Article published In:
Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

The use of interlocking multi-unit turns in topic shifts

ORCID logo | West Chester University
ORCID logo | Nanyang Technological University
ORCID logo | Leibniz-Institute for the German Language
ORCID logo | Chung-Ang University
ORCID logo | Georgetown University
ORCID logo | Nagoya University
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.
Keywords: conversation analysis, multi-unit turn, interlocking organization, topic management, topic shift, disjunction, inbreath, turn design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Multi-unit turns
    • 1.2Topic management
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Topic shift
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22052.par
References (59)
References
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2022. “Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program].” Version 6.2.05. Accessed January 5, 2022. [URL]
Bolden, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, 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.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Topic Initiation: Business-at-Hand.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 221, 61–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, 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.Google Scholar
Elvira-García, Wendy, and Paolo Roseano. 2014. “Create Pictures with Tiers.” Praat Script. Accessed January 5, 2022. [URL]
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
. 1978. “Response Cries.” Language 541: 787–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin. 1986. “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica 621: 51–75.Google Scholar
Goodwin, 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.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 881: 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Elliott M. 2020. When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
. 1983. “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ʻYeahʼ and ʻMm Hmʼ.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 301: 1–18.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (1): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. 2015. “The Intersection of Turn-Taking and Repair: The Timing of Other-Initiations of Repair in Conversation.” Frontiers in Psychology 61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, and John Kelly. 1986. “Projection and ‘Silences’: Notes on Phonetic and Conversational Structure.” Human Studies 91: 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “‘Mind the Gap’: Further Resources in the Production of Multi-Unit, Multi-Action Turns.” York Papers in Linguistics 2 (3): 133–143.Google Scholar
. 2012. “How Phonetic Features Project More Talk.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42 (3): 255–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 1980. “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica 30 (3/4): 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Innhwa. 2010. “Marking an Impasse: The Use of Anyway as a Sequence-Closing Device.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12): 3283–3299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies 91: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, 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.Google Scholar
. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Volume II1. MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, 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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 104–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
1986. “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 91: 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 81: 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. “‘Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 387–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.) 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35 (3): 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ten Bosch, Louis, Nelleke Oostdijk, and Lou Boves. 2005. “On Temporal Aspects of Turn Taking in Conversational Dialogues.” Speech Communication 47 (1): 80–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Gareth. 2007. “On the Design and Use of Pivots in Everyday English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 2217–2243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 455–474. NJ: Blackwell-Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Visual Representations of Acoustic Data: A Survey and Suggestions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (4): 363–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2011. “The Phonetics-Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 1080–1099. DOI logoGoogle Scholar