ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-119-025 · ATLAS 260

Conversational repair

An interactive process for addressing problems with speaking, listening, or comprehension.

Part of the subject path Pragmatics and Conversation

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Repair examines troubles with speaking, hearing or understanding as interactionally manageable events. It focuses on sequential organisation, distinct from normative correction or editorial improvement outside an exchange.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

In conversation analysis, repair is the procedure through which participants display and address problems of speaking, hearing, or understanding. The person whose turn is involved may detect the problem, or another participant may initiate repair; the correction itself may likewise be produced by self or other. These choices yield four basic configurations with unequal social implications: self-correction is often afforded before another person corrects. Repair concerns far more than normative error, including unclear reference, acoustic gaps, and word searches. The conceptual movement follows a trouble source through its display to restored, renegotiated, or deliberately unresolved understanding.

Movement of thought

1. A potential problem of formulation, perception, reference, or interpretation emerges in interaction. 2. A participant initiates repair through a cut-off, question, repetition, or another recognisable signal. 3. The original speaker or another participant offers correction, specification, or repetition. 4. A counter-test separates interactive trouble management from topic change and retrospective evaluation. 5. The sequence reveals whether shared understanding is restored, renegotiated, or explicitly deferred.

Scientific use case

Conversation analysis, clinical communication, and interactional linguistics study repair sequences with fine-grained transcripts. Their distribution can reveal work on understanding, institutional roles, and linguistic accessibility.

Example

A says, “We will meet her at the old place.” B asks, “At the station?” A replies, “No, at the former clinic building.” The unclear reference is displayed and repaired through self-specification.

Counterexample

Not every grammatical deviation triggers conversational repair, and not every repair corrects an objective error. Without participants' observable orientation to trouble, an analyst's external norm is insufficient evidence.

Distinction

Distinguish conversational repair from normative error correction, editorial revision, and feedback in general. It is a sequentially organised, participant-recognisable treatment of trouble in interaction.

Effect on thought and perception

Repair makes communication robust by addressing problems during ongoing interaction. Its design often protects participants' face but may also asymmetrically mark competence and authority.

Resonance

Understanding briefly breaks and is not merely replaced but jointly tied again. The disturbance remains visible as the point where relation and meaning are retuned.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Conversational repair“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-119-025. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-119-025

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-119-025

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

In 1977, Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks distinguish repair from correction. Repair addresses troubles in speaking, hearing and understanding without necessarily replacing an error; word searches illustrate the wider domain. They also separate initiation from outcome. The inspected opening establishes this English analytical distinction. It does not reconstruct German terminological adoption or verify the complete account of the preference mechanism.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Record the trouble source, initiation and outcome separately. Other-initiation does not by itself establish other-repair.

References for the historical section

  • A-SCHEGLOFF-JEFFERSON-SACKS-1977 · Printed pp.361–364, §2.1–2.2; p.363 visually read
Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.