Multiple repair solutions in response to open class repair initiators (OCRIs) in next turn: The case of hospitality and tourism service encounters in English as a lingua franca (ELF)

Aonrumpa Thongphut and Jagdish Kaur
University of Malaya

The study examines repair practices of speakers following an open class repair initiator (OCRI) in next turn in hospitality and tourism (HT) service encounters mediated through English as a lingua franca (ELF). The data comprise fifteen hours of naturally occurring ELF service encounters recorded at three HT sites in Thailand. Using conversation analytic procedures, the analysis reveals that speakers may offer multiple repair solutions following an OCRI, which appear oriented to a potential problem of understanding rather than one of hearing. The participants combine repetition of the trouble-source turn with comprehension-enhancing techniques such as lexical replacement, rephrasing of prior talk and explication of potentially problematic words. As it is pertinent that messages are accurately relayed and received, speakers adopt a proactive stance and combine repair practices to raise explicitness and improve communicative clarity. In ELF HT service encounters, the principle of increased collaborative effort prevails and underlies communicative effectiveness.

Publication history

Date received: 10 October 2022

Date accepted: 11 October 2023

Published online: 29 January 2024

Table of contents

1.Introduction

Research on the pragmatic aspects of English as a lingua franca (henceforth ELF) focuses on how multilingual speakers in intercultural contexts communicate effectively using English as the medium of communication. Walkinshaw (2022Walkinshaw, Ian 2022 “Findings and Developments in ELF Pragmatics Research: An Introduction.” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWalkinshaw, Ian 2022 “Findings and Developments in ELF Pragmatics Research: An Introduction.” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 3), in his introduction to an edited volume on the subject, describes ELF as “an endonormative, non-standard mode of communication, characterized by accommodation and linguistic hybridity, where meaning, solidarity and rapport are all collaboratively achieved”. Speakers in ELF contexts are typically second language speakers of English of different linguacultural backgrounds who have varying levels of English proficiency and diverse experiences with learning and using the language (Cogo 2012Cogo, Alessia 2012 “ELF and Superdiversity. A Case Study of ELF Multilingual Practices from a Business Context.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2): 287–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCogo, Alessia 2012 “ELF and Superdiversity. A Case Study of ELF Multilingual Practices from a Business Context.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2): 287–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mauranen 2006Mauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The “contexts of super-diversity” (Cogo 2012Cogo, Alessia 2012 “ELF and Superdiversity. A Case Study of ELF Multilingual Practices from a Business Context.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2): 287–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCogo, Alessia 2012 “ELF and Superdiversity. A Case Study of ELF Multilingual Practices from a Business Context.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2): 287–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 290) associated with ELF give rise to language forms and use that are variable, flexible and fluid (Firth 2009Firth, Alan 2009 “The Lingua Franca Factor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6: 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarFirth, Alan 2009 “The Lingua Franca Factor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 61: 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Osimk-Teasdale 2018Osimk-Teasdale, Ruth 2018 “Analyzing ELF Variability.” In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, ed. by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker, and Martin Dewey, 201–209. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOsimk-Teasdale, Ruth 2018 “Analyzing ELF Variability.” In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, ed. by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker, and Martin Dewey, 201–209. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Seidlhofer 2011Seidlhofer, Barbara 2011 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSeidlhofer, Barbara 2011 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Notwithstanding the above, communication in ELF has been found to be effective as speakers deploy a range of pragmatic strategies to negotiate meaning and achieve shared understanding (Cogo and House 2018Cogo, Alessia, and Julianne House 2018 “The Pragmatics of ELF.” In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, ed. by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker, and Martin Dewey, 210–223. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCogo, Alessia, and Julianne House 2018 “The Pragmatics of ELF.” In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, ed. by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker, and Martin Dewey, 210–223. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Jafari 2021Jafari, Janin 2021 Communicating Strategically in English as a Lingua Franca. A Corpus Driven Investigation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJafari, Janin 2021 Communicating Strategically in English as a Lingua Franca. A Corpus Driven Investigation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Taguchi and Ishihara 2018Taguchi, Naoko, and Noriko Ishihara 2018 “The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca: Research and Pedagogy in the Era of Globalization.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38: 80–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarTaguchi, Naoko, and Noriko Ishihara 2018 “The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca: Research and Pedagogy in the Era of Globalization.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 381: 80–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Underlying successful ELF interaction is the speakers’ propensity for accommodation, making adjustments and modifications to their language to increase explicitness and communicative clarity.

The major findings on the pragmatics of ELF have come mainly from research conducted in academic, business and social settings (Jenkins 2022Jenkins, Jennifer 2022 “Accommodation in ELF: Where From? Where Now? Where Next?” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 17–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJenkins, Jennifer 2022 “Accommodation in ELF: Where From? Where Now? Where Next?” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 17–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). While Jenkins identifies several contexts of ELF use that are “ripe for further research” (Jenkins 2022Jenkins, Jennifer 2022 “Accommodation in ELF: Where From? Where Now? Where Next?” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 17–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJenkins, Jennifer 2022 “Accommodation in ELF: Where From? Where Now? Where Next?” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 17–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 31), involving refugee or asylum-seekers, multicultural couples and the social media, the use of ELF in hospitality and tourism (henceforth HT) likewise is well-placed to further the ELF inquiry. As an industry that is truly global, tourism provides “a key site for the study of human communicative processes” (Thurlow and Jaworski 2011Thurlow, Crispin, and Adam Jaworski 2011 “Tourism Discourse: Languages and Banal Globalization.” Applied Linguistics Review 2: 285–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarThurlow, Crispin, and Adam Jaworski 2011 “Tourism Discourse: Languages and Banal Globalization.” Applied Linguistics Review 21: 285–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 287) in intercultural contexts. Language and communication are vital to the tourist experience, which makes the HT context a highly social and interactive one. As with other global domains, “English is the most commonly used language of hospitality and the lingua franca of tourists and travellers worldwide” (Blue and Harun 2003Blue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 22: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBlue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 221: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 77; see also Bruyèl-Olmedo and Juan-Garau 2009Bruyèl-Olmedo, Antonio, and Maria Juan-Garau 2009 “English as a Lingua Franca in the Linguistic Landscape of the Multilingual Resort of S’Arenal in Mallorca.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (4): 386–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBruyèl-Olmedo, Antonio, and Maria Juan-Garau 2009 “English as a Lingua Franca in the Linguistic Landscape of the Multilingual Resort of S’Arenal in Mallorca.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (4): 386–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Franceschi and Hartle 2021Franceschi, Valeria, and Sharon Hartle 2021 “Introduction to “Tourism Discourse in the 21st Century: Challenges and New Directions”.” Iperstoria – Journal of American and English Studies 18, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarFranceschi, Valeria, and Sharon Hartle 2021 “Introduction to “Tourism Discourse in the 21st Century: Challenges and New Directions”.” Iperstoria – Journal of American and English Studies 181, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Wilson 2018aWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 73: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 731: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Given the prominence of ELF in international HT, it is surprising that researchers in the field have seemingly neglected the opportunities this context presents for the study of ELF pragmatics (cf. Vu 2018Vu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Wilson 2018aWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 73: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 731: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2018b 2018b “The Positioning of English as a Key Skill in the Labour Market of Marseille’s Tourist Office.” International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 2: 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2018b “The Positioning of English as a Key Skill in the Labour Market of Marseille’s Tourist Office.” International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 21: 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). ELF aside, there has also been “very little work focussing on how language resources are deployed in situ by tourists and/or tourism professionals” (Wilson 2018b 2018b “The Positioning of English as a Key Skill in the Labour Market of Marseille’s Tourist Office.” International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 2: 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2018b “The Positioning of English as a Key Skill in the Labour Market of Marseille’s Tourist Office.” International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 21: 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 22) in general.

The HT service encounter, which refers to those moments when the service provider/staff and the tourist/guest interact, is an integral element of service quality (Czepiel et al. 1985Czepiel, John A., Michael R. Solomon, Carol F. Surprenant, and Evelyn G. Gutman 1985 “Service Encounters: An Overview.” In The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, ed. by John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, 3–15. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCzepiel, John A., Michael R. Solomon, Carol F. Surprenant, and Evelyn G. Gutman 1985 “Service Encounters: An Overview.” In The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, ed. by John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, 3–15. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Sparks and Weber 2008Sparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Despite its “fleeting” (Cohen and Cooper 1986Cohen, Erik, and Robert L. Cooper 1986 “Language and Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 13: 533–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCohen, Erik, and Robert L. Cooper 1986 “Language and Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 131: 533–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Jaworski and Thurlow 2010Jaworski, Adam, and Crispin Thurlow 2010 “Language and the Globalizing Habitus of Tourism: A Sociolinguistics of Fleeting Relationships.” In The Handbook of Language and Globalization, ed. by Nikolas Coupland, 255–286. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJaworski, Adam, and Crispin Thurlow 2010 “Language and the Globalizing Habitus of Tourism: A Sociolinguistics of Fleeting Relationships.” In The Handbook of Language and Globalization, ed. by Nikolas Coupland, 255–286. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) or “transient” (Pitzl 2018 2018 “Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the Group and Development Dimension of ELF.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 7: 25–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2018 “Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the Group and Development Dimension of ELF.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 71: 25–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) nature, it is considered the moment of truth which bears on the guest’s experience and satisfaction with the service delivered (Sparks 1994Sparks, Beverley 1994 “Communicative Aspects of the Service Encounter.” Hospitality Research Journal 17: 39–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSparks, Beverley 1994 “Communicative Aspects of the Service Encounter.” Hospitality Research Journal 171: 39–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). At the heart of the service encounter is interaction, specifically, dyadic communication between service provider and service recipient. While the service encounter is in essence an interactive phenomenon, Lind and Salomonson (2013)Lind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarLind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar highlight the lack of research that focuses on actual interactions in this context. Instead, studies on service encounters tend to investigate, amongst others, customers’ “experience of the interaction” (Lind and Salomonson 2013Lind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarLind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 5), based on evaluations of the service received. Research reliant solely on customer perspectives, as Lind and Salomonson point out, “disregards the dynamics in human interaction” causing service encounters to be examined as “a non-interactive phenomenon” (Lind and Salomonson 2013Lind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarLind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 5).

In the light of the aforementioned research gaps, the present study seeks to examine naturally occurring ELF interactions in HT service encounters. Findings from ELF pragmatics research in academic and social contexts point to the infrequency of misunderstanding in ELF interactions (e.g., Mauranen 2006Mauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mustajoki 2017Mustajoki, Arto 2017 “Why is Miscommunication More Common in Everyday Life than in Lingua Franca Conversation?” In Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Stavros Assimakopoulos, 55–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMustajoki, Arto 2017 “Why is Miscommunication More Common in Everyday Life than in Lingua Franca Conversation?” In Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Stavros Assimakopoulos, 55–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Pietikäinen 2018Pietikäinen, Kaisa 2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarPietikäinen, Kaisa 2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), which is attributed to the speakers’ use of pre-emptive strategies that increase explicitness and enhance communicative clarity from the outset (Cogo and Pitzl 2016Cogo, Alessia, and Marie-Luise Pitzl 2016 “Pre-empting and Signaling Non-understanding in ELF.” English Language Teaching Journal 70 (3): 339–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCogo, Alessia, and Marie-Luise Pitzl 2016 “Pre-empting and Signaling Non-understanding in ELF.” English Language Teaching Journal 70 (3): 339–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Kaur 2009Kaur, Jagdish 2009 “Pre-empting Problems of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca.” In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKaur, Jagdish 2009 “Pre-empting Problems of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca.” In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2011 2011 “Raising Explicitness Through Self-repair in English as a Lingua Franca.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2704–2715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2011 “Raising Explicitness Through Self-repair in English as a Lingua Franca.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2704–2715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mauranen 2006Mauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Pietikäinen 2018Pietikäinen, Kaisa 2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarPietikäinen, Kaisa 2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). While explicitness strategies are also used to address overt cases of nonunderstanding when they occur (Pitzl 2005Pitzl, Marie-Luise 2005 “Non-understanding in English as a Lingua Franca: Examples from a Business Context.” Vienna English Working Papers 14 (2): 50–71. http://​anglistik​.univie​.ac​.at​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/dep​_anglist​/weitere​_Uploads​/Views​/views​_0802​.pdfPitzl, Marie-Luise 2005 “Non-understanding in English as a Lingua Franca: Examples from a Business Context.” Vienna English Working Papers 14 (2): 50–71. http://​anglistik​.univie​.ac​.at​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/dep​_anglist​/weitere​_Uploads​/Views​/views​_0802​.pdf; Watterson 2008Watterson, Matthew 2008 “Repair of Non-understanding in English in International Communication.” World Englishes 27: 378–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWatterson, Matthew 2008 “Repair of Non-understanding in English in International Communication.” World Englishes 271: 378–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), their use in this sequential environment has not been fully explored. In a study of other-initiated repair in Norwegian first (L1) and second language (L2) speaker interactions, Svennevig (2008)Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar observed that the speaker of a problematic turn occasionally orients to the interlocutor’s display of a hearing problem as a possible understanding problem and proceeds to deploy pre-emptive techniques. Using conversation analytic procedures, the present study investigates the practice of explicitness among Thai frontline staff and international tourists in the aforementioned context; specifically, the analysis will focus on the first speaker’s use of repair that increases explicitness in third position following the second speaker’s use of an ‘open’ class repair initiator (Drew 1997Drew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDrew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 281: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) in next turn, which typically signals a hearing problem and elicits a verbatim repeat (Oloff 2018Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Other-initiated self-repair arises in and through interaction and therefore is a pre-eminently interactive phenomenon (Dingemanse et al. 2014Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) that can shed light on how participants in ELF HT service encounters – with an orientation to explicitness – establish and maintain intersubjective understanding.

2.Service encounters and the language of hospitality

The service encounter is a key feature of service-oriented businesses and industries. Sparks and Weber (2008Sparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 110) define the service encounter as the “period of time during which the customer and the service firm interact in person, over telephone or through other media”. Service firms are represented by employees who are bound by the firm’s policies and guidelines and have an obligation to fulfil the expectations of the customer for some service (Lind and Salomonson 2013Lind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarLind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson 2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Merrit 1976Merritt, Marilyn 1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters.” Language in Society 5 (3): 315–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMerritt, Marilyn 1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters.” Language in Society 5 (3): 315–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Czepiel et al. (1985)Czepiel, John A., Michael R. Solomon, Carol F. Surprenant, and Evelyn G. Gutman 1985 “Service Encounters: An Overview.” In The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, ed. by John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, 3–15. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCzepiel, John A., Michael R. Solomon, Carol F. Surprenant, and Evelyn G. Gutman 1985 “Service Encounters: An Overview.” In The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, ed. by John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, 3–15. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar identify several features of a service encounter which include its orientation towards a goal or purpose and its occurrence within the context of work-related activities. As the interaction is task-focused, it follows a set format causing the topics covered to be narrow in range (Sparks and Weber 2008Sparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Also, the participants, who are generally unknown to one another, assume the clearly-defined roles of service provider and receiver.

An often-cited article on the patterns of language in hospitality service encounters is that of Blue and Harun (2003)Blue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 22: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBlue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 221: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. The study investigates the language used by receptionists and guests at four hotels in the United Kingdom. Hospitality language in this setting is typically formal and impersonal; utterances also tend to be brief and direct. Interactions are mainly transactional or informational as speakers solicit and exchange information, or conduct various transactions (e.g., checking in/out). Given the predictability of the tasks performed, the language used appears rehearsed. In relation to receptionist interactions with foreign guests, Blue and Harun highlight the need for greater elaboration and explicitness. As they state, “receptionists tended to be reactive rather than pro-active” and later, “front-line hotel staff should always be looking for ways of pre-empting any communication problems that might emerge” (Blue and Harun 2003Blue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 22: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBlue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 221: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 85). Conversely, Vu (2018)Vu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, who conducted a similar study at four hotels in Vietnam, where local front office staff and international guests used ELF, found her participants using communication strategies such as repetition and reformulation to enhance understanding. The ELF context of Vu’s (2018)Vu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar study as opposed to the English as a native language setting of Blue and Harun’s (2003)Blue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 22: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBlue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 221: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar study may explain this difference. Not unlike ELF interactions in academic, business and social settings, the participants in Vu’s study were inclined to negotiate meaning more readily given the heightened unpredictability of the ELF context.

As previously stated, the interaction between the service provider and receiver directly influences how the customer perceives and evaluates the service received (Sparks 1994Sparks, Beverley 1994 “Communicative Aspects of the Service Encounter.” Hospitality Research Journal 17: 39–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSparks, Beverley 1994 “Communicative Aspects of the Service Encounter.” Hospitality Research Journal 171: 39–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Key to the success of a service encounter is the effectiveness of the communication that takes place. As Sparks and Weber (2008Sparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber 2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 119) put it, “Communication effectiveness is vital to the service encounter as it aids in optimizing the service delivery process”. In international HT settings, much of the communication takes place in ELF (Blue and Harun 2003Blue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 22: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBlue, George M., and Minah Harun 2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 221: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Vu 2018Vu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVu, Thi Hong Van 2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Wilson 2018aWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 73: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 731: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). However, not much is known of how participants in this highly heterogenous context are able to effectively communicate in ELF in the face of greater diversity in language proficiency and pronounced variability in language form and use. An exploratory study by Wilson (2018a)Wilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 73: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWilson, Adam 2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 731: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, based on a small corpus of twenty-six ELF interactions at a French tourist office, point to the use of pragmatic strategies such as collaborative utterance completion, repetition and reformulation to address both real and perceived problems in communication. While Wilson’s study offers a glimpse into the in situ use of ELF in the HT setting, the present study, which focuses on other-initiated repair, expands the scope to include fifteen hours of HT service encounters at three HT sites in Thailand (i.e., an airport information counter, a tour service counter and a hotel front office).

3.The repair mechanism, other-initiated repair and repair solutions in third position

Repair is a mechanism of talk which addresses “recurrent problems in speaking, hearing and understanding” (Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 361). It is typically a two-step practice in that it is first initiated to indicate the presence of a problem, after which the repair itself is enacted. As Schegloff at al. (1977)Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar explain, the initiation of repair and the repair proper may be performed by self (i.e., the speaker of the trouble-source turn), or other (i.e., the recipient of the problematic talk). The result is that there are four possible combinations of repair: self-initiated self-repair, self-initiated other-repair, other-initiated self-repair and other-initiated other-repair. Self-initiated repair occurs in one of three “placements”: in the turn in which the trouble occurs, in the transition space of the trouble-source turn where speaker change can potentially occur, or in third position after the next turn. Conversely, other-initiated repair occurs in only one placement: in the turn after the trouble-source turn (Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 366–367). Using various repair initiation techniques and repair solutions, participants at talk are able to establish and maintain intersubjective understanding, a requisite for effective and successful communication.

This study focuses on other-initiated self-repair, a highly interactive phenomenon which entails a sequence of actions involving both self and other (Schegloff 2000Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000 “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair.” Applied Linguistics 21: 205–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A. 2000 “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair.” Applied Linguistics 211: 205–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). When trouble occurs in the speaker’s turn, the other in next turn has the option of indicating the presence of the problem and where possible, locating and/or characterising it. This may then lead the speaker of the trouble-source turn to attempt repair of the problem in third position. Dingemanse et al. (2014Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 6) present the “prototypical structure of other-initiated repair” as comprising “a sequence of three turns T−1, T0, T+1”. The turn that initiates repair (T0) indicates a problem in the prior turn (T−1) and makes a repair relevant in the next turn (T+1). CA scholars like Schegloff et al. (1977)Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Dingemanse et al. (2014)Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Kendrick (2015)Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 11: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar have produced inventories of notable repair initiation techniques. These practices are categorized according to the degree to which the trouble source is located and specified, hence forming a spectrum of repair initiators ranging from the least specific to the most (Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). At the non-specific end are open class repair initiators (Drew 1997Drew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDrew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 281: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) (e.g., huh?, sorry?, what?) which signal the presence of a problem but neither locate the source nor characterize the nature of the trouble. Next are repair initiators that locate the problem in the trouble-source turn and provide some indication of its nature such as question words (e.g., who? where? when?), and partial repeat of the problematic turn with or without a question word. At the specific end are candidate understandings that typically consist of a reformulation of the trouble-source turn in need of confirmation or correction by the first speaker.

CA scholars who investigate other-initiated repair have examined the selection of repair initiating practices in relation to the trouble types they address – e.g., hearing, understanding or acceptability (e.g., Mazeland and Zaman-Zadeh 2004Mazeland, Harrie, and Minna Zaman Zadeh 2004 “The Logic of Clarification: Some Observations about Word-Clarification Repairs in Finnish-as-a-Lingua-Franca Interactions.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by Rod Gardner, and Johannes Wagner, 132–156. New York/London: Continuum Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMazeland, Harrie, and Minna Zaman Zadeh 2004 “The Logic of Clarification: Some Observations about Word-Clarification Repairs in Finnish-as-a-Lingua-Franca Interactions.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by Rod Gardner, and Johannes Wagner, 132–156. New York/London: Continuum Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Much less attention, however, has been paid to the repair solution offered by the speaker of the trouble-source turn following a next turn repair initiator. From an ELF perspective, the speaker’s repair practices in third position are significant as they reflect the pragmatic capability of the speaker to secure recipient understanding in a context characterized by variability, flexibility and fluidity in language form and use. For example, unfamiliar English accents in the HT setting can pose an obstacle to the effective delivery of services; how the speaker responds to the display of trouble to facilitate recipient understanding so that communicative goals are achieved is therefore noteworthy.

3.1‘Open’ class repair initiators (OCRIs)

Drew (1997)Drew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDrew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 281: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar proposed the term “‘open’ class repair initiators” (henceforth OCRIs) to refer to the category of practices the speaker uses to indicate that “he/she has some difficulty with the other’s prior turn, but without locating where or what that difficulty is” (Drew 1997Drew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDrew, Paul 1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 281: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 71; see also Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). OCRIs, which occupy the non-specific end of the repair initiator spectrum, include interjections such as “ah?”, “huh?”, “hm?”, the question word “what?” and formulaic or apology-based items such as “pardon?” and “sorry?” (Dingemanse et al. 2014Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

Dingemanse et al. (2014Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 11) consider OCRIs “useful for initiating repair” as they constitute an effective means of signalling trouble in the prior utterance without doing anything else. Their minimal form means that they can be produced rapidly following an instance of trouble. As the exact location of the trouble source is left unspecified, OCRIs rely on their adjacent position to the trouble-source turn to identify the problematic turn. OCRIs are always produced in questioning intonation (Kendrick 2015Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 11: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), which in effect returns the preceding turn to the speaker for reparative action. The absence of any attempt to locate or specify the trouble means that the speaker is expected to assume responsibility for it (Dingemanse et al. 2014Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Robinson (2006)Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006 “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 73: 137–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarRobinson, Jeffrey D. 2006 “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 731: 137–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, however, points out that apology-based initiators such as “sorry?” are an exception as apology markers convey the recipient’s stance of taking ownership of their inability to hear or understand the prior turn.

The lack of specificity of OCRIs means that “choosing an adequate repair format in the next turn becomes a practical problem for the participants” (Oloff 2018Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 29). However, Svennevig (2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 346) asserts that “the canonical use of open class repair initiators is with problems of hearing”, which makes a verbatim repeat in next turn relevant as this provides the recipient with a rehearing of the trouble-source turn. Oloff (2018)Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, who examined the use of OCRIs in international workplace interactions, explains that trouble in such interactions can also be traced to language issues, which may be absent in L1 interactions. This may complicate the choice of repair solution in interactions mediated through ELF. Following Svennevig’s (2008)Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar observation of the speaker’s occasional use of pre-emptive techniques after the signal of a hearing problem in Norwegian L1-L2 interactions, the present study will focus on the ELF speaker’s repair practices after the recipient’s use of OCRIs in next turn; specifically, the analysis aims to identify other ways in which speakers respond to OCRIs, besides or in addition to repetition, that contribute to effective ELF HT service encounters.

4.Data and method

4.1Research sites and participants

The data for this study consists of authentic ELF service encounters between international tourists and Thai front-desk staff. The data was collected in Phuket and Krabi in southern Thailand where many tourism-related businesses are located; these firms provide a multitude of services and activities, thus attracting large numbers of international tourists of various nationalities who speak different first languages. To ensure wider coverage of HT settings and HT-related services, the data was collected at three different sites where local Thais comprised the frontline staff at the information counter at an airport, desk staff at a tour company, and receptionists at a hotel front desk. At the airport information counter, the Thai employees were responsible for providing information to outbound passengers, many of whom were L2 speakers of English. At the tour service counter, a Thai employee sold tour programs and tickets to mainly international tourists who wanted to hire boats to the nearby islands. Finally, at the hotel front office, Thai receptionists provided information and various services to hotel guests. The English language proficiency of the Thai staff varied greatly. While the airport frontline staff had to have obtained a minimum 550 TOIEC score, the hotel desk staff needed to only perform well in an English-mediated interview; the tour counter service employees, who were from a nearby village, had only basic English skills but vast experience in communicating with international tourists. Meanwhile, the international tourists, numbering 1,447 in total, came from forty different countries and were L2 speakers of English who displayed a wide range of proficiency levels.

Once suitable HT service firms had been identified, the researchers wrote in to obtain permission to audio record frontline staff-tourist/guest service encounters at their premises. The first author then visited the three research sites, one site in turn, between the months of May and December 2019 to record the interactions. The consent of the front desk staff was obtained prior to recording. However, the researcher relied on implied consent from the tourists as s/he was only permitted to interact with the tourists after the recording of the service encounter to minimise disruption to service delivery. The conspicuous placement of the recording device on the service desk was expected to alert the tourists to the recording in progress. Following service delivery, the researcher approached the tourists to obtain verbal consent, inquire about their nationality for coding purposes and respond to any enquiries about the purpose of the recordings. Recorded interactions of tourists unwilling to participate in the study were removed from the data set and destroyed.

4.2Data collection and analysis

Five hours of service encounters were audio recorded at each site, making up a total of fifteen hours of interactional data comprising 1,346 exchanges. Given the service firms’ emphasis on minimal disruption to service delivery, video recording was felt to be unsuitable due to its potential to create feelings of discomfort among the tourists, which the service providers sought to avoid at all costs. Lack of access to the participants’ embodied behaviours that contribute to meaning-making limits to some extent the degree to which the analysis is able to depict the realities of how speakers utilize both verbal and non-verbal resources to achieve shared understanding (Mondada 2011Mondada, Lorenza 2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMondada, Lorenza 2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 542–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). However, given the focus of the analysis on the repair practices that increase the clarity of talk following an OCRI, a detailed moment by moment analysis of the participants’ speech, including selected aspects of delivery (e.g., latching, pausing and sound lengthening), is expected to provide a sufficiently robust account of the phenomenon.

The audio recordings of service encounters were transcribed using the transcription symbols developed by Gail Jefferson (1984)Jefferson, Gail 1984 “Transcription Notation.” In Structures of Social Interaction, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 243–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJefferson, Gail 1984 “Transcription Notation.” In Structures of Social Interaction, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 243–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar (see Appendix). The data was then examined closely to identify all other-initiated self-repair sequences. In these sequences, the recipient signals a problem in hearing/understanding the speaker’s prior utterance using one (or more) of the repair initiators identified in the literature. The repair initiators used were noted and the frequency of occurrence calculated. Table 1 presents the frequency of use of the different repair initiators in the data.

Table 1.Frequency of use of other-initiated repair techniques in ELF HT service encounters
No. Category Frequency Total Frequency Percentage
1 Open Class Repair Initiators 202   45.09%
hm? ah? huh? 87
what? 10
pardon me/pardon? sorry? 98
others, e.g., again please  7
2 Category Specific Indicators  38    8.48%
questioning repeats 30
partial repeat + question word  5
question word  3
3 Candidate Understandings 208   46.43%
Total 448 100%

From the total of 448 other-initiated-self-repairs identified, an almost equal number of OCRIs (n = 202) and candidate understandings (n = 208) were used to signal a problem with the prior turn. While there was a tendency towards using more specific techniques to indicate trouble (see also Kendrick 2015Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 11: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), the use of non-specific formats was equally apparent. Amongst the OCRIs, the use of interjections with questioning intonation (hm? ah? huh?) and the apology-based forms (sorry? pardon?) (Dingemanse et al. 2014Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer 2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 381: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) were common with the latter showing a slightly higher frequency of occurrence. The frequent use of the apology-based forms is in keeping with the institutional character of the setting and the emphasis placed on politeness therein (Robinson 2006Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006 “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 73: 137–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarRobinson, Jeffrey D. 2006 “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 731: 137–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

The analysis focuses on the repair practices following the use of OCRIs. This category of repair initiators was selected for two reasons. First, despite its non-specific nature, it was as widely used as candidate understandings, a specific form of repair initiation said to be the preferred technique to initiate repair in next turn (Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Second, open class repair initiators typically elicit a repetition of the trouble-source turn by the speaker in third position, indicating the speaker’s orientation to the repair initiator as signalling a hearing problem (Oloff 2018Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In line with Svennevig’s (2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 345) assertion that there is “a more general preference for preventing problems over repairing them”, and his observation of the occasional use of pre-emptive moves in a similar environment in Norwegian L1-L2 interactions, the analysis seeks to examine if ELF speakers in HT service encounters are similarly oriented towards enhancing understanding in a context that is typically associated with hearing difficulties.

As the analysis focuses on repair solutions in third position following the use of an OCRI in next turn, all instances of repair in this sequential environment were first noted. Repair solutions other than a single repetition of the trouble-source turn were then identified for closer study. It was observed that one in every five instances of self-repair after an OCRI consisted of the use of multiple repair solutions; these practices were used with repetition and seemed designed to increase explicitness and communicative clarity. These occurrences, which reflect the speaker’s efforts at enhancing understanding, are the object of analysis.

5.Analysis and discussion

Before examining the participants’ use of multiple repair solutions following an OCRI in next turn, a standard case of other-initiated repair using the OCRI format (i.e., where the OCRI elicits a full or partial repetition of the trouble source in third turn) is presented. In Extract 1, the recipient uses an OCRI to signal trouble in the speaker’s prior utterance without locating the problem or characterizing the source. In line with Svennevig’s (2008)Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar assertion that OCRIs are produced in response to hearing problems, the speaker in third position produces a partial repeat of the trouble-source turn, which demonstrates his orientation to the OCRI as reflecting a case of partial hearing.

(1)

HFO. NO.65

1 Russian guest (M): i think i’ve lost my bank card.
2 (1.3)
3 → Thai receptionist (M): ah?
4 → Russian guest: bank card.
5 Thai receptionist: bank card?
6 Russian guest: yeah
7 Thai receptionist: at here?
8 Russian guest: i don’t know er (.) maybe in:er [name of a
9 beach]…

After silence of 1.3 seconds, the hotel receptionist uses an OCRI in the form of the interjection “ah” in questioning intonation to signal trouble in the guest’s prior utterance. The guest responds with a partial repeat of his prior turn in line 4; given the non-specific nature of the OCRI, the guest locates the segment “bank card” as being potentially problematic. The repair is receipted by an exact repetition of the phrase “bank card” in rising intonation (line 5). This repetition, which serves as a confirmation check, indicates recognition of the lexical items in question and suggests that any hearing difficulty the receptionist may have had has been resolved. The guest’s response in the affirmative in line 6 confirms the receptionist’s accurate receipt of the pertinent detail in his earlier utterance.

Repetition is “a vital constituent of ELF talk” (Lichtkoppler 2007Lichtkoppler, Julia 2007 “ ‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex is Male.’ – The Role of Repetition in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16 (1): 39–65. http://​www​.univie​.ac​.at​/Anglistik​/views​_0701​_pdfLichtkoppler, Julia 2007 “ ‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex is Male.’ – The Role of Repetition in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16 (1): 39–65. http://​www​.univie​.ac​.at​/Anglistik​/views​_0701​_pdf, 59) as it is found to feature prominently in meaning negotiation, both pre-empting as well as resolving problems of hearing/understanding (Björkman 2014Björkman, Beyza 2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBjörkman, Beyza 2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 661: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Kaur 2009Kaur, Jagdish 2009 “Pre-empting Problems of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca.” In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKaur, Jagdish 2009 “Pre-empting Problems of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca.” In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Matsumoto 2011Matsumoto, Yumi 2011 “Successful ELF Communications and Implications for ELT: Sequential Analysis of ELF Pronunciation Negotiation Strategies.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (1): 97–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMatsumoto, Yumi 2011 “Successful ELF Communications and Implications for ELT: Sequential Analysis of ELF Pronunciation Negotiation Strategies.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (1): 97–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mauranen 2006Mauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Pitzl 2005Pitzl, Marie-Luise 2005 “Non-understanding in English as a Lingua Franca: Examples from a Business Context.” Vienna English Working Papers 14 (2): 50–71. http://​anglistik​.univie​.ac​.at​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/dep​_anglist​/weitere​_Uploads​/Views​/views​_0802​.pdfPitzl, Marie-Luise 2005 “Non-understanding in English as a Lingua Franca: Examples from a Business Context.” Vienna English Working Papers 14 (2): 50–71. http://​anglistik​.univie​.ac​.at​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/dep​_anglist​/weitere​_Uploads​/Views​/views​_0802​.pdf). Specifically, it allows the recipient to rehear a problematic segment of talk and resolve problems of intelligibility related to word or utterance recognition (Smith and Nelson 1985Smith, Larry E., and Cecil L. Nelson 1985 “International Intelligibility of English: Directions and Resources.” World Englishes 4: 333–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSmith, Larry E., and Cecil L. Nelson 1985 “International Intelligibility of English: Directions and Resources.” World Englishes 41: 333–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) caused by diminished hearing. The analysis of ELF service encounters points to the widespread use of repetition following OCRIs in next turn (see Extract 1), which supports observations by scholars such as Oloff (2018)Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Svennevig (2008)Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar of an orientation to a hearing problem by the speaker of the trouble-source turn.

However, as Extract 2 reveals, a verbatim repeat is not always an effective repair solution following an OCRI, particularly when the recipient’s problem pertains to understanding rather than hearing.

(2)

TSC, NO.325

1 French tourist (M): hello. for the information is the: (0.6) the [name of
2 a tour program]
3 Thai staff (F): [name of a tour program]
4 French tourist: yes.
5 (1.2)
6 is a boat?
5 Thai staff: ah: boat boat.
6 French tourist: it’s exclusive?
7 → Thai staff: ah?
8 → French tourist: it’s exclusive?
9 → Thai staff: pardon?
10 → French tourist: the boat
11 Thai staff: the boat and then?
12 French tourist: {shifts the topic to the price of the boat ticket}

The exchange above takes place at the service counter of a tour company where a French tourist seeks to buy tickets for a tour program. After establishing the tour of interest and the mode of transport, the tourist enquires if the boat is “exclusive” (line 6) to possibly mean “private”. This elicits an OCRI in the form of “ah?” from the front-desk staff. The tourist treats the OCRI as signalling a hearing problem as evidenced by the verbatim repeat of the trouble-source turn in line 8. The staff’s response in line 9, in the form of another OCRI (i.e., pardon?), indicates the failure of the repetition to repair the problem. In the next turn, the tourist clarifies the referent of “that’s” as “the boat” suggesting a realization that the problem does not stem from non-hearing. However, given the non-specificity of the OCRI, the tourist’s repair solution in line 10 incorrectly identifies the pro-term as the trouble source. The staff’s response in line 11 indicates that it is the word “exclusive” that is problematic. However, at this point, the tourist decides to shift the topic to the price of the boat ticket. The topic shift points to communication breakdown as the tourist’s enquiry in line 6 failed to receive a satisfactory response. While the tourist’s decision to not pursue a response reflects his own unwillingness to further negotiate meaning, the extract also points to the ineffectiveness of the OCRI in eliciting an accurate repair solution when understanding is at stake.

In the following sections, the speaker’s use of repair solutions in addition to repetition is examined. Lexical replacement, rephrasing and explication are used with a verbatim repeat of part or the whole of the trouble-source turn. The extracts presented reveal an orientation to explicitness on the part of the speaker that seems to compensate for the non-specificity of the OCRI and contribute to enhanced understanding.

5.1Repetition and lexical replacement

As previously stated, repetition is effective in addressing problems in hearing or recognizing a word or a phrase in a prior turn (Lichtkoppler 2007Lichtkoppler, Julia 2007 “ ‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex is Male.’ – The Role of Repetition in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16 (1): 39–65. http://​www​.univie​.ac​.at​/Anglistik​/views​_0701​_pdfLichtkoppler, Julia 2007 “ ‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex is Male.’ – The Role of Repetition in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16 (1): 39–65. http://​www​.univie​.ac​.at​/Anglistik​/views​_0701​_pdf). However, the participants in this study may follow the repetition of the trouble-source turn with a lexical replacement when they sense that the repeated word poses an obstacle to recipient understanding, as in Extract 3.

(3)

AIC, NO.120

1 Chinese passenger (M): where is a [p]athroom?
2 (0.5)
3 [p]athroom?
4 (1.5)
5 → Thai staff (F): sorry?=
6 → Chinese passenger: =[p]athroom? toilet?
7 Thai staff: toilet er: over there.

The passenger in this exchange, which takes place at the information counter at an airport, enquires about the location of the restroom. The voiced bilabial plosive /b/ in “bathroom” (line 1), however, is realised as the voiceless counterpart [p]. The passenger repeats the key word “bathroom” after a 0.5-second pause, while maintaining the same pronunciation. Following further silence of 1.5 seconds, the frontline staff produces an OCRI (i.e., “sorry?”) which signals a problem in the prior turn without specifying it. In the first instance, the passenger repeats the word “bathroom”, still with the same pronunciation, suggesting an orientation to the problem as related to hearing. However, the passenger then replaces the word ‘bathroom” with “toilet”, which indicates a shift in the speaker’s orientation to the OCRI as signalling a problem with understanding rather than hearing. The pauses preceding the OCRI and the fact that the repetition of “bathroom” in line 6 is a second repeat may be the reasons that prompt the speaker to change tack and replace “bathroom” with an alternative word, “toilet”. As both “toilet” and “bathroom” are semantically linked, the use of the former may address any issues the staff has had in grasping the latter. The second repair solution succeeds in securing the staff’s understanding as reflected by her response in the next turn.

The move to replace a lexical item after repetition of prior talk displays the speaker’s attempt to increase clarity and facilitate understanding. In ELF HT service encounters, multilingual speakers not only face diverse accents but also different ways of using words, and different levels of knowledge and familiarity with English vocabulary. In addition to a repetition following an OCRI, the speaker may replace a potentially problematic word with an approximate to convey meaning more clearly, as in Extract 4.

(4)

TCS, NO.270

1 Thai staff (F): and then you have to pay national park fee three
2 hundred more over there.
3 (0.8)
4 national park fee
5 → Spanish tourist (F): sorry?
6 → Thai staff: national park fee
7 (1.5)
8 → tax, tax
9 (0.6)
10 → tax you have to: pay tax=
11 Spanish tourist: =on the island?
12 Thai staff: yes per person (.) more

In this exchange, which takes place at a tour service counter, the staff informs the tourist of the need to pay a “national park fee” on the island in question. Although the staff repeats the phrase “national park fee” after a 0.8-second pause, the tourist responds with an OCRI in the next turn. Given the non-specific nature of the repair initiator, the staff repeats the aforementioned phrase to provide the tourist the opportunity to rehear what she assumes is the trouble source. The absence of an immediate response from the tourist, as reflected by the 1.5-second pause, prompts the staff to replace the item “fee” with “tax”, which is then repeated. Lack of uptake by the tourist prompts the staff to repeat the word “tax” yet again, before partially repeating the original utterance using “tax” in place of “fee” (line 10). The lexical replacement provides the tourist with an alternative word that approximates “fee” in this context, while further repetition of “tax” foregrounds the item considered significant in understanding the staff’s message. The combined use of lexical replacement and repetition succeeds in addressing the trouble, as evidenced by the tourist’s confirmation check in line 11.

As OCRIs do not locate or specify the nature of the trouble in the prior turn, the speaker is inclined to first attempt an easier solution in the form of a repetition that addresses a hearing problem (Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Attunement to the need for a solution that targets a potential understanding problem, signalled by silence or lack of uptake by the recipient, may then prompt the addition of a lexical replacement. The lexical replacement therefore represents a second attempt at self-repair in third position. It also reflects a move towards greater clarity, thereby dispensing the need for further repair initiation (Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

5.2Repetition and rephrasing

In the context of this study, rephrasing is distinguished from lexical replacement. While the latter refers to the substitution of one lexical item with another (see Section 5.1), the former involves “providing the same content by modifying the previous utterance or ongoing utterance” (Björkman 2014Björkman, Beyza 2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBjörkman, Beyza 2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 661: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 131). Like repetition, rephrasing is a multifunctional practice that serves, amongst others, to make meaning clear and increase recipient understanding (Mauranen 2012 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). However, unlike repetition, which is said to repair problems of hearing, rephrasing is more effective in resolving difficulties in understanding (Kaur 2010 2010 “Achieving Mutual Understanding in World Englishes.” World Englishes 29 (2): 192–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2010 “Achieving Mutual Understanding in World Englishes.” World Englishes 29 (2): 192–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Oloff 2018Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Svennevig 2008Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Watterson 2008Watterson, Matthew 2008 “Repair of Non-understanding in English in International Communication.” World Englishes 27: 378–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarWatterson, Matthew 2008 “Repair of Non-understanding in English in International Communication.” World Englishes 271: 378–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Following an OCRI in next turn, the speaker’s use of repetition combined with rephrasing of the trouble-source turn contributes to increased explicitness and enhanced understanding, as in Extract 5.

(5)

HFO, NO.171

1 Indian guest (M): so which room are you giving me?
2 → Thai receptionist (F): pardon?=
3 → Indian guest: =which room? which type room? room type?
4 Thai receptionist: room: room type right? you have booking=
5 Indian guest: =you have the type room? pool room containing?
6 Thai receptionist: pool: roo:m

While checking-in at a hotel front desk, the guest enquires about the room he has been booked into. The receptionist’s use of an OCRI in next turn signals a problem with the prior turn without locating or specifying it. The guest, in the first instance, repeats the phrase “which room” from the trouble source turn. He then modifies the phrase by first inserting the word “type” to produce “which type room?” and then dropping the word “which” and inverting the word order to produce “room type?”. While the immediate repetition provides the receptionist with the opportunity to re-hear the trouble-source, the rephrasing makes the guest’s meaning explicit and clear. The receptionist adopts the phrase “room type” in a confirmation check in the next turn, which indicates understanding of the guest’s enquiry. The extract illustrates the recipient’s use of multiple repair solutions, each targeting a different trouble source – hearing in the case of the repetition and understanding in the case of the rephrasing – which results in effectively establishing mutual understanding.

A similar example of the combined use of repetition and rephrasing is seen in Extract 6.

(6)

TSC, NO. 3

1 Chinese tourist (F): go to [name of an island]=
2 Thai staff (F): =yeah yeah you have to wait for six people you can
3 go. now no people.
4 → Chinese tourist: excuse me?
5 → Thai staff: now no people. nobody. you have to wait fir:st for
6 six people=
7 Chinese tourist: =okay
8 Thai staff: we have to wait

The tourist in this exchange enquires at the tour service counter about the departure of a boat for an island tour (line 1). The front-desk staff informs the tourist that the boat will leave only when there are six passengers onboard but that at the present moment there were not any. The tourist uses the expression “excuse me?” (line 4) to signal a problem with the staff’s prior utterance. “Excuse me” in the present context serves a similar function as other apology-based OCRIs (e.g., “sorry?”; “pardon?”) to politely signal a problem and initiate repair. The staff first repeats the second part of her prior utterance (i.e., “now no people”), and then rephrases “no people” as “nobody”. She then reproduces the first part of the trouble-source turn in which she inserts the word “first” to reinforce that the stated number of passengers must first present themselves before the boat can depart. While the tourist’s response in line 7 confirms that the staff’s explanation has been understood, the staff produces a partial rephrase in which the pronoun “you” is replaced with “we” (line 8) to emphasize the need to wait.

Extracts 5 and 6 illustrate the speaker’s proactiveness in dealing with a non-specified problem. Rather than awaiting indication by the recipient of the (in)effectiveness of the repetition in resolving the problem, the speakers in both extracts offer another solution in the form of rephrasing prior talk. Rephrasing constitutes an effective repair practice that increases explicitness and provides the recipient with another opportunity to re-hear the content of the trouble source turn in different words (Mauranen 2012 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The multiple repair solutions not only address problems of hearing but also target any potential nonunderstanding that may be left unexpressed through the use of an OCRI.

5.3Repetition and explication

Besides lexical replacement and rephrasing, the participants in the study also use explication to enhance understanding following initial repetition of a part or the whole of the trouble-source turn. Mauranen (2012) 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar explains that explication is a feature of ELF talk as speakers tend towards increasing explicitness and enhancing clarity to collaboratively arrive at shared understanding (see also Kaur 2011 2011 “Raising Explicitness Through Self-repair in English as a Lingua Franca.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2704–2715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2011 “Raising Explicitness Through Self-repair in English as a Lingua Franca.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2704–2715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2017 2017 “Ambiguity Related Misunderstanding and Clarity Enhancing Practices in ELF Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 25–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2017 “Ambiguity Related Misunderstanding and Clarity Enhancing Practices in ELF Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 25–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Following Konakahara (2012)Konakahara, Mayu 2012 “Reconsideration of Communication Strategies from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective.” The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University 20 (1): 201–216. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/2065​/37451Konakahara, Mayu 2012 “Reconsideration of Communication Strategies from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective.” The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University 20 (1): 201–216. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/2065​/37451, explication in the context of this study refers to practices that clarify the meaning of a word by way of a definition or an example.

Extract 7 illustrates a case of keyword repetition followed by a definition of the keyword in response to an OCRI.

(7)

HOF, NO.49

1 Russian guest (M): what about all the: attractions=
2 → Thai staff (M): =pardon me?
3 → Russian guest: attractions. places nearby (.) places to visit nearby.
4 Thai staff: em: in: in krabi area er we have special cave temple=
5 =you can take a bus or:: car.

The exchange takes place at the hotel front desk where a guest enquires about the places of interest to visit in the locality. The guest’s enquiry, however, is receipted by an OCRI in the form of “pardon me?”. The guest narrows down the problem to the word “attractions”, which he repeats in third position. He then defines “attractions” as “places to visit nearby”. As in previous examples, the initial repetition reflects the guest’s orientation to the non-specific repair initiator as attributable to non-hearing which the repetition is expected to resolve. However, the guest then offers a second repair solution that serves to clarify meaning and secure the staff’s understanding. It is likely that the ELF context, which is associated with an increased risk of non/misunderstanding, prompts the guest to explicate the meaning of “attractions”. The staff’s response in the next turn indicates that mutual understanding has been established.

Similarly, in Extract 8, the speaker of the trouble-source turn first orients to the OCRI in next turn as signalling a hearing problem, which the multiple repetitions are expected to resolve; she then uses explication to facilitate understanding when there is no immediate response from the recipient.

(8)

TSC, NO.59

1 Chinese tourist (F): [name of beach]
2 Thai staff (F): how many people?
3 Chinese tourist: er:: five and the one child.
4 Thai staff: how old your child?
5 → Chinese tourist: ah?
6 → Thai staff: how old your child? how old your child?
7 (0.5)
8 → how old to your child? three year, two year, five
9 → year children how old are you?
10 Chinese tourist: five years old.
11 (1.8)
12 Thai staff: same price same price (1.5) together (.) six people ah
13 Chinese tourist: okay.

This exchange takes place at a tour service counter where a tourist attempts to purchase tickets for an island tour. In line 4, the staff tries to establish the age of the child mentioned by the tourist in her previous turn. The question, “how old your child”, however, elicits an OCRI in the next turn (i.e., “ah?”), which prompts the front-desk staff to repeat her question twice. In the absence of an immediate response, as indicated by the 0.5-second pause, the staff rephrases her question slightly by inserting the preposition “to” (line 8) before explicating meaning by providing examples of possible answers to her question. The move to clarify meaning in this explicit manner reflects a switch in orientation from a potential problem of hearing to one of understanding. Unlike hearing problems which may be resolved through repetition of prior talk, understanding problems call for more explicit repair in the form of exemplification. Following the examples of possible answers, the staff rephrases her original question as “how old are you?” (line 9). It is possible that the staff uses a non-verbal cue at this point to indicate the child, assuming s/he is present; however, in the absence of video recording, this remains speculative. The tourist’s response in line 10 confirms that the staff’s question has been understood.

In ELF service encounters, accuracy in the information relayed and received is vital; this may necessitate the use of multiple repair solutions when a non-specific repair initiator is used in the event of a problem. As Svennevig (2008)Svennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSvennevig, Jan 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar observed, speakers are apt to try the easier, less complicated solution like repetition first. However, they may follow this up with more elaborate repair solutions designed to facilitate understanding; these follow-up repairs may be performed immediately in the absence of any further signs of trouble (e.g., Extracts 3, 5, 6 and 7) or they may occur in response to a lack of immediate uptake by the recipient (e.g., Extracts 4 and 8). The speaker’s combined use of repetition, rephrasing and explication reflects attempts at self-repair with a move towards greater communicative clarity to enhance recipient understanding.

5.4Multiple repair solutions in a multiturn repair sequence

The extracts examined thus far display the use of multiple repair solutions in a single turn in third position. However, given the complexity of ELF, the repair sequence may stretch over many turns in which the speaker offers multiple repair solutions in response to the use of OCRIs or other non-specific repair initiators. Extract 9, which takes place at a hotel front-desk, is a case in point.

(9)

HFO, NO.92

1 Thai receptionist (M): er: you stay with us for two night?
2 (1.2)
3 → Norwegian guest (F): ah?=
4 → Thai receptionist: =you booking with two night?
5 Norwegian guest: oh two night yes [yes
6 Thai receptionist:                [yes (.) last day you check out?
7 Norwegian guest: mhm
8 Thai receptionist: last day what time you check out?
9 → Norwegian guest: yeah?
10 → Thai receptionist: last day can you show me what time you check
11 → out=last day [when you check out?
12 Norwegian guest:              [oh what’s the time?
13 Thai receptionist: yes do you have plan? other next destination?
14 (2.0)
15 Norwegian guest: er: twelve or one o’clock [( )
16 Thai receptionist:                      [before you: before you
17 have to check out before twelve.
18 Norwegian guest: before twelve?=
19 Thai receptionist: =yes
.
34 Thai receptionist: if you want to eat breakfast two hundred and
35 fifty baht per one night (.) per one day.
36 yeah you booking exclude breakfast.
37 (0.8)
38 exclude breakfast.
39 → Norwegian guest: er: i don’t know=
40 → Thai receptionist: =without breakfast
41 (0.6)
42 → no need=no have breakfast in your booking (.)
43 you okay?=
44 Norwegian guest: =okay.
45 Thai receptionist: and:
46 → Norwegian guest: i can’t understand
47 → Thai receptionist: er according to your booking exclude breakfast (.)
48 → no breakfast.
49 Norwegian guest: oh no breakfast=yes yes yes sorry sorry sorry

In this exchange, the receptionist first attempts to establish the number of nights the guest will be staying at the hotel, after which he tries to determine her check-out time. After some intervening talk, the receptionist then informs the guest that her booking excludes breakfast. In line 1, the receptionist seeks to confirm that the guest is booked at the hotel for two nights. The guest’s response using an OCRI format signals a problem. The receptionist however does not respond with a verbatim repeat as is generally the case in such instances. Rather, he rephrases the question, replacing the word “staying” with “booking”, a word commonly used in the hotel setting and more likely to be understood. The move to rephrase suggests that the receptionist is orientating to the OCRI as signalling potential nonunderstanding and so attempts to make meaning explicit from the outset. The repair solution succeeds in eliciting the desired response (line 5).

The receptionist then attempts to establish the guest’s expected check-out time on the day in question. However, his utterance in line 6 is incomplete as he omits the keyword “time”; the question “last day you check out?” states the obvious and elicits from the guest a minimal response in the form of “mhm”, which possibly serves to acknowledge this point. In turn, the receptionist modifies his prior utterance by inserting the phrase “what time” to specify meaning. The rephrasing however fails to elicit the guest’s expected check-out time as her response in line 9 indicates; her use of the token “yeah” in questioning intonation is similar to other OCRIs in that it indicates trouble without characterizing it. The receptionist responds by expanding his prior utterance, adding the phrase “can you show me” in a repeat of it (line 10). Next, he rephrases the utterance, replacing “what time” with “when” (line 11). The receptionist’s multiple attempts at repairing the non-specified problem through his use of utterance expansion and rephrasing reflect his orientation to the token “yeah?” as indicating a problem of understanding. The use of multiple repair solutions finally results in understanding on the part of the guest; her confirmation check in line 12 is “oh”-marked (Heritage 1984), which suggests a shift in her state of knowledge following the expansion and rephrasing of the trouble-source utterance. The receptionist confirms her understanding and proceeds to enquire of her plans to visit other places (line 13) before she is able to provide a response. The guest’s response in line 15, stating her expected check-out time, causes the receptionist to cut off his ongoing utterance (lines 16–17) to remind her that she must check out before 12. The guest’s confirmation check in line 18 elicits a confirmation in the next turn.

After some intervening talk, the receptionist informs the guest that breakfast will cost two hundred and fifty baht as her room booking is not inclusive of breakfast (lines 34–36). The key phrase “exclude breakfast” is repeated after a 0.8-second pause (line 38) to possibly reinforce the message after lack of uptake by the guest. The guest’s response in next turn signals a problem; the phrase “er: I don’t know” however is vague and fails to locate or specify the problem. In lines 40 and 42, the receptionist provides two repair solutions. First, he performs lexical replacement where “exclude” is replaced with “without” (line 40); clearly, the receptionist is attempting to simplify his word choice, opting for “without” which the guest may be more familiar with. The absence of an immediate response, as indicated by the 0.6-second pause, prompts the receptionist to rephrase the trouble source. After a false start, the receptionist rephrases “without breakfast” as “no have breakfast”, which displays further simplification of the form of the prior utterance (line 42). The receptionist then seeks confirmation that the guest is agreeable to breakfast being excluded (lines 42 to 43). Although the guest first expresses agreement (line 44), she then proceeds to declare her inability to understand in line 46; this not only indicates that the problem has yet to be resolved but more importantly specifies the nature of the problem. It takes the receptionist two further attempts at rephrasing his original utterance (lines 47 to 48) before understanding is achieved. It appears that the simple formulation of “no breakfast” finally sheds light on the meaning of the receptionist’s prior utterance.

While the repair sequence above is protracted and takes the receptionist several turns to clarify meaning, his persistence and use of multiple repair practices finally result in shared understanding. The guest’s repeated use of non-specific repair initiators may at first glance seem unhelpful to the process of meaning negotiation; however, in the ELF context, unfamiliar accents may prevent the recipient from using more specific repair initiators which necessitate recognition of the problematic linguistic items for them to be reproduced in the next turn. In this exchange, responding to the OCRIs with a verbatim repeat of the trouble source would have failed to resolve the problem and would have demanded many more turns of repair work. The receptionist’s strategic use of clarity-enhancing practices such as lexical replacement, rephrasing and expansion are more effective in addressing an unspecified problem of understanding.

6.Conclusion

The study set out to identify and describe some of the self-repair practices following an OCRI in next turn that appear oriented to a potential problem of understanding rather than one of hearing. Given that OCRIs are non-specific, determining the location and source of the trouble poses a problem to the speaker (Oloff 2018Oloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOloff, Florence 2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1261: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In the context of ELF service encounters in the HT setting, the problem is compounded by the fact that speakers are also faced with variability in language form and use which may increase the risk of non/misunderstanding. The analysis of the data reveals that speakers are able to provide multiple repair solutions that increase the clarity of the trouble-source utterance so that recipient understanding is enhanced. Repetition which provides the recipient with the opportunity to rehear a segment of talk may or may not facilitate understanding. However, repetition which is followed by a lexical replacement, rephrasing of prior talk or explication of a word is able to amplify meaning and reinforce understanding. In this way, the speaker seeks to address a potential problem of non-understanding that an OCRI may conceal.

In ELF interactions that are high stakes and goal oriented such as HT service encounters, the “principle of least collaborative effort” proposed by Clark and Schaefer (1987)Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer 1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarClark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer 1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 21: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar is eclipsed. According to Clark and Schaefer (1987)Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer 1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarClark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer 1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 21: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (L1) speakers are apt to select more specific repair initiators from the outset as they are considered “stronger” (see also Schegloff et al. 1977Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and result in “briefer and more precise repairs” (Clark and Schaefer 1987Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer 1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarClark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer 1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 21: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 23), thus, minimizing the collaborative work that is required to establish intersubjectivity in talk. The reverse is likely to be true in HT service encounters mediated through ELF. As observed in other ELF settings, negotiation of meaning is a key feature of ELF interaction; interactions are highly collaborative which have led to the conceptualization of ELF as a cooperative phenomenon (see, e.g., Björkman 2014Björkman, Beyza 2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBjörkman, Beyza 2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 661: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Kaur 2012 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2017 2017 “Ambiguity Related Misunderstanding and Clarity Enhancing Practices in ELF Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 25–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2017 “Ambiguity Related Misunderstanding and Clarity Enhancing Practices in ELF Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 25–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mauranen 2006Mauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMauranen, Anna 2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2012 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Seidlhofer 2011Seidlhofer, Barbara 2011 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSeidlhofer, Barbara 2011 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Pietikäinen 2018Pietikäinen, Kaisa 2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarPietikäinen, Kaisa 2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In HT service encounters, where interaction is predominantly transactional and informational, it is pertinent that messages are accurately relayed and received. When faced with an unspecified indication of trouble, speakers may adopt a proactive stance and provide multiple repair solutions with each demonstrating increasing explicitness; this greatly improves communicative clarity and provides strong evidence of the speaker’s concern with achieving shared understanding. In ELF HT service encounters, as in other ELF settings, it appears that it is the principle of increased collaborative effort that prevails and underlies communicative effectiveness.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Björkman, Beyza
2014 “An Analysis of Polyadic English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Speech: A Communicative Strategies Framework.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Blue, George M., and Minah Harun
2003 “Hospitality Language as a Professional Skill.” English for Specific Purposes 22: 73–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Bruyèl-Olmedo, Antonio, and Maria Juan-Garau
2009 “English as a Lingua Franca in the Linguistic Landscape of the Multilingual Resort of S’Arenal in Mallorca.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (4): 386–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer
1987 “Collaborating on Contributions to Conversation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Cogo, Alessia
2012 “ELF and Superdiversity. A Case Study of ELF Multilingual Practices from a Business Context.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2): 287–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Cogo, Alessia, and Marie-Luise Pitzl
2016 “Pre-empting and Signaling Non-understanding in ELF.” English Language Teaching Journal 70 (3): 339–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Cogo, Alessia, and Julianne House
2018 “The Pragmatics of ELF.” In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, ed. by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker, and Martin Dewey, 210–223. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Cohen, Erik, and Robert L. Cooper
1986 “Language and Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 13: 533–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Czepiel, John A., Michael R. Solomon, Carol F. Surprenant, and Evelyn G. Gutman
1985 “Service Encounters: An Overview.” In The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, ed. by John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, 3–15. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer
2014 “Formats for Other-initiation of Repair Across Languages. An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38: 5–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Drew, Paul
1997 ““Open” Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Firth, Alan
2009 “The Lingua Franca Factor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6: 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Franceschi, Valeria, and Sharon Hartle
2021 “Introduction to “Tourism Discourse in the 21st Century: Challenges and New Directions”.” Iperstoria – Journal of American and English Studies 18, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Jafari, Janin
2021 Communicating Strategically in English as a Lingua Franca. A Corpus Driven Investigation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Jefferson, Gail
1984 “Transcription Notation.” In Structures of Social Interaction, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 243–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Jenkins, Jennifer
2022 “Accommodation in ELF: Where From? Where Now? Where Next?” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 17–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Jaworski, Adam, and Crispin Thurlow
2010 “Language and the Globalizing Habitus of Tourism: A Sociolinguistics of Fleeting Relationships.” In The Handbook of Language and Globalization, ed. by Nikolas Coupland, 255–286. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Kaur, Jagdish
2009 “Pre-empting Problems of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca.” In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
2010 “Achieving Mutual Understanding in World Englishes.” World Englishes 29 (2): 192–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
2011 “Raising Explicitness Through Self-repair in English as a Lingua Franca.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2704–2715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
2012 “Saying It Again: Enhancing Clarity in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Talk Through Self-repetition.” Text&Talk 32 (5): 593–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
2017 “Ambiguity Related Misunderstanding and Clarity Enhancing Practices in ELF Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 25–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Kendrick, Kobin H.
2015 “Other-initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1: 164–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Konakahara, Mayu
2012 “Reconsideration of Communication Strategies from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective.” The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University 20 (1): 201–216. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/2065​/37451
①
Lichtkoppler, Julia
2007 “ ‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex is Male.’ – The Role of Repetition in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16 (1): 39–65. http://​www​.univie​.ac​.at​/Anglistik​/views​_0701​_pdf
① ②
Lind, Mikael, and Nicklas Salomonson
2013 “Using Pragmatic Concepts for Exploring Interactivity in Service Encounters.” Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Information, Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices 7 (2): 205–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Matsumoto, Yumi
2011 “Successful ELF Communications and Implications for ELT: Sequential Analysis of ELF Pronunciation Negotiation Strategies.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (1): 97–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Mauranen, Anna
2006 “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
Mazeland, Harrie, and Minna Zaman Zadeh
2004 “The Logic of Clarification: Some Observations about Word-Clarification Repairs in Finnish-as-a-Lingua-Franca Interactions.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by Rod Gardner, and Johannes Wagner, 132–156. New York/London: Continuum Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Merritt, Marilyn
1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters.” Language in Society 5 (3): 315–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Mustajoki, Arto
2017 “Why is Miscommunication More Common in Everyday Life than in Lingua Franca Conversation?” In Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Stavros Assimakopoulos, 55–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Oloff, Florence
2018 ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?” – Open Class and Embodied Repair Initiators in International Workplace Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦
Osimk-Teasdale, Ruth
2018 “Analyzing ELF Variability.” In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, ed. by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker, and Martin Dewey, 201–209. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Pietikäinen, Kaisa
2018 “Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 188–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Pitzl, Marie-Luise
2005 “Non-understanding in English as a Lingua Franca: Examples from a Business Context.” Vienna English Working Papers 14 (2): 50–71. http://​anglistik​.univie​.ac​.at​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/dep​_anglist​/weitere​_Uploads​/Views​/views​_0802​.pdf
① ②
2018 “Transient International Groups (TIGs): Exploring the Group and Development Dimension of ELF.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 7: 25–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2006 “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 73: 137–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2000 “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair.” Applied Linguistics 21: 205–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩
Seidlhofer, Barbara
2011 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Smith, Larry E., and Cecil L. Nelson
1985 “International Intelligibility of English: Directions and Resources.” World Englishes 4: 333–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Sparks, Beverley
1994 “Communicative Aspects of the Service Encounter.” Hospitality Research Journal 17: 39–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Sparks, Beverley, and Karin Weber
2008 “The Service Encounter.” In Handbook of Hospitality Operations and IT, ed. by Peter Jones, 109–137. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Svennevig, Jan
2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-initiation of Repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮
Taguchi, Naoko, and Noriko Ishihara
2018 “The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca: Research and Pedagogy in the Era of Globalization.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38: 80–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Thurlow, Crispin, and Adam Jaworski
2011 “Tourism Discourse: Languages and Banal Globalization.” Applied Linguistics Review 2: 285–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Vu, Thi Hong Van
2018 “An Investigation into English Language Use in the Vietnamese Hospitality Industry: The Language of Money Exchange.” Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science 8 (2): 14–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Walkinshaw, Ian
2022 “Findings and Developments in ELF Pragmatics Research: An Introduction.” In Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca. Findings and Developments, ed. by Ian Walkinshaw, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Watterson, Matthew
2008 “Repair of Non-understanding in English in International Communication.” World Englishes 27: 378–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Wilson, Adam
2018a “Adapting English for the Specific Purpose of Tourism: A Study of Communication Strategies in Face-to-Face Encounters in a French Tourist Office.” ASp (Online) 73: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
2018b “The Positioning of English as a Key Skill in the Labour Market of Marseille’s Tourist Office.” International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 2: 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②

AppendixTranscription symbols

(0.6) timed gap in tenths of a second
(.) pause of less than five-tenths of a second
= latched utterances
: stretched sound
? rising intonation
. falling intonation
{…} added detail by the researcher
[…] confidential information
AIC, NO… code for exchanges at airport information counter
TIC, NO… code for exchanges at tour information counter
HFO, NO… code for exchanges at hotel front office
M male participant
F female participant

Address for correspondence

Jagdish Kaur

Faculty of Languages and Linguistics

University of Malaya

50603 Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

[email protected]

Biographical notes

Aonrumpa Thongphut is a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Malaysia. She is also an English lecturer at Suratthani Rajabhat University in Thailand. She is interested in the study of communication strategies and communicative accommodation in English as lingua franca interactions in the hospitality and tourism setting.

Jagdish Kaur is a senior lecturer at the Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya in Malaysia. She conducts research in the areas of English as a lingua franca, intercultural pragmatics and English-medium instruction with a focus on how speakers in multicultural contexts co-construct understanding.

ORCiD logo with linkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-5635
 
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue