This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Libraries]On: 14 November 2014, At: 16:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language AwarenessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

The Communicative Role of Self-repetition in a Specialised Corpus ofBusiness DiscourseLancy Fung aa English Department , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University ,Hung Hom, Hong KongPublished online: 05 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Lancy Fung (2007) The Communicative Role of Self-repetition in aSpecialised Corpus of Business Discourse, Language Awareness, 16:3, 224-238, DOI: 10.2167/la459.0

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/la459.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Communicative Role of Self-repetitionin a Specialised Corpus of BusinessDiscourse

Lancy FungEnglish Department, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,Hong Kong

Self-repetition is commonly found in spoken discourse, and it could be argued thatit is an interactional necessity. Self-repetition in spontaneous talk is pervasive andperforms a variety of functions. Some regard it as signalling redundancy, disfluency, orboth, in spoken language, whereas others consider it to be facilitating the productionof fluent speech. The present corpus study examines naturally-occurring businessdiscourse between native speakers and non-native speakers of English in Hong Kong.By examining the form and communicative functions of instances of self-repetition,this study aims to suggest a framework for future studies of self-repetition, as well asto raise language learners’ awareness of language use in intercultural communicationbusiness contexts.

doi: 10.2167/la459.0

Keywords: business discourse, Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (HKCSE),intercultural communication, language awareness, self-repetition

Functions of Self-repetition in Spoken DiscourseSelf-repetitions occur in a variety of sequences: for example, at utterance

initial or utterance final position, or in the same turn after a first saying wherea speaker repeats himself or herself immediately, which is called ‘immediaterepetition’ (Murata, 1995), or within the same turn with an insertion betweenthe ‘first saying’ and the ‘second saying’ (Tannen, 1987, 1989; Wong, 2000).Wong (2000: 418) takes a detailed look at ‘first and second sayings’ produced bynative speakers of American English, and concludes that this specific form ofrepetition is used by speakers as a storytelling technique in the accomplishmentof the action of resumption.

Researchers who have compared spoken and written discourse have observedthat repetition is more commonly found in spoken discourse. Although partici-pants often engage in self-repetition in spoken discourse, the repetition of wordsor utterances is sometimes regarded as redundant and inefficient, or viewed assloppy behaviour, or evidence of a speaker’s lack of competent speaking skills(Shimanoff & Brunak, 1977).

Others, nevertheless, have observed different functions of self-repetition intalk. For instance, Kernan (1977: 95) notes that ‘repetition recalls and reassertsthe preceding token’. Erickson (1984) finds that repeating oneself adds precision

0965-8416/07/03 224-15 $20.00/0 C© 2007 L. FungLANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 16, No. 3, 2007

224

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 225

and leads to greater persuasiveness and dominance in the conversation. Bublitz(1989) states that repeating is an action pattern that is employed both to establishand maintain the continuous and smooth flow of talk, and also to state theparticipants’ positions so as to help to secure comprehension of what has beensaid and meant. Other functions of repetition described by Bublitz (1989) includefacilitating comprehension because self-repetition gives the speaker time to planwhat to say next or how to say it, and makes it easier for the second speaker tounderstand the message. Self-repetition also helps the speaker to bridge gaps intalk, and to state his or her position (agreement or disagreement) with respectto the other speaker’s attitude, decisions or opinions (Bublitz, 1989).

Tyler (1994: 672) points out that certain patterns of repetition act as meta-discoursal markers, which signal to the listener how to interpret new informa-tion in an unfolding discourse. Elsewhere, Murata (1995) sees repetitions as aculture-specific signal of conversational management, and focusses on immedi-ate repetition of words and phrases as one feature of communicative behaviours.Examining both two-party and self-repetitions, his study indicates that the useof immediate repetitions is closely related to the turn-taking system. McCarthy(1998: 115) argues that ‘repetition gives out important interactional signals’ inspoken discourse, and this observation is based on the notion that self-repetitionis a fundamental feature of a speaker’s lexical competence, and constitutes a ba-sic characteristic of vocabulary patterning in talk.

Norrick’s Taxonomy of Same-Speaker RepetitionOne of the most comprehensive descriptions of the functions of self-repetition

can be found in Norrick (1987), who writes that same-speaker repetitions ‘re-sult from exigencies of face-to-face communication’ (Norrick, 1987: 257), andthe functions include ensuring correct uptake, holding the floor, keeping talk-ing relevantly, and bridging interruptions. Other functions reflect speakers’strategies to ‘create textual cohesion and to control the interactional poten-tial of the discourse’ (Norrick, 1987: 257). Norrick describes four main func-tions of same-speaker repetition: (1) semantically based, (2) production-based,(3) comprehension-based and (4) interaction-based. Semantically based self-repetition may be idiomatic or may reflect the iterative nature of the describedobject in an iconic manner. This form of self-repetition is also realised throughparallel phrasing, which is the avoidance of ellipsis to be emphatic. The secondfunction, production-based self-repetition, takes place when a speaker wants tohold the floor and to gain planning time while searching for what to say next, orplanning the rest of the move or turn, and to bridge an interruption. A speakermay also use comprehension-based self-repetition to ensure precise understand-ing on the part of the hearer, for instance, after inserting background informationor to revise their own utterance. Comprehension-based self-repetition can alsobe used to increase textual coherence in the ongoing talk, by the strategies ofsummarising, paragraphing and reintroducing a topic or a point of view. Thelast function, interaction-based, occurs when a speaker employs self-repetitionto ask and answer his own questions within the same turn. It can also take theform of repeat without any change, repeat with stress on a significant word ofthe original utterance and repeat with expansion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

226 Language Awareness

Following Norrick’s (1987) taxonomy, this paper examines the forms andcommunicative functions of self-repetition in intercultural business discourse.In the extracts which follow, lower case letters denote non-native speakers (NNS)and upper case letters denote native speakers (NS). Female speakers are signifiedby the letter A and a, and male speakers by B and b. In addition, the use of boldfont indicates an instance of self-repetition examined in this study.

Extract 1 is taken from an airline telephone conference. Both speakers are NNS.Speaker a is the Hong Kong Chinese client and speaker b is her Singaporeancomputer system vendor. They are discussing preparations for implementing anew computer system. In line 34, speaker b repeats the word ‘yes’ in response towhat speaker a suggests in lines 29–33. His repetition of ‘yes’ stresses his com-mitment to complete the task on time. In line 35, the utterance initial repetitionof the word ‘so’ by speaker a helps her to hold the floor and to gain planningtime, and she ends the utterance with another self-repetition ‘enhancement forme enhancement for me’, which serves as an emphatic reminder of the assignedtask that speaker b needs to push his colleague, V, to carry out.

Extract 128 b: yea the common one the computer command right29 a: yea yea you just send a email to er V and ask him to fix the bug30 to me and er I think if we need to and er implement enhancement er31 eig eighty eighty four we need to er ensure er that bugs being being32 fixed before implementation and I think er may be we can complete33 it tonight34 b: yes yes [yes sure35 a: [so so so please chase er V to follow up the enhancement36 for me enhancement for me37 b: yea

Extract 2 is taken from the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (HKCSE)(see Cheng et al., 2005, for more details of HKCSE). It is a project business meetingbetween three colleagues. In lines 136 and 138, speaker a2 states her opinionwhen repeating ‘it’s okay’ in the same turn where she asserts that the video sheprepares is okay. She makes an insertion ‘I think’ between two instances of ‘it’sokay’, followed by another insertion ‘but not (.) not very well’, and repeats ‘it’sokay’. This self-repetition example illustrates the comprehension-based functionof self-repetition, as the speaker successively revises what she has said by twicedowngrading (e.g. ‘but not (.) very well’) her initial assessment to ensure preciseunderstanding.

Extract 2134 B: erm (.) but what we have to do absolutely sure is the quality of the

sound I135 mean what what’s the quality of the sound like on those ones that

you’ve done136 a2: I’ve done one video [it’s it’s okay [I think it’s okay but not (.) not

very well137 a1: [yea [it’s okay138 a2: it’s okay

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 227

DataThe data used in the study came from two sources: the business sub-corpus of

the HKCSE and business meetings at a Hong Kong-based airline. The businessdiscourses selected reflect the widespread use of English among people in inter-national business contexts in which English is frequently employed as a linguafranca. The data set comprises approximately 10 hours of talk made up of 20discourse events between NS and NNS of English in multicultural workplacecontexts. These include business meetings, telephone conferences, job inter-views, service encounters at hotel front desks and airport check-in counters, aswell as informal office talk.

There are 61 participants (28 males, 33 females), 15 of whom are NS (8 males, 7females) and 46 NNS (20 males, 26 females). The recordings total 52,200 words,18,000 (34.4%) of which are spoken by NS and 34.200 (65.6%) by NNS. Therelationships between the two sets of speakers range from superiors, peersand subordinates, company and customers, job interviewers and interviewees,managers and general and frontline staff, and business partners, such as air-line company management and an advertising agency (including designers,copywriters, account services personnel).

Analysis and Discussion of FindingsTable 1 shows the frequencies of use of self-repetition by NS and NNS, based

on Norrick’s (1987) four groups of discourse functions. Altogether a total of 423instances of self-repetition were identified and classified into different functions.The ratio of talk produced by the two sets of participants needs to be borne inmind, i.e. 34.4% by NS and 65.6% by NNS. For direct comparison purposes,normed NS speaker frequencies are used, i.e. the figures adjusted to reflect thedistribution of talk across the two sets of speakers (see Table 1).

The results show that across all of the four same-speaker repetition functions,the NNS (305 times) employ self-repetition more often than their NS inter-locutors (225 times). This is mainly due to the NNS speakers’ higher use ofself-repetition to fill a pause (251 times), compared to 151 instances by NS. Fill-ing a pause, a production-based function, is also by far the most frequently usedfunction across the two groups of speakers. This particular production-basedfunction accounts for 82.3% of the total use of self-repetition by NNS but only67.1% by NS. Within the production-based category, bridging interruptions ishighly infrequent (as are interruptions generally in the data), with only 5.7% byNS and 0% by NNS.

The next most commonly performed function is comprehension-based. Over-all, this function is used more often by NS (42 times) than NNS (32 times). Withinthis overarching category, the functions of using self-repetition after insertingbackground information, summarising and paraphrasing to increase coherenceare used more by NS than NNS. In fact, the function of self-repeating to increasethe coherence of discourse is performed only by NS. NNS speakers, in termsof the comprehension-based function, make slightly more use of self-repetitionwhen revising their utterances, specifically cancelling to correct and replacinglexis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

228 Language Awareness

Table 1 Normed frequencies of use of self-repetition by NS and NNS

Functions of same-speaker repetition (Norrick, 1987) NS (normed) NNS

Semantically basedIdiomatic 0 (0) 0Iconic 3 (5.7) 5Parallel phrasing 2 (3.8) 4

Subtotal 5 (9.5) 9

Production-basedHold floor• After false start 1 (1.9) 5• Fill pause 79 (151) 251Bridge interruptions• Extraneous noise• Other speakers

Request to clarify 2 (3.8) 0Attempt to regain floor 1 (1.9) 0

Subtotal 83 (158) 256

Comprehension-basedEnsure precise understanding• After inserting background information 8 (15) 11• Revise utterance

Cancel to correct 3 (5.7) 10Replace

Lexis 2 (3.8) 9Structure 0 (0) 1

Increase coherence• Summarise 8 (15) 0• Paragraphing 1 (1.9) 0• Reintroduce topic/point of view 0 (0) 1

Subtotal 22 (42) 32

Interaction-based/patterned on adjacency pairs• Question and answer 1 (1.9) 1• Repeat unchanged 2 (3.8) 0• Repeat with stress 2 (3.8) 5• Repeat with expansion 3 (5.7) 2

Subtotal 8 (15) 8

TOTAL 118 (225) 305

Number of NS vs. NNS speakers = 15:46 Words spoken by NS (34.4%) vs. NNS (65.6%)

The other two categories, interaction-based (23 times in total) and semanticallybased (18.5 times in total), occur very infrequently. Between the two groups ofspeakers, any differences in the number of instances of occurrence are verysmall.

In the following, excerpts from the data are qualitatively analysed. For this,Norrick’s (1987) taxonomy of four categories of self-repetition functions is ap-plied.

Semantically based self-repetitionA function of semantically based self-repetition is to reflect an iconic pat-

tern of the described object, for instance ‘on the up and up’ or ‘over and over’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 229

(Norrick, 1987). Ishikawa (1991: 553) also notes ‘the iconic meanings expressedby self-repetition are intensity, iteration and continuation’. Extract 3 is a busi-ness meeting in which the speaker describes a long-winded product safeguarddocument to his colleagues. In line 223, speaker b says that the document ‘goeson and on and on’, and this use of repetition can be classified as iconic, in thatit reflects the iterative nature of what is being described.

Extract 3223 b: . . . product specific safeguard and then it goes on and on and on so

this is224 something that could be quite detrimental . . .

Extract 4 shows a business meeting in which speaker a is describing to theparticipants the range of colours available for staff to wear to work. In line 126,speaker a repeats ‘I can’t wear’, which is an example of parallel phrasing used tostress what is said, rather than employing ellipsis by saying ‘I can’t wear greenor orange’.

Extract 4126 a: . . . think of colours not as I can’t wear green or I can’t wear orange

but this is127 the chart I mean we now all use er er er the computer and you know

that in the128 colour chart when we choose background colour or whatever see

how many129 mixtures there are . . .

In Extract 5, speaker B is in a meeting with colleagues, and describes theproblems of meeting face-to-face when the participants are based around theworld in different branches of the organisation. In lines 54–55, speaker B usesparallel phrasing when saying ‘one’s gone back to’ three times. Similar to Extract4, this example shows speaker B emphasising the point that he is making. Thisemphasis would have been lost if he had employed ellipsis and said somethinglike ‘one’s gone back to US, Germany, Beijing and . . . ’.

Extract 553 B: . . . and that’s great it works very well but the problem is with that

meeting54 everybody who had to be at that meeting’s gone one’s gone back to

US one’s55 gone back to Germany and one’s one’s gone er gone back to Beijing

and . . .

In the data examined, there are many instances of the same speaker repeatingadverbs and adjectives such as ‘really’, ‘very’ and ‘nice’ (see Extract 6). Thispaper argues that repetition of this kind indicates ‘the speaker’s emotionalinvolvement, which means it may fulfill emphatic function’ (Norrick, 1987:254). Extract 6 illustrates an informal office talk between a contract copywriter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

230 Language Awareness

(speaker B) and a member of staff of the contracting company (speaker a). Theytalk about different past travels and share their experiences. They self-repeatadverbs and adjectives quite often to convey their emotional involvement andcommitment to what they are saying, which in turn has the effect of emphasisingwhat the speakers are saying.

Extract 638 a: so it’s sweet outside and it’s salty inside but it’s very very tasty

122 B: areas that you really really want to concentrate on145 B: but you feel that the people are genuinely very very nice201 a: yes remember me I give you the nice nice room for you810 a: they make it in they make it in front of you and then it’s very very

fresh

Production-based self-repetitionSpeakers in unscripted impromptu discourse contexts often experience mo-

mentary encoding difficulties. In order to hold onto their turn, they may useself-repetition to indicate to the hearers that they have not yet completed theirturns. Extract 7 is taken from a job interview, and Extract 8 an informal officetalk. Extract 7 shows the use of repetition as a false start, whereas in Extract 8,the speaker first says the word ‘because’ to convey its propositional content ‘forthe reason’. Then she repeats the word ‘because’ twice in between the filler ‘er’,and so the second and third instances of ‘because’ are functioning as fillers tofill what would otherwise be silent.

Extract 7

18 a: and er answer guests’ enquiries um and because it’s (.) because of the

Extract 8119 a: because er because because er he er went there late

Extracts 9 and 10 are taken from two airline telephone conferences involvingthe same NNS, speaker a. Speaker a discusses project enhancement with hercomputer system vendor. In both examples, she repeats an adverb and a con-junction to achieve a production-based function. She is experiencing localisedproduction difficulties, and self-repetition acts to fill pauses, and so enables herto hold onto her turns.

Extract 9178 a: figure but in your new report you rerun to me er the figure is a bit er

is179 a bit a bit less it is exactly the count (.) of one month

Extract 10267 a: issue which I am not quite er quite sure that quite sure about that

this case

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 231

More examples of production-based same-speaker repetition are shown inExtracts 11 and 12. Extract 11 is taken from an informal office talk betweentwo colleagues in an airline company. Speaker a is the contract copywriter whocomes into the office bi-weekly. As the two speakers have not seen each otherfor quite a long time, speaker a updates her colleague on what has been goingon in her work section. The instances of self-repetition act to help speaker a togain planning time, and so enable her to hold onto her turns.

Extract 11396 a: mm but we promised them that we’ll we’ll be going er er in fact it’s

already409 a: colleague coming because she’ll be doing she’ll be doing the er system

Extract 12 shows speaker b giving a verbal report to his boss of the progressof a project. He says ‘I’ll leave’ and repeats the same words after a ‘false start’to hold the floor (Norrick, 1987: 255).

Extract 12202 b: erm (.) okay then so I’ll leave I’ll leave you a note when I hear from

the others

Comprehension-based self-repetitionTo ensure precise understanding by the hearer, a speaker may self-repeat

some words to revise his or her utterance. This can be realised in the form ofeither cancelling some words to correct what has just been said, or replacing thesaid lexis or structure (Norrick, 1987: 257), and these functions are exemplifiedin Extracts 13–16 from a hotel meeting. In these extracts, the speakers use self-repetition to correct or restructure what they have said with a more preciseword to replace the one in the original. These instances of ‘false starts’ areperformed to more clearly describe the actual scenario and to ensure a moreprecise understanding of what the speakers want to say.

Extract 1370 a: I just er come here go here to um by MTR

Extract 14202 b: erm (.) okay then so I’ll let I’ll leave you a note when I hear from the

others

Extract 1536 b: to make the sushi to serve the sushi er for the Easter programme er

it will be

Extract 1614 B: well actually I’m go I’m I’m going to Paris and then onto. . .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

232 Language Awareness

Extract 17 is also a hotel meeting recording, in which a proposal has beenmade for the room arrangements for a function, which is being organised at thehotel. Speaker b4 is not in agreement with his colleagues regarding the roomarrangements and, in lines 155 and 156–157, speaker b4 repeats ‘you know’when he tries to persuade his colleagues with regard to his preferred roomarrangements for the upcoming function at the hotel. His repeated use of ‘youknow’ functions as a way of getting the support of the hearers for what he isarguing, by asserting a sense of shared understanding among the participants.

Extract 17152 a1: actually for this one the office three four and five these two partitional

wall153 can they can be removed then it would become a one big (.) [room154 b4: [I mean this is155 quite a reasonable size er bigger room you know so that when one

unit party156 then sometimes we don’t need to always bother the banquet depart-

ment you157 know

Care needs to be taken by researchers when classifying same-speakers’ repe-tition of ‘you know’ (and other words such as ‘like’, ‘well’, ‘okay’ and so on). Onoccasion, the self-repetition of these items is not serving any one of the functionsgenerally associated with self-repetition, but rather the usage is idiosyncratic innature, and constitutes speech behaviour in which the speaker repeats, for ex-ample ‘you know’, excessively and for no identifiable purpose, unlike the morecommonplace usage of ‘you know’ to fulfill a range of functions. Extract 18illustrates the idiosyncratic use of ‘you know’, where it is not being employedby the speaker to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing discourse. It is takenfrom a recording of a hotel meeting, and speaker b2 is explaining to the otherparticipants some difficulties that he has encountered with his business coun-terpart. Speaker b2 constantly repeats ‘you know’ as he speaks, and this level ofuse is best described as idiosyncratic usage, or a verbal mannerism. This studydoes not attempt to classify instances of such idiosyncratic usage.

Extract 18151 b2: know okay some times he brings AA and now he claimed that you

know the152 airlines can’t afford the spare you know a plane you know so er very153 conservative . . .

. . .158 b2: from Cambodia erm he is the managing director so it’s easier for us

you159 know to talk to him you know to to keep the business . . .

. . .183 b2: just don’t know how to answer you know those inquiries you know184 whether. . .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 233

Interaction-based self-repetitionThe interaction-based category covers those situations when a speaker em-

ploys self-repetition to ask and answer her or his own questions within a singleutterance, or to provide a comment or reaction to what the current speakerhas just said. Extract 19 shows a business meeting, in which speaker B hasdescribed a scenario of poor quality assurance and goes on to predict the reac-tion of customers to such a scenario. It illustrates a case of a speaker repeatinghimself in the question–answer adjacency pair within the same turn. In Nor-rick’s (1987: 259) words, this discourse structure is ‘patterned on adjacencypairs’. Speaker B asks a question ‘what would customers say’, and then repeatsthe words in his question, albeit in a different order, to answer the questionhimself – ‘customers would say no thanks’. This is an effective and forcefulrhetorical device that serves to further underline the point being made by thespeaker.

Extract 19348 B: . . . and what would customers say (.) customers would say no thanks

. . .

Extract 20, extracted from a project meeting between a superordinate and hissubordinate, shows speaker b giving a project progress report to speaker A,who then gives directions for follow-up action. Speaker b cannot confirm on thespot with a definite answer; however, he self-repeats ‘I could check’ (line 67),without changing any words, to stress that he will follow up by checking. AsNorrick (1987: 260) points out, ‘in particular, the repeat may consist in a simple,unchanged restatement of its original’.

Extract 2065 A: oh I counted M twice (laugh) okay so it’s seven but (.) you don’t

think66 you’ve erm (.) videotapes for all of them67 b: erm I could check I could [check68 A: [okay maybe I only gave you the videotapes that C69 here didn’t do

Extract 21 illustrates both ‘question and answer’ and ‘repeat with expansion’.Its excerpt is taken from a business meeting in which the speaker describeshow a telecommunications company, anonymised here to ‘XX’, has managed tosuccessfully compete against its rivals in the world market for mobile phones.In line 103, speaker b poses a question ‘so what did XX do’, asking his colleagueswhat XX has done in response to the fierce international competition. He thengoes on to answer his own question by saying ‘they did it that way’, followed by‘and they and last year they introduced sixteen new products’. He immediatelyrepeats ‘sixteen’, and then expands on why this is a very impressive number,‘that’s huge by mobile phone standards’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

234 Language Awareness

Extract 21103 b: . . . so what did XX do they did it that way and they and last year

they104 introduced sixteen new products sixteen that’s huge by mobile

phones105 standards . . .

Extracts 22 and 23, taken from business meetings in which the participantsdiscuss the progress of project plans, illustrate same-speaker repetition withexpansion. In Extract 22, speaker a’s same-speaker repetition is ‘I don’t think so’(line 171), followed by a reason for her view, in order to emphasise disagreement.

Extract 22168 b: okay the total membership how we can set is in a particular month

that will169 change in a particular month if he travels we’ll count only once we are

not170 going back to twelve months171 a: I don’t think so I don’t think so because we file to the old report

In Extract 23, there appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part ofspeaker b2, and speaker b5 uses self-repetition ‘no no no’ (line 163) to emphasisethat speaker b2 has misunderstood before stating what he does in fact mean.

Extract 23162 b2: he is not the boss here163 b5: no no no I mean who’s behind it er

ConclusionsThis paper has presented findings on the frequencies of occurrence of self-

repetition functions and their related patterning, in different intercultural busi-ness communicative contexts. The study shows that same-speaker repetition canbe speaker- or hearer-oriented, and that same-speaker repetition is a prevalentphenomenon in real-time spoken interaction and performs an array of organisa-tional, interactional and interpersonal functions in talk. The result also confirmsthe conclusion of Dornyei and Thurrell (1994), which states that repetition is aconversational strategy for dealing with communication ‘troublespots’.

This study also finds that self-repetitions are commonly used in businessinteractions by both NS and NNS to enhance communication, although patternsof self-repetition do vary between the two groups of speakers. This could be aresult of the nature of the interactive contexts, or the topics of the interactions, orthe relative proficiencies of the two sets of speakers in terms of fluency level. Thisand previous studies support the observation that there are different functionsof self-repetition in spoken discourse, including to intensify the force of thebasic message (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003: 35), and to use repetition as a softenerto manage and moderate the speech situation (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003: 43).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 235

In the light of these findings, a few areas are proposed for future research. Thefirst is to determine whether self-repetition is more frequently used in businessdiscourse than in conversation and other kinds of specialised discourse such asacademic and public discourse. The second is to examine how such factors as thegender, power relationships and the social distance between the speakers affectthe use of self-repetition in business interactions. To more fully understand thecommunicative functions of self-repetition, and the relative use of self-repetitionby different cultural groups of speakers, a wider range of contexts can be exam-ined. A broader spectrum of business discourse types, together with speakersfrom a range of different cultural backgrounds, could be explored in futurestudies. Finally, future studies which examine a larger corpus of English lan-guage as an international language, spoken by speakers of different ethnic andracial backgrounds, could further explore the possible reasons that account forsimilarities and differences in the self-repetition behaviour of different groupsof speakers.

Implications for English Language TeachingThis corpus-driven study of self-repetition has shown that self-repetition is

an important organisational, interactional and interpersonal strategy in spo-ken language, and, as such, it should figure in raising the language awarenessof learners. Many (see, for example, among others, Hunston, 2002; Sinclair,1996; Wichmann et al., 1997; Tognini-Bonelli, 2001; Sinclair, 2003; Coniam, 2004)describe the value of corpora as a language awareness tool from different per-spectives. Corpora serve as an awareness tool for use in teacher education, fordescriptive purposes to uncover new evidence of how meaning is created, andto be employed directly by language learners.

There is substantial evidence from corpus-driven research that corporacan contribute to language awareness with regard to lexis, grammar, lexico-grammar, genre and crosscultural issues. In her study, Hunston (1995) arguesfor the use of corpora in grammar awareness subjects for native English teach-ers who should pass on their skills to their students. She suggests that theability to handle grammar needs to be viewed as a ‘set of skills’ rather thanas a ‘body of knowledge’ (Hunston, 1995: 15), and corpora are seen as provid-ing the best data for acquiring the necessary skill set (Hunston, 1995: 27–28).Underpinning this is the idea that the teacher’s role is to empower studentsto be able to express explicitly what they, as language users, already know.Embedded within this approach is the notion of the learner as language re-searcher. Similarly, Francis (1994: 136) makes the case that for students the‘awareness-raising potentials of observing a corpus are unlimited’ after a pe-riod of training from their teachers. The methodology advocated by Francispermits insights denied to intuition and may even lead to an awareness ofother aspects of language use through further exploration. Importantly, Francis(1994: 227) states that a corpus-driven analysis of grammar raises awareness ofthe need to concentrate on patterns instead of structure. Another advocate ofthis approach, Conrad (2000: 549) argues that corpus linguistics research haschanged our awareness of English grammar, and she predicts three main influ-ences resulting from its impact. She states that grammar description will become

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

236 Language Awareness

register-specific; learning and teaching grammar will become more integratedwith vocabulary; and there will be a move away from ‘structural accuracy tothe appropriate conditions of use for alternative grammatical constructions’(Conrad, 2000: 559). Conrad’s predictions find support in studies such as theone conducted by Altenberg and Granger (2001) who examine the grammaticaland lexical patterning of high frequency verbs in native and non-native studentwriting. They conclude that the use of concordance-based exercises raises thelanguage awareness of language learners with regard to the complexity of suchverbs (Altenberg & Granger, 2001: 189–190). In Kaur and Hegelheimer’s (2005)study of ESL students’ analyses of corpus-derived concordances in the transferof academic knowledge, they demonstrate that an enhanced knowledge of vo-cabulary can be achieved by means of the learners analysing the output from acorpus themselves (i.e. the concordance lines) to work out the meanings of thesearch words in context. Similarly, Yoon and Hirvela (2004: 278–279) also findsuch an approach useful in raising ESL students’ language awareness of ‘learn-ing common usage and collocates of words and/or building confidence in theirwriting’.

Other studies suggest that corpora are a useful resource to highlight aware-ness of differences across registers. Coniam (1997: 205), for instance, shows thatby investigating corpora drawn for different text types, learners are able to ex-amine words and structures in one corpus or across different corpora to makecomparisons to highlight awareness of differences across registers. In anotherstudy, Kennedy (1995) concludes that encouraging students to carry out corpus-driven studies can raise their awareness of genre-specific uses of language andalso highlight crosscultural similarities and differences.

In the case of self-repetition, the functions are often related to interpersonaland interactive language uses, as revealed in the present study, and these can alsobe revealed by means of corpus-based studies of spoken English, as McCarthyand Carter (1995: 207) point out. Walsh (2006) uses classroom recordings to iden-tify different modes of discourse employed by teachers and students, in orderto increase awareness of the importance of interaction and to maximise learningopportunities. Cheng (2004) analyses the corpus data collected from front deskof a five-star hotel in Hong Kong in terms of lexis, grammar, discourse organisa-tion, pragmatics and discourse intonation, and discusses the value of this kindof study to different stakeholders, including ESP teachers and learners and hotelmanagement and staff. In another study, Cheng (forthcoming) compares the useof vague language in a range of discourse types, including business discourse.Warren (2004, 2006) conducts corpus-driven studies of business discourses interms of the use of discourse intonation to exert dominance and control, andlexical cohesion.

Corpus data representative of interactions in different business settings are avaluable resource for raising learners’ awareness of how English is actually usedin spoken discourse for different communicative purposes. Language educatorscan incorporate naturally-occurring corpus data collected from different busi-ness settings into their learning and teaching materials, tasks and activities. Asthere are different meeting or discussion purposes, different degrees of sharedknowledge, as well as different roles and relationships between the speakers inthe business data collected, learners of English can be asked to consider these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The communicative role of self-repetition 237

different variables when identifying and discussing the different functions ofself-repetition in different contexts.

McCarthy and Carter (1995: 217) recommend a ‘three Is’ methodology to in-crease students’ awareness of the nature of spoken discourse. The ‘three Is’ standfor ‘Illustration-Interaction-Induction’. The methodology is concerned with ex-amining real data in terms of choices of forms relative to context and use, fo-cussing on interpersonal uses of language and negotiation of meanings throughobservations and class discussion, and encouraging learners to draw conclu-sions about the options for the different functions. This methodology, coupledwith appropriate corpus data, can be applied to the learning and teaching ofself-repetition and hence raise learner’s awareness of the range of conversationaland communicative skills available to them when they interact with people inbusiness and other contexts.

Stainton (1992: 119) states that ‘language awareness is an emerging and di-verse field, it is seen to be a very important aspect in the development of anindividual’s language competence’ and that ‘language awareness serves to em-power the individual, and constitutes a primary factor in his/her ability tocommunicate appropriately and therefore effectively’. In intercultural businesssettings, where English is often the lingua franca, an increased awareness of in-terpersonal and interactive language uses, and their interdependence with lexis,grammar, genre and so on, plays an important role. This paper has contributedto our knowledge of how language is used in intercultural communication inbusiness contexts, and how that knowledge can be an ‘awareness tool’ (Coniam,2004: 49) for language learners, language teachers and researchers in appliedlinguistics.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Lancy Fung, English Depart-

ment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong(03901317R@polyu.edu.hk).

ReferencesAltenberg, B. and Granger, S. (2001) The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in

native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22, 173–195.Bublitz, W. (1989) Repetition in spoken discourse. Anglistentag, 352–368.Cheng, W. (2004) // → did you TOOK // ↗ from the mini BAR //: What is the practical

relevance of a corpus-driven language study to practitioners in Hong Kong’s hotelindustry? In U. Connor and T. Upton (eds) Discourse in the Professions:Perspectives fromCorpus Linguistics (pp. 141–166). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cheng, W. (forthcoming) The use of vague language across spoken genres. In J. Cutting(ed.) Vague Language Explored. London: Palgrave.

Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M. (2005) The creation of a prosodically transcribedintercultural corpus: The Hong Kong corpus of spoken English (prosodic). InternationalComputer Archive of Modern English (ICAME) Journal 29, 47–68.

Coniam, D. (1997) A practical introduction to corpora in a teacher training languageawareness progamme. Language Awareness 6, 199–207.

Coniam, D. (2004) Concordancing yourself. Language Awareness 13, 49–55.Conrad, S. (2000) Will corpus linguistics revolutionise grammar teaching in the 21st

century? TESOL Quarterly 34, 548–560.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

238 Language Awareness

Dornyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1994) Teaching conversational skills intensively: Coursecontent and rationale. ELT Journal 48, 40–49.

Erickson, F. (1984) Rhetoric, anecdote, and rhapsody: Coherence strategies in a conver-sation among Black American adolescents. In D. Tannen (ed.) Coherence in Spoken andWritten Discourse (pp. 91–102). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Francis, G. (1994) Grammar teaching in schools: What should teachers be aware of?Language Awareness 3, 221–236.

Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. (2003) Power and Politeness in the Workplace. Harlow: PearsonEducation.

Hunston, S. (1995) Grammar in teacher education: The role of the corpus. LanguageAwareness 4, 15–31.

Hunston, S. (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ishikawa, M. (1991) Iconicity in discourse: The case of repetition. Text 11, 553–580.Kaur, J. and Hegelheimer, V. (2005) ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of

academic knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18,287–310.

Kennedy, C. (1995) ‘Wish you were here’: ‘Little’ texts and language awareness. LanguageAwareness 4, 161–172.

Kernan, K.T. (1977) Semantic and expressive elaboration in children’s narratives. InS. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell–Kernan (eds) Child Discourse (pp. 91–102). New York:Academic Press.

McCarthy, M. (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (1995) Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teachit? ELT Journal 49, 207–218.

Murata, K. (1995) Repetitions: A cross-cultural study. World English 14, 343–356.Norrick, N.R. (1987) Functions of repetition in conversation. Text 7, 245–264.Shimanoff, S. and Brunak, J. (1977) Repairs in planned and unplanned discourse. In

E. Keenan and T. Benett (eds) Discourse across Time and Space (pp. 123–167). Los Angeles:University of Southern California.

Sinclair, J. McH. (1996) How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Sinclair, J. McH. (2003) Reading Concordances. London: Longman.Stainton, C. (1992) Language awareness: Genre awareness—a focused review of the

literature. Language Awareness 1, 109–121.Tannen, D. (1987) Repetition in conversation as spontaneous formulaicity. Text 7, 215–243.Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Dis-

course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001) Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Ben-

jamins.Tyler, A. (1994) The role of repetition in perceptions of discourse coherence. Journal of

Pragmatics 21, 671–688.Walsh, S. (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.Warren, M. (2004) A corpus-driven analysis of the use of intonation to assert dominance

and control. In U. Connor and T. Upton (eds) Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimen-sional Perspective (pp. 21–33). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Warren, M. (2006) Because of the role of er front office um in hotel: Lexical cohesionand discourse intonation. In J. Flowerdew and M. Mahlberg (eds) Corpus Studies ofLexical Cohesion. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11 (3), 305–324.

Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., Knowles, G. and McEnery, A. (eds) (1997) Teaching andLanguage Corpora. London: Longman.

Wong, J. (2000) Repetition in conversation: A look at ‘first and second sayings’. Researchon Language and Social Interaction 33, 407–424.

Yoon H. and Hirvela, A. (2004) ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing.Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 257–283.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

26 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014