1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper focuses on a particular practice of self-repeat through which participants retract their prior formulations, and explores its multimodal design and use in the dynamic construction of meaning in Hebrew conversation. Drawing on interactional approaches to language and embodied action, we show that the practice of self-repeat is used to retract a formulation judged by its producer as being inadequate and ill-calibrated in the given interactional context. This function is supported by the multimodal configuration in which the lexical repeat is cast, which involves a stable prosodic component and a variable embodied component. Through its prosodic and embodied design, the repeat is contextualized as a noticeable display of accountability for having made an ill-suited choice of words. While the self-repeat alone is sufficient in proposing a problem of calibration, it can also be followed by a lexical replacement, which makes explicit the adjusted or recalibrated term. The self-repeat practice shows how participants engage in semantic work through online and situated revision of their formulations. This exposed process of meaning construction reveals their understanding of the constitutive link between the conceptual and the normative orders as practiced in actual conversation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.22008.sho
2024-01-11
2024-09-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.22008.sho
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Avieli, N.
    (2017) Food and power: A culinary ethnography of Israel. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/california/9780520290099.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520290099.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bat-El, O.
    (2005) The emergence of the trochaic foot in Hebrew hypocoristics. Phonology, 22(2), 115–143. 10.1017/S0952675705000515
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675705000515 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E.
    (2006) Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748626533
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748626533 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergmann, P.
    (2013) The prosodic design of parentheses in spontaneous speech. InP. Bergmann, J. Brenning, M. Pfeiffer, & E. Reber (Eds.), Prosody and Embodiment in Interactional Grammar (pp.103–141). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilmes, J.
    (2011) Occasioned semantics. A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 129–153. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9183‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9183-z [Google Scholar]
  6. (2015) The structure of meaning in talk. Explorations in category analysis. Volume 1: Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. University of Hawaii, Manoa.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2019) Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 1501, 80–91. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.020 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., Potter, J., Zhan, K., Wei, W., Park, S. H., Shirokov, A., Chun, H. S., Kurlenkova, A., Licciardello, D., Caldwell, M., Mandelbaum, J., & Mikesell, L.
    (2022) Over- exposed self-correction: Practices for managing competence and morality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 55(3), 203–221. 10.1080/08351813.2022.2067426
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2022.2067426 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clift, R.
    (2021) Embodiment in dissent: The Eye Roll as an interactional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(3), 261–276. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1936858
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1936858 [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (1996) The prosody of repetition: on quoting and mimicry. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting, (Eds.) Prosody in conversation: interactional studies (pp.366–405). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.011 [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. A.
    (2005) A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: concessive repair. InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction (pp.257–288). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.14cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.14cou [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung – Online – Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 121, 1–51: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de (retrieved31 October 2011).
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics:studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Curl, T., Local, J., & Walker, G.
    (2006) Repetition and the prosody-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1721–1751. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Debras, C.
    (2017) The Shrug: Forms and Meanings of a Compound Enactment. Gesture, 161, 1–34. 10.1075/gest.16.1.01deb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.01deb [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, P.
    (2003) Precision and exaggeration in interaction. American Sociological Review, 681, 917–938. 10.1177/000312240306800606
     https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800606 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2005) The interactional generation of exaggerated versions in conversations. InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies in the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction, (pp.233–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.13dre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.13dre [Google Scholar]
  18. Deppermann, A.
    (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp.289–317). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.15dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.15dep [Google Scholar]
  19. (2011) The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Deppermann, A. & Streeck, J.
    (2018) The body in interaction: its multiple modalities and temporalities. InA. Deppermann & J. Streeck (Eds.), Time in embodied interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources (pp.1–30). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.293.intro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.intro [Google Scholar]
  21. Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E.
    (2019) Defining in talk-in-interaction: recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Erving Goffman
    (1955) On Face-Work, Psychiatry, 18:3, 213–231, 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hauser, E.
    (2011) Generalization: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34(2). 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9184‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y [Google Scholar]
  25. Heller, V.
    (2021) Embodied Displays of “Doing Thinking.” Epistemic and Interactive Functions of Thinking Displays in Children’s Argumentative Activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 121. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671 [Google Scholar]
  26. Helmer, H.
    (2020) How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German x heißt y (“x means y”). Discourse Processes, 57(3), 278–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, J.
    (1985) Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an “Overhearing” Audience. InT. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse AnalysisVol.31 (pp.95–117). London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoey, E. M.
    (2017) Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 1091, 47–63. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hutchby, I.
    (2006) Media Talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Inbar, A.
    (2020) List constructions. InR. A. Berman (Ed.), Usage-based studies in modern Hebrew: Background, morpho-lexicon, and syntax (pp.623–658). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.210.18inb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.210.18inb [Google Scholar]
  31. Jefferson, G.
    (1987) On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. InG. Button & G. Lee (Eds.). Talk and Social Organization (pp.86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781800418226‑006
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418226-006 [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnstone, B.
    (Ed.) (1994) Repetition in Discourse. Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporations.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kendon, A.
    (2004) Gesture: visible actions as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kitzinger, C.
    (2013) Repair. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.229–256). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C.
    (2015) Or-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 58–78. 10.1080/08351813.2015.993844
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993844 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2019) Well-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(1), 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1572376
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1572376 [Google Scholar]
  37. Linell, P.
    (2009) Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Maschler, Y.
    (2017) The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno MASC/FEM’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. InA. Sansò & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives (pp.37–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.186.02mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.02mas [Google Scholar]
  39. Maschler, Y., & Fishman, S.
    (2020) From Multi-Clausality to Discourse Markerhood: The Hebrew Ma She- ‘What That’ Construction in Pseudo-Cleft-like Structures. Journal of Pragmatics, 1591, 73–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  40. Maschler, Y., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2022) Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua2801, 103397. 10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103397
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103397 [Google Scholar]
  41. Matalon, N.
    (2021) The Camel Humps prosodic pattern: Listing for disaffiliating in spoken Hebrew. InC. Mauri, E. Goria & I. Fiorentini (Eds.), Building categories in interaction: Linguistic resources at work, (pp.155–186). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.220.06mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.06mat [Google Scholar]
  42. Mazeland, H.
    (2007) Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 1816–1869. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  44. Norén, K., & Linell, P.
    (2007) Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and grammar. Pragmatics, 171, 387–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Norrick, N. R.
    (1987) Functions of repetition in conversation. Text, 71, 245–264.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Newman, G., Inbar, A., & Shor, L.
    (2023) “Cutting off” inappropriate formulations: A disalignment practice in Hebrew face-to-face interaction. Paper presented at the18th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Brussels, July, 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2016) More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1061, 148–162. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pfeiffer, M.
    (2017) The syntax of self-repair in German: An explanatory model. Journal of Pragmatics, 1191, 63–80. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Raymond, C. W.
    (2016) Intersubjectivity, progressivity, and accountability: Studies in turn design. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
  50. Rossi, G.
    (2020) Other-repetition in conversation across languages: Bringing prosody into pragmatic typology. Language in Society, 49(4), 1–26. 10.1017/S0047404520000251
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000251 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schegloff, E.
    (1987) Recycled turn beginnings: A precise mechanism in conversation’s turn- taking organisation. InG. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp.70–100). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781800418226‑005
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418226-005 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1996a) Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. InB. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp.437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  53. (1996b) Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. 10.1086/230911
     https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2007) A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 531, 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  56. Selting, M.
    (1996) Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: the case of so- called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: interactional studies (pp.231–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  57. Shor, L., & Marmorstein, M.
    (2022) The embodied modification of formulations: The quoting gesture (QG) in Israeli-Hebrew discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 1921, 22–40. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.019 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stivers, T.
    (2004) ‘No no no’ and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  59. (2007) Alternative recognitionals in person reference. InN. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp.73–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005 [Google Scholar]
  60. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C.
    (2007) Person Reference in Interaction. InN. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp.1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C.
    (Eds.) (2011) Embodied interaction, language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Tannen, D.
    (1989) Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. ELAN (Version 6.0) [Computer software]
    ELAN (Version 6.0) [Computer software] 2020 Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Retrieved fromhttps://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan”
  64. Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David
    2021 Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1.40, retrieved27 February 2021fromwww.praat.org/
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22008.sho
Loading
Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice
Interactional Linguistics 3, 132 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22008.sho
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22008.sho
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22008.sho
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): embodied action; interactional semantics; multi-modality; regrading; retraction; self-repeat; spoken Hebrew

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error