Rush-through

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Rush-through
Author(s):	Marit Aldrup (University of Potsdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7208-6822)
To cite:	Aldrup, Marit. (2023). Rush-through. 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/THW6M

Rush-throughs are tempo-related turn-holding devices which allow current speakers to extend their turn beyond a possible completion point. Like abrupt-joins, they are employed to locally preempt turn transition by means of temporally compressing an upcoming transition-relevance place (TRP) and launching another turn-constructional unit (TCU) before a co-participant can self-select for next speakership (Sacks et al., 1974). Both practices thus facilitate the ad hoc construction of multi-unit turns.

In contrast to abrupt-joins, which have been described as disjunctive in terms of their prosodic-phonetic design, rush-throughs constitute an integrative turn-holding practice: The two TCUs are linked conjunctively without any discontinuities of pitch, loudness, or tempo (Walker 2010; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 89f.). In this way, the current speaker can “interdict another speaker’s starting up” (Schegloff 2000: 51), which may, for instance, be relevant in the context of projected disagreement (Schegloff 1987: 107) or disalignment (Walker 2010: 68).

The following example taken from Schegloff (1987: 103; slightly adapted) is a case in point. Just before the possible completion of the first TCU in line 17 (see juncture marked by “►”), Curt speeds up and produces the second TCU "’z Keegan still go out?" (lines 17-18) in close temporal and articulatory proximity, thereby preempting an incipient disagreement on Mike’s part as projected by his lateral head shake:

(Schegloff 1987:103, modified)

10   Curt:      Dz he go out there pretty regular?
11              (1.5)
12   Mike:      Generally evry Saturdee.
13              (1.2)
14   Phyllis:   He wins js about evry Saturday too:.
15   Ryan:      Bo[: Bo!
16   Curt:        [He- He’s about the only regular<he’s about
17           -> the only good regular out# there.#►’z Keegan still go
     mike                                #hdshake#
18              out?=
19   Mike:      =Keegan’s, (0.2) out there (.) he’s, He run.

Overall, rush-throughs are characterized by the following set of prosodic-phonetic features (Walker 2010):

• Acceleration: The final foot of the first TCU is produced with an articulation rate that is approximately twice as fast as that of the preceding foot.
• Pitch: The first TCU has the pitch characteristics of a complete intonation phrase. (But note that the suppression of final intonation is attested in earlier accounts of the phenomenon, e.g., Schegloff 1982.)
• Continued phonation: There is no stop in voiced phonation between the first and the second TCU, which also means that final devoicing is suppressed and voiceless sounds may become voiced.
• Articulatory anticipation: The articulatory organs are typically already being brought into position for the production of the second TCU while the first TCU is still underway, which may lead to assimilation between the last sounds of the first and the initial sounds of the second TCU.

Additional Related Entries:

• Abrupt-join
• Latching
• Transition-relevance place (TRP)
• Turn-holding

Cited References:

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as 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. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114.

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-63.

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:

Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, (pp. 151–166). Wiley-Blackwell.

Selting, M. (1995). Prosodie im Gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionalen Phonologie der Konversation. Niemeyer Verlag.

Zhang, W. (2012). Latching/rush-through as a turn-holding device and its functions in retrospectively oriented pre-emptive turn continuation: Findings from Mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes, 49(3–4), 163–191.