What “What?” Tells Us About How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity
Abstract
When studying how conversationalists assess mutual understanding, research has focused on one type of evidence: next-turn talk. This article identifies another, antecedent type of evidence involving how talk is produced by reference to repair-opportunity spaces that are systematically provided for by conversation’s generic organization of repair. As current speakers talk, recipients claim understanding ex silentio on an action-by-action basis as they forgo each next repair-opportunity space—that is, as they ‘withhold’ talk at each next transition-relevance place. This conversation-analytic article supports its argument through an analysis of multi-action/TCU turns generally, and specifically when recipients initiate repair on such turns with: “What?” In these cases, people respond by repairing only the most proximate action in their prior turn, which indexes their understanding that people who initiated repair understood relatively distal actions. Data are drawn from naturally occurring, ordinary, telephone conversations between friends and family members. Data are in American and British English.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other-initiation of repair has an intrinsically limited local scope, typically reaching back only into immediately adjacent turns in the same sequence of talk.
“A major issue here is the limited local scope of other initiation of repair itself. Sequentially it can only reach back so far.”
From Dysarthria and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation (2020) · cites this paper as Robinson, 2014
Cites
The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977) · Language · doi:10.2307/413107 · Cited by 5,150 · see citing works
Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature
Levinson, S. C. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 · Cited by 2,404 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dysarthria and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation
Bloch, S., & Barnes, S. (2020) · Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics · doi:10.1080/02699206.2019.1705915 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Robinson, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Portland State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Robinson, Jeffrey D.
- ORCID
- Robinson, Jeffrey D.
- Venue
- Research on Language and Social Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-04-03
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109-129
- ISSN
- 0835-1813 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1997520803
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 32.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research on Language and Social Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Army Research Office
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- intersubjectivity, mutual understanding, repair, telephone conversation, conversational repair
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review