Self-repair
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: 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, I. & Pfeiffer, M. (2023). Self-repair. 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: [] |
Self-repair refers to the collection of practices which give the speaker the opportunity to deal with a part of their own talk that either the speaker (self-initiation) or the recipient (other-initiation) treats as problematic (for more details, see entries on self-initiated self-repair and other-initiated self-repair). The problematic part of the turn is referred to as repairable or trouble sourc'e' (Schegloff et al. 1977: 363). Both self-initiated self-repair and other-initiated self-repair are not limited to solving problems caused by errors or mistakes but systematically address any kind of problem that arises in interaction (Schegloff et al. 1977: 363). Same-turn self-initiated self-repair dealing with errors and mistakes is referred to as (self-)correction (Jefferson 1974; Schegloff et al. 1977), while same-turn self-repair targeting other kinds of repairable is sometimes referred to as elaboration (Auer 1991; Pfeiffer 2014, 2015). In extract (1) taken from Lerner & Kitzinger (2019: 2), the speaker self-initiates and carries out a postpositioned self-repair (i.e., a self-repair that addresses an already produced part of the turn) on a person reference.
(1) Self-initiated self-repair (Lerner & Kitzinger 2019: 2)
The speaker (Sal) cuts off the preposition “aft[er]”, produces “well” to self-initiate repair and then replaces the problematic referring expression – the repairable “he” – with the noun phrase “his sister”. Furthermore, she repeats “looks aft[er]” from her initial formulation (cf. Jefferson 1972 for frame; Schegloff 1987 for recycling).
Self-repair can also be initiated by the recipient of the turn containing the repairable, as in extract (2) taken from Kendrick (2015a: 173-174):
(2) Other-initiated self-repair [Virginia_11:26] (Kendrick 2015a: 173-174)
In the extract above, Mom produces two other-initiations of repair. The first other-initiation – the class-specific interrogative who in line 4 – is treated by Bet as addressing a problem of hearing. Bet provides a repair solution by repeating a part of the trouble-source turn, namely the referential expression “Phillips”. It is, however, unclear whether Mom has failed to hear the repaired item or rather to recognize its referent. In any event, in line 8 Mom uses a more specific format for initiating repair, namely a so-called copular interrogative clause (Kendrick 2015a: 173-174), in order to indicate her problem of reference. Bet deals with this trouble source in line 9 by replacing the problematic person reference with a more specific one (cf. Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 162-170; Selting 1987: 135-136; Sidnell 2007).
For the organization of repair in English talk-in-interaction, Schegloff et al. (1977) have identified two structural preferences: a preference for self-repair over other-repair and a preference for self-initiation over other-initiation (cf. Egbert 1996, 2009; Liddicoat 2007: 210-211; Schegloff 1979; Sidnell 2010: 113-114).
Schegloff et al. (1977) base their argument for the preference for self-repair not only on the higher frequency of self-repair compared to other-repair in their data but also on its sequential positions. Self-initiated self-repair can be initiated and carried out within the turn containing the trouble source (same-turn self-repair), in the transition-relevance place after the trouble-source turn (transition space repair) or after next turn (third turn repair and third position repair; Schegloff 1992, 1997). Other-initiated self-repair is usually initiated in next turn and resolved after next turn. Thus, self-repair occurs in three of five possible sequential positions for providing repair. Moreover, two positions in which self-repair occurs precede the next-turn position, i.e., the first possible sequential position in which other-repair can be provided. As self-repairs carried out in the same turn or at the transition-relevance place mostly succeed, there is often no interactional need for employing other-repair.
Besides the sequential positions of self- and other-initiations of repair mentioned above, Schegloff et al. (1977) provide additional evidence for the preference for self-initiation over other-initiation. They show that recipients of the trouble source tend to ‘withhold’ their other-initiations, thus expanding the transition-relevance place and providing the producer of the trouble-source more space for self-initiation (cf. the gaps in lines 3 and 7 in (2)).
Additional Related Entries:
- Self-initiated self-repair
- Third turn repair
- Third position repair
- Other-initiated self-repair
- Transition-relevance place (TRP)
- Same-turn self-repair
- Turn-constructional unit (TCU)
Cited References:
Auer, P. (1991). Vom Ende deutscher Sätze – Rechtsexpansionen im deutschen Einfachsatz. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 19, 139¬–157.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, M. (1996). Context-sensitivity in conversation: Eye gaze and the German repair initiator bitte?. Language in Society, 25, 587–612.
Egbert, M. (2009). Der Reparatur-Mechanismus in deutschen Gesprächen. Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Jefferson, Gail (1972). Side sequences. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 294–333). Free Press.
Jefferson, Gail (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 3(2), 181–199.
Kendrick, K. H. (2015a). The intersection of turn-taking and repair: The timing of other-initiations of repair in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-16.
Lerner, G. H. & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 526–557.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to Conversation Analysis. Continuum.
Pfeiffer, M. (2014). Formal vs. functional motivations for the structure of self-repair in German. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 229–245). Oxford University Press.
Pfeiffer, M. (2015). Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen. Syntaktische und interaktionale Analysen. De Gruyter.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987[1973]). Recycled turn beginnings: a precise repair mechanism in conversation's tum-taking organisation. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 70–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Third turn repair. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Toward a social science of language. Papers in honor of William Labov, Vol. 2. Social interaction and discourse structures (pp. 31–40). John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
Selting, M. (1987). Reparaturen und lokale Verstehensprobleme. Oder: Zur Binnenstruktur von Reparatursequenzen. Linguistische Berichte, 108(9), 128–149.
Sidnell, J. (2007). Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1), 229–244.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Additional References:
Benjamin, T. (2013). Signaling trouble: on the linguistic design of other-initiation of repair in English conversation. PhD. thesis, University of Groningen.
Birkner, K., Auer, P., Bauer, A., & Kotthoff, H. (2020). Einführung in die Konversationsanalyse. De Gruyter.
Kendrick, K. H. (2015b). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics 1(1), 164-190.
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 229–256). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (2019). Well-Prefacing in the Organization of Self-Initiated Repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(1), 1–19.
Moerman, M. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in a Tai Conversational Corpus. Language, 53(4), 872–882.
Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Conversational Repair and Human Understanding: Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J., & Barnes, R. (2013). Alternative, subsequent descriptions. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 322–342). Cambridge University Press.
Uhmann, S. (2001). Some arguments for the relevance of syntax to same-sentence self-repair in everyday German conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 373–404). John Benjamins.
Stukenbrock, A. (2013). Sprachliche Interaktion. In P. Auer (Ed.), Sprachwissenschaft. Grammatik – Interaktion – Kognition (pp. 217–260). Metzler.
