Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Volume 29, 75-81, March 1986

DEVELOPMENT OF C O N V E R S A T I O N A L REPAIR STRATEGIES

IN R E S P O N S E TO R E Q U E S T S F O R C L A R I F I C A T I O N

BONNIE BRINTON MARTIN FUJIKI

University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno

DIANE FROME LOEB

Washoe County School District, Reno, NV

ERIKA WINKLER
Easter Seals Society, Sparks, NV

Conversational repair sequences are an important aspect of communicative interaction. These sequences may occur in the event
of communication failure ira listener requests clarification of a previous aspect of the speaker's message. The purpose of this study
was to investigate the repair strategies employed in conversation by children at four age levels.
Ten linguistically normal children were sampled from each of the following age levels: 2:7 to 3:10, 4:10 to 5:10, 6:10 to 7:10,
and 8:10 to 9:10 (years:months), resulting in a total of 40 subjects. Each subject was asked to describe a series of action pictures
for an examiner who was seated behind a screen. At regular intervals, the examiner responded to the child's description by
initiating a stacked repair sequence. Results indicated that subjects at all age levels complied with the initial request for
clarification the majority of the time. However, with increasing age, subjects became more adept at handling the stacked sequence
of requests for clarification. Older children were more responsive to the requests, and 9--year-old subjects demonstrated a wider
range of strategies in providing repairs.

Recent interest in the pragmatic aspects of language
acquisition has focused on the development of conversa-
tional skills. To function in conversation, children must
develop the ability to appreciate and respond to listener
feedback. This developing awareness is evident in se-
quences during which children provide repairs in re-
sponse to indications that a message has not been under-
stood.
One stimulus for conversational repair is the request for
clarification. The request for clarification is a type of
unsolicited contingent query (as described by Garvey,
1977). It may occur anywhere during discourse when a
listener indicates that a speaker's message has not been
understood or cannot be interpreted without clarification.
Several types of clarification requests have been de-
scribed (Gallagher, 1981; Garvey, 1977). Some types and
examples are as follows:
Neutral or nonspecific requests for clarification, such as
"Huh?" or "What?" For example:
Speaker 1. "I went to a party last night."
Speaker 2. "Huh?"
Requests for confirmation. For example:
Speaker 1. "I went to a party last night."
Speaker 2. "Last night?"
Requests for repetition of a specific constituent. For
example:
Speaker 1. "I went to a party last night."
Speaker 2. "To a what?"
The ability to clarify a previous utterance in conversa-
tion might seem to be a linguistic nicety that is acquired
after other language "basics" are mastered. However, this
does not appear to be the case. Rather, the ability to
participate in conversational repair sequences is an inte-
gral part of the language acquisition process.
Repair sequences represent an early developing mech-
anism that is vital to discourse regulation. Gallagher
(1977) observed that children in Brown's (1973) language
stages I to III (mean length of utterance-morphemes 1.5
to 2.9) responded to neutral requests for clarification
("What?") from an adult by repeating or revising the
original message. She also observed that the revision
strategies available to the children increased in variety as
language age increased.
Gallagher (1981) noted that children in Brown's lan-
guage stages I to III demonstrated some knowledge of at
least two types of clarification requests: requests for
confirmation and neutral requests for repetition. All of the
children seemed to appreciate the conversational obliga-
tion imposed by these requests even though they were
not always entirely accurate in their responses. In a
similar study, Langford (1981) analyzed the responses of
4-year--old children to requests for clarification produced
by their adult caregivers. He noted that the children were
responsive to the requests, and that they were sensitive to
indications from the adults that the requests had been
satisfied. Garvey (1977) found that children between the
ages of 34 and 67 months responded to several types of
clarification requests (a subset of the contingent queries
that were described) at least 80% of the time in conver-
sational dyads.
These studies have indicated that clarification request
sequences are functional in the conversation of very
young children. Relatively unsophisticated language
learners appear to be sensitive to feedback that their

© 1986, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 75 0022-4685/86/2901-0075501.00/0

Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 76 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
messages have not been understood, and are able to
adjust their contributions during discourse to accommo-
date their conversational partners. This research in clari-
fication sequences also suggests that the strategies to
provide clarification change with age.
Although conversational repairs have been examined
by several researchers, the ability to respond when re-
quests for clarification are produced recursively in con-
versation has received less attention. This type of se-
quence occurs when a response to a request for clarifica-
tion is met by a second request for clarification. Spilton
and Lee (1977) noted that such sequences of clarification
requests and responses illustrate certain conversational
phenomena that are not demonstrated in a single clarifi-
cation request-response interchange. These authors stud-
ied "elaborative sequences" that consisted of an unclear
utterance and at least four utterances exchanged in an
attempt to clarify the first utterance. The result was the
production of a stacked sequence of requests for clarifi-
cation in which the response to the first request was met
with a second request for clarification. These elaborative
sequences, or stacked sequences of requests for clarifica-
tion, provided an indication of how children were able to
adapt to the needs of their listeners.
As Spilton and Lee observed, these sequences of stacked
requests for clarification and responses demonstrated both
the mutual efforts of conversational partners to communi-
cate and their successive approximations to reach an under-
standing. They reported that 4-year-old dyads demon-
strated reciprocity in the production of these sequences,
inasmuch as most of the responses provided the clarification
requested. The 4--year--old speakers tended to adapt their
contributions to the conversation according to the nature of
the listener feedback they received.
Stacked sequences of requests for clarification and the
repairs that they elicit appear to be a rich source of infor-
mation about children's ability to cooperate with a listener
during discourse. This study was designed to investigate
the manner in which children respond to stacked requests
for clarification during a structured conversational task (pic-
ture description). Only neutral requests were employed.
The following questions were posed: How do children of
differing ages respond to stacked sequences of requests for
clarification of a message? What types of responses are
produced to each request for clarification in a stacked
sequence? How do these types of responses differ accord-
ing to the age of the subjects? How do these types of
responses differ according to the type and position of the
request within the stacked sequence?
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects consisted of 10 children at each of the follow-
ing age levels: 2:7 to 3:10, 4:10 to 5:10, 6:10 to 7:10, and
8:10 to 9:10, resulting in a total sample of 40 subjects (20
boys and 20 girls). Children in the three older age groups
Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018
Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
29 75-81 March 1986
were selected from the kindergarten, first grade, and third
grade classrooms at an elementary school located in
Sparks, Nevada. The youngest subjects were selected
from children attending a preschool program that was also
located in Sparks. Each group was randomly selected
from a subject pool that had been screened to meet
several criteria based on procedures used by Stark and
Tallal (1981). Subjects had no history of:
1. hearing loss or middle ear infection;
2. speech and language problems;
3. mental retardation;
4. behavioral disturbance;
5. neurological impairment (including oral, motor or
sensory deficits); or
6. academic difficulties requiring special remedial
services.
The case history information for each subject was ob-
tained from classroom placement data, school records,
classroom teacher reports, and school speech-language
pathologist reports.
Procedures
Each child was examined individually in a quiet room.
The same investigator studied all of the children. The
seating arrangement placed the child directly across from
the investigator. A 42 x 20~/~"cardboard screen was placed
between the investigator and the child, thereby eliminating
visual but not auditory cues. All verbal exchanges were
audiotaped using a Sony BM 12 portable audiocassette
recorder and an EMC external microphone. The micro-
phone was attached to the screen and positioned between
the child and investigator. Additionally, a second investiga-
tor was present as an observer. The observer was seated to
view both the primary investigator and the child.
Prior to task administration, each subject was given the
following instructions: " I ' m going to sit here and you'll sit
here. We can't see each other. I ' m going to put some
envelopes through this slot. There are pictures in the
envelopes. Only you can see them, I can't. Don't let me
see them. You tell me all that's happening in the pictures.
When you tell me all about the picture, I'll put a token in
here (in the jar). When we're all done, you can trade your
tokens for a prize over here (prize board)." The child was
then seated behind the screen and a trial item was
administered. After the subject successfully completed
the trial item, the 20 picture cards were presented, one at
a time, through the slot as the investigator said, "Tell me
about this one." A total of 20 8Y4 x 11" line-drawn action
pictures was presented to the subjects: 10 control pictures
alternating with 10 experimental pictures. All of the
pictures had pull-out tabs attached to aid the child in
removing the picture from the envelope. The pictures
were presented in the same order for all subjects.
The investigator responded to the child's descriptions
of the control pictures with statements of acknowledg-
ment such as, "uh huh," or " m m m . " When each subject
described an experimental picture, the investigator elic-
ited a stacked sequence of repairs. The sequence was

initiated when the investigator responded to the subject's
initial description with "Huh?". Following the subject's
response to this request for clarification, the examiner
said, "What?". The examiner waited for the subject's
response, and then said, "I didn't understand that." If the
child responded to this third request for clarification by
providing a repair, the examiner indicated that the re-
quest had been satisfied by saying, "Oh, I see." An
example of this sequence is provided below.
Child's initial description of the picture.
Request 1 Examiner: "Huh?" (upward intonation)
Child's response to request for clarification
(repair).
Request 2 Examiner: "What?" (upward intonation)
Child's response to second request for clar-
ification (repair).
Request 3 Examiner: "7 didn't understand that."
Child's response to third request for clari-
fication (repair).
Examiner: "Oh, I see."
Three different neutral requests for clarification were
used in an attempt to preserve the naturalness of the
sequence. Although the form of these requests varied,
their function in discourse was considered to be similar
(Gallagher, 1981; Garvey, 1977). The response that fol-
lowed the examiner's request for clarification was consid-
ered the repair response. In the event that the child did
not respond at all to the request, a 5-s interval was
allowed before the examiner initiated the next request.
The subject received a token after completing the dis-
course pertinent to each picture. The tokens were ex-
changed at the completion of the task.
A token reinforcement system employing a "reward
menu" format was used for all subjects to maintain
attention to task. The reward menu consisted of various
prizes or rewards that were displayed in a menu format.
At the completion of the task, children exchanged tokens
for a prize (Gelfand & Hartmann, 1983).
Data Analysis
The data consisted of 400 stacked repair sequences and
a total of 1,200 individual repairs. A classification system
for repair type was established. The system consisted of
five main categories that were further divided into sub-
categories. Following the analysis, the data were statisti-
cally evaluated by performing a two-way analysis of
variance on each of the major category types, using age
level and clarification request type (Huh?, What?, and I
didn't understand) as independent variables.
Primary Repair Categories
Each repair was evaluated according to its relationship
to the child's original utterance. Repairs were categorized
into one of five separate categories. Each of these major
categories is listed and described below.
Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018
Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
BRINTON ET AL.: Conversational Repair Strategies 77
Repetition. This category was designed to capture in-
stances where a subject repeated all or part of his/her
original utterance in response to the request. In these cases,
no information was added and the utterance was not re-
structured. Examples of this category are provided below.
1. Child's original utterance: "The dog ran fast."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "The dog ran fast."
2. Child's original utterance: "The dog ran fast."
Request for clarification: " H u h ? "
Child's repair: "Ran fast."
Revision. This category included responses in which
semantic content was held constant although the utter-
ance form was altered. Revisions included instances in
which subjects used alternate labels or different syntactic
structure without adding meaning. If subjects revised
aspects of form and also added new meaning elements,
the response was not included in this category but was
considered an addition. Examples of the revision cate-
gory are as follows:
1. Child's original utterance: "Some children are play-
ing."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "Some kids are playing."
2. Child's original utterance: "The boy's kicking the
dog."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "The dog's being kicked by the boy."
Additions. This category included utterances in which
the subject attempted to repair by adding specific infor-
mation to the original utterance. The nature of the added
information was described according to the semantic
relation(s) the addition represented with respect to the
original utterance. Examples of additions are as follows.
1. Child's original utterance: "The dog is swimming."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "The dog is swimming in the water."
(+ locative)
2. Child's original utterance: "A girl's playing on the
swing."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "A girl and boy are playing on the
swing." (+ agent)
Cues. This category described instances in which sub-
jects repaired by defining terms in the original utterance.
It also included repairs that offered background context
that could precede the original message. This background
context seemed to provide a framework in which the
original utterance could be interpreted. Instances when
subjects talked about repairing were called formulations
and were also included in this category. Frequently, all of
these types of cues involved added information. If mean-
ing elements were added as well as a cue, the response
was considered in the cue category. The following are
examples of cue strategies.
1. Defining term:
Child's original utterance: "They're on a teeter-tot-
ter."
Request for clarification: "'Huh?"
Child's repair: "'They're on a teeter-totter, some-
 78 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 29 75-81 March 1986

thing that one person sits on one side and you go
up and down on it.'"
2. Background Context:
Child's original utterance: "He's on a stool getting
cookies."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "He's on a stool getting cookies."
(repetition)
Request for clarification: "What?"
Child's repair: "He's on a stool getting cookies."
(repetition)
Request for clarification: "I didn't understand that."
Child's repair: "'There's a family in a kitchen.
There's a boy. He's on a stool getting cookies."
(background context)
3. Formulation:
Child's original utterance: "A girl's swinging on a
swing."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "A girl's swinging on a swing." (rep-
etition)
Request for clarification: "What?"
Child's repair: "A girl's swinging on a big swing."
(addition)
Request for clarification: "I didn't understand that."
Child's repair: "I don't know how to say it better."
(formulation)
Inappropriate. This category described instances in
which subjects did not respond or comply with the
request for clarification. Inappropriate responses in-
cluded off topic utterances, failures to respond, and at-
tempts to discontinue. For example:
1. Child's original utterance: "There's a girl chasing a
boy."
Request for clarification: "Huh?"
Child's repair: "A dog ate somebody's shoe."
2. Child's original utterance: "Two kids are swinging."
Request for clarification: "I didn't understand that."
Child's repair: "I don't know."
Coding and Transcription Reliability
Each of the audiotapes from the 40 subjects was tran-
scribed by one of two investigators (each investigator
transcribed 20 audiotapes). Interjudge reliability was
determined based on a randomly selected 13% of the
sample. The percentage of agreement between the tran-
scribed samples was calculated using the following for-
mula: A/N x 100, where A = the total number of word
agreements, and N = the total number of words (calcu-
ing the training period on the data from the pilot study
before the examiners began coding the experimental
data. Once the utterances were coded into appropriate
categories, the responses were summed for each major
category heading for each age group.
RESULTS
The repairs produced in response to each of the three
clarification request types (Huh?, What?, and I didn't
understand) were categorized according to the five repair
categories. A two--factor analysis of variance with re-
peated measures (ANOVA) (Age x Request for clarifica-
tion type) was performed on each of the response catego-
ries: repetition, revision, addition, cues, and inappropri-
ate. An arc-sine square root transformation was performed
on the raw data, but did not significantly alter the results
of the analysis. Hence, the ANOVAs and subsequent
Duncan Multiple Range Tests (Duncan, 1973) were per-
formed using raw data.
Figure 1 illustrates the repetition responses that were
elicited by each of the three requests for clarification.
Although none of the age differences reached signifi-
cance, there was a significant difference between ques-
tion types, F(2, 72) = 55.24; p < .01. Analysis using the
Duncan Multiple Range Test revealed that significantly
(p < .01) more repetitions were produced in response to
the first request for clarification, "Huh?" than to the
second request for clarification, "What?" across age
groups. Additionally, a significantly greater number of
repetitions was produced in response to each of the
requests "Huh?" and "What?" than to "I didn't under-
stand that." As can be observed in Figure 1, each age
group demonstrated this pattern.
Figure 2 illustrates subject performance in the revision
category. As can be seen, 7- and 9-year-olds used more
revisions than did younger subjects; however, differences
between age groups did not reach statistical significance.
No age group depended heavily on revision strategies.
100-
9O-
80: 76
p~ -
70-
o . 63 64
50- 50 iiiiTiil
iiWYi,,! ........ 4.

lated by adding word agreements and disagreements). ao- !jlii!ii!N 25

This produced a percentage of agreement of 98.94%. !iZi!Ti! -/,--,4
The repairs were coded independently by two examin-
ers. Prior to coding the experimental data, a training ......... ~/A ilriii:iiil
1 i i I
period was used to familiarize each examiner with the 3 yr. old 5 yr. old 7 yr, old 9 yr. old
categorization system and to establish interjudge reliabil-
ity. Coding reliability was determined using a formula I h°" I what I 1 ~ didn't I
similar to that used in calculating transcription reliability. FIGURE 1. Frequency of repetition responses to requests for
An interjudge reliability level of 90% was achieved dur- clarification.

Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 BRINTON ET AL.: Conversational Repair Strategies 79

20- 20-
18

15
~15-
13
14
•15-

!iii!~1l
o

9 ~10-
o iiiiiiiii~I 0
8 ii!i!i!iii!l $ %
..Q
E 6 6 E
c 5- c 5-
4
2
1 1
0 o1~ o o1~ I~
0
3 yr. old 5 yr. old 7 ,r. old 9 r. old 3 yr'. old 5 yr, old 7 yr. old 9 yr. old

I I~1 hUh ] ~ what 1[7"~ didn't I I huh I what d,dnt ]

FIGURE 2. Frequency of revision responses to requests for FIGURE 4. Frequency of cue responses to requests for
clarification. clarification.

Figure 3 illustrates subject performance in the addition
category. Subjects of all ages were able to repair by
adding information, and this strategy increased signifi-
cantly with age level, F(3, 36) = 4.53, p < .01. Addition-
ally, significant differences were observed between re-
quest for clarification type, F(2,76) = 6.43, p < .01. The
results of the Duncan Multiple Range Tests revealed that
7- and 9--year-olds added information significantly (p <
.05) more often than did 3-year-olds, and 9-year-olds
added information significantly (p < .05) more often than
did 5-year-olds. Regarding clarification type, it was
found that the subjects added significantly more informa-
tion on the third request ("didn't") than on the first
("Huh?").
Figure 4 illustrates subject performance on the cue
category. Statistical analysis revealed significant differ-
ences regarding age level, F(3, 36) = 3.8, p < .05, and
request for clarification type, F(2, 72) = 3.92; p < .05.
Additionally, the interaction of these variables was also
significant, F(6, 72) = 3.64; p < .01.
As illustrated in Figure 4, these differences centered on
the performance of the 9-year-old subjects on the third
request for clarification, "I didn't understand that." The
Duncan Multiple Range Test indicated that the
9-year--old subjects produced significantly more cue re-
sponses on the third request for clarification than any of
the other age groups in response to any request type (p <
.01). It was notable that this type of repair was rare in the
younger age groups. Only the 9-year-olds produced cue
repairs in any numbers, and then only in response to the
third request in the sequence. This pattern was respon-
sible for the significant interaction effect between age
level and request type.
Figure 5 illustrates subject production of inappropriate
responses to the requests for clarification. Significant
differences were found in the production of inappropriate
responses with regard to both age level, F(3, 36) = 12.35;
p < .01, and request for clarification type, F(2, 72) =
11.66; p < .01. In addition, the interaction of these
variables was also significant, F(6, 72) = 4.10; p < .01.
The Duncan Multiple Range Test indicated that the
performance of the 3-year-olds on all three request for
clarification types and the performance of the 5-year-olds
on the "I didn't understand that" type differed signifi-
cantly (p < .01) from the performance of all of other age

40

35

0-1 t 34
38 41

~: 35-
40-

0¢/)3 0 -
43

37

2 25-
0

..Q
20-
E=15-
10-
5 6
0 J i
5-
3 yr. old 5 yr. old 7 yr. old 9 yr. old WA
I
3 yr. old 5 yr. old 7 yr. old 9 yr. old
I "°h wha, d,dn't I
FIGURE 3. Frequency of addition responses to requests for
I huh w,at I ]
clarifieation. FIGURE 5. Frequency of inappropriate responses.

Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 80 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
levels on all the other requests for clarification. The
significant interaction between age and clarification type
was the result of the large number of inappropriate
productions in the 3 - and 5-year-old groups to the third
request for clarification. Seven- and 9-year-olds pro-
duced a small number of inappropriate responses on all
three trials.
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the manner in which children
of different ages responded to stacked sequences of neu-
tral requests for clarification. The purpose of the investi-
gation was to determine what types of responses were
produced, as well as to determine if these responses
differed according to subject age and the position of the
request within the sequence.
A review of the results indicated that subjects in all age
groups responded to the majority of the requests for
clarification by providing some type of conversational
repair. In most cases, the subjects complied with these
requests by repeating, revising, or supplementing their
messages ~in response to listener feedback. However,
instances in which subjects made no attempt to repair, or
produced inappropriate responses, were also evident.
Analysis of these inappropriate responses offered some
insight into the nature of the stacked sequences of re-
quests as well as into the differences demonstrated by
subject groups. Overall, the number of inappropriate
responses decreased with age. The 3-year-old subjects
produced significantly more inappropriate responses than
any of the older groups. It might be argued that the
comparatively large number of inappropriate responses
produced by 3-year-olds reflected the difficulty of the
entire picture description task. However, it should be
noted that almost two-thirds of the responses of the
3-year-olds to the initial request for clarification were
appropriate repairs. In these cases, the subjects evidently
recognized that clarification was needed, and provided it.
While the 3-year-old subjects often were able to provide
a single repair, a trend was obseived that suggested that
they had difficulty responding to the indication that this
repair had not provided sufficient clarification. This pat-
tern was m o r e pronounced in the 5-year-old subjects.
These children produced a relatively small number of
inappropriate responses to the first and second requests
for clarification. However, the number of inappropriate
responses to the third request increased significantly.
One explanation of this difficulty is that although the
5-year-olds realized that "Huh?" and "What?" were
requests for additional feedback, they did not have the
same understanding o f " I didn't understand that." How-
ever , it seems more likely that their difficulty stemmed
from the fact that this request was the third indication in
a row that the message had not been understood. It
appeared that these subjects were unable to provide
further clarification. However, it was not necessarily the
ease that these 5--year-old subjects lacked strategies to
repair, because they demonstrated the ability to repeat,
Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018
Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
29 75-81 March 1986
revise, and add information in response to the frst and
second requests. It may be that on the third request, they
either lacked the ability to persist in using a previous
repair a third time, or they lacked the flexibility to try a
different repair strategy after previous attempt s had
failed. It is interesting to note that 2 5-year-old subjects
and 1 3-year-old subject frequently provided repairs to
"Huh?" and "What?" yet responded to "I didn't under-
stand that" with utterances such as "I don't know," "I
don't either," "I can't remember," or "Just let me forget
about it." It seems likely that these children realized that
additional repair was needed, but that they were unable
to provide it.
For subjects in all four age groups, repetition was the
most frequently used repair strategy. This was not sur-
prising considering the general or neutral nature of the
requests for clarifieation that were used in this study.
Garvey (1977) referred to these types of requests as
nonspeeifie requests for repetition, and in the current
study, these requests most frequently elicited repetitions.
Corsaro (!976) suggested that the first function of this
type of request was to indicate that an utterance was
unintelligible or had not been heard. If this were the
case, a repetition would be an appropriate response.
However, Langford (198D noted that these neutral re-
quests for clarification were more often used to indicate
that some part of a message had not been understood,
even though it had been heard. Thus, a repetition could
provide adequate repair, but other strategies that revised
or added to the original message would also be effective.
In addition, when neutral requests for clarification are
stacked, as in this study, the determining function of the
second and third requests might differ from that of the
first request in the sequence. In other words, if the first
request indicated that the message was not intelligible or
interpretable, and a repetition was provided, then the
second and third requests might indicate that the mes-
sage was received, but still not understood in its present
form The speaker would then be pressed to provide
some additional clarification by using different strategies.
This appeared to be the case in this study, in which the
greatest number of repetitions were produced in re-
sponse to the first request for clarification, "Huh?" As the
examiner continued to press for clarification, repetitions
were used with less frequency. It was of note that the
repetition category was the only strategy to decrease in
frequency as the requests were stacked. It is interesting
to consider why this happened at different age levels.
Although the younger subjects were able to respond to
the initial request for clarification with a repetition, they
had more difficulty responding to the second request, and
marked difficulty responding to the third request using
any strategy. This was indieated by the increasing num-
ber of inappropriate responses produced by younger
subjects to the second and third requests. In contrast,
older subjects appeared more aware that if a repetition
did not provide elarification, other alternatives might be
effective. Additionally, 9-year-old subjects had a wider
variety of repair strategies available to them.
The revision category included repairs that involved

the revision of form while content was held constant. In
these cases, subjects chose alternate labels for items they
had described, or altered the syntactic form of the mes-
sage without providing any additional information. This
strategy was used relatively infrequently by subjects in
all age groups. It appeared that subjects preferred to
repair by either repeating the previous message or by
adding information in some way. Although revisions
limited to form were relatively rare, repair strategies that
added information were fairly common. Children in all
age groups provided repairs that added information to
each request type in the sequence.
Older subjects repaired by adding information more
often than younger subjects. Nine-year-olds and
7-year-olds added information significantly more often
than did 3-year-olds, and 9-year-olds added information
more frequently than did 5-year-olds. Subjects also
added information more often as the request sequence
progressed. In fact, 9--year-old subjects produced more
additions than repetitions in response to the third re-
quest, "I didn't understand that."
Perhaps the most interesting repair strategies were
those classified as cues. These strategies were employed
to define a term within the original utterance, provide
contextual background, or discuss the possible source of
misunderstanding. It was notable that these strategies
were rarely used by 3-, 5--, and 7-year-old subjects. Only
9--year-olds provided these cues in any numbers, and
then only in response to the third reques t for clarification
in the sequence. Thus, it appeared that 9-year-olds
recognized that the examiner's third request for clarifica-
tion indicated that previous repairs had been inadequate.
In addition, they were able to respond with a variety of
sophisticated methods for dealing with the difficulty.
These subjects seemed to address what they perceived as
the source of the breakdown by defining terms they felt
were unfamiliar, providing background context in which
their message could be interpreted, or talking about the
process of formulating a repair.
In summary, subjects at all four age levels seemed to
recognize the obligatory nature of neutral requests for
clarification. The children demonstrated sensitivity to
this type of listener feedback by employing strategies to
provide conversational repairs in response to the re-
quests. While a variety of repair strategies was elicited,
the use of these strategies differed according to subject
age and the position of the request within the sequence.
Although it is difficult to separate the influence of the
type of request (Huh?, What?, I didn't understand that.)
from the effect of the position of the request within the
sequence, it seemed likely that the position of the request
was extremely important. Younger subjects had increas-
ing difficulty providing repairs as the sequence pro-
gressed, while older subjects usually responded appro-
priately to a!l the requests in the sequence. In addition,
the 9-year-old subjects demonstrated a wider variety of
repair strategies. In some cases, the older subjects at-
Downloaded From: https://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 03/24/2018
Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
BRINTON ET AL.: Conversational Repair Strategies 81
tempted to identify the source of the breakdown, and
then select repair strategies accordingly. This was illus-
trated by the fact that some 9-year-olds provided back-
ground context, defined terms, or discussed the source of
misunderstanding in response to the third request in the
sequence.
These findings suggest some developmental patterns in
the way that children of different ages respond to se-
quenced requests for clarification. This exploration of
clarification sequences taps into an important aspect of
communicative competence, the ability to cooperate with
a listener to communicate a message. Continued investi-
gation into the acquisition of these and other types of
conversational repair mechanisms will contribute to the
understanding of how children adapt to listeners in con-
versation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. Bruce Tomblin and two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful critiques of this manu-
script. We would also like to thank Randy Rancl~ for his technical
assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and Renee
Bohman for her assistance in subject selection.
REFERENCES
BROWN, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CORSARO, W. A. (1976). The clarification request as a feature of
adult interactive Styles with young children. Language i n
Society, 6, 183-207.
DUNCAN, S. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation.
Semiotica, 9, 29--46.
GALLAGHER, T. (1977). Revision behaviors in the speech of
normal children developing language. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 20, 303=318.
GALLAGHER , T. (1981). Contingent query sequences with
adult--child discourse. Journal of Child Language, 8, 51-62.
GARVEY, C. (1977). The contingent query: A dependent act in
conversation. In M. Lewis and L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Inter-
action, conversation, and the development of language. (pp.
63-93), New York: Wiley.
GELFAND, D. M., & HARTMANN, D. P. (1983). Child behavior
analysis and therapy (2nd ed.) Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
LANGFORD, D. (1981). The clarification request sequence in
conversation between mothers and their children. In P.
French & M. Maclure (Eds.), Adult-child conversation. (pp.
159-184) New York: St. Martin's Press.
SPILTON,D., & LEE, L. C. (1977/. Some determinants of effective
communication in four-year-olds. Child Development, 48,
968-977.
STARK, R. E., & TALLAL, P. (1981). Selection of children with
specific language deficits. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 46, 114-123.
Received January 24, 1985
Accepted September 18, 1985
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bonnie Brinton,
Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of Nevada School
of Medicine, Mackay Science Building, Room 108, Reno, NV
89557.