Conversational Repair's Role in Defending Cognitive Modularity

Arthur G. Ward 

Anthropology 197: Individual Studies in Anthropology 

Dr. Erica Cartmill

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles 

June 2023

10-minute read

Conversational Repair's Role in Defending Cognitive Modularity: A Literary Review

Language and cognition

              Language and cognition are intimately connected, with language playing a crucial role in shaping and influencing human thought processes; however, the relationship between the two remains an unsolved scientific query that continues to divide social scientists across the interdisciplinary spectrum.[i] Cognition, easily defined as “all forms of knowing and awareness,”[ii] is highly dependent on and essential to linguistic development. English phonetician and language scholar Henry Sweet defined language through this interconnected lens, highlighting its expression through ideas, by which sounds compound into words, then sentences, and finally back into ideas,[iii] underscoring cognition’s extended role in language theory’s development.

               While remaining a fascination throughout much of the twentieth century, the relationship between language and cognition would ultimately be reframed during the “cognitive revolution” of the 1950s, as the discussion of cognition’s architecture would shift away from a general-purpose theory underscoring human intelligence, akin to the workings of a supercomputer, towards one of distinct modularity, consisting of individual mental mechanisms (modules) evolved to address specific mental tasks.[iv]  

              Foremost in this discussion was the work of American linguist and philosopher Norm Chomsky, who adapted the idea of modularity in opposition to psychologist B. F. Skinner, who promoted general-purpose cognition.[v] Chomsky’s suggested theory adequately supported a linguistic, psychological, and biological position on language through a focus on language acquisition, suggesting that linguistic ability evolved through specific ‘language acquisition devices,’ cognitive mechanisms with specific language abilities.[vi] Paralleling the work of future philosophers and evolutionary psychologists like Jerry Fodor and H. Clark Barrett, cognitive linguistics continues to evolve past the work of Chomsky, expanding language theory in a pattern congruent with domain specificity and massive hierarchical modularity.[vii] 

Conversation Analysis

              Social interaction is at the crossroads of cognition and language, a process through which shared meaning, mutual understanding, and social coordination are maintained.[viii] Conversation analysis has emerged as the study method at the forefront of this intersection, seeking to untangle the dynamics of social organization and the promotion of interaction. Developed throughout the 1960s through the collaboration of sociologists Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson,[ix] conversation analysis is the crucial tool necessary to unlock social communication.[x] The identification and research made possible by conversation analysis trace the developmental trajectory of linguistic ability to their cognitive counterparts. Communicative style is represented through the dissection of everyday conversations by highlighting markers such as adjacency pairs, disjunction markers, latching, turn-taking, repair, and sequence organization, each playing a unique role in connecting language to its underlying cognitive processes.[xi]

Conversational Repair

              It is without a doubt that conversation analysis plays a significant role in uncovering the complexities associated with human interaction; however, communicative repair uniquely represents the dynamics between linguistic ability and cognition. Repair is fixing communicative trouble, addressing “recurrent problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding.”[xii] Repair is a sequential phenomenon during ongoing speech divided into two ‘segments,’ ‘initiation’ and ‘outcome,’ each possessing a specific organization.[xiii] First, the repair initiates, that is, the identification of communicative trouble; the second is the repair performance; that is, the trouble is either addressed or “fixed,” with the outcome concluding the side-sequence.[xiv]

               Repair is referenced through two perspectives, through that of the speaker (the self) and the recipient (the other), with the process considered a side-sequence to the primary conversation’s turn-taking pattern,[xv] and is marked by who initiates the repair and who addresses the trouble to conclude the side-sequence.[xvi] For example, a misunderstanding can be identified by the speaker (the self), whereupon they highlight the troubled content, a process considered self-initiation. Additionally, the self can address the trouble and complete the repair themselves, considered self-repair, a side-sequence ultimately marked as self-initiated self-repair.

               Research highlights a strong preference for self-repair due to various factors; first, the opportunities for self-initiation outnumber that of other initiation. Second, the opportunity for self-initiation precedes that of the other.[xvii] Finally, even in the circumstances where initiation is prompted by the other, they (a) refrain from producing the repair, leaving the opportunity open for the self to address the issue and conclude the side sequence, and (b) delay their initiation, providing an additional opportunity for the self to complete the repair.[xviii]

Communicative Repair and Cognition

               The structure of conversation analysis traditionally prevents any direct assessment of mental representations, cognitive processes, or theoretical constructs, as it is systemically challenging to assess these operations in a strictly interactional situation based on behavior alone.[xix] However, when considering the underlying mechanics of repair, much can be revealed about how individuals work to understand and be understood.[xx] Interactive repair is a “collaborative action between signaler and recipient,”[xxi] involving monitoring discrepancies in attention, knowledge, and understanding and signaling such discrepancies when trouble is detected.[xxii] This process initiates a component of coordination where the suspension of action promotes a joint resolution of the identified trouble source.[xxiii] These characteristics combine to afford evidence for several empirically observable mechanisms: (1) self-monitoring, (2) recipient-dependent linguistic behavior, (3) prompting ability, (4) interactional contingency based upon temporal and sequential coordination, and (5) those consistent with a theory of mind.[xxiv]

The Universality of Communicative Repair

               Empirically observable cognitive mechanisms dynamically interconnected with interactive human repair provide evidence for universality across human language. Two opposing hypotheses govern the universal pragmatics of communicative repair; (1) the pragmatic diversity hypothesis, which states that language systems reflect cultural differences and therefore vary across cultural groups, and (2) the pragmatic universal hypothesis, which states that language systems are broadly similar across cultural groups.[xxv] A broad assessment of language produces several empirically derived universals specific to communicative repair. First, all studied languages share “a basic inventory of techniques to initiate repair,”[xxvi] a process divided into three universal practices associated with other-initiation: (1) an open request, consisting of an open-ended identification of the trouble source and includes words such as ‘huh?’, (2) a restricted request, which requests specification or clarification of the trouble source and includes words such as ‘who?’, and (3) a restricted offer, whereas a confirmation about the trouble source is sought and includes statements such as, ‘Stacy had a boy?’.[xxvii] ‘Huh?’ is an additional defense for the universality of repair.[xxviii] It is found in roughly the same form and function across a broad range of studied languages, suggesting the shaping of its linguistic evolution by an interactional environment’s selective pressure, that is, other-initiated repair.[xxix]

               While the specific details of repair initiation vary across languages, the general shape of the linguistic system and its principal usage remains inherently similar, suggesting the emergence of a fundamental principle of social interaction.[xxx] Systems of repair remain crucial safeguarding mechanisms for coherency among social interaction and thus possess three vital characteristics specific to human language: self-referentiality, social intelligence, and collaborative action.[xxxi] Unified, these mechanisms provide strong evidence of the pragmatic universal hypothesis, underscoring their vital role in evolution, cognition, and a highly organized linguistic system structuring human conversation and cooperative action.

Citations

1. [i] Harris, “Language and Cognition”; Perlovsky and Sakai, “Language and Cognition.”

2. [ii] “APA Dictionary of Psychology.”

3. [iii] “Language”; Sweet, A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical.

4. [iv] “About Cognitive linguistics - Cognitive Linguistics”; Barrett, The Shape of Thought: How Mental Adaptations Evolve; Harris, “Language and Cognition”; Perlovsky and Sakai, “Language and Cognition.”

5. [v] Chomsky, “Review: Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner.”

6. [vi] “About Cognitive linguistics - Cognitive Linguistics”; Chomsky, “Review: Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner”; Harris, “Language and Cognition”; Mehler et al., “Mechanisms of Language Acquisition: Imaging and Behavioral Evidence”; Perlovsky and Sakai, “Language and Cognition.”

7. [vii] Barrett, The Shape of Thought: How Mental Adaptations Evolve; Fodor, The Modularity of Mind; Mehler et al., “Mechanisms of Language Acquisition: Imaging and Behavioral Evidence.”

8. [viii] Goodwin and Heritage, “Conversation Analysis.”

9. [ix] Goodwin and Heritage, “Conversation Analysis.”

10. [x] Goodwin and Heritage, “Conversation Analysis”; Moss, “Introduction to Conversation Analysis.”

11. [xi] Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview”; Goodwin and Heritage, “Conversation Analysis”; Moss, “Introduction to Conversation Analysis”; Nordquist, “Talking Together: An Introduction to Conversation Analysis.”

12. [xii] Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”

13. [xiii] Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation”; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.”

14. [xiv] Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview”; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation”; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”

15. [xv] Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”

16. [xvi] Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview”; Heesen et al., “Coordinating Social Action: A Primer for the Cross-Species Investigation of Communicative Repair”; Sato and Takatsuka, “The Occurrence and the Success Rate of Self-Initiated Self-Repair.”; Schegloff, “When ‘others’ Initiate Repair”; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”

17. [xvii] Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview”; Schegloff, “When ‘others’ Initiate Repair”; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”

18. [xviii] Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview”; Schegloff, “When ‘others’ Initiate Repair”; Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”

19. [xix] Clark, “Conversational Repair and the Acquisition of Language”; Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview.”

20. [xx] Albert and De Ruiter, “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition.”

21. [xxi] Heesen et al., “Coordinating Social Action: A Primer for the Cross-Species Investigation of Communicative Repair.”

22. [xxii] Albert and De Ruiter, “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition”; Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems”; Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield, “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items”; Heesen et al., “Coordinating Social Action: A Primer for the Cross-Species Investigation of Communicative Repair”; Kuhl, Social Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition: Understanding Integrated Brain Systems Supporting Language.

23. [xxiii] Albert and De Ruiter, “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition”; Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems”; Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield, “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items”; Heesen et al., “Coordinating Social Action: A Primer for the Cross-Species Investigation of Communicative Repair”; Kuhl, Social Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition: Understanding Integrated Brain Systems Supporting Language.

24. [xxiv] Albert and De Ruiter, “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition”; Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems”; Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield, “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items”; Heesen et al., “Coordinating Social Action: A Primer for the Cross-Species Investigation of Communicative Repair”; Dingemanse and Enfield, “Other-Initiated Repair across Languages: Towards a Typology of Conversational Structures.”

25. [xxv] Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.”

26. [xxvi] Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.”

27. [xxvii] Albert and De Ruiter, “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition”; Dingemanse and Enfield, “Other-Initiated Repair across Languages: Towards a Typology of Conversational Structures”; Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems”; Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield, “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items”; Fox, Benjamin, and Mazeland, “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview.”

28. [xxviii] Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield, “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items”; Enfield et al., “Huh? What? – A First Survey in Twenty-One Languages.”

29. [xxix] Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield, “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items.”

30. [xxx] Albert and De Ruiter, “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition”; Dingemanse and Enfield, “Other-Initiated Repair across Languages: Towards a Typology of Conversational Structures”; Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems”; Stivers et al., “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.”

31. [xxxi] Dingemanse et al., “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.”

 References

1. “About Cognitive linguistics - Cognitive Linguistics,” n.d. https://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/en/about-cognitive-linguistics.

2. Albert, Saul, and J.J. De Ruiter. “Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition.” Topics in Cognitive Science 10, no. 2 (April 1, 2018): 279–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12339.

3. “APA Dictionary of Psychology,” n.d. https://dictionary.apa.org/cognition.

4. Barrett, H. Clark. The Shape of Thought: How Mental Adaptations Evolve. Evolution and Cognition, 2015.

5. Bloch, Bernard, and George L. Trager. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. United States of America: Linguistic Society of America, 1942.

6. Chomsky, Norm. “Review: Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner.” Language 35, no. 1 (1958): 26–58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/411334.

7. Clark, Eve V. “Conversational Repair and the Acquisition of Language.” Discourse Processes 57, no. 5–6 (February 12, 2020): 441–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2020.1719795.

8. Dingemanse, Mark, and N. J. Enfield. “Other-Initiated Repair across Languages: Towards a Typology of Conversational Structures.” Open Linguistics 1, no. 1 (January 5, 2015). https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0007.

9. Dingemanse, Mark, Sean T. Roberts, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Rosa S. Gisladottir, et al. “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLOS ONE 10, no. 9 (September 16, 2015): e0136100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100.

10. Dingemanse, Mark, Francisco Torreira, and N. J. Enfield. “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items.” PLOS ONE 8, no. 11 (November 8, 2013): e78273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078273.

11. Enfield, N. J., Mark Dingemanse, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Penelope Brown, Tyko Dirksmeyer, Paul Drew, et al. “Huh? What? – A First Survey in Twenty-One Languages.” In Cambridge University Press eBooks, 343–80, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511757464.012.

12. Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind. The MIT Press eBooks, 1983. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001.

13. Fox, Barbara A., Trevor Benjamin, and Harrie Mazeland. “Conversation Analysis and Repair Organization: Overview.” The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, November 5, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1314.

14. Goodwin, Charles, and John Heritage. “Conversation Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19, no. 1 (October 1, 1990): 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435.

15. Harris, Catherine L. “Language and Cognition.” In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 1–6, January 15, 2006.

16. Heesen, Raphaela, Marlen Fröhlich, Christine Sievers, Marieke Woensdregt, and Mark Dingemanse. “Coordinating Social Action: A Primer for the Cross-Species Investigation of Communicative Repair.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377, no. 1859 (July 25, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0110.

17. Huitt, W., and J. Hummel. “Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development.” Educational Psychology Interactive, 2003, 1–5.

18. Kuhl, Patricia K. Social Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition: Understanding Integrated Brain Systems Supporting Language. Oxford University Press eBooks, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342161.013.0043.

19. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Language,” n.d. https://www.britannica.com/topic/language/additional-info#Additional-Reading.

20. Mehler, Jacques, Judith Gervain, Ansgar Endress, and Mohinish Shukla. “Mechanisms of Language Acquisition: Imaging and Behavioral Evidence.” In Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, edited by Charles A. Nelson and Monica Lucina, Second., 325–34. MIT Press, 2008.

21. Moss, Simon. “Introduction to Conversation Analysis.” Charles Darwin University. Charles Darwin University, July 2020. https://www.cdu.edu.au/files/2020-07/Introduction%20to%20conversation%20analysis.docx.

22. Nordquist, Richard. “Talking Together: An Introduction to Conversation Analysis.” ThoughtCo, March 14, 2018. https://www.thoughtco.com/introduction-to-conversation-analysis-1691802.

23. Perlovsky, Leonid, and Kuniyoshi L. Sakai. “Language and Cognition.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8 (December 16, 2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00436.

24. Pleyer, Michael. “The Role of Interactional and Cognitive Mechanisms in the Evolution of (Proto)Language(s).” Lingua 282 (December 1, 2022): 103458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103458.

25. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” In Elsevier eBooks, 7–55, 1978. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2.

26. Sato, Rintaro, and Shigenobu Takatsuka. “The Occurrence and the Success Rate of Self-Initiated Self-Repair.” TESL-EJ 20, no. 1 (May 1, 2016). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103312.pdf.

27. Schegloff, Emanuel A. “When ‘others’ Initiate Repair.” Applied Linguistics 21, no. 2 (June 1, 2000): 205–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205.

28. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53, no. 2 (January 1, 1977): 361–82. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041.

29. Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, et al. “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, no. 26 (June 30, 2009): 10587–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106.

30. Sweet, Henry. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, 1900.

Additional Readings

1. Benjamin, Trevor, and Harrie Mazeland. “Conversation Analysis and Other-Initiated Repair.” The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, November 5, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1310.

2. Blaylock, Robert C., Rosalind R. Scudder, and Michael J. Wynne. “Repair Behaviors Used by Children with Hearing Loss.” Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, July 1, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2603.278.

3. Egbert, Maria. “Context-Sensitivity in Conversation: Eye Gaze and the German Repair Initiator Bitte?” Language in Society 25, no. 4 (December 1, 1996): 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500020820.

4. Emrani, Fateme, and Mozhgan Hooshmand. “A Conversation Analysis of Self-Initiated Self-Repair Structures in Advanced Iranian EFL Learners.” International Journal of Language Studies 13, no. 1 (January 2019): 57–76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED591531.

5. Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Ludwig Huber, and Thomas Bugnyar. “Social Cognition and the Evolution of Language: Constructing Cognitive Phylogenies.” Neuron 65, no. 6 (March 1, 2010): 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.011.

6. FitzPatrick, Erin, Bonita Squires, and Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird. “What’s That You Say? Communication Breakdowns and Their Repairs in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 25, no. 4 (May 28, 2020): 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa010.

7. Flippin, Michelle. “Communication Breakdowns and Repairs of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder with Fathers and Mothers.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, November 14, 2022, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2022.2146069.

8. Gafaranga, Joseph. “Language Alternation and Conversational Repair in Bilingual Conversation.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16, no. 4 (February 22, 2012): 501–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911429520.

9. Ghayoumi-Anaraki, Zahra, Leila Ghasisin, and Faeze Farzadi. “Conversational Repair Strategies in 4-year-old children.” ResearchGate, August 25, 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263277735.

10. Kaushanskaya, Margarita. “Cognitive Mechanisms of Word Learning in Bilingual and Monolingual Adults: The Role of Phonological Memory.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, no. 3 (February 9, 2012): 470–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728911000472.

11. Kazemi, Ali. “Same-Turn Self-Repairs in Farsi Conversation: On Their Initiation and Framing.” Journal of Pragmatics 170 (December 1, 2020): 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.004.

12. Kendrick, Kobin H. “The Intersection of Turn-Taking and Repair: The Timing of Other-Initiations of Repair in Conversation.” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (March 12, 2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250.

13. Kim, Du Yong. “Emergence of Proactive Self-Initiated Self-Repair as an Indicator of L2 IC Development.” Applied Linguistics 41, no. 6 (December 1, 2020): 901–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz047.

14. Levelt, Willem J. M. “Monitoring and Self-Repair in Speech.” Cognition 14, no. 1 (July 1, 1983): 41–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4.

15. Linddicoat, Anthony J. “Review: An Introduction to Conversation Analysis.” The Modern Language Journal 93, no. 1 (2008): 304.

16. Manrique, Elizabeth. “Other-Initiated Repair in Argentine Sign Language.” Open Linguistics 2, no. 1 (January 25, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0001.

17. Mirkovic, Jelena., Marissa Yee, and Marianna E. Hayiou-Thomas. “Cognitive mechanisms underpinning statistical learning of grammatical regularities in child and adult learners: evidence for multicomponential view.” Unpublished Manuscript (2021) https://psyarxiv.com/y8xwm/download?format=pdf.

18. Most, Tova. “The Use of Repair Strategies: Bilingual Deaf Children Using Sign Language and Spoken Language.” American Annals of the Deaf 148, no. 4 (2003): 308–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/26234620.

19. Pärkson, Suri. “Other-initiated repair acts. Preventing and Detecting Miscommunication: Analysis of Estonian Information Dialogues.” Unpublished Manuscript. (n.d.).

20. Pollick, Amy, and Frans B. M. De Waal. “Ape Gestures and Language Evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 19 (May 8, 2007): 8184–89. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702624104.

21. Robinson, Jeffrey S. “Epistemics, Action Formation, and Other-Initiation of Repair: The Case of Partial Questioning Repeats.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, edited by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 261–92. Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511757464.009.

22. Scott, Richard J. “Conversational Repair Strategies of Preschool Children During Naturalistic Interactions.” Master’s Thesis, University of North Dakota, 1989.

23. Stifelman, Lisa J. “User repairs of speech recognition errors: An intonational analysis.” Unpublished Manuscript. MIT Media Laboratory. (1993, May).