Topic
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Topic | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Luis Manuel Olguín (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026) |
| To cite: | Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. 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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WSY7R |
CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating topic primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see Topicalization).
Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical content per se, but with practices and structures that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:
(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757) 01 A: I have a fourteen year old son. 02 B: Well that’s alright. 03 A: I also have a dog. 04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.
The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).
Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).
As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish stepwise topical movement through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, disjunctive topical movement involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that propose engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see Topic proffer for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).
An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.
(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]
01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
Okay .h And um what else .h
02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)
03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
Oh okay Henry your time to talk
04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
Henry will talk to you now
05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
Hey Daddy’s found
06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
a completely changed Macarena
07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
Oh really
08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
O::h yeah
09 (0.4)
10 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger
11 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier
12 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh
13 (0.2)
14 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
Okay=And is she chubby or not
Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see Topicalization). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.
The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a first topic after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).
Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like sotto voce delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as maar in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or no(h) in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.
An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see Topic attrition/Topic hold). Topic attrition describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).
Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed topical selection and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).
Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable topic types. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).
While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. Human Studies, 3(1), 47–64.
Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(3), 258–271.
Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. Language & Communication, 6(1), 73–89.
Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–337.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. Human Studies, 8(1), 3–55.
Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22(1), 61-91.
Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(2), 173–193.
Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 36(1), 1–6.
Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 85–106.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics, 18(3), 381–406.
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.
Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.
Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. Discourse Processes, 9(1), 37–55.
Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 47–63.
Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 329–346.
Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 38(1), 35–61.
Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(4), 634–653.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.
Jefferson, G. (1981). On the articulation of topic in conversation. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.
Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 17(2), 197–216.
Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–441.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1–30.
Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 274–289.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.
Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3), 263–290.
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(4), 301–316.
Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.
Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage, 7, Article 7.
Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. Communication Monographs, 86(1), 23–45.
Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27(1), 85–111.
Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 30–48.
Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. Communication Yearbook, 30, 45–97.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 213–231.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 232–247.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. Sociology of Health & Illness, 43(3), 732–749.
Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics, (16), Article 16.
Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. Language and Speech, 60(4), 658–678.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.
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. 51–77). Ablex.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (vol.1). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4).
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education, 14(3), 184–203.
Additional References:
