Some Prosodic Characteristics of Repeated Talk following Conversation Repair Requests by Adults with Hearing Impairment

ABSTRACT

When miscommunications occur in conversation, participants have access to both speech- and language-based cues to clarify the miscommunicated talk. This article investigates what changes occur in prosodic speech patterns between initial and repeated talk in a brief free and unstructured conversation between an adult bilateral cochlear implantee and his chosen familiar communication partner, his wife, conducted in a clinical setting. The 23-minute conversation between the two participants included 37 self-repetitions of one or more words by the familiar communication partner. Most instances were repetition-as-repair sequences. Each of the 37 instances was subjected to acoustic analysis to identify frequency, loudness, and duration of word tokens in both the initial and repeated talk as well as pause length between tokens. Data suggest that loudness, pitch, and duration are commonly all increased in the prominent words repeated by the communication partner by contrast with the initial utterance. Repeated sequences included more pauses, but not longer ones, than the initial utterances. Prosodic patterns of repetition were influenced by the turn(s) preceding the repeated talk and the co-occurrence of prosodic and lexical elements in the repair/repetition turn. The success of the repeated talk in resolving miscommunications for this dyad suggests that prosodic speech cues in conjunction with lexical cues are effective repair strategies.

KEYWORDS

Conversation repair - suprasegmental - prosody - hearing impairment - repetition

REFERENCES

• 1 Linell P. Toubles with mutualities: towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In: Markova I, Graumann C, Foppa K Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1995: 176-213
• 2 Noble W. What is a psychosocial approach to hearing loss?.  Scand Audiol. 1996;  25(Suppl 43) 6-11
• 3 Erber N P. Hearing Vision Communication and Older People. Melbourne, Australia; Clavis 2002
• 4 Tye-Murray N. Foundations of Aural Rehabilitation; Children, Adults, and Their Family Members. 3rd ed. Clifton Park, NY; Delmar Cengage Learning 2009
• 5 Helfer K S. Auditory and auditory-visual recognition of clear and conversational speech by older adults.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;  9 234-242
• 6 Schum D J. Intelligibility of clear and conversational speech of young and elderly talkers.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;  7 212-218
• 7 Picheny M A, Durlach N I, Braida L D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1985;  28 96-103
• 8 Picheny M A, Durlach N I, Braida L D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing II: acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1986;  29 434-446
• 9 Picheny M A, Durlach N I, Braida L D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing III: an attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to differences in intelligibility between clear and conversational speech.  J Speech Hear Res. 1989;  32 600-603
• 10 Uchanski R M, Choi S S, Braida L D, Reed C M, Durlach N I. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing IV: further studies of the role of speaking rate.  J Speech Hear Res. 1996;  39 494-509
• 11 Lind C, Hickson L, Erber N P. Conversation repair and adult cochlear implantation: a qualitative case study.  Cochl Impl Int. 2006;  7 33-48
• 12 Curl T S. Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of “repetitions”.  Disc Proc. 2005;  39(1) 1-43
• 13 Tye-Murray N, Witt S. Conversational moves and conversational styles of adults cochlear-implant users.  J Acad Rehabil Audiol. 1996;  29 11-25
• 14 Lind C. Conversation repair and adult acquired hearing impairment. Ph.D. thesis. Brisbane, Australia; Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of Queensland 2006
• 15 Lind C. Conversation repair strategies in audiologic rehabilitation. In: Montano J, Spitzer J Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation. San Diego, CA; Plural 2009
• 16 Berger C R, DiBattista P. Communication failure and plan adaptation: if at first you don't success, say it louder and slower.  Commun Monogr. 1993;  60 220-238
• 17 Kochanski G, Grabe J, Coleman J, Rosner B. Loudness predicts prominence: fundamental frequency lends little.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  118 1038-1054
• 18 Watson P J, Hughes D. The relationship of vocal loudness manipulation to prosodic F0 and durational variables in healthy adults.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;  49 636-644
• 19 Gramming P, Sundberg J, Ternstrom S, Leanderson R. Relationship between changes in voice pitch and loudness.  J Voice. 1988;  2 118-126
• 20 Atkinson JM, Heritage J Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1984
• 21 Adobe Systems .Adobe Audition [computer program]. Version 1.5 Mexico, CA; Adobe Systems 2004
• 22 PRAAT .Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 5.1.052009
• 23 Ford C, Thompson S. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In: Ochs E, Schegloff EA, Thompson S Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1996: 134-184
• 24 Schegloff E A, Jefferson G, Sacks H. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair for conversation.  Language. 1977;  53 361-382
• 25 Clark H H, Schaefer E F. Collaborating on contributions to conversation.  Lang Cogn Process. 1987;  2 19-41