Second pair part

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Second pair part
Author(s): Tiina Eilittä (University of Oulu, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1655-7535) & Anna Vatanen (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8236-657X)
To cite: Eilittä, Tiina & Vatanen, Anna. (2025). Second pair part. 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: [ ]


A second pair part refers to an action in interaction that follows and is responsive to a turn that has been produced before it. The first turn makes a second turn expectable, and as the second turn occurs, it is interpreted “as a second item to the first” (Schegloff 1968: 1083). In other words, a second pair part (SPP) is adjacent to a first pair part (or FPP; Schegloff, 2007), and it is the sequentially second component in an adjacency pair. A first pair part makes relevant a limited selection of possible second pair parts, and thus second pair parts are normatively responsive to the constraints of the first pair part (Schegloff, 2007). Examples of SPPs include information-providing answers (to information-seeking questions), agreements/disagreements (to assessments or assertions), grantings/rejections (to requests), and acknowledgements (to informings).

For example, in Excerpt 1 below, speaker E requests for information (an FPP), and speaker S answers it (an SPP).

(1) (Hakulinen, 2001: 3) [telephone conversation]

01  E:  On-ks toi  äiti   kotona. 
        is-Q  that mother home-at                                                            
        Is your mummy there.

02  S:  O:n
        is 
        Yes

The design of the SPP and the social action that it produces depend in part on the design and the social action of its FPP. In other words, the FPP’s turn design places various affordances or restrictions on the relevant SPP, and makes them conditionally relevant (Sacks, 1995; Schegloff, 1968; 2007; for more on turn design, see, e.g., Drew 2013). Normatively, the SPP is type-fitted to the FPP, which means, for example, that information-seeking questions are responded to with answers that provide the requested information. The grammatical construction of the FPPs also affects the types of SPPs that are type-fitted. For example, questions beginning with different question words make very specific types of responses relevant: questions beginning with “who” make a person reference as the relevant answer, whereas “where”-interrogatives make relevant a reference to a place (Schegloff, 2007). Similarly, polar questions (the so-called “yes/no interrogatives”) make relevant answers that either confirm or deny the information included in the question (Raymond, 2003; Schegloff, 2007; on polar questions and their answers in different languages, see, e.g., Bolden, Heritage & Sorjonen, eds., 2023, and references therein). When an SPP delivers a type-matched response that was made relevant by its FPP, it is considered to be type-conforming (Raymond, 2003; Schegloff, 2007).

In some adjacency pairs, however, there are several alternative types of second pair parts from which the recipient of the first pair part may choose. For example, an invitation may be either accepted or declined in response (e.g., Margutti et al. 2018), or a request may be either granted or rejected(e.g., Drew & Couper-Kuhlen 2014; for other types of responses to requests, see, e.g., Vatanen & Haddington, 2023, 2024). While both of these alternative SPPs are type-fitted, typically only one of them is structurally preferred (e.g., acceptance or granting) while the other is dispreferred (e.g., declining or rejection) (see preference).

Second pair parts may also be more or less aligning with the first pair part. This means, for example, that the second pair parts may support the sequential and activity implications of the first pair part to different degrees, accept the interactional roles, presuppositions and terms (e.g., concerning epistemics) proposed in the first pair part to different degrees, and match the (grammatical) design preferences of the first pair part to different degrees (see Etelämäki et al. 2021, and references therein). In addition, second pair parts may differ from one another as to how much their speakers affiliate with the speaker of the first pair part in their turn. This refers to cooperation at the affective level of the initiating turn, such as the degree to which the speaker matches and supports the evaluative stance of the first speaker (see Etelämäki et al. 2021, and references therein).

Sometimes the turns that speakers produce after first pair parts are not “type-fitted”. Speakers may, for example, produce counters or requests for clarification (Levinson, 2013; Schegloff, 2007); these types of turns may not be interpreted as second pair parts but other kinds of responses (post-first actions) to the initiating turn. Speakers may also produce so-called ‘non-answer responses’, for example, when they respond to a request of information with I don’t know instead of providing an answer (Stivers & Robinson 2006; on the interactional work of I don’t know and its counterparts in other languages, see also, e.g., Beach & Metzger 1997, Keevallik 2011, Pekarek Doehler 2016).

At times, the second pair part – or another kind of response to the first pair part – may be missing altogether. In these situations, the lack of a relevant next action is often treated as noticeably absent or even troublesome, and the person not producing the second pair part may be held accountable (Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 1968, 2007). This can be seen, for example, when a speaker attempts to pursue a response (e.g., Jefferson, 1981; Pomerantz, 1984; Stivers & Rossano, 2010), for example, by repeating the initial first pair part (e.g., Eilittä & Vatanen, 2023) or by clarifying it. An example of a repetition of the first pair part can be found below in Excerpt 2, where Mum’s three kids have just come in after playing outside. Mum is helping them with their outdoor clothes. The 3-year-old Minea summons Mum twice (lines 01 and 03), and receiving no response, proceeds to an informing turn (line 06), to which Mum responds (line 08).

(2) (Eilittä & Vatanen, 2023: 10–11, simplified)      

01 MIN:  °°(uhm) (0.5) äi(h)ti,°°
            uhm        mum

02       (2.2)
 
03 MIN:  äiti.
         Mum

04 ELM:  °(uih)°

05       (1.1)

06 MIN:  siel↑lä ↑sato.
         it rained there

07       (0.3) 

08 MUM:  ei kait siellä satanu.
         I don’t think it was raining

Second pair parts are often verbal, but they can also be produced multimodally. Multimodal second pair parts are turns produced using more than one modality, such as verbally and in a bodily manner. An example of this can be seen in Excerpt 3, where Riitta and Taru are closing up a Zoom meeting. In line 14, Riitta initiates farewells. In line 15, Taru produces a multimodal second pair part to the farewells as she waves while saying goodbye.

(3) Siitonen et al. 2022, p. 103)

14 RIITTA:   @palataa:[:::n@,] ((@ = sing-songy voice))
              see you later
15 TARU:   ->         [@juu:@] *moikka.
                        yeah bye bye
           ->                  *waves

Second pair parts may also be accomplished solely in a bodily manner, without any accompanying talk. In Excerpt 4, Jeannine requests Alex to pass her the pepper (line 15). The second pair part Alex produces to this turn is embodied, in other words, he performs the requested action without producing a verbal second pair part (line 16).

(4) (Keisanen & Rauniomaa, 2012: 327, simplified)

15  JEANNINE:  Alex can you *pass me the pepper.
    alex                    *initiates visual search                          

16  JONATHAN:  *Laura can you say grace please
    alex       *grabs pepper and places it in front of Jeannine

Whether verbal, multimodal, or embodied, second pair parts play a significant role for speakers as well as for the researchers of conversations: the second pair parts (or the lack of them) display how the first pair parts were understood by the recipients (Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 1992). This analytic resource of Conversation Analysis is referred to as next turn proof procedure (e.g., Sacks et al., 1974, p. 729).

One more important feature in the analysis of second pair parts is their timing. Most often, turns follow one another without a gap or overlap; however, short gaps and short overlaps are frequent (Sacks et al. 1974; Stivers et al. 2009). Moreover, it has been shown that early and delayed timings of second pair parts carry an interactional meaning. For example, delayed second pair parts are often associated with dispreference (e.g., Pomerantz 1984), while responses positioned in early overlap can indicate independent epistemic access to the matter talked about (Vatanen 2014, 2018; Vatanen et al. 2021), or the early timing can be interactionally significant in various other ways (Deppermann et al. 2021).

Second pair parts play an important role in sequence organization. As second pair parts complete adjacency pairs, they potentially end sequences, unless the sequence is expanded. Examples of sequence expansions that orient to the production of second pair parts are pre-second insert expansions, as well as non-minimal post sequence expansions. Pre-second insert expansions may occur in situations where the recipient of a base sequence’s first pair part requests additional or clarifying information from the producer of the first pair part before producing the second pair part of the base sequence (e.g., Schegloff, 2007; Kendrick et al., 2020). This way, the pre-second insert expansion sequence may set a condition on what kind of a second pair part a speaker produces to the base sequence’s first pair part. Excerpt 5 from Merritt (1976: 333) illustrates how S initiates a first pair part of a pre-second insert expansion in line 2 before responding to C’s base sequence’s first pair part (line 1). S responds to the pre-second insert expansion with a second pair part in line 3, after which S produces the second pair part of the base sequence in line 4.

(5) (Merritt 1976: 333)                      

01 C:    may I have a bottle of mich
02 S: -> are you twenty-one
03 C: -> no
04 S:    no

Second pair parts may also be followed by sequences referred to as non-minimal post-expansions that orient to the adequacy of the second pair part (e.g., Kendrick et al., 2020; Schegloff, 2007). In research on data in English, non-minimal post-expansions often challenge the base sequence’s second pair part in some way, and come, for example, in forms of other-initiated repairs or disagreements (Schegloff, 2007). However, in some other languages, non-minimal post-expansions are not necessarily disaffiliative in nature, and may occur, for example, as a repetition of the second pair part (Kendrick et al., 2020).


Additional Related Entries:


Cited References:

Deppermann, A., Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 293–307.

Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 1–34). John Benjamins.

Eilittä, T., & Vatanen, A. (2023). Children’s self-repeated summonses to adults: pursuing responses and creating favourable conditions for interaction. Gesprächsforschung, 24.

Etelämäki, M., Heinemann, T. & Vatanen, A. (2021). On affiliation and alignment: Non-cooperative uses of anticipatory completions in the context of tellings. Discourse Studies, 23(6), 726–758.

Hakulinen, A. (2001). Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions. Pragmatics 11(1), 1–15.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

Keisanen, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (2012). The organization of participation and contingency in prebeginnings of request sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 323–351.

Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., and Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–138.

Levinson. S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.

Margutti, Piera, Tainio, Liisa, Drew, Paul, & Traverso, Véronique 2018. Invitations and responses across different languages: Observations on the feasibility and relevance of a cross-linguistic comparative perspective on the study of actions. Journal of Pragmatics 125, 52-61.

Pomerantz, A. 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.

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

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. Basil 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. (1968). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.

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

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., De Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K-E. & 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.

Vatanen, A. (2014). Responding in overlap: Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. PhD thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Vatanen, A. (2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 107–126.

Vatanen, A. & Haddington, P. (2023). Multiactivity in adult-child interaction. Accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk, 43(2), 263–290.

Vatanen, A. & Haddington, P. (2024). Oota pikku hetki. Lykkäys sosiaalisena toimintona perhevuorovaikutuksessa [“Wait a moment”. Suspensions in recruitment sequences in family interaction]. Virittäjä 1/2024, 4–34.

Vatanen, A., Endo, T. & Yokomori, D. (2021). Cross-linguistic investigation of projection in overlapping agreements to assertions: Stance-taking as a resource for projection. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 308–327.


Additional References:


EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'second pair part'