Chapter 6: Repair, Correction and Negative Evaluation
6.2 Correction and repair in learning contexts
Both repair and correction relate to the management of some kind of interactional ‘trouble’. Conversation analysts (e.g. Lerner, 2004; Seedhouse, 2004; Liddicoat, 2011) define ‘trouble’ in interaction as anything that is signalled as such by the interaction partners. This may include errors, although a detectable error is not essential for the presence of ‘trouble’ (Schegloff et al, 1977). Ferguson (1994) noted that CA marks a departure from previous approaches to the categorising of errors in interactions involving people with communication impairments, in that a CA approach demands that each example of ‘trouble’ or ‘repair’ be defined in terms of its interactional significance, rather than in terms of some a priori list of possible types of trouble/repair. In addition, ‘repair’ is seen as a resource for maintaining mutual understanding, a commonplace occurrence in everyday interaction and, thus, not ‘remarkable’ in and of itself. The conversation analytic approach to the management of interactional trouble involves attention to the temporal and multi-modal aspects of interaction. By focusing on “how the participants’ own local management of interaction is sequentially organised” (Nevile & Rendle-Short, 2007:302), CA demands attention be given to the contributions of both interaction partners in
resolving any kind of interactional trouble. Thus, in SLT-client interactions, equal attention needs to be given to the SLT and the client and their respective contributions to the
resolution of errors. Simply attending to errors made by the client with the communication impairment is not sufficient.
In their seminal article on repair, Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks (1977) describe repair as a ‘self-righting mechanism’ for inter-subjectivity and the maintenance of shared meaning. This is not a deficit view of errors. Viewing repair as a self-righting mechanism suggests, instead, that all aspects of talk might need to be clarified and negotiated for inter-
subjectivity to be sustained. Schegloff et al (1977) define four different patterns of repair, based on who initiates the repair activity and who completes it. They thus distinguish between self-initiated self-repair (SI/SR), self-initiated other-repair (SI/OR), other-initiated self-repair (OI/SR) and other-initiated other-repair (OI/OR). As Hayashi, Raymond & Sidnell (2013) note, repair opportunities “unfold in time with the trouble source speaker
having the first, and most, opportunities for both indicating and managing troubles”, so much so that “the procedural machinery of repair is systematically biased in favour of having speakers manage their own troubles” (2013:10). That is, people may repair their own errors, within the same turn or at the turn boundary. Other initiation of repair occurs after two options for self-repair have passed. In addition, a person who makes an error might identify the error and seek support from their interactional partner to complete the correction of the error in the next turn. Other-repairs are often modulated in some way (McHoul, 1990) and are often proffered for acceptance or rejection by the person who has made the error, as one way of ameliorating the potential face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987) of repairing someone else’s talk.
Considerable attention has been paid to the issue of repair in institutional contexts involving people with impaired communication, such as audiology (e.g. Lind, 2013), aphasia therapy research (e.g. Ferguson, 1994; Simmons-Mackie, 1995; Lindsay &
Wilkinson, 1999; Laakso, 2003), as well as in classrooms involving children with language impairments (e.g. Radford, 2010; Radford, Ireson & Mahon, 2012). Much of this research has focused on describing how repair affects intersubjectivity, especially in everyday interactions between a person with a communication impairment and their communication partners. In such interactions, other-initiated/other-repair sequences are likely to have a significant negative impact on the aphasic client’s autonomy and on the progressivity of interaction (Lindsay & Wilkinson, 1999). Radford (2008) identified a range of repair initiation strategies used in classrooms with children who have specific language
impairments, including generic/non-specific repair initiator as well as three more specific repair initiators, viz. WH-questions, ‘designedly incomplete utterances’ (Koskik, 2002) and ‘candidate answers’ (Pomerantz, 1988). Radford (2008) also noted that we know far more about repair and correction trajectories in both general and second language classrooms than we do about repair in therapy contexts.
In his analysis of classroom interactions, McHoul (1990) argued that repair is not
qualitatively different to correction, rather it “is a general sequential phenomenon of which corrections as such form just one part” (1990:350). Macbeth (2004) critiques McHoul’s characterisation of repair as a general phenomenon, arguing that ‘repair’ and ‘correction’ are “distinctive – and concurrent – organizational domains” (2004:715), where ‘repair’ indicates a focus on sustaining mutual understanding while ‘correction’ indicates a focus
on the prior speaker replacing an ‘error’ by what is ‘correct’. Thus, ‘repair’ orients to ‘errors’ in a non-deficit way, whereas ‘correction’ is more deficit-focused: the ‘error’ is something that needs to be corrected. In doing correction, the interaction partner is pointing out the required knowledge or skill that needs to be demonstrated. Macbeth (2004) furthermore notes that correction is routinely done in environments where “something like instruction is going on, with the full entailments of task, identity and relation that instruction implies” (2004:726). Schegloff et al (1977), too, indicate that the preference for self-repair does not occur in the same way in interactions involving people who are “not-yet-competent, people who are still learning or being taught to operate a system [repair] which requires that they self-monitor and self-correct as a condition of competence” (1977:380-381). While this description is framed with reference to children, who are still learning about the system of repair, it also has relevance for people with communication impairments, as both groups are likely to have limits to their linguistic competence. Norrick (1991), in his discussion of other-correction in adult-child and in native/non-native speaker interactions, suggests that the speaker with greater competence may become so focused on the novice’s ‘learning’ that the usual preference for self-repair no longer applies; thus, a focus on learning may increase the likelihood of overt correction. The central issue in therapy tasks is ensuring that the client gets the task ‘right’, by
producing a sound or word in a particular way. Accurate completion of tasks, or getting things ‘right’, helps to build neural pathways and meta-cognitive awareness relevant to improving linguistic competence and sustaining this over time (Seigal, 2003). Thus, it is more likely to see examples of ‘correction, rather than repair, in therapy environments. The only research identified that explored corrections in SLT therapy interactions was by Simmons-Mackie & Damico (2008), who applied the ‘exposed’ and ‘embedded’ categories of correction, described by Jefferson (1987), to examples of correction found in aphasia therapy interactions. When correction is done explicitly, in an exposed way, it serves to halt the prior flow of talk until the error is addressed. The alternative way to do other- repair is in an embedded manner, where the repair is offered within the next turn but in such a way as to allow the flow of talk to continue without interruption per se. Simmons- Mackie & Damico (2008) found that corrections in aphasia therapy interactions differ from naturally occurring conversation in that the corrections “were rarely rejected and were delivered without accountings” (2008:13). They noted a greater emphasis on ‘exposed’
corrections, which relate to the precise management of errors rather than to the client’s intended communicative meaning. Embedded corrections, on the other hand, focus more on “issues of self-expression, politeness, parity and self-image” (2008:14) than on the management of errors. The patterns of correction noted by Simmons-Mackie & Damico (2008) relate to group therapy conversations, specifically to instances where the SLT provides the correct form of word following a client error, similar to what Lindsay & Wilkinson (1999) refer to as ‘correct production sequences’.
6.2.1 Repair and intersubjectivity in therapy tasks
Macbeth’s (2004) distinction between ‘repair’ (an issue of intersubjectivity) and ‘correction’ (an issue of skill or knowledge) is a valuable one for the analysis of client errors in therapy contexts, as both ‘repair-ables’ and ‘correct-ables’ occur in these contexts. Repair sequences occur when there is some challenge to inter-subjectivity, while correction sequences relate to the accurate production of some linguistic feature. This section will review examples of repair sequences.
The three data excerpts presented below involve the therapist initiating and/or completing a
repair sequence – where the issue is shared meaning. The first two excerpts come from more conversational phases of therapy sessions, while the third comes after the client has indicated a lack of knowledge of the picture he has been asked to name. All excerpts arguably involve the repair of intersubjectivity. The first example of other-initiated, other- repair occurs following an unsuccessful word search by a client who is telling the story of going on a pub-crawl along a coastal road in Victoria that is renowned for its sharp turns and limited visibility. After producing the first three elements of this story (lines 86, 88, 91), the SLT offers a ‘candidate’ (Pomerantz, 1988) synopsis of the main story line (line 92: “so it was like a pub cra:wl along the Great Ocean”).
Excerpt 6.1: a pub crawl along the Great Ocean
86 C: I went in the pub
87 T: right.
88 C: got(.)|two glasses
|gestures drinking 2 glasses, moving on and drinking more)
89 T: right
90 C: uhm
92 T: so it was like a pub cra:wl along the Great Ocean
93 C: Heh heh heh
94 T: Road.=that must be one of the most dangerous thing
95 a person could ever do?=
96 C: but-
97 C: =but ah,(3.0)um where(xxx)before they got the
98 (4.0)um::
99 T: Oh I know what you’re trying to say=before they got
100 the point ‘o’ five limit.=ri:ght >but even so:
101 C: Yeah
102 T: that’s a da:ngerous place to drive anyway
The client receipts the SLT’s synopsis with laughter, at the point where the SLT has just produced the phrase pub crawl (line 92), indicating that the SLT is correct in her synopsis of the gist of his story so far. At lines 97-98, the client tries to counter the SLT’s
description of this behaviour as ‘dangerous’ (line 94); he is attempting to specify
something about the time when he undertook his pub crawl (“=but ah:,(3.0)u:m where (xxx) before they got the (4.0)u:m”). Following the (4.0) silence that occurs at the end of the client’s turn, the SLT offers a candidate answer in line 99, viz. that the story occurred before the Australian law identified that drivers must have less than 0.05 ml of alcohol in their blood system while driving. The design of this turn (line 99: “I know what you are trying to say”) acknowledges that the client has been searching for the right words and then provides the element of the story that the client has not been able to produce himself (“before they got the point ‘o’ five limit”). The client receipts this repair initiation with an acknowledgement (line 101: “yeah”), produced in overlap with the SLT’s turn. Through her repair initiation, the SLT ensures that the import of the client’s abandoned turn (line 97) is successfully re-established.
Excerpt 6.2 involves a sequence where the SLT combines other-initiated repair, aimed at establishing intersubjectivity, with providing the more ‘correct’ form of the question produced by the paediatric client in his prior turn. At the end of the therapy session, the SLT and the client are tallying up who won a ‘fishing game’ that has been in progress throughout the session, in between therapy tasks.
Excerpt 6.2: who’s got the longest?
144 T who’s got the most?
145 C yeah
146 T we’ll count them up.=how many have you got.
In response to the client’s question (line 143), the SLT produces a follow-up question (line 144), thereby flagging that something about the client’s question requires clarification. Her turn also provides a more appropriate version of the question posed in the prior turn by the client: in dealing with numbers, the word most is more appropriate than the word longest. The client accepts this revision of his initial question and the activity continues. In simply receipting her revision of his question, the client actually responds to the SLT’s question as if it was directed at checking what he meant (intersubjectivity), rather than being a
correction. If he had understood her turn as a correction, it is more likely that he would have repeated the original question with the correct word (most) in it (Jefferson, 1987). The final example, in excerpt 6.3, occurs within the completion of a therapy task, but the SLT’s provision of a word (line 59: “sewing”) to describe the picture is not a correction. Instead, she provides a word that the client indicates he doesn’t know (line 58: “I don’t know”).
Excerpt 6.3: what’s the girl doing?
56 T what’s the ↓girl doing?
57 (2.0)
58 C I don’t know
59 T oh (.) yo- your nanna does that (.) sewing
60 C stewing.
61 T teeth shut 62 C s:::ewing
The above examples all relate to the maintenance of intersubjectivity rather than to correct production of some aspect of speech or language. Thus, they are examples of ‘repair’. The analysis presented in the next section focuses on sequences that relate to the client getting something ‘right’. In the context of trying to produce a word or sound in response to some task request, any production that does not meet the pre-determined criteria can be seen as something to be corrected.