Vortrag

12th Conference of the International Pragmatics Association
Manchester, July 3–8 2011
Theodoros Papantoniou (University of Potsdam, Germany)
Problem Types in the Prepositioned Self-initiation of Repair in German
1
Introduction
2
Research question, data and methodology
3
Analysis
3.1 Simple cases: Problem types of speaking
3.1.1 Lexical problems
3.1.2 Phrasing problems
3.1.3 Factual problems
3.2 Complex cases: Problem recategorisations
3.3 Non-specific metacommunicative problem-signalling expressions
4
Conclusions
1
Introduction
In their highly influential paper on repair, Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) define the
term “repair” as a sequential organisation “addressed to recurrent problems in speaking,
hearing and understanding” (ibid.: 361). Since then, research into problems of speaking has
focussed on the sequential/syntactic properties (e.g. Fox/Jasperson 1995; Fox et al. 2009a, b;
Birkner et al. 2010; Pfeiffer, submitted) and the phonetic/phonological realisation (e.g.
Rabanus 2001; Jasperson 2002; Pfeiffer, to appear) of – mainly – self-repair, as well as on its
conversational functions (e.g. Auer/Rönfeldt 2002; Auer 2005; Lerner/Kitzinger 2007).
However, the participants’ orientation to types of speaking problems has barely been a matter
of systematic investigation. Problem typologies such as Levelt (1983), Chafe (1985), Hölker
(1988), Kindt/Laubenstein (1991) and Kindt/Rittgeroth (2009) do not systematically attempt
to reconstruct participants’ perspectives with regard to their problem categorisations.
2
Research question, data and methodology
With reference to Selting’s (1987) typology of problems in hearing, understanding and
expectation in the other-initiation of repair, this paper explores the various types of speaking
problems which native speakers of German display and orient to in cases of prepositioned
self-initiation of repair. Prepositioned self-initiation of repair occurs before the production of
the trouble source. As Schegloff (1979: 273) points out, “[it] delays but carries forward the
syntactic projection of the sentence-so-far”.
1
The data consist of approximately 26 hours of German private telephone conversations and
radio phone-ins. I have looked into a total of over 200 cases of prepositioned self-initiation of
repair in which the speakers of the trouble source employ metacommunicative problemsignalling expressions, as well as very explicit problem-signalling expressions to indicate that
they have difficulty finding some element which they need in order to continue and complete
their turn or TCU.
Metacommunicative problem-signalling expressions are expressions which refer to and/or
comment on the trouble source such as “wie heißt denn das” (“what is it called now”). By
contrast, very explicit problem-signalling expressions such as “jetzt muss ich überlegen” (“let
me think”) do not refer to the trouble source as such but they can be used to display a
particular type of speaking problem.
In order to reconstruct a problem typology from a participants’ perspective, I used
interactional linguistic methodology (Selting/Couper-Kuhlen 2001). I focussed on the
semantics of the problem-signalling expressions, as well as on the repair outcome (cf. “next
turn-proof procedure”, Hutchby/Wooffitt 2008).
In section 3.1 I will present some simple cases of problem-signalling and argue that the
speakers of the trouble source display three distinct types of speaking problems, namely:
1) lexical problems, concerning the retrieval of specific lexical items,
2) phrasing problems concerning the appropriate verbalisation of complex ideas, and
3) factual problems concerning the retrieval of non-linguistic information.
In section 3.2 I will discuss a complex case, i. e., a case of problem recategorisation. Finally,
in section 3.3 I will present instances of metacommunicative expressions which are used nonspecifically.
2
3 Analysis
3. 1 Simple cases: Problem types of speaking
The letters M, K and C stand for the moderator, co-moderator and caller respectively. Other
letters stand for participants in private phone calls. Metacommunicative problem-signalling
expressions and very explicit problem-signalling expressions are highlighted. The
transcription follows the conventions in Selting et al. (2009).
3.1.1 Lexical problems
(1) BM-ZS3h./121–132 sec. ((radio phone-in; topic: computer games))
01
M:
ich hatte FRÜher so ein LIEBlingsflashspIelchen,=
I used to have such a favourite flash game
02
=das hieß ↑HÄNguru; (---)
it was called hangaroo
03
<<p, all> KENNT das IrgendEiner,>
does anybody know it
04
K:
[NEE,
]
no
05
C:
[<<creaky voice> NEE.>]
no
06
M:
´HÄNguru is <<t> quasi s' äh'_das ähm: hier>
hangaroo is basically s′ uh'_the uhm: PTCL
→ 07
<<t, p, all, unclearly> wie ^HEISS_n (des/dit);>=
what is it called
08
=^GALgenmännchen´spIel,
hangman
09
10
(-)
K:
J:[A:::,
]
y:e:::s
11
M:
[du musst halt] n_WORT erraten,
you have to guess a word
In line 06, the moderator begins a new TCU. By using hesitation markers, he self-initiates
repair and indicates that he has difficulty retrieving some element which he needs in order to
continue his TCU. In line 07, the moderator uses the metacommunicative problem-signalling
expression “wie ^HEISS_n (des/dit);” (“what is it called”) and thus categorises his speaking
problem as a lexical problem, i. e., he shows that he is looking for a specific lexical item. In
3
line 08, he successfully self-repairs by retrieving the missing word “^GALgenmännchen´spIel,” (“hangman”). The repair outcome “^GALgenmännchen´spIel,”, which is a single
lexical item, provides evidence that the moderator is looking for a specific word.
3.1.2 Phrasing problems
(2) BM-ZS3v./2286–2322 sec. ((radio phone-in; The caller explains how he came to realise the importance of
change in our lives.))
01
M:
du hAst einen RAT für uns,
you have a piece of advice for us
02
wie man: leichter ABschied nehmen kann;
how to: say farewell more easily
03
C:
JA;
yes
04
also weil M:IR zumindest,
PTCL because to me at least
05
bin jetz neunundzwanzig ´JAHre jung,
I’m now twenty nine years young
06
also n_paar tage HAB ich schon auf_m bUckel, °hh
so I am already a couple of days old
07
und <<all> mir sind AUCH schon einige dinge pasSIERT,=
and a few things have already happened to me
08
=(mir sind)> FREUNde gestorben, (--)
(some of my) friends died
09
einer meninGItis,
one due to meningitis
10
einer hat sich erHANgen,=
another one hanged himself
11
=und (-) ähm <<all> oder ANdere> dinge,=
and (-) uhm or other stuff
12
=dass ich dass ich WERTvolle sachen ↑BÜCher oder so was
verlOren hab, hh°
that I that I lost valuable things books and stuff
13
und ↑IRNGwann is mir mal
and at some time I PTCL
→ 14
hh° <<t, p, all> ähm: °hh wie kAnn ich beSCHREIben;> °hh
hh° uhm: °hh how can I describe this °hh
15
<<all> also MIR isses ab nem gewissen punkt Einfach
gefallen als ich verSTANden hab,> (-)
PTCL at some point it became easy for me when I realised
4
16
dass es [(.) nur Eine ein]zige konSTANte gibt in diesem leben;
that there (.) is only one constant in this life
17
M:
[°hhh
]
°hh
18
C:
und das is die verÄNderung;
and that is change
19
M:
[mh_mh,
]
20
C:
[sprich also NICHTS] hält für die EWIGkeit,
that is to say nothing lasts forever
In this extract, the caller explains how he came to realise the importance of change in our
lives. In line 13 the caller starts a new TCU and then in line 14 he self-initiates repair by
producing an outbreath, the lengthened hesitation marker “ähm:” and an inbreath. He then
employs
the
metacommunicative
problem-signalling
expression
“wie
kAnn
ich
beSCHREIben;” (“how can I describe this”) and thus categorises his speaking problem as a
phrasing problem, i. e., he indicates that he has difficulty putting his thoughts into words
(rather than retrieving a specific lexical item). From line 15 onwards, he starts repairing his
phrasing problem by producing several TCUs to describe his insights into the importance of
change in our lives. This type of repair solution provides further evidence – together with the
semantics of the problem-signalling expression – that the problem which is displayed and
dealt with here consists in verbalising complex thoughts and ideas.
3.1.3 Factual problems
(3) BM-ZS4h./2575–2588 sec. ((radio phone-in; C is talking about having left school.))
01
M:
wie lange bIst_n du von[ner schule RUNter;>
]
how long have you been away from school
02
C:
[<<f> ja EBEN;>=seit_m] SOMmer;=ne,
yes, exactly, since last summer, right?
03
<<all> also' °hh äh' bEsser geSACHT,> °h
PTCL °hh uh′ to say it better °h
04
ich bin ja ↑VOR_m sommer runter;
I went away from school before summer
05
ich bIn ja seit_m: ((creak))
I have been PTCL since the: ((creak))
→ 06
<<p, creaky voice, unclearly> ich WEISS nich,>
I don’t know
→ 07
seit äh: (1.7) ich BIN mir nich ganz SIcher:;
5
since uh: (1.7) I’m not quite sure:
08
ich sAch mal seit JUni;
let’s say since June
In line 05, the speaker of the trouble source begins a new TCU and self-initiates repair by
lengthening the bilabial nasal sound in “seit_m:” (“since the:”) and producing creak. He then
employs the very explicit problem-signalling expressions “ich WEISS nich,” (“I don’t know”)
and “ich BIN mir nich ganz SIcher:;” (“I’m not quite sure:”) in lines 06 and 07 to display
trouble in retrieving some non-linguistic information, i. e., when exactly he left school. In line
08 he self-repairs. The repair outcome “ich sAch mal seit JUni;” (“let’s say since June”)
provides evidence that the caller is tentatively trying to remember when he left school.
Summary so far
In this section, some simple cases of problem-signalling concerning the prepositioned selfinitiation of repair were presented. The analysis showed that the speakers of the trouble source
in German display three distinct types of speaking problems, namely lexical problems,
phrasing problems and factual problems.
3.2 Complex cases: Problem recategorisations
(4) BM-ZS4bh./951–986 sec. ((In this radio phone-in, callers try to answer questions that could be posed by
children.))
01
M:
WEISST du jetz au nOch ähm aus was s:pucke beSTEHT?
now, do you also know uhm what s:aliva consists of
02
03
(1.2)
C:
°hh ich DENke mal: grOßer Anteil WASser?
I think a: great part of it is water
04
M:
mh_mh,
→ 05
C:
un:d <<creaky voice> ah ick ^WEISS nIch;
an:d uh I don’t know
06
so was so was n_bisschen so KLEbriges,=
something something like a little bit sticky
→ 07
=keine AHnung,=
no idea
08
irgendwElche °hh <<t, p, breathy> (irgnd)wElche
some °hh some
6
→ 09
ja mir fehlt das WORT grade;> (-)
well I can’t think of the word right now
→ 10
<<p, all> ↑WEESS ich nich;=
I don’t know
11
=<<all> auf jEden fall [aus viel WASser;>
]
it any case (it consists of) a lot of water
12
M:
[denk mal an das KÜken;]
think of the newly hatched chicken
13
14
(---)
C:
an das KÜken?
the chicken
15
M:
[mh_mh,]
16
C:
[°hh
] m:: EIweiß?
protein
17
M:
`´mh_mh?
18
C:
<<h> ^JU:T;> (---)
good
19
M:
<<all> und wAs NOCH?>
and what else
→ 20
C:
ahm: f: <<p, creaky voice, very unclearly> WEESS ich nich;
uhm: f: I don´t know
21
↑EIweiß, (1.2)
protein
→ 22
keine ´AHnung,> (-)
no idea
23
24
Eiweiß und WASser;
protein and water
M:
und SALZ;
and salt
25
C:
<<h> und SALZ;
and salt
26
27
^m:;>
M:
mh_mh,
In this example, the caller is trying to answer the moderator’s question “now, do you also
know uhm what s:aliva consists of?”. After naming one constituent in line 03, she produces a
lengthend “un:d” in line 05 and demonstrates that she has difficulty completing her turn. She
then uses the very explicit problem-signalling expressions “ick WEISS nich;” (“I don’t
know”) and “keine AHnung,” (“no idea”) as well as several other hedges and thus shows that
she doesn’t really know what saliva consists of, i. e, she displays a factual problem. By
7
contrast, in line 09 she employs the metacommunicative expression “ja mir fehlt das WORT
grade;” (“well, I can’t think of the word right now”). By doing so, she recategorises the
factual problem as a lexical problem, i. e., as a momentary inability to retrieve a specific
lexical item. However, the following sequential context reveals that the caller actually cannot
provide a complete answer by herself, so that the moderator has to give her a hint and help her
out. In this case, one could argue that the caller uses a face-saving strategy (cf. Goffman
1969); this strategy consists in masking a factual problem by treating it as if it were a lexical
problem. Obviously, the caller prefers to claim that she is only momentarily incapable of
accessing the right word. The reason for this strategy is that displaying a temporary lexical
problem is less face-threatening for the caller than her clearly admitting that she lacks the
necessary knowledge in order to answer the moderator’s question adequately.
So far, my analysis has suggested that metacommunicative problem-signalling expressions are
always used to display specific types of speaking problems. However, this is not always the
case. Some metacommunicative problem-signalling expressions are used non-specifically;
i.e., they are used to display speaking problems (as opposed to, for instance, problems in
hearing and understanding) but they are not used to display particular types of speaking
problems.
3.3 Non-specific metacommunicative problem-signalling expressions
(5) TD-Stefan1 (Ergänzung)/1254–1264 sec. ((private phone call; topic: computer games))
01
S:
geNAU;
exactly
→ 02
du kAnnst ja von mir au noch die_äh <<all> SACH schon;>
you can PTCL from me also the_uh say already
you can also get from me the_uh come on
03
°hh äh: (-) ((smacks lips)) NA,
°hh uh: (-) ((smacks lips)) PTCL
→ 04
<<p, unclearly> wie HEI[SST (die hier)
>]
what is (this here) called
05
F:
[die Andern folgen von] (
);
the other episodes of ( )
06
S:
drAwn toGEther;
07
F:
oh drawn together will ich AUCH haben;
oh I also want to have drawn together
8
In line 02, Stefan, who is the speaker of the trouble source, begins a new TCU. He then selfinitiates repair with the hesitation marker “äh” and then produces the metacommunicative
problem-signalling expression “SACH schon;” followed by several disfluency markers in line
03. In line 04 he makes use of the metacommunicative expression “wie HEISST,” thus
displaying a lexical problem. In other words, Stefan shows that he has difficulty remembering
the name of a computer game. In line 06 he self-repairs by producing the name of the
computer game.
(6) BM-ZS7(1)/2312–2329 sec. ((radio phone-in; topic: European cup))
01
M:
aber ey ich hatte nämlich das proBLEM?
but hey I had the problem
02
<<creaky voice> ah> ' also ich hab ich hab diese ERSte halbzeit
ähm von: ähm diesem HAMmerspiel äh °hh ähm ((clicks tongue))
uh so I watched I watched the first half uhm of: uhm this great game uh °hh uhm
→ 03
<<all> na SAG schon> ↑NIEderlande: gegen
PTCL say already netherlands: against
oh come on netherlands: against
i[TAlien (geguckt), ]
italy
04
K:
[du meinst schwEden][gegen GRIEchenland;]
you mean sweden against greece
05
C:
06
M:
[mh_mh,
]
<<smile voice> NEE,>
no
07
das ähm das hab ich nämlich im RAdio gehört;
this uhm I heard it on the radio
08
aber es wird nich alles überTRAgen;=
but not everything is broadcast
In this excerpt, the same metacommunicative expression “na SAG schon” is used as in
example (5). However, unlike in the previous example, we can here reconstruct a factual
problem rather than a lexical problem. In line 02, the moderator starts a new TCU which is
full of disfluency markers. After the word “HAMmerspiel” (“great game”) he produces more
disfluency markers and in line 03 he makes use of the metacommunicative expression “na
SAG schon”. In this example, it is not likely that the speaker of the trouble source is trying to
recall the two lexical items, i. e., the country names “Netherlands” and “Italy”. Rather, it
appears that he is trying to remember which countries participated in that particular football
9
game, i. e., he is most probably trying to recall some non-linguistic information. We can find
evidence for this interpretation in the co-moderator’s other-repair in line 04. By mentioning
two completely different national teams, the co-moderator shows that he has understood the
moderator’s search as concerning not a linguistic aspect, but rather a factual aspect, i. e. the
identification of the correct referents. In line 06 the moderator rejects this other-repair and
thus confirms his own repair solution.
4 Conclusions
In my analysis I have reconstructed a problem typology from a participants’ perspective. It
was shown that in cases of prepositioned self-initiation of repair in German, the speakers of
the trouble source employ metacommunicative problem-signalling expressions and other very
explicit problem-signalling expressions to display three distinct types of speaking problems,
namely:
1) lexical problems, concerning the retrieval of specific lexical items;
2) phrasing problems concerning the appropriate verbalisation of complex ideas, and
3) factual problems concerning the retrieval of non-linguistic information.
Furthermore, the speakers of the trouble source can recategorise a speaking problem, thus
making use of a face-saving strategy. However, certain metacommunicative expressions (e.g.
“sag schon”) are used non-specifically, i. e., they are not used to display a particular problem
type.
My analysis thus shows that, in addition to looking into the structural and functional
properties of self-repair, it is also insightful and quite revealing to look into possible reasons
for speaking problems. However, such reasons are not to be understood in a psycholinguistic
sense, as is e.g. the case in the study of Levelt (1983). Interactional-linguistic research can
neither deal with nor is it interested in the “true” underlying, cognitive and affective factors
and causes which lead to trouble in speech production. Instead, by adopting an interactional
approach, we can explore how participants display, make interpretable for each other and
negotiate the reasons for their speaking problems in order to maintain intersubjectivity in
interaction.
10
5. References
Auer, P. (2005): Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex turns in conversation. In:
Hakulinen, A.; Selting, M. (eds.): Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic
resources in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75–102
Auer, P.; Rönfeldt, B. (2002): Erinnern und Vergessen. Erschwerte Wortfindung als interaktives und
soziales Problem. In: Schecker, M. (ed.): Wortfindung und Wortfindungsstörungen. Tübingen: Narr,
77–108
Birkner, K.; Henricson, S.; Lindholm, C.; Pfeiffer, M. (2010): Retraction patterns and self-repair in
German and Swedish prepositional phrases. InList 46, 1–32
Chafe, W. (1985): Some reasons for hesitating. In: Tannen, D.; Saville-Troike, M. (ed.): Perspectives
on silence. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Cor-poration, 77–89
Fox, B.; Jasperson, R. (1995): A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In: Davis, Ph.
(ed.): Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 77–134
Fox, B. A.; Maschler, Y.; Uhmann, S. (2009) [Fox et al. 2009a]: Morpho-syntactic resources for the
organization of same-turn self-repair: Cross-linguistic variation in English, German and Hebrew. In:
Gesprächsforschung
–
Online-Zeitschrift
zur
verbalen
Interaktion
10,
245–291
(www.gesprächsforschung-ozs.de)
Fox, B.; Wouk, F.; Hayashi, M.; Fincke, S.; Tao, L.; Sorjonen, M.-L.; Laakso, M.; Hernandez, W. F.
(2009) [Fox et al. 2009b]: A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation in same-turn selfrepair. In Sidnell, J. (ed.): Conversation analysis. Comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 60–103
Goffman, E. (1969): On Face-Work. In: ders.: Where the action is. London: Penguin Press, 3–36
Hölker, K. (1988): Zur Analyse von Markern: Korrektur- und Schlussmarker des Französischen.
Stuttgart: Steiner
Hutchby, Ian; Wooffitt, Robin (2008): Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications.
Cambridge: Polity Press
Jasperson, R. (2002): Some linguistic aspects of closure cut-off. In: Ford, C.; Fox, B.; Thompson, S.
(eds.): The language of turn and sequence. New York: Oxford University Press, 257–286
Kindt W.; Laubenstein, U. (1991): Reparaturen und Koordinationskonstruktionen. Ein Beitrag zur
Strukturanalyse des gesprochenen Deutsch. KoLiBri-Arbeitsbericht 20. DFG-Forschergruppe
Kohärenz. University of Bielefeld.
Kindt, W.; Rittgeroth, Y. (2009): Strategien der Verständigungssicherung. Zur Lösung einer
universellen Aufgabe von Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Lerner, G.; Kitzinger, C. (2007): Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective
self-reference. In: Discourse Studies 9 (4), 526–557
Levelt, W. (1983): Monitoring and self-repair in speech. In: Cognition 14, 41–104
Papantoniou, Th. (2011): Über die Darstellung von Problemtypen des Sprechens im Deutschen. Eine
interaktional-linguistische Untersuchung von Reparaturen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Potsdam
11
Pfeiffer, M. C. (submitted): Formal vs. functional motivations for the structure of self-repair in
German. In: Malchukov, A. /Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.): Competing motivations. Oxford University
Press.
Pfeiffer, M. C. (to appear): What prosody reveals about the speaker’s cognition: Self-repair in German
prepositional phrases. In: Bergmann, P./Brenning, J./ Pfeiffer, M. C./Reber, E. (eds.): Prosody and
Visual Signals. Interactional studies meet usage-based grammar theories. FRIAS-series “linguae &
litterae” de Gruyter
Rabanus, S. (2001): Intonatorische Verfahren im Deutschen und Italienischen. Gesprächsanalyse und
autosegmentale Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Schegloff, E. A. (1979): The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In: Givón, T. (ed.): Syntax
and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York u. a.: Academic Press, 261–286
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. (1977): The preference for self-correction in the organization
of repair in conversation. In: Language 53 (2), 361–382
Selting, M. (1987): Verständigungsprobleme. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der BürgerVerwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Selting, M.; Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001): Forschungsprogramm „Interaktionale Linguistik“. In:
Linguistische Berichte 187, 257–287
Selting, M.; Auer, P.; Barth-Weingarten, D.; Bergmann, J.; Bergmann, P.; Birkner, K.; CouperKuhlen, E.; Deppermann, A.; Gilles, P.; Günthner, S.; Hartung, M.; Kern, F.; Mertzlufft, Ch.; Meyer,
Ch.; Morek, M.; Oberzaucher, F.; Peters, J.; Quasthoff, U.; Schütte, W.; Stukenbrock, A.; Uhmann, S.
(2009): Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT2). In: Gesprächsforschung – OnlineZeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10, 353–402
12