Repair work in discourse

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Mutually constructed discourse
2.1 Classification of repair
2.2.1 Self- and other-correction
2.2.2 Self-repair
2.2.3 Other-repair
2.2.4 Self-initiated repair
2.2.5 Other-initiated repair
2.2.6 Failure
2.3 Placement of repair
2.4 Functions of repair

3. Data analysis

4. Conclusion

Appendix

Bibliography

Data

1. Introduction

Spoken discourse is a process depending on the interaction of at least two participants. They mutually construct this process and understanding is achieved by interaction. But communication is always in danger of breaking down. When people talk to each other they constantly try to avoid this breakdown by preventing misunderstandings. In writing one can carefully think about the 'right' words, reconstruct, correct and rewrite sentences or sections as often as necessary. In spoken discourse this reconstruction has to happen immediately.

Sentences or ideas are not always “brought to an end”. In order to keep discourse smooth, fluent and comprehensible participants need to repair utterances of themselves or others during speaking. It is often the case that someone notices during saying one utterance that they actually want to say something else. So they possibly stop within one sentence and bring in another idea. Thus, repair means interruption and correction of oneself or another person like: that will be forty - no fifty - dollars. In written discourse such an insertion is often indicated by means of hyphens. Likewise, clarification can happen more explicitly after questions who signal that the receiver did not understand something and/or asks for further information or a repetition of what was said before. This is often needed when discourse takes place between participants with a different status of knowledge about the topic of their conversation. All these techniques aim to produce or maintain a process of mutual understanding and keep the conversation going on.

When and how people use repair work depends on extra-linguistic factors like the topic of the conversation, the kind of discourse and where it takes place, the relationship of the participants, their age and knowledge of the used language. The aim of this paper is to point out that speakers tend to use a higher amount of repair work in informal than in formal discourse. This will be done by analysis of different dialogues within different settings. The hypothesis is that in less formal discourse in an entertaining television programme more clarifying utterances are used than in formal interviews on serious news channels. It is supposed that formal discourse types follow some underlying structures whereas informal ones are unstructured and therefore repairs are more likely to happen.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Mutually constructed discourse

The general intention of communication is to send a message with the aim to obtain understanding. (Burkhart 1998: 25-27) In achieving this aim participants constantly try to avoid failure by repair. As will be discussed later, more than one participant can be involved in repair work. Conversation is an interactive process.

... conversation is discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time. Unlike most written discourse and a good deal of spoken discourse (...) a conversation is constructed and executed as it happens, by two people, feeling their way forward together. There is no going back, crossing out, rewriting and restructuring. This is particularly evident in the phenomenon known as repair, in which participants correct either their own words or those of another participant, edging towards a situation in which maximum communication is achieved. (Cook 1989: 55)

Theories of repair have their basis in ethnomethodology, which is concerned with conversation analysis. Ethnomethodologists “view discourse as a developing process, rather than a finished product” (Cook 1989:52) They observe what methods participants use in interaction and one of these methods is repair.

Verständigung [ist] ein wechselseitiger Prozeß, dessen Erfolg nur an den Verstehenserwartungen der Gesprächspartner gemessen werden kann. Verständigung muss immer interaktiv hergestellt werden.“ (Selting 1987: 1)

In this view repair is closely connected to the organisation of turn-taking. Repair can lengthen or shorten turns and at the same time its appearance is determined by turn-taking devices (see below).

2.1 Classification of repair

Repair can be done by repetition, reformulation, restarts, insertions or corrections. Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) provide in their article “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation” a classification of repairs into self-repair and other-repair. They also distinguish between self-initiated and other-initiated repair, self- and other-correction, and failure. ‘Self’ and ‘other’ are different classes of participants within the turn-taking system and the term refers to the place where the repair procedure is successful. (Cf. Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks 1977: 363)

2.2.1 Self- and other-correction

Correction is a type of repair where something which is thought to be ‘wrong’ is replaced by what is ‘correct’. Self-correction is preferred to other-correction. It can be self- or other-initiated.

2.2.2 Self-repair

It occurs more often than other-repair and it can be initiated by the speaker of the trouble source turn or by another participant. It is often signalled by glottal stops, lengthened vowels or stuttering.

2.2.3 Other-repair

One participant utters the trouble source and another party repairs it. It can also issue from self- or other- initiation.

2.2.4 Self-initiated repair

Self-initiation within the same turn (which contains the trouble source) use a variety of non-lexical speech perturbations, e.g. cut-offs, sound stretches, ‘uh’s etc., to signal the possibility of repair-initiation immediately following (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977:367)

Self-initiated self-repair is the most often used type of repair.

2.2.5 Other-initiated repair

There are some turn-constructional devices which are used:

(a)Huh, what?
(b)question words who, where, when
(c)partial repeat of the trouble-source turn, plus a question word (e.g. All the what?, The who?)
(d)partial repeat of the trouble-source turn (e.g. One ten?)
(e)Y’mean plus a possible understanding of the prior turn (e.g. You mean homosexual?)

(Cf. Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977:367-369)

2.2.6 Failure

Sometimes ‘repairables’ occur but are not repaired at all or repair is initiated but does not happen.

2.3 Placement of repair

Self-initiated repairs are placed in three positions:

(a) within the same turn as their trouble source
(b) in that turn’s transition space
(c) in third turn to the trouble source-turn, i.e. in the turn subsequent to that which follows the trouble-source turn (Schegloff, Jefferson, Sacks 1977:366)

Other-initiated repair can only occur at one position: the turn subsequent the trouble-source turn.

2.4 Functions of repair

In general, repairs deal with disturbances of the interaction:

„However, the organization of repair is the self-righting mechanism for the organization of language use in social interaction. If language is composed of systems of rules which are integrated, then it will have sources of trouble related to the modes of their integration (at the least). And if it has intrinsic sources of trouble, then it will have a mechanism for dealing with them intrinsically.” (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977. 381)

But they can also serve to secure the gaze of recipient. This is done by restarts (often with changes to the initial version), pauses or word search (Goodwin:68-70). Self-interruption with the insertion of new elements or topic jumps can also serve to achieve this aim. Additionally, repeats, pauses, uh’ s, corrections and clarifications can be used to lengthen turns. The speaker gains time to say what he means and he secures the gaze of the hearer. Furthermore word search can invite recipients to help the speaker. (Goodwin 1981:140-143) Levinson (1983[1997]:330-331) points out that self-editing, error-replacement, repetition and reformulation serve to avoid or clear misunderstandings, mishearings and non-hearings. In the same way other-corrections like Y’mean X? may be used to check understanding.

Repairs mark boundaries and structure of different units in speech, they display how it can be divided into sub-units and they give information about grammatical and ungrammatical structures in a language. A child who hears only utterances without any repair would be unable to learn a language. (Cf. Goodwin 1981:170-173) Furthermore Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks (1977) point out that other-correction in adult-child interaction is a vehicle for socialisation.

[...]