TY - JOUR
AU - Buttny,, Richard
AB - Abstract During a contentious public hearing on a zoning change for Wal-Mart, participants at times moved to a metadiscursive level with utterances such as, “expect to be listened to,”“I have a question,” or reading quotes of Town Board members from the newspaper. Such metadiscursive references allow participants to attempt to structure or depart from the public hearing format. Metadiscursive references also work to criticize their opponents' speech or the process. Metadiscourse has the consequence of contextualizing the participation framework of the hearing as to topic, length of presentation, and mode of interaction. From a normative perspective, metadiscourse is used to reflect on the folk assumptions about communication as expressed by participants during the public hearing. When we as concerned taxpayers stand here in these public hearings … we sure expect to be listened to and not put into a folder for others to be reviewed at somebody's leisure. From a resident's presentation at a public hearing Public hearings offer an intriguing site to hear the different voices from the local community. Hearings can be especially interesting when there are contentious issues at stake which mobilize residents to turn out, as in the present case of the controversy over the construction of a Wal-Mart. But the public hearing format involves certain assumptions about communication which may seem naive or unrealistic in practice—“seeing language as innocent” (Coupland & Jaworski, 2004). For instance, a resident expresses doubts about whether board members are listening (see epigram). In problematizing listening, the speaker implicitly moves to hold board members accountable. Talking about listening involves the reflexive capacity to evaluate aspects of the communication process. This practice of talk about communication moves to a metalevel, so-called “metadiscourse” (Craig, 2005, 2008). In this study of a public hearing, participants speak about any number of matters—zoning change, Wal-Mart, their experiences, but at times they talk about some feature of the discourse itself. This practice of moving to a metadiscursive level works to evaluate action and potentially implicate social accountability (Buttny, 1993). In this study we examine participants' uses of metadiscourse during a public hearing and how participants notice and evaluate aspects of their own or others' communication. Citizen participation at public hearings Although research on public participation is relatively new (Dietz & Stern, 2008), there is a literature on the difficulties ordinary citizens face in participating in public forums. For instance, citizens are said to have lost trust in governmental institutions and decision-making bodies such that they are often alienated from the process (Belsten, 1996; Boholm, 2008; Checkoway & Van Til, 1978; Chess & Purcell, 1999; Douglas, 1992; Petts, 1999; Webler & Renn, 1995). Public hearings are commonly held late in the decision-making process, so public impact will likely be minimal. Legitimacy of the process becomes questioned when the governmental agency defines the scope of the problem in ways significantly different from how citizens define the scope of the problem (Dietz & Stern, 2008, p. 231). There is a sense that the decision has already been made by the municipal body and that the public hearing is a mere formality, a way to satisfy minimum legal requirements or let the opposition let off steam—public participation as therapeutic (Checkoway, 1981; Tracy & Dimock, 2004; Webler & Renn, 1995). So citizens approach such gatherings with apathy or frustration (McComas, 2001, 2003) and the process becomes adversarial rather than deliberative (Gastil, 2007). Public hearings are considered to be a “safe” method for keeping control of the process and diffusing public opposition (Checkoway & Van Til, 1978). There is said to be a “democratic dilemma” in structuring public participation between genuine open discussion and efficiency of keeping the meeting under control (Bora & Hausendarf, 2006; Llewellyn, 2005; Tracy, 2007). Public hearings are seen as tilted toward those with economic stakes in the outcome—those who can mobilize resources to promote their interests (Renn, 1992). Experts may be drawn on as consultants but often speak in highly technical ways or ignore the vernacular discourse of the local residents (Roth et al., 2004). These different ways of speaking can create a divide between experts and the lay citizenry such that expert discourse is given precedence over the folk logic of the public (Beck, 1992; Fischer, 2000). The scope of discussion is often set up to exclude social issues or concerns of the local residents (Buttny, 2009). Public forums often become polarized as conflicting sides express their opposing viewpoints, report contrary evidence, criticize others, and engage in ongoing debates (Boholm, 2008). Even to refer to “the public” may be a misnomer; a better descriptive term would be the “factions” or “special interest groups” (Tracy & Dimock, 2004). Citizens may use hearings to express outrage through emotional outbursts and attempt to embarrass their opponents (Webler & Renn, 1995). Llewellyn (2005) found that heckling at public meetings allowed audience members to circumvent institutional rules and immediately address points of disagreement, but without a “descent into chaos” (p. 703). Despite this expression of frustration and anger, most participants engage in “reasonable hostility” (Tracy, 2007). Expressions of disagreement and criticism energized the discussion rather than tearing apart the fabric of the public gathering (Olson & Goodnight, 2004). In terms of a normative model for public participation, Webler (1995) suggests the goals of fairness and competence (also see Petts, 1999). “Fairness” involves giving participants the opportunity to actually influence decision makers—to be part of the process—what Petts calls the “decision-enhancing function of participation” (p. 171). “Competence” involves providing participants with the necessary knowledge and technical information to make an informed decision. Guttman (2007) adds to the normative model that the process be deliberative rather than mere argumentation and there be sufficient time allocated. There has been little research on the evaluation of public participation at public meetings and hearings (Petts, 1999). Kim and Kim (2008) call for the empirical study of political talk especially with regard to the quality of opinions. Much has been written on “the ideology of participation” but little describing the actual practices of participation (Checkoway & Van Til, 1978, p. 35), and even less empirical research on the discursive practices when citizens speak out in public and engage in what has been called “local” or “ordinary democracy” (Llewellyn, 2005; Tracy, 2007). Metadiscourse In light of the above review that participation during public forums is frequently fraught with problems or dilemmas, one move public speakers sometimes make is to refer to the language or the communication process itself. That is, to talk about the talk that comprises the meeting in order to draw attention to something problematic about it. Most of the time participants speak about content issues using an object language, for example, zoning, risk, Wal-Mart, and so forth. But at times participants use language to address the discourse itself in order to comment on it. This self-reflexive practice has been variously labeled “metadiscourse” (Craig, 2005, 2008), “metacommunication” (Bateson, 1972), “meta-talk” (Schiffrin, 1980), “metalanguage” (Lucy, 1993), “metapragmatics” (Verschueren, 1999), or simply “going meta” (Simons, 1994). Different observers have noticed different aspects of this self-reflective capacity of discourse to refer to itself. For instance, Bateson (1972) distinguishes the “meta-linguistic,” where the subject of discourse is language (e.g., “That's an odd way of putting it”) from “metacommunication,” where the subject of discourse is the relationship between interlocutors (e.g., “This is play”). Schiffrin (1980) points out “meta-linguistic verbs” that reference the actions performed through speaking, for example, “say,”“ask,” and “joke.”Blum-Kulka (1997) examines “meta-pragmatic discourse” and how it functions for the management of discourse in turn taking, for example, “Are you listening?” or violations of conversational norms, such as speaking too long. Craig (2005) suggests that communication scholars may be able to make contributions to practical problems by addressing and critiquing the metadiscourse of different speech communities. All these distinctions may be classified under the rubric of “metadiscourse.”“Metadiscourse” may be characterized as “the pragmatic use of language to comment reflexively on discourse itself” (Craig, 2008). Metadiscourse is a pervasive feature of talk and social interaction (Lucy, 1993) in that speakers have the language awareness to comment on features of their own or others' discourse. For our purposes in this study of the public hearing, we will focus on participants' use of metadiscourse to invoke some potentially problematic feature of communication. Quite simply, speakers talk about discourse when there is some actual or potential trouble at hand. Participants pragmatically move to call those actions to account. So we will examine the connection between metadiscourse, evaluation, and social accountability. Background and data The data for this study come from a public hearing before the Town Board of Cortlandville, New York held on February 7, 2007. This hearing was called to solicit public input on a proposed zoning change—a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Wal-Mart. There is already a Wal-Mart in Cortlandville but Wal-Mart wants to expand by building a Super Center on the outskirts of town along the strip development and main traffic corridor. Wal-Mart, of course, has been at the center of numerous controversies in recent years (Brunn, 2006; Fishman, 2006; Halebsky, 2006; Head, 2004; Porter & Mirsky, 2003); what is unique to this controversy is that the Wal-Mart would be built on an open field above the Town's aquifer. Much on the opposition to Wal-Mart has centered on the environmental risk to the aquifer from contamination from ground-water runoff (Buttny, 2009; Buttny & Cohen, 2007). Other criticisms made of the proposal involve the threat to jobs and local businesses, sprawl, increased traffic, and changing the small-town character of the community. Proponents of the Wal-Mart cite lower prices, convenience, and the creation of new jobs. As a member of the local environmental group, Citizens for Aquifer Protection and the Economy (CAPE), I attended and participated in many of the Town Board's meetings and hearings on this controversy. However, I could not be present for this hearing because of a prior commitment. The following day I heard accounts from fellow CAPE members that this hearing was very volatile and confrontational. This conflict has been ongoing for over 4 years and the community is deeply divided over it as witnessed at prior public hearings and in letters to the local newspaper. The controversy is coming to a head in that this hearing was one of the last steps before the Town Board makes their decision on the zoning change. The Town Board supervisor ran the hearing. After giving the audience instructions as to the focus of the hearing, he calls upon the Wal-Mart representatives (attorney and civil engineer) to explain their site-plan proposal for the PUD and how they address the Town Board's nine concerns raised at a prior meeting. Once the Wal-Mart presentation is completed, the supervisor calls the citizens' names in the order they have signed up and each speaker comes to the podium in front of the room to make their presentation. On completion of the citizen presentation there is typically some applause from the audience and the speaker returns to their seat while the supervisor calls out the name of the next speaker. Twenty-five residents spoke before the assembled group at the hearing. The median length of presentation was 3 minutes and 6 seconds; the lengthiest speech was 9 minutes and 54 seconds and the briefest, 13 seconds. The public hearing lasted 2 hours and 26 minutes. The Town Board routinely records their meetings and hearings and often airs the tapes on public-access television. This videotape recording was used to make transcripts of the public hearing using a modified Jefferson format (Appendix). Analytic perspective Our perspective in studying public hearings is discursive constructionism (Buttny, 2004). We are interested in the speaking practices used by the participants and the discursive realities that are claimed, contested, or jointly constructed about Wal-Mart and related matters. As an ideal, public hearings offer ordinary citizens a forum to have their voices heard before a municipal body in a deliberative process of decision making. In practice, as seen from the literature review, public hearings often do not operate in this way. Here we look at public hearings, not as an idealized democratic form, but as a communication event realized through participants' discursive practices. In this study we are interested in the speaker's practices of moving to a metadiscursive level to reference some aspect of communication. Participants use metadiscourse to discuss process and to identify, or anticipate, something problematic about it. Talking about some aspect of communication is a way to hold others accountable, for example, the Town Board not listening (epigram). Using metadiscourse allows one to position others and position oneself in discursively constructing events. We are interested not only in the content of the problem, but also in how problems get interactionally constructed. As data we select the most explicit references to discourse. We examine how participants use metadiscourse to organize and evaluate their own or others' communicative actions during the hearing. Using metadiscourse during public hearing to invoke accountability At the beginning of the public hearing the Town Board supervisor asks the town clerk to read the public notice. Then the supervisor sketches out the official focus of the hearing; he lays out what topics should and should not be discussed. 1. (PUD: 2. Note: “Sup” is the Town Board supervisor) Sup: just a- a couple of ah (.) more housekeeping here ah? this is a public hearing: on a zonechange: (0.6) from an industrial zo:ne to a PUD (2.0) your comments §need to be on why: that is§ or is not a good idea, (1.1) comments about whether you like- Wal-Mart or you dislike Wal-Mart is =very very nice< but it's not relative (.) or relevant, to this evening, ↑this public hearing is strictly on whether the zoning should change: from its current status as ↑industrial to a PUD, and we would ask you to please: there's a lot of people who wish to speak so if you would keep your remarks brief and to the point we would appreciate that (1.3) an:d as the evening goes on: if somebody else has already said the same comments you’ve ↑said, please don't be repetitive it's gonna be a long evening as it is, osoo if somebody else has already made the statement it's not necessary for you make it we’ve heard it the first time (0.6) okay? In giving instructions to the audience about what is and is not “relevant” to this public hearing, the supervisor contrasts comments on a change in zoning to comments on one's like or dislike of Wal-Mart. This metadiscursive term used here, “comments,” is interesting as a descriptive term of the public's participation; it is at once neutral-sounding but also hearably diminishing in scope. The proposed change in zoning is the official issue of the hearing, whereas the latter—Wal-Mart—has been brought up repeatedly and vociferously by residents at prior hearings (Buttny & Cohen, 2007; Cohen & Buttny, 2008). Given that the zoning change to a PUD involves Wal-Mart, we will see as the hearing goes on that distinguishing talk about zoning change from talk about Wal-Mart is difficult for many participants to separate in practice. Another direction from the supervisor here involves the request to make citizen comments “brief” and not repetitive as the supervisor explains there are a number of people signed up to speak, so in the interests of time he requests brevity and nonrepetition of speech (lines 7–12). But these instructions also can present difficulties for citizens who want to be effective or influential in their presentation. It may be difficult to give a brief argument or rationale for a position. Public opinion is seen as reflected in a plurality of shared views, so repetition is a way for participants to display strong public opinion at the hearing. Turning now to the ordinary citizens' speeches, after the eighth speaker finishes, during a transition between speakers, we get the following reaction from an audience member and ensuing exchange: 2. (PUD: 21. “Aud Mem” is an audience member, “Aud” is the audience, and “Sp8” is the eighth speaker) ((audience applause for prior speaker Sp8)) Aud Mem: You have asked two times ( ) to have people just stick to the PUD designation? I'm- I'm sorry I would say this no matter what side you’re side on ( ) you’re on my side or the other side, =↑this was an exceedingly long speech< is there any way? ↓because we’re going to be here until one in the morning, ↑could you- would you be willing to remove people if they don't speak directly to the[PUD issue? Aud: [XXXX[XXXXX Sp8: [I would just like to mention that I have come to each and every meeting and made my voice heard, tonight is ↑my night so ↓my voice is going to be heard= Aud: = XXXX[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sp8: [I'm the average citizen ( ) Sup: And I- I do appreciate ↑it and- but I- I will again say:: if you would please keep your comments to whether or not the process should be zoned industrial as it currently is? or whether we should change the zoning to a PUD. During the change of speakers, an audience member speaks out using a number of metadiscursive references. She criticizes the prior speech as “exceedingly long” and referencing the supervisor's own instructions to the audience to limit discussion to the zoning—which she notes he had requested twice. She further supports her criticism by reason of the hearing lasting “until one in the morning.” Finally she proposes that the supervisor remove speakers who do not follow the instructions of staying on topic which receives some applause (lines 1–6). She is the first audience member to speak out and criticize another's speech for being off topic and too long. So it is not just the supervisor who openly evaluates the appropriateness of participants' discourse. The audience member attempts to hold the supervisor accountable to his own instructions. Before the supervisor can respond the prior speaker replies by justifying her presentation. Instead of the audience member's formulation, “exceedingly long speech,” the speaker avows “my voice is going to be heard,” which receives a burst of applause (lines 10–11). She further justifies her presentation by claiming to have come to every meeting and that she is “the average citizen.” This criticism–justification exchange between participants is a momentary departure from the routine public hearing format. The supervisor intercedes and reiterates his injunction to participants to just address the zoning change. The supervisor begins his assessment by expressing appreciation to the speaker, although in a seemingly formulaic manner (line 13). Given that his instructions are hearable as an implicit criticism of the prior speaker, he begins with an appreciation. Compare his statement here (lines 13–15) to an earlier critique he made of the second speaker: 3. (PUD: 16) Sup: I appreciate comments of that nature but (.) please if you can keep your comments to ↑ why this zoning should be cha:nged… The supervisor's formulation, “comments of that nature,” is a reference to the speaker's talk about Wal-Mart. In these two assessments, the supervisor's discourse uses the format: [appreciation] “but” [instructions]. Even in his opening instructions about avoiding discussion of Wal-Mart, he expresses appreciation for citizen views, “comments about whether you like- Wal-Mart or you dislike Wal-Mart is =very very nice< but…” (excerpt 1, lines 3–5). After expressing appreciation, the supervisor moves to the official focus of the hearing. The supervisor marks his directions as repeated, “I will again say::.” (line 13). Repeating a direction, of course, is a way to intensify it or display frustration at others' failure to follow it. Notice too that he refrains en passant from adopting, or even addressing, the audience member's suggestion to “remove people” if they stray off topic. The supervisor tries to keep the public hearing on track through metadiscursive reference to the zoning topic and by critically assessing speakers who talk about Wal-Mart. Interestingly, the audience also enters into this metadiscourse through applause and even explicit verbal evaluations. How the public hearing proceeds is a mutual accomplishment among the supervisor, speakers, board members, and the audience. The metadiscourse serves to hold speakers accountable as to topic and length of presentation. Although this public hearing is a specialized form of institutional talk (Drew & Heritage, 1992), it is a soft-shelled variety; it does not impose the constraints, say, of a judicial proceeding. The supervisor does not cut speakers off, but rather reminds them after their speech of the format's official focus. Citizen attempts to engage the town board One of the difficulties with the public hearing format is the lack of dialogue or exchange among residents and Town Board members. A resident may get an opportunity to express an opinion and give reasons, but typically there is no response from board members. A way some participants attempt to deal with the difficulties of this participation framework is to challenge the Town Board to see where they stand. Engaging board members through public discussion can work as a way to hold them accountable. For instance, in the following we see the 14th speaker asking the board members a question about taxes. 4. (PUD: 33) Sp14: … I would like to as:k (.) the Town Board members ↑I have a question everybody also had statements I have a question and I'm hoping to get an answer (1.0) can you te- can you please tell me: if our property taxes <will be reduced when considering the large tax grant to Wal-Mart?= (0.8) thank you (1.0) I'l[l sit and wait for your response. Aud: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (3.1) Sup: Ya know it's- (0.8) we’re not supposed to answer questions but (0.7) the Final Environmental Impact Statement states that they will not (1.6) will NOT (0.9) make any request for any tax abatements at all in Cortlandville Aud: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The speaker here identifies her talk as a “question” in contrast to a “statement” as everyone else has made. Such metadiscursive reference to asking a question and “hoping to get an answer” displays her recognition of departing from the standard public hearing format. At the very beginning of the citizen comment section the supervisor had instructed the audience: 5. (PUD: 13) Sup: It's not a Q and A session it's a public hear↑ing please make your presentation and we’ll be glad ta (0.7) hear. So the speaker's metadiscursive identification of her forthcoming talk as “a question” shows her movement to a potentially delicate issue. The speaker's question can be heard not only as seeking information, but also as critical or blame implicative (lines 2–4). Embedded within the question is the explicit assumption of “the large tax grant to Wal-Mart.” Giving Wal-Mart—the largest corporation in the world—a tax break will preclude reducing residents' taxes. After her critical question, the speaker indicates that she will sit down and wait for an answer to her question as the audience applauds (lines 5–6). The supervisor responds by citing the proscription against answering questions, but given this disclaimer, he proceeds to address the question. The supervisor avoids any explicit mention of Wal-Mart by referring to them with the indexical “they.” He cites “the Final Environmental Impact Statement” rather than what Wal-Mart has agreed to. He repeats emphatically “that they will not (1.6) will NOT” ask for tax breaks (lines 8–10). Furthermore, he gives emphasis through an extreme case formulation (Pomerantz, 1986), “any request for any tax abatements at all.” This formulation is in marked contrast to the speaker's version, “large tax grant to Wal-Mart.” The supervisor's answer in contradicting the questioner's assumption also receives applause. So we see a divided audience in that there was considerable applause for these competing positions over the zoning and Wal-Mart (lines 6 and 11). It is interesting that this speaker is able to move the supervisor to depart from the public hearing format and addresses the question. Questions implicate a reply lest the question remains unanswered. In addition, avowing that she will sit and wait for an answer, combined with audience applause, intensifies the necessity for a response. The hot-button issue of a tax break for Wal-Mart further underscores the need for an answer. A short while later the 19th speaker also asks a question and metadiscursively states that this question has already been asked but has not been answered. Repeating a question and identifying it as unanswered heightens the demand for a response. 6. (PUD: 37-9. Note: “BMR” is board member R) Sp.19: ah can you as- (.) as eh board members (.) tell us that (0.6) with the Wal-Mart relocation you’ll have a reduced property tax in the future, (1.6) this question was already asked once (.) it wasn't answered (1.5) I'm asking it again. BMR: Are you ask- are you talking about the combination of the county:: the Tow[n: the fire: Sp19: [=Absolutely< ((skip three lines)) Sp19: ↑I'm asking you (1.2) if there's a tax benefit =if you believe that there's a tax benefit< to the relocation of Wal-Mart (0.8) then can you tell me that (0.8) these- any of those three taxes will be reduced in the coming years as a result of the Wal-Mart relocation (0.9) that's the question (1.3) will our taxes be reduced in the- in the future, (.) because of the Wal-Mart relocation? =can you- can you say< yes or ↑no or do you (deci-) (1.5) would you like to not answer that? (2.1) Aud: hh[hh BMR: [I do↑n't know. ((skip 6 lines)) Sp19: No that's- you’re telling me you don't know (.) so you don't know there's a significant tax (.) benefit to the Wal- the Wal-Mart relocation (3.1) If you don't know then you can't tell me (1.6) there's no tax benefit if- if you don't know if there's a tax benefit if you don't know? (.) right? (5.4) Sup: Are- are you in favor of the PUD or opposed Aud: Hh[hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sp19: [I'm opposed- I'm absolutely opposed to it for the following reason… In response to the speaker's question, town board member R replies without any disclaimer or marker of departing from the standard format (lines 4–5). R replies by seeking clarification of which taxes, thereby displaying knowledge of the different sorts of taxes. This leads the speaker to restate a more elaborated version of the question (lines 10–14). He begins with the metadiscursive reference to his speech action, “↑I'm asking you” (line 10), and then after the restatement he appends “that's the question” (line 13). Not receiving an immediate reply, he asks the question again and metadiscursively refers to candidate answers: yes or no or not answer that (lines 14–15). After a 2.1 second silence and brief laughter by an audience member, board member R responds with, “I do↑n't know” (lines 16–18) seemingly resisting the speaker's promptings (Beach & Metzger, 1997). The speaker metadiscursively takes R's own words as free indirect speech, “you don't know” (line 25). This locution, “you don't know,” gets repeated four more times in a Socratic-like performance in which the speaker attempts to get R to concede that he knows there is no tax benefit to the Wal-Mart relocation (lines 25–29). Following a 3.1 second gap, hearable as R's lack of response, the speaker rephrases his assertion with a terminal rising intonation and adds the tag question, “right?” (lines 28–29). This again results in a noticeable gap this time of 5.4 seconds (line 30). Such silences, of course, are inference rich. One hearing is that the board member does not want to agree with the speaker's assertion but lacks a counter to it, therefore he does not reply. At this point during the second noticeable silence the supervisor intervenes but does not address the speaker's question. Instead he asks the speaker about his opinion on the PUD (line 31) thereby attempting to shift the ground back to a straight public hearing and simultaneously rescuing board member R. This shifting of grounds by the supervisor is immediately supported by the audience with laughter which then turns to applause. What is interesting here as to who gets to ask what question and how such questioning sequences unfold. The supervisor in this hearing serves as a kind of moderator of the participants. Although we have seen him giving directives as to topic and format, he does not enforce these strictly and allows for some divergence. As the 19th speaker continues he shifts back to questioning the Town Board. Again he uses a metadiscursive reference of his “question.” 7. (PUD: 37-9) ((skip 17 lines)) Sp19: now =my question to you< do you have any demographic data does the Board have any demographic data (.) that supports that statement (2.3) BMR: We didn't make that statement. Sp19: I know you didn't ↑but (I'm) in- in[ reviewing that statement, you have to = Aud: [h h h hhh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h Sp19: = make a decision based on the arguments that are being presented to you (0.8) do you have any demographic data that supports the allegation that we have a shortage of grocery stores in [Cortland BMR: [No but- (4.2) Sup: This is not a question and answer, we’re here to lis[ten to ↑you. Sp19: [=Okay okay< I'm sorry ah: (.) but that question will be asked (0.5) either now (.) or later (.) the question about the economic analysis terms of taxes §if there is§ an assertion being made there are tax benefits to the relocation of Wal-Mart then that is eventually going to have to be sub↑stantiated (.) so: you can either (.) either do an economic analysis now: or do one later. Here the speaker poses another question to the Town Board and member R responds by denying they made that statement which leads the speaker to explain the rationale for the question. R begins to reply but cuts himself off, “No but-.” This results in a gap of 4.2 seconds before the supervisor again intervenes with a metadiscursive assertion about the public hearing format (lines 60–62). The speaker concedes displaying a recognition of departure, “=Okay okay< I'm sorry” (line 63), but then moves to justify his question. He attempts to justify his question by the metadiscursive imperative, “Do it now or do it later.” As he puts it: “that question will be asked (0.5) either now (.) or later” (line 64) and again “you can either (.) either do an economic analysis now: or do one later” (lines 67–68). These different versions of “Do it now or do it later” have a seemingly proverbial or normative character. Also, in shifting to a metadiscourse level to justify this question allows him to resist the supervisor's attempt to shift grounds on him again to the public hearing format. Furthermore, “Do it now or do it later” implies that matters will be left incomplete, important questions will remain to be answered. In this section we have seen residents' attempt to engage the Town Board. Board members responded but are selective in what they choose to respond to. Indeed, board member R, at points, remains silent in the face of repeated questioning until the supervisor intercedes to restore the standard, public hearing format. The supervisor does allow some divergence in the participation framework, but is able to reassert order when needed. Metadiscursive references to “having a question,”“waiting for an answer,” or “Do it now or do it later” create a relevance for a response, least the issue remains opened but unresolved. Quoting town board members to hold them accountable One of the frustrations that citizens face with the public hearing format is the absence of response or uptake from Town Board members. In the previous section we saw two speakers deal with this difficulty by asking board members questions about taxes as a way to engage them. In this section we will see a speaker seeking to engage board members by reading excerpts from newspaper stories in which they are quoted. Reproducing the presumed exact words of board members opens up a space for the speaker to evaluate and respond to what they have said and thereby engage them in a kind of dialogue. 8. (PUD: 27–30) Sp11: I want to- I want to make a few remarks on the process (.) that brought us here tonight and ↑on a number of things that have been said (0.9) by: the Town Board as reported in the Cortland Standard, ((skip 5 lines)) ↑Mister R said he's not concerned about CAPE's objections (1.8) I'm now quoting him (.) some of the questions depending on what they are (.) I'm sure the Planning Board's going to be quite heavily involved in the process if it gets to that point R said Monday, ↑we’re going to get sue:d (0.8) I'm still quoting we’re going to get sued one way or the other, (.)↑so we’re kind of just anticipating that, CAPE has every right to object (.) and Wal-Mart has every right to object (.) I’ll have plenty to say: when it's time to vote on this issue, ↑and until then I will be open minded and objective (1.0) now let me make a few comments on that statement, (1.4) ↑we’re going to get sue:d (1.5) now Mister R knows and the Board knows and Mister F knows that the Board is completely? within its legal rights to say no: to Wal-Mart's PUD application without giving a reason (.) and that they §need not fear§ a suit ((skip 4 lines)) thirdly (.) Mister R says I: will be open minded and objective (1.5) I hope that I'm wrong about Mister R's (0.8) open mindedness and objectivity, (.)↑but on the basis of what he said so far and I’ll have: some other quotes I guess I'm not naïve enough to think that he has not already made up his mind Reading quotes of Town Board members from the newspaper allows the speaker to critically evaluate their claims and position them in unfavorable light. This practice of quoting, or reported speech, allows the reporting speaker to position himself as merely conveying what was said—in Goffman's (1981) terms the reporting speaker is just the “animator” of the board member's words. The source of the quotes being the newspaper suggests that the words quoted are accurate. Drawing on such a source to reproduce another's words is similar to Antaki and Leudar's (2001) study of members of Parliament quoting the exact words of an opponent from the Hansard for their own political ends. On completion of the quote the speaker moves to, as he puts it, “make a few comments on that statement” (lines 17–18). The speaker switches footings from just reporting what was said to assessing what was said. He begins the assessment by quoting again, “↑we’re going to get sue:d” (line 18). He proceeds to frame this assertion as disingenuous in that R “knows” and “Mister F,” their attorney, “knows” that the Town Board can deny the PUD without giving reasons. The implication here being that this claim about getting sued is not only legally inaccurate, but they both know that it is inaccurate, consequently their statements are disingenuous. A moment later the speaker again quotes board member R, “I: will be open minded and objective” (line 26), and then moves to raise doubts about R's claim. In effect the speaker challenges R's metadiscursive avowal of openness as a kind of cynical ploy. In addition, he bases this criticism on R's own words as contained in this and other quotes. In a sense, the speaker attempts to turn R's own words against him and hold him accountable. So in the first assessment the speaker can challenge the getting sued claim by implicit reference to the state code; in this assessment he can challenge R's claim of openness by reference to quotes from R. He comes to completion of this assessment section by raising doubts about R's avowal of being “open minded.” The ability to show a contradiction in another's position through use of their words can be a powerful practice in evaluating their actions. Drawing on board member R's words and then assessing them is done, not solely for R, but in front of the Town Board and audience. The speaker's assessments of this quote are clearly criticisms of R. In ordinary conversation a criticism sequentially implicates a response of some sort from the recipient such as a denial, justification, explanation, and so forth. But the canonical public hearing format does not readily allow for such second-part responses. Instead, upon completion of the speaker's assessment we get various kinds of responses from the audience. 9. (PUD: 27–30, continued from excerpt 8) Sp11: I'm not naïve enough to think that he has not already made up his mind, (3.4) ((Sp11 turning pages while at the podium)) Aud 1: Is this about Mister R or ( ) Aud 2: (Is this about) the PU[D? Aud: [xxx[xx Aud 3: [Yeah are we just doing ad hominems (.) or we actually going to get to the point Aud ?: ( ) (1.5) Sp11: You’re not [hearing me talk ad hominem Aud 4: [( ) nobody interrupted the oth- other side. ((ZZZZZZZZZ audience members briefly overlapping)) Aud 4: LET HIM TALK Sp11: ((adjusting microphone)) (Kevin) how's that? (1.9) ((ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: audience members overlapping for 5.7 seconds)) Aud 1: Mister R should sue him Sup: Let him finish his statement please: ((ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: audience members overlapping for 5.3 seconds)) Aud 4: Point of order ((zzzzzz: audience overlapping for 1.6 seconds)) Sp11: I think you have to let me finish folks, you may not like what you’re hearing (.) and I'm sure the Board doesn't like it but they should hearit. On completion of the third critical comment and as the speaker is turning the pages of his notes during a 3-second pause (lines 30–31), audience members speak out in succession (lines 32–37) challenging the focus of the speaker's remarks. These heckling statements from different audience members fill the space during the pause while the speaker is turning pages. These heckling statements are responsive to the speaker's criticisms of board member R. The responses from the audience members are not about the particulars of the speaker's criticisms of R, but about the focus of the speaker's comments—about Mister R and not about zoning. These audience criticisms of the speaker echo the previous instructions from the supervisor. The hecklers' statements are critical of the speaker such that he defends himself against one of them by denying the use of ad hominem (line 39). Other audience members mount a defense of the speaker's right to the floor (lines 40, 42, and 49). Interesting how this challenge-defense sequence among audience members and speaker moves to a metadiscursive level—about appropriate topic, ad hominem, and the right to the floor as speaker. Again we see this turn to metadiscourse as a way to evaluate action or hold others accountable. Eventually the supervisor intervenes and requests that the audience let the speaker “finish” (line 47). Notice that the supervisor refrains from entering the dispute over topic or ad hominem, but does invoke the speaker's right to the floor. After some audience collective “buzzing” (Llewellyn, 2005) and a call for order, the speaker with microphone addresses the hostile part of the audience by invoking his right to continue (lines 50–51). Notice that he draws on the supervisor's term “finish.” He further justifies his statement by the metadiscursive, contrast structure between the audience and the Board “not liking what (you’re/they’re) hearing” but “they (the Board) should hear it” (lines 50–51). The speaker continues by reading more quotes of board members from the newspaper and commenting on them. Other board members are quoted but most of the quotes are from board member R. Finally R responds to the criticisms. 10. (PUD: 27–30, continued from excerpt 9 and skip 17 lines) Sp11: I'm quoting now Mister R again, §I do think that it's ridiculous§ (.) that this whole thing has taken as long as it does and how expensive as it is, somebody responded in the Cortland Standard to Mister R's comment how long it's going on and told him and I say now if you’re not willing to stick with the process beginning to end you should not have any part in the process. (8.3) ((Sp11 turning pages while at the podium)) BMR: Well I'm going to be here until one-thirty Aud: h h h [h Sp11: [Well I'm almost at the end Don BMR: =Ya know< I object to a number of things you said. Sp11: I'm quoting you Don BMR: You cut me off: =I mean< I- I- it's not that I didn't care about CAPE's ob↑jections, (1.3) it's just that all of CAPE's objections had already been answered. Sp11: I'm just quoting you Don= The speaker reads another excerpt from the newspaper that quotes Town Board members and he critically comments on it (not shown here) and then moves to another quote (lines 69–70). As a way to evaluate this quote the speaker uses indirect speech to summarize a letter to the newspaper which reflects his own view about sticking to the process (71–73). During an 8-second pause while the speaker is turning the pages, board member R speaks out with a sarcastic remark about how long this presentation is taking which echoes the earlier audience member's criticism of being here until one in the morning (excerpt 2). R moves to defend himself by “object(ing)” to much of what has been said. Of course “much of what has been said” are R's own words—which the speaker reminds him of (line 79). But one's “own words” can be heard in different ways. As R explains his statement that was quoted, in effect, parsing his meaning of “car(ing)” about CAPE's (a local environmental group) objections (lines 80–82). He moves to a metadiscourse level to clarify his meaning in that quote. What is implicitly at issue here is R's positioning as a proper Town Board member—as receptive to inputs from different parts of the community. In response to R's objection and explanation, the speaker replies, “I'm (just) quoting you Don” (lines 79 and 83). In effect saying, these are your own words for which you must be held accountable. Discussion This public hearing was probably the most contentious or controversial of the several that have been held over the past 4 years dealing with the zoning change for Wal-Mart. Participants disagreed over substantive matters (Wal-Mart, zoning, the economy, etc.), but they also disagreed through metadiscourse—particularly over how their opponents communicate. Such moves to metadiscourse can be consequential in that they can forestall or open up what can be talked about and how it can be talked about. As the hearing becomes more polarized on the issues, participants seem to more frequently turn to the metadiscursive level to criticize the process or their opponent's speech. Much of the metadiscursive references involve some problematic or potentially problematic action, for instance: not listening, talking about Wal-Mart, an exceedingly long speech, asking or not answering a question, disingenuous statements, the right to the floor and to finish, and not being quoted properly. With few exceptions, these metadiscursive references are about others' problematic actions. A public hearing is a specialized kind of communication context. How public hearings operate in practice is our concern—particularly with how metadiscourse works to order and evaluate the proceedings. Participants use metadiscourse as a practice to instruct, challenge, or depart from a standard public hearing format. The supervisor uses metadiscourse to explain to the audience proper protocol and topics for discussion, for example, not about Wal-Mart, about the PUD. Given these explicit prescriptions and proscriptions for proper speech, we see that these rules have some elasticity. The supervisor generally allows speakers to have their say even when they depart from the above-mentioned rules; only after the speaker is finished does the supervisor reiterate that the focus should be on the zoning change and not on Wal-Mart. Only when there are contentious exchanges between speaker and board member (excerpts 6–7) or among audience members and the speaker (excerpt 9), does the supervisor intervene. The supervisor faces a tension or dilemma between a well-ordered hearing and an open, free-flowing discussion (Llewellyn, 2005). The supervisor uses metadiscourse to intervene and instruct participants on appropriate procedures. This elasticity in practice to the public hearing “rules” contextualizes this setting as less strictly bound to protocol than, say, a courtroom proceeding or the school-board meetings in which participants are allocated 3 minutes to speak (Tracy, 2007). Speakers draw on metadiscourse to challenge or extend the public hearing context, for example, the board not listening, a speaker having a question, or the board not answering. Even audience members' heckling uses metadiscourse to criticize speakers for not adhering to the public hearing guidelines, for example, speaking too long or about Wal-Mart or using ad hominems. So while participants have a taken-for-granted knowledge of a public hearing, this context can be upheld, recreated, extended, or departed from through participants' discourse, especially through their metadiscourse. Metadiscourse can contextualize the proceedings in different directions—as to topic and length, as questions for the board to respond to, or as thinly veiled criticisms. A public hearing is a loosely codified context for citizen input, but participants' metadiscursive practices can attempt to recontextualize the hearing in more dialogic ways (Bakhtin, 1986). The focus of this study has been on participants' actual metadiscursive practices. But given that participants' use of metadiscourse can be heard as an attempt to improve the process through invoking procedural rules or attempting to engage board members, what can we say about the quality of the proceedings? That is, how can this public hearing be evaluated in terms of the normative model of public participation that was mentioned above in the literature review? (Dietz & Stern, 2008; Guttman, 2007; Petts, 1999; Webler, 1995). Starting with the criterion of “fairness”—Can participants actually influence decision makers? We saw one participant explicitly state his suspicion that a decision has already been made by Town Board members (excerpts 8–9, also see epigram). The charge that a decision has been made is not only contrary to the fairness criterion, but also feeds the cynicism among the public. It violates the assumption of “transparency and good-faith communication” with the Town Board (Dietz & Stern, 2008, pp. 232–233). The suspicion that board members have already made their decision undermines the very point of public hearings. It renders public hearings as mere theatrical events, what Boholm (2008) calls a “theatre of dissent.” Public participation becomes reduced to satisfying a legal requirement for the Board. For those on the apparent losing end, the hearing turns into a forum to let off steam and vent (Palmlund, 1992). Some speakers appear to attempt to embarrass their opponents (Webler & Renn, 1995) as we have seen with the question of tax grants for Wal-Mart or newspaper quotes of board members and the charge of being disingenuous. Other speakers display frustration or anger with the process. Although these affect displays may be seen as instances of “reasonable hostility” (Tracy, 2007), we need to see such negative affect as evaluation, as a form of criticism, and an implicit call for accountability. Craig (2005) has called for scholars to examine a speech community's metadiscourse to offer critique or practical recommendations on their assumptions about communication. As a case in point, the implicit communication model of the public expressing viewpoints and the Town Board just listening appears problematic. After such a lengthy process, it seems naive or disingenuous to assume that board members are simply listening, gathering information, or consulting with the community. Another point for communication criticism is the Supervisor's request for speakers to be brief and not to repeat what others have said due to the number of people signed up to speak. But one of the few resources that opponents have is the assertion that public opinion is against the proposal (Renn, 1992). Public opinion is a discursive process; it emerges through discussion and debate, rather than simply from the sum of isolated individual views (Kim & Kim, 2008, p. 61). Hearing an opposing viewpoint just once is easier to dismiss than repeated cumulative statements from the public. In addition, the injunction, “Be brief; don't repeat,” hearably diminishes the importance of citizens' speech. Time, of course, is a constraint; no one wants to be there, as one speaker put it, until “one o’ clock in the morning.” This tension between open discussion and time constraints raises the larger point that probably any procedure implemented to foster better deliberative practices will result in a conflict or a dilemma between desired ends (Guttman, 2007; Tracy, 2007; Tracy & Durfy, 2007). Turning to the criterion of “competence”—Can participants be provided with the necessary technical knowledge to make an informed decision? The board relies on the opening presentation by Wal-Mart's representatives to explain technical matters to the public. In an earlier study, a Wal-Mart's presentation to the community was examined (Buttny, 2009). The public was given approximately 3 months to read the three-volume, Draft Environmental Impact Statement written by Wal-Mart. The community then heard Wal-Mart representatives' oral presentation on technical matters at the beginning of a public hearing. Given the focus of the present study, we cannot address the competence criterion here other than to note the self-interest of the technical experts who give the presentation to the community. From a normative perspective, public hearings do not seem to be a very good format for public deliberation. Given that this hearing is part of an ongoing process of over 4 years, participants have become increasingly polarized as reflected in their argumentation and affect displays (Boholm, 2008). The public hearing format of citizens arguing diverging viewpoints does little toward consensus building or compromise. In their defense, hearings do allow for the performative aspects of citizenship, what Svensson (2008) calls “expressive rationality.” Speaking out in public can reinforce participants' political identity and forge bonds among like-minded citizens. Furthermore, hearings allow “the public to brush up against itself … Even if citizens persist in disagreeing with one another, deliberating together can enlarge citizen perspectives” (Gastil, 2007, p. 200). The function of citizens becoming more aware of differing views is positive, but to characterize these hearings as “deliberating” seems doubtful. At this late stage of the process deliberation may be too much to hope for. But at least a few of the board members offer reasons and justifications implicitly in support of the proposal. Although board members have not explicitly stated their decision, their responses to questions and challenges seem to indicate where they stand. Board members can, of course, be held accountable to the citizenry during the next election cycle. From an environmental perspective this battle may be lost but at least residents and board members became educated on the aquifer and related environmental issues. Given this study's focus on metadiscourse, future research should differentiate the various kinds of metadiscourse and their uses. Future research might examine how political decision makers use metadiscourse to justify their final decision. A limitation of this study is that the data do not inform us on the broader issue of environmental decision making. We saw some participants make ascriptions of the board members' stance or likely decision. Future research should investigate the connections between the quality of public participation and decision making. In addition, Craig's (2005) project of examining the folk assumptions invoked through metadiscourse would be worth pursuing in future research. As we have seen, a public hearing format seems based on faulty assumptions about communication, for example, just listening; be brief; don't repeat what another has said; this is not about Wal-Mart. Any process used in the messy world of local politics and a global giant such as Wal-Mart can be fraught with conflicts and dilemmas between desired goals. Acknowledgments The author thanks Bob Craig, Karen Tracy, and Cynthia Gordon for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Sincere thanks to Kristin Rocco-Petrella for all the help and assistance with gathering the materials for this project. This paper was presented to the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, 2009, and at the International Communication Association Conference, Chicago, 2009. Appendix The transcription system used here is adapted from the Gail Jefferson system. [ Marks overlapping utterances. For example: A: Why don't you come up and see me some[times B:          [I would like to = Marks when there is no interval between adjacent utterances. For example: A: You don't have one this week = B: = No (3.5) Indicates pauses or gaps within or between utterances. Timed to tenths of a second. For example: S: Makes a big difference in what? (1.6) W: Well first things first (.) A short untimed pause or gap within or between utterances. For example: M: I just know (.) I (.) I know I just have a feeling : Colons mark the extension of a sound or syllable it follows. The more colons, the longer the sound stretch. For example: T: You know you are involved in a:: in a: very particular ritual ? Marks a rising intonation. For example: F: I know you’re pissed but? (0.9) I have to do it - Marks an halting abrupt cutoff. For example: B: Just pres- (1.5) uh ↑ Marks a rising shift in intonation. For example: F: In the sp↑ring I'm gonna have my car up here ↓ Marks a falling shift in intonation. For example: F: I understand we’ll- ↓we’ll go another ti:me word Underlining marks a word or passage said with emphasis. For example: F: Oh come on don't be pissed WORD Capital letters indicate that the passage is spoken louder than the surrounding talk. For example: F: you know (.) SHE NEVER WROTE ME LAST YEAR so you know owordo Degree signs mark a passage that is said more quietly than surrounding talk. For example: W: It's too: ear:ly to talk about (.)°this kind of thing° =word< Chevrons marks a passage delivered at a quicker pace than surrounding talk. For example: W: Uhm again back to th- =you know what I said originally I think ya know< just this inability hhh Audible outbreaths including laughter. For example: H: I think the balance between us is (0.5) ah: about right hhhhh .hhh Audible inhalations. For example: S: Like you’re going to go looking for someone else? (1.4) W:.hh §word§ Word or passage uttered with a staccato voice. For example: S: your comments §need to be on why: that is§ or is not a good idea XXX Indicates applause. For example: S14: I'l[l sit and wait for your response. Aud: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ZZZ Marks a buzzing sound from the audience. For example: Sup: Let him finish his statement please: ((ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: audience members overlapping for 5.3 seconds)) Aud 4: Point of order ((zzzzzz: audience overlapping for 1.6 seconds)) () Unsure of what is transcribed. For example: M: (as if I'm sick) ( ) I'm depressed ((word)) Scenic details or description of the context. For example: S: How's your pract- ((clears throat)) how's your practice progressing [ Marks overlapping utterances. For example: A: Why don't you come up and see me some[times B:          [I would like to = Marks when there is no interval between adjacent utterances. For example: A: You don't have one this week = B: = No (3.5) Indicates pauses or gaps within or between utterances. Timed to tenths of a second. For example: S: Makes a big difference in what? (1.6) W: Well first things first (.) A short untimed pause or gap within or between utterances. For example: M: I just know (.) I (.) I know I just have a feeling : Colons mark the extension of a sound or syllable it follows. The more colons, the longer the sound stretch. For example: T: You know you are involved in a:: in a: very particular ritual ? Marks a rising intonation. For example: F: I know you’re pissed but? (0.9) I have to do it - Marks an halting abrupt cutoff. For example: B: Just pres- (1.5) uh ↑ Marks a rising shift in intonation. For example: F: In the sp↑ring I'm gonna have my car up here ↓ Marks a falling shift in intonation. For example: F: I understand we’ll- ↓we’ll go another ti:me word Underlining marks a word or passage said with emphasis. For example: F: Oh come on don't be pissed WORD Capital letters indicate that the passage is spoken louder than the surrounding talk. For example: F: you know (.) SHE NEVER WROTE ME LAST YEAR so you know owordo Degree signs mark a passage that is said more quietly than surrounding talk. For example: W: It's too: ear:ly to talk about (.)°this kind of thing° =word< Chevrons marks a passage delivered at a quicker pace than surrounding talk. For example: W: Uhm again back to th- =you know what I said originally I think ya know< just this inability hhh Audible outbreaths including laughter. For example: H: I think the balance between us is (0.5) ah: about right hhhhh .hhh Audible inhalations. For example: S: Like you’re going to go looking for someone else? (1.4) W:.hh §word§ Word or passage uttered with a staccato voice. For example: S: your comments §need to be on why: that is§ or is not a good idea XXX Indicates applause. For example: S14: I'l[l sit and wait for your response. Aud: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ZZZ Marks a buzzing sound from the audience. For example: Sup: Let him finish his statement please: ((ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: audience members overlapping for 5.3 seconds)) Aud 4: Point of order ((zzzzzz: audience overlapping for 1.6 seconds)) () Unsure of what is transcribed. For example: M: (as if I'm sick) ( ) I'm depressed ((word)) Scenic details or description of the context. For example: S: How's your pract- ((clears throat)) how's your practice progressing Open in new tab [ Marks overlapping utterances. For example: A: Why don't you come up and see me some[times B:          [I would like to = Marks when there is no interval between adjacent utterances. For example: A: You don't have one this week = B: = No (3.5) Indicates pauses or gaps within or between utterances. Timed to tenths of a second. For example: S: Makes a big difference in what? (1.6) W: Well first things first (.) A short untimed pause or gap within or between utterances. For example: M: I just know (.) I (.) I know I just have a feeling : Colons mark the extension of a sound or syllable it follows. The more colons, the longer the sound stretch. For example: T: You know you are involved in a:: in a: very particular ritual ? Marks a rising intonation. For example: F: I know you’re pissed but? (0.9) I have to do it - Marks an halting abrupt cutoff. For example: B: Just pres- (1.5) uh ↑ Marks a rising shift in intonation. For example: F: In the sp↑ring I'm gonna have my car up here ↓ Marks a falling shift in intonation. For example: F: I understand we’ll- ↓we’ll go another ti:me word Underlining marks a word or passage said with emphasis. For example: F: Oh come on don't be pissed WORD Capital letters indicate that the passage is spoken louder than the surrounding talk. For example: F: you know (.) SHE NEVER WROTE ME LAST YEAR so you know owordo Degree signs mark a passage that is said more quietly than surrounding talk. For example: W: It's too: ear:ly to talk about (.)°this kind of thing° =word< Chevrons marks a passage delivered at a quicker pace than surrounding talk. For example: W: Uhm again back to th- =you know what I said originally I think ya know< just this inability hhh Audible outbreaths including laughter. For example: H: I think the balance between us is (0.5) ah: about right hhhhh .hhh Audible inhalations. For example: S: Like you’re going to go looking for someone else? (1.4) W:.hh §word§ Word or passage uttered with a staccato voice. For example: S: your comments §need to be on why: that is§ or is not a good idea XXX Indicates applause. For example: S14: I'l[l sit and wait for your response. Aud: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ZZZ Marks a buzzing sound from the audience. For example: Sup: Let him finish his statement please: ((ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: audience members overlapping for 5.3 seconds)) Aud 4: Point of order ((zzzzzz: audience overlapping for 1.6 seconds)) () Unsure of what is transcribed. For example: M: (as if I'm sick) ( ) I'm depressed ((word)) Scenic details or description of the context. For example: S: How's your pract- ((clears throat)) how's your practice progressing [ Marks overlapping utterances. For example: A: Why don't you come up and see me some[times B:          [I would like to = Marks when there is no interval between adjacent utterances. For example: A: You don't have one this week = B: = No (3.5) Indicates pauses or gaps within or between utterances. Timed to tenths of a second. For example: S: Makes a big difference in what? (1.6) W: Well first things first (.) A short untimed pause or gap within or between utterances. For example: M: I just know (.) I (.) I know I just have a feeling : Colons mark the extension of a sound or syllable it follows. The more colons, the longer the sound stretch. For example: T: You know you are involved in a:: in a: very particular ritual ? Marks a rising intonation. For example: F: I know you’re pissed but? (0.9) I have to do it - Marks an halting abrupt cutoff. For example: B: Just pres- (1.5) uh ↑ Marks a rising shift in intonation. For example: F: In the sp↑ring I'm gonna have my car up here ↓ Marks a falling shift in intonation. For example: F: I understand we’ll- ↓we’ll go another ti:me word Underlining marks a word or passage said with emphasis. For example: F: Oh come on don't be pissed WORD Capital letters indicate that the passage is spoken louder than the surrounding talk. For example: F: you know (.) SHE NEVER WROTE ME LAST YEAR so you know owordo Degree signs mark a passage that is said more quietly than surrounding talk. For example: W: It's too: ear:ly to talk about (.)°this kind of thing° =word< Chevrons marks a passage delivered at a quicker pace than surrounding talk. For example: W: Uhm again back to th- =you know what I said originally I think ya know< just this inability hhh Audible outbreaths including laughter. For example: H: I think the balance between us is (0.5) ah: about right hhhhh .hhh Audible inhalations. For example: S: Like you’re going to go looking for someone else? (1.4) W:.hh §word§ Word or passage uttered with a staccato voice. For example: S: your comments §need to be on why: that is§ or is not a good idea XXX Indicates applause. For example: S14: I'l[l sit and wait for your response. Aud: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ZZZ Marks a buzzing sound from the audience. For example: Sup: Let him finish his statement please: ((ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: audience members overlapping for 5.3 seconds)) Aud 4: Point of order ((zzzzzz: audience overlapping for 1.6 seconds)) () Unsure of what is transcribed. For example: M: (as if I'm sick) ( ) I'm depressed ((word)) Scenic details or description of the context. For example: S: How's your pract- ((clears throat)) how's your practice progressing Open in new tab References Antaki , C. , & Leudar , I. ( 2001 ). Recruiting the record: Using opponents' exact words in parliamentary argumentation . Text , 21 , 467 – 488 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bakhtin , M. M . ( 1986 ) Speech genres and other late essays . Austin : University of Texas Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bateson , G . ( 1972 ). A theory of play and fantasy. Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177 – 193 ). New York : Ballantine Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Beach , W. A. , & Metzger , T. R. ( 1997 ). Claiming insufficient knowledge . Human Communication Research , 23 , 562 – 588 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Beck , U . ( 1992 ). Risk society . London : Sage . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Belsten , L. A . ( 1996 ). Environmental risk communication and community collaboration. In T. L. Venendall (Ed.), Earthtalk: Communication empowerment for environmental action (pp. 27 – 41 ). Westport, CT : Praeger . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Blum-Kulka S . ( 1997 ). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse . Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Boholm , Å . ( 2008 ). The public meeting as a theater of dissent: Risk and hazard in land and environmental planning . Journal of Risk Research , 11 , 119 – 140 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bora , A. , & Hausendorf , H. ( 2006 ). Communicating citizenship and social positioning: Theoretical concepts. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (Eds.), Analysing citizenship talk (pp. 23 – 49 ). Amsterdam : John Benjamins . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Brunn , S. D . ( 2006 ). Wal-Mart world: The world's biggest corporation in the global economy . New York : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Buttny , R . ( 1993 ). Social accountability in communication . London : Sage . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Buttny , R . ( 2004 ). Talking problems: Studies on discursive construction . Albany, NY : State University of New York Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Buttny , R . ( 2009 ). Wal-Mart's presentation to the community: Discursive practices in mitigating risk, limiting public discussion, and developing a relationship . Discourse & Communication , 3 , 235 – 254 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Buttny , R. , & Cohen , J. R. ( 2007 ). Drawing on the words of others at public hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart, and the threat to the aquifer . Language in Society , 36 , 735 – 756 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Checkoway , B . ( 1981 ). The politics of public hearings . Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 17 , 566 – 582 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Checkoway , B. , & Van Til , J. ( 1978 ). What do we know about citizen participation? A selective review of research. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America (pp. 25 – 42 ). Lexington, KY : Lexington Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Chess , C. , & Purcell , K. ( 1999 ). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Policy Analysis , 33 : 2685 – 2692 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Cohen , J. R. , & Buttny , R. ( 2008 ). The rhetoric of risk: Legitimacy, authenticity, and sincerity . Presentation at the National Communication Association Convention, San Diego, CA. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Coupland , N. , & Jaworski , A. ( 2004 ). Language as “innocent behaviour.” In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland & D. Galasiński (Eds.), Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 15 – 51 ). New York : Mouton de Gruyter . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Craig , R. T . ( 2005 ). How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest . Journal of Communication , 55 , 659 – 667 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Craig , R. T . ( 2008 ). Metadiscourse. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication . Malden, MA : Blackwell . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Dietz , T. , & Stern , P. C. ( 2008 ). Publication participation in environmental assessment and decision making . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Douglas , M . ( 1992 ). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory . New York : Routledge . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Drew , P. , & Heritage , J. ( 1992 ). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 3 – 65 ). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fischer , F . ( 2000 ). Citizens, experts, and the environment . Durham : Duke University Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fishman , C . ( 2006 ). The Wal-Mart effect and a decent society: Who knew shopping was so important? Academy of Management Perspectives , 20 , 6 – 25 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gastil , J. W . ( 2007 ). Political communication and deliberation . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Goffman , E . ( 1981 ). Forms of talk . Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Guttman , N . ( 2007 ). Bringing the mountain to the public: Dilemmas and contradictions in the procedures of public deliberation initiatives that aim to get “ordinary citizens” to deliberate policy issues . Communication Theory , 17 , 411 – 438 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Halebsky , S . ( 2006 ). Explaining the outcomes of antisuperstore movements: A comparative analysis of six communities . Mobilization , 11 , 443 – 460 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Head , S . ( 2004 , December 16). Inside the leviathan . New York Review of Books , 51 , 80 – 89 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Kim , J. , & Kim , E. J. ( 2008 ). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue . Communication Theory , 18 , 51 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Llewellyn , N . ( 2005 ). Audience participation in political discourse: A study of public meetings . Sociology , 39 , 697 – 716 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Llewellyn , N . ( 2006 ). Arguing against absent arguables: Organizing audience participation in political discourse . Discourse Studies , 8 , 603 – 625 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Lucy , J. A . ( 1993 ). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In J. A Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language (pp. 9 – 32 ). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC McComas , K. A . ( 2001 ). Theory and practice of public meetings . Communication Theory , 11 , 36 – 55 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat McComas , K. A . ( 2003 ). Citizen satisfaction with public meetings used for risk communication . Journal of Applied Communication Research , 31 , 164 – 184 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Olson , K. M. , & Goodnight , G. T. ( 2004 ). Ingenium—Speaking in community: The case of the Prince William County zoning hearings on Disney's America. In P. A. Sullivan & S. R. Goldzinig (Eds.), New approaches to rhetoric (pp. 31 – 59 ). Newbury Park, CA : Sage . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Palmlund , I . ( 1992 ). Social drama and risk evaluation. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 197 – 212 ) Westport, CT : Praeger . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Parr , J . ( 2005 ). Local water diversely known: Walkerton Ontario, 2000 and after . Environment and planning D: Society and space , 23 , 251 – 271 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Petts , J . ( 1999 ). Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment . (pp. 145 – 177 ). Oxford, U.K. : Blackwell . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pomerantz , A . ( 1986 ). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims . Human Studies , 9 , 219 – 230 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Porter , D. , & Mirsky , C. L. ( 2003 ). Megamall on the Hudson: Planning, Wal-Mart, and grassroots resistance . Victoria, Canada : Trafford . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Renn , O . ( 1992 ). The social arena concept of risk debates. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 179 – 196 ). Westport, CT : Praeger . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Roth , W.-M. , Riecken , J., Pozzer-Ardenghi , L., McMillan , R., Storr , B., Tait , D., et al. . ( 2004 ). Those who get hurt aren't always being heard: Scientist-resident interactions over community water . Science, Technology, & Human Values , 29 , 153 – 183 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Rowan , K. E . ( 1995 ). What risk communicators need to know: An agenda for research . Communication Yearbook , 18 , 300 – 319 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Schiffrin , D . ( 1980 ). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse . Sociological Inquiry , 50 , 199 – 236 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Simons , H. W . ( 1994 ). “Going meta”: Definition and political application . Quarterly Journal of Speech , 80 , 468 – 481 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Svensson , J . ( 2008 ). Expressive rationality: A different approach for understanding participation in municipal deliberative practices . Communication, Culture & Critique , 1 , 203 – 221 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tracy , K . ( 2007 ). The discourse of crisis in public meetings: Case study of a school district's multimillion dollar error . Journal of Applied Communication Research , 35 , 418 – 441 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tracy , K. , & Dimock , A. ( 2004 ). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community . Communication Yearbook , 28 , 127 – 165 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tracy , K. , & Durfy , M. ( 2007 ). Speaking out in public: Citizen participation in contentious school board meetings . Discourse & Communication , 1 , 223 – 249 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Verschueren , J . ( 1999 ). Understanding pragmatics . New York : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Webler , T . ( 1995 ). “Right” discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedermann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluative models for environmental discourse (pp. 35 – 85 ). Dordrecht, Germany : Kluwer . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Webler , T. & Renn , O. ( 1995 ). A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice. In O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann, (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse . Dordrecht, Germany : Kluwer . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC © 2010 International Communication Association
TI - Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart
JO - Journal of Communication
DO - 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01507.x
DA - 2010-12-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/citizen-participation-metadiscourse-and-accountability-a-public-Tms94Gxybo
SP - 636
VL - 60
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -