Retro-sequence

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Retro-sequence
Author(s):	Uwe-A. Küttner (Leibniz-Institute for the German Language, Mannheim) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
To cite:	Küttner, Uwe-A. (2021). Retro-sequence. In Alexandra Gubina & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/VXURZ.

Term: Retro-sequence

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: A retro-sequence is a type of sequence that is launched (or ‘activated’) from second position (Schegloff 2007: 217-219). Retro-sequences operate backwards (or retrospectively, hence the name) and typically invoke a source/outcome relationship with what preceded them. Specifically, the first ‘visible’ component of a retro-sequence retroactively marks (and often locates) a prior utterance or action as its ‘source’ by presenting itself as an ‘outcome’ of that prior. In other words, the ‘source’ turn/action only becomes recognizable and is thus constituted as the ‘source’, once the ‘outcome’ turn has been produced. Schegloff (2007) mentions other-initiated repair as a prime example of this retroactive operation:

The repair initiation in line 04 marks and locates the person reference in line 02 as the ‘source’ for its production by treating it as a source of ‘trouble’. Note that this happens retroactively: Although Beth’s turn in line 01-02 engendered the repair initiation, it cannot be said to have made a repair initiation sequentially relevant next (indeed, her question projects an answer). This retroactive constitution of something earlier in the sequence as the ‘source’ for their production is the core feature of retro-sequential objects. Consequently, if the ‘outcome’ turn/action does not locate its ‘source’ (e.g., unsolicited laughter, sudden crying), it may attract a search for its possible source from the recipient (Schegloff 2007: 218).

At the same time, these turns/actions generally initiate sequences themselves and make some responsive action prospectively relevant next (in the above example, a repair solution). Sequentially, they are therefore janus-faced and can act as junctural, ‘pivotal’ or transitional devices (Küttner 2020). Retro-sequential objects need not be first pair-parts of insert sequences, however (see Kendrick 2019; Küttner 2020; see also Jefferson 1978 on ‘touched-off’ story initiations). The scope of retro-sequentiality as a more general feature of (certain) actions in interaction is still largely unexplored. Schegloff (2007: 219) mentions ‘noticing’ as an action-type that generally implicates retro-sequentiality and the invocation of source/outcome relationships (perhaps including the noticing of ‘trouble’ or ‘laughables’; see also Keisanen 2012; Kääntä 2014; Laanesoo & Keevallik 2017; cf. Pillet-Shore 2020). But it also seems to play a prominent role in account solicitations (both on- and off-record, Bolden & Robinson 2011; Raymond & Stivers 2016; Robinson & Bolden 2010; Sterponi 2003), apologies (Robinson 2004; Schegloff 2005; Heritage et al. 2019), challenges (Keisanen 2007; Koshik 2003), as well as turns that are (marked as) offering inferential interpretations of prior talk, such as formulations (Zinken & Küttner, under review.; see also Heritage & Watson 1979, 1980; Heritage 1985).

Additional Related Entries:

sequence

other-initiated repair

trouble-source

insert sequence(s)

noticing(s)

account solicitation(s)

challenge(s)

formulation(s)

interpretations

Cited References:

Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 95–117). Academic Press.

Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). Irvington.

Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analysed. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.245

Heritage, J., Raymond, C. W., & Drew, P. (2019). Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 185–200.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1

Kääntä, L. (2014). From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.010

Keisanen, T. (2007). Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. (pp. 253–281). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.10kei

Keisanen, T. (2012). “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, 191, 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0061

Kendrick, K. H. (2019). Evidential vindication in next turn: Using the retrospective “see?” in conversation. In L. S. R. Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O’Meara & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 253–274). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.13ken

Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301

Küttner, U.-A. (2020). Tying sequences together with the [That’s + wh-clause] format: On
(retro-)sequential junctures in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(2), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739422

Laanesoo, K., & Keevallik, L. (2017). Noticing breaches with nonpolar interrogatives: Estonian kes (“Who”) ascribing responsibility for problematic conduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1340721

Pillet-Shore, D. (2020). When to make the sensory social: Registering in Face‐to‐Face openings. Symbolic Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.481

Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 321–354). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0011

Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 291–330. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703₂

Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 501–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371051

Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, volume 1. Cambridge University Press.

Sterponi, L. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010401

Zinken, J. & Küttner, U.-A. (under review). Offering an interpretation of prior talk in everyday interaction. A semantic map approach.