Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Text & Talk

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies

Ed. by Sarangi, Srikant


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.400
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.750

CiteScore 2018: 0.61

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.305
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.670

Online
ISSN
1860-7349
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 35, Issue 6

Issues

You said that?”: Other-initiations of repair addressed to represented talk

Gabriele Kasper
  • Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Matthew T. Prior
Published Online: 2015-11-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0024

Abstract

This paper examines a topic that has not gained much analytic attention in research on represented talk: how recipients respond, and how their responses shape the ongoing interaction. Using conversation analysis, we investigate responses to represented talk in complaint stories told in autobiographical interviews. Supportive recipient actions are the most common, but on occasion the recipient other-initiates repair on the quoted talk. These other-initiations of repair are done as candidate understandings, formatted as positive declarative questions, and regularly locate the specific trouble source in the represented talk through prosodic emphasis. In some instances, they do no more than seeking confirmation of the story recipient’s uncertain understanding, but often, the other-initiations of repair are produced or understood as questioning the acceptability of the represented talk. For the most part tellers reaffirm, defend, and reinforce their claim that the talk happened as previously portrayed. By rejecting the recipient’s challenge, the tellers show that they expect a more empathetic stance from the story recipient. Finally, we consider what the participants may accomplish with the observed practices in the autobiographic interview as an institutional activity.

Keywords: represented talk and thought; reported speech; candidate understandings; other-initiations of repair; complaint stories; interviews

References

  • Beach, Wayne A. 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 325–352.Google Scholar

  • Buttny, Richard. 1998. Putting prior talk into context: Reported speech and the reporting context. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31. 45–58.Google Scholar

  • Carter, Elizabeth. 2013. Analysing police interviews: Laughter, confessions and the tape. London: Continuum.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Anssi Peräkylä & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.), Emotion in interaction, 113–146. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting (eds.). 1996. Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 69–101.Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31. 295–325.Google Scholar

  • Glenn, Phillip. 2003. Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 395–414. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27. 291–334.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Holt, Elizabeth. 2000. Reporting and reacting. Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4). 425–454.Google Scholar

  • Holt, Elizabeth & Rebecca Clift (eds.). 2007. Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jefferson, Gail. 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 79–96. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar

  • Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In Valentina D’Urso & Paolo Leonardi (eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric, 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.

  • Jefferson, Gail. 1985. On the interactional unpackaging of a ‘gloss’. Language in Society 14. 435–466.Google Scholar

  • Jefferson, Gail, Harvey Sacks & Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1987. Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (ed.), Talk and social organisation, 152–205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Kasper, Gabriele & Matthew T. Prior. 2015. Analyzing story telling in TESOL interview research. TESOL Quarterly 49(2). 226–255.CrossrefWeb of Science

  • Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond rhetorical questions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2013. Storytelling in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanja Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 492–597. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Mori, Junko & Shima, Chiharu. 2014. Co-construction of “doctorable” conditions in multilingual medical encounters: Cases from urban Japan. Applied Linguistics Review 5(1). 45–72.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Potter, Jonathan. 1998. Cognition as context (whose cognition?). Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(1). 29–44.Google Scholar

  • Prior, Matthew T. 2011. Self-presentation in interview talk: Narrative versions, accountability, and emotionality. Applied Linguistics 32(1). 60–76.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Prior, Matthew T. 2016. Emotion and discourse in L2 narrative research. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68. 939–967.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006. Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication Monographs 73(2). 137–161.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisation, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Sarangi, Srikant. 2003. Institutional, professional, and lifeworld frames in interview talk. In Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell & Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, 64–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21(2). 205–243.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361–338.Google Scholar

  • Selting, Margret. 1996. Prosody as an activity-type distinctive signalling cue in conversation. The case of so-called ‘astonished questions’ in repair-initiation. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Selting, Margret. 2010. Conversational storytelling: Displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics 20 (2). 229–277.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41(1). 31–57.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Categorial systematics. Discourse Studies 14. 345–354.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Svennevig, Jan. 2008. Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 333–348.Google Scholar

  • Wilkinson, Sue & Celia Kitzinger. 2006. Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2). 150–182.Google Scholar

About the article

Gabriele Kasper

Gabriele Kasper is professor of second language studies at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Her teaching and research are concerned with language and social interaction in multilingual settings, the social side of cognition, emotion and learning, and qualitative research methodology.

Matthew T. Prior

Matthew T. Prior is an assistant professor in Applied Linguistics/TESOL in the Department of English at Arizona State University. His interests include narrative and discursive-constructionist approaches to emotion, multilingualism, and identity. His recent monograph is Emotion and Discourse in L2 Narrative Research (2016, Multilingual Matters).


Published Online: 2015-11-28

Published in Print: 2015-12-01


Citation Information: Text & Talk, Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 815–844, ISSN (Online) 1860-7349, ISSN (Print) 1860-7330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0024.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in