Aphasia and Open Format Other-Initiation of Repair: Solving Complex Trouble in Conversation

ABSTRACT

If a listener uses a token like huh, what, sorry (an “open format other-initiation of repair”) to signal a problem in what the previous speaker has just said, it implies that it is the speaker who is responsible and that they should repair their own talk. But if the speaker is someone with aphasia, they may experience difficulty carrying out self-repair without support from their conversation partners. This article demonstrates how generating repair solutions to open format repair initiations can indeed be difficult for people with aphasia. It then explores how simplifying the design of the troublesome turn can reduce the linguistic burden on speakers with aphasia and involve conversation partners in resolving the trouble. This study adds to knowledge about the effects of aphasia on interaction, open formats, and the interface between action formation and turn design. Data are in Australian English.

Notes

¹ In addition, the generic nature of repair (Schegloff, 2006) and the starkness of open formats offer a robust basis for cross-linguistic comparison (see, e.g., Enfield et al., 2013; Dingemanse et al., 2014; Dingemanse, Torreira, & Enfield, 2013).

² Interested readers can find detailed information about each participant’s communication impairments in Barnes (2013) and Barnes and Ferguson (2015).

³ See Barnes et al. (2013) for a more detailed analysis of this extract.

⁴ There are five instances in the present data set where the speaker with aphasia employs simple repetition. In three instances, the trouble source arises as a consequence of overlap or quiet talk, and the repair solution is provided by the participant with the mildest expressive aphasia. In the remaining two instances, the participant with the most severe aphasia repeats gestures rather than talk (see, e.g., Extract 6).

⁵ Whether this was the precise aim of Valerie’s question remains unclear. As the talk proceeds after Extract 4, Valerie supports Betty’s multiunit response with continuers, and Kath then initiates another stepwise topic shift.

⁶ As one reviewer noted, the intervening “s:::” means that his continuation does not precisely cohere with the preceding TCU. This segment is analyzed as a word beginning that is aborted (i.e., self-repaired) and replaced with “be.”

⁷ Although it is never established, the weak resolution of the trouble in this extract appears to hinge on the nature of Russell’s inquiry. Carol takes it as concerning the research recording—whether she will be here for it—but it seems possible that Russell may have been asking her about her/their plans for the day (see lines 13–14).

⁸ Retrospectively, it seems that Ben’s initial gestures were depicting the postman riding a motor scooter.

⁹ On the other hand, again, choosing not to dispense with parts of the trouble-source turn demonstrates the persisting relevance of modulation along these lines (see, e.g., Schegloff, 2004, Extract 1).

¹⁰ It is notable that Extracts 4 and 5 are questions and involve strong epistemic asymmetry. Actions that index and realize stark epistemic, deontic, benefactive, etc., asymmetry may be very likely to engender dispensing following open format other-initiations (when interactants’ statuses along these lines allow for it).

¹¹ See Robinson and Kevoe-Feldman (2014) on the differential work accomplished via the turn and the sequence in courses of action dedicated to making arrangements.