1887
image of Parties and voices
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Since Harvey Sacks’ early observations on collaborative sentence-making, the joint production of turns has become a topic of abiding interest amongst conversation analysts. This paper offers a thematic review of the literature by looking into a number of issues surrounding joint productions, including their forms and interactional uses, major types and sub-types, syntactic and pragmatic contributions, unity and variation across languages, and reasons for its inherent fascination as a conversational practice. By re-examining a number of key concepts and distinctions, including completion, extension, projection, continuation, collaboration, and affiliation/disaffiliation, the paper offers a critical assessment of their perspicuity and usefulness for our understanding of joint production as a general phenomenon (which includes both co-completions and increments). In the second part of the paper, it is suggested that two further concepts be added to the analyst’s toolbox, namely, ‘parties’ ( ) and ‘voices’ ( ). It is argued that with these notions, one would be better placed to explain the curious status of joint productions as at once collaborative and yet at the same time potentially transformative or even subversive. The overriding goal is conceptual clarification of this field, which hopefully will help place further research on firmer ground.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00035.luk
2021-04-19
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” InProsody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, ed. byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 57–100. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, M. M.
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. byMichael Holquist. Trans. byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blöndal, Þórunn
    2015 “Where Grammar Meets Interaction: Collaborative Production of Syntactic Constructions in Icelandic Conversation.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/438
  4. Bolden, Galina B.
    2010 “‘Articulating the Unsaid’ via And-Prefaced Formulations of Others’ Talk.” Discourse Studies12 (1): 5–32. doi:  10.1177/1461445609346770
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609346770 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolden, Galina B., Alexa Hepburn, and Jonathan Potter
    2019 “Subversive Completions: Turn-Taking Resources for Commandeering the Recipient’s Action in Progress.” Research on Language and Social Interaction52 (2): 144–58. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2019.1608096
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608096 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chao, Yuen Ren
    1968A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 ““Incrementing” in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics17 (4): 513–52. doi:  10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  8. Crystal, David, and Derek Davy
    1975Advanced Conversational English. 1st ed.Applied Linguistics and Language Study. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fang, Mei 方梅
    2012 “Huihua jiegou yu lianci de fuxianyi” 會話結構與連詞的浮現義 [Discourse structure and emergent meaning of conjunctions]. Zhongguo yuwen中國語文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 6 (351): 500–508.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson
    1996 “Resources and Repair: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Syntax and Repair.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185–237. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodwin, Charles
    1981Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Language, Thought, and Culture: Advances in the Study of Cognition. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Matt Purver, Gregory James Mills, Ronnie Cann, Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Patrick G. T. Healey
    2011 “Incrementality and Intention-Recognition in Utterance Processing.” Dialogue & Discourse2 (1): 199–233. doi: 10.5087/d&d.v2i1.363
    https://doi.org/10.5087/d&d.v2i1.363 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamston, Julie
    2006 “Bakhtin’s Theory of Dialogue: A Construct for Pedagogy, Methodology and Analysis.” The Australian Educational Researcher33 (1): 55–74. doi:  10.1007/BF03246281
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03246281 [Google Scholar]
  14. Haugh, Michael, and Yasuko Obana
    2015 “Transformative Continuations, (Dis)Affiliation, and Accountability in Japanese Interaction.” Text & Talk35 (5): 597–619. doi:  10.1515/text‑2015‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0015 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hayashi, Makoto
    1999 “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: A Study of Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation.” Human Studies22 (2): 475–99. doi:  10.1023/A:1005492027060
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005492027060 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003aJoint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Studies in Discourse and Grammar 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/sidag.12. 10.1075/sidag.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2003b “Language and the Body as Resources for Collaborative Action: A Study of Word Searches in Japanese Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36 (2): 109–41. doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2005 “Joint Turn Construction through Language and the Body: Notes on Embodiment in Coordinated Participation in Situated Activities.” Semiotica1/4 (2005) (156): 21–53. doi:  10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hayashi, Makoto, and Junko Mori
    1998 “Co-Construction in Japanese Revisited: We Do “Finish Each Other’s Sentences”.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics7: 77–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. doi:  10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  21. Howes, Christine, Matthew Purver, Patrick G. T. Healey, Gregory Mills, and Eleni Gregoromichelaki
    2011 “On Incrementality in Dialogue: Evidence from Compound Contributions.” Dialogue & Discourse2 (1): 279–311–311. doi: 10.5087/d&d.v2i1.362
    https://doi.org/10.5087/d&d.v2i1.362 [Google Scholar]
  22. Iwasaki, Shimako
    2009 “Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action.” Discourse Processes46 (2–3): 226–46. doi:  10.1080/01638530902728918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ju, Hee
    2011 “Collaborative Unit Construction in Korean: Pivot Turns.” Crossroads of Language, Interaction and Culture8 (1): 33–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, Haeyeon
    2002 “Collaborative Turn Completion in Korean Conversation.” Language Research38 (4): 1281–1316.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, Kyu-Hyun
    1999 “Phrasal Unit Boundaries and Organization of Turns and Sequences in Korean Conversation.” Human Studies22 (2): 425–46. doi:  10.1023/A:1005431826151
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005431826151 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, Gene H.
    1987 “Collaborative Turn Sequences: Sentence Construction and Social Action.” PhD diss., Irvine: University of California, Irvine.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society20 (3): 441–58. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1992 “Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology15 (3): 247–71. doi:  10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1993 “Collectivities in Action: Establishing the Relevance of Conjoined Participation in Conversation.” Text & Talk13 (2): 213–46. doi:  10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1996a “On the “Semi-Permeable” Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–76. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1996b “Finding “Face” in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction on JSTOR.” Social Psychology Quarterly59 (4): 303–21. doi:  10.2307/2787073
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2002 “Turn Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. byCecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–56. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2004a “Collaborative Turn Sequences.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 225–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.125. 10.1075/pbns.125.12ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler [Google Scholar]
  34. 2004b “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 151–84. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lerner, Gene H., and Tomoyo Takagi
    1999 “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: A Co-Investigation of English and Japanese Grammatical Practices.” Journal of Pragmatics31 (1): 49–75. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00051‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Local, John
    2005 “On the Interactional and Phonetic Design of Collaborative Completions.” InA Figure of Speech: A Festschrift for John Laver, ed. byWilliam J. Hardcastle and Janet Mackenzie Beck, 1st ed.Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mandelbaum, Jennifer
    1987 “Couples Sharing Stories.” Communication Quarterly35 (2): 144–70. doi:  10.1080/01463378709369678
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378709369678 [Google Scholar]
  38. Obana, Yasuko, and Michael Haugh
    2015 “Co-Authorship of Joint Utterances in Japanese.” Dialogue and Discourse6 (1): 1–25. 10.5087/dad.2015.101
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2015.101 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra A. Thompson
    1995 “What Can Conversation Tell Us About Syntax?” InAlternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, ed. byPhilip W. Davis, 213–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027276315-cilt.102.07ono10.1075/cilt.102.07ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.07ono [Google Scholar]
  40. Park-Fuller, Linda M.
    1986 “Voices: Bakhtin’s Heteroglossia and Polyphony, and the Performance of Narrative Literature.” Literature in Performance7 (1): 1–12. doi:  10.1080/10462938609391621
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10462938609391621 [Google Scholar]
  41. Persson, Rasmus
    2017 “Fill-in-the-Blank Questions in Interaction: Incomplete Utterances as a Resource for Doing Inquiries.” Research on Language and Social Interaction50 (3): 227–48. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2017.1340698
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1340698 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey
    1986 “Some Considerations of a Story Told in Ordinary Conversations.” Poetics15 (1): 127–38. doi:  10.1016/0304‑422X(86)90036‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(86)90036-7 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1995Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I & II. Ed. byGail Jefferson, with an introduction byEmanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell. First published as two volumes 1992. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi:  10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1995 “Parties and Talking Together: Two Ways in Which Numbers Are Significant for Talk-in-Interaction.” InSituated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, ed. byPaul ten Have and George Psathas, 31–42. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. 1997 “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Processes23 (3): 499–545. doi:  10.1080/01638539709545001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2000 “On Turn’s Possible Completion, More or Less: Increments and Trailoffs.” Paper presented at the1st EuroConference on Interactional Linguistics, Spa, Belgium, September 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2016 “Increments.” InAccountability in Social Interaction, ed. byJeffrey D. Robinson, 239–63. Foundations of Human Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sert, Olcay
    2019 “The Interplay between Collaborative Turn Sequences and Active Listenership: Implications for the Development of L2 Interactional Competence.” InTeaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice, ed. byM. Rafael Salaberry and Silvia Kunitz, 142–66. New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315177021‑6
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-6 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sidnell, Jack
    2012 “Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other.” Discourse Processes49 (3–4): 314–37. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2012.654760
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.654760 [Google Scholar]
  53. Szatrowski, Polly
    2002 “Syntactic Projectability and Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society28 (1): 315–25. doi:  10.3765/bls.v28i1.3847
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v28i1.3847 [Google Scholar]
  54. Szczepek, Beatrice
    2000a “Formal Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures17 (June). www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/17/inlist17.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2000b “Functional Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures21 (December). www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/21/inlist21.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tanaka, Hiroko
    1999Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.5610.1075/pbns.56
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.56 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2000 “Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (1): 1–38. doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  58. Tholander, Michael, and Karin Aronsson
    2002 “Teasing as Serious Business: Collaborative Staging and Response Work.” Text: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse22 (4): 559–95. doi:  10.1515/text.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhang, Wei, and Xin Peng
    2020 “Compound Units in Conversation: Projection and Anticipatory Completion.” InInteractional Linguistics and Chinese Language Studies, ed. byMei Fang and Xianyin Li, 3:132–56. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00035.luk
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error