1887
Volume 35, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines multi-unit turns that allow speakers to retrospectively close the prior sequence while prospectively launching a new sequence, which Schegloff (1986) referred to as interlocking organization. Using English telephone conversations as data, we focus on how multi-unit turns are used for topic shifts, and show that interlocking organization operates in conjunction with other phonetic and lexical features, such as increased pitch and overt markers of disjunction (e.g., “listen”). In addition, speakers utilize an audible inbreath that is placed between the first and the second units as a central interactional resource to project further talk, thereby suppressing speaker transition and possibly highlighting the action delivered in the second unit as being distinctly new. We propose that interlocking multi-unit turns, when used to make topically disjunctive moves, promote progressivity by avoiding a possible lapse in turn transition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22052.par
2023-10-19
2025-02-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage
    1984Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
    2022 “Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program].” Version 6.2.05. AccessedJanuary 5, 2022. www.praat.org/
  3. Bolden, Galina
    2006 “Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Communication56 (4): 661–688. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Button, Graham, and Niel Casey
    1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1988 “Topic Initiation: Business-at-Hand.” Research on Language and Social Interaction221, 61–92. 10.1080/08351818809389298
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818809389298 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, Steven E., and Chase Wesley Raymond
    2015 “Modular Pivots: A Resource for Extending Turns at Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (4): 388–405. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1090112
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090112 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clift, Rebecca
    2016Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2004 “Prosody and Sequence Organization: The Case of New Beginnings.” InSound Patterns in Interaction, edited byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.17cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.17cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt
    1995 “Idiomatic Expressions and Their Role in the Organization of Topic Transition in Conversation.” InIdioms, Structural and Psychological Perspectives, edited byMartin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, Andr Schenk, Rob Schreuder, and Robert Schreuder, 117–132. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Elvira-García, Wendy, and Paolo Roseano
    2014 “Create Pictures with Tiers.” Praat Script. AccessedJanuary 5, 2022. stel.ub.edu/labfon/en/praat-scripts
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, Erving
    1971Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1978 “Response Cries.” Language541: 787–815. 10.2307/413235
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413235 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, Charles
    1996 “Transparent Vision.” InInteraction and Grammar, edited byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin
    1986 “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica621: 51–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited byAlessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2002 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, edited byCecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in References to Persons (and Places).” InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, edited byN. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015 “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics881: 88–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holt, Elizabeth, and Paul Drew
    2005 “Figurative Pivots: The Use of Figurative Expressions in Pivotal Topic Transitions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (1): 35–61. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoey, Elliott M.
    2020When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190947651.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947651.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefferson, Gail
    1981 “ʻCaveat Speakerʼ: A Preliminary Exploration of Shift Implicative Recipiency in the Articulation of Topic.” Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1983 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ʻYeahʼ and ʻMm Hmʼ.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature301: 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriate Next-Positioned Matters.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction26 (1): 1–30. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kendrick, Kobin H.
    2015 “The Intersection of Turn-Taking and Repair: The Timing of Other-Initiations of Repair in Conversation.” Frontiers in Psychology61. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250 [Google Scholar]
  27. Local, John, and John Kelly
    1986 “Projection and ‘Silences’: Notes on Phonetic and Conversational Structure.” Human Studies91: 185–204. 10.1007/BF00148126
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148126 [Google Scholar]
  28. Local, John, and Gareth Walker
    2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (8): 1375–1403. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2005 “‘Mind the Gap’: Further Resources in the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” York Papers in Linguistics2 (3): 133–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2012 “How Phonetic Features Project More Talk.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association42 (3): 255–280. 10.1017/S0025100312000187
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100312000187 [Google Scholar]
  31. Maynard, Douglas W.
    1980 “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica30 (3/4): 263–290. 10.1515/semi.1980.30.3‑4.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes
    2001 “Dutch ‘But’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, edited byMargret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.08maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz [Google Scholar]
  33. Park, Innhwa
    2010 “Marking an Impasse: The Use of Anyway as a Sequence-Closing Device.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (12): 3283–3299. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies91: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  35. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68 (6): 939–967. 10.1177/000312240306800607
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800607 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 185–218. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, Harvey
    1974 “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” InExplorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited byRichard Bauman, and Joel Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1992Lectures on Conversation, VolumeII1. MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” InStudies in Social Interaction, edited byDavid Sudnow, 75–119. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 1979 “The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, edited byTalmy Givon, 261–288. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_012 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 104–152. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  42. 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited byDeborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies91: 111–151. 10.1007/BF00148124
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148124 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50 (2): 101–114. 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1990 “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction.” InConversational Organization and its Development, edited byBruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, editedElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica81: 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schulze-Wenck, Stephanie
    2005 “Form and Function of ‘First Verbs’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk- In-Interaction, edited byAuli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 319–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/sidag.17.16sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.16sch [Google Scholar]
  50. Selting, Margret
    1996 “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-Constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” Pragmatics6 (3): 371–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidnell, Jack
    2007 “‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies9 (3): 387–408. 10.1177/1461445607076204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076204 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
    (eds.) 2012The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. 10.1002/9781118325001
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society35 (3): 367–392. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ten Bosch, Louis, Nelleke Oostdijk, and Lou Boves
    2005 “On Temporal Aspects of Turn Taking in Conversational Dialogues.” Speech Communication47 (1): 80–86. 10.1016/j.specom.2005.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  55. Walker, Gareth
    2007 “On the Design and Use of Pivots in Everyday English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 2217–2243. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2010 “The Phonetic Constitution of a Turn-Holding Practice: Rush-Throughs in English Talk-In-Interaction.” InProsody in Interaction, edited byDagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 51–72. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/sidag.23.08wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.08wal [Google Scholar]
  57. 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch22
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2017 “Visual Representations of Acoustic Data: A Survey and Suggestions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction50 (4): 363–387. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1375802
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1375802 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wright, Melissa
    2011 “The Phonetics-Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (3): 1080–1099. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.004 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22052.par
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22052.par
Loading

Data & Media 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