pmanliteraturereview范例

2021年1月19日发(作者：可鄙)


Literature Review

In
this
thesis,
I
will
study
the
characteristics
of
the
conversational
mechanism
of
repair
in
Chinese
conversational
discourse.
To
that
end,
it
is
necessary
to
conduct
a
review
of
the
relevant
literature
on
conversational repair. I shall start with an elaboration of the notion
of
“
repair
”
,
going
on
to
researches
into
the
organization
of
conversational
repair
and
conclude
with
the
interdisciplinary
and
multi-linguistic application of
“
repair
”
research.


1. From Correction to Repair

As a relatively new field in conversation analysis (CA), the proper
study
of
the
conversational
phenomenon
of
repair
didn
’
t
start
until
the
publication of Schegloff et al
’
s seminal paper in 1977. Before that,
there were only some sporadic discussions of the phenomenon under such
generic headings as tongue slips (Laver 1973, see Schegloff 1977) and
error
correction
(Jefferson
1975,
see
Schegloff
1977).
As
a
still
often-used term,
“
correction
”
,
“
commonly understood to refer to the
replacement of
an
‘
error
’

or
‘
mistake
’
by what is
‘
correct
’”

(Schegloff 1977: 363), not only limits research to a minority of the
natural occurrences of repair but also misleads researchers about the
nature of the trouble-sources.

The
shift of
focus was
led by Schegloff
et al
(1977), whose study was
an empirically based effort to examine the organization of repair as a
set
of
ordered,
but
not
equal
possibilities.
The
phenomenon
of
correction
was
therefore
proven
part
of
a
much
wider
picture,
.
repair
and
the
scope
of discussion was greatly expanded from the mere correcting of some
“
hearable [usually linguistic] errors
”
(1977: 363) to all possible
“
practices for dealing with problems or troubles in speaking, hearing,
and understanding the talk in conversation
”
(2000: 207), a definition
given
by
Schegloff
himself
some
20
years
later.
In
deed,
potential
trouble-sources
in
conversation
include
not
only
correction
of
information, but also and more importantly replacement of inappropriate
items
or
ambiguous
anaphors,
word
search
and
clarification
of
the
pragmatic
function/understanding
of
a
previous
turn.
These
and
many
other
occurrences
may
only
be
subsumed
under
the
more
general
scope
of
repair.
Incidentally,
correction
may
not
always
be
categorized
under
repair
either,
as
is
exemplified
by
the
disagreement
over
the
so-called
“
embedded correction
”
(Jefferson 1987)
–
basically a covert form of
other-correction
–

which
Schegloff
(2000)
ruled
out
as
not
constituting
a kind of repair. Equally important as the expansion in the scope of
research
was
the
change
in
the
view
of
the
trouble-sources
that
directly
occasion
the
repair.
According
to
Schegloff
et
al
(1977),
trouble-sources
are not self-evident but determined interactively by participants. In
other words, all the segments in an utterance is, in theory, potential
trouble-sources and often the existence of a trouble-source can only be
evidenced
by
the
actual
mobilization
of
the
practice
of
repair
on
the
part
of either the hearer or the speaker (and sometimes both). It is worth
noting that just as the status of a trouble-source is an uncertainty to
be interactively determined, the actual need and proper protocol of its
repair
is
not
any
more
certain.
This
dynamic
and
interactive
view
of
repair
has
proven
rewarding
in
terms
of
revealing
not
only
its
own
mechanism
but
also
other
cognitive,
social
and
psychological
aspects
of
conversational
discourse,
as
may
be
interestingly
explained
by
such
everyday
wisdom:
you
don
’
t know something
’
s at work until it goes wrong.


2. The organization of repair


Many
studies
have
been
carried
out
with
regard
to
the
various
dimensions
of
conversational
repair
itself,
.
its
classification,
sites,
forms and causes.

Schegloff et
al (1977) classified four interactional types of repair
according
to
the
subject(s)
of
initiation/repair,
namely
self/other- initiated self/other repair. This classification has been
adopted
by
many
researchers
later,
making
it
easier
to
tackle
conversational
data.
Yet
Geluykens
(1994:
56)
suggests,
rightly
I
think,
that this classification is in need of refinement as it is not always
possible to draw a sharp boundary between self and other initiation. He
found a sort of other-prompted self-initiation, which underlines the
interactive aspect of conversational discourse.

Along with the interactional four-type classification, Schegloff et
al
(1977)
proposed
the
unequal
distribution
of
the
four
types.
To
be
more
exact, self- repair is preferred to other-repair and self- initiation to
other-initiation.
It
follows
that
the
most
favored
type
is
self-initiated
self- repair.
Their
claim
was
put
forward
with
no
statistical
evidence
so
later
researchers
have
discussed
their
empirical
findings
with
reference
to either or both of the two preferences. Many studies, including some
based on data in languages other than English, are in support of the
observation that self-repair is preferred, . Geluykens (1994) and Ma
(2007).
Yet
some
remain
doubtful
as
to
the
preference
of
self-initiation
over other-initiation, . Gaskell (1980), Schwartz (1980) and Gass &
Varonis (1985) (see Wang 2007).

A
strong
objection
to
the
preference
of
self- correction
was
put
forward by Norrick (1991,
see Jiang &
Li 2003),
whose data was collected
from
conversation
in parent-child,
teacher-student
and
NS-NNS
contexts.
After
examining
the
organization
of
corrective
exchanges
in
these
contexts,
he
contended
that
the
party
abler
to
perform
the
correction
–

not
necessarily
the
speaker
–

does
it.
Further,
he
dismissed
the
alleged
preference as a sub-case which is only possible between adult native
speakers,
whose
ability
of
repair
is
approximately
equal.
In
other
words,
the absence of such preference is the norm while the preference is a
special
case.
Interestingly,
Schegloff
et
al
(1977)
has
also
observed
that
other-correction
“
seems to be not as infrequent
”
and
“
appears to be
one
vehicle
for
socialization
”

in
those
contexts
where
someone
not-yet- competent in a certain domain
–
be it language facility or
background
information
–

is
involved
(381).
However,
they
further
argued
that this exception to the infrequency of other-correction is only a
transitional
stage
and
will
be
superseded
by
the
preference
of
self-correction eventually. Joining in the heated discussion are Jiang
&
Li
(2003),
who
also
questioned
the
validity
of
Schegloff
’
s
claim
about
the
preference
for
self-repair.
They
offered
as
proof
the
work
of
Norrick
(1991) and Zhao (1996). The latter, on the basis of data obtained in
academic
seminars,
of
which
other-repair
takes
up
a
remarkable
proportion,
suggested that the option of self- or other-repair should take into
account of the context, including the content of conversation and the
respective social status of the participants (Jiang & Li 2003: 42). In
their
own
survey,
Jiang
&
Li
(2003)
calculated
the
frequencies of
repair
in two categories and found the preference of self-repair only existent
in
the
category
that
included
clearing
up
misunderstandings,
word
search
or self-editing while in the correction of real errors, other-repair
enjoys a bigger percentage of 60%. Therefore they blamed the mystery of
the preference on the overly broad definition of repair put forward by
Schegloff et al.

Besides the interactional four- type classification, repair has been
classified by other ways. In terms of the kind of trouble-spot being
repaired, Levelt (1989, see Geluykens 1994:20) distinguishes between
E[rror]-repair and A[ppropriateness]-repair. Considering the temporal
aspect
of
repair,
there
are
immediate
repairs
and
delayed
repairs
(Geluykens 1994: 22).

There
has
also
been
in-depth
discussion
on
the
sites,
or
what
is
called
the
sequential
environment
for
repair
initiation
and
reparans
(the
repairing segment). A usual way of referring to the position of repair
initiation is by reference to the turn where the trouble-source occurs.
Schegloff et al (1977) found self-initiation mainly in three positions,
namely the same turn as the trouble-source, the same turn
’
s transition
place and the third-turn to the trouble-source turn; other-initiation,
on
the
other
hand,
was
found
mainly
in
the
next
turn
(to
the
trouble-source
turn).
Levinson
(1983,
see
Geluykens
1994)
identified
four
similar
opportunities, which are ordered with decreasing preference and most
often used by either self- or other-initiation.

In
particular,
Schegloff
(2000)
elaborated
the
locus
of
other- initiation
(OI)
that
occurs
in
positions
other
than
the
turn
following the trouble-source turn. He suggested several interactional
constraints that
may be accountable for these somewhat deviant OIs,
constraints
related
to
the
organization
of
repair,
of
turns
or
of
turn-taking. In addition, he observed occasional delays in OIs which
implies the speaker
’
s intention of
“
setting aside the understanding
problem
”
(233) or assessing it later. This observation was of great
relevance
to
the
study
of
Wong,
who
examined
a
form
of
“
delayed
next
turn
repair initiation
”
in N-NN English conversation and proposed that it
might be accounted
by the differences
between native and
non- native
participants in their ways of social interaction
–
more specifically,
in
the
use
of
certain
tokens
and
sequential
organization
in
conversation.

From
the
comparison
between
Schegloff
(2000)
and
Wong
(2000),
it
seems
that the instantaneity and complexity of conversation spell danger for
hasty
generalization
and
due
attention
should
be
paid
to
minute
differentiation. A case in point may be found in Schegloff (1997)
’
s
distinction
between
“
third
turn
repair
”

and
“
third
position
repair
”
,
both
of
which
occupies
as
a
rule
the
turn
subsequent
to
the
turn
following
the
trouble-source
turn,
hence
“
third
”
.
Yet
a
closer
look
with
a
focus
on sequential relevance will clear up the confusion of the two. While
“
third
position
repair
”

is
usually
self- repair
in
response
to
other- initiation in the second turn
, “
third turn repair
”
is a kind of
self-initiated self-repair separated from the trouble-source turn only
by
a
not
full-fledged
turn
of
acknowledgement
or
irrelevant
interpolation.

Another dimension of conversational repair, . its forms, has also
received considerable academic attention. Firstly, on the various forms
of
initiation,
Schegloff
(1979)
distinguished
between
lexical
and
non-lexical
initiation;
Kuang
(2001)
specified
five
forms
of
repair
initiation with decreasing extent of repetition of the trouble-source
turn;
Drew
(1997)
developed
a
sequential
analysis
of
the
use
of
‘
open
’