1. Introductions and definitions:
This paper is an attempt of empirical investigation in conversational analysis with the focus on open-class repair in English Lingua Franca interactions. However, before the investigation goes any further it is important to highlight and define some key terminology that will be utilised for the means of this paper. According to Levinson (1983) “Conversation analysis (henceforward CA) is known as an approach to the study of natural conversation which covers both verbal and non- verbal interaction in everyday situations”. This notion was developed in 1960s by Harley Sacks when he was employed at “the Centre for the Scientific Study of Suicide in Los Angeles”. He discovered recorded phone calls that laid a fundamental framework for the new method later termed as CA (Have, 2007: 6). Have (ibid) further reveals the two ways of how CA utilised in studies: a ‘broad sense’ also known as ‘oral communication’ ; though, the outline of this concept is used in a ‘restricted sense’ as it traces to early 1960s when it was firstly introduced by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson (ibid: 7) how interaction occurs.
CA studies revealed that ‘casual daily talk’ with people is not a random dialogue but a “sequentially structured and interactively managed” (Firth, 1996: 238) conversation.
The concept of CA was further defined and introduced by Emanuel Schegloff, Harvey Sacks, and Gail Jefferson in late 1970s. Since then, the role and focus of CA has dramatically expanded and rather than concentrating on the “casual conversational analysis” (Schegloff et al., 1977 : 361) it spread over the other fields, such as, speech and cross-cultural communication, linguistics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. During the process of communicational interaction it often happens that one of the speakers said or asked something while the second participant misunderstood the message and consciously or sometimes unconsciously (see Jefferson, 1988) takes steps to clarify what is being said by initiating a phenomenon known as ‘repair’. According to Schegloff et al., (1977 : 363) repair is “the mechanism through which certain troubles in interaction are dealt with”. Further classification of this paradigm is as follows: 1. Self-repair - when a speaker understands that he made a mistake and corrects him/herself. 2. Other-repair - when an interlocutor initiates repair by asking for clarification. 3. Self-initiated other repair – when a speaker is in a trouble of finding a proper word and a co-speaker or recipient fills in a word for him/her (this seems to have a connection with the concept of ‘conversational cooperation’ by Lumsden (2008) and ‘conversational duet’ discussed by Falk, 1980: 508). 4. Other-initiated other-repair – when a speaker provided wrong information and someone else corrects him/her.
(ibid:363-364).

Each of these dimensions are further divided into sub-sections (see Schegloff et al., 1977: 363) and without a doubt deep investigation and discussion of each of these phenomena would require great amount of time and effort, however, here we are going to focus on ‘open-class repair’ that falls into the category of other initiation of repair. This will be further discussed and expanded in the next section of this paper. This is well known topic in CA and much extensive research is done on this topic considering L1 speakers. However, not much research has been carried out to investigate the ‘open-class repair’ in L2 or English Lingua Franca (henceforth ELF) interactions (Firth, 1996: 239). Therefore, the initial aim of this paper is to take a deep inside into the topic of open-class repair in ELF interactions using CA approach and building a contrary argument to the concept knows as ‘let it pass’ (Firth, 1996) that will be discussed in the following section.

2. Literature Review
Dating back to the history of repair, Emanuel Schegloff and his companion Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks were one of the first researchers who started examining this conversational feature. In their paper named The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organisation of Repair in Conversation Schegloff et al., (1977) attempted to distinguish organisational repair into self-repair and other-repair (see previous section). It has been argued that repair occurrence initiation follows straight after the trouble source turn was initiated. Moreover, they have also acknowledged that in most cases participants try to fix the ‘trouble source’ by initiating self-repair, which way preferable in comparison with the other-repair. Finally, they conclude paper by justifying that “organisation of action/repair is the self-righting mechanism for the organisation of language use in social interaction” (ibid: 381) therefore a firm focus on the “error rather than repair” (Schegloff, 1978: 21) should be taken into the account.

Schegloff (1992) further investigated the role of repair and interchanegability in conversations with reference to previous theoretical contexts and attempted to find out what happens when this repair fails to function. He refers to Schutz (1962, cited in Schegloff, 1992: 1294) who argued that a mutual ability of thinking is found “from the outset an intersubjective world of culture” and presents the common sense knowledge as the “interchange of perspectives” (ibid). With reference to other sociolinguists (Mead, 1962; Garfinkel, 1967; Vulchinich, 1977; Habermas, 1984 and others) Schegloff (ibid) concedes that the phenomenon of repair and interchanegability broadly utilised in the fields of linguistics and sociology; thus analysis conducted in these areas would benefit in CA studies.

As a result of the theoretical analysis Schegloff (ibid) suggests that any reference to an object (person, thought, thing and others) could be an object of conversation but “not necessarily a topic” (ibid: 1340) therefore, this also might be a factor of production of other initiated repair.

This idea was further developed by Jean Wong (2000) who also studied other initiated repair which is delayed within next turn repair with native and ELF speakers of English language. Wong (2000: 245) disputes the statement of Schegloff at al., (1977) that “natives initiate repair as early as possible” (ibid: 372) and argues that “sometimes takes a different value” (Wong, 2000: 245). In other words, ELF speakers either delay an initiation of repair in comparison with ‘native speakers’ or ‘let this repair pass” (Firth, 1996).

The concept known as ‘let it pass’ was developed by Alan Firth in 1996. The notion utilised to describe scenarios when interpreted listeners have difficulties in understanding ELF speakers speech and they (listeners) let a part of speech that was misunderstood ‘pass’ guessing that it will become clearer or in contrary will be erased as talk goes on. Occurrence of ‘let it pass’ notion often indicates on “interactional vulnerability” (ibid : 245) of conversation. It also reveals that regardless cultural background and linguistic abilities speakers, although missing the point of the conversation tend to behave as if they understood (ibid: 244). However, sometimes it happens that a listener cannot let it pass due to complete misunderstanding of the point. In these instances a phenomenon known as open-class repair is produced for clarification. Examples of using open class repair will be illustrated in analysis section.
Preliminary to further exploration to the phenomenon of repair, the work of Paul Drew represents a particularly significant viewpoint on open-class repair. In 1997 he published a research paper entitled: ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. This paper is to be considered as one of the most influential in CA studies, particularly, in relation with open-class repair. An observation the context will highly benefit in post discussion. In his paper Drew (1997) attempted to explore the ‘open’ forms of repair initiators such as, what, pardon, sorry and others. A total number of 50 telephone conversations have been examined in order to reveal a presence and occurrence of open-class repair. The aim was to find out chronological settings in which open class Next Turn Repair Initiators (henceforward NTRI) happen rather than aiming investigate ‘repair management sequence’ (Brown and Yule, 1983; Blakemore, 1988). As a result, two categories of chronological environment in which ‘open’ class NTRIs take place have been defined. The first one initiated when a repairable turn does not occur with its prior turn; thus it is seems to be normally that the recipient is disconnected from the logic of conversation. Contrary, the second form occurs in environment where turn taking place clearly and rationally connected with its prior turn. Drew (1997) concluded his paper by a suggestion that focus and lack of understanding in naturally occurring conversations are away from orientation and syntactic but “towards the role of a turn at talk in its sequential context” (ibid: 98).

Moving on, another factor of miscommunication which often initiates repair it is that the participants of interaction might be bilingual or ELF speakers (Schegloff, 1987; Gumperz, 1982). Coupland et al., (1991) also claims that this is because people from different cultural backgrounds do not share the same “linguistic and inferential competences” (ibid: 81).

On the other hand, Gafaranga (1999: 65) argued that bilingual speakers do not proficiently speak either languages, but instead they “have adopted the use of both languages as the medium”. In his next paper, Gafaranga relates bilingual ability of medium with the medium repair. According to Gafaranga (2000) medium repair occurs when participants “themselves orient to the item they have selected to solve the problem of the most just as an instance of other language, as an instance of deviance from the code they are using” (ibid: 328). In his recent paper he attempted to investigate where in the communication repair alternation occur and what it does to the segment of language alternation when it occurs. Upon the conclusion he claimed that in bilingual interaction language alternation and other initiated conversational repair are related (Gafaranga, 2012).

In addition to previous research papers, Schegloff (2000) attempted to revise the issue of ‘other initiated repair’ (Schegloff, 1977; Schegloff, 1992, Coupland, 1997) that previously discussed. Initially, the paper was a response to critics of Wong (2000) who argued that during ‘native – non-native’ interactions, non-native speakers initiate repair later than native speakers and explains this phenomenon as a factor of linguistic abilities as well as different cultural backgrounds. Schegloff (2000) however, suggested that those occurrences are not ‘representative’ to non-native speakers, but they might be delayed within next turn. It has also been claimed that other initiated repair might be positioned ‘later’ as well as ‘earlier’ in case of an “absence of interruption by ‘other’ to initiate repair:

“Rather, others withhold repair initiations from placement while trouble –source turns is in progress…Indeed, other initiations regularly are withheld a bit past the possible completion of trouble course turn; not only does a withhold get them specifically positioned in next turn, but it can get ‘next turn’ itself delayed a bit. I such cases, other initiations occur after a slight gap, the gap evidencing a withhold beyond the completion of trouble source turn-providing an extra opportunity in an expanded transition space, for speaker of trouble-course to self-initiate repair (Schegloff et al., 1997: 373-374 cited in Schegloff, 2000: 225).

As it has been illustrated a great amount of research was conducted on the topic of other-initiated repair, particularly academic works of Schegloff (1997, 1980, 1982, 1992, 2000) and Drew (1977) made valuable contribution to the ‘open- class repair’ studies. Thus, the literature analyses discussed above is sufficient so we can proceed to the next section of this paper, which is data analysis. 3. Data description
The data examined for the means of this paper is taken from Eurovision (adult and junior) Song Contest (2013) that was held in Sweden (Malmo). A total number of 8 short video extracts were analysed and transcribed for the means of this paper. I have used 1 video extract on the ‘letting it pass’ (Firth, 1996) as an illustration when people pretend as if they understood question or talk; as contrasted to the main focus of this paper, which is ‘‘not letting it pass’ and which will be demonstrated in the rest of video extracts, as for the means to show an occurrence of open class repair initiator devices such as sorry, what, pardon, huh and others in interaction. The approach that will be utilised to analyse the data is CA approach (Sacks, 1960s). Speakers engaged into the conversation in these videos are interviewers and participants from different parts of the world who are taking part in Eurovision Song Contest. Both sides engaged into conversation are ELF speakers and all videos are in English language. The applicants, through their discourse actions demonstrate other initiated open-class repair interactions.

4. Data analysis
The notion of repair can be analysed from various perspectives (see Drew, 1997; Schegloff, 1977; 1982; 1992; 2000; Firth, 1996, Gafaranga, 2000; 2012) this analysis, however, will be focusing on two segments; what happened before repair and what happened straight after the repair in ELF interactions. These two constituents are vital to be taken into an account while analysing open-class repair as they make up the whole picture of how this kind of repair occurs and provide and explanation for this phenomenon. Thus, a number of such instances will be illustrated in the following extracts.

Extract 1: (Rafael Babeica, Moldova) [3:10-3:25]
This extract to be considered the perfect example of notion known as ‘let it pass’ described by Alan Firth in 1996. The whole extract is as follows:

1. Interviewer: Ok, and what gave you the Idea↑ to wr(г1)ite this song↑ 2. Refael: eeerm 3. Interviewer: you know↑ You understand↑ The idea↑ 4. Rafael:eeerm (02) 5. it is very dear for me: (.) and (.) I li:ke↑ them and i:ts my 6. favourite song 7. Interviewer: Ok, super.
In the first line an interviewer asks Rafael a question that was completely misunderstood by a recipient. This clearly illustrated (in line 2) with ‘erm’ which means that “I would love to answer but my English is not good and I do not understand what you saying’. This ‘erm’ makes an interviewer to initiate self-repair (in line 3) by attempting to simplify his question by “you know? you understand? the idea”? In lines 4 and 5 the recipient misunderstands the idea and starts talk about the song that is dear to him. This phenomenon can be explained by ‘linguistic disfluency’ (see Lamel et al., 1996; Chomsky: 2006). In line 7 an interviewer ‘lets it pass’ as if Refael answered the question. This is very interesting phenomenon as ‘let it pass’ notion expresses “interactional vulnerability” (Firth, 1996: 244), whereas ‘not letting it pass’ reflects that, in contrary, interactional miscommunication cannot be ignored and avoided because clarification of what has been said is essential for this type of repair.

Extract 2: (Emmelie De Forest, Denmark) [0:15-0:27]
Emmelie initiates repair by using the “most common” (Drew,1997 : 254) open class repair initiating device ‘what’; which obviously tells an interviewer that she did not understand what he had said. 1. Interviewer: you live close by Copenhagen is it nice too↑ 2. Emmelie: wha:t↑ 3. Interviewer: you live close by↑ 4. Emmelie: ye::ah↑↓ 5. (01)
6. it is very very close (.) it is just on the other side of the bridge so::↓ 7. (02) 8. yeah ↑ (.) it is ea:sy to get here↓

Interviewer (in line 1) poses a question that is still unclear for me as well, so I had to predict what he had said in order to make the question grammatically and logically correct. It seems like he meant to ask what is Copenhagen looks like but fails to deliver set question and by doing so initiates open-class repair. Here is apparent that Emmelie did not understand the question at all so she initiating device repair (in line 2) with ‘what’ which indirectly tells to interviewer to repair his question. The request has been accepted (in line 3) as the first speaker poses ‘polished’ version of this question and an interview carries on (in lines 4 to 8).
Extract 3: (Florin Cezar Ouatu, Romania) [2:22 -2:37]
This interaction is established between an interviewer and Cezar who obviously misunderstood the question, the whole extract as follows: 1. Interviewer: Do you feel↑ eer in the past you have ever wanted to take part in 2. Eurovision↑ 3. Cezar: Sorry↑ 4. Interviewer: Did you ever wanted to take pa:rt in Eurovision (.)if they (.) had not 5. asked you↑ 6. Cezar: eeerm, no! I have to tell that I-I-I-I never I nethe-th. tthink to to coming 7. to Eurovision.

In this extract an interlocutor (in line 1) asks Cesar a question that was misunderstood; may be due to background noises but nevertheless he has initiated open-class repair with ‘sorry’ (in line 2) which in this instance means that “I did not get your point, please reshape your question”. From interviewer’s perspective Cezar’s counter-question clearly indicates that Cezar is “uncertain” (see Hofstede's cultural dimensions, 2006: 278-279) what to answer and asks for clarifications. After the repair was established (in line 3) Cezar (in line 4) starts explicitly answer the question and conversation goes on.

Extract 4 (Gaia Cauchi, Malta) [1:21-1:39]
In this extract an interviewer provoked Gaia (in line 1) to initiate repair by missing out a word (time) in the question which formed an incomplete or rather different question that did not fit that context. 1. Interviewer: how↑ was it for you on the first stage today↑ 2. Gaia: [sorry] ↑ 3. Interviewer: [sorry, I-I will phrase 4. that again. how was the::y the first time on the stage today for 5. you↑ 6. Gaia: mm, I have, I had never sang on the big stage like that so:: ↓ 7. (02) 8. I wassa: (.) nervous↑ 9. (01) 10. a::nd (.) but then I did the performance good.
In the first line an interlocutor poses an incomplete question: “look, how was it for you on the first stage today” which can be comprehended as if there were a lot of stages Gaia went through and the ‘first stage’ stood out differently. As a result of that, Gaia initiates open-class repair with ‘sorry’ (in line 2) and interestingly, and interlocutor ‘at the same time’ also initiated self-repair with ‘sorry’ (in line 3) and rephrases his question.
Extract 5: (El sueno de Morfeo, Spain) [0:45-1:01]

1. Interviewer: How the rehearsal-rehearsals been ↑ 2. Participant: Hows ↑ 3. Interviewer: How the rehearsals bee:n ↑ 4. Participant: Go::d↓ (.) erm (.) we felt really really at ho:me(.) erm (.)so:: 5. (02) 6. it is amazing, no↑ to be in the state it is like a dream (.)for us

In this extract an interlocutor (in line 1) attempts to ask a question but poses his question with double repetition of the main verb “rehearsal-rehearsals”. This was followed by initiation of repair from member (female) of the band who replied (in line 2) “Hows” which seems to convey “Hows what” or “what?” An interviewer poses the same question but this time he makes sure that it is logically and grammatically correct.

Extract 6: Birgit (Estonia) [0:22-0:35] 1. Interviewer: are you going to meet a mayor of Malmo inside the building? 2. Birgit: who? 3. Interviewer: the mayor of Malmo, he is from Estonia? 4. Birgit: yes, we know… actually but we we do not know yet..I I hope, 5. we going to meet meet him, yeah

In this extract an interviewer literally catches Birgit on her way inside the building and asks (in line 1) whether she intended to meet mayor of Malmo. On the one hand, it seems like Birgit does not know who she is asked about. On the other hand, she acknowledges (in line 4) that she is aware who is she asked about by saying ‘ye:s, we know’ which can be interpreted “of course I know him, ‘we’ are from the same country”.
Extract 7: (Amandine Bourgeois, France) [0:22-0:35]
This extract is another dialog conversation among French singer Amandine Bourgeois and an interviewer. 1. Interviewer: Is France ready to host Eurovision next year? 2. Amandine: (02) what? 3. Interviewer: Is France ready to host Eurovision next year? 4. Amandine: eerm..I don’t know (laughter) 5. (2) I dont know I would love that, you know, it would be a 6. great chance, yeah

An interviewer poses a question (in line 1) that seems to be misunderstood by Amandine, so she initiates open-class repair with ‘what’ (in line 2). This was followed by a repetition of the same question (in line 3) and at this point, rather than answering the question straight away, Amandine (in line 4) bursts in “hysterical laughter” (see Drew and Holt, 1988) and then answers the question. Her behaviour can be explained as if an interviewer told her that she won the jackpot, she did not believe and asked confirmation (to make sure that she understood it correctly) and when her suppositions were confirmed she could not hide her happiness.

Extract 8: (Moran Mazon, Israel) [0:58 – 1.21]
The last extract is an interview between Israelian singer Moran and an interlocutor who asking her about her shoes. 1. Interviewer: What kind of shoes you will be wearing? 2. Moran: shoes? Comfortable ones? 3. Interviewer: What kind of shoes are you wearing now? 4. Moran: now? Comfortable 5. Interviewer: can we see them? 6. Moran: yes of course (showing her shoes) 7. Interviewer: and that is comfortable? 8. Moran: wha:t? 9. Interviewer: that’s comfortable? 10. Moran yeas, it’s very comfortable 11. (02) 12. comparing to high heels.

Interviewer (in line 1) poses a question asking what kind of shoes Moran will be wearing (I assume at the finals)? In line 2 she replies that she will be wearing “comfortable shoes”. Then (in line 3) an interlocutor asks “what kind of shoes are you wearing now” and once again (in line 4) Moran replies “comfortable”. A simple request to show her shoes initiated open class repair with ‘what’; however but before that point the form of an “insertion sequence”(Sacks, 1992b: 528; Schegloff, 1972) was constituted by turns in lines 1 to 10.
All in all, some of the different initiators of open-class repair do occur in the data; an overall number of 7 instances were used for this analysis are as follows: there were 3 cases of ‘what’, 2 cases of ‘pardon, and singular cases of ‘hows’ and ‘who’. Despite the difference of regularity and occurrences of open-class repair devices, there were not many differences in terms of their technical use and emergence in repair sequence.

5. Discussion
In the previous section, I have been evolving a chronological analysis of the use of ‘open’ class repair, in particularly elaborating what happens before the repair and what happens straight after the repair in ELF interactions alongside with the titles of the most common studies (by Drew, 1997; Schegloff, 1977; 1982; 1992; 2000; Firth, 1996, Gafaranga, 2000 and others) used upon the repair sequences in conversation. Before starting the discussion about the main findings I would like to recap the main points discussed in the literature review section:
Schegloff (1977) argued that repair occurrence initiation follows straight after the trouble source turn. Moreover, he also acknowledged that in most cases participants attempt to repair the ‘trouble source’ by initiating self-repair, which is preferable in comparison with the other-repair. This was disputed by Wong (2000) who argued that in terms of ELF speakers the phenomenon of repair is usually postponed. In other words, ELF speakers either delay an initiation of repair in comparison with ‘native speakers’ or ‘let this repair pass” (Firth, 1996).

Next, Coupland et al. (1991) claimed the fact that people from different cultural backgrounds do not share the same “linguistic and inferential competences” (ibid: 81) might initiate repair. This however was disputed by Firth (1996: 244) who asserts that regardless cultural background and linguistic abilities people although missing the point of the conversation tend to behave as if they understood or they ‘let it pass’ in ELF interactions.

Further on, a number of papers by Schegloff (1973, 1977, 1979, 1987, 1990, 1992) and his colleagues also suggested that regardless cultural background and linguistic competence any reference to an object (person, thought, thing and others) could be an object of conversation but “not necessarily a topic” (Schegloff 1977: 1340) consequently, it could be a factor of other initiated repair.
Lastly, Drew (1997) revealed two settings that are often utilized when open class repair occurs. The first one happens when a repairable turn does not occur with its prior turn; thus it seems to be normal that the recipient is disconnected from the logic of conversation. The second form occurs in the environment where turn is taking place clearly and rationally connected with its prior turn.
In this paper however, I have explored the repair management initiation through ‘open-class repair’ devices (such as what, sorry, pardon and others) which served as an instrument to resolve troubles in interactions. I have also attempted to investigate the sequences prior to and after occurrence of ‘open-class repair’ identifying what happened before the repair and straight after the repair in ELF interactions.
This research acknowledges Schegloff’s (1997) theory that repair occurrence initiation follows straight after the trouble source turn. His theory that participants often try to repair the ‘trouble source’ by initiating ‘self-repair’, which is more preferable in comparison with the ‘other-repair’, seems to be working in general conversation interactions; even though an instances of open-class repair occurrence in ELF interactions ‘cautiously’ should be taken into an account.
The main point that this research reveals is that in instances of open-class repair, a notion of ‘letting it pass’ (Firth, 1996: 244) would work similarly as for L1 speakers, but in case of open-class repair interactions, this notion is not an option. Instead, the contrary concept ‘not letting it pass’ which reflects that interactional miscommunication cannot be ignored and avoided within CA studies; therefore, a clarification of what has been said is essential for this type of repair. 6. Conclusion
To sum up, this paper has conducted a conversational analysis with the focus on open-class repair in ELF interactions. The findings of this paper suggest that in ELF interactions the notion of ‘open-class repair’ must be justified by giving it enough credit. This is because in many cases it is very difficult to address troubles by ‘open-class repair’ initiators, as the source is not usually found in prior sequence. Hence, the notion ‘not letting it pass’ cannot be disregarded as the clarification of what has been said is essential for this type of repair.
All in all, the devices of ‘open-class repair’ have one purpose in language interactions that is: to clarify what is being said in order to avoid misunderstanding in interactions.
I would like to point out that due to limitations of time and word count I may not able to integrate sufficient amount of data and the main conclusions of this paper might not be accurate or be too limited. Therefore, I strongly suggest that further developing of the title question within unlimited time and scope would definitely benefit the whole field of Cross-Cultural Communications.

7. Reference List
Brown, Gillian and George Yule, (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Blakemore, 1988
Coupland, Nikolas, Howard Giles and John M. Wiemann, eds., (1991). 'Miscommunication' and problematic talk. London: Sage.

Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind, 3d edition, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
Drew, Paul and Elizabeth Holt, (1988). Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.complaints. Social Problems 35:398-417 Falk, J. (1979). ‘The duet as a conversational process’. Princeton, USA. Princeton University unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Firth, A. (1996). ‘The Discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis’. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.

Gafaranga, J. (1999). Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organisation. Text: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 19, 201–226.

Gafaranga, J. (2000). Medium repair versus other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 65–84.

Gafaranga, J. (2011). Transition space medium repair: Language choice talked into being. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 118–135.

Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M. C. (2001). Language versus medium in the study of bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6, 1–22

Guperz, John J., (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, J. (1970). "Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence." In Recent Sociology, no. 2, edited by H. P. Dreitzel. New York: Macmillan.
Have, P (2007) Doing Conversation Analysis: A practical guide. 2 Ed. United States
Hofstede, H. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: comparing values, behaviours, intructions and organisations across nations, London: Sage Publications.
Jefferson, Gail, (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2: 181-199.
Jefferson, Gail, (1980). The analysis of conversations in which 'troubles' and 'anxieties' are expressed.
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R (2008). Conversation Analysis (2nd edn). Cambridge: Polity Press, xii + 260 pp.
Levinson, S.C., (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mead, G. H. (1968). Philosophy of the Act, edited by C. W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Moerman, Michael, (1977). The preference for self-correction in a Thai conversational corpus. Language 53: 872-882

Sacks, H. (1972). ‘Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place’. Studies in social interaction, 75-119.
.
Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World, translated by G. Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Sacks, Harvey, (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 volumes). Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduction by E. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A., (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In: T. Givfn, ed., Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, 261-286. New York: Academic Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25: 201-218.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of 'coherence' in talk-in-interaction. In: B. Dorval, ed., Conversational organization and its development, 51-77. Norwood, N J: Ablex.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., (1991). Conversation analysis and social shared cognition. In: L. Resnick, J. Levine and S. Behrend, eds., Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 150-171. Washington

Schegloff, Emanuel A;, (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Jcurnal of Sociology 97:1295-1345.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks, (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation Language 53: 361-382.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks, (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289-327.Valian, Virginia and Roger Wales, 1976. What's what: Talkers help listeners hear and understanding.
Wong, J. (2000). The Token "Yeah" in Nonnative Speaker English Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33/1 :39-67.

Appendix 1 [3:10-3:25]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4LUHqFjoK0 8. Interviewer: Ok, and what gave you the Idea↑ to wr[г1]ite this song↑ 9. Refael: eeerm 10. Interviewer: you know↑ You understand↑ The idea↑ 11. Rafael:eeerm [02] 12. it is very dear for me: [.] and [.] I li:ke↑ them and i:ts my 13. favourite song 14. Interviewer: Ok, super.

Appendix 2 [0:15-0:27] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nePGelK0g5E Interviewer: You live close by so Copenhagen is nice too↑ ↓

6. Emmelie: What↑ 7. Interviewer: You live close by↑ 8. Emmelie: Yeah [01] 9. it is very very close [.] it is just on the other side of the 10. bridge so [02] yeah, it is easy to get here
Appendix 3 [2:22 -2:37] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vny4MDbhby8 8. Interviewer: Do you feel eer in the past you have ever wanted to take part in 9. Eurovision? 10. Cesar: Sorry? 11. Interviewer: Did you ever wanted to take part in Eurovision if they had not 12. asked you? 13. Cesar: eeerm, no! I have to tell that I-I-I-I never th. think to coming to Eurovision.

Appendix 1 [3:10-3:25]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4LUHqFjoK0

15. Interviewer: Ok, and what gave you the Idea↑ to wr(г1)ite this song↑ 16. Refael: eeerm 17. Interviewer: you know↑ You understand↑ The idea↑ 18. Rafael:eeerm (02) 19. it is very dear for me: (.) and (.) I li:ke↑ them and i:ts my 20. favourite song 21. Interviewer: Ok, super.

Appendix 2 [0:15-0:27] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nePGelK0g5E 11. Interviewer: you live close by Copenhagen is it nice too↑ 12. Emmelie: wha:t↑ 13. Interviewer: you live close by↑ 14. Emmelie: ye::ah↑↓ 15. (01)
6. it is very very close (.) it is just on the other side of the bridge so::↓ 7. (02) 8. yeah ↑ (.) it is ea:sy to get here↓

Appendix 3 [2:22 -2:37] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vny4MDbhby8 14. Interviewer: Do you feel↑ eer in the past you have ever wanted to take part in 15. Eurovision↑ 16. Cezar: Sorry↑ 17. Interviewer: Did you ever wanted to take pa:rt in Eurovision (.)if they (.) had not 18. asked you↑ 19. Cezar: eeerm, no! I have to tell that I-I-I-I never I nethe-th. tthink to to coming 20. to Eurovision.

Appendix 4 [ 1:21-1:39] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dn8Bgoi7sA 11. Interviewer: how↑ was it for you on the first stage today↑ 12. Gaia: [sorry] ↑ 13. Interviewer: [sorry, I-I will phrase 14. that again. how was the::y the first time on the stage today for 15. you↑ 16. Gaia: mm, I have, I had never sang on the big stage like that so:: ↓ 17. (02) 18. I wassa: (.) nervous↑ 19. (01) 20. a::nd (.) but then I did the performance good.

Appendix 5 [0:45-1:01] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-79DGqmj-YI 7. Interviewer: How the rehearsal-rehearsals been ↑ 8. Participant: Hows ↑ 9. Interviewer: How the rehearsals bee:n ↑ 10. Participant: Go::d↓ (.) erm (.) we felt really really at ho:me(.) erm (.)so:: 11. (02) 12. it is amazing, no↑ to be in the state it is like a dream (.)for us

Appendix 6 [0:22-0:35] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ZUZPhiS78 Extract 6: Birgit (Estonia) [0:22-0:35] 6. Interviewer: are you going to meet a mayor of Malmo inside the building↑ 7. Birgit: who↑ 8. Interviewer: the mayor of Malmo, he is from Estonia↑ 9. Birgit: yes, we know… actually but we we don’t know↑ yet (.)I I hope, 10. we going to meet meet him, yeah

Appendix 7 [0:22-0:35] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwkdR1yMbg 7. Interviewer: Is France ready to host Eurovision next year↑ 8. Amandine: (01) 9. what↑ 10. Interviewer: Is France ready to host Eurovision next year↑ 11. Amandine: eerm (.) I don’t kno:w (laughter) 12. (2) 13. I dont kno:w I would love↑ that, you kno::w↓, it would be a 14. great chance, yeah

Appendix 8 [0:58-1:21] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsB81IBVT8Y The last extract is an interview between Israelian singer Moran and an interlocutor who asking her about her shoes. 13. Interviewer: What kind of shoes you will be wearing↑ 14. Moran: shoes↑ Comfortable ones? 15. Interviewer: What kind of shoes are you wearing now↑ 16. Moran: now↑ Comfortable 17. Interviewer: can we see: them↑ 18. Moran: yes of course (showing her shoes) 19. Interviewer: and that is comfortable↑ 20. Moran: wha:t↑ 21. Interviewer: that’s comfortable↑ 22. Moran yeah↑, it’s ve:ry comfortable 23. (02) 24. comparing to high heels.