ILP studies have also addressed the use of other-repetitions in native/non-native speakers. Other-repetitions are the repetition of the other speaker’s preceding utterance (Johnstone, 1994). Similarly, Pérez-Pereira (1994, p. 323) defines other-repetition as “the complete or partial reproduction of a preceding utterance produced by another speaker”. These definitions show that other-repetition occurs in a dyadic or multi-party interaction. There have been some different terms used to refer to other-repetition.
23
Tannen (1987) uses the term allo-repetition. Murata (1995) calls it two-party repetition. Perrin, Deshaies, and Paradis (2003) use the term diaphonic repetition.
The functions of other-repetitions in dyadic and multi-party interactions have been examined by some scholars. Tannen (2007, p. 61) claims that repetitions not only have the function of creating meaning in an interaction, but they also have other functions at the interactional level. According to Tannen (2007, p. 61), the interactional functions of repetitions include:
getting or keeping the floor, showing listenership, providing backchannel response, stalling, gearing up to answer or speak, humour and play, savouring and showing appreciation of a good line or a good joke, persuasion, linking one speaker’s ideas to another’s, ratifying another’s contributions.
Furthermore, Tannen (2007, p. 61) explains that repetitions work as interpersonal involvement in the interaction. Repetitions provide “a resource to keep the talk going, where talk itself is a show of involvement, of willingness to interact, to serve positive face” (p. 61). The functions of repetition proposed by Perrin et al. (2003) are narrower than those of Tannen. Perrin et al. (2003, p. 1849) classify four functions of diaphonic repetition involving “a taking into account function, a confirmation request function, a positive reply function, and a negative reply function”. Johnstone (2008) states that repetition displays the addressee’s attentive listening, comprehension, and agreement to what the speaker has said. Tannen’s (2007) interactional functions of other-repetitions seem broader and more complete than the others and cover the notion of politeness in producing other-repetitions in the interaction.
Regarding the forms of repetitions, Pérez-Pereira (1994) classifies forms of repetition as exact, reduced, modified, and expanded. Tannen (2007, p. 63) classifies repetition using three parameters: first, whether it is self-repetition or allo-repetition; second, whether the repetition is exact or a paraphrase; and the third, the temporal scale of the repetition. The repetitions in this present study are other-repetitions in dyadic
24
interaction. The forms of repetition follow those classified by Pérez-Pereira (1994), as they were applicable to the data in the present study.
Research on other-repetitions has been conducted by scholars since it was initiated by Tannen in 1987. There has been a large number of investigations into other-repetitions since then. For example, Dumitrescu (2008) examined the roles of interrogative allo- repetitions to convey politeness from the corpus of oral Mexican Spanish. The results showed that the attitudinal allo-repetitions may cause the addressee to lose face as they harm the addressee’s positive face. Allo-repetitions performing repair task seemed to have disaffiliative function and they were impositive and threatened the addressee’s face. Allo-repetitions with disaffiliative functions were high in sociolinguistic interviews. Allo-repetitions for faulty turn and ‘dilatory’ interrogative allo-repetitions appeared to have affiliative and solidarity functions that express a positive politeness strategy. However, there are only a few ILP studies focusing on other-repetitions. Some ILP studies on other-repetition involve the interactions between L1 speakers of British English, L1 speakers of Japanese, and Japanese speakers of English (Murata, 1995), native/non-native speakers of Norwegian (Svennevig, 2003), in the interactions of EFL learners (Sawir, 2003), native Norwegian clerks and non-native clients in institutional encounters (Svennevig, 2004), native/non-native speakers of Finnish (Kurhila, 2001), Turkish L2 speakers of Norwegian (Rydland & Aukrust, 2005) and interactions between Japanese learners of English (Greer, Andrade, Butterfield & Mischinger, 2009), among others. There is also a study of other-repetitions that involved Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Japanese L2 speakers of English (Sawir, 2003).
Murata’s (1995) cross-cultural study of repetitions involved L1 speakers of British English, L1 speakers of Japanese, and Japanese speakers of English. He focused on both self- and other-repetitions. The results showed that the immediate or other- repetitions were used to decrease the threat and to show solidarity or cooperation in the interaction. The immediate repetitions were more frequently used in English interactions both in those of the L1 speakers of British English and the Japanese speakers of English. The immediate repetitions were used to show solidarity in Japanese exchanges, while they seemed to threaten the interlocutors’ territoriality in English interaction. However, they were counter-balanced by using silence-avoidance and hesitation repetitions that showed respect. It was claimed that the use of these
25
conversational features was related to the different values in the context of the interaction. Another study on other-repetitions was conducted by Svennevig (2003). She investigated echo answers in the institutional interaction of native/non-native speakers of Norwegian. The results came from the analysis of twelve video recordings in various contexts. The findings showed that the use of echo answers seemed relevant to asymmetrical relationships in the interactions and appeared to have a specific role in the interactions between native and non-native speakers. Repetition in the repair sequences characterised both native and non-native interactions. Transfer or inference in the form of repetition from the first language of the participants was also revealed in the data. When the non-natives repeated the expression of a hearing check, they used self-correction as their learning strategy.
Another study on other-repetitions related to feedback was carried out by Kurhila (2001). Her research focused on the correction done by L1 speakers to the L2 speakers’ linguistic expressions. The findings came from using conversation analysis (henceforth, CA) with a corpus of naturally occurring data of native and non-native speakers in non-pedagogic contexts. The analysis showed that the corrective actions were conducted depending on the types of environments of the deviations. It was also revealed that the corrections were made when the deviations occurred in the slot of repetition. The L1 speakers corrected the deviation without repeating the source of the trouble, but the correction was provided directly.
Sawir (2003) focused on allo-repetition used in dyadic interactions involving Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Japanese L2 speakers of English and L1 speakers of English. Nine videotapes of the interactions were transcribed and analysed. The findings showed that the allo-repetitions were used to show listenership and surprise, to request for confirmation and clarification, and to hold over while thinking what to say. The repetitions also showed solidarity and involvement strategies. Intonation was considered to play a role in determining the function of allo-repetitions. Sawir argued that repetitions to ensure correctness were more frequently used in intercultural communication than those in intracultural interaction.
These ILP studies of other-repetitions show that there may be differences in the use of repetitions in L1 and L2, and there may be inference from the L1. The use of repetitions
26
may be related to the different cultural values of the participants, problems of understanding or linguistic encoding, and the possibility of the frequent use of other- repetitions in the intercultural interactions.