First Encounters: Repair Sequences in Cross‐Signing

• Published in: Topics in cognitive science Vol. 10; no. 2; pp. 314 - 334
• Main Authors: Byun, Kang‐Suk, Vos, Connie, Bradford, Anastasia, Zeshan, Ulrike, Levinson, Stephen C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2018
• Subjects: Communication; Contact pidgin; Cross‐signing; Gesture; Other‐initiated repair; Sign language; Try‐markers; Turn‐timing; Contact pidgin; Cross-signing; Sign language; Turn-timing; Try-markers; Gesture; Other-initiated repair
• ISSN: 1756-8757; 1756-8765
• DOI: 10.1111/tops.12303

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. Byun et al. describe how deaf signers deal with communication problems in first encounters with signers of different languages. They show that the basic Conversation Analytic repair mechanisms for dealing with verbal troubles are largely reproduced in gesture and sign, including details of turn‐taking structure, timing and form. This underlines the role of repair as a basic resource for linguistic and interactional creativity across modalities.