Topic attrition/Topic hold
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Topic attrition/Topic hold | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Luis Manuel Olguín (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026) |
| To cite: | Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. 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/63UNT |
Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “topic attrition/topic hold” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing topic is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.
(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted) 01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh 02 yih know. 03 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very 04 ni[:ce. 05 M: [Have they.= 06 G: -> =M[m::. 07 M: -> [Yah. 08 (0.2) 09 G: -> [Ye:h. 10 M: -> [Yeh, 11 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh, 12 (.) 13 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh 14 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im
As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.
It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).
After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like joo in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like lapses (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52.
Hoey, E.M. (2020). When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence. Oxford University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1981). On the articulation of topic in conversation. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.
Jefferson, G. (1984). 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. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. John Benjamins.
Additional References:
