One pattern for directing clients to attempt an answer again is to repeat the original question in some way, thus indicating that there was something ‘wrong’ with the initial response provided. Numerous authors (e.g. Jefferson, 1972; Goodwin, 1983) have identified repetition as one mechanism for initiating correction. In excerpt 6.5, the SLT queries a child’s response to naming a picture, using a WH-question. The child has taken 1.7 seconds (line 28) to think of the name of the picture, and after he does name it (line 29: “a stun”), the SLT produces a request for clarification (line 30: “a WHat?”)
Excerpt 6.5: a what?
27 T (presents next picture)
28 (1.7)
29 C a stun
31 (1.2) 32 C a s::un
The task involves the SLT presenting the client, a child, with pictures to name, using words beginning with [s]. Given that the SLT also has visual access to the pictures, she is likely to know that whatever the child has said is an attempt to name the referent in a particular picture. Thus, her question implies that it is the way he has named the referent in the picture that is in error. Moreover, she designs her turn with a view to focusing the child’s attention to the word that is in error (stun instead of sun).
In excerpt 6.6, the SLT uses a repeat of her original question to underscore that the client has not answered the question, and eventually provides the correction herself, following clear evidence that the child has not understood the nature of the task.
Excerpt 6.6: Mrs Smith flies to Melbourne
41 T two. okay then we’ll go back to five.(.)Mrs Smith (.)
42 flies to Melbourne at midnight. where does Mrs Smith fly?
43 C on the plane
44 T ye::ah. do you remember WHEre I said Mrs Smith was going?
45 C to the plane
46 T yeah. so where did Mrs Smith fly to?
47 C midnight
48 T that- it was Melbourne. who flew to Melbourne?
49 (0.3)
50 C ah::: (.) Mi::ssu:s-
51 (0.2)
52 T Mrs Smith. you did well to remember it was a ‘Mrs’.
53 and look? it’s all dark outside, isn’t it? who flies at
54 midnight. let’s have another go.
In lines 41-42, the SLT presents the client with a statement about an image in front of both of them, then asks the question “where does Mrs Smith fly?”. The client’s answer is a relevant one (“on the plane”), but it is not the ‘right’ answer to the question. After acknowledging the response, the SLT asks the client if he remembers where she previously said Mrs Smith was going. The client modifies his original answer, changing on to to, but continues to reference the plane. In her third attempt to prompt a correct reply, the SLT re- designs her question to incorporate all elements of the original question design, except the required destination (line 46: “yeah.so where did Mrs Smith fly to?”, but this results in the client giving ‘when’ information in his response (line 47: “midnight”). Following three incorrect responses to questions about the destination of Mrs Smith’s
flight, the SLT provides the required answer (line 48: “that- it was Melbourne”). She then asks a further question, about who flew to Melbourne. In other tasks of a similar kind, the SLT does not ask follow-up questions when the child has provided the correct
information. Given that the SLT has mentioned the name Mrs Smith on four occasions to this point, it is plausible to think she was offering the client an ‘easy’ question, so as to balance the difficulty encountered earlier on. When the child struggles to recall the name (line 50: “ah::: (.) Mi::ssu:s-”), the SLT allows only a short silence following this cut-off partial response before providing the answer. She then attempts to minimise significance of multiple errors by praising the element he did get correct (Mrs) and minimizing the task as ‘silly’ (lines 53-54: “Who flies at midnight?”).
In excerpt 6.7, we see a similar pattern: the SLT positively acknowledges an aspect of the client’s performance, then repeats the initial question to pursue the correct response.
Excerpt 6.7: the pencil needs sharpening
84 T okay lets have two more cards. you say what I say.
85 the pencil (.) needs (.) sharpening.”
86 C the (.) pencil(.)needs sharpening.
87 T good. what needs sharpening?
88 C coz it’s- it’s just blunt.
89 T yeah. that’s W::HY:: it needs sharpening. that’s
90 good Harry. that’s why.(.)WHAT needs sharpening?
91 C the pencil.
The task involves the SLT presenting the child with a simple clause about the action depicted in a picture. The aim is to get the child to repeat the relevant clause element relating to a question that the SLT asks the child. In response to her initial question (line 87: “what needs sharpening?”), the child responds with a ‘why’ answer (line 88: “coz it’s- it’s just blunt.”). The SLT initially acknowledges this response, then
produces a range of short turn construction units that twice identify the kind of information the child has given (viz. ‘why’ information) and positively evaluate the information that was provided. Eventually, she repeats her initial question (line 90: “WHAT needs
sharpening”) with increased volume on the question word what, to emphasise the type of information she is seeking. This repetition of the original question carries with it the clear implication that, while the SLT has positively ackno wledged the answer that was given, the child has not yet answered the specific question asked.
Excerpt 6.8 (below) highlights the challenge a client with aphasia faces in getting people’s names right. In this instance, the SLT does not repeat her original question (line 18: “a::nd >who else have you got with you today<?”), but instead opts to reproduce the client’s response (line 19: “A(.)nita”) in three different interrogative formats, each clearly indicating that the name he gave to the original question is not the correct one.
Excerpt 6.8: who else have you got with you today?
18 T a::nd >who else have you got with you today<?
19 C A(.)nita
20 → T Anita?
21 C yers=
22 → T =ANIta?
23 C Yes
24 → T have a look at this person here,
25 (0.3)
26 → T is that little one Anita?
27 (0.8)
28 → T no:: that is M::
28 (0.3)
30 → T M::::
31 C Pe- t-(.)petuh- Laney
32 T well done. Melaney. well done
33 C Melaney, ye::s
When asked who else is with him today, the client names a person in the room, whom he glances at during the micro-silence after the first sound (line 19: “A(.)nita”). The SLT queries this, by repeating the same name with rising intonation (line 20: “Anita?”). This questioning implies that the SLT knows the answer. When the client affirms his original person reference, the SLT queries the name again, but this time with exaggerated
intonation. Once again, the client affirms the original answer. Having attempted to prompt a self-correction on two occasions, the SLT changes tack and asks the client to look at the person he is referring to. He then poses a question (line 26: “is that little one Anita?”). When no response is forthcoming, the SLT answers her own question in the negative before providing an initial sound cue for the correct name, ‘Melaney’ (line 28: “no:: that is M::”), in what is essentially a ‘designedly incomplete utterance’ (Koshik, 2002). This sound cue helps the client to position his oral musculature correctly, but he produces a voiceless bilabial plosive, then a voiceless alveolar plosive, instead of a voiced bilabial nasal [m] required to initiate the name(line 31: “Pe- t-(.)petuh- Laney”). He
produces two incorrect attempts at the articulation of the consonant in the first syllable, before simply moving on and producing the two subsequent syllables of the name
correctly. This attempt at saying Melaney is positively evaluated (line 32: “well done”),
though the SLT also provides an embedded correction (line 32: “Melaney”) to highlight the full production of the name including the initial bilabial nasal, which the client then repeats (line 33), in overlap.
In pursuing the correct response across a number of turns, using a range of strategies aimed at highlighting the error the client has made, the SLT attempts to draw the client’s attention to the error, to enable self-correction. Only after the client has failed to correct the initial error on a number of occasions does the SLT identify the error more directly with a negative evaluation. Even then, she does not overtly correct the client by actually providing the required name; instead, she changes tack to provide a phonemic cue as a further attempt to facilitate the correct production of the name. In this way, the SLT provides multiple opportunities for the client to correct his own error, indicating that the preference for the person who makes the error to be able to rectify the error, defined by Schegloff et al (1977) in relation to repair in everyday conversation, may also apply in this more institutional context.
Correction initiation through use of various interrogative turn designs highlights the occurrence of an error and provide specific information on the location of the trouble source in the prior talk as well as providing opportunities for the client to self-correct. There is an implication inherent in the SLTs questions that the client themselves will be able to identify the required response. This proves correct in excerpt 6.5, where the child is clearly attuned to the task requirement of appropriate production of [s] in word-initial position. In excerpts 6.6 and 6.7, the child has been presented with statements that do contain the information required to answer the question but he is not able to do so without support. His responses indicate that he is not actually aware of the task requirement to restrict his answers to the information he is presented with; instead he answers from his own life experience. In excerpt 6.8, the assumption that the client might be able to recall the name of a family member when prompted is also reasonable, but again it turns out that the client requires more than a repeat question to prompt a correct response. These excerpts support the hypothesis that clients are more likely to be aware of the task parameters and of their own motor-speech performance when speech is the focus of the therapy task, but less
likely to be aware of the task parameters, or of their own performance, when language is the focus of the task.10
The next section will provide an example of how providing some kind of description of what the client has done or needs to do can both initiate a correction sequence and provide more information on which the client can base a self-correction.