Pre-expansion (sequence)
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Pre-expansion (sequence) | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Nathalie Bauer (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) |
| To cite: | Bauer, Nathalie. (2023). Pre-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: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NEK3D |
A pre-expansion (sequence) (also known as a pre-sequence, or just pre) is a sequence type that expands base adjacency pairs prior to their first-pair part (henceforth: 'FPP'). Since such pre-expansions are themselves usually organized as adjacency pairs, they are commonly referred to as pre-sequences (Sacks 1992: 685; Schegloff 1990: 60, 2007: 28).
By projecting a following action, pre-sequences do not only precede other sequences in terms of temporality, but are – as Schegloff (2007: 28) put it – “recognizably ‘pre-,’ that is, preliminary to something else.” A central feature of such pre-sequences is “to help the interaction avoid a sequence with a rejected base FPP” (Schegloff 2007: 31).
Depending on the specificity of the action projection, a distinction is made between 'generic' and 'type-specific' pre-sequences. Generic pre-sequences such as summonses or other attention-getting devices do not project a particular type of action (Schegloff 1990: 60, 2007: 48–53). In their “non-terminal” (Schegloff 1968: 1081) character, they foreshadow that there is an action to follow, though they do not specify what kind of action that will be. Type-specific pre-sequences, in contrast, project specific subsequent actions, such as offers, invitations or announcements (Schegloff 1990: 60). However, as Schegloff points out, it is important to note that the turn design of a FPPpre does not ‘automatically’ allow for a clear assignment as pre-invitation, pre-request, or the like, by its recipient on its occurrence (see Schegloff’s 2006: 150–152 remarks on “possibles” in this context). Although type-specific pre’s “commonly project” or “are regularly preliminary” to a specific base sequence (Schegloff 2007: 29), their recipients “may have to entertain the full range of possibilities momentarily, using the immediately following talk to find out what sort of sequence is in progress” (Schegloff 2006: 152).
An example of a type-specific pre-sequence, a pre-invitation, can be found in the following extract from Schegloff (2007: 30):
(Schegloff 2007: 30) 01 CLA: Hello 02 NEL: Hi. 03 CLA: Hi. 04 NEL: FPPpre-> Whatcha doin’. 05 CLA: SPPpre-> Not much. 06 NEL: FPPb-> Y’wanna drink? 07 CLA: SPPb-> Yeah. 08 NEL: Okay.
As the example illustrates, the key function of the pre-invitation is to avoid a rejection of the impending invitation (Sacks 1992: 685–686, Schegloff 1980: 113-114, 2007: 31). In the case where the second-pair part of the pre-sequence (SPPpre) facilitates the continuation of the projected main action (as in the above extract), it is called a go-ahead (Schegloff 2007: 30). If it discourages the other speaker to proceed with the projected action, it is referred to as a blocking response (Schegloff 2007: 30).
Similar functions of checking “that there are grounds for starting some yet-to-come main action” (Sorjonen 2002: 176) have also been described for pre-announcements (e.g., Maynard& Frankel 2006; Terasaki 2004 [1976]), pre-requests (e.g., Levinson 1983; Rossi 2015), pre-closings (Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 303-305), or pre-offers (e.g., Schegloff 2007: 34-37). The core feature of pre-sequences, namely “to help prospective speakers of base first-pair parts avoid rejection” (Schegloff 2007: 131), is also discussed in relation to face-work, as it allows one to avert dispreferred reactions (Lerner 1996).
While the term ‘pre-‘ is widely used in interaction research, more recent contributions on the sequential structures of requests have critically questioned whether the distinction between pre-requests and requests is always pertinent from an interactional perspective (Fox 2015: 43–44; Lindström 2005: 212; Walker 2013: 457). Drawing on examples from Levinson (1983: 361–364), in which customers ask about the availability of a product and the salesperson hands it to them in the very next turn, it is argued that the notion of “pre-request” is not entirely accurate to characterize these customer inquiries because the salesperson treats them retrospectively as actual requests and not as something preliminary to those (Lindström 2005: 212–214).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Fox, B. (2015). On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–63.
Lerner, G. (1996): Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59 (4), 303–21.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action. A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction (pp. 209–30). John Benjamins.
Maynard, D./Frankel, R. (2006). On diagnostic rationality: Bad news, good news, and the symptom residue. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients (pp. 248-78). Cambridge University Press.
Rossi, G. (2015). Responding to pre-requests: The organisation of hai x ‘do you have x’ sequences in Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 82, 5–22.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–95.
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–52.
Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational Organization and its Development (pp. 51–78). Ablex.
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8, 141-157.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Volume 1). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2002). Recipient Activities: The Particle No as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 165–95). Oxford University Press.
Terasaki, A. K. (2004 [1976]). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 171–223). John Benjamins.
Walker, T. (2013). Requests. In M. Sbísa & K. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics of Speech Actions (pp. 445–466). De Gruyter.
Additional References:
