Search

Copyright of Croatian Journal of Education / Hrvatski Časopis za Odgoj i Obrazovanje is the property of Uciteljski Fakultet u Zagrebu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study presents an account of the initiation and framing of self-initiated self-repairs in ongoing turn-constructional units in Farsi conversation. Informed by conversation analysis, the analysis of 636 instances of self-repairs culled from three data sources representing a wide variety of interactions revealed that there is some language-specific prosodic patterning which applies to both the foregrounding for incipient repairs and repair solutions. The particle yani (I mean, meaning), predominantly used as a pre-positioned lexical initiator, is routinely used to index a rather specific repair operation: substituting a wholly or partially uttered element of the current turn or repackaging the terms in which it has been couched. Unlike lexical initiators which are infrequent, retracting is frequently launched to fashion repair solutions, but is highly constrained by language-specific (morpho)syntactic rules. Moreover, the complementary distribution of the use of lexical initiators and retracting suggests a possible association between repair initiation and framing. The findings provide further evidence of how self-repairs which constitute a universal feature of interaction are shaped by local semiotic resources of Farsi, especially grammatical possibilities, lending further support to the interdependency of self-repairs and syntax-for-conversation. • Determining language-specific prosodic patterning in self-repairs initiation. • Working out the function of the lexical initiator of yani (I mean) in Farsi talk-in-interaction. • Discerning language-specific retraction patterns in framing self-repairs. • Presenting empirical evidence for complementary distribution of lexical initiators and retracting. • Scrutinizing the trajectory of repair from repair initiation to its solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the methodology of Conversation Analysis (or CA), this study examines three types of other-initiated repair initiators (henceforth OIs) that repeats some element in the trouble-source (henceforth repeats) in Chinese conversation: repeats suffixed with question particles ma (吗), repeats suffixed with question particles a (啊), and question-intonated repeats. It attempts to explore the differences between these typical formats, in terms of their forms/functions and the epistemic stance of the speaker who initiates repair. The main research findings indicate that question-intonated repeat implements an understanding check while repeat suffixed with question particles (ma or a) tends to serve different functions, in that, ma-suffixed repeat is inquiry-implicated while a-suffixed repeat contributes to constructing surprise, (dis)agreement or (dis)belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This conversation analytic study examines the use and function of repair initiators in German and French, in particular those beginning with specific wh -words and targeting prior references to objects or phenomena (i.e., non-person entities). In both languages, the specific repair initiators vary depending upon the type of reference problem encountered. For underspecified prior referents, repairs are initiated with was/was denn. (what.) in German and le quoi (what) in French. Failures to recognize prior referents prompt the repair initiators was ist (what is) in German, and c’est quoi (what is) in French. With lexical access issues, these latter repair initiators are followed by noch mal (again) and déjà (already) in German and French, respectively. The repair initiators welch- (which) in German and lequel (which) follow failures to identify one referent from among a given set. If no set is identifiable, the repair initiator was für (what x) is used in German; there is no corresponding repair initiator in the French corpus. Non-comprehension of turns or actions prompt repair initiations with wie (what) + repeat in German, and with hein (huh) + repeat in French. Where relevant, the study also discusses translation-related issues that concern both crosslinguistic similarity and interactional accomplishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the sound profiles of sites of initiation in French and Mandarin recycling repair. Instances of recycling repair were extracted from comparative speech corpora of naturally occurring, face-to-face Mandarin and French interaction. By the interactional prosody approach plus impressionistic judgments, each repair was annotated for its prosodic realization, including relative pitch height, duration, silent pauses and other sound cues for initiating the repair. Through comparing results of acoustic measurements, the discussion focuses on the similarities and differences in the sound realization while initiating and accomplishing recycling repair in both languages. It is suggested that interlocutors of the two languages may orient to rather different methods of initiating the repair in that French speakers tend to incorporate lengthening at the repair initiating sites plus optional filled pauses, while Mandarin speakers employ quick cut-offs for repair initiation, followed by immediate repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper takes a conversation analytic approach to investigate how interlocutors deal with different kinds of interactional problems occurring in German text-based communication on Whats App. The data analyzed in the present study is obtained from the Mobile Communication Database 1 (http://mocoda.spracheinteraktion.de) and Mobile Communication Database 2 (https://db.mocoda2.de). Focusing on other-initiations of repair, this article shows that interlocutors indicate trouble sources in the preceding messages sent by their communication partners in two ways: On the one hand, writers use a wide range of other-initiations transferred from German spoken language, such as question words (was 'what', wer 'who', etc.) or candidate understandings in the form of Meinst du X? ('Do you mean X?', cf. Schegloff et al., 1977). On the other hand, interlocutors may display an interactional problem by deploying particular resources that the medium provides, such as asterisks, equal signs, question marks, etc. (see also Busch, in this collection of articles). A close examination of other-initiations of repair in Whats App chats thus provides an insight into how the different formats mentioned above are used, especially in relation to (a) the different types of trouble sources occurring in text-based Whats App chats, and (b) the general communication conditions created by the medium. Moreover, it will be discussed how different formats of other-initiation of repair shape the negotiation of responsibility for the trouble source or the repair proper, manage epistemic rights and contribute to the face work in the sense of Goffman (1967). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]