Cover not available

Article published In: Meaning in Interaction: Studies in memory of Jack Bilmes
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 132–166

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice

Evidence from Hebrew conversation

ORCiD logo with link | Achva Academic College
ORCiD logo with link | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Published online: 11 January 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22008.sho
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Repetition, self-repair, and regrading
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Retraction via self-repeats – overview
    • Grammatical form
    • Position within turn
    • Presence of verbal elaborations
    • Presence of lexical replacement
    • Prosodic design
    • Embodied design
  • 5.Retraction via self-repeats: A structural and sequential analysis
    • 5.1Self-repeat followed by replacement
    • 5.2Self-repeat not followed by replacement
  • 6.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Software
References (64)
References
Avieli, N. (2017). Food and power: A culinary ethnography of Israel. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bat-El, O. (2005). The emergence of the trochaic foot in Hebrew hypocoristics. Phonology, 22(2), 115–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergmann, P. (2013). The prosodic design of parentheses in spontaneous speech. In P. Bergmann, J. Brenning, M. Pfeiffer, & E. Reber (Eds.), Prosody and Embodiment in Interactional Grammar (pp. 103–141). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics. A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The structure of meaning in talk. Explorations in category analysis. Volume 1: Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 1501, 80–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2021). Embodiment in dissent: The Eye Roll as an interactional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(3), 261–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). The prosody of repetition: on quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting, (Eds.) Prosody in conversation: interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. A. (2005). A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: concessive repair. In A. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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: [URL] (retrieved 31 October 2011).
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics:studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, T., Local, J., & Walker, G. (2006). Repetition and the prosody-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1721–1751. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2003). Precision and exaggeration in interaction. American Sociological Review, 681, 917–938. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The interactional generation of exaggerated versions in conversations. In A. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 289–317). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Streeck, J. (2018). The body in interaction: its multiple modalities and temporalities. In A. Deppermann & J. Streeck (Eds.), Time in embodied interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erving Goffman (1955) On Face-Work, Psychiatry, 18:3, 213–231, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauser, E. (2011). Generalization: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, V. (2021). Embodied Displays of “Doing Thinking.” Epistemic and Interactive Functions of Thinking Displays in Children’s Argumentative Activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an “Overhearing” Audience. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol.31 (pp. 95–117). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 1091, 47–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2006). Media Talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inbar, A. (2020). List constructions. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Usage-based studies in modern Hebrew: Background, morpho-lexicon, and syntax (pp. 623–658). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & G. Lee (Eds.). Talk and Social Organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (Ed.) (1994). Repetition in Discourse. Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporations.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: visible actions as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 229–256). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Well-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. In A. Sansò & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives (pp. 37–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua 2801, 103397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matalon, N. (2021). The Camel Humps prosodic pattern: Listing for disaffiliating in spoken Hebrew. In C. Mauri, E. Goria & I. Fiorentini (Eds.), Building categories in interaction: Linguistic resources at work, (pp. 155–186). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 1816–1869. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norén, K., & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and grammar. Pragmatics, 171, 387–416.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1987). Functions of repetition in conversation. Text, 71, 245–264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, G., Inbar, A., & Shor, L. (2023). “Cutting off” inappropriate formulations: A disalignment practice in Hebrew face-to-face interaction. Paper presented at the 18th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Brussels, July, 2023.
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, M. (2017). The syntax of self-repair in German: An explanatory model. Journal of Pragmatics, 1191, 63–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2016). Intersubjectivity, progressivity, and accountability: Studies in turn design. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Rossi, G. (2020). Other-repetition in conversation across languages: Bringing prosody into pragmatic typology. Language in Society, 49(4), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise mechanism in conversation’s turn- taking organisation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 70–100). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996b). Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 531, 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: the case of so- called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: interactional studies (pp. 231–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shor, L., & Marmorstein, M. (2022). The embodied modification of formulations: The quoting gesture (QG) in Israeli-Hebrew discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 1921, 22–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2004). ‘No no no’ and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp. 73–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (2007). Person Reference in Interaction. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.) (2011). Embodied interaction, language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Software
ELAN (Version 6.0) [Computer software], 2020. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Retrieved from [URL]”
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David. 2021. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1.40, retrieved 27 February 2021 from [URL]
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ben-Moshe, Yotam M. & Yael Maschler
2024. Request for confirmation sequences in Hebrew. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Koole, Tom
2023. Meaning as referential work. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue