Other-initiated self-repair

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Other-initiated self-repair
Author(s):	Irina Mostovaia (University of Hamburg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-050X) & Martin Pfeiffer (University of Potsdam, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5175-3657)
To cite:	Mostovaia, Irina, & Pfeiffer, Martin. (2023). Self-repair operation. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: []

Other-initiated self-repair refers to the range of practices available to the producer of a trouble source to solve the interactional problem indicated by the recipient providing an other-initiation of repair (Liddicoat 2007: 173-177, 189-196; Schegloff, et al. 1977; among others; for other-initiated self-repair as post-first insertion sequence, see Schegloff 2007: 100-106). The following extract, taken from Benjamin (2013), contains an other-initiation “who” (line 3) provided in next position addressing the problem of reference in Kim’s turn in line 1 (cf. next turn repair initiations; Schegloff, et al. 1977; Schegloff 2000):

 [CallHome-4844, 5:26] (Benjamin 2013: 3)

 01  Kim:    she had a baby right  02          (0.2)  03  Jill:   who  04          (0.5)  05  Kim:    your sister in law=  06  Jill:   =yeah yeah (.) yeah

Current research distinguishes different types of interactional problems other-initiated self-repair can deal with:

1. problems of hearing: the recipient has failed to hear the trouble-source turn or a part of it (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 147-162; Schegloff, et al. 1977);
2. problems of reference: the recipient has failed to recognize the reference provided in the trouble-source turn (Auer 1984; Egbert, et al. 2009; Sidnell 2007a);
3. problems of understanding: the recipient has failed to interpret the meaning of the trouble-source turn or a part of it (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 170-188; Schegloff, et al. 1977);
4. problems of acceptability or expectation: the trouble-source turn or a part of it clashes with the recipient’s knowledge or expectations (Benjamin & Walker 2013; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 188-195; Schegloff, et al. 1977; Selting 1987a, 1987b; Svennevig 2008).

  To display an interactional problem, the recipient can deploy a range of formats for other-initiation of repair (Benjamin 2013; Birkner, et al. 2020: 382-389; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 144-201; Egbert 2009: 99-108; Schegloff, et al. 1977: 367-368; for cross-linguistic research on other-initiation, see Dingemanse & Enfield 2015). These formats differ in their ability to locate the trouble and to indicate the type of problem and, thus, can be arranged in order from least to most specific – or in other terms from 'weaker' to 'stronger' – formats, as shown below (for the preference of 'stronger' over 'weaker' formats see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 140-142; Egbert 2017; Schegloff, et al. 1977; Sidnell 2010: 117-119):

1. “open” class repair initiations (e.g., huh, sorry, class-unspecific what; Drew 1997; Egbert 1996; Enfield, et al. 2013);
2. class-specific interrogatives (e.g., who, what, where; Egbert & Vöge 2008; Golato 2013; Golato & Golato 2015);
3. interrogatives with partial repeat of the trouble-source turn (Golato 2013; Golato & Golato 2015);
4. repeats (partial repeats, incomplete repeats, and full repeats of the trouble-source turn; Curl 2005; Robinson & Kevoe-Feldman 2010; Robinson 2013; Rossi 2020a)
5. copular interrogative clauses (e.g., Who is X? where X is the repeated trouble source; Kendrick 2015; Sidnell 2007a)
6. metacommunicatively explicit initiations (e.g., I don’t understand that. or What do you mean?; Egbert 2009; Raymond & Sidnell 2019; Selting 1987a)
7. candidate solutions (candidate understandings, candidate hearings, and candidate references, e.g., prefaced by you mean; Benjamin 2012; Koshik 2005; Sidnell 2007b; Svennevig 2008)

  Additionally, there is a growing body of research on bodily resources that are (additionally) used for other-initiation of repair (cf. Floyd, et al. 2016; Mortensen 2012, 2016; among others). So far, research in this area has focused on resources such as gaze (Egbert 1996; Rossi 2020b), facial expressions (cf. Manrique 2016; Oloff 2018; Skedsmo 2020; Rossi 2020b), head movements (Oloff 2018; Rossi 2020b; Seo & Koshik 2010), and other body movements (for ‘leaning forward’ cf. Rasmussen 2014; for body torques and suspensions of manual tasks cf. Kamunen 2019).   By choosing particular formats of other-initiation, interlocutors can also handle various social aspects, e.g., negotiate responsibility for the occurrence of the trouble source or for providing the other-initiation (Dingemanse, et al. 2014), display their epistemic status concerning the trouble-source turn (Bolden 2013, 2018; Robinson 2013), or manage face work (Robinson 2006; Selting 1987c).   An other-initiation makes a repair solution (also occasionally termed repair proper) conditionally relevant. The provided repair solution mostly occurs in the turn after the turn containing the repair initiation and is related to the type of trouble it deals with and to the preceding other-initiation. For instance, problems of hearing indicated by “open” class repair initiations are often resolved by the repetition of the trouble-source turn or a part of it. Candidate solutions addressing problems of hearing, understanding or reference, however, can be confirmed or rejected and then corrected (cf. Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 144-201).   Other-initiations of repair do not only serve as interactional resources for re-establishing intersubjectivity but can also be used – additionally or alternatively – for accomplishing other actions, e.g., displays of surprise or disbelief or preliminaries to dispreferred actions (Kendrick 2015: 181-187; Schegloff 1997; Selting 1996).

Additional Related Entries:

• Self-initiated self-repair
• Same-turn self-repair
• Third turn repair
• Third position repair
• Transition-relevance place (TRP)
• Turn-at-talk
• Turn-constructional unit (TCU)

Cited References:

Additional References: