emcawiki - Recent changes [en]

Reciprocity

JakubMlynar — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 15:04:18 GMT

Definition

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:06:37 GMT

Progressivity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:05:12 GMT

Response mobilization

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:53:29 GMT

Mobilizing response

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:53:15 GMT

Response mobilization

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:52:21 GMT

Progressivity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:42:34 GMT

Definition

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:40:36 GMT

Stefani2023

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:33:03 GMT

Definition

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:29:36 GMT

Insert expansion (sequence)

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:18:21 GMT

Pre-second insert expansion (sequence)

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:14:48 GMT

Post-first insert expansion (sequence)

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:12:14 GMT

Non-minimal post-expansion (sequence)

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:08:01 GMT

Minimal post-expansion

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:04:35 GMT

Sequence-closing third (SCT)

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:00:39 GMT

Minimal post-expansion

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:55:11 GMT

Try-marking

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:49:41 GMT

Question intonation

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:46:32 GMT

Period intonation

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:44:05 GMT

Intonation contour

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:39:10 GMT

Cut-off

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:33:03 GMT

Comma intonation

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:30:23 GMT

Cut-off

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:27:06 GMT

Reciprocity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:08:26 GMT

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:02:17 GMT

Reflexivity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:26:46 GMT

File:Mlynar reflexivity fig1.png

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:25:45 GMT

ChaseRaymond uploaded File:Mlynar reflexivity fig1.png

New page

Reflexivity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:25:36 GMT

Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-52..."

New page

{{Infobox cite
| Authors = '''Jakub Mlynář''' (HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Switzerland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3212)
| To cite = Mlynář, Jakub. (2026). Reflexivity. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
}}

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

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

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

[[File:Mlynar reflexivity fig1.png]]

'''Figure 1: Two dots'''

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

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

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

'''Additional Related Entries:'''

* '''[[context]]'''
* '''[[epistemics]]'''
* '''[[indexicality]]'''

'''Cited References:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reciprocity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:12:36 GMT

File:Mlynar reciprocity fig2.jpg

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:12:11 GMT

ChaseRaymond uploaded File:Mlynar reciprocity fig2.jpg

New page

Reciprocity

ChaseRaymond — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:10:33 GMT

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Schutz’s (1962) notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” was part of his attempt to explain how phenomenology can move from an individual consciousness to the social world. In his view, two basic idealizations of common-sense thinking overcome the asymmetrical access to knowledge about the world and the differences in our personal backgrounds: (1) the interchangeability of the standpoints, and (2) the congruency of the system of relevances. In other words, one takes for granted that if one were to exchange positions with another person, they would perceive things in the same way, and the other takes this for granted too. Furthermore, one also takes for granted that the manner in which one perceives things does not depend on any unique personal characteristics that are not relevant for the practical purposes at hand, and the other person takes this for granted too. From the perspective of ethnomethodology and CA, reciprocity is not just a given assumption or an abstract principle which makes social interaction possible. Instead, it is '''[[Reflexivity|reflexively]]''' achieved in the very ways in which members make sense of and make recognizable their actions to one another such that they can engage in concerted '''[[Activity|activities]]''', each and every time, in their local and practical circumstances (Mair, 2025). The Schutzian conception was, in different ways, an inspiration for early ethnomethodology (Cicourel, 1974; Garfinkel, 1963) and occasionally appears in more recent studies. For example, following Garfinkel (1963), Rawls and David (2006) use the notion of “(mutual) reciprocity” mostly as a synonym or proxy for “trust”. Vom Lehn (2019), in a video-based CA study, refers to Schutz in his analysis of performing optometric tests where the visual perspective of the currently assessed client is measurably interchangeable with that of a standardized client.
-Nevertheless, in more recent works, the phenomenological notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” seems to be more often elaborated under the rubric of “intersubjectivity” (e.g., Deppermann, 2015) and as providing a historical background for the conception of sequentiality: Goodwin and Heritage (1990) describe '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]''' organization as a “framework of reciprocal conduct” where “[e]ach participant must analyze the developing course of others’ actions in order to produce appropriate reciprocal action” (p. 288). In this sense, reciprocity is accountable in the details of the timely and adequate production of a '''[[Second-pair part|second-pair part]]''' in response to a '''[[First-pair part|first-pair part]]''' – for example, a greeting (e.g., “Hello”) is routinely responded to with a reciprocal greeting. The greeting is not always composed of a single '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit (TCU)]] ''' but can also consist of a “how are you” which opens a sequence in itself to be responded to with a second-pair part and also reciprocated through the initiation of a second sequence. When it comes to these greeting sequences, what Schegloff (2007) calls “reciprocal or exchange sequences” (pp. 195–207), he observes that the reciprocal nature of the second sequence is accountable in the design of the turn, e.g., “how about you” instead of a verbatim repeat of “how are you.” Therefore, the accountability of a second sequence as a reciprocal does not depend on its temporally successive position per se but is a produced order by the participants. Moreover, Schegloff (2007) notes that while such sequences are routinely done reciprocally, its relevance is worked out in local circumstances where sometimes, e.g., depending on categorial memberships and/or specific institutional settings, it is more relevant to not reciprocate such sequences. This is what Albert and Raymond (2019) illustrate in their analysis of the US president Trump’s greeting sequences with multiple recipients in succession.
+Nevertheless, in more recent works, the phenomenological notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” seems to be more often elaborated under the rubric of “intersubjectivity” (e.g., Deppermann, 2015) and as providing a historical background for the conception of sequentiality: Goodwin and Heritage (1990) describe '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]''' organization as a “framework of reciprocal conduct” where “[e]ach participant must analyze the developing course of others’ actions in order to produce appropriate reciprocal action” (p. 288). In this sense, reciprocity is accountable in the details of the timely and adequate production of a '''[[Second-pair part|second-pair part]]''' in response to a '''[[First-pair part|first-pair part]]''' – for example, a greeting (e.g., “Hello”) is routinely responded to with a reciprocal greeting. The greeting is not always composed of a single '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit (TCU)]] ''' but can also consist of a “how are you” which opens a sequence in itself to be responded to with a second-pair part and also reciprocated through the initiation of a second sequence. When it comes to these greeting sequences, what Schegloff (2007) calls “reciprocal or exchange sequences” (pp. 195–207), he observes that the reciprocal nature of the second sequence is accountable in the design of the turn, e.g., “how about you” instead of a verbatim repeat of “how are you.” Therefore, the accountability of a second sequence as a reciprocal does not depend on its temporally successive position per se but is a produced order by the participants. Moreover, Schegloff (2007) notes that while such sequences are routinely done reciprocally, their relevance is worked out in local circumstances where sometimes, e.g., depending on categorial memberships and/or specific institutional settings, it is more relevant to not reciprocate such sequences. This is what Albert and Raymond (2019) illustrate in their analysis of the US president Trump’s greeting sequences with multiple recipients in succession.
   <u>(1) [[http://bit.ly/gh-ex2 Video available here]] (Albert & Raymond, 2019: 72)</u>
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 Albert, S. & Raymond, C. W. (2019). Conversation analysis at the ‘middle region’ of public life: Greetings and the interactional construction of Donald Trump's political persona. ''Language & Communication'', 69, 67–83.
-Cicourel, A. V. (1974). ''Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction'. Penguin.
+Cicourel, A. V. (1974). ''Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction''. Penguin.
 Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), ''Requesting in Social Interaction'' (pp. 55–86). John Benjamins.
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Rawls, A. W. & David, G. C. (2005). Accountably other: Trust, reciprocity, and exclusion in a context of situated practice. ''Human Studies'', 28(4), 469–497.
-Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis' (vol. 1)'. Cambridge University Press.
+Schegloff, E. A. (2007). ''Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis''. Cambridge University Press.
 Simonen, M., & Lohi, H. (2021). Interactional reciprocity in human–dog interaction. In J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in Language and Social Interaction'' (pp. 397–428). John Benjamins.
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 === EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'reciprocity' ===
 {{#widget:Iframe
-|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=reciproci&bib=emca.bib
+|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=reciproc&bib=emca.bib
 |border=0
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383)
-| To cite =  De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI:
+| To cite =  De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A2BVK
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) & '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)
-| To cite =  Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI:
+| To cite =  Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SU6ZJ
 }}
 '''Progressivity''' is the fundamental feature of social interaction that captures how every bit of conduct is produced and recognized by reference to how it embodies (or fails to embody) some ‘next’ component of the unfolding interaction. It is an organizationally and structurally pervasive feature, operating at all times and at multiple levels of granularity. As Schegloff (2007) has described it:
-  In articulating a turn-constructional unit, each element – each word,
+  In articulating a '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit]]''', each element – each word,
   for example – should come next after the one before; in fact, at a smaller
   level of granularity, each syllable – indeed, each sound – should come
   next after the one before it. So also with the several turn-constructional
-  units that compose a multi-unit turn; so also with the consecutive turns
+  units that compose a '''[[Multi-unit turn|multi-unit turn]]'''; so also with the consecutive turns
   that compose a spate of talk; so also with the turns that compose a
   sequence, etc. Moving from some element to a hearably-next-one with nothing

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Jason Turowetz''' (University of California, Santa Barbara) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2724-764X)
-| To cite =  Turowetz, Jason. (2026). Mobilizing response. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: []
+| To cite =  Turowetz, Jason. (2023). Mobilizing response. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y7P49
 }}
 '''Mobilizing response''' refers to how a speaker elicits a (relevant) response from a recipient in social interaction, and specifically to properties of turn design through which speakers increase or decrease response relevance and pressure on recipients to respond. Stivers and Rossano (2010a) identify three features that affect response relevance:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Jason Turowetz''' (University of California, Santa Barbara) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2724-764X)
-| To cite =  Turowetz, Jason. (2023). Mobilizing response. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y7P49 10.17605/OSF.IO/Y7P49]
+| To cite =  Turowetz, Jason. (2023). Mobilizing response. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y7P49
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Elliott M. Hoey''' (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119) & '''Chase Wesley Raymond''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345)
-| To cite =  Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2025). Progressivity. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ]
+| To cite =  Hoey, Elliott M. & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2026). Progressivity. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI:
 }}
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Early development of the concept may be traced to Sacks (1987 [1973]), who observed that “if an agreeing answer occurs, it pretty damn well occurs contiguously, whereas if a disagreeing answer occurs, it may well be pushed rather deep in to the turn that it occupies” (58). Participants are not limited to progress within a sequence, however; they also orient to the progressive construction of a turn. Schegloff (1979) documented how a speaker’s multiple attempts at '''[[Same-turn self-repair|same-turn self-repair]]''', for the same repairable, result in successively longer repair solutions each time (see also Schegloff 2013). Recent work has underscored how such same-turn operations are crucial to an understanding of social action, as speakers are willing to sacrifice the progressive realization of the action in order to reconfigure aspects of its design (Drew 2013; Drew et al. 2013). The domain of '''[[Repair|repair]]''' as a whole—including both '''[[Self-repair|self-]]''' and '''other'''-repair operations—is often conceptualized as addressing moments where progressivity is “halted” (e.g., Clift 2016: 232), “frozen” (Manrique 2016: 27), “stopped” (e.g., Bolden 2011: 241), “suspended” (e.g., Kitzinger 2013: 231), or even “broken” (e.g., Lerner 2004: 252). These metaphors aim to reflect the fact that some action or sequence of action is temporarily ‘on hold’ while the “priority activity” of addressing a problem of speaking, hearing, or understanding takes place (Schegloff et al. 1977: 720), after which progressivity will reengage as the on-hold action/sequence resumes.
-Early works suggested that progressivity encompassed multiple levels of granularity and operated across organizations of practice (Schegloff 1979: 268fn). Subsequent research has been able to document the reach of progressivity into the organization of interaction. At the level of turn-construction, Lerner (1996) demonstrated how the impedance of TCU progressivity provides unprojected opportunities for turn-completion by other (see also Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2026). At the level of sequence organization, Stivers and Robinson (2006) highlighted a '''[[Preference|preference]]''' for progressivity in multiparty interactions: after information-seeking questions, if the selected next speaker displays trouble in responding, a non-selected party may self-select to give a response (cf. Sacks, et al., 1974). In prioritizing a ‘response at all’ over a ‘response from the selected next speaker’, the authors argue for a general orientation to sequence and activity progression. This generic maximization of progressivity, however, may be at odds with '''intersubjectivity'''. In the context of troubles in recognitional person reference, Heritage (2007) suggested an inverse relationship whereby absolute intersubjective security comes at the expense of turn- and sequence progressivity, and vice versa. Participants may therefore on occasion orient to progressivity as a superordinate preference, such that an attempt to secure recognition of a referent (Sacks & Schegloff 2007 [1979]) can be abandoned in favor of moving on with the action, sequence, and activity at hand. This is seen in the following Extract (1) in which, upon failing to secure an understanding of who Doctor Nelson is—either by name (line 5) or by description (line 7)—Lottie moves to a non-recognitional reference form in line 9 in the service of progressing her response to Emma’s line 2.
+Early works suggested that progressivity encompassed multiple levels of granularity and operated across organizations of practice (Schegloff 1979: 268fn). Subsequent research has been able to document the reach of progressivity into the organization of interaction. At the level of turn-construction, Lerner (1996) demonstrated how the impedance of TCU progressivity provides unprojected opportunities for turn-completion by other (see also Raymond, Robinson & Bolden 2027). At the level of sequence organization, Stivers and Robinson (2006) highlighted a '''[[Preference|preference]]''' for progressivity in multiparty interactions: after information-seeking questions, if the selected next speaker displays trouble in responding, a non-selected party may self-select to give a response (cf. Sacks, et al., 1974). In prioritizing a ‘response at all’ over a ‘response from the selected next speaker’, the authors argue for a general orientation to sequence and activity progression. This generic maximization of progressivity, however, may be at odds with '''[[intersubjectivity]]'''. In the context of troubles in recognitional person reference, Heritage (2007) suggested an inverse relationship whereby absolute intersubjective security comes at the expense of turn- and sequence progressivity, and vice versa. Participants may therefore on occasion orient to progressivity as a superordinate preference, such that an attempt to secure recognition of a referent (Sacks & Schegloff 2007 [1979]) can be abandoned in favor of moving on with the action, sequence, and activity at hand. This is seen in the following Extract (1) in which, upon failing to secure an understanding of who Doctor Nelson is—either by name (line 5) or by description (line 7)—Lottie moves to a non-recognitional reference form in line 9 in the service of progressing her response to Emma’s line 2.
   (1) [NB IV:14:10] (Heritage 2007)
@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive repair of potential misunderstandings: Prospective procedures for managing intersubjectivity and steering social action. ''American Sociological Review'', 90(4): 690-725.
-Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2026). ''Turn-taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.
+Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). ''Turn-taking in Social Interaction''. Cambridge University Press.
 Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (Eds.), ''Talk and Social Organisation'' (pp. 54-69). Multilingual Matters.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Elwys De Stefani''' (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383)
-| To cite =  De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: []
+| To cite =  De Stefani, Elwys. (2026). Definition. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI:
 }}
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 '''Additional Related Entries:'''
-* [Description]
+* '''[[Description]]'''
-* [Demonstration]
+* '''[[Demonstration]]'''
-* [Explanation]
+* '''[[Explanation]]'''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{BibEntry
-|Key=Stefani2023
+|BibType=INCOLLECTION
-|Key=Stefani2023
+|Author(s)=Elwys De Stefani;
 |Title=Definition
-|Author(s)=Elwys De Stefani;
+|Editor(s)=Elliott M. Hoey Alexandra Gubina; Chase Wesley Raymond;
 |Tag(s)=EMCA;  ETCAIL;  Definition;  Definitions
-|Editor(s)=Elliott M. Hoey Alexandra Gubina; Chase Wesley Raymond;
+|Key=Stefani2023
 |Booktitle=Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics
 |URL=https://emcawiki.net/Definition
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Olivia H. Marrese''' (University of Colorado, Boulder) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-267X)
-| To cite =  Marrese, Olivia H. (2023). Insert expansion (sequence). In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: []
+| To cite =  Marrese, Olivia H. (2026). Insert expansion (sequence). In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EVDZU
 }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox cite
 | Authors = '''Marina N. Cantarutti''' (University of York, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1688-0896)
-| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2023). Try-marking. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: []
+| To cite = Cantarutti, Marina N. (2026). Try-marking. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey &amp; Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9N57B
 }}

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Nevertheless, in more recent works, the phenomenological notion of “reciprocity of perspectives” seems to be more often elaborated under the rubric of “intersubjectivity” (e.g., Deppermann, 2015) and as providing a historical background for the conception of sequentiality: Goodwin and Heritage (1990) describe '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pair]]''' organization as a “framework of reciprocal conduct” where “[e]ach participant must analyze the developing course of others’ actions in order to produce appropriate reciprocal action” (p. 288). In this sense, reciprocity is accountable in the details of the timely and adequate production of a '''[[Second-pair part|second-pair part]]''' in response to a '''[[First-pair part|first-pair part]]''' – for example, a greeting (e.g., “Hello”) is routinely responded to with a reciprocal greeting. The greeting is not always composed of a single '''[[Turn-constructional unit (TCU)|turn-constructional unit (TCU)]] ''' but can also consist of a “how are you” which opens a sequence in itself to be responded to with a second-pair part and also reciprocated through the initiation of a second sequence. When it comes to these greeting sequences, what Schegloff (2007) calls “reciprocal or exchange sequences” (pp. 195–207), he observes that the reciprocal nature of the second sequence is accountable in the design of the turn, e.g., “how about you” instead of a verbatim repeat of “how are you.” Therefore, the accountability of a second sequence as a reciprocal does not depend on its temporally successive position per se but is a produced order by the participants. Moreover, Schegloff (2007) notes that while such sequences are routinely done reciprocally, its relevance is worked out in local circumstances where sometimes, e.g., depending on categorial memberships and/or specific institutional settings, it is more relevant to not reciprocate such sequences. This is what Albert and Raymond (2019) illustrate in their analysis of the US president Trump’s greeting sequences with multiple recipients in succession.
-  (1) [[http://bit.ly/gh-ex2 Video available here]] (Albert & Raymond, 2019: 72)
+  <u>(1) [[http://bit.ly/gh-ex2 Video available here]] (Albert & Raymond, 2019: 72)</u>
   [[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig1.png]]
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Turning to the most literal sense of the term, the following example is taken from a study that belongs to a rather small number of texts that treat “reciprocity” as a phenomenon in its own right, i.e., as a transactional process of giving and taking. Llewellyn (2011) analyses the phenomenon of “picking up the bill” as a case of a gift exchange where the benefactor and the beneficiary orient to the norm of reciprocity. The data comes from video-recordings of a payment desk at a gallery where customers approach to pay for tickets. In Extract II below, two customers (C1, C2) approach the desk to buy tickets. The focus is on how C1 accounts for her acceptance of C2 picking up the bill by offering a reciprocation in response (cf. Clayman & Heritage, 2014, on reciprocations by beneficiaries as a type of appreciative response).
-  (2) (Llewellyn, 2011: 729)
+  <u>(2) (Llewellyn, 2011: 729)</u>
   [[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig2.png]]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ==Current List of Authors==
-The ''Encyclopedia'' currently includes over '''50''' individual authors, hailing from nearly a '''dozen''' different countries across the globe...'''''and counting!'''''
+The ''Encyclopedia'' currently includes over '''60''' individual authors, hailing from over a '''dozen''' different countries across the globe...'''''and counting!'''''
 Here they are (so far), in alphabetical order:
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 * '''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)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 A relatively simple example of the reflexive relationship between an object or an event (such as a piece of '''[[Advice|advice]]''') and its setting (such as a ‘consultation’) is the illustration of ‘gestalt contextures’ given by the phenomenologist Aron Gurwitsch (2010[1964]) and developed by Garfinkel (see Garfinkel, 2021; Lynch & Eisenmann, 2022; Meyer, 2022).
-[[File:Mlynar reflexivity fig1.png]]
+ [[File:Mlynar reflexivity fig1.png]]
-−
-'''Figure 1: Two dots'''
+ '''Figure 1: Two dots'''
 Presenting a depiction similar to Figure 1, Gurwitsch observes that once we see the two points as “constituents of a unitary group”, which is “most likely to occur spontaneously when the points are in close proximity to one another”, we do “not see one point plus the other located a short distance away. Rather one point appears as the right member, the other as the left member of the pair.” (Gurwitsch, 2010[1964]: 103; original emphasis) The ‘left-hand member’ gives sense to the ‘right-hand member’, and vice versa, and this perceived mutual relationship also reflexively gives sense to their recognizable unity as a pair. In a similar sense, to return to the previous example, giving advice co-constitutes a consultation as a specific activity, and advice as an action obtains its sense from being done within a consultation.
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Elaborating Gurwitsch, Meyer (2022) demonstrates how this essential reflexivity of social action can be used to illuminate CA’s phenomena such as '''[[Adjacency pair|adjacency pairs]]''' (Schegloff, 1968; Sacks, 1992 – e.g., question–answer or greeting sequences): “Only when both pair members adopt a ‘functional significance’ in relation to one another the pair is actually established as pair – and only then a felicitous gestalt contexture for good continuation is realized.” (Meyer, 2022: 131) On the same subject, Lynch and Eisenmann (2022) add: “An adjacency pair made up, for example, of a greeting and return-greeting, an insult and a riposte, or a question and answer exhibits properties as a pair and not simply as one item followed by another. Although such paired utterances are composed of words, phrases, and sentences, they are produced and made evident through interactionally oriented practical work. A first pair part is not simply a sentence or token uttered by a speaker, it is a first member of a pair.” (p. 114)
-Following Garfinkel’s transposition of gestalt phenomena from the perceptual domain to practical and interactional work (Lynch & Eisenmann, 2022), reflexivity captures that “situations, actions, and rules determine one another’s sense as constituent parts of a gestalt contexture” (Wieder, 1974: 170). Instead of advancing a ‘bucket theory’ (Heritage & Clayman, 2010) of '''context''' as a space or time surrounding observable actions, the term highlights that the foundations of CA and IL are based on the ethnomethodological notion of gestalt ''contextures'' as reflexively organized ‘phenomenal fields’ of practical action.
+Following Garfinkel’s transposition of gestalt phenomena from the perceptual domain to practical and interactional work (Lynch & Eisenmann, 2022), reflexivity captures that “situations, actions, and rules determine one another’s sense as constituent parts of a gestalt contexture” (Wieder, 1974: 170). Instead of advancing a ‘bucket theory’ (Heritage & Clayman, 2010) of '''[[Context|context]]''' as a space or time surrounding observable actions, the term highlights that the foundations of CA and IL are based on the ethnomethodological notion of gestalt ''contextures'' as reflexively organized ‘phenomenal fields’ of practical action.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
   (1) [[http://bit.ly/gh-ex2 Video available here]] (Albert & Raymond, 2019: 72)
-  [[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig1]]
+  [[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig1.png]]
 In this stage-managed situation, the authors point out that the recipients do not orient to reciprocating the greeting sequence nor does Trump himself anticipate one. The non-reciprocity of the greeting sequence is reciprocally coordinated in the way by which the recipient’s response is minimally produced, and Trump, already during this response, moves on to greeting the next person in line. Beyond human communication, “interactional reciprocity” has also been studied in human–dog interactions, suggesting that dogs orient to the lack of reciprocity from their owners in terms of a missing next action and employ a set of practices to pursue it (Simonen & Lohi, 2021).
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
   (2) (Llewellyn, 2011: 729)
-  [[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig2]]
+  [[File:Mlynar_reciprocity_fig2.png]]
 At the desk, while it is C1 who verbalizes the request to the staff, it is C2 who is quicker to prepare the 20 dollar note to pay (lines 1–8). The possibility that this could be C2 “picking up the bill” is not immediately accepted by C1 who, during the omitted lines (lines 9–15), engages in an interaction with the staff and proceeds to pay her own sum. It is at this point that C2, in line 18, further advances the note on the desk to a space where the staff can readily take it. Thus, C2 accountably produces the action of “picking up the bill” which C1 ultimately accepts with an expression of gratitude such as by gazing at her and touching her hand. At this sequential position, C1 suggests that they get coffee (line 22) as a way of accounting for her acceptance by means of invoking the norm of reciprocity – i.e., since C2 has given her the gift of picking up the bill, she will return it in the form of buying coffee. Although the excerpt focuses on the phenomenon of reciprocity as a norm invoked in gift exchange sequences, it also illustrates the two earlier notions of reciprocity at work. The very intelligibility of any action – greetings, offers, requests, “drawing attention to the note”, etc. – relies on the reciprocity of perspectives being taken for granted by the participants, and is achieved in the appropriate sequential positioning of embodied conduct.