Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:09:09.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Other-repetition in conversation across languages: Bringing prosody into pragmatic typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2020

Giovanni Rossi*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, USA University of Helsinki, Finland
*
Address for correspondence: Giovanni Rossi, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, 375 Portola Plaza, 264 Haines Hall, Los Angeles, CA90095-1551, USA[email protected]

Abstract

In this article, I introduce the aims and scope of a project examining other-repetition in natural conversation. This introduction provides the conceptual and methodological background for the five language-specific studies contained in this special issue, focussing on other-repetition in English, Finnish, French, Italian, and Swedish. Other-repetition is a recurrent conversational phenomenon in which a speaker repeats all or part of what another speaker has just said, typically in the next turn. Our project focusses particularly on other-repetitions that problematise what is being repeated and typically solicit a response. Previous research has shown that such repetitions can accomplish a range of conversational actions. But how do speakers of different languages distinguish these actions? In addressing this question, we put at centre stage the resources of prosody—the nonlexical acoustic-auditory features of speech—and bring its systematic analysis into the growing field of pragmatic typology—the comparative study of language use and conversational structure. (Repetition, conversation, prosody, pragmatics, typology)*

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank all the founding members of the project reported on in this special issue for their input and comments on this introduction: Betty Couper-Kuhlen, Auli Hakulinen, Martina Huhtamäki, Jan Lindström, Ami Londen, Rasmus Persson, Melisa Stevanovic, and Anna Vatanen. I am also grateful to Jack Sidnell for his advice and patience through the gestation of the special issue. In the early stages of the project, we benefitted from conversations with Emma Betz, who generously shared literature on other-repetition, and with Mietta Lennes, Richard Ogden, and Francisco Torreira, who participated in project workshops at the University of Helsinki. The project was hosted and funded by the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction (Academy of Finland grant # 284595). We owe a particular debt of gratitude to the director of the centre, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, for making this project possible and for her continued support and encouragement.

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, Meghan E., & Prieto, Pilar (2015). The contribution of context and contour to perceived belief in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics 81:7792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3:255309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor M., & Walker, Traci S. (2013). Managing problems of acceptability through high rise-fall repetitions. Discourse Processes 50(2):107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett-Kastor, Tina L. (1994). Repetition in language development: From interaction to cohesion. In Barbara Johnstone (ed.), Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives, vol. 1, 155–71. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana; House, Juliane; & Kasper, Gabriele (eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs 76(2):121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1957). Interrogative structures of American English. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1989). Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope (1998). Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(2):197221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope (1999). Repetition. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2):223–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carletta, Jean; Isard, Stephen; Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth; Isard, Amy; Kowtko, Jacqueline C.; & Anderson, Anne H. (1997). The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics 23(1):1331.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 366405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Margret Selting, et al., Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12:151.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Selting, Margret (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William (2003). Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S. (2005). Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of ‘repetitions’. Discourse Processes 39(1):143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, & Enfield, N. J. (2015). Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1:96118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, & Enfield, N. J., & Floyd, Simeon (2014). Conversation across cultures. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, Paul, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 434–64. 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(1):69101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3):359410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.; Stivers;, Tanya & Levinson, Stephen C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10):2615–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Jo Ann (1975). A system for the transfer of instructions in natural settings. Semiotica 14(3):269–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, & Savino, Michelina (2003). Map tasks in Italian: Asking questions about given, accessible and new information. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2:153–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2016). Foundations of intonational meaning: Anatomical and physiological factors. Topics in Cognitive Science 8(2):425–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, Ken (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1(1):547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
’t Hart, Johan; Collier, René; & Cohen, Antonie (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3):663–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto; Raymond, Geoffrey; & Sidnell, Jack (2013). Conversational repair and human understanding: An introduction. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding, 140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, & Bolden, Galina B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis, 5776. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel, & Cristo, Albert Di (eds.) (1998). Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, David N. (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 294338. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara (ed.) (1994). Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives, vol. 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Keenan, Elinor (1977). Making it last: Repetition in children's discourse. In Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. & Mitchell-Kernan, Claudia (eds.), Child discourse, 125–38. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, John, & Local, John (1989). Doing phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. (2015). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics 1:164–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction 35(3):277309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational phonology. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee (2016). Information and affiliation: Disconfirming responses to polar questions and what follows in third position. Journal of Pragmatics 100:5972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.; Bolden, Galina B.; Hepburn, Alexa; & Mandelbaum, Jenny (2012). Reference recalibration repairs: Adjusting the precision of formulations for the task at hand. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(2):191212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, John (2007). Phonetic detail and the organisation of talk-in-interaction. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: ICPhS XVI, 110. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Local, John, & Walker, Gareth (2005). Methodological imperatives for investigating the phonetic organization and phonological structures of spontaneous speech. Phonetica 62(2–4):120–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, Francis (2006). Intonation. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 433–55. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. (1987). Functions of repetition in conversation. Text 7(3):245–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, J. D., & Arnold, G. F. (1973). Intonation of colloquial English. 2nd edn.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10):1752–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1983). Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica 40(1):118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Rasmus (2015). Registering and repair-initiating repeats in French talk-in-interaction. Discourse Studies 17(5):583608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Rasmus (2017). Fill-in-the-blank questions in interaction: Incomplete utterances as a resource for doing inquiries. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(3):227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., & Hirschberg, Julia (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry L., & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, Danielle (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4):375–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey N.; & Svartvik, Jan (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6):939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., & Kevoe-Feldman, Heidi (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43(3):232–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni (2015). Other-initiated repair in Italian. Open Linguistics 1(1):256–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savino, Michelina, & Grice, Martine (2011). The perception of negative bias in Bari Italian questions. In Frota, Sónia, Elordieta, Gorka, & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception, and comprehension, 187206. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology 102(1):161216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3):499546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2004). On dispensability. Research on Language & Social Interaction 37(2):95149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson;, Gail & Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2):361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4):289327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 231–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. (2009). Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. (2010). Conversation analysis. In Hornberger, Nancy H. & McKay, Sandra Lee (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education, 492527. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, Paul, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 364–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim; Beckman, Mary; Pitrelli, John; Ostendorf, Mari; Wightman, Colin; Price, Patti; Pierrehumbert, Janet; & Hirschberg, Julia (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing [ICSLP 1992], 867–70.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 277327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya; Enfield, N. J.; Brown, Penelope; Englert, Christina; Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine; Hoymann, Gertie; Rossano, Federico; de Ruiter, Jan Peter; Yoon, Kyung-Eun; & Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26):10587–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svennevig, Jan (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2):333–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, & Persson, Rasmus (2016). How speakers of different languages extend their turns: Word linking and glottalization in French and German. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2):128–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarplee, Clare (1996). Working on young children's utterances: Prosodic aspects of repetition during picture labelling. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 406–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Gareth (2013). Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis, 455–74. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, & Hirschberg, Julia (1985). Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61(4):747–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue, & Kitzinger, Celia (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2):150–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina (2006). Initiating repair and beyond: The use of two repeat-formatted repair initiations in Mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes 41(1):67109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar