Incipient talk
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Incipient 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). F-formation. 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/X2P3G |
Incipient talk refers to a co-present situation where talk can occur at any moment but is not organized as regular conversational turn-taking, allowing for the emergence of lapses (Schegloff 2007: 115,193). Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 295) first introduced the term during their analysis of closings, where recurring response relevance was mutually concluded via a ‘terminal exchange’, such as an exchange of good-byes. These states of talk were contrasted with ‘continuing states of incipient talk’ (Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 323-325) such as a car journey, where long silences after utterances were not treated as attributable difficulties or terminations but rather as ‘adjournments’ of response relevance.
Conceptually, incipient talk is akin to Goffman’s ‘open state of talk’ (1981: 104) and ‘unfocused interactions’ (Goffman 1963: 33-42). Further developing the definitional matter, Berger, et al. (2016: 30) point out that Schegloff and Sacks initially introduced the term to clarify their research focus on closings. However, the term was subsequently referenced as though it were the product of an empirical analysis, leading to a ‘conceptual drift’ as it became widely used without being specifically defined.
Research on silence and response relevance have since raised questions about the adjournments that tend to define incipient talk. Investigations of multimodal interaction (Stivers & Sidnell 2005) have detailed the role of gestures, eye gaze, and body positioning in talk, allowing distinction between an absence of speech and a cessation of interaction. Lapses are traditionally defined as occurring at sequence endings when all participants forgo the next opportunity to speak, but the implication that these are stoppages in interaction may be a byproduct of the original focus of conversation analysis on interaction as spoken conversation (Hoey 2015: 449). Hoey (2015: 434-435) examines how lapses in speech can be in service of other necessary activities and may be required to progress an interaction like submitting paperwork. Ongoing activities like watching television (like in the transcript below) may feature moments of talk, such as assessments that receive second assessments (Hoey 2015: 438).
(Hoey 2015: 438)
01 PAUL: That guy’s ripped.
all >>-facing television->>
02 CAIT: He’s- (1.0) very lea:n.
03 (10.2)
There are also instances where these comments pass without a response, but the participants do not orient to the absence of response as problematic or confusing.
(Hoey 2015: 438)
01 PAUL: Ouch, tha:t’s broken.
all >>-facing television->>
02 (3.9)
03 PAUL: Oh, (t’s) that o:ld guy.
04 (5.5)
Rather than being a question of different sequences of halted speech, these lapses are instead understood as simply continuations of watching television (Hoey 2015: 438-439). The differentiation of response relevance in incipient talk has been detailed by Stivers and Rossano’s (2010) claims that accountability to respond can be modulated by speakers using or avoiding ‘response-mobilizing features’ in their turns. Keevallik (2018a) examines conversation during the strenuous work of shoveling out a sheep stable and further shows how turns may either be treated as self-talk, thus followed by lapses, or as sequence-initiating actions, depending on the embodied aspects of interaction, such as the posture, gaze, and vocal loudness of the speaker, and bodily orientation of all participants. Also, pauses during regular conversational sequences, such as repair, can be substantially longer in this co-present situation where bodies are involved in physical exertion (Keevallik 2018b), indicating variability in continuous states of incipient talk. Along with these explanations for lapses, Mushin and Gardner (2009) demonstrate that ‘lengthy’ silences have historically been defined using Anglo-American and Dutch data and may not account for cultural differences in silence toleration.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Berger, I., Viney, R., & Rae, J. P. (2016). Do continuing states of incipient talk exist? Journal of Pragmatics, 91, 29-44.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hoey, E. M. (2015). Lapses: How People Arrive at, and Deal With, Discontinuities in Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 430-453.
Keevallik, L. (2018a). 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.
Keevallik, L. (2018b). The temporal organization of conversation while mucking out a sheep stable. In A. Deppermann & J. Streeck (Eds.), Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources (pp. 97–122). John Benjamins.
Mushin, I., & Gardner, R. (2009). Silence is talk: Conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 2033-2052.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Volume 1). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. 8(4), 289-327.
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156, 1-20.
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3-31.
Additional References:
