Continuer
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Continuer | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Shimako Iwasaki (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6593-7203) |
| To cite: | Iwasaki, Shimaki (2024). Continuer. 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: [ ] |
Continuers are minimal tokens such as mm-hm and uh huh in English, which are produced as displays of continued recipiency within ongoing talk. As Schegloff (1982) argued, they “exhibit on the part of its producer an understanding that an extended unit of talk is underway by another, and that it is not yet […] complete” (p. 81). With a continuer, a participant “takes the stance that the speaker of that extended unit should continue that extended unit [...] by passing an opportunity to produce a full turn at talk” (p. 81; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 497, 511-51; Gardner 2001).
Continuers regularly occur at the possible completion points of a turn-constructional unit (TCU) and at transition-relevance places (TRP) (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974). They can also overlap with speaker’s production as interlocutors project the trajectory of the turn. However, continuers suggest that there is no need for repair or clarification since they are not turns, but displays from the recipient to the speaker that it is okay to progress the unfolding turn-at-talk. Continuers have been identified as an interactional strategy within a range of languages (e.g., Clancy, Thompson, Suzuki & Tao 1996, for English, Japanese and Chinese; Kita & Ide 2007, for Japanese; Sorjonen 2001, for Finnish; Steensig & Sørensen, 2019, for Danish; Young & Lee 2004, for Korean). Continuers may also be conveyed through combinations of verbal and bodily resources (e.g., Kita & Ide 2007; Schegloff 1982; See also Stivers 2008 and Voutilainen et al. 2019, for nodding and vocal continuers in storytelling).
For example, in the excerpt below Nancy provides “Uh hu: h” as a continuer overlapping with Hyla’s production of “sixteen,” which is a syntactically possibly complete point for the TCU. Rather than taking a turn and the floor, Nancy supports Hyla to continue with the next TCU.
(1) [HGII:35] (Goodwin, 1986: 212)
Hyla: One time I remember, .hh ‘s girl wrote
end her, .hh she wz like (.) fifteen er
six [teen end ] her mother doesn let’er wear,
Nancy: -> [Uh hu:h, ]
Hyla: .hh nail polish er sh(h)ort ski:::rts
Er:[:: .hhhhhhh]=
Nancy: [Oh: wo:(h)w]
Hyla: =Oo::h no I remember what yesterday was
Related to continuers is the notion of “backchannel,” coined by Yngve (1970), which originated from psychologically oriented signal-based approaches (Duncan & Fiske 1977). While “backchannel” has become a common term for a range of listener behaviors, conversation analysts tend to avoid the term in favor of classifying recipient tokens by their sequential position, composition, and interactional import. For example, in English continuers such as mm-hm and uh-huh, which facilitate the speaker’s extension of the turn, have been contrasted with acknowledgement tokens such as yeah (Jefferson 1984) that can display incipient recipiency, assessments such as oh wow (Goodwin 1986) which provide evaluative feedback, and change-of-state tokens such as oh (Heritage 1984) which indicate shifts in epistemic stance. Scholars use a range of terms to explain recipient actions and tokens and there is not consistent agreement on the distinctions between the terms. However, a continuer is a recognizable indication that the speaker is expected to proceed with their unfolding turn. While continuers are instigated by the recipient passing an opportunity to take a turn at TCU boundaries, "interactive turn spaces" (Iwasaki, 2009, 2011) are strategically initiated by the speaker within a TCU creating a relevant location for recipients to provide contributions to the trajectory of the unfolding talk.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Ergül, H. (2016). Adjournments during TV watching: A closer look into the organisation of continuing states of incipient talk. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 144-164.
Hoey, E. M. (2015). Lapses: How people arrive at, and deal with, discontinuities in talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 430–453.
Hoey, E. M. (2018a). How speakers continue with talk after a lapse in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 329–346.
Hoey, E. M. (2020). When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford University Press.
Nishizaka, A., & Sunaga, M. (2015). Conversing while massaging: Multidimensional asymmetries of multiple activities in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 200–229.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). How to begin. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 213-231.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327
Sutinen, M. (2014). Negotiating favorable conditions for resuming suspended activities. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking (pp. 137–166). John Benjamins
Szymanski, M. H. (1999). Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language in Society, 28(1), 1–23.
Szymanski, M. H., Vinkhuyzen, E., Aoki, P. M., & Woodruff, A. (2006). Organizing a remote state of incipient talk: Push-to-talk mobile radio interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 393-418.
Additional References:
Berger, I., Viney, R., & Rae, J. P. (2016). Do continuing states of incipient talk exist?. Journal of Pragmatics, 91, 29–44
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. The Free Press.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press.
Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice managing lapses in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 47–63.
Hoey, E. M. (2018b). Drinking for speaking: The multimodal organization of drinking in conversation. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(1).
Hoey, E. M. (2021). Sacks, silence, and self-(de) selection. In R. Fitzgerald, R.J. Smith, & W. Housley (Eds.), On Sacks: Methodology, Materials, and Inspirations (pp. 130–142). Taylor & Francis.
Jefferson G. (1983b). Notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘Standard Maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 42, 1–83.
Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3-4), 263–290.
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(4), 301–316.
McLaughlin, M. L. & Cody, M. J. (1982). Awkward silences: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of the conversational lapse. Human Communication Research, 8(4), 299–316.
Philips, S. U. (1985). Interaction structured through talk and interaction structured through “silence.” In D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 205–214). Ablex.
Robinson, J. D. (2013). Overall structural organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 257–280). Wiley-Blackwell.
Thomason, W. R., & Hopper, R. (1992). Pauses, transition relevance, and speaker change. Human Communication Research, 18(3), 429–444.
