Laakso-etal2019
| Laakso-etal2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Laakso-etal2019 |
| Author(s) | Minna Laakso, Inkeri Salmenlinna, Tarja Aaltonen, Inka Koskela, Johanna Ruusuvuori |
| Title | Open‐class repair initiations in conversations involving middle‐aged hearing aid users with mild to moderate loss |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Repair, Hearing loss, Hearing, Hearing aids |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders |
| Volume | 54 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 620–633 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/1460-6984.12466 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Background To manage conversational breakdowns, individuals with hearing loss (HL) often have to request their interlocutors to repeat or clarify.
Aims To examine how middle‐aged hearing aid (HA) users manage conversational breakdowns by using open‐class repair initiations (e.g., questions such as sorry, what and huh), and whether their use of repair initiations differs from their normally hearing interlocutors.
Methods & Procedures Eighteen 45–64‐year‐old adults with acquired mild to moderate HL participated in the study. The participants were videotaped in everyday interactions at their homes and workplaces and in clinical encounters with hearing health professionals. Interactions were transcribed and open‐class repair initiations of participants with HL and their interlocutors were identified using conversation analysis. The frequencies of initiations were analyzed statistically between the groups, and the contexts and structure of repair sequences dealing with communication breakdown were analyzed.
Outcomes & Results Before acquiring HA the participants with HL reported intense use of open‐class repair initiation. After HAs were acquired, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of open‐class repair initiations between HA users and their interlocutors. The most common means for open‐class repair initiation in the data was interrogative word mitä (‘what’). Vocalization hä (‘huh’), apologetic expression anteeksi (‘sorry’) and clausal initiations (e.g., ‘what did you say’/‘I didn't hear’) occurred less often. Open‐class repair initiations emerged in contexts where they typically occur in conversation, such as topical shifts, overlapping talk and action, background noise, and disagreements. When used, open‐class repair initiations most often led to repetition by the interlocutor, which immediately repaired the conversational breakdown. Long clarification sequences with multiple repair initiations did not occur.
Conclusions & Implications Participants with mild to moderate HL using hearing amplification initiate open‐class repair similarly to their normally hearing conversational partners when the frequency, types, contexts and structure of repair are considered. The findings diminish the stigma related to HL, HAs and the use of open‐class repair. The findings suggest that HA amplifies hearing successfully in everyday conversation when the level of HL is mild to moderate. However, the evidence for the benefit of HAs remains indirect.
Notes
