Self-talk

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Self-talk
Author(s):	Leelo Keevallik (Linköping University, Sweden) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2175-8710) & Adrian Kerrison (Linköping University, Sweden)
To cite:	Keevallik, Leelo, & Kerrison, Adrian. (2023). Self-talk. 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:

In interaction research, self-talk refers to a speaker’s utterance that is neither addressed to another participant nor designed to occasion a response. The phenomenon was initially described by Goffman, who defined it as follows:

“Speaking audibly, we address ourselves, constituting ourselves the sole intended recipient of our own remarks. Or, speaking in our own name, we address a remark to someone who isn't present to receive it.” (Goffman 1978: 787; 1981: 79).

Psychological research had expressed concern about self-directed talk since speech was meant to convey thoughts to others, so speaking to oneself risked expressing ‘egocentricity’ or even being ‘a kind of perversion’ (Goffman 1978: 788) in ignoring intersubjectivity. Goffman instead described a number of contexts and activities where the taboo on self-talk is lifted, including dictating to a machine, addressing a pet, and praying. Self-talk was particularly allowed when solitary – visually and audibly inaccessible to others – but could also be excused when ‘single’– in the presence of others but unaccompanied by anyone (Goffman 1978: 787). Acts that can be legitimately performed by singles included imprecations and response cries when “one can point to some hitch in the well-managed flow of controlled events and the quick application of an ostensibly self-directed pronouncement to establish evidence – a veneer – of control, poise, and competency” (Goffman 1978: 806, 1981: 109).

Later researchers have continued finding uses rather than excuses for self-talk. Studies of writing have found that short turns when the speaker is typing on the computer do not necessarily make relevant additional talk (Hoey 2020: 36–37; cf. Heath, et al. 2002) while more extensive stretches of self-talk during writing tasks have been shown to function as means of re-engagement through individual progress being made available for commentary and response (Szymanski 1999: 19–21). Some instances of self-talk can potentially function as noticings, announcements or assessments, and launch interactional sequences, while still remaining ambiguous in regard to whether they make a response relevant at all (Stivers & Rossano 2010).

Self-talk as not eliciting a response can be constituted through both verbal and embodied means, as has been shown for comments on the material environs (Keevallik 2018). The following example comes from a group of young people in Estonia working together to clear out a sheep stable (Keevallik 2018: 320). After a joke about the dimensions of sheep, received with laughter, silence ensues (lines 1-3). In line 4, Toomas utters an imprecation followed by a comment about the thickness of the layer of manure that he is working on. He does this muttering in a hunched position, poking on the surface while oriented away from other co-present participants, who are also busy with their respective tasks of digging and lifting. Even though two people briefly gaze towards him (not shown), his turn is not responded to (note the 40-second pause in line 5). It thus emerges as self-talk, a turn that did not make relevant a response in the context of co-work. In addition to complaints, comments on the work progress and on the material surrounds were often treated as self-talk in this setting.

(Keevallik 2018: 320)

01  Renee:    või mis see on see lamba dimensioon.
              or what was it - the dimensions of sheep 

02  ?:        heheh 

03            (3.0)

04  Toomas:   kurat see on   nagu PÕHjatu #sin. hh
              damn there’s like no bottom here
    fig                                   #Fig.1

05            (30.2)* (9.3)
    ren             *grabs wheelbarrow handles to pull it out of the stable->> 



Figure 1: Toomas during mid-turn

Additional Related Entries:

• Participation
• Participation framework
• Response
• Response cry
• Outloud
• Incipient talk
• Complaint
• First-pair part

Cited References:

Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787-815.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & Vom Lehn, D. (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11, 317-347.

Hoey, E. (2020). When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford University Press.

Keevallik, Leelo. (2018). Sequence Initiation or Self-Talk? Commenting on the Surroundings While Mucking out a Sheep Stable. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 313-328.

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

Szymanski, M., H. . (1999). Re-Engaging and Dis-Engaging Talk in Activity. Language in Society, 28(1), 1-23.

Additional References: