not topicalized: steering the car towards the middle of the road, which is necessary to be able to inspect the opposite lane adequately (and which also communicates the claim to be the first to overtake the tractor to the traffic behind) and constantly switching between monitoring the traffic ahead and monitoring the traffic behind to avoid missing any competing action from other traffic participants that could interfere with the incipient overtaking action. Although it is her first time co-performing an overtaking action, the pupil self-initiates these alternating monitoring checks. 2.1.3 Preparations without talk, sufficient perspective ahead, contraflow and precise timing In the next case, we will switch to an experienced driver initiating overtaking in the challenging traffic ecology of a contraflow country road with a large vehicle ahead, oncoming traffic and a limited area to accomplish the overtaking. In this instance, we will also witness the driver abandoning his first attempt to set the indicator. This alerts us to the fact that, under challenging circumstances for an overtaker, who is a skilled driver, triggering the indicator appears to be tied to showing exactly when the intended overtaking will begin. In this fragment, the same pair of commuters as in extract 1 are travelling together. On this journey, they are travelling in the other commuter's car, so their roles are reversed: the passenger is the driver and vice versa. The vehicle that they encounter ahead is a lorry that is both slower moving than they are, at their point of encounter, and, in general, has category expectancies in relation to its slower progress on country roads. Of more analytic consequence, the bend in the road that precedes their overtaking is itself reversed on the left-right axis, a reversal that provides for different preliminary views of the road ahead. In the UK, driving on the left-hand side of the road, when the road bends to the left, the first vehicle blocks the driver's view and, when it bends to the right, the driver is offered a gap to look down the road ahead. In extract 1, this meant that the view was blocked, but, in this case, the driver is able to utilize the gap where the road is bending to undertake a Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 35 preliminary check (line 02) before overtaking the large lorry in front of them (line 04). Extract 6 (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_NI_MT_HabitableCars_61_Months_Ahead_0:00) 01 DRI oth 02 DRI dri 03 DRI dri 04 DRI dri dri dri dri fig van So (0.4) given this is (0.5) mid June (0.5) and she’s ^ (0.3) going >>road curves on the right----------------------------^ to be starting radiotherapy within the ‡next‡ (0.7) ‡hand rises on gear‡ *(0.5).h probably within the *leans to right-->> †next week +I +£would #ima†‡*gi*ne (2.3)‡ †hand up to steering wheel† +gz Rm+ *indic* ‡pulls out‡ #fig 6.1a £passing lorry-->> The first item of interest in this fragment is that we can see, through an abandoned preparation, that the driver is preparing to overtake at the earliest possible opportunity. At line 02, as soon as the car has reached a straight stretch of road suitable for overtaking, the driver glances ahead and begins lifting his arm from the gear stick. He then abandons that move at the end of line 02, restarting the preparations at line 04, when he does lift his hand from the gearstick to activate the indicator, closely timed with pulling out into the middle of the road. His abandonment is tied to his spotting a white van ahead and having to wait until that passes. The oncoming vehicle’s approach and passing becomes a resource for the driver's timing for indicating (line 04) and pulling out. If we return to that same moment from 2-1 (here shown in fig. 6.2) alongside this case (fig. 6.1), we see how the movement of the oncoming car is built on to take the earliest possible opportunity. During the tenths of a second during which the vehicle moves past the rear of the first vehicle, the driver in the second vehicle then indicates as part of moving across. Fig. 6.1: Indicator struck just as the vehicle passes the rear corner Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 36 Fig. 6.2: Earlier instance of close time from extract 1 As we observe elsewhere in this article, overtaking is accomplished in varied forms, orienting towards different norms, constraints, possibilities and so on. In the previous extract 5, in the driving lesson, we have a case in which the indicator is activated far ahead of the gap that can be used for overtaking. The indicator there provides, as we noted, a request to overtake rather than, as it is here, part of making visible the very action of overtaking at the point at which it is initiated. Returning to the local visibility arrangements, moving out swiftly does not preclude further discoveries on gaining the wider and more extensive view offered by moving to the other side of the road. In this case, once on the other side of the road, the driver can see that there are no further vehicles. If he had spotted a vehicle, he would still have been able to retreat into the lane behind the lorry until a further opportunity to pull out presented itself. Overtaking on contraflow roads is replete with vehicles manoeuvring or waiting to find the visibility that they require to move past one another. For the overtaker, establishing when overtaking is a possibility, as we have described earlier, relies on anticipating, finding and using a view that is long enough and complete enough to establish that overtaking should be able to be completed without a collision with an oncoming vehicle. The work of finding the projectable path ahead, to overtake in, is complicated by a number of factors concerning the local ecology of the road. As we noted above, the curve of the road to the left or right opens up, or obstructs, the perspectives around the vehicle ahead, as does the presence of trees, slopes and summits in the road. Steep slopes upwards or downwards change the ease of acceleration of the second vehicle and the projectability of speed changes in the first vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle to be overtaken in this extract is a high-sided lorry, which appears as a substantial obstacle to the view of the second vehicle. In addition, by returning to the category expectations as a 'lorry', it will be expected to require a longer time to overtake, thus increasing the difficulty of the overtaking. As part, then, of initiating the overtaking for a second vehicle overtaking a first-positioned vehicle, the second vehicle engages in substantial, if apparently effortless, preparation. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 37 2.1.4 Preparatory sequences of looking and avoiding being locked in Tracking back across our three previous initiations, each has been in relation to a vehicle categorizable as being likely to make overtaking desired and/or required; however, the possibility to overtake is limited conversely due to its size (e.g. a lorry or tractor). In the following fragment from a driving lesson, this is again recognized to be the case. What this episode highlights, by comparison, is the judgements that are required during the time when the vehicle is approaching the rear of a vehicle that is likely to require overtaking. The movement of approaching the vehicle closes the gap ahead, which is itself part of the resources for initiating overtaking. When the gap becomes too small, it creates the problem of being locked-in, a problem which is all the greater in relation to sitting behind a lorry. The instructor's formulation of 'locked in' highlights, then, the problems of failing to overtake in a timely fashion. Moreover, the instructor brings out another feature of the initiation phase in the emphasis on establishing the complex sequenced sets of looking for and scrutinizing other vehicles via mirrors and over the shoulder required to establish that the conditions are suitable for initiating the overtaking. In the next fragment, a driving instructor and pupil are travelling along a dual carriageway (fig. 7.1). When they approach a lorry, the instructor suggests that the pupil should prepare to overtake the lorry. The instructor uses the preparation for the overtaking as an occasion, as we noted above, to formulate the reasoning for timely overtaking because of the danger of being 'locked in' if delaying the initiation of the course of action. He also typifies their manoeuvre as a 'flying overtake'. Extract 7 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_MT_ts4_23_1_ 17:22_17:57) Fig. 7.1 01 INS fig 02 03 04 TRA #du kan ju räkna med att de kanske krä:vs då= you can PART assume that it’ll maybe require then #fig.7.1 =en cirka femhundra meter att köra om en lastbil. approximately five hundred metres to overtake a lorry (0.8) >ska ja byta¿< should I change ((lanes)) Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 38 05 INS 06 TRA tra 07 INS tra 08 tra tra 09 INS tra tra 10 tra 11 12 13 14 15 TRA 16 17 INS 18 19 20 21 22 a°= yes =a.+ (0.35) + yes +checks RVm---+ ja tycker vi påbörjar± en, I think that we initiate a ±hand towards indicator--> ann±ars komm+er vi att bli inlåsta+ här nu. otherwise we will get locked in here now ->±finger rests ind lever--> +checks LSm---------------+...blind spot-> titta >ö+ver<± axeln°. look over your shoulder ->±indicates ->+,,, (0.3)+ (0.5) + (0.6) +(0.4) +(1.0) +..LSm---+...blind spot+..head fw+ och (i) de där fallet som du ser då, and in this case as you see then att hade vi: bara väntat i nåra sekunder till, that if we had only waited a few seconds more då hade den där vita bilen kommit fram, then that white car would have come forward å då hade vi fastnat där bako[m honom. an then we would have got stuck here behind [mm mm (2.8) å just de här kallas ju då för en (.) fly:gande omkörning, an this one is PART called a flying overtaking eftersom vi bara flyter mä:¿ because we are only floating with (1.45) å sen när det gäller tempo, an then about tempo (xx) de e så skönt (x), it feels so good skönt att få (åka förbi och att) (1.6) genomföra sitt (°tempo°). good to be able to (ride past) carry out one’s own t. Having driven in silence for approximately four seconds, the car is slowly gaining on a lorry ahead. With a few hundred metres left (fig. 7.1), the instructor tells the trainee to expect it to take roughly five hundred metres to overtake a lorry. The numerical formulation highlights the relatively long distance needed as a result of travelling at high speed in combination with the length of the vehicle to be overtaken. The driving trainee hears this as a potential instruction to begin the procedure for overtaking, asking the instructor if he should change lanes. After a brief sequence of confirmation-receipt, the instructor produces an explicit instruction to begin the overtaking (07). This is phrased as an informed judgement, 'I think that we initiate a', followed by an account explaining that the reason for beginning the overtaking is to avoid becoming 'locked in' (08). This account is then further elaborated into a hypothetical scenario, explicating the consequences of a delayed overtaking decision: vehicles catching up from behind may gain preference to overtake, resulting in the driving school car being stuck behind the lorry (11-14). Note that the preparatory sequence for overtaking is already well under way, as the pupil began to check the rear-view mirror as soon as his candidate hearing of the instructor's first turn had been confirmed (line 06). He then stands by with the indicator (08) until he has completed the full 'mirror routine' (Björklund 2018), Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 39 which involves checking both the rear-view and the side-view mirrors as well as the blind spot (06-08, 09). As he indicates to change lanes (09), the instructor prompts him to 'look over the shoulder' – a method for checking the blind spot that is frequently exercised in driver training – and he quickly performs the mirror routine again before beginning to change lanes (10). That the pupil performs the procedure for a second time highlights the relevance involved in participating in an instructional activity inside the car, in which instructions are to be followed regardless of whether the pupil has already performed the requested action. In contrast to extract 2.1.1, in which the pupil only began the overtaking preparations in response to an explicit instruction to do so, the trainee in the current extract draws, more autonomously, on their current position and in particular the visibly decreasing distance to the lorry ahead of them to state his provisional understanding of the instructor's informing in lines 01-02. Furthermore, although the pupil is explicitly instructed to check the blind spot before steering into the fast lane, we have noted that he has already undertaken the proper procedure ahead of the instructor's prompt. 2.1.5. Deciding to overtake on a dangerous/unusual three-lane road (01-09) Having examined a series of initiations on common road environments, we will turn now to two more unusual cases: a busy contraflow system with the unusual feature of a shared overtaking lane in the middle and a training track on which racing drivers are being instructed in how to drive at high speed. What is notable in our first case of a shared overtaking lane is how the unusual circumstances, and a shared sense of risk, lead to the topicalization and discussion of overtaking. This contrasts with our earlier extracts (extract 1 and 6, in which, even though they involved challenging overtaking on a country road, it was not topicalized by either driver or passenger. In providing an online commentary on the task of overtaking, the driver shows her orientation towards both the desire to pass more than a minimum number of vehicles during her overtaking and her expectation of the minimal time that will be available in a shared middle lane. In other words, the driver's commentary makes her reasoning available for the passenger during a risky procedure. The decision to overtake can be made easier or more difficult depending on the contingencies of the local configuration of the road. The specific case here – with a reputation for being particularly dangerous – is the three-lane road, in which the central overtaking lane is shared. It is then available for cars coming from both directions. Overtaking depends on the organization of both directions of traffic and the analysis of the local relevance of overtaking to the oncoming flow of traffic. In this case, the occupancy of the lane by cars coming in one or the other direction is locally negotiated on a first-come, first-serve basis. Among the data used for this article, the following fragment is the only episode on such a road – in 2003 in France. The case will be studied in various sections of the article (see above, extracts 19, 29 and 30). The driver is in the right lane of the road and evaluates the relevance and possibility of using the middle lane to overtake some vehicles ahead. The fragment shows the relevant features that constitute the feasibility of this overtaking – especially the use of other overtaking cars as 'shields'. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 40 Extract 8 (Mondada_French_2003_1507_3W-NI_emic19-20_dangereux) 01 dri pas dri 02 DRI dri 03 dri 04 PAS dri cr1 05 06 DRI 07 08 DRI 09 dri fig (0.3) ‡ (0.4) ‡ >>smiling---> >>smiling---> ‡moves slightly on her L---> j’atten:ds‡ heu:, I wait ehm ->‡ † (0.5) † †RH on indicator† ou$:ai:s, (.) dégou*tée.+ yeah:, (.) desperate. -->*looks away---->> -->+stops smiling $overtakes--->> (0.9) j’sais pas si y a l’temps °là°. I don’t know if I have time °there°. (0.7) ça va êt’ cha†‡ud. † it’ll be hot. †indicator† ‡changes lane--->> #+ (0.8) + (3.2) +glances L+ #fig.8.1 Fig. 8.1 While the two occupants of the car are still engaged in their previous conversation (which ends on line 04, when they both stop smiling and the passenger looks away), the driver moves the car slightly towards the middle of the road, albeit remaining in her lane (01). This movement allows her to see what is happening ahead: a car overtakes a small lorry (04) – which drives ahead of another car. Furthermore, the driver moves her left hand – previously positioned on the bottom part of the steering wheel – closer to the indicator (03). Both moves orient towards that stretch of the road as affording overtaking; both also project possible overtaking. At this point, the conversation fades out and the passenger looks away; both stop smiling (04). Here they are momentarily diverging in their orientations (see fig. 8.1): the driver concentrates on the road; the passenger treats that moment as a lapse in their interaction. The car ahead overtakes the lorry, and this is monitored by the driver, who formulates the current issue in so many words, related to time (06, 08), in two turns that are a form of thinking aloud, both self-addressed and possibly to be overheard by the passenger. The first one formulates time from the first-person Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 41 perspective and with some uncertainty (06); the second uses the future and formulates the dangerousness of the manoeuvre (08). On the last syllable of the latter, the driver engages the indicator and changes lane (08), with a last check on her left (09). In this context, the decision to overtake is both visible in the driving and audible in the formulations. It is based on two kinds of considerations. Firstly, visual practices, which include not only scrutinizing the road but also monitoring other drivers' actions. The other drivers are considered from their own perspective – as inspecting and interpreting the traffic configuration here and now and this helping our driver to see it. Secondly, from the perspective of our driver they not treated as possible obstacles precluding the ability to see the road further but as possible 'shields' to be used and followed for her own safe overtaking. The very fact that this configuration constantly changes, with emerging and dissolving opportunities, leads to the explicit topicalization of the time available for the manoeuvre before initiating the change of lane. 2.1.6. Overtaking on a race circuit Our second unusual case is a race training track, on which overtaking is accomplished within a different culture of driving and with an absence of lanes. In competitions, overtaking is at the heart of the tactics of winning or losing the race; by contrast, on the training track, overtaking is not performed for competitive purposes, because the cars are not racing against one another. Nevertheless, there is an etiquette for overtaking, whereby the slower car should always let the faster car pass without hindering it. Relatedly, the faster car is expected to minimize the alterations to its ideal trajectory during the overtaking encounter. Preparing to overtake therefore requires careful monitoring by both vehicles given these training norms. On a training track for racing, in marked contrast to the previous episode, there are not expected to be any vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. Additionally, on a race track, there is no set of legal regulations or expectations for vehicles to drive on a particular side of the road, nor, as we noted above, are there markings to show distinct lanes that drivers ought to orient towards in their relative positioning in initiating overtaking. On the training track, drivers have a coach sitting beside them, instructing them in how to drive the car around a track at its maximum possible speed. The lesson includes skills such as the exact line of approaching for particular kinds of corners, precisely when and how to steer on corners, when and at what rate to decelerate and so on. Multiple vehicles are usually training on the track during a lesson. The following extract shows how the driver and the coach maintain the relevance of their instructed driving action while managing to overtake another car. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 42 Extract 9 (Mondada_French_2012_nurb8.27) (RC_INS) 01 INS 02 dri 03 INS 04 dri 05 INS dri 06 dri dri ins fig vas-y. go. ‡ (8.8) ‡drives twd middle of the road---> reste bien à droite quand même. stay well to the right nonetheless. (0.5) ‡ (0.8) ->‡drives close to the R margin-> là tu viens (t’enj-;tangen-) vas-y, double-le ‡oui. ‡ there you come (tangen-) go, overtake him yes ->‡twd middle‡ ‡ (2.0) * (1.0) + (0.4) # (0.3) + ‡accelerates in the middle of the road-> +looks at overtaken car+ *looks at overtaken car-> #fig.9.1 Fig. 9.1 07 INS fig pe*tit frein# small brake ->* #fig.9.2 Fig. 9.2 08 09 INS 10 dri 11 INS dri 12 (0.3) frein, brake (0.5) ‡ (0.6) ->‡slows down--> et ‡tu braques. and you steer. ->‡steers---->> (1.2) Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 43 The overtaking manoeuvre is embedded within the instructions of the coach and within the relevancies of racing – in a way that minimally disrupts the ongoing and projected trajectory. At the beginning of the fragment, the coach issues an instruction (01). The driver follows it while driving in the middle of the road – probably anticipating the overtaking of a car that is visible further ahead. This move is corrected by the coach (03): his instruction orients towards and corrects the current position assumed by the driver by using the verb 'to stay', referring to the previous position, expressing the spatial targeted location as bien à droite ('well to the right, 03), which also contrasts with the middle-right actual positioning, and by using a concessive particle (quand meme, 'nonetheless', 03). This instruction manifests the importance of keeping the initial trajectory and the position that is ideal for the next curve rather than abandoning it to embrace the alternative trajectory related to the overtaking. The use of the concessive particle shows that these two trajectories might not be convergent – and orients towards the overtaking as an obstacle to the current activity rather than as a way to progress into it. In response, the driver moves to the right of the road (04). The coach issues the next instruction (05, maybe referring to the tangent of the curve) but suspends it, addressing the necessity to overtake at this moment. The overtaking is instructed by means of two imperative verbs, followed by a 'yes' that acknowledges that the driver had already started the action. Consequently, the driver moves to the middle of the road and accelerates, overtaking the slower car (06). Both the coach and the driver look at the overtaken car (fig. 9.1) but immediately reorient towards the road (fig. 9.2) and the next instruction. In this way, the overtaking manoeuvre is embedded within the ongoing instructions, minimally distorting the ideal trajectory of the racing car before the driver engages in the next curve (07-11). 2.1.7 Summary The final data fragment shows a different moral order of overtaking within training for the fastest possible driving. Rather than the faster car behind making adjustments to negotiate how to pass, the slower car in front is expected to make adjustments to move out of its way, offering the minimal obstruction and thereby allowing the faster car to maximize its speed. Moreover, not overtaking or delaying is not an option in racing training; the faster driver should, and will, pass the slower driver ahead without delay. By stark contrast, the learner drivers on the public road system, as we showed earlier in this section, are not necessarily expected to notice that an occasion has arisen on which they ought to overtake. They also have to be instructed in the reasoning behind overtaking without delay (i.e. to avoid being 'locked in'). In the everyday driving of experienced drivers, there is also an orientation towards overtaking at the earliest opportunity, evidenced for instance in the commuter driver's abandoned reach for the indicator in extract 6. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 44 2.2 Perspective of the overtaken car While the vehicle in front, typically, has less work to perform for the overtaking to be initiated, it is nevertheless involved in the initiation of the action. It can accelerate on noticing an approaching car, thereby accidentally or deliberately frustrating the initiation of overtaking. More commonly, and as we shall investigate in the following section, it can support the overtaking by, for example, maintaining the same speed, slowing down, moving sideways in the lane to increase the visibility or indicating to make an offer for the car behind to overtake. The data fragments begin with an episode of typical motorway overtaking in which there is minimal orientation from the car in front to the car behind's preparation to overtake (2.2.1). However, we then show that increased orientation can be required when we examine a pupil driving at a slower than average speed on the road who is then instructed to monitor the road behind for cars overtaking (2.2.2). Indeed, the instructor encourages the pupil to deal with vehicles that sit on the car's tail by encouraging those vehicles to overtake by using the indicator to show that encouragement. Continuing with instructional work around overtaking, we then shift to an extract that nicely picks up an overtaking problem raised in one of our earlier fragments, in which the learner becomes locked in by other vehicles behind, preparing and then overtaking (2.2.3), the learner then being forced to wait until the vehicles behind have finished overtaking. Moving further from the minimally oriented driver, we then analyse a driver rejecting the attempt by a vehicle behind to overtake and the warrant on which the rejection of an overtaking attempt is made (2.2.4). Staying with experienced drivers, we then describe the tactical use of becoming a slower car by a driver who wishes temporarily to undertake an attention-demanding activity (2.2.5). By becoming slower, the driver exploits the norm that potential overtakers should undertake monitoring and manoeuvring work. Finally, we draw again on our contrast case of the racing training track (2.2.6). In this driving setting, the car in front pays close attention to the faster car behind to make sure that the faster car's speed is minimally reduced, because in this setting it is expected to avoid disrupting the faster car behind. 2.2.1 Routine motorway overtaking Our first overtaking episode, as we have noted above, shows a typical and minimal form of involvement by the overtaken vehicle on a multi-lane highway. The overtaker is 'seen but unnoticed' or is 'doingbeing ordinary' for the conduct of vehicles in the fast lane. The overtaken need not alter its actions in any way, nor is there any form of risk anticipated through collision, tight bends and so on. Given this nominal involvement, the passenger of the overtaken, in contrast to a front-seat passenger of the overtaker (as noted in the earlier extracts: 1, 6 and 8), does not adjust, suspend or terminate the talk in relation to the initiation of the overtaking. In the fragment below, the driver and passenger are commuters travelling along a motorway with two parallel lanes. They are already in the 'slow lane' and will be overtaken by a silver car in the 'fast lane'. The overtaking car passes without diffi- Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 45 culty. The driver of the overtaken car monitors the overtaking car only briefly, engaging himself in his passenger's storytelling, which happens in parallel to the overtaking. Extract 10 (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_HabitableCars_Overtaken_by_a_Corsar_0:00) (MT NI) 01 dri pas 02 dri pas 03 dri pas 04 dri 05 dri 06 PAS pas dri CR2 07 PAS pas dri 08 PAS pas dri CR2 09 PAS pas dri CR2 fig ±(0.6) ± (2.6)% ±inspects instruments± >>brushing trousers --------% * (1.6) +(1.2)+ (0.2)* +gz rvm+ *gz PAS window-------* (0.3)*(0.7)+(0.6)*(0.5)+ +gz rsm------+ *gz F window*gz PAS window-----> (0.9)+ (1.8) + +gz instruments+ (2.6) * (0.4) ->* $.pt my headache was shocking again †this morning†* •turns head toward DRI---------------------------* †turns nod quickly† $overtaking------------------> *+(0.2) .h:: *gz F window----> +smiling, gz front window----> I actually didn’t go out I +went to my $*friend’s+ saturday night ----->*looking out PAS window-> +gz instruments------+gz F window--> --------------->$ahead of CR1------------> right+ enough for- for quite a few drinks +# but+ % (1.2)% %shakes head% -->+looks at rear view mirror-----------------+glances CR2+ -->moving away in fast late--------------------------------->> #fig 10.1 Fig. 10.1: DRI glances at CR2 10 PAS pas dri †all% day Saturday night I just didn’t want to go out† %turns to DRI------------------------------------>> †turns to PAS----------------------------------------† Before being overtaken, the driver is monitoring the road ahead and behind while also attending to the instrumentation. At the point when the overtaking car becomes proximate (line 06), the passenger begins a story about his weekend. In contrast to the attentiveness of the overtaker on country roads (see section 2.1.3), the driver Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 46 overtaken on the multi-lane road gives his attention to the passenger and his storytelling (end of line 06). While the passing of the overtaker continues through lines 06 to 08, the driver only monitors it very briefly. The driver glances at it in line 09 when it moves away from their car before turning again to show his orientation towards the passenger's storytelling. What becomes apparent from this fragment is that, under typical conditions on multiple-lane highways, the driver needs only to pay minimal attention. Indeed, for us, as analysts, this form of overtaking appears in the margins of being an action of overtaking that is recognizable and displayed as such. The change in the sequential order of the cars, when one car moves from being behind to being in front, seems to be almost incidental. Noticing the overtaking is as much a prompt for the driver briefly to monitor their speed as anything else. Considering it as such, it is a point at which the driver might find, through checking his or her speed, that the other car had passed them because he or she had slowed down and so may need to adjust the speed. In this case, it appears that the brief analysis of this overtaking in relation to the instrumentation provides no such discovery and therefore no consequential acceleration. 2.2.2 Change in speed leading to the monitoring of potential overtakers behind Contrasting with the first example, there are many situations in which the vehicle in front monitors the vehicles behind closely and can be required to become more closely involved in assisting them in initiating their overtaking. These situations may emerge from the road environment, traffic conditions and/or being aware of a large difference in relative speed or ongoing deceleration or acceleration. Under these circumstances, where there is the potential for disrupting the progress of the vehicles behind, the driver monitors to check that their character as a vehicle that may require overtaking has been recognized by the cars behind and, as in the following extract, may then use their vehicle's left-right positioning and its indicator lights to propose that the vehicles behind should prepare to overtake it. In the following case, the driving school car is being overtaken while practising slow driving on a narrow country road. The extract begins as the pupil has just shifted down into first gear, braking to adapt the speed. At this point, two cars are approaching from behind. Extract 11 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_2W_ts2_19_2_ 04:36_04:46) 01 INS ins ins tra cr1 02 ins 03 TRA 04 cr1 DÄ:*R (.) eh sl-*släpp brom*sen (.)$DÄ:+*R ä &en-+ there eh r- release the brake there is a *gaze RVm----* *gaze RVm----* >>continuously gestures with RH to the right--->> +gaze RVm-+ $overtakes--> *rätt hastihet, (.)*så, (.)*[nu gasar ja] på:% right speed there now we give gas *gaze rvm----------* *gaze rvm--> [ okay ] okay $ (0.8) ->$side-by-side, passes ahead-->> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 47 05 INS tra 06 tra 07 INS ins tra 08 ins tra tra 09 ins tra cr2 fig 10 INS tra +försiktit, careful +gaze ahead and left (at passing car)---> (0.7)+(0.3)+(0.2) -->+ +..gaze rvm--> blinka hö:ger* så han+kör o*m,= indicate right so that he overtakes (you) -->* *gaze rvm--> -->+ =+så vi sli$pper+ hon*om,* so we get rid of him -->* *gaze rvm--> +gaze rvm------+ $activates indicator (0.2)+(0.3)£(0.4)*#(0.2)* ->*,,,,,,* +..gaze rvm--> £overtakes-->> #fig.11.1 ↑°så+:ja°. that’s it ->+ Fig. 11.1 Due to the type of manoeuvre being practised – shifting down into low gear – the speed of the car is very low with respect to the road infrastructure and surrounding traffic. It is not therefore surprising that, while the pupil is working to adapt the speed to driving in first gear (01–02), a car overtakes from behind at a significantly higher speed (01-04). Throughout the course of this event, the instructor is gesticulating to the right in front of him, directing the pupil to keep close to the right side of the road while at the same time more or less constantly monitoring the car behind them in the rear-view mirror. This is an example of when the car to be overtaken invites other drivers to overtake by keeping to the right and not accelerating. Unlike the first car, the next car that approaches from behind chooses not to overtake them directly but tags along behind them. While the pupil and the instructor keep practising slow driving (05), both of them monitor this car in the rear-view mirror (06). After a short while, the instructor prompts the pupil to indicate right so that they can 'get rid of him' (line 08, fig. 11.1). This turn construes the car tagging along behind as a nuisance. For the practical purposes of practising slow driving, Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 48 someone queuing up behind to form a convoy constitutes unwanted company. We may notice that, by the way in which this car is referred to, using a pronominal reference ('he' (07) and 'him' (08)), the instructor treats the second car behind them as an 'other' and as something that is already known in common. By using the firstperson pronoun 'we', the instructor construes the traffic school team as a mobile unit – and, consequently, the car tagging behind them as 'their' concern to 'get rid of' to be able to continue practising slow driving undisturbed on this small country road. In a situation like this – in which, given the material surroundings with no physical option to leave the road by turning – indicating right will conventionally be taken to mean that one is planning to pull over to the side, that one intends to keep proceeding at a very low speed or, more rarely, that the 'coast is clear' for the car behind to overtake. Any of these scenarios will typically result in the car indicating right being overtaken by traffic approaching from behind, and, as the instructor makes clear in line 08, that is the sole purpose of them indicating. The instruction to indicate, then, is a matter of accountability and morality (Haddington et al. 2013) – of showing oneself to be 'overtakable'. Of course, besides moral conventions concerning cooperativeness in jointly using the road, communicating one's intentions to other drivers is ultimately a matter of safety. Broth et al. (2018, in press) demonstrated how procedures for indicating, by which one's current and incipient actions are made recognizable to other road users, are routinely practised in driver training. Having dealt with a series of events in which the overtaken sees, anticipates and accepts the projected action of overtaking, let us turn briefly to a driver rejecting an initiation to overtake. 2.2.3 Rejecting an overtaker As we argued in the introduction to the article, not all vehicles accept the entitlement of a vehicle behind to overtake them. They may allow the overtaking to be completed while complaining about the action inside their vehicle or, outside, complaint to the other with their horn. More significantly, they can, on noticing the initiation, or indeed the mid-way point of overtaking, manoeuvre their car to resist, refuse or reject the incipient overtaking. In this case, in congested city centre traffic, a pick-up truck attempts but ultimately fails to overtake a car. Our perspective is from within the vehicle that is the target of the overtaking vehicle. The vehicles have just exited a roundabout in two lanes, which then converge into one lane, and, just ahead of the convergence, the truck attempts to overtake the car. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 49 Extract 12 (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_NI_MT_HabitableCars_59_Bullies on the road_00:27) 01 cr2 02 dri dri 03 DRI dri pas cr2 fig (3.0) >>approaching & coming alongside rear of cr1--> +† (0.9)+ (1.6) +gz rvm+ †LH gears--->> +(0.2) Look+ I knew $this thing *was going to try and #bully its way* +gz at truck+ *gz at truck-------------------------* $brakes--> #fig 12.1 Fig. 12.1 04 05 cr2 06 DRI dri pas 07 PAS pas 08 DRI dri 09 PAS pas dri 10 11 DRI dri pas 12 13 DRI 14 15 DRI in (.) I don’t think so (2.0) $ (0.4) -->$tucks in behind cr1--->> there see +it didn’t+ work *did it +gz rvm---+ *gz lsm--> +U::[h.]* --->* [I] could >tell by+ the way he’s been< drivi:[n ] +gz rvm---------------+ +*[H:]m.*+ *gz lsm* +gz rvm--+ (.) He was tryin to push and bully his way +through+* +gz rvm+ ------>* (0.6) not with me you won’t (2.8) It’s called taking a turn like everybody else Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 50 While the car in front decelerates on approaching slow-moving traffic ahead, the truck behind rapidly accelerates in a parallel lane, projecting an overtaking move. Our fragment begins when the truck is approaching the mid-point of its overtaking manoeuvre. The driver notices the truck drawing parallel to them out of her side window (line 03) and draws the passenger's attention to it: look I knew this thing was to try and bully its way in. The passenger looks across briefly at the truck. However, our driver does not decelerate or alter her lane position to allow the truck to overtake her. When our driver was formulating the truck's action as bully its way in, the truck had in fact already failed to overtake and was decelerating to drop in behind the car before the road narrowed to one lane. The truck decelerates rapidly, adjusting its position to tuck in behind the car, at which point the driver delivers her indirect, unhearable rebuke to the failed overtaker: There see it didn't work did it (line 06). Afterwards, the driver continues her extended account of how she was able to identify the truck in a morally negative light (line 11), underlining the moral aspect of her actions in resisting his overtaking (line 13) and finally formulating the rule of the road that was being breached, taking a turn like everyone else (line 15). The failed overtaking attempt reveals the morally charged judgement around the circumstances under which a vehicle is entitled to overtake another vehicle on the road. In this circumstance, both cars have a position in slow-moving traffic and neither party is identifiable as a slower- or faster-moving vehicle in the cohort. They are both suffering the shared slow progression towards their destinations that is typical of congested city traffic. The driver of the 'overtaken', on noticing the initiation of the overtaking move, far into its course, does not decelerate, and only by her fairly rapid deceleration would she be able to create a gap into which the truck could then complete its overtaking. Regarding that aspect, we can also see how the truck would force a change in her trajectory rather than moving ahead without changing the overtaken's expected trajectory and speed. It is in that projected second part of overtaking – deceleration – that we find the warrant to characterize the overtaker as a bully. 'Bully' is not only warranted by overtaking that will require deceleration of the overtaken for its success. The vehicle trying to overtake is also open to typification as a category of vehicle through its appearance. It is a black pick-up truck, and its qualities of additional horsepower and size are made relevant when it is formulated as a 'bully'. The categorization is initially built on 'thing' rather than 'he' in I knew this thing was going to try and bully its way through, which initially directs the passenger's attention to the vehicle and not the person. 2.2.4 Being overtaken that leads to waiting to overtake As we have argued earlier, prompt and punctual overtaking is the expectation of members of traffic, and, when this is not undertaken, vehicles further back in the queue acquire rights to launch their own attempts to overtake without being seen as dangerous or morally questionable. Moreover, patterns then emerge, such as the vehicle that failed to overtake becoming blocked in while vehicles further down the queue stream past. The failed overtaker then either has to wait until the stream has finished or make visible that he or she wishes to initiate overtaking and monitor the overtaker(s) for an offer to proceed. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 51 The following extract highlights the mutually exclusive relationship that holds between overtaking and being overtaken oneself. As we may recall from extract 4 above, the driving instructor and theirpupil are preparing to overtake a lorry on a two-lane motorway. As a result of their relatively low speed, other cars have been overtaking them. Extract 13 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_MT_ts1_25_2_ 18:48_19:01) 01 INS 02 TRA 03 INS 04 ins 05 INS 06 cr1 07 INS ins tra 08 ins cr1 tra tra va e re fö hastihet här, what speed do we have here (0.7) hun::dratie, hundred an’ ten (.) mm, (0.7)* (1.3) * (0.2) *gaze RVm-----* .hh$(0.9) $overtaking car visible--> ska ru inte köra om lastbil*+en (då). (0.6)+ aren’t you going to overtake the lorry (then) *..gaze RVm--> +.gaze LSm----,+ (0.4)*(0.6)$± (3.6) ‡ -->,,* -->$overtaking car passes-->> ±indicates->> ‡lane change->> Following a question-answer sequence that the driving instructor orients towards as projecting more from the pupil (01-03), but after which the pupil continues to drive steadily straight ahead, the driving instructor requests the pupil to overtake the lorry that is in front of them (07). In terms of the temporal relationship between the instructor's request to overtake and the traffic approaching from behind, it can be noted that the instructor is checking the rear-view mirror just prior to launching his request (04) as well as just afterwards (07). Although we cannot see what he actually sees in the mirror, we can assume that he is monitoring the red car that is already about to overtake them (06). It is thus in a situation that is actually unsuitable for immediately changing to the fast lane that he wonders (07) why his pupil does not initiate overtaking. He thereby trusts the pupil to initiate overtaking properly by checking the rear-view mirrors before changing lanes. While the question constitutes a request to initiate overtaking, it also registers the moral accountability for not yet having done so, thereby treating the initiation of overtaking as a missing action in the current situation. In line with the driving instructor's expectations, the pupil initiates overtaking in a way that is adapted to the surrounding traffic. She first immediately redirects her gaze to her left-side-view mirror, no doubt seeing the red car at this point (07). Only once the cars are side by side does she activate the indicator, which produces the first visible display for the surrounding traffic of her own car as an incipient overtaking car. She can thereby be seen to orient towards the fact that she is currently being overtaken by putting off activating her indicator until the overtaking car is in a side-by-side position and by not initiating the lane change until the car is well ahead of them, some seconds later (08). The fact that there is other traffic overtaking their own car when they are preparing to overtake the lorry in front of them demonstrates a systematic and mutually Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 52 exclusive relation between overtakers and overtakees in this setting. To overtake on this two-lane motorway, one must ensure that one is not already being overtaken when undertaking the lane change. Having ended up behind a lorry, in a 'locked-in' position from which they are repeatedly being overtaken by other cars (which thereby see their car as overtakable), the pupil has to monitor the flow of traffic approaching from behind carefully when deciding exactly when to make her intention to overtake visible to other drivers (cf. Broth et al. 2018). 2.2.5 Becoming overtakable, then pursuing rejoining overtakers While much of our earlier examination of drivers' initiation of overtaking assumes a speed that they seek to attain relative to the environment, speed limits and other vehicles, a speed that then occasions overtaking, here we see a driver shift between speeds that are relevant to two different activities (e.g. just driving and driving while adjusting the car radio). In the latter case, he then temporarily becomes an overtakable car, moving out of the 'fast'/'overtaking' lane into the slow lane as an ongoing display of his acceptance of overtaking. What we also see, once the driver has finished adjusting his car entertainment system, is the perspective of a driver who is being overtaken; however, his subsequent project is to regain a position within the faster cohort. He is thus searching for a gap or opportunity to re-enter the flow in the fast lane and monitoring the flow of overtakers for that emerging gap or offer.With left-hand traffic in Australia (as is the case in the UK), the driver is sitting on the car's right side. He is driving alone on an intercity freeway/motorway with two lanes in each direction. The right lane is officially designated only for overtaking, with signage "Keep left unless overtaking" and "Slow vehicles use left lane". As the first basic consideration, the segment begins as the car completes the overtaking manoeuvre and returns to the non-overtaking slow traffic lane. For approximately 30 seconds, the driver attends to the entertainment system at the centre of the controls. During this period, the car is itself overtaken and gradually reduces speed while it approaches a slower vehicle ahead. At time 00:37, the driver initiates overtaking by engaging the right indicator and gazing at the right mirror to assess the traffic in the overtaking lane. There is, however, already faster-overtaking traffic in that lane, so the driver disengages the indicator to cancel overtaking. For 15 seconds, the driver monitors this overtaking traffic, which turns out to consist of three cars, before reinitiating the activity to overtake (re-engaging the right indicator) and then beginning to overtake. Therefore, on discovering that he was himself being overtaken, the driver suspended his own overtaking to wait for the alreadyovertaking traffic and then identified an opportunity to shift to the right lane and also overtake, following the three cars. The detailed transcription below reveals the constitution of the gaze and hand movement for the driver to 'attend' to the entertainment controls and just how the driver comes to initiate but suspends overtaking until a later opportunity. We see how engaging in multi-activity leads the driver to lose awareness of the surrounding overtaking traffic and then look more closely to monitor the overtaking vehicles. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 53 Extract 14a (Nevile_MT_NI) 01 dri 02 dri dri 03 cr2 dri dri 04 dri dri 05 dri 06 dri dri 07 dri dri ‡ (7.6) ‡ (6.3) ‡overtakes and comes bk to slow lane‡ +(0.2) † (1.0) † (0.4) + (1.0)† (0.7) † +gz radio-------------------+looks road--------> †LH twd radio†manipulates---†LH bk on w† (2.8) £ (1.4) + (0.5)£ † (1.0) † (0.2)+ £overtakes-----£ ->+gz radio-----------------+ †LH twd rad†manip-> (0.7) + (1.0) + (0.2)+ (0.8) +(0.1)†(0.1)+(0.9) † +gaze rd+gz up-+gz rad-+gaze up----+ -->†LF back on w† (1.8)+ (1.0)+(0.3)+ (1.9) + (0.9) +(0.6)+ +gz rad+up---+gz road+gaze RM+,,,,,+gz road-> (4.7)+ (1.0)+ (0.1) † (0.9) † (0.2)+ (0.4)+(1.3)† -->+gazes at radio---------------+up----+ †LF tw rd†manipulates-------† † (1.1) † (1.4) †(0.2)†+(1.0)+ (0.7) + †LH back†indicat†,,,,,† +gz Rm+gz rear m+ Six seconds after returning to the slow, left, non-overtaking lane (01), the driver attends to the entertainment system controls: he gazes at them and immediately reaches for them with his left hand and adjusts them (02). He looks back to the road before his left hand returns to the steering wheel (02). A car overtakes the driver (03) and, as soon as it has passed him, the driver looks back at the radio and adjusts it again (03), while alternating his gaze between the radio and the road (04), before returning his hand to the steering wheel (04). After another look at the radio (05), the driver orients back towards the road and turns his head towards the right-side mirror (the overtaking lane) (05). This look at the road might project some driving activity – but instead what follows is again a look at the radio (06) followed by adjusting it (06). In sum, the driver engages in multi-activity by gazing back and forth from the controls to the road ahead and moving his hand back and forth from the controls to the steering wheel. Notably, the driver alternates his gaze between looking down at the entertainment controls and looking forwards at the road ahead, but – except for line 05 – does not look at the central rear-view mirror or at the right-side mirror. Consequently, during his involvement with the entertainment system, the driver does not use his mirrors to assess the traffic behind or close by in the right overtaking lane. At one point (07), the driver reorients towards the driving activity – probably prompted by noticing a car driving relatively slowly in front of him in his lane. His left hand returns to the wheel but stops at the indicator; furthermore, he looks at the right mirror and at the rear mirror, assessing the traffic at that point. These shifts of gaze and gesture display a change of orientation from the radio back to the surrounding traffic. The driver is approaching a slower vehicle and the driver initiates activity to overtake, first engaging the right indicator and then gazing at the right-side mirror. However, the driver's involvement with the entertainment system seems to have distracted him from monitoring and developing awareness of the surrounding traffic. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 54 Extract 14b (Nevile_MT_NI) 07 dri dri dri 08 dri dri 09 (0.9)+ dri dri cr3 10 dri dri cr4 11 cr5 dri dri 12 dri dri dri † (1.1) † (1.4) †(0.2)†+(1.0)+ (0.5) ‡ (0.3) + †LH back†indicat†,,,,,† +gz Rm+gz rear m------+ ‡moves tw speed l-> (0.5) + (1.0) + (0.4)+ (0.2) ‡ +gaze Rm+,,,,,,+ ->‡ (0.6) + (0.7)+(0.6)†(0.2)+(0.5)+ (0.4)$(0.8)+(0.4)†(0.2)†+$ +gz Rm+ +gzR--+ +gz speedm---+gz R-> †LH moves to ind---------------†ind--† $overtakes----------$ (0.6)†+ (1.1) †(0.3)+ (1.5) +(1.0)+(1.1)€(2.0)+(1.0)+(1.4)€ †diseng ind† ------+gz Rm----------+ +gz R+ +gz R+ €overtakes--------€ (0.8)£(1.5) +(0.6)+(0.5)†(1.2)+(1.4)+£ £overtakes----------------------£ +gz R-+ +gz R+ †moves LH to indic-> (2.4) +(0.8)+(0.2)‡†(1.0) † +gz R-+ †sets ind† ‡moves to the fast lane-->> The driver immediately sees that there is already traffic in the right lane, about to overtake him. His initiated overtaking will therefore conflict with this traffic. The driver appears to discover this traffic only now and to have been unaware of it previously. He engages in a flurry of shifting looks to reassess the surrounding traffic before apparently determining overtaking to be unsuitable now and disengaging the right indicator. He looks first at the central rear-view mirror to view the traffic behind, then forwards, then to the right mirror again, then forwards, then looks (no head turn) once more at the right mirror and finally forwards at the road ahead. In short, the driver seems to be surprised to find traffic in the right lane. His own overtaking manoeuvre was initiated by engaging the right indicator, when stopping and redirecting his hand on its return to the steering wheel. By then disengaging the right indicator (10), the driver signals to the overtaking others his change of prospective action, now not to overtake but to remain in the left lane and be overtaken himself. It seems that the driver had initiated activity to overtake, relying on his earlier look at the right mirror, perhaps then prompted, when he found himself being overtaken, while attending to the entertainment system. For driving, he had then continued only to direct his looks between the road ahead and the entertainment system controls, so he had not seen behind and been aware of the oncoming, potentially overtaking traffic. While being overtaken, the driver embodies readiness to overtake. He repeatedly alternates between looking forwards at the road ahead, looking right at the side mirror to monitor the overtaking traffic and looking down at the speedometer. He also holds his left hand with his fingers touching the indicator stick, ready to indicate his intention to merge right into the overtaking lane. This looking work is typically performed by the overtaker because of the need to monitor the ongoing traffic, using multiple mirrors, windscreen and looking over the shoulder. The added Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 55 interest here is in keeping an eye on the 'legal' speed and the relative speed to the vehicle mobile formation. While the third and last car is overtaking, the driver touches the indicator (11), looks for noticeably longer at the right-side mirror, sets the right indicator to overtake and begins to move right into the overtaking lane (12). The segment shows that, when shifting away from multi-activity (e.g. using the entertainment system) to overtaking, a complicated sequence emerges, involving two different speeds of travel. The driver treats one speed as appropriate while adjusting the car radio and another (proper, desired) speed as appropriate when driving with his full attention. The former speed can trade off the expected greater attentiveness of those members of the traffic who wish to overtake. We saw too how the driver allows himself to be overtaken with minimal interest in the overtakers, but, when the multi-activity ends, the driver engages fully with driving and embodies a closer monitoring interest in the overtakers to seek a slot within the fastermoving overtaking traffic cohort. 2.2.6 Helping the overtaker to pass A race track situation again provides a revealing contrast with our current descriptions of being overtaken. It is without the benefit of the rules and visibility of lanes and has a different set of norms that emerge from learning to drive a racing car.The significant one here being that the overtaken has to be attentive to the overtaker. He or she must analyse the environment ahead for the optimal route in order to determine the best offer that can be made to their overtaker, yet it is also necessary to monitor the actual trajectory of the overtaker to avoid obstructing it nevertheless. The etiquette of sharing the learning track stands in contrast to the tactics of racing, in which the overtaken will try to anticipate and foil the overtaker's moves to advance. Being overtaken on the race circuit occasions other-oriented adjustments that facilitate, as we have noted, not only overtaking proper but the maintaining of the optimal trajectory of the overtaking car (see the above extract 9, which analysed this orientation towards the optimal racing trajectory from the perspective of the overtaker; in this section, we see how the overtaken shares the same orientation). The next fragment shows two instances of this altruistic orientation on the circuit. We join the action as the coach is instructing the next series of driving moves (01-03) (see Mondada 2018c): Extract 15 (Mondada_French_2012_nurb14.35) (RT, INS) 01 INS 02 03 INS 04 DRI 05 ins et tu réaccélères maintenant and you accelerate again now ‡ (0.2) ‡accelerates---> <doucement, (.) l’accè[:l,>‡ très •bien <slowly, (.) the acceleration,> very good •...-> ->‡ [(smiles and laughs)) (0.2)• ->•palm up, circular gesture----> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 56 06 INS 07 ins ins 08 DRI 09 INS ins fig tu débra*ques you counter-steer *looks at DRI, smiling--> (0.2) * (0.4) • (0.4) * (0.2) * ->* *looks at LSmirror* -->• °hh •douce[ment .h h° °hh slow[ly .h h° #[bon tu vas laisser pa•sser euh::, [good you will let pass ehm::, •points w Rthumb back--------• #fig.15.1 Fig. 15.1 10 dri 11 dri 12 13 INS dri car 14 dri car 15 ins 16 INS 17 dri ins 18 INS 19 ins dri dri car 20 INS 21 (0.2) + (0.6) + (0.1) +looks at the RVmirror+ Arnaud, +tu+ freines, tu mets ton clignotant. Arnaud, you brake, you put your indicator. +looks+ (0.3) ‡ (0.8) ‡ (0.4) ‡brakes-‡decelerates--> a:ttention c’est pas‡ $l::’ *(0.3) bon en*droit ici be careful it’s not th:: (0.3) good place here *looks Lm----* -->‡steers--> $overtakes them---> pour *lui hein?*$ mais bon‡ ç’a été. voilà for him isn’t it? but well that worked. right *looks Lm* --->‡ --->$ (0.4) * (0.7) *looks at Lm-> allez.* go. ->* ‡ (1.5) * (0.5) * ‡accelerates in the middle of the road---> *looks at Lm* tu •laisses passer l’au*t’• derrière •au*ssi, you let pass the other behind too, •points back w thumb---• •points w Lindex twd L-> *looks at Lm-----* +(0.2) • (0.2) + (0.5) ‡ $(3.2)$ ->• +looks rear m--+ ‡moves to the L---->> $overtakes$ allez. c’est parti go, let’s go (2.2) Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 57 An instruction (03) by the coach generates laughter by the driver (04), treating the apparent contradiction between doucement ('slowly/smoothly') and accèl ('acceleration') as funny (03). The coach joins the driver's smile (06) while the sequence of instructions continues. The driver continues to laugh, repeating the pun (08) – his laughter makes him less available for the monitoring of the road (fig. 15.1). Meanwhile, the coach has looked at his left-side mirror (07, fig. 15.1) and possibly noticed the car behind them. While the driver continues to laugh, he points with his thumb backwards (fig. 15.1) and instructs him to facilitate the overtaking (08). The coach's turn (08) projects (by means of the stretched euh::, with rising intonation, 08) the object of the verb, but he does not utter it immediately: instead, the coach pauses for 0.9 seconds (10) before uttering the name of his friend, Arnaud (11). During this pause, the driver looks at the rear mirror. In this way, the relevance of looking backwards and the noticing of the approaching car is established. And with it established, the coach proffers two instructions (11) that are oriented towards the facilitation of the overtaking rather than the continuation of the race – the former being prioritized over the latter. One of these instructions – putting on the indicator – is explicitly designed to communicate to the other car, making clear that it has been seen and displaying their facilitating manoeuvre. The driver complies with the directives (12), brakes and decelerates. Nevertheless, the coach warns him that the place where they are slowing down is not ideal for the car to overtake them (13-14) (as a matter of fact, the driver decelerates and stays on the left side of the road, before a left curve, thus constituting an obstacle to the trajectory of the overtaking car in that position). As the overtaking car passes (13), the coach briefly suspends his turn (in the middle of a stretched determinant, l::, 'th', 13) then continues it and registers the successful completion of the overtaking (14). The way in which he critically addresses the place at which the driver let the other car pass is formatted in a way that completely adopts its perspective (ici pour lui, 'here for him', 13-14). In this manner, the coach – and the driver aligning with his instructions – treats overtaking not as merely the business of the overtaker but as their business of facilitating it. The overtaker here is a friend, recognized by the coach and called by his name, but this is not the main reason for this altruistic perspective. As is visible in the similar treatment of the next overtaker (18-19: the use of the rear mirror and the thumb gesture, the instruction inviting the driver to take a position that does not obstruct the incoming car and the contrast between adjusting the driving to the overtaker and instructing the resumed race, 20), the participants orient towards the overtaker as having the priority on the circuit. The car with superior speed is recognized as having the right to overtake and the car with inferior speed as having the duty to facilitate the overtaking (e.g. by not occupying the space that could be used to optimize the trajectory of the incoming car and therefore by not delaying it in any way). In all the instances in the corpus, absolute priority is given to the fast-incoming car. The rules of the ordinary road are thus suspended in favour of an altruistic orientation and morality (see also excerpt 32 below) – although episodic adjustments in ordinary driving might orient towards the same relevance (such as when a tractor stops on the side of the road to let a car pass). Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 58 2.2.7 Summary What is striking within racing training is the close orientation of the vehicle in front towards the vehicle behind. By contrast, as we showed in the first example of everyday driving, on the motorway, the driver, in preparation for potential overtaking, pays minimal attention to the vehicle behind preparing to overtake. The uneven distribution of attention in the preparation for overtaking is also nicely demonstrated by the episode in which the driver busied himself with his in-car entertainment system, reducing his speed and thereby transferring the work of attending to the relative position and overtaking to other overtaking vehicles. Having completed his task with the in-car system, he then increased his speed and attended to the vehicles ahead that required overtaking. However, we have also examined an episode in which the reduction in speed by a driver led to monitoring the rear, both to check that drivers to the rear are overtaking and to encourage them to overtake if they are not already doing so. In this section, we also saw the consequences for a driver of failing to overtake at the earliest opportunity. The driver in front, on seeing other cars prepare to overtake, ought then to wait until the other earlier overtakers have completed their manoeuvre before (as it were) returning to the front of the queue for overtaking. They have also, we can note, by waiting, formed a longer train of vehicles that require overtaking by those behind. This added complication to overtaking slower vehicles helps us to see why prompt overtaking has become a norm. While we have argued earlier that, on approaching slower cars ahead, the driver is presented with an occasion to establish whether overtaking is possible, desired and/or required, here we also presented a case in which the vehicle that could be overtaken questions the moral character of the overtaker and rejects his or her attempt to overtake and move up a busy urban traffic queue. It is notable that, compared with our other examples, the traffic setting of the slower-moving car in front is quite different. It is itself in a queue of slow-moving traffic in which it would move faster if it were not also held back. The car overtaking is thus at the same time also queue jumping. 2.3. General conclusions on preparing to overtake The beginnings of overtaking in fact precede the activities that initiate the larger project of one or more vehicles moving ahead of one or more other vehicles in traffic. Overtaking begins with the inspection of the local ecology of the traffic and the identification by the overtaker of the relative slowness of the vehicle ahead, its length, its obstructiveness and so on. As we have discussed earlier, it may also be that certain slow-moving or decelerating vehicles also anticipate and prepare for being overtaken ahead of any actual overtaking being pursued. Having identified that overtaking is desired and/or required, the overtaker has to make judgements about the possibility and his or her right to overtake, which are intertwined with the analysis of the overtakability of the road vehicle ahead. As we have described earlier, the first part of the driver's analysis is the categorization of the vehicle ahead in relation to overtaking (e.g. its relative speed, its qualities of Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 59 visual obstruction, e.g. lorries, tractors and caravans). His or her analysis is secondly built on the consideration of what is happening ahead: oncoming traffic, traffic on parallel lanes and so on. Thirdly, the analysis is assembled through considering what is happening to the sides and behind: other potential overtakers ('lockins'), proximity and parallel lanes. Fourthly and finally, the overtaker builds his or her awareness of the road configuration (straight vs. curve, slope, solid line, traffic light ahead, etc.) and other local contingencies, such as one lane vs. multiple lanes, traffic coming from the opposite direction, queuing cars and convoys of lorries/buses. It may be that the category of vehicle itself has qualities that appear to be pervasively relevant to its driver (and others) for being involved in overtaking (e.g. it is a slow-moving tractor or a fast-moving emergency vehicle). One of the moral expectations, that such special categories of vehicle find themselves encumbent with, is either to help other drivers to pass them, or, to be helped by other drivers to overtake and thereby progress through traffic. By contrast ordinary members of traffic find themselves to have roughly equal overtaking rights regardless of their capacities or qualities (e.g. the horsepower, top speed or size of their car). However, as we have also described the overtaken themselves may make judgements about the rights of the vehicle behind to overtake. In 2.2.3, the judgement of the vehicle behind is that it does not have the right to overtake, and the driver refuses to yield and/or accelerate. More commonly, the vehicle(s) which will be overtaken either do nothing or assist the overtaker's initiation in more, or less, minor ways, for example by moving to the 'slow' side or by indicating to make visible their expectation that they can or ought to be overtaken. In the background of initiating overtaking, there are particular shared embodied practices for implementing the local analysis of the traffic situation. The driver monitors and assesses, pointing out other vehicles for the benefit of the passenger, and may then formulate the other party or his or her actions. This was perhaps most obvious in extract 12, in which the driver formulated the other driver as a 'bully'. As a central part of the preparatory work for overtaking, the driver and, often, the front-seat passenger have to build their awareness of what is happening around their vehicle though looking ahead through the windscreen, glancing at the side and rearview mirrors, turning their head and/or making shoulder checks to examine their blind spots. Depending on the mobile complexity of the traffic around them, this can involve several repetitions of looks, quick glances and extended monitoring of target vehicles. While much overtaking takes place unremarked upon by competent drivers, the driving lessons elaborated the occasions for and organization of overtaking. Instructors showed the centrality of speed by mentioning the speed limit to orient pupils towards judgements on initiating overtaking. Regarding competent drivers, they are continuously oriented towards both the speed limit and their own relationship to this as a faster- or slower-moving vehicle. While the initiation of overtaking progresses, it may require a shift to a more exclusive focus on the road by the driver, leading him or her to close or suspend the current talk and/or provide indirect speech towards the other vehicle, thereby showing the attention behind the actions and an assessment/formulation of the actions. Moreover, the driver undertakes a series of witnessable actions while preparing: Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 60 setting the indicator, moving his or her hand onto the gearstick, changing gears, making hand movements on the steering wheel and making rapidly connected final visual checks. These actions are then also often tied to changes in body posture as the driver leans forwards or sideways. Nevertheless, we can note that the trainee racing driver also produces witnessable actions but ones that are reflexively tied to racing driving rather than driving on public roads in traffic. Initiating overtaking is, in sum, a members' stage in the overall series of actions n where they build toward the successful accomplishment of overtaking. Critical preparatory work is undertaken that will lead to overtaking being launched and, on that basis, the qualities of that overtaking can be either barely noticeable or terrifying for the occupants of the overtaking vehicle. It is a point at which the mobile formation is carefully analysed for the desirability and very possibility of overtaking being launched. 3. Overtaking proper: passing a vehicle and being overtaken The overtaking proper starts once the overtaking process has been visibly initiated. This involves some of the actions that are also part of the preparatory phase (see section 2.1): checking the mirrors and the road ahead, moving the car towards the middle of the road (both to gain a better view of the contra-lane and to signal the intention to overtake) and looking for oncoming traffic and for vehicles behind, which may be incipient overtakers or even already on their way to using the overtaking lane. Once the decision to overtake has been made, additional actions are in order: the overtaker checks the blind spot, accelerates, often gears down to gain power briefly to enable more rapid acceleration and pulls out. During the whole process of overtaking, the driver continuously monitors the traffic environment in patterns of visual attention alternating between the front, the back and sometimes also the sides. Driving in traffic is an emergent environment, and overtaking, in particular, involves heightened (and sometimes excessive) speed and particularly risky actions (like using the opposing traffic's lane). Therefore, the ever-changing local constellation of vehicles and other traffic participants and the properties of the road require permanent monitoring and adaptive driving. This means that drivers need to take into account conditions that are favourable for the overtaking action or, to the contrary, cause risks. This includes closely observing potential oncoming traffic (its speed and projectable trajectories), the overtaken car (the kind of vehicle and what may be expected from it, its position on the road, its speed and its possible or signalled trajectory), the traffic ahead (its distance and speed or a traffic jam) and the traffic behind (its distance, its speed, identifying vehicles behind that may be incipient overtakers or that may even chase the overtaker). Non-emergent agentive aspects of the traffic situation are also crucial for organizing the overtaking, because they may critically impinge on its performance and success: traffic regulations (changing speed limits, traffic lights and no-passing zones), the layout of the road (the number and width of lanes and the kind of surface), the trajectory of the road (curves and visibility conditions), junctions (including merging and emerging new lanes) and so on. Permanent monitoring involves permanent anticipation of what is likely to happen next. Therefore, overtaking, even if manifestly begun, is not a once-for-all, batch-like process. It may be aborted, as Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 61 we have noted earlier, and it must continuously be adapted to the evolving traffic situation. This adaptation also involves decisions about the number of vehicles to be overtaken. As we have shown in section 2, initiating the overtaking process involves checking the overtaken vehicle. Initiation includes monitoring the vehicle, its speed, its position on the road and so on. In addition, it can entail appreciating it as a specific kind of a vehicle (e.g. a particularly slow one like a tractor or a long one like a lorry with a trailer, which takes more time and space to overtake). While passing, it can involve looking into the car to scrutinize its driver and occasionally engaging in a mutual gaze. Just as the preparation for an overtaking episode is largely concealed from the vehicle to be overtaken in spe (cf. section 2.2), relatedly the overtaken party is then likely to become aware of a manifest overtaking action once it is already underway. Once more, then, the social event is a perspectivally uneven phenomenon, the reality of which may not be available to both parties in the same way at the same time. The perspective of the overtaken crucially hinges on conditions of visibility, attention and perception. For the overtaking car, driving is made accountable by displaying its driving plans to others via semiotic means (indicators, flashing lights and horn) and performative driving (closing in and moving towards the middle of the road). For the way in which the overtaking action can be and, in fact, is performed, the cooperation of the overtaken party is crucial (e.g. by making its speed and trajectory projectable or by giving way). In turn, the overtaken party's driving plans may equally be affected by the overtaking. Thus, the overtaker has to be taken into account in the overtaken's driving actions (e.g. speeding up, leaving the road at a junction or even the intention to overtake another car itself). 3.1. The overtaking action proper from the overtaker's perspective We present four extracts of the overtaking proper from the perspective of the overtaker. The first extract (section 3.1.1) shows in detail the monitoring and driving actions performed in the context of an instance of overtaking that involves using the contra-lane. The next two extracts (sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3) are from instructed settings. Instructors' formulations and interventions specifically highlight the organization of steering and looking at the motorway. Section 3.1.4 deals with the peculiarities of overtaking on a three-lane road with a middle lane that can be used in both directions. 3.1.1. Monitoring and coordination with oncoming traffic on a two-way road We first consider the situation of overtaking on a two-way road with oncoming traffic. As we have already noticed in extract 1, talk is typically suspended while the overtaker is pulling out and moving alongside the overtaken vehicle. In this fragment, we pick up from roughly where we left the two commuters in extract 6. The bend in the road that precedes their overtaking is itself reversed on the leftright axis, a reversal that provides different preliminary views of the road ahead. In the UK, driving on the left-hand side of the road, when the road bends to the left, Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 62 the first vehicle blocks the driver's view and, when it bends to the right, the driver is offered a gap to look down the road ahead. In extract 1, this meant that the view was blocked; in the next extract, the driver is able to use the gap, because the road is bending the other way, to undertake a preliminary check (02) before overtaking the large lorry in front (04). Extract 16 (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_NI_MT_HabitableCars_61_Months_Ahead_0:00) (2W, NI) 01 DRI eve 02 DRI dri fig So (0.4) given this is (0.5) mid June (0.5) and she’s& (0.3) going >>road curves on the right---------------------------& to be starting radiotherapy within the ±#next#± (0.7) ±LH lifts± fig.16.1# #fig.16.2 Fig. 16.1 03 DRI dri 04 DRI dri dri dri dri van 05 dri dri 06 DRI dri dri 07 DRI dri 08 PAS pas 09 DRI dri dri 10 dri pas 11 DRI Fig. 16.2 † (0.5).h probably within the †leans to right--------> ‡next week + I +*would ima±‡gine (2.3)±† ‡ -------->† ‡hand up to steering wheel-----‡pulls out----‡ +gaze Rm+ ±LH wheel--± *passing lorry----> ‡± (0.1) ± (0.9) ± ±LH indic cancel±LH drops to gearstick± ‡--------------contra lane----------->> I would ‡imagine+ (0.5)‡ (2.2) + it’ll run ‡ fo::r (1.0) ‡ ‡changes gear--‡LH remain on gear stick‡LH hazard lights‡ +checks instruments+ five or six weeks ‡ (0.3) ‡LH returns to gear stick->> .H % (1.6) % (1.7) %rubs his face% .H ‡And I think‡ she’ll still be around in *September* ->‡LH changes gear‡ *looks PAS* •(0.2)±(1.3) • ±LH lets go of gearstick •nods[-------• [And given that the prognosis The central phenomenon that this extract shows is how multi-activity (i.e. talking and driving) is suspended in favour of focusing only on the driving actions at precisely those moments during which a coordinated series of multiple bodily actions Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 63 requiring heightened attention is executed. The suspension of the personal discussion with the passenger is in service of the initiation and the first steps of the overtaking proper. Exactly when the suspension of multi-activity occurs provides a clue both to where the participants themselves are segmenting the courses of their actions but more importantly to where the maximum attention is required for overtaking. It is at the beginning of the overtaking that suspensions occur (indeed, twice, in this extract, when a turn of talk is abandoned in lines 02 and 04, to be resumed later). Once the overtaking is successfully underway, the driver resumes his former multi-activity patterns of driving and unrelated talk. 3.1.2 Looking far ahead as a requirement While extract 16 was a prototypical example of overtaking on a two-lane road with oncoming traffic, extract 17 shows an instance of overtaking on a motorway. The instructor insists on the importance of looking far ahead and using the wall to the left as a landmark ahead when overtaking. Extract 17 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_MT_ts4_23_1_16:05_ 18:26) (MT, INS) 01 INS ins fig #•kan titta •långt #långt efter muren• can look far far ahead following the wall •flat RH up-•RH pointing forward-----•,,,--> #fig.17.1 #fig.17.2 Fig. 17.1: Lorry to be overtaken ahead 02 ins 03 TRA 04 INS 05 ins fig 06 ins fig Fig. 17.2: INS points ahead with palm open vertical muren•följer vägen the wall follows the road ,,,->• ao yeah och eh— and eh >för ann•ars#< är de väldit lätt att man= cause otherwise it’s very easy to •RH swinging left to right--> #fig.17.3 sitter å titt•#ar på lastbilen annars be staring at the lorry otherwise ->• #fig.17.4 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 64 Figs. 17.3 and 17.4: INS embodies (unwanted) sway of driver's gaze to the right After gaining sufficient speed, they are now driving in the overtaking lane. As they approach the lorry in the slow lane, the instructor prompts the driver to look 'far' ahead (01), emphasizing the first 'far' with an open vertical palm gesture pointing straight ahead (fig. 17.2). The instruction to look far ahead offers a method for achieving the correct visual span: to look ahead following the concrete dividing wall that separates the two carriageways. The rationale for using the wall as a landmark for orienting the gaze far ahead is that it allows the driver to orient the car in the middle of the overtaking lane. As the instructor explains, failing to fix the gaze far enough ahead of the vehicle may result in 'staring at the lorry' (06) being overtaken, risking moving too close to the right boundaries of the lane. The instructor's explanation (05-06) is coupled with an iconic gesture – his left hand swinging from the middle position to the right (figs. 17 and 17.4) – that represents a hypothetical driver's gaze (and, by implication, the car) wandering from the road to the vehicle next to the car on the right. Note that the swinging gesture ends with the instructor's pointing at the frontmost end of the lorry, just a syllable before he says 'at the lorry' (06). The instructor's actions are tightly coordinated with their passing of the lorry: the initial instruction begins as they are approaching its rear (fig. 17.1), while the account component ends just as they have passed the driver's cabin (fig. 17.4). In effect, the entire instructional compound dealing with how to behave when passing a long vehicle is delivered in its unfolding spatio-temporally relevant setting. Extract 17 shows the importance of gaze organization for the overtaking proper and its relationship to steering the car: to keep the car steady in its lane, the driver has to look far ahead and make use of his peripheral position to locate and maintain the position of the car in the middle of their lane. Paradoxically enough, this involves not visually monitoring the exact lateral distance to the overtaken car, because this can lead to inadvertent steering movements and thus cause danger. 3.1.3 Keeping the car straight in the overtaking lane Just as in the previous extract, extract 18 shows a pupil overtaking a long lorry on a motorway. This time, however, the pupil encounters difficulties in keeping the car straight in the lane. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 65 Extract 18 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_MT_ts1_25_2_ 18:47_20:07) (MT, INS) 01 tra tra 02 ins fig (1.0)±(3.6)‡(4.5)± (1.1) ‡ ±indicates->± ‡lane change--‡ (16.3)•(0.5)•# •...,,•((minimal left hand jerk)) #fig.18.1 Fig. 18.1: Driving school car has moved to left lane in order to overtake lorry ahead 03 INS 04 05 INS 06 07 INS 08 09 10 ins fig håll dej lite ti hö:ger. keep a bit to the right (0.8) (såja), that’s it (1.3) lite mer ti höger, a bit more to the right (0.7) (såja)° that’s it (0.9)•(0.5)•(0.2)#•(0.8)• •.....•------•,,,,,•((left hand tw wheel)) #fig.18.2 Fig. 18.2: INS moves hand towards steering wheel, indicating that TRA should keep proper distance to lorry 11 ins ( ) å (sen) så•tar vi Brokö:ping, an (then) we take Broköping •points.....----,,->> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 66 This extract manifests some of the ordinary difficulties of overtaking. After having changed to the left lane, the pupil gradually approaches the lorry ahead of them. When the overtaking car is relatively close to the lorry, almost entering into the passage that is physically defined by the lorry itself on the right-hand side and a low concrete wall on the left (fig. 18.1), the instructor asks the pupil to 'keep a bit to the right' (03) (i.e. more towards the lorry than she is currently keeping). The immediate urgency of adjusting the positioning on the road is clearly highlighted by a small jerk (02) that the instructor performs with his left hand just prior to his verbal instruction, and that may be understood as an initiated, but never further developed, physical correction of the pupil's steering. Following the instruction, the pupil repositions the car, the success of which is also acknowledged immediately by the instructor (05). Apparently, the pupil still has some difficulty in keeping the proper position on the road, because soon the instructor issues a second instruction, asking her to keep 'a bit more to the right' (07). She does so, which is acknowledged by the instructor as following the instruction. However, the instructor directs his flat hand quickly towards the steering wheel (10, fig. 18.2), which, although this move is abandoned before it actually touches the steering wheel, manifests his analysis that the pupil is now about to move too close to the lorry that they are currently overtaking. Having passed the lorry, the instructor asks the pupil to take the exit towards Broköping. The extract shows both the elements of the mundane work and the difficulties that can arise even in a rather calm and relatively relaxed episode of overtaking. The mundane routines, which have already been grasped by the pupil, include the use of the indicator to announce the beginning and the closure of the overtaking action and a routine sequence of checks of other traffic participants in the mirror and the blind spot (see also Björklund 2018). The more difficult part being dealt with here concerns the task, during the overtaking proper, of keeping the car straight in line, with sufficient distance both towards the overtaker and towards the confines of the road. Both the length and the breadth of the truck together create enhanced difficulty here. The pedagogic interventions of the instructor are not planned instructions but corrections that flexibly respond to the situated contingencies and make them an occasion for learning. 3.1.4 A particularly dangerous situation: a three-lane road As shown in section 2.1.5, a three-lane road, in which the lane in the middle is shared by cars coming from opposite directions, represents a specific and perceived risky configuration for overtaking. In this section, we return to the driver as she begins to overtake while commenting on the dangerousness of the move. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 67 Extract 19 (Mondada_French_2003_1507_3W-NI_emic19-20_dangereux) (3W, NI) (continuation of extract 8) 08 DRI cr1 09 dri dri pas cr1 fig ça va êt’ cha†‡ud.† it’ll be hot. †indicator† ‡changes lane--->> >>changes lane---> +(0.2) ‡ (0.6) +* (1.9) ‡ (0.4) $ (0.5) ‡ (0.4)# +glances L-----+ - >‡accelerates-----‡overtakes car--‡stays in L lane--> *looks at the road---->> --->$ #fig.19.1 Fig. 19.1: Driver stays on middle lane to continue overtaking 10 PAS cr2 11 12 PAS fig 13 ça marche comment£ là? how does it work here? £overtakes-> (0.7) ah c’est trois voies heu# oh it’s three lanes ehm #fig.19.2 (2.5) Fig. 19.2: Drivers stays on middle lane, piggybacking upon overtaking lorry ahead For approximately four seconds (09), the driver accelerates and overtakes the car ahead. At this point, the driver could return to the original lane, but she stays in the middle lane. This projects the overtaking of more than one car, with, as the possible next target, the small lorry that the overtaking car ahead is just finishing passing (fig. 19.1). At this point, the passenger re-enters the interaction with a question (10). The question expresses some puzzlement about the road system (là, 10): the passenger orients toward the local ecology as being not just a standard environment in which Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 68 to overtake. The question is uttered from an impersonal perspective (ça marche comment là?, 'how does it work here?', 10). The impersonal pronoun coincides with the perspective neither of the driver nor of the other cars; rather, it focuses on the 'functioning' of the road itself. In the absence of a response from the driver (11), she then realizes (cf. the change-of-state token oh) the particularity of the road (12), maybe helped by the fact that a car is now visibly coming in the opposite direction [not indicated in the transcript]), answering her own question (the recognition of the three-lane road seems to respond to the initial puzzlement). During these few turns, the overtaking car ahead has returned to its lane, but a second vehicle – the small lorry – has started to overtake (10, fig. 19.2), revealing that there are two smaller pickup trucks ahead in the right lane (which have also been overtaken by the first car). The driver orients towards this new overtaking move by inviting the continuation of her own manoeuvre – and indeed she stays in the middle lane, 'following' the truck. The overtaking truck is monitored as a vehicle seeing ahead and treating the lane as clear. It is also treated as a 'shield' that secures the driver not having any traffic in the lane coming from the opposite direction – a possibility that arises in this specific configuration of a three-lane road with its potential for high-speed head-to-head traffic in the middle. 3.1.5 Summary There are systematic opportunities for overtaking, which are related to the physiconormative ecology of roads. These opportunities apply in particular if the overtaker in spe has already been waiting for some time for an occasion to pass. Such systematic opportunities emerge when a no-passing zone ends, when the speed limit becomes less rigid, when there is no more oncoming traffic in sight, when the road becomes straight after a winding passage and/or when other overtakers have passed and the overtaking lane is available again. The way in which overtaking is accomplished and the precise activities that are involved in its process depend in part on the traffic circumstances in which the move is performed. The presence or absence of contraflow, multiple lanes running in the same direction or road markings, the visibility and density of the traffic ahead (and sometimes also behind and to the sides), the number of vehicles to be overtaken and the presence of other (possible) overtakers, which either compete for space or rather may be used to follow or even piggyback, all make for different ways of organizing the overtaking action in detail. Because overtaking is not the normal mode of moving in traffic, it has specific requirements of accountability attached to it. Firstly, it has to be signalled specifically to become expectable. This accountability is different for the overtaken party, which just continues a projectable trajectory; this does not need specific communicative means to become intelligible to others (although, as we have seen, the overtaken vehicle also has to coordinate its trajectory with the overtaker; see also section 3.2). Given that overtaking is also a high-risk action both for the overtaker and for the overtaken (as well as for third parties), a related morality of heightened responsibility is in order. This becomes evident in the driver's diligence in the preparation and execution of the overtaking action, to which more undivided attention is devoted than to driving actions that are based on following the traffic flow (see also Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 69 section 2.1). The increase in the focus of attention and in driving precision is manifested in the intense activities of monitoring and in continuously adapting the trajectory (e.g. more precise steering actions) but also in aborted manoeuvres. Another phenomenon that indexes the extra demands and considerations, that overtaking episodes involve, is the suspension of multi-activity. Suspending talk and other actions (like manipulation of the car stereo, quitting the phone, etc.) is also a display to the passengers (and to the analysts) that the driver needs to be undisturbed in his or her driving actions. In particular, the initiation of the overtaking action receives full attention. Multi-activity patterns of driving and talking (or other involvements different from driving) are suspended, leading to a temporary abandonment of talking, which is resumed as soon as the overtaking action comes to a close or sometimes even earlier, when the driver has ascertained that no unforeseen event may be impending on the rest of the overtaking trajectory. 3.2 The overtaking episode from the perspective of the overtaken car In this section, six instances of overtaking from the perspective of the overtaken car are analysed. In all of the extracts, there is a moment of surprise or puzzlement about the behaviour of the overtaker involved. Mostly this concerns the fact that the overtaking action itself arrives 'unexpectedly'. Unexpectedness, of course, is not always the case, but it makes the action a remarkable event worthy of topicalization, assessment and often moralization. Being unprepared to be overtaken may lead to actions of the car to be overtaken that interfere with the overtaker's project. The interrelation of overtaker and overtaken provides for rules and moralities that apply to a traffic participant, once it has become public that another car will be overtaking him or her (section 3.2.1). Most extracts, however, concern the complementary side, that is, the moral obligations of the overtaking car. In the extracts, the obligations of the overtaker and/or the entitlements of the overtaken can be perceived to be violated in one way or another. Overtaking may be illegitimate if it cuts the trajectory of the overtaken car (section 3.2.2) or if the overtaker disregards the rights of the party that they pass to go first (sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4; see also section 1.2). Complex road configurations with several lanes and junctions may lead to ambiguities, puzzlement or even neglect about who is overtaking whom. This can lead to inapposite driving actions from either side, sudden discoveries that the identity of another traffic participant or their own role in traffic had been misjudged (as being a (non-)overtaker) and the need to adapt one's own driving decisions flexibly to unforeseen events (sections 3.2.2, 3.2.5 and 3.2.6). 3.2.1 On the morality of cooperating with the overtaker Extract 20 reveals some of the moral requirements for behaviour when being overtaken. Here a driving school car is being overtaken on a two-way country road, just as the speed limit changes from 50 to 70 km/h. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 70 Extract 20 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_2W_ts3_14_1_ 13:22_15:04) (2W, INS) 01 TRA 02 ins fig då k(h)an ja’nte ens hålla femthhilik(h)snh-uhh then I can’t even stay at fifty like (1.3)#•(0.2) •gaze RVm-> #fig.20.1 Fig. 20.1: Speed limit changes to 70 km/h 03 INS ins cr1 04 TRA ins tra 05 INS tra fig >men de (ju)< s•:vå:rt å hålla•rätt hasti$het.= but it’s PART hard to keeping the right speed ->•gaze ahead----•gaze RVm--> $overtakes--> =a:•:,±(0.3) •(0.3) •(0.8) yes ->•gaze ahead•gaze DFm•gaze ahead-> ±engine sound incr-> titta bakom+dej, (0.3)+>inn+an du+< gasar#+ på:¿ look behind you before you accelerate +gaze instr+ahd+......+RVm-----+,,ahd/left-> #fig.20.2 Fig. 20.2: Overtaker passes 06 cr1 tra 07 INS 08 09 INS 10 11 INS 12 13 INS 14 TRA (0.6)$(0.6)+(0.7) ->$passes, re-lanes----------------------------->> ->+gaze ahead >så när han<° håller på å kör ↑om: ↓dej. so when he’s overtaking you (0.5) >då ska ru’nte gasa utan då ska ru<-then you mustn’t accelerate you hafta (0.6) lå:ta honom få:-- (0.5) köra om dej ↓°först°. let him overtake you first (0.8) så nu tog du (just) femman lite för ti:dit där,= so now you (just) got into fifth a bit early there =äja:: ehyes Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 71 The extract starts as the pupil ends a longer turn by complaining about his own current inability to stick to the prescribed speed limit (01). The driving instructor promptly offers a generalizing claim about the difficulty of maintaining the correct speed (03), with which the pupil agrees (04). When this conversational sequence ends, the pupil begins to accelerate (as evidenced by the increased engine sound, 04) to the new speed limit (70 km/h) indicated by signs on either side of the road (fig. 20.1). While the events above are taking place inside the car, another car approaches from behind. The first signs of the approach become visible in the video when it has begun to overtake their car (03). Of the two people in the driving school car, only the driving instructor has been monitoring the rear-view mirror just before the overtaking (02-04) and is therefore, unlike the pupil, aware of the approaching overtaking car. The pupil thus does not orient towards the fact that he is being overtaken when he enters the new speed limit but accelerates (04). Shortly thereafter, the driving instructor checks his face-view mirror, finding there that the pupil is looking straight ahead. The first part of the driving instructor's following turn requests the pupil to look behind him, and the pupil promptly checks his rear-view mirror but only after having studied the instruments first (05). When the pupil looks in the mirror, the overtaker is no longer visible there but is already coming up to the side of their car (fig. 20.2). After a short pause, the driving instructor's turn continues with an added clause specifying a temporal constraint for accelerating, which retrospectively turns what was previously hearable as 'only' a request to look behind into a formulation of a condition that needs to be satisfied before accelerating. The result is a formulation of a general rule: 'look behind you before you accelerate' (05). As the pupil did not previously look in the rear-view mirror, he only sees the car for the first time when it is just beside them. This late discovery is a problematic and potentially also dangerous situation that may be seen as natural evidence for the well-foundedness of the rule. 12 In the ensuing course of action, the driving instructor specifies the previous rule to concern more generally a situation in which the pupil is being overtaken (07). In such situations, he should not accelerate but let the other car pass him (09-11). Interestingly, the driving instructor's turn is initially framed using the marker så ('so'), which marks the presentation of the rule as a consequence of what just happened. The instructor's rule formulation implies that the overtaken party should always collaborate with the overtaking party for the overtaking to happen in a smooth way. For a traffic participant who is (or can anticipate that s/he will be) overtaken, there is a moral requirement not to speed up, even if, as on the current occasion, when there is a change in the speed limit, the ecology invites acceleration. In particular, it can be expected that a vehicle behind will use the first occasion to overtake when the road ahead is visible for a sufficient distance, no oncoming traffic is present and the speed limit allows faster driving. To comply with the moral requirement, thus, 12 There is evidence that the driving instructor may in fact be involved in giving rise to the problematic situation. Seeing the overtaking car early on, he nevertheless does not immediately ask the pupil to look behind. Instead, he allows the situation to evolve and studies the behaviour of the trainee. Only when it is already too late to see the overtaking car in the rear-view mirror does he issue his request to look behind. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 72 complex coordination between monitoring the traffic situation ahead and the vehicle behind and controlling the proper speed is necessary. 3.2.2 Being overtaken by surprise In extract 21, a pupil and an instructor enter a motorway with a speed limit of 70 km/h and, towards the end of the acceleration lane, the car is overtaken by another car entering the motorway. Extract 21 (Rauniomaa_Finnish_TRU2010061522-1_17:23) (MT, INS) 01 INS tra fig 02 INS tra fig ja: nyth*än tä+ä kiihdy%tyskai#*sta kään-%+ and now as you see this acceleration lane turn>>ahead-*RVm-------------------*ahead--> %.................% >>ahead-------+LSm------------------------+ #fig.21.1 %+(.) %loppuu joten, v#%ilkku,% ends so indicator %LH up%twist-----------%,,,,,,% +ahead--> #fig.21.2A/B Fig. 21.1: TRA monitors traffic in left exterior mirror; INS monitors traffic in rear view mirror 03 tra ins fig 04 INS tra fig Fig. 21.2A/B: TRA and INS monitor traffic ahead; INS makes flicking gesture; taxi approaches behind. ±(0.4)#±* ±......± -->* #fig.21.3 *±ja si+tten, # *±tar*+kistu±s.*+ and then a check *RVm------------*ahead*L-------* ±LH indicator on±,,,,,,,,,,± -->+LSm-----------+ahead----+ #fig.21.4 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 73 Fig. 21.3A/B: TRA and INS monitor traffic ahead; taxi behind steers left 05 TRA ins 06 TRA 07 INS tra ins 08 INS tra fig +*no nyt siin on+ toi well now there is that +LSm------------+ahead--> *RVm--> (.) ta*ksi vi+e[re*ssä.+ taxi next to {us} [ö:, uh -->+LSm------+ -->*ahead------*RVm--> +se:*::,+ se tuli me#*i+dän tak*ana,+ # it it came behind us -->*L---------------*ahead----*L--> +ahead--+L-------------+ahead-------+L--> #fig.21.5 #fig.21.6 Fig. 21.5: TRA monitors traffic on the left and turns wheel right; overtaker passes 09 INS tra fig 10 INS tra fig Fig. 21.4: TRA monitors traffic in left exterior mirror and sets indicator; INS monitors traffic in rear view mirror Fig. 21.6: INS and TRA follow overtaker by gaze kii*hdy+tyska+istaa,= # on the acceleration lane -->*ahead--> -->+ahead+RVm--> #fig.21.7 =se *+ei o±is saa*±nu,#± it should not have -->*RVm---------*ahead-->> -->+ahead--> ±.......±LH indicator off± #fig.21.8 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 74 Fig. 21.7: TRA checks rear view mirror and turns wheel left 11 INS tra 12 INS tra Fig. 21.8: TRA sets indicator off ±aij+a±a. I see ±,,,,,± -->+RVm--> tuppautua+ sinne. pushed its way in there -->+ahead-->> As they proceed along the acceleration lane, the participants prepare for the upcoming merge with the motorway in routine ways: the instructor first provides a general description of the traffic setting (01-02) and then proceeds to detail the actions relevant to driving in that setting (02/04; see Deppermann 2015), looking ahead through the windscreen and behind through the rear-view mirror and making a 'flicking' gesture by twisting his hand (figs. 21.1-21.2). The driver, in turn, monitors the traffic on the left through the windscreen and the left exterior mirror and brings her fingers from the steering wheel to the indicator switch to activate the indicator (01-04; figs. 21.3-21.4). Meanwhile, another vehicle, a car with a taxi sign, can be seen to approach the car from behind and steer to the left (blow-ups in figs. 21.221.3). Prepared for the merge, the driver points out a change in the traffic situation: no nyt siin on toi taksi vieressä, 'well now there is that taxi next to {us}' (05-06). This "environmental noticing" (Sacks 1992:II, 90) or "environmentally occasioned noticing" (Keisanen 2012:199) makes explicit that a "so-far unproblematic course of the drive is observably compromised and requires attention" (Keisanen 2012:199). Furthermore, the noticing reveals that, until now, the driver has identified the taxi as simply another vehicle entering the motorway rather than as a potential overtaker. More specifically, it is the position and continued movement of the taxi, driving from behind up next to them, that ultimately makes the vehicle recognizable as an overtaker for both the pupil and the instructor. Because the overtaker now occupies the right lane on the motorway and makes it impossible for the driver to accomplish the merge, the driver keeps to the acceleration lane, momentarily also turning the steering wheel slightly to the right (fig. 21.5). The driver's noticing (05-06) alerts the instructor to the problem and, more importantly, accounts for the fact that the driver is not carrying out the merge as the instructor had prompted and the driver had projected until this point. By accounting for the delay in the projected merge, the driver can be heard to assume responsibility for her own actions (Keisanen 2012:218), albeit also attributing blame to the problematic positioning of a fellow road user, the overtaker, and thus displaying her own orientation towards safe driving. When the overtaker drives past the car, the Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 75 driver and instructor both follow it with their gaze (fig. 21.6). Having turned the steering wheel to the left and glanced at the left exterior mirror and the rear-view mirror, the driver then turns the indicator off and thus marks the merge onto the motorway as complete (figs. 21.7-21.8). While the driver completes the merge, the instructor begins to report on the previous positioning of the overtaker behind them (08-09) and, furthermore, to evaluate the overtaker's conduct as problematic (10/12). As in extract 20, being overtaken comes as a surprise to the driver. The participants' discussion of the cause and liabilities in this situation will be reported in section 4.2.2. In the context of this section, it is important to note that being overtaken unexpectedly impinges on the planned course of action of the overtaken party (here: entering the motorway), forcing the driver to alter it according to the unforeseen contingency by slowing down and staying in the lane. Continuous monitoring of the vehicle behind and potential vehicles passing at the sides reveals itself as a necessary condition to be able to adapt flexibly and promptly to other road users' potentially unpredictable conduct. 3.2.3 Responding to an unexpected overtaker: being startled and cursing In the next extract, two friends are driving on a motorway. The driver is preparing to shift lanes to overtake a car in front of them. However, as she starts to change lanes, she notices a Porsche approaching them from behind and cancels the overtaking action, after which the Porsche overtakes them. The extract shows how interaction is affected when being overtaken by another car by surprise. Extract 22 (Laurier/analysis by Haddington_UKEnglish_2006 HabitableCars_nuclear power_0:00) (MT, NI) 01 dri dri 02 DRI dri 03 dri dri dri fig (1.0)+(0.3)±(0.5)+ +looks RSm--+checks blind spot to the R----> ±applies indicator .hh Hear about +You heard about the +crazy py+lons? (.)+ -------------->+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+looks RSm+looks L lane+ +#(0.5)†± # +looks RSm †surprised facial expression ±turns steering wheel quickly to the left #fig.22.1#fig.22.2 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 76 Fig. 22.1: Driver looks into wing mirror 04 DRI dri fig Fig. 22.2: Driver's startled facial expression +.hh +Fu#ckin:#g::+ +looks ahead+looks rsm--+looks ahead fig.22.3# #fig.22.4 Fig. 22.3: Driver begins to curse Fig. 22.4: Passenger leans back with a grimace Fig. 22.5: Passenger tracks the passing Porsche 05 dri 06 DRI dri CR1 dri 07 08 PAS pas (0.2)+(0.4) +looks in the RSm .h Just cause +you’re driving a +§stupid Porsche ±mother: fucker? +looks ahead------+looks RSm, gaze at Porsche §Porsche overtakes ±indicator off (1.0) Oh it %stinks here, (doesn’t it). %waves right hand Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 77 09 DRI 10 PAS pas dri 11 12 PAS 13 DRI 14 =I kno::w. It stinks of [shit:. h.] [That%’s:: co]ming (+from the field). %point +looks L (0.7) What pylons? Uh, >have you heard, (.) they wanted to bui::ld (.) the:se (0.4) ME::gaPY::lons In the extract, the driver is visibly assessing the traffic situation to overtake the car in front of them. First, she turns her head to the right and looks into the wing mirror, then applies the indicator and finally looks over her shoulder to check the blind spot (01). While the driver is looking over her shoulder, she initiates a new conversational topic by producing a pre-announcement (Schegloff 2007:37-44): Hear about You heard about the crazy pylons? (02), which projects a longer telling sequence. During her turn, she continues to monitor the wing mirror (fig. 22.1). Consequently, up to this point, the driver is visibly preparing for an ordinary overtaking manoeuvre to pass the car in front of them; nothing in her conduct indicates that she anticipates, or is prepared for, being overtaken by another car. However she produces a startled facial expression (03, fig. 22.2), her eyes opening wide, then yanks the steering to the left (03) and produces a swear word (04, fig. 22.3). At the same time, the telling initiated by the pre-announcement is discontinued (02). The driver's conduct is indicative of her surprise following the sudden appearance of the car approaching them from behind. 13 After this the driver keeps alternating her gaze between the traffic in front and the approaching Porsche in the wing mirror. The driver produces an insult to the Porsche's driver (06): Just cause you’re driving a stupid Porsche mother:fucker? The Porsche overtakes the car during the driver's turn, and the driver raises her gaze from the wing mirror and tracks the Porsche (06). The driver's actions convey the Porsche driver's action as immoral and inappropriate in three ways. First, the insult is timed so that it is being produced while the two cars are parallel to each other, enabling the driver to look at and scrutinise the overtaker. This in effect constitutes what is often called 'giving the look' to road users for breaching the traffic regulations, driving recklessly or blocking the way. Second, the driver's outburst relies on the common categorization of a Porsche as a 'fast car' and connects it to issues of entitlement: driving a fast car on public roads does not entitle the owner to speed or engage in reckless overtaking. Third, it is the driver who is entitled to hold the driver of the Porsche accountable for his or her actions; while the passenger clearly orients towards the events – just before the driver's insult (06), she does not pursue the telling initiated by the driver; she has a startled look on her face, her torso is suddenly strained and she leans back into the seat (fig. 22.4); she tracks the passing Porsche with her gaze in parallel with the driver (fig. 22.5) – she does not participate in the sanctioning of the overtaker. After the Porsche has overtaken them, the passenger changes the topic by referring to a smell coming from outside (08), after which she resumes the topic that was suspended before the incident (12). 13 The video does not show the Porsche’s manoeuvres, so it is not possible to say whether the Porsche is speeding, whether the driver has misjudged the speed of the Porsche or whether she just missed seeing the car in the mirror. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 78 In sum, the driver's strong reaction in the above extract demonstrates how incar participants can respond in different ways to being overtaken by surprise. In such cases, being overtaken is likely to have an affectual aspect (i.e. it is startling). It can be considered to be interruptive and disruptive, which is evident in the way in which the unfolding interaction inside the car is suspended for a moment and then resumed. While the passenger orients towards being overtaken, it is the driver who mainly responds to the overtaking car's actions. This is evident in the way in which the driver produces overt gazes at the overtaker as well as angry outbursts and insults. These show how overtaking drivers can be made accountable for their actions by the overtaken driver. 3.2.4 Ambiguities of driving actions in a complex traffic ecology The setting of extract 23 is a complex roundabout interchange with two lanes on the roundabout with traffic lights and two lanes exiting the roundabout that merge before becoming a slipway for another multi-lane highway. It is rush hour. In the vehicle being overtaken, there are two commuters who regularly travel through this roundabout. In the fragment, the driver (CR1) has been monitoring a silver car that is slightly ahead of them (CR2). CR2 moves across the front of CR1 in taking the dual exit, leading to CR1 reprimanding it with his car horn. Extract 23a (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_NI_MT_HabitableCars_57_Horn_0:00) (roundabout, NI) 01 dri dri 02 dri 03 dri dri pas (0.9) †(0.6) ‡ (1.7) † ‡on roundabout--->> (5.9) †scratches nose† ±(2.8) ±LH on steering wheel-->> (6.5) ±%(0.1) + (1.0) ± + ±LH indicator---± +looks CR2+ %watches CR2-->> ((ends beyond transcript)) Fig. 23.1: CR2 crosses path of CR1 04 dri dri cr2 fig $(0.6)#(0.2) PEE:‡:::::P‡# ‡brake‡ $into path of CR1 #fig.23.1 #fig.23.2 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 79 Fig. 23.2: CR2 completes overtake of CR1 05 dri dri cr2 fig ±$ (0.5) ‡ (0.6) ±#$ ±--LH steering wh± ----->‡ $to R lane--------$ #fig.23.3 Fig. 23.3: CR2 returns to righthand lane 06 dri 07 dri cr2 cr2 pas (2.0) ‡ (1.0) ‡ ‡accelerates‡ ± (0.8)€(0.1)$(0.3)± (1.4) • (1.7) • (1.2) $(0.1)€ ±changes gear--------± $indicates L-------------------------------$ €moves to gap ahead CR1--------------------------------€ •shakes head smiling• From the developing perspective of the driver and passenger in our car (CR1) in lines 01-03, the other car's (CR2's) earlier projected action, by its lane position and absence of indicators, is to continue travelling in the lane on the right side of our car. However, at line 04, the other car moves toward the left lane, putting it on a collision course with our car (figs 23.1 and 23.2). From the perspective of our car, the other car cuts across its projected and lane-marked path. The driver of our car straightens his body, brakes abruptly and responds with an elongated sounding of his car horn (05). The other car steers back into the parallel right lane (06, fig. 23.3). Regarding the features that help us to understand why the drivers move onto a collision course, our may be located in the other car's blind spot, and the local arrangement of the road here is ambiguous, with parallel lanes on the roundabout and parallel exit lanes. The visibility of the road arrangement and exit pattern for the other car may also be compromised by the large lorry ahead. Our access is, of course, from the perspective of our car, and its limitations are our limitations. After the horn reprimand, the other car initiates an action that shows awareness of our car. The other car puts on its indicator as a precursor to changing lanes to become the car in front of our car. On completion of the repaired overtake, the driver of our Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 80 car provides his bemused assessment of the error and then successful lane change with a smiling shake of his head (09). In this incident, we see, then, the rapid detection of a collision course and then the repair by the other car in relation to its first course, which produced an action as an overtake, involving a party to be overtaken, a gap that can be merged into and so on. On the two-lane exit lane, the other car may well show an orientation towards its earlier error by continuing to move ahead of our car until establishing a locally recognizable, larger-than-necessary gap. To produce the big gap, the other has to tuck in very close behind a large truck. Moreover, a small white van (CR3) is close behind the other car and immediately accelerates ahead when the other car moves out of its way (fig. 23.4). In other words, we can see the overtaker (CR2) trying to produce an acceptable gap for the overtaken (CR1) while being under pressure from an even faster vehicle (CR3), which is pressurizing it from behind. Overtaking here is then being accomplished by jockeying for position in the transition between roundabout, exit lane, merging and then entering the multi-lane highway. Moreover, each potential overtaking party is timing its action in relation to the disappearance of the parallel lane when it merges and then in turn becomes a slip road into another multi-lane highway. Fig. 23.4: CR2 (silver Vauxhall) tucks in behind truck, CR3 (white van) overtakes CR2 Indeed, what we see here is how overtaking can itself be a solution to pressure from parties further behind the overtaking party and to the expectations of driving in the 'fast lane' of a dual carriageway. Here, the other is being forced to overtake by the white van behind, though having had to take a slot in the fast lane after abandoning its move to the slow lane because our car is in its way. The other car not overtaking on the basis of its higher speed than the traffic in the left lane appears to be supported by what happens next. Once the other car has secured its position ahead of our driver, our driver overtakes the other car on merging into the motorway (13). Extract 23b 10 oth 11 dri dri dri 12 oth dri pas (8.7) >>approaching motorway---------------------------->> +(0.6) + (0.1) ±(0.2)+(0.1)‡ (1.7) ‡ (1.5) ± +look R+gaze RVmirror-+ ±indicate-------------------------± ‡move to Mlane‡ (2.0) ‡ (0.1) +% (1.8) ‡ ‡parallel with CR2‡ +looks at CR2->> %looks at CR2-->> Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 81 Shifting from being the second-positioned car to the first-positioned appears not to be the objective for the other car. It is moving out of the way of the faster white van by finding a temporary space ahead of our car. In other words, what is happening here is a three-party rearrangement of the traffic ordinal order, with the added complexity of a two-lane roundabout with a two-lane exit. The use of the horn by our car (05) marks, and helps us to understand, that an overtaking manoeuvre should be completed without an action that will cut across the trajectory of the overtaken car. In other words, overtaking is produced with a speed and relative positioning of the overtaken so that they are able to see that they are about to be overtaken. The other car becomes the focus of our car's attention, because it is a car that is behaving in an unpredictable manner. Our car’s driver and passenger inspect the other car for a possible explanation for its unpredictable movement when it then overtakes it on the main multi-lane highway. Overtaking then is an action that can make a particular vehicle's movements noticeable to the traffic cohort as one of its members that requires monitoring and becomes the subject of moral accounting. 3.2.5 Intertwinement of the overtaking action and its perception with the planned trajectory of the overtaken car As is becoming increasingly apparent through our earlier cases, being overtaken is far from being a passive position in which the action of overtaking is simply managed by the overtaker: the overtaken is engaged in ongoing actions too. Its organization of its driving is sensitive to the monitoring and interpretation of the overtaking. Making the overtaking intelligible – on both sides – makes the two parties' organizing of their joint action coherent and adequate for all practical purposes. In some cases, however, the mutual intelligibility of conduct is made difficult by the complex local ecology of the roads. Such problems of mutual intelligibility are visible in the next extract (24), recorded at a complex crossing of roads below the entrance to a highway. The driver is moving on the lane leading to the highway when she is overtaken by another vehicle, (CR2). She is puzzled by what she treats as the contradictory moves made by the other car, which first attempts to pass her and then abandons the overtaking. Extract 24 (Mondada_French_2003_junction_NI_emic1507_04-31_qu'est-ce que tu fous) (junction on MW, NI) 01 dri dri 02 dri CR2 fig 03 CR2 fig + (3.0) ‡ (3.0) + (2.0) +looks L and R various times at crossing+ >>out of crossing ‡engages in ramp entering highway--> + (1.0) + (2.0) + (0.5) £ + # (1.0) + +bends ov LSmirror+ +glances CR2+bends over LSmirror+ £accelerates in parallel-> #fig.24.1 + (0.5) +£(0.5) + (2.7) #£ (0.3)+ +glances at CR2+ +stares at CR2--+ ->£drives parallel£decelerates, behind them-> #fig.24.2 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 82 Fig. 24.1: Driver looks at CR2 which accelerates parallel, by gaze 04 DRI dri 05 06 PAS dri dri 07 08 DRI dri CR2 09 DRI dri CR2 fig 10 PAS Fig. 24.2: Driver follows CR2, moving in ben qu'est-ce tu +fou:s, °toi°?+ PRT what are you fucking, °you°? +looks at CR2-+ (0.4) t'as proposé à Guy d'y aller ‡c'week-+end? did you offer to Guy to go there this week-end? ->‡reaches and engages on highway->> +looks LSmirror--> (0.6) euh:+: no:n, mais j'y ai pas pensé:,+£ et: en même temps ehm:: no:, but I haven’t thought about it, at the same time ->+looks at LSmirror---------------+ ->£follows them-----> j'pen£se pas qu'i soit+: (0.7) supe+r inté£[r+essé: #+ I don’t think he is: (0.7) really inte[rested: +looks at LSm+ +looks R+ -->£begins to move on the R lane--------£accelerates--> fig.24.3# [(i travaille?) [(does he work?) Fig. 24.3: Driver looks at CR2, which now passes on the lane to right of them 11 12 PAS CR2 13 14 DRI 15 dri 17 PAS 18 (0.5) ouais£ yeah ->£continues on a diverging (exit) lane on the R-->> (0.8) et là: euh j'pense+ euh ce+ sera encore moins l’cas and now: ehm I think eh this will be even less the case +glances PAS+ (0.4) + (0.3) + +stares at PAS+ ouais yeah (1.6) The extract begins when the driver emerges from a complex crossing: she looks in all directions, driving in silence. She takes the lane that leads up to the entry to the highway (01) and notices a white car (CR2) approaching from behind, in the left Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 83 lane (02, fig. 24.1). She notices that CR2 is visible when bending over the left mirror and directly glancing at the car several times (02-03, figs. 24.1-24.2). CR2 begins overtaking, accelerating and continuing to drive in parallel with them for a few seconds (03, fig. 24.2), but then CR2 decelerates so that it moves behind them again (03). This projected, but aborted, overtaking vehicle is addressed by the driver first by looking at it via the left exterior mirror (02-03, fig. 24.1) and then by staring directly at CR2 (03, fig. 24.2). She also utters a turn that is directly addressed to the white car driver: ben qu’est-ce que tu fous, °toi°? ('well what are you fucking, °you°?', 04), using two second-person pronouns – showing how vivid the communication with the other car might be, at least from her perspective. Furthermore, the lexical choice of the verb foutre (literally 'to fuck') manifests the irritation of the driver. In this way, she deals with the inconsistent way of driving of the car, imminently overtaking and then no longer overtaking. While this episode is considered as closed by the passenger, who initiates a new topic by asking the driver a question (06), the driver is still focusing on the surrounding traffic in two ways. Firstly, she manages her routine approach to the highway (when she reaches the end of the entrance ramp, on the highway, she looks several times into her left mirror, (06, 08 and 09)); secondly, she continues to monitor CR2, which is now just behind them, in the same lane, and quickly moves to a lane on their right (09). The driver looks to her right (09, fig. 24.3). These monitoring glances occasion some delays in her talk (09). Finally, she continues engaging in the conversation, looking at the passenger rather than at the other cars (14-15). CR2 finally accelerates on their right, almost overtaking them on that side, and at the same time leaves the lane, engaging in another exit, on the right. Retrospectively, the participants (and the analysts) understand that CR2 was entering the motorway only for a few metres, not for the same purposes as theirs but instead to use the next exit (see fig. 24.4). Overtaking them would have run the risk for CR2 of being locked into entering the motorway and consequently missing the exit on the right. Fig. 24.4: 14 In red, the trajectory of the driver; in yellow, the trajectory of CR2 14 Source of the figure: https://www.google.ch/maps/@45.7325075,4.8172225,638m/data=!3m1!1e3 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 84 This revision of CR2's trajectory results in the driver and the passenger being partially overtaken initially on their left and then on their right. As a consequence of the aborted overtaking on the left, the driver continues to monitor CR2 until its trajectory is definitively clear – the second instance of overtaking not being treated as such but as a routine progression on a different (and divergent) road (i.e. an exit). The local problem that the apparent overtaker produces for the driver crucially depends on the future driving project of the driver (here: the goal of changing lanes, which can only be achieved if the overtaker makes room for the to-be-overtaken car to be able to change lane). The known and anticipated ecology of the road impinges on the local driving decisions and the relevance of the local trajectories of (not) being overtaken. The reactions of puzzlement and irritation about the strange behaviour of the overtaker rest on her plan to turn left. 3.2.6 Involuntary overtaking without noticing potential danger When two lanes or more are running in the same direction, overtaking may result involuntarily from changing lanes after having passed a car. We will examine just such a boundary case in extract 25, which is from a driving lesson in a larger city. Having turned at a junction, the pupil has taken the left lane of the new street, although he was supposed to take the right lane, as the instructor reminds him. The instructor asks the pupil to switch to the right lane. The pupil does so but does not notice that a car in the right lane has been approaching and is about to pass him. The instructor grasps the steering wheel to keep the driving school car in the left lane. Fig. 25.1: 15 Trajectory of the driving school car (yellow line): when the driving school car enters the right lane, a faster car (red rectangle) is about to pass it in the right lane. The instructor steers the driving school car back into the left lane. 15 Source of the figure: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/''/Feudenheimer+Str.+60,+68259+ Mannheim,+Germany/@49.4888499,8.5178428,140m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!4m7!1m0!1m5!1 m1!1s0x4797ceee444696ad:0x7ebd4ba8e08b34c2!2m2!1d8.5118348!2d49.4886334 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 85 Extract 25 (Deppermann_German_driving-school_FAHR_02_09_1:01:55-1:02:50) (2L, INS) 01 INS ins 02 03 04 05 tra fig also_s %heißt,% well this means .......%points right% du hättst jetzt eintlich da DRÜben in der spur sein MÜSsen, you should now actually have been over there in the lane <<decr>aber_s is net so SCHLIMM.> but it is not so serious HH <<h> jetzt mach_mer halt_n FAHRstreifenwEchsel.>= now we just do a lane change das heißt+ du machst deinen BLINker mal+ an,#+ this means you turn your indicator on .........+looks RSm--------------------+,,,,,+ #fig.25.2 Fig. 25.2: After a silver BMW has passed them on the right lane, INS asks TRA to set indicator to the right 06 tra 07 INS tra fig 08 tra fig (0.3)±(0.2) ±taps indicator guckst in #deinen Außen+spiegel.+ look-2SG into your exterior mirror .................+look RSm+ #fig.25.3 (0.1)+(0.1)# +turns R----> #fig.25.4 Fig. 25.3: INS looks into right rear view mirror, red Opel on right lane is approaching to pass 09 tra ins 10 fig Fig. 25.4: TRA turns head to right window, red Opel now is almost in parallel with back of driving school car und mach_n +RICHten,=% and set the right --->+ .................%grasps steering wheel------->> =#aber den BLIN#ker machste mal richtig An. but set the indicator fully #fig.25.5 #fig.25.6 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 86 Fig. 25.5: Driving school car starts to cross dashed line, INS grasps steering wheel to keep driving school car on left lane, red Opel brakes Fig. 25.6: Red Opel stays behind; INS asks TRA to set indicator properly; windshield wipers start move because INS touched them inadvertently when grasping the steering wheel 11 tra 12 tra 25 INS 26 ins tra fig •(0.6) •sets indicator SOa und dann geb mer +noch_n+ bissel GAS+ daZU,+ okay and then let’s add a little bit more gas +......+looks right mirror+,,,+ ((12 lines omitted)) der hat aber ne KLEIne vollbremsung gemacht Eben;=ha? he had done a little fullbraking just now though, right? *(2.8)#± (2.2) *smiles, shakes head once ±changes gear #fig.25.7 Fig. 25.7: INS smiles after comment on braking of incipient passer Having entered the new street, the driving school car is driving in the left lane. The instructor reminds the pupil that he should have taken the right lane (01-02). Then the instructor asks the pupil to change lanes (04) and to set the indicator (to the right, 05; fig. 25.2); the trainee taps on the indicator (= tiptronic, i.e. only four flashes, 06). A red Opel comes into sight in the right lane (for the camera, 07, fig. 25.3); it is moving faster than the driving school car and is about to pass (fig. 25.4). The instructor asks the pupil to look into the (right) exterior mirror (07); he does so Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 87 (07, fig. 25.4) and starts to change to the right lane (09). The red Opel on the right lane brakes abruptly when the driving school car enters his lane (10, figs. 25.1 and 25.5), and the instructor grasps the steering wheel and keeps the driving school car in the left lane (fig. 25.5). She now asks the pupil to set the indicator richtig ('fully', i.e. not only tiptronic, but permanent flashing, 10, fig. 25.6), which the trainee does (11). In line 12, and throughout the omitted lines, the instructor explains how to change lanes. After this, the instructor notices that the red Opel had to brake fully, smiles and shakes her head (fig. 25.7). The trainee does not react overtly to this remark, but he changes gears in the wrong way (without using the clutch (26)), which may be seen as a symptom of his embarrassment. In this rather complex case, the former overtaker (the pupil) does not realize that he is about to be overtaken. He is therefore about to cut off the trajectory of the incipient overtaker accidentally. There are a couple of factors that lead to this hazardous situation: the driving school car is driving rather slowly in the left lane; the incipient overtaker is not being monitored properly; he may not be expected to drive faster than the driving school car, because this could be taken as illegitimate overtaking by using the right lane; and, finally, the pupil fails to set the indicator properly and only taps it. Regarding this last point, the indicator ceases after four flashes, which may suggest to the incipient overtaker that the driving school car has abandoned the plan to change to the right lane. Thus, there is a combination of unfavourable contingencies that creates a near-accident because the driving school car is about to cut off the trajectory of the incipient overtaker. While the actions of both traffic participants may be unproblematic as such, their interplay conjures up a dangerous situation, both parties cooperating to avoid an accident: the instructor intervenes and grasps the steering wheel to keep the car in the left lane; the incipient overtaker brakes abruptly to yield way. The dangerous situation is repaired by both parties abandoning their planned trajectory almost simultaneously in favour of the visibly initiated project of the other party. Situated particularizations of defensive driving are used as a resource to solve a coordination problem that requires an immediate solution and does not allow for negotiation (see Deppermann 2018d). The restitution of a shared, safe order of traffic under fragile conditions of intersubjectivity is thus accomplished by unilateral withdrawal from individual projects, which then allows the parties to move on without mutual impediment. This example of a high-risk situation in traffic also shows the participants' preferences for organizing multi-activities: it is only after the safe order of the traffic situation has been practically restored that the instructor comments on the dangerousness of the past situation (see also Broth et al. in press). 3.2.7 Summary As we have argued earlier, being overtaken is not best understood as simply a passive response by the party that finds itself in that situation. For overtaking to be successful, it requires varying degrees of cooperation by the overtaken party. The overtaken driver ought to, and usually does, adapt their trajectory and speed accordingly in order to enable and facilitate efficient and safe overtaking. There is thus a degree of co-responsibility of the overtaken party for the overtake. This involves behaving predictably (staying in lane) and refraining from accelerating to minimize the duration and thus the riskiness of the overtaking episode collaboratively. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 88 Being overtaken is something that may interfere with the current or future driving projects of the overtaken party, so it may require coordination with them. From the point of view of the overtaken party, overtaking actions become particularly noticeable if they appear unexpectedly. The overtaken's attention is captured, firstly, in the evident emotional response of surprise or shock that unexpected overtaking can cause and, secondly, in the need for adaptive driving actions that have to be performed successfully and without delay because of potential impending danger. We have seen these actions occur when the overtaker cuts off the projected trajectory of the overtaken or when it hinders the overtaken party from performing an overtaking manoeuvre itself. In disruptive cases, it becomes obvious to all parties that the road is a scarce resource of which the synchronized use requires smooth and timely intersubjective coordination and cooperation. If others can be seen to be disregarding the requirements for coordination, for example, by not making their intended trajectories accountable, by using spaces that are also claimed by others with greater entitlement and so on, the affected party resorts to a unilateral response of defensive-adaptive driving to prevent danger and accidents (cf. Deppermann 2018d). Avoiding a collision amounts to renouncing the rights to claim road space to which one may be entitled morally (by the traffic code and/or shared norms). Still, this granting of rights to somebody who may be seen as an illegitimate claimant is balanced by the moral sanctioning of the perpetrator. Because of the very restricted opportunities for inter-vehicle communication, moral blame is restricted to a few highly indexical and inexplicit actions, for example, beeping the horn (which is only usable within a certain distance from the addressed party; von Savigny 1980). Other means, such as flashing the lights or producing emblematic reproaching or insulting gestures, are limited to specific visibility configurations, which require proximity and a certain directional ordering of the cars vis-à-vis each other. In contrast, the moral assessments of overtaking actions within the car can be much more explicit. In this context, specific rules and their violations can be invoked, and social categorization may be used as a resource. These activities can continue and be expanded in the post-overtaking phase (see section 4.2.2). Both to diagnose the overtaker's action practically and to assess it morally, drivers (and passengers) closely monitor the progression of the passing manoeuvre, and they may even check the identity of the driver of the other car by looking into it to glean information about his or her social identity as a resource for explaining his or her behaviour. 4. Post-overtaking Completing overtaking constitutes the final phase of the overtaking process that is characterized both by the actual completion of the driving move and by the retrospective orientation towards what has been accomplished. The former aspect is particularly observable in our recordings from the perspective of the overtaker: they make available for inspection the detailed sequential actions that secure a safe return to the main/slower lane. The second retrospective quality, by comparison, falls within the perspective of the overtaken: typically, the overtaken realizes that an overtaking manoeuvre is happening only after the latter has already been initiated. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 89 It is from that point onwards that the overtaken is in a position in which it can witness and monitor what is happening for the sake of its own adjustments to the traffic but also for assessing the event morally. 4.1 Re-laning – from the perspective of the overtaker To complete overtaking, the last phase to be achieved involves returning to the slower lane. We will systematically describe the array and sequential organization of driving practices for re-laning. They include checking the traffic ahead, the distances and the relative positions of overtaken cars beside, and of incoming cars behind – using the rear and lateral mirrors. They involve a transformation of the trajectory of the car, adjusting the speed, often decelerating and designing the return trajectory in a smooth (vs. abrupt) way. The use of the indicator (either stopping or starting it). Each of these overtaking moves are accomplished as accountable and witnessable for the surrounding traffic. The driving practices of the overtaker completing its project also display a continuous intersubjective, normative and moral concern for other cars: both for facilitating and not obstructing the ongoing trajectories of self and others and for issues of safety, risk and danger for the self and others. For example, the overtaker may be helped by the overtaken (e.g. lorries and buses can flash to indicate that the overtaker can return to the lane) but may also display its respect for the overtaken when re-laning in a way that does not affect its trajectory or speed. In this way, we discover that even apparently 'technical', 'ballistic' procedures – such as adapting the speed or trajectory – are organized by an orientation towards their public accountability and their possible moral implications. In the next sections, we explore how re-laning is locally achieved by the participants on the basis of four cases – the first three from driving lessons and the last one from ordinary overtaking. In the first (4.1.1), very explicit instructions topicalize the basic practical issues to be handled locally; the second (4.1.2) shows how these issues can be addressed by more general rules; the third (4.1.3) reveals how this normativity engenders not only rule formulations but also corrections; and, finally, the fourth shows how, in an ordinary but complex road configuration, a threelane road with heavy traffic, these issues are considered and debated in decision taking within a risky situation (4.1.4). 4.1.1. Basic instructions for re-laning Re-laning constitutes a practical problem for experienced as well as novice drivers. Instructions given to the latter in driving lessons reveal the fundamental features that the driver is supposed to take into consideration to return to the lane. The following extract shows an instance of completion of an overtaking manoeuvre on a country road during a driving lesson. We again turn to the case from extract 4, in which a pupil is learning to overtake for the first time. The instructor gives instructions on how to return to the original lane. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 90 Extract 26 (Deppermann_German_driving-school_FAHR_02_23_26:48-27:08) (2W, INS) (continuation of extract (5)) 09 INS ins fig so #schönen fla%chen# BOgen, kinda nice flat bow >>grasps steering wheel% #fig.26.1 #fig.26.2 Fig. 26.1: Overtaken tractor is just passed, INS steers driving school's car back into lane Fig. 26.2: INS lets go of steering wheel, asking TRA to complete a 'nice, flat bow' 10 11 tra und SCHALten. and change gears ±(0.4)±#(0.5) ±.....±gears up #fig.26.3 Fig. 26.3: When back in their lane, TRA gears up 12 INS 13 tra und dann machst du den BLINker aus. and then you turn the indicator off (0.16)± ±turns indicator off Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 91 While the pupil operates the gas pedal, the instructor steers the car back into lane (fig. 26.1). She comments on the shape that the return trajectory ought to adopt while now leaving the steering task to the pupil ('nice flat bow', 09, fig. 26.2). This indexes that the angle in which the car moves from the opposite lane to the original lane when re-laning must not be as tight as when making a turn; it has to be a wide angle (to avoid spinning out of control and coming too close to the overtaken vehicle). Having re-laned, gearing up is another step in the completion of the overtaking action (10-11, fig. 26.3): the car does not speed up any more, but it is about to reach the speed at which it will travel onwards. Finally, the instructor asks for the indicator to be turned off (12); the pupil complies (13). The overtaking episode is thus visibly complete for the surrounding traffic. Completing the overtaking action generally involves less monitoring of the traffic than the preparation of overtaking requires (cf. extract 5). The overtaker must make sure that s/he does not endanger or interfere with the trajectory of the overtaken vehicle or the traffic ahead. He or she must adjust his or her speed to the new condition defined by the traffic regulations, and the traffic that is now ahead (or absent) is an important resource for establishing the speed. Both turning the indicator off (which had marked the overtaking action) and setting the indicator, to mark the return to the original lane, are communicative actions that signal the completion of the procedure to other road users. 4.1.2 Preparing to re-lane: rule formulations Whereas the previous extract featured local instructions (in the infinitive form as well the present declarative form) given here and now, on when and how to re-lane, the following extract shows that re-laning can be anticipated and prepared well before its actual realization. It also shows that this might occasion rule formulations that orient not only towards what has to be performed immediately but also towards what must be undertaken in general, routinely and normatively. The instructor and the pupil are driving on a motorway and have overtaken a number of lorries. We join the action as they are driving in the overtaking lane, fast approaching a lorry ahead in the slow lane. Other cars are overtaking the lorry as well. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 92 Extract 27 (Broth, Cromdal, Levin_Swedish_2013_INS_MT_ts2_19_1_ 14:35_16:39, li 4960) (MT, INS) 01 INS 02 cr1 fig så ba↑ra ra:kt fram. just straight ahead (.) $ (1.5) # $drives into the slow lane--> #fig.27.1 Fig. 27.1 03 04 05 06 07 cr1 08 09 TRA 10 INS tra 11 12 ins tra 13 tra tra ins 14 INS tra ins 15 16 17 18 INS vi kommer så småningom göra som honom,= we will in due time do like him =gå tiba:ka ti höger körfält.= go back to the right lane =>men< i[nte nu::.] but n[ot now] [(a okej),] [(oh okay)] (1.1) $ -->$ när vi <se:r he:la> lastbilen, (.) i backspegeln här.= when we see the whole lorry in the rear view mirror here= =oke[j, =oka[y [då blinkar vi höger. (.) (gå) °tillbaka°.+ (0.65) + [then we’ll indicate right, (go) back (0.65) +checks RVm+ (2.8) •>blinkar+ vi • höger<•+ we indicate right •points R wind•,,,,,,,• +checks RVm---+ ±(0.6) + (0.4) • (0.5) • (0.8) ±indicates--> +checks LSm, RVm, RSm-> •.......•points R window-> å nu+• försiktit=• an now carefully= ->+ ->•,,,,,,,,,,,• =tiba:ka här. =back here (.) bra::. (.) good (1.1) tar vi bort blinkersen (.) härli::t, we take away the indicator, lovely Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 93 On approaching the lorry in the slow lane, the instructor tells the pupil to keep a steady course in the overtaking lane (01); he then prepares the driver for a future return to the slow lane. In so doing, he models their upcoming actions on the car in front of them, which has just overtaken the same lorry and is now returning to the slow lane. Note that the future character of the manoeuvre, initially projected by the potentially vague in due time, is immediately refined by the instructor's categorical postponing of the action but not now (05). It is further clarified by specifying a visual threshold criterion, see the entire lorry in the rear view mirror here (08), which needs to be met before indicating a return to the slow lane (10). In this way, a generic rule is established, by which the overtaking vehicle may return to the slow lane at a safe distance from the overtaken vehicle. Having passed the lorry, and after a prompt by the instructor to indicate right (12), the pupil begins the lane change procedure by first looking in the rear-view mirror (cf. Björklund 2018 on the 'mirror routine'). She is thereby accountably applying the rule to her conduct by checking the distance from the lorry behind her before following through with the rest of the procedure. As she continues the sequence of moves, setting the right indicator and checking the side-view mirror, the instructor prompts her to begin carefully steering the car back into the slow lane. As we can see in lines 16-18, her seamless and correctly ordered return is emphatically praised by the instructor (good, line 16, and lovely, line 18). The excerpt shows how models can be drawn from other vehicles driving on the same road – supposing that the practical problems that they face are the same as for the current driver – and how rules can be formulated; it also shows an orientation towards the importance of the adequate moment to re-enter the right lane and the criteria for deciding on it. These criteria crucially rely on the position of the last overtaken car, which is taken into consideration for drawing the ordered series of procedures for re-laning (first check the overtaken vehicle in the rear-view mirror, then put on the indicator and then move to the right lane). 4.1.3. Re-laning: normativity and corrections, orientating towards safety and altruism Rule formulations reveal normative orientations of the drivers that can occasion corrections, themselves accounted for and commented on in further explanations and generalizations. This normative orientation is the case of the following instance of corrective instruction, proffered just after the trainee has put the indicator on and initiated possible re-laning. At the beginning of the following extract, the pupil (TRA) is driving in the left lane of a motorway. She has just overtaken a lorry and is now also overtaking a second vehicle: Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 94 Extract 28a (DeStefani_Italian_MT, INS_20100316Lusg2VIDPRO_5_4536-4736 li24-35 + 44-50) 01 tra tra tra fig 02 INS ins tra tra 03 tra tra (14.0)*(0.2)*(1.8)*(0.2)*(2.0)*(0.4)*(0.2)*%‡# (0.8) *gz Rm* *gz Rm* *gz Rm*-----*gz RSm----> %indicator---> ‡pulls over---> #fig.28.1 ent*ra $sol*tanto $quando la vedi$ qui* +eh?+ enter only when you see it/her here right? $..........$pp Rm---'’’’--$,,,,,,,,,----> -->* *gz Rm---------------------* +nod+ (0.4)#(1.1)‡ --># -->‡ Fig. 28.1: TRA gazing at the side mirror; the overtaken car on the right lane The pre-overtaking (see sect. 2) and the overtaking proper (see sect. 3) are taking place during the silence of 14 seconds at line 01. Once she has overtaken the second vehicle, the pupil quickly glances at the rear mirror twice. Her third gaze at the rear mirror is markedly longer and followed by a look at the right-side mirror while simultaneously setting the indicator, thereby initiating a lane change (01; fig. 28.1). Shortly after the pupil has set the indicator and started moving into the right lane, the instructor (INS) produces a corrective instruction (02). He tells the pupil that she may pull over soltanto quando ('only when', 02) the car that she has just overtaken becomes visible in the central rear mirror, which he refers to with deictic resources (qui, 'here', and a co-referential pointing gesture, 02). By shaping his turn in this way, the instructor singles out one problematic aspect of the pupil's postovertaking and, at the same time, sets up a general rule that is also valid for future overtaking manoeuvres. The problem that the instructor is evoking here, is the correct timing of the lane change: indeed, by using the 'only when' format, the instructor evidences that the pupil initiated the lane change before the overtaken car was visible in the rear window and that therefore the condition under which a 'correctly executed' lane change should be made was not met. The pupil responds to this turn by looking at the rear mirror (in simultaneity with the instructor's referential work) and then by performing a rapid head nod in concomitance with the instructor's turnfinal tag-question eh? (translated as 'right?', 02). Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 95 The instructor treats the pupil's response as insufficiently oriented towards the corrective dimension of his utterance, as his subsequent turn shows, which he produces while the pupil is driving again in the right lane (04): Extract 28b (DeStefani_Italian_MT, INS_20100316Lusg2VIDPRO_5_4536-4736 li24-35 + 44-50) 04 INS ins 05 TRA tra 06 07 TRA 08 09 TRA fig 10 TRA tra 11 12 INS 13 metti la freccia $soltanto $quando$ la [vedi$ lì] eh? set the indicator only when you see it/her there right? $.........$pp RM$,,,,,,,,,$ [ah *occhei.]* oh okay. *gz RM---* (0.2) occhei. okay. (0.2) comu#nque^eh [%perché lei (don::- ) anyway huh because she (dot::-) #fig.28.2 [%sì yes -->% (1.2) non se lo aspetta eh? she’s not expecting it right? (5.2) Fig. 28.2: TRA being overtaken In his turn at line 4, the instructor adopts the same turn constructional format as in his previous turn (02), thereby displaying that he is 'redoing' his prior action. However, he operates different lexical choices: whereas, in the first occurrence of the corrective instruction, he started the turn with the word entra ('enter', 02), he now replaces it with metti la freccia ('set the indicator', 04). He also replaces the proximal deictic qui ('here', 02) with its distal counterpart lì ('there', 04). This lexical substitution is accountable in at least two ways. Firstly, in line 02, the instructor uses a non-technical lay term (entra ('enter')) in his description of the pupil's manoeuvre, whereas, in line 04, he employs metti la freccia ('set the indicator'), which the pupil can relate to a specific action that has to be performed in a timely and sequentially organized way. In other words, 'setting the indicator' is a specific driving competence that driving instruction pupils have to perform correctly, and both the instructor and the pupil orient towards the normative expectations with regard to when and how the indicator should be activated. Secondly, by saying 'set the Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 96 indicator', the instructor also identifies a specific moment of the post-overtaking, whereas the verb 'to enter' does not identify a moment in time with the same precision. Hence, the instructor now presents the visibility of the overtaken car in the rear mirror as a condition that must be fulfilled to activate the indicator and perform a lane change legitimately, thereby ending the overtaking manoeuvre. The pupil responds to the instructor with an overt display of understanding (ah occhei ('oh okay', 05), which the initial change-of-state token makes visible. The appropriate timing of the lane change after overtaking is presented as a central concern, which the subsequent lines also show. the instructor provides an account of his corrective instruction at line 09, thereby orienting towards the end of this particular overtaking manoeuvre. The pupil acknowledges the instructor's turn (10) as soon as it becomes interpretable as providing an account (namely overlapping with the instructor's perché, 'because'). At the same time, the pupil pulls the indicator back, thereby publicly displaying that her overtaking manoeuvre has just ended. After a short pause, the instructor recasts his account with the words non se lo aspetta eh? ('she's not expecting it right?', 12). With this explanation, the instructor orients towards two aspects of the overtaking manoeuvre, namely the temporal organization of successive actions and the necessary other-orientedness of these actions. Indeed, if the instructor presents temporality as a main concern in overtaking, it is not because of some abstract rule but because overtaking has to be accomplished in coordination with the actions of other road users (in casu the overtaken vehicle). Changing lane too early – which is what the pupil did in this case according to the instructor – may be problematic for other road users: in this specific case, the instructor asserts that the driver of the overtaken car 'is not expecting' (12) such an early lane change. A major problem for learner drivers who practice overtaking resides precisely in the coordination of their actions with the overtaken vehicle as well as with other road users. In the case analysed here, the pupil is herself overtaken by another car while her own overtaking is coming to an end (fig. 28.2). Throughout this whole episode, the pupil faces a major practical problem: on the one hand, she is herself engaged in overtaking another vehicle; on the other hand, we can assume that she is witnessing yet another car approaching fast behind her. The fact that, after her overtaking, she pulls over to the right lane too quickly shows the practical solution that she has found to come to terms with both contingencies. Her solution is perfectly fitted to the practical problems that she has been facing, because it allows the other road users to continue their journey smoothly. While in non-instructional car rides this conduct could have been treated as appropriate, in this fragment the instructor makes relevant a general rule, which we can gloss as 'you should set the indicator only once the overtaken car is visible in the rear mirror'. This general rule is produced as a corrective instruction, which is itself responsive to the pupil's prior action. For the instructor, the practical problem resides in grounding such a general rule in the traffic situation at hand. His account (09-12) is one way in which he solves this problem – interestingly, he does so in a suppositional, even counterfactual, way, given that at no moment does the overtaken car driver display that the pupil's lane change was 'unexpected'. This extract shows, through the corrective instruction of the instructor and the dilemma faced by the trainee (and not really taken up by the instructor), that re- Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 97 entering the lane is a movement that is organized by assuming an altruistic orientation: the instructor clearly invites the trainee to take the perspective of the overtaken driver to avoid cutting in front of them; furthermore, the trainee orients towards the perspective of the car behind her, approaching at high speed in the overtaking lane. The first altruistic perspective invites her to wait before re-entering the slower lane; the second one, quite the opposite, invites her to speed up the re-laning move. As we will see in the next fragment, in non-instructional settings, on more complex roads and in riskier configurations than on the highway, other competing relevancies emerge – in which, for example, self-oriented safety competes with altruistic perspective taking. 4.1.4 Taking the decision to re-enter the right lane in dense and risky traffic In ordinary car driving off the highway, on highly trafficked roads and in complex lane configurations, the task of re-entering the lane can be particularly complex – inviting the driver to consider not only several features but also multiple perspectives: the perspectives of the drivers ahead, behind, and beside as well as his or her own safety and risks. In the next extract, we again join the overtaking on a three-lane road (see above sections 2.1.5 and 3.3.3) to discuss a further specific feature of this particular configuration: how the decision to continue to overtake (vs. returning to the right lane) is taken. It is characteristic of this overtaking ecology that the driver often engages in overtaking as many cars as possible before the window of opportunity for doing so ends, for reasons mainly related to the resumption of traffic in the same lane but in the opposite direction. In our case, the driver has already overtaken one car and continues in the shared overtaking lane. Now, she has to decide whether to continue or to return to the right lane. Extract 29 (Mondada_French_2003_1507_emic19-20_dangereux) (3W, NI) (continuation of extract (19)) 14 DRI 15 dri dri 16 dri dri cr2 cr3 17 DRI fig (ah‡ mais) là je ‡ crains que:: (oh but) there I fear that:: ->‡approaches overtaking lorry‡decelerates---> † (0.5) †+ (1.5) + (1.5) †indicator† +looks RVmirror+ € † (0.5) £ (1.0) +(0.5)+ (1.5) † (0.5) £ (0.5) ->†re-enters Rlane--------------† +RVmirror+ ->£re-enters Rlane--------------£ €approaches from behind on the middle lane---> #là en fait c’est souvent plein +d’accidents+ parce que here in fact it’s often full of accidents because +looks LSmirror+ #fig.29.1 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 98 Fig. 29.1 18 cr3 19 20 PAS 21 DRI 22 PAS cr3 23 DRI t’sais c’est trois voies où€ les deux peuvent euh y’know it’s three lanes where both can ehm €re-enters the lane--> (0.6) peuvent passer. can pass peuvent doubler,€ en [general les gens can overtake, in [general people [ouais [yeah ->€stays behind them-->> vont super vite [et c’est: drive super fast [and it’s: The driver has been driving in the middle lane behind another overtaking vehicle, a small lorry, functioning as a kind of safe 'shield' ahead of her. However, while the driver advances, she also progressively comes closer to the small lorry still overtaking ahead, and this occasions her deceleration. At this point the changing overtaking ecology, as seen and adjusted to by the driver, is characterized by two pickup trucks in the right, slower, lane, which are being overtaken by the small lorry. They are all driving slower than the initial overtaking speed adopted by the driver. This arrangement creates a rather dense flow of traffic, which not only delays possible further multiple overtaking but also compacts the file of cars in the right lane. The compaction reduces the number of gaps available for shelter when leaving the shared overtaking lane and thus any flexibility to react quickly to oncoming traffic/danger. This danger is commented aloud by the driver in an unfinished turn (14): she mentions her fear, although the object of her fear is never expressed. During her turn, she continues to drive in the shared lane. In the silence that follows, she applies the indicator, looks in the rear mirror and re-enters the right lane. Thus, based on her vision of the street, explicitly topicalized as 'fearing' some danger, she consequently re-lanes instead of passing the slower pickups ahead of her (fig. 29.1). She begins to move to the right slightly before the overtaking lorry in front of her does the same (16). With the lorry having completed its own overtaking manoeuvre, the driver's car is now in the first position in front of any oncoming vehicles. The altered ecology of the road is now much more dangerous without the protection of the 'shields'. Interestingly, a car behind her (CR3) – which she also monitors by looking at the rear and left mirrors – closed in on her in the shared lane, staying in that overtaking lane for a little while and re-enters the right lane behind her (18-22). In other Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 99 words, that car is following the same trajectory of actions and seemingly taking the same decisions as her, and perhaps because of the increased risk here she monitors it carefully. Significantly then it is only when this car also aligns behind her, the driver removes her attention and turns to the passenger, displaying her return to involvement in the conversation. In this fragment, then, the decision to re-enter the right lane is successively taken by three vehicles, the lorry driving ahead, the driver in focus and the car behind her. These three vehicles all seem to orient towards the possibility of incoming traffic from the opposite direction. They work as 'shields' for the cars behind them as well as as 'models' not only for what they do but also for what they possibly see. In this case, the orientation towards the cars driving in the right lane is not caused by altruistic motives but rather by a self-concern for safe passage by rapid re-laning in the case of danger. 4.1.5. Summary The completion of overtaking is achieved through a series of methodic practices, explicitly instructed and sometimes formulated in the instructional settings: checking in the rear mirror, putting on the indicator, adjusting the speed and designing a trajectory back to the original and/or slower lane. In all the cases, these operations are initiated with the identification of the relevant moment, here and now, when it is appropriate to re-lane. The identification of this relevant moment and the consequent manoeuvre include scrutinizing the road ahead, checking whether there are further cars to overtake on the motorway or whether there is incoming traffic on country roads. It may also involve looking at other cars as models, or shields. Checking the traffic beside to ensure that the re-laning trajectory is not cutting off the road to a slower car. Checking whether the slower lane presents a free shelter to come back to. Checking the cars behind with a concern as to whether there are incoming cars. These checks ahead, beside and behind incorporate both other-oriented and self-oriented concerns, in which etiquette merges with safety considerations – which may be topicalized in general rules but also in normative formulations. 4.2. Assessments, comments and critiques of the overtaking by the overtaken As we have seen, the re-laning trajectory is completed in an accountable way regarding other-oriented altruistic concerns as well as self-oriented egoistic concerns. This accountability is built to be visible and witnessable by others, and it includes practices that publicly communicate with others (such as the use of the indicator or headlights). The phase following the overtaking completion is typically characterized by a retrospective interpretation of what just happened, which might be elaborated on, discussed and scrutinized, not just to understand the previous events – or to explain them within a learning setting, such as in a driving lesson – but also to evaluate and assess them morally. These assessments are generally not publicly displayed to Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 100 other cars – although for example honking the horn in protest and flashing the headlights or hazard lights to thank another car represent common inter-vehicle communicative practices. In most of the cases, assessments and blame are shared within the vehicle between the driver and the passenger(s), which is why this section focuses on exchanges within the car, among co-participants – which allows us to access the mechanisms of the production of moral retrospective interpretations. Post hoc comments typically emerge from noticings, orienting towards and possibly categorizing what happened as noticeable, weird, strange, inconsistent or illegitimate. These noticings tend to become more explicit as the sequence unfolds and even more so as an inter-car history emerges over subsequent encounters between the same cars, making further scrutiny possible. Post hoc comments about overtaking by overtaken cars make available a wide array of responses: technical evaluations of compliance/violation of the rules of the road; moral blaming around issues of justice, equality and altruism-egoism; emotional outbursts of irritation, irony, mocking and Schadenfreude. Although the sense of what happened during overtaking can be related to the particular characteristics of the road (e.g. particularly dangerous), in most of the cases, it relates instead to the character of the drivers. to which a variety of actions, intentions and responsibilities are attributed. In this sense, post hoc comments reveal how membership categorization devices are mobilized to make sense of driving conduct and to respond to it morally and emotionally: a variety of socially shared, stereotypical but also ad hoc categories are used. In the following, we again adopt the perspective of the overtaker (section 4.2.1) and then of the overtaken (section 4.2.2). 4.2.1 Post hoc retrospective comments by the overtaker Once the overtaking is completed, as we have argued above, the overtaker can engage in retrospective actions – such as commenting, warning, explaining, criticizing and so on – which manifest post hoc treatment of what just happened. These comments can address the road itself, categorized as 'dangerous', holding it as being responsible (and possibly, with it, the state, the administration, etc.) rather than individual drivers' conduct (4.2.1.1), but they can also address types of drivers (4.2.1.2) or actual ways of managing the overtaking (4.2.1.3). This shows how attributions of responsibility can target very different sources. 4.2.1.1. Accident stories: imputing dangerousness to the road Accident stories are a recurrent topic generated by an orientation towards the actual context, event or action as dangerous, unsafe and risky. They can be generated by reference to different sources of responsibility. In the next fragment, in which we again join the driver who has completed an overtaking manoeuvre on a three-lane road with free traffic in the middle lane, overtaking is considered as particularly risky: this is overtly stated before overtaking (see section 2.1.5) but also afterwards – in some post-overtaking comments. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 101 Extract 30 (Mondada_French_2003_1507_emic19-20_dangereux) (3W, NI) (continuation of extract 29) 17 DRI 18 19 20 PAS 21 DRI 22 PAS 23 DRI 24 PAS 25 26 PAS dri 27 DRI 28 PAS 29 DRI dri 30 PAS 31 32 PAS 33 34 DRI là en fait c’est souvent plein d’accidents parce que here in fact it’s often full of accidents because t’sais c’est trois voies où les deux peuvent euh y’know it’s three lanes where both can ehm (0.6) peuvent passer. can pass peuvent doubler, en [général les gens can overtake, in [general people [ouais [yeah vont super vite [et c’est: drive super fast [and it’s: [et y a pas d’ligne blanche? [and there isn’t any white line? (1.5) d’un côté comme de l’au†tre?= on one side as well as on the other?= †turns to PAS-> =non =no c’est pas deux† voies [une voie it’s not two lanes [one lane [†non† [no ->† †headshake† ouais yeah (0.5) c’est dangereux ça it’s dangerous this (1.5) ils vont bientôt la faire l’autoroute par ici d’ailleurs they will soon build the highway around here by the way As soon as the driver has re-entered the initial right lane (see above, section 4.1.4, extract 29, line 16), she begins to talk again: the resumption of the extended talk contrasts with the silence and unfinished turns that characterized the interaction during the overtaking and manifests a return to a more routine driving situation, one that affords multi-activity. In this context, just after the overtaking, some retrospective comments are offered. The driver proffers a generalization about that portion of the road (là, '(t)here'), which is formatted as a characteristic of the place (with the construction c'est souvent plein d'accidents ('it's often full of accidents', 17), vs. the format il y a ('there is', which would focus on the frequency of such events). This characterization is also expanded in a because clause, which addresses the previous question by the passenger (cf. supra section 4.1.4, extract 29, line 10) and her possible epistemic asymmetry (manifested in the fact that the driver offers an explanation and uses the expression t'sais ('you know', 18). "T' sais" could be a grammaticalized discourse particle but could also be an actual predication of knowledge. The passenger orients towards this epistemic issue, completing the unfinished prior turn (18), providing the final verb (20) and displaying some epistemic access to the matter at hand. Interestingly, the driver ratifies this collaborative completion by providing her own Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 102 completion, using a different verb (doubler, 'overtake', 21, instead of passer, 'pass', 20), which is more specific and more appropriate for the situation described. Thereby, she reaffirms her authority over the matter at hand. She also adds a further generalization (21, 23) about the speed of the drivers (les gens, 'the people', 23), which is overlapped by the passenger asking a question – thereby aligning with an inferior epistemic position relative to the driver (Heritage 2012). The question is not immediately answered by the driver (25), occasioning an expansion (26), answered in a concise way (27) and further developed in a conclusive redescription of the same state of affairs (28), confirmed by the driver (29). The latter description refers to an alternative configuration of a three-lane road, in which a continuous white line would separate one lane from the two other lanes and clearly alternate the stretches where one of the two traffic flows would be able to overtake and the other would be forbidden from doing so. The allusion to this alternative configuration allows the definitive establishment and assessment of the dangerousness of that specific road (32) – in which the middle lane is equally available to both traffic flows, resulting in a continuous negotiation about who is going to use it, with a consequent high risk of collisions. The conclusion occasions the mention of a further alternative road system, the highway, with specialized overtaking lanes, as being planned (by some unspecified institutional agency, referred to with a third-person plural pronoun, ils, 'they') to replace the dangerous three-lane road (34). Thus, the final retrospective comments focus on the characteristics of that stretch of road and more particularly on its specific overtaking ecology, which is contrasted with other possible alternative models. In this case, what is at stake is less the conduct of the drivers but the road itself (see c’est used on lines 17, 23, 28 and 32, especially in c’est souvent plein d’accidents, 17, and c’est dangereux, 32): driving is referred to in quite a generic way, not only by reference to an undifferentiated les gens ('the people', 23) but also by reference to the lanes (18), which are the syntactic subjects of the verbs 'to pass' (20) and 'to overtake' (21) and thus to which driving agency is attributed. In this way, the syntactic and lexical choices characterizing these comments clearly attribute the responsibility of risks and accidents to the road. 4.2.1.2. Attributing dangerous features to categories of drivers Risks and dangerousness can also be attributed to categories of drivers by associating them with category-bound activities based on which sets of inferences can be (and even have to be) drawn (cf. Sacks 1972, 1992). This may even be independent of the actual conduct of single instances of driver so categorised. This is the case of extract 31, in which the overtaken vehicle, a tractor, becomes the target of post hoc explanations made by the instructor to the overtaking trainee. We join the action as the driving school car has just overtaken a tractor. The instructor points out what is to be observed when overtaking tractors in general. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 103 Extract 31 (Deppermann_German_FOLK_FAHR_01_01_30 :52-31:18) (2W, INS) 01 INS 02 03 04 05 06 ins fig TREckerfAhrer, tractor driver (0.7) der vergißt (.) OHne böse absichthe forgets without bad intention (.) dass er LINKS abbiegen will. that he wants to turn left (0.4) %und da war %grade #ne EINfahrt;% and there was just an entrance %...........%points backwards,,,% #fig.31.1 Fig. 31.1: INS points backwards towards entrance into field 07 08 09 10 tra 11 INS 12 13 14 ins fig 15 16 (0.55) und der hat uns noch nich geSEHN; and he hasn’t seen us deswegen- (.) GUCK ich immer, (.) therefore I always check †HAT† er mich geSEHN, has he seen me? †nods† und dann guck ich IN SEInen SPIEgel, and then I look into his mirror (0.6) ich BLINke und mach vielleicht einmal die LICHThupe, I indicate and maybe do a headlight beam (0.2) weil %dann geht der #LICHT%strahl,# (.)% because then the beam goes .....%2 fingers fwd point-%point backwd% #fig.31.2 #fig.31.3 in seinen SPIEgel- (0.35) into his mirror und in seine AUGen-= and in his eyes Fig. 31.2: INS moves arm forwards, index and middle finger stretched to enact trajectory of headlight beam into mirror Fig. 31.3: INS moves arm backwards to enact reflection of headlight beam by mirror Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 104 17 ins fig 18 =un_dann, (0.25) %gEht er #noch mal weiter nach RECHTS;% and then he moves again further to the right %both hands palm vertical to the right% #fig.31.4 (0.4) Fig. 31.4: INS moves both hands to the right, palms vertical to enact lateral move of tractor to the right 19 das is gAnz WICHtig; this is very important The instructor states that tractor drivers are likely to forget to set an indicator if they want to turn left (01-04). The instructor underscores the local relevance of this statement to the past overtaking action by referring to an entrance to a field next to the road, which they have just passed and which the tractor could have taken (06, fig. 31.1). He proposes that the tractor driver had not seen them following (08); that is, the driver may have been unaware of the incipient overtaking action. It is left for the pupil to infer that a severe accident can happen if the tractor turns left to enter the field while the overtaking action is in progress. In this instance, the particulars of the local ecology are used by creating a fictional scenario to warrant a more general argument about the necessary caution in situations of that kind. The instructor asks the pupil to check by inspecting the external mirror of the tractor 16 whether its driver has noticed the car behind (09-11). In addition to indicating (13), the instructor recommends flashing the headlights so that the tractor driver will become aware of the vehicle behind in his mirror (13-16). The instructor enacts the trajectory of the headlight beam touching the mirror by a forward movement of his arm with his index and middle fingers (symbolizing the headlight beams) outstretched (fig. 31.2). The reflection of the headlight beam to the tractor driver – the reception of the beam by the tractor – is then symbolized by the reversion of the two-finger gesture backwards toward the driver's face (fig. 31.3). As a consequence of this didactic, fictive scenario, the instructor predicts that the tractor will move to the right (fig. 31.4), thus signalling that he has taken notice of the incipient overtaking action and will not interfere with it. This brief post-overtaking lecture is designed to show that a concern for safety is not only to be satisfied by careful driving and monitoring the traffic. It also involves taking the perspective of the overtaken party into account and acting accordingly. This requires background knowledge about the membership categories (cf. Sacks 1972, 1992) of traffic participants (here: tractors) and their possible categorybound activities (here: they are likely to enter a field; they may fail to observe the code of traffic) to predict kinds of dangerous situations and contingencies, which 16 However, this will probably be impossible for the driver. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 105 have to be considered when preparing and performing an overtaking action by actively observing the tractor driver's visual actions. Beyond his vehicle, the tractor driver himself thus becomes a traffic partner whose perception of the situation is to be noted. The instructor takes one step further by asking the trainee actively to seek a warrant of an intersubjective awareness of the incipient overtaking. In addition to the accomplishment of perceived perception, he advises the trainee to communicate actively with the tractor driver in a way that makes sure that he has realized the vehicle behind's plan. The indicator is the conventional (and obligatory) means to achieve this (cf. Broth et al. 2018). The additional recommendation to use the headlight beam rests on an optico-physiological mechanism that the instructor explains and enacts gesturally: it amounts to physical enforcement of the perception of the communicative intention of the vehicle behind that he announces the intention to overtake. By this, the instructor conveys to the trainee that he can actively use physico-communicative means to make sure that the intersubjectivity with the future overtaken party concerning his intended overtaking action can be assured and thus that the process can be organized to guarantee a safe trajectory. In this case, a category of vehicle/driver (tractors) is made relevant after the overtaking for the practical purpose of a safety lesson and formulating a kind of a precautionary principle – based on category-bound activities attributed to the category and their (im)moral counterparts. Contrary to the previous case, in which accidents were evoked as facts that frequently happen, here a fictionalized version of what could have happened generates extra warning and advice. 4.2.1.3. Attributing responsibility to the just-overtaken driver As we explained previously, overtaking on the race circuit orients towards different etiquette from overtaking on the ordinary road (see above, excerpts 9 and 15), which recognize the rights of the faster driver to overtake and the obligations of the slower driver being overtaken to facilitate the manoeuvre. This is observable not only in the way in which overtaking is actually facilitated by the overtaken driver (see above excerpt 15) but also in the post-overtaking comments made by the overtaking driver. In the next fragment, the driver has overtaken a slower vehicle but then complains that the latter has not facilitated his manoeuvre: Extract 32 (Mondada_French_2012_nurb52-47_il est malin) (RT, INS) 01 INS 02 03 04 INS 05 DRI 06 INS 07 08 tu vas pas à la corde tout d’suite, voilà c’est bien, you don’t go towards the inside track yet, right that’s good, vas y, vas y, vas y, vas y, vas y, go, go, go, go, go, (0.8) ah i t’laisse passer euh:: oh he lets you pass ehm:: (j’prends p’t’êt’e au milieu?) (I maybe go in the middle?) euh:: ouaisouaisouais: vay-y vas-y euh:: yeahyeahyeah: go go prépare-, i faut qu’t’aille plus près, euh prepare-, you need to go closer, ehm (0.5) Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 106 09 INS 10 11 INS dri 12 dri 13 INS 14 dri dri 15 INS 16 17 voilà right (0.3) allez, all‡ez, go, go ‡accelerates---> (1.6) ‡ (0.6) -->‡overtakes---> >freins.< >brakes.< ‡‡ (0.3) ‡ (1.5) ->‡ ‡‡brakes and steers at the curve---->> ah bah il est malin lui, oh well he’s clever he, i nous emmène euh dans l’virage, he brings us ehm in the bend, (1.5) The coach and the driver are engaged in a sequence of instructions (01-02) when they spot a car ahead (04) that is driving slower and that apparently has put on the indicator to facilitate the overtaking. The driver asks a question concerning the trajectory of the imminent overtaking (05) – showing again that there are no simple rules concerning its position (i.e. a car can be overtaken on its right as well as on its left, in different areas of the road). The coach continues to instruct the driver on how to the approach of the vehicle ahead (06) and, because the road is straight at this point, then instructs the driver to accelerate (11). As soon as they overtake the car (12-14), the coach instructs the driver to brake – which is necessary given that the road is now entering a curve. The driver follows the instruction and brakes: the way in which he brakes is noticeable, since the noise of the squealing tyres is clearly audible and the car enters the curve with a sustained speed. Consequently, the coach utters a final ironic assessment (15) and moral retrospective formulation (16), imputing the responsibility of the risky veering to the other driver (i nous emmène euh dans l’virage , 'he brings us in the bend', 16). The choice of the verb here clearly attributes the risky trajectory of the overtaking car to an agentive and intentional action of the overtaken driver. This negative retrospective comment shows how the conduct of the overtaken driver can be interpreted by the overtaker as well as the orientation of the latter towards the altruistic expectations that we described above. 4.2.1.4. Summary In brief, the cases examined in this section have shown how the overtaker may attribute blame, intentions and responsibilities to various entities identified as having a specific form of agency: this can concern not only the actual drivers encountered – and significantly the overtaken driver – but also the road, general driving habits, and fictionalized and typified categories of drivers. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 107 4.2.2. Post hoc retrospective comments made by the overtaken In some circumstances, which are highlighted in the cases studied in this section, the overtaking car is seen as blameworthy from the perspective of the overtaken and targeted with negative assessments. The cases show how progressively the noticeability of the overtaking car emerges from the perspective of the overtaken and how often this noticeable manoeuvre is interpreted in a negative way as faulty, illegitimate, amoral, egoistic and so on, even if this negative assessment can be then revised or rebutted. In the three first extracts, different grounds for blaming the other are invoked: the first and second (4.2.2.1-4.2.2.2) are based on gender categorizations and inferences; in the second and third cases (4.2.2.2-4.2.2.3), the initial attribution of blame is revised by reinterpreting the overtaken's action. Furthermore, the last cases show how the negative apprehension of the overtaker by the overtaken can significantly rely on the history of consecutive encounters (4.2.2.4-4.2.2.5), during which the categorization of the overtaker is progressively crafted by the overtaken, grounding the negative assessment. 4.2.2.1. Gender categorization One way in which the overtaken can make sense of the action of the overtaker, and criticize it, is by imputing it to a specific membership category, which can be related to driving activities (like 'boy racer') but can also be unrelated (like 'woman'), warranting various kinds of stereotypical and ideological associations. As we described earlier in section 3.2.4, an overtaking action may be criticized publicly by the overtaken party by sounding the horn. This happens in extract 33 too: the overtaker passes when the driving school car has just reached an intersection at which it has to respect the right of way. Responding to this, the instructor beeps at the overtaking car (04, fig. 33.2). Contrary to the negative assessments uttered in the car, shared only by the car inhabitants, beeping the horn is a way of publicly expressing blame in a manner that is available both for the overtaking car and for other possible witnesses to the events. However, our focus in the next extract will be on the instructor's assessment of the overtaker addressed to the trainee and on the lesson to be learnt from the inappropriate overtaking that the instructor formulates. Extract 33 (Deppermann_FOLK_E_00172_SE_01_T_01_DF_01, 00:23:18 - 00:24:28) (1W, INS) 01 INS fig NUR rechts gucken wenn du (.) #TIEfensicht hast; only look right if you have deep sight #fig.33.1 Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 108 Fig. 33.1: TRA monitors potential traffic coming from the right, overtaker behind starts to veer out 02 03 INS 04 ins fig (0.3) fahr WEIterdrive on (1.4)$#(0.8) $horns #fig.33.2 Fig. 33.2: INS horns, while overtaker is passing 05 INS 06 TRA 07 INS 08 INS 09 10 INS 11 INS 12 RES 13 14 INS 15 16 INS 17 18 19 20 INS 21 ja_äh dat sind DIE leute, yes_erm these are the people h[m:-] uhum [DIE] meinen die können jetz dats (alles) machen,= they think they can now do that (all) das is (0.3) !TY!pisch frau; this is typically women (2.2) TSCHULdigung reza- (.) excuse me Reza (= researcher) IS so. that’s how it is ((chuckles)) (0.5) macht NICHTS; ((chuckles)) doesn’t matter (1.8) dat kaPIERN die nich. they do not get it (0.4) diese weiß genAU dass DU ihr dat jetz this one knows exactly that you are now for her alles freihäls; °h aber !BUFF!, (.) keeping it all free but boom einfach ma WEG. simply just away (0.5) DU (0.3) hast (.) die vorfahrtsverletzung begangen wenn du you have committed a violation of right of way if you SO fährst wie SIE, °h und Er dann BREMsen muss. drive like her and he then has to brake Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 109 22 TRA ja; yes 23 INS h denn das hier ist SCHMAL; because this here is narrow 24 °h DU mUsst sO fahrn, you have to drive like that 25 (0.3) 26 LA:NGsam voRAU:Sschauend und PASsend. slow anticipating and adaptive The driving school car has been approaching an intersection very slowly, because it has to give way to potential traffic coming from the right (fig. 33.1). When the overtaker passes (04), the instructor beeps the horn (fig. 33.2). Using a very vague formulation, he reproaches the overtaker as disregarding the rules (die meinen sie können jetzt das (alles) machen, 'they think they now can do that (all)', 07). Having already used a third-person plural pronoun without naming a category (06/07), the instructor then adds typisch frau ('typical of women', 08). Immediately afterwards, the instructor begs the pardon of the female researcher in the back (10) for his stereotyping, category-oriented complaint, thus showing his sensitivity towards its sexist character for the incumbents of the category (Stokoe 2011). Nevertheless, he insists on the truth of his stereotyping statement (11); the female researcher, however, accepts the excuse laughingly, so the remedial exchange can be considered to have been successful (Goffman 1963). The instructor proceeds by reproaching the overtaker for taking advantage of the careful work of the driving school car to enter the intersection slowly, using it as a shield to speed up her own trajectory (16-18). The instructor reminds the pupil not to act like the overtaker, because then he would violate the right of way (20-21). Instead, he should drive carefully and practise defensive driving. The category 'woman' here is invoked and related to the inapposite overtaking action as a category-bound activity (Sacks 1972; Jayyusi 1984). Categorizing the action as 'typical of women' invokes the social stereotype of women being bad drivers; thus, it is treated as a traffic-behaviour-relevant category, including its own (problematic) expectations and judgements concerning the behaviour of its incumbents in traffic. The moral criticism not only invokes violations of the law and the creation of danger as grounds for the reproach; it additionally draws on a tacit social etiquette against inappositely exploiting the driving efforts of other road participants for proper egoistic benefits. Issues of the code of traffic thus combine here with an etiquette of decency as opposed to an egoistic maximization of one's own temporal profit. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 110 4.2.2.2. Gender categorization and blame, then revised Another instance of gender categorization is observable in the following fragment, in which the driver – a woman – interprets the overtaking driver as playing tricks typical of male drivers spotting a woman driving. The extract is a continuation of extract 21, in which it was only when a taxi drove up from behind to the side of the driving school car that the driver identified it as an overtaker – and as an obstruction to her steering the car into the correct lane of the motorway. The driver pointed out the problem and accounted for the ongoing delay in the merge through a noticing (no nyt siin on toi taksi vieressä, 'well now there is that taxi next to {us}', extract 21, lines 05-06). Extract 34 (Rauniomaa_Finnish_TRU2010061522-1_17:37) (MT, INS) 08 INS 09 10 11 TRA 12 INS 13 14 15 TRA 16 INS 17 TRA 18 INS 19 TRA 20 21 INS 22 23 24 25 TRA 26 INS 27 TRA 28 INS 29 TRA se:::, se tuli meidän takana, it it came behind us kiihdytyskaistaa,= on the acceleration lane =se ei ois saanu, it should not have aijaa. I see tuppautua sinne. pushed its way in there .hh ja siis, and I mean (0.4) .hh no [hän huomas kato, well he/she noticed you see [mm te< you nainen ra[tissa, a woman behind the wheel [°mut<° but sillon tehdään £aina jekkua£. then tricks are always played [.hh he he he [mutta, te: but you i:tsekin teitte virheen siinä että, yourself made a mistake in hidastitte sen takia, slowing down for it [vaikka kaasua painamalla although by stepping on the gas [aijaa:, I see oltais voitu mennä [sen eteen. we could have gone in front of it [just just, right k[oska, because [joo. Yes Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 111 The noticing initiates a sequence of evaluation and moral negotiation about the accountability of each of the participants, that is, the overtaker and the overtaken, in the overtaking episode. First, the instructor points out that the overtaker has violated the principle by which the first vehicle to enter the acceleration lane should also be the first to merge onto the motorway (08-10, 12). The driver receives this as news and relevant to a further discussion with the change-of-state token aijaa (11; see Koivisto 2015, 2016) and then builds on the instructor's evaluation to blame the overtaker by accounting for the overtaking episode through category membership (15, 17, 19). That is, the driver invokes gender in connection with a driving activity ('a woman behind the wheel', 17) as a cause for the inapposite conduct of the overtaker and, consequently, of the overtaken, that is, the pupil herself. The instructor, however, can be seen to pursue another line of action that also attributes blame to the pupil (13, 16, 18, 21-24, 26). He argues that she is equally at fault: the driver decelerated rather than accelerated in the acceleration lane. The driver's seemingly attentive driving conduct has therefore had relatively serious repercussions by causing a fellow road user to drive in a reckless way. The inevitable interdependency between the overtaker and the overtaken is thus reflected in the instructor's attribution of blame to both: the overtaker has violated the principle of first to enter, first to merge, and the overtaken has violated the flow principle by not maintaining an appropriate speed for the first vehicle. The driver receives the argument as news (25, 27), and the participants then continue to negotiate how – and particularly at what speed – a driver appropriately merges onto a motorway (data not shown). Thus, in this extract too, gender categorization paves the way for interpreting the other's overtaking conduct as blameable. In this case, the blame is rebutted and relativized by an alternative interpretation of what happened, distributing rights and obligations differently and evoking different types of violations. The vagueness and generality of the blame attribution grounded on gender categorization contrasts with the more precise interpretation based on the respective driving conduct and a more balanced attribution of blame to both the overtaker and the overtaken. 4.2.2.3. Revising blame attributions Blaming is the logically related output of the interpretation of overtaking by overtaken drivers who treat it as noticeable, given that competent, attentive, entitled overtaking remains seen but unnoticed. Nonetheless, the attribution of problems and responsibilities to others is open to revision in the course of the post-overtaking phase. A case at hand is the following extract, in which the car under study is being overtaken by several other vehicles. After having considered that the other drivers are violating the speed regulation, the instructor and the driver discover that the cause lies in a defect of their own car's speedometer. The pupil and the instructor are driving on a stretch of motorway, which under normal circumstances has a speed limit of 80 km/h. Because of roadworks, that limit is currently lowered to 60 km/h. The extract begins with the instructor suggesting that the pupil drives in fourth gear and controls her speed of 60 km/h with the brake (01-04). the pupil is driving on the right side of a road with two lanes per direction. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 112 Extract 35a (DeStefani_CHItalian_2010_INS_MT_20100316Lusg2VIDPRO_5_4615) 01 INS 02 03 INS 04 05 ins fig 06 INS ins fig 07 tra tra occhei. io ti consiglio la quarta qui eh? okay. I suggest fourth (gear) here right? (1.8) e poi controlli sempre solo leggermente col freno and then you always check just slightly with the brake per andare a sessanta all’ora. in order to drive at 60 km/h. (54.7)*(0.4)#(1.6) *gz at overtaking car----> #fig.35.1 pe#rò.* wow. -->* #fig.35.2 (1.0)*(1.0)$ (0.9) $ *smiling face----> $gz speedometer$ Fig. 35.1: INS orienting his gaze to the overtaking vehicle on the left Fig. 35.2: INS looking at the overtaker while saying però, 'wow' (05) The journey proceeds in silence for almost one minute (05). During that time, two other vehicles overtake the car. The first one is visible in the data about 17 seconds into the pause (05). However, the in-car participants do not display any overt orientation towards that car. In other words, they treat it as a non-noticeable event, as an ordinary contingency in motorway traffic. A second vehicle starts overtaking the car towards the end of the pause in talk (05). This time, the instructor manifestly orients his gaze towards the overtaking vehicle when it becomes visible on the left side of the car (fig. 35.1) and follows it with his gaze while assessing what he is Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 113 witnessing (6; fig. 35.2). A comparison between fig. 35.2a and fig. 35.2b shows that the two in-car participants display different orientations: the pupil keeps looking at the road that is visible in front of her, whereas the instructor follows the overtaker with his gaze. Manifestly, the pupil treats the fact that she is being overtaken as a non-noticeable contingency of motorway traffic, whereas the instructor attends to it as being a noticeable event. He comments on that event with the item però (06), literally 'though, but', which is used in Italian as an interjection roughly corresponding to the English 'wow', 'how about that' and so on. By gazing at the overtaker and by exclaiming però, the instructor exhibits his engagement in an embodied assessment action (Goodwin/Goodwin 1987). The object of his assessment is inferable for the pupil given the instructor's witnessable gaze behaviour. However, the instructor does not disclose which aspect of the overtaker's features or conduct he is assessing (the overtaker might have a fancy car, he might drive too fast, he might pull over too early, etc.). In other words, the pupil has to make sense of the assessment that she has just heard. While not responding immediately to it, she puts on a smiling face during the subsequent pause (07), thereby displaying her orientation towards treating the instructor's assessment as not serious. She then quickly looks down to the area where the speedometer is located, most likely checking her own speed. Indeed, in response to the instructor's assessment, she makes relevant a difference in speed between herself and the car that has just overtaken her (08). Extract 35b (DeStefani_CHItalian_2010_INS_MT_20100316Lusg2VIDPRO_5_4615) 08 TRA 09 INS 10 TRA 11 INS 12 TRA 13 TRA 14 15 INS 16 TRA 17 tra 18 INS 'ts (.) i miei sessanta^all’ora non vanno così veloce^eh(h)?= 'ts (.) my 60 km/h are not going that fast right? =esatto porca mi[seria abbiamo un& right bloody hell we have a [h h h &difet[to sul contachilometri eh? defect in the speedometer right? [.Hh hh h h .HHh (.) dico non è possibile(h). (0.2) .hh I say it’s not possible. (3.0) ho°° preso^una macchina con un difetto sul [contachilo°metri°. I got a car with a defect in the speedometer. [h h h h h (2.0)*(5.6) -->* andremo in direzione milano chiasso. we will go in direction Milan Chiasso. At line 08, the pupil is joining in with what she orients towards as being an ironic assessment of the overtaker's action. She has just checked whether she is driving at 60 km/h – as indicated on the road signs and as recommended by the instructor (04) – and is now observing that 'her' 60 km/h is not as fast as the overtaker's 60 km/h. By choosing the absolute speed as a point of comparison, the pupil highlights that the overtaker and herself are exhibiting different displays of what it means to drive at 60 km/h. Hence, her turn (08) could be heard as jokingly exhibiting her driving according to the rules as opposed to the overtaker breaking those rules. The instructor formulates a different interpretation in his subsequent turn (0911), relating the observable difference in speed between the two cars to a defect in Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 114 the speedometer 17 of their own car. He thereby ironically reverses the categories: the overtaker is the one who is driving correctly, whereas the pupil and the instructor are driving incorrectly (i.e. too slow) because of a faulty speedometer. The pupil aligns with the instructor's ironic observation by producing several tokens of laughter in overlap (10-12). The pupil's turn at line 13 may perhaps be heard as treating the speed difference between the overtaken and the overtaken as 'not possible' if both vehicles are supposed to drive at around 60 km/h. However, the turn, which the pupil produces with laughter, is referentially unclear, and the instructor does not respond to it, which the 3 second pause at line 14 shows. The instructor then recasts his ironic explanation of the speed difference (15), to which the pupil responds with laughter tokens (16). During the subsequent pause, the pupil ceases smiling (17), thereby displaying her orientation towards the closure of this episode. Indeed, at line 18, the instructor initiates a different action, as he produces a navigational instruction. The analysis of this extract shows, on the one hand, that overtaken in-car occupants may comment on their being overtaken jokingly and with irony. On the other hand, it allows us to determine how the noticeability of other road users is interactionally constituted. Indeed, as the fragment unfolds, four different vehicles are overtaking the pupil and the instructor. The first overtaking occurs during a long silence visible at line 5 and is not paid overt attention. The second overtaking is vividly commented on, as we have just seen. A third overtaking car becomes visible in the data during the pause at line 14, and a fourth car is overtaking during the pause at line 17. None of the two latter overtakings produce comments. It appears thus that in-car participants differentiate between ordinary ways of overtaking – where the overtaker drives at a slightly elevated speed – and extraordinary ways of overtaking, that is, overtaking at a markedly higher speed. Commenting on excessively speedy overtaking is thus one way of instantiating the morality of overtaking in motorway traffic. Here, this is performed firstly by blaming the overtaking cars and secondly by revising the interpretation of their relative speed and the speed of their own car: the anomaly is reattributed to the overtaken car. 4.2.2.4. The history of consecutive car encounters: emerging noticeable and blameable conduct As we have observed in the previous extracts, when overtaking becomes noticeable for the overtaken, it often results in blame and negative assessment and categorization. This assessment is all the more evident when the noticeability of the overtaking car emerges through a longer history of car encounters (i.e. when the overtaken and the overtaking cars meet several times during a journey). Meeting the overtaker in another overtaking encounter potentially generates moral judgements and reinterpretations of what has happened before. In the next fragment, the occupants of our car (CR1), being overtaken, are two commuters who regularly travel on this route (we have seen the earlier part of this episode in extract 23). The fragment takes place on a two-lane motorway/highway after merging from a two-lane entrance ramp. The driver and passenger had earlier encountered the other car 'badly', the driver beeping his horn at the other car. They 17 Technically, the Italian contachilomteri (literally 'kilometre counter’) would translate as 'odometer'. However, in Italian, the term is generally used to refer to the speedometer. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 115 then had an opportunity to inspect the occupants of the other car, their overtaker, firstly when they were overtaken by it and secondly as they then re-overtook the other car. In this fragment, they have a third opportunity, when the other car appears to re-overtake them a few minutes later. We will begin further into the fragment on this occasion just as the driver re-overtakes the other car which is silver. Extract 36 (Laurier_UKEnglish_2006_NI_MT_HabitableCars_57_Horn_0:00) 08 € (5.0) € €pulls in behind lorry ahead of cr1€ 09 † (2.3) † dri †shakes head† 10 (8.7) oth >>approaching motorway-------------------------->> 11 + (0.6) + +(0.1)± (0.2) +(0.1)‡ (1.7) ‡(1.5)± dri +looks R+ +gazes RVmirror+ ±indicates---------------------------± dri dri ‡moves to M lane‡ 12 (2.0) ‡ (0.1) +% (1.8) ‡ +% oth ‡parallel with CR2‡ dri +looks at CR2+ pas %looks at CR2% (30 seconds omitted) 16 (3.3) € (1.3) € dri driving in slow lane---->> cr2 €overtakes€ 17 DRI h. huh u this guy’s # %(going for it) today (2.0)% pas %turns to DRI, smiling, shakes head% fig #Fig. 36.1 cr2 Fig. 36.1: Silver car in view In their initial passing of the silver car at line 12, the driver and passenger look into the interior of the silver car but provide no further assessment or formulation of the vehicle. It would appear that there is nothing more to notice about it or that the silver car's driver provides no additional resources to provoke further comment (e.g. the driver is not visibly distracted on his or her phone, a 'boy racer' or a drunk and so on). What is apparent, by their very inspection, is that the occupants of cars are examined for such possible appearances that might account for their earlier mishandled overtaking. What leads to a further assessment of the silver car, at line 17, is when what appears to be the same silver car overtakes them (fig. 36.1) (from the recording we are able to identify that, although very similar in appearance, it is actually not the same car). On seeing what appears to be the car that overtook them, which they then overtook later, the driver then laughs, ahead of formulating the re-overtaking. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 116 From the perspective of the driver, they have been overtaken (badly), their overtaker slowed down, then their overtaker speeded up again to disappear into the distance in the fast lane. It is notable that 'the silver car' appears somewhat unexpectedly and moves rapidly. The driver sees the silver car only as it comes into his view ahead of him in the fast lane (rather than through noticing its approach), which may begin to explain his misidentification of it as the original silver car. The speed of the overtaking may further lead to the misidentification given that it is only briefly in view, not long enough to inspect the driver or other details of the overtaker. What we can gather from this unusual series of overtakings and re-overtakings is that, when overtaking is not straightforward, the other cars become an object to be scrutinized for their further actions as dangerous, odd, amusing and so on. In any instance of overtaking, though, the overtaker opens itself up to more or less sustained inspection from the overtaken. Depending on how the overtaking is accomplished, it can then trigger an inquiry into the kind of vehicle and/or driver that is overtaking in this manner. 4.2.2.5. The history of consecutive car encounters: noticing and confirming negatively assessed conducts In the next extract (37), the negative assessment of the overtaker, resulting from several encounters, combines with Schadenfreude because of the lack of effect of the overtaking action. The perspective here is from the participants of a driving school car. They are on a two-lane country road when they are passed by a red Volvo, which overtakes two (or more) cars in a row, just before entering the boundary of a town. About half a minute after the overtaking, the driving school car comes to a halt immediately after the former overtaker at a traffic light, which then turns green. The instructor comments ironically on the situation. Extract 37a (Deppermann_German_FAHR 02_02_1:07:35-1:08:15) (2W, INS) 01 INS 02 tra 03 INS s_hat ihm jetzt echt viel geBRACHT; now this has really got him very far (1.6)±(0.8) ± ±stops car before traffic light± aber isch hab so lEUte lieber VOR mir als HINter mIr; but I prefer to have these people before me than behind me Fig. 37.1: Driving school car stops at traffic light behind former overtaker. Immediately after the overtaker had passed, the instructor shakes her head as a sign of disapproval (not shown in the transcript). When they meet again later at a traffic light, she derisively comments on the fact that the overtaker's action did not allow Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 117 him to progress much further than those he had overtaken (01, fig. 37.1). Stating that she prefers to have so leute ('such people', 03) in front of her, she assigns the driver to an unnamed category of problematic drivers, adumbrating the overtaker's driving conduct as a potential danger to others and attributing it to him as a dispositional, category-implicative habit. She then continues: having the cause of danger before her makes it easier to monitor the driver and involves less risk for the follower, because s/he will not be the object of another (risky) overtaking action of that party. Another 80 seconds later, the driving school car arrives at the next red traffic light. It stops in parallel with the former overtaker, the red Volvo, which once again has to wait at the traffic light. Extracts 37a and 37b thus make for a history of postovertaking encounters with the former overtaker. These encounters are perceived and interpreted against the background of the former overtaking episode. The instructor again comments wrily on the overtaker. Extract 37b (Deppermann_German_FAHR 02_02_1:07:35-1:08:15) (2W, INS) 04 INS 05 tra 06 INS 07 tra 08 INS 09 SIEHSte und da steht er WIEder; y’see and there he is standing again *der HERR- (0.2) the mister *smiles---------> #in GRAUin grey #fig.37.2 (0.2)*(0.4) ->* grau meLIERTsalt and pepper (0.75) Fig. 37.2: INS looks at driver of former overtaking car and makes ironical comment; TRA smiles. Having stopped parallel to the red Volvo, the instructor now is in a position to look into the car and to inspect its driver. She draws the pupil's attention to the fact that the former overtaker again is waiting next to them (04); the turn initial siehste ('y’see') indexes that this is (further) proof supporting her claim that the overtaking action was useless (cf. Imo 2007; Helmer 2016). By way of an extended right dislocation, she adds a scornful social categorization of the overtaker as a (seemingly) honourable elderly man (der herr in grau, 'the mister in grey', 05-06, fig. 37.2), whose dyed hair ('salt and pepper', 08) pretends a fake youthful identity. The moral evaluation of the overtaker thus is again linked to a deprecative social categorization, this time connecting the incriminated driving behaviour to the wider social Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 118 identity of the driver, which is made to look dubious. The trainee seems to share the instructor's schadenfreude, smiling at her comment (fig. 37.2). The instructor's comments in this episode reveal a relationship between the morality and the economy of overtaking as social action. Economically, overtaking is a strategic action: additional driving effort (in terms of speed, fuel, attention, etc.) is produced to gain a spatio-temporal advantage as its effect. This economical effort-effect relationship from the perspective of the overtaking party, however, combines with the moral aspect of overtaking being a potentially dangerous action that crucially affects third parties. Overtaking is thus portrayed as an action that follows an egoistic strategic rationale at the risk of harming others. Schadenfreude displays the satisfaction that the morally dubious action is not rewarded. Instead, the effort that the overtaker exerted was in vain. The logics of traffic (here: the duration of green/red traffic light phases), which apply equally to all road users, also affect the overtaker and cause his actions not to pay off. The moral assessment is not restricted to the action as such. It is transferred and generalized to the social identity of the actor, who reflexively becomes categorized as a person belonging to a certain category just because of this action. The categorization has wider repercussions beyond the interpretation of the episode: it both informs future expectations concerning the driving behaviour of the former overtaker and negatively frames the perception of his larger social identity. 4.2.2.6. On re-encountering the overtaker In brief, the extracts in this section have revealed how drivers retrospectively make sense of what just happened and how this becomes progressively apparent through the noticing of unexpected overtaking conduct, which may be confirmed and reinforced by a shared history during the journey. Noticeable overtaking events are usually criticised, although this negative interpretation is sometimes subsequently revised, either by the same participant or by the co-participant. The moral issues transpiring from attributions of blame can be related to violations of the traffic rules, violations of the morals of driving conduct, dangerous conduct putting the safety of the participants in question and egoistic behaviour not only violating altruistic expectations but also not benefitting the egoistic driver (the rationale behind this interpretation being an economy of egoistic conduct, which seem to be treated as legitimate if they clearly profit the individual but as even more blameworthy if they do not). Last but not least, ad hoc categorizations of overtaking drivers by overtaken drivers attribute not only negative assessments and blame but also category-bound activities and category-attributable conduct: blame enriches the negative vision of a large spectrum of social identities, thereby connecting (mis)behaviour on the road to a more global vision of society. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 119 4.3. Summary – Completing overtaking This section has highlighted some of the issues characterizing the last phase of overtaking, its completion proper (section 4.1) and the post-completion retrospective comments (section 4.2), reinterpreting what has happened and elaborating on its social and moral significance. The completion of the overtaking (section 4.1) further relies on the micro-practices of driving characterizing the previous phases, such as monitoring the surrounding traffic and the relative positions of other cars ahead, beside and behind – using the rear and lateral mirrors, putting on the indicator, as well as changing gears to change lanes and re-laning. These technical aspects – which can be formulated in so many words in driving lessons and silently routinized in ordinary driving – have an intersubjective and moral dimension that the detailed analyses have revealed, both when they are accomplished and when they are commented on or formulated. The morality of actions, such as re-laning, is observable both in altruistic, pro-social conduct and in egoistic behaviours. Other drivers are oriented to or not through, firstly, communicating with the other driver when changing lane (e.g. with the indicator – vs. unilaterally engaging in changing), secondly, taking into account the distance between moving vehicles and, thirdly, the availability of sufficient space in the lane – vs. interfering with, obstructing, and slowing down the ongoing traffic when re-laning. Reciprocally, monitoring other drivers can reveal opportunities that they create (or not) for the re-laning driver, helping in their manoeuvre and facilitating their reintegration into the queue. These altruistic aspects address not only pro-social care in the management of traffic as a global gestalt (vs. individual behaviours) but also issues of risk, danger and their prevention. These orientations address both formal traffic rules and codes of etiquette. They build the moral accountability of drivers as 'attentive to others' or as 'selfish'. The morality of overtaking is also strikingly revealed in the retrospective comments that the completion of overtaking often inspires (section 4.2). Post hoc comments and assessments make particularly explicit the fact that drivers and passengers not only monitor the surrounding traffic but also inspect, scrutinize and follow the trajectory of other cars/drivers and categorize and assess them. Although these retrospective orientations can comment on 'objective' specificities of the road (for instance, blaming missing or inadequate interventions by political administrations in charge of the road infrastructure), or equally they might recognize the civility, kindness and pro-social conduct of other drivers, mainly though, post-overtaking commentaries are oriented towards negative behaviours. Drivers – and instructors – constantly spot and notice violations of the rules of the road, dangerous, blameworthy and irritating behaviours and conduct that are categorized in relation to the appearances of the vehicle or its occupants. In some cases, this even takes the form of a prolonged inquiry, in which another vehicle in the flow of otherwise undifferentiated cars is identified, monitored and followed not only during a single instance of overtaking but over various episodes, in which the overtaken overtakes again and is further overtaken. This generates a history of encounters along the road, which in turn increments and substantiates the attribution of psychological and moral attributes to the fellow car. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 120 The analysis of these comments shows a form of "documentary method of interpretation" (Garfinkel 1967): situated locally contingent conduct spotted on the road is described using categories that in turn, reflexively, make what happened observable, intelligible and morally accountable – and even might enrich, reproduce or modify the category and its attributes. This is striking in the case of stereotypical descriptions of other drivers, whereby the category as well as the knowledge and inferences bound to that category (Sacks 1972) contribute to the use and reproduction of stereotypes. Thus, both the overtaker and the overtaken perspectives reveal how thoroughly the completion of overtaking is interwoven with normativity and morality. The way in which the overtaker designs the re-laning trajectory displays how respectful s/he is of the overtaken. The trajectory of overtaking has a moral accountability that manifests whether the overtaker is oriented towards altruistic principles (for instance, by not cutting into the road for the overtaken). This accountability is publicly manifest for the overtaken. Changes in overtaking design over interactional histories – the case of instructions in driving school lessons that, in addition, may normatively and morally assess how the entire procedure of overtaking has been managed – often end up, when noticed, in criticizing, blaming and negatively assessing the overtaking driver. 5. Conclusions In this article, we have offered a systematic and comprehensive interactional study of overtaking that describes its in situ production. We have examined different road conditions, types of vehicles, types of participants and types of driving (instructed vs. non instructed and routine or racing) across various national infrastructures (Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). The variations have made it possible to explore the contingencies that confront drivers (and passengers) involved in overtaking. Central to how drivers produce mobile witnessable orders, across these varied circumstances, is the organization of overtaking as a systematic practice across contingencies and specific settings. It is a mobile social phenomenon that is produced to be recognizable from the perspective of the overtaker as well as the overtaken and by possible third parties, such as ourselves, as post hoc witnesses to the events on the road. Our analysis has been structured on the basis of two axes. Firstly, we have distinguished between the perspectives of the overtaken and the overtaker. Our distinction between overtaker and overtaken as a basic organization of the encounter, builds on the primacy of interactional pairings, such as 'caller/called', which imply reciprocal expectations of initiation and completion with associated rights and duties. This approach here is reflexively tied to the participants in quite a distinct kind of encounter, namely in traffic. One of its peculiar features is that the overtaken party regularly comes to realize that it is involved in an overtaking practice with an overtaker only after the initiation stage, when the overtaking 'proper' has already started. Secondly, we have described the sequential organization of overtaking. Overtaking occurs in consecutive phases of actions: preparation and initiation, the overtaking proper, re-laning and its associated retrospective accounts. In each phase, the Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 121 participants adjust their actions to each other's actions, and they interpret them with an eye to their importance for the progressivity of the overtaking event. The timing and spacing of overtaking takes place within an evolving roadscape and surrounding traffic, and its organization is distinctively mobile in the sense that it has to be adjusted constantly to the current and upcoming roadscape and its traffic. We have only been able to study the repertoire of driving's technologically mediated micropractices (gearing down/up, pulling in/out, accelerating, braking, instrument display and inspection, etc.) on a case basis, not comprehensively. We have shown the inescapable importance of a multimodal analysis by members of traffic and by us as inquirers into its witnessable order. Overtaking is frequently built in silent, untopicalized ways, although it can also be discussed at length, especially during driving lesson and it is achieved through the embodied and technically mediated driving of vehicles. At a more detailed level, it involves the consideration of the driver's conduct: looking into mirrors, at the road and at the dashboard, braking and accelerating, setting the indicator, changing gears and so on. The embodied conduct interweaves the flow of driving actions with other activities within the car. Among them, instruction (in driving lessons) and conversation (in ordinary journeys) are pervasive activities. They can be coordinated with driving in manifold ways of multi-activity, being disconnected as well as intrinsically linked to driving activities, for example in planning and providing for its accountability. Like conversational practices, the actions that accomplish overtaking are sequentially ordered and closely timed with respect to one another. Two related families of actions have proved to be constitutive of overtaking as a practice, the visual and the embodied, mobile actions: • Practices of glancing, looking, noticing, inspecting and so on are visual conduct, motivated by directing attention to events, spatial structures and traffic participants. They also yield contingent noticings. Both are important for monitoring the relevant aspects of the ever-changing traffic ecology. This ecology is particularly complex: events in the scope of a 360° angle around the car potentially matter; the environment is constantly changing by virtue of continuous movement and velocity; and there is a reflexive relationship between the car's own movement and the ways in which this changes the relevant environment. • Practices of accelerating, decelerating, moving to the side of a lane and so on. Practical actions are deeply intertwined with visual actions: the former are based on monitoring, noticings, selective attention and so on, and they manifest themselves in visible conduct and consequences. However, at times, audible symptoms occur, like the revving of engines or the screeching of brakes. Moreover, for the occupants of the car, actions and their consequences are kinesthetically available – a sense that video data unfortunately fail to capture. The conduct of overtaking is coordinated in two ways: • Within the car, through the shared visibility of the traffic ecology, the visible operation of controls and, of course, the talk with other participants (passengers, instructors or coaches); • Between different cars, through reciprocal adaptation of speed and trajectories, accelerating, decelerating, mutual monitoring and projecting actions (looking Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 122 at other cars/drivers and their responsive (or non-responsive) trajectories, putting the indicator on, flashing, beeping the horn, etc.). Our study of the coordination inside and outside vehicles in relation to overtaking thus contributes to our growing knowledge of the management of multi-activity for the driver inside the vehicle and of his or her impersonal coordination with other vehicles. The latter point is particularly important for thinking about how intersubjectivity is achieved, even without any personal, direct and face-to-face contact. It will come as no surprise to those who have driven or been driven on roads that there is a normative organization of overtaking. What we have revealed in part here is not only the compliance with the traffic code and related legal frameworks. Building on this, but also extending well beyond it, we have uncovered normative orientations towards how conduct is implemented: as safe vs. risky, as respectful vs. arrogant and as selfish vs. generous. Each vehicle's occupants interpret and evaluate the other vehicle's overtaking through a normative lens, making predominantly the overtaker (though not only) subject to blame, criticism and so on. Thereby, a moral order of driving together as members of traffic is constantly supposed and evoked to make sense of others' actions. Our study makes a series of contributions to different disciplinary, fundamental and applied interests. For researchers with an interest in mobility, it reveals the extraordinarily fine-grained and precisely coordinated array of detailed practices that achieve a simple manoeuvre such as overtaking. It also involves forms of communication that extend well beyond the exchanges within the car, for instance communication with other vehicles in the fluid traffic contexture – which remains an undescribed phenomenon of interest for interactional studies and communication studies in general. Our study highlights processes of mobile coordination between cars involving particular forms of responsiveness and adjustment by each party. They are shaped and restricted by the specific contingencies that driving imposes: the reduced visibility of other drivers in their vehicular shells, the possibility to use and receive only restricted semiotic resources because of distance, limited visibility and audibility and limitations on spatial alignments when sitting in a car. These conditions are aggravated by limited time frames for perception and practical decisions because of movement, velocity and potential risk. For ethnomethodologists, driving is a prime example of actions resting on practical skills. They belong to a stock of rich, socialized, implicit knowledge (cf. Polanyi 1966; Dreyfus 1972). This becomes strikingly evident in driving lessons. In this context, skills of planning, acting, assessing and deciding become instructed and topicalized, which most experienced drivers are hardly aware of or able to describe in their precise details. Competent driving also rests on equally implicit skills of professional vision (Goodwin 1994). They include the ability to identify drivingrelevant properties of the environment, to focus selectively on relevant spatial structures and events, to anticipate actions and trajectories and to assess situations in terms of opportunities and danger. Many of these relevancies again are taught in driving lessons with so many words but have to be appropriated in a flexible and intuitive way that allows for their transfer to new and ever unforeseeable situations. Another important line of ethnomethodological research to which this study is linked is membership categorization. Our study shows that interaction between cars is conceived of by members as interaction between accountable actors, specifically drivers. The man–machine unit is treated according to a normative socio-logic that Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 123 is constitutive of traffic-relevant membership categories, which are administered based on assessments of observed driving behaviour against situative normative standards (Lee/Watson 1993). Interestingly enough, however, our study shows that socio-normative assessment is only rarely displayed using socio-categorical terms but is mostly realized via predicative assessments, formulaic comments, irony and other verbal and embodied displays. Membership categorization is therefore inferrable and evocative rather than explicitly attributed (cf. Kitzinger/Wilkinson 2003). For conversation analysts, the study of overtaking makes a methodological issue evident that may also affect other settings: the issue of perspectivity. We have been able to show that beginnings, endings and constitutive actions over the course of overtaking are typically perceived and perceivable in quite different ways by the participants. In studies of conversation, it has been (tacitly) assumed that interactional realities are accessible to all the participants in the same way. The study on overtaking invites us to revisit this assumption and to check in which ways the access to and perception of interactionally relevant phenomena, even in focused encounters, may be asymmetrically distributed (Goodwin/Goodwin 1996). This may concern both sensory phenomena (differences in visibility, audibility, palpability, etc.) as well as more cognitive aspects related to knowledge (like innuendo and technical terms). Of course, this caveat aims not to invite cognitive speculation but to provide an incentive to sharpen the sensitivity to (sometimes very subtle) behavioural displays that show that such asymmetries matter for interactional practice. It may come as a challenge to conversation analysts to see how practical action, such as overtaking, is also organized sequentially. This does not mean that overtaking events are structured by sequences made up of adjacency pairs in the sense of Schegloff's studies (2007). Sequentiality, instead, is taken to refer to the systematic temporal and normative ordering of actions, to their projective properties of making the next actions expectable, to the accountability of producing projected actions in an intelligible and socially acceptable way and to the logics of building the next actions on prerequisites established by the prior actions. Our study shows that these properties, which are well known and understood for talk in interaction, also reveal themselves to be basic in a rather different environment of embodied and technologically mediated action (see also Lee/Watson 1993). Although it is much harder to prove with naturalistic data because of their perspectivity, our study also reveals that continuous mutual monitoring, negotiation and reciprocal adaptation of actions are not only properties that are characteristic of the human sociality of verbal exchanges but that are equally basic for kinesic-technical coordination in traffic. In this way, overtaking and interactions in traffic are not just an exotic extension of studies in EMCA, but, at least in some ways, they are particularly apt to reveal the basic properties of social interaction and the accomplishment of social phenomena and intersubjectivity in real time. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 124 6. References Allen-Collinson, Jacquelyn (2006): Running together: some ethnomethodological considerations. In: Ethnographic Studies 8, 17-29. Arminen, Ilkka / Auvinen, Petra (2013): Environmentally coupled repairs and remedies in the airline cockpit: repair practices of talk and action in interaction. In: Discourse Studies 15 (1), 19-41. Arminen, Ilkka / Auvinen, Petra / Palukka, Hannele (2010): Repairs as the last orderly provided defense of safety in aviation. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2), 443-465. Arminen, Ilkka / Koskela, Inka / Palukka, Hannele (2014): Multimodal production of second pair parts in air traffic control training. In: Journal of Pragmatics 65, 46-62. Björklund, Daniel (2018): Drilling the mirror routine: from abstract looking to mobile practice in driver training. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12201. Broth, Mathias / Cromdal, Jakob / Levin, Lena (2018): Showing where you're going: Instructing the accountable use of the indicator in live traffic. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12194. Broth, Mathias / Cromdal, Jakob / Levin, Lena (in press): Telling the Other's side. Formulating others' mental states in driver training. Language and Communication. Broth, Mathias / Haddington, Pentti / McIlvenny, Paul (eds.) (2014): Mobile formations in social interaction. In: Space and Culture 17 (2), 104-106. Broth, Mathias / Levin, Lena / Cromdal, Jakob (2017): Starting out as a driver : progression in instructed pedal work. In: Mäkitalo, Åsa / Linell, Per / Säljö, Roger (eds.), Memory Practices and Learning – Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: IAP, 113-142. Broth, Mathias / Lundström, Frederik (2013): A walk on the pier. Establishing relevant places in mobile instruction. In: Haddington, Pentti / Mondada, Lorenza / Nevile, Maurice (eds.), Interaction and Mobility. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 91-122. Broth, Mathias / Mondada, Lorenza (2013): Walking away. The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interactions. In: Journal of Pragmatics 47, 41-58. Broth, Mathias / Laurier, Eric / Mondada, Lorenza (eds.) (2014): Studies of Video Practices. Video at Work. London: Routledge. Brown, Barry / Laurier, Eric (2017): The trouble with autopilots: assisted and autonomous driving on the social road. In: New York, USA: Proceedings of CHI 2017, 416-429. De Stefani, Elwys / Gazin, Anne-Danielle (2014): Instructional sequences in driving lessons: mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. In: Journal of Pragmatics 65, 63-79. De Stefani, Elwys (2018): Formulating direction. Navigational instructions in driving lessons. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12197. De Stefani, Elwys / Broth, Mathias / Deppermann, Arnulf (eds.) (in press): On the road: communicating traffic. In: Language and Communication. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 125 Deppermann, Arnulf (2014): Multimodal participation in simultaneous joint projects: Interpersonal and intrapersonal coordination in paramedic emergency drill. In: Haddington, Pentti / Keisanen, Tiina / Mondada, Lorenza / Nevile, Maurice (eds.), Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 247-282. Deppermann, Arnulf (2015): When recipient design fails: egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. In: Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaction 16, 63-101, http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2015/ga-deppermann.pdf. Deppermann, Arnulf (2016): La définition comme action multimodale et contextesensitive: définir pour instruire dans l’auto-école. In: Langages 204, 4, 83-101. Deppermann, Arnulf (2018a): Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12198. Deppermann, Arnulf (2018b): Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – the case of instructions in driving school lessons. In: Deppermann, Arnulf / Streeck, Jürgen (eds.), Time in embodied interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 293-324. Deppermann, Arnulf (ed.) (2018c): Instructions in driving lessons. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Deppermann, Arnulf (2018d): Intersubjectivity and other grounds for action-coordination in an environment of restricted interaciton: coordinating with oncoming traffic when passing an obstacle. In: Language and Communication, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.005. Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1972): What Computers Can't Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Harper & Row. Garfinkel, Harold (1967): Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Gazin, Anne-Danielle (2015): Instructional Sequences in DriLessons. A Conversation Analytic and Multimodal Approach to Interaction in the Mobile Car. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Berne (Switzerland). Goffman, Erving (1963): Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gathering. New York: Free Press. Goffman, Erving (1971): Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row. Goodwin, Charles (1994): Professional vision. In: American Anthropologist 96 (3), 606-633. Goodwin, Charles / Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1987): Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. In: Pragmatics 1 (1), 1-55. Goodwin, Charles / Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1996): Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes. In: Engeström, Yrjö / Middleton, David J. (eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61-95. Goodwin, Charles / Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2012): Car talk: integrating, texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. In: Semiotica 191 (1/4), 257-286. Göttert, Karl-Heinz (1988): Kommunikationsideale. Untersuchungen zur europäischen Konversationstheorie. München: Iudicium. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 126 Haddington, Pentti (2010): Turn-taking for turntaking: mobility, time, and action in the sequential organization of junction negotiations in cars. In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (4), 372-400. Haddington, Pentti (2012): Movement in action: initiating social navigation in cars. In: Semiotica 191 (1/4), 137-167. Haddington, Pentti (2013): Projecting mobility: passengers directing drivers at junctions. In: Haddington, Pentti / Mondada, Loranza / Nevile, Maurice (eds.), Interaction and Mobility. Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter, 179-209. Haddington, Pentti / Keisanen, Tiina / Nevile, Maurice (eds.) (2012): Meaning in motion: interaction in cars. Special Issue of Semiotica 191 (1/4), 101-333. Haddington, Pentti / Mondada, Lorenza / Nevile, Maurice (eds.) (2013): Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haddington, Pentti / Rauniomaa, Mirka (2011): Technologies, multi-tasking, and driving: attending to and preparing for a mobile phone conversation in a car. In: Human Communication Research 37, 223-254. Haddington, Pentti / Rauniomaa, Mirka (2014): Interaction between road users: offering space in traffic. In: Space & Culture 17, 176-190. Heath, Christian / Hindmarsh, Jon / Luff, Paul (2010): Video in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Helmer, Henrike (2016): Analepsen in der Interaktion. Semantische und sequenzielle Eigenschaften von Topik-Drop im gesprochenen Deutsch. Heidelberg: Winter. Heritage, John (2012): The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1), 3052. Imo, Wolfgang (2007): Construction Grammar und gesprochene Sprache-Forschung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Jayyusi, Lena (1984): Categorization and the Moral Order. London: Routledge. Jayyusi, Lena (1988): Towards a socio-logic of the film text. In: Semiotica 68, 271296. Jefferson, Gail (2004): Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13-31. Keisanen, Tiina (2012): "Uh-oh, we were going there": environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. In: Semiotica 19, 197-222. Kitzinger, Celia / Wilkinson, Sue (2003): Constructing identities: a feminist conversation-analytic approach to positioning in interaction. In: Harré, Rom / Moghaddam, Fathali M. (eds.), The Self and Others. Westport, CT: Praeger, 157180. Koivisto, Aino (2015): Dealing with ambiguities in informings: Finnish aijaa as a 'neutral' news receipt. In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 48, 365387. Koivisto, Aino (2016): Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a). In: Journal of Pragmatics 104, 163-179. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 127 Laurier, Eric / Brown, Barry / Lorimer, Hayden (2012): What it means to change lanes: actions, emotions and wayfinding in the family car. In: Semiotica 191 (1/4), 117-135. Laurier, Eric / Lorimer, Hayden (2012): Other ways: landscapes of commuting. In: Landscape Research 37 (2), 207-224. Laurier, Eric / Lorimer, Hayden / Brown, Barry (2007): Habitable Cars: The Organisation of Collective Private Travel. Final Report to the ESRC. Edinburgh & Swindon: ESRC. Laurier, Eric / Lorimer, Hayden / Brown, Barry / Jones, Owain / Juhlin, Oskar / Noble, Allyson / Perry, Mark / Pica, Daniele / Sormani, Philippe / Strebel, Ignaz / Swan, Laurel / Taylor, Alex S. / Watts, Laura / Weilenmann, Alexandra (2008): Driving and 'Passengering': Notes on the Ordinary Organization of Car Travel. In: Mobilities 3 (1), 1-23. Lee, John. R. E. / Watson, Rod (1993): Interaction in public space: Final Report to the Plan Urbain. Paris: Plan Urbain. Levin, Lena / Cromdal, Jakob / Broth, Mathias / Gazin, Anne-Daniele / Haddington, Pentti / Mcilvenny, Paul Bruce / Melander, Helen / Rauniomaa, Mirka (2017): Unpacking corrections in mobile instruction: error-occasioned learning opportunities in driving, cycling and aviation training. In: Linguistics and Education 38, 11-23. Linke, Angelika (2012): Körperkonfigurationen: Die Sitzgruppe. Zur Kulturgeschichte des Verhältnisses von Gespräch, Körpern und Raum vom 18. bis zum Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. In: Ernst, Peter (ed.), Historische Pragmatik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 185-214. McIlvenny, Paul (2014): Vélomobile formations-in-action: biking and talking together. In: Space & Culture 17 (2), 137-156. McIlvenny, Paul (2015): The joy of biking together: sharing everyday experiences of vélomobility. In: Mobilities 10 (1), 55-82. McIlvenny, Paul / Broth, Mathias / Haddington, Pentti (eds.) (2009): Communicating place, space and mobility. In: Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10), 1879-1886. Melander, Helen / Sahlström, Fritjof (2009): Learning to fly: the progressive development of situation awareness. In: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53 (2), 155-166. Merlino, Sara / Mondada, Lorenza (in press): Crossing the street: how pedestrians interact with cars. In: Language and Communication. Merlino, Sara / Mondada, Lorenza / Söderström, Ol (submitted): A walk in the city: Using video to understand everyday life with psychosis in urban spaces. In: Qualitative Health Research. Mondada, Lorenza (2005): La constitution de l’origo déictique comme travail interactionnel des participants : une approche praxéologique de la spatialité. In: Intellectica, 41-42 (2/3), 75-100. Mondada, Lorenza (2009): Emergent focused interactions in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. In: Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1977-1997. Mondada, Lorenza (2012): Talking and driving: multiactivity in the car. In: Semiotica 191 (1/4), 223-256. Mondada, Lorenza (2014): Bodies in action: multimodal analysis of walking and talking. In: Language and Dialogue 4 (3), 357-403. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 128 Mondada, Lorenza (2017a): Freine et braque (.) >maint’nant<. temps interactionnel et deixis temporelle. In: Langue française 193, 39-56. Mondada, Lorenza (2017b): Walking and talking together: questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits. In: Social Science Information, S.I. on Human Motion and Social Context 56 (2), 1-34. Mondada, Lorenza (2018a): Questions on the move. The ecology and temporality of question/answers in mobility settings. In: Deppermann, Arnulf / Streeck, Jürgen (eds.), Time in Embodied Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 161-202. Mondada, Lorenza (2018b): Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1), 85-106. Mondada, Lorenza (2018c): Driving instruction at high speed on a race circuit: issues in action formation and sequence organization. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12202. Nevile, Maurice (2004): Beyond the Black Box: Talk-in-Interaction in the Airline Cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate. Nevile, Maurice (2012): Interaction as distraction in driving: a body of evidence. In: Semiotica 191 (1/4), 169-196. Nevile, Maurice / Haddington, Pentti (2010): In-Car Distractions and their Impact on Driving Activities. Canberra: Department of Transport and Infrastructure, Australian Commonwealth Government. Polanyi, Michael (1966): 1966. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge. Rauniomaa, Mirka / Haddington, Pentti (2012): Driven by a social and interactional routine: responding to a mobile phone summons in a car. In: International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning 2, 39-58. Rauniomaa, Mirka / Haddington, Pentti / Melander, Helen / Gazin, Ann-Danièle / Broth, Mathias / Cromdal, Jakob / Levin, Lena / McIlvenny, Paul (in press): Parsing tasks for the mobile novice in real time: orientation to the learner's actions and to spatial and temporal constraints in instructing-on-the-move. In: Journal of Pragmatics. Rauniomaa, Mirka / Lehtonen, Esko / Summala, Heikki (2016): Situated accomplishment of well-being in interaction: a conversation-analytic study of instructor intervention, driver reflection and displays of (dis)comfort in voluntary postlicence training. In: Social Inquiry into Well-Being 2, 16-32. Rauniomaa, Mirka / Lehtonen, Esko / Summala, Heikki (2018): Noticings with instructional implications in post-licence driver training. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12199. Relieu, Marc (1999): Parler en marchant. Pour une écologie dynamique des échanges de paroles. In: Langage et Société 89, 37-68. Ryave, A. Lincoln / Schenkein, Jim N. (1974): Notes on the art of walking. In: Turner, Roy (ed.), Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 265-274. Sacks, Harvey (1972): An initial investigation of the usability of conversational materials for doing sociology. In: Sudnow, David (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, 31-74. Sacks, Harvey (1992): Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I & II. Jefferson, Gail (ed.), with an introduction by Schegloff, E. A. Oxford: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1968): Sequencing in conversational openings. In: American Anthropologist 70, 1075-1095. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 129 Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007): Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1. Stokoe, Elizabeth H. (2011): "Girl – woman – sorry!": On the repair and non-repair of consecutive gender categories. In: Speer, Sue. A. / Stokoe, Elizabeth H. (eds.), Conversation and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85-112. Van der Molen, Hugo H. / Bötticher, Anton M. T. (1988): A hierarchical risk model for traffic participants. In: Ergonomics 31 (4), 537-555. Von Savigny, Eike (1980): Die Signalsprache der Autofahrer. Hamburg: dtv. Watson, Rod (2005): The visibility arrangements of urban public space: conceptual resources and methodological issues in analysing pedestrian movements. In: Communication and Cognition 38 (3-4), 201-226. Wilson, Tay / Best, W. (1982): Driving strategies in overtaking. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention 14 (3), 179-185. Xue, Guo-Xin (2006): A determination condition proposed for overtaking. In: Computer Simulation 12, URL: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotalJSJZ200612069.htm 7. Appendix Labels used for characterizing files and fragments 2W = two ways in opposite directions, oncoming traffic 2L = two lanes in the same direction, no oncoming traffic 3W = three lanes, middle lane usable in both directions MT = motorway RT = race circuit INS = instructed NI = non-instructed Transcription conventions Embodied actions are transcribed according to the following conventions developed (Mondada 2018b): * * + + *---> ---->* >> --->> ..... ---,,,,, dri fig # Gestures and descriptions of embodied actions are delimited between two identical symbols (one symbol per participant) and are synchronized with correspondent stretches of talk/silences. The action described continues across subsequent lines until the same symbol is reached. The action described begins before the extract's beginning. The action described continues after the extract's end. Action's preparation. Action's apex is reached and maintained. Action's retraction. Participant performing the embodied action is identified when (s)he is not the speaker. The exact moment at which a screenshot has been taken is indicated with a specific sign showing its position within the turn at talk. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 130 Participants' identification For driving lessons: INS instructor TRA pupil For ordinary drives: DRI driver PAS passenger PAB passenger in the back For other cars (without any differentiation in the identification between the overtaker and the overtaken, since these are fluid and mutable categories): CR1 CR2 CR3 etc. Other events (e.g. a light becomes red, an automatic indicator beeps, etc.): EVE Symbols used The same symbol for each category of participants is used in each transcript to enhance the coherence and readability throughout the paper: DRI/TRA: + gaze † gesture ± object manipulation (steering wheel, indicator, gear stick, radio…) ‡ driving action (ex.: moves in the middle of the road; speeds up) INS/PAS: * gaze • gesture % object manipulation CR1/CR2/CR3, etc.: $ £ € EVE: & Abbreviations used in the transcripts for describing recurrent actions DFm RVm RSm LSm L R LH RH DFmirror RVmirror RSmirror LSmirror left right left hand right hand driver face (internal) mirror (only for driving school cars) rear-view (internal) mirror right-side (external) mirror left-side (external) mirror Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018), Seite 131 Arnulf Deppermann Institut für Deutsche Sprache PF 101621 68061 Mannheim Germany deppermann@ids-mannheim.de Lorenza Mondada Universität Basel Romanisches Seminar Maiengasse 51 4056 Basel Switzerland lorenza.mondada@unibas.ch. Eric Laurier Institute of Geography and the Lived Environment Drummond Street School of GeoSciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9XP United Kingdom Eric.Laurier@ed.ac.uk Veröffentlicht am 26.7.2018  Copyright by GESPRÄCHSFORSCHUNG. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.