Difference between revisions of "Abrupt-join"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The following example taken from Local and Walker (2004: 1381) is a case in point. The TCU "what do you think of Ann Percy" (line 7) is latched right onto the prior one at a possible completion point (see juncture marked by “►”) with a compressed last syllable, but designed disjunctively with a pitch upstep, a slightly slower articulation rate and an increase in loudness. By quickly launching a new topic at a point of imminent topic closure, Robbie secures both her right to the floor and the opportunity to unilaterally effect a sudden shift in the direction of talk: | The following example taken from Local and Walker (2004: 1381) is a case in point. The TCU "what do you think of Ann Percy" (line 7) is latched right onto the prior one at a possible completion point (see juncture marked by “►”) with a compressed last syllable, but designed disjunctively with a pitch upstep, a slightly slower articulation rate and an increase in loudness. By quickly launching a new topic at a point of imminent topic closure, Robbie secures both her right to the floor and the opportunity to unilaterally effect a sudden shift in the direction of talk: | ||
| − | + | ||
[Holt.5.88.1.5.20.finger] (Local & Walker 2004: 1381) | [Holt.5.88.1.5.20.finger] (Local & Walker 2004: 1381) | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
09 Les: .hhhhh we::ll do you kno:w e-I wuh- I: have a | 09 Les: .hhhhh we::ll do you kno:w e-I wuh- I: have a | ||
10 certain sneaking respect for her | 10 certain sneaking respect for her | ||
| − | + | ||
Overall, abrupt-joins are characterized by the following set of prosodic-phonetic features (Local & Walker 2004): | Overall, abrupt-joins are characterized by the following set of prosodic-phonetic features (Local & Walker 2004): | ||
* ''Localized acceleration with subsequent deceleration'': The final syllable of the first TCU is produced with a noticeably faster articulation rate. At the same time, there is often a marked slowing down at the beginning of the second TCU. | * ''Localized acceleration with subsequent deceleration'': The final syllable of the first TCU is produced with a noticeably faster articulation rate. At the same time, there is often a marked slowing down at the beginning of the second TCU. | ||
Revision as of 08:16, 18 June 2023
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Abrupt-join | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Marit Aldrup (University of Potsdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7208-6822) |
| To cite: | Aldrup, Marit. (2023). Abrupt-join. 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: [] |
Abrupt-joins are tempo-related turn-holding devices which allow current speakers to extend their turn beyond a possible completion point. Like rush-throughs, 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 rush-throughs, which have been described as integrative in terms of their prosodic-phonetic design, abrupt-joins constitute a disjunctive turn-holding practice: Aside from the close temporal and articulatory proximity between first and second TCU, the second TCU features discontinuities of pitch, loudness as well as tempo and typically also changes the projected trajectory of talk (Local & Walker 2004; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 90f.).
The following example taken from Local and Walker (2004: 1381) is a case in point. The TCU "what do you think of Ann Percy" (line 7) is latched right onto the prior one at a possible completion point (see juncture marked by “►”) with a compressed last syllable, but designed disjunctively with a pitch upstep, a slightly slower articulation rate and an increase in loudness. By quickly launching a new topic at a point of imminent topic closure, Robbie secures both her right to the floor and the opportunity to unilaterally effect a sudden shift in the direction of talk:
[Holt.5.88.1.5.20.finger] (Local & Walker 2004: 1381) 01 Rob: I just fee::l:- (0.4) if they’re going to go the 02 wa::y: of the modern schoo:ls there’s an awf:ul- 03 they’re caught between the two that’s their pro[blem 04 Les: [that’s ri:ght 05 (0.3) 06 Rob: and they’ve got to go:: (.) you know really get 07 -> their finger out► what do you think of Ann Percy 08 (.) 09 Les: .hhhhh we::ll do you kno:w e-I wuh- I: have a 10 certain sneaking respect for her
Overall, abrupt-joins are characterized by the following set of prosodic-phonetic features (Local & Walker 2004):
- Localized acceleration with subsequent deceleration: The final syllable of the first TCU is produced with a noticeably faster articulation rate. At the same time, there is often a marked slowing down at the beginning of the second TCU.
- Pitch: The first TCU has turn-final pitch characteristics and there is a noticeable pitch upstep at the beginning of the second TCU.
- Loudness: The first stressed syllable of the second TCU is noticeably louder than the last syllable of the first TCU.
- Articulatory encroachment: Certain phonetic parameters, such as place or manner of articulation, may be assimilated across the join of the first and the second TCU. When the first TCU ends and the second TCU begins with a sonorant, voicing is typically maintained across the join.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Local, J. K. & Walker, G. (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1375–1403.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
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.
