Multi-unit turn
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Multi-unit turn | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Elliott M. Hoey (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) |
| To cite: | Hoey, Elliott M. (2023). Multi-unit turn. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AFMDB |
A multi-unit turn is an utterance produced by one speaker that contains more than one turn-constructional unit (TCU), which entails more than one place of possible completion. It is to be understood principally by reference to the conversational norm that speakers are entitled to a single TCU, upon the possible completion of which turn-transition becomes a relevant possibility (Sacks, et al. 1974; Sacks 1992; Schegloff 1996). Because of this structural bias for single-unit turns, the occurrence of a multi-unit turn embodies an interactional accomplishment.
The practical turn-taking problem is projecting/locating where a given turn might end, a concern which largely overlaps with producing/recognizing the adequate completion of the action(s) implemented by the turn (Ford 2004; Schegloff 1996, 2006, 2011). Take, for example, a question-answer sequence. In broadcast interviews (Clayman & Heritage 2002), the interviewer often produces elaborate descriptions so as to frame or provide for the topical relevance of the question that is eventually produced. And complementarily, interviewees are expected to produce answers that are similarly elaborated. For these actions, recipients must ongoingly monitor the unfolding turn for unit-internal boundaries, and decide which among these warrant what sorts of reactions and responses (Goodwin 1981; Lerner 1991). Within a multi-unit turn, then, we may speak of one or more sub-units or non-final TCUs. While these may make relevant a restricted range of recipient actions, they do not make relevant turn-transition and are not considered TRPs (Houtkoop-Steenstra & Mazeland 1985; Schegloff 1982; Selting 2000).
There are many ways by which a speaker comes to produce a multi-unit turn. We may speak of action projection (Auer 2005) that plays out at the level of sequence organization (Schegloff 2007). At this level of organization, speakers may project a multi-unit turn through actions like pre-tellings, story prefaces (Jefferson 1978; Mandelbaum 2013), pre-announcements (Terasaki 2004 [1976]), and pre-pres (Schegloff 1980). With these, the speaker indicates that they will produce some action contingent upon the recipient’s alignment (i.e., that they refrain from vying for speakership until the speaker’s projected action is possibly complete).
The projection of ‘more to come’ also operates at smaller levels of organization, namely, through the resources of turn-construction. A speaker can project the upcoming occurrence of a certain item or component, which alerts the recipient to look out for what might constitute that item or component. Linguistically, the grammar of a given language furnishes basic resources by which participants evaluate the possible completion of, for instance, a word, clause, or other construction. In addition to grammar, there are devices such as prospective indexicals (Goodwin 1996) like cleft constructions (Mori 2017); projector constructions (Günther 2011; Pekarek Doehler 2011); preliminary components of compound TCUs like if-clauses (Lerner 1991, 1996); and repeats of the prior turn (e.g., Bolden 2009; Heritage & Raymond 2012; Skogmyr Marian, et al. 2021).
With the practices listed so far, speakers indicate ahead of time that an upcoming place of possible turn completion is not to be treated as a TRP. In contrast to these relatively prospective methods, speakers may also manipulate the TRP in a more direct way through methods of turn-extension. These methods are deployed upon arriving at (pre-)possible turn completion (Schegloff 1996) and are aimed at maintaing speakership. They include phonetic pratices of rush-throughs (Walker 2010) and abrupt-joins (Local & Walker 2004), and grammatical practices like pivot constructions (Betz, 2008; Clayman & Raymond 2015) and conjunctionals of various sorts (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018).
Multi-unit turns may be distinguished from some other forms of turn-continuation (Auer 2005, 2009; Couper-Kuhlen 2012; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Schegloff 2016 [2000]). Turn-continuation occurs where a speaker comes to possible turn completion and then stops, thereby treating their turn as adequately complete then and there. However, the same speaker continues to speak (e.g., after receiving no uptake/response). The turn that comes to be produced is multi-unit not by design, but only contingently.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 1, 7-36.
Betz, E. (2008). Grammar and interaction: Pivots in German conversation. John Benjamins.
Bolden, G. B. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 121-143.
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W. (2015). Modular pivots: A resource for extending turns at talk. Research on Language and social Interaction, 48(4), 388-405.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes, 49(3-4), 273-299.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513-552.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. E. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 27–52.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge University Press.
Günthner, S. (2011). Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.) Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 156-185). De Gruyter.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press.
Houtkoop, H., & Mazeland, H. (1985). Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(5), 595-620.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 219-248). Academic Press.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441-458.
Local, J. & G. Walker (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multiunit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1375–1403.
Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 492–507). Wiley-Blackwell.
Marian, K. S., Malabarba, T., & Weatherall, A. (2021). Multi-unit turns that begin with a resaying of a prior speaker's turn. Language & Communication, 78, 77-87.
Mori, J. (2014). The re-examination of so-called ‘clefts’: A study of multiunit turns in Japanese talk-in-interaction. In K. Kabata & T. Ono (Eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Japanese Grammar (pp. 193-222). John Benjamins.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation (pp. 103-148). John Benjamins.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries:“Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3‐4), 104-152.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (pp. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 141-157.
Schegloff, E. A. (2011). Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 367-380.
Schegloff, E. A. (2016 [2000]). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford University Press.
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29(4), 477-517.
Terasaki, A. K. (2004 [1976]). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 171–224). John Benjamins.
Walker, G. (2010) The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice: rush-throughs in English talk-in-interaction. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Interaction (pp. 51-72). John Benjamins.
Additional References:
