English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons42

Dingemanse,  Mark
Language and Cognition Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Human Sociality and Systems of Language Use, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons4368

Blythe,  Joe
Language and Cognition Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
University of Melbourne, School of Languages and Linguistics;

/persons/resource/persons1182

Dirksmeyer,  Tyko
Language and Cognition Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society, Nijmegen, NL;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

Dingemanse_Blythe_Dirksmeyer_2014.pdf
(Publisher version), 386KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (2014). Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language, 38, 5-43. doi:10.1075/sl.38.1.01din.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0014-3BFA-4
Abstract
In conversation, people have to deal with problems of speaking, hearing, and understanding. We report on a cross-linguistic investigation of the conversational structure of other-initiated repair (also known as collaborative repair, feedback, requests for clarification, or grounding sequences). We take stock of formats for initiating repair across languages (comparable to English huh?, who?, y’mean X?, etc.) and find that different languages make available a wide but remarkably similar range of linguistic resources for this function. We exploit the patterned variation as evidence for several underlying concerns addressed by repair initiation: characterising trouble, managing responsibility, and handling knowledge. The concerns do not always point in the same direction and thus provide participants in interaction with alternative principles for selecting one format over possible others. By comparing conversational structures across languages, this paper contributes to pragmatic typology: the typology of systems of language use and the principles that shape them