Contiguity

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Contiguity
Author(s):	Katariina Harjunpää (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4586-1563)
To cite:	Harjunpää, Katariina. (2023). Contiguity. 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/X73WS

Contiguity is the property of an element in conversation and another element that is the “next one due” (Schegloff 2007: 15) being positioned in immediate proximity to each other. It concerns the unfolding of turns in a sequence of action as well as the unfolding of words, sounds, and potentially embodied action, although the latter is rarely discussed in the scope of 'contiguity' (see, however, Mondada & Sorjonen 2016).

Contiguity is central to the organization of adjacency pairs. A first- and second-pair part are produced ‘contiguously’ when they are delivered without anything intervening them in terms of the timing and ordering of the conversational components (Sacks 1987).

As regards timing, based on a cross-linguistic examination of ten structurally and culturally diverse languages, most confirming responses to questions are delivered in a transition space of 0–200 milliseconds from the end of the first-pair part (Stivers, et al. 2009). There is thus good reason to consider actions delivered within such timing as contiguous with the first action. (Noting, however, that the absolute time that speakers in different language communities or given situations subjectively hear as being within a contiguous transition space vs. delay can slightly differ, for instance, according to the overall pace of the interaction [idem.].)

A renown example of the participants’ orientation to contiguity in the ordering of turn components is that when a first-pair part contains two questions, the latter question tends to be responded first in the response turn (Sacks 1987). The ordering of the two responses thus achieves contiguity of the latter question and its response, whereas adhering to the order of the questions in responding would separate each question from its response.

The contiguity between a first and a second-pair part can be disrupted by phenomena such as a gap between the turns (see delay), the second turn’s beginning being occupied by other than the second-pair part action, anticipatory accounts, and “pro forma” agreement tokens followed by disagreement (Schegloff 2007: 69–73). Disruptions to contiguity bear on the progressivity of talk and sequences of action, and are examined by the participants for their import to the participants’ understanding of the ongoing interaction (Schegloff 2007; see also Stivers & Robinson 2006).

Contiguity within adjacency pairs plays a part in preference organization. Preferred actions tend to be produced contiguously (Sacks 1987). Disruptions to contiguity can therefore signal an upcoming dispreferred action (Schegloff 2007: 69; see also Lindström 2009; Pomerantz 1984). At the occurrence of some signal of a dispreferred response, the first speaker may redo and redesign their action in a way that enables the recipient to produce an agreeing, contiguous response (Sacks 1987). In other words, the connection between contiguity and preferred actions and non-contiguity and dispreferred actions provides a resource for participants in mutually coordinating action.

Yet, recent research on the timing of responses to interrogatively formatted requests for information in English shows that even disconfirming responses are often produced without much gap or signals of dispreference (Robinson 2020). The findings suggest that additional distinctions in responsive actions may be needed for further explaining the relationship between contiguity and preference organization. In particular, responding unconditionally, be it confirming or disconfirming, appears connected to contiguous delivery.

Additional Related Entries:

• Adjacency
• Turn-taking
• Preference
• Dispreferred
• Face
• Agreement
• Alignment
• Affiliation
• Sequence
• Progressivity

Cited References:

Lindström, A. (2009). Projecting nonalignment in conversation, In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 135–158). Cambridge University Press.

Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2016). Making multiple requests in French and Finnish convenience stores. Language in Society, 45(5), 733–765.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J. M.Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, J. D. (2020). Revisiting Preference Organization in Context: A Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of Responses to Information Seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(2), 197–222.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press.

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., and Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26) 10587–10592.

Stivers, T. & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–92.

Additional References: