Sequence-closing third (SCT)

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Sequence-closing third (SCT)
Author(s):	Olivia H. Marrese (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
To cite:	Marrese, Olivia H. (2023). Sequence-closing third (SCT). 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 sequence-closing third (SCT) is a minimal post-expansion that adds an additional turn after a second-pair part, and is commonly used to register information (e.g., oh), accept action (e.g., okay, Mondada & Sorjonen 2021; see also Beach 1993), or offer an assessment (Schegloff 2007: 221), on the preceding sequential progression. A sequence-closing third is ‘minimal’ in the sense that it does not invite further expansion of that sequence and moves to close (Schegloff 2007: 118). For instance, in this example, from Heritage (1984), Nancy produces “oh” in third position two times, at line 3 and line 9, both of which register the information and close each sequence.

(Heritage 1984: 310)

01  N:  Fb1->  =.hhh Dz he av iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02  H:  Sb2->                              [.hhhh] Yea:h=
03  N:  SCT->  =Oh:,
04             (1.0)
05  N:  Fb2->  How didju git iz number,
06             (.)
07  H:  Sb2->  I(h) (.) c(h)alled infermatio’n San Fr’ncissc(h)[uh!
08  N:  SCT->                                                  [Oh::::.
09             (.)
10  N:  SCT->  Very cleve:r, hh=

It is important to keep in mind that the use of sequence-closing thirds varies by interactional context; Heritage (1985) shows that in news interviews, oh in third position rarely occurs, because the question and answer sequence is designed for an overhearing audience.

Compared to oh, which is used used to register information in third position, okay, or a variation of alright is often used to “mark or claim acceptance of a second-pair part,” as well as any related stances (Schegloff 2007: 120). Okay can be used as a sequence-closing third whether or not the second-pair part was preferred or dispreferred, for example, in the following case an offer (line 1) is rejected (line 3).

(Davidson 1984: 127; Schegloff 2007: 121)

01  Ali:  F->   You wan’ me bring you anything?
02              (0.4)
03  Bet:  S->   No: no: nothing.
04  Ali:  SCT-> AW:kay.

In this example, the sequence-closing third “okay” in line 4 accepts the rejection and moves to close the sequence. Composites of sequence-closing thirds (e.g., oh+okay; Couper-Kuhlen 2021) are also possible.

Finally, assessments can also function as sequence-closing thirds, and they articulate a stance vis-à-vis the previous second-pair part. For example, in the first example presented here, Nancy adds “very clever” in line 10 after her initial sequence-closing third “oh” (line 8). Another example of an assessment as a sequence-closing third, from Schegloff (2007), is part of a “personal state inquiry” (Sacks 1975), shown below:

[TG, 1:26-37] (Schegloff 2007: 124)

01  Ava:  F->    [.hh ] How’v you bee:n.
02  Bee:  S->    .hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh[h!
03  Ava:  SCT->                                 [That’s good,=
04        F->    =how’s (Bob),
05  Bee:  S->    He’s fine,
06  Ava:  SCT->  Tha::t’s goo:d,

In this case, Ava asks the first question “how have you been,” (line 1), and Bee responds (line 2), to which Ava adds “that’s good” (line 3). We see the same pattern repeated, where Ava now asks how Bob has been (line 4), Bee responds, and Ava again adds “that’s good” (line 6). Although good/that’s good are common examples of assessments as sequence-closing thirds, they are by no means the exclusive options (see Schegloff 2007: 125-126).

Additional Related Entries:

• Adjacency pair
• Insert expansion (sequence)
• First-pair part
• Second-pair part
• Minimal post-expansion
• Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)
• Change-of-state token
• Sequence

Cited References:

Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021). OH+ OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics, 7(1), 816-836.

Heritage, J. (1984). A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 95-119). Academic Press.

Mondada, L, & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2021). OKAY in closings and transitions. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to its Use in Talk-in-interaction (pp. 94–127). John Benjamins.

Sacks, H. (1975). Everybody Has to Lie. In M. Sanches & B. G. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use (pp. 57-80). Academic Press.

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

Additional References:

Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional Regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352.