Conversation analysis is an approach to the study of social interaction and talk-in-

interaction that, although rooted in the sociological study of everyday life, has exerted
significant influence across the humanities and social sciences including linguistics.
Drawing on recordings (both audio and video) naturalistic interaction (unscripted, non-
elicited, etc.) conversation analysts attempt to describe the stable practices and underlying
normative organizations of interaction by moving back and forth between the close study of
singular instances and the analysis of patterns exhibited across collections of cases. Four
important domains of research within conversation analysis are turn-taking, repair, action
formation and ascription, and action sequencing.

Keywords: conversation, interaction, turn-taking, repair, action, speech acts

Introduction
Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction that emerged
through the collaborative research of Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, and
their students in the 1960s and early 1970s. In 1974, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson
published a landmark paper in Language titled, “A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Not only did this paper lay out an account
of turn-taking in conversation and provide a detailed exemplification of the conversation
analytic method, it also articulated with concerns in linguistics and brought CA to the
attention of linguists and others engaged in the scientific study of language. The paper
remains the most cited and the most downloaded paper ever published in the history of the
journal (Joseph, 2003, see also Google citation index). Since the publication of the turn-
taking paper, researchers in this area have continued to identify ways in which the study of
conversation and social interaction relates to the concerns of linguistic science.

Interaction as the Home of Language

An underlying, guiding assumption of research in conversation analysis is that the home
environment of language is co-present interaction and that its structure is in some basic
ways adapted to that environment. This distinguishes CA from much of linguistic science,
which generally understands language to have its home in the human mind and to reflect in
its structure the organization of mind. For the most part these can be seen as
complementary rather than opposed perspectives (depending, perhaps on the model of mind
involved). Language is both a cognitive and an interactional phenomenon, and its
organization must certainly reflect this fact.

What do we mean by interaction or co-present interaction? Goffman (who supervised the

PhD studies of both Sacks and Schegloff) described interaction as a normatively organized
structure of attention (see inter alia 1957, 1964)—when people interact they are, however
fleetingly, attending to one another’s attention. While drawing on these and other ideas
from Goffman, conversation analysts tend to emphasize the fact that interaction is the arena
for human action. In order to accomplish the business of everyday life—for instance
checking to see that a neighbor received the newspaper, updating a friend about a recent
event, asking for a ride to work—we interact with one another. Conversation analysis seeks
to discover and describe (formally and in a rigorous, generalizable way) the underlying
norms and practices that make interaction the orderly thing that it is. For instance, one
fundamental aspect of the orderliness of interaction has to do with the distribution of
opportunities to participate in it. How, that is, does a participant determine when it is her
turn to speak, or her turn to listen? Another aspect of orderliness concerns the apparatus for
addressing problems of hearing, speaking, or understanding. How, that is, do participants in
conversation remedy problems that inevitably arise in the course of interaction and how do
they do this in an effective yet efficient way, such that they are able to resume whatever
activity they were engaged before the trouble arose? A third aspect of orderliness has to do
with the way in which speakers produce, and recipients understand, stretches of talk so as
constitute them as actions by which they can achieve their interactional goals. A final
aspect of the orderliness of interaction has to do with the way these actions are organized
into sequences in such a way as to construct an architecture of intersubjectivity—a basis for
mutual understanding in conversation. Each of these four domains of conversational
organization will be briefly sketched out and ways in which research in each area connects
with the concerns of linguists and other scholars of language will be highlighted.

Turn-Taking
We can begin by noting, as the authors of Sacks et al. (1974) do, that there are various ways
in which turn-taking for conversation (and indeed the distribution of opportunities to
participate in interaction more generally) could be organized. For instance, turns could be
pre-allocated so that every potential participant was entitled to talk for two minutes and the
order of speakers was decided in advance (by their age, gender, status, first initial, height,
weight, etc.). There are speech exchange systems (as Sacks et al., 1974 calls them) that
operate more or less in this way, such as debate. But there are reasons that such a system
would not work for conversation. If, for instance, we imagine that in such a system
participants A, B, C, D each get an opportunity to talk and in that order, what will happen if
B asks A a question? B now has to wait for C and D to speak before A can answer. But
what if C and D also ask A a question? Or what if D does not hear the question that B has
asked and so on? Of course, although this kind of pre-allocated system obviously won’t
work for conversation, there are many other ways in which turn-taking might be organized
(and, indeed, is organized for activities other than conversation). We need not review all the
possibilities here. We can already see, in light of these considerations and common sense,
that turn-taking for conversation must be organized locally, by the participants themselves.
As Sacks et al. (1974) puts it, turn-taking in conversation is “locally managed, party-
administered, interactionally controlled.”

The model these authors describe has two components and a set of “rules” that coordinate
their operation. The “turn constructional component” determines the shape and extent of
possible turns by specifying a sharply delimited set of units from which turns can be
composed. Specifically, in English, turn constructional units (TCUs) can be lexical items,
phrases, clauses, and sentences. In the following case, Shelley’s declaratively formatted
question at line 01, “you were at the Halloween thing.” is a sentential TCU while her “the
Halloween party” at line 03 is a phrasal TCU. Debbie’s turns at lines 02 and 04 are lexical
TCUs.

(1) Debbie & Shelley

Instances of these TCUs “allow a projection of the unit-type under way, and what, roughly,
it will take for an instance of that unit-type to be completed” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 702).
This feature of projectability allows a recipient to anticipate possible completion of the
current TCU and to target this “point of possible completion” as a place to begin his or her
own talk. We can see how this works in example (1). Debbie is able to position her talk at
line 02 so that it begins just as Shelley reaches possible completion and, in the case of line
04, just before Shelley reaches possible completion. As Sacks et al. write “we find
sequentially appropriate starts by next speakers after turns composed of single-word,
single-phrase, or single-clause constructions, with no gap—i.e., with no waiting for
possible sentence completion” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 702). The precise timing of these
starts thus provides evidence for the projectability of possible completion of a TCU. At the
same time the fact that participants target these points as appropriate places to begin their
own talk indicates that such points are treated as transition-relevant. Points of possible
completion constitute transition relevance places (TRPs), which are, as Schegloff (1992, p.
116) puts it, “discrete places in the developing course of a speaker’s talk ( . . . ) at which
ending the turn or continuing it, transfer of the turn or its retention become relevant.”

The “turn allocation component” specifies techniques by which turns are allocated among
parties to a conversation. For current purposes the most important of these techniques are
those by which a current speaker selects a next speaker. A basic technique in this respect
involves combining an address term (or other method of address such as directed gaze) with
a sequence-initiating action such as a question, request, invitation, complaint, and so on.
Consider (2), in which Michael and Nancy are guests for dinner at the home of Shane and
Vivian. In the fragment below, Michael addresses his talk to Nancy by using her name (or a
short from of it) and produces a question that is also a request. In this way he selects her to
speak next, which she does at line 03.

(2) Chicken Dinner p. 3 (Address term)

According to Sacks et al. (1974), a set of rules coordinates the use of the turn constructional
and turn allocation component. These rules apply at the first transition relevance place of
any turn.

Rule 1 C= current speaker, N= next speaker

1. (a) If C selects N in current turn, then C must stop speaking, and N must
speak next, transition occurring at the first possible completion after N-
selection.
2. (b) If C does not select N, then any party (other than C) may self-select at a
first point of possible completion, first speaker gaining rights to the next
turn.
3. (c) If C has not selected N, and no other party self-selects under option (b),
then C may (but need not) continue (i.e., claim rights to a further TCU).

Rule 2 applies at all subsequent TRPs:

When Rule 1(c) has been applied by C, then at the next TRP Rules 1 (a)–(c) apply, and
recursively at the next TRP, until speaker change is effected.

This “simplest systematics” allows us to see how turn-taking in ordinary conversation is

accomplished in such a way as to minimize both gap and overlap. It also allows us to see
why (and to predict where) many cases of overlap occur. Consider (3).

(3) Parky

Here Tourist’s turn at line 01, being formatted as a polar interrogative, selects some other
party who is knowledgeable about the park. Parky is the first to respond and his answer is
precision timed to begin at just the point where Tourist’s turn reaches completion. Parky’s
turn does not select a next speaker and, after a delay of one second, Old man self-selects,
elaborating the answer that Parky has provided. Parky apparently means to agree with this
elaboration and produces a turn (line 06) that is, again, precisely timed to begin at just the
point that Old man reaches possible completion with no gap and no overlap. However, we
can see that the talk at line 06 is in fact Parky’s third attempt to articulate the agreement.
What is important to see for present purposes is that the first two attempts to self-select
actually target points of possible, though not actual, completion within the emerging course
of Old man’s turn. That is to say, “Th’ Funfair changed it” is in fact a possibly complete
turn in this context, as is “Th’Funfair changed it’n ahful lot.” This example, which is in no
way unusual, provides clear evidence that Parky is able to parse the talk as it emerges so as
to project points of possible completion within it and thus be prepared to begin his own turn
at just these places. Overlap of the kind produced here provides further evidence of the
projectability of possible completion and, moreover, of the fact that participants orient to
such possible completion as transition relevant.

Two implications of what has so far been said are first, the turn-taking system for
conversation operates over only two turn constructional units at a time: current and next.
Second, a current speaker is initially entitled to produce only one TCU and at the first point
of possible completion transition to a next speaker becomes a relevant possibility. Thus, if a
current speaker is to talk for more than one TCU, some effort to secure additional
opportunity will have to be made. One set of practices involves foreclosing the possibility
of another self-selecting at possible completion by, for instance, reducing the extent and
recognizability of that point of possible completion. Another practice involves issuing a bid
to produce a longer stretch of talk. If the other participants buy in and provide a go-ahead
response to such a bid, the result is to effectively suspend the association between possible
completion and transition relevance for the duration of the telling. So, for example, when
speakers produce stories they often begin with a short sequence in which a bid is made with
“Guess what happened to me today?” and a recipient responds with “What.” etc. (see
Sidnell, 2010). Another implication of the foregoing discussion is that the turn-taking
mechanism for ordinary conversation is, as Goodwin (1979) writes, “coercive” rather than
“permissive.” A number of other models of turn-taking propose that speakers employ “turn-
ending signals” or “completion cues,” and that a listener must wait to hear one of these cues
before beginning his or her own talk. Such a system would be “permissive” in that it would
allow a current speaker to continue talk as long he or she wished. But the system described
by Sacks et al. (1974) is not like this. Rather it is “spring-loaded” with a number of
pressures encouraging shorter turns, most important the fact that a current a speaker is
initially entitled to produce only a single TCU.

This analysis of turn-taking draws upon basic ideas about language structure. For instance,
in their description of the turn-constructional component, the authors of Sacks et al. (1974)
suggest that grammar plays a key role in determining what can count as a possible TCU—
these are lexical items, phrases, clauses, sentences. Subsequent researchers have developed
these ideas and have sought to determine the relative role of intonation, prosody, grammar,
and pragmatics in shaping possible completion (see Ford, Fox, & Thompson, 1996). Other
research has addressed the question of whether the turn-taking system described by Sacks
et al. (1974) applies to English only or, rather, applies generally to all languages (see, e.g.,
Sidnell, 2001). Stivers et al. (2009) draws on a sample of 10 languages, showing that there
was clear evidence in all of them for a general avoidance of overlapping talk and a
minimization of silence between conversational turns. Focusing on transitions between
Yes-No (or polar) questions and their responses, Stivers et al. provides evidence that in all
the languages they compared the same factors account for the variation in speed of
response. Answers were produced with significantly less delay than non-answer responses.
Within the set of answers, those that were confirmations were delivered with less delay
than those that were disconfirmations. When a response included a visible (nonverbal)
component this was produced with less delay than those responses without. Finally, in 9 of
the 10 languages studied, responses were delivered faster if the speaker was looking at the
recipient while asking the question. This study then also provides strong evidence that turn-
taking for conversation is organized in ways that are independent of the language being
spoken.

Repair
A second important area of research within conversation analysis concerns the
systematically organized set of practices of “repair” that participants use to address troubles
of speaking, hearing, and understanding. Episodes of repair are composed of parts
(Schegloff, 1997; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). A repair initiation marks a
“possible disjunction with the immediately preceding talk,” while a repair outcome results
either in a “solution or abandonment of the problem” (Schegloff, 2000, p. 207). That
problem, the particular segment of talk to which the repair is addressed, is termed the
“trouble source” or “repairable.”

Repair can be initiated either by the speaker of the repairable item or by some other
participant (e.g., the recipient). Likewise the repair itself can be done either by the speaker
of the trouble source or someone else. In describing the organization of repair it is usual to
use the term “self” for the speaker of the trouble source and “other” for any other
participant. Thus we can identify cases of self-initiated, self-repair (see [4]), other-initiated,
self-repair (see [5]) and self-initiated, other-repair, etc. In these examples, the arrow labeled
(a) indicates the position of the repairable item or “trouble source,” the arrow labeled (b)
indicates the position of the repair initiator, and the arrow labeled (c) indicates the position
of the repair or correction.

(4) XTR (1.2)

(5) NB 1.1

We can immediately see that the components of the repair episode (a, b, c) cluster in one
turn in (4), whereas in (5) they are distributed across a sequence of three turns. In (4) we
see that B initiates repair with a cut-off on “Fri:-” and then subsequently provides the repair
by replacing what was presumably going to be “on Friday” with “on Sunday.” Several
other observations are that the word to be replaced is framed by repeated material (“on”),
and that the problem is pre-monitored by delay (“ah” in line 02). In (5) when Guy asks for
the first time “Is Cliff dow:n by any chance?=do you know?” Jon responds not with an
answer to the question (which it can be observed he knows) but rather with “↑Ha:h?”
thereby indicating trouble with some aspect of what Guy has said and initiating repair of
the prior turn. In response, Guy re-asks the question, hesitating slightly before substituting
“Brown” for “Cliff” (a surname for a first name). At line 06 Jon answers the question,
affirmatively, saying “Yeah he’s down.” (“down” here refers to being at the beach rather
than in town).

When repair is initiated by a participant other than the speaker of the trouble source, this is
typically done in the turn subsequent to that which contains the trouble-source by one of the
available next-turn-repair-initiators (NTRI). The various NTRIs “have a natural ordering,
based on their relative strength or power on such parameters as their capacity to locate a
repairable.” (Schegloff et al., 1977, p. 369). At one end of the scale, NTRIs such as what?
and huh? indicate only that a recipient has detected some trouble in the previous turn; they
do not locate any particular repairable component within that turn. Question words such as
who, where, when are more specific in that they indicate what part of speech is repairable
(e.g., who—a person referring noun phrase, etc.). The power of such question words to
locate trouble in a previous turn is increased when appended to a partial repeat. Repair may
also be initiated by a partial repeat without any question word.

Recent research has sought to describe the linguistic practices and resources used in
initiating repair from a cross-linguistic, comparative perspective. Fox, Hayashi, and
Jasperson (1996) notes differences between self-repair in English and Japanese and links
these to the different “syntactic practices” of the two languages. The authors of Hayashi
and Hayano (2013) describe a particular format used in Japanese conversation, which they
term “proferring an insertable element” (PIE), in which a next speaker articulates a
candidate understanding of the prior utterance, but does so with an item that is understood
to be inserted into rather than appended onto the preceding turn. In a comparison of a
diverse set of languages, Dingemanse, Blythe, and Dirksmeyer (2014) describes various
formats for other to initiate repair, suggesting that, “different languages make available a
wide but remarkably similar range of linguistic resources for this function,” noting that
repair initiation formats are adapted to deal with different contingencies of trouble in
interaction. Specifically, repair initiation formats respond to the problems of characterizing
the trouble encountered, managing responsibility for the trouble and displaying their
speaker’s understanding of the distribution of knowledge. Thus a form such as “huh?”
indicates trouble but does not characterize it, includes no on-record position with respect to
responsibility for the trouble, and also claims no knowledge of what has been said. In
contrast, a repair initiation format such as “you mean the one around the corner?” locates
(e.g., the expression “the coffee stand”) and characterizes (as a problem of reference or
understanding) the trouble. Although such a format again includes no explicit indication of
which participant is responsible for the trouble, it nevertheless suggests that the one
initiating repair takes responsibility for finding a solution. And, finally, by displaying an
understanding (candidate) of what has been said, it thereby shows that its speaker is
knowledgeable in this respect (and has heard what was said).

Action in Interaction
A basic question addressed by research within linguistic pragmatics concerns how saying
something can count as doing something. Much of the work in this area has drawn on the
ideas of John Searle and others who have argued for a solution to the problem based on a
theory of speech acts. While there are different versions of the theory, some common
assumptions seem to be that actions are relatively discrete and can therefore be classified or
categorized. Applied to interaction, the theory suggests that recipients listen for cues (or
clues) that allow for the identification of whatever act the talk is meant to be doing (e.g.,
greeting, complaining, requesting, inviting). Moreover, the theory seems to presume a
closed set or inventory of actions that are cued by a delimited range of linguistic devices.
On this formulation, the basic problem to be accounted for by scholars of interaction is how
participants are able to recognize so quickly what action is being done (see Levinson,
2012). As we have already seen, participants in interaction are able to respond to prior turns
with no waiting, no gap, and so on (indeed they routinely respond in overlap). Operating
with the standard assumptions of psycholinguistics (i.e., that speech recognition and
language comprehension requires “processing time,” that speech production requires
“planning time,” and so on), this creates something of a mystery—how are participants able
not only to parse the turn at talk into TCUs (and thereby anticipate points of possible
completion), but also to recognize what action is being done in and through those TCUs,
and somehow be prepared to respond to that action with little or no latency (indeed, in
cases of overlapped response, with less than zero latency).

Sidnell and Enfield (2014) offers a critique of the underlying assumptions of speech act
theory applied to action in interaction describing it as a “binning” approach,

in which the central problem is taken to involve recipients of talk (or other participants)
sorting the stream of interactional conduct into the appropriate categories or bins. . . . These
accounts appear to involve a presumption about the psychological reality of action types
that is somewhat akin to the psychological reality of phonemes. . . . That is, for the binning
account to be correct, there must be an inventory of actions just as there is a set of
phonemes in a language. Each token bit of conduct would be put into an appropriate pre-
existing action-type category. The binning approach thus also suggests that it would be
reasonable to ask how many actions there are. But we think that to ask how many actions
there are is more like asking how many sentences there are.

An alternative account treats “action” as, always, a formulation or a construal of some

configuration of practices in interaction. For the most part, formulations are not required to
ensure the orderly flow of interaction. Participants respond on the fly and infer what a
speaker is doing from a broad range of evidence. However, on occasion (such as in some
cases of reported speech and in some cases of third position repair), a speaker formulates,
using the vernacular metalinguistic terms available to her, the action that she or another
participant is understood to have accomplished (e.g., “I requested that he get off the table!,”
“I’m not asking you to come down, I’m just saying you’re welcome if you want,” etc.).
And, of course, in various kinds of post hoc reporting contexts and in scholarly analysis,
persons outside of an interaction routinely formulate the actions that were done within it.
So an alternative to the binning or speech act account is one in which producing an “action”
(in quotation marks to indicate that this is merely a heuristic use of the word) involves
putting together, configuring, or orchestrating a range of distinct practices of conduct to
allow for the inference that the speaker is doing “x” or “y” where “x” or “y” are possible
formulations or descriptions.

It is often suggested by conversation analysts that there is no necessary “one-to-one

mapping” between a given practice of speaking (e.g., “do you want me to come over and
get her?”) and some specific action (such as “an offer”), and this is usually taken to imply a
many-to-one relation running in both directions; that is, there are multiple practices
available to accomplish any given action, and any given practice can, in context, be
understood to accomplish a range of different actions (see, e.g., Schegloff, 1997; Sidnell,
2010). But, while this is no doubt true (insofar as the terms in which it formulates the
problem are adequate, e.g., “context,” “an action,” etc.), matters are a good deal more
complicated than this, because any determination of “what a speaker is doing” is an
inference from a complex putting together of distinct practices of composition and
positioning.

Levinson (2012), puzzled as to how recipients are seemingly able to determine what action
is being done so early on in the production of a turn and somehow able to respond without
delay, distinguishes two major types of information that can be gleaned from a turn-at-talk.
On the one hand there is the “front-loaded” information of prosody (e.g., pitch reset), gaze,
and turn-initial tokens (such as “oh,” “look,” “well,” and so on) that can potentially tip off
the recipient as to what is being done. On the other hand there is the detailed linguistic
information that is revealed only as the turn-at-talk unfolds. This includes much of the
information available through grammatical formatting (e.g., morphological cues, syntactic
inversion, imperative forms, etc.), as well as through richly informative linguistic
formulations (e.g., “the deal,” “my boss,” “stupid trial thing,” etc.). While Levinson thus
recognizes that the passage from a turn-at-talk to “action” involves a recipient putting
together various strands of evidence, he argues that the solution must involve a delimited
inventory of actions, recognition of which these practices, solely or in combination, are able
to trigger. Alternatively, Sidnell and Enfield (2014) argue that a model involving inference
from a complex set of features implies an inevitable degree of indeterminacy in action
ascription, which is always merely an inference from evidence. For the most part,
participants in interaction get along just fine, such inference-based action ascriptions are
good enough for all practical purposes and, because no formulation is typically required,
problems typically do not arise.

It is well established in CA that one can look to subsequent turns in order to ground an
analysis of previous ones—this is called the “next turn proof procedure” (Sacks et al.,
1974). In the analysis of single cases we can ground our analysis of some turn as, for
instance, an “accusation” by looking to see how the recipient responds to it (e.g., with an
excuse or justification). Sacks et al. (1974) proposes along these lines that:
while understandings of other turns’ talk are displayed to co-participants, they are available
as well to professional analysts, who are thereby afforded a proof criterion . . . for the
analysis of what a turn’s talk is occupied with. Since it is the parties’ understandings of
prior turns’ talk that is relevant to their construction of next turns, it is their understandings
that are wanted for analysis. The display of those understandings in the talk of subsequent
turns affords both a resource for the analysis of prior turns and a proof procedure for
professional analyses of prior turns—resources intrinsic to the data themselves.

This “data-internal evidence” is used, for instance, to ground the claim that when Debbie
says “what is the deal” in line 15 of example (6), which comes from the opening of a
telephone call, she is not simply asking a question but is, in doing so, accusing Shelley of
wrong-doing:

(6) Debbie and Shelley

“What is the deal” is hearable as an accusation, as conveying that Shelley has done or is
otherwise responsible for something that Debbie is unhappy about. What aspects of the talk
convey that? First, the positioning of the question, pre-empting “how are you” type
inquiries, provides for a hearing of this as “abrupt” and in some sense interruptive of the
usual niceties with which a call’s opening is typically occupied (e.g., “how are you?”).
Second, by posing a question that requires Shelley to figure out what is meant by “the
deal,” Debbie thereby suggests that Shelley should already know what she is talking about
and thus that there is something in the “common ground,” something to which both Debbie
and Shelley are already attending (have “on their minds”). Third, by selecting the idiom
“the deal” Debbie reveals her stance toward what she is talking about as “a problem” or as
something that she is not happy about. Fourth, with the prosody, including the stress on “is”
so that it is not contracted, the emphasis on “dea::l.” and the apparent pitch reset with which
the turn begins conveys, Debbie conveys heightened emotional involvement. Putting all
this together we can hear in what Debbie says here something other than a simple request
for information—this is an accusation. It seems clear that Debbie is upset and the
implication is that Shelley is responsible for this. But how can we ground the analysis of
the turn in question in the displayed orientations of the participants themselves? To do this
we look to Shelley’s response.
That Shelley hears in this more than a simple question is evidenced first by her plea of
innocence with “whadayou ↑mean.” and secondly by her excuse. All other-initiations of
repair indicate that the speaker has encountered a trouble of hearing or understanding in the
previous turn. Among these “What do you mean” appears specifically adapted to indicate a
problem of understanding based on presuppositions about common ground (Hayashi,
Raymond, & Sidnell, 2013). Here “what do you mean?,” which is produced with a
noticeably higher pitch, suggests Shelley does not understand what Debbie means by the
clearly allusive, in-the-know expression, “the deal.” More narrowly, it conveys that the
expression “what is the deal” has asked Shelley to search for a possible problem that she is
perhaps responsible for, and that no such problem can be identified. It is thus hearable as
claiming “innocence.”

When Debbie redoes the question, in response to the initiation of repair by “What do you
mean,” she does it with a yes-no (polar) question that strongly suggests she already knows
the answer. “You’re not going to go” is what Pomerantz (1988) calls a candidate answer
question that presents, in a declarative format, to Shelley what Debbie suspects is the
answer, and requests confirmation of this. This then reveals the problem that Debbie had in
mind and meant to refer to by “the deal.” And when Shelley responds to the repaired
question she does so with what is recognizable as an excuse. This is a “type non-
conforming” response (i.e., one that contains no “yes” or “no” token; see Raymond, 2003),
in which Shelley pushes the responsibility for not going (which is implied, not stated) onto
“her boss” (invoking the undeniable obligations of work in the district attorney’s office),
and suggesting that the obstacle here is an inconvenience for her (as well as for Debbie) by
characterizing the impediment to her participation as a “stupid trial-thing.”

Clearly, as the quote from Sacks et al. (1974) makes clear and as the foregoing discussion is
meant to explicate, the most important data-internal evidence we have comes in subsequent
talk. In the case we have considered, subsequent talk reveals how Shelley herself
understood the talk that has been addressed to her because this understanding is embodied
in the way she responds.

It is important to clarify what exactly is being claimed. Subsequent talk, and data internal
evidence, allow us to ground the analysis of this question—“What is the deal”—as
projecting an accusation of Shelley by Debbie. It does not, however, tell us what specific
features of the talk cue, convey, or carry that complaint/accusation. As the pioneers of
conversation analysis demonstrated, in order to address that question, the question as to
which specific features or practices provide for an understanding of what a given turn is
doing, we need to look across different cases. We need to isolate these practices in order to
discern their generic, context-free, cohort independent character. So case-by-case analysis
(single case analysis using data-internal evidence) inevitably leaves us with a question—
specifically, what particular aspects of a turn convey (allow for an inference as to) what the
speaker is doing (i.e., what action is being done)? What are the particular practices of
speaking that result in that consequence? What are the generic features of the practice that
are independent of this particular context, situation, group of participants, etc.?

In order to attempt an answer to these questions we have to move beyond the analysis of a
single case to look at multiple instances. However, and this is the key point in the context
of the present discussion, when we do this we inevitably find that each practice that is put
together with others in some particular instance (to effect some particular action outcome)
can be used in other ways, combined with other practices, to result in other outcomes. We
can take any particular “practice” from the Debbie and Shelley case and work out from
there. We can look for questions that, like Debbie’s “What is the deal?,” occur in this
position, pre-empting what normatively happens in the opening turns of a telephone call. If
we do this we find that some are like this one and seem to deliver or imply an accusation,
but others do not. We can look at other cases in which a speaker refers to something as “the
deal” or asks “what is the deal” and again find some cases in which an accusation is
inferred but others in which it is not. And we can find other instances in which similar
prosody is used in the formation of a question or instances in which a question is delivered
with an initial pitch reset. The result is always the same: no single feature is associated with
some particular outcome. The conclusion we must then draw is that “action” is an inference
from a diverse set of pieces of evidence that a speaker puts together or orchestrates within a
single TCU or utterance (see also Robinson, 2007).

Action Sequencing
As we have already seen, in conversation, actions are organized into sequences. The most
basic form such sequences can take is as a set of two paired actions, a first and a second,
known as an adjacency pair. For instance, production of a question establishes a next
position within which an answer is relevant and expected next. In order to capture this
aspect of organization, Schegloff (1968, p. 1083) introduced the concept of conditional
relevance:

By the conditional relevance of one item on another we mean: given the first, the second is
expectable; upon its occurrence it can be seen to be a second item to the first; upon its
nonoccurrence it can be seen to be officially absent—all this provided by the occurrence of
the first item.

Although questions are not always followed by answers, the conditional relevance that a
question activates ensures that participants will inspect any talk that responds to a question
to see if and how it might be an answer, or might account for why an answer is not being
produced. In response to questions the most common account for not answering is “I don’t
know.” So, in the following, when Guy asks Jon if a mutual acquaintance might like to go
golfing with them, Jon replies with “I don’t know,” and follows up by suggesting that he
“go by and see,” thereby indicating a willingness to obtain the information that has been
requested.

(7) NB 1.1 1:05

So even where second speakers do not (for whatever reason) actually produce the second
pair part that is called for, they typically exhibit some orientation to its relevance and often
account for its non-occurrence and even, in some cases, apologize for an inability to deliver
it. The same example also provides evidence that questioners orient to the conditional
relevance exerted by sequence initiating action such as Guy’s “Think he’d like to go?” in
line 07. Thus when Jon does not answer the question posed Guy reissues it at line 12
thereby pursuing a response.

Schegloff and Sacks (1973) identifies four defining characteristics of the adjacency pair. It
is composed of two utterances that are:

1. (i) Adjacent.
2. (ii) Produced by different speakers.
3. (iii) Ordered as a first pair part (FPP) and second pair part (SPP).
4. (iv) “Typed”?, so that a particular first pair part provides for the relevance of a
particular second pair part (or some delimited range of seconds, e.g., a complaint
can be relevantly responded to by a remedy, an excuse, a justification, a denial, and
so on).

Adjacency pairs are sequences composed of only two turns—a first and second pair part.
But talk-in-interaction and conversation in particular is not composed solely of paired
actions, produced one after the other. Rather, an adjacency pair may be expanded so as to
result in a much more complex sequence. An adjacency pair can be expanded prior to the
occurrence of its first part, after the occurrence of its first part but before the occurrence of
its second, or after its second pair part. These expansions are themselves often built out of
paired actions and can themselves serve as the bases upon which further expansion takes
place.
Pre-expansions involve an expansion of a base adjacency pair prior to the occurrence of the
first pair part and are preparatory to the action the base pair part is meant to accomplish. So,
for instance, a pre-invitation “hey, are you busy tonight?” checks on the availability of the
recipient. A pre-request such as “You wouldn’t happen to be going my way would you?”
checks on the degree of inconvenience a projected request is likely to impose, and so on.
Such pre-expansions check on a condition for the successful accomplishment of the base
first pair part. Consider the following phone call excerpt:

(8) HS:STI,1

Judy’s “why” at line 07 displays an orientation to the preceding turn as something more
than an information-seeking question and John’s answer at lines 8–11 confirms this
inference.

As just noted, an adjacency pair consists of two adjacent utterances, with the second
selected from some range of possibilities defined by the first. However, on some occasions,
the two utterances of an adjacency pair are not, in fact, adjacent. In some cases this is
because another sequence has been inserted between the first and second pair part of an
adjacency pair. Such insert expansions can be divided into post-firsts and pre-seconds
(Schegloff, 2007) according to the kind of interactional relevancy they address.

Post-expansions are highly variable with respect to their complexity. Schegloff (2007)
suggests that they can be divided into minimal and non-minimal types. Minimal post-
expansions consist of one turn. “Oh” for instance can occur after the response to a question,
thereby registering that the questioner has been informed by that response and minimally
expanding the sequence with a single turn of post-expansion. Other forms of post
expansion are more elaborate and addressed to a range of interactional contingencies.

This brief overview of conversation analysis has discussed four domains of organization:
turn-taking, repair, action formation, and action sequencing. Research in each of these four
domains has consequences for our understanding of language and language structure (see
Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, in press; Thompson, Fox, & Couper-Kuhlen, 2015). While work
to date has drawn connections primarily between linguistics and turn-taking and repair,
there are obvious ways in which the work on action and action sequencing bears on the
concerns of linguistics. For instance, work on action formation intersects with research
within linguistics on mood and with the analysis of speech acts. Work on action sequencing
bears on problems of anaphora resolution and inter-sentential grammatical relations. In
order to fully explore these and other themes, we will likely require a robustly cross-
linguistic, comparative, and interdisciplinary program of research.

Further Reading
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (in press). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in
social interaction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns:
The TCU revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454.Find this resource:

Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (2013) Conversational repair and human
understanding: An introduction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.),
Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 1–40). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.),
The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Find
this resource:

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the
structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.Find this resource:

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist,

70(6), 1075–1095.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair.

Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation

analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in
the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.Find this
resource:
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Find
this resource:

Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action in interaction. In N. J. Enfield,
P. Kockelman & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology
(pp. 423–446). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., et al.
(2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592.Find this resource:

Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building
responsive actions. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

References
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (in press). Interactional Linguistics: Studying language
in social interaction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (2014). Formats for other-initiation of repair
across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language, 38, 5–43.Find
this resource:

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns:
The TCU revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454.Find this resource:

Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic
study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
Interaction and grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.Find this resource:

Goffman, E. (1957). Alienation from interaction. Human Relations, 10, 47–60.Find this
resource:

Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6, Pt. 2), 133–
136.Find this resource:

Goodwin, C. (1979). Review of Starkey Duncan Jr. and Donald W. Fiske, Face-to-face
interaction: Research methods and theories. Language in Society, 8(3), 439–444.Find this
resource:

Hayashi, M., & Hayano, K. (2013). Proffering insertable elements: A study of other-
initiated repair in Japanese. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.),
Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 293–321). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (2013). Conversational repair and human
understanding: An introduction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.),
Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 1–40). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.Find this resource:

Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis
(pp. 299–345). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Joseph, B. D. (2003). The Editor’s Department: Reviewing our contents. Language, 79(3),
461–463.Find this resource:

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.),
The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Find
this resource:

Pomerantz, A. M. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy.

Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–373.Find this resource:

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the
structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.Find this resource:

Robinson, J. (2007). The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis.
Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 65–75.Find this resource:

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist,

70(6), 1075–1095.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In H. Parret & J.

Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 113–128). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair.

Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205–
243.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation

analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in
the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.Find this resource:
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.Find this
resource:

Sidnell, J. (2001). Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole. Journal of

Pragmatics, 33(8), 1263–1290.Find this resource:

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Find

this resource:

Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action in interaction. In N. J. Enfield,
P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology
(pp. 423–446). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., et al.
(2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592.Find this resource:

Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building
responsive actions. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Jack Sidnell

University of Toronto