emcawiki - User contributions [en]

Epistemic Stance

2026-09-13T01:20:56Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Stance. 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/E6M3Q
}}

In all '''[[Social_Action|social actions]]''', participants take up a stance. This stance comprises a public display of attitudes towards the situation of action, their co-participants and themselves (Du Bois 2007; Goffman 1955; Wu, Heritage & Raymond 2026). Stance can embrace displays of emotion (Goodwin, Cekaite & Goodwin 2012; Hoey 2027; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2014), together with deontic (Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2012), epistemic (Heritage 2012a, 2012b, 2013) and benefactive (Clayman & Heritage 2014) aspects, among many others. Within conversation analysis, '''epistemic stance''' refers to the displayed claim of knowledge or ignorance relative to others concerning some matter at hand. In general, the epistemic stance adopted by a person is shaped by a normative expectation that this stance should be congruent with the person’s '''[[Epistemic Status|epistemic status]]''', though this norm may be departed from on occasion.

Epistemic stance is conveyed via a very large and differentiated set of practices. One major axis involves the distinction between making assertions about states of affairs, thus conveying a knowledgeable or K+ stance on the matter at hand, as opposed to asking questions about some matter, thus conveying an ignorant or K- stance. In general, participants tend to exhibit some care in the epistemic stances they present in conversation. This can easily be observed in cases of repair (Drew et al. 2013). For example, in the following case Lesley reports having phoned Hal the previous night (lines 2-3), and begins to make an assertion about Hal’s whereabouts for which she lacks the relevant K+ status: “But you were-”. Cutting off this turn-in-progress, she revises the action from one of asserting to one of asking “u-were you ↑ou:t? which is more congruent with her K- status:

(1) [Field SO88(II):1:3:1] [Telephone call; Leslie is caller] (Drew et al. 2013: 76)

1 Hal: Oh ‘el[lo Lesl[ie?
2 Les: [.hhhh [I RANG you up- (.) ah: think it wz
3 la:s’ night. '''But you were- (.) u-were you ↑ou:t?'''
4 or: was it the night before per[↓haps.
5 Hal: [Uh:m night be↓fore I
6 expect we w’r dancing Tuesdee ni:ght.

Similarly, in the following a bystander is reporting a traffic accident to 911 emergency:

(2) [Call to 911: Caller is reporting a traffic accident]

1 911: Okay but they’re not injured ri:ght?
2 (.)
3 CLR: '''No they’re not injured.=They don’t look injured.=They say'''
4 '''they’re fine right [now''' you know but it always happens after.
5 911: [Okay

Across lines 3-4, the caller successively revises his response to 911’s (line 1) question about the possibility of injuries, from a flat declarative assertion (“No they’re not injured”), to an evidentialized assertion based on direct perception (“They don’t look injured”), to a hearsay report (“They say they’re fine right now”). As these cases illustrate, interactants tend to handle the matter of epistemic stance with some care.

It is perhaps for this reason that most languages contain multiple resources for managing and shading epistemic claims. A majority of the world’s languages (de Haan 2013) deploy evidentials to distinguish, for instance, what is directly observed, from what is merely inferred, or known from hearsay (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021). Similarly epistemic modality (Palmer 2001) is a resource deployed in many languages to adjust epistemic claims in terms of greater or lesser likelihood (van der Auwera & Ammann 2013; see also Bolden et al. 2023; Heritage 2010; Levinson 2012), and a related resource is the use of negative polarity items and other forms of negation to indicate the improbability of some state of affairs (Heritage & Raymond 2021; Raymond & Heritage 2021). Some of these distinctions are indicated in Figure 1 below (from Levinson 2012), though this merely gestures at the range of variation involved.

[[File:Heritage_EStance_fig1.jpg|500px]]

'''Figure 1: Bolinger’s question-to-assertion cline (Levinson 2012: 16)'''

Relative epistemic claims are also, of course, lodged in sequences of action where variations in within-sequence actions are likewise used to adjust epistemic stance in terms of distinctive underlying epistemic statuses (Heritage & Raymond 2005; Raymond & Heritage 2006). It may be added that epistemic stances (and associated epistemic statuses) are straightforwardly consolidated across sequences, as in the following pair of cases:

[Sequence 1]

A: What's the time?
B: Three fifteen.
A: Oh thank you.

[Sequence 2]

A: What's the time?
B: Three fifteen.
A: That's right. Well done!

In Sequence 1, A’s third turn oh-receipt treats B’s response to his question as ‘news’ and the question as having embodied a genuinely K- stance (Heritage 1984). In Sequence 2, by contrast, A’s third turn confirmation treats the information in B’s response as already known to the questioner and, together with the praise of the answerer, treats the question as having been an ‘exam’ or ‘known answer’ question.

As previously noted, participants are generally careful to maintain congruence between epistemic stance and status concerning objects of knowledge, and may be held accountable for failures in this regard. It is possible that this congruence is a central resource in the early ascription of action to in-coming utterances which in turn permits rapid turn-transition in conversation (Levinson & Torreira 2015).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill.

Bolden, G. B., Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2023). Introduction: Polar questions and their responses. In G. Bolden, J. Heritage, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts'' (pp. 1-39). Benjamins.

Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Requesting in Social Interaction'' (pp. 55-86). John Benjamins.

de Haan, F. (2013). Coding of Evidentiality. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/78, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational Repair and Human Understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), ''Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction'' (pp. 139-182). John Benjamins.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. ''Psychiatry'', 18, 213-231.

Goodwin, M. H., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Emotion in Interaction'' (pp. 16-41). Oxford University Press.

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

Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), ''Why Do you Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse'' (pp. 42-68). Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 1-25.

Heritage, J. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 25-50.

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 54, 39-59.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Hoey, E. M. (2027). Stance, affect and affiliation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.) ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis (2nd Edition)''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 6, 731.

Palmer, F. R. (2001). ''Mood and Modality''. Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. ''Language in Society'', 35, 677-705.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 45(3), 297-321.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. ''Language in Society'', 43(2), 185-207.

van der Auwera, J. & Ammann. A. (201. Epistemic Possibility. In M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/75, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Wu, R.-J., Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2026). Stance in interaction. In M. Burdelski & T. Greer (Eds.), ''The Routledge Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 109-124). Routledge.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic stance' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=stance&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemic Status

2026-09-13T01:16:04Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Status. 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/6MS8P
}}

'''Epistemic status''' refers to the positioning of a person in terms of knowledge or information concerning some state of affairs relative to his or her co-participants in social interaction. The term suggests that, relative to others, a participant may be more (K+) or less (K-) knowledgeable in relation to almost any imaginable state of affairs.

Underlying the concept is the notion that persons possess ‘territories of knowledge’ (Kamio 1997; Labov and Fanshel 1977, see also Heritage 2011). Some of these territories may be singular and unique for example, personal memories, hopes, fears, expectations, ''umwelt'' knowledge concerning arrangements within rooms and houses, the behavior of relatives, pets, etc. Others may be shared with social groups and epistemic communities (Abbott 1988; Holzner 1968; Knorr-Cetina 1999) such as professions, trades, and hobby communities. And yet others may be shared in and through particular joint experiences, whether present (e.g., the weather outside right now), or past (e.g., escaping an earthquake). A critical feature of epistemic status is that it is recognized in common, as ‘common ground’ (Stalnaker 1978) and, just as importantly, is known by the parties to be shared as ‘common ground’.

The basic notion underling epistemic status was first described by Labov and Fanshel (1977: 100), who observed that knowledge may be conceptualized in terms of its relationship to speakers in terms of a five-fold classification.

[Labov and Fanshel 1977:100]

''A-events'': Known to A, but not to B.
''B-events'': Known to B, but not to A.
''AB-events'': Known to both A and B.
''O-events'': Known to everyone present.
''D-events'': Known to be disputable.

Figure 1 below depicts the classical Labov and Fanshel knowledge representation between two speakers, while Figure 2 depicts a multiplication of relationships between hypothesized speakers to include knowledge that is known to only one of them, as well as knowledge that is shared between different pairs of them, and knowledge that is shared between all three.

[[File:Heritage_ES_fig1.jpg|250px]] [[File:Heritage_ES_fig2.jpg|325px]]

'''Figure 1 Figure 2'''

The layout of epistemic status attributes in Figure 1 quite accurately models the deployment of the Japanese turn-final particles ''yo'', ''ne'' and ''yone'', in which ''yo'' indexes speaker-specific knowledge (A-events), while ''ne'' and ''yone'' index knowledge that is shared (AB-events) (Hayano 2011, 2013).

An alternative representation of epistemic status is provided by the Japanese linguist Akio Kamio (1997) who focuses on relative access to knowledge or information. Consider the following sequence from Pomerantz (1980):

(1) [NB:II:2:R] (Pomerantz 1980: 195)

01 Nan: Hel↑lo:,
02 Emm: .hh HI::.
03 (.)
04 Nan: Oh:'I::: 'ow a:re you Emmah:
05 Emm: FI:NE yer LINE'S BEEN BUSY.
06 Nan: Yea:h (.) my u.-fuhh h-.hhhh my fa:ther's wife ca:lled me,h
07 .hhh So when she ca:lls me::,h .hh I always talk fer a lo:ng
08 ti:me cz she c'n afford it'n I ca:n't.hhh[hhh]°huh°]
09 Emm: [OH:]:::::]:=

Here Emma reports a state of affairs – a busy telephone signal, concerning which, at line 5, she suggests that she has limited knowledge (Pomerantz 1980). Her friend Nancy supplies the relevant information (lines 6-8). The relative knowledge states at line 5 might be represented, following Kamio (1997: 17), as depicted in Figure 3.

[[File:Heritage_ES_fig3.jpg|500px]]

'''Figure 3: Information domain for “yer LINE’S BEEN BUSY” (Heritage 2013: 375)'''

Emma’s information state, as formulated in line 5, presents her knowledge as closer to the K- end of the knowledge spectrum, while formulating Nancy as very close to the K+ end. Emma knows no more than the fact that the line was busy, and she reflexively formulates Nancy as all but certain to know, and be able to describe, the state of affairs concerned.

As previously noted, it is critical that the parties’ relative epistemic status in reference to some state of affairs is jointly shared, and ''known to be so''. This is made possible in part by the immense effort humans make to keep track of the knowledge and social affairs of others (Dunbar 2003; Sperber et al 2010), but also by the normative and sanctionable obligation to maintain congruency between epistemic status on the one hand, and '''[[Epistemic_Stance|epistemic stance]]''' on the other. This congruency generally enables speakers to trust that the stance towards some state of affairs that is expressed in an utterance is matched to the state of knowledge currently possessed by the speaker in question. This congruency is routinely achieved when speakers use interrogatives concerning matters of which they are ignorant, and declaratives concerning matters of which they are knowledgeable, thus achieving ' questions' and 'assertions' respectively. The routine achievement of this congruency may be departed from on occasion, for example when speakers ask questions about matters about which they are in fact knowledgeable or, alternatively, claim authoritative knowledge about matters of which they are in fact ignorant. Systematic exceptions to this generalization arise in specialized institutional contexts such as education, where teacher questioning is not designed to acquire information ''per se'', but rather whether the student knows the answer (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975; McHoul 1978). Similarly, in news interviews and courtroom discourse, questions are rarely asked from a position of ignorance, but are rather aimed at inducing the recipient affirm some state of affairs 'on the record' (Clayman & Heritage 2002; Drew 1992). And, of course, speakers may believe in and claim knowledge of matters concerning which, it will turn out, they are ignorant.

In considering the overall relationship between epistemic status and '''[[Epistemic_Stance|epistemic stance]]''', it is clear that epistemic status plays the dominant role. As Heritage (2012) demonstrated, regardless of the epistemic stance taken by a speaker, epistemic status will exert a controlling influence on the action ascribed to an utterance. Thus, as Labov and Fanshel (1977) were the first to note, when a K- speaker makes an assertion to a K+ recipient, such as “You know where he is then”, this will be heard to implement questioning despite the fact that the remark does not take an interrogative form. Relatedly, as Robinson (2013) has shown epistemic status plays a central role in determining whether declarative repeats are heard as repair initiation or as challenges. In general, ‘declarative questions’ are the predominant form of questioning in English and many other languages (Bolden et al. 2023; Stivers 2010; Stivers et al. 2010). All are enabled by an orientation to the epistemic status of the speaker, and epistemic status is likely an essential resource for speakers of languages that lack linguistic markers of interrogativity, or whose markers are unreliable (Levinson 2012). Epistemic status, then, is an essential feature of action formation.

Epistemic status is significant for action formation in another important sense. During the past fifteen years, it has become apparent that rapid turn-transition from speaker to speaker that is witnessed around the world could not occur without the initiation of response planning by the recipient in the course of the current speaker’s turn (Levinson 2013, 2016; Levinson & Torreira 2015). Evidence is mounting that a key element in this planning is identifying the action of the current speaker long before that action, and the turn it is housed in, comes to completion (Barthel et al. 2017; Bögels et al. 2015; Gisladottir et al. 2018). Considering the process of distinguishing a statement-in-formation from a question-in-formation, it can be noted that, in a majority of the world’s languages, many of the linguistically identifying features of questioning such as final intonation contours and question particles occur at turn endings (Dryer 2013a, 2013b). That is, they emerge long after the time at which it had become necessary for the next speaker to identify the turn as an assertion or a question etc. as a condition for preparing an on-time response. Current research suggests that there is a concentration of multimodal signaling early in an incoming turn, suggestive of support for early action projection (Trujillo & Holler 2025). It may also be suggested (Heritage 2022) that, in addition to sequential context, orientation to epistemic status makes a significant contribution to early action ascription in relation to the incoming utterance, and to action formation in the response to it.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Abbott, A. (1988). ''The System of the Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor''. University of Chicago Press.

Barthel, M., Meyer, A. S., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). Next speakers plan their turn early and speak after turn-final “go-signals”. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 8, 393.

Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Never say no… How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. ''PloS one'', 10(12).

Dryer, M. S. (2013). Indefinite Articles. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (Chapter 37. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/38 Accessed on 2026-01-23.). Max Planck Digital Library.

Bolden, G. B., Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2023). Introduction: Polar questions and their responses. In G. Bolden, J. Heritage, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts'' (pp. 1-39). John Benjamins.

Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). ''The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air''. Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In P.Drew & J.Heritage (Eds.), ''Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings'' (pp. 470-520). Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, M. S. (2013a). Position of polar question particles. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online''. Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/92.

Dryer, M.S. (2013b). Polar Questions. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online''. Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/116, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Dunbar, R. I. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 32, 163-181.

Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. ''Frontiers in Human Neuroscience'', 12, 34.

Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: ''yo''-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), ''The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation'' (pp. 58-81). Cambridge University Press.

Hayano, K. (2013). ''Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation''. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), ''The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation'' (pp. 159-183). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 1-25.

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, J. (2022). The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), ''Action Ascription in Interaction'' (pp. 297-326). Cambridge University Press.

Holzner, B. (1968). ''Reality Construction in Society''. Schenkman Publishing Co.

Kamio, A. (1997). ''Territory of Information''. John Benjamins.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). ''Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge''. Harvard University Press.

Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). ''Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation''. Academic Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 103-130). Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'', 20(1), 6-14.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 6, 731.

McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. ''Language in Society'', 7, 183-213.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling My Side: 'Limited Access' as a 'Fishing' Device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50, 186-198.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). ''Towards an Analysis of Discourse''. Oxford University Press.

Sperber, D., Clement, P., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. ''Mind and Language'', 25, 359-393.

Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), ''Syntax and Semantics Vol 9: Pragmatics'' (pp. 315-332). Academic Press.

Stivers, T. (2010). An Overview of the Question-Response System in American English. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42, 2772-2781.

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: an introduction. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42, 2615-2619.

Trujillo, J. P., & Holler, J. (2025). Multimodal information density is highest in question beginnings, and early entropy is associated with fewer but longer visual signals. ''Discourse Processes'', 62(2), 69-88.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic status' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=status&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemics

2026-09-13T01:11:53Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemics. 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/832EG
}}

'''Epistemics''' is a topic of conversation-analytic inquiry, focusing on the knowledge claims that are asserted, contested and defended in social interaction. These claims are observable in the ways that persons design and implement social actions and sequences of them (Heritage 2024, see also Wootton 1989). The term derives form the Greek ''episteme'' meaning knowledge or understanding, and is the subject matter – epistemology – of a branch of philosophy. Research on epistemics is, together with the analysis of other dimensions of stance, especially deontics and affect (Hoey 2027; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2014; Wu, Heritage & Raymond 2026), a central element drawing together the analysis of social interaction with sociological conceptions of identity, role, institutions and social structure.

Epistemic issues are omnirelevant and ubiquitous features of social interaction (Heritage 2018) and are universal across the societies of the world. From the point that children are able to recognize differences between their own and others’ knowledge of the world (Astington 2006), roughly between the ages of four and eight, they enter a world structured in terms of epistemic distinctions which they may need to take account of. For example, in referring to a neighbor someone might simply use a first name, ''Mary'', or a variety of more complex reference forms: ''Mary Smith''; ''Mrs. Smith''; ''John’s Mom''; ''Jane’s daughter''; ''Linda’s aunt''; ''David’s girlfriend''; ''my mother''; ''your aunt''; ''Fido’s owner''; ''the woman who drives the white BMW''; ''that neighbor of ours…'' and so on. While some or many of these expressions may be correct, the choice between them is most centrally shaped by what the recipient is presumed to know about ‘Mary’ and how she knows it (Schegloff 1972). The choice, in other words, is one made on epistemic grounds. This capacity to track the knowledge and social connections of others has been argued to underly the evolutionary expansion of brain size relative to the size of social groups in hominids and other primates (Dunbar 2003), and it seems possible that the representation of others’ beliefs can be traced to the functioning of single neurons (Jamali et al. 2021), where the latter may be an evolved feature of human sociality.

The kinds of choices just described involve speakers in taking account of what others know in designing their turns at talk. Other kinds of epistemic choices involve the evidential calibration of knowledge claims in terms of, for example, their sources in firsthand knowledge, inference or hearsay (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021). 57% of the 400+ languages surveyed in the World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS) impose this distinction as a grammatical choice on their speakers (de Haan 2013). Another variation involves epistemic modality (Palmer 2001) in which claims can be adjusted as more or less certain as in ‘He may have robbed the bank’ (van der Auwera & Ammann 2013). And in egophoric languages the relative access to knowledge of the participants in relation to some state of affairs is expressed in grammaticalized form (Grzech & Bergqvist 2025; Sandman & Grzech 2022; San Roque, Floyd & Norcliffe 2018; see also Evans, Bergqvist & San Roque 2018a, 2018b).

Within CA, interest in epistemic questions mainly focuses on circumstances in which interactants have asymmetric '''[[Epistemic_Status|epistemic status]]''' or access to knowledge. Interactants are conceived as differentially informed about the topics their conversations touch upon. The prototypical case is one in which A asks B a question, reflexively framing A as lacking some form of knowledge (K-) and reciprocally constituting B as the knowledgeable (K+) party (Heritage 2010). These asymmetries may be rooted in different life experiences, including personal memories, expectations, desires and hopes, or in institutionally sanctioned knowledge and roles that are found in the medical and other professions, or simply that A saw an event whereas B only heard about it, or saw it more recently than B, or even something as ephemeral as A just saw something a moment ago that B didn’t. The differential may not be restricted to actual knowledge, but may also involve rights to know it, or even to articulate it. For example, it is well documented that patients may possess a good deal of knowledge about their medical conditions, but may find themselves unable to articulate it in the doctor’s office with any degree of authority.

A general feature of social interaction is that persons design their '''[[Epistemic_Stance|epistemic stance]]''' in talk to match their '''[[Epistemic_Status|epistemic status]]'''. This epistemic stance is indexed using a very wide-ranging set of methods that are fitted to the actions and sequential contexts in play. The fit between epistemic stance and status is relied upon by the recipients of talk as an element in determining the social action to which they should respond. For this reason, epistemic issues absolutely permeate other domains of conversational organization including, most importantly, action formation (Heritage 2013, 2022) where arguably the most fundamental action distinction in interaction – between requesting and giving information – hinges upon epistemic status (Heritage 2012a), which can readily override the epistemic stance otherwise conveyed by grammatical form and other aspects of turn design. Relative epistemic status is arguably a vital support to the rather unreliable (Levinson 2012) use of intonation to mark questions that is depended upon by about 18% of the world’s languages (Dryer 2013a), not to mention those languages for which there are no attested means of marking actions as questioning. It may be added that, in a context in which early determination of the social action being implemented by an incoming utterance is a central feature of response construction (Levinson 2013; Levinson & Torreira 2015), epistemic status may be a vital early clue in the process (Heritage 2022). Similar considerations may apply to the 314 languages in which question particles are deployed to signal polar questions in sentence-final position (Dryer 2013b) – long after the construction of response has been initiated.

Our understanding of the significance of epistemics for action formation and sequence in interaction progressed rapidly following the publication of work by Heritage and others (Heritage 2012a, 2012b; Stivers et al. 2011). In particular, the recognition that epistemic status is central to participants’ ability to discriminate between assertions and questions – the two primary conversational actions undertaken in human interaction – has become important in the analysis of action formation, sequence organization and repair. Critics have claimed that the concept of epistemics is ‘cognitivist’ and refers to a “hidden order”, discernable only to the analyst (e.g. Lynch and MacBeth 2016), critiques which have been effectively rebutted in publications demonstrating that epistemic phenomena are a basic order of social organization (Drew 2018; Heritage 2018, 2024; Whitehead et al. 2025) alongside turn-taking, sequence organization, repair and others identified by Schegloff (2006). Thus, these critiques notwithstanding, epistemic phenomena continue to be a primary and heavily researched topic of investigation among interaction researchers.

In fact, from the earliest studies in CA onwards, epistemic issues have been seen as crucial to a wide variety of interactional processes. For example, Lerner (2003, see also Stivers & Robinson 2006; Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027) showed that epistemic status is implicated in next-speaker selection: K+ recipients are selected to speak next in contexts where there is differential knowledge access among potential recipients. In 1979, in a classic paper, Charles Goodwin showed that speakers will design and re-design turns to accommodate different recipients’ presumed knowledge. Again, numerous analysts from Sacks onwards have explored the centrality of epistemic issues in news delivery sequences, under the auspices of a general norm that bars speakers from telling things that recipients already know (Maynard 2003; Pomerantz 1980; Terasaki 2004). As noted above, Sacks and Schegloff showed the centrality of identifying the knowledge of a recipient as a means to design a recognizable person reference (Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1972, 1996, see also Heritage 2007). Epistemic issues have similarly been found to infuse many aspects of repair sequences, including self-repair (Drew, Walker & Ogden 2013; Raymond & Gill 2025) and responsibility for other-initiated repair (Robinson 2006, 2013). Finally, epistemic issues are central to many aspects of a very wide range of interactions in institutional contexts (Drew & Heritage 1992; Heritage and Clayman 2010).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Rights]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004466425_002

Astington, J. W. (2006). The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In N. C. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), ''Roots of Human Sociality'' (pp. 179-206). Berg.

de Haan, F. (2013). Coding of Evidentiality. In M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591
(Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/78, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Drew, P. (2018). Special Issue: Epistemics – the rebuttal. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(1).

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). ''Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Setting''s. Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational Repair and Human Understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, M.S. (2013a). Polar Questions. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591
(Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/116, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Dryer, M.S. (2013b). Position of Polar Question Particles. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/92, Accessed on 2025-12-03.)

Dunbar, R. I. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 32, 163-181.

Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement I: framework and initial exemplification. ''Language and Cognition'', 10(1), 110-140.

Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. ''Language and Cognition'', 10(1), 141-170.

Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 97-121). Irvington Publishers.

Grzech, K., & Bergqvist, H. (2026). ''Expanding the Boundaries of Epistemicity: Epistemic Modality, Evidentiality, and Beyond'' (Vol. 393). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), ''Why Do you Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse'' (pp. 42-68). Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 1-25.

Heritage, J. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 25-50.

Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. ''Discourse Studies'', 15, 547-574.

Heritage, J. (2018). The Ubiquity of Epistemics: A Rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ Group. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(1), 14-56.

Heritage, J. (2022). The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), ''Action Ascription in Interaction'' (pp. 297-326). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2024). The epistemics of epistemics: Validating claims about epistemic stance in conversation analysis. In J. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 419-451). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). ''Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions''. Blackwell-Wiley.

Jamali, M., Grannan, B. L., Fedorenko, E., Saxe, R., Báez-Mendoza, R., & Williams, Z. M. (2021). Single-neuronal predictions of others’ beliefs in humans. ''Nature'', 591(7851), 610-614.

Hoey, E. M. (2027). Stance, affect and affiliation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.) ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis (2nd Edition)''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 103-130). Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 6, 731.

Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. ''Language in Society'', 32, 177-201.

Lynch, M. & Macbeth D. (2016). Special Issue: The epistemics of Epistemics. ''Discourse Studies'', 18(5).

Maynard, D. W. (2003). ''Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings''. University of Chicago Press.

Palmer, F. R. (2001). ''Mood and Modality''. Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling My Side: 'Limited Access' as a 'Fishing' Device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50, 186-198.

Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive Repair of Potential Misunderstandings: Prospective Procedures for Managing Intersubjectivity and Steering Social Action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90: 690-725.

Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-Taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. ''Communication Monographs'', 73, 137-161.

Robinson, J. D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation and other-initiation of repair: the case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational Repair and Human Understanding'' (pp. 261-292). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 15-21). Irvington Publishers.

Sandman, E., & Grzech, K. (2022). Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions: Insights on conversational data from the Tibetan Plateau and the Amazonian Foothills. ''Interactional Linguistics'', 2(1), 79-109.

San Roque, L., Floyd, S., & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In ''Egophoricity'' (pp. 1-78). Benjamins.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 75-119). Free Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), ''Studies in Anaphora'' (pp. 437-485). John Benjamins.

Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), ''The Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction'' (pp. 70-96). Berg.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. ''Language in Society'', 43(2), 185-207.

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). ''The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation''. Cambridge University Press.

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. ''Language in Society'', 35(3), 367-392.

Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 171-223). John Benjamins.

van der Auwera, J., & Ammann, A. (2013). Epistemic Possibility. In: In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/75, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Whitehead, K. A., Stokoe, E., & Raymond, G. (2025). ''Categories in Social Interaction''. Taylor and Francis.

Wootton, A. (1989). Remarks on the Methodology of Conversation Analysis. In P. Bull & D. Roger (Eds.), ''Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Approach'' (pp. 238-258). Multilingual Matters.

Wu, R.-J., Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2026). Stance in interaction. In M. Burdelski & T. Greer (Eds.), ''The Routledge Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 109-124). Routledge.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemics' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=epistemic&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemic Authority

2026-09-13T01:07:59Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Authority. 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/UGFZC
}}

'''Epistemic authority''' refers to the superior positioning in terms of knowledge, information or knowhow of persons concerning some state of affairs relative to their co-participants in social interaction as a settled and legitimate matter (Weber (1978/1922: 215-216). The term suggests that, relative to others, a participant may be more (K+) or less (K-) knowledgeable in relation to some state of affairs as a matter of socially sustained and public recognition, and that such a participant may prevail over others in the presentation of knowledge or information. Although there can be a close association between epistemic and '''[[Deontic authority|deontic authority]]''' (Heritage 2009, 2019; Lindström & Weatherall 2015; Peräkylä 1998; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2012; Stivers et al. 2018), the two elements are conceptually quite distinct. While epistemic authority encompasses rights to prevail in terms of information in some field, it does not embrace the deontic right to set the terms for some course of action (see Stevanovic 2023). Sociologically however, epistemic authority and deontic authority can be closely related: they may co-occur or align, and one may give rise to the other especially in professional fields such as medicine, but also in everyday contexts.

Epistemic authority is expressed in ways that involve complementary stances in which authoritative speakers tend to express themselves through assertions with few qualifications, while less authoritative speakers downgrade their assertions using a variety of resources including weak epistemic modals (e.g. She seems like a nice little lady (Heritage and Raymond 2005:18) and tag questions. In the following case, a neighbor evaluates a grandmother’s grandchild using this latter practice: “They're a lovely family now ar'n't they.” (line 3), while the grandmother expresses her reciprocal authority on this topic with the confirmation "They are:, yes." (Raymond & Heritage 2006).

(1) [Rah 14: 2] (Heritage & Raymond 2005: 20)

1 Jen: Mm [I: bet they proud o:f the fam'ly.=
2 Ver: [Ye:s.
3 Jen: -> =They're [a luvly family now ar'n't [they.
4 Ver: [°Mm:.° [They are: ye[s.
5 Jen: [eeYe[s::,
6 Ver: [Yes,
7 Jen: Mm: All they need now is a little girl tih complete i:t.

The sequential positioning of these actions can frequently be critical, for example assessments with tag questions downgrade an assertion that is made in first position, but upgrade it in second position (Heritage & Raymond 2005; Raymond & Heritage 2006).

Epistemic authority may derive from a variety of sources. Some of the knowledge possessed by individuals is grounded in their own personal experiences, memories, relationships and so on. Here epistemic authority derives from direct experience, and this is recognized as a primary source of epistemic authority in the many languages of the world that, using evidentials for example, register distinctions between personal experience, inference and hearsay as sources of information while favoring personal experience as a source (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021).

Beyond personal experience, almost every field of human endeavor from pole vaulting, to NASCAR racing to diamond cutting is populated by persons who vary in knowledge, experience, skill and knowhow. The epistemic communities that form around these activities therefore tend to be characterized by epistemic hierarchies. Epistemic authority (and social power; Foucault 1980; Starr 1982) accrues to those at the top of these hierarchies, and will tend to be reciprocated with deference from those lower down.

A variety of professions, most notably medicine and the law, have been established through the formation of organizations with monopoly control over the knowledge and training required to enter the profession (Abbott 1988; Starr 1982). In these cases, the authority of professional expertise can find itself in conflict with epistemic claims deriving from the personal experience of clients despite the institutionalized authority of professionals (Drew & Heritage 1992; Heritage & Clayman 2010; Heritage & Maynard 2006; Peräkylä 1998; 2002; 2006; Stivers et al. 2018). The role of epistemic authority in the creation of power, and the implementation of such power in circumstances of social inequality, can lead to epistemic injuries and injustice (Fricker 2007, 2017).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Deontic authority|Deontic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Abbott, A. (1988). ''The System of the Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor''. University of Chicago Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). ''Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings''. Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). ''Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977''. Pantheon Books.

Fricker, M. (2007). ''Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing''. Oxford University Press.

Fricker, M. (2017). Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus Jr. (Eds.), ''Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice'' (pp. 53-60). Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2009). Negotiating the Legitimacy of Medical Problems: A Multi-phase Concern for Patients and Physicians. In D. Brashers & D. Goldsmith (Eds.), ''Communicating to Manage Health and Illness'' (pp. 147-164). Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2019). The expression of authority in US primary care: Offering diagnoses and recommending treatment. In C. Gordon (Ed.), ''Approaches to Discourse Analysi''s (pp. 104-122). Georgetown University Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). ''Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions''. Blackwell-Wiley.

Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. (Eds.). (2006). ''Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients''. Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Lindström, A., & Weatherall, A. (2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 78, 39-53.

Peräkylä, A. (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 61(4), 301-320.

Peräkylä, A. (2002). Agency and Authority: Extended responses to diagnostic statements in Primary care encounters. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 219-247.

Peräkylä, A. (2006). Communicating and responding to diagnosis. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), ''Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients'' (pp. 214-247).
Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. ''Language in Society'', 35, 677-705.

Starr, P. (1982). ''The Social Transformation of American Medicine''. Basic Books.

Stevanovic, M. (2023). Deontics. 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).

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 45(3), 297-321.

Stivers, T., Heritage, J., Barnes, R. K., McCabe, R., Thompson, L., & Toerien, M. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. ''Health Communication'', 33(11), 1335-1344.

Weber, M. (1978/1922). ''Economy and Society''. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic authority' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=authority&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemic Authority

2026-09-13T00:42:33Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Authority. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Epistemic authority''' refers to the superior positioning in terms of knowledge, information or knowhow of persons concerning some state of affairs relative to their co-participants in social interaction as a settled and legitimate matter (Weber (1978/1922: 215-216). The term suggests that, relative to others, a participant may be more (K+) or less (K-) knowledgeable in relation to some state of affairs as a matter of socially sustained and public recognition, and that such a participant may prevail over others in the presentation of knowledge or information. Although there can be a close association between epistemic and '''[[Deontic authority|deontic authority]]''' (Heritage 2009, 2019; Lindström & Weatherall 2015; Peräkylä 1998; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2012; Stivers et al. 2018), the two elements are conceptually quite distinct. While epistemic authority encompasses rights to prevail in terms of information in some field, it does not embrace the deontic right to set the terms for some course of action (see Stevanovic 2023). Sociologically however, epistemic authority and deontic authority can be closely related: they may co-occur or align, and one may give rise to the other especially in professional fields such as medicine, but also in everyday contexts.

Epistemic authority is expressed in ways that involve complementary stances in which authoritative speakers tend to express themselves through assertions with few qualifications, while less authoritative speakers downgrade their assertions using a variety of resources including weak epistemic modals (e.g. She seems like a nice little lady (Heritage and Raymond 2005:18) and tag questions. In the following case, a neighbor evaluates a grandmother’s grandchild using this latter practice: “They're a lovely family now ar'n't they.” (line 3), while the grandmother expresses her reciprocal authority on this topic with the confirmation "They are:, yes." (Raymond & Heritage 2006).

(1) [Rah 14: 2] (Heritage & Raymond 2005: 20)

1 Jen: Mm [I: bet they proud o:f the fam'ly.=
2 Ver: [Ye:s.
3 Jen: -> =They're [a luvly family now ar'n't [they.
4 Ver: [°Mm:.° [They are: ye[s.
5 Jen: [eeYe[s::,
6 Ver: [Yes,
7 Jen: Mm: All they need now is a little girl tih complete i:t.

The sequential positioning of these actions can frequently be critical, for example assessments with tag questions downgrade an assertion that is made in first position, but upgrade it in second position (Heritage & Raymond 2005; Raymond & Heritage 2006).

Epistemic authority may derive from a variety of sources. Some of the knowledge possessed by individuals is grounded in their own personal experiences, memories, relationships and so on. Here epistemic authority derives from direct experience, and this is recognized as a primary source of epistemic authority in the many languages of the world that, using evidentials for example, register distinctions between personal experience, inference and hearsay as sources of information while favoring personal experience as a source (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021).

Beyond personal experience, almost every field of human endeavor from pole vaulting, to NASCAR racing to diamond cutting is populated by persons who vary in knowledge, experience, skill and knowhow. The epistemic communities that form around these activities therefore tend to be characterized by epistemic hierarchies. Epistemic authority (and social power; Foucault 1980; Starr 1982) accrues to those at the top of these hierarchies, and will tend to be reciprocated with deference from those lower down.

A variety of professions, most notably medicine and the law, have been established through the formation of organizations with monopoly control over the knowledge and training required to enter the profession (Abbott 1988; Starr 1982). In these cases, the authority of professional expertise can find itself in conflict with epistemic claims deriving from the personal experience of clients despite the institutionalized authority of professionals (Drew & Heritage 1992; Heritage & Clayman 2010; Heritage & Maynard 2006; Peräkylä 1998; 2002; 2006; Stivers et al. 2018). The role of epistemic authority in the creation of power, and the implementation of such power in circumstances of social inequality, can lead to epistemic injuries and injustice (Fricker 2007, 2017).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Deontic authority|Deontic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Abbott, A. (1988). ''The System of the Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor''. University of Chicago Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). ''Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings''. Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). ''Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977''. Pantheon Books.

Fricker, M. (2007). ''Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing''. Oxford University Press.

Fricker, M. (2017). Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus Jr. (Eds.), ''Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice'' (pp. 53-60). Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2009). Negotiating the Legitimacy of Medical Problems: A Multi-phase Concern for Patients and Physicians. In D. Brashers & D. Goldsmith (Eds.), ''Communicating to Manage Health and Illness'' (pp. 147-164). Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2019). The expression of authority in US primary care: Offering diagnoses and recommending treatment. In C. Gordon (Ed.), ''Approaches to Discourse Analysi''s (pp. 104-122). Georgetown University Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). ''Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions''. Blackwell-Wiley.

Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. (Eds.). (2006). ''Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients''. Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Lindström, A., & Weatherall, A. (2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 78, 39-53.

Peräkylä, A. (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 61(4), 301-320.

Peräkylä, A. (2002). Agency and Authority: Extended responses to diagnostic statements in Primary care encounters. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 219-247.

Peräkylä, A. (2006). Communicating and responding to diagnosis. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), ''Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients'' (pp. 214-247).
Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. ''Language in Society'', 35, 677-705.

Starr, P. (1982). ''The Social Transformation of American Medicine''. Basic Books.

Stevanovic, M. (2023). Deontics. 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).

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 45(3), 297-321.

Stivers, T., Heritage, J., Barnes, R. K., McCabe, R., Thompson, L., & Toerien, M. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. ''Health Communication'', 33(11), 1335-1344.

Weber, M. (1978/1922). ''Economy and Society''. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic authority' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=authority&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemic Stance

2026-09-13T00:41:55Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Stance. 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: [ ]
}}

In all '''[[Social_Action|social actions]]''', participants take up a stance. This stance comprises a public display of attitudes towards the situation of action, their co-participants and themselves (Du Bois 2007; Goffman 1955; Wu, Heritage & Raymond 2026). Stance can embrace displays of emotion (Goodwin, Cekaite & Goodwin 2012; Hoey 2027; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2014), together with deontic (Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2012), epistemic (Heritage 2012a, 2012b, 2013) and benefactive (Clayman & Heritage 2014) aspects, among many others. Within conversation analysis, '''epistemic stance''' refers to the displayed claim of knowledge or ignorance relative to others concerning some matter at hand. In general, the epistemic stance adopted by a person is shaped by a normative expectation that this stance should be congruent with the person’s '''[[Epistemic Status|epistemic status]]''', though this norm may be departed from on occasion.

Epistemic stance is conveyed via a very large and differentiated set of practices. One major axis involves the distinction between making assertions about states of affairs, thus conveying a knowledgeable or K+ stance on the matter at hand, as opposed to asking questions about some matter, thus conveying an ignorant or K- stance. In general, participants tend to exhibit some care in the epistemic stances they present in conversation. This can easily be observed in cases of repair (Drew et al. 2013). For example, in the following case Lesley reports having phoned Hal the previous night (lines 2-3), and begins to make an assertion about Hal’s whereabouts for which she lacks the relevant K+ status: “But you were-”. Cutting off this turn-in-progress, she revises the action from one of asserting to one of asking “u-were you ↑ou:t? which is more congruent with her K- status:

(1) [Field SO88(II):1:3:1] [Telephone call; Leslie is caller] (Drew et al. 2013: 76)

1 Hal: Oh ‘el[lo Lesl[ie?
2 Les: [.hhhh [I RANG you up- (.) ah: think it wz
3 la:s’ night. '''But you were- (.) u-were you ↑ou:t?'''
4 or: was it the night before per[↓haps.
5 Hal: [Uh:m night be↓fore I
6 expect we w’r dancing Tuesdee ni:ght.

Similarly, in the following a bystander is reporting a traffic accident to 911 emergency:

(2) [Call to 911: Caller is reporting a traffic accident]

1 911: Okay but they’re not injured ri:ght?
2 (.)
3 CLR: '''No they’re not injured.=They don’t look injured.=They say'''
4 '''they’re fine right [now''' you know but it always happens after.
5 911: [Okay

Across lines 3-4, the caller successively revises his response to 911’s (line 1) question about the possibility of injuries, from a flat declarative assertion (“No they’re not injured”), to an evidentialized assertion based on direct perception (“They don’t look injured”), to a hearsay report (“They say they’re fine right now”). As these cases illustrate, interactants tend to handle the matter of epistemic stance with some care.

It is perhaps for this reason that most languages contain multiple resources for managing and shading epistemic claims. A majority of the world’s languages (de Haan 2013) deploy evidentials to distinguish, for instance, what is directly observed, from what is merely inferred, or known from hearsay (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021). Similarly epistemic modality (Palmer 2001) is a resource deployed in many languages to adjust epistemic claims in terms of greater or lesser likelihood (van der Auwera & Ammann 2013; see also Bolden et al. 2023; Heritage 2010; Levinson 2012), and a related resource is the use of negative polarity items and other forms of negation to indicate the improbability of some state of affairs (Heritage & Raymond 2021; Raymond & Heritage 2021). Some of these distinctions are indicated in Figure 1 below (from Levinson 2012), though this merely gestures at the range of variation involved.

[[File:Heritage_EStance_fig1.jpg|500px]]

'''Figure 1: Bolinger’s question-to-assertion cline (Levinson 2012: 16)'''

Relative epistemic claims are also, of course, lodged in sequences of action where variations in within-sequence actions are likewise used to adjust epistemic stance in terms of distinctive underlying epistemic statuses (Heritage & Raymond 2005; Raymond & Heritage 2006). It may be added that epistemic stances (and associated epistemic statuses) are straightforwardly consolidated across sequences, as in the following pair of cases:

[Sequence 1]

A: What's the time?
B: Three fifteen.
A: Oh thank you.

[Sequence 2]

A: What's the time?
B: Three fifteen.
A: That's right. Well done!

In Sequence 1, A’s third turn oh-receipt treats B’s response to his question as ‘news’ and the question as having embodied a genuinely K- stance (Heritage 1984). In Sequence 2, by contrast, A’s third turn confirmation treats the information in B’s response as already known to the questioner and, together with the praise of the answerer, treats the question as having been an ‘exam’ or ‘known answer’ question.

As previously noted, participants are generally careful to maintain congruence between epistemic stance and status concerning objects of knowledge, and may be held accountable for failures in this regard. It is possible that this congruence is a central resource in the early ascription of action to in-coming utterances which in turn permits rapid turn-transition in conversation (Levinson & Torreira 2015).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill.

Bolden, G. B., Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2023). Introduction: Polar questions and their responses. In G. Bolden, J. Heritage, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts'' (pp. 1-39). Benjamins.

Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Requesting in Social Interaction'' (pp. 55-86). John Benjamins.

de Haan, F. (2013). Coding of Evidentiality. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/78, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational Repair and Human Understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), ''Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction'' (pp. 139-182). John Benjamins.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. ''Psychiatry'', 18, 213-231.

Goodwin, M. H., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Emotion in Interaction'' (pp. 16-41). Oxford University Press.

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

Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), ''Why Do you Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse'' (pp. 42-68). Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 1-25.

Heritage, J. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 25-50.

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 54, 39-59.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Hoey, E. M. (2027). Stance, affect and affiliation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.) ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis (2nd Edition)''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 6, 731.

Palmer, F. R. (2001). ''Mood and Modality''. Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. ''Language in Society'', 35, 677-705.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 45(3), 297-321.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. ''Language in Society'', 43(2), 185-207.

van der Auwera, J. & Ammann. A. (201. Epistemic Possibility. In M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/75, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Wu, R.-J., Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2026). Stance in interaction. In M. Burdelski & T. Greer (Eds.), ''The Routledge Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 109-124). Routledge.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic stance' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=stance&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemic Authority

2026-09-09T05:17:30Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Authority. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Epistemic authority''' refers to the superior positioning in terms of knowledge, information or knowhow of persons concerning some state of affairs relative to their co-participants in social interaction as a settled and legitimate matter (Weber (1978/1922: 215-216). The term suggests that, relative to others, a participant may be more (K+) or less (K-) knowledgeable in relation to some state of affairs as a matter of socially sustained and public recognition, and that such a participant may prevail over others in the presentation of knowledge or information. Although there can be a close association between epistemic and '''[[Deontic authority|deontic authority]]''' (Heritage 2009, 2019; Lindström & Weatherall 2015; Peräkylä 1998; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2012; Stivers et al. 2018), the two elements are conceptually quite distinct. While epistemic authority encompasses rights to prevail in terms of information in some field, it does not embrace the deontic right to set the terms for some course of action (see Stevanovic 2023). Sociologically however, epistemic authority and deontic authority can be closely related: they may co-occur or align, and one may give rise to the other especially in professional fields such as medicine, but also in everyday contexts.

Epistemic authority is expressed in ways that involve complementary stances in which authoritative speakers tend to express themselves through assertions with few qualifications, while less authoritative speakers downgrade their assertions using a variety of resources including weak epistemic modals (e.g. She seems like a nice little lady (Heritage and Raymond 2005:18) and tag questions. In the following case, a neighbor evaluates a grandmother’s grandchild using this latter practice: “They're a lovely family now ar'n't they.” (line 3), while the grandmother expresses her reciprocal authority on this topic with the confirmation "They are:, yes." (Raymond & Heritage 2006).

(1) [Rah 14: 2] (Heritage & Raymond 2005: 20)

1 Jen: Mm [I: bet they proud o:f the fam'ly.=
2 Ver: [Ye:s.
3 Jen: -> =They're [a luvly family now ar'n't [they.
4 Ver: [°Mm:.° [They are: ye[s.
5 Jen: [eeYe[s::,
6 Ver: [Yes,
7 Jen: Mm: All they need now is a little girl tih complete i:t.

The sequential positioning of these actions can frequently be critical, for example assessments with tag questions downgrade an assertion that is made in first position, but upgrade it in second position (Heritage & Raymond 2005; Raymond & Heritage 2006).

Epistemic authority may derive from a variety of sources. Some of the knowledge possessed by individuals is grounded in their own personal experiences, memories, relationships and so on. Here epistemic authority derives from direct experience, and this is recognized as a primary source of epistemic authority in the many languages of the world that, using evidentials for example, register distinctions between personal experience, inference and hearsay as sources of information while favoring personal experience as a source (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021).

Beyond personal experience, almost every field of human endeavor from pole vaulting, to NASCAR racing to diamond cutting is populated by persons who vary in knowledge, experience, skill and knowhow. The epistemic communities that form around these activities therefore tend to be characterized by epistemic hierarchies. Epistemic authority (and social power; Foucault 1980; Starr 1982) accrues to those at the top of these hierarchies, and will tend to be reciprocated with deference from those lower down.

A variety of professions, most notably medicine and the law, have been established through the formation of organizations with monopoly control over the knowledge and training required to enter the profession (Abbott 1988; Starr 1982). In these cases, the authority of professional expertise can find itself in conflict with epistemic claims deriving from the personal experience of clients despite the institutionalized authority of professionals (Drew & Heritage 1992; Heritage & Clayman 2010; Heritage & Maynard 2006; Peräkylä 1998; 2002; 2006; Stivers et al. 2018). The role of epistemic authority in the creation of power, and the implementation of such power in circumstances of social inequality, can lead to epistemic injuries and injustice (Fricker 2007, 2017).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Deontic authority|Deontic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Abbott, A. (1988). ''The System of the Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor''. University of Chicago Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). ''Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings''. Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). ''Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977''. Pantheon Books.

Fricker, M. (2007). ''Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing''. Oxford University Press.

Fricker, M. (2017). Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus Jr. (Eds.), ''Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice'' (pp. 53-60). Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2009). Negotiating the Legitimacy of Medical Problems: A Multi-phase Concern for Patients and Physicians. In D. Brashers & D. Goldsmith (Eds.), ''Communicating to Manage Health and Illness'' (pp. 147-164). Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2019). The expression of authority in US primary care: Offering diagnoses and recommending treatment. In C. Gordon (Ed.), ''Approaches to Discourse Analysi''s (pp. 104-122). Georgetown University Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). ''Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions''. Blackwell-Wiley.

Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. (Eds.). (2006). ''Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients''. Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Lindström, A., & Weatherall, A. (2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 78, 39-53.

Peräkylä, A. (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 61(4), 301-320.

Peräkylä, A. (2002). Agency and Authority: Extended responses to diagnostic statements in Primary care encounters. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 219-247.

Peräkylä, A. (2006). Communicating and responding to diagnosis. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), ''Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients'' (pp. 214-247).
Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. ''Language in Society'', 35, 677-705.

Starr, P. (1982). ''The Social Transformation of American Medicine''. Basic Books.

Stevanovic, Melisa. (2023). Deontics. 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).

Stevanovic, M., & Perakyla, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 45(3), 297-321.

Stivers, T., Heritage, J., Barnes, R. K., McCabe, R., Thompson, L., & Toerien, M. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. ''Health Communication'', 33(11), 1335-1344.

Weber, M. (1978/1922). ''Economy and Society''. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic authority' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=authority&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemics

2026-09-09T05:14:32Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemics. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Epistemics''' is a topic of conversation-analytic inquiry, focusing on the knowledge claims that are asserted, contested and defended in social interaction. These claims are observable in the ways that persons design and implement social actions and sequences of them (Heritage 2024, see also Wootton 1989). The term derives form the Greek ''episteme'' meaning knowledge or understanding, and is the subject matter – epistemology – of a branch of philosophy. Research on epistemics is, together with the analysis of other dimensions of stance, especially deontics and affect (Hoey 2027; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2014; Wu, Heritage & Raymond 2026), a central element drawing together the analysis of social interaction with sociological conceptions of identity, role, institutions and social structure.

Epistemic issues are omnirelevant and ubiquitous features of social interaction (Heritage 2018) and are universal across the societies of the world. From the point that children are able to recognize differences between their own and others’ knowledge of the world (Astington 2006), roughly between the ages of four and eight, they enter a world structured in terms of epistemic distinctions which they may need to take account of. For example, in referring to a neighbor someone might simply use a first name, ''Mary'', or a variety of more complex reference forms: ''Mary Smith''; ''Mrs. Smith''; ''John’s Mom''; ''Jane’s daughter''; ''Linda’s aunt''; ''David’s girlfriend''; ''my mother''; ''your aunt''; ''Fido’s owner''; ''the woman who drives the white BMW''; ''that neighbor of ours…'' and so on. While some or many of these expressions may be correct, the choice between them is most centrally shaped by what the recipient is presumed to know about ‘Mary’ and how she knows it (Schegloff 1972). The choice, in other words, is one made on epistemic grounds. This capacity to track the knowledge and social connections of others has been argued to underly the evolutionary expansion of brain size relative to the size of social groups in hominids and other primates (Dunbar 2003), and it seems possible that the representation of others’ beliefs can be traced to the functioning of single neurons (Jamali et al. 2021), where the latter may be an evolved feature of human sociality.

The kinds of choices just described involve speakers in taking account of what others know in designing their turns at talk. Other kinds of epistemic choices involve the evidential calibration of knowledge claims in terms of, for example, their sources in firsthand knowledge, inference or hearsay (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021). 57% of the 400+ languages surveyed in the World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS) impose this distinction as a grammatical choice on their speakers (de Haan 2013). Another variation involves epistemic modality (Palmer 2001) in which claims can be adjusted as more or less certain as in ‘He may have robbed the bank’ (van der Auwera & Ammann 2013). And in egophoric languages the relative access to knowledge of the participants in relation to some state of affairs is expressed in grammaticalized form (Grzech & Bergqvist 2025; Sandman & Grzech 2022; San Roque, Floyd & Norcliffe 2018; see also Evans, Bergqvist & San Roque 2018a, 2018b).

Within CA, interest in epistemic questions mainly focuses on circumstances in which interactants have asymmetric '''[[Epistemic_Status|epistemic status]]''' or access to knowledge. Interactants are conceived as differentially informed about the topics their conversations touch upon. The prototypical case is one in which A asks B a question, reflexively framing A as lacking some form of knowledge (K-) and reciprocally constituting B as the knowledgeable (K+) party (Heritage 2010). These asymmetries may be rooted in different life experiences, including personal memories, expectations, desires and hopes, or in institutionally sanctioned knowledge and roles that are found in the medical and other professions, or simply that A saw an event whereas B only heard about it, or saw it more recently than B, or even something as ephemeral as A just saw something a moment ago that B didn’t. The differential may not be restricted to actual knowledge, but may also involve rights to know it, or even to articulate it. For example, it is well documented that patients may possess a good deal of knowledge about their medical conditions, but may find themselves unable to articulate it in the doctor’s office with any degree of authority.

A general feature of social interaction is that persons design their '''[[Epistemic_Stance|epistemic stance]]''' in talk to match their '''[[Epistemic_Status|epistemic status]]'''. This epistemic stance is indexed using a very wide-ranging set of methods that are fitted to the actions and sequential contexts in play. The fit between epistemic stance and status is relied upon by the recipients of talk as an element in determining the social action to which they should respond. For this reason, epistemic issues absolutely permeate other domains of conversational organization including, most importantly, action formation (Heritage 2013, 2022) where arguably the most fundamental action distinction in interaction – between requesting and giving information – hinges upon epistemic status (Heritage 2012a), which can readily override the epistemic stance otherwise conveyed by grammatical form and other aspects of turn design. Relative epistemic status is arguably a vital support to the rather unreliable (Levinson 2012) use of intonation to mark questions that is depended upon by about 18% of the world’s languages (Dryer 2013a), not to mention those languages for which there are no attested means of marking actions as questioning. It may be added that, in a context in which early determination of the social action being implemented by an incoming utterance is a central feature of response construction (Levinson 2013; Levinson & Torreira 2015), epistemic status may be a vital early clue in the process (Heritage 2022). Similar considerations may apply to the 314 languages in which question particles are deployed to signal polar questions in sentence-final position (Dryer 2013b) – long after the construction of response has been initiated.

Our understanding of the significance of epistemics for action formation and sequence in interaction progressed rapidly following the publication of work by Heritage and others (Heritage 2012a, 2012b; Stivers et al. 2011). In particular, the recognition that epistemic status is central to participants’ ability to discriminate between assertions and questions – the two primary conversational actions undertaken in human interaction – has become important in the analysis of action formation, sequence organization and repair. Critics have claimed that the concept of epistemics is ‘cognitivist’ and refers to a “hidden order”, discernable only to the analyst (e.g. Lynch and MacBeth 2016), critiques which have been effectively rebutted in publications demonstrating that epistemic phenomena are a basic order of social organization (Drew 2018; Heritage 2018, 2024; Whitehead et al. 2025) alongside turn-taking, sequence organization, repair and others identified by Schegloff (2006). Thus, these critiques notwithstanding, epistemic phenomena continue to be a primary and heavily researched topic of investigation among interaction researchers.

In fact, from the earliest studies in CA onwards, epistemic issues have been seen as crucial to a wide variety of interactional processes. For example, Lerner (2003, see also Stivers & Robinson 2006; Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027) showed that epistemic status is implicated in next-speaker selection: K+ recipients are selected to speak next in contexts where there is differential knowledge access among potential recipients. In 1979, in a classic paper, Charles Goodwin showed that speakers will design and re-design turns to accommodate different recipients’ presumed knowledge. Again, numerous analysts from Sacks onwards have explored the centrality of epistemic issues in news delivery sequences, under the auspices of a general norm that bars speakers from telling things that recipients already know (Maynard 2003; Pomerantz 1980; Terasaki 2004). As noted above, Sacks and Schegloff showed the centrality of identifying the knowledge of a recipient as a means to design a recognizable person reference (Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1972, 1996, see also Heritage 2007). Epistemic issues have similarly been found to infuse many aspects of repair sequences, including self-repair (Drew, Walker & Ogden 2013; Raymond & Gill 2025) and responsibility for other-initiated repair (Robinson 2006, 2013). Finally, epistemic issues are central to many aspects of a very wide range of interactions in institutional contexts (Drew & Heritage 1992; Heritage and Clayman 2010).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Rights]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Status]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). ''Evidentiality''. Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In ''The Web of Knowledge'' (pp. 1-139). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004466425_002

Astington, J. W. (2006). The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In N. C. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), ''Roots of Human Sociality'' (pp. 179-206). Berg.

de Haan, F. (2013). Coding of Evidentiality. In M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591
(Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/78, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Drew, P. (2018). Special Issue: Epistemics – the rebuttal. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(1).

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). ''Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Setting''s. Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational Repair and Human Understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, M.S. (2013a). Polar Questions. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591
(Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/116, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Dryer, M.S. (2013b). Position of Polar Question Particles. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/92, Accessed on 2025-12-03.)

Dunbar, R. I. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 32, 163-181.

Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement I: framework and initial exemplification. ''Language and Cognition'', 10(1), 110-140.

Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. ''Language and Cognition'', 10(1), 141-170.

Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 97-121). Irvington Publishers.

Grzech, K., & Bergqvist, H. (2026). ''Expanding the Boundaries of Epistemicity: Epistemic Modality, Evidentiality, and Beyond'' (Vol. 393). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), ''Why Do you Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse'' (pp. 42-68). Oxford University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 1-25.

Heritage, J. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 25-50.

Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. ''Discourse Studies'', 15, 547-574.

Heritage, J. (2018). The Ubiquity of Epistemics: A Rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ Group. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(1), 14-56.

Heritage, J. (2022). The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), ''Action Ascription in Interaction'' (pp. 297-326). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2024). The epistemics of epistemics: Validating claims about epistemic stance in conversation analysis. In J. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 419-451). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). ''Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions''. Blackwell-Wiley.

Jamali, M., Grannan, B. L., Fedorenko, E., Saxe, R., Báez-Mendoza, R., & Williams, Z. M. (2021). Single-neuronal predictions of others’ beliefs in humans. ''Nature'', 591(7851), 610-614.

Hoey, E. M. (2027). Stance, affect and affiliation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.) ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis (2nd Edition)''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 103-130). Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 6, 731.

Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. ''Language in Society'', 32, 177-201.

Lynch, M. & Macbeth D. (2016). Special Issue: The epistemics of Epistemics. ''Discourse Studies'', 18(5).

Maynard, D. W. (2003). ''Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings''. University of Chicago Press.

Palmer, F. R. (2001). ''Mood and Modality''. Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling My Side: 'Limited Access' as a 'Fishing' Device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50, 186-198.

Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive Repair of Potential Misunderstandings: Prospective Procedures for Managing Intersubjectivity and Steering Social Action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90: 690-725.

Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-Taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. ''Communication Monographs'', 73, 137-161.

Robinson, J. D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation and other-initiation of repair: the case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational Repair and Human Understanding'' (pp. 261-292). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 15-21). Irvington Publishers.

Sandman, E., & Grzech, K. (2022). Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions: Insights on conversational data from the Tibetan Plateau and the Amazonian Foothills. ''Interactional Linguistics'', 2(1), 79-109.

San Roque, L., Floyd, S., & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In ''Egophoricity'' (pp. 1-78). Benjamins.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 75-119). Free Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), ''Studies in Anaphora'' (pp. 437-485). John Benjamins.

Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), ''The Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction'' (pp. 70-96). Berg.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. ''Language in Society'', 43(2), 185-207.

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). ''The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation''. Cambridge University Press.

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. ''Language in Society'', 35(3), 367-392.

Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 171-223). John Benjamins.

van der Auwera, J., & Ammann, A. (2013). Epistemic Possibility. In: In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/75, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Whitehead, K. A., Stokoe, E., & Raymond, G. (2025). ''Categories in Social Interaction''. Taylor and Francis.

Wootton, A. (1989). Remarks on the Methodology of Conversation Analysis. In P. Bull & D. Roger (Eds.), ''Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Approach'' (pp. 238-258). Multilingual Matters.

Wu, R.-J., Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2026). Stance in interaction. In M. Burdelski & T. Greer (Eds.), ''The Routledge Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 109-124). Routledge.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemics' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=epistemic&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Epistemic Status

2026-09-09T05:11:52Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447)
| To cite = Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemic Status. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Epistemic status''' refers to the positioning of a person in terms of knowledge or information concerning some state of affairs relative to his or her co-participants in social interaction. The term suggests that, relative to others, a participant may be more (K+) or less (K-) knowledgeable in relation to almost any imaginable state of affairs.

Underlying the concept is the notion that persons possess ‘territories of knowledge’ (Kamio 1997; Labov and Fanshel 1977, see also Heritage 2011). Some of these territories may be singular and unique for example, personal memories, hopes, fears, expectations, ''umwelt'' knowledge concerning arrangements within rooms and houses, the behavior of relatives, pets, etc. Others may be shared with social groups and epistemic communities (Abbott 1988; Holzner 1968; Knorr-Cetina 1999) such as professions, trades, and hobby communities. And yet others may be shared in and through particular joint experiences, whether present (e.g., the weather outside right now), or past (e.g., escaping an earthquake). A critical feature of epistemic status is that it is recognized in common, as ‘common ground’ (Stalnaker 1978) and, just as importantly, is known by the parties to be shared as ‘common ground’.

The basic notion underling epistemic status was first described by Labov and Fanshel (1977: 100), who observed that knowledge may be conceptualized in terms of its relationship to speakers in terms of a five-fold classification.

[Labov and Fanshel 1977:100]

''A-events'': Known to A, but not to B.
''B-events'': Known to B, but not to A.
''AB-events'': Known to both A and B.
''O-events'': Known to everyone present.
''D-events'': Known to be disputable.

Figure 1 below depicts the classical Labov and Fanshel knowledge representation between two speakers, while Figure 2 depicts a multiplication of relationships between hypothesized speakers to include knowledge that is known to only one of them, as well as knowledge that is shared between different pairs of them, and knowledge that is shared between all three.

[[File:Heritage_ES_fig1.jpg|250px]] [[File:Heritage_ES_fig2.jpg|325px]]

'''Figure 1 Figure 2'''

The layout of epistemic status attributes in Figure 1 quite accurately models the deployment of the Japanese turn-final particles ''yo'', ''ne'' and ''yone'', in which ''yo'' indexes speaker-specific knowledge (A-events), while ''ne'' and ''yone'' index knowledge that is shared (AB-events) (Hayano 2011, 2013).

An alternative representation of epistemic status is provided by the Japanese linguist Akio Kamio (1997) who focuses on relative access to knowledge or information. Consider the following sequence from Pomerantz (1980):

(1) [NB:II:2:R] (Pomerantz 1980: 195)

01 Nan: Hel↑lo:,
02 Emm: .hh HI::.
03 (.)
04 Nan: Oh:'I::: 'ow a:re you Emmah:
05 Emm: FI:NE yer LINE'S BEEN BUSY.
06 Nan: Yea:h (.) my u.-fuhh h-.hhhh my fa:ther's wife ca:lled me,h
07 .hhh So when she ca:lls me::,h .hh I always talk fer a lo:ng
08 ti:me cz she c'n afford it'n I ca:n't.hhh[hhh]°huh°]
09 Emm: [OH:]:::::]:=

Here Emma reports a state of affairs – a busy telephone signal, concerning which, at line 5, she suggests that she has limited knowledge (Pomerantz 1980). Her friend Nancy supplies the relevant information (lines 6-8). The relative knowledge states at line 5 might be represented, following Kamio (1997: 17), as depicted in Figure 3.

[[File:Heritage_ES_fig3.jpg|500px]]

'''Figure 3: Information domain for “yer LINE’S BEEN BUSY” (Heritage 2013: 375)'''

Emma’s information state, as formulated in line 5, presents her knowledge as closer to the K- end of the knowledge spectrum, while formulating Nancy as very close to the K+ end. Emma knows no more than the fact that the line was busy, and she reflexively formulates Nancy as all but certain to know, and be able to describe, the state of affairs concerned.

As previously noted, it is critical that the parties’ relative epistemic status in reference to some state of affairs is jointly shared, and ''known to be so''. This is made possible in part by the immense effort humans make to keep track of the knowledge and social affairs of others (Dunbar 2003; Sperber et al 2010), but also by the normative and sanctionable obligation to maintain congruency between epistemic status on the one hand, and '''[[Epistemic_Stance|epistemic stance]]''' on the other. This congruency generally enables speakers to trust that the stance towards some state of affairs that is expressed in an utterance is matched to the state of knowledge currently possessed by the speaker in question. This congruency is routinely achieved when speakers use interrogatives concerning matters of which they are ignorant, and declaratives concerning matters of which they are knowledgeable, thus achieving ' questions' and 'assertions' respectively. The routine achievement of this congruency may be departed from on occasion, for example when speakers ask questions about matters about which they are in fact knowledgeable or, alternatively, claim authoritative knowledge about matters of which they are in fact ignorant. Systematic exceptions to this generalization arise in specialized institutional contexts such as education, where teacher questioning is not designed to acquire information ''per se'', but rather whether the student knows the answer (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975; McHoul 1978). Similarly, in news interviews and courtroom discourse, questions are rarely asked from a position of ignorance, but are rather aimed at inducing the recipient affirm some state of affairs 'on the record' (Clayman & Heritage 2002; Drew 1992). And, of course, speakers may believe in and claim knowledge of matters concerning which, it will turn out, they are ignorant.

In considering the overall relationship between epistemic status and '''[[Epistemic_Stance|epistemic stance]]''', it is clear that epistemic status plays the dominant role. As Heritage (2012) demonstrated, regardless of the epistemic stance taken by a speaker, epistemic status will exert a controlling influence on the action ascribed to an utterance. Thus, as Labov and Fanshel (1977) were the first to note, when a K- speaker makes an assertion to a K+ recipient, such as “You know where he is then”, this will be heard to implement questioning despite the fact that the remark does not take an interrogative form. Relatedly, as Robinson (2013) has shown epistemic status plays a central role in determining whether declarative repeats are heard as repair initiation or as challenges. In general, ‘declarative questions’ are the predominant form of questioning in English and many other languages (Bolden et al. 2023; Stivers 2010; Stivers et al. 2010). All are enabled by an orientation to the epistemic status of the speaker, and epistemic status is likely an essential resource for speakers of languages that lack linguistic markers of interrogativity, or whose markers are unreliable (Levinson 2012). Epistemic status, then, is an essential feature of action formation.

Epistemic status is significant for action formation in another important sense. During the past fifteen years, it has become apparent that rapid turn-transition from speaker to speaker that is witnessed around the world could not occur without the initiation of response planning by the recipient in the course of the current speaker’s turn (Levinson 2013, 2016; Levinson & Torreira 2015). Evidence is mounting that a key element in this planning is identifying the action of the current speaker long before that action, and the turn it is housed in, comes to completion (Barthel et al. 2017; Bögels et al. 2015; Gisladottir et al. 2018). Considering the process of distinguishing a statement-in-formation from a question-in-formation, it can be noted that, in a majority of the world’s languages, many of the linguistically identifying features of questioning such as final intonation contours and question particles occur at turn endings (Dryer 2013a, 2013b). That is, they emerge long after the time at which it had become necessary for the next speaker to identify the turn as an assertion or a question etc. as a condition for preparing an on-time response. Current research suggests that there is a concentration of multimodal signaling early in an incoming turn, suggestive of support for early action projection (Trujillo & Holler 2025). It may also be suggested (Heritage 2022) that, in addition to sequential context, orientation to epistemic status makes a significant contribution to early action ascription in relation to the incoming utterance, and to action formation in the response to it.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Abbott, A. (1988). ''The System of the Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor''. University of Chicago Press.

Barthel, M., Meyer, A. S., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). Next speakers plan their turn early and speak after turn-final “go-signals”. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 8, 393.

Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Never say no… How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. ''PloS one'', 10(12).

Dryer, M. S. (2013). Indefinite Articles. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online'' (Chapter 37. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/38 Accessed on 2026-01-23.). Max Planck Digital Library.

Bolden, G. B., Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2023). Introduction: Polar questions and their responses. In G. Bolden, J. Heritage, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts'' (pp. 1-39). John Benjamins.

Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). ''The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air''. Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In P.Drew & J.Heritage (Eds.), ''Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings'' (pp. 470-520). Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, M. S. (2013a). Position of polar question particles. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online''. Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/92.

Dryer, M.S. (2013b). Polar Questions. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), ''The World Atlas of Language Structures Online''. Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/116, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)

Dunbar, R. I. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 32, 163-181.

Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. ''Frontiers in Human Neuroscience'', 12, 34.

Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: ''yo''-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), ''The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation'' (pp. 58-81). Cambridge University Press.

Hayano, K. (2013). ''Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation''. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), ''The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation'' (pp. 159-183). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45, 1-25.

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, J. (2022). The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), ''Action Ascription in Interaction'' (pp. 297-326). Cambridge University Press.

Holzner, B. (1968). ''Reality Construction in Society''. Schenkman Publishing Co.

Kamio, A. (1997). ''Territory of Information''. John Benjamins.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). ''Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge''. Harvard University Press.

Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). ''Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation''. Academic Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 103-130). Wiley-Blackwell.

Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'', 20(1), 6-14.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 6, 731.

McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. ''Language in Society'', 7, 183-213.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling My Side: 'Limited Access' as a 'Fishing' Device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50, 186-198.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). ''Towards an Analysis of Discourse''. Oxford University Press.

Sperber, D., Clement, P., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. ''Mind and Language'', 25, 359-393.

Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), ''Syntax and Semantics Vol 9: Pragmatics'' (pp. 315-332). Academic Press.

Stivers, T. (2010). An Overview of the Question-Response System in American English. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42, 2772-2781.

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: an introduction. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42, 2615-2619.

Trujillo, J. P., & Holler, J. (2025). Multimodal information density is highest in question beginnings, and early entropy is associated with fewer but longer visual signals. ''Discourse Processes'', 62(2), 69-88.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'epistemic status' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=status&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Telling

2026-09-09T03:45:15Z

ChaseRaymond: Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Katharina König''' (University of Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1883-2812) | To cite = König, Katharina. (2026). Story-telli..."

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Katharina König''' (University of Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1883-2812)
| To cite = König, Katharina. (2026). Story-telling. 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/U57JV
}}

As a particular type of '''telling''' (Schegloff, 2007: 37ff.), '''story-telling''' constitutes a form of sequential organization in which interlocutors temporarily suspend ordinary '''[[Turn-taking|turn-taking]]''' rules in order to create the floor for a speaker or a party of speakers to relate an event and their '''[[Affective stance|affective stance]]''' towards it. These ‘big packages’ (Sacks, 1992: 354; Jefferson, 1988) have received a lot of scholarly attention in Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics (see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018: Online-Chapter D; Mandelbaum, 2013 for an overview) regarding their overall sequential structure, the interactional coordination between teller and recipient and the grammatical, prosodic and embodied resources participants deploy.

Tellings can be produced as structurally complex turns consisting of several '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|TCUs]]''' (i.e. as '''[[Multi-unit turn|multi-unit turns]]''', see C. Goodwin & Heritage, 1990: 299, Gardner et al., 2025). Alternatively, they may also be produced as multi-turn units, for instance when a telling is continued after speaker change has occurred (see Norrick, 2012; Rühlemann & Gries 2015). Consider the following extract taken and adapted from Stivers (2013: 202):

(1) (Stivers 2013: 202)

1 Lan: Did I mention to you that I got yelled at <-- ''story preface''
2 by one of our neighbours today?
3 (0.2)
4 Gio: No, <-- ''go-ahead response''

((5 lines joking deleted))

10 Lan: The dawg got out the gate. <-- ''telling begins''
11 (0.5)
12 (The)/(That) back gate.
13 (0.2)

((telling continues))

41 Lan: And she said uhh, “|you guys gotta do
42 something to restrain him.”
43 (0.8)
44 Gio: [(She said)]-
45 Lan: [( ) ]
46 Gio: She said (we had to do something) tuh <-- ''clarification request''
47 restrain him?
48 Lan: Yeah.
49 She goes (.) “|you had better tie <-- ''telling continues''
50 up that do:g.” and I said well it’s pretty
51 well contained back there she goes
52 “|Obviously not!” hh <-- ''possible story climax''
53 Gio: hh Didju tell her to (just) fuck off <-- ''affiliative uptake''

When a story is not invited or otherwise contextually expected, speakers can typically project a telling with a fitted '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)|pre-sequence]]''', a pre-telling or a story-'''[[Preface|preface]]''' (Sacks, 1974), which establishes tellability in the given context (Ochs & Capps, 2001) and serves to secure primary speakership for the upcoming turns (line 1 in the above example). The preface also indicates the type of telling that is about to be produced (e.g., a humorous story, a troubles telling, a '''[[Complaint|complaint]]''' story, a hypothetical scenario), thus providing cues for its possible completion as well as the speaker’s stance on the narrated event. Addressees can then give a '''[[Go-ahead|go-ahead]]''' response (line 4 in the above example) or resist the initiative to produce a multi-unit telling. Once they agree to suspend the usual turn-by-turn talk, a single speaker or a party of speakers (on collaborative story-telling see Dressel, 2021; Mandelbaum, 1987) has the floor until the telling is brought to (possible) completion.

Addressees are expected to provide structurally aligned responses in mid-telling (Stivers 2008, such as '''[[Continuer|continuers]]''' or head nods). However, they may also produce structurally disaligned responses such as clarification requests (lines 46-47 in the above example, Mandelbaum 2010), or more disruptive ‘byplay’ such as teasing or heckling (M.H. Goodwin, 1997). Tellers may then continue or resume their original course of action (Jefferson, 1972). Upon story completion, a different recipient uptake is due: Here, recipients are expected to '''[[Affiliation|affiliate]]''' with the teller’s stance (Stivers, 2008, see line 53 in the above example) otherwise it will be treated as noticeably absent and possibly understood as resistance to some aspect of the telling (e.g., its sequential fit or the teller’s stance, Selting, 2017). Participants then negotiate how to continue; they may return to regular turn-by-turn talk, offer second stories that relate to the previous one or the teller may expand their story.

While earlier accounts have focused on the overall structure of oral story-telling (Labov & Waletzky, 1967), conversation-analytic studies emphasize how the interaction between teller(s) and addressee fundamentally shapes a story’s delivery. By aligning to the projected course of action, addressees actively support and co-construct story-telling as an activity (Mandelbaum, 2010; Stivers, 2008). Story-telling is recipient-designed from the start as tellers have to take into account if addressees are likely to affiliate with their stance and what recipients already know (see line 1 in the above example). When speakers tell a story twice, they need to adapt it to the recipients’ upgraded epistemic position or invite them to join in as co-tellers (Günthner, 2005; Norrick, 1998). Addressees take active part in co-constructing affective stances by, for instance, displaying '''[[Empathy|empathy]]''' (Kupetz, 2014) or by producing co-animations of depicted characters (Cantarutti, 2022).

Moreover, tellings are shaped by their sequential position; it influences how speakers design their turns-at-talk to introduce, deliver, or close a multi-unit telling. In naturally-occuring talk-in-interaction, stories can be initiated by a teller (as in the above example) or invited by others, they can be offered as second stories (Sidnell, 2010: 185ff.) or as ‘breaking news’ of ongoing events that need to be updated continually during the otherwise unfolding conversation (Georgakopoulou, 2013). In multi-activity settings, it is not always possible for speakers to produce stories as “focused bound units” (C. Goodwin, 2003); instead, tellings may be realized in intricately intertwined fragments.

Speakers use various grammatical, prosodic, and embodied resources (among others) to make stories and their sequential components recognizable, to distinguish between the here-and-now and the narrated world, and to cue their stance on the narrated events. Relating past experiences in present tense is a practice to highlight a dynamic and dramatic development (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018: Online-Chapter D, 9ff.). With ‘dense constructions’ (Günthner, 2011) narrators contextualize their emotional involvement in a rapidly unfolding series of events. Embodied resources contextualize shifts in footing (Sidnell, 2006; Thompson & Suzuki, 2014). The prosodic design of direct and indirect reported speech can index an evaluative stance toward these quoted utterances (Couper-Kuhlen, 1999; Günthner, 2002). Tellers systematically combine verbal, prosodic and embodied resources to cue for the climax of a story (such as marking the climax of a story using reported speech in dense accentuation and with frowning, see Selting, 2017) and they can index their affective stance with facial displays such as smiling before verbalizing it (Ruusuvuori & Peräkylä, 2009). Addressees make use of embodied resources to display attentiveness (for instance, by fixing their gaze on the story-teller, (C. Goodwin, 1984; Rossano, 2013), to align with the course of action (e.g., by mid-turn nods, Stivers, 2008) or to display affiliative surprise (Dix & Groß, 2023) without claiming speakership. These studies of turn design and recipient conduct again illustrate that story-telling is locally occasioned and collaboratively achieved.

Orienting to its “why that now?” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) epistemology, conversation analysis takes a special interest in the actions speakers accomplish with conversational narratives: “For the most part, people tell stories to do something – to complain, to boast, to inform, to alert, to tease, to explain or excuse or to justify […]” (Schegloff 1997: 97). Story-telling can thus help to create rapport and social solidarity (M. H. Goodwin, 1982). In institutional settings, stories may constitute a focal part of the communicative agenda (as for instance in therapeutic discourse, Deppermann et al., 2020) or they can expand task-oriented turns-at-talk (for instance, in building a defensive move when testifying in court, Galatolo & Drew, 2006). Story-telling thus constitutes an essential resource for managing social relationships in and through talk-in-interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Affective stance]]'''
* '''[[Affiliation]]'''
* '''[[Empathy]]'''
* '''[[Footing]]'''
* '''[[Go-ahead]]'''
* '''[[Multi-unit turn]]'''
* '''[[Participation framework]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Turn-taking]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Cantarutti, M. N. (2022). Co-animation in troubles-talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 55(1), 37–58.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), ''Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to Create it and How to Describe it'' (pp. 11–33). John Benjamins.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Deppermann, A., Scheidt, C. E., & Stukenbrock, A. (2020). Positioning shifts from told self to performative self in psychotherapy. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 11, 572436.

Dix, C., & Groß, A. (2023). Surprise about news or just receiving information? Moving and holding both eyebrows in co-present interaction. ''Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality'', 6(3).

Dressel, D. (2021). Turn-taking in collaborative storytelling: Et puis après (‘and then after that’) as a resource for resuming tellings-in-progress and negotiating tellership between story
episodes. ''Linguistik Online'', 112(7), 3–25.

Galatolo, R., & Drew, P. (2006). Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. ''Text & Talk'', 26(6), 661–698.

Gardner, R., Blythe, J., Mushin, I., Stirling, L., Dahmen, J., Dear, C. de, & Possemato, F. (2025). ''The Making of Multi-Unit Turns''. John Benjamins.

Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Storytelling on the go: Breaking news as a travelling narrative genre. In M. Hyvärinen (Ed.), ''The Travelling Concepts of Narrative'' (pp. 201–224). John Benjamins.

Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 225–246). Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C. (2003). Embedded context. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(4), 323–350.

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 19, 283–307.

Goodwin, M. H. (1982). “Instigating”: Storytelling as social process. ''American Ethnologist'', 9(4), 799–816.

Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Byplay: Negotiation evaluation in storytelling. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), ''Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in honor of William Labov: Social interaction and discourse structures'' (pp. 77–102). John Benjamins.

Günthner, S. (2002). Perspectivity in reported dialogues. The contextualization of evaluative stances in reconstructing speech. In C. F. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), ''Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse'' (pp. 347–374). John Benjamins.

Günthner, S. (2005). Narrative reconstructions of past experiences. Adjustments and modifications in the process of recontextualizing a past experience. In U. M. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), ''Narrative Interaction'' (pp. 285–301). John Benjamins.

Günthner, S. (2011). The construction of emotional involvement in everyday German narratives – interactive uses of ‘dense constructions’. ''Pragmatics'', 21(4), 573–592.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 294-338). The Free Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Kupetz, M. (2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements—Multimodal and sequential aspects. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 61, 4–34.

Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), ''Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts'' (pp. 12–44). University of Washington Press.

Mandelbaum, J. (1987). Couples sharing stories. ''Communication Quarterly'', 35(2), 144–170.

Mandelbaum, J. (2010). Concurrent and intervening actions during storytelling in family ‘ceremonial’ dinners. In D. Schiffrin, A. de Fina, & A. Nylund (Eds.), ''Telling Stories. Language, Narrative, and Social Life'' (pp. 161–172). Georgetown University Press.

Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 492–507). Blackwell.

Norrick, N. R. (1998). Retelling stories in spontaneous conversation. ''Discourse Processes'', 25(1), 75–97.

Norrick, N. R. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 44, 566–576.

Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). ''Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling''. Harvard University Press.

Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (308-329). Blackwell.

Rühlemann, C., & Gries, S. (2015). Turn order and turn distribution in multi-party storytelling. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 87, 171–191.

Ruusuvuori, J., & Peräkylä, A. (2009). Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 42(4), 377–394.

Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), ''Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking'' (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation. Volume II''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). ‘Narrative analysis’ thirty years later. ''Journal of Narrative and Life History'', 7(1-4), 97–106.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4), 289–327.

Selting, M. (2017). The display and management of affectivity in climaxes of amusing stories. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 111, 1–32.

Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction, '' 39(4), 377–409.

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation Analysis: An Introduction''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(1), 31–57.

Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (192-209). Blackwell.

Thompson, S. A., & Suzuki, R. (2014). Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. ''Discourse Studies'', 16(6), 816–846

'''Additional References:'''

De Fina, A. & Georgakopoulou, A. (Eds.). (2015). ''The Handbook of Narrative Analysis''. Wiley Blackwell.

Kotthoff, H. (2009). Joint constructions of humorous fictions in conversation. An unnamed narrative activity in a playful keying. ''Journal of Literary Theory'', 3(2), 195–218.

Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. ''Qualitative Sociology'', 15(3), 247–271.

Quasthoff, U. M. (1997). An interactive approach to narrative development. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), ''Narrative Development: Six Approaches'' (pp. 51–83). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schiffrin, D., De Fina, A. & Nylund, A. (Eds.). (2010). ''Telling Stories. Language, Narrative, and Social Life''. Georgetown University Press.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'telling' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=telling&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Story-telling

2026-09-09T03:40:59Z

ChaseRaymond:

Request for Reconfirmation

2026-09-09T03:24:59Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Katharina König''' (University of Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1883-2812)
| To cite = König, Katharina. (2026). Request for Reconfirmation. 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/4WM2P
}}

With a '''request for reconfirmation (RfRC)''', a speaker prompts a prior speaker to at least minimally reconfirm something the other has said in a prior turn. Consider line 7 in the following example from Marmorstein & Szczepek Reed (2024: 259):

(1) [REC 51.17]

1 Lau: <<h> was thAt the gUY who bOUght you:: (0.3) [cham↑PA:GNE;>
2 Car: [<<h> cham↑PA:GNE;
3 ↑YEAH:.>
4 Lau: MOet.
5 Car: [S:O WEIRD.
6 Lau: [<<h> ↑PPARently you’re suppOsed to> pronOUnce mOey as MOETh -
7 → Car: hhh. REA:LLY#1?
[[File:Konig.RfRC.fig1.png|150px]]
#1
8 Lau: YEAH.
9 appArently because it’s a [DUTCH wOrd.
10 Car: [moet
11 (0.5)
12 Lau: ‘nd apparently .h [i- it’s a DUTCH fAmily (0.2)
13 Car: [it’s not FRENCH;
14 Lau: In <<sh-> .h FRA:NCE.

RfRCs can be instantiated by (partial) repeats (Aldrup, 2024 for English and German), simple '''[[Particle|particles]]''' (so-called newsmarks such as English ''really'' (see line 7 in the above example), German ''echt'' (Gubina & Betz, 2021), Hebrew ''be’emet'' (lit. ‘in truth’, Marmorstein & Shor, 2025) or Icelandic ''nú'' (lit. ‘now’, Hilmisdóttir, 2016)) or other routinized formats (English ''did you?'', Jefferson, 1981; Thompson et al., 2015). Depending on the type of particle or the subject language, an RfRC’s prosodic shape may be a distinctive cue (Selting, 1996, Weber & König, 2025) or it may add an affective lamination (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2006). They can form multimodal gestalts with, for instance, raised eyebrows (Dix & Groß, 2023, Marmorstein & Shor, 2025).

RfRCs are sometimes grouped together with requests for confirmation (Raymond & Stivers, 2016); they differ, however, in terms of their sequentiality (König & Pfeiffer, 2024): In contrast to RfCs, which can be used to initiate a sequence, RfRCs operate back on another speaker’s prior turn and are thus sequence bound (in the above example, Car’s ''really'' targets Lau’s prior utterance, line 6). They treat the prior as an informing (Jefferson, 1981; Thompson et al., 2015). Unlike RfCs that formulate candidate understandings, RfRCs do not offer an interpretation of a prior turn but rather target an informing ‘as is’, i.e. as it has been presented by a prior speaker. Moreover, RfRCs can be distinguished from RfCs by their sequential trajectory. RfRCs rarely receive disconfirmation (Gipper et al., 2024; Marmorstein & Szczepek Reed, 2024) but rather invite reconfirmation (see line 8 in the above example).

RfRCs have been described as a social action that can serve as a vehicle for other actions, thereby opening up different response possibility spaces: RfRCs can contextualize ‘newness’ (Heritage, 1984) or remarkability (Marmorstein & Szczepek Reed, 2024), inviting only minimal uptake through, for instance, nodding or single response tokens. They tend to receive more elaborate responses when they register surprise (Wilkinson & Kitzinger 2006), trouble or genuine disbelief (Aldrup, 2024; Thompson et al., 2015, Marmorstein & Shor, 2025). In the above example, in which the accompanying facial expression (open mouth, frown, see #1) frames the final-rising ''really?'' as doubtful, the response not only offers re-confirmation but a substantiation of the claim (line 9). While repeat-formatted RfRCs are largely associated with troubles of understanding or a display of disbelief in languages such as English and German (Aldrup, 2024) and thus invite expanded responses, in Mesoamerican languages, these sequences do not tend to carry such laminations but rather register information uptake (Brown et al. 2021; also see Gipper et al. 2024 for Yurakaré, isolate, Bolivia). Overall, this suggests that languages differ in the range of actions that RfRCs typically implement, and consequently in the response possibility spaces they project.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Candidate understanding]]'''
* '''[[Multimodal Gestalt]]'''
* '''[[Newsmark]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Retro-sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Aldrup, M. (2024). Asking the obvious: Other-repeats as requests for reconfirmation. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'', 5(1-2), 274–306.

Brown, P., Sicoli, M. A., & Le Guen, O. (2021). Cross-speaker repetition and epistemic stance in Tzeltal, Yucatec, and Zapotec conversations. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 183, 256–272.

Dix, C., & Groß, A. (2023). Surprise about news or just receiving information? Moving and holding both eyebrows in co-present interaction. ''Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality'', 6(3).

Gipper, S., König, K., & Weber, K. (2024). Structurally similar formats are not functionally equivalent across languages: Requests for reconfirmation in comparative perspective. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'', 5(1-2), 195–237.

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What do newsmark-type responses invite? The response space after German ''echt''. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

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

Hilmisdóttir, H. (2016). Responding to informings in Icelandic talk-in-interaction: A comparison of ''nú'' and ''er það''. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 104, 133–147.

Jefferson, G. (1981). The abominable Ne? A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. ''University of Manchester Sociology Occasional Paper'' 6, 1–82.

König, K., & Pfeiffer, M. (2024). Requesting confirmation or reconfirmation across languages: An introduction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'', 5(1-2), 1–26.

Marmorstein, M., & Shor, L. (2025). Orienting to knowledge as remarkable: The newsmark ''be’emet'' (‘in-truth’) in Hebrew conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 238, 40–59.

Marmorstein, M., & Szczepek Reed, B. (2024). Newsmarks as an interactional resource for indexing remarkability: a qualitative analysis of Arabic ''waḷḷāhi'' and English ''really''. Contrastive Pragmatics, 5(1-2), 238–273.

Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), ''Accountability in Social Interaction'' (pp. 321–353). Oxford University Press.

Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive signalling cue in conversation. The case of so-called ‘astonished questions’ in repair-initiation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies'' (pp. 231–270). Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). ''Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions''. Cambridge University Press.
Weber, K., & König, K. (2025). Exploring the fuzzy boundaries between newsmarks and change-of-state tokens in High German and Low German talk-in-interaction – A variational-pragmatic and interactional perspective. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 242, 93–107.

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 69(2), 150–182.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'reconfirmation' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=reconfirm&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Story-telling

2026-09-09T03:20:08Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Katharina König''' (University of Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1883-2812)
| To cite = König, Katharina. (2026). Story-telling. 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: [ ]
}}

As a particular type of '''telling''' (Schegloff, 2007: 37ff.), '''story-telling''' constitutes a form of sequential organization in which interlocutors temporarily suspend ordinary '''[[Turn-taking|turn-taking]]''' rules in order to create the floor for a speaker or a party of speakers to relate an event and their '''[[Affective stance|affective stance]]''' towards it. These ‘big packages’ (Sacks, 1992: 354; Jefferson, 1988) have received a lot of scholarly attention in Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics (see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018: Online-Chapter D; Mandelbaum, 2013 for an overview) regarding their overall sequential structure, the interactional coordination between teller and recipient and the grammatical, prosodic and embodied resources participants deploy.

Tellings can be produced as structurally complex turns consisting of several '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|TCUs]]''' (i.e. as '''[[Multi-unit turn|multi-unit turns]]''', see C. Goodwin & Heritage, 1990: 299, Gardner et al., 2025). Alternatively, they may also be produced as multi-turn units, for instance when a telling is continued after speaker change has occurred (see Norrick, 2012; Rühlemann & Gries 2015). Consider the following extract taken and adapted from Stivers (2013: 202):

(1) (Stivers 2013: 202)

1 Lan: Did I mention to you that I got yelled at <-- ''story preface''
2 by one of our neighbours today?
3 (0.2)
4 Gio: No, <-- ''go-ahead response''

((5 lines joking deleted))

10 Lan: The dawg got out the gate. <-- ''telling begins''
11 (0.5)
12 (The)/(That) back gate.
13 (0.2)

((telling continues))

41 Lan: And she said uhh, “|you guys gotta do
42 something to restrain him.”
43 (0.8)
44 Gio: [(She said)]-
45 Lan: [( ) ]
46 Gio: She said (we had to do something) tuh <-- ''clarification request''
47 restrain him?
48 Lan: Yeah.
49 She goes (.) “|you had better tie <-- ''telling continues''
50 up that do:g.” and I said well it’s pretty
51 well contained back there she goes
52 “|Obviously not!” hh <-- ''possible story climax''
53 Gio: hh Didju tell her to (just) fuck off <-- ''affiliative uptake''

When a story is not invited or otherwise contextually expected, speakers can typically project a telling with a fitted '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)|pre-sequence]]''', a pre-telling or a story-'''[[Preface|preface]]''' (Sacks, 1974), which establishes tellability in the given context (Ochs & Capps, 2001) and serves to secure primary speakership for the upcoming turns (line 1 in the above example). The preface also indicates the type of telling that is about to be produced (e.g., a humorous story, a troubles telling, a '''[[Complaint|complaint]]''' story, a hypothetical scenario), thus providing cues for its possible completion as well as the speaker’s stance on the narrated event. Addressees can then give a '''[[Go-ahead|go-ahead]]''' response (line 4 in the above example) or resist the initiative to produce a multi-unit telling. Once they agree to suspend the usual turn-by-turn talk, a single speaker or a party of speakers (on collaborative story-telling see Dressel, 2021; Mandelbaum, 1987) has the floor until the telling is brought to (possible) completion.

Addressees are expected to provide structurally aligned responses in mid-telling (Stivers 2008, such as '''[[Continuer|continuers]]''' or head nods). However, they may also produce structurally disaligned responses such as clarification requests (lines 46-47 in the above example, Mandelbaum 2010), or more disruptive ‘byplay’ such as teasing or heckling (M.H. Goodwin, 1997). Tellers may then continue or resume their original course of action (Jefferson, 1972). Upon story completion, a different recipient uptake is due: Here, recipients are expected to '''[[Affiliation|affiliate]]''' with the teller’s stance (Stivers, 2008, see line 53 in the above example) otherwise it will be treated as noticeably absent and possibly understood as resistance to some aspect of the telling (e.g., its sequential fit or the teller’s stance, Selting, 2017). Participants then negotiate how to continue; they may return to regular turn-by-turn talk, offer second stories that relate to the previous one or the teller may expand their story.

While earlier accounts have focused on the overall structure of oral story-telling (Labov & Waletzky, 1967), conversation-analytic studies emphasize how the interaction between teller(s) and addressee fundamentally shapes a story’s delivery. By aligning to the projected course of action, addressees actively support and co-construct story-telling as an activity (Mandelbaum, 2010; Stivers, 2008). Story-telling is recipient-designed from the start as tellers have to take into account if addressees are likely to affiliate with their stance and what recipients already know (see line 1 in the above example). When speakers tell a story twice, they need to adapt it to the recipients’ upgraded epistemic position or invite them to join in as co-tellers (Günthner, 2005; Norrick, 1998). Addressees take active part in co-constructing affective stances by, for instance, displaying '''[[Empathy|empathy]]''' (Kupetz, 2014) or by producing co-animations of depicted characters (Cantarutti, 2022).

Moreover, tellings are shaped by their sequential position; it influences how speakers design their turns-at-talk to introduce, deliver, or close a multi-unit telling. In naturally-occuring talk-in-interaction, stories can be initiated by a teller (as in the above example) or invited by others, they can be offered as second stories (Sidnell, 2010: 185ff.) or as ‘breaking news’ of ongoing events that need to be updated continually during the otherwise unfolding conversation (Georgakopoulou, 2013). In multi-activity settings, it is not always possible for speakers to produce stories as “focused bound units” (C. Goodwin, 2003); instead, tellings may be realized in intricately intertwined fragments.

Speakers use various grammatical, prosodic, and embodied resources (among others) to make stories and their sequential components recognizable, to distinguish between the here-and-now and the narrated world, and to cue their stance on the narrated events. Relating past experiences in present tense is a practice to highlight a dynamic and dramatic development (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018: Online-Chapter D, 9ff.). With ‘dense constructions’ (Günthner, 2011) narrators contextualize their emotional involvement in a rapidly unfolding series of events. Embodied resources contextualize shifts in footing (Sidnell, 2006; Thompson & Suzuki, 2014). The prosodic design of direct and indirect reported speech can index an evaluative stance toward these quoted utterances (Couper-Kuhlen, 1999; Günthner, 2002). Tellers systematically combine verbal, prosodic and embodied resources to cue for the climax of a story (such as marking the climax of a story using reported speech in dense accentuation and with frowning, see Selting, 2017) and they can index their affective stance with facial displays such as smiling before verbalizing it (Ruusuvuori & Peräkylä, 2009). Addressees make use of embodied resources to display attentiveness (for instance, by fixing their gaze on the story-teller, (C. Goodwin, 1984; Rossano, 2013), to align with the course of action (e.g., by mid-turn nods, Stivers, 2008) or to display affiliative surprise (Dix & Groß, 2023) without claiming speakership. These studies of turn design and recipient conduct again illustrate that story-telling is locally occasioned and collaboratively achieved.

Orienting to its “why that now?” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) epistemology, conversation analysis takes a special interest in the actions speakers accomplish with conversational narratives: “For the most part, people tell stories to do something – to complain, to boast, to inform, to alert, to tease, to explain or excuse or to justify […]” (Schegloff 1997: 97). Story-telling can thus help to create rapport and social solidarity (M. H. Goodwin, 1982). In institutional settings, stories may constitute a focal part of the communicative agenda (as for instance in therapeutic discourse, Deppermann et al., 2020) or they can expand task-oriented turns-at-talk (for instance, in building a defensive move when testifying in court, Galatolo & Drew, 2006). Story-telling thus constitutes an essential resource for managing social relationships in and through talk-in-interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Affective stance]]'''
* '''[[Affiliation]]'''
* '''[[Empathy]]'''
* '''[[Footing]]'''
* '''[[Go-ahead]]'''
* '''[[Multi-unit turn]]'''
* '''[[Participation framework]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Turn-taking]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Cantarutti, M. N. (2022). Co-animation in troubles-talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 55(1), 37–58.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), ''Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to Create it and How to Describe it'' (pp. 11–33). John Benjamins.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Deppermann, A., Scheidt, C. E., & Stukenbrock, A. (2020). Positioning shifts from told self to performative self in psychotherapy. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 11, 572436.

Dix, C., & Groß, A. (2023). Surprise about news or just receiving information? Moving and holding both eyebrows in co-present interaction. ''Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality'', 6(3).

Dressel, D. (2021). Turn-taking in collaborative storytelling: Et puis après (‘and then after that’) as a resource for resuming tellings-in-progress and negotiating tellership between story
episodes. ''Linguistik Online'', 112(7), 3–25.

Galatolo, R., & Drew, P. (2006). Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. ''Text & Talk'', 26(6), 661–698.

Gardner, R., Blythe, J., Mushin, I., Stirling, L., Dahmen, J., Dear, C. de, & Possemato, F. (2025). ''The Making of Multi-Unit Turns''. John Benjamins.

Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Storytelling on the go: Breaking news as a travelling narrative genre. In M. Hyvärinen (Ed.), ''The Travelling Concepts of Narrative'' (pp. 201–224). John Benjamins.

Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 225–246). Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C. (2003). Embedded context. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(4), 323–350.

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 19, 283–307.

Goodwin, M. H. (1982). “Instigating”: Storytelling as social process. ''American Ethnologist'', 9(4), 799–816.

Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Byplay: Negotiation evaluation in storytelling. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), ''Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in honor of William Labov: Social interaction and discourse structures'' (pp. 77–102). John Benjamins.

Günthner, S. (2002). Perspectivity in reported dialogues. The contextualization of evaluative stances in reconstructing speech. In C. F. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), ''Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse'' (pp. 347–374). John Benjamins.

Günthner, S. (2005). Narrative reconstructions of past experiences. Adjustments and modifications in the process of recontextualizing a past experience. In U. M. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), ''Narrative Interaction'' (pp. 285–301). John Benjamins.

Günthner, S. (2011). The construction of emotional involvement in everyday German narratives – interactive uses of ‘dense constructions’. ''Pragmatics'', 21(4), 573–592.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 294-338). The Free Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Kupetz, M. (2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements—Multimodal and sequential aspects. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 61, 4–34.

Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), ''Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts'' (pp. 12–44). University of Washington Press.

Mandelbaum, J. (1987). Couples sharing stories. ''Communication Quarterly'', 35(2), 144–170.

Mandelbaum, J. (2010). Concurrent and intervening actions during storytelling in family ‘ceremonial’ dinners. In D. Schiffrin, A. de Fina, & A. Nylund (Eds.), ''Telling Stories. Language, Narrative, and Social Life'' (pp. 161–172). Georgetown University Press.

Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 492–507). Blackwell.

Norrick, N. R. (1998). Retelling stories in spontaneous conversation. ''Discourse Processes'', 25(1), 75–97.

Norrick, N. R. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 44, 566–576.

Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). ''Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling''. Harvard University Press.

Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (308-329). Blackwell.

Rühlemann, C., & Gries, S. (2015). Turn order and turn distribution in multi-party storytelling. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 87, 171–191.

Ruusuvuori, J., & Peräkylä, A. (2009). Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 42(4), 377–394.

Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), ''Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking'' (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation. Volume II''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). ‘Narrative analysis’ thirty years later. ''Journal of Narrative and Life History'', 7(1-4), 97–106.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4), 289–327.

Selting, M. (2017). The display and management of affectivity in climaxes of amusing stories. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 111, 1–32.

Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction, '' 39(4), 377–409.

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation Analysis: An Introduction''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(1), 31–57.

Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (192-209). Blackwell.

Thompson, S. A., & Suzuki, R. (2014). Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. ''Discourse Studies'', 16(6), 816–846

'''Additional References:'''

De Fina, A. & Georgakopoulou, A. (Eds.). (2015). ''The Handbook of Narrative Analysis''. Wiley Blackwell.

Kotthoff, H. (2009). Joint constructions of humorous fictions in conversation. An unnamed narrative activity in a playful keying. ''Journal of Literary Theory'', 3(2), 195–218.

Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. ''Qualitative Sociology'', 15(3), 247–271.

Quasthoff, U. M. (1997). An interactive approach to narrative development. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), ''Narrative Development: Six Approaches'' (pp. 51–83). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schiffrin, D., De Fina, A. & Nylund, A. (Eds.). (2010). ''Telling Stories. Language, Narrative, and Social Life''. Georgetown University Press.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'telling' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=telling&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Reciprocity

2026-09-09T03:14:33Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3212) & '''Yeji Rieser''' (University of Basel, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6582-150X)
| To cite = Mlynář, Jakub, & Rieser, Yeji. (2026). Reciprocity. 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/2PYH7
}}

The term '''reciprocity''' is used in a wide variety of ways – addressing a prerequisite for social interaction; referring to the sequential production of relevant next actions; as well as describing phenomena implicating processes of mutual exchange (literally or metaphorically). Reciprocity is taken to be a fundamental precondition of sociality and an assumption for its analytical grasp, but also a produced phenomenon of order.

Schutz’s (1962) notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” was part of his attempt to explain how phenomenology can move from an individual consciousness to the social world. In his view, two basic idealizations of common-sense thinking overcome the asymmetrical access to knowledge about the world and the differences in our personal backgrounds: (1) the interchangeability of the standpoints, and (2) the congruency of the system of relevances. In other words, one takes for granted that if one were to exchange positions with another person, they would perceive things in the same way, and the other takes this for granted too. Furthermore, one also takes for granted that the manner in which one perceives things does not depend on any unique personal characteristics that are not relevant for the practical purposes at hand, and the other person takes this for granted too. From the perspective of ethnomethodology and CA, reciprocity is not just a given assumption or an abstract principle which makes social interaction possible. Instead, it is '''[[Reflexivity|reflexively]]''' achieved in the very ways in which members make sense of and make recognizable their actions to one another such that they can engage in concerted '''[[Activity|activities]]''', each and every time, in their local and practical circumstances (Mair, 2025). The Schutzian conception was, in different ways, an inspiration for early ethnomethodology (Cicourel, 1974; Garfinkel, 1963) and occasionally appears in more recent studies. For example, following Garfinkel (1963), Rawls and David (2006) use the notion of “(mutual) reciprocity” mostly as a synonym or proxy for “trust”. Vom Lehn (2019), in a video-based CA study, refers to Schutz in his analysis of performing optometric tests where the visual perspective of the currently assessed client is measurably interchangeable with that of a standardized client.

Nevertheless, in more recent works, the phenomenological notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” seems to be more often elaborated under the rubric of “intersubjectivity” (e.g., Deppermann, 2015) and as providing a historical background for the conception of sequentiality: Goodwin and Heritage (1990) describe '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]''' organization as a “framework of reciprocal conduct” where “[e]ach participant must analyze the developing course of others’ actions in order to produce appropriate reciprocal action” (p. 288). In this sense, reciprocity is accountable in the details of the timely and adequate production of a '''[[Second-pair part|second-pair part]]''' in response to a '''[[First-pair part|first-pair part]]''' – for example, a greeting (e.g., “Hello”) is routinely responded to with a reciprocal greeting. The greeting is not always composed of a single '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit (TCU)]] ''' but can also consist of a “how are you” which opens a sequence in itself to be responded to with a second-pair part and also reciprocated through the initiation of a second sequence. When it comes to these greeting sequences, what Schegloff (2007) calls “reciprocal or exchange sequences” (pp. 195–207), he observes that the reciprocal nature of the second sequence is accountable in the design of the turn, e.g., “how about you” instead of a verbatim repeat of “how are you.” Therefore, the accountability of a second sequence as a reciprocal does not depend on its temporally successive position per se but is a produced order by the participants. Moreover, Schegloff (2007) notes that while such sequences are routinely done reciprocally, their relevance is worked out in local circumstances where sometimes, e.g., depending on categorial memberships and/or specific institutional settings, it is more relevant to not reciprocate such sequences. This is what Albert and Raymond (2019) illustrate in their analysis of the US president Trump’s greeting sequences with multiple recipients in succession.

(1) [[http://bit.ly/gh-ex2 Video available here]] (Albert & Raymond, 2019: 72)

[[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig1.png]]

In this stage-managed situation, the authors point out that the recipients do not orient to reciprocating the greeting sequence nor does Trump himself anticipate one. The non-reciprocity of the greeting sequence is reciprocally coordinated in the way by which the recipient’s response is minimally produced, and Trump, already during this response, moves on to greeting the next person in line. Beyond human communication, “interactional reciprocity” has also been studied in human–dog interactions, suggesting that dogs orient to the lack of reciprocity from their owners in terms of a missing next action and employ a set of practices to pursue it (Simonen & Lohi, 2021).

Turning to the most literal sense of the term, the following example is taken from a study that belongs to a rather small number of texts that treat “reciprocity” as a phenomenon in its own right, i.e., as a transactional process of giving and taking. Llewellyn (2011) analyses the phenomenon of “picking up the bill” as a case of a gift exchange where the benefactor and the beneficiary orient to the norm of reciprocity. The data comes from video-recordings of a payment desk at a gallery where customers approach to pay for tickets. In Extract II below, two customers (C1, C2) approach the desk to buy tickets. The focus is on how C1 accounts for her acceptance of C2 picking up the bill by offering a reciprocation in response (cf. Clayman & Heritage, 2014, on reciprocations by beneficiaries as a type of appreciative response).

(2) (Llewellyn, 2011: 729)

[[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig2.png]]

At the desk, while it is C1 who verbalizes the request to the staff, it is C2 who is quicker to prepare the 20 dollar note to pay (lines 1–8). The possibility that this could be C2 “picking up the bill” is not immediately accepted by C1 who, during the omitted lines (lines 9–15), engages in an interaction with the staff and proceeds to pay her own sum. It is at this point that C2, in line 18, further advances the note on the desk to a space where the staff can readily take it. Thus, C2 accountably produces the action of “picking up the bill” which C1 ultimately accepts with an expression of gratitude such as by gazing at her and touching her hand. At this sequential position, C1 suggests that they get coffee (line 22) as a way of accounting for her acceptance by means of invoking the norm of reciprocity – i.e., since C2 has given her the gift of picking up the bill, she will return it in the form of buying coffee. Although the excerpt focuses on the phenomenon of reciprocity as a norm invoked in gift exchange sequences, it also illustrates the two earlier notions of reciprocity at work. The very intelligibility of any action – greetings, offers, requests, “drawing attention to the note”, etc. – relies on the reciprocity of perspectives being taken for granted by the participants, and is achieved in the appropriate sequential positioning of embodied conduct.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority|epistemic authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stance]]'''
* '''[[indexing]]'''
* '''[[intersubjectivity]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Albert, S. & Raymond, C. W. (2019). Conversation analysis at the ‘middle region’ of public life: Greetings and the interactional construction of Donald Trump's political persona. ''Language & Communication'', 69, 67–83.

Cicourel, A. V. (1974). ''Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction''. Penguin.

Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Requesting in Social Interaction'' (pp. 55–86). John Benjamins.

Deppermann, A. (2015). When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. ''Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion'', 16, 63–101.

Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), ''Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants'' (pp. 187–238). Ronald Press.

Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 19, 283–307.

Llewellyn, N. (2011). The gift in interaction: a study of “picking-up the bill”. ''British Journal of Sociology'', 62(4), 718–738.

Mair, M. (2025). Editorial: Ethnomethodological readings of philosophy, social theory, and the social sciences. In A. P. Carlin, A. Dennis, K. N. Jenkings, O. Lindwall & M. Mair (Eds.), ''The Routledge International Handbook of Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 91–103). Routledge.

Rawls, A. W. & David, G. C. (2005). Accountably other: Trust, reciprocity, and exclusion in a context of situated practice. ''Human Studies'', 28(4), 469–497.

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

Simonen, M., & Lohi, H. (2021). Interactional reciprocity in human–dog interaction. In J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in Language and Social Interaction'' (pp. 397–428). John Benjamins.

vom Lehn, D. (2019). From Garfinkel’s ‘experiments in miniature’ to the ethnomethodological analysis of interaction. ''Human Studies'', 42(2), 305–326.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'reciprocity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=reciproc&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Indexing

2026-09-09T03:02:43Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3212)
| To cite = Mlynář, Jakub. (2026). Indexing. 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/U3JK6
}}

The verb '''indexing''' is used to encompass relationships between observable phenomena and their directly unobservable correlates. The term is used in analyses of particular features of data under examination, and signposts that a feature – e.g., an uttered phrase or a type of produced gesture – makes relevant an analytical orientation to a background structure. Thus, in line with a broader sociolinguistic perspective, “meaning [is] indexed by linguistic structures” (Ochs 1992: 228). Taking this orientation, contemporary studies in IL and CA attended to, for example, how turn-final ''or'' indexes uncertainty (Drake 2015) and ''do''-constructions index contrast (Raymond 2017) in English, how ''ich dachte'' indexes discrepant assumptions (Depperman & Reineke 2020) and responsive ''(das) stimmt'' indexes a change in epistemic access (Betz 2015) in German, and how the Danish token ''n↑å↓'' indexes a perceptual shift after periods of intense scrutiny (Heinemann 2016).

One of the earliest uses of the term in CA-adjacent discourse can be found in Erving Goffman’s ''Forms of Talk'' (1981), who discusses '''[[Response cry|response cries]]''' – in a text first published in 1978 – as possibly belonging to a category of “signs meant to be taken to index directly the state of the transmitter” (Goffman 1981: 116) – namely states such as “feelings” (ibid., p. 20) and other “psychic states” (ibid., p. 111). Note that according to Goffman the indexing of inner states is both intentionally produced by the speaker (“meant”) and interpreted by the hearer (“taken”) but is still relatively “direct” in the case of response cries. This might not be so with other practices that have been studied in CA and IL. Heritage (1984) referred to and appropriated Goffman’s (1981) use of the term in his early discussion of ''oh'' as a '''[[Change-of-state token|change-of-state token]]''' – as Koivisto (2023) briefly puts it in the associated Encyclopedia entry, “''oh'' indexes a change in state”. Similarly, in a later study by Heritage and Raymond (2005), specific formats of talk-in-interaction – produced and made sense of in the particulars of the sequential environment – are proposed to be indexing '''[[Epistemic Authority|epistemic authority]]''' (see also Wu 2018).

To illustrate the purpose of the term, consider the following transcript from a paper by Kaneyasu and Iwasaki (2017) on indexing “entrustment” based on a social relationship or a shared cultural knowledge. The authors argue that the Japanese formulaic construction ''N da yo N'' “foregrounds and takes advantage [of entrustment] in order to reaffirm a close mutual relationship” (p. 417). The excerpt reproduced below is from a movie ''Zatoichi''.

(1) Face (film 'Zatoichi', 2003)

(Shin (a male) and Osei (a male disguised as a female) are facing each other in a small bath tub.)

[[File:Mlynar indexing fig1.png]]

In this movie scene, Shinkichi admires Kiyotaroo’s disguise as Osei, attributing the beauty to the use of makeup. Osei partially disagrees, stressing that true beauty comes from natural facial features (line 7). The authors propose that the common knowledge being indexed here by the ''N da yo N'' construction is that “the natural features of one’s face are considered crucial to how beautiful the person would look with makeup” (p. 412). The linguistic construction thus obtains its meaning in and through its reference to an underlying structure – in this instance, to the relevant common knowledge and entrustment that is being expressed or indexed using the formulaic phrase.

The term indexing as employed in CA and IL also became a subject of discussion in the context of '''[[Epistemics|epistemics]]''' (e.g., Macbeth et al., 2016; Heritage, 2018, 2024; Button et al. 2022). One distinction often noted in this debate is the difference between indexing and '''[[Indexicality|indexicality]]'''. While the notion of indexicality specifically avoids attributing ‘meaning’ to ‘signed objects’ (such as turns at talk), the notion of indexing has been linked to Peirce’s (see Burks 1949) original concept of ‘indexes’ as a category of signs (alongside ‘icons’ and ‘symbols’).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority|epistemic authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stance]]'''
* '''[[indexicality]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Betz, E. M. (2015). Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: Uses of responsive ''(das) stimmt'' in German interaction. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 87, 251–266.

Burks, A. W. (1949). Icon, Index, and Symbol. ''Philosophy and Phenomenological Research'', 9(4), 673–689.

Button, G., Lynch, M., & Sharrock, W. (2022). ''Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Constructive Analysis: On Formal Structures of Practical Action''. Routledge.

Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S. (2020). Practices of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in talk-in-interaction. ''Functions of Language'', 27(2), 113–142.

Drake, V. (2015). Indexing uncertainty: The case of turn-final ''or''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 48(3), 301–318.

Goffman, E. (1981). ''Forms of Talk''. Basil Blackwell.

Heinemann, T. (2016). From ‘looking’ to ‘seeing’: Indexing delayed intelligibility of an object with the Danish change-of-state token ''n↑å↓:''. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 104, 108–132.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2018). The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ group. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(1), 14–56.

Heritage, J. (2024). The epistemics of epistemics: Validating claims about epistemic stance in conversation analysis. In J. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. H. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 419–451). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15–38.

Koivisto, A. (2023). Change-of-state token. In A. Gubina, E. M. Hoey & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA).

Macbeth, D., Wong, J., & Lynch, M. (2016). The story of ‘Oh’, Part 1: Indexing structure, animating transcript. ''Discourse Studies'', 18(5), 550–573

Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), ''Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon'' (pp. 335–358). Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The ''do''-construction in English conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 118, 22–37.

Wu, R.-J. R. (2018). Indexing epistemic authority/primacy in Mandarin conversation: ''aiyou''-prefacing as an interactional resource. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 131, 30–53.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'indexing' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=index&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Reflexivity

2026-09-09T02:54:17Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3212)
| To cite = Mlynář, Jakub. (2026). Reflexivity. 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/4FHNB
}}

The notion of '''reflexivity''' as a constitutive property of naturally organized ordinary activities (see, e.g., Lynch, 2002; Czyżewski, 1994) provides a fundamental background for studies in CA and IL. In ethnomethodology, the essential reflexivity of actions (including ‘talk-in-interaction’) is closely related to their '''[[indexicality]]'''. Actions acquire sense in and through their practical embeddedness in specific ongoing situations or settings. While the situation provides sense for practical actions, it is not the case that their sense is fully determined by the '''[[Context|context]]'''. Practical actions simultaneously establish and give sense to the ongoing situation. Any action depends for its sense – indexically and reflexively – on the situation in which it happens, but it also immediately becomes part of this situation, to whose sense it contributes. It is in this way that the relationship between a setting (such as a recruitment interview or a board game) and a practice (a question, a move) is said to be reflexive (see Llewellyn, 2010; Liberman, 2013, ch. 3). As Wieder put it, “each utterance [gives] sense to the context and [obtains] sense from its place in that context” (1974: 163). Each formulation or account is part of the same setting that it ‘describes’, and any utterance is also a ‘circumstance’ or a ‘practical feature’ of the setting of activities in which it is produced (Garfinkel, 1967; Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970). Reflexivity is a way to characterize this double directionality as simultaneous and parallel, capturing “the acausal and non-mentalistic determination of meaningful action-in-context” (Lynch & Peyrot, 1992: 115).

The centrality of the reflexive character of practical actions can be seen as a bond between ethnomethodology and CA (Maynard & Gill, 2024). As pointed out by Schegloff (1992: xxxvi) and discussed by McHoul (2025), Sacks’ characterization of culture as “an apparatus for generating ''recognizable'' actions” is grounded in the reflexivity of social action: “… if the same procedures are used for generating as for detecting, that is perhaps as simple a solution to the problem of recognizability as is formulatable” (Sacks, 1992[I]: 226; original emphasis). The resonance becomes clear when this quote is compared with Garfinkel’s introduction of ethnomethodology’s “central recommendation … that the activities whereby members produce and manage settings of organized everyday affairs are identical with members’ procedures for making those settings ‘account-able’” (Garfinkel, 1967: 1).

A relatively simple example of the reflexive relationship between an object or an event (such as a piece of '''[[Advice|advice]]''') and its setting (such as a ‘consultation’) is the illustration of ‘gestalt contextures’ given by the phenomenologist Aron Gurwitsch (2010[1964]) and developed by Garfinkel (see Garfinkel, 2021; Lynch & Eisenmann, 2022; Meyer, 2022).

[[File:Mlynar reflexivity fig1.png]]

'''Figure 1: Two dots'''

Presenting a depiction similar to Figure 1, Gurwitsch observes that once we see the two points as “constituents of a unitary group”, which is “most likely to occur spontaneously when the points are in close proximity to one another”, we do “not see one point ''plus'' the other located a short distance away. Rather one point appears as the ''right member'', the other as the ''left member'' of the pair.” (Gurwitsch, 2010[1964]: 103; original emphasis) The ‘left-hand member’ gives sense to the ‘right-hand member’, and vice versa, and this perceived mutual relationship also reflexively gives sense to their recognizable unity as a pair. In a similar sense, to return to the previous example, giving advice co-constitutes a consultation as a specific activity, and advice as an action obtains its sense from being done within a consultation.

Elaborating Gurwitsch, Meyer (2022) demonstrates how this essential reflexivity of social action can be used to illuminate CA’s phenomena such as '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pairs]]''' (Schegloff, 1968; Sacks, 1992 – e.g., question–answer or greeting sequences): “Only when both pair members adopt a ‘functional significance’ in relation to one another the pair is actually established as pair – and only then a felicitous gestalt contexture for good continuation is realized.” (Meyer, 2022: 131) On the same subject, Lynch and Eisenmann (2022) add: “An adjacency pair made up, for example, of a greeting and return-greeting, an insult and a riposte, or a question and answer exhibits properties as a pair and not simply as one item followed by another. Although such paired utterances are composed of words, phrases, and sentences, they are produced and made evident through interactionally oriented practical work. A first pair part is not simply a sentence or token uttered by a speaker, it is a first member of a pair.” (p. 114)

Following Garfinkel’s transposition of gestalt phenomena from the perceptual domain to practical and interactional work (Lynch & Eisenmann, 2022), reflexivity captures that “situations, actions, and rules determine one another’s sense as constituent parts of a gestalt contexture” (Wieder, 1974: 170). Instead of advancing a ‘bucket theory’ (Heritage & Clayman, 2010) of '''[[Context|context]]''' as a space or time surrounding observable actions, the term highlights that the foundations of CA and IL are based on the ethnomethodological notion of gestalt ''contextures'' as reflexively organized ‘phenomenal fields’ of practical action.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[context]]'''
* '''[[first pair part]]'''
* '''[[indexicality]]'''
* '''[[multimodal Gestalt]]'''
* '''[[second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Czyżewski, M. (1994). Reflexivity of actors versus reflexivity of accounts. ''Theory, Culture & Society'', 11(4), 161–168.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). ''Studies in Ethnomethodology''. Prentice-Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (2021). Ethnomethodological misreading of Aron Gurwitsch on the phenomenal field. ''Human Studies'', 44(1), 19–42.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments'' (pp. 338–366). Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Gurwitsch, A. (2010 [1964]). ''The Field of Consciousness: Theme, Thematic Field, and Margin (The Collected Works of Aron Gurwitsch [1901–1973], Vol. III)''. Springer.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). ''Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions''. Wiley-Blackwell.

Liberman, K. (2013). ''More Studies in Ethnomethodology''. SUNY Press.

Llewellyn, N. (2010). On the reflexivity between setting and practice: The ‘recruitment interview’. In Nick Llewellyn, Jon Hindmarsh (Eds.), ''Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 74–95). Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. ''Theory, Culture and Society'', 17(3), 27–53.

Lynch, M., & Eisenmann, C. (2022). Transposing gestalt phenomena from visual fields to practical and interactional work: Garfinkel’s and Sacks’ social praxeology. ''Philosophia Scientiæ'', 26(3), 95–122.

Lynch, M., & Peyrot, M. (1992). Introduction: A reader’s guide to ethnomethodology. ''Qualitative Sociology'', 15(2), 113–122.

Maynard, D. W., & Gill, V. T. (2024). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, and the study of interaction in everyday life. In J. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. H. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 512–540). Cambridge University Press.

McHoul, A. (2025). Understanding (and) culture: Working out Sacks’s aphorism. ''Przegląd Socjologiczny'', 74(3), 29–36.

Meyer, C. (2022). The phenomenological foundations of ethnomethodology’s conceptions of sequentiality and indexicality: Harold Garfinkel’s references to Aron Gurwitsch’s ‘Field of Consciousness’. ''Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion'', 23, 111– 144.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation''. Basil Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. ''American Anthropologist'', 70(6), 1075–1095.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In H. Sacks: ''Lectures on Conversation, Vol. I'' (pp. ix–lii). Basil Blackwell.

Wieder, L. (1974). Telling the code. In R. Turner (Ed.), ''Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings'' (pp. 144–172). Penguin.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'reflexivity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=reflexiv&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Indexing

2026-09-09T02:44:25Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3212)
| To cite = Mlynář, Jakub. (2026). Indexing. 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: [ ]
}}

The verb '''indexing''' is used to encompass relationships between observable phenomena and their directly unobservable correlates. The term is used in analyses of particular features of data under examination, and signposts that a feature – e.g., an uttered phrase or a type of produced gesture – makes relevant an analytical orientation to a background structure. Thus, in line with a broader sociolinguistic perspective, “meaning [is] indexed by linguistic structures” (Ochs 1992: 228). Taking this orientation, contemporary studies in IL and CA attended to, for example, how turn-final ''or'' indexes uncertainty (Drake 2015) and ''do''-constructions index contrast (Raymond 2017) in English, how ''ich dachte'' indexes discrepant assumptions (Depperman & Reineke 2020) and responsive ''(das) stimmt'' indexes a change in epistemic access (Betz 2015) in German, and how the Danish token ''n↑å↓'' indexes a perceptual shift after periods of intense scrutiny (Heinemann 2016).

One of the earliest uses of the term in CA-adjacent discourse can be found in Erving Goffman’s ''Forms of Talk'' (1981), who discusses '''[[Response cry|response cries]]''' – in a text first published in 1978 – as possibly belonging to a category of “signs meant to be taken to index directly the state of the transmitter” (Goffman 1981: 116) – namely states such as “feelings” (ibid., p. 20) and other “psychic states” (ibid., p. 111). Note that according to Goffman the indexing of inner states is both intentionally produced by the speaker (“meant”) and interpreted by the hearer (“taken”) but is still relatively “direct” in the case of response cries. This might not be so with other practices that have been studied in CA and IL. Heritage (1984) referred to and appropriated Goffman’s (1981) use of the term in his early discussion of ''oh'' as a '''[[Change-of-state token|change-of-state token]]''' – as Koivisto (2023) briefly puts it in the associated Encyclopedia entry, “''oh'' indexes a change in state”. Similarly, in a later study by Heritage and Raymond (2005), specific formats of talk-in-interaction – produced and made sense of in the particulars of the sequential environment – are proposed to be indexing '''[[Epistemic Authority|epistemic authority]]''' (see also Wu 2018).

To illustrate the purpose of the term, consider the following transcript from a paper by Kaneyasu and Iwasaki (2017) on indexing “entrustment” based on a social relationship or a shared cultural knowledge. The authors argue that the Japanese formulaic construction ''N da yo N'' “foregrounds and takes advantage [of entrustment] in order to reaffirm a close mutual relationship” (p. 417). The excerpt reproduced below is from a movie ''Zatoichi''.

(1) Face (film 'Zatoichi', 2003)

(Shin (a male) and Osei (a male disguised as a female) are facing each other in a small bath tub.)

[[File:Mlynar indexing fig1.png]]

In this movie scene, Shinkichi admires Kiyotaroo’s disguise as Osei, attributing the beauty to the use of makeup. Osei partially disagrees, stressing that true beauty comes from natural facial features (line 7). The authors propose that the common knowledge being indexed here by the ''N da yo N'' construction is that “the natural features of one’s face are considered crucial to how beautiful the person would look with makeup” (p. 412). The linguistic construction thus obtains its meaning in and through its reference to an underlying structure – in this instance, to the relevant common knowledge and entrustment that is being expressed or indexed using the formulaic phrase.

The term indexing as employed in CA and IL also became a subject of discussion in the context of '''[[Epistemics|epistemics]]''' (e.g., Macbeth et al., 2016; Heritage, 2018, 2024; Button et al. 2022). One distinction often noted in this debate is the difference between indexing and '''[[Indexicality|indexicality]]'''. While the notion of indexicality specifically avoids attributing ‘meaning’ to ‘signed objects’ (such as turns at talk), the notion of indexing has been linked to Peirce’s (see Burks 1949) original concept of ‘indexes’ as a category of signs (alongside ‘icons’ and ‘symbols’).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority|epistemic authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stance]]'''
* '''[[indexicality]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Betz, E. M. (2015). Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: Uses of responsive ''(das) stimmt'' in German interaction. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 87, 251–266.

Burks, A. W. (1949). Icon, Index, and Symbol. ''Philosophy and Phenomenological Research'', 9(4), 673–689.

Button, G., Lynch, M., & Sharrock, W. (2022). ''Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Constructive Analysis: On Formal Structures of Practical Action''. Routledge.

Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S. (2020). Practices of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in talk-in-interaction. ''Functions of Language'', 27(2), 113–142.

Drake, V. (2015). Indexing uncertainty: The case of turn-final ''or''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 48(3), 301–318.

Goffman, E. (1981). ''Forms of Talk''. Basil Blackwell.

Heinemann, T. (2016). From ‘looking’ to ‘seeing’: Indexing delayed intelligibility of an object with the Danish change-of-state token ''n↑å↓:''. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 104, 108–132.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2018). The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ group. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(1), 14–56.

Heritage, J. (2024). The epistemics of epistemics: Validating claims about epistemic stance in conversation analysis. In J. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. H. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 419–451). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15–38.

Koivisto, A. (2023). Change-of-state token. In A. Gubina, E. M. Hoey & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA).

Macbeth, D., Wong, J., & Lynch, M. (2016). The story of ‘Oh’, Part 1: Indexing structure, animating transcript. ''Discourse Studies'', 18(5), 550–573

Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), ''Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon'' (pp. 335–358). Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The ''do''-construction in English conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 118, 22–37.

Wu, R.-J. R. (2018). Indexing epistemic authority/primacy in Mandarin conversation: ''aiyou''-prefacing as an interactional resource. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 131, 30–53.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'indexing' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=index&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Reciprocity

2026-09-09T02:41:05Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3212) & '''Yeji Rieser''' (University of Basel, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6582-150X)
| To cite = Mlynář, Jakub, & Rieser, Yeji. (2026). Reciprocity. 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: [ ]
}}

The term '''reciprocity''' is used in a wide variety of ways – addressing a prerequisite for social interaction; referring to the sequential production of relevant next actions; as well as describing phenomena implicating processes of mutual exchange (literally or metaphorically). Reciprocity is taken to be a fundamental precondition of sociality and an assumption for its analytical grasp, but also a produced phenomenon of order.

Schutz’s (1962) notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” was part of his attempt to explain how phenomenology can move from an individual consciousness to the social world. In his view, two basic idealizations of common-sense thinking overcome the asymmetrical access to knowledge about the world and the differences in our personal backgrounds: (1) the interchangeability of the standpoints, and (2) the congruency of the system of relevances. In other words, one takes for granted that if one were to exchange positions with another person, they would perceive things in the same way, and the other takes this for granted too. Furthermore, one also takes for granted that the manner in which one perceives things does not depend on any unique personal characteristics that are not relevant for the practical purposes at hand, and the other person takes this for granted too. From the perspective of ethnomethodology and CA, reciprocity is not just a given assumption or an abstract principle which makes social interaction possible. Instead, it is '''[[Reflexivity|reflexively]]''' achieved in the very ways in which members make sense of and make recognizable their actions to one another such that they can engage in concerted '''[[Activity|activities]]''', each and every time, in their local and practical circumstances (Mair, 2025). The Schutzian conception was, in different ways, an inspiration for early ethnomethodology (Cicourel, 1974; Garfinkel, 1963) and occasionally appears in more recent studies. For example, following Garfinkel (1963), Rawls and David (2006) use the notion of “(mutual) reciprocity” mostly as a synonym or proxy for “trust”. Vom Lehn (2019), in a video-based CA study, refers to Schutz in his analysis of performing optometric tests where the visual perspective of the currently assessed client is measurably interchangeable with that of a standardized client.

Nevertheless, in more recent works, the phenomenological notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” seems to be more often elaborated under the rubric of “intersubjectivity” (e.g., Deppermann, 2015) and as providing a historical background for the conception of sequentiality: Goodwin and Heritage (1990) describe '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]''' organization as a “framework of reciprocal conduct” where “[e]ach participant must analyze the developing course of others’ actions in order to produce appropriate reciprocal action” (p. 288). In this sense, reciprocity is accountable in the details of the timely and adequate production of a '''[[Second-pair part|second-pair part]]''' in response to a '''[[First-pair part|first-pair part]]''' – for example, a greeting (e.g., “Hello”) is routinely responded to with a reciprocal greeting. The greeting is not always composed of a single '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit (TCU)]] ''' but can also consist of a “how are you” which opens a sequence in itself to be responded to with a second-pair part and also reciprocated through the initiation of a second sequence. When it comes to these greeting sequences, what Schegloff (2007) calls “reciprocal or exchange sequences” (pp. 195–207), he observes that the reciprocal nature of the second sequence is accountable in the design of the turn, e.g., “how about you” instead of a verbatim repeat of “how are you.” Therefore, the accountability of a second sequence as a reciprocal does not depend on its temporally successive position per se but is a produced order by the participants. Moreover, Schegloff (2007) notes that while such sequences are routinely done reciprocally, their relevance is worked out in local circumstances where sometimes, e.g., depending on categorial memberships and/or specific institutional settings, it is more relevant to not reciprocate such sequences. This is what Albert and Raymond (2019) illustrate in their analysis of the US president Trump’s greeting sequences with multiple recipients in succession.

(1) [[http://bit.ly/gh-ex2 Video available here]] (Albert & Raymond, 2019: 72)

[[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig1.png]]

In this stage-managed situation, the authors point out that the recipients do not orient to reciprocating the greeting sequence nor does Trump himself anticipate one. The non-reciprocity of the greeting sequence is reciprocally coordinated in the way by which the recipient’s response is minimally produced, and Trump, already during this response, moves on to greeting the next person in line. Beyond human communication, “interactional reciprocity” has also been studied in human–dog interactions, suggesting that dogs orient to the lack of reciprocity from their owners in terms of a missing next action and employ a set of practices to pursue it (Simonen & Lohi, 2021).

Turning to the most literal sense of the term, the following example is taken from a study that belongs to a rather small number of texts that treat “reciprocity” as a phenomenon in its own right, i.e., as a transactional process of giving and taking. Llewellyn (2011) analyses the phenomenon of “picking up the bill” as a case of a gift exchange where the benefactor and the beneficiary orient to the norm of reciprocity. The data comes from video-recordings of a payment desk at a gallery where customers approach to pay for tickets. In Extract II below, two customers (C1, C2) approach the desk to buy tickets. The focus is on how C1 accounts for her acceptance of C2 picking up the bill by offering a reciprocation in response (cf. Clayman & Heritage, 2014, on reciprocations by beneficiaries as a type of appreciative response).

(2) (Llewellyn, 2011: 729)

[[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig2.png]]

At the desk, while it is C1 who verbalizes the request to the staff, it is C2 who is quicker to prepare the 20 dollar note to pay (lines 1–8). The possibility that this could be C2 “picking up the bill” is not immediately accepted by C1 who, during the omitted lines (lines 9–15), engages in an interaction with the staff and proceeds to pay her own sum. It is at this point that C2, in line 18, further advances the note on the desk to a space where the staff can readily take it. Thus, C2 accountably produces the action of “picking up the bill” which C1 ultimately accepts with an expression of gratitude such as by gazing at her and touching her hand. At this sequential position, C1 suggests that they get coffee (line 22) as a way of accounting for her acceptance by means of invoking the norm of reciprocity – i.e., since C2 has given her the gift of picking up the bill, she will return it in the form of buying coffee. Although the excerpt focuses on the phenomenon of reciprocity as a norm invoked in gift exchange sequences, it also illustrates the two earlier notions of reciprocity at work. The very intelligibility of any action – greetings, offers, requests, “drawing attention to the note”, etc. – relies on the reciprocity of perspectives being taken for granted by the participants, and is achieved in the appropriate sequential positioning of embodied conduct.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Authority|epistemic authority]]'''
* '''[[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stance]]'''
* '''[[indexing]]'''
* '''[[intersubjectivity]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Albert, S. & Raymond, C. W. (2019). Conversation analysis at the ‘middle region’ of public life: Greetings and the interactional construction of Donald Trump's political persona. ''Language & Communication'', 69, 67–83.

Cicourel, A. V. (1974). ''Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction''. Penguin.

Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Requesting in Social Interaction'' (pp. 55–86). John Benjamins.

Deppermann, A. (2015). When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. ''Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion'', 16, 63–101.

Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), ''Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants'' (pp. 187–238). Ronald Press.

Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 19, 283–307.

Llewellyn, N. (2011). The gift in interaction: a study of “picking-up the bill”. ''British Journal of Sociology'', 62(4), 718–738.

Mair, M. (2025). Editorial: Ethnomethodological readings of philosophy, social theory, and the social sciences. In A. P. Carlin, A. Dennis, K. N. Jenkings, O. Lindwall & M. Mair (Eds.), ''The Routledge International Handbook of Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 91–103). Routledge.

Rawls, A. W. & David, G. C. (2005). Accountably other: Trust, reciprocity, and exclusion in a context of situated practice. ''Human Studies'', 28(4), 469–497.

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

Simonen, M., & Lohi, H. (2021). Interactional reciprocity in human–dog interaction. In J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in Language and Social Interaction'' (pp. 397–428). John Benjamins.

vom Lehn, D. (2019). From Garfinkel’s ‘experiments in miniature’ to the ethnomethodological analysis of interaction. ''Human Studies'', 42(2), 305–326.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'reciprocity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=reciproc&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Definition

2026-09-02T10:06:37Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383)
| To cite = De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. 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/A2BVK
}}

The concept of '''definition''' is variously used in linguistics, and has been discussed only marginally in interactional approaches. Based on philosophical considerations rooted in Antiquity (Aristotle) and revived in the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas), definitions have been described as stipulating the meaning of an expression. Definitions are thus discussed in various linguistic fields dealing with (lexical) semantics. In natural conversation, definitions of ordinary words (rather than of technical terms) are observable, and these rarely show the properties ascribed to them by logical philosophers. In interaction, definitions have been studied as practices involved in:
* arguing and defending one’s point of view (De Stefani & Sambre 2016, or, within argumentation theory, Kienpointner 1992);
* imparting knowledge (e.g., in didactical settings; Helmer 2021)
* preventing and solving problems of understanding, by explicating the meaning of a word with a definition (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

In natural conversation, definitions are highly '''[[Indexicality|indexical]]''' and often lack the properties expected from a language philosophical perspective. Hence, they may be ostensive, whereby an interactant displays with embodied resources what a word means (e.g., by pointing to a material instance of it), in concomitance with an existential structure (''this is x''; Deppermann 2016). Definitions have also been described as occurring recurrently in specific formats, such as German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’; Helmer 2020) or ''x is not y, it’s z'' (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

The following excerpt shows (a) how a definition emerges in a setting of argumentation in which (b) Karel uses a specific format (''x is not y, it’s z''). It is taken from a discussion between members of a Flemish mutual help group for people affected by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS):

(1) [Deppermann & De Stefani 2019: 148]

01 Kar stilaan beginnen der meer en meer en zeker bij de jonge
''slowly more and more begin and certainly among the young''

02 -> artsen beginnen meer en meer in te zien .h dat CVS dat we dat
''doctors more and more begin understanding .h that CFS that we''

03 -> niet moeten benaderen .h als een euh syndroom of ‘k weet niet
''do not have to approach it .h as a uh syndrome or I don’t know''

04 wat waar we niet kunnen aan beginnen,
''what where we can’t do anything about''

05 -> .h nee het is <LYME.>
''.h no it is lyme (disease)''

06 (1.3)

07 alstublieft,
''please''

08 (0.4)

09 -> plus euh: plus co-infecties.
''plus uh plus co-infections''

At line 02 Karel produces a negative definitional component by saying that we must not approach CFS as ‘a syndrome’, thereby invalidating a possible understanding of the word CFS. After a further, prosodically emphasized, negative token (line 05), he articulates a positive definition, stating that CFS ‘is Lyme (disease)’ (line 05). The resulting format recalls stipulative definitions where the ''definiendum'' (‘CFS’) is linked to the ''definiens'' (‘Lyme (disease)’) by the copula ‘is’. The TRP at the end of line 05 opens up the possibility for Karel’s recipients to produce a response to the definition he has just articulated. This opportunity is not taken (lines 06–08) and Karel slightly modifies the ''definiens'', which is now Lyme disease ‘plus co-infections’ (line 09). This highlights the indexicality and context-sensitivity of definitions articulated in conversation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Description]]'''
* '''[[Demonstration]]'''
* '''[[Explanation]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Deppermann, A. (2016). La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. ''Langages'', 204(4), 83–101.

Deppermann, A. & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 140, 140–155.

De Stefani, E. & Sambre, P. (2016). L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires. L’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. ''Langages'', 204(4), 27–42.

Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’). ''Discourse Processes'', 57(3), 278–299.

Helmer, H. (2021). Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the ‘shoulder check’ in theoretical and practical driving lessons. ''International Journal of Applied Linguistics'', 31(1), 109–131.

Kienpointer, M. (1992). ''Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern''. Frommann-holzboog.

'''Additional References:'''

Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. ''Human Studies'', 34(2), 129–153.

Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and lexis in conversation'' (pp. 289–317). John Benjamins.

De Stefani, E. (2005). Les demandes de définition en français parlé: aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels. ''Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique'', 41, 147–163.

Martin, R. (1990). La definition ‘naturelle’. In J. Chaurand & J. Mazière (Eds.), ''La définition'' (pp. 86–95). Larousse.

Temmermann, M. (2009). Communicative aspects of definitions in classroom interaction: Learning to define in class for first and second language learners. ''Linguistics and Education'', 20(2), 126–144.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'definition' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=definition&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Progressivity

2026-09-02T10:05:12Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) & '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)
| To cite = Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. 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/SU6ZJ
}}

'''Progressivity''' is the fundamental feature of social interaction that captures how every bit of conduct is produced and recognized by reference to how it embodies (or fails to embody) some ‘next’ component of the unfolding interaction. It is an organizationally and structurally pervasive feature, operating at all times and at multiple levels of granularity. As Schegloff (2007) has described it:

In articulating a '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit]]''', each element – each word,
for example – should come next after the one before; in fact, at a smaller
level of granularity, each syllable – indeed, each sound – should come
next after the one before it. So also with the several turn-constructional
units that compose a '''[[Multi-unit turn|multi-unit turn]]'''; so also with the consecutive turns
that compose a spate of talk; so also with the turns that compose a
sequence, etc. Moving from some element to a hearably-next-one with nothing
intervening is the embodiment of, and the measure of, progressivity. Should
something intervene between some element and what is hearable as a/the next
one due – should something violate or interfere with their contiguity,
whether next sound, next word, or next turn – it will be heard as
qualifying the progressivity of the talk, and will be examined for its
import, for what understanding should be accorded it (Schegloff, 2007: 15–16).

Early development of the concept may be traced to Sacks (1987 [1973]), who observed that “if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that it occupies” (58). Participants are not limited to progress within a sequence, however; they also orient to the progressive construction of a turn. Schegloff (1979) documented how a speaker’s multiple attempts at '''[[Same-turn self-repair|same-turn self-repair]]''', for the same repairable, result in successively longer repair solutions each time (see also Schegloff 2013). Recent work has underscored how such same-turn operations are crucial to an understanding of social action, as speakers are willing to sacrifice the progressive realization of the action in order to reconfigure aspects of its design (Drew 2013; Drew et al. 2013). The domain of '''[[Repair|repair]]''' as a whole—including both '''[[Self-repair|self-]]''' and '''other'''-repair operations—is often conceptualized as addressing moments where progressivity is “halted” (e.g., Clift 2016: 232), “frozen” (Manrique 2016: 27), “stopped” (e.g., Bolden 2011: 241), “suspended” (e.g., Kitzinger 2013: 231), or even “broken” (e.g., Lerner 2004: 252). These metaphors aim to reflect the fact that some action or sequence of action is temporarily ‘on hold’ while the “priority activity” of addressing a problem of speaking, hearing, or understanding takes place (Schegloff et al. 1977: 720), after which progressivity will reengage as the on-hold action/sequence resumes.

Early works suggested that progressivity encompassed multiple levels of granularity and operated across organizations of practice (Schegloff 1979: 268fn). Subsequent research has been able to document the reach of progressivity into the organization of interaction. At the level of turn-construction, Lerner (1996) demonstrated how the impedance of TCU progressivity provides unprojected opportunities for turn-completion by other (see also Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027). At the level of sequence organization, Stivers and Robinson (2006) highlighted a '''[[Preference|preference]]''' for progressivity in multiparty interactions: after information-seeking questions, if the selected next speaker displays trouble in responding, a non-selected party may self-select to give a response (cf. Sacks, et al., 1974). In prioritizing a ‘response at all’ over a ‘response from the selected next speaker’, the authors argue for a general orientation to sequence and activity progression. This generic maximization of progressivity, however, may be at odds with '''[[intersubjectivity]]'''. In the context of troubles in recognitional person reference, Heritage (2007) suggested an inverse relationship whereby absolute intersubjective security comes at the expense of turn- and sequence progressivity, and vice versa. Participants may therefore on occasion orient to progressivity as a superordinate preference, such that an attempt to secure recognition of a referent (Sacks & Schegloff 2007 [1979]) can be abandoned in favor of moving on with the action, sequence, and activity at hand. This is seen in the following Extract (1) in which, upon failing to secure an understanding of who Doctor Nelson is—either by name (line 5) or by description (line 7)—Lottie moves to a non-recognitional reference form in line 9 in the service of progressing her response to Emma’s line 2.

(1) [NB IV:14:10] (Heritage 2007)

01 Lot: So I’m goin up uh hhh Mondee too:. An’ uh,
02 Emm: W-w uh how [long is ‘e gonna be gone.
03 Lot: [Yihknow.
04 Lot: hhhh God I don’know, he doesn’ know either I mean, hhh if it-
05 -> uh, we talk’tuh Doctor Nelson
06 -> yihknow this, s-doct-
07 -> yihknow from uh Glendale?
08 -> (0.2)
09 Lot: -> This friend’v a:rs,=
10 Emm: =Mmhm,

Given the lack of uptake from Emma (lines 6-8), Lottie shifts to a non-recognitional “This friend’v a:rs,” in line 9, which her interlocutor immediately receipts with a latched continuer, and the response-in-progress moves onward.

More recent examinations of progressivity have extended the notion to visible conduct and multiactivity (Haddington et al. 2014), bringing it into closer dialogue with matters of temporality. Research on early responses (Deppermann, et al. 2021), for instance, has illustrated the importance of anticipation and '''[[Projection|projection]]''' (see also Mondada 2006). Indeed, in a study of the repair of manual action, Lerner and Raymond (2021) argue that projection stands in a conjoint relationship with progressivity, the two forming intertwined fundamental features of interaction:

[A]s actions are launched in their sequential environment, they can be
recognized as a possible particular action-in-progress and thus project
what more there is to come as the action develops. Then as the action
progresses, its further development is inspected to see if it is the
progressive realization of the projected action, a change in that action
or its abandonment. Finally, this progressive realization of the
action-so-far then informs its further projection (as continuing the
action or not). ''These conjoined features of structural projection and''
''progressive realization can be understood as furnishing a local,''
''situated and directionally organized normative structure of action''
''accountability'' (Lerner & Raymond 2021: 279–280, emphasis original).

In studies of multiactivity, research has examined the temporal orders by which concurrently relevant activities are brought off in parallel, embedded, or exclusive manners (Mondada 2014). Members’ practices for things such as suspending, reordering, resuming, and interleaving various courses of action (e.g., Kamunen 2019; Sutinen 2014) demonstrate their practical grasp of progressivity, not only of talk but also of other conduct that is done in coordination with others. This includes explicit verbalizations of, e.g., halting the progressive development of some activity (“stop”, “hang on”; Keisanen et al. 2014) as well as bodily-visual displays of body torque (Schegloff 1998) to relatively stable and relatively fleeting engagements.

As greater research attention is paid to the multimodal nature of progressivity, so too must there be an increased focus on its multidimensional nature. For instance, in light of orientations to the progressive realization of both the emergent turn/action and the emergent sequence of which it is a part, under what conditions might speakers ''sacrifice'' the progressivity of one in favor of that of the other? Same-turn self-repair, for example, may indeed retard the progressivity of the emergent turn/action, as described above, but this may in fact ''promote'' progressivity at the level of the sequence (see Raymond & Gill 2025; Svennevig 2010, 2018) or the overarching practical activity (see Lee 2011)—e.g., by staving off the need for an other-initiation of repair down the line. More research is needed to explore these multimodal, multidimensional, and layered aspects of progressivity, and how participants demonstrably orient to them in moment-by-moment interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Lapse]]'''
* '''[[Pause]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Projection]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''
* '''[[Turn-taking]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the Organization of Repair in Multiperson Conversation: The Case of “Other”-Selection in Other-Initiated Repair Sequences. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 44(3):237-262.

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

Deppermann, A., Mondada, L., & Doehler, S. P. (2021). Early responses: An introduction. ''Discourse Processes'', 58(4), 293-307.

Drew, P. (2013). Turn Design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 131-149). Wiley-Blackwell.

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2014). ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking''. John Benjamins.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press.

Kamunen, A. (2019). How to Disengage: Suspension, Body Torque, and Repair. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 52(4), 406–426.

Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Suspending action. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 109-133). John Benjamins.

Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 229-256). Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, S.-H. (2011). Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 43, 904–917.

Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn-space of another speaker. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Sandy Thompson (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 238-276). Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, G H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Gene Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 225-256). John Benjamins.

Lerner, G. H., & Raymond, G. (2021). Body trouble: Some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(3), 277-298.

Manrique, E. (2016). Other-initiated repair in Argentine sign language. ''Open Linguistics'', 2(1).

Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. ''Discourse Studies'', 8(1), 117-129.

Mondada, L. (2014). Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), ''From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon'' (pp. 95–124). John Benjamins.

Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive repair of potential misunderstandings: Prospective procedures for managing intersubjectivity and steering social action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90(4): 690-725.

Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 54-69). Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H, & Schegloff, E. A. (2007 [1979]). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 23-28). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. ''Language'', 50:696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. In Talmy Givon (Ed.), ''Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax'' (pp. 261-288). Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1''. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 41-70). Cambridge Unviersity Press.

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

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. ''Language in Society'', 35(3):367-392.

Sutinen, M. (2014). Negotiating favorable conditions for resuming suspended activities. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 137-165). John Benjamins.

Svennevig, J. (2010). Pre-empting reference problems in conversation. ''Language in Society'' 39(2):173-202.

Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(4):398-416.

'''Additional References:'''

Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. ''Discourse Studies'', 9(2), 194-225.

Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42(6), 1700-1718.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'progressivity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=progressivity&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Progressivity

2026-09-02T08:57:31Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) & '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)
| To cite = Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. 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:
}}

'''Progressivity''' is the fundamental feature of social interaction that captures how every bit of conduct is produced and recognized by reference to how it embodies (or fails to embody) some ‘next’ component of the unfolding interaction. It is an organizationally and structurally pervasive feature, operating at all times and at multiple levels of granularity. As Schegloff (2007) has described it:

In articulating a '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit]]''', each element – each word,
for example – should come next after the one before; in fact, at a smaller
level of granularity, each syllable – indeed, each sound – should come
next after the one before it. So also with the several turn-constructional
units that compose a '''[[Multi-unit turn|multi-unit turn]]'''; so also with the consecutive turns
that compose a spate of talk; so also with the turns that compose a
sequence, etc. Moving from some element to a hearably-next-one with nothing
intervening is the embodiment of, and the measure of, progressivity. Should
something intervene between some element and what is hearable as a/the next
one due – should something violate or interfere with their contiguity,
whether next sound, next word, or next turn – it will be heard as
qualifying the progressivity of the talk, and will be examined for its
import, for what understanding should be accorded it (Schegloff, 2007: 15–16).

Early development of the concept may be traced to Sacks (1987 [1973]), who observed that “if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that it occupies” (58). Participants are not limited to progress within a sequence, however; they also orient to the progressive construction of a turn. Schegloff (1979) documented how a speaker’s multiple attempts at '''[[Same-turn self-repair|same-turn self-repair]]''', for the same repairable, result in successively longer repair solutions each time (see also Schegloff 2013). Recent work has underscored how such same-turn operations are crucial to an understanding of social action, as speakers are willing to sacrifice the progressive realization of the action in order to reconfigure aspects of its design (Drew 2013; Drew et al. 2013). The domain of '''[[Repair|repair]]''' as a whole—including both '''[[Self-repair|self-]]''' and '''other'''-repair operations—is often conceptualized as addressing moments where progressivity is “halted” (e.g., Clift 2016: 232), “frozen” (Manrique 2016: 27), “stopped” (e.g., Bolden 2011: 241), “suspended” (e.g., Kitzinger 2013: 231), or even “broken” (e.g., Lerner 2004: 252). These metaphors aim to reflect the fact that some action or sequence of action is temporarily ‘on hold’ while the “priority activity” of addressing a problem of speaking, hearing, or understanding takes place (Schegloff et al. 1977: 720), after which progressivity will reengage as the on-hold action/sequence resumes.

Early works suggested that progressivity encompassed multiple levels of granularity and operated across organizations of practice (Schegloff 1979: 268fn). Subsequent research has been able to document the reach of progressivity into the organization of interaction. At the level of turn-construction, Lerner (1996) demonstrated how the impedance of TCU progressivity provides unprojected opportunities for turn-completion by other (see also Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027). At the level of sequence organization, Stivers and Robinson (2006) highlighted a '''[[Preference|preference]]''' for progressivity in multiparty interactions: after information-seeking questions, if the selected next speaker displays trouble in responding, a non-selected party may self-select to give a response (cf. Sacks, et al., 1974). In prioritizing a ‘response at all’ over a ‘response from the selected next speaker’, the authors argue for a general orientation to sequence and activity progression. This generic maximization of progressivity, however, may be at odds with '''[[intersubjectivity]]'''. In the context of troubles in recognitional person reference, Heritage (2007) suggested an inverse relationship whereby absolute intersubjective security comes at the expense of turn- and sequence progressivity, and vice versa. Participants may therefore on occasion orient to progressivity as a superordinate preference, such that an attempt to secure recognition of a referent (Sacks & Schegloff 2007 [1979]) can be abandoned in favor of moving on with the action, sequence, and activity at hand. This is seen in the following Extract (1) in which, upon failing to secure an understanding of who Doctor Nelson is—either by name (line 5) or by description (line 7)—Lottie moves to a non-recognitional reference form in line 9 in the service of progressing her response to Emma’s line 2.

(1) [NB IV:14:10] (Heritage 2007)

01 Lot: So I’m goin up uh hhh Mondee too:. An’ uh,
02 Emm: W-w uh how [long is ‘e gonna be gone.
03 Lot: [Yihknow.
04 Lot: hhhh God I don’know, he doesn’ know either I mean, hhh if it-
05 -> uh, we talk’tuh Doctor Nelson
06 -> yihknow this, s-doct-
07 -> yihknow from uh Glendale?
08 -> (0.2)
09 Lot: -> This friend’v a:rs,=
10 Emm: =Mmhm,

Given the lack of uptake from Emma (lines 6-8), Lottie shifts to a non-recognitional “This friend’v a:rs,” in line 9, which her interlocutor immediately receipts with a latched continuer, and the response-in-progress moves onward.

More recent examinations of progressivity have extended the notion to visible conduct and multiactivity (Haddington et al. 2014), bringing it into closer dialogue with matters of temporality. Research on early responses (Deppermann, et al. 2021), for instance, has illustrated the importance of anticipation and '''[[Projection|projection]]''' (see also Mondada 2006). Indeed, in a study of the repair of manual action, Lerner and Raymond (2021) argue that projection stands in a conjoint relationship with progressivity, the two forming intertwined fundamental features of interaction:

[A]s actions are launched in their sequential environment, they can be
recognized as a possible particular action-in-progress and thus project
what more there is to come as the action develops. Then as the action
progresses, its further development is inspected to see if it is the
progressive realization of the projected action, a change in that action
or its abandonment. Finally, this progressive realization of the
action-so-far then informs its further projection (as continuing the
action or not). ''These conjoined features of structural projection and''
''progressive realization can be understood as furnishing a local,''
''situated and directionally organized normative structure of action''
''accountability'' (Lerner & Raymond 2021: 279–280, emphasis original).

In studies of multiactivity, research has examined the temporal orders by which concurrently relevant activities are brought off in parallel, embedded, or exclusive manners (Mondada 2014). Members’ practices for things such as suspending, reordering, resuming, and interleaving various courses of action (e.g., Kamunen 2019; Sutinen 2014) demonstrate their practical grasp of progressivity, not only of talk but also of other conduct that is done in coordination with others. This includes explicit verbalizations of, e.g., halting the progressive development of some activity (“stop”, “hang on”; Keisanen et al. 2014) as well as bodily-visual displays of body torque (Schegloff 1998) to relatively stable and relatively fleeting engagements.

As greater research attention is paid to the multimodal nature of progressivity, so too must there be an increased focus on its multidimensional nature. For instance, in light of orientations to the progressive realization of both the emergent turn/action and the emergent sequence of which it is a part, under what conditions might speakers ''sacrifice'' the progressivity of one in favor of that of the other? Same-turn self-repair, for example, may indeed retard the progressivity of the emergent turn/action, as described above, but this may in fact ''promote'' progressivity at the level of the sequence (see Raymond & Gill 2025; Svennevig 2010, 2018) or the overarching practical activity (see Lee 2011)—e.g., by staving off the need for an other-initiation of repair down the line. More research is needed to explore these multimodal, multidimensional, and layered aspects of progressivity, and how participants demonstrably orient to them in moment-by-moment interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Lapse]]'''
* '''[[Pause]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Projection]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''
* '''[[Turn-taking]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the Organization of Repair in Multiperson Conversation: The Case of “Other”-Selection in Other-Initiated Repair Sequences. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 44(3):237-262.

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

Deppermann, A., Mondada, L., & Doehler, S. P. (2021). Early responses: An introduction. ''Discourse Processes'', 58(4), 293-307.

Drew, P. (2013). Turn Design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 131-149). Wiley-Blackwell.

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2014). ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking''. John Benjamins.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press.

Kamunen, A. (2019). How to Disengage: Suspension, Body Torque, and Repair. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 52(4), 406–426.

Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Suspending action. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 109-133). John Benjamins.

Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 229-256). Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, S.-H. (2011). Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 43, 904–917.

Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn-space of another speaker. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Sandy Thompson (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 238-276). Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, G H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Gene Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 225-256). John Benjamins.

Lerner, G. H., & Raymond, G. (2021). Body trouble: Some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(3), 277-298.

Manrique, E. (2016). Other-initiated repair in Argentine sign language. ''Open Linguistics'', 2(1).

Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. ''Discourse Studies'', 8(1), 117-129.

Mondada, L. (2014). Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), ''From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon'' (pp. 95–124). John Benjamins.

Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive repair of potential misunderstandings: Prospective procedures for managing intersubjectivity and steering social action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90(4): 690-725.

Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 54-69). Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H, & Schegloff, E. A. (2007 [1979]). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 23-28). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. ''Language'', 50:696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. In Talmy Givon (Ed.), ''Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax'' (pp. 261-288). Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1''. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 41-70). Cambridge Unviersity Press.

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

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. ''Language in Society'', 35(3):367-392.

Sutinen, M. (2014). Negotiating favorable conditions for resuming suspended activities. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 137-165). John Benjamins.

Svennevig, J. (2010). Pre-empting reference problems in conversation. ''Language in Society'' 39(2):173-202.

Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(4):398-416.

'''Additional References:'''

Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. ''Discourse Studies'', 9(2), 194-225.

Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42(6), 1700-1718.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'progressivity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=progressivity&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Response mobilization

2026-09-02T08:53:29Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jason Turowetz''' (University of California, Santa Barbara) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2724-764X)
| To cite = Turowetz, Jason. (2023). Mobilizing response. 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/Y7P49
}}
'''Mobilizing response''' refers to how a speaker elicits a (relevant) response from a recipient in social interaction, and specifically to properties of turn design through which speakers increase or decrease response relevance and pressure on recipients to respond. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify three features that affect response relevance:
# ''The '''[[Social action|action]]''' being performed''. “Canonical” social actions by a speaker, such as requests, offers, and invitations, project specific, conditionally relevant (Schegloff 1968; Schegloff & Sacks 1973) responses by the recipient, which, if not performed, are treated as noticeably absent/missing. In comparison, “noncanonical” actions, such as '''[[Noticing|noticings]]''' and '''[[Assessment|assessments]]''', project weaker relevance constraints, as evidenced by the fact that speakers usually do not treat non-responses as noticeably absent/missing.
# ''The '''[[Sequence organization|sequential position]]''' of the action''. Sequence initial actions elicit recipient responses that facilitate sequence completion. Together, (1) and (2) project the conditional relevance of a specific type of response, such as an answer to a question, and make that response relevant as the sequentially next turn.
# ''Turn design''. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify four features of turn design that incrementally increase pressure on the recipient of an action to produce a conditionally relevant response:
*** ''Interrogative lexical and morpho-syntax'': many languages have specific lexical and morpho-syntactic resources for marking an action as doing questioning.
*** ''Interrogative prosody'': an upward pitch-contour can mark the action as an interrogative in some languages (Stivers and Rossano focus on English and Italian).
*** ''Epistemicity'': turns tilted toward the '''[[Epistemics|epistemic]]''' domain of the recipient, by orienting to the recipient’s knowledge and the speaker’s corresponding lack of knowledge about a particular item, can encourage recipient response (see also Heritage 2012a, 2012b). Alternatively, the speaker may produce a turn tilted toward their own epistemic domain, such as a “my side telling” (Pomerantz, 1980) to indirectly encourage the recipient to provide information to which the speaker lacks epistemic access (see '''[[Fishing for information|fishing for information]]''').
*** ''Gaze'': speakers in many cultures can use gaze to secure mutual attention or access to relevant referents and/or to encourage the recipient to produce a relevant response.

Consider the following example, taken from Stivers and Rossano (2010a: 12; see also Pomerantz 1984: 60; Heritage & Raymond 2005: 22), where Emma’s turn at line 9 illustrates three distinct features of response mobilizing turn design features: (1) interrogative syntax (“isn’t she”), (2) an upward pitch contour, and (3) a tilt toward the recipient’s epistemic domain (Note: Pat is Marjorie’s friend).

(1) (Stivers & Rossano 2010a: 12)

01 Emm: =Oh honey that was a lovely luncheon I shoulda
02 ca:lled you s:soo[:ner but I:l]: [lo:ved it. Ih wz=
03 Mar: [((f)) Oh:::] [°( )
04 Emm: =just deli:ghtfu[:l. ]
05 Mar: [Well] I wz gla[d you ] (came)]
06 Emm: [‘nd yer f:] friends] ‘r
07 so da:rli:ng.=
08 Mar: Oh:::[: it wz:]
09 Emm: -> [e-that P]a:t isn’ she a do:[:ll?
10 Mar: [Yeh isn’t she pretty,
11 (.)
12 Emm: Oh: she’s a beautiful girl.=

Stivers and Rossano (2010a) argue that response relevance is not binary (a position they attribute to Schegloff & Sacks 1973), i.e., either a sequence initial turn makes a response relevant or not, but that it varies as on a cline, such that speakers can incrementally add elements to their turns that increase or decrease recipient accountability for responding. For example, speakers may decrease pressure on recipients to respond to actions, such as requests, which threaten the recipient’s negative face (Brown & Levinson 1987).

In a reply to Stivers and Rossano, Schegloff (2010) challenges the claim that elements of action and turn design pressure recipients to respond independently of the local context of any given interaction. Couper-Kuhlen (2010) advances a similar critique regarding interactional context: following Goffman (1963), she distinguishes focused encounters, where copresent parties are directly engaged with one another, from unfocused gatherings, where they are not so engaged, and conditional relevance is therefore not operative. She observes that most of the data on which Stivers and Rossano base their argument that conditional relevance is a cline, with some actions projecting weaker relevance constraints than others, comes from unfocused gatherings where conditional relevance does not hold. In these cases, she suggests, “… the pursuits of response that Stivers and Rossano find following actions that lack responses could well be attempts to render the status of an encounter ''focused'' in situations where copresent parties are treating it as ''unfocused''” (Couper-Kuhlen 2010: 35, original emphasis; see also Stivers & Rossano’s [2010b] reply to Schegloff and Couper-Kuhlen).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Non-answer response]]'''
* '''[[Progressivity]]'''
* '''[[Sequence organization]]'''
* '''[[Storytelling]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). ''Politeness: some universals in language use''. Cambridge University Press.

Cooper-Kuhlen, E. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “mobilizing response.” ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 43(1), 32-37.

Goffman, E. (1963). ''Behavior in public places''. The Free Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language & 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.

Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2012). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in- interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a “fishing” device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50(3-4), 186-198.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis'' (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “mobilizing response.” ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 38-48.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. ''American Anthropologist'', 70(6), 1075-1097.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. ''Semiotica'', 7, 289-327.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010a). Mobilizing response. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 3-31.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010b). A scalar view of response relevance. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 49-56.

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'mobilizing response' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=mobilizing&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Mobilizing response

2026-09-02T08:53:15Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jason Turowetz''' (University of California, Santa Barbara) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2724-764X)
| To cite = Turowetz, Jason. (2023). Mobilizing response. 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/Y7P49
}}

'''Mobilizing response''' refers to how a speaker elicits a (relevant) response from a recipient in social interaction, and specifically to properties of turn design through which speakers increase or decrease response relevance and pressure on recipients to respond. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify three features that affect response relevance:
# ''The '''[[Social action|action]]''' being performed''. “Canonical” social actions by a speaker, such as requests, offers, and invitations, project specific, conditionally relevant (Schegloff 1968; Schegloff & Sacks 1973) responses by the recipient, which, if not performed, are treated as noticeably absent/missing. In comparison, “noncanonical” actions, such as '''[[Noticing|noticings]]''' and '''[[Assessment|assessments]]''', project weaker relevance constraints, as evidenced by the fact that speakers usually do not treat non-responses as noticeably absent/missing.
# ''The '''[[Sequence organization|sequential position]]''' of the action''. Sequence initial actions elicit recipient responses that facilitate sequence completion. Together, (1) and (2) project the conditional relevance of a specific type of response, such as an answer to a question, and make that response relevant as the sequentially next turn.
# ''Turn design''. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify four features of turn design that incrementally increase pressure on the recipient of an action to produce a conditionally relevant response:
*** ''Interrogative lexical and morpho-syntax'': many languages have specific lexical and morpho-syntactic resources for marking an action as doing questioning.
*** ''Interrogative prosody'': an upward pitch-contour can mark the action as an interrogative in some languages (Stivers and Rossano focus on English and Italian).
*** ''Epistemicity'': turns tilted toward the '''[[Epistemics|epistemic]]''' domain of the recipient, by orienting to the recipient’s knowledge and the speaker’s corresponding lack of knowledge about a particular item, can encourage recipient response (see also Heritage 2012a, 2012b). Alternatively, the speaker may produce a turn tilted toward their own epistemic domain, such as a “my side telling” (Pomerantz, 1980) to indirectly encourage the recipient to provide information to which the speaker lacks epistemic access (see '''[[Fishing for information|fishing for information]]''').
*** ''Gaze'': speakers in many cultures can use gaze to secure mutual attention or access to relevant referents and/or to encourage the recipient to produce a relevant response.

Consider the following example, taken from Stivers and Rossano (2010a: 12; see also Pomerantz 1984: 60; Heritage & Raymond 2005: 22), where Emma’s turn at line 9 illustrates three distinct features of response mobilizing turn design features: (1) interrogative syntax (“isn’t she”), (2) an upward pitch contour, and (3) a tilt toward the recipient’s epistemic domain (Note: Pat is Marjorie’s friend).

(1) (Stivers & Rossano 2010a: 12)

01 Emm: =Oh honey that was a lovely luncheon I shoulda
02 ca:lled you s:soo[:ner but I:l]: [lo:ved it. Ih wz=
03 Mar: [((f)) Oh:::] [°( )
04 Emm: =just deli:ghtfu[:l. ]
05 Mar: [Well] I wz gla[d you ] (came)]
06 Emm: [‘nd yer f:] friends] ‘r
07 so da:rli:ng.=
08 Mar: Oh:::[: it wz:]
09 Emm: -> [e-that P]a:t isn’ she a do:[:ll?
10 Mar: [Yeh isn’t she pretty,
11 (.)
12 Emm: Oh: she’s a beautiful girl.=

Stivers and Rossano (2010a) argue that response relevance is not binary (a position they attribute to Schegloff & Sacks 1973), i.e., either a sequence initial turn makes a response relevant or not, but that it varies as on a cline, such that speakers can incrementally add elements to their turns that increase or decrease recipient accountability for responding. For example, speakers may decrease pressure on recipients to respond to actions, such as requests, which threaten the recipient’s negative face (Brown & Levinson 1987).

In a reply to Stivers and Rossano, Schegloff (2010) challenges the claim that elements of action and turn design pressure recipients to respond independently of the local context of any given interaction. Couper-Kuhlen (2010) advances a similar critique regarding interactional context: following Goffman (1963), she distinguishes focused encounters, where copresent parties are directly engaged with one another, from unfocused gatherings, where they are not so engaged, and conditional relevance is therefore not operative. She observes that most of the data on which Stivers and Rossano base their argument that conditional relevance is a cline, with some actions projecting weaker relevance constraints than others, comes from unfocused gatherings where conditional relevance does not hold. In these cases, she suggests, “… the pursuits of response that Stivers and Rossano find following actions that lack responses could well be attempts to render the status of an encounter ''focused'' in situations where copresent parties are treating it as ''unfocused''” (Couper-Kuhlen 2010: 35, original emphasis; see also Stivers & Rossano’s [2010b] reply to Schegloff and Couper-Kuhlen).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Non-answer response]]'''
* '''[[Progressivity]]'''
* '''[[Sequence organization]]'''
* '''[[Storytelling]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). ''Politeness: some universals in language use''. Cambridge University Press.

Cooper-Kuhlen, E. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “mobilizing response.” ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 43(1), 32-37.

Goffman, E. (1963). ''Behavior in public places''. The Free Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language & 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.

Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2012). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in- interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a “fishing” device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50(3-4), 186-198.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis'' (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “mobilizing response.” ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 38-48.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. ''American Anthropologist'', 70(6), 1075-1097.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. ''Semiotica'', 7, 289-327.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010a). Mobilizing response. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 3-31.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010b). A scalar view of response relevance. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 49-56.

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'mobilizing response' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=mobilizing&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Response mobilization

2026-09-02T08:52:21Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jason Turowetz''' (University of California, Santa Barbara) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2724-764X)
| To cite = Turowetz, Jason. (2026). Mobilizing response. 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: []
}}
'''Mobilizing response''' refers to how a speaker elicits a (relevant) response from a recipient in social interaction, and specifically to properties of turn design through which speakers increase or decrease response relevance and pressure on recipients to respond. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify three features that affect response relevance:
# ''The '''[[Social action|action]]''' being performed''. “Canonical” social actions by a speaker, such as requests, offers, and invitations, project specific, conditionally relevant (Schegloff 1968; Schegloff & Sacks 1973) responses by the recipient, which, if not performed, are treated as noticeably absent/missing. In comparison, “noncanonical” actions, such as '''[[Noticing|noticings]]''' and '''[[Assessment|assessments]]''', project weaker relevance constraints, as evidenced by the fact that speakers usually do not treat non-responses as noticeably absent/missing.
# ''The '''[[Sequence organization|sequential position]]''' of the action''. Sequence initial actions elicit recipient responses that facilitate sequence completion. Together, (1) and (2) project the conditional relevance of a specific type of response, such as an answer to a question, and make that response relevant as the sequentially next turn.
# ''Turn design''. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify four features of turn design that incrementally increase pressure on the recipient of an action to produce a conditionally relevant response:
*** ''Interrogative lexical and morpho-syntax'': many languages have specific lexical and morpho-syntactic resources for marking an action as doing questioning.
*** ''Interrogative prosody'': an upward pitch-contour can mark the action as an interrogative in some languages (Stivers and Rossano focus on English and Italian).
*** ''Epistemicity'': turns tilted toward the '''[[Epistemics|epistemic]]''' domain of the recipient, by orienting to the recipient’s knowledge and the speaker’s corresponding lack of knowledge about a particular item, can encourage recipient response (see also Heritage 2012a, 2012b). Alternatively, the speaker may produce a turn tilted toward their own epistemic domain, such as a “my side telling” (Pomerantz, 1980) to indirectly encourage the recipient to provide information to which the speaker lacks epistemic access (see '''[[Fishing for information|fishing for information]]''').
*** ''Gaze'': speakers in many cultures can use gaze to secure mutual attention or access to relevant referents and/or to encourage the recipient to produce a relevant response.

Consider the following example, taken from Stivers and Rossano (2010a: 12; see also Pomerantz 1984: 60; Heritage & Raymond 2005: 22), where Emma’s turn at line 9 illustrates three distinct features of response mobilizing turn design features: (1) interrogative syntax (“isn’t she”), (2) an upward pitch contour, and (3) a tilt toward the recipient’s epistemic domain (Note: Pat is Marjorie’s friend).

(1) (Stivers & Rossano 2010a: 12)

01 Emm: =Oh honey that was a lovely luncheon I shoulda
02 ca:lled you s:soo[:ner but I:l]: [lo:ved it. Ih wz=
03 Mar: [((f)) Oh:::] [°( )
04 Emm: =just deli:ghtfu[:l. ]
05 Mar: [Well] I wz gla[d you ] (came)]
06 Emm: [‘nd yer f:] friends] ‘r
07 so da:rli:ng.=
08 Mar: Oh:::[: it wz:]
09 Emm: -> [e-that P]a:t isn’ she a do:[:ll?
10 Mar: [Yeh isn’t she pretty,
11 (.)
12 Emm: Oh: she’s a beautiful girl.=

Stivers and Rossano (2010a) argue that response relevance is not binary (a position they attribute to Schegloff & Sacks 1973), i.e., either a sequence initial turn makes a response relevant or not, but that it varies as on a cline, such that speakers can incrementally add elements to their turns that increase or decrease recipient accountability for responding. For example, speakers may decrease pressure on recipients to respond to actions, such as requests, which threaten the recipient’s negative face (Brown & Levinson 1987).

In a reply to Stivers and Rossano, Schegloff (2010) challenges the claim that elements of action and turn design pressure recipients to respond independently of the local context of any given interaction. Couper-Kuhlen (2010) advances a similar critique regarding interactional context: following Goffman (1963), she distinguishes focused encounters, where copresent parties are directly engaged with one another, from unfocused gatherings, where they are not so engaged, and conditional relevance is therefore not operative. She observes that most of the data on which Stivers and Rossano base their argument that conditional relevance is a cline, with some actions projecting weaker relevance constraints than others, comes from unfocused gatherings where conditional relevance does not hold. In these cases, she suggests, “… the pursuits of response that Stivers and Rossano find following actions that lack responses could well be attempts to render the status of an encounter ''focused'' in situations where copresent parties are treating it as ''unfocused''” (Couper-Kuhlen 2010: 35, original emphasis; see also Stivers & Rossano’s [2010b] reply to Schegloff and Couper-Kuhlen).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Non-answer response]]'''
* '''[[Progressivity]]'''
* '''[[Sequence organization]]'''
* '''[[Storytelling]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). ''Politeness: some universals in language use''. Cambridge University Press.

Cooper-Kuhlen, E. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “mobilizing response.” ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 43(1), 32-37.

Goffman, E. (1963). ''Behavior in public places''. The Free Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. ''Research on Language & 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.

Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2012). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in- interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 68(1), 15-38.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a “fishing” device. ''Sociological Inquiry'', 50(3-4), 186-198.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis'' (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “mobilizing response.” ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 38-48.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. ''American Anthropologist'', 70(6), 1075-1097.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. ''Semiotica'', 7, 289-327.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010a). Mobilizing response. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 3-31.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010b). A scalar view of response relevance. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 43(1), 49-56.

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'mobilizing response' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=mobilizing&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Progressivity

2026-09-02T08:42:34Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) & '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)
| To cite = Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. 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:
}}

'''Progressivity''' is the fundamental feature of social interaction that captures how every bit of conduct is produced and recognized by reference to how it embodies (or fails to embody) some ‘next’ component of the unfolding interaction. It is an organizationally and structurally pervasive feature, operating at all times and at multiple levels of granularity. As Schegloff (2007) has described it:

In articulating a turn-constructional unit, each element – each word,
for example – should come next after the one before; in fact, at a smaller
level of granularity, each syllable – indeed, each sound – should come
next after the one before it. So also with the several turn-constructional
units that compose a multi-unit turn; so also with the consecutive turns
that compose a spate of talk; so also with the turns that compose a
sequence, etc. Moving from some element to a hearably-next-one with nothing
intervening is the embodiment of, and the measure of, progressivity. Should
something intervene between some element and what is hearable as a/the next
one due – should something violate or interfere with their contiguity,
whether next sound, next word, or next turn – it will be heard as
qualifying the progressivity of the talk, and will be examined for its
import, for what understanding should be accorded it (Schegloff, 2007: 15–16).

Early development of the concept may be traced to Sacks (1987 [1973]), who observed that “if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that it occupies” (58). Participants are not limited to progress within a sequence, however; they also orient to the progressive construction of a turn. Schegloff (1979) documented how a speaker’s multiple attempts at '''[[Same-turn self-repair|same-turn self-repair]]''', for the same repairable, result in successively longer repair solutions each time (see also Schegloff 2013). Recent work has underscored how such same-turn operations are crucial to an understanding of social action, as speakers are willing to sacrifice the progressive realization of the action in order to reconfigure aspects of its design (Drew 2013; Drew et al. 2013). The domain of '''[[Repair|repair]]''' as a whole—including both '''[[Self-repair|self-]]''' and '''other'''-repair operations—is often conceptualized as addressing moments where progressivity is “halted” (e.g., Clift 2016: 232), “frozen” (Manrique 2016: 27), “stopped” (e.g., Bolden 2011: 241), “suspended” (e.g., Kitzinger 2013: 231), or even “broken” (e.g., Lerner 2004: 252). These metaphors aim to reflect the fact that some action or sequence of action is temporarily ‘on hold’ while the “priority activity” of addressing a problem of speaking, hearing, or understanding takes place (Schegloff et al. 1977: 720), after which progressivity will reengage as the on-hold action/sequence resumes.

Early works suggested that progressivity encompassed multiple levels of granularity and operated across organizations of practice (Schegloff 1979: 268fn). Subsequent research has been able to document the reach of progressivity into the organization of interaction. At the level of turn-construction, Lerner (1996) demonstrated how the impedance of TCU progressivity provides unprojected opportunities for turn-completion by other (see also Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027). At the level of sequence organization, Stivers and Robinson (2006) highlighted a '''[[Preference|preference]]''' for progressivity in multiparty interactions: after information-seeking questions, if the selected next speaker displays trouble in responding, a non-selected party may self-select to give a response (cf. Sacks, et al., 1974). In prioritizing a ‘response at all’ over a ‘response from the selected next speaker’, the authors argue for a general orientation to sequence and activity progression. This generic maximization of progressivity, however, may be at odds with '''[[intersubjectivity]]'''. In the context of troubles in recognitional person reference, Heritage (2007) suggested an inverse relationship whereby absolute intersubjective security comes at the expense of turn- and sequence progressivity, and vice versa. Participants may therefore on occasion orient to progressivity as a superordinate preference, such that an attempt to secure recognition of a referent (Sacks & Schegloff 2007 [1979]) can be abandoned in favor of moving on with the action, sequence, and activity at hand. This is seen in the following Extract (1) in which, upon failing to secure an understanding of who Doctor Nelson is—either by name (line 5) or by description (line 7)—Lottie moves to a non-recognitional reference form in line 9 in the service of progressing her response to Emma’s line 2.

(1) [NB IV:14:10] (Heritage 2007)

01 Lot: So I’m goin up uh hhh Mondee too:. An’ uh,
02 Emm: W-w uh how [long is ‘e gonna be gone.
03 Lot: [Yihknow.
04 Lot: hhhh God I don’know, he doesn’ know either I mean, hhh if it-
05 -> uh, we talk’tuh Doctor Nelson
06 -> yihknow this, s-doct-
07 -> yihknow from uh Glendale?
08 -> (0.2)
09 Lot: -> This friend’v a:rs,=
10 Emm: =Mmhm,

Given the lack of uptake from Emma (lines 6-8), Lottie shifts to a non-recognitional “This friend’v a:rs,” in line 9, which her interlocutor immediately receipts with a latched continuer, and the response-in-progress moves onward.

More recent examinations of progressivity have extended the notion to visible conduct and multiactivity (Haddington et al. 2014), bringing it into closer dialogue with matters of temporality. Research on early responses (Deppermann, et al. 2021), for instance, has illustrated the importance of anticipation and '''[[Projection|projection]]''' (see also Mondada 2006). Indeed, in a study of the repair of manual action, Lerner and Raymond (2021) argue that projection stands in a conjoint relationship with progressivity, the two forming intertwined fundamental features of interaction:

[A]s actions are launched in their sequential environment, they can be
recognized as a possible particular action-in-progress and thus project
what more there is to come as the action develops. Then as the action
progresses, its further development is inspected to see if it is the
progressive realization of the projected action, a change in that action
or its abandonment. Finally, this progressive realization of the
action-so-far then informs its further projection (as continuing the
action or not). ''These conjoined features of structural projection and''
''progressive realization can be understood as furnishing a local,''
''situated and directionally organized normative structure of action''
''accountability'' (Lerner & Raymond 2021: 279–280, emphasis original).

In studies of multiactivity, research has examined the temporal orders by which concurrently relevant activities are brought off in parallel, embedded, or exclusive manners (Mondada 2014). Members’ practices for things such as suspending, reordering, resuming, and interleaving various courses of action (e.g., Kamunen 2019; Sutinen 2014) demonstrate their practical grasp of progressivity, not only of talk but also of other conduct that is done in coordination with others. This includes explicit verbalizations of, e.g., halting the progressive development of some activity (“stop”, “hang on”; Keisanen et al. 2014) as well as bodily-visual displays of body torque (Schegloff 1998) to relatively stable and relatively fleeting engagements.

As greater research attention is paid to the multimodal nature of progressivity, so too must there be an increased focus on its multidimensional nature. For instance, in light of orientations to the progressive realization of both the emergent turn/action and the emergent sequence of which it is a part, under what conditions might speakers ''sacrifice'' the progressivity of one in favor of that of the other? Same-turn self-repair, for example, may indeed retard the progressivity of the emergent turn/action, as described above, but this may in fact ''promote'' progressivity at the level of the sequence (see Raymond & Gill 2025; Svennevig 2010, 2018) or the overarching practical activity (see Lee 2011)—e.g., by staving off the need for an other-initiation of repair down the line. More research is needed to explore these multimodal, multidimensional, and layered aspects of progressivity, and how participants demonstrably orient to them in moment-by-moment interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Lapse]]'''
* '''[[Pause]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Projection]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''
* '''[[Turn-taking]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the Organization of Repair in Multiperson Conversation: The Case of “Other”-Selection in Other-Initiated Repair Sequences. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 44(3):237-262.

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

Deppermann, A., Mondada, L., & Doehler, S. P. (2021). Early responses: An introduction. ''Discourse Processes'', 58(4), 293-307.

Drew, P. (2013). Turn Design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 131-149). Wiley-Blackwell.

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2014). ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking''. John Benjamins.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press.

Kamunen, A. (2019). How to Disengage: Suspension, Body Torque, and Repair. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 52(4), 406–426.

Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Suspending action. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 109-133). John Benjamins.

Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 229-256). Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, S.-H. (2011). Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 43, 904–917.

Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn-space of another speaker. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Sandy Thompson (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 238-276). Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, G H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Gene Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 225-256). John Benjamins.

Lerner, G. H., & Raymond, G. (2021). Body trouble: Some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(3), 277-298.

Manrique, E. (2016). Other-initiated repair in Argentine sign language. ''Open Linguistics'', 2(1).

Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. ''Discourse Studies'', 8(1), 117-129.

Mondada, L. (2014). Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), ''From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon'' (pp. 95–124). John Benjamins.

Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive repair of potential misunderstandings: Prospective procedures for managing intersubjectivity and steering social action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90(4): 690-725.

Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 54-69). Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H, & Schegloff, E. A. (2007 [1979]). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 23-28). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. ''Language'', 50:696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. In Talmy Givon (Ed.), ''Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax'' (pp. 261-288). Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1''. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 41-70). Cambridge Unviersity Press.

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

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. ''Language in Society'', 35(3):367-392.

Sutinen, M. (2014). Negotiating favorable conditions for resuming suspended activities. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 137-165). John Benjamins.

Svennevig, J. (2010). Pre-empting reference problems in conversation. ''Language in Society'' 39(2):173-202.

Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(4):398-416.

'''Additional References:'''

Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. ''Discourse Studies'', 9(2), 194-225.

Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42(6), 1700-1718.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'progressivity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=progressivity&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Progressivity

2026-09-02T08:41:54Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) & '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)
| To cite = Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. 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:
}}

'''Progressivity''' is the fundamental feature of social interaction that captures how every bit of conduct is produced and recognized by reference to how it embodies (or fails to embody) some ‘next’ component of the unfolding interaction. It is an organizationally and structurally pervasive feature, operating at all times and at multiple levels of granularity. As Schegloff (2007) has described it:

In articulating a turn-constructional unit, each element – each word,
for example – should come next after the one before; in fact, at a smaller
level of granularity, each syllable – indeed, each sound – should come
next after the one before it. So also with the several turn-constructional
units that compose a multi-unit turn; so also with the consecutive turns
that compose a spate of talk; so also with the turns that compose a
sequence, etc. Moving from some element to a hearably-next-one with nothing
intervening is the embodiment of, and the measure of, progressivity. Should
something intervene between some element and what is hearable as a/the next
one due – should something violate or interfere with their contiguity,
whether next sound, next word, or next turn – it will be heard as
qualifying the progressivity of the talk, and will be examined for its
import, for what understanding should be accorded it (Schegloff, 2007: 15–16).

Early development of the concept may be traced to Sacks (1987 [1973]), who observed that “if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that it occupies” (58). Participants are not limited to progress within a sequence, however; they also orient to the progressive construction of a turn. Schegloff (1979) documented how a speaker’s multiple attempts at '''[[Same-turn self-repair|same-turn self-repair]]''', for the same repairable, result in successively longer repair solutions each time (see also Schegloff 2013). Recent work has underscored how such same-turn operations are crucial to an understanding of social action, as speakers are willing to sacrifice the progressive realization of the action in order to reconfigure aspects of its design (Drew 2013; Drew et al. 2013). The domain of '''[[Repair|repair]]''' as a whole—including both '''[[Self-repair|self-]]''' and '''other'''-repair operations—is often conceptualized as addressing moments where progressivity is “halted” (e.g., Clift 2016: 232), “frozen” (Manrique 2016: 27), “stopped” (e.g., Bolden 2011: 241), “suspended” (e.g., Kitzinger 2013: 231), or even “broken” (e.g., Lerner 2004: 252). These metaphors aim to reflect the fact that some action or sequence of action is temporarily ‘on hold’ while the “priority activity” of addressing a problem of speaking, hearing, or understanding takes place (Schegloff et al. 1977: 720), after which progressivity will reengage as the on-hold action/sequence resumes.

Early works suggested that progressivity encompassed multiple levels of granularity and operated across organizations of practice (Schegloff 1979: 268fn). Subsequent research has been able to document the reach of progressivity into the organization of interaction. At the level of turn-construction, Lerner (1996) demonstrated how the impedance of TCU progressivity provides unprojected opportunities for turn-completion by other (see also Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027). At the level of sequence organization, Stivers and Robinson (2006) highlighted a '''[[Preference|preference]]''' for progressivity in multiparty interactions: after information-seeking questions, if the selected next speaker displays trouble in responding, a non-selected party may self-select to give a response (cf. Sacks, et al., 1974). In prioritizing a ‘response at all’ over a ‘response from the selected next speaker’, the authors argue for a general orientation to sequence and activity progression. This generic maximization of progressivity, however, may be at odds with '''intersubjectivity'''. In the context of troubles in recognitional person reference, Heritage (2007) suggested an inverse relationship whereby absolute intersubjective security comes at the expense of turn- and sequence progressivity, and vice versa. Participants may therefore on occasion orient to progressivity as a superordinate preference, such that an attempt to secure recognition of a referent (Sacks & Schegloff 2007 [1979]) can be abandoned in favor of moving on with the action, sequence, and activity at hand. This is seen in the following Extract (1) in which, upon failing to secure an understanding of who Doctor Nelson is—either by name (line 5) or by description (line 7)—Lottie moves to a non-recognitional reference form in line 9 in the service of progressing her response to Emma’s line 2.

(1) [NB IV:14:10] (Heritage 2007)

01 Lot: So I’m goin up uh hhh Mondee too:. An’ uh,
02 Emm: W-w uh how [long is ‘e gonna be gone.
03 Lot: [Yihknow.
04 Lot: hhhh God I don’know, he doesn’ know either I mean, hhh if it-
05 -> uh, we talk’tuh Doctor Nelson
06 -> yihknow this, s-doct-
07 -> yihknow from uh Glendale?
08 -> (0.2)
09 Lot: -> This friend’v a:rs,=
10 Emm: =Mmhm,

Given the lack of uptake from Emma (lines 6-8), Lottie shifts to a non-recognitional “This friend’v a:rs,” in line 9, which her interlocutor immediately receipts with a latched continuer, and the response-in-progress moves onward.

More recent examinations of progressivity have extended the notion to visible conduct and multiactivity (Haddington et al. 2014), bringing it into closer dialogue with matters of temporality. Research on early responses (Deppermann, et al. 2021), for instance, has illustrated the importance of anticipation and '''[[Projection|projection]]''' (see also Mondada 2006). Indeed, in a study of the repair of manual action, Lerner and Raymond (2021) argue that projection stands in a conjoint relationship with progressivity, the two forming intertwined fundamental features of interaction:

[A]s actions are launched in their sequential environment, they can be
recognized as a possible particular action-in-progress and thus project
what more there is to come as the action develops. Then as the action
progresses, its further development is inspected to see if it is the
progressive realization of the projected action, a change in that action
or its abandonment. Finally, this progressive realization of the
action-so-far then informs its further projection (as continuing the
action or not). ''These conjoined features of structural projection and''
''progressive realization can be understood as furnishing a local,''
''situated and directionally organized normative structure of action''
''accountability'' (Lerner & Raymond 2021: 279–280, emphasis original).

In studies of multiactivity, research has examined the temporal orders by which concurrently relevant activities are brought off in parallel, embedded, or exclusive manners (Mondada 2014). Members’ practices for things such as suspending, reordering, resuming, and interleaving various courses of action (e.g., Kamunen 2019; Sutinen 2014) demonstrate their practical grasp of progressivity, not only of talk but also of other conduct that is done in coordination with others. This includes explicit verbalizations of, e.g., halting the progressive development of some activity (“stop”, “hang on”; Keisanen et al. 2014) as well as bodily-visual displays of body torque (Schegloff 1998) to relatively stable and relatively fleeting engagements.

As greater research attention is paid to the multimodal nature of progressivity, so too must there be an increased focus on its multidimensional nature. For instance, in light of orientations to the progressive realization of both the emergent turn/action and the emergent sequence of which it is a part, under what conditions might speakers ''sacrifice'' the progressivity of one in favor of that of the other? Same-turn self-repair, for example, may indeed retard the progressivity of the emergent turn/action, as described above, but this may in fact ''promote'' progressivity at the level of the sequence (see Raymond & Gill 2025; Svennevig 2010, 2018) or the overarching practical activity (see Lee 2011)—e.g., by staving off the need for an other-initiation of repair down the line. More research is needed to explore these multimodal, multidimensional, and layered aspects of progressivity, and how participants demonstrably orient to them in moment-by-moment interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Lapse]]'''
* '''[[Pause]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Projection]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''
* '''[[Turn-taking]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the Organization of Repair in Multiperson Conversation: The Case of “Other”-Selection in Other-Initiated Repair Sequences. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 44(3):237-262.

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

Deppermann, A., Mondada, L., & Doehler, S. P. (2021). Early responses: An introduction. ''Discourse Processes'', 58(4), 293-307.

Drew, P. (2013). Turn Design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 131-149). Wiley-Blackwell.

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.

Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2014). ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking''. John Benjamins.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press.

Kamunen, A. (2019). How to Disengage: Suspension, Body Torque, and Repair. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 52(4), 406–426.

Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Suspending action. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 109-133). John Benjamins.

Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 229-256). Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, S.-H. (2011). Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 43, 904–917.

Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn-space of another speaker. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Sandy Thompson (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 238-276). Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, G H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Gene Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 225-256). John Benjamins.

Lerner, G. H., & Raymond, G. (2021). Body trouble: Some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(3), 277-298.

Manrique, E. (2016). Other-initiated repair in Argentine sign language. ''Open Linguistics'', 2(1).

Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. ''Discourse Studies'', 8(1), 117-129.

Mondada, L. (2014). Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), ''From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon'' (pp. 95–124). John Benjamins.

Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive repair of potential misunderstandings: Prospective procedures for managing intersubjectivity and steering social action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90(4): 690-725.

Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 54-69). Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H, & Schegloff, E. A. (2007 [1979]). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In N.J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 23-28). Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. ''Language'', 50:696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. In Talmy Givon (Ed.), ''Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax'' (pp. 261-288). Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1''. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, & Jack Sidnell (Eds.), ''Conversational repair and human understanding'' (pp. 41-70). Cambridge Unviersity Press.

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

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. ''Language in Society'', 35(3):367-392.

Sutinen, M. (2014). Negotiating favorable conditions for resuming suspended activities. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.), ''Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking'' (pp. 137-165). John Benjamins.

Svennevig, J. (2010). Pre-empting reference problems in conversation. ''Language in Society'' 39(2):173-202.

Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(4):398-416.

'''Additional References:'''

Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. ''Discourse Studies'', 9(2), 194-225.

Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 42(6), 1700-1718.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'progressivity' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=progressivity&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Definition

2026-09-02T08:40:36Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383)
| To cite = De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. 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:
}}

The concept of '''definition''' is variously used in linguistics, and has been discussed only marginally in interactional approaches. Based on philosophical considerations rooted in Antiquity (Aristotle) and revived in the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas), definitions have been described as stipulating the meaning of an expression. Definitions are thus discussed in various linguistic fields dealing with (lexical) semantics. In natural conversation, definitions of ordinary words (rather than of technical terms) are observable, and these rarely show the properties ascribed to them by logical philosophers. In interaction, definitions have been studied as practices involved in:
* arguing and defending one’s point of view (De Stefani & Sambre 2016, or, within argumentation theory, Kienpointner 1992);
* imparting knowledge (e.g., in didactical settings; Helmer 2021)
* preventing and solving problems of understanding, by explicating the meaning of a word with a definition (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

In natural conversation, definitions are highly '''[[Indexicality|indexical]]''' and often lack the properties expected from a language philosophical perspective. Hence, they may be ostensive, whereby an interactant displays with embodied resources what a word means (e.g., by pointing to a material instance of it), in concomitance with an existential structure (''this is x''; Deppermann 2016). Definitions have also been described as occurring recurrently in specific formats, such as German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’; Helmer 2020) or ''x is not y, it’s z'' (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

The following excerpt shows (a) how a definition emerges in a setting of argumentation in which (b) Karel uses a specific format (''x is not y, it’s z''). It is taken from a discussion between members of a Flemish mutual help group for people affected by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS):

(1) [Deppermann & De Stefani 2019: 148]

01 Kar stilaan beginnen der meer en meer en zeker bij de jonge
''slowly more and more begin and certainly among the young''

02 -> artsen beginnen meer en meer in te zien .h dat CVS dat we dat
''doctors more and more begin understanding .h that CFS that we''

03 -> niet moeten benaderen .h als een euh syndroom of ‘k weet niet
''do not have to approach it .h as a uh syndrome or I don’t know''

04 wat waar we niet kunnen aan beginnen,
''what where we can’t do anything about''

05 -> .h nee het is <LYME.>
''.h no it is lyme (disease)''

06 (1.3)

07 alstublieft,
''please''

08 (0.4)

09 -> plus euh: plus co-infecties.
''plus uh plus co-infections''

At line 02 Karel produces a negative definitional component by saying that we must not approach CFS as ‘a syndrome’, thereby invalidating a possible understanding of the word CFS. After a further, prosodically emphasized, negative token (line 05), he articulates a positive definition, stating that CFS ‘is Lyme (disease)’ (line 05). The resulting format recalls stipulative definitions where the ''definiendum'' (‘CFS’) is linked to the ''definiens'' (‘Lyme (disease)’) by the copula ‘is’. The TRP at the end of line 05 opens up the possibility for Karel’s recipients to produce a response to the definition he has just articulated. This opportunity is not taken (lines 06–08) and Karel slightly modifies the ''definiens'', which is now Lyme disease ‘plus co-infections’ (line 09). This highlights the indexicality and context-sensitivity of definitions articulated in conversation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Description]]'''
* '''[[Demonstration]]'''
* '''[[Explanation]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Deppermann, A. (2016). La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. ''Langages'', 204(4), 83–101.

Deppermann, A. & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 140, 140–155.

De Stefani, E. & Sambre, P. (2016). L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires. L’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. ''Langages'', 204(4), 27–42.

Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’). ''Discourse Processes'', 57(3), 278–299.

Helmer, H. (2021). Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the ‘shoulder check’ in theoretical and practical driving lessons. ''International Journal of Applied Linguistics'', 31(1), 109–131.

Kienpointer, M. (1992). ''Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern''. Frommann-holzboog.

'''Additional References:'''

Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. ''Human Studies'', 34(2), 129–153.

Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and lexis in conversation'' (pp. 289–317). John Benjamins.

De Stefani, E. (2005). Les demandes de définition en français parlé: aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels. ''Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique'', 41, 147–163.

Martin, R. (1990). La definition ‘naturelle’. In J. Chaurand & J. Mazière (Eds.), ''La définition'' (pp. 86–95). Larousse.

Temmermann, M. (2009). Communicative aspects of definitions in classroom interaction: Learning to define in class for first and second language learners. ''Linguistics and Education'', 20(2), 126–144.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'definition' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=definition&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Definition

2026-09-02T08:36:14Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383)
| To cite = De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. 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: []
}}

The concept of '''definition''' is variously used in linguistics, and has been discussed only marginally in interactional approaches. Based on philosophical considerations rooted in Antiquity (Aristotle) and revived in the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas), definitions have been described as stipulating the meaning of an expression. Definitions are thus discussed in various linguistic fields dealing with (lexical) semantics. In natural conversation, definitions of ordinary words (rather than of technical terms) are observable, and these rarely show the properties ascribed to them by logical philosophers. In interaction, definitions have been studied as practices involved in:
* arguing and defending one’s point of view (De Stefani & Sambre 2016, or, within argumentation theory, Kienpointner 1992);
* imparting knowledge (e.g., in didactical settings; Helmer 2021)
* preventing and solving problems of understanding, by explicating the meaning of a word with a definition (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

In natural conversation, definitions are highly '''[[Indexicality|indexical]]''' and often lack the properties expected from a language philosophical perspective. Hence, they may be ostensive, whereby an interactant displays with embodied resources what a word means (e.g., by pointing to a material instance of it), in concomitance with an existential structure (''this is x''; Deppermann 2016). Definitions have also been described as occurring recurrently in specific formats, such as German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’; Helmer 2020) or ''x is not y, it’s z'' (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

The following excerpt shows (a) how a definition emerges in a setting of argumentation in which (b) Karel uses a specific format (''x is not y, it’s z''). It is taken from a discussion between members of a Flemish mutual help group for people affected by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS):

(1) [Deppermann & De Stefani 2019: 148]

01 Kar stilaan beginnen der meer en meer en zeker bij de jonge
''slowly more and more begin and certainly among the young''

02 -> artsen beginnen meer en meer in te zien .h dat CVS dat we dat
''doctors more and more begin understanding .h that CFS that we''

03 -> niet moeten benaderen .h als een euh syndroom of ‘k weet niet
''do not have to approach it .h as a uh syndrome or I don’t know''

04 wat waar we niet kunnen aan beginnen,
''what where we can’t do anything about''

05 -> .h nee het is <LYME.>
''.h no it is lyme (disease)''

06 (1.3)

07 alstublieft,
''please''

08 (0.4)

09 -> plus euh: plus co-infecties.
''plus uh plus co-infections''

At line 02 Karel produces a negative definitional component by saying that we must not approach CFS as ‘a syndrome’, thereby invalidating a possible understanding of the word CFS. After a further, prosodically emphasized, negative token (line 05), he articulates a positive definition, stating that CFS ‘is Lyme (disease)’ (line 05). The resulting format recalls stipulative definitions where the ''definiendum'' (‘CFS’) is linked to the ''definiens'' (‘Lyme (disease)’) by the copula ‘is’. The TRP at the end of line 05 opens up the possibility for Karel’s recipients to produce a response to the definition he has just articulated. This opportunity is not taken (lines 06–08) and Karel slightly modifies the ''definiens'', which is now Lyme disease ‘plus co-infections’ (line 09). This highlights the indexicality and context-sensitivity of definitions articulated in conversation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Description]]'''
* '''[[Demonstration]]'''
* '''[[Explanation]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Deppermann, A. (2016). La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. ''Langages'', 204(4), 83–101.

Deppermann, A. & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 140, 140–155.

De Stefani, E. & Sambre, P. (2016). L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires. L’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. ''Langages'', 204(4), 27–42.

Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’). ''Discourse Processes'', 57(3), 278–299.

Helmer, H. (2021). Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the ‘shoulder check’ in theoretical and practical driving lessons. ''International Journal of Applied Linguistics'', 31(1), 109–131.

Kienpointer, M. (1992). ''Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern''. Frommann-holzboog.

'''Additional References:'''

Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. ''Human Studies'', 34(2), 129–153.

Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and lexis in conversation'' (pp. 289–317). John Benjamins.

De Stefani, E. (2005). Les demandes de définition en français parlé: aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels. ''Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique'', 41, 147–163.

Martin, R. (1990). La definition ‘naturelle’. In J. Chaurand & J. Mazière (Eds.), ''La définition'' (pp. 86–95). Larousse.

Temmermann, M. (2009). Communicative aspects of definitions in classroom interaction: Learning to define in class for first and second language learners. ''Linguistics and Education'', 20(2), 126–144.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'definition' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=definition&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Stefani2023

2026-09-02T08:33:03Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
|Author(s)=Elwys De Stefani;
|Title=Definition
|Editor(s)=Elliott M. Hoey Alexandra Gubina; Chase Wesley Raymond;
|Tag(s)=EMCA; ETCAIL; Definition; Definitions
|Key=Stefani2023
|Publisher=International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA)
|Year=2026
|Booktitle=Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics
|URL=https://emcawiki.net/Definition
}}

Definition

2026-09-02T08:29:36Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383)
| To cite = De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. 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: []
}}

The concept of '''definition''' is variously used in linguistics, and has been discussed only marginally in interactional approaches. Based on philosophical considerations rooted in Antiquity (Aristotle) and revived in the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas), definitions have been described as stipulating the meaning of an expression. Definitions are thus discussed in various linguistic fields dealing with (lexical) semantics. In natural conversation, definitions of ordinary words (rather than of technical terms) are observable, and these rarely show the properties ascribed to them by logical philosophers. In interaction, definitions have been studied as practices involved in:
* arguing and defending one’s point of view (De Stefani & Sambre 2016, or, within argumentation theory, Kienpointner 1992);
* imparting knowledge (e.g., in didactical settings; Helmer 2021)
* preventing and solving problems of understanding, by explicating the meaning of a word with a definition (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

In natural conversation, definitions are highly '''[[Indexicality|indexical]]''' and often lack the properties expected from a language philosophical perspective. Hence, they may be ostensive, whereby an interactant displays with embodied resources what a word means (e.g., by pointing to a material instance of it), in concomitance with an existential structure (''this is x''; Deppermann 2016). Definitions have also been described as occurring recurrently in specific formats, such as German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’; Helmer 2020) or ''x is not y, it’s z'' (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019).

The following excerpt shows (a) how a definition emerges in a setting of argumentation in which (b) Karel uses a specific format (''x is not y, it’s z''). It is taken from a discussion between members of a Flemish mutual help group for people affected by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS):

(1) [Deppermann & De Stefani 2019: 148]

01 Kar stilaan beginnen der meer en meer en zeker bij de jonge
''slowly more and more begin and certainly among the young''

02 -> artsen beginnen meer en meer in te zien .h dat CVS dat we dat
''doctors more and more begin understanding .h that CFS that we''

03 -> niet moeten benaderen .h als een euh syndroom of ‘k weet niet
''do not have to approach it .h as a uh syndrome or I don’t know''

04 wat waar we niet kunnen aan beginnen,
''what where we can’t do anything about''

05 -> .h nee het is <LYME.>
''.h no it is lyme (disease)''

06 (1.3)

07 alstublieft,
''please''

08 (0.4)

09 -> plus euh: plus co-infecties.
''plus uh plus co-infections''

At line 02 Karel produces a negative definitional component by saying that we must not approach CFS as ‘a syndrome’, thereby invalidating a possible understanding of the word CFS. After a further, prosodically emphasized, negative token (line 05), he articulates a positive definition, stating that CFS ‘is Lyme (disease)’ (line 05). The resulting format recalls stipulative definitions where the ''definiendum'' (‘CFS’) is linked to the ''definiens'' (‘Lyme (disease)’) by the copula ‘is’. The TRP at the end of line 05 opens up the possibility for Karel’s recipients to produce a response to the definition he has just articulated. This opportunity is not taken (lines 06–08) and Karel slightly modifies the ''definiens'', which is now Lyme disease ‘plus co-infections’ (line 09). This highlights the indexicality and context-sensitivity of definitions articulated in conversation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* [Description]
* [Demonstration]
* [Explanation]

'''Cited References:'''

Deppermann, A. (2016). La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. ''Langages'', 204(4), 83–101.

Deppermann, A. & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 140, 140–155.

De Stefani, E. & Sambre, P. (2016). L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires. L’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. ''Langages'', 204(4), 27–42.

Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German ''x heißt y'' (‘x means y’). ''Discourse Processes'', 57(3), 278–299.

Helmer, H. (2021). Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the ‘shoulder check’ in theoretical and practical driving lessons. ''International Journal of Applied Linguistics'', 31(1), 109–131.

Kienpointer, M. (1992). ''Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern''. Frommann-holzboog.

'''Additional References:'''

Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. ''Human Studies'', 34(2), 129–153.

Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and lexis in conversation'' (pp. 289–317). John Benjamins.

De Stefani, E. (2005). Les demandes de définition en français parlé: aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels. ''Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique'', 41, 147–163.

Martin, R. (1990). La definition ‘naturelle’. In J. Chaurand & J. Mazière (Eds.), ''La définition'' (pp. 86–95). Larousse.

Temmermann, M. (2009). Communicative aspects of definitions in classroom interaction: Learning to define in class for first and second language learners. ''Linguistics and Education'', 20(2), 126–144.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'definition' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=definition&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Insert expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:18:21Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). 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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EVDZU
}}

An '''insert expansion (sequence)''', also called an '''insert sequence''' or '''insertion sequence''', are turns that occur after a '''[[First-pair_part|first-pair part]]''' has been produced, before the projected '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''', produced in service of collaboratively resolving some matter that is relevant to resolve prior to the production of a responsive action. Insert sequences are initiated by the recipient of the preceding first pair part” (Schegloff 2007: 97). They can be '''[[Post-first_insert_expansion_(sequence)|post-first]]''' or '''[[Pre-second_insert_expansion_(sequence)|pre-second]]''', both in service of resolving matter from the initial (base) first-pair part. For example, in the case below Betty asks Marcia a question (line 1), and Marcia subsequently asks a question (line 3) that is related to that first-pair part.

[SBL 2.1.8] (Schegloff 2007: 97; Schegloff, et al. 1977: 368)

01 Bet: ''Fb''-> Was last night the first time you met Missiz Kelly?
02 (1.0)
03 Mar: ''Fins''-> Met whom?
04 Bet: ''Sins''-> Missez Kelly.
05 Mar: ''Sb''-> Yes.

In this case, the insert sequence launched in line 3 is specifically a '''post-first''' insert sequence and a case of other-initiated repair. With the first-pair part of the insert sequence (labelled ''Fins'' in the transcript), Marcia targets for repair a trouble source within the base first-pair part (line 1, ''Fb''). Additionally, although in the transcript we can see that insert sequences come before second-pair parts (''Sins'' in line 4 and ''Sb'' in line 5), it is important to remember that for the participants, a second-pair part does not yet exist after a first-pair part has been produced. Therefore, insert sequences are understood as being produced in the service of a prospective second-pair part, specifically, to repair some issue that is preventing the production of the second-pair part (as is the case for post-first insert sequences), or to establish the conditions for the production of the second-pair part (for pre-second insert sequences). Due to their sequential placement, insert sequences necessarily interrupt the progressivity of the base sequence, and as such they “project the possibility of a dispreferred response” (Schegloff 2007: 100). Such sequences can thus constitute a form of '''[[Delay|delay]]''' within the organization of '''[[Preference|preference]]'''.

There are other kinds of talk produced after a first-pair part that are not necessarily insert sequences, for example, the “solicit of confirmation” (Schegloff 2007: 98), or an extended announcement or '''[[Complaint|complaint]]'''. Insert sequences specifically are produced by the prospective speaker of the second-pair part, in service of that second-pair part.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Post-first insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Other-initiated repair]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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:'''

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

Mazeland, H. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 39''(10), 1816–1869.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'insert expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=insert&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Insert expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:17:43Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). 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:
}}

An '''insert expansion (sequence)''', also called an '''insert sequence''' or '''insertion sequence''', are turns that occur after a '''[[First-pair_part|first-pair part]]''' has been produced, before the projected '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''', produced in service of collaboratively resolving some matter that is relevant to resolve prior to the production of a responsive action. Insert sequences are initiated by the recipient of the preceding first pair part” (Schegloff 2007: 97). They can be '''[[Post-first_insert_expansion_(sequence)|post-first]]''' or '''[[Pre-second_insert_expansion_(sequence)|pre-second]]''', both in service of resolving matter from the initial (base) first-pair part. For example, in the case below Betty asks Marcia a question (line 1), and Marcia subsequently asks a question (line 3) that is related to that first-pair part.

[SBL 2.1.8] (Schegloff 2007: 97; Schegloff, et al. 1977: 368)

01 Bet: ''Fb''-> Was last night the first time you met Missiz Kelly?
02 (1.0)
03 Mar: ''Fins''-> Met whom?
04 Bet: ''Sins''-> Missez Kelly.
05 Mar: ''Sb''-> Yes.

In this case, the insert sequence launched in line 3 is specifically a '''post-first''' insert sequence and a case of other-initiated repair. With the first-pair part of the insert sequence (labelled ''Fins'' in the transcript), Marcia targets for repair a trouble source within the base first-pair part (line 1, ''Fb''). Additionally, although in the transcript we can see that insert sequences come before second-pair parts (''Sins'' in line 4 and ''Sb'' in line 5), it is important to remember that for the participants, a second-pair part does not yet exist after a first-pair part has been produced. Therefore, insert sequences are understood as being produced in the service of a prospective second-pair part, specifically, to repair some issue that is preventing the production of the second-pair part (as is the case for post-first insert sequences), or to establish the conditions for the production of the second-pair part (for pre-second insert sequences). Due to their sequential placement, insert sequences necessarily interrupt the progressivity of the base sequence, and as such they “project the possibility of a dispreferred response” (Schegloff 2007: 100). Such sequences can thus constitute a form of '''[[Delay|delay]]''' within the organization of '''[[Preference|preference]]'''.

There are other kinds of talk produced after a first-pair part that are not necessarily insert sequences, for example, the “solicit of confirmation” (Schegloff 2007: 98), or an extended announcement or '''[[Complaint|complaint]]'''. Insert sequences specifically are produced by the prospective speaker of the second-pair part, in service of that second-pair part.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Post-first insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Other-initiated repair]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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:'''

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

Mazeland, H. (2007). Parenthetical sequences. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 39''(10), 1816–1869.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'insert expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=insert&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:14:48Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Pre-second 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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2BQS7
}}

A '''pre-second (insert expansion)''' is an '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)|insert sequence]]''' that occurs after a '''[[First-pair_part|first-pair part]]''' that “addresses the range of contingencies attendant on the production of a second pair part” (Clift 2016: 83); namely, the ability to respond appropriately to the first-pair part is predicated on the information that comes from the pre-second insert sequence. In contrast to a '''[[Post-first insert expansion (sequence)|post-first insert sequence]]''', the pre-second insert sequence is not repairing an issue of hearing, speaking, or understanding from the first-pair part. Instead, the pre-second insert sequence is establishing the contingencies relevant to the production of an appropriate '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]'''. As such, pre-second insert sequences are by and large type-specific, as they are conditioned on the type of first-pair part produced and the type of second-pair part that is due (Schegloff 2007: 106).

Pre-second insert sequences commonly occur as question and answer sequences. For instance, in the following example taken from Merritt (1976), the pre-second question “Are you twenty-one?” (line 2) is used to determine the employee’s response to the customer’s original '''[[Request|request]]''' made in line 1, “May I have a bottle of Mich?”. The employee’s ultimate response in line 4, the base second-pair part to the original request in line 1, is contingent on the customer being of legal drinking age in the United States (which they are not, hence the refusal to grant the request).

(Merritt 1976: 333, cited in Levinson 1983: 304)

01 A: ''Fb''-> May I have a bottle of Mich?
02 B: ''Fins''-> Are you twenty one?
03 A: ''Sins''-> No
04 B: ''Sb''-> No

Another example, from Schegloff (1972), is shown below, in which B has invited A to her house (line 3), and A states that she doesn’t know where B’s house is (line 6-7), essentially soliciting directions.

(Schegloff 1972: 107, 2007: 107)

01 Bel: You know, I have [a house, a big garden-
02 Ann: [Yes.
03 Bel: Why don’t you come and see me some[times.
04 Ann: [I would like to.
05 Bel: I would like you to. Let me [just-
06 Ann: ''Fb''-> [I don’t know just where
07 -> the- uh- this address [is.
08 Bel: ''Fins''-> [Well where do- which part of
09 -> town do you live.
10 Ann: ''Sins''-> I live at four ten east Lowden.
11 (2.0)
12 Bel: Well, you don’t live very far from me.
13 ''Sb''-> If you go on the State (1.0) High- no if you go out part the
14 courthouse [to Elmhurst.
15 Ann: [Yeah.

In order to provide directions to her house, B launches an insert sequence in line 8 to determine where A lives. Upon receipt of that information (line 10), B is then able to produce the second-pair part (lines 13-14) that was due from the original first-pair part (lines 6-7).

Multiple pre-second insert sequences often occur in service encounters, for example, when a caller calls 911, the call-taker must establish a variety of contingencies to determine their ability to grant the caller’s request (e.g., the severity of the situation, their location, identifying factors, etc; see Zimmerman 1992).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-first insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Other-initiated repair]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

Levinson, S. C. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Merritt, M. (1976). On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters. ''Language in Society, 5''(3), 315-317.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 75–119). Free Press.

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

Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings'' (pp. 418–469). Cambridge University Press.

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'pre-second insert expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=pre-second&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:13:03Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Pre-second 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 '''pre-second (insert expansion)''' is an '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)|insert sequence]]''' that occurs after a '''[[First-pair_part|first-pair part]]''' that “addresses the range of contingencies attendant on the production of a second pair part” (Clift 2016: 83); namely, the ability to respond appropriately to the first-pair part is predicated on the information that comes from the pre-second insert sequence. In contrast to a '''[[Post-first insert expansion (sequence)|post-first insert sequence]]''', the pre-second insert sequence is not repairing an issue of hearing, speaking, or understanding from the first-pair part. Instead, the pre-second insert sequence is establishing the contingencies relevant to the production of an appropriate '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]'''. As such, pre-second insert sequences are by and large type-specific, as they are conditioned on the type of first-pair part produced and the type of second-pair part that is due (Schegloff 2007: 106).

Pre-second insert sequences commonly occur as question and answer sequences. For instance, in the following example taken from Merritt (1976), the pre-second question “Are you twenty-one?” (line 2) is used to determine the employee’s response to the customer’s original '''[[Request|request]]''' made in line 1, “May I have a bottle of Mich?”. The employee’s ultimate response in line 4, the base second-pair part to the original request in line 1, is contingent on the customer being of legal drinking age in the United States (which they are not, hence the refusal to grant the request).

(Merritt 1976: 333, cited in Levinson 1983: 304)

01 A: ''Fb''-> May I have a bottle of Mich?
02 B: ''Fins''-> Are you twenty one?
03 A: ''Sins''-> No
04 B: ''Sb''-> No

Another example, from Schegloff (1972), is shown below, in which B has invited A to her house (line 3), and A states that she doesn’t know where B’s house is (line 6-7), essentially soliciting directions.

(Schegloff 1972: 107, 2007: 107)

01 Bel: You know, I have [a house, a big garden-
02 Ann: [Yes.
03 Bel: Why don’t you come and see me some[times.
04 Ann: [I would like to.
05 Bel: I would like you to. Let me [just-
06 Ann: ''Fb''-> [I don’t know just where
07 -> the- uh- this address [is.
08 Bel: ''Fins''-> [Well where do- which part of
09 -> town do you live.
10 Ann: ''Sins''-> I live at four ten east Lowden.
11 (2.0)
12 Bel: Well, you don’t live very far from me.
13 ''Sb''-> If you go on the State (1.0) High- no if you go out part the
14 courthouse [to Elmhurst.
15 Ann: [Yeah.

In order to provide directions to her house, B launches an insert sequence in line 8 to determine where A lives. Upon receipt of that information (line 10), B is then able to produce the second-pair part (lines 13-14) that was due from the original first-pair part (lines 6-7).

Multiple pre-second insert sequences often occur in service encounters, for example, when a caller calls 911, the call-taker must establish a variety of contingencies to determine their ability to grant the caller’s request (e.g., the severity of the situation, their location, identifying factors, etc; see Zimmerman 1992).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-first insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Other-initiated repair]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

Levinson, S. C. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Merritt, M. (1976). On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters. ''Language in Society, 5''(3), 315-317.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 75–119). Free Press.

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

Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings'' (pp. 418–469). Cambridge University Press.

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'pre-second insert expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=pre-second&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Post-first insert expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:12:14Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Post-first 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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/278ZT
}}

A ''''post-first' insert expansion (sequence)''' is an '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)|insert sequence]]''' that occurs after a '''[[First-pair_part|first-pair part]]''' has been produced, but before the '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''', and is directed towards an issue with the first pair part. The issue at hand may “interfere with the production of an appropriate response to it [the first-pair part], or even grasping what an appropriate type of response would be” (Schegloff 2007: 102). As such, the recipient of the initial action initiates repair on that action, and after the resolution, issues the second-pair part that was originally due. For example, in the following case from Schegloff, et al. (1977: 367), speaker A produces a first-pair part in line 4. Rather than answering the question, speaker B launches a post-first insert sequence in line 5.

(Schegloff, et al. 1977: 367)

01 A: Were you uh you were in therapy with a private
02 doctor?
03 B: Yah.
04 A: ''Fb''-> Have you ever tried a clinic?
05 B: ''Fins''-> What?
06 A: ''Sins''-> Have you ever tried a clinic?
07 B: ''Sb''-> ((''sigh'')) No, I don’t want to go to a clinic.

After speaker A responds to the first-pair part of the post-first insert sequence by repeating the original question (line 6), speaker B then produces the base second-pair part (line 7). In this case, the post-first insert sequence is launched with an '''[[Open-class repair initiation|open-class repair]]''' initiator (“What”, line 5; see Drew 1997; Kendrick 2015; Schegloff 1997), but post-first insert sequences can be formed via a number of other resources (see '''[[Other-initiated_repair (OIR)|other-initiated repair]]'''). In this sense, post-first insert sequences are “generic” because they are not dependent on the type of preceding sequence (Schegloff 2007: 106); instead they are delineated based on the system of other-initiated repair.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Other-initiated repair]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

Drew, P. (1997). [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 ‘Open’-class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation]. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''28''(1), 69–101.

Kendrick, K. H. (2015). [https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0009 Other-initiated repair in English]. ''Open Linguistics'', ''1''(1). 164-190.

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). [https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other‐initiated repair]. ''Discourse Processes'', ''23''(3), 499–545.

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.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'post-first insert expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=post-first&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Post-first insert expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:08:50Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Post-first 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 ''''post-first' insert expansion (sequence)''' is an '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)|insert sequence]]''' that occurs after a '''[[First-pair_part|first-pair part]]''' has been produced, but before the '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''', and is directed towards an issue with the first pair part. The issue at hand may “interfere with the production of an appropriate response to it [the first-pair part], or even grasping what an appropriate type of response would be” (Schegloff 2007: 102). As such, the recipient of the initial action initiates repair on that action, and after the resolution, issues the second-pair part that was originally due. For example, in the following case from Schegloff, et al. (1977: 367), speaker A produces a first-pair part in line 4. Rather than answering the question, speaker B launches a post-first insert sequence in line 5.

(Schegloff, et al. 1977: 367)

01 A: Were you uh you were in therapy with a private
02 doctor?
03 B: Yah.
04 A: ''Fb''-> Have you ever tried a clinic?
05 B: ''Fins''-> What?
06 A: ''Sins''-> Have you ever tried a clinic?
07 B: ''Sb''-> ((''sigh'')) No, I don’t want to go to a clinic.

After speaker A responds to the first-pair part of the post-first insert sequence by repeating the original question (line 6), speaker B then produces the base second-pair part (line 7). In this case, the post-first insert sequence is launched with an '''[[Open-class repair initiation|open-class repair]]''' initiator (“What”, line 5; see Drew 1997; Kendrick 2015; Schegloff 1997), but post-first insert sequences can be formed via a number of other resources (see '''[[Other-initiated_repair (OIR)|other-initiated repair]]'''). In this sense, post-first insert sequences are “generic” because they are not dependent on the type of preceding sequence (Schegloff 2007: 106); instead they are delineated based on the system of other-initiated repair.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Other-initiated repair]]'''
* '''[[Repair]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

Drew, P. (1997). [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 ‘Open’-class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation]. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''28''(1), 69–101.

Kendrick, K. H. (2015). [https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0009 Other-initiated repair in English]. ''Open Linguistics'', ''1''(1). 164-190.

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). [https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other‐initiated repair]. ''Discourse Processes'', ''23''(3), 499–545.

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.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'post-first insert expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=post-first&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:08:01Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Non-minimal post-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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XK4VD
}}

A '''non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)''' are turns that expand on a prior '''[[second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' and treat the sequence as not-yet complete. It contrast to a '''[[Minimal post-expansion|minimal post-expansion]]''', it is non-minimal because it begins with a '''[[First-pair_part|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|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|epistemic stance]]''' (Heritage 2012a, 2012b), as well as accountability and intersubjectivity (Raymond & Stivers 2016), amongst other functions.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Minimal post-expansion]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Sequence-closing third (SCT)]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''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). [https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 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). [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1 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). [[org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/10096-007|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' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=non-minimal+post-expansion&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)

2026-09-02T08:05:45Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Non-minimal post-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|second-pair part]]''' and treat the sequence as not-yet complete. It contrast to a '''[[Minimal post-expansion|minimal post-expansion]]''', it is non-minimal because it begins with a '''[[First-pair_part|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|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|epistemic stance]]''' (Heritage 2012a, 2012b), as well as accountability and intersubjectivity (Raymond & Stivers 2016), amongst other functions.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Minimal post-expansion]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Sequence-closing third (SCT)]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''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). [https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 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). [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1 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). [[org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/10096-007|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' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=non-minimal+post-expansion&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Minimal post-expansion

2026-09-02T08:04:35Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Minimal post-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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EN824
}}

A '''minimal post-expansion''' is a turn that occurs after a base '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' that expands the sequence and also moves to close (compared to '''[[Non-minimal_post-expansion_(sequence)|non-minimal post-expansion sequences]]'''). A minimal post-expansion can take a variety of forms, such as '''[[Sequence-closing_third_(SCT)|sequence-closing thirds]]''' (more common) or post-completion musings (less common). For instance, this example from Heritage (1984) demonstrates two cases of a minimal post-expansion and a sequence-closing third via the '''[[Change-of-state token|change-of-state token]]''' ''oh''.

(Heritage 1984: 310)

01 N: ''Fb1''-> =.hhh Dz he av iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02 H: ''Sb2''-> [.hhhh] Yea:h=
03 N: ''SCT''-> =Oh:,
04 (1.0)
05 N: ''Fb2''-> How didju git iz number,
06 (.)
07 H: ''Sb2''-> I(h) (.) c(h)alled infermatio’n San Fr’ncissc(h)[uh!
08 N: ''SCT''-> [Oh::::.

In this example, Nancy asks Hyla a question (line 1), to which Hyla responds (line 2). Nancy then registers the receipt of that information with “oh” (line 3). This “oh” comes post the base '''[[First-pair_part|first-]]''' and '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair parts]]''', and it expands the sequence to third position. Similarly, in line 5 Nancy asks Hyla another question, and in line 7 Hyla responds. After this base adjacency pair, Nancy again expands the sequence in third position with “oh” (line 8).

Another kind of minimal post-expansion are post-completion musings or postmortems, though they are much less frequent than sequence closing thirds (Schegloff 2007: 142). Post-completion musings are turns that occur after the base adjacency pair that are related to the prior pair but do not launch a new topic or new business. They are treated as non-consequential by the participants, and are often produced as “out-louds” (Schegloff 1988: 117), or general reflections or assessments on previous talk. Oftentimes they are produced by a bystander or another participants who was not originally part of the base adjacency pair. An example from Schegloff 2007) is presented below.

[Pre-party, 11:23-33] (Schegloff 2007:143)

01 Deb: [I don’t think I ever sent M]arcia
02 ''F''-> a birth- a present for her baby did I?=or did we buy
03 something t’gether.
04 (0.3)
05 Deb: Mo:m,
06 Ann: ''S''-> Yeah I think we di:d.
07 Deb: ''SCT''-> Oh:, good.
08 (1.2)
09 Fre: ''PCM''-> It’s the nicest thing t’remember when yer- (going over
10 a see her)
11 (1.2)
12 Dic: It isn’t raining [very heavily (you know,)

In this example, Deb issues a first-pair part (line 2), and Ann responds (line 6). After Deb’s sequence-closing third (line 7), Fred issues a post-completion musing in lines 9-10. After the base adjacency pair and sequence-closing third, the sequence has moved to close, so Fred’s comment on the prior sequence constitutes a post-completion musing. Furthermore, it does not open any new talk or new first-pair part, as is true for all minimal post-expansion sequences. If a minimal post-expansion does not close the sequence, then the sequence is open to a non-minimal post expansion (Schegloff 2007: 148).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Sequence-closing third (SCT)]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

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.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), ''Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order'' (pp. 89-135). Polity Press.

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

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'minimal post-expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=minimal+post-expansion&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Minimal post-expansion

2026-09-02T08:01:58Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Minimal post-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 '''minimal post-expansion''' is a turn that occurs after a base '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' that expands the sequence and also moves to close (compared to '''[[Non-minimal_post-expansion_(sequence)|non-minimal post-expansion sequences]]'''). A minimal post-expansion can take a variety of forms, such as '''[[Sequence-closing_third_(SCT)|sequence-closing thirds]]''' (more common) or post-completion musings (less common). For instance, this example from Heritage (1984) demonstrates two cases of a minimal post-expansion and a sequence-closing third via the '''[[Change-of-state token|change-of-state token]]''' ''oh''.

(Heritage 1984: 310)

01 N: ''Fb1''-> =.hhh Dz he av iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02 H: ''Sb2''-> [.hhhh] Yea:h=
03 N: ''SCT''-> =Oh:,
04 (1.0)
05 N: ''Fb2''-> How didju git iz number,
06 (.)
07 H: ''Sb2''-> I(h) (.) c(h)alled infermatio’n San Fr’ncissc(h)[uh!
08 N: ''SCT''-> [Oh::::.

In this example, Nancy asks Hyla a question (line 1), to which Hyla responds (line 2). Nancy then registers the receipt of that information with “oh” (line 3). This “oh” comes post the base '''[[First-pair_part|first-]]''' and '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair parts]]''', and it expands the sequence to third position. Similarly, in line 5 Nancy asks Hyla another question, and in line 7 Hyla responds. After this base adjacency pair, Nancy again expands the sequence in third position with “oh” (line 8).

Another kind of minimal post-expansion are post-completion musings or postmortems, though they are much less frequent than sequence closing thirds (Schegloff 2007: 142). Post-completion musings are turns that occur after the base adjacency pair that are related to the prior pair but do not launch a new topic or new business. They are treated as non-consequential by the participants, and are often produced as “out-louds” (Schegloff 1988: 117), or general reflections or assessments on previous talk. Oftentimes they are produced by a bystander or another participants who was not originally part of the base adjacency pair. An example from Schegloff 2007) is presented below.

[Pre-party, 11:23-33] (Schegloff 2007:143)

01 Deb: [I don’t think I ever sent M]arcia
02 ''F''-> a birth- a present for her baby did I?=or did we buy
03 something t’gether.
04 (0.3)
05 Deb: Mo:m,
06 Ann: ''S''-> Yeah I think we di:d.
07 Deb: ''SCT''-> Oh:, good.
08 (1.2)
09 Fre: ''PCM''-> It’s the nicest thing t’remember when yer- (going over
10 a see her)
11 (1.2)
12 Dic: It isn’t raining [very heavily (you know,)

In this example, Deb issues a first-pair part (line 2), and Ann responds (line 6). After Deb’s sequence-closing third (line 7), Fred issues a post-completion musing in lines 9-10. After the base adjacency pair and sequence-closing third, the sequence has moved to close, so Fred’s comment on the prior sequence constitutes a post-completion musing. Furthermore, it does not open any new talk or new first-pair part, as is true for all minimal post-expansion sequences. If a minimal post-expansion does not close the sequence, then the sequence is open to a non-minimal post expansion (Schegloff 2007: 148).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Sequence-closing third (SCT)]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

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.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), ''Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order'' (pp. 89-135). Polity Press.

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

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'minimal post-expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=minimal+post-expansion&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Sequence-closing third (SCT)

2026-09-02T08:00:39Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Sequence-closing third (SCT). 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/M7HFB
}}

A '''sequence-closing third (SCT)''' is a '''[[Minimal post-expansion|minimal post-expansion]]''' that adds an additional turn after a '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''', and is commonly used to register information (e.g., ''oh''), accept action (e.g., ''okay'', Mondada & Sorjonen 2021; see also Beach 1993), or offer an '''[[Assessment|assessment]]''' (Schegloff 2007: 221), on the preceding sequential progression. A sequence-closing third is ‘minimal’ in the sense that it does not invite further expansion of that sequence and moves to close (Schegloff 2007: 118). For instance, in this example, from Heritage (1984), Nancy produces “oh” in third position two times, at line 3 and line 9, both of which register the information and close each sequence.

(Heritage 1984: 310)

01 N: ''Fb1''-> =.hhh Dz he av iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02 H: ''Sb2''-> [.hhhh] Yea:h=
03 N: ''SCT''-> =Oh:,
04 (1.0)
05 N: ''Fb2''-> How didju git iz number,
06 (.)
07 H: ''Sb2''-> I(h) (.) c(h)alled infermatio’n San Fr’ncissc(h)[uh!
08 N: ''SCT''-> [Oh::::.
09 (.)
10 N: ''SCT''-> Very cleve:r, hh=

It is important to keep in mind that the use of sequence-closing thirds varies by interactional context; Heritage (1985) shows that in news interviews, ''oh'' in third position rarely occurs, because the question and answer sequence is designed for an overhearing audience.

Compared to ''oh'', which is used used to register information in third position, ''okay'', or a variation of ''alright'' is often used to “mark or claim acceptance of a second-pair part,” as well as any related stances (Schegloff 2007: 120). ''Okay'' can be used as a sequence-closing third whether or not the second-pair part was preferred or dispreferred, for example, in the following case an offer (line 1) is rejected (line 3).

(Davidson 1984: 127; Schegloff 2007: 121)

01 Ali: ''F''-> You wan’ me bring you anything?
02 (0.4)
03 Bet: ''S''-> No: no: nothing.
04 Ali: ''SCT''-> AW:kay.

In this example, the sequence-closing third “okay” in line 4 accepts the rejection and moves to close the sequence. Composites of sequence-closing thirds (e.g., ''oh+okay''; Couper-Kuhlen 2021) are also possible.

Finally, assessments can also function as sequence-closing thirds, and they articulate a stance vis-à-vis the previous second-pair part. For example, in the first example presented here, Nancy adds “very clever” in line 10 after her initial sequence-closing third “oh” (line 8). Another example of an assessment as a sequence-closing third, from Schegloff (2007), is part of a “personal state inquiry” (Sacks 1975), shown below:

[TG, 1:26-37] (Schegloff 2007: 124)

01 Ava: ''F''-> [.hh ] How’v you bee:n.
02 Bee: ''S''-> .hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh[h!
03 Ava: ''SCT''-> [That’s good,=
04 ''F''-> =how’s (Bob),
05 Bee: ''S''-> He’s fine,
06 Ava: ''SCT''-> Tha::t’s goo:d,

In this case, Ava asks the first question “how have you been,” (line 1), and Bee responds (line 2), to which Ava adds “that’s good” (line 3). We see the same pattern repeated, where Ava now asks how Bob has been (line 4), Bee responds, and Ava again adds “that’s good” (line 6). Although ''good/that’s good'' are common examples of assessments as sequence-closing thirds, they are by no means the exclusive options (see Schegloff 2007: 125-126).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Minimal post-expansion]]'''
* '''[[Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021). OH+ OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. ''Open Linguistics'', ''7''(1), 816-836.

Heritage, J. (1984). A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.), ''Handbook of Discourse Analysis'' (pp. 95-119). Academic Press.

Mondada, L, & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2021). OKAY in closings and transitions. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to its Use in Talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 94–127). John Benjamins.

Sacks, H. (1975). Everybody Has to Lie. In M. Sanches & B. G. Blount (Eds.), ''Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use'' (pp. 57-80). Academic Press.

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

'''Additional References:'''

Beach, W. A. (1993). [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 Transitional Regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages]. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 19''(4), 325–352.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'sequence-closing third' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=sequence-closing+third&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Sequence-closing third (SCT)

2026-09-02T07:58:04Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Sequence-closing third (SCT). 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 '''sequence-closing third (SCT)''' is a '''[[Minimal post-expansion|minimal post-expansion]]''' that adds an additional turn after a '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''', and is commonly used to register information (e.g., ''oh''), accept action (e.g., ''okay'', Mondada & Sorjonen 2021; see also Beach 1993), or offer an '''[[Assessment|assessment]]''' (Schegloff 2007: 221), on the preceding sequential progression. A sequence-closing third is ‘minimal’ in the sense that it does not invite further expansion of that sequence and moves to close (Schegloff 2007: 118). For instance, in this example, from Heritage (1984), Nancy produces “oh” in third position two times, at line 3 and line 9, both of which register the information and close each sequence.

(Heritage 1984: 310)

01 N: ''Fb1''-> =.hhh Dz he av iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02 H: ''Sb2''-> [.hhhh] Yea:h=
03 N: ''SCT''-> =Oh:,
04 (1.0)
05 N: ''Fb2''-> How didju git iz number,
06 (.)
07 H: ''Sb2''-> I(h) (.) c(h)alled infermatio’n San Fr’ncissc(h)[uh!
08 N: ''SCT''-> [Oh::::.
09 (.)
10 N: ''SCT''-> Very cleve:r, hh=

It is important to keep in mind that the use of sequence-closing thirds varies by interactional context; Heritage (1985) shows that in news interviews, ''oh'' in third position rarely occurs, because the question and answer sequence is designed for an overhearing audience.

Compared to ''oh'', which is used used to register information in third position, ''okay'', or a variation of ''alright'' is often used to “mark or claim acceptance of a second-pair part,” as well as any related stances (Schegloff 2007: 120). ''Okay'' can be used as a sequence-closing third whether or not the second-pair part was preferred or dispreferred, for example, in the following case an offer (line 1) is rejected (line 3).

(Davidson 1984: 127; Schegloff 2007: 121)

01 Ali: ''F''-> You wan’ me bring you anything?
02 (0.4)
03 Bet: ''S''-> No: no: nothing.
04 Ali: ''SCT''-> AW:kay.

In this example, the sequence-closing third “okay” in line 4 accepts the rejection and moves to close the sequence. Composites of sequence-closing thirds (e.g., ''oh+okay''; Couper-Kuhlen 2021) are also possible.

Finally, assessments can also function as sequence-closing thirds, and they articulate a stance vis-à-vis the previous second-pair part. For example, in the first example presented here, Nancy adds “very clever” in line 10 after her initial sequence-closing third “oh” (line 8). Another example of an assessment as a sequence-closing third, from Schegloff (2007), is part of a “personal state inquiry” (Sacks 1975), shown below:

[TG, 1:26-37] (Schegloff 2007: 124)

01 Ava: ''F''-> [.hh ] How’v you bee:n.
02 Bee: ''S''-> .hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh[h!
03 Ava: ''SCT''-> [That’s good,=
04 ''F''-> =how’s (Bob),
05 Bee: ''S''-> He’s fine,
06 Ava: ''SCT''-> Tha::t’s goo:d,

In this case, Ava asks the first question “how have you been,” (line 1), and Bee responds (line 2), to which Ava adds “that’s good” (line 3). We see the same pattern repeated, where Ava now asks how Bob has been (line 4), Bee responds, and Ava again adds “that’s good” (line 6). Although ''good/that’s good'' are common examples of assessments as sequence-closing thirds, they are by no means the exclusive options (see Schegloff 2007: 125-126).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Minimal post-expansion]]'''
* '''[[Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021). OH+ OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. ''Open Linguistics'', ''7''(1), 816-836.

Heritage, J. (1984). A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.), ''Handbook of Discourse Analysis'' (pp. 95-119). Academic Press.

Mondada, L, & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2021). OKAY in closings and transitions. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to its Use in Talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 94–127). John Benjamins.

Sacks, H. (1975). Everybody Has to Lie. In M. Sanches & B. G. Blount (Eds.), ''Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use'' (pp. 57-80). Academic Press.

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

'''Additional References:'''

Beach, W. A. (1993). [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 Transitional Regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages]. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 19''(4), 325–352.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'sequence-closing third' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=sequence-closing+third&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Minimal post-expansion

2026-09-02T07:55:11Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
| To cite = Marrese, Olivia H. (2023). Minimal post-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 '''minimal post-expansion''' is a turn that occurs after a base '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' that expands the sequence and also moves to close (compared to '''[[Non-minimal_post-expansion_(sequence)|non-minimal post-expansion sequences]]'''). A minimal post-expansion can take a variety of forms, such as '''[[Sequence-closing_third_(SCT)|sequence-closing thirds]]''' (more common) or post-completion musings (less common). For instance, this example from Heritage (1984) demonstrates two cases of a minimal post-expansion and a sequence-closing third via the '''[[Change-of-state token|change-of-state token]]''' ''oh''.

(Heritage 1984: 310)

01 N: ''Fb1''-> =.hhh Dz he av iz own apa:rt[mint?]
02 H: ''Sb2''-> [.hhhh] Yea:h=
03 N: ''SCT''-> =Oh:,
04 (1.0)
05 N: ''Fb2''-> How didju git iz number,
06 (.)
07 H: ''Sb2''-> I(h) (.) c(h)alled infermatio’n San Fr’ncissc(h)[uh!
08 N: ''SCT''-> [Oh::::.

In this example, Nancy asks Hyla a question (line 1), to which Hyla responds (line 2). Nancy then registers the receipt of that information with “oh” (line 3). This “oh” comes post the base '''[[First-pair_part|first-]]''' and '''[[Second-pair_part|second-pair parts]]''', and it expands the sequence to third position. Similarly, in line 5 Nancy asks Hyla another question, and in line 7 Hyla responds. After this base adjacency pair, Nancy again expands the sequence in third position with “oh” (line 8).

Another kind of minimal post-expansion are post-completion musings or postmortems, though they are much less frequent than sequence closing thirds (Schegloff 2007: 142). Post-completion musings are turns that occur after the base adjacency pair that are related to the prior pair but do not launch a new topic or new business. They are treated as non-consequential by the participants, and are often produced as “out-louds” (Schegloff 1988: 117), or general reflections or assessments on previous talk. Oftentimes they are produced by a bystander or another participants who was not originally part of the base adjacency pair. An example from Schegloff 2007) is presented below.

[Pre-party, 11:23-33] (Schegloff 2007:143)

01 Deb: [I don’t think I ever sent M]arcia
02 ''F''-> a birth- a present for her baby did I?=or did we buy
03 something t’gether.
04 (0.3)
05 Deb: Mo:m,
06 Ann: ''S''-> Yeah I think we di:d.
07 Deb: ''SCT''-> Oh:, good.
08 (1.2)
09 Fre: ''PCM''-> It’s the nicest thing t’remember when yer- (going over
10 a see her)
11 (1.2)
12 Dic: It isn’t raining [very heavily (you know,)

In this example, Deb issues a first-pair part (line 2), and Ann responds (line 6). After Deb’s sequence-closing third (line 7), Fred issues a post-completion musing in lines 9-10. After the base adjacency pair and sequence-closing third, the sequence has moved to close, so Fred’s comment on the prior sequence constitutes a post-completion musing. Furthermore, it does not open any new talk or new first-pair part, as is true for all minimal post-expansion sequences. If a minimal post-expansion does not close the sequence, then the sequence is open to a non-minimal post expansion (Schegloff 2007: 148).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Adjacency pair]]'''
* '''[[Change-of-state token]]'''
* '''[[Insert expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)]]'''
* '''[[First-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second-pair part]]'''
* '''[[Sequence-closing third (SCT)]]'''
* '''[[Sequence]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

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.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), ''Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order'' (pp. 89-135). Polity Press.

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

'''Additional References:'''

*

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'minimal post-expansion' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=minimal+post-expansion&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Try-marking

2026-09-02T07:49:41Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Try-marking. 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/9N57B
}}

'''Try-marking''' is the practice of producing a referent (often a name/proper noun) “as a ‘try’” (Schegloff 2007: 238) to achieve recognition (Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 2007, but see other uses below). In terms of form, the term refers to the production of this action with rising intonation, often followed by a short pause.

Try-marking is said to be deployed when a speaker “figures” (Schegloff 2007: 278) that an upcoming referent may be familiar to the recipient but may not be certain of this. Try-marking then initiates a “recognition search sequence” (Sacks & Schegloff 1979: 20) which makes relevant from the recipient some mark of validated recognition (verbal or non-verbal, elaborated or minimal). If unsuccessful, a first minimal try-marked referent may be followed by subsequent, more elaborate “tries” (e.g., Heritage 2007). Often the response to ratification results in a resumption of the base sequence and incorporates the use of a pronoun co-indexical with the try-marked noun-phrase (see Pekarek Dohler 2011, for this phenomenon in French).

Later work uses the term “try-marked” more widely to refer to “upward intoned” prosody (e.g., Clift 2016: 109) beyond recognitional practices, including for example, appendor questions (Sacks 1992) and other kinds of candidate understandings by the recipient (see, e.g., Brouwer 2003; Enfield & Sidnell 2017).

Two examples of try-marking from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) appear below, both produced with rising intonation. The first one conforms to the original description by Schegloff & Sacks (1979), with a speaker’s production of a recognitional reference (line 8) that makes the marking of recognition relevant. Line 9 shows a candidate understanding of the referent in the prior turn, also try-marked. Acoustic visualisations of both try-marked contributions are provided below.

[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4984.cha CallFriend_4984_l788_796]]

01 RO: where are you ↑li:ving no:w.
02 LI: (0.3)∙hhh I:::'m on_
03 RO: ((baby cooing))
04 LI: pro:bably the [same- ]
05 RO: [((baby cooing))]
06 LI: (0.5) pla:ce when_ (.)
07 since I la:st >talked to you.< =
08 -> =I'm on Avenue Bee:, = and Fou:rth Stree:t?
09 RO: -> (0.6) that's like- where Bru:ce li:ves?
10 ºor [something?º]
11 LI: [↑ye::ah. ] = with Bru:ce.

[[File:Cantarutti try-marking-fig1.png|600px|[CallFriend_4984_l788_796]]]

'''Figure 1: Acoustic visualization of "I'm on Avenue Bee:, = and Fou:rth Stree:t?"

[[File:Cantarutti try-marking-fig2.png|600px|[CallFriend_4984_l788_796]]]

'''Figure 2: Acoustic visualization of "that's like- where Bru:ce li:ves?"

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Period intonation]]'''
* '''[[Candidate understanding]]'''
* '''[[Question intonation]]'''
* '''[[Intonation contour]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? ''Modern Language Journal'', 87(4), 534–545.

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. ''Linguistic Data Consortium'', Philadelphia, 10(1).

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

Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. ''Discourse Studies'', 19(5), 515–535.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), ''Constructions: Emergent and Emerging'' (pp. 45–87). De Gruyter.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation (Vols. 1-2)''. Blackwell

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 15–21). Irvington.

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

'''Additional References:'''

Auer, P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 8(5), 627–648.

Moerman, M. (1988). ''Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis''. University of Pennsylvania.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'try-mark' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=try-mark&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Try-marking

2026-09-02T07:47:37Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Try-marking. 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: []
}}

'''Try-marking''' is the practice of producing a referent (often a name/proper noun) “as a ‘try’” (Schegloff 2007: 238) to achieve recognition (Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 2007, but see other uses below). In terms of form, the term refers to the production of this action with rising intonation, often followed by a short pause.

Try-marking is said to be deployed when a speaker “figures” (Schegloff 2007: 278) that an upcoming referent may be familiar to the recipient but may not be certain of this. Try-marking then initiates a “recognition search sequence” (Sacks & Schegloff 1979: 20) which makes relevant from the recipient some mark of validated recognition (verbal or non-verbal, elaborated or minimal). If unsuccessful, a first minimal try-marked referent may be followed by subsequent, more elaborate “tries” (e.g., Heritage 2007). Often the response to ratification results in a resumption of the base sequence and incorporates the use of a pronoun co-indexical with the try-marked noun-phrase (see Pekarek Dohler 2011, for this phenomenon in French).

Later work uses the term “try-marked” more widely to refer to “upward intoned” prosody (e.g., Clift 2016: 109) beyond recognitional practices, including for example, appendor questions (Sacks 1992) and other kinds of candidate understandings by the recipient (see, e.g., Brouwer 2003; Enfield & Sidnell 2017).

Two examples of try-marking from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) appear below, both produced with rising intonation. The first one conforms to the original description by Schegloff & Sacks (1979), with a speaker’s production of a recognitional reference (line 8) that makes the marking of recognition relevant. Line 9 shows a candidate understanding of the referent in the prior turn, also try-marked. Acoustic visualisations of both try-marked contributions are provided below.

[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4984.cha CallFriend_4984_l788_796]]

01 RO: where are you ↑li:ving no:w.
02 LI: (0.3)∙hhh I:::'m on_
03 RO: ((baby cooing))
04 LI: pro:bably the [same- ]
05 RO: [((baby cooing))]
06 LI: (0.5) pla:ce when_ (.)
07 since I la:st >talked to you.< =
08 -> =I'm on Avenue Bee:, = and Fou:rth Stree:t?
09 RO: -> (0.6) that's like- where Bru:ce li:ves?
10 ºor [something?º]
11 LI: [↑ye::ah. ] = with Bru:ce.

[[File:Cantarutti try-marking-fig1.png|600px|[CallFriend_4984_l788_796]]]

'''Figure 1: Acoustic visualization of "I'm on Avenue Bee:, = and Fou:rth Stree:t?"

[[File:Cantarutti try-marking-fig2.png|600px|[CallFriend_4984_l788_796]]]

'''Figure 2: Acoustic visualization of "that's like- where Bru:ce li:ves?"

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Period intonation]]'''
* '''[[Candidate understanding]]'''
* '''[[Question intonation]]'''
* '''[[Intonation contour]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? ''Modern Language Journal'', 87(4), 534–545.

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. ''Linguistic Data Consortium'', Philadelphia, 10(1).

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

Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. ''Discourse Studies'', 19(5), 515–535.

Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives'' (pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), ''Constructions: Emergent and Emerging'' (pp. 45–87). De Gruyter.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation (Vols. 1-2)''. Blackwell

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology'' (pp. 15–21). Irvington.

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

'''Additional References:'''

Auer, P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 8(5), 627–648.

Moerman, M. (1988). ''Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis''. University of Pennsylvania.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'try-mark' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=try-mark&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Question intonation

2026-09-02T07:46:32Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Question intonation. 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/9ZCQW
}}

'''Question intonation''' has been used to refer to a speaker’s production of rising intonation that hearably reaches a high point in their vocal range, and which may, in some cases, be associated to the action of eliciting (see discussion below). This label conflates two different aspects: that of representation (the “question mark” symbol in Jeffersonian and GAT-2 conventions), and the actual phonological phenomenon represented, which is normally taken to be a rise-to-high pitch movement towards the end of the unit (also known as a “high rise”).

The following example from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) illustrates what “question intonation” as generally defined in the CA/IL literature sounds like, accompanied with a visualization of acoustic information (waveform, spectrogram, and fundamental frequency, or f0, trace). A Jeffersonian and a GAT-2 version of the transcription are offered for comparison.

''Jeffersonian''

oh re:ally?

''GAT-2 Fine''

oh ´REALLy?

[[File:Cantarutti Question FIGURE.png|600px|[CallFriend_4708_l59]]]

'''Figure 1: Waveform, spectrogram, and f0 trace of [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4708.cha CallFriend_4708_l59]]'''

The f0 trace shows that a high point at the speaker’s range as well as the highest point in the unit is reached from a previous lower position gliding up from it. The question mark represents this final high pitch level reached, but the rising movement starts at the final accented syllable. These are two related aspects of the realization of the contour in the unit (its direction and initiation, and the final pitch level reached), which are represented independently.

Early CA work (Jefferson 1972) makes reference to “question intonation” without necessarily making a specification as to its form, but the independence between the symbol and an interrogative format has been explicitly stated in CA/IL work. Schegloff (n.d.) explains that the question mark “indicates rising intonation, not necessarily a question”. Hepburn and Bolden (2012) clarify that the mark indexes “strongly rising intonation, but not necessarily an interrogative” (pg. 62). Notwithstanding this, in some work a rise-to-high contour is often associated with an interrogative grammatical format or to the action of questioning, equating the term “question intonation” with “the intonation of questions”.

Walker (2014) warns of the problems of conflating form and function in the understanding of pitch contours, such as when equating a high-rising tone with the action of questioning. In this sense, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) acknowledge that a question “may be constructed with ‘comma’ or ‘period’ intonation, and ‘question’ intonation may occur in association with non-questions” (pg. 732), also discussed in Sacks (1992: vol. 1: 277). Stivers (2010) found also for American English a tendency for yes/no questions to be produced with rising intonation of the “question” or “comma” kind, as well as with falling tones. Couper-Kuhlen (2012) points out there are different contours associated with question formats (which in themselves can take many forms and fulfil different actions) and proves this in a study of different question types in American English (e.g., topic proffers, next-turn repair initiators, etc.) where the final intonation found can be related to syntactic, sequential, action, and stance matters.

Even the generally-assumed relation of the disambiguating power of rising intonation in declarative-formatted actions that do elicitations and requests (e.g., Quirk, et al. 1985, for English) has been challenged. Stivers (2010) found a large number of declarative questions produced with falling tones, but highlights the fact that these were all '''[[B-event statement|B-events]]'''. Heritage (2012) shows how final-rising declaratives may be understood as informings, and thus, the rising intonation may be understood as “continuing” rather than “questioning”, arguing that it is the relative epistemic status of participants that contributes to action ascription in these cases and not prosody or even syntax. Seuren & Huiskes (2017) analysed yes/no declarative requests in Dutch and found different final intonation patterns. Prior (non-)interactional work has already addressed the one-to-one mapping of rising intonation and questions as “myths” (e.g. Fries 1964; Geluykens 1988; Selting 1992; Walker 2004)

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Comma intonation]]'''
* '''[[Period intonation]]'''
* '''[[Try-marking]]'''
* '''[[Intonation contour]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. ''Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia'', ''10''(1).

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse. ''Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)'', ''6''(3), 389–426.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2010). [https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.3.02cou “Incrementing” in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese]. ''Pragmatics, 17''(4).

Fries, C. C. (1964). On the intonation of 'Yes-No' questions in English. In D. Abercrombie, D. B. Fry, P. A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott, J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), ''In Honour of Daniel Jones''. Longman.

Geluykens, R. (1988). On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''12''(4), 467–485.

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

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 294–338). Free Press.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.

Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). ''Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation''. Academic Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). ''A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language''. Longman.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation (vols. 1-2).'' Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. ''Language'', ''50''(4), 696–735.

Schegloff, E. (n.d.). ''[https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/index.html Transcription Module]'' Retrieved July 19, 2021.

Selting, M. (1992). Prosody in conversational questions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''17''(4), 315–345.

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., Stukenbrock, A., Uhmann, S. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. ''Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion,'' 12, 1–51

Seuren, L. M., & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', ''50''(2), 188–205.

Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''42''(10), 2772–2781.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation''. John Benjamins.

ten Have, P. (2007). ''Doing Conversation Analysis''. Sage.

Walker, D. G. (2004). [http://gareth-walker.staff.shef.ac.uk/pubs/2004-Walker-phd.pdf The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings and continuations in conversation] [University of York, UK].

Walker, T. (2014). Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''47''(1), 1–16.

'''Additional References:'''

Cantarutti, M (2017). Questioning the teaching of ‘question intonation’: the case of classroom elicitations. ''Proceedings of the Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference'' – PTLC 2017 – University College London.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

de Ruiter, J. P. (2012). ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives''. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 28–52). Cambridge University Press

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'question intonation' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=question+intonation&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Question intonation

2026-09-02T07:45:07Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Question intonation. 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: []
}}

'''Question intonation''' has been used to refer to a speaker’s production of rising intonation that hearably reaches a high point in their vocal range, and which may, in some cases, be associated to the action of eliciting (see discussion below). This label conflates two different aspects: that of representation (the “question mark” symbol in Jeffersonian and GAT-2 conventions), and the actual phonological phenomenon represented, which is normally taken to be a rise-to-high pitch movement towards the end of the unit (also known as a “high rise”).

The following example from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) illustrates what “question intonation” as generally defined in the CA/IL literature sounds like, accompanied with a visualization of acoustic information (waveform, spectrogram, and fundamental frequency, or f0, trace). A Jeffersonian and a GAT-2 version of the transcription are offered for comparison.

''Jeffersonian''

oh re:ally?

''GAT-2 Fine''

oh ´REALLy?

[[File:Cantarutti Question FIGURE.png|600px|[CallFriend_4708_l59]]]

'''Figure 1: Waveform, spectrogram, and f0 trace of [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4708.cha CallFriend_4708_l59]]'''

The f0 trace shows that a high point at the speaker’s range as well as the highest point in the unit is reached from a previous lower position gliding up from it. The question mark represents this final high pitch level reached, but the rising movement starts at the final accented syllable. These are two related aspects of the realization of the contour in the unit (its direction and initiation, and the final pitch level reached), which are represented independently.

Early CA work (Jefferson 1972) makes reference to “question intonation” without necessarily making a specification as to its form, but the independence between the symbol and an interrogative format has been explicitly stated in CA/IL work. Schegloff (n.d.) explains that the question mark “indicates rising intonation, not necessarily a question”. Hepburn and Bolden (2012) clarify that the mark indexes “strongly rising intonation, but not necessarily an interrogative” (pg. 62). Notwithstanding this, in some work a rise-to-high contour is often associated with an interrogative grammatical format or to the action of questioning, equating the term “question intonation” with “the intonation of questions”.

Walker (2014) warns of the problems of conflating form and function in the understanding of pitch contours, such as when equating a high-rising tone with the action of questioning. In this sense, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) acknowledge that a question “may be constructed with ‘comma’ or ‘period’ intonation, and ‘question’ intonation may occur in association with non-questions” (pg. 732), also discussed in Sacks (1992: vol. 1: 277). Stivers (2010) found also for American English a tendency for yes/no questions to be produced with rising intonation of the “question” or “comma” kind, as well as with falling tones. Couper-Kuhlen (2012) points out there are different contours associated with question formats (which in themselves can take many forms and fulfil different actions) and proves this in a study of different question types in American English (e.g., topic proffers, next-turn repair initiators, etc.) where the final intonation found can be related to syntactic, sequential, action, and stance matters.

Even the generally-assumed relation of the disambiguating power of rising intonation in declarative-formatted actions that do elicitations and requests (e.g., Quirk, et al. 1985, for English) has been challenged. Stivers (2010) found a large number of declarative questions produced with falling tones, but highlights the fact that these were all '''[[B-event statement|B-events]]'''. Heritage (2012) shows how final-rising declaratives may be understood as informings, and thus, the rising intonation may be understood as “continuing” rather than “questioning”, arguing that it is the relative epistemic status of participants that contributes to action ascription in these cases and not prosody or even syntax. Seuren & Huiskes (2017) analysed yes/no declarative requests in Dutch and found different final intonation patterns. Prior (non-)interactional work has already addressed the one-to-one mapping of rising intonation and questions as “myths” (e.g. Fries 1964; Geluykens 1988; Selting 1992; Walker 2004)

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Comma intonation]]'''
* '''[[Period intonation]]'''
* '''[[Try-marking]]'''
* '''[[Intonation contour]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. ''Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia'', ''10''(1).

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse. ''Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)'', ''6''(3), 389–426.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2010). [https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.3.02cou “Incrementing” in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese]. ''Pragmatics, 17''(4).

Fries, C. C. (1964). On the intonation of 'Yes-No' questions in English. In D. Abercrombie, D. B. Fry, P. A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott, J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), ''In Honour of Daniel Jones''. Longman.

Geluykens, R. (1988). On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''12''(4), 467–485.

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

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 294–338). Free Press.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation'' (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.

Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). ''Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation''. Academic Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). ''A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language''. Longman.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation (vols. 1-2).'' Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. ''Language'', ''50''(4), 696–735.

Schegloff, E. (n.d.). ''[https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/index.html Transcription Module]'' Retrieved July 19, 2021.

Selting, M. (1992). Prosody in conversational questions. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''17''(4), 315–345.

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., Stukenbrock, A., Uhmann, S. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. ''Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion,'' 12, 1–51

Seuren, L. M., & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', ''50''(2), 188–205.

Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', ''42''(10), 2772–2781.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation''. John Benjamins.

ten Have, P. (2007). ''Doing Conversation Analysis''. Sage.

Walker, D. G. (2004). [http://gareth-walker.staff.shef.ac.uk/pubs/2004-Walker-phd.pdf The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings and continuations in conversation] [University of York, UK].

Walker, T. (2014). Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''47''(1), 1–16.

'''Additional References:'''

Cantarutti, M (2017). Questioning the teaching of ‘question intonation’: the case of classroom elicitations. ''Proceedings of the Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference'' – PTLC 2017 – University College London.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

de Ruiter, J. P. (2012). ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives''. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 28–52). Cambridge University Press

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'question intonation' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=question+intonation&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Period intonation

2026-09-02T07:44:05Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Period intonation. 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/5KTP6
}}

'''Period intonation''' has been used to refer to a speaker’s production of falling intonation that hearably reaches a low point in their vocal range, and which may in some cases be associated to indexing unit completion (but see below). The label conflates two different aspects: that of representation in transcription (the “period”, in '''Jeffersonian''' and '''GAT-2''' conventions), and the actual phonological phenomena represented, normally for English a final falling-to-low intonational movement, or low pitch at the end of a unit. The terms “period intonation” and “falling intonation” have been used interchangeably in the literature (Hepburn & Bolden 2012: 62; but see below).

Therefore, the period represents the low pitch point at the end of the unit, which is determined as “low” either in comparison to the surrounding context, or relative to the speaker’s own pitch range. This is captured in some of the definitions in the literature: Szczepek-Reed (2004) defines this fall-to-low as “a pitch movement which falls to a pitch which is clearly lower than any preceding Hz values within the immediately previous phonetic context” (pg. 101). Couper-Kuhlen (1996) considers that period intonation applies when “the voice drops to a low point in the speaker’s voice range at the end of a contour” (pg. 390). In his report on fall-to-low pitch movement and turn-completion, Walker (2017) operationalizes fall-to-low as bearing two conditions: “a) there must be a fall in pitch from the maximum pitch of the last accented syllable before the point of possible turn-completion, and b) the fall must end within the bottom 10% of the speaker’s normal speaking range” (pg. 7).

The following example from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) illustrates what “period intonation” as generally defined in the CA/IL literature sounds like, accompanied with a visualization of acoustic information (waveform, spectrogram, and fundamental frequency, or f0, trace). Two versions of CA/IL transcription are offered for comparison: Jeffersonian (Jefferson 2004) and GAT-2 (Selting, et al. 2011).

''Jeffersonian''

So: that’s the thi:ng.

''GAT-2 Fine''

so: thAts the `THING.

[[File:Cantarutti period-FIGURE.png|600px|[CallFriend_4708_l7]]]

'''Figure 1: Waveform, spectrogram, and f0 trace of [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4708.cha CallFriend_4708_l59]]'''

The f0 trace above shows a falling contour initiated in “thing” that reaches a low pitch height at the end of the unit. The direction of the contour on the one hand (“falling”), and its final pitch height reached (“low”) on the other, are two related aspects of the realization of the contour which are represented independently. While not all falling movements may reach a low point, as in fall-to-mid contours (which GAT-2 represents with a semi-colon instead), not all falling movements may bear simple falling trajectories, and thus the period may also indicate the final pitch level reached when the main '''[[Intonation_contour|intonation contour]]''' is a rise-fall tone (Selting, et al. 2011).

Even though CA/IL work generally states that punctuation marks “indicate intonation, not grammatical function” (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2017: 607), and thus period intonation does not necessarily index an action as an assertion (Hepburn & Bolden 2012; Schegloff n.d.) there are still a number of conflicting considerations around what is known as “period intonation” that have been addressed in the literature.

Firstly, some studies have equated “period intonation” as fall-to-low pitch movement with “finality” or “completion”. Hepburn & Bolden (2017: 41) explain that the falling intonation contour that the period or full stop indicates “comes at the end of a turn constructional unit and marking its possible completion”, and likewise, Chevalier and Clift (2008: 1248) in their appendix specify that the “full stop indicates terminal intonation”. However, it has been found that fall-to-low contours are not the only option at the end of turns, nor do they necessarily should mark finality. Work by Szczepek-Reed (2004) has examined turns oriented to as complete by co-participants and found in them a range of turn-final pitch movements, including fall-to-low, rise-to-high, but also level intonation, stylized intonation (“musical intervals”) and rise-to-mid contours as well as pitch step-ups. Walker (2017) argues that there is more to the prosodic design of turn-projection than pitch in the indexing of turn-finality, and that this not restricted to fall-to-low pitch, which he has found also frequently followed by same-speaker turn continuation. Other studies have likewise not found a simple relationship between this final fall-to-low pitch movement and possible turn-completion (Local & Kelly 1986; Local & Walker 2005, among others). In a similar vein, Walker (2014a) warns of the problems of conflating form and function and suggests that the form “fall-to-low pitch movement” is one of several possible markers of turn-finality, and one which can also contribute to other actions in interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Comma intonation]]'''
* '''[[Question intonation]]'''
* '''[[Try-marking]]'''
* '''[[Intonation contour]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. ''Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia'', ''10''(1).

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse. ''Pragmatics'', ''6''(3), 389–426.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation'' (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Local, J., & Walker, G. (2005). Mind the gap: further resources in the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. ''York Papers in Linguistics'', ''3'', 133–143.

Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and “silences”: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. ''Human Studies'', ''9''(2-3), 185–204.

Schegloff, E. (n.d.). ''[https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/index.html Transcription Module]'' Retrieved July 19, 2021.

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., Stukenbrock, A., Uhmann, S. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. ''Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion,'' 12, 1–51

Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation''. John Benjamins.

Walker, G. (2017). Pitch and the Projection of More Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''50''(2), 206–225.

Walker, T. (2014a). Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''47''(1), 1–16.

'''Additional References:'''

Barth-Weingarten, D. (2016). ''Intonation Units Revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction''. John Benjamins.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. ''Pragmatics'', ''6''(3), 427–454.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). ''The Language of Turn and Sequence''. Oxford University Press.

Selting, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. ''Pragmatics'', ''6'', 371–388.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2010). Units of interaction: “Intonation phrases” or “turn constructional phrases”? In: Delais-Roussarie (Ed.), ''Conference Proceedings: Interface Discourse and Prosody.'' (pp. 351–363). University of Chicago.

Walker, G. (2018). Close proximity of turn-continuation to possible turn-completion in conversation. ''Speech Communication'', ''99'', 231–241.

Walker, T. (2014b). The Independence of Phonetic Form and Interactional Accomplishments. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''47''(1), 23–27.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'period intonation' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=period+intonation&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Period intonation

2026-09-02T07:41:38Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2023). Period intonation. 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/5KTP6
}}

'''Period intonation''' has been used to refer to a speaker’s production of falling intonation that hearably reaches a low point in their vocal range, and which may in some cases be associated to indexing unit completion (but see below). The label conflates two different aspects: that of representation in transcription (the “period”, in '''Jeffersonian''' and '''GAT-2''' conventions), and the actual phonological phenomena represented, normally for English a final falling-to-low intonational movement, or low pitch at the end of a unit. The terms “period intonation” and “falling intonation” have been used interchangeably in the literature (Hepburn & Bolden 2012: 62; but see below).

Therefore, the period represents the low pitch point at the end of the unit, which is determined as “low” either in comparison to the surrounding context, or relative to the speaker’s own pitch range. This is captured in some of the definitions in the literature: Szczepek-Reed (2004) defines this fall-to-low as “a pitch movement which falls to a pitch which is clearly lower than any preceding Hz values within the immediately previous phonetic context” (pg. 101). Couper-Kuhlen (1996) considers that period intonation applies when “the voice drops to a low point in the speaker’s voice range at the end of a contour” (pg. 390). In his report on fall-to-low pitch movement and turn-completion, Walker (2017) operationalizes fall-to-low as bearing two conditions: “a) there must be a fall in pitch from the maximum pitch of the last accented syllable before the point of possible turn-completion, and b) the fall must end within the bottom 10% of the speaker’s normal speaking range” (pg. 7).

The following example from the CallFriend corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) illustrates what “period intonation” as generally defined in the CA/IL literature sounds like, accompanied with a visualization of acoustic information (waveform, spectrogram, and fundamental frequency, or f0, trace). Two versions of CA/IL transcription are offered for comparison: Jeffersonian (Jefferson 2004) and GAT-2 (Selting, et al. 2011).

''Jeffersonian''

So: that’s the thi:ng.

''GAT-2 Fine''

so: thAts the `THING.

[[File:Cantarutti period-FIGURE.png|600px|[CallFriend_4708_l7]]]

'''Figure 1: Waveform, spectrogram, and f0 trace of [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4708.cha CallFriend_4708_l59]]'''

The f0 trace above shows a falling contour initiated in “thing” that reaches a low pitch height at the end of the unit. The direction of the contour on the one hand (“falling”), and its final pitch height reached (“low”) on the other, are two related aspects of the realization of the contour which are represented independently. While not all falling movements may reach a low point, as in fall-to-mid contours (which GAT-2 represents with a semi-colon instead), not all falling movements may bear simple falling trajectories, and thus the period may also indicate the final pitch level reached when the main '''[[Intonation_contour|intonation contour]]''' is a rise-fall tone (Selting, et al. 2011).

Even though CA/IL work generally states that punctuation marks “indicate intonation, not grammatical function” (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2017: 607), and thus period intonation does not necessarily index an action as an assertion (Hepburn & Bolden 2012; Schegloff n.d.) there are still a number of conflicting considerations around what is known as “period intonation” that have been addressed in the literature.

Firstly, some studies have equated “period intonation” as fall-to-low pitch movement with “finality” or “completion”. Hepburn & Bolden (2017: 41) explain that the falling intonation contour that the period or full stop indicates “comes at the end of a turn constructional unit and marking its possible completion”, and likewise, Chevalier and Clift (2008: 1248) in their appendix specify that the “full stop indicates terminal intonation”. However, it has been found that fall-to-low contours are not the only option at the end of turns, nor do they necessarily should mark finality. Work by Szczepek-Reed (2004) has examined turns oriented to as complete by co-participants and found in them a range of turn-final pitch movements, including fall-to-low, rise-to-high, but also level intonation, stylized intonation (“musical intervals”) and rise-to-mid contours as well as pitch step-ups. Walker (2017) argues that there is more to the prosodic design of turn-projection than pitch in the indexing of turn-finality, and that this not restricted to fall-to-low pitch, which he has found also frequently followed by same-speaker turn continuation. Other studies have likewise not found a simple relationship between this final fall-to-low pitch movement and possible turn-completion (Local & Kelly 1986; Local & Walker 2005, among others). In a similar vein, Walker (2014a) warns of the problems of conflating form and function and suggests that the form “fall-to-low pitch movement” is one of several possible markers of turn-finality, and one which can also contribute to other actions in interaction.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Comma intonation]]'''
* '''[[Question intonation]]'''
* '''[[Try-marking]]'''
* '''[[Intonation contour]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Canavan, A., & Zipperlen, G. (1996). CALLFRIEND American English-Non-Southern Dialect. ''Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia'', ''10''(1).

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse. ''Pragmatics'', ''6''(3), 389–426.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), ''Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation'' (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Local, J., & Walker, G. (2005). Mind the gap: further resources in the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. ''York Papers in Linguistics'', ''3'', 133–143.

Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and “silences”: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. ''Human Studies'', ''9''(2-3), 185–204.

Schegloff, E. (n.d.). ''[https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/index.html Transcription Module]'' Retrieved July 19, 2021.

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., Stukenbrock, A., Uhmann, S. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. ''Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion,'' 12, 1–51

Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation''. John Benjamins.

Walker, G. (2017). Pitch and the Projection of More Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''50''(2), 206–225.

Walker, T. (2014a). Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''47''(1), 1–16.

'''Additional References:'''

Barth-Weingarten, D. (2016). ''Intonation Units Revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction''. John Benjamins.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. ''Pragmatics'', ''6''(3), 427–454.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). ''The Language of Turn and Sequence''. Oxford University Press.

Selting, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. ''Pragmatics'', ''6'', 371–388.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2010). Units of interaction: “Intonation phrases” or “turn constructional phrases”? In: Delais-Roussarie (Ed.), ''Conference Proceedings: Interface Discourse and Prosody.'' (pp. 351–363). University of Chicago.

Walker, G. (2018). Close proximity of turn-continuation to possible turn-completion in conversation. ''Speech Communication'', ''99'', 231–241.

Walker, T. (2014b). The Independence of Phonetic Form and Interactional Accomplishments. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', ''47''(1), 23–27.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'period intonation' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=period+intonation&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

Intonation contour

2026-09-02T07:39:10Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Intonation contour. 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/Q6B4W
}}

An '''intonation contour''', in informal terms known as the “melody of speech”, normally refers to the perceivable falling, rising or steady (level) movements of pitch over a segment of time within a unit. In CA-IL research, intonation contours have been found to bear different kinds of relationship with TCU and action boundaries as well as with the design of different social actions, including, e.g., second assessments, other-initiations of repair, and lists.

Technically, an intonation contour is a phonologically contrastive, systematic, and language-specific configuration of pitch movement whose domain goes beyond the individual sound and extends into words and phrases. Intonation contours are made up of sequences of changes in f0 (an acoustic measure that measures the frequency in the vibration of molecules in the air, in our case, the effect of vocal fold vibration as cycles of opening and closing) which is perceived as differences in pitch. Major intonational contours tend to be initiated on the focal accent of a unit (e.g., for English, the most prominent and typically the last accent in the unit), and they are realized normally over a number of syllables towards the end of the unit.

CA-IL have incorporated studies of intonation contours as resources (Schegloff, 1988) in direct and less direct ways from the very start of the discipline (e.g., Jefferson, 1972; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974; Sacks, 1992). However, there are different aspects of what makes up an intonation contour that have been addressed in different ways in CA-IL and which need to be differentiated.

The ''whole intonational configuration'' of the unit as a gestalt includes not only the major pitch movements normally starting at the focal accent (falling, rising, level, and variants; see below), but also any prior pitch jumps or movements (falls, rises, step ups or step downs in pitch level often in early secondary accents), as well as terminal pitch levels reached at the end of the unit.

First, upsteps and downsteps, that is, noticeable pitch jumps to a point higher or lower in pitch than surrounding syllables (marked in CA-IL transcription systems with upward ↑ and downward ↓ arrows) are relevant for interactional ends. For instance, a high onset (i.e., first accented syllable in the unit) have been found to be interactionally relevant to mark shifts into the “reason for the call” (Couper-Kuhlen, 2001). High peaks on or preceding focal accents were also found in contexts where speakers pre-empt resistance (Nielsen & Morris, 2019). Pitch level at the start and end of discontinued units has a bearing in marking turn continuation or re-starts (Local, 1992). In the following example, a speaker marks topic transition with “anyway”, followed by a high onset on “how”:

[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/5926.cha CallFriend _5926_3-10]]

01 MOM: I can't ima:gine. >anybody wanting to< listen.
02 to this pho:ne call, hh. (0.2)
03 JUL: hhh.
04 MOM: or read a transcript. either. hhh. [But-]
05 JUL: [no, ]
06 MOM: >anyway.< ↑SO anyway. hh. So:: uhm:: (.) ↑↑how many people
07 are you having. o:f: yo:ur friends.

[[File:Cantarutti_intonation_Fig1.jpg|800px|[CallFriend _5926_3-10]]]

'''Figure 1: Acoustic visualization of "↑SO anyway. hh. So:: uhm:: (.) ↑↑how many people..."'''

Then, there is ''pitch movement'' initiated at the focal accent that is generally carried over to the end of the unit, that in IL work in English and German at least (following traditions in configurational approaches to intonation, e.g. Cruttenden, 1997) is normally taken to be falling, rising or level (including rising-falling, or falling-rising movements and their variants). Early CA research has used labels from Jeffersonian conventions to refer to terminal pitch movement: '''[[Comma intonation|comma]]''' (low rise and other variants), '''[[Period intonation|period]]''' (falling), or '''[[Question intonation|question]]''' (rise-to-high) intonation (see relevant entries for a critical discussion of these terms).

Figures (2)-(6) below show acoustic visualizations of f0 contours (presented in Hz log to show contours in a way closer to human perception) in intonation units matching full TCUs in a variety of American English:

[[File:Cantarutti_intonation_Fig2-fall.jpg|600px|[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4984.cha CallFriend_4984_297-299]]]]

'''Figure 2: Fall [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4984.cha CallFriend_4984_297-299]]'''

''Jeffersonian''
I ga:ined about ten pounds.

''GAT-2 Fine''
i `gA:ined about tEn `POUNDS;

[[File:Cantarutti_intonation_Fig3-rise.jpg|600px|[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4984.cha CallFriend_4984_95]]]]

'''Figure 3: Rise [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4984.cha CallFriend_4984_95]]'''

''Jeffersonian''
he:’s ↓lea:rni:ng?

''GAT-2 Fine''
he:s ↓´LEA:RNi:ng?

[[File:Cantarutti_intonation_Fig4-level.jpg|600px|[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4889.cha CallFriend_4889_355]]]]

'''Figure 4: Level [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/4889.cha CallFriend_4889_355]]'''

''Jeffersonian''
I’m ↑walking a↓rou:::nd

''GAT-2 Fine''
im ↑wAlking a↓¯ROU:::ND-

[[File:Cantarutti_intonation_Fig5-fall-rise.jpg|600px|[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/6062.cha CallFriend_6062_214]]]]

'''Figure 5: Fall-Rise [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/6062.cha CallFriend_6062_214]]'''

''Jeffersonian''
So this time I’m taking adva:ntage of it,

''GAT-2 Fine''
so `thIs time im taking adˇVA:Ntage of it,

[[File:Cantarutti_intonation_Fig6-rise-fall.jpg|600px|[[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/5000.cha CallFriend_5000_369]]]]

'''Figure 6: Rise-Fall [[https://sla.talkbank.org/TBB/ca/CallFriend/eng-n/5000.cha CallFriend_5000_369]]'''

''Jeffersonian''
I ↑ha↓:d one of those.

''GAT-2 Fine''
i ↑ˆHA:D one of those.

CA-IL work has found some regular co-occurrences of particular social actions with intonational configurations (see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2017 and Ogden, 2021 for a thorough overview). The production of a complete intonation contour has been taken by some CA-IL work to be a cue for TCU completion (Ford & Thompson, 1996; but see Szczepek Reed, 2010). Sequences of matching intonation contours are taken as prosodic cues of the constitution of lists (Selting, 2007). Particular intonation contours have been associated to specific social actions, such as high rise-falls for repair on repeats indexing problems of acceptability (Benjamin & Walker, 2013) in English, and for displays of surprise (Reber, 2012). For French, Persson (2020) offers a complete overview of the role of repeats for repair (low rise to request completion) as well as forms of registering (rise + fall contour) or topicalising (rise). The role of intonation contours in action differentiation for different particles has been described at length. For example, Betz and Depperman (2021) describe the role of rising intonation in “okay” to index counter-to-expectation informings and not-yet-complete undertandings. Sørensen (2021) found that Danish response tokens ''ja'' and ''nej'' doing (dis)confirmation display affiliation with rising tones, and disaffiliation with level tones.

Work on the phonetics of talk-in-interaction, however, warns that form and function correspondences may not be as easy to come by in interaction (Walker, 2014) and that the intonation-social action relationship is context-sensitive and mediated by different orders of organization (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2017). In this line, Kaimaki (2010) argues that in response-to-summons turns in Greek, falling and rising tones are in free variation; likewise, research on different kinds of interrogatives in interaction (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen, 2012) have debunked prior beliefs around the relationship between rising and falling tones and yes/no and wh-questions respectively.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Period intonation]]'''
* '''[[Candidate understanding]]'''
* '''[[Question intonation]]'''
* '''[[Try-marking]]'''
* '''[[Comma intonation]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Benjamin, T., & Walker, T. (2013). [https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.739143 Managing Problems of Acceptability Through High Rise-Fall Repetitions]. ''Discourse Processes'', 50(2), 107–138.

Betz, E., & Deppermann, A. (2021). [https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.03bet OKAY in responding and claiming understanding]. In L. M. Emma Betz & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to its Use in Talk-in-Interaction'' (pp. 56–92). John Benjamins.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501001026 Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns]. ''Language In Society'', 30(1), 29–53.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In: de Ruiter, J., (Ed). ''Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives'' (pp. 123–145). Cambridge University Press.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). ''Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.

Ford, C., & Thompson, S. (1996). Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational and Pragmatic Resources. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), ''Studies in Social Interaction'' (pp. 294–338). Free Press.

Kaimaki, M. (2010). [https://doi.org/10.1163/156658410X531384 Tunes in Free Variation and Sequentially Determined Pitch Alignment: Evidence from Interactional Organisation]. ''Journal of Greek Linguistics'', 10(2), 213–250.

Local, J. (1992). Continuing and restarting. In Auer, P. & Di Luzio, A. (Eds.), ''The Contextualization of Language'' (pp. 273–296). John Benjamins.

Nielsen, M. F., & Morris, D. J. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12232 Roller coaster: Distinctive prosodic cuing of turns preempting rejection resistance]. ''Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics'', 29(1), 17–29.

Ogden, R. (2021). [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108644198.027 The Phonetics of Talk in Interaction]. In ''The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics'' (pp. 657–681).

Persson, R. (2020). [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000068 Prosody and grammar of other-repetitions in French: The interplay of position and composition]. ''Language In Society'', 49(4), 585–618.

Reber, E. (2012). ''Affectivity in Interaction: Sound objects in English''. John Benjamins.

Roach, P., Stibbard, R., Osborne, J., Arnfield, S., & Setter, J. (1998). Transcription of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features of Emotional Speech. ''Journal of the International Phonetic Association'', 28(1-2), 83–94.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on Conversation. Vols. 1 & 2''. Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. ''Language'', 50(4), 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. ''Language and Speech'', 41 ( Pt 3-4), 235–263.

Selting, M. (1987). Descriptive categories for the additive analysis of intonation in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 11(6), 777–791.

Selting, M. (2007). [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008 Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource]. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 39(3), 483–526.

Sørensen, S. S. (2021). [https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864159 Affiliating in Second Position: Response Tokens with Rising Pitch in Danish]. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(1), 101–125.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2010). Units of interaction: “Intonation phrases” or “turn constructional phrases.” ''Actes from IDP (Interface Discours &. Prosodie) Conference'' (pp. 351-363).

Walker, T. (2014). [https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.871792 Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action]. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 47(1), 1–16.

'''Additional References:'''

Barth-Weingarten, D. (2016). ''Intonation Units Revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction''. John Benjamins.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). ''Transcribing for Social Research''. Sage.

Ogden, R., & Walker, T. (2013). [https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.09ogd Phonetic resources in the construction of social actions]. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), ''Units of Talk – Units of Action'' (pp. 277–312). John Benjamins.

Persson, R. (2013). [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.004 Intonation and sequential organization: Formulations in French talk-in-interaction]. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 19–38.

Selting, M. (1988). [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90035-5 The role of intonation in the organization of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation]. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 12(3), 293–322.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2010). ''Analysing Conversation: An Introduction to Prosody''. Palgrave Macmillan.

Walker, D. G. (2004). [http://gareth-walker.staff.shef.ac.uk/pubs/2004-Walker-phd.pdf The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings and continuations in conversation] [University of York York, UK].

Walker, G. (2017). [https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301310 Pitch and the Projection of More Talk]. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 50(2), 206–225.

=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'intonation' ===
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=intonation&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}