Newman 1

Will Newman
December 8, 2014
Huh? What? Oh... Other-Initiated Self-Repair
TSL 643

Newman 2

Huh? What? Oh... Other-Initiated Self-Repair

Theoretical Foundations and Analysis of Data
Repair is a fundamental component of conversation used by speakers of all levels of
proficiency in both native and foreign languages. In our native languages, repair strategies
help us to correct factual, stylistic, and grammatical errors in our speech. Some repair
strategies, such as other-initiated self-repair strategies, can help us to clarify our
understanding of what has been said by other members of the conversation. These
clarifications may be necessary due to difficulties in hearing the other speakers or in
understanding the meaning of what was said. For foreign language students, repair strategies,
particularly those that aid comprehension, are an essential component of conversational
practice that is often overlooked in many introductory and intermediate foreign language
classes.
In this paper I will examine some of the recent literature on the topic of repairs in
general and other-initiated self-repairs specifically. I will examine the ways in which otherinitiated self-repairs are carried out in natural conversation by native speakers of a language,
as well as some applications of conversation analysis research to the foreign or second
language classroom. I will also examine a number of examples that I have collected from
naturally occurring speech. I recorded different people in my mothers home, including
myself, my mother, my stepfather, an aunt, and a four year old cousin, speaking naturally
both in the kitchen and around the dinner table. The kitchen in particular provided a good
environment for studying other-initiated repair strategies because the high level of noise
created many situations in which one participant in the conversation had difficulty in hearing
the other participant. I made the recordings on four different occasions for a total of roughly
thirty minutes of data. I was able to find many different examples of other-initiated self-

Newman 3

repair and will share several of them in this paper. Finally, I will discuss some of the
applications of this research to the English as a Second Language classroom and will develop
a number of practical instructional applications that incorporate other-initiated self-repairs as
a means of helping language students to attain clarifications both in and out of the classroom.
As the term suggests, other-initiated self-repair is a repair that is initiated by other
and completed by self (Wong & Waring, 2010, p. 228). In instances where there is issue of
misunderstanding in a conversation, the speaker who is the source of the confusion is referred
to as the self while the confused participant is the other. Hence an other-initiated selfrepair occurs when one participant seeks clarification concerning something in another
participants previous turn and receives an answer in the following turn. Wong & Waring
(2010) illustrate the interaction visually using the following diagram:
A: Turn 01
B: Turn 02 (initiates repair)
A: Turn 03 (completes repair) (p. 229)
The repair in Turn 02 can be initiated through several means, including:
(1) Open class repair initiators: Huh?, Pardon?, Sorry?, What?, Excuse me?
(2) Wh- interrogatives: who, when, where
(3) Partial repetition of the trouble-source + wh- interrogative
(4) Partial repetition of the trouble-source
(5) You mean + understanding check (Wong & Warring, 2010, p. 229)
In my data, I found thirteen examples of other-initiated self-repair, including nine uses of
open class repair initiators, one use of a wh- interrogative, one use of a partial repetition of
the trouble-source + wh- interrogative, and two examples similar to the you mean +
understanding check category.

Newman 4

That open class repair initiators were the most common form of other-initiated selfrepair in my data should not be a surprise as this type is seems to be the most general of the
five types. Open class repair initiators are generally used when the initiator does not have a
very good understanding of what the other speaker said. In the load kitchen where my data
was recorded, most misunderstandings were likely related to difficulties in hearing rather
than difficulties in comprehending the content. Because of this, it makes sense that the
repair-initiator would need a more general initiating word. They are seeking repetition more
than explanation.
I found a good example of this type of repair-initiation in my second recording, in an
exchange between myself and my aunt about the recording device that I was using to record
the conversations:
[Recording 2: 2:00 2:40]
01: Adult 1: Are you downloading something?
02: Adult 2: Huh?
03: Adult 1: What are you downloading?
04: Adult 2: Oh, Im just recording whats going on in the kitchen.
05: Adult 1: Okay...
06: Adult 3: Its for his school project.
07: Adult 1: Ooh, gotcha. What kind of project?
08: Adult 2: Its a conversation project. I have to record myself and the people
around me talking.

Newman 5

09: Adult 1: Ooh, gotcha.

10: Adult 3: Yup, so dont say any ugly words.
11: Adult 2: No dont worry about it. Im just looking at the order in which
were talkin and that sort of thing.
This exchange begins with an observation and question by Adult 1. Adult 2 is occupied with
playing with the four year old in the room and does not hear the question. Adult 1 decides to
not only repeat the question but to rephrase it. There may be a number of reasons for Adult
1s decision to rephrase the question, which makes complete sense both before and after the
repair-initiation. One likely reason is that she assumes that Adult 2 did not understand the
question. In some ways, Adult 2s repair-initiation in 02 may be seen as a means of buying
time to formulate an appropriate response to Adult 1s question. As a split second decision to
respond in that manner, there may be several reasons for the repair-initiation. While the
repair is completed within three turns (01-03), the conversation takes almost forty seconds to
resolve the initial question. This is interesting because Adult 2 could have answered the
question in a single turn if he had had an answer prepared. In many ways, the course of the
conversation, initiated by the repair initiation, draws out the process of answering the initial
question. In this way the other-initiated self-repair can be seen as serving a slightly different
purpose from simply clarifying a misunderstanding.
A more traditional example of other-initiated self-repair can be seen in the following
example from the dinner table in an exchange between an adult and a four year old child:
[Recording 4: 3:40 4:00]
01:

Child: Ice, ice

02:

Adult 1: ( ) ((speaking to adult 2))

Newman 6

03:

Adult 2: ( )

04:

Child: more ice, noni

05:

Adult 1: What?

06:

Child: more ice, noni

07:

Adult 1: Ice? Ice.

08:

Child: ice, noni

09:

Adult 1: Ok, Ill getchu some more ice. Hold on.

In this example Adult 1 does not hear the child talking because she is talking to Adult 2. The
exchange between Adult 1 and Adult 2 is mostly inaudible because of the childs mumbling
about ice. There are really two other-initiated repairs on the part of Adult 1. The first is the
Open class repair initiator What? in line 05. This repair initiation is likely meant to prompt
the child to repeat himself because Adult 1 did not hear what he had said. After the child
responds, the adult is still not entirely sure what to make of the childs utterance as it is really
only comprised of a single word ice. After a moments thought the adult realizes what the
child wants and affirms ice. The first ice in line 07 may be seen as a repair initiator of
the repetition class. However, the adult does not allow the repair to be completed by the
initial speaker. Instead, Adult 1 quickly realized what was said in the previous turn and
preempts the childs response to the repair completion.
As open class repair initiators are one of the most general ways of conveying
misunderstanding, the same initiators can be used with a variety of contexts. The word, such
as Huh? or What? is not dependent on a particular context. Due to this flexibility, these
words can often be replaced by simple gestures indicating that one does not understand. Seo

Newman 7

and Koshik (2010) analyze a number of different gestures that can be used to convey the
same meaning as an open class repair initiator. In the future this would certainly be
something to look at in analyzing other-initiated self-repair. As my data for this project is
solely aural, I do not have any information on this type of non-verbal repair initiator.
However in the future it is certainly something that I will look for try to incorporate into my
classes.
Given that the two primary components in this type of exchange are the initiation of
the repair by the other and the completion of the repair by the self, I decided that it would be
appropriate to include in my study of this topic an examination of some of the most recent
research on other-initiated repair and self-completed repair individually as they can appear in
several related contexts.
Bolden (2011) examines some of the ways in which other-initiated repair can function
in a conversation between more than two participants. As most of my examples come from
recordings of conversations with more than two participants, this article is very pertinent to
my investigation. One of Boldens most interesting findings is that a repair could be initiated
by the other and directed at a third speaker. In this way the other not only initiates the repair
but selects the next speaker as well. Indeed, I found two examples of this in my data. Both
examples involved one adult seeking clarification from a second adult about something said
by my four year old cousin:
[Recording 2: 7:50 8:10]
01:

Child:

Elsa, Anna, and Hawnz

02:

Adult 1:

What?

03:

Child:

Elsa, Anna, and Hawnz

Newman 8

04:

Adult 1:

What? What did he say?

05:

Adult 2:

Anna...

06:

Child:

Elsa, Anna, and Hawnz

07:

Adult 1:

[Elsa, Anna, and ...]

08:

Adult 2:

[Oooh, Elsa, Anna, and Hanz. Right.]

In this instance the confusion is mostly due to the four-year old not speaking clearly. Thus, it
does not precisely mimic the way in which this variant of the other-initiated repair would
function in most contexts between adults. However, it does illustrate how the other-initiated
repair can be used to involve a third speaker in the negotiation of a miscommunication
between two speakers. Of course this excerpt also includes two examples of open-class
repair initiators. (In case you were interested, the child is talking about three of the principal
characters in Disneys Frozen)
As noted above, I did find a few instances of repetition in my data. Repetition is
interesting because it can be partial. The speaker must decide how much of the initial
utterance should be repeated in order to achieve the desired result of requesting clarification.
Most of the examples of repetition that I found involved adults talking to the child. I
discounted most of these utterances as having purposes other than repair-initiation as their
central cause. Many of the repetition examples seemed to be playful in nature. They were
meant to show the child that the adult was listening and interested in what the child was
saying. Because of this observation, I did not include many examples of repetition in my data
conclusions because I deemed them to have goals other than repair initiation, even though
they often followed the same pattern as other-initiated self-repair sequences.

Newman 9

In her 2003 study of Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German

conversations Rieger notes that bilingual speakers of the two languages tended to repeat
different lengths of the previous utterance depending on the language that they were using.
This is interesting because it shows that many elements of conversational practice can differ
not only among individuals but among different languages spoken by the same individual.
This is important for the ESL teacher because an ESL class may have speakers from a variety
of different linguistic backgrounds. An ESL teacher should be prepared to notice and
accommodate differences among the students in a class. In teaching students to initiate
repairs, the teacher may need to take into account the linguistic background of the student,
especially if he is having difficulty in knowing how much of an utterance to repeat. Riegers
study only deals with speakers of English and German, but it would be fascinating to note the
differences among speakers of a variety of languages. It would also be interesting to see how
the average length of a repetition in English was related to the average length of the repetition
in the students native language. It is important to note that Rieger found that the length of
repetitions was not solely based on time, but rather on the number and variety of words and
parts of speech included. This is something that could definitely vary from language to
language and speaker to speaker in an ESL class.
Finally, I encountered an interesting example from the dinner table that seemed to
share elements both the partial repetition and the final category of understanding check.
This excerpt depicts of discussion of the location of temporary signs advertising the towns
Christmas festival that Adult 1 and Adult 2 were charged with setting up on several important
roadways and intersections in the area.
[Recording 4: 5:20 6:05]

Newman 10

01:

Adult 1:

you know we gotta put up those signs for the Christmas

02:

Adult 2:

uh

03:

Adult 1:

Yeah I put two out, but we gotta put the rest of them out

04:

Adult 3:

Was one of them supposed to be up on 49?

05:

Adult 1:

Yep

06:

Adult 3:

We saw that one

07:

Adult 2:

On 49 up by the turn?

08:

Adult 1:

yup up by 589. (1.0) No not 589, up by 42

Adult 1:

I thought that maybe we could put one up by county

festival

(15.0)

(11.0)
09:
market
For me, the most interesting segment of this excerpt runs from line 04 to line 08. This
section includes turns taken by three different adult. It also includes an other-initiated selfrepair and a self-initiated self-repair. Per my understanding, Adult 2s question in line 07 is
an understanding check that incorporates repetition. That the signs are on Highway 49 has
already been established. Adult 2s question seeks to clarify exactly where on Highway 49
the signs have been placed. By utilizing an understanding check, Adult 2 is showing that,
while he would still like a bit of clarification, he understands most of what Adult 1 has said
about the location of the signs. Per Wang and Waring (2010) the use of an understanding

Newman 11

check shows that the speaker is far more confident of their understanding of the other
speakers turn than he would be if he were utilizing an open class repair initiator (p. 229).
Application of Other-Initiated Self-Repair to Language Teaching
I chose this topic primarily because I believe that it is incredibly valuable to foreign
language teachers and learners in a variety of contexts. The ability to ask for clarification or
check understanding is an essential part of everyday communications. Its importance can be
seen in the fact that I found at least thirteen examples of other-initiated self-repair in roughly
thirty minutes of data. For the foreign language student, this ability to seek clarification and
understanding can be greatly magnified. Furthermore, unlike some of the more abstract turn
taking theories that we have studied, repair initiators can be easily incorporated into lessons
on other topics or studied in their own right at any level of language learning. One could
argue that the open class repair initiators should be one of the first things taught in a foreign
language class room, because they can be applied to nearly any context in which the speaker
does not understand something. Rather than having to decide and explain why they had
difficulty understanding and utterance, students can utter a single word or make an
appropriate gesture or expression to seek clarification.
Furthermore, other-initiated self-repair practices are a very natural part of
conversation. Many foreign language classes teach phrases like Can you please repeat that
slowly in the first week of the course. In most informal contexts a simple Pardon or
Huh? may be just as useful.
Repair is not only useful for students seeking clarification on a misunderstood
utterance, teachers can utilize repair to a variety of ends within the classroom. Liebscher and
Dailey-OCain explain (2003) explain that many other-initiated repair strategies can be used
to correct errors and give students feedback on their production in a very natural way. Indeed

Newman 12

many of the other-initiated self-repair strategies that we have studied could be considered
recasts, clarification requests or other common methods of error correction in the right
contexts. Understanding of role of repair in natural conversation can help teachers to provide
error correction in the classroom in a more natural and less interruptive manner.
As Nakamura (2008) explains, teachers can also use repair strategies to alter the
balance of power in informal teacher-student interactions. By carefully utilizing different
repair strategies, teachers can help move an informal conversation with a student toward
being a more natural conversation in which the teacher and student work together to negotiate
meaning rather than the type of conversation typical to many classrooms in which the teacher
acts as the source of knowledge and the students as recipients. This approach seems simple
in some ways, but it can be difficult to say exactly which repair tactic a teacher should use
and how often they should be used. In order to make this approach work, a teacher would
have to find a good balance between repairs initiated and completed by each of the
participants in the conversation.
For the final element of this project I will describe a few practical applications of
other-initiated self-repair to the foreign or second language classroom. I will focus on ways
of explicitly teaching and practicing different other-initiated self-repair strategies.

Newman 13

Other-Initiated Self-Repair Instructional Activity 1

Class Level: Beginners ESL Class or Conversation Class
Lesson Title: Introducing Open Class Repair Initiators
Approximate Time: 30-50 Minutes (May be shortened or lengthened to suit the needs of the
class and time constraints)
Materials: PPT with projector or dry-erase board with markers
Introducing the Topic:
The teacher can introduce the topic of open class repair initiators by conversing in a
natural fashion with the students. This informal talk can be centered on content from a
previous lesson or on some aspect of the students daily lives, such as what did you do this
weekend?. In conversing with the students, the teacher should occasionally play as if they
do not understand or cannot hear what the students are saying, utilizing open class repair
initiators and common gestures. After introducing several repair initiators, the teacher should
explain the concept and ask what students say in their own languages when they do not
understand something. In a class with students from a variety of linguistic backgrounds, this
may be a very interesting activity.
Introducing the Open Class Repair Initiators:
After briefly discussing the use of open class repair initiators like What? the teacher can
begin to introduce more repair initiators such as huh? and pardon. In introducing the
new initiators the teacher should write the terms on the board. Depending on the context of
the students study of English, this may present a good opportunity to discuss the use of
different registers and differences between formal and informal speech.

Newman 14

Initial Activity:
After introducing a few of the repair initiators such as What?, Huh?, and Pardon, the
teacher can introduce the first activity. This activity will follow the standard other-initiated
self-repair pattern of:
01 Speaker 1
02 Speaker 2 (initiates repair)
03 Speaker 1 (completes repair) (Wong & Waring, 2010, p. 229).
Speaker 1 will be given a sentence or topic (found in handout 1 below). The student will
make a statement using each prompt. Speaker 2 will respond by using one of the open class
repair initiators. Speaker 1 will complete each exercise by repeating or clarifying the first
statement (depending on the level of the students, the activity may involve repeating or
clarifying). The students will take turns initiating the conversation and initiating or
completing the repair.
An example of a typical exchange using the prompt would be:
01: Student 1: My favorite food is pizza.
02: Student 2: What?
03: Student 1: My favorite food is pizza.
Handout 1:
1. Food
2. School
3. TV

Newman 15

4. Pets
5. Best Friend
Finishing Activity 1:
After the students have completed the activity, the teacher can bring the class back together,
asking students if they learned anything interesting. Students can use this time to ask
questions.
Beginning Activity 2:
Before beginning Activity 2, the teacher should explain or review the difference between
formal and informal language. This point can be illustrated by showing the difference
between Huh? or What? and Pardon or Excuse me. After explaining the difference
the teacher can ask the students to think of situations in which they may use a more formal or
less formal repair initiator. As in the first activity the students will be given a handout with
prompts and situations. Students will perform a brief exchange in which they follow the
pattern set forth in the first activity. This difference in this activity is that Speaker 1 assumes
the identity of the person in parentheses. This requires Speaker 2 to choose an appropriate
repair initiator.
Handout 2:
1. Food (classmate)
2. Family (with older adult)
3. Homework (friend)
4. Weekend (boss)
5. Favorite pastime (principal)
Finishing Activity 2:

Newman 16

Activity 2 will end in a manner similar to activity 1. The teacher will bring the class back
together and discuss any observations or questions the students may have.

Newman 17

Sources
Bolden, G. (2011). On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of
"other" - selection in other-initiated repair sequences. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 44(3), 237-262.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2003). Conversational repair as a role-defining
mechanism in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 375-390.
Nakamura, I. (2008). Understanding how teacher and student talk with each other: An
exploration of how 'repair' displays the co-management of talk-ininteraction. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 265-283.
Rieger, C. (2003). Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 47-69.
Seo, M., & Koshik, I. (2010). A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair
in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2219-2239.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. (2010). Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy.
New York: Routledge.