Political transparency matters: Citizens challenging officials via ‘have you planned X’-type questions

Abstract

This article examines how citizens, invited to ask questions in public plenary consultation meetings within a participatory democracy procedure in urban planning in France, point at something that has not been mentioned in the public debate, thereby challenging the recipient. More specifically, this article is interested in studying, deploying the analytical framework offered by Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, a particular French linguistic turn design adopted by the citizens: variations of ‘have you planned X?’. These interrogatives are concerned with an aspect of the procedure the citizens present as relevant, but which has not been mentioned by the professionals. By adopting a turn format that requests confirmation, citizens display caution to not attribute blame overtly to the recipient for this perceived lack. At the same time, these questions make visible how citizens orient to public and political transparency as a social and political standard the recipients are obliged to uphold.

Keywords

Challenging questions conversation analysis institutional interaction interactional linguistics multimodality political talk Q/A sequences yes/no interrogatives

Introduction

This article examines a specific interrogative format adopted by speakers to challenge a recipient. More specifically, this article is interested in describing a rather covert practice used by speakers to hold recipients accountable for a perceived lack of information giving, treated as a possible complainable. The extracts are taken from the recordings of a participatory democracy procedure in urban planning, where citizens have been invited to participate to a procedure that directly affects them, namely, the creation of a public park. In this participatory procedure, citizens, local associations and neighbourhood councils were given an opportunity to actively collaborate with officials – political representatives, civil servants and executive officers as well as invited experts, such as architects and urban planners – on the design of the park. In the data on which this article is based, citizens’ orientation towards their task at hand (asking questions) and the problems a departure from it might generate, as well as an orientation towards questions of authority, make that they display caution in formatting their action(s) and the resources used to design them. Rather than overtly stating what has been treated as noticeably missing (Jacoby and Gonzales, 2002), using a negative interrogative (Heritage, 2002) or turning to why questions (see, for example, Egbert and Vöge, 2008), all practices more openly attributing blame to a recipient, this article focuses on a practice identified as ‘have you planned X’-type yes/no interrogatives as a way to not only hold recipients covertly accountable for what they say or do, but also for what they do not say or do not do.

Studies have shown how, within question–answer sequences, yes/no interrogatives are the most common format used by speakers in institutional data, in contrast with wh-interrogatives and alternative interrogatives (for an overview of quantitative studies, see, for example, Stivers et al., 2009). Yes/no interrogatives place the speaker in a particularly influential position (Sacks, 1992: 54), from which they can exert control over the interaction by making a specific action and form of the answer, that is, a type-conforming answer, the relevant and preferred next. Moreover, in steering the answer in a certain way, questions in the form of yes/no interrogatives make visible a certain agenda, embody presuppositions (Raymond, 2003) and assert propositions (Clayman and Heritage, 2002).

In adopting the particular question design of ‘have you planned X’, citizens display an expectation concerning the officials to either plan or have planned something for the future park, and implicitly treat the lack of public talk about it as a possible deliberate omission. By making a ‘yes’, the preferred uptake, citizens maintain positive social relations. However, a ‘yes’ entails more than only a confirmation, namely, a political engagement. This, in turn, puts the officials in a delicate situation. Having planned and decided a certain matter without informing the citizens may lead to a third turn complaint by the citizens. That is, when decisions are made, a lack of public talk may be treated as an accountable or problematic matter by the citizens, since intentionally not addressed (e.g. decisions having been taken behind closed curtains). If disconfirmed, the officials might be accused of being nonprofessional or non-responsive, because the matter addressed has been a constant concern for the citizens. Hence, both confirming and disconfirming answers may turn out to be problematic for the recipient (Heinemann, 2008). Indeed, the recipients often treat these questions as challenges, rather than as questions eliciting information.

Delivering challenging actions: a brief overview

A large amount of Conversation Analytic literature focuses on the interactional resources speakers deploy to deliver challenging actions, such as complaints, accusations or blamings (Atkinson and Drew, 1979; Drew and Walker, 2009; Schegloff, 1988a). Most research on complaints addresses relatively explicit deliveries of complaints, accomplished with an assessment term (Heinemann and Traverso, 2014). Pomerantz (1986) notes that explicit complaints mostly occur after a less explicit complaint has not received a (pertinent or relevant) uptake.

However, complaints need not necessarily be accomplished with an assessment term. Schegloff (1988b) speaks of negative observations, to refer to observations that can, and often are heard by recipients as doing complaining ‘regarding a relevantly noticeable failure to perform some anticipated action’ (Jacoby and Gonzales, 2002: 131). More specifically, Schegloff analyses a case in which a speaker mentions to her recipient that the recipient did not bring an ice-cream sandwich, although this is something that the participants had agreed upon earlier. Even without an explicit assessment term, the action is arguably treated as a complaint and responded to with an account.

Jacoby and Gonzales (2002) pursue this line of inquiry, analysing turn formats like ‘you didn’t do X’ or ‘you didn’t say X’. These actions, similarly to negative observations, report a missing element, treating the omission as problematic and adopt a negative declarative format.

Hutchby (1992) contrasts what has been said with something that has not been said. He focuses on the linguistic formulation ‘you say X but what about Y’ as an overt pursuit for controversy in talk on the radio. He argues that this particular format publicly and overtly casts doubt and scepticism over a statement that a caller has just made to the host of the radio programme, in that the speaker treats some information as arguably missing.

This article aims at showing how citizens manage to participate in a political procedure by delivering a rather covert challenging action. In an interactional setting in which citizens are explicitly not invited to challenge the officials, the practice of ‘est-ce que vous avez prévu X’ | ‘have you planned X’-type questions constitutes a rather skilful way to deliver a challenging question. Therefore, contrary to what is claimed in literature on participatory democracy talking about a ‘democratic deficit’ (Carman, 2010; Hausendorf and Bora, 2006), this article aims at showing that and how citizens do participate in a critical and autonomous way.

Data and method

Deploying the analytical framework offered by Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, this article seeks to investigate the actions accomplished by citizens in the often lengthy and complex turns they produce, which contain one or more yes/no interrogatives, and the recipients’ responses to those actions. Conversation Analysis shows how speaking is a praxeological achievement, in that language and other multimodal resources are used to carry out social actions. Conversation Analysis’ focus on action and the sequential unfolding of actions shows how participants parse turns-at-talk into turn-constructional units (TCUs), which ‘allow a projection of the unit-type under way and what, roughly, it will take for an instance of that unit-type to be completed’ (Sacks et al., 1974:702). It is through the analysis of actions carried out by the participants by means of various embodied resources that it is possible to give an idea of the endogenous development of the public consultation meetings studied for this article. In order for all relevant embodied details to be taken into account, a researcher relies heavily on precise, detailed transcripts that take into account the exact timing of different embodied actions (see the Appendix 1 for the transcription conventions). In the transcripts, the original French data are presented in bold and the English translations occur in italics. Transcripts have been prepared according to the ICOR conventions for French (2007).

The data for this article stem from the recordings of a participatory democracy procedure in urban planning in Southeast France. The data form part of a larger research project, where recordings have been made during over 7 years by various research groups. The total corpus encompasses more than 80 hours of events recorded using multiple cameras, sound-recording devices and small clip-on microphones.

The corpus contains recordings of different types of public gatherings in which exchanges between professionals and laypersons take place. This article focuses on one specific type of political gatherings, namely, large public plenary consultation meetings. In total, eight such meetings have been recorded, comprising more than 20 hours of video-recorded data using multiple cameras. Each plenary meeting aims at presenting the citizens with a particular topic related to the park, varying from in-depth studies conducted by external agencies to updates about the procedure and work on the site given by the project manager in charge of the procedure. Citizens are then explicitly invited and offered an opportunity to contribute through asking questions at specifically announced and organised interactional moments, with a facilitator managing the turn-taking and allocating turns to those that display an interest in contributing (Mondada, 2013). As a result of this particular activity organisation, it is through question–answer sequences that participatory democracy is brought into being (Mondada, 2013). In the current data, questions, although initiating a sequence, are also a responsive action, following the opportunity offering to ask questions. Aligning with this invitation to ask questions, citizens typically adopt yes/no interrogatives. The fact that yes/no interrogatives are not just a plain way to seek information or request confirmation is shown in the analyses, demonstrating that through yes/no interrogative questions, citizens often point at possibly or deliberately forgotten or unmentioned matters, using their turn-at-talk, and subsequently the yes/no interrogative, as a covert way to point at certain subjects that have hitherto remained unsaid, but to which the citizens orient as essential. Furthermore, in bringing up such an essential topic, citizens implicitly treat the absence of talk about it as problematic.

The adopted positive interrogative format of the particular practice under scrutiny in this article makes a ‘yes’ or derives the preferred type-conforming uptake (Raymond, 2003, 2006). Such a confirmatory answer implies that recipients have indeed thought and planned this matter, hence confirm with a political engagement. Having planned and decided something without informing the citizens may lead to a third turn complaint by the citizens. Namely, when decisions are made, a lack of public talk may be treated as an accountable or problematic matter. When disconfirmed, the officials might be accused of non-professionality or non-responsiveness, since the matter addressed has been a constant concern of the citizens. Hence, the recipient is put in a rather delicate situation.

In sum, the practice of ‘have you planned X’-type questions constitutes a skilful way to deliver a challenging question to hold officials accountable for matters related to political transparency.

‘Have you planned X’-type questions aiming to get information on record

The analyses in this article will point out how differences in turn and action design show how citizens display different orientations towards the perceived lack of information sharing, formatting their turn as more covertly or overtly holding the politicians accountable for not having delivered information regarding an evident and relevant matter. The practice under scrutiny in this article makes visible how citizens interactively render an attributed private, or at least not publicly addressed matter by the officials – politicians, architects and project managers – publicly available for confirmation by the recipient. More particularly, I will show how citizens draw on the practice of ‘have you planned X’-questions, drawing on the French lexical items ‘prévoir’ and/or ‘envisager’, which both translate into English into ‘to plan’. In French, interrogatives can be formatted in different ways, albeit that the following extracts all display ‘est-ce que’ | ‘is it that’ initiated interrogatives, where this construction precedes the remaining of the phrase, which remains in the default subject-verb order.

I will first demonstrate how speakers may format the ‘have you planned X’ question as a solution to a problem, occurring in turn-initial position, analysing two extracts. Then, I will focus on the practice as it directly emanates from prior talk from the recipient. I will show, based on the analysis of two extracts, that the position of the question within the turn, after a lengthy preface, is consequential, before summarising the analyses in a concluding section.

‘Have you planned X’ questions proffering a solution

In the following analyses, presenting a certain matter as a solution to a perceived problem, citizens cooperate with the recipient in situating their question. In this way, the turn is formatted as being primarily in the interest of the recipients and more covertly in that of the citizens. Both the format and the action of this yes/no interrogative make a ‘yes’ the preferred answer.

The first extract aims at showing how the yes/no interrogative is expanded with the delivery of two problems, which have been addressed from the first meeting onwards and therefore solidify the relevance of the question. Prior to this extract, Bert (BER), chairman and one of the elected politicians announces to take two more contributions by citizens before engaging in a collective answer sequence. Borland (BOR), one of the citizens, is the second in line. He proffers a public rentable bike system – Vélo’v (1) – as a cheap and healthy way for arriving at the park (3). The topic of his turn, ‘des bornes vélo’v’ | ‘vélo’v terminals’ (1), exploited by the brand JCDecaux, concerns a specific service offering citizens the possibility to rent a bike. The bikes can be rented at different points throughout the city and its suburbs, which thereby foster public transport and transfer without trams and/or cars, constituting a relatively cheap and environmentally friendly service:

(1) BOR_CAB_17_FC_031012_PLE_ORA/PUB_02.18.20

1 BOR → et: est-ce que des bornes euh::: vélo’v euh jé cé decaux sont

and: is it that terminals ehm::: vélo’v ehm jc decaux are

2 → prévues:/ euh: pour faciliter l’accès à ce grand parc qui va:

planned:/ ehm: to facilitate the access to this large park that will:

3 draîner beaucoup de gens

attract many people

4 (5.3)

5 DAU sur vélo’v: ou autres:::::: c’est prévu:/ (0.4) devant le

concerning vélo’v: or others:::::: it’s planned:/ (0.4) in front of the

6 DAU parvis\

forecourt\

7 (0.5)

8 LIG °xx°

9 DAU (0.2)

10 DAU pas à l’intérieur/ mais: sur le parvis\

not at the inside/ but: at the forecourt\

Through his ‘and’-prefaced turn (Heritage and Sorjonen, 1994), Borland links his question to the previous turn and action, tackling both access to the park and accessibility for pedestrians. He employs passive voice and present tense, omitting direct reference to a recipient, thereby attributing less agency and accountability to his recipients and making the proffered solution of Vélo’v as something that can still be planned in the future. Borland expands his interrogative. The expansion retrospectively orients to Vélo’v as a solution for two perceived problems, both revealing unquestioned and known facts that lie in the epistemic domain of the recipients. Borland formulates an expansion with regard to accessibility (2), whereas the following relative clause is concerned with the recurrent issue of visitor flow (3). Displaying a collaborative stance with the officials, who have been faced with the two issues from the first meeting on, prevents them from making negative inferences as to why the question has been asked. Nonetheless, by invoking the two problems, Borland treats the solution of relying on Vélo’v as noticeably missing, without making it the overt business of his talk. The politicians have promised various times to make sure the citizens would be able to reach and access the park in a safe way, which is why a lack of transparency about this questioned issue is presented as problematic. The adopted format making a ‘yes’ the preferred answer shows how Borland is not only after a confirmation, but also after a political engagement.

The answer to this question occurs after a lengthy pause (4). Daumat (DAU), one of the local politicians, provides an answer by confirming the solution with a partial repetition. Daumat does not deliver the type-conforming token ‘yes’, which the question has made relevant, but repeats the solution of Vélo’v (5) as well as the verb ‘prévu’ | ‘planned’ (5) to confirm that Vélo’v has been considered and decided positively upon. Moreover, Daumat specifies the planned location of the bike terminals (10) (possibly, after the repair initiator by the architect Lignan (LIG), line 8, yet this is inaudible). Daumat thereby treats the issue of parking facilities for bicycles – an infrastructure – as placed outside the park, as well as the parking facilities for cars. He furthermore alludes to another predominant request of the citizens, namely, to have no bikes in the park, for matters of public safety and calmness.

In sum, this extract illustrated how a speaker uses the practice to deliver a solution for a heavily debated issue, namely, accessibility. Although a type-conforming token is noticeably absent, the answer provides a confirmation, the preferred answer in terms of action preference. Adopting the practice of ‘have you planned X’, citizens aim at (re-)establishing a shared and transparent vision, equal access to information as well as at getting information on record (Steensig and Larsen, 2008) and ultimately, a political engagement (Clayman, 2010; Clayman and Heritage, 2002).

In the following extract, Rémy (REM) also provides a solution to a perceived problem, which turns out to be related to the same issue of accessibility as mentioned in the previous extract. Here, Rémy links accessibility to certain controversial topics. Accessibility is one of the five pillars on which the participatory procedure will focus, as has been explained by the project manager Navarro (NAV) in a talk preceding this question–answer sequence, and as shown in the previous extract. Rémy ties the issue of accessibility to the controversial issues of parking facilities (3–4) and public transport (5) and, ultimately, to the particular Atoubus project (8–9). This latter concerns a specific public transport project on which currently debates are being held. Daumat (DAU) one of the politicians provides an answer after the question is brought to completion. However, in this extract, although the questions make a ‘yes’ the preferred answer in terms of grammar and action, both a confirming and a disconfirming answer turn out to be problematic, and therefore Daumat is put in a delicate position:

(2) REM_CAB_13_FC_080710_PLE_ORA/PUB_00.44.17

1 REM bonjour (.) andré rémy cil université jean macé euh berthelot/ (1.0)

good day (.) andré rémy cil université jean macé ehm berthelot/ (1.0)

2 euh::m (0.3) (oui) c’est une question au sujet de: de l’accès au-

eh::m (0.3) (yes) it’s a question concerning: the access to the-

3 → (0.3) au parc/ (0.4) est-ce que: (.) euh: donc euh des parcs de

(0.3) to the park/ (0.4) is it that: ehm: so ehm parking

4 → stationnement sont prévus:/ (0.4) et: surtout:/ est-ce que des:: accès

parks are planned:/ (0.4) and: especially:/ is it that accesses

5 → >enfin< les transports en commun: euh::: (0.4) °bon euh° vont être

>right< the public transport: ehm::: (0.4) °well ehm° will be

6 → prévus:/ euh pour faciliter effectivement l’accès à ce parc/ qui est:

planned:/ ehm to facilitate effectively the access to this park/ that is:

7 >je dirais< pas spécifique euh .h au septième arrondissement/ .h: et:

>i would say< not specific ehm .h to the seventh district/ .h: and:

8 euh:: .h: (0.8) le- le lien c’est aussi avec le projet atoubus (0.9)

ehm:: .h: (0.8) the- the link it’s also with the atoubus project (0.9)

9 euh est-ce que: ce:: °le° projet atoubus va prendre en compte

ehm is it that: this:: ° the ° atoubus project will take into consideration

10 effectivement .h: euh les distances de:: de ce parc\

effectively .h: ehm the distances of:: of this park\

11 (7.0)

12 DAU voilà\ sur la question du stationnement:/ (là) l’idée c’est

that’s it\ about the question of the parking:/ (now) the idea it’s

13 vraiment:/ (0.7) de ne pas:/ (0.3) encourager:/ (0.2) la venue des

really:/ (0.7) to not:/ (0.3) encourage:/ (0.2) the arrival of

14 gens:/ (0.3) en voiture\ (0.8) >alors< (.) surtout pas dans le parc/

people:/ (0.3) by car\ (0.8) >so< (.) especially not in the park/

15 (0.7) (>vous avez peut-être vu<) sur un des pla:ns (0.4) je sais plus

(0.7) (>you have maybe seen<) on one of the ma:ps (0.4) i don’t know

16 plus lequel euh::: que: .h: la: desserte je dirais:::: (0.2) pour

anymore which ehm::: that: .h: the: exit I would say:::: (0.2) for

17 les::::: les espaces ve:rts/ euh::: pour certains occupants/ (0.3) est

the::::: the green areas:/ ehm::: for certain occupants/ (0.3) is

18 prévue:/ (0.4) mais elle est prévue:/ (0.3) euh:::::: (0.4) puisque

planned:/ (0.4) but it is planned:/ (0.3) ehm:::::: (0.4) because

19 ((continues))

Frequently, as future users, citizens have ideas about what should be part of the procedure, which may differ from the perspective of the officials. Parking facilities is one of these topics that citizens orient to as part of the procedure, whereas it has been repeatedly stated by the officials that this matter is beyond the scope of the current procedure. Adopting a first ‘have you planned X’-type question (3–4), Rémy makes transparent, by making a ‘yes’ the preferred uptake, an assumption that the officials have planned parking facilities. The second question explicitly asks if the officials are to plan public transport facilities (4–6). Even though the turn reaches possible completion after ‘prévus:’ | ‘planned:’ (6), Rémy produces an expansion, presenting a solution to the perceived problem of accessibility for those visitors coming from districts other than the seventh district (6–7). In so doing, he lets transpire that this is not the actual current situation. The third question (9) refers to a third issue related to accessibility, via a specific bus system.

The last question is the first to receive an answer (data not shown). Daumat then continues with an answer to the first question, related to the ‘stationnement:’ | ‘parking:’ (12), and displays being sensitive to possible accusations of favouring visitors to the park over local residents, when citizens have made it explicit in this and the previous meetings that this is not what they want. Daumat indeed orients to the issue questioned as delicate and critical. He, after a lot of inserted expansions that serve as delaying devices, ultimately confirms that a ‘desserte’ | ‘exit’ (16) is created for cars, but only for the inhabitants of a large building and so the use of cars is only allowed to certain local inhabitants, or users of the large building in the central square of the park (17–18). Daumat thereby, although after a lengthy preface, confirms that parking is planned. Confirming parking facilities may put Daumat in a delicate political position, in that a large number of citizens have militated to be against more parking in an already dense urban area. The confirmation via a partial repeat in TCU-final position displays this sensitivity towards such a possible criticism or complaint, delaying it to the last possible moment. He accounts for this taken decision, stating that parking spaces will only be for service cars, rather than for private use (initiated from l.18 on, the full answer not shown). A disconfirmation is equally problematic, for matters of professional competence. Parking spaces for, for example, police cars are mandatory, even though this may generate a risk that such parking spaces may then quickly be used by other visitors too, and implicitly favour an arrival by car to the future park (although this is explicitly what citizens have militated against). Hence, both a confirmatory and disconfirmatory answer are problematic.

A number of general points can now be made about the ‘have you planned X’-type questions delivered as advice or a solution to a perceived problem. First, citizens portray themselves as knowledgeable and competent about the solution they propose. Second, they display caution to not overtly request the recipients about the absence of talk about a matter treated as straightforward and possibly intentionally omitted from public talk. Third, giving advice orients to the possible existence of a problem, to which the advice is a solution, although this may present information that the recipient is not looking for. Therefore, by employing an interrogative format, citizens align with the invitation to ask a question, providing the recipients with a possibility to deliver an answer, preferably a ‘yes’. In the extracts, recipients orient to the relevance of such a question, by displaying their readiness to answer with a confirming answer or at least not to disconfirm.

‘Have you planned X’ questions enquiring about prior talk

In contrast with the previous subsection, here citizens bring up their questions as something that directly arises from the report of previous talk by the officials in the preface. Positioning the question at turn-final position gives the speaker time and space to insert as many prefaces as they orient to as matters in their own right. Each preface displays agency more clearly and makes a possible tangible future problem more visible.

The following extract aims at showing how citizens draw on the practice of pointing out the necessity to plan quiet areas for visitors of the park, for example, benches (Mondada, 2014). Even though in an answer to a previous question, both the politician Bert (BER) and the architect Lignan (LIG) have mentioned that, especially for elderly visitors of the future park, quiet areas and benches will be created, one of the citizens, Loyier (LOY), treats the benches as in need of further inquiry. His first question, addressing the concern about the benches and using a derivative of the practice of ‘have you planned X’-type question in passive voice and in present tense, is analysed in the following. However, Loyier does not openly refer to benches, but mentions places in general where citizens can simply sit (2–4):

(3) LOY_CAB_17_FC_031012_PLE_ORA/PUB_01.50.52

1 LOY vous avez parlé de ba:ncs tout à l’heure/ .tsk .h euh:::m:: y

you have talked about benches: a while ago/ .tsk .h ehm:::m:: there

2 → aura beaucoup de passage apparemment:/ est-ce qu’y a: des: endroits

will be many people apparently:/ is it that there are: places

3 → qui sont prévus:/ (.) pour:/ .h: euh:: se poser:/ s’installer:/

that are planned:/ (.) to:/ .h: ehm:: rest:/ settle:/

4 → s’asseoir tout simplement/ .h: et: la deuxième questio:n/ ((continues))

sit just simply/ .h: and: the second question:/

5 (30 minutes later)

704 (2.6)

705 LIG les [bancs/]

the [benches/]

706 BER [oui]:/

[yes]:/

707 (0.2)

708 LIG les bancs vite fait/

the benches quickly/

709 (.)

710 BER les ba:ncs [et la fermeture du parc p]endant les travaux/

the be:nches [and the closing of the park d]uring the works/

711 LIG [eh:::::]

712 (.)

713 BER hei [n/]

righ[t/]

714 LIG [ou]ais\

[ye\ah\

715 (0.6)

716 LIG bien-sûr il y aura des ba::ncs/ vous avez une image ici::/ .h

of course there will be be::nches/ you have an image here::/ .h

717 LIG euh:::: .h (0.4) l’idée c’est peut-être (.) de réinterroger/ euh::

ehm:::: .h (0.4) the idea it’s maybe (.) to re-examine/ ehm::

718 aussi la: >la< forme d’un banc/ ((continues))

as well the: >the< form of a bench/

Loyier explicitly reports talk referring to the benches as the subject of prior talk (1). The use of ‘apparemment’| ‘apparently’ (2) treats the visitor flow as a form of hearsay, a lexical way to index evidentiality (Clift, 2006), and works as a transition between the preface and the question, between the reported talk and the yes/no interrogative. In a relative clause, the practice of a ‘have you planned X’-type question (2–3) occurs in TCU-final position. Here, although the turn is possibly accusatory in that it assumes that something should have been planned, since requested so often by citizens, the absence of an agent, the passive voice and the present tense all aim at minimising the possible blame of not having planned enough benches and disagreeing with the planned amount. Loyier’s question is furthermore expanded. He relates the places (2) to three activities (3–4), presenting a contrast with the many passages mentioned before (2) and the activities that could be related to this, all concerned with sitting or resting (3–4). Furthermore, this adopted form of hearsay can be treated as a further argument for the need of more benches, in that a large visitor flow requires even more seats than currently planned.

Around 30 minutes after Loyier has asked the question, during a collective answer sequence, both Lignan and Bert orient to the target rating point (TRP) (704) after Daumat’s answer to a previous question as making a transition relevant. Lignan proposes to answer the issue of the benches ‘vite fait’ | ‘quickly’ (708), treating the issue as both recurrent and well-known, and therefore as not requiring a lengthy answer. Bert ratifies Lignan’s proposal by repeating it, while adding the second question Loyier has asked regarding the closing of the park during the construction works (data not shown). Lignan explicitly confirms the planning of benches, visible through the use of ‘bien-sûr’ | ‘of course’ (716). Even though the benches are now finally being answered, Lignan rather embarks on the form of the benches and not necessarily on the number of benches planned for the citizens to sit and relax (716–718).

Hence, this extract shows a question by a citizen that asks if the politicians have planned benches, which is exactly what has been just mentioned by the politicians in the previous talk. Embarking on the same issue once more, this question seems to be a form of mistrust (the politicians can talk about things, but the citizens do not necessarily believe them) and, therefore, a rather challenging endeavour embarked on by the citizen.

This is not exactly the same thing as in the following extract, where a previous claim by the politician is used as a starting point for building a different argument. More specifically, Lemercier (LEM) ties what the official Navarro (NAV) has said to something that the officials should have planned and/or decided (already), which is presented as directly generated by the prior. As before, this is made more complex because the element that is questioned is precisely a controversial point, namely, parking spaces (3).

With a ‘yes’ being the preferred uptake, Navarro is put in a delicate situation and even a political trap for two reasons. First, a confirmation may pave the way for a critique in third turn that, for example, the officials have not thought about this but treated this as straightforward matter. Second, a confirmation may lead to a critique from an opponent of more parking spaces, accusing the officials of not being responsive to their concern and request that the number of parking spaces not be increased, and public transport be improved instead:

(4) LEM_CAB_18_FC_250313_PLE_ORA/PUB_02.11.06

1 LEM donc vous avez signalé euh (il y a un instant donc) beaucoup de monde

so you have signalled ehm (a moment ago so) a lot of people

2 → pour la visite de ce parc:/ .h est-ce que vous avez prévu des

for the visit of this park:/ .h is it that you have planned

3 → stationnements

parking spaces

4 (2.0)

5 NAV alors ça aussi c’est beaucoup de choses qu’on a: abordé en:: en

so that too it’s a lot of things that we have: tackled in:: in

6 réunions de concertation précédentes/ .h: euh:::::m .tsk on attend

previous consultation meetings/ .h: ehm:::::m .tsk we expect

7 beaucoup de monde parce qu’on est dans un secteur notamment ((continues))

many people because we are in an area notably

Lemercier reports parts of the answer by Navarro, who stated that a lot of visitors can be expected in the park (1–2), using the more general description of ‘people’. After a short pause, Lemercier initiates her ‘est-ce que vous avez prévu’ | ‘is it that you have planned’ (2–3), formatted in active voice, past tense and with a personal pronoun that explicitly attributes an action to the recipient, Navarro. The attributed action is that parking spaces should have been planned already, and the absence of talk on the matter is possibly problematic because it is such a recurrent theme throughout the meetings. By putting the plural object ‘des stationnements’ | ‘parking spaces’ (2–3) in turn-final position, Lemercier presents the matter as something that does not require an explanation nor an account. The adopted turn format, here without any account, hesitation markers or other hitches and/or delays shows how Lemercier treats herself as highly entitled to ask the question.

Previous discussions about the parking spaces have resulted in a statement that none would be built. However, Lemercier seems to refer to the fact that parking spaces are necessary – therefore, she returns to the argument about parking previously acquired. Adopting the practice of ‘have you planned X’-type questions, however, she displays caution so as not to blame the recipients overtly for not having imagined or thought about the issue, let alone having discussed it in public.

Both a confirming and disconfirming answer are problematic. A confirming answer affiliates with the underlying assumption that they, as authorities, not only should plan something for the cars, but if they do, favour cars. As mentioned before, a large part of the citizens is explicitly against more cars in an already dense urban area. Should she disconfirm, she could be accused of not thinking about a solution to the increasing number of visitors.

The question is initially met with a long silence (4), which may flag that the question is treated as problematic. Navarro initiates a type-nonconforming answer (5), displaying that she treats the action as inapposite, in that it has already been brought up multiple times in previous meetings (6). She then embarks on a lengthy explanation (6–7), accounting for her previous statement with regard to the high number of expected visitors. She does so by specifically referring to where the visitors come from, namely, from the nearby surroundings (data not shown), by foot. Hence, the answer rather develops on the number of visitors, than on the issue of planned parking spaces.

In this way, Navarro counters two possible implications that could have been made had she not elaborated on her answer. She thwarts a trick-or-trap question, treating it as not relevant at this stage of the procedure. Moreover, she accounts for her silence with regard to the issue, orienting to it as something having been sufficiently addressed in prior meetings and thus as having benefitted enough explanations already. In this way, she escapes a possible critique in third turn by the citizens.

Concluding remarks

The aim for this article has been to show how citizens, invited to take part in a participatory democracy procedure in urban planning, draw on a particular question design when formatting challenging yes/no interrogatives in response to this invitation.

In the form of a request for confirmation, adopting the practice of ‘have you planned X’-type questions, citizens point at a particular issue that they orient to as something that ought to have been planned (already) by the officials. Citizens treat the issue brought up for confirmation as something particularly relevant, yet missing from the current debates. Either operating on prior available talk (because the issue has been brought up just before) or addressing an evident issue that forms a part of recurrent discussions, citizens aim at getting certain pieces of information on record.

In addressing such an obvious or straightforward issue, citizens treat themselves as a watchdog over decisions taken by the officials with regard to the issues that might otherwise be shilled in the public debate. In this way, the questions serve and are formatted as a reminder to the politicians, related to the recurrence of the matters addressed.

The analyses pointed out that the positive format makes a confirmation with ‘yes’ the preferred answer. However, citizens are not only after a confirmatory answer, but also after a political engagement. A confirmation and engagement may, however, lead to a possible complaint by the citizens in third turn because they can accuse the officials of not having mentioned the issue earlier and hence of having operated in a non-transparent way.

Suspecting that the officials take decisions without consulting the citizens is problematic in two interrelated ways. First, it operates against the idea of transparency and information sharing. Second, it goes against the very point of these public plenary consultation meetings the purpose of which is to include citizens in the decision-making process. Should decisions be taken solely by the officials, participatory democracy gets reduced to the execution of a legal requirement. Should the officials disconfirm, they may be accused either of non-professionalism (not having given thought to a straightforward matter) or of non-responsiveness to the citizens (not addressing a concern that has been much debated and therefore treated as relevant). Non-responsiveness is not only one of the major reasons for the lack of participation by citizens, as claimed in the literature (Flinders, 2012; Van Wessel, 2016), but it also operates against interactional preference as set in motion by a question, the first pair part of an adjacency pair (Stivers and Robinson, 2006).

Thus, these questions make any answer accountable, both confirming and disconfirming (Heinemann, 2008). Recipients display being sensitive towards the implications both a confirming or disconfirming answer have. Confirmations are delivered not via the type-conforming token the question has made relevant, but via a partial repeat (Extracts 1, 2 and 3), thereby casting the question, its agenda and presupposition, as in some way problematic. Moreover, recipients account for a disconfirmation, by arguing that the issue has already been addressed multiple, possibly enough many, times (Extract 4).

In sum, this article shows how enquiring whether something has been planned is a skilful way in which citizens not overtly make complaining or blaming the overt business of their turn-at-talk. It leaves open whether the recipients have deliberately omitted talking about this issue, or if they had forgotten to mention it. Meanwhile, attuned to their rights as citizens and interactional participants to receive correct and complete information, citizens actively negotiate and establish accountability, common ground as well as political transparency. All these represent the embodiment of what participatory democracy is about.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

Part of this paper has been presented at the Intersubjectivity in Interaction conference in Helsinki, May 2017. I am particularly grateful for comments by the audience, as well as by Lorenza Mondada, Mirka Rauniomaa and Kimmo Svinhufvud on previous versions of and help with structuring this paper. I also would like to thank the anonymous reviewer and the editor of Discourse & Society for their insightful observations. All remaining errors are solely my responsibility.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This paper is part of a larger research project funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Speaking in Public: Contributions from a Conversation Analytic Perspective (grant: 100014_144376_1+2) in which I wrote my PhD dissertation. The paper has been written during a research stay at the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Intersubjectivity in Interaction at the University of Helsinki – Finland, for which I was awarded a Mobility Doctoral Fellowship by the SNSF (grant: P1BSP1_172021). This paper has resulted in a chapter in her PhD thesis.

Author biography

Nynke van Schepen defended her PhD dissertation June 2018 at the University of Basel (Switzerland). She wrote her dissertation within the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) funded project Speaking in Public: Social Interactions within Larger Groups, led by Prof. Dr Lorenza Mondada. Adopting the methodological framework of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, her dissertation is interested in exploring how a particular interactional format, French yes/no interrogatives, is adopted by citizens in participatory meetings with politicians and experts to format and accomplish actions that are not only traditionally associated with asking questions or questioning, but also actions such as criticising and blaming.

References

Atkinson

Drew

(1979) Order in Court: Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.

Carman

(2010) The process is the reality: Perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Political Studies 58: 731–751.

Clayman

(2010) Questions in broadcast journalism. In: Freed

Ehrlich

(eds) ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press: 256–278.

Clayman

Heritage

(2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clift

(2006) Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5): 569–595.

Drew

Walker

(2009) Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2400–2414.

Egbert

Vöge

(2008) Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. Discourse Studies 10(1): 17–36.

Flinders

(2012) Defending Politics: Why Democracy Matters in the Twenty-first Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hausendorf

Bora

(2006) Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-Making Processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

10.

Heinemann

(2008) Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies 10(1): 55–71.

11.

Heinemann

Traverso

(2014) Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2381–2384.

12.

Heritage

(2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446.

13.

Heritage

Sorjonen

M-L

(1994) Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23: 1–29.

14.

Hutchby

(1992) The pursuit of controversy: Routine skepticism in talk on talk radio. Sociology 26: 673–694.

15.

Jacoby

Gonzales

(2002) Saying what wasn’t said: Negative observation as a linguistic resource for the interactional achievement of performance feedback. In: Ford

Fox

Thompson

(eds) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 123–164.

16.

Mondada

(2013) Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: The example of participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 39–68.

17.

Mondada

(2014) De la conception à la réalisation d’un projet urbanistique: pour une analyse conversationnelle de réunions au fil du temps. Cahiers de l’ILSL 41: 171–235.

18.

Pomerantz

(1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimating claims. Human Studies 9(2–3): 219–230.

19.

Raymond

(2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.

20.

Raymond

(2006) Questions at work: Yes/no type interrogatives in institutional contexts. In: Drew

Raymond

Weinberg

(eds) Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. London: SAGE: 115–134.

21.

Sacks

(1992) Lectures on Conversation, vol. I+II. Oxford: Blackwell.

22.

Sacks

Schegloff

Jefferson

(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.

23.

Schegloff

(1988a) From interview to confrontation: Observations of the bush/rather encounter’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 215–240.

24.

Schegloff

(1988b) Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In: Drew

Wootton

(eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press: 89–135.

25.

Steensig

Larsen

(2008) Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions. Discourse Studies 10(1): 113–132.

26.

Stivers

Robinson

(2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35: 367–392.

27.

Stivers

Enfield

Brown

, et al. (2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(26): 10587–10592.

28.

Van Wessel

(2016) Citizens as sense-makers: Towards a deeper appreciation of citizens’ understandings of democratic politics’ Political Studies 65(1): 127–145.