Saturday, December 29, 2012

Conversation Handouts:Adjacency Pairs - May 18, 2007


adjacent sequence of two utterances  produced by different speakers, ordered as First ... Second, both of particular type

Initiation: response pairs
question : Answer,


adjacent sequence of two utterances, produced by different speakers, ordered as First. . . Second, both of particular type

initiation : response pairs

question : answer, greeting : greeting, invitation/offer : acceptance, 
apology : minimization, complement : downpiayer, accusation : denial, reauest : grant

adjacency pair rule (ScheglofF and Sacks, 1973): .
  • "given the recognizable production of a first pair part, on its first possible completion its speaker should stop and a next speaker should start and produce a second pair from the pair type the first was recognizable a member of"

adjacent sequence of two utterances, produced by different speakers, ordered as First. . . Second, both of particular type

insertions

(1) SI: Can I have a bottle of Mich?         (Ql)
      S2: Are you 21?                                 (Insertion: Q2; reason: defer answer)
      SI: No.                                         (Insertion: A2)
      S2: No.                                         (Al).

strict adjacency requirement too strong


adjacent sequence of two utterances, produced by different speakers, ordered as First. . . Second, both of particular type

abandoned second

(2) SI: May j have a vodka?                   (Ql)
     S2: Are you 21?                                   (Q?)
     SI: No.                                           (A2)
     S2: Do you want apple juice instead?    (Q3)
     SI: Apple juice please.                           (A3)

strict completion requirement too strong


adjacent sequence of two utterances, produced by different speakers, ordered as First. . . Second, both of particular type

self-completions

(3) SI: May I have a vodka?                                 (Q1)
     SI: Of course not, you only serve non-alco.      (A1)

completion not necessarily by different speaker 

longer example...

(4) S1: I ordered some paint a week ago.
     S2: Yes
     S1: and i wanted to order some more                          (Rl)
     S2: how many tubes?                                                  (Ql)
     S1: What's the price?                                                  (Q2)
     S2: I’ll work it out for you.                                          (Hold)
     S1: Thanks                                                                   (Accept)
     S2: 3 pounds                                                                (A2)
     S1: 3 pounds?                                                          (Q3)
     S2: Yes                                                                  (A3)
     S1: That's for the large tube?                                         (Q4)
     S2: Yes                                                                  (A4)
     S1: I’ll ring back. I wasn't sure about the price you see  (account for no Al)
     S2: OK

Ql/Al far apart: (Q1(Q2(Q3(Q4-A4)A3)A3)A1), and neither R1 nor Ql have the expected pair, BUT

reason why no Ql is provided, acknowledged failure to produce Al suffices to explain the lack of response to R1

adjacent sequence of two utterances, produced by different speakers, ordered as First. . . Second, both of particular type

-----> conventional pairing setting up expectations which need attending to

Conditional relevance: given a First part of a pair, the Second part is immediately Relevant and expected
  • if a Second fails to occur it is noticeably absent; expectation must therefore be aborted by announced failure either to perform the requested action or to provide some preliminary action
  • if other First occurs instead of expected Second, this First is interpreted as (relevant) preliminary to the Second
non-occurrence of a Second, does not result in an incoherent discourse, BUT Second may be explicitly elicited ......