emcawiki - User contributions [en]

Identity

2026-04-21T23:00:22Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X)
| To cite = Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Identity. 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/G9U2Q
}}

In ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA), '''identity''' is generally conceptualised as “how people themselves, in everyday social life, orient to and describe, classify or assess each other as particular kinds of people” (Benwell & Stokoe, 2016: 68). There is no a priori definition of identity in EMCA research, nor an assumption of its omnirelevance to social interaction. Rather, there is a recognition that identities may become relevant in the doing of '''[[social action|social actions]]''', in certain settings, or in particular sequential environments, and that this relevance may be procedurally consequential for how a trajectory of action unfolds (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998). This position is consistent with ethnomethodological indifference, which, in this case, would recommend a focus on participants’ orientations to and accomplishment of identity rather than relying on analysts’ assumptions about participants’ identity as explanations for social actions. This position is part of what makes EMCA distinctive: it avoids treating identities as demographic variables or taking identity for granted in an uncritical way (Garfinkel, 1967; Lynch, 2000).

While some identities (age, gender, occupation, etc.) may be considered transportable from one interaction to the next (Zimmerman, 1998), these are not presumed ''a priori'' to explain how interactions are organized. That said, some identities are treated as potentially relevant over the course of an entire interactional event. Such “omnirelevant” categories, as Sacks (1992) suggested, could be treated as always potentially relevant in their operation over an episode of interaction. For example, the categories of ‘therapist’ and ‘patient’ in a therapy session, or ‘caller’ and ‘called’ in a phone call. For researchers, these situational identities may be accepted enough to characterise a subfield of research (e.g., institutional talk) as seen in the usage of transcript designations (e.g., doctor-patient interaction). We can compare these to more momentary “discourse identities” (Zimmerman, 1998), for example, current speaker and recipient(s) during a turn-at-talk, or story-teller and story-recipient during a telling.

A basic sense in which participants ''do'' identity can be seen in their practices of ''doing'' identification. For example in the context of explicit participant naming practices that occur at the start of old-fashioned telephone calls, Schegloff (2007) describes how, in '''[[pre-expansion (sequence)|pre-expansions]]''' of '''[[Dispreferred|dispreferred]]''' sequences, pre-emptive responses are '''[[preferred]]''', as in the following instance from his 1979 paper:

(1) [5.48] (Schegloff, 1979: 51, 2007: 90)

01 Con: Hello.
02 Joa: Connie?
03 Con: Yeah Joanie

This phone call from Joanie to Connie occurred long before the introduction of technology permitting you to see who was calling. This meant that parties at the start of the call would be practically concerned with identifying one another. Hearing Connie’s voice sample in line 1, Joanie is able to pre-empt a possible self-identification by Connie by guessing her identity (line 2). This is confirmed by Connie in line 3 (“yeah”) along with doing recognition of Joanie. This illustrates the '''[[preference]]''' for recognition (of the identity of the other person) over self-identification.

In addition to ''doing'' identification, identity has also been examined with respect to how participants refer to themselves and others—an organisation of practice known as ‘person reference’ (Enfield & Stivers, 2007; Sacks & Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff, 2006). Some research in this area has examined how person reference relates to relationships and '''[[epistemics]]''', for example, grandparents can assess grandchildren’s behaviour rather than appearance, displaying direct and primary access to being around the children and witnessing their conduct (Raymond & Heritage, 2006). Referring to self and others in an explicit way has also been examined in research on the preference structures for doing so (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979; Lerner & Kitzinger, 2007). In the following example, taken from a phone call, we observe the preference for minimization (“use a single reference form”) and preference for recognitional reference (“use a form that your recipient would recognise”). These preference can cause trouble. Ann initially adheres to the preference for minimisation with the single word “Fords” (line 2), but this isn’t immediately recognised, leading to two extra tries (lines 3-4) elaborating the referent’s name (“Misses Holmes Ford”) and occupation (“the cellist”), which finally succeeds in eliciting recognition (line 5).

(2) [SBL 2/2/4] (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979: 19)

01 Ann: ... well I was the only one other than
02 than the uhm (0.7) mtch! Fo:rds?
03 Uh Missiz Holmes Ford? (0.8) You know uh-
04 [the the cellist?
05 Bev: [Oh yes. She’s- she’s (a)/(the) cellist.

Person reference is also central in handling the ephemeral discourse identities of speaker, recipient, and unaddressed parties. The example below from a family dinner starts with Mom producing what appears to be a naming error in the process of explicitly naming the addressee: she starts to produce “Beth”, the name of one daughter, then self-corrects to “Virginia”, the name of her other daughter.

(3) [Virginia 145] (Drew, 2018: 176)

01 Mom: Beh- oh:, Vuhginia, we’ve been through this. When you’re
02 old enough you ca:n work in the store.
03 (0.2)
04 Vir: .hh Well Beth didn’ Beth get tih work b’fore she was sixteen?=
05 Mom: =No::! I’d- (0.2) I would let her wrap presents an’ packages et
06 Christmus an:’- °times we needed somebady.° .hh >But people
07 just don’t want< (0.4) chi:ldren (0.2) waiting on[(’um).
08 Vir: [I’m not a chi:::ld!

Mom’s person references have consequences for the subsequent pronoun “we” (line 1), because that “we” includes Virginia and Mom (rather than Beth and Mom); and also bear consequences for the pronoun “you” (lines 1-2), which refers to Virginia (and not Beth).

In addition to disambiguating addressees and unaddressed parties, the example illustrates some dimensions of identity associated with categories of persons. Namely, Virginia’s age-categorisation (by Mom in lines 1-2, and by herself in line 8), along with the comparison to both Beth and non-children (line 4), draws on commonsense knowledge about how age relates to appropriateness for working at a shop. These are consistent with the way Sacks (1992) in his lectures developed identity as membership categories. As compared to person references—which generally rely on dedicated pro-terms, names, and recognitionals that do not necessarily group or categorise persons—membership categories (and the sets of categories that they’re organised into) sort people into “identity categories”. For these, the focus is more on how people do things with identity through the normative associations between particular identity categories and activities and features, such as between ‘children’ and ‘not working at a store’.

For Sacks, categorisation was something that emerged as consequential to the actions participants are doing and thus was not a fixed set of characteristics or form of identification (such as demographics) that were always attached to someone and always relevant to their conduct. The relevance of a particular identity would, rather, emerge in the interaction itself as part of the social actions underway, as in the following:

(4) ‘Aura about a druggie’ [23:11–24:36] (Robles, 2022: 531)

AND: I’m sorry, I don’t care how fucked up you are if
you’re a fuckin real junkie you’re not gonna go
ov- go to jail over some shit like that

In this example, Andy proposes the category “real junkie” as an account for not believing a story her mother told her about drug addiction, as the story suggested a level of carelessness that Andy (a former addict herself) sees as incompatible with serious addiction. In doing so she leverages her epistemic authority to know what a “real” drug addict is like and thus also challenges her sister’s prior talk, which asserted that Andy’s mother was a “druggie” on the basis of an “aura” rather than evidence or knowledge. In this case the identity of the mother and of Andy are produced as relevant in the defence of whether the mother can be categorised as a drug addict or not.

The current state-of-the-art on CA approaches to identity do not always involve explicit commentary on “identity.” However, identity is very much alive in CA research across numerous settings (e.g., Corbitt, 2024; Tennent & Weatherall, 2021; Waring & Tadic, 2024).

Furthermore, some aspects of identity are visible in the way CA is asking some of the same questions but in new, updated ways. Key identities such as race and gender, which saw engagement from discourse and conversation analysts in the 80s and 90s (e.g., Rapley, 1998; Stokoe, 1998), have gained renewed attention in response to current events (Robles & Shrikant, 2021). Identities related to “atypical” communication have grown sufficiently to develop its own lively area (Wilkinson, 2019). Specific local identities have been explored, such as negotiating anonymity as the “one who called the police” in emergency calls about domestic violence (Tennent & Weatherall, 2024) and managing stigmatised behaviours in psychiatric assessments (Peräkylä, 2024). This suggests that CA is not uninterested in identity, but has an ongoing engagement with it in a unique way that has important insights to offer and challenges to make to other areas of research.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Category-bound_activity|Category-bound activity]]'''
* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Compliment]]'''
* '''[[Context]]'''
* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[membership_categorization_device|Membership Categorization Device]]'''
* '''[[Participation]]'''
* '''[[Participation_framework|Participation Framework]]'''
* '''[[Professional_vision|Professional Vision]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.). (1998). ''Identities in talk''. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2016). Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to identity. In ''The Routledge handbook of language and identity'' (pp. 66-82). Routledge.

Corbitt, A. (2024). Playing with identities: Negotiating coauthorship and role-playing interactions across game and metagame talk. ''Linguistics and Education, 80,'' 101293.

Drew, P. (2018). Epistemics in social interaction. ''Discourse Studies, 20''(1), 163-187.

Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2007). ''Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives''. Cambridge University Press.

Fitzgerald, R., Housley, W., & Butler, C. W. (2009). Omnirelevance and interactional context. ''Australian Journal of Communication, 36''(3), 45.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). ''Studies in Ethnomethodology''. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall.

Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Introduction: person-reference in conversation analytic research. ''Discourse Studies, 9''(4), 427-432.

Lynch, M. (2000). Against Reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. ''Theory Culture & Society 17'', 26-54.

Peräkylä, A. (2024). Bad behaviours, spoiled identities: Face in personality disorders. In ''New Perspectives on Goffman in Language and Interaction''. Taylor & Francis.

Rapley, M. (1998). ‘Just an ordinary Australian’: Self‐categorization and the discursive construction of facticity in ‘new racist’political rhetoric. ''British Journal of Social Psychology, 37''(3), 325-344.

Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. ''Language in Society, 35''(5), 677-705.

Robles, J. S. (2022). Managing moral category implications of former drug addiction. ''Discourse & Society, 33''(4), 519-538.

Robles, J. S., & Shrikant, N. (2021). Interactional approaches to discrimination and racism in everyday life. In ''The Routledge international handbook of discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping'' (pp. 273-286). Routledge.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on conversation'' (vols I & II). Blackwell.

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. ''Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology''. New York.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis'' (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.

Stokoe, E. H. (1998). Talking about gender: The conversational construction of gender categories in academic discourse. ''Discourse & Society, 9'' \(2), 217-240.

Tennent, E., & Weatherall, A. (2021). Feminist conversation analysis: examining violence against women. In ''The Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality'' (pp. 258-271). Routledge.

Tennent, E., & Weatherall, A. (2025). Identity categories and the dilemma of calling police about family violence. ''British Journal of Social Psychology, 64''(1), e12839.

Waring, H. Z., & Tadic, N. (Eds.). (2024). ''Critical conversation analysis: Inequality and injustice in talk-in-interaction''. Channel View Publications.

Wilkinson, R. (2019). Atypical interaction: Conversation analysis and communicative impairments. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52''(3), 281-299.

'''Additional References:'''

Edwards, D. (2008). The relevant thing about her: Social identity categories in use. In ''Identities in talk'' (pp. 16-33). Sage Publications Ltd.

Pomerantz, A., & Mandelbaum, J. (2004). Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), ''Handbook of language and social interaction'' (pp. 149-171). Psychology Press.

Weatherall, A. (2007). Feminist psychology, conversation analysis and empirical research: An illustration using identity categories. ''Gender & Language, 1''(2).

Whitehead, K. A., Stokoe, E., & Raymond, G. (2024). ''Categories in social interaction''. Taylor & Francis.

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

Category-bound activity

2026-04-21T22:56:31Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471) & '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Category-bound activity. 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/8WK6S
}}

'''Category-bound activities''' refer to actions or behaviours that are normatively associated with certain categories of persons.

Consider the example below, which features two siblings (Greg and Kelsey), both white university students (at different universities) in the northeastern United States. They are chatting about someone who recently won the lottery. Our focus is on how Greg negatively describes the lottery winner:

(1) (Robles, 2015)

01 Greg: so the lady that won she’s from Rhode Island she’s
02 fucking eighty-two.
03 Kelsey: ei::ghty two she’s go:ing to die:: ((in a wailing
04 tone))
05 Greg: -> she won three hunnerd million and she’s black (.) so
06 -> you know she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit,

In line 01, Greg characterises the lottery winner using several conventional demographic categories: “lady” (gender), “eighty-two” (age), “from Rhode Island” (location). From these categorisations, Kelsey (line 03) orients to ‘age’ and associates being “fucking eighty-two” with the activity “going to die” as the relevant upshot—the commonsense logic being that someone who will die soon cannot properly make use of lottery winnings, and therefore the situation is lamentable (see Kelsey’s “wailing tone”, lines 03-04). Greg does not advance this upshot, but provides an alternative one of his own. Instead of orienting to any of the categories he had articulated, Greg, in line 05, uses “so” to associate the lottery winner’s racial category (“she’s black”) with his negatively '''[[assessment|assessed]]''' activity (“she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit”, line 06). Sacks’ (1992) work described category-bound activities for how and what they can tell us about members’ orientations to who-members-are and what-they’re-doing (Butler & Fitzgerald, 2010). Here, Greg asserts an activity on the basis of a category: ‘she’s black so she’s buying stupid shit’ and ‘she’s old so she’ll die soon’, and in doing so, his negative assessments display his prejudicial beliefs.

Binding categories and '''[[activity|activities]]''' together can be achieved in at least two ways: first, by inferring a category from seeing an activity that is conventionally done by that category of person (Sacks’ ‘viewer’s maxim’, see below), or conversely, by asserting the activity because of a given category. Activities are not associated with categories in a decontextualised way, but rather they are context-dependent and locally occasioned in and through discourse by members (Hester & Eglin, 1997). To be clear: it is not the analyst’s job or authority to assert that activities and categories are connected without evidence that members themselves are connecting activities and categories (Schegloff, 1992; Stokoe, 2012).

The next example demonstrates how the link between categories and predicates/activities is locally occasioned. The example is taken from a research interview between an interviewer (IR) and Chinese international students studying in Japan (IE). The interviewee has described previous encounters they have had with landlords, and how they (IE) have been treated unfairly “due to being a foreigner”. Notice how the interviewee binds the activity of ‘mistreating a house’ to ‘foreigners’, which consequently means ‘foreigners’ have “bad credit”.

(2) (Zhang, 2022)

21 IR: ta jiushi- ta shi sh- hen- shuode hen gongkai,
''was it- was it- ver- was it said very openly, ''

22 jiushuo bu zugei waiguoren, [hai shi °zen yang°?
''that they won’t rent to foreigners, [or °what°?''

23 IE: [dui, jiu zhijie shuo bu
[''right, directly''

24 zugei waiguoren, genni ↑geren qishi meiyou guanxi:=
''said no foreigner, it’s not about you personally:= ''

25 IR: mm
''mm''

26 IE: =jiushi,(0.5) jiushi waiguoren zhege qunti jiushi
''=just,(0.5) they just won’t rent to foreigner as a''

27 buzu:=
''group=''

28 IR: mm
''mm''

29 IE: =jiushi yinwei: (.) zhiqian henduo waiguoren (.) dui
''because: (.) many foreigners (.) treated house''

30 fangzi buhao a, >jiushi< zai zufang fangmian
''badly, that their credit are relatively bad with''

31 xinyong bijiao cha, henduo fangyuan bu tigong
''regard to renting, many rental houses are not offered''

32 gei waiguoren.
''to foreigners. ''

The example begins with the interviewer asking whether housing agents or landlords are explicit in not welcoming foreigners (lines 21-22). The interviewee confirms and explains that the discrimination is against foreigners in general and is not personal: “they just won’t rent to foreigners as a group” (lines 24, 26-27). The interviewee then offers an explanation: they bind “treated house badly” (lines 29-30) to “foreigners” (line 29) which results in “foreigners” having ‘bad credit with regard to renting’. (lines 30 and 31). This explanation relies on commonsense knowledge—that landlords would not want their houses mistreated, and mistreated houses could incur financial loss to landlords.

Consequently, tying “foreigners” to the activity of “treat[ing] the house badly” implies that they would be disfavoured as potential tenants. In drawing on this commonsense categorial knowledge, the interviewee does not endorse or provide any moral justification for the discrimination, but they do offer an account for why housing discrimination against foreigners is reasonable from a ‘landlord’ perspective. The category ‘foreigners’ does not stereotypically have the feature ‘treating rental homes badly’: this is locally occasioned by how the interviewee formulates their account.

Sacks’ description of category-bound activities featured the ‘viewer’s maxim’ whereby “if a member sees a category-bound activity being done, then, if one sees it being done by a member of a category to which the activity is bound then see it that way” (Sacks & Jefferson, 1995: 259). The viewer’s maxim can mean categories may be inferred through the description of an activity. The term ‘category-bound activity’ has undergone expansion to include moral and epistemic aspects of the rights, entitlements, obligations, knowledge, attributes and competencies as they are locally occasioned in interaction. The inclusion of these different features gets described as ‘category bound predicates’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). While ‘predicates’ serves as a catch-all term for describing the relationship(s) between the category and category features, ‘category-bound activities’ specifically refers to how members treat features as being naturally related (i.e., taken-for-granted) to a category. Most, if not all, social action implicates the rights and responsibilities of an interlocutor and so action can be sensitive to the membership of certain categories. These are known as ‘category-sensitive actions’ (see Rossi & Stivers, 2021) which describe the affordances and constraints that membership categories create for members and non-members in and through their actions. Category-sensitive actions are unlike explicit categorisation and are typically invisible because interlocutors act in ways “consistent with their social status or role” (Rossi & Stivers, 2021: 70), and they may only come into view when interlocutors expose or transgress the boundaries of membership categories.

The example below demonstrates how participants can introduce and resist categories in the course of their interaction. It features a disagreement between a conservative political commentator (Tucker Carlson), and his guest, a political strategist (Monica Klein), on a political commentary TV show. They are discussing the character of a US politician The example features an interlocutor resisting an accusation by labelling their conduct as being bound to a different category. We begin with Carlson implying that Klein has portrayed herself as a spokesperson for “all women” (line 07) to which MK non-seriously thanks TC for mansplaining (line 10)

(3) (Joyce et al., 2021)

06 TC: [Well not every woman feels th]at way,=And
07 [you don’t speak for all women j]ust so you know.
08 MK: [↑OKAY but there is a thirty ]
09 (.)
10 ↓Oka[y thank ] you for [mansp ]laining that t(h)o me.
11 TC: [°Mo↓nica°] [°okay°]
12 (0.6)
13 TC: £hhum£ I’m not mansplaining, (0.4) I’m saying something
14 that’s obviously true.

Klein’s accusation of mansplaining (in line 10) describes Carlson’s conduct (lines 06-07) as patronising and occasions gender as relevant. The accusation targets how Carlson treats her as though she does not understand that she does not speak for all women. Carlson resists the accusation by decategorizing Klein’s accusation as not being a gendered activity: “I’m not mansplaining” (line 13). Carlson introduces a truth-telling category-bound activity, “saying something that’s obviously true” (lines 13-14). The upshot is that Carlson’s denial is grounded in his category as a ‘truth-telling’ political commentator, and not a gender-based category via the description of his activity.

Descriptions of category-bound activities and predicates are consequential for how categories and devices are applied. They shape how we do things in the world, make sense of the world, and resist sense-making by others. This follows Jayyusi’s (2014) work examining the moral dimension of category activities, insofar that activities often carry normative expectations such that members of a category are expected to engage in those activities, and deviations may be accountable. Associations treated as ‘natural’ and normative can, however, be prejudicial as Henderson and Tennant (2025) demonstrate. Their analysis reveals how a natural attitude to sex and gender can be rhetorically weaponized against transgender women.

Category-bound activities are one of the primary ‘keys’ (Stokoe, 2012) through which researchers do Membership Categorisation Analysis to explicate ‘culture-in-action’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). Such work has explored orientations to discrimination and how negatively assessed activities get bounded to categories (Zhang, 2022) and consequently, how those activities are challenged (Robles, 2015); how incongruities between category and category-bound activities achieve humour (Okazawa, 2021); how parents build associations between activities like ‘crying’ and categories like ‘naughty’ to instruct children about valued behaviour (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2017); and how members may resist normative connections between categories and activities (e.g. ‘women’ and ‘housework’ (Robles & Kurylo, 2017); ‘Man’ and ‘mansplaining’ (Joyce et al., 2021); ‘Caucasian’ and ‘violent actions’ (Whitehead, 2012); ‘Romany’ and ‘criminality’ (Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000). The technical sophistication of MCA to explicate culture-in-action affords a closer inspection of these more subtle differences in the relationships between categories and category features which members can, and do, orient to (see Reynolds & Fitzgerald, 2015 for further discussion). Empirically tracking how activities are bound to categories across sequences and describing, as grounded in evidence of members’ moment-by-moment conduct, affords an enhanced analysis of how society works in situ (Gardner, 2012). Analysing discourse through categorisation practices, including how activities are bound by interlocutors to categories, can spotlight issues of morality and culture.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Compliment]]'''
* '''[[Context]]'''
* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Identity]]'''
* '''[[membership_categorization_device|Membership Categorization Device]]'''
* '''[[Participation]]'''
* '''[[Participation_framework|Participation Framework]]'''
* '''[[Professional_vision|Professional Vision]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Butler, C. W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 42''(9), 2462-2474.

Gardner, R. (2012). Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 313-319.

Henderson, E., & Tennant, E. (2025). Sex, Gender, and Bodies: Transmisogyny and Garfinkel’s Status Degradation Ceremony. ''Symbolic Interaction''.

Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). ''Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis''. University Press of America.

Jayyusi, L. (2014). ''Categorization and the Moral Order (Routledge Revivals) ''. Routledge.

Joyce, J. B., Humă, B., Ristimäki, H.-L., Almeida, F. F. d., & Doehring, A. (2021). Speaking out against everyday sexism: Gender and epistemics in accusations of “mansplaining”. ''Feminism & Psychology, 31''(4), 502-529.

Leudar, I., & Nekvapil, J. (2000). Presentations of Romanies in the Czech media: On category work in television debates. ''Discourse & Society, 11''(4), 487-513.

Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, M. T. T. (2017). “Am I a good boy?”: Explicit membership categorization in parent–child interaction. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 121'', 25-39.

Okazawa, R. (2021). Resisting categorization in interaction: Membership categorization analysis of sitcom humor. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 186'', 33-44.

Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. ''Human Studies, 22''(2-4), 139-162.

Reynolds, E., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Challenging Normativity: re-appraising category, bound, tied and predicated features. In R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley (Eds.), ''Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis'' (pp. 99-122). Sage.

Robles, J. S. (2015). Extreme case (re) formulation as a practice for making hearably racist talk repairable. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34''(4), 390-409.

Robles, J. S., & Kurylo, A. (2017). ‘Let’s have the men clean up’: Interpersonally communicated stereotypes as a resource for resisting gender-role prescribed activities. ''Discourse Studies, 19''(6), 673-693.

Rossi, G., & Stivers, T. (2021). Category-Sensitive Actions in Interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly, 84''(1), 48-74.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on conversation: Volume I''. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1995). ''Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1)''. Wiley Online Library.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), ''Sacks H, Lectures on Conversation, vols I and II'' (pp. ix-Ixii). Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 277-303.

Whitehead, K. A. (2012). Racial categories as resources and constraints in everyday interactions: Implications for racialism and non-racialism in post-apartheid South Africa. ''Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35''(7), 1248-1265.

Zhang, T. (2022). Accounting for discrimination through categorization work: An examination of the target-of-discrimination group members’ practices. ''Discourse & Society, 33''(2), 264-286.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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

Counter

2026-04-21T22:51:32Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X) & '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Counter. 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/N3J5X
}}

A '''counter''' is a disaligning responsive action that in some way undermines the action trajectory of an initiating action. It is used in the literature in roughly three senses. First, in its narrowest sense, as articulated by Schegloff (2007: 16-19), a counter is a turn in which, following a '''[[first-pair_part|first-pair part]]''', does not provide a type-matched '''[[second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' but instead redirects the same action to the speaker of the first-pair part.

(1) Adapted from Schegloff (2007: 17)

01 Chi: What’s this
02 Mom: er::m (.) '''yo[u t]ell me: what is it'''
03 Chi: [◦()◦]
04 (1.0)
05 Chi: z:e:bra
06 Mom: zebra:: ye:s

In this example, the child’s question (“what’s this”) is directed to the mother. In response, Mom does not provide an answer, but instead counters it by redirecting the same question back to the child (line 2) in an instructional manner.

The second sense in which ‘counter’ is used in conversation analytic research refers to responsive actions that accomplish the “same” action as the prior, but with some oppositional valence or direction. With these, “counter” is used as a qualifier for the second action in response to (and as a way of transforming) the first. These include, for example, assessments and counter-assessments, complaints and counter-complaints, claims and counter-claims, and so on (e.g., Maynard, 1989; Theobald, 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2023). An example of a counter-claim appears in the extract below. Prior to this, Angie tacitly accused her housemate Estelle of interrupting her.

(2) Adapted from Haugh & Sinkeviciute (2019: 213)

36 E: I’m not h- I’m not arguing with you I’m just
37 saying we were <both speaking> at the same
38 ti:[me]
39 A: [o:]kay. #I just felt like I was just mid
40 conversation just then#
41 G: ((bangs cans on the table))
42 E: '''I: was as well though'''

Estelle denies “arguing with [Angie]” and instead formulates her overlap in neutral terms as “we were both speaking at the same time” (lines 37-38). Angie then justifies her prior accusation by claiming that she “just felt like I was just mid conversation just then” (lines 39-40). This is met with a counter-claim by Estelle, who claims the same action (being in mid-conversation) but with the source self-attributed (line 42, “I was as well though”).

The third sense in which ‘counter is used refers to any subsequent action that resists, reanalyses, rebukes, or otherwise reformulates the action to which it is responding. For example, a speaker can respond to a '''[[complaint]]''' by suggesting that it is a feature of the complainant's disposition, and thereby they can counter the seriousness of the complaint (Edwards, 2005). This is a broader use of “counter” used to describe actions in some conversation analytic literature. It generally shares the important quality with the narrower sense in that it appears where a second pair part would be expected, but does not provide a type-matched second pair part action. An example below shows how this is accomplished through sequential blocking. Here, Nick, the radio host (HOS) asks the interviewee (Sam) a yes-no question about Sam’s wife being “mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:” (line 32). This question seems to be read by Sam as ‘not innocent’, and instead of answering with a yes/no response, he counters with a rebuke (lines 33-34).

(3) (Joyce, 2022: 237)

32 Hos: is she mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:
33 Sam: '''Nick it’s none of your £busin’ss about my wife£'''
34 '''to be fair (.) yeah £we’re on radio yeah£'''
35 Hos: ahright okay

In this example, the host is raising a question in order to “set up” a subsequent challenging question--an enticing sequence (see Reynolds, 2015). However, Sam seems to anticipate this and moves to block progress toward the third turn by refusing to answer the question. He counters the projected sequence by turning a reproach back on the host (Nick) about the appropriateness of asking the set-up question in the first place, which results in a concession (line 35) rather than wherever the host’s question may have been heading.

The previous example also illustrates how, by providing an alternative subsequent action that undermines the prior in some way, counters may constitute disaffiliation or disagreement (Muntigl, 2013; Weatherall & Keevallik, 2016) that, respectively, distances the interlocutor from supporting the other, or rejects some component of the subject matter of their talk. They also disrupt expectations of cooperation, which provides counters a particularly moral dimension by making them accountable actions in social life (Huma, Joyce & Raymond, 2023).

Counters may be seen as a way of “not responding” to an initiating action (for example, a non-answer to a question). Because countering actions are often oriented to as disaffiliative, their design and response may contain features of '''[[dispreferred]]''' talk, such as being accompanied by an '''[[Accounts|account]]''' (Pillet-Shore, 2017). In the following example, game players engage in a series of counters around the legitimacy of a particular move and its cooperative (versus selfish) function in the game. The claims and counter-claims players make (lines 44, 45, 47) lead up to the accounts from Dave (lines 50, 52-53) for having made the contestable move.

(4) (Hofstetter & Robles, 2019: 314)

44 Dav: =[That ↑is helping him:.
45 Cal: ↑↑No::. It’s ↑actually ↑no:t.
46 Dav: He’[s ne:xt.
47 Cal: [It’s helping you.
48 (0.7)
49 Al: .hhh (h)ee(h)eeh
50 Dav: I: d- have no: expect- >I’m not getting any points this turn:.
51 Cal: Ye:s,
52 Dav: I’m not gonna get that many more points.=Cause I can’t spread out
53 fast enough.
54 Cal: Uhuh,
55 Dav: I’m not ex↑pecting to win:.
56 (0.5)
57 Cal: Okay.

If counters engender subsequent counters, this can result in a sequence of counters where the projected trajectory of the sequence is constantly changing, leading to a “sequential standoff” and a deterioration of the interaction (Raymond, Chen & Whitehead, 2023). Therefore, counters may become resources in the accomplishment of resistance, either to a particular turn or across sequences, because they often constitute some disruption to '''[[progressivity]]'''.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Challenge]]'''
* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Resistance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Clayman, S. E. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. ''Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13''(2), 159-188.

Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. ''Discourse Studies, 7''(1), 5-29.

Glenn, P. (2019). Conflict interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. In ''The Routledge handbook of language in conflict'' (pp. 215-245). Routledge.

Haugh, M., & Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Offence and conflict talk. In ''The Routledge handbook of language in conflict'' (pp. 196-214). Routledge.

Hofstetter, E., & Robles, J. (2019). Manipulation in board game interactions: Being a sporting player. ''Symbolic Interaction, 42''(2), 301-320.

Humă, B., Joyce, J. B., & Raymond, G. (2023). What does “resistance” actually look like? The respecification of resistance as an interactional accomplishment. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42''(5-6), 497-522.

Joyce, J. B. (2022). Resistance in public disputes: Third-turn blocking to suspend progressivity. ''Discourse Studies, 24''(2), 231-248.

Maynard, D. W. (1989). Perspective‐display sequences in conversation. ''Western Journal of Communication, 53''(2), 91-113.

Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: Sequences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 49''(1), 18-37.

Pillet–Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), ''Oxford research encyclopedia of communication''. Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132

Raymond, G., Chen, J., & Whitehead, K. A. (2023). Sequential standoffs in police encounters with the public. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42''(5-6), 653-678.

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.

Theobald, M. (2013). Ideas as “possessitives”: Claims and counter claims in a playground dispute. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 45''(1), 1-12.

Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When claims of understanding are less than affiliative. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49''(3), 167-182.

Wilkinson, R., Bouchard, J., Temer, V. G., Kamunen, A., Katila, J., Xavier, C. C. M., & Sterie, A. (2023). Participation within multiparty conversation: Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present participant. In ''New Perspectives on Goffman in Language and Interaction'' (pp. 195-216). Routledge.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-21T22:41:25Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/63UNT
}}

Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “'''topic attrition/topic hold'''” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing '''[[topic]]''' is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.

(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted)

01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh
02 yih know.
03 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very
04 ni[:ce.
05 M: [Have they.=
06 G: -> =M[m::.
07 M: -> [Yah.
08 (0.2)
09 G: -> [Ye:h.
10 M: -> [Yeh,
11 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,
12 (.)
13 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh
14 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im

As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.

It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).

After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like ''joo'' in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like '''[[Lapse|lapses]]''' (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Lapse]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45(1), 30-52.

Hoey, E.M. (2020). ''When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence''. Oxford University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation''. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'' 17(2), 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).

Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). ''Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish''. John Benjamins.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-21T22:34:58Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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/X4VQM
}}

In CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because ] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-21T22:27:05Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WSY7R
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see '''[[Delicate]]'''), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

10 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

11 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

12 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

13 (0.2)

14 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), 302–337.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic proffer

2026-04-21T22:19:12Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic proffer. 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/4TV93
}}

The term “'''topic proffer'''” describes a distinct conversational practice for initiating topic talk. As described by Schegloff (2007:169-ff), topic proffers belong to a class of “disjunctive” topic initiation devices, which also include “topic initial elicitors” and topic nomination devices, like news announcements and “itemized news inquiries” (see '''[[Topic]]'''; see also Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Characteristically, topic proffers exhibit the following features: (i) propose a “recipient-oriented topic” for subsequent talk; (ii) are typically implemented by polar questions; and (iii) launch “topic-proffering sequences” by making conditionally relevant either embracing or rejecting the topic. Extract (1) offers an example from a phone conversation between two siblings. After Brother brings the how-are-you sequence to a close, at line 6, Sister proffers presumed preparations for her visit as a potential topic to talk about next.

(1) [TB:CF:5367, 06m38s-50s, Sis=Caller]

01 Sis: (...) .hh ^Oy(e) y cómo estás.
''.hh Hey and how are you''

02 (0.2)

03 Bro: Ahí bien. Tranquilo.
''There well Chill''

04 Sis: Sí:?
''Yeah''

05 Bro: Sí.=[(Aca- )
''Yeah''

06 Sis: -> [Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,
''[Are you getting ready for when I come''

07 Bro: .hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.=Hemos estado buscando
''.hhh (We) are getting ready indeed.=We’ve been searching for''

08 la van ahora con mi mamá también >↑osea g-< (0.2) ↑viendo
''the van with my mom too now >I mean< (0.2) looking into''

09 otras alternativas con mi mamá_=
''other alternatives with my mom''

10 Sis: =mYa_
''=Okay''

The topic proffer at line 6 exhibits all three prototypical features mentioned above. First, the proffer sets out a recipient-oriented topic, that is, what Brother is doing (or should be doing) in preparation for Sister’s arrival. As a form of sibling’s play, Sister’s question builds in a presupposition that Brother should, in some way, “get ready” for receiving her back in the country. Second, the polar question that serves as a vehicle for proffering the topic is formatted as a B-event statement with a low-to-rise intonational contour: “Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,” “Are you getting ready for when I come” (see Raymond 2015 on Spanish polar questions). This makes confirmation or disconfirmation conditionally relevant. However, as a vehicle for proffering a topic, the question also sets forth a preference to either embrace or reject the topic with procedural implications for developing topic talk. This relates to the third feature sketched out above: Topic-proffers launch topic talk sequences. Schegloff (2007:171) observes that embracing or rejecting the proffered topic are analyzable as stances displayed by the topic-proffer recipient. These alternative stances might be oriented to by (a) including or not conforming responses to the question (see Raymond 2003), (b) aligning or not with the polarity preference of the question, and (c) expanding or not the answer, with expansions that demonstrably further topic talk being preferred over minimal responses. In the case above, Brother embraces the topic (lines 8-10). He does so, first, by confirming Sister’s question with an agentive partial repeat: “.hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.” “[We] are getting ready indeed” (line 7) to immediately go on to elaborate on the details of what he has been up to. Notice though that, in developing the sequence, Brother subtly transforms the topic to respond not about presumed doings to get ready for meeting Sister but rather reports on his most recent doings with Mom taking up a request by Dad (who is staying at Sister’s and will soon join the phone call) to look into van models and prices for purchase.

Schegloff (2007:179-80) highlights the distinct preference structure of topic-proffering sequences. Typically, in sequence organization, preferred second pair parts are “closure-relevant” whereas dispreferred pair parts are “expansion relevant”. Topic-proffering sequences flip this structure. Because topic-proffers are used to propose engaging in topic talk about the proffered topic, sequence expansion is the structurally preferred alternative. This preference is observed in Brother’s aligning response to Sister’s topic proffer in the extract above. As Schegloff (2007) further notes, this poses a problem for closing topic-proffering sequences (and other “longer sequences”) for which dedicated practices are needed (e.g., Sacks & Schegloff 1973). In the case above, it is the slight topical shift that Brother does by specifying Sister’s topic proffer question about “getting ready” (line 6) in terms of “searching for the van” (lines 7-8) that curtails the development of Sister’s originally proposed topic, introducing a new one in the next turn (not shown).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action''. Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 42, 50–68.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. ''American Sociological Review'', 68(6), 939–967.

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

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

'''Additional References:'''

Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic proffers as beginnings in interaction: Gaze practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Gubina, Alexandra, Emma Betz, & Arnulf Deppermann. (2024). Doing More than Confirming: Expanded Responses to Requests for Confirmation in German Talk-in-Interaction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'' 5(1–2):307–46.

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

Topic proffer

2026-04-21T19:19:17Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic proffer. 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 “'''topic proffer'''” describes a distinct conversational practice for initiating topic talk. As described by Schegloff (2007:169-ff), topic proffers belong to a class of “disjunctive” topic initiation devices, which also include “topic initial elicitors” and topic nomination devices, like news announcements and “itemized news inquiries” (see '''[[Topic]]'''; see also Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Characteristically, topic proffers exhibit the following features: (i) propose a “recipient-oriented topic” for subsequent talk; (ii) are typically implemented by polar questions; and (iii) launch “topic-proffering sequences” by making conditionally relevant either embracing or rejecting the topic. Extract (1) offers an example from a phone conversation between two siblings. After Brother brings the how-are-you sequence to a close, at line 6, Sister proffers presumed preparations for her visit as a potential topic to talk about next.

(1) [TB:CF:5367, 06m38s-50s, Sis=Caller]

01 Sis: (...) .hh ^Oy(e) y cómo estás.
''.hh Hey and how are you''

02 (0.2)

03 Bro: Ahí bien. Tranquilo.
''There well Chill''

04 Sis: Sí:?
''Yeah''

05 Bro: Sí.=[(Aca- )
''Yeah''

06 Sis: -> [Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,
''[Are you getting ready for when I come''

07 Bro: .hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.=Hemos estado buscando
''.hhh (We) are getting ready indeed.=We’ve been searching for''

08 la van ahora con mi mamá también >↑osea g-< (0.2) ↑viendo
''the van with my mom too now >I mean< (0.2) looking into''

09 otras alternativas con mi mamá_=
''other alternatives with my mom''

10 Sis: =mYa_
''=Okay''

The topic proffer at line 6 exhibits all three prototypical features mentioned above. First, the proffer sets out a recipient-oriented topic, that is, what Brother is doing (or should be doing) in preparation for Sister’s arrival. As a form of sibling’s play, Sister’s question builds in a presupposition that Brother should, in some way, “get ready” for receiving her back in the country. Second, the polar question that serves as a vehicle for proffering the topic is formatted as a B-event statement with a low-to-rise intonational contour: “Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,” “Are you getting ready for when I come” (see Raymond 2015 on Spanish polar questions). This makes confirmation or disconfirmation conditionally relevant. However, as a vehicle for proffering a topic, the question also sets forth a preference to either embrace or reject the topic with procedural implications for developing topic talk. This relates to the third feature sketched out above: Topic-proffers launch topic talk sequences. Schegloff (2007:171) observes that embracing or rejecting the proffered topic are analyzable as stances displayed by the topic-proffer recipient. These alternative stances might be oriented to by (a) including or not conforming responses to the question (see Raymond 2003), (b) aligning or not with the polarity preference of the question, and (c) expanding or not the answer, with expansions that demonstrably further topic talk being preferred over minimal responses. In the case above, Brother embraces the topic (lines 8-10). He does so, first, by confirming Sister’s question with an agentive partial repeat: “.hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.” “[We] are getting ready indeed” (line 7) to immediately go on to elaborate on the details of what he has been up to. Notice though that, in developing the sequence, Brother subtly transforms the topic to respond not about presumed doings to get ready for meeting Sister but rather reports on his most recent doings with Mom taking up a request by Dad (who is staying at Sister’s and will soon join the phone call) to look into van models and prices for purchase.

Schegloff (2007:179-80) highlights the distinct preference structure of topic-proffering sequences. Typically, in sequence organization, preferred second pair parts are “closure-relevant” whereas dispreferred pair parts are “expansion relevant”. Topic-proffering sequences flip this structure. Because topic-proffers are used to propose engaging in topic talk about the proffered topic, sequence expansion is the structurally preferred alternative. This preference is observed in Brother’s aligning response to Sister’s topic proffer in the extract above. As Schegloff (2007) further notes, this poses a problem for closing topic-proffering sequences (and other “longer sequences”) for which dedicated practices are needed (e.g., Sacks & Schegloff 1973). In the case above, it is the slight topical shift that Brother does by specifying Sister’s topic proffer question about “getting ready” (line 6) in terms of “searching for the van” (lines 7-8) that curtails the development of Sister’s originally proposed topic, introducing a new one in the next turn (not shown).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action''. Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 42, 50–68.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. ''American Sociological Review'', 68(6), 939–967.

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

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

'''Additional References:'''

Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic proffers as beginnings in interaction: Gaze practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Gubina, Alexandra, Emma Betz, & Arnulf Deppermann. (2024). Doing More than Confirming: Expanded Responses to Requests for Confirmation in German Talk-in-Interaction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'' 5(1–2):307–46.

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

Topic proffer

2026-04-21T19:18:52Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic proffer. 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 “'''topic proffer'''” describes a distinct conversational practice for initiating topic talk. As described by Schegloff (2007:169-ff), topic proffers belong to a class of “disjunctive” topic initiation devices, which also include “topic initial elicitors” and topic nomination devices, like news announcements and “itemized news inquiries” (see '''[[Topic]]'''; see also Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Characteristically, topic proffers exhibit the following features: (i) propose a “recipient-oriented topic” for subsequent talk; (ii) are typically implemented by polar questions; and (iii) launch “topic-proffering sequences” by making conditionally relevant either embracing or rejecting the topic. Extract (1) offers an example from a phone conversation between two siblings. After Brother brings the how-are-you sequence to a close, at line 6, Sister proffers presumed preparations for her visit as a potential topic to talk about next.

(1) [TB:CF:5367, 06m38s-50s, Sis=Caller]

01 Sis: (...) .hh ^Oy(e) y cómo estás.
''.hh Hey and how are you''

02 (0.2)

03 Bro: Ahí bien. Tranquilo.
''There well Chill''

04 Sis: Sí:?
''Yeah''

05 Bro: Sí.=[(Aca- )
''Yeah''

06 Sis: -> [Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,
''[Are you getting ready for when I come''

07 Bro: .hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.=Hemos estado buscando
''.hhh (We) are getting ready indeed.=We’ve been searching for''

08 la van ahora con mi mamá también >↑osea g-< (0.2) ↑viendo
''the van with my mom too now >I mean< (0.2) looking into''

09 otras alternativas con mi mamá_=
''other alternatives with my mom''

10 Sis: =mYa_
''=Okay''

The topic proffer at line 6 exhibits all three prototypical features mentioned above. First, the proffer sets out a recipient-oriented topic, that is, what Brother is doing (or should be doing) in preparation for Sister’s arrival. As a form of sibling’s play, Sister’s question builds in a presupposition that Brother should, in some way, “get ready” for receiving her back in the country. Second, the polar question that serves as a vehicle for proffering the topic is formatted as a B-event statement with a low-to-rise intonational contour: “Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,” “Are you getting ready for when I come” (see Raymond 2015 on Spanish polar questions). This makes confirmation or disconfirmation conditionally relevant. However, as a vehicle for proffering a topic, the question also sets forth a preference to either embrace or reject the topic with procedural implications for developing topic talk. This relates to the third feature sketched out above: Topic-proffers launch topic talk sequences. Schegloff (2007:171) observes that embracing or rejecting the proffered topic are analyzable as stances displayed by the topic-proffer recipient. These alternative stances might be oriented to by (a) including or not conforming responses to the question (see Raymond 2003), (b) aligning or not with the polarity preference of the question, and (c) expanding or not the answer, with expansions that demonstrably further topic talk being preferred over minimal responses. In the case above, Brother embraces the topic (lines 8-10). He does so, first, by confirming Sister’s question with an agentive partial repeat: “.hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.” “[We] are getting ready indeed” (line 7) to immediately go on to elaborate on the details of what he has been up to. Notice though that, in developing the sequence, Brother subtly transforms the topic to respond not about presumed doings to get ready for meeting Sister but rather reports on his most recent doings with Mom taking up a request by Dad (who is staying at Sister’s and will soon join the phone call) to look into van models and prices for purchase.

Schegloff (2007:179-80) highlights the distinct preference structure of topic-proffering sequences. Typically, in sequence organization, preferred second pair parts are “closure-relevant” whereas dispreferred pair parts are “expansion relevant”. Topic-proffering sequences flip this structure. Because topic-proffers are used to propose engaging in topic talk about the proffered topic, sequence expansion is the structurally preferred alternative. This preference is observed in Brother’s aligning response to Sister’s topic proffer in the extract above. As Schegloff (2007) further notes, this poses a problem for closing topic-proffering sequences (and other “longer sequences”) for which dedicated practices are needed (e.g., Sacks & Schegloff 1973). In the case above, it is the slight topical shift that Brother does by specifying Sister’s topic proffer question about “getting ready” (line 6) in terms of “searching for the van” (lines 7-8) that curtails the development of Sister’s originally proposed topic, introducing a new one in the next turn (not shown).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action''. Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 42, 50–68.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. ''American Sociological Review'', 68(6), 939–967.

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

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

'''Additional References:'''

Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic proffers as beginnings in interaction: Gaze practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Gubina, Alexandra, Emma Betz, & Arnulf Deppermann. (2024). Doing More than Confirming: Expanded Responses to Requests for Confirmation in German Talk-in-Interaction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'' 5(1–2):307–46.

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

Topicalization

2026-04-21T19:15:58Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because ] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-21T19:15:35Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because ] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-21T19:14:39Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-21T19:12:32Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “'''topic attrition/topic hold'''” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing '''[[topic]]''' is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.

(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted)

01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh
02 yih know.
03 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very
04 ni[:ce.
05 M: [Have they.=
06 G: -> =M[m::.
07 M: -> [Yah.
08 (0.2)
09 G: -> [Ye:h.
10 M: -> [Yeh,
11 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,
12 (.)
13 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh
14 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im

As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.

It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).

After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like ''joo'' in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like '''[[Lapse|lapses]]''' (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Lapse]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45(1), 30-52.

Hoey, E.M. (2020). ''When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence''. Oxford University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation''. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'' 17(2), 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).

Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). ''Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish''. John Benjamins.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-21T19:11:58Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “'''topic attrition/topic hold'''” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing '''[[topic]]''' is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.

(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted)

01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh
02 yih know.
01 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very
02 ni[:ce.
03 M: [Have they.=
04 G: -> =M[m::.
05 M: -> [Yah.
06 (0.2)
07 G: -> [Ye:h.
08 M: -> [Yeh,
09 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,
10 (.)
11 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh
12 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im

As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.

It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).

After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like ''joo'' in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like '''[[Lapse|lapses]]''' (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Lapse]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45(1), 30-52.

Hoey, E.M. (2020). ''When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence''. Oxford University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation''. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'' 17(2), 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).

Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). ''Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish''. John Benjamins.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-21T19:10:53Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see '''[[Delicate]]'''), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

10 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

11 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

12 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

13 (0.2)

14 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), 302–337.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic proffer

2026-04-15T03:40:12Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic proffer. 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 “'''topic proffer'''” describes a distinct conversational practice for initiating topic talk. As described by Schegloff (2007:169-ff), topic proffers belong to a class of “disjunctive” topic initiation devices, which also include “topic initial elicitors” and topic nomination devices, like news announcements and “itemized news inquiries” (see '''[[Topic]]'''; see also Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Characteristically, topic proffers exhibit the following features: (i) propose a “recipient-oriented topic” for subsequent talk; (ii) are typically implemented by polar questions; and (iii) launch “topic-proffering sequences” by making conditionally relevant either embracing or rejecting the topic. Extract (1) offers an example from a phone conversation between two siblings. Sister is currently in the US and Brother in Peru. After Brother brings the how-are-you sequence to a close, at line 6, Sister proffers presumed preparations by Brother for her arrival in Peru as a potential topic to talk about next.

(1) [TB:CF:5367, 06m38s-50s, Sis=Caller]

01 Sis: (...) .hh ^Oy(e) y cómo estás.
''.hh Hey and how are you''

02 (0.2)

03 Bro: Ahí bien. Tranquilo.
''There well Chill''

04 Sis: Sí:?
''Yeah''

05 Bro: Sí.=[(Aca- )
''Yeah''

06 Sis: -> [Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,
''[Are you getting ready for when I come''

08 Bro: .hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.=Hemos estado buscando
''.hhh (We) are getting ready indeed.=We’ve been searching for''

09 la van ahora con mi mamá también >↑osea g-< (0.2) ↑viendo
''the van with my mom too now >I mean< (0.2) looking into''

10 otras alternativas con mi mamá_=
''other alternatives with my mom''

11 Sis: =mYa_
''=Okay''

The topic proffer at line 6 exhibits all three prototypical features mentioned above. First, the proffer sets out a recipient-oriented topic, that is, what Brother is doing (or should be doing) in preparation for Sister’s arrival. As a form of sibling’s play, Sister’s question builds in a presupposition that Brother should, in some way, “get ready” for receiving her back in the country. Second, the polar question that serves as a vehicle for proffering the topic is formatted as a B-event statement with a low-to-rise intonational contour: “Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,” “Are you getting ready for when I come” (see Raymond 2015 on Spanish polar questions). This makes confirmation or disconfirmation conditionally relevant. However, as a vehicle for proffering a topic, the question also sets forth a preference to either embrace or reject the topic with procedural implications for developing topic talk. This relates to the third feature sketched out above: Topic-proffers launch topic talk sequences. Schegloff (2007:171) observes that embracing or rejecting the proffered topic are analyzable as stances displayed by the topic-proffer recipient. These alternative stances might be oriented to by (a) including or not conforming responses to the question (see Raymond 2003), (b) aligning or not with the polarity preference of the question, and (c) expanding or not the answer, with expansions that demonstrably further topic talk being preferred over minimal responses. In the case above, Brother embraces the topic (lines 8-10). He does so, first, by confirming Sister’s question with an agentive partial repeat: “.hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.” “[We] are getting ready indeed” (line 8) to immediately go on to elaborate on the details of what he has been up to. Notice though that, in developing the sequence, Brother subtly transforms the topic to respond not about presumed doings to get ready for meeting Sister but rather reports on his most recent doings with Mom taking up a request by Dad (who is staying at Sister’s and will soon join the phone call) to look into van models and prices for purchase.

Schegloff (2007:179-80) highlights the distinct preference structure of topic-proffering sequences. Typically, in sequence organization, preferred second pair parts are “closure-relevant” whereas dispreferred pair parts are “expansion relevant”. Topic-proffering sequences flip this structure. Because topic-proffers are used to propose engaging in topic talk about the proffered topic, sequence expansion is the structurally preferred alternative. This preference is observed in Brother’s aligning response to Sister’s topic proffer in the extract above. As Schegloff (2007) further notes, this poses a problem for closing topic-proffering sequences (and other “longer sequences”) for which dedicated practices are needed (e.g., Sacks & Schegloff 1973). In the case above, it is the slight topical shift that Brother does by specifying Sister’s topic proffer question about “getting ready” (line 6) in terms of “searching for the van” (lines 8-9) that curtails the development of Sister’s originally proposed topic, introducing a new one in the next turn (not shown).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action''. Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 42, 50–68.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. ''American Sociological Review'', 68(6), 939–967.

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

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

'''Additional References:'''

Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic proffers as beginnings in interaction: Gaze practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Gubina, Alexandra, Emma Betz, & Arnulf Deppermann. (2024). Doing More than Confirming: Expanded Responses to Requests for Confirmation in German Talk-in-Interaction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'' 5(1–2):307–46.

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-15T03:38:55Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “'''topic attrition/topic hold'''” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing '''[[topic]]''' is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.

(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted)

01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh
02 yih know.
01 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very
02 ni[:ce.
03 M: [Have they.=
04 G: -> =M[m::.
05 M: -> [Yah.
06 (0.2)
07 G: -> [Ye:h.
08 M: -> [Yeh,
09 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,
10 (.)
11 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh
12 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im

As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.

It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).

After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like ''joo'' in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like [[Lapse|lapses]] (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Lapse]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45(1), 30-52.

Hoey, E.M. (2020). ''When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence''. Oxford University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation''. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'' 17(2), 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).

Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). ''Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish''. John Benjamins.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-15T03:37:51Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “'''topic attrition/topic hold'''” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing '''[[topic]]''' is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.

(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted)

01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh
02 yih know.
01 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very
02 ni[:ce.
03 M: [Have they.=
04 G: -> =M[m::.
05 M: -> [Yah.
06 (0.2)
07 G: -> [Ye:h.
08 M: -> [Yeh,
09 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,
10 (.)
11 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh
12 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im

As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.

It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).

After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like ''joo'' in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like lapses (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Lapse]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45(1), 30-52.

Hoey, E.M. (2020). ''When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence''. Oxford University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation''. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'' 17(2), 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).

Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). ''Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish''. John Benjamins.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-15T03:34:01Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

Originating in Jefferson’s (1981) studies of topic articulation in conversation, the term “'''topic attrition/topic hold'''” (TA/TH) describes a state of talk in which an ongoing '''[[topic]]''' is kept alive by minimal participant contributions, which characteristically take the shape of “a batch of acknowledgement tokens” (Jefferson 1981:4; see also Sorjonen 2000:261-2). Extract (1) captures an instance of TA/TH (arrowed) which resolves by M’s launching a new topic at line 9: “So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,”.

(1) (Jefferson 1981:1-3, adapted)

01 M: En when you open outchih bedrooms arre off the floh
02 yih know.
01 G: I know they’ve got one acrahss th’way theh very
02 ni[:ce.
03 M: [Have they.=
04 G: -> =M[m::.
05 M: -> [Yah.
06 (0.2)
07 G: -> [Ye:h.
08 M: -> [Yeh,
09 M: .h So ah’ve got Stahrsky heuh,
10 (.)
11 M: hu[h-heh-huh [huh
12 G: [O h : : : [you’re looking ahfter im

As the extract shows, acknowledgement tokens that compose TA/TH segments can make up a series of consecutive turns (lines 4-8) and exhibit different forms (e.g., “Mm::”, at line 4; “Ye:h”, at line 7). The multiple tokens keep the ongoing topic running (i.e., topic hold) while, at the same time, their successive occasioning furnishes an environment that signals that the topic might come to an end (i.e., topic attrition). Both topic continuation and topic termination (see Topic) are thus possibly relevant outcomes of TA/TH segments. In the extract above, the latter takes place with a topic change occurring at line 9.

It is precisely the lack of systematicity in yielding either topic continuation or termination that prompts Jefferson (1981) to reject an analysis of “the batch of acknowledgement tokens” in TA/TH segments as “‘a device’ in its own right” (p. 4). Rather, she describes the multiple tokens as “accumulated byproducts of single serial actions” (ibid.), suggesting a need for a more detailed inspection. Indeed, further analyses in Jefferson (1981, and publications thereafter from this original report) suggest that acknowledgment token “pairs” can signal participants’ passing on substantially developing topical talk (Jefferson 1983/1993:26), showing the topic-shift implicativeness of the acknowledgment token “Yeah” (or “Yes”) in English in certain sequential contexts (Jefferson 1983/1993:3-9) and its specialization to project speakership relative to the passive “Mm Hm” (Jefferson 1984).

After Jefferson’s initial discovery and reports, explorations of TA/TH segments by researchers in various areas have shown their occurrence in languages other than English and the language-specific tokens used to compose them, like ''joo'' in Finnish (Sorjonen 2001:261-2); their association with a lack of new K+/K- contributions that drive forward topical talk sequences (Heritage 2012:45-6); and their admission of other materials beyond acknowledgement tokens, like lapses (Hoey 2020:69, 93), that contribute to topic attrition.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Lapse]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 45(1), 30-52.

Hoey, E.M. (2020). ''When Conversation Lapses: The Public Accountability of Silent Copresence''. Oxford University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation''. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council. Manuscript. Retrieved from: https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf on December 5, 2024.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'' 17(2), 197-216.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 26(1), 1-30. (Originally published in 1983).

Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). ''Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish''. John Benjamins.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T03:31:09Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:30:04Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:29:45Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T03:28:51Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic proffer

2026-04-15T03:28:36Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic proffer. 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 “'''topic proffer'''” describes a distinct conversational practice for initiating topic talk. As described by Schegloff (2007:169-ff), topic proffers belong to a class of “disjunctive” topic initiation devices, which also include “topic initial elicitors” and topic nomination devices, like news announcements and “itemized news inquiries” (see '''[[Topic]]'''; see also Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Characteristically, topic proffers exhibit the following features: (i) propose a “recipient-oriented topic” for subsequent talk; (ii) are typically implemented by polar questions; and (iii) launch “topic-proffering sequences” by making conditionally relevant either embracing or rejecting the topic. Extract (1) offers an example from a phone conversation between two siblings. Sister is currently in the US and Brother in Peru. After Brother brings the how-are-you sequence to a close, at line 6, Sister proffers presumed preparations by Brother for her arrival in Peru as a potential topic to talk about next.

(1) [TB:CF:5367, 06m38s-50s, Sis=Caller]

01 Sis: (...) .hh ^Oy(e) y cómo estás.
''.hh Hey and how are you''

02 (0.2)

03 Bro: Ahí bien. Tranquilo.
''There well Chill''

04 Sis: Sí:?
''Yeah''

05 Bro: Sí.=[(Aca- )
''Yeah''

06 Sis: -> [Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,
''[Are you getting ready for when I come''

08 Bro: .hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.=Hemos estado buscando
''.hhh (We) are getting ready indeed.=We’ve been searching for''

09 la van ahora con mi mamá también >↑osea g-< (0.2) ↑viendo
''the van with my mom too now >I mean< (0.2) looking into''

10 otras alternativas con mi mamá_=
''other alternatives with my mom''

11 Sis: =mYa_
''=Okay''

The topic proffer at line 6 exhibits all three prototypical features mentioned above. First, the proffer sets out a recipient-oriented topic, that is, what Brother is doing (or should be doing) in preparation for Sister’s arrival. As a form of sibling’s play, Sister’s question builds in a presupposition that Brother should, in some way, “get ready” for receiving her back in the country. Second, the polar question that serves as a vehicle for proffering the topic is formatted as a B-event statement with a low-to-rise intonational contour: “Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,” “Are you getting ready for when I come” (see Raymond 2015 on Spanish polar questions). This makes confirmation or disconfirmation conditionally relevant. However, as a vehicle for proffering a topic, the question also sets forth a preference to either embrace or reject the topic with procedural implications for developing topic talk. This relates to the third feature sketched out above: Topic-proffers launch topic talk sequences. Schegloff (2007:171) observes that embracing or rejecting the proffered topic are analyzable as stances displayed by the topic-proffer recipient. These alternative stances might be oriented to by (a) including or not conforming responses to the question (see Raymond 2003), (b) aligning or not with the polarity preference of the question, and (c) expanding or not the answer, with expansions that demonstrably further topic talk being preferred over minimal responses. In the case above, Brother embraces the topic (lines 8-10). He does so, first, by confirming Sister’s question with an agentive partial repeat: “.hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.” “[We] are getting ready indeed” (line 8) to immediately go on to elaborate on the details of what he has been up to. Notice though that, in developing the sequence, Brother subtly transforms the topic to respond not about presumed doings to get ready for meeting Sister but rather reports on his most recent doings with Mom taking up a request by Dad (who is staying at Sister’s and will soon join the phone call) to look into van models and prices for purchase.

Schegloff (2007:179-80) highlights the distinct preference structure of topic-proffering sequences. Typically, in sequence organization, preferred second pair parts are “closure-relevant” whereas dispreferred pair parts are “expansion relevant”. Topic-proffering sequences flip this structure. Because topic-proffers are used to propose engaging in topic talk about the proffered topic, sequence expansion is the structurally preferred alternative. This preference is observed in Brother’s aligning response to Sister’s topic proffer in the extract above. As Schegloff (2007) further notes, this poses a problem for closing topic-proffering sequences (and other “longer sequences”) for which dedicated practices are needed (e.g., Sacks & Schegloff 1973). In the case above, it is the slight topical shift that Brother does by specifying Sister’s topic proffer question about “getting ready” (line 6) in terms of “searching for the van” (lines 8-9) that curtails the development of Sister’s originally proposed topic, introducing a new one in the next turn (not shown).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action''. Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 42, 50–68.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. ''American Sociological Review'', 68(6), 939–967.

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

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

'''Additional References:'''

Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic proffers as beginnings in interaction: Gaze practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Gubina, Alexandra, Emma Betz, & Arnulf Deppermann. (2024). “Doing More than Confirming: Expanded Responses to Requests for Confirmation in German Talk-in-Interaction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'' 5(1–2):307–46.

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

Topic attrition/Topic hold

2026-04-15T03:27:46Z

ChaseRaymond: Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026) | To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic attrition / Topic hold..."

Topic attrittion/Topic hold

2026-04-15T03:27:29Z

ChaseRaymond: Blanked the page

Topic

2026-04-15T03:26:14Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[[[Topic attrittion/Topic hold|Topic attrition/Topic hold]]]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T03:25:35Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition/Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic attrittion/Topic hold

2026-04-15T03:24:27Z

Topic proffer

2026-04-15T03:19:45Z

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic proffer. 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 “'''topic proffer'''” describes a distinct conversational practice for initiating topic talk. As described by Schegloff (2007:169-ff), topic proffers belong to a class of “disjunctive” topic initiation devices, which also include “topic initial elicitors” and topic nomination devices, like news announcements and “itemized news inquiries” (see '''[[Topic]]'''; see also Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Characteristically, topic proffers exhibit the following features: (i) propose a “recipient-oriented topic” for subsequent talk; (ii) are typically implemented by polar questions; and (iii) launch “topic-proffering sequences” by making conditionally relevant either embracing or rejecting the topic. Extract (1) offers an example from a phone conversation between two siblings. Sister is currently in the US and Brother in Peru. After Brother brings the how-are-you sequence to a close, at line 6, Sister proffers presumed preparations by Brother for her arrival in Peru as a potential topic to talk about next.

(1) [TB:CF:5367, 06m38s-50s, Sis=Caller]

01 Sis: (...) .hh ^Oy(e) y cómo estás.
''.hh Hey and how are you''

02 (0.2)

03 Bro: Ahí bien. Tranquilo.
''There well Chill''

04 Sis: Sí:?
''Yeah''

05 Bro: Sí.=[(Aca- )
''Yeah''

06 Sis: -> [Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,
''[Are you getting ready for when I come''

08 Bro: .hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.=Hemos estado buscando
''.hhh (We) are getting ready indeed.=We’ve been searching for''

09 la van ahora con mi mamá también >↑osea g-< (0.2) ↑viendo
''the van with my mom too now >I mean< (0.2) looking into''

10 otras alternativas con mi mamá_=
''other alternatives with my mom''

11 Sis: =mYa_
''=Okay''

The topic proffer at line 6 exhibits all three prototypical features mentioned above. First, the proffer sets out a recipient-oriented topic, that is, what Brother is doing (or should be doing) in preparation for Sister’s arrival. As a form of sibling’s play, Sister’s question builds in a presupposition that Brother should, in some way, “get ready” for receiving her back in the country. Second, the polar question that serves as a vehicle for proffering the topic is formatted as a B-event statement with a low-to-rise intonational contour: “Te estás preparando para cuando yo vaya,” “Are you getting ready for when I come” (see Raymond 2015 on Spanish polar questions). This makes confirmation or disconfirmation conditionally relevant. However, as a vehicle for proffering a topic, the question also sets forth a preference to either embrace or reject the topic with procedural implications for developing topic talk. This relates to the third feature sketched out above: Topic-proffers launch topic talk sequences. Schegloff (2007:171) observes that embracing or rejecting the proffered topic are analyzable as stances displayed by the topic-proffer recipient. These alternative stances might be oriented to by (a) including or not conforming responses to the question (see Raymond 2003), (b) aligning or not with the polarity preference of the question, and (c) expanding or not the answer, with expansions that demonstrably further topic talk being preferred over minimal responses. In the case above, Brother embraces the topic (lines 8-10). He does so, first, by confirming Sister’s question with an agentive partial repeat: “.hhh (Nos es)tamos prepa↑rando pues.” “[We] are getting ready indeed” (line 8) to immediately go on to elaborate on the details of what he has been up to. Notice though that, in developing the sequence, Brother subtly transforms the topic to respond not about presumed doings to get ready for meeting Sister but rather reports on his most recent doings with Mom taking up a request by Dad (who is staying at Sister’s and will soon join the phone call) to look into van models and prices for purchase.

Schegloff (2007:179-80) highlights the distinct preference structure of topic-proffering sequences. Typically, in sequence organization, preferred second pair parts are “closure-relevant” whereas dispreferred pair parts are “expansion relevant”. Topic-proffering sequences flip this structure. Because topic-proffers are used to propose engaging in topic talk about the proffered topic, sequence expansion is the structurally preferred alternative. This preference is observed in Brother’s aligning response to Sister’s topic proffer in the extract above. As Schegloff (2007) further notes, this poses a problem for closing topic-proffering sequences (and other “longer sequences”) for which dedicated practices are needed (e.g., Sacks & Schegloff 1973). In the case above, it is the slight topical shift that Brother does by specifying Sister’s topic proffer question about “getting ready” (line 6) in terms of “searching for the van” (lines 8-9) that curtails the development of Sister’s originally proposed topic, introducing a new one in the next turn (not shown).

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action''. Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 42, 50–68.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. ''American Sociological Review'', 68(6), 939–967.

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

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

'''Additional References:'''

Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic proffers as beginnings in interaction: Gaze practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Gubina, Alexandra, Emma Betz, & Arnulf Deppermann. (2024). “Doing More than Confirming: Expanded Responses to Requests for Confirmation in German Talk-in-Interaction. ''Contrastive Pragmatics'' 5(1–2):307–46.

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

Topic

2026-04-15T03:15:23Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:14:11Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:09:49Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
''Well if it’s male''

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
''And if it is female''

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
''I don’t know''

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:09:02Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, '''topicalization''' can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
Well if it’s male

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
And if it is female

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
I don’t know

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:07:26Z

ChaseRaymond: /* EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'topicalization' */

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, topicalization can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
Well if it’s male

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
And if it is female

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
I don’t know

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:07:17Z

ChaseRaymond: /* EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'topicalization' */

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, topicalization can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
Well if it’s male

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
And if it is female

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
I don’t know

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:06:03Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, topicalization can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
Well if it’s male

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
And if it is female

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
I don’t know

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T03:05:25Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topicalization. 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 CA/IL research, topicalization can be conceptualized in both sequence-organizational and grammatical terms. From a ''sequence-organizational'' perspective, topicalization refers to the process whereby participants establish a topic as a candidate for subsequent development in the unfolding talk. Topicalization may involve introducing a new topic into the conversation or promoting a previously stated or alluded to referent or action to topical status. These procedures can include stepwise-transition practices or “disjunctive” topic initiations (see '''[[Topic]]'''), typically occurring in sequential environments characterized by topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/Topic hold'''). Extract (1) captures a case in point from a conversation between two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. Janet has been telling Sariel about a music video that she likes which depicts significant life stages in the singer’s life since birth. As the topic withers due to repeated assessments and thus the lack of further empirical reporting (line 1-4), Janet tells her friend that she will make a similar video for “Mario,” embedding the announcement of her baby’s name in the telling (line 5). At line 8, Sariel topicalizes the news within the telling through a question that seeks confirmation on Janet’s decision to name the baby “Mario.”

(1) [CCCELE/La Habana/01m23s]

01 JAN: (...) Sí::: era: ↑es lindo %el video.
''Yes it was the video is nice''
sar %shift gaze from TV toward JAN--->

02 (1.0)

03 JAN: °mm° °Me gust(ó/a).°
''°mm° °I like(d) it°''

04 (0.6)

05 Le &voy a hacer así &algo a:: (.) así a: (.) a Mario.
''I’ll make something like that for (.) like that for (.) Mario''
jan &................&touches and rubs her belly->

06 (0.8)+#(0.2)
sar #smiles

07 JAN: Sí de verdad que voy (x[xx xxx )
''Yes I definitely will (x[xx xxx ) ''

08 SAR: '''[Y ya l- te decidiste que'''
'''''[And you’ve already decided that'''''

09 '''le vas a poner Mario,'''
'''''you will name him Mario'''''

10 (0.5)

11 JAN: Bueno: si es varón.
Well if it’s male

12 (0.6)

13 SAR: Y si es hembra?
And if it is female

14 (.)

15 JAN: No sé.
I don’t know

16 (1.8)

In addition to questions such as the one shown in the extract above, topicalization devices also include next-positioned repeats and newsmarks (Button & Casey 1985; Jefferson 1983/1993; Gubina & Betz 2021) and formulations in various sequential positions (Heyman 1986; Boden & Bielby 1986; Zinken & Kaiser 2022). In their study of “itemized news inquiries,” which nominate a possible topic by asking the recipient about a specific activity or circumstance that is presumably worth telling, Button and Casey (1985) analyze news receipt tokens such as “Ye:s?”, “Did the::y,” or “You ha:ve,” as “topicalizing responses,” that is, as warrants for the news announcer to develop topic talk by elaborating on the news in the next turn. Indeed, as Schegloff (2007:169-80) suggests, sequence expansion is a defining feature of “topic talk” and, in this way, underlies topicalization as a sequence-organizational process through which a set of interactional devices are set in motion.

Topicalization can also be conceptualized grammatically, especially in studies that bring in insights from linguistic analysis. From this perspective, topicalization describes a ''grammatical procedure'' whereby a constituent moves from its canonical syntactic position to highlight its topical status within a sentence’s information structure. Various syntactically marked constructions, like left-dislocation and wh-clefts in English, can be used for grammatical topicalization (see e.g., Kim 1995). Most commonly, however, topicalization narrowly refers to fronting the noun phrase (NP) that functions as verb complement to the beginning of a sentence (Pekarek-Doehler, De Stefani & Horlacher 2015:51; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410 for a discussion of clause extensions). Extract (2) below offers an example from a bit later in the same conversation between the two pregnant girlfriends in La Habana. As the topic quickly shifted to discussing possible female names given the possibility of the future baby being a girl, Janet stands firm on her inability to think of other names besides Mario, orienting to a subsequently revealed desire to have a baby boy. At line 5, the name “Mario” is grammatically topicalized twice within the same turn-at-talk: “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”) and “Mario me gusta.” (“Mario I like”).

(2) [CCCELE/La Habana/02:20]

01 SAR: .hhh No sé &no sé.
.hhh I don’t know &I don’t know
sar &withdraws gaze from JAN to look at TV

02 (0.8)

03 JAN: *(ºMmº)
*rubs belly

04 (0.9)

05 JAN: No '''^Mario a=mí me gusta mucho. (.) Mario me gusta.'''
NEG NAME DAT.1 REFL.1 like.3 much NAME REFL.1 like.3
'''''No Mario I like a lot (.) Mario I like'''''

06 (0.2)

07 JAN: Pero de he%mbra no puedo pensar en nombres para hembra.
''But female ones I can’t think of names for a female''
sar %looks at JAN

08 (0.6)

09 SAR: No #te: sale: [(de) la imaginación?]
''It #doesn’t come out [(from) your imagination''
jan #half-smile

10 JAN: [No:, porque ] yo quiero: °varoncito.°
''[No because] I want a °little boy°''

In both instances above, topicalization involves fronting the NP “Mario” to sentence beginning, thereby giving it informational prominence. Focusing on the first instance, i.e. “^Mario a mí me gusta mucho.” (“Mario I like a lot”), notice that the NP “Mario” gets positioned before the indirect object “a mí” (“to me”), which would typically appear initially in ''gustar'' (“to like”) constructions (cf. ''A mí me gusta Mario [I like Mario]''), but after the turn-initial particle “No” that prefaces a turn that orients to possible disagreement in bringing back the discussion about Janet’s inability to think of other names beside Mario. Relocating “Mario” to the beginning of the sentence but crucially after the turn-initial particle showcases the relevance of both grammatical and sequential structures in the construction of this turn-at-talk (Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996).

Interactional linguists have explored how topicalization and other marked syntactic constructions operate as resources for action in languages beyond English (e.g., Monzoni 2005; Pekarek-Doehler et al. 2015; see also Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018:393-410). For example, Pekarek Doehler, De Stefani, and Horlacher (2015) find that, in French, topicalization that involves fronting the demonstrative pronoun ''ça'' (“this/that”) in feeling and cognition verb constructions (e.g., ''et ça je trouve regrettable'' “and this I find regrettable”) occurs in proffering assessments, claiming or disclaiming epistemic access, and producing lists and contrasts. For Italian, Monzoni (2005) finds that topicalization is one way to design disconnected interjections in multi-party interactions. Compared to other marked syntactic structures in this context, by moving the verb complement to sentence beginning, topicalization is shown to bring awareness to referents in the proximate physical environment, signaling a rather abrupt shift from ongoing activities. In this way, grammatical conceptualizations of topicalization are particularly useful for exploring the intersection between turn design and action formation.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topic]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8, 3–55.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. (1986). The Way It Was: Topical Organization in Elderly Conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6 (1): 73–89.

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

Gubina, A., & Betz, E. (2021). What Do Newsmark-Type Responses Invite? The Response Space After German ''echt''. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 54(4), 374–396.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating Topic in the Classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1): 37–55.

Jefferson, G. (1983/1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'''', 26(1), 1–30. (Originally published in 1983).

Kim, K. (1995). Wh-clefts and left dislocation in English conversation: Cases of topicalization. In P. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), ''Word Order in Discourse'' (pp. 247-296). John Benjamins.

Monzoni, C. M. (2005). The use of marked syntactic constructions in Italian multi-party conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), ''Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction'' (pp. 129–157). John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). ''Interaction and Grammar''. Cambridge University Press.

Pekarek-Doehler, S., De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). ''Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction''. John Benjamins.

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

Zinken, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). Formulating other minds in social interaction: Accountability and courses of action. ''Language in Society'', 51(2), 185–210.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topicalization

2026-04-15T02:59:38Z

Topic

2026-04-15T02:46:07Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[First pair part]]'''
* '''[[Second pair part]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T02:45:07Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[sequence_organization|Sequence Organization]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T02:44:13Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''[[Topicalization]]''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''[[Topic_proffer|Topic proffer]]''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''[[Topicalization]]'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''[[Topic_attrition/topic_hold|Topic attrition/topic hold]]'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[Sequence Organization]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T02:39:37Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''Topicalization''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''Topic proffer''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''Topicalization'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/topic hold'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[Sequence Organization]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Topic

2026-04-15T02:39:00Z

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-2026)
| To cite = Olguín, Luis Manuel. (2026). Topic. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

CA approaches topicality in everyday discourse as an interactional accomplishment (cf. Palomares, Bradac & Kellerman 2006). Rather than treating '''topic''' primarily as a thematic or semantic unit, CA research examines how conversational topics are locally produced and ratified as “objects of discourse” (Mondada 1995), and how topicality itself is occasioned and managed as a participants’ concern in talk-in-interaction (Adato 1980). Conversational topics have thus been traditionally studied as a feature of various tellings (see e.g. Jefferson 1978, 1984b; Button & Casey 1984, 1985, 1988) and as an activity and sequence type termed “doing topic talk” by Schegloff (1990) (cf. “doing topical talk” or “talking topically” in Sacks 1995, Volume I:752-63, II:19; see also Schegloff 2007:169-80). In addition, topicality has also been explored as a feature of certain actions, such as a question’s “topical agenda” (Hayano 2013), and in relation to grammatical procedures (see '''Topicalization''').

Because what a stretch of talk is about is not always explicitly formulated (Garfinkel & Sacks 1970) and, indeed, conversational topics may shift, fade, and change as talk unfolds, specifying topicality analytically poses methodological challenges (Levinson 1983:313-5; Maynard 1980:263; Sacks 1995, Volume I:752, 762; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305-9; Schegloff 1990:50-3; Stokoe 2000:187; see also Riou 2015 for a discussion and suggestions). The analytic concern has thus not been with topical ''content'' per se, but with ''practices'' and ''structures'' that organize stretches of talk as topically-bound sequences and how they become procedurally relevant for ongoing courses of action (on “topical coherence,” see Sacks 1995, Volume II:254-5, 566; Jefferson 1978:220). Consider the following extract taken from a lecture by Harvey Sacks in spring of 1968:

(1) (Sacks 1995, Volume I:757)

01 A: I have a fourteen year old son.
02 B: Well that’s alright.
03 A: I also have a dog.
04 B: Oh, I’m sorry.

The sequence of turns above exhibits topical coherence by reference to being part of an interaction to rent an apartment. Sacks (1995) uses the extract to exemplify the operation of “co-class membership” as a device which, by topically relating items of spoken discourse, produces coherent strings of topical talk (see Sidnell 2010:224-26 for a discussion of the notion). Although children (e.g., “a fourteen year old son”) and pets (e.g., “a dog) might be an odd pairing in other contexts, in the interaction above they are co-members of the class “possible disqualifiers” for renting a place, and oriented to as relevant by the applicant’s volunteering them as informings and the landlord’s assessments in response (see Schegloff 1990 for further discussion of the relationship between topical coherence and sequence organization).

Most CA research on topicality has addressed what is commonly termed topical organization (sometimes referred to as “topic organization”, e.g., Button & Casey 1985:3; or “the organization of topic talk”, e.g. Schegloff 2007:169; see Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300 for a discussion). This line of research focuses on specifying the procedures whereby interlocutors introduce, manage, develop, and bring conversational topics to a close. Schegloff (1990) further conceptualizes “topic talk” as “a distinct activity which persons can do together in talk-in-interaction - a type of sequence [...] together with subvarieties of that activity” (p.52; see also Sacks 1995, Volume I:542). Although indigenous to ordinary conversation, “topic talk” has also been explored in institutional settings, especially in relation to its management vis-à-vis professional activities and tasks (e.g., Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Candlin 2002; Stokoe 2000).

As originally noted by Sacks (1995), a general feature of topical organization in ordinary conversation is that topics flow from one to another in a “stepwise” fashion (Volume II, p.566-7). Participants accomplish ''stepwise topical movement'' through procedures such as “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:305), different types of formulations of prior talk (Maynard 1980:271-4) and figurative expressions (Holt & Drew 2005). Through these practices, participants progressively modify and develop the topical trajectory of a conversation while maintaining recognizable, local coherence with what has been said before. Stepwise topical movement is also implicated in the management of sensitive or “delicate” topics (see Delicate), such as in the gradual exit from troubles-telling sequences (Jefferson 1984b, 1988). In contrast, ''disjunctive topical movement'' involves procedures that introduce a new topic as a change or departure from prior talk or topic(s). Practices for launching new topic talk sequences include “topic proffers” (Schegloff 2007:169-180; Fox & Thompson 2018), “topic nomination” devices, like “itemized news inquiries” and “news announcements” (Button & Casey 1985); and “topic initial elicitors” (Button & Casey 1984). Prosodic features have also been found to be mobilized for disjunctively launching new lines of talk (Riou 2017; see also Couper-Kuhlen 2003). Importantly, topic initiation practices implement actions that ''propose'' engaging in topic talk on nominated, solicited, or elicited conversational materials thereby making acceptance or rejection of the proposed new topic and/or engaging in topic talk conditionally relevant next (see '''Topic proffer''' for a discussion of this preference; see also Sacks 1995: Volume I:542-3, Volume II:566).

An example of disjunctive topic initiation through a news announcement can be observed in the following example from a phone conversation between Mom and Daughter. The extract showcases the interactional accomplishment of a new line of topic talk through sequential moves that begin with Daughter’s telling at line 5: “Hey Daddy’s found a completely changed Macarena”, which is timely positioned in overlap with Mom’s transferring the call to Daughter’s brother, Henry, who seems to be using a second phone receiver at Mom’s location.

(2) [TB:CF:SPA:5367: 4:50-5:00]

01 Mom: Ya, .h Y: este: >qué otra< cosa::::::_ .h
''Okay .h And um what else .h''

02 ((click sound, Henry seems to pick up
a second receiver))/(0.5)

03 Mom: al- Ah ya. ^Henry a ver tú habla. (.)
''Oh okay Henry your time to talk''

04 Ahí te va a hablar Hen[ry.
''Henry will talk to you now''

05 Dau: -> [^Oy(e) mi papi l’ h’ encontra’o
''Hey Daddy’s found''

06 a Macarena totalmente cambiada.
''a completely changed Macarena''

07 Mom: -> Ah sí:?
''Oh really''

08 Dau: -> ^O::y_ Sí:_
''O::h yeah''

09 (0.4)

09 Mom: -> Qué dice_=Que ‘stá bien grande,
''What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger''

10 Dau: Él dice que se está cada vez más bonita.
''He says that she’s getting every time getting prettier''

11 Mom: O:::y:_ he=£segu:::ro:_£ .hh
''Aw::: he=£I’m sure£ .hh''

12 (0.2)

13 Mom: Ya.=Y ‘stá gorda o no,
''Okay=And is she chubby or not''

Daughter’s telling at line 5 serves as a topic initiation device. The informing is designed as a news headline, suggesting that there is more to say about the topic it nominates (e.g. what Daddy saw in Macarena, Daughter’s baby, to have found her changed upon arriving to Daughter’s house). At line 7, Mom produces the newsmark “Ah sí:?” (Oh really?), which “topicalizes” (Button & Casey 1985:23) the news thereby promoting topic development through sequential expansion (see '''Topicalization'''). Note, however, that Daughter merely responds by confirming the previously delivered headline (line 8). Button and Casey (1984, 1985) analyze this type of response to news topicalizers in the context of beginning a new topic as a possible “curtailing move” which nonetheless typically prompts an interlocutor to “pursue topic” in the next turn. The authors suggest that, in the context of using a news announcement as a topic initiating device, curtailing moves by the announcer might orient to a preference for having topics develop as responses to elaboration requests rather than volunteerings on the news (p.35-40; see also Schegloff 2007:169-180). We observe this sequential development toward consolidating topic talk in the extract above as Mom uses an itemized news inquiry (“What does he say=That she’s gotten bigger”, line 9) to get Daughter to elaborate on the news and develop the topic. Notice also that, at line 13, a subsequent question by Mom further develops topic talk by asking about the baby’s physical development.

The initiation of new lines of topic talk is sensitive to sequential positions and interactional environments. Research has shown that topic changes frequently occur at moments where the ongoing topical progression becomes disrupted or begins to fade. For example, Maynard (1980) shows that topic changes recurrently take place in response to disagreements and various forms of recipient inattention. Similarly, Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) show that disjunctive topic initiation tends to occur in three sequential environments in which routine topical flow is not operative: conversational openings, possible entries into closings, and after “topic-bounding turns” or topic “shut-downs” that curtail or terminate prior topics. In everyday conversations, participants introduce a ''first topic'' after opening components, such as mutual recognition, greetings, and personal state sequences, which can nonetheless also be used to establish what to talk about next (Pillet-Shore 2018ab; Sacks 1995, Volume II:159; Schegloff & Sacks 1973:300-303). In phone conversations, participants routinely orient to the emergence of first topic as “the reason for the call” and called parties may facilitate this emergence through topic-initial elicitors (Button & Casey 1984; see also Bolden 2008:310-9; Schegloff 1986:116-7). In closing environments, topic initial elicitors can display a speaker’s availability to continue with the conversation, and could be posited as a more apt and other-attentive move to propose doing topic talk than, for example, a news announcement, when a conversational episode has possibly entered a closing track (for a discussion, see Button & Casey 1985:44-50 and Schegloff & Sacks 1973).

Indeed, in addition to practices for initiating or changing topics, CA research has examined how participants manage temporary departures from ongoing topical talk and subsequently return to prior lines of talk or topics. Speakers may mark stretches of talk as “off-topic” through devices such as “first-prefacing” (Montiegel & Robinson 2019) and “misplacement marking” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973:319-320); or prosodic practices like ''sotto voce'' delivery, which can frame an utterance as an interactionally disengaged from the ongoing talk (e.g. Goodwin 1987; see also Riou 2017 on the role of prosody for topic transition). Noticing and formulating topical digressions (Stokoe 2000), as well as asking permission and apologizing (Myers 1998:95), may also feature in managing off-topic talk. Participants may subsequently reconnect with earlier topics through procedures described as “backlinking” (Schegloff 1996:69) and “back-connecting” (Local 2004; see De Stefany & Horlacher 2008:384-386 for a conceptual discussion). Such returns can be accomplished, for instance, through turn-initial particles such as ''maar'' in Dutch (Mazeland & Huiskes 2001) or ''no(h)'' in Estonian (Keevallik 2013) that “tie” the impeding turn to earlier lines of talk (on “tying”, see Sacks 1995, Volume II:349-50, 356-7). Turn-initial particles like so in English can also mark topics as emerging from incipiency (Bolden 2008). Together these practices show how topical coherence is bounded sequentially (Schegloff 1990) and interactionally achieved as a participants’ concern across the unfolding conversation.

An important concept in the naturalistic study of topical organization is topic attrition (see '''Topic attrition/topic hold'''). ''Topic attrition'' describes a state of talk in which an ongoing conversational topic shows signs of possibly dying as a result from interactional disengagement from doing topic talk (Jefferson 1981, 1993). This is apparent, for example, in interlocutors’ passing twice on developing topic talk (Jefferson 1993) and the occurrence of silence such as lapses and failed or delayed speaker transitions (Hoey 2017; Maynard 1980). Environments of topic attrition frequently provide opportunities for topic transition. As a topic fades, participants may introduce a new line of topic talk, thereby redirecting the course of the conversation (Jefferson 1993; see also Jefferson 1984ab). However, topic attrition does not necessarily lead to a topic change. In some cases, participants may “revive” or continue the prior topic following lapses (Hoey 2018).

Beyond examining how topics are introduced, developed, and brought to a close, CA research has also addressed ''topical selection'' and the ways in which different types of topics are distinctly talked about and locally managed in interaction. What participants talk about can be occasioned by the interactional setting in which a conversation takes place (e.g., Adato 1980; “setting talk” in Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Pillet-Shore 2018ab), as well as by participants’ shared knowledge and prior experiences (Nanbu 2020; Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303-4). In some contexts, such shared knowledge may constitute “business at hand”, shaping how topic talk should be initiated and developed (Button & Casey 1988). In other cases, topics emerge through practices such as news announcements which may serve as grounds for introducing matters for discussion when opening of a conversation (see e.g. Pillet-Shore 2018b).

Research has also examined how particular kinds of topics are interactionally managed and treated as belonging to recognizable ''topic types''. For instance, the term “small talk” has been used to describe a genre of casual, social, or mundane topics (Coupland 2003), showing its interactional management and relational implications (Coupland & Jaworski 2003) as well as its occurrence and interactional occasioning in institutional encounters (e.g. Benwell & McCreaddie 2016; Hudak & Maynard 2011). Other topics, such as substance misuse (Pillet-Shore 2021) or troubles (Jefferson 1984b, 1988), have been shown to be introduced and managed in ways that display their potential delicacy or sensitivity for participants. More broadly, Sacks (1995, Volume I) discusses how conversational topics may be treated as “dangerous,” “safe,” or “inexhaustible,” and how certain topics, such as troubles talk, may function as a particularly generative or “rich” topic (pp. 101, 175-79, 230-1).

While the organization of topic initiation, transition, and closing has been extensively studied in CA, less systematic attention has been given to how participants typify or categorize topical talk (e.g. Heyman 1986; Jefferson 1988; Stokoe 2020), manage it interactionally (e.g. Jefferson 1984b, 1988), and orient to the broader implications of topicality for social organization (e.g. Maynard & Zimmerman 1984; Boden & Bielby 1986; Kitzinger 2005). As noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), participants in ordinary conversation often hold off introducing new “mentionables” until they can emerge naturally from the unfolding talk. This observation underscores precisely that conversational topics are not simply matters to be talked about, but interactional resources whose relevance, recognizability, and import are sequentially produced and collaboratively achieved in talk.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Topicalization]]'''
* '''[[Topic proffer]]'''
* '''[[Topic attrition-Topic hold]]'''
* '''[[Sequence Organization]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Adato, A. (1980). “Occasionality” as a constituent feature of the known-in-common character of topics. ''Human Studies'', 3(1), 47–64.

Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 41(3), p302–p337.

Benwell, B., & McCreaddie, M. (2016). Keeping “Small Talk” Small in Health-Care Encounters: Negotiating the Boundaries Between On- and Off-Task Talk. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 258–271.

Boden, D., & Bielby, D. D. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. ''Language & Communication'', 6(1), 73–89.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and pursuit. ''Human Studies'', 8(1), 3–55.

Button, C., & Casey, N. J. (1988). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 22(1), 61-91.

Candlin, S. (2002). Taking Risks: An Indicator of Expertise? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 35(2), 173–193.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small Talk: Social Functions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 36(1), 1–6.

Coupland, J., & Jaworksi, A. (2003). Transgression and Intimacy in Recreational Talk Narratives. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 36(1), 85–106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2003). On Initial Boundary Tones in English Conversation. ''Proceedings of 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona''. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio-phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. ''Pragmatics'', 18(3), 381–406.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2018). Topic Proffers as Beginnings in Interaction: Gaze Practices. In D. Favareau (Ed.), ''Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin'' (pp. 144–151). University of Tartu Press.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), ''Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments''. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Goodwin, C. (1987). 7 Unilateral Departure. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 206–216). Multilingual Matters.

Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 395–414). Blackwell.

Heyman, R. D. (1986). Formulating topic in the classroom. ''Discourse Processes'', 9(1), 37–55.

Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 109, 47–63.

Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 329–346.

Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 38(1), 35–61.

Hudak, P. L., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). An interactional approach to conceptualising small talk in medical interactions. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 33(4), 634–653.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), ''Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction'' (pp. 219–248). Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1981). ''On the articulation of topic in conversation. '' Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.

Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. ''Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature'', 17(2), 197–216.

Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Structures of Social Action'' (pp. 191–222). Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. ''Social Problems'', 35(4), 418–441.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 26(1), 1–30.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-prefaced initiations in Estonian. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 57, 274–289.

Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a Heterosexual”: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction? ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 38(3), 221–265.

Levinson, S. (1983). ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge University Press.

Local, J. (2004). and-uh (m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English: Getting back to prior talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), ''Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation'' (pp. 377–400). John Benjamins.

Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. ''Semiotica'', 30(3), 263–290.

Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', 47(4), 301–316.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Studies in Interactional Linguistics'' (pp. 141–169). John Benjamins.

Mondada, L. (1995). La construction interactionnelle du topic. ''Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage'', 7, Article 7.

Montiegel, K., & Robinson, J. D. (2019). “First” matters: A qualitative examination of a strategy for controlling the agenda when answering questions in the 2016 U.S. republican primary election debates. ''Communication Monographs'', 86(1), 23–45.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. ''Language in Society'', 27(1), 85–111.

Nanbu, Z. (2020). “Do you know banana boat?”: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversation. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 169, 30–48.

Palomares, N. A., Bradac, J. J., & Kellermann, K. (2006). Conversational topic along a continuum of Perspectives: Conceptual Issues. ''Communication Yearbook'', 30, 45–97.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to begin. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 213–231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the Personal State Sequence. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 51(3), 232–247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). Peer conversation about substance (mis)use. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 43(3), 732–749.

Riou, M. (2015). A Methodology for the Identification of Topic Transitions in Interaction. ''Discours. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics'', (16), Article 16.

Riou, M. (2017). The Prosody of Topic Transition in Interaction: Pitch Register Variations. ''Language and Speech'', 60(4), 658–678.

Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation'' (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Volumes I and II. Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. ''Human Studies'', 9, 111–151.

Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), ''Conversational Organization and its Development'' (pp. 51–77). Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, S. A. Thompson, & E. A. Schegloff (Eds.), ''Interaction and Grammar'' (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

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

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. ''Semiotica'', 8(4).

Sidnell, J. (2010). ''Conversation analysis: An introduction.'' Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. ''Language and Education'', 14(3), 184–203.

'''Additional References:'''

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

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL

2026-03-03T04:52:35Z

ChaseRaymond: /* Current List of Authors */

==Editors==

* '''[https://www.ids-mannheim.de/en/prag/personal/gubina/ Alexandra Gubina]''' (Leibniz-Institute for the German Language, Mannheim, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0053-6257)
* '''[https://sites.google.com/site/elliotthoey/?pli=1&authuser=3 Elliott M. Hoey]''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119)
* '''[http://www.chasewesleyraymond.com Chase Wesley Raymond]''' (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)

== Overview ==

'''[https://emcawiki.net/Category:Term A full alphabetical listing of terms currently included in the ''Encyclopedia'' can be found here]'''

The '''''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''''' is an online resource for students and scholars of CA/IL, publicly available on the EMCA Wiki page. Encyclopedias and glossaries are widespread across various fields and methods, and serve as immensely valuable resources. Given the extent to which the EMCA/IL community has expanded over the years—both terminologically as well as geographically—we hope that this encyclopedia of terminology will be well received by students and practitioners of CA and IL across the globe.

While prototypical ‘glossaries’ usually contain a simple alphabetical list of terms from a particular research area, and provide readers with short definitions of these terms (e.g., '''''[https://glossary.sil.org/term The SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms]'''''), ‘encyclopedias’ contain a summary, or a theoretical overview of specific concepts, or topics from a particular research field, or discipline (see, e.g., '''''[https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]'''''). Our Encyclopedia is in fact a bit of a hybrid between these two formats. On the one hand, there are entries on terms/phenomena/notions that are clearly and simply defined in the literature (e.g., '''[[Show concession]]''', Antaki & Wetherell 1999); such entries typically contain a short definition, description, and often a brief extract to illustrate the phenomenon. On the other hand, however, there are several other terms/phenomena/concepts that are much more complicated to explicate. This may be due to the intrinsic complexity or multidimensionality of the specific term in question, and/or due to there being a wide range of relevant lines of research to highlight, in which case more of a presentation of the ‘state of the art’ is incorporated into the entry (e.g., '''[[Assessment]]'''). On this point, authors have aimed for ‘neutrality’ in their overviews: If some scholars use a term in one sense, and others use it in a slightly different sense, the aim is for both of these (and their citations) to be included in the entry.

An important feature of the online nature of the Encyclopedia is the interlinking between entries for different terms. So the entry for '''[[Turn-taking]]''' will have embedded links to other relevant terms (e.g., '''[[Turn allocation]]''', '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)]]''', '''[[Transition-relevance place (TRP)]]''', etc.). Relevant bibliographic information is found at the end of each entry as well, including an automatically generated list of references available in the EMCA Wiki that use the term; this list will continue to update automatically as new publications are added to the EMCA Wiki.

It is crucial to clarify that, with this project, we do not mean to present CA/IL as an overly terminological enterprise. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: We don’t want CA/IL’s terminology to be a barrier to students’ and researchers’ participation in the field. The aim here is to be more open and transparent about the terminology we use, and why we use it, and to provide a place where such information can be easily located. Moreover, the entries are indeed summaries, and as such they should serve as a starting-off point for further exploration, navigation of relevant literature, developing of research questions, etc. We hope this resource will be useful for both novices and advanced practitioners alike.

'''[https://emcawiki.net/Category:Term A full alphabetical listing of terms currently included in the ''Encyclopedia'' can be found here]'''

==Current List of Authors==

The ''Encyclopedia'' currently includes over '''50''' individual authors, hailing from nearly a '''dozen''' different countries across the globe...'''''and counting!'''''

Here they are (so far), in alphabetical order:

* '''Marit Aldrup''' (University of Potsdam, Germany)
* '''Charles Antaki''' (Loughborough University, UK)
* '''Yusuke Arano''' (Saitama University, Japan)
* '''Peter Auer''' (University of Freiburg, Germany)
* '''Nathalie Bauer''' (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany)
* '''Lotte van Burgsteden''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands)
* '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK)
* '''Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen''' (University of Helsinki, Finland)
* '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany)
* '''Tiina Eilittä''' (University of Oulu, Finland)
* '''Virginia Teas Gill''' (Illinois State University, USA)
* '''Alexandra Gubina''' (Leibniz-Institute for the German Language, Mannheim, Germany)
* '''Pentti Haddington''' (University of Oulu, Finland)
* '''Philipp Hänggi''' (University of Basel, Switzerland)
* '''Katariina Harjunpää''' (Tampere University, Finland)
* '''Makoto Hayashi''' (Nagoya University, Japan)
* '''John Heritage''' (UCLA, USA)
* '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands)
* '''Bogdana Huma''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands)
* '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK)
* '''Julia Katila''' (Tampere University, Finland)
* '''Leelo Keevallik''' (Linköping University, Sweden)
* '''Adrian Kerrison''' (Linköping University, Sweden)
* '''Mardi Kidwell''' (University of New Hampshire, USA)
* '''Aino Koivisto''' (University of Helsinki, Finland)
* '''Salla Kurhila''' (University of Helsinki, Finland)
* '''Uwe-A. Küttner''' (Leibniz-Institute for the German Language, Mannheim, Germany)
* '''Constanze Lechler''' (University of Potsdam, Germany)
* '''Aija Logren''' (Tampere University, Finland)
* '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA)
* '''Lorenza Mondada''' (University of Basel, Switzerland)
* '''Irina Mostovaia''' (University of Hamburg, Germany)
* '''Juhana Mustakallio''' (Tampere University, Finland)
* '''Aug Nishizaka''' (Chiba University, Japan)
* '''Luis Manuel Olguín''' (UCLA, USA)
* '''Hannah Pelikan''' (Linköping University, Sweden)
* '''Rasmus Persson''' (Uppsala University, Sweden)
* '''Martin Pfeiffer''' (University of Potsdam, Germany)
* '''Danielle Pillet-Shore''' (University of New Hampshire, USA)
* '''Robert Prettner''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands)
* '''Daniel Radice''' (University of Helsinki, Finland)
* '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA)
* '''Elisabeth Reber''' (University of Bonn & University of Würzburg, Germany)
* '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK)
* '''Johanna Ruusuvuori''' (Tampere University, Finland)
* '''Julia Schneerson''' (University of Basel, Switzerland)
* '''Rein Ove Sikveland''' (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway)
* '''Klara Skogmyr Marian''' (Stockholm University, Sweden & University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland)
* '''Melisa Stevanovic''' (Tampere University, Finland)
* '''Burak S. Tekin''' (Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Turkey)
* '''Sandra A. Thompson''' (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA)
* '''Jason Turowetz''' (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA)
* '''Anna Vatanen''' (University of Helsinki, Finland)
* '''Ann Weatherall''' (University of Bedfordshire, UK)
* '''Elina Weiste''' (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland)

==Acknowledgments==

The editors wish to thank the '''[https://www.conversationanalysis.org International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA)]''', for their ongoing support of this project. We are hugely indebted to '''Saul Albert''', who has offered technological and various other forms of assistance since the project first began; hosting the ''Encyclopedia'' on the EMCA Wiki would not have been possible without his guidance. Last but not least, we are grateful to all of the '''authors''' and '''reviewers''' who have shared their expertise with us and with the broader community of CA/IL scholars through their participation in this project.

Counter

2026-03-03T04:47:18Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X) & '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Counter. 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 '''counter''' is a disaligning responsive action that in some way undermines the action trajectory of an initiating action. It is used in the literature in roughly three senses. First, in its narrowest sense, as articulated by Schegloff (2007: 16-19), a counter is a turn in which, following a '''[[first-pair_part|first-pair part]]''', does not provide a type-matched '''[[second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' but instead redirects the same action to the speaker of the first-pair part.

(1) Adapted from Schegloff (2007: 17)

01 Chi: What’s this
02 Mom: er::m (.) '''yo[u t]ell me: what is it'''
03 Chi: [◦()◦]
04 (1.0)
05 Chi: z:e:bra
06 Mom: zebra:: ye:s

In this example, the child’s question (“what’s this”) is directed to the mother. In response, Mom does not provide an answer, but instead counters it by redirecting the same question back to the child (line 2) in an instructional manner.

The second sense in which ‘counter’ is used in conversation analytic research refers to responsive actions that accomplish the “same” action as the prior, but with some oppositional valence or direction. With these, “counter” is used as a qualifier for the second action in response to (and as a way of transforming) the first. These include, for example, assessments and counter-assessments, complaints and counter-complaints, claims and counter-claims, and so on (e.g., Maynard, 1989; Theobald, 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2023). An example of a counter-claim appears in the extract below. Prior to this, Angie tacitly accused her housemate Estelle of interrupting her.

(2) Adapted from Haugh & Sinkeviciute (2019: 213)

36 E: I’m not h- I’m not arguing with you I’m just
37 saying we were <both speaking> at the same
38 ti:[me]
39 A: [o:]kay. #I just felt like I was just mid
40 conversation just then#
41 G: ((bangs cans on the table))
42 E: '''I: was as well though'''

Estelle denies “arguing with [Angie]” and instead formulates her overlap in neutral terms as “we were both speaking at the same time” (lines 37-38). Angie then justifies her prior accusation by claiming that she “just felt like I was just mid conversation just then” (lines 39-40). This is met with a counter-claim by Estelle, who claims the same action (being in mid-conversation) but with the source self-attributed (line 42, “I was as well though”).

The third sense in which ‘counter is used refers to any subsequent action that resists, reanalyses, rebukes, or otherwise reformulates the action to which it is responding. For example, a speaker can respond to a '''[[complaint]]''' by suggesting that it is a feature of the complainant's disposition, and thereby they can counter the seriousness of the complaint (Edwards, 2005). This is a broader use of “counter” used to describe actions in some conversation analytic literature. It generally shares the important quality with the narrower sense in that it appears where a second pair part would be expected, but does not provide a type-matched second pair part action. An example below shows how this is accomplished through sequential blocking. Here, Nick, the radio host (HOS) asks the interviewee (Sam) a yes-no question about Sam’s wife being “mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:” (line 32). This question seems to be read by Sam as ‘not innocent’, and instead of answering with a yes/no response, he counters with a rebuke (lines 33-34).

(3) (Joyce, 2022: 237)

32 Hos: is she mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:
33 Sam: '''Nick it’s none of your £busin’ss about my wife£'''
34 '''to be fair (.) yeah £we’re on radio yeah£'''
35 Hos: ahright okay

In this example, the host is raising a question in order to “set up” a subsequent challenging question--an enticing sequence (see Reynolds, 2015). However, Sam seems to anticipate this and moves to block progress toward the third turn by refusing to answer the question. He counters the projected sequence by turning a reproach back on the host (Nick) about the appropriateness of asking the set-up question in the first place, which results in a concession (line 35) rather than wherever the host’s question may have been heading.

The previous example also illustrates how, by providing an alternative subsequent action that undermines the prior in some way, counters may constitute disaffiliation or disagreement (Muntigl, 2013; Weatherall & Keevallik, 2016) that, respectively, distances the interlocutor from supporting the other, or rejects some component of the subject matter of their talk. They also disrupt expectations of cooperation, which provides counters a particularly moral dimension by making them accountable actions in social life (Huma, Joyce & Raymond, 2023).

Counters may be seen as a way of “not responding” to an initiating action (for example, a non-answer to a question). Because countering actions are often oriented to as disaffiliative, their design and response may contain features of '''[[dispreferred]]''' talk, such as being accompanied by an '''[[Accounts|account]]''' (Pillet-Shore, 2017). In the following example, game players engage in a series of counters around the legitimacy of a particular move and its cooperative (versus selfish) function in the game. The claims and counter-claims players make (lines 44, 45, 47) lead up to the accounts from Dave (lines 50, 52-53) for having made the contestable move.

(4) (Hofstetter & Robles, 2019: 314)

44 Dav: =[That ↑is helping him:.
45 Cal: ↑↑No::. It’s ↑actually ↑no:t.
46 Dav: He’[s ne:xt.
47 Cal: [It’s helping you.
48 (0.7)
49 Al: .hhh (h)ee(h)eeh
50 Dav: I: d- have no: expect- >I’m not getting any points this turn:.
51 Cal: Ye:s,
52 Dav: I’m not gonna get that many more points.=Cause I can’t spread out
53 fast enough.
54 Cal: Uhuh,
55 Dav: I’m not ex↑pecting to win:.
56 (0.5)
57 Cal: Okay.

If counters engender subsequent counters, this can result in a sequence of counters where the projected trajectory of the sequence is constantly changing, leading to a “sequential standoff” and a deterioration of the interaction (Raymond, Chen & Whitehead, 2023). Therefore, counters may become resources in the accomplishment of resistance, either to a particular turn or across sequences, because they often constitute some disruption to '''[[progressivity]]'''.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Challenge]]'''
* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Resistance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Clayman, S. E. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. ''Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13''(2), 159-188.

Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. ''Discourse Studies, 7''(1), 5-29.

Glenn, P. (2019). Conflict interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. In ''The Routledge handbook of language in conflict'' (pp. 215-245). Routledge.

Haugh, M., & Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Offence and conflict talk. In ''The Routledge handbook of language in conflict'' (pp. 196-214). Routledge.

Hofstetter, E., & Robles, J. (2019). Manipulation in board game interactions: Being a sporting player. ''Symbolic Interaction, 42''(2), 301-320.

Humă, B., Joyce, J. B., & Raymond, G. (2023). What does “resistance” actually look like? The respecification of resistance as an interactional accomplishment. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42''(5-6), 497-522.

Joyce, J. B. (2022). Resistance in public disputes: Third-turn blocking to suspend progressivity. ''Discourse Studies, 24''(2), 231-248.

Maynard, D. W. (1989). Perspective‐display sequences in conversation. ''Western Journal of Communication, 53''(2), 91-113.

Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: Sequences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 49''(1), 18-37.

Pillet–Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), ''Oxford research encyclopedia of communication''. Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132

Raymond, G., Chen, J., & Whitehead, K. A. (2023). Sequential standoffs in police encounters with the public. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42''(5-6), 653-678.

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.

Theobald, M. (2013). Ideas as “possessitives”: Claims and counter claims in a playground dispute. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 45''(1), 1-12.

Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When claims of understanding are less than affiliative. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49''(3), 167-182.

Wilkinson, R., Bouchard, J., Temer, V. G., Kamunen, A., Katila, J., Xavier, C. C. M., & Sterie, A. (2023). Participation within multiparty conversation: Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present participant. In ''New Perspectives on Goffman in Language and Interaction'' (pp. 195-216). Routledge.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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

Counter

2026-03-03T04:35:27Z

ChaseRaymond: Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X) & '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (..."

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X) & '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Counter. 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 '''counter''' is a disaligning responsive action that in some way undermines the action trajectory of an initiating action. It is used in the literature in roughly three senses. First, in its narrowest sense, as articulated by Schegloff (2007: 16-19), a counter is a turn in which, following a '''[[first-pair_part|first-pair part]]''', does not provide a type-matched '''[[second-pair_part|second-pair part]]''' but instead redirects the same action to the speaker of the first-pair part.

(1) Adapted from Schegloff (2007: 17)

01 Chi: What’s this
02 Mom: er::m (.) '''yo[u t]ell me: what is it'''
03 Chi: [◦()◦]
04 (1.0)
05 Chi: z:e:bra
06 Mom: zebra:: ye:s

In this example, the child’s question (“what’s this”) is directed to the mother. In response, Mom does not provide an answer, but instead counters it by redirecting the same question back to the child (line 2) in an instructional manner.

The second sense in which ‘counter’ is used in conversation analytic research refers to responsive actions that accomplish the “same” action as the prior, but with some oppositional valence or direction. With these, “counter” is used as a qualifier for the second action in response to (and as a way of transforming) the first. These include, for example, assessments and counter-assessments, complaints and counter-complaints, claims and counter-claims, and so on (e.g., Maynard, 1989; Theobald, 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2023). An example of a counter-claim appears in the extract below. Prior to this, Angie tacitly accused her housemate Estelle of interrupting her.

(2) Adapted from Haugh & Sinkeviciute (2019: 213)

36 E: I’m not h- I’m not arguing with you I’m just
37 saying we were <both speaking> at the same
38 ti:[me]
39 A: [o:]kay. #I just felt like I was just mid
40 conversation just then#
41 G: ((bangs cans on the table))
42 E: '''I: was as well though'''

Estelle denies “arguing with [Angie]” and instead formulates her overlap in neutral terms as “we were both speaking at the same time” (lines 37-38). Angie then justifies her prior accusation by claiming that she “just felt like I was just mid conversation just then” (lines 39-40). This is met with a counter-claim by Estelle, who claims the same action (being in mid-conversation) but with the source self-attributed (line 42, “I was as well though”).

The third sense in which ‘counter is used refers to any subsequent action that resists, reanalyses, rebukes, or otherwise reformulates the action to which it is responding. For example, a speaker can respond to a '''[[complaint]]''' by suggesting that it is a feature of the complainant's disposition, and thereby they can counter the seriousness of the complaint (Edwards, 2005). This is a broader use of “counter” used to describe actions in some conversation analytic literature. It generally shares the important quality with the narrower sense in that it appears where a second pair part would be expected, but does not provide a type-matched second pair part action. An example below shows how this is accomplished through sequential blocking. Here, Nick, the radio host (HOS) asks the interviewee (Sam) a yes-no question about Sam’s wife being “mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:” (line 32). This question seems to be read by Sam as ‘not innocent’, and instead of answering with a yes/no response, he counters with a rebuke (lines 33-34).

(3) (Joyce, 2022: 237)

32 Hos: is she mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:
33 Sam: '''Nick it’s none of your £busin’ss about my wife£'''
34 '''to be fair (.) yeah £we’re on radio yeah£'''
35 Hos: ahright okay

In this example, the host is raising a question in order to “set up” a subsequent challenging question--an enticing sequence (see Reynolds, 2015). However, Sam seems to anticipate this and moves to block progress toward the third turn by refusing to answer the question. He counters the projected sequence by turning a reproach back on the host (Nick) about the appropriateness of asking the set-up question in the first place, which results in a concession (line 35) rather than wherever the host’s question may have been heading.

The previous example also illustrates how, by providing an alternative subsequent action that undermines the prior in some way, counters may constitute disaffiliation or disagreement (Muntigl, 2013; Weatherall & Keevallik, 2016) that, respectively, distances the interlocutor from supporting the other, or rejects some component of the subject matter of their talk. They also disrupt expectations of cooperation, which provides counters a particularly moral dimension by making them accountable actions in social life (Huma, Joyce & Raymond, 2023).

Counters may be seen as a way of “not responding” to an initiating action (for example, a non-answer to a question). Because countering actions are often oriented to as disaffiliative, their design and response may contain features of '''[[dispreferred]]''' talk, such as being accompanied by an account (Pillet-Shore, 2017). In the following example, game players engage in a series of counters around the legitimacy of a particular move and its cooperative (versus selfish) function in the game. The claims and counter-claims players make (lines 44, 45, 47) lead up to the accounts from Dave (lines 50, 52-53) for having made the contestable move.

(4) (Hofstetter & Robles, 2019: 314)

44 Dav: =[That ↑is helping him:.
45 Cal: ↑↑No::. It’s ↑actually ↑no:t.
46 Dav: He’[s ne:xt.
47 Cal: [It’s helping you.
48 (0.7)
49 Al: .hhh (h)ee(h)eeh
50 Dav: I: d- have no: expect- >I’m not getting any points this turn:.
51 Cal: Ye:s,
52 Dav: I’m not gonna get that many more points.=Cause I can’t spread out
53 fast enough.
54 Cal: Uhuh,
55 Dav: I’m not ex↑pecting to win:.
56 (0.5)
57 Cal: Okay.

If counters engender subsequent counters, this can result in a sequence of counters where the projected trajectory of the sequence is constantly changing, leading to a “sequential standoff” and a deterioration of the interaction (Raymond, Chen & Whitehead, 2023). Therefore, counters may become resources in the accomplishment of resistance, either to a particular turn or across sequences, because they often constitute some disruption to '''[[progressivity]]'''.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Challenge]]'''
* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Preference]]'''
* '''[[Resistance]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Clayman, S. E. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. ''Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13''(2), 159-188.

Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. ''Discourse Studies, 7''(1), 5-29.

Glenn, P. (2019). Conflict interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. In ''The Routledge handbook of language in conflict'' (pp. 215-245). Routledge.

Haugh, M., & Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Offence and conflict talk. In ''The Routledge handbook of language in conflict'' (pp. 196-214). Routledge.

Hofstetter, E., & Robles, J. (2019). Manipulation in board game interactions: Being a sporting player. ''Symbolic Interaction, 42''(2), 301-320.

Humă, B., Joyce, J. B., & Raymond, G. (2023). What does “resistance” actually look like? The respecification of resistance as an interactional accomplishment. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42''(5-6), 497-522.

Joyce, J. B. (2022). Resistance in public disputes: Third-turn blocking to suspend progressivity. ''Discourse Studies, 24''(2), 231-248.

Maynard, D. W. (1989). Perspective‐display sequences in conversation. ''Western Journal of Communication, 53''(2), 91-113.

Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: Sequences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 49''(1), 18-37.

Pillet–Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), ''Oxford research encyclopedia of communication''. Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132

Raymond, G., Chen, J., & Whitehead, K. A. (2023). Sequential standoffs in police encounters with the public. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42''(5-6), 653-678.

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.

Theobald, M. (2013). Ideas as “possessitives”: Claims and counter claims in a playground dispute. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 45''(1), 1-12.

Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When claims of understanding are less than affiliative. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49''(3), 167-182.

Wilkinson, R., Bouchard, J., Temer, V. G., Kamunen, A., Katila, J., Xavier, C. C. M., & Sterie, A. (2023). Participation within multiparty conversation: Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present participant. In ''New Perspectives on Goffman in Language and Interaction'' (pp. 195-216). Routledge.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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

Category-bound activity

2026-03-03T02:09:24Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471) & '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Category-bound activity. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Category-bound activities''' refer to actions or behaviours that are normatively associated with certain categories of persons.

Consider the example below, which features two siblings (Greg and Kelsey), both white university students (at different universities) in the northeastern United States. They are chatting about someone who recently won the lottery. Our focus is on how Greg negatively describes the lottery winner:

(1) (Robles, 2015)

01 Greg: so the lady that won she’s from Rhode Island she’s
02 fucking eighty-two.
03 Kelsey: ei::ghty two she’s go:ing to die:: ((in a wailing
04 tone))
05 Greg: -> she won three hunnerd million and she’s black (.) so
06 -> you know she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit,

In line 01, Greg characterises the lottery winner using several conventional demographic categories: “lady” (gender), “eighty-two” (age), “from Rhode Island” (location). From these categorisations, Kelsey (line 03) orients to ‘age’ and associates being “fucking eighty-two” with the activity “going to die” as the relevant upshot—the commonsense logic being that someone who will die soon cannot properly make use of lottery winnings, and therefore the situation is lamentable (see Kelsey’s “wailing tone”, lines 03-04). Greg does not advance this upshot, but provides an alternative one of his own. Instead of orienting to any of the categories he had articulated, Greg, in line 05, uses “so” to associate the lottery winner’s racial category (“she’s black”) with his negatively '''[[assessment|assessed]]''' activity (“she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit”, line 06). Sacks’ (1992) work described category-bound activities for how and what they can tell us about members’ orientations to who-members-are and what-they’re-doing (Butler & Fitzgerald, 2010). Here, Greg asserts an activity on the basis of a category: ‘she’s black so she’s buying stupid shit’ and ‘she’s old so she’ll die soon’, and in doing so, his negative assessments display his prejudicial beliefs.

Binding categories and '''[[activity|activities]]''' together can be achieved in at least two ways: first, by inferring a category from seeing an activity that is conventionally done by that category of person (Sacks’ ‘viewer’s maxim’, see below), or conversely, by asserting the activity because of a given category. Activities are not associated with categories in a decontextualised way, but rather they are context-dependent and locally occasioned in and through discourse by members (Hester & Eglin, 1997). To be clear: it is not the analyst’s job or authority to assert that activities and categories are connected without evidence that members themselves are connecting activities and categories (Schegloff, 1992; Stokoe, 2012).

The next example demonstrates how the link between categories and predicates/activities is locally occasioned. The example is taken from a research interview between an interviewer (IR) and Chinese international students studying in Japan (IE). The interviewee has described previous encounters they have had with landlords, and how they (IE) have been treated unfairly “due to being a foreigner”. Notice how the interviewee binds the activity of ‘mistreating a house’ to ‘foreigners’, which consequently means ‘foreigners’ have “bad credit”.

(2) (Zhang, 2022)

21 IR: ta jiushi- ta shi sh- hen- shuode hen gongkai,
''was it- was it- ver- was it said very openly, ''

22 jiushuo bu zugei waiguoren, [hai shi °zen yang°?
''that they won’t rent to foreigners, [or °what°?''

23 IE: [dui, jiu zhijie shuo bu
[''right, directly''

24 zugei waiguoren, genni ↑geren qishi meiyou guanxi:=
''said no foreigner, it’s not about you personally:= ''

25 IR: mm
''mm''

26 IE: =jiushi,(0.5) jiushi waiguoren zhege qunti jiushi
''=just,(0.5) they just won’t rent to foreigner as a''

27 buzu:=
''group=''

28 IR: mm
''mm''

29 IE: =jiushi yinwei: (.) zhiqian henduo waiguoren (.) dui
''because: (.) many foreigners (.) treated house''

30 fangzi buhao a, >jiushi< zai zufang fangmian
''badly, that their credit are relatively bad with''

31 xinyong bijiao cha, henduo fangyuan bu tigong
''regard to renting, many rental houses are not offered''

32 gei waiguoren.
''to foreigners. ''

The example begins with the interviewer asking whether housing agents or landlords are explicit in not welcoming foreigners (lines 21-22). The interviewee confirms and explains that the discrimination is against foreigners in general and is not personal: “they just won’t rent to foreigners as a group” (lines 24, 26-27). The interviewee then offers an explanation: they bind “treated house badly” (lines 29-30) to “foreigners” (line 29) which results in “foreigners” having ‘bad credit with regard to renting’. (lines 30 and 31). This explanation relies on commonsense knowledge—that landlords would not want their houses mistreated, and mistreated houses could incur financial loss to landlords.

Consequently, tying “foreigners” to the activity of “treat[ing] the house badly” implies that they would be disfavoured as potential tenants. In drawing on this commonsense categorial knowledge, the interviewee does not endorse or provide any moral justification for the discrimination, but they do offer an account for why housing discrimination against foreigners is reasonable from a ‘landlord’ perspective. The category ‘foreigners’ does not stereotypically have the feature ‘treating rental homes badly’: this is locally occasioned by how the interviewee formulates their account.

Sacks’ description of category-bound activities featured the ‘viewer’s maxim’ whereby “if a member sees a category-bound activity being done, then, if one sees it being done by a member of a category to which the activity is bound then see it that way” (Sacks & Jefferson, 1995: 259). The viewer’s maxim can mean categories may be inferred through the description of an activity. The term ‘category-bound activity’ has undergone expansion to include moral and epistemic aspects of the rights, entitlements, obligations, knowledge, attributes and competencies as they are locally occasioned in interaction. The inclusion of these different features gets described as ‘category bound predicates’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). While ‘predicates’ serves as a catch-all term for describing the relationship(s) between the category and category features, ‘category-bound activities’ specifically refers to how members treat features as being naturally related (i.e., taken-for-granted) to a category. Most, if not all, social action implicates the rights and responsibilities of an interlocutor and so action can be sensitive to the membership of certain categories. These are known as ‘category-sensitive actions’ (see Rossi & Stivers, 2021) which describe the affordances and constraints that membership categories create for members and non-members in and through their actions. Category-sensitive actions are unlike explicit categorisation and are typically invisible because interlocutors act in ways “consistent with their social status or role” (Rossi & Stivers, 2021: 70), and they may only come into view when interlocutors expose or transgress the boundaries of membership categories.

The example below demonstrates how participants can introduce and resist categories in the course of their interaction. It features a disagreement between a conservative political commentator (Tucker Carlson), and his guest, a political strategist (Monica Klein), on a political commentary TV show. They are discussing the character of a US politician The example features an interlocutor resisting an accusation by labelling their conduct as being bound to a different category. We begin with Carlson implying that Klein has portrayed herself as a spokesperson for “all women” (line 07) to which MK non-seriously thanks TC for mansplaining (line 10)

(3) (Joyce et al., 2021)

06 TC: [Well not every woman feels th]at way,=And
07 [you don’t speak for all women j]ust so you know.
08 MK: [↑OKAY but there is a thirty ]
09 (.)
10 ↓Oka[y thank ] you for [mansp ]laining that t(h)o me.
11 TC: [°Mo↓nica°] [°okay°]
12 (0.6)
13 TC: £hhum£ I’m not mansplaining, (0.4) I’m saying something
14 that’s obviously true.

Klein’s accusation of mansplaining (in line 10) describes Carlson’s conduct (lines 06-07) as patronising and occasions gender as relevant. The accusation targets how Carlson treats her as though she does not understand that she does not speak for all women. Carlson resists the accusation by decategorizing Klein’s accusation as not being a gendered activity: “I’m not mansplaining” (line 13). Carlson introduces a truth-telling category-bound activity, “saying something that’s obviously true” (lines 13-14). The upshot is that Carlson’s denial is grounded in his category as a ‘truth-telling’ political commentator, and not a gender-based category via the description of his activity.

Descriptions of category-bound activities and predicates are consequential for how categories and devices are applied. They shape how we do things in the world, make sense of the world, and resist sense-making by others. This follows Jayyusi’s (2014) work examining the moral dimension of category activities, insofar that activities often carry normative expectations such that members of a category are expected to engage in those activities, and deviations may be accountable. Associations treated as ‘natural’ and normative can, however, be prejudicial as Henderson and Tennant (2025) demonstrate. Their analysis reveals how a natural attitude to sex and gender can be rhetorically weaponized against transgender women.

Category-bound activities are one of the primary ‘keys’ (Stokoe, 2012) through which researchers do Membership Categorisation Analysis to explicate ‘culture-in-action’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). Such work has explored orientations to discrimination and how negatively assessed activities get bounded to categories (Zhang, 2022) and consequently, how those activities are challenged (Robles, 2015); how incongruities between category and category-bound activities achieve humour (Okazawa, 2021); how parents build associations between activities like ‘crying’ and categories like ‘naughty’ to instruct children about valued behaviour (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2017); and how members may resist normative connections between categories and activities (e.g. ‘women’ and ‘housework’ (Robles & Kurylo, 2017); ‘Man’ and ‘mansplaining’ (Joyce et al., 2021); ‘Caucasian’ and ‘violent actions’ (Whitehead, 2012); ‘Romany’ and ‘criminality’ (Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000). The technical sophistication of MCA to explicate culture-in-action affords a closer inspection of these more subtle differences in the relationships between categories and category features which members can, and do, orient to (see Reynolds & Fitzgerald, 2015 for further discussion). Empirically tracking how activities are bound to categories across sequences and describing, as grounded in evidence of members’ moment-by-moment conduct, affords an enhanced analysis of how society works in situ (Gardner, 2012). Analysing discourse through categorisation practices, including how activities are bound by interlocutors to categories, can spotlight issues of morality and culture.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Compliment]]'''
* '''[[Context]]'''
* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Identity]]'''
* '''[[membership_categorization_device|Membership Categorization Device]]'''
* '''[[Participation]]'''
* '''[[Participation_framework|Participation Framework]]'''
* '''[[Professional_vision|Professional Vision]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Butler, C. W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 42''(9), 2462-2474.

Gardner, R. (2012). Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 313-319.

Henderson, E., & Tennant, E. (2025). Sex, Gender, and Bodies: Transmisogyny and Garfinkel’s Status Degradation Ceremony. ''Symbolic Interaction''.

Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). ''Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis''. University Press of America.

Jayyusi, L. (2014). ''Categorization and the Moral Order (Routledge Revivals) ''. Routledge.

Joyce, J. B., Humă, B., Ristimäki, H.-L., Almeida, F. F. d., & Doehring, A. (2021). Speaking out against everyday sexism: Gender and epistemics in accusations of “mansplaining”. ''Feminism & Psychology, 31''(4), 502-529.

Leudar, I., & Nekvapil, J. (2000). Presentations of Romanies in the Czech media: On category work in television debates. ''Discourse & Society, 11''(4), 487-513.

Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, M. T. T. (2017). “Am I a good boy?”: Explicit membership categorization in parent–child interaction. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 121'', 25-39.

Okazawa, R. (2021). Resisting categorization in interaction: Membership categorization analysis of sitcom humor. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 186'', 33-44.

Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. ''Human Studies, 22''(2-4), 139-162.

Reynolds, E., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Challenging Normativity: re-appraising category, bound, tied and predicated features. In R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley (Eds.), ''Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis'' (pp. 99-122). Sage.

Robles, J. S. (2015). Extreme case (re) formulation as a practice for making hearably racist talk repairable. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34''(4), 390-409.

Robles, J. S., & Kurylo, A. (2017). ‘Let’s have the men clean up’: Interpersonally communicated stereotypes as a resource for resisting gender-role prescribed activities. ''Discourse Studies, 19''(6), 673-693.

Rossi, G., & Stivers, T. (2021). Category-Sensitive Actions in Interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly, 84''(1), 48-74.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on conversation: Volume I''. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1995). ''Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1)''. Wiley Online Library.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), ''Sacks H, Lectures on Conversation, vols I and II'' (pp. ix-Ixii). Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 277-303.

Whitehead, K. A. (2012). Racial categories as resources and constraints in everyday interactions: Implications for racialism and non-racialism in post-apartheid South Africa. ''Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35''(7), 1248-1265.

Zhang, T. (2022). Accounting for discrimination through categorization work: An examination of the target-of-discrimination group members’ practices. ''Discourse & Society, 33''(2), 264-286.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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

Category-bound activity

2026-03-03T02:08:26Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471) & '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Category-bound activity. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Category-bound activities''' refer to actions or behaviours that are normatively associated with certain categories of persons.

Consider the example below, which features two siblings (Greg and Kelsey), both white university students (at different universities) in the northeastern United States. They are chatting about someone who recently won the lottery. Our focus is on how Greg negatively describes the lottery winner:

(1) (Robles, 2015)

01 Greg: so the lady that won she’s from Rhode Island she’s
02 fucking eighty-two.
03 Kelsey: ei::ghty two she’s go:ing to die:: ((in a wailing
04 tone))
05 Greg: -> she won three hunnerd million and she’s black (.) so
06 -> you know she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit,

In line 01, Greg characterises the lottery winner using several conventional demographic categories: “lady” (gender), “eighty-two” (age), “from Rhode Island” (location). From these categorisations, Kelsey (line 03) orients to ‘age’ and associates being “fucking eighty-two” with the activity “going to die” as the relevant upshot—the commonsense logic being that someone who will die soon cannot properly make use of lottery winnings, and therefore the situation is lamentable (see Kelsey’s “wailing tone”, lines 03-04). Greg does not advance this upshot, but provides an alternative one of his own. Instead of orienting to any of the categories he had articulated, Greg, in line 05, uses “so” to associate the lottery winner’s racial category (“she’s black”) with his negatively '''[[assessment|assessed]]''' activity (“she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit”, line 06). Sacks’ (1992) work described category-bound activities for how and what they can tell us about members’ orientations to who-members-are and what-they’re-doing (Butler & Fitzgerald, 2010). Here, Greg asserts an activity on the basis of a category: ‘she’s black so she’s buying stupid shit’ and ‘she’s old so she’ll die soon’, and in doing so, his negative assessments display his prejudicial beliefs.

Binding categories and '''[[activity|activities]]''' together can be achieved in at least two ways: first, by inferring a category from seeing an activity that is conventionally done by that category of person (Sacks’ ‘viewer’s maxim’, see below), or conversely, by asserting the activity because of a given category. Activities are not associated with categories in a decontextualised way, but rather they are context-dependent and locally occasioned in and through discourse by members (Hester & Eglin, 1997). To be clear: it is not the analyst’s job or authority to assert that activities and categories are connected without evidence that members themselves are connecting activities and categories (Schegloff, 1992; Stokoe, 2012).

The next example demonstrates how the link between categories and predicates/activities is locally occasioned. The example is taken from a research interview between an interviewer (IR) and Chinese international students studying in Japan (IE). The interviewee has described previous encounters they have had with landlords, and how they (IE) have been treated unfairly “due to being a foreigner”. Notice how the interviewee binds the activity of ‘mistreating a house’ to ‘foreigners’, which consequently means ‘foreigners’ have “bad credit”.

(2) (Zhang, 2022)

21 IR: ta jiushi- ta shi sh- hen- shuode hen gongkai,
''was it- was it- ver- was it said very openly, ''

22 jiushuo bu zugei waiguoren, [hai shi °zen yang°?
''that they won’t rent to foreigners, [or °what°?''

23 IE: [dui, jiu zhijie shuo bu
[''right, directly''

24 zugei waiguoren, genni ↑geren qishi meiyou guanxi:=
''said no foreigner, it’s not about you personally:= ''

25 IR: mm
''mm''

26 IE: =jiushi,(0.5) jiushi waiguoren zhege qunti jiushi
''=just,(0.5) they just won’t rent to foreigner as a''

27 buzu:=
''group=''

28 IR: mm
''mm''

29 IE: =jiushi yinwei: (.) zhiqian henduo waiguoren (.) dui
''because: (.) many foreigners (.) treated house''

30 fangzi buhao a, >jiushi< zai zufang fangmian
''badly, that their credit are relatively bad with''

31 xinyong bijiao cha, henduo fangyuan bu tigong
''regard to renting, many rental houses are not offered''

32 gei waiguoren.
''to foreigners. ''

The example begins with the interviewer asking whether housing agents or landlords are explicit in not welcoming foreigners (lines 21-22). The interviewee confirms and explains that the discrimination is against foreigners in general and is not personal: “they just won’t rent to foreigners as a group” (lines 24, 26-27). The interviewee then offers an explanation: they bind “treated house badly” (lines 29-30) to “foreigners” (line 29) which results in “foreigners” having ‘bad credit with regard to renting’. (lines 30 and 31). This explanation relies on commonsense knowledge—that landlords would not want their houses mistreated, and mistreated houses could incur financial loss to landlords.

Consequently, tying “foreigners” to the activity of “treat[ing] the house badly” implies that they would be disfavoured as potential tenants. In drawing on this commonsense categorial knowledge, the interviewee does not endorse or provide any moral justification for the discrimination, but they do offer an account for why housing discrimination against foreigners is reasonable from a ‘landlord’ perspective. The category ‘foreigners’ does not stereotypically have the feature ‘treating rental homes badly’: this is locally occasioned by how the interviewee formulates their account.

Sacks’ description of category-bound activities featured the ‘viewer’s maxim’ whereby “if a member sees a category-bound activity being done, then, if one sees it being done by a member of a category to which the activity is bound then see it that way” (Sacks & Jefferson, 1995: 259). The viewer’s maxim can mean categories may be inferred through the description of an activity. The term ‘category-bound activity’ has undergone expansion to include moral and epistemic aspects of the rights, entitlements, obligations, knowledge, attributes and competencies as they are locally occasioned in interaction. The inclusion of these different features gets described as ‘category bound predicates’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). While ‘predicates’ serves as a catch-all term for describing the relationship(s) between the category and category features, ‘category-bound activities’ specifically refers to how members treat features as being naturally related (i.e., taken-for-granted) to a category. Most, if not all, social action implicates the rights and responsibilities of an interlocutor and so action can be sensitive to the membership of certain categories. These are known as ‘category-sensitive actions’ (see Rossi & Stivers, 2021) which describe the affordances and constraints that membership categories create for members and non-members in and through their actions. Category-sensitive actions are unlike explicit categorisation and are typically invisible because interlocutors act in ways “consistent with their social status or role” (Rossi & Stivers, 2021: 70), and they may only come into view when interlocutors expose or transgress the boundaries of membership categories.

The example below demonstrates how participants can introduce and resist categories in the course of their interaction. It features a disagreement between a conservative political commentator (Tucker Carlson), and his guest, a political strategist (Monica Klein), on a political commentary TV show. They are discussing the character of a US politician The example features an interlocutor resisting an accusation by labelling their conduct as being bound to a different category. We begin with Carlson implying that Klein has portrayed herself as a spokesperson for “all women” (line 07) to which MK non-seriously thanks TC for mansplaining (line 10)

(3) (Joyce et al., 2021)

06 TC: [Well not every woman feels th]at way,=And
07 [you don’t speak for all women j]ust so you know.
08 MK: [↑OKAY but there is a thirty ]
09 (.)
10 ↓Oka[y thank ] you for [mansp ]laining that t(h)o me.
11 TC: [°Mo↓nica°] [°okay°]
12 (0.6)
13 TC: £hhum£ I’m not mansplaining, (0.4) I’m saying something
14 that’s obviously true.

Klein’s accusation of mansplaining (in line 10) describes Carlson’s conduct (lines 06-07) as patronising and occasions gender as relevant. The accusation targets how Carlson treats her as though she does not understand that she does not speak for all women. Carlson resists the accusation by decategorizing Klein’s accusation as not being a gendered activity: “I’m not mansplaining” (line 13). Carlson introduces a truth-telling category-bound activity, “saying something that’s obviously true” (lines 13-14). The upshot is that Carlson’s denial is grounded in his category as a ‘truth-telling’ political commentator, and not a gender-based category via the description of his activity.

Descriptions of category-bound activities and predicates are consequential for how categories and devices are applied. They shape how we do things in the world, make sense of the world, and resist sense-making by others. This follows Jayyusi’s (2014) work examining the moral dimension of category activities, insofar that activities often carry normative expectations such that members of a category are expected to engage in those activities, and deviations may be accountable. Associations treated as ‘natural’ and normative can, however, be prejudicial as Henderson and Tennant (2025) demonstrate. Their analysis reveals how a natural attitude to sex and gender can be rhetorically weaponized against transgender women.

Category-bound activities are one of the primary ‘keys’ (Stokoe, 2012) through which researchers do Membership Categorisation Analysis to explicate ‘culture-in-action’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). Such work has explored orientations to discrimination and how negatively assessed activities get bounded to categories (Zhang, 2022) and consequently, how those activities are challenged (Robles, 2015); how incongruities between category and category-bound activities achieve humour (Okazawa, 2021); how parents build associations between activities like ‘crying’ and categories like ‘naughty’ to instruct children about valued behaviour (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2017); and how members may resist normative connections between categories and activities (e.g. ‘women’ and ‘housework’ (Robles & Kurylo, 2017); ‘Man’ and ‘mansplaining’ (Joyce et al., 2021); ‘Caucasian’ and ‘violent actions’ (Whitehead, 2012); ‘Romany’ and ‘criminality’ (Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000). The technical sophistication of MCA to explicate culture-in-action affords a closer inspection of these more subtle differences in the relationships between categories and category features which members can, and do, orient to (see Reynolds & Fitzgerald, 2015 for further discussion). Empirically tracking how activities are bound to categories across sequences and describing, as grounded in evidence of members’ moment-by-moment conduct, affords an enhanced analysis of how society works in situ (Gardner, 2012). Analysing discourse through categorisation practices, including how activities are bound by interlocutors to categories, can spotlight issues of morality and culture.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Compliment]]'''
* '''[[Context]]'''
* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Identity]]'''
* '''[[membership_categorization_device|Membership Categorization Device]]'''
* '''[[Participation]]'''
* '''[[Participation_framework|Participation Framework]]'''
* '''[[Professional_vision|Professional Vision]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Butler, C. W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 42''(9), 2462-2474.

Gardner, R. (2012). Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 313-319.

Henderson, E., & Tennant, E. (2025). Sex, Gender, and Bodies: Transmisogyny and Garfinkel’s Status Degradation Ceremony. ''Symbolic Interaction''.

Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). ''Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis''. University Press of America.

Jayyusi, L. (2014). ''Categorization and the Moral Order (Routledge Revivals) ''. Routledge.

Joyce, J. B., Humă, B., Ristimäki, H.-L., Almeida, F. F. d., & Doehring, A. (2021). Speaking out against everyday sexism: Gender and epistemics in accusations of “mansplaining”. ''Feminism & Psychology, 31''(4), 502-529.

Leudar, I., & Nekvapil, J. (2000). Presentations of Romanies in the Czech media: On category work in television debates. ''Discourse & Society, 11''(4), 487-513.

Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, M. T. T. (2017). “Am I a good boy?”: Explicit membership categorization in parent–child interaction. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 121'', 25-39.

Okazawa, R. (2021). Resisting categorization in interaction: Membership categorization analysis of sitcom humor. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 186'', 33-44.

Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. ''Human Studies, 22''(2-4), 139-162.

Reynolds, E., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Challenging Normativity: re-appraising category, bound, tied and predicated features. In R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley (Eds.), ''Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis'' (pp. 99-122). Sage.

Robles, J. S. (2015). Extreme case (re) formulation as a practice for making hearably racist talk repairable. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34''(4), 390-409.

Robles, J. S., & Kurylo, A. (2017). ‘Let’s have the men clean up’: Interpersonally communicated stereotypes as a resource for resisting gender-role prescribed activities. ''Discourse Studies, 19''(6), 673-693.

Rossi, G., & Stivers, T. (2021). Category-Sensitive Actions in Interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly, 84''(1), 48-74.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on conversation: Volume I''. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1995). ''Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1)''. Wiley Online Library.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), ''Sacks H, Lectures on Conversation, vols I and II'' (pp. ix-Ixii). Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 277-303.

Whitehead, K. A. (2012). Racial categories as resources and constraints in everyday interactions: Implications for racialism and non-racialism in post-apartheid South Africa. ''Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35''(7), 1248-1265.

Zhang, T. (2022). Accounting for discrimination through categorization work: An examination of the target-of-discrimination group members’ practices. ''Discourse & Society, 33''(2), 264-286.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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

Category-bound activity

2026-03-03T02:06:51Z

ChaseRaymond:

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jack B. Joyce''' (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471) & '''Jessica S. Robles''' (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X)
| To cite = Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Category-bound activity. 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: [ ]
}}

'''Category-bound activities''' refer to actions or behaviours that are normatively associated with certain categories of persons.

Consider the example below, which features two siblings (Greg and Kelsey), both white university students (at different universities) in the northeastern United States. They are chatting about someone who recently won the lottery. Our focus is on how Greg negatively describes the lottery winner:

(1) (Robles, 2015)

01 Greg: so the lady that won she’s from Rhode Island she’s
02 fucking eighty-two.
03 Kelsey: ei::ghty two she’s go:ing to die:: ((in a wailing
04 tone))
05 Greg: -> she won three hunnerd million and she’s black (.) so
06 -> you know she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit,

In line 01, Greg characterises the lottery winner using several conventional demographic categories: “lady” (gender), “eighty-two” (age), “from Rhode Island” (location). From these categorisations, Kelsey (line 03) orients to ‘age’ and associates being “fucking eighty-two” with the activity “going to die” as the relevant upshot—the commonsense logic being that someone who will die soon cannot properly make use of lottery winnings, and therefore the situation is lamentable (see Kelsey’s “wailing tone”, lines 03-04). Greg does not advance this upshot, but provides an alternative one of his own. Instead of orienting to any of the categories he had articulated, Greg, in line 05, uses “so” to associate the lottery winner’s racial category (“she’s black”) with his negatively '''[[assessment|assessed]]''' activity (“she’s gunna buy (.) like (stupid) shit”, line 06). Sacks’ (1992) work described category-bound activities for how and what they can tell us about members’ orientations to who-members-are and what-they’re-doing (Butler & Fitzgerald, 2010). Here, Greg asserts an activity on the basis of a category: ‘she’s black so she’s buying stupid shit’ and ‘she’s old so she’ll die soon’, and in doing so, his negative assessments display his prejudicial beliefs.

Binding categories and '''[[activity|activities]]''' together can be achieved in at least two ways: first, by inferring a category from seeing an activity that is conventionally done by that category of person (Sacks’ ‘viewer’s maxim’, see below), or conversely, by asserting the activity because of a given category. Activities are not associated with categories in a decontextualised way, but rather they are context-dependent and locally occasioned in and through discourse by members (Hester & Eglin, 1997). To be clear: it is not the analyst’s job or authority to assert that activities and categories are connected without evidence that members themselves are connecting activities and categories (Schegloff, 1992; Stokoe, 2012).

The next example demonstrates how the link between categories and predicates/activities is locally occasioned. The example is taken from a research interview between an interviewer (IR) and Chinese international students studying in Japan (IE). The interviewee has described previous encounters they have had with landlords, and how they (IE) have been treated unfairly “due to being a foreigner”. Notice how the interviewee binds the activity of ‘mistreating a house’ to ‘foreigners’, which consequently means ‘foreigners’ have “bad credit”.

(2) (Zhang, 2022)

21 IR: ta jiushi- ta shi sh- hen- shuode hen gongkai,
''was it- was it- ver- was it said very openly, ''

22 jiushuo bu zugei waiguoren, [hai shi °zen yang°?
''that they won’t rent to foreigners, [or °what°?''

23 IE: [dui, jiu zhijie shuo bu
[''right, directly''

24 zugei waiguoren, genni ↑geren qishi meiyou guanxi:=
''said no foreigner, it’s not about you personally:= ''

25 IR: mm
''mm''

26 IE: =jiushi,(0.5) jiushi waiguoren zhege qunti jiushi
''=just,(0.5) they just won’t rent to foreigner as a''

27 buzu:=
''group=''

28 IR: mm
''mm''

29 IE: =jiushi yinwei: (.) zhiqian henduo waiguoren (.) dui
''because: (.) many foreigners (.) treated house''

30 fangzi buhao a, >jiushi< zai zufang fangmian
''badly, that their credit are relatively bad with''

31 xinyong bijiao cha, henduo fangyuan bu tigong
''regard to renting, many rental houses are not offered''

32 gei waiguoren.
''to foreigners. ''

The example begins with the interviewer asking whether housing agents or landlords are explicit in not welcoming foreigners (lines 21-22). The interviewee confirms and explains that the discrimination is against foreigners in general and is not personal: “they just won’t rent to foreigners as a group” (lines 24, 26-27). The interviewee then offers an explanation: they bind “treated house badly” (lines 29-30) to “foreigners” (line 29) which results in “foreigners” having ‘bad credit with regard to renting’. (lines 30 and 31). This explanation relies on commonsense knowledge—that landlords would not want their houses mistreated, and mistreated houses could incur financial loss to landlords.

Consequently, tying “foreigners” to the activity of “treat[ing] the house badly” implies that they would be disfavoured as potential tenants. In drawing on this commonsense categorial knowledge, the interviewee does not endorse or provide any moral justification for the discrimination, but they do offer an account for why housing discrimination against foreigners is reasonable from a ‘landlord’ perspective. The category ‘foreigners’ does not stereotypically have the feature ‘treating rental homes badly’: this is locally occasioned by how the interviewee formulates their account.

Sacks’ description of category-bound activities featured the ‘viewer’s maxim’ whereby “if a member sees a category-bound activity being done, then, if one sees it being done by a member of a category to which the activity is bound then see it that way” (Sacks & Jefferson, 1995: 259). The viewer’s maxim can mean categories may be inferred through the description of an activity. The term ‘category-bound activity’ has undergone expansion to include moral and epistemic aspects of the rights, entitlements, obligations, knowledge, attributes and competencies as they are locally occasioned in interaction. The inclusion of these different features gets described as ‘category bound predicates’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). While ‘predicates’ serves as a catch-all term for describing the relationship(s) between the category and category features, ‘category-bound activities’ specifically refers to how members treat features as being naturally related (i.e., taken-for-granted) to a category. Most, if not all, social action implicates the rights and responsibilities of an interlocutor and so action can be sensitive to the membership of certain categories. These are known as ‘category-sensitive actions’ (see Rossi & Stivers, 2021) which describe the affordances and constraints that membership categories create for members and non-members in and through their actions. Category-sensitive actions are unlike explicit categorisation and are typically invisible because interlocutors act in ways “consistent with their social status or role” (Rossi & Stivers, 2021: 70), and they may only come into view when interlocutors expose or transgress the boundaries of membership categories.

The example below demonstrates how participants can introduce and resist categories in the course of their interaction. It features a disagreement between a conservative political commentator (Tucker Carlson), and his guest, a political strategist (Monica Klein), on a political commentary TV show. They are discussing the character of a US politician The example features an interlocutor resisting an accusation by labelling their conduct as being bound to a different category. We begin with Carlson implying that Klein has portrayed herself as a spokesperson for “all women” (line 07) to which MK non-seriously thanks TC for mansplaining (line 10)

(3) (Joyce et al., 2021)

06 TC: [Well not every woman feels th]at way,=And
07 [you don’t speak for all women j]ust so you know.
08 MK: [↑OKAY but there is a thirty ]
09 (.)
10 ↓Oka[y thank ] you for [mansp ]laining that t(h)o me.
11 TC: [°Mo↓nica°] [°okay°]
12 (0.6)
13 TC: £hhum£ I’m not mansplaining, (0.4) I’m saying something
14 that’s obviously true.

Klein’s accusation of mansplaining (in line 10) describes Carlson’s conduct (lines 06-07) as patronising and occasions gender as relevant. The accusation targets how Carlson treats her as though she does not understand that she does not speak for all women. Carlson resists the accusation by decategorizing Klein’s accusation as not being a gendered activity: “I’m not mansplaining” (line 13). Carlson introduces a truth-telling category-bound activity, “saying something that’s obviously true” (lines 13-14). The upshot is that Carlson’s denial is grounded in his category as a ‘truth-telling’ political commentator, and not a gender-based category via the description of his activity.

Descriptions of category-bound activities and predicates are consequential for how categories and devices are applied. They shape how we do things in the world, make sense of the world, and resist sense-making by others. This follows Jayyusi’s (2014) work examining the moral dimension of category activities, insofar that activities often carry normative expectations such that members of a category are expected to engage in those activities, and deviations may be accountable. Associations treated as ‘natural’ and normative can, however, be prejudicial as Henderson and Tennant (2025) demonstrate. Their analysis reveals how a natural attitude to sex and gender can be rhetorically weaponized against transgender women.

Category-bound activities are one of the primary ‘keys’ (Stokoe, 2012) through which researchers do Membership Categorisation Analysis to explicate ‘culture-in-action’ (Hester & Eglin, 1997). Such work has explored orientations to discrimination and how negatively assessed activities get bounded to categories (Zhang, 2022) and consequently, how those activities are challenged (Robles, 2015); how incongruities between category and category-bound activities achieve humour (Okazawa, 2021); how parents build associations between activities like ‘crying’ and categories like ‘naughty’ to instruct children about valued behaviour (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2017); and how members may resist normative connections between categories and activities (e.g. ‘women’ and ‘housework’ (Robles & Kurylo, 2017); ‘Man’ and ‘mansplaining’ (Joyce et al., 2021); ‘Caucasian’ and ‘violent actions’ (Whitehead, 2012); ‘Romany’ and ‘criminality’ (Leudar & Nekvapil, 2000). The technical sophistication of MCA to explicate culture-in-action affords a closer inspection of these more subtle differences in the relationships between categories and category features which members can, and do, orient to (see Reynolds & Fitzgerald, 2015 for further discussion). Empirically tracking how activities are bound to categories across sequences and describing, as grounded in evidence of members’ moment-by-moment conduct, affords an enhanced analysis of how society works in situ (Gardner, 2012). Analysing discourse through categorisation practices, including how activities are bound by interlocutors to categories, can spotlight issues of morality and culture.

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[Complaint]]'''
* '''[[Compliment]]'''
* '''[[Context]]'''
* '''[[Deontics]]'''
* '''[[Epistemics]]'''
* '''[[Identity]]'''
* '''[[membership_categorization_device|Membership Categorization Device]]'''
* '''[[Participation]]'''
* '''[[Participation_framework|Participation Framework]]'''
* '''[[Professional_vision|Professional Vision]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

Butler, C. W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 42''(9), 2462-2474.

Gardner, R. (2012). Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 313-319.

Henderson, E., & Tennant, E. (2025). Sex, Gender, and Bodies: Transmisogyny and Garfinkel’s Status Degradation Ceremony. ''Symbolic Interaction''.

Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). ''Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis''. University Press of America.

Jayyusi, L. (2014). ''Categorization and the Moral Order (Routledge Revivals) ''. Routledge.

Joyce, J. B., Humă, B., Ristimäki, H.-L., Almeida, F. F. d., & Doehring, A. (2021). Speaking out against everyday sexism: Gender and epistemics in accusations of “mansplaining”. ''Feminism & Psychology, 31''(4), 502-529.

Leudar, I., & Nekvapil, J. (2000). Presentations of Romanies in the Czech media: On category work in television debates. ''Discourse & Society, 11''(4), 487-513.

Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, M. T. T. (2017). “Am I a good boy?”: Explicit membership categorization in parent–child interaction. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 121'', 25-39.

Okazawa, R. (2021). Resisting categorization in interaction: Membership categorization analysis of sitcom humor. ''Journal of Pragmatics, 186'', 33-44.

Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. ''Human Studies, 22''(2-4), 139-162.

Reynolds, E., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Challenging Normativity: re-appraising category, bound, tied and predicated features. In R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley (Eds.), ''Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis'' (pp. 99-122). Sage.

Robles, J. S. (2015). Extreme case (re) formulation as a practice for making hearably racist talk repairable. ''Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34''(4), 390-409.

Robles, J. S., & Kurylo, A. (2017). ‘Let’s have the men clean up’: Interpersonally communicated stereotypes as a resource for resisting gender-role prescribed activities. ''Discourse Studies, 19''(6), 673-693.

Rossi, G., & Stivers, T. (2021). Category-Sensitive Actions in Interaction. ''Social Psychology Quarterly, 84''(1), 48-74.

Sacks, H. (1992). ''Lectures on conversation: Volume I''. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1995). ''Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1)''. Wiley Online Library.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), ''Sacks H, Lectures on Conversation, vols I and II'' (pp. ix-Ixii). Blackwell.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. ''Discourse Studies, 14''(3), 277-303.

Whitehead, K. A. (2012). Racial categories as resources and constraints in everyday interactions: Implications for racialism and non-racialism in post-apartheid South Africa. ''Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35''(7), 1248-1265.

Zhang, T. (2022). Accounting for discrimination through categorization work: An examination of the target-of-discrimination group members’ practices. ''Discourse & Society, 33''(2), 264-286.

'''Additional References:'''

*

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