The use of interlocking multi-unit turns in topic shifts
This paper examines multi-unit turns that allow speakers to retrospectively close the prior sequence while prospectively launching a new sequence, which Schegloff (1986) 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111–151. 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.
Publication history
1.Introduction
This study examines multi-unit turns that allow speakers to retrospectively close the prior sequence while prospectively launching a new sequence, which Schegloff (1986) 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111–151. referred to as interlocking organization. In particular, we focus on how speakers use such multi-unit turns for topic management. According to Schegloff (1986 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111–151. , 131), “In ‘interlocking organization,’ some turns have two (or sometimes three) components, combining in the same turn the last part (the second pair part of an adjacency pair or a sequence-closing third) of one sequence and the first part of a next sequence”. Based on the analysis of telephone conversations, Schegloff identified opening sequences as a home environment for interlocking organization, as shown in Extract 1. In line 3, Nancy combines the last part of the greeting sequence, Oh: ‘I:::, and the first part of the “how-are-you” sequence, ‘ow a:re you Emmah:, in the same turn.
NB.II.2
01 Emm: .hh HI::. 02 (.) 03 Nan: -> Oh: 'I::: 'ow a:re you Emmah: 04 Emm: FI:NE yer LINE’S BEEN BUSY.
In a later study, Wright (2011)Wright, Melissa 2011 “The Phonetics-Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 1080–1099. found that interlocking organization was also utilized in closing sequences; speakers use multi-unit turns to transition from on-topic talk to a sequence-closing sequence (Schegloff 2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , Chapter 9; Schegloff and Sacks 1973Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks 1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327. ). Wright (2011)Wright, Melissa 2011 “The Phonetics-Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 1080–1099. referred to these turns (e.g., “yes + okay then”) as multi-unit sequence transition turns, and observed that these turns were produced with systematic phonetic patterns such as the following: The first unit exhibits a lower pitch, a narrower pitch span, and a lower amplitude in comparison to the second unit, in which the first syllable is marked by a step-up in pitch. Finally, she noted that an audible alveolar or bilabial click routinely occurred between the first and second units.
Building on these findings concerning interlocking organization in conversational openings and closings (Schegloff 1986 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111–151. ; Wright 2011Wright, Melissa 2011 “The Phonetics-Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 1080–1099. ; see also Goffman 1971Goffman, Erving 1971 Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books., 145–146), we examine how interlocking multi-unit turns are used in the body of a conversation for topic management practices, such as topic shift and resumption. Using English telephone conversations as data, we demonstrate that interlocking organization allows speakers to complete a responsive action and an initiating action within a single turn when there is a topical disjunction, often in the context of topic attrition. In addition to utilizing lexical and phonetic resources to mark the disjunction, speakers place an audible inbreath between the first and the second units to suppress speaker transition and to make the new action recognizable to the recipient.
1.1Multi-unit turns
Given the structural constraint on single-unit turns in ordinary conversation, holding the floor beyond a projected transition relevance place at the possible completion of a single unit typically requires additional interactional work (Schegloff 1982 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press., 1987 1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 101–114. ). The work entailed in constructing a multi-unit turn can be accomplished by projecting talk beyond an initial turn-constructional unit (TCU) before its possible completion, or by preempting speaker transition at the point of possible completion.
An early projection of a multi-unit turn can be achieved through a number of practices, such as a pre-pre (Schegloff 1980 1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 104–152. ), a story preface (Sacks 1974Sacks, Harvey 1974 “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by Richard Bauman, and Joel Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), list-initiating markers (Schegloff 1982 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.), prospective indexicals (Goodwin 1996Goodwin, Charles 1996 “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ), and “first verbs” (Sacks 1992 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume II. MA: Blackwell.; Schulze-Wenck 2005Schulze-Wenck, Stephanie 2005 “Form and Function of ‘First Verbs’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk- In-Interaction, edited by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 319–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. ). These practices provide a more “global,” discourse-pragmatic projection of the multi-unit turn alerting the listener to what is to come and when the turn could reach possible completion. For example, the use of a pre-pre, such as Can I ask you a question?, projects a possible completion of the current multi-unit turn and a possible transition to a next speaker following a go-ahead response and the delivery of the announced question (Schegloff 1980 1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 104–152. ). Similarly, list-initiating markers, such as “first of all,” project a possible completion of the turn upon the completion of the introduced series of TCUs (Schegloff 1982 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.). Furthermore, prospective indexicals (Goodwin 1996Goodwin, Charles 1996 “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ) and “first verbs” (Sacks 1992 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume II. MA: Blackwell.) project possible completion after the reference terms, phrases, or verbs introduced in the initial TCU have been clarified in the subsequent TCU(s).
If a multi-unit turn has not been projected prior to the possible completion of the initial TCU, speakers can employ practices that are more localized for holding the floor beyond the imminent point of possible completion. These practices generally entail work in terms of the phonetic constitution of the turn (Local and Walker 2012 2012 “How Phonetic Features Project More Talk.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42 (3): 255–280. ; Walker 2010 2010 “The Phonetic Constitution of a Turn-Holding Practice: Rush-Throughs in English Talk-In-Interaction.” In Prosody in Interaction, edited by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 51–72. John Benjamins Publishing. ). For example, speakers can maintain a level pitch accent at the possible completion point of their TCU, thus marking their turn as prosodically incomplete and on-going (Selting 1996Selting, Margret 1996 “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-Constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” Pragmatics 6 (3): 371–388.).11. Selting’s (1996)Selting, Margret 1996 “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-Constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” Pragmatics 6 (3): 371–388. findings are based on the examination of a variety of North-Western Standard German; thus, they may not be applicable to other varieties/languages. Speakers can also preempt turn transition at the possible completion point via a rush-through (Schegloff 1982 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press., 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ), which involves: (1) a temporal compression or speeding-up at the final stressed syllable of the first TCU, (2) a continued vocal fold vibration between the two TCUs when voiced sounds occur at the end of the first TCU and the beginning of the second TCU, and (3) articulatory anticipation of the initial sounds of the second TCU (Walker 2010 2010 “The Phonetic Constitution of a Turn-Holding Practice: Rush-Throughs in English Talk-In-Interaction.” In Prosody in Interaction, edited by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 51–72. John Benjamins Publishing. ). Similarly, speakers can hold the floor beyond the possible point of completion with an abrupt-join which, together with temporal compression and minimized space between the two TCUs, also involves a step-up in pitch and volume from the last syllable of the first TCU to the first stressed syllable of the next TCU (Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. ). While both the rush-through and the abrupt-join allow the speaker to hold the floor beyond the point of possible completion by minimizing the gap between the two TCUs, the abrupt-join also helps to mark the action in the second TCU as being a new action that is distinct from the action in the first TCU. Finally, speakers can also accomplish a continuation of talk past the possible completion of a TCU via a (modular) pivot, a piece of talk that can simultaneously constitute the possible end of the first grammatical unit and the possible beginning of the next grammatical unit (Clayman and Raymond 2015Clayman, Steven E., and Chase Wesley Raymond 2015 “Modular Pivots: A Resource for Extending Turns at Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (4): 388–405. ; Schegloff 1979 1979 “The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, edited by Talmy Givon, 261–288. New York: Academic Press. ; Walker 2007Walker, Gareth 2007 “On the Design and Use of Pivots in Everyday English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2217–2243. ). A pivotal transition is characterized by an intonational and articulatory seamlessness between the pivot and the surrounding talk without any aspiration or silence (Walker 2007Walker, Gareth 2007 “On the Design and Use of Pivots in Everyday English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2217–2243. ). The end of a pivot, namely the end of a first unit, is marked by continued voicing and/or the merging of speech sounds, and is devoid of a terminal pitch contour that indicates transition relevance (Clayman and Raymond 2015Clayman, Steven E., and Chase Wesley Raymond 2015 “Modular Pivots: A Resource for Extending Turns at Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (4): 388–405. ; Walker 2007Walker, Gareth 2007 “On the Design and Use of Pivots in Everyday English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2217–2243. , 2010 2010 “The Phonetic Constitution of a Turn-Holding Practice: Rush-Throughs in English Talk-In-Interaction.” In Prosody in Interaction, edited by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 51–72. John Benjamins Publishing. ). Thus, the use of a (modular) pivot obscures the transition space between TCUs. Contributing to this line of scholarship, we investigate additional practices that are used to construct multi-unit, multi-action turns (Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. , 2005), particularly with regard to topic management. We show that, rather than compressing the space between adjacent TCUs, the participants create a temporal distance between them while utilizing an audible inbreath to suppress speaker transition.
1.2Topic management
From a conversation analytic perspective, topicality22.See Schegloff (1990) 1990 “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Development, edited by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co. for discussion about the problematic nature of the term “topic” as understood as a semantic theme. In this study, we use the term topic to refer to an aspect of sequence organization that consists of coherent courses of action (Schegloff 2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ). not only refers to the content of the talk, but also concerns the turn-by-turn procedures whereby participants display their understanding of the prior turn and produce a relevant next turn (Maynard 1980Maynard, Douglas W. 1980 “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica 30 (3/4): 263–290. ). In other words, topicality is achieved when the participants align with the topic management practices (such as topic shift) that were conveyed in the prior turn (Button and Casey 1984Button, Graham, and Niel Casey 1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Jefferson 1993 1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (1): 1–30. ; Schegloff and Sacks 1973Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks 1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327. ).
As Sacks (1992 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume II. MA: Blackwell., 566) observed, participants routinely manage topic talk sequences in stepwise progression, “not by a topic close followed by a topic beginning”. Jefferson (1984 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriate Next-Positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 198–204) examined how such a stepwise progression unfolds in a troubles-telling sequence as the participants link two topics with turns that are related to both, while Holt and Drew (2005)Holt, Elizabeth, and Paul Drew 2005 “Figurative Pivots: The Use of Figurative Expressions in Pivotal Topic Transitions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (1): 35–61. considered how figurative expressions help to bridge two topics of talk as the participants move from one topic to another. By contrast, it has also been observed that participants make disjunctives moves, particularly in sequential environments that involve openings or closings (Button and Casey 1984Button, Graham, and Niel Casey 1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Jefferson 1984 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriate Next-Positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), or when speaker transitions have failed, thus resulting in a series of silences (Maynard 1980Maynard, Douglas W. 1980 “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica 30 (3/4): 263–290. ). Such disjunctive topic management moves include topic initial elicitors (e.g., “Anything else to report?”; Button and Casey 1984Button, Graham, and Niel Casey 1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), entry to closings (e.g., “I’ll see you Tuesday”; Jefferson 1984 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriate Next-Positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), and alternative formulations of an object or an activity (Maynard 1980Maynard, Douglas W. 1980 “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica 30 (3/4): 263–290. ; Schegloff 1972Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, edited by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: Free Press., 80).
In this study, we propose that interlocking multi-unit turns, when used to make topically disjunctive moves, promote progressivity by avoiding a possible lapse in turn transition. They allow the participants to convey their retrospective and prospective orientation within a single turn as they close the previous sequence and open a new one. These multi-unit turns are accompanied by overt markers of topical disjunctures, such as lexical items (e.g., “listen”; Sidnell 2007Sidnell, Jack 2007 “ ‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 387–408. ), and display phonetic features such as increased pitch and loudness at the start of the second TCU. In addition, we identify an audible inbreath placed between the first and the second TCUs as being a central interactional resource that is used to project further talk and to hold the floor. Based on a phonetic analysis, Walker (2012 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. , 463–464) suggested that an inbreath may deter a co-participant from taking the next turn by being produced as closely as possible to the end of the preceding TCU and the beginning of the next TCU. He noted that the inbreath was produced without initial or final glottal closure, and with high energy that resulted in distinctive loudness. In line with Walker’s (2012) 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. observation, we show that speakers place the audible inbreath, a pre-beginning element that projects the next TCU (Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ), immediately after the first TCU to suppress speaker transition between TCUs that perform distinct actions. In addition, we propose that the inbreath creates a temporal distance, which functions to mark a disjunction between the two units of talk.
2.Data and method
This study draws on a corpus of American and British English telephone conversations33.The corpus (including audio recordings and transcripts) was assembled and provided for the 2017 Summer Institute for Advanced Conversation Analysis by the instructors. It includes the Newport Beach, the Santa Barbara Ladies, and the Holt calls. in which a total of twenty-six participants engaged in twenty-four telephone calls. The analysis was conducted within the conversation analytic framework (for a detailed review, see Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.; see also Clift 2016Clift, Rebecca 2016 Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Sidnell and Stivers 2012Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.) 2012 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. ). The initial analysis was conducted as part of a larger project examining multi-unit turns. After identifying sequences with multi-unit turns in the corpus, we conducted a line-by-line analysis, and examined the composition of each turn together with its position in the larger sequence (Schegloff 2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ). In the initial analysis, we observed that the participants use multi-unit turns for various topic management practices. We then narrowed the focus to the multi-unit turns used in topical junctures. The analysis of each extract in the collection was guided by the question “why that now?” to examine the participants’ in situ orientations (Schegloff and Sacks 1973Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks 1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327. , 299). This second round of analysis yielded our findings regarding the target interactional practice, namely multi-unit turns that perform the two distinct actions of closing the prior sequence and launching a new sequence.
In addition, we applied a combination of auditory and acoustic phonetic analyses to the data. Due to the audio quality of the data, we were not able to rely fully on acoustic phonetic analyses, particularly for information regarding shifts in intensity. Thus, we also drew on auditory analyses (Walker 2012 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. ) – repeated and careful listening to audio recordings – when describing the design of the inbreath. We provide visual representations including a labeled sound wave form, spectrogram, extracted intensity, and fundamental frequency contours, which support the auditory analysis of shifts in loudness and pitch. For the illustrations, we used a phonetic annotation tool (Praat; Boersma and Weenink 2022Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink 2022 “Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program].” Version 6.2.05. Accessed January 5, 2022. http://www.praat.org/) and a Praat script developed by Elvira-García and Roseano (2014)Elvira-García, Wendy, and Paolo Roseano 2014 “Create Pictures with Tiers.” Praat Script. Accessed January 5, 2022. http://stel.ub.edu/labfon/en/praat-scripts. We modified the script in order to add the intensity curve. As our signals were somewhat noisy, we increased the silence threshold for pitch extraction from the default 0.03 to 0.15. We identified a total of twenty-seven instances, of which four representative instances (Extracts 3–6) are analyzed below.
3.Analysis
In this section, we examine how interlocking organization allows speakers to produce a responsive action and an initiating action within a single multi-unit turn. Immediately after closing the previous sequence, the speaker takes an audible inbreath and launches a new sequence. Our target practice contrasts with a topic shift that occurs across different turns, as shown in Extract 2. At the beginning of the extract, Shirley’s telling of a mutual friend’s mother who is terminally ill comes to a close, and silences ensue (Maynard 1980Maynard, Douglas W. 1980 “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica 30 (3/4): 263–290. ).
Geri & Shirley
01 Shi: Yihknow why: fer three years sh’d she be miserable. .t.hh 02 when she c’n have a few months of reasonable (.) 03 contentment. 04 (1.2) 05 Shi: You know, 06 Ger: We:ll, (0.3) 07 Shi: -> Y’know I teh- anyway it’s a hunk a’ shit goes on I don’ 08 -> haftih tell you. 09 -> (0.7) 10 Shi: -> .hmhhhh.t.hhhhhh BU::::T?hhh SO HOW’R YOU:? 11 Ger: .t.hhh I’m oka:::y? 12 Shi: What’s new, 13 Ger: We::ll? .t lemme see las’ ni:ght, I had the girls ove[r? 14 Shi: [Yea:h?
In lines 7–8, Shirley’s idiomatic summary (Drew and Holt 1995Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt 1995 “Idiomatic Expressions and Their Role in the Organization of Topic Transition in Conversation.” In Idioms, Structural and Psychological Perspectives, edited by Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, Andr Schenk, Rob Schreuder, and Robert Schreuder, 117–132. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.), which treats the previous telling sequence as complete (Goodwin and Goodwin 1992Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin 1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Hoey 2020Hoey, Elliott M. 2020 When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ), provides an occasion for the recipient to align with or to resist her move toward sequence closing. Geri’s lack of uptake results in yet another silence in line 9 in addition to the preceding silences in lines 4 and 6. Following the 0.7-second silence44.See Hoey (2020)Hoey, Elliott M. 2020 When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. for a justification of the use of the 500 ms of silence as an estimated lower limit for turn taking, whether via self-selection or other-nomination; the justification is based on quantitative studies of turn timing, such as the work of ten Bosch, Oostdijk and Boves (2005)Ten Bosch, Louis, Nelleke Oostdijk, and Lou Boves 2005 “On Temporal Aspects of Turn Taking in Conversational Dialogues.” Speech Communication 47 (1): 80–86. , and Kendrick (2015)Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015 “The Intersection of Turn-Taking and Repair: The Timing of Other-Initiations of Repair in Conversation.” Frontiers in Psychology 6. . (line 9), Shirley self-selects to speak next (line 10); she takes an audible inbreath, produces a lexical marker of disjunction, BU::::T?hhh (Mazeland and Huiskes 2001Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes 2001 “Dutch ‘But’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ),55. Mazeland and Huiskes’ (2001)Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes 2001 “Dutch ‘But’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. findings are based on the examination of Dutch; thus, they may not be applicable to other languages. and employs a so-prefaced topic initial elicitor, SO HOW’R YOU:? (Bolden 2006Bolden, Galina 2006 “Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Communication 56 (4): 661–688. ; Button and Casey 1984Button, Graham, and Niel Casey 1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). Here, both participants pass an opportunity to speak at the end of the telling sequence, yielding a silence, before the current speaker takes the next turn to launch a new sequence.
By contrast, our target practice concerns sequences in which the speaker closes the current sequence and opens the next one within a single turn (i.e., without detaching the two sequences through silence). The target multi-unit turn takes the following format: Closing-implicative TCU (e.g., sequence-closing third) + audible inbreath + (disjunction marker-prefaced) TCU. The second TCU also displays distinct phonetic features, such as a high-pitch onset.
3.1Topic shift
In Extracts 3–6, the speakers utilize interlocking organization for topic shifts, often in the context of topic attrition (Jefferson 1981Jefferson, 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/). They acknowledge the prior talk, bring the sequence to an end, and proceed to initiate a new topic (Extracts 3–5), or resume previously interrupted topic talk (Extract 6). The multi-unit turns used for topic shifts not only include an audible inbreath placed between the first and the second TCUs, but also display additional lexical and phonetic features that mark topical disjunctures. In all the cases, we found that the target interlocking multi-unit turns are used at topical and sequential boundaries.
Extracts 3 to 5 illustrate the use of an interlocking multi-unit turn in a topic attrition environment, in which neither participant adds anything significant to the sequence (Jefferson 1981Jefferson, 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/). Extract 3 is taken from a conversation between two friends, Geri and Shirley. Prior to the conversation shown below, Geri had been discussing her difficult week. In lines 1–2, she frames the week as “her worst week in her whole academic life”. This extreme case formulation (Pomerantz 1986Pomerantz, Anita 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies 9: 219–229. ), which marks the climax of her story, is responded to by laughter from Shirley (line 3). Following Shirley’s elicitation of further talk (lines 6 and 8), Geri reiterates the upshot of her difficult week (lines 11–12). In line 13, Shirley responds with an acknowledgment. Subsequently, while Geri projects some more talk with an audible inbreath and So (line 14; Raymond 2004 2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 185–218. ), the topic talk trails off as Geri no longer adds anything new to her telling, and Shirley does not provide any more substantial responses. In lines 15–16, the target topic shift occurs.
Geri & Shirley
01 Ger: That one week hadtih be, the worst week in my,h (0.2) 02 whole academic li:[fe. 03 Shi: [AH-HA-HA-HA-HA: HA-HA[ha, 04 Ger: [s:stud[ent. 05 Shi: [.khhhh 06 Shi: [Rilly. 07 Ger: [et Cal State Northridge. 08 Shi: Rilly, 09 Ger: It wa:s. 10 Shi: [I believe you. ] 11 Ger: [I mean there wa]sn’t nuh- anything thet didn’t happen. 12 thet could’v happened. 13 Shi: Right, 14 Ger: .hhh (0.3) So, 15 Shi: -> Ah’m not suhprized. .hh Listen, u- something very very: 16 cute happened las’night et the Warehouse. 17 (.) 18 Ger: Wha[t 19 Shi: [.hhhhh YihKNOW Cathy, (.) Larry Taylor’s ex girlfriend,
In line 15, Shirley recompletes the prior telling sequence with an assessment, Ah’m not suhprized, and conveys the same type of stance that she displayed previously toward Geri’s telling via I believe you (line 10) and right (line 13). That is, Shirley produces a backward-looking action that brings Geri’s previous telling sequence to another possible close while displaying disinterest in developing the topic further by repeating the same responsive action (Hoey 2020Hoey, Elliott M. 2020 When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 66–94; Jefferson 1981Jefferson, 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/). Shirley then immediately produces an audible inbreath (0.37 seconds) to project more talk and suppresses an opportunity for Geri to speak. The intensity curve in Figure 1 66.Each figure shows the sound wave form at the top (time in seconds) with its extracted intensity contour (thin black line), the spectrogram below (0–5kHz) with a pitch trace (thick black line), and a literal transcript of the speaker(s) at the bottom. The F0 is shown on a logarithmic scale (cf. Walker 2017 2017 “Visual Representations of Acoustic Data: A Survey and Suggestions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (4): 363–387. ). shows that the signal during the inbreath .hh is at the same energy level as the preceding words, indicating its perceived loudness. This is followed by a lexical item “listen”, a marker of disjunctive shift (Sidnell 2007Sidnell, Jack 2007 “ ‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 387–408. ), which is produced with an increased pitch. According to Figure 1, the first syllable of the word is produced with a pitch above 250Hz, an increase compared to her pitch range of around 120Hz during the previous TCU. Subsequently, she produces a story preface (Sacks 1974Sacks, Harvey 1974 “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by Richard Bauman, and Joel Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), something very very: cute happened las’night et the Warehouse (lines 15–16), and initiates a new topic. That is, Shirley accomplishes a topic shift within a single turn by projecting further talk at the TCU boundary and detaching the next unit of talk from the prior via various interactional resources such as a temporal separation created by an audible inbreath, a lexical marker, and increased pitch.
In Extract 4, the speaker uses an interlocking multi-unit turn to produce a shift following a post-expansion sequence (Schegloff 2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 115–168). The example is taken from a conversation between two nuns, Jen and Ann. In lines 1–7, Jen’s telling sequence regarding her mission program comes to a close. Jen produces an upshot that she would like to keep the mission program as it is and wants other people to know about it, while Ann conveys “passive recipiency” (Jefferson 1983 1983 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ʻYeahʼ and ʻMm Hmʼ.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 30: 1–18.) by producing the continuers Mm hm (lines 4, 6, and 8). Subsequently, as Jen does not develop the topic and Ann does not assume speakership, a 1.2-second silence ensues and the conversation lapses (Hoey 2020Hoey, Elliott M. 2020 When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ).
Call Home 4705
01 Jen: But I sa- uh but anyway I would like to still keep that. 02 (0.6) 03 Jen: a- and not change that with Jac[kie. And I= 04 Ann: [Mm hm 05 Jen: =think [it may might be im- it would be important that= 06 Ann: [Mm hm 07 Jen: =people knew that. 08 Ann: Mm hm, 09 (1.2) 10 Ann: ((lip smack)) Oh this is grea:t. 11 (0.5) 12 Jen: WELL. I mean it is great for me:.=I’m I’m u:sing your pho:ne 13 [call ] here.= 14 Ann: [Uh huh] 15 Ann: =W’l [I’m deli:ghted. 16 Jen: [ehh 17 Jen: -> Oh: great. .hhh W’l ↑just tell me a ↑little bit about your 18 apostolate cause you said to me in your in your letter 19 now pray for my apostolate too. .h Do you mean (.) with 20 the girls. 21 Ann: .hh Well basically in the college.
In line 10, Ann produces a summative assessment, Oh this is grea:t, and recompletes Jen’s prior telling sequence. While the target of Ann’s assessment is seemingly ambiguous, Jen treats it as being the telephone phone call itself by topicalizing it and showing her own appreciation of receiving Ann’s call (lines 12–13). In an overlap, Ann produces an acknowledgment and expresses her pleasure (lines 14–15). In line 17, Jen closes the post-expansion sequence with a repeat of an oh-prefaced assessment about the phone call (Heritage 2002 2002 “ Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, edited by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.), Oh: great. Immediately following the sequence-closing third, Jen foreshadows further talk with an audible inbreath (0.57 seconds). As shown in Figure 2, the intensity contour during Jen’s inbreath shows higher energy than surrounding silence, with the second half of the inbreath produced at an increased intensity, corresponding to an increase in perceived loudness. Subsequently, she proceeds to initiate a new topic by inquiring about Ann’s apostolate (lines 17–20). Jen therefore manages to perform two distinct actions within a single turn: She responds to the previous sequence and shifts to a new topic. Note that Jen uses well to alert that the ensuing talk will depart from the previous topic (Heritage 2015 2015 “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104. ). In addition, the high-pitch onset of the lexical item ↑just at around 300–430Hz compared to that of W’l at around 230Hz differentiates the newly initiated unit of talk from the prior one (Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. ). That is, the topic shift is accomplished via interlocking organization, as Jen suppresses speaker transition between the two TCUs with an inbreath while employing a variety of interactional resources that mark the disjunction.
Extract 5 illustrates another example of a shift following a post-expansion sequence, this time from an other-attentive to a self-attentive topic (Schegloff 2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 115–168). Following the prior talk about Leslie’s daughter, who is attending graduate school, Ron asks if Leslie’s son, Gordon, is studying architecture (lines 1, 3). Leslie confirms this, and elaborates by stating that it is a long course of study (line 4). Upon Ron’s acknowledgment, Mm, Leslie expands on the sequence by adding that she hopes Gordon will travel south in the future (lines 6–7). At the beginning of the call, Leslie had shared that she missed Gordon, who had traveled north to attend college (data not shown). Therefore, Leslie’s turn in lines 6–7 is a return to her earlier talk about missing her son, a possible indication of topic exhaustion and a move toward closing (Schegloff and Sacks 1973Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks 1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327. ). In lines 8–9 and 11, Ron agrees with Leslie and acknowledges that both Leslie’s daughter and son have traveled far to study. Subsequently, the target topic shift occurs (lines 12–15).
Field.SO.88(II).2.2
01 Ron: .hh And uh, uh what’s Gordon study[ing. 02 Les: [.hhhhh 03 Ron: architectu[re? 04 Les: [eeYe:s::. which is a long long course, h[h 05 Ron: [Mm 06 Les: .hhh I hope he’ll come Sou:th for the en:d part’v it 07 c’z:[: [.hhh 08 Ron: [Yes they[‘ve cert’nly gone as far 09 (h)aw(hh)ay h[eh 10 Les: [eYe:s I[ kno:w.] e h u h!].hhh .hhhh 11 Ron: [as they]as they c]ou(h)ld 12 Ron: -> Oh dear .hhh Just to bring you up to date with our 13 family uh:m: .t.hh our eldest son u: Shawn u-who lives 14 with iz wife in Taunton, ih he now practices in 15 Bridgewater? 16 (.) 17 Les: eeYe:s,? 18 Ron: .t He transferred from Newt’n Abbott to r-.hhh=
In line 12, Ron first produces an outloud utterance (Goffman 1978 1978 “Response Cries.” Language 54: 787–815. ), Oh dear, which constitutes a sequence-closing assessment. It is not in direct response to Leslie’s prior turn, but it clearly pertains to the prior sequence concerning Leslie’s family (Hoey 2020Hoey, Elliott M. 2020 When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 66–94), namely her daughter and son living far away. Ron then makes a shift from an other-attentive to a self-attentive topic; that is, Ron’s multi-unit turn contains a backward-looking action that acknowledges what has been said about Leslie’s family and treats it as complete, and a forward-looking action that launches a new topic concerning his own family. Note that, as with the previous case, Ron suppresses speaker transition immediately after closing the prior sequence by producing an audible inbreath (0.54 seconds) that projects more talk (see Figure 3). In addition, the first lexical item of the second unit, Just , is marked by increased loudness with a step-up in pitch from around 100Hz to 200Hz as shown in Figure 3. Ron also makes an overt reference to his topic initiation, Just to bring you up to date with our family (lines 12–13), thus explicitly informing Leslie that the following talk will be about his own family. By being placed immediately after the responsive unit, Oh dear, which closes the prior sequence, these interactional resources – the audible inbreath, the increased pitch, and the overt reference to topic initiation – work in concert to indicate that Ron is producing another unit of talk with a shift to a new topic.
A multi-unit turn can also be employed for a shift back to interrupted topic talk. In Extract 6, the speaker utilizes interlocking organization to resume topic talk, which consists of a telling sequence. Extract 6 is taken from a conversation between two friends, Hyla and Nancy. They have been discussing a play that they plan to see together. Following Nancy’s question, How didju hear about it, from the paper? (line 1), Hyla begins to respond but cuts her response off, I sa:w- (line 2). After a brief pause, she relaunches her response, A’right when was: (it)/(this) (line 3). This nonconforming response to a yes/no interrogative (“from the paper?”) indicates that her answer will be a non-straightforward one (Raymond 2003Raymond, Geoffrey 2003 “Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. ). In fact, she makes a time reference, The week before my birthda:y (line 4), and launches a telling sequence.
HG.II
01 Nan: How didju hear about it from the pape[r? 02 Hyl: [.hhhhh I sa:w- 03 (0.4) A’right when was:(it,)/(this,) (0.3) 04 The week before my birthda:[y,] 05 Nan: [Ye]a[:h, 06 Hyl: [I wz looking in the Calendar 07 section en there was u:n, (.) un a:d yihknow a liddle:: u- 08 thi:ng, .hh[hh 09 Nan: [Uh hu:h,= 10 Hyl: =At- th’-th’theater’s called the Met Theater it’s on 11 Point[setta.] 12 Nan: [The Me]:t, 13 (.) 14 Nan: I never heard of i[t. 15 Hyl: -> [I hadn’t either..hhh But anyways, .-en 16 theh the moo- thing wz th’Dark e’th’Top a’th’ Stai[:rs.] 17 Nan: [Mm-h]m[:, 18 Hyl: [En 19 I nearly wen’chhrazy cz I[: I:lo:ve ]that] mo:vie.]
Hyla’s telling is interrupted after she mentions the name of a theater (line 10). Nancy responds to it with an interjection, The Me:t, (.) I never heard of it (lines 12 and 14), thus halting the progressivity of the telling. In response to Nancy’s interjection, Hyla first aligns with Nancy, saying, I hadn’t either, but then immediately shifts back to resume her telling. Here, she continues with the turn by projecting more talk with an audible inbreath (0.41 seconds; see Figure 4),77.The audio signal here is noisy. As can be seen in the oscillogram and the bottom part of the spectrogram, a periodic, low frequency sound is produced. Therefore, the intensity contour, as it is extracted across all frequencies, is less informative here. However, the acoustic traces of the inbreath can be observed in the spectrogram itself, where the gray matter (energy) spreads for approximately 300 ms across the lower half of the spectrogram. The auditory analysis confirms that the inbreath is audible. thereby suppressing an opportunity for the other party to speak next. Furthermore, Hyla indicates the shift between the previous and the following units of talk via a disjunctive marker But anyways (Mazeland and Huiskes 2001Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes 2001 “Dutch ‘But’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Park 2010Park, Innhwa 2010 “Marking an Impasse: The Use of Anyway as a Sequence-Closing Device.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12): 3283–3299. ). The first syllable of anyways exhibits a step-up in pitch from 250Hz to 300Hz, as shown in the pitch contour in Figure 4. Hyla then resumes her telling, -en theh the moo- thing wz th’ Dark e’th’Top a’th’ Stai:rs, retrospectively treating Nancy’s interjection as an interruption. This example illustrates how, after on-going topic talk is interrupted, the speaker first closes the interruption sequence, projects further talk with an inbreath, marks the shift with detaching features, and resumes the telling within a single multi-unit turn.
In this section, we have examined how speakers accomplish a topic shift via interlocking organization in cases of topic attrition and interruption. The speakers begin the multi-unit turn by first responding to the previous turn with a closing-implicative TCU, such as a sequence-closing third. The first TCU is then followed by an audible inbreath that projects further talk and, by creating temporal distance, detaches the next unit of talk from the prior. The inbreath functions to suppress speaker transition at the sequential boundary. Notably, the topic shift is also marked with various lexical items and phonetic features. The speakers preface the new topic talk with overt disjunctive markers such as “listen” (Sidnell 2007Sidnell, Jack 2007 “ ‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 387–408. ), and the second TCU typically begins with a high-pitch onset (Couper-Kuhlen 2004Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2004 “Prosody and Sequence Organization: The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, edited by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ; Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. ). These various interactional resources work in concert to allow the current speaker to hold the floor while marking the topical disjuncture between the first and the second TCUs.
4.Discussion
In this paper, we have focused on turn design features of interlocking organization as it is used to manage topical disjunctures in sequential environments beyond conversational openings (Schegloff 1986 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111–151. ) and closings (Wright 2011Wright, Melissa 2011 “The Phonetics-Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 1080–1099. ). The speaker may shift topics (Extracts 3–5) or respond to an interruption (Extract 6). While the specific combinations vary across our cases, interlocking organization operates in conjunction with other phonetic and lexical resources, such as an audible inbreath, increased pitch and volume, and overt lexical markers of disjunction (Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. ; Sidnell 2007Sidnell, Jack 2007 “ ‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 387–408. ; Walker 2012 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. ).
Most notably, each of our cases includes an audible inbreath that is located between the first and the second TCUs that perform distinct actions. This practice is distinct from other methods that the current speaker uses to circumvent speaker transition and to hold the floor beyond a transition relevance place. Abrupt-joins and rush-throughs compress the transition space between the two TCUs and place the second unit of talk “in close temporal proximity” to the end of the prior unit of talk (Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. , 1388; Local and Walker 2005 2005 “ ‘Mind the Gap’: Further Resources in the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” York Papers in Linguistics 2 (3): 133–143.; see also Schegloff 1982 1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, edited by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.; Walker 2010 2010 “The Phonetic Constitution of a Turn-Holding Practice: Rush-Throughs in English Talk-In-Interaction.” In Prosody in Interaction, edited by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 51–72. John Benjamins Publishing. ). Pivots obscure the transition space by occupying both TCU-initial and TCU-final positions, exhibiting an intonational and articulatory seamlessness with the surrounding talk (Clayman and Raymond 2015Clayman, Steven E., and Chase Wesley Raymond 2015 “Modular Pivots: A Resource for Extending Turns at Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (4): 388–405. ; Schegloff 1979 1979 “The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, edited by Talmy Givon, 261–288. New York: Academic Press. ; Walker 2007Walker, Gareth 2007 “On the Design and Use of Pivots in Everyday English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2217–2243. ). These methods allow the current speaker to make a unilateral move to initiate a new unit of talk by preventing the other party’s possible attempt to take the next turn. While the cases we have examined share some characteristics with abrupt-joins, such as a high-pitch onset of the second TCU, they distinctively feature an audible inbreath whereby the speaker creates a temporal distance between the two TCUs.88.See Local and Kelly (1986)Local, John, and John Kelly 1986 “Projection and ‘Silences’: Notes on Phonetic and Conversational Structure.” Human Studies 9: 185–204. for a comprehensive phonetic analysis of a holding silence produced with glottal closure, another type of inbreath that serves to hold the floor for the current speaker between adjacent TCUs. The speaker attaches an inbreath instead of the recognizable beginning of a new TCU to the end of the first TCU (Walker 2012 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. ). Given the topic attrition environment in which the interlocking organization occurs (as shown in Extracts 3 to 5), the temporal distance filled with an audible inbreath may indicate the participants’ orientation to the lack of urgency to compete for the next turn while preventing a (further) lapse in conversation. This practice seems fitting in the context of topic attrition for the current speaker to keep control of what gets talked about next, compared to allowing a significant amount of silence to ensue and relinquishing control over the new topic or deploying an abrupt join to more coercively bring about a topic shift, preempting more on-topic talk (cf. Local and Walker 2004Local, John, and Gareth Walker 2004 “Abrupt-Joins as a Resource for the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. ).
Furthermore, the speakers often explicitly mark the disjunction between the two TCUs using a lexical item. That is, in contrast to “through-produced” practices that blur transition relevance (e.g., pivots), the interlocking organization presented in this study produces a second action by differentiating the two units of talk and marking disjunction with temporal distance and overt lexical/phonetic resources. The contrastive features in the transition from one unit to the next may be related to the fact that the target practice involves a shift in topic. When participants produce topic talk, the new topic is typically negotiated over the course of turns (Button and Casey 1988 1988 “Topic Initiation: Business-at-Hand.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 22, 61–92. ). Our analysis raises the possibility that shifting topics “within” a turn without such negotiation may require the speaker to employ multiple turn design features, such as inbreaths, increased pitch and loudness, and lexical items which signal a disjunction between the preceding and the following units of talk. That is, the action delivered in the second TCU may need to be distinctively marked as being new. We have shown that an audible inbreath functions as one of the interactional resources that mark such a disjunction by creating a temporal distance between the two TCUs while promoting progressivity by projecting the upcoming talk, hence suppressing speaker transition (Schegloff 1996 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Walker 2012 2012 “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. ).
Previously, participants’ orientation to the progressivity of talk was mainly discussed within the context of adjacency pairs (Schegloff 2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Stivers and Robinson 2006Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson 2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35 (3): 367–392. ), repair (Heritage 2007 2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in References to Persons (and Places).” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, edited by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Schegloff 1979 1979 “The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, edited by Talmy Givon, 261–288. New York: Academic Press. ), and word search (Goodwin and Goodwin 1986Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin 1986 “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica 62: 51–75.). According to Schegloff (2007 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 15), progressivity in interaction refers to moving from one unit of talk to “a hearably-next-one”, typically resulting in sequence closing. Our findings suggest that the participants may also orient to progressivity across topical and sequential boundaries. As interlocking organization allows participants to perform two distinct actions that are topically disjunctive within a single turn, it allows them to achieve both sequence closing and sequence opening without a possible lapse in turn transition.
Acknowledgements
We thank the instructors at the 2017 Summer Institute for Advanced Conversation Analysis at the University of Colorado, Boulder, for their invaluable guidance, feedback, and encouragement: Paul Drew, Barbara Fox, John Heritage, Chase Raymond, Jeffrey Robinson, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. Alexandra Kent was originally a member of our group when we began to explore multi-unit turns at the Institute. We are grateful for the anonymous reviewers whose feedback helped us advance our thinking and improve our analysis. All remaining errors are ours.
Notes
References
Appendix.CA Transcription Conventions
The transcription notation system employed for data extracts is an adaptation of Gail Jefferson’s work (see Atkinson and Heritage, 1984Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage 1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.: ix–xvi).
| [ | onset of overlapping utterances |
| = | latched utterances |
| (1.0) | silence, represented in tenths of a second |
| (.) | a brief pause |
| . | falling, or final, intonation |
| ? | rising intonation |
| , | continuing intonation |
| ↓ ↑ | sharper rises or falls in pitch |
| : | prolongation or stretching of the sound, proportional to the number of colons |
| - | cut-off or self-interruption |
| word | stress or emphasis |
| WORD | loudness |
| hh | audible outbreaths, possibly laughter, proportional to the number of ‘h’s |
| .hh | audible inbreaths |
| °word° | markedly quite or soft talk |
| > < | compressed or rushed talk |
| < > | slowed or drawn out talk |
| £ £ | smile voice |
| ( ) | inaudible talk |