This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato]

On: 14 July 2014, At: 00:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aphasiology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/paph20

Conversation partner responses to

problematic talk produced by people
with aphasia: Some alternatives to
initiating, completing, or pursuing
repair
a b
Scott Barnes & Alison Ferguson
a
Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia
Rehabilitation, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
b
University of Newcastle, Discipline of Speech Pathology,
Newcastle, Australia
Published online: 22 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Scott Barnes & Alison Ferguson (2014): Conversation partner responses to
problematic talk produced by people with aphasia: Some alternatives to initiating, completing,
or pursuing repair, Aphasiology, DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2013.874547

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2013.874547

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014
 Aphasiology, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2013.874547

Conversation partner responses to problematic talk

produced by people with aphasia: Some alternatives to
initiating, completing, or pursuing repair

Scott Barnes1 and Alison Ferguson2

1
Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, University
of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2
University of Newcastle, Discipline of Speech Pathology, Newcastle, Australia
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

Background: Problems with intersubjectivity (i.e., mutual understanding) are prevalent

during interactions involving people with aphasia. The linguistic restrictions imposed by
aphasia mean that conversation partners must often assist with repairing intersubjective
problems if they are to be resolved efficaciously. However, conversation partners can
resist participation in repair activities. This may have serious negative implications for
how people with aphasia participate in conversation.
Aims: This study uses conversation analysis (CA) to examine responses to problematic
talk produced by people with aphasia. It focuses on three alternatives to initiating,
completing, or pursuing repair: receipting responses, accounting responses, and
“other” responses. The interactional organisation and consequences of these responses
are described.
Methods & Procedures: Three people with aphasia and nine of their familiar conversa-
tion partners were video-recorded during their everyday conversations. Approximately
9.5 hr of recordings was collected. Ninety-seven responses were identified in this data set
and analysed using collection-based conversation-analytic practices.
Outcomes & Results: Receipting responses register that the person with aphasia has
produced a turn, but provide little support for the action implemented by the turn.
They do not index problems with intersubjectivity and often result in the problematic
talk being abandoned. Accounting responses index problems with intersubjectivity, but
do not work towards resolving them. Instead, they deal with why an appropriate
response to the problematic talk cannot be delivered, and which party is responsible
for its absence. “Other” responses comprise a more eclectic category. One type—non-
serious responses—is examined. Non-serious responses take the appearance of repair,
but ultimately delay authentic repair attempts.
Conclusions: The responses examined can have negative consequences for the participa-
tion of people with aphasia, restricting their ability to implement social action, and
making relevant their status as linguistically incompetent. However, they can also help
with navigating the sensitive environments created by problems with intersubjectivity.
Interaction-focused interventions might focus on these practices in addition to repair
practices when attempting to improve how communication breakdown is addressed. CA
and qualitative interviewing are well suited to future explorations of how conversation
partners decide that they will not initiate, complete, or pursue repair.
Keywords: Aphasia; Conversation; Conversation partners; Intersubjectivity; Repair.

Address correspondence to: Scott Barnes, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University,

Balaclava Rd, North Ryde, NSW 2109 Sydney, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
 2 BARNES AND FERGUSON

A salient feature of conversations involving people with aphasia is the prevalence and
persistence of threats to intersubjectivity (i.e., mutual understanding). Researchers
using conversation analysis (CA) have described how people “repair” (i.e., resolve)
difficulties with speaking, hearing, and understanding talk in typical conversations
(e.g., Schegloff, 1992; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). This work has provided a
solid foundation for examining fractures to intersubjectivity during conversations
involving people with aphasia (e.g., Aaltonen & Laakso, 2010; Ferguson, 1994;
Laakso & Klippi, 1999; Oelschlaeger & Damico, 2003). Studies of conversation
repair and aphasia have contributed new knowledge about aphasia’s impact on
everyday life and led to the development of assessment and intervention procedures
focused on repair (e.g., Lock, Wilkinson, & Bryan, 2001; Whitworth, Perkins, &
Lesser, 1997). Although this article maintains an interest in problems with intersub-
jectivity caused by aphasia, its target is not repair. Instead, it describes some con-
versation partner responses to problematic talk that are not (at all or primarily)
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

designed to effect the resolution of problems with intersubjectivity. Better under-

standing the nature, motivations, and consequences of these alternatives to repair will
spur the development of more comprehensive clinical resources for improving how
people with aphasia and their conversation partners manage problems with inter-
subjectivity in conversation.

INTERSUBJECTIVITY, CONVERSATION REPAIR, AND APHASIA

Ethnomethodological approaches to intersubjectivity
The approach to “understanding” adopted by ethnomethodology—a radical method
for studying social action—and its offshoot, CA, does not involve recourse to mental
processes. Instead, social actors are viewed as achieving mutual understanding—inter-
subjectivity—through the incremental production of observable conduct (see, e.g.,
Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 1992). With each speaking turn, social actors display their
understanding of what they take to be happening there-and-then. In doing so, they make
that understanding available to other social actors, who can then use it as a basis for
designing their own future conduct (see Heritage, 1984, pp. 254–260). Thus, intersub-
jectivity is a visible, public matter, emerging collaboratively through talk over time,
independent of—and qualitatively different from—the private mental states of each
party. Moreover, in a number of ways, conversation is normatively designed for the
maintenance of intersubjectivity (cf. Robinson, 2006). Three aspects of this claim will be
briefly addressed here. First, the sequential organisation of turns in conversation pro-
vides for recursive and dynamic displays of understanding (cf. Schegloff, 1992). Each
next-turn offers an opportunity for intersubjectivity to be updated and problems to be
addressed. If they remain unresolved, the basis for designing subsequent turns is under-
mined. Second, social actors’ conduct is variously and thoroughly “recipient designed”
(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974, p. 727). That is, people carefully tailor their
conduct to suit the parties they are addressing and the activities they are undertaking.
Third, feigning adequate appreciation of another’s talk is potentially sanctionable (e.g.,
you have no idea what I’m saying, do you?). The upshot of these observations is that the
maintenance of intersubjectivity is a normative feature of conversation, which inter-
actants monitor closely.
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 3

The organisation of conversation repair

When problems with speaking, hearing, and understanding talk arise in conversation,
social actors typically employ repair practices to resolve them (see Schegloff et al.,
1977; Kitzinger, 2013; for an introduction). Repair is unique among interactional
practices in that it can be used at any time (Schegloff, 2000). This characteristic is
important for promoting the maintenance of intersubjectivity because it allows
interactants to address problems during or following any turn-at-talk. Because inter-
subjectivity is built on a turn-by-turn basis, it is also important for the repair process
to begin as closely to the targeted problem—the “trouble source”—as possible. If
repair is delayed, then the trouble source can become difficult to identify and retrieve
(cf. Schegloff, 1992). However, there are also good reasons for being circumspect
with repair. The principal one is that repair disrupts and delays ongoing interactional
business—it can prevent the production of the next word in a turn, the response to a
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

question, the climax of a story, for example—until the targeted problems have been
resolved. Repair is, therefore, a “dispreferred” action (see Schegloff, 2007, pp. 58–96)
and need not be initiated if trouble is detected. Overwhelmingly, though, repair is
successful at resolving trouble quickly and efficiently—typically within the same turn
as the trouble source or in the one immediately following it—minimising delays to
the business-at-hand, and providing a renewed, less problematic basis for subsequent
actions.
The repair process involves two distinct activities: initiating repair and complet-
ing repair. Repair initiation locates the trouble source, whereas the repair activity is
directed towards resolving the trouble through the generation of a repair solution.
There are also two roles that are consequential for participation in the repair
process: “self”—the speaker of the trouble source—and “other”—any recipient of
the trouble source. One product of the repair system, and interactants’ implementa-
tion of it, is a bias for self-initiation and self-completion of repair (Schegloff et al.,
1977). The party who produces the trouble source—the self—usually initiates and
completes repair in the course of producing their turn. It is also relatively common
for the recipient of a trouble source—the other—to initiate repair. Other-initiations
of repair are characteristically done in the turn immediately following the trouble
source (Schegloff, 2000) and can take a number of forms. “Open class” other-
initiations (see Drew, 1997) such as huh, pardon, and what are often used, but
provide little insight into the nature of the trouble. Some lexical other-initiations
(e.g., who?) and sentential candidate understandings of the prior turn (e.g., you’re
talking about tomorrow?) more explicitly characterise the nature of the trouble.
These other-initiation practices also provide for the speaker of the trouble source
to complete repair themselves, reflecting and reproducing the systemic bias for self-
repair. Provision of the repair solution by others—correction—is less common and is
interactionally sensitive (Kitzinger, 2013). The sensitive status of correction is
evidenced by its regular combination with “attendant activities”, such as account-
ing, apologising, and blaming (see, e.g., Jefferson, 1987). Although it is especially
salient in the case of correction, it should be noted that repair is a deeply “moral”
matter. That is, undertaking repair, of any kind, causes social actors to consider who
is responsible for the trouble and how they are at fault (e.g., Jefferson, 1987;
Robinson, 2006).
 4 BARNES AND FERGUSON

Some further practices related to other-initiation of repair

The bias for self-initiation and self-repair has consequences for the other-initiation of
repair. Robinson (2006) argued that other-initiations of repair can be heard as
implying that the speaker has overlooked an opportunity to initiate self-repair.
That is, that the speaker has let a possible trouble source “slip through” and is
therefore responsible for the disruption caused by other-initiation of repair. Robinson
(2006) demonstrated that trouble source recipients can guard against implicitly
“blaming” the speaker by prefacing other-initiations of repair with accounts invol-
ving apologies (e.g., sorry I missed that, who?). Recipients use these prefaces to assign
responsibility for the trouble to themselves, and to justify—that is, “account for” (see
Antaki, 1994)—their failure to produce a fitted response to the prior turn. Jefferson
(2007) has also made some observations relating to the sensitivity of other-initiation
of repair, albeit indirectly. She found that recipients of correctable talk occasionally
elect to “abdicate” correction. That is, they allow an error to pass without correction,
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

often meeting it with minimal response tokens (e.g., mm, yeah, and mm hm). In
addition to a number of subtle and varied functions (see Gardner, 2001), these
minimal responses represent an implicit declination to initiate repair (Schegloff,
1982). Jefferson (2007) attributed abdicated correction to various forms of “recipient
disengagement” with the ongoing talk. Further, she suggested that correction affords
an error a degree of importance for current activities, whereas abdicating treats it as
inconsequential (see also Skelt, 2007).

Aphasia and collaborative resolution of trouble

Aphasia diminishes the linguistic resources available to efficiently and effectively
carry out self-repair.1 Consequently, the conversation partners of people with aphasia
need to take on a more active role in resolving trouble if intersubjectivity is to be
maintained (cf. Aaltonen & Laakso, 2010; Ferguson, 1993, 1994; Goodwin, 1995;
Helasvuo, Laakso, & Sorjonen, 2004; Laakso & Klippi, 1999; Lindsay & Wilkinson,
1999; Milroy & Perkins, 1992; Oelschlaeger & Damico, 2003; Perkins, 2003;
Wilkinson, 1995). The severity of the problems engendered by aphasia mean that
multiple attempts at repair are often required. A common repair pattern involves
conversation partners recursively presenting candidate understandings until a repair
solution is collaboratively agreed upon (see, e.g., Ferguson, 1993; Helasvuo et al.,
2004; Laakso & Klippi, 1999; Oelschlaeger & Damico, 2003). This degree of “other”
involvement is much less common in interactions involving typical speakers.
However, without the semiotic resources provided by conversation partners during
this process, many people with aphasia will have difficulty reaching a repair solution
(see, e.g., Laakso, 2003). Conversation partners may also employ less facilitative
repair and correction practices. For example, conversation partners may initiate
correct production sequences (cf. Aaltonen & Laakso, 2010; Lindsay & Wilkinson,
1999; Lock et al., 2001), during which cosmetic aspects of the talk produced by the
person with aphasia are corrected despite intersubjective understanding being intact.
1
Perhaps contrary to expectations, Laakso (1997) found that people with fluent, Wernicke-type
aphasia ably and frequently initiated self-repair. The self-repair practices used by people with aphasia
have the potential to reveal important information about language processing and aphasia, and deserve
much more investigative attention than they have so far received (though, see Laakso, 1997; and
Wilkinson, Gower, Beeke, and Maxim, 2007).
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 5

These activities can be distressing for people with aphasia, making their status as
linguistically incompetent the principal focus of the conversation (cf. Beeke, Maxim,
& Wilkinson, 2007; Wilkinson, 2007). Clinical assessment and intervention for repair
focus on how repair initiation is managed (in particular, the kinds of other-initiation
practices used), optimising the contributions of both parties to reaching a repair
solution (including the use of non-verbal strategies), and ensuring that negative repair
and correction behaviours are minimised (see, e.g., Lock et al., 2001).

Electing not to initiate or pursue repair on problematic talk produced

by people with aphasia
Perkins (1995, 2003) offered evidence that some familiar conversation partners may
resist initiating and/or pursuing repair despite serious problems with intersubjectiv-
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

ity. She observed that the conversation partner (BC) of a person with aphasia (EN)
repeatedly failed to initiate other repair on problematic talk. Perkins (2003) ana-
lysed an example where BC asked EN a question about a mutually known party,
and EN indicated that she had some relevant information to report. However, EN
had difficulty independently completing her turns and, instead of initiating repair
and attempting to collaboratively address the trouble, BC elided EN’s contributions
and moved on. As a result, EN progressively became more passive and produced
more minimal responses (see Perkins, 1995). Laakso (2003) also analysed an
instance in which a clinician resisted participation in a word search despite invita-
tions from a person with aphasia. Her production of minimal responses left the
burden of repair on the person with aphasia, and he was unable to resolve the
trouble independently. Together, these studies suggest that conversation partners
who resist initiating or pursuing repair may curtail the participation of people with
aphasia. That is, without the benefit of collaborative repair efforts, the conversa-
tional contributions of people with aphasia may be more effortful and less success-
ful, restricting their ability to implement social action efficiently, or at all (cf.
Perkins, 2003, p. 156).

THE PRESENT STUDY

Conversation is organised for the maintenance of intersubjectivity on a turn-by-
turn basis. The repair system offers an efficient means of identifying and resolving
problems with speaking, hearing, and understanding talk that may threaten
intersubjectivity, but need not be employed or pursued if trouble is detected. In
the case of aphasia, threats to intersubjectivity are pervasive, and conversation
partners play a key role in resolving the trouble aphasia causes. This means that
conversation partner resistance to initiating, completing, or pursuing repair may
have serious consequences for how people with aphasia participate in conversa-
tion. This study explores three classes of response used by conversation partners
of people with aphasia in place of initiating, completing, or pursuing repair when
problems with intersubjectivity arise. It describes the features and consequences of
these alternatives to repair, contrasts their functionality with repair (and one
another), and discusses their relevance for the social participation of people with
aphasia.
 6 BARNES AND FERGUSON

METHOD
Design
This study is qualitative, descriptive, and conversation analytic. Data were collected
in the course of the first author’s doctoral research, which received approval from the
Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee (Human Research) (Reference:
HE26SEP2008-D06134).

Participants
Three people with aphasia and nine of their familiar conversation partners were
recruited to participate in a research project examining conversations involving
people with acquired communication disorders. Participants either responded to an
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

advertisement placed in a stroke association newsletter or recruitment announce-

ments made by the first author at community stroke groups. Participants with
aphasia were required to be at least 3 months post-injury, have at least one regular
conversation partner, speak English as a first-language, and have adequate or cor-
rected hearing and vision. No other selection criteria were applied. The character-
istics of participants with aphasia are outlined in Table 1. Brief descriptions of
conversation partner participants are provided in Table 2. All participants names
reported are pseudonyms. It should also be noted that Russell and Ben resided in
their own homes, whereas Valerie resided in a nursing home.

Conversation sampling procedure

Participants were asked to make recordings of their conversations at times when they
would usually sit and talk with one another, for example, over a cup of tea. Other
than these instructions, no topics or activities were suggested. Participants were
provided with a video camera, trained in its use, and left to record their conversations
as they saw fit over a period of between 1 week and 1 month. They were encouraged
to record 1 hour in total. The data set assembled and analysed for this study is
summarised in Table 2.

TABLE 1
Characteristics of participants with aphasia

Months Previous
Participant Age Aetiology post-onset Handedness WAB-R AQ Co-morbidities occupation

Valerie 83 Unknown 144 Right 78.2 (Anomic) Right-sided Accountant

hemiplegia;
mild dysarthria
Russell 72 Left MCA 13 Right 59.2 (Broca’s) Right-sided Solicitor
infarct hemiparesis
Ben 74 Left MCA 33 Left 19.1 (Broca’s) Apraxia of speech Factory
infarct manager
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 7

TABLE 2
Details of conversation samples collected

Conversation Relationship Duration of

Participants partner between Number of recordings
with aphasia participants participants Setting of recordings recordings (min)

Valerie Wendy Friends Valerie’s nursing home room; 7 215

Evelyn Friends nursing home common
Kathleen Friends room
Betty Acquaintances
Russell Carol Spouses Kitchen at Russell and 8 80
Hilton Father–son Carol’s home
Ian Father–son
Ben Debbie Spouses Dining table at Ben and 6 79
Fran Siblings-in-law Debbie’s home
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

Analytical procedure
Recordings were transcribed by the first author according to conversation-analytic
conventions (e.g., Schegloff, 2007). Transcripts and video recordings were then
repeatedly examined for distinctive practices used by the participants. After noticing
and completing a preliminary analysis of an interesting stretch of talk—presented in
Extract 1—the data set was systematically examined for similar instances with a view
to creating a “collection” of them (see Schegloff, 1996). The objective of collection-
based conversation-analytic research is to identify regularities in the organisation of
an interactional practice and describe the social action(s) it accomplishes. The
aggregate analytic accounts developed during this process are derived from the
detailed examination of single instances of conduct. In particular, close attention is
paid to the talk and other conduct that occurs before and after the targeted practice
(i.e., its sequential context), the features of the turn the practice is delivered by (e.g.,
lexical choice, grammatical format, and prosody), and the larger social activity that
the practice is part of (e.g., a storytelling sequence). Moreover, previous findings
about the organisation of interaction—especially robust generic orders of organisa-
tion such as turn-taking, repair, and sequence organisation (cf. Schegloff, 2006)—are
used to guide analytic interpretation where relevant.

Collection of responses
Initially, 144 candidate instances of the targeted practice—responses to problematic
talk that do not constitute repair—were identified in the data collected. This inclusive
initial collection was then subjected to analysis and reduced to a core collection of 97
candidate instances (i.e., 47 possible instances were excluded). Three classes of
response were identified during this process: receipting responses, accounting
responses, and “other” responses.2 Counts of these response types are presented in
Table 3, with further characterisation of receipting responses presented in Table 4.
Beginning with an inclusive initial collection was largely motivated by the analytical
challenges posed by using CA to study receipting responses to problematic talk. With
2
There were also instances of “composite” responses, which involve one response type being combined
with another response type or action in the same turn (e.g., receipting + accounting, cf. Schegloff, 2007).
 8 BARNES AND FERGUSON

TABLE 3
Collections of response types

Response type Frequency

Receipting 75
Accounting 9
Other 9
Composite 4
Total 97

TABLE 4
Collections of receipting responses

Response token type Frequency

Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

Mm 26
Yeah/yes 25
No 4
Right/okay 3
Mm hm/uh huh 3
Oh 2
Other 8
Composite 4
Total 75

this responsive practice, interactants decline the opportunity to initiate repair (cf.
Schegloff, 1982). Hence, problems with intersubjectivity are not explicitly addressed.
It can therefore be challenging to claim that some stretch of talk has been proble-
matic for the interactants and is anything more than an analyst spotting what they
take to be an error. As well, if done deftly, a minimal, receipting response to
problematic talk should effectively conceal a listener’s difficulties from other inter-
actants and analysts alike. Hence, there is potential for both over- and under-
identification of this practice when attempting to study it. Nonetheless, intuition
tells us that minimally receipting problematic talk can be, and is, done in conversa-
tion. The issue, then, is how it can be defensibly captured.
Minimal responses that elide problems with intersubjectivity are often conspicuous
in interactions involving people with aphasia. If a conversation partner meets a
lexically, grammatically, and sequentially problematic turn with a response token,
it raises strong analytic suspicions that they have not reached an adequate analysis of
this talk. Still, there are times when responding in this fashion remains apposite even
when talk is patently problematic (e.g., producing a continuer in the middle of
storytelling). To address these issues, a number of general analytic questions were
formulated and used to guide the examination of receipting responses in the present
data set (see the “Appendix”). The objective of these questions was to gather
empirical evidence for the status of a receipting response as an instance of the
candidate practice and, conversely, to exclude those for which there was weak
empirical evidence. Due to the nature of the practice, it is likely that some instances
have been wrongly included or excluded. However, it should also be noted that
receipting responses to problematic talk are, on many occasions, designedly ambig-
uous. Therefore, analytic equivocality need not reflect inadequacy; instead, it may
capture the very character of the practice.
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 9

RESULTS
Receipting responses
Although conversation partners used a variety of response token types (see
Table 4), receipting responses to problematic talk in this data set share a number
of features. First, they do not explicitly index any problems with prior talk
(Schegloff, 1982). Second, they are responsive to prior talk; albeit, minimally.
That is, unlike the other-initiation of repair, they (ostensibly) maintain ongoing
activities. Finally, they generally offer little support for the action implemented by
the prior turn and do not strongly constrain the kinds of actions that can
occur subsequently (cf. Gardner, 2001). These features will be illustrated using
Extracts 1, 2, and 6.
As Extract 1 begins, Kath is writing in Valerie’s address book as Valerie shuffles
some papers in her lap. Kath commences a telling at line 2 concerning a Royal Albert
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

tea set she auctioned on eBay. At 16, Valerie seemingly asks a question about the
telling, which Kath eventually meets with a receipting response at 21.

Extract 1

001 [(0.4)
[((K is writing in V’s address book))
002 K ↑i- (0.5) had- (0.5) something on,↑ (0.3) ebay
003 yesterday valerie >which< [(0.8) ]
[((K moves in her chair))]
004 w’s a like a min:iature (.) ro:yal albert tea set.
005 (0.5)
006 V a[w ye(ah.)]
007 K [b’t mini]ature.
008 [(1.8)
[((K looks down to V’s address book))
009 V [(↓yeah,↓)]
010 K [and ] HH i’d hadd:it at ho:me f’r a long time
011 <en (i’d)> (.) really h’d grown tired of it?=so: .hh i
012 thought i’d put it on ebay.
013 (0.4)
014 V ↑ohw yes,
015 K .hh an:d (0.7) i: hoped t’ get abo:ut (1.0)
–> 016 V >(do you go on i-< it let you return,)
–> 017 (1.8)
–> 018 K n– (0.2)
–> 019 V answer fr’m eºb(h)ay.º
020 (0.3)
=> 021 K mm:. .hh and uh (0.4) i- i’d h↑oped t’ get about (0.2)
022 seventy or eighty dollars for it.=that’s what- .hh
023 cause you put it up f’r auction?
024 V ye:s, [º.hhº [(i see.)]
025 K [.hh [so: ] ↓ahm (1.6) it(h) it went on en
026 it w’s (.) then i had (0.5) a f:l↑urry of bids for it¿
027 .hh en then i had an enquiry from new zealand.
 10 BARNES AND FERGUSON

028 (0.5)
029 K .hh how much would it cost t’ post t’ new zea [land,=
030 V [gosh,
031 K =<so i> w:ent down t’ the post office (with) (0.3)
032 which i don- al [ready done the thing up, .hhh en they=
033 V [↓ye:s.↓
034 K =said it would cost <twenty o:ne dollars,>=
035 V =↑uhw::? jo::¿

Valerie supports Kath’s telling using minimal responses at 6, 9, and 14. As Kath is
providing the next detail at 15, there is a long pause within her ongoing turn. Valerie
then interposes in the turn (and the telling) by seemingly asking a question. The
extremely long silence that follows suggests that Valerie’s question is likely to receive
a dispreferred response—namely, repair (cf. Schegloff et al., 1977). Kath begins to
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

respond at 18 and Valerie expands her question slightly at 19. Kath then produces an
mm with strongly falling terminal intonation and proceeds with her telling, reprodu-
cing the most recent detail almost identically (cf. line 15 vs. line 21).
There are a number of factors that suggest intersubjectivity has fractured during
this stretch of talk. First, the questioning sequence gets off to a slightly problematic
start, with Valerie speaking in the midst of Kath’s turn. Second, Valerie’s (apparent)
question is difficult to hear and understand (from an analyst’s perspective, at least).
Third, the long silence following Valerie’s question indicates that Kath is having
trouble formulating a response. The stalling of the talk is also reflected in the
interactants’ bodily conduct; both are motionless, gazing at one another throughout
the silence (not shown in transcript). Finally, a falling terminal mm is an ill-fitted
response to Valerie’s question. The mm registers receipt of Valerie’s turn—that is, the
mm acknowledges that something was said—but does not support the action the turn
implemented—it does not “do answering”—nor does it provide any clear indication
of what Kath heard Valerie’s turn to be doing (see Gardner, 2001).
Kath’s receipting response strongly curtails the action Valerie’s turn implemented.
A falling terminal mm allows for nearly any action to occur in immediately subse-
quent talk,3 and here it lays the ground for swiftly moving on. Kath finalises the
curtailment—verging on deletion—of Valerie’s turn by re-doing the talk immediately
prior to it and resuming her telling.
In Extract 2, Valerie is speaking with Kath and Kath’s friend Betty, who recently
moved into the same nursing home as Valerie. Betty and Valerie had met once prior
to this recording. The extract begins with Betty telling Valerie that she looked for [her]
that pink day; a breast cancer fundraising event held at the nursing home, which
involved some communal activities. Valerie does not address her whereabouts during
the pink day in her responses at 4, 7, and 10. Kath then claims that Valerie won’t
always go out to anything, before specifically offering bingo as an example of an
activity that Valerie does not always attend. Valerie resists Kath’s claims about her
absenteeism at 17, and subsequently asserts that they don’t run a bingo. A long silence
follows, and both Kath and Betty receipt Valerie’s talk using no.

3
Some actions strongly constrain what can follow them (see Schegloff, 2007). For example, uttering an
invitation narrows the kinds of actions that can be subsequently expected (acceptance vs. rejection). By
contrast, Gardner (2001) demonstrated that this variety of mm has “zero projection”; it does not strongly
constrain the actions that can be expected in immediately subsequent talk.
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 11

Extract 2

001 B I looked f’r you, .hh that pink day¿

002 (0.3)
003 B i told kathleen, (0.3) i can’t see very well, .hh
004 V n[o, ]
005 B [b’t i-] i looked for you, .hh from what i could see,
006 º.hhº
007 V ye[ah; ]
008 B [(dow-)] round abou:t; (0.6) b’t anyhow.
009 (0.3)
010 V (y[eah)]
011 B [i- ]
012 K [↑val]erie w:on’t always [go o:ut] to anything she=
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

013 V [( ) ]
014 K =doesn’t always go to bingo en everything [that’s on;]
015 B [↓(i lu- ]
016 love [that,)↓]
017 V [aw s]:ometimes,
018 (.)
019 K do you? yeah-
020 (0.3)
021 V ºº( )ºº
022 (0.3)
023 B well=
024 K =[i- wh:en you were at ahm]
–> 025 V [( ) ] (.) they don’t run a
–> 026 ºbing-º (0.3) bingo,
–> 027 (1.3)
=> 028 B ↓no.=
=> 029 K =↓no:_=
030 B =.hh [w’ll I: g]o t’ bingo, .hh b’cause it’s black,=
031 V [(i think)]
032 B =(.) on white
033 (0.3)
034 V ye:s,
035 (0.3)
036 B en i think t’ m’self well º.hhº that’s one way of
037 training my eye:s.=
038 V =mm:,=
039 B =i can’t read, .hh so- (0.5) i sit there, (.) en

The problems in Extract 2 revolve around the status of bingo, and Valerie’s
participation in it. Kath’s assertion at 12/14 presupposes that bingo is an activity
that’s on; something that is regularly offered to residents of the nursing home.
Valerie’s initial response—aw sometimes—does not contest that bingo is available
and can be heard as implying that she occasionally attends it. Again, bingo is
(implicitly, at least) cast as an available activity. Valerie’s assertion at 25–26,
 12 BARNES AND FERGUSON

however, runs against this established common ground and is followed by a long
silence.4 Both Kath and Betty respond minimally, matching the negative polarity of
Valerie’s assertion (i.e., don’t run), ostensibly agreeing with her, all the while not
addressing the problems with her claim. Betty then reports the reasons that she goes
to bingo, once more presupposing that bingo is available.5 Kath’s and Betty’s
receipting responses at 28 and 29 are clear examples of “manufactured” agreement
(cf. Heritage, 2002). The position that they agree to—that they don’t run a bingo—is
at odds with both their prior and subsequent claims, and is adopted simply for the
purposes of responding to the prior turn.
Although the receipting responses in Extract 2 are slightly more congruent with
Valerie’s talk than the mm in Extract 1, they accomplish similar work. Kath and
Betty’s nos do not index any difficulties with hearing or understanding—effectively
concealing them—and provide only weak support for the problematic turn.
Ultimately, like Extract 1, this leads to the action that Valerie implemented being
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

swiftly curtailed, and other actions being taken up.

Accounting responses
The accounting responses in the present data set have the following features. First,
they explicitly address the problematicity of prior talk. But, unlike other-initiation of
repair, accounting responses do not work towards resolving the trouble (cf.
Robinson, 2006, pp. 143–148). Second, in place of a response to prior talk, they
identify reasons for—they account for—the absence of a fitted response. Finally,
accounting responses assign responsibility for the problematicity of prior talk. These
features will be illustrated using Extracts 3, 4, and 6.
Extract 3 begins towards the end of some talk concerning plans for Christmas, and
whether Russell will be able to climb a set of stairs at his son’s home in a few weeks
time. Russell’s wife, Carol, suggests that he might be able to in 6 months time.
Russell upgrades this claim, saying more th’n that, before commencing a long turn
that involves pervasive turn-constructional difficulties. At 15, Carol responds with
the account none e’ that made sense and solicits agreement with this position from
Russell using a tag question.

Extract 3

001 C >six months< time when maybe (0.9) º↓y’ might be

002 stronger¿º
003 (0.2)
004 C ºdunno:.º=
005 R =aw:: (m-) more th’n th(h)at.
006 (0.2)
–> 007 R mu- much ₒmuchₒ much b( ):::h .hh (0.7) ºhu(h)hº (and
–> 008 uhm) (0.6) ₒ(pteh)ₒ (2.2) going to: (1.3) thiS: <side
–> 009 next hh time.>

4
The overlap at 24 and 25 also possibly contributed to the lack of immediate uptake.
5
Taken in isolation, it seems possible that Betty is referring to bingo anywhere, rather than bingo
specifically at the nursing home. However, in the talk that follows she identifies a staff member at the
nursing home who is involved with bingo activities, so this hearing seems unlikely.
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 13

–> 010 [(3.3)

[((R wipes chin))
–> 011 R .hhhhhh ( ) (0.6) i-i(h)f (0.2) >(w- w-) ehhh (0.4) ewe-
–> 012 w- (when uh-) (1.0) going to s:earch (will/we’ll) (1.2)
–> 013 come again.
014 (0.5)
=> 015 C nuh_ none e’ that made sense¿ did it,
016 (.)
017 R no_ i know:;
018 C no, º.hhhº ↑when you get a bit stronger you think it
019 (.) might be better.
020 (0.2)
021 R y(h)eap.
022 (0.6)
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

023 R yes,
024 (.)
025 R º.hhhhhº (0.6) ºyes iº (.) think so:.=

Russell’s talk at 7–13 is interspersed with extended silences and is lexically and
grammatically problematic. This makes the action that Russell is attempting to
implement with his turn decidedly unclear and undermines Carol’s ability to produce
a response that builds on, and is fitted to, Russell’s turn. Rather than eliding these
issues with a receipting response or attempting to resolve them with repair, Carol’s
account deals with why she cannot produce a fitted response; that is, his talk cannot
be adequately analysed. While neither party is mentioned in the account, her claim
that none e’ that made sense implicitly assigns (at least partial) responsibility for the
problems to Russell as the party who produced that. Notice also that Carol initiates
repair at 18–19, producing a candidate understanding of Russell’s problematic talk,
which he accepts at 21/23/25. This candidate understanding is very similar to the
position she advanced at 1–2, suggesting that the intervening talk contributed little to
it. Hence, Carol prioritised accounting for the absence of a response to Russell’s turn
over initiating repair and beginning to resolve the problems it caused.
The accounting response in Extract 4 is contrastive with the one in Extract 3 in a
number of ways. In Extract 4, Valerie attempts to initiate a new topic about a person
that she and Evelyn both know.6 This topic initiation leads to significant trouble,
which persists until Evelyn identifies the person in question at 25.

Extract 4

001 E i didn’t- >wasn’t invited to the wedding,< but i

002 w’st- went t’ [watch the] ceremony;
003 V [(ºyeah.º) ]
004 (0.7)
–> 005 V and y:ou: (0.2) (en) en- (with the) (0.3) tennis
–> 006 players .hh (did j’: um) º.hhº ring: ji:ll? en (0.9)
–> 007 (yeah) it’s ji- is it jill?

6
See Barnes, Candlin, and Ferguson (2013) for further analysis of the topic initiation presented in this
extract.
 14 BARNES AND FERGUSON

008 (0.6)
009 E sorry?
010 (0.5)
011 V what’s (her) (0.9)
012 E tenni[s,
013 V [(no,) (0.3) (her’s) (0.5) ºe(k)hº died recently.
014 (2.4)
015 E someone who died recently¿
016 V º(uh ohw)º (janette)?
017 (3.1)
018 V º.hh u-º she’s got (her) º.hhº father, (1.1) (aw) >th-
019 th-< th’t lived t’gether.
020 (2.6)
=> 021 E sorry i’m <not quite> with you.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

022 (2.9)
023 V you member when uh .hh they come in here, º.hhº
024 [say (oh[w:¿)
025 E [mm. [↑O::HW I KNOW MARTHA.

Unlike Extract 3, Evelyn’s first response to Valerie’s problematic talk is to initiate

repair—using an apology-based practice (see Robinson, 2006)—rather than produce
an account. Evelyn puts forward candidate understandings at 12 and 15, but the
trouble remains unresolved. Valerie attempts to provide further information about
the person in question at 18–19, but this is followed by another longer silence at 20.
Although further candidate understandings are still relevant at this juncture in the
talk, Evelyn delays the further pursuit of repair by producing an account. It is
apology-prefaced, and explicitly includes both parties, but assigns principal respon-
sibility for the unresolved problems with intersubjectivity to Evelyn. Evelyn achieves
this distribution of responsibility through the apology preface, and by reporting that
she is the one who is not quite with Valerie. Notice also the contrast with Extract 3 in
how the problems are described; the more severe none e’ that versus the milder not
quite.
Both of the accounting responses examined in this section offer reasons for the
absence of a fitted response to the talk produced by the person with aphasia, but
they are otherwise contrastive. Carol’s account casts Russell as primarily respon-
sible for the problems that have arisen. She does so before attempting to resolve
them with repair. Evelyn’s account casts herself as primarily responsible for the
unresolved problems that have arisen. She does so after attempting to resolve them
with repair.

Other responses
Other responses in this data set were more eclectic. With a view to space limitations,
only one type will be examined here: non-serious responses (cf. Bloch & Wilkinson,
2013; Norrick, 2003; Schegloff, 2001). The non-serious responses in this data set
have the following features. First, the prior, problematic turn is a “serious” con-
versational contribution. Second, the non-serious responses have the appearance of
repair. Third, they involve deliberate misreading of the problems with prior talk,
and the conduct of the person with aphasia. Finally, they provide an opportunity
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 15

for affiliation between the parties to the interaction. These features will be illu-
strated using Extract 5.
As Extract 5 begins, Debbie is announcing her desire to visit some estranged relatives
to her sister, Fran, and her spouse, Ben. Her talk initially receives little response. Ben
then produces a whispered nonsense syllable at 15 in overlap with the beginning of
Fran’s turn. He continues gesturing at 17 as Fran’s turn also continues. Debbie’s you at
20 initiates repair, and Ben gestures further, ending with a point over his shoulder with
his thumb. Debbie persists with her repair efforts at 23, but Fran offers a non-serious
response at 24: y’ goin’e bed. Ben meets this response with po-faced agreement (cf. Drew,
1987). Fran replies with a curt see ya, and both Fran and Ben smile and laugh.

Extract 5

001 D we’ll ‘afta go out: there n’ see aunt- (0.2) raeleen

Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

002 one day.

003 (0.3)
004 F (mm h[m,)
005 D [w’ll come down after christmas en spend a few
006 days, an we’ll go o:ut there n’ see ‘uh- (see ‘uh).
007 (2.0)
008 D (so we will).
009 (0.3)
010 D ‘s i’d like t’ see ‘uh,=i’d like t’: (0.3) ↑I’D LIke
011 t’ see some e’ the co:usins es well:;
012 B ((sniffs))
013 (0.6)
014 F bi[::ll i- ]
–> 015 B [ ₒ(ye]woi)ₒ=
016 F =[>e- i< don’t e’en know] if lives [up near me:=
–> 017 B [((points)) ] [((gazes to D))
018 F =‘nymore;
019 (0.2)
020 D you:_
021 (0.5)
–> 022 B (.tk) [(yop-) [(0.3) (ₒyupₒ) (1.3)
[((points)) [((brings hands close, then points
over shoulder with thumb))
023 D i don’t know what’re we saying.=
=> 024 F =y’ goin’e bed,
025 B (ye-ah)=
026 F =>see ya,< [hh huh huh ] ha- .HHH KGHH HGHH
[((B opens mouth)) ]
027 (0.3)
028 B .hH HUH(ºhhº)=
029 D =me n’ the cousins¿
030 B (neah_) [(1.1)
[((extends arms, pulls face, lifts arms up))
031 D [you- w’ll (i-) ] w’ll i wouldn’t know
[((B moves hands in & down))]
 16 BARNES AND FERGUSON

032 th’m if i fell o:ver th’m in the street? t’ be honest;=

033 F =↑nah bi::ll n’ gary live near me,
034 (0.7)
035 F edgar i dunno w- .HH he apparently (h)e sold ‘is
036 ºh:ºouse [f’r j’st ] over a million dollars or=
037 D [yeah. ]
038 F =somethin’?

Fran’s response, unlike the receipting and accounting responses examined so far, has
the appearance of repair. That is, in an environment where candidate answers are
relevant due to the initiation of repair, it trades on looking like a candidate answer, and
as contributing to the resolution of trouble. Instead, it implements quite a different
action: a joke. Here, Fran exploits the ambiguity of Ben’s gesture, using the fact that
his thumb-point is loosely in the direction of his bedroom. However, given Ben’s
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

careful positioning of his turn relative to prior talk, and the other, complex gestures
involved in it—not to mention the time of day, and the activities they are currently
engaged in—this reading is clearly (and intentionally) implausible. Moreover, Fran’s
non-serious response displaces the completion of repair momentarily. Debbie subse-
quently re-engages with repair by producing a candidate understanding at 29. The
trouble is then seemingly sufficiently resolved for the ongoing talk to resume.

Repeatedly passing over problematic talk: An example

In Extract 6, Carol passes over a number of opportunities to repair problematic talk
produced by Russell. In doing so, she utilises a variety of alternative responses. The
extract begins with Carol claiming that a friend who had visited earlier in the week
will email her in the near future.

Extract 6

001 C ↓anyway, [no do]ubt paul will send me an em:ail; en=

002 R [( ) ]
003 C =.h i’ll have t’ reply: t’ him,
004 (.)
005 R >yes,< hh (g- good one:)
006 C e(h)h
007 (0.5)
008 R o(h)ne (.)
009 C he seems kee:n to:. doesn’t he.
010 R y- yes º(he-) .hhhº (0.4)
011 C mm:[º::.º
–> 012 R [e:every- everyone’s s:send’s their own hh s- s:-::
–> 013 (1.4) partners >in the< in º.hhhº cri:me. (0.5)
OT => 014 C [↑↑mh nhh
[((frowns))
015 (2.1)
016 C º( )º dy’ think e’ still goes into the office? to: d-
017 if e’ needs any legal help?
018 (0.5)
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 17

019 R ºnot (necessarily) they [don’t.º]

020 C [nn:. ] >no e’< prob’ly
021 leaves f- (said) e’ leads a simple *life,*=
–> 022 R =º(aw yeah e’s)º (0.8) i i s’pose (th’t e’) º.hhhº
–> 023 (0.8) ºe-º E’ prob’ly pays hi- his (0.4) u- eh- i-
–> 024 (0.3) one: º( )º (2.1) (2 sylls) (1.1) (the) (3 sylls)
–> 025 (1.6) b’t (.) h::er (0.9) (with her or in-t’ one.)
–> 026 (0.9) one.
RR => 027 C ºmm:.º
028 (1.8)
029 R .TKhhh yeah it’s- (0.7) v- ve- v(HHHhh) VERy.
030 d(h)iffic(h)ult.=
AR => 031 C =not quite sure what y’r trying [t’ *say] there:.*
032 R [( ) ]
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

–> 033 R (no w’ll: [i:) .h ]hh (each) .hh (ₒwₒ f’r that to)=
034 C [ºyeah.º ]
–> 035 R =(1.1) ºhhhhº his family, (0.4) and (1.6) ºhi- his
–> 036 family.º
037 (.)
RR => 038 C ºmm:.º .hh (.) ou- our family, ian said he’ll come et
039 the weekend¿
040 (0.4)
041 R [(that’s:) ]
042 C [*↓some stage.*]

The first alternative response occurs at 14 following Russell’s inapposite use of the
idiom partners in crime. Carol produces a non-lexical object—categorised as an “other”
response in this study—that takes an evaluative stance towards how Russell designed his
turn. That is, it addresses the inappositeness of his talk, rather than responding to the
action it implemented.7 A long silence then ensues, and Carol questions Russell further
about Paul. Russell produces a long and very problematic turn at 22–26, which Carol
meets with a receipting response at 27. After another long silence, Russell seemingly
withdraws from the ongoing talk about the visiting friend and comments on his difficulties
speaking. It is not clear whether Carol analyses his turn at 29–30 in this fashion. Rather
than acknowledging Russell’s orientation to his difficulties, Carol produces an accounting
response that connects back to Russell’s turn at 22–26. This account offers a weaker
characterisation of the trouble than the account in Extract 3 (e.g., not quite sure). However,
Carol avoids explicitly mentioning herself in the account by omitting a subject noun
phrase. She also casts Russell’s efforts at speaking as, ultimately, insufficient (i.e., trying
t’ say). Russell then attempts to produce further talk concerning the visiting friend, but it is
also lexically and grammatically problematic. Carol, again, receipts Russell’s turn, before
initiating a new topic—the weekend visit of their son. The receipting mm at 38 lays the
ground for this shift by simultaneously acknowledging and halting the action implemented
by Russell’s turn. Carol then exploits one of the clear words in Russell’s turn, family, to

7
The precise character of this response is difficult to convey. Unlike receipting responses, which remain
rather neutral and removed from the empirical details of the problematic talk, Carol’s high pitch and
frowning imbues this token with a negative evaluative edge. Moreover, it is akin to a laugh in that it seems
to be viscerally reactive to the inappositeness of Russell’s talk.
 18 BARNES AND FERGUSON

occasion a transition onto other matters.8 This is a rather tenuous, formal link with prior
talk that, along with the receipting response, weakly ratifies Russell’s contribution while
achieving disengagement from a period of persistent trouble (see Barnes (in press) for
further analysis of how conversation partners move on following unresolved problems
with intersubjectivity).

DISCUSSION
Electing not to initiate, complete, or pursue repair
This study has examined receipting, accounting, and non-serious responses to
problematic talk produced by people with aphasia. These responses can be used
in place of initiating, completing, or pursuing repair and have different conse-
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

quences for the progression of ongoing talk. Extracts 1–6 have demonstrated that
they can have a number of negative consequences for the conversational participa-
tion of people with aphasia. The receipting responses in Extracts 1, 2, and 6 lead to
the actions implemented by the person with aphasia being severely curtailed, and
quickly superseded in favour of other actions. In doing so, conversation partners
undermine the agency of the person with aphasia; that is, their ability to shape the
course of the interaction. Moreover, because receipting responses do not explicitly
index trouble, they offer little basis for the person with aphasia to infer why their
turn has failed, nor for re-designing it more successfully (cf. Bloch & Wilkinson,
2009). In fact, across the present data set, receipting responses are very rarely met
with resistance from the person with aphasia.9 The accounting responses in Extracts
3 and 6 demonstrate that this response type can be used to assign trouble respon-
sibility primarily to the person with aphasia, making their identity as linguistically
incompetent acutely visible. Finally, non-serious responses obstruct authentic
attempts to complete repair. Moreover, like all jokes, they run risk of falling flat,
and “making fun” of the party they target (cf. Norrick, 2003; Wilkinson, 2007). In
the case of Extract 5, Fran exploited the inherent ambiguity of Ben’s gesturing,
which had the potential to bring the semiotic inferiority of his communication
attempts into focus.
At the same time, however, alternatives to repair offer useful resources for
negotiating the interactionally delicate environments created by problems with
intersubjectivity. For instance, in Extract 2, had Kath and Betty decided to
initiate repair in response to Valerie’s assertion about bingo, they ran the risk
of exposing Valerie as someone who, despite long-term residence in the nursing
home, was not aware of its routine activities. That is, initiating repair would have
led to explicit discussion of Valerie apparently being an incompetent member of
the nursing home “culture”. Ignoring the implications of choosing to do so in this
particular case—which, as an aside, are interesting and complex—eliding repair
with a receipting response offers conversation partners a way of avoiding con-
fronting repair work. As in Extract 6, receipting responses can also be used to
begin disengaging from extended, unsuccessful attempts at repair, and facilitate

8
Notice also the association between crime and legal help at 13 and 17.
9
Of course, this may also reflect people with aphasia recognising that their turn has failed, and
choosing to move on (cf. Rhys, 2013).
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 19

shifts onto other matters (cf. Gardner, 2001).10 That is, they can promote the
overall progression of the interaction at the expense of dealing with the immedi-
ately prior, problematic talk (cf. Rhys, 2013; Wilkinson, 2007). With regard to
accounting responses, Extract 4 demonstrated that conversation partners may use
accounts to implicate themselves in the trouble, acknowledging that, as recipients,
they have failed to make sense of the prior talk (cf. Kagan, 1999). Unlike
receipting responses, accounts also explicitly point towards trouble with the
prior turn, which makes clear to the person with aphasia that things have gone
awry. Accounts can therefore be useful for de-emphasising the contribution of
aphasia to problems with intersubjectivity and providing a basis for the person
with aphasia to re-design their talk. Finally, non-serious responses also represent a
chance for people with aphasia and their conversation partners to affiliate with
one another amidst a potentially fraught process (cf. Wilkinson, 2007).
The upshot of this discussion is that it is difficult to label the responsive practices
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

examined in this study as essentially “negative” or “positive”. Their consequences for

the progression of an interaction, and their reception by the people involved, can only
be realised in and through the actual circumstances in which they are employed.
However, if one were to critically evaluate these responses, it may be appropriate to
characterise them in terms of “risks” and “benefits”. For instance, the stable func-
tionality of particular receipting responses (e.g., mm, see Gardner, 2001) means that
using them in response to problematic talk will recurrently embody particular risks
(e.g., restricting agency), and recurrently offer particular benefits (e.g., avoiding
confronting repair). While this may seem a rather tentative way of characterising
these responsive practices, a contextual description of this sort runs the risk of
glossing—and ultimately missing—aspects of their utility, and should be resisted
until more extensive investigation has been conducted.

Clinical implications
Like previous conversation-analytic work, this study helps ground notions such as
“social participation” and “functional communication” in the turn-by-turn commu-
nicative activities of people with aphasia and their familiar conversation partners (cf.
Armstrong & Ferguson, 2010). This study highlights how small conversational
behaviours such as receipting, accounting, and joking can have serious implications
for facilitating or inhibiting how people with aphasia participate in routine social
life. Moreover, it demonstrates that interaction-focused interventions—such as con-
versation partner training programmes—might profitably encompass more than
repair activities when attempting to improve how problems with intersubjectivity
are addressed. In particular, aphasia can create circumstances where repair is too
onerous, or simply not possible, making necessary alternative ways of dealing with
problematic talk. Understanding the functional variability discussed above is parti-
cularly important for providing therapeutic advice regarding alternatives to repair.
Rather than, for instance, discouraging the use of certain responsive practices
10
In addition, it should be noted that minimal continuing responses (e.g., mm hm) have been
encouraged in interaction-focused interventions as a way of promoting speaking turns for people with
aphasia (e.g., Wilkinson, Lock, Bryan, & Sage, 2011). As noted above, these responses are useful when
the turn or action being produced by the person with aphasia is in progress; when it is still emerging.
Minimal recipient responses produced in these sorts of environments were excluded from the present data
set because of their general appositeness.
 20 BARNES AND FERGUSON

altogether, interaction-focused therapy should raise awareness about their possible

consequences and equip conversation partners to make appropriate responsive
decisions online.
Although the preceding discussion has been cautious about polar characterisations
of alternatives to repair, one risk associated with receipting responses deserves further
consideration. It seems possible that, given their ability to undermine the agency of
people with aphasia, repeatedly experiencing receipting responses—especially those
that weakly support initiating actions—may discourage people with aphasia from
actively participating in conversation and contribute to social withdrawal. More
speculatively, given the importance of the social environment for shaping neural
reorganisation (see, e.g., Pulvermüller & Berthier, 2008, pp. 569–571), discouraging
communication in this fashion could be especially deleterious during the early stages
of recovery from brain injury. Therefore, having trained conversation partners in
acute care settings may promote interactional engagement and facilitate language
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

recovery.

Study limitations and future research

The findings of this study are limited by the small number of participants and
conversational activities examined. For instance, it is not clear whether certain
kinds of responses are more usable for particular conversation partner types (e.g.,
spouses vs. friends vs. health professionals), whether they are more usable in parti-
cular kinds of activities (e.g., casual conversation vs. medical consultation), nor
whether there is any relationship between the responses used and aphasia type and
severity. Future research should systematically examine these variables. The motiva-
tions for choosing to initiate repair or otherwise when intersubjective problems arise
should also be explored through further qualitative study. Conversation-analytic
methods can be used to more clearly map the interactional topography involved,
and qualitative interviewing of people with aphasia and their conversation partners
can be used to gather their perspectives on these practices.

Manuscript received 18 March 2013

Manuscript accepted 28 November 2013
First published online 22 January 2014

REFERENCES
Aaltonen, T., & Laakso, M. (2010). Halting aphasic interaction: Creation of intersubjectivity and spousal
relationship in situ. Communication & Medicine, 7, 95–106.
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London: Sage.
Armstrong, E. M., & Ferguson, A. (2010). Language, meaning, context, and functional communication.
Aphasiology, 24, 480–496.
Barnes, S. E. (in press). Moving on following unresolved problems with intersubjectivity. Research on
Language and Social Interaction.
Barnes, S. E., Candlin, C. N., & Ferguson, A. (2013). Aphasia and topic initiation in conversation: A case
study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48, 102–114.
Beeke, S., Maxim, J., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with
aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 136–147.
Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). Acquired dysarthria in conversation: Identifying sources of under-
standability problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44, 769–783.
 ALTERNATIVES TO CONVERSATION REPAIR 21

Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). The accomplishment of non-serious talk in severe speech disability: An
examination of recipient uptake and delayed other-initiation of repair. Journal of Interactional Research
in Communication Disorders, 4, 45–70.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253.
Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.
Ferguson, A. (1993). Conversational repair of word-finding difficulty. In M. L. Lemme (Ed.), Clinical
aphasiology (Vol. 21, pp. 299–310). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ferguson, A. (1994). The influence of aphasia, familiarity and activity on conversational repair.
Aphasiology, 8, 143–157.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on
Language & Social Interaction, 28, 233–260.
Helasvuo, M., Laakso, M., & Sorjonen, M. (2004). Searching for words: Syntactic and sequential
construction of word search in conversations of Finnish speakers with aphasia. Research on
Language & Social Interaction, 37, 1–37.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagree-

ment. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence
(pp. 196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee
(Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jefferson, G. (2007). Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 445–461.
Kagan, A. (1999). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and evaluation (Unpublished
dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis
(pp. 229–256). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Laakso, M. (1997). Self-initiated repair by fluent aphasic speakers in conversation. Helsinki: Finnish
Literature Society.
Laakso, M. (2003). Collaborative construction of repair in aphasic conversation: An interactive view on
the extended speaking turns of persons with Wernicke’s aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation
and brain damage (pp. 163–188). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Laakso, M., & Klippi, A. (1999). A closer look at the “hint and guess” sequences in aphasic conversation.
Aphasiology, 13, 345–363.
Lindsay, J., & Wilkinson, R. (1999). Repair sequences in aphasic talk: A comparison of aphasic-speech and
language therapist and aphasic-spouse conversations. Aphasiology, 13, 305–325.
Lock, S., Wilkinson, R., & Bryan, K. (2001). Supporting partners of people with aphasia in relationships and
conversation (SPPARC): A resource pack. Bichester: Speechmark.
Milroy, L., & Perkins, L. (1992). Repair strategies in aphasic discourse: Towards a collaborative model.
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 6, 27–40.
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1333–1359.
Oelschlaeger, M. L., & Damico, J. S. (2003). Word searches in aphasia: A study of the collaborative
responses of communication partners. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage
(pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perkins, L. (1995). Applying conversation analysis to aphasia: Clinical implications and analytic issues.
European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 30, 372–383.
Perkins, L. (2003). Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and
brain damage (pp. 147–162). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pulvermüller, F., & Berthier, M. L. (2008). Aphasia therapy on a neuroscience basis. Aphasiology, 22,
563–599.
Rhys, C. S. (2013). Choosing not to repair: Sorry as a warrant for interactional progress. Research on
Language & Social Interaction, 46, 84–103.
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair.
Communication Monographs, 73, 137–161.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-
taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
 22 BARNES AND FERGUSON

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things
that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in
conversation. The American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American
Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243.
Schegloff, E. A. (2001). Getting serious: Joke → serious “no”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1947–1955.
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche
for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots
of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). London: Berg.
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.
Skelt, L. (2007). Damage control: Closing problematic sequences in hearing-impaired interaction.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:22 14 July 2014

Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 34.1–34.15.

Whitworth, A., Perkins, L., & Lesser, R. (1997). The conversation analysis profile for people with aphasia
(CAPPA). London: Whurr.
Wilkinson, R. (1995). Aphasia: Conversation analysis of a non-fluent aphasic person. In M. Perkins &
S. Howard (Eds.), Case studies in clinical linguistics (pp. 271–291). London: Whurr.
Wilkinson, R. (2007). Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction:
On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 542–569.
Wilkinson, R., Gower, M., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2007). Adapting to conversation as a language
impaired speaker: Changes in aphasic turn construction over time. Communication & Medicine, 4,
79–97.
Wilkinson, R., Lock, S., Bryan, K., & Sage, K. (2011). Interaction-focused intervention for acquired
language disorders: Facilitating mutual adaptation in couples where one partner has aphasia.
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 74–87.

APPENDIX. QUESTIONS GUIDING ANALYSIS OF RECEIPTING

RESPONSES

(1) Is there evidence that the “problematic” talk does not fit with prior talk?
(2) Is there evidence of trouble and self-repair in the “problematic” talk?
(3) Is there a delay between the “problematic” talk and receipting response?
(4) Is the action or format of the receipting response ill-fitted to the “problematic”
talk?
(5) How does talk subsequent to the receipting response relate to the “problematic”
talk?
(6) Is interactants’ bodily conduct indicative of problems with intersubjectivity?