First Encounters: Repair Sequences in Cross‐Signing

Abstract

Most human communication is between people who speak or sign the same languages. Nevertheless, communication is to some extent possible where there is no language in common, as every tourist knows. How this works is of some theoretical interest (Levinson, ). A nice arena to explore this capacity is when deaf signers of different languages meet for the first time and are able to use the iconic affordances of sign to begin communication. Here we focus on other‐initiated repair (OIR), that is, where one signer makes clear he or she does not understand, thus initiating repair of the prior conversational turn. OIR sequences are typically of a three‐turn structure (Schegloff ), including the problem source turn (T−1), the initiation of repair (T0), and the turn offering a problem solution (T+1). These sequences seem to have a universal structure (Dingemanse et al. 2013). We find that in most cases where such OIR occur, the signer of the troublesome turn (T−1) foresees potential difficulty and marks the utterance with “try markers” (Moerman, ; Sacks & Schegloff, ) which pause to invite recognition. The signers use repetition, gestural holds, prosodic lengthening, and eyegaze at the addressee as such try‐markers. Moreover, when T−1 is try‐marked this allows for faster response times of T+1 with respect to T0. This finding suggests that signers in these “first encounter” situations actively anticipate potential trouble and, through try‐marking, mobilize and facilitate OIRs. The suggestion is that heightened meta‐linguistic awareness can be utilized to deal with these problems at the limits of our communicational ability.

Universal Principles of Human Communication: Preliminary Evidence from a Cross-Cultural Communication Game

“…OIRs were used by all groups, supporting their universality as a means of addressing breakdowns in communication (Byun et al, 2017;Dingemanse & Enfield, 2015;Dingemanse, Roberts, et al, 2015). As predicted, OIRs were more frequently used by across-culture dyads, probably to bridge their lack of shared cultural knowledge.…”

“…Despite the great diversity of languages (Evans & Levinson, 2009), there is evidence for universal principles of language use (Levinson, 2016). Across languages, conversation is organised similarly; interlocutors speak one-at-a-time in alternating turns (Sacks et al, 1974;Stivers et al, 2009) and use other-initiated repairs (OIRs) to address breakdowns in communication (Byun et al, 2017;Dingemanse & Enfield, 2015;Dingemanse, Roberts, et al, 2015). Experimental-semiotic studies indicate that when participants communicate without using their existing language they often use iconic signs to ground shared meanings (e.g., Galantucci, 2005;Garrod et al, 2007).…”

Editors' Introduction: Miscommunication

“…There are several points of contact between the CA analysis of repair and cognitive science. The fact that repair sequences are both incremental and jointly managed highlights the fundamentally interactive nature of these processes (see Byun, De Vos, Bradford, U., & Levinson, ; McCabe & Healey, ; Purver et al., ). This creates particular difficulties for sentential approaches to the formal semantics of dialog and alternative approaches, inspired by a consideration of patterns of misunderstanding, are also explored in Ginzburg and Kolliakou () and Larsson ().…”

“…Byun et al. () review some of this work and also show how basic repair procedures are of critical importance for signers in situations where people do not have a common sign language. Similarly, in experiments in which people communicate solely by drawing, Healey, Swoboda, Umata, and King () identified graphical analogs of repair mechanisms that appear to play a key role in people's ability to create and coordinate invented graphical languages.…”

“…What cognitive or neural resources do people need to bring to a conversation in order to be able to perform repair? Their knowledge, however incomplete, of the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of a language, seems highly relevant to how they actually go about repairs (see e.g., Byun et al., ). People's ability to engage in repair appears to be continuous with other aspects of their knowledge of language and this seems to demand explanation in terms of some form of non‐local, transferable knowledge, a point also developed by Ginzburg and Kolliakou ().…”