The Embodied Work of Repairing-for-Teasing in Everyday L2 Talk
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i2.130872Keywords:
teasing, second language, embodiment, other-initiated repair, action ascriptionAbstract
This paper focuses on participants’ embodied conduct in the service of action ascription in teasing environments. The teasing activity is sequentially organized as an other-initiated repair sequence in which the other-initiations of repair (OIRs) are used as vehicles for carrying out the teasing actions (see also Schegloff, 1997, 2007; Rossi, 2018). The analysis shows that the double-barreled OIRs are designed as multimodal action packages in which the verbal part is delivered in a serious manner and combined with embodied conduct that typically characterizes repair environments, such as head turns and tilts, forward-leaning, and gestural holds, but produced in exaggerated or pretended manner. The embodied exaggeration and performed character are the key elements contributing to action ascription in teasing environments.
References
Brouwer, C., Rasmussen G. & Wagner J. (2004). ”Embedded corrections in second language talk”. In, R. Gardner and J. Wagner (Eds), Second language conversations (pp. 75–92). London: Continuum.
Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (2014). Formats for Other-initiation of Repair across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology. Studies in Language, 38, 5−43.
Dingemanse, M., Roberts S. G., Baranova J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gisladorttir, R., Kendrick, K., Levinson, S., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., Enfield, N. (2015). Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems. PLoS ONE, 10(9).
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253.
Floyd, S., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Torreira, F. (2016). Timing of visual bodily behavior in repair sequences: Evidence from three languages. Discourse Processes, 53(3), 175–204.
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics18. Cambridge university press.
Gumperz, J.J. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–52.
Haakana, M. (1995). ”Vitsi keskustelussa. Kontesktualisointi, tunnistaminen ja sekventiaalisuus”. (”On the category of joke in conversation – contextualization, recognition and sequentiality”). Virittäjä 1995 (3), 359–379.
Haakana, M. (1999). Laughing matters. A conversation analytical study of laughter in doctor patient interaction. Doctoral dissertation. Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.
Haakana, M. & Kurhila, S. (2009). Other-correction in Everyday Interaction. In Haakana, M, Laakso, M. & Lindström, J. (Eds.), Talk in interaction. Comparative Dimensions (pp. 152–179). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Haakana, M., Kurhila, S., Lilja, N., & Savijärvi, M. (2016). “Kuka, mitä, häh? Korjausaloitteet suomalaisessa arkikeskustelussa. [Other-initiation of Repair in Finnish Everyday Conversation.]” Virittäjä 120, 255−291.
Haugh, M. (2016). ”Just kidding”: Teasing and claims of non-serious intent. Journal of Pragmatics 95, 120–136.
Haugh, M. (2017). Teasing. In Attordo S. (Ed.) The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 204–218). New York: Routledge.
Kamunen, A. (2019) How to Disengage: Suspension, Body Torque, and Repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52:4, 406–426.
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring A.M., Young R. C. and Heerey E. A. (2001). ”Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review”. Psychological Bulletin 127 (2), 229–248.
Kendrick, K. (2015). Other-initiated Repair in English. Open Linguistics, 1, 164−190.
Koivisto, A. L. (2017). Uutta tietoa vai oivallus? Eräiden dialogipartikkeleiden tehtävistä. Virittäjä, 121(4), 473–499.
Kontio, J. (2017). Making fun of language use: Teasing practices and hybrid language forms in auto mechanic student peer interactions. Linguistics and education, 37, 22–31.
Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse studies, 7(2), 193–211.
Kurhila, S. (2001) Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(7), 1083–1110.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laurier, E. (2014). The graphic transcript. Poaching comic book grammar for inscribing the visual, spatial and temporal aspects of action. Geography Compass, 8(4), 235–248.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lilja, N. (2010). Ongelmista oppimiseen. Toisen aloittamat korjausjaksot kakkoskielisessä keskustelussa. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 146. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Lilja, N. (2014). Partial repetitions as other-initiations of repair in second language talk: Re-establishing understanding and doing learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 98–116.
Looney, S. D. & Kim, J. (2019). Managing disaligning responses: sequence and embodiment in third-turn teases. In Hall, J. K. & Looney, S. D. (Eds.), The embodied work of teaching (pp. 57–80). Multilingual matters.
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.
Mondada, L. (n.d.) Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/resources
Mortensen, K. (2016). The Body as a Resource for Other-Initiation of Repair: Cupping the Hand Behind the Ear. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49:1,34–57.
Mulkay, M. 1988. On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Norrick, N. 1993. Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Oloff, F. (2018). ”Sorry?” / “Como?” / “Was?” – Open class and embodied repair initiators in international workplace interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 29–51.
Pajo, K., & Klippi, A. (2013). Hearing-impaired recipients’ non-vocal action sets as a resource for collaboration in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 162–179.
Rasmussen, G. (2014). Inclined to better understanding—the coordination of talk and “leaning forward” in doing repair. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 30–45.
Rossi, G. (2018) Composite Social Actions: The Case of Factual Declaratives in Everyday Interaction, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51:4, 379–397.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). “When ‘others’ initiate repair.” Applied Linguistics 21(2): 205–243.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
Seo, M.-S., & Koshik, I. (2010). A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2219–2239.
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 02(Supplement), 30–45.
Wilkinson, S. & C. Kitzinger (2006). Surprise as an interactionalachievement: reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69 (2), 150–182.
Wu, R.-J. R. (2006). Initiating repair and beyond: The use of two repeat-formatted repair initiations in mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 67–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4101_5
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
