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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Mutually constructed discourse
2.2 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
Objectives & Core Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the phenomenon of repair in spoken discourse and to test the hypothesis that informal discourse settings involve a higher frequency of repair work compared to formal settings. By analyzing various dialogues, the study explores how participants use self-correction, pauses, and fillers to maintain mutual understanding and manage the interactive flow of conversation.
- Mechanisms of self- and other-repair in conversation
- The influence of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors on repair frequency
- Comparison of repair patterns across different levels of discourse formality
- The function of repair as a "self-righting" mechanism in social interaction
- The role of conversational turn-taking in the placement of repair
Excerpt from the Book
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.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the necessity of repair in spoken discourse to ensure mutual understanding and introduces the research hypothesis regarding formality and repair frequency.
2. Theoretical background: Provides an overview of the ethnomethodological foundations of conversation analysis and defines the classification, placement, and social functions of repair.
3. Data analysis: Examines actual interview transcripts from television and radio to identify how different participants utilize repair, word search markers, and self-interruption.
4. Conclusion: Evaluates the initial hypothesis, concluding that formality alone does not dictate repair frequency, as factors like nervousness, concentration, and native-speaker status play significant roles.
Keywords
Discourse Analysis, Repair Work, Self-Correction, Other-Correction, Conversation Analysis, Turn-Taking, Interaction, Communication Breakdown, Ethnomethodology, Linguistic Performance, Spoken Discourse, Clarification, Word Search, Social Interaction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this academic paper?
The paper examines "repair work" in spoken discourse, focusing on how individuals correct their own speech or that of others to maintain comprehension during interaction.
What are the primary themes discussed in this work?
Key themes include the mechanics of self-initiated and other-initiated repair, the role of turn-taking, the function of speech fillers and pauses, and the impact of discourse formality on communicative strategies.
What is the central research hypothesis?
The hypothesis suggests that informal discourse, such as entertaining television programs, contains a higher frequency of repair and clarifying utterances compared to formal interviews on news channels.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author uses a qualitative approach, analyzing various radio and television interview transcripts (ranging from private regional TV to international news channels) to observe linguistic repair behaviors.
What is covered in the main section?
The main section includes a detailed theoretical framework regarding the classification of repair, followed by an empirical analysis of specific dialogue excerpts to support or challenge the hypothesis.
Which keywords best characterize the paper?
The paper is best defined by terms such as Conversation Analysis, Repair Work, Self-Correction, Turn-Taking, and Spoken Discourse.
How does nervousness affect the use of repair in the studied data?
The analysis indicates that participants who are nervous or distracted, such as the child interviewee or Nick Nolte in the Larry King interview, tend to use more word-search markers and repetitions, independent of the formal or informal setting.
Does the author confirm that more informal interviews contain more repairs?
No, the conclusion falsifies the initial hypothesis. The author finds no direct correlation between formality and repair frequency, suggesting instead that individual factors like the speaker's ability to concentrate and their native-language proficiency are more influential.
- Quote paper
- Sabrina Triml (Author), 2000, Repair work in discourse, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/83492
