Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)

From emcawiki
Revision as of 13:48, 17 June 2023 by ChaseRaymond (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)
Author(s): Olivia H. Marrese (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
To cite: Marrese, Olivia H. (2023). Insert expansion (sequence). 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 non-minimal post-expansion (sequence) are turns that expand on a prior second-pair part and treat the sequence as not-yet complete. It contrast to a minimal post-expansion, it is non-minimal because it begins with a first-pair part, thereby projecting another second-pair part to come as opposed to closing the sequence. For example, consider the following case from Schegloff 2007): 

(Schegloff 2007: 154; Schegloff, et al. 1977: 368)

01  Sta:          That’s all. But you know what happened that night
02        Fb->    we went to camp. Forget it. She wouldn’t behave for
03                anything.
04  Ala:  Fins->   W-when.
05  Sta:  Sins->   When we went to camp.
06  Ala:  Sb->     She behaved okay.
07  Sta:  Fpost->  She did?
08  Ala:  Spost->  Yeah. She could’ve been a lot worse.

In the preceding case, after Alan states “she behaved okay” (line 6), Stan launches a non-minimal post expansion sequence in line 7. The question “She did?” treats the previous turn as as-yet-incomplete; it does not push to close and instead is “designed to occupy more than one turn” (Clift 2016: 87). Subsequently, Alan then continues the post expansion in a second-pair part (line 8). This is also an example of other-initiated repair (OIR), which can occur in various sequential locations; when OIR is launched after a first-pair part, it begins a post-first insert expansion, when it is launched after a second-pair part, it begins a non-minimal post-expansion (Schegloff 2007: 149).

Repeats or partial repeats can also form non-minimal post-expansion sequences, which Jefferson (2018 [1981]) deems a newsmark (e.g., really? or oh really?; see also Maynard 1997). A different variation is shown in Schegloff, et al. (1977): 

(Schegloff, et al. 1977: 364, reproduced Clift 2016: 88) 

01  Ken:  Fb ->   Is Al here today?
02  Dan:  Sb ->   Yeah.
03                (2.0)
04  Rog:  Fpost -> He is? hh eh heh
05  Dan:  Spost -> Well he was.

Here, after Ken asks Dan “Is Al here today?” (line 1) and Dan answers affirmatively (line 2), Roger expands the sequences by asking “He is?” (line 4). As was the case in the previous example, this non-minimal post-expansion treats the previous second-pair part (line 2) as incomplete, and it also invites further talk on this particular topic, hence the expansion of the sequence. The expansion can be used to negotiate epistemic stance (Heritage 2012a, 2012b), as well as accountability and intersubjectivity (Raymond & Stivers 2016), amongst other functions.

Additional Related Entries:


Cited References:

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

Heritage, J. (2012a). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.

Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.

Jefferson, G. (2019). Repairing the Broken Surface of Talk (Paul Drew & Jörg Bergmann, Eds.). Oxford University Press.

Maynard, D. W. (1997). The News Delivery Sequence: Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(2), 93–130.

Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The Omnirelevance of Accountabiliy: Off-Record Account Solicitations. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 321–354). Oxford University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 150–171). American Psychological Association. https://doi-

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

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.

Additional References:

Benjamin, T. & Mazeland, H. (2013). Other-initiated repair. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1068-1075). Wiley-Blackwell.

Benjamin, T., Mazeland, H., & Fox, B. A. (2013). Conversation analysis and repair organization: Overview. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1094-1097). Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of Its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.


EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'non-minimal post-expansion'

Retrieved from "https://emcawiki.net/index.php?title=Non-minimal_post-expansion_(sequence)&oldid=29870"