In addition, the recovery can be accomplished by the speaker of the problematic speech (self-recovery) or by another speaker (other-recovery). The following examples, （1） and （2）, illustrate the two types of other-initiated repair, those in which the repair is performed by the speaker of the problem source (other-initiated self-repair) and that performed by a receiver (other- initiated other-recovery). The following cases show that receivers repeat part of the speaker's previous turn to initiate recovery.
In the following excerpts, I present an example in which participants in Japanese conversation initiate repair work by repeating the problem source from the previous turn. In lines 1 and 2, the teacher asks the learner "where is the cup?" The learner responds "in the box." The learner's response is linguistically correct. However, the teacher begins to recover in line 4 "the cup is （ .）?" and the learner repeats "in the box." The teacher then begins to recover by saying "the cup is in".
In line 3, Bill repairs Ben's utterance "pigeons" by rephrasing "quail" and adds "I think." in order to soften the force of the correction. In line 4, he uses the repetition of the word "riyu (reason)" to acknowledge the next repair.
Data
05 position o han handan suru ma kinshi na n desu yo Position ACC han judge will uhm prohibit COP N COP IP "Article 6 of the Constitutional Amendment prohibits judging the public position because of religion.". As illustrated in the two extracts above, even if further repair does occur, it is done in a subdued manner. It includes uncertainty markers such as "I think" as in Extract (12) or is produced in a quiet voice as in Extract (13).
This study investigates how a Japanese adolescent and an Australian adolescent diagnosed with ASD cope with correction sequences initiated by others. It should be noted that most teachers in schools for children with special needs in Japan are not qualified and trained for students with these disabilities. The content of the lessons depends on the level of disability of the individual student.
They also get social training for the future, such as cooking, farming and pottery. The second set of data was collected in Australia and consists of an interaction between an Australian mother and her 15-year-old son, whose pseudonym here is Duke. Duke was diagnosed with ASD at the age of three by a combination of speech therapist, pediatrician and psychologist.
He attends a special needs school, but unlike those in Japan, it has an educational curriculum that specializes in teaching students with ASD. For example, each student has his own educational plan and has a qualified teacher trained in the TEACHER （Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Impaired Children） method. Both sets of interactions shown here were videotaped by the mothers, the Japanese mother and the Australian mother, during their normal daily routines.
Before recording, both mothers agreed to the families' participation by signing an informed consent form explaining the purpose of the study and the ethical use of the data.
Analysis and Discussion
Manifested Infelicities in Production
In response, Ten gives in line 6 “aru.（There is.）”, a repetition of the last predicate component of his mother's question, but he does not elaborate further on Neko Kouen (Cat Park) and completes his turn; consequently, there is silence in line 7. The mother then launches a follow-up question with an "eh" preface asking about the location of the park. In other words, Ten's response to his mother's repair initiation demonstrates the difficulty of designing his response for the recipient.
As can be seen from the mother's subsequent question in line 4, the mother thought that Ten had asked about Ojyarumaru's size. In line 5, instead of responding to his mother's repair, Ten changes the subject to “a-a-ame futteru. This behavior is responded to by the mother as inappropriate as indicated by her initiation of the repair.
These two excerpts show that Ten's ominous production was mirrored in his mother's recovery initiation. After the silence, in line 4, Duke suddenly changes the subject and starts talking about the pliers. In line 7, the mother produces "the tongs are in," and then stops her utterances without completing them.
However, the problem source of the mother's recovery is not the forceps, but where the forceps are. The mother's recovery that occurred in this excerpt is due to Duke's sudden change of subject. Duke then did not respond to the mother's recovery initiation, but only repeated the word "the pincers."
In order to offer Duke a chance to repair himself, the mother used a “plan incomplete statement （DIU）” in her second repair initiation.
Deployment of typical repair practices
This is consistent with findings from casual conversation in that self-repair predominates over other-initiated and other-initiated repairs (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). Finally, Duke performed the repair in a way that his mother found appropriate, and indicated by the closure of the repair sequence and the progressiveness of the interaction. Before this segment, the mother asked Duke what he was going to do at school that week.
Duke replies " In line 3, he immediately points out the mother's possible misunderstanding and produces "I say education（1.0）thing" with emphasis. Mom initiates the repair with an affirmative check in line 4, “It's a matter of education¿”. Duke then performs the repair with a "yes" confirmation. As can be seen from this interaction, the adolescent with ASD can reasonably cope with the mother's initiation of repair. In this extract, the beginning of the mother's repair is attributed to her misunderstanding of the word "Minecraft" which referred to the video game Duke played at school. The Duke then addresses his mother's misunderstanding by repeating the word "education". The repair sequence is advanced through the mother's confirmation check and completed by the Duke's confirmation. Before this segment, Ten and his mother were talking about going to his grandfather's place for the holidays. Ten asks his mother if his father is coming with them “otousan wa ikanai¿(Isn’t father coming?）”. In line 2, the mother answers his question "otousan no kuruma de iku no, （Let's go with father's car.）". Ten says “Honda¿” in line 3, then the mother responds to him by adding the name of the car model, Insight. Despite the mother's earlier statement to pass by the father's car, Ten asks his mother “mukae ni kitekure nai¿（Won't daddy pick us up?）”. In doing so, the mother denies Ten's previous statement 'mukae ni kitekure nai¿（Isn't daddy coming to pick us up?）' and projects that a correction is coming. Therefore, the source of the problems "mukaeni (pick up)" is discarded by the introduction of "ja nakute", which prescribes the previous as incorrect and is replaced by the repair solution "okutte tte kureru no. (Father takes us to grandfather's house). )”. In an overlap with the final part of Ten's statement, the mother asks several questions to confirm his understanding in line 8. Instead of answering his mother's question, designed to confirm his understanding, he begins to ask his mother about something else. nan nin de¿(How many people?)”. In general, even in interactions between not-yet-competent speakers, one repair recipient regularly displays agreement or acceptance of the other's repair. 2000) showed in her research on other repair sequences between non-native and native speakers that a lack of agreement or an acceptance by the recipient of the repair seems to be consistent with a lack of recognition or understanding of the repair. Considering these, Ten's lack of agreement or acceptance seems to indicate his ignorance or lack of understanding of the mother's repair. This mother favors precision over progressiveness of interaction and has been observed in other cases, which will be reported in future research reports. Conversely, the two participants sometimes showed some differences in competence regarding a response to recovery initiation. While Duke sometimes demonstrated his ability to identify the source of the problem when his mother's recovery initiation occurred, Ten never managed to respond appropriately to his mother's recovery initiation. This finding could be attributed to the differences in education in Australia and Japan or the participants' intellectual levels or place on the autism spectrum. This study focused solely on two adolescents diagnosed with ASD and thus may not provide a full understanding of the diverse characteristics of individuals with ASD. In future studies, it may be productive to examine the interactions of a larger number of people with ASD, possibly from different age groups and with different cultural backgrounds. This makes it possible to better understand the communicative behavior of people with ASD. Autism, primary pragmatic difficulties and specific language impairment: Can we distinguish them using psycholinguistic markers. The role of maternal input in the development of wh-question comprehension in autism and typical development. Managing interaction: A conversation-analytic approach to the management of interaction by an 8-year-old girl with Asperger's Syndrome. Measuring pragmatic language in speakers with autism spectrum disorders: Comparison of the Children's Communication Checklist-2 and the Test of Pragmatic Language. AppendixOther-initiated other-repair
Conclusion
